smaller California cities especially were precariously positioned
to withstand an increase in new offenders. Could a correlation be
made between Realignment and property crime in smaller California cities? And what about the police chiefs of those cities? What
factors did they judge as impactful related to property crime, and
how quickly or effectively did they employ response strategies? A
recent study sought to answer
some of these questions, providing information that could
help police chiefs and others as
California faces another round
of reform in Proposition 47.
Looking at 56 California
cities with a population of
between 25,000 and 50,000 and
their own police departments,
the study sought to identify
differences in property crimes
reported to the police and
sworn officer staffing in the
year immediately preceding
Realignment, 2010 and the
year after, 2012. Data gleaned
from the FBI’s Uniform Crime
Report showed a nearly significant increase in property crime as well as a statistically significant
decrease in officer staffing. Additional analysis could not identify
a statistical correlation between the increase in property crime and
the decrease in officer staffing in those cities.
An electronic survey administered to chiefs of these cities was
designed to tease out which factors chiefs of these cities believed
were most impactful to property crime in their cities. The chiefs
rated Realignment as most impactful, followed by jail overcrowding, the recession, and their own officer staffing levels. Although
Realignment was rated high, the difference between that factor
and the one rated lowest, officer staffing, was not significant. The
chiefs appeared divided as to which of these four factors was most
influential to property crime in their jurisdictions.
Next, chiefs reported the level of progress made on strategies
enacted in resp ۜ