The purpose of this study is to see if law enforcement personnel in Mississippi believe that cold case units and specifically analysts are beneficial and. This study will primarily focus on whether having used the Mississippi Cold Case Unit (MCCU) has had an impact on people's perceptions of analysts and analytical methods within the law enforcement community. The responses showed that there is very little difference in the perception of MCCU between those who have and have not used MCCU.
Introduction to Study
It is not known whether or not law enforcement agencies in Mississippi believe that adding analysts to their law enforcement staff is beneficial. Do law enforcement personnel who have used the MCCU have a more positive perception of cold case units than law enforcement personnel who have not used the MCCU? Do law enforcement personnel who have used the MCCU have a different perception of what cold case units can accomplish than law enforcement personnel who have not worked with the MCCU.
Do law enforcement personnel who use MCCU have a greater appreciation for analysts and analytical methods than law enforcement personnel who have not used MCCU. H1: Law enforcement agencies that have used MCCU will value the unit more than those that have never used MCCU. In 2004, MBI created MCCU to provide cold case analysis for law enforcement agencies in Mississippi.
The study attempts to answer the following three questions: (a) Do law enforcement personnel who have used the MCCU have a more positive perception of cold case units than law enforcement.
Review of Related Literature
Because of the success of the FBI unit, many police departments decided that a team of cold case investigators could benefit their own departments. Little research has been done on whether cold case units are as effective as initial results indicated. The Bureau of Justice Assistance declared the number of cases solved to be the best measure of the effectiveness of a cold case unit (Turner and Kosa, 2003).
RAND found that approximately twenty percent of cold case investigations are cleared, five percent result in arrest, and only one percent end in a conviction (Davis, Jensen, and Kitchens, 2011). Most cold case units also do not have a standardized protocol for choosing which cases to handle and which are likely to be unsolvable at this time (Davis, et al., 2011; Smith, 2013). This lack of standardization has largely contributed to the difficulty in assessing the effectiveness of cold case units (Davis, et al., 2011).
A major reason why time has worked in favor of cold case work is due to the technological advancements used in police investigations today. In Davis et al.'s RAND study, researchers found that the most common and cost-effective type of cold case investigation is one in which an eyewitness comes forward with new information (2011). There is a high degree of organization and systematization in cold case investigations (Davis, et al., 2011; Smith, 2013, Jensen and Nickels, 2011).
Research Design and Methodology
H2: Agency staff that submitted MCCU cases will believe that cold case units can accomplish more than those that did not submit an MCCU case. To answer these questions, participants completed an online survey about the usability of the various services offered by MCCU. The first section breaks down the demographics of the sample groups, the second section describes the survey used to gather participant perceptions and demographic information, and the third section explains the analytic techniques applied to the data.
The first sample group was all agencies that had submitted cases to the MCCU since 2012. The hypotheses of this study required questions about attitudes towards work and analysis of uncertain cases, as well as demographic information. Attitudes about cold case work and analysis were elicited through a short series of questions about various aspects of cold case work.
Many of the questions asked respondents to rate the value of various MCCU services, such as case reorganization and a second set of eyes, on a Likert scale. The remainder of the questions focused on the demographic information presented in the previous section. The original invitation to participate was sent by post to all 146 elected districts.
The survey has face validity because the questions gauge attitudes toward cold case work and analysis, either blatantly or obliquely. The survey collected information on how helpful respondents believed aspects of the services provided by the MCCU were to resolving cases. Some of these questions are asked in the context of a cold case investigation as well as in an ongoing investigation.
For example, respondents were asked to rate how helpful MCCU's case file reorganization is, and how. Making a distinction between cold case and open case investigation, responses may or may not indicate any perceived difference between the analysis provided by the MCCU and the normal techniques that investigators would ideally use for any case without time constraints or resources.
Results
The respondents who had used MCCU were a good representation of MCCU's customer base, which includes 51 of the total 82 sheriff's offices in Mississippi. This means that 71 percent of the agencies that submitted to the MCCU are sheriff's departments, which corresponds to the numbers shown in Table 2. Due to the small amount of major representatives, the two largest groups are examined together in the analysis.
As the respondents to this survey were staff with investigative experience, the majority of participants fall into the mid-career category. As expected from the occupational levels represented, most of the respondents currently work in an investigative capacity, but others have moved up the ranks to supervisory roles and beyond the chief of police or sheriff. As shown by the tables, the sample collected is fairly representative of the targeted population of Mississippi law enforcement officers with investigative skills.
When we compare Q4 and Q6B, the two questions about how analysts are perceived in law enforcement in Mississippi, we see that respondents answered them. Demographically, respondents who had either used the MCCU, are a supervisor at their agency, or have been with the force for 11 to 25 years rated the statement that investigators sometimes make mistakes as a three, or something they disagreed with or disagree. . The respondents who agreed most with this statement were those in their early and late careers.
By comparing how much respondents valued having a second set of eyes looking at their cases with how much they believe investigators sometimes make mistakes in the first place, some differences between demographics begin to emerge. Respondent groups noted to have low agreement with Q6A tended not to rate a second pair of eyes as highly, with the exception of respondents who had been in service for eleven to 25 years. When Q6A is compared to Q2B which measures MCCU's evaluation of case file reorganization, we again find that the majority of groups believed this.
When asked how important the organization of a case file is to an investigation, the comparison between respondents with one to ten years on the force and those with eleven to 25 years gave a significant P-value of 0.0323. In the next chapter, the implications of the results investigated in this chapter are discussed.
Discussion
Q4: On a scale of one to seven, how helpful do you think cold case units are in solving murders. In the past, Mississippi's cold case unit hasn't been very helpful, other than just handling a case. Respondents who had worked with the MCCU selected higher scores for the work provided by cold case units and analysts in general than those who had never worked specifically with the MCCU.
Distinguishing between cold case units as a whole and services provided by the MCCU, the study shows that respondents who had not used the MCCU ranked cold case units lower, even though their responses to Q2 would indicate high support for these units. This indicates that while Mississippi's law enforcement personnel all have great appreciation for the services provided by the MCCU, they still may not fully understand the value of cold case units and analysts statewide. In fact, the difference between the assessment of MCCU and cold case analysis can generally be attributed.
In addition to the intended comparison of respondents who had and had not used the MCCU, the survey provided some insight into the type of staff most likely to value or not value cold case work and analysis. Since the higher scores support the aspects of cold case work more, the small agencies may have a real appreciation for. Question Q4 showed that the small and large agencies both believed that cold case units were more helpful than the medium-sized agencies.
Length of time on the force was not found to have a major effect on how respondents answered questions directly related to cold case work. Another reason for the difference is that none of the respondents have worked with MCCU. This comparison provides a good look at whether respondents valued cold case units and analysts in the same way.
The comparison between Q6A and certain aspects of cold case work attempts to overcome some of the resistance to admitting mistakes. By asking law enforcement personnel about their attitudes toward various aspects of cold case work and analysis, the survey found that the MCCU is considered favorable for cold case work. The other factors did not cause major differences in the perception of cold case work.
How useful are the following aspects of cold case work in solving murders on the next scale.
