Tag Archives: training issues

Mar 10 2014
14 Comments
General

Why ASUPD is incapable of handing an active shooter scenario

We have made several posts on The Integrity Report about why Arizona State University’s campuses are unsafe, and the issue of handling an active shooter on campus has been a reoccurring topic (click here to view our previous posts about active shooters).

To adequately prepare for a possible active shooter scenario, ASUPD’s approach must be three-pronged: ASUPD needs more officers to be able to respond/manage major situations, ASUPD needs to have a clear/common sense policy, and ASUPD needs to give its officers appropriate training.

Whether or not ASUPD will actually recruit and retain additional officers remains to be seen, but Command staff has known for years that its ability to deal with an active shooter is nonexistent. Several years ago, former Arizona Republic intern Matt Haldane interviewed then-Commander Jim Hardina about active shooters and guns on campus (view the video here). Hardina was unable to articulate what ASUPD’s policy in regards to dealing with an active shooter was!

Here are some excerpts from the interview:

(at :27)

In regards to ASUPD’s policy about active shooters:

Matt Haldane: And does ASU have a specific way of doing that? [referring to handling an active shooter]

Jim Hardina: Well, uh, the police department has a policy and the policy is…you…find the shooter…and…stop them from shooting. And you can’t really say you should do A, B, C, and D, because each situation’s dynamic, so, you know, each, uh…you’ll never have the same situation twice. So basically, the police’s role is to the stop the shooter from shooting, and the public’s role is to put themself (sic) in a position where they’re both safe. And again, you can’t have a specific policy because each situation is uh, different.

In regards to the active shooter training ASUPD’s officers receive:

(at 1:45)

MH: And…we spoke with a former Marine who was suggesting that ASU Police go through the same type of training that um, soliders do, in a combat situation where they’re able to quickly distinguish between a shooter and a bystander. What type of training do police officers receive?

JH: Um, I was in the Marine Corps also, and its a little bit different, what you don’t want is you don’t want police officers training with military tactics because you think soldiers…their job is to attack people and kill people…and that’s what they do. We don’t train police officers with that same kinda mindset clearing buildings, you know, looking to kill people. Um, what we train officers to do is exactly that, identify who’s a threat and who is not a threat, and um, act on the side of not shooting, as opposed to shooting. Police officer’s role is to take the least restrictive amounts to controlling somebody, which, the last resort would be actually killing them.

(So according to Hardina, in an active shooter situation, you shouldn’t be trying to kill the person (threat) who is actively maiming or killing innocent civilians. Interesting.)

Also, according to Hardina, 97% of all campus shootings involve a domestic violence dynamic (3:15); yet according to an FBI report addressing targeted violence at institutions of higher education, only 33.9% of incidents involving a weapon were domestic violence related (and firearms comprised only 54% of weapons used in targeted violence on campus).

So…what is ASUPD’s policy in regards to dealing with an active shooter?

First of all, the policy is titled “Rapid Response and Deployment” PSM 461-03, and it is not specifically limited to an active shooter; it also incorporates active terrorism. The initial officer on scene is responsible for notifying SWAT or hostage negotiators (neither of which ASU has). After a determination is made that tactical intervention is necessary, “available officers shall form a contact team and deployed as trained”. NONE of ASUPD’s officers receive training in forming tactical teams in a rapid response scenario.

Also, “the contact team should wear soft body armor and ballistic helmets and deploy service weapons, patrol rifles, and shotguns
with slug ammunition, if possible. The team should deploy according to departmental training“.

ASUPD’s officers are lucky if their body armor is replaced before it falls apart or expires; the “patrol riles” purchased by the department are currently in the custody of Chief Pickens and the rest of Command staff (who wouldn’t respond to a situation like this). Once again, no member of the department receives ANY departmental training that would adequately prepare them for this scenario.

This policy is not applicable to any member of the department, as NOONE has the proper training that falls in line with this policy (nor does ASUPD have the resources–SWAT, hostage negotiator, rifles–it cites its officers should use). The unofficial policy of dealing with a scenario like this? Call Tempe PD.

What type of training do ASUPD’s officer’s receive to deal with active shooters?

In addition to not receiving tactical ANY training to deal with an active shooter, the only post-academy training ASU’s officers receive is limited to free training ASU provides to all its students, faculty, and staff (check it out here). This video is geared toward  students/employees faced with an active shooter, and does NOT provide any sort of tactical training to a person working in a law enforcement capacity.

As we’ve previously mentioned, it is only a matter of time until ASUPD is forced to deal with an active shooter. The indifference/incompetence allowed to fester on the top level of the department will ultimately come at the expensive of an innocent civilian or a fellow officer.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Mar 01 2014
26 Comments
General

ASU misrepresents its crime statistics, violates Clery Act (Part Two)

In our last Clery post, entitled “ASUPD misrepresents its crime statistics, violates Clery Act (Part One)” , we looked at what the Clery Act is, what reporting is required  of universities who are obligated to adhere to Clery, and why the Clery Act is so important. In this second installment, we are going to discuss how exactly ASUPD is misrepresenting its crime statistics (and how that violates the requirements of the Clery Act).

1. ASUPD omits crime stats from specific reporting areas required under the Clery Act

In our previous post about the Clery act, we discussed different areas other than campus ASU is required to provide crime statistics for, namely:

Public Property

  • Public property (All public property, including thoroughfares, streets, sidewalks, and parking facilities, that is within the campus, or immediately adjacent to and accessible from the campus, as well as any public transit stops adjacent to campus).

However, according to page 33 of ASU’s 2013 Annual Security and Crime Safety report, we found this small disclaimer:

Clery public prob

Similarly, on page 34 of the Crime Safety report, we found this disclaimer for West, Poly, Downtown and Lake Havasu campus’ public property reporting:

West poly public

Down Lake Havasu

So essentially, what ASUPD is telling the public via the Crime safety report is that the crime stats on the report do NOT include areas adjacent to ANY campus, nor do they include the crime stats for the EIGHTEEN areas considered “non campus properties”.

ASUPD’s excuse for not including public property crimes is that ASU “is unable to provide a statistical breakdown appropriate for Clery Act reporting” is a weak excuse. The “Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting” requires a university  to show a “good faith” effort to collect crime data from another non-university police agency.

This “disclaimer” about not having statistical data appropriate for Clery reporting is to be utilized when other agencies refuse to release their crime statistics, or  the information provided to the university is unable to be attributed to ANY of the university’s Clery geography (page 103).  ASU IS provided crime stats/information (by Tempe PD) that are able to be broken down to the “public property” level simply by looking at the physical location of the offense; this is the type of work that crime analysts routinely engage in.

ASU is also able to request the crime stats for their non-campus properities by merely providing the address of the property to the appropriate jurisdiction. We reached out to Scottsdale PD, home of Skysong (one of the non-campus property locations) and we were told that ASU contacted them approximately one time to request crime information.

We accessed the database referenced in page 33 of the Crime Safety report to see what crimes ASU may have missed because of its exclusion of public property statistics, and this is what we found for ASU’s Tempe Campus:

Tempe 1

Tempe 2

ASU excluded a significant amount of crimes occurring adjacent to campus (and several that occurred ON campus but were handled by other police agencies) from its Crime Safety Report (go to raidsonline.com and use the date range of August 2012-August 2013 to view the above posted data in a clickable format)

 Non-campus property

These are the non-campus statistics from ASU’s Skysong Campus which are not included on the Tempe non-campus property in the Crime Safety report (cited from raidsonline.com, using the date range of August 2012-August 2013): Note that the campus boundary is marked with a solid blue line, and each of the crimes are circled in red.

Skysong crimes

Note there are five motor vehicle thefts, one sexual assault, and one commercial burglary NOT included in ASU’s Crime Safety Report.

 

2. ASUPD improperly classifies crimes so they don’t meet the criteria for Clery reporting

Sex offenses

Perhaps the most misclassified/reclassified type of crime are those linked to sex offenses. Clery Act has a much more broad definition of what a sex offense is compared to definition used by the UCR (which excludes forcible fondling). Under the Clery Act, there are two types of sex offenses: forcible and non-forcible.

  • Forcible sex offense: Forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, forcible fondling.
  • Non-forcible sex offense: Incest, statutory rape.

“Schools can wrongly categorize reports of acquaintance rape or fondling as “non-forcible” sexual offenses — a definition that should only apply to incest and statutory rape”, according to an article by publicintegrity.org.

In August 2007, an ASU student reported being sexually assaulted at the Sigma Chi fraternity house. Subsequent follow-up emails to then Assistant Chief Jay Spradling went unanswered, and the sexual assault was later reclassified. The student alleged that her sexual assault was not investigated by Officer Janda (who documented the assault on a field investigation card) because she was intoxicated. Clery specifically states that a sex offense is presumed to be forcible if the person is incapable of giving consent “due to his or temporary/permanent physical or mental incapacity”.

The woman, who later sued the Arizona Board of Regents for violating Title IX, stated ASU has in recent years systematically and severely underreported sexual assault reports. Her complaint states that in 2008, ASU reported and posted only four forcible sexual assault reports in its 2009 Annual Security Reports, despite, on information and belief, having received at least several dozen reports.

A 2010 State Press article interviewed a counselor who works with sexual assault victims and is closely affiliated with the university and stated, “ASU does not take sexual assault reports seriously enough, creating a climate that keeps victims quiet and crime stats low”.

In 2011, ASUPD arrested a man accused of fondling at least 14 victims on ASU’s campus the previous year. Under the Clery reporting guidelines, forcible fondling is required to be reported as a forcible sex offense. For the year the incidents occurred (2010), ASU reported a mere 6 forcible sex offenses that occurred on campus (see Campus_Security_Policy )

Prevalence of under reporting sexual assaults

USC, UC Berkley, and Occidental College are all major universities currently facing the possibility of sanctions from the Department of Education for failing to properly report the number of sexual assaults on campus.

Robbery

ASU has also reclassified several robberies into felony thefts, which would prevent their inclusion into ASU’s Crime Safety Report. Under the Clery Act, robbery is defined as:

    • Robbery: is the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person
      or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.

ASU has had several strong arm robbery series which occurred on ASU’s campus where the victim was robbed of an IPhone and then dragged by a vehicle; under the Clery Act, these crimes should have been listed as a “robbery”, but they were later reclassified to a “felony theft” or merely “theft”.

3. ASU doesn’t utilize its resources properly

While formal training in the field of statistics and crime analysis is not required for persons preparing the Crime Safety Report under the guidelines specified by the Clery Act, that type of knowledge is useful when tasked with processing a large amount of data in a relatively short period of time. ASUPD has been fortunate to have a crime analyst on board for the past few years, but unfortunately, the analysts’ job has been reduced to producing crime maps for bike thefts on campus.

ASU’s former analyst (who has subsequently left the department for greener pastures) was much more qualified to process and analyze crime data compared to the Commander in charge of Clery reporting (Michele Rourke), who merely possesses a bachelor’s degree in English and has no formal training in statistics

Additionally, with such a large criminal justice undergraduate/graduate program, ASUPD could utilize several unpaid student volunteers or interns to process and catalog crime reports; this is a relatively common practice in larger departments such as Tempe PD.

4. ASU needs stronger partnerships with other agencies

After looking at the various locations where ASU has property/research labs, it is obvious that the university’s footprint is pretty significant. ASU has demonstrated that it does not have the resources, training, or personnel to effectively fulfill its obligations under the Clery Act; ASU needs to form stronger partnerships and more effective ways to communicate with other police departments. Building a rapport with another agency would assist ASU in obtaining the proper crime information necessary for a thorough Crime Safety report, and perhaps allowing ASU to assist that agency in some other area in the future.

 All of this information, especially when coupled with the storm of negative media coverage over ASU’s crime situation, are evidence that ASU’s students/faculty/staff are NOT as safe as the university would lead them to believe. ASUPD knows the magnitude of the crime problems on and around all campuses, but refuses to do anything about it. 

There is no more hiding behind Tempe PD or any other police agencies; the other agencies did not create the staffing shortages, the lack of training, or incentives to stay in the department—you did, Command staff!  ASUPD is unable to fulfill its basic obligation to serve and protect its community. It is now a matter of time before ASU starts losing students (and $$) because of these shocking safety issues.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 23 2014
16 Comments
General

Tempe Chief Ryff is the face of ASU’s “Taskforce for Student Safety”.

Recently, a “taskforce” aimed to increase safety for students on ASU’s Tempe Campus met for the first time.

The group was originally formed in the fall of 2013, in response to an increase in the number of violent/alcohol related crimes in and around ASU’s main campus. It is comprised of the presidents of all three state universities (ASU, NAU, U of A), representatives from nearby apartment complexes, as well as Tempe Police Chief Ryff, and ASU Police Chief Pickens.

CBS 5 did a short story about the “taskforce”‘s initial meeting, complete with video footage/interviews shot on campus. Who was selected to represent ASU’s “taskforce for student safety” on ASU’s own turf? Ideally, it would have been someone from ASUPD, since their student populous is the primary focus of the meeting; however, it was Tempe PD’s Chief that spoke to the media about the dire crime situation the student population is facing (notice in one part of the video clip, Chief Ryff is holding a binder emblazoned with ASU’s logo).

According to Ryff, things like changing demographics of the student body and huge growth at ASU are factors that need to be looked at. “We have some serious issues with some catastrophic outcomes and our goal is to try to prevent that from happening again,” Ryff said.

Once again, ASUPD relies on Tempe PD to solve its crime problem, mainly because ASUPD is unable to do so as a result of inadequate staffing and training. It is embarrassing to watch this clip and see how Chief Ryff cares more about ASU’s crime problems than ASU’s own Chief does.  Chief Ryff is also intelligent enough to realize the student population of ASU is growing so fast that even if ASUPD was fully-staffed, the department would still struggle to remain on top of the situation.

This is yet another reminder of the shortcomings on behalf of Chief Pickens and his command staff. They are unable to provide any viable discussion or suggestion on the topic of student safety; they are unable to recruit and retain a viable amount of officers (thus, not solving the staffing issue); they are unable to increase the morale of the current employees; they are unable to adequately supervise/train/discipline subordinates that routinely engage in inappropriate behavior; they are unable to effectively run a police department in any capacity.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 17 2014
10 Comments
General

ASUPD’s current staffing…by the numbers!

Just how bad is ASUPD’s current staffing situation? Pretty bad.

Out of the 14 days of the schedule we posted, 7 of those days were below minimum staffing (with Saturday, 02/15/14 having only FOUR officers working. That’s only one officer PER campus!)

The green outlined boxes illustrate either days when officers are moved from their primary campus to cover another campus, or a shift filled by an overtime position.

The yellow outlined boxes illustrate days where staffing is below the minimum requirements.

It is also worth pointing out there are a significant amount of officers taking sick/comp/vacation time…perhaps due to burnout? How much longer will the Chief attempt to “fix” the staffing problem at the expensive of his employees?

All the meetings that have been transpiring on the third floor have yet to bring about any actual change to the current staffing problems. ASUPD is currently operating on a “best case scenario”; if something very serious were to happen, ASUPD wouldn’t be able to function.

Chief Pickens, you owe it to your officers and the community you “serve” to fix this problem; running your employees into the ground will only cause MORE of a staffing crisis as more people seek to leave ASUPD.

schedule

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 09 2014
14 Comments
General

MCSO conducts THIRD active shooter training this year!

Interesting (albeit short) article from abc15 regarding MCSO’s officers training for school shootings; this is the THIRD active-shooter type of training MCSO has done this year!! Compare this to nonexistent active shooter training that ASUPD gives its officers!!

GLENDALE, AZ – A lot of deputies were out with their guns drawn and firing today, but fortunately it was only a training exercise designed to keep school children safe.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he wants to make sure his deputies are ready in case a school shooting were to happen here in the Valley.

Saturday’s exercise was the third this year for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

They can be scary to watch because they look and feel so real.

Deputies had their guns drawn and “victims” were lying on the ground with simulated bullet wounds as other children ran from the scene.

Today’s exercise took place at Heritage Elementary School in Glendale.

Students watching the simulation said it was a reality check.

“To think that this actually happens in schools, just think of the amount of people running for their lives,” said student Jack Acritelli.

Arpaio said that in recent years more resources have been placed into combatting school shootings.

Just last month there were 11 shootings on school campuses around the U.S.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 29 2014
9 Comments
General

According to an FBI report, the number of active shooters has INCREASED.

From Campus Safety Magazine:

According to a study recently released by the FBI, from 2000 to 2012, the rate of active shooter incidents in the United States increased, particularly after 2008.

Between 2000 and 2008, approximately one event occurred every other month (five per year), but that rate increased to one per month between 2009 and 2012 (nearly 16 per year). The authors say the high rate continued in 2013 — there were 15 incidents last year.

The most common location of an active shooter incident between 2000 and 2012 was a business (40%), while schools were the second most common location (29%). Nearly one in five events (19%) occurred outdoors.

The median response time for law enforcement was 3 minutes, and the median response time for solo officers was 2 minutes. The median number of people shot per event was five, not including the shooter. All of the events identified by the authors involved single shooters (94% were male), and in 55% of the events, the shooter had a connection with the attack location.

View the charts from this report.

“It also is worth noting that in the five largest-casualty events (Northern Illinois University in DeKalb; Sandy Hook Elementary School; Fort Hood Army Base, Killeen, Texas; Virginia Polytechnic and State University in Blacksburg; and the Century 21 Theater) the police were on scene in about 3 minutes; yet, a substantial number of people still were shot and injured or killed,” the report claims.

Nearly half (49%) of the incidents ended before police arrived at the scene: 67% percent ended by the shooter dying by suicide or leaving the scene; 33% ended by the potential victims stopping the shooter themselves.

Of the 51% of incidents that were still going when law enforcement arrived, 40% of the attackers either died by suicide or surrendered to police.  In the other cases (60%), police officers used force to stop the attackers, most often with firearms.

Again, it is important to note that it is a matter of WHEN, not IF an active shooter scenario transpires at ASU. According to this report, schools are the second most frequent location for an active shooter!! Proper and regular training of officers would ensure an appropriate response, but instead ASUPD has given NO additional training for its officers about how to respond to an active shooter. This, coupled with dangerously low staffing numbers on campus make ASUPD vulnerable to lawsuits when an such an incident occurs, primarily because of the lack of training officers receive to handle these types of calls.

When will the Chief realize the importance of active shooter training and appropriate planning for a critical incident?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 14 2014
8 Comments
General

Civilian employees: the backbone of ASUPD

The primary focus at The Integrity Report has been addressing department-wide issues in general; however, these issues are most applicable to the sworn sector of the department. We wanted to specifically address our civilian sector, too; without them, the department would be even more in shambles than it currently is (if that’s possible!).

When we discuss civilian employees, who do we mean specifically? Police Aides, dispatches, administrative assistants, evidence and fleet technicians. Because of their support staff roles, we feel their concerns have a tendency to be overlooked by command staff (who is currently fixated on the sworn staffing situation). Here’s a brief list (and by no means “all inclusive”) of issues command staff needs to address to improve the productivity and retention of the backbone of ASUPD–the civilian employees.

  • Pay Raises: Yes, we know everyone wants a pay raise, but the civilian employees definitely deserve one. While officers have been getting pay raises (albeit insignificant ones), the PAs and dispatchers have not been receiving any sort of pay raise, and also make considerably less than their peers (see the salaries tables located here). If you want to hire and retain best employees, you have to give them an incentive to stay!
  • Training: PAs have been routinely used to supplement the low patrol numbers, which means they are regularly dispatched to calls in which they are ill-equipped to respond (dispatched to violent subject calls, often backup for an officer when they’re going hands on). Give them taser training as well as some advanced cuffing techniques, so they can be utilized effectively. PAs and dispatchers should also be incorporated into sworn training when possible.
  • Use them effectively: There are lots of PAs with former law enforcement/military experience, or highly educated/specialized degrees who are not being utilized effectively. There are many ways the department could deploy these people with experience, especially in a way that would be helpful during a staffing crisis. Instead of ignoring or discounting their experience, let them use it to make the department more effective and efficient.
  • Allow for career development…if they want it: Allow the civilian employees the opportunity to USE their tuition reimbursement or enroll in additional training, when possible. It is difficult to schedule classes/training when your workweek can change at the drop of the hat to suit the department’s needs. Also recognize that some people DON’T want career advancement for whatever reason–its their retirement job, they’re going to school for another career field–whatever. Constantly hounding employees to test for officer positions is pointless for people who don’t want to work in the field or are using ASUPD as a vehicle for somewhere else.
  • They’re the “eyes and ears” for the department…but they’re not sources of intel: Civilian employees are used as “eyes and ears” for the sworn staff; there are easily more civilian employees than sworn, so they can observe and report activity that patrol wouldn’t normally see. However, just because they see or hear a lot does NOT make them a source of intel or gossip! There has been several supervisors who have tried to use PAs or dispatchers to spy on other employees for the purposes of bullying/getting an officer in trouble. This is absurd! It’s not high school anymore, and the civilian employees don’t want to be involved in departmental drama or gossip.
  • Supervise their supervisors: This is a huge one. Make sure the people that supervise civilian employees know what they’re doing and know HOW to manage people. How long did a former dispatch supervisor terrorize her employees before she left? How many complaints were made against PA Lead Atkinson or Nasca before someone realized they were NOT good supervisors? Civilian supervisors should be instructed how to properly and unfairly evaluate employees using a standardized method in addition to receiving training on how to manage people and resources effectively. Just because you have a civilian in a supervisor position does NOT mean he or she know how to do the job. (That being said…there are also some pretty stellar supervisors!!)
  • APPRECIATE YOUR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES!!: Some supervisors are excellent on giving accolades to their civilian employees when a major event transpires on the sworn side (Sgt. T was always giving out “atta boys” for this civilian employees)…but quite frankly, a lot of them don’t. You can (to an extent) mitigate low pay, poor working conditions–a myriad of other variables–IF you employees feel appreciated, invested, and are happy. This means giving them credit for great work they do, both visible or behind the scenes (look at how much work was put into revamping the evidence processing, fleet/equipment managing, or how much behind the scenes work the admin assistants do regularly). Their roles SUPPORT the function of the sworn side, so without them, the sworn side cannot perform their duties.
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Newer posts →