1

16th Annual Problem-Oriented Policing Conference

Charlotte, North Carolina

October 21-23, 2005

Neighbors Against Drugs

Sheboygan, Wisconsin

Neighbors Helping Neighbors in the Fight Against Illegal

Drugs

2

A noncriminal alternative approach to rid neighborhoods of drugs

3

Are drugs a problem nationally?• 5% of world’s population but over half the drug intake• States with highest rate of illicit drug-use: Alaska, Colorado, Montana,

Oregon, Nevada? (SAMHSA, 2005)

• Ave. age start in 1967 (16 ½)• Ave. age start in 2004 (12)

(Monitoring the Future- University of Michigan Institute for Social Research)

• 2005 national study report found 12% of parents have NEVER talked to their kids about drugs.– Double from 6% in 1999

(Roper, 2005) Partnership for Drug Free America

• Expanding methamphetamine problems

4

The Problem

• April 1997 Readers Digest ranks Sheboygan, Wisconsin as the best place in America to raise a family

• By 2003 law enforcement faced with unprecedented demographic changes, increased reports of drug dealing and crack-cocaine

• Lack of follow-up with complainants frustrated both the community and law enforcement

• Budgetary concerns, expense of undercover investigations, criminal court process

5

Scanning

• Sheboygan vulnerable corridor and infamous history of binge drinking

• Public in demand willing to pay higher prices

• Tedious investigations

• Inability of MEG (Multi-jurisdictional

Enforcement Group) Unit to follow-up with citizen complaints

6

7

AnalysisNote: Most critical stage (Bynum, 1997 “Using Analysis for Problem Solving”)

• Drug diaries – Substantiated earlier complaints and informant

information– Found gap in street crime / MEG (multi-

jurisdictional enforcement group) investigations

• Pre-test surveys– Showed apathy and bystander effects– Used to empower neighbors and volunteers– Gave the police quality information

8

Protecting Confidentiality & Improving Citizen Reports

9

Published July 2003

10

11

Response: six stepsNAD signs, abatement, media, victory verification, victory, post-test

1. NAD logo anti-drug signs posted Lone exception is suspected drug house

2. Educational meetings held with property owners

Civil abatement procedures Evictions of problem tenants

3. Media helps explain intentions of NAD

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Response (signs, abatement, media)

4. Verification of “victory”

5. Victory parties held after dealers evicted, moved out, or desisted for several months

6. Post-test surveys given to evaluate neighborhood changes and test sustainability

19

Victory verification

20

Victory Farewell Party Invite

21

22

Aired June 2, 2005

23

24

25

26

27

Assessment

• 24 months of NAD implementation

• “Victory” claimed in 19 neighborhoods with the elimination of 61 drug houses

• Pre to Posttest significant change scores– Perceptions of neighborhood safety; p<.001– Neighborhood disorder; p<.001– Suspected drugs houses; p<.001

28

Comparing pre and post samplesVariable Pre-test (N=559) Post-test (N=252)

Gender

Male 37% 39%

Female 63% 61%

Agea 44 49

Housing

Owner-occupied 73% 76%

Rental 26% 24%a denotes average age of respondents. Standard deviation was 19 years with min of 14 max of 91 years of age.

29

Comparing pre and post samplesQuestion Pre-test (N=559)

% responding ‘YES’

Post-test (N=252)

% responding ‘YES’

Do you feel your neighborhood is safe? ***

40 82

Would you have or have you hesitated to call the police

(p = .08)

43 20

Is there unfamiliar neighborhood disorder / activity? ***

50 14

Do you suspect a drug house on your block? ***

52 5

Do you support NAD? 96 98

Do you grant NAD the permission to post a sign in your front yard?

96 X

*** p < .001

30

Post-test open ended responses

1) Less traffic, not as many loud car stereos

2) Cars are no longer getting broken into

3) First time in years I allow my children to play outside after dark

4) Glad to know NAD will be there to respond if I call

5) We no longer watch TV in the dark6) This is a much better place to live7) We would have sold our house if it

wasn’t for NAD8) I feel safer

31

Challenges

1. Displacement issues

2. External Validity

3. No criminal arrests

4. Over ambitious targeting of neighborhoods

5. Maintaining motivation of volunteers and having enough volunteers to keep up with neighborhood requests

32

Benefits of NAD

1. Innovative use of POP2. Utilizes promising results from past

research3. Attacks major problem with international

scope4. Provides an affordable alternative to

traditional law enforcement’s drug war5. Creates long-term / sustainable results

and community satisfaction

33

Evaluating Citizen Response to Illicit Drug Sales (NAD, Inc.)

Officer Todd PriebeLieutenant Jeff Johnston

Chief David KirkSheboygan Police Department

E-mail: TPriebe@ci.sheboygan.wi.usPH. 920/459-3341

Brandon R. Kooi, Ph.D.Lakeland College Criminal Justice

E-mail: kooibr@lakeland.eduPH. 920/565-1577