the district of columbia mayor's focused improvement area ......a review of past practice...
TRANSCRIPT
The District of Columbia Mayor’sFocused Improvement Area Initiative:
A Review of Past Practice
Jocelyn FontaineJoshua Markman
Dec 2010
The District of Columbia Crime Policy Institute (DCPI) was established at the Urban Institute in collabora-tion with the Brookings Institution, through the jointly administered Partnership for Greater WashingtonResearch with funding from the Justice Grants Administration in the Executive Office of the Mayor. DCPI isa nonpartisan, public policy research organization focused on crime and justice policy in Washington, DC.DCPI’s mission is to support improvements in the administration of justice policy through evidence-basedresearch. An assessment of the Mayor’s Focused Improvement Areas (FIA) Initiative is one of DCPI’s threeoriginal research projects in FY2010. For more information on DCPI, see http://www.dccrimepolicy.org
©2011. The Urban Institute. All rights reserved.
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the District of Columbia CrimePolicy Institute, the Urban Institute, the Brookings Institution, their trustees, or their funders.
This report was funded by the Justice Grants Administration, Executive Office of the District of ColumbiaMayor under sub-grant: 2009-JAGR-1114.
We extend our gratitude to the current and previous staff members associated with the Focused ImprovementArea Initiative who graciously offered their time to speak with us.
Acronyms i
1 Introduction 11.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Program Model 32.1 Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2 Human and Social Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.3 Physical and Social Disorder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.4 Outreach Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 Implementation 73.1 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.2 Successes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4 Considerations for Next Steps 11
Appendix A: Map of FIA Areas 13
Acronyms
CFSA Child and Family Services Agency
CSOSA Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
CSS Court Social Services
DC District of Columbia
DCHAPD DC Housing Authority Police Department
DCOA DC Office on Aging
DCPI District of Columbia Crime Policy Institute
DCPS DC Public Schools
DCRA Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Agency
DDOT Department of Transportation
DHS Department of Human Services
DMH Department of Mental Health
DOES Department of Employment Services
DOH Department of Health
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
DPW Department of Public Works
DYRS Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services
EOM Executive Office of the Mayor
FEMS Fire and Emergency Medical Services
FIA Focused Improvement Areas
MPD The Metropolitan Police Department
MOCRS Mayor’s Office on Community Relations and Services
OCA Office of the City Administrator
OSSE Office of the State Superintendent for Education
USAO United States’ Attorney’s Office
i
1 Introduction
In March 2010, the Executive Office of the Mayor/Office of the City Administrator asked the District ofColumbia Crime Policy Institute (DCPI) to assess the Mayor’s Focused Improvement Area Initiative. TheFocused Improvement Area (FIA) Initiative, launched in November 2007, was designed to be a community-based initiative that aimed to reduce criminal activity and increase the quality of life in at-risk communitiesby combining community policing with human and social services delivery. In an effort to make recom-mendations on how to strengthen the FIA Initiative, DCPI conducted an assessment based on:
• Interviews with the Initiative’s stakeholders—past and present—on the Initiative’s mission and back-ground, design, and actual implementation;
• Reviews of programmatic materials and administrative records and field observations of the Initia-tive’s processes and procedures; and
• An exhaustive review of the theoretical and empirical literature on best and promising practicesin crime reduction, prevention, and suppression strategies and effective comprehensive communityinitiatives.
Based on the assessment, DCPI has produced three documents to help guide District stakeholders on aredesign of the FIA Initiative, including:
• An examination of past challenges and successes;
• A review of research literature relevant to collaborative crime reduction;1 and
• A strategic plan to guide future efforts.2
This report reviews the FIA Initiative’s past efforts, including implementation processes and procedures,based on conversations with more than a dozen key government stakeholders in agencies associated withthe Initiative, reviews of programmatic materials and administrative records, and field observations overthe past ten months. This report describes the Initiative and how it developed over time in order tohighlight potential opportunities for strengthening the current model. This report develops over foursections. First, the background for the Initiative is described, including a list of the areas where the Initiativewas implemented. The second section details the original program model, including each of the specificcomponents of the Initiative and the outreach efforts. Next, the overall implementation of the FIA Initiativeis summarized, including notable successes and challenges, and points to places where implementationdiffered from the original program design. A fourth and final section highlights some considerations fornext steps, which are taken up in greater detail in the strategic plan document.
Before turning to the background for the FIA Initiative, it is worth noting that this review of past practiceswas not intended as a detailed process or outcome evaluation. The Initiative changed considerably overtime, which means that the Initiative would have been a moving target for evaluation. In its current state, theInitiative does not represent the suite of services, level of effort, oversight or collaboration that existed whenit was initially implemented. Furthermore, the prerequisites necessary for a formal outcome evaluation,such as baseline measures, performance metrics, or possible comparison locations, were not established atthe outset. In sum, this report does not make any independent claims about the Initiative’s overall success(or failure) in reducing crime or violence, nor does it evaluate how the Initiatives’ outputs or performanceare related to crime reductions. Instead, this document intends to provide an overview of the perspectiveof the key FIA Initiative stakeholders, particularly the government stakeholders, to generate discussion
1Jannetta, J., M. Denver, C. G. Roman, N. P. Svajlenka, M. Ross, and B. Orr. 2010. The District of Columbia Mayor’s FocusedImprovement Area Initiative: Review of the Literature Relevant to Collaborative Crime Reduction. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
2Liberman, A., Fontaine, J., Ross, M., Roman, C.G., Roman, J. 2010. Strategic Plan for a Collaborative Neighborhood-Based CrimePrevention Initiative. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
1
about the future of the FIA Initiative. As well, we offer our impressions, as independent observers, of theInitiative’s design and implementation.
1.1. BACKGROUND
The overarching goal of the FIA Initiative was to implement a comprehensive, citywide partnership based inpart on promising practices developed from successful community-based initiatives in other large cities andlessons learned from the District’s previous community-based initiatives.3 The FIA Initiative began in 2007in response to a violent crime spike in the District that prompted the Executive Office of the Mayor (EOM)and the Office of the City Administrator (OCA) to brainstorm with the Metropolitan Police Department(MPD) about how to reduce violent crime, particularly homicides, in specific crime hot spots in the city. Thegoal of the FIA Initiative was to increase police presence and the provision of human and social services toindividuals and their families in specific areas at high risk of violence.
Round One FIA Areas:• Third District (3D) - PSA 302/304• Fifth District (5D) - PSA 501• Seventh District (7D) - PSA 706
Round Two FIA Areas:• First District/Fifth District
(1D/5D) - PSA 103/504• Third District (3D) - PSA 302• Fourth District (4D) - PSA 403/404• Seventh District (7D) - PSA 705
The seven areas targeted for the FIA Initiative were identi-fied in two separate rounds (see Appendix A for maps of theFIA areas). Beginning in November 2007, the first round ofFIA areas were initially chosen because they exhibited ele-vated levels of violence, as identified by an analysis by MPDof trends in violent crime and calls for service data. Begin-ning in May 2008, a second round of FIA areas were added,which included the addition of four other crime hot spots. Thesecond round areas were a mixture of neighborhoods with el-evated levels of violence and neighborhoods that experienceda handful of high-profile homicides. Due to the centrality ofcrime in prompting the Initiative, MPD was tasked with beingthe lead agency in the FIA Initiative with the support fromOCA.
Originally, three Capital City Fellows4 managed the Initiative with direction from MPD and oversight fromOCA and the former City Administrator Dan Tangherlini.5 The Capital City Fellows were placed withinMPD and their full-time responsibility was implementation and day-to-day management of the Initiative.The fellows acted as liaisons between the respective government agencies associated with the Initiative.While each fellow managed one FIA area in the first round (three areas in total), they each managed morethan one as more FIA areas were included in the second round.
3The initiatives included: “Operation CeaseFire” in Chicago, “Ceasefire” in Boston, Baltimore’s “Safe Zones Initiative”, and theformer District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams’ “Hot Spot Initiative” spearheaded by former Metropolitan Police DepartmentChief Charles Ramsey.
4The Capital City Fellows are recent graduates of master’s degrees programs in public administration, public policy, urbanplanning and related fields. Fellows serve a two-year fellowship appointment during which they complete four six-month rotationsin different city agencies. For more information, see: http://dchr.dc.gov/dcop/cwp/view,a,1222,q,530470.asp
5Dan Tangherlini resigned from the Executive Office of the Mayor in 2009 to take a position with the U.S. Department of theTreasury.
2
2 Program Model
To reduce violent crime and increase the quality of life, the Initiative’s focus was designed to be three-pronged: increasing public safety in the FIA areas (or FIAs); increasing human and social services to thehouseholds and families residing in the FIAs; and reducing signs of physical and social disorder (e.g.,broken windows, debris, graffiti) in the FIAs. The key conceptual link between the public safety componentand the human and social services component of the Initiative was to address the root causes of crime (i.e.,crime prevention). The public safety component was designed to suppress violent crime in the FIAs byincreasing police presence, identifying known offenders, and discussing and responding to critical incidents.Meanwhile, the human and social services component was designed to reach out to residents to identify theirservice needs and coordinate service delivery through various city agencies to prevent additional crimes.The physical and social disorder component—similar to the human and social services component—wasdesigned to prevent additional crimes. More specifically, the FIA Initiative was designed to focus on issuestheoretically and empirically associated with crime reduction and prevention, such as school attendance,employment opportunities, youth engagement in meaningful activities, and signs of physical disorder.
The identification and implementation of the FIA Initiative was community-based, while the target of thepublic safety and human and social services components were designed to focus on the households andfamilies in the FIAs. In other words, while specific areas were targeted for the Initiative using place-basedcrime data, aspects of the public safety and human and social services component of the Initiative wereintended to be person-based, targeted to households and families. The households and families targeted forincreased human and social services and public safety efforts within the FIAs were supposed to be identifiedusing three forms of outreach: criminal justice-based; government-based; and community-based.
2.1. PUBLIC SAFETY
Led by MPD, the public safety component of the FIA Initiative was designed to be coordinated among theCourt Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the DC Housing Authority Police Department(DCHPD), the DC Superior Court Family Court: Court Social Services Division (CSS), the Department ofYouth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS), and the United States’ Attorney’s Office (USAO). As the lead agency,MPD was charged with tracking criminal investigations occurring in the FIAs, coordinatiing with the otherpublic safety agencies to identify issues and problem individuals, households, and families residing in theFIAs, and increasing their presence in the FIAs using a community-oriented policing model. Each FIA wasto have a team of dedicated officers that maintained a 24-hour presence in their respective FIA, includingfoot patrol officers, vice officers, and scout cars. Coordination meetings between the public safety agencieswere scheduled to occur monthly, with participation expected from the officers assigned to each FIA, MPDAssistant Chief Diane Groomes and representatives from CSOSA, CSS, DYRS, USAO, and DCHPD. Thegoal of the public safety meetings was for agency representatives to talk about specific people and/orlocations within the FIAs and decide an appropriate strategy for responding. Agencies were charged withthe following:
• CSOSA1 was to focus on assisting MPD with outreach primarily, by providing the police departmentwith a list of names of individuals returning to the FIAs from federal prison.
• Similar to the role for CSOSA, the role of CSS2 and DYRS3 was to assist MPD with outreach by
1Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency is a federal agency managing all convicted federal offenders under communitysupervision in the District of Columbia.
2Court Social Services (CSS) is the juvenile probation system for individuals under age 18 who have not been tried as an adult inthe District of Columbia Superior Court.
3The Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) is the District agency that provides detention and aftercare services to
3
providing information on troubled or court-involved youth, to whom public safety efforts shouldhave been targeted.
• Like MPD’s role, DCHPD was to focus on increasing police officer presence in the FIAs to maintainpublic safety and reduce social disorder in public housing facilities.
From the perspective of MPD, the specific goals for the public safety partners in the FIAs were to: a) reducethe number of homicides; b) reduce the number of guns; c) reduce drug activity; d) reduce the number oftruancy cases; e) work with victims of violent crime; and f) engage with the Department of Human Servicesto provide services. To assess the progress of the FIA Initiative over time and to report on performancemeasures, a public safety database was designed to track the number and location of guns recovered, thenumber and location of drug arrests, the number of accountability visits to individuals returning fromincarceration conducted by MPD/CSOSA, the number of truancy cases, the number of domestic violenceand other victims of violence served, the number of calls for service received in each of the FIA areas,the number of door knocks to distribute needs assessment forms with FIA partners in the FIA areas, andreferrals to the Department of Human Services for additional treatment. Reporting templates were designedfor each agency, which contained the aforementioned performance measures under each agency’s purview.Reports were to be submitted weekly so that MPD could aggregate these measures and produce statisticsrelated to FIA progress.
2.2. HUMAN AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Led by the Department of Human Services (DHS), the human and social services aspect of the FIA Initiativewas designed to be coordinated with the Department of Employment Services (DOES), the Departmentof Mental Health (DMH), DC Public Schools (DCPS), the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), theDepartment of Health (DOH), the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department (FEMS), the DC Officeon Aging (DCOA), the Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Agency (DCRA), and the Office of the StateSuperintendent for Education (OSSE). By design, the focus of the human and social services agencies wason the household and family, not the individual. The purpose of the human and social services agenciesparticipation was to provide comprehensive services to families and households in the FIAs to address someof the root causes of violent crime (e.g., poverty, drug abuse, unemployment). The public safety partners,including MPD and DYRS, were also expected to participate in the human and social services deliverycomponent.
Case managers and social workers from DHS’ Strong Families Program were to develop case managementplans for each household and family that wanted to participate in the FIA Initiative, with input from theother human and social services agencies. Case management plans were to be developed using informationfrom a self-assessment tool that asked about service needs spanning multiple agencies and requested asigned consent to share data across agencies. Case management plans were to be supplemented by aDHS-administered assessment tool. Tasks were to be assigned to the human and social services agencies,including MPD and DYRS, depending on the information gleaned from the assessment tools. As determinedby the self- or DHS-administered assessment tools, tasks assigned to the human and social services agencieswere intended to range from assistance with job opportunities to assistance with income maintenance toassistance with bed bug removal. The human and social services team was to meet weekly to talk aboutactive cases, the status of the tasks assigned to the relevant agencies for the households and families, barriersto addressing household and family needs, and action steps necessary to complete the assigned tasks.
Tasks assigned to the human and social services agencies were to be tracked using a database. This database,which was designed to be used for preparation in the weekly case review meetings, included fields for basicsociodemographic information on individuals in each household and family, household or family needs,and the tasks assigned to the household or family, by agency. Case reports were to be run frequently to
individuals under age 18 committed into their care by the District of Columbia Superior Court.
4
ensure that cases were being managed appropriately and services were being delivered. Case workers fromDHS were to close cases when all of the separate tasks assigned through the assessment forms had beensatisfied or after multiple attempts to reach out to an individual or household were unsuccessful. Once acase was closed, the database was not designed to include long-term tracking of the household or family.That is, the household or family was not supposed to be tracked in the FIA database unless another servicerequest (or task) was submitted. The database was designed so that cases could be viewed by agency,by assigned task and the estimated completion, by individual or household, by neighborhood, or by thereferral (or outreach) method.
2.3. PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL DISORDER
Led by the Mayor’s Office on Community Relations and Services (MOCRS), the physical and social disordercomponent of the FIA Initiative was designed to be coordinated with the Department of Parks and Recreation(DPR), the Department of Public Works (DPW), and the Department of Transportation (DDOT) as well asMPD and DCRA. Staff members from MOCRS were to conduct frequent ”walk-throughs” in the FIAs withthe high-ranking government officials, such as the mayor, city cabinet members, and agency directors toidentify evidence of physical and social disorder in the FIAs (e.g., abandoned cars, broken street lights, andbroken windows). MOCRS was to coordinate walk-throughs in every FIA and take the lead in decidingwhich agency should address a given issue. Communication with the community residents was to be aprimary objective for the walk-throughs, during which government officials could hear directly from thecommunity members about problems they were facing and then to provide information about servicesthe agencies were offering. Also, MOCRS was to coordinate weekend clean-ups to mobilize communitymembers, volunteers, and community- and faith-based organizations in the FIAs.
2.4. OUTREACH EFFORTS
As designed, the FIA Initiative had a three-pronged outreach effort to identify target households andfamilies, specifically as the focus of the public safety efforts and delivery of human and social services.These outreach efforts were to include:
• Government-Based Outreach (human and social services provision): By walking through the FIAs,knocking on the doors of FIA residents, and periodic placement of a resource van or service centerin the FIAs, the government-based outreach was designed to gather a listing of residents in need of,and wanting, the services offered by the human and social services agencies associated with the FIAInitiative. This type of outreach was to be led by the Capital City Fellows/MPD, DHS, DOH, andDOES. Households and families were to fill out a self-assessment form to inform service delivery.The self-assessment form was to be supplemented by a DHS assessment form. The DHS assessmentform was designed to capture the household and family needs in greater detail, by exploring familyassets and deficits using trained case managers and social workers. In addition, DHS was to conducttargeted outreach to specific households and families by reviewing their case management systemsto see who had been engaged with their agency multiple times. The government-based outreach thatoccurred in the FIAs was also designed to include the distribution of energy-efficient light bulbs andsmoke detectors, among other things, to fulfill immediate service needs.
• Criminal Justice-Based Outreach (public safety efforts and human and social services provision):By coordinated monitoring, supervision, and intelligence sharing, MPD, CSOSA, CSS, and DYRSwere to target public safety efforts to the households and families in the FIAs that were known to theiragencies. When other non-criminal justice needs were identified, referrals to the appropriate humanand social service agencies associated with the FIA Initiative were to be made.
5
• Community-Based Outreach (public safety efforts and human and social services provision): Com-munity collaboratives and community- and faith-based organizations operating in the District wereto reach out to residents in the FIAs to inform the public safety efforts and the provision of humanand social services. Organizations associated with the FIA Initiative included nonprofits and public-private entities such as the Columbia Heights/Shaw Collaborative; East of the River Clergy, Police,Community Partnership; Edgewood/Brookland; Far Southeast; Latin American Youth Center; NorthCapital Collaborative; and Peaceaholics. Since the collaboratives and faith- and community-basedagencies already had a presence in the FIAs, the goal for these agencies was to inform the publicsafety efforts to households and families that the collaboratives/organizations knew were at risk ofviolence and to help conduct referrals to the human and social services agencies accordingly. From theperspective of the government stakeholders who designed the FIA Initiative, the community-basedoutreach was not intended to introduce a new activity to these agencies stated missions or activities.Instead, the community-based outreach was designed to ensure that community-based organizationsfunneled individuals and households who they already had contact and interaction with into the FIAInitiative and its associated agencies.
6
3 Implementation
By design, the FIA Initiative was comprehensive and included many stakeholders across city government.Despite some challenges, which are discussed below, many aspects of the Initiative were implementedas designed. While some specific aspects of the Initiative’s design were not fully actualized, the onlysignificant component of the overall design that never developed was the community-based outreach.The other outreach efforts—government-based and criminal justice-based—were generally implemented asdesigned and are still ongoing (albeit less frequently than they occurred originally).
According to the stakeholders, the government-based outreach successfully met its goal of knocking on thedoor of every resident in the FIAs to administer the self-assessments.1 Since the Initiative was implemented,the stakeholders indicated that more than 1,000 individuals completed the self-assessment form designedfor the FIA Initiative. They also indicated that all of the families identified as needing services throughthe assessment forms received some form of follow-up from a FIA partner agency. The community walk-throughs were also implemented as designed, though these walkthroughs are no longer happening. As forreporting on the FIA Initiative’s performance and progress with respect to human and social services, DHScontinues to track active case tasks through the database developed specifically for the FIA Initiative andmanages cases accordingly.
As for the criminal justice-based outreach, though outreach was conducted, it was not based on data andintelligence sharing between the criminal justice agencies. For example, confidentiality laws surroundingDistrict of Columbia youth precluded CSS and DYRS from sending MPD a list of juveniles who had problemsthat needed follow-up or additional treatment. CSS and DYRS did not provide the names or informationof system-involved youth to MPD directly. Therefore, most of the criminal justice-based outreach hasbeen conducted by MPD. As for the FIA Initiative’s performance and progress with respect to crime, MPDcontinues to collect crime data within each of the FIAs, and reports that their internal data show reductionsin crime in the FIAs since the Initiative’s implementation.
Once the Capitol City Fellows associated with the FIA Initiative ended their rotations with the city in 2008,day-to-day management for the overall Initiative shifted to program analysts within the OCA/EOM. Atthis time, management of the Initiative rests within OCA/EOM, though many suggest that DHS should bethe lead management agency. Although the Capital City Fellows no longer manage the Initiative, regular,but separate, public safety and human service meetings are ongoing. During the public safety meetings,officers from each FIA discuss the recent crime patterns in the FIAs and take steps to address these issues.CSOSA is working with MPD to devise a strategy to focus on individuals returning from incarceration tothe FIAs. In the human services meetings, agency representatives continue to manage the cases, discussoutstanding tasks, and identify next steps for the FIA families. Over time, the FIA Initiative seems to haveevolved into two distinct and loosely-related efforts, where the public safety effort is focused on suppressingcrime in the FIAs while the human and social services efforts are focused on increasing service delivery.While leadership from MPD manages the public safety effort of the FIA Initiative, and leadership from DHSmanages the human and social services effort, no one person manages the entire effort across agencies.
3.1. CHALLENGES
While the Initiative received support from the highest level of city government since its inception, the cityleadership did not design the Initiative in such a way as to ensure a sustained interagency, collaborativeeffort focused on measuring and assessing improvements in household and family outcomes or reducingviolent crime in communities. Despite successful implementation of the main components, implementation
1Though FIA stakeholders knocked on every door in the FIAs, some share of FIA residents declined to open their doors togovernment stakeholders or were not at home at the time of the agencies’ visits.
7
of the Initiative faced specific challenges in four broad areas: oversight; collaboration; outreach; and datasharing.
First, though the Initiative includes many stakeholders, there is no one agency or leader within one agencythat has direct oversight over its success (or failure) and performance. Management from the Capital CityFellows ended in late 2008, the City Administrator who initially championed the Initiative resigned in 2009,and management responsibility within the OCA/EOM has changed several times. Yet, there has never beena point person or leader identified within the Initiative with enough political clout to manage the Initiativeand sustain it across agencies. The lack of consistent, authoritative management has led to a reduction inmomentum over time. The two agencies consistently identified as the strongest agency partners in the FIAInitiative—DHS and MPD—assigned staff persons within their agency to lead and manage the effort, butneither agency could compel other government agencies to participate. Though the vision for the overallFIA Initiative was clear, the lack of defined leadership and day-to-day management inhibited success inmeeting goals and objectives.
Second, although meetings on the status of the public safety goals (e.g., calls for service, arrests, andviolent crime rates) and the human and social services tasks were and are occurring, some key agencieshave not had a consistent presence at these meetings. Further, there has been no coordinated effort toidentify and mobilize additional agencies and partners that were not engaged in the FIA Initiative from theoutset, such as the DC Department of Corrections or the Office of Ex-Offender Affairs, for example. Moreimportantly, there has been no coordinated effort to mobilize agencies that exhibited limited engagement inthe Initiative. In addition, meetings on the status of the public safety component and the human and socialservices components were and are not coordinated. These meetings occur within the respective agencies,independently, and are only loosely linked. The limited scope and depth of the partnership is likely due tothe lack of a defined leadership structure.
Third, outreach to the neighborhoods and households and families within the FIAs was inconsistent acrossthe three methods. The FIA Initiative’s outreach efforts were strongest among the government agenciesand weakest among the community collaboratives and faith- and community-based agencies. Within thegovernment-based outreach, some agencies’ outreach to households and families was stronger than others.This is likely related to the flexibility of the agencies, by design, in their ability to outreach into communities,without additional funding or staffing, at alternate times and in innovative ways (e.g., vans and neighbor-hood centers on the weekends or after business hours). The weakness of the community-based outreachmay have been due to the agencies’ limited capacity to do the additional outreach the Initiative stakeholdersenvisioned. Since the collaboratives were not involved in designing the overall strategy, their organizationalcapacity to conduct additional outreach was likely not fully considered before incorporating their servicesinto the Initiative. Further, since most of the city collaboratives are oriented toward youth, the Initiative’sfocus on the household and family may have required expertise and infrastructure these organizations didnot possess. While there was some effort by city stakeholders to incorporate the collaboratives’ outreachinto the FIA Initiative formally through the Community-Based Violence Prevention Fund in 2009, theseefforts never moved forward.
Fourth, outreach to at-risk families by the agencies was limited by prohibitions on agency data sharing,particularly due to confidentiality issues for youth. Ideally, the FIA Initiative would use an active casemanagement database culling information from all of the agencies participating in the Initiative, whichshould be managed by the Initiative’s leadership. For example, instead of needs being identified solelythough the self-assessment forms, the case management database should have used existing, administrativeinformation about service needs and service receipt for households and families in the FIAs. In this way,criminal justice and social service histories across agencies would be maintained in one system. As well,a more comprehensive solution to household and family needs could be identified. Instead of trackingfamilies and their service needs and receipt, the existing FIA database simply tracked whether tasks wereassigned and completed. For example, the Initiative database tracks family needs as identified in the self-assessment forms (assistance with finding a job), what agency that task was assigned to (Department of
8
Employment Services), and then whether the family received that assistance (Department of EmploymentServices called the family and/or sent them information about job opportunities). There was no ability totrack changes in household and family functioning over time and link services to long-term impacts. Tobe clear, using the above example, there was no ability to see whether the family member who neededa job actually got a job or retained a job after a period of time. Further, despite the creation of a publicsafety database to track performance measures across agencies and overall FIA success from a public safetyperspective, data was irregularly collected by some of the agencies. As previously stated, MPD internalrecords demonstrate crime reductions in the FIAs since the Initiative’s inception. Yet, there is no robustempirical data across all of the public safety partners to assess the FIA Initiative’s public safety progressfully.
3.2. SUCCESSES
Based on conversations with numerous stakeholders, several consistent themes on notable successes of theoverall Initiative have emerged.
• Peer learning across government agencies: The FIA Initiative allowed law enforcement and humanand social services agencies to learn from one another. Specifically, police officers assigned to theFIAs have been invested in the service delivery component of the FIA Initiative and report a betterunderstanding of the extent of services available to individuals in the city. In addition, the policeofficers have been trained to identify social and human services issues within households and familiesand to view DHS and other agencies as a partner to address those issues. As a result, the FIA patrolofficers now have an expanded knowledge of the types of services provided by the government.Similarly, human services agencies have learned to work with MPD and now partner with MPDofficers to safely, and thus more efficiently, deliver services within the FIAs.
• Cross-agency relationship building: Though the meetings of public safety and human and socialservice partners has suffered from a lack of participation from some agencies, the agencies that doattend have developed key contacts that provide for a more swift and effective response to householdand family issues. Building a rapport among agencies has facilitated the knowledge of each agency’sfunction, resources, and capacity. Eventually, it may break barriers to information sharing and createa forum to address organizational and logistical barriers to success.
• Changes in the social service paradigm: Some human and social services agencies have been open tochanging the way they conduct their business. These agencies have been open to delivering servicesproactively instead of having households and families come to their offices to receive services. Theyhave been open to going into the communities to find households and families who need services.Further, some agencies appear to have accepted the notion of person-centered or household-centeredservice delivery despite traditional service delivery mechanisms that focus more broadly on thecommunity or city.
• Participation from the households and families within the FIA areas: In general, households andfamilies have participated in the Initiative from the beginning; they have been open to filling outself-assessment forms and DHS assessment forms, consenting to have their information shared acrossagencies, and willing to engage with agencies during the walkthroughs and with the resource vans.While this participation may not have been caused by the FIA Initiative, per se, it is important tonote that households and families were willing to work with government agencies. Stakeholdersnoted that participation across the FIAs varied and their ability to help families and households wasmore successful when the household and family problems necessitated a quick response (e.g., gettinga smoke detector, referral to services) instead of prolonged follow-up (e.g., getting a job, locatinghousing).
9
• Belief in the model: While there have been challenges, there appears to be overwhelming support forthe model underlying the Initiative’s design. A lack of momentum in certain areas is not due to a lackof belief in the need for an integrated law enforcement and human and social services model focusedon the community. Stakeholders believe it is important to address crime holistically by addressingsome of the root causes through the provision of human and social services in addition to a publicsafety response.
10
4 Considerations for Next Steps
Since the FIA Initiative was developed in response to a spike in violent crime, there was limited planningand benchmarking prior to implementation. While several program documents have been produced andperformance measures have been established over the past three years, there is no strategic plan guidingthe overall FIA Initiative that all of the partners have agreed to and are aware of. As a result, there havebeen challenges sustaining the Initiative due to confusion about whether the key goals and objectives forthe Initiative, for the neighborhoods, for the households and families, and for the agencies have been met.
For example, it is not clear what indicators should guide the implementation of the Initiative in other areasor what indicators need to be changed or improved to prompt the Initiative or some partners to move toanother area. Other than the general goal of reducing crime in the FIAs, there were no specific, measurable,long-term outcomes or goals associated with the FIA Initiative, such as: a 10 percent reduction in youthviolence over a specific time period; a 10 percent reduction in truancy rates over a specific period of time;or a 10 percent increase in employment retention among adults or youth over a specific time period. Whileinternal MPD reports demonstrate crime reductions in the FIAs, there should have been more specificityabout how the specific components of the FIA Initiative, some of which are long-term solutions to crimeproblems while others are short-term solutions, fit into an overall strategy designed to impact individual,household, and/or community outcomes. More specificity of goals and how they fit into an overall strategywould help guide implementation in the FIAs and determine whether and when the Initiative should moveto other areas.
There are several key issues that remain unresolved. The resolution to these issues is likely to differwith respect to which public safety or human and social services outcomes have primacy. This furtherunderscores the importance of ensuring these two components are more tightly linked into one coherentstrategy.
• Entrance strategy: Is there an opportunity for additional FIAs? What areas of the city need the servicesand increased police presence? What is the optimal number of FIAs that the city should serve?
• Exit strategy: At what point are the FIAs ready to be “closed out”? What determines success? Whatis the optimal amount of time an area should be included in the FIA Initiative?
• Geographic focus: Is the geographic focus and size of the FIAs—areas that do not entirely map ontodefined neighborhood boundaries—appropriate? Could the FIAs’ size and location be aligned withits key objectives and activities more appropriately?
• Reincorporate performance measurement: Can the Initiative improve its collection of performancemeasurement data such that it is robust enough for analysis? Would the results from the analysis beused to guide future decisions?
• Crime prevention strategy: Is there a role for crime prevention to address risk factors for crime?Should crime prevention target all citizens in a FIA, only those with serious risk factors, and/or thosewho are actively criminal or have been? How do the human and social services data inform wherecrime may be increasing?
• Combination of services in the FIAs: Can the FIA Initiative focus on targeted crime prevention andcrime reduction, i.e., can the focus in some FIAs be on increased police presence to reduce crime whileothers are focused on increasing social services to prevent crime or some combination thereof? Whatis the optimal level and combination of services in these places?
• Leadership: What is the right agency to lead such an initiative, based on the stated long-term goals?What person within that agency can be held responsible for overseeing all of the components? Howshould the agencies communicate and/or collaborate? In what agency should the point person(s) for
11
each FIA be located and how do other agencies communicate, coordinate and collaborate with thosepoint people?
• Key Goals and Objectives: Is a focus on reducing signs of physical and social disorder the rightpriority for the FIAs or should some other objective, such as violence reduction, have primacy?
The goal for the next phase of the Initiative, or any other neighborhood-based crime initiative, is to developa strategic plan for operations that addresses these and other issues. To help District stakeholders do this,DCPI has produced a report on best and promising community-based strategies to document the optionsavailable in designing a comprehensive, community-based strategy with intra-agency collaboration. Withthis information and lessons learned from implementing the FIA Initiative to date, DCPI has also created astrategic plan to aid stakeholders in designing an initiative to meet the District’s needs and capabilities.
12
A Maps of FIA Areas
13
Oxo
n R
unP
ark
FE
RE
BE
E-H
OP
EE
LEM
EN
TAR
YS
CH
OO
L
LEA
RN
ING
CE
NT
ER
HE
ND
LEY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
SC
HO
OL
SIM
ON
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
SC
HO
OL
HA
RT
MID
DLE
SC
HO
OL
DR
AP
ER
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
SC
HO
OL
VALL
EY AV
E
XE
NIA
ST
H R
DR
BLAKNEY LN
AT
LA
NT
IC S
T
COLE BLVD
MARJO
RIE
CT
9TH S
T
WA
HLE
R P
L
YU
MA
ST
XE
NIA
ST
6TH ST
7TH
ST
8TH ST
8TH
ST
SOU
4TH ST
FOXH
ALL P
L
7TH ST
BR
AN
DY
WIN
E S
T
BARNABY ST
BELLEV
R
CONDON TER
CH
ES
AP
EA
KE
ST
BA
RN
AB
Was
hin
gto
n
Hig
hla
nd
s
Co
ng
ress
H
eig
hts
8
3
5
2
4
76
1 70710
4
205
20420
1
504
207
501
402
203
706
602
404
202
401
101
503
405
603
604
403
206
703
208
505
601
502
605
103
705
107
106
607
102
701
105
606
305
704
302
303
307
301
304 30
8
702
Hob
art
Twin
s P
ark
PAR
K V
IEW
RE
CR
EAT
ION
CE
NTE
R
BRU
CE-
MO
NR
OE
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
SCH
OO
L
THIR
DD
ISTR
ICT
POLI
CE
STAT
ION
SCH
OO
L
BU
RR
GY
MN
AS
IUM
BRU
CE
SCH
OO
L
CO
LUM
BIA
HEI
GH
TS F
INA
NC
EPO
ST
OFF
ICE
PAR
K V
IEW
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
SC
HO
OL
PRIN
CET
ON
PL
HO
BA
RT
PL
10TH ST
MO
RTO
N S
T
NE
WTO
N P
L
NE
WTO
N P
L
6TH ST
ST
HO
BAR
T PL
PA
RK
RD
MA
NO
R P
L
LAM
ON
T
ST
WARDER ST
LAM
ON
T S
T
PA
RK
RD
NEW H
KE
EFE
R P
L
LUR
A
LAM
ON
T ST
AR
D S
T
NE
WTO
N P
L
BIA
RD
6TH ST
OTI
S PL
GR
ES
HA
M P
L
GR
ESH
AM P
L
5TH ST
OTI
S P
L
Plea
sant
Pl
ains
Park
Vi
ewC
olum
bia
Hei
ghts
Petw
orth
How
ard
Uni
vers
ity
Just
ice
SY ND
CO
LUM
BIA
HEI
GH
TSR
ECR
EATI
ON
CEN
TER
BELL
MU
LTIC
ULT
UR
AL
SEN
IOR
HIG
H S
CH
OO
L
MEX
ICAN
CU
LTU
RAL
INS
TITU
TE
RE
CR
EAT
ION
FAIR
MO
NT
ST
FULL
ER
ST
UNI
GIR
AR
D S
T
Col
umbi
a H
eigh
ts
Ada
ms
Mor
gan
Mou
nt
Plea
sant
She
rma
nC
ircle
Fo
Circ
Pa
EN
GIN
E 2
4S
TA
TIO
N
TR
UE
SD
EL
LE
LE
ME
NTA
RY
SC
HO
OL
E
ON
SH
ER
MA
NC
IRC
LE
DE
CA
TU
R S
T
JEF
FE
RS
ON
ST
8TH ST
7TH PL
CR
ITT
EN
DE
N S
T
13TH ST
HA
MIL
TO
N S
T
MIS
ING
RA
HA
M S
T
SH
EP
HE
RD
RD
MA
DIS
ON
ST
SHE
RM
AN
CIR
EM
ER
SO
N S
T
DE
LA
FIE
LD
PL
JEF
KE
NN
ED
Y S
T
9TH ST
7TH ST
LO
NG
F
ILLINOIS AVE
GA
LLA
TIN
ST
FA
RR
AG
UT
ST
GEORGIA AVE
DE
LA
FIE
LD
PL
5TH ST
Bri
gh
two
od
P
ark
Petw
ort
h
16th
S
tre
et
Heig
hts
Bri
gh
two
od
Joe
Col
e
Trin
idad
Ros
edal
e
Kin
gman
Fiel
d
NO
RTH
EA
ST
PO
ST
OFF
ICE
EN
GIN
E 1
0S
TATI
ON
GIB
BS
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
SC
HO
OL
R. L
.C
HR
ISTI
AN
LIB
RA
RY
MIN
ER
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
SC
HO
OL
KIN
GS
MA
NS
CH
OO
L
WH
EAT
LEY
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
SC
HO
OL
TRIN
IDA
DR
EC
RE
ATIO
NC
EN
TER
RO
SE
DA
LER
EC
RE
ATIO
NC
EN
TER
18TH PL
20TH ST
YLI
E S
T
ND
EN
PL
QUE
EN S
T
MEI
GS
PL
ISH
ER
WO
OD
ST
LYM
AN
PL
18TH ST
ELLIOTT ST
STAPLES ST
18TH PL
PENN
ST
14TH ST
14TH PL
DU
NC
AN
ST
F S
TKR
AM
ER
ST
K S
T
LAN
G P
L
19TH ST
RO
SE
DA
LE S
EM
ER
ALD
ST
HOLBROOK ST
QU
EEN
ST
F S
T
GA
LES
PL
18TH ST
ATES
ST
NC
AN
PL
ORREN ST
MAR
YLAN
D AV
E
17TH ST
H S
T
18TH ST
CO
RB
IN P
L
18TH ST
OW
EN P
L
LEVI
S ST
I ST
17TH PL
19TH ST
HOLB
RO
OK
TE
R
LEVI
S ST
EAMES PL
16TH ST
RAUM
ST
17TH PL
L S
T
TRINIDAD AV CHIL
DRES
S ST
E S
T
D S
T
RO
SE
DA
LE S
T
GA
LES
ST
H P
L
Trin
idad
Car
ver
Kin
gman
P
ark
Sta
nton
P
ark
Nea
r N
orth
east
Ivy
City
Ann
a J.
Coo
per
Circ
le
Har
ryT
hom
as
y
NJ
and
O S
tsP
ark
New
Yor
kA
ve D
ayca
re
J.F.
CO
OK
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
SC
HO
OL
M.M
. W
AS
HIN
GT
ON
SE
NIO
R H
IGH
SC
HO
OL
RO
ITR
K FF
ICE
ER
YO
OL
EN
GIN
E 6
STA
TIO
N
RO
BU
ND
YS
CH
OO
L
DU
NB
AR
SE
NIO
R H
IGH
SC
HO
OL
EM
ER
YE
LEM
EN
TAR
YS
CH
OO
L
HA
RR
Y T
HO
MA
SR
EC
RE
AT
ION
CE
NT
ER
SU
RS
UM
CO
RD
AC
OM
MU
NIT
YLI
BR
AR
Y
EM
ER
YE
LEM
EN
TAR
YS
CH
OO
L
MC
KT
EC
HH
IGH
MO
RG
AN
ST
BA
TES
ST
O S
T
PA
TT
ER
SO
N S
T
T S
T
U S
TO
D
4TH ST
KIRBY STRA
ND
OLP
H P
L
Q S
T
T S
T
SE
AT
ON
PL
1ST ST
E S
TNEW JERSEY AVE
O S
T
N S
T
2ND ST
3RD ST
3RD ST
FLO
RID
A A
VE
NEW
YO
RK
AVE1ST ST
HA
NO
VE
R P
L
QU
INC
Y P
L
3RD ST
3RD ST
S S
T
TH
OM
AS
ST
U S
T
RH
OD
E IS
LAN
D A
VE
SE
AT
ON
PL
Trux
ton
C
ircl
e
Blo
omin
gda
le
Eck
ingt
on
Le D
roit
P
ark
Log
an C
ircl
e/S
haw
Nea
r N
orth
east
Nor
th
Cap
itol
Str
eet
Edg
ewoo
d
Oxo
n R
unP
ark
way
Oxo
n R
un
Con
gre
gatio
nal
Ada
sIs
rael
Heb
rew
CO
NG
RE
SS
HE
IGH
TS
ME
TR
OE
NT
RA
NC
EM
ALC
OL
M X
ELE
ME
NTA
RY
SC
HO
OL
GR
EE
NE
LEM
EN
TAR
YS
CH
OO
L
15TH ST
13TH ST
SM
ITH
PL
13TH PL
WO
O
D
DR
CONGRESS PL
MIS
SIS
SIP
PI A
VE
14TH PL
Do
ug
lass
Co
ngre
ss
Hei
gh
ts
Was
hin
gto
n
Hig
hla
nd
s
15th St
14th St
16th St
Irving
St
Harva
rd St
Colum
bia R
d
Girar
d St
Fulle
r St
Harva
rd Ct
Mount Pleasant St
Argon
ne Pl
Hiatt Pl
Harvard St
Girar
d St
302
304
303
301
14th
St &
Gira
rd St
NW
MAP I
D: 3
RD D
ISTRI
CT - P
SA's 3
02 &
304
ROUN
D 1 F
OCUS
IMPR
OVEM
ENT A
REA
Crim
e Anal
yst: C
harle
a S.L.
Jack
son, M
.A.
Unit:
Resea
rch &
Analy
sis Br
anch
Date:
Feb
ruary
23, 2
009
Inform
ation
on th
is map
is for
illust
ration
only.
The u
ser
ackno
wled
ges an
d agre
es tha
t the u
se of
this in
forma
tion
is at th
e sole
risk o
f the u
ser. N
o end
orsem
ent, l
iabilit
y, or
respo
nsibil
ity fo
r infor
matio
n or o
pinion
s exp
ressed
are
assum
ed or
accep
ted by
any a
gency
of the
Dist
rict o
fCo
lumbia
Gov
ernme
nt.
Scale
:
Coord
. Sys
tem:
NAD_
1983
_Stat
ePlan
e_Ma
rylan
d_FIP
S_19
00
1:2,72
5
00.0
20.0
40.0
1Mi
les
3RD
DIST
RICT
- PSA
's 30
2 & 30
4RO
UND
1 FOC
US IM
PROV
EMEN
T ARE
A
Rese
arch &
Analy
sis Br
anch
Strate
gic Se
rvice
s Bure
auMe
tropo
litan P
olice
Dep
artme
nt30
0 Ind
iana A
venu
e, Ro
om 51
26Wa
shing
ton, D
C 20
001
202.7
27.41
74 (p
)20
2.727
.0711
(f)
PSA &
DIST
RICT G
EOSP
ATIAL
DAT
A SOU
RCE:
Metro
polita
n Polic
e Dep
artme
nt (M
PD) d
ata as
of02
/23/20
09MA
JOR
ROAD
GEO
SPAT
IAL DA
TA SO
URCE
: Offic
e of th
eCh
ief Te
chno
logy O
fficer
(OCT
O) G
eogra
phic I
nform
ation
Syste
m (G
IS) da
ta as
of 02
/23/20
09.
Metro
polita
n Poli
ce D
epart
ment
Wash
ington
, DC
Febru
ary 23
, 200
9
R St
P St
T St
Q St
S St
Florid
a Ave
N St
O St
3rd St
North Capitol St
2nd St
Bates
St
Quinc
y Pl
Lincoln Rd
Todd
Pl
New Jersey Ave
Rhod
e Isla
nd Av
e
4th St
U St
Seato
n Pl
1st St
Rand
olph P
l
New Y
ork Av
e
Eckington Pl
Thom
as St
Summit Pl
5th St
Hano
ver P
l
Warne
r St Fra
nklin
St
Richa
rdson
Pl
Porte
r Pl
1st St
O St
4th St
O St
1st St
Q St
T St
3rd St
N St
3rd St
T St
S St
Seato
n Pl
1st St
501
308
305
101
504
Rhod
e Isla
nd Av
e, NE
Flor
ida Av
e NE &
Linc
oln
MAP I
D: 5
TH D
ISTRI
CT - P
SA 50
1RO
UND
1 FOC
US IM
PROV
EMEN
T ARE
ACr
ime A
nalyst
: Cha
rlea S
.L. Ja
ckson
, M.A
.Un
it: Re
search
& An
alysis
Bran
chDa
te: F
ebrua
ry 23
, 200
9
Inform
ation
on th
is map
is for
illust
ration
only.
The u
ser
ackno
wled
ges an
d agre
es tha
t the u
se of
this in
forma
tion
is at th
e sole
risk o
f the u
ser. N
o end
orsem
ent, l
iabilit
y, or
respo
nsibil
ity fo
r infor
matio
n or o
pinion
s exp
ressed
are
assum
ed or
accep
ted by
any a
gency
of the
Dist
rict o
fCo
lumbia
Gov
ernme
nt.
Scale
:
Coord
. Sys
tem:
NAD_
1983
_Stat
ePlan
e_Ma
rylan
d_FIP
S_19
00
1:6,15
0
00.0
40.0
80.0
2Mi
les
5TH
DIST
RICT
- PSA
501
ROUN
D 1 F
OCUS
IMPR
OVEM
ENT A
REA
Rese
arch &
Analy
sis Br
anch
Strate
gic Se
rvice
s Bure
auMe
tropo
litan P
olice
Dep
artme
nt30
0 Ind
iana A
venu
e, Ro
om 51
26Wa
shing
ton, D
C 20
001
202.7
27.41
74 (p
)20
2.727
.0711
(f)
PSA &
DIST
RICT G
EOSP
ATIAL
DAT
A SOU
RCE:
Metro
polita
n Polic
e Dep
artme
nt (M
PD) d
ata as
of02
/23/20
09MA
JOR
ROAD
GEO
SPAT
IAL DA
TA SO
URCE
: Offic
e of th
eCh
ief Te
chno
logy O
fficer
(OCT
O) G
eogra
phic I
nform
ation
Syste
m (G
IS) da
ta as
of 02
/23/20
09.
Metro
polita
n Poli
ce D
epart
ment
Wash
ington
, DC
Febru
ary 23
, 200
9
4th St
9th St
Yuma
St
Atlan
tic St
8th St
Valley
Ave
Barnaby
St
Ches
apea
ke S
t
Condon
Ter
6th St
Bran
dywin
e St
H R
Dr
Wheeler
RdWahle
r Pl
Xenia
St
Varney S
t
Foxhal
l Pl
Souther
n Ave
Cole Blvd Belle
vue St
7th St
Blakney Ln
Marjorie
Ct
Barnaby Rd
Monteria
Ct
Xenia
St
8th St
706
705
Cond
on Te
rr, B
arnab
y St
MAP I
D: 7
TH D
ISTRI
CT - P
SA 70
6RO
UND
1 FOC
US IM
PROV
EMEN
T ARE
ACr
ime A
nalyst
: Cha
rlea S
.L. Ja
ckson
, M.A
.Un
it: Re
search
& An
alysis
Bran
chDa
te: F
ebrua
ry 23
, 200
9
Inform
ation
on th
is map
is for
illust
ration
only.
The u
ser
ackno
wled
ges an
d agre
es tha
t the u
se of
this in
forma
tion
is at th
e sole
risk o
f the u
ser. N
o end
orsem
ent, l
iabilit
y, or
respo
nsibil
ity fo
r infor
matio
n or o
pinion
s exp
ressed
are
assum
ed or
accep
ted by
any a
gency
of the
Dist
rict o
fCo
lumbia
Gov
ernme
nt.
Scale
:
Coord
. Sys
tem:
NAD_
1983
_Stat
ePlan
e_Ma
rylan
d_FIP
S_19
00
1:4,90
0
00.0
30.0
60.0
15Mi
les
7TH
DIST
RICT
- PSA
706
ROUN
D 1 F
OCUS
IMPR
OVEM
ENT A
REA
Rese
arch &
Analy
sis Br
anch
Strate
gic Se
rvice
s Bure
auMe
tropo
litan P
olice
Dep
artme
nt30
0 Ind
iana A
venu
e, Ro
om 51
26Wa
shing
ton, D
C 20
001
202.7
27.41
74 (p
)20
2.727
.0711
(f)
PSA &
DIST
RICT G
EOSP
ATIAL
DAT
A SOU
RCE:
Metro
polita
n Polic
e Dep
artme
nt (M
PD) d
ata as
of02
/23/20
09MA
JOR
ROAD
GEO
SPAT
IAL DA
TA SO
URCE
: Offic
e of th
eCh
ief Te
chno
logy O
fficer
(OCT
O) G
eogra
phic I
nform
ation
Syste
m (G
IS) da
ta as
of 02
/23/20
09.
Metro
polita
n Poli
ce D
epart
ment
Wash
ington
, DC
Febru
ary 23
, 200
9
17th St
F St
H St
E St
G St
Neal S
t
12th St
Maryla
nd Av
e
19th St
I St
L St
13th St
Oates
St
M St
Gales
St
Morse
St
14th St
K St
15th St
Benn
ing R
d
Florid
a Ave
Holbrook St
16th St
Orren St
Lang
Pl
Trinidad Ave
Bladensburg Rd
Staples St
Owen
PlLy
man P
l
20th St
Montello Ave
Quee
n St
H Pl
14th Pl
Emera
ld St
18th St
Elliott St
Tennessee Ave
Wylie
St
Levis S
t
Penn
St
Kram
er St
17th PlIsh
erwoo
d St
Meigs
Pl
Gales
Pl
Linde
n Pl
Dunc
an P
l
Rose
dale
St
Dunc
an S
t
Summit St
Benn
ett P
l
Linde
n Ct
Eames Pl
Rose
dale
St
I St
Quee
n St
K St
18th St
H St
F St
16th St
19th St
18th St
20th St
F St
E St
504 10
3
102
5D R
OUND
2 FIA
1D R
OUND
2 FIA
MAP I
D: 1
ST/5T
H DI
STRI
CT - P
SA's 1
03 &
504
ROUN
D 2 F
OCUS
IMPR
OVEM
ENT A
REA
Crim
e Anal
yst: C
harle
a S.L.
Jack
son, M
.A.
Unit:
Resea
rch &
Analy
sis Br
anch
Date:
Feb
ruary
23, 2
009
Inform
ation
on th
is map
is for
illust
ration
only.
The u
ser
ackno
wled
ges an
d agre
es tha
t the u
se of
this in
forma
tion
is at th
e sole
risk o
f the u
ser. N
o end
orsem
ent, l
iabilit
y, or
respo
nsibil
ity fo
r infor
matio
n or o
pinion
s exp
ressed
are
assum
ed or
accep
ted by
any a
gency
of the
Dist
rict o
fCo
lumbia
Gov
ernme
nt.
Scale
:
Coord
. Sys
tem:
NAD_
1983
_Stat
ePlan
e_Ma
rylan
d_FIP
S_19
00
1:6,90
0
00.0
50.1
0.025
Miles
1ST /
5TH
DIST
RICT
- PSA
's 10
3 & 50
4RO
UND
2 FOC
US IM
PROV
EMEN
T ARE
A
Rese
arch &
Analy
sis Br
anch
Strate
gic Se
rvice
s Bure
auMe
tropo
litan P
olice
Dep
artme
nt30
0 Ind
iana A
venu
e, Ro
om 51
26Wa
shing
ton, D
C 20
001
202.7
27.41
74 (p
)20
2.727
.0711
(f)
PSA &
DIST
RICT G
EOSP
ATIAL
DAT
A SOU
RCE:
Metro
polita
n Polic
e Dep
artme
nt (M
PD) d
ata as
of02
/23/20
09MA
JOR
ROAD
GEO
SPAT
IAL DA
TA SO
URCE
: Offic
e of th
eCh
ief Te
chno
logy O
fficer
(OCT
O) G
eogra
phic I
nform
ation
Syste
m (G
IS) da
ta as
of 02
/23/20
09.
Metro
polita
n Poli
ce D
epart
ment
Wash
ington
, DC
Febru
ary 23
, 200
9
11th St
Irving
St
13th St
Park Pl
Keny
on S
t
Warder St
Georgia Ave
Harva
rd St
Otis
Pl
Park
Rd
Lamo
nt St
Sherman Ave
Morto
n St
10th St
Princ
eton P
l
Monro
e St
Hoba
rt Pl
5th St
New Hampshire Ave
Sprin
g Rd
Keefe
r Pl Gres
ham
Pl
6th St
Mich
igan A
ve
Luray
Pl
Mano
r Pl
Newt
on P
l
Colum
bia R
d
Rock Creek Church Rd
Hoba
rt Pl
Otis
PlNe
wton
Pl
Lamo
nt St
6th St
Park
Rd
Lamo
nt St
Otis
Pl
Park
Rd
Mich
igan A
ve
Newt
on P
l
302
501
305
304
404
3D R
OUND
2 FIA
MAP I
D: 3R
D DI
STRI
CT - P
SA 30
2RO
UND
2 FOC
US IM
PROV
EMEN
T ARE
ACr
ime A
nalyst
: Cha
rlea S
.L. Ja
ckson
, M.A
.Un
it: Re
search
& An
alysis
Bran
chDa
te: F
ebrua
ry 23
, 200
9
Inform
ation
on th
is map
is for
illust
ration
only.
The u
ser
ackno
wled
ges an
d agre
es tha
t the u
se of
this in
forma
tion
is at th
e sole
risk o
f the u
ser. N
o end
orsem
ent, l
iabilit
y, or
respo
nsibil
ity fo
r infor
matio
n or o
pinion
s exp
ressed
are
assum
ed or
accep
ted by
any a
gency
of the
Dist
rict o
fCo
lumbia
Gov
ernme
nt.
Scale
:
Coord
. Sys
tem:
NAD_
1983
_Stat
ePlan
e_Ma
rylan
d_FIP
S_19
00
1:5,75
0
00.0
30.0
60.0
15Mi
les
3RD
DIST
RICT
- PSA
302
ROUN
D 2 F
OCUS
IMPR
OVEM
ENT A
REA
Rese
arch &
Analy
sis Br
anch
Strate
gic Se
rvice
s Bure
auMe
tropo
litan P
olice
Dep
artme
nt30
0 Ind
iana A
venu
e, Ro
om 51
26Wa
shing
ton, D
C 20
001
202.7
27.41
74 (p
)20
2.727
.0711
(f)
PSA &
DIST
RICT G
EOSP
ATIAL
DAT
A SOU
RCE:
Metro
polita
n Polic
e Dep
artme
nt (M
PD) d
ata as
of02
/23/20
09MA
JOR
ROAD
GEO
SPAT
IAL DA
TA SO
URCE
: Offic
e of th
eCh
ief Te
chno
logy O
fficer
(OCT
O) G
eogra
phic I
nform
ation
Syste
m (G
IS) da
ta as
of 02
/23/20
09.
Metro
polita
n Poli
ce D
epart
ment
Wash
ington
, DC
Febru
ary 23
, 200
9
4th St
9th St
8th St
5th St
7th St
3rd St
13th St
Galla
tin S
t
Farra
gut S
t
Deca
tur St
Hami
lton S
t
Kenn
edy S
t
Emers
on St
Ingrah
am St
Jeffe
rson S
t
Long
fellow
St
Illinois Ave
Georgia Ave
Madis
on S
t
Kansas Ave
Critte
nden
St
Misso
uri Av
e
Arkansas Ave
Iowa Ave
14th St
Delaf
ield P
l
Shep
herd
Rd
Colorado Ave
7th Pl
3rd Pl
Sherm
an Cir
Madis
on S
t
Critte
nden
St
Delaf
ield P
lDe
lafiel
d Pl
Delaf
ield P
l
3rd Pl
403
404
402
4D R
OUND
2 FIA
MAP I
D: 4T
H DI
STRI
CT - P
SA's 4
03 &
404
ROUN
D 2 F
OCUS
IMPR
OVEM
ENT A
REA
Crim
e Anal
yst: C
harle
a S.L.
Jack
son, M
.A.
Unit:
Resea
rch &
Analy
sis Br
anch
Date:
Feb
ruary
23, 2
009
Inform
ation
on th
is map
is for
illust
ration
only.
The u
ser
ackno
wled
ges an
d agre
es tha
t the u
se of
this in
forma
tion
is at th
e sole
risk o
f the u
ser. N
o end
orsem
ent, l
iabilit
y, or
respo
nsibil
ity fo
r infor
matio
n or o
pinion
s exp
ressed
are
assum
ed or
accep
ted by
any a
gency
of the
Dist
rict o
fCo
lumbia
Gov
ernme
nt.
Scale
:
Coord
. Sys
tem:
NAD_
1983
_Stat
ePlan
e_Ma
rylan
d_FIP
S_19
00
1:7,50
0
00.0
30.06
0.015
Miles
4TH
DIST
RICT
- PSA
's 40
3 & 40
4RO
UND
2 FOC
US IM
PROV
EMEN
T ARE
A
Rese
arch &
Analy
sis Br
anch
Strate
gic Se
rvice
s Bure
auMe
tropo
litan P
olice
Dep
artme
nt30
0 Ind
iana A
venu
e, Ro
om 51
26Wa
shing
ton, D
C 20
001
202.7
27.41
74 (p
)20
2.727
.0711
(f)
PSA &
DIST
RICT G
EOSP
ATIAL
DAT
A SOU
RCE:
Metro
polita
n Polic
e Dep
artme
nt (M
PD) d
ata as
of02
/23/20
09MA
JOR
ROAD
GEO
SPAT
IAL DA
TA SO
URCE
: Offic
e of th
eCh
ief Te
chno
logy O
fficer
(OCT
O) G
eogra
phic I
nform
ation
Syste
m (G
IS) da
ta as
of 02
/23/20
09.
Metro
polita
n Poli
ce D
epart
ment
Wash
ington
, DC
Febru
ary 23
, 200
9
13th St
15th St
Missis
sippi A
ve
Sava
nnah
St
Cong
ress S
t
Alaba
ma Av
e
14th Pl
Cook Dr
Ande
rson P
l
13th Pl
Tanne
r Pl
Smith
Pl
Trento
n Pl
Dogwood
Dr
12th PlSava
nnah
Pl
Savan
nah P
l
705
704
703
706
7D R
OUND
2 FIA
MAP I
D: 7
TH D
ISTRI
CT - P
SA 70
5RO
UND
2 FOC
US IM
PROV
EMEN
T ARE
ACr
ime A
nalyst
: Cha
rlea S
.L. Ja
ckson
, M.A
.Un
it: Re
search
& An
alysis
Bran
chDa
te: F
ebrua
ry 23
, 200
9
Inform
ation
on th
is map
is for
illust
ration
only.
The u
ser
ackno
wled
ges an
d agre
es tha
t the u
se of
this in
forma
tion
is at th
e sole
risk o
f the u
ser. N
o end
orsem
ent, l
iabilit
y, or
respo
nsibil
ity fo
r infor
matio
n or o
pinion
s exp
ressed
are
assum
ed or
accep
ted by
any a
gency
of the
Dist
rict o
fCo
lumbia
Gov
ernme
nt.
Scale
:
Coord
. Sys
tem:
NAD_
1983
_Stat
ePlan
e_Ma
rylan
d_FIP
S_19
00
1:3,92
0
00.0
250.0
50.0
125
Miles
7TH
DIST
RICT
- PSA
705
ROUN
D 2 F
OCUS
IMPR
OVEM
ENT A
REA
Rese
arch &
Analy
sis Br
anch
Strate
gic Se
rvice
s Bure
auMe
tropo
litan P
olice
Dep
artme
nt30
0 Ind
iana A
venu
e, Ro
om 51
26Wa
shing
ton, D
C 20
001
202.7
27.41
74 (p
)20
2.727
.0711
(f)
PSA &
DIST
RICT G
EOSP
ATIAL
DAT
A SOU
RCE:
Metro
polita
n Polic
e Dep
artme
nt (M
PD) d
ata as
of02
/23/20
09MA
JOR
ROAD
GEO
SPAT
IAL DA
TA SO
URCE
: Offic
e of th
eCh
ief Te
chno
logy O
fficer
(OCT
O) G
eogra
phic I
nform
ation
Syste
m (G
IS) da
ta as
of 02
/23/20
09.
Metro
polita
n Poli
ce D
epart
ment
Wash
ington
, DC
Febru
ary 23
, 200
9
D
ecember
2010
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center2100 M St NWWashington, DC 20037http://www.urban.org