View
378
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Evaluating the MNPD Evaluating the MNPD Drug Market InitiativeDrug Market Initiative
Nicholas Corsaro Nicholas Corsaro Southern Illinois UniversitySouthern Illinois University
& & Edmund F. McGarrellEdmund F. McGarrell
Michigan State UniversityMichigan State University
The ProblemThe Problem
The 800 block of N. 2The 800 block of N. 2ndnd St. was a long St. was a long entrenched open air drug marketentrenched open air drug market
This is a transitional neighborhood.This is a transitional neighborhood.– Rental PropertiesRental Properties– Some scattered sight Sec. 8 housingSome scattered sight Sec. 8 housing– Older homes being remodeledOlder homes being remodeled
New residents moving in and revitalizing the areaNew residents moving in and revitalizing the area
Demanding an end to the drug dealingDemanding an end to the drug dealing
Problem - Calls for ServiceProblem - Calls for Service
YearYear 800 Block 800 Block N. 2N. 2ndnd St. St.
800 Block 800 Block Stockell St.Stockell St.
20062006 872872 8282
20072007 10911091 7272
2008 thru 6/232008 thru 6/23 255255 5252
These two streets provide a good basis for comparison and some appreciation of the scope of the problem. Stockell St. is a parallel street one block east of N. 2nd.
PreparationPreparation
Obtaining support and approval from the Obtaining support and approval from the Chief of PoliceChief of PoliceObtaining buy-in from Precinct personnel.Obtaining buy-in from Precinct personnel.Going public – explaining the concept to Going public – explaining the concept to community stakeholders – residents, area community stakeholders – residents, area neighborhood and business groups.neighborhood and business groups.Informing the faith and treatment Informing the faith and treatment community about the concept and community about the concept and developing a coalition.developing a coalition.
Preparation (cont’)Preparation (cont’)
Informing the rest of the Criminal Justice Informing the rest of the Criminal Justice Community and City Administration getting Community and City Administration getting buy-inbuy-in– District AttorneyDistrict Attorney– Public DefenderPublic Defender– General Session and Criminal CourtsGeneral Session and Criminal Courts– Mayor’s OfficeMayor’s Office– Sheriff’s DepartmentSheriff’s Department
The Law Enforcement BranchThe Law Enforcement BranchThe easy part – this is what we do.The easy part – this is what we do.
Over a period of months the East Precinct Crime Over a period of months the East Precinct Crime Suppression Unit made undercover buys Suppression Unit made undercover buys resulting in:resulting in:– 55 cases prepared against55 cases prepared against– 26 defendants26 defendants
All the buys were filmed – All the buys were filmed – – Terrific evidenceTerrific evidence– Provide great tool for informing citizen groups about Provide great tool for informing citizen groups about
the dynamics of street level drug dealing.the dynamics of street level drug dealing.
The Intervention TransitionThe Intervention TransitionAt the time arrest sweep was conducted, the At the time arrest sweep was conducted, the East Precinct had already met with area East Precinct had already met with area treatment providers and members of the faith treatment providers and members of the faith community on 3 separate occasions informing community on 3 separate occasions informing them of our intent to replicate the High Point them of our intent to replicate the High Point West End Project and recruiting partners.West End Project and recruiting partners.– Sought assistance from area faith leaders and leaders Sought assistance from area faith leaders and leaders
of treatment coalitions to get the word out.of treatment coalitions to get the word out.– The project was well received. We were very The project was well received. We were very
fortunate to get active partners involved.fortunate to get active partners involved.
The Intervention TransitionThe Intervention Transition
Who goes to intervention and how many?Who goes to intervention and how many?– Treatment providers want to know how many people Treatment providers want to know how many people
will be referred to them and what their needs are.will be referred to them and what their needs are.– East Precinct could only provide that information East Precinct could only provide that information
toward the end of the law enforcement phase.toward the end of the law enforcement phase.– The District Attorney’s Office assigned a single The District Attorney’s Office assigned a single
prosecutor to work these cases. That prosecutor, prosecutor to work these cases. That prosecutor, working with investigators, made the final working with investigators, made the final recommendations in regard to who faced prosecution recommendations in regard to who faced prosecution and who was offered intervention. and who was offered intervention.
The Intervention Transition (cont’)The Intervention Transition (cont’)
– East officers began the process of meeting East officers began the process of meeting with families and completed briefs on each with families and completed briefs on each person slated for prosecution.person slated for prosecution.
– A meeting of the treatment providers was A meeting of the treatment providers was called and they were provided with these called and they were provided with these briefs.briefs.
– The providers then did follow-up visits with The providers then did follow-up visits with family members of the intervention candidates family members of the intervention candidates and assisted in encouraging them to attend and assisted in encouraging them to attend the call-in session.the call-in session.
NotificationNotificationOn March 17, 2008, 18 persons were served On March 17, 2008, 18 persons were served with sealed indictments for drug trafficking. 2 with sealed indictments for drug trafficking. 2 others were served at a later date.others were served at a later date.
On March 24, 2008, 5 candidates were called in On March 24, 2008, 5 candidates were called in for intervention. for intervention.
1 candidate re-offended the following weekend 1 candidate re-offended the following weekend and was indicted.and was indicted.
1 additional candidate was called in for an 1 additional candidate was called in for an intervention on a later dateintervention on a later date
OutcomesOutcomesCalls for service in the 2 reporting areas Calls for service in the 2 reporting areas immediately adjacent to N. 2immediately adjacent to N. 2ndnd have dropped have dropped 46.3%.46.3%.Charges related to Drug equipment, Charges related to Drug equipment, Drug/Narcotic and Prostitution Arrests have Drug/Narcotic and Prostitution Arrests have dropped 88.4%dropped 88.4%5 out of the 6 intervention candidates have 5 out of the 6 intervention candidates have continued to stay out of trouble.continued to stay out of trouble.UCR Part 1 crimes have remained somewhat UCR Part 1 crimes have remained somewhat constant when comparing 2007 and 2008 data. constant when comparing 2007 and 2008 data. However, 2008 violent crime remains However, 2008 violent crime remains significantly lower than in 2006, prior precinct’s significantly lower than in 2006, prior precinct’s more focused efforts in the area.more focused efforts in the area.
Sustaining GainsSustaining Gains
Continued monitoring of the immediate Continued monitoring of the immediate treatment area and adjacent problem treatment area and adjacent problem spots for emerging drug trafficking.spots for emerging drug trafficking.– Efficient follow-up on citizen complaintsEfficient follow-up on citizen complaints– Encourage continued empowerment and Encourage continued empowerment and
ownership on the part of area residents.ownership on the part of area residents.– Aggressive and proactive enforcementAggressive and proactive enforcement
Continued monitoring of our intervention Continued monitoring of our intervention candidatescandidates
Impact AssessmentImpact Assessment
We used time series analysis to assess We used time series analysis to assess programmatic impact, which are highly programmatic impact, which are highly regarded research methods (Bushway and regarded research methods (Bushway and McDowall, 2006)McDowall, 2006)
5 years worth of UCR data, Drug Offense 5 years worth of UCR data, Drug Offense data, and Calls for Police Service (CFS) data, and Calls for Police Service (CFS) datadata
4 years pre-, 1 year post-intervention 4 years pre-, 1 year post-intervention (March 2008, intervention date)(March 2008, intervention date)
Impact AssessmentImpact Assessment
Research design accounts for Research design accounts for autocorrelation, seasonality, and trends in autocorrelation, seasonality, and trends in the data and isolates the the data and isolates the intervention intervention effecteffect
We modeled UCR, drug offense, and CFS We modeled UCR, drug offense, and CFS data for the McFerrin Park target data for the McFerrin Park target community, adjacent neighborhoods, and community, adjacent neighborhoods, and the remainder of the Davidson Countythe remainder of the Davidson County
Drug Offense TrendsDrug Offense Trends
Narcotics & Drug Equipment Offenses aggregated = Drug OffensesTarget & Adjoining neighborhoods combined 21.4 Drug Offenses Pre-Intervention, 11.2 Drug Offenses Post-Intervention
UCR Offense TrendsUCR Offense Trends
Total Violent & Property Crimes aggregated = UCR OffensesTarget & Adjoining neighborhoods combined 13.8 UCR Offenses Pre-Intervention, 10.2 UCR Offenses Post-Intervention
Calls For Service TrendsCalls For Service Trends
Total CFS aggregated where someone requested police assistance = CFSTarget & Adjoining neighborhoods combined 92.0 CFS Pre-Intervention, 74.2 CFS Post-Intervention
ARIMA Time Series ResultsARIMA Time Series ResultsOutcome McFerrin
ParkAdjacent
AreaRemainder Nashville
Violent Crime MSDecline-24.0%
NSDecline-23.9%
NSDecline-7.4%
Property Crime SSDecline-28.4%
MSDecline-25.9%
NSDecline-7.0%
Drug Equipment SSDecline-36.8%
SSDecline-22.2%
MSDecline-9.3%
Narcotics Offenses SSDecline-55.5%
SSDecline-50.3%
NSIncrease
5.5%
CFS MSDecline-18.1%
MSDecline-1.0%
NSDecline-5.9%
MS = Marginally Statistically Significant p < .15 (Impact Assessment Standard)SS = Statistically Significant p < .05 (Social Science Standard)NS = Not Statistically Significant (Change May Be Product of Chance)
Summary of Statistical ResultsSummary of Statistical Results
Immediate/Abrupt, statistically significant, Immediate/Abrupt, statistically significant, and substantial decline in all outcomes for and substantial decline in all outcomes for the McFerrin Park Target Communitythe McFerrin Park Target Community
Immediate/Abrupt, statistically significant Immediate/Abrupt, statistically significant decline with varying substantial changes decline with varying substantial changes for most outcomes in Adjacent Areafor most outcomes in Adjacent Area
No evidence of a general trend in overall No evidence of a general trend in overall Davidson County that would account for Davidson County that would account for changes seen in target and adjacent areaschanges seen in target and adjacent areas
Further Evaluation/Next StepsFurther Evaluation/Next Steps
The need for detailed resident interviewsThe need for detailed resident interviews
In addition to the criminal justice, social In addition to the criminal justice, social service, and faith-based community actionsservice, and faith-based community actions—what did active residents do beyond —what did active residents do beyond support the initiative?support the initiative?
Has resident ‘engagement’ changed after the Has resident ‘engagement’ changed after the intervention?intervention?
Does the DMI pulling levers intervention have Does the DMI pulling levers intervention have a similar impact in other cities and sites?a similar impact in other cities and sites?
Recommended