HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-10 City Council Agenda Item No. 12C I TY O IF
LADE LSIHOP E
DREAM EXTREME-
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY
CITY MANAGER
DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2009
SUBJECT: GRAFFITI ACTION PLAN ADOPTION
Background
The accompanying Graffiti Action Plan was prepared by the City's Graffiti Task Force
and is recommended for consideration by the Public Safety Advisory Commission.
Discussion
Public perception and internal survey results confirm the view that graffiti is on the rise
and that graffiti abatement should be a high priority.
In 2007, the Public Safety Advisory Commission recommended significant updates to
the existing graffiti ordinance to increase penalties for graffiti vandalism. In 2008, the
City Manager approved the creation of an internal Graffiti Task Force, whose task was
to examine "best practices" for fighting graffiti, coupled with an examination of the City's
current graffiti abatement process. Their recommendations and conclusions are
published in the Graffiti Action Plan.
Once approved, the Graffiti Action Plan will serve as the City's platform for
implementing anti - graffiti goals and program objectives. This plan will also serve as the
basis for measuring results and assessing program effectiveness, as well as for future
program budget requests.
The overall findings of the Graffiti Task Force are twofold:
1. The City currently expends over $100,000 in direct costs to abate graffiti, though
an internal graffiti process survey shows considerably more staff time and City
resources are being used to deal with graffiti on a daily basis;
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 1 of 131
Graffiti Action Plan Adoption
February 10, 2009
Page 2
2. Independently, each department uses its resources effectively to combat graffiti,
but the benefits of a community outreach and information program combined with
a centralized process for identifying, tracking and investigating graffiti can
significantly increase the efficacy of the City's anti - graffiti efforts.
The City has been recognized for its efforts to combat graffiti under a comprehensive
plan. On December 15, 2008, The Californian newspaper printed an editorial under the
banner Roses & raspberries, subtitled "The 'Keep Lake Elsinore Beautiful' award." They
state:
A rose to the City of Lake Elsinore for taking a coordinated
approach to its graffiti problem... We wish more cities would
follow Lake Elsinore's lead by taking an aggressive, no-
nonsense approach to this perennial problem.
Fiscal Impact
Sufficient funding was programmed into the FY 2008 -09 General Fund and CIP for
public education & outreach, and the licensing of proprietary graffiti tracking software,
tied with the purchase of two GPS- equipped cameras. While a digital surveillance pilot
project is also included in the FY 2008 -09 CIP, staff is reevaluating the mix of RDA
funding and grant sources to offset cost impacts to the General Fund. The cost of
licensing and acquiring a work order module for centralizing graffiti incident work order
processing (compatible with the City's enterprise system) is not included in the current
proposal, but will be evaluated as part of the FY 2009 -10 budget.
Recommendation
Approve the Graffiti Action Plan and direct staff to implement education and outreach
objectives and technology acquisition within the scope of work shown in the respective
FY 2008 -09 general fund, RDA and CIP budgets.
Prepared by: Mark Dennis
Information /Communications Manager
Approved by: Robert A. Brady ��(�
City Manager 4�
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 2 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 2 of 20
Acknowledgements
To the Public Safety Advisory Commission for their diligence and support of tougher anti - graffiti
regulations and commitment to community outreach; to City Council members and Redevelopment
Agency Board members for supporting the PSAC and equipping staff through Graffiti program funding;
to the City Manager's Office staff for facilitating the Graffiti Task Force and writing the process survey
and action plan; to the Redevelopment Agency Project Manager for preparing the survey tabulations,
analysis, and writing the survey report and surveillance research proposal; and to the members of the
Graffiti Task Force, City staff and LEPD who are dedicated to fighting graffiti to improve the quality of life
for Lake Elsinore citizens.
Graffiti Task Force
Members:
Ken Seumalo, Director of Public Works
Ray Gonzales, Director of Parks & Recreation
Bill Payne, Public Works Manager
Mary Santa Cruz, Lake Dept. Admin. Assistant
Robin Chipman, Building & Safety Manager
Fred Lopez, Code Enforcement Officer
Cathy Barrozo, GIS Analyst
Tobian Soto, IT Supervisor
John Lavallee, GIS Technician
John Herrera, IT Technician
Irene Rosendale, Public Works Admin. Assistant
Lupe Gomez, Public Works Supervisor
Facilitator:
Mark Dennis, Information /Communications Manager
December 10, 2008
Julian Perez, Public Works Supervisor
Edgar Salas, Graffiti Technician
Jess Culpeper, Parks Supervisor
Chief Louis Fetherolf, LEPD
Corporal Bob McCalmont, LEPD
Deputy Juan Estrada, LEPD
Deputy Rob Stewart, LEPD
Deputy Kevin Whitford, LEPD
Officer Karen Pico, LEPD
Lt. Russ Wilson, LEPD
David Mann, Assistant City Attorney
Steve McCarty, RDA Project Manager
09_Graffiti Action Plan_0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 4 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 3 of 20
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................ ...............................
GRAFFITI TASK FORCE .................................................................... ...............................
INTRODUCTION............................................................................. ...............................
....................... 2
....................... 2
....................... 4
SITUATIONANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. ...............................
4
Revised Graffiti Ordinance Provisions ..................................................................................... ..............................4
Best Practices and Priority Treatment Recommended ........................................................... ..............................5
GraffitiTask Force Created ..................................................................................................... ..............................5
Graffiti Action Plan Rationale & Scope ................................................................................... ..............................6
NEEDS ASSESSMENT: A SURVEY APPROACH .......................................................................... ...............................
6
BackgroundMethodology ...................................................................................................... ..............................6
Outcomes............................................................................................................................... ...............................
7
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................... ...............................
8
PLAN ADOPTION TIME FRAME ................................................................................................ .............................12
BUDGET................................................................................................................................... .............................13
Expenditures.......................................................................................................................... .............................13
Revenue............................................................................................................................... ...............................
14
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................... .............................14
APPENDICES............................................................................................................................ .............................15
APPENDIX A— ORDINANCE NO. 1215 (LEMC 9. 52) ................................................................... .............................16
APPENDIX B— EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & GRAFFITI PROCESS SURVEY INSTRUMENT ............... ...............................
17
APPENDIX C— STATISTICAL REPORTS ON LAKE ELSINORE GRAFFITI INCIDENTS .................... ............................... 18
APPENDIX D— GRAFFITI RELATED NEWS CLIPPINGS ................................................................ .............................19
APPENDIX E— RESEARCH PROPOSAL FOR CAMERA SURVEILLANCE OF "GRAFFITI HOT SPOTS " ............................20
09_Graffiti Action Plan_0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 5 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 4 of 20
Introduction
Preserving the appeal and safety of our neighborhoods, business centers and public facilities is a
significant part of the services that citizens expect from their City. The Lake Elsinore City Council and the
Public Safety Advisory Commission have strongly supported increased public safety spending to keep
pace with growth needs.
Graffiti vandalism incidents are visibly on the rise. With population growth —and the explosion of new
commercial, residential and public infrastructure — graffiti vandalism increasingly consumes public
resources and detracts from the City's quality of life.
To perpetrators, graffiti is a form of expression for social or political commentary, 'artistic' skill,
territorial claims, boasting, and individual or group identification. To the public —and from a law
enforcement perspective — property damage from graffiti is a criminal act.
Last fiscal year, a new management objective was introduced to coordinate the best tools, processes
and tactics to combat graffiti. While the City considers abating graffiti a priority, a comprehensive
approach can significantly increase the effectiveness of the City's anti - graffiti efforts.
This document is the product of the Graffiti Task Force, the Public Safety Advisory Commission and input
from stakeholders who share in making the City's anti - graffiti efforts as successful as possible.
The Graffiti Action Plan will serve as the City's platform for implementing anti - graffiti goals and program
objectives. This plan also serves as the basis for measuring results and assessing program effectiveness.
Situation Analysis
The Public Safety Advisory Commission has taken the lead in toughening the City's graffiti ordinance
provisions and enforcement since 2006.
Revised Graffiti Ordinance Provisions
The PSAC presented an updated anti - graffiti ordinance for consideration in March 2007. The goal of the
PSAC, working closely with the Assistant City Attorney, was to "put more teeth" into the City's graffiti
regulations. The ordinance is included in Appendix W.
Ordinance 1215 (L.E.M.C. 9.52) was adopted by the City Council on March 27, 2007. The following
changes were enacted:
1. Increased punishment. Section 9.52.110 provides for criminal penalties, fines (both criminal and
administrative), restitution, parental responsibility and other potential punishments.
2. Increase in the reward. Section 9.52.090 provides for a $1,000 reward.
3. Limits paint sales by lax businesses and punishes repeat offenders. Section 9.52.040 limits
public access to aerosol paint containers and requires vendors to maintain a log for recording
purchaser information for any transaction of 3 or more aerosol paint containers.
09_Graffiti Action Plan_0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 6 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 5 of 20
4. Land use and conditions of approval with new development. Section 9.52.0880 provides that
the City may require developers to use anti - graffiti surfaces or impose other landscape
requirements.
5. Graffiti hot spots tracking as a baseline for evaluating ordinance effectiveness. While not in
the ordinance, the recommendation is to be implemented part of the best practices discussion
at the time of ordinance adoption.
6. Graffiti hotline. Section 9.52.090D provides for a dedicated graffiti hotline among other best
practices.
7. Outreach and public education. Section 9.52.100 provides for coordination with the school
district and utilities on outreach about the prevention of graffiti, rewards incentive, the graffiti
hotline, service requests, graffiti right of entry waiver forms and promoting vendor compliance.
8. Cooperation with utilities. Section 9.52.100 provides that the City Manager will coordinate with
local utilities for rapid graffiti removal from utility installations, including training City staff to
remove graffiti on utility pedestals that might otherwise pose a hazard to non - utility workers.
9. Don't victimize the victim. Section 9.52.060 C and E authorizes the City Manager to expedite the
removal of graffiti and allows the City Manager to waive the costs associated with removing the
graffiti upon securing the consent of the owner.
10. Rejected resorting to licensing or taxes. While not included within the ordinance, the PSAC
recommended against reliance on certain revenue components to fund graffiti enforcement
efforts such as an increase in the City's business licensing fees or a point -of -sale "excise tax' on
graffiti implements.
Best Practices and Priority Treatment Recommended
In addition to the revised ordinance, the PSAC developed several "best practices" for implementing and
promoting the new ordinance.
Several months following the adoption of the graffiti ordinance, many compliance provisions and best
practices remained to be implemented. For this reason, the PSAC recommended that the graffiti
program and enforcement be given a high priority following the PSAC's January 2008 goal session with
the City Council.
Graffiti Task Force Created
The mission of the Graffiti Task Force is to present a strategic anti - graffiti plan to the PSAC and City
Council by year end 2008.
City staff proposed establishing a Graffiti Task Force in response to the PSAC and City Council's
commitment to making a comprehensive graffiti program a high priority. Participants were designated
from Code Enforcement, Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Lake Department and the Sheriffs
09_Graffiti Action Plan_0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 7 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 6 of 20
Department (LEPD). Six formal meetings, including a "Graffiti Summit" hosted by the City of San Jacinto
were held between March and October 2008.
The milestone activities of the Graffiti Task Force to date include:
• Group meetings, discussions and goal analysis
• Development, use and analysis of an internal Graffiti Process Survey (37 out of 40 respondents)
• Staff and LEPD representation at a recent "Graffiti Summit" sponsored by the City of San Jacinto
• Staff attendance of a presentation by the City of Riverside on internal graffiti tracking and GIS
technology
• A study trip to the City of San Jacinto to observe the Graffiti Tracker software solution and to
meet with staff to discuss their COPS policing tactics for case management, prosecution and
restitution
• Progress reports to the Public Safety Advisory Commission
• Completion of the Draft Graffiti Action Plan
• (Finalization of the Graffiti Action Plan)
• (Implementation of the Graffiti Action Plan)
Graffiti Action Plan Rationale & Scope
The purpose of the Graffiti Action Plan is to establish performance goals and objectives by which to track
and evaluate the City's progress in combating graffiti after the plan is approved by the City Council.
The Graffiti Action Plan is structured to be implemented in 2009 (overlapping FY 08 -09 and FY 09 -10). An
annual update report will be given to the PSAC and City Council to assess program performance. It is
designed to be flexible and to change as necessary through the program evaluation process.
Needs Assessment: a Survey Approach
The Graffiti Task Force conducted an internal process survey to identify perceptions about the degree of
our City's graffiti problem and to shed light on procedures and resources that are currently in place to
fight graffiti vandalism.
Background Methodology
The major survey findings are provided in the executive summary found in Appendix B. The full survey
instrument and complete cross - tabulations are also included.
The survey was distributed to all City and outside agency personnel who are currently involved in
responding to graffiti complaints and related anti - graffiti efforts conducted within City limits.
09_Graffiti Action Plan_0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 8 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 7 of 20
The survey was designed to:
1. Provide a snapshot of current procedures in place for handling graffiti complaints, work orders,
abatement and follow -up action and enforcement activities by the City and other agencies;
2. Identify gaps in graffiti - related procedures, if any, that may result in less than the desired
performance outcomes set by the City, LEPD and the City Attorney;
3. Identify needed resources for combating graffiti vandalism (e.g., GIS database technology,
surveillance cameras and associated tactics, school outreach, civil prosecution);
4. Identify ways to increase prevention, apprehension, prosecution and restitution success;
5. Identify key messages for public education and outreach efforts to residents and businesses;
In summary, the survey served as a tool to examine distinct functions for handling graffiti from start to
finish; to identify key processes and areas of responsibility; to find opportunities for improvement; and
finally, to quantify needed resources, policies and procedures to increase the City's anti - graffiti program
effectiveness.
Outcomes
The Graffiti Process Survey identified several graffiti - related organizational strengths, challenges and
recommendations. A full discussion is included in the Process Survey Overview found in Appendix B.
Strengths
• Existing framework, experience and commitment to addressing the graffiti problem within the
organization, especially Parks & Recreation and Public Works;
• Well- established data collection processes, which record the number of removal requests,
square footage of graffiti, time expended on abatement and other department specific tracking
categories;
• Support for staff dedicated to graffiti abatement and perception that their work is more
successful than other cities' efforts.
Challenges
• Shortage of formal interdepartmental protocol, standardization and collaboration in reporting,
abating and recording graffiti - related activities and incidents;
• Lack of central database or enterprise software system for the uniform recordation, tracking and
interagency sharing of graffiti - related data;
• Difficulty in catching graffiti vandals, comprehensively measuring the graffiti problem,
evaluating graffiti programs and processes, and linking graffiti vandals with their histories of
graffiti vandalism;
09_Graffiti Action Plan_0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 9 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 8 of 20
• No targeting of resources to areas in greatest need of graffiti vandal deterrence and
incapacitation;
• Perception of graffiti problem as worse in the City of Lake Elsinore than in surrounding areas.
Recommendations
The recommendations below are extended in the next section, Goals and Objectives.
• Create a standard form for logging graffiti incidents and resultant actions;
• Formalize a collaborative interagency graffiti process;
• Establish a central database and mapping system for the recordation, tracking, analyzing and
sharing of graffiti - related data;
• Develop and implement an enhanced graffiti prevention and prosecution program, likely
through the strategic placement of mobile digital cameras (e.g., QStor or equivalent);
• Better involve the community in the graffiti prevention and cleanup process and consider a
volunteer element such as adopt -a -wall program or cleanup day.
Goals and Objectives
The heart of the graffiti action plan is described in the following pages. This 10 point plan provides a
comprehensive approach to the problem of graffiti vandalism in
the City of Lake Elsinore. The matrix on
the following pages classifies recommended best practices, goals, strategies and tactics (objectives).
Goal Classification Strategies
Tactics�,
1. Standardized A. Create a standard
1) Evaluate Sungard Public
Reporting & form for logging
Sector "work order" module
Work Order graffiti incidents and
and /or "code enforcement
Procedures resultant actions for
module" for standardized
use by City
graffiti case recording and
departments that
work order systems across
respond to graffiti
multiple departments
complaints
2) Standardize date fields for
B. Formalize a
onsite graffiti incident data
collaborative
collection and damage cost
interagency graffiti
computations
response process
3) Standardize interim statistical
C. Formalize LEPD
reporting using MS Excel
graffiti liaison and
spreadsheet templates
data sharing
4) Define cost recovery
D. Train field staff in
calculation method for
customer service
calculating graffiti damage
techniques for
(units and $ cost/unit)
working with the
5) Provide field staff with
businesses and the
multipart graffiti removal entry
09—Graffiti Action Plan-0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 10 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 9 of 20
Goal Classification
Strategies
public on graffiti
awareness and
education
Tactics
permit forms (commercial and
residential) for use for onsite
distribution and collection and
as a graffiti awareness tool.
2. Graffiti 'Rapid
A. Evaluate centralizing
1) Consider dispatching Public
Response'
the graffiti abatement
Works graffiti technician to
Organization
response and work
abate graffiti at facilities under
order system to
Lake Department or Parks &
eliminate duplication
Recreation Department
among departments
2) Standardize the graffiti
that are not presently
removal techniques and
equally equipped to
equipment available to all
abate graffiti
department graffiti responders
B. In lieu of
consolidating
abatement under one
graffiti unit, formalize
the conditions under
which a department
should handoff a
graffiti incident to the
Public Works Graffiti
Technician
3. Database
A. Establish a
1) Purchase Graffiti Tracker
Technology
centralized database
solution and implement within
Initiative
and mapping system
first quarter 2009.
for recordation,
2) Configure Graffiti Tracker for
tracking, analyzing
graffiti incident data tracking
and sharing of graffiti-
and case assignment
related data
3) Deploy Graffiti Tracker to
Public Works, Code
B. Equip the graffiti
Enforcement, LEPD and other
technician with a
departments as needed
Tablet PC and digital
4) Purchase all -in -one Ricoh
camera with
digital camera /GPS for
integrated Global
automatic field capture of
Positioning System
graffiti incident data and
(GPS) and Graffiti
upload to Graffiti Tracker
Tracker Internet link
5) Provide Ricoh cameras to
C. Prepare regular
Graffiti Tech and other graffiti
graffiti statistical
responders
reports using GIS
6) Purchase PC Tablet and cab
technology and
mount per specification for
graffiti database
Code Enforcement for graffiti
solution
technician
7) For the Manager's weekly
memo, include weekly 'graffiti
hotspot' reports and statistical
09_Graffiti Action Plan_0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 11 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 10 of 20
Goal Classification
Strategies
Tactics
information using Graffiti
Tracker and Geographic
Information Systems tools
8) Evaluate information
technology initiatives for cost -
effectiveness, deterrence
effectiveness and functional
effectiveness
4. City Web site 'e-
A. Develop automated
1) Identify "e -gov° opportunities
government' &
online forms that are
on the City Web site for
graffiti forms
user friendly for
accessing online Graffiti
automation
reporting graffiti
incident reporting forms and
vandalism and
related information
requesting service
2) Include a residential entry
B. Design online forms
permit form or waiver in
for residents and
automated pdf format and
commercial users to
promote the benefits to
easily complete and
citizens for participating in this
return
graffiti abatement program
C. Use the Web site to
3) Include commercial entry
provide residents and
permit form or waiver in
businesses with
automated pdf format as
detailed information
detailed above
about graffiti
4) Design Web content specific
programs, point of
to graffiti reporting, rewards
sale regulations on
incentive, compliance
graffiti implements,
requirements, anonymous
fines, reward
gang and tagging tipster
incentive and graffiti
reporting, and so forth.
hotline or tip reporting
5. Surveillance
A. Implement a
1) Purchase QStar mobile
Technology
surveillance pilot
cameras
Initiative
program to monitor
2) Determine grant eligibility for
graffiti 'hot spots'
mobile camera deployment
B. Perform a statistical
pilot study
analysis of the
3) Use graffiti incident records to
effectiveness of
establish a deployment
cameras as deterrent
pattern for QStar mobile
in this pilot study
cameras
C. Apply for grant
4) Evaluate cameras and
funding based on the
deterrence effectiveness
research protocol
using the research design
prepared by Steven
protocol prepared by Steven
McCarty
McCarty
6. Business
A. Provide affected
1) Identify and canvass affected
Outreach &
businesses with
retailers that are subject to
09_Graffiti Action Plan_0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 12 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 11 of 20
09_Graffiti Action Plan_0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 13 of 131.
Goal Classification
• -
Compliance
timely information to
new point of sale regulations
Monitoring
comply with new
2) Inform affected businesses
point of sale
through direct mail notification
requirements before
letter
strict enforcement
3) Develop and supply
commences
businesses with the sample
B. Enforce compliance
log forms to be used for
through annual
recording purchases of paint
business inspection
totaling 3 cans or more per
A. Work with utilities and
person per transaction
businesses to
4) Inspect businesses for
implement a
compliance, review purchaser
commercial entry
log forms, and process
agreement
violations via Code
Enforcement
5) Work with utilities and
retailers to promote voluntary
commercial entry permit
agreement for removal of
graffiti by City forces
7. Graffiti
A. Inform all residents
1) Update City Web site to
Awareness
and property owners
include detailed graffiti
Public Outreach
about graffiti
information
& Education
regulations, penalties,
2) Implement dedicated,
rewards and entry
automated graffiti hotline for
permit option
reporting graffiti incidents
B. Conduct a volunteer
3) Establish standard procedure
program or clean up
for monitoring logging and
day event to promote
creating work orders from
graffiti awareness
graffiti hotline customer calls
C. Promote graffiti
4) Promote the benefits of
reporting tools for
submitting a signed entry
customers; namely,
permit form (residential) for
dedicated graffiti
graffiti removal at no cost
hotline and online
5) Partner with LEUSD to
incident report forms
develop anti - graffiti messages
D. Train staff on
to communicate with parents,
customer service
students and staff
techniques for graffiti
6) Work with LEUSD SROs for
related service
assistance with investigation
requests, entry permit
of juvenile graffiti offenders
process inquiries and
7) Promote direct mailings about
outreach to the public
graffiti as a property crime
about graffiti impacts.
with serious penalties
8) Develop informational
brochure about the graffiti
action plan and how residents
and businesses can get
involved to fight graffiti
09_Graffiti Action Plan_0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 13 of 131.
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 12 of 20
Plan Adoption Time Frame
The milestone dates on the chart on the following page were originally submitted to the PSAC. The
revised City Council meeting date for consideration of the plan will be on Tuesday, February 10, 2009.
09_Graffiti Action Plan_0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 14 of 131
Goal Classification
Strategies
Tactics
9) Contribute a graffiti related
information article in the City
magazine at least
semiannual)
8. Prosecution and
A. Coordinate with the
1) Evaluate City of San Jacinto's
Restitution
City Attorney's Office
graffiti ordinance and
and LEPD to prepare
restitution accomplishments
an aggressive policy
and adopt if appropriate for
for graffiti
the City of Lake Elsinore.
prosecution, including
2) Determine the cost - benefit of
civil action
restitution
B. Pursue restitution
3) Cooperate with LEPD and DA
when it is in the best
for restitution processing
interest of the City
4) Report results of convictions,
or restitution using news
releases or other public
information channels
9. Graffiti Program
A. Evaluate the graffiti
1) Report annual results (see
Evaluation &
action plan goals and
City of San Jose for model
Awards
objectives and report
annual graffiti report)
Recognition
results annually to the
2) Apply for the annual Helen
City Council and
Putman community program
PSAC
award sponsored by the
B. Apply for awards
League of California Cities
recognition (all or
3) Apply for the CAPIO
portions of the graffiti
Excellence in Communication
action Ian
award
10. Law
A. Seek opportunities to
1) Identify Federal State and
Enforcement
apply for grant
Private Grant sources for anti -
Grant Funding &
funding for
graffiti- vandalism program
Research Grant
reimbursement of
funding
Studies Eligibility
technology, public
2) Research grants using e -Civis
safety and education
or other grant locators
program expenses
3) Apply for the annual "graffiti
hurts" grant sponsored by
Krylon
4) Monitor research in the area
of graffiti - vandalism,
deterrence and incapacitation
Plan Adoption Time Frame
The milestone dates on the chart on the following page were originally submitted to the PSAC. The
revised City Council meeting date for consideration of the plan will be on Tuesday, February 10, 2009.
09_Graffiti Action Plan_0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 14 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 13 of 20
Graffiti Action Plan Schedule
Zvi
Budget
This summarizes available resources for implementing the Graffiti Action Plan in the current fiscal year
continuing through the end of 2009. Potential revenue sources are discussed on the next page.
Expenditures
The FY 2008 -09 Redevelopment Agency budget includes funding for the Graffiti Tracking and
Surveillance Project (in RDA Project Areas only) up to the amount of $35,000. These funds will be used
for equipment and software purchases related to the Internet -based Graffiti Tracker software solution
and QStor or equivalent surveillance remote camera pilot study. Funding is 100% from Project Area 1
fund 913.
The General Fund budget tracks annual graffiti maintenance costs in a designated fund account.
Identified as Division 4422 Graffiti Maintenance in the FY 2008 -09 operating budget, the current amount
is $81,700. Expenditures are primarily for labor ($73,700) and materials and supplies ($8,000). Line item
expenditures for equipment rental, capital outlay and contractual services are also listed in the budget
detail, though no additional funding for these items is shown in the adjusted Graffiti Maintenance
budget. Lake Department and Parks & Recreation expenditures for graffiti removal are expensed within
their individual operating budgets and are not included in the Graffiti Maintenance fund account.
While the PSAC does not have direct authority over budget expenses, outreach program
recommendations by the PSAC are tracked in the City Council -PSAC budget detail. Approximately
$23,000 is available for direct mail postage, design and printing of collateral materials and other services
and expenses to promote graffiti awareness and outreach.
09—Graffiti Action Plan-0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 15 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 14 of 20
Revenue
The previously identified City and Redevelopment Agency funding sources will be supplemented with
Grant funding whenever possible. Staff is coordinating with the LEPD using existing grant funding for
eligible graffiti - related program and equipment expenditures.
For the City of San Jacinto, $98,000 in civil fines and abatement costs have been collected through
restitution to offset the City's initial investment in the Graffiti Tracker software solution, according to an
article that appeared in the Press- Enterprise (see Appendix D -1. "Yucaipa adopts anti - graffiti program ").
The City of San Jacinto has committed legal counsel to assist in prosecution and restitution efforts. The
City of San Jacinto also has an effective graffiti interdiction effort using Problem Oriented Policing (POP)
and School Resource Officers.
The revenue from restitution as stated above is impressive, but with the City of Lake Elsinore's current
budget constraints, it would be premature to recommend increasing the budget for legal services and
POP policing before laying the foundation with community outreach and technology solutions first.
Conclusion
The City has evaluated the existing anti - graffiti processes and has done a good job with the tools at its
disposal. The benefits of the graffiti process survey are primarily identifying opportunities to automate
processes that are sometimes duplicative across multiple departments. Improving the communication
and sharing of data between City Departments and the LEPD through Graffiti Tracker and internal
communications channels will make a significant impact in the follow through needed for investigative
support, prosecution and restitution.
The recommended technologies available for database automation, analysis and reporting, and for
mobile digital camera surveillance are successfully being used in other Cities.
It behooves the City to increase attention on public outreach to businesses, citizens and schools.
Increased efforts to abate and enforce the City's graffiti regulations are only part of the leverage for
reducing unsightly graffiti. Public awareness and education efforts will go a long way to improving the
image of Lake Elsinore among residents and visitors, if the graffiti action plan is fully implemented.
The City's workforce is willing and eager to use the tools and recommendations provided in the plan.
Implementing and evaluating these anti - graffiti vandalism measures will ensure a cost - effective and
results- oriented outcome.
09_Graffiti Action Plan_0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 16 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 15 of 20
Appendices
Appendix A —Ordinance 1215 (LEMC 9.52)
Appendix B— Executive Summary & Graffiti Process Survey Instrument
Appendix C— Statistical Reports on Lake Elsinore Graffiti Incidents
Appendix D —Lake Elsinore and Other Graffiti Related News Clippings
Appendix E—Research proposal for camera surveillance of "graffiti hot spots"
09_Graffiti Action Plan_0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 17 of 131
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 18 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 16 of 20
Appendix A— Ordinance No. 1215 (LEMC 9.52)
An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore amending and restating chapter
9.52 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding Graffiti
Adopted March 27, 2008
09_Graffiti Action Plan_0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 19 of 131
ORDINANCE NO. 1215
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTER
9.52 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING GRAFFITI
WHEREAS, Chapter 9.52 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code addresses
the regulation of graffiti and graffiti implements within the City of Lake Elsinore;
and
WHEREAS, in order to better effectuate the prevention of graffiti and abate
graffiti within the City, the City Council has determined to amend and restate
Chapter 9.52.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 9.52 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is
hereby amended and restated as follows:
CHAPTER 9.52
GRAFFITI PREVENTION AND ABATEMENT
9.52.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health,
safety and welfare of residents and property within the City of Lake Elsinore by
providing a program for the prevention and removal of graffiti. The increase of
graffiti on both public and private buildings, structures and places is creating a
condition of blight within the City which results in a deterioration of property and
business values for surrounding properties, all to the detriment of the City. The
City Council finds and determines that graffiti is obnoxious and a public nuisance
which must be abated so as to avoid the detrimental impact of such graffiti on the
City, and to prevent the further spread of graffiti.
9.52.020 Definitions. As used in this Chapter, the following terms shall have
the meanings set forth herein:
"Abate" or "abatement" means the elimination, removal or termination of
graffiti from public or private property with the City's boundaries.
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 20 of 131
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1215
PAGE 2 OF 10
"Aerosol paint container" means any container, regardless of the material
from which it is made, which is adapted or made for the purpose of spraying paint
or other substances capable of defacing property.
"City Manager" means the City Manager of the City of Lake Elsinore, or
his/her designee.
"Cost of removal" means any cost incurred by the City for removal,
elimination, or termination of graffiti from public or private property.
"Deface," "defaces" or "defacing" means intentionally altering the
physical shape or physical appearance of property by inscription, words, figures,
signs, or design without prior written permission of the owner.
"Expenses of abatement" means all costs incurred by the City related to
abatement of graffiti conditions, including without limitation, the costs of removal,
court costs, attorneys' fees, administrative costs, and any law enforcement costs
relating to the identification and/or apprehension of a person who defaces property
with graffiti or who fails to remove graffiti from property after being ordered to do
SO.
"Graffiti" means any inscription, word, figure, or design that is marked,
etched, scratched, drawn, or painted on any surface, without the express permission
of the owner's of such surface, regardless of the nature of the material of which the
surface is composed.
"Graffiti implement" means any item capable of marking a surface to
create graffiti including, but not limited to, aerosol paint containers, dye containers,
paint sticks, felt -tip markers or marking pens, marking instruments, drill bits,
grinding stones, scribers, glass cutters or etching tools or other instruments capable
of scarring glass, metal, concrete or wood.
"Owner" means any person or entity that is the owner of real or personal
property that has been defaced, or who has primary responsibility for control over
the property, or who has primary responsibility for maintenance and repair of the
property, and shall include any person owning, leasing, renting, occupying,
managing, or having charge of any property or structure.
" Person(s)" means a natural person(s).
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 21 of 131
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1215
PAGE 3 OF 10
"Public view" means any public or private area that is accessed from a
public roadway, sidewalk or common area and is open to view by persons from
such public roadway, sidewalk or common area.
"Responsible adult" means a parent, legal guardian, or other person over
the age of eighteen years who is charged with legal responsibility and/or
supervision of a minor.
9.52.030 Prohibition. No person shall place graffiti upon any public or
privately owned permanent structure or personal property located on publicly or
privately owned real property.
9.52.040 Accessibility of aerosol paint containers; sale of graffiti
implements; penalties.
A. Access. No person or business engaged in a commercial enterprise shall
display for sale, trade or exchange to the public any aerosol paint containers except
in an area from which access by the public is securely precluded without employee
assistance. Acceptable methods for displaying aerosol paint containers for sale
shall be by containment in: (1) a completely enclosed cabinet or other storage
device which shall, at all times except during access by authorized representatives,
remain securely locked; or (2) an enclosed area behind a sales or service counter
from which the public is precluded from entry. Nothing in this Chapter shall
relieve such person or business entity from complying at all times with the
requirements of California Penal Code Section 594.1(c) by posting signs as
described therein.
B. Storage Requirements. No person or business engaged in the business of
selling, providing or trading aerosol paint containers shall store such containers in
an area accessible to the public.
C. Any person or business engaged in the retail sale of aerosol paint containers
must display at a conspicuous location a legible sign measuring not less than
twelve inches by twelve inches with letters at least one -half inch in height which
states:
It is unlawful for any person to sell or give to any individual under
the age of eighteen years any implement or other device capable of
being used to deface property. Any person who maliciously defaces
Agenda Item No. 12
Pape 22 of 131
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1215
PAGE 4 OF 10
real property is guilty of vandalism which is punishable by a fine,
imprisonment, or both.
D. It shall be unlawful for any person or business to sell, exchange, give, or
loan, or cause or permit to be sold, exchanged, given, or loaned, any graffiti
implements to a minor, unless such minor is in the presence of the minor's
responsible adult.
E. It shall be unlawful for a minor to purchase or otherwise obtain any graffiti
implements unless such minor is in the presence of the minor's responsible adult.
F. Any person or business offering aerosol paint containers for sale to the
public shall keep a log of the name, address and driver's license number of any
person purchasing three or more aerosol paint containers.
G. Any business violating this Section 9.52.040 shall be subject to suspension,
revocation or non - renewal of its City business license.
—' H. Any person or business violating any provision of this Section 9.52.040, or
failing to comply with any of its requirements, shall be subject the Administrative
Citation Procedures set forth in Chapter 1.20 and shall be subject to a fine not to
exceed Twenty -five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00)
9.52.050 Possession prohibited.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to possess any graffiti implement for the
purpose of defacing any public or private property, without the express consent of
the owner of such property.
B. It shall be unlawful for a minor to possess any graffiti implement on any
public highway, street, alley, or way, or in any automobile, vehicle or other
conveyance, or while in any public park, playground or other public facility.
C. The forgoing provisions shall not apply to minors that are transporting or
using graffiti implements for lawful purposes while under the supervision of the
minor's responsible adult, instructor or employer.
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 23 of 131
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1215
PAGE 5 OF 10
9.52.060 Public Nuisance; removal of graffiti; standards for removal.
A. In the event the owner of private property upon which graffiti has been
placed declines to consent to removal by the City as provided herein, or fails to
remove the graffiti within three (3) days after service of a notice to remove the
graffiti, the owner shall be subject to the administrative citation process set forth in
Chapter 1.20 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
B. The City Council does hereby find that graffiti is a public nuisance. In the
event the owner of private property upon which graffiti has been placed declines to
consent to removal by the City as provided herein, or fails to remove the graffiti
within three (3) days after service of a notice to remove graffiti, the affected
property shall be subject to the nuisance abatement process set forth in Chapter
8.18 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
C. Whenever the City Manager determines that graffiti is located within the
public view, the City Manager is authorized to seek the consent of the owner to
_ cause the graffiti to be removed by City forces or private contract. Where the
graffiti is on a private property, unless summary abatement is authorized under
Section 9.52.070, entry onto the private property for removal of the graffiti may be
authorized by securing the consent of the owner, or upon issuance of an abatement
warrant by a court of competent jurisdiction under California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1822.50, et seq.
D. Graffiti shall be removed or completely covered in a manner that renders it
inconspicuous. When graffiti is painted out, the color used to paint it out shall
match the original color of the surface, or the entire surface shall be repainted with
a new color that is aesthetically compatible with existing colors and architecture.
The removal shall not leave shadows and shall not follow the pattern of the graffiti
such that letters or similar shapes remain apparent on the surface after graffiti
markings have been removed. If the area is heavily covered with graffiti, the entire
surface shall be repainted.
E. The City Manager may waive the costs associated with removing the graffiti
provided the owner agrees to assign his/her victim's rights to the City so the City
may seek restitution in accordance with Section 9.52.110 and/or California Penal
Code Section 594.
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 24 of 131
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1215
PAGE 6 OF 10
9.52.070 Summary abatement by City. The Police Chief is hereby authorized
to summarily abate gang - related graffiti. The abatement may be undertaken by
City staff, or by outside contractors. Gang - related graffiti shall be defined as
graffiti that is placed on private or public property by a person reasonably believed
by the City's Police Department or other local law enforcement agency to be a
member of, or affiliated with a criminal street gang, as that term is defined in
California Penal Code Section 186.22.
9.52.080 Measures to ease removal or prevent graffiti.
A. Land Use Entitlement Conditions. In approving subdivision maps,
conditional use permits, variances, building permits, or other similar land use
entitlement or development or design applications, the City may impose one or all
of the following conditions, or other similar or related conditions:
(1) Use of anti- graffiti materials on surfaces exposed to public view of a
type and nature that is acceptable to the City Manager.
(2) Use of landscaping to screen or provide a barrier to surfaces that may be
prone to graffiti.
(3) Right of access by City to remove graffiti.
(4) Applicants, permittees, and all successors in interest shall provide City
with sufficient matching paint and/or anti - graffiti material on demand for use in
painting over or removal of graffiti.
(5) Applicants, permittees, and all persons applying for subdivision maps
shall, as part of any conditions, covenants and restrictions, covenant that the
owners of the lots shall immediately remove any graffiti.
B. Encroachment Permit Conditions. All encroachment permits issued by the
City may, among other things, be conditioned on the following:
(1) Use of anti - graffiti materials on surfaces exposed to public view of a
type and nature that is acceptable to the City Manager.
_ (2) Use of landscaping to screen or provide a barrier to the encroaching
obj ect.
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 25 of 131
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1215
PAGE 7 OF 10
(3) The right of the City to remove the graffiti onto paint the encroaching
object or structure.
(4) Permittee shall provide City with sufficient matching paint and/or anti -
graffiti material on demand for use in painting over or removal of graffiti on the
encroaching object or structure.
(5) Permittee shall immediately remove all graffiti.
9.52.090 Reward.
A. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 36069.5, the City offers a
reward of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per incident for information leading to the
arrest and conviction of any person for violation of California Penal Code Section
594 within the City.
B. In the event of multiple contributors of information leading to such arrest
and conviction, the City may divide the reward equally among the contributors.
C. A claim for reward under this section shall be filed with the City Clerk. The
City Manager shall verify the accuracy of all claims and report to the City Council.
A claim shall be awarded only after City Council approval of the City Manager's
report. Each claim shall:
(1) Specifically identify the date, location and kind of property damaged or
destroyed;
(2) Identify by name the person who was convicted; and
(3) Identify the court rendering the conviction and the date of the
conviction.
D. The City Manager shall establish a dedicated "graffiti hotline" for citizens to
utilize to report graffiti. Such graffiti hotline number shall be publicized in
appropriate City publications directed at both City employees and the public.
9.52.100 Community education; coordination with utility providers.
A. The City Manager, in coordination with the school district, civic
organizations and the public may conduct regular programs to provide community
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 26 of 131
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1215
PAGE 8 OF 10
education regarding the prevention of graffiti, available rewards, and the telephone
number of the graffiti hotline.
B. The City Manager shall coordinate with local providers of public utilities to
expeditiously remove graffiti from public utility boxes, poles and other physical
utility structures.
9.52.110 Penalties and restitution.
A. Except as provided in Section 9.52.040, any person violating any provision
of this Chapter, or failing to comply with any of its requirements, shall be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine
not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not
exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person
or business shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or
any portion thereof during which any violation of this Chapter is committed,
continued, or permitted by such person or business and shall be deemed punishable
therefore as provided in this Chapter.
B. Notwithstanding the penalties set forth in Section 9.52.110(A), any person
who defaces property with graffiti implement is guilty of vandalism, pursuant to
Section 594 of the California Penal Code, and upon conviction thereof shall be
punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or in a county jail for a period not
to exceed one (1) year or by a fine of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), but no
more than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) depending upon the severity and
the amount of the defacement or by both such fine and imprisonment.
C. Any person violating any provision of this Chapter, or failing to comply with
any of its requirements, shall be subject the Administrative Citation Procedures set
forth in Chapter 1.20 and shall be subject to a fine not to exceed Twenty-five
Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).
D. Additional Penalties Available. Whenever deemed appropriate, it is the
City's intent to petition a sentencing court to impose the following additional
penalties upon conviction:
(1) Performance of a minimum of 48 hours of community service not to
exceed 200 hours over a period up to 180 days. Community service includes
graffiti removal service.
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 27 of 131
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1215
PAGE 9 OF 10
(2) That the defendant personally clean up, repair, or replace the damaged
property consistent with Section 9.52.060. Or that the defendant, or responsible
adult, keep the damaged property or other specified property in the City free of
graffiti for up to one year. This clean-up, repair, or replacement shall be at the
defendant's expense, or at the expense of the responsible adult of the defendant if
the defendant is a minor.
(3) For each conviction of a person aged 13 years or older, the City may
petition the court to suspend existing driving privileges or delay the issuance of
driving privileges for up to three (3) years in accordance with California Vehicle
Code Section 13202.6.
E. Restitution. The City or any owner who suffers property damage and/or
monetary loss as a result of having to remove graffiti may seek restitution for all
expenses of abatement. Restitution may be pursued by the City and/or the owner
in a separate civil action or as part of a criminal proceeding against the perpetrator.
F. Parental Responsibilities. Pursuant to California Civil Code Section
1714.1(b), where graffiti is applied by a minor, the responsible adult of the minor
shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of civil damages resulting from
the minor's misconduct in an amount not to exceed Twenty -five Thousand Dollars
($25,000.00).
SECTION 2. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held
invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance and
are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date
of its final passage. The City Clerk shall certify as to adoption of this Ordinance
and cause this Ordinance to be published and posted in the manner required by
law.
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 28 of 131
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1215
PAGE 10 OF 10
INTRODUCED AND APPROVED UPON FIRST READING this 27"'
day of March 2007, upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER,
MAGEE
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED UPON SECOND READING
this I & day of April, 2007, upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BUCKLEY, HICKMAN, KELLEY, SCHIFFNER,
MAGEE
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
Robert E. Magee,
City of Lake Elsie
ATTEST:
Michelle Soto, Interim City Clerk
City of Lake Elsinore
AP ROVED AST .FORM:
r arbara Zeid eibold, City Attorney
City of Lake 'Elsinore
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 29 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 17 of 20
Appendix B— Executive Summary & Graffiti Process Survey Instrument
09—Graffiti Action Plan-0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 30 of 131
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 31 of 131
CITY OP �,
LAIZL C9)LSI N0R_E
. Dl:LAM FXft. Ml
PURPOSE
Graffiti Process Survey Overview
LAKE ELSINORE GRAFFITI PROCESS SURVEY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
July 2008
The Graffiti Process Survey sought to identify the perceived extent of graffiti vandalism in the City of
Lake Elsinore and to summarize the currently deployed resources and procedures dedicated to
addressing the problem. With that purpose in mind, the Graffiti Process Survey— coupled with
unstructured interviews and preliminary record analysis — successfully provided an insightful outline
of government employees' graffiti - related processes and perceptions in the City of Lake Elsinore.
OUTCOMES
By receiving thirty -seven (37) out of an anticipated forty (40) responses, the survey produced a
92.5% response rate and a sample population representative of eight different government
departments, divisions, and agencies. The Graffiti Process Survey identified several graffiti - related
strengths, challenges, and recommendations in the City of Lake Elsinore, including the following:
STRENGTHS
• Existing framework, experience, and commitment to addressing the graffiti
problem held by several organizational components, especially Parks &
Recreation and Public Works;
• Well- established data collection processes, which record the number of
removal requests, square footage of graffiti, time expended on abatement,
and other department specific tracking categories;
• Support for staff dedicated to graffiti abatement and perception that their
work is more successful than other cities' efforts;
CHALLENGES
• Shortage of formal interdepartmental protocol, standardization, and
collaboration in reporting, abating, and recording graffiti - related activities and
incidents;
• Lack of central database or enterprise software system for the uniform
recordation, tracking, and interagency sharing of graffiti - related data;
• Difficulty in catching graffiti vandals, comprehensively measuring the graffiti
problem, evaluating graffiti programs and processes, and linking graffiti
vandals with their histories of graffiti vandalism;
• No targeting of resources to areas in greatest need of graffiti vandal
deterrence and incapacitation;
• Perception of graffiti problem as worse in the City of Lake Elsinore than in
surrounding areas;
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Create a standard form for logging graffiti incidents and resultant actions;
• Formalize a collaborative interagency graffiti process;
• Establish a central database and mapping system for the recordation,
tracking, analyzing, and sharing of graffiti - related data;
• Develop and implement an enhanced graffiti prevention and prosecution
program, likely though the strategic placement of mobile digital cameras;
• Better involve the community in the graffiti prevention and cleanup process —
consider an adopt -a -wall program;
1 of 15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 32 of 131
Cifl OP +"o.
L A[ _E C,�>LS1N0kE Graffiti Process Survey Overview
JUN 2008
LAKE ELSINORE GRAFFITI PROCESS SURVEY OVERVIEW
An Interdepartmental Graffiti Process
Thirty -seven (37) of forty (40) identified individuals, collectively representing eight (8)
different departments or divisions of local government, responded to the graffiti process survey.
This 92.5% response rate would support statistically significant results with a 95% confidence
level and a +/- 4.5% confidence interval, but one would have to assume that the forty (40)
members of the population selected for the survey represent the true population of individuals
involved in the graffiti process. Furthermore, the survey instrument utilized conditional branching
and skip - pattern questions that further complicate tests for statistical significance. However,
under the typology of exploratory research, this survey nonetheless provides significant insight
into the City's graffiti process. Perhaps indicative of the relative amount of people dedicated to
graffiti - related work, the Public Works and Parks and Recreation departments provided over
40% of the responses to the survey. The survey also elucidated the involvement of departments
less widely recognized for graffiti work, including the departments of Administrative Services
and Lake and Aquatic Resources. Altogether, the survey received responses from the following
departments and divisions:
DepartmentlDiaW6
Count% ,
Perc'entag ,
Public Works
9
24%
Parks and Recreation
7
19%
City Manager's Office
6
16%
Code Enforcement
6
16%
LEPD
5
14%
Lake and Aquatic
Resources
2
50%
Administrative Services
1
30%
2of15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 33 of 131
Cnl' of . �
Later ,LSIN R_E
uaiev. exT��FMF
City Attorney's Office
Graffiti Process Survey Overview
July 2008
As demonstrated by the numerous departments and divisions that responded to the survey,
graffiti impacts a multitude of public employees and requires interdepartmental cooperation to
identify, address, and record the problem.
Perceptions of Graffiti Conditions in Lake Elsinore
Approximately 30% of survey respondents reside within the City of Lake Elsinore. Of
those living in the City, the vast majority of respondents (83 %) believe that graffiti is on the rise
and that they notice new graffiti in their area of town. In fact, 100% of respondents report that
they have reported new graffiti seen within the City. 36% of respondents report that they have
been a victim of graffiti vandalism close within the City and the majority of respondents report
personally knowing a victim of graffiti close to their own home. Compared to other surrounding
cities, 42% of resident respondents believe graffiti conditions are worse in the City of Lake
Elsinore, while 17% claim that conditions are worse in neighboring cities. Thus, resident
respondents appear personally and professionally affected by graffiti in the City, believe that
graffiti is increasing, perceive that graffiti is worse in the City than surrounding cities, and are
likely to report observed graffiti vandalism.
The 70% of respondents who report residing outside of the City of Lake Elsinore
predominately claim that graffiti conditions are worse in the City than in their home cities (62 %);
in fact, only one respondent (4 %) claimed that graffiti conditions are worse in their home
community than in Lake Elsinore. Despite disparities in the perceived level of graffiti between
cities, the majority of non - resident respondents (52 %) believe that their home communities are
fighting graffiti at about the same success rate as the City of Lake Elsinore. Interestingly, 16% of
3of15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 34 of 131
CL, OP ,
�
LAfu- �LSIIYORE Graffiti Process Survey Overview
'_ ^' ^tx7kC,,,r July 2008
non - resident respondents believe that their home cities are fighting graffiti less successfully than
the City of Lake Elsinore. The apparent disconnect between non - resident respondents' claims
that Lake Elsinore presents a greater graffiti problem while also fighting graffiti as successfully
as other cities, can best be resolved by determining that respondents believe Lake Elsinore
possesses a greater graffiti threat than those other communities. Thus, non - resident
respondents believe that Lake Elsinore experiences a greater prevalence and threat of graffiti
than other surrounding communities, but that the City is at least as successful as other cities in
its efforts to address the problem.
Graffiti Service Request Handling
Nearly half (49 %) of survey respondents reported that they regularly answer calls or e-
mails from the public regarding requests for graffiti removal. The majority of respondents claim
that they receive less than five (5) requests for graffiti removal per day, with responses ranging
from zero (0) to fifteen (15) requests per day. The responses demonstrate that requests for
graffiti removal services represent a daily occurrence for the majority of respondents. Of all the
methods of receiving graffiti service requests, nearly half of respondents (47 %) claimed that
hotline messages represent the most efficient delivery process. In a distant second place, 18%
of respondents felt that the online Web -based graffiti removal service request form represented
the second most efficient method, which tied with responses claiming that all methods
presented equal efficiency levels. Other methods of receiving graffiti removal service requests
include standard a -mails and walk -ins at the counter, with 6% of respondents believing either of
those methods represents the most efficient service request process.
Most respondents cited time - savings as an advantage to the proposed establishment of
a dedicated phone line with automated messages for graffiti - related service requests.
Conversely, respondents cited a potential for a lack of necessary information in the messages
as the most common disadvantage envisioned for the proposed system; without a live person
on the phone to clarify and solicit service requests, many fear that the messages may prove
4of15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 35 of 131
LaKL LL Si Graffiti Process Survey Overview
DIUIM r.Tx1.1 July 2008
inadequate. To help ensure an effective message system, respondents suggested testing the
automated message design prior to deploying it, assigning one individual employee to record
and route all messages, and providing extensive marketing of the number to help increase
awareness of it. Furthermore, respondents suggested that the automated message instruct
callers to spell out their names, clearly provide their phone numbers, and describe the graffiti
location with cross streets and other specific descriptive information. One additional suggestion
for improving graffiti service requests included establishing one team to respond, document, and
remove all graffiti within the City. To summarize this section of the survey, respondents
generally felt that the dedicated graffiti hotline represents an efficient way to collect graffiti
removal service requests, provided that certain steps are taken to prevent inadequate
information in the messages and to ensure public awareness of the number.
Graffiti Statisticai Records and Tracking
36% of survey respondents indicated that they regularly track graffiti removal service
requests and work orders. Of those tracking graffiti removal service requests, 85% manually
enter data on log sheets or forms. Approximately 31 % of respondents utilize Microsoft Excel to
digitally store their graffiti removal service request data, whereas the remainder of respondents
cite some form of manual recordation and filing. With regard to work order tracking, 77% of
respondents report manually recording the data, whereas 15% of respondents utilize Excel.
23% of respondents also report using Microsoft Access to record graffiti work order data.
Further analysis of the survey response patterns, coupled with unstructured interviews, found
that Parks and Recreation predominately uses Excel, while Public Works utilizes Access.
Interestingly, only 17% of Code Enforcement respondents (one person), reported regularly
tracking statistical records, which the respondent reported tracking via manual entry of
information on log sheets or forms. Code Enforcement's generation of a Notice of Violation for
graffiti on private property likely represents another source of graffiti - related data. Likewise, only
one of the four respondents involved in lake operations indicated that graffiti statistics are
5of15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 36 of 131
Uir or ,
LAt -E- LSt YORE
V_ DREA. \I EXrnrn1E
Graffiti Process Survey Overview
July 2008
tracked, although the other three stated that this was not part of their regular job duties. None of
the five (5) respondents from the Lake Elsinore Police Department indicated that they regularly
track graffiti - related data, but this information may be available through crime reports.
Regarding the categories of information collected from each graffiti incident, responses
varied greatly. The majority of respondents (62 %), reported collecting information on time
expended for the removal of graffiti at each site, as well as the approximate square footage of
graffiti removed there. 54% of respondents also indicated that they track the number of graffiti
removal service requests from the public and 46% indicated that they track information on the
location of each graffiti incident (including frequency of graffiti at each location). See the table
below for more information:
Type of Information Available
Count
Percentage
Rank'
Stats reporting square
8
62%
1
footage of graffiti removed per
site
Stats reporting time -on task to
8
62%
1
remove graffiti per site
Stats tracking the number of
7
54%
3
removal requests reported by
the public
Stats tracking graffiti incident
6
46%
4
locations throughout the City
Stats tracking frequency of
6
46%
4
graffiti vandalism per location
Stats tracking graffiti - related
4
31%
6
work order status
Stats reporting restitution in
4
31%
6
dollar amounts (source:
LEPD, DA or other)
Stats tracking graffiti removal
2
15%
8
request volume sorted by
peak days, weeks, months
Stats reporting graffiti
1
8%
9
vandalism investigations or
cases (source: LEPD)
Stats reporting graffiti
1
8%
9
vandalism apprehensions
(source: LEPD)
Stats reporting graffiti
1
8%
9
vandalism prosecutions
(source: LEPD, DA)
6of15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 37 of 131
CITY M .. +'
LAi -L CLSINORE
Graffiti Process Survey Overview
July 2008
Stats reporting graffiti
1
8%
9
vandalism convictions and
sentences (source: LEPD, DA
or other)
A deeper analysis of the responses uncovers differences in reported data collection procedures
between, and within, departments and divisions. Generally, Parks and Recreation, as well as
Public Works, reported gathering information on the number of removal requests, square
footage of graffiti, time expended on removal, frequency of graffiti incidents by location, and
restitution in dollar amounts; however, an analysis of Parks and Recreation and Public Works
graffiti log sheets indicates that the two departments track additional information. For example,
Parks and Recreation log sheets provide columns for date, park name, location (e.g., restroom
walls, concrete tables), size (square feet), cleanup method used, and time expended. The
Public Works log sheet indicates that the department tracks date, location (cross streets), color,
removal method, square feet, picture number(s) associated with graffiti incident, and time
expended on removal. While it makes sense that Parks and Recreation would include a column
for park name but Public Works would not, it is not clear why Public Works completes a column
for color but Parks and Recreation does not. Furthermore, Parks and Recreation provides a
more specific description of the graffiti's location by indicating the physical location of the graffiti,
but Public Works links graffiti log sheet data entry with actual pictures of the graffiti. The one
respondent in this section involved in lake operations reported tracking data, but did not indicate
that any of the aforementioned categories of information were tracked. The one Code
Enforcement respondent in this section reported tracking the number of removal requests, as
well as the status of graffiti- related work orders — additional information may be available
through Code Enforcement's Notices of Violations. As stated previously, the five (5) LEPD
respondents did not indicate that their job duties regularly entail tracking graffiti removal service
requests and work orders, but LEPD crime reports may provide information on graffiti incidents.
This section demonstrates that while many departments and divisions collect graffiti - related
7of15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 38 of 131
or
Lf4K-L LSIN0KE
Graffiti Process Survey Overview
Julv 2008
data, they do not uniformly collect the same categories of information, nor do they input data in
a centralized database. Opportunities for improvement in data collection include the creation of
a standardized data collection form and the establishment of a central database for graffiti-
related data tracking and mapping.
Graffiti Work Order Handling Processes
11% of respondents reported that one of their regular duties involves the generation of
graffiti removal work orders. Survey respondents in this section indicated that most graffiti -
related work orders result from telephone requests, followed by website online service request
forms, then standard e -mail requests. Work orders generated by staff in the field, walk -in
requests, and other methods of receiving graffiti removal service requests were not ranked as
very frequently utilized— except in the case of Parks and Recreation, where most graffiti
removal requests are generated by staff.
Parks and Recreation Department Graffiti Process
For graffiti on Parks and Recreation facilities, staff and contracted janitorial service
employees most often report and respond to graffiti (see flow chart above). Requests for graffiti
removal in parks are forwarded to the Parks Supervisor to generate a Work Order, although
Work Orders are not always generated — occasionally the work is completed without the
generation of a Work Order beforehand. In fact, only one of the seven Parks and Recreation
Department respondents indicated that one of their regular duties is to complete graffiti removal
work orders. Since most graffiti removal requests are generated internally, Work Order forms
are not typically viewed as necessary.
8of15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 39 of 131
Parks Supervisor
Upon7emoval of
Request
assigns staff to
Responding staff
graffiti, staff log the
Staff input the
Graffih
Forwarded to
complete the
take a picture of
graffiti removal
graffiti log sheet
Removal _
Parks Supervisor
removal request
a
graffiti and
p
activity on a
r
°
data into Excel
Request
(forwarded as a
(staff may remove
standard Parks
spreadsheet and
2eceived
Work Order if from
graffiti on their own
commence
removal
and Recreation
upload photos into
Public Works)
if observed
Department graffiti
a database
beforehand)
log sheet
For graffiti on Parks and Recreation facilities, staff and contracted janitorial service
employees most often report and respond to graffiti (see flow chart above). Requests for graffiti
removal in parks are forwarded to the Parks Supervisor to generate a Work Order, although
Work Orders are not always generated — occasionally the work is completed without the
generation of a Work Order beforehand. In fact, only one of the seven Parks and Recreation
Department respondents indicated that one of their regular duties is to complete graffiti removal
work orders. Since most graffiti removal requests are generated internally, Work Order forms
are not typically viewed as necessary.
8of15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 39 of 131
CITY Ci It
LAKE JLSINOP,E Graffiti Process Survey Overview
D�rn� rXriut,t July 2008
Public Works Graffiti Process
Graffiti
Work Order
Removal _
generated and
Request
forwarded to the
Received
Graffiti Technician
Graffiti Technician
responds to graffiti
location and
commences graffiti
removal
Graffiti Technician
completes graffiti
log and returns the
completed Work
Order to be
closed, recorded in
an Access
database, and fled
For Public Works, graffiti removal requests are entered into the computer to generate a
Work Order. The Graffiti Technician is then notified of the graffiti and dispatched to the location.
Upon completion of the Work Order(s), the Graffiti Technician returns the closed Work Orders
for electronic recordation and filing.
Code Enforcement Graffiti Process on Private
For Code Enforcement, new work orders are generated through a "Complaint Form" and
distributed to the Code Enforcement Officer responsible for the area in which the graffiti
occurred (see the flowchart above). The Code Enforcement Officer typically issues a Notice of
Violation to the property owner the day following receipt of the complaint. The Code
Enforcement Officer will reinspect the site to determine if the graffiti was cleaned up within a
specified period of time; if the graffiti was not removed, Code Enforcement will issue a Warning
Notice letter explaining fines for noncompliance with the order. The Code Enforcement Officer
will then perform a third inspection, which results in a issuance of a $100 fine if the graffiti was
not cleaned up. If the graffiti is not cleaned up upon a fourth inspection, Code Enforcement may
issue a $200 fine, or call Public Works to cleanup the site. Upon a fifth inspection with no
cleanup, the property owner would get fined $500.
9of15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 40 of 131
Complaint Form
Notice of Violation
Fourth inspection
generated and
given to property
Warning Notice
Third action
and $200 fine or
Piflh inspection
Complaint
- --0.
case to
- - -w
owner if graffiti
Letter issued if
and $100 fne for
- - - -s
Public Works
- - - -§{
and $500 fne for
Receivetl
Enforcement
Code En
remains on
graffiti remains on
noncompliance
removal ofgraffiti it
noncompliance
on on.
Officer JOn pnvate
property
property
accessible
property
i
For Code Enforcement, new work orders are generated through a "Complaint Form" and
distributed to the Code Enforcement Officer responsible for the area in which the graffiti
occurred (see the flowchart above). The Code Enforcement Officer typically issues a Notice of
Violation to the property owner the day following receipt of the complaint. The Code
Enforcement Officer will reinspect the site to determine if the graffiti was cleaned up within a
specified period of time; if the graffiti was not removed, Code Enforcement will issue a Warning
Notice letter explaining fines for noncompliance with the order. The Code Enforcement Officer
will then perform a third inspection, which results in a issuance of a $100 fine if the graffiti was
not cleaned up. If the graffiti is not cleaned up upon a fourth inspection, Code Enforcement may
issue a $200 fine, or call Public Works to cleanup the site. Upon a fifth inspection with no
cleanup, the property owner would get fined $500.
9of15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 40 of 131
C ll, cu q
LHt 2LSINOIZE Graffiti Process Survey Overview
° ^t,m txmE" July 2008
No other department or division summarized their graffiti work order process, but the
three examples above demonstrate the opportunity to coordinate this process to prevent
duplication of efforts, streamline communication, and standardize data collection. A coordinated
graffiti work order process could also increase accountability and response to the public by
ensuring that requests are uniformly tracked and fulfilled. The survey did find that a promising
foundation for interagency collaboration exists in that 11 % of respondents indicated that part of
their regular duties involve communicating with other agencies about graffiti incidents within the
City. Furthermore, an additional 14% of respondents stated that they could be contacted to act
as interagency liaisons in the future. While no agency mentioned a structured protocol to share
information with other agencies or departments, there is an opportunity to form an interagency
graffiti taskforce to share information related to graffiti incidents in the City of Lake Elsinore.
Information sharing can help law enforcement better target resources, evaluate program
efficacy, track graffiti trends, ensure comprehensive responses to graffiti incidents, and
understand the scope of the graffiti problem within the City.
LEPD Graffiti Investigation, Apprehension, and Restitution Processes
17% of respondents reported that one of their responsibilities includes investigating
graffiti incidents, inspecting photos of graffiti, analyzing graffiti tags, or other related activities.
The LEPD outlined their process for handling reported graffiti incidents (see flow chart below).
LEPD Graffiti Process
/ Interview victim, Forward copies of
Graffiti Incident photos and report attempt to find Place Photos in
Respond - - -- -- Take Photos - - -� to LEPD Gang
Report Received suspect, and take LEPD Evidence
\ a report Unit (G.E.T.) for
analysis
If the LEPD identifies a suspect, they may forward the report to the District Attorney's Office and
arrest the suspect, if appropriate. LEPD respondents suggested more lighting, surveillance
cameras, and a tracking system to aid in their efforts against graffiti vandalism in the City.
10 of 15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 41 of 131
Ciro of .^c_
L/1t ECB, LStIVOKE
Graffiti Process Survey Overview
July 2008
11 % of respondents reported that their job activities regularly involves the apprehension
of graffiti suspects. For juvenile offenders, suspects are arrested, given a ticket, released to
parents /guardians or taken to Juvenile Hall, and charged through juvenile probation or Youth
Court. The LEPD estimates damages to determine whether the vandalism represents a
misdemeanor or a felony crime. Additionally, G.E.T. investigators will analyze the graffiti and link
the suspect to any similar markings in the area as well. In instances where the aggregate graffiti
vandalism damage is estimated at less than $400, the suspect may need to be placed under
citizen's arrest with assistance from the LEPD. The LEPD reports that witnesses may need to
testify in court. Regarding judgments and restitution, respondents suggest that results differ
based on age, amount of damage, gang - related status, hate crime status, prior convictions, and
other factors related to the vandalism and offender. While offenders are typically prosecuted by
the District Attorney's Office, the City Attorney could get involved if Code Enforcement issues
the offender an administrative citation. The City Attorney would likely utilize outside counsel for
code violations and civil law suits, which could result in the offender being required to pay
associated fines. The Department of Administrative Services would process all payments from
offenders.
Code Enforcement Graffiti Process
11 % of respondents indicated that at least some of their time is spent on code
enforcement related to graffiti follow -ups, but the majority (75 %) said that less than 10% of their
time is spent on such matters. Graffiti complaints are most often forwarded to Code
Enforcement Officers via wireless PC tablet (33 %), although Code Enforcement also claims to
occasionally deliver hard copies and phone messages. Code Enforcement's process for
addressing graffiti on private property is described above. With regard to public property, Code
Enforcement determines location and forwards location and photos of graffiti to Public Works via
e -mail. LEPD is involved in graffiti matters when graffiti statements threaten City officials, are
11 of 15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 42 of 131
Ciro 01 ti
Graffiti Process Survey Overview
July 2008
racially motivated, or cause significant damage. Interestingly, responses differed on when it
would be appropriate to contact LEPD.
Graffiti Removal and Field Activities
Approximately 25% of respondents claimed that one of their regular job responsibilities
includes removing graffiti based on a written Work Order or direction of a supervisor. 60% of
these respondents reported that they receive graffiti Work Orders in hard copy form, whereas
the other 40% notice and respond to graffiti on their own, or receive a removal request by
telephone. Parks and Recreation respondents report receiving between one (1) and five (5)
graffiti Work Orders per day, or up to twenty -five (25) per week. Public Works respondents,
however, report receiving up to more than fifty (50) graffiti Work Orders per week. Altogether,
25% of survey respondents under this section indicated that they receive between six (6) and
ten (10) graffiti Work Orders per day, whereas 17% report receiving more than ten (10) per day.
Regarding graffiti cleanup procedures, many respondents clean or prep area as needed
(67 %), mix and apply paint (78 %), clean up tools and secure materials (44 %), measure the area
that was painted out or cleaned (44 %), record number of square feet of area painted (67 %), and
fill out work order paperwork (67 %).
According to survey responses, both respondents from Parks and Recreation and Public
Works also report taking digital photographs of graffiti before removing it. In fact, 78% of
respondents in this section reported taking such photos. 100% of respondents stated that they
have access to a digital camera provided by the City to take pictures of graffiti incidents. 44% of
respondents claim to input notes to accompany the photographs taken of the graffiti, though this
was more commonly reported by Public Works than Parks and Recreation —a result supported
by the two departments different log sheets. Public Works' log sheets contain a column for a
picture number to correspond with each graffiti incident. Two of the Parks and Recreation
respondents and one of the Public Works respondents (33% total) also reported tracking the
start and end times of graffiti removal —a review of their log sheets indicates that both
12 of 15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 43 of 131
o n'ar ,<k
iLLSinO1Ze Graffiti Process Survey Overview
July 2008
departments track time expended, but not actual start and end times. One of the respondents
from Public Works reported recording the GPS location of the graffiti incidents, but all others did
not claim such recordation. In fact, it is not likely that any department possesses widespread
capability to record the GPS location of the graffiti incidents -78% of respondents said that they
do not have access to a wireless PC tablet, and the remaining 22% said that they would need to
borrow one if needed.
Digital Photos and Organization
44% of survey respondents stated that one of their regular duties entails taking digital
photos of graffiti locations. 38% of respondents claim that photographs are always taken of
graffiti locations, whereas 44% claim that they are usually taken, and 19% claim that they are
occasionally taken. Code Enforcement and Lake and Aquatic Resources largely claimed that
photos are only occasionally taken, Parks and Recreation mostly claimed that they are usually
taken, and Public Works and LEPD predominately claimed that they are always taken. Most
digital photographs are stored on personal PCs (75 %), but 31 % of respondents store the photos
on the City network. LEPD respondents reported that they keep their photos in the LEPD
evidence room. Nearly half of respondents (47 %) report that their photos are never digitally
archived in storage media, and only 13% of respondents state that the photos are archived —
one respondent from Code Enforcement and one from the LEPD. Regarding a proposal to
create a database that would allow graffiti images to be shared, annotated, and stored with
keywords and smart retrieval, 71 % of respondents did not know how much time it would save
them; still, 28% of respondents believe the system could save them from up to one (1) to five (5)
hours per week.
Most departments utilize some form of photo labeling format, although the convention
differs between departments. Almost 60% of respondents name just the photos they need, while
about 40% either use a photo number or use batch photo naming. Parks and Recreation labels
photos with a location and date of incident, whereas Public Works labels each photo with a
13 of 15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 44 of 131
ciiv of
LAKE LLSIE Graffiti Process Survey Overview
July 2008
street name and number photos in their graffiti log sheet. The Lake and Aquatic Resources
Department typically forwards all photos to the Public Works Graffiti Technician. Upon receipt of
the digital photos, 92% of respondents do not use any photo software program to organize
them; however, one Public Works respondent uses Kodak software to sort photos. Photos are
most often shared via e -mail (63 %), but 44% of respondents also utilize the City network. 19%
of respondents also utilize CD -ROMs, flash drives, or an Internet program to share photos. 13%
of respondents, claim to not share photographs —one respondent from the LEPD and one from
Public Works. Interestingly, 20% of respondents report always giving the photos to someone
else for storage, 20% report usually giving the photos to someone else for storage, 40% report
occasionally handing over the photos, but 20% also report never providing the photos to
someone else for storage. For LEPD, photos are marked with an inspection date, which
corresponds to a case number, police report, and location; however, if the graffiti contains gang
images, the photos and corresponding information are forwarded to gang unit deputies.
GIS and Database Technology
Two respondents (6 %) claimed that one of their regular duties could include entering
graffiti data and /or images into a database or GIS file, making graffiti - related maps, or
performing related GIS reporting activities. The respondents to this section unanimously agreed
with the potential functionality of a GIS graffiti database. According to the respondents, the data
base could tack the following statistics:
=Potential= Tracking Statistics in a GIS Graffiti Database
Stats tracking
the number of removal requests reported by the public
Stats tracking
graffiti-related work order status
Stats reporting
square footage of graffiti removed per site
Stats reporting
time -on task to remove graffiti per site
Stats tracking
graffiti removal request volume sorted by eak days, weeks, months
14 of 15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 45 of 131
-1 1 O n
LAIC �LSINOKL Graffiti Process Survey Overview
July 2008
Stats tracking graffiti incident locations throughout the City (GPS locations and addresses)
Stats tracking frequency of graffiti vandalism per location
Stats reporting raffiti vandalism investigations or cases (source: LEPD
Stats reporting graffiti vandalism apprehensions (source: LEPD
Stats reporting raffiti vandalism prosecutions source: LEPD, DA)
Stats reporting graffiti vandalism convictions and sentences (source: LEPD, DA or other)
Stats reporting restitution in dollar amounts (source: LEPD, DA or other)
Track /Report by individual or gang affiliation (unique ID)*
Track /Report by Type (tag, territory), Material (paint, marker), Surface (wall, curb, rail, sign,
fence)*
Report Time from report to abatement, to restitution*
Report restitution cost vs recovery per incident type of abatement required*
*Represents other potential categories listed by one respondent
The two respondents to this section agreed that the City would need custom database
programming and an SQL server to implement a database with the aforementioned tracking
capabilities. One respondent also stated that the City would require an Enterprise GIS server
and software to create and manage the database. The respondent who did not view Enterprise
GIS as necessary stated that the software would be required for graphic viewing and updating,
but that it would not be necessary for updating tabular data only.
15 of 15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 46 of 131
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 47 of 131
Introduction
Abating graffiti in the City of Lake Elsinore is a City Council priority. Coordinating the best tools,
processes and tactics to combat graffiti is a major goal of the FY 2008 -09 operating and CIP budgets.
A new management objective is producing an anti - graffiti strategic plan. Such a plan will serve as the
City's platform for implementing updated anti - graffiti goals and program objectives. A strategic plan also
serves as the basis for measuring results and assessing program effectiveness.
This strategic plan refines the best thinking from City and cooperating agency personnel who are our
subject matter experts on graffiti "hot spots;' graffiti reporting & tracking, removal, follow -up
investigation, criminal & civil prosecution, and public outreach & education.
Why This Survey?
The starting point for creating an anti - graffiti strategic plan is an overview of the existing situation. The
purpose of this survey is to help identify the extent of our City's graffiti problem and to shed light on the
effectiveness of procedures and resources that are currently in place to fight graffiti vandalism.
This survey is being distributed to all City and agency personnel who are involved in responding to
graffiti complaints from the public and all related anti - graffiti efforts conducted within the City limits.
An Outcomes -based Approach
The outcome of this survey is to:
1. Provide a snapshot of current procedures in place for handling graffiti complaints, work orders,
abatement and follow -up action and enforcement activities by the City and other agencies;
2. Identify gaps in graffiti - related procedures, if any, that may result in less than the desired
performance outcomes set by the City, LEPD and the City Attorney;
3. Identify needed resources for combating graffiti vandalism (e.g., GIS database technology,
surveillance cameras and associated tactics, school outreach, civil prosecution);
4. Identify ways to increase prevention, apprehension, prosecution and restitution success;
5. Identify key messages for public education and outreach efforts to residents and businesses;
In short, our goal is to examine key functions for handling graffiti from start to finish; to identify who is
responsible for what; to recognize opportunities for improvement; finally, to quantify what it will take to
increase the City's anti - graffiti program effectiveness.
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti_survey2008rev7 Page 2 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 49 of 131
Instructions
Please read these instructions before you begin the survey.
1. Copies of this survey will be given to selected responders in multiple departments.
2. The survey is to be completed and returned by 2008.
3. All responders need to complete the Responder Information on page 4.
4. Please answer all the questions as best you can. It is OK to check "Don't know" or "...Outside my
job duties," or to skip questions that do not fit your area of responsibility.
5. If directed, please attach samples of graffiti - related information that you are responsible for
generating (example: graffiti work order, incident report, police report, log sheets, etc.)
6. Please return the completed survey to Steven McCarty or Mark Dennis at City Hall.
Questions, or Need Help?
If you have any comments or questions, or need clarification on any part of the survey, please contact:
Mark Dennis
Information /Communications Manager
(951) 674 -3124, ext. 207
mdennis @lake- elsinore.org
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti_survey200grev7 Page 3 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 50 of 131
A. Responder Information
Please fill out the name of the person completing the survey and related department /division or agency
information.
a. First Name
b. Last Name
c. Job Title
d. Department or Division: (check one)
❑ Public Works [:]Parks & Recreation ❑ Code Enforcement
e. Other Department or Division: (check one)
❑ LEPD ❑ City Manager's Office ❑ City Attorney's Office
f. Outside Agency: (check one)
❑ EVMWD ❑ Riverside County ❑ LEUSD
g. Other Department, Division, or Agency: (if none of the above)
Please proceed to Section 1 on the next page 10
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti_survey2008rev7 Page 4 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 51 of 131
Section 1. Graffiti Conditions
a. Do you live in the City of Lake Elsinore?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If "Yes ", please continue with question "b" below.
If "No ", skip to question "g" below.
b. Based on your observations of graffiti in the City limits, please indicate whether you agree or
disagree with the following statements:
1.
1 notice any new graffiti in my area of town
❑ Agree
❑ Disagree
2.
1 feel graffiti in Lake Elsinore is on the rise
❑ Agree
❑ Disagree
3.
1 have reported new graffiti that I see in the City
❑ Agree
❑ Disagree
4.
1 have seen graffiti in my own neighborhood
❑ Agree
❑ Disagree
5.
1 have personally removed graffiti in my neighborhood
[—]Agree
❑ Disagree
6.
1 have been a victim of graffiti on my own property
❑ Agree
❑ Disagree
7.
1 know at least one victim of graffiti close to my home
❑ Agree
❑ Disagree
c. I believe the people responsible for graffiti nearest to my area of residence are: (check one)
❑ Tag crew members ❑ Gang members ❑ Individuals ❑ Don't know
d. On atypical day, the amount of graffiti that gets my attention can range from: (check one)
❑ 1 -3 locations ❑ 1 -5 locations ❑ 1 -10 locations ❑ more than 10
e. On a heavy graffiti day, the amount of graffiti that gets my attention can range from:
❑ 1 -3 locations ❑ 1 -5 locations ❑ 1 -10 locations ❑ more than 10
f. Compared with Lake Elsinore, I feel the problem of graffiti in neighboring cities is: (check one)
❑ Worse than in Lake Elsinore ❑ Not as bad as in Lake Elsinore ❑ About the same
Please proceed to Section 2 on the next page
g. Compared with Lake Elsinore, I feel graffiti in my home community is: (check one)
❑ Worse than in Lake Elsinore ❑ Not as bad as in Lake Elsinore ❑ About the same
h. Compared with Lake Elsinore, I feel my home community is fighting graffiti: (check one)
❑ More successfully ❑ Less successfully ❑ About the same
Please proceed to Section 2 on the next page
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti_survey2008rev7 Page 5 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 52 of 131
Section 2. Graffiti Service Request Handling
a. Is one of your regular duties to answer calls or a -mails from the public about Graffiti removal?
❑ Yes
❑ No, this is outside of myjob duties
If "Yes ", please continue with question "b" below.
If "No ", please proceed to Section 3.
b. On average, how frequently do you receive telephone calls from the public requesting graffiti
removal services? (check one)
❑ 1 -5 per day ❑ 6 -10 per day ❑ 11 -15 per day ❑ 16 -20 per day
❑ Other (fill in):
C. On average, how frequently do you receive a -mails from the public requesting graffiti removal
services? (check one)
❑ 1 -5 per day ❑ 6 -10 per day ❑ 11 -15 per day ❑ 16 -20 per day
❑ Other (fill in):
d. On average, how frequently do you receive graffiti removal service requests from the City's
Website online service request form? (check one)
❑ 1 -5 per day ❑ 6 -10 per day ❑ 6 -15 per day ❑ 16 -20 per day
❑ Other (fill in):
e. If you receive graffiti removal requests by e -mail or from the City's Website, how often do you
send an e-mail acknowledgement of the request? (check one)
❑ Always (100 %) ❑ Almost always(70 -99%) ❑Sometimes(1 -70%) F-1 Never
f. What would be the time savings per day if the new City Website's online graffiti service request
form could automatically generate an acknowledgement of a sender's request? (check one)
❑ 1 hour or more ❑ less than 1 hour ❑ None ❑ Not sure
g. The City is installing a dedicated phone line for graffiti- related service requests. This automated
number will be promoted as the graffiti hotline. When dialed, it answers with an automated
greeting. Callers are prompted to leave details about the location of the graffiti they are
reporting. City staff can retrieve messages at any time and process them into work orders.
Please list any advantages you foresee with this hotline compared with current phone handling:
(use space provided below)
Section 2 continued on the next page
City of Lake Elsinore
G raffiti_survey2008rev7
Page 6 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 53 of 131
Section 2g. (continued)
Please list any disadvantages you foresee with this hotline compared with current phone
handling: (use space provided below)
h. If you listed any disadvantages, do you have some suggestions for reducing or avoiding them?
(write in the space below)
L On average, the number of graffiti - related walk -ins at the counter at City Hall is: (check one)
❑ 1 -5 per day ❑ 6 -10 per day ❑ 11 -15 per day ❑ over 15 per day
j. On average, how many graffiti service requests do you receive per day from City employees?
(check one)
❑ 1 -5 per day ❑ 6 -10 per day ❑ 11 -15 per day ❑ over 15 per day
k. Approximately how much time does it take to process each phone graffiti removal request into a
work order? (check one)
❑ 15 minutes or less ❑ 16 -30 minutes ❑ 31 -60 minutes ❑ more than 1 hour
I. Approximately how much time does it take to process each e-mail graffiti removal request into a
work order? (check one)
❑ 15 minutes or less ❑ 16 -30 minutes ❑ 31 -60 minutes Elmore than 1 hour
m. Approximately how much time does it take to process each online Web form request for graffiti
removal into a work order? (check one)
❑ 15 minutes or less ❑ 16 -30 minutes ❑ 31 -60 minutes ❑ more than 1 hour
n. Please check the most efficient way of receiving a graffiti service request to process into a work
order (check one)
❑ Hotline message ❑Standard e-mail ❑ Online Web form
❑ Walk -in at the counter ❑ All are about the same ❑ Don't know
o. Please list any suggestions for improving graffiti service request handling in the space below:
Please proceed to section 3 on the next page �
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti_survey2008rev7 Page 7 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 54 of 131
Section 3. Graffiti Statistical Records & Tracking
a. Is one of your regular duties to keep track of graffiti removal service requests and work orders?
(check one)
❑ Yes ❑ No, this is outside of my job duties
If "Yes ", please continue with question "b" below.
If "No", please proceed to Section 4.
b. How are graffiti removal service requests currently being tracked? (check all that apply)
❑ Manual entry on log sheet or form
❑ Microsoft Excel spreadsheet entry
❑ Microsoft Word document entry
❑Third party customer request software solution
❑ Other (please explain in the space below)
How are graffiti work orders currently being tracked? (check all that apply)
❑ Manual entry on log sheet or form
❑ Microsoft Excel spreadsheet entry
❑ Microsoft Word document entry
❑ Third party work order software solution
❑ Other (please explain in the space below)
d. Please check which statistical records are currently available (check all that apply)
❑ Stats tracking the number of removal requests reported by the public
❑ Stats tracking graffiti - related work order status
❑ Stats reporting square footage of graffiti removed per site
❑ Stats reporting time -on task to remove graffiti per site
❑ Stats tracking graffiti removal request volume sorted by peak days, weeks, months
❑ Stats tracking graffiti incident locations throughout the City
❑ Stats tracking frequency of graffiti vandalism per location
❑ Stats reporting graffiti vandalism investigations or cases (source: LEPD)
❑ Stats reporting graffiti vandalism apprehensions (source: LEPD)
❑ Stats reporting graffiti vandalism prosecutions (source: LEPD, DA)
❑ Stats reporting graffiti vandalism convictions and sentences (source: LEPD, DA or other)
❑ Stats reporting restitution in dollar amounts (source: LEPD, DA or other)
Please proceed to Section 4 on the next page
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti_survey2o08rev7 Page 8 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 55 of 131
Section 4. Graffiti Work Order Handling
a. Is one of your regular duties to write graffiti removal work orders? (check one)
❑ Yes ❑ No, this is outside of my job duties
If "Yes ", please continue with question "b" below.
If "No ", please proceed to Section 5.
b. Please rank the following by volume, with 1= highest, 6 = least. (write a ranking number in each
box below)
❑ Work orders from telephone requests
❑ Work orders from e -mail requests (excluding City Website request forms)
❑ Work orders from City's Website online service request form
❑ Work orders from walk -in requests
❑ Work orders generated by staff while in the field
❑ Other (please explain in the space below)
c. Please describe the main steps for generating anew work order. (use space below)
d. Please describe the steps for routing anew work order after it is generated. (use space below)
e. Please describe steps for work order processing after work is completed. (use space below)
Section 4 continued on the next page �
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti_survey2008rev7 Page 9 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 56 of 131
Section 4 (continued)
f. Optional: Use this space below to draw a basic flow diagram showing how a work order is
processed from start to completion, with labels for each milestone task or decision point:
Please proceed to Section S on the next page
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti_survey2008rev7 Page 10 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 57 of 131
Section 5. Graffiti Removal & Related Field Activities
a. Is one of your regular duties to remove graffiti based on a written work order or at the direction
of your supervisor?
❑ Yes ❑ No, this is outside of my job duties
If "Yes ", please continue with question "b" below.
If "No ", please proceed to Section 6.
b. How is a graffiti removal work order currently received? (check one)
❑ Hard copy
❑ Electronic copy using wireless PC Tablet
❑ Other (fill in):
c. On average, how many graffiti work orders do you receive in one day? (check one)
❑ 1 -5
06-10
❑ More than 10
d. On average, how many graffiti work orders do you receive in one week? (check one)
❑ 1 -25 ❑ 26 -50 ❑ More than 50
e. Check only the tasks that are currently performed on site when responding to a graffiti removal
work order: (check all that apply)
❑ Record time started and time finished per graffiti removal site
❑.Take digital "before" photograph(s) of the graffiti
❑ Record or enter notes to accompany the photographs
❑ Record the GPS location of the graffiti
❑ Clean or prep area as needed
p Mix and apply paint
❑ Clean up tools and secure materials
❑ Measure the area that was painted out or cleaned
❑ Make a record or note of the painted out area in units of square feet
❑ Fill out work order paperwork
❑ Electronically send photos or data using wireless PC Tablet
❑ Fill out Police Report for graffiti vandalism
Does the City provide you with a digital camera?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ I can borrow a camera, as needed
g. Does the City provide you with a wireless PC Tablet?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ I can borrow a PC tablet, as needed
Please proceed to Section 6 on the next page
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti_survey2008rev7 Page 11 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 58 of 131
Section 6. Code Enforcement Tasks Related to Graffiti
a. Is some of your time spent on tasks in Code Enforcement related to graffiti follow -ups?
❑ Yes
❑ No, this is outside of my job duties
If "Yes ", please continue with question "b" below.
If "No", please proceed to Section 7.
b. How is a graffiti complaint referred to a Code Enforcement representative?
❑ Hard copy
❑ Two -way radio or phone dispatch
❑ Electronic copy using wireless PC Tablet
❑ Other (fill in):
c. When in the field, what are the steps for handling a graffiti complaint on private property?
(please list in the space below or attach extra paper as needed)
d. When in the field, what are the steps for handling a graffiti complaint on public property?
(please list in the space below or attach extra paper as needed)
e. What are the steps for coordinating a graffiti complaint with another department, such as
Public Works and the LEPD? (please list in the space below or attach extra paper as needed)
f. When in the field, when is it appropriate to fill out a Police Report on graffiti vandalism? (please
list in the space below or attach extra paper as needed)
g. On average, please describe the approximate percentage of your time spent on graffiti related
complaints: (check one)
❑ 10% or less ❑ 10 -25% ❑ 25 -50%
Please proceed to Section 7 on the next page
City of Lake Elsinore
G raffit i_su rvey2008 rev7
❑ 50 -75% ❑ 75% or more
Page 12 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 59 of 131
Section 7. Digital Photos & Organization
a. Does one of your regular duties include taking digital photos of graffiti locations and /or
organizing them for yourself or someone else in your department?
❑ Yes ❑ No, this is outside of my job duties
If "Yes ", please continue with question "b" below.
If "No ", please proceed to Section 8.
b. If equipped with a digital camera, how often are photos taken as a record of a graffiti incident?
❑ Always ❑ Usually ❑ Occasionally ❑ Never ❑ Don't have a digital camera
c. How are digital photographs of graffiti stored? (check all that apply)
❑ On my PC ❑ On City network ❑ Internet photo site
d. How are your photos of graffiti locations identified? (check all that apply)
❑ I use the photo number ❑ 1 use batch photo naming ❑ I name just the ones I need
e. Are your graffiti photos organized using any photo software? (check one)
❑ Yes ❑ N o
If "Yes, please explain
f. How are photos of graffiti locations shared with others in your department or in other
departments? (check all that apply)
❑ Shared via e-mail ❑ Shared via CD -ROM ❑Shared via flash drive
❑ Shared over the network ❑ Shared via Internet ❑ Not shared
g. How often are graffiti photos given to someone else to organize and store? (check one)
❑Always ❑ Usually ❑ Occasionally ❑ Never
h. If you have information related to graffiti photos, what is done to tie it to the digital images?
(Please explain in the space below)
i. Are your digital graffiti photos being archived, that is, periodically removed from your PC and /or
network and put onto storage media? (please check one)
[]Yes, archived ❑ Never archived ❑ Don't know
j. If the City were to provide a database so graffiti images could be shared, annotated and stored
with keywords, or smart retrieval, how much time do you estimate it would save you?
❑ 1 -2 hours /week ❑ 2 -5 hours /week ❑ 5+ hours /week ❑ Don't know
Please proceed to Section 8 on the next page
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti_survey2008rev7 Page 13 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 60 of 131
Section 8. Graffiti GIS & Database Technology
a. Does one of your potential or regular duties include entering graffiti data or images into a
database or GIS file, making graffiti - related maps, or related GIS reporting activity?
❑ Yes ❑ No, this is outside of my job duties
If "Yes ", please continue with question "b" below.
If "No ", please proceed to Section 9.
b. Which tracking stats below could be a function of a GIS graffiti database? (check all that apply)
❑ Tracking the number of removal requests reported by the public
❑Tracking graffiti images & cataloguing by incident
❑ Reporting square footage of graffiti removed per site
❑ Reporting time -on task to remove graffiti per site
❑ Tracking graffiti removal request volume sorted by peak days, weeks, months
❑Tracking graffiti incident locations throughout the City
❑Tracking frequency of graffiti vandalism per location
❑ Reporting graffiti vandalism investigations or cases (source: LEPD)
❑ Reporting graffiti vandalism apprehensions (source: LEPD)
❑ Reporting graffiti vandalism prosecutions (source: LEPD, DA)
❑ Reporting graffiti vandalism convictions and sentences (source: LEPD, DA or other)
❑ Reporting restitution in dollar amounts (source: LEPD, DA or other)
❑ Other (please explain
c. What is needed to upgrade the present GIS system capabilities for handling most of the custom
database and file sharing tasks from the list above? (check all that apply)
❑Additional ESRI software licenses El Custom database programming ❑SQL server
❑ Enterprise GIS server & software ❑ Graffiti Tracker or equivalent ❑ VPN
❑ Other (please explain in the space below)
d. From your perspective, please list the most useful or desired data from the field to be used in a
graffiti photo database: (write in the space provided or attach extra sheets as needed)
e. What system requirements or upgrades are needed to share a GIS database between the City
and the LEPD, with access for a remote user to update records for graffiti - related purposes?
(please explain in the space below or attach extra sheets as needed)
Please proceed to Section 9 on the next page
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti_survey2008rev7 Page 14 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 61 of 131
Section 9. Graffiti Investigation (LEPD)
a. Does one of your regular duties include investigating graffiti incident reports, inspecting photos
of graffiti, analyzing graffiti tags or related activities?
❑ Yes El No, this is outside of my job duties
If "Yes ", please continue with question "b" below.
If "No", please proceed to Section 10.
b. Please describe the processes for handling a graffiti incident reported by the City or other
agencies: (write in the space below or attach extra sheets)
c. Please describe the steps in handling photos, and use of photos, provided by the City or other
agencies for investigating a graffiti incident: (write in the space below or attach extra sheets)
Please describe the follow -up sequence once a graffiti suspect has been identified: (write in the
space below or attach extra sheets)
e. Besides photos of graffiti, please describe what else the City or agency could provide to aid the
investigation of graffiti - related vandalism? (write in the space below or attach extra sheets)
Please proceed to Section 10 on the next page ll�
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti_survey2008reW Page 15 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 62 of 131
Section 10. Graffiti Apprehension (LEPD)
a. Do any of your regular duties include the apprehension of graffiti perpetrators?
❑ Yes ❑ No, this is outside of my job duties
If "Yes ", please continue with question "b" below.
If "No", please proceed to Section 11.
b. Please describe the LEPD protocol once a graffiti tagger —in this case, assume a male minor —
has been caught in the act and detained by a City or other agency employee: (write in the space
below or attach extra sheets)
c. Please describe the procedures taken by LEPD if a graffiti tagger is seen and reported, but has
not been approached by the reporting party: (write in the space below or attach extra sheets)
d. Please describe the follow -up to a case once a graffiti tagger is apprehended, identified and
questioned by LEPD: (write in the space below or attach extra sheets)
e. Please list any other LEPD follow -ups that must occur if the reporting party (e.g., City, EVMWD)
intends to press charges: (write in the space below or attach extra sheets)
Please proceed to Section 11 on the next page 110
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti_survey2008rev7 Page 16 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 63 of 131
Section 11. Graffiti Prosecution (i.EPD, City Attorney, DA)
a. Do any of your regular duties include assistance or preparations to prosecute a graffiti case?
❑ Yes ❑ No, this is outside of my job duties
If "Yes ", please continue with question "b" below.
If "No", please proceed to Section 12.
b. Please list what steps must occur for a graffiti case to be submitted for prosecution by the
District Attorney and the involvement of either the City, EVM WD, LEUSD, in seeking
prosecution: (write in the space below or attach extra sheets)
C. Please list what actions must occur in a graffiti case for proceeding with a civil action if either
the City, EVMWD or LEUSD choose to pursue it: (write in the space below or attach extra sheets)
d. Please explain the types of judgment that might occur in a graffiti case (criminal and civil):
(write in the space below or attach extra sheets)
Please proceed to Section 12 on the next page
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti_survey2008rev7 Page 17 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 64 of 131
Section 12. Restitution (DA, LEFD & Finance)
a. Do any of your regular duties include processing information and related tasks pertaining to
graffiti restitution?
❑ Yes ❑ No, this is outside of my job duties
If "Yes ", please continue with question "b" below.
If "No ", please proceed to Section 13.
b. Please list what actions must occur for restitution to be made either to the City, EVMWD or
LEUSD: (write in the space below or attach extra sheets)
Please list what actions must occur to proceed with a civil action if either the City, EVMWD or
LEUSD are seeking restitution: (write in the space below or attach extra sheets)
d. Please describe the protocol and procedures for restitution arrangements:
(write in the space below or attach extra sheets)
Please proceed to Section 13 on the next page
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti_survey2008rev7 Page 18 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 65 of 131
Section 13. Cooperative Procedures (E`11d WD, LEUSD, City)
a. Do any of your regular duties include communicating with other agencies about graffiti incidents
that occur on City property, or at district facilities or property within the City limits?
❑ Yes ❑ No, this is outside of my job duties ❑ I could be a contact in future
If "Yes ", please continue with question "b" below.
If "No", please see page 3 for instructions on how to return this survey.
b. Please list what procedures or protocols are in place at your agency (i.e., City, EVM WD, or
LEUSD) for sharing information about graffiti incidents within the City limits, if any?
(write in the space below or attach extra sheets)
Is your agency willing to share information about the identity of any individuals that your agency
has caught in the act of graffiti, or are known to have been involved in other acts of graffiti -
related vandalism? (write in the space below)
d. Please provide contact information for the person(s) at your district or agency for exchanging
information about graffiti incidents and to discuss proactively seeking prosecution or restitution
for graffiti - related vandalism within City limits: (write in the space below)
THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY!
PLEASE SEE PAGE 3 FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO RETURN THIS SURVEY.
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti_survey2008rev7 Page 19 of 19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 66 of 131
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 67 of 131
C
O
N
O
C
N
E
C
a
m
O
L
c
0
A
O
C
N
Q
d
0
v
L
O
ai
m
E
d
m
N
01
C
3
0
0
v
L
L_
3
m
d
rn
N
9
O
N
d
N
T
m
N
a
m
0
0
N
(D
T
N
U
co
T
d
a
m
m
a
N
a
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 68 of 131
7.
m
a
m
0
0
N
T
r
N
U
U
w
T
9
a
m
`m
Q
m
M
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 69 of 131
O)
•W .p
~C
N U
d E
E
° 2
p `
0 -T E
c
_
E
°p
w E
E
v v
a
d o
y E
T
C
c
.,�
c
w
aE
M
RN
•�E
y
c
r
mo
m°'
3o
mco
10p`o
n5
t Q
r
x w
a""
c m=
E v
E
so
O
t
o -
U q
�
E
`
O
N
ui O
so
14
m M p
7.
m
a
m
0
0
N
T
r
N
U
U
w
T
9
a
m
`m
Q
m
M
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 69 of 131
(
t
%
`S % �}
k\ u
f| E
0 k §§EQ
2 ƒ\ kƒ{k\
\ \k
{\(
jE
§) /\
�k� �)k)
;! \ § }{
/M § ° #
,5
Oc \ \ \}
2 \k/
)E
{§k
\} / \\
/
Vie& Item No. 2
Page +¥g1
(
Mw
\
\/}
_! {y
ƒ%I!
«
: ±)f
#
�\E cbT �)(k.
\ \7{
:
/�7)]E(kilE
°!�`
)))\
!.2EVE
! ;${t
- .3:E -0F �!¢
2;E!#
f ;lwl ;& 0M0M
\
\k�)) / \ /
{ \ \k
:
/ § \ƒ
| \r ®r
/0
i)§( #!!bEEL
/ \ |\7{ } @ \{$
\
\/}
_! {y
ƒ%I!
«
A,V-eG Item No. 2
Page 9ag1
: ±)f
#
±
)
:
/0
!
f2
`>
\(\
§
§k)
)
)/\
-
r
:30
}
X=
A,V-eG Item No. 2
Page 9ag1
c
0
f
T
@
Z
7
v!
N
U
O
Q`
@
u
m
m
E a o
w` u
0 0
U@ C
7 C@
O@
E a
E y v
E o
3 E
° O O
O O Y
L O
y N Y
L@ O
T@
@
@
a
@
Y 3
K O N
E p C
'E p 0
U@
2
rn
c
a
C
@
L
0 v
N �
c c
o
N u
d
m @
� N
N
@ N 9
N O) U
c Q
N
a@i o v
EL a
6 5
U
Q N
d d
d �
Y Q
m g�
V N d
w G•O N Y
U
y V > L
++ Ca O� O O
Mroa y o
O �
�
o 0 ° 3
Y
N d m ` C
c
C V
0 r
O N
0 C
J
@
D)
a
m
0
0
N
T
r
@
U
0
N
T
a
m
@
n
G
J �
U �
@ @
d @
a $
O —
Y @
U
@
L
r o
N h
D
O) Y
W U
@ A
oa
ME
U 4
h
D
O
d @
� r
U @
.N V
N L
y U
L d
U
3 m
s @
U {gyp
U C
N
y 3
a �
'o `m
@
@
a
ro
0
0
N
(O
T
C
@
U
U
T
9
a
d
`m
a
@
u
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 73 of 131
0
0
3
N
F
T
@
Z
J
w
a@i
U
O
a`
A
i 3 Y
v �
a g�
0 N U
N h
� a
@ `o
w � s
` 3
T �
46 E
O
t G y v
U l' O
d @ y N
CO) x N 0
@
m
@
a
ro
0
N
T
C
@
U
0
uj
9
N
N
@
2
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 74 of 131
0 0 0 0 0 0 o M
C) C) 0 C) 0 0 (If
E 0
W
MM
0 = M 0
Ow
0 0
moa
0 0 0
uvi
oE "0 C)
0
0
E
0
0
0 0—
E
0 w
0
o M
71 0
0 E w
0
w
0 0
O
aw_E
c
E 0
W
MM
0 = M 0
Ow
0 0
moa
w
C)
uj
M
0 0
E
0 L.
0
0 12
M 0
0
0 0
0
c a
0
o..
Ix 6 O 4-:
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 75 of 131
0 0 0
uvi
oE "0 C)
0
0
E
0
0
0 0—
E
0
0 0
0 E w
0
w
0 0
O
c 0 = 0
FL M
Fn
0 M
"0
Z
w
C)
uj
M
0 0
E
0 L.
0
0 12
M 0
0
0 0
0
c a
0
o..
Ix 6 O 4-:
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 75 of 131
c
0
H
T
N
Z
N
N
N
N
O
a`
m
LOC
?`ms
c O
rn
� E u
" v d
N C t
� O. U
y ..
t ` a
N C
y d O
3
v
a'C+ fb
T C >
C O O
o a E
y d d
v E
U � �
d �
m a rn
a
m
0
N
T
O
U
U
C6
T
a
a
d
`m
n
m
'-I
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 76 of 131
O
i d
p W
E �
v`-
E
E>
m'
E �
3'
3'v
rn u
m 0
O
0 0
N
N 0
o
3 c
p `r
xz
c
pq
c
U"
.O U
6 0 0
'0 0 0
?`ms
c O
rn
� E u
" v d
N C t
� O. U
y ..
t ` a
N C
y d O
3
v
a'C+ fb
T C >
C O O
o a E
y d d
v E
U � �
d �
m a rn
a
m
0
N
T
O
U
U
C6
T
a
a
d
`m
n
m
'-I
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 76 of 131
T
d
a
0
Q
rn
U
m
5ti
� m
o E
� m
w U
T
d
'4
'o N
6 N
q
V�
r a
N N
m m
D d
rn 3
r 3
N c O
d 0 m
O p)
U C O
L m
k y d
❑ 0 m
UjcmEv
O O
UU' TE
tp w O U
m o`
c OE`c
o,a„yw
N
d d O Q
y K 'do
0
o'
U
s
O
MU
c a
� N
6 d
°u 3
0
a
G C
a�
o m
U
�+ C
md
E
m U
m w
0 0
O d
= 00
�U
m
IL
m
0
0
N
r
m
U
U
ai
T
9
d
m
d
u
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 77 of 131
m
m
a a
o ,_ d
A _
W O N
c r c c
O O N
N
O o a
w O n O
c E
C J N VVry
L O m y
30 w - > o
w s
m E v
N 0 U
M T�
y O N
m m E
N C V
d i6 �
d
`w 1O
m K �
� o
rn
o m o
a
a
Co
O
0
a
M
ri
G .N
D G
u
0 O
V
a
D'o Tt:
U
N
o E a
a c
d
m x
O r O
O O T
o,
L
=c c
6 H
3oM
N
aav
O m 0
W D O C
N N O U
N O O
U q E U U
= d m
°, c o
N M w
x
a 0 a
YO m
Y c m
a D.j O
o
d N D
d N D
d
M C o N
� L �
M C N N
'm � 0
O L rL+ O
U O D
a
3
3 0
r y O y
0 Ul N
D U N
N N
D U O
N
W 3 N y
1+ d
O
MR
rna@
M
rna�
as X10
x
d
m a H a
0— M
N
L C d L
3 m o 0
L C L
?i m 0
•_
.m.
u L n m
'OL a m
w rnw °'a%i
m
m
a a
o ,_ d
A _
W O N
c r c c
O O N
N
O o a
w O n O
c E
C J N VVry
L O m y
30 w - > o
w s
m E v
N 0 U
M T�
y O N
m m E
N C V
d i6 �
d
`w 1O
m K �
� o
rn
o m o
a
a
Co
O
0
a
M
ri
G .N
D G
u
0 O
m
a
m
0
0
N
T
C
N
U
U
U
T
a
D
m
`m
a
O
a
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 78 of 131
E
o E
a
D'o Tt:
U
N
o E a
a c
d
m x
O r O
O O T
o,
L
=c c
6 H
3oM
N
aav
O m 0
W D O C
O C O N
N C'r
❑ ;� D E
= d m
°, c o
N M w
x
a 0 a
m
a
m
0
0
N
T
C
N
U
U
U
T
a
D
m
`m
a
O
a
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 78 of 131
0
3
T
N
Z
J
U
N
N
N
O
Q`
m
Lk
V
N
.0 N
S
N 6
d@
O. O
A O
O Y
U
Rio
O O
O
O A
O aL+
OL
O O
a�
Ol U
30 S
N
9 N
T V
OI O
d V
d o
v
O O
3v
3w
''r
od
o'-
do
N
Q
x
d
m
a
m
3
U
O
c
m
O E L
U Q C
O y y'
_ a w
L
A O V
OI Ch
_ N
O' C
y � d
O S i
L O R
6L Q
3 �O
m
30 d L
= m o
L c
m
a
m
0
N
T
C
U
U
Co
T
a
a
m
`m
a
m
u
CL
N
� O N
� r r
O 0 'L
16
E ^ _
E L o
O o d
L
G y d
m
> m d
L 3
J h
O 0
> g rn 3
L E m
" 0 0
O1 .F VI
y a o
N O 0 L
0
o v
N A 0
u Y y
v o G2`o w
J N N Q
N ~O N
Q M C d
_ m E
m E J
V N 0
m
v m o O
V L Vi 9
5 v m
o a o E
na
O L
O Y J n
u L E J
A O L >
V E 0 - m
O
m
G_
N Y
O E
� E
a °am m
m ^ - C7 m
W M O
0
GJ.d, m O'h
10
W W I C o m m
10 C
V O 0 p O
d 00 m m 6
E rn
C N Y
0 N t6 ry U
a
U N
02
d N
a a
w
m �
N �
rnN
s <7
U N
A
r p
L L
rU O
�
U
G
.o w
m
m
a
m
0
0
N
T
C
N
U
U
N
T
9
a
v
m
a
m
:i
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 80 of 131
m
a
m
0
0
N
T
C
(0
U
U
C6
T
a
m
`m
a
m
u
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 81 of 131
c
0
N
T
N
J
N
N
U
O
a`
m
L46
m
m
Q
0
0
N
T
r
m
U
U
T
a
`m
Q
m
u
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 82 of 131
0 c c c c
C V Y ` Y V Y V V Y
J d C
O m m O N m O N m O N m O m m O m m O m
c) ax Q � QOf Ua� Uo.�
U�c7aV
_ _
L cam.
N
Y [
li0
9
C N m
JN r
C
m E c
«" m
U° m E
U'
U
w N
� N
C_
E
x m
m m w L
m O` •� p
O« p Q m L
m Q J N N
w
Q N N>
> a Q
E (, L N 6 N
°' m a
u y" o
m" V L
a s :°• m
Q 0 m m '-'
m `m m o o
o aa
0
m •a aw
f
R
00 u E z
M
°• `o m of d
Ey�E010
U `o
$
C9
T E 0 E
c
o v Y c
?
i.'° Ld. m °- o
of
L N m N T
O
Vl i Y 6-
LL N .0
'c E 3 h
ai `m a m w N c
y
J
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 82 of 131
am
S -p
0 0 T .0
MO
M 0 2
0 0
0 Ma
c
a am
0 m C
0 we wa
>
a
nd 3t
am
M
0
0
O_
E
I
0
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 83 of 131
M"I
0)
:E 6.2
0.2) 2
2
o
.2
-6
D- W M 0 M
j
0
20
'a
=
00
0
am
m m
0
>
4
0 a —x
E -F. 0
0 0
a0;
0
M 0 w z
0 M
CL
E
10
0 w
ai a 0 am
0)
6 R
M
.6 w E 0 0
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 83 of 131
t
n s S
0
y a a U
m m L
C O Q
N m
a m Q +L+
m m L
lj W L Q U
m W d ¢ O
m J r d 3
a m a m y
m
m
a
a
o_
E
E
6
M
.c
U
IM
a
m
0
0
N
T
r
U
U
a
a
d
`m
a
m
a
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 84 of 131
«
c
c
c m
m
O «
c
m
G
c
;F
i
m �
00
L $
U cC
E
L
o o Q
O E
u
d
o m o m
y O
9
m y
C m 10
N w �+ U 3 N
J •-
U
T
x
Q= O
EQ
`F
O d O r
0 6 0
wo
m
w a
m d
a
6 E N L Q N
N 3 N
m
O I
a m o• '°
c c m
m o
U. Q n
L a .' .. y o
a v a
t Q« d
3 y u
E m omi
Y y
m
m m m
o
m o 3 0
�' w o m
Q
H m
w
a v
6
>
U
m
�N
ymj Old
m_ m
m W
O
y U
m r >
y U
m L
m m
(LQc:
m E
c W m
0.
3
°mom
m
um.
o
m n
m .x
•m
o o
M
M
.c
U
IM
a
m
0
0
N
T
r
U
U
a
a
d
`m
a
m
a
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 84 of 131
E
0
S
,.2
E
0 0 E-
0 0
�.
0
2
Ou
C.
.2
E y ox
.2
W no
C
O
C6
Ll
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 85 of 131
AM
mm
mo
-
-6
. j3 .2
2
6 �j
.0 wk
CO) ' 0 M x
00
0
00 C)
0
0 -
0
T
CO
LD n
U
j3 0
K:i� 2
- L) c a
1; :E
s �6
12 *6
00 cc
0
C C
SO
-0
LiH
Ao
u
co 3:
0
wo C.
':S 2
M, Mu
2
M LU a
a
0
0 t-
M
0 o E
E
FL '0 0
a.
ri
0 E
3:
* 8 0
>
mw_w
2
0
AO-
i 00 M a
> 0 w -
M Lu s z no
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 85 of 131
(
%
)
Agenda Item No. 2
Page m¥g1
)
C)
± /k$k
2 (2 »0 \
-.£@.
72%f0
%z0
_
ƒB!;
-- [; ;�
\M
} \\\
=M
\ \0
.lf>>
!k; ® «�
±"'5Ma
\!!!2
_
§ {
%
)
Agenda Item No. 2
Page m¥g1
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 87 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 18 of 20
Appendix C— Statistical Reports on Lake Elsinore Graffiti Incidents
Sample reports: monthly and year -to -date graffiti incident statistics tracked by the Public
Works Division.
09—Graffiti Action Plan-0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 88 of 131
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 89 of 131
Public Works Department Graffiti Work Orders Comparison FY 2007 -08 and FY 2008 -09
Graffiti comparison table public works
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 90 of 131
FY 07 -08
FY 08 -09
WEEK
DATE
GRAFFITI
WEEK
DATE
GRAFFITI
1
7/3/2007
78
1
7/2/2008
2
7/10/2007
69
2
7/8/2008
172
3
7/17/2007
67
3
7/15/2008
145
4
7/24/2007
79
4
7/22/2008
145
5
7/31/2007
98
5
7/29/2008
75
7
8/7/2007
66
7
8/5/2008
120
'- 8.
8/14/2007
- 38
8
8/12/2008
128
9
8/21/2007
56
9
8/19/2008
114
10.
8/28/2007
42
10
8/26/2008
81
11
9/4/2007
35
11
9/2/2008
100
12
9/11/2007
39
12
9/9/2008
95
13
9/18/2007
40
13
9/16/2008
91
14
9/25/2007
83
14
9/23/2008
108
15
10/2/2007
91
15
9/30/2008
.175
16
10/9/2007
68
16
10/7/2008
91
17
10/16/2007
104
17
10/14/2008
67
18
10/23/2007
99
18
10/21/2008
81
19
10/30/2007
112
19
10/28/2008
64
20
11/6/2007
110
20
11/4/2008
90
21
11/13/2007
124
21
11/11/2008
66
22
11/20/2007
118
2211/18/2008
50
23
11/27/2007
ill
2311/26/2008
34
24
12/4/2007
101
24
12/2/2008
29
25
12/11/2007
101
26
12/18/2007
97
27
12/25/2007
79
28
1/1/2008
87
29
1/8/2008
222
30
1/15/2008
123
31
1/22/2008
126
32
1/29/2008
132
33
2/5/2008
212
34
2/12/2008
132
35
2/19/2008
147
36
2/26/2008.
182
37
3/4/2008148
38
3/11/2008
194
39
3/18/2008.':
202
40
3/25/2008
164
-
41
4/1/2008
196
42
4/8/2008
153
43
4/15/2008
188
44
4/22/2008
108
45
4/29/2008
140
46
5/6/2008
172
47
5/13/2008
181
48
5/20/2008
97
49
5/27/2008
67
50
6/3/2008
181
51
6/10/2008
126
52
6/17/2008
150
53
6/24/2008
136
Totals for
07 -08
6071
Totals for
O8 -09
2228
Weekly average
117
Weekly average
97
Graffiti comparison table public works
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 90 of 131
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 91 of 131
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 19 of 20
Appendix D— Graffiti Related News Clippings
1. "Yucaipa adopts anti - graffiti program," Press-En terprise, November24, 2008
2. "Riverside police using high -tech surveillance cameras to catch taggers, other
criminals, "Press- Enterprise, August 22, 2008
3. "Fight ends in fatal stabbing of 20-year-old man," The Californian, August 29, 2008
4. 'Murder shines light on city's graffiti," The Californian, September 28, 2008
5. 'Man arrested in Lake Elsinore homicide," The Californian, October 24, 2008
6. "Roses and raspberries, The 'Keep Lake Elsinore Beautiful' award" The Californian,
December 15, 2008
09_Graffiti Action Plan_0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 92 of 131
Yucaipa adopts anti - graffiti program I PE.com I Inland Southern California I San Jacinto Page 1 of 2
Comments 17 01 Recommend }r 0
Yucaipa adopts anti - graffiti program
III'® III LISTEN TO STORY
-' Download stow on dcast
10:00 PM PST on Monday, November 24, 2008
By MICHAEL PERRAULT
The Press - Enterprise
YUCAIPA - City leaders are embracing digital GPS cameras and other technology to crack down on
graffiti and tagging.
Law enforcement officials expect they will be able to issue more search warrants and nab more
criminals. That should result in additional restitution, based on what other cities have achieved using
similar high -tech graffiti- abatement programs, said John McMains, Yucaipa's community development
director.
Yucaipa City Council members on Monday agreed to spend about $15,000 to beef up the city's anti -
graffiti program.
Equally important will be a move to amend Yucaipa's municipal code, imposing civil fines of up to
$1,000 and using volunteer "graffiti busters" to help property owners quickly erase the graffiti, said
Councilman Bob Lampi.
The city has experienced sporadic but significant outbreaks of graffiti vandalism, and crimes are not
confined to any one neighborhood or any one type of property, McMains said.
As an example, just before the Nov. 4 election, vandals sprayed orange paint on as many as 30 houses
and cars in an apparent attempt to lash out at Prop. 8 backers.
Yucaipa plans to work with Los Angeles -based Graffiti Tracker Inc., a firm that provides cities with
digital GPS cameras that are used to mark locations of graffiti incidents. The graffiti images are sent to
analysts at the company who can recognize territorial monikers and decipher the graffiti, link it to past
cases and report findings to police within 24 hours.
The system has proved to be an effective tool in making arrests of graffiti vandals in neighboring cities
such as Rancho Cucamonga, said Capt. Bart Gray, who heads the Yucaipa station of the San Bernardino
County Sheriffs Department.
Amendments to Yucaipa's municipal code will give law enforcement and the city more legal authority to
hold perpetrators, and parents of juveniles, fully accountable for the damage they cause, McMains said.
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 93 of 131
http:// www.pe.com /localnews /sanjacinto /stories /PE News_Local N_nyucaipa25.45debb3.... I2 /5/2008
Yucaipa adopts anti - graffiti program I PE.com I Inland Southern California I San Jacinto Page 2 of 2
Last year, the city of San Jacinto was able to collect $98,000 in civil fines and abatement costs using the
system, McMains said. Escondido saw a 30 percent drop in graffiti, made 153 arrests and received more
than $30,000 in restitution, and Rancho Cucamonga ordered more than $134,000 in restitution, Yucaipa
officials said.
McMains said the city's tougher stance and potential costs for offenders should work as a deterrent.
Reach Michael Perrault at 909 - 806 -3053 or We com
Tracking taggers
Yucaipa will work with Graffiti Tracker Inc. on a high-tech prob'ram to rein in graffiti vandals and gang taggers.
Digital GPS cameras are used to mark specific locations ofbnamtl incidents
Graffiti images are sent to company analysts who are trained to recognize monikers and decipher graffitl
Possible connections between the latest hmident and past cases and individuals are examined
Findings are shared with police within 74 hours
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 94 of 131
http:// www.pe.com /localnews /sanjacinto /stories /PE News _Local_N_nyucaipa25.45debb3.... - 12/5/2008
Riverside police using high -tech surveillance cameras to
catch taggers, other criminals
10: 00 PM PDT on Friday, August 22, 2008
By MARK MUCKENFUSS
The Press- Enterprise
At a police communications center, a computer screen suddenly lights up. A group of
shadowy figures is milling about near a park, spray painting graffiti on a wall.
The dispatcher at the center alerts a patrol car. The responding officer is able to pull up
the same live feed on his squad car computer as he approaches the scene. Watching the
direction in which the group scatters, he heads them off and makes an arrest.
Not only are the suspects connected to the graffiti at the scene, but using a geographic
information system map, police officials are able to pinpoint another half dozen areas
where the same tagging signatures have appeared.
Whether a case works that cleanly remains to be seen. But Riverside police officials say
that within weeks, they will have the capability to make such scenarios a possibility.
A series of smart cameras and the ability to tie into the city's new Wi -Fi system are
bringing such high -tech tools to the fingertips of police on the street.
The portable cameras, the same ones the city uses to monitor traffic at intersections, can
be implanted with motion - detector chips programmed to pick up specific activities.
City spokesman Steve Reneker said that Riverside has nearly 200 of the $3,000 cameras,
most of which are dedicated to traffic. Just five have been used by the police department
over the past year.
"I think they're extremely effective," Reneker said. "We're able to capture the evidence
we need to actually pursue individuals."
In fact, that hasn't really happened yet, but officials are hopeful that it will. The most
recent incident where video surveillance cameras produced evidence was in a double
shooting at Riverside's Central Middle School in April. One of the shooting victims died
in the incident.
Police officials said cameras captured the shooting on tape and helped identify a suspect
who was arrested. The cameras were not the newer motion - detecting kind.
Reneker said the software in the newer cameras is sophisticated enough to respond to
certain types of motion related to specific crimes.
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 95 of 131
"The analytics are built into the camera," Reneker said of the motion - detecting chips,
"but we can change, remotely, the status of what we want that camera to be doing. There
are chips in these cameras that (will activate the equipment) if a particular individual
stands in this position for this period of time."
Other chips can determine if the color of a wall has changed, or if there is activity in a
specific part of the field of view, such as where copper pipes might be vulnerable to theft.
"Maybe today it's a graffiti camera," Reneker said. "Maybe tomorrow it's providing
security coverage for equipment that may have been stolen."
Riverside police Lt. Rick Tadesco said his department will soon have 10 more cameras
equipped with the smart sensors. The department is not saying where the cameras will be
stationed. When in place, if they detect the specified motion, it will activate a screen in
the communications center.
"They'll be able to be monitored," Tadesco said. "If something makes that camera start to
roll, they can dispatch someone."
And with the city's Wi -Fi system up an running, he said, responding officers can pull the
feed up on the computer screen in their patrol cars and gather information as they
approach the scene.
Patrol cars will also be able to tap into all of the traffic oriented cameras and even zoom
in on a street or an intersection to get information before arriving, he said.
Tadesco said graffiti will be one of the focuses of the cameras.
But the city is also using additional technology to nail those wielding cans of spray paint.
New laws make it possible to treat a tagger's moniker as a legal signature, said city
spokesman Reneker. So the city is keeping track of all those scrawls, using a global
information system to map the incidents of graffiti in the city.
"Abatement crews," Reneker said, "take a digital picture and it captures the exact location
using GPS."
They also record the size of the graffiti and the estimated cost of the cleanup. When a
tagger is caught, his "signature" is checked against the data base and he is charged with
each instance where his work appears. A law signed July 31 makes those convicted of
graffiti offenses liable for the cleanup costs. In some cases, they can be made to keep the
site clean for up to a year.
Other cities are using similar technology, sometimes with mixed results. In Los Angeles,
motion - activated cameras have reportedly reduced graffiti in some high- traffic spots. But
the criminals have also learned to spot the cameras and disable or destroy them.
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 96 of 131
Locally, Redlands and Palm Springs have added the cameras to their arsenal of tools.
Sgt. Mitch Spike said the Palm Spring Police Department has been using two of the
cameras for less than a year to target graffiti, vandalism, burglaries and theft.
"We have found them to be effective and we're going to continue to study them," Spike
said. "If they're as effective as we think they will be, we'll try to get more."
Reach Mark Muckenfuss at 951- 368 -9595 or mmuckenfuss(PE.con2
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 97 of 131
Print: LAKE ELSINORE: Fight ends in fatal stabbing of 20- year -old man: North County... Page 1 of 2
Marlene Paltza
From: Marlene Paltza
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 8:53 AM
To: PSAC
Subject: LAKE ELSINORE Fight ends in fatal stabbing of 20- year -old man
J NCTimes.com J Californian.com
Last modified Friday, August 29, 2008 11:19 PM PDT
LAKE ELSINORE: Fight ends in fatal stabbing of 20- year -old man
By CATHY REDFERN - Staff Writer
LAKE ELSINORE - - -- A 20- year -old Lake Elsinore man died early Friday after being stabbed outside a home off
Lakeshore Drive the night before in what one witness described as a fight over graffiti, authorities said.
About 11:30 p.m. Thursday, police responded to a report of a fight outside a home on North Torn Ranch Road,
near Lakeshore Drive, but the group had dispersed by the time officers arrived, said Herlinda Valenzuela, a
spokeswoman for the Riverside County Sheriffs Department.
Then, shortly before midnight, officers got word that a man suffering from stab wounds had been dropped off
outside the emergency room of an area hospital. That man, George Hernandez, died at the hospital about 5:30
a.m. from multiple stab wounds, authorities said.
On Friday, detectives said they had interviewed several people but were still working to determine what
prompted the fight outside the home.
According to one man involved, however, it was started because someone was mad that his graffiti tag had been
crossed out.
Erik Saucedo, 19, said the fight broke out in front of the home where he lives with his parents and two siblings,
after three men approached the home, asking one of his cousins who was outside with her boyfriend if Saucedo
was home.
Hernandez was one of those three men, and was stabbed during a subsequent fight, Saucedo said. He added
that he did not see the stabbing and was not the person fighting Hernandez.
Saucedo said he had gone outside after hearing a commotion and the men confronted him about the spoiled tag.
He said two of the men had disguised their faces, one with a blue bandanna and a hat and another with the hood
of a sweatshirt.
He said he told them he didn't doesn't do graffiti and didn't cross out any tags, and that he didn't want to fight
about it. But he said one of the men punched him and they all "rushed" him and that his friends came to his
defense.
12/5/2008
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 98 of 131
Print: LAKE ELSINORE: Fight ends in fatal stabbing of 20- year -old man: North County... Page 2 of 2
Saucedo said he spent most of the day talking to detectives and added that when officers showed him
Hernandez's photograph, he realized he knew him. They were never very close, but had met and talked and had
mutual friends a couple of years ago, he said.
Saucedo showed a chipped front tooth he said he sustained during the fight and said he was just happy to be
home, and that nothing like that had ever happened to him. He said he had called his friends and urged them to
"man up" and admit it if they had stabbed Hernandez.
"I've never seen so much blood (on the street)," he said. "I wouldn't wish for anyone's death to come around like
that. And I feel for his parents."
Friday afternoon, those parents and other family members had gathered outside their Brown Street home, about
one mile south of Saucedo's.
Esmeralda Zambrano, who identified herself as Hernandez's aunt, said her sister and brother -in -law had moved
their family to Lake Elsinore from the South Bay area when Hernandez was about 10 years old. Part of the
reason they moved was to escape the crime and crowds of Los Angeles County, she said.
Zambrano, 40, of Lawndale, remembered how Hernandez played baseball with his cousins before his family
moved and how he always seemed happy and was smiling.
"He was very polite with his aunts and very close to his mom," she said.
His lastjob was at Abbott Laboratories, she said, and he had worked at the Lake Elsinore Outlets center, a pizza
restaurant and other local businesses and had wanted to go to college. He attended Temescal Canyon High
School and later graduated from Ortega Continuation High School, she said.
He was the oldest of three children and was close to his mother, she said, adding that her sister said Hernandez
hadn't been going out much at night recently, instead opting to spend time helping his dad remodel their home.
His dad, George Hernandez, had just built a second home also, which his son helped with, Zambrano said.
Hernandez had never been in trouble, she said, and his mother had often told him to be careful when he chose
as friends. She said Hernandez spoke to his mother about 11 p.m. Thursday and that his mother asked him to
come home early.
Police say they are looking for a dark - colored four -door sedan, adding that the rear driver's side window of the
car was shattered during the fight. The car was occupied by three or four Latino men in their late teens or early
20s, said Sgt. Michael Lujan of the Riverside County sheriff's Central Homicide Unit.
Zambrano, who works as a manager at a medical clinic, was visibly pained about her nephew's death and said
she couldn't understand how anyone could kill her nephew.
She and another aunt said hospital volunteers had told them Hernandez was stabbed several times and that one
of those wounds punctured his kidney.
"My sister is really devastated and there are no words I can tell her," she said. "There is no worse pain for a
mother and I think it's worse when someone dies in a violent way like this. She keeps crying and saying she will
never see him again."
Staff writer John Hall contributed to this report. Contact staff writer Cathy Redfern at (951) 676 -4315, Ext. 2621,
or e -mail credfern @californian.com.
12/5/2008
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 99 of 131
Print: LAKE ELSINORE: Murder shines light on city's graffiti : North County Times - C... Page 1 of 4
Marlene Paltza
From: Marlene Paltza
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:02 AM
To: Daryl Hickman; Genie Kelley; Robert Magee; Robert Schiffner; Thomas Buckley; Bob Brady;
'barbara @cega.com ; Matt Pressey; Mark Dennis; Pat Kilroy; Cathy Barrozo; Steven McCarty;
Jessica Guzman; Ray Gonzales; Vivian Munson; James Riley; Susan Reid; John Gonzales; Daryl
Hickman ;'jcleary @riversidesheriff.org` Wendy Worthey; Ken Seumalo; PSAC
Subject: LAKE ELSINORE Murder shines light on city's graffiti
'��77(( yy^^��rrgg++y�gp�7yr fl,�y'( rv� ��T � fy+,�
J.�IORTk �V. ou' 'N 4�.A. IYAiGJ :. Rl V XA 3.X.6..........
Last modified Sunday, September 28, 2008 7:24 PM PDT
Examining a grafitti- covered sign on Nichols Road on Friday are Alex Canas, a maintenance worker
for the city of Lake Elsinore and Lupe Gomez, the Public Works street supervisor for the city.
(Photo by Steve Thornton - Staff Photographer)
LAKE ELSINORE: Murder shines light on city's graffiti
u
By AARON CLAVERIE - Staff Writer
LAKE ELSINORE - - -- A city task force has been working for months on a comprehensive plan
to make it easier for police officers and city employees to document and eradicate graffiti and
help the court system prosecute taggers.
That work seems especially important now in light of the recent homicide of George
Hernandez, a 20- year -old Lake Elsinore man who died in late August from injuries sustained
in what witnesses have called a graffiti - related fight.
Witnesses told The Californian that Hernandez was fatally stabbed outside a home on North
Torn Ranch Road when he defended a 19- year -old man who had been accused of defacing a
piece of graffiti called a "tag."
The 19- year -old, Erik Saucedo, said he was confronted by three men wearing masks while
Hernandez was visiting his home.
12/5/2008
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 100 of 131
Print: LAKE ELSINORE: Murder shines light on city's graffiti : North County Times - C... Page 2 of 4
Saucedo told The Californian that he denied being a tagger and that he told the men he didn't
"cross out" any tags. Despite his protests, the men allegedly rushed him and Hernandez
joined with others in his defense.
Hernandez was taken to a local hospital with multiple stab wounds and later died.
Lake Elsinore spokesman Mark Dennis, a member of the city's graffiti task force, said the task
force was working on a plan to make it easier to remove graffiti before the incident.
That plan should be presented to the Public Safety Advisory Commission and then the City
Council in a few weeks.
"By doing this, we're sending a message of being a zero - tolerance city when it comes to
graffiti," Dennis said.
The plan makes use of new technology and communication among the various city
departments, including the Police Department.
Dennis said he expects the plan will go into effect quickly after it is unveiled next month.
The advisory commission has been working diligently on graffiti issues since the city was hit
hard in 2006 by taggers who sprayed swastikas and "666" on homes in a south Lake Elsinore
neighborhood.
After that incident, the commission recommended to the City Council a new ordinance that
made the parents of taggers responsible for their marks, symbols and blots.
It boosted fines to as much as $25,000 and required merchants selling supplies that could be
used by taggers to record the information of people buying the products.
Passage of the ordinance in the spring of 2007
one member of the advisory commission and s
effective.
has been praised in many circles, but at least
)me residents have complained that it is not
The critics have said the ordinance is difficult to enforce because a police officer must catch a
tagger in the act to trigger the harshest penalties.
Dennis said the new plan should solve some of those issues.
When a city employee or a police officer spots a piece of graffiti and photographs it, that
photograph will be fed into a database the city will use to link taggers to multiple pieces of
graffiti.
Individual departments will continue to take care of graffiti on their own turf, Dennis said. For
instance, lake department employees will clean up beach and boat launch locations, parks &
recreation staffers will clean up graffiti at parks, and public works employees will remove
graffiti everywhere else in the city.
The activities of all the different departments will be fed into the city's centralized graffiti-
12/5/2008
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 101 of 131
Print: LAKE ELSINORE: Murder shines light on city's graffiti: North County Times - C... Page 3 of 4
tracking system, which will give officials a better way to share graffiti eradication work orders
and track incidents, Dennis said.
Talking about the seriousness of the graffiti problem in Lake Elsinore, Dennis said there is a
perception among some visitors to Lake Elsinore that graffiti is worse here than in their home
communities. But he said the perception is misleading.
Lake Elsinore residents feel the problem is roughly the same as it is in other communities, he
said, citing a survey the city conducted of a small group of residents.
"It's mutual denial. People think, 'It's worse in your city than it is in mine, "' he said.
As for the underlying reasons behind instances of graffiti in the city, Dennis said he did not
want to categorize it as a "gang" issue.
Dennis said much of the graffiti he has studied while on the task force has been done by kids
or crews, groups of people devoted to graffiti and not necessarily involved in other crimes.
In some cases, the work of the crews has spilled onto the Internet, where taggers post
pictures of their tags and compare the pictures with the tags of other crews.
Dennis said the digital record - - -- postings on MySpace in particular - - -- is a boon for graffiti
eradication efforts because it creates a trail that investigators can use to link particular tags
with taggers.
"MySpace is a quick way to pull things together. Social networking sites are creating bragging
rights and evidence," he said.
In 2007, the Riverside County. Economic Development Agency and the county Board of
Supervisors started a program dedicated to removing graffiti in the unincorporated sections of
Southwest County.
The program, called Graffiti Busters, fielded 6,000 complaints in that first year, said Tom
Freeman, agency spokesman.
This year, the program has already received more than 7,000 complaints and the year is only
three - quarters finished.
"It's been an extremely busy year," he said.
Part of the increase can be attributed to people knowing more about Graffiti Busters and
general dissemination of the program's hotline number, he said.
But Freeman also said there also has been an increase in the volume of graffiti that has been
painted on walls, bridges, rocks and homes.
As for why that's happening, Freeman said that would be up to law enforcement officials to
address.
Sgt. Michael Yates of the Lake Elsinore Police Department said the department's gang unit
12/5/2008
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 102 of 131
Print: LAKE ELSINORE: Murder shines light on city's graffiti: North County Times - C... Page 4 of 4
has not notified him of any unusual uptick in gang - related graffiti in the city or in the county.
Like Dennis, Yates said most of the graffiti he sees is done by teens.
Contact staff writer Aaron Claverie at (951) 676 -4315, Ext. 2624, or
aclaverie @californian.com.
12/5/2008
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 103 of 131
Print: LAKE ELSINORE: Man arrested in Lake Elsinore homicide: North County Times... Pagel of 3
Marlene Paltza
From: Marlene Paltza
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 8:39 AM
To: Daryl Hickman; Genie Kelley; Robert Magee; Robert Schiffner; Thomas Buckley; Bob Brady;
'barbara @cega.com'; Matt Pressey; Mark Dennis; Pat Kilroy; Cathy Barrozo; Steven McCarty;
Jessica Guzman; Ray Gonzales; Carol Cowley; James Riley; Susan Reid; John Gonzales; Daryl
Hickman ;'jcleary@riversidesheriff.org, Ken Seumalo; Tom Weiner
Subject: LAKE ELSINORE Man arrested in Lake Elsinore homicide
Tt z
COUNTY TIME !C t tFQR
Last modified Friday, October 24, 2008 11:33 PM PDT
Robert Villalobos
LAKE ELSINORE: Man arrested in Lake Elsinore homicide
By JOHN HALL - Staff Writer
LAKE ELSINORE - - -- A man wanted in the graffiti - related stabbing death of a Lake Elsinore
man two months ago has been arrested in Las Vegas, authorities said Friday.
Robert Villalobos, 19, of Lake Elsinore was arrested about 11 a.m. Thursday by members of
the FBI's Inland Regional Apprehension Team, said Riverside County sheriffs spokeswoman
Deputy Herlinda Valenzuela.
12/5/2008
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 104 of 131
Print: LAKE ELSINORE: Man arrested in Lake Elsinore homicide: North County Times... Page 2 of 3
She had no details about Villalobos' arrest or how he was tracked to Las Vegas and did not
know when he might be extradited back to California.
Riverside County prosecutors have charged Villalobos with murder in the Aug. 29 death of
George Hernandez, 20, who was stabbed during a fight the night before on North Torn Ranch
Road in Lake Elsinore, according to court records.
When police were sent to that area around 11:30 p.m., the group had already left, but officers
soon were notified that a stabbing victim had been dropped off outside the emergency room
at Inland Valley Medical Center in Wildomar.
Hernandez died the next morning at the hospital from his injuries, authorities said.
The victim's family could not be reached for comment Friday about the arrest, but have
previously said Hernandez had lived in Lake Elsinore since he was 10 and was the oldest of
three children.
Family members said he attended Temescal Canyon High and graduated from Ortega
Continuation High School. They said he worked a variety of jobs locally, including at Abbott
Laboratories and at the Lake Elsinore Outlets center.
On Sept. 4, an affidavit requesting an arrest warrant for Villalobos was filed in Riverside
County Superior Court. A judge issued the warrant the same day, records state.
In the affidavit, sheriffs Investigator James Merrill summarizes some of the interviews
conducted with witnesses in the case.
Two of the men interviewed told homicide investigators that they, a woman and Hernandez all
went to a home on Torn Ranch Road to talk to someone they believed had "tagged" another
friend's home, the document states.
"They said they did not want to fight with him and had only wanted to tell him that he was
being disrespectful," Merrill wrote.
But a fight broke out and Hernandez ended up on the ground, the men told investigators. The
others saw that he needed medical attention so they drove him to the hospital, the document
states.
Merrill wrote that he interviewed the man who lived on Torn Ranch Road who told him he had
knocked Hernandez to the ground. The man said he then went to help his brother, who was
fighting with the two men who had arrived with Hernandez, according to the document.
"As he turned to help his brother, he saw Robert Villalobos running past him in the direction of
George (Hernandez)," Merrill wrote.
Rocks were thrown at the car containing Hernandez as it drove away, the man told Merrill. He
added that he did not see where Villalobos went after the fight.
Merrill said he asked the man why Villalobos would run.
12/5/2008
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 105 of 131
Print: LAKE ELSINORE: Man arrested in Lake Elsinore homicide: North County Times... Page 3 of 3
"Well, probably because he stabbed the guy," the man answered, adding that Villalobos often
carried a pocket knife, the document states.
Merrill wrote that he and another investigator later interviewed the woman who had driven
Hernandez and the other two men to the home on Torn Ranch Road.
She told them she saw Hernandez get punched and fall to the ground after which a man
kicked him several times in the stomach and possibly in the head, Merrill wrote.
The woman also described seeing a man with a knife standing at her car window, the
document states.
That man, believed to be Villalobos, reached in and punched her in the face, Merrill wrote.
She told investigators she put her head down to avoid being hit again.
During an examination of the woman's car, a puncture mark believed to be from a knife was
found on the rear quarter panel of the car, Merrill wrote.
Contact staff writer John Hall at (951) 676 -4315, Ext. 2628, or jhall @californian.com.
12/5/2008
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 106 of 131
A-6 MONDAY, DEcEmBEt 15, 2008
Roses &
raspberries
e `Lump of Coal' award
A raspberry to the hooligans who ve
een destroying the Christmas lights ' the
Town Temecula holiday display.
dals have been cutting d unplug-
ging s e of the strands of bs that are
wrappe round Old Tow rout Street's
light standards. So of the in ' 'dual bulbs have
been pulled out, which lacks t the entire strand.
The result is gaps in t a half -dozen of the
strands of lights that ma light display look like
the equivalent of a 'g smil with several teeth
knocked out.
The lights — 000 enviromn tally friendly
diode bulbs — e part of the city's pus o make the
sidewalks o Id Town Front Street glow 'th holi-
day cheer and shoppers.
It se s that some people will always be de c-
tive, o matter what the season. Whoever is be
t ' mindless destruction, we hope they get a big
p of coal in their stocking this Christmas.
The `Keep Lake Elsinore Beautiful' award
A rose to the city of Lake Elsinore for
taking a coordinated approach to its graffi-
ti problem.
In March, the City Council passed an up-
dated anti - graffiti ordinance. That ordi-
nance increased punishment for offenders,
provided a $1,000 reward for information
leading to a conviction, clamped down on access to
spray paint, and broadened the city's latitude in
helping private property owners remove graffiti,
among other measures.
It also created the Elsinore Graffiti Task Force to
come up with a more comprehensive plan to fight
graffiti. The task force's draft plan recommendations
would standardize reporting of and response to inci-
dents; create a centralized "rapid response" system;
establish a central database and mapping system
that tracks incidents; develop online formats for re-
porting graffiti and requesting service; expand out-
reach and education to businesses and residents,
and test the use of surveillance cameras.
Graffiti invites further lawlessness. We wish more
cities would follow Lake Elsinore's lead by taking an
aggressive, no- nonsense approach to this perennial
problem.
Tha'Rimnv AMP IIn' award
01PIP�ii�
THE ILLINOIS
GOVER 0RIS
CONDUCT
WOULD MAKE
LINCOLN
ROLL OVER
IN His GRAVE,
r �
The influential
This is the time of year
ward," jusi
when media types begin
both gover '
bloviating about the person
collapsed.
who has most impacted the
I'd say t.
country in 2008. Well, there's
quite an imp
not much drama this
■ I
time around because
govet
of Barack Obama's
comp
amazing achievement.
John
But there are other
,?
pendi
folks who have influ-
-; :''
ical p
enced us greatly as
eithe
well. Please consider
` ; fresh
the following list:
tion o '
■ Congressman
Party
Barney Frank, Sen.
' °
° ° ^ had a
Chris Dodd and Secu- BILL ■ 1
rities and Exchange O'REILLY and (
Commission Chairman
vich:'
Christopher Cox: These three
once again t
were given the charge to
ruption kno
watch the financial system in
Republican.
America to make sure Wall
Democratic
Street greed -heads and other
should now',
pernicious people did not
ality progra
`hurt the folks. So tell me, how
wing With tt
did they do?
Cox, a foA&rK"ti�C�OnJX
T especial
;eakir
, congressman, P 1 Wdpf -41W ggettin1
nothing, allowing bad mort- enng Obamt
' aasac to ha. tradad like cnnrtc
tha while kn
City of Lake Elsinore Graffiti Action Plan Page 20 of 20
Appendix E— Research proposal for camera surveillance of "graffiti hot
spots"
09—Graffiti Action Plan-0210 Agenda Item No. 12
Page 108 of 131
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 109 of 131
Steven S. McCarty-Snead
Professor Victoria Basolo
University of California, Irvine
C214- Research Methods
Final Paper
June 8, 2008
7 ASK
I Lai 160
E TICEME
Choose a topic in your area of expertise that reflects an
Iuncertainty, and where there is a reasonable
expectation of clarification by means of scientific
design.
2. Complete an Internet search to allow a brief formulation
of the state of knowledge.
3 Choose an appropriate research design to provide
clarification.
Prepare a 6 -page description (double- spaced) of your
4 work. Include a statement of the problem and why it is
•important in your area of expertise, a summary of the
websiles used in the literature review, and the resulting
knowledge achieved (necessarily in brief form), your
choice of research design and a listing of the types of
alternative plausible explanation controlled by that
design. Add comments, as necessary, on the units of
analysis, the bases of your constructs, and the possible
limitations on the reliability and validity of your results.
Research Questions, Study Hypotheses, Project Goals and Importance:
This project proposes to contribute to a longstanding campaign against graffiti
vandalism in the City of Lake Elsinore. Specifically, this pilot project plans to prevent
graffiti vandalism in targeted areas of the City identified with a high frequency of graffiti
incidents ( "hot spots "). The pilot project will test the effectiveness of strategically
placing mobile digital surveillance cameras in five hot spots throughout the City. After a
meticulous literature review, including contacting professionals in the field and
searching online databases such as JSTOR and Google Scholar, similar projects in
other cities seem to avoid publishing, or designing, adequate evaluations of their
programs. In fact, this project relied on relevant theory and other preventative program
experiments dealing with hot spots for general guidance in program design because the
project researcher could find no adequate graffiti prevention study; thus, this study
hopes to contribute to the formation of new knowledge in this field by answering the
following five research questions: 1) Does installing and operating the cameras
proposed under this project (the independent variable /experimental stimulus) deter
graffiti vandals in hot spots; 2) If it does deter graffiti vandals, by how much does it deter
them; 3) Does the camera intervention cause any short -term persisting treatment
effects; 4) If a persistent treatment effect occurs, how long does it persist. and 5) Does
graffiti vandalism get displaced into areas surrounding the hot spots after camera
project installation and operation? Based on rational choice theory, routine activity
theory, crime pattern theory, and empirical studies such as the Minneapolis Hot Spots
Patrol Experiment, this study makes the following five hypotheses: 1) The project will
deter graffiti vandals from continuing their tagging routine in treated hot spots; 2) Graffiti
1
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 111 of 131
hot spots undergoing intervention will experience graffiti quantities at least 50% lower
than control areas (as the Minneapolis Hot Spots Patrol Experiment found for crimes of
disorder); 3) Sites that underwent intervention will display short -term persisting
treatment effects during the four months after intervention removal (as realized in the
Minneapolis Experiment); 4) A four -month camera intervention should realize short -term
persistent treatment effects of at least one month after removal of treatment because of
its high likelihood of disrupting the routine activity of graffiti vandals in targeted hot spots
of graffiti activity; and 5) The camera intervention will cause a general chilling effect that
minimizes the level of displacement of graffiti vandalism to surrounding areas (as
commonly realized among disorder crimes in Braga's meta - analysis of related
experiments).' If proven successful, the City could justify expanding the project to
additional hot spots and /or developing a strategy of periodically relocating the mobile
surveillance cameras among all hot spots throughout the City.
In addition to preventing graffiti vandalism, this project supports the overarching
goal of the City of Lake Elsinore's citizen -led Public Safety Advisory Commission— to
increase public safety. George Kelling's and James Q. Wilson's writings on broken -
windows theory suggest that graffiti vandalism creates a criminogenic environment
conducive to more serious crimes .2 As Kelling and Wilson mentioned in their March
1982 seminal work in the Atlantic Monthly, "the proliferation of graffiti, even when not
obscene, confronts [a person] with the inescapable knowledge that the environment he
must endure [ ... j is uncontrolled and uncontrollable, and that anyone can invade it to do
whatever damage and mischief the mind suggests." 3 Recognizing the criminogenic
effect of graffiti, the Californian— a local newspaper— published an article on May 10,
2
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 112 of 131
2008 that claimed that "spending a modest amount on fixing broken windows and
painting over graffiti can be the most cost - effective way a city can improve itself. ,'4 Thus,
in addition to reducing graffiti— itself a worthy cause —the City of Lake Elsinore hopes to
utilize this project to cost - effectively improve the quality of life and increase general
public safety for its community of approximately 50,000 residents. By ensuring an
adequate evaluation of this pilot project, the City hopes to allow learning for the design,
expansion, improvement, and evaluation of similar initiatives in the future.
The United Kingdom's Crime Reduction Group claims that the most effective
strategies to reduce graffiti vandalism accomplish one or more of the following
objectives: 1) Increase the perceived risks of detection; 2) Increase the effort required to
commit the crime; 3) Reduce the anticipated rewards for the crime; and 4) Provide
diversionary activities .5 By strategically installing mobile surveillance cameras in
identified hot spots of the City, with notification of surrounding property owners, this
project should further increase the risks of detection, as recommended by the Crime
Reduction Group, and help prevent graffiti vandalism in the City of Lake Elsinore.
Statement of Problem and Pilot Project Description:
According to City officials, the City of Lake Elsinore spends approximately
$100,000 a year on graffiti removal expenses— although this figure underestimates the
costs associated with graffiti vandalism in the City because it only includes the cost of
staffing one graffiti technician position and the expenses reported by the position for
equipment and supplies .6 A comprehensive City graffiti process survey conducted in
May 2008 elucidated that four City departments actually deal directly with graffiti
incidents on a daily basis: 1) Public Works, 2) Parks and Recreation; 3) Community
3
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 113 of 131
Development's Code Enforcement Division; and 4) the Lake Elsinore Police Department
(Riverside County Sheriff). In addition to the four departments mentioned above, the
City's Department of Administrative Services coordinates restitution payments and the
City Attorney's Office assists with related legal matters and civil lawsuits. While the City
does not possess an aggregate of the expenses related to graffiti vandalism, one can
reasonably estimate them to consist of several hundred thousand dollars every year.
On an average week, the City responds to over 100 locations of graffiti
vandalism —many of the locations get tagged multiple times throughout the week. The
Public Works Department, which responds to graffiti vandalism throughout the City,
reported 5,659 responses to graffiti vandalism in the past fiscal year from July 2007 to
June 2008 — typically over 500 a month .7 The Parks and Recreation Department, which
responds to graffiti on City -owned parks and recreational facilities, reported 454
responses to graffiti vandalism since February 2008 —about 114 incidents a month. 8
While Public Works did not start tracking graffiti responses electronically until 2007, the
Parks and Recreation Department maintained data on graffiti incidents since 2004. In
2004 -2005, the Parks and Recreation Department reported about 30 incidents a
month.9 In 2005 -2006, the Parks and Recreation Department reported nearly 60
incidents per month.10 If February through June's 114 incidents a month hold true for
the entirety of 2007 -2008, this represents a 280% rise in the amount of Parks and
Recreation Department - reported graffiti incidents since 2004.11 In addition to the
reported figures from the Public Works and Parks and Recreation Departments, the
Lake Elsinore Unified School District, the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, and
private property owners throughout the City each deal with graffiti vandalism on their
4
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 114 of 131
own —or with prompting by Code Enforcement through notices of violation. The
aforementioned figures collectively demonstrate the severity of graffiti incidents in the
City of Lake Elsinore and the need to address this growing problem.
This pilot project will allow the City to purchase, install, and utilize five six-
thousand dollar Flashcam digital vandalism deterrent systems; specifically, the
Flashcam -880 camera surveillance systems. According to the manufacturer, the
cameras are completely mobile, bullet proof, solar - powered with just two hours of
sunlight exposure a day, capable of holding up to 1,000 6 mega pixel digital
photographs with dates and times, and designed to send data wirelessly to a remote
laptop computer. 12 Another innovative aspect of the camera system includes its
powerful flash, which illuminates a 100 -feet area and allows for clear night images.
Additionally, the flash encourages graffiti vandals to look toward the camera —
increasing the chance that the camera will capture a picture of the vandal's face. While
the camera system will get mounted inconspicuously 18 -20 feet high on a pole or wall, a
customizable 14- second voice message will announce the camera's presence to people
who stay in a targeted area for a programmable duration of time. The City will also post
signs in target areas to further alert people of the camera surveillance.
The City currently tracks locations, dates, times, images, and square inches of
graffiti vandalism, which provides an invaluable source of data and data collection for
this pilot project. Additionally, the City's Geographic Information Systems Division
( "GIs ") commenced work on the creation of a density map clarifying the hot spots of
frequent graffiti activity within the City. After completion of the GIs maps, the five
cameras will target five hot spot areas of graffiti incidents in order to help deter future
5
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 115 of 131
incidents of graffiti vandalism and to identify graffiti vandals in the act. Anecdotal
evidence from interviews with City staff who respond to graffiti incidents suggest that
such hot spots exist and that relatively few graffiti vandals contribute to the creation of
such hot spots of graffiti activity (the estimate of the number of graffiti vandals stems
from the similarity in many graffiti images and messages). After reviewing anecdotal
evidence of similar projects' successes in other Californian cities, such as Los Angeles,
San Bruno, Madera, Bakersfield, and San Dimas, the City of Lake Elsinore would like to
implement this pilot project with a more rigorous evaluation system to determine the
intervention's impact in the City's own community, as well as its potential for others. 13
The City of Lake Elsinore and its Redevelopment Agency will provide the
approximate $35,000 funding for this pilot project, but the City may also receive $2,000
in grant funding from Keep America Beautiful, Inc.'s Graffiti Hurts National Grant
Program. To encourage uniformity in program administration, the Public Works
Department will administer the installation and daily monitoring of the surveillance
cameras in each of the experimental hot spots, the installation of conspicuous signs
notifying people of the surveillance activity at each site, as well as the coordination of
notifying property owners, residents, and businesses within the hot spot of the
surveillance activity. Upon the observance of an act of vandalism caught on camera,
Public Works will record the information and forward it to the Lake Elsinore Police
Department ( "LEPD ") for investigation. Throughout the duration of the pilot project,
Code Enforcement, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works will continue to collect
data and tally incidents of graffiti uniformly, but in a central database maintained on the
City's server. The database will include information on the precise GPS location of each
6
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 116 of 131
graffiti offense (permitted by the use of GPS- linked PC Tablets and cameras), picture(s)
of the offense, measurements of the graffiti in square inches, time and date of the
incident (there may be multiple offenses discovered during a response to one incident),
and a searchable description of the graffiti. Ultimately, the City's residents, businesses,
and other groups and individuals will contribute to the project's success by continuing to
report and address graffiti in their communities.
Research Design, Literature Review, Evaluation Plan Analysis, and Future
Applications:
This $35,000 12 -month pilot project will utilize an experimental design with
switching replications and place -based random assignment (see Figure 1 and Figure 2
below) to test the five research questions and hypotheses mentioned above.
Figure 1: Research Design
The research design will help determine if installing the technology and implementing
the program deters graffiti vandals in hot spot areas, the short -term persistence and
treatment effect of the camera surveillance intervention upon removal of the cameras,
and the level of displacement of graffiti vandalism into surrounding areas. Each
observation point ("0") in the research design represents the aggregate data collection
that occurred for a four -month period prior to each observation.
7
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 117 of 131
Figure 2: Research Design Flowchart
v
02: Observation
(4-Months)'I
Thus, the study visualized in Figure 1 and Figure 2 above proceeds in the following
order: 1) 01: An analysis of citywide graffiti data for the previous four months to
determine hot spots of graffiti activity and baseline data; 2) Identification of the
population of thirty -five 50 -feet radius hot spots of graffiti activity and thirty -five 200 -feet
8
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 118 of 131
radius surrounding areas (G3); 3) R1: Random assignment of camera
intervention /treatment to five treatment/experimental sites (G1) and thirty control groups
(G2); 4) X1: Application of camera intervention /treatment to G1; 5) 02: Observation and
data collection of data for all groups, as well as citywide graffiti rates for a period of four
months; 6) R2: Assignment of camera intervention from three randomly assigned
treatment sites to three randomly assigned control sites —thus creating G1A as the
group with the two continuously operated treatment sites, G1 B as the group consisting
of three G1 sites with treatment removed, G1 C as the group with three new treatment
sites from G2, and G2A as the control group with continuously no camera intervention;
7) X2: Application of camera intervention to G1A and G1C; and 8) 03: Observation and
data collection of data for all groups, as well as citywide graffiti rates for a period of four
months.
As implied above, the key subjects of study and units of analysis include the
graffiti hot spots —thus allowing place -based random assignment of interventions to hot
spots to fulfill the requirements of an experimental design. This study analyzes the
impact of intervention, or lack thereof, within each of the hot spots. To increase validity,
analysis will also occur citywide and within areas surrounding the hot spots. Both
dichotomous and continuous variables will help gauge project success. The
dichotomous variable consists of whether or not graffiti persisted at the hot spots and
surrounding areas before and after the pilot project's intervention of surveillance
cameras. The continuous variable represents how much graffiti existed in the hot spots
and surrounding areas before and after the interventions. The quantity of graffiti
measured in square inches at each hot spot and surrounding areas before and after the
9
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 119 of 131
intervention will determine the continuous variable data inputs. This study will employ
the City of Lake Elsinore's definition of graffiti as codified in the City's graffiti ordinance
passed on March 27, 2007: "graffiti means any inscription, word, figure, or design that is
marked, etched, scratched, drawn, or painted on any surface, without the express
permission of the owner's of such surface, regardless of the nature of the material of
which the surface is composed .,,14 The aforementioned definition of graffiti helps ensure
the consistency of prior observations with post treatment observations and data
collection efforts. GIS mapping and analysis of hot dots tabulated from graffiti work
orders and logs from the Public Works' Access Database and field notes, Parks and
Recreation's Excel database and manually written notes, LEPD's reports, and Code
Enforcement's notices of violations will determine the population of 50 -feet radius hot
spots, as well as provide the baseline and post- treatment observations. The thirty -five
50 -feet radius areas with the greatest frequency (how many average reported incidents
in a week during the prior four - months), recent continuity (how many continuous weeks
during prior four - months), and quantity (how many square inches in average week
during prior four - months) of graffiti vandalism offenses (hot dots) will get designated as
hot spots for purposes of this study. Researchers will rank each site according to each
of the aforementioned factors and then calculate each area's average rank among all
the factors to determine the hot spot population. As supported by routine activity theory
and crime pattern theory, this study assumes a relatively static hot spot population —an
assumption further supported by the abovementioned "recent continuity" ranking factor
used to determine the hot spot population at the study's onset. The thirty -five hot spot -
boundary reflects the study's need to include five initial treatment groups, three
10
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 120 of 131
treatment replication groups, and several control groups, as well as City officials'
conservative estimation of the true number of sites with a suitably high frequency,
recent continuity, and quantity of graffiti vandalism activity to justify intervention. Thus,
the thirty -five -unit boundary reflects the entire population of hot spots as defined by the
City, not merely a probability sample or non - random selection of the population.
Past empirical studies of place -based interventions, including the Kansas City
Preventative Patrol Quasi- Experiment conducted in 1974, included a sample size of
only fifteen hot spots —as stated in Crime Prevention in the Urban Community though,
"the small sample size of only fifteen beats lacked statistical power to find the
differences in crime rates unlikely to be chance effects .05 While budget constraints
prevent this pilot project from including more than five treatment groups at a time, the
thirty -five -unit boundary in the hot spot definition provides more statistical power than
observed in the Kansas City Quasi- Experiment — although this boundary doe not
provide as much statistical power as that realized in the Minneapolis Hot Spots Patrol
Experiment ( "Minneapolis Experiment "). The 1988 -1989 Minneapolis Experiment
included a population of the 110 highest crime rate hot spots in Minneapolis, with 55
randomly assigned to the treatment group and 55 to the control group.16 While the
Minneapolis Experiment's hot spots included geographic areas with an average of
fifteen street addresses, this study's pilot project includes hot spots with 50 -feet
radiuses because the camera intervention claims a deterrent effect with a 100 -feet
range (electronic voice, flash, and camera range). Since the Minneapolis Experiment
claimed that "the most powerful effect of the extra patrol presence was on disorder
events," the Minneapolis Experiment's results provide at least some support for this
11
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 121 of 131
study's hypothesis that the camera intervention will deter graffiti vandals. 77 In theory,
the camera intervention's noticeable presence in the hot spot area should provide at
least the same deterrent effect as that realized with increased police patrols in the
Minneapolis Experiment. Furthermore, the Minneapolis Experiment's results claimed
that the majority of the deterrence occurred as "residual effects' after the actual physical
presence of the extra police patrols in the hot spots; this later finding lends support for
this study's hypothesis that the camera intervention will realize short-term persistency
and treatment effects of at least one month in duration after the relocation of the camera
intervention. 18 Further literature review, including the review of Anthony Braga's meta -
analysis of several hot -spot crime prevention experiments, demonstrates a great deal of
support for this study's hypotheses by finding that "[s]even of nine selected evaluations
reported noteworthy crime and disorder reductions. "19 Regarding the final hypothesis
posited above in this study, Braga's research also proves enlightening in that "[w]hen
immediate spatial displacement was measured, it was very limited and unintended
crime prevention benefits were associated with the hot spots policing programs. "20
Thus, this project expects to minimize displacement and realize reductions in graffiti
offsetting any observations of displacement.
In addition to empirical studies supporting this study's constructs and
hypotheses, theory proves very supportive as well. As stated by Eck and Weisburd in
Crime and Place: Crime Prevention Studies, "three recent theoretical perspectives —
rational choice, routine activity theory and crime pattern theory—have influenced our
understanding of the importance of place in crime prevention efforts." 21 This project's
targeting of camera surveillance in graffiti hot spots benefits from a brief review by each
12
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 122 of 131
of the aforementioned theories. Rational choice theory suggests that "offenders will
select targets [ ... ] in a manner that can be explained .,,22 When taken in conjunction with
routine activity theory, which "seeks to explain the occurrence of crime events as the
confluence of several circumstances," rational choice and routine activity theory support
the hypothesis that this project will markedly deter graffiti vandals by introducing
effective "controllers ", or "guardians ", at each of the hot spots.23 According to crime
pattern theory, which combines the rational choice and routine activity theory
perspectives, "[r]easonably rationale offenders , while engaging in their routine
activities, will note places without guardians. "24 Thus, the introduction of "guardians"
(i.e., the camera intervention project) in "areas offenders routinely move through" (i.e.,
hot spots) will reduce graffiti vandalism opportunity and deter graffiti vandals.
Furthermore, since crime pattern theory suggests that offenders become aware of their
targets in the course of their routine activities, hardening of the target areas with camera
surveillance guardians should not result in displacement of graffiti vandalism because
"few offenders [ ... ] aggressively seek out unchartered areas." 25 Apparently, both theory
and existing empirical studies provide significant support for the five hypotheses posited
in this study.
In addition to receiving support from theory and other empirical studies, this
study's design took several steps to increase the validity, reliability, and general izabiIity
of evaluation results. The key to the internal validity of this experiment stems from its
use of random assignment, which greatly diminishes the study's plausible limitations
and alternative plausible exmplanations. By randomly assigning the entire hot spot
population to control and treatment groups, the study can assume
13
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 123 of 131
probabilistic /statistical equivalency between each of the groups. Furthermore, each
random assignment phase will number all hot spots serially and utilize computer
randomization software to reduce any chance of bias in the assignment process. As an
experiment utilizing a control group, which helps dispel claims that "[t]he very act of
studying something may change it," this design limits alternative plausible explanations.
26 Since the project utilizes the entire population of hot spots as defined by the City, the
external validity, or generalizability, of this project greatly increases as well. Although
the small treatment group size limits the statistical power of the results for
generalizability— causing a threat to statistical conclusion validity —the switching
replications design helps offset this weakness by attempting to replicate the results in
additional hot spots. The switching replications design also helps test the reliability of
the study's results. As a modified pre- and post -test, before and after, classical
experiment, the study should satisfy all of the requirements to prove a cause - and -effect
relationship.Z' Still, one major plausible threat to the internal validity of this study
includes statistical regression. Since hot spots technically include the areas with the
highest graffiti activity as defined by "extreme scores' on the three previously mentioned
ranking factors, one could expect a decline in graffiti activity and a "regression to the
mean" not caused by the camera intervention program .28 This study attempts to control
for the threat of statistical regression by including control groups — statistical regression
should affect both the treatment and control groups equally, thus allowing continued
comparability.
Another plausible threat to internal validity in this experiment— instrumentation -
appears mostly avoided by the City's completing of a comprehensive graffiti process
14
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 124 of 131
survey and the City's subsequent standardization of graffiti data collection methods
based on each department's individual modes of operation. Furthermore, the graffiti
process survey helped ensure construct validity for the City by helping to clarify what
the measures of the study represent; while the City may not actually collect data on
every graffiti offense in the City due to an inadvertent failure to find, respond, or record
the graffiti offenses, the City will collect data uniformly and systematically according to
the work city workers actually partake in, which represents a close enough
approximation of the actual occurrence of graffiti for the City's purposes. To ensure the
careful and uniform administration of the experiment, the Public Works Department will
install, operate, and monitor the equipment at the five assigned hot spot locations, but
all other activities should remain the same.
In addition to careful program administration and data collection, this study's
design enhances data comparability. The three initial treatment sites that lose their
camera intervention (G1 B) will provide a group to compare with the two site's
undergoing constant camera interventions (G1A), the three with replication treatment in
the second phase (G1C), as well as the rate of graffiti before, during, and after
treatment in each of the sites (G1, G1A, G1 B, G1C, G2, and G2A) and citywide. Thus,
the switching replications of the design will help test the hypotheses and determine if
the intervention produces an effect on other hot spots, as well as if a hot spot that
previously received the intervention experiences short -term benefits even after the
intervention is moved to another hot spot. More long -term analysis of the sites could
also help determine the long -term effect of camera treatment in each of the hot spot
sites after the removal of the intervention. GIS analysis of pilot project data will also look
15
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 125 of 131
for any signs of displacement of graffiti vandalism within a 200 -feet radius area
surrounding the experimental hot spot locations (G3), and citywide. Because of the
increased comparability of data offered by this research design, William Trochim of the
Web Center for Social Research Methods claims that "the Switching Replications
design is one of the strongest of the experimental designs" 29 and that it is "very strong
with respect to internal validity. And, because it allows for two independent
implementations of the program, it may enhance external validity or general izability" as
well.ao
This study could almost certainly be generalized to future hot spot populations
within the City of Lake Elsinore — although the population appears relatively static —
because it includes the entire present one. However, changes in hot spot dynamics,
offender target selection procedures, or reactive precautions in subsequent vandalism
methods, may diminish the future applicability of this study's results. Additionally, as a
locally developed /administered program and problem oriented policing strategy, the
extent to which this graffiti prevention program can be generalized to other cities —or
even other camera intervention strategies and technologies —is minimal. Ideally, a
future study could randomly assign this study's intervention within randomly assigned
hot spots of a representative sample of randomly assigned cities across the United
States through multi -stage random sampling —but only the federal government would
likely possess the capacity to fund and coordinate such an effort. Still, the
generalizability of this study in the City of Lake Elsinore should provide more confidence
to similar cities than the exclusively anecdotal evidence currently available. Additionally,
this study provides a useful evaluation tool for other cities' programs.
16
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 126 of 131
If this pilot project successfully deters graffiti in hot spots within the City, regular
GIS analysis will help update hot spot locations and determine strategic placement of
cameras throughout the City. Given the likelihood that the cameras increase public
safety generally, and within the hot spot sites, a future study could analyze reported
crime rates to help determine the camera program's impact in this regard. Future
studies could also utilize sequentially varying treatment durations to help determine the
treatment duration threshold required to optimize persistent treatment effects.
Depending on cost effectiveness, the City may purchase additional cameras in the
future to expand the project's capabilities. Regardless, the effective evaluation of this
pilot project will benefit not only the City of Lake Elsinore, but other similar communities
considering such a program as well.
17
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 127 of 131
Works Cited
' Sherman, L. and Weisburd, D. (1995). Does Patrol Prevent Crime? The Minneapolis Hot Spots
Experiment. In K. Miyazawa and S. Miyazawa (Eds.), Crime Prevention in Urban Communities (pp. 87-
95). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Sherman, L. (2004). Fair and Effective Policing. In J. Wilson and J. Petersilia (Eds.). Crime: Public
Policies for Crime Control (pp. 389). Oakland, CA: ICS Press.
Maxfield, M. and Babble, E. (2008). Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology, Fifth Edition
(pp. 39 and 327 -329) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Eck, J. and Weisberd D. (1995). Crime Places in Crime Theory. In J. Eck and D. Weisberd (Eds.). Crime
and Place: Crime Prevention Studies (pp. 5). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Braga, A. (2006). The Crime Prevention Value of Hot Spots Policing. Psicothema, 18, pp. 630 -637
2 Kelling, G. and Wilson, J. (1982). The Police and Neighborhood Safety: Broken Windows [Electronic
version]. The Atlantic Monthly. March, 1 -5. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from
hffp://www.theatlantic.com/doc/I 98203/broken-windows
3 Kelling, G. and Wilson, J. (1982). The Police and Neighborhood Safety: Broken Windows [Electronic
version]. The Atlantic Monthly. March, 2. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from
hftp:/Avww.theatlantic.com/doc/l 98203 /broken - windows
' Warth, G. (2008, May 10). Region: Drawing a Line. Popular Theory Sees Stopping Graffiti As a
Message to More Serious Criminals. The Californian. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/06/1 0/news/sa nd i ego/zOffcl448deb890278825742 d0080dc9f. txt
5 Crime Reduction Group. (n.d.). Responding to Vandalism and Graffiti. The Home Office. Retrieved on
June 3, 2008 from http:// www. crimereduction. homeoffiice .gov.uk/toolkits /pt050503.htm
6 Carvajal, J. (2007, March 14). Commission Approves Graffiti Ordinance. The Californian. Retrieved
June 3, 2008 from http: / /www.nctimes.com /articles /2007/03/15 /news /californian /4_03_323_14_07.txt and
personal communication with City officials.
' Data compiled from work orders and fields notes generated by the Public Works Department for the
period from July 2007, to June 2008.
8 Data compiled from fields notes generated by the Parks and Recreation Department for the period from
February 2008 to June 2008.
9 Data extracted from archived electronic files saved on the City server, which summarized Parks and
Recreation Department graffiti work.
10 Data extracted from archived electronic files saved on the City server, which summarized Parks and
Recreation Department graffiti work.
" Data extracted from archived electronic files saved on the City server, which summarized Parks and
Recreation Department graffiti work.
'Z Q -Star Technology. (n.d.). Flashcam -880 with Wireless Download. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from
hftp://wv,fw.qstartech.com/880.htmi
Iu
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 128 of 131
Q -Star Technology. (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved June 3, 2008 from
hftp://www.qstartech.com/faq.html
" Q -Star Technology. (n.d.). Success Stories. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from
http:/Avww.qstartech.com/success.html
'4 LEMC 9.52.020
5 Sherman, L. and Weisburd, D. (1995). Does Patrol Prevent Crime? The Minneapolis Hot Spots
Experiment. In K. Miyazawa and S. Miyazawa (Eds.), Crime Prevention in Urban Communities (pp. 88).
The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
t5 Sherman, L. (2004). Fair and Effective Policing. In J. Wilson and J. Petersilia (Eds.). Crime: Public
Policies for Crime Control (pp. 389). Oakland, CA: ICS Press-
" Sherman, L. and Weisburd, D. (1995). Does Patrol Prevent Crime? The Minneapolis Hot Spots
Experiment. In K. Miyazawa and S. Miyazawa (Eds.), Crime Prevention in Urban Communities (pp. 92).
The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
18 Sherman, L. and Weisburd, D. (1995). Does Patrol Prevent Crime? The Minneapolis Hot Spots
Experiment. In K. Miyazawa and S. Miyazawa (Eds.), Crime Prevention in Urban Communities (pp. 94).
The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
19 Braga, A. (2006). The Crime Prevention Value of Hot Spots Policing. Psicothema, 18, pp. 630.
20 Braga, A. (2006). The Crime Prevention Value of Hot Spots Policing. Psicothema, 18, pp. 630.
2' Eck, J. and Weisberd D. (1995). Crime Places in Crime Theory. In J. Eck and D. Weisberd (Eds.).
Crime and Place: Crime Prevention Studies (pp. 5). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
22 Eck, J. and Weisberd D. (1995). Crime Places in Crime Theory- In J. Eck and D. Weisberd (Eds.).
Crime and Place: Crime Prevention Studies (pp. 5). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
23 Eck, J. and Weisberd D. (1995). Crime Places in Crime Theory. In J. Eck and D. Weisberd (Eds.).
Crime and Place: Crime Prevention Studies (pp. 5). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
24 Eck, J. and Weisberd D. (1995). Crime Places in Crime Theory. In J. Eck and D. Weisberd (Eds.).
Crime and Place: Crime Prevention Studies (pp. 6). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
25 Eck, J. and Weisberd D. (1995). Crime Places in Crime Theory. In J. Eck and D. Weisberd (Eds.).
Crime and Place: Crime Prevention Studies (pp. 6). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
" Maxfield, M. and Babbie, E. (2008). Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology, Fifth
Edition (pp. 179) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
27 Maxfield, M. and Babble, E. (2008). Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology, Fifth
Edition (pp. 183) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
2e Maxfield, M. and Babbie, E. (2008). Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology, Fifth
Edition (pp. 185) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
29 Trochim, W. (2006). (n.d.). Hybrid Experimental Designs. Web Center for Social Research Methods.
Retrieved June 5, 2008, from http:// www.socialresearchmethods.neVkb /exphybrd.php
19
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 129 of 131
30Trochim, W. (2006). (n.d.). Other Quasi- Experimental Designs. Web Center for Social Research
Methods. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from http: / /wvvw.socialresearchmethods .net/kb /quasioth.php
20
Agenda Item No. 12
Page 130 of 131