Public Safety
A. ISSUE SUMMARY
Vision Statement: "Travis County will be a community where all
persons will be safe from crime and victimization."
Strategies for Building a Stronger
Community: A Community Guide
The key findings regarding the public safety outcomes are:
- Safety issues. The number of residents who felt safe walking alone
downtown during the day increased by 14% from 1995 to 1997. In 1997, the
overwhelming majority of residents felt safe walking alone in their neighborhoods
and downtown Austin during the day. In contrast, many residents did not
feel safe walking alone at night, especially downtown.
- Juvenile Referrals. The total Travis County juvenile referral rate
increased from 1993 to 1995, then levelled off from 1995 to 1997. Juvenile
referrals for most offenses declined from 1994 to 1997.
- Juvenile Gang Activity. Between 1994 and 1997, Travis County Juvenile
Court experienced a 12% reduction in the percentage of juveniles referred
who were involved in gangs.
- Adult Crime. Between 1992 and 1996, the reported index crime rate
for property crimes decreased by 30%, but rose 0.6% in 1997. Violent crimes
reached their peak in 1995, then decreased by 13% from 1995 to 1997. They
rose again in 1997 by 3%. When reviewing trend data, it is important to
note that revised reporting methods instituted in 1995 may affect the ability
to accurately conduct yearly comparisons.
- Recidivism. 19% of Travis County adults on deferred adjudication
and 38% of Travis County adults on adjudicated probation committed new offenses
or violated conditions of probation and were sent to prison within three
years of being placed under supervision. 20% of juveniles on deferred adjudication
and 13% of juveniles on probation reoffended within one year of discharge.
- Victims Services. The number of victims served by Travis County
Sheriff’s Office increased by nearly 2,000% between 1992 and 1995,
while the number of victims served by the Austin Police Department increased
by 544%. The majority of victims served were victims of either family violence
or child abuse.
- Child Abuse. The per capita number of confirmed child abuse/neglect
cases declined by 42% between 1993 and 1996.
- Domestic Violence. Between 1993 and 1995, the number of domestic
violence incidents reported to police decreased by 23%. In 1996, a new tracking
method was instituted by the Austin Police Department. While this system
more accurately captures data, it makes comparisons with past years difficult.
As a result, it is unclear whether the nearly 50% increase in the domestic
violence rate from 1995 to 1996 is due to the new system or to an actual
increase.
Return to Top of Page
B. BACKGROUND AND INFLUENCING FACTORS
Importance to the Community
Some of the factors that influence the level of criminal activity of a community
are poverty levels, a lack of education, the use of alcohol and drugs, gang
involvement and family problems. Prevention of criminal behavior calls for
education and programs at early stages in life that will help reduce the incidence
of crime. Dealing with crime also calls for maximizing the various services
that are available in the community for victims of criminal activity.
Return to Top of Page
C. OUTCOMES AND KEY INDICATORS
The eight outcomes that will be analyzed in the next section are:
- Increase in the percentage of residents who report an improved perception
of personal safety
- Decrease in the juvenile referral rate
- Decrease in the percentage of juveniles referred who are known or suspected
gang members
- Decrease in the incidence of adult crime
- Decrease in the percentage of offenders re-arrested within three years
of case disposition
- Increase in the percentage of victims served by victims services
- Decrease in the confirmed child abuse/neglect rate
- Decreased incidence of reported domestic violence
OUTCOME: Increased percentage of residents who
report an improved perception of personal safety
To truly capture this outcome, it would be helpful to examine perceptions
of safety in different neighborhoods in Travis County, and to determine whether
residents feel safe at home, in their cars, walking in groups, etc. This information,
however, is not currently available. At this time, the best available indicators
for this outcome are from the Austin Quality Survey conducted by the City
of Austin. They indicate the percentage of city residents that feel safe walking
in their neighborhoods and downtown during the day and at night.
Figure 4.12.1
Percentage of Austin Residents Who Felt Safe While Walking Alone
in Their Own Neighborhoods
Source: Austin Quality Survey, City of Austin. Note: 1996 statisics were
computed based upon 1995 and 1997 data.
In 1997, nearly all Austin residents felt safe walking in their neighborhoods
during the day, with the percentage remaining fairly constant since 1994.
While the percentage of residents who felt safe when walking alone in their
neighborhoods at night rose from 1994 to 1997, a large percentage still did
not feel comfortable doing so in 1997.
Figure 4.12.2
Percentage of Austin Residents Who Felt Safe While Walking Alone
in Downtown Austin
Source: Austin Quality Survey, City of Austin.
In 1997, daytime safety perceptions were only slightly lower downtown than
in neighborhoods. However, most Austin residents did not feel safe walking
alone in the downtown area at night, and the percentage who felt safe decreased
by 9% from 1996 to 1997.
Return to Top of Page
OUTCOME: Decreased juvenile referral rates
Formal referrals include any occasion when a child is brought to the juvenile
department’s attention for alleged delinquent conduct or conduct indicating
a need for supervision, and some contact by visit or interview occurs between
the department and the child or parents. As Figure 4.12.3 shows, from 1995
to1997, the percentage of juveniles ages 10 to 16 who had formal referrals
to Travis County Juvenile Court decreased by 5%.
Figure 4.12.3
Formal Referrals to Travis County Juvenile Court as a Percentage of the
Travis County, Population, Ages 10 to 16 – CY 1993 to 1997
Source: Texas Juvenile Probation Commission.
Figure 4.12.4 shows the number of formal and informal referrals to
Travis County Juvenile Court. Informal referrals include referrals not meeting
the criteria for formal referrals, including Class C offenses in which jurisdiction
has yet to be transferred from Justice of the Peace or Municipal Courts, and
offenses such as Violations of Conditions of Release and Failures to Appear.
Figure 4.12.4
Total (Formal and Informal) Number of Referrals to Travis County
Juvenile Court -- CY 1993-1997
Source: Travis County Juvenile Court,1994.
Total referrals (formal and informal) to Travis County Juvenile Court peaked
in 1995, then declined by 12% from 1995 to 1997. While formal referrals decreased
by 31%, informal referrals increased by 29%.
Figure 4.12.5
Total Felony Referrals to Travis County Juvenile Court as a Percentage of the Travis County Population, Ages 10 to 16 – CY 1994 and 1997
Source: Travis County Juvenile Court.
Figure 4.12.5 indicates that all types of juvenile felony referral rates
experienced a decline from 1994 to 1997. The largest reduction was in property
offenses.
Figure 4.12.6
Total Class A and B Misdemeanor Referrals to Travis County Juvenile Court
as a Percentage of the Travis County Population, Ages 10 to16 – CY 1994
and 1997
Source: Travis County Juvenile Court.
The rates for all types of Class A and B misdemeanors, except drug offenses,
decreased between 1994 and 1997. The rates for drug offenses remained relatively
stable.
Return to Top of Page
OUTCOME: Decreased percentage of juveniles referred
who are known or suspected gang members
Data on gangs are kept by both the Austin Police Department’s (APD)
Gang Suppression Unit and Travis County Juvenile Court. These data differ,
as APD records gang affiliation only if the juvenile is arrested, while Juvenile
Court records gang affiliation of all referrals, both formal and informal.
Because Juvenile Court records include a greater number of juveniles, they
are presented here.
Figure 4.12.7
Percentage of Juveniles Referred to Travis County Juvenile Court Who Were
Affiliated With Gangs
1994-1997
Source: Travis County Juvenile Court.
The percentage of juveniles referred to Juvenile Court who were involved
in gangs decreased by 12% from 1994 to 1997.
Return to Top of Page
OUTCOME: Decreased incidence of adult crime
Figure 4.12.8
Total Reported Index Crime Rate (Per 100,000 Population) Travis County
Source: Texas Department
of Public Safety.
From 1992 to 1996, the total reported property crime (burglary, theft
and auto theft) rate decreased by 30%. It rose slightly (0.6%) in 1997. The violent crime (murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) rate reached
its peak in 1995, then decreased by 13% from 1995 to 1997.
When reviewing index crime data, it is important to note that revised reporting
methods instituted by the Austin
Police Department in 1995 may affect the ability to accurately conduct
yearly comparisons.
Return to Top of Page
OUTCOME: Decreased percentage of offenders re-arrested
and sentenced to prison within three years of case disposition
This outcome is intended to address the issue of recidivism. Recidivism is
defined by The American Heritage Dictionary as "a tendency to
relapse into a former pattern of behavior, esp[ecially] a tendency to return
to criminal habits."
Because recidivism numbers are very tedious to calculate, limited data on
recidivism in Travis County is available. Data specific to the outcome statement
was not available, so some of the data presented for this outcome is based
on a study by the Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council (CJPC). The CJPC defines
recidivism as "the reoccurrence of criminal behavior which resulted in
the offender being sentenced to prison." CJPC’s recidivism numbers
reflect the percentage of offenders placed on community supervision in 1991
that, within three years, committed new offenses or technical violations of
conditions of community supervision and were sentenced to prison.
There is no one definitive, agreed-upon way to measure recidivism, and the
measures typically used by different entities vary according to their perspectives.
The CJPC focuses on returns to prison, for example, because that's what affects
the state fiscally. However, many people who reoffend while on deferred adjudication
or probation are not sent to prison. As a result, the CJPC’s definition
of recidivism is less restrictive than the one in the outcome statement and
may not necessarily be the best one for the county.
Figure 4.12.9
Three-Year Recidivism Rate of Adults Placed on Deferred Adjudication by
County of Conviction
Caveat: Recidivism rates are influenced by revocation policies.
Source: Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council.
Less than 20% of adult offenders placed on deferred adjudication in Travis
County in 1991 committed new offenses or technical violations of conditions
of community supervision and were sentenced to prison. Of the largest counties
in Texas, Travis County had the third lowest rate.
Figure 4.12.10
Three-Year Recidivism Rate of Adults Sentenced to Adjudicated Probation
by County of Conviction
Source: Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council.
Caveat: Recidivism rates are influenced by county’s revocation policies.
In contrast, 38% of adults placed on probation in 1991 committed new offenses
or technical violations of conditions of community supervision and were sentenced
to prison. Of the largest counties in Texas, Travis County had the second
highest recidivism rate for adults on adjudicated probation.
Figure 4.12.11
Percentage of Juveniles Discharged from Probation or Deferred Adjudication
in CY 1997 Who Did Not Re-Offend with at Least a Class B Misdemeanor within
1 Year of Discharge
For purposes of Figure 4.12.11, reoffense is defined as a referral for an
offense of a Class B misdemeanor or above within one year of discharge. 20%
of juveniles on deferred adjudication and 13% of juveniles on probation reoffended
within one year of discharge.
Return to Top of Page
OUTCOME: Increased percentage of victims served
by victims services
Figure 4.12.12
Victims Served by the Austin Police Department
Source: Austin
Police Department.
The number of victims of criminal activity served by the Austin Police Department
increased by 544% between 1992 and 1997. Likewise, the number of victims served
by the Travis County Sheriff’s Office increased by nearly 2,000% between
1992 and 1995. Data on victims served by the Sheriff’s Office beyond
1995 were not available.
Figure 4.12.13
Victims Served by the Travis County Sheriff’s Office
Source: Travis County Sheriff’s Office.
Numbers presented in Figure 4.12.12 and Figure 4.12.13 may be misleading
because there are various factors that could increase the number of victims
served (i.e., increased number of victims in the community, more police staff
available to make arrests, a larger county population, etc.). The ideal measure
for this outcome would include the percentage of victims being served in addition
to the number. At this time, there are no data available on how many victims
are not receving services.
Figure 4.12.14
Percentage of Victims Served By Crime – Austin Police Department
-- 1994
The majority of victims served by the Austin Police Department’s Victim
Services in 1994 were victims of family violence or child abuse.
Figure 4.12.15
Percentage of Victims Served by Travis County Sheriff’s Office by
Type -- 1994
Over one in three victims served by the Travis County Sherrif’s Office
were victims of family violence.
Return to Top of Page
OUTCOME: Reduced child abuse and neglect rates
Figure 4.12.16
Number of Alleged Victims of Child Abuse/Neglect Cases for Travis County
and Texas
(per 100,000 children) – FY 1992 to 1996
Source: Texas
Department of Protective and Regulatory Services.
Both Travis County and the state experienced a decline in the alleged child
abuse/neglect rate between 1993 and 1996. The Travis County rate decreased
by 44% from 1993 to 1996, and by 1996, the Travis County rate fell below the
Texas average. It should be noted, however, that the Texas Department of Protective
and Regulatory Services changed their method of reporting child abuse/neglect
in 1995, which may account for a portion of the decline. The decrease in part
is due in part to a change in the automation system of CPS that now removes
inconsistent data. In addition, supervisory approval is now needed for a case
to be closed.
Figure 4.12.17
Number of Confirmed Victims of Child Abuse/Neglect, Travis County
(per 100,000 children) – FY 1992 to 1996
Source: Texas
Department of Protective and Regulatory Services.
Like the alleged rate, the confirmed child abuse rate decreased by 42% between
1993 and 1996. Again, the reporting system for abuse and neglect was changed
in 1995, making comparisons between years difficult.
Return to Top of Page
OUTCOME: Decreased incidents of reported domestic
violence
Figure 4.12.18
Victims of Domestic Violence per 100,000 population in Travis County
Source: Texas Department
of Public Safety.
Data shows that between 1993 and 1995, the domestic violence rate decreased
by 27%. In 1996, a new method of tracking was instituted by the Austin Police
Department. This new tracking procedure more accurately captures data, but
has made yearly comparisons difficult. It is expected that these numbers will
further increase with the opening of the Family Violence Court in January
1999.
Return to Top of Page
D. OTHER KEY OUTCOMES AND STATUS
The Community Guide identified additional
outcomes, and consultations with key groups added several more. These outcomes
are listed below with annotations that include clarification, availability
of data, and recommendations for further use.
The following outcomes are being addressed in other chapters:
- Increased number of clients who improved school attendance
- Increased number of clients demonstrating improved academic performance
- Increased number of clients obtaining job placement
The following outcomes are measurable but do not have adequate data available:
- Reduced time victim must wait for counseling
- Increased number of clients remaining or re-enrolling in school or vocational
training during the reporting period
- Increased number of clients (including perpetrators) showing no new, or
reduced, incidence of family violence/abuse/neglect
- Improved use of volunteer services
- Enhanced early intervention services
- Improved services delivered to outlying areas
- Increased number of child victims who receive services to address victimization
The following outcomes are complex and need to be better operationalized
before they can be evaluated:
- Increased number of clients with no new court or police involvement during
the reporting period
- Minimized inefficiencies in the delivery of services
- Maximized use of community providers
- Enhanced dissemination of information to the public
- Increased number of clients served who demonstrate measured improvements
in attitude/behavior
- Increased number of clients served who self-report an improvement in attitude/behavior
- Every victim receives all necessary services
- Increased number of clients who demonstrate increased knowledge/skills
relative to issues area and /or resources
- Increased number of clients who successfully completed the program
- Increased level of client/family satisfaction with services
- Increased number of clients maintaining employment for a scheduled period
of time
- Increased number of clients maintaining employment at scheduled follow-up
sessions
- Increased number of clients demonstrating a measured reduction in at-risk
behavior
- Increased number of clients who leave program with individual safety plan
- Increased number of clients who leave program to a situation that does
not include the batterer
- Increased number of clients who report being in an improved situation
(i.e., enhanced safety) at follow-up session
- Increased number of individuals served who disclose abuse, violence, neglect
and/or exploitation and receive appropriate referrals
- Increased number of child victims provided advocacy
Return to Top of Page
E. TERMS, CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
Conduct Indicating a Need for Supervision: Violation by a child of
any law punishable by fine only, other than traffic offenses; driving while
intoxicated (first and second offense), inhalant abuse, running away and truancy.
As of September 1, 1997, first and second offense DWIs are also considered
delinquent behavior.
Delinquent Behavior: Violation by a child of any law punishable by
incarceration, except traffic laws.
Formal Referral: Any occasion when a child is brought to the juvenile
department’s attention for alleged delinquent conduct or conduct indicating
a need for supervision, and some contact by visit or interview occurs between
the department and the child or parents.
Index Crimes: Seven crimes, including murder, rape, robbery, aggravated
assault, burglary, theft, and motor vehcile theft, upon which the Department
of Public Safety collects data. All of the crimes in this group are serious,
either because of type or because of frequency.
Informal Referral: Includes juvenile referrals not meeting the criteria
for formal referrals, including Class C offenses in which jurisdiction has
yet to be transferred from Justice of the Peace or Municipal Courts, and offenses
such as Violation of Conditions of Release and Failure to Appear.
Return to Top of Page
Assessment Home
