The S.A.R.A. Model in Action Choices on Madison: Homeless Action Plan The S.A.R.A. Model in Action

ABSTRACT Central Arizona Shelter Services History Prior to 1985 - Margaret T. Hance Park 200 - 350 people 1985 - Outdoor shelter - 9th Ave & Madison St. 900 people 1986 - Funding for indoor shelter 400 people

S. A. R. A. MODEL REVIEW Scanning Analysis Response Assessment

SCANNING Drug Marketplace Criminal Activity Blight Homeless Population Concerns CPTED Issues Economic Issues Public Restroom Facilities

SCANNING Continued Residents and Business Owners Health Service Providers Faith-Based Organizations Government Agencies Lack of Consensus among: Neighborhood Groups Organizations

ANALYSIS General Observations Crime analysis from April 1 to Sept. 1 Calls for service - time and location Demographic survey prepared by ASU students Survey of homeless population by PD Two CPTED surveys Photographs

ANALYSIS Continued Hand Search of Violent Crime Reports from April 1, 1999 through September 30, 1999 44 Aggravated assaults 23 transient or homeless 7 police officers or security officers 20 Robberies 75% were homeless

ANALYSIS Continued Time 1900 - 2400 hours had the highest frequency of violent crime 2100 - 2200 & 2300 - 2400 hours were peak times

ANALYSIS Continued Geographic Information Close correlation between: Drug crimes Property crimes Violent crimes

ANALYSIS Continued Community Survey Results 93% Felt drug problem had increased 81 % Felt violence had increased Blight identified as respondent’s third priority

ANALYSIS Continued Valley-wide Perception Uncontrolled disorder High Drug Use High Street Crime Ascetically Unpleasant Appearance

ANALYSIS Continued Environmental Design Issues Buildings and alleys poorly or unlit Dark alcoves Walking distance to dining facility

ANALYSIS Continued In Summary the analysis revealed that: The police was reactive, lacked direction, largely ineffective Crime problems linked to drug use Concentrated behavior problems Homeless victimized / criminals camouflaged Lack of services for the homeless Disparity between stakeholders Contribution of blight issues

RESPONSE Goals Eliminate Drugs Reduce Crimes Address the Blight Issue Promote Understanding Identify Stakeholders Improve Quality of Life of Homeless Population

RESPONSE Continued Guidelines Use of traditional and non-traditional methods Define “Problem” Two or more incidents Similar in nature Capable of causing harm Public expects police to act

RESPONSE Continued Drug Marketplace Covert Surveillance Closed Circuit Television Undercover Foot and Bicycle patrols for intelligence gathering Sting Operations Dummy Cameras and Flashes

RESPONSE Continued Drug Marketplace Continued CPTED Improved lighting Fence vacant lots Encourage businesses to move into vacant buildings Landscaping and 2300 hour sprinklers Eliminate unnecessary and overgrown vegetation

RESPONSE Continued Street Crime Attacked in same manner as Drug Marketplace Conscientious patrols Marked Car and Plainclothes Patrols Officer Training in Problem Solving Officer Interest and Commitment

RESPONSE Continued Blight More lights, brighter lights Landscaping by city and businesses Face to face contacts with violators of good appearance If necessary, revert to abatement actions

RESPONSE Continued Blight Continued Partnership to Combat Blight Capital Mall Association Phoenix Community Alliance Permanent Residents and Businesses Capitol Police Railroad Police Zoning and Neighborhood Services Parks and Recreation Sanitation

RESPONSE Continued Repeat Victimization Ready Source of Income Victim Triangle / victim-offender-location Use of Media

RESPONSE Continued Homeless Issues Cooperative Effort Between: Police Department Social Services Mental Health Medical Help Officer Training for Other Alternatives “Another Direction” to assist Officer’s contact

RESPONSE Continued Core Group of Stakeholders to Meet Regularly Public Restroom Facilities Available 24/7 Sell the City & Area as Business Viable Increased Communications Between: Residents / Business Owners Service Providers / Faith-Based Services Government Agencies

ASSESSMENT Traditional Methods Statistical Analysis Surveys Year to Year Crime Trends Surveys Quality of Life Issues Concerns with crime, services, and drug issues Focus Groups Electronic Bulletin Boards

ASSESSMENT Continued Non-Traditional Methods Increased Profits for Legitimate Businesses Increased Legitimate Area Usage Decreased Illegitimate Foot / Vehicle Traffic Increased Property Values Improved Neighborhood Appearance Increased Occupancy in Problem Buildings Less Loitering

ASSESSMENT Continued Continuous Evaluations Photography

During the Assessment Stage

Broken Windows Syndrome

Fenced Vacant Lots

A Next Door Neighbor

The End