Strategic Approaches to Community Safety InitiativePurpose To increase the capacity of United States Attorneys, working in partnership with federal, stateand local criminal justice agencies, the community, and a research entity, to design data-driven targetedstrategies and interventions that produce measurable decreases in targeted crime. Concept While many law enforcement entities have become proficient at responding to crime, fewwork together to systematically understand their community’s crime problems and develop strategicresponses to address them. Cities that have experienced great reductions in crime, such as Boston andNew York, have made a genuine effort to collect, share, combine, and analyze crime and other data. They have used trends that emerge from these analyses to help describe and clarify the problem, suggeststrategic opportunities for interventions, and illuminate efficient ways to employ limited resources. Thisinitiative aims to bolster the use of a collaborative, knowledge-driven, problem- solving process that willallow local public safety working groups to identify and analyze their local crime problems, devise andimplement strategies likely to reduce targeted crime, and measure and document targeted crimereduction. It is our hope that jurisdictions will institutionalize this process, continuing to reevaluate andreconfigure their interventions (and target new problems) in light of new patterns that emerge from theinformation analysis.COMPONENTS OF THE INITIATIVEI. Establish an Inter- Agency Working Group In each of the sites, the U.S. Attorney will convene a team of local, state, and federal criminaljustice practitioners, representatives from relevant community agencies, and a research partner. Teamswill meet frequently to develop, implement, and evaluate a crime prevention and reduction strategywhich focuses on a major crime problem facing the city. The team will work to strategically deploy bothlaw enforcement and community resources, making every effort to coordinate around the identifiedproblem and desired outcome. We recognize that most locations will not be working from a “clean slate,” but will be buildingupon existing coalitions. It is therefore recommended that the U.S. Attorney include a broad spectrumof individuals and organizations on the planning team to allow for varying perspectives on the problemand to lay a foundation for future ownership of specific strategies adopted later in this process.There is general agreement that a core group attending the initial meeting should include: * U.S. Attorney * Project Director * Research Partner * Chief of Police (and Sheriff, if important locally) * Federal Law Enforcement (FBI, ATF, DEA, and others such as INS, Customs, Marshals, as applicable) * District Attorney/State Attorney General * Mayor or City Manager * Heads of Probation/Parole/Pretrial * Head of Juvenile Corrections DepartmentA potential second tier of agencies to consider includes all or some of the following: * Chief Judges (local and federal / adult and juvenile) * Head of Public Defender Agency (local and federal) * School Superintendent * Department of Social Services (or other prevention/services representative) * Faith Community * Community/City Agencies (Boys and Girls Club, treatment community, etc.) * Business Leaders Clearly, there is no one formula that will fit all jurisdictions’ politics and dynamics. We expectprojects to evolve at the local level, and working groups to differ in their composition from site to site.Key Roles The U.S. Attorney, Project Director, and Research Partner have special roles in this initiative. Abrief discussion of these roles is outlined below. United States Attorney Through SACSI, U.S. Attorneys are demonstrating a new, emerging role for Federal lawyers:that of prosecutor as proactive problemsolver. They are taking a more direct, active interest in findingsolutions to the problems that jeopardize public safety in particular communities. U.S. Attorneys arecritical to building support for SACSI with federal, state, and local law enforcement partners and areintegral to community outreach.Project Director The importance of the Project Director cannot be overemphasized. This position is charged withthe daily management of the process, facilitating the conversation, moving the group toward thecollective goal, working with the research partner to think through the nexus between operationalcapacities, local data analysis, and crime control theory, and, importantly, holding the group to task. Preferably, this person will be an Assistant United States Attorney or someone employed within theUnited States Attorney’s Office, whose entire time can be devoted to thinking strategically and movingthis process forward. Working closely with the research partner, law enforcement, and communityagencies, the Project Director should become familiar with promising approaches used elsewhere, as wellas the unique capacities of the groups at the table. Research Partner Unlike traditional research involving neutral observation, SACSI expects research partners to befully engaged in problemsolving and fully engaged throughout the entire SACSI process. The researchpartner will identify and collect data and street-level knowledge, analyze it, and continuously report backto the group what is found, bringing knowledge of crime control and prevention theories and theliterature about “what works” into the strategy development and design of interventions to reduce thetarget crime problem. The research partner will also be responsible for documenting the process andevaluating the effectiveness of the intervention, suggesting adjustments, and reevaluating. Researchpartners should understand the complexities of working with government officials and criminal justicepractitioners in a collaborative, problem-solving relationship to achieve the project goals. II. Institute the Process The SACSI process relies on the following seven steps: * Identify the Problem * Analyze the Problem * Identify Trends, Patterns, and Opportunities for Intervention * Design the Strategy * Implement the Intervention * Evaluate the Intervention * Continuously adjust the Intervention Based on EvaluationA. Identify the Problem Perceptions of crime are often swayed by national trends or local incidents that involvesignificant media attention. Accordingly, systematic examination of the specific nature of the localproblem is an often overlooked and important first step. Jurisdictions will benefit by analyzing andunderstanding their particular crime problem before deciding what to do about it. While the selectedjurisdictions are encouraged by Congress to reduce gun violence, this can be interpreted very broadly,depending on what the data reveal. For example, the connection between domestic violence and firearmscould be explored, as well as drug and gun, and gang and gun-related violence. This broad definitionleaves room for each jurisdiction to tackle the specific crime problems that impact the community themost. The first role of the research partner is to collect and analyze data to develop a dynamic,real-life picture of crime in the jurisdiction. Data could include front-line practitioners’ perceptionsabout the community’s most serious or persistent crime problems; reviews of incidents and cases; anexamination of local crime statistics relative to state, national, and same-size city averages of the samecrime; examination of changes in the target problem over time within the city; spacial analysis ofsocioeconomic, health, and physical characteristics that may be associated with the problem; focusgroups with community members; interviews with offenders; formal surveys; etc. It should be noted that while there may be a science to analyzing the data, there is certainly noscientific way to determine what is the most “important” crime problem to a community. The workinggroup will have to make a decision to focus on what is most critical to them based on severity (e.g.homicide), persistence (e.g. domestic violence, disorder, assault), context (e.g. problem neighborhood)etc... and compare that crime type to others around the country to see if it’s a disproportionate problem. Once the group agrees to focus on a specific type of crime problem that has been described bythe data analysis, the group should develop a common goal with measurable objectives. The group’sobjectives may be quantified in any number of ways -- from “achieve a 25% reduction in gun assaultsover the next year” to “reduce level of fear of being shot”. The research partner should play a significantrole in identifying crime problems and determining measurable goals and objectives.B. Analyze the Problem Once the problem and collective goal is determined, the research partner will conduct amore in-depth analysis of the problem. The purpose of the detailed analysis should be to understandthe nature and characteristics of the crime and to identify opportunities around which criminal justiceagencies and other organizations can develop crime reduction strategies. In particular, the researchpartner can provide descriptive data on the crime, offenders, and victims as well as patterns and trendsthat emerge from the analysis, narrowing the focus to provide maximum impact on targeted crime. Crimeincident factors such as time, location, drug involvement, offender/victim relationships, and criminaljustice responses should be examined, in addition to demographics and criminal histories of the offenderand victim, and important knowledge from front-line staff. C. Identify Trends, Patterns, Opportunities for Intervention The core group will then begin to explore opportunities that the data patterns suggest. Arehomicides committed by people who are already under probation supervision and breaking curfew tocommit the crime? Are they using drugs or alcohol at the time? Are the drug dealers selling near schoolsor in front of a public housing property? Are illegal firearms being trafficked into the city? Trendswhich point to positive answers to these questions suggest problem-solving strategies that the group canimplement to take advantage of the opportunities.D. Design the Strategy Designing the strategy will involve a variety of inputs including: (a) opportunities identified bythe data; (b) capacities of the various organizations at the table; (c) pertinent crime control theories; and(d) successful strategies and innovative new ideas used elsewhere. Assisting in strategy development isthe second core role of the research partner. This part of the process is a dynamic one -- part art, part science -- which may involve constant“back- and-forth” between the group and the research partner. As questions are answered through theanalyses, critical new questions and insights will arise that provoke further investigation. It may takeweeks or months to work through this critical process as the group seeks to find the best strategicintervention to employ. The goal of this stage is to devise interventions that disrupt identified patterns inthe targeted crime problem in the short-run, and address underlying root causes of the crime problem, inthe long- run.Opportunities Identified by the Data As discussed earlier in this document, the group will want to allow the data to drive the strategyto a significant extent. Where there are concentrations of activity (be they concentrations in geography,time, population or situation surrounding the crime) the group will want to work together on forminginterventions to counter the negative behavior.Capacities at the Table The group should solicit ideas from each institutional player as to how they could collaborativelyassist in reaching goal. The group should explore the unique capacities of each organization around thetable and creatively determine which capacities can contribute to reducing the problem. For example, insome communities building inspectors, working in conjunction with police have been able to developprobable cause to search or shut down crack houses. Immediate intervention by social workers andvictims advocates with families at emergency rooms have lowered homicide rates and increasedprotection for abused spouses and children. Increased, targeted supervision of high risk probationers hassubstantially impacted both offender and victimization rates among that group. Each of the members isencouraged to think broadly about ways that their particular constituents may be able to assist inpreventing or eliminating the particular problem.Crime Control and Prevention Theories Much is known about crime prevention and control theories that could help inform local strategicinterventions under development. The research partner should help inform the strategy development withthis information. The Department will also provide for experts to be available as needed, to work witheach site to share pertinent theories about targeted deterrence, controlling disorder, drug markets, gunviolence, etc. Successful Strategies and Innovative Ideas Used Elsewhere It will also be important to gather information about successful responses to similar problemsused elsewhere. Communities have been developing a variety of responses to specific crime problems foryears often utilizing innovative tactics, some of which have been successful. These strategies are notlimited to just “law enforcement” approaches but included community-wide programs aimed atpreventing the problem from occurring while having a measured assured response when prevention hasfailed. The Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services havebeen increasingly funding and evaluating innovative programs to learn “what works.” Similarly, theCriminal Division has been compiling successful law enforcement strategies which may prove useful inspecific situations. These and other resources should be accessed to gather information about possiblestrategies. Having collected information about responses to similar problems in other communities andhaving additional ideas from each of the participating members, the working group should reach aconsensus as to the best strategic intervention to employ. The group should be encouraged not to see oneparticular strategy as the immediate ‘best answer’ but rather to utilize a variety of integrated tacticsaimed at identified causes. It is extremely important that there be a broad-based coalition that activelysupports these responses which on first blush may be controversial. Experience in several communitieshas shown that when the community is involved in the identification and planning process, even toughmeasures have been accepted. Once intervention strategies are developed, the research partner can develop logic models whichdescribe how the selected interventions will impact targeted crime problems. The research partner canuse these models to develop, with the input of the group, output, outcome, and impact measures for theinterventions and strategies selected. E. Implement the Intervention Having collaboratively agreed upon an identified problem and an appropriate response, it isimportant that the cooperative effort not cease. Implementation will require the establishment of regular,staff-level working groups, which include the research partner. These working groups will varysignificantly both in frequency of meeting and membership depending upon the particular component ofthe response. F. Evaluate the Intervention Critical to the credibility of this process is the need to evaluate the chosen intervention tosee if it is making a difference. This is the third core role of the research partner. The standardsused to measure these responses can be both qualitative and quantitative. For example, it may be aspecific objective to increase the number of guns seized, or to decrease domestic assaults or to shut downdrug markets. On the other hand, more general measurements of “perceived safety” or quality of lifeexpressed by increased attendance at theaters or sporting events can also be included. Intermediateoutcomes that are necessary, but not sufficient to effect crime reduction can also be measured. It may beimportant to know whether the offender population is aware of the interventions you are implementing. What impact have these interventions had on offender behavior? It will also be important to knowwhether targeted crime has been displaced and whether there are other variables that may be responsiblefor targeted crime reduction. Are there other programs that effect the same population, crime problem, orneighborhood? What is the role of the economy or other macro indicators? Was there a major policydecision that may have led to similar outcomes as the SACSI interventions? Research partners shouldattempt to address the issue of displacement as well as potential rival hypotheses that may impact SACSIselected outcomes.G. Adjust the Intervention based on Evaluation To be effective, there should be an ability to adjust both the intervention and the overall strategybased on the evaluation of changes in the data resulting from the strategic response. For example, if thestrategy to suppress drug dealing in a particular area is resulting in displacement to another geographicarea, the group will want to be able to identify this unintended consequence through their ongoinginformation analysis and revise the intervention accordingly. The process of collaborative data evaluation, goal- setting, implementation, and reevaluationshould be a continuous one until the intervention is institutionalized or no longer necessary. Thisconstant evaluation may result in having to make institutional changes both in the makeup of theoperational groups as well as the methods and types of information collected. The group will want topublicly announce their goals and successes in order to foster community support and hold themselvesaccountable. The research partner should be comfortable relaying assessment information to the SACSI teamon a continuous basis and should continue to assist the SACSI team partners to refine interventions untilintended results are achieved. It is also important that the research partner consider possible additionalmeasures of success. These measures could include a host of other factors such as communitysatisfaction with the system, assessment of satisfaction levels of participating personnel, etc Once the goals for addressing the problem have been reached, the same collaborative process ofidentifying a problem, a response and an appropriate measurement of success should be repeated.III. Documenting the Process The fourth, and final, core role of the research partner is to document the on-goingimplementation of the SACSI process. This should include such items as: (1) information on thenature of SACSI team working relationships; (2) how the group implemented the SACSI model, asdescribed above; (3) factors which ensure adequate and appropriate data availability, access, andanalysis; (4) types of strategies that are effective in addressing crime problems; (5) the influence ofexternal factors on the activity of the team; and, (6) factors that influence the team’s ability to implementdesignated strategies. Final Products Expected Research partners are expected to work with local collaborative teams, providing data, analysis,research products, technical assistance, advice, etc., as necessary throughout the entire SACSI project.. Researchers are also expected to provide to NIJ a final report describing how the SACSI model wasimplemented locally, including information on: how the target problem was selected; what the datarevealed when the problem was precisely defined; what was considered when designing interventions;the extent to which research and information were used to design intervention strategies; the logic andtheory behind these strategies; how the strategies were implemented; the impact and effectiveness ofthese strategies on selected measures; and, how strategies were adjusted based on formal and informalimpact data. For more information:“Using Knowledge and Teamwork To Reduce Crime,” by U.S. Attorneys Veronica Colemen, Walter C.Holton, Jr., Kristine Olson, Stephen C. Robinson, and Judith Steward, NIJ Journal, Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1999.“Pulling Levers: Getting Deterrence Right,” by David, Kennedy. NIJ Journal, Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1998.Qualifications of Research Partner: A qualified research partner will have the following: 1) a Ph.D. in criminal justice, sociology,public policy, or a related discipline or equivalent in work experience; 2) demonstrated experience in theareas of: development of collaborative, problem-solving approaches; action research models; programevaluation and assessment; and local survey development and administration; 3) demonstratedexperience working with jurisdictions (including city officials, criminal justice practitioners, andcommunity members) in a collaborative, problem-solving relationship; 4) expert knowledge of thecriminal justice system and existing law enforcement and criminal justice data sources, includingexperience analyzing such data; and (5) organizational infrastructure necessary to accomplish analytictasks. Considering the variety of skills needed, researchers are encouraged to partner with others, asnecessary, to fulfill requirements and qualifications of SACSI research responsibilities.Submission Information:Your application should include the following standard forms, available through: (1) the NIJ Web site:http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/funding.htm; or (2) the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at800-851-3420. * Standard Form (SF) 424--application for Federal assistance; * Geographic Areas Affected Worksheet; * Assurances; * Budget Detail Worksheet; * Certifications Regarding Lobbying, Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (one form); * Disclosure of Lobbying Activities; * Negotiated indirect rate agreement (if appropriate); * Privacy certificate; * Form 310 (Protection of Human Subjects Assurance Identification/Certification/ Declaration); and, * Environmental Assessment (if required);Your application should also include: * Budget Narrative; * Time and Task plan; * Program Abstract; * Program Narrative; * Names and affiliations of all key persons from applicant and subcontractor(s), advisors, consultants, and advisory board members. The “Program Narrative” section of your proposal should be no more than twenty-five double- spacedpages, and should include a statement demonstrating an understanding of the SACSI model and the roleof the research partner in its development, a description of how you would apply the SACSI model to fityour jurisdiction, a statement describing past experience with similar initiatives, a general time and taskplan for implementing the four core research roles described above, and a statement of organizationalqualifications. Send proposals to: SACSI Initiative c/o Erin Dalton National Institute of Justice 810 7th St. NW Washington, DC, 20531 (Fed Ex zip is 20001) * If you have issues for which you would like clarification as you are writing your proposal, youmay contact Erin Dalton (202-514-5752; email daltona@ojp.usdoj.gov). Selection Criteria:* Responsiveness to the SACSI model * Demonstrated understanding of, and experience conducting, research roles described herein* History of successful coordinated efforts with local practitioners and policy makers* Qualifications of key staff..* Quality (e.g., comprehensiveness and clarity) of proposal.* Demonstrated ability to manage proposed initiative. * Soundness and efficiency of plans for implementation. Review Process: * Review by DOJ SACSI group by at least three readers.* Review by US Attorneys Office and local partners by at least three readers.* Joint interviews (if necessary) with candidates deemed highly competitive by the review process.