 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Quality Control Challenge |
The FBI's UCR (Uniform Crime Reporting)
has been around for a very, very long time.
Police departments are not required by law
to report crime using UCR; however, most
departments, including all the major police
departments in the nation, use the UCR to
report crime.
The importance of UCR cannot be
overestimated. Every person or organization
having any interest in crime, i.e., personal,
political, organizational, educational,
community, etc., uses or references the
information provided by UCR.
UCR is unique, because it is a relatively
simple administrative reporting system that
is compatible to incompatible parts. I need
has been around for a very, very long time.
Police departments are not required by law
to report crime using UCR; however, most
departments, including all the major police
departments in the nation, use the UCR to
report crime.
The importance of UCR cannot be
overestimated. Every person or organization
having any interest in crime, i.e., personal,
political, organizational, educational,
community, etc., uses or references the
information provided by UCR.
UCR is unique, because it is a relatively
simple administrative reporting system that
is compatible to incompatible parts. I need
to explain this one. Every state in the nation has it's own statute law
and terminology to describe criminal offenses. An awful lot of people,
including police officers, keep trying to apply, compare, or intertwine
the criteria and classifications in UCR with their own state's criminal
statutes and terminology. This is a fool's errand. You'll be well ahead
of the game if, even before you become a police officer, you come to
understand that UCR crime classifications have absolutely nothing to do
with how crimes are identified, classified, or prosecuted under your
state's criminal code or statutes.
Since any kind of reporting system, especially one which is so widely
misunderstood, can be manipulated and its original purpose corrupted, a
real quality control system must be in place to prevent corruption.
When it comes to UCR, you, as a police officer, will be the first, and
most important, factor in determining the quality of your department's
crime reporting system, and the validity of its UCR classifications. The
next most important factor will be your sergeant who reviews and
approves your reports.
In just one police department – if every police officer and every
sergeant were well educated in UCR classifications, and there was no
pressure from any quarter to downgrade crime, you'd have one fine and
accurate crime reporting system. Okay... you can laugh at this point
since no such police department exists, ever did, or ever will. Every
time something gets screwed up, and it's exposed, you always hear
people wail about changing things and ensuring accountability. While
changes usually occur, accountability is usually, as usual, lost in the
details.
Here's what many forget. Accountability can only exist when real
quality control is being practiced continuously – remember, continuously
means without interruption! What is real quality control? It's people...
people watching people. The only way to ensure your maximum
efficiency, and that of your sergeant, is your sure understanding that
every crime report you submit will undergo a final review process by
people trained for the singular purpose of properly identifying and
classifying the crime you're reporting.
Let's say you join a police department that has a final review process in
place. You're still going to have police officers and supervisors who will
try to beat the process. The supervisor will set the stage for sub-
standard reporting, and those police officers who are willing to please
will substitute their integrity with what they view as clever deception.
Here's an example of a not so clever deception. An officer is dispatched
to a call for attempted burglary. Remember, an attempted burglary is
classified as a Part I crime while a simple destruction of property or
malicious destruction is insignificant in the numbers game. Imagine
yourself as the trained reviewer who ultimately receives this officer's
report of the incident. The report incident is labeled as Malicious
Destruction. The narrative portion of the report basically states the
following:
"The rear door of [address] was damaged by person(s) unknown by
unknown means. No entry was gained."
The first thing you'll notice about this report is the absence of a
description of the damage to the door. Was the damage in the form of
graffiti scratched into or painted on the door, or was the damage a result
of an attempt to gain entry into the building? Since the nature of the
damage is an all important element in classifying this incident, you
return the report to the officer requiring a detailed description of the
"damage."
Now, in this incident scenario, the officer has obviously downgraded the
crime. The door is metal mounted in a metal frame. The door knob is
broken off and numerous pry marks appear around the lock mechanism
and door frame. While no entry was gained, the visible and obvious
physical evidence screams attempted burglary.
When the officer receives the returned report, that officer has a very
simple choice to make. Either upgrade the incident to Attempted
Burglary with a proper description of the damage, or... lie. You might
ask, "Why didn't the sergeant recognize this incomplete report and
direct the officer to properly classify the incident?" While a competent
supervisor would, an incompetent one, or one more interested in
keeping crime numbers low, would not. That's why a final review
process is so important in ensuring the integrity of a police
department's crime reporting system.
The Second Element of Quality Control
While a final review process is the most important quality control
element for a department's crime reporting system, an accompanying
system of call follow-up can have great positive effect. When a crime is
reported via 911, the CAD (computer aided dispatch) text frequently has
a fair amount of detail in describing the crime being reported. Again,
people become the key element in this process.
This time, you're assigned to a unit responsible for checking Part I
crimes reported via 911. You're reviewing CAD reports and comparing
them with the final police report. You're reading the CAD report of an
armed robbery. The 911 operator obtained complete victim information
and a brief, but good, description of the event. The CAD's final
disposition raises a red flag when you see that the responding officer
orally coded the call as "UNFOUNDED."
Now, the unfounded code could be legitimate. Perhaps the officer was
unable to locate the victim. You have a telephone number for the
victim, and you make contact with the victim. The victim tells you he
reported the crime to a police officer, and, as far as he knows, the
officer wrote a report of the crime. You have the victim describe the
entire event to you, and you determine that the reported crime contains
all the elements of an armed robbery.
In this scenario, if your unit is not part of your department's Internal
Affairs Division, you would forward this Quality Control Incident to
your IAD for further investigation. While this scenario has probably
caught a police officer making a false report, catching cops screwing up
is not the primary goal of this form of quality control. The primary goal
is making police officers and supervisors realize the high probably of
getting caught if they don't take their reporting responsibilities
seriously. There's an additional benefit to this component of quality
control. It will definitely lighten the work load on the first component...
the final review process.
and terminology to describe criminal offenses. An awful lot of people,
including police officers, keep trying to apply, compare, or intertwine
the criteria and classifications in UCR with their own state's criminal
statutes and terminology. This is a fool's errand. You'll be well ahead
of the game if, even before you become a police officer, you come to
understand that UCR crime classifications have absolutely nothing to do
with how crimes are identified, classified, or prosecuted under your
state's criminal code or statutes.
Since any kind of reporting system, especially one which is so widely
misunderstood, can be manipulated and its original purpose corrupted, a
real quality control system must be in place to prevent corruption.
When it comes to UCR, you, as a police officer, will be the first, and
most important, factor in determining the quality of your department's
crime reporting system, and the validity of its UCR classifications. The
next most important factor will be your sergeant who reviews and
approves your reports.
In just one police department – if every police officer and every
sergeant were well educated in UCR classifications, and there was no
pressure from any quarter to downgrade crime, you'd have one fine and
accurate crime reporting system. Okay... you can laugh at this point
since no such police department exists, ever did, or ever will. Every
time something gets screwed up, and it's exposed, you always hear
people wail about changing things and ensuring accountability. While
changes usually occur, accountability is usually, as usual, lost in the
details.
Here's what many forget. Accountability can only exist when real
quality control is being practiced continuously – remember, continuously
means without interruption! What is real quality control? It's people...
people watching people. The only way to ensure your maximum
efficiency, and that of your sergeant, is your sure understanding that
every crime report you submit will undergo a final review process by
people trained for the singular purpose of properly identifying and
classifying the crime you're reporting.
Let's say you join a police department that has a final review process in
place. You're still going to have police officers and supervisors who will
try to beat the process. The supervisor will set the stage for sub-
standard reporting, and those police officers who are willing to please
will substitute their integrity with what they view as clever deception.
Here's an example of a not so clever deception. An officer is dispatched
to a call for attempted burglary. Remember, an attempted burglary is
classified as a Part I crime while a simple destruction of property or
malicious destruction is insignificant in the numbers game. Imagine
yourself as the trained reviewer who ultimately receives this officer's
report of the incident. The report incident is labeled as Malicious
Destruction. The narrative portion of the report basically states the
following:
"The rear door of [address] was damaged by person(s) unknown by
unknown means. No entry was gained."
The first thing you'll notice about this report is the absence of a
description of the damage to the door. Was the damage in the form of
graffiti scratched into or painted on the door, or was the damage a result
of an attempt to gain entry into the building? Since the nature of the
damage is an all important element in classifying this incident, you
return the report to the officer requiring a detailed description of the
"damage."
Now, in this incident scenario, the officer has obviously downgraded the
crime. The door is metal mounted in a metal frame. The door knob is
broken off and numerous pry marks appear around the lock mechanism
and door frame. While no entry was gained, the visible and obvious
physical evidence screams attempted burglary.
When the officer receives the returned report, that officer has a very
simple choice to make. Either upgrade the incident to Attempted
Burglary with a proper description of the damage, or... lie. You might
ask, "Why didn't the sergeant recognize this incomplete report and
direct the officer to properly classify the incident?" While a competent
supervisor would, an incompetent one, or one more interested in
keeping crime numbers low, would not. That's why a final review
process is so important in ensuring the integrity of a police
department's crime reporting system.
The Second Element of Quality Control
While a final review process is the most important quality control
element for a department's crime reporting system, an accompanying
system of call follow-up can have great positive effect. When a crime is
reported via 911, the CAD (computer aided dispatch) text frequently has
a fair amount of detail in describing the crime being reported. Again,
people become the key element in this process.
This time, you're assigned to a unit responsible for checking Part I
crimes reported via 911. You're reviewing CAD reports and comparing
them with the final police report. You're reading the CAD report of an
armed robbery. The 911 operator obtained complete victim information
and a brief, but good, description of the event. The CAD's final
disposition raises a red flag when you see that the responding officer
orally coded the call as "UNFOUNDED."
Now, the unfounded code could be legitimate. Perhaps the officer was
unable to locate the victim. You have a telephone number for the
victim, and you make contact with the victim. The victim tells you he
reported the crime to a police officer, and, as far as he knows, the
officer wrote a report of the crime. You have the victim describe the
entire event to you, and you determine that the reported crime contains
all the elements of an armed robbery.
In this scenario, if your unit is not part of your department's Internal
Affairs Division, you would forward this Quality Control Incident to
your IAD for further investigation. While this scenario has probably
caught a police officer making a false report, catching cops screwing up
is not the primary goal of this form of quality control. The primary goal
is making police officers and supervisors realize the high probably of
getting caught if they don't take their reporting responsibilities
seriously. There's an additional benefit to this component of quality
control. It will definitely lighten the work load on the first component...
the final review process.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Copyright © 2006 - 2010 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |
| Online Video Learning Systems: Police Exam - U.S. Border Patrol Exam |