Smart Policing Initiative
Practical Applications for Ohio
Law Enforcement Agencies
September 19, 2012
Attendee Guide and
Workshop Summary
This project was supported by Grant No. 2009-DG-BX-K021 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice
www.smartpolicinginitiative.com
Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National
Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view
or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies the U.S.
Department of Justice.
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Attendee Guide and Workshop Summary
Page intentionally blank
i
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
I. Workshop Overview........................................................................... 1
II. Workshop Agenda............................................................................. 3
III. Workshop Summary ......................................................................... 7
Opening Remarks ........................................................................................... 7
Lunchtime Speaker Presentation: Future Trends in Law Enforcement ........................... 13
Interactive Discussion Session ........................................................................... 14
IV. Workshop Presentations................................................................... 17
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices .................................................................... 17
Shawnee, Kansas ....................................................................................... 17
York, Maine ............................................................................................. 24
Session II: Place- and Offender-based Practices ...................................................... 35
Glendale, Arizona ...................................................................................... 35
Cincinnati, Ohio ........................................................................................ 41
Session III: Technology-Based Practices ................................................................ 51
Phoenix, Arizona ....................................................................................... 51
Evans County, Georgia ................................................................................ 57
V. Roundtable Discussions .................................................................... 67
Appendix A: SPI Overview ..................................................................... 69
Appendix B: SPI Project Summaries and Plans ............................................ 73
Evans County, GA ...................................................................................... 74
Glendale, AZ ............................................................................................ 76
Lowell, MA .............................................................................................. 78
Phoenix, AZ ............................................................................................. 80
Shawnee, KS ............................................................................................ 82
York, ME ................................................................................................. 84
Appendix C: SPI Team Bios .................................................................... 87
i
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Table of Contents
Page intentionally blank
ii
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Workshop Overview
I. Workshop Overview
The Smart Policing Initiative (SPI) workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies took place on September 19, 2012. This gathering of eight
selected SPI sites created a forum for discussing important issues related to SPI
project implementation and performance measurement. The Ohio Association of the
Chiefs of Police (OACP) and CNA created an agenda in response to feedback and
information about the issues that small- and medium-sized law enforcement agencies
in Ohio currently face or anticipate when implementing Smart Policing practices.
Objectives
The objectives of the meeting were to:

Present key smart policing concepts;

Provide real examples of Smart Policing implementation in different sites with
different crime problems and targets;

Discuss implementation obstacles encountered and specific strategies for
resolving or managing them;

Discuss technological innovation, research in police organizations, integration,
and sustainability; and

Consider the special Smart Policing implementation issues that small- and
medium-sized police agencies should anticipate.
An Attendee Guide supplemented the activities, discussions, and lessons scheduled to
take place during the one-day workshop. The Guide allowed workshop participants to
follow-along, take notes, and learn more about the Smart Policing community.
1
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Workshop Overview
Page intentionally blank
2
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Workshop Agenda
II. Workshop Agenda
Below is an agenda of the workshop events that occurred on September 19, 2012, in
Worthington, Ohio).
AGENDA – September 19, 2012
8:30 a.m.
Registration
9:00 a.m.
Introductions and Overview of the Smart Policing Initiative
Welcome and introductions; review of the goals and objectives of the day,
stressing the final session on how Smart Policing can benefit small- and
medium-sized agencies.




9:15 a.m.
Chief Doug Francis, CLEE, Hilliard Police Department, Ohio representative
James R. “Chip” Coldren, Jr., SPI Project Director
Alissa Huntoon, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Policy Advisor and
representative
Captain Russ Neville, Cincinnati SPI representative
Quick-Hitter Panel Discussion by the Project Presenters
Brief introduction of presenters and panel, followed by brief explanations
from SPI site representatives about what they will present in the ensuing
workshops.








9:30 a.m.
Introduction – Mike White
Evans County, GA SPI
Phoenix, AZ SPI
Shawnee, KS SPI
York, ME SPI
Glendale, AZ SPI
Cincinnati, OH SPI
Lowell, MA SPI
Breakout Session A: Project Presentations
3
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Workshop Agenda
Session I: DDACTS and Evidence-Based Policing (Moderator – Chip Coldren)



Shawnee, KS SPI
York, ME SPI
Lowell, MA SPI
Session II: Place- and Offender-Based Policing (Moderator – Mike White)



Glendale, AZ SPI
Cincinnati, OH SPI
Memphis, TN SPI
Session III: Technological Approaches (Moderator – Iris Gonzalez)


Phoenix, AZ SPI
Evans County, GA SPI
10:30 a.m. Break
10:45 a.m. Breakout Session B: Project Presentations (repeated)
11:45 a.m. Lunch – Presentation by SPI Policy Advisor Alissa Huntoon, BJA
1:00 p.m.
Breakout Session C: Project Presentations (repeated)
2:00 p.m.
Interactive Discussion on how to implement SPI projects in law enforcement
agencies
Discussion topics:
1. What are the two Smart Policing concepts presented today that
captured your interest the most? Why?
2. What Smart Policing concept seemed the most challenging for
small- and medium-sized agencies? Are there ways, in the short
term, in which those challenges can be addressed (without
additional funding)?
3. What should the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Smart Policing
Initiative at CNA know about the current needs and challenges
facing small- to medium-sized police agencies?
 5-minute intro + 5-minute transition to breakouts (10 minutes)
 15 minutes in each of the three discussion groups + 5-minute transition
4
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Workshop Agenda
between discussion groups (75 minutes); will need to divide
participants into three groups of 20+ each; each group will participate
in the three discussion topics
 Final report-out session (20 minutes)
Format:
2:00-2:10
2:10-2:15
2:15-2:30
2:30-2:45
2:45-3:00
3:00-3:05
in
3:05-3:20
3:20-3:25
3:25-4:00
4:00 p.m.
Session intro/explanation
Groups transition to breakouts (need three rooms for about
20 participants in each)
Session 1
BREAK: Facilitators transition to next breakout room
(participant groups return to same rooms)
Session 2
Facilitators transition to next breakout room (groups stay
same rooms)
Session 3
Everyone regroups in the Griswold main workshop meeting
room
Facilitators summarize topics covered in the three sessions
Evaluations/ Closing Comments



Chip Coldren
Alissa Huntoon or Mike White
Chief Doug Francis, CLEE, Ohio Representative
5
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Workshop Agenda
Page intentionally blank
6
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Workshop Summary
III. Workshop Summary
Opening Remarks
Introduction and Overview of the Smart Policing Initiative (SPI)
Chief Doug Francis, of the Hilliard (OH) Police Department and representative of the
Ohio Association of the Chiefs of Police, introduced the Smart Policing Initiative (SPI)
workshop and discussed the OACP goals for hosting this event. The SPI is a Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA)–sponsored initiative that supports law enforcement agencies
in building evidence-based, data-driven law enforcement tactics and strategies that
are effective, efficient, and economical. Smart Policing represents a strategic
approach that brings more science into police operations by leveraging innovative
applications of analysis, technology, and evidence-based practices.
Chief Francis stressed how the OACP goal is innovation. The OACP planning committee
focused on what kind of training they could provide for law enforcement on
innovation. The OACP reached out to BJA and its Smart Policing Initiative training and
(TTA) technical assistance provider, CNA, to develop a one-day workshop on the SPI.
Smart Policing embodies innovation in law enforcement practices and served as the
impetus for the Ohio SPI workshop, which featured presentations from seven SPI sites.
The SPI sites participating in the workshop included the following:







Cincinnati, Ohio
Evans County, Georgia
Glendale, Arizona
Lowell, Massachusetts
Phoenix, Arizona
Shawnee, Kansas
York, Maine
SPI TTA Director Dr. James “Chip” Coldren introduced Commander Russ Neville from
the Cincinnati (OH) Police Department, one of SPI’s sites. Commander Neville issued a
formal welcome to the Ohio workshop participants. Dr. Coldren then explained to the
participants that Smart Policing is not the opposite of dumb policing; instead, what
makes it “smart” is the incorporation of research, analysis, and assessments into
policing practices. Researchers and crime analysts are involved in all stages of Smart
Policing, from problem identification to plan implementation. They then assess
outcomes using rigorous methodological designs.
Using evidence-based principles to make better decisions and more efficiently use
limited resources can help generate new knowledge in policing practices, which is
applicable for all law enforcement agencies. The workshop presentations were
7
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Workshop Summary
intended to help Ohio think about the relevance of Smart Policing in smaller- and
medium-sized law enforcement agencies.
The presentations addressed three main topics:

Building evidence-based practices in your organization
 Shawnee, Kansas SPI
 York, Maine SPI
 Lowell, Massachusetts SPI

Understanding place- and offender-based approaches to policing
 Glendale, Arizona SPI
 Cincinnati, Ohio SPI

Understanding the role of technology in Smart Policing
 Phoenix, Arizona SPI
 Evans County, Georgia SPI
Dr. Coldren then asked the presenters from each site to introduce themselves and to
discuss their respective SPI projects.
Smart Policing Initiative Project Presentations
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
Deputy Chief Rob Moser, of the Shawnee (KS) Police Department, explained how the
site is using Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) to improve
traffic safety, as well as to formulate cost-effective approaches in target areas for
reducing crime and traffic crashes. Shawnee, KS is a suburb in the metropolitan
Kansas City area, encompassing 42 square miles and boasting a population of
approximately 64,000.
In Shawnee, DDACTS had been in operation for almost two years before the
department began its SPI project. With the SPI under way, Shawnee now works with a
research partner from Benedictine College (Dr. Kevin Bryant) to expand the research
and evaluation relating to DDACTS. The DDACTS initiative focuses on a 1 square-mile
area (approximately 3 percent of the total city area), which is home to about 8
percent of the city’s population. From 2005 to 2009, this area accounted for 15
percent of person crimes in the city, 17 percent of property crimes, and 13 percent of
reported traffic crashes.
After six months of high-visibility traffic enforcement in the target area, the following
results have been observed (compared to the prior six months): more than 50 percent
reductions in auto theft, commercial burglaries, and residential burglaries; and
8
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Workshop Summary
approximately 40 percent reductions in auto burglaries and robberies. In addition, a
comparison of 2008 to 2010 and 2010 to 2012 reveals double-digit percentage
reductions in a range of incidents, including collisions and collisions with injury; auto
burglary and auto theft; commercial and residential burglary; robbery; and vandalism.
Overall, Shawnee SPI reports a 19.5 percent reduction in these crimes, compared to
two years prior.
Officer Owen Davis, of the York (ME) Police Department, explained that this SPI site
represents a much smaller-sized police department and introduced their project as a
newer implementation of DDACTS to focus on crime and traffic safety. York normally
has about 16,000 residents, but this number balloons to 60,000 in the summer
months; thus, the crime and disorder problems vary widely by the seasons.
He discussed both the challenges in implementing the DDACTS approach, as well as
outcomes to date. York Police Department collected information from a number of
sources (e.g., the department’s records management system, the crash-reporting
system, radar recorders, community and school surveys, citizen complaints, and
officer interviews) to establish the nature and extent of crime and disorder problems
in the community, and it identified several crime hotspot areas. Interestingly, the
data analysis revealed several crime patterns that 30-year veterans of the department
did not articulate in their interviews. This serves as evidence that even in small
communities, crime analysis can reveal information that challenges conventional
wisdom. In York, implementation of DDACTS involves high-visibility enforcement
activity, details in unmarked cruisers, foot patrols, bike patrols, and surveillance
details in target areas.
Further analysis revealed that the primary problems had less to do with operating
under the influence, and more to do with driving while distracted and/or with drivers
following too closely to others. Implementation of DDACTS also involved a public
education and social media campaign, including TV and newspaper notices,
billboards, working with school resource officers, public signage, and community
meetings.
Preliminary data suggest that DDACTS is having a marked impact in York. Crashes,
injuries, arrests, and reported crimes are all showing double-digit percentage
reductions compared to recent and more historical time periods. In addition, drug
arrests have increased dramatically (over 60 percent).
Superintendent Arthur Ryan, Jr., from the Lowell (MA) Police Department, explained
that the department had faced a drug and crime problem for many years, and had
traditionally focused on task forces and high-level strategies to target drug offenders.
Analysis revealed that chronic drug users and addicts contributed to a significant
portion of the Lowell crime problem and that this aspect of the problem had been
largely neglected by the police department. This realization was sparked by a new
9
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Workshop Summary
analysis of drug overdose deaths in Lowell, which revealed the heavy involvement of
serious drug users in crime over a long period of time.
In response, Lowell developed a place- and offender-based Smart Policing strategy
that targeted, among other things, robbery, burglary, property crimes, motor vehicle
theft, prostitution, and drug equipment violations committed by drug users. The
place-based strategy focused on 12 identified hotspots and 15 different tactics to
employ in those hotspots (e.g., targeted traffic enforcement, foot and bike patrols,
drug enforcement, “street corner” community policing-style meetings, and code
enforcement). The offender-based strategy focused on 25 offenders of interest,
employing such tactics as working with relatives to direct offenders to treatment
resources, conducting drug and robbery investigations, and conducting home visits.
Finally, an organizational strategy identified systemic changes required to support
Smart Policing in Lowell.
Ultimately, the community policing approach helped the department to look at the
problem from different perspectives, not only in how it defined the problem, but also
in lessons learned for police organizational behavior, leading Lowell to change police
processes.
Session II: Place- and Offender-Based Practices
Dr. Mike White, the Glendale (AZ) Police Department researcher, spoke about how
this SPI site used the Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment (SARA) model to
focus its problem-oriented and place-based approach on reducing crime and disorder
in convenience stores.
Dr. White explained how the project began with 20+ hours of classroom-based training
for police officers on problem-solving and the SARA model, using a modified
curriculum from the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing. Each phase of the SARA
model moved the SPI team closer to understanding the real causes of the crime
problem. Analysis determined that crime were clustered at Circle K stores and that
geographic crime patterns in the surrounding area did not explain the findings (e.g.,
high-crime Circle Ks were located right next to other types of convenience stores that
had few crime problems, so the crime experienced at Circle K stores was not
primarily the result of “spillover” from nearby violent or crime-ridden places).
The Glendale SPI team linked the problem to Circle K store management practices,
and they implemented a multi-pronged response that included traditional
suppression, engagement with Circle K management, and Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED). Dr. White described the site’s evaluation plan,
highlighting that significant crime reductions occurred in three of the six targeted
Circle K locations and that the three targeted locations that did not experience
10
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Workshop Summary
significant crime reductions had not implemented recommended prevention
practices.
Commander Russ Neville, of the Cincinnati (OH) Police Department, identified an
increased rate of robberies and discussed the offender- and place-based strategies
that defined the Cincinnati SPI. The project focused on a one-mile corridor in the
Price Hill neighborhood, where street robberies had increased significantly.
Researchers uncovered complexities associated with the reasons for the increase,
which led to forming placed-based policing strategies in response.
As part of the analysis phase, the SPI team conducted interviews with victims, and
with incarcerated offenders. They also conducted a social network analysis that
determined there was no tightly structured network of robbers in the area.
From the analysis, the SPI team identified different categories of robbers based on
motive and methods. The intervention was multi-pronged and focused on all three
sides of the crime-analysis triangle: offenders, victims, and locations. Responses
included home visits to probationers, targeted hotspot enforcement, education, and
prevention.
The SPI team documented significant reductions in robberies in the target area, and
the two-year process led to a change in policies and procedures in the Cincinnati
Police Department.
Common themes that resounded in these SPI site presentations include the following:

It is important to analyze crime trends and to develop responses based on the
results of that analysis. In Glendale, the analysis allowed the team to narrow in
on the real causes of the convenience store crime problem. In Cincinnati, the
analysis gleaned vital information from offender interviews and dispelled the
prevailing notion of a strong, tight robbery offender network.

It is important to develop multi-pronged response plans. Both Glendale and
Cincinnati recognized the value of prevention and education, and they both
worked diligently to alter the physical environments to reduce risk.
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
Commander Mike Kurtenbach, from the Phoenix (AZ) Police Department, discussed
how the department is incorporating technology into law enforcement practices. In
Phoenix, police officers respond to most calls for service outside of their patrol cars
(which do have cameras mounted on the dashboard), so the focus of this SPI involves
the use of on-officer cameras to help officers be more effective, conduct better
investigations, and enhance law enforcement transparency for the community. In
11
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Workshop Summary
particular, Commander Kurtenbach identified domestic violence and community
mistrust of local law enforcement as the focus of the SPI.
He stressed the importance of officer involvement in technology implementation,
from the request for proposal to developing policies for use. He also cautioned
participants to think about the costs of data storage and the impact of data retention
policies on those costs when thinking about using on-officer cameras. Finally, he
highlighted the value of Phoenix’s research partnership—from providing unique
perspectives, to monitoring trends, doing assessments, and providing evaluation at
different stages of their SPI.
Chief John Edwards, of the Evans County (GA) Sheriff’s Office, discussed how the
lack of information-sharing across jurisdiction lines in a rural area of the state led the
department to consider using smart phones and intelligence products that could be
viewed on these mobile devices, to increase policing effectiveness.
Evans County has a population of only 12,000 residents, and Chief Edwards cautioned
that introducing technology and Smart Policing practices into a smaller police agency
involves different economies of scale and that it impacts the organizational behavior
of officers more. In this department, the crime analyst also functions as the
intelligence analyst, fulfilling both roles in a small agency.
Chief Edwards also stressed the importance of formulating polices governing use of
technology in law enforcement before introducing that technology into the field. By
pushing the analyst’s products into the field onto officers’ smart phones throughout
the county, Evans County was able to increase cross-jurisdictional collaboration and
situational awareness of social disorder and crime trends in the area.
Common themes that resounded in these SPI site presentations include the following:

Technology needs to be easy to understand and to use if officers are going to
incorporate it successfully and quickly into daily policing. Involving officers and
research partners early in the technology-implementation process enables
departments and agencies to ensure that technology will be used effectively at
every stage.

Technology implementation should include cost-effective data storage,
formulating data-retention policies for the data to be collected, and policies
governing the use of the technology by line officers. Data storage can become
expensive, especially if data-retention policies specify long-term storage.

To make effective assessments of technology use and impact, comparative
research designs are critical, including a good control group.
12
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Workshop Summary
Moreover, several workshop participants asked for criteria to help select a research
partner. These include:

Ensuring that the researcher’s academic background, experience, and interests
are a good match for the type of problem the police department or agency has
in mind for assessment;

Confirming that the researcher and his/her academic institution can support
the time commitment needed for the research partnership to be of benefit for
all parties involved; and

Agreeing on the researcher’s role beyond data collection and final assessment
to establish an enduring research partnership with the police department or
agency.
Lunchtime Speaker Presentation: Future Trends in Law
Enforcement
Dr. James R. “Chip” Coldren, Jr., Smart Policing Project TTA Director at CNA
delivered a lunchtime address concerning the future of policing in America, and the
link between Smart Policing and emerging issues in policing.
Having just come from a meeting of the Bureau of Justice Assistance “Law
Enforcement Futures Group” (a panel of police practitioners and researchers), Dr.
Coldren suggested that the conference participants consider the emerging issues in
policing identified by this group just a few days prior to the Ohio conference,
including continued and escalating southwest border violence; legalization of medical
marijuana; prison closings and the shift of corrections responsibility to local
jurisdictions; advances in technology; and utilization of social media. Dr. Coldren also
noted that the Futures Group ranked the development of local analytic capacity high
on the list of future priorities in law enforcement.
Essentially, police agencies cannot understand and effectively confront emerging
issues in policing, and cannot anticipate local developments, without employing some
form of analysis. This analytical capacity is lacking in many small- to medium-sized
police agencies. Dr. Coldren stressed that a solution to this dilemma is critical to the
future of policing.
He also discussed a dilemma regarding analytic positions in police agencies: in tough
economic times, the analyst positions are often the first to be cut, but it is the
analytic capacity and products that will likely be most important in helping a police
agency remain effective and competitive in difficult times. Case studies suggest that
police agencies that build analytic capacity tend also to gain additional funds (through
effective negotiations with local government or through successful grant writing), and
13
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Workshop Summary
tend to increase their legitimacy, experience fewer citizen complaints (and fewer
costly lawsuits), and build stronger collaborative networks.
Furthermore, Dr. Coldren recounted a conversation held at the Futures Group meeting
regarding the future of police personnel and human resource management in police
agencies. As the next generation of youth enters the workforce, police agencies will
have to develop new ways of recruiting, compensating, and retaining young police
personnel. “Millennials,” as they were described at the Futures Group meeting,
readily question authority, demand immediate and positive feedback from superiors,
require mentorship, exhibit altruistic tendencies, and are not necessarily interested in
a career in policing. They are technologically savvy, as well.
Dr. Coldren concluded by stressing the importance of analysis in policing, which is at
the heart of Smart Policing.
Interactive Discussion Session
Attendees were distributed into smaller discussion groups and each group was asked
to provide input on the following question: What should the Bureau of Justice
Assistance and the Smart Policing Initiative at CNA know about the current needs and
challenges facing small- to medium-sized police agencies?
In response to this question, workshop participants provided feedback on several
issues:

Reduce the time and staffing needed to support a Smart Policing Initiative in
a smaller- or medium-sized department/agency. This includes considering a
grant application from several smaller agencies or departments working
together on a SPI, which not only helps spread the workload, but increases
regional collaboration, as well.

Provide free software and/or tools that address database manipulation for
crime and intelligence analysis. Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) and
automated Records Management Systems (RMSs) are powerful tools that
support the day-to-day operations of law enforcement agencies, enhance
public safety, and support efficient use of resources and effective tactical
deployment. Workshop participants noted that tools that are available are
mostly incompatible across jurisdictions, resulting in interoperability issues.
One participant stated how it would be helpful if each state received a
federally funded local law enforcement/fire CAD software/RMS and
information-sharing system, as did Mississippi.

Develop a nationally standardized Suspicious Activity Report (SAR).
Participants asked that a nationally standardized SAR would help law
enforcement efforts across jurisdictions. There is some work being done on this
issue. The Nationwide SAR Initiative (NSI) is a collaborative effort led by the
14
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Workshop Summary
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) BJA, in partnership with the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and state, local,
tribal, and territorial law enforcement partners. This initiative provides law
enforcement with another tool to help prevent terrorism and other related
criminal activity by establishing a national capacity for gathering,
documenting, processing, analyzing, and sharing SAR information. The NSI is a
standardized process—including stakeholder outreach, privacy protections,
training, and facilitation of technology—for identifying and reporting suspicious
activity in jurisdictions across the country and also serves as the unified focal
point for sharing SAR information.

Develop reporting, statistics, and trend analysis on crime being reported by
the U.S. Department of Education. Participants noted the difficulties in
getting data on crime statistics, trends, and other crime analysis that is
occurring in schools and across campuses in the United States. Statistics and
analytical reporting on Department of Education–reported crime would be
extremely useful to law enforcement.

Make identity theft a national focus. Participants noted that they could not
address financial crimes, account hacking, and identity theft, given the
jurisdictional issues involved with how these crimes are committed. Because
law enforcement is seeing an increased trend in a crime they cannot
effectively target on a local level, this should be elevated for focus on the
national level.

Subsidize crime analysts for smaller- and medium-sized agencies at a
reduced fee. Many participants do not have adequate budgeting for a full-time
crime analyst, and police departments would welcome the possibility of
employing one at a subsidized rate.

Adopt a (potentially subsidized) “train the trainer” approach to provide
smaller agencies and departments with needed skill sets. Smaller agencies
would like to learn crime analysis skills and use software tools for data
analysis. If BJA could provide a trainer so that one person could attend and
subsequently train the rest of the department, it would help smaller agencies
acquire necessary skills.
15
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Workshop Summary
Page intentionally blank
16
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
IV. Workshop Presentations
The presentations provided in the SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies follow in the order presented on September 19, 2012.
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
Shawnee, Kansas
9:30-10:30 a.m.; 10:45-11:45 a.m.; 1:00-2:00 p.m.
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
17
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
18
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
19
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
20
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
21
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
22
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
23
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
York, Maine
9:30-10:30 a.m.; 10:45-11:45 a.m.; 1:00-2:00 p.m.
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
24
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
25
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
26
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
27
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
28
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
29
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
30
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
31
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
32
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
33
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session I: Evidence-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
34
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session II: Place and Offender-Based Practices
Session II: Place- and Offender-Based
Practices
Glendale, Arizona
9:30-10:30 a.m.; 10:45-11:45 a.m.; 1:00-2:00 p.m.
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
35
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session II: Place and Offender-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
36
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session II: Place and Offender-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
37
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session II: Place and Offender-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
38
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session II: Place and Offender-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
39
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session II: Place and Offender-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
40
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session II: Place and Offender-Based Practices
Cincinnati, Ohio
9:30-10:30 a.m.; 10:45-11:45 a.m.; 1:00-2:00 p.m.
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
41
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session II: Place and Offender-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
42
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session II: Place and Offender-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
43
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session II: Place and Offender-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
44
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session II: Place and Offender-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
45
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session II: Place and Offender-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
46
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session II: Place and Offender-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
47
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session II: Place and Offender-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
48
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session II: Place and Offender-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
49
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session II: Place and Offender-Based Practices
Page intentionally blank
50
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
Phoenix, Arizona
9:30-10:30 a.m.; 10:45-11:45 a.m.; 1:00-2:00 p.m.
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
51
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
52
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
53
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
54
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
55
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
56
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
Evans County, Georgia
9:30-10:30 a.m.; 10:45-11:45 a.m.; 1:00-2:00 p.m.
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
57
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
58
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
59
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
60
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
61
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
62
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
63
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
64
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
65
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Session III: Technology-Based Practices
Page intentionally blank
66
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Roundtable Discussions
V. Roundtable Discussions
2:00-4:00 p.m.
Several interactive roundtable discussions focused on how to implement SPI
projects in law enforcement agencies.
Discussion topics from the workshop:
1. What are the two Smart Policing concepts presented today that captured your
interest the most? Why?
2. What Smart Policing concept seemed the most challenging for small- and
medium-sized agencies? Are there ways, in the short term, which those
challenges can be addressed (without additional funding)?
3. What should the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Smart Policing Initiative
at CNA know about the current needs and challenges facing small- to mediumsized police agencies?
 5-minute intro + 5-minute transition to breakouts (10 minutes)
 15 minutes in each of the three discussion groups + 5 minutes transition
between discussion groups (75 minutes); will need to divide participants
into three groups of 20+ each; each group will participate in the 3
discussion topics
 Final report out session (20 minutes)
Format/process:
2:00-2:10
2:10-2:15
2:15-2:30
2:30-2:45
2:45-3:00
3:00-3:05
3:05-3:20
3:20-3:25
3:25-4:00
Session intro/explanation
Groups transition to breakouts (need three rooms for about 20 or so
participants in each)
Session 1
BREAK: Facilitators transition to next breakout room (participant groups
return to same rooms)
Session 2
Facilitators transition to next breakout room (groups stay in same rooms)
Session 3
Everyone regroups in the Griswold main workshop meeting room
Facilitators summarize topics covered in the 3 sessions
67
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Roundtable Discussions
Page intentionally blank
68
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix A: SPI Overview
Appendix A: SPI Overview
The Smart Policing Initiative (SPI) is a Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)–sponsored
initiative that supports law enforcement agencies in building evidence-based, datadriven law enforcement tactics and strategies that are effective, efficient, and
economical. Smart Policing represents a strategic approach that brings more science
into police operations by leveraging innovative applications of analysis, technology,
and evidence-based practices. The goal of the SPI is to improve policing performance
and effectiveness while containing costs, an important consideration in today’s fiscal
environment.
The SPI is a collaborative effort between BJA, CNA, and 28 local law enforcement
agencies that are testing innovative and evidence-based solutions to serious crime
problems. SPI grantees include Baltimore, MD; Boston, MA; Cambridge, MA;
Cincinnati, OH; Evans County, GA; Frisco, TX; Glendale, AZ; Indio, CA; Joliet, IL;
Kansas City, MO; Lansing, MI; Las Vegas, NV; Los Angeles, CA; Lowell, MA; Memphis,
TN; Michigan State Police; New Haven, CT; Palm Beach, FL; Pharr, TX; Philadelphia,
PA; Phoenix, AZ; Pullman, WA; Reno, NV; Savannah, GA; San Diego, CA; Shawnee, KS;
Winston-Salem, NC; and York, ME.
Working with research partners, these cities collect and analyze data to devise
solutions to problems such as street robberies, juvenile prescription drug abuse,
repeat violent offenders, and neighborhood drug markets. The SPI community
documents best practices and lessons learned so as to incorporate innovative,
economical policing strategies nationwide. CNA, a non-profit research organization, is
BJA’s partner and provides training and technical assistance to the SPI community.
Building the Smart Policing Community
From 2010 to 2012, SPI grantees have had numerous opportunities to gather with
fellow grantees, BJA leadership, and a cadre of CNA subject matter experts (SMEs) to
collaborate on project goals, to share best practices, to review important components
of Smart Policing, and to learn about promising police innovation practices.
Summaries of these meetings can be found on the SPI website: www.smartpolicing
initiative.com/SPI-events.
Each meeting includes three primary components: training on SPI concepts, building
the SPI community through peer-to-peer exchanges and mutual assistance, and
developing research partnerships and capacities. During the meetings, SPI grantees
provide a summary of the specific criminogenic problem and mitigation strategy
associated with their project, and they participate in a series of interactive training
lessons presented by SMEs from law enforcement and academia. The lessons focus on
five key components of Smart Policing:

Performance measurement and research partnerships
69
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix A: SPI Overview

Outreach and collaboration

Management of organizational change

Intelligence for strategic targeting

Data and information systems
Performance Measurement and Research Partnerships — SPI purposefully requires
systematic research on the implementation and outcome of the innovations under its
name. Therefore, members of the SPI community must improve the quality of their
knowledge base about effective police practices and their confidence in research
findings by thoroughly documenting implementation activities, improving performance
measurement, and measuring outcomes using comparative evaluation strategies and
designs.
Outreach and Collaboration — For years, the law enforcement community has
recognized that police agencies must establish effective communication and working
relationships with citizens and community leaders in order to effectively perform
their jobs. In most cases, it is neither possible nor advisable to go forward with a
major new policing initiative (especially one that targets offenders or neighborhoods)
without public education, outreach, and “buy in.”
Management of Organizational Change — Innovation and change, two primary
objectives of the SPI, naturally lead to new roles, expectations, and processes—both
inside and outside an organization. Members of the SPI community must plan for
organizational change, anticipate obstacles to successful organizational change, and
develop strategies to mitigate internal and external resistance to change.
Intelligence for Strategic Targeting — Carefully considering data and determining
how they reflect (or can be influenced by) a criminal environment enables law
enforcement decision-makers to implement those strategic activities that have the
greatest likelihood of achieving the desired outcome. As SPI sites strategically target
policing efforts and resources on crime hotspots and/or repeat offenders, they must
use intelligence to determine which places or people should receive the most
attention.
Data and Information Systems — Smart Policing requires adept, efficient use of data
and information resources. Comprehensive Smart Policing data goes beyond
traditional police information resources and uses data on calls for service, offenses
reported, arrests, and complaints, correlated with mapped locations of various
hotspots. Smart Policing also includes research data (e.g., offender studies), data
from external entities (e.g., hospital databases), and data from external justice
agencies (e.g., probation and parole).
Conclusion
BJA encourages the SPI community to consider each of the five Smart Policing
components as local Smart Policing innovations get under way. Partnerships with
public officials, community organizations, and other public service entities are
70
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix A: SPI Overview
paramount to the successful implementation of economical and effective policing
strategies. Smart Policing will benefit a community, not only through cost savings and
improvements in criminogenic problems, but also through promoting of a sense of
community and collaboration.
For more on the SPI, visit www.smartpolicinginitiative.com. On the SPI website, there
is information on SPI’s history, personal pages for each of the SPI sites, webinars,
numerous publications and resources, podcasts, recent news, community links, and
summaries of all SPI national meetings. You can also connect with the SPI community
through our social networking sites on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
71
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix A: SPI Overview
Page intentionally blank
72
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix B: SPI Project Summaries and Plans
Appendix B: SPI Project
Summaries and Plans
The summaries below include a detailed overview of project plans for the Phase III
sites (FY 2011) that presented at the Ohio workshop. The workshop provided the
opportunity for participants to converse with grantees facing similar issues, to share
similar topics of interest, and to engage in activities about which they wanted to
learn more. For more information on these and other SPI sites, please refer to our
website: www.smartpolicinginitiative.com.
Below is a list of all Smart Policing Initiative sites to date, as of September 2012:
Phase I Sites, FY 2009










Phase III Sites, FY 2011
Boston, MA
Glendale, AZ
Lansing, MI
Los Angeles, CA
Memphis, TN
Palm Beach, FL
Philadelphia, PA
Reno, NV
Savannah, GA
Winston-Salem, NC















Phase II Sites, FY 2010






Baltimore, MD
Cincinnati, OH
Indio, CA
Joliet, IL
Lowell, MA
San Diego, CA
73
Boston, MA
Cambridge, MA
Evans County, GA
Frisco, TX
Glendale, AZ
Kansas City, MO
Las Vegas, NV
Lowell, MA
Michigan State Police
New Haven, CT
Pharr, TX
Phoenix, AZ
Pullman, WA
Shawnee, KS
York, ME
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix B: SPI Project Summaries and Plans
Project Summaries and Plans of Phase III Fiscal
Year 2011 Sites Presenting at the Ohio
Workshop
Evans County, GA
Problem Statement
Police, who depend so heavily upon timely information and communication, have
largely underutilized the potential benefits of new technologies. This is especially
true for rural law enforcement agencies in which training is often conducted only
when mandated, where no systematic effort to collect and utilize intelligence in real
time exists, and formal intelligence-analyst positions are rare or nonexistent.
Furthermore, most of the existing knowledge on policing, including that of
intelligence-led policing, has been based on the largest metropolitan departments in
the country, which is very problematic considering that small, local law enforcement
agencies are the most numerous type of agency in the United States.
Site Goal(s) and Goal Timeline (short-term and long-term goals)
The goal of the Evans County Sheriff’s Office Smart Policing Initiative is to continue to
expand existing evidenced-based policing efforts to further benefit not only agencies,
stakeholders, and citizens in the local area, but also other rural agencies across the
country. The site plans to target two police departments in rural municipalities within
Evans County—Claxton and Hagan—which, like the majority of rural police
departments, have few personnel, few resources, and poor communications.
Primary Project Objectives and Strategies
1. Improve Cross-Agency Communication: The intelligence analyst at the Evans
County Sheriff’s Office produces a number of intelligence products for officers.
Such products include: E-Roll Call, a narrative of all calls from each department
for the previous night; Patrol Alerts, corroborated criminal intelligence within the
jurisdictions; BOLOs for wanted persons with active arrest warrants; Open Case
Alert for open investigations; and Open Source Bulletins for public- and privatesector partners. Thus, while the intelligence analyst at Evans County currently
serves all agencies within the county by collecting and compiling all pertinent
crime and investigative information, the lines of communication to the
municipalities of Claxton and Hagan are not effective. Therefore, the site plans to
74
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix B: SPI Project Summaries and Plans
use Blackberry devices and a searchable records management system for the
expansion of Evans County’s programs into these municipalities.
2. Assess the Effectiveness of Implemented Technology: The research partners at
Georgia Southern University will perform several tasks to develop a comprehensive
assessment of the effectiveness of the implemented technology.
3. Develop a Model for Local/Rural Law Enforcement Agencies Nationwide: The new
strategies being used will serve as a model to change the culture of local/rural law
enforcement from a random, reactive culture to a proactive, intelligence-led
policing culture.
Partnerships and Collaboration
Georgia Southern University (Dr. Michele Covington) will serve as the research
partner. The site will also partner with the Claxton and Hagan police departments.
Potential Challenges and/or Obstacles
1. Acceptance of the approach by the officers
2. Organizational challenges
3. Acceptance of the approach by the community
Evaluation/Measurement of Success (i.e., data collection, data sources, and
comparative design)
Researchers will perform a process evaluation in three different stages.
1. A short survey will be distributed monthly to deputies and officers who utilize the
technology to assess positive or negative experiences encountered during and after
implementation, as well as to monitor changes over time.
2. The research partner will travel to the Evans County Sheriff’s Office twice a month
for the first five months of the project to perform informal interviews with
available deputies and officers on their perceptions of the new technology and its
usefulness on the job.
3. An extensive survey will be sent to all stakeholders affected by the new
technology to assess perceptions of its usefulness and effectiveness. These
stakeholders include: deputies, officers, juvenile probation officers, school
officials, judges, and federal agents.
4. A final form of assessment will come from crime rate information from 2007 to
2012. The data will be analyzed to identify any reductions in criminal behavior
before and after the implementation of the technology.
75
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix B: SPI Project Summaries and Plans
Glendale, AZ
Problem Statement
Ongoing SPI efforts have uncovered two related and persistent problems in the same
target area in the southeast corner of the city. The first involves career offenders
who reside in or near the target area and commit crimes (many of them violent) in
the area on a near-daily basis. The second problem involves organized retail theft,
both at convenience stores and at large retail stores (e.g., malls, Wal-Mart®).
Site Goal(s) and Goal Timeline (short-term and long-term goals)
The goal of the project is to broaden the existing Smart Policing effort beyond the
Neighborhood Response Squads (NRSs) and Downtown Squads to include additional
specialized units and to harness the resources of this new organizational framework to
target repeat violent and property (retail theft) offenders in the target area.
Primary Project Objectives and Strategies
1. Training: While the NRS and Downtown Squads have advanced training and
experience in problem-oriented policing (POP) through the current Smart Policing
Initiative, the proposed project will extend the use of POP to additional
specialized units, including the Community Response Units from each Patrol
Division (specialized property crimes investigators), the Violent Crimes Squad, the
ROP Squad, the Fugitive Apprehension Unit, and the Foothills NRS. Training will be
classroom-based and will focus on advancing officers’ skills and understanding of
POP, allowing them to engage in a more formalized and evidence-based POP
process. The training will be approximately 20 hours, given in two- to three-hour
blocks during months one to four of the project study period.
2. Problem Identification through Scanning and Analysis Activities: This objective will
encompass the “Scanning” and “Analysis” phases of the SARA model, which center
on problem identification. At the Scanning stage, officers search for and prioritize
potential problems. During the Analysis phase, officers collect information on the
elements of the crime triangle for the targeted problem in order to determine its
size, scope, nature, and causes, as well as vulnerability to law enforcement
efforts. The Scanning and Analysis efforts will produce a list of top 10 violent
repeat offenders from the target area and identify organized retail theft networks
through specialized investigations and a review of surveillance footage at specific
hotspot locations (e.g., Circle K, Wal-Mart).
76
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix B: SPI Project Summaries and Plans
3. Responses: This objective will involve the identification and implementation of
responses to each of the targeted problems identified by the NRS and Downtown
officers. Officers in the NRS will determine their responses to the identified
problems through the normal course of their POP activities, with emphasis on
selecting alternatives that include a wide range of tactics that go beyond
traditional crime control measures.
4. Assessments: Assessment activities will focus on whether the problem was
successfully identified, whether the response was successfully implemented,
whether the response had the anticipated impact, and whether the response
produced any measurable cost savings. This stage will also include revised
responses if the original response is deemed unsuccessful. Arizona State University
will direct assessments, which will be agreed upon during biweekly SPI meetings.
Partnerships and Collaboration
Arizona State University’s (ASU’s) Center for Violence Prevention and Community
Safety will serve as the research partner for the proposed project.
Potential Challenges and/or Obstacles
1. Acceptance of the approach by the officers and the community
2. Organizational challenges
Evaluation/Measurement of Success (i.e., data collection, data sources, and
comparative design)
1. Objective 1 – Training: The ASU team will administer and analyze the pre/post
officer training assessments. The pre-training instrument will be administered at
the start of the first training session. The post-training instrument will be
administered at the completion of training, serving as a “final exam” for
participating officers.
2. Objective 2 - Scanning and Analysis: Activities will be documented through ridealongs by members of the ASU research team to observe and document the
officers’ activities, and by squad officers’ daily Scanning/Analysis activity reports.
3. Objective 3 – Responses: ASU team members will take detailed notes during the
biweekly SPI meetings. ASU team members will conduct open-ended interviews
with officers to collect additional information surrounding the proposed response.
Officers will complete daily response logs that capture their response activities.
Members of the ASU team will conduct ride-alongs to observe implementation of
the responses, and will record their observations on the SSO instrument.
77
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix B: SPI Project Summaries and Plans
Lowell, MA
Problem Statement
The economic recession in the late 2000s had a profound effect on Lowell, and this
dire economic situation has created an environment in which crime could potentially
flourish. Therefore, to proactively target crime, the Lowell Police Department (LPD)
has worked to implement evidence-based practices, such as problem-oriented and
hotspot policing strategies. Over the past year, these strategies have assisted the LPD
in achieving decreases in robberies, gang crimes, and vandalism incidents; however,
firearm-related incidents and drug crimes have increased precipitously. While the LPD
is encouraged by the modest activities achieved to date with evidence-based policing
practices, the department realizes that there is still much work to be done in order to
consistently utilize these strategies to target serious and violent crime and to better
institutionalize these tactics into daily operations.
Site Goal(s) and Goal Timeline (short-term and long-term goals)
The overall goal of this initiative is to institutionalize evidence-based practices that
began during the site’s first Smart Policing Initiative (FY 2010) within the department.
To achieve this goal, the LPD will focus on the following two sub goals: increase the
capacity of personnel to utilize evidence-based strategies on a daily basis, and create
organizational changes to support evidence-based activities.
Primary Project Objectives and Strategies
1. Evidence-Based Training/Awareness Campaign: The LPD plans to increase the
ability of officers to consistently and effectively implement evidence-based
practices by providing training to mid-level managers. In addition, to further
increase awareness of evidence-based practices, the site will create and
disseminate a quarterly bulletin, highlighting currently implemented strategies,
their impacts, and new strategies identified by academia. Through these
activities, they strive to achieve the following objectives:
a) Enhance the capability of mid-level managers to understand evidence-based
practices and properly lead front-line staff
b) Increase accessibility of evidence-based research to all members of the LPD
c) Assess feasibility of revamping mandatory in-service training to focus on
evidence-based practices
d) Increase community awareness of the LPD’s activities
78
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix B: SPI Project Summaries and Plans
2. Creating and Revamping Internal Systems: The LPD will also focus on creating
significant organizational change with this project. In order to effect significant
change within the organization, the LPD will create an Executive-Level Working
Group, which will include a cross-section of LPD sworn and civilian personnel. By
focusing on revamping internal systems, the LPD strives to achieve the following
objectives:
a) Identify obstacles, processes, and systems that need to be changed to
support evidence-based activities.
b) Implement strategies to overcome obstacles and to make changes in
processes and systems.
c) Assess whether these strategies are assisting the LPD in achieving desired
organizational change, with assistance from Dr. Brenda Bond.
Partnerships and Collaboration
The LPD has partnered with various academic institutions—including Harvard
University, Northeastern University, and Suffolk University—to identify best practices,
evaluate current programs, and guide strategic decisions.
Potential Challenges and/or Obstacles
1. Organizational challenges
2. Acceptance of the approach by officers
3. Acceptance of the approach by the community
Evaluation/Measurement of Success (i.e., data collection, data sources, and
comparative design)
Dr. Bond will conduct a process and impact evaluation to determine if LPD was able to
institutionalize evidence-based practices by increasing the capacity of personnel and
creating organizational change. Below are outcome measures for each strategy:
1.
Outcome measures for trainings/awareness campaign: Pre- and post-qualitative
analysis to determine if there was an increase in knowledge and use of
evidence-based practices; the percent of patrol officers that are utilizing daily
evidence-based practices with assistance from sergeants; and increased
awareness in the community regarding LPD’s evidence-based activities
2.
Outcome measures for revamping internal systems: Qualitative analysis on
whether the organizational changes led to the institutionalization of evidencebased strategies
79
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix B: SPI Project Summaries and Plans
Phoenix, AZ
Problem Statement
The number of reported violent and property crimes decreased approximately 7
percent over 2009, and while statistics showed that violence in general declined,
domestic violence has continued to be problematic. Currently, the Phoenix Police
Department (PPD) is also experiencing a shift in its relationship with the residents it
serves. In 2010, internal documents indicated that the PPD’s Professional Standards
Bureau received more than 150 complaints or allegations of officer misconduct.
Community relations have further eroded in the last several months with the
occurrence of several high-profile events.
Site Goal(s) and Goal Timeline (short-term and long-term goals)
The goal of the PPD’s Smart Policing Initiative is to develop and implement an
innovative approach to this contemporary issue that will increase police
accountability and increase the effectiveness of the police to control violence,
particularly domestic violence.
Primary Project Objectives and Strategies
The PPD proposes to purchase and deploy on-person video cameras (TASER AXON
camera system) to record the interactions between officers and community members
(e.g., the public, suspects, and victims). The proposed technology will primarily be
used for two objectives: to increase police accountability and increase the
effectiveness of the police in their response to domestic violence.
The camera will captures events and interactions that take place between suspects,
victims, and the officer. The video recordings can be used by the police to document
statements, observations, and behaviors, and can simultaneously be used to prevent
and deter unprofessional, illegal, and inappropriate behaviors by both the police and
the public. Accordingly, this technology can be used to resolve disputes and build
trust with the community by preserving a record of critical events.
The PPD plans to purchase 50 camera systems to be deployed in the targeted area of
Maryvale Precinct, which has historically been a location for a high-volume of police
activity, calls for service, and elevated crime rates (particularly for violent crime),
relative to other areas in the city. The Maryvale Precinct is operationally and
geographically divided into two similarly sized areas. For this study, the
implementation of the camera system will occur in one of the two areas, Area 82.
These cameras will provide simultaneous coverage in Area 82 seven days a week,
during all three shifts, by all deployed officers, and will allow for each system to be
80
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix B: SPI Project Summaries and Plans
downloaded prior its next use. All officers assigned to Area 82 will be issued the
equipment and provided training. The coordinated effort will involve police personnel
and employees of the TASER Corporation.
Partnerships and Collaboration
ASU’s Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety will serve as the research
partner. The PPD will also collaborate with the TASER Corporation.
Potential Challenges and/or Obstacles
1. Acceptance of the approach by the officers
2. Organizational challenges
3. Acceptance of the approach by the community
Evaluation/Measurement of Success (i.e., data collection, data sources, and
comparative design)
The planned deployment of the technology will allow for a quasi-experimental design,
using pre- and post-test data from the target and comparison area. ASU will conduct a
process evaluation of the implementation of the technology and the impact of the
project.
1. Process Evaluation: This will measure the integrity of the planned project,
document modifications through the course of the project, and present findings
related to the advantages and barriers to implementing and using the technology
(e.g., in the field, its use in court). ASU will review official project
documentation, including but not limited to: planning meetings and minutes;
policies for use of the camera systems; officer training materials; and documented
frequency and volume of camera system use. ASU will also interview officers and
key stakeholders (e.g., officers, residents, community groups, prosecutors,
judges). Finally, records of the actual deployment of the cameras will be collected
and examined.
2. Impact Evaluation: ASU will examine the impact of the technology on domestic
violence; public and police accountability (e.g., misconduct, unprofessional
behavior, resisting arrest); and perceptions of legitimacy, trust, and satisfaction
with police.
81
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix B: SPI Project Summaries and Plans
Shawnee, KS
Problem Statement
Shawnee is a suburban city on the western edge of the Kansas City metropolitan area.
The Shawnee Police Department (SPD) is a medium-sized agency with 85 sworn
officers and 22 civilians that serve a population of 62,290 residents. The city
experienced an economic downturn that has resulted in budget shortfalls since 2008.
This decrease in funds has impacted the way that the SPD is able to serve its
community. Since 2008, two significant issues have arisen: the police department has
lost staffing for certain crime-prevention-related positions, and the city has seen an
increase in reported violent crime.
Site Goal(s) and Goal Timeline (short-term and long-term goals)
In July 2010, the SPD implemented a program called Data-Driven Approaches to Crime
and Traffic Safety (DDACTS). DDACTS involves the use of increased police presence
and high-visibility traffic enforcement (HVTE) in locations where overlap between
high numbers of traffic crashes and crime occur. An examination of the preliminary
results by the department’s crime analyst indicates that the strategy has had a
positive impact on reducing crime in the identified area.
The goal of the SPD’s Smart Policing Initiative is to further study and determine if the
positive changes in crime are caused by DDACTS or whether other variables have
contributed to the difference. The site is also interested in studying whether
increased patrol in the targeted locations will displace crime to other areas.
The site plans to make the findings of this study available through publication of the
data. They believe the findings of the study will enhance the general knowledge of
law enforcement in the use of HVTE as a means to reduce specific crimes in areas
identified as having high incidences of both traffic crashes and crime.
Primary Project Objectives and Strategies
Since the program’s inception, the SPD has identified three target areas (75th Street
Corridor, Parkway East, and Parkway West) and various crimes targeted for reduction
(e.g., robberies, auto burglaries, and auto thefts) for the DDACTS program. The
department’s strategy is to measure the performance regarding the change in the
identified DDACTS locations by reviewing crime statistics for the 12 months prior to
the initiation of DDACTS and 12 months following the initiation in all three identified
areas.
82
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix B: SPI Project Summaries and Plans
The site has set the following objectives:
1. SPD will report on tasks related to the study of its DDACTS program, as well as
the effects the program has had on the crime problem specifically identified.
2. SPD, through this study, seeks to enhance law enforcement knowledge for
effective strategies and tactics for crime problems.
Partnerships and Collaboration
The SPD’s research partner is Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas, as well as its
Sociology and Criminology Department chair, Kevin M. Bryant, Ph.D.
Potential Challenges and/or Obstacles
1. Organizational challenges
2. Acceptance of the approach by officers
3. Acceptance of the approach by the community
Evaluation/Measurement of Success (i.e., data collection, data sources, and
comparative design)
1. Crime Statistics and Data: The site will gather crime statistics/data for the 12month periods previously mentioned for the three target areas using the STORM
Tracking database, as well as the Police Records Management System.
2. Sociodemographic Correlates to Crime: In addition to the required performance
measures, the SPD seeks to isolate results directly tied to the proposed
interventions by controlling for conventional sociodemographic correlates of
crime for which data is available. Some of the correlates considered would be
population density, the percent of female-headed households, and vacancy
rates in available housing. The site will attempt to identify whether the
DDACTS locations have a statistically significant lower rate of crime.
3. Displacement Effects: The site is also interested in studying whether increased
patrol in the targeted locations displaces crime to other areas.
83
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix B: SPI Project Summaries and Plans
York, ME
Problem Statement
The York Police Department (YPD) is currently facing two major law enforcement
challenges: burglaries (specifically, burglaries of motor vehicles) and traffic crashes
related to drug offenses and impaired driving. For example, in 2010, YPD conducted
over 320 drug investigations and recently had to reassign a patrol officer to become a
full-time narcotics investigator. In addition, due to a swell in the population when
tourists arrive in summer and a large land area, many of the town’s criminal offenders
resort to using vehicles when committing crimes.
Site Goal(s) and Goal Timeline (short-term and long-term goals)
The goal of YPD’s Smart Policing Initiative is to reduce burglaries, burglaries of motor
vehicles, and traffic crashes caused by impaired drivers, while increasing drug arrests
through the DDACTS program. The DDACTS program is an intensive process of
collecting and analyzing crime and crash data to identify hotspot locations in order to
develop strategic and tactical enforcement countermeasures.
Primary Project Objectives and Strategies
The site’s strategy is to apply the seven guiding principles of DDACTS implementation:
1. Partners and Stakeholders: Develop partnerships with local stakeholders to
decrease social harm and improve the quality of life within the community.
2. Data Collection: Identify place-based data related to crime and crashes using a
records management system and crash-reporting program. The site will also look
to obtain data from citizen complaints and information provided by officers in the
field.
3. Data Analysis: Create Geographic Information System (GIS)-mapping of identified
hotspot locations in which crimes and crashes are occurring. Once locations are
identified, the site will further analyze the data to distinguish causation factors
for each type of data and will delineate temporal and spatial factors that
influence crimes and crashes. The GIS manager will be instrumental in facilitating
GIS-mapping of crime and crash hotspots.
4. Strategic Operations: Develop a strategic plan to focus enforcement activities and
countermeasures in the hotspot locations. Enforcement activities may include, but
will not be limited to, high-visibility enforcement and covert operations.
84
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix B: SPI Project Summaries and Plans
5. Information Sharing and Outreach: Share results with stakeholders and community
members to promote community participation and solicit feedback.
6. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adjustments: Collect and analyze data regularly within
hotspot locations to assess crime and crash reductions, as well as cost savings; to
increase arrests; and to monitor data to identify any new hotspot locations.
7. Outcomes: Evaluate the effectiveness of addressing the goal of reducing crime and
crashes, while increasing drug arrests.
Partnerships and Collaboration
The YPD has developed a strong relationship with the GIS manager for the town of
York and has developed a regional drug task force called Seacoast Narcotics
Investigative Force. The site’s research partner is York County Community College.
Other partnerships include the local school district and “Choose to be Healthy” (a
local Healthy Maine Partnership that provides statistical data on drug usage among
the student population).
Potential Challenges and/or Obstacles
1. Organizational challenges
2. Acceptance of the approach by officers
3. Acceptance of the approach by the community
Evaluation/Measurement of Success (i.e., data collection, data sources, and
comparative design)
The site will determine a baseline for impaired-driving crashes, burglaries, and drug
offenses prior to implementation, using data from 2009 and 2010. The site will also
update its statistical database five times per week to ensure up-to-date statistical
analysis for evaluation. The site will also conduct seasonal and end-of-project
evaluation reports. The site will evaluate the following performance measures:
1. A decrease in crime and crashes;
2. An increase in arrests for criminal offenders who commit drug offenses,
burglaries, and crimes of operating under the influence; and
3. Pre- and post-surveys within the community to evaluate their perception of the
project’s effectiveness.
85
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies
Appendix B: SPI Project Summaries and Plans
Page intentionally blank
86
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies, September 19, 2012
Appendix C: SPI Team Bios
Appendix C: SPI Team Bios
BJA is committed to the Smart Policing concept and to helping police departments
and communities implement evidence-based crime prevention and crime control
initiatives across the nation. The agency understands that successful implementation
at the local level requires a strong technical assistance and training program at the
national level. BJA leadership and CNA work together to ensure that local sites
receive the resources and help they need. Therefore, individuals from both agencies
form the Smart Policing Team. Because of the importance of SMEs in assuring the
successful implementation of Smart Policing Initiatives – they are also considered part
of the Smart Policing Team.
SPI team members present at the Ohio workshop are listed below.
BJA Leadership
Alissa Huntoon
Alissa Huntoon is a policy advisor at the Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA) supporting national policy initiatives; her portfolio includes
projects within the fields of law enforcement and adjudications. Prior
to joining BJA, Ms. Huntoon worked for the International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP) in Alexandria, Virginia. She served for three
years as project manager of BJA-supported sex offender management
initiatives, working to identify policy and operational challenges faced by law enforcement
regarding sex offenders in the community. She also served as outreach coordinator for the
Volunteers in Police Service (VIPS) Program, working to promote and expand law enforcement
volunteer programs. Before joining the IACP, Ms. Huntoon worked for Circle Solutions, Inc.,
providing research and evaluation services for the Cops in Schools program under the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). During graduate school, she worked in a variety
of capacities within the Department of Justice. Prior to entering graduate school, she spent
two years as an AmeriCorps*VISTA volunteer with Habitat for Humanity in West Philadelphia.
She earned her bachelor’s degree in sociology from the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities
in 1996 and her master’s of public policy from American University in 2002.
87
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies, September 19, 2012
Appendix C: SPI Team Bios
CNA Project Management Team
James R. “Chip” Coldren, Jr. (Smart Policing Initiative Project
Director)
James Coldren is a professor in the Criminal Justice and Interdisciplinary
Leadership Programs at Governors State University in Illinois, and
Coordinator of the University’s Office of Sponsored Programs and
Research. He also serves CNA as the project director for Technical
Assistance and Training for the Bureau of Justice Assistance-supported
national Smart Policing Initiative. Prior to joining the university, Dr. Coldren served for over
four years as president of the John Howard Association for Prison Reform, a nonprofit
organization dedicated to monitoring and improving the conditions of confinement in prisons,
jails, and juvenile detention centers, as well as to fair, humane, and effective sentencing and
correctional policies. Dr. Coldren served in several capacities at the University of Illinois (UIC)
at Chicago: as director of the Center for Research in Law and Justice, where he led several
research projects focusing on both corrections and community policing; and as director of the
Institute for Public Safety Partnerships, a COPS-funded community policing institute that
fostered the development and evaluation of local community public safety partnerships.
Prior to joining UIC, Dr. Coldren served as deputy director with the Project on Human
Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, a longitudinal research project of the Harvard
University School of Public Health. Dr. Coldren also served for seven years as director of
research for the Justice Research and Statistics Association in Washington, D.C. He began his
professional career in Chicago, where he worked for seven years with the Illinois Criminal
Justice Information Authority. He went on to become the director of research and computer
system development at Patuxent Institution in Jessup, Maryland, the subject of his first book.
Dr. Coldren holds a bachelor’s degree from Rutgers University, and a master’s and doctorate
from the University of Chicago. He attained his “Masters” certificate in leadership from
Rapport Leadership International and is a 2005 Leadership Greater Chicago Fellow.
He
recently completed a six-year term on the Illinois Capital Punishment Reform Study
Commission, and serves on the Redeploy Illinois (juvenile justice reform) Oversight Board, as
an associate editor for Evaluation Review, and as a board member for the F.U.T.U.R.E.
Foundation for Youth Services in Ford Heights, Illinois.
Iris Gonzalez (SPI Project Manager)
Iris Gonzalez is a senior research analyst at CNA where she has
focused on analyzing public safety and security policy
development, and facilitating policy and plans implementation in
the public and private sectors. She serves as the project manager
for the SPI cooperative agreement. In this role she provides
oversight and strategic planning and coordination for the SPI
88
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies, September 19, 2012
Appendix C: SPI Team Bios
activities. She has also contributed to, provided extensive analysis for, and managed
multiple research projects. Ms. Gonzalez has extensive experience in national security
and defense since 1987. She has worked with law enforcement in the interagency
operational community, including analytical support for counter-drug interdiction
operations. She has also worked on site as an analyst developing countermeasures
against biological and chemical weapons, both for U.S. military forces, and adapted
for domestic use within the United States at large population centers. In addition, she
recently led the effort to help Austin, Texas develop a plan to protect its critical
infrastructure and key resources, and is finishing up a multi-year effort to help the
Houston, Texas region with catastrophic planning. She has a master’s in defense
policy studies from George Washington University and a bachelor’s degree in Soviet
studies/political science from the University of Pennsylvania.
Michael White (CNA Subject Matter Expert and research partner for
the Glendale Smart Policing Initiative site)
Michael White is an associate professor in the School of Criminology and
Criminal Justice at Arizona State University (ASU), and is associate
director of ASU’s Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety.
Prior to joining ASU, he was on the faculty at the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice in New York for five years. He also worked as a deputy
sheriff in Pennsylvania for several years before earning his Ph.D in
Criminal Justice from Temple University. His primary responsibility in Smart Policing involves
ongoing development and coordination of research activities concerning the Smart Policing
Initiative sites. As part of this responsibility, Dr. White provides technical assistance to sites
regarding data collection, research design and methodology, and outcomes assessment. He is
also the primary author of the Site Spotlight series, which highlights the outcomes and lessons
learned from SPI projects.
89
SPI Workshop on Practical Applications for Ohio Law
Enforcement Agencies, September 19, 2012
Appendix C: SPI Team Bios
Page intentionally blank
90