29 July 2005
Fresno police's award-winning citations
This week the City of Fresno and the law enforcement employee representatives have clashed over the utilization of numerical targets of performance. And today, we learn that the cameras installed at certain intersections to detect red-light runners are not paying for themselves and may possibly be taken down. In each case, the Fresno law enforcement community is financially rewarded for citing us citizens more for law violations.
The City wants police to show a 5% improvement in performance and is using the number of arrests and citations as the standard of measure. The mayor calls these standards goals; the employees call them quotas. Does a goal/quota of 105% of the present arrest/citation rate necessarily mean that the police are performing better? If crime goes up 10% or goes down 5%, is a 5% numerical citation/arrest rate increase fair to the employees or the general public?
What happens if police officers miss their goal/quota? If the targets are not quotas, why are they part of a performance standard proposal rather than part of an overall examination of policing in general? If an officer misses his/her targets without consequences, why have the targets as part of an employee's performance standard? If officers are to be penalized for missing their targets, are the officers going to go the extra mile to make arrests and citations, perhaps in a manner that is intrusive and/or discriminatory to the general public?
The red-light cameras may be eliminated because they are not bringing in the revenues that the City had predicted (desired?). Signal lights in other areas of the country were found to be tweaked in ways to artificially increase violations, thus revenues. Part of the reason for the lower revenues in Fresno is that the cameras don't work near optimum standards, with only 19% of violators being able to be identified to be cited. Although the question of the efficacies of the cameras are discussed, the effect of the cameras on the injury and death rate at intersections is not. That should be the predominant factor in installing or uninstalling the cameras, and clearly it is not.
Linkaging law enforcement activities with economic incentives heightens mistrust of the police by the citizens and encourages the least ethical in law enforcement to abuse his/her authority for personal gain. It is dangerous and should not be a policy of any police or military agency at any governmental level.
The City wants police to show a 5% improvement in performance and is using the number of arrests and citations as the standard of measure. The mayor calls these standards goals; the employees call them quotas. Does a goal/quota of 105% of the present arrest/citation rate necessarily mean that the police are performing better? If crime goes up 10% or goes down 5%, is a 5% numerical citation/arrest rate increase fair to the employees or the general public?
What happens if police officers miss their goal/quota? If the targets are not quotas, why are they part of a performance standard proposal rather than part of an overall examination of policing in general? If an officer misses his/her targets without consequences, why have the targets as part of an employee's performance standard? If officers are to be penalized for missing their targets, are the officers going to go the extra mile to make arrests and citations, perhaps in a manner that is intrusive and/or discriminatory to the general public?
The red-light cameras may be eliminated because they are not bringing in the revenues that the City had predicted (desired?). Signal lights in other areas of the country were found to be tweaked in ways to artificially increase violations, thus revenues. Part of the reason for the lower revenues in Fresno is that the cameras don't work near optimum standards, with only 19% of violators being able to be identified to be cited. Although the question of the efficacies of the cameras are discussed, the effect of the cameras on the injury and death rate at intersections is not. That should be the predominant factor in installing or uninstalling the cameras, and clearly it is not.
Linkaging law enforcement activities with economic incentives heightens mistrust of the police by the citizens and encourages the least ethical in law enforcement to abuse his/her authority for personal gain. It is dangerous and should not be a policy of any police or military agency at any governmental level.
# posted by Rodney Austin @ 1:04 PM 
