cpd pivot goldstein submission · 2020. 8. 27. · pivot unit personnel 5/30/2017 pivot unit...
TRANSCRIPT
Projectsubmittedby:
CincinnatiPoliceDepartment
PoliceChiefEliotIsaac
LieutenantMatthewHammer,M.S.SeniorCrimeAnalyst,BlakeChristenson,M.A.
CincinnatiPoliceDepartment
Dr.TamaraD.Madensen(Ph.D)UniversityofNevada,LasVegas
June2017
HermanGoldsteinAwardSubmission
P.I.V.O.T.Place-basedInvestigationsofViolentOffenderTerritories
1
PROJECTSUMMARY
ProjectTitle:Place-basedInvestigationsofViolentOffenderTerritories(P.I.V.O.T)
Scanning
In2015,theCityofCincinnatiandtheCincinnatiPoliceDepartment(CPD)madereducing
violence, specificallygun-relatedviolence, aprimaryobjective.Analyses revealed that23
micro-locationsexperiencedahighlydisproportionateamountofgunviolence–although
theselocationsmakeuponly1.4%ofthecity’slandmass,theyaccountforover42%ofall
shooting incidents. Further, these locations have remained chronically violent over time.
Crimedataanalyses, coupledwithresidentsurveys,confirmedthat these incidentscould
be addressed using a problem-oriented policing approach (as defined by the CHEERS
criteria).
Analysis
A new place-based investigations policing strategy was developed to address the
systemicallyviolentlocationsandcomplementCPD’sexistingfocused-deterrencestrategy.
Thisnewstrategy–Place-basedInvestigationsofViolentOffenderTerritoriesorP.I.V.O.T.–
focusesonidentifyinganddisruptingcrimeplacenetworks.Thesenetworksincludecrime
sites,butalsoplacesusedbyoffendersthatdonottypicallycometotheattentionofpolice.
Aninitialprojectsitewasselected(Baltimore&McHenry)andaP.I.V.O.T.team(alongwith
community partners) conducted investigations to uncover the location’s crime place
network.Theirlocationanalysesuncovered6majorgunviolencefacilitatorsatnetworked
places, including: unregulated parking space, lack of place management, unsecured
structures, illegal vending activities, inadequate lighting, and blighted/abandoned
properties.
Response
TheP.I.V.O.T.investigationsteamworkedwithover20public/privatepartnerstodisrupt
thecrimeplacenetwork.Thesepartners,withcommunityinputandsupport,modifiedor
eliminatedtheidentifiedviolencefacilitators.Responsesincluded,butwerenotlimitedto,
permanent on-street parking restrictions, obtaining compliance from rental property
owners, code enforcement and commercial/retail property owner partnerships, directed
patrols,lighting,propertydemolition,anddevelopingacommunityparkandwalkingtrail.
Assessment
Since the initiation of the P.I.V.O.T. project (June 2016), numbers of shooting victims at
Baltimore & McHenry have fallen dramatically (over 80%), the time between shooting
incidents increased from an average of 32 to 130 days, and gun-related violence, as
measuredbyaviolencescoremetric,decreasedfromahighpre-interventionscoreof172.4
to a low (and most recent) post-intervention score of 26.8. Observable blight at this
location has also decreased by over 29%. There is little to no evidence of crime
displacement, but analyses indicate a possible diffusion of crime control benefits. The
P.I.V.O.T.investigationsteamisnowworkingin3othersites,withpreliminaryresultsthat
supporttheeffectivenessofthisplace-basedinvestigationsapproach.
(393Words)
2
SCANNING
CincinnatiPoliceDepartmentandJurisdiction
TheCincinnatiPoliceDepartment(CPD)istheprimarylawenforcementagencyfortheCity
ofCincinnatiandprovidesafullrangeofpoliceservicesto52diverseneighborhoods(see
AppendixA).Cincinnatispansapproximately77squaremiles,islocatedinsouthwestOhio,
and is third largestcity in thestate.The2010U.S.Censusreports296,943residents live
within CPD’s jurisdiction, with racial demographics of mostly white (52.7%) and
black/African-American(47.8%)residents.
TheCPDcurrentlyemploysapproximately1009swornofficersand153civilianemployees.
Led by Police Chief Eliot Isaac, law enforcement operations are divided among four
Bureaus:Patrol,Investigations,Administration,andSupport.In2015,theFBIreported3.7
violent crimes per 1,000 U.S. residents – CPD recorded 9.3 violent crimes per 1,000
residents,farabovethenationalaverage.1
Cincinnati’sResponsetoViolence
In 2015, the City of Cincinnati and CPD made reducing violence, and specifically gun-
relatedviolence, aprimaryobjective.TheDepartment committed resources todevelopa
newpolicingstrategyaimedatuncoveringandaddressingcrimeopportunitystructuresin
historically violent locations. CPD conducted a series of analyses aimed at identifying
systemically(chronicorpersistent)violenthotspotsthroughoutthecity.Themethodology
used to identify these locations, developed by Senior Crime Analyst Blake Christenson,
identifiedgunviolencelocationsbasedonthedataandmethodologyoutlinedinTable1.
The methodology goes
beyond simple hotspot
analysis by (1) analyzing
four different data
sources, (2) weighting
events by time (recent
events areweightedmore heavily than distal events), (3) using a kernel density search
radiustofocusattentiononclustersofviolentevents,and(4)givingmoreweighttothose
places that fell within the top 1% of violent locations across all three time periods
examined.Toconductthiskerneldensityanalysis,thecitywasdividedinto100’x100’cells
(n=225,618),whichrepresentsapproximately¼oftheaveragelengthofaCincinnaticity
block.Clustersof these cells (micro-locations) thatproducedgunviolence scoresof8or
higher(gunviolencescoresrangedfrom0to12)wereselectedforfurtheranalysis.Figure
1depictsthe23locationsthatmetthesecriteria.
AdoptingaProblem-OrientedModeltoReduceGunViolence
Additionalanalysesinthesystemicallyviolentlocationsrevealedthatgunviolenceinthese
placesmeteachofthesixrequiredelementsnecessarytodefineaproblem.2Ananalysisof
theCHEERScriteria,asdefinedbyEck&Clarke(2003),revealed:
GunViolenceIndicators(n=4)
TimePeriodsExamined(n=3)
Locations
Shootingincidents PriortoDecember2015: 100’x100’cells
Robberyincidents 1yearprior 23gunviolence
Gunoffenseincidents 3yearsprior clustersidentified
Shots/shootingCFS 5yearsprior
Table 1: Selection of Systemically Violent Locations
3
Figure1:SystemicallyViolentMicro-Locations(n=23)
• Community–Incidentsofgunviolencenegativelyimpactcommunities.Asexpectedand consistentwith the literature, the systemically violent locations identified fell
withindisadvantagedneighborhoods.Assuch,thetargetsofthesecrimes(residents
and some local businesses) have fewer resources available to themand aremore
vulnerablethanthosewhocanaffordprivatesecurityontheirproperties.Aspartof
the scanning phase, a resident survey was conducted by volunteers and the
Community Police Partnering Center in these locations (n = 412). Survey results
revealed that over25%of residentsplanned tomoveout their communitiesover
thenextyear(Table2summarizesthisandothersurveyresults).
• Harm–Theharmstemmingfromtheseincidentsincludeactsofviolence(describedbelow)andanincreaseincitizenfearofcrime.Accordingtoresidentsurveys,46.7%
feltthattheirneighborhoodswereunsafe,70%worriedaboutbecomingarobbery
victim,and67%worriedthattheywouldbecomevictimsofassault.Almost81%of
residents reported that they worried about the safety of children in their
neighborhoods.
• Expectation–Thepublicexpectsthepoliceto interveneandfindsolutionstothisproblem.Thissentimentisevidencedbyresidentsurveydatainwhichover73%of
4
theresidentsgavespecificexamplesofwhattheythoughtthepolicecoulddoordo
better to prevent crime (e.g., community partnerships, foot patrols, talk with
residents).
• Events – Gun violence involves at least three types of dangerous behaviors:predatory (e.g., an offenderwho intentionally preys on a specific victim), conflict
(e.g., gang-on-gang violence), and
endangerment(e.g.,innocentbystandersin
a drive-by shooting).3Places with these
typesofactivitiesarealsooftenassociated
withviolenceagainstpoliceofficers.Inthe
23micro-locationsidentified(whichmake
up only 1.4% of the city’s landmass),
14.6% of officer injuries (67 of 460) and
24.0% of non-compliant behaviors (1,516
of 6,315 obstruction of official business,
resisting arrest and assault on a police
officercharges–behaviorsthatcreaterisk
of officer injury) occurred between 2012
and2015.
• Recurring–Although theviolentmicro-locationsmakeuponly1.4%of the city’slandmass,adisproportionamountofviolencerecursintheseplaces.Figure2shows
that 14.4% of all Part I crimes, 25.7% of Part I violent crimes, and 42.6% ofshootingsinvolvingavictimoccurredinthesesmallgeographicareas.
Figure2:PercentofTotalConcentrationsinSystemicallyViolentLocations
Percentofresidentsthat… PercentPlannedtomoveoutoftheir
communityinthenextyear25.1
Felttheirneighborhoodswas
unsafe46.7
Wasworriedaboutbecominga
robberyvictim70.0
Wasworriedaboutbecomingan
assaultvictim67.0
Wasworriedaboutthesafetyof
neighborhoodchildren80.7
Gavespecificexamplesofwhat
theythoughtpoliceshoulddo73.3
Table2:Early2016ResidentSurveyResults
5
• Similar– All of the incidents included in the data analysis involved violent gun-relatedcrimes(seeTable1fortypesofevents).
The CHEERS analysis suggested that the problem of gun violence in Cincinnati could be
addressedusing aproblem-orientedpolicing approach.This led to thedevelopmentof a
newplace-basedpolicingstrategyandtheselectionofaninitialprojectsite.
ANALYSIS
Threeobjectiveswere identifiedduring thesecondphaseof theproblem-solvingproject:
(1)developapolicingstrategytoaddresssystemicallyviolentmicro-locations,(2)selectan
initialprojectsite,and(3)analyzedata/gatherintelligencetocreateatailoredresponse.
P.I.V.O.T.:ANewPlace-BasedPolicingStrategy
In 2007, the CPD adopted CIRV, the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence, to address
gangviolencethroughafocuseddeterrenceapproach.4Apartnershipamongmultiplelaw
enforcement agencies (local, state and federal), social service providers, and the
communitywasestablishedtodeliveraclearmessagetoviolentstreetgroupsthatviolence
would not be tolerated and future offenders would face enhanced prosecution. CIRV
significantlyreducedgangmemberinvolvedhomicidesbyfocusing
onnetworksofoffendersandvictims,5butthedeclineinviolencewasnotsustained.Placeswhereviolenceconcentratedpriortothe
implementation of CIRV began to experience increases in violent
activity over time. In the fall of 2015, former CPD CaptainMaris
Heroldwastaskedwithdevelopingaplace-basedpolicingstrategy
to reduce gun violence. The Department hoped to increase
sustainability of their violence reduction efforts by couplingCIRV
with a place-based strategy to address all three sides of the
problemanalysis(crime)triangle:offenders,victims,andplaces.
Like crime among offenders and victims, crime is not randomly
distributed across places, as confirmed by the analysis conducted during the scanning
phase.Recentadvancesinresearchandtheorysuggestthat,alsolikeoffendersandvictims,
crimeplacesarenetworked.6Crimeplacenetworksprovide the“infrastructure”necessaryforoffenderstooperateillicitmarketsandengageinviolentbehavior.Ifleftunaddressed,
new (or returning) offenderswill use these networks to continue to engage in criminal
activity.
Crimeplacenetworksextendbeyondlocationswherecrimeoccurstoincludeothertypes
of places used by offenders. These places often remain hidden without targeted police
investigation.Crimeplacenetworkscanincludefourtypesofplaces(CS4):
1. CrimeSites—specificplaceswherecrimeoccurs
2. ConvergentSettings—publicplaceswhereoffendersroutinelymeet
3. ComfortSpaces—privatemeeting,staging,andsupplyinglocations
4. CorruptingSpots—placesthatencouragecriminalactivityinotherlocations7
Problem Analysis Triangle Source: popcenter.org
6
Basedonthisresearch,anewCPDpolicingstrategy,Place-basedInvestigationsofViolent
Offender Territories (P.I.V.O.T.), was developed to disrupt the crime place networks in
Cincinnati’s systemically violent locations by supplementing previous and on-goingCIRV
violence reduction activities. This strategy relies on investigative techniques to uncover
crime place networks (e.g.,gatheringintelligence, conductingsurveillance, anddevelopinginformation sources and confidential informants) and a citywide response to engage inproblem-solving and identify resources to change crime-facilitating dynamics in the
targetedlocations.Figure3depictsageneraloutlineoftheP.I.V.O.T.policingstrategy.
Figure3:P.I.V.O.T.Strategy
A P.I.V.O.T. investigations team, led by LieutenantMatthewHammer,was established in
spring of 2016. This team consisted of the Lieutenant, a supervising sergeant and six
investigators with diverse
backgrounds(fourofficersandtwo
crimeanalysts–seeAppendixB).
A citywideP.I.V.O.T.ReviewBoard,
made up of representatives from
various city departments and
community agencies was
established.ThisReviewBoardwas
designed tomeet every twoweeks
to review CPD investigation
findings, physically observe the
identified location, provide
additional intelligence on the Figure4:P.I.V.O.T.ReviewBoardPartnerships
7
history of the location (using historical data from their respective
departments/organizations), and offer recommendations and resources to dismantle the
identifiedcrimeplacenetwork.Figure4providesexamplesofagenciesandorganizations
whocontributetotheP.I.V.O.T.ReviewBoardandstrategy.
InitialProjectSite
The first site selected for investigation and interventionwas Baltimore&McHenry (see
Figure 5). This location experienced year-over-year increases in shooting victimization
between2013-2015.With18shootingvictimsin2015alone(with1fataland3non-fatal
shootings occurring in December, 2015 – just prior to the selection of the project site),
preliminary analysis revealed intense clustering of shootings on two intersecting street
segments. Several indicators of open-air drug market activity were present (based on
P.I.V.O.T. investigators’ observations of social and physical disorder and open-air drug
transactions). It appeared that volatile drug market activity, associated disorder, and
interpersonaldisputeswerecontributingtosustainedviolenceinthearea.Thecrimeplace
network facilitatingviolence in theareawas identifiedusingthe investigativetechniques
outlinedinTable3.Intelligenceaboutthenetworkandassociatedoffenderswasgathered
throughout2016asaresultofongoinganalysis.
Figure5:InitialProjectSite:Baltimore&McHenry
8
Table3:InvestigativeTechniquesUsedtoUncoverCrimePlaceNetworksIntelligence
• Briefingswithbeatofficers,detectives,specializedunits(e.g.,violentcrimesquad),crimeanalysts,
allcitydepartments,andcommunitymembers-intelligencegatheredfrommunicipal,state,and
federaldatabasesonhistoricalplaceviolationsandownershipconnectionsamongplaces.
Surveillance• Directsurveillanceofplaceandoffenderactivities(e.g.,surveillancecameras,plainclothes
officers).
InformationSources• Informantstoreportplaceactivities(e.g.,security/managementpersonnel).
TheCrimePlaceNetworkAnalysis/investigations revealed that drug market offenders capitalized on physical
featuresofthenearbyspaceandmanagementpracticesofplaceowners.Figure5provides
aroughdiagramofthecrimeplacenetworkusedtooperatetheillicitmarket.Thenetwork
includedbothlow-densityrentalresidentialhousing(A,B,C,H),commercial/retailcorner
stores (E, F), andpublic property (i.e. public street –D,G).Othernearby locationswere
monitored during the initiative to measure displacement after intervention
implementation.Twopotentialdisplacementlocationswereidentifiedbasedonproximity
and similar place features, but neither of which have materialized as an extension the
originalcrimeplacenetwork.
Investigations revealed that, of
the offenders’ private comfort
spaces, two were used as
meetinglocations(A,H),onewas
usedasasupplylocation(B),and
two were used primarily as
staginglocations(C,G).
Figure6:Baltimore&McHenryCrimePlaceNetwork
9
MajorFindings
The analysis of place dynamics (conducted through investigations, data analysis,
observations, community surveys and interviews, officer intelligence briefings, and
informationreceivedfromP.I.V.O.T.ReviewBoardmembers)revealedsixmajorfindings:
1. Community and officer observation confirmed that offenders used street parking to
supportdrugmarketactivity.Hand-to-cartransactionsoccurredalongthestreet,and
dealers parked cars along the thoroughfare in an effort to protect themselves from
potentialdrive-byshooters.
2. Threeparcelswithlow-density(one/two-family)rentalresidencesplayedaroleinthe
facilitatingtheopen-airdrugmarketandassociatedviolence.Allthreepropertieswere
instatesofdisrepair,primarilywithregardto landmaintenance.Thepropertieshad
histories of code, litter, and/or health complaints. P.I.V.O.T. investigators recovered
drug paraphernalia and firearms concealed in tall grass on one of these properties,
demonstratingaclearpublicsafetyrisk.
3. Drugmarket activity anddisorderwas also noted at locationE, a commercial/retail
propertyadjoininglocationsA,B,andC.CityBuildingsandInspectionsnotedseveral
violations,someofwhichwerefacilitatingdrugmarketoperations(examplesincludea
dumpsternotenclosedandsetnearthestreettoprovidecoverandconcealment,and
anillegalstreetvendoronthepropertycontributingtohighvolumepedestriantraffic
anddisorder).
4. Officersobservedevidenceofregulardrugmarketactivityat locationF,despitevery
fewcallstopolice.
5. P.I.V.O.T. investigators received community intelligence that car-to-car drug
transactionswereoccurringonaquietandunlit
portionofapublicside-street.
6. A blighted, vacant, and abandoned location (H)
had been the site of repeated code violations
(trash and debris on property, open and/or
brokenwindows,andpartialstructuralcollapse).
The P.I.V.O.T. team focused on this property
because of general blight and investigation
intelligence that suggested the space was
operatingasacomfortspacewithinthenetwork.
Table4liststhemajorplace-basedviolencefacilitatorsidentifiedduringtheanalysisphase.
Researchon“BestPractice”ModelsforPreventingGunViolence
ThePOPguidesavailablethroughtheCenterforProblem-OrientedPolicingwebsitewere
identifiedaspotentialresourcesfordevelopingsolutions.Theguides,“Drive-ByShootings,”
“Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders,” “Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets,”
Table 4: Place-Based Violence Facilitators
• Unregulatedparkingspace
• Absenteeowners/lackofplacemanagement
• Unsecuredstructures
• Illegalvendingactivities
• Inadequatelighting
• Blighted/abandonproperty
10
“StreetRobbery”,“DisorderlyYouthinPublicPlaces,”“ShiftingandSharingResponsibility
forPublicSafetyProblems,”and“ImprovingStreetLightingtoReduceCrimeinResidential
Areas,”offeredinsightintopotentiallyeffectiveresponses.
Additionally, partnershipswith crime andplace experts at theUniversity ofNevada, Las
Vegas(Dr.TamaraD.Madensen)andtheUniversityofCincinnati(Dr.JohnE.Eck),aswell
as theeducational/practicalbackgroundof theP.I.V.O.T.Lieutenant (MatthewHammer–
who developed the concept of comfort spaces through earlier place-based policing
initiativesandpublished this inhis thesis)broughtadditionalexpertiseandresources to
theproject.
RESPONSE
BeginninginJune2016andfollowingtheP.I.V.O.T.team’sinitialinvestigationandanalysis,
CPD worked with P.I.V.O.T. Review Board members and other partners to address the
conditions facilitating violent crime at the Baltimore &McHenry location. The following
providesabriefsummaryofthemajorresponsesandpartnershipsleveragedtoeliminate
or change identified crime facilitators. Table 5 summarizes the timeline of P.I.V.O.T.
interventions.
Response#1:PermanentOn-StreetParkingRestrictions
Given that street parkingwas being used to facilitate drugmarket and violent activities
(location D), the P.I.V.O.T. team assessed the potential impact of removing legal parking
spaces. During the analysis phase, investigators noted that the vast majority of nearby
residentshadaccesstopersonaldrivewaysandallbusinesseshadprivatelotsdesignated
for customer parking. In speaking with neighborhood leaders and residents, the
community strongly supported proposed parking restrictions. P.I.V.O.T. team officers
informed affected residents prior to the
implementation of parking restrictions
andengagedinatwo-weekwarning-only
period prior to enforcement. The
removal of parking made drug dealing
moredifficultandriskysincebuyersand
dealers had to walk to the location or
park illegally, drawing attention to their
illicit activities. It also removed the
physical barrier offenders used for
protectionfromdrive-by-shooters.
Response#2:Rentalpropertyownercompliance
The P.I.V.O.T. team made direct contact with the owners of the three rental properties
(locations A, B, and C) identified as part of the crime place network. In each instance,
P.I.V.O.T.investigatorsestablishedcommunicationwithownersandcoordinatedwithCity
departments(e.g.,Buildings&Inspections,Law)inanefforttoincreaselevelsofeffective
Table5:InterventionTimeline
Response#1:Parkingrestrictions 06/24/2016-presentResponse#2:Ownercompliance 07/19,8/26,11/16/2016Response#3:Codeenforcement 07/16/2016-presentResponse#4:Directedpatrols 08/22/2016-01/23/2017Response#5:Lighttower 12/21/2016-presentResponse#6:Propertydemolition 03/2017Response#7:Spaceactivation 05/20/2017
11
place management. This communication and contact led to the removal of key
environmental facilitators(e.g., tallgrassusedtohide firearms,unsecured locationsused
asdrugpackaging/distributionlocations)andtheevictionoftenantsassociatedwithillicit
activities.
Response#3:CodeEnforcement/OwneronNotice
TheP.I.V.O.T. teammetwith theownerof thecommercial/retailproperty (locationE)at
which several code violationswere identified during investigations. Themost important
changes made as a result of owner contact were (1) securing the loose and mobile
dumpster (with direct assistance from city partners) and (2) removal of illegal vendors
from the storeparking lot.Additionally, a fencewaserectedaroundanearby residential
lot, also owned by the store’s owner, to prevent dealers from using this space as a
stashing/stagingarea.
Response#4:DirectedPatrols
Adirectedpatrol strategywas initiated inAugust to furtherdisruptdrugmarketactivity
anddeter associatedviolence. Coordinatingwith theEmergencyCommunicationsCenter
(ECC), dispatch prompts were sent to patrol cars on a scheduled basis. This helped to
achieve a higher percent of directed patrol completion. While limited in duration, the
directed patrol strategy served to compliment and reinforce earlier interventions (e.g.,
parkingrestrictions)andincreasetheireffectiveness.
Response#5:LightTower
To deter car-to-car drug transactions, P.I.V.O.T. investigators stationed a portable light
tower/generator along the unlit public street (location G). This elevated light levels,
increasing the risks associatedwith conducting drug activity in this area, and created a
high-profile symbol of City/police presence while the Department of Traffic and
Engineeringcoordinatedwiththelocalelectricprovidertoinstallapermanentlightsource.
Regulardialoguewithcommunitymemberswas initiated toensure thatunintendedside
effects(e.g.,noiseproducedbythegenerator)didnotnegativelyimpactnearbyresidents.
OnFebruary16,2017,apermanentstreetlightwasinstalledatthissiteattherequestof
thecommunity,police,andDepartmentofTrafficandEngineering.
Response#6:BlightedPropertyDemolition
Theblightedproperty(locationH)usedaspartofthecrimeplacenetworkwasexamined
bymembersoftheP.I.V.O.T.ReviewBoard.ThepropertywasevaluatedbyCityBuildings
and Inspections. The property was subsequently declared a public nuisance and
demolished.
Response#7:ActivationofUnusedPublicSpace
AnunusedsoccerfieldownedbytheCincinnatiRecreationCommission(CRC)wasnotan
identifiedcomponentofthecrimeplacenetwork,butitborderslocationGandisdirectly
across the street from locationH (this soccer field is labeled as location I in subsequent
12
tables). A P.I.V.O.T. partner, the Neighborhood Enhancement
Program(NEP),reviewedthesiteandhelddiscussionsto identify
ways to “reactivate” this unused public space. Community
leadership helped to solicit resident input regarding communityneeds/wants to facilitate CRC and Economic Development’s
mission to re-purpose the space. This intervention became a
public-private development project to build a community
playground (with the help of “KaBOOM”8) and a surrounding
walkingtrailforresidents.
Table6 linksactivitiesofP.I.V.O.T.ReviewBoardmembersandotherpartnersatspecific
locationswithin the crime place network. As noted previously, location I represents the
unusedsoccerfield(notadirectpartofthecrimeplacenetwork).Keyprivatepartnersfor
thisP.I.V.O.T.projectincluded“KaBOOM,”RumpkeWaste&RecyclingCompany,andWelsh
ExcavationCompany.
Table6:PartnershipstoChangeLocationDynamics Locations
Partners Site-wide A B C D E F G H I
Police X X X X X X X X X X
CommunityLeaders/Council X X X X X X X
BuildingsandInspections(B&I) X X X X X X
Community&EconomicDevelopment X X X X
Traffic/Engineering(DOTE) X X
PublicWorks X X
Law X X X
CommunityLeaders/Council X X X X X X X
CommunityPolicePartneringCenter(CPPC) X
KeepCincinnatiBeautiful(KCB) X
CIRVLeadership/Partners X X X
Community&EconomicDevelopment X X X X
Health X
RecreationCommission(CRC) X
HamiltonCountyProbation X
PrivatePartners X X
UnanticipatedOutcomes
P.I.V.O.T.teammembersinitiallyanticipatedpotentialresidentresistancetothepermanent
on-street parking restrictions and the light tower. However, during the no-parking sign
installation,somenearbyresidentsrequestedalargerrestrictionfootprintthanoriginally
planned.Further,despite thenoiseof the light generator (prior to the installationof the
permanentstreetlight),residentswerehighlyreceptivetotheinterventionandrequested
theplacementofadditionalgeneratorsclosertotheirhomes.TheP.I.V.O.T. teambelieves
that thisoutcomeresulted fromopendialoguewithresidentsandcommunitysupportof
policeinterventiontopreventviolence.
News coverage of the playground and walking trail construction can be found at: http://local12.com/news/local/sustaining-peace-partnerships-change-a-neighborhood
13
ChallengestoStrategyImplementation
Threemajor challenges to the implementation of the P.I.V.O.T. during this initial project
wereidentified:
1. Staffing.P.I.V.O.T. teammembersareoftendetailed tootherunits/assignments toaddress other departmental needs. Only one investigation team is dedicated to
workingonP.I.V.O.T.identifiedsitesatthistime.
2. Buy-in fromP.I.V.O.T.ReviewBoardmembers.Some agencies/organizations areableorwillingtodevotemoreresourcesthanotherstoaddressing issues inthese
locations.
3. Speed. P.I.V.O.T. investigations (including the training of officers) and citywideresponses takemore time to implement than traditional policing responses (e.g.,
hotspotanalysistofocuspoliceresources).
ASSESSMENT
P.I.V.O.T.’sgoalistoreducegunviolence.Assuch,successcanbemeasuredinvarious
ways.However,thisassessmentwillfocusononespecificmeasure(numberofshooting
victims),onegeneralmeasure(aviolencescoremetric),andanindirectmeasureof
communityqualityoflife(ablightindex).
ShootingVictims
AsteadyincreaseinshootingvictimsoccurredattheBaltimore&McHenrymicro-location
between2013and2015,with18shootingvictimsreportedin2015.Table7showsthe
numberofyearlyshootingvictims.TheP.I.V.O.T.projectbeganinJune2016and3shootingvictimswerereportedduringthiscalendar
year–adecreaseofmorethan83percent.In2017,
shootingnumberscontinuetofall.Todate,therehas
beenonlyoneshootingvictimreported.
Thenumberofdaysbetweenshootingincidentswas
alsocalculatedfortheprojectsite.Table8showsthat,
priortotheintervention,thetimebetweenshooting
events(time-to-failure)wasapproximately32days.
Duringthe1-yearpost-interventionperiod,thedays
betweenshootingeventshasincreasedto130days.9
ViolenceScoreMetric
Inadditiontoshootingvictims,P.I.V.O.T.investigatorstrackoverallchangesinviolence.
Theprimarymeasureusedtoassesschangeinviolenceovertimeinthesemicro-locations
isaviolencescoremetric,developedbySeniorCrimeAnalystBlakeChristenson.This
metricwasdevelopedtoaddresstheproblemoftrackingchangesinrelativelyrareevents
(e.g.,gunviolence),overshortperiodsoftime,insmallgeographicareas.Themetric
incorporates4datasets/gunviolenceindicators,givesgreaterweighttomoreserious
Table7:YearlyShootingVictims–Baltimore/McHenry
Year #Victims %+-
2013 5 --
2014 8 +60.0%
2015 18 +125.0%
2016 3 -83.3%
2017* 1 -66.6%*year-to-date
14
Figure7:ChangesinViolenceMetricScoreatBaltimore&McHenry
crimesandcrimesthathaveoccurredmorerecently,and
usesthesame100’x100’cellsthatwerecreatedtoidentify
violentlocationsatthestartoftheproject.Additional
informationabouthowtheviolencescoremetricis
calculatedcanbefoundonCPD’sP.I.V.O.T.website.10
Figure7plotstheviolencescoremetricasitchangedover
time.Thefigureshowsthatthescoredecreasedfroma
highpre-interventionscoreof172.4toalow(andmost
recent)post-interventionscoreof26.8.
Changesintheviolencemetricscorearealsodepictedin
Figures8,9,and10.Figure8showsthescoresassociated
withthe“places”(i.e.,100’x100’cells)inthemicro-
locationbeforetheinitiationoftheproject(November1,
2015).Darkercellsareassociatedwithhigher
concentrationsofviolence.
Figure9showstheviolencescoreswithinthesite
boundariesonMay22,2017(justpriortotheauthoring
thisdocument).Theemptyorunshadedcellsindicatevery
littletonoviolentactivity.
Figure10depictsthechangeintheviolencescoremetric
betweenthesetwotimeperiods.Allcellsshowdeclinesin
violence–darkercellsindicategreaterdeclinesinviolent
activity.
Table8:Time-To-FailureforShootingIncidents
EventDate DaysBetween03/13/15 --
04/07/15 25
04/18/15 11
05/07/15 19
05/09/15 2
05/27/15 18
08/02/15 67
09/26/15 55
10/15/15 19
10/23/15 8
10/31/15 8
12/08/15 38
03/26/16 109
05/07/16 42
Pre-intervention(avg=32days)
09/05/16 121
01/23/17 140
Todate
(5/31/2017)128
Post-intervention(avg=130days)
15
Figure8:ViolenceScoresatBaltimore&McHenry–November1,2015
Figure9:ViolenceScoresatBaltimore&McHenry–May22,2017
Figure10:ViolenceScoresChangesatBaltimore&McHenry–11/01/2015-05/22/17
16
QualityofLife:BlightIndex
P.I.V.O.T.partner,KeepCincinnatiBeautiful,conductedaseriesofblightindexmeasures
duringthemostactivephasesoftheproject.Table9presentstheresultsoftheseblight
measuresduringSeptember,October,November,andDecemberof2016.Generally,
changesmadetotheprojectsiteduringthistimeappeartohavereducedlevelsofblightin
thecommunity.Theoverallblightindexfortheprojectsitedecreasedfrom2.4to1.7(a
29.2%decrease).AlthoughrecentorganizationalchangesandotherprojectsatKeep
CincinnatiBeautifulhavepreventedanothersitesurvey,itisexpectedthatthisscorewill
decreaseevenfurtherwhenasecondarysurveyisconducted.
Table9:BlightIndexofStreetswithinBaltimore&McHenryP.I.V.O.T.ProjectSite
Baltimore/McHenry
BlightIndex(1=leastblighted;4=mostblighted)
Sep2016 Oct2016 Nov2016 Dec2016
2200blockofBaltimoreAv 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.5
2300blockofBaltimoreAv 3.0 2.8 1.5 2.0
2400blockofBaltimoreAv 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.5
2300blockofIrollAv 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.0
3500blockofMcHenryAv 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.0
3600blockofMcHenryAv 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.0
AverageBlightedness 2.4 2.2 1.7 1.7
Displacement
WhenBaltimore&McHenrywasselectedasaprojectsite,thepotentialfordisplacementto
nearbyareaswithsimilarfeaturesandcriminogenicopportunitystructureswasassessed.
Anadjoiningneighborhoodwhichappearedmostatriskforgeographicdisplacement
experiencednogunshotvictimsin2016andonly2in2017,aftersuffering4,4,and6
during2013,2014,and2015,respectively.Violencescoresinsurroundingareasalsooffer
littletonoevidenceofsubstantialdisplacement.11Instead,nearbylocationsappeartobe
experiencingadiffusionofcrimecontrolbenefits.
FutureProjectDirections
Althoughbeyondthescopeofthisdocument,theP.I.V.O.T.teamhasbeenactivelyengaged
in3ofthe23additionalviolentmicro-locationsidentifiedduringtheinitialscanningphase.
Preliminary evaluations show the same promising results found at the Baltimore &
McHenry site. Place-based investigations appear to hold promise as a problem-solving
techniquethatproduceslong-termsustainabilityinviolencereduction.
(3,863words,excludingtables/figures/endnotes)
17
ENDNOTES 1https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-20152SeeStep14,“UsetheCHEERStestwhendefiningproblems,”inClarke&Eck(2005)3Eck&Clarke(2003)4http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/community-involvement/cincinnati-initiative-to-
reduce-violence/5http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/linkservid/81E5280A-F1F2-7294-
453E0E47BC735A5E/showMeta/0/6http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/research-brief-place-based-
investigations/?ref=89888a6170e5fbaeb39a74881cb0f597#sthash.qDiV2shq.dpuf7TamaraD.MadensenandJohnE.Eck,“CrimePlacesandPlaceManagement,”inTheOxfordHandbookofCriminologicalTheory,eds.FrancisT.CullenandPamelaWilcox(NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress,2013),554–578.8https://kaboom.org/9Thisisaconservativeestimategiventhat5/31/2017representsyear-to-date,notthe
dateofaseparateincident.10http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/assets/File/Data/ViolenceScoring.pdf11http://www.popcenter.org/tools/pdfs/displacement.pdf
18
PROJECTCONTACTSLieutenantMatthewHammerCincinnatiPoliceDepartment
Attn:P.I.V.O.T.Unit
310EzzardCharlesDrive
Cincinnati,Ohio45214
(513)352-2548
SeniorCrimeAnalystBlakeChristensonCincinnatiPoliceDepartment
Attn:P.I.V.O.T.Unit
310EzzardCharlesDrive
Cincinnati,Ohio45214
(513)978-3485
Dr.TamaraD.Madensen,AssociateProfessorUniversityofNevada,LasVegas
DepartmentofCriminalJustice
4505S.MarylandPkwy,#5009
LasVegas,Nevada89154-5009
(702)895-5903
19
APPENDIXACincinnatiNeighborhoodBoundaries
20
APPENDIXB
PIVOTUnitPersonnel5/30/2017
Background:
PIVOTUnitCommander:LieutenantMatthewHammerisinhis17thyearofservicewiththeCincinnati,OhioPoliceDepartment(CPD)andiscurrentlyassignedasthePIVOTUnitCommander,overseeingimplementationandoperationofthePIVOTInvestigativeSquadandtheCrimeAnalysisandProblemSolving(CAPS)Squad.Hehaspreviouslyservedinavarietyofpatrolandinvestigativeassignments,withaheavyemphasisonviolentcriminalactivity.Hespentsevenyearsworkinginandsupervisingviolentcrimessquads(DistrictsOneandTwo).HehasalsoservedasCrimeAnalysisandProblemSolvingSquadSupervisor,AssistantInvestigationsCommander(DistrictFour),NightInspector,andShiftCommander(DistrictsFourandFive).LieutenantHammerreceivedhisB.A.inCriminalJusticefromtheUniversityofDayton(Ohio),andhisM.S.inCriminalJusticefromtheUniversityofCincinnati.HeiscurrentlyworkingtowardcompletionofaPh.D.inCriminalJusticeattheUniversityofCincinnati.
PIVOT Squad Supervisor: Sergeant Shannon Heine
Crime Analysis & Problem Solving Squad (CAPS) Supervisor: Senior Crime Analyst Blake Christenson
PIVOT Squad Investigators: • PoliceOfficerDonKonicki• PoliceOfficerChrisClarkson• PoliceOfficerGregVollner• PoliceOfficerOscarCyranek
CAPS Analyst: Crime Analyst Brandon Kyle
PIVOT Unit Commander: Lieutenant Matthew Hammer
21
PIVOTSquadSupervisor:SergeantShannonHeinehasbeenapoliceofficerfor19years.Inadditiontopatrolwork,shehasextensiveinvestigativeexperience.SergeantHeinehasatotalof12yearsinvestigativeassignment,includingasadistrictinvestigator,ProfessionalStandardsSectionInvestigator(InternalInvestigations),andasaHomicideInvestigator.ThedepthandbreadthofSergeantHeine’sexperienceisatremendousassettothePIVOTSquad.SergeantHeinehasanAssociate’sDegreeinBusinessManagementfromXavierUniversity(Ohio).Shehasreceivedtraininginavarietyoftopicsassociatedwithinvestigativeworkincluding:interviewandinterrogation,humantrafficking,gangandstreetcrimes,andevidencecollection.PIVOTSquadInvestigators:PoliceOfficerChrisClarksonhasbeenapoliceofficerfor10years.HehasservedinDistrictFourandCPD’sViceUnit.Hehasspecializedinlong-terminvestigativeworkfocusedparticularlyonliquorpermitpremiseswithpersistentviolentcrimeissues.OfficerClarksonhasreceivedtraininginawidearrayofinvestigativetoolsandtechniques,includinginterviewandinterrogationandadvancedviceandnarcoticsinvestigations.OfficerClarksonalsoservesintheCPD’sMarinePatrolandBikepatrol.OfficerClarksonisamemberoftheUnitedStatesAirForcereserves.PoliceOfficerOscarCyranekhasservedCPDforthepast10years,inDistricts1,3,4,5,District4ViolentCrimesSquad,andViceUnit.OfficerCyranekbringsavarietyoftrainingandexperiencetothePIVOTunit.HereceivedaChief’sCommendationforhisearlyPIVOTwork,whichincludedtherecoveryof6firearmsinthefocusareaswithinashortperiodoftime.OfficerCyranekisaUnitedStatesArmyveteran.PoliceOfficerDonKonickihas17yearsofexperienceasapoliceofficerwiththeCincinnatiPoliceDepartment.HehaspreviouslyservedinDistrictFour’sViolentCrimesSquad,ViceUnit,PersonalCrimesUnit,MajorOffendersUnit,andtheCentralBusinessSection.OfficerKonickiearnedBachelorandMaster’sDegreesinCriminalJusticefromtheUniversityofCincinnati.OfficerKonickicurrentlyservesinCPD’sHonorGuard,theCivilDisturbanceResponseTeam,CPDbikepatrol,andhaspreviouslyservedintheUnitedStatesArmy.PoliceOfficerGregoryVollnerhasservedCPDforthepast10years,inDistrict2and5,andassistedDistrict2’sViolentCrimesSquad.OfficerVollnerreceivedFieldTrainingOfficertraining,andparticipatesinCPDbikepatrol.HehasaMaster’sDegreeinCriminalJusticefromtheUniversityofCincinnati.HereceivedaChief’sCommendationforhisearlyPIVOTwork,whichincludedtherecoveryof6firearmsinthefocusareaswithinashortperiodoftime.CrimeAnalysisandProblemSolvingSquad:
22
SeniorCrimeAnalystBlakeChristensonisinhis3rdyearofservicewithCPD.HereceivedhisB.A.inGeographyfromtheUniversityofWisconsin-EauClaireandhisM.A.inCriminologyandCriminalJusticefromSouthernIllinoisUniversityCarbondale.SeniorCrimeAnalystChristenson’sworkhasbeenrecognizedwiththeSpecialAchievementsinGIS(SAG)AwardfromESRI.Hisareasofexpertiseinclude:crimeandplace,spatialanalysis,evidencebasedpolicing,andenvironmentalcriminology.CrimeAnalystBrandonKyleiscompletinghisfirstyearofservicewiththeCincinnatiPoliceDepartment.HereceivedAssociates,Bachelor’sandMaster’sDegreesinCriminalJusticefromtheUniversityofCincinnati.CrimeAnalystKylehaspriorexperienceasaCrimeMappingAnalyst,andhaspreviouslyservedintheUnitedStatesMarineCorps.Mr.KyleisaPurpleHeartrecipient.