Evaluation of the Lapd Community
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EVALUATION OF THE LAPD COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP PHOTO CREDIT: LAPD M ARCH 2020 Jorja Leap, Ph.D. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, UCLA LEAD RESEARCHERS Jorja Leap, Ph.D. | Department of Social Welfare, UCLA P. Jeffrey Brantingham, Ph.D. | Department of Anthropology, UCLA Todd Franke, Ph.D. | Department of Social Welfare, UCLA Susana Bonis, M.A. | Department of Social Welfare, UCLA PROJECT DIRECTOR Karrah R. Lompa, M.S.W., M.N.P.L. | Department of Social Welfare, UCLA DATA MANAGER Megan Mansfield, M.A. | Department of Social Welfare, UCLA DATA ANALYSTS Erin Hartman, Ph.D. | Departments of Statistics and Political Science, UCLA Sydney Kahmann, B.S. | Department of Statistics, UCLA Megan Mansfield, M.A. | Department of Social Welfare, UCLA Tiffany McBride, M.A. | Department of Social Welfare, UCLA FIELD RESEARCHERS Kean Flowers, B.A. | Department of Social Welfare, UCLA Ann Kim, B.A. | Department of Social Welfare, UCLA Monica Macias, B.A. | Department of Social Welfare, UCLA MARCH 2020 CSP Research and Evaluation Advisory Committee Joe Buscaino LA City Council, District 15 Gerald Chaleff Special Assistant for LAPD Constitutional Policing and Legal Counsel (Ret.) Preeti Chauhan, Ph.D. John Jay College of Criminal Justice Annalisa Enrile, Ph.D. USC Suzanne‐Dworak‐Peck School of Social Work Susan Lee Chicago CRED Sandy Jo Mac Arthur LAPD Assistant Chief (Ret.) Fernando Rejon Urban Peace Institute Anne Tremblay Mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD) Hector Verdugo Homeboy Industries MARCH 2020 Acknowledgements We are deeply grateful to LAPD Chief of Police Michel Moore for his support throughout the evaluation process. Under his leadership, this report was made possible thanks to the commitment and hard work of the men and women of the Los Angeles Police Department. Additionally, from the onset, this evaluation depended on the involvement of the CSP Research and Evaluation Advisory Committee, who invested time and effort freely to help shape this study. We are also grateful for the participation of both the community and institutional partners who play a vital role in the CSP in Boyle Heights and Watts. Most importantly, we are deeply indebted to the residents of Nickerson Gardens and Ramona Gardens. These residents shared their perceptions, their thoughts and their dreams, ensuring that community voice was a fundamental part of this effort. We appreciate everyone who engaged in the research process for their devotion to transforming the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve, ensuring that violence can end and public safety can be ensured. As part of this, we are grateful to all of our funders, including philanthropy as well as private donors, for making this evaluation study possible. Finally, while she could not be interviewed or otherwise involved in this research, we acknowledge Connie Rice as a co‐creator of the CSP public safety model and a visionary regarding relationship‐based policing. Funders FUNDING FOR THIS EVALUATION GENEROUSLY PROVIDED BY: Cindy Miscikowski And a donor who wishes to remain anonymous TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary i Key Evaluation Findings ii Methodology iii Three Approaches to the Evaluation v Challenges xii Recommendations xiv The Path Ahead xxii CHAPTER 1 Overview of the CSP Evaluation: Methodology and Origins 1 Evaluation Overview 1 Origins of the CSP: Setting the Stage 8 The CSP Model 18 CHAPTER 2 Documenting the Impact of CSP on Violent Crime: An Analysis of Crime Statistics Using Synthetic Control Methods 25 Introduction 25 Setting and Data 29 Results 34 Discussion 38 Conclusions 42 CHAPTER 3 Qualitative Findings: Officer and Community Accounts of CSP 43 Introduction 43 Qualitative Research Design 43 Qualitative Data Collection 44 Qualitative Data Analysis 46 Qualitative Themes 48 CHAPTER 4 Community Survey: Impressions and Understanding of CSP 77 Introduction 77 Ramona Gardens 83 Nickerson Gardens 97 Discussion 109 CHAPTER 5 Conclusions and Recommendations: A Blueprint for Taking CSP into the Future 113 Conclusions 114 Challenges 115 Recommendations 116 The Path Ahead 137 REFERENCES 139 APPENDICES A: Synthetic Controls 143 B: Synthetic Control Methods and Detecting Displacement 149 C: Interview and Focus Group Protocols 151 D: Community Survey 163 E: Community Survey Informed Consent 180 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Community Safety Partnership emerged as a comprehensive violence reduction and community safety strategy first implemented in four public housing developments in 2011 by the Los Angeles Police Department, the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA), and the City of Los Angeles’ Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD). On the basis of its impact in these settings, CSP has been recognized as a state‐of‐ the‐art counter‐violence strategy and has received extensive coverage in the media. However, despite the commendation and media attention, there has been limited external assessment of the CSP.1 Beyond this, there have been no formal evaluations of the program to determine if it, in fact, works. Additionally, despite the promise and early successes CSP encountered, as time passed, challenges arose surrounding fidelity to the CSP model, leading to a need for the model to be documented and formalized. This evaluation of the LAPD Community Safety Partnership (CSP) was designed to examine both the impacts and challenges that have emerged over eight years of experience with this non‐traditional, community safety initiative. Over the course of the last year, three teams of researchers from UCLA have rigorously evaluated this model, using both quantitative and qualitative research methods to examine crime data as well as draw upon the viewpoints of law enforcement, residents, institutional partners, and community‐based organizations. Ultimately, the evaluation study set out to holistically assess the CSP and its impact, focusing on two of the four public housing developments where CSP was originally implemented: 1 At the request of HACLA in order to guide funding decisions, The Urban Institute – first alone, and then in partnership with Harder and Company – conducted two assessments of CSP in 2014 and 2019. These assessments were used to inform the current evaluation process. Please note that the Urban Institute is a Washington, D.C. based organization completely separate from the Los Angeles‐based Urban Peace Institute (UPI). LAPD Community Safety Partnership Evaluation [i] Executive Summary Nickerson Gardens in Watts and Ramona Gardens in Boyle Heights.2 The evaluation plan, detailed in the first chapter of the report (“Overview of the CSP Evaluation: Methodology and Origins”), was established prior to engaging in any research activities. Over the past year, the goal of the evaluation study was to assess whether the CSP model actually works and – if CSP is determined to be effective – how the key elements of this model of law enforcement can be implemented nationally. To accomplish this, it was critical to offer recommendations on what is required to retain CSP’s effectiveness as it expanded, improved its operations, and was institutionalized within the LAPD. The meta‐analysis of all data collection led to the following conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the CSP model and the challenges it faces. KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS It is clear from the data collection, analysis, and findings described in the research chapters in the report that the CSP Comprehensive Safety Model effectively works by building trust and relationships between CSP officers and community residents and stakeholders. These relationships and the actions they give rise to, in turn, ensure that the community feels protected and strengthened. As trust increases between residents and the LAPD, the evaluation research indicates that residents do reach out to officers when there are problems. This also contributes to a greater sense of safety, further reflected by the decreases in violent crime. The key evaluation findings consisted of the following: CSP’s trust and relationship‐based partnership policing improves resident perceptions of safety. Implementation of CSP helps reduce the dangerous conditions at CSP sites that historically fueled violent crime and enhanced gang control. By disrupting gang intimidation and control of public spaces, CSP increases residents’ ability to gather and enjoy public spaces, facilities, and programs. 2 The four original CSP implementation sites for of the LAPD Community Safety Partnership were Ramona Gardens in Boyle Heights along with Imperial Courts, Jordan Downs and Nickerson Gardens, all in Watts. LAPD Community Safety Partnership Evaluation [ii] Executive Summary As CSP works to reduce dangerous and high‐risk conditions that fuel crime, residents’ and stakeholder trust grows. Analysis of LAPD crime statistics demonstrates that crime reductions associated with CSP sites are even greater than overall crime declines across the City. It is clear that the impact of CSP is not narrowly limited to reducing gang violence; instead, its efficacy for other epidemic crises, such as homelessness, is promising and should be implemented. METHODOLOGY The UCLA evaluation team went beyond the standard research methodology to ensure that this evaluation met community‐based research best practices. These practices emphasize that evaluations of important public policies ultimately be of value to the organizations, communities, and settings that are involved in and impacted by the policies. As