CDT NL 2016 #2:
News from the Region:
The Chelan Douglas Trends website has provided valuable information and
insights for us over the last eight years, and as our community continues to
grow and change, so also does the way we measure our strengths as well as our
needs. In early 2016, leaders from different sectors in our community weighed
in on some possible modification to the data being tracked in all nine of the
current subject areas. These updates can help us identify new starting points
and measure our future progress in ways that are more relevant to current
projects and goals, and the process to review these recommendations
continues.
Many different organizations are taking on the responsibility to pursue and
accomplish a variety of specific action items that have been identified through
the Our Valley, What’s Next surveys. As we begin to plan for our future in a more collaborative way
across this region, those folks who are on the front lines of these projects are telling us what additional
information they would like to see included on the trends site that can help them measure, share, and
celebrate their efforts. We will finalize this next wave of updates through the last quarter of 2015, so be
looking for some interesting information soon.
Stacy Luckensmeyer - Business & Industry Liaison, Wenatchee Valley College
Short Stories:
OffenderWatch - Location of Sex Offenders in Your Area
Every county in Washington State utilizes a program called
OffenderWatch, which “is the nation's leading registered sex offender
management and community notification tool with hundreds of leading
agencies in dozens of states utilizing it.” The OffenderWatch tool for
Chelan County can be accessed here, and Douglas County can be
accessed here. The list of offenders is constantly being updated, and as
of September 7, 2016, there were 44 registered sex offenders in Chelan County and 29 in Douglas
County.
Nationally, Adults are more likely to Remain Missing than Children
As of December 31, 2014, the FBI’s National Crime Information Center
(NCIC) Missing Person File “contained 84,924 active missing person
records. Juveniles under the age of 18 account for 33,677 (39.7 %) of the
records and 43,289 (51.0 %) records when juveniles are defined as under 21
years of age”. According to the Polly Klaas Foundation, of the children who
do go missing, “a fraction of 1% are kidnapped each year in the stereotypical
stranger abduction”.
Active Missing Person Records are for persons reported to law enforcement
as being “missing” and were never located or recovered. Such files will be retained until if/when the
person is found regardless of how much time has passed. The numbers reflect people who were with
the absolute major majority reappearing either on their own or are recovered by authorities within a
short period of time.
Looking at the overall numbers during 2014, there were a total of 635,155 missing person files for
people of all ages that were entered into the NCIC Missing Person File database with 634,367 being
cleared or cancelled during the year. These numbers are the annual number of “Missing Person File
Entries” added into NCIC database while the “Active Missing Person Records” are for persons who
remained missing (totaling 84,924 persons at the end of 2014). In short during 2014 in the U.S., 788
missing persons were not cleared; therefore, were classified and remained as an “Active Missing Person
Record” in the NCIC database. By the end of 2014, 60.3% of the “Active Missing Person Records” in the
NCIC database were for adults 18 years and older.
The national trend regarding the percentage of missing persons age 18 and older who remained missing
doesn’t hold true in Washington State. To see a list of missing adults in the state, click here. For missing
juveniles in the state, click here. As of 8/11/16, there were 43 missing adults. As of 9/1/16, there were
66 missing children. If a person went missing as a child and have remained missing into what would be
their adulthood, this person will be posted on both the missing children and missing adults in
Washington
To learn more about missing children in the U.S. and to discover ways to become involved, visit the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) website.
A Brief History and Introduction to Crime Statistics in the U.S.
Crime statistics can be a confusing for a number of reasons, but provide
insights into public safety issues. Crime statistics, regardless of the
methodology, are based in crimes that have come to the attention of law
enforcement. These are either crimes that are reported by citizens directly to
or crimes discovered independently by law enforcement. If a crime does not
come to the attention of law enforcement, it does not become a statistic.
However, it is important to note that not all crimes are reported and in those
cases, they are not counted in the official crime statistics, whether a minor
property crime like snow tires being stolen out of a back yard where no one bothers to report it, or a
horrific violent crime like rape where some estimates show roughly 70% - 80% go unreported. As this
newsletter primarily focuses on Public Safety indicators on the Chelan-Douglas Trends website, it is
helpful to understand how crime statistics are collected and reported, along with weaknesses and
limitations of the data.
Flaws acknowledged, reporting of crime has been present for over 75-years in the U.S. Partially inspired
by increased organized crime and violence in the 1920s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was
mandated in 1930 to begin collecting crime statistics and publishing them annually in the Unified Crime
Report (UCR). Within the UCR report, there are two main crime statistic methodologies that are similar,
but very different: the Traditional Summary Reporting System (SRS) and the National Incident-Based
Reporting System (NIBRS). The UCR and SRS have been in existence since 1929 (the first publication
appearing in 1930) with only two major changes: adding arson in 1979 and splitting rape into two
different definitions: the legacy definition, which is essentially the original definition used when UCR
began in 1930, and the revised definition that includes acts not included in the legacy definition.
The SRS tracks and reports on eight offenses, known as Part I Offenses, consisting of Violent Crimes
(listed in descending order of hierarchy: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, aggravated
assault, and robbery) and Property Crimes (listed in descending order of hierarchy: burglary,
larceny/theft, and motor vehicle theft). Arson is tracked and reported separately under the property
crimes umbrella, but arson figures are not included in the overall property crime totals.
Hoping to gain more detail into types of crime being committed, the FBI instituted the NIBRS
methodology in 1989. NIBRS tracks and reports on 22 different Group A Offenses broken into three subcategories: Crimes Against Persons (including, but not limited to: assaults, intimidation, and sex
trafficking), Crimes Against Property (including, but not limited to: burglary, destruction of property, and
counterfeiting), and Crimes Against Society (including, but not limited to: narcotics violations,
prostitution, and some weapon law violations). NIBRS also collects Group B Offenses (including, but not
limited to: trespassing, public drunkenness, and disorderly conduct), which are much less severe crimes
than both the SRS Part I Offenses and NIBRS Group A Offenses and are not counted in the overall crime
statistics (both property and violent) provided in the FBI’s annual report, more recently known as Crime
in the United States.
According to the FBI, when the SRS methodology is used and there is multi-offense criminal incident,
only the most serious crime is counted except when arson is also involved. Arson is counted regardless
of any additional offenses. This is known as the Hierarchy Rule. When the NIBRS methodology is used,
each of the individual crimes in a multi-offense criminal incident is counted. For example, if someone
steals a car, uses it to drive to a store to break in, and steal a gun, and kill a security guard in the process,
NIBRS will count all acts whereas the SRS only counts the murder.
In Washington State, each law enforcement agency reports their crime statistics to the Washington
Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC). WASPC then produces an annual report, the most
recent titled Crime in Washington 2015 (link directly opens a PDF file). WASPC data are subsequently
submitted to both SRS and NIBRS databases of the FBI. It is the FBI that creates a state total by coding all
reported crimes using the NIBRS methodology, converting them it into SRS data, combining them with
directly reported SRS data, finally releasing its annual report for the state in the SRS format only.
For purposes of this newsletter and many Public Safety indicators on the Trends site, all law
enforcement agencies in both Chelan and Douglas Counties report NIBRS, with one exception: The
Washington State Patrol (WSP), which currently doesn’t report either SRS or NIBRS. So when a
Washington State benchmark is offered for an indicator in this newsletter, it does not contain any WSP
crime statistics
Although it was expected that by July 2012 all law enforcement agencies in Washington State would
begin reporting on a NIBRS and discontinue reporting on a SRS basis, logistical and hardware challenges
have slowed the switch and extensions have been granted. During 2015, there were only 14 law
enforcement agencies, excluding the WSP, that were still reporting SRS crime statistics to WASPC, but
many of them are large agencies like the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office, the City of Spokane Police
Department, the King County Sheriff’s Office, and the Bellevue Police Department - just to name a few.
The complete list of SRS reporting agencies in Washington State can be viewed here.
According to Joan L. Smith, Criminal Justice Information Support Manager and the State UCR Program
Manager, “Prior to converting to NIBRS in July 2012, [the WSP] submitted via the Summary Reporting
System (SRS) for Part I & II offenses; however, since conversion, they don’t have an electronic method of
collecting and submitting their Group A incident data…The WSP may be tracking them internally;
however, they are not submitting them to the State UCR Program for inclusion in the state or federal
UCR files.”
Finally, it is also important when looking at crime statistics not to encourage any direct comparison
between jurisdictions. Comparisons and differences should take into consideration a plethora of socioeconomic determinants as well as how their particular trend line has performed historically. That said,
benchmarks can provide cautious insight as to how an area is performing. The FBI’s official Caution
Against Ranking explains many variable affecting crime and things to consider when comparing crime
statistics.
Indicators in Action:
Local Government Expenditures for
Law Enforcement Varies by
Jurisdiction By Scott Richter and Dr. Patrick
Jones
A fundamental function of local government is
to provide a safe environment for all its citizens.
Typically, fire and police consume a major part
of municipal or county governmental budgets
and rightfully so because the protection of lives
and property are at stake.
The first component of the local government
expenditures for law enforcement indicator
tracks per capita expenditures on law
enforcement by all local governments. One
expects rising expenditures to lift governments'
ability to provide a safe environment. Per capita
calculations also facilitate comparisons with
benchmarks. To be clear, the state benchmark
includes local government expenditures only
and does not include expenditures incurred by
state or federal entities within Chelan or
Douglas County.
The second component consists of spending on
law enforcement per $1,000 of total personal
income (TPI) in Chelan & Douglas Counties. This
measure expresses the preference of the
citizens, as executed by their elected
governmental officials, to allocate funds to law
enforcement, for a given income level. It also
facilitates comparison with a benchmark.
Expenditures for law enforcement specific to
this indicator include: administration, police
operations,
crime
prevention,
training,
facilities,
traffic
policing, and
“other”
services.
Law
enforcement
agencies
receive
funding from
many
different
sources,
such as from grants, or from the state or federal
government. This indicator only counts funding
that is generated locally.
Examining the expenditures indicator, we see
that Chelan and Douglas Counties combined
have been consistently below the state
benchmark on a per capita basis, yet
consistently above the state benchmark per
$1000 of total personal income (TPI).
Specifically during 2014, the law enforcement
expenditures per $1000 TPI in Chelan & Douglas
Counties combined was $5.21, decreasing from
$6.40 in 2007. In Washington State during 2014,
local government expenditures per $1000 TPI
was $4.86, also decreasing but very slightly
from $4.88 in 2007.
On a per capita basis during 2014, the law
enforcement expenditures in Chelan & Douglas
Counties combined was $206, increasing slightly
from $203 in 2007. In Washington State during
2014, local government expenditures per capita
was $244, decreasing from $207 in 2007.The
high mark for local law enforcement
expenditures in the two counties occurred in
2012. In general, local area expenditures have,
on average,
come close
to the
Washington
state per
capita rates.
As you will
read in the
Property
and Violent
Crimes
Decreasing
with
Benchmarks
article, the
decreases in
law
enforcement expenditures per capita hasn’t
resulted in statistical increases in crime. In fact,
crime statistics show marked declines
nationwide over the last 20-years.
The Chelan County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) is
offering a Citizens Academy where citizens can
see a realistic perspective of what law
enforcement officer’s experience through the
course of their daily work. The CCSO have a
Block Watch program helping citizens organize
to take responsibility for maintaining the safety
of the neighborhoods they live in.
The Douglas County Sheriff’s Office (DCSO) has
a variety of programs made up of noncommissioned volunteers. The Auxiliary Patrol
provide the ability to provide extra patrols and
resident checks when people are away from
their homes and will alert deputies when an
official response is required, the Community
Emergency Response Team (CERT) is designed
to better prepare citizen volunteers how to
respond effectively in emergency situations if
one was to occur in their communities.
Additionally, citizens can involve themselves in
the Citizen Corps and the Reserve program
offered by the DCSO.
--------------------
Property and Violent Crimes
Decreasing Along with Benchmarks By
Scott Richter and Dr. Patrick Jones
According to a Gallup, most Americans believe
crime is up from the previous year, with this
perception existing for at least the last decade.
Meanwhile, the truth is crime has decreased
nationwide with the exception of a few outlier
areas since the early 1990’s.
Criminologists
have a number
of varying
theories on the
decrease in
crime including
the aging
boomer
population
(people “age”
out of crime),
the elimination
of lead in paint
and gasoline
(lead has been
proven to cause
aggressive
behavior and
cognitive delays in children), and the prison
boom (prisoner rate per 10,000 people in the
U.S. 707; in Russia 474; in China 172; and
estimates for North Korea between 600 - 800),
or the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 that added 100,000
law enforcement officers across the U.S. while
increasing funding for prisons and prevention
programs by nearly $16 billion. Another theory
is based on more citizens owning guns.
No one really knows for sure why crime has
decreased. Crime statistics play a major role in
criminologist theories, and while many are
valid, some
are arguably
borderline
anecdotal as
there is no
way to
outright
prove any
theory as
definitive.
Perhaps each
theory
contributes
bits and
pieces to the
reality of
crime in the
U.S. One
shining example of this is New York City now
the safest city in America based on “digital
security, health security, infrastructure safety
and personal safety.”
Statistically, the reality is both property and
violent crimes have been decreasing over the
last 20-years in most places across the U.S. This
area is no exception. Property crimes per 1,000
residents have decreased in Washington State
from 55.3 in 1995 to 37.6 in 2014 and per 1,000
residents in the U.S. from 45.9 in 1995 to 26.0
in 1995. Also decreasing are violent crimes per
1,000 residents in Washington State, moving
from 4.6 in 1995 to 2.9 in 2014 per 1,000
residents, and in the U.S. from 6.8 in 1995 to
3.7 in 1995.
Over the last six
years, Chelan &
Douglas Counties
combined have
shown a lower
property crime
rate per 1,000
residents than
the U.S. and has
been
consistently
below the state
benchmark for
nearly the entire
series. Violent
crime rates per
1,000 residents
in Chelan &
Douglas Counties combined have been even
further below both the state and national
benchmarks for the entire series.
Beyond acknowledging both counties are below
benchmarks and producing decreases in crime,
caution should be used when attempting direct
comparisons from one jurisdiction to another
due to many differing contributing factors. A
deeper explanation why caution should be used
when comparing crime statistics from one area
to another can be found in the Brief History and
Introduction to Crime Statistics in the U.S. story.
Looking at the property crime indicator for
Chelan and Douglas Counties combined, we
observe that during 2015, the total number of
property crimes known to law enforcement
totaled 2,490, decreasing from 4,634, or by 46%
since 1995. The property crime sub-categories
(listed by hierarchy) are: burglary, larceny-theft,
and motor vehicle theft, have each shown
decreases since 1995 (39%, 50%, and 14%
respectively). By rate, property crime per 1,000
residents of the combined counties during 2015
was 21.6, decreasing from 49.4 in 1995. Both
counties registered significant decreases since
1995 in all
categories,
with the
exception of
motor vehicle
theft in
Douglas
County,
which has
seen a rise of
88%.
Looking at
the violent
crime
indicator for
Chelan and
Douglas
Counties combined, we see that during 2015,
the total number of violent crimes known to
law enforcement was 116, decreasing from 244,
or by 52% since 1995. Listed in descending
order of hierarchy: murder and non-negligent
manslaughter, rape, aggravated assault, and
robbery, the categories have shown decreases
since 1995 (75%, 62%, 49%, and 54%
respectively). Significantly, the violent crime
rate per 1,000 residents of the combined
counties during 2015 was 1.0, decreasing from
2.6 in 1995.
City data for these indicators show a little more
sporadic increases and decreases, which is
primarily due to having a much smaller
population than a county or the state. For
Wenatchee and East Wenatchee, it is more
important to look at the trend line and in the
cases of both cities, the rate per 1,000 residents
has been steadily decreasing.
When asked about the decreases in violent
crime rates in the city and county, Wenatchee
Police Department Chief Steve Crown said “at
least two factors were at work: a decline in
economic activity over the period and proactive law enforcement. The force cleaned up
quite a few gang actors during that time.”
Experienced recently in Wenatchee,
annexations increase the population numbers,
which in turn, directly affects the crime rate.
As to the absence of a similar drop in property
crime, Chief Crown notes that “in 2008, the
[Wenatchee Police Department] enjoyed 43
commissioned officers, a number that declined
to 38 in the aftermath of the Great Recession.”
By the end of 2016, he expects his department
to be fielding 40 officers.
At the moment, there are really no indications
that the general trend of crime decreasing
almost everywhere across the U.S. will reverse
itself. After the events of 9/11, the expansion of
federal law enforcement agencies such as the
U.S. Border Patrol, increased federal funding to
local law enforcement agencies, citizens with
cell phones and cameras, we are a different
country and are paying attention a little
differently. In the world of crime statistics, one
thing we can truly take from these indicators is
that without a doubt, we are much safer than
we were not too long ago.
--------------------
Youth Arrests Decreasing, Following
National Trends By Scott Richter and Dr.
tried as adults, if the details of the crime
warrant being prosecuted as an adult.
Patrick Jones
There are four related indicators on the ChelanDouglas Trends site, all of them representing
the number of youth arrested per 1,000 youth
ages 10-17. The indicators are youth arrests for:
a property crime, a violent crime, a drug crime,
and an alcohol crime.
One of the leading indicators to future adult
criminal activity is criminal activity as a youth.
This is interesting and important because
neuroscience now understands the human
brain isn’t fully developed until around the age
of 25.
Regardless, youth criminal behavior, as with
adult criminal behavior, must be addressed and
not go unchecked. Unique to the juvenile
criminal justice system is the legal requirement
emphasizing rehabilitation, attempting to guide
juvenile offenders towards a positive and
productive future. On the flip side, juveniles
who commit extremely violent crimes can be
A quick summary shows in Chelan and Douglas
Counties combined, each of the four main
youth indicators for arrests, offered as the rate
per 1,000 youth (also ages 10-17) in each area,
have decreased. Specifically, the rate per 1,000
youth arrested for a property crime decreased
dramatically from 59.3 in 1995 to 8.9 in 2014;
violent crime dropped from 3.6 in 1995 to 1.2 in
2014; drug crime declined from 6.0 in 1995 to
4.8 in 2014; and an alcohol crime plummeted
from 20.2 in 1995 to 1.2 in 2014.
According to Gary Smith, Probation Manager
with Chelan County Juvenile Center, no one
really knows for sure why juvenile crimes have
decreased by these percentages. Similar to the
drops in overall property and violent crimes
across the nation, - research abounds but as of
yet, no single theory explains it all.
Smith reports that in Chelan County Juvenile
Center there is a “standardized risk assessment”
conducted
for each
juvenile who
was arrested
“to
determine
the risk to reoffend as
well as
determining
which youth
are eligible
for our
treatment
programs.”
One
program,
Aggression Replacement Training, is a
“cognitive behavioral intervention,” teaching
teenagers to successfully “cope with their
aggressive and violent behaviors.” Another
program, Functional Family Therapy focuses “on
both family interaction patterns and on the
benefits family members may derive from
problem behavior. The program uses reframing
and cognitive therapy methods while employing
a bilingual therapist who goes into the home,
and counsels the entire family.”
Smith notes that “eighty-five percent of
juveniles who are arrested are a ‘one-anddone’, meaning, they are never re-arrested for
any new crimes.” These results provide
evidence as to the benefits of separate criminal
justice systems for juveniles and adults. Smith
concludes “Many of the youth are immature
and make poor decisions. And after being
caught, they quickly learn from their mistakes,
and go on
to be
valuable
citizens.”
All of the
youth
indicators
in this
newsletter
use data
sourced by
the
Washington
State
Department
of Social
and Health Services - Risk and Protection
Profiles for Substance Abuse Prevention
Planning, which directly uses available WASPC
data, excluding state and national statistics
provided only by the UCR. Although the most
recent year showing on each of the indicators is
2014, the data is current with a new data
release expected near the end of 2016.
--------------------
5-Questions with Stephen Maher - “Our Valley,
What’s Next” Project Coordinator
1. You are the coordinator for Our Valley What’s Next? How would you
describe your job?
The best job around. I handle duties you would expect, such as scheduling
and facilitating meetings, initiating and documenting planning steps, retaining
records, keeping everyone in the loop, recruiting folks to serve on
committees, working with our consultant and others.
I also have overseen communications and outreach efforts. That work has included conducting two
extensive public surveys and building good working relationships with the media, businesses,
government agencies, nonprofits and others.
The overarching push from me is to keep Our Valley on point and progressing.
A friend of mine told me what I really am is a community organizer. I chuckled when she said that. But
there’s a lot of truth in that description.
2. Can you tell us how Our Valley What’s Next has used data so far in its process?
It’s been the main driver behind the Our Valley action items and major game-changer projects. The first
values-based survey we conducted in summer and fall 2015 is what gave birth to our initial list of 150
action items and a dozen game-changers. The survey was completed by more than 1,500 residents,
including 23 percent who self-identified as being Latino. After six committees (each representing a focus
area) vetted the action items and projects, Our Valley conducted another survey this summer. This time,
we asked residents to prioritize the action items. Those actions that ended up being ranked the highest
came from many of the top themes and vision ideas found in last year’s survey. The second survey has
served to validate we are on the right path.
3. Our Valley What’s Next did not win the $100,000 grant as one of the finalists in Frontier
Communication’s “America’s Best Communities” contest. How has this affected the work of the
organization?
There was initial disappointment but that quickly gave way to a steeled resolve to focus on the real prize
— the revitalization of Our Valley. It’s important to point out that Our Valley What’s Next was formed
prior to its involvement in the America’s Best Communities contest. For a while there, we were on two
parallel tracks — on one side, pushing on with the overall community visioning and planning initiative,
and on the other side, competing in the contest. Because of the deadlines associated with the contest, it
forced us to hone in on our messaging and planning.
Our Valley received $25,000 for being a semi-finalist. Coupled with $50,000 awarded earlier by
America’s Best Communities, we received $75,000 in total seed money that we otherwise would not
have had access to. That was leveraged with another $65,000 from local organizations, including
$15,000 from the United Way of Chelan and Douglas Counties.
4. As you peruse the Trends site, what findings jump out at you?
Over the past few months, Wenatchee Valley officials have sounded the alarm about a growing housing
crisis, particularly as it impacts those seeking lower cost housing and rentals. Data on the Trends website
backs those claims up. The apartment vacancy rate is 1.7 percent in Chelan and Douglas counties,
compared to 3 percent statewide; the average cost of a one-bedroom apartment rose from $662 a
month to $925 a month between fall 2015 and spring 2016. Meanwhile, the average annual wage in
Chelan and Douglas counties was $36,185, versus $56,650 statewide. Another data set shows the per
capita personal income gap continuing to widen between the two-county region and the state.
5. What is your general sense of the use of fact (and data) in current community dialog in the Valley?
The Wenatchee World newspaper and two radio stations produce news reports from time to time on
Trends data and other statistical reports. Our Valley What’s Next, of course, is very much fact-based and
has used Trends data on income, employment and housing as cornerstones of the project. And my
experience is that government and nonprofit officials grasp the demographic and socio-economic
changes taking place here, including those outlined in the Trends reports, and that they share that
information with others.
Given that people today are bombarded with information, with many utilizing social media for their
news, educating the overall community using data is more challenging. We’ve utilized Trends to help
people understand the importance of creating a vision and strategic action plan for the future. This
information has been instrumental in helping people see the critical timing for this project. But we have
more work to do in this regard.
Our Valley has chosen Chelan-Douglas Trends as the metrics to measure the success of its action items
and projects in the future. Our Valley considers Trends an integral part of its mission.