The Springfield Police Department released new crime data yesterday reporting that violent crime—including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault—is down 16 percent in the city from 2005 to 2006. Both violent crime and overall crime are at their lowest totals in the last seven years:
Violent Crime rate in Springfield
2000 – 2001: +10%
2001 – 2002: -11%
2002 – 2003: – 7%
2003 – 2004: – 4%
2004 – 2005: – 3%
2005 – 2006: -16%
Following is the rest of the department’s release:
“These numbers are the best news Springfield could have hoped for,” said Mayor Charles V. Ryan. “It is the result of specific strategies that are data-driven and clearly the process is paying off in a great way for our city.”
The Springfield Police Department has purposefully deployed a community-based, problem-oriented, data-driven strategy to reduce crime disorder and fear. This approach includes officers being permanently assigned to one of three geographic patrol divisions, each under the command of a deputy chief, a relentless emphasis on street crime, particularly high rate offenders and “hot spots” and the use of data to inform deployments. Weekly senior command meetings map and identify trends and are used to focus all commanders on crime conditions in the city. Particularly close attention has been devoted to street robberies and assaults committed by strangers. These two crimes declined dramatically this past year.
“Springfield has always had working police officers,” said Commissioner Edward A. Flynn. “What we now have is a winning strategy that takes advantage of their commitment and experience.”
The Department has been proactively working on taking guns off the street, taking away the anonymity of criminals, and targeting resources in places and at times where data shows the potential for criminal activity. The Springfield Police Department has continued a productive partnership with the state police and actively participates in several federal task forces that target guns, gangs and drugs and involve the FBI, DEA, ATF and US Marshals Service.
Violent crime in selected cities, 2005-06
Springfield, MA: -16%
Lowell, MA: – 9%
Worcester, MA: + 5%
Bridgeport, CT: + 7%
Hartford, CT: 0%
Elizabeth, NJ: – 5%
Paterson, NJ: – 2%
Springfield is experiencing more reductions in crime than seven cities similar in demographics and population. Significantly of the eight total cities, Springfield has seen the largest drop in violent crime even while some cities are seeing increases. Boston is not a comparison city in terms of population, but certainly it is used as a conversational benchmark when discussing public safety.
“While there is still much room for improvement, we are certainly making good progress that I hope will bring a sense of optimism to citizens of Springfield,” said Commissioner Flynn.
–end release
Commissioner Flynn met with the Republican‘s editorial board last week to review the data, resulting in a prominent story yesterday. He also appeared live on 22News yesterday morning, in a short interview with anchor Jaclyn Cashman, to talk about the numbers as well as the perception of crime in the city. The transcript:
Jaclyn Cashman: Crime is generally down last year, but violent crime—in 2005, we had 18 murders; in 2006, we had 15. Is this where you thought you’d be, one year later, as Commissioner in Springfield?
Police Commissioner Edward Flynn: It certainly had been my hope that we could take the hard work ethic of this police department, and apply it to a winning strategy which would focus on neighborhoods, which would focus on accountability, and would use data to drive our deployments. I think we’ve seen some good, preliminary success so far. Nobody’s declaring victory at 130 Pearl Street right now. Nobody sees this as the beginning of the end. But we’re certainly off to a strong start, dealing with those crimes that produce the most fear.
JC: Basically what we’re showing is 17 percent, in terms of violent crime, which is from the 15 to the 18 murders. Now my next question is, you often say that violent crime is between thug on thug. It’s bad people that are the victims, for the most part. But this latest murder of Sergio Jaquez, he had no criminal record. How do we explain that, then?
EF: I’m not trying to explain away anything. What we’re trying to do is use the data in Springfield to explain Springfield’s problems to itself. I’m not going to try to justify, or find excuses for any particular murder, but what we did find when we examined our data last year, that three-quarters of our homicides were taking place among people carrying guns, belonging to gangs, dealing drugs, and had long criminal histories. People need to know that. People need to know that the risk of violent death is not evenly distributed across the population. That when it comes to both our aggravated assaults, as well as our homicides, an extraordinary amount of our violence is perpetrated among people with extensive criminal records. Certainly, what’s happened recently is an exception to that rule, but it doesn’t deny the rule.
JC: Oftentimes when there is a murder, or any sort of violent crime in Springfield, we’re always reporting that witnesses and victims won’t cooperate. I know that the numbers are down in terms of crime and violent crime, but how about the actual arrests? In 2005 we had 18 murders; in 2006 we had 15. Comparing those two in terms of arrests, how are we doing?
Springfield Violent Crime, 2006
Total crime: – 3%
Murder: -17%
Rape: + 4%
Robbery: -12%
Aggravated assaults: -19%
Burglary: + 2%
Larcenies: 0%
M/V thefts: + 2%
Gun robbery: -26%
Gun assaults: -11%
Violent crime: -16%
EF: First of all, as we backtrack on the murders very quickly, murders down from 18 to 15 I don’t consider statistically significant. What’s significant to me is the aggravated assault rate being down by 12 percent [sic]. What’s significant to me is assaults committed with guns are down by 26 percent. Because those are much bigger numbers. When it comes to solving crimes, our homicide clearance rate in Springfield is far above the national average. Last year, we cleared 80 percent of our homicides—cleared by arrests. I think Boston last year had a 37 percent clearance rate. So our challenge isn’t to clear homicides; we’re getting cooperation on that. Our problem is solving those crimes that fall short of the homicide: the random shooting, the assault that takes place with a weapon. All too often in those circumstances, we don’t get a lot of help, until such time as there’s a dead body, because by then it’s too late. Alright, we’re going to put somebody in jail for life, and somebody’s dead, but it’s the community that knows who has a gun, and who has a grudge. If we could get more of that information, sooner, we could prevent more crime, which is ultimately our main goal here.
JC: Could you talk to us a little about the "3D mug shot" that I know I did a story about not too long ago? Can you kind of explain that to our viewers that maybe missed my story, just to kind of refresh us on it?
EF: One of our goals here, in developing positive strategies to deal with crime, is to take away the anonymity of our criminals. We don’t have entire neighborhoods filled with criminals. We have some neighborhoods [where] a lot of violence is perpetrated by a hard-core group of serious, repeat offenders. So what we decided to do is, working with the sheriff, every time Sheriff Ashe releases somebody from custody who has been in jail for a gun charge, that person is brought first to our 4:00 roll call. Now, the reason we do that is two-fold: number one, of course, to welcome this person back to the community, and hope that they have a successful re-entry, which of course we’ll be happy to help them with. Secondarily, our officers get a three-dimensional "mug shot" of this person. They now know that this fellow has been arrested before for carrying a gun. They’re going to pay attention to him. He’s not going to be anonymous when he goes back to the community. I think that’s going to help us be more effective.
JC: I know we have some information about all the different cities—I think there’s maybe six of them—Springfield is down by 16 percent in terms of violent crime. Back in the early fall, the FBI released statistics that basically said Springfield is the 30th most dangerous city in the country, and the number one most dangerous in Massachusetts. When we look at these statistics now for 2006, do you think we won’t be—we’ll move in a more positive direction?
EF: I have to draw a slight distinction. In the fall, Morgan-Quitno Press released a study, that had been based on 2005 FBI crime statistics, and they did try to make those points. The first six months of this year, the FBI released crime data that showed that nationally, violent crime was up four percent, and robbery was up nationally nine percent. So what’s encouraging is that we’re seeing not only a decrease in terms of Springfield’s experience, but we’re bucking a national trend, which is moving the other way. And I think what it’s a tribute to is the hard work of the police department, our close and effective partnerships with our federal partners as well as with the state police, and an ongoing commitment to focus on those places and times when crime is most likely to occur.
JC: You know, oftentimes I’ll be out doing a story, and people will say to me, "Jaclyn, I don’t feel safe in the community, sometimes when I’m walking down the street, I don’t know what’s going to happen to me. I wish there were more police officers on the street." What do you say when somebody comes to you and says something like that, if people do come to you and say things like that, about their fears?
EF: We recognize three dimensions to our challenge here in Springfield. We have to deal with crime, we have to deal with disorder, and we have to deal with fear. And the three feed off of each other. Many people feel fearful even though they, themselves, perhaps, have never been a victim of a crime. Part of that fearfulness is based on the fact that maybe they don’t see officers. Or public spaces seem filled with, you know, vagrants behaving in a bizarre manner, and that makes people abandon their public places. Our challenge is to focus on those public places and maintain a sense of order. That’s what we’re trying to do, and I’ve seen some encouraging news. I’ve seen that there’s some work afoot to provide better housing opportunities for the chronically homeless. We’re certainly focusing on the behaviors of those people in the downtown area to try to restore a sense of order and safety there. We recognize that it’s taken a long time for Springfield to get where it is, and for the climate of fear to reach the level that it has. We’re going to continue to work with the community, work with the press, and, above all, focus on the crime to try to begin to change that perception of Springfield.
JC: Speaking of the press, and fear, I know that on a recent trip to Boston, you said that Springfield TV stations sometimes have a tendency to sensationalize news. You said, "If it bleeds, it leads," which basically means any sort of violent crime, we lead the newscast with. In our defense, it’s one of those things where if something bad happens in Forest Park, people in Forest Park want to know about it. So, I’m not sure if it’s necessarily—we’re just kind of telling what’s going on in the community.
EF: I think the challenge for the news business nationally—and there’s been numerous stories about the challenges that the print media and the electronic media are facing, in terms of getting news out, and maintaining viewership—is that the press has only so many inches, the TV’s got only so many minutes, to tell so many stories. Obviously, crime stories are something the public wants to know about. They’re going to lead the news coverage. I understand that. I think the challenge is, how do we provide context for this individual crime? I mean, we may be able to produce data that says crime is going this way, but one dramatic incident will blow all that up in terms of community fears. I think what I’m hoping for is a better ongoing discussion, where from time to time, there’s the chance to provide context to sensational stories. I understand the news business. Those stories are going to make their way onto TV, but in a small metropolitan area like this, if that’s all people see about Springfield, that’s how it will be defined.
JC: Hopefully we’ll have more opportunities for you to come onto the show like this, and you can explain all this to us. We very much appreciate you coming on the show today.
EF: Thanks very much.
–end transcript
It sure is great to see the numbers decrease, whether it’s because we’re tracking the data more accurately or differently, or because violent crime truly is decreasing for various reasons—a sign of many beneficial elements converging—including, perhaps, the police applying what Commissioner Flynn called their hard work ethic to winning crime-fighting strategies. All of the above?
There are still plenty of opportunities to fight crime in Springfield, naturally. Just yesterday, through my windows, I watched a drug exchange on the sidewalk at the foot of my driveway. Often I see men in hoodies in my neighborhood, so it’s no big surprise to see them standing around and talking to each other. But in this case, there was something about the dynamic that made me want to spy. One man jogged up to two others idling there. He was wearing a bluetooth earpiece. I saw money exchange hands, and surreptitious body language.
As I watched one of the three men walk away, he paused as he passed in front of my house long enough to pour a small handful of something, from his bare hand, equivalent to the amount of maybe 25 peppercorns, into an open dollar bill. I watched him as he carefully folded the bill in half lengthwise, shook it gingerly so the stuff he laid in it wouldn’t fall out, but would instead pool in the lengthwise crease. Then he folded the bill over, folded it again the other way, and then folded the ends in, stuffing the contents down into the center of the bill as he did so. He took the bundled bill and inserted it very carefully into his pocket as he sauntered down the street.
It was a beautiful Sunday afternoon and the sun was shining. But suddenly, in my eyes, my neighborhood had just become the depths of hell. It’s all in how you look at it.
Later that night, two neighbors from a couple doors down walked the street as they sometimes do, clearly not sober, and fighting. Their arguments, when they are in this state, are often very loud, raucous, and filled with foul language. They simply shout curse words at each other and this is essentially the content of their arguing. I have seen them get physical with each other, too. Often I have attributed the behavior to drunkenness, but after watching yesterday’s exchange—and the other drug activity I suspect is happening at the house—I realize it may be heavier-duty and likely illegal substance that makes them this way from time to time. The electricity that seems to emanate from them, as well, when they’re high, deems them frighteningly unapproachable, as though they are hair-trigger violent, and they surround themselves with a cloud of violent words, too.
This morning, while walking my children to school, I got a first-hand view of a break-in at 178 Oakland Street, otherwise known as E.J. Nana’s Variety Store. Overnight or early this morning, someone smashed the glass door pretty badly and got inside, leaving the door propped open behind them. When I passed by, the owners had arrived and were trying to clean up. The crossing guard there told me that she had been one of the first on the scene and had alerted a neighborhood officer. She watched later when one police cruiser came up to inspect, but the officers didn’t get out of the vehicle: they looked for a moment, and then drove away. I assured the guard that surely they would send an officer later to take a report. She was concerned that they missed their opportunity to take fingerprints. Apparently, the store has an alarm, but the alarm may never have been triggered. Either they don’t use it or it is broken. In any case, it’s a really discouraging event for the owners, who aren’t exactly operating in the most hospitable environment.
It’s discouraging for the rest of us, too.
As I walked back to my house, I passed the man wearing a coat identical to the fellow I saw buying drugs in front of my house yesterday. I didn’t realize it was him until after I had already said, as I do to most everyone I pass, "Good morning." He even smiled a little.
What’s different now, in contrast to a year ago, is how I am able to handle these events. Rather than merely feeling like I’m a victim, or even as though I have only one channel—my local beat management team—to work with, I am obligated also to email or call my neighborhood’s deputy police chief and tell him all about it. And I have the confidence now that he’ll want to hear what I have to say.
Update: Neighborhood complaints about specific crime seem to be having a positive effect, judging by two blurbs in the Republican‘s news briefs today.
