Rochester Application Smaller

7/25/2019 Rochester Application Smaller

1/188

Body-Worn Camera Pilot Implementation Program

FY 2015 Competitive Grant AnnouncementBJA-2015-4168

Directory of Attachments

Attachment

Number

Name File Name

1 Directory of Attachments BWC.RPD.Attachment List.pdf

2 Cornell Poll ATT2.Cornell Poll.pdf

3 Joint Announcement ATT3.Joint Announcement.pdf

4 RPD BWC Deployment ATT4.RPD BWC Deployment.pdf

5 Telephone Town Hall ATT5.Telephone Town Hall.pdf

6 City Council Online Survey ATT6.City Council Online Survey.pdf

7 Community Letters of Support ATT7.Community Letters of Support.pdf8 CRB Letter of Support ATT8.CRB Letter of Support.pdf

9 MOU RPD DA and PD ATT9.Memorandum Of Understanding RPD

DA and PD.pdf

10 Resumes ATT10.Resumes.pdf

11 BWC Project Timeline BWC.RPD.Timeline.pdf

12 MOU RPD and CPSI ATT12.Memorandum Of Understanding RPDand CPSI.pdf

13 Description of CPSI ATT13.CPSI Description.pdf

14 Project Charter ATT14.Project Charter.pdf

15 City of Rochester RFP Policy ATT15.Request For Proposal Process.pdf

16 COPS and PERF Recommendations ATT16.COPS and PERF Recommendations.pdf17 Key Project Members ATT17.Key Project Members.pdf

18 Mayors Letter of Support ATT18.Mayor Letter of Support.pdf

19 Senior Management Team Letter of

Support

ATT19.Senior Management Team Letter of

Support.pdf

20 City Council Letter of Support ATT20.City Council Letter of Support.pdf

21 Reorganization Plan ATT21.Reorganization Plan.pdf

22 Reorganization Evaluation Metrics ATT22.Reorganization Evaluation Metrics.pdf

23 GIVE Grant Abstract ATT23.GIVE Grant Abstract.pdf

24 SPI Grant Abstract ATT24.SPI Grant Abstract.pdf

25 PSN Grant Abstract ATT25.PSN Grant Abstract.pdf

26 City of Rochester Code of Ethics ATT26.City Ethics.pdf


2/188


3/188


4/188


5/188


6/188


7/188


8/188


9/188


10/188


11/188


12/188


13/188


14/188


15/188


16/188


17/188


18/188


19/188


20/188


21/188


22/188


23/188


24/188


25/188


26/188


27/188


28/188


29/188


30/188


31/188


32/188


33/188


34/188


35/188

The Rochester Police Department (RPD) expects employees to act with a high standard

of integrity and ethical behavior and to avoid ethical, legal, financial, or other conflicts of interest

or commitment, including even the appearance of a conflict that might impede or compromise

the departmental mission. RPD recognizes that the compliance with the ethical standards rests

primarily on personal integrity, and strives to foster an environment conducive to disclosure and

transparency.

The Rochester Police Department (RPD) has thoroughly reviewed the submission for the

Body Worn Camera Project proposed under this solicitation (OMB No. 1121-0329) for any

research and integrity issues and it has concluded that the design, conduct, or reporting of

research and evaluation funded by this BJA grant will not be biased by any personal or financial

conflict of interest on the part of the staff at RPD or the staff of the proposed award sub-recipient,

Center for Public Safety Initiatives (CPSI) at Rochester Institute of Technology.

All principal investigators at RPD and CPSI have reviewed the solicitation requirements

for discloser of potential conflicts and the desire for transparency and have complied with their

respective agencys applicable policies and procedures. All future project participants will berequired to follow the same process. In addition to adhering to their respective agency protocol,

all project participants will be required to notify Co-Project Managers Kevin Costello and

Anthony Sutera should any real or perceived conflicts of interest arise during the terms of the

solicitation. Elimination (or mitigation) of the conflict will occur in accordance with the terms or

policies of the respective agency. Responsibility for conflict of interest resolution falls under the

auspices of the City of Rochesters Office of Public Integrity for RPD employees and with the

Individual Conflict of Interest and Commitment (ICIC) Committee for RIT employees

respectively. See Attachment 15, City Code of Ethics. See

http://www.rit.edu/fa/svp/ethics/code.html
http://www.rit.edu/fa/svp/ethics/code.htmlhttp://www.rit.edu/fa/svp/ethics/code.htmlhttp://www.rit.edu/fa/svp/ethics/code.html


36/188


37/188

The Rochester Police Department (RPD) expects employees to act with a high standard

of integrity and ethical behavior and to avoid ethical, legal, financial, or other conflicts of interest

or commitment, including even the appearance of a conflict that might impede or compromise

the departmental mission. RPD recognizes that the compliance with the ethical standards rests

primarily on personal integrity, and strives to foster an environment conducive to disclosure and

transparency.

The Rochester Police Department (RPD) has thoroughly reviewed the submission for the

Body Worn Camera Project proposed under this solicitation (OMB No. 1121-0329) for any

research and integrity issues and it has concluded that the design, conduct, or reporting of

research and evaluation funded by this BJA grant will not be biased by any personal or financial

conflict of interest on the part of the staff at RPD or the staff of the proposed award sub-recipient,

Center for Public Safety Initiatives (CPSI) at Rochester Institute of Technology.

All principal investigators at RPD and CPSI have reviewed the solicitation requirements

for discloser of potential conflicts and the desire for transparency and have complied with their

respective agencys applicable policies and procedures. All future project participants will berequired to follow the same process. In addition to adhering to their respective agency protocol,

all project participants will be required to notify Co-Project Managers Kevin Costello and

Anthony Sutera should any real or perceived conflicts of interest arise during the terms of the

solicitation. Elimination (or mitigation) of the conflict will occur in accordance with the terms or

policies of the respective agency. Responsibility for conflict of interest resolution falls under the

auspices of the City of Rochesters Office of Public Integrity for RPD employees and with the

Individual Conflict of Interest and Commitment (ICIC) Committee for RIT employees

respectively. See Attachment 15, City Code of Ethics. See

http://www.rit.edu/fa/svp/ethics/code.html
http://www.rit.edu/fa/svp/ethics/code.htmlhttp://www.rit.edu/fa/svp/ethics/code.htmlhttp://www.rit.edu/fa/svp/ethics/code.html


38/188

RPD BWC (Body Worn Camera)Project Charter

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Project Title Rochester Police Department (RPD) BWC (Body Worn Camera) Project

Brief Project

Description

Develop and implement a Body Worn Camera program to include

technology/system identification, policy development and selection.Prepared By Deputy Chief Wayne Harris, RPD

Date May 11, 2015

II. BACKGROUNDRecent events, both locally and nationally, have shown an increasing trend toward police activities beingvideo and audio recorded by citizens of our communities. These recordings are often the basis of citizencomplaints for infractions such as discourtesy or excessive force. Smartphone technology is the usualmethod of recording. As such, these recordings often do not capture an entire event, they are easilyuploaded to social media, and they create an inaccurate depiction of a police encounter that isimmediately available for public review. In an effort to provide a more accurate record of police

encounters, foster the improvement of police-community relations, establish transparency, and improvethe quality of evidence brought into criminal prosecutions, many law enforcement agencies across thecountry have begun to outfit their uniformed officers with body worn cameras. In accordance with thistrend, the City of Rochester Police Department has undertaken a Body Worn Camera project.

Due to the social sensitivities of this project and the financial burden that the city will come to bear, thisproject cannot be successful without extensive consideration being given to technology, policies, legalissues, and fiscal support.

This project will be multi-faceted in that it will involve the identification of camera technology, as wellas the identification of a comprehensive data management system, and it will direct the development of

policy to govern the program which will include input from project stakeholders (such as communitygroups, clergy organizations, and outside agencies with whom the RPD regularly interacts).

III. PROJECT OBJECTIVES:The objective of the Body Worn Camera project is to develop and implement a system that will provideaudio and video technologies to be worn by uniformed road personnel. An additional objective is thedevelopment of a digital data management system.

The primary benefits sought from a BWC program include more accurate reporting of police/publicinteractive incidents, transparency and the continuing efforts toward furthering police-communityrelations.

Specific Goals:1. Deploy BWC technology to all members of RPD who regularly interact with the public in an

enforcement capacity.2. Improve the high quality public service expected of RPD officers, and promote the perceived

legitimacy and sense of fairness and procedural justice.3. Improve management of DME, to ensure identification, retention, accessibility of DME that is

relevant to RPD arrests and investigations, and the conduct of RPD officers.4. Incorporate the BWC program into RPDs policy and training development process.


39/188


-2-

III. PROJECT OBJECTIVES:

5. Develop and implement strong policies to ensure proper and credible use of BWCs.6. Establish a long-term BWC program that remains technologically current, and financially

sustainable.7. Inform national efforts to improve the use of BWCs more broadly..

IV. PROJECT SCOPE:The scope of this project is to develop and implement a Body Worn Camera program. This will include:

1. Stakeholders will be identified (internal and external) and their input will be solicited in supportof project objectives and to enhance transparency.

2. Identifying and contracting with an appropriate vendor for the purchase of the cameratechnology, and Data Management System.

3. Researching, developing and negotiating a BWC policy that addresses legal, privacy and laborissues. Policy research will include the creation of a Policy Development Team to ensure alllevels of operational need and project objectives are appropriately addressed.

4.

To promote transparency stakeholder input will be solicited throughout the project andstakeholders will be regularly updated on project status.5. Successfully implementing our program, beginning with a roll out of one third of the total

number of cameras we intend to deploy which will facilitate the establishment of a structuredreplacement program to reflect the expected three year turnover of camera technology.

6. The BWC Project will include a detailed independent evaluation by The Center for Public SafetyInitiatives (CPSI) at Rochester Institute of Technology. CPSI, under the direction of Dr. JohnKlofas, has a proven history on the Federal, State, and Local levels regarding the analysis ofpolicy and data within the criminal justice system. RPD will partner with CPSI with thecollection of performance data and will provide equipment and policy feedback as appropriate.This process will begin after Phase I implementation and will continue through the completion of

the program.

V. ASSUMPTIONS:City Administration has determined that the Rochester Police Department will deploy Body WornCameras on uniformed officers. A BWC program will foster better community relations throughaccountability and transparency. Additionally, a BWC program will contribute to better publicunderstanding of police policies and practices, and it is expected to be a factor in the decrease of thenumber of citizen complaints.

VI. CONSTRAINTS:

1. There are budgetary implications that must be considered while developing a Body Worn Camera

program. Specifically, depending on the Data Management System selected for this program, ourbudget will be impacted by way of the initial capital expenditure and annual operating cost. Thedetailed project planning phase will include cost estimates for both, and we will work closely withthe Office of Management and Budget (OMB) throughout the project to pursue the most cost-effective plan feasible. See Section X, below,Project Risks.

2. The collective bargaining agreement between the Rochester Police Department and the RochesterPolice Locust Club (labor union) requires cooperation between the parties when changes to the termsand conditions of employment for members may occur. As such, there is the possibility thatdiscussions may be required with the police union regarding the BWC Program prior to


40/188


-3-

VI. CONSTRAINTS:

implementation. This potentially may impact the implementation schedule and/or project cost.

VII. PROJECT METHODOLOGY:

The RPD BWC Project will be managed based on the global standard in project management principles

as defined by the Project Management Institutes (PMI) PMBOK (Project Management Book ofKnowledge).

Phase Deliverables

1. Project Initiation Establish Executive Management Team

Research BWC technology

Develop Project Charter

Approval of Project Charter by Mayor

Identify Key Stakeholders

2. Project Planning Project Plan:

Risk Plan

Budget (Capital & Operating Cost)

Form Policy Development Team

Implementation Schedule

Stakeholders Communication Plan

Detailed Roles and Responsibilities of all project participants

Project Governance

Project Change Process

Quality Plan

3. Project Execution Delivery of training

Deployment of Cameras

Implementation of Policy

Implementation of data collection plan for independent project evaluation Implementation of Data Management System

4. Project

Monitoring and

Control

Updating documentation and conducting proper follow up to ensure projectsuccess.

Continue to collect data necessary for independent project evaluation

5. Project Closeout Closeout Report

VIII. Project Milestones:

The timeline identifies several deliverables intended to address key components identified by the COPSand PERF report Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program,

Milestones Deliverables Responsibility Date

1. Project Initiation 1. Develop Project Charter2. Research BWC technology3. Identify Key Stakeholders

Wayne Harris,DCA

May, 2015

2. Project Planning 1 Develop BWC Project Plan whichwill include the following:

2 Solicitation of Stakeholder Input3 Risk Assessments4 RFP & Selection of

Project CoreTeam (includesrepresentativesfrom RPD & IT;Wayne Harris,

June, 2015


41/188


-4-

Milestones Deliverables Responsibility Date

Vendor/Consultant5 Council Approval of

Vendor/Consultant Contract6 Capital Cost

7

Operating Cost8 Implementation Schedule9 Present Recommended Plan for

Mayors Approval10 Stakeholders Communication Plan11 Detailed Roles and

Responsibilities of all projectparticipants

12 Project Governance

Kevin Costello,Tony Sutera,Mark Dibelka,John Mustico, and

Nick Petitti)

3. Policy Development 1 Form Policy Development Team2 Solicit Stakeholder Input: Policy,

FOIA, and Privacy.

RPD R&E (JohnMustico)

December, 2015

4. Project Funding 1 Approval of funding from CityCouncil

WayneHarris/TonySutera/Director ofOfficeManagementBudget

June, 2015

5. Technology

Solution Evaluation

and Selection

1 Prepare and Publish RFP2 Complete Selection Grid based on

Proposals3 Complete Selection Grid based on

vendor scripted demonstrations4 Evaluation of cameras based onfield testing

5 Vendor Selection

Project CoreTeam (Harris,Costello, Sutera,Dibelka, Mustico,

Petitti and SubjectMatter Expertsfrom RPD & IT

December, 2015

6. Submission to City

Council

1 Submit to council for approval toenter into a contract with theselected vendor

Wayne Harris January, 2016

7. Contract

Negotiations

1 Execution of contract Wayne Harris,Tony Sutera, andLaw Department

January, 2016

8. Phase I

Implementation

1 BWC Deployment and training

2

Management SystemImplementation3 Begin CPSI evaluation

Kevin

Costello/TonySutera

May, 2016

9. Phase II

Implementation

1 Deployment of Cameras2

Continue CPSI evaluationKevinCostello/TonySutera

May, 2017

10. Phase III

Implementation

1 Deployment of Cameras2 Continue CPSI evaluation

KevinCostello/TonySutera

May, 2018


42/188


-5-

IX. Project Structure:

Project Governance Executive Management Team

Project Title Assigned Role

Executive Sponsor Mayor Lovely Warren Ultimate approval authority for project design

and implementation, and responsible to securerequired funding and resources.

Project Sponsor Michael Ciminelli, ChiefWayne Harris, DCA

Program oversight and control to ensuresuccessful completion of the program.

Project Steering

Committee

Len Redon, Deputy MayorChris Wagner,OMB DirectorAllen Williams,Director ofSpecial ProjectsLisa Bobo,CIOMichael Ciminelli,RPD ChiefJames Smith, City

Communications Director

Responsible to Executive Sponsor for projectoversight and control; vocal and visible projectchampion; approval of project deliverables;policy decisions; issue resolution; approval ofscope changes, direction and guidance to theproject.

Project Core Team

Project Sponsor Wayne Harris, DCA Program oversight and control to ensuresuccessful completion of the program.

Project Managers Kevin Costello,Captain, RPDTony Sutera, IT

Responsible for ensuring that the Project Teamcompletes the project. The Project Managerwill report to the Steering Committee. TheProject Manager develops the Project Plan withthe Team, and manages the Teamsperformance of project tasks. The ProjectManager is responsible for communication,

including status reporting, risk management,obtaining necessary funding and resourcesthrough the Steering Committee, escalation ofissues that cannot be resolved in the team, and,in general, making sure the project is deliveredin budget, on schedule, and within scope.

Project

Coordinator

Lt. Mark Dibelka(Lt. Dibelka will hold thisposition until December of 2015when the position will be filledby Lt. Mike Perkowski)

Administrative assistance to Project Manager;will report to Project Manager for purposes ofthis project. Also responsible for internal RPDcommunications on the project. Maintainproject schedule, action item and issue

registers.Subject Matter

Expert (SME)

John Mustico, Sergeant, RPD

Nick Petitti, Director ofBusiness Intelligence, RPD

Responsible for supporting the policyinitiatives of this project.Responsible for coordinating data collectionwith CPSI

Support Teams

Communications Allen Williams,Director ofSpecial ProjectsJames Smith, Director of

Responsible to coordinate externalcommunications and community outreach forproject.


43/188


-6-

Project Title Assigned Role

CommunicationsInv. Jackie Shuman, RPD PIO

Legal TBDRequest Law Dept. toassign attorney

Provide legal guidance and support toExecutive Management Team and Police

Development Team.Labor Mike Oliveri Provide labor related guidance and support to

Executive Management Team as needed.

Vendor Selection Core Project Team: See above Issue RFP for vendor support as needed, andselection of vendor(s).

Community

Liaison

Chair- TBD Ensure effective communication withcommunity stakeholders. Other roles andresponsibilities TBD

IT Chair- Tony SuteraOther IT- TBDR&E- Joe Silva

Provide subject matter expertise andrecommendations on IT-related matters.

Budget Co-ChairsNancy Alberto, RPDJoe Mustico, OMB

Provide subject matter expertise andrecommendations on budget matters foroptions, including budget and cost estimates,and overall budget impact. Also, providebudget support throughout all phases of theproject.

Labor Chair Wayne HarrisMike Oliveri, Labor

Kevin Costello

Provide subject matter expertise andrecommendations on labor matters andimplications. Negotiations with unions(s) asrequired to institute a BWC program.

Policy ChairSgt. John Mustico

Membership TBD

Determine and implement necessary changes to

RPD policies and procedures, e.g., GeneralOrders, Administrative Orders, etc.

Evaluation ChairNick Petitti Coordination with Independent Evaluator toensure proper data collection and delivery.

Training ChairLt. David GebhardtMembership TBD

Determine and coordinate needed internal RPDtraining to implement a BWC program.

IX. PROJECT RESOURCES:

To be identified during project planning

X. PROJECT RISKS

Risks Mitigation Strategy

Potential labor issues. Work closely City labor officials to identify potentiallabor issues as the plan is developed, and negotiatemutually acceptable resolutions with the union asneeded.

BWC technology maintenance- For generalmaintenance of the BWC technology andeventual repair needs, a Department liaison

The RFP will mitigate this concern as the selectedvendor will have to meet our repair and maintenanceneeds


44/188


-7-

Risks Mitigation Strategy

will be identified to coordinate with theselected vendor.

Technology compatibility with Rochestersclimate- As Rochesters climate offers various

degrees of extreme weather, we will need toidentify and select a system that can operateunder any condition.

The RFP will mitigate this concern as the selectedsystem will have to meet this requirement.

FOIL/Legal- The data collected from ourBWC camera program will likely be subject toFOIL requests, we will potentially need one ortwo FTEs for data management and FOILrequests.

FTEs will involve coordination with OMB andDHRM. This will also require coordination with CityCommunications and the Law Department.

Privacy concerns- Digital data will becollected during officer interactions with thepublic. This will result in data being gathered

from private resident and during sensitivesituations such as rape investigations.

Our policy will direct when an officer will activate therecording function of the BWC system, and under whatcircumstances an officer will be authorized to

deactivate the recording function or not activate at all.

BWC Limitations- A BWC field of view variesdepending upon the technology selected andhow it is deployed/worn.

This concern will be mitigated through the RFP processand vendor selection with input from PDS for oursystem needs.

Due to the likelihood of similar projects beingconducted by law enforcement agenciesthroughout the country, it is possible that theavailability of potential vendors may belimited. As a result potential vendors may beunable to meet our timeline requirements.

Vendor availability will be taken into considerationduring the selection process.

XI. SUCCESS MEASUREMENTS:

The immediate success measurement of this project will be the deployment of Body Worn Cameras to beworn by RPD uniformed road personnel and overall ability to meet project objectives. The longer termsuccess measures will include enhanced reporting of police and public interaction, transparency andimproved police-community relations.

XII. APPROVALS:Upon signature of the Executive Sponsor and the Steering Committee, the Project Managers areempowered to proceed with the project as outlined in this Charter.

Name Signature Date

Mayor Lovely Warren

Len RedonDeputy Mayor

Michael L. CiminelliChief of Police, RPD

Chris WagnerDirector, Office of Management


45/188


-8-

& Budget

Allen WilliamsDirector of Special Projects

Lisa BoboCity IT Director

James SmithCity Communications Director


46/188


47/188


48/188


49/188


50/188


51/188


52/188


53/188


54/188

City of Rochester, New York BWC Grant Application

Key Project Members

Chief Michael L. Ciminelli (BWC Project Co-Sponsor with Deputy Chief Wayne Harris):

RMS Project Executive Sponsor, member of Reorganization Project Steering Committee. See

Attachment 10, Resumes, Ciminelli.

Mr. Tony Sutera (BWC Co-project manager):Certified Project Management Professional,

RPD IT Liaison, RMS Project Manager, Reorganization Project Team Member. SeeAttachment

10, Resumes, Sutera.

Captain Kevin Costello (BWC Co-project manager):Reorganization Project Manager, RMS

Project Team Member, Commanding Officer of Research and Evaluation Section.

Nick Petitti, Director of Business Intelligence (BWC Project Core Team member):

Reorganization Project Core Team member, Reorganization Project Evaluation Lead, NYS

DCJS GIVE Grant Manager, BJA Smart Policing Program Team member, RPD Director of

Business Intelligence.

Dr. John Klofas (BWC Project Evaluation):Director of CPSI, BJA PSN grant supervision

(RPD sub-grantee), RPD partner for multiple evidence based initiatives, Managing evaluation of

DCJS GIVE grant program.


55/188


56/188


57/188


58/188

1 Survey Research Institute * Cornell University * www.sri.cornell.edu* Voice: (607) 255-3786

City of Rochester Customer Survey

Objectives

To assess how the City of Rochester residents view public safety services in the city and howthey view the staff of the Rochester Police Department

Description of Sample

In total, 383 City of Rochester residents were randomly selected to participate in a phone survey.

Survey respondents were proportionally representative of the City of Rochester residentpopulation by gender, ethnicity and age:

% of Total % ofCoR Residents* Respondents

Male 48.3% 45.4%Female 51.7% 54.6%

Hispanic 16.4% 17.5%

White/Caucasian 46.9% 50.3%Black/African American 44.9% 40.3%

18-34 years old 41.2% 39.7%35-54 years old 33.6% 33.6%55+ years old 25.1% 26.9%

Household Less than $25,000 41.7%Income in $26,000-$75,000 43.3%2012 More than $75,000 15.0%

Area of Northeast 32.0%residence Northwest 21.0%

Southeast 13.4%Southwest 24.9%Downtown 8.7%

Own home 53.9%Rent home 46.1%

*source http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010

You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
http://www.sri.cornell.edu/http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010http://www.sri.cornell.edu/


59/188


Overall Perception of Safety

Feeling of safety in various areas:Feel Safe Feel Unsafe

In your neighborhood during the day. 93.0% 7.0%In your neighborhood after dark. 66.1% 33.9%Visiting stores or businesses closest to your home during the day. 90.1% 9.9%Visiting stores or businesses closest to your home after dark. 60.3% 39.7%

Non-white respondents were more likely to report feeling unsafein their neighborhoods by day(10.1%).Those who live in the Southeast most likely to feel safein their neighborhood after dark (78.4%).Those who live in the Southwest most likely to feel unsafe in their neighborhood after dark(38.9%).White respondents more likely to feel safe going to stores close to their home during the day(95.3%).Non-white respondents more likely to feel unsafegoing to stores close to their home after dark(46.5%), while residents living in the Southeast most likely to feel safe(82.4%).

Victim or Witness of Crime

16.2% reported being a victim of a crime in the past year in their neighborhood7.7% reported being a victim of a crime in the past year elsewhere in the City21.3% reported witnessing a crime in the past year in their neighborhood17.1% reported witnessing a crime in the past year elsewhere in the City

Those living in the Northwest were most likely to report being a victim of a crime in theirneighborhood (24.4%), those living Downtown were least likely (6.3%).

Perceptions/Feelings of Safety and Crime

Fear of Becoming a Victim of CrimeNo Fear Some

FearA Lot of

FearFearful of becoming a victim in your neighborhood 49.1% 31.3% 19.6%Fearful of becoming a victim anywhere else in the City 32.7% 39.0% 28.3%

Those ages 35-54 most likely to have a lot of fearof becoming a victim of crime in theirneighborhood (25.0%).Non-white respondents more likely to have some fearof becoming a victim of crime in theirneighborhood (37.6%).Those living in the Southeast most likely to have no fearof becoming a victim of crime in theirneighborhood (66.7%).

http://www.sri.cornell.edu/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.sri.cornell.edu/


60/188


Those earning more than $75,000/year most likely to have no fearof becoming a victimanywhere else in the City (50.0%), compared to those making less than $25,000/year who aremore likely to report having a lot of fear(32.7%).

Feeling of Safety

11.3% feel safer now in their neighborhood compared to a year ago67.7% feel the same level of safety in their neighborhood compared to a year ago21.0% feel less safe in their neighborhood compared to a year ago

Those earning less than $25,000/year are more likely to report feeling safernow in theirneighborhood (17.4%) than they did a year ago.Those living in the Northeast (21.4%), the Northwest (25.0%), and the Southwest (25.0%) aremore likely to report they feel less safenow in their neighborhood

Perceptions of Frequency of Crimes

Respondents were asked how frequently they thought crimes were committed in theirneighborhood:

37.2% reported that they though crimes were committed daily or weekly (high frequency)31.4% reported that they thought crimes were committed 1-3 times/month (medium frequency)28.5% reported that they thought crimes were committed a few times a year or never2.9% did not know how often crimes were committed

Those earning less than $25,000/year as well as those living Downtown were more likely toreport that they did not know how often crimes were committed in their neighborhood (6.0% and12.1% respectively).

Perceptions of Changes in Level of Crime

31.0% reported that overall level of crime in their neighborhood hasincreased13.8% reported that overall level of crime in their neighborhood has decreased55.3% reported that overall level of crime in their neighborhood has stayed the same

Those living in the Northeast were more likely to report that the overall level of crime in theirneighborhood has increased(39.5%), followed by those living in the Southwest (33.0%).Those living in the Southeast were more likely to report that the overall level of crime in theirneighborhood has stayed the same(70.0%).



61/188


Professionalism of the Rochester Police Department

Interaction with the RPD in past year

32.5% have had a positive interaction with the RPD

13.4% have had a negative interaction with the RPD5.2% have had an interaction with the RPD, but it was neither positive nor negative

49.0% have not had any interaction with the RPD

Hispanics and non-white are most likely not to have any interaction with the RPD (60.0% and60.1% respectively).

Rating of RPD PerformanceExcellent/

GoodFair Poor/

Very PoorDo notknow

Response time to a request for assistance 42.0% 28.5% 25.6% 3.9%Effectiveness in solving neighborhood problems 36.3% 33.4% 27.7% 2.6%Fairness when enforcing the law 43.3% 30.5% 24.0% 2.1%Fairness in the distribution of police services 41.4% 33.5% 22.8% 2.4%Professional in how they conduct their work 52.1% 25.1% 22.3% 0.5%Responsiveness to your concerns 47.3% 26.1% 22.2% 4.4%

Response time:Most likely to rate as poor or very poor Most likely to rate as good or excellent

Hispanic (36.4%) 55+ years old (52.4%)Living in the Northeast (31.1%) Household income >$75,000 (55.6%)Non-white (36.5%) Living Downtown (60.6%)

Problem solving effectiveness:Most likely to rate as poor or very poor Most likely to rate as good or excellent

Non-white (38.1%) 55+ years old (46.6%)White (47.6%)Living Downtown (51.5%)

Fairness enforcing the law:Most likely to rate as poor or very poor Most likely to rate as good or excellent

18-34 year olds (28.9%) Males (50.0%)35-54 year olds (27.3%) White (59.2%)Non-white (34.9%) Living in the Southeast (54.9%)

Fairness in distribution of services:Most likely to rate as poor or very poor Most likely to rate as good or excellent

Non-white (28.7%) 18-34 year olds (47.00%)Living in the Southwest (29.8%) White (49.7%)

Household income > $75,000 (55.6%)



62/188


Professional conduct:Most likely to rate as poor or very poor Most likely to rate as good or excellent

Females (26.9%) 55+ year olds (62.1%)Non-white (35.1%) Males (58.0%)Living in the Southwest (28.4%) White (69.1%)

Household income > $75,000 (66.7%)Living in the Southeast (68.6%)Living Downtown (66.7%)

Responsiveness to concerns:Most likely to rate as poor or very poor Most likely to rate as good or excellent

Non-white (30.7%) White (67.0%)Living in the Southeast (62.7%)

Overall Impression of the RPD:

70.9% are somewhat or very favorable of the RPD28.1% are somewhat or very unfavorable of the RPD

Most likely to rate as favorable: 55+ year olds (81.6%)White (84.3%)Household income > $75,000 (83.3%)Living in the Southeast (84.3%)

Most likely to rate as unfavorable: 18-34 year olds (35.3%)Non-white (41.7%)

Trust in the RPD

54.1% trust the RPD45.7% do not trust the RPD

Most likely to trust the RPD: White (67.9%)Household income > $75,000 (69.2%)Living Downtown (75.8%)

Most likely not to trust the RPD: 35-54 year olds (50.8%)Non-white (59.3%)Household income $26,000-$75,000 (51.9%)Living in the Northeast (56.3%)



63/188


Community Engagement

Rating of RPD PerformanceExcellent/

Good

Fair Poor/

Very Poor

Do not

knowWorking with the community to reducecrime 46.5% 30.0% 21.7% 1.8%Working with the community topreventcrime 43.1% 32.4% 22.7% 1.8%Creating partnerships with the community 38.6% 32.1% 25.6% 1.4%Responding to community concerns 41.0% 30.8% 27.2% 1.0%

Working with community to reducecrime:Most likely to rate as poor or very poor Most likely to rate as good or excellent

18-34 year olds (26.3%) 55+ years old (57.3%)Non-white (32.8%) White (58.1%)Living in the Northwest (30.0%) Living in the Southeast (56.9%)

Working with community topreventcrime:Most likely to rate as poor or very poor Most likely to rate as good or excellent

18-34 year olds (29.6%) White (53.9%)Non-white (33.9%)Living in the Northwest (27.5%)

Creating partnerships with the community:Most likely to rate as poor or very poor Most likely to rate as good or excellent

18-34 year olds (32.0%) 55+ years old (49.5%)Non-white (37.0%) White (48.2%)

Living in the Southeast (47.1%)

Living Downtown (45.5%)Responding to community concerns:

Most likely to rate as poor or very poor Most likely to rate as good or excellent18-34 year olds (32.9%) 55+ years old (51.5%)Non-white (40.7%) White (52.9%)Household income $26-$75,000 (33.3%) Living in the Southeast (49.0%)Living in the Northwest (33.8%) Living Downtown (51.5%)

Household income > $75,000 (55.6%)



64/188


Interaction with RPDNo

InteractionPositive

ExperienceNegativeExperience

Police assistance via Neighborhood Service Center 69.5% 23.8% 6.8%Police and Citizens Together Against Crime 67.1% 30.0% 2.9%Police Activities League (PALS) 79.9% 17.8% 2.3%

Attended a Chief on the Streets meeting 81.2% 17.5% 1.3%Attended a Voice of the Citizen session 84.6% 13.8% 1.6%Attended a neighborhood meeting 63.1% 33.2% 3.7%

Best way for RPD to share information:76.5% traditional media41.3% Facebook36.0% Email35.5% RPD website29.2% Twitter



65/188


66/188

Rochester Police Department

Reorganization Plan

July 2014

Name Approval Signature Date

Mayor Lovely Warren


67/188

RPD Reorganization Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary...1

Goals of Reorganization Project2

Plan Development Process.........3

Data Analysis Overview....6

Proposed Five-Section Design...8

Police Facilities......11

Budget Impact...13

RPD-NBD Coordination...15

Project Timeline.....16

TABLES AND CHARTS

Table 1.Reorganization Community Input Meetings....5

Chart 1.Section Design....8

Table 2.Distribution of Workload and Patrol Officers....9

Table 3.Section Facility Coverage......11

Table 4.Start-Up Costs....13

Table 5.Periodic Recurring Costs.......13

Table 6.Long-Term Annually Recurring Costs.......14

Table 7.Project Benchmark Dates......16

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1: Section Maps

Attachment 2: Patrol Beat Design and NumberingAttachment 3: Comparison of Current PSAs with New Patrol Beats

Attachment 4: Section Office Coverage Comparison


68/188

RPD Reorganization Plan 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Rochester Police Department (RPD) will reorganize from its current two-division

patrol structure to a five-section model (seeChart 1, below, p. 8), each commanded by aCaptain, as follows:

Lake Section-1

Genesee Section-3

Goodman Section-5

Clinton Section-7

Central Section-9

The five sections will be organized into a total of 37 individual patrol beats, an increasefrom the current 22 Police Service Areas (PSAs) in the current two-division structure.This constitutes an average reduction of about 40% in the size of individual patrol areas.

RPD has constructed a staffing model that retains the same number of police officersassigned to patrol duties as exists in the current two-division structure, and a roughlyequivalent number of police officers assigned to patrol in each part of the City.

RPD solicited extensive community and internal RPD input in developing this plan.Overall, there was broad community support for both the five-section model in general,

and the originally proposed section boundaries. However, the plan was modified basedon community feedback at section-level meetings.

Initially, RPD will continue to work out of its current three police facilities at 1099 JayStreet, 630 North Clinton Avenue, and 30 North Clinton Avenue (Sibley Building).

The estimated ongoing additional cost to RPDs operational budget commencing in FY2015-16 is $326,280 annually. This constitutes an increase of about one-third of onepercent (0.38%) of RPDs annual operating budget.

RPD and Neighborhood and Business Development (NBD) are working to finalize a jointalignment for the Neighborhood Service Centers (NSCs) to ensure continuingcoordination, and effective resolution of neighborhood and quality of life issues.

The target date to commence operating under the new organizational structure isMonday,March 30, 2015.


69/188

2 RPD Reorganization Plan

GOALS OF REORGANIZATION PROJECT

The goals of the RPD reorganization project are as follows:

1. Maintain and exceed current level of service.

2. Increase community policing initiatives.

3. Connect officers to smaller, neighborhood-based patrol beats.

4. Decentralize police services to neighborhoods.

5. Build an analytical model that allows flexibility for continual evaluation and

adjustment.

6. Long-term financial sustainability.

These goals have remained our core guiding principles as we have analyzed variousoptions, and made decisions.


70/188


PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

In January 2014 Mayor Warren requested a proposal for the reorganization of the RPDspatrol operations, detailing a recommendation to transition from a two-division model to a four-or five-section model.

Thereafter, a Project Charter was adopted. The City established an RPD ReorganizationSteering Committee to oversee the project, and to make recommendations to the Mayor. Themembers of the Steering Committee are Deputy Mayor Len Redon, Office of Management andBudget (OMB) Director Chris Wagner, Department of Human Resource Management (DHRM)Director Tassie Demps, Emergency Communications Department (ECD) Director JohnMerklinger, Neighborhood and Business Development (NBD) Commissioner Del Smith,Director of Special Projects Allen Williams, and RPD Chief Michael Ciminelli.

RPD then convened an internal Reorganization Core Planning Team, consisting of ActingDeputy Chief Kevin Costello (Project Manager), Lieutenant Mark Simmons (Project

Coordinator), Director of Business Intelligence Nick Petitti, RPD Systems Analyst Joseph Silva,and Chief Ciminelli. In addition, RPD convened a number of ad hoccommittees and workinggroups consisting of RPD Appointed Staff, Command Officers, and a cross-section ofsupervisory and rank and file personnel.

This process included an intensive workload data analysis to guide RPD in designingsections, patrol beats, and a staffing model. SeeData Analysis Overview below, p. 6.

As a result of this process, RPD recommended the City adopt a five-section patrol model,with one section including the Downtown area and some adjacent residential areas. The benefitsto this model include:

Based on a detailed workload analysis RPD can meet current level of service for

calls for service (CFS).

The smaller section design will enhance the opportunity for community policing

initiatives.

The neighborhood-based patrol beats designed within these smaller sections will

maintain neighborhood integrity, and connect individual officers to specific,

smaller, neighborhood-based beats.

Creates similar beat and staffing structures in the new sections, and balancesworkload.

The detailed workload analysis, and the resulting section/beat design, are flexible,

and will provide a means for ongoing evaluation and adjustment.


71/188


While some additional costs will be incurred (e.g., additional supervisory

positions, cars, etc.), this design will allow RPD to staff the new model at the

current (FY 14-15) authorized strength of 725 funded sworn positions.1

Accounts for the University of Rochester expansion on both sides of the Genesee

River.

Using the larger central area outside of Downtown enables us to support the

unique policing needs of Downtown, and adjacent residential areas, under one

unified police command.

Supports the growing residential population in the Center City area.

Accounts for MCCs relocation, and the geographic changes associated with theInner Loop Project.

This proposal will enable but not require the City to establish additional sectionoffices throughout the City.

The Steering Committee reviewed and endorsed RPDs proposal, and presented it toMayor Warren on April 4, 2014.

Thereafter, Mayor Warren approved the recommendation, and authorized RPD tocontinue the planning process, with the goal of implementing the plan in CY 2015.

Mayor Warren and RPD presented the plan to the City Council, and conducted a pressconference to present the plan to the media and the public. On April 11, 2014, RPD issued anInterim Report to the public, summarizing the draft proposal.

Thereafter, RPD conducted a series of community meetingsone in each of the proposedsectionsto present the plan to the community and to solicit community input andrecommendations. At these meetings, RPD explained the workload and data analysis, andpresented the five-section proposal. RPD solicited verbal input and handwritten communityfeedback sheets during these meetings. RPD also solicited email input through the newly [email protected] email account. The comments, input, and suggestions receivedduring these meetings were collected for review.

The table below shows the dates and locations of each of the meetings:

1RPDs budget reflects 726 sworn positions, but one position (Executive Deputy Chief) is not funded. Thus thereare 725fundedpositions in RPDs budget.


72/188


Table 1. Reorganization Community Input Meetings

Proposed Section Date Location

Lake Section-1 May 22, 2014 Aquinas High School,1127 Dewey Ave.

Genesee Section-3 May 13, 2014 Staybridge Suites1000 Genesee St.

Goodman Section-5 May 6, 2014 Thomas P. Ryan Community Center530 Webster Ave.

Clinton Section-7 May 15, 2104 RPD Patrol Division East Office630 North Clinton Ave.

Central Section-9 May 20, 2014 Public Safety Building Auditorium185 Exchange Blvd.

In addition to the five meetings mentioned above, the RPD Core Planning Team also hadseveral additional meetings with groups and individuals at their request to discuss various

aspects of the plan, and to receive their input and concerns. Throughout the process, RPD maderegular presentations at the monthly Chiefs Police-Citizen Interaction Committee (PCIC)meetings, comprised of representatives of numerous community groups and organizations.Inquiries regarding reorganization received by RPD, the Office of the Mayor, and members ofCity Council were forwarded to Project Coordinator Lieutenant Mark Simmons, who respondedto each one.

Overall, there was broad community support for both the five-section model in general,as well as the the originally proposed section boundaries. However, the plan was modified inresponse to concerns raised by residents of one portion of the Southeast Quadrant.

Realizing the importance of input and buy-in from RPD personnel, including the rank andfile, the Core Team solicited participation from RPD members to serve on working committeesrelating to a myriad of operational and administrative details resulting from the reorganization.The members of these respective committees were selected by their fellow platoon members torepresent their interests and concerns, as well as to keep the platoon informed of major decisionpoints, and process timelines. The committees meet on a regular basis, and have providedconstructive input in the creation of car beat designs, radio dispatch protocols and call numbers,comprehensive departmental training components, as well as policy and procedural changesrequired by the reorganization.

The active participation and communication between the Core Team and our internal and

external partners/stakeholders has proven to be invaluable as we work to structure RPD in amanner that will achieve the goals of the reorganization project.


73/188


DATA ANALYSIS OVERVIEW

RPDs reorganization project began with an intensive workload data analysis. The intentof the data analysis is to create a baseline to make data-driven process decisions that allowflexibility of staffing and beat models for continual evaluation and adjustment. RPD recognizesthat comprehensive data analysis is a key component to informed decision-making, but also that

it must be balanced with experiential knowledge, existing constraints, and practicalconsiderations.

Workload ModelThe purpose of establishing a workload model is to create a basis for the evaluation of

demand for service on the patrol division. The primary demand on patrol officers is non-discretionary calls for service, i.e., calls placed by persons that require a police response. Callsfor service data are commonly assessed in raw counts; however, to effectively analyze demandother factors must be considered. To address the need for a comprehensive analysis of demand,RPD built a six-variable weighted workload model.

Total Hours Worked (75%)

To calculate total hours worked, RPD analyzed 5 years of calls for service data orroughly 2.5 million data points. The pattern of non-discretionary calls for serviceresponded to by RPDs patrol division has remained consistent over many years, and ishighly predictable. Five years of data is a sufficient sample to draw conclusions from andalso broad enough to account for the minimal year-to-year variance. Proactive calls forservice were eliminated and metrics (e.g. average call length, average number of assistingcars, etc.) were established for each of the remaining 119 unique call types. An upper-bound of average call length was calculated for each call type, defined as 1 standarddeviation above the mean. The formula used to give each call type a single numericalvalue for total hours worked was:

Hours Worked = Upper-bound + (Avg. Call Length * Avg. Number of Assisting Cars)

Calls for Service (10%)

Two years of non-discretionary calls for service were spatially referenced as a baselinefor geographic comparisons. Proactive calls were again eliminated.

Average Drive Time (7%)

Average length in minutes from dispatch time to arrival time was calculated by weightingtwo years of non-discretionary calls for service data for each of the current 22 Police

Service Areas (PSA). Emergency calls were given a higher weight than Non-Emergencycalls.

Population Density (4%)

2010 US Census Block level data was spatially referenced as a baseline for geographiccomparisons.


74/188


Area (2%)

Total area in square miles was calculated using 2013 city borders as a baseline forgeographic comparisons.

Street Segments (2%)

Total length of street segments in feet was calculated using the Monroe CountyCenterlines shapefile as a baseline for geographic comparisons.

The six variables were then uploaded for additional analysis into a GeographicInformation System (GIS), specifically ESRIs Districting Tool. Using this tool, the City wasbroken into a grid of 250 feet by 250 feet cells, each containing a numerical value based on theworkload model weighting. This provided a single value for each grid cell representative of itsworkload proportional to the entire city.

As a proof of concept, RPD ran multiple iterations of this weighted model using historicdata against the current Divisional boundaries and quasi-operational Quadrant boundaries for

comparison purposes. The model was closely aligned with the Departments understanding ofthe current workload balance. At this point RPD is confident that the model is a useful tool togauge workload in a geographic context and flexible enough to allow modification whennecessary. RPD will also continue to test the validity of the model.

Additional Analysis

A. Staffing

RPD has completed a data-driven (e.g. platoons, work wheel, vacancy rate, show rates,etc.) approach to analyzing the projections for the organizational staffing in the

recommended five-section model.

B. Car Beats

RPD utilized the workload model in combination with qualitative feedback from itsofficers and the community to develop new, neighborhood-based patrol beats within thenew section boundaries.

C. Evaluation

RPD will establish key quantitative and qualitative performance indicators, and timelinesfor ongoing evaluation of reorganization. The target date to complete the design of theevaluation process is November 3, 2014.


75/188


PROPOSED FIVE-SECTION DESIGN

As noted above, Mayor Warren has approved a five-section model for RPDs patroloperations structure. Chart 1 shows a City-wide overview of the new patrol section design:

Chart 1. Section Design

SeeAttachment 1 for individual maps of each section.


76/188


The proposed design was developed based on the workload analysis described above;input from the RPD Core Planning Team, RPD Command Staff, and RPD rank and file;consultation with ECD; geographic considerations; neighborhood integrity; and community input.

This section design includes a Central Section-9 that is comprised of the Downtown

area and some adjacent residential areas. Although smaller than the other four sections, it islarge enough to be self-sustaining without drawing resources from other areas of the City. Forthe other four sections, RPD distributed the remaining police workload proportionately, within a+/- 5% variance.

The Core Team also evaluated RPDs staffing patterns and show rate.2This enabled usto estimate the actual number of officers that are likely to report for work on a given shift. Thus,we allocated staffing to the various sections in a realistic manner, rather than relying simply onthe total number of officers assigned on paper.

The allocation of patrol officers among the sections is within less than 1% of the relative

non-discretionary CFS workload in section, with one exception. The exception is CentralSection-9, which has additional officers assigned to foot and bike patrol on the Downtown Detail.This workload is not fully reflected in the CFS workload data.

The table below shows the distribution of workload and patrol officers among the sections:

Table 2. Distribution of Workload and Patrol Officers3

Each section will be numbered, as set forth above. Police vehicles will be numberedsequentially, with the sections numerical identifier always being the last digit. Thus, residentsneed only remember one number to identify a police vehicle as being assigned to their respectivesections. SeeAttachment 2 for Patrol Beat Design and Numbering.

2Show raterefers to the rate at which officers assigned to work each day actually report for duty, factoring invacancies, and absences due to a number of reasons, including injury, illness, training, and vacation or compensatorytime off.3The staffing model is subject to adjustment as the planning and implementation process continues.

Section Number

of

Patrol

Beats

Number of

Patrol

Officers

Assigned

Percentage

of Patrol

Officers

Assigned

Percentage of

Patrol

Workload

*Does not equal100% due to

rounding

Lake Section-1 10 85 24% 24.3%

Genesee Section-3 7 68 19% 19.9%

Goodman Section-5 7 68 19% 19.5%

Clinton Section-7 10 85 24% 24.9%

Central Section-9 3 51 14% 11.3%


77/188


The five sections will be organized into a total of 37 individual patrol beats, an increasefrom the current 22 Police Service Areas (PSAs) in the current two-division structure. Theaverage size of the current PSAs is 1.68 square miles, as compared to an average size of onesquare mile for the new patrol beats. This constitutes an average reduction of about 40% in thesize of each individual patrol area. SeeAttachment 3 for a comparison of size and location

between the current PSAs and the new patrol beats.

A Captain will command each section. The Captain will have the authority to deployassigned resources to meet individual section needs, within the obligations of the collectivebargaining agreement (CBA). The Captain will ensure a coordinated response with his or herSection Captain counterparts(s) to crime issues and patterns that move across section boundaries.The Captain may also request additional assistance from specialized units for issues that exceedthe Sections capacity, e.g., Tactical Unit, Special Investigations Section, Traffic EnforcementUnit, etc. The Captain will be the primary RPD point of contact for individuals andorganizations within the section. The Section Captains will report to a Patrol DivisionCommander, who in turn will report to the Deputy Chief of the Operations Bureau.

RPD will maintain the current primary platoon structure. Thus, within each section, therewill be uniform patrol coverage on three primary platoons, identified as 1stPlatoon (11pm to7am); 2ndPlatoon (7am to 3pm); and 3rdPlatoon (3pm to 11pm). These times are approximate,as the start time for each platoon will be staggered to ensure there are always officers on thestreet during shift change. Each primary platoon will be supervised by a Platoon Lieutenant, andvariously assigned Sergeants.

Committees consisting of officers who have experience working the various parts of theCity and ECD representatives were convened to design the individual patrol beats in each section.This ensured that those who possess an in-depth knowledge of an area, its neighborhoods, crimeissues, and CFS patterns were able to guide the design of the beats, in conjunction with a detailedworkload analysis for each beat. The three primary platoons will have an individual officerresponsible for CFS and proactive initiatives for each beat. Thisbeat ownershipis one of thebenefits of the reorganization. In addition, the staffing model provides for rover or postofficers to provide back-ups, and to be deployed proactively based on workload and currentcrime or quality of life issues. SeeAttachment 2 for Patrol Beat Design and Numbering.

Each Section will also have a team of officers assigned to 4thPlatoon (approximately7pm to 3am), which allows for additional proactive policing initiatives within each section.4 Inaddition to proactive initiatives, 4thPlatoon is available to assist with CFS as needed.

Each Section will have its own Investigators, assigned to 2nd, 3rd, and 4thPlatoons.Investigators assigned to the two Divisions will be apportioned among the five Sections inaccordance with need.

Each Section will have its own NSC Lieutenant, and Crime Prevention Officers, tocoordinate efforts between RPD and NBD personnel. SeeRPD-NBD Coordination, below, p. 15.RPD will realign existing PCICs, and establish a PCIC for each of the five Sections.

4Unlike the three primary platoons, 4thPlatoon work hours can be changed for operational need.


78/188


POLICE FACILITIES

RPD officers will continue to work out of the current three RPD Patrol facilities.However, additional officers will be moved to the Sibley Building to become part of the newCentral Section-9. Some renovation of the Sibley Building facility will be required to

accommodate the additional officers.

The following table shows the police facility to be used by each section:

Table 3. Facility Coverage

Facility Section

1099 Jay St Lake Section-1

Genesee Section-3

630 North Clinton Ave

Goodman Section-5

Clinton Section-7

30 North Clinton Ave (Sibley Bldg.) Central Section-9

See alsoAttachment 4, Section Office Coverage Comparison.

This approach will have the following benefits:

For the most part, officers will be driving to the same patrol areas from the same

buildings. Where there are changes, the driving time from the office to the assignedpatrol area either improves or remains about the same.

It will enable us to test the new section model and beat structure, and to make any needed

modifications, prior to significant capital investment in new facilities.

Locating the Central Section-9 in the Sibley Building at 30 N. Clinton Street, which is

currently being used only for the Downtown Detail, will enable the City to maximize its

recent financial investment in that facility.

Continued use of the Patrol Division West facility at 1099 Jay Street will enable the City

to maximize its recent investment into renovations of that facility, which is beingamortized over the course of a five-year lease.


79/188


Deferring movement into additional buildings will enable the City to carefully evaluate

the reorganization, and assess whether the additional benefit of section police facilities is

worth the capital investment.

Deferring the decision on additional police facilities will also enable the City to evaluate

potential cost savings through co-location and consolidation opportunities for Cityfacilities and offices.


80/188


BUDGET IMPACT

There are three basic categories of costs associated with the reorganization project. First,there are start-up costs associated with the planning and implementation of the reorganization.These include, for example, renovation costs to accommodate more officers at the Sibley

Building facility, costs to reprogram the Records Management System (RMS) to reflect the neworganizational structure, and an additional Lieutenants position to serve as ReorganizationProject Coordinator for the planning and implementation phase of the project. These are one-time costs that will not reoccur. The following table shows the estimated start-up costs.

Table 4. Start-Up Costs

Item Estimated Cost CommentsRenovations to Sibley Building $85,360 Needed to accommodate additional officers to be

assigned to this facility.

Reprogramming of RMS $35,000 This is a preliminary estimate. We believe actualcost may be lower.

Lieutenant Position for ProjectCoordinator

$183,942

The FY 13-14 cost was absorbed within ourexisting budget.

Funds were added to the budget to cover theFY 14-15 cost.

While the Project Coordinator assignment willcontinue until implementation, the additionalLieutenant position will end through attrition inAugust 2014.

Overtime (planning meetings andimplementation)

$12,500 Spread over FY 13-14 & FY 15-16

Total $316, 802

Second, there will be some costs that will recur on a multi-year basis, but not an annualbasis. For example, some additional police vehicles are needed as a result of the reorganization.However, they will not be replaced every year, but on a multi-year replacement cycle, i.e., anaverage of once every seven years for marked police vehicles, and once every eight years forunmarked vehicles. The following table shows periodic recurring costs.

Table 5. Periodic Recurring Costs

Item Estimated Cost CommentsFour Additional Marked Vehicles $138,808

($34,702 per marked car)Replaced on average every 7 years.

Three Additional Unmarked

Vehicles

$60,255

($20,085 per unmarked car)

Replaced on average every 8 years.

Total $199,063

Third, of obvious most concern, are costs that will recur annually on a long-term basis.This primarily consists of additional supervisory positions needed to accommodate the additionalchains-of-command resulting from the reorganization, and some additional parking and vehiclemaintenance costs. Following is an estimate of annually recurring costs:


81/188


Table 6. Long-Term Annually Recurring Costs

Personnel Costs

Title

Budget

2014-2015

Reorganization

2014-2015 Change Long Term

Chief 1 1 0 $0

Executive Deputy Chief (Unfunded) 1 1 0 $0

Deputy Chief 2 2 0 $0

Commander 3 3 0 $0

Captain 11 12 1 $190,789

Lieutenant5 34 32 -1 -$169,793

Sergeant 89 95 6 $905,255

Police Investigator 80 80 0 $0

Police Officer6 505 500 -5 -$662,788

Personnel Total 726 726 0 $263,463

Non-Personnel Costs

Additional Parking at Sibley Building for Central Section-9 $5,880

Additional Vehicle Operating Cost (e.g., fuel, maintenance) $56,937

Non-Personnel Total $62,817

Grand Total $326,280

The total annual increase of $326,280 constitutes an increase of about one-third of one percent(0.38%) of RPDs annual operating budget.

The revised configuration will be phased in during FY 14-15. Implementation will be

phased to meet operational need, while minimizing cost impact in FY 14-15. We expect toabsorb the incremental operating expense within the approved FY 14-15 budget.

RPD does not expect the reorganization to increase overtime above current levels. Asnoted above, in addition to assessing patrol workload, RPD analyzed staffing patterns and showrate, to achieve a realistic estimate of how many officers will be available on a given shift. Thisinformation was used to help guide staffing allocations among the sections and platoons.However, RPD will continue to monitor overtime monthly. If overtime exceeds the expectedlevel during the month, a more detailed analysis will be conducted to determine more specificcauses and actions to more effectively manage it.

5One Lieutenant position was temporarily added in the approved FY 14-15 budget for reorganization planning, sothe long-term reduction is based on the FY 13-14 level of 33 Lieutenants.6The five police officer positions to be converted to Sergeant positions are four vacant Tactical Unit positions, andone unreimbursed vacant SRO position.


82/188


RPD-NBDCOORDINATION

RPD is committed to maintain and exceed current level of service provided to thecommunity. In addition to response to CFS and crime issues, it also includes quality of lifeissues addressed jointly by RPD and NBD through the Quadrant NSCs. Police patrol areas have

been realigned in three of the current NSC Quadrants. The exception is Clinton Section-7, whichis identical to the current Northeast NSC Quadrant. Thus, in the other NSC Quadrants, RPD andNBD must realign joint areas of responsibility to ensure coordination, and a continued high levelof service. In addition to coordination of joint RPD-NBD services, some members of thecommunity believe the alignment of the NSCs also, to some degree, impacts associationalrelationships among certain neighborhood groups and organizations.

RPD and NBD have worked closely together to develop options for RPD-NBDcoordination within the NSCs. We have also received community input on this subject,primarily from one area in the current Southeast NSC Quadrant. This internal and externalprocess is continuing. By October 1, 2014, RPD and NBD will submit a proposal to the Mayor

for the coordination of NSC services.


83/188


PROJECT TIMELINE

Table 7. Project Benchmark Dates

Target Date Project Benchmark Comments

June 30, 2014 Submit RPD Proposal toSteering Committee

Completed.

July 9, 2014 Steering Committee SubmitsRecommendation to Mayor

Completed.

July 16, 2014 Approval by Mayor Need final approval to complete CADand RMS programming changes. Uponapproval RPD will require two weeks tofinalize GIS-Beat data.

July 30, 2014 RPD Submits GIS-Beat Datato ECD

This is necessary for ECD to commenceprogramming the CAD software.

August 15, 2014 RPD Designates the Captain

who will command each ofthe new sections.

Commence communitymeetings in new sections.

This will enable these Captains to fully

participate in the transition for the sectioneach will command, and enable them tobegin establishing positive workingrelationships with the community andneighborhood groups in their sections.

October 1, 2014 NBD and RPD agree oncoordination structure for theNSCs

Will include community input.

November 3, 2014 RPD will establish criteriaand metrics to evaluate thereorganization project, and

timetable for evaluation.

This will include both quantitative andqualitative criteria and metrics.

December 31, 2014 Sibley Building renovationscompleted.

To accommodate additional personnelbeing assigned to new Central Section-9.

January

February 2015

In-service training of RPDand ECD personnel.

Will require at least six weeks tocomplete training cycle.

February 28, 2015 CAD ProgrammingComplete

RMS ProgrammingComplete

Allows for sufficient testing prior tocommencement.

March 22 28,

2015

Additional RPD personnel

assigned to Central Section-9move into Sibley Building.

March 30, 2015 New structure goesoperational.

Commencing with First Platoon, RPDwill commence working in the newsection and beat structure.


84/188

ATTACHMENT 1

Section Maps


85/188



86/188



87/188



88/188



89/188



90/188

ATTACHMENT 2

Patrol Beat Design

And Numbering


91/188



92/188



93/188



94/188



95/188



96/188

ATTACHMENT 3

Comparison of Current PSAs

with New Patrol Beats


97/188



98/188



99/188



100/188



101/188

ATTACHMENT 4

Section Office

Coverage Comparison


102/188



103/188

2014

Rochester Police Department

Reorganization Evaluation MetricsEVALUATING THE REORGANIZATON

RPD REORGANIZATION CORE TEAM


104/188

Reorganization Evaluation MetricsRPD Core Team, December 20, 2014

The Rochester Police Department (RPD) will reorganize patrol functions from the current 2-Division

structure to a 5-Section model on March 30, 2015. The approved 5-Section design is a staffing model

based on a weighted non-discretionary patrol workload analysis. Resource allocation in the

approved 5-Section model was designed to account for existing constraints and practical

considerations, including but not limited to the workload analysis, current staffing, 911 dispatch

protocols, and available technology resources.

The goals of the reorganization are maintain and exceed current levels of service, increase

community policing initiatives, connect officers to smaller, neighborhood-based patrol beats,

decentralize police services to neighborhoods, utilize an analytical model that allows flexibility for

continual evaluation and adjustment, and maintain long-term financial sustainability.

RPD provides a variety of public services to the community. The nature of these services varies

widely, including responding to calls for police service, educating citizens about crime prevention,

responding to automobile accidents, and investigating crimes and apprehending offenders. The

multi-dimensional nature of police work requires multiple, perhaps even competing priorities. The

reorganization will affect all aspects of public service in varying degrees. RPD recognizes that

traditional police output measures alone are not diverse enough to thoroughly evaluative this

reorganization. A wide-ranging set of metrics are necessary to effectively evaluate the impact the

reorganization has on all types of police service.

A comprehensive evaluation of the reorganization plan will require analysis of the workload model,

community engagement, service metrics, and fiscal responsibility. A combination of official crimestatistics and qualitative data from community members and RPD personnel will be utilized in the

analysis. Each metric is identified and defined below. None of the criteria identified in this document

stands alone as an overall measure of performance; rather they will be utilized collectively to identify

potential positive or negative impacts of the new 5-Section model, and identify possible adjustments.

The estimated delivery date of the full evaluation is September 30th, 2016. This will allow for a three-

month adjustment period, one full year of data collection, and two months to conduct the analysis.

This large-scale organizational change requires significant adjustment in acclimation to new

geographic section and beat boundaries, adaptation to change in command structure, and

adjustments to policy and procedure implementation. Three months will allow personnel to get

familiarized with the new structure, and the Department to fine-tune the plan to ensure the qualityof data used for evaluation criteria. Using one full year of data for the evaluation will allow for a

complete comparison set to be analyzed against a similar timeframe prior to the reorganization.

RPD delivered these Reorganization Evaluation Metrics to the Reorganization Steering Committee

on November 3, 2014. The Committee reviewed the document and recommended some changes

and additions, which RPD adopted. The Committee has now unanimously approved these

Reorganization Evaluation Metrics


105/188

1

CONSTRAINTS

The potential constraints on the proposed methodology and data analyzed in the evaluation are

outlined below. Any limitations identified here are presented to inform the reader on common

nuances associated with using law enforcement data for evaluations, and the specific guidelines

within which this evaluation will be conducted.

1.1

COSTRPD has allocated no additional operating funds for the evaluation of the project. Existing

staff will perform the review; no additional personnel will be added to aid in the data

collection, processing, interpretation, or production of evaluation components. No new

technology (hardware, applications, and modifications) will be purchased or created solely

for the purpose of evaluation.

1.2

DATA SOURCESRPD generates substantial organizational data, not all of which is connected to theevaluation. Some data elements, for instance, are collected for administrative purposes,

some for resource allocation, and some for other accountability structures.

Most of the data identified for this evaluation are secondary sources. They are data that has

been collected previously, on an ongoing basis, for reasons other than evaluation. Evaluation

metrics are limited by the data fields collected and the methods in which they are collected.

1.3 ASSESSMENT OF CRIMECrime rates often have as much to do with how local police departments process the

information they receive as they do with the truelevel of crime. They are as much aproduct of the police departments that produced them as they are of the community or

situation in which the alleged offense took place. (McCleary, Nienstedt, & Erven, 1982)

Police departments can potentially influence crime rates through departmental policies and

procedures dealing with resource allocation, enforcement, community engagement

standards, technology adoption and implementation, and data collection methods.

Measuring police performance solely by crime statistics simply ignores consequential values...

[such as] justice, integrity, fear reduction, citizen satisfaction, protection, and help for those

who cannot protect or help themselves, and many others. (Kelling, 1996) It is important to

recognize a substantial proportion of police work is unrelated to crime.

1.4 CRIME REPORTING PRACTICES OF THE CITIZENRYCertain service metrics could potentially indicate an uptick in crime. These may indicate an

improved relationship with the community, as citizens respond positively to closer

relationships and expectations of service continuity. The attitudes of a jurisdictions citizenry

toward crime and the crime reporting practices of its residents are known to have an effect


106/188

on the number of crimes coming to the attention of law enforcement. Careful consideration

will be given to avoid making spurious implications of causality.

1.5

CONCLUSIONSThe evaluation team will not interpret or publish generalizations of the RPD reorganization

project based solely on a single metric, or on any single metric group outcome. Police

performance is multidimensional; the number and nature of those dimensions is a matter for

interpretation and examination. (Maguire, 2004)

2

WORKLOAD MODEL METRICS

The workload model was established to create a basis for the evaluation of demand for service on

the patrol division. Initially the demand was analyzed city-wide to determine section boundaries and

then once again, within each newly defined section, to determine car beats.

The workload model makes no attempts at evaluating officer efficiency, but rather focuses on thetime spent policing as it varies by geography. As noted in the constraints, this is a multidimensional

factor that can be influenced by command decisions, an officers personal policing characteristics,

and changes in a complex array of social, economic, and political forces. (Maguire, 2004)

2.1

SECTION WORKLOADThe percentage of patrol workload as predicted by the workload section model and reported

in the reorganization plan will be compared to observed percentages in the evaluation period.

Of the six variables in the model, three will be recalculated: Total Hours Worked, Calls for

Service, and Average Drive Time. The other three will not have changed significantly, or no

new data will be available in the time before and after the reorganization.

The same formula and call type calculated measures will be used:

(Hours Worked = Upper-bound + (Avg. Call Length * Avg. Number of Assisting Cars))

2.2

CAR BEAT WORKLOADThe percentage of patrol workload as predicted by the workload car beat model and

reported in the reorganization plan will be compared to observed percentages in the

evaluation period. Of the six variables in the model, three will be recalculated: Total Hours

Worked, Calls for Service, and Average Drive Time. The other three will not have changed

significantly, or no new data will be available in the time before and after the reorganization.

The same formula and call type calculated measures will be used:

(Hours Worked = Upper-bound + (Avg. Call Length * Avg. Number of Assisting Cars))


107/188

2.3

STAFFING WITHIN THE MODELThe allocation of patrol officers within each section is closely aligned with the expected

percentage of patrol workload. Because of this, analysis will be conducted on the expected

number compared to actual number of officers assigned to each section at the beginning of

the study period. Similar analysis may also be included that examines staffing along other

dimensions like platoon or rank.

3

BUDGET METRICS

The reorganization plan identified the three basic cost categories that would be directly impacted by

the new purposed staffing model as start-up costs, periodic recurring costs, and long-term annually

recurring costs. Estimated projected costs will be compared with actual costs for each identified line

item in these categories.

As identified in the Staffing within the Model metric (2.3) the reorganization plan has closely aligned

the allocation of patrol officers with the expected workload. The budgetary impact of this decisionwith regards to police overtime will be examined here. Specifically, analysis will be conducted on

personnel shortage overtime, which is the police overtime type most significantly impacted by

resource allocation decisions.

3.1 START-UP COSTSThese costs were associated with the planning and implementation of the reorganization.

These include, for example, renovation costs to accommodate additional officers at the

Sibley Building facility, costs to reprogram the Records Management System (RMS) to reflect

the new organizational st

Documents

Rochester Application Smaller