Guest Opinion | Pasadena’s Helicopter Fleet Reflects Over-Policing Just Like its Officer-staffing Level

Pasadena’s helicopter patrol fleet has the highest helicopter-to-population ratio of any nearby comparable city. Pasadena’s high level of helicopters to its population mirrors the similar officer-staffing data which indicates that Pasadena is the most over-policed City in the San Gabriel-San Fernando valleys. At a time that Pasadena faces a looming structural budget deficit in a few years, it cannot afford to bust its budget by hiring more officers on top of a $6.4 million PD budget increase for the next fiscal year. Beginning now to phase out the helicopter operations is one obvious means to re-prioritize the PD budget and free up resources in its existing budget to address more pressing issues such as more officers in the Special Enforcement Unit, more competitive officer pay, an Independent Police Auditor, and/or keeping the PD budget within limits.

Pasadena’s number of helicopters, like its officer-staffing level, is significantly higher than comparable nearby cities

This chart compares the ratio of helicopters to 100,000 residents; it attributes only 4 helicopters to Pasadena rather than 5 based on the assumption that 1 of Pasadena’s helicopters is dedicated to servicing the other 10 FAST cities. Thus, it compares Pasadena’s 4 helicopters with its 139,731 population, Pomona’s 1 helicopter for 149,058 residents, Long Beach’s 2 helicopters for 469,428 residents, Burbank-Glendale’s 5 helicopters for 300,730 residents, and El Monte/Azusa/Baldwin Park/Montebello/West Covina’s 3 helicopters for 403,057 residents. (All population numbers are from the 2010 census). As we indicate in the next section, attributing 4 helicopters to Pasadena policing is a conservative estimate; 4.5 helicopters per 100,000 of Pasadena’s population is probably a more realistic number, which would make Pasadena even more of an over-policing outlier than this graph shows.

The above graph indicates that the Pasadena PD helicopter fleet is outsized for Pasadena’s population. Pomona is the nearby city with nearly identical population. The Pasadena PD uses at least 4 helicopters for aerial patrol of essentially the same population level to which the Pomona PD devotes 1 helicopter. (Both Pomona’s 1 helicopter and Pasadena’s 4 helicopters are supplemented by Pasadena’s 1 helicopter that we attribute to FAST.) Pasadena is known to compare itself with Glendale/Burbank, but Pasadena’s helicopters per population are at least 60% higher than the ratio of the Burbank/Glendale operation — and perhaps as high as double the Burbank-Glendale level. Pasadena’s helicopter-to-population level is about 7 times Long Beach’s ratio.

Our last op-ed titled “The Pasadena PD ‘understaffing’ myth” presented the graph below. It is based on national data on cities over 50,000; the most current date is for 2012. It shows that the Pasadena’s police department staffing level per population was higher than all the 10 nearest San Gabriel Valley-San Fernando Valley cities with populations over 50,000 (but excluding LA, which does have a higher ratio of police offers to population than Pasadena).

We also indicated in our last op-ed that more recent data showed that Pasadena had the 6th highest per capita police staffing level among California’s 68 cities with over 100,000 population.

The helicopter-to-population ratio for Pasadena is thus consistent with the previous data we have analyzed in showing that Pasadena tends to be an over-policing outlier. Those clamoring for more officers because the Pasadena PD is supposed understaffed or under-resourced are selling a false bill of goods.

Why Pasadena’s helicopter-to-population ratio is probably higher than the 2.86 per 100,000 ratio we use

Pasadena’s aerial police service has 6 helicopters, as we learned in a recent conversation with Police Chief Sanchez, 12 budgeted officer positions, and 4 budgeted unsworn employees who service the helicopters. The PD aerial fleet operations total budget is approximately $4.2 million (including all revenue sources). But, Pasadena has responsibility for patrolling outside its borders through two agencies: (1) FAST which patrols 10 other San Gabriel Valley cities and for which Pasadena receives at least partial reimbursement for doing so; and (2) the Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force (“LA IMPACT”), which owns one of the helicopters and reimburses Pasadena 100% for operating and servicing its helicopter. To be conservative, we only attribute 4 helicopters to Pasadena’s policing its population, but a number closer to 4.5 might be more realistic. If 4.5 helicopters were attributed to Pasadena policing, Pasadena’s helicopter-to-population ratio per 100,000 residents would increase from 2.86 to 3.22 and make Pasadena even more of an over-policing outlier.

Our attribution of only 4 helicopters to Pasadena is based on the following: The LA IMPACT helicopter cannot count as a helicopter that patrols Pasadena because the Pasadena PD does not control its usage and its impact on the Pasadena PD budget is revenue-neutral (Pasadena PD is paid by LA IMPACT based on the services provided). We attribute 1 of Pasadena’s 5 remaining helicopters to non-Pasadena patrolling of 10 other San Gabriel Valley cities to meet Pasadena’s obligations as the FAST lead agency and for which it received approximately $390,000 reimbursement this year from 9 of those 10 cities. (Pomona meets its FAST obligations by providing FAST services 1 day a week with its helicopter rather than paying Pasadena any reimbursement like the other 9 cities). But attributing 1 helicopter to Pasadena’s FAST obligations may overstate the extent to which Pasadena uses its helicopters for its non-Pasadena patrolling.

We inquired about the data that would show how much time Pasadena’s helicopters spend patrolling the skies over Pasadena as compared to the time they spend patrolling elsewhere and learned that raw data in the form of pilot logs exist that would show the information but is not gathered into statistical information. If gathered, such data would allow us to accurately determine the relative usage of the 5 helicopters. When we began looking at helicopter budget and usage information, we hypothesized that Pasadena was subsidizing other FAST jurisdictions and that the approximate $390,000 per annum reimbursement from 9 FAST cities was inadequate; we assumed – as we do for our chart on helicopter-to-population ratio – that about 20% of Pasadena’s helicopter time was spent on FAST cities (the equivalent of 1 of its 5 helicopters). If the non-Pasadena usage rate is 20%, Pasadena would be subsidizing other cities’ aerial patrolling. But as we have drilled down and discussed the helicopter operations with Chief Sanchez, he makes a reasonable argument that the opposite is true – i.e., that because Pasadena keeps helicopters in the air over Pasadena 20 hours per day and can usually divert those helicopters for the needs of other jurisdictions for the relatively short periods of times they need them, so the reimbursement arrangement with the 9 cities may even be revenue-positive for Pasadena. If the amount of time spent on FAST cities is about 10%, then Pasadena is being fully reimbursed for its services to other cities, and we ought to attribute 4 ½ helicopters to Pasadena and ½ helicopter to FAST. If the percentage of non-Pasadena time is lower than 10%, Pasadena’s FAST reimbursements are revenue-positive for it, but Pasadena’s helicopter-to-population ratio is even higher than 3.22 per 100,000 population. But we just don’t have the data now to determine the amount of time for Pasadena patrolling as compared to FAST cities patrolling.

Should Pasadena reduce its helicopter fleet?
Should it begin to phase-out helicopters?

10 years from now, we may look back and ask “why did it take us so long to phase out the Pasadena helicopter fleet?” With the availability of economical and noiseless drone technology, the Pasadena 5-helicopter fleet may by 2026 be reminiscent of other dinosaurs of the past. And we may be thankful that the public purse was freed from the fleet’s costs, with its functions being accomplished by drone technology that, if implemented now, might be costing $1 million per year rather than $4 million per year. Northwest Pasadena-Altadena residents might breathe a sigh of relief at the end of Pasadena’s volunteering as a regional center for helicopter operations relieving them from a disproportionate share of the helicopter fleet’s noise pollution. But Pasadenans’ concerns about drones’ potentially limitless possibilities for police surveillance may save the helicopter fleet from obsolescence. That future of helicopters over the next 10-year period is a conversation Pasadena needs to begin.

But even if drones do not send police helicopters into the dinosaur pit, Pasadena ought to scale down its helicopter operations. Helicopters in the sky for most of 20 hours per day may provide some benefits, but is that worth $3.7 million? If Pasadena followed the Pomona model, reduced to 1 helicopter, shed the FAST lead agency responsibilities to another City, and became a FAST 1-day per week provider of its helicopter, it would probably save more than $2.5 million. If Pasadena downsized to 2 helicopters and retained its FAST lead agency status, it would probably save $2 million dollars but would not be maintaining a helicopter in the sky for 20 hours every day. Down-sizing the helicopter operations, and perhaps beginning their replacement with drone technology, is a road to meeting other policing needs like more competitive officer compensation, more Special Enforcement Unit officers rather than officers in the sky, police oversight, and/or restraining the PD budget as Pasadena confronts its looming structural budget deficit.

 

Skip Hickambottom and Dale Gronemeier are local civil rights attorneys who are active in the Coalition for Increased Civilian Oversight of Pasadena Police.