Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240 Filed: 02/21/19 1 of 8. PageID #: 4648 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF CLEVELAND Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. MOTION TO APPROVE CLEVELAND DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING PLAN Pursuant to Paragraphs 319 through 321 of the Consent Decree and the Revised Third-Year Monitoring Plan in the above-captioned matter, the City of Cleveland (the “City”), on behalf of the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP” or “Division”), submitted a proposed Staffing Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Monitoring Team has carefully reviewed the proposed Staffing Plan. The Team has determined that the Staffing Plan identifies important changes to CDP’s patrol operations— particularly in its deployment of patrol officers—that will allow the Division to more effectively meet its longstanding mission to promote public safety and its newly formalized mission to deliver community and problem-oriented policing. The Monitoring Team therefore recommends that the Court approve CDP’s Staffing Plan. Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240 Filed: 02/21/19 2 of 8. PageID #: 4649 I. SUMMARY STAFFING OF CONSENT DECREE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING The Consent Decree required that the Division “complete a comprehensive staffing study to assess the appropriate number of sworn and civilian personnel to perform the functions necessary for CDP to fulfill its mission, and satisfy the requirements of this Agreement.” Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 319. Subsequently, CDP needed to “develop an effective, comprehensive Staffing Plan that is consistent with its mission, including community and problem-oriented policing, and that will allow CDP to meet the requirements of this Agreement.” Id. Specifically, the Staffing Plan must “address and provide for each of the following: • “personnel deployment to ensure effective community and problem-oriented policing; • “a sufficient number of well-trained staff and resources to conduct timely misconduct investigations; • “to the extent feasible, Unity of Command; and • “a sufficient number of supervisors.” Id. at ¶ 320. Along with those specific requirements, the Staffing Plan must also “allow CDP to meet the [other] requirements of this Agreement[,]” including, but not limited to, rigorous investigations and reviews of force incidents; specialized crisis intervention officers; supervisors that can competently supervise officers and review stops, searches, and arrests; the implementation of an Early Intervention System. Id. at ¶¶ 93-130, 151, 168, 322, 326-36. These various provisions necessarily require changes to the way that CDP deploys its existing personnel and to the overall number of sworn and civilian personnel. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 17, 2016, CDP submitted to the Parties and Monitoring Team a Resource Study and Deployment Proposal that provided an estimate of staffing levels necessary to do all that the 2 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240 Filed: 02/21/19 3 of 8. PageID #: 4650 Division must do to ensure safe, effective, and constitutional policing. While the document helped the Monitoring Team to understand the Division’s current personnel and deployment methods, it was not yet the type of plan contemplated by Paragraph 320 of the Decree. Subsequently, the Parties agreed to postpone active work relating to the creation of a staffing plan in order for the Division to focus on the Republican National Convention in 2016, finalize the use of force policies, and implement other core processes and policies that might significantly impact necessary or desired staffing levels. Following CDP’s major accomplishments relating to use of force and crisis intervention, as well as the work to finalize the Division’s CPOP Plan, the Parties renewed their focus on the Staffing Plan in late 2017, seeking to construct a plan around the appropriate number of personnel that would permit CDP to fulfill its mission and to satisfy the various requirements of the Decree outlined above. After continued drafting, the Staffing Plan was released to the public for community comment and input on May 15, 2018. The community input period closed on September 28, 2018. During this time, the Cleveland Community Police Commission (“CPC” or “Commission”), led by its Staffing Work Group, held community meetings and distributed paper and online surveys to solicit residents’ thoughts on the Staffing Plan. The City similarly held meetings and surveyed residents through the District Policing Committees and other community partnerships. On February 17, 2019, CDP incorporated the final round of feedback from the Department of Justice and Monitoring Team and submitted the final draft of the Staffing Plan. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Monitoring Team’s role is to “assess and report whether the requirements” of the Consent Decree “have been implemented.” Dkt. 7-1 at ¶ 351; accord id. ¶ at 352 (requiring the Monitor to “review . . . policies, procedures, practices, training curricula, and programs developed 3 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240 Filed: 02/21/19 4 of 8. PageID #: 4651 and implemented under” the Decree). The task of the Monitoring Team here is to determine whether the submitted Staffing Plan complies with the Consent Decree’s requirements. IV. ANALYSIS OF THE STAFFING PLAN The proposed Staffing Plan largely, and understandably, focuses on CDP’s Patrol Section, which is tasked with “crime reduction, coupled with community engagement and problem-solving with community members[,]” and hence is “considered the backbone of the Division[.]” Ex. A. at 17. The major change contemplated in the proposed Staffing Plan is the shift to a “workload-based model” for CDP’s Patrol Section. A workload-based model derives staffing decisions from current calls for service. In short, it estimates future staffing needs and deployment strategies by modeling current police activity. This kind of analysis allows a department to determine where it needs additional resources or where it can reallocate existing resources (by location or by time). In developing its Staffing Plan, CDP analyzed citizen-initiated calls for service in 2016, including analysis by location and across time (time of day, day of the week, month, and patrol shift). Id. at 20-23. Calls also were analyzed by the type of call, identifying the top 10 calls across Cleveland. Id. at 24. The Division estimated the amount of officer time spent on calls for service, broken down by priority codes (four categories of calls based on how immediate an officer response is required). The Staffing Plan then considers the shift relief factor, or the “relationship between the maximum numbers of days that an officer can work and actually works.” Id. at 29. This number allows a better estimate of the appropriate number of officers that should be assigned to a shift. It considers scheduled days off, vacation time taken off, personal holidays, requested days off, and required time spent training in the Police Academy. This method of analysis allowed the Division to develop a recommended staffing level. Id. at 32. These staffing levels were then adjusted based on practical estimates that 25% of all calls require a backup car and that 40% of officers’ time is not dedicated strictly to answering calls for 4 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240 Filed: 02/21/19 5 of 8. PageID #: 4652 service. Specifically, “CDP’s model includes time for those other activities set at 20% community engagement and 20% for administrative duties (total of 40% of time). Officers’ administrative time can include the completion of criminal and crash reports, completion of duty reports, lunch breaks and categorizing body cameras footage to name a few functions. The new staffing plan allocates 20% of officer’s time on community engagement and problem-oriented policing, which can include bicycle patrols, community meetings, safety fairs and business and residential safety audits.” Id. at 33. Ultimately, Figure 15 in the Staffing Plan indicates the Division’s recommended staffing levels for each CDP District. Id. at 35-37. Although the Staffing Plan primarily focuses on the staffing of the Division’s Patrol Section, the Plan also includes recommended staffing levels for CDP’s investigative units, factoring in the average caseload, the average time it takes to investigate types of crime ordered by “solvability,” and the number of investigators needed to conduct thorough investigators. Id. at 37-38 (Tables 7 and 8). The Staffing Plan also addresses ways for CDP to manage demand for police services. A decrease in demand for services naturally results in CDP members who are less burdened and can focus their efforts in areas that are more productive for the individual officer and the Division altogether. One significant aspect explored by the Staffing Plan is calls for service that result from alarms. As part of the Plan, CDP analyzed the alarm calls it received in 2015. CDP officers responded to 23,659 residential and business alarms, of which 98% were false. Id. at 42. The frequency of false alarms wastes substantial time for officers who respond to those alarms, with a median response time of 40 minutes per call and an estimated total of “nearly 28,542 officer hours on alarm calls.” Id. at 43. Under the Plan, CDP will look to “control and reduce the frequency of false alarms through legislation and increasing the capacity of the Web-based Crime Reporting [an 5 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240 Filed: 02/21/19 6 of 8. PageID #: 4653 online reporting system CDP currently uses for certain no-suspect or minor crime reports for which officers need not physically respond to the scene][.]” Id. at 44. Altogether, the Staffing Plan is a thorough examination of CDP’s current resources that appropriately looks to various models, such as the workload-based model, as a way to better align CDP staffing with real-world demands. The Plan also considers alternative ways to free up time such that CDP officers are better positioned to meet the new Division-wide expectations, such as 20% of patrol officers’ time spent engaging the community, as part of the Division’s expressed commitment to community and problem-oriented policing. The Monitoring Team will be closely auditing and assessing whether the Staffing Plan’s contemplated changes, and the overall shift to a workload-based model, in fact permits officers a sufficient amount of time to meet the Division’s new expectations and its ability to best promote public and officer safety. VI. CONCLUSION The Monitoring Team’s recommendation that the Court approve the Staffing Plan is limited to the extent that the Plan was intended to primarily address the overall staffing of CDP’s patrol and core investigative functions. It does not address, nor does it try to address, the levels of staffing that various specialty units – such as Internal Affairs or Training – may need as CDP goes forward with implementing various new policies, procedures, and required training initiatives. Thus, the Parties and Monitoring Team have agreed that additional discussions about long-term levels of staffing for various specialty units – especially those implicated by the Decree – will need to occur in the coming months. Nevertheless, the Plan’s primary scope of patrol and core investigative functions is sufficiently covered for purposes of the Decree’s core Staffing Plan requirements. The task of the Monitoring Team is to duly consider whether the City’s submitted Staffing Plan satisfies the terms of the Consent Decree. The Monitoring Team concludes that the Plan 6 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240 Filed: 02/21/19 7 of 8. PageID #: 4654 meets the terms of the Consent Decree. Accordingly, the Monitor approves the Staffing Plan in its entirety and requests that this Court order it effective immediately. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE Monitor 40 Washington Square South New York, New York 10012 Tel: (202) 257-5111 Email: matthew.barge@21cpsolutions.com 7 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240 Filed: 02/21/19 8 of 8. PageID #: 4655 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 21, 2019, I served the foregoing document entitled Motion to Approve Cleveland Division of Police Staffing Plan via the court’s ECF system to all counsel of record. /s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE 8 Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 1 of 55. PageID 4656 EXHIBIT A DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] February 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 2 of 55. PageID #: 4657 CLEVELAND DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT Frank G. Jackson, mayor Michael McGrath, safety director Calvin D. Williams, chief Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 1 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] February 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 3 of 55. PageID #: 4658 Mission Statement The mission of the Cleveland Division of Police is to serve as guardians of the Cleveland community. Guided by the Constitution, we shall enforce the law, maintain order, and protect the lives, property, and rights of all people. We shall carry out our duties with a reverence for human life and in partnership with members of the community through professionalism, respect, integrity, dedication and excellence in policing. The highest priority of the Division of Police is providing basic police services to the community. The Division is organized into three main functional operations, overseen by three Deputy Chief’s in order to deliver these services in the most efficient and cost effective manner possible. Administrative Operations provides the necessary support services that enable Field Operations and Homeland Special Operations to function as effectively as possible. Administrative Operations provides warrant, subpoena, and property processing; radio and telephone communications; management of information and human resources. Additional functions include the reporting and recording of crimes and incidents and the continued development of the Division through planning and training of all personnel. Field Operations provides response to citizen calls for assistance through uniformed patrol activities in five districts and interacts with citizens via community programs, Community Relations, and the Auxiliary Police. The District support sections assist uniformed patrol efforts through the investigation of major offenses, concentrated enforcement action on specific complaints and crime pattern analysis. The Bureau of Traffic provides crowd control and traffic control at major events and investigates serious traffic accidents. Quality of life issues are addressed by the Community Services Unit. Homeland Special Operations is composed of three main sections which provide a variety of investigative, technical, and preventative services along with establishing security initiatives. Investigations are completed by detective bureaus that specialize in specific crimes such as homicides, sex crimes, and domestic violence. Support units such as SWAT handle volatile situations where specialized training is required. Technical support provides forensic and crime scene analysis as well as photographic and lab services. Homeland Services prevents, responds, and investigates terror activities in the City of Cleveland and the Greater Cleveland area by securing our airports, analyzing crime data for future preventive crime and terrorist trends. Homeland Services coordinates and shares law enforcement intelligence with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 2 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] February 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 4 of 55. PageID #: 4659 I. Background CDP Staffing Report introduction………………………………………………….……4 Table 1A Number of Members by Rank............................................................ 6 Table 1B Cleveland Police Departures 2001-2017………………………….……7 Figure 1 CDP Organization ..................................................................................8 Figure 2 CDP Distribution of officers by rank………………………………………9 Figure 3 CDP Division Map ................................................................................16 Patrol Operations and Staffing Approaches………………………………………..17 II. Application of Workload-based Model CDP Workload-Based Approach……………………………………………………...19 Examination of Calls for Service (CFS)…………………………………………….….20 Figure 4 CFS by Districts..................................................................................... 20 Figure 5 CFS by Hour (city-wide)...................................................................... 21 Figure 6 CFS by Hour by District ........................................................................21 Figure 7 CFS by Day of Week (city-wide).........................................................22 Figure 8 CFS by Month (city-wide)................................................................... 22 Figure 9 CFS by Shift (city-wide) .......................................................................23 Figure 10 CFS by Command ...…......................................................................23 Table 2 CFS by Type (city-wide) .......................................................................24 Figure 11 CFS resulting in a report………..........................................................25 Table 3 Components of CFS Time (city-wide) ................................................26 Table 3A Components of CFS Time by District ……..……..…………….……..26 Staffing Investigative Units..………………………………………..…………..……....27 Table 4 PERF Table (Cleveland). ………………………………………………….29 Shift Relief Factor ………………………………………………………………………..29 Table 5 Calculation of Shift Relief Factor .......................................................30 Work Schedule …………………………………………………………………………..30 Figure 12 8hr Schedule …………………………………………………………….31 Figure 13 10hr Schedule ……………………………………………………………31 III. Recommended Staffing CDP Patrol Section Staffing Estimates……………………………………………....32 Table 6 Staffing Estimates (25% Backup) .......................................................32 Figure 14a CFS Priority 1 (city-wide)................................................................34 Figure 14b CFS Priority 1 by Shift………………………………………………….34 CDP Patrol and Support Section Recommendations…………………..……….35 Figure 15 CDP Patrol Section Staffing Numbers.…….…............................... 35 CDP Investigative Section Recommended Staffing..…………….……………...37 Table 7 Investigative units (Homicide, Sex Crimes, DV Unit) …….………….37 Table 8 Investigative Units (District Detective Bureau)……….………………38 Proposed Organizational Chart………………………………….………………..…39 Proposed Future Needs of CDP………………………………….…………….…….40 IV. Managing the Demand for Police Services CDP Deployment Council Events and Special Details ……….………….……..41 Alarm Calls for Service…….…………………………………….……………….…….42 Table 9 Responses to alarms ………................................................................43 Web-Based Crime Reporting………………………………….….…………………..44 Specialized Response Units……………………………………..…………..…………44 Conclusion…………………………………..……………………..………….……….…46 Appendix…………………………………………………………..……..….……………47 Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 3 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] February 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 5 of 55. PageID #: 4660 I. Background Cleveland Division of Police Department Staffing Report The Cleveland Division of Police (CDP) was tasked with conducting a staffing report. The CDP staffing report is based on online research, an evaluation of current staffing levels, industry best practices, budgetary considerations, crime reduction strategies and community engagement and problem oriented policing. Additionally, CDP utilized the staffing studies from the following, Louisville Metro Police Department, Albuquerque Police Department and the COPS/MSU publication (2012) titled “Performance-Based approach to police staffing and allocation”, for the formulation of this plan. This report will focus on the following three (3) components that will enable CDP to better manage and deploy resources to achieve the following: 1. Violent crime reduction 2. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Plan (CPOP) 3. Compliance with the Settlement Agreement Violent Crime Reduction: Throughout the staffing report, emphasis was placed on violent crime reduction and how best to accomplish this goal. To this end, the Division will deploy Neighborhood Impact Community Engagement Unit Officers (NICE) and Gang Impact Unit Detectives (GIU). These two units, along with district detectives, will target areas within the five districts by conducting fugitive sweeps, directed patrols, social media monitoring and real time crime information to reduce the amount of violent crime in the targeted areas. The Community Response Officers’ (CRO) will attend monthly community meetings, conduct foot patrols and engage residents in conversations about problems in the neighborhoods. This intelligence gathering will then be given to the above units for action and the results given back to the resident. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing (CPOP): The Cleveland Division of Police uses the “Wellness Model” or community policing philosophy as the foundation by which police services are built. The Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Plan or CPOP will outline how CDP will engage with the community. CPOP is a combination of the core principles of community policing and the methodology of collaborative problem solving (also referred as problem-oriented policing). Community policing principles refer to the manner in which the Division and its officers routinely and proactively engage the community to create partnerships and co-produce public safety. It also applies to the aligning of organizational structure to reflect and support partnerships and community needs/wants throughout the Division. Collaborative problem-solving describes the practice of routine collaboration between police and community members/stakeholders to identify problems, co-produce a solution, and assess the outcome. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 4 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] February 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 6 of 55. PageID #: 4661 CPOP is an organizational strategy that promotes community partnerships and problemsolving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime. It is the responsibility of all members of the Division beginning with the Chief of Police. CDP and the City of Cleveland are committed to building and maintaining partnerships with all community stakeholders within the city and working with those partners to find sustainable methods to prevent and solve crimes. Compliance to the Settlement Agreement: The Settlement Agreement requires the Cleveland Division of Police to conduct a comprehensive staffing study to assess the appropriate number of sworn and civilian personnel to perform the functions necessary for the Division to fulfill its mission. The Settlement Agreement also requires that within 180 days of the completion of the study, the Division will develop an effective, comprehensive staffing report that is consistent with its mission including community and problem-oriented policing. The staffing report is designed to show where the Cleveland Division of Police is currently staffed, where it would like staffing goals to be in both the patrol section and specialized units as well as how to attain those staffing numbers. The goal is to provide the foundation for staffing CDP with sufficient number of officers that allow for more efficient police response for calls for service coupled with greater emphasis on community engagement, problemoriented policing and a reduction in violent crimes. Moreover, this staffing report provides projections from present through fiscal year 2020. The staffing projections are contingent upon the approval of both the Mayor and City Council. Current staffing levels The Cleveland Division of Police is a full service law enforcement agency that is charged with providing service to a population of approximately 385,805 (2010 census), covering 82.47 miles. CDP currently has 1,521 sworn officers as shown in table 1A (page 6). The Cleveland Division of Police’s staffing levels, like other similarly sized agencies, fluctuates annually. The attrition rate of CDP was reviewed and evaluated so it may be factored into the staffing needs of the CDP. Likewise, how increasing the number of sworn officers would impact the overall budget of the Division and the city as a whole. To this end, CDP’s current budget is broken down as follows: The FY 2017 budget for the agency was $95,837,581 (salaries only) with an overtime additional budget of $12,000,000. FY 2018 budget for the agency is $97,637,580 (salaries only) with an overtime additional budget of $12,750,000. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 5 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] February 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 7 of 55. PageID #: 4662 Table 1A illustrates staffing numbers as of April 2, 2018. Budge t 1 Total 1 Deputy Chief 4 4 Commander 12 9 1 1 Captain 18 17 Lieutenant 57 55 213 192 1304 1174 Chief Traf f ic Comm. Sergeant Patrol Of f icer Training Class TOTAL 68 1610 1521 TABLE 1A Table 1B (on page 7) illustrates the average attrition for the Cleveland Division of Police, based on the years of 2001-2017. The average rate of attrition for the past 16yrs is 80 officers per year. The first quarter of the year yields the highest amount of retirements. Attrition is one of many factors taken into consideration when evaluating the need to recruit and hire qualified candidates to the position of a patrol officer. The Division of Police understands the importance of keeping pace with attrition and have created a full time Public Safety Recruitment Team. The Public Safety Recruitment Team is staffed by a sergeant, two detectives, a firefighter and an emergency medical services technician. The Public Safety Recruitment Team is tasked with finding and recruiting the most qualified candidates for the safety forces. CDP has a goal of hiring 250 or more patrol officers in 2018 and anticipates conducting six (6) academies. Five (5) academies are scheduled for 2018 and one (1) for the 1st quarter of 2019 to handle attrition of retiring officers. The Public Safety Recruitment Team’s plan will take into account the average attrition each year and make sure hiring is either equal to or above that number. Please refer to the in-depth CDP Recruitment Team Plan for further details. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 6 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] February 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 8 of 55. PageID #: 4663 Cleveland Division of Police Departures from 2001 to 2017 01' 02' 03' 04' 05' 06' 07' 08' 09' 10' 11' 12' 13' 14' 15' 16' 17' Total 97 80 69 60 60 86 63 96 77 66 75 81 64 109 85 104 84 1356 Cleveland Division of Police Departures from 2001-2017 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 01' 02' 03' 04' 05' 06' 07' 08' 09' 10' 11' 12' 13' 14' 15' 16' 17' *WITHOUT LAYOFFS Cleveland Division of Police Departures from 2001-2017 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 01' 02' 03' 04' 05' 06' 07' 08' 09' 10' 11' 12' 13' 14' 15' 16' 17' TABLE 1B Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 7 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] February 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case: 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 9 of 55. PageID #: 4664 Current Cleveland Division of Police Department Organizational Chart FIGURE 1 Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 8 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 10 of 55. PageID #: 4665 Figure 1(page 8) illustrates the current Organizational Chart. Figure 2 illustrates how CDP distributes officers by rank, officers budgeted for each unit and officers assigned to that unit as of January 15, 2018. Budgeted numbers are those officers the City of Cleveland approved through legislation. The budgeted numbers can also be viewed as the actual officers approved based on the staffing report. The assigned column in the chart are those sworn officers currently assigned to the units and or positions. FIGURE 2 PATROL OFFICER ASSIGNMENTS ACADEMY UNIT ACCIDENT INVESTIGTIVE UNIT ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS AIRPORT UNIT AIRPORT UNIT-CANINE AIU/HIT SKIP AVIATION UNIT BUDGET UNIT BUDGE T 10 8 ASSIG N 9 6 DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES 0 0 50 3 4 2 2 45 3 4 1 1 BUREAU OF COMM.AND PROPERTY BUREAU OF INTEGRITY CONTROL BUREAU OF SPECIAL INVESTS BUREAU OF SPECIAL SERVICES BUREAU OF SUPPORT SERVICES CANINE UNIT 0 1 patrol of CLE Hopkins Airport canine officers assigned to CLE Hopkins Airport detectives assigned to AIU and handle hit skips officers assigned to the helicopter officer assigned to assist the Budget Unit Sergeant admin officer 0 2 officers handling research for consent decree 3 3 1 0 0 0 5 4 CHIEF'S OFFICE CITY COUNCIL SECURITY CITY HALL SECURITY COMMUNICATIONS CONTROL SECTION COMMUNITY RELATIONS SECTION COMMUNITY RELATIONS/DARE CRIME ANALYSIS UNIT 3 1 11 0 3 1 8 0 15 7 2 0 2 2 CRIME SCENE & RECORDS UNIT DISTRICT 1 21 13 153 136 new and continuing education for the Division detectives assigned to serious auto crashes patrol and bomb dog handlers assigned to patrol duties office staff for Chief and Case Prep Lieutenant driver for City Council President officers assigned to secure City Hall community policing officers detectives assigned to gather Intel for the Division of Police detectives assigned to gather crime scene evidence and photos all officers and detectives assigned to a specific district Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 9 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 11 of 55. PageID #: 4666 DISTRICT 2 180 164 DISTRICT 3 213 172 DISTRICT 4 190 173 DISTRICT 5 160 135 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE UNIT EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE UNIT ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME TASK FORCE EXTENDED ILLNESS 15 5 12 5 2 2 0 44 FIELD OPERTIONS FINANCIAL CRIMES UNIT FORENSIC UNIT FUGITIVE UNIT GANG IMPACT UNIT GYMNASIUM UNIT HOMICIDE UNIT INSPECTIONS UNIT INTELLIGENCE UNIT LOGISTICS SECTION MAYORS DRIVER MEDICAL UNIT MILITARY DUTY MOBILE SUPPORT UNIT 1 5 2 2 23 5 23 0 9 2 2 0 0 6 0 2 3 2 14 5 14 0 4 0 3 0 1 5 MOTORCYCLE UNIT MOUNTED UNIT NARCOTICS UNIT NICE UNIT 38 8 22 30 27 8 15 16 N.O.V.F.T.F. ORDANCE UNIT PERSONNEL UNIT PERSONNEL UNIT ( BSCA) PERSONNEL UNIT ( CPPA) 2 10 10 2 3 0 8 18 0 3 PHOTO UNIT POLICE ACADEMY POLICE ACADEMYRECRUITS 1 0 0 1 3 68 all officers and detectives assigned to a specific district all officers and detectives assigned to a specific district all officers and detectives assigned to a specific district all officers and detectives assigned to a specific district detectives assigned only D.V. cases detectives who help officers handle personal issues detectives assigned to a larger county task force for dumping officers off on extended illness due to injury or other causes detectives assigned to financial crimes detectives assigned to locate wanted felons detectives who primarily focus on gang crimes new and continuing education for the division detectives assigned to investigate deaths detectives assigned to Homeland Security admin officer at E.55 Garage Mayors drivers officers deployed in the military responsible for computers in cars and camera systems Bureau of Traffic officers Bureau of traffic officers, horses detectives to investigate drug crimes officers and detectives who target violent crime Northern Ohio Violent Task Force new and continuing education for the division detectives assigned to handle hiring contractual officer position for Black Shield contractual officer position for Patrolmen Assoc. detective for photo lab new officers in the Academy Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 10 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 12 of 55. PageID #: 4667 POLICY & PROCEDURE UNIT PROPERTY/FORFEITURE UNIT RECORDS SECTION S.W.A.T. UNIT 3 1 admin officer 7 7 officers that manage the property unit 2 16 2 12 SEX CRIME/CHILD ABUSE UNIT SUSPENDED TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION UNIT TIMEKEEPING UNIT TRAINING SECTION TRANSPORT UNIT VEHICLE CUSTODIAL UNIT/LOT 2 VEHICLE CUSTODIAL UNIT/LOT 6 VEHICLE IMPOUND UNIT VIOLENT CRIME TASK FORCE ( FBI) 23 14 admin officer full time officers for Special Weapons and Tactics detectives who only handle Sex crimes/Child Abuse 0 4 1 8 3 0 0 6 2 0 1 4 0 0 6 0 9 1 1340 1242 BUDGE T 3 ASSIG N 2 ACCIDENT INVESTIGTIVE UNIT AIRPORT UNIT 1 0 5 3 BUDGET UNIT BUREAU OF HOMELAND SERVICES BUREAU OF INTEGRITY CONTROL BUREAU OF SPECIAL INVESTS BUREAU OF SPECIAL SERVICES BUREAU OF SUPPORT SERVICES CANINE UNIT 1 1 1 1 0 1 supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers responsible for all budget items for Division supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers admin supervisor 1 1 admin supervisor 0 0 1 0 1 1 CHIEF'S OFFICE CITY HALL SECURITY 1 1 1 1 SERGEANTS ASSIGNMENTS ACADEMY UNIT officers who handle online reporting and other duties officers who handle timekeeping admin officer admin officers admin Officers detective assigned to Task force DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES supervisors that oversee training in the Academy supervisors that oversee detectives supervisors that oversee operations of canine officers PIO supervisors that oversee city hall operations Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 11 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 13 of 55. PageID #: 4668 COMMUNICATIONS CONTROL SECTION COMMUNITY RELATIONS SECTION COUNCIL LIASON CRIME ANALYSIS UNIT 1 0 supervisor assigned to police radio 2 1 1 1 0 0 CRIME SCENE & RECORDS UNIT DISTRICT 1 2 3 23 21 DISTRICT 2 23 22 DISTRICT 3 29 23 DISTRICT 4 23 24 DISTRICT 5 23 19 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE UNIT 2 2 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE UNIT ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME TASK FORCE EXTENDED ILLNESS FIELD OPERATIONS FINANCIAL CRIMES UNIT 1 2 1 1 0 2 1 4 1 0 FORENSIC UNIT 0 1 GANG IMPACT UNIT 2 2 GYMNASIUM UNIT H.I.D.T.A. (OIC) HOMELAND/SPECIAL OPERATIONS HOMICIDE UNIT 1 1 1 1 1 0 supervisors that oversee DARE and community events works directly with City Council members supervisors that oversee operations of patrol Officers and analysts supervisors that oversee operations of detectives supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers/detectives supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers/detectives supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers/detectives supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers/detectives supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers/detectives supervisors that oversee operations of detectives supervisors that oversee operations of detectives supervisors that oversee operations of detectives supervisors on injury or sick leave admin supervisor supervisors that oversee operations of detectives supervisors that oversee operations of detectives supervisors that oversee operations of detectives supervisors that oversee training in the gym part of a task force 3 2 INSPECTIONS UNIT 6 6 INTELLIGENCE UNIT 2 1 INTERNAL AFFAIRS UNIT MAYORS SECURITY MEDICAL UNIT MILITARY DUTY 10 1 1 0 7 0 1 0 supervisors that oversee operations of detectives supervisors who are responsible for policy compliance supervisors that oversee operations of detectives supervisors who invest police corruption supervisor who assists the Medical Unit supervisor deployed in the military Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 12 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 14 of 55. PageID #: 4669 MOBILE SUPPORT UNIT 1 1 MOUNTED UNIT 1 2 NARCOTICS UNIT 2 2 NICE UNIT 3 2 N.O.V.F.T.F. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ORDANCE UNIT PERSONNEL UNIT 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 PERSONNEL UNIT ( BSCA) PERSONNEL UNIT ( FOP) POLICY & PROCEDURE UNIT POLICE ACADEMYPROMO PROPERTY/FORFEITURE UNIT RECORDS SECTION 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 5 6 S.W.A.T. UNIT 2 2 SEX CRIME/CHILD ABUSE UNIT SAFETY DIRECTOR OFFICE TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION UNIT TIMEKEEPING UNIT 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SECTION TRAINING SECTION 4 4 0 1 VEHICLE CUSTODIAL UNIT/LOT 2 VEHICLE IMPOUND UNIT 1 1 1 1 VIOLENT CRIME TASK FORCE ( FBI) 0 1 211 192 BUDGE T ASSIG N LIEUTENANTS ASSIGNMENTS supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers supervisors that oversee operations of detectives supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers/detectives Supervisors that oversee training at the range Supervisors that oversee operations of Detectives Supervisor contractual for Black Shield supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers supervisors in training after promotional supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers supervisors that oversee operations of detectives supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers supervisors that oversee training of recruits at districts supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers supervisors that oversee operations of patrol officers Supervisor attached to task force DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 13 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 15 of 55. PageID #: 4670 ACCIDENT INVESTIGTIVE UNIT AIRPORT UNIT 1 1 1 1 AVIATION UNIT CHIEF'S OFFICE COMMUNICATIONS CONTROL SECTION COMMUNITY RELATIONS SECTION CRIME SCENE & RECORDS UNIT DISTRICT 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 6 6 DISTRICT 2 6 7 DISTRICT 3 7 6 DISTRICT 4 7 7 DISTRICT 5 6 6 EXTENDED ILLNESS FIELD OPERATIONS HOMELAND/SPECIAL OPERATIONS HOMICIDE UNIT 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 INSPECTIONS UNIT INTELLIGENCE UNIT 1 1 1 1 INTERNAL AFFAIRS UNIT JAIL LIASON LOGISTICS SECTION 1 1 1 0 1 1 N.O.L.E.T.F. (OIC) 1 1 NARCOTICS UNIT NICE UNIT 2 1 0 1 PERSONNEL UNIT PERSONNEL UNIT ( FOP) POLICE ACADEMYPROMO POLICY & PRODEDURE UNIT 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 supervisor that oversee operations of patrol officers/sergeants supervisor that oversee operations of patrol officers/sergeants Admin supervisors for a DC and Case Prep supervisor that oversee operations of patrol officers/sergeants supervisor that oversee operations of patrol officers/sergeants supervisor that oversee operations of patrol officers/sergeants supervisor that oversee operations of patrol officers/sergeants supervisor that oversee operations of patrol officers/sergeants supervisor that oversee operations of patrol officers/sergeants supervisor that oversee operations of patrol officers/sergeants supervisor that oversee operations of patrol officers/sergeants Admin Supervisor supervisor that oversee operations of detectives/sergeants supervisor that oversee operations of sergeants supervisor that oversee operations of detectives/sergeants supervisor that oversee operations of sergeants supervisor that oversees the Jail Unit supervisor that oversee operations of patrol officers/sergeants supervisor that oversee operations of detectives/sergeants supervisor that oversee operations of detectives/sergeants contractual position supervisors in training after promotional Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 14 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 16 of 55. PageID #: 4671 PROPERTY SECTION 1 1 RECORDS SECTION 1 2 S.W.A.T. UNIT 1 1 SAFETY DIRECTOR OFFICE SPECIAL VICTIMS SECTION 0 1 1 1 TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SECTION TRAINING SECTION 1 1 1 58 1 55 CAPTAINS ASSIGNMENTS BUDGE T 0 1 ASSIG N 0 1 1 1 supervisor that oversee operations of patrol officers/sergeants XO to a Commander 0 1 special detail for consent decree 0 0 1 0 XO to a Commander 1 2 1 2 DISTRICT 2 2 2 DISTRICT 3 2 2 DISTRICT 4 2 2 DISTRICT 5 2 2 EXTENDED ILLNESS FIELD OPERATIONS PERSONNEL UNIT ( FOP) POLICE ACADEMY PROMO TRAINING TECHNOLOGY AND PROPERTY SECTION 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 crisis intervention training coordinator supervisor that oversee operations of all units and ranks supervisor that oversee operations of all units and ranks supervisor that oversee operations of all units and ranks supervisor that oversee operations of all units and ranks supervisor that oversee operations of all units and ranks supervisor on injury or illness special events coordinator contractual position 1 0 17 17 AVIATION UNIT BUREAU OF COMMUNITY POLICING BUREAU OF HOMELAND SERVICES BUREAU OF INTEGERITY CONTROL BUREAU OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS BUREAU OF SUPPORT SERVICES CIT COORDINATOR DISTRICT 1 supervisor that oversee operations of patrol officers/sergeants supervisor that oversee operations of patrol officers/sergeants supervisor that oversee operations of patrol officers/sergeants admin supervisor supervisor that oversee operations of detectives/sergeants supervisor that oversee operations of patrol officers/sergeants supervisor in charge of training section DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 15 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 17 of 55. PageID #: 4672 The Cleveland Division of Police is a decentralized organization. Most of the agency’s personnel are assigned to the five police districts, each district is directed by a commander. Figure 1(Page 8) illustrates the current organizational structure of the Cleveland Division of Police. Figure 3 illustrates the geographical boundries of each police district within the City of Cleveland. Cleveland Division of Police Districts FIGURE 3 Each district provides a number of services including: Services Unit Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 16 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 18 of 55. PageID #: 4673 Patrol Operations The Patrol Section is one of the most critical commands of CDP as they are responsible for calls for service. The main focus is crime reduction, coupled with community engagement and problem solving with community members. The Patrol Section is considered the backbone of the Division and the most visible to the community. The sections that follow highlight common staffing approaches that were evaluated to determine which would work best for the needs of the City of Cleveland, Department of Public Safety, and Division of Police. Typical Approaches to Staffing Allocation Traditionally, there have been four basic approaches to determining workforce levels: per capita, minimum staffing, authorized level, and workload-based. The Per Capita Approach Many police agencies have used their resident population to estimate the number of officers a community needs (Adams 1994; Orrick 2008). The per capita method requires determining an optimum number of officers per person and then calculating the number of officers needed for the population of a jurisdiction (Orrick 2008). The appendix on page 46 is how CDP per capita compares to other large cities based on 2016 data. There are advantages to the per capita method such as its methodological simplicity and ease of interpretation. The population data required to calculate this metric, such as census figures and estimates, are readily available and regularly updated. Per capita methods that control for factors such as crime rates can permit communities to compare themselves with peer organizations (Edwards 2011). The disadvantage of this method is that it only addresses the quantity of police officers needed per population and not how officers spend their time, the quality of their efforts, or community conditions, needs, and expectations. Similarly, the per capita approach cannot guide agencies on how to deploy their officers. Per capita ratios also do not account for changes in population characteristics (such as seasonal fluctuations in tourist communities), or long-term trajectories of population growth and shrinkage. The per capita method does not account for variations in policing style, service delivery, or response to crime (i.e., how police officers spend their time). The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has strongly advised against using population rates for police staffing. The IACP (2004, 2) notes, “Ratios, such as officers-perthousand population, are totally inappropriate as a basis for staffing decisions…. Defining patrol staffing allocation and deployment requirements is a complex endeavor which requires consideration of an extensive series of factors and a sizable body of reliable, current data.” Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 17 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 19 of 55. PageID #: 4674 The Minimum Staffing Approach The minimum staffing approach requires police supervisors and command staff to estimate a sufficient number of patrol officers that must be deployed at any one time to maintain officer safety and provide an adequate level of protection to the public (Demers, Palmer, and Griffiths 2007; Orrick 2008). The use of minimum staffing approaches is fairly common (Kotsur 2006; National Sheriffs’ Association 2007) and is generally reinforced through organizational policy and practice and collective bargaining agreements. Minimum staffing can also decrease the extent to which an agency can be nimble and flexibly deploy officers based on changing workload demands. The Authorized Level Approach The authorized level approach uses budget allocations to specify a number of officers that may be allocated. The authorize level does not typically reflect any identifiable criteria such as demand for service, community expectations, or efficiency analyses, but may instead be reflective of budgetary constraints and other external factors. The authorized level can become an artificial benchmark for need, creating the misperception among police leadership, line staff, and the community that the agency is understaffed and overworked if the actual number of officers does not meet the authorized level (Baker and Harmon 2006). The authorized level approach was reviewed and evaluated by CDP extensively. Based on this evaluation, it was determined the authorized level approach to staffing was not best suited for CDP. The Workload-Based Approach A more comprehensive attempt to determining appropriate workforce levels considers actual police workload. Workload-based approaches derive staffing indicators from demand for service (Lumb 1996). What differentiates this approach is the requirement to systematically analyze and determine staffing needs based upon actual workload demand while accounting for service-style preferences and other agency features and characteristics. Conducting a workload analysis can assist in determining the need for additional resources or relocating existing resources (by time and location), assessing individual and group performance and productivity, and detecting trends in workload that may illustrate changing activity levels and conditions (Glendale Police Department 2009; Hale 1994; Orrick 2008; Shane 2007). Furthermore, a workload analysis can be performed at every level of the police department and for all key functions, although it is more difficult to assess workload for some units than others (Hale 1994). The importance of the workload-based approach to staffing is evidenced by it being codified as a standard (16.1.2) by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (2006). Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 18 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 20 of 55. PageID #: 4675 Through research, no universally-accepted standard method for conducting a workloadbased assessment exists and typical workload models are complicated and require intensive calculations. A step-by-step approach for conducting a workload-based assessment should include the following: 1. Examining the distribution of calls for service by hour, day, and month. Calls for service can differ by the hour of the day, the day of the week, and the month of the year. Peak call times can also differ by agency. Knowing when peak call times occur can help agencies determine when they must have their highest levels of staff on duty. 2. Examining the nature of calls for service. Reviewing the nature of calls can help better understand the work that an agency’s officers are doing. Types of police work required can vary by area within a single jurisdiction and require agencies to staff differing areas accordingly. 3. Estimating time consumed on calls for service. Determining how long a call takes, from initial response to final paper work, is crucial to determining the minimum number of officers needed for a shift. This is most straightforward when a single officer handles the call and completes resulting administrative demands (e.g., reports, arrests) prior to clearing it. 4. Calculating agency shift-relief factor. The shift-relief factor shows the relationship between the maximum numbers of days that an officer can work and actually works. Knowing the relief factor is necessary to estimating the number of officers that should be assigned to a shift in order to ensure that the appropriate number of officers is working each day. 5. Establishing performance objectives. This encompasses determining what fraction of an officer’s shift should be devoted to calls for service and what portion to other activities. For example, an agency might build a staffing model in which officers spend 50 percent of their shift on citizen-generated calls and 50 percent on discretionary activities. 6. Providing staffing estimates. Staffing needs will, as noted earlier, vary by time of day, day of week, and month of year, among other variables. Agencies should distribute their officers accordingly. For example, a shift with only half the number of calls than another shift will require half the number of officers. These numbers may also vary by the type of calls, and the time and officers they require, in each shift. For example, one large urban agency assigns two officers to each unit in its evening shift, affecting the number of officers needed for units to respond to calls. Another responds to the same type of calls in different ways in different shifts (for example, sending a unit in some shifts, but requesting citizens file a report in person at a station during others). II. Application of Workload Based Model CDP Workload-Based Approach After careful consideration and deliberation, CDP has determined the Workload-Based Approach will best serve the needs of the Division of Police and the City of Cleveland. The following sections will go into detail using CDP data and applying the data to the WorkloadBased Assessment. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 19 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 21 of 55. PageID #: 4676 Examination of Calls for Service by Hour of Day, Day of Week and Month The principal metric used to assess workload is citizen-initiated calls for service. A call for service occurs when a resident contacts the police, typically by phone, and a police officer is dispatched to handle the call. While key to the workload-based approach, it can be difficult to reliably measure the number of calls in a community. Law enforcement executives may use information from a Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system to determine the number of calls for service in a given time period, but such information can be very misleading. Most organize their CAD systems around “events” or “incidents.” Yet these events are not necessarily calls for service. In some communities, every traffic stop is an event, as is, in Chicago, even an officer’s meal, and an officer’s visit to a station is an incident (Weiss 2010). In others, an event may be generated or initiated by an officer, yet appear in a statistical system as a call for service. Traffic stops in particular may appear to be calls for service, particularly if an arrest is made. Using CAD data without scrutiny may grossly exaggerate, perhaps by three- or four-fold, the number of citizen-generated calls, although some systems permit users to identify records by the source of the call. Emerging CAD/RMS technologies may make it easier to obtain reliable workload data. Following this model, data was examined from the CDP for the period of January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2016. During that period the Division of Police handled 301,755 citizengenerated calls for service (CFS). Calls were defined as those in which a citizen contacts the police and officer or officers are dispatched. This category of calls does not include officer initiated activity like traffic or officer stops or Divisional initiated activity like directed patrol. To provide some sense of the magnitude of call demand, consider that 301,755 calls equate to about 827 CFS per day or the equivalent of 35 calls per hour. Figure 4 illustrates CFS by district. The unknown column in figure 4 are calls for service that were assigned outside of the patrol section. FIGURE 4- YR 2016 Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 20 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 22 of 55. PageID #: 4677 Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of citizen-generated calls for service by hours of the day for the Division. Like most police agencies the peak demand for service occurs in the late afternoon hours. Note that after that time demand remains relatively stable until midnight, when calls begin to drop off. FIGURE 5- YR 2016 Figure 6 illustrates the distribution of calls by hour of day in each of the five police districts. Although the number of calls varies by hour, the hourly patterns are similar in each district. FIGURE 6- YR 2016 Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 21 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 23 of 55. PageID #: 4678 Figure 7 illustrates the distribution of calls by day of week. There is relatively little variation by day of week. This is particularly important because the work schedule currently in use by CPD patrol results in nominally equal numbers of officers working each day. FIGURE 7- YR 2016 Figure 8 illustrates the distribution of calls by month. This is what CDP expected based on experience with similar agencies that were researched. FIGURE 8-YR 2016 Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 22 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 24 of 55. PageID #: 4679 Figure 9 illustrates the distribution of calls by shift citywide. This is what CDP expected based on experience with similar agencies that were researched. FIGURE 9- YR 2016 Finally, Figure 10 illustrates the percentage of calls for service by area of command. FIGURE 10- YR 2016 Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 23 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 25 of 55. PageID #: 4680 Examine Nature of Calls for Service In addition to analyzing the distribution of calls for service by hour, weekday, and month, administrators should examine the nature of calls. This will serve two purposes. First, it will help to determine whether the data reliably reflects citizen generated calls. If, for example, the list of call types includes categories such as traffic stops or officer meals, then the data are likely not reflecting resident needs. Second, such a review will help in better understanding the work that the agency’s officers are doing. CDP examined the nature of calls for service. Table 2 illustrates the top CDP calls for service categories. These call types represent 81.5 % of all calls for service. There are a few interesting items to consider while examining this list:  There are category types (e.g. Trouble- Unknown, Suspicious Activity) that do not adequately describe the nature of the call  CDP investigated 26,492 Alarm calls, of which the majorities (21,407 CFS or 80.8%) are false  CDP responds to over 9,575 silent 911, most of these are unfounded TABLE 2- YR 2016 Estimate Time Consumed on Calls for Service An important component of the analysis is the amount of time consumed on calls for service, specifically the time from when an officer is dispatched to answer the call until the last officer clears the scene. How this time is recorded will vary by community. It is most straightforward when a single officer handles the call and completes resulting administrative demands (e.g., reports, arrests) prior to clearing it. Information on time consumed by calls for service should be readily available in the CAD database. In some cases, measuring time consumed on calls for service is more problematic. In some organizations an officer may respond to a call and report the call is completed upon finishing the on-scene work. In other cases the officer may complete the report for that call later in the shift, perhaps at the station. In some agencies, the use of computer-based report systems may increase the time required for report preparation, or may prompt officers to return to the police facility to complete reports. As a result, report preparation may not appear as call-for-service Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 24 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 26 of 55. PageID #: 4681 (CFS) time. This potential problem can be addressed in two ways. First, an agency can determine the number of calls that require a report, and estimate the amount of time required. Second, if report writing will normally not be part of CFS time, it may be necessary to adjust for this when establishing performance standards. Figure 11 illustrates reports generated by the Cleveland Division of Police in 2016 as compared to overall calls for service. FIGURE 11 Table 3 (page 26) illustrates how Time is consider in the context of a call for service. Additionally, the CFS were broken down by priority codes and a description for each is provided below. A more detail description is in the Appendix. Priority 1: Requires an immediate response due to serious physical harm, serious property damage, or a serious crime in progress. Priority 2: Requires a minimum delay response to incidents that have the potential for serious physical harm, serious property damage or a crime that has just occurred. Priority 3: Requires an intermediate response to incidents that have the potential for minor harm, minor property damage or for a crime of this nature that has just occurred. Priority 4: Incidents that are considered “cold” and that require a report or to check on information. The Queue Time is awaiting dispatch. Travel time is the time from when the call is dispatched until the first officer arrives on scene. In the CDP analysis, the time consumed on the call is reflected by the time of dispatch until the time the call is cleared. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 25 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 27 of 55. PageID #: 4682 TABLE 3 CITY WIDE CFS Table 3A illustrates the time components for each District and how that performance is relatively similar across all districts. TABLE 3A CFS by Districts District 1 District 2 District 3 Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 26 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 28 of 55. PageID #: 4683 District 4 District 5 A final issue related to measuring time consumed is multiple-officer dispatching. Most CAD systems do not accurately capture the number of “back-up” officers dispatched to a call, nor do they capture the amount of time that the back-up officers spend on the call. In some communities officers “self-dispatch” to calls. That is, they respond to a call even though they have not been instructed to do so. There may not be a record of their time on scene. Later described, on page 32, is how CDP factored in the back-up officers into the staffing report. Staffing Investigative Units PERF states from the Austin Police Department Study (2012) that no matter how much investigative effort is put forth by police officers and investigators, not all crimes can be solved. The volume of crime in most cities in America is beyond the investigative resources of police departments. Large urban police departments in the United States, such as Austin’s, find that the best use of limited investigative resources is to assign cases based upon two basic criteria: the seriousness of the incident, and the potential to solve the case (often referred to as “solvability factors”). The series of crimes that make up the FBI Uniform Crime Report’s Part I offenses (homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft and arson) are often assigned for follow-up investigation. These types of crimes are assigned to investigative followup based on the severity of the crime, injuries caused to victims, a danger of continuing violence associated with the crime, the threat to the community at large, and a higher potential for solving the case and arresting criminals than is often found in lower-level crimes. Significant property loss, as defined by the police agency, may also be justification for an offense to receive immediate follow-up investigation. Solvability factors are the leads, clues and pieces of information present at a crime scene which may be useful in bringing a case to a successful disposition. The success of a follow-up investigation, if one is initiated, depends heavily on how the preliminary investigation was conducted by the first responder and investigator along with the information uncovered during the initial review. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 27 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 29 of 55. PageID #: 4684 Useful solvability factors include: • Witnesses to the crime – individuals or “electronic witnesses” in the form of video/audio recordings • Knowledge of suspect’s name • Knowledge of where the suspect may be located • Description of the suspect • Description of the suspect’s vehicle • Traceable property • Specific method of operation (MO) • Presence of usable physical evidence • Assistance of the public and/or the news media The CDP does not use a formal solvability formula. Its case assignment process depends on the current caseload, the type and complexity of a case and the general impression of the case’s solvability. When considering staffing levels, it is important to understand the actual availability of employees’ time to address casework is quite different from the hours they are assigned to work. Members of police departments have 2,080 hours available to work per year (an average of 40 hours per week). However, not all these hours will be available to apply to an investigative workload. From the 2,080 annual hours to be had, one must deduct holidays, various categories of leave (Sick and Vacation time), training time, and court time to determine the amount of time available to investigate cases. The CDP has established from the earlier staffing factor in this document that officers work on average 1240 hours per year. Staffing Methodology Next, PERF sought to identify the time necessary for members of investigative units to complete a thorough investigation. A case has been thoroughly investigated when it is ready to be submitted for prosecution or when all leads have been exhausted. As mentioned earlier, solvability factors are often used to assign cases for investigation. To determine staffing levels, PERF separates criminal investigations into four distinct solvability categories: Contact Only (cases that result in no follow-up or in simply re-contacting the victim); Less-Complicated Cases (substantial solvability factors are present that require relatively little further investigation to close the case); Typical Cases (those with a moderate level of solvability factors); and More Complex Cases (limited solvability factors present that require substantial effort and are difficult to close). Because the CDP investigation units had no hard data on the solvability factors for their cases or of the time required for thorough investigations, an estimate of the average time it takes to investigate each type of crime in each solvability category was established. This methodological approach is most useful for units whose cases come from outside the unit, as opposed to units that have significant discretionary workloads. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 28 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 30 of 55. PageID #: 4685 Gang Impact, vice and narcotics units have some outside cases sent for investigation, but most of their work is self-generated, based on leads, intelligence, community complaints and daily enforcement operations. Table 4 illustrates the percentage of cases in each unit that fall into various levels of solvability, and the time required to complete a thorough investigation in each type of crime at each level of solvability. As an example, in the cases investigated by the District Detective units for a Robbery, “Contact Only” cases typically consume one hour for each investigation; “Less Complicated” cases were allocated 10 hours each; “Typical Cases” consume on average 30 hours and “Complicated” cases average 60 hours per investigation. Comparing these figures to burglary—a less serious crime type but one that involves a significantly greater volume of cases—burglaries were assigned a half-hour for “Contact Only” cases, 3 hours for “Less Complicated” cases, 10 hours for “Typical Cases” and 40 hours for “Complicated Cases.” Again, these are average times for thorough investigations in each category. 2016 Violent Crimes Homicide Sex Crimes Robbery Felonious Asslt Burglary Felony Theft Domestic Violence Contact Only Less Complicated 10% 15% 30% 30% 40% 40% 20% 20 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 40% 40% 35% 35% 30% 25% 30% 50 12 10 10 3 4 3 Typical 40% 25% 25% 25% 20% 25% 35% More Complex 110 32 30 30 10 8 6 10% 20% 10% 10% 10% 10% 15% 220 80 60 60 40 40 24 TABLE 4 Calculating Shift-Relief Factor The next step in the CDP staffing estimate is to calculate the shift relief factor. The shift-relief factor shows the relationship between the maximum numbers of days that an officer can work and actually works. Knowing the relief factor is necessary to estimate the number of officers that should be assigned to a shift in order to ensure that the appropriate number is working each day. The shift-relief factor will vary by whether officers work 8 or 10-hour shifts. The shift relief factor defines the number of officers needed in order to ensure a sufficient number of officers are on duty to meet the community needs. Table 5 (page 30) illustrates the Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 29 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 31 of 55. PageID #: 4686 shift relief factor using 2018 data for the study period concerning time off for 1161 Patrol Officers. The below items are factored in the Shift Relief equation:  V-Days: scheduled days off  Furlough: vacation time taken off  PH Days: personal holidays off with prior approval  Compensatory Time: requested days off connection with furlough, V-days, etc.  In-service: required training days in the Police Academy 8 Hr. Staffing Factor Hours Required V-days hours Furlough hours avg PH Days Avg. Sick Time Hour avg. In-Service Hours Comp Time Hours avg. Hours Available Staffing Factor 1215 10 Hr. Staffing Factor Hours Required V-day hours Furlough Hours avg. PH Days Avg. Sick Time Hour avg. In-Service Hours Comp Time Hours avg. Hours Available 1.71 Staffing Factor 2018 2920 832 92.5 16 108 48 118.5 2018 3650 1560 92.5 20 108 60 118.5 1959 158 2.16 TABLE 5-YR 2018 The shift relief factor tells CDP how many officers are needed to assign to a shift in order to ensure that a sufficient number is working. For example, if 10 officers are needed on duty during the day shift, then 18 officers should be assigned on that shift (10 X 1.71). The above tables reflect the Cleveland Model of an 8 hr. dayshift and 10 hr. shifts for 2nd and 3rd platoons. Work Schedule 8 Hour Shift Figure 12 (page 31) illustrates how CDP uses an 8hr work schedule with a Six-day on/ two-day off schedule.  Rotating days off  Each officer gets two three day weekends during a 6 week cycle  Seven different V-Day groups  Equal staffing by day of week  Longest on duty cycle is six days Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 30 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 32 of 55. PageID #: 4687 8hr G H I J K L M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v FIGURE 12 Importantly, Every day 71 percent of the officers are assigned to be on duty, and that the number of officers on duty each day is the same. These are two very important criteria that can be used in evaluating a work schedule. Ten- Hour Shifts CDP also employs a rotating 10 hr. shift. Under this plan, officers work five10-hour shifts and have 3 days off each week. Beginning the fourth week officers’ work a 5/4, 4/4 and 4/4 week. The plan appeals to officers because it reduces the number of days worked, the likelihood of working on a holiday, and decreased commuting time. The plan also appeals to agencies because the work schedules have an overlap period between shifts, when officers on two shifts are working, the agency can double staffing during peak demand times. The CDP ten hour plan is illustrated below, Figure 13. N O P Q R S T 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v FIGURE 13 Establish Performance Objectives The fifth component, the performance objective, is to determine what fraction of an officer’s shift should be devoted to calls for service and what portion to other activities. While there is no accepted standard for this allocation it can be instructive to explore how agencies have faced this challenge. This is due to staffing and resource shortages but is being addressed with increased hiring and the new proposed staffing plan to include time for CPOP. Currently, CDP does not have built in time for community policing engagement. Officers currently answer calls for service as a primary function and will engage in community policing efforts as time permits. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 31 1 0700-1400 D1 ( SR) D1 (ZC) D2 ( SR) D2 (ZC) D3 ( SR) D3 (ZC) D4 ( SR) D4 (ZC) D5 ( SR) D5 (ZC) 1500-2200 D1 ( SR) D1 (ZC) D2 ( SR) D2 (ZC) D3 ( SR) D3 (ZC) D4 ( SR) D4 (ZC) D5 ( SR) D5 (ZC) 2300-0600 D1 ( SR) D1 (ZC) D2 ( SR) D2 (ZC) D3 ( SR) D3 (ZC) D4 ( SR) D4 (ZC) D5 ( SR) D5 (ZC) 2 CFS 6393 9928 9991 12451 8075 11536 8155 14632 6775 10455 CFS 7415 15708 9439 19322 8877 16125 8595 20862 6389 15437 CFS 2074 9220 3080 11160 4817 11038 3212 13058 2341 9624 3 25% 1598.25 2482 2497.75 3112.75 2018.75 2884 2038.75 3658 1693.75 2613.75 25% 1853.75 3927 2359.75 4830.5 2219.25 4031.25 2148.75 5215.5 1597.25 3859.25 25% 518.5 2305 770 2790 1204.25 2759.5 803 3264.5 585.25 2406 8 9 10 11 7 6 5 4 25% ADJCFS (1 & 45 min) UNITS ( /2920) units units 60% 60% 5.0 5 3.0 2.74 7992.0 1599 7992 4.0 8.0 13.4 14 3.19 9307.5 2482 12410 8.4 9 5.0 4.28 12489.0 2498 12489 4.0 8.0 13.4 14 4.00 11673.0 3113 15564 6.7 7 4.0 3.46 10094.0 2019 10094 4.0 8.0 13.4 14 3.70 10815.0 2884 14420 6.7 7 4.0 3.49 10194.0 2039 10194 5.0 10.0 16.7 17 4.70 13717.5 3658 18290 5.0 5 3.0 2.90 8469.0 1694 8469 4.0 8.0 13.4 14 3.36 9801.8 2614 13069 25% ADJCFS (1 & 45 min) UNITS ( /3650) units units 60% 60% 5.0 5 3.0 2.54 9269.0 1854 9269 4.0 8.0 13.4 14 4.03 14726.3 3927 19635 6.7 7 4.0 3.23 11799.0 2360 11799 5.0 10.0 16.7 17 4.96 18114.8 4831 24153 6.7 7 4.0 3.04 11097.0 2220 11097 5.0 10.0 16.7 17 4.14 15117.8 4032 20157 5.0 5 3.0 2.94 10744.0 2149 10744 6.0 12.0 20.0 20 5.36 19558.5 5216 26078 5.0 5 3.0 2.19 7987.0 1598 7987 4.0 8.0 13.4 14 3.97 14472.8 3860 19297 25% ADJCFS (1 & 45 min) UNITS ( /3650) units units 60% 60% 1.7 2 1.0 0.71 2593.0 519 2593 3.0 6.0 10.0 10 2.37 8643.8 2305 11525 3.3 4 2.0 1.05 3850.0 770 3850 3.0 6.0 10.0 10 2.87 10462.5 2790 13950 3.3 4 2.0 1.65 6022.0 1205 6022 3.0 6.0 10.0 10 2.84 10348.5 2760 13798 3.3 4 2.0 1.10 4015.0 803 4015 4.0 8.0 13.4 14 3.35 12242.3 3265 16323 1.7 2 1.0 0.80 2927.0 586 2927 3.0 6.0 10.0 10 2.47 9022.5 2406 12030 13 12 XSRF 1.71 XSRF 9 8.55 24 23.94 16 15.39 24 23.94 12 11.97 24 23.94 12 11.97 30 29.07 9 8.55 24 23.94 XSRF 2.16 XSRF 11 10.80 31 30.24 16 15.12 37 36.72 16 15.12 37 36.72 11 10.80 44 43.20 11 10.80 31 30.24 XSRF 2.16 XSRF 5 4.32 22 21.60 9 8.64 22 21.60 9 8.64 22 21.60 9 8.64 31 30.24 5 4.32 22 21.60 TABLE 6 Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police 5 5 5 5 OFFICE 5 5 5 5 5 OFFICE 5 4 4 4 10 22 14 22 14 22 14 31 10 22 16 31 21 37 21 37 16 44 16 31 13 24 20 24 16 24 16 30 13 24 15 32 45 36 36 Combined 32 47 60 58 58 Combined Recommended District 1 37 116 District 2 44 138 District 3 40 134 District 4 46 151 District 5 37 116 Combined 47 III. 4 14 OFFICE 4 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 33 of 55. PageID #: 4688 Recommending Staffing CDP Patrol Section Staffing recommendations CDP has described the preferred method for staffing the Patrol Section and through this method will adequately staff the Division to address violent crime, CPOP and the settlement agreement. 8hr and 10 hr., 25% back up and 60% CFS/admin time Page 32 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 34 of 55. PageID #: 4689 Table 6 (page 32) illustrates the recommended staffing level using the current hours of operation by CDP. **All calls for service were broken down into 8 hr. shifts to include 2nd and 3rd shift which are on 10 hr shifts. The additional 2 hours on 2nd and 3rd shift (10hr day) will be used as Community engagement time for calculation purposes. The Cleveland Division of Police determined that it was more appropriate to assume that 25% of all calls require a backup car. CDP took into consideration that many calls for service require backup units; these include Violent Felonies, Burglaries, CIT calls and many traffic crashes. The incidence of calls that require backup will vary significantly by neighborhood and time of day. CDP then focused on the allocation of an officer’s time. Police officers do many things other than answer citizen calls for service. CDP’s model includes time for those other activities set at 20% community engagement and 20% for administrative duties (total of 40% of time). Officers’ administrative time can include the completion of criminal and crash reports, completion of duty reports, lunch breaks and categorizing body cameras footage to name a few functions. The new staffing plan allocates 20% of officer’s time on community engagement and problem-oriented policing, which can include bicycle patrols, community meetings, safety fairs and business and residential safety audits. Next is a step by step description of how CDP applied the workload based assessment with 25% of all calls for service requiring backup unit. 0700-1400 CFS 25% 25% ADJCFS (1 & 45 min) UNITS ( /2920) units units 60% 60% D1 ( SR) 6393 1598.25 1599 7992 7992.0 2.74 3.0 5.0 5 D1 (ZC) 9928 2482 2482 12410 9307.5 3.19 4.0 8.0 13.4 14          XSRF 1.71 XSRF 8.55 9 23.94 24 OFFICE 4 13 24 Combined Recommended 37 District 1 116 Column 2: number of CFS based one or two officer cars for a specific time frame Column 3: back up cars (25%) multiplied by CFS in column 2 Column 4: adjusted CFS to include the backup officer Column 5: column 4 multiplied by 1 hr. or 45 min to get the total minutes on a CFS Column 6: column 5 divided by 2920(total days in a year multiplied by 8 hrs.) Column 8: column 6 multiplied by percentage of time dedicated to CFS Column 9: column 8 officers needed per day multiplied by the shift relief factor Column 10: office staff set at 4 officers Column 11: total officers needed to staff one shift CDP was able to take all priority one calls for service, which traditionally are multi-car dispatched, then used these calls for service to find the appropriate percentage to use for their staffing formula. The Figure 14A and 14B represents city wide priority 1 calls for service broken down by city-wide and shift. Figure 14A also notes calls not dispatched, this is due to duplicate CFS, callers cancelling the CFS, etc. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 33 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 35 of 55. PageID #: 4690 FIGURE 14A FIGURE 14B Limitations of the Workload-Based Model When using the workload-based approach it is important to consider some of the potential limitations. First, this model relies heavily on averages in producing the estimates. To the extent that workload demands exceed averages, relying on averages for scheduling may affect agency performance. An example of where this might occur is during substantial emergencies, concurrent major calls, or some unplanned event. In these sorts of unpredictable situations, the workload-based model, like other approaches, may not provide for an adequate number of officers. The main effect of this shortfall will be to reduce the availability of discretionary time. Second, the models do not differentiate among the various job functions of the police units. Lastly, included is the response time as a component of the call for service time, which is reliable in most communities. In communities with large geographical patrol zones, agencies may find that even when officers are available for calls Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 34 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 36 of 55. PageID #: 4691 for service, travel time to answer calls exceeds that needed to provide acceptable performance. In these agencies it is important to consider re-designing patrol zones to ensure that officers can respond to calls appropriately. Finally, it is important to note that the workload-based approach works best when a community responds to at least 15,000 citizen-generated calls per year. Otherwise, the time required for calls for service is so low that the number of officers recommended is far fewer than is thought reasonable. Police staffing is typically determined through a “coverage,” or minimum staffing approach. That is, the community makes a subjective judgment about the appropriate level of policing required for deterrence, rapid response, and to ensure officer safety. Of course, there are typically varied views about these objectives. For example, research suggests that as few as 5 percent of police calls for service require a rapid response (McEwen, Connors, and Cohen 1986), and yet most police departments are organized and staffed to respond rapidly to every call. Sometimes the number of officers is a function of citizen willingness to pay for those services. For example, the City of Holland, Michigan, employs about 60 sworn police officers, but Holland Township, which is about the same size and similar in nature, contracts for service with the county sheriff who covers the township with 16 sworn officers. CDP Patrol and Support Section Recommended Staffing Figure 15 illustrates the application of the above recommendations and applied them to the CDP model for the district patrol section. Below is the recommended staffing levels for all five districts based on the above recommendations. Included is the 2018 budgeted numbers along with current staffing as of Dec 31, 2018. When comparing the proposed staffing levels to the current staffing levels one can determine that there is a subtle increase. However, when analyzed at a deeper level, the proposed staffing numbers allow for the actual number of officers needed to answer calls for service and provide dedicated time for community engagement. Conversely, the current plan does not account for community engagement. These staffing numbers will be re-evaluated on a yearly basis to make sure there is proper staffing throughout the Division. FIGURE 15 CAPTAIN LIEUTENANT SERGEANT PATROL OFFICER 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 1 1 1 1 1 5 DISTRICT TRAINING COORDINATORS 1 1 1 PATROL SECTION 1 1 1 A PLATOON 1 1 0 7 6 6 37 29 27 B PLATOON 2 2 1 8 7 6 47 52 38 C PLATOON 2 1 1 7 7 6 32 29 29 SUPPORT SECTION 1 1 1 1 1 COMMUNITY RESPONSE UNIT 1 1 1 2 10 10 10 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OFFICERS (GRANT) 3 3 3 DETECTIVE UNIT 1 2 1 1 18 18 14 TRAFFIC UNIT 2 2 3 VICE UNIT 1 1 1 10 10 8 DISTRICT 1 TOTALS 2 2 2 7 6 5 26 23 22 161 155 138 UNIT DISTRICT 1 Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 35 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 37 of 55. PageID #: 4692 CAPTAIN LIEUTENANT SERGEANT PATROL OFFICER 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 1 1 1 1 1 4 DISTRICT TRAINING COORDINATORS 1 1 1 PATROL SECTION 1 1 1 A PLATOON 1 1 1 7 6 6 44 35 33 B PLATOON 2 2 1 8 7 7 58 63 55 C PLATOON 2 2 1 7 7 7 36 37 37 SUPPORT SECTION 1 1 1 1 1 0 COMMUNITY RESPONSE UNIT 1 1 1 2 10 10 10 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OFFICERS (GRANT) 3 3 2 DETECTIVE UNIT 1 2 1 1 17 17 16 TRAFFIC UNIT 2 2 2 VICE UNIT 1 1 1 10 10 6 DISTRICT 2 TOTALS 2 2 2 7 7 6 26 23 24 182 179 166 UNIT DISTRICT 2 CAPTAIN LIEUTENANT SERGEANT PATROL OFFICER 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 1 1 0 1 1 3 DISTRICT TRAINING COORDINATORS 1 1 1 PATROL SECTION 1 1 1 A PLATOON 1 1 1 7 6 6 40 31 31 B PLATOON 2 2 1 8 7 7 58 52 43 C PLATOON 2 2 1 7 7 6 36 39 36 SUPPORT SECTION 1 1 1 1 1 0 COMMUNITY RESPONSE UNIT 1 1 1 2 10 10 10 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OFFICERS (GRANT) 3 3 3 DETECTIVE UNIT 1 2 1 1 19 19 16 DOWNTOWN SERVICES UNIT 1 1 1 6 6 5 35 35 26 TRAFFIC UNIT 2 2 3 VICE UNIT 1 1 1 10 10 8 DISTRICT 3 TOTALS 2 2 2 8 8 6 32 29 28 215 203 180 UNIT DISTRICT 3 CAPTAIN LIEUTENANT SERGEANT PATROL OFFICER 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 1 1 1 1 1 6 DISTRICT TRAINING COORDINATORS 1 1 1 PATROL SECTION 1 1 1 A PLATOON 1 1 1 7 6 6 46 47 37 B PLATOON 2 2 1 8 7 7 60 58 55 C PLATOON 2 2 1 7 7 6 45 40 40 SUPPORT SECTION 1 1 1 1 1 0 COMMUNITY RESPONSE UNIT 1 1 1 2 10 10 10 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OFFICERS (GRANT) 3 3 3 DETECTIVE UNIT 1 2 1 2 27 20 21 TRAFFIC UNIT 2 2 2 VICE UNIT 1 1 1 10 10 7 DISTRICT 4 TOTALS 2 2 2 7 7 6 26 23 24 205 192 182 UNIT DISTRICT 4 Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 36 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 38 of 55. PageID #: 4693 CAPTAIN LIEUTENANT SERGEANT PATROL OFFICER 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 1 1 1 1 1 3 DISTRICT TRAINING COORDINATORS 1 1 1 PATROL SECTION 1 1 1 A PLATOON 1 1 1 7 6 6 37 29 29 B PLATOON 2 2 1 8 7 7 47 46 45 C PLATOON 2 1 1 7 7 6 32 34 33 SUPPORT SECTION 1 1 1 1 1 0 COMMUNITY RESPONSE UNIT 1 1 2 10 10 10 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OFFICERS (GRANT) 3 3 3 DETECTIVE UNIT 1 2 1 1 22 22 13 TRAFFIC UNIT 2 2 2 VICE UNIT 1 1 1 10 10 8 DISTRICT 5 TOTALS 2 2 2 7 6 5 26 23 23 165 158 147 UNIT DISTRICT 5 CDP Investigative Section Recommended Staffing 2016 Total Cases Contact Only Less Complicated Typical More Complex Total Hours Investigators needed Investigators assigned Homicide 229 458 4580 10076 5038 20152 16.3 19 Sex Crimes 1284 193 6163 10272 20544 37172 30 18 Domestic Violence Unit 2988 598 2689 6275 10756.8 20318 16.4 10 TABLE 7 Tables 7 illustrates the expected average caseload, the total number of hours, the number of investigators needed to conduct thorough investigations at 1240 hours per year. The 1240 hours is based on CDP staffing factor. Table 7 illustrates the following units; Homicide, Sex Crimes and Domestic Violence Unit. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 37 602 443 1557 197 494 642 608 809 1303 91 809 739 1915 2052 215 530 627 1167 1243 1416 District 2 Robbery Felonious Asslt Burglary Felony Theft Domestic Violence District 3 Robbery Felonious Asslt Burglary Felony Theft Domestic Violence District 4 Robbery Felonious Asslt Burglary Felony Theft Domestic Violence District 5 Robbery Felonious Asslt Burglary Felony Theft Domestic Violence Total Cases 470 Robbery 306 Felonious Asslt 1037 Burglary 1414 Felony Theft Domestic Violence 1140 District 1 Total Hours 8131 5294 7363 10464 7752 Total Hours 10415 7664 11055 1458 3359 Total Hours 11010 10518 5703 9642 637 Total Hours 13874 12785 13501 15185 1505 Total Hours 9090 10847 8227 9198 9912 More Complex 2820 1836 4148 5656 4104 More Complex 3612 2658 6228 788 1778 More Complex 3852 3648 3236 5212 328 More Complex 4854 4434 7660 8208 774 More Complex 3180 3762 4668 4972 5098 Typical 3525 2295 2074 2828 2394 Typical 4515 3323 3114 394 1037 Typical 4815 4560 1618 2606 191 Typical 6068 5543 3830 4104 452 Typical 3975 4703 2334 2486 2974 Less Complicated 1645 1071 933 1414 1026 Less Complicated 2107 1551 1401 197 445 Less Complicated 2247 2128 728 1303 82 Less Complicated 2832 2587 1724 2052 194 Less Complicated 1855 2195 1050 1243 1274 Contact Only 141 92 207 566 228 Contact Only 181 133 311 79 99 Contact Only 96 182 121 521 36 Contact Only 121 222 287 821 86 Contact Only 80 188 175 497 566 8 9 7 8 8 40 12 11 11 13 2 49 9 9 5 8 1 32 9 7 9 2 3 30 Investigators needed for thorough investigation 7 5 6 9 7 34 5 6 3 4 4 22 8 7 5 6 1 27 6 6 2 4 1 19 6 4 4 1 2 17 investigators needed for 90% of all cases 5 3 3 4 3 18 Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Recommended 28 14 Recommended 35 21 Recommended 25 14 Recommended 23 11 Recommended 22 10 Investigators currently assigned DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 39 of 55. PageID #: 4694 TABLE 8 Table 8 illustrates each district detective unit and the amount of investigators recommended based on the PERF formula. CDP has taken this information and recommend a hybrid amount of detectives it believes will accomplish the CDP mission. These staffing numbers will be reevaluated on a yearly basis to make sure there is proper staffing throughout the Division. Page 38 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 40 of 55. PageID #: 4695 Proposed Organizational Chart Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 39 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 41 of 55. PageID #: 4696 Notable changes from current organizational chart to the proposed chart    Homeland Special Operations 1. Moved all tactical operations to Bureau of Homeland Special Operations 2. Streamlined investigative units under Bureau of Special Investigations 3. Mayor’s detail moved from district operations to the Mayor’s City Hall Detail 4. New Unit of Crime Awareness and Response Evaluation (CARE) 5. Removal of Bureau of Special Services ( streamlined into Special invest and Homeland) Administrative Operations 6. Combined Technical section and property section under Evidence & Property Section 7. Policy unit moved to the Chief’s Office Field Operations 8. New units of Neighborhood Impact Community Engagement officers (NICE) and Environmental Crimes Task Force (ECTF) 9. Addition of a Crisis Intervention Coordinator Proposed future needs of CDP AREA DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY CHIEFS OFFICE CHIEF OF STAFF ( DEPUTY CHIEF) CHIEF OF STAFF XO (COMMANDER) BUREAU OF COMPLIANCE ( COMMANDER) FIELD OPERATIONS (DEPUTY CHIEF) FIELD OPERATIONS XO (COMMANDER) ADMINISTRATIVE OPS ( DEPUTY CHIEF) ADMINISTRATIVE OPS XO (COMMANDER) HOMELAND SPECIAL OPERATIONS (DEPUTY CHIEF) HOMELAND SPECIAL OPERATIONS XO (COMMANDER) DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5 BUREAU OF TRAFFIC BUREAU OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS TECHNOLOGY AND PROPERTY COMMANDER SUPPORT SERVICES COMMANDER BUREAU OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS BUREAU OF HOMELAND SERVICES RECOMMENDED TOTALS 2018 Budgeted Staffing CAPTAIN LIEUTENANT SERGEANT PATROL OFFICER 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 2020* 2018 CRNT 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 11 10 8 5 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 4 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 7 7 10 5 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 6 3 3 43 28 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 2 7 6 5 26 23 22 161 155 138 2 2 2 7 7 6 26 23 24 182 179 166 2 2 2 8 8 6 32 29 28 215 203 180 2 2 2 7 7 6 26 23 24 205 192 182 2 2 2 7 6 5 26 23 23 165 158 147 1 1 0 1 1 1 6 5 6 40 37 33 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 17 17 4 1 1 0 3 3 5 9 9 6 52 50 54 1 1 3 3 3 3 15 15 20 45 44 246 1 1 0 5 5 3 18 16 11 119 118 96 1 1 0 4 3 4 16 14 11 104 104 81 18 18 17 63 58 50 237 211 203 1368 1300 1355 18 58 213 1302 The 2020* staffing projections are contingent upon the approvals of the Mayor and City Council. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 40 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 42 of 55. PageID #: 4697 IV. Managing the Demand for Police Services Much of the discussion to this point has focused on supplying enough police officers to meet citizen demands for service. CDP also examined ways to more effectively manage demand for specialized police service. CDP Deployment at Council and City Sponsored Events CDP uses on-duty officers and officers on overtime to handle mandated special events such as Council sponsored, All-City and Class A events that are held throughout the city. There are also smaller community events that district commanders will handle as some community development corporations and church groups have little or no monies to support the event without their help. Special details have their own challenges. The basic elements of the challenges are as follows:    There is a cost associated with using police officers on special details, but some of these events generate significant revenues for the region. Charging event sponsors for police services may deter some from holding the event. The cost might be particularly problematic for community development corporations that have limited resources. Eliminating these gatherings may have a negative consequence on crime prevention activities. In order to get some idea of the magnitude of these on-duty assignments, below is a listing of Council sponsored events, All-City and Class A events. This list does not include small individual district special events and protests. During 2017, a total of 18 large special events were assigned to on duty officers on either regular time or on overtime. Some events cost the city over $100,000 in city police services. 1. Rite Aid Marathon 2. St. Patrick’s Day Parade 3. Cleveland Orchestra July 4th 4. Cleveland Pride Festival x2 5. Cleveland Cav’s Playoffs 6. Velasano Bike Race 7. Cleveland Indians Playoffs 8. One World Festival 9. New Day in Hough 10. Glenville festival 11. St. Rocco Festival ( 5 days) 12. West Park Festival 13. Latino Festival and Parade 14. Feast of the Assumption ( 4 days) 15. Cleveland Airshow ( 3 days) 16. Labor Day Parade 17. Cleveland Browns Home Games Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 41 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 43 of 55. PageID #: 4698 18. Winterfest and tree lighting The special events are not part of the workload based assessment but are part of the CDP overtime budget. CDP will continue to provide personnel for special events as they draw thousands of people to the city. The proposed staffing plan will allow for an increase in personnel in the Bureau of Traffic, which will free up some officers to concentrate on issues in their respective district and or community engagement. Alarm Calls for Service Challenge: One of the major challenges facing the deployment of Cleveland officers is the number and frequency of unnecessary (false) alarms. False Alarm Statistics: The Cleveland Division of Police received 30,305 alarm calls in 2015. Of those 30,305 incoming calls, uniformed officers of the Division of Police responded to 23,659 residential and business alarms. 23,240 (98.25 percent) were false. One of every eleven police dispatches is an alarm assignment, with an average of 98 percent of those responses being recorded as false. In order to significantly enhance community policing initiatives and positive interaction with the community, police must be freed from burdensome tasks that do not support community policing opportunities. The City currently has the ordinance authority to invoice businesses who have repeated false alarms. That legislation, however, does not extend to residential alarms Reducing Calls for False Alarms During the study period CDP responded to the following alarms:  Alarm- Audible 491  Alarm- Burglar 11,863  Alarm- Holdup 3,036  Alarm- Residential 11,102 Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 42 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 44 of 55. PageID #: 4699 TABLE 9 Table 9 illustrates the average time committed to these calls was 40 minutes, but since most police response require two officers, it can be concluded that the typical response requires 80 minutes of officer time. Thus, the Division spent nearly 28,542 officer hours on alarm calls. Nationwide, police departments respond to millions of false alarms annually at a cost in excess of $1 billion. False alarms are a wasteful use of police resources and a problem that many law enforcement agencies struggle to manage. Solving the problem of false alarms would by itself relieve 35,000 officers from providing an essentially private service. Moreover, an alarm signal is NOT an indicator of criminal activity. In most instances, alarms are designed to detect motion, including human error, system malfunctions and abnormal conditions, most of which have little to do with crime. Many communities are taking an aggressive approach to reducing responses to false alarms. For example, the Milwaukee Police Department implemented the Verified Response Policy for burglar alarms in September 2004. Under this policy the Milwaukee Police Department does not respond to the report of a burglar alarm activation that was not first verified by a Private First Responder Service. Milwaukee reduced the number of calls for service due to alarms from more than 30,000 to 620 in 2012 as a result of their policy change. CDP is working with Cleveland City Council as well as others in order to reduce responses to false alarms. Reducing responses to false alarms could allow CDP the opportunities for more community engagement. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 43 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 45 of 55. PageID #: 4700 Web-based Crime Reporting CDP is currently using a Citizen Online Reporting System (CORS). CORS is designed to eliminate the need of having officers physically respond to document no-suspect or minor crime reports while still recording the incident and collecting reportable data for additional investigation, statistical analysis and mandatory reporting requirements.      Property Lost Damage to Property Criminal Damaging Petty Theft or Theft from a Motor Vehicle Supplemental reports CDP uses social media and community meetings to educate people on how to use CORS to file a report. One advantage to this approach is that the victim receives a temporary case number via email while the report is in review. 1131 reports were completed online in 2016. As of November 19, 2017 online reporting was at 1488 reports. CDP is looking to control and reduce the frequency of false alarms through legislation and increasing the capacity of Web-based Crime Reporting. Technological advances will enable officers to free up time for patrol duties and community problem-oriented policing time. The use of technology will be evaluated yearly to see what impact it has on overall efficiency of the Division and how much actual time will be free to engage in more community policing activities. Specialized Response Units Specialized units within CDP are critical to the mission of providing the best possible service to the community. Adequately staffing specialized units allow for better case management and work product. When detectives have a more manageable case load, they would have more time to dedicate to solving complicated cases. Consequently, specialized units would then be able to provide support to the patrol section and allowing more time for community engagement by members of CDP. Specialized Crisis Intervention Officers Specialized CIT officers will be assigned to the patrol operation and will maintain their standard patrol duties, except when called upon to respond to incidents or calls involving individuals in crisis. The enhanced training for specialized CIT officers will be at least 40 hours and include the following:  how to conduct a field evaluation  suicide intervention  community mental health resources and common mental health diagnoses  effects of drug and alcohol abuse  perspectives of individuals with mental health issues and their family members  rights of persons with mental illness and civil commitment criteria  crisis de-escalation and scenario-based exercises Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 44 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 46 of 55. PageID #: 4701 Training and designation as a Specialized CIT officer will be voluntary. Officers will have a minimum of three years of experience with the Division and go through an in-depth assessment to serve as a Specialized CIT officer. The assessment will include examination of the officer’s written application, supervisory recommendations, disciplinary file and an in-person interview. CDP plans to train and assign approximately 200 patrol officers to the Specialized Crisis Intervention Team. Assigning voluntary officers to the Specialized CIT is important to the success of the program as these officers are committed to the core mission and authenticity of the CIT doctrine. Co-Responder Team (CRT) The Co-Responder Team (CRT) consists of 2 Police Officers and 2 Mental Health Social Workers that respond as a team to crisis calls. These teams have been shown to be successful across the country in reducing rates of incarceration and increasing linkage with mental health agencies and ongoing treatment. Our current team has also shown to be effective in dealing with individuals considered “high utilizers” (people that call 911 frequently) and in decreasing the number of individuals taken to the hospital for evaluation. The current team in place works second shift in the Second District, Tuesday through Friday. CDP is currently considering expanding this program with 2 more Co-Responder Teams. Gang Impact Unit The primary mission is to keep the peace and to quell violence in the communities. GIU is a goal-directed unit, dedicated to targeting gun violence and violent street gangs. The primary goals of the unit are as follows.  Work with the Community to help strengthen partnerships to stem the violence.  Enhance partnerships with other CDP Units including Homicide and District Units along with other local, state and federal agencies in the achievement of mutual goals.  Identification of individuals and groups/gangs involved in gun violence using SMART Policing/Crime Analysis models to identify targets.  The collection of intelligence and evidence against gun violence suspects which directly leads to the successful prosecution of offenders.  Active and thorough investigations of targeted suspects and gangs involved in gun violence within or affecting the City of Cleveland. Work closely with the Cuyahoga County Prosecutors Office and prioritize the dismantling of violent street gangs using State ORC Gang and RICO Laws.  Conduct street level narcotic and gun law enforcement details in identified violent areas. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 45 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 47 of 55. PageID #: 4702 NICE The Violent Crime Response Initiative currently operates out of Field Operations as the Neighborhood Impact Community Engagement Squad (NICE). The mission of NICE is to proactively target violent crime areas identified through the Crime Analysis Unit, by community partners, and District Commanders. Members assigned to NICE shall constitutionally, professionally and aggressively police the identified areas by means of uniformed and plain clothes operations. NICE officers will engage and work collaboratively within the community by utilizing the Problem Oriented Policing model. NICE officers will concentrate on crimes of violence including homicides and gun violence, apprehending violent offenders and community engagement. This unit also has the added task of researching warrants for DV, Assaults and other district warrants. They will then conduct fugitive sweeps monthly with the expectations of reducing repetitive crimes. Conclusion The staffing report by the Cleveland Division of Police will enable the Division to realize an increase in patrol officers through a long term strategic recruitment and hiring plan. Utilizing the work-load based method for staffing the patrol section and the PERF study in staffing the support section, the Division will have a sufficient number of officers and detectives to impact violent crime, increase community engagement and problem-oriented policing, while in compliance with the settlement agreement. Moreover, CPOP time can be gained by adopting a verified response model for alarms calls and increase the usage of technology to reduce officers’ administrative time. Although, not specifically addressed in the staffing report, utilization of civilian personnel in other operations will realize an increase in sworn officers to engage in community oriented policing. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 46 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 48 of 55. PageID #: 4703 Appendix Adams, Aaron, Robert Baer, Somone Denmon, and Stacy Dettmansperger. 2009. “Glendale Police Department’s Strategic Approach to Staffing.” Alliance for Innovation Management Interns, October 1. http://icma.org/en/Article/100024/Glendale_Police_Departments_Strategic_Approach_to_staffing Adams, Thomas F. 1994. Police Field Operations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Albemarle County. n.d. “Performance Management: Police Response Times Rural Areas.” www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=perfmgt&relpage=3473 Amendola, Karen L., David Weisburd, Edwin E. Hamilton, Greg Jones, and Meghan Slipka. 2011. “An Experimental Study of Compressed Work Schedules in Policing: advantages and Disadvantages of Various Shift Lengths.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 7:407–42. Austin Police Department: Patrol Utilization Study final report July 2012 PERF https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Police/PERF_Final_Report_-_Austin.pdf Avsec, Robert P. 1998. Employee Turnover in Chesterfield County’s Emergency Communications Center. Chesterfield, Virginia: Fire Department. Baker, Rick, and Chuck Harmon. 2006. “Police Staffing Levels Defended.” St. Petersburg Times June 25. www.sptimes.com/2006/06/25/Perspective/Police_staffing_level.shtml Bayley, David H. (1988). “Community Policing: A Report from the Devil’s Advocate.” In Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, ed. Jack R. Greene and Stephen D. Mastrofski, 225–58. New York: Praeger. Bayley, David H., and Robert Worden. 1996. Federal Funding of Police Overtime: A Utilization Study. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Bergamine, Tom. 2009. Community Wellness Plan. Fayetteville, NC: Fayetteville Police Department. http://police.ci.fayetteville.nc.us/files/pdf/Community_Wellness_Plan.pdf Campbell, John H., Joseph Brann, and David Williams. 2003. Officer-Per-Thousand Formulas & Other Policing Myths: A Leadership Model for Better Police Resource Management. Portland, Oregon: Campbell DeLong Resources.www.cdri.com/library/Officer1000FullVer.pdf City of Bloomington, Minnesota. 2009. “Police Statistics and Budget.” www.ci.bloomington.mn.us/cityhall/dept/police/po_support/po10yr.htm City of Colorado Springs. 2011. “Colorado Springs Police Department Alternative Response.” www.springsgov.com/Page.aspx?NavID=788 City of Evanston. 2011. “About 311.” www.cityofevanston.org/311-service/about-311/ City of Minneapolis. 2011. “Minneapolis Police Department: Community Service Officer.” www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/recruiting/cso.asp City of Overland Park, Kansas. 2010. “Benchmark Cities Survey Results.” June. www.opkansas.org/Documents-andForms/List/Benchmark-City-Survey City of Portland. 2011. “Portland Police Bureau: Detective Division Telephone Reporting Unit (TRU).” www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?c=41879 City of Rockford. 2011. “City of Rockford Police Department, Field Services Bureau.” www.ci.rockford.il.us/police/fieldservices-bureau.aspx Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 47 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 49 of 55. PageID #: 4704 City of Sacramento. 2011. “Sacramento Police Department: File Online Crime Reports.” www.sacpd.org/reports/fileonline/index.aspx City of Sunrise. 2012. “City of Sunrise, Florida, Police Department: Communications & Records.” www.sunrisefl.gov/index.aspx?page=232 City of Toronto. 2011. “Toronto Police Service: Traffic Services, Collision Reporting Centres.” www.torontopolice.on.ca/traffic/collision.php City of Yuma. 2012. “Traffic.” www.yumaaz.gov/1799.htm Coleman, Vernal. 2010. “How Many Cops is Enough?” Seattle Weekly News July 21. www.seattleweekly.com/2010-0721/news/how-many-cops-is-enough Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. 2006. Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies, 5th Edition. Fairfax, Virginia: Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. COPS. See U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. DeLord, Ron. 2009. Personal Interview for RAND Field Experiences Series, Santa Monica, California : RAND corporation. www.rand.org/ise/centers/quality_policing/cops/resources/field_experiences/ron_delord.html Demers, Simon, Adam Palmer, and Curt T. Griffiths. 2007. Vancouver Police Department Patrol Deployment Study. City of Vancouver. www.curtgriffiths.com/pdfs/VPD%20Patrol%20Deployment%20Study%20Final%20Fiinal.doc.pdf Drew, Diamond, and Deirdre Mead Weiss. 2009. Advancing Community Policing Through Community Governance: A Framework Document. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Eck, John E., and Dennis P. Rosenbaum. 1994. “The new police order: Effectiveness, equity and efficiency in community policing.” In Community Policing: Testing the Promises, ed. Dennis P. Rosenbaum, 2–26. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Edwards, David . 2011. Smarter, Faster, Cheaper: An Operational Efficiency Benchmarking Study of 100 American Cities. Somers, New York: IBM. Ervin, Brian. 2007. “Good Cop, Bad Cop?” Urban Tulsa Weekly June 20. www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A17461 Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2011. Crime in the Unites States, 2010. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Fenton, Justin. 2011. “Police Reports will be taken over Phone in City Pilot Program: Other Cities have Implemented Online Reporting.” Baltimore Sun August 16.www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-police-reportpilot20110816,0,7969911.story Fox News. 2009. “Chicago Police Shortage a Growing Problem.” Fox Chicago News October 29. Fritsch, Eric J., John Liederbach, and Robert W Taylor. 2009. Police Patrol Allocation and Deployment. New York: Prentice Hall. Gascon, George, and Todd Foglesong. 2010. “Making Policing More Affordable: Managing Costs and Measuring Value in Policing.” New Perspectives in Policing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (December). Glendale Police Department. 2009. Police Staffing Study. Glendale, Arizona. www.glendaleaz.com/police/documents/StaffStudyFinal2009.pdf Greene, Jack R., and Stephen D. Mastrofski. (1988). Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 48 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 50 of 55. PageID #: 4705 Hale, Charles. 1994. Police Patrol: Operations & Management. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hassell, Kimberly D. 2006. Police Organizational Cultures and Patrol Practices. New York: LFB Scholarly. Hilkevitch, Jon. 2006. “Traffic Cops? Or Traffic Aides? Officials Can’t Agree Who Should Enforce Laws on City Streets.” Chicago Tribune, August 21. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-08-21/news/0608210185_1_police-officerstraffic-aidestraffic-cops IACP. See International Association of Chiefs of Police. International Association of Chiefs of Police. 2002. Non-Sworn Alarm Responder Guidelines. www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/Publications/nonswornalarmresponderguidelines.pdf International Association of Chiefs of Police. 2007. “Police Officer to Population Ratios Bureau of Justice Statistics Data.” Perspectives: Research Center Directorate. www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=LF7xdWl1tPk%3D&tabid=87 International Association of Chiefs of Police. 2004. Patrol Staffing and Deployment Study. www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=AKL78d4MBw8%3D&tabid=252 Kennedy, David. 1993. The Strategic Management of Police Resources. Perspectives on Policing, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (January). Keycare Strategy Operations Technology. 2010. Police Workload Analysis. http://keycare.ca/downloads/Police_Workload_Analysis.pdf King, William, and Randall Shields. 2009. “Greenville, South Carolina.” In Implementing community policing: Lessons from 12 agencies, ed. Edward Maguire and William Wells, 123–126. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Kotsur, Kevin L. 2006. Police Staffing Update to Council. Avondale, Arizona: City of Avondale City Council Report, February 13. www.avondale.org/documents/City%20Government/City%20Council/Agenda/06%20Reports/03%20%20Police%20Staffing%20Update.pdf Levine, Margaret J., and Thomas J. McEwen. 1985. Patrol Deployment. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice. Lumb, Richard C. 1996. “Community Attitudes Regarding Police Responsibility for Crime Control.” The Police Journal 69:319– 29. Maguire, Edward R., Joseph B. Kuhns, Craig D. Uchida, and Stephen M. Cox. 1997. “Patterns of community policing in nonurban America.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34:368–94. Maguire, Edward R., and Megan Gantley. 2009. “Specialist and generalist models.” In Implementing community policing: Lessons from 12 agencies, ed.Edward R. Maguire and William Wells, 45–55. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. McEwen, J. Thomas, Edward K. Connors III, and Marcia I. Cohen. 1986. Evaluation of the Differential Police Response Field Test. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 101378. McNichol, Elizabeth, Phil Oliff, and Nicholas Johnson. 2010. Recession Continues to Batter State Budgets; State Responses Could Slow Recovery. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Police Priorities, July. Melekian, Bernard. 2012. “Policing in the New Economy: A New Report on the Emerging Trends from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.” Police Chief 79 (1): 6–19. Michigan State Police. 2009. 2009 Crime Data and Statistics. Lansing, Michigan. www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-1231645_3501_4621-243369--,00.html Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 49 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 51 of 55. PageID #: 4706 Mrozinski, Josh. 2010. “Scranton City Council Plan for Police, Fire Staffing Level Raises Questions.” Scranton Times-Tribune. http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/scranton-city-council-plan-for-police-fire-staffing-level-raises-questions1.1078163#axzz1NyZaG6u8 National Public Safety Information Bureau. 2011. National Directory of Law Enforcement Administrators®. Stevens Point, Wisconsin. National Institute of Justice. 2005. Calling 311: Guidelines for Policymakers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. National Sheriffs’ Association. 2007. Report on Patrol Staffing Needs for the Sheriff’s Office El Paso County, Colorado. New Jersey Division of Local Government Services. 2009. City of Hoboken Police Department: A Preliminary Review of the Staffing Levels and Organizational Structure for the City of Hoboken’s Police Department. www.hobokennj.org/docs/mayor/HobokenPDReport.pdf Northwestern University Center for Public Safety. 2007. Traffic Management Plan for the Albuquerque Police Department. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University. Northwestern University Traffic Institute. 1993. Police Allocation Manual: Determination of the Number and Allocation of Personnel for Patrol Services for State Police Departments. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/pub/stallocm.pdf Orrick, W. Dwayne. 2008. Recruitment, Retention, and Turnover of Police Personnel: Reliable, Practical, and Effective Solutions, Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. Peacock, Brian, Richard Glube, Marilyn Miller, and Patti Clune. 1983. “Police officer responses to 8 and 12 hour shift schedules.” Ergonomics 26 (5): 479–93. PERF. See Police Executive Research Forum. Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). 2010. Critical Issues in Policing Series: Is the Economic Downturn Fundamentally Changing How We Police? Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. http://members.policeforum.org/library/criticalissues-in-policing-series/Econdownturnaffectpolicing12.10.pdf Police Foundation. n.d. “Smart Police Deployment: Evaluating the Use of Automated Vehicle Locator Technologies in Policing.” Research, Evaluation and Professional Services. www.policefoundation.org/docs/current_research.html#smart Reaves, Brian 2010. Local Police Departments, 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 231174. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd07.pdf Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office. 2012. “Jail Security.” www.slsheriff.org/metroJail/security.html Scott-Hayward, Christine. 2009. The Fiscal Crisis in Corrections: Rethinking Policies and Practices. New York: VERA Institute for Justice, Center for Sentencing and Corrections, July. www.vera.org/files/The-fiscal-crisis-in-corrections_July-2009.pdf Shane, Jon M. 2007. What Every Chief Executive Should Know: Using Data to Measure Police Performance. New York: Looseleaf Law Publications. Shane, Jon M. 2010. “Organizational Stressors and Police Performance.” Journal of Criminal Justice 38 (4): 807–18. Stenzel, W. 2007. Personal Allocation Model (PAM) for Law Enforcement Agencies. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Enforcement+&+Justice+Services/Personnel+Allocation+Model+(PAM)+for+Law+Enforceme nt+Agencies Sundermeier, Jon. 2008. “A Look at the 12-Hour Shift: The Lincoln Police Department Study.” Police Chief. http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=1435&issue_id=32008Trojanowicz, R., Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 50 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 52 of 55. PageID #: 4707 Victor Kappeler, and Larry Gaines. 2002. Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson. Tucson Police. 2012. “Non-Sworn Positions.” http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/police/non-sworn-positions U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 2009. “COPS Hiring Recovery Program Update.” Community Policing Dispatch 2 (6). www.cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/June_2009/hiring_recovery.htm U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 2011. The Impact of the Economic Downturn on American Police Agencies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Weiss, Alexander. 2010. “Patrol Staffing Analysis for the Chicago Police Department Bureau of Patrol.” Evanston, Illinois: Alexander Weiss Consulting. Weiss, Alexander, and Jeremy M. Wilson. 2010. “Lansing Police Department Resource Deployment and Organization Study.” Lansing, Michigan: City of Lansing. Weiss, Alexander, and Jeremy M. Wilson. 2011. Traverse City Police Workload Analysis. Traverse City, Michigan: City of Traverse City. www.alexanderweissconsulting.com/pdf/AWC_TraverseCItyFinalReport.pdf Wells, William, and John Fisher. 2009. “Green Bay, Wisconsin.” In Implementing community policing: Lessons from 12 agencies, ed. Edward Maguire and William Wells, 117–21. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Wilkinson, Deanna L., and Dennis P Rosenbaum. 1994. “The effects of organizational structure on community policing: A comparison of two cities.” In The challenge of community policing: Testing the promise, ed. Dennis P Rosenbaum, 110–26. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Wilson, Jeremy M. 2006. Community Policing in America. New York: Routledge. Wilson, Jeremy M., and Amy Cox. 2008. Community Policing and Crime: The Process and Impact of Problem-solving in Oakland. Santa Monica, California: RAND, TR-635-BPA. www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR635/. Wilson, Jeremy M., Amy Cox, Tommy Smith, Hans Bos, and Terry Fain. 2007. Community Policing and Violence Prevention in Oakland: Measure Y in Action. Santa Monica, California: RAND, TR-546-BPA. www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR546/. Wilson, O.W., and Roy McLaren. 1972. Police Administration. 3rd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. PER CAPITA City Cleveland Cincinnati Columbus Pittsburgh Indianapolis Population 386,227 298,880 862,515 302,443 866,351 Officers Officers per 10k Homicides Detectives Sex Crimes Detectives 1444 37.4 135 14 488 15 1051 35.2 57 17 249 15 1855 21.5 91 36 2295 32 908 30 57 24 100 16 1612 18.6 148 24 684 21 Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 51 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 53 of 55. PageID #: 4708 Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 52 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 54 of 55. PageID #: 4709 PROGRAM NAME: ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS OBJECTIVES: Provide all necessary support activities for the Field Operations and Homeland Security Operations ACTIVITIES: Establish operating policies and procedures for the Division of Police. Prepare and manage the operating and capital budgets for the Division of Police. Recruit, hire and train both uniform and civilian employees. Record and maintain payroll and personnel records. Collect and record all criminal incident reports. Handle open record requests. Operate and maintain radio and telephone communications. Oversee the storage of recovered, confiscated, and forfeited property and vehicles. PROGRAM NAME: FIELD OPERATIONS OBJECTIVES: To provide against loss of life, bodily injury, and property loss, and to empower the community and Divisional personnel in their combined efforts to reduce crime with an emphasis on joint planning, evaluation and operations. To reduce traffic accidents in the community and provide safer conditions for motorists, pedestrians, and citizens using public streets within the City of Cleveland. ACTIVITIES: Investigate all major offenses against persons and property. Provide Patrol and Community Based Policing activities. Participate with citizens on Community Relations Committees, the Auxiliary Police Program, crime prevention fairs, Night out against Crime, the Task Force on Violent Crime, and similar projects in response to community needs. Develop close working relationships with residents by interacting while on patrol and attending community functions. Provide neighborhood patrols to areas that could benefit from close ongoing interaction between the police and the community. Participate in community services programs which aggressively investigates and focuses on deterring crimes that occur on the streets in highly populated, distressed neighborhoods. Conduct DARE programs, Child Accident Prevention Programs, Crime Watch Training, and other programs in response to the needs of the community. Alleviate traffic congestion, restore normal traffic flow, and provide traffic and crowd control at special events. Respond to scenes of traffic accidents and prepare traffic reports. PROGRAM NAME: HOMELAND SPECIAL OPERATIONS OBJECTIVES: To target the perpetrators of specific crimes such as financial crimes, homicides, sexual assaults, drug trafficking, threats and criminal actions against the security of our city for arrest and prosecution. ACTIVITIES: Aggressively investigate crimes that occur in the City of Cleveland. Conduct enforcement activities against specific crimes within a target neighborhood using decoy surveillance or search operations based upon crime analysis and Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 53 DIVISION OF POLICE STAFFING REPORT 2017] 17, 2019 [CLEVELAND Case:February 1:15-cv-01046-SO Doc #: 240-1 Filed: 02/21/19 55 of 55. PageID #: 4710 trends. Maintain contact with and enlist the assistance of community leaders and residents to identify those responsible for neighborhood criminal activity. Perform crisis intervention; handle hostage negotiations and other highly dangerous and volatile situations where specialized training or equipment is required. Provide support to district operations in improving the quality of life in neighborhoods through the enforcement of drug laws and by suppressing juvenile crime. Detect offenders through criminal processing and the use of the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) and the use of firearms through the National Integrated Ballistic Imaging Network (NIBIN). Establish homeland security initiatives within the City of Cleveland and the Greater Cleveland area. Prevent, respond, and investigate terrorist activities in our city and the Greater Cleveland area. Provide security and patrols of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, Cleveland City Hall, and the borders of the city. Participate in law enforcement partnerships with federal agencies in an effort to combat drugs, arrest violent fugitives, identify sexual predators, and control illegal firearms. Prepared by: Captain Michael Butler, Field Operations- Cleveland Division of Police Page 54