Investigative units do not have workload standards, nor do managers monitor the relative caseloads of investigative units. As a result, there is an inequitable caseload distribution among the investigative units of the Police Department. For example, investigators assigned to the Narcotics Division"s rebooking unit each handle an average of 200 rebookings per month, versus an average caseload of less than one rebooking per month for Inspectors in the Homicide, Sex Crimes and Fencing Sections.  The high caseload in some units has resulted in a focus by Inspectors on closing as many cases as quickly as possible, regardless of whether the DA accepts or refuses the case for prosecution, and often as a priority over expending additional time and resources to assist in the prosecution of suspects. In order to eliminate the inequitable workload distribution, the General Investigations Division should implement a cross-training program, create a Rebookings Unit and adjust staffing levels for the investigative units based on relative caseloads. The implementation of our recommendations could potentially result in a reduction of $240,000 per year in investigative overtime, if efficiencies are realized.

Although the assignment of Inspectors to each investigative unit should reflect the relative caseload handled by each unit, we found wide variations in the caseload per Inspector among the different units. This can be explained, in part, by variations in the relative seriousness of different offenses (personal versus property crimes) handled by each investigative unit and also by the likelihood that certain types of cases can be cleared more quickly. For example, one would expect the Inspectors assigned to sections that handle personal crimes (e.g., homicide, sex crimes, assaults, robbery, etc.), which are generally more serious and more difficult to clear, to have relatively lower caseloads than Inspectors assigned to sections that handle property crimes (burglary, auto theft, fraud, fencing, etc.). Thus, as expected, the Homicide Section has a relatively low caseload per Inspector.

However, there are still large discrepancies in the caseload per investigator among investigative units which cannot be explained by these differences in the types of cases handled by each section. For example, although the General Work Section and the Night Investigations Unit handle similar types of cases, the caseload per investigator in these two units varies significantly. In addition, the caseload per investigator is much higher in Sex Crimes than in Homicide, although these two Sections are responsible for investigating the most serious crimes. Although each section has a case assignment officer who is responsible for monitoring the caseload of individual Inspectors within that section, investigative units do not have workload standards, nor do managers within the Investigations Bureau monitor the relative caseloads of different investigative units.

Table 1.2-1, on the following page, shows the number of rebookings and suspect cases assigned per year for each investigative unit and the average monthly caseload per investigator, based on workload data provided by the Police Department.

As reflected in Table 1.2-1, investigators assigned to the Narcotics Division have the highest monthly caseload for rebookings. Overall, Table 1.2-1 shows that the average caseload per investigator for the 48 Narcotics officers is 16 rebookings per month. However, the rebooking caseload within the Narcotics Division is not evenly distributed. For example, the Narcotics Division"s Rebooking Unit, which consists of three officers, handles an estimated 7,188 of the 9,296 felony narcotics rebookings per year, resulting in an average monthly caseload of 200 rebookings per officer. The other 45 investigators in the Narcotics Division, who also have a separate caseload of suspect and self-generated cases in addition to rebookings, handle the remaining 2,108 rebookings, for an average caseload of four rebookings per officer per month. According to the Police Department, despite the relatively high caseload of the Narcotics Rebooking Unit, the cases handled by the Narcotics Rebooking Unit are typically less complex, and can therefore be completed more quickly, than rebookings handled by other investigative units.

The Missing Persons Unit of the Juvenile Division has the highest average monthly caseload per investigator for suspect cases. However, according to staff from the Juvenile Division, the Missing Persons Unit"s cases can usually be closed within a relatively short period of time (less than one hour) because the alleged missing person is often found relatively quickly without assistance from the Police Department.   Table 1.2-1 Average Annual Caseload by Unit and Average Monthly Caseload per Investigator, Investigations Bureau, 1993 - 1997  

	Annual Caseload by Unit						No. of Investigators*		Monthly Caseload per Investigator*
Investigative Unit	Rebook-ings			Suspect Cases		Total			Rebook-ings		Suspect Cases		Total
General Investigations:
Auto		1,217	235		1,452			9	11	2		13
Burglary		2,356	1,608		3,964			16	12	8		20
Domestic Violence		1,891	388		2,279			18	9	2		11
Fencing		34	1,864		1,898			5	1	31		32
Fraud		787	1,419		2,206			15	4	8		12
General Work		1,739	705		2,444			14	10	4		14
Hit & Run		217	1,437		1,654			8	2	15		17
Homicide		22	140		162			12	0	1		1
Night Investigations		523	311		834			10	4	3		7
Robbery		889	1,219		2,108			12	6	8		14
Sex Crimes		128	951		1,079			8	1	10		11
Special Investigations		413	500		913			21	2	2		4
Total - General Invest.		10,216	10,777		20,993			148
Average Caseload/Investigator - General Invest. Div.									6	6		12
Juvenile:
Juvenile Offender		1	292		293			3	0	8		8
Child Abuse		68	1,041		1,109			12	1	7		8
Missing Persons		0	4,751		4,751			3	0	132		132
Total - Juvenile		69	6,084		6,153			18
Average Caseload/Investigator - Juvenile Div.									0	28		28
Narcotics/Vice:
Narcotics		9,296	n/a		n/a			48	16	n/a		n/a
Prostitution		197	n/a		n/a			10	2	n/a		n/a
Gambling		8	n/a		n/a			4	0	n/a		n/a
Other Vice		0	n/a		n/a			6	0	n/a		n/a
Total - Narcotics/Vice		9,501	n/a		n/a			68
Average Caseload/Investigator - Narcotics/Vice Div.									12	n/a		n/a
TOTAL		19,786	16,861		27,146			234	n/m	n/m		n/m

n/a = not available; n/m = not meaningful

* May consist of Inspectors, Sergeants and/or Police Officers.

Exhibit 1.2-1 below illustrates the large variation in caseload among the units in the General Investigations Division in graphic form.

Exhibit 1.2-1   Comparison of Average Monthly Caseload per Investigator by Unit, General Investigations Division, 1993 - 1997

As illustrated in Exhibit 1.2-1, investigators assigned to the Fencing, Burglary and Hit and Run Sections have the highest monthly caseload, whereas investigators assigned to Homicide, Special Investigations and Night Investigations Sections have the lowest monthly caseload.

While the Narcotics Division is part of the Investigations Bureau, Exhibit 1.2-1 does not reflect data for Narcotics since it is separate from the General Investigations Division. However, as noted above, the officers assigned to the Rebooking Unit of the Narcotics Division each have an average monthly caseload of 200 felony rebookings per month, which is 17 times more than the average monthly rebooking caseload of investigators assigned to the Burglary unit (the unit with the second highest rebooking caseload per investigator), who handle 12 rebookings per month.

Effects of Inequitable Workload Distribution on Performance

Rebookings

Through our field work, we discovered that there appears to be a negative correlation between caseload and the DA"s filing rate for rebookings. For example, the units with the highest caseloads for rebookings - Narcotics, Auto, Burglary and General Work - have relatively low filing rates for rebookings by the DA, as illustrated in Table 1.2-2. Table 1.2-2 Investigative Units with the Highest Average Monthly per Investigator Caseload for Rebookings, versus the DA"s Filing Rate, Investigations Bureau, 1993 - 1997    

Investigative Unit	Rebookingsper Investigator per Month	DA Filing Rate
Narcotics	200	49%
Burglary	12	49%
Auto	11	48%
General Work	10	45%

 

Because of the 48-hour time limit for filing charges against a suspect arrested by the Police Department, there is limited time available to work on rebookings. In addition, because of high number of rebookings which must be performed by Inspectors assigned to some units, such as Narcotics, Burglary and General Work, there is often pressure to close cases quickly so the Inspector can move on to the next case. In fact, based on the average number of hours rebooking cases remain open (as determined by our sample of rebooking cases from General Investigations units), and the productivity factor for Inspectors, we calculated that Inspectors spend an average of only 1.3 hours of actual productive time on each rebooking assigned to him/her.

Moreover, based on discussions with staff from the DA"s Office, Inspectors sometimes pressure Assistant DAs to file or discharge rebookings quickly so that the Inspector will be able to complete the case within the 48-hour time limit. The DA"s office advises that, for this reason, few rebookings are ever discharged using discharge code #27 - Further Investigation Needed. In our sample, we found that only 5.5 percent of rebookings discharged by the DA were given a #27 discharge code, or an estimated 264 of the 4,800 rebookings per year which are discharged by the DA in the General Investigations Division.

The combination of high caseloads and the 48-hour time limit for rebookings has resulted in a focus by Inspectors on closing as many cases as quickly as possible, regardless of whether the case is discharged or accepted by the DA, and often as a priority over expending additional time and resources to assist in the prosecution of suspects.

Suspect Cases

As with rebookings, our data indicate that, in part because of the inequitable workload distribution, there is pressure on Inspectors in some units to close cases as quickly as possible with little regard to outcome.

For example, in the six units in General Investigation Division that had the highest per investigator caseload of suspect cases (Burglary, Fencing, Fraud, Hit and Run, Robbery, Sex Crimes), cases were open an average of 18 days before being cleared, versus the median of 25 days for all cleared suspect cases. In most of the sections with the highest per investigator caseload of suspect cases, there also tended to be a relatively higher proportion of cases which the DA refused to prosecute than which were accepted by the DA for prosecution, as illustrated in Table 1.2-3.
  Table 1.2-3 Investigative Units with the Highest Caseloads of Suspect Cases, the Median Number of Days Cases Remain Open and the Percentage of Cleared Cases Accepted and Refused by the DA for Prosecution, General Investigations Division, 1993 - 1997  

Investigative Unit	Suspect Casesper Investigator per Month	Median No. of Days Cases Are Active	% of  Cleared Cases  Accepted by DA	% of Cleared Cases Refused by DA
Fencing	31	15	8%	23%
Hit & Run	15	7	20%	0%
Sex Crimes	10	24	20%	60%
Burglary	8	20	30%	40%
Fraud	8	49	32%	36%
Robbery	8	7	44%	44%
All Units	6	25	27%	36%

In addition, based on our sample, we found that, the longer a case remained open, it was less likely to be cleared using Clearance Code #10 - the DA Refuses to Prosecute. For example, the median duration of cleared cases which were accepted by the DA for prosecution was 40 days, versus only 29 days for cases refused by the DA for prosecution. Exhibit 1.2-2 illustrates that the longer a case remains open, the less likely it is that the DA will refuse to prosecute the case. Similarly, the likelihood of cases being accepted for prosecution increases as time passes.

Exhibit 1.2-2 Number of Days Suspect Cases Remain Active versus Number of Cases Accepted and Refused by DA for Prosecution as % of Cases Presented, General Investigations Division, 1993 - 1997  

In summary, the inequitable workload distribution results in a high suspect caseload per investigator in some units, which in turn has led Inspectors to close cases as quickly as possible in order to move on to the next case. In addition, there is some correlation between the length of time a case remains open and the likelihood that it will be accepted by the DA for prosecution, and cases which are closed quickly are less likely to be accepted by the DA.

Measures which would Result in a More Equitable Workload Distribution

The measures below, if implemented by the Police Department, would result in a more equitable distribution of workload among the investigative units of the Investigations Bureau.

Cross-Training of Inspectors in the General Investigations Division

San Francisco is unique from other law enforcement agencies in the organization of its investigative function into specialized units. While many other police departments have "generalized" investigative units, in which Inspectors are responsible for investigating all types of crimes, the investigative units in San Francisco are very narrowly specialized, each responsible for the investigation of only certain types of crime, such as burglary, fraud, auto, robbery, etc. While this allows Inspectors to become experts in investigating certain types of crime, this type of organizational structure also limits the ability of supervisors to reassign staff based on inequitable workloads in certain units.

Rather than disbanding the existing specialized units and creating one large pool of Inspectors, we believe that the relatively large caseloads for each unit justifies the retention of these specialized units. However, an in-house cross-training program should be implemented. Inspectors in the General Investigations Division (with the exception of Inspectors assigned to the Homicide Section) should be required to spend two weeks working in each of the 10 other units. The Investigations Administration Office should set up a cross-training program consisting of five 20-week rotations over a two-year period, in which three Inspectors from each section rotate through each of the 10 other sections for a two-week period per section. As a result of this cross-training, Inspectors would have at least some basic knowledge of what is involved in investigating different types of crimes and could therefore be temporarily reassigned to assist other units which have excessive workloads, as the need arises.

Creating a Rebooking Unit

As noted earlier in this section, there are large discrepancies in the rebooking caseloads among the investigative units. For instance, the Narcotics Division has its own rebooking unit consisting of three investigators, who must each handle an average of 200 rebookings per month. On the other hand, Inspectors in the Homicide, Sex Crimes and Fencing Sections each handle an average of one or less rebookings per month.

In order to eliminate this inequitable workload distribution, we recommend creating a Rebookings Unit for the entire General Investigations Division to handle all felony rebookings. In addition, this unit would handle all narcotics rebookings for felony arrests made at the 10 district stations (an estimated 7,188 of the 9,926 narcotics rebookings per year). As such, this unit would be responsible for up to 17,400 rebookings per year. Inspectors assigned to the Homicide, Juvenile, Vice and Narcotics units would continue to be responsible for handling their own rebooking cases. Based on an average of between 1.3 and 2.0 hours of productive time spent on each rebooking in General Investigations, the Rebooking Unit should consist of between 14 and 18 Inspectors, who can be reassigned from other units, including the three Inspectors presently assigned to the Narcotics Rebookings Unit.

The Inspectors in the Rebookings Unit would perform only rebookings and would not be responsible for handling any suspect cases. Likewise, the Inspectors assigned to the other investigative sections would, for the most part, handle only suspect cases. If, however, our recommendation from Section 1.1 to deploy Inspectors to the districts were implemented, and an Inspector from the Hall of Justice were called out to respond to a crime scene, that Inspector would handle the rebooking (if there was one) for that case. The Rebookings Unit would therefore handle only the "overflow" rebookings which would be assigned to Inspectors who are not called out to crime scenes.

Upon forming the Rebookings Unit, staffing levels for the other investigative sections in the General Investigations Division (with the exception of Homicide) should be adjusted to better reflect the relative caseload for suspect cases of each unit, as well as other factors such as the relative seriousness and solvability of cases handled by each unit.

In addition to resulting in a more equitable workload distribution, the creation of a Rebookings Unit and the reassignment of staff based on workload would also likely result in a reduction in investigative overtime. This would result from Inspectors in the individual units dedicating their full time and attention to working on suspect cases and not deferring activities related to these cases until after their rebookings were completed. According to the Police Department, 80 percent of investigative overtime results from activities related to suspect cases. As such, freeing up time during Inspectors" regular working hours to work on suspect cases should result in a reduction in investigative overtime.

In FY 1996-97, the General Investigations Division (excluding Homicide) incurred approximately 21,050 hours in investigative overtime, or about $973,142, at the average overtime hourly rate for Inspectors of $46.23. Assuming a 25 percent reduction in investigative overtime, the implementation of our recommendations could potentially result in an annual savings of $240,000 per year to the City, if efficiencies are realized.

Conclusions

Investigative units do not have workload standards, nor do managers monitor the relative caseloads of investigative units. As a result, there is an inequitable caseload distribution among the investigative units of the Police Department. For example, investigators assigned to the Narcotics Division"s rebooking unit each handle an average of 200 rebookings per month, versus an average caseload of less than one rebooking per month for Inspectors in the Homicide, Sex Crimes and Fencing Sections.

The high caseload in some units has resulted in a focus by Inspectors on closing as many cases as quickly as possible, regardless of whether the DA accepts or refuses the case for prosecution, and often as a priority over expending additional time and resources to assist in the prosecution of suspects.

In order to eliminate the inequitable workload distribution, the General Investigations Division should implement a cross-training program, create a Rebookings Unit and adjust staffing levels for the investigative units based on relative caseloads.

The implementation of our recommendations could potentially result in a reduction of $240,000 per year in investigative overtime, if efficiencies are realized.

Recommendations

The Deputy Chief of Investigations should:

Costs and Benefits

Our recommendations can be implemented using existing staff and resources within the Police Department.

Implementing a cross-training program would provide Inspectors with some basic knowledge of what is involved in investigating different types of crimes and would allow Lieutenants to temporarily reassign staff due to excessive caseloads.

Forming a Rebooking Unit in the General Investigations Division and adjusting staffing levels in the other investigative units based on relative caseload would eliminate the inequitable workload distribution and therefore result in the more effective investigation of cases.

The proper implementation of our recommendations could potentially result in a reduction in investigative overtime of $240,000 per year, if efficiencies are realized.