Crime and Quality of Life in the Chattanooga Region

Crime and Quality of Life in the Chattanooga Region

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, violent crime reached a new peak in the United States. But between 1991 and 2004, violent crime declined to its lowest level in almost three decades. Recent national data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation suggests that this trend has now begun to shift. For example, after modest increases and declines in murder during the first half of this decade, murder increased by 4.8% nationally in 2005 – the largest one year increase since 1991. Moreover, as highlighted in a recent study by the Community Research Council, this increase was largely driven by increases in murder in midsize cities – cities with a population of 100,000 to 300,000 residents – where murder has actually increased by 22.2% since 2000.

Perhaps it is not surprising then that when asked what factors were most important to determining their quality of life, more Chattanooga region residents indicated that safety from crime was very important – 87% -- than any one of fourteen other choices.

Crime in the Chattanooga Region

The best way to measure the incidence of crime in an area is to look at the number of actual citizen complaints to the police. Still, this is not a perfect methodology: at a national level, victimization surveys indicate that many crimes are not reported to the police. In fact, data from the 2000 National Crime Victimization Survey indicate that only 48% of violent crime and 36% of property crime is reported to the police.¹ Sometimes, an increase in reported crime can reflect an improvement in police services. For example, more people may be willing to report crime if they believe that the police will be more responsive to the complaint.

Nevertheless, crime complaints are a better way to measure the incidence of crime than arrests, which are more indicative of the activity and effectiveness of individual police departments than the incidence of crime. For example, arrests can increase even as crime declines – with more enforcement attention being dedicated to lower level offenses. Similarly, arrests can decline as crime rises – reflecting a reduction in law enforcement staffing or effectiveness.

This report utilizes two different sources for crime complaint data. All local law enforcement agencies are required to report complaint data to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI), which then releases jurisdiction level data to the public. This report relies on TBI data for jurisdiction level complaint data for the County Sheriff and all seven local municipal police agencies in the Chattanooga area. This report also relies upon incident level data obtained from both the Chattanooga Police Department and the Hamilton County Sheriff for 2005: incident level data enables us to provide neighborhood level complaint information for areas within Chattanooga and for different parts of the unincorporated section of the county where the Sheriff is responsible for patrol activity. These two law enforcement agencies account for more than 80% of all arrest activity in the county and cover 77% of the total county population.

Neither of these sources is perfect or comprehensive. For example, 2005 TBI complaint data for the Hamilton County Sheriff indicate that the information is incomplete. During the course of data analysis, we also identified data discrepancies between the TBI report and the incident level data for the Chattanooga Police Department as well.²

Based on TBI data, there were 23,965 Group A offense complaints in Chattanooga in 2005.³ Most complaints – just over 75% -- were crimes against property, such as burglary, vandalism, motor vehicle theft and shoplifting. Just over 5% of complaints were related to drug or narcotic violations or drug paraphernalia.

Property crime accounted for the majority of all complaints in the other Hamilton County municipalities, with the exception of Signal Mountain, where it was just below 50%. The combination of property crime and drug complaints accounted for more than 70% of complaints in all of the municipal jurisdictions, with the exception of Red Bank -- suggesting that a higher percentage of crime in Red Bank may be violent in nature.

Victims of Crime in Chattanooga and Hamilton County

Victim identity was determined based on the identity of the actual complainant. In the case of property offenses, however, there may be multiple victims – for example, a husband and wife who co-own a car or a house that was burglarized – yet only one will be the identified complainant.

Overall, women accounted for a majority of all complaints in Chattanooga – 53.5%: nevertheless, men were the complainant or victim in a majority of cases involving auto theft, burglary, murder and robbery.

Most crime victims in Chattanooga were white -- 56.7%: African Americans, who make up 36.1% of the city’s population, were the victims in 40% of all crimes. In addition, a majority of both simple and aggravated assault victims were African American.

In 2005, Latinos were the victims of approximately 2.8% of crimes where a victim or complainant was identified. But Latinos were the victims of 14.8% of robberies citywide – five times their overall crime victimization rate.

Finally, there are differences in victimization by age. A majority of victims in Chattanooga were between the ages of 18 and 44: more than three in five crime victims are between those ages, with 44.3% of all Chattanooga crime victims between the ages of 18 and 34. Older residents of Chattanooga – those 65 years old and older – accounted for just over 6% of complainants and victims.

Children – those under 18 – were the victims or complainants of 7.5% of all crime in Chattanooga. One area where victim data are available for the entire county in 2005 is for those cases involving children who were the victims of abuse. In 2005, there were 637 indicated child abuse allegations reported by the State Department of Children Services.⁴

Public Safety in the Chattanooga Region

There is a difference between crime and public safety. Changes in crime rate do not necessarily lead to changes in perception about public safety. For example, crime data suggest that significant reductions in the national crime rate began in 1993: yet, when asked in surveys whether crime was more, less or the same than the prior year, respondents indicated that they believed crime was continuing to increase between 1993 and 2001. In other words, “it took almost seven years, and crime having declined by 27% for Americans to register that crime was declining.”⁵

Therefore, in addition to the administrative data, we also examined a number of issues related to perceived public safety in a countywide survey.

Specifically, when asked how often they worry about their physical safety, 51% of survey respondents indicated never, 25% indicated rarely, 16% indicated sometimes and 7% indicated often.

There were significant differences in response by place of residence. Respondents from Chattanooga were approximately 50% more likely to indicate that they worried about their physical safety often or sometimes than residents from throughout the rest of the county.

Younger respondents – those in the 18 to 29 year old category -- were also more likely to indicate concern, with 33% indicating that they worried about their physical safety often or sometimes.

There were also significant differences by race: just over 20% of white respondents indicated they often or sometimes worried about their physical safety, compared to 35% of African Americans. There were similar differences by gender, with 17% of men indicating that they sometimes or often worry about their safety compared to 29% of women.

Slightly higher percentages of residents expressed concern over being robbed or burglarized. When asked how often they worry about being robbed or having your home broken into, 38% said never, 27% said rarely, 26% said sometimes and 8% said often.

Again, there were significant differences in response by place of residence. Among respondents from Chattanooga, 40% indicated that they were often or sometimes worried about being victimized or burglarized compared to 27% or respondents from outside of the city. Differences by age and race were narrower than the differences in response to the question about concern over physical safety. Survey respondents were asked a question designed to explore the incidence of domestic violence. Specifically, they were asked how frequently they worry about “being hit, pushed or slapped by someone you know.”

Among al respondents, 78% responded never, 16% indicated rarely, 3% responded sometimes and 2% responded often. On this question, there were no significant differences by race or gender. But, respondents aged 60 to 69 were twice as likely to indicate that they worried about this form of violence often or sometimes. Among individuals who reported household income of less than $20,000 a year, 13% indicated that they worried about this form of violence often or sometimes.

Law Enforcement Response to Crime in the Chattanooga Region

The law enforcement response to crime in the Chattanooga region is a function of the efforts of multiple agencies at multiple levels of government.

In the vast majority of cases, local police agencies are responsible for the investigation of crimes. Seven municipalities in Hamilton County have their own local police department. The Hamilton County Sheriff is responsible for the investigation of state crimes that occur outside of the jurisdiction of these municipal agencies.

When there is an arrest, most crimes result in prosecution through the State criminal justice system. Those cases are tried by the District Attorney General, who has jurisdiction for the entire county. In some cases, those involving violation of the federal criminal law, the United States Attorney will have prosecutorial jurisdiction.

Men awaiting trial in either a State or federal court will be housed in the Hamilton County jail. Women will be housed in the Silverdale Correctional Facility, which is under the supervision of the Hamilton County Department of Correction and operated by contract by a private firm. Convicted misdemeanants – both men and women – are held in Silverdale.

Offenders who are prosecuted by the state and convicted will either be incarcerated locally in Silverdale or by the Tennessee Department of Correction. They may also be placed on probation through the State Bureau of Probation and Parole or through programs run by the County Department of Corrections. Offenders who are prosecuted federally and convicted will either be incarcerated through the federal Bureau of Prisons or placed on probation, with supervision by the federal Probation Service.

Arrests in Hamilton County

In 2004, local law enforcement agencies made 13,530 arrests in Hamilton County – down by 12.1% from 2001 and down by 22.1% from a recent high of 17,361 arrests in 2002.⁶ Ten crimes accounted for more than 55% of all arrests in Hamilton County – simple assault, drug/narcotics violations, driving under the influence, aggravated assault, shoplifting, disorderly conduct, drunkenness, robbery, bad checks and burglary. By comparison, these same ten offenses accounted for 71.2% of arrests made by the Chattanooga Police Department in 2005.

Between 2001 and 2004, there were significant increases in arrests for disorderly conduct – where arrests more than doubled -- and robbery – where arrests more than tripled. During the same period, there were dramatic declines in arrest for DUI offenses, shoplifting and bad checks.

According to the 2000 Census, 76% of Hamilton County residents were white and 20% were African American. Yet, in 2004, just over 40% of all individuals arrested in Hamilton County were African American compared to the 59% of arrestees who were white. Arrests of white offenders declined by just over 14% since 2001 – almost double the rate of reduction in arrests for African American offenders.

African Americans accounted for more than half of all arrestees in 2004 for aggravated assault, disorderly conduct and robbery: disorderly conduct and robbery were two of the crime categories that saw significant increases in arrests since 2004. In two of the three categories where arrests significantly declined since 2001, a disproportionately high number of arrestees are white – DUI (81%) and bad checks (71%).

More than half of all arrestees – 53% -- in 2004 were between the ages of 18 and 34: 18 to 34 year olds accounted for just 23% of the total population. Among adults (excluding all individuals under 18), the 18 to 34 cohort accounted for 62% of all arrests compared to 30% of the adult population. Age appears to drive arrests for certain crime categories. For example, while arrestees under 18 account for 13% of all arrests, they accounted for 44% of arrests for disorderly conduct and 25% of arrests for shoplifting.

In 2004, men accounted for 74% of all arrests – while accounting for 48% of the overall population.

A disproportionate number of arrests in Hamilton County take place outside of the City of Chattanooga. While Chattanooga accounts for 51% of the county population, the Chattanooga Police Department made 45% of the arrests in the county in 2004. By comparison, while the Hamilton County Sheriff has patrol responsibility for 28% of the county population, it was responsible for 34% of all arrests.

Between 2001 and 2004, three police agencies in the county reduced the number of arrests -- the Chattanooga Police Department (11%), the Hamilton County Sheriff (26%) and the Red Bank Police Department (42%). At the same time, both East Ridge (55%) and Soddy Daisy (38%) had significant increases in the number of arrests.

Survey research can also be used to measure the responsiveness and fairness of local law enforcement. Survey respondents were asked to rate both the responsiveness of police to neighborhood concerns and how fair the police are in dealing with people in their neighborhood.

Among all respondents, 42% indicated that the police were very responsive, 31% indicated that they were somewhat responsive, 7% said that they were not too responsive and 2% indicated that they were not at all responsive: 17% did not respond to the question.

While there was no significant difference in response by gender, there were differences based on both respondent race and age. Among white respondents, 74% indicated that the police were either very or somewhat responsive, compared to 66% of African American respondents. Older residents – those over sixty-- were also more likely to believe that the police were very responsive when compared to younger residents. Respondents who lived in the county outside of Chattanooga were also more likely to rate police as very responsive (49%) when compared to respondents from Chattanooga (35%).

Survey data suggests that there is a strong relationship between perceptions about police responsiveness and concern over physical safety. Among those respondents who indicated that they were often concerned for their physical safety, 60% found that the police were responsive to their concerns – compared to 75% who sometimes worried about their physical safety, 73% who rarely worried about their physical safety and 74% who responded that they never worried about their physical safety. Among those who indicated that they worried about their physical safety often, 33% indicated that the police were not responsive – nearly three times the rate for the overall sample.

Similarly, among those who believe that the police are not responsive, 40% worry about their physical safety either often or sometimes – compared to 28% of those respondents who believe the police are somewhat responsive and 18% of those respondents who believe the police are very responsive. Among those who believe the police are very responsive, 58% never worry about their physical safety, compared to 42% of those respondents who believe the police are somewhat responsive and 38% of those who believe the police are nonresponsive.

Among all respondents, 38% believed the police were very fair when dealing with people in their neighborhood, 30% indicated that they were fair, 6% indicated that they were not too fair and 2% believed they were not fair at all: 24% of respondents did not answer this question.

Male respondents were more likely to rate the police as very fair/fair (73%) than female respondents (64%).

Among white respondents, 70% indicated that the police were very fair/fair compared to 60% of African American respondents. The race gap was even greater when looking at the number of respondents who believed the police were very fair: white respondents (43%) were more than twice as likely to rate the police as very fair as African American respondents (19%).

Incarceration and Incapacitation

When individuals are arrested in Hamilton County, their arrest is processed through the Hamilton County jail. While the majority of offenders are processed, arraigned and then released – either to await trial or after their case has been disposed, many remain in custody pending trial or disposition of their case.

Using data for 2004 and 2005 supplied by the Hamilton County Sheriff ’s Department, there were 7,945 offenders who were in custody for more than the day of arrest (“jail admissions”) in 2004 and 8,841 jail admissions in 2005.⁷ In 2004, 49.8% of jail admissions were white, 46.1% were African American and 3.9% were Latino. In 2005, 48.1% of jail admissions were white, 46.8% were African American and Latino admissions increased to 4.6%. In both 2004 and 2005, the overwhelming majority of jail admissions were men – 88.3% in 2004 and 88.9% in 2005.

Most offenders do not stay in jail very long. In 2004 and 2005, approximately 40% of all admissions were out of jail within two days, just under 60% within one week and three quarters within two weeks of initial commitment. In both years, however, 5.4% of admissions had lengths of stay of more than 90 days.

Jail length of stay is dependent on a number of different factors including, but not limited to, seriousness of the charged offense, flight risk and – perhaps most importantly – the ability to come up with bail or bond prior to trial. Based on data from the Sheriff ’s Department, there is a difference in length of stay in Hamilton County based on race and ethnicity. First, based on TBI data for 2004, 40.5% of those arrested in Hamilton County were African American: yet, African Americans accounted for 46.8% of jail admissions. Second, while African Americans accounted for 46.8% of all jail admissions, they accounted for 50.1% of all jail admissions with a length of stay of longer than two weeks – and 49.9% of all jail admissions with a length of stay of longer than 30 days. Similarly, while Latinos were 3.9% of all jail admissions, they accounted for 4.1% of all admissions with lengths of stay of longer than two weeks or longer – but just 2.8% of all stays of longer than 30 days.

While there is no reliable countywide arrest data for 2005, among those who are admitted to jail, African Americans accounted for 46.1%: yet among those admitted with lengths of stay of longer than two weeks, African Americans accounted for 52.1% -- and 53.7% of all jail admissions with a length of stay of longer than 30 days. Unlike 2004, while Latinos were 4.6% of all jail admissions, they accounted for – a smaller proportion -- 4.4% -- of all admissions with lengths of stay of longer than two weeks or longer.

The majority of offenders who are sent to prison will eventually return to the community. Nationally, approximately 68% of those offenders who return to the community will be rearrested and 52% will be incarcerated again within three years.⁸

While some offenders will return to the community at the completion of their sentence, many come back to the community while under probation or parole supervision. In 2004 and 2005, a total of 2,528 offenders who committed crimes in Hamilton County were released from the state prison system on either parole or probation. Two thirds of offenders released on parole and probation were white and one-third were African American. 81% of parolees and probationers with initial crimes in Hamilton County were men. Most parolees – more than 80% -- were between the ages of 18 and 44, with a majority between the ages of 18 and 34.

The top ten top offenses – based on the most serious charge upon conviction – represented among offenders returning on parole and probation accounted for more than half of all offenses. Most of the top ten offenses were related to either property crimes or substance abuse.

Does the Chattanooga Region Have a Lot of Crime?

In the area of crime, cross jurisdictional comparisons are made easier by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). Still, there are obstacles to accurate comparison. Not all participating law enforcements provide complete data to UCR. With certain offenses, there is the possibility that reporting has been skewed by charging decisions: some offenses could be charged one way in one city and another way in a different city.

In the case of the Chattanooga area, cross jurisdictional comparisons using UCR are also made difficult because of problems resulting from a recent transition by the Chattanooga Police Department to a new crime database. In addition, UCR reporting differs from the incident based reporting now in use in Tennessee.

One indicator of crime, however, is well tracked across time and across jurisdiction – homicide. Murder is perhaps the best means of looking at crime – particularly violent crime – across different jurisdictions, because “[N]ot only is homicide, because of its severity, of greatest concern to lay persons and experts alike, but available data on this offense are unmatched in terms of quality, consistency and coverage. At a national level, no other crime is measured as accurately and precisely…it is a fairly reliable barometer, relatively unaffected by non uniformity in law enforcement definition and processing.”⁹

Earlier this year, the Community Research Council released a report looking in detail at murder in midsize cities. CRC found that between 2000 and 2005, murder and non-negligent homicide in midsize cities has increased by 22.2%. The rate of increase was two and a half times the rate of increase for the nation as a whole (8.5%) and more than fifty percent higher than for large cities (cities with a population between 300,000 and one million): in U.S. cities with a population of more than one million, the number of murders actually declined between 2000 and 2005 by 6.1%.¹⁰ On average, midsize cities have a murder rate of 8.5 per 100,000 residents.

Of the fourteen cities at the core of the benchmark regions examined, Chattanooga had the second highest murder rate – based on 2005 murders and 2000 Census population. Only Allentown, with a murder rate of 19.7 exceeded Chattanooga’s rate of 14.8 murders per 100,000. Chattanooga was one of seven cities among the benchmarks to see an increase in murder between 2000 and 2005: five cities saw a decline. Murder in Chattanooga had declined between 2000 and 2004, only to nearly double in the last year.

Crime and Public Safety in the Neighborhoods in the Chattanooga Region – Neighborhood by Neighborhood Analysis

There are significant differences in the amount of crime by neighborhood, both within Chattanooga and across Hamilton County. These differences vary by offense. For the purposes of the neighborhood by neighborhood analysis, we looked at trends for both some of the most common offenses – vandalism and simple assault – and some of the most serious crimes – murder, burglary, robbery, assault and drug violations.

Based on combined data sources, there is geographic information for 18 of the 26 murders that occurred in Hamilton County in 2005. Murders were concentrated in the Downtown and Bushtown/Highland Park neighborhoods in Chattanooga and in Collegedale. Five neighborhoods in Chattanooga had a rate of 1,100 or more aggravated assaults per 100,000 residents – more than double the countywide rate. These five neighborhoods – Ridgedale/Oak Grove/Clifton Hills, Downtown, Bushtown/Highland Park, Glenwood/Eastdale and South Chattanooga – accounted for 45.1% of all aggravated assault in the county and just 13.9% of the total population.

Seven neighborhoods in Chattanooga have burglary rates of 1,700 per 100,000 or more – Ridgedale/Oak Grove/Clifton Hills, Bushtown/Highland Park, South Chattanooga, Brainerd, Amnicola/East Chattanooga and Tyner/Greenwood – nearly double the countywide rate These areas account for 41.5% of all burglaries in the county and just 19.5% of the county population.

The Ridgedale/Oak Grove/Clifton Hills area has a robbery rate of 1,450.3 per 100,000 residents – more than two and a half times the next highest rate in the county. While this neighborhood accounts for just 2.8% of the county population, it accounted for 21.6% of all robberies in 2005.

Five neighborhoods in Chattanooga had 3,258.8 drug complaints per 100,000 or more – double the countywide rate. These five neighborhoods – Ridgedale/Oak Grove/Clifton Hills, Downtown, Bushtown/Highland Park, Amnicola/East Chattanooga and South Chattanooga -- account for 43.6% of all drug complaints in the county and just 14.3% of the county population.

Five neighborhoods in Chattanooga -- Ridgedale/Oak Grove/Clifton Hills, Downtown, Bushtown/Highland Park, Amnicola/East Chattanooga and Glenwood/Eastdale -- and Red Bank have 2,261.1 simple assault complaints per 100,000 or more – more than double the countywide rate. These areas account for 40% of all simple assaults and just 15.8% of the county population.

The five neighborhoods in the county with the highest rates of vandalism complaints are Ridgedale/Oak Grove/Clifton Hills, Downtown/, Bushtown/Highland Park, Amnicola/East Chattanooga and South Chattanooga. These areas account for 30.3% of vandalism complaints and just 14.3% of the county population.

In all, there were eight neighborhoods that were among the top five in robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, simple assault, drug and/or vandalism complaints:

• Ridgedale/Oak Grove/Clifton Hills – all categories
• Bushtown/Highland Park – all categories
• Downtown – robbery, aggravated assault, simple assault, vandalism, drug complaints
• South Chattanooga – robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, vandalism and drug complaints
• Amnicola/East Chattanooga - - burglary, simple assault, vandalism, drug complaints
• Glenwood/Eastdale – aggravated assault, simple assault
• Brainerd – burglary
• North Chattanooga/Hill City/UTC - robbery

While neighborhoods with high crime rates are concentrated in Chattanooga, it is significant that for a number of types of crime the rates in other parts of the county are higher – sometimes much higher than the overall countywide rate. Burglary rates in both East Ridge and Collegedale were among the ten highest in the county: East Ridge’s burglary rate exceeded Downtown (among the top five in other categories) and Collegedale’s burglary rate exceeded North Chattanooga/Hill City/UTC (among the top five in robbery)) Soddy Daisy was seventh in aggravated assault rate and East Ridge was tenth – both, along with Red Bank which ranked 11th, had higher aggravated assault rates than Brainerd (one of the top five neighborhoods in burglary rate). Red Bank had the county’s 6th highest simple assault rate – higher than South Chattanooga. And Collegedale ranked 8th in drug complaint rate countywide.

There is significant regional variation in the incidence of child abuse in the County as well. Zip code level information was available for just over 70% of all allegations in 2005. Two regions – Downtown/South Chattanooga and East Chattanooga –that cover the downtown core had significantly higher rates of abuse. For example, Downtown/South Chattanooga had a rate of 756.9 allegations per 100,000 households – more than double the rate for the entire county.

Chattanooga- that cover the downtown core had significantly higher rates of abuse. For example, Downtown/South Downtown Chattanooga had a rate of 756.9 allegations per 100,000 households - more than double the rate for the entire county.

Out of the 16,786 jail admissions in Hamilton County in 2004 and 2005, 15% reported home addresses from outside of the county: in the case of another 10%, records were missing from the jail system data base.

Among Hamilton County residents, jail admissions are concentrated by region. In both 2004 and 2005, two regions – Downtown/South Chattanooga and East Chattanooga/Highway 58 – accounted for approximately 50% of all jail admissions in the county. When looking at 2004 and 2005 together and comparing jail admissions to region households, Downtown/South Chattanooga has a jail admission rate that is more than two and a half times the overall county rate and 30.3% higher than the next highest region – East Chattanooga/Highway 58. Downtown/South Chattanooga’s jail admission rate is more than seven times the lowest regional rate in Lookout Mountain/Signal Mountain.

Out of the 2,528 offenders who were returning from prison for crimes committed in Hamilton County, 30.4% returned to locations outside of Hamilton County: locations were not available for 12.5% of returning offenders. Among the 1,455 offenders returning to Hamilton County, more than half relocated to the two regions that form the core of the Downtown area: Downtown/South Chattanooga has more than double the recent parolees and probationers per capita as the overall rate for the County.

Just as there are geographic differences in crime, there are also differences in concern and perceptions about both physical safety and police responsiveness.

Residents from the Downtown/South Chattanooga area (42%), East Ridge/Brainerd (31%) and East Chattanooga (31%) had the highest percentage or respondents indicating concern over physical safety. These three regions – Downtown/South Chattanooga, East Chattanooga (47%) and East Ridge/Brainerd (39%) – also had the highest percentages of residents who either sometimes or often worry about being robbed or having your home broken into.

While there were few differences in response to questions regarding concern about “being hit, pushed or slapped by someone you know,” 13% of Downtown/South Chattanooga respondents indicated that they worried about this type of violence often or sometimes.

And, finally, there were regional differences in perceptions about police responsiveness and fairness. Downtown/South Chattanooga residents and East Chattanooga residents were less likely to rate the police as very fair. For example, just 18% of Downtown/South Chattanooga residents rated the police as very fair compared to 44% in East Brainerd and East Hamilton County. There were smaller regional differences in perceptions of police responsiveness. While 50% of North Hamilton County residents indicated that they believe the police were very responsive, just 29% of Downtown residents believed that police were very responsive: police responsiveness ratings were also lower in North Chattanooga/Red Bank (31%) and East Chattanooga (33%).

Endnotes

1. Michael Rand and Callie Rennison, “True Crime Stories? Accounting for Differences in our National Crime Indicators,” Chance, Vol. 15 No. 1, 2002.

2. For example, incident level data indicates that there were 14 murders in Chattanooga in 2005. According to the TBI report, there were 24 murders. According to preliminary FBI data, there were 23 murders.

3. Group A offenses include 47 individual crimes in 22 crime categories: Arson, Assault, Burglary, Counterfeiting, Destruction/Damage/Vandalism, Drug/ Narcotic, Embezzlement, Extortion, Fraud, Gambling, Homicide, Kidnapping, Larceny/Theft, Motor Vehicle Theft, Pornography, Prostitution, Robbery, Sex Offenses, Stolen Property and Weapon Offenses.

4. Indicated allegations refer to those allegations where credible evidence supports the claim.

5. Michael Jacobson, Downsizing Prisons, New York University Press (2005).

6. . Arrest data is provided by all local law enforcement agencies to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. (TBI). TBI provided arrest data for 2001 to 2004 and the Chattanooga Police Department and Hamilton County Sheriff provided arrest data for 2005. The most comprehensive data – inclusive of all law enforcement agencies in the jurisdiction – was the 2004 data.

7. For the purpose of this analysis, only those offenders whose arrest was by the Sheriff or one of Hamilton County’s seven municipal agencies are included in the count. So, for example, commitments that were the result of actions by bond companies, arrests by non-Hamilton County law enforcement agencies and production of offenders by court officers – all included in the Sheriff Department’s database – were not included.

8. Patrick Langan and David Levin, “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002.

9. James Alan Fox, “Demographics and U.S. Homicide,” in The Crime Drop in America, ed. Alfred Blumstein and Joel Wallman, 2000

10. Community Research Council, “Murder in Midsize Cities,” August 2006.