RECAP in Minneapolis
Repeat Call Address Policing (Sherman and Gartin)
RECAP - A “Gold Standard”
Experiment in Problem-Solving
• “Problem” defined as
– A single address (building)
– Producing excessive calls for police service
• Call reduction as the “bottom line” measure
of success
• High calls = “a fever,” a symptom
• Officer diagnosis of the cause(s) of it
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
BASIC STRUCTURE
• 500 addresses, 250 in each group
• Each subdivided into two groups by type
– Commercial – dominated the highest-call group
– Residential – dominated by domestics
• Social Service agencies generally typed as
Commercial
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
TARGET for “SUCCESS”
• 3% of all addresses in Minneapolis
produced 50% of all 9-1-1 calls for police
service
• Total calls, divided by number of officers,
produced a target of 1,000 fewer calls than
the baseline year, per officer: 4,000 total
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
THE BOTTOM LINE
• RECAP was a success during the first six
months (the original target length)
• At the end of 12 months, only 475 fewer
calls in the Experimental group compared to
the Control group
• Black Box analysis = “Failure”
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
THE BOTTOM LINE
• RECAP was nevertheless extended as an
operational unit despite statistical results
• Unit earned its spurs as a developer of new
tactical approaches, and of information
useful to larger strategic approaches
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
The RECAP Team
• Four patrol officers detached from 9-1-1
response
• One supervisor (Sergeant)
• Selected from volunteers
• Some had prior experience with the
Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
THE SETTING
• 1985 – Computer equipment primitive by
contemporary standards: 40 mg hard
drives had to be subdivided, 32 mg max
• RECAP ran simultaneously with the Newport
News Problem-Solving endeavour
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
THE SETTING
•
•
•
•
•
Operationally driven, not theory-driven
CPTED only rarely employed as a solution
“Broken Windows” irrelevant
Few solutions could be called “situational”
“Stranger” incursion á lá Neighborhood
Watch rarely a factor – biggest threat was
the neighbors, or the regular customers
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTION
• Like the Eck and Spelman definition at
Newport News, a tacit assumption that
repeat calls resulted from unsolved
problems at the address
• Address-specific selection left open the
possibility of multiple problems at the same
address
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
Anti-Social Behavior
• ASB was not a term in use
• Calls by dispatched type dominated and
directed problem analysis
• BUT
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
Anti-Social Behavior
• Most of the address-specific behaviors dealt
with by the RECAP unit stemmed from two
factors:
– Problems arising directly from the life
circumstances of people who “belonged” there
– Problems arising from an abdication of
responsibility by the formal guardians of the
specific address
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
Anti-Social Behavior
• “What do you do with people for whom jail
is a higher standard of living?”
– Migratory patterns of moving
– Multiple and overlapping substance abuse
– Conscious manipulation of “disability” as a shield
against consequences and responsibility
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
TRANSMOGRIFICATION
• Hot Spots of Crime (Sherman &Weisburd) –
tight geographic concentration of RECAPeligible problem addresses, plus parks and
intersections (eliminated from RECAP)
• Third-Party Policing (Buerger & Mazerolle) –
control of ASB through police action
directed at place managers, others
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
TRANSMOGRIFICATION
• “Experimental design be damned!”
• Commonalities led to city-wide initiatives:
–
–
–
–
Domestic violence (patrol resistance)
Drive-off gas NOPAYs (owner resistance)
Shoplifting (City Attorney resistance)
Licensure of rental properties (City Council
resistance – suburban exodus)
– Juvenile Sweeps (good luck with that….)
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
FIVE (NOT SO) EASY PIECES
•
•
•
•
•
Moby Dick’s Bar (“Hole in the Wall”)
Pursuit Hometel (mutual connivance)
St. Stephen’s Shelter (spillover impact)
1740 Pleasant Street (drug market)
1501 Portland Avenue (smooth slumlord)
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
OTHER MAJOR PROBLEMS
•
•
•
•
•
Plymouth Avenue McDonald’s (turf wars)
Snyder’s Liquors (751 Franklin)
E-Block (800 block of Hennepin)
Mousey’s Too and The Corral (bars)
MCDA High-rises for the elderly and
disabled (national HUD and local policy)
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
CONFOUNDING PROBLEMS
• Low incidence rate: 1 call per week (most)
• Multiple-layered problems
– Fences at 1501 – 11th Av S / gang-bangers
•
•
•
•
Round-robin sales of residential properties
Inconsistency of patrol response (13 calls)
Magnet phones and mirror calls
“The Ex-Police” struggle for legitimacy
Conference’s name here
00.00.00
Thank you