|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study by Shaw was to evaluate a community policing program aimed at reducing illegal gun-carrying.
METHODOLOGY:
The research design in this study was a non-experimental evaluation of a program implemented in Kansas City, Missouri, that was funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance in 1991. In particular, this program was supposed to "weed out" gun crime through community policing using door-to-door policing and gun tips and busts. Gun crime was defined as illegally carried handguns. The program was implemented in an 80 block area of Kansas City from March through May of 1992.
The Door-to-Door (DTD) portion of the program involved pairs of police officers visiting every home in the designated 80 block target area. The DTD teams informed adult residents of each home about the "Weed and Seed" program ("weeding out" criminal activity through community policing and "seeding" these sites with crime prevention programs) as well as providing a flyer about an anonymous gun tip hotline. The phone number provided to citizens for the gun tip hotline was provided by a local citizen group called The Ad Hoc Group Against Crime; police officers felt that this would help ensure the callers feeling of anonymity because the number was not a direct hotline to law enforcement officers. The Ad Hoc Group gave police daily compilations of the gun tips.
In addition to the evaluation of the program implementation and the tips received by the hotline, the author also conducted a survey of a random sample of 100 residents in the target area three months after the last DTD visit was made. Respondents were asked in-depth questions about their knowledge and opinion of the program. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The officers contacted 858 of the 1,085 occupied residences in their target area (79.1%) and found someone willing to talk to them in 91.6% of these homes. Eighty-eight percent of the people they spoke to said they would be willing to help with the gun tips program. As time went on, the author noticed that the length of the officers' visits decreased from 4.6 minutes in the first two weeks of the program to 2.6 minutes in the third month. The author pointed out that only 2 tips were called in during the three months of the program, and these ironically were outside the target area of the program. The author concluded that implementation of the program was successful, but the end result was a failure. Findings from the survey suggested that community members were well aware of the violence in their neighborhoods, and as a result, many were afraid to step out of their homes. Only 79% of those visited by police officers recalled anything about the gun tips program, and a mere 49% recalled the flyer. The author pointed out that this proportion of citizens, when extrapolated to the entire community, should have resulted in more gun tips called in. Indeed, he found that eighty-eight percent of the people he surveyed said they would be willing to call a hotline with information about illegal gun-carrying. While a handful of respondents reported fear of retaliation as a reason for not calling the gun tip hotline, many more stated that they would be willing to call if only they could tell whether or not people were carrying weapons. As one respondent argued, since they never display their gun, there is no way to know who is carrying" (p 372). The author concluded that the program's failure could be attributed more to a lack of information on the part of the public than to a fear of involvement with the police.
AUTHOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS:
The author suggested that the program might be improved with better publicity. In particular, he discussed the potential of schools and churches as places to publicize the program and solicit gun tips.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
Missouri
Adult Firearms Carrying
Juvenile Firearms Carrying
Firearms Carrying Prevention
Law Enforcement Intervention
Law Enforcement Program
Police Intervention
Police Program
Firearms Control
Community Policing
Community Based
Intervention Program
Prevention Program
Program Evaluation
Program Effectiveness
03-05 |