Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

RECAP in Minneapolis Repeat Call Address Policing (Sherman and Gartin)

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "RECAP in Minneapolis Repeat Call Address Policing (Sherman and Gartin)"— Presentation transcript:

1 RECAP in Minneapolis Repeat Call Address Policing (Sherman and Gartin)

2 Conference’s name here00.00.00 RECAP - A “Gold Standard” Experiment in Problem-Solving “Problem” defined as –A single address (building) –Producing excessive calls for police service Call reduction as the “bottom line” measure of success High calls = “a fever,” a symptom Officer diagnosis of the cause(s) of it

3 Conference’s name here00.00.00 BASIC STRUCTURE 500 addresses, 250 in each group Each subdivided into two groups by type –Commercial – dominated the highest-call group –Residential – dominated by domestics Social Service agencies generally typed as Commercial

4 Conference’s name here00.00.00 TARGET for “SUCCESS” 3% of all addresses in Minneapolis produced 50% of all 9-1-1 calls for police service Total calls, divided by number of officers, produced a target of 1,000 fewer calls than the baseline year, per officer: 4,000 total

5 Conference’s name here00.00.00 THE BOTTOM LINE RECAP was a success during the first six months (the original target length) At the end of 12 months, only 475 fewer calls in the Experimental group compared to the Control group Black Box analysis = “Failure”

6 Conference’s name here00.00.00 THE BOTTOM LINE RECAP was nevertheless extended as an operational unit despite statistical results Unit earned its spurs as a developer of new tactical approaches, and of information useful to larger strategic approaches

7 Conference’s name here00.00.00 The RECAP Team Four patrol officers detached from 9-1-1 response One supervisor (Sergeant) Selected from volunteers Some had prior experience with the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment

8 Conference’s name here00.00.00 THE SETTING 1985 – Computer equipment primitive by contemporary standards: 40 mg hard drives had to be subdivided, 32 mg max RECAP ran simultaneously with the Newport News Problem-Solving endeavour

9 Conference’s name here00.00.00 THE SETTING Operationally driven, not theory-driven CPTED only rarely employed as a solution “Broken Windows” irrelevant Few solutions could be called “situational” “Stranger” incursion á lá Neighborhood Watch rarely a factor – biggest threat was the neighbors, or the regular customers

10 Conference’s name here00.00.00 OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTION Like the Eck and Spelman definition at Newport News, a tacit assumption that repeat calls resulted from unsolved problems at the address Address-specific selection left open the possibility of multiple problems at the same address

11 Conference’s name here00.00.00 Anti-Social Behavior ASB was not a term in use Calls by dispatched type dominated and directed problem analysis BUT

12 Conference’s name here00.00.00 Anti-Social Behavior Most of the address-specific behaviors dealt with by the RECAP unit stemmed from two factors: –Problems arising directly from the life circumstances of people who “belonged” there –Problems arising from an abdication of responsibility by the formal guardians of the specific address

13 Conference’s name here00.00.00 Anti-Social Behavior “What do you do with people for whom jail is a higher standard of living?” –Migratory patterns of moving –Multiple and overlapping substance abuse –Conscious manipulation of “disability” as a shield against consequences and responsibility

14 Conference’s name here00.00.00 TRANSMOGRIFICATION Hot Spots of Crime (Sherman &Weisburd) – tight geographic concentration of RECAP- eligible problem addresses, plus parks and intersections (eliminated from RECAP) Third-Party Policing (Buerger & Mazerolle) – control of ASB through police action directed at place managers, others

15 Conference’s name here00.00.00 TRANSMOGRIFICATION “Experimental design be damned!” Commonalities led to city-wide initiatives: –Domestic violence (patrol resistance) –Drive-off gas NOPAYs (owner resistance) –Shoplifting (City Attorney resistance) –Licensure of rental properties (City Council resistance – suburban exodus) –Juvenile Sweeps (good luck with that….)

16 Conference’s name here00.00.00 FIVE (NOT SO) EASY PIECES Moby Dick’s Bar (“Hole in the Wall”) Pursuit Hometel (mutual connivance) St. Stephen’s Shelter (spillover impact) 1740 Pleasant Street (drug market) 1501 Portland Avenue (smooth slumlord)

17 Conference’s name here00.00.00 OTHER MAJOR PROBLEMS Plymouth Avenue McDonald’s (turf wars) Snyder’s Liquors (751 Franklin) E-Block (800 block of Hennepin) Mousey’s Too and The Corral (bars) MCDA High-rises for the elderly and disabled (national HUD and local policy)

18 Conference’s name here00.00.00 CONFOUNDING PROBLEMS Low incidence rate: 1 call per week (most) Multiple-layered problems –Fences at 1501 – 11 th Av S / gang-bangers Round-robin sales of residential properties Inconsistency of patrol response (13 calls) Magnet phones and mirror calls “The Ex-Police” struggle for legitimacy

19 Thank you

Download ppt "RECAP in Minneapolis Repeat Call Address Policing (Sherman and Gartin)"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google