Crime reduction and pops

We're the ideal place for homework help. If you are looking for affordable, custom-written, high-quality and non-plagiarized papers, your student life just became easier with us. Click either of the buttons below to place your order.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

See attachments 

Crime Reduction Plan

[Write your City/Town Name, Criminal Justice Agency here]

Student Name

Walden University


Table of Contents

Community Crime Reduction Needs Analysis


Crime Reduction Framework


Supporting Data




Community Crime Reduction Needs Analysis

Your local community is facing several crime issues that impact the safety and quality of life of residents. As the director or chief of a criminal justice agency (police, courts, corrections/probation—whichever is most relevant to your current or future career), you have been charged with developing a crime reduction plan.

To begin, you must perform an analysis of major crime issues affecting your community and determine which crimes warrant the focus of your crime reduction plan.

· Briefly introduce your community (e.g., population, economy). (1–2 paragraphs)

· Based on your research and analysis, explain at least two major crime issues in the community, including their prevalence and location. (2–3 paragraphs)

· Explain socio-cultural, economic, and/or structural variables that contribute to or are risk factors for the crime issues identified (e.g., opioid abuse statistics, poverty rate). (1–2 paragraphs)

Crime Reduction Framework

· Propose crime reduction strategies that your agency, in cooperation with other agencies and stakeholders, could implement to address the identified crime issues. (2–3 paragraphs)

· Describe or present a high-level timeline for implementation of the strategies. (1 paragraph or a visual)

Identify key community stakeholders (individuals, groups, or organizations) relevant to reducing the identified crime issues in the community, including key influencers and potential key opposers. (half to 1 page, or a bulleted list with descriptions)

· Explain how the plan aligns with local government vision and/or strategic plan. (1 paragraph)

· Provide an inventory of needed resources (information, tools, people) for plan implementation. (1 paragraph or bulleted list with descriptions)

· Explain strategies for promoting information and resource sharing among key stakeholders and public safety sectors. (1–2 paragraphs)

Supporting Data

· Provide data from at least three credible professional or academic resources to support the crime reduction strategies you proposed. (1–3 paragraphs)

· Define objective criteria for success of your plan and explain a feasible, time-bound strategy for measuring success in meeting plan outcomes. (2–3 paragraphs)


©2018 Walden University 4





Problem-Oriented Policing Report

Newark, New Jersey, Police Department

Student Name

Walden University


Table of Contents



POP: A Strategic Approach


Effective Leadership


POP: Crime Identification







Problem-oriented policing (POP) is a current strategy in American policing, as well as in the international law enforcement community. For this Assessment, you will first learn about POP through a series of videos. You will review an eight-part interview with Herman Goldstein, the founder of POP. Then you will create a report in which you assess the POP strategy from a leadership perspective. POP allows leaders to analyze issues and identify effective response strategies for their teams.

Part 1: View the eight-part interview with Herman Goldstein.

Part 2: Read the case study on problem-oriented policing in Newark, NJ.

Part 3: Answer the questions in each section in this report. 

POP: A Strategic Approach

· How is problem-oriented policing a strategic approach to crime? (3–4 paragraphs)

Effective Leadership

· Why and how was effective leadership needed for the problem-oriented policing project in Newark, NJ, to address drug dealing? (3–4 paragraphs) 

POP: Crime Identification

· How was the crime problem identified and addressed in the problem-oriented policing project in Newark, NJ, regarding drug dealing? (3–4 paragraphs) 


· Is problem-oriented policing an effective solution for police administrators? (2–3 paragraphs) 


©2018 Walden University 4






A Final Report to the U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
on the Field Applications of the Problem-
Oriented Guides for Police Project



This project was supported by cooperative agreement #2001CKWXK051 by the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained
herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S.
Department of Justice. References to specific companies, products, or services should not be
considered an endorsement of the product by the author or the U.S. Department of
Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.

Apartment Complexes, it would scan for
problem apartment complexes in the city,
analyze the drug markets at two or three of
these, develop appropriate responses, and
assess the interventions.


This project is one of several commissioned
by the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services, the COPS office, to
evaluate the utility of the Problem-Oriented
Guides for Police – the POP Guides. Police
in four cities were invited to mount a project
to deal with a problem covered by one of the
guides. An outside consultant would be
made available and would write the report.

The first step was to identify problem
apartment complexes suitable for treatment.

Twenty-two possible sites were identified
through analysis of police data and by

The project reported here was mounted in
Newark, NJ. Making use of the guide on
Drug Dealing in Privately Owned

drawing on the Department’s knowledge of
drug markets in the city. More detailed
analysis of these sites was then undertaken

___________________________________________________________________________ 1

to identify the two or three for intervention.
It was found that several of the apartment
complexes were located in close proximity
to entry/exit ramps for Interstate 78, which
provided out-of-town buyers with easy
access to drug markets. The buyers could
briefly enter the city, purchase drugs, drive
around in a loop and quickly exit again.
Loops of this kind were associated with both
sets of interstate ramps serving the city. This
information led to a change of direction for
the project: instead of making changes at
specific apartment buildings, it would seek
to make it more difficult and risky for out-
of-towners to purchase drugs in the loop.

It was decided to intervene in only one of
the loops, with the other serving as a
comparison. The intervention would consist
of a traffic management plan (developed
with the Newark Traffic Engineer) to alter
traffic patterns and restrict parking in the
loop, accompanied by enhanced law
enforcement at the problematic apartment
complexes. The intervention is not yet fully
implemented, but it will be evaluated using a
variety of pre- and post-intervention data
about drug dealing. It will dovetail with a
more ambitious project by the State
government to rebuild the ramps to route
traffic away from residential areas.

The project has already yielded valuable
lessons about introducing problem-oriented
policing in a large city police department
and about drug dealing at privately rented
apartment complexes. Despite the change of
focus in mid-stream, the guide still proved
useful and the project endorsed the concept
underlying the series – police will make use
of research when the results are presented in
easily digestible form.


The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police1,
issued by the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS), are designed to

assist local police in dealing with specific
crime and disorder problems. Each guide
summarizes existing knowledge about a
specific kind of problem, and then helps
police analyze and respond to the variant of
the problem encountered in their
jurisdiction. Soon after the first batch of
guides had been completed, COPS funded a
study – the Field Applications Project – to
test their utility. Police in four cities were
invited to mount a problem-oriented
policing project on a problem covered by a
guide, which would be used to structure the
project. A consultant drawn from the group
of writers who produced the guides would
provide whatever help was needed and
would also provide a report on the project.

The cities invited to participate in the
Field Applications Project were Chula Vista
(California), Newark (New Jersey), Raleigh
(North Carolina) and Savannah (Georgia).
Their choice was determined by the location
of the four consultants selected by the COPS
office, but the police department in each city
chose the problem that would be addressed.
This arrangement had several advantages.
For the police, it secured expert assistance in
mounting a problem-oriented policing
project to deal with a problem they wished
to address. For the consultant, it provided
first hand knowledge of the way that police
use the guides, which would be of assistance
in producing future guides. For the COPS
office, it would provide important feedback
on the guides, in which they had made a
considerable investment.

For Newark, the subject of the
present report, the choice of problem was
straightforward. The Police Director, Joseph
Santiago, chose to address violence
associated with drug dealing, which was of
great concern to the city. Of the available
guides, Drug Dealing in Privately Owned
Apartment Complexes, was the most
relevant to this problem. He assigned
Captain John Shane, Commanding Officer,

___________________________________________________________________________ 2

Policy and Planning Division, to serve as the
liaison between the Newark Police
Department (NPD) and the consultant,
Ronald V. Clarke, who is based at the
Newark campus of Rutgers University.2 As
the NPD’s analytic capability was already
fully committed in serving the Compstat
process and in providing routine
administrative and operational data, Nick
Zanin, a graduate student at the Rutgers
School of Criminal Justice was recruited
under the grant to provide the analytic
support needed for any major problem-
oriented policing project.

The original intention was to identify
two or three apartment complexes with
active drug markets that might be brought
under control by design and management
changes. To increase the chances of success,
these changes would be accompanied by
heightened police enforcement focused on
arresting the most active dealers. With these
offenders out of the way, the design and
management changes would have a better
chance of achieving a long-term reduction in
drug dealing and the associated violence.
However, it soon became clear that a better
investment of effort would be to focus the
project on several troublesome apartment
complexes located close to one of the exits
serving a major interstate (I-78) running by
the city. The exit facilitated purchase of
drugs by out-of-towners who came to the
city for this express purpose. They could
easily find drugs at one of the apartment
complexes near to the exit without venturing
too far into the city, and then loop round
quickly back onto the highway. It also meant
that commuters working in the city who
wanted to buy drugs could conveniently
stop-off at one of the apartment complexes
on their way to or from work.

As a result, the response phase of the
project focused on developing a plan to
change traffic patterns to reduce the
convenience of these “out-of-town”

purchases, whether by commuters or not.
Considerable help with the plan was
received from the city’s Traffic Engineer. In
fact, the State had already developed a plan
to alter the exit to improve traffic flows in
and out of the city and to route traffic away
from residential areas. Though not the
intention, these changes would likely reduce
drug dealing at the apartments close to the
exit. As construction was not due to start
until 2004, discussions with the Traffic
Engineer focused on two issues: interim
changes to street patterns that might be
brought into effect before construction
commenced; and for the longer term,
refining the construction plans to increase
the impact on drug dealing. At the same
time, a plan was developed for increasing
police enforcement to reinforce the effect of
the traffic changes.

This report provides a description of
the project undertaken in Newark, from its
inception in October 2001 till mid-January
2004. At the time of writing, the response
selected (a combination of traffic
management and police enforcement) was
not fully implemented and assessment was
still at the planning stage.

The familiar SARA model
(scanning, analysis, response, and
assessment) structured the project, but, like
many problem-oriented policing projects, it
diverged from the model at several points,
notably when the focus was redefined.
Accordingly, the report follows the order of
tasks undertaken rather than SARA.


The initial goal of the project was to identify
two or three particularly problematic
apartment complexes where there was a
good chance of making interventions
suggested by the guide. To accomplish this
it was necessary to gain some understanding
of drug markets in Newark. The first step

___________________________________________________________________________ 3

was for Dr. Clarke and Mr. Zanin to go on
“ride-alongs” with the NPD’s Safer Cities
Task Force (SCTF) and Special
Investigations Unit (SIU).

The arrests for 2001 were geocoded
using ArcView (98% of addresses were
matched) to see if the resulting pin map
would reveal any concentrations or “hot
spots” of arrests, but arrests turned out to be
scattered too widely across the city for this
map to serve its purpose. More useful was a
density map of arrests created using
ArcView Spatial Analyst, with a street
network overlay

The SCTF is a group of plainclothes

officers who patrol the city at night in a
team of about eight officers in four
unmarked cars. They stop and talk to people
who are loitering in front of apartment
buildings, at street corners and outside
stores. During the course of a night, they
often observe drug transactions taking place.
The ride-alongs with the SCTF yielded
information about the most common drugs
sold, locations that were especially busy,
how sellers and buyers communicated, and
how they avoided arrest.

3 (see Appendix 1). This
revealed a number of arrest hot spots that
might have indicated the location of drug
markets. Overlaying this map on the original
pin map showed that many drug arrests also
occurred outside these hot spots (Appendix

The density map in Appendix 1 also
shows the borders of the city’s four police
districts – North, South, West and East. It is
clear that drug arrest hotspots are fairly
evenly distributed between the North, South
and West Districts, but there are relatively
few in the East District. Table 3 shows that
the distribution of calls for service for drug
offenses in the four districts and is
consistent with the picture in Appendix 1
based on arrest data.

The SIU uses undercover officers to

conduct buy-bust operations and, on several
occasions in the early months of the project,
Clarke and Zanin accompanied units from
the SIU in a surveillance van to observe a
number of problem apartment buildings.
These observations yielded detailed
information about the operation of drug
markets at several private apartment
complexes, and general information about
dealers and buyers, in particular about
whether the latter were predominantly local
people or out-of-towners (see Table 1).


While the calls for service and drug arrest
data yielded valuable background
information for the project, they did not
pinpoint drug markets in private apartment
complexes. This could only be done through
continued observation with the SCTF and
SIU, through discussions with district
commanders and their staff, and through
more detailed geographic analysis of data.
The objective was to identify approximately
20 problematic apartment complexes, before
narrowing down the list to two or three that
had the worst problem, or that could be
changed through the interventions
recommended by the guide. These two or

In parallel with these ride-alongs, an
analysis was undertaken of the SIU’s arrest
data for 2001 to see what information it
yielded about active drug markets
(identifying information was removed from
the data before they were released for
analysis). Nearly 10,000 arrests were
analyzed. Eighty-five percent of those
arrested were male; the mean age was 29;
73% were black; and 71% were Newark
residents. As for the drugs involved, 32%
were arrested with heroin, 30% with
cocaine, 16% with marijuana, and 10% with
crack (see Table 2).

___________________________________________________________________________ 4

three complexes would be the focus of the

For the purposes of the study, an
apartment complex was defined as a single
building or multi-building complex with five
or more apartments. Sixteen potential
problem apartment complexes meeting this
definition were identified in the course of
ride-alongs, and an additional six sites were
identified through spatial analysis of 2001
arrest data. This resulted in 22 potential sites
for the project (Appendix 3). The process of
elimination proceeded as follows (Table 4
for details):

1. Eleven sites not located in an
identified hotspot or with fewer than
15 arrests in 2001 (see Table 5) were

2. Four apartment complexes were
eliminated that proved to be public

3. One site was eliminated because the
district commander believed it was
now under control.

4. Individual meetings with district
commanders to discuss the six
remaining sites (Appendix 4)
resulted in the elimination of an
additional site that was no longer a
problem and the identification of
four additional problem sites. This
exercise therefore resulted in the
identification of nine problem sites,
out of which two or three were to be
selected for intensive treatment.


Four of the apartment complexes selected
for closer study were in the South District,
three were in the North, two in the West and
none in the East. Again, this distribution
corresponded loosely with the distribution of
drug calls for service and drug arrests. To
check whether it matched the distribution of
privately owned apartment complexes, a list

of these was sought from the city. After
discussions with the Police Department, the
Fire Department, the Tax Assessor, and the
City Engineer, it became apparent that no
accurate list was maintained and one would
have to be created by putting together
different lists, cleaning them, making them
compatible and then excluding redundant
entries. This was a much more difficult task
than anticipated at the outset. It stretched
over several months, and was only
accomplished with the help of Denise
Stankowitz, GIS analyst with the MIS
Division of the police department (see
Appendix 5 for methodology).

The final database included 506
privately owned apartment complexes.
Appendix 6 is a density map of these
complexes for the city and Table 5 shows
their distribution by police district. Three
facts are apparent from Table 5:

1. Only a small percentage of all

privately owned apartment
complexes in the city could be
considered problematic drug dealing
sites. This remained true even when
the 11 apartment complexes with
fewer than 15 arrests or which were
outside any drug arrest hot spot were
retained in the sample. Their
retention would raise the number of
problematic complexes from nine to
20 and from 2% of the total to 4%.

2. The East District, which contains
most of the privately owned
apartment complexes, contains none
of the problem sites. (This may not
be surprising, because the prior
analysis showed that the East District
had fewer drug arrests than the other

3. A very high proportion (4 out of 14)
of the comparatively few private
apartment complexes in the South
District were identified as problems.
These four problem apartment

___________________________________________________________________________ 5

complexes were geographically
concentrated and were all close to an
exit ramp off Interstate 78, which
channels commuters and other out-
of-city traffic directly into the area.

Together, these facts suggested that

private apartment complexes in a large
urban area might not be inherently
accommodating for drug sales, but their
location near an interstate or a major artery
might compound the problem. In fact,
evidence of this relationship has been noted
in several research studies (see Table 6)

Captain John Scott-Bey, South
District Commander, confirmed that the
proximity of the I-78 exit greatly
exacerbated the drug problem in his district.
He said that both interchanges for I-78 in the
South District offered direct access into
residential neighborhoods and a quick
“loop” back onto the interstate. He
reinforced the point by driving Clarke and
Zanin around the loops and past the four
identified problem apartment complexes,
which all fell within one of the loops.
Driving either of the loops and making a
quick stop to purchase drugs would take no
more than a few minutes. He said two main
groups of buyers were involved in this trade
– out-of-towners who came to the area
expressly to purchase drugs and who left as
quickly as possible, and commuters working
in the city who purchased drugs either on
entering the city in the morning or leaving it
at night.

As the loop appeared to be the
underlying problem, offering drug buyers
easy access to apartment complexes where
drug markets were located, the project staff
decided at this point to change the focus of
the project and target the loop that included
the four problem sites (Loop 1) instead of
targeting two or three problem buildings
throughout the city. The POP Guide

suggested that a useful intervention for this
type of problem was “limiting potential
buyers’ ability to cruise through the area in
search of open drug markets.” While Loop 2
offered the same easy-off-easy-on access, its
traffic pattern was more complex and would
be harder to change. Moreover, Captain
Scott-Bey believed that the drug problem in
Loop 2 was already being contained.

An immediate cost of making
changes to Loop 1 might be displacement of
the problem to Loop 2, which was only
about one mile further west along I-78. This
possibility will need to be investigated
during the assessment stage.


More information was needed about the
loops, but first a geographic boundary for
each had to be defined. The boundaries
shown in Appendices 7-9 were defined with
the help of South District Command staff.
Table 6 provides data about the loops and
compares them with the city as whole. This
comparison showed:

1. The two loops covered a similar

(small) geographic area and
population, though Loop 2 was
somewhat larger

2. They account for similar (relatively
large) proportions of drug calls for
service, drug arrests, shootings and
shots fired

3. Loop 1, with a population of 3% of
the city accounted for a
disproportionately large proportion
of homicides and gun homicides
(14.3%) in the entire city. This
disproportion of homicides
confirmed the decision to focus the
project on Loop 1 rather than Loop

___________________________________________________________________________ 6


Appendix 11 shows an aerial photograph of
Loop 1 with a possible driving pattern, and
Appendix 12 shows the same area with the
same driving pattern past the project sites
(Appendix 13 explains the site names). The
existing configuration of the streets makes it
possible to enter the neighborhood from I-
78, drive past the project sites within a few
minutes, and then easily access the highway
again. Photographs of the project sites taken
by the project team are also included in
Appendixes 14-33. (The aerial photos were
taken from a National Guard helicopter
made available to the NPD to support drug
interdiction efforts.)

The next stage of the project was to
determine if the traffic pattern in Loop 1
could be changed to make it more difficult
and risky for out-of-towners to purchase
drugs at the four problematic sites. A
meeting to discuss this possibility was held
with Dr. Bahman Izmadeir, the Traffic
Engineer on August 15, 2002. It was a great
(but pleasant) surprise for the project team
to learn that plans had already been made by
the city, with $25 million funding from New
Jersey Department of Transportation (NJ
DOT), to reroute the I-78 entry/exit ramps in
Loop 1. Though these plans were many
years in the making, the Police Department
seemed not to have been made aware of
them. The new ramps would take traffic
directly onto an arterial street and away
from the residential area into which it now
debouched (see Table 7 for a summary of
changes and Appendix 34 for a map).
Though not the specific intention, the new
ramps would virtually eliminate direct
access to the problem apartment buildings
sites for incoming traffic.

The construction plan required a new
elementary school to be built to replace the
existing Belmont-Runyon School located
near the interstate ramps. In 1997 a young

boy, Terrell James, had been struck by a car
and killed while crossing the street near the
school. The driver was an out-of-town drug
buyer speeding onto the interstate after
purchasing heroin. The incident was widely
reported by the local media, including the
New York Times and the Newark Star
Ledger, and was mentioned in passing by
several police officers. The Traffic Engineer
said the boy’s death had led directly to some
small improvements to the plans for the new
ramp construction. (Appendix 10 is an aerial
photograph of the ramps, the Belmont-
Runyon School, and the accident site.
Appendix 36 is an aerial photo of the
construction site of the new school taken in
August 2003.)

Because construction had not yet
begun, the Traffic Engineer thought it
possible to make small changes to the plans
to help reduce the drug dealing in the
problem sites, but this would have to be
discussed with Urbitran Associates, the
consulting engineers engaged by NJ DOT.
Accordingly, a meeting was held with the
Urbitran team on September 9, 2002 to gain
a more detailed understanding of the
changes to the ramps and the proposed
construction timeline. It turned out that it
would be more than one year before the
construction would begin, and at least two
years before its completion.

As this was too long to wait, the

project staff began to consider an
intervention plan to make drug purchases
more difficult and risky and that could be
implemented quickly. This plan would have
to meet three important criteria: it must be
inexpensive (requiring no major road
works); it must complement the NJ DOT
plans; and it must be acceptable to local
residents and the city. It took a series of
meetings between the project staff and City
Traffic Engineers to develop the plan, the
most important element of which consisted
of changes to the direction of one-way

___________________________________________________________________________ 7

streets. The components of the plan are
listed in Table 8, mapped in Appendix 35
and reported by the Newark Star-Ledger
(Carter, 2003).

The plan was cleared with the local
Councilman who pledged his support. An
ordinance was drafted by the Traffic
Engineers, approved by the City Engineer
and eventually passed by the City Council
on June 9, 2003. All elements of this plan
had been implemented by November 1,
2003, at an estimated cost of $40,000
including pavement markings, light
stanchions, signage and salaries.4 (See
Appendices 37 to 39 for photos of the
enforcement zone sign, the cul-de-sac
guardrail and one example of a notice of
intention to introduce the traffic and parking


To coincide with the introduction of the
immediate traffic intervention detailed in
Table 8, Captain Shane developed a police
intervention plan. This plan was detailed in a
9-page “Director’s Memorandum” (see
Appendix 40) issued by Robert Rankin,
Police Director, on October 15, 2003. It
came into effect on November 1, at the same
time as the street changes laid out in Table 8
were to be completed. Its provisions can be
summarized as follows:

1. Working with Owners: The NPD will
invite owners to a meeting
explaining the initiative and
soliciting their participation and
help. The personalized invitation
letters will describe the nature of the
problem at each owner’s building,
provide calls-for-service information
for the past year and outline code
violations that the owner will need to
address. At the meeting, owners will
be told about the consequences for
residents and the wider community

of failing to confront drug dealing on
their premises. They will be advised
about appropriate remedial actions
and informed about the
consequences of failing to comply
with NPD recommendations. After
the meeting, the owners will be
given time to address the problems,
and their progress will be monitored.
Failure to take effective steps to
reduce drug dealing will be followed
by code enforcement by NPD.

2. Enhanced Police Enforcement: The

enhanced enforcement has two
objectives: to compel owners to
reclaim their properties from the
control of the dealers through code
enforcement (see above), and to
arrest dealers and disrupt the
markets. Enforcement action directed
against the dealers will include
surveillance, buy-bust operations,
vertical patrols, field interrogations,
arrests, motor vehicle stops and asset
forfeiture. The enhanced
enforcement will require the
contribution of nine different
commands within the NPD, to be
coordinated by Captain Shane as
Commanding Officer of Policy and
Planning Division. It requires
detailed feedback to be provided to
the Police Director through the
Compstat process and through
various written reports, including
those on the results of two citizen
satisfaction surveys to be mounted
near the beginning and the end of the
enhanced enforcement.

3. Enlisting Media Support: The media

plan is designed to enlist media
support and will also serve to warn
potential drug buyers. The Newark
newspaper, The Star Ledger, will be
contacted about writing an article
describing the project and the

___________________________________________________________________________ 8

problem of out-of-town drug buyers.
The radio station, WBGO, will also
be contacted about broadcasting
public service announcements
describing the project. Finally, the
NPD will distribute leaflets
explaining the project to households
in the area.


By January 14, 2004, the following
elements of the plan had been implemented:

1. A meeting was held with the

building owners at the four sites.
They were told about the
consequences for residents and the
wider community of failing to
confront drug dealing on their
premises and were advised about
appropriate remedial actions.

2. The first of a planned series of
inspections by Police, Fire, Code and
Health Departments was completed
on December 30, 2003. Building
owners were given 30 days to correct
numerous code (plaster, paint and
general repairs), health (mice, and
rodent infestation) and fire (smoke
detectors and exit signs) violations:
Site A. 35 code, 32 health and 10 fire

• Site B. 30 code, 32 health and
18 fire violations

• Site C. Building one: 40
code violations; 25 health
violations; 12 fire violations
(same as above); Building
two: 30 code violations; 23
health violations; 12 fire
violations (same as above);
Building three: 45 code
violations; 52 health
violations; 13 fire violations
(same as above)

• At Site D, the property was
under construction by new

owners, but the previous
owners had many outstanding
violations. The new owner
was given an extension to
correct the violations until the
construction is complete.

3. On January 7, 2004 a follow up tour

of the buildings revealed that most of
the violations had been corrected.
Vigorous monitoring is being
conducted through Community
Affairs and the South District
Station’s Community Service

4. As of January 14, 2004 the enhanced
police enforcement had resulted in:
42 arrests; 38 summonses for
moving violations; 10 vehicles
impounded; and 13 field
interrogation reports.

5. As part of the law enforcement
effort, members of Community
Affairs conducted a resident survey
on December 22, 2003, designed to
measure attitudes and perceptions
about personal safety and drug
dealing at the sites (excluding Site
D). The results from a total of 167
residents are summarized in Table 9.
In common with most other such
surveys, there was a strong positive
relationship found between
residents’ feelings of safety after
dark, and their age with older people
feeling more insecure. There was a
negative relationship between age
and victimization; the younger the
resident, the more times they are
likely to be victimized. These data
supports the Police Department’s
effort to enforce curfew violations,
and to direct intervention strategies
at younger people.

6. The Star Ledger published an article
describing the project and the
problem of out-of-town drug buyers.
The first article appeared on Sunday,

___________________________________________________________________________ 9

September 21, 2003 on page 25 of
the County News section (Carter,
2003). A brief follow up article,
written by the same reporter, was
released on Friday, October 31,
2003, the day prior to



The purpose of the assessment is to
determine the effectiveness of the actions
taken to reduce drug dealing at the
apartment complexes in Loop 1. The
methodological challenges of making this
determination are listed below:

1. No direct measure exists of drug

dealing at the apartment complexes.
Police drug arrest data reflect police
enforcement activity as much actual
dealing. Drug calls for service data
are strongly affected by public
confidence in the police, which could
increase or decrease in the course of
the project.

2. Not only must the assessment cover
the project team’s intervention plan
(the combined traffic management
and enhanced police enforcement
action), but it should also cover the
NJ DOT’s reconstruction of the I-78
exit ramps. While not directly
intended to disrupt drug dealing in
Loop 1, the reconstruction will make
it much harder for out-of-town
buyers to cruise the loop looking for
drugs. This means that
measurements should be taken in
two “after” periods: when the project
team’s plan has been fully
implemented and when
reconstruction of the ramps is

3. These interventions are not
completely separate and overlap in

time. The reconstruction has already
begun (the school near the ramps has
been demolished and a new school is
being built nearby to replace it) and
will continue after the intervention
designed by the project team is
completed. Some of the traffic
changes suggested by the project
team have already been
implemented, while others are yet to
be made. This makes it difficult to
define a period “before” the
intervention during which data are
gathered to serve as baseline for
comparison with the two “after”
intervention periods.

4. Drug dealing in Loop 1 could
increase or decrease over time for
reasons unconnected with either

5. If successful, the intervention in
Loop 1 could displace drug dealing
to nearby neighborhoods.
Alternatively or in addition, the
benefits of any decline in drug
dealing in Loop 1 could diffuse to
nearby neighborhoods resulting in
reduced drug dealing there as well.
Both of these outcomes complicate
the choice of a “control” comparison

Limited resources and uncertainty
about future funding made these challenges
particularly problematic and the evaluation
design leans more than usual towards
practicality rather than rigor, as shown by
the following provisions:

1. In the absence of existing data on
dealing, NPD calls-for-service
and arrest data relating to drugs,
shooting and homicides will be
used instead.

2. These data will be supplemented
by small samples of
observational data concerning
drug deals at the apartment

___________________________________________________________________________ 10

complexes. The purpose of the
observations is to count the
number of people stopping at the
sites, and record whether they
arrived by car or on foot, how
long they stayed and whether
they entered the building. An
observation guide (Appendix 41)
has been developed for the four
project sites in Loop 1. There
would be two observation
periods, 7:00–9:00am and 3:00–
5:00pm, for each weekday, for
two weeks. This schedule would
produce 40 hours of
observations.5 These
observations would be made for
the “before” period and for both
“after” periods.

3. The “before” data have not all
been gathered at the same time.
The police arrest and calls for
service data are for 2001 (see
Table 6). The traffic flow data
are taken from the study
conducted by Urbitran
Associates when they were
planning the interstate ramp
improvement project in March
1988, and the observational data
were collected in May 2003.

4. Data on traffic flows cannot be
collected in quite the same way
for “before” and “after” periods.
Traffic entering and leaving the
I-78 ramp in Loop 1 can be
counted in the same way, but the
counts will not mean the same
thing. In the “before” period, all
the traffic counted had to traverse
a portion of the loop. In the
“after” periods, none of it must
traverse the loop, but some of it
might choose to if the driver is
searching for drugs to buy. So a
way must be found of counting I-
78 traffic in the loop during the
two “after” periods. To make the

“before” data more comparable,
ways will also be explored of
estimating peak traffic flows for
2001 based on changes in the
city’s day-time population
between 1988 (when the traffic
counts were made) and 2001.

5. Detailed monitoring of Loop 1 to
identify possible reasons for any
decrease or increase in drug
dealing unconnected with the
interventions is beyond the
resources of the project. For
example, the demand for drugs
might decline, which could result
in fewer people seeking drugs to
buy in the loop. However, the use
of Loop 2 as an experimental
control should reveal whether
any such changes have affected
an area beyond Loop 1. The
difficulty of using Loop 2 as a
control is that is near enough to
be affected by both displacement
and diffusion of benefits from
Loop 1. For this reason, drug
calls for service and drug arrests
will also be compared, before
and after, for Newark as a whole.

“Before” Data

Table 6 shows “before” data for drug calls
for service and drug arrests for Loops 1 & 2
and for Newark as whole.

“Before” data on traffic flows
collected by Urbitran for the period selected
show that in the morning peak 1,990
vehicles entered the city from I-78, and 680
vehicles exited the area onto I-78. In the
evening peak 1,585 vehicles used the ramps
onto I-78 and 1,050 vehicles entered the city
via the ramp.

Zanin and a Newark police
officer in an unmarked car carried out the
“before” observations of drug dealing at the

___________________________________________________________________________ 11

sites. The observations were made for two
and a half days (April 23-25, 2003) when
they were suspended as a result of threats
from dealers at one location. During the 10
hours of observations, a total of 144 visitors
were seen to arrive at the buildings (Site A,
24; Site B, 27; Site C, 54; Site D, 39).
Seventy-three were on foot (some of whom
might have parked their cars out of sight of
the observers), 68 were in vehicles and 2
were on bicycles. Seventy-two (50%) stayed
for less than two minutes.


The interventions planned for Loop 1 have
not yet been fully implemented and it will be
several years before their effectiveness can
be assessed. However, some valuable
information has already been gathered in the
course of the project concerning:

1. the process of implementing a
problem-oriented policing project in
a large, crime-ridden northeastern

2. drug markets in privately-rented
apartment complexes and the
contributory role of nearby highways

3. the utility of the COPS Problem-
Oriented Guide for Police on Drug
Dealing in Privately Owned
Apartment Complexes.

Implementing Problem-Oriented Policing

Judging by the annual submissions
for the Herman Goldstein Award for
Excellence in Problem-oriented Policing, the
strongholds of this approach are in the south
and west of the country, with a particular
concentration in California (Scott and
Clarke, 2000). This is usually explained by a
combination of favorable policing
conditions in these regions – better educated
officers and more open routes to promotion,
a higher proportion of well resourced and
funded departments, less hide-bound union

and management practices, and a greater
willingness to experiment and to use up-to-
date technology, including computerized
mapping and crime analysis.

Few of these conditions pertain in
the NPD, which has never embraced
problem-oriented policing as a routine way
of conducting business. Fortunately, senior
officers were open to the concept and it did
not really have to be “sold” to the
department. Even so, many bureaucratic
hurdles were experienced in dealing with
some police department units and with other
departments in the city. In most cases, these
were the result of staff’s unwillingness to
release information or make resources
available without a direct order from their
superiors. In other cases, internal priorities
or what appeared to be inefficiency led to
considerable delays for the project.

The following special circumstances
allowed the project to get as far as it did:

1. Dr George Kelling, Director of the

Rutgers Police Institute, had developed a
close working relationship with the
NPD, particularly with the Police
Director, Joseph Santiago. Without this
relationship, the project might not have
got off the ground and, as it progressed,
the necessary help from district
commanders and other senior officers
might not have been forthcoming.

2. The project was assigned an unusually
efficient and well-informed captain (the
commanding officer of the Policy and
Planning Division), who championed the
project effectively within the
Department. With the exception of a
temporary reassignment in the middle of
the project, he remained with the project
during various changes of Police
Director and Police Chief. This
continuity was both fortuitous and
unusual, but it was extremely important
for the project.

___________________________________________________________________________ 12

3. The COPS grant not only supported the
work of the consultant but also allowed
the part-time employment of a graduate
student from the Rutgers School of
Criminal Justice who was able to
undertake the routine data collection and
analysis required for any large problem-
oriented policing project. This support
was made available by adjusting the
original budget when it became clear the
NPD’s limited analytic capacity was
already fully stretched and could not be
of much help to the project.
Unfortunately, the funds were only
sufficient for paying an hourly rate to a
full-time graduate student, who worked
on the project whenever his schedule
allowed. This precluded timely, in depth
analysis, and at several points, corners
were cut in the interests of maintaining
the projects’ momentum. The relatively
short time-scale of the COPS grant also
meant that firm plans for the assessment
stage could not be made.

4. The city’s Traffic Engineer and his
department were open and progressive,
which permitted the development of the
traffic plan to inhibit drug dealing in the
Loop 1. The NJDOT plans to change the
ramps from the I-78 dovetailed neatly
with the project and serendipitously
helped it.

5. Local communities typically resist
changes in traffic patterns, even those
designed to reduce crime, but no
opposition to the traffic plan was
encountered from residents in Loop 1.
This may have been because the
neighborhood is too poor and
fragmented to have a residents’
association. However, the local
Councilman provided crucial support for
the changes.

6. The budget for the Field Applications
project permitted a meeting to be held of
all the consultants and police involved in
the various cities. This meeting was
important in sharing experiences, in

maintaining morale and in meeting
project deadlines – none of the teams
wanted to be embarrassed. COPS made
it possible for the project team to make
two further presentations of the work in
Newark to professional audiences.

What if anything can be learned from

this list about introducing problem-oriented
policing in a department like Newark where
it has not been implemented before? Some
of the conditions listed above are so
serendipitous or unique that they could not
be replicated, but there are three that should
be required for any future projects of this

1. money to pay for on-site, day-to-day

analytic support
2. an undertaking from the partnering

police department to maintain continuity
in project personnel

3. regularly scheduled off-site meetings of
the project team with the funding agency
to present progress reports.

Meeting these conditions could be

more important than the usual “sweetners”
such overtime or other money for the
department that federal agencies provide to
police departments participating in research
or development projects. No such funds
were made available to the NPD and it is
doubtful that they would have made any
difference to the progress of the project,
which had a momentum of its own.

Drug Markets, Private Apartment
Complexes and Nearby Highways

Drug markets are commonly located in low-
cost, privately rented apartment buildings in
the poorer parts of cities. Drug dealing and
economic deprivation are of course strongly
associated and it is not surprising that
privately rented apartment buildings may be
particularly at risk. First, apartment
buildings generally, whether public or

___________________________________________________________________________ 13

private, offer a safe haven to dealers when
pursued by police. Once they get into the
building, they can dispose of the drugs in
their possession before the police can find
them. Second, many private apartment
buildings in poor neighborhoods are very
badly run and managed. The slumlords
owning them try to make as much money as
they can by investing as little as possible.
Consequently, security measures,
background checks and proper management
procedures are all given short shrift (Clarke
and Bichler-Robertson 1998). Third, some
of the tenants might already have been
excluded from public housing for drug and
other violations, while others might have
sought out the apartments precisely because
poor security and absent management would
assist drug dealing.

By counting and mapping private
apartment complexes in the city, the present
project has provided some new information
about the association between these
complexes and drug markets. First, only a
small minority, perhaps less than 5%, of the
complexes in the city have well-established,
troublesome drug markets. Second, these
troublesome complexes are highly
concentrated in the poorest, most blighted
parts of the city and, third, they are
particularly concentrated close to access
points to a major highway running past the
city. Prior research has found that drug
markets in poor neighborhoods are
frequently located near to major arterial
roads (Eck 1994; Rengert 2000; Reuter

It is dangerous to make generalizations from
a single case, but these observations suggest
the following model of the association
between drug markets and privately rented
apartment buildings:

1. Lack of educational skills and
employment opportunities supply the
economic motive for many young

men in poor cities to engage in drug
dealing and drug use.

2. The particular difficulty of policing
drug dealing in apartments,
especially in poorly managed and
poorly secured ones, helps explain
the emergence of drug markets in
these buildings. Indeed, rational
offenders might deliberately seek
access to these buildings, either by
renting apartments themselves, or as
the police believe, by developing
relationships with single mothers
already resident.

3. Buildings with ready access to a
major highway are particularly likely
to develop active drug markets
because they attract an out-of-town,
affluent clientele. These buyers do
not wish to stray too far into the city,
or buy drugs on their way to and
from work in the city. The buildings
are easily recognized and found.

4. Drug transactions are facilitated
when buyers do not have to leave
their cars and can easily double-park
or park by the sidewalk (which was
the case for several of the Loop 1

This model, which encompasses a

range of social, economic, geographic,
situational and policing variables, needs to
be tested in empirical research involving a
number of different cities.

Utility of the POP Guide

Copies of Drug Dealing in Privately Owned
Apartment Complexes were given to anyone
whose help was sought in the project. It
greatly helped in explaining the project’s
goals, though many of those consulted
thought that a more useful focus for Newark
would have been drug markets in public
housing. Rather little feedback was received
on the guide, but those who commented

___________________________________________________________________________ 14

were positive both about its presentation and

Undoubtedly, the guide would have
been of more use had the project persisted
with its original aim of modifying the
environment and management practices in
two or three carefully selected apartment
complexes. As explained, the project
metamorphosed into an attempt to increase
the difficulty and risks for out-of-towners
seeking to purchase drugs in the city,
especially at some private apartment
complexes in a loop off the Interstate
running by the city. This was a narrower and
somewhat different problem from that
covered by the guide. The guide did include
changing traffic patterns as one option for
reducing drug dealing at private apartment
complexes, but naturally enough, it
contained only limited information about
how to do this.

The greatest use made of the guide
was in formulating the police intervention to
accompany the traffic changes. Here it was
useful in two ways – it provided a list of
different policing strategies that were
systematically considered in formulating the
plan adopted; and it provided useful
commentary on police experience of using
these tactics, which assisted with the final

The project team remained highly
enthusiastic about the guide even though
limited use was made of it. The project’s
findings about the extent of drug markets in
privately rented apartment complexes
clearly support the need for such a guide.
The project also whetted the appetite for
another guide that would be more directly
focused on the problem eventually

addressed. It is unclear whether this will be
a common result of attempting to apply a
guide in the field, but as more guides are
made available it will presumably become
less common.


Due to a combination of fortunate
circumstances this project was more
successful than might have been expected
given the limited funding and the somewhat
inhospitable environment for the following

1. Because street closures have been used

successfully in poor neighborhoods to
reduce many crime problems, including
drug dealing and associated violence
(Clarke In Press), there is a real chance
that it might lead to the reduction of drug
dealing in a troubled part of Newark.

2. The project has given a wide range of
NPD officers some direct exposure to
problem-oriented policing.

3. It makes a contribution to the small
literature on research collaboration
between police and universities.

4. It provides more evidence that privately
owned apartment complexes in poor
cities can provide fertile ground for drug
markets, especially when these are
located near to major highways.

5. As intended, it provides a test of the
utility of the new series of problem-
oriented guides produced by COPS.
While the guide was not used as
expected, the project strongly endorsed
the concept underlying the production of
the guides, i.e. policing is greatly
assisted by research findings when these
are presented in an easily used format.

___________________________________________________________________________ 15


Carter, Barry (2003) “New Lane for a Newark Street”. The Star-Ledger, September 21, page 25.

Clarke, Ronald V. (In press) Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime – Should You Go Down
This Road?. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. Response Guide No 2. Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services. Washington D.C. U.S. Department of Justice.

Clarke, Ronald V. and G. Bichler Robertson (1998). “Place Managers, Slumlords and Crime in
Low-Rent Apartment Buildings”. Security Journal 11(1): 11-19

Eck, John E. (1994) “Drug Markets and Drug Places: A Case-Control Study of the Spatial
Structure of Illicit Drug Dealing”. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland,
College Park.

Rengert, George (2000) “A Geographic Analysis of Illegal Drug Markets” In: M. Natarajan and
M. Hough (eds.), Illegal Drug Markets: From research to Prevention Policy. Crime Prevention
Studies, Volume 11. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press

Reuter, Peter (1985) The Organization of Illegal Drug Markets: An Economic Analysis. National
Institute of Justice. Washington D.C. U.S. Department of Justice.

Scott, Mike and Ronald V. Clarke (2000) “A Review of Submissions for the Herman Goldstein
Award for Excellence in Problem-oriented Policing” In: C. Sole Brito and E. E. Gatto (eds.)
Problem-oriented Policing: Crime-specific Problems, Critical Issues and Making POP Work,
Volume 3. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

___________________________________________________________________________ 16


Table 1: Information Gathered from Ride-alongs with SCTF and SIU

1. Newark has many drug markets, scattered throughout the city. They can be found at a variety of

different locations – street corners, near (or in) fast food restaurants and convenience stores, in
private residences, and in privately rented and public housing complexes.

2. Time of day plays an important role in Newark drug markets. The highest traffic times at some
markets are in the morning and afternoon, while others are busiest at night

3. Functional drug users purchase on their way to and from work. Drug markets near highways
facilitate easy access and fast transactions for commuters.

4. Many buyers are out-of-towners, who come from nearby suburbs to Newark specifically to buy
drugs. In some cases, buyers come from much further away facilitated by the city’s excellent
access to highways.

5. Heroin and cocaine are the main substances traded, but there are also sizable markets in
marijuana and crack. Many markets dealt in all these substances.

6. Numerous apartment complexes with active drug markets were identified, but officers were often
unsure whether these were privately owned or public housing.

7. Buyers approach these markets by vehicle or on foot. The ability to make purchases without
leaving the car facilitates transactions and sometimes the dealer may get into the buyer’s car.
Transactions also take place in front of, or inside the apartment buildings.

8. Drugs may be stashed inside the building, in parked cars or on vacant land by the buildings.
9. As soon as they see police, dealers retreat into the apartment complex buildings. They could

enter any of the apartments in the building and are impossible to find in time with the drugs still
in their possession.

Table 2: Frequencies of Arrest Data for 2001 (N=9978)
Variable Frequency %

Male 8158 85.1 Sex (n=9592)
Female 1434 14.9
Black 7005 73.2
White 1330 13.9

Race (n=9566)

Hispanic 1231 12.9
Yes 7120 71.4 Newark Resident (n=9978)
No 2858 28.6
Yes 3172 31.8 Heroin (n=9978)
No 6806 68.2
Yes 2989 30.0 Cocaine (n=9978)
No 6989 70.0
Yes 1544 15.5 Marijuana (n=9978)
No 8434 84.5
Yes 965 9.7 Crack (n=9978)
No 9013 90.3

Hashish (n=9978) Yes 2 0.0
Hallucinogens (n=9978) Yes 0 0.0

___________________________________________________________________________ 17

Table 3: Calls for Service by Police District
Total Calls Drug Calls
District Frequency % Frequency %
North 105,601 26.0 6778 32.1
East 105,804 26.1 1426 6.7
South 94,214 23.2 6033 28.5
West 100,325 24.7 6912 32.7
Total 405,995 100 21149 100

Table 4: Site Identification and Elimination
Site Identified Excluded Why excluded
Site 1 Ride Along Yes < 15 arrests
Site 2 Ride Along Yes < 15 arrests
Site 3 Ride Along Yes < 15 arrests
Site 4 Ride Along
Site 5 Ride Along Yes < 15 arrests
Site 6 Ride Along
Site 7 Ride Along
Site 8 Ride Along Yes Not in drug hot spot
Site 9 Ride Along Yes Not in drug hot spot
Site 10 Ride Along Yes Not in drug hot spot
Site 11 Ride Along Yes < 15 arrests
Site 12 Ride Along
Site 13 Ride along Yes No longer a problem
Site 14 Ride Along Yes < 15 arrests
Site 15 Ride Along Yes < 15 arrests
Site 16 Ride Along Yes < 15 arrests
Site 17 Analysis
Site 18 Analysis
Site 19 Analysis
Site 20 Analysis
Site 21 Analysis
Site 22 Analysis

___________________________________________________________________________ 18

___________________________________________________________________________ 19

Table 5: Arrest Data for 22 Sites, 2001









Site 1 9 89 100 0 89 0 11 22
Site 2 6 67 85 0 33 0 17 21
Site 3 4 100 100 50 0 25 0 24
Site 4 85 82 81 25 65 5 4 24
Site 5 9 34 100 33 22 11 0 28
Site 6 120 22 78 20 4 1 2 28
Site 7 61 49 79 41 59 0 2 26
Site 8 27 82 100 7 0 0 67 25
Site 9 22 86 86 9 68 0 18 24
Site 10 36 69 83 83 8 0 3 28
Site 11 9 67 67 33 56 0 0 24
Site 12 69 55 77 29 19 7 6 28
Site 13 21 81 95 5 14 57 0 29
Site 14 3 100 100 0 67 0 0 26
Site 15 14 71 86 0 0 57 7 31
Site 16 10 70 70 0 80 0 0 20
Site 17 50 78 80 52 46 0 2 27
Site 18 52 71 86 6 6 40 4 26
Site 19 100 48 70 51 5 1 0 35
Site 20 58 70 69 2 21 57 3 19
Site 21 67 69 92 48 49 0 3 26
Site 22 55 49 73 5 7 0 0 32

Table 6: Private Apartment Complexes and
Problem Complexes by Police District
District No.

No. Problem

% Problem

North 142 3 2%
East 307 0 0%
West 43 2 5%
South 14 4 29%
All 506 9 2%

Table 7: Comparison of Loops with Newark as a Whole
City of Newark Loop 1 as %

of City
Loop 2 as %
of City

Land Area 24.45 sq mi 1.1% 1.9%
Population 263,087 3.0% 3.7%
Drug Calls for Service 15,729 5.9% 5.7%
Drug Arrests 1984 4.8% 5.8%
Total Homicides 28 14.3% 7.1%
Gun Homicides 21 14.3% 4.8%
Shooting Calls for Service 182 7.1% 4.4%
Shots fired Calls for Service 882 4.9% 5.3%

Table 8: NJ DOT Traffic Plan

1. All incoming traffic will be rerouted to Elizabeth Ave, a non-residential arterial
street. Incoming traffic will be unable to access local residential streets directly.

2. Outbound traffic will also access the ramps via Elizabeth Ave.
3. A “horseshoe” will connect Hillside Ave and Johnson Ave, eliminating access to

the ramps from these streets.
4. Milford Ave will be made into a cul-de-sac, eliminating access to the ramps
5. Irvine Turner Blvd becomes two-way with no access.

Table 9: Immediate Traffic Plan

1. Bring forward NJ DOT plans to make Irvine Turner Blvd two-way (formerly one
way towards the I-78). This will reduce the ability of buyers to double-park in
front of the problem building.

2. At the same time, restrict parking on Irvine Turner Blvd.
3. Switch direction of traffic on W. Alpine (a one-way street), to eliminate quick

access to problem buildings and to push traffic further into city.
4. Switch direction of traffic on Milford Ave, to reduce access to problem building
5. Install a “High Priority Enforcement Zone” sign on Hillside Avenue at the ramp

off the I-78 to warn potential buyers entering the city.
6. Install guardrail at Johnson Ave cul-de-sac, to block illegal through-traffic and

escape route.

Table 10: Summary of Police Resident Survey Results, Sites A-C, December 22, 2003
1. Has it been safe to walk inside or around your building after dark? (65.9% felt
unsafe or very unsafe.)
2. Have you heard gunshots inside or around your building? (69.5% replied yes, always
or sometimes)
3. Have you been the victim of a crime inside or around your building? (25% between 1
and 3 times)
4. Have you seen drug dealers inside or around your building? (83.2% replied yes,
always or sometimes)
5. Have you seen open drug sales inside or around your building? (82.5% replied yes,
always or sometimes)
6. If you have seen drug dealing, when does most of the activity take
place? ( 87.3% replied night and day)

___________________________________________________________________________ 20

Appendix 1 Density Map of 2001 Drug Arrests in Newark Including District Boundaries





___________________________________________________________________________ 21

Appendix 2 Map of 2001 Drug Arrests in Newark, Density Map and Pinmap

___________________________________________________________________________ 22

Appendix 3 Twenty-Two Problem Sites with District Boundaries




___________________________________________________________________________ 23

Appendix 4 Six Remaining Sites Presented to District Commanders and District Boundaries




___________________________________________________________________________ 24

Appendix 5 The Methodology for Counting Apartment Complexes in Newark

The Tax Assessors office was contacted to obtain a list of apartment buildings in the city and,
after some negotiations, two datasets were provided – the tax assessors dataset and a list of
addresses from the post office. The datasets were current as of March 2002.

The tax assessor’s database contained 45,272 entries. Each entry was classified as residential
(single family home), commercial, apartment, tax-exempt, etc. The database also included
information about assessed value and owner information, but had limited information about
property size. 1,049 entries were classified as 4C, the code for apartment buildings. Inspection of
the 4C entries revealed that some apartment buildings in our sample of “problem apartment
complexes” were not included in this category, but were classified as 15F, or “other exempt”.
Further inquiries revealed that 15F properties were tax exempt because they were subsidized
housing. Altogether, there were 2,076 entries classified as 15F and when these were combined
with 4C properties yielded a total of 3,125 entries.

To determine how many of the properties listed under the 15F category were not apartments, the
post office database of 28,625 entries was examined. The tax assessor’s office created a separate
database of 12,203 entries labeled as apartments. These entries were not always for a single
address; some entries covered numerous apartment numbers, and some addresses had numerous
entries. The GIS analyst from the MIS Division of the Newark PD condensed this database,
selecting out each unique address. The resulting database, “aptcount”, had 3,762 unique
addresses. The next step was to reconcile aptcount with the tax assessor’s 3,125 entries under
the 4C and 15F categories. This exercise allowed individual apartment addresses to be matched
in the two databases and also allowed them to be assigned to particular buildings. This yielded a
count of 506 privately owned apartment complexes.

___________________________________________________________________________ 25

Appendix 6 Private Apartment Complex Density Map

___________________________________________________________________________ 26___________________________________________________________________________ 26

Appendix 7 Loops 1 and 2 in Relation to Interstate 78

___________________________________________________________________________ 27

Appendix 8 Loop 1

___________________________________________________________________________ 28

Appendix 9 Loop 2

___________________________________________________________________________ 29

Appendix 10 Interstate 78 Ramps, Belmont Runyon School, Site of Accident

Appendix 11 Aerial Photo of Loop 1 with Driving Patterns

___________________________________________________________________________ 30

Appendix 12 Map of Loop 1 with Driving Patterns and Project Sites

Site A

Site B

Site C

Site D

___________________________________________________________________________ 31

Appendix 13 Identification of Project Sites

Naming Project Sites
Original Name from list of

New Project Site Name

Site 6 Site A
Site 7 Site B
Site 5 Site C
Identified at Commander

Site D

___________________________________________________________________________ 32

Appendix 14 Aerial Photo of Site A

Appendix 15 Front of Site A

___________________________________________________________________________ 33

Appendix 16 View In Front of Site A

Appendix 17 View to Left of Site A

___________________________________________________________________________ 34

Appendix 18 View to Right of Site A

Appendix 19 Aerial Photo of Site B

___________________________________________________________________________ 35

Appendix 20 Front of Site B

Appendix 21 View From Site B

___________________________________________________________________________ 36

Appendix 22 View to Left of Site B

Appendix 23 View to Right of Site B

___________________________________________________________________________ 37

Appendix 24 Aerial Photo of Site C

Appendix 25 Front of Site C

___________________________________________________________________________ 38

Appendix 26 Front of Site C

Appendix 27 Side of Site C

___________________________________________________________________________ 39

Appendix 28 Front of Site C

Appendix 29 Front of Site C

___________________________________________________________________________ 40

Appendix 30 Front of Site D

Appendix 31 Left of Site D

___________________________________________________________________________ 41

Appendix 32 Right of Site D

Appendix 33 View From Site D

___________________________________________________________________________ 42

Appendix 34 Simplified DOT Plan, Final Intervention

Appendix 35 Immediate Traffic Intervention (red) and Current Condition (blue)

Black Circles indicate problem
apartment buildings

___________________________________________________________________________ 44

Appendix 36: Construction of New School

Appendix 37: Enforcement Zone Sign


Appendix 38: Cul-de-sac Guardrail

Appendix 39: Advance Notice of Traffic Changes


Appendix 41 Observation Guide
An observation guide was completed every time a visitor stopped at the site. The weather
conditions were obtained from prior to begining the observation period.

Site Conditions

1. Site ID
2. Date
3. Time

a. Arrive
b. Depart

4. Weather
a. Temp
b. Rain

5. Presence of potential dealers
a. Dealer Actions

i. Loitering
ii. Wave down buyer

iii. Approach cars
iv. Stand in roadway

b. Use of Lookouts
i. Foot

ii. Bicycle
iii. Window
iv. Rooftop

c. Communications
i. Cell phone

ii. 2-way radio
6. Number of people at site

a. At arrival
b. At departure

7. Guardians Present
a. Police
b. Residents
c. Apartment Management
d. City Agencies
e. Utility Employees

Transaction Variables

1. Visitor Actions
a. Drive up

i. Stay in car
ii. Get out of car

1. On View
2. Out of View

a. Leave Site
b. Enter Building


b. Walk up
i. On View

ii. Out of View
1. Leave Site
2. Enter Building

c. Bicycle
i. Stay with bicycle

ii. Leave bicycle
1. On View
2. Out of View

a. Leave Site
b. Enter Building

1 The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge about how police can reduce the harm caused
by specific crime and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention and to improving the overall response
to incidents, not to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. They are written for police-of
whatever rank or assignment-who must address the specific problem the guides cover. The guides are produced
by the COPS Office; other guides in the series include: Street Prostitution, Speeding in Residential Areas,
Burglary of Single Family Homes, Theft of and from Cars in Parking Facilities. Additional information about
the guides and the COPS Office can be found at and
2 Rutgers faculty, particularly Dr. George Kelling, Director of the university’s Police Institute, have an ongoing
relationship with the Newark Police Department. The Police Institute has played an important part in
developing the Greater Newark Safer Cities Initiative (GNSCI).
3 The cell size was 20 feet, and the search radius was 500 feet, and kernel smoothing was used when creating
the map.
4 An additional “High Priority Enforcement Zone” sign was also erected along a major thoroughfare feeding the
loop from the city.
5 Each of the four sites would be visited during each period and each site would be observed for half an hour,
from the same observation point. The starting point of observations would be rotated among the four sites.


Do you need academic writing help? Our quality writers are here 24/7, every day of the year, ready to support you! Instantly chat with a customer support representative in the chat on the bottom right corner, send us a WhatsApp message or click either of the buttons below to submit your paper instructions to the writing team.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper