Loading...
01/10/2012 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