---
title: "Burglary of Retail Establishments"
type: "Problem Guide"
year: "2002"
canonical: "/guides/12"
---

# Strategic Investigation
# Table of Contents

- [Strategic Investigation](#strategic-investigation)
  - [Off-Campus Burglary Reduction Project](#off-campus-burglary-reduction-project)
- [PROJECT SUMMARY](#project-summary)
  - [Scanning](#scanning)
  - [Analysis](#analysis)
  - [Response](#response)
  - [Assessment](#assessment)
- [SCANNING](#scanning)
  - [University of Cincinnati Police Division and Jurisdiction](#university-of-cincinnati-police-division-and-jurisdiction)
  - [UCPD's Reform and Response to Crime](#ucpds-reform-and-response-to-crime)
  - [Adopting Problem-Solving to Reduce Crime](#adopting-problem-solving-to-reduce-crime)
- [Strategic Investigation of Off-Campus Burglaries](#strategic-investigation-of-off-campus-burglaries)
- [ANALYSIS](#analysis)
  - [Information from Existing Databases](#information-from-existing-databases)
  - [Site Observations](#site-observations)
- [Potential Interventions](#potential-interventions)
  - [RESPONSE](#response)
- [Phase 1](#phase-1)
  - [Response \#1: Knock and Talk Awareness Campaign](#response-1-knock-and-talk-awareness-campaign)
- [Response \#3: Social Media Awareness Campaign](#response-3-social-media-awareness-campaign)
  - [If you live in an apartment:](#if-you-live-in-an-apartment)
  - [If you live in a house:](#if-you-live-in-a-house)
- [Response \#4: Parental (Guardian) Notifications](#response-4-parental-guardian-notifications)
  - [Phase 2](#phase-2)
- [ASSESSMENT](#assessment)
  - [Directed Patrol/Plus One Protocol Fidelity Assessment](#directed-patrolplus-one-protocol-fidelity-assessment)
- [Project Outcome Assessment](#project-outcome-assessment)
  - [Displacement](#displacement)
- [Future Project Directions](#future-project-directions)
- [ENDNOTES](#endnotes)
- [PROJECT CONTACTS](#project-contacts)
  - [Director/Chief James L. Whalen](#directorchief-james-l-whalen)
  - [Police Chief Maris Herold](#police-chief-maris-herold)
  - [Lt. David Brinker](#lt-david-brinker)
  - [Crime Analyst Michael Zidar](#crime-analyst-michael-zidar)
  - [Dr. Tamara D. Herold, Associate Professor](#dr-tamara-d-herold-associate-professor)
- [APPENDIX A](#appendix-a)
  - [Tactical and Strategic Investigations](#tactical-and-strategic-investigations)
- [University of CINCINNATI](#university-of-cincinnati)
  - [Department of Public Safety Police Division Policies and Procedures](#department-of-public-safety-police-division-policies-and-procedures)
- [Tactical and Strategic Investigations](#tactical-and-strategic-investigations)
- [Tactical and Strategic Investigations](#tactical-and-strategic-investigations)
  - [III. Definitions:](#iii-definitions)
- [Tactical and Strategic Investigations](#tactical-and-strategic-investigations)
- [Tactical and Strategic Investigations](#tactical-and-strategic-investigations)
- [Tactical and Strategic Investigations](#tactical-and-strategic-investigations)
  - [IV. Information:](#iv-information)
  - [Investigative Evaluation (Assessment)](#investigative-evaluation-assessment)
- [Tactical and Strategic Investigations](#tactical-and-strategic-investigations)
- [Tactical and Strategic Investigations](#tactical-and-strategic-investigations)
  - [V. Procedure:](#v-procedure)
- [Tactical and Strategic Investigations](#tactical-and-strategic-investigations)
- [Tactical and Strategic Investigations](#tactical-and-strategic-investigations)
- [Tactical and Strategic Investigations](#tactical-and-strategic-investigations)
- [Tactical and Strategic Investigations](#tactical-and-strategic-investigations)
- [Tactical and Strategic Investigations](#tactical-and-strategic-investigations)
- [Tactical and Strategic Investigations](#tactical-and-strategic-investigations)
- [APPENDIX B](#appendix-b)
  - [Early Initiative: Super Cocooning Letter](#early-initiative-super-cocooning-letter)
  - [CINCINNATI POLICE](#cincinnati-police)
- [APPENDIX C](#appendix-c)
  - [Strategic Investigation: Off-Campus Burglary Reduction Project June 2021 Update](#strategic-investigation-off-campus-burglary-reduction-project-june-2021-update)
  - [Since 2020 Submission](#since-2020-submission)
  - [Future Project Goals](#future-project-goals)

## Off-Campus Burglary Reduction Project

**June 2020**

**Herman Goldstein Award Submission**

Project submitted by:

**University of Cincinnati Police Division**

![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-0.jpeg)

![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-1.jpeg)

# PROJECT SUMMARY 

Project Title: Strategic Investigation: Off-Campus Burglary Reduction Project

## Scanning

As part of a large-scale police reform effort and steps taken to adopt problem-solving as a primary crime response strategy, the University of Cincinnati Police Division initiated a Strategic Investigation of off-campus residential burglaries in 2019. Analyses revealed that 78 burglary events occurred within 12 months in a small ( $<.05$ square miles) residential area south of the University of Cincinnati (UC) campus. Historical records and previous agency intervention efforts confirmed this area as a historical burglary hotspot. Crime and auditor data analyses, coupled with community interviews, confirmed burglaries could be addressed using a problem-oriented policing approach (as defined by the CHEERS criteria).

## Analysis

Directed by UCPD's new Tactical and Strategic Investigations policy, the investigative team conducted police and county data analyses to determine how burglaries clustered within "hot" days, times, and locations. A historical review of agency records identified and assessed interventions previously used to reduce burglaries. Investigators conducted resident and incarcerated offender interviews to determine how and why offenders targeted particular places and victims. Site observations, coupled with CPTED and lighting assessments, identified crime facilitators at specific locations. Potential burglary interventions were identified through a review of academic literature and practitioner-focused outlets. Investigative (analysis) findings were shared with UCPD's Citizen's Compliance Committee (CCC) who helped select the final project interventions and assisted with intervention implementation.

## Response

The Strategic Investigation team worked with a wide variety of university and city partners to implement (or prepare to implement) 7 response strategies based on a burglary prevention framework, including (1) a knock and talk awareness campaign, (2) directed patrols and Plus One Protocol, (3) a social media awareness campaign, (4) parental (guardian) notifications, (5) visibility improvements, (6) landlord education, and (7) a university-sponsored resource center for off-campus living.

## Assessment

The directed patrol/Plus One Protocol fidelity assessment found that $98.5 \%$ of assigned directed patrols were completed ( $\mathrm{n}=2850$ ). Further, several property improvements were made as a result of the Plus One Protocol initiated during the directed patrols. The project outcome assessment revealed that treatment area burglaries decreased $30 \%$ compared to the previous year before COVID-19 closures and decreased 50\% following COVID-19 closures. A spatial displacement assessment in surrounding areas found a decrease of $21 \%$ in burglaries prior to the COVID-19 response, but a $20 \%$ increase in burglaries and potential displacement following campus closure. No evidence of crime type displacement was found.

# SCANNING 

## University of Cincinnati Police Division and Jurisdiction

The University of Cincinnati Police Division (UCPD) provides all public safety and emergency response resources for the University of Cincinnati (UC), including UC's main campus locations and two regional campuses: UC Blue Ash and UC Clermont. Founded in 1819, UC is a public research university with an enrollment of more than 46,000 students and approximately 6,000 faculty. During the 2019-2020 academic year, UC enrollment included students from all 50 of the United States and from 114 countries. More than 6,500 students reside on-campus each year. The UCPD is responsible for safety and security within and around 118 facilities located on 476 acres across the greater Cincinnati region in Southwest Ohio.

The UCPD currently employs approximately 65 sworn officers, 23 security officers, and 22 civilian employees. Housed within the UC's Department of Public Safety, police operations are divided among six Sections: Patrol, Investigations, 911 Dispatch, Crime Prevention, Security, and NightRide units, which provide on-demand transportation for students, faculty and staff. The UCPD responds to approximately 30,000 calls for police service annually.

## UCPD's Reform and Response to Crime

In July 2015, a UCPD Officer shot and killed Samuel DuBose during a traffic stop for a vehicle equipment violation (missing license plate). ${ }^{1}$ Following the shooting, UC established the Office of Safety and Reform. Led by Vice President Robin S. Engel, Public Safety Director James L. Whalen, Community Relations Director S. Gregory Baker, and Chief Maris Herold, the UCPD initiated reform efforts to establish a police culture of transparency, legitimacy, fairness, collaboration, inclusion, diversity, and innovation. With oversight and direction provided by external police monitors, the main objectives of the reform efforts included:

- coordinating all investigations and reviews;
- ensuring fair and impartial policing to rebuild community trust;
- enhancing the legitimacy of UCPD policing practices;
- coordinating the Community Compliance Council; and
- improving diversity and equity.

Selecting and adopting an effective crime response and prevention strategy was one of the 276 external monitor recommendations. The UCPD selected problem-solving as their primary crime response and prevention strategy.

## Adopting Problem-Solving to Reduce Crime

Systematic implementation of an effective crime reduction strategy, beyond answering calls for service and follow-up investigations, has proven difficult for many police agencies. ${ }^{2}$ Building upon the Stratified Model developed by Drs. Rachel and Roberto Santos, ${ }^{3}$ the UCPD adopted a Tactical Investigations (TIs) and Strategic Investigations (SIs) policy, which reinforces the department's commitment to crime prevention, leverages police investigative capacities, and aligns the problem-solving process with the functions of existing UCPD bureaus, sections, and units (see Appendix A). Following the SARA process, Implementation of TIs and SIs involve (1) continuous scanning to identify problems, (2) highly-structured

and skilled investigations to understand problems, (3) partnerships to select and implement interventions, and (4) evaluations to benefit future problem-solving efforts. TIs are assigned to the Operations Section and involve short-term investigations requiring analysis of a problem that occurs over several days or weeks and can be resolved through short-term interventions. SIs are assigned to the Investigative Section and involve long-term, complex investigations of a problem occurring over several months, seasons, or years requiring indepth data analysis, partnerships, and external resources to develop tailored interventions to resolve the problem.

# Strategic Investigation of Off-Campus Burglaries 

In 2019, a review of calls for service and crime incidents revealed a significant number of off-campus burglaries reported by students and the community surrounding the University. Per the Tactical and Strategic Investigations policy, this potential problem was then selected for a preliminary investigation. The preliminary investigation, conducted by Crime Analyst Michael Zidar, determines whether the identified problem meets each of the six required $\mathbf{C H E E R S}$ criteria for police intervention. ${ }^{4}$ The preliminary investigation revealed:

- Community - As expected, and consistent with the literature,
![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-2.jpeg)

Figure 1: Tactical and Strategic Investigations Policy
burglaries clustered in places with a high proportion of rental properties and a transient renter population. A residential area south of campus was selected for investigation and potential intervention (see Figure 2). An analysis of the target area properties revealed that $\mathbf{7 8 \%}$ of all residences were rental properties. Many rental properties (non-owner occupied) suffer from poor place management with conditions that make the locations attractive burglary targets (e.g., insufficient security, poor lighting). High turnover among renters, typically fluctuating around the academic calendar, promotes fewer social bonds and familiarity among residents making it difficult to distinguish residents from non-residents. As such, the targets (students) of burglary in this area are particularly vulnerable to victimization.
![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-3.jpeg)

Figure 2: Residential Area Selected for Preliminary Analysis

- Harm - In addition to the traumatic psychological impact of burglary, ${ }^{5}$ the primary harm stemming from these incidents is property loss. A cursory examination of incident reports showed victims lost an estimated \$179,681USD, with over 340 items stolen, during burglary incidents occurring between October 1, 2018, and September 30, 2019 (see Table 1), in addition to incurring costs associated with damaged property and stolen personal papers and credit/debit/identification cards.
- Expectation - Although the residential area falls within the Cincinnati Police Department's (CPD) jurisdiction, student residents, parents, and university officials shared their expectations that UCPD intervene and find solutions to this problem. District 5 CPD commander, Captain Craig Gregory noted, "Due to the density of students living off-campus, if UCPD did not engage problemsolving in this area, crime (e.g., burglaries) would not be manageable with existing resources." Media coverage of a recent spike in burglaries documented community concerns and the need for UCPD to partner with CPD in an effort to develop new interventions (see Figure 3).
![img-4.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-4.jpeg)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rt7xsqKEH0\&feature=emb_logo
Figure 3: Media Coverage of Public and Partner Expectations
- Events - The burglary events examined involved predatory behavior (e.g., an offender who intentionally preys on a specific victim) in a residential environment. ${ }^{6}$ All events involved break-ins of residential properties, with $\mathbf{6 6 . 2 \%}$ involving no forced entry and only $\mathbf{3 3 . 8 \%}$ involving forced entry.

Table 1: Items Stolen and Associated Numbers and Values

| Item | $\#$ | Value |
| :-- | --: | --: |
| Computer | 53 | $\$ 43,679.99$ |
| Jewelry/Precious Metals | 19 | $\$ 34,320.00$ |
| Automobile | 4 | $\$ 33,000.00$ |
| Video Game/Accessories | 81 | $\$ 21,174.00$ |
| Other Property | 57 | $\$ 14,922.00$ |
| Money | 13 | $\$ 5,741.00$ |
| Stereo TV Equipment | 15 | $\$ 3,500.00$ |
| Television Set | 9 | $\$ 3,479.00$ |
| Firearms | 6 | $\$ 3,300.00$ |
| Glasses, Sunglasses | 8 | $\$ 2,915.00$ |
| Cellular Phone | 3 | $\$ 2,550.00$ |
| Purses / Handbags / Wallets | 16 | $\$ 1,720.00$ |
| Camera | 2 | $\$ 1,650.00$ |
| Clothing / Furs | 9 | $\$ 1,530.00$ |
| Audio / Visual Equipment | 5 | $\$ 1,140.00$ |
| School Supplies | 4 | $\$ 901.00$ |
| Speaker | 4 | $\$ 899.00$ |
| Tools | 2 | $\$ 600.00$ |
| Household Items | 4 | $\$ 555.00$ |
| Key | 8 | $\$ 410.00$ |
| Knife | 2 | $\$ 300.00$ |
| Camera/Photographic Equipment | 1 | $\$ 300.00$ |
| Musical Instrument | 1 | $\$ 295.00$ |
| Vehicle Parts / Accessories | 2 | $\$ 200.00$ |
| Sports Equipment | 7 | $\$ 180.00$ |
| Drug / Narcotics | 4 | $\$ 180.00$ |
| Calculator | 1 | $\$ 110.00$ |
| Box | 1 | $\$ 100.00$ |
| Lock | 1 | $\$ 15.00$ |
| Consumable Goods | 1 | $\$ 15.00$ |
| TOTAL | $\mathbf{3 4 3}$ | $\mathbf{\$ 1 7 9 , 6 8 0 . 9 9}$ |

- Recurring - Off-campus burglaries in the residential areas surrounding UC have been a recurring problem for several decades, as evidenced by previous attempts to address the problem (see the ANALYSIS section of this report). The preliminary investigation revealed residents living in the area selected for analysis experienced 78 burglary events within the previous 12-month period (October 1, 2018-September 30, 2019).

- Similar - All of the incidents examined during the preliminary investigation were tightly clustered in space. The 78 burglary events occurred in an area that spanned less than 0.5 square miles (see Figure 2).
The CHEERS analysis suggested off-campus burglaries could be addressed using a problemsolving approach. Given the long-term and complex dynamics associated with the problem, a Strategic Investigation (rather than a short-term Tactical Investigation) was initiated to address off-campus burglaries. The investigation was assigned to Lieutenant David Brinker of the Criminal Investigations and Community Engagement Section.


# ANALYSIS 

As directed by the Tactical and Strategic Investigations policy, four objectives guided the second phase of the SI project: (1) gathering and analyzing existing data, (2) collecting intelligence through interviews, (3) conducting site observations, and (4) developing a comprehensive list of potential interventions.

## Information from Existing Databases

A wide variety of data sources were used to collect intelligence during the scanning (preliminary investigation) stage, including past CAGIS (Cincinnati Area Geographic Information System) and Hamilton County Auditor data, as well as the University of Cincinnati Police Division and Cincinnati Police Department calls for service and crime incident data. In addition to the findings presented in the SCANNING section of this report, a temporal analysis of the crime data was conducted to determine when burglaries were most likely to occur.

Time of day analyses did not prove useful, given the nature of burglary events (i.e., incidents occur most often when residents are away, and victimizations are reported hours or days after the event takes place). However, burglary risk means ${ }^{7}$ were calculated to identify "hot" semesters, academic breaks, and holidays (see Table 2) based on 5-year, 3-year, and 2-year averages. The risk of burglaries was highest historically in the fall, more recently during summer, during most academic breaks, and consistently around the Thanksgiving holiday. Further analysis revealed specific "hot" weeks associated with each academic semester. As expected, the riskiest weeks for burglary were observed mostly during the fall and summer semesters.

Table 2: Temporal Analysis by Academic Calendar

|  | 5-yr (sig) | 3-yr (sig) | 2-yr (sig) |
| :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- |
| SEMESTER |  |  |  |
| Fall Semester | .22 (.000) | .18 (.021) | .19 (.347) |
| Spring Semester | .07 (.000) | .09 (.000) | .09 (.000) |
| Summer Session | .14 (.107) | .16 (.650) | .21 (.015) |
| BREAKS/FINALS |  |  |  |
| Summer-Fall Break | .31 (.000) | .29 (.000) | .28 (.004) |
| Winter Break | .21 (.014) | .24 (.000) | .23 (.040) |
| Spring-Summer Break | .12 (.242) | .20 (.285) | .20 (.505) |
| Final Exams | .15 (.774) | .22 (.007) | .26 (.004) |
| HOLIDAYS |  |  |  |
| Veterans Day | .33 (.000) | .07 (.051) | .00 (.003) |
| Labor Day | .20 (.213) | .07 (.051) | .10 (.256) |
| Thanksgiving | .22 (.047) | .24 (.038) | .36 (.002) |
| Martin Luther King Day | .04 (.003) | .00 (.000) | .00 (.003) |
| Spring Break | .07 (.002) | .12 (.227) | .18 (.950) |
| Memorial Day | .16 (.863) | .07 (.051) | .00 (.003) |
| Fourth of July | .13 (.541) | .21 (.250) | .33 (.032) |

Table 3: Temporal Analysis for Fall Semesters

|  | 5-yr (sig) | 3-yr (sig) | 2-yr (sig) |
| :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- |
| FALL WEEKS |  |  |  |
| Fall Week 1 | .09 (.040) | .10 (.113) | .07 (.056) |
| Fall Week 2 | .29 (.001) | .10 (.113) | .14 (.564) |
| Fall Week 3 | .11 (.269) | .10 (.113) | .07 (.056) |
| Fall Week 4 | .20 (.268) | .24 (.090) | .29 (.063) |
| Fall Week 5 | .46 (.000) | .19 (.612) | .14 (.564) |
| Fall Week 6 | .14 (.871) | .05 (.005) | .07 (.056) |
| Fall Week 7 | .14 (.647) | .19 (.612) | .14 (.564) |
| Fall Week 8 | .26 (.042) | .24 (.178) | .07 (.056) |
| Fall Week 9 | .17 (.802) | .24 (.178) | .21 (.605) |
| Fall Week 10 | .29 (.002) | .38 (.000) | .43 (.002) |
| Fall Week 11 | .17 (.669) | .10 (.113) | .14 (.564) |
| Fall Week 12 | .37 (.000) | .14 (.639) | .14 (.564) |
| Fall Week 13 | .29 (.001) | .19 (.432) | .21 (.379) |
| Fall Week 14 | .23 (.084) | .33 (.002) | .50 (.001) |
| Fall Week 15 | .14 (.647) | .19 (.612) | .14 (.564) |

Table 4: Temporal Analysis for Spring Semesters

|  | 5-yr (sig) | 3-yr (sig) | 2-yr (sig) |
| :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- |
| SPRING WEEKS |  |  |  |
| Spring Week 1 | .06 (.003) | .05 (.005) | .00 (.000) |
| Spring Week 2 | .03 (.000) | .05 (.005) | .00 (.000) |
| Spring Week 3 | .11 (.221) | .19 (.612) | .21 (.605) |
| Spring Week 4 | .06 (.003) | .05 (.005) | .07 (.056) |
| Spring Week 5 | .17 (.669) | .24 (.090) | .29 (.063) |
| Spring Week 6 | .06 (.003) | .05 (.005) | .07 (.056) |
| Spring Week 7 | .03 (.000) | .05 (.005) | .00 (.000) |
| Spring Week 8 | .00 (.000) | .00 (.000) | .00 (.000) |
| Spring Week 9 | .06 (.003) | .00 (.000) | .00 (.000) |
| Spring Week 10 | .09 (.040) | .14 (.639) | .21 (.605) |
| Spring Week 11 | .11 (.221) | .14 (.639) | .21 (.605) |
| Spring Week 12 | .09 (.040) | .10 (.113) | .14 (.564) |
| Spring Week 13 | .06 (.003) | .05 (.005) | .00 (.000) |
| Spring Week 14 | .14 (.647) | .19 (.612) | .07 (.056) |
| Spring Week 15 | .06 (.003) | .10 (.113) | .14 (.564) |

Table 5: Temporal Analysis for Summer Semesters

|  | 5-yr (sig) | 3-yr (sig) | 2-yr (sig) |
| :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- |
| SUMMER WEEKS |  |  |  |
| Summer Week 1 | .17 (.546) | .24 (.041) | .36 (.001) |
| Summer Week 2 | .09 (.050) | .05 (.005) | .07 (.056) |
| Summer Week 3 | .11 (.221) | .05 (.005) | .00 (.000) |
| Summer Week 4 | .00 (.000) | .00 (.000) | .00 (.000) |
| Summer Week 5 | .14 (.757) | .19 (.432) | .29 (.063) |
| Summer Week 6 | .23 (.135) | .29 (.040) | .29 (.170) |
| Summer Week 7 | .17 (.802) | .24 (.178) | .21 (.605) |
| Summer Week 8 | .17 (.669) | .29 (.014) | .43 (.002) |
| Summer Week 9 | .14 (.647) | .19 (.612) | .29 (.170) |
| Summer Week 10 | .11 (.269) | .05 (.005) | .07 (.056) |
| Summer Week 11 | .20 (.268) | .14 (.795) | .14 (.739) |
| Summer Week 12 | .17 (.802) | .24 (.178) | .29 (.170) |
| Summer Week 13 | .18 (.387) | .29 (.004) | .43 (.000) |

To examine the spatial distribution of burglaries, a 5-year and 2-year street segment analysis was conducted (see Tables 6 and 7). Despite some variation, the six street segments with the highest number of burglaries were consistent across both analyses (Ohio, Wheeler, Clifton, Stratford, Chickasaw, and Ravine). Following the 80-20 rule, ${ }^{8}$ these six segments (about a quarter of all segments in the targeted area) accounted for almost $\mathbf{7 0 \%}$ of all burglary incidents.

Analyses by day of week found that most burglaries (almost 70\%) were reported Friday through Monday (see Tables 8 and 9), with the most common reporting days being Saturday and Sunday. The limitations of reporting data were considered. For example, a burglary occurring on Thursday night might not be reported until the early hours of Friday morning.

This reporting delay was thought to explain the relatively large proportion of burglaries reported on Mondays.
![img-5.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-5.jpeg)

Table 8: Burglaries by Day of Week 5-year Trend
![img-6.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-6.jpeg)

Table 7: Burglaries by Street Segment 2-year Trend
![img-7.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-7.jpeg)

Table 9: Burglaries by Day of Week 2-year Trend
![img-8.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-8.jpeg)

Repeat location analyses revealed that 16 locations experienced repeat burglary victimizations (ranging from 2 to 7 ) in the past two years (see Table 10). Of these 16 locations, 10 experienced at least one additional victimization when a 5-year timeframe was examined (these were labeled "historical" repeat locations). Six of the locations were identified at "new" repeat locations, since no incidents occurred in these places prior to the most recent 2-year timeframe.

A second repeat location analysis focused on identifying places that were once repeat addresses but had "cooled." The data revealed 13 locations that reported 3 to 4 victimizations during the 5-year analysis timeframe, but did not experienced a burglary incident in the past two years (see Table 11). Resident and landlord interviews, coupled with site observations revealed that the "heating" or "cooling" of places was most often associated with at least one of three factors: (1) new ownership, (2) resident turnover or less risky resident behavior, particularly among those who stayed longer than a semester and learned to mitigate burglary risk over time, and (3) proactive (or absent) place management activities, particularly those that focused on eliminating environmental facilitators associated with burglaries (e.g., poor lighting, overgrown hedges, window air-conditioning units).

Table 10: Recent and Historical Repeat Addresses

| Recent Repeat Addresses | \# Incidents | Type (\# prior) |
| :--: | :--: | :--: |
| 2419 OHIO AV | 7 | Historical (6) |
| 2420 OHIO AV | 5 | Historical (4) |
| 117 LYON ST | 3 | Historical (1) |
| 2358 STRATFORD AV | 3 | Historical (1) |
| 2404 OHIO AV | 3 | Historical (2) |
| 2326 CHICKASAW ST | 3 | New |
| 2328 FLORA ST | 2 | Historical (1) |
| 2350 WHEELER ST | 2 | Historical (1) |
| 2352 STRATFORD AV | 2 | Historical (1) |
| 2357 CLIFTON AV | 2 | Historical (1) |
| 2440 OHIO AV | 2 | Historical (3) |
| 2362 CHICKASAW ST | 2 | New |
| 2381 WHEELER ST | 2 | New |
| 2303 WHEELER ST | 2 | New |
| 2313 RAVINE ST | 2 | New |
| 2349 WHEELER ST | 2 | New |

Table 11: Previously "Hot" Addresses that "Cooled"

| "Cooled" Repeat Addresses | \# Prior Incidents |
| :--: | :--: |
| 114 LYON ST | 4 |
| 2353 OHIO AV | 4 |
| 2363 OHIO AV | 4 |
| 2410 OHIO AV | 4 |
| 128 LYON ST | 3 |
| 206 ATKINSON ST | 3 |
| 2313 STRATFORD AV | 3 |
| 2314 ROHS ST | 3 |
| 2339 VICTOR ST | 3 |
| 2377 RAVINE ST | 3 |
| 2404 CLIFTON AV | 3 |
| 2405 CLIFTON AV | 3 |
| 2430 OHIO AV | 3 |

Finally, UCPD records were reviewed to gather a list of interventions previously and currently used to prevent off-campus burglaries. An evaluation report produced in 2005 outlined one of UCPD's earliest burglary prevention initiatives. ${ }^{9}$ The distribution of approximately 5,000 door hangers containing crime prevention information was shown to decrease burglaries by $20 \%$ and theft by almost $75 \%$ during the semester in which they were disseminated. UCPD continued the distribution of crime prevention information each semester subsequent to this first initiative. In 2014-2015, the CUF (Clifton, University Heights, and Fairview) Neighborhood Association, through Cincinnati's Neighborhood Business District Improvement Program, invested in LED high lumens street lighting in the area.

During the year prior to the initiation of the current problem-solving project, UCPD also conducted a series of spatial pattern analyses to identify and disrupt "near repeat" burglaries. Research consistently finds that burglaries cluster in time and space. ${ }^{10}$ Using tools developed by Dr. Jerry Ratcliffe and Dr. Liz Groff and colleagues, ${ }^{11}$ UCPD identified the spatial extent of near repeat burglary patterns. Based on the findings, officers distributed crime prevention awareness information to six houses on either side of each burgled residence, plus the burgled home (a technique known as "super cocooning" - see Appendix B). ${ }^{12}$ An evaluation of the near repeat awareness campaign revealed no decrease in burglaries after several months. Instead, residences targeted for intervention experienced an increase in burglaries following the intervention. Subsequent interviews (see next section) revealed that most students who did not speak directly with officers did not read or recall receiving the printed information. Student interviews suggested that many were living away from home for the first time and unaware of the problem and associated risks. Further, interviews revealed that offenders specifically targeted houses with pamphlets left uncollected on doorsteps (including UCPD crime prevention materials), since uncollected mail/advertisements suggest the residents are absent.

Intelligence from Offender Interviews
Interviews were conducted with university stakeholders, landlords, residents, and known chronic burglary offenders to understand better the dynamics associated with the burglary events and identify possible intervention points. In addition to the interview information provided in the previous section, here we report the information collected from the offender interviews.

Lt. Brinker and Analyst Zidar examined arrest records to identify offenders currently incarcerated who were arrested for committing one or more burglaries in the residential areas surrounding the university campus. Using research guidelines on conducting offender interviews, ${ }^{13}$ Brinker and Zidar interviewed seven offenders, males between the ages of 18 and 64, across four correctional institutions in southwest Ohio. Table 12 summarizes 20 commonalities identified in the offenders' narratives that were used to inform the response phase of the project.

Examples of Taped Interview Excerpts
Lt. Brinker: How many people know that UC is a good or easy hit?
Offender \#1: Oh, a lot of people Downtown.
Analyst Zidar: Did any of the neighbors ever stop you?
Offender \#1: Once... They talked to me, but they thought I knew the people who lived there. They said, "What are you doing?" I said, "I'm helping them move!"

## Site Observations

Site observations and CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) assessments were conducted at high risk/repeat burglary locations in the target area. Burglary facilitators outlined in the CPTED tool guide ${ }^{14}$ were identified and documented. Figure 4 shows the style of housing typical in this area: row-style, single-family residences often split into multiple units with few property

Figure 4: Off-Campus Residential Housing Style boundaries and on-street parking. The images contained in Figures 5, 6, and 7 show examples of risky property conditions identified by the investigation team at two repeat burglary locations, 2404 Ohio and 2420 Ohio, and near one of the access pathways identified through offender interviews.

Table 12: Offender Interview Commonalities

| - Unmarried |
| :-- |
| - Have children |
| - From Cincinnati with connection to |
| Downtown or UC area |
| - High-school dropout |
| - Non-steady work history |
| - Committed crimes as juveniles |
| - Started out committing less serious |
| offenses |
| - Cocaine addictions |
| - No mental health issues |
| - Motivated by need for drug money |
| or desired items |
| - Items fenced on street to locals and |
| "Dope Boys" |
| - No car - walk or take bus |
| - Homeless or staying with other |
| offenders |
| - Refer to students as naïve and |
| easy/valuable targets |
| - Noted the neighborhood diversity |
| (do not stand out) |
| - MOs - knock on door, prefer open |
| windows/doors, watch students |
| leave using NightRide service |
| - Electronics highly valued |
| - Ravine, W. Clifton and Vine used as |
| pathways |
| - Deterred by resident awareness, |
| locked property, sounds, lights, and |
| surveillance systems |
| - No consistency in preferred time of |
| day, location of house on street, or |
| whether police presence deters | |

![img-9.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-9.jpeg)

Figure 5: Examples of Property Assessment Findings at 2404 Ohio
![img-10.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-10.jpeg)

Figure 6: Examples of Property Assessment Findings at 2420 Ohio
![img-11.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-11.jpeg)

Figure 7: Examples of Property Assessment Findings at Common Access Pathway
![img-12.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-12.jpeg)

In addition to CPTED assessments, the investigative team conducted lighting assessments along each street segment. It was noted that the high-powered LED lighting installed in the area approximately four years prior created well-lit street conditions. However, tree canopies prevented the streetlights from providing adequate lighting on the front of residential properties (see examples in Figure 8). This finding helped investigators to explain why incidents of thefts from auto were low (due to adequate street lighting where vehicles are parked), but burglary rates in the same neighborhood were high.

Figure 8: Tree Canopy Impact on Streetlight Effectiveness
![img-13.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-13.jpeg)

# Potential Interventions 

Led by Bureau Commander, David Hoffman, a comprehensive list of potential burglary interventions was gathered through a review of academic literature (e.g., academic journals) and practitioner-focused publications and websites (e.g., problem-solving guides, evidencebased policing websites). The POP guides available through the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website were identified as potential resources for developing solutions. The guides, "Burglary of Single Family Houses," "Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems," "Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns," and "Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential Areas," offered insight into potentially effective responses. Also, calls to neighboring jurisdictions identified potential interventions. Lt. Brinker and a UC Student Affairs representative spoke with the Ohio State University police and university representatives who worked to address similar issues.

Per the Tactical and Strategic Investigations policy, a presentation of the investigative findings and list of potential interventions was given to UCPD's Citizen's Compliance Committee (CCC), a police oversight board consisting of community members and stakeholders and chaired by retired Judge John Andrew West. Several of the members reaffirmed the investigative findings by sharing stories of their personal experiences in the area, including one member that lived in the area as a UC medical student in the 1960s (who reported experiencing the same problems 50 years earlier). The Student Safety Board CCC representative secured funding to assist with project implementation. The Student Body President, who also serves on the CCC and was the victim of an off-campus residential burglary, discussed the burglary prevention project and goals with various university organizations and the University President - effectively increasing awareness of the project and burglary problem.

## RESPONSE

The investigation of burglary dynamics (conducted through data analysis, community and offender interviews, site observations and assessments, and feedback gathered from the oversight board) revealed three primary risk factors associated with off-campus residential burglaries: (1) lack of victim awareness, (2) lack of offender deterrence, and (3) environmental facilitators. Figure 9 depicts the burglary response framework, based on the crime triangle, used by the investigative team to select off-campus burglary interventions.

The following provides a brief summary of the major responses and partnerships leveraged to reduce burglary in the target area. The

Figure 9: Burglary Response Framework
![img-14.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-14.jpeg)
responses were scheduled to be implemented in two phases. Phase one responses began in November 2019, and this phase is currently in progress. Phase two responses are planned for implementation in late 2020/early 2021. Table 13 provides a summary of the investigative/analysis findings that supports each intervention.

# Phase 1 

## Response \#1: Knock and Talk Awareness Campaign

Based on intelligence that traditional crime prevention flier dissemination was no longer effective, a new flier was drafted. Features of the revised flier included (1) the specific number of burglaries occurring in residential areas around campus, (2) a visual depiction of burglary incidents to show the extent of the problem (3) excepts from the offender interviews that explained how and why students were targeted, and (4) an action-oriented checklist for burglary prevention that highlighted deterrents identified during the offender interviews (i.e., opportunity, sound, and visibility, see Figure 10). Based on information that students were unlikely to read fliers left on their doorsteps, a team of officers paired with student volunteers (including members of the Student Safety Board and Criminal Justice Society) knocked on doors, handed fliers to residents, and spoke directly with those contacted about the information contained in the flier. In total, the officer-peer teams reached 164 students living at 101 different off-campus residences on November 15, 2019. The goal of the response was to increase victim awareness of the problem, help residents block opportunities and change risky routine activities, and deter offenders by increasing signs of
![img-15.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-15.jpeg)

Lt. Brinker briefing student volunteers
occupancy.

Figure 10: Revised Burglary Prevention Flier
![img-16.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-16.jpeg)

Response \#2: Directed Patrols and Plus One Protocol
Based on the burglary temporal analysis findings, Operations Commander Rodney Carter initiated a directed patrol strategy to reduce burglaries in the target area. As part of the Plus One Protocol mandated by the Tactical and Strategic Investigations policy, patrol officers were assigned, via the CAD system) to conduct foot patrols (recently shown to be most effective for deterring property crime ${ }^{15}$ ) based on the Koper Curve Principle. ${ }^{16}$ Beginning on November 21, 2019, during "hot" weeks ( 12 weeks identified through burglary risk means in the temporal analysis), on "hot" days (Thursday evenings through Friday mornings), and during "hot" times (1200-0600), officers were deployed to 10 of the "hottest" street segments on a rotating basis (see Figure 11). Locations were selected to provide maximum officer visibility along a specific segment or at the intersection of two hot segments. Each location received 15 minutes of officer foot patrol and engagement every two hours, based on the specified periods above.

Figure 11: Directed Patrol and Plus One Activity Locations
![img-17.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-17.jpeg)

Officers were instructed to respond to the segment, leave their patrol vehicle lights on and walk up and down the associated segment (to deter potential offenders), talk with residents (to increase awareness), and look for and address environmental facilitators (to address physical conditions that encourage burglary). If environmental facilitators were identified that could not be addressed by the residents, officers were instructed to report their findings to the investigative unit to allow landlord outreach efforts.

Coordination with CPD allowed for continued patrols of the business area and other residential areas while UCPD directed patrols and the Plus One Protocol were conducted.

# Response \#3: Social Media Awareness Campaign 

The investigative process (analysis) revealed that the distribution of written materials alone did little to change resident behavior, and pamphlets/fliers that collected on doorsteps encouraged break-ins. In response, UC's Department of Public Safety Public Information Officer, Kelly Cantwell, initiated a social media awareness campaign.

Crime prevention and awareness information were distributed to students through multiple social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter). The campaign, known as \#mindwhatmatters, provided burglary prevention videos, checklists, and officer messages. Messages were sent consistently throughout the project period, and were also sent during high-risk periods, including just before academic breaks. Figure 12 provides examples of the messaging and platforms used to help raise victim awareness, promote resident behaviors that deter offenders, and reduce environmental facilitators. Figure 13 highlights examples of the tips provided when students click on the links embedded in the social media posts.

Figure 12: \#mindwhatmatters Virtual Campaign Posts
![img-18.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-18.jpeg)

Figure 13: Burglary Prevention Tips

## If you live in an apartment:

- Lock your doors and windows anytime you leave, and when you are sleeping.
- If you lose your keys, report it to the property manager immediately.
- Leave some lights on while you are away, preferably on a timer.
- Do not let someone you do not know into the building.
- Before you sign a lease, look for a safe apartment. Read about what UCPD recommends you look for here.
- Ensure window AC units cannot be easily pushed in.


## If you live in a house:

- Make sure the outside of your house is well lit at night.
- Lock your doors and windows anytime you leave, and when you are sleeping.
- If you are a renter and lose your keys, report it to the owner immediately. If you or your family owns the house, consider replacing the locks as soon as possible.
- Leave some lights on while you are away, preferably on a timer.
- Ensure window AC units cannot be easily pushed in.

# Response \#4: Parental (Guardian) Notifications 

In partnership with UC's Office of Student Affairs, and to leverage guardianship, crime prevention awareness messaging was shared through the University's "Family Portal" website and Facebook page. The Family Portal provides information to students' parents and other family members. The goal of this response was to increase parental (or guardian) awareness of burglary risks, which in turn would be shared by parents to students. Further, if family members were involved in helping students to find housing, this information could assist them in selecting more secure properties, or eliminate environmental facilitators associated with current student housing. Figure 14 highlights examples of the messaging shared with student parents and other family members.

Figure 14: Examples of Crime Awareness Information Shared through UC's Family Portal
![img-19.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-19.jpeg)

## Phase 2

Phase 2 of the project is set to begin in late 2020/early 2021. Here are the three planned responses with brief descriptions of the proposed activities.

Response \#5: Visibility Improvements - The Cincinnati Parks Department, Urban Forestry Staff has committed to conduct tree canopy trimming in the target area to increase nighttime visibility, but due to COVID-19 budget constraints and social distancing personnel deployment, the department cannot perform this work until fiscal year 2021.

Response \#6: Landlord Education - In partnership with the City of Cincinnati and CPD, UCPD plans to host Landlord Education Training ${ }^{17}$ to improve place management practices in multi-unit housing complexes and repeat burglary locations. Open to all owners/landlords

providing off-campus student housing, the training will provide best practice leasing and property security information to attendees.

Response \#7: University-Sponsored Resource Center for Off-Campus Living - Drawing inspiration from a program implemented by the Ohio State University, ${ }^{18}$ the UCPD plans to partner with UC's Department of Student Affairs to create a Student Service Center for students who reside in off-campus housing. This Center would provide assistance to local area property managers, advertise housing that meets CPTED standards, and provide students with lease reviews and other legal services to ensure student rights and responsibilities.

The investigative team worked to ensure that each response was designed to maximize the impact of the response on all three elements of the burglary prevention framework. Similarly, each response was informed by specific investigative (analysis) findings, as shown in Table 13.
![img-20.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-20.jpeg)

Table 13: Summary of Major Investigative/Analysis Findings Leading to Responses

|  | Response |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| :-- | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| Investigative/Analysis Findings | $\# 1$ | $\# 2$ | $\# 3$ | $\# 4$ | $\# 5$ | $\# 6$ | $\# 7$ |
| Burglaries are often the result of attractive opportunities  (majority of incidents involved no forced entry) | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ |
| Burglaries cluster in time and space |  | $\mathbf{X}$ |  |  |  |  | $\mathbf{X}$ |
| A small proportion of addresses experienced repeat  burglaries |  |  |  |  |  | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ |
| Most residences were used as student rental properties  with high turnover rates | $\mathbf{X}$ |  | $\mathbf{X}$ |  |  | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ |
| Many properties had physical design features conducive  to burglary | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ |
| Students away from home and unaware of risks | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ |  | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ |
| Previous flier campaigns were no longer effective and  facilitated burglaries | $\mathbf{X}$ |  | $\mathbf{X}$ |  |  |  |  |
| Offenders are deterred by resident awareness, locked  property, sounds, lights, and surveillance systems | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ |  | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ | $\mathbf{X}$ |
| Trees canopies reduced streetlighting effectiveness |  |  |  |  | $\mathbf{X}$ |  |  |

\#1: Knock and Talk Awareness Campaign
\#2: Directed Patrols and Plus One Protocol
\#3: Social Media Awareness Campaign
\#4: Parental (Guardian) Notifications
\#5: Visibility Improvements
\#6: Landlord Education
\#7: University-Sponsored Resource Center for Off-Campus Living

# ASSESSMENT 

The assessment, conducted by Analyst Zidar, is divided into two primary components: directed patrol/Plus One Protocol fidelity assessment and project outcome assessment.

## Directed Patrol/Plus One Protocol Fidelity Assessment

In total, 2850 directed patrols were assigned in the target area between November 2019 and March 2020. Police records show that $98.5 \%$ of those assignments were completed ( $\mathrm{n}=$ 2850).

Table 14: Directed Patrols -
Number Assigned and Compliance Rate

| 2019 | 1588 | $98.0 \%$ |
| :--: | :--: | :--: |
| Nov | 497 | $95.8 \%$ |
| Dec | 1091 | $99.1 \%$ |
| 2020 | 1304 | $99.2 \%$ |
| Jan | 536 | $99.4 \%$ |
| Feb | 677 | $99.4 \%$ |
| Mar | 91 | $95.6 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 2892 | $98.5 \%$ |

Numbers of resident contacts made as a result of the directed patrol Plus One Protocols were not tracked. However, examples of specific property improvements made as a result of officer engagement are depicted in Figure 15.

Figure 15: Plus One Protocol Property Improvements
![img-21.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-21.jpeg)

# Project Outcome Assessment 

The following assessment examines the number of off-campus burglaries that occurred during the treatment period ( 24 weeks) compared to the same academic weeks during the previous year. The analysis in Figure 16 provides insight but is limited, given the time frame and the impact of COVID-19 on university and police operations. Prior to the suspension of classes, burglaries fell 30\% compared to the previous year (20 to 14); burglaries fell 50\% following the class suspension ( 6 to 3 ). ${ }^{19}$

Figure 16: Burglaries Pre-Post Intervention in Treatment Area
![img-22.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-22.jpeg)

## Displacement

Figure 17 displays the same analysis conducted above, but for the rest of off-campus housing falling with the Concentration of Student Residence (CSR) zone surrounding UC's campus.

Figure 17: Burglaries Pre-Post Intervention in CSR Zone
![img-23.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-23.jpeg)

The CSR analysis indicates a potential diffusion of benefits, rather than displacement, prior to the COVID-19 response (a decrease of $21 \% ; 68$ to 54 ), but a $20 \%$ increase in burglaries (20 to 24) and potential displacement following campus closure. Crime type displacement to theft from auto or all other theft did not appear to occur in the treatment area (see Table 15).

Table 15: Crime Type Displacement in Treatment Area

| Crime Type | Pre | Post | \% Change |
| :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- |
| Theft from auto | 15 | 9 | $-40 \%$ |
| All other theft | 15 | 11 | $-27 \%$ |

# Future Project Directions 

Given the duration of the follow-up period and the impact of COVID-19, more time and analysis will be needed to accurately assess the impact of UCPD's first Strategic Investigation. The investigative team will monitor burglaries and continue with patrol activity and response implementation as soon as UC resumes campus operations.

See Chief's note. ${ }^{20}$
See Appendix C for 2021 project update.
(3,994 words, excluding tables/figures/endnotes/appendices)

# ENDNOTES 

[^0]
[^0]:    ${ }^{1}$ See Engel, R. S., McManus, H. D., \& Isaza, G. T. (2020). Moving beyond "Best Practice": Experiences in Police Reform and a Call for Evidence to Reduce Officer-Involved Shootings. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 687(1), $146-165$.
    ${ }^{2}$ Sidebottom, A. \& Tilley. (2011). Improving problem-oriented policing: The need for a new model? Crime Prevention \& Community Safety, 13(2): 79-101.
    ${ }^{3}$ Boba, R. \& Santos, R. G. (2011). A police organizational model for crime reduction: Institutionalizing problem solving, analysis, and accountability. Washington DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
    ${ }^{4}$ See Step 14, "Use the CHEERS test when defining problems," in Clarke \& Eck (2005)
    ${ }^{5}$ Beaton, A., Cook, M. Kavanagh, M. \& Herrington, C. (2000). The psychological impact of burglary. Psychology \& Crime, 6(1): 33-43.
    ${ }^{6}$ Eck, J. E. \& Clarke, R. V. (2003). "Classifying Common Police Problems: A Routine Activity Approach." In Martha J. Smith and Derek B. Cornish, eds. Theory for Practice in Situational Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 16. pp. 7-40. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
    ${ }^{7}$ These means represent the average number of burglaries per day, across each time period examined.
    ${ }^{8}$ See Step 18, "Learn if the 80-20 rule applies," in Clarke \& Eck (2005)
    ${ }^{9}$ See
    https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/ccjr/docs/reports/project_reports/Crime_Preventi on_Awareness_Project.pdf
    ${ }^{10}$ Bowers, K. J., \& Johnson, S. D. (2005). Domestic burglary repeats and space-time clusters: the dimensions of risk. The European Journal of Criminology, 2(1): 67-92.
    ${ }^{11}$ See https://www.policefoundation.org/projects/translating-near-repeat-theory-into-a-geospatial-policing-strategy/
    ${ }^{12}$ Pegram, R., Barnes, G.C., Slothower, M. \& Strang, H. (2018). Implementing a Burglary Prevention Program with Evidence-Based Tracking: A Case Study. Cambridge Journal of Evidence Based Policing, 2: 181-191.
    ${ }^{13}$ Decker, S. H. (2005). Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem Solving. ProblemOriented Guides for Police, Problem-Solving Tools Series, Guide No 3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
    ${ }^{14}$ Zahm, D. (2007). Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem Solving. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police, Problem-Solving Tools Series, Guide No 8. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
    ${ }^{15}$ https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/1.\%20Engel_IACP_Violence\%20Reduction_ FINAL.pdf
    ${ }^{16}$ https://www.policefoundation.org/wp-
    content/uploads/2015/07/PF_FiveThings_HotSpotsPolicing_Handout_Rev6.23.15.pdf
    ${ }^{17}$ https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/community-involvement/landlord-education-program/landlord-training-program-information/
    ${ }^{18}$ https://offcampus.osu.edu/search-housing.aspx

${ }^{19}$ The percent changes should be interpreted with caution, given the low base numbers. Post class suspension results were likely impacted by students leaving the area.
${ }^{20}$ Note from (former UCPD) Chief Maris Herold: While the burglary numbers impacted during the treatment period were low and the interventions were resource intensive (particularly the directed patrols), it is important to remember that this work was preparing us to address seasonal burglary spikes common later in the year (summer and fall). The indirect benefits of the officer foot patrol (e.g., community engagement, property assessments and repairs, positive officer perceptions of the work and improved morale, police learning to engage in problem-solving, positive community reactions) and the partnerships formed as a result of this project, were invaluable.

# PROJECT CONTACTS 

## Director/Chief James L. Whalen

University of Cincinnati Police Division
51 W. Corry Blvd., Edwards 3
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221
James.Whalen@uc.edu
(513) 556-4825

## Police Chief Maris Herold

Boulder Police Department
$180533^{\text {rd }}$ Street
Boulder, Colorado 30302
heroldm@bouldercolorado.gov
(513) 806-6272

## Lt. David Brinker

University of Cincinnati Police Division
51 W. Corry Blvd., Edwards 3
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221
David.Brinker@uc.edu
(513) 556-4900

## Crime Analyst Michael Zidar

University of Cincinnati Police Division
51 W. Corry Blvd., Edwards 3
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221
Michael.Zidar@uc.edu
(330) 647-9063

## Dr. Tamara D. Herold, Associate Professor

University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Department of Criminal Justice
4505 S. Maryland Pkwy, \#5009
Las Vegas, Nevada 89154-5009
Tamara.Herold@unlv.edu
(702) 895-5903

# APPENDIX A 

## Tactical and Strategic Investigations

Policy and Procedure

# University of CINCINNATI

## Department of Public Safety Police Division Policies and Procedures

|  Title | SOP Number  |
| --- | --- |
|  Tactical and Strategic Investigations | 12.1.100  |
|  Approval Signature |   |
|  Chief Maris Herold |   |
|  Reviewed/Revised by | Pages  |
|  Last Revision Date | Effective Date  |

# Tactical and Strategic Investigations 

I. Purpose: To define the University of Cincinnati Police Division's (UCPD) process for conducting Tactical and Strategic Investigations to prevent harm, reduce crime, and eliminate threats to the University of Cincinnati community.
II. Policy: It is the policy of the University of Cincinnati Police Division (UCPD) to prevent crime; not simply react to it. UCPD crime prevention strategies are grounded in evidence-based crime science principles: crime is not random, crime is highly concentrated, and crime can be prevented by focusing on a small number of places and people.

The police cannot and should not solve crime alone. Involving community partners to strategically address recurring crime problems reduces over-reliance on the criminal justice system. Responses that extend beyond arrest, prosecution, and incarceration are often more effective and sustainable. Further, community involvement can promote greater equity and fairness toward people most adversely affected by crime.

Problem-oriented policing advocates problem-solving: a process that addresses highly specific crime problems and encourages community collaboration and interagency partnerships. Despite evidence confirming the effectiveness of a focused and collaborative approach, police agencies have struggled to operationalize problem-oriented policing. It has been argued that problem-solving efforts are often in conflict with departmental objectives, officer skill sets, and organizational structures.

Tactical Investigations (TIs) and Strategic Investigations (SIs) advance existing police problem-solving models. These investigations reinforce the department's commitment to crime prevention, leverage police investigative capacities, and align the problem-solving process with the functions of existing UCPD bureaus, sections, and units. Implementation of TIs and SIs involve (1) continuous scanning to identify university community problems, (2) highly-structured and skilled investigations to understand identified problems and their underlying conditions and causes, (3) partnerships to select and implement evidence-based and tailor-made interventions, and (4) intervention evaluations and reporting of results in ways that benefit future problem-solving efforts, other police agencies, and the university community.

UCPD's use of TIs and SIs reinforces the mission and values of our department. A proactive and collaborative approach to crime reduction promotes policing that is bias-free, moral, constitutional, and respectful of individual rights and community interests.

Problems selected to be addressed through TIs and SIs, will be documented, investigated, and solved in accordance with Section V of this policy. Any questions or concerns should be addressed to the immediate supervisor for clarification.

# Tactical and Strategic Investigations 

## III. Definitions:

Affected Shift Officers - officers working shifts in which identified problems are concentrated.

CHEERS - an acronym representing criteria that draw attention to the six required elements of a problem: Community; Harm; Expectation; Events; Recurring; and Similarity. For a detailed explanation, utilize the following resource: http://www.popcenter.org/learning/60steps/.

Community Involvement Report - on or about June 1 and December 1 of each year, the Community Engagement Unit Commander will prepare a written report, to be presented to the Director of Public Safety, Police Chief, and Command Staff at a bi-weekly Crime Reduction Meeting, that includes the following for the previous six-month period: (1) a summary of all problems reported to UCPD, including those reported by the community - see Section V.A.1, (2) a summary of input received from the community and community partnerships formed as a result of Tactical or Strategic Investigations, and (3) the status and/or outcomes of Tactical or Strategic Investigations.

Crime Analyst - a professional who utilizes quantitative and qualitative techniques to analyze data valuable to police agencies and their communities. He/she conducts analysis of crime and criminals, crime victims, disorder, quality of life issues, traffic issues, and internal police operations, with the goal of supporting criminal investigation and prosecution, patrol activities, crime prevention and reduction strategies, problem solving, and the evaluation of police efforts.

Citizen's Compliance Committee (CCC) - The CCC provides direct input from the community and assists the UCPD in becoming a national model for best practices in urban-university policing. The CCC is comprised of a variety of members from the larger Cincinnati community in an effort to promote diversity of thought, ideas, and information exchange.

Crime Reduction Meeting - a UCPD biweekly meeting to review crime and disorder trends, Tactical and Strategic Investigations, and officer performance metrics.

Crime Problem Bulletin - an analytical product, produced by the Crime Analyst, that provides a summary of analysis and investigation outcomes, as well as directives for patrol and other UCPD units to address identified problems.

Form 5 - an interdepartmental memorandum to the Police Chief.
Implementation Action Plan - a summary of proposed interventions and reasons why interventions were selected (e.g., effective in another jurisdiction, aligned

# Tactical and Strategic Investigations 

with situational crime prevention techniques), projected intervention costs, recommended partnerships, personnel accountable for implementation of specific interventions, and an implementation timeline.

Investigative Case Jacket - all notes, information, intelligence, and evidence associated with a specific investigation, stored electronically and organized in a single location on the P-drive.

Malign Displacement - a harmful form of crime displacement that occurs when an intervention leads offenders to commit more serious offenses or similar offenses that have more serious consequences.

Off-campus Locations - all geography surrounding UC properties where UCPD does not have primary policing jurisdiction.

Form 9 B: Officer Log Sheet - a form completed by patrol officers at the end of each shift that allows officers to document patrol activities and identify problems, including information concerning the problem type, location and involved parties, contributing factors, and resolutions implemented by the officer.

Plus One Protocol - a directive for patrol and security officers to engage in Tactical and Strategic Investigations. Officers will engage in at least one additional activity when addressing a call for service related to on-going Tactical or Strategic Investigations. This activity includes gathering additional information, intelligence, or evidence during the investigative process phase, or carrying out specific interventions as directed through Crime Problem Bulletins during the investigative intervention phase (e.g., high visibility walking/vehicle patrols, distribution of victim resources, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design assessments). Officers will close related calls by reporting the original run disposition, as well as the specific Plus One activity via the radio to dispatch. Dispatchers will create a separate call card when officers report Plus One Protocol activity.

Plus One Protocol Disposition Analysis - a summary of call dispositions and field notes associated with Tactical and Strategic Investigation patrol activities.

Preliminary Investigation - a initial review, conducted by the Crime Analyst, to assess whether problems identified through routine analysis or reported by community members, external agencies, or UCPD officers meet the CHEERS criteria for police intervention.

Problem - a recurring set of related harmful events that members of the public expect the police to address. See the CHEERS definition in this section for further clarification.

# Tactical and Strategic Investigations 

Request for Investigation Form - an electronic form that allows police and the public to report problematic events or conditions directly to UCPD.

SI/TI Investigative Process Checklist - a worksheet that directs investigators to analyze problems using three investigative frameworks: crime pattern theory, routine activity theory, and situational crime prevention.

Situational Crime Prevention Framework - a tool that promotes the use of 25 techniques to reduce crime and associated harms by altering situational factors in places where crime regularly occurs: http://www.popcenter.org/25techniques/.

Standard Deviation - a statistic that measures the dispersion of data points relative to their average; it can be used to identify data shifts or trends that vary significantly from previous levels.

Strategic Investigation (SI) - a long-term, complex investigation of a police problem occurring over several months, seasons, or years requiring in-depth data analysis, partnerships, and external resources to develop tailored interventions to resolve the problem. Strategic Investigations are assigned to the Investigation Section.

Street Segment - a unit of analysis that includes the two block faces on both sides of the street between two intersections.

Tactical Investigation (TI) - a short-term investigation requiring analysis of a problem that has occurred over several days or weeks and can be resolved through short-term interventions. Tactical Investigations are assigned to the Operations Section.

UC properties - University of Cincinnati owned properties, including West Campus, Medical, Clermont County Campus, Clermont East, Blue Ash Campus, Genome Research Center, and the Victory Parkway Campus.

Off-campus locations - all geographic locations where UCPD does not have primary jurisdiction.

# Tactical and Strategic Investigations 

## IV. Information:

Numerous resources are available to assist with Tactical and Strategic Investigations. The following websites are beneficial to understanding and responding to crime and disorder problems:

- Bureau of Justice Assistance
- Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
- Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy
- CrimeSolutions.gov
- George Mason University's Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy
- Evidence-Based Policing Matrix
- International Association of Chiefs of Police
- LISC Community Safety
- National Criminal Justice Reference Service
- National Institute of Justice
- Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
- Police Executive Research Forum
- Police Foundation

The following guides provide additional guidance for conducting each stage of the investigative procedure:
Problem Identification (Scanning)

- Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps
- Identifying and Defining Policing Problems

Investigative Process (Analysis)

- Researching a Problem
- Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem Solving
- Analyzing Repeat Victimization
- Understanding Risky Facilities
- Enhancing the Problem-Solving Capacity of Crime Analysis Units
- Analyzing and Responding to Repeat Offending
- Understanding Theft of 'Hot Products'

Investigative Intervention (Response)

- Implementing Responses to Problems
- Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety Problems
- Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem Solving


## Investigative Evaluation (Assessment)

- Assessing Responses to Problems: Did It Work?
- Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

# Tactical and Strategic Investigations 

The following spreadsheet outlines the critical steps associated with each phase of the Tactical and Strategic Investigations, as well as the parties involved in each step. The chart highlights (1) the role of the university community and (2) the responsibilities of all Division personnel throughout the entire investigative process.

Tactical and Strategic Investigations

|  | Community | Executive Team | Analyst |  |  | Command Staff |  |  | Officers |  | Dispatch |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| Investigation Phase/Step | UC | PSD | PSZAPC | CA | BC | CIC | OC | CEC | IC | PO | SO | CC |
| Problem Identification |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Report problems | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
| Review problems |  |  | * | * | * |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Assign problems |  |  | * |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Develop goals/measures |  |  |  |  | * |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Investigative Process |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Select investigative teams |  |  |  |  | * |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Lead investigative teams |  |  |  |  |  | * | * |  |  |  |  |  |
| Report investigative process |  |  |  |  | * |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Review investigative process |  | * | * |  | * |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Gather Plus One data |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | * | * | * |
| Extend investigative phase |  |  |  |  | * |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Review policy/procedure |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | * |  |  |
| Identify interventions | * |  |  | * | * | * | * | * |  |  |  |  |
| Investigative Intervention |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Select interventions | * |  |  |  |  | * | * |  |  |  |  |  |
| Develop action plan |  |  |  | * |  | * | * |  |  |  |  |  |
| Approve action plan |  |  | * |  | * |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Produce Crime Bulletin |  |  |  | * |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Implement action plan |  |  |  |  |  | * | * |  |  |  |  |  |
| Perform Plus One interventions |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | * | * | * |
| Document activities |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | * | * | * |
| Conduct Plus One analysis |  |  |  | * |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Obtain community input | * |  |  |  |  |  |  | * |  |  |  |  |  |
| Report/monitor impact | * |  |  | * | * |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Investigative Evaluation |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Initiate evaluation phase |  | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |  |  |  |  |  |
| Produce evaluation reports | * |  |  | * |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Review evaluation findings | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
| Legend |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| APC: Assistant Police Chief |  | CEC: Community Engagement Commander |  |  |  | OC: Operations Commander |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| BC: Bureau Commander |  | CIC: Criminal Investigations Commander |  |  |  | PC: Police Chief |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| CA: Crime Analyst |  | IC: Inspections Commander |  |  |  | PO: Police Officer |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| CC: Communication Center |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

# Tactical and Strategic Investigations 

## V. Procedure:

A. Problem Identification (Scanning)

1. Problems Identified by the University Community and Other Governmental Agencies
a. UCPD strongly encourages university community members and outside agency personnel to assist in identifying recurring problems.
b. Community members and agency personnel can call or email the police division to report a problem or complete a Request for Investigation Form found on the University of Cincinnati's Public Safety Website.
c. Public safety personnel who receive calls, emails, or in-person reports will complete a Request for Investigation Form to document the problem.
2. Problems Identified by Police and Security Officers
a. When responding to calls-for-service, directed patrols, or during routine patrols, officers will actively seek to identify specific conditions or situations that contribute to campus community problems.
b. When identified, the officer will document the problem and suspected causes of the problem, as well as the action(s) taken to address the issues and prevent future harms on the Form 9 B: Officer Log Sheet.
c. If the problem cannot be solved by the responding officer and further intervention is needed to prevent recurrence, the officer will provide detailed documentation of identified problem, responses taken to address the problem, and suggestions for future interventions that could reduce the likelihood of repeat incidents using the Request for Investigation Form found on the University of Cincinnati's Public Safety Website.
3. Problems Identified by Crime Analysts
a. The UCPD Crime Analyst(s) will identify problems through timely and regular analyses of incidents reported on UC Properties and Off-campus Locations.
b. The Crime Analyst(s) will generate analytical products for departmental review that include, but are not limited to:
1) Crime incidents and requests for police service for multiple time windows (e.g., 30-day and 90-day periods), to include comparisons to previous time periods (e.g., prior year or 3year average statistics for identical time windows), with analysis to flag significant changes in incident trends (e.g., +2 Standard Deviation increase from previous averages);

# Tactical and Strategic Investigations 

2) Crime concentration analyses to identify temporal and spatial patterns of criminal and community safety/quality of life activity, using various levels of analysis (e.g., address, Street Segment, campus building) and multiple time windows; and
3) Repeat incident type/person/place/modus operandi analyses, using a 1-year minimum time window, to identify vulnerable places or populations.
c. The above analyses will be conducted using a variety of applicable data sources, including, but not limited to, crime incident, calls-forservice, arrest, contact card, and traffic incident data.
d. The Crime Analyst(s) will continuously review newly developed crime identification and analysis techniques to improve problem identification methods and reports.
4. Problem Review
a. Problems identified by the community, external agencies, UCPD officers, and through crime analysis will be subject to a Preliminary Investigation, conducted by the Crime Analyst(s).
b. The Preliminary Investigation will be concluded within 14 days of initial problem identification to determine whether the problem meets the CHEERS criteria for police intervention.
c. Preliminary investigative results will be documented on a Form 5 and presented by the crime analyst(s) to UCPD Command Staff at the next scheduled bi-weekly Crime Reduction Meeting.
5. Case Designation and Assignment
a. The Police Chief or designee, in consultation with Command Staff and the Crime Analyst(s), will determine whether the identified problem should be assigned to a Tactical Investigation or Strategic Investigation team.
b. The Police Chief or designee will assign cases selected for further investigation to a specific Bureau Commander.
c. The assigned Bureau Commander will define the specific problem to be addressed and the general goal(s) to be accomplished through the Tactical or Strategic Investigation and how success will be measured. Investigative goals will be relayed to the Director of Public Safety and Police Chief at the subsequent bi-weekly Crime Reduction Meeting.
B. Investigative Process (Analysis)
6. Investigative Teams
a. The assigned Bureau Commander will select investigative team members from any UCPD bureau, section, or unit for investigative

# Tactical and Strategic Investigations 

response (with permission from the selected personnel's Bureau Commander).
b. Strategic Investigation teams will include, at minimum, the Investigative Commander, two Investigators, a Community Engagement Unit member, and a Crime Analyst.
c. Tactical Investigation teams will include, at minimum, an Operations Lieutenant, a Sergeant, a Crime Analyst, a Community Engagement Unit member, and two Affected Shift Officers.
d. The list of team members will be documented in the Investigative Case Jacket.
2. Gathering Information, Intelligence, and Evidence to Develop Intervention Points
a. The investigative team will complete the SI/TI Investigative Process Checklist to systematically analyze the problem and develop investigative leads.
b. Information will be gathered from various databases and can include, but are not limited to:

1) Police databases (e.g., CFS, ARMS reports/narratives, LEADS, RCIC, NCIC, contact cards, arrests)
2) Open source databases (e.g., county auditor, BMV, social media sites, court records, internet mapping sites)
3) Close source databases (e.g., tenant lists, city/county agency department records)
c. Information will be gathered through interviews and surveys conducted with relevant parties, including but not limited to:
4) Campus community partners (e.g., students/faculty/staff, businesses, residents)
5) Witnesses, victims, and offenders
6) Police personnel
7) Property managers and owners
8) Formal/informal community leaders
9) Government personnel
d. Information will be gathered using observation methods, including but not limited to:
10) Site visits
11) Camera surveillance
12) Directed patrols
13) CPTED and other environmental surveys
e. Information will be gathered through cultivation of sources of information (e.g., resident assistants, postal workers, facilities workers).
f. Information will be collected from relevant county, state, and federal agencies (e.g., SPCA, Liquor Control Commission, Job \& Family Services, FBI/ATF/DEA).

# Tactical and Strategic Investigations 

g. All collected information, intelligence, and evidence will be documented in the Investigative Case Jacket for investigative team and Bureau Commander review.
3. Length of Investigations
a. A Tactical Investigation will be completed within 90 days. The tactical investigative phase may be extended beyond 90 days with approval by the assigned Bureau Commander.
b. A Strategic Investigation will be completed within 180 days. The strategic investigative phase may be extended beyond 180 days with approval by the assigned Bureau Commander.
4. Investigative Case Review
a. The Inspections Commander will review all open Tactical and Strategic Investigations to ensure adherence to UCPD policies and procedures. The Inspections Commander will document the findings through a Form 5 submitted on a quarterly basis.
b. The current status of all on-going investigations will be presented by the assigned Bureau Commander to the Director of Public Safety and Police Chief or designee at each bi-weekly Crime Reduction Meeting.
5. Developing Potential Interventions
a. Once the Bureau Commander determines that no further investigation is required to initiate a response, potential interventions will be proposed and considered by police personnel and community partners.
b. The assigned Crime Analyst will present a summary of possible interventions identified through sources that include, but are not limited to academic literature (e.g., academic journals) and practitioner-focused publications and websites (e.g., problemsolving guides, evidence-based policing websites).
c. External police agencies and other organizations involved in addressing problems will be contacted to describe and summarize the outcomes of responses used previously to address similar problems in outside jurisdictions.

1) The assigned Bureau Commander will collect this information for Strategic Investigations.
2) The assigned Operations Lieutenant will collect this information for Tactical Investigations.
d. The investigative team will meet to review identified interventions and use the Situational Crime Prevention Framework to consider additional responses based on details uncovered through the investigative analysis.
e. The investigative team will present the investigation results and potential solutions to affected community stakeholders and

# Tactical and Strategic Investigations 

members of the Citizen's Compliance Committee (CCC) for review. Community stakeholders will be encouraged to assist with the development, selection, and implementation of problem interventions.
C. Investigative Intervention (Response)

1. Selecting Interventions
a. The assigned Lieutenant, in consultation with the investigative team members, will select interventions for implementation. The Lieutenant will submit an Implementation Action Plan to the assigned Bureau Commander.
b. The assigned Bureau Commander will review the action plan to ensure that selected interventions: (1) align with investigative findings, (2) address at least three of the five mechanisms of situational crime prevention [offender effort, risks, rewards, provocations, and excuses], and (3) involve appropriate department personnel and community partners.
c. Only the Police Chief or designee can approve proposed strategy modifications following the Bureau Commander's approval of the Implementation Action Plan.
d. The assigned Crime Analyst will produce a Crime Problem Bulletin to summarize investigative findings and selected interventions for distribution to public safety personnel and community partners.
2. Implementing Interventions
a. The assigned Lieutenant will be responsible for implementing the approved action plan.
b. Uniform personnel responding to areas or call types associated with Tactical or Strategic Investigations during the investigative process and intervention period will follow the Plus One Protocol.
c. Additional Plus One Protocol directives can be provided through updated Crime Problem Bulletins based on emerging crime patterns and intelligence needs identified during the intervention period.
3. Documenting Interventions
a. The assigned Lieutenant will thoroughly document the implementation of each intervention in the investigative case jacket. This documentation will include, but is not limited to detailed descriptions of the intervention (what happened and how); intervention dates/times (when); personnel, partners, and people involved (who); and places affected (where).
b. The assigned Crime Analyst will present a Plus One Protocol Disposition Analysis at the bi-weekly Crime Reduction meetings and include documentation in the investigative case jacket.

# Tactical and Strategic Investigations 

c. The Community Engagement Commander will meet with involved community partners to document community input and participation throughout the intervention period. This information will be presented at the bi-weekly Crime Reduction Meetings and included in the investigative case jacket.
4. Monitoring Interventions
a. The assigned Bureau Commander will provide an implementation status update at each bi-weekly Crime Reduction Meeting during the intervention period.
b. The assigned Crime Analyst will review crime/call data and seek input from affected parties throughout the strategy's implementation to ensure that the interventions are achieving intended effects and to protect the community against unforeseen harms (e.g., Malign Displacement, strained police-community relations, implementation failures). This information will be presented at the bi-weekly Crime Reduction Meetings and submitted for inclusion in the investigative case jacket.
D. Investigative Evaluation (Assessment)

1. Length of Evaluation Phase
a. The Investigative Evaluation phase will begin after Command Staff at the bi-weekly Crime Reduction Meeting determine that: (1) objectives outlined in the Implementation Action Plan have been achieved, and (2) the interventions, if properly implemented, should now demonstrate positive progress toward achieving the general investigative goal(s) (see section V.A.5.c).
b. The Investigative Evaluation phase will last 365-days for both Tactical and Strategic Investigations to assess intervention impact, detect unforeseen outcomes (e.g., tactical or spatial displacement), and monitor the sustainability of intervention effects.
2. Evaluation Reports
a. The assigned Crime Analyst will produce a 90-day and 180-day impact evaluation report for Command Staff review during the Investigative Evaluation phase. The impact evaluation reports will contain analyses that assess progress toward achieving the general investigative goal(s) (e.g., a pre-post crime analysis), and when appropriate, include control/treatment group analyses and displacement and/or diffusion of benefits analyses.
b. Whenever possible, UCPD will seek assistance from academic partners (e.g., University of Cincinnati Criminal Justice faculty or students) to help design and conduct Strategic Investigation and complex Tactical Investigation evaluations.

# Tactical and Strategic Investigations 

c. The assigned Crime Analyst will produce a final evaluation report within 30 days of the end of the Investigative Evaluation phase. This report will follow the format and requirements of submissions for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Solving (http://www.popcenter.org/goldstein).
3. Dissemination
a. The Public Safety Public Information Officer (PIO) will be responsible for promoting the outcomes of UCPD's community collaborations and investigative efforts to solve problems impacting the University community. The PIO will report outcomes to community stakeholders, such as UC's Student Government, UC's Student Safety Board, and the Community Compliance Council. The PIO will also report outcomes through UC's Public Safety website, social media accounts, and traditional media outlets to inform the larger community and address community perceptions and misperceptions of crime.
b. Investigative evaluation outcomes will be communicated to police personnel at weekly staff meetings, roll-calls, supervisory meetings, and executive team meetings.
E. Training

1. UCPD will provide initial problem solving training to new officers and refresher training every two years thereafter. In addition, problem solving principles will be regularly interwoven in to other UCPD training programs.

# APPENDIX B 

## Early Initiative: Super Cocooning Letter

## CINCINNATI POLICE

![img-24.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/university_of_cincinnati_pd_off-campus_burglary_reduction_project_2021/img-24.jpeg)

Dear Resident and/or Property Owner,

The Cincinnati Police Department, University of Cincinnati's (UC) Department of Public Safety and Student Safety Board are teaming up to remind all Clifton area residents to use safe housing and burglary prevention tactics. Your neighbor's home was recently burglarized and we want to protect you from future incidents.

While we have taken many strides to reduce the amount of crime that occurs off of campus, no area is immune. Burglaries and break-ins are always a possibility, but you can reduce risk by taking the following precautions:

- ALWAYS lock all doors, and make sure all $1^{\text {st }}$ floor windows are latched shut
- Trim any overgrown bushes or landscaping close to the house
- If possible, install motion sensor lights near all entrances
- Cover windows with blinds to remove any valuables from sight
- If leaving for an extended period of time, keep a light and/or the television on

If you see any suspicious activity near your property, call 911. For non-emergencies you can call Cincinnati Police at 513-765-1212. If you have a non-emergency issue that involves the University or UC students, faculty or staff call UC Public Safety at 513-556-1111.

The Cincinnati Police Department, UC's Department of Public Safety and Student Safety Board are committed to helping to keep our university and surroundings neighborhoods safe. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have questions or concerns.

And remember - Be smart and do your part to stay safe.
Sincerely,
Cincinnati Police Department
UC Department of Public Safety
UC Student Safety Board

# APPENDIX C 

## Strategic Investigation: Off-Campus Burglary Reduction Project June 2021 Update

## Since 2020 Submission

Pandemic-related campus restrictions persisted longer than anticipated and significantly disrupted campus and UCPD operations. For the 2020-2021 academic year, the UC campus transferred almost all classes to an on-line education platform, with few exceptions (e.g., laboratory activities). The pandemic forced modification or suspension of many of our implemented or planned responses, but UCPD continued with direct officer intervention and made progress to increase area visibility through enhanced lighting. The pandemic had unpredictable impacts across crime types, but we believe our burglary reduction project continued to suppress burglary victimizations, beyond COVID-19 effects. The table below summarizes the continued scanning, analysis, response, and assessment activities and findings for the 2020-2021 academic year.

| RE-SCANNING | RE-ANALYSIS |
| :--: | :--: |
| New Intelligence | Crime Concentration |
| Offender MO  Opportunistic offending continues to drive victimization, with $\mathbf{7 2 . 4 \%}$ of burglaries occurring without forced entry since the prior analysis. | Repeat Victimization  Of the 16 initial repeat burglary addresses (see Table 10), only one address (2313 Ravine St) has been burglarized since the pre-intervention analysis (this location was since burglarized twice). |
| RE-ASSESSMENT | CONTINUED RESPONSE |
| Burglary in Treatment Area declined by another $\mathbf{- 7 3 . 1 \%}$ (26 to 7 ) in the past year. | Directed Patrols and Plus One Protocol 4,539 conducted between August 1, 2020 - May 31, 2021 |
| Burglary in Larger CSR experienced a diffusion of benefits ( $\mathbf{- 5 9 . 1 \%}$; 88 to 36). Historically, this area represented between $\mathbf{1 0 - 1 2 \%}$ of burglaries for the entire city of Cincinnati, but only $\mathbf{5 \%}$ in 2020. While the pandemic likely impacted burglary in the CSR, we believe our efforts contributed to the additional decline realized in comparison to the rest of the city. | Visibility Improvements  Tree canopy trimming has been conducted by the City of Cincinnati and Duke Energy with on-going assessment  Limited Response Due to COVID Message Prioritization Social Media Awareness Campaign Parental (Guardian) Notifications  Response Implementation Suspended Until 2021-2022  Knock and Talk Awareness Campaign Landlord Education  University-Sponsored Resource Center |
| Crime Type Displacement did not seem to occur, with no change in theft from auto ( $\mathbf{( 0 \%}$ ) and a small decline in other thefts ( $\mathbf{- 9 \%}$ ) from the previous year. |  |

## Future Project Goals

The University of Cincinnati expects a fall 2021 return to a full in-person educational experience. New students and student residents unfamiliar with the area bring new challenges each year. We expect this effect to be compounded in 2021 since the first-year class of 2020 did not have an in-person experience. In essence, the number of students unfamiliar with the area and risks of burglary will be doubled. For this reason, we will continue our efforts by patrolling the historical hotspots (on foot and in vehicles), educating our community and landlords, and building more sustainable resources external to the UCPD for students seeking off-campus housing. Further, we will continue to assess these efforts and explore new responses to burglary problems in the post-pandemic environment.