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
