--- title: "Cactus Park Burglary Reduction Program and Strategic Warrant Execution and Enforcement Program" type: "pdf" year: "1998" canonical: "/projects/980" --- # THE CACTUS PARK PRECINCT BURGLARY REDUCTION PROGRAM \& STRATEGIC WARRANT EXECUTION AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM Lieutenant James J. Kulesa Officer J. R. Pool Phoenix Police Department 1998 # Table of Contents - [THE CACTUS PARK PRECINCT BURGLARY REDUCTION PROGRAM \& STRATEGIC WARRANT EXECUTION AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM](#the-cactus-park-precinct-burglary-reduction-program-strategic-warrant-execution-and-enforcement-program) - [PROJECT ABSTRACT](#project-abstract) - [PROJECT DESCRIPTION](#project-description) - [INTRODUCTION:](#introduction) - [SCANNING:](#scanning) - [ANALYSIS:](#analysis) - [RESPONSE:](#response) - [Burglary Reduction Program](#burglary-reduction-program) - [Strategic Warrant Execution and Enforcement Program](#strategic-warrant-execution-and-enforcement-program) - [ASSESSMENT:](#assessment) - [Cactus Park Precinct](#cactus-park-precinct) - [Clearance Rates](#clearance-rates) - [Cactus Park Precinct](#cactus-park-precinct) - [Clearance Rates](#clearance-rates) - [Average Monthly Burglary Reports vs. Average Monthly Clearance Rates](#average-monthly-burglary-reports-vs-average-monthly-clearance-rates) - [Average Monthly Calls for Service (w/o callback)](#average-monthly-calls-for-service-wo-callback) - [CACTUS PARK PRECINCT](#cactus-park-precinct) - [Cactus Park Precinct](#cactus-park-precinct) - [Burglary Reduction Program](#burglary-reduction-program) - [Reported vs. Cleared](#reported-vs-cleared) - [Burglaries, Clearances For Calendar Years 1995-1997](#burglaries-clearances-for-calendar-years-1995-1997) - [CACTUS PARK PRECINCT](#cactus-park-precinct) - [Reported](#reported) - [Total 3504 Burlaries: 292/mo](#total-3504-burlaries-292mo) - [Monthly CFS w/o Callback](#monthly-cfs-wo-callback) - [Monthly Burglary Reports](#monthly-burglary-reports) - [Monthly Clearance Rate](#monthly-clearance-rate) - [SUPPORT DOCUMENTS](#support-documents) - [PHOENIX LAW ENFORCEMENT SURVEY](#phoenix-law-enforcement-survey) - [EVALUATION OF PPD PERFORMANCE IN SELECTED AREAS (MEAN RATING 1-5 SCALE)](#evaluation-of-ppd-performance-in-selected-areas-mean-rating-1-5-scale) - [IMPORTANCE OF SELECTED FACTORS WHEN VICTIM OF PROPERTY CRIME/ CRIME AGAINST YOUR PERSON](#importance-of-selected-factors-when-victim-of-property-crime-crime-against-your-person) - [TABLE 10: IMPORTANCE OF SELECTED FACTORS WHEN VICTIM OF PROPERTY CRIME/CRIME AGAINST YOUR PERSON](#table-10-importance-of-selected-factors-when-victim-of-property-crimecrime-against-your-person) - [IMPORTANCE OF GOOD POLICE PERFORMANCE IN SELECTED AREAS](#importance-of-good-police-performance-in-selected-areas) - [PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMBER SURVEY](#phoenix-police-department-member-survey) - [Phoenix Police Department Member Survey Total Department Summary](#phoenix-police-department-member-survey-total-department-summary) - [Burglary Reduction Program Recap](#burglary-reduction-program-recap) - [Bradley Thiss, Commander MONTHLY REPORT OF PAP STATISTICS Page 10](#bradley-thiss-commander-monthly-report-of-pap-statistics-page-10) - [THE CACTUS PARK](#the-cactus-park) - [BURGLARY PREVENTION](#burglary-prevention) - [PROGRAM](#program) - [EVALUATION](#evaluation) - [TABLE ONE](#table-one) - [TABLE THREE](#table-three) - [Introduction:](#introduction) - [Conclusions:](#conclusions) - [NORTH RESOURCE BUREAU / DETECTIVES MONTHLY MANAGEMENT REPORT - APRIL 1998](#north-resource-bureau-detectives-monthly-management-report-april-1998) # PROJECT ABSTRACT One of the many problems that have plagued the City of Phoenix Police Department in recent years has been residential burglaries. In 1997, there were 7,921 residential burglaries reported in the Cactus Park Precinct representing a 15.3\% increase since 1995. In comparison to the Desert Horizon, Central City, Maryvale South Mountain and Squaw Peak Precincts, these figures reflect a growing concern in the community. An analysis conducted by the Behavior Research Center, Inc, indicated that approximately $42 \%$ of the residents surveyed within the Cactus Park Precinct, or 140,000 citizens, have been victims of residential burglaries within the past two years. Residents of the precinct's Granada Neighborhood Association indicated that residential burglaries were their second biggest concern. What was needed was a more creative, long-term, problem solving approach that focused scarce resources and involved partnerships both inside and outside the department. One of the five major priorities that became the foundation of the Phoenix Police Department's 1998/99 Policing Plan was for the implementation of a City-wide strategic plan that would reduce the burglary rate in selected target areas. The Cactus Park Precinct Burglary Reduction Program implemented in April, 1997, was based on the premise that a relatively small number of suspects commit a rather large percentage of the crimes. By utilizing a concerted effort and Crime Analysis data, the increase in burglaries and the burglary rate were significantly impacted. Some of the strategies that were implemented to support the program included improved communications with the department's North Resource Bureau, a focus on arresting high profile offenders with misdemeanor warrants, matching field interrogations to reports, electronic pinmapping, Top Ten Program, increased Concentrated Neighborhood Patrol (CNP), officer recognition, etc. Under the concept of the Burglary Reduction Program and utilizing tactics such as furnishing current burglary information to Block Watchers on Patrol, forging partnerships with agencies such as HUD and Neighborhood Maintenance and Zoning, Crime Free Multi-Housing, home security/burglary prevention seminars by Home Depot, etc, the number of burglary clearances within the precinct increased twenty-five percent. In terms of the number of burglaries committed within the precinct, the Burglary Reduction Program has made a positive impact on operations. In April 1998, fifty-percent of the burglary clearances in the City's north zone were contributed to the program. More importantly however, the program has fostered a closer working relationship between work units and neighborhood associations like the Granada Neighborhood Fight Back. Unlike traditional hierarchy structures of police departments where invisible barriers prevent the interaction between work units, the BRP broke down those walls, creating a more synergistic work atmosphere. One of the components of the Burglary Reduction Program, the Strategic Warrant Execution and Enforcement Program (S.W.E.E.P.), is a concept designed to reduce residential burglaries by focusing on misdemeanor warrant enforcement of known high profile offenders. The goal is to keep these offenders in jail on warrants or other lower level disorder-type crimes to prevent them from having the opportunity to commit further crimes. A trained Warrant Apprehension Officer would work in liaison with the State of Arizona Motor Vehicle Department (MVD), Arizona Department of Corrections (DOC), Maricopa County Probation Department, and other entities, to sort and update information on warrant verification, suspect data, possible locations, etc. Utilizing sources such as the City of Phoenix Municipal Court, Maricopa County Probation Department, and the Arizona Department of Corrections Parole Department, the objective is to consolidate a list of the most wanted suspects. An assessment would involve an evaluation of the program's impact on reducing burglaries as well as the degree of cooperation between work units. The Cactus Park Precinct Burglary Reduction Program and the Strategic Warrant Execution and Enforcement Program have made a significant impact in the reduction of residential burglaries. These programs have been an effective deterrent to the residential burglary problem in the City of Phoenix. (swpabstr) # PROJECT DESCRIPTION # INTRODUCTION: Phoenix, Arizona is the $6^{\text {th }}$ largest city in the United States. With a rapidly growing population of $1,412,790$ citizens located in a geographical area of just over 464 square miles, it has more than its share of property related crimes. The Phoenix Police Department's Cactus Park Precinct, located on the City's northwest side, encompasses 111 square miles and serves 315,681 customers on a daily basis. One of the many problems that has plagued the City of Phoenix in recent years has been residential burglaries. In 1997, there were 7,921 residential burglaries reported in the Cactus Park Precinct, representing a $15.3 \%$ increase since 1995. In comparison to the Central City, Desert Horizon, South Mountain, Squaw Peak and Maryvale Precincts, these numbers reflect a growing concern in the precinct. In May 1997, at the request of the Phoenix Police Department, the Behavior Research Center, Inc, conducted a comprehensive survey to measure the City of Phoenix resident's attitudes about the service provided by the police department. Residents were asked to rate the performance of the Phoenix Police Department in twenty activities ranging from honesty of police officers to public safety in their neighborhoods. After being questioned on the importance of good police performance in the area of investigating residential burglaries, approximately ninety percent ( $90 \%$ ) of those surveyed responded that it was extremely important to their community. Additionally, forty-two percent (42\%) of those surveyed in the Cactus Park Precinct, or 140,000 citizens, indicated that they have been victims of residential burglaries within the past two years. In another survey conducted of police department employees, over thirty-two percent (32\%) of the employees indicated that not enough police department resources were being applied to investigate burglaries. What was needed was a creative, long-term, problem solving approach to the problem that focused scarce resources and involved partnerships, both inside and outside the department. The results from the surveys were reviewed by advisory boards made up of a cross section of residents of Phoenix and police employees. These boards identified five major issues that were to become the foundation for the 1998/99 Phoenix Police Department Policing Plan. One the major priorities was for the implementation of a Citywide strategic plan that would significantly reduce the burglary rate in selected targeted areas. As a result, the Burglary Reduction Program, implemented in the Cactus Park Precinct in April, 1997, was designed to impact the increase in residential burglaries in the community by targeting known offenders. Based on the premise that a relatively small number of offenders commit a rather large percentage of the crimes, the program's goal was simple: By keeping the offender incarcerated within the jail system on outstanding misdemeanor warrants or other lower level disorder-type crimes in conjunction with more traditional methods, it would prevent the offender from having an opportunity to commit further crimes. Thereby reducing burglaries within the precinct and having a positive effect on the program's effectiveness. This would differ from traditional law enforcement responses in that it would place a heavy emphasis on developing better methods of targeting and arresting known offenders. In July, 1997, residents from the Cactus Park Precinct's Granada Neighborhood Association met with the police department to discuss their concerns, as well as how partnerships can be built between the community and police to improve the neighborhood's quality of life. A survey was sent to 2,200 residents to determine what issues were most important to the neighborhood. Over eighty percent $(80 \%)$ of the respondents indicated that residential burglaries were their second biggest concern. The other areas of concern were drugs, followed by robbery, gangs, prostitution, auto theft, criminal damage, aggravated assault, arson and theft. Interestingly, one of the things that was discovered in analyzing the residential burglary problem in the community is that burglars often take a cafeteria approach to crime. Residents that failed to maintain and upkeep their yards were often shunned by neighbors and also targeted by Block Watch groups and other neighborhood associations due to their lack of compliance. One feasible solution would be to "weed out" these individuals without affecting surrounding law-abiding neighbors. The Granada Neighborhood Fight Back, funded by an \$80,000 City grant, has made a significant impact against burglaries in the precinct. Under the guidance and direction of Cactus Park Precinct Neighborhood Police Officer J.R. Pool, the Fight Back utilized tactics as furnishing current burglary information to Block Watchers on Patrol (BWOP), forging of partnerships with HUD and Neighborhood Maintenance and Zoning Enforcement, Crime Free Multi-Housing, Concentrated Neighborhood Patrol, home security and burglary prevention seminars by Home Depot and informative Fight Back newsletters. The Fight Back worked successfully under the concept of the Burglary Reduction Program and community based policing philosophy. The Strategic Warrant Execution and Enforcement Program (S.W.E.E.P.), which works as a component to the Burglary Reduction Program, is a law enforcement surgical tool. It encompasses a methodology of first researching and identifying the known offenders within a geographical area then, by utilizing outstanding misdemeanor warrants as well as parole and/or probation violations, locate, arrest and incarcerate these individuals. The ultimate success of the program would be measured not only by the reduction of residential burglaries in a targeted geographical area but, also by the prevention of further burglaries from occurring. # SCANNING: Due to increases in high profile violent crimes in the Cactus Park Precinct, the crime of burglary had been devalued, shifting resources and emphasis elsewhere. In the past, residential burglaries were usually impacted by a heavy saturation of enforcement in the affected problem area. These strategies include a combined team enforcement effort involving such tactics as foot patrol, bicycle squads, undercover detectives, and other public entities such as Zoning Enforcement, Water Department, etc. Under the concept of community based policing, these teams worked in unison to achieve a common goal, which was to remove the criminal element from targeted neighborhoods. Although this approach has been quite successful in terms of the number of arrests within a specific time period as well as a revitalization of neighborhoods, it has its drawbacks. With problem identification, citizens groups, survey results, etc, it was necessary to shift our emphasis to response. These "zero tolerance" programs usually impacted a rather large number of people, both criminal and non-criminal, within the affected area. For example, one of the objectives associated with these programs was to stop and interrogate as many individuals as possible, using reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause as a tool of enforcement. Utilizing this shotgun approach of enforcement can be risky, particularly in a legal arena where criticisms of civil rights violations are becoming commonplace. In addition, this type of approach to reducing crime in a neighborhood can serve as a springboard for citizen's complaints, should officers stop and frisk innocent citizens and bystanders. It became necessary to steer away from "zero tolerance" and other crime prevention programs that do nothing more than collateral damage to our communities. It was necessary to embrace a more creative and innovative approach to solving long-term residential burglaries. An approach that has not been used in the past by law enforcement and, more importantly, one that has been accepted by the community. By concentrating our efforts on identifying and arresting only the criminal element within a specific area without interfering in the lives of decent law abiding citizens, is what should be our primary objective. # ANALYSIS: In May 1997, at the request of the Phoenix Police Department, the Behavior Research Center, Inc, conducted a survey to measure the City of Phoenix resident's attitudes about the service provided by the police department. Residents were asked to rate the performance of the Phoenix Police Department in twenty activities ranging from honesty of police officers to public safety in their neighborhoods. After being questioned on the importance of good police performance in the area of investigating residential burglaries, approximately ninety percent ( $90 \%$ ) of those surveyed responded that it was extremely important to their community. Additionally, forty-two percent ( $42 \%$ ) of the respondents residing in the Cactus Park Precinct, or 140,000 citizens, indicated that they have been victims of residential burglaries within the past two years. In another survey conducted of police department employees, over thirty-two percent (32\%) of the employees indicated that not enough police department resources were being applied to investigate burglaries. A solution to the problem of residential burglaries was desperately needed. In May 1997, under the direction of Commander Emmett H. Quill, the Cactus Park Precinct conducted an analysis of burglaries and burglary clearances for calendar years 1995 through 1997. Three years of data provided by the department's Computer Services Bureau formed the database from which the trends and patterns were identified and allowed for seasonal variation associated with residential burglaries. The results of the analysis were quite disconcerting. Overall, there has been a steady increase of residential burglaries since 1995. In 1997, there were 7,921 residential burglaries reported in the precinct, representing a $15.3 \%$ increase over the previous two calendar years. In addition, several of the community's Block Watch and Neighborhood Fight Back groups were becoming increasingly frustrated with this growing dilemma. # RESPONSE: ## Burglary Reduction Program The Cactus Park Precinct Burglary Reduction Program, implemented in April 1997, was designed to reduce the problem of residential burglaries in the community. The program was based on the following assumptions: - That a relatively small number of offenders within the precinct commit a rather large percentage of the crimes. - By utilizing a concerted effort and Crime Analysis Data, the number of residential burglaries within the precinct could be impacted. - That Crime Analysis information would need to be obtained and disseminated to officers in a useable form, as well as maintained. - The targeting of known offenders would be much more effective than randomly searching for unknown suspects. - A new emphasis on burglary enforcement would need to be conveyed to officers and detectives, including a recognition and reward system to reinforce the program. - A method of assessing the Burglary Reduction Program's impact on the precinct would need to be determined and measured. Some of the strategies that were implemented to support the Burglary Reduction Program were: - Warrant Focus - The Maricopa County Adult Probation Department provided a list of known offenders with outstanding warrants. Known offenders on probation were also targeted to ensure compliance to their restrictions. Misdemeanor warrants were served on all known offenders to keep them incarcerated. - Make-a-Match - Police Automated Computer Entry (PACE) queries were conducted to match field interrogations conducted in targeted neighborhoods with high volumes of burglaries to suspect information contained within Departmental Reports. - Electronic Pin-Mapping - of residential burglaries were posted in the precinct's briefing room and maintained on a regular basis. - Top Ten Program - The most active burglars were targeted by disseminating their photographs and other pertinent information (e.g., name, DOB, AKAs, height, weight, associates, address, vehicles, etc.) to beat officers. - Neighborhoods at Risk - High-risk burglary areas were identified for increased patrol through Concentrated Neighborhood Patrol (CNP), undercover activities focus, Explorer Scout canvassing and the Block Watcher on Patrol Program. - Way-To-Go Program - A method of providing special recognition to those officers whom apprehend burglars in the precinct. Employees would place this form, which highlights the officer's name and details of the incident, on the precinct's briefing room wall for view. - Crime Analysis Officer - A Crime Analysis Officer would be selected from within the precinct to research, locate and arrest these offenders before they are given the opportunity to commit another crime. This officer will be given specialized training in the areas of PACE, Crime Analysis, arrest warrant execution, legal procedures, etc, in order to effectively perform the functions of the assignment. - Program Networking - A network was established between our precinct's Crime Analysis Officer, Directed Enforcement Unit (DEU), our department's North Resource Bureau Detective Unit, Special Projects Detail, Street Crimes Unit (SCU), Special Assignments Unit (SAU), Quick Response Team (QRT), etc, for suspect intelligence and tracking. - Program Liaison Officer - An officer was taken off-line and assigned to the precinct's Neighborhood Policing Unit. This BRP Liaison would be responsible for the following: - The daily analysis of burglary reports submitted by officers - The daily contact with burglary detectives from the North Resource Bureau (NRB) - The daily contact and liaison NRB's Investigative Support Detail (ISD) - Liaison to NRB's Pawn Shop Detail - Ensure that current information is maintained in beat books and on bulletin boards - Attend patrol briefings to share case information with patrol officers - Assist primary case detectives with follow-up investigation as necessary - Identify and track burglary trends and neighborhoods at risk - Maintain statistics regarding the Burglary Reduction Program - Set up advanced PACE query training for patrol officers - Identify candidates for the Top Ten Program - Maintain open lines of communication with the Repeat Offender Program (ROP) - Coordinate the Way-To-Go Program - Ensure that precinct pin maps are up-to-date Working in partnership with the Granada Neighborhood Association, Officer J.R. Pool began tracking neighborhood crime trends and discovered that other than property-related crimes, zoning violations, drugs, prostitution and gangs also needed to be addressed. Working with various City agencies and private organizations, and focusing on identifying the root causes of the problems, Officer Pool developed a comprehensive Neighborhood Fight Back Action Plan for the Granada area. Under the concept of the Burglary Reduction Program and community based policing philosophy, a Drug Hot Line was established, Block Watchers on Patrol were organized, neighborhood clean-up campaigns were introduced, anti-gang and speed enforcement programs were implemented and new partnerships were formed. A long-term, problem solving approach to the problem had finally been introduced to a community that had long awaited a solution. # Strategic Warrant Execution and Enforcement Program In May 1998, the Strategic Warrant Execution and Enforcement Program (S.W.E.E.P.) was implemented in the Cactus Park Precinct, under the direction of Lieutenant Jim Kulesa. S.W.E.E.P. is a strategic law enforcement tool, which operates as a component to the Burglary Reduction Program. It encompasses a methodology of first researching and identifying the known offenders within a specific targeted area then, by utilizing outstanding misdemeanor warrants as well as parole and/or probation violations, locate, arrest and incarcerate these individuals. The ultimate success of the program would be measured not only by the reduction of residential burglaries in a geographical area but also by tins prevention of further burglaries from occurring. What are the advantages of using this type of strategy over those used in the past? Since the offender is serving jail time for an outstanding warrant or parole/probation violation, it would eliminate the "window of opportunity" for this individual to commit further burglaries or other crimes, thereby establishing a foundation for a measurable reduction in burglaries within the precinct. In the past, extensive efforts have been made by law enforcement officials to effectively measure the rate of prevention of specific crimes. These efforts have proven to be somewhat unrealistic and ineffective. In short, it has always been difficult to effectively measure how much crime can actually be prevented in a specific targeted area. By researching and targeting the most active offenders, primarily suspects with a history of burglary and theft arrests, then extracting the subject(s) from a targeted neighborhood without affecting the surrounding areas and/or residents can eliminate long-standing neighborhood problems. The assessment of the Burglary Reduction Program and S.W.E.E.P. will include the number of offenders targeted and arrested as well as the degree of cooperation between departmental units. Unlike traditional hierarchy structures of police departments where invisible barriers have prevented the interaction of work units, these programs break down those walls, fostering a more cooperative and synergistic work atmosphere between the units. # ASSESSMENT: By comparing the nine-month period prior to the start of the Burglary Reduction program to the nine-month period after the program was implemented, the following results were noted: - The number of burglary clearances increased $25 \%$ after the Burglary Reduction Program was implemented when compared to the nine months prior to its implementation (160 to 200). - The burglary clearance rate increased $17.81 \%$ after the Burglary Reduction Program was implemented as compared to the nine months prior to its implementation ( $5.67 \%$ to $6.69 \%$ ). In terms of the total number of burglaries committed, given the overall increase in the number of burglaries from 1995 to 1997 ( +15.3 percent), it is readily apparent that the Burglary Reduction Program has made a positive impact on the Cactus Park Precinct: - Only a $13.99 \%$ increase when April to December data was compared for 1995 - 1997. - Only a $6.06 \%$ increase for the nine months after the Burglary Reduction Program was implemented as compared to the nine months prior. In terms of the number of burglary clearances, it is quite evident that the Burglary Reduction Program has had a significant impact on operations. In spite of an overall trend of slightly decreasing clearances ( $-1.55 \%$ from 1995 to 1997): - There was a $4.71 \%$ increase for burglary clearances for April to December 1995 - 1997, but an $11.11 \%$ increase for April to December 1996-1997. - There was a $25 \%$ increase in burglary clearances for the first nine months of the Burglary Reduction Program as compared to the nine months prior to the program. In terms of the number of clearance rates, it is also apparent that the Burglary Reduction Program has had a positive impact on precinct operations. In spite of an overall consistent decrease in clearance rates ( $-14.53 \%$ from 1995 to 1997): - There was only an $8.10 \%$ decrease in clearance rates when data is compared for April to December 1995-1997. - There was a $17.81 \%$ increase in clearance rates for the first nine months of the Burglary Reduction Program as compared to the nine months prior to the program. It is apparent that the Cactus Park Precinct Burglary Reduction Program has been a tremendous success. From a grass roots level, it has proven to impact the number of burglaries being committed by reducing the percentage increase in the number of burglaries. In simple terms, had it not been for the Burglary Reduction Program, the number of burglaries within the precinct would have been much higher. The continued increase in the number of residential burglaries is a direct result of a multitude of factors. The following are likely factors, but not the only factors: - There is an increasing number of people engaging in the crime of burglary (e.g., opportunists, part-timers, students, "tweekers", etc.). - The burglars we have arrested are not being dealt with effectively by the criminal justice system (e.g., O.R. releases, reluctance to prosecute burglars, plea agreements with stipulations of time served on probation, etc.). The above first factor is mostly intuitive, but tied to the fact that the northwest portion of the City of Phoenix has a definite "tweeker" problem as evidenced by the alarming increase in the number of drug labs manufacturing crystal methamphetamine that are encountered by patrol officers and complained about by neighborhood Block Watch groups. The second factor at this point is mere supposition, but entirely consistent with our devaluation of the importance of property crimes in light of the heightened awareness of violent crimes being committed. Clearly, if targeted, offending burglars are not staying locked up it stands to reason they will "take up where they left off' when returned to the streets. The increase in the number of clearances is reassuring and clearly a direct result of our precinct's ability to apprehend "bad guys" when we really want to. The arrest of known burglars will clearly impact clearance rates and, more importantly, the number of burglaries being committed will occur. With an ever increasing number of people seizing an opportunity to commit burglaries, it could take some time. Therefore, it is not recommended that the total assessment of the program rest on its ability to reduce the number of burglaries being committed, at least not initially. Although that is clearly an enviable and worthwhile goal, it may not be attainable in the near future. There are several other factors that need to be considered before a true assessment of the program can be made. These do not lend themselves to statistical analysis, but are still important i ssues related to the success of the program: - Improved employee morale - Focusing on crime is very rewarding for the officer working patrol (e.g., job satisfaction, job enrichment, etc.). - Improved communication and interaction between bureaus. - Customer satisfaction - With a goal of reduced victimization, citizens realize that we are making progress in reducing crime which directly impacts ihefear of crime. - The officer's perception of management improves as they see us taking positive steps to improve our performance in this area. - Improved effectiveness - Doing the right thing! Focusing on the core value that law enforcement should be working on. Providing a vision and getting people motivated to share that vision. attachments (SWPPROJ) GRAPHS ![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/98-58/img-0.jpeg) # Cactus Park Precinct ## Clearance Rates - **Cactus Park Precinct Clearance Rates**: Reported: 400 - **Clearance Rates**: Reported: 374 - **Clearance**: Reported: 328 - **Clearance**: Reported: 329 - **Clearance**: Reported: 6.61% - **Clearance**: Reported: 6.15% - **Clearance**: Reported: 6.40% - **Clearance**: 4.28% - **Clearance**: 5.11% - **Clearance**: 4.73% - **Clearance**: 6.69% - **Clearance**: 7.26% - **Clearance**: 1.03% - **Clearance**: 1.09% - **Clearance**: 1.15% - **Clearance**: 1.00% - **Clearance**: 0% - **Clearance**: 0% - **Clearance**: 0% - **Average**: 4.97 - **Average**: 5.97 - **Clearance**: 6.97 - **Clearance**: 7.97 - **Clearance**: 6.97 - **Average**: 9.97 - **Clearance**: 10.97 - **Average**: 11.97 - **Clearance**: 12.97 - **Average**: 11.09% - **Clearance**: 1.09% - **Clearance**: 0% - **Average**: 0% - **Clearance**: 0% - **Average**: 0% - **Average**: 0% # Cactus Park Precinct ## Clearance Rates **Reported** **Cleared** **CFS** ![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/98-58/img-1.jpeg) # Average Monthly Burglary Reports vs. Average Monthly Clearance Rates ## Average Monthly Calls for Service (w/o callback) | Year | Average Monthly Burglary Reports vs. Average Monthly Clearance Rates (w/o callback) | | --- | --- | | 2000 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2001 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2002 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2003 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2004 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2005 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2006 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2007 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2008 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2009 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2010 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2011 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2012 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2013 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2014 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2015 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2016 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2017 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2018 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2019 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2020 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2021 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2022 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2023 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2024 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2025 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2026 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2027 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2028 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2029 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2030 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2031 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2032 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2033 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2034 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2035 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2036 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2037 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2038 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2039 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2040 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2041 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2042 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2043 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2044 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2045 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2046 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2047 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2048 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2049 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2050 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2051 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2052 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2053 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2054 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2055 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2056 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2057 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2058 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2059 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2060 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2061 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2062 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2063 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2064 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2065 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2066 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2067 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2068 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2069 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2070 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2071 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2072 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2073 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2074 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2075 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2076 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2077 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2078 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2079 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2080 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2081 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2082 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2083 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2084 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2085 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2086 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2087 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2088 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2089 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2090 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2091 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2092 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2093 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2094 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2095 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2096 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2097 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2098 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2099 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20900 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2091 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2092 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2093 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2094 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2095 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2096 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2097 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2098 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2099 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20910 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20911 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20912 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20913 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20914 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20915 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20916 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20917 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20918 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20919 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20920 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20921 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20922 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20923 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20924 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20925 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20926 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20927 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20928 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20929 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20930 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20931 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20932 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20933 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20934 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20935 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20936 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20937 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20938 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20939 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20940 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20941 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20942 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20943 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20944 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20945 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20946 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20947 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20948 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20949 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20950 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20951 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20952 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20953 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20954 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20955 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20956 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20957 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20958 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20959 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20960 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20961 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20962 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20963 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20964 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20965 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20966 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20967 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20968 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20969 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20970 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20971 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20972 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20973 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20974 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20975 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20976 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20977 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20978 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20979 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20980 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20981 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20982 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20983 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20984 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20985 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20986 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20987 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20988 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20989 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20990 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20991 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20992 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20993 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20994 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20995 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20996 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20997 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20998 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20999 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209910 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209911 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209920 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209921 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209930 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209931 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209940 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209950 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209951 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209960 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209961 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209970 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209971 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209980 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209981 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209990 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209991 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209992 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209993 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209994 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209995 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209996 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209997 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209998 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209999 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2099100 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20991100 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209911100 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209912000 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2099120000 | 7.5% Clearance | | 2099130000 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209913001 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20991400000 | 7.5% Clearance | | 209914010000 | 7.5% Clearance | | 20991500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 # CACTUS PARK PRECINCT **Reported** **Cleared** **Burglaries and Clearances** **For 7/97-8/97 vs 4/97-12/97** | Year | Total 200 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | 2054 | 2055 | 2056 | 2057 | 2058 | 2059 | 2060 | 2061 | 2062 | 2063 | 2064 | 2065 | 2066 | 2067 | 2068 | 2069 | 2070 | 2071 | 2072 | 2073 | 2074 | 2075 | 2076 | 2077 | 2078 | 2079 | 2080 | 2081 | 2082 | 2083 | 2084 | 2085 | 2086 | 2087 | 2088 | 2089 | 2090 | 2091 | 2092 | 2093 | 2094 | 2095 | 2096 | 2097 | 2098 | 2099 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | 2054 | 2055 | 2056 | 2057 | 2058 | 2059 | 2060 | 2061 | 2062 | 2063 | 2064 | 2065 | 2066 | 2067 | 2068 | 2069 | 2070 | 2071 | 2072 | 2073 | 2074 | 2075 | 2076 | 2077 | 2078 | 2079 | 2080 | 2081 | 2082 | 2083 | 2084 | 2085 | 2086 | 2087 | 2088 | 2089 | 2090 | 2091 | 2092 | 2093 | 2094 | 2095 | 2096 | 2097 | 2098 | 2099 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | 2054 | 2055 | 2056 | 2057 | 2058 | 2059 | 2060 | 2061 | 2062 | 2063 | 2064 | 2065 | 2066 | 2067 | 2068 | 2069 | 2070 | 2071 | 2072 | 2073 | 2074 | 2075 | 2076 | 2077 | 2078 | 2079 | 2080 | 2081 | 2082 | 2083 | 2084 | 2085 | 2086 | 2087 | 2088 | 2089 | 2090 | 2091 | 2092 | 2093 | 2094 | 2095 | 2096 | 2097 | 2098 | 2099 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | 2054 | 2055 | 2056 | 2057 | 2058 | 2059 | 2060 | 2061 | 2062 | 2063 | 2064 | 2065 | 2066 | 2067 | 2068 | 2069 | 2070 | 2071 | 2072 | 2073 | 2074 | 2075 | 2076 | 2077 | 2078 | 2079 | 2080 | 2081 | 2082 | 2083 | 2084 | 2085 | 2086 | 2087 | 2088 | 2089 | 2090 | 2091 | 2092 | 2093 | 2094 | 2095 | 2096 | 2097 | 2098 | 2099 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | 2054 | 2055 | 2056 | 2057 | 2058 | 2059 | 2060 | 2061 | 2062 | 2063 | 2064 | 2065 | 2066 | 2067 | 2068 | 2069 | 2070 | 2071 | 2072 | 2073 | 2074 | 2075 | 2076 | 2077 | 2078 | 2079 | 2080 | 2081 | 2082 | 2083 | 2084 | 2085 | 2086 | 2087 | 2088 | 2089 | 2090 | 2091 | 2092 | 2093 | 2094 | 2095 | 2096 | 2097 | 2098 | 2099 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | 2054 | 2055 | 2056 | 2057 | 2058 | 2059 | 2060 | 2061 | 2062 | 2063 | 2064 | 2065 | 2066 | 2067 | 2068 | 2069 | 2070 | 2071 | 2072 | 2073 | 2074 | 2075 | 2076 | 2077 | 2078 | 2079 | 2080 | 2081 | 2082 | 2083 | 2084 | 2085 | 2086 | 2087 | 2088 | 2089 | 2090 | 2091 | 2092 | 2093 | 2094 | 2095 | 2096 | 2097 | 2098 | 2099 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | 2054 | 2055 | 2056 | 2057 | 2058 | 2059 | 2060 | 2061 | 2062 | 2063 | 2064 | 2065 | 2066 | 2067 | 2068 | 2069 | 2070 | 2071 | 2072 | 2073 | 2074 | 2075 | 2076 | 2077 | 2078 | 2079 | 2080 | 2081 | 2082 | 2083 | 2084 | 2085 | 2086 | 2087 | 2088 | 2089 | 2090 | 2091 | 2092 | 2093 | 2094 | 2095 | 2096 | 2097 | 2098 | 2099 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | 2054 | 2055 | 2056 | 2057 | 2058 | 2059 | 2060 | 2061 | 2062 | 2063 | 2064 | 2065 | 2066 | 2067 | 2068 | 2069 | 2070 | 2071 | 2072 | 2073 | 2074 | 2075 | 2076 | 2077 | 2078 | 2079 | 2080 | 2081 | 2082 | 2083 | 2084 | 2085 | 2086 | 2087 | 2088 | 2089 | 2090 | 2091 | 2092 | 2093 | 2094 | 2095 | 2096 | 2097 | 2098 | 2099 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | 2054 | 2055 | 2056 | 2057 | 2058 | 2059 | 2060 | 2061 | 2062 | 2063 | 2064 | 2065 | 2066 | 2067 | 2068 | 2069 | 2070 | 2071 | 2072 | 2073 | 2074 | 2075 | 2076 | 2077 | 2078 | 2079 | 2080 | 2081 | 2082 | 2083 | 2084 | 2085 | 2086 | 2087 | 2088 | 2089 | 2090 | 2091 | 2092 | 2093 | 2094 | 2095 | 2096 | 2097 | 2098 | 2099 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | 2054 | 2055 | 2056 | 2057 | 2058 | 2059 | 2060 | 2061 | 2062 | 2063 | 2064 | 2065 | 2066 | 2067 | 2068 | 2069 | 2070 | 2071 | 2072 | 2073 | 2074 | 2075 | 2076 | 2077 | 2078 | 2079 | 2080 | 2081 | 2082 | 2083 | 2084 | 2085 | 2086 | 2087 | 2088 | 2089 | 2090 | 2091 | 2092 | 2093 | 2094 | 2095 | 2096 | 2097 | 2098 | 2099 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | 2054 | 2055 | 2056 | 2057 | 2058 | 2059 | 2060 | 2061 | 2062 | 2063 | 2064 | 2065 | 2066 | 2067 | 2068 | 2069 | 2070 | 2071 | 2072 | 2073 | 2074 | 2075 | 2076 | 2077 | 2078 | 2079 | 2080 | 2081 | 2082 | 2083 | 2084 | 2085 | 2086 | 2087 | 2088 | 2089 | 2090 | 2091 | 2092 | 2093 | 2094 | 2095 | 2096 | 2097 | 2098 | 2099 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | 2054 | 2055 | 2056 | 2057 | 2058 | 2059 | 2060 | 2061 | 2062 | 2063 | 2064 | 2065 | 2066 | 2067 | 2068 | 2069 | 2070 | 2071 | 2072 | 2073 | 2074 | 2075 | 2076 | 2077 | 2078 | 2079 | 2080 | 2081 | 2082 | 2083 | 2084 | 2085 | 2086 | 2087 | 2088 | 2089 | 2090 | 2091 | 2092 | 2093 | 2094 | 2095 | 2096 | 2097 | 2098 | 2099 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | 2054 | 2055 | 2056 | 2057 | 2058 | 2059 | 2060 | 2061 | 2062 | 2063 | 2064 | 2065 | 2066 | 2067 | 2068 | 2069 | 2070 | 2071 | 2072 | 2073 | 2074 | 2075 | 2076 | 2077 | 2078 | 2079 | 2080 | 2081 | 2082 | 2083 | 2084 | 2085 | 2086 | 2087 | 2088 | 2089 | 2090 | 2091 | 2092 | 2093 | 2094 | 2095 | 2096 | 2097 | 2098 | 2099 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | 2054 | 2055 | 2056 | 2057 | 2058 | 2059 | 2060 | 2061 | 2062 | 2063 | 2064 | 2065 | 2066 | 2067 | 2068 | 2069 | 2070 | 2071 | 2072 | 2073 | 2074 | 2075 | 2076 | 2077 | 2078 | 2079 | 2080 | 2081 | 2082 | 2083 | 2084 | 2085 | 2086 | 2087 | 2088 | 2089 | 2090 | 2091 | 2092 | 2093 | 2094 | 2095 | 2096 | 2097 | 2098 | 2099 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | 2054 | 2055 | 2056 | 2057 | 2058 | 2059 | 2060 | 2061 | 2062 | 2063 | 2064 | 2065 | 2066 | 2067 | 2068 | 2069 | 2070 | 2071 | 2072 | 2073 | 2074 | 2075 | 2076 | 2077 | 2078 | 2079 | 2080 | 2081 | 2082 | 2083 | 2084 | 2085 | 2086 | 2087 | 2088 | 2089 | 2090 | 2091 | 2092 | 2093 | 2094 | 2095 | 2096 | 2097 | 2098 | 2099 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2025 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2020 | 2021 | 2021 | 2022 | 2021 | 2021 | 2021 | 2021 | 2021 | 2022 | 2021 | 2022 | 2021 | 2022 | 2021 | 2022 | 2021 | 2022 | 2021 | 2022 | 2022 | 2022 | 2022 | 2022 | 2022 | 2022 | 2022 | 2022 | 2023 | 2023 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2025 | 2025 | 2025 | 2026 | 2026 | 2026 | 2026 | 2026 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2027 | 2027 | 2027 | 2028 | 2028 | 2028 | 2029 | 2028 | 2029 | 2028 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2030 | 2029 | 2029 | 2029 | 2030 | 2029 | 2030 | 2029 | 2030 | 2029 | 2030 | 2029 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 2030 | 203 # Cactus Park Precinct ## Burglary Reduction Program ### Reported vs. Cleared | Year |成功率 | 成功率 | 成功率 | 成功率 | 成功率 | 成功率 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 2006 | 6.69% | 13.93% | 7.28% | 11.03% | 11.03% | 11.03% | | 2007 | 6.69% | 13.93% | 7.28% | 11.03% | 11.03% | 11.03% | | 2008 | 6.69% | 13.93% | 7.28% | 11.03% | 11.03% | 11.03% | | 2009 | 6.69% | 13.93% | 7.28% | 11.03% | 11.03% | 11.03% | | 2010 | 6.69% | 13.93% | 7.28% | 11.03% | 11.03% | 11.03% | ![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/98-58/img-2.jpeg) # Burglaries, Clearances For Calendar Years 1995-1997 ## CACTUS PARK PRECINCT ### Reported | Year | Clearances | | --- | --- | | 1995 | 3.30% | | 1996 | 6.13% | | 1997 | 8.73% | | 1998 | 9.21% | | 1999 | 9.91% | | 2000 | 8.30% | | 2001 | 7.08% | | 2002 | 6.77% | | 2003 | 4.50% | | 2004 | 9.55% | | 2005 | 9.20% | | 2006 | 3.75% | | 2007 | 7.66% | | 2008 | 5.40% | | 2009 | 8.00% | | 2010 | 4.14% | | 2011 | 4.02% | | 2012 | 7.14% | | 2013 | 4.72% | ### Total 3504 Burlaries: 292/mo | Year | Clearances | | --- | --- | | 1995 | 2.96% | | 1996 | 3.95% | | 1997 | 6.95% | | 1998 | 9.05% | | 1999 | 10.05% | | 2000 | 11.05% | | 2001 | 11.95% | | 2002 | 12.95% | | 2003 | 13.95% | | 2004 | 14.95% | | 2005 | 15.95% | | 2006 | 16.95% | | 2007 | 17.95% | | 2008 | 18.95% | | 2009 | 19.95% | | 2010 | 20.95% | | 2011 | 21.95% | | 2012 | 22.95% | | 2013 | 23.95% | | 2014 | 24.95% | | 2015 | 25.95% | | 2016 | 26.95% | | 2017 | 27.95% | | 2018 | 28.95% | | 2019 | 29.95% | | 2020 | 30.95% | | 2021 | 31.95% | | 2022 | 32.95% | | 2023 | 33.95% | | 2024 | 34.95% | | 2025 | 35.95% | | 2026 | 36.95% | | 2027 | 37.95% | | 2028 | 38.95% | | 2029 | 39.95% | | 2030 | 40.95% | | 2031 | 41.95% | | 2032 | 42.95% | | 2033 | 43.95% | | 2034 | 44.95% | | 2035 | 45.95% | | 2036 | 46.95% | | 2037 | 47.95% | | 2038 | 48.95% | | 2039 | 49.95% | | 2040 | 50.95% | | 2041 | 51.95% | | 2042 | 52.95% | | 2043 | 53.95% | | 2044 | 54.95% | | 2045 | 55.95% | | 2046 | 56.95% | | 2047 | 57.95% | | 2048 | 58.95% | | 2049 | 59.95% | | 2050 | 60.95% | | 2051 | 61.95% | | 2052 | 62.95% | | 2053 | 63.95% | | 2054 | 64.95% | | 2055 | 65.95% | | 2056 | 66.95% | | 2057 | 67.95% | | 2058 | 68.95% | | 2059 | 69.95% | | 2060 | 70.95% | | 2061 | 71.95% | | 2062 | 72.95% | | 2063 | 73.95% | | 2064 | 74.95% | | 2065 | 75.95% | | 2066 | 76.95% | | 2067 | 77.95% | | 2068 | 78.95% | | 2069 | 79.95% | | 2070 | 80.95% | | 2071 | 81.95% | | 2072 | 82.95% | | 2073 | 83.95% | | 2074 | 84.95% | | 2075 | 85.95% | | 2076 | 86.95% | | 2077 | 87.95% | | 2078 | 88.95% | | 2079 | 89.95% | | 2080 | 90.95% | | 2081 | 91.95% | | 2082 | 92.95% | | 2083 | 93.95% | | 2084 | 94.95% | | 2085 | 95.95% | | 2086 | 96.95% | | 2087 | 97.95% | | 2088 | 98.95% | | 2089 | 99.95% | | 2090 | 100.95% | | 2091 | 101.95% | | 2092 | 102.95% | | 2093 | 103.95% | | 2094 | 104.95% | | 2095 | 105.95% | | 2096 | 106.95% | | 2097 | 107.95% | | 2098 | 108.95% | | 2099 | 109.95% | | 2010 | 110.95% | | 2011 | 111.95% | | 2012 | 112.95% | | 2013 | 113.95% | | 2014 | 114.95% | | 2015 | 115.95% | | 2016 | 116.95% | | 2017 | 117.95% | | 2018 | 118.95% | | 2019 | 119.95% | | 2020 | 111.95% | | 2021 | 112.95% | | 2022 | 113.95% | | 2023 | 114.95% | | 2024 | 115.95% | | 2025 | 116.95% | | 2026 | 117.95% | | 2027 | 118.95% | | 2028 | 119.95% | | 2029 | 111.95% | | 2030 | 112.95% | | 2031 | 113.95% | | 2032 | 114.95% | | 2033 | 115.95% | | 2034 | 116.95% | | 2035 | 117.95% | | 2036 | 118.95% | | 2037 | 119.95% | | 2038 | 111.95% | | 2039 | 112.95% | | 2040 | 113.95% | | 2041 | 114.95% | | 2042 | 115.95% | | 2043 | 116.95% | | 2044 | 117.95% | | 2045 | 118.95% | | 2046 | 119.95% | | 2047 | 118.95% | | 2048 | 119.95% | | 2049 | 118.95% | | 2050 | 119.05% | | 2051 | 119.95% | | 2052 | 118.95% | | 2053 | 119.95% | | 2054 | 118.95% | | 2055 | 119.95% | | 2056 | 119.95% | | 2057 | 119.95% | | 2058 | 119.95% | | 2059 | 119.95% | | 2060 | 119.05% | | 2061 | 119.95% | | 2062 | 119.95% | | 2063 | 119.95% | | 2064 | 119.95% | | 2065 | 119.95% | | 2066 | 119.95% | | 2067 | 119.95% | | 2068 | 119.95% | | 2069 | 119.95% | | 2070 | 119.95% | | 2071 | 119.95% | | 2072 | 119.95% | | 2073 | 119.95% | | 2074 | 119.95% | | 2075 | 119.95% | | 2076 | 119.95% | | 2077 | 119.95% | | 2078 | 119.95% | | 2079 | 119.95% | | 2080 | 119.95% | | 2081 | 119.95% | | 2082 | 119.95% | | 2083 | 119.95% | | 2084 | 119.95% | | 2085 | 119.95% | | 2086 | 119.95% | | 2087 | 119.95% | | 2088 | 119.95% | | 2089 | 119.95% | | 2090 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2010 | 119.95% | | 2011 | 119.95% | | 2012 | 119.95% | | 2013 | 119.95% | | 2014 | 119.95% | | 2015 | 119.95% | | 2016 | 119.95% | | 2017 | 119.95% | | 2018 | 119.95% | | 2019 | 119.95% | | 2020 | 119.95% | | 2021 | 119.95% | | 2022 | 119.95% | | 2023 | 119.95% | | 2024 | 119.95% | | 2025 | 119.95% | | 2026 | 119.95% | | 2027 | 119.95% | | 2028 | 119.95% | | 2029 | 119.95% | | 2030 | 119.95% | | 2031 | 119.95% | | 2032 | 119.95% | | 2033 | 119.95% | | 2034 | 119.95% | | 2035 | 119.95% | | 2036 | 119.95% | | 2037 | 119.95% | | 2038 | 119.95% | | 2039 | 119.95% | | 2040 | 119.95% | | 2041 | 119.95% | | 2042 | 119.95% | | 2043 | 119.95% | | 2044 | 119.95% | | 2045 | 119.95% | | 2046 | 119.95% | | 2047 | 119.95% | | 2048 | 119.95% | | 2049 | 119.95% | | 2050 | 119.05% | | 2051 | 119.95% | | 2052 | 119.95% | | 2053 | 119.95% | | 2054 | 119.95% | | 2055 | 119.95% | | 2056 | 119.95% | | 2057 | 119.95% | | 2058 | 119.95% | | 2059 | 119.95% | | 2060 | 119.05% | | 2061 | 119.95% | | 2062 | 119.95% | | 2063 | 119.95% | | 2064 | 119.95% | | 2065 | 119.95% | | 2066 | 119.95% | | 2067 | 119.95% | | 2068 | 119.95% | | 2069 | 119.95% | | 2070 | 119.95% | | 2071 | 119.95% | | 2072 | 119.95% | | 2073 | 119.95% | | 2074 | 119.95% | | 2075 | 119.95% | | 2076 | 119.95% | | 2077 | 119.95% | | 2078 | 119.95% | | 2079 | 119.95% | | 2080 | 119.95% | | 2081 | 119.95% | | 2082 | 119.95% | | 2083 | 119.95% | | 2084 | 119.95% | | 2085 | 119.95% | | 2086 | 119.95% | | 2087 | 119.95% | | 2088 | 119.95% | | 2089 | 119.95% | | 2090 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2010 | 119.95% | | 2011 | 119.95% | | 2012 | 119.95% | | 2013 | 119.95% | | 2014 | 119.95% | | 2015 | 119.95% | | 2016 | 119.95% | | 2017 | 119.95% | | 2018 | 119.95% | | 2019 | 119.95% | | 2020 | 119.95% | | 2021 | 119.95% | | 2022 | 119.95% | | 2023 | 119.95% | | 2024 | 119.95% | | 2025 | 119.95% | | 2026 | 119.95% | | 2027 | 119.95% | | 2028 | 119.95% | | 2029 | 119.95% | | 2030 | 119.95% | | 2031 | 119.95% | | 2032 | 119.95% | | 2033 | 119.95% | | 2034 | 119.95% | | 2035 | 119.95% | | 2036 | 119.95% | | 2037 | 119.95% | | 2038 | 119.95% | | 2039 | 119.95% | | 2040 | 119.95% | | 2041 | 119.95% | | 2042 | 119.95% | | 2043 | 119.95% | | 2044 | 119.95% | | 2045 | 119.95% | | 2046 | 119.95% | | 2047 | 119.95% | | 2048 | 119.95% | | 2049 | 119.95% | | 2050 | 119.05% | | 2051 | 119.95% | | 2052 | 119.95% | | 2053 | 119.95% | | 2054 | 119.95% | | 2055 | 119.95% | | 2056 | 119.95% | | 2057 | 119.95% | | 2058 | 119.95% | | 2059 | 119.95% | | 2060 | 119.05% | | 2061 | 119.95% | | 2062 | 119.95% | | 2063 | 119.95% | | 2064 | 119.95% | | 2065 | 119.95% | | 2066 | 119.95% | | 2067 | 119.95% | | 2068 | 119.95% | | 2069 | 119.95% | | 2070 | 119.95% | | 2071 | 119.95% | | 2072 | 119.95% | | 2073 | 119.95% | | 2074 | 119.95% | | 2075 | 119.95% | | 2076 | 119.95% | | 2077 | 119.95% | | 2078 | 119.95% | | 2079 | 119.95% | | 2080 | 119.95% | | 2081 | 119.95% | | 2082 | 119.95% | | 2083 | 119.95% | | 2084 | 119.95% | | 2085 | 119.95% | | 2086 | 119.95% | | 2087 | 119.95% | | 2088 | 119.95% | | 2089 | 119.95% | | 2090 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2092 | 119.95% | | 2093 | 119.95% | | 2094 | 119.95% | | 2095 | 119.95% | | 2096 | 119.95% | | 2097 | 119.95% | | 2098 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2099 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | | 2091 | 119.95% | ![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/98-58/img-3.jpeg) # Monthly CFS w/o Callback ## Monthly Burglary Reports ## Monthly Clearance Rate **Reported** **Cleared** **CFS** | Month | CFS (mm) | Percentage | | --- | --- | --- | | January | 4.7 | 9.68% | | February | 4.8 | 9.73% | | April | 4.7 | 9.36% | | May | 4.5 | 10.83% | | Jun | 3.2 | 10.27% | | Jul | 3.2 | 10.27% | | Aug | 3.2 | 10.27% | | Sep | 3.2 | 10.27% | | Oct | 3.2 | 10.27% | | Nov | 3.2 | 10.27% | | Dec | 3.2 | 10.27% | | Total | 4.8 | 100% | **January '97 - April '97** **Average Clearance Rate 5.66%** **May '97 - August '97** **Average Clearance Rate 8.15%** **12,000** # SUPPORT DOCUMENTS # PHOENIX LAW ENFORCEMENT SURVEY VOLUME I: SUMMARY ANALYSIS May 1997 Preps ret! for City of Phoenix Police Department Prepared by Behavior Research Center, Inc. 1101 North First Street Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (602) 258-4554 # EVALUATION OF PPD PERFORMANCE IN SELECTED AREAS (MEAN RATING 1-5 SCALE) ![img-4.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/98-58/img-4.jpeg) # IMPORTANCE OF SELECTED FACTORS WHEN VICTIM OF PROPERTY CRIME/ CRIME AGAINST YOUR PERSON Phoenix residents were asked to imagine they were the victim of either a property crime or a crime against their person and then to rate the importance of a variety of factors in such circumstances. Looking first at property crimes, we find that two out of three residents feel that three factors are very important to them - arrest of the suspect ( $76 \%$ ), quick response to the scene by police ( $71 \%$ ) and recovery of one's property ( $71 \%$ ) and recovery of one's property ( $68 \%$ ). The remaining three factors tested were very important to a simple majority of residents - a show of concern from the responding officer ( $55 \%$ ), education in crime prevention and safety tips ( $53 \%$ ) and progress reports from the police ( $52 \%$ ). In terms of crimes against their person, 84 percent of residents indicate that quick response and arrest of the suspect is very important to them. The remaining three factors receive lower very important readings but ones which in every case are higher than for property crimes - a show of concern from the responding officer ( $67 \%$ ), progress reports ( $65 \%$ ) and education in crime prevention and safety tips ( $57 \%$ ). ## TABLE 10: IMPORTANCE OF SELECTED FACTORS WHEN VICTIM OF PROPERTY CRIME/CRIME AGAINST YOUR PERSON "Next, if you were the victim of a property crime such as a break-in of your home or car, auto theft or vandalism, how important would each of the following factors be to you - very important, important, not very important or not at all important?" | | Very Impor- tant | Impor- tant | Not Very Impor- tant | Not At All Impor- tant | Not Sure | 'MEAN | | :-- | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Arrest of the suspect | $76 \%$ | $22 \%$ | $2 \%$ | $0 \%$ | * | 1.25 | | Quick response to the scene by police | 71 | 27 | 2 | 0 | * | 1.30 | | Recovery of your property | 68 | 28 | 3 | * | 1 | 1.35 | | A show of concern from the responding officer | 55 | 38 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1.51 | | Education in crime prevention and safe- ty tips to avoid a recurrence of the crime | 53 | 39 | 7 | * | 1 | 1.54 | | Progress reports from the police on the status of your case | 52 | 41 | 6 | * | 1 | 1.54 | # IMPORTANCE OF GOOD POLICE PERFORMANCE IN SELECTED AREAS After residents had evaluated Phoenix Police Department performance in each of the 20 activities just discussed, they were asked how important good police performance in each activity was to them. As may be seen in Table 5, four of the activities studied receive extremely high importance readings of over 4.50 on a five point scale - responding to emergencies (4.66), fighting gang activity (4.56), arresting drunk drivers (4.53) and fighting illegal drug traffic (4.51). . An additional 10 activities receive importance readings of over 4.00 with two-thirds or more of residents offering readings in the four to five range. - Operating school programs such as DARE \& GREAT (4.32) - Investigating house break-ins (4.28) - Investigating domestic violence cases (4.28) - Working with citizens to solve neighborhood problems (4.27) - Improving police-youth relations (4.26) - Operating crime prevention programs such as Block Watch and Crime-free Multi-housing (4.25) - Improving police-community relations (4.19) - Improving police-minority relations (4.07) - Enforcing traffic laws (4.05) - Investigating stolen vehicles (4.04) Arresting prostitutes (3.38) and responding to non-emergencies (3.48) received the lowest importance readings. # PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMBER SURVEY SUMMARY TABLES May 1997 Prepared for City of Phoenix Police Department Prepared by Behavior Research Center, Inc. 1101 North First Street Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (602) 258-4554 # Phoenix Police Department Member Survey Total Department Summary Summary of Responses to Application of Available Resources Section | | Total | Far Too Little Enough | Not | About | More Than | Far Too Much | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | Right | | | | | Q116. FIGHTING GANG ACTIVITY. | 2445 | 364 | 1059 | 879 | 104 | 39 | 2.34 | | | 100.00 | 14.89 | 43.31 | 35.95 | 4.25 | 1.60 | | | Q117. GRAFFITI ENFORCEMENT. | 2431 | 102 | 494 | 1339 | 357 | 139 | 2.97 | | | 100.00 | 4.20 | 20.32 | 55.08 | 14.69 | 5.72 | | | Q118. PROSTITUTION ENFORCEMENT. | 2401 | 126 | 482 | 1391 | 295 | 107 | 2.91 | | | 100.00 | 5.25 | 20.07 | 57.93 | 12.29 | 4.46 | | | Q119. BURGLARY INVESTIGATION. | 2378 | 238 | 776 | 1315 | 35 | 14 | 2.50 | | | 100.00 | 10.01 | 32.63 | 55.30 | 1.47 | 0.59 | | | Q120. JUVENILE CRIME. | 2409 | 433 | 996 | 928 | 39 | 13 | 2.25 | | | 100.00 | 17.97 | 41.34 | 38.52 | 1.62 | 0.54 | | | Q121. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATION. | 2325 | 109 | 384 | 1801 | 28 | 3 | 2.76 | | | 100.00 | 4.69 | 16.52 | 77.46 | 1.20 | 0.13 | | | Q122. HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION. | 2332 | 74 | 355 | 1827 | 60 | 16 | 2.82 | | | 100.00 | 3.17 | 15.22 | 78.34 | 2.57 | 0.69 | | | Q123. CRIME LAB SERVICES. | 2313 | 190 | 653 | 1451 | 15 | 4 | 2.56 | | | 100.00 | 8.21 | 28.23 | 62.73 | 0.65 | 0.17 | | | Q124. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. | 2374 | 79 | 416 | 1579 | 227 | 73 | 2.92 | | | 100.00 | 3.33 | 17.52 | 66.51 | 9.56 | 3.07 | | | Q125. RECORDS AND IDENTIFICATION SERVICES. | 2357 | 156 | 523 | 1624 | 44 | 10 | 2.67 | | | 100.00 | 6.62 | 22.19 | 68.90 | 1.87 | 0.42 | | | Q126. INVESTIGATING MINOR TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS. | 2385 | 67 | 191 | 1114 | 600 | 413 | 3.46 | | | 100.00 | 2.81 | 8.01 | 46.71 | 25.16 | 17.32 | | | Q127. FIGHTING ILLEGAL DRUG ACTIVITY. | 2411 | 453 | 1064 | 799 | 65 | 30 | 2.23 | | | 100.00 | 18.79 | 44.13 | 33.14 | 2.70 | 1.24 | | | Q128. ENFORCEMENT OF PUBLIC DISORDER STATUTES SUCH AS LIQUOR LAWS, LOITERING WITH INTENT, CITY CODES, NEIGHBORHOOD DISTURBANCES, NOISE, COMPLAINTS AND SUSPICIOUS PERSONS. | 2387 | 174 | 501 | 1400 | 223 | 89 | 2.81 | | | 100.00 | 7.29 | 20.99 | 58.65 | 9.34 | 3.73 | | # Burglary Reduction Program Recap 4-6-98 William Dale Otto w/m 01 -11 -65,459 arrest Field officers responded to a call of a burglary in progress at 2209 West Charter Oak. Officer Jayne Clark was able to apprehend the suspect. S94 squad responded. The suspect was ROPed and booked for burglary and theft. 4-6-98 Brian Denton Jones w/m 03-08-74 and David E. Newington w/m 08-28-75, 459F arrest 80569726. SCU received information from Projects that these two subjects were doing multiple 459 s, from garages and selling the proceeds to Projects. SCU set up for a fixed wing aircraft, and was able to observe both suspects burglarize three homes. Both suspects were ROPed and booked. 4-6-98 Brian Kenneth Unfried w/m 06-02-70, 459 arrest. Don Moore w/m 06-08-60,315 arrest 900 PDP was surveilling the home at 1420 West Taro reference an unusual amount of foot traffic. Officer Zo liars was able to connect one of the subjects going into the home as committing a forgery earlier in the day. Detective Burgess was able to write and execute a search warrant at the home recovering property for $13,459 \mathrm{~F}$ 's and all of the merchandise that was obtained by committing forgeries. DR 80-565772. 4-7-98 Michael G. Lira w/m 01-01-76,459 and 487V arrest SCU was surveilling the area of 400 West Pontiac when suspect Lira drove by in a stolen car. They were able to recover property from a 459 in the car. DR 80-567024. 4-7-98 Chad Thomas Arcadia h/m 11-07-77,1051 arrest Top Ten, Projects arrested this suspect on warrants. 4-7-98 Jason Eric Stein w/m 03-07-78,1051 arrest Top Ten suspect taken off for warrants by SCU. 4-7-98 Christopher Hawk w/m 05-08-83,459 arrest Detective Eilering responded to 459 call. He was able to interview the 13 year old daughter of the victim, and was able to identify two suspects. Detective Eirlering was able to recover three stolen guns. The hunt for suspect \#2 continues. DR 80-573304. 4-8-98 Kevin C. McQuade w/m 05-05-59,459 arrest Detective Eilering made this suspect, and filed a file stop. 800 precinct officers apprehended him. Detective Eilering booked him. DR 80-489686. # Bradley Thiss, Commander MONTHLY REPORT OF PAP STATISTICS Page 10 4-8-98 Daniel L. Henry w/m 12-22-98,487 arrest possession of stolen property from 459 DR 80-288157. SCU made a warrant arrest the day earlier and discovered stolen property. A search warrant was executed and the victims property was found. Harold Walter Simon w/m 03-31-54,459 arrest 900 precinct field officers investigated this 459 and was able to apprehend the suspect and recover the stolen property. DR 80-598088. Larry Holt Givens b/m 11-12-73, this suspect stole a vehicle for Aaron Burns who is a burglar. 900 PDP set up on the area and was able to arrest him after a short pursuit. Booked for prohibited possesser of a fire arm, stolen vehicle and felony pursuit, trespassing, DU1 drugs. The suspect also had gold jewelry on him believed to be stolen. DR 80-610597. Sarah Leah Molitor w/f 10-26-79, Sarah was number one on the Top Ten burglar list. SCU was assigned to find her and in two days were able to find and arrest her. Booked on a 1051 warrant for 459 and PC for another burglary. She was found hiding out at her mothers home at 2561 West Avalon. DR 80-211117. Lacrecia Kaye Higgins w/f 11-12-60, Lacrecai is the mother of Molitor and was found to be 1051 for the possession of drugs and was booked by SCU officers. Gregory Allen Jenson w/m 08-09-70, was found by SCU while surveilling Molitor to be in possession of stolen property from five burglaries and a stolen vehicle. Steven Dobson w/m 03-01-68, was with Jenson when SCU apprehended both of them leaving suspect Molitor's home. Booked. Aaron Scott Burns w/m 05-08-79, Aaron was on the Top Ten burglar list He was wanted on PC to arrest on possession of stolen property. 900 PDP looked for him and apprehended him. Detective WiUrich interviewed him, and booked him for possession of stolen property. Daniel Weston w/m 10-06-80, Detective Eilering developed PC for arrest on Daniel along with Christopher Hawk on DR 80-573304. Daniel was a listed run-away and was apprehended by the field reference a suspicious person call. Detective Eilering responded to the field stop, and detained Daniel for burglary. Bradley Thiss, Commander MONTHLY REPORT OF PAP STATISTICS Page 11 4-19-98 Daniel Iverson w/m 07-18-74,600 precinct officers responded to a 459F in progress and found Top Ten candidate Daniel in possession of stolen property from numerous 459Fs. NRB 600 detectives responded and took disposition. DR 80-644559. 4-20-98 Edgar Benitez h/ra 08-28-70, Detective Willrich developed probable cause to pick up Patricia Castleberry for possession of stolen property. SCU found that Castleberry was staying in a motel room at 2700 West Sweetwater, and was drivng Edgar's brother Pete's truck, and set up a surveillance. Both Edgar and Patricia were found to be in possessin of stolen property from a totally different burglary. 4-20-98 Patricia Castleberry w/f 10-15-63, Detective Willrich developed probable cause to pick up Patricia Castleberry for possession of stolen property. SCU found that Castleberry was staying in a motel room at 2700 West Sweetwater, and was driving Edgar's brother Pete's truck and set up a surveillance. Both Edgar and Patricia were found to be in possession of property from a totally different burglary. 4-22-98 Dustin Marr w/m 12-22-81, SCU and 900 PDP, working in concert, were able to apprehend suspect Marr at 17802 North 19th Avenue, \#35. S-943 and S-944 had PC for arrest for possession of stolen property and burglary . DR 80-395649. 4-22-98 Paul Bradley Speer w/m 11-13-78, 900 field apprehended Speer who has been terrorizing his neighborhood for years. Speer committed a 211 and S-946 had PC for arrest for 459F and had a file stop out on him. Officer Campbell, solo on his training squad, was able to track Speer down and after a short foot pursuit captured him. DR 80-502711. 4-23-98 Robert Mathias w/m 12-27-77, suspect Mathias burglarized the home at 11240 North Biltmore and was seen by a neighbor. The neighbor knew the suspect as Robert- Detective Phillips investigated the matter and found a possible suspect Robert had warrants and was booked on 4-22*98. Today Detective Phillips conducted a photo lineup and suspect Robert was identified. Robert was booked for 459. DR 80-614311. 4-23-98 Bennett Jones b/m 10-25-44, suspect Bennett forced entry to the victims home and attempted to sexually assault her. Patrol responded and was able to arrest Bennett without further incident DR 80-669215A. # THE CACTUS PARK ## BURGLARY PREVENTION ## PROGRAM ## EVALUATION April to December 1997 1. Bar Graph depicting Cactus Park Precinct burglaries, clearances, and calls for service for calendar years 1995 through 1997. 2. Table One - Number of burglaries and clearances for calendar years 1995 through 1997 including clearance rates. 3. Table Two - Number of burglaries and clearances for the time period April to December from 1995 to 1997. 4. Table Three - Number of burglaries and clearances for the nine months prior to the Burglary Reduction Program (7/96 - 3/97) compared to the first nine months of the program April to December 1997. Monthly Reported Burglaries Monthly Clearance Rates Monthly CFS w/o Callback ![img-5.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/98-58/img-5.jpeg) # TABLE ONE Number of Burglaries and Clearances for Calendar Year 1995 through 1997. | | Number of Burglaries | Average Number of Burglaries/Month | Number of Clearances | Average Clearances/ Month | Clearance Rate | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | January to December 1995 | 3504 | 292 | 258 | 21.50 | $7.36 \%$ | | January to December 1996 | 3394 | 283 | 247 | 20.58 | $7.27 \%$ | | January to December 1997 | 4040 | 337 | 254 | 21.17 | $6.29 \%$ | | \% Change 1995-1997 | $+15.3 \%$ | | $-1.55 \%$ | | $-14.53 \%$ | [Table1] Number of Burglaries and Clearances for April to December for 1995 through 1997. | | Number of Burglaries | Average Number of Burglaries/Month | Number of Clearances | Average Clearances/ Month | Clearance Rate | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | April to December 1995 | 2623 | 291.44 | 191 | 21.22 | 7.28% | | April to December 1996 | 2513 | 279.22 | 180 | 20.00 | 7.16% | | April to December 1997 | 2990 | 332.22 | 200 | 22.22 | 6.69% | | % Change 1995-1997 | +13.99 | | 4.71% | | -8.10% | [Table2] # TABLE THREE Number of Burglaries and Clearances for Nine Months prior to April 1997 compared to April - December 1997. (July 1996 to March 1997 vs. April - December 1997) | | Number of Burglaries | Average Number of Burglaries/Month | Number of Clearances | Average Clearances/ Month | Clearance Rate | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | $7 / 96-3 / 97$ | 2819 | 313.22 | 160 | 17.77 | $5.67 \%$ | | $4 / 97-12 / 97$ | 2990 | 332.22 | 200 | 22.22 | $6.69 \%$ | | | | | | | | | \% Difference | +6.06 | | $+25 \%$ | | $+17.81 \%$ | [Table3] # Introduction: The purpose of this analysis is to determine the effectiveness of the Cactus Park Precinct Burglary Reduction Program. In order to do this, it is necessary to provide some background information on the creation of the program, examine its results in terms of statistics, and finally discuss a few issues related to the program that cannot be quantified, yet are outcomes realized by the program. The Burglary Reduction Program was implemented in April 1997 and began with a few basic premises in mind: - A small number of bad guys commit a large percentage of crimes. - A concerted effort, utilizing crime analysis data, could impact the number of residential burglaries in the precinct. - Crime analysis information would have to be obtained, disseminated to officers in a useable form, and maintained. - Targeting of known offenders would be more effective than randomly seeking unknown suspects. - The new emphasis on the crime of burglary would have to be conveyed to officers and detectives, and a reward system created to re-enforce the program. - A means of assessing the programs impact would need to be determined. Some of the strategies that were implemented to support this program were: - Warrant Focus - keep the known offender incarcerated. - The Maricopa County Adult Probation Department provided their list of warrants, and known offenders on the list were arrested. Known offenders on probation were targeted to insure compliance to their restrictions. - Misdemeanor warrants were served on all known offenders. - Make-A-Match - PACE queries were conducted to match field interrogations conducted in neighborhoods with a high volume of burglaries to suspect information contained in Department Reports. - Electronic Pin Mapping of burglaries were posted in the briefing room and maintained on a regular basis. - Top 10 Program - The most active known burglars were targeted by disseminating their photographs and pertinent information (name, DOB, ht, wt, associates, address, vehicles, etc.) to patrol officers. - Neighborhoods at Risk - high burglary areas were identified for increased patrol through CNP time, undercover activities focus, Explorer Scout canvassing, and B.W.O.P. patrol. - "Way to Go" Program - a form posted in briefing to recognize officers that caught a burglar - provides special recognition for officers that catch a burglar by placing the "Way to Go" with their name and the name of the burglar they caught in a conspicious place in briefing. positive impact In spite of an overall consistent decrease in clearance rates: $(-14.53 \%$ from 1995 to 1997, see Table One.) - There was only an $8.10 \%$ decrease in clearance rates when data is compared for April - December from 1995 to 1997. (See Table Two.) - There was a $17.81 \%$ increase in clearance rates when the first nine months of the BRP are compared to the nine months prior to the BRP. (See Table Three.) # Conclusions: It is apparent that the Burglary Reduction Program in the Cactus Park Precinct has been a tremendous success. It has proven that it can impact the number of burglaries being committed by reducing the percentage increase in the number of burglaries. In other words, if it hadn't been for the BRP, the number of burglaries probably would have been much higher. The continued increase in the number of burglaries undoubtedly is a direct result of many factors. I offer the following as being likely factors, but certainly not the only factors: - There is an ever increasing number of people engaging in the crime of burglary, i.e., opportunists, part-timers, students, "tweekers", etc. - The burglars we have arrested are not being dealt with effectively by the criminal justice system, i.e., "O.R" releases, a reluctance to prosecute burglars, plea agreements with stipulations of time served or probation, etc. The first factor is mostly intuitive, but tied to the fact that the northwest part of the City of Phoenix has a real "tweeker" problem as evidenced by the alarming increase in the number of drug labs manufacturing crystal .methamphetamine that are encountered by patrol and complained about by neighborhood groups. The second factor, at this point, is mere supposition, but entirely consistent with or devaluation of the importance of property crimes in light of the heightened awareness of violent crimes being committed. Clearly, if targeted, offending burglars are not staying locked up it stands to reason they will "take up where they left off" when back on the streets. The increase in the number of clearances is reassuring and clearly a direct result of our ability to catch "bad guys" when we really want to. The arrest of known burglars will clearly impact clearance rates, and more importantly, the number of burglaries being committed. However, it is not clear when the actual reduction of the number of burglaries being committed will occur. With an ever increasing number of people seizing the opportunity to commit burglaries, it could take some time. Therefore, it is not recommended that the total assessment of the Burglary Reduction Program rest on its ability to reduce the number of burglaries being committed; at least not initially. Although that is clearly an enviable and worthwhile goal, it may not be attainable in the near future. There are several other factors that need to be considered when assessing the program. These do not lend themselves to statistical analysis, but are still important issues related to the success of this program. - Improved morale - Focusing on crime is very rewarding for the officer working patrol. (Job satisfaction, job enrichment.) - Improved communication with other bureaus. - Customer satisfaction - with a goal of reduced victimization, citizens realize we are making the effort to reduce crime which directly impacts the fear of crime. - The officers perception of management improves as they see us taking positive steps to improve our performance in this area. - Improved effectiveness - Doing the right things. Focusing on a core value that law enforcement should be working on. Providing a vision and getting people motivated to share that vision. # NORTH RESOURCE BUREAU / DETECTIVES MONTHLY MANAGEMENT REPORT - APRIL 1998 | DETECTIVE SQUAD | S-93 | S-94 | S-96 | S-97 | Monthly | Year | Fiscal Year | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | 600 | 700 | Total | To Date | to Date | | DR's Received | 267 | 1,644 | 1,550 | 1,565 | 5,026 | 20,901 | 52,036 | | No Contact | 251 | 1,173 | 1,202 | 1,077 | 3,704 | 15,727 | 33,706 | | Non Crimes | 13 | 11 | 12 | 19 | 56 | 181 | 505 | | Reports Unfounded | 1 | 31 | 18 | 32 | 82 | 246 | 601 | | Net Cases | 253 | 1,602 | 1,520 | 1,514 | 4,889 | 20,474 | 50,930 | | Assigned Cases | 16 | 471 | 347 | 488 | 1,322 | 5,144 | 12,336 | | Assigned Cases Cleared | 5 | 299 | 260 | 329 | 893 | 3,516 | 8,281 | | % Assigned Cases Cleared | 31% | 63% | 75% | 67% | 68% | 68% | 67% | | Burglary Reports Received (NET) | 1 | 290 | 230 | 229 | 750 | 3,059 | 8,153 | | Burglary Reports Assigned | 1 | 60 | 31 | 17 | 109 | 453 | 1129 | | Burglary Reports Cleared | 0 | 32 | 21 | 11 | 64 | 256 | 572 | | Burglary Reports Cleared | 0% | 11% | 9% | 5% | 9% | 8% | 7% | | BFV Received (NET) | 1 | 267 | 314 | 320 | 902 | 4,164 | 9,368 | | BFV Assigned | 1 | 16 | 21 | 13 | 51 | 243 | 494 | | BFV Cleared | 0 | 12 | 14 | 9 | 35 | 137 | 264 | | % BFV Cleared | 0% | 4% | 4% | 3% | 4% | 3% | 3% | | Theft Reports Received (NET) | 13 | 438 | 435 | 533 | 1,419 | 5,703 | 14,518 | | Theft Reports Assigned | 13 | 213 | 169 | 286 | 681 | 2,698 | 6,518 | | Thefts Cleared | 3 | 159 | 157 | 233 | 562 | 2,154 | 5,081 | | % Thefts Cleared | 23% | 36% | 36% | 44% | 39% | 38% | 35% | | TFV Received (NET) | 0 | 210 | 239 | 119 | 568 | 2,549 | 6,360 | | TFV Assigned | 0 | 10 | 8 | 11 | 29 | 106 | 250 | | TFV Cleared | 0 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 58 | 158 | | % TFV Cleared | 0% | 2% | 3% | 2% | 2% | 3% | 2% | | Other Reports (NET) | 238 | 397 | 302 | 313 | 1,250 | 4,999 | 12,531 | | Other Assigned | 1 | 172 | 118 | 161 | 452 | 1,644 | 3,945 | | Other Cleared | 2 | 92 | 65 | 74 | 233 | 911 | 2,206 | | % Other Cleared | 1% | 23% | 22% | 24% | 10% | 10% | 10% |