News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

Is Tulsa's Next Police Chief....

Started by Wilbur, May 17, 2007, 09:35:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Chicken Little

quote:
Originally posted by Kiah

814 officers/382.475 (thousand residents) = 2.128 officers per 1,000 residents – higher than the national and regional average

Man, that's gotta smart.  The last two weeks people have been banging on about how we need more cops...now we find out that we have more than the national and regional?

Kiah

quote:
Originally posted by blindnil

A correction will reveal that police should have said 2.3 and 2.6, without the zero.


Actually, even that's apparently wrong.  According to the most recent update of the FBI's uniform crime report, which I presume is the source of the information, the regional average for our region (west south-central) is 2.1 officers per 1,000 residents.  Our ratio is higher than even the corrected regional average.
 

tulsa_fan

I don't know how to dig through the DOJ's website and find more recent data, but here is a link to a website (austin PD) that has the '04 police to citizen ratios.  In '04 the national average was 2.5, there are some other breakdown's as well.  So we are still well below the national average.  I do think we can be more effective but the truth is, we need more officers.  I like the idea that the council is actually trying to determine what that number is so we have something to strive for, not just a pie in the sky.  I'm sure they will come to the same conclusion, we need more officers.  The problem always is how to pay for them.

http://www.austinpolice.com/staffingsurvey.htm
 

tulsa_fan

quote:
Originally posted by Kiah

quote:
Originally posted by blindnil

A correction will reveal that police should have said 2.3 and 2.6, without the zero.


Actually, even that's apparently wrong.  According to the most recent update of the FBI's uniform crime report, which I presume is the source of the information, the regional average for our region (west south-central) is 2.1 officers per 1,000 residents.  Our ratio is higher than even the corrected regional average.



The correction will be to the regional and national average, so we will still be well under, unless I'm missing something?  Even with the revised number of 2.1something, we are still below 2.5 or 2.3 or 2.6 whichever you use.  I think those numbers are a guide, but crime and call load should be factored into the equation.  How do you get a better response from police and also give them time to be proactive on fighting crime, not just running from call to call (way too fast as many like to point out . . . sorry had to throw that one in![:)])
 

tulsa_fan

quote:
Originally posted by Kiah

quote:
Originally posted by blindnil

A correction will reveal that police should have said 2.3 and 2.6, without the zero.


Actually, even that's apparently wrong.  According to the most recent update of the FBI's uniform crime report, which I presume is the source of the information, the regional average for our region (west south-central) is 2.1 officers per 1,000 residents.  Our ratio is higher than even the corrected regional average.



I'm really missing something here.  I looked at your link (thanks for the info, its what I was looking for)  Table 70, 2005 data, West-South Central location, group 1 (250k+) the average is 2.6 ? ? ? For the entire region, it is 2.8.  I don't see anything at 2.1?  Here's a summary from the report, it shows the national average at 3.0

In the U.S. in 2005, the average number of full-time law enforcement employees in cities (both sworn officers and civilian) was 3.0 per 1,000 inhabitants.
Within cities in the Northeast, the rate of full-time law enforcement employees per 1,000 inhabitants was 3.5.

Within cities in the South, the rate of full-time law enforcement employees per 1,000 inhabitants was 3.4.

Within cities in the Midwest, the rate of full-time law enforcement employees per 1,000 inhabitants was 2.7.

Within cities in the West, the rate of full-time law enforcement employees per 1,000 inhabitants was 2.4.

 

MH2010

quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little

Rico,

In the paper (for what that's worth), it seemed he was simply saying that the reserves were underutilized.  I didn't see a mention of them taking low priority calls...was that talked about someplace else?

I thought the "division of time" discussion was interesting, particularly the Dept's desire to reduce adminstrative duties from the "supposed" standard of 33% down to 20% of an officer's time.  Bostrom also mentioned taking some reports by phone. (separate:  I wonder if that would encourage more people to report crime?)

From the article, I inferred that reservists might be working the phones and handling administrative duties.  Is there another source on this?



I'm not sure if people understand that the reserve officers are volunteer officers.  They receive no pay and do the job on their spare time for free.  It is no wonder the city wants to expand their role.  Also it should be noted that there are only 44 reserve officers on the department.

I thought the division of time was interesting also.  I'm all for freeing up time to be proactive but everyone needs to understand that the Chief is talking about cutting police services to free up that time.  

This whole converstaion boils down to what kind of police force do the citizens of Tulsa want.  If the citizens want a police force that is almost completely reactive then we do not need to cut any services and do not need to hire any additional officers.  If the citizens of Tulsa want a proactive police department then the department will either have to cut services to free up officers' time or hire more officers.

Rico

If all ("volunteers") reservist could learn to shoot as well as Ken Yazzel..........That might have an effect on crime.

Hell... maybe they can open a "Dong's" Downtown...

If this fellow (the Chief temp.) had a blinding success rate that would be one thing...

From everything I have read... he has never had the kind of experience to advise the community of Tulsa.

Wrinkle

For the record, name ONE police department in the U.S. intentionally designed to be a "reactive" service.

MH2010

Go to google.com and type in "proactive police departments". Read at your own leisure.

Breadburner

quote:
Originally posted by Rico

If all ("volunteers") reservist could learn to shoot as well as Ken Yazzel..........That might have an effect on crime.

Hell... maybe they can open a "Dong's" Downtown...

If this fellow (the Chief temp.) had a blinding success rate that would be one thing...

From everything I have read... he has never had the kind of experience to advise the community of Tulsa.



He is a talking head...Paid for by the mayor herself.....
 

Chicken Little

quote:
Originally posted by MH2010



I'm not sure if people understand that the reserve officers are volunteer officers.  They receive no pay and do the job on their spare time for free.  It is no wonder the city wants to expand their role.  Also it should be noted that there are only 44 reserve officers on the department.

I thought the division of time was interesting also.  I'm all for freeing up time to be proactive but everyone needs to understand that the Chief is talking about cutting police services to free up that time.  

This whole converstaion boils down to what kind of police force do the citizens of Tulsa want.  If the citizens want a police force that is almost completely reactive then we do not need to cut any services and do not need to hire any additional officers.  If the citizens of Tulsa want a proactive police department then the department will either have to cut services to free up officers' time or hire more officers.

I like what you are saying.  Having a police force that is proactive requires a strong, community-oriented, approach, does it not?  One could assume that this means more time on patrol and less on paperwork.  But it also might mean more face time with kids and neighbors, something that simply cannot be achieved from behind the wheel, regardless of how many cops we have.  

So, and again, I like the proactive strategy, making that case is really about the TPD saying (and doing) things differently than they have in the past.  Maybe you are changing things, and that message is not getting out, and that's a problem, too.

Regardless, it seems like the argument is going to have to get away from the numbers and into the actual strategies.  What does TPD plan to do to be proactive?  Will they drop in at more neighborhood meetings? Build more sub-stations? Get out of the car and talk to kids as they leave school? Do some foot patrols downtown?

I dunno what works, but if the cops want more officers, their main argument, that we are staffed below regional and national averages, was just torpedoed.  So, in order to make the case, it seems like you guys are going to have to start being more proactive with what you've got, and showing Tulsans how much extra time is needed to perform that face-to-face, customer-service oriented, proactive policing.

If you guys could target and "take back" a few neighorhoods with these proactive strategies, then I think you could make your case.  In the short run, it probably means doing more with less, and I don't know if you could even handle it.  But in the end, I think you'd get all the resources you need.

MH2010

Corrected statistics


By Staff Reports
7/11/2007


John R. Copp (Letters, June 24) correctly identified problems with the numbers given for comparing the staffing of the Tulsa Police Department to other departments. The numbers originally given were incorrect. A correction was printed in the Tulsa World on June 8.

The numbers given to the City Council were based on the 2004 FBI Uniform Crime Reports. At that time the regional average was 2.6 officers per 1,000 residents and the national average was 2.3 officers per 1,000. Updated numbers are now available. Crime report numbers for 2005, the most recent year available, show that the regional average is 2.5 officers per 1,000 residents and the national average is 2.8 officers per 1,000. As of June 1, the Tulsa Police Department has 799 officers, which is 2.03 officers per 1,000 residents.

In order to meet the regional average, Tulsa would need 183 additional officers. To meet the national average, an additional 302 officers are needed. Population used is from 2000 Census, the most current available. Estimates of Tulsa's population since then have ranged from 393,049 to 382,457. Based on the lowest population numbers, an additional 157 to 272 officers are needed. The department has half the number of civilian support personnel compared to the national average.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police formula indicated a need for more than 227 additional officers.

The planned academy class of 20 officers will not be sufficient to keep up with the attrition rate for the year at 2.2 officers per month.

Richard A. Alexander, Tulsa Editor's note: Richard A. Alexander is a sergeant with the Tulsa Police Department.


Conan71

So we had one of those "scrivener's errors" on the previous report, eh?
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

RecycleMichael

We went from 814 officers in June to 799 officers in July?

15 retired at once?

I know that some bad guy smacked a couple of officers yesterday, are we down to 797?

On an unrelated note, assaulting a police officer should not be tolerated. I would handcuff the prisoner, then slam on the brakes a bunch of times.
Power is nothing till you use it.

Rico

quote:
Originally posted by tulsa_fan

"Bostrom oversaw the police and fire departments. Baker has not yet indicated whether Bostrom will be replaced or whether he will instead deal directly with the chiefs of those two departments."

hmmm, I can definitely see some foreshadowing here . . . .  He's not a candidate for the permanent Chief position, but he could likely be a candidate for a different position, especially if KT loses the court battle.  





^

As the days go by.... This seems to be the end game.

A shame that criminal activity... and Police morale have both shown to be affected by this.