HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/2012 11A Council Information Ciik
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. I' f
For Meeting of: January 10, 2012
w e.'sµ♦ x'...a ^tu +s n.' w .f' .. .....; r +n: :.,.,.Y :awr. . i .sr .. � ,,,,
,'P,'i _ r a X11.- IMF to o :-- G J nt `r A✓''U L:F.rk '. M ''fl'1�' ;i l r . Yr ::, i, Y6 .'Ai n >V.' A11..rW 9 ' .{?a r r �+V iI: r 71 3114 5(.'L.r+ I O: ,e . 11..gV4 .i4! .
ITEM TITLE: Council Information
SUBMITTED BY:
CONTACT
PERSON /TELEPHONE:
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
1 City Meeting Schedule for week of January 9 -16, 2012
2. Preliminary Future Activities Calendar as of January 9, 2012
3. 1/5/12 Weekly Issues Report
4 9/11 ICMA Issue Brief Comparing Compensation: State -Local Versus Private Sector Workers
5. 12/11 Washington Violent Crime Prevention Partnership
Resolution Ordinance Other (specify)
Contract: Mail to:
Contract Term: Amount: Expiration Date:
■
Insurance Required? No
Funding
Source: Phone:
APPROVED FOR
SUBMITTAL: /00",„
'_' }`. C Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Click to download
❑ information packet
CITY MEETING SCHEDULE
For the week of January 9 — January 16, 2012
Please note: Meetings are subject to change
Monday, January 9
10:00 a.m. Yakima City Council Media Briefing — Council Chambers
Tuesday, January 10
10:00 a.m. Yakima County Commissioners Meeting — Council Chambers
. 6:00 p.m. Yakima City Council Meeting — Council Chambers
8:00 p.m. Yakima City Council Executive Session — Council Chambers
Wednesday, January 11
3:30 p.m. Yakima Planning Commission — Council Chambers
5:30 p.m. Parks and Recreation Commission — Council Chambers
Thursday, January 12
1:30 p.m. Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency Meeting — Council Chambers
Monday, January 16
City offices closed for Martin King Luther, Jr. holiday
Office Of Mayor /City Council
Preliminary Future Activities Calendar
Please Note: Meetings are subject to change
zr.5t . x " - - ..'�z: 'f: � "`C - j -c ycv r rytXa� ' lzv;vm::q h Y '° - ' - - - - � ;£.
- . , .w awe : ; ' s . �.
_,,,,6:04006-61R5 _,f? ., ,.g.. 1 Meeti osei .. ; ....,: „ ;, �.
a , j . ,
�.r „ „� , } , .�; r,.�,, ;,�- °��.� � � 9 �,�p �� --�. - a �arficipa ,_ �; �Meet�n oc Y
'F, 6 i, 61 i r "t x, A± + � 'g g.r 'f "k " bbb�t7 ;G�i ^ ' ' t'Y Y* 9 „'�.' �� 01. u�k'K3' C 4 T}., FY a '�"F!^ "j'�%L � vt�y R+`..h;
.m °.n�.s`?:'Z t a tt/ 7. ,.�y r�*, 1 a ,r� i n s, ' d,z i Jk $ „n : J ,,,y '3R"!�"- '":tr .E �' .r t �' ,,m�„ . f}� ur 'i m
MI �� - �.7'� - . .�.h ,.PP `r t1:F'y,�.,.f;�F. :�fE�,{ -.-s .
' sr�: ; . .: b x.vd ens �: 4` s�a"r =/'�, � ..�. �'u.?' Azi ,,, +r �.. "-�-A° ��15�i,��
Mon. Jan. 9
1000 a.m. Council Media Briefing Scheduled Meeting Cawley Council Chambers
Tues. Jan 10
12:00 p.m. Miscellaneous Issues Scheduled Meeting Cawley, Coffey TBD
6:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Scheduled Meeting City Council Council Chambers
8:00 p.m. (T) City Council Executive Scheduled Meeting City Council Council Chambers
Session
Wed. Jan 11
3:30 p m. Yakima Planning Scheduled Meeting Ensey Council Chambers
Commission
5 30 p m. Parks and Recreation Scheduled Meeting Adkison Council Chambers
Commission
Thur. Jan 12
4.00 p.m. GFI Steering Committee Scheduled Meeting Adkison, Coffey CWCMH
5:30 p m. YCDA Board Meeting Board Meeting Adkison New Vision Offices
6:00 p.m Regional Fire Authority Scheduled Meeting Adkison, Cawley, Fire Station 86
Coffey
on. Jan 16
City Offices Closed for Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday
Tues. Jan 17
1000 a.m. Council Media Briefing Scheduled Meeting Adkison Council Chambers
12:00 p m. Miscellaneous Issues Scheduled Meeting Mayor, Assistant TBD
Mayor
5:00 p m. (T) City Council Executive Scheduled Meeting City Council Council Chambers
Session
6 00 p.m City Council Meeting Scheduled Meeting . City Council Council Chambers
Wed. Jan 18
3.00 p m. City Council Public Safety Scheduled Meeting TBD CED Conference Room
Committee Meeting
Thur. Jan 19
3.30 p.m. Citizens for Safe Scheduled Meeting TBD Chamber of Commerce
Communities
Tues. Jan 24
12:00 p m. Miscellaneous Issues Scheduled Meeting Mayor, Assistant TBD
Mayor
Wed. Jan 25
3 30 p.m Yakima Arts Commission Scheduled Meeting TBD Planning Conference Room
Meeting
3.30 p m. Yakima Planning Scheduled Meeting TBD Council Chambers
Commission
MEMORANDUM
January 5, 2012
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael Morales, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT: Weekly Issues Report
• PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission will be meeting on
Wednesday, January 11 at 3:30 p.m. in Council Chambers.
• GANG FREE INITIATIVE: This Committee (Adkison and Coffey) will be
meeting on Thursday, January 12 at 4:00 p.m. at Central Washington
Comprehensive Mental Health.
• REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY: This Committee (Cawley, Coffey, and
Adkison) will be meeting on Thursday, January 12 at 6:00 p.m. at Fire Station
86.
• DIAL A RIDE SERVICE: The transition from Tri- Cities Transit to Med -Star
Cabulance is proceeding without too many glitches that were of a serious
nature. Program Administrator, Karen Allen, should be recognized for making
this transition as smooth as possible.
• CLERK'S OFFICE HOURS: Effective January 17, the Clerk's office will only
be open to the public from 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. This
will allow more time for training and give staff additional time to work on its
current backload of tasks.
• APPLICATION APPROVED: On December 15, 2011 the city's Historic
Preservation Commission conducted its first Type II Review for issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) to install solar panels on the roof of a
historic residence located on the southwest corner of W. Chestnut and S. 26
Avenues within the Barge- Chestnut Neighborhood Historic District. The
Historic Preservation Commission has determined that the request to install
solar panels on the western portion of the existing gable -style roof, in
accordance with the Secretary of Interior's recommended manner will not
adversely affect historic significant features of the residence, and approves of
the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
, 79
CENTE FOR STATE &
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
EXCELLENCE
ISSUE BRIEF
Comparing Compensation:
State -Local Versus Private Sector Workers
September 2011
Comparing
Compensation:
State -Local Versus BY ALICIA H. MUNNELL,
JEAN- PIERRE AUBRY, JOSH HURWITZ,
Private Sector Workers AND LAURA QUINBY
Introduction including both wages and benefits —is about 4 percent
less than that in the private sector. The final section
The comparability of state local versus private sec- concludes that, given the modest size of any differential
for pay has become a major issue in the wake of the between public and private compensation, policymak-
financial crisis. Funded levels of public pension plans ers should look carefully at the specifics of their own
declined sharply, and governments' ability to make state or locality before making significant changes.
required contributions has been severely constrained by
the collapse of state -local budgets. Politicians every- The Basic Facts
where are looking for ways to reduce pension costs
and increase revenues. Often such efforts are couched While a full answer to the question of parity of
in terms of excessively generous existing compensa- compensation requires careful comparisons between
tion — especially, current pensions. Dueling studies have people with similar skills doing similar jobs, some basic
appeared arguing that state -local workers are paid less statistics are a good place to start. Average wages for
or more than their private sector counterparts. Virtually state -local sector workers between 25 and 64 —even
all agree that wages of state -local employees are lower without controlling for education and other factors —are
than for private sector workers with similar education lower than those in the private sector, and the ratio of
and experience, but researchers differ on the extent to public to private sector wages has been declining over
which pensions and other benefits compensate for the time (see Figure 1).
shortfall. This brief builds on the recent wave of studies
by refining the estimates of the value of benefits.
The discussion proceeds as follows. The first section Figure 1. Ratio of Average Public to Private Sector Wages,
presents some basic data on wages and benefits. The Ages 25 - 64, 1990 - 2010
second section, following the methodology of earlier
researchers, estimates the relative wages in the state- 104% - -
local versus private sector, controlling for education,
demographics, and other factors. The results suggest 100%
that state and local workers in the aggregate have a
wage penalty of 9.5 percent. The third section explores
the extent to which benefits for state and local workers 96% -
offset the wage penalty. With appropriate modifications
for pension contributions and the addition of retiree 92%
health insurance, annual public sector compensation—
'" Alicia H Munnell is the Peter F. Drucker Professor of Management 88% —
Sciences in Boston College's Carroll School of Management and direc-
tor of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College (CRR). 84%
Jean- Pierre Aubry is the assistant director of state and local research at 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010
the CRR. Josh Hurwitz and Laura Quinby are research associates at the
CRR. The authors would like to thank Andrew Biggs, David Blitzstein,
Keith Brainard, Peter Diamond, Elizabeth Kellar, Steven Kreisberg, Sources. Authors' calculations from U.S. Department of Labor,
Jason Richwine, and Nathan Scovronick for helpful comments. Current Population Survey (CPS) (1990 - 2010).
4 COMPARING COMPENSATION: STATE -LOCAL VERSUS PRIVATE SECTOR WORKERS
On the other hand, pensions are more generous in Figure 3. Percent of Workers Eligible for Retiree Health
the public sector. First, a greater percentage of workers Insurance, by Sector, 2009
has an employer- sponsored plan in the public sector
than in the private sector -76 percent vs. 43 percent. 80% -
Second, among those employers who do sponsor plans, 65.4%
costs to the employer are higher in the state -local sec-
tor, despite significant employee contributions, than in 60%
the private sector (see Figure 2).
Finally, retiree health insurance is much more 40%
prevalent in the public sector than the private sector
(see Figure 3). Unfortunately, no data are readily avail - r�1
able to confirm this pattern, so estimates are required. 20% 17.8% -
In the private sector, the Medical Expenditure Panel
Survey provides information on retiree health insur-
ance offerings by firm size, and the Census shows the 0%
distribution of workers by firm size. Combining the Private sector State and local sector
two pieces of information yields an estimate of private
sector coverage of 18 percent. In the public sector, our Source Authors' calculations from U S Census Bureau (2008); and
assumption is that the percent of the state -local work - Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2009a and 2009b).
force potentially eligible for retiree health is the same
as that enrolled in employee health insurance — roughly pensions, retiree health insurance, and other ameni-
65 percent.1 ties — offset the lower wages. The following sections
At this point in time, virtually all analysts agree explore each of these issues.
that wages in the state -local sector — particularly, as
discussed below, when adjusted for the higher educa-
tional attainment of public sector workers —are lower Wages: State -Local versus Private
than those in the private sector. The big debate, as will
become evident, is the extent to which fringe benefits— Sector
A rash of recent studies has examined whether state-
Figure 2. Average Employer and Employee Pension Costs local workers are overpaid relative to their private
as Percent of Payroll, by Sector, 2009 sector counterparts. All start with an examination of
wages, finding lower wages in the public sector, and
8 °/o then make adjustments for fringe benefits and, in one
7 0% Employer: solid 7.0%
Employee: striped f case, other amenities of public employment.
6% - The following repeats for the nation an analysis of
a s% 5.2% wages in California undertaken by two groups —one on
///'
each side of the debate of whether public sector work -
4% 11— — ers are overcompensated. Like all other recent studies,
s o% both find wages lower in California's state and local
sector.
2% So as to not introduce new issues, the dataset and
variables for the nationwide analysis are the same
0% - /////A 0.0% as used in the California studies. The data come
State and local Private sector Private sector from the Annual March Supplement of the Current
defined benefit defined benefit defined contribution Population Survey (CPS) for the years 2006 -2010.
The analysis is limited to adult civilians working full
Note: The costs for defined benefit plans represent the normal cost. time for a wage or salary during the whole previous
State -local costs are for Social Security eligible employees. The costs year. The variables include whether the employer
for those without Social Security averaged 7.1 percent (employer) was federal, state, or local government and controls
and 7.6 percent (employee)
Sources: Public Plans Database (PPD) (2009); Towers Watson (2009), to standardize for hours worked per week, years of
and Vanguard (2010)..
COMPARING COMPENSATION: STATE -LOCAL VERSUS PRIVATE SECTOR WORKERS 5
education, experience, experience squared, firm size, Appendix A.) The coefficients for the continuous vari-
occupation, immigration status, race, gender, mari- ables are the percentage increase in wages for a one -
tal status, years to account for inflation, region, and unit increase in the variable. For example, an additional
some interaction terms. year of education is associated with an 8.5- percent
Before reporting the results, it should be noted increase in wages. For the 0/1 variables, the coefficient
that two variables in these types of regressions are shows the percentage increase associated with hav-
controversial. The first is firm size. The argument for ing the characteristic. For example, women earn 15.7
including firm size is that most state and local workers percent less than men.
are employed by large entities. Including this vari- The most important coefficient for our purposes is
able means that public employees are being compared that associated with being a state -local worker. After
mainly to employees of large firms, which —for reasons controlling for firm size, education, experience, and
not fully understood —tend to pay higher wages and numerous personal and job characteristics, the results
benefits. Omitting the variable would make the wage show that state -local workers earned 9.5 percent less in
penalty for working for a state or locality somewhat wages than otherwise similar private sector workers.
smaller. Both California studies include firm size. To provide some sense of the heterogeneity of the
The other controversial variable is union status. One wage penalty by type of worker, the wage equation was
could argue that union status reflects the employee's re- estimated by wage tercile. That is, a separate wage
preference, implying that should the employee leave equation was estimated for the lowest paid one -third
public employment he would seek a union job. There- in each state, the middle one - third, and the highest
fore, union public sector workers should be compared one - third. The results confirm what other studies have
only to union private sector workers. The problem is found (see Figure 5). Public employees in the lowest
that only a small percent of the private workforce is one -third of the wage distribution are paid more than
unionized, so the exiting employee would be unlikely their private sector counterparts. Those in the middle
to find a union job. Therefore, controlling for union third are paid about the same. And those state -local
status does not seem relevant, and indeed the variable workers in the top one -third are paid about 20 percent
has virtually no effect on the coefficient for state -local less than private sector workers.
workers. Both researchers leave this variable out of Despite the variation by wage level, the message
their California studies. from the wage analysis is clear: state -local workers as
The results of the wage regression for the nation are a group are paid less than their private sector counter -
shown in Figure 4. (The full results are presented in parts. So far, researchers have no real disagreements.
Figure 4. Impact of Selected Factors on Wages of Full -time Workers, 2006 -2010
S -L worker -9.5%
Federal worker 14.6%
Hours ■ 1.4%
Education 8 .5%
Experience • 1 6%
Female -15 7%
Married 8•44%
Foreign born -6 0%
Black -14 0%
Hispanic -9.5%
-20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
Notes. For "0/1" variables, the bars represent the relationship between the characteristic and wages; for continuous variables, the bars represent
the impact of a one -unit change on the wage. All coefficients are significant at the 1- percent level.
Source: Authors' calculations from CPS (2006 -2010)
6 COMPARING COMPENSATION: STATE -LOCAL VERSUS PRIVATE SECTOR WORKERS
Figure 5. State -Local Relative to Private Sector Wages, by of 8 percent, whereas 401(k) plans provide no
Wage Tercile, 2006 - 2010 such guarantees. Taking this higher guarantee into
account increases the value of public sector pension
contributions.
Lowest tercile I 2.0% • Public sector workers have much greater job
security than their private sector counterparts, and
this advantage has a baseline value of 6 percent.
For California, the value increases to 15 percent
Middle tercile - 5% because California public employees are assumed
to be highly risk averse and enjoy a substantial
compensation premium compared to their private
Highest tercile -21.1 sector counterparts.
Their study concludes that a proper accounting for
retiree health and defined benefit pensions generates a
- 30% - 20% - 10% 0% 10% state -local pay premium of about 15 percent for Califor-
nia. Adding in an additional 15 percent for job security
Source. Authors' calculations from CPS (2006 - 2010). raises the premium to 30 percent.
Our assessment of the debate falls between the
Benefits: State -Local versus two sides. We accept the importance of adding retiree
health insurance and agree that adjustments are
P rivate Sector required for pensions, but reject the notion that job
security is higher in the state -local sector once educa-
The controversy starts on the benefits side. The ques tional attainment is taken into account.
tion is the extent to which the value of the benefits Before addressing each of these issues, it is impor
provided to state -local workers offsets the wage pen- tant to be clear about the role firm size plays in the
benefit calculation. Since nearly 90 percent of state
alty. Several researchers who conclude that benefits do
not cancel out the wage penalty base their case on the local workers are employed by entities with 100 or
Bureau of Labor Statistics Employer Costs for Employee more employees, we adopted that category from the
Compensation (ECEC) survey. This survey shows that ECEC survey for the private sector benefit rate. Because
while benefits are much higher relative to wages for the results are sensitive to controlling for firm size, an
state -local workers than for those in the private sector, alternative estimate is presented in the BOX on page
they are not high enough to offset the wage penalty. 1° 7 that excludes firm size from the wage equation and
Therefore, they conclude that public sector workers uses the average benefit rate for all firms.
receive less total compensation —wages and benefits
combined —than their private sector counterparts. Retiree Health
The response by one set of critics is that the ECEC
survey understates state and local employee compensa- Clearly, retiree health should be added. Nationwide, the
tion in three ways: normal cost for retiree health in 2009 was 7.6 percent
• It omits retiree health since employers generally (see Appendix B). However, a 2011 survey of state
do not prefund these plans and therefore do not and local governments reports that many respondents
make payments for active employees. Plus, covered were cutting back on their commitments, shifting more
employees can buy retiree health insurance at group costs to employees in the form of higher premiums,
rather than individual rates, which raises the value co- payments, and deductibles. Given the uncertainty
of these benefits above the employer's normal cost. of eventual payment, we re- estimated the 2009 nor -
This omission is relevant because retiree health mal cost using a certainty equivalency factor of 50
benefits are much more prevalent in the public percent.
sector than the private sector. This adjustment reduced the applicable normal cost
• Contributions to defined benefit pensions and to to 3.9 percent. This figure was then increased by 25
401(k) plans are not comparable. Public sector percent to reflect the fact that retirees could purchase
plans in essence guarantee participants a return in a group rather than the individual market. Finally,
COMPARING COMPENSATION: STATE -LOCAL VERSUS PRIVATE SECTOR WORKERS 7
the scant available data suggest that the normal cost in the extent that workers have security, they should be
the private sector is roughly equal to that in the pub- willing to accept less in wages or benefits. During this
lic sector. Adding retiree health insurance increases recession, employment in the state -local sector is down
public sector compensation much more than private 3.1 percent since its peak, compared to 5.6 percent in
due to the higher cost and more extensive coverage in the private sector. However, state -local workers should
the public sector. be expected to fare better given that 52 percent have
a college degree —a category where employment has
Pensions continued to grow— compared to only 35 percent in
the private sector. In fact, the peak -to- present drops in
employment for state -local and private sector workers
Comparing ECEC pension data across the public and can be projected almost perfectly based on the educa-
private sectors involves two problems. First, the ECEC tional attainment of the respective sectors (see Table
contributions to defined benefit pension plans do not 1). Moreover, public sector employment continues to
separate the normal cost and the amortization payment decline while private sector employment appears to
to reduce unfunded liabilities. As the employee only have stabilized. Thus, it is not clear that public sector
earns the normal cost, including the amortization pay workers have any greater job security than their private
ment overstates public sector compensation. Second, sector counterparts after accounting for their education
contributions to private sector 401(k) plans and public level.zi
sector defined benefit plans are not comparable. The
public sector contribution guarantees a return of about
8 percent, whereas no such guarantee exists for Table 1. Projected Drop in Employment Based on
401(k)s. Thus, the public sector contribution under Educational Attainment, by Sector, Peak - to 2011
states public sector compensation.
Given the limitations of the ECEC data, we began
with total normal cost of 13.4 percent (liabilities Educational % distribution of workers Chainge in
discounted at 8 percent) from the Public Plans Data- Attainment State - local I Private Employment
base (PPD). This number was then multiplied by the Less than high
state -local payroll coverage rate of 85 percent to reflect school 2.3% 8.1% 18.6%
the fact that the PPD relates only to payroll for those High school 19.9% 29.3% - 8.4
covered by a pension while the ECEC number refers
to total public sector payroll.' This number was then Associate's 25.4% 27.8% - 4.7%
adjusted to reflect the implicit guarantee. Our initial degree
thought was that employees could be guaranteed only Colle degree 52 34.8% 0.4%
the riskless rate on their 401(k) investments. But the Addendum
recent academic literature suggests that a defined Projected drop
in employment - 3.1% - 5.1%
contribution account can earn a certainty equiva-
lency return of 1.23 percentage points more than the Actual drop in 3.1% - 5.6%
risk -free interest rate by allowing for investment in employment
equities. Therefore, we re calculate the public plan Sources. Authors' calculations from CPS (2010) and U.S. Bureau of
total normal cost using an interest rate of 6.23 percent Labor Statistics (2011)
(5 percent riskless rate + 1.23 percent). We then
subtract the employee contribution. The amount by
which the re- estimated employer normal cost exceeds Putting aside job security, the calculations show
the ECEC contribution number was added to employee that state /local benefits nearly offset the private sector
benefits. wage premium, but compensation in the public sec-
tor is 4 percent less than that in the private sector (see
Job Security Figure 6). Given all the assumptions required, the best
way to describe the respective compensation levels is
The remaining issue is job security in the public sec- roughly equal.
tor. The argument is that job security, like wages and
benefits, is a major goal of collective bargaining. To
8 COMPARING COMPENSATION: STATE -LOCAL VERSUS PRIVATE SECTOR WORKERS
Figure 6. Total Compensation, as a Percent of Private
Sector Wages, by Sector, 2010 Total Compensation without Controlling
for Firm Size
160%
148 1% The baseline analysis controls for firm size to establish
147.0% 142 3%
138.2% the most direct comparison of similarly situated state
,
local and private sector workers. The controls occur in
120% - - 4 — both the wage equation and In calculating the ECEC
benefit rate. We believe that controlling for firm size is
100.0% correct. But given the sensitivity of the outcome to firm
• 90.5% size, the following figure shows the results without the
80% - control (see Figure 7).
Figure 7. Total Compensation, as a Percent of Private
40% Sector Wages— without Controlling for Firm Size,
by Sector, 2010
0% 160%
149.1%
Private sector State and local sector 142.4% 144 9%
141.6%
• Wages 4 ECEC benefits
• Pension adjustment •Retiree health 120%
Sources: Authors' calculations from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 100.0% 94.9%
(2010); CPS (2006- 2010); and PPD (2009).
80%
Conclusion
The decline in the funded status of pensions in the 40%
wake of the financial crisis has put state and local
governments under great pressure just as their budgets
were decimated as a result of the ensuing recession. 0% •
The response all over the country has been to increase Private sector State and local sector
employee contributions, cut benefits for future employ ■ wages ECEC benefits
ees, and in some cases cut cost -of- living adjustments • Pension adjustment •Retiree health
for current employees and retirees. To justify these
changes, the story is that public employees are over- Sources Sources: Authors' calculations from U.S. Bureau of Labor
paid and their pensions are a particularly egregious Statistics (2010); CPS (2006 - 2010); and PPD (2009).
example of that overpayment.
At this point, observers generally agree that wages Omitting firm size from the wage equation reduces the
of similarly situated workers are lower in the state -local state - local wage penalty from 9.5 to 5.1 percent, low -
sector than in the private sector. The disagreement hinges ers the private sector benefit - to - wage ratio from 47.0
on the extent to which benefits offset the wage penalty. percent to 41.6 percent, and lowers the private sector
Our re- estimation of the much -used wage equation plus retiree health coverage rate from 26 percent to 18
adjustments for proper valuation of pensions and retiree percent. These changes raise state local total com
health insurance indicates that the two roughly balance pensation and decrease private sector compensation
out. The estimated difference nationwide is about 4 per- to 149.1 percent and 142.4 percent of private sector
wages, respectively. Without the firm size controls,
cent in favor of private sector workers. compensation in the public sector is 4.7 percent higher
In short, for the nation as a whole the difference between than the private sector. This differential, which rep -
public and private sector compensation appears modest. resents a maximum on the high side, reinforces the
The relatively modest differential should make policymak- contention that compensation of state - local and private
ers cautious about massive changes without carefully sector workers is roughly equal.
studying the specifics of their particular situation.
Working Together for a
Safer Washington
Volume 3, Issue 7 December, 2011
WASHINGTON VIOLENT CRIME PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP
CRIME TODAY
Recent media reports tell us that violent crime has dropped in the United States over the course of the
past several years. Have you ever wondered how those statistics are generated? They come from the Uni-
form Crime Reporting Program.
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program was conceived in 1929 by the International Association of
Chiefs of Police to meet a need for reliable, uniform crime statistics for the nation. In 1930, the FBI was
tasked with collecting, publishing, and archiving those statistics. Today, several annual statistical publica-
tions, such as the comprehensive Crime in the United States, are produced from data provided by
nearly 17,000 law enforcement agencies across the United States.
U.S. VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
1991 - 2010
(VIOLENT CRIMES PER 100,000 RESIDENTS)
800.0
700.0 - -
600.0 -
500.0 4
coo OIR 400.0
PO Box 94746
SEATTLE, WA 300.0
98124 -4746
MS: CH -05-80 200.0
(206) 684-3788
(206) 684 , 8267 FAX 100.0 — "
W VCPP @COMCAST. NET 0.0 r
r --- T 1 _] i�� — . r 1_ 1 .. �r r T T i r I
e N M cr Lf1 .O I CO 01 O N N M I.f1 M en en M
01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 '1 0 0 0 0 1 .0 N. CO 01 ,1
01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
e-I N O N N N N O O O O N
N N N N N
FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2010
g lagfitmatr a Safer
Other annual publications, such as Hate Crime Statistics and Law Enforcement Officers Killed and As-
saulted, address specialized facets of crime.
Special studies, reports, and monographs prepared using data mined from the VCR's large database are pub-
lished each year as well. In addition to these reports, information about the National Incident Based Report-
ing System (NIBRS), answers to general UCR questions, and answers to specific UCR questions are avail-
able on the FBI's website (http: / /www.fbi.gov).
It is incumbent upon all data users to become as well educated as possible about how to understand and quantify
the nature and extent of crime in the United States and in any of the more than 17,000 jurisdictions represented by
law enforcement contributors to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. Valid assessments are possible
only with careful study and analysis of the various unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdic-
tion.
Historically, the causes and origins of crime have been the subjects of investigation by many disciplines. Some fac-
tors that are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are:
• Population density and degree of urbanization.
COMPARISON OF VIOLENT CRIME: 2010
WASHINGTON STATE VS. THE UNITED STATES
(PER 100,000 RESIDENTS)
Washington State 313.8
United States 403.6
0 100 200 300 400 500
FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2010
M =3 Working Together for a Safer
U.S. VIOLENT CRIME: 2010
(PER 100,000 RESIDENTS)
Aggravated Assault _ 252.5
MI
Robbery 1P_1
Rape 1
Murder &Non Negligent Manslaughter i.8
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
: Washington State United States
FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2010
U.S. PROPERTY CRIME: 2010
(PER 100,000 RESIDENTS)
Motor Vehicle Theft ____ la 1.6
Larceny I 200 5 2503 7
Burglary 16336.3
Property Crime - 3706.6
- - -T 2941.9
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
' al Washington State United States
FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2010
1
Vale PAGE 4
• Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
• Stability of the population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient
factors.
• Modes of transportation and highway system.
• Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
• Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
• Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
• Climate.
• Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
• Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
-
STATES WITH HIGHEST AND LOWEST PER CAPITA
MURDER AND NON - NEGLIGENT MANSLAUGHTER RATES: 2010
(PER 100,000 RESIDENTS)
New Hampshire 1.1
Vermont =IP' 1.3
North Dakota 1.4
Wyoming 1 1.4
Idaho NM 1.4
Maine MI 1.8
Washington 2.3
Missouri 7.2
Alabama 7.7
New York 8
Mississippi 8.1
Maryland 10.2
Louisiania - 11.2
District of Columbia 21.8
0 5 10 15 20 25
FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2010
•
Volume 3, Issue
U.S. MURDERS BY WEAPON: 201 0
Knives /Cutting
Instruments
Hands /Feet, 1,830
841
Blunt Objects
618
Firearms
Poison, Explosives, 10,225
Fire, Narcotics,
Stangulation,
Asphyxiation,
Drowning,
1573
FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2010
• Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correc-
tional, and probational).
• Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
• Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.
Violent Crime
(http://www.fbi.goviabout /ucr /crime -in.- the -u.s 12010 /crime -in- the -u.s.- 2010 /violent -
crime /violent- crime)
Data collection
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program of the FBI collects supplementary homicide data that pro-
vides information regarding the age, sex, and race of the murder victim and offender; the type of weapon
used; the relationship of the victim to the offender; and the circumstance surrounding the incident.
Though strongly encouraged to provide supplementary data for each murder reported, law enforcement
agencies are not required to do so.
This section also includes information about justifiable homicide — certain willful killings that must be re-
ported as justifiable or excusable. In the UCR Program, justifiable homicide is defined as and limited to:
The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.
Volume 3, Issue 7 OM
•
U.S. MURDER VICTIMS BY AGE, SEX AND RACE: 2010
Un- Un-
TOTAL Male Female known White Black Other known
Total 12,996 10,058 2,918 20 6,043 6,470 331 152
Percent
distribu-
tion) 100.0 77.4 22.5 0.2 46.5 49.8 2.5 1.2
Under 18 1,277 890 386 1 599 622 37 19
Under 22 3,172 2,540 631 1 1,278 1,800 65 29
18 and
overt 11,566 9,069 2,493 4 5,385 5,797 291 93
Infant
(under 1) 186 91 94 1 121 56 5 4
1 to 4 313 192 121 0 174 120 11 8
5 to 8 85 44 41 0 55 26 4 0
9 to 12 43 28 15 0 20 17 3 3
13 to 16 363 288 75 0 140 212 9 2
17 to 19 1,231 1,065 166 0 425 779 20 7
20 to 24 2,256 1,944 312 0 813 1,387 40 16
25 to 29 1,964 1,627 337 0 753 1,157 34 20
30 to 34 1,541 1,286 253 2 626 865 35 15
35 to 39 1,072 820 252 0 495 535 31 11
40 to 44 882 635 247 0 477 366 31 8
45 to 49 838 589 249 0 502 306 26 4
50 to 54 686 508 178 0 426 237 19 4
55 to 59 473 329 143 1 288 154 25 6
60 to 64 325 199 126 0 217 90 17 1
65 to 69 189 125 64 0 132 53 3 1
70 to 74 137 80 56 1 103 26 8 0
75 and
over 259 109 150 0 217 33 7 2
Unknown 153 99 39 15 59 51 3 40
1 Due to rounding,
percentages may not
= 100 FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2010
2 Does not include unknown ages.
PAGE 7
CIRCUMSTANCES OF U.S. MURDERS: 2010
Circumstances Total Murder Victims
Total 12,996
Felony type total: 1,923
Rape 41
Robbery 780
Burglary 80
Larceny -theft _ 20
—
Motor vehicle theft 37
Arson 35
Prostitution and commercialized vice 5
Other sex offenses 14
Narcotic drug laws 463
Gambling 7
Other - not specified 441
Suspected felony type _ 66
Other than felony type total: _ _ 6,351
Romantic triangle 90
Child killed by babysitter _ _ 36
Brawl due to influence of alcohol 121
Brawl due to influence of narcotics 58
Argument over money or property 181
Other arguments _ 3,215
Gangland killings 176
Juvenile gang killings 673
Institutional killings 17
Sniper attack 3
Other —not specified 1,781
Unknown 4,656
FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2010
PAGE 8
The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen. Because these killings
are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are tabulated sepa-
rately from murder and nonnegligent manslaughter.
Overview
Of the 12,996 murder victims in 2010 for which supplemental data were received, most (77.4 per-
cent) were male.
Concerning murder victims for whom race was known, 50.4 percent were black, 47.0 percent were
white, and 2.6 percent were of other races. Race was unknown for 152 victims.
Single victim /single offender situations accounted for 48.4 percent of all murders for which the
UCR Program received supplemental data.
Of the offenders for whom gender was known, 90.3 percent were males.
Of the offenders for whom race was known, 53.1 percent were black, 44.6 percent were white, and
2.3 percent were of other races. The race was unknown for 4,224 offenders.
Of the homicides for which the FBI received weapons data, most (67.5 percent) involved the use of
firearms. Handguns comprised 68.5 percent of the firearms used in murders and nonneghgent
manslaughters in 2010.
In 2010, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were
known, 53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boy-
friend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members. The relationship of murder
victims and offenders was unknown in 44.0 percent of murder and non - negligent manslaughter
incidents in 2010.
Of the female murder victims for whom the relationships to their offenders were known, 37.5 per-
cent were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends.
Of the murders for which the circumstance surrounding the murder was known, 41.8 percent of
victims were murdered during arguments (including romantic triangles) in 2010. Felony circum-
stances (rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) accounted for 23.1 percent of murders. Circumstances
were unknown for 35.8 percent of reported homicides.
Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers
justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commis-
sion of a crime.
Property crime
(http:/ /www.fbi.gov/ about- us /clis /ucr /crime -in- the -u.s/ 2010 /crime -in- the -u.s.- 2010 /property - crime)
Definition
In the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, property crime includes the offenses of burglary,
larceny- theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The object of the theft -type offenses is the taking of money
or property, but there is no force or threat of force against the victims. The property crime category in-
cludes arson because the offense involves the destruction of property; however, arson victims may be sub-
Volume 3, Issue 7 PAGE
STATES WITH THE LOWEST AND HIGHEST
PER CAPITA PRISON POPULATION RATES: 2010
(PER 100,000 RESIDENTS)
Vermont l■ 1.1
Iowa 1.
Idaho 1.
Wyoming - •■ 14
North Dakota � IM■ .5
Washington 2.3
Arizona - 6.4
New Mexico 6.9
Mississippi _ 7
Missouri 7
Maryland 7 4
Louisiana _ 11
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Pew Center Prison Count
April, 2010
jected to force. Because of limited participation and varying collection procedures by local law enforce-
ment agencies, only limited data are available for arson. Arson statistics are included in trend, clearance,
and arrest tables throughout Crime in the United States, but they are not included in any estimated volume
data. The arson section in this report provides more information on that offense.
Data collection
The data presented in Crime in the United States reflect the Hierarchy Rule, which requires that only the
most serious offense in a multiple- offense criminal incident be counted. In descending order of severity,
the violent crimes are murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated as-
sault, followed by the property crimes of burglary, larceny- theft, and motor vehicle theft. Although arson
is also a property crime, the Hierarchy Rule does not apply to the offense of arson. In cases in which an
arson occurs in conjunction with another violent or property crime, both crimes are reported, the arson
Volume 3, Issue 7
and the additional crime.
Overview
In 2010, there were an estimated 9,082,887 property crime offenses in the Nation.
The 2 -year trend showed that property crime decreased 2.7 percent in 2010 compared with the 2009
estimate. The 5 -year trend, comparing 2010 data with that of 2006, showed a 9.3 percent drop in
property crime.
In 2010, the rate of property crime was estimated at 2,941.9 per 100,000 inhabitants, a 3.3 percent
decrease when compared with the rate in 2009 The 2010 property crime rate was 12.1 percent
lower than the 2006 rate and 19.6 percent below the 2001 rate.
Larceny -theft accounted for 68.1 percent of all property crimes in 2010. Burglary accounted for 23.8
percent and motor vehicle theft for 8.1 percent.
Property crimes in 2010 resulted in losses estimated at 15.7 billion dollars.
TOTAL U.S. PROPERTY CRIMES: 2010
Tv w of Pro irrt■ Value of Property Value of Property Percent
Stolen I Recove Recovered
Total $13,270,998,162 $2,788,437,110 21.0
Currency, notes, etc. 1,154,196,924 37,392,343 3.2
Jewelry and precious metals 1,556,364,665 65,166,103 4.2
Clothing and furs 278,993,083 32,002,758 11.5
Locally stolen motor vehicles 3,970,565,871 2,225,549,279 56.1
Office equipment 726,685,261 37,042,533 5.1
Televisions, radios, stereos, etc. 955,054,564 39,812,451 4.2
Firearms 143,477,530 12,027,921 8.4
Household goods 330,123,170 11,031,184 3.3
Consumable goods 225,549,642 15,845,262 7.0
Livestock 19,093,096 2,448,651 12.8
Miscellaneous 3,910,894,356 310,118,625 7.9
FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2010
Volume 3, Issue PAGE TI
I
MISSION STATEMENT
Whereas, Washington State suffered 21,920 reported murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults in 2010; and
Whereas, seventeen (17) police officers from twelve Washington State agencies have been murdered in the line of duty since 2000
— fourteen of those officers were killed by gunfire.; and
' Whereas, 25% of murders and 45% of assaults in Washington State are related to Domestic Violence: and
Whereas, a typical charge for a firearm injury admitted to Harborview Hospital (Washington State's only Level 1 Trauma Center)
exceeds $50,000; and
Whereas, statewide violence prevention coalitions in other states like California and Illinois have proven to be an
effective means for reducing violent crime; and
Whereas, as elected officials, law enforcement officers, school administrators, public health officials, community
organizers, faith based leaders and neighborhood residents, we are committed to do everything in our power to
prevent and reduce violent crime in Washington State,
Now, therefore, we resolve to work together to find innovative ways to advance the following principles;
Cooperate and coordinate at the local, county, state and federal levels on violent crime prevention, treatment, enforcement and
prosecution strategies;
Promote and support local, state, and federal legislation designed to prevent and reduce violent crime while protecting and preserving
individual constitutional rights;
Hold accountable those who commit violent crimes in Washington State and reduce the recidivism rate of violent offenders;
Share information, ideas and best practices for reducing violence in Washington State;
Develop and implement evidence based prevention programs designed to reduce violent crime,
Promote the Washington Violent Crime Prevention Partnership and invite other jurisdictions, organizations and individuals to join
the partnership.
Signature Printed Name
Organaation
( )
Phone E MaiI
Mailing Address City, Zip
To join the WVCPP, please fill in the information above and return this form via fax at (206) 684 -8267
or email a PDF of the signed statement to WVCPP(lcomcast.net
A N` The Washington Violent Crime Prevention Partnership was
formed in 2009 to reduce the level of violent crime in Washing-
ton State.
The partnership is comprised of representatives from cities,
c/o OIR counties, health organizations, school districts, prosecutors, law
PO Box 94746
Seattle, WA 98124-4746 enforcement, the faith community and individuals from
• MS CH -05 -80 throughout Washington State.
Phone (206) 684-3788
Fax (206) 684-8267 The Partnership has formed a number of work groups dedicated
E -mail wvcpp @comcast.net to working on solutions to violent crime. These subcommittees
focus on issues such as prevention & intervention efforts to
reduce crime, the illegal use of firearms, domestic violence, the
WE'RE ON THE WEB • role of the faith community in reducing crime, and public aware -
WWW.WVCPP.ORG
Thank You!
Thank you for all your tireless efforts to make your community a safer place. Thank you for making this commitment
with ever shrinking resources. Thank you for doing this without the public recognition that you deserve.
We are very fortunate in this state to have an incredible number of talented people dedicated to keeping our kids, our
families and our neighborhoods in safe hands.
Here are some of their words of wisdom that exemplify what it takes for the good guys to win:
We (society) have made it too easy to be a person ofpoor character
Chief Terry Gallagher, Port Angeles Police Department
It takes a lot more resources to re - fight a war than to maintain the progress you've already won
Capt. Mike Washburn, Seattle Police Department
We can serve 750 teens a year for the same cost ofputting one kid in jail for a year
Darlene Sellers, King County Parks Department
It's not all about law enforcement
Major Jim Graddon, King County Sheriff's Office
Preventing unwanted pregnancies has a huge impact on the life trajectory ofgang involved families
Jane Kauzlarich, Seattle - King County Department of Public Health
The cure for crime is not the electric chair, but the high chair."
J. Edgar Hoover, Director, FBI