A Strategic Approach to Violence Reduction: An Overview for Project SAFE Cabarrus

1. A Strategic Approach to Violence Reduction: An Overview for Project SAFE Cabarrus Jim Frabutt, Ph.D. Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships University of North Carolina at Greensboro PSN Research Partner for the Middle District of North Carolina

2. Research Team: Jim Frabutt, Ph.D. M.J. Gathings, M.A. Candidate Damie T. Jackson, B.S. Mike Carmichael, M.A. These efforts are currently supported by Project Safe Neighborhoods funding (180-1-03-001-BB-094) awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice through the North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety, Governor’s Crime Commission. Research efforts from 2002 through 2005 were supported by Project Safe Neighborhoods funding (Award #2002-GP-CX-0220) through the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. For additional information about this presentation, please contact James M. Frabutt, Ph.D., 330 South Greene St., UNC-Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27401 (336-217-9736) or by email: jmfrabut@uncg.edu. March 2006 The Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro is the Project Safe Neighborhoods Research Partner for the United States Attorney’s Office, Middle District of North Carolina.

3. Using Data/Research as a Guide • Emphasis on data & problem-solving makes PSN distinct from other projects • Requires an active role from task force partners • Illustrate patterns, trends, and change over time • Identify “leverage points” for action and intervention • Evaluate strategic programs and interventions

4. A Research Partnership to Understand the Crime Problem 1. The Facts (Who? What? When? Where?) 2. The Context (Surrounding circumstances) 3. The Explanation (Why?)

5. Setting Some Parameters • Review Timeframe: • January 1, 2004 – June 30, 2005 • Focus Offenses: • Homicides, Aggravated Assaults, Robberies, and Felony Gun Charges

6. Strategic Review of Data • 10-year Trend Data on Focus Offenses • Demographic Profile for Focus Offenses • Survey of Police, Sheriff, Probation/Parole Officers, and District Attorney’s Office • Actual Review of Crime Incidents • Offenders, victims, locations, etc.

9. Cabarrus County Focus Offenses

10. Snapshot: Violent Offenses – Sheriff’s Department • 5 homicides, including non-negligent manslaughter offenses (2%) • 221 assault offenses (82%) • 32 robbery offenses (12%) • 11 offenses were sexual in nature (4%)

11. Snapshot: Offender Demographics – Concord PD Race • African American 205 (55.7%) • Caucasian 135 (36.7%) • American Indian 1 (0.3%) • Unknown 27 (7.3%) Sex • Male 321 (87.2%) • Female 33 (9.0%) • Unknown 14 (3.8%) Average age of known offender = 25.1 years

12. Snapshot: Victim Demographics – Concord PD Race • Caucasian 227 (55.0%) • African American 129 (31.2%) • Unknown 57 (13.8%) Sex • Male 221 (53.5%) • Female 144 (34.9%) • Unknown 48 (11.6%) Average age of known offender = 29.6 years

13. Using Survey Data • Front line survey of Concord PD, Kannapolis PD, Cabarrus County District Attorney’s Office, and Department of Community Corrections. • Questions of interest: • Who are the most dangerous/violent/chronic offenders? • Are there any specific houses/corners or “hot spots” that need attention more than others? • Are you aware of any gang/group criminal activity?

14. Survey: The “Most Mentioned” • 167 unique offender names generated • 18 individuals identified by more than one agency • 7 individuals identified by either Concord or Kannapolis Police and probation • 2 individuals identified by three separate agencies • Example: Two individuals named by more than 40% of officers surveyed in one department

15. Survey: Crime Locations and Crime Groups • Several locations named by one-quarter to one-half of those surveyed • Crime mapping • Census information • Known groups of offenders were identified • Loosely organized groups committing crimes together • Gang affiliated, with growing presence of Latino gangs noted

17. Mapping Crime Trends/Patterns

18. Crime Incident Review Process: Putting It All Together • December and January • 25 Attendees • Concord PD • Kannapolis PD • Sheriff’s Dept. • U.S. Attorney’s Office • District Attorney’s Office • Department of Community Corrections • UNC-Greensboro • ATF • Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

19. Crime Incident Reviews • CIRs develop information about crime in the community that can be used to develop approaches to prevention. • Criminal justice system partners come together to share street level information about crime. • Identification of patterns can suggest ideas for interventions. That is the primary goal of doing CIRs.

20. CIR: Questions and Discussion • What do you know about the victim? • What do you know about any associates of the victim? • Was the victim part of a group of active offenders? • What do you know about the suspect(s)/offenders? • What do you know about associates of the suspect(s)/offenders?

21. CIR: Questions and Discussion • Was the suspect(s) part of a group of active offenders? • What do you know about the relationship between victim and suspect(s)/offenders? • What do you know about the location of the event? • What do you know about the motive in this case? • Was the incident drug-related? How? • What do you think was behind the event? (final summary)

23. Impact of Crime Incident Review • Communication • System Functioning • Intelligence • Reviews of “Offender Groups” • Directions for Further Research

24. Converging Data Trends Locations Groups Individuals Violent Crime Dynamic

25. Strategic and Accountable • Strategic about which issues/areas/individuals to focus on • Strategic about how we use our limited resources • Human • Financial • Accountable for our progress through evaluation and monitoring • Make changes and improvements as necessary