Nashville Dmi Impact Assessment
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
374
On Slideshare
374
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Evaluating the MNPD Drug Market Initiative Nicholas Corsaro Southern Illinois University & Edmund F. McGarrell Michigan State University
  • 2. The Problem
    • The 800 block of N. 2 nd St. was a long entrenched open air drug market
    • This is a transitional neighborhood.
      • Rental Properties
      • Some scattered sight Sec. 8 housing
      • Older homes being remodeled
        • New residents moving in and revitalizing the area
        • Demanding an end to the drug dealing
  • 3.  
  • 4. Problem - Calls for Service These two streets provide a good basis for comparison and some appreciation of the scope of the problem. Stockell St. is a parallel street one block east of N. 2 nd . Year 800 Block N. 2 nd St. 800 Block Stockell St. 2006 872 82 2007 1091 72 2008 thru 6/23 255 52
  • 5. Preparation
    • Obtaining support and approval from the Chief of Police
    • Obtaining buy-in from Precinct personnel.
    • Going public – explaining the concept to community stakeholders – residents, area neighborhood and business groups.
    • Informing the faith and treatment community about the concept and developing a coalition.
  • 6. Preparation (cont’)
    • Informing the rest of the Criminal Justice Community and City Administration getting buy-in
      • District Attorney
      • Public Defender
      • General Session and Criminal Courts
      • Mayor’s Office
      • Sheriff’s Department
  • 7. The Law Enforcement Branch
    • The easy part – this is what we do.
    • Over a period of months the East Precinct Crime Suppression Unit made undercover buys resulting in:
      • 55 cases prepared against
      • 26 defendants
    • All the buys were filmed –
      • Terrific evidence
      • Provide great tool for informing citizen groups about the dynamics of street level drug dealing.
  • 8. The Intervention Transition
    • At the time arrest sweep was conducted, the East Precinct had already met with area treatment providers and members of the faith community on 3 separate occasions informing them of our intent to replicate the High Point West End Project and recruiting partners.
      • Sought assistance from area faith leaders and leaders of treatment coalitions to get the word out.
      • The project was well received. We were very fortunate to get active partners involved.
  • 9. The Intervention Transition
    • Who goes to intervention and how many?
      • Treatment providers want to know how many people will be referred to them and what their needs are.
      • East Precinct could only provide that information toward the end of the law enforcement phase.
      • The District Attorney’s Office assigned a single prosecutor to work these cases. That prosecutor, working with investigators, made the final recommendations in regard to who faced prosecution and who was offered intervention.
  • 10. The Intervention Transition (cont’)
      • East officers began the process of meeting with families and completed briefs on each person slated for prosecution.
      • A meeting of the treatment providers was called and they were provided with these briefs.
      • The providers then did follow-up visits with family members of the intervention candidates and assisted in encouraging them to attend the call-in session.
  • 11. Notification
    • On March 17, 2008, 18 persons were served with sealed indictments for drug trafficking. 2 others were served at a later date.
    • On March 24, 2008, 5 candidates were called in for intervention.
    • 1 candidate re-offended the following weekend and was indicted.
    • 1 additional candidate was called in for an intervention on a later date
  • 12. Outcomes
    • Calls for service in the 2 reporting areas immediately adjacent to N. 2 nd have dropped 46.3%.
    • Charges related to Drug equipment, Drug/Narcotic and Prostitution Arrests have dropped 88.4%
    • 5 out of the 6 intervention candidates have continued to stay out of trouble.
    • UCR Part 1 crimes have remained somewhat constant when comparing 2007 and 2008 data. However, 2008 violent crime remains significantly lower than in 2006, prior precinct’s more focused efforts in the area.
  • 13. Sustaining Gains
    • Continued monitoring of the immediate treatment area and adjacent problem spots for emerging drug trafficking.
      • Efficient follow-up on citizen complaints
      • Encourage continued empowerment and ownership on the part of area residents.
      • Aggressive and proactive enforcement
    • Continued monitoring of our intervention candidates
  • 14. Impact Assessment
    • We used time series analysis to assess programmatic impact, which are highly regarded research methods (Bushway and McDowall, 2006)
    • 5 years worth of UCR data, Drug Offense data, and Calls for Police Service (CFS) data
    • 4 years pre-, 1 year post-intervention (March 2008, intervention date)
  • 15. Impact Assessment
    • Research design accounts for autocorrelation, seasonality, and trends in the data and isolates the intervention effect
    • We modeled UCR, drug offense, and CFS data for the McFerrin Park target community, adjacent neighborhoods, and the remainder of the Davidson County
  • 16. Drug Offense Trends Narcotics & Drug Equipment Offenses aggregated = Drug Offenses Target & Adjoining neighborhoods combined 21.4 Drug Offenses Pre-Intervention, 11.2 Drug Offenses Post-Intervention
  • 17. UCR Offense Trends Total Violent & Property Crimes aggregated = UCR Offenses Target & Adjoining neighborhoods combined 13.8 UCR Offenses Pre-Intervention, 10.2 UCR Offenses Post-Intervention
  • 18. Calls For Service Trends Total CFS aggregated where someone requested police assistance = CFS Target & Adjoining neighborhoods combined 92.0 CFS Pre-Intervention, 74.2 CFS Post-Intervention
  • 19. ARIMA Time Series Results MS = Marginally Statistically Significant p < .15 (Impact Assessment Standard) SS = Statistically Significant p < .05 (Social Science Standard) NS = Not Statistically Significant (Change May Be Product of Chance) Outcome McFerrin Park Adjacent Area Remainder Nashville Violent Crime MS Decline -24.0% NS Decline -23.9% NS Decline -7.4% Property Crime SS Decline -28.4% MS Decline -25.9% NS Decline -7.0% Drug Equipment SS Decline -36.8% SS Decline -22.2% MS Decline -9.3% Narcotics Offenses SS Decline -55.5% SS Decline -50.3% NS Increase 5.5% CFS MS Decline -18.1% MS Decline -1.0% NS Decline -5.9%
  • 20. Summary of Statistical Results
    • Immediate/Abrupt, statistically significant, and substantial decline in all outcomes for the McFerrin Park Target Community
    • Immediate/Abrupt, statistically significant decline with varying substantial changes for most outcomes in Adjacent Area
    • No evidence of a general trend in overall Davidson County that would account for changes seen in target and adjacent areas
  • 21. Further Evaluation/Next Steps
    • The need for detailed resident interviews
    • In addition to the criminal justice, social service, and faith-based community actions—what did active residents do beyond support the initiative?
    • Has resident ‘engagement’ changed after the intervention?
    • Does the DMI pulling levers intervention have a similar impact in other cities and sites?