Performance measurement is an integral component of any drive to improve productivity. To this end, the President of the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission, Michael J. Heidingsfield, requested an update for the year 2000 on all studies produced by the Crime Commission since its inception.

Unless otherwise noted, the eighteen-month period under review begins January 1, 1999 and includes the first two quarters of calendar year 2000 (the second quarter ends June 30, 2000). Crime Commission initiatives are divided in two categories: best practices, and white papers/ surveys. The studies in each section are listed in chronological order by date of initiation. An addendum to this report can be found at the end of Section II.

Study Title: Best Practice Number 1: Adding Extra Police in Memphis to Build a Critical Mass.

Date of Approval: February 4, 1998.

Thesis: Research indicates police levels and crime rates clearly affect each other: twenty-four Part I crimes are prevented annually for each additional officer added to a police force in a big city.

Recommendation: Through a goal-based process model, the City of Memphis should give serious and immediate consideration to addressing the labor shortages of patrolling officers.

Action: The administration of the City of Memphis announced in April of 1998 its intention to add 200 commissioned officers above attrition for each of the next four fiscal years.

Performance Measurement: On January 1, 1999, the Memphis Police Department had an authorized complement of 1,932 officers, with 1,730 commissioned officers in service. On July 1, 2000 the Memphis Police Department had an authorized complement of 2,085 officers and 1,879 commissioned officers in service. This represents a cumulative (net) increase of 149 officers over an eighteen-month period.¹

Observation: The performance measurement used above can account for net increases in police officers only, and does not address issues of new officer deployment. Consistent with the original evaluation, Police Service Technicians (PSTs) were not included in the total figures for the authorized complement.

§§§§§§§

Study Title: Best Practice Number Two: Reclaiming the Streets of Memphis through Proactive Traffic Control.

Date of Approval: April 20, 1998.

Thesis: The pervasive problem of low traffic compliance in this community exemplifies the "broken windows" argument that disorder breeds crime.

Recommendation: Strict enforcement of all traffic laws by both the traffic patrol division and the sworn officers assigned to each precinct will benefit the City of Memphis by significantly contributing to a reduction in the overall crime rate. The study makes seventeen recommendations focussing on specific deterrence initiatives, proactive patrols, technology systems, physical changes, arrest reporting changes, increased law enforcement training opportunities, public sector role modeling programs, and public information and education campaigns.

Action: Prior to the release of the report, the Memphis Police Department resurrected its Traffic Division, with a veteran Inspector at the helm and eleven officers assigned to the Special Traffic Enforcement Unit, a proactive patrol, or "hot spot" mobile force.

Performance Measurement: Because of difficulties in data gathering, the primary measurement of the effects of this report is data on moving violations. Data for moving violations can be found in the table below. A review of data from both the Traffic Division and City Precincts is appropriate, since the report recommended increased enforcement for all assigned officers.

Traffic Division: In calendar year 1998, the Traffic Division issued 41,495 citations for moving violations. In calendar year 1999, the Traffic Division issued 91,117 citations for moving violations, an increase of 219.6 percent. Calendar year 2000 is expected to generate approximately 96,000 citations for moving violations from the Traffic Division.

City Precincts: In calendar year 1998, the seven city precincts issued a total of 120,131 citations for moving violations. In calendar year 1999, these precincts issued 160,078 citations for moving violations, an increase of 133.3 percent from the previous year. Calendar year 2000 is expected to generate approximately 203,000 citations for moving violations from the reporting precincts.

Totals: With combined figures from the Traffic Division and City Precincts, the total number of moving violations for calendar 1998 was 161,626. The total number of moving violations for calendar year 1999 was 251,195, an increase of 155.4 percent from the previous year. Calendar year 2000 is expected to generate approximately 299,000 moving citations.

Other performance measurements will be described briefly. Regarding recommendations for traffic calming devices, the City of Memphis installed 39 traffic calming devices on eight streets in FY 2000. The City of Memphis also added the new position of traffic calming engineer in its FY 2001 budget. This position has been filled. Regarding the recommendation of traffic surveillance cameras, both Memphis and Germantown have embraced the concept and pursued, albeit unsuccessfully, state legislation authorizing the municipal use of such technology. However, a local ordinance still may be all that is required to install these devices within a municipality.

The Memphis Shelby Crime Commission continues to play a leadership role in traffic control issues. In September 2000, the Crime Commission assisted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in producing a traffic briefing, in which over 200 citizens of Memphis and Shelby County participated.

Observation: The performance measurement used above, moving violations, addresses neither rates of criminal apprehension, nor illegal gun or drug seizures. The effect of increased traffic enforcement on overall crime and criminal apprehension rates was the primary reason this report was issued. Also, the net gain of officers from the first Best Practice Report could mitigate the raw increase in the number of citations issued on a precinct level. To address this issue, one would need to conduct a pre- and post- assessment of the number of precinct officers assigned to traffic.

§§§§§§§

Study Title: Reducing the Dispatch Rate and Number of False Burglar Alarms in Memphis and Shelby County.

Date of Approval: April 20, 1998.

Thesis: If the more than 98 percent false alarm rate (in Memphis alone) can be reduced significantly, local law enforcement personnel can be more efficiently deployed in ways that greater contribute to crime prevention and criminal apprehension.

Recommendation: The report makes four recommendations. These include the following: proposed changes in the City of Memphis' alarm ordinance and approval of a Shelby County alarm ordinance, establishment of a consolidated alarm office, creation of both private and public sector alarm education programs, and production and distribution of public service announcements on the deterrent effects of alarms and the responsibility of alarm users.

Action Steps: The Crime Commission created a False Alarm Task Force comprised of public sector law enforcement and permits personnel and alarm industry professionals. After a series of meetings, the Task Force then created the recommendations that were included in the Crime Commission Best Practice Report. In February 1999, the Memphis City Council approved a new alarm ordinance closely modeled after the one drafted by members of the Task Force. In March 1999, the Shelby County Commission passed an ordinance nearly identical to the City's, creating the effect of a joint ordinance for Memphis and Shelby County.

Performance Measurement: The Metro Alarm Office considers April 3, 2000 its official date of establishment as April 3, 2000, as this date coincides with the appointment of its full-time alarm coordinator.³

Since its inception, the Metro Alarm Office has processed 8,490 new permits,⁴ renewed 20,000 permits, issued 1,724 false alarms to users without permits, and issued 798 citations. In addition, the City of Memphis has purged from its records 19,000 permits that were listed as registered but are no longer in service. The City of Memphis currently has 73,000 registered alarm accounts. Shelby County, who had not previously required registration of alarm accounts in the absence of an alarm ordinance, currently has 100 registered alarm users, with 3,000 more to be billed in 90 days. The Metro Alarm Office has generated $434,990 in revenue to date. With the exception of the first year of operation, the cost of running the Metro Alarm Office was estimated in the best practice report to be $448,297.

Based on the data collected, it is premature to project an annual rate because of the short period of time that the Metro Alarm Office has existed. However, data from Figure 3 do not indicate a decrease in alarms calls to the Memphis Police Department since the inception of the Metro Alarm Office. On the contrary, the data suggest that the total number of alarm-related calls has increased significantly. As presented in the report, the Memphis Police Department reported 108,810 false alarms⁵ in 1996. Changes in city boundaries through annexation⁶ and the annual growth rate of alarm installations⁷ may account for a significant percentage of the overall increase.

Observation: Unfortunately, the code that operates the new Memphis Police Department’s Computed Automated Dispatch (CAD) System does not currently afford one the ability to distinguish between real and false alarm calls. This is a significant impediment to performance measurement for this best practice report.

§§§§§§§

Study Title: Best Practice Number 4: Community Courts- An Alternative for Involving Citizens and Community in the Justice Process.

Date of Approval: July 1, 1998.

Thesis: Through public/private coalitions, community-focused courts can change traditional practices, promote defendant compliance with community service orders and help make a difference in neighborhood conditions.

Recommendation: The report recommends a two-phase strategy. Phase One proposes a pilot project that would hold court on misdemeanor offenses on a part-time basis in a designated area of the city. Phase Two proposes institutionalizing a community court on a full-time basis.

Performance Measurement: The Frayser Community Court opened on February 15, 2000. Since opening, the Court has held 11 Misdemeanor Criminal Court Sessions and 13 Environmental Court sessions. In late May, the Frayser Community Court initiated a new program where juvenile offenders from the Community Court target zone are assigned to community service projects by the Shelby County Juvenile Court. A pre-survey on community attitudes about the new court has been completed. This is part of the pro bono process and impact evaluation that was donated by the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Memphis.

The community court has adjudicated over 250 criminal charges. Outside of driving offenses, the most common charges are associated with drug possession and use. About 60% of the community court defendants are ordered to perform community service. Some defendants are also required to attend and complete drug/alcohol counseling. Most cases in the community court are disposed of within a 4 to 6 week period. This is approximately half the time of cases heard in General Sessions Criminal Court. Most defendants have their cases dismissed after completing a community service assignment. Defendants are required to perform community service work for organizations in Frayser. Some of those organizations include St. Peter’s Home for Children, The Shelby County Park Commission, New Hope Christian Academy and Our Lady of Sorrows. Defendants are also assigned to monthly community clean-up programs to benefit Frayser. Defendants have worked for clean-up crews on major roads and highways in Frayser. Upon completion of community service projects, some Criminal Court defendants have complained that their community service assignments were too hard and that they would wish not want to return to face more community service orders. Court officials consider the hot months of summer to be a significant factor in this response.

The Community Court has also heard almost 200 environmental citations. Over 75% of the properties cited have already been cleaned up and the cases have been disposed. According to the presiding judge, the Frayser environmental cases are also resolved much faster than the environmental cases in Division 14 downtown. Many of the defendants have rectified the environmental violation by the first or second court appearance. Most people cited for environmental violations are placed under court order to keep their property clean and in compliance with city code ordinances. According to Court officials, the use of police officers to issue environmental citations has proven to be very effective and this concept could be just as successful throughout other parts of the city.

Approximately 30 juvenile delinquents have been ordered to perform community service work in Frayser since late May. These juveniles must perform a minimum of three days of community service work at area high schools or the Ed Rice Community center.

Several scenarios are currently under discussion for expanding the scope of the Frayser Community Court, which currently serves only Ward 123 in West Frayser. One scenario is to expand into East Frayser, which is comprised of Wards 125 and 126. This would allow the Environmental court to impact more neighborhoods. Another scenario involves increasing the number of cases in Criminal Court by processing arrest tickets and misdemeanor citations written by North precinct officers. The planners of the court opted to begin with only those arrests and citations made by Todd’s Creek Coact officers. The number of defendant’s impacted by the Community Court could be increased by processing all misdemeanor arrests in Ward 123.

Yet another possibility would be to establish a Coact unit in East Frayser, and have the Community Court process all its Coact officer arrests.

Observation: Based on the narrative above, it seems reasonable to state that the recommendations contained within the report have been implemented fully.

§§§§§§§

Study Title: Best Practice Number 5: Establishing a Domestic Violence Assessment Center for Memphis and Shelby County.

Date of Approval: July 1, 1998.

Thesis: Because ample evidence suggests that there is no singular typology for domestic violence, the assessment process is one perhaps the single most important step in making decisions concerning the lethality of offenders and the appropriateness of various interventions to individual batterers.

Recommendation: The public and/or private sector should strongly consider immediately establishing and permanently funding a Memphis and Shelby County Domestic Violence Assessment Center.

Action: The following project partners funded and established, in January of 1999, a fully operational Assessment Center: the Exchange Club Family Center, Domestic Violence Court, The Shelby County Domestic Violence Coordinating Council, The University of Tennessee Department of Preventive Medicine, the Plough Foundation and the Assisi Foundation

Performance Measurement: Figures 3 and 4 represent referrals made to DVAC by the Domestic Violence Court, and treatment referrals made as a result of the psychological evaluations conducted by DVAC. Over 80 percent of all referrals from the Domestic Violence Court have resulted in a DVAC evaluation. The evaluations are currently serving as the Pre-sentence Investigative Report for Domestic Violence Court, as was originally intended, and they appear to be influencing the types of referrals made. Figure 5 strongly suggests that the evaluations completed are valid in assessing the lethality of offenders, which was the primary thesis of the report. As the lethality of the offender increases, the percentage of cases violated increases significantly.

Observation: From the data presented above, it seems reasonable to state that the recommendations contained within the report have been implemented fully.

§§§§§§§

Study Title: Best Practice Number 6: Crime Prevention Through Coordinated and Community-Based Afterschool Programs.

Date of Approval: Not Known.

Thesis: Because juveniles are more likely to commit or be victims of crimes during the afterschool hours than at any other time of the day, targeted and community-based afterschool programs can help significantly to prevent crime.

Recommendation: Increased coordination on the part of a public or private agency is necessary to build a greater local afterschool capacity, and to greatly increase the number of high-risk children enrolled in such programs.

Performance Measurement: Partners in Public Education (PIPE), a nonprofit group of business and community leaders organized in 1993 to support public education, has secured a $1 million anonymous donation to increase the availability of afterschool programs for at-risk youths. PIPE is currently developing an implementation plan for the use of the ends. The initiative of the Crime Commission known as the Memphis and Shelby County Campaign Against Youth Violence has selected afterschool program building as one of its primary focuses, and will work with PIPE to build upon its initiative. However, because development of the program remains in its formative stages, its measurement is not appropriate at this time.

Observation: Performance measurement of the number of community-based programs is difficult in the absence of a centralized afterschool database. No baseline exists of the number of programs in operation prior to the release of the report.

Study Title: Best Practice Number 7: Strict Enforcement of Probation for High-Risk Youthful Offenders Through the Operation Nightlight Initiative.

Date of Approval: February 17, 1999.

Thesis: Juvenile and young adult violence can be reduced by enforcing the terms of probation for youthful offenders, including curfews, geographical restrictions and other restraints to keep these youths from re-offending.

Recommendation: The report recommends makes four recommendations. The primary recommendation is the establishment of local version of Operation Nightlight, based on a Boston benchmark program of the same name. The program pairs a one- or two-person probation team with a similar law enforcement team to monitor compliance with the terms of probation. Other recommendations include a meeting between the stakeholders (i.e., judges, prosecutors, and probation officers) to discuss current and proposed applications of the terms of probation, targeting specific areas with disproportionately high numbers of young probationers, and creating scientific selection criteria for participating offenders.

Performance Measurement: None of the recommendations made in this report have been implemented to date. A discussion of this assessment is contained in the "observation" section that follows the present section. Discussions are occurring between the District Attorney’s Office and Juvenile Court and Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole- Delta Region (Shelby County) representatives concerning possible implementation. Juvenile Court has proposed a conducting a Nightlight patterned pilot program in a specific zip code area. As of October 2000, Juvenile Court reported 316 juveniles on supervised probation and 73 juveniles on unsupervised probation. The juvenile probationers requiring supervision are assigned an Auxiliary Probation Officer, which is a volunteer position. As mentioned in the original report, this is one of several potential impediments to local implementation.

For over a year and as part of the Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiatives (SACSI), local Probation and Parole officers have conducted with the Memphis Police Department two home visits a month for all sex offenders living in the community policing precincts targeted under SASCI (Westwood and Graceland). On any given month, the average number of offenders for the two areas combined is fifteen.⁸ The Delta Office of the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole also provides a book containing photo identification of clients living in the two Co-Act units. Officials at State Probation and Parole hope to have provided such books available to all Co-Act units by January 2002; they have also targeted this date to have sharply increased their internal capacity to conduct ride-alongs by hiring additional officers. Currently four general assignment probation officers plus three sex offender probation officers conduct all paired visits in the two targeted areas.⁹ Resource limitations at State Probation and Parole also pose a significant impediment to successful implementation.

Observation: For the purposes of this report, the staff of the Crime Commission has not included SACSI home visits to offenders in its performance measurement review. This decision requires an explanation, and the starting point for the explanation is a question: are the SACSI-initiated home visits to sexual offenders by Memphis police officers and State Probation officers an Operation Nightlight equivalent initiative, or are they something separate and distinctive? One’s response is dependent upon how strictly one defines Operation Nightlight itself, and the emphasis one places on process versus objective. If one gives primary weight to the process of pairing police and probation officers and not to the pairing objective, then one’s likely answer is that the initiative does indeed resemble Operation Nightlight and thus should be included in a performance measurement of the report. However, if one places primary emphasis on the application of such a pairing toward chronic, violent and youthful offenders in a targeted area, then one’s answer is likely to be a qualified "no". Because all sexual offenders, irrespective of age, degree of lethality or geographical location of their residency, receive unpaired home visitations, it seems more appropriate to consider the SACSI application as a intensive supervision program with a pairing component and not a Nightlight operation per se. In making this determination, the assumption is that the application of such a pairing is a distinguishing characteristic of Operation Nightlight. And while variations of pairing police and probationary are to be commended and encouraged, they have not been evaluated with the same rigor as Nightlight, and thus do not yet possess empirical evidence that they rise to the level of a "best practice."

§§§§§§§

Study Title: Best Practice Number 8: Reducing Crime and Supporting Education through a Comprehensive Truancy Reduction Strategy.

Date of Approval: Pending. Working draft released for review on December 2, 1998.

Thesis: Truancy is a gateway behavior to juvenile delinquency, adult offending, and chronic underemployment that can be significantly reduced through a comprehensive strategy.

Recommendation: The primary recommendation of the report is a centralized Truancy Assessment Center (TAC) for Memphis and Shelby County. Other recommendations include: conducting a scientific baseline study of truancy, increased attendance officers, reexamining home suspensions for truancy, automating aspects of truancy data collection, increasing parental prosecution, modifying legislation to authorize law enforcement officers to pick up truants, modifying school attendance policies, emphasizing alternative methods of learning, developing a five-year plan to address truancy, developing programs to address families with high rates of mobility.

Action: In late January, twelve agencies, including Memphis City Schools, Shelby County Schools, Juvenile Court, Shelby County Sheriff’s Office and the Memphis Police Department signed a detailed memorandum of understanding which officially established the Truancy Assessment Center.¹⁰ The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Committee earmarked $200,000 for start up costs. TAC officially opened on February 1, 2000.

Performance Measurement: Figures 7, 8, and 9 represent a statistical summary of the activities of the center from February to May. The data presented in these figures are significant in several ways. Figure 7 indicates that a total of 6,376 cases fell under the purview of TAC. This is a large truancy caseload by any unit of measurement; for example, the number of truancy cases in February and March 2000 were greater than the total number of truancy violations reported to Juvenile Court in all of calendar year 1998. This suggests that more truants are being identified under TAC than under the previous process. Figure 8 indicates that while the number of convictions appears low when compared to the total of truancy cases eligible for prosecution,¹¹ the convictions produced in four months of 2000 were greater that the total number of convictions in calendar years 1997 and 1998 combined. Figure 9 shows the dispositions for all non-prosecuted cases.

Observation: From the point of view of performance measurement, a scientific baseline of the truancy problem has not been addressed as per the first recommendation of the report. The absence of such a baseline will present formidable measurement problems in subsequent updates.

§§§§§§§

Study Title: Best Practice Number 9: Processing Non-Violent Drug Offenders through Treatment-Oriented Drug Courts.

Date of Approval: February 17, 1999.

Thesis: Because chronic drug abuse is an underlying problem in a majority of criminal activity both nationally and locally, treatment-oriented drug courts can significantly reduce both drug use and criminal behavior.

Recommendation: The report offers five recommendations. The principle recommendation is the establishment of a full-time drug court in Memphis and Shelby County. Other recommendations include increased training opportunities for all project partners, the creation of strategic and operating plans for the new drug court, the creation of an evaluation strategy for the new court, and a cycle time research study of the entire local criminal justice system.

Action: This report was the third best practice study written per the request of local officials and researchers. The State of Tennessee created enabling legislation in the Spring Session of 1999 that will allow for the creation of a full-time drug court in Memphis and Shelby County.

Because of state and county budgetary constraints, the implementation of a full-time was delayed until September 2000.

Measurement: A full-time drug court was officially launched on September 5, 2000. The measurement of its effectiveness will be highlighted in future reports. Regarding other recommendations, the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission is not aware of the existence of either strategic or operating plans for the new drug court, and is similarly unaware of the existence of increased training opportunities for the project partners. Phase I of a cycle time research study is nearing completion. A report on the findings of this study is expected in fall 2000.

§§§§§§§

Study Title: Best Practice Number 11: Faith-Based Crime Prevention.

Date of Approval: Under Development. Presentation to the Board of Directors expected in fall 2000.

Thesis: The faith community possesses a number of unique assets that can be comprehensively deployed to reduce youth violence: professional and volunteer personnel, program resources and facilities, financial support, and spiritual and moral authority.

Recommendation: Specific recommendations are still under development.

Action: NA

Measurement: NA

The Crime Commission created the category of white paper to acknowledge the fact that not all forms of research are appropriate to the organization's adopted best practice format. The Crime Commission defines a white paper as a statement of organizational position for public comment and review. However, it should be noted that only the first study presented in this section is truly a white paper in the sense described above. The two other studies, originally called white papers, do not contain positions per se, but are actually surveys. To this end, the staff of the Crime Commission created a third and self-explanatory category of document, the survey, to address this self-inflicted quandary.

§§§§§§§

White Paper: A Review of Police Detention Practices

Requesting Agency: The Commercial Appeal.

Date of Release: January, 1999.

Subject: A survey and federal case law review regarding the detention practices of urban police departments for arrestees prior to an appearance before a magistrate.

Position: Under normal circumstances a Gerstein hearing should be rendered forthwith. The District Attorney's Office and the Memphis Police Department should conduct a thorough review of the issues relevant to a local practice known as "on the hook", and the results of such a review should be made public.

Status: The Memphis Police Department has changed its internal procedures so that all arrestees are arraigned within 48 hours or released. Item 1 in the Addendum section of this report describes in detail the changes made.

§§§§§§§

Survey: A Review of Employee Drug Testing Policies in Police Departments

Requesting Agency: The Commercial Appeal.

Date of Release: February 1999.

Subject: Focusing on the outcome of positive urine tests for illegal drugs, the report contains the results of a survey of fifteen urban police departments as well as a discussion of current literature on drug testing policies of law enforcement personnel.

Status: Study completed and released. No action taken as a result of the information compiled.

§§§§§§§

Survey: A Review of Police Records Retention Policies for Internal Security Files.

Requesting Agency: The Memphis Police Department.

Date of Release: April 1999.

Subject: A survey of fifteen cities to ascertain how long selected urban police keep internal security case files, and a review of state laws regarding the retention and destruction of public records.

Status: Upon completion and release of the study, the Memphis Police Department requested the assistance of the Crime Commission in drafting a records retention policy. This was completed in July 1999. The Memphis Police adopted the policy submitted by the Crime Commission virtually as written. The policy can be found in Item 2 in the Addendum section of this report.

§§§§§§§

Survey: A Comparison of Staffing in District Attorneys' Offices.

Requesting Agency: Office of the District Attorney General, Memphis and Shelby County.

Date of Release: June 1999.

Subject: The paper examines the issues surrounding staffing levels in urban District Attorneys' office.

Status: Study completed and released. According to the District Attorney for Memphis and Shelby County, the study was instrumental in helping to make a case to the State of Tennessee for additional prosecutors. The State of Tennessee almost added new prosecutors in the FY 2001 budget, despite severe cutbacks. The issue will be reemerge in the next legislative session.

§§§§§§§

Requesting Agency: The Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.

Focus: Criminal activity aggravated by problem properties- i.e., vacant lots, abandoned and dilapidated buildings.

Deliverable: A research report including effective strategies on dealing with problem properties.

Lead Researcher: Dr. Phyllis Betts, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, The University of Memphis, and Senior Research Fellow with the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.

Status: Completion of first draft expected in October 2000.

§§§§§§§

Requesting Agency: The Memphis Housing Authority.

Focus: Public safety in public housing.

Deliverable: A comprehensive safety plan for all public housing developments in Memphis.

Lead Researcher: Richard Janikowski, Associate Professor of Criminal and Criminal Justice, The University of Memphis, and Senior Research Fellow with the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.

Status: Resident survey conducted, and data analyzed. Obtained crime data from MHA and have initiated analysis. Completion of data scheduled for mid-October. In addition the Director of the Memphis Housing Authority asked in August 2000 that the Crime Commission President oversee and craft the search process for a new Memphis Housing Authority Security Director. The Crime Commission has also agreed to revive and lead the strategic planning effort on public safety in public housing.

§§§§§§§

Requesting Agency: The Memphis Police Department.

Focus: Self-discipline and punishment in urban police departments.

Deliverable: A schedule of penalties for disciplinary infractions and conduct violations, and best practice recommendations to strengthen police ethics and integrity in the Memphis Police Departments.

Lead Researcher: Max Maloney, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Philosophy, The University of Memphis, and Research Fellow with the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.

Status: Study completed and released. The Memphis Police Department adapted the general framework for a disciplinary matrix that was submitted by the Crime Commission, and the matrix is now part of the department’s policies and procedures manual written. The policy appears as Item 2 in the Addendum section of this report.

§§§§§§§

Requesting Agency: The Memphis Police Department.

Focus: Major case management, as defined by multi-agency teams and/or high profile cases.

Deliverable: Best practice recommendations on major case protocol in urban police departments.

Status: White Paper completed in February 2000. Not released publicly per the request of Police Director Walter Crews. The report contains four areas of recommendation. The Crime Commission recommended that the Memphis Police Department assess the extent that it is prepared to detail and assist in major case investigations. The Crime Commission also recommended that the Memphis Police Department immediately contact surrounding jurisdictions to begin working to implement a multi-jurisdictional Major Case Squad. Third, the Crime Commission recommended that the Memphis Police Department assess the costs of implementing a common case management information system linking police, courts, corrections, and prosecution. Finally, the Crime Commission recommended that the Memphis Police Department establish a formal written policy on community policing. Regarding the fourth recommendation, the coordinator for all Co-Act Units submitted a draft plan for community policing to the Police Director in September 2000.

The Memphis Police Department works in cooperation with a number of federally-funded task forces, including: Safe Streets Task Force (FBI-led, multi-jurisdictional force targeting violent crimes, especially bank robberies), Auto Cargo Task Force (multi-jurisdictional force targeting auto cargo), Operation Trigger Lock (weapons possession), Secret Service Counterfeit Task Force (counterfeiting). According to the Memphis Police Department, each of these task forces has its own protocol in dealing with major cases.

§§§§§§§

Requesting Agency: The Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.

Focus: Increasing Citizen Involvement in Crime Prevention Initiatives.

Deliverable: Strategies for better galvanizing and involving citizens to help achieve the Crime Commission's goal of helping to Memphis and Shelby County the number one community in the nation in crime prevention and criminal apprehension through citizen involvement and utilization of best practices.

Lead Researcher: Ms. Janis Foster, Research Fellow with the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.

Status: Study completed, still under board review. The report makes nine recommendations. The first recommendation is to clarify the Crime Commission orientation toward community involvement by embracing "fostering community involvement by building the community’s capacity to impact crime" as a key objective. The second recommendation is for the Crime Commission to position itself as an intermediary organization that works between the community-level and the policy level. The third recommendation is to clearly identify key constituencies and direct outreach and marketing resources appropriately. The fourth and fifth recommendations are to discontinue individual citizen memberships in the Crime Commission, and to create a Community Council. The sixth recommendation is for the Crime Commission to create and manage a Crime Prevention Extension Service to insure that best-practice findings extend into the community and that organizations, especially those working in high-crime areas, have some "start-up" assistance in translating best-practices into local situations. The seventh recommendation is to insure that Best Practice Research is "writ large" by developing a community education protocol that will be employed each time a best practice is completed. The eighth recommendation is to develop a financial sustainability plan for the Crime Commission that includes an operating endowment as its centerpiece. The ninth recommendation is to enlist the help of an independent evaluator to plan and conduct an evaluation of the Crime Commission’s work and its impact on the community. The Board of Directors in September 2000 decided to act upon the study’s fourth recommendation and terminated citizen memberships. At the same meeting, the Board formally adopted four guiding principles¹² that impact the manner in which the Crime Commission engages the community. The Board is at present deliberating on the efficacy of establishing a Crime Prevention Extension Service, with a decision expected at the annual meeting on October 18.

§§§§§§§

Requesting Agency: The Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.

Focus: Local Illegal Drug Activity.

Deliverable: Situation report on illegal drug activity in Memphis and Shelby County.

Lead Researcher: Dr. Gabrielle Lemus, Research Fellow with the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.

Status: First draft completed in September 2000, under review.

§§§§§§§

Requesting Agency: The Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.

Focus: Local Illegal Gang Activity.

Deliverable: Situation report on illegal gang activity in Memphis and Shelby County.

Lead Researcher: Dr. Frank Afflito, Assistant Professor, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, The University of Memphis and Research Fellow with the Crime Commission.

Status: First draft completed in May 2000, with second draft to begin in October 2000.

§§§§§§§

Requesting Agency: Shelby County Government and the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.

Focus: Cycle time in the criminal justice system, particularly the speed from arrest to adjudication.

Deliverable: A cycle time research study, with recommendations for increasing the efficiency of the administration of justice in Memphis and Shelby County.

Lead researcher: Dr. Ernie Nichols, Associate Professor of Operations Management and Director, FedEx Center for Cycle Time Research, Fogelman College of Business and Economics, The University of Memphis.

Status: Draft completed in September 2000, with a presentation to Shelby County administration tentatively scheduled for October 2000.

§§§§§§§

Requesting Agency: Memphis Police Department

Focus: Recruitment process up to selection and notification.

Deliverable: A cycle time research study, with recommendations for increasing the efficiency of the administration of justice in Memphis and Shelby County.

Lead researcher: David L. Van Brunt, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee-Memphis, and research fellow of the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.

Status: An assessment, a measurement, and specific recommendations for improving the existing have been presented to the Memphis Training Academy. A final document which will include narrative explaining the data collected as well as a checklist of tasks and responsible parties will be completed in October 2000.

§§§§§§§

Requesting Agency: Channel 13.

Focus: Prostitution in Memphis and Shelby County, and its implications for breeding crime and disorder in communities.

Deliverable: Situation report on prostitution in Memphis and Shelby County, with case studies on successful prostitution abatement strategies in other communities.

Lead researcher: Max Maloney, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Philosophy, The University of Memphis, and Research Fellow with the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.

Status: Under development, first draft expected to be completed in fall 2000.

§§§§§§§

Requesting Agency: City of Memphis, Office of the Mayor.

Focus: A comparison of police accident rates among selected cities.

Deliverable: Survey of selected cities, to provide context to the numbers of accidents involving police cars reported in the local media.

Lead researcher: Steve Gadbois, Ph.D., Research Fellow with the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.

Status: Survey was completed in July 2000 and turned over to the requesting agency as required. The document was subsequently modified to include a letter addendum addressing concerns raised by one of the participating agencies.

§§§§§§§

Requesting Agency: Councilman Brent Taylor, Memphis City Council

Focus: Effective ways in which technology can be applied to the issue of police pursuits.

Deliverable: White paper with recommendations on strategies to reduce the risks associated to police pursuits through the application of technological advances.

Lead researcher: Barry Gildea, Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.

Status: Under development, first draft expected to be completed in fall 2000.

As a result of meetings with the Public Defender’s office, the District Attorney’s Office, the Sheriff’s Department and the Memphis Police Department, the following guidelines will be adhered to regarding Probable Cause Arrests for Investigative Services.

1. Uniform officers and detectives making probable cause arrests will follow the same booking procedures as in the past.
2. The Command Duty Officer (CDO) will log the arrest and will stamp the arrest ticket "Probable Cause." The arrest ticket will also be stamped with the date and time it is received by the CDO.
3. The CDO will distribute the copies of the arrest ticket as in the past. However, the CDO will now call the bureau involved in the investigation as indicated in Block 15 of the arrest ticket and will advise a supervisor that they have an investigative arrest for that bureau. Between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. the CDO will contact a Felony Response Supervisor either by telephone or by radio. The bureau will pick up their copy of the arrest ticket upon notification by the CDO Office.
4. The CDO’s Office will notify each bureau within 24 hours of any pending investigative arrest wherein the defendant has not been charged. The CDO making the phone call will note the date and the time and to whom they spoke concerning this.
5. The CDO’s Office will again notify each bureau after 36 hours of any pending investigative arrest wherein the defendant has not been charged. The CDO making the phone call will note the date and the time and to whom they spoke concerning this.
6. After a defendant has been detained 40 hours, the 24 Hour Clerk’s Office will notify the CDO that the defendant involved has not been charged. At that time, the CDO will attempt to contact the bureau involved to advise them that they have to charge the defendant immediately. A felony response supervisor will be notified if a bureau supervisor can not be contacted.
7. If the bureau involved or Felony Response does not present the charging documents immediately, the commissioned officer assigned to the CDO’s office will immediately fill out a release form and present it to the 24 hour clerk’s office for the immediate release of the defendant involved.

Chapter XI, Section 13: Records Retention