1. The S.A.R.A. Model in Action
Choices on Madison:
Homeless Action Plan
The S.A.R.A. Model in Action

2. ABSTRACT Central Arizona Shelter Services History
Prior to Margaret T. Hance Park
people
Outdoor shelter - 9th Ave & Madison St.
900 people
Funding for indoor shelter
400 people

3. S. A. R. A. MODEL REVIEW
Scanning
Analysis
Response
Assessment

4. SCANNING Drug Marketplace Criminal Activity Blight
Homeless Population Concerns
CPTED Issues
Economic Issues
Public Restroom Facilities

5. SCANNING Continued Residents and Business Owners
Health Service Providers
Faith-Based Organizations
Government Agencies
Lack of Consensus among:
Neighborhood Groups
Organizations

6. ANALYSIS General Observations Crime analysis from April 1 to Sept. 1
Calls for service - time and location
Demographic survey prepared by ASU students
Survey of homeless population by PD
Two CPTED surveys
Photographs

7. ANALYSIS Continued
Hand Search of Violent Crime Reports from April 1, 1999 through September 30, 1999
44 Aggravated assaults
23 transient or homeless
7 police officers or security officers
20 Robberies
75% were homeless

8. ANALYSIS Continued Time
hours had the highest frequency of violent crime
& hours were peak times

9. ANALYSIS Continued Geographic Information Close correlation between:
Drug crimes
Property crimes
Violent crimes

10. ANALYSIS Continued Community Survey Results
93% Felt drug problem had increased
81 % Felt violence had increased
Blight identified as respondent’s third priority

11. ANALYSIS Continued Valley-wide Perception Uncontrolled disorder
High Drug Use
High Street Crime
Ascetically Unpleasant Appearance

12. ANALYSIS Continued Environmental Design Issues
Buildings and alleys poorly or unlit
Dark alcoves
Walking distance to dining facility

13. ANALYSIS Continued In Summary the analysis revealed that:
The police was reactive, lacked direction, largely ineffective
Crime problems linked to drug use
Concentrated behavior problems
Homeless victimized / criminals camouflaged
Lack of services for the homeless
Disparity between stakeholders
Contribution of blight issues

17. RESPONSE Goals Eliminate Drugs Reduce Crimes Address the Blight Issue
Promote Understanding
Identify Stakeholders
Improve Quality of Life of Homeless Population

18. RESPONSE Continued Guidelines
Use of traditional and non-traditional methods
Define “Problem”
Two or more incidents
Similar in nature
Capable of causing harm
Public expects police to act

19. RESPONSE Continued Drug Marketplace Covert Surveillance
Closed Circuit Television
Undercover Foot and Bicycle patrols for intelligence gathering
Sting Operations
Dummy Cameras and Flashes

20. RESPONSE Continued Drug Marketplace Continued CPTED Improved lighting
Fence vacant lots
Encourage businesses to move into vacant buildings
Landscaping and 2300 hour sprinklers
Eliminate unnecessary and overgrown vegetation

21. RESPONSE Continued Street Crime
Attacked in same manner as Drug Marketplace
Conscientious patrols
Marked Car and Plainclothes Patrols
Officer Training in Problem Solving
Officer Interest and Commitment

22. RESPONSE Continued Blight More lights, brighter lights
Landscaping by city and businesses
Face to face contacts with violators of good appearance
If necessary, revert to abatement actions

23. RESPONSE Continued Blight Continued Partnership to Combat Blight
Capital Mall Association
Phoenix Community Alliance
Permanent Residents and Businesses
Capitol Police
Railroad Police
Zoning and Neighborhood Services
Parks and Recreation
Sanitation

24. RESPONSE Continued Repeat Victimization Ready Source of Income
Victim Triangle / victim-offender-location
Use of Media

25. RESPONSE Continued Homeless Issues Cooperative Effort Between:
Police Department
Social Services
Mental Health
Medical Help
Officer Training for Other Alternatives
“Another Direction” to assist Officer’s contact

26. RESPONSE Continued Core Group of Stakeholders to Meet Regularly
Public Restroom Facilities Available 24/7
Sell the City & Area as Business Viable
Increased Communications Between:
Residents / Business Owners
Service Providers / Faith-Based Services
Government Agencies

30. ASSESSMENT Traditional Methods Statistical Analysis Surveys
Year to Year
Crime Trends
Surveys
Quality of Life Issues
Concerns with crime, services, and drug issues
Focus Groups
Electronic Bulletin Boards

31. ASSESSMENT Continued Non-Traditional Methods
Increased Profits for Legitimate Businesses
Increased Legitimate Area Usage
Decreased Illegitimate Foot / Vehicle Traffic
Increased Property Values
Improved Neighborhood Appearance
Increased Occupancy in Problem Buildings
Less Loitering

32. ASSESSMENT Continued
Continuous Evaluations
Photography

33. During the Assessment Stage

34. Broken Windows Syndrome

35. Fenced Vacant Lots

36. A Next Door Neighbor

38. The End