Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 1999 · PDF fileExcellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 1999 ... Chuck Wexler Executive Director ... Winners of the 2000 Herman Goldstein

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice ProgramsNational Institute of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Excellence in Problem-Oriented

Policing: The 1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners

Police Executive Research Forum

National Institute of Justice

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, whichalso includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Officeof Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Julie E. SamuelsActing Director, National Institute of Justice

Project Monitor, Carolyn Peake

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

Thomas C. FrazierDirector, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Project Monitor, Ellen Scrivner

http://www.usdoj.gov/cops

Chuck WexlerExecutive Director, Police Executive Research Forum

Project Monitor, James Burack

http://www.policeforum.org

NCJ 182731

Opinions or points of view expressed in this document are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or Police Executive Research Forum.

The 2000 Problem-Oriented Policing (POP) Conference■ Winners of the 2000 Herman Goldstein Award for excellence in POP will present

their acclaimed projects at the 11th International Conference on Problem-OrientedPolicing, held December 2–5, 2000, in San Diego, California

■ The conference brings together more than 1,000 practitioners and researchers presentingnew and innovative information and strategies that contend effectively with crime anddisorder

■ Contact PERF for conference information or registration:

ON-LINE AT:www.policeforum.org

THROUGH FAX-ON-DEMAND:1–877–421–PERF

THROUGH PERF:Attn: POP Conference

Registration1120 Connecticut Avenue,

NW, Suite 930Washington, DC 20036USAtel: (202) 466–7820fax: (202) 466–7826

The 2001 Herman Goldstein Award■ Nominations for the competition will be accepted until early spring 2001■ Submissions should be limited to 4,000 words of text (approximately 15 pages,

double-spaced)■ Include a 300–400 word summary of the project and relevant charts, tables, graphs,

and supporting documents■ Submissions must address all four phases of the SARA model (Scanning, Analysis,

Response, and Assessment)■ Entries are judged particularly on well-presented data, especially at the Analysis and

Assessment stages■ Complete submission requirements and forms can be found:

ON-LINE AT:www.policeforum.org

THROUGH FAX-ON-DEMAND:1–877–421–PERF

THROUGH PERF:Attn: Herman Goldstein

Award1120 Connecticut Avenue,

NW, Suite 930Washington, DC 20036USAtel: (202) 466–7820fax: (202) 466–7826

Winners of the 1999 HermanGoldstein Award for Excellence in

Problem-Oriented Policing

Excellence in Problem-Oriented

Policing

August 2000

CONTENTS

Introduction ........................................................................1

Street Sweeping, Broadway StyleGreen Bay Police Department, Wisconsin, Fort Howard District ............................................................7

Canton Middle School Truancy Abatement ProgramBaltimore Police Department, Maryland, Southeastern District ..........................................................14

A Multiagency Approach to a Countywide ProblemFresno Police Department, California ................................19

The Hawthorne HuddleMinneapolis Police Department, Minnesota ......................24

The Power of PartnershipsRacine Police Department, Wisconsin ..............................30

Truancy Control ProjectSan Diego Police Department, California, Mid-City Division ............................................................37

Intersecting SolutionsVancouver Police Department, Grandview Woodland Community Policing Centre ..............................................42

AppendixesAppendix A: Site Contacts ..................................................49Appendix B: Judges ............................................................50Appendix C: Resources ......................................................51

This report celebrates the excellence inproblem-oriented policing (POP) demon-strated by the winner and six finalists of the Police Executive Research Forum’s(PERF) 1999 Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-OrientedPolicing. This award recognizes outstandingpolice officers and police agencies—both inthe United States and around the world—that engage in innovative and effective problem-solving efforts and achieve measurable success in reducing specificcrime, disorder, and public safety problems.

PERF assembled a panel of seven judges,made up of six researchers and one practi-tioner, who selected the winner and sixfinalists from among 76 award submissionsfrom the United States, Canada, the UnitedKingdom, and Australia. The judges consid-ered a number of factors in their selection,including the depth of problem analysis, thedevelopment of clear and realistic responsegoals, the use of relevant measures of effec-tiveness, and the involvement of citizens and other community resources in problemresolution.

Police agencies whose projects successfullyresolve any type of recurring communityproblem that results in crime or disorder areeligible to compete for the award. Examplesof problems addressed by past applicantsinclude drug dealing, gang activity, disorderand crime in an apartment complex, prosti-tution along a major thoroughfare, drunkdriving throughout a large metropolitanregion, trespassing on high school grounds,and 911 hang-up calls. Though many previ-ous winning projects have focused on aproblem in a specific neighborhood, PERFencourages applicants to consider problemsthat are much larger in scope and impact.

The PERF award honors HermanGoldstein, professor emeritus at the

University of Wisconsin Law School inMadison, who first articulated and laterelaborated on the concept of problem solv-ing in two seminal publications—the first in 1979, “Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach” (Crime and Delin-quency 25: 236–258); the second in 1990,Problem-Oriented Policing (New York:McGraw Hill). Goldstein has continued toadvance POP and to inspire police officersaround the world to identify the problemsthat trouble communities, to analyze a widerange of information, and to craft andimplement responses uniquely suited toeach particular problem. Goldstein hasurged police to expand their repertoirebeyond arrest-oriented practices to encom-pass a variety of possible responses to problems.

Importantly, Goldstein has encouragedpolice to evaluate the impact of theirresponses to determine the effectiveness oftheir problem-solving efforts. As articulatedby Goldstein, police problem-solving effortsshould focus on the underlying conditionsthat give rise to crime and disorder. By doingso, police can address the problem ratherthan simply ameliorate the symptoms. Theresults of such a problem-solving focusshould be more effective and long-lasting.Indeed, improving police effectiveness is atthe center of POP.

The concept of problem solving is best illus-trated by an example. Suppose police findthemselves responding several times a day tocalls from one particular apartment complexto disperse disorderly youths and stop actsof vandalism. But this common approach—dispatching an officer to the scene—may dolittle to resolve the long-term problems ofdisorder and vandalism. If, instead, policewere to incorporate problem-solving tech-niques into their approach, they wouldexamine the conditions underlying the

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing 1

INTRODUCTION

youthful disorder and vandalism. Thiswould likely include collecting additionalinformation—perhaps by surveying resi-dents, analyzing the time of day when inci-dents occur, examining school bus routes,assessing the availability of afterschool activities, and evaluating characteristics ofenvironmental design and other elements of the problem. Once examined, the findingswould be used to inform a response unique-ly developed to reduce or eliminate theproblem behaviors. While enforcementmight be a component of the response, it isunlikely to be the sole response. Recurrentenforcement has often been used by police,but it does not resolve long-standing prob-lems. For this reason, police adopting theproblem-solving approach are encouraged to develop innovative responses to the pub-lic safety issues in their community.

THE EVOLUTION OF POPBeginning in the late 1970’s, researchers and policymakers became increasingly inter-ested in how to improve the effectiveness ofpolicing. Research during this period point-ed out the limitations of random patrol,rapid response, and follow-up criminalinvestigations—practices that had been the foundation of policing for many years.These findings laid the groundwork for thedevelopment of POP. The first test of prob-lem solving took place in the NewportNews (Virginia) Police Department in the mid-1980’s in a PERF research studythat was conceptualized as a crime analysisstudy. Indeed, using analysis to informpolice remains a key tenet of problem solving today.

Early work on POP yielded importantinsights:1

■ Police deal with a range of communityproblems, many of which are not strictlycriminal in nature.

■ Arrest and prosecution alone—the tradi-tional functions of the criminal justicesystem—are not always sufficient foreffectively resolving problems.

■ Officers have great insight into the prob-lems plaguing a community, and givingthem the discretion to create solutions is extremely valuable to the problem-solving approach.

■ A wide variety of methods can be used by police to redress recurrent problems.

■ The community values police involve-ment in noncriminal problems and recognizes the contribution they canmake to solving them.

As POP has evolved over the last twodecades, researchers and practitioners havefocused on the evaluation of problems, theimportance of solid analysis, the need forpragmatism in developing responses, andthe need to tap other resources—includingmembers of the community. Indeed, therole of the community continues to be asubject of discussion in POP, and problemsolving is a key element in many community-policing initiatives.

The SARA Model. The preeminent concep-tual model of problem solving, known asSARA, grew out of the POP project inNewport News. The acronym SARA standsfor scanning, analysis, response, and assess-ment. This model has become the basis formany police agencies’ training curricula andproblem-solving efforts. Each step in theprocess is summarized below:

Scanning:

■ Identify recurring problems of concernto the public and the police.

■ Prioritize problems.■ Develop broad goals.■ Confirm that the problems exist. ■ Select one problem for examination.

Analysis:

■ Try to identify and understand theevents and conditions that precede andaccompany the problem.

■ Identify the consequences of the problemfor the community.

2 Introduction

■ Determine how frequently the problemoccurs, why it occurs, and how long ithas been occurring.

■ Identify the conditions that give rise tothe problem.

■ Narrow the scope of the problem asspecifically as possible.

■ Identify resources that may be of assis-tance in developing a deeper understand-ing of the problem.

Response:

■ Search for what others with similar prob-lems have done.

■ Brainstorm interventions.■ Choose among the alternative solutions.■ Outline the response plan and identify

responsible parties.■ State the specific goals for the response

plan.■ Identify relevant data to be collected.■ Carry out the planned activities.

Assessment:

■ Determine whether or not the plan wasimplemented.

■ Determine whether the goals wereattained and collect qualitative andquantitative data (pre- and postresponse).

■ Identify any new strategies needed toaugment the original plan.

■ Conduct ongoing assessment to ensurecontinued effectiveness.

THE 1999 WINNER ANDFINALISTSThe judges selected the Green Bay(Wisconsin) Police Department as the winner of the 1999 Herman GoldsteinAward for Excellence in Problem-OrientedPolicing. Officers Bill Bongle and SteveScully initiated a strategy to revive theBroadway business district in Green Bay—a high-crime area of the city troubled bypeople who were often intoxicated and disorderly and living on the street and bylitter and broken bottles. The officers gavetaverns a “no-serve list” of people who were

habitually drunk and disorderly or in trouble, motivated community members to pressure city liquor license regulators toincrease their oversight and enforcement,modified the environment, targeted enforce-ment to specific locations, and worked withthe community and the media to educatethe public about the initiative. The resultwas a reduction in calls-for-service and animproved quality of life in the neighborhood.

The judges also recognized the followingfinalists:

■ The Baltimore Police Department,which reduced chronic truancy by work-ing closely with school department offi-cials and the courts. By engaging parentsin the effort, the department reducedtruancy without resorting to traditionallegal remedies.

■ The Fresno (California) Police Depart-ment, which faced a large number ofchild custody violation calls. The depart-ment focused its problem-solving effortson increasing awareness and utilizationof an existing family court-ordered program that provides a safe place forparents to exchange custody of theirchildren. In addition, the department led a countywide effort to coordinateand improve prosecution of child cus-tody violations.

■ The Minneapolis Police Department,which partnered with the community torevitalize the Hawthorne neighborhood.Hawthorne was affected by narcoticstrafficking and quality-of-life offenses.The “Hawthorne Huddle” began as aseries of community meetings andevolved into a key problem-solvingforum for both the police departmentand the Hawthorne community. Thedepartment combined a traditionalresponse of increased enforcement withthe POP approach of cultivating com-munity involvement. The department’sparticipation in the community meetingsensured that the department was activelyinvolved in facilitating communicationand assisting residents.


■ The Racine (Wisconsin) Police Depart-ment, which revitalized neighborhoodsby partnering with the community, other government agencies, and non-profit organizations. One of the depart-ment’s key strategies was to purchase and restore run-down single-familyhomes in troubled neighborhoods foruse as temporary community policingsubstations. The police presence servedas a catalyst for positive change. Whenorder was restored to the neighborhoods,the homes were sold to low-incomehomebuyers.

■ The San Diego Police Department,which dramatically reduced schoolabsenteeism among the most chronictruants. Police officers conducted aninnovative needs assessment with truantsand arranged for needed services. Toensure long-term success, the officershelped to create a mentoring programfor at-risk youth.

■ The Vancouver Police Department,which addressed a decline in the qualityof life in its community by restoringorder at a busy urban intersection. Thedepartment relied on the community toassist in both problem identification andresolution. The project achieved lastingsuccess by altering the physical environ-ment, making it less conducive for crim-inal activity such as panhandling andsqueegeeing car windows.

Each of these police agencies applied theSARA model and other lessons learned from policing research to address substantialproblems in their communities. By workingclosely with other government agencies,nonprofit groups, and residents, the policewere able to develop effective solutions tolong-standing problems. Each site includedenforcement in its POP strategies. Eachproject also clearly demonstrated an impor-tant principle articulated by Goldstein—rank-and-file officers have a lot of informa-tion, and given the freedom and support tocreate solutions, they can be very successfulproblem solvers.

THEMES AMONGPROBLEMS AND STRATEGIESThis year’s winner and finalists faced some-what similar problems in their communitiesand developed somewhat similar strategiesin their problem-solving approach. Some ofthese similarities, or recurring themes, arehighlighted below.

Habitual Offenders Create Disorder.Green Bay, Minneapolis, Racine, andVancouver all tackled complex problemsthat involved habitual offenders performingthe same illegal or troubling behaviors in thesame places over and over again. Over time,disorder and fear permeated the affectedneighborhoods. Police officers in each sitedeveloped solutions that took advantage ofthe unique strengths and resources in theircommunities. Minneapolis and Racine,struggling with these issues in residentialcommunities, accessed much-needed socialservices for neighborhood residents. GreenBay and Vancouver worked closely with thebusinesses in their commercial neighbor-hoods to make physical changes to the envi-ronment.

Reliance on the Community. The key roleof the community in identifying and solvingproblems is well illustrated by the sevenprojects. Although the departments wereindependently able to identify many of theproblems, it was the input of communitymembers that helped them understandmany of the underlying causes and citizens’priorities for interventions. Officers who ledthese projects spent many fruitful hoursgathering information and opinions frommembers of the community. Along the way,the officers formed relationships that con-tributed to lasting community involvementand empowerment.

Value of the Line Officer’s Experience. Allof the sites demonstrated the importance ofusing the knowledge and skills of rank-and-file officers. In each of the sites, the impetusto begin the POP project came from line

4 Introduction


officers. The officers recognized offense anddisorder patterns during the course of theirregular duties. The officers then conductedresearch, analyzed crime and social indicatordata, reached out to the community andmobilized its members, and crafted creative,lasting solutions to complex problems.

Identification of the Underlying Causes of Problems. Through their analyses, theofficers were able to identify and focus onthe underlying causes of crime, disorder,and fear. Both Baltimore and San Diego,which addressed truancy, examined thecauses of students’ school avoidance, notjust its consequences. Officers in each siteworked closely with school district officialsto address the needs of truant students andtheir families. The Green Bay officers identi-fied lax liquor licensing and enforcement as an underlying cause of problems in theBroadway area of their city. Officers inVancouver gained important insights intothe underlying causes of their problemswhen they considered “ownership” of public space in their target intersection. In that context, solutions to the aggressive“squeegee” person problem became mucheasier to identify.

Leveraging Resources. In each site, theultimate success of the project depended on the officers’ ability to leverage theresources of other government agencies and private-sector resources. The Racinecommunity-policing houses became vital to the community when public services were offered in the houses. The housesoffered neighborhood-based services in previously underserved locations. The provision of services increased the commu-nity’s acceptance of a police presence in the neighborhood.

PROJECT HIGHLIGHTSAll of the police agencies did an exceptionaljob of applying the SARA model, and it isworthwhile to highlight some of the ways inwhich they incorporated each of the stepsinto their problem-solving process.

Scanning: Prior to analyzing the problem,the teams in both Green Bay and Vancouverconducted a thorough and systematic assess-ment to identify all relevant problems. Inthe process, they identified numerous non-criminal problems that contributed to thedisorder in their target areas.

Analysis: Officers working on truancy inSan Diego analyzed the problem from theperspective of the truants themselves. Byconducting surveys of and risk-assessmentinterviews with individual truants, officerswere able to determine what factors con-tributed to this complex problem. Officersinvolved in the Hawthorne Huddle carefullyexamined potential stakeholders and identi-fied a number of nontraditional partners for their problem-solving effort. Officers inGreen Bay analyzed data from a variety ofsources. Officers in Fresno looked at theproblem of child custody disputes from the perspective of several different agencies.

Response: In Green Bay, officers mobilizedthe community to pressure the city’s Pro-tection and Welfare Committee, which regulates liquor licenses, to be moreaccountable. Racine and Vancouver identified previously untapped communityresources. The Baltimore police built a relationship with the media and used thecoercive power of the court to help maketheir project a success.

Assessment: Officers in all of the sites werecommitted to assessing or evaluating theimpact of their responses through quantita-tive measures. Using data gathered by theschool district in conjunction with theirown data, the Baltimore police documentedthe success of their truancy program.Officers in Fresno, armed with outcomedata demonstrating the effectiveness of theirapproach, led the formation of a countywidetask force to address child custody issues.The Vancouver Police Department collecteddata that illustrate the lasting impact thatchanges in the physical environment canhave on public safety.

EVIDENCE OF POP’SEFFECTIVENESSAlthough the projects described in thisreport have not been rigorously evaluated,numerous indicators point to the positiveimpact they are having. The Green Bay officers began targeting problems in theBroadway district in 1995. Data collected in Green Bay show a 65-percent reductionin total police calls from 1993 to 1999 inthe target area and a 91-percent decrease inthe demand for rescue squad services. From1995 to February 2000, the Broadway busi-ness district has gained more than $8.4 mil-lion in new public and private investment,410 new jobs, and 33 new businesses.

Baltimore data show a 5-fold reduction incitations for truancy violations in the targetarea. Incidents of daytime crime and delin-quency decreased by 26 percent, and schoolattendance rates are the highest ever. Fresnoestimates that the new child custody proce-dures implemented by the police depart-ment save more than 3,000 officer hoursannually. In the Hawthorne neighborhoodin Minneapolis, there were dramaticdecreases in narcotics violations, vandalism,and home burglaries. The Racine targetneighborhoods witnessed similar declines in crime after the department initiatedproblem-solving efforts in 1992. Violentcrime fell 70 percent from 1991 to 1998,and the number of calls-for-service fell 35 percent from 1991 to 1998. The SanDiego police department documented a 20-percent reduction in Mid-City crime and a 31-percent decrease in daytime crimein the area, compared with a 6-percentreduction in rates for the same crimes citywide. Data from Vancouver show adecline in calls-for-service and a reductionin public fear in the vicinity of the targetintersection.2, 3

The following seven chapters describe howeach of the police agencies and their officers

used POP and the SARA model to addressproblems in their communities. Appendix Clists resources that will be helpful to otherpolice agencies that seek additional prob-lem-solving tools.

With the widespread adoption of communi-ty policing across the Nation, police agen-cies are increasingly employing problem-solving strategies to address the concerns of the public. Indeed, problem solving is a core component of most communitypolicing curricula.

The practice of problem solving continuesto evolve. Police increasingly have access totechnology, such as mapping and sophisti-cated crime analysis techniques, that can aidin carrying out meaningful problem analy-sis. Technology also provides a tool forpolice to learn and exchange information—including elements of effective responses—about problems that are quite similar. Policeare building their capacity to collaborate byidentifying and working with other stake-holders who share responsibility for manycommunity problems.

NOTES1. Goldstein, Herman, Problem-Oriented

Policing, New York: McGraw Hill, Inc.,1990.

2. Broduer, Jean-Paul, ed., How toRecognize Good Policing: Problems and Issues, Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc., and Police ExecutiveResearch Forum, 1998.

3. Sampson, Rana, and Michael S. Scott,Tackling Crime and Other Public-SafetyProblems: Case Studies in ProblemSolving, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, Office ofCommunity Oriented Policing Services, 2000.

6 Introduction

In the city of Green Bay, Wisconsin,Broadway Street had a seedy reputation.People lived on the street, were often drunkand disorderly, and slept on park benchesoutside of neglected, decaying buildings.Liquor bottles littered the streets. For 4 decades, taverns known for the frequent

disorderly behavior of their patrons were not held accountable.

In fact, 16 to 18 taverns—the scene of multiple shootings, stabbings, and other violent crimes—operated in Broadway’s 3-block business district. Broadway became


STREET SWEEPING,BROADWAY STYLEREVITALIZING A BUSINESS DISTRICT FROM THE INSIDE OUT GREEN BAY POLICE DEPARTMENT, WISCONSIN, FORT HOWARD DISTRICT

THE PROBLEM: An inner-city business district had become a high-crime area marked bylitter, broken liquor bottles, and people living on the street who were oftendrunk and disorderly.

ANALYSIS: Officers discovered a high concentration of crime compared to the rest of the city and a disproportionate demand for police and rescue services.Analysis of police records indicated that approximately 20 people wereinvolved in most of the neighborhood complaints. Furthermore, neighbor-hood residents and business leaders had lost faith in the police to respondto disorder in the area.

RESPONSE: Police spearheaded a community effort to strongly enforce public ordi-nances on open intoxicants, evictions from city parks, trespassing in cityparks, and lewd and lascivious behavior. They also worked to increaseliquor license regulation, mobilize citizens to attend city council meetings,modify the environmental design, use the court system to link alcoholicswith treatment resources, and gain the cooperation of liquor store and tavern owners in denying alcohol to habitually intoxicated people.

ASSESSMENT: After a problem-solving initiative began in 1995, Broadway Street wastransformed into a booming business district. From 1993, when there wereno community police officers in place, to 1999, after police officers hadbeen in place for 4 years, the area experienced a 65-percent reduction intotal police calls and a 91-percent decrease in the demand for rescue squadservices to handle injuries resulting from assaults. From 1995 to February 2000, the Broadway business district gained more than $8.4 million innew public and private investment, 410 new jobs, and 33 new businesses.

SCANNING

known as the “Wild West,” and law-abiding citizens avoided the area and most area businesses suffered financially.

Residents and business owners in the areaviewed Broadway as isolated. They feltabandoned by city government. Before1995, there was little growth in theBroadway business district.

ANALYZING THE PROBLEMIn 1995, the Green Bay Police Departmentadopted the concept of community polic-ing. Two officers were assigned to the Fort Howard district, which includes theBroadway business district. Green Bay’scommunity-policing officers (CPO’s) focuson long-term problem solving and typicallyare not dispatched to calls-for-service.

The newly stationed CPO’s, Bill Bongle andSteve Scully, met face-to-face with neighbor-hood residents, schoolteachers, children, andbusiness people. Within a short time, theofficers learned firsthand about the prob-lems plaguing the Broadway area:

■ A disproportionate demand for policeand rescue services compared to the restof the city.

■ An unusually high concentration ofcrimes, including battery, disorderly conduct, retail theft, property damage,public urination, prostitution, and drug activity.

■ Visibly intoxicated people in city parksand in close proximity to the nearby elementary school engaging in inappro-priate behavior (sleeping on benches, vomiting, urinating, and defecating outdoors).

People Living on the Streets and in the Taverns

An analysis of police offense reports revealedthat approximately 20 individuals, mostlyhabitually intoxicated people who lived on the streets and people who had mental

illnesses, were responsible for most of theneighborhood complaints. The homelessshelter had referred many of these individu-als to the Brown County Mental HealthCenter’s Alcohol and Other Drug Abuseoutpatient counseling. Many of the peopleliving on the street did not use or accessthese services and remained on the street,though they would have been permitted to stay at the shelter if they had becomesober.

Analysis of police data showed that mostvictims of serious crimes in the area, such as stabbings, shootings, and assaults, werepatrons of the problem taverns. Severalhigh-profile incidents, involving violentbehavior, drug activity, and prostitution,took place at the Broadway taverns. In 1993, two men were shot; in 1996, detec-tives uncovered a child prostitution ring; in 1997, there was a violent attack withpool sticks; in 1998, five people werestabbed in a bar fight; and in 1999, a bar manager was arrested for selling cocaine from a Broadway bar. Repeat calls were made to the same licensed liquorestablishments for fights and other alcohol-related problems. Victimization rates werevery low for citizens in the area who did not patronize the taverns.

Loosely Regulated Liquor Licenses

Wisconsin State law provides a judicialprocess for local governments to regulateliquor licenses. Unfortunately, the GreenBay city government rarely exercised itsauthority to revoke or suspend the licensesof poorly-operated taverns. In fact, the city’sProtection and Welfare Committee, whichregulates liquor licenses, often approved and renewed licenses in the area withoutquestion. In some cases, convicted drugdealers were granted bartender licenses.

The progression of disciplinary actionagainst an owner of a problem tavernamounted to a series of warning lettersissued by the Committee. Before 1995,

8 Street Sweeping, Broadway Style

no liquor license had been revoked since the late 1970’s. The Committee declined to take action against a problem bar unlessthe police issued the bar owner a citation.But under existing city ordinances, policeofficers could not issue a citation to a barowner if the owner was absent at the timean incident occurred. As a result, bar man-agement practices and absentee owners con-tributed to an environment that fostereddisorderly and illegal conduct. Under theexisting licensing system, it was difficult tohold owners accountable for activities thatoccurred in their bar.

Police Enforcement Lacking

The police response to alcohol-related complaints in the Broadway business districtrarely included arrests, partly due to jail policy. In the early 1990’s, the local jailrefused to accept prisoners who had bloodalcohol content levels higher than .30 per-cent, unless they had received medical clear-ances. This eliminated what was known asthe “drunk tank” and left no other practicalalternative for street patrol officers.

As a consequence of the policy, police spenttheir time transporting intoxicated peoplewho had been arrested for offenses such asdisorderly conduct to a hospital emergencyroom to receive medical clearance. Policewould then transport them to the BrownCounty Jail or the Brown County MentalHealth Center, which provided detoxifica-tion. These facilities often released people tothe community after 24 hours, where policeofficers would find them in the same condi-tion soon after their release. Patrol officersviewed the 2 hours spent transportingarrestees from place to place as a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.1

During their analysis, the CPO’s learnedthat the neighborhood lacked faith in thepolice. At meetings sponsored by the FortHoward-Jefferson Family NeighborhoodResource Center, a bilingual, multicultural,grassroots organization with a commitment

to strengthen the Broadway neighborhood,CPO’s listened to area business leaders andneighborhood residents. Community mem-bers said Broadway was viewed as a dump-ing ground by the rest of the city, includingthe police, and its business community hadlong ago lost faith in the police department’sresponse. Citizens no longer called to reportnonemergency problems to the police.

The Green Bay Police Department’s analysisshowed that the police department had notreached out to other government agencies—such as the revenue department, parkdepartment, city attorney’s office, buildingand health inspection departments, andmental health services—that were availableto help them address problems in the neighborhood.

Officers also had not been aware of the dif-ferent roles that municipal and circuit courtscould play in resolving disorder problems.Officers in Green Bay can divert offendersto circuit court, but they are encouraged tosend minor offenses to municipal court togenerate fines. However, the circuit courtcan order offenders into treatment while themunicipal court cannot. The officers metwith the Brown County District Attorney,who agreed that people who were habituallyintoxicated should be diverted to circuitcourt, which has broad sentencing authority,including alcohol treatment and probation.

Environmental Design Flaws

A review of building design in the Broadwayarea highlighted numerous deficiencies.Several taverns had dark alcoves and doorwaysfacing alleys, permitting criminals discrete,easy access to the taverns. Drug users and sellers could quickly duck into taverns and get lost in the crowd, making it difficult forpatrol officers to make arrests. Poorly designedlandscaping created hiding places for peoplewho were intoxicated and living on the street.Dense undergrowth made detection of tran-sients during routine surveillance difficult.


RESPONSEThe Green Bay Police Department devel-oped a response strategy designed to achievethe following goals:

■ Eliminate illegal activity from the neigh-borhood.

■ Reduce calls for police and rescue services.■ Bring business to the neighborhood by

improving the public’s perception of the Broadway business district.

■ Restore faith in the police department bybuilding a cooperative working relation-ship with the community.

To achieve these goals, the officers imple-mented the following five initiatives.

No-Serve List

The police identified and targeted a coregroup of individuals who accounted for

most of the problems in the area.Officers Bongle and Scully provid-ed liquor store and tavern ownerswith a list of people who werehabitually intoxicated, accompa-nied by a letter from the policedepartment requesting thatlicensees deny service to them. The police department placed persons on the list if they met the following criteria:

■ Had three or more arrests in a 3-month period in which intoxication was a factor.

■ Had been incapacitated by alcohol, requiring detoxifica-tion three or more times in a 3-month period.

■ Were involved in some type of behavior in the Broadway business district that generated a complaint to the police.

The police department’s letter was approved through the cityattorney’s office. To gain compli-ance with the no-serve list, policeeducated liquor retailers and

tavern owners on their responsibility todecline service to intoxicated people. Theletter defined intoxication by physical characteristics.

The American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) sent a letter of complaint to thepolice department, expressing concern overdistribution of the no-serve list. The ACLUargued that “Targeting some individuals tobe denied legal goods and services causes atangible change in the legal and social statusof the affected individuals.” The ACLUrequested that the police departmentretrieve the lists from bar owners and issue a directive to prohibit the practice in thefuture. However, the Green Bay CityAttorney reviewed the ACLU’s complaintand advised the police department that theno-serve list was supported by Wisconsinstatute 125.12(2)3, which prohibits distri-bution of alcohol to “known habitualdrunkards.” The police department


Resources That Helped Broadway Succeed

Funding

The Green Bay Police Department has been assisted by funding fromthe U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented PolicingServices. A grant enables the department to pay salaries for four community-policing officers for 3 years. Two of these officers areassigned to the Fort Howard district.

Training

The department developed its own problem-solving training by organiz-ing meetings with other similarly assigned police officers from across theState. Herman Goldstein’s book, Problem-Oriented Policing (McGrawHill, 1990), helped the department develop problem-solving strategies.

Donations

Community members donated office space and equipment for their community-policing officers. Office space was provided free of charge in a housing complex for the elderly. Area businesses donated a computer, a cellular telephone, police bicycles, and office furniture.

The Fort Howard neighborhood and area businesses conducted afundraising campaign in 1998 to send the two community-policing officers to the Police Executive Research Forum’s Problem-OrientedPolicing conference in San Diego, California.

continued the practice, which turned out to be one of the most successful initiativesimplemented by the Fort Howard district’sCPO’s. People who at one time generatedthree to four calls per day to the police nowrarely have police contact.

The officers also targeted specific bars thathad a history of a high volume of calls-for-service. In some cases, bars in the area hadgenerated more than 200 calls to the policein a 1-year period, compared with 11 callsfrom other bars in the area. Bar ownersargued, however, that targeting bars withhigh call volumes would punish bar ownersand employees who made legitimate calls for help. To alleviate the concerns of bar and liquor store owners who might becomereluctant to call police when there was a disturbance, the police and business ownersagreed that calls for assistance would not beused against the businesses.

Operation “Hot Seat”

For this element of their response strategy,Officers Bongle and Scully stepped upenforcement of ordinance violations in theneighborhood. Police issued citations andarrests for activities that would have resultedin warnings in the past. For an offense suchas disorderly conduct, the officers used theirdiscretion to send offenders to circuit court,which has the authority to order alcoholtreatment. Several offenders were placed onprobation, and Officers Bongle and Scullyworked closely with probation officers toenforce probation conditions. These includ-ed such restrictions as no alcohol consump-tion and no visits to taverns or liquor stores.If the officers observed a probationer violat-ing these restrictions, they would report theviolation to probation officers, who wouldhave the probationer incarcerated.

Modifying Environmental Design

During analysis, it became clear that noattention had been paid to environmentaldesign in the areas experiencing problems.For this element of the strategy, the police

department and other city agencies madethe following changes:

■ Trimmed overgrown shrubs that con-cealed illegal activity.

■ Modified the Broadway district’s parkbenches to prevent people from lyingdown.

■ Eliminated access to an unsecured apart-ment building that people who lived onthe street used as a hiding place.

■ Maintained the Broadway district’s park grounds, eliminating buildup of litter and bedding generated by peoplewho lived on the streets.

■ Improved lighting in dark alcoves behindtaverns and modified rear doors to per-mit exit only.

Operation “Spotlight”

The police department sought media cover-age for its problem-solving efforts. Policebelieved the media would present a positivestory if they were approached early.

The police department explained thatarrests, liquor license hearings, and crack-downs were part of the revitalization andimprovement of the neighborhood. Thedepartment pointed out that many crimes,such as muggings, were rare. A strong rela-tionship was built with the media, whobecame an asset to the police department bycovering the positive change the departmentwas making as well as the trouble businessesand individuals. The press was a useful toolfor the department to use against businessesand individuals who did not want to beidentified to the public as problems.

Increased Regulation of Liquor Licenses

Police felt that many citizens were unawareof the licensing regulations governing liquorestablishments. Therefore, the community-police response included educating citizensabout how they could influence the actionsof the Protection and Welfare Committee,which had the power to issue and rescind


licenses. Officers Bongle and Scully provid-ed citizens with dates and times of Pro-tection and Welfare Committee meetings,the names and telephone numbers of coun-cil members who sat on the Committee,and the proper procedure for addressing the Committee.

Meetings once conducted in a small roomin city hall had to be moved to city councilchambers in 1996 to accommodate theincreased number of citizens attending. Theneighborhood’s interest in the Committee’sactions increased Committee members’accountability to the public.

The police department worked with the city attorney’s office to enforce new cityordinances. Police officers now can cite barowners even if they are not present whenoffenses are committed. The city attorney’soffice developed a system in which pointsare assessed against the liquor license uponconviction of an alcohol-related offense.Now, the municipal court can automaticallysuspend a license and close a tavern for adesignated period of time after 12 pointshave been accumulated.

ASSESSMENTDuring the past 4 years, the health of theBroadway business district has steadilyimproved. Five taverns rife with criminalactivity were closed because of the jointefforts of community-policing officers and citizens. By pressuring council members to take action, citizens played a key role in driving out the taverns. Community-policing efforts drove out other trouble-some businesses, including one where illicit drugs were sold.

Improved Public Perception

Since 1995, the Broadway business districthas experienced substantial growth in newbusinesses and jobs. When ‘On Broadway,’ a private, nonprofit organization that pro-motes investment in the Broadway business

district, analyzed changes in the neighbor-hood from 1995–99, it discovered the fol-lowing:

■ $8.4 million had been invested by bothpublic and private interests.

■ 410 new jobs had been created.■ 33 new businesses had been formed.■ A $1.8 million day care center was under

construction.■ $3.1 million had been devoted to

streetscape, sidewalk, and lightingimprovements by the city government.

Reduced Need for Police andEmergency Services

Computer-aided dispatch system statisticsshow a significant decrease in the demandfor police resources, including:

■ A 65-percent reduction in total policecalls from 1993 to 1999.

■ A 91-percent decrease in calls for rescuesquad services from 1993 to 1999.

■ An 86-percent reduction in disorderlyconduct calls from 1993 to 1998.

■ A 70-percent decrease in disturbance-unwanted person type calls from 1993to 1998.

This reduction in the demand for policeresources frees police officers to assist inother areas of the city.

Restored Public Faith in the Police

To educate and mobilize neighborhood residents, the Green Bay Police Departmentbuilt a close, cooperative working relation-ship with the Fort Howard-Jefferson FamilyNeighborhood Resource Center, whichsponsored neighborhood meetings and handled mass notification of city hearings.This relationship helped the Green BayPolice Department to restore the public’sfaith in its ability to solve problems in theBroadway district. Cleaning up the area ofdrunks, taverns, and alleys and bushesplayed a part in restoring faith, as well.


Dale Smith, owner of Dale’s MillenniumMotors, a Broadway district business, notes,“Our neighborhood is easily 100 percentbetter because of the beat cops and theirextra efforts.” Tom Perry, associate editor of the Green Bay Press Gazette, wrote,“Forget the negative images, the news fromBroadway is mostly positive and upbeat.”

Broadway has become not a part of townthat needs to be avoided, but rather “a greatplace to shop,” according to Larry and BenFrye, owners of the Broadway district’sString Instrument Workshop.

Did Crime Relocate?

Although some taverns chose to relocate toother areas of the city, the taverns ceased topose a problem because they were no longerin the same neighborhood with their problem patrons. However, the habituallyintoxicated people did move to areas of thecity where enforcement was less stringent.As a consequence, these neighborhoods haveasked for and received community-policingteams assigned to their districts.

The Broadway business district now is athriving part of downtown Green Bay. The Green Bay police had responded to the same calls in the Broadway business district for decades with no change. Onlywhen the police employed a problem-

solving approach and sought the assistanceof the community did long-lasting changestake place.

FOR MORE INFORMATIONFor more information about the Green BayPolice Department’s efforts, contact OfficersBill Bongle and Steve Scully at the FortHoward District, Green Bay PoliceDepartment, 307 Adams Street, Green Bay, WI 54301; phone: 920–448–3332; fax: 920–448–3333; e-mail: Bill Bongle:[email protected], Steve Scully:[email protected].

NOTES1. One individual, who had been placed

at the mental health center more than 80 times for intoxication, is estimated to have cost the city some $96,000, asfollows: The Brown County HealthCenter estimates the cost of an admis-sion for detoxification at $400 per day,with an average stay of 2 days; St.Vincent’s Hospital estimates hospitalemergency room costs to average $300to $400 for this type of visit; and thepolice department’s business managerestimates the cost of each call to averagebetween $50 and $100, depending onthe number of personnel hours required.


In 1998, business and community leaders and police managers in Baltimore,Maryland, identified juvenile crime anddelinquent acts as a major cause of socialdisorder in the Southeastern police district.At the same time, the Baltimore publicschool system was struggling with epidemictruancy, and the Southeastern district community’s Canton Middle School waspetitioning social institutions for assistancein addressing the suspected causes of dwin-dling attendance rates.

Three out of 10 students were absent eachday at Canton. Both quantitative and anec-dotal data indicated that juveniles experi-

enced victimization at rates disproportionateto their numbers and that they committed alarge number of the quality-of-life offensesin the district. Many of these offensesoccurred during school hours. Typicaloffenses included graffiti, loitering in publicplaces, petty theft, joy-riding, and daytimeburglary. The police department identifiedtruant juveniles as significant contributors to these problems. The correlation betweentruancy (specifically chronic truancy) andcrime and disorder in Baltimore’s South-eastern district could not be ignored.

The problem of unsupervised, chronic truants demanded a response from district

14 Canton Middle School Truancy Abatement Program

CANTON MIDDLE SCHOOLTRUANCY ABATEMENTPROGRAMREDUCING CHRONIC TRUANCY AND DAYTIME DELINQUENCYBALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, MARYLAND, SOUTHEASTERN DISTRICT

THE PROBLEM: Chronic truancy in an inner-city middle school led to incidents of daytimecrime and delinquency in the nearby neighborhood.

ANALYSIS: Police determined that no sanctions were taken against truant juveniles ortheir parents and guardians, even though students are legally required tobe present in school. Furthermore, the Baltimore criminal justice systemdid not view truancy as a high priority.

RESPONSE: Police worked with school officials to implement a strategy to reducechronic truancy and juvenile crime.

ASSESSMENT: Incidents of daytime crime and delinquency decreased by 26 percent, and school attendance rose to its highest point ever, topping 90 percent.The targeted school achieved the highest attendance rate in the Baltimorepublic school system.

SCANNING

police officers. Searching for truants hadbecome a daily game of “cat and mouse.”Officers expended time identifying and taking custody of truants.

ANALYZING THE PROBLEMBaltimore City requires juveniles under theage of 16 years to be in class each school daybetween the hours of 9 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.Parents are required by law to assure thattheir children are supervised and in schoolduring these hours. Police departmentanalysis showed that when truant juvenileswere taken into custody, they were releasedto a parent or guardian with no subsequentinstitutional sanctions applied to either thestudent or parent. Repeated infractions werecommon among a chronic population.Baltimore’s justice and education systemsdid not accord truancy a high priority.

Southeastern district police took 2,244 juveniles into custody for “daytime curfewviolations” in 1998. During this same peri-od, district officers arrested 1,202 juvenilesfor myriad offenses. These arrests represent-ed approximately 16 percent of all arrestsmade in the district. Many juveniles arrestedwere younger than 16 and were classified as truants. Many of them lived in theSoutheastern district, were students atCanton Middle School, and were well-known problem students among school personnel.

Canton Middle School Selected for Intervention

Canton Middle School was selected for the police department’s model interventionstrategy for several reasons. First, its admin-istrators were willing participants in thisexperiment and actively petitioned theSoutheastern district to intervene on itsbehalf. Second, a middle-school population(grades six through eight) seemed ideal forearly intervention in the truancy cyclebecause research indicates that childrenmake formative life decisions at the middle-school stage, as opposed to during later

high-school years.1 The police departmentand middle school hoped that an interven-tion targeting a middle-school populationwould have a better chance for long-termsuccess than targeting a high-school popula-tion. Finally, the community surroundingCanton Middle School was growing moreconcerned about the area’s increasing ratesof delinquency and teen drug use.

Canton Middle School is an urban schoolwith a racially mixed population of 746 stu-dents. Most students at Canton historicallyhave come from working-class families,many of whom have been adversely affectedduring the last generation by economic and technological changes in the workplace.Eight of every 10 students at Canton qualifyfor the federally funded, free lunch program.Most of the students live in single-parenthomes. Canton students come to schoolwith a wide range of emotional, social, medical, and economic needs, all of whichmust be addressed for them to achieve academic success.

Craig E. Spilman, Canton’s principal, iden-tified poor attendance as a primary barrierto student achievement. The year-end atten-dance rate for Canton’s 1996–97 academicyear was 87 percent. Chronically absent students (defined as absent 30 days or moreper school year) represented 36 percent ofthe total student body.

RESPONSEIn spring 1998, Canton Middle School and the Southeastern police district forged aunique working partnership to: (1) increaseschool attendance rates, (2) reduce chronictruancy, and (3) reduce juvenile-relatedcrime and delinquency in the area aroundCanton Middle School. The partners devel-oped a strategy of progressive interventionsthat they would deliver through police contacts with families. School and policeofficials would address chronic truancy inthe Southeastern district with all theresources available through the school system, social services, and the juvenile


and adult justice systems. The partners’ goal was to hold parents legally responsiblefor their children’s school attendance.

Gathering Support

School officials from Canton Middle School and Lieutenant Carmine R. Baratta,Jr., from the Southeastern police district,met with officials from Baltimore’s State’sAttorney’s Office and District AdministrativeCourt to garner support for the chronic truancy abatement program. The State’sAttorney for Baltimore, Patricia C. Jessamy,and District Administrative Court JudgeMary Ellen Rinehardt committed to assist-ing with the effort. In April 1998, JudgeCharlotte M. Cooksey and Assistant State’sAttorney Laura Mullally agreed to help withthe project. The team was taking shape.

THE INTERVENTION BEGINS Because the 1997–98 school year was in its lastsemester, the team decided to target at-risk sixthand seventh graders who would be returning toschool the following year. The school prepareda rank-ordered list of the 50 most truant chil-dren based on attendance records.

Phase I: Police Serve Noticeand Families Meet WithProject Partners

The project partners prepared a let-ter on police department letterheadnotifying parents of the 50 truantchildren of a mandatory meetingwith police and school officials todiscuss their children’s attendance. A uniformed outreach officer deliv-ered these letters to each target fami-ly. One of the main purposes of themeeting, which was held toward theend of the 1997–98 school year, wasto start the next school year with achronic truancy abatement programin place.

Parents, police officials, schooladministrators, and social servicerepresentatives attended the meet-

ing. The police department gave parentsnotice that their children were consideredchronic truants and that they were responsi-ble for their children’s attendance at school.The partners presented the program as alife-saving mission for their children andadvised parents that now was the time torequest any assistance needed from the partners in ensuring that their children were in school. The partners also notifiedparents that if they could not fulfill theirobligations, they would be required to appearin court. Forty-five of the 50 targeted fami-lies attended the meeting, as did the localprint and broadcast media.

Phase II: Parents Appear in Court,Police Conduct “Knock & Talk”Visits With Targeted Families

By mid-October 1998, an analysis of atten-dance rates showed that 28 of the 50 target-ed students had dramatically improved theirattendance at school. This time, the partnerssummoned the remaining 22 families to ameeting in Judge Cooksey’s courtroom.Parents, police, school officials, and socialservice providers attended the meeting.


The Role of Media Attention

To communicate to the public that the police department and school were addressing chronic truancy in a meaningful and comprehensivemanner, the partners issued press releases about their efforts. As a result,local and national media began covering the effort, from the first meet-ing to the later court hearings. In fact, reporters were so interested in the program that the partners had to limit media access to protect thefamilies of chronic truants from exploitation.

On one occasion, the partners felt that some members of the media were beginning to target individual families for media coverage. Thepartners’ decision to limit media access maintained their credibility withthe families and communicated that their goal was not to grandstand,but to assist the families. And the partners learned that by communicat-ing to the media that they were on a “life-saving mission” to assistchronic truants and their families, media coverage was forthcoming and generally respectful of the partners’ efforts not to disturb or humiliate the families involved.


Judge Cooksey admonished theparents, giving them notice thatthis was their last chance to seek assistance in improvingtheir children’s school atten-dance. The judge advised parents that they would becharged as defendants if theirchildren did not attend school.This meeting also receivedmedia attention.

Officer Sam Hood, theSoutheastern district-designatedtruancy abatement officer, visit-ed the targeted at-risk students at theirhomes to ensure that they were attendingschool and to let them know that the policedepartment was monitoring them for delin-quent behavior. Officer Hood photographedtargeted students with a digital camera.These students were profiled in the districtdatabase for future reference. This procedurewas meant to deter juveniles’ attempts toremain anonymous.

Phase III: Formal Criminal Court Hearings

Of the 22 families attending Judge Cooksey’sfirst meeting, 10 families’ children stillremained truant. Officer Hood andAssistant State’s Attorney Mullally targetedthese families for prosecution and servedcharging documents against the families.Criminal hearings were set before JudgeCooksey. In early April 1999, the partnersheld the first of several court appearancesfor truancy. All 10 families eventually werefound guilty of “Failing to Send Child toSchool.” One parent was incarcerated for a weekend; nine others received sentencescombining probation and community service. The hearings received local andnational media attention.

ASSESSMENTThis program is focusing on its fourthgroup of at-risk students. The partners con-

tinue to assess school attendance records andpolice data, and the results are promising.

Attendance Tops 90 Percent

For the first time in Canton Middle Schoolhistory, the attendance rate is more than 90percent. As of May 1998, the overall atten-dance rate was 92 percent. Canton MiddleSchool has the highest attendance rate ofany school in Baltimore. Chronic truancyhas been redefined from 30 days absent to20 days absent; 12 percent of the studentpopulation fits this new profile. The num-ber of students absent fewer than 5 daysdoubled during the 1998 school year.

Daytime Crime Drops

Police department data show that no longerare truants in the area around CantonMiddle School. From January throughOctober 1999, 440 children were cited with truancy violations in the Southeasterndistrict—a 5-fold reduction. In addition,research indicates that since the beginningof the intervention, overall daytime crime inthe neighborhood of Canton Middle Schooldecreased 26 percent. Specifically, larceniesdropped 26 percent and auto theftsdecreased by 30 percent. Total UCR(Uniform Crime Report) Index crime during daytime hours dropped 20 percent.This compares with an overall 13-percentdecrease in daytime crime districtwide.

Table 1: Attendance Data—Canton Middle School

Preliminary Results (as of April 1999)650 students

1997–98 1998–99

Overall rate 87% 92%

Students absent less than 5 days 18 38

Students absent more than 20 days 36 12

Minimal Resources, Big Payoff

Police and school officials have developed a working relationship with a commitmentof minimal resources. A police sector com-mander and an officer work part-time withschool officials on the project. The resultsare encouraging, and the possibilities forreplicating this project are great.

In tandem with this project, 230 CantonMiddle School students participated in achildren’s bicycle rodeo organized by theSoutheastern district officers during thesummer of 1998 to foster bicycle safety. The police department also developed amentor program that is part of the ongoingrelationship between the school and thepolice.

The effects of a well-publicized truancyabatement program are quite evident in this Southeastern Canton neighborhood.Residual effects also may be at work in otherSoutheastern Canton communities. Recentride-alongs with Sector Commander Barattaand Principal Spilman revealed that loiteringin and around these neighborhoods was virtually nonexistent. Where once duringschool hours teens would congregate on corners and loiter in front of businesses,

sidewalks now are clear. The message wasout: Children belong in school—not onlyfor their own benefit, but also for that ofthe entire community.

FOR MORE INFORMATIONFor more information about the partnershipbetween the Baltimore Police Departmentand the Baltimore City Public Schools, contact Lieutenant Carmine R. Baratta, Jr.,Sector Commander, Southeastern District,601 East Fayette Street, Baltimore, MD21202; phone: 410–396–2422; fax:410–396–2172; e-mail: [email protected].

NOTES1. Humphrey, K.R., and P.R. Baker,

“G.R.E.A.T. Program: Gang ResistanceEducation and Training,” FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin 63(9), September1994, 1–4.


In June 1998, Fresno police officers of theNortheast POP team gathered for a teambriefing. Officers learned that one single-family residence in the area had generated19 calls-for-service during the month ofMay. Each service response had taken about1 hour, and all were for child custody-related

problems. This information stunned theofficers. How could one family draw somany police resources? And if one familywas generating this many calls in theNortheast district, what was happening in the rest of the city?


A MULTIAGENCY APPROACH TO ACOUNTYWIDE PROBLEMSTEMMING CALLS-FOR-SERVICE RELATED TO CHILD CUSTODY FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, CALIFORNIA

THE PROBLEM: The Fresno Police Department was overwhelmed by telephone calls-for-service from parents requesting assistance with child custody disputes andexchanges. The resulting charges, in turn, overwhelmed the Fresno CountyDistrict Attorney’s Office, which could only prosecute the most seriousviolations.

ANALYSIS: Project coordinators learned that most of the law enforcement agencies inFresno County had different procedures for reporting child custody andcourt order violations. Also, attorneys and investigators felt most of thereports they received were for minor violations.

RESPONSE: Communication among the affected agencies was enhanced, uniform policies and procedures were implemented, and a self-reporting system was developed to encourage people to avoid calling the police with theircustody dispute and exchange problems. A standing order was applied toall family court orders requiring parents with recurring custody exchangeproblems to work through the Child Custody Program, a private agencythat provides supervised child custody exchanges.

ASSESSMENT: Calls-for-service for child custody violations were reduced by 65 percent,and the District Attorney’s Office increased the number of dispute casesprosecuted. The police department placed more responsibility on parentsfor managing their personal lives, and the department estimates that the reduction in calls-for-services saved 776 officer hours per quarter.

SCANNING

Northeast district POP officers Ken Dodd,Shannon Hodson, and Sergeant TomLaband were charged with coordinating a project to investigate the extent of theproblem and to develop a solution. Theydiscovered that the Fresno, California, Police Department responded to more than 2,300 calls-for-service from July 1997to June 1998 for violations of child custodycourt orders and for assistance with childcustody exchanges. The department’s tele-phone unit was overwhelmed. And of the1,400 police reports filed with the DistrictAttorney’s Office, fewer than 10 percent ofthe reports were prosecuted.

The project coordinators set about answer-ing the following questions: How did thesetypes of calls affect other agencies in FresnoCounty? Why were prosecution rates solow? What could be done to reduce thistype of call-for-service? Was any responsibil-ity being placed on parents to deal withtheir own problems?

ANALYZING THE PROBLEMProject coordinators began their analysis bydetermining which other county agencieswere affected by these issues. After contact-ing the supervisor of the Fresno CountyFamily Court division, the coordinatorswere surprised to learn that, effective July 1,1998, a new section had been added to allfamily court orders that directly related touse of the police:

In the event that law enforcement offi-cers are called to stand by to assist withthe exchange of the child(ren) pursuantto an existing order governing custodyand visitation on two (2) or more occa-sions, the law enforcement agency shallrefer the matter of visitation exchangeto the Child Custody Program (CCP)or any other agreed-upon agency whichprovides supervised exchange services…. The cost of CCP shall be shared equallybetween the parents unless otherwiseagreed upon by the parties. The courtshall reserve jurisdiction to later appor-

tion the cost according to proof. Thevisitation exchanges shall be under thedirection of CCP, including appoint-ment dates, times, and conditions ofvisitation exchanges.1

According to the modified section of courtorders, upon parents’ second request to a police agency for child custody exchangeassistance, the agency would no longer berequired to respond and could refer parentsto the supervised exchange services offeredby CCP. (See “The Child CustodyProgram.”) Police agencies had not beennotified of this modification, however.

What about court orders issued before July 1998? How would other police agenciesin Fresno County comply with the newcourt order? No one knew the answers tothese questions. The lack of coordinatedeffort among law enforcement agenciesbecame painfully evident.

Why Were Prosecution Rates So Low?

Officers Dodd and Hodson and SergeantLaband met with assistant district attorneysand district attorney investigators assignedto the child abduction unit of the FresnoCounty District Attorney’s Office. Theattorneys’ and investigators’ responsibilitiesincluded reviewing all violations of childcustody court orders and determining whichcases were to be prosecuted.

The project coordinators learned that mostof the police agencies in Fresno County put different information on their offensereports for child custody and court orderviolations. The information contained inthese reports was not always sufficient orconsistent. The attorneys and investigatorsagreed that if the reports had sufficientinformation and were standardized through-out the county, attorneys would be muchmore effective in prosecuting cases.

Attorneys and investigators felt most of the reports they received were for minor

20 A Multiagency Approach to a Countywide Problem

violations or were petty in nature.Many reports were made becausechildren had been returned late,dirty, or sick, and many appearedto be made to spite the other party.The child abduction unit was over-whelmed, and attorneys were ableto prosecute only the most seriousviolations.

It appeared that family law attor-neys had instructed their clients tomake police reports for the smallestcourt order violations related tochild custody issues and that par-ents were calling the police for themost minor disagreements. Thealready overburdened system wasbursting at the seams.

RESPONDINGThe team determined that lack ofcoordination among city and coun-ty police agencies, the courts, andfamily law attorneys contributed tothe problem. To improve coordination, they created a central coordinating mechanismcalled the Law Enforcement InformationExchange. All the actors in the criminal justice process were involved: the police, the presiding family court judge, familycourt commissioners, family law attorneys,assistant district attorneys and investigators,and representatives from the probationdepartment.

The Exchange organized meetings, held inthe chambers of the family court judge, todetermine ways to reduce the number ofcalls-for-service for child custody violationsand to place responsibility back on parents.The group sought solutions to effectivelyaddress court orders issued before July 1998and to incorporate referrals to CCP.

Standing Order Issued

The project coordinators asked the presidingjudge of the Fresno County Superior Courtto issue a standing order that would apply

to all family court orders regardless of when they had been issued. With a stand-ing order, requests for service (beyond thefirst request) related to court orders issuedbefore July 1998 also would be subject tothe family court order modification. Thismodification permitted referral of calls-for-service for child custody transfer complaintsto CCP.

To maximize the effectiveness of the stand-ing order, project coordinators developed a procedure and an Invocation of StandingOrder on Custody Exchange form thatcould be used countywide. The procedure is as follows:

1. When communications personnel receivea call-for-service requesting an officer tostand by and assist in the exchange ofchildren, they access a database for therequesting party’s name. This databasecontains the names of people who havealready been served with the Invocationof Standing Order on CustodyExchange.


The Child Custody Program

The Child Custody Program (CCP) in Fresno, California, is aprivately owned and operated program that provides a safe,peaceful environment for the custody exchange process. Itsemphasis is on the welfare of children who are involved incustody exchanges.

The CCP facility was designed using CPTED (Crime PreventionThrough Environmental Design) principles. CPTED stresses con-trolled access to buildings and grounds and increased securitythrough reduced opportunity for criminal activity. Parents useseparate entrances and are never in contact with one another.The children’s waiting room is fully equipped with toys suitablefor all ages.

The setting is neutral and is well-monitored by private securityguards. The facility has never experienced a situation in whichstaff needed to call the police.

There is a one-time $25 registration fee and a $5 charge forpick-ups and drop-offs. The program receives considerablefinancial support from corporations and foundations.

2. If the requesting party’s name has alreadybeen entered into this database, the com-munications personnel advise them thatofficers will not be responding and that,if they cannot resolve matters on theirown, they must use CCP.

3. If the party’s name is not in the database,officers respond to the call, assist withthe exchange of the children, and thenserve both parties with the Invocation ofStanding Order on Custody Exchange.Both parties receive a copy of the order,which contains instructions on usingCCP and a map to the center.

Self-Reporting System

With assistance from the District Attorney’sOffice and other members of the LawEnforcement Information Exchange, theteam developed a self-reporting system forviolations of court orders to further relievethe police department and place moreresponsibility on the reporting parties.When a parent wants to report a violationof a court order (excluding those relating todomestic violence) and the report is for anevent that has already taken place, the policedepartment advises the parent to come tothe nearest police station and file a report.The department no longer takes reports forviolations over the phone; instead, a self-reporting package is available for parents to

make their own reports. If the viola-tion is for an event in progress, thedepartment dispatches officers.

Getting the Word Out

Family law attorneys in the LawEnforcement Information Exchangealso held seats on the Family LawAssociation’s board of directors. Theboard influenced the association totrain its members first to encouragetheir clients to document allegedviolations through the self-reportsand then to assure their clients thatthe self-reports would be as crediblein court as standard police reports.

Implementing this program required projectcoordinators to educate department person-nel. Program coordinators attended patrol,communications, detective, and records staffbriefings to explain how the new procedureswork and how to serve people with theInvocation of Standing Order on CustodyExchange.

ASSESSMENTThe Fresno Police Department receivedapproximately 594 calls-for-service relatedto child custody transfer complaints andcourt order violations from January 1 toMarch 30, 1998, the third quarter of fiscalyear 1997–98. Police implemented thisproject in early January 1999. The policedepartment’s statistics indicate that fromJanuary 1 to March 31, 1999, the depart-ment received 206 calls-for-service for childcustody complaints and court order viola-tions, representing a 65-percent reduction.The decline in the number of calls-for-service has continued. From April 1 to June 30, 1999, the department responded to241 calls, compared to 671 during the sameperiod the previous year—a 64-percentreduction. The most recent data, for July 1to September 30, 1999, indicate there hasbeen a 44-percent reduction from the num-ber of calls during the same period in 1998.For the entire year, the department has

22 A Multiagency Approach to a Countywide Problem

Resources That Helped Fresno Succeed

Fresno Police Department Officers Ken Dodd and Shannon Hodson,along with their supervisor, Sergeant Tom Laband, coordinated, devel-oped, and implemented this countywide project.

FundingImplementing this project required approximately 100 hours of personneltime. The project did not exceed the existing department budget.

TrainingProject coordinators attended PERF’s International Problem-OrientedPolicing Conference held in San Diego in November 1997. They fol-lowed the SARA model to identify their department’s problem and find a solution.

experienced a 56-percent reduction in calls-for-service for child custody disputes.

Project coordinators invested approximately100 hours in coordination and implementa-tion of the program. This investment oftime has resulted in a savings of an estimat-ed 776 officer hours for the quarter, or3,104 officer hours over a year’s time.

With fewer reports to handle, the DistrictAttorney’s Office has been able to increaseits filing rate and its rate of successful prosecution of court order violations. Thepolice department’s telephone unit has beenrelieved of the heavy burden of calls relatedto child custody. Last, but not least, respon-sibility has been placed back on parents formanaging their personal lives, giving patrolofficers more time for other activities.

FOR MORE INFORMATIONFor more information about the FresnoPolice Department’s efforts, contact OfficerKen Dodd, Officer Shannon Hodson, andSergeant Tom Laband at the Fresno PoliceDepartment, 2323 Mariposa Mall, Fresno,CA 93721; fax: 559–228–6783. OfficerDodd can be reached at 559–498–4517,Officer Hodson can be reached at559–498–4614, and Sergeant Laband can be reached at 559–498–4634.

NOTES1. “Invocation of Standing Order on

Custody Exchange,” Fresno CountyCourts, CC–255 (12/98).


Minneapolis’ Hawthorne neighborhood, a77-square-block neighborhood in NorthMinneapolis, is home to approximately7,000 residents, one-third of whom areyounger than 17. Juvenile Probation Officedata indicate that the number of juvenileson probation in the Hawthorne area is thehighest in the city. In addition, seventy-fivepercent of the housing stock is rental, andalmost half of the residents receive someform of Hennepin County EconomicAssistance.

In 1996, drug trafficking and vandalism hadbeen problems for at least 5 years in theHawthorne neighborhood, and there was no sign that the problems would end soon.Past problem-solving efforts had been hit-or-miss, and there was little cooperation or sense of community among residents.Residents had no political clout with city orcounty government and showed little, if any,commitment to resolving neighborhoodproblems. They also expressed feelings ofabandonment by city and county services,and residents believed that city officials had

24 The Hawthorne Huddle

THE HAWTHORNE HUDDLEMOTIVATING RESIDENTS TO RECLAIM A NEIGHBORHOOD MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, MINNESOTA

THE PROBLEM: The Hawthorne neighborhood in North Minneapolis was devastated by a high incidence of crime, including narcotics trafficking, vandalism, andburglary; streets covered by litter; poor rental property management; and adeclining housing stock.

ANALYSIS: The Minneapolis Police Department and its Community CrimePrevention/Safety for Everyone unit of the Community Service Bureauanalyzed crime data from the neighborhood in 1996. Using police reportsand crime maps, the department identified the number, types, and locationof apparent criminal activity. The statistics confirmed the concerns resi-dents expressed. A rise in the number of rental properties, a decline inhousing conditions, and poor screening of tenants added to the crimeproblem.

RESPONSE: A large group of people—including residents; the faith community; thepolice; city, county, and Federal agencies; nonprofit organizations; and acorporate foundation—worked together to develop a strategy to combatcrime and improve neighborhood conditions.

ASSESSMENT: The number of executed narcotics warrants dropped from 108 in 1997 to 51 in 1998; vandalism incidents dropped from 366 in 1997 to 198 in1998; and burglary decreased from 240 in 1997 to 181 in 1998.

SCANNING

made a conscious decision to ignore thecriminal element plaguing their neighborhood.

Drug Dealing and Other Crime

A major interstate highway that flowedalong the eastern edge of the neighborhoodprovided easy access to customers from theperimeters of Hawthorne. During one com-munity meeting, two city officials observedmore than 40 cars and a steady stream ofpedestrian traffic at a drug house over a 2-hour period. The neighborhood wasplagued by an increasing number of aggra-vated assaults, and random gunshots and drive-by shootings were common.

Civil Disorder

The narcotics trade in the area spawned avariety of quality-of-life problems, such aslitter, poor housing, vandalism, loud all-night parties, music blaring from cars andhomes, and unleashed dogs barking loudly.Everywhere one looked, streets, yards, andsidewalks were strewn with waste paper, broken glass, discarded plastic bags ofclothes, and miscellaneous pieces of furni-ture. The market value of houses fell, andsome homeowners could not afford to leave: Their mortgage balances were higherthan the market value of their homes. ANeighborhood Business Association analysisindicated that there was no economic viability or corporate investment in theHawthorne area.

Residents confirmed that crime and disorderwere major problems in a 1996 survey of150 Hawthorne households conducted bythe Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitali-zation Program (NRP)—a neighborhood-based planning and implementation pro-gram that supports initiatives to addresshousing, economic development, crime andsafety, and other neighborhood-identifiedconcerns. NRP and the police departmentalso conducted focus groups to learn aboutresidents’ concerns. According to residents,the top concerns in the neighborhood were litter and crime, including drug-

related crime, vehicle theft, vandalism, and burglary.

Police patrolling Hawthorne were discour-aged by the magnitude of its social disorder.An overall sense of despair prevailed amongresidents and government agency staff facingthe area’s problems.

ANALYZING THE PROBLEMThe Minneapolis Police Department (MPD)and its Community Crime Prevention/Safety for Everyone (CCP/SAFE) unit ofthe Community Service Bureau analyzedcrime data from the neighborhood in 1996.Using police reports and crime maps, thedepartment identified the number, types,and location of apparent criminal activity.The statistics confirmed the concerns resi-dents expressed in the NRP survey.

Narcotics Trafficking

MPD’s analysis of 911 calls and citizencomplaints showed that most drug activityoccurred during the time that the depart-ment’s Community Response Team (CRT),which deals with low-level street narcotics,prostitution, and other livability issues, wasnot present in the neighborhood. CRTworked a fixed schedule, usually during thework week. Most neighborhood drug deal-ers were aware of the schedule, and theirbusiest day of the week was Sunday. Mostcustomers came from the immediate ornearby neighborhoods. The neighborhoodwas divided into four quadrants, and nar-cotics warrants issued in 1996 were equallydistributed among the four.

The consequences for drug trafficking werenot serious. A U.S. Attorney’s Office studyof 40 executed search warrants showed thatof the 55 individuals arrested and chargedwith some level of felony narcotic behavior,22 had 5 or more previous arrests for a variety of offenses. Of these 22, 3 were juveniles; of the remaining 19 individuals,each had been arrested 13 or more times.


Some of these individuals had beenarrested between 38 and 41 times,and some of their violations were forrepeat narcotic felonies. Of thisgroup, not one received active jailtime. The only risks for offenderswere financial loss or the slightchance of criminal justice system response.

Poor Property Management

According to city housing inspec-tions data, as drug activity increasedand homeowners moved from theneighborhood, the number of rentalproperties grew. Rental propertyowners became increasingly part of the problem, allowing propertiesto decline while continuing to collect voucher-paid rents fromHennepin County EconomicAssistance. Approximately 10 per-cent of homes had been sold to neglectful landlords, and another 30 percent were managed by ownerswith little, if any, experience. Manyowners did not screen tenants andshowed no interest in improvingtheir management skills. TheMinneapolis Community Develop-ment Agency refused to build anynew housing or to reinvest in exist-ing housing stock because of theongoing drug trafficking and other problems.

Lack of CoordinationAmong GovernmentServices

The Hennepin County Departmentof Children and Family Servicesconducted an analysis of govern-ment agency service delivery in the area and found that agencies had overlapping clients and thatthere was little coordination amongthe agencies to address the families’problems. It often was the case, for


Resources That Helped the HawthorneNeighborhood Succeed

Organizations contributing funding and/or staff time to this effort included:

City of Minneapolis ■ Housing Inspections■ Minneapolis Lead Program■ Minneapolis Police Department■ Minneapolis Public Schools■ Solid Waste and Recycling■ Water Department

Hennepin County■ Children and Family Services■ County Attorney’s Office■ Juvenile Probation■ Sentence to Serve■ Training and Employment Services■ Welfare Fraud

Federal Government■ U.S. Attorney’s Office

Nonprofit Agencies■ Accessibility■ Hawthorne Area Community Council■ Legal Aid■ Loaves and Fishes■ North Memorial Hospital

Churches■ Berean Baptist Church■ Faith Tabernacle Church■ On-Fire Ministry ■ St. Phillip’s Catholic Church■ Zion Lutheran Church

Major Corporate Sponsor■ In 1994, the General Mills Foundation granted $3 million over

5 years for new and rehabilitated housing in the Hawthorne neighborhood. In addition, the Foundation gave $200,000 for block club initiatives.

TrainingIn 1997, the entire Minneapolis Police Department received 8 hours of POP training, which was supported by a Federal grant. Also, all new officers in the Minneapolis Police Department receive 8 hours ofcommunity-oriented policing training during their academy experience.To gain an appreciation for the problems of urban youth, recruits work a full week (40 hours) in an inner-city youth organization through thePolice-Community Training Partnership program.

example, that a family actively involved indrug dealing was receiving county economicassistance, on juvenile probation, receivinghousing inspections complaints, and undersupervision from a county Children andFamily Services case worker. However, none of these services were coordinated.

RESPONSETo organize the community, the MPD’sCCP/SAFE unit sponsored a variety ofneighborhood meetings and encouraged residents to participate in block clubs. A crime prevention specialist, HillaryFreeman, a civilian member of the MPD,attended these meetings and became activelyinvolved in facilitating communicationamong community organizations and assisting residents and others in the neigh-borhood to solve Hawthorne’s problems.Freeman trained block club members on how to use the ordinances and othertools available to the community for reducing crime. Residents used the blockclub meetings to record problem addressesand to identify next steps for action by both residents and police. Updates were provided at the next block club meeting, allowing residents to see the fruits of their labor.

Residents and Community Leaders Organize

As block clubs began to form, residentsincreasingly worked together to defineneighborhood problems and to take owner-ship for resolving neighborhood issues.Residents became highly motivated toreclaim their neighborhood and regain a sense of control over their daily lives. They began actively to observe and recordsuspected criminal activity on their blocksand to report their observations to the MPD 4th precinct CRT. Approximately 200 residents became actively involved inthe 14 block clubs formed in the Haw-thorne neighborhood.

The MPD’s Freeman met with leaders offaith organizations to solicit their assistancein problem solving. As a result, clergy fromeach of the neighborhood churches created a ministerial group that continues to meetmonthly to address common concerns andto work with neighborhood residents.

Community members also continue to meetmonthly at 7:30 a.m. in what is called the“Hawthorne Huddle.” The General MillsFoundation originally organized the meet-ings in 1997 as a way to solicit feedbackabout projects it had funded in the neigh-borhood. Over time, the meetings expandedto address wide-ranging neighborhood con-cerns and now operate as a think-tank onpolicy issues that affect livability in theneighborhood. Participants include blockclub leaders, members of the clergy, policeand other government staff, representativesof nonprofit organizations, and elected cityand county public officials.

The Neighborhood Strategy

The MPD worked with other governmentagencies and the community to develop thefollowing strategy to reduce crime in theHawthorne neighborhood:

■ Increase enforcement of existing laws,including the State nuisance law, property license laws, and weapons ownership laws.

■ Establish partnerships among communi-ty residents and organizations and othercity and county agencies.

■ Establish a sense of community byadopting shared community standardsand by working with corporate partnerswho could influence policymaking andprovide funding and volunteers for community initiatives.

The MPD’s goal was to reduce the numberof criminal narcotic arrests executed at spe-cific addresses, the number of vandalismincidents, and the number of residentialburglaries.


Neighborhood residents and the faith com-munity developed standards of conduct for the community. The General MillsFoundation provided funding for a commu-nity dinner, at which block club members,faith community leaders, the MPD, andother government agencies met to agreeupon the standards and to commit resourcesin support of them.

Government Agency Coordination

City and county agencies began to commu-nicate with one another and developed amore holistic approach to service delivery to the community. They formed the ProjectEmpowerment Team, whose participantsincluded city and county agencies, Min-neapolis Legal Aid, the North MemorialFamily Practice Clinic, the Training andEmployment Assistance Program, and otherinterested community partners. The team’spurpose was to address family issues from an early intervention/prevention perspectiveand to match needy families with appropri-ate resources.

Strategy Implementation

Increased Enforcement. The police did the following to increase enforcement in the Hawthorne neighborhood:

■ Used the Computer-OptimizedDeployment Focus on Results, orCODEFOR, system to focus enforce-ment efforts on problem locations.

■ Strengthened enforcement of theConduct on Premise ordinance, a city housing inspection ordinance thataddresses nuisance behavior—such asloud music and parties, narcotics andweapons possession, and prostitution—on rental property.

■ Encouraged stronger enforcement of theState Nuisance Law, which is enforcedby the County Attorney’s office civildivision and addresses such nuisancebehavior as narcotics and weapons possession and prostitution in or

on homeowner-occupied property, businesses, shelters, and bars.

Aggressive enforcement of the StateNuisance Law and Conduct on Premiseordinance began January 1, 1997. As aresult, enforcement action was taken against17 properties that had accounted for 875 police calls-for-service within 1 year.

Government Agency Coordination. TheProject Empowerment Team offered com-munity resources to 55 families demonstrat-ing problem behaviors. Of those 55 families,only 5 were unwilling to use the resources.

Resident Initiatives. In response to resi-dents’ community standards for the neigh-borhood, Minneapolis Solid Waste andRecycling issued 300 “dirty collection” tags. The department placed dirty collectionpoint tags at properties where residents didnot place their garbage in proper containersand allowed it to scatter around the yard.This enforcement had two direct results:First, commitment to enforce the commu-nity standards was demonstrated, and second, a clean neighborhood did help to deter crime.

To provide young people with positive activ-ities in their community and to steer themaway from vandalism, residents and areachurches created the Clean and GreenProgram, an antilitter project that offeredyouth a stipend for their work on Saturdaymornings to clean up their neighborhood.The community also established a SafeHouse where children could be involved in positive, supervised activities and receiveassistance with school work. Support forthese initiatives also came from NRP,General Mills, grants to block clubs, and churches.

Rental Property Improvement Initiative.Through NRP funding, rental propertyowners received rental property manage-ment training and funds to increase andimprove their security initiatives. NRP set


aside $20,000, which was matched bythe rental property owners, to installfences, locks, and lighting.

ASSESSMENTThe results of efforts to improve theHawthorne neighborhood were meas-ured through the MPD’s crime statis-tics, a second NRP survey, and focusgroups conducted with block clubsand other stakeholders. The MPDevaluated crime statistics weekly, andtwice a year, the MDP and NRPrequested feedback from residents.

The reduction of crime in Hawthornehas been significant:

■ Narcotics violation warrants declined 50 percent, from 108 in 1997 to 51 in 1998.

■ Vandalism incidents showed a similarreduction: from 366 in 1997 to 198 in 1998.

■ Home burglaries decreased from 240 in 1997 to 181 in 1998.

Home burglaries declined primarily becauseof education: Block club members weretaught how to reduce burglaries by increas-ing the security of their homes and byreducing the opportunity for becoming avictim of crime. Also, as neighbors got toknow one another, they became an extrapair of eyes, watching one another’s houses.

Initial indicators for 1999 show a decreasingtrend in narcotics arrests, vandalism, andburglary of dwellings.

NRP conducted a survey of residentsattending block club meetings in late 1998,and respondents indicated that they feltsafer in their community and that crime was decreasing. Community feedback sessions showed that the goals of reducingcrime and social disorder and organizing the community had been successfullyaccomplished.

FOR MORE INFORMATION For more information about the HawthorneHuddle, contact the Minneapolis Police,Downtown Command, 29 S. 5th Street,Minneapolis, MN 55402; phone:612–673–3198; fax: 612–673–3940.


Hawthorne Area Crime Statistics 1996–98

1996 1997 1998

Narcotics (Search warrants executed) 103 108 51

Auto theft/theft from auto 186 176 262

Vandalism 286 366 198

Burglary of dwelling 196 240 181

The West 6th Street neighborhood inRacine, Wisconsin, is an older, residentialarea encompassing approximately 32 squareblocks in the heart of the city. The area haslittle commercial activity and consists almostcompletely of wood-frame, single- and mul-tifamily residences on standard city lots.

Residents of Racine considered the West 6th Street neighborhood the worst in town.Crime wasn’t the only problem. Rundownand boarded-up homes, abandoned cars,

litter, and debris plagued this deteriorating,low- to moderate-income area. Throughboth surveys and meetings, neighborhoodresidents revealed the community’s sense offrustration with these conditions and withgovernment agencies’ lack of commitmentto address them.

Crime statistics showed that, although thearea is not geographically large, the inci-dence of violent and property crime was outof proportion to its population. The West

THE POWER OFPARTNERSHIPSREVITALIZING NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGH COMMUNITYPOLICING HOUSES RACINE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WISCONSIN

THE PROBLEM: Neighborhoods troubled by crime and disorder suffered as enforcementalone proved ineffective.

ANALYSIS: A survey conducted by the University of Wisconsin–Parkside found thatresidents were dissatisfied with their neighborhood because of crime, litter,and rundown properties; 76 percent of the residents questioned the policedepartment’s ability to control crime in the neighborhood.

RESPONSE: Joint police-community partnerships developed a variety of problem-solving approaches that involved cracking down both on gang and drugactivity and on landlords who violated the building codes. The policedepartment also developed a unique partnership with local business leadersto purchase houses located near the center of criminal activity and reno-vate them for use as community-policing offices.

ASSESSMENT: Statistics show that in two neighborhoods where community-policinghouses were established, crime diminished and business owners and residents reinvested in the communities. Other areas of Racine are successfully replicating these two initial models.

30 The Power of Partnerships

SCANNING

6th Street area represented 3 percent of thecity’s population, but accounted for 21 per-cent of the city’s violent crime. Open drugdealing and gang activity fueled both violentand property crime, and area residents fre-quently were the victims. A number oflarge, unruly crowd incidents turned intoconfrontations with the police. Rock throw-ing, property damage, and injuries to citi-zens and officers were common during thesedisturbances.

Absentee landlords, who cared little abouttheir tenant’s quality of life or the conditionof their properties, owned a substantial por-tion of the area’s rental property. Buildingand health code violations were common. A37-unit apartment complex in the middle ofthe neighborhood became a haven for drugdealers and addicts. Property values weredeclining. People were selling their homesand moving. Nonowners occupied 71 per-cent of the homes in the area.

The police department arrested dealers andraided drug houses, but once the arrestswere made and the police left, the drugdealers returned. The police department’sfailure to effectively deal with the neighbor-hood eroded residents’ trust in and coopera-tion with police officers. Arrests alone wereno match for the West 6th Street area’s widevariety of problems.

ANALYZING THE PROBLEMIn 1992, Chief Richard Polzin chose toimplement community policing and to analyze and resolve the myriad issues facingthe West 6th Street area. To develop lines ofcommunication between the police depart-ment and the community, the police depart-ment initiated meetings with residents. Atfirst, only a few people attended. During the early meetings, residents recountedinstances of indifference by government officials; it was apparent that they felt gov-ernment services were beyond their reach—no government representative had evertaken a leadership role in addressing theneighborhood’s problems.

University of Wisconsin–Parkside Study

At the request of the police department, theUniversity of Wisconsin–Parkside conducteda baseline study of residents’ attitudes, per-ceptions, and concerns. Although approxi-mately 80 percent of respondents thoughtthe police were respectful, helpful, and fairin their dealings with them, 76 percentexpressed concern about the police depart-ment’s ability to control crime. The studyrevealed that residents were very dissatisfiedwith their neighborhood because of thecrime, litter, and rundown properties.

RESPONSEThe West 6th Street Community PolicingProject’s goals were to organize neighbor-hood residents, maximize its own resourcesand those of other city and county agencies,reduce violent and property crime, improveresidents’ quality of life, and promote neighborhood reinvestment. The problem-solving strategy consisted of:

■ Developing a joint police-communityproblem-solving action group, made up of community-policing officers andneighborhood residents, to organizeother area residents and direct communi-ty policing and other neighborhoodimprovement efforts.

■ Developing working partnerships withother city and county agencies to maxi-mize resources and address specific crimeand quality-of-life issues. In the past,there had been very little cooperationbetween different agencies of city gov-ernment and no followup on citizencomplaints.

■ Gathering intelligence on area drug dealers and gang members; establishing a highly visible police presence in theneighborhood by assigning officers tofoot patrol, bike patrol, and mountedpatrol; and targeting the primary neigh-borhood crime problems of gang activityand drug dealing through a focused


assault on these activities. Todemonstrate the police depart-ment’s commitment to solvingthe neighborhood’s problems,captains and lieutenants beganwalking a beat twice a monthin the targeted area.

■ Targeting landlords and home-owners who refused to complywith health and building codes,organizing area residents toclean up public open areas,assisting residents in accessinggovernment services, and devel-oping strategies to promoteneighborhood reinvestment.

A Community Mobilizes

The department opened the firstcommunity-policing office in theWest 6th Street neighborhood in1993. Although the police depart-ment did not have the resources to lease an office, a neighborhoodlandlord with an empty apartmentprovided the unit rent-free. Officersand citizens donated furniture andother items. Chief Polzin soughtofficers who were interested in com-munity policing to volunteer for thefull-time assignment of operatingthe office. That officer became anadvocate for the neighborhood andset about orchestrating the deliveryof government services to addresscrime and other quality-of-lifeissues.

Area residents began to attend meet-ings and, reluctantly at first, beganto volunteer. The partnershipevolved into the West 6th StreetAssociation, which has become acohesive voice for change in theneighborhood and the strongestneighborhood advocacy organizationin the city.

This joint effort has attracted both the interest of the business


Replicating Efforts at Mead Street

A year after efforts began in the West 6th Street neighborhood, thepolice department introduced community policing to Racine’s MeadStreet area. This area suffered from problems similar to those thatplagued West 6th Street. The community is similar to West 6th Street in size, population density, housing stock, and economic standing. It hadmore business activity than the West 6th Street area, but the neighbor-hood was composed mostly of single- and multifamily residences.

The department followed the West 6th Street area model, using the sametools to evaluate the area and a similar problem-solving approach. Thepolice and community partnered together in the 2nd District Coalition,an organization that became a powerful influence in neighborhoodaffairs.

The police chose to build a house for community-policing efforts on avacant city lot directly across the street from a park that was at the heartof the community’s problems. Gangs had taken over the park, and drugdeals were conducted out in the open. Residents regularly dove for coverfrom gunfire between rival gang members.

A three-bedroom ranch house cost approximately $55,000. Chief Polzin made fundraising presentations at every possible community function and to private foundations. In the end, the Racine CommunityFoundation provided $35,000; the department obtained the remainingfunds from a variety of other sources. The Outpost again managed thefunds.

In early 1996, the new community-policing house became a reality. The Mead Street house, like West 6th Street, became a combined policestation, neighborhood gathering center, and outreach location for manyof the same agencies that used the West 6th Street office.

Mead Street Assessment

The following patterns are emerging in the Mead Street area:■ Violent crime (homicides, sexual assaults, robbery, and aggravated

assaults) fell 53 percent from 1991 to 1998. ■ Property crime (burglary, theft, auto theft, and arson) fell 48 percent

from 1991 to 1998.■ Part 2 offenses (crimes not listed above) decreased 4.5 percent from

1991 to 1998. ■ Calls-for-service dropped 15 percent from 1991 to 1998.

Neighborhood pride is becoming more evident as housing improvementsare made. Reinvestment already has begun, as owners have reopenedand renovated previously boarded-up buildings. The park is now the siteof Boy Scout campouts and other child-related activities, rather than agathering place for gangs and drug dealers. The Mead Street community-policing house will some day be sold to a low-to-moderate income fami-ly, and the proceeds used to build another community-policing houseelsewhere.

community and the attention of the media.S.C. Johnson & Son, a major Racine-basedcorporation, provided a $28,500 grant tohelp community policing in the West 6thStreet neighborhood and a similar initiativein the 18th and Mead Street neighborhood.In the West 6th Street neighborhood, thefunds were used to renovate and establishthe community-policing office and purchasefurniture and office supplies.

Operation Crackdown

Armed with information from neighbor-hood residents and surveillance activities,officers identified and targeted drug dealers and gang members. A joint effort of the Racine Police Department and theWisconsin Department of Justice NarcoticsEnforcement Division, known as OperationCrackdown, became the largest focusedassault on drug activity in Wisconsin histo-ry. At its conclusion, 92 felony arrests weremade and the principal West 6th Street drug dealers were sent to prison. The effortbroke the backs of the drug rings and gangsthat had plagued the neighborhood.

First Community Policing House

One Halloween, James Dickert, a local realtor, donated $500 to the police depart-ment so it could purchase Halloween candyto pass out to area children. But city regula-tions required the department to appearbefore three different committees and tosolicit bids before it could purchase thecandy. Dickert became discouraged when he realized the length of time and amountof resources involved before the policedepartment could put his donation to use.He approached Chief Polzin about his frus-tration. When Chief Polzin discussed withhim the department’s community-policingefforts, Dickert offered to help. He organ-ized a group of community business leadersto form a nonprofit organization known asthe Racine Community Outpost that wouldprovide direct financial assistance to thedepartment for its community-policingefforts.

During the course of Operation Crack-down, the owner of the house next door tothe neighborhood’s primary drug house putthe house up for sale. Working with ChiefPolzin, Dickert and the Racine CommunityOutpost began raising money for the policedepartment to purchase the house and reno-vate it for police use. Another communitygroup, the Racine Community Foundation,provided an $8,000 grant; S.C. Johnson &Son donated another $25,000. The depart-ment also received grants from the State ofWisconsin.

When city attorneys balked at the unprece-dented idea of a police department owninga house, the Racine Community Outpoststepped in, bought the house, and leased itback to the police department. The cityattorneys accepted this plan. The city for-gave the back taxes due on the house, andthe community-policing officers moved innext door to the area’s major drug dealers.This strategy had the desired effect: mem-bers of the drug-dealing family who werenot arrested and sentenced to prison soonmoved out of the neighborhood.

Cleaning Up the Neighborhood

Following the first year of increased policepresence in the neighborhood, the violentcrime rate dropped 60 percent. Once themajor crime problems had diminished, thepolice and the community began to focuson the homes in various states of disrepair,the unkempt yards, abandoned cars, andaccumulation of junk. This effort requiredcity agencies to cooperate. Officers organ-ized a neighborhood cleanup, during whichofficers and residents walked the publicareas and vacant lots cleaning up garbageand debris. The Department of PublicWorks provided dump trucks and drivers to haul trash away. With the rest of theneighborhood cleaning up, residents withcollections of junk felt pressure to clean uptheir yards. Abandoned and junk cars wereremoved from neighborhood streets and private property. This effort encouragedneighbors to meet and converse with one


another, furthering a sense of community inthe neighborhood. In an area where policewere once greeted with rocks and bottles,officers could now be found sitting onporches talking to people during foot patrol.

Combating Exterior Building Codeand Health Violations

Many absentee landlords who owned prop-erty in the area responded to police and resi-dent requests to repair their properties andbring them up to code. But others eitherignored the requests or refused to comply.City officials cited and fined those whorefused. This action brought more landlordsinto compliance, but others still held out.

Finally, the department compiled a list ofthe 25 worst properties in the neighbor-hood, presented it to the Public Safety andBuildings Committee, and encouraged thecity to respond to building code violations.The minutes of the committee are publicrecord and the local newspaper printed thelist of properties with the owners’ names.The list stirred controversy among land-lords, who said that the police were target-ing them unfairly and that they were not in violation of building codes. As a result,the mayor dispatched building and healthinspectors and said that if they did not findviolations, the police would be required toapologize publicly to the landlords.

When the inspectors returned, they told themayor there were no violations. The policeresponded by recording violations in theneighborhood on videotape. When thisinformation was presented to a meeting of the mayor and building and healthinspectors, police learned that the inspectorshad conducted their inspections by drivingdown each neighborhood block at 35 milesper hour because they were afraid to leavetheir cars. As a result, inspectors teamed up with community-policing officers toconduct inspections and issue citations. Asthe number of citations increased and thefines mounted, some of the landlords gaveup and sold their properties.

Encouraging NeighborhoodReinvestment

Another project goal was to encourageneighborhood reinvestment and home ownership. The police department and the Racine Community Outpost wanted toaccelerate this process. After the Outpostrefurbished the former drug house next tothe community-policing house, the organi-zation sold the house to a low-incomehomeowner who agreed to occupy the residence. Since then, the Outpost has purchased several more houses, refurbishedthem, and sold them to low-income familieswho also agreed to occupy the houses. TheOutpost uses the money earned from thesale of each house to purchase a new houseto refurbish.

Additional properties put up for sale by thetroublesome landlords are being purchasedby organizations that cooperate with theU.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment and various city and Stateprograms to offer low-cost loans and pro-mote home ownership in the neighborhood.The sale and renovation of the propertieshave led to visible improvements in the condition of neighborhood housing stock.

One major problem remained. Though the police had driven the drug dealers andaddicts from the 37-unit apartment complexin the heart of the neighborhood, the build-ing remained a rundown eyesore. After alocal newspaper ran a story about the once-elegant building, several developers inquiredabout renovating it. Chief Polzin reassureddevelopers that community policing was along-term effort in the West 6th Street area.Developers purchased and renovated theapartment complex at a cost of nearly $2million. Today, there is a waiting list forapartments in the building.

Empowering Residents

The West 6th Street Association’s focusturned to improving residents’ accessibilityto government services. The police depart-


ment offered space in its community-policing house to a number of socialservice agencies. The response wasenthusiastic. Among the organizationsthat used the facilities at the West 6thStreet community-policing house were:

■ Children and Family Resources, a child health and social servicesprogram that became so widelyrelied upon it eventually movedinto its own house two doors away.

■ Racine County Human ServicesDepartment.

■ Racine Health Department.■ Lutheran Social Services.■ Probation and Parole Division of

the Wisconsin Department ofCorrections. Probation and paroleofficers used the house to meetwith clients during the day, beforeafterschool programs began.

■ Reading tutoring services for chil-dren and adults during afterschooland evening hours.

The service organizations encouragedneighborhood residents to drop in,and the house eventually became anunofficial community center, helpingto further solidify the neighborhood.

Once area residents and the policedepartment are satisfied with theprogress and stability of the area, neighbor-hood reinvestment plans include selling theWest 6th Street community-policing houseto a low-income owner-occupant. Proceedsfrom the sale will be used to establish anoth-er community-policing house in another area of the city.

ASSESSMENTHow well did community policing work asa catalyst for change in the West 6th Streetcommunity?

■ Violent crime (homicides, sexualassaults, robbery, and aggravated

assaults) fell 70 percent from 1991 to 1998.

■ Property crime (burglary, theft, autotheft, and arson) fell 59 percent from1991 to 1998.

■ Part 2 offenses (crimes not listed above)fell 32 percent from 1991 to 1998.

■ Calls-for-service dropped 35 percentfrom 1991 to 1998.

In the same time period in the city as awhole, violent crime dropped 28 percent,property crime dropped 28 percent, andcalls-for-service dropped 19 percent.

The number of owner-occupied homes in the West 6th Street area has increased.Additional reinvestment in the neighbor-


Successes Build More Support

The number of requests for a community policing presence inother city neighborhoods has exceeded available resources.Chief Polzin approached the Racine City Council, requestingthat a surcharge be added to city ordinance fines to help payfor community policing activities. The city granted the requestand also gave the police department part of an $810,000 settlement paid by a local company to use for Weed and Seed efforts.

Geneva Street Area

The police department selected the Geneva Street area, onRacine’s north side, for its third community-policing house. For many years, the only new structure that had been built inthis neighborhood had been a prison. With a combination offunding sources, the effort proceeded much the same way theMead Street project did. A local community group adopted theproject, providing all the labor to landscape the yard. TheGeneva Street community-policing house opened its doors in1998, providing a variety of services to area residents. Crimerates are down after the first full year of operation, and otherneighborhood improvement efforts are progressing.

Stepp Builders, the company that built the Geneva Streethouse, decided that the successes associated with the RacinePolice Department’s approach to community policing deservedsupport. Stepp representatives championed the community-policing effort at a meeting of Racine and Kenosha, Wisconsin,builders. To date, that group has donated more than $100,000in labor and materials toward building more community-policinghouses.

hood, similar to the $2-million apartmenthouse renovation, has occurred. The physi-cal appearance of many neighborhood properties has improved.

Follow-Up Study

The United Way conducted a survey in1996 and asked 250 West 6th Street resi-dents to name the leaders in their neighbor-hood and the organizations that had beenmost helpful to themselves or to their fami-lies. Many respondents listed police officersas valued leaders (second only to FamilyResource and Health Department home vis-itors). The community-policing house andthe Racine Police Department, combined,were listed as the leading resource organiza-tion in the neighborhood.

The police department has established threeadditional community-policing houses in

the Racine neighborhoods of Mead Street,Geneva Street, and 10th Street, the latter of which opened its doors on December 1,1999. (See “Replicating Efforts at MeadStreet” and “Successes Build More Support.”)Racine’s experiences show that over time,continued attention will be needed to sus-tain positive results in these once-strugglingcommunities. The residents of these com-munities are unwilling to lose what theyhave fought so hard to gain.

FOR MORE INFORMATIONFor more information about the RacinePolice Department’s problem-solving efforts,contact Chief Richard Polzin, Chief ofPolice, Safety Building–730 Center Street,Racine, WI 53403; phone: 414–635–7704;fax: 414–636–9332.



Every day, Shane Lynn sat in Mira MesaHigh School listening to kids openly discussditching classes to buy, sell, and use illegaldrugs. Lynn, too, cut classes to buy drugs.The difference between Lynn and the otherstudents was that he was an undercover SanDiego police officer investigating illegaldrug sales. Officer Lynn became convincedthat rampant truancy was contributing tothe drug problem at Mira Mesa. Most drugtransactions occurred during the time stu-dents were truant.

When Lynn’s assignment was over, hedebriefed school administrators and policemanagers, who agreed that truancy was anoverwhelming problem. Lynn and his beatpatrol partner, Scott Barnes, decided theywould examine the problem of truancy intheir patrol area and, with the permission of their sergeant, William Nemec, devise astrategy to combat it.

Lynn and Barnes began a process of prob-lem verification by speaking with more than

TRUANCY CONTROL PROJECTREMOVING ATTENDANCE BARRIERS LESSENS DAYTIME CRIME SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, CALIFORNIA, MID-CITY DIVISION

THE PROBLEM: High rates of daytime juvenile crime focused attention on chronic truancyin the Mid-City Division of the San Diego Police Department.

ANALYSIS: A survey of 25 truant juveniles showed that 73 percent committed crimesother than truancy while not at school, and 87 percent reported being victimized while they were truant. Sixty percent of the students alsoresponded that stricter enforcement would deter truancy, and the majorityof the juveniles agreed that more personal attention would increase theirattendance at school.

RESPONSE: Police officers formed strong relationships with school attendance officersand identified the most chronic truants; they then targeted these studentswith personal attention and actively helped them and their familiesremove barriers to school attendance.

ASSESSMENT: Before implementing the project, chronically truant students were absentfor an average of 43 percent of the school days. After implementation,these students (excluding the most serious offenders, who required courtintervention) were absent for 11 percent of the school days. Initial assess-ments of crime statistics show a 20-percent reduction in Mid-City crimesince project implementation, with a 31-percent reduction in daytimecrime during the fall 1998 semester. During the same period, the averagereduction in rates for those same crimes citywide was 6 percent.

SCANNING

40 education administrators, justice systemrepresentatives, and social service providers.Each stakeholder verified the problem’sseverity, and some said it was even worsethan it appeared because the linkage offunding to school attendance rates gaveschool administrators a disincentive to document the problem accurately.

Although juvenile service providers wereconcerned about the truancy problem, mostfelt overwhelmed by the volume of truancycases and the difficulty of tracking downfamilies whose addresses frequently changed.All of these service providers—the SchoolAttendance Review Board (SARB), whichreviews truancy cases; the CommunityAssessment Team; Child Protective Services;Juvenile Probation; the Juvenile DistrictAttorney; and Juvenile Court—realized the significance of the problem, but theirefforts to address it were not coordinated.Disciplinary responses to individual truantswere not timely or consistent. As a result,truants did not expect repercussions fortheir behavior.

ANALYZING THE PROBLEMGuided by Sergeant Andrew Mills, OfficersLynn and Barnes examined juvenile crimestatistics in Mid-City and found the following:

■ 60 percent of the thefts, 43 percent ofthe burglaries, and 29 percent of therobberies in Mid-City in which juvenileswere the suspects occurred during schoolhours.

■ 59 percent of juvenile victimization(excluding child molestation) occurredduring school hours.

Officers Lynn and Barnes also learned thatbiweekly juvenile truancy sweeps netted anaverage of 40 students—mostly high-schoolstudents—per sweep in the Mid-City policejurisdiction.

Truants Survey

To gain an understanding of the nature oftruancy and its link to juvenile crime intheir jurisdiction, the officers conducted asurvey of 25 juveniles who had been appre-hended for truancy. The officers learned thefollowing:

■ 73 percent of the juveniles surveyedadmitted to committing crimes otherthan truancy, such as using drugs (53 percent), buying drugs (33 percent),stealing from a store (33 percent), van-dalizing property (33 percent), and com-mitting robbery (27 percent) and burglary(27 percent).

■ 87 percent said they had been victim-ized.

■ 53 percent said they skipped school withfriends, although 100 percent of surveyrespondents had been apprehended withfriends.

■ Motivations for skipping school includedbeing tired, bored, too far behind, anddisliking their teachers. None of the stu-dents surveyed said they skipped schoolbecause they feared other students atschool.

■ The most frequently cited times for skipping school were the beginning ofthe day, lunchtime, or the last period.

■ 53 percent of the students said theyhung out in their neighborhood, 33 percent went to stores, and 14 per-cent stayed on the school campus.

■ 60 percent of the surveyed truants said tighter controls, including policeenforcement and juvenile hall, woulddeter them from skipping school.

■ Most of the truants said personal attention was an important element in resolving their barriers to attendingschool.

Officer Lynn’s original interpretation of the problem was that truancy and drug sales and use were closely linked and that to reduce drug activity among students, itwas necessary to reduce truancy. However,through their analysis, Lynn and Barnes discovered that the problem was much

38 Truancy Control Project

broader and that truancy was a gatewayboth to criminal behavior and to victimiza-tion. Based on students’ responses, the officers concluded that each child had a personal reason for skipping school, thatmany lacked clear direction and experienced negative influences that were steering themin the wrong direction, and that studentsknew they would not be held accountablefor being truant. The officers developed aresponse strategy based on these findings.

RESPONSE With support from Sergeant Mills, Barnesand Lynn started a pilot program called theJuvenile Enforcement Team (JET) in sixschools and devised the following short-term strategy to combat truancy:

■ Establish strong working relationshipswith school attendance officers andadministrators.

■ Compile a list of the 65 most chronictruants and target these students forstrict enforcement.

■ Identify primary barriers to each child’sattendance by meeting with the familiesof students who do not respond to initialenforcement efforts and assess whetherthere are problems that create barriers to school attendance. Where appropri-ate, facilitate access to social services tohelp the family address these problems.

The officers’ long-term goals were to createa new process of holding students and theirfamilies accountable for attending school,use existing laws to enforce school atten-dance, and create a new law to tighten tru-ancy enforcement. The officers also hopedto offer alternative, positive influences tostudents through a mentoring program.

Building Relationships, RemovingBarriers to Attendance

Barnes and Lynn, the two JET officers, metwith attendance officers at each school.Most were receptive and cooperative. Barnesand Lynn arranged to call the schools each

day at 8:30 a.m. to learn which of the 65most chronic students were absent. The offi-cers followed up with as many of these stu-dents as possible. Strong communicationand cooperation between school attendancepersonnel and the JET officers were critical.The most cooperative schools phoned offi-cers immediately to let them know whichstudents on the JET list were absent.

Before long, the officers learned which stu-dents might benefit from intervention andwhich probably would not. Each day, anhour before school started, officers visited anaverage of five students they felt needed spe-cial attention. In some cases, parents lackedsufficient control over their children to getthem to school. Officers obtained writtenconsent from some of these frustrated par-ents to come into the house to encouragethese children out of bed.

Barnes and Lynn met with each of the 65students and their families in their homesand administered a risk-factor questionnaireto assess possible barriers to each child’sschool attendance. They learned that manychronically truant children wanted to attendschool but were not permitted to due tomedical conditions such as lice. They alsolearned that some parents did not under-stand correspondence regarding their chil-dren’s school absences and had difficultyaccessing the services they needed to helpget their children back in school. (In the sixschools with which the JET officers worked,students live in a large immigrant communi-ty where 40 different languages are spoken.)Another significant barrier was lack ofparental concern about students missingschool. Whatever the barrier, the officerscontacted the appropriate communityresource and, when necessary, requestedassistance from translators to address theproblem.

In one case, a mother and her boyfriendwere both parolees on the run who wereaddicted to rock cocaine. The mother hadbeen arrested for prostitution, drug posses-sion, and burglary. She abandoned her four


children, ages 3 through 12, for fear ofpolice intervention and was roaming thestreets. The children avoided the police outof fear and hid anytime an officer came tosee why they weren’t in school. OfficersLynn and Barnes finally forced entry intothe home and found the children living insqualor, supervised by the 12-year-old.Officers tracked down the children’s legalguardian, a grandmother in Utah, andreceived permission to send them to her.Officers networked with a nonprofit organi-zation, which provided money for the children’s airline fare to Utah.

Another case involved two brothers, theolder of whom was chronically truant, a runaway, and a gang member. When the younger brother began following in his older brother’s footsteps of truancy, Lynn and Barnes intervened. They learnedthat the younger brother had been senthome from school because he had lice. After the officers helped the child’s parentsaccess services to address the lice problem,the younger brother began attending school regularly. The older brother, however, didnot respond to the officers and served jailtime on a probation violation.

When the officers’ initial efforts to remove a barrier failed to increase students’ atten-dance, they sought the help of the Healthand Human Services Department to enforcea newly enacted California law that requireswelfare monies to be withheld from parentswhose children are chronically truant. Thistypically motivated parents to address theirproblems and get their children back inschool.

Holding Hard-Core TruantsAccountable

The JET officers singled out truly recalci-trant truants for enforcement actions. Inthese cases, officers were assigned to moni-tor and follow up with individual students.Officers visited these students’ homes dailyduring their before-school rounds to checkfor compliance. If students complied for

a 1-month period, they were placed on amonitoring status. Noncompliant studentswere referred to SARB, the District Attor-ney’s Office, or the Probation Department.For a variety of reasons, the JET officers hadlimited success with these noncompliantstudents.

A New Municipal Code

The officers discovered a legal gap betweenthe chronic truancy State statute and themunicipal ordinance for daytime loitering.Daytime loiterers were cited to traffic court,while chronic truants were under the juris-diction of SARB, whose backlog of caseswas so large that it could take 6 months forthe board to address a student’s case. Once astudent was referred to the board, he or shewas unlikely to be subject to timely or seri-ous disciplinary action: During the 1997school year, of the 560 chronic truantsreferred to SARB, only 9 received a subpoe-na to appear in court. Officers Lynn andBarnes drafted a new municipal code toaddress this gap. The City Attorney isreviewing the draft.

Mentoring Program

After the JET officers discovered that not allof the children’s needs were being met, theyworked with Bill Arnsparger, a retired NFLfootball coach, to establish a volunteer men-toring program. The program coordinatesvolunteers to work with children the officersidentified as willing to improve, but needingspecial assistance and direction. Arnspargermodeled the program after the Washington,D.C., mentoring program described in thebook, “Triumphs of Joseph.”1 At the time ofthis writing, it was too early to assess thesuccess of the mentoring program inincreasing school attendance.

ASSESSMENTOfficers Lynn and Barnes have assessed theimpact of their efforts on baseline juvenilecrime, on the truancy rates of chronicoffenders, and on individual students.

40 Truancy Control Project

From August to December 1998, statisticsindicate a 20-percent reduction in crime in Mid-City, with a 31-percent reduction in daytime crime. Citywide rates for those same crimes dropped an average of 6 percent.

School attendance data show that before theteam began enforcing truancy violations, theaverage student on the target list was absentfor 43 percent of the school days. This ratedropped to 18 percent in the school semes-ter following increased enforcement. Whenthe officers excluded offenders requiringcourt intervention, the rate for time absentfor students on this list dropped to 11 per-cent of the school days.

Several children who were on the JET listnow not only attend school, but also excelacademically. Others are at least beginningto catch up to their peers. A few haverequired juvenile justice system intervention.Anecdotal evidence suggests the JET offi-cers’ enforcement and intervention worked.Mike George, Dean of Students at MonroeClark Middle School, says, “I wish I had ahundred of these officers. This programworks.”2

FOR MORE INFORMATIONFor more information about the San DiegoPolice Department’s efforts to reduce truan-cy, contact Captain John Madigan andSergeant Andrew Mills of the San DiegoPolice Department’s Mid-City Division,4310 Landis Street, San Diego, CA 92105;phone: 619–516–3000; fax: 619–516–3058.

NOTES1. Woodson, Robert. The Triumphs of

Joseph, New York: Free Press, 1997.

2. Officers Lynn and Barnes returned totheir original beat in January 1999. Theprogram is now managed by officersinvolved in the department’s Drug AbuseResistance Education (D.A.R.E.) efforts.At the time of this writing, it was tooearly to assess whether the program ishaving the same impact as it had underthe JET officers.


The intersection at 1st Avenue and Com-mercial Drive in Vancouver’s GrandviewWoodland community was a focal point ofcomplaints to Vancouver’s 911 system. Thearea was plagued by aggressive panhandlers,people who solicited money to wash carwindows at traffic lights (known by thecommunity as “squeegee people”), andhabitually intoxicated people who lived on the streets. Littered streets and graffiti-covered public property contributed to adepressed environment, and structures inthe area facilitated nuisance activity.

The Vancouver Police Department (VPD)partnered with the Grandview Woodland

Community Policing Centre (GWCPC) toresolve problems in the community. VPDConstable Jean Prince is assigned to thisunique, community-managed office, whichresponds to the problems reported by citi-zens. (See “The GWCPC.”)

Reports to the GWCPC indicated that avariety of disorder issues at the central inter-section of 1st Avenue and CommercialDrive were causing a decline in the qualityof life for residents and neighboring busi-nesses and their employees. Citizens wereafraid to use bank machines, to shop in thearea, and to walk or drive through the inter-section. Business owners complained of

42 Intersecting Solutions

INTERSECTING SOLUTIONSRESTORING ORDER TO AN URBAN INTERSECTION VANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT, GRANDVIEW WOODLAND COMMUNITY POLICING CENTRE

THE PROBLEM: Public drunkenness, panhandlers, “squeegee people,” litter, and graffiti inan urban intersection caused a steep decline in the quality of life.

ANALYSIS: A community survey showed increasing dissatisfaction with neighborhoodproblems. Students from Simon Fraser University examined the neighbor-hood’s environmental design and identified structures and foliage that werefacilitating disorderly behavior. An analysis of 911 calls showed that patrolofficers were frequently called to one intersection to deal with aggressivepanhandlers, squeegee activity, and public drunkenness.

RESPONSE: Police implemented the Intersection Project, a community-policing initia-tive that focused on community partnerships, consistent police enforce-ment, and improved environmental design.

ASSESSMENT: Calls to 911 and to the Grandview Woodland Community Policing Centre(GWCPC) declined as the need for emergency services to the area less-ened. Graffiti and litter have been removed, and the quality of life hasimproved.

SCANNING


reduced business, and employees wereconcerned about their safety whenarriving to or leaving from work.

ANALYZING THEPROBLEMPreliminary attempts to identify spe-cific problems at the intersection of1st Avenue and Commercial Drive,begun in the summer of 1997,included:

■ A community survey.■ Dissemination of GWCPC posters

for business owners to display.■ An analysis of 911 calls and

GWCPC calls-for-service.■ An assessment of the environmen-

tal design of the neighborhood.

During the summer of 1997, GWCPCconducted an extensive survey todetermine the limits of citizens’ toler-ance for nuisance behaviors and toexamine community standards formaintaining property in the area.Researchers tried to include in thesurvey all members of the community,including car window washers, or“squeegee people,” panhandlers,intoxicated people, local businessowners, employees, residents, and visitors. Interviewers found that,although respondents generally toler-ated the “street people,” the cumula-tive effect of the disorderly behavior,the litter, and the graffiti was becom-ing unacceptable.

In September 1997, GWCPC con-ducted a public awareness campaign by disseminating posters to area businesses for display in their windows. The posters,which listed Constable Prince as a contactand the Centre’s phone number, elevatedvisibility and public use of GWCPC. Thisproject resulted in a 150-percent increase in the number of citizen calls to GWCPC.The poster project was inspired by a similar

project developed by the New York CityPolice Department.

An analysis of 911 calls showed that patrolofficers frequently were called to one inter-section to deal with aggressive panhandlers,squeegee activity, and public drunkenness.In fact, 18 of 32 calls concerned those threespecific problems in May 1998, before theIntersection Project was implemented.

The GWCPC

The Grandview Woodland Community Policing Centre(GWCPC) is unique in that the impetus for opening the officecame directly from the community. A group of residents per-ceived the need for this type of police service and approachedthe police department with an implementation plan. Com-munity members have entered into an equal partnership withthe police department, and this active collaboration is implicitin every project GWCPC undertakes.

In 1995, GWCPC opened in Vancouver’s Grandview Wood-land neighborhood in direct response to the community’srequest to partner with VPD. The Centre is housed inside theneighborhood’s Britannia Community Centre.

GWCPC acts as a resource for both the community and thepolice department. Its board of directors consists of local resi-dents, business owners, and people who work in the area.GWCPC receives funding from the city of Vancouver and theBritish Columbia Attorney General’s Office. VPD assigns aconstable, provides two phone lines, and a computer linkup tothe VPD systems. The Britannia Community Centre providesfree space.

A paid civilian coordinator staffs the office and manages avariety of programs. A constable assigned to GWCPC acts asliaison between VPD and the community. The constable’s pri-mary function is to collaborate with various community andgovernment agencies and with the GWCPC’s board and staffto develop and implement problem-oriented projects targetingissues or concerns identified by the community.

GWCPC identifies community problems through reports fromconcerned citizens. Most complaints involve ongoing, repetitiveproblems that cannot be solved through arrests only. Inresponse to citizen reports, GWCPC gathers information, proposes a comprehensive solution, reviews and implementsthe solution, and assesses the results. This process has resultedin many successful projects.

During the summer and fall semesters of1997, 20 Simon Fraser University (SFU)criminology students, under the supervisionof Professor Patricia Brantingham, examinedhow the principles of Crime PreventionThrough Environmental Design (CPTED)could be implemented in the area.1 The stu-dents identified various structures andfoliage that facilitated criminal activities.The students’ observations were particularlyvaluable to GWCPC because only two ofthem lived in the neighborhood. The stu-dents’ perspective was, therefore, consideredmore objective than that of residents, manyof whom had become desensitized to neigh-borhood conditions. The students broughtto light the cumulative effects of the disor-derly behavior, combined with the graffitiand litter, on the area.

Territorial Conflict

By spring 1998, a territorial conflict beganto develop between the people who lived onthe street and the business owners, employ-ees, motorists, and visitors who used theintersection. An increase in the number ofpeople who lived on the street and workedthe intersection resulted in:

■ A proliferation of territorial graffiti.■ Growing occupation of public property,

such as public benches, by inebriatedpeople.

■ Claims to street space by squeegee people and aggressive panhandlers.

■ An increase in litter, including usedsyringes.

Other areas of the community began com-plaining about the spillover effects fromproblems at the 1st Avenue and CommercialDrive intersection. People were sleeping inbuilding alcoves within a one-block radiusand urinating and defecating in the backalley staircases of surrounding buildings.Squeegee people populated Grandview Park,located four blocks away, and were drinking,sleeping, making excessive noise at night,and visibly using drugs in the park.

Tension between the street group and localresidents intensified, as did the volume ofcalls to GWCPC. The community wasbeginning to lose confidence in the police,whom they perceived as not addressing theproblems at the intersection.

RESPONSETogether, GWCPC staff member ValerieSpicer (who has since become a VPD constable), volunteers (including SFU stu-dents, local residents, and business owners),area VPD patrol officers, and staff fromcommunity agencies and the NeighborhoodIntegrated Services Team (NIST) cooperatedto examine area problems from a variety ofangles.2 By the early summer of 1998, thecommunity, NIST, and GWCPC had mobi-lized and committed itself to:

■ Restore a better quality of life to the area.■ Increase public confidence in the police.■ Reduce calls to 911 and GWCPC.■ Reduce criminal activity.■ Eliminate repercussions for other areas

of the neighborhood.■ Encourage community pride and

ownership.

Stepped-Up Enforcement

Constable Prince developed a list of repeatsqueegee offenders and a list of MotorVehicle Act and city bylaw charging sec-tions, which were distributed to patrol offi-cers. Aggressive panhandlers were asked tomove on, and criminal code charges weremade when appropriate. Public drunkennesswas no longer tolerated, and offenders weretaken to a detoxification center.

Patrol officers, who often only responded to911 calls, were asked to respond to problembehavior whenever they saw it, preventingthe common perception among people wholived on the street that officers who drove bythem were condoning their behavior.

Area gas station owners, from whomsqueegee people stole windshield-washing


equipment, engraved their windshieldsqueegees so that people who werediscovered with them could becharged with stealing. ConstablePrince developed a Squeegee ImpactStatement that was submitted withreports to Crown Counsel, the prose-cutor. This outlined the costs incurredby the gas stations and the effects onthe community. The impact statementresulted in a 7-day jail sentence forpeople found in possession of a stolensqueegee. This type of sentence usual-ly is resolved through probation orcommunity service hours.

The Community Modifies theEnvironment

The community began modifying the environment to help control area problems.SFU students established that a bench on the northeast side of 1st Avenue andCommercial Drive was the site of disputesbetween various groups of drinkers.Intoxicated people almost always occupiedthe bench, which was adjacent to a bankmachine, and patrol officers frequently were dispatched to the site. Drinkers andsqueegee people used newspaper boxesbehind the bench to hide their bottles and squeegees. Panhandlers also used this spot as a resting place.

In response, GWCPC and NIST had thebench removed and the newspaper boxesrelocated to the edge of the curb. Publicdrunkenness calls decreased from 24 in 4 months in 1997 to 5 in the same 4-monthperiod of 1998.

The Royal Bank altered alcoves that provid-ed shelter to panhandlers on the southwestcorner of the intersection. By installing aslanted structure in the alcoves, the bankmade it impossible for panhandlers to sitdown. By installing a glass window, thebank eliminated a hiding place on a ledgenear the entrance of the bank wheresqueegee people hid squeegees. Finally, thebank removed a large bush and paved the

area to eliminate another spot people usedfor cover when police drove by. The manag-er of the Royal Bank informed the policethat when the bank removed the bush,workers found 60 discarded needles.

Vancity Credit Union, located on the north-west corner of the intersection, gated analcove closest to the corner and its ATMmachine. Prior to installation of the gate,two to five squeegee people at any giventime could be found hiding in this alcovewhile they waited for the next red light, and intoxicated people and panhandlersused the alcove as a shelter from the rain.

Area Beautification

The final component of the IntersectionProject was beautification. The CanadianImperial Bank of Commerce, which sharedthe intersection with Vancity Credit Unionand Royal Bank, became actively involved, hiring a company to remove graffiti within24 hours of its application. Vancity alreadyhad a graffiti removal program, where itsmaintenance staff removed graffiti immedi-ately and regularly cleaned the area aroundits exterior.

The Royal Bank, however, did not have aconsistent policy to deal with graffiti andwas approached by GWCPC. Following a


Enabling Problem-Oriented Policing

Constable Jean Prince, the Vancouver Police Department liaison officer assigned to GWCPC, undertook the intersectioncleanup initiative. At the time of the project, Valerie Spicer was the paid civilian staff member of GWCPC. VPD has sincehired Spicer as a constable.

GWCPC contributed a significant number of resources to thisproject, including:

■ 63 staff hours and 350 volunteer hours in 1997 and1998 for the poster project.

■ $850 in printed and display materials. ■ 15 staff hours and 15 volunteer hours during 1997 and

1998 for mural painting. Paint and antigraffiti coatingwere donated.

collaborative effort involving the GWCPCcoordinator, the assigned constable, and vol-unteers, the Royal Bank instituted a graffitiremoval program. GWCPC had a ‘Welcometo Commercial Drive’ mural painted on the retaining wall and coated it with anantigraffiti coating donated by GoodbyeGraffiti. This mural has since only been“tagged” three times by graffiti, which thebank quickly cleaned.

GWCPC also approached the owner of a building on the southeast corner with amural proposal. Community volunteerspainted the mural using a local artist’s origi-nal design and covered it with antigraffiti

coating. The mural, which is main-tained by a GWCPC volunteer, hasonly been tagged three times in 1year, and each tag was quicklyremoved. Both murals were inspiredby the community survey, whichindicated that respondents feltmurals would improve CommercialDrive’s ambience.

Finally, GWCPC, through NIST,approached city hall to obtain moregarbage receptacles and more fre-quent litter removal.

ASSESSMENTTo determine whether theIntersection Project has been suc-cessful, GWCPC has analyzed the911 call load and police resourcecosts, visually assessed the environ-ment, and monitored the types ofcalls it receives about the intersec-tion.

911 Call Analysis

The 911 call-load analysis showedthat the three primary problembehaviors—public drunkenness,squeegee activity, and aggressivepanhandling—dramaticallydecreased after the project was initiated (see figure 1).

During May 1998, 18 of 32 calls were forthese three behaviors, compared to 4 of 22in August 1998, representing a 38-percentdrop. A 54-percent reduction occurred dur-ing the months of June to August 1997when compared with the same months in1998—calls during those time periods forthese behaviors dropped from 153 to 83.

Police Resources

The GWCPC constable and coordinatorestimated the costs of police time spentaddressing problems at the intersectionbased on analysis of 911 calls. These costs


Police Time Costs Determined from 911 Calls

Figure 1: 1997 and 1998 Calls-for-Service Comparison

Figure 2: 1997 and 1998 Cost Comparison

May June July August

$400350300250200150100500

polic

e w

ages

only

1997 1998

May June July August

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

num

ber

of

calls

1997 1998

are based only on police wages and do notinclude other associated costs, such asequipment, dispatching, ambulance services,volunteer detoxification transportation, orthe costs to businesses and individual citi-zens. The cost analysis indicates that an ini-tial investment of time during June 1998,when the project was first implemented,resulted in a significant cost reduction (see figure 2).

GWCPC anticipates that the call analysisfor May to August 1999 also will show theproject’s success. The initial time investmentduring June 1998 will not have to be repeat-ed. GWCPC anticipates minimal enforce-ment for these behaviors during the summerof 1999. A new sense of community owner-ship of the intersection has been created andthe environment is no longer conducive tonuisance behavior.

Visual Assessment and Calls to GWCPC

Regular patrols by Constable Prince allowvisual assessment and monitoring of theintersection. Calls to GWCPC corroboratethe constable’s observations. Since imple-menting the project, GWCPC has notreceived any calls complaining about theintersection. In a conversation with Con-stable Prince, a squeegee person stated thathe no longer feels comfortable “squeegeeing”at 1st Avenue and Commercial Drive.

Territorial behavior by squeegee people inGrandview Park was addressed through aseparate project focusing on problems spe-cific to the park. The problem of peoplesleeping in building alcoves within a one-block radius of the intersection also wasaddressed through a collaborative effort ofGWCPC, the community, and city enforce-ment agencies. The goal is to help neighbor-ing buildings make CPTED improvementsthat will reduce problematic behaviors.

Success Elements

Active enforcement and community involve-ment have been the keys to success for thisproject. If the “broken windows” theory of neighborhood decline is correct, thisintersection and the surrounding area, leftunattended, would have deteriorated evenfurther.3 Instead, business owners and com-munity members have taken ownership,continuing to maintain the intersection andto carry out antigraffiti programs. Overall,service calls to 911 about the intersectionhave declined significantly, community fearhas been reduced, and confidence in thepolice has been restored.

FOR MORE INFORMATIONFor more information about the VancouverPolice Department’s activities, contactConstables Jean Prince and Valerie Spicer at 312 Main Street, Vancouver, BC V6A2T2, Canada; phone: 604–717–3349, extension 1676 for Cst. Prince or extension 1905 for Cst. Spicer; e-mail: [email protected] [email protected].

NOTES1. The basic principles of Crime Preven-

tion Through Environmental Design(CPTED) include target hardening (controlling access to neighborhoods andbuildings and conducting surveillance onspecific areas to reduce opportunities forcrime to occur) and territorial reinforce-ment (increasing the sense of security in settings where people live and workthrough activities that encourage infor-mal control of the environment).CPTED directly supports communitypolicing because of its emphasis on thesystematic analysis of crime in a particu-lar location and on crime preventionstrategies tailored to solve specific problems. Wherever the principles ofCPTED are applied to the design andmanagement of the physical environ-ment of buildings, residential neighbor-


hoods, and business areas, public safetyis increased and the fear of crime isreduced.

2. Every neighborhood in Vancouver has a NIST, which is a group of city enforcement agencies (fire, police, permits and licenses, social services,environmental health, and Parks Board)that meets monthly to discuss and workon community problems.

3. Kelling, George L., and Catherine M.Coles, Fixing Broken Windows: RestoringOrder and Reducing Crime in OurCommunities, New York: Free Press,1996.


Baltimore

Lieutenant Carmine R. Baratta, Jr.Sector Commander, Southeastern District601 East Fayette StreetBaltimore, MD 21202410–396–2422410–396–2172 (fax)[email protected]

Fresno

Fresno Police Department2323 Mariposa MallFresno, CA 93721559–498–4517 (Officer Dodd)559–498–4614 (Officer Hodson)559–498–4634 (Sergeant Laband)559–228–6783 (fax)

Green Bay

Officers Bill Bongle and Steve Scully Fort Howard District, Green Bay Police

Department307 Adams StreetGreen Bay, WI 54301920–448–3332920–448–3333 (fax)[email protected] (Officer Bongle)[email protected] (Officer Scully)

Minneapolis

Minneapolis Police, Downtown Command29 South 5th StreetMinneapolis, MN 55402612–673–3198612–673–3940 (fax)

Racine

Chief Richard PolzinChief of PoliceSafety Building–730 Center StreetRacine, WI 53403414–635–7704414–636–9332 (fax)

San Diego

Captain John Madigan and Sergeant Andrew Mills

San Diego Police Department, Mid-City Division

4310 Landis StreetSan Diego, CA 92105619–516–3000619–516–3058 (fax)

Vancouver

Constables Jean Prince and Valerie Spicer312 Main StreetVancouver, BC V6A 2T2Canada604–717–3349, x1676 (Cst. Prince)604–717–3349, x1905 (Cst. Spicer)[email protected] (Cst. Prince)[email protected] (Cst. Spicer)


APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A: SITE CONTACTS

Ronald ClarkeProfessor, School of Criminal JusticeRutgers University15 Washington StreetNewark, NJ 07102973–353–1154973–353–5896 (fax)[email protected]

Gary CordnerDean, College of Law EnforcementEastern Kentucky University354 Stratton BuildingRichmond, KY 40475–3131606–622–2344606–622–6561 (fax)[email protected]

Ronald GlensorDeputy ChiefReno Police DepartmentP.O. Box 1900455 East 2nd StreetReno, NV 89501702–334–3860702–334–2157 (fax) [email protected]

Nancy LaVigneNational Institute of JusticeU.S. Department of Justice810 7th Street, NWWashington, DC 20531202–616–4531202–616–0275 (fax)[email protected]

Rana SampsonFounder Community Policing Associates4817 Canterbury DriveSan Diego, CA 92116619–282–8006 619–282–8007 (fax)[email protected]

Greg SavilleSchool of Public Safety and Professional

DevelopmentUniversity of New HavenNew Haven, CT 06516203–932–[email protected]

Michael ScottPolice Research and Management

Consultant421 Abercorn StreetSavannah, GA 31401912–236–4720912–231–8119 (fax)[email protected]

Coordinator, Jim BurackCounsel and Director of OperationsPolice Executive Research Forum1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite #930Washington, DC 20036202–466–7820, extension 276202–466–7826 (fax)[email protected]

50 Appendixes

APPENDIX B: JUDGES

In recent years, numerous books and reportshave become available about problem solvingand community policing. Many are availablefrom the Police Executive Research Forum(PERF) and from the U.S. Department ofJustice through its National Criminal JusticeReference Service (NCJRS).

Listed below are selected materials availablefrom PERF and NCJRS.

■ Visit PERF at http://www.policeforum.org,1120 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 930, Washington, DC 20036,202–466–7820. PERF documents can be ordered online.

■ Visit NCJRS at http://www.ncjrs.org,P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000, 1–800–851–3420.

■ Visit NIJ at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij,810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC20531, 202–307–2942.

■ Visit the Office of CommunityOriented Policing Services (COPS)at http://www.usdoj.gov/cops, 1100Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC20531, 202–514–2058.

Publications Available From PERF

Citizen Involvement: How CommunityFactors Affect Progressive Policy, Correia,Mark, Washington, D.C.: Police ExecutiveResearch Forum, 124 pages, 2000 (ProductNumber 842).

Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the Field (Volume 1), LaVigne, Nancy, andJulie Wartell, eds., Washington, D.C.: PoliceExecutive Research Forum, 144 pages, 1998(Product Number 834) (NCJ 178051).

Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in theField (Volume 2), LaVigne, Nancy, and JulieWartell, eds., Washington, D.C.: PoliceExecutive Research Forum, 140 pages, 2000(Product Number 841).

Crime in the Schools: Reducing Fear andDisorder With Student Problem Solving,Kenney, Dennis J., and T. Steuart Watson,Washington, D.C.: Police ExecutiveResearch Forum, 236 pages, 1998 (ProductNumber 830) (NCJ 174193).

Dispute Resolution and Policing: ACollaborative Approach Toward EffectiveProblem Solving, Glensor, Ron, and AlissaStern, Washington, D.C.: Police ExecutiveResearch Forum, 16 pages, 1995 (ProductNumber 007) (NCJ 155237).

How to Recognize Good Policing: Problemsand Issues, Brodeur, Jean-Paul, ed.,Washington, D.C.: Police ExecutiveResearch Forum, 272 pages, 1998 (Product Number 833).

Information Management and CrimeAnalysis: Practitioners’ Recipes for Success,Reuland, Melissa Miller, ed., Washington,D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 152 pages, 1997 (Product Number 819)(NCJ 165619).

Managing Innovation in Policing: TheUntapped Potential of the Middle Manager,Geller, William A., and Guy Swanger,Washington, D.C.: Police ExecutiveResearch Forum, 204 pages, 1995 (Product Number 803) (NCJ 158518).

Problem-Oriented Policing, Goldstein,Herman, New York: McGraw-Hill, 180 pages, 1990 (Product Number 181)(NCJ 122899).

Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-SpecificProblems, Critical Issues and Making POPWork, Volume 1, Shelley, Tara O’Conner,and Anne C. Grant, eds., Washington,D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 442 pages, 1998 (Product Number 831)(NCJ 176142).

Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-SpecificProblems, Critical Issues and Making POPWork, Volume 2, Brito, Corina Solé, andTracy Allan, eds., Washington, D.C.: PoliceExecutive Research Forum, 412 pages, 1999(Product Number 840).


APPENDIX C: RESOURCES

Problem Solving: Problem-Oriented Policingin Newport News, Eck, John E., WilliamSpelman et al., Washington, D.C.: PoliceExecutive Research Forum, 150 pages, 1987(Product Number 085) (NCJ 111964).

Themes and Variations in CommunityPolicing: Case Studies in Community Policing, Police Executive Research Forum,Washington, D.C.: Police ExecutiveResearch Forum, 92 pages, 1996 (Product Number 809) (NCJ 161284).

Using Research: A Primer for LawEnforcement Managers, Eck, John E., andNancy LaVigne, Washington, D.C.: PoliceExecutive Research Forum, 180 pages, 1994(Product Number 045) (NCJ 155291).

Why Police Organizations Change: A Study of Community-Oriented Policing, Zhao,Jihong, Washington, D.C.: Police ExecutiveResearch Forum, 140 pages, 1996 (ProductNumber 811) (NCJ 161231).

Publications Available From NCJRS

Addressing Community Gang Problems: AModel for Problem Solving, Police ExecutiveResearch Forum, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, Bureau of JusticeAssistance, 53 pages, 1997 (NCJ 156059).

Broken Windows and Police Discretion,Kelling, George L., Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute ofJustice, 62 pages, 1999 (NCJ 178259).

Community Policing, Community Justice, andRestorative Justice: Exploring the Links for theDelivery of a Balanced Approach to PublicSafety, Nicholl, Caroline G., Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureauof Justice Assistance, 216 pages, 2000 (NCJ181245).

Crime Prevention and Community Policing: A Vital Partnership, Monograph, NationalCrime Prevention Council, Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureauof Justice Assistance, 27 pages, September1997 (NCJ 166819).

Looking at Crime From the Street Level:Plenary Papers of the 1999 Conference onCriminal Justice Research and Evaluation;Enhancing Policy and Practice ThroughResearch, Volume 1, Venkatesh, Sudhir,Richard Curtis, and Charles H. Ramsey,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Justice, 36pages, November 1999 (NCJ 178260).

Mapping Crime: Principle and PracticeResearch Report, Harries, Keith, Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice, 206 pages, December1999 (NCJ 178919).

Measuring What Matters, Part One: Measures of Crime, Fear, and Disorder, Brady, T.V., Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 16 pages, December 1996 (NCJ162205).

Measuring What Matters, Part Two:Developing Measures of What the Police Do,Brady, T.V., Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 16 pages, 1997 (NCJ 167255).

One Hundred Promising Crime PreventionPrograms From Across the World, Gauthier,Lily-Ann, David Hicks, Daniel Sansfacon,and Leanne Salel, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, Bureau of JusticeAssistance, 167 pages, 1999 (NCJ 179025).

Problem-Oriented Policing in Public Housing:Final Report of the Jersey City Project,Mazerolle, Lorraine G., Justin Ready, BillTerrill, and Frank Gajewski, Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice, 83 pages, 1998 (NCJ179985).

Tackling Crime and Other Public-SafetyProblems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving,Sampson, Rana, and Michael S. Scott,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Community OrientedPolicing Services, 187 pages, 2000 (NCJ181243).

52 Appendixes

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.Washington, DC 20531

Janet RenoAttorney General

Daniel MarcusActing Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou LearyActing Assistant Attorney General

Julie E. SamuelsActing Director, National Institute of Justice

Office of Justice Programs National Institute of JusticeWorld Wide Web Site World Wide Web Sitehttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

Opinions or points of view expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau ofJustice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office

for Victims of Crime.

NCJ 182731

Documents

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 1999 · PDF fileExcellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 1999 ... Chuck Wexler Executive Director ... Winners of the 2000 Herman Goldstein