.jpg) |
Community Policing Case Studies with IACP/ITT Night Vision Community Policing Award
|
Community Policing Awards: Winner - Boston, Massachusetts Police Department
Category: Serving 250,001+ Residents
The Problem
The Boston Re-entry Initiative (BRI) was created in
response to a resurgence in violent crime across
Boston’s "hot-spots," or high-crime neighborhoods. An
analysis led by Police Commissioner Evans showed that
ex-offenders returning to high-crime neighborhoods
from the Suffolk County House of Correction
contributed significantly to the spike in crime.
Fragmentation of roles and responsibilities among
criminal justice agencies made it difficult for
authorities to mount an effective response.
In 2000, Boston experienced a significant 13
percent increase in violent and firearm crime across
the city. An analysis conducted by the police and
sheriff found that recidivism by ex-offenders
contributed to a significant portion of those new
violent incidents. Also, recently released offenders
consistently appeared in incident reports, and
moreover, veteran intelligence officers were seeing the
names of the same individuals who had been
identified as impact players during the early 90s, one
of Boston’s most violent periods. The overwhelming
majority of offenders were coming back to their
communities from the Suffolk County House of
Correction (SCHOC) and some from the state
Department of Correction (DOC).
A few offenders were serving probationary
sentences; a small number were on parole; and most
were under no ongoing legal sanction. Weak state
laws related to post-release treatment of violent
offenders exacerbate the problem of recidivism.
Massachusetts does not require post-release
supervision, resulting in little focused attention or
resources on promoting successful community reentry
among offenders. The need for an intensive,
collaborative reentry program was evident.
The Solution
As part of Boston Strategy II, the Boston Reentry
Initiative (BRI) was developed in partnership with faithbased,
community and criminal justice agencies. The
BRI was designed to reduce violent offenses by focusing
on those most serious and highest-risk returning
offenders. Its objectives included reducing offender
anonymity with a highly collaborative criminal justice
partnership supported by credible community leaders.
Imprisonment often results in long-term economic
and social consequences for the offenders
themselves, including disproportionate
unemployment, poverty and low educational
attainment. Most offenders are released without
sufficient support in their attempt to reintegrate into
the community. Indeed, many returning offenders
felt that there were few options available to them
besides returning to a life of crime.
Through BRI, inmates are offered tangible
opportunities to make positive choices with faithbased
and community mentor support; in addition,
they are warned simultaneously of serious
consequences of reoffending. After hearing this
message from a panel of representatives, inmates are
met by mentors to review their post-release
accountability plans. Individual support continues
post-release. Intensive surveillance, swift arrest and
fast-track prosecution by law enforcement usually
results for non-compliant reoffenders.
Planning for the BRI began in the spring of 2000.
The primary goal of the BRI was to reduce violent
offending and victimization by serious and violent
offenders across Boston neighborhoods. Its specific
objectives, premised on three strategic ideas, are:
1. Focusing efforts and resources on the most
serious returning offenders.
2. Creating a joint public safety and social service
approach involving an unprecedented
partnership between law enforcement,
government agencies, community providers and
faith-based organizations.
3. Providing intervention services to address
significant hurdles faced by offenders returning
from confinement, which were grounded in
research and past experience of several model
programs run by the BPD and SCHOC.
In anticipation of the results, police defined
success as both assisting these high-risk ex-offenders’
transition successfully into their communities as well
as apprehending those offenders who do commit
criminal actions sooner, and hopefully at less serious
offense levels.
Success also is defined from a public safety
perspective. Given the offense histories of the chosen
participants, police realized that it would be
unrealistic to expect a full turnaround for the
majority. However, it was anticipated that the
program could: engage at least a few in positive
changes; reduce offenses to minor offenses; as well
as swiftly rearrest reoffenders. This would be a
success for the city and police.
Based on much collective experience and research,
an existing hypothesis is that repeat offenders are the
driving force behind violent crime, and furthermore,
that only a small portion of these offenders is
responsible for leveraging a large number of violent
incidents, through ongoing intensive retaliations and
other violent behavior. Police anticipated that by
focusing intently on the small number of those most
at-risk for committing violent offenses, they would
have a significant impact on the overall rate and
number of violent crimes.
Evaluation
Results to date are very promising, with a
significant majority of active program participants
maintaining a positive change, while non-compliant
offenders have met swift rearrest. Individual
successes further illustrate the strong positive impact
of the BRI for individuals who otherwise lacked viable
alternatives.
Police see a promising correlation between
participation and changes in participants’ postrelease
criminal profiles. Also there is a reduction
in violent crime trends in participants’ home
communities.
Criminals typically would be expected, based
on their criminal histories, to continue to offend,
absent any form of post-release intervention. Yet
police have seen a significant difference in criminal
offending between those with Impact Player status
(inmates who have rejected offers of support and
assistance), as compared to those with some level
of participation in the program. Analysis revealed
that of the 184 released offenders chosen for the
initiative between April 2001 and March 2003, 20
percent of participants refused to comply and earned
Impact Player status. Of these, 62 percent offended
after release, and most of those arrests (60 percent)
were for serious and violent offenses.
By contrast, 48 percent actively participated in
the program, and among this group, 40 percent
reoffended, and the majority of these arrests were
on minor, non-violent matters. Of the 59 who
moderately participated, 51 percent remained arrestfree
post-release, and exactly half of those rearrested
were for non-violent minor offenses. Rearrests further
point to quick detection and swift action by law
enforcement, showing offenders that we are
delivering on pledges made at the panel presentation.
Crime data show an overall 4 percent decrease in
violent crime within the violent crime hot-spots that
are home to most BRI participants between the
period prior to the initiative (January 1, 2000-May
20, 2001) and post-initiative (January 1, 2002-May
20, 2003). During the same time, Boston crime, in
general, was on the rise.
The chief lesson of the Boston Reentry Initiative is
the power of collaboration — that traditional and
non-traditional entities working in concert — can
have positive effects beyond the mere sum of their
individual powers and authorities.
|