Tulsa Police/Taxpayer question

[CoffeeBean]

Again, do you have a link?  I am not saying that you are incorrect, but often our recollection of things that occurred 18 years ago may not be terribly accurate.  

Here, I have no idea who prepared the study, (bias?), or its parameters (did it adequately distinguish between causation and correlation?).  Furthermore, you indicate the study concluded the "cost" - in 1990 - was worth it.  

Is that still true today?  The price of a gallon of gas in 1990 was around $1.00.  Does this mean the "study" is no longer viable?  No, but it leaves open questions about the conclusion.    

Again, I say drop the entire "deterrent" pretense.  Officers have a high stress job, and if allowing them to drive home a patrol car helps relieve that stress, then its a benefit I can live with, and - its unimpeachable, unburdened by arguments about who is receiving what benefit and for how much.  

just my 0.02.

[MH2010]

The Tulsa Police department did not always have take home cars.  We used to have a rotating fleet (no take-home cars, everyone shared.)A study was done and it showed that it would be better to have a take-home car fleet. This study only covered take-home cars that were parked in the city limits with exceptions for certain speciality units (SOT, Bomb squad, Meth lab call out team, detectives on call ect.)  This was some time in the 90's but I don't remember exactly when.  I'm sure someone could find it down at city hall.

Here is another study that was done for Tacoma, WA in 1996.  I think the findings are about what everyone else finds.


Take Home Cars
by:  Bruce Mann & Douglas Goodman


Assigning each officer an individual vehicle to use on and off shift is a contentious, disputed, oft-argued and emotionally charged issue. The real public policy issue should be: will the community be better off or not with an assigned vehicle program? While the issue can be stated quite simply, constructing an answer is difficult and problematic.

The answer depends on program finances, local political and community objectives, as well as the operational needs of the department. Many of the dollars involved can be measured with only moderate difficulty. However, calculating values of some benefits and costs is complex due to their indirect assessment or their subjective nature. Citizen perceptions of safety, the deterrent effect of police visibility, morale effects, and the value of alternative uses of funds all need to be considered in any assigned vehicle program evaluation.

An assigned vehicle program evaluation should start with a clear, comprehensive cost-benefit review. The review will provide an estimate of how large non-measurable benefits have to be, or how small the other costs can be, before the program would be justified. A cost-benefit study provides a benchmark around which the decision making process can proceed and alternative arguments can be framed.

This was the approach taken by the city of Tacoma, WA. Tacoma is a moderate sized urban area in a large metropolitan region. The city, at the time of the study, had a population of about 185,000. Some patrol officers lived in the city, many resided in the surrounding county (Pierce County has a population of about 500,000). The county is part of the three million people Puget Sound area where Seattle is the major urban center.

In part, the city felt we would bring objectivity, impose a rigorous professional approach, and provide an unbiased opinion. The city instructed us to design, implement and evaluate an assigned vehicle pilot project. At the time the study began in 1996, police services were delivered in a typical fashion— officers shared vehicles, the work schedule was four 10-hour shifts per week, with full time sectoral policing.

Only officers working in special programs (K-9 or on-call, for example) had assigned vehicles. The project ended in November of 1997. We reviewed the literature on assigned vehicles, developed cost and benefit estimating methods, collected data, and evaluated the outcome.
Our literature review included 15 previously published, assigned vehicle studies. These studies ranged from small, semi-urban jurisdictions to geographically dispersed county sheriff offices to large metropolitan police departments. The arguments for take-home cars were consistent: improved morale, lower operating costs, higher capital expenditures, billboard effects, and better public perception of policing.

However, the empirical results (when reported) were often suspect. Controlled comparisons were not done, cost data focused on operating expenses, conclusions often used judgmental factors, and adjustments for geography, force size and local conditions were often absent. The studies were helpful in providing some comparative results, ideas for program design, and cautions about problems, but they did not offer conclusive evidence.

The pilot project used 30 newly purchased vehicles assigned to individual officers. All vehicles were 1996 Crown Victorias, outfitted with standard police equipment. The first assigned vehicle entered service in January of 1996 and the final one came online in November of that year. All entered service with minimal (delivery and test) mileage and no wear and tear. In addition, the city selected a sample of 46 fleet pool vehicles. Records for the pool and assigned vehicles were maintained by the city. Data included operating expenses, damage costs, mileage, capital outlays and financing. Our study compared the costs between the assigned and fleet pool vehicles.
Each officer with an assigned vehicle agreed to maintain a weekly log of activities. The log entries identified off-shift police related activities. We measured the amount, nature and origin of "off-duty" policing for the average officer with an assigned vehicle. The nature of the activities included responding to dispatch, stopping to assist citizens, and providing traffic control. Calls for off-duty assistance came from official radio communications, sightings by the off-duty officer, and direct citizen contact.

Officers with assigned vehicles also provided commuting information. We estimated the number of miles and amount of time vehicles were used for off-duty activities. We also obtained information from assigned vehicles and pool fleet officers about shift change time (paid patrol time lost to changeover) and preparation needs.

Since we knew the off-duty location of each assigned vehicle, we measured neighborhood perceptions of safety and policing. We selected four block areas around a sample of assigned vehicle locations and random locations elsewhere in the city. Pre- and post- program telephone surveys asked residents about neighborhood safety, personal concerns, police visibility, and how they felt the department was doing. We measured attitudinal changes, visibility effects and altered perceptions due to the presence of an off-duty police vehicle in the area.
Within the department, each officer with an assigned vehicle, and a sample of officers who did not get an assigned vehicle, completed pre- and post- program questionnaires. The questionnaire measured anticipated and actual problems and benefits from an assigned vehicle, lifestyle changes, interactions with neighbors, and the like. Thus, we tracked officer expectations versus the reality of "being on call" 24/7.

The final element was a statistical study relating crime rates, property values and vehicle assignment programs. We estimated the dollar benefit to homeowners and to local governments (through property tax collections) of crime rate changes due to having more vehicles on the streets more often. Our empirical model provided a link from vehicle programs to crime rates and property values.

Over our study period, assigned vehicles logged a total of 397 months of service. On average an assigned vehicle was on the road for 12,700 miles per year (2,500 miles for commuting and 10,200 on patrol service). The average pool fleet vehicle recorded an average of 22,400 miles per year (all for patrol).

City and department policy was to retire a vehicle after it accumulated 89,000 miles of use. Thus, an assigned car would be in service for 7.25 years while a pool vehicle would remain active for four years. For analytical convenience, we used an eight-year accounting period to compare costs and benefits for assigned and pool vehicles.

The total cost to purchase, equip and prepare a vehicle for patrol service was $33,875. Based on staffing levels in 1996, the department would require a 130-car assigned vehicle fleet compared to a 44-car pooled fleet. Over eight years, the assigned vehicle fleet capital and financing costs would total $6.5 million compared to $3.8 million for the pool fleet.
Since more cars are needed for the assigned vehicle program, even though they are replaced less often, the total principal and interest expense was 71% more. However, on a per vehicle basis, the associated costs of an assigned vehicle averaged less ($44,600) than a pool vehicle ($47,800).

We compared operating costs for fuel, tires and routine maintenance. The annual per vehicle operating cost under the assigned vehicle program was $28,100 compared to a pool program average cost of $81,700, due to 62% fuel cost savings, 76% less for tire replacement, and a 66% reduction in routine maintenance. Over the eight-year period, then, the operating cost for a fully assigned vehicle fleet would total $4.1 million and the cost for a full pool fleet would be $5.2 million— an eight-year savings of 21% in total.

The most significant cost reduction for the assigned vehicles was due to lower accident and damage repair costs. A pool vehicle averaged $8,400 while an assigned vehicle required only $1,375 per year. Over an eight-year period, a full assigned vehicle fleet would generate a total of $179,000 in accident and damage repair work compared to $365,000 for a full fleet of pool cars.

In total, it costs less to operate an average assigned vehicle unit each year than it does to keep a pool vehicle on patrol; $29,500 versus $90,100. This per vehicle savings does not translate into an equivalent proportional total cost savings since there are almost three times as many assigned vehicles as pool vehicles in the fleet. Nonetheless, over eight years an assigned vehicle fleet will reduce operating costs by a total of $1.3 million dollars.
On a total cost basis over eight years the full assigned vehicle fleet will be more expensive than the pooled fleet. The $2.7 million in additional capital expenses exceeds the $1.3 million reduction in operational costs. As a result an assigned vehicle fleet will add $175,000 to the department's annual budget.

Further benefits the city would receive with a full assigned vehicle fleet were also examined. These benefits are the result of officers spending more effective time on patrol and a positive impact from increased property tax revenue.

To begin a shift, officers reported for roll call, then went to their cars and started patrol. Since officers with assigned vehicles already have their cars "ready-to-go," they spent an average of four minutes preparing for patrol. Officers with pool vehicles after roll call required 25 minutes, on average, to get a vehicle, inspect it, put their equipment in the car, and stow personal effects.
Thus, officers with assigned vehicles averaged 20 more minutes per shift than officers who had to obtain and prepare pool vehicles. Assuming half as much change time saved when going off patrol and given regular shift scheduling, an officer with an assigned vehicle is on the street 58 more hours per year than an officer with a pool car.

Furthermore, officers with assigned vehicles were also on the street during their commutes. Although not on duty, their presence on the street served as a deterrent to criminal activity. Also, they sometimes responded to calls for assistance. Given the geographic location of the officers, the average commute time in the city was 90 hours per year, or about nine 10-hour shifts at no additional cost to the city.

Off-duty officers with assigned vehicles were visible, approached by citizens for aid, responded to dispatch calls, and voluntarily intervened when appropriate. That is, the officers provided police services at no additional cost. On average, an officer with an assigned vehicle was involved in 24 off-duty incident responses per year. The average amount of time devoted to an off-duty incident response was approximately 20 minutes.

Based on the average amount of departmental response activity and time, the off-duty activity is equivalent to each officer providing an additional one-half of a shift per year, at no cost. Given the total amount of extra time provided by officers with assigned vehicles and the city's cost per officer, over eight years this amounts to $3.4 million worth of additional police services, or roughly $3,300 per car per year. This additional benefit value more than offsets the negative budgetary impact for an assigned vehicle fleet structure.

Converting from a pool fleet to a complete assigned vehicle configuration generates a positive net benefit to the department of $2 million over the eight-year budgetary cycle ($3.4 million of additional services less the $1.4 million additional departmental expenditure).

An increased and more visible police presence reduces crime through both deterrence and detection. Lower crime rates benefit citizens, not just with improved levels of safety and security, but also with increased property values. Any increased property value provides a benefit to the city; one not captured directly by the police department, through increased general fund revenues to fund additional programs. These estimated impacts are calculated using a standard statistical model.

It was estimated that with an assigned vehicle fleet nonviolent property crime fell by 1,305 incidents per 100,000 inhabitants using mid-sized urban areas as the sample base. We also estimated that for each one percent reduction in nonviolent crime, property value increases by about $1,100. This means for Tacoma using 1996 values, an assigned vehicle fleet would have reduced nonviolent crime by 3.1% annually. Based on the city's 1996 tax rate this would generate $530,000 of increased general fund revenues per year.

One surprising finding came from the neighborhood survey results. The use of assigned vehicles had virtually no impact on resident and citizen perceptions about policing, crime rates, size of the department, or feelings of safety. As expected, only in areas near the homes of officers with assigned vehicles did the percentage of neighbors who reported seeing police vehicles increase.
The reputed "billboard effect," an increased sense of safety and security when people see more police vehicles, was not reflected in our survey results. Nonetheless, most respondents reacted favorably to having cars on the street and in their neighborhoods.

The survey results of officers clearly indicated a positive morale improvement for individuals with assigned vehicles. These officers appreciated having their own "offices on wheels," the convenience of an individual car, the support from the department and city, and identified very few problems. A pre-program apprehension of being "hassled" about minor matters while off-duty proved to be unsupported. Similarly the pre-program fear of off-duty vehicle vandalism failed to materialize. Finally, most officers voluntarily provided some off-duty maintenance, care and attention to their vehicles.

In summary, shifting from a complete pool vehicle fleet program to a complete assigned vehicle one is costly. The additional net cost and budgetary impact on the public safety department results from the increased capital and financing cost of procuring (three times) more cars. This added cost is partially offset by reduced operating, maintenance and repair expenses. If the assigned vehicles are in service more than twice as long as pool vehicles, the operating savings could be large enough to offset the added costs.

The use of assigned vehicles does generate significant police service benefits; primarily by increasing the effective time officers are on patrol. The value of this extra time can be substantial enough to more than offset the net budgetary cost. More policing also leads to a reduction of crime, producing benefits to the citizens and the general government budget.

Although public perceptions about the effectiveness and visibility of officers were little changed and "billboard effects" were not observed, a longer time frame might change this outcome. Initial concerns about off-duty inconvenience, vehicle vandalism, loss of overtime, and personal costs proved to be incorrect. Finally, an intangible, but positive, effect of the program was the boost to officer morale.

A cautionary observation is worth noting. We found it was important to tailor our methods, procedures and analysis to the particular circumstances of Tacoma. We think our general results would be transferable to other medium sized urban places located within a larger metropolitan region. However, the specific results would not necessarily be the same in a different place at a different time.

Local geography, departmental regulations and policies, cost conditions, crime patterns, and housing market circumstances play important roles in this type of analysis. While caution must be exercised when applying our conclusions and results to other jurisdictions, we believe our comprehensive approach and methods offer guidance and shed new light in this highly debated policy area.

Bruce Mann, Ph.D., and Douglas Goodman, Ph.D., are both Professors of Economics at the University of Puget Sound. Both are active in consulting and research. They may be reached at mann@ups.edu and goodman@ups.edu, respectively.
 


     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by CoffeeBean

Again, do you have a link?  I am not saying that you are incorrect, but often our recollection of things that occurred 18 years ago may not be terribly accurate.  

Here, I have no idea who prepared the study, (bias?), or its parameters (did it adequately distinguish between causation and correlation?).  Furthermore, you indicate the study concluded the "cost" - in 1990 - was worth it.  

Is that still true today?  The price of a gallon of gas in 1990 was around $1.00.  Does this mean the "study" is no longer viable?  No, but it leaves open questions about the conclusion.    

Again, I say drop the entire "deterrent" pretense.  Officers have a high stress job, and if allowing them to drive home a patrol car helps relieve that stress, then its a benefit I can live with, and - its unimpeachable, unburdened by arguments about who is receiving what benefit and for how much.  

just my 0.02.

There is NO scientific evidence of any kind that a police car parked in a suburban driveway has one iota of effect on crime.

None.

It is an urban legend foisted first upon Tulsans  by Mayor Silly Susan Savage who was trying to figure out a way to spend MORE of the Third Penny Tax.

Tulsa, Meet Dumb-and-Dumber.

This dumb-headed city policy was expanded to a 25 mile from Tulsa radius from 41st and Yale by Mayor Major MisFortunate, who was trying to ingratiate himself to his local Praetorian Guard.

For their support.  Hail, Caesar!

He lost anyway.  He should have figured his political career was dead when in the GOP mayoral primary 59% of the GOP voters preferred someone ELSE.

The Police car take-home policy saps several million dollars from the Itty-Bitty Third-Penny Sales Tax for police car "capital" expenditures every year, because with 800 police cars being driven home and to moonlighting jobs every day, they are worn out much, much faster.

Plus, additional millions now in operating costs with sky-high gasoline.  I'm paying $3.79 per gallon.

Wonder what the City of Tulsa pays for gasoline, repairs, tires, and maintenance for our police to commute to Mannford, Broken Arrow, Owasso, Jenks, Sapulpa, Glenpool, Sand Springs, Mounds, etc., in OUR police cars?

Name 3 major cities in the U.S. with as generous a Police Car Take-Home policy as Tulsa?

Anyone?

[MH2010]

Here is the updated executive study from Tacoma about take-home cars.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE TACOMA POLICE DEPARTMENT'S
ASSIGNED VEHICLE PROGRAM

Mercury Associates, Inc. was selected by the City of Tacoma to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the Police Department's Assigned Vehicle Program. The project involved initial data gathering including interviews with city and department staff, a survey of police officers, focus group sessions with and a survey of members of various Neighborhood Councils, and development of a quantitative model of the costs and benefits associated with the program.  Three central questions were investigated as part of this project: 1) Should vehicles be assigned to officers or should officers share vehicles from a pool? 2) If vehicles are assigned, should officers be allowed to drive them home? 3) If officers take their vehicles home, what criterion should be used for setting the policy on how the city subsidizes commuting costs?

Mercury Associates is the largest fleet management consulting firm in the country and has assisted 200 public and private-sector organizations optimize their fleet management organizations and practices. Clients served in the past by members of our firm include all ten of the largest cities in the country; 28 states, Federal agencies including NASA and the U.S. Army; both public and investor owned utilities, and several prominent Fortune 500 companies. Our project team included Randy Owen, Mercury's Senior Vice-President, who served as the Project Manager for this engagement; Dr. Donald Lauria of the University of North Carolina who conducted the economic analysis and authored the technical report for the project; and Dave Robertson, a Senior Associate with Mercury Associates and a former Fleet Manager for the City of Houston Police Department.

Interviews, Surveys, and Information Gathering Efforts

We began this project by providing the city with a detailed written data and information request.  Response to our request was excellent both by the Police Department and the City's Fleet Services Section. Our initial meetings and interviews included a broad spectrum of stakeholders including members of City Council, members of Neighborhood Councils, police command staff, police rank and file employees, and Fleet Services staff.

Our work plan included the design of two comprehensive surveys. The first survey was targeted at police officers so that we could develop a thorough understanding of how assigned vehicles are used.  The survey was designed to be completed by officers on their in-car computers by connecting to Mercury Associates data center over the Internet. The survey, which was kept anonymous in order to encourage honest responses, was distributed electronically to 263 officers and we received responses from 251.  This very high response rate produced strong confidence in the statistical validity of survey results.  The most significant information and results from the survey are summarized below:

·         Twenty-percent of officers reside within city limits, fifty-percent live within 10 miles of city limits, thirty-percent live more than 10 miles away, and ten-percent live more than 20 miles from the city.

·         The average one-way distance between respondents homes and the city limits is 9.4 miles.  The median distance is 7 miles.

·         Twenty-four percent of respondents park their assigned police vehicle in their home garage, fifty three-percent park in their driveway, and fourteen percent park on the street.

·         When respondents used pool vehicles (before adoption of the current assigned vehicle program) it took an average of 28 minutes to check a vehicle out and load gear and equipment.

·         When respondents used pool vehicles they were unavailable an average of 5.6 days per month for a variety of reasons.  Changing a car required an average of 25 minutes.

·         Eighty-two percent of respondents reported that the condition of their assigned vehicle is much better than pool cars.

·         In the past 2 months each respondent made an average of 6 contacts (e.g. assisted in an arrest) outside of normal work hours on their way to and from work/home; the average time spent on these contacts was 36 minutes; forty percent of the contacts were outside the City of Tacoma.

·         Ninety-four percent of respondents said they were more productive with an assigned vehicle vs. a pool program.

We also conducted two focus group sessions and a survey of members of Neighborhood Councils.  The survey, which members helped design, was sent to 80 individuals and 40 responded.  The number and rate of responses provides a respectable level of confidence in the results.  The most significant information and results from the survey are summarized below:

·         Fifty-three percent of respondents said that Tacoma's police services were good but needed some improvement and forty-seven percent indicated that services are poor and require much improvement.  No respondents said that services were excellent and did not require any improvement.

·         Thirty percent of respondents indicated that their knowledge of the assigned vehicle program was good and the rest indicated that it was fair.

·         Respondents indicated that the top benefit of the assigned vehicle program was that it allowed officers to respond quickly to emergencies.  The benefit that was cited second most often was that the program helped to deter crime.

·         Fifty-eight percent of respondents favor assigning vehicles to officers, twenty-six percent were indifferent on this question, and only sixteen percent favored use of pool vehicles.

·         Eighty-four percent of respondents favor allowing police officers to take their assigned vehicles home. Fifty percent of these respondents believe that the take-home policy should limit this benefit to officers who live within a certain distance of the city such as 10 miles.

Demands for and Supply of Police Services

In this area of the project we were asked to assess how well Tacoma allocates its police resources, especially personnel and vehicles.  Our approach to this question was to examine the average response time to calls for service for each of Tacoma's police sectors and districts.

The Police Department has organized the city into four sectors, each of which is divided into four districts. The four sectors in Tacoma each have four patrol vehicles on the street at any given time.  Sector 1 and Sector 4 also have an additional car due to their large geographical size and configuration.  Therefore, Tacoma typically has 18 police vehicles patrolling its streets.

The average response time for the city as a whole during the period that we reviewed (May and June of 2004) was just under 10 minutes. The variation in average response times between districts was relatively small, ranging from a low of 8.5 minutes to a high of 13 minutes.  These findings suggest that the way department deploys its manpower and vehicles results in a high and consistent level of service and that no district in Tacoma seems to be under served.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

The main focus of our project for the city was an economic analysis of the costs and benefits of the assigned vehicle program.  Our approach to this part of the project followed standard cost-benefit analysis methods, which are well documented in economic literature.  

The primary conclusions of our analysis are:

It is far better for the city to assign vehicles to officers than to have them share vehicles from a pool.  The equivalent            annual savings from our net present value calculation is $1.5 million per year for assigned vs. pool vehicles. The principal reason for the savings is increased officer productivity as a result of not having to check out a pool vehicle and transfer equipment in and out of them each day.

The city is also better off allowing officers to commute in patrol cars and park them at home rather than parking them in a city lot or garage.  The annual economic costs of officers taking vehicles home are about $800 per year per vehicle less than the alternative of parking them in a city garage. The difference for the entire fleet of take-home vehicles is about $200,000 per year.  Unlike the benefits of assigning a vehicle to each officer, which accrue entirely to the city, only some of the take-home benefits accrue to Tacoma, the rest accrue to the police officers themselves. The fact that the benefits of taking vehicles home are shared jointly by the city and the officers does not reduce the real economic benefits that result from the take-home program. The main reason for this cost difference is that the commuting cost of patrol vehicles is less than the cost of building and operating additional parking places in the city.  

The current policy of allowing officers to take police vehicles home provides additional benefits due to officers responding to emerging calls while driving to and from work, responding to calls more quickly, providing citizens with an increased sense of safety by having cars parked in neighborhoods, and better care of police vehicles provided by officers at their homes.  

The assigned vehicle program may be producing an unwelcome incentive for police officers to live outside of the city, since there is no charge for commuting and no limit on commuting miles.  The city needs to examine and decide how to handle "excess" commuting.  Our analysis shows that the break even point for the city to subsidize officers commuting in their vehicles is between 7 and 14 miles one-way based strictly on the financial costs of commuting vs. the financial costs of providing in-city parking.

Recommendations

Our main recommendations related to this project are as follows:

The city should continue its policy of assigning vehicles to officers rather than using pool cars.

Officers should be allowed to take vehicles home.

The city should examine its policy on subsidizing commuting.  This policy should not, however, focus entirely on financial issues and should recognize that officers provide services while commuting to and from work that benefit society as a whole.

While no evidence of abuse was found, the city needs to be sensitive to perceptions that officers could be unreasonably using police vehicles for personal reasons. Procedures to enforce appropriate policies need to be routinely examined to ensure that they are working.

The analysis of how the Police department allocates its personnel and vehicles to meet the demands for police services revealed no particular problems or disparities among districts.  Nevertheless, because demands are always shifting, the department needs to exert constant vigilance and scrutiny of its polices and practices to ensure that the citizens of Tacoma are well served.

        Animal Care & Control  

    Community Based Services  

    Financial  

    Housing  

    Human Rights & Human Services  

    Online Services  

    Other Services  

    Permits  

    Public Safety  

    Commercial Vehicle Enforcement  

    Animal Control & Compliance  

    Domestic Violence  

    Emergency Information  

    Filthy 15  

    Fire  

    Police  

    Tacoma's 10 Most Wanted  

    Public Utilities  

    Public Works  

    Housing First Encampment Elimination Program  


City Calendar
MyTacoma
govME: GIS Maps, Docs, Permitting
Pay a utility bill or request a service
 
Copyright © 2008 Home
Deaf, hard of hearing or speech disabled persons may contact us through Washington Relay Services 1-800-833-6388 (TTY or ASCII) 1-800-833-6386 (VCO) or 1-877-833-6341 (STS)  

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by CoffeeBean

Again, do you have a link?  I am not saying that you are incorrect, but often our recollection of things that occurred 18 years ago may not be terribly accurate.  

Here, I have no idea who prepared the study, (bias?), or its parameters (did it adequately distinguish between causation and correlation?).  Furthermore, you indicate the study concluded the "cost" - in 1990 - was worth it.  

Is that still true today?  The price of a gallon of gas in 1990 was around $1.00.  Does this mean the "study" is no longer viable?  No, but it leaves open questions about the conclusion.    

Again, I say drop the entire "deterrent" pretense.  Officers have a high stress job, and if allowing them to drive home a patrol car helps relieve that stress, then its a benefit I can live with, and - its unimpeachable, unburdened by arguments about who is receiving what benefit and for how much.  

just my 0.02.

There is NO scientific evidence of any kind that a police car parked in a suburban driveway has one iota of effect on crime.

None.

It is an urban legend foisted first upon Tulsans  by Mayor Silly Susan Savage who was trying to figure out a way to spend MORE of the Third Penny Tax.

Tulsa, Meet Dumb-and-Dumber.

This dumb-headed city policy was expanded to a 25 mile from Tulsa radius from 41st and Yale by Mayor Major MisFortunate, who was trying to ingratiate himself to his local Praetorian Guard.

For their support.  Hail, Caesar!

He lost anyway.  He should have figured his political career was dead when in the GOP mayoral primary 59% of the GOP voters preferred someone ELSE.

The Police car take-home policy saps several million dollars from the Itty-Bitty Third-Penny Sales Tax for police car "capital" expenditures every year, because with 800 police cars being driven home and to moonlighting jobs every day, they are worn out much, much faster.

Plus, additional millions now in operating costs with sky-high gasoline.  I'm paying $3.79 per gallon.

Wonder what the City of Tulsa pays for gasoline, repairs, tires, and maintenance for our police to commute to Mannford, Broken Arrow, Owasso, Jenks, Sapulpa, Glenpool, Sand Springs, Mounds, etc., in OUR police cars?

Name 3 major cities in the U.S. with as generous a Police Car Take-Home policy as Tulsa?

Anyone?

Do you really give a fu%k....You don't even live here....

[CoffeeBean]

Again, I'm not trying to stir the pot, but neither Tacoma survey provided any objective data that take-home programs actually deter crime.  

At most, the second survey suggested that take-home programs created a feel-good element among the neighbors.  And, so far as I know, there is no causal relationship between feeling good about having a patrol car in the neighborhood and actually deterring crime.  

If we could eliminate crime with a feel-good attitude then we wouldn't need the police to begin with.

Again, not only is morale the best reason, but it's intellectually honest as well.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by CoffeeBean

Again, I'm not trying to stir the pot, but neither Tacoma survey provided any objective data that take-home programs actually deter crime.  

At most, the second survey suggested that take-home programs created a feel-good element among the neighbors.  And, so far as I know, there is no causal relationship between feeling good about having a patrol car in the neighborhood and actually deterring crime.  

If we could eliminate crime with a feel-good attitude then we wouldn't need the police to begin with.

Again, not only is morale the best reason, but it's intellectually honest as well.

How about someone being concerned with MY morale?

I'm paying $3.79 per gallon for gasoline, and our police are free-loading to commute home to the incorporated suburbs, and to/from second jobs.

Plus, the investment in 800 police cars is a diversion of capital expenditures from deteriorating city infrastructure.

It's all a matter of priorities.

[cannon_fodder]

The bear makes a good point about paying for police to commute to the suburbs.  I'd be a fan of allowing Tulsa police living in TULSA to drive their cars home.  All others need not apply.

SOME incentive to live int he city you are paid by seems appropriate, even ignoring the cost factors associated with commuting (for citizens of Tulsa, I'd think the extra $25 a week is worth the illusion of safety by having a few cop cars parked around town).

/I'm not familiar with the actual policies, correct my impression if it is wrong.

[tim huntzinger]

Besides, cops are always on duty in one respect.  But if one is driving the official use car but not enforcing the law, that usage would have a detrimental effect on crime suppression would it not?

[John Redcorn]

Do all cops "check-in" at the office/station before going on shift?

Or do they go on-duty/patrol from home maybe never even seeing the inside of the station for days at a time?

[OUGrad05]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The bear makes a good point about paying for police to commute to the suburbs.  I'd be a fan of allowing Tulsa police living in TULSA to drive their cars home.  All others need not apply.

SOME incentive to live int he city you are paid by seems appropriate, even ignoring the cost factors associated with commuting (for citizens of Tulsa, I'd think the extra $25 a week is worth the illusion of safety by having a few cop cars parked around town).

/I'm not familiar with the actual policies, correct my impression if it is wrong.

I think on OCPD you must live within the corporate limits of the city.  Used to it was within the corporate limits of the city unless you were a supervisor or were grandfathered in.  I'll have to ask my brother if thats changed (he's OCPD).

I think they should either be required to live within tulsa proper or within say a 7 mile radius of their reporting station, something to that affect.

[OUGrad05]

quote:Originally posted by John Redcorn

Do all cops "check-in" at the office/station before going on shift?

Or do they go on-duty/patrol from home maybe never even seeing the inside of the station for days at a time?

If they're working the streets they could theoretically not see the inside of a station for a week or more.  However, that seems highly unlikely.  They do in a lot of cases check in from their vehicle, they simply radio dispatch and they're on duty.  Some officers (mostly new recruits) are required to report to a breifing station in OKC...not sure about tulsa.