1 / 19

RECAP in Minneapolis

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

mmartines
Download Presentation

RECAP in Minneapolis

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

  2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Anti-Social Behavior • ASB was not a term in use • Calls by dispatched type dominated and directed problem analysis • BUT

  12. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. CONFOUNDING PROBLEMS • Low incidence rate: 1 call per week (most) • Multiple-layered problems • Fences at 1501 – 11th 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

More Related