1 / 33

16 th Annual Problem-Oriented Policing Conference

16 th Annual Problem-Oriented Policing Conference . Charlotte, North Carolina October 21-23, 2005. Neighbors Against Drugs Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Neighbors Helping Neighbors in the Fight Against Illegal Drugs. A noncriminal alternative approach to rid neighborhoods of drugs.

Patman
Download Presentation

16 th Annual Problem-Oriented Policing Conference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 16th Annual Problem-Oriented Policing Conference Charlotte, North Carolina October 21-23, 2005 Neighbors Against Drugs Sheboygan, Wisconsin Neighbors Helping Neighbors in the Fight Against Illegal Drugs

  2. A noncriminal alternative approach to rid neighborhoods of drugs

  3. Are drugs a problem nationally? • 5% of world’s population but over half the drug intake • States with highest rate of illicit drug-use: Alaska, Colorado, Montana, Oregon, Nevada? (SAMHSA, 2005) • Ave. age start in 1967 (16 ½) • Ave. age start in 2004 (12) (Monitoring the Future- University of Michigan Institute for Social Research) • 2005 national study report found 12% of parents have NEVER talked to their kids about drugs. • Double from 6% in 1999 (Roper, 2005) Partnership for Drug Free America • Expanding methamphetamine problems

  4. The Problem • April 1997 Readers Digest ranks Sheboygan, Wisconsin as the best place in America to raise a family • By 2003 law enforcement faced with unprecedented demographic changes, increased reports of drug dealing and crack-cocaine • Lack of follow-up with complainants frustrated both the community and law enforcement • Budgetary concerns, expense of undercover investigations, criminal court process

  5. Scanning • Sheboygan vulnerable corridor and infamous history of binge drinking • Public in demand willing to pay higher prices • Tedious investigations • Inability of MEG (Multi-jurisdictional Enforcement Group) Unit to follow-up with citizen complaints

  6. AnalysisNote: Most critical stage (Bynum, 1997 “Using Analysis for Problem Solving”) • Drug diaries • Substantiated earlier complaints and informant information • Found gap in street crime / MEG (multi-jurisdictional enforcement group) investigations • Pre-test surveys • Showed apathy and bystander effects • Used to empower neighbors and volunteers • Gave the police quality information

  7. Protecting Confidentiality & Improving Citizen Reports

  8. Published July 2003

  9. Response: six stepsNAD signs, abatement, media, victory verification, victory, post-test • NAD logo anti-drug signs posted • Lone exception is suspected drug house • Educational meetings held with property owners • Civil abatement procedures • Evictions of problem tenants • Media helps explain intentions of NAD

  10. Response(signs, abatement, media) • Verification of “victory” • Victory parties held after dealers evicted, moved out, or desisted for several months • Post-test surveys given to evaluate neighborhood changes and test sustainability

  11. Victory verification

  12. Victory Farewell Party Invite

  13. Aired June 2, 2005

  14. Assessment • 24 months of NAD implementation • “Victory” claimed in 19 neighborhoods with the elimination of 61 drug houses • Pre to Posttest significant change scores • Perceptions of neighborhood safety; p<.001 • Neighborhood disorder; p<.001 • Suspected drugs houses; p<.001

  15. Comparing pre and post samples a denotes average age of respondents. Standard deviation was 19 years with min of 14 max of 91 years of age.

  16. Comparing pre and post samples *** p < .001

  17. Post-test open ended responses • Less traffic, not as many loud car stereos • Cars are no longer getting broken into • First time in years I allow my children to play outside after dark • Glad to know NAD will be there to respond if I call • We no longer watch TV in the dark • This is a much better place to live • We would have sold our house if it wasn’t for NAD • I feel safer

  18. Challenges • Displacement issues • External Validity • No criminal arrests • Over ambitious targeting of neighborhoods • Maintaining motivation of volunteers and having enough volunteers to keep up with neighborhood requests

  19. Benefits of NAD • Innovative use of POP • Utilizes promising results from past research • Attacks major problem with international scope • Provides an affordable alternative to traditional law enforcement’s drug war • Creates long-term / sustainable results and community satisfaction

  20. Evaluating Citizen Response to Illicit Drug Sales (NAD, Inc.) Officer Todd Priebe Lieutenant Jeff Johnston Chief David Kirk Sheboygan Police Department E-mail: TPriebe@ci.sheboygan.wi.us PH. 920/459-3341 Brandon R. Kooi, Ph.D. Lakeland College Criminal Justice E-mail: kooibr@lakeland.edu PH. 920/565-1577

More Related