For a PDF version of this
report that will print out properly,
CLICK
HERE
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Syracuse
Department of Audit
Minchin G. Lewis
City Auditor
433 City Hall Syracuse, NY 13202
315-448-8477 Fax: 315-448-8475
e-mail: minchlewis@aol.com
Mayor Matthew J. Driscoll
Members of the Common Council
Report on the Syracuse Police Department Activity for the year
ended June 30, 2002
Introduction:
The Syracuse Police Department (SPD) is the largest unit of city government.
More people are employed in providing police services than in any other
function. Police services cost more than any other service. During the budget
process, the Common Council has reviewed the services being provided. Citizen
groups have raised questions about the provision of police services. Some
organizations, like Reconsider, Inc. have requested information formally.
The Department of Audit is responsible for reviewing the activities of city
government to assure that the resources of the city are used efficiently and
effectively.
Objectives:
In view of these concerns, the Department of Audit initiated a project with
three purposes:
1. to review available data to determine the reliability of the data,
2. to analyze the impact of the services, and
3. to make recommendations, if warranted, for the improvement of the public
safety function.
Methodology and Scope:
All City departments present performance data as part of the annual budget
review. In fact, the City Charter mandates a “program budget” based on activity
indicators. The performance data includes estimates of activity for the coming
year and actual data for prior years. When this project was initiated in April
2003, the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 was the last year for which actual
data was available. As the basis for this report, we reviewed the actual
activity indicators for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June
30, 2002.
We met with personnel in the SPD Planning and Research Division to gain an
understanding of the processes used in gathering the performance data. All
activity of the SPD is recorded in a database maintained by the Onondaga County
9-1-1 Center. The system is referred to as CHAIRS (Criminal History and Arrest
Incident Record System.) The 9-1-1 center receives calls for service, assigns a
specific number to each service request, and dispatches the appropriate police
agency in response. Service requests are also reported to the 9-1-1 Center when
the SPD takes direct action. The service requests are referred to as
“incidents.” The action taken by the SPD in responding to a service request is
recorded in the database by type of action. Approximately 75 action codes are
used to record the results of the service requests or incidents.
We did not review individual police records, but we did observe the processes by
which those records are maintained. We also sought input from sources with
particular areas of expertise, including organizations advocating for housing,
education, drug law reform, and public safety. We also attended neighborhood
meetings on a regular basis to assess areas of concern to citizens.
The detailed performance data was furnished to the Department of Audit by the
Syracuse Police Department in electronic format. No information about persons
involved in the incidents was included in the data. Using several data base
programs, the Department of Audit analyzed the data. The individual service
responses were summarized by incident type, actions taken, and geographic
location. Arrest records were analyzed by incident type and violation type. It
was not our intent, as defined by the scope of our inquiry, to determine the
results of actions beyond those recorded by the SPD. We did not, therefore,
inquire about the results of arrests, or about convictions.
In order to identify the location of requests for police services, we obtained a
list of the geographical areas included in defined patrol areas called “beats.”
The SPD uses 23 beats identified by numbers. For the purpose of this report, we
assigned labels describing the beats in general terms.
We modified the scope of our review in the process of analyzing the data. We
found that drug-related incidents greatly exceeded the impact of all other types
of incidents in terms of arrests. We looked in more detail at drug-related
incidents. We attempted to distinguish between incidents involving the
distribution of drugs from those involving the use of drugs.
Findings:
1. The data furnished by the Syracuse Police Department is reliable
During the budget process, the SPD reported that the department responded to
203,000 requests for services in fiscal year 2002. The actual number of
incidents provided by the SPD from the CHAIRS was 202,008. 20,000 of these were
follow up incidents initiated in the prior year. So the detailed data we
analyzed included 188,668 incidents.
In the budget process, the SPD reported that 28,400 persons had been arrested
during the 2002 year. The detail analysis listed arrest reports totalling
28,800.
The differences were insignificant and well within the normal range of
acceptable variations.
2. The SPD took a total of 479,000 actions in responding to service requests
In responding to 188,668 requests, the SPD recorded a total of 479,000
individual actions. Many incidents resulted in multiple actions. While this
statistic seems to indicate a very high level of activity, detail records that
list the date, time, and location of every action support it. On an average day,
the members of the SPD take over 1,300 actions.
3. Arrests accounted for 28,800 actions
188,668 incidents resulted in arrests of 28,800 persons. Approximately 80 arrest
reports are filed on average every day. Taken as a percentage of the total
population of the city, this is a relatively small number. But a figure of 80
daily, or 28,800 annually is significant because it represents a major
commitment of time and dollars. It should be noted that we were not able to
determine how many repeat offenders were included in the total since the data we
reviewed did not include information that would identify any individuals.
4. Drug-related incidents result in the highest number of arrests
Of the 28,800 arrests, over 6,300, or 21.9 % resulted from drug-related
incidents. Drug-related arrests exceeded arrests for assaults, disturbances, and
larcenies combined. The following table shows the frequency of each major arrest
type:
5. Arrests for Drug-related incidents were concentrated in six neighborhoods
Incidents resulting in arrests were analyzed based on the geographical location
by beat of the arresting officer. Arrests for drug-related incidents were
concentrated in 6 beats: South West side, Valley West, Central Business
District--South, South East Side, Near South West Side, and Near West Side.
These beats are located in the urban core of the City. According to the City’s
Consolidated Plan for 2003-2004, these neighborhoods “are areas of minority
concentration.” They also have high percentages of households with low to
moderate incomes.
6. A number of drug-related arrests were based on marijuana possession
Of the 6,300 arrests for drug-related incidents, 1,984 persons, or 31.5% of the
arrests, were charged under Section 221 of the Penal Code. This section of the
law relates to possession, sale, or use of marijuana. This finding is important
given the serious national debate about the effects of marijuana. Of the total
arrests, 913 or 14.5% were charged as felonies.
7. Incidents that were not initially classified as drug-related resulted in
drug-related arrests
In reviewing the sections of the law under which the arrests were made, we found
that 595 incidents resulted in arrests under Section 220 and 221 even though the
original request for police service was listed as a type other than “drug
related.” For example, 321 service requests were filed for “Suspicious Persons.”
Upon further investigation, the officer discovered a drug-related offense and
completed an arrest report. This resulted in 20 arrests.
8. Citizens appear to be more concerned about the violent effects of the
distribution system rather than the private use of drugs.
When asked about their concerns related to “drugs,” citizens at neighborhood
meetings universally referred to the violence and quality-of-life issues
associated with drug distribution in their neighborhood. They stated that they
were not concerned about individuals using drugs in private. Like alcohol in the
1920’s, drugs that have a high economic demand are distributed through an
underground market system. The underground distribution system generates a cycle
of violence calling for ever greater law enforcement activity.
Topics requiring further analysis
1. Enforcement activities initiated in response to drug-related incidents
have unintended consequences
The areas with the highest number of drug-related arrests are also the areas of
the city with the highest number of vacant units. We were informed that drug
enforcement activities that are focused on “drug houses” often result in police
executing search warrants to confiscate evidence. In the process, the dwelling
units are rendered uninhabitable. A second unintended consequence results from
regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Families
with a member convicted of a drug related crime are not eligible for public
housing.
The education system suffers another unintended consequence. We were informed
that the majority of young men in the alternative education programs of the
Syracuse City School District have fathers who are incarcerated. There is a
pattern of drug related crimes, violence, arrests, incarceration, and life on
the streets. And then the cycle repeats itself in the next generation.
2. The resources of the City are not being utilized effectively in relation
to drug arrests
A significant number of persons is arrested daily for drug-related activity. The
number is so high that we can calculate that if the strategy were successful, we
would soon run out of persons to arrest. We determined that the record count of
arrests is not duplicated, but we were not able to determine the number of
repeat offenders.
Still, the arrests continue year after year. If the purpose of the policy is to
change behavior and reduce the use of drugs, the policy is not achieving its
goal. The drug activity is continuing with an ever-increasing spiral of
violence.
The budget performance data does not give a clear indication of the purpose of
arresting persons in drug-related incidents. It is measuring “outputs” rather
than “outcomes.” Theoretically, the purpose of police services is to give
citizens a sense of personal security. The question has to be posed, “are the
citizens more secure as a result of the 28,000 arrests?”
Recommendations:
Based on the foregoing, the Department of Audit recommends the following:
1. The SPD should be commended for maintaining a sophisticated state-of-the-art
record keeping system. The system has a high degree of acceptance throughout the
department. Personnel responsible for maintaining the system have achieved a
high level of professionalism in operating a complex data system.
The data maintained by the SPD should be incorporated directly in the SyraStat
model. The data is outcome-driven and has the elements necessary to provide a
base for strategic decision-making.
2. The Common Council should provide for further analysis of the data
specifically with regard to racial profiling and the question of repeat
offenders. While the data reviewed for this report did not include specific
information about persons involved in reported incidents, that information may
be available from the CHAIRS database. If it is available in electronic format,
the Council could be provided access to significant information without spending
additional resources.
3. Alternatives to the City’s current policy related to the enforcement of
drug-related laws should be examined. The fact that the SPD devotes such a
significant percentage of resources to drug-related incidents stems from the
tasks it is assigned by the Mayor and the Council during the budget process.
Alternatives may range from forms of “decriminalization” to programs that
address the root causes of the drug problems. Such programs provide for
treatment on demand, harm reduction, and prevention rather than absolute
prohibition.
4. The Council should conduct a formal survey to determine the attitudes of the
citizens towards drugs. Based on our preliminary information, the “drug problem”
is related to the distribution system more than to the use of “drugs.” Devoting
so many taxpayer resources in an effort to eliminate the distribution of drugs
could be a significant misappropriation of resources if the primary concern is
not drug use. A survey would also assist the City in defining the mission
delegated to the Syracuse Police Department. It would also assist in assigning
priorities to assure that law enforcement resources are directed to the areas of
greatest need.
Please contact the Department of Audit if you would like additional
information or if you have questions you would like to discuss.
We thank the members of the Syracuse Police Department and the other
participants who assisted us in preparing this report.
City of Syracuse
Department of Audit
Minchin G. Lewis
City Auditor
December 29, 2003
Report on the Syracuse Police Department
December 29, 2003
