The Moving Target: Identifying and Targeting Repeat Offenders

Research in the field of criminal justice indicates that a small number of offenders account for a disproportionate amount of crime. These offenders, often referred to as serial offenders, frequent offenders or prolific offenders share some common traits. They appear to be undeterred by the criminal justice system. By virtue of their frequent involvement in criminal acts, their actions consume significant resources. They cause significant harm to the community not only through their actions, but also the resources expended on detecting, pursuing and incarcerating them. However, frequent offenders have one redeeming quality; they are predictable.

If a small group of offenders commit a disproportionate amount of crime, it is logical to conclude that targeting repeat offenders could be an effective means of crime reduction. However, crime reduction strategies that limit their scope to pursuing and arresting frequent offenders are doomed to failure. If the police are to reduce the demand on resources and reduce the harm caused to the community, alternative strategies must be explored. Varying philosophies of policing offer alternative ways to impact crime and disorder, each with its own merits. While academic theory in the field of criminal justice has proven invaluable, studies of practical application and what works remains the true measure of success.

Understanding Frequent Offenders

Academic research of recidivism is remarkably consistent. Here are just a few examples: A 1945 study of 10,000 boys born in the City of Philadelphia revealed that, while most youths in the sample did not follow a criminal path, a small group amounting to 6.3% of the sample were involved in frequent criminal acts. Further, this group of frequent offenders accounted for 52% of all recorded offenses. Across the ocean in Australia, analysis of a police initiative which targeted burglary offenders revealed that 18% of the offenders had 15 or more convictions (Ratcliffe 54-59). In Madison Wisconsin, community concern over offensive behavior by persons who appeared to suffer from mental illness drew local media attention. The media estimated the number of persons involved at over 1,000. A study of the problem revealed that only about 20 people were responsible for the problem (Goldstein 105). A 2004 study of criminal traffic offenders in Green Bay Wisconsin revealed that 81% of those cited for the criminal traffic offense of operating with a revoked license had at least one prior conviction. Remarkably, 35% had five or more prior convictions for the same offense (Bongle 4). “A very small proportion of the total population is responsible for a large proportion of serious offenses reported to the police (Taylor and Fritsch 421).”

           There is also evidence to suggest that frequent offenders tend to commit repeat crimes against the same target. One researcher who interviewed 21 serial burglars reported, “76% said they had gone back to a number of houses after a varying period to burgle them between two and five times (Everson and Pease 216).”   Additional research suggests that neighborhoods plagued by high crime rates have a high rate of repeat victimization, leading to the conclusion that frequent offenders and repeat victims are related to each other (Tilley 18). This information supports the notion that repeat offenders exhibit some predictability. Understanding this dynamic may help the police detect and arrest repeat offenders. 

While the primary reason for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder, the duty of the police to detect crime and arrest those involved remains a central focus. The phenomenon of disproportionate criminality and targeted victimization is of great interest to the police for both preventing crime and targeting offenders. The current economic climate has created a situation in which administrators must make difficult budgetary decisions and police agencies must function with limited or reduced resources. Naturally, administrators seek ways to improve efficiency while continuing to serve their communities. Through better understanding of the relationship between repeat offenders and repeat victimization, the police may be able to develop more effective intervention strategies.

Many effective strategies that have emerged over the last two decades find their roots in the philosophy of Problem Oriented Policing (POP) and Community Oriented Policing (COP). The two acronyms, though sometimes used interchangeably, mean different things. And while POP and COP philosophies complement each other, the terms bear enough resemblance for the layperson to confuse them.  POP focuses on specific problems and often incorporates a methodical approach known as the SARA model. SARA is an acronym for a four-step problem solving process designed to first identify (Scan), study (Analyze), implement a strategy based on the results of research (Response), and evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy (Assess).   A hallmark of POP involves focusing attention on problems that draw significant resources, things that merit police attention. Problems are usually defined by two or more events, similar in nature and about which the public expects the police to do something about. Successful POP strategies usually involve comprehensive approaches, some level of community engagement and community partnerships. POP recognizes that the arrest of offenders is only one of many tactics to address crime and community problems (Goldstein 65-66).

COP is a philosophy that seeks to build collaboration, trust and partnerships with the community. COP is a broad approach that includes problem solving as a strategy. In COP, citizens play a vital role in identifying and setting police priorities. Citizen surveys and community meetings are two examples where the public communicates priorities to the police. COP is often thought of as the cop on the beat. While community engagement is a primary tenet of COP, describing the concept in these terms does not adequately explain the depth and importance of the COP philosophy. COP focuses on building relationships with members of the community, earning trust and delivering quality service. COP emerged in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s as researchers searched for ways to rebuild community trust following civil unrest of the 60’s (Trojanowicz and Bucqeroux 2).

Since a component of Problem Oriented Policing involves the collaboration of community partners, the value of the Community Oriented Policing philosophy should not be underestimated. In fact, the two are inextricably linked, for without collaboration and assistance from the community, POP strategies would stand little chance of success.

Intelligence Led Policing (ILP) is another emerging philosophy which places emphasis on gathering information about criminal activity through crime analysis, data analysis and research to help the police disrupt criminal activity and prevent crime. A core aspect of ILP is the identification of repeat offenders which leads to a targeted approach. When the police become preoccupied with handling service calls, little attention is paid to addressing the underlying conditions that contribute to crime. ILP provides focus for the police to attack problems that cause the most harm to the community. ILP has evolved into a management philosophy which stresses information sharing, collaboration and developing strategic solutions to crime problems (Ratcliffe 89).

A logical progression in police administration is the combination of POP, COP and ILP. Technological advancements in the area of crime mapping have improved the ability of the police to detect frequent event locations, commonly referred to as hot spots. While the concept of crime mapping is not a new one, the prevalence of GIS (Global Information Services) and web-based utilities are making it easier for police to identify and track patterns of activity. Intelligence systems that draw data from a variety of data sources and take into account multiple variables are providing police with some exciting crime fighting tools. The concept of predictive analytics was once considered science fiction. Now police agencies like Charleston, S.C. are making use of these technologies to deploy police resources to places prone to criminal activity in an effort to deter crime (Fisher 1). Turnkey software solutions are becoming more prevalent and police agencies are making increased use of them.

While POP and COP have delivered in identifying hot spots, identifying frequent offenders has proven to be more difficult. Crime associated with frequent offenders may or may not be isolated to a specific geographic location.  Repeat offenders may offend in multiple locations and have contact with different police officers on different shifts. Absent an organized and scientific way of detecting them, they may go undetected. Frequent offenders are, in effect, moving targets.

Ratliff acknowledges that the police, through frequent contacts, are probably aware who the most prolific offenders are in their communities however, such observations are anecdotal and unscientific (59). The concept of hot spot analysis is arguably a logical strategy for the police to detect and even prevent crime in neighborhoods. However, if the police limit their focus to environmental factors and hot spot analysis, they may overlook important information relative to frequent offenders who are unencumbered by police patrol districts or jurisdictional boundaries. Just as there is value in identifying frequent event locations, there is also value in identifying the moving targets, i.e., frequent offenders. In doing so, it helps to understand more about them. Enter ILP.

Research has shown that people exhibit predictable patterns of behavior and so it’s no surprise that frequent offenders begin their career at a young age. One predictor of who may become a frequent offender is the age a juvenile is first arrested. Interestingly, juveniles arrested between the ages of 6 and14 are far more likely to become frequent offenders than those who have not been arrested. Of those arrested at this young age, 68% will likely go on to commit three or more crimes while 37% will go on to commit violent offenses ("Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars" 14-15). 

While some of these offenders are committing criminal offenses, many are juveniles who are committing "status offenses", acts that if committed by an adult would not be considered a crime. Status offenses include acts such as underage drinking, running away from home, truancy and curfew violations. Acts of juvenile delinquency, while non-criminal in nature, can lead to more destructive behaviors (Taylor and Fritsch 5). For example, a juvenile out after curfew may be involved in home burglaries or, a juvenile whose judgment is impaired by alcohol may commit a more serious offense. In addition, status offense or not, the impact on police resources is the same. Therefore, status offenses should be given attention as well.

Even minor incidents of social disorder can help predict future patterns of criminal conduct. According to Coumarelos, “…the “Youth Lifestyles Survey found that boys (12-17 years old) who used drugs were nearly 5 times more likely to be offenders.” and,  “… factors with the best chance of predicting offending for 10-15 year olds were being the victim of a crime themselves, committing antisocial behavior, taking drugs, and being regularly drunk (Ratcliffe 57).”

Additional research suggests that the most prolific repeat offenders are males between the age of 10 and 17. Combine this with the research that shows that a minority of offenders commit a disproportionately high number of crimes. For example, the majority of burglaries and robberies are committed by juveniles between the ages of 15 and 17 years old (Tilley 12).

Traditionally, the focus of the police has been to detect and arrest those involved in criminal activity. One might be tempted to think that, for example, the arrest of a serial burglar would result in a dramatic reduction in home burglaries for the entire community. While that may be true for the period of time the individual is incarcerated, we already know that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by frequent offenders. “This is compelling evidence that a broad-brush reliance of the legal and criminal justice system to impact positively on the crime rate is a flawed strategy (Ratliff 63).” This is not to suggest that arresting offenders is not the right thing to do. On the contrary, the identification, pursuit and the arrest of offenders is, and will remain, a core function of the police. However, the police should not limit themselves to this singular function but instead, take a more comprehensive approach, taking into consideration research and study what is working in other communities.

San Diego Graffiti and Suppression project

In 2000, the San Diego Police Department received international recognition for conceiving and implementing a successful project aimed at the reduction of graffiti. The problem was identified by the community as a priority through surveys. Two officers assigned to study the project learned, among other things, that a small group of juveniles were responsible for a generating a disproportionate amount of graffiti in their community. Through research and interviews with juveniles who were involved in the graffiti, the police gained a better understanding of the factors which led the juveniles to commit this offense. They also learned that the act of committing this sort of criminal act was often a precursor to other, more serious criminal activity. Police were able to develop a comprehensive strategy with six distinctive approaches, when combined proved to be very successful (Albright, Hard, and Tos 9).

One particularly successful strategy involved targeting the most prolific offenders with an intensive counseling program aimed at addressing the underlying motivations of those involved. (It is interesting to note that the offenders themselves provided this key piece of information.) While the strategy was conceived by the police through analysis, it involved the participation of multiple community partners including: juvenile probation officers, counselors, the juvenile court, youth services, and community volunteers. Assessment of the program revealed that 30% of the offenders were no longer involved in this act, to any degree. Overall, the program resulted in a 90% reduction in graffiti in the project area (Albright, Hard, and Tos 11).

Regina Auto Theft Reduction Strategy

In the mid 1990’s the community of Regina, located in Saskatchewan Canada, experienced a notable increase in auto thefts. Traditional means of attacking the problem through increased enforcement were unsuccessful and as a result, the Regina Police Service implemented a project team to study the problem and develop a more effective strategy. 

Regina Police confirmed that a disproportionate number of auto thefts were being committed by small group of repeat offenders. Through multiple interviews with offenders, police learned more about their motivations and used this information to develop a customized strategy with the goal of creating disincentives to those motivations.

The Regina strategy, like the San Diego approach, involved multiple community partners which included: prosecutors, correctional officers, the automobile insurance industry, educators, the media and members of the public. The approach was a comprehensive one involving public education and early intervention first time, youthful offenders. One very effective aspect of the strategy involved the identification and targeting of frequent and repeat offenders.

The term targeting is not limited to the arrest and prosecution of repeat offenders. In the Regina project a committee brought together a group of criminal justice professionals to work on the issue. The group’s focus was to reduce the recidivism of those involved in automobile theft. The process began with keeping a database of the most chronic offenders so that when police and prosecutors encountered them, enhanced measures could be taken. These measures included: charging the offender with the maximum applicable offense, holding the offender in custody until court appearance and, a request by the prosecutor to the courts for the offender to be remain in custody until the case was adjudicated. The modified approach did not end there.

Counseling and program interventions were initiated while youthful offenders were held in custody.  Upon release, the corrections department initiated a more intense supervision program. Court ordered conditions were imposed such as curfew, and disallowing offenders to associate with known criminal offenders. Police and probation officers partnered to conduct home visits to verify that curfew conditions were being followed. Violators of these conditions were charged and dealt with harshly (Hawkes 10).

The police also stepped up their enforcement efforts by: maintaining more detailed records, working closely with the courts, and implementing aggressive enforcement tactics like using bait vehicles. In 2001, the first year after the strategy was implemented, auto thefts in Regina were reduced by 28.4%. By 2003, the problem had been reduced by a total of 32.6% (Hawkes 13).

Green Bay’s Prolific Repeat Offender Action Team (PROACT)

           Through crime analysis, GBPD has identified a group of frequent offenders. The information was gathered from Green Bay’s records management system which identified persons with the largest number of police contacts in which they were listed as a “subject”.  A period of one year was examined under the premise that the information contained in the report would be current and relevant. Individuals with fifteen or more offenses in one year were identified as PROACT candidates. Using these criteria, 24 adults and 8 juveniles were identified. Of the 8 juveniles, 4 were classified as status offenders.

The PROACT concept is based in the principles described in POP, COP and ILP. Understanding that collaborative, problem solving efforts fed by data and research are the most likely to impact Green Bay’s frequent offenders, a team of area professionals were identified as community partners. The PROACT team will review the case history of frequent offenders, make recommendations and develop strategies aimed at reducing repeat offenses.  PROACT will meet regularly to review the cases and determine the effectiveness of those strategies. The first PROACT meeting was held on April 25, 2012 and was attended by 25 area professionals. Those attending included: youth services, prosecutors, alcohol and substance abuse counselors, educators, and mental health professionals. The group identified four goals:

• Reduce harm to the community
• Reduce the resources expended on chronic offenders
• Deter offenders from committing future acts
• Measure outcomes

Conclusion:

When examining best practices, the most effective strategies shared characteristics found in three recognized philosophies: Problem Oriented Policing, Community Oriented Policing and Intelligence Led Policing. Upon review of successful initiatives relating to crime reduction and repeat offenders, a number of common themes emerged:

• Identifying and targeting repeat offenders proved to be an effective strategy in reducing and preventing crime
• Offender interviews were a valuable tool in understanding the motivation and dynamics of criminal behavior
• Citizens played a role in identifying priorities for the police
• Analysis was used to corroborate citizen priorities
• Juvenile offenders are a legitimate target for intervention strategies because most frequent offenders begin their criminal careers as juveniles and programs targeting juveniles have the highest rate of success
• Community problems were more effectively addressed when police expanded their analysis from hot spots (places) to include frequent offenders (people)
• Incentives as well as disincentives to criminal behavior resulted in the most dramatic decrease in recidivism
• The most effective intervention strategies promoted a decreased reliance on the criminal justice system and increased use of community treatment and other alternatives
• Arrest and punishment were viewed as but one of many strategies to reduce crime and deter frequent offenders

While the study of frequent offenders is not new, innovations in technology have made it easier for police to recognize patterns of criminal activity. How the police use these tools will vary greatly and depend on how they view their role in the community. How effective they will be will depend on their willingness to engage the community and adapt to changing variables in the public safety environment.

            In these case studies, law enforcement agencies were the catalyst in identifying and focusing attention on the problem. However, measurable successes were not achieved until the police engaged community partners. A hybrid approach seems to offer the greatest opportunity for success. Perhaps Ratcliffe said best; “An integrated strategy that combines some of the benefits of problem oriented policing with the targeted and objective approach of proactive policing seems to be the direction in which proponents of intelligence led policing are heading."

References

Albright, Dan, Corinne Hard, and David Tos. San Diego Police Department. Graffiti Prevention and Suppression. Center for Problem Oriented Policing, 2000. Web. 12 Jul 2012. <http://www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/2000/00-28(W).pdf>.

Bongle, William. City of Green Bay. Green Bay Police Department. Habitual Traffic Offenders: Operation Revocation. 2004. Print.

Fisher, Sharon. "Charleston Tests Predictive Analytics For Crime Prevention." Information Week Government. 13 June 2012: 1. Print. <http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/security/240001949>.

Hawkes, Terry. Regina, Saskatchewan. Regina Police Service. Regina Auto Theft Strategy. Regina: Center for Problem Oriented Policing, 2004. Web. 12 Jul 2012. <http://www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/2004/04-33.pdf>.

"Promising Approaches for Addressing Juvenile Crime." Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars. May 1994. Ed. Karen Bogenschneider. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1994. 14-15

Ratcliffe, J. Intelligence-led policing. Portland, Or: Willan Pub, 2008. Print.

Taylor, Robert, and Eric Fritsch. Juvenile Justice. 3rd. New York: McGraw Hill, 2011. 5. 

Tilley, Nick. "Repeat Offenders." Center for Problem Oriented Policing. Center for Problem Oriented Policing, 2011. Web. 17 Jul 2012. <http://www.popcenter.org/conference

Trojanowicz, Robert, and Bonnie Bucqueroux. Community Policing: How to Get Started. 2nd. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing, 1998. 2-4.

Social Media and Civil Liability for Public Safety Professionals

The Internet is quickly becoming the medium of choice for interpersonal communication. Websites designed to allow users to post messages, blogs, and other forms of public electronic communications have become known as social media. The benefits of social media are many but so are the risks. As technology advances, so do issues of civil liability. How does society balance the interests of government with free speech in this new arena? What are the benefits of social media? What are the risks? What can be done to mitigate those risks?

Some examples of social media include Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. Devices such as smart phones and the iPad facilitate speedy delivery of electronic messages and provide people instant access to social media, even in the workplace. These devices are often preloaded with software allowing the user to interface directly with social media applications. People all over the world can now share information almost instantaneously and the number of people using social media is growing at an exponential rate. Statistics demonstrate the speed at which social media is growing. “It took radio 38 years to reach 50 million users; Facebook added over 200 million users in less than a year. If Facebook were a country it would have the world’s third largest population ("IACP Center for Social Media").” People of all ages and walks of life are using social media to share and receive information with incredible speed.

The Benefits of Social Media

Many social media services are free to use and are capable of reaching large groups of people in a very short time. People now have a means of self expression that didn’t exist a decade ago. Social media, by its very nature, is an interactive means of communication and as a result, is inextricably linked to community policing and engagement. Law enforcement agencies have already begun to leverage the power of social media in a number of ways.

Ed Rogerson, a police Sergeant working in the Harrogate district of North Yorkshire England, uses a service called “Twitter” to communicate with the citizens of his patrol beat. Using his cell phone, Rogerson posts messages to his Twitter page under the moniker of hotelalpha9. Twitter, known as a micro blogging tool, is limited to sending messages 140 characters in length but this is certainly enough for a brief informational message. Followers can receive Rogerson’s messages via text message, email or by navigating their Internet browser to http://Twitter.com/hotelalpha9. Rogerson has become one of the most popular beat cops in the UK with 2,769 followers. Citizens in Rogerson’s beat receive regular information about crime, crime prevention tips and other useful information. In one case Rogerson investigated thefts from autos and within minutes the citizens of his patrol area were warned to secure their belongings and watch for the suspects ("A/PS Ed Rogerson @hotelalpha9"). This police officer has managed to combine the power of social media and community engagement in a clever and effective way.

The Green Bay Police Department has recently begun to use Facebook as a means of engaging the public (http://facebook.com/greenbaypolice). On August 9, 2011 police posted a photograph of a suspect wanted in connection with the severe beating of a man at a downtown tavern. A citizen witness managed to obtain a photo of the suspect who was attending a party at the tavern that evening and provided it to the police. The suspect was unknown to police and traditional means of identifying him were unsuccessful. After several days of failed attempts to identify the man, Green Bay Police posted his photo on the department’s Facebook page. Within 24 hours the man turned himself in and the case was solved ("Green Bay Police Department").

Social media can also be an excellent investigative tool. Members of the public who post information about themselves or others provide a wealth of information to law enforcement. Green Bay Police recently investigated a case where a suspect stole a cell phone and a short time later posted a photo of himself on the victim’s Facebook page. Within minutes of receiving the image, police were able to identify the suspect.

Police throughout the world have begun to use social media in a wide variety of ways. Some examples include:

•  Investigating criminal activity

• Gang involvement, cyber bullying, and stalking, theft and illegal drug activity

• Community engagement

•  Public notification of events and meetings

• Posting photos of wanted persons

• Warning the public of scams and providing crime prevention information

• Seeking the public’s assistance in locating and identifying wanted subjects

• Notifying the public about hazards such as closed highways and traffic problems

• Recruitment and employment 

• Reaching out to potential candidates

• Vetting perspective employees by viewing their online profiles

The Risks of Social Media in Law Enforcement

While the benefits of social media are many, there are also pitfalls and liability risks for police agencies and their employees. Police agencies that publish information must be careful to follow established guidelines for the release of information. One danger of social media is that the task of designing and updating social media sites is commonly left in the hands of young, tech savvy employees who may have an excellent working knowledge of the technology but a limited knowledge of liability law.

Since Facebook is one of the most common forms of social media used by police, risks using Facebook merit further discussion. Depending on how an agency configures its Facebook page, users will likely have the ability to post comments. Many departments have opted to allow this feature to encourage community engagement and discussion. If police choose to do this they should be prepared to carefully monitor the posts. If comments are not closely moderated it may be possible for a person to post a defamatory or discriminating remark. Posters may violate another person’s right to privacy. By leaving such comments available for all to see, the department risks civil action and may be named a party in a civil lawsuit. 

Social media is one of the most effective ways to engage the public. But what method is the best? Between Facebook, Twitter, Nixle, the MyPD app for smart phones,and numerous others, is this all too confusing? How many should you use? Think of it this way, if you go to the store to buy spaghetti sauce, how many varieties are there? I would estimate 10-20 but ultimately we end up picking out one or two. People consume information in a variety of ways. The more varieties you have, the more people you will reach.

Personal use of Social Media

One area that is often overlooked with respect to social media is off duty conduct. Police officers, like most people, use social media to communicate with family and friends. However, there are risks when government employees make private use of social media. Careless and inappropriate posts can come back to haunt the officer and the agency they work for. Defense attorneys may use prejudicial or defamatory remarks impeach the officer as a witness in future trials (IACP).

Sexually explicit communications can serve not only as an embarrassment to the government agency, but may also give cause to civil liability. For example, in 2010 former Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz was sued in federal court for sending sexually suggestive text messages to a domestic violence victim. The case was filed in Milwaukee federal court, the plaintiff alleging that Kratz violated her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection (Cassens-Weiss 1).

A person who posts sexually explicit messages or photos that can be identified as a police officer, has the potential to damage the department’s reputation and erode public trust. Police agencies have a vested interest in halting such conduct and establishing clear policies that regulate behavior, on or off duty that may impact the effectiveness and reputation of the department.

Regulating off duty conduct of an employee can be complicated and controversial, especially when considering an employee’s rights to free speech and privacy. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on at least one aspect of privacy involving the communications of an employee. In Ontario v. Quon the court examined the issue of Fourth Amendment protections of employees of government agencies. A police officer was disciplined when his employer discovered that he had sent and received a number of sexually explicit messages while on duty. The department retrieved messages from the employees department issued pager. The court ruled that the search of the employee’s text messages did not constitute a violation of the employee’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court opined, “government searches to retrieve work-related materials or to investigate violations of workplace rules—searches of the sort that are regarded as reasonable and normal in the private-employer context”, (Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S)

The issue of employee conduct and right to free speech under the First Amendment has also been tested in the courts. In Garcetti v. Ceballos the court concluded that an employee could be disciplined for statements that are made in an “official capacity”. This case involved a prosecutor wrote a memo recommending the dismissal of a criminal case. Cellebos, a deputy district attorney, was subsequently disciplined for issuing the memo and he argued that his employers retaliated against him. Cellebos brought a suit under 42U.S.C.§ 1983 alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court found that the speech was not protected because it was generated as a result of Cellebos working in an “official capacity”. The court ruled, “When a citizen enters government service the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.” The courts have generally ruled that an employee’s First Amendment rights can be limited in cases where important government interests are at stake. In the context of policing, the factors to be considered are the reputation of the department, the department’s ability to effectively police the community and the public trust (IACP). These examples can easily be defended as important government interests.

Recommendations

As we enter this new era of social media it is important to adapt policies and training to fit the times. It is unreasonable to prohibit employees from enjoying the many benefits social media has to offer. Employees should understand the unique situation they are in as being both guardians of society and private citizens. Few people realize that that any information posted online can be disseminated quickly and almost never redacted once released. Privacy settings change frequently, potentially exposing information employees believed to be private. It is important to train employees to effectively use social media as an investigative tool and a way to engage the community.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) is an excellent resource for best practices and model social media policies. In addition to a good department policy, it is also wise to adopt a take-down policy for a department’s Facebook page. A good take down policy will clearly explain what sort of posts are disallowed so there can be no debate over a person’s right to post inappropriate, disparaging or defamatory comments. The department should appoint specific persons who are familiar with the department’s policies regarding social media. Facebook should be monitored and moderated daily. Ideally these tasks would be performed in close association with the department’s public information officer (Stevens).

The brevity of this blog cannot do justice to the subject of social media. There are numerous social media venues that are available and only a few were discussed here. The most important points to remember are;

• Social media can be an extremely beneficial tool for law enforcement

• There are significant risks associated with these benefits

• Risks can be mitigated with policies and training

Social media is an effective tool but as one presenter at the SMILE conference said, "Be careful what you post, you can't put toothpaste back in the tube."

Resources

ConnectedCops.net
http://connectedcops.net/
Model Facebook takedown policy
http://connectedcops.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/FBTerms.pdf


International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
Model policies and training guides
http://www.iacpsocialmedia.org/GettingStarted


Cited Works

Cassens-Weiss, Debra. "Former Sexting DA Claims Immunity from Civil Suit by Domestic Abuse Victim." ABA Journal: Law News Now (2011): 1. Web. 21 Aug 2011. <http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/former_sexting_da_claims_immunity_from_civil_suit_by_domestic_abuse_victim/>.
Garcetti v. Ceballos - 04-473 (2006)


"Facebook." Green Bay Police Department. Green Bay Police Department, 21 Aug 2011. Web. 21 Aug 2011. <https://www.Facebook.com/GreenBayPolice>.

"Fun Facts." IACP Center for Social Media. International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2010. Web. 21 Aug 2011. <http://www.iacpsocialmedia.org/Resources/FunFacts.aspx>.
Ontario v. Quon - 08-1332 (2010)

"Social Media Concepts and Issues Paper." IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center (2010): 5. Web. 21 Aug 2011.

Stevens, Lauri. "Social Media Quick Tip: Give Your Facebook Page a Takedown Policy." ConnectedCops.net. LAwS Communications, 15 Aug 2011. Web. 21 Aug 2011. <http://connectedcops.net/>.

"Twitter." A/PS Ed Rogerson @hotelalpha9. North Yorkshire Police, 21 Aug 2011. Web. 21 Aug 2011. <http://Twitter.com/hotelalpha9>.

Policing the Homeless: Part 2. Best Practices

One police department in Colorado Springs led the charge to solve a community problem relating to homeless encampments. In 2008 officials in Colorado Springs detected an increase in the number of persons living in homeless encampments. Social disorder, thefts and other petty crimes near encampments also increased. Police and nonprofit groups, attempting to maintain order, conducted regular cleanups of the encampments but, were met with resistance by civil rights advocates. Homeless advocacy groups and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) alleged the police were violating the civil rights of the homeless. The cleanups were discontinued and, as a result, conditions deteriorated with the accumulation of trash and human waste. Social disorder and petty crimes near the encampments increased. In response, the Colorado Springs Police Department formed a Homeless Outreach Team (HOT), a group of specially trained officers.

The HOT officers worked outside the traditional boundaries of policing and law enforcement. They developed a problem solving approach which involved a number of community partners including 9 homeless shelters. HOT worked to develop the trust of the homeless through frequent, nonthreatening personal contacts and made referrals to partnering service providers. HOT officers assisted the homeless in finding employment. Changes were made to a local ordinance prohibiting camping on public property, with the approval of the civil rights advocates. The approach resulted in 229 families being relocated to more appropriate shelter, 117 left the state to live with family members and 100 became self sufficient and problems surrounding the encampments have been significantly reduced (Iverson, Brett; McCormack, Daniel; Thomson, MJ.). The project won the 2010 Herman Goldstein Award for its innovation, community collaboration and problem solving.[1] You can learn more about this project at the Center for Problem Oriented Policing website at www.popcenter.org.

Another example of an initiative led by law enforcement occurred in Green Bay, Wisconsin between 1995 and 1999. Police were dealing with similar issues relating to chronic alcoholism and the homeless. Broadway was a dirty, neglected, run down street. The Broadway neighborhood was economically depressed and considered one of the most dangerous parts of the city. Decaying buildings, broken liquor bottles, drunks sleeping on park benches and rowdy taverns went unchecked for decades. Police developed a five part strategy in a project called, “Street Sweeping, Broadway Style”. In a multi-phased process that took just four years, Broadway was transformed into a booming business district and a destination spot in Green Bay. The process included changes in environmental design, increased regulation of liquor licenses, mobilizing citizens to attend city council meetings, using the court system to direct alcoholics to treatment, and gaining the cooperation of liquor stores to decline serving alcohol to habitual drunkards.

In an effort to mitigate problems resulting from excessive alcohol consumption, Green Bay Police implemented a “no serve list”. The list contained the names and photographs of individuals who had three or more alcohol related police contacts in a one year period of time. The list was provided to taverns, liquor stores, and convenience stores with a letter requesting the licensee to decline service to the individuals on the list. Four years after the project began, police calls dropped 65%, medical related rescue squad calls dropped 91%, and social disorder complaints dropped 85%. Like the Colorado Springs project, civil rights advocates objected to police initiatives in dealing with the problem. The ACLU argued, unsuccessfully, that the “no serve list” violated the rights of the individuals by denying them the ability to purchase a legal product.

In 2010 the Green Bay Police Department conducted a grant funded research project to evaluate the no serve list policy. Following the research project, the criteria were refined to include qualifying police contacts[2]. Three qualifying calls in a 12 month period will result in the subject being added to the no serve list. The list is reviewed twice a year and if there the criteria are not met, the name will be removed from the list. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy a survey was conducted of businesses in Green Bay who are licensed to sell alcohol. The survey results showed 58.5% had declined the sale of alcohol to someone on the list. Business owners appear to be supportive of the initiative, 86% agreed the list benefitted their business (Verheyen). Not surprisingly, the highest incidents of attempts to purchase and refusals came from a Green Bay neighborhood that contains a homeless shelter.

City officials in another Wisconsin community, the City of Madison, also chose to adopt the no serve list strategy. Madison however, adopted a slightly different approach. While Green Bay implemented a department policy, Madison adopted an ordinance. Additions to the Madison list are based on convictions for specific violations. Those individuals who are arrested for behavior problems such as disorderly conduct are charged with a modifier such as disorderly conduct while under the influence of alcohol.

While many communities have inquired about the no serve strategy, few have actually taken steps to adopt it. The main concern appears to be civil liability. This concern is not without merit and such a strategy should only be adopted after careful research and consideration. One Wisconsin case Wisconsin v. Constantineau repealed WI statutes which allowed for the public posting of “known habitual drunkards” which prohibited the sale of alcohol to the named individual. The Constantineau decision struck down the practice for two reasons; the court felt that publicly posting the notice and name of the individual stigmatized that person and, the process lacked due process.

Eventually Wisconsin law was modified and now, under WI statute 125.12(ag)3, the burden is placed on the licensee to decline sale of alcohol to “known habitual drunkards”. Interestingly, no other definition of known habitual drunkard can be found in Wisconsin Statutes. Green Bay’s procedure answers the court’s major concerns, stigmatization and lack of due process. While it is true that the no serve list is distributed to the licensees, it is not made public and is not “posted”. Secondly, due process requirements are met. In the Green Bay example since the burden is on the licensee, it would be a violation of the law requiring a licensee to decline serving the named individual. Any action against the licensee would require a hearing before the licensing committee, due process.

Recommendations

Upon review of successful initiatives reducing crime, the fear of crime and with respect to the rights of the homeless, the following are recommended best practices when policing the homeless

Analyze your local problem. 

• Data collection can take the form of surveys and analysis of calls for police service. Consider alternative sources of information such as rescue squad calls

• Identify and mobilize community partners such as neighborhood residents, mental health professions, Alcohol and Other drug Abuse (AODA) workers, shelters, homeless advocates and medical professionals. Law enforcement officers should be made aware of resources for the purpose of making referrals.

• Build trust between the homeless and the police through frequent unofficial contacts, interpersonal communication, and offers of assistance. Law enforcement officers cannot effectively police the homeless from squad cars; they must engage in face to face contact. Foot and bicycle patrols are highly recommended.

Enforce local ordinances when appropriate, clearly defining acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. Post signs and warnings such as “no open intoxicants” or “no trespassing” so that local social norms are reinforced.

Seek the assistance of liquor retailers in declining the sale of alcohol to intoxicated persons and known habitual drunkards. A no serve list strategy can be one tool to aid in your local problem. Before implementing such a policy you should seek legal advice.

• Modify the environment. Examples include the elimination of secluded areas, improved lighting, adding a railing to the center of park benches to prevent people from lying down, clearing out overgrown vegetation, and securing vacant buildings. Study and implementation of the science of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) can yield significant results with minimal resources.

• Evaluate your strategy. Call reduction is a valid measure of success but not the only measure. Satisfaction of the public is at least as important as a reduction in the demand for police resources. Community satisfaction can be measured through the use of surveys.

Conclusion

The Lessard decision and deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill are two factors which have contributed to homelessness in America. Behavior problems associated with chronic homelessness are frequently attributed to the mentally ill and substance abusers, resulting in police intervention. While advocates of civil liberties concern themselves with protecting the rights of individuals, the police must protect the rights of everyone. There is a delicate balance between the rights of the individual who suffers from mental illness or substance abuse and the rights of the public. By virtue of their role in society, the police often take the lead in developing strategies designed to mitigate this conflict. The emergence of Problem Oriented Policing (POP) and Community Oriented Policing (COP) philosophies has contributed to the development of successful strategies in policing the homeless. There is no one magic pill to resolve these issues. Best practices employ thoughtful analysis, multiple strategies and community partnerships.

Works Cited

Anonymous. "FYI." Message to William Bongle. 04 Nov 2010. E-mail.

Arneson, Michelle. "No serve stats." Message to William Bongle. 09 Nov 2010. E-mail.

"Center for Problem-Oriented Policing." The Herman Goldstein Award Projects. Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc., 2010. Web. 27 Nov 2010. <http://www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/>.

Chamard, Sharon. United States. Homeless Encampments. Washington D.C.: Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc., 2009. Print.

"Chronic Homelessness ." Community Planning & Development. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 27 May 2009. Web. 26 Nov 2010. <http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/chronic.cfm>.

Fuller Torrey, Edwin. The insanity offense: how America's failure to treat the seriously mentally ill endangers its citizens. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2008. 95-98. Print.

Goldstein, Herman. Problem-oriented policing. McGraw-Hill Humanities Social Sciences Languages, 1990. 131. Print.

Iverson, Brett; McCormack, Daniel; Thomson, MJ. Homeless Outreach Team: Colorado Springs Police Department "Goldstein Awards 2010." Center for Problem-Oriented Policing.01 Nov 2010. Web. 14 Nov 2010. <http://www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/2010/10-37%28W%29.pdf>.

Lessard v. Schmidt 349 F. Supp. 1078 (E.D. Wis. 1972)

Scully, Steve; Bongle, William. "Street Sweeping, Broadway Style." Problem Oriented Policing; Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues and making POP Work. 2000. Corina Brito, Eugenia Gratto. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 2000. Print.

Verheyen, Karisa. "No Serve List: Procedures, analysis and more." (2011): Print.

Wisconsin V. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433 (1971)

[1] “First introduced in 1993, The Herman Goldstein Award recognizes outstanding police officers and police agencies–both in the United States and around the world–that engage in innovative and effective problem–solving efforts and achieve measurable success in reducing specific crime, disorder, and public safety problems. This international competition is named after the founder of problem–oriented policing, University of Wisconsin emeritus Professor Herman Goldstein and administered by the Center for Problem–Oriented Policing.” ("Herman Goldstein Award Projects")

[2] Examples of qualifying reasons: Disruptive behavior, Alcohol Hold, Open intoxicants, emergency committal, and drunk driving. Some of the qualifiers that fall under the “other” category include Depositing of Human Waste and a Probation & Parole violations

Policing the Homeless: Part 1. Understanding the Problem

On a cold fall night in 1997, in Green Bay’s Broadway neighborhood, a homeless man fell asleep on the steps of a church after drinking a bottle of vodka. A few hours later he was dead. An autopsy revealed that he died of asphyxia; choking on his own vomit. The death was ruled natural, the result of chronic alcoholism.

Research suggests that many homeless people suffer from mental illness, drug addiction and alcoholism.  These characteristics often result in behaviors that draw police attention and as a result, the homeless have a higher frequency of police contact than the general population. Their behavior is often self destructive and harmful to others. Herman Goldstein, author of Problem Oriented Policing observed, “The police at times are forced to use ordinances or criminal statutes, a process that is unkind to the homeless, distasteful to the police and inappropriate for the criminal justice system.” Since these behaviors are often related to substance abuse or mental illness, the criminal justice system is ill equipped to handle these problems.

It is important to note that people become homeless for a variety of reasons including economic hardship. This can include working families and children who have suffered economic loss through no fault of their own and, most likely, will not have any contact with the police. This blog focuses on those who are chronically homeless and whose behavior somehow merits police attention. Since the police are likely to have frequent contact with this demographic of the homeless population, part 2 of this blog will review best practices and suggest alternative strategies in policing the homeless.

How we got here

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development defines a chronically homeless person as, “an unaccompanied disabled individual who has been continuously homeless for over one year. Factors that contribute to stereotypes about the homeless are behaviors such as sleeping on the streets, panhandling, disruptive and disorderly behavior, lack of personal hygiene, and defecation outdoors. Panhandlers can deter customers from patronizing local businesses. Because the homeless themselves are frequent victims of crime they tend to sleep in public places like parks during the daytime. Such behavior has a tendency to deter legitimate park usage and may result in complaints from the public.

Citizen concerns about the homeless can be fraught with stereotypes reinforced by the media and personal observations. One Green Bay resident who lives near a homeless shelter related this account in an email to city officials;

“The homeless alcoholics use containers so that they won't get stopped for public urination.  So, do not be naive and pick one up.  Several people I've talked with recently, since September, have noted an increase in the number of cans and bottles on the streets and in St. John's and Whitney Parks.  Being a draw for drunks doesn’t make me happy.” (Anonymous)

The message illustrates a perception many people have about the homeless and unfortunately the public may not differentiate between the mentally ill or substance abusers and a person who was displaced for economic reasons. The stigma of being labeled homeless seems to be closely associated with the stereotype of the New York’s squeegee men or as the Green Bay resident puts it, “homeless alcoholics”.

The Human Cost

Numerous studies confirm that a high percentage of people who suffer from mental illness and substance abuse are homeless. A 2007 survey conducted in Milwaukee revealed that 33% of the chronic homeless suffer from mental illness, 30% abuse drugs, and 30% abuse alcohol. In 2008, research conducted by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) states, “44% of seriously mentally ill individuals had been arrested.”  According to the 2008 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, chronic substance abusers accounted for 36.5% of the overall homeless population and 26.3% were classified as severely mentally ill.

Author E. Fuller Torrey explains why the mentally ill and substance abusers are such a prevalent part of the homeless population in his book, The Insanity Offense. De-institutionalization of the mentally ill began in the 1950’s with the discovery that anti psychotic drugs could alleviate the symptoms of mental illness. Substandard conditions in mental hospitals added to the momentum and over the next three decades over 75% of those once institutionalized were released. With the emptying of mental hospitals came an increase in prison populations. A study in 81 cities revealed “a direct correlation between the reduction of public psychiatric beds and an increase of arrests rates, crime rates and homelessness among the mentally ill.”  

In what was perceived at the time to be a victory for civil rights dealt another devastating blow to the mentally ill. A 1972 court case, Lessard v. Schmidt, reversed the seven hundred year old legal principle of parens patriae, which established a government’s responsibility to protect people who are unable to protect themselves. The Lessard case defined stricter criteria for declaring a person a danger to themselves or others. Researchers argue that the criteria are unrealistic and so restrictive that it prevents those suffering from mental illness from receiving the care they so desperately need. The Lessard case set in motion a chain of events that some argue has resulted in countless deaths that would have otherwise been preventable, something Torrey calls, “The Consequences of Unconstrained Civil Liberties”. The Insanity Offense presents a number of case studies where people diagnosed with mental illness go on to commit murder because their mental illness went untreated. Torrey asserts this occurred because the patients did not meet the criteria of immediate danger, a standard defined in the Lessard case. He argues that the legal system has failed to protect the mentally ill and the victims of these violent acts. Researchers George Kelling and Catherine Coles support Torrey’s theory in their book, Fixing Broken Windows. Kelling and Coles describe a “catch 22 system” that provides temporary treatment and once the individual responds the treatment, they are no longer an “immediate threat” and are therefore released to repeat the cycle.

One aspect of mental illness, especially paranoid schizophrenia, is that those afflicted often do not view themselves as being sick or requiring treatment, a condition known as anosognosia. This may explain why so many individuals afflicted with mental illness fail to take prescribed medication. Those who do not feel the need to take medication are free to disregard medical advice until their behavior steps outside of social norms and may become, in some cases, violent or self destructive. These individuals find it difficult to function within the confines of social norms and as a result, many become homeless. Research and case studies in Massachusetts, New York and Philadelphia suggest those suffering from mental illness who do not take prescribed medication are more likely to become homeless.

Chronic alcoholism is another affliction which impacts homelessness and police resources. In 2009 the Green Bay Police Department took 300 people into protective custody due to incapacitation from alcohol. Of these 300 people, 25% were involved in three or more police contacts in one year where alcohol was a factor. Examples of these contacts were disorderly behavior, depositing human waste in public, panhandling and possessing open intoxicants in a park. One individual alone accounted for 28 police contacts. Another Green Bay study of people who had frequent alcohol related contacts with the police revealed 25% were homeless. The research revealed two important details, a small percentage of the population accounts for a disproportionate amount of police contacts and, chronic alcoholics were more likely to be homeless than those who were not alcohol dependent.

One example in Green Bay involved a chronic alcoholic known as “Rooster”, a homeless man known to local residents and business owners as the town drunk. Rooster averaged three police contacts per week for behaviors such as aggressive panhandling and public urination. Beginning in the 1980’s Rooster was taken into protective custody and committed to the Brown County Mental Health Center over 80 times. The cost of each visit was estimated at over $1,200, totaling over $96,000 in treatment with no apparent change in behavior. Despite efforts of local law enforcement to seek court ordered committal for Rooster, he continued to live on the street until he succumbed to medical complications resulting from alcoholism and died. Unfortunately, this situation is not unique to Green Bay. A Boston study revealed that 92% of street deaths involved people who were chronic alcoholics who chose not to stay at local shelters.

This is a serious problem that affects all communities, but what can be done about it? In part 2, Effective Strategies and Best Practices I will examine how police across the nation are coping with this universal problem and suggest strategies that may help with your local problem.