--- title: "Project Clean Sweep" type: "pdf" year: "2013" canonical: "/projects/488" --- # 2013 # Table of Contents - [2013](#2013) - [PROJECT CLEAN SWEEP](#project-clean-sweep) - [Contents](#contents) - [PROJECT CLEAN SWEEP](#project-clean-sweep) - [Summary](#summary) - [Scan:](#scan) - [Analysis:](#analysis) - [Response:](#response) - [Assess:](#assess) - [PROJECT CLEAN SWEEP](#project-clean-sweep) - [Introduction:](#introduction) - [SARA MODEL](#sara-model) - [Scanning](#scanning) - [Analysis](#analysis) - [Response:](#response) - [The Investigation](#the-investigation) - [Traditional Enforcement](#traditional-enforcement) - [Abatement](#abatement) - [Neighborhood Notifications](#neighborhood-notifications) - [Involving the Media](#involving-the-media) - [Helping Drug Endangered Children](#helping-drug-endangered-children) - [Assess](#assess) - [Neighborhood Survey Results](#neighborhood-survey-results) - [Convincing Skeptical Residents](#convincing-skeptical-residents) - [Conclusion](#conclusion) - [Appendix](#appendix) - [Fighting crime the community way](#fighting-crime-the-community-way) - [Green Bay police explore creating neighborhood specialists](#green-bay-police-explore-creating-neighborhood-specialists) - [by Doug Schneider](#by-doug-schneider) - [(sen) Bay Press-Gazette](#sen-bay-press-gazette) - [suri pull of $s$](#suri-pull-of-s) - [Agency and officer Information](#agency-and-officer-information) - [Paul Van Handel](#paul-van-handel) - [Brian Schilt](#brian-schilt) ## PROJECT CLEAN SWEEP Presented by Community Police Officer Paul Van Handel and Detective Brian Schilt Green Bay Police Dept May 2013 # Contents Summary ..... 3 Introduction ..... 5 Scan ..... 6 Analysis ..... $6,7,8$ Response ..... $9,10,11,12$ Assess ..... $13-21$ Conclusion ..... 21 Appendix ..... 22 # PROJECT CLEAN SWEEP ## Summary ## Scan: In early 2009 the neighborhood residents in downtown Green Bay were speaking out about the direction the neighborhood was heading. They could see that the level of nuisance activity and social disorder were destroying the quality of life that they had enjoyed. Many citizens believed the solution was more police patrols and arrests for the multitude of disorderly behavior and ordinance violations they witnessed. The initial investigation of Policing was to find the root causes of what was taking place. As officers began to look for causes the neighborhood was demanding answers. The questions remained: Why was the neighborhood so unhappy? Why was the call volume in this area so much higher than in other areas of the city? Why were there so many repeat calls? Officers suspected and the overwhelming facts revealed that the underlying cause was illegal drug activity. Street level drug dealing had been noticed in the open in and around the neighborhood areas of citizen and police concern. Drug tips and Crime Stopper tips also pointed to these same potential problem locations. Aside from the secondary affects that citizens reported the situation generated fear in the neighborhood. ## Analysis: The problem was identified through analysis of police calls for service. This analysis revealed a concentration of problems that police were repeatedly called to. In fact, the Navarino neighborhood showed the largest concentration of police activity in the city. Several collection methods were used to research the problem from January through March 2009. The Green Bay Electronic Reporting Program (GERP) assisted in identifying the location of most police activity including arrests and citations. These reports were made available instantly. Information was also gathered through Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) records. These records proved a valuable resource in identifying trends and other police activity that did not rise to the level of a police report. These collection methods combined with officers observations on patrol as well as the Drug Tip Line and Crime stoppers line combined to point out that the target neighborhood area contained a great deal of reported drug house activity. # Response: Project Clean Sweep formally began on April $1^{\text {st }}, 2009$ with the first drug search warrant. Previous work had all lead up to certain problem locations and officers went to work investigating the list of addresses. As tips came in from various sources including anonymous neighborhood residents, officers investigated. Once warrants were executed interviews were done by the Drug Task Force of those arrested. This helped confirm other drug investigations. From April, 2009 to August 2012, 54 drug search warrants resulting in 97 arrests were conducted. The high arrest rate confirmed tips and investigations were accurate. Officers worked with landlords but held them accountable by completing a Nuisance Abatement Plan. Neighborhood canvasses were completed which created more leads in some cases. The local news media did stories with community officers which aired and prompted more residents to call in tips. Child Protection became involved through the Drug Endangered Child (DEC) team program. The culmination of effort helped to solve what had been badly needed. ## Assess: By the fall of 2012 the total calls in the downtown area had dropped $16.7 \%$ and were reduced to a ten year low. In 2003 the calls were 11,072 rising to 11,918 in 2008 and in 2012 they were reduced to 9,934 . Disturbances in the area dropped $20.7 \%$. They went from 1,533 disturbances in 2003 to 1,216 in 2012. This is the lowest level in ten years. Similarly, damage to property, ordinance violations and noise complaints all reached the lowest level in ten years. Project Clean Sweep seemed to be having the desired effect. In order to qualify the statistics a survey was conducted of neighborhood residents in 2010 and again in 2012. Neighbors were asked 5 questions about the status of their neighborhood regarding drugs, nuisance activity, safety, recent quality of life concerns and overall quality of life. They were asked to rate these issues on a 1-5 scale with 1 being worst it's been or poor and 5 being best ever. The majority of residents polled answered a 4-5 on every question. Law enforcement and residents had seen the positive results of Project Clean Sweep. # PROJECT CLEAN SWEEP ## Introduction: Street level drug dealing concerns most law abiding citizens but not necessarily for the reasons we think. While law enforcement tends to focus on the drug dealer and the act of selling drugs, neighborhood residents are more concerned with the quality of life in their neighborhood. Examples of the secondary effects of drug activity include assaults, housing code violations, loud parties, disorderly behavior and various forms of social disorder. While the police may understand the relationship between street level drug dealing and secondary effects, this connection may not be quite as obvious to the average citizen. This paper describes the way that Green Bay Police have partnered with citizens to improve their quality of life through a project called, "Clean Sweep". The purpose of Project Clean Sweep was to come up with a systematic approach in dealing with neighborhood drug houses that goes beyond the traditional methods of policing. This project focuses on the Navarino and Joanne's Neighborhoods located on the near east side of Green Bay. The approach included some traditional policing strategies such as identification of drug activity and the active dealers, gaining intelligence on each location and then obtaining a drug search warrant. We believe that the best defense against crime is the involvement of our citizens. One way Green Bay has mobilized the citizenry is through the formation of Neighborhood Associations. "A neighborhood association is, quite simply, neighbors living within a designated area of the City who are concerned about issues affecting their neighborhood and, who have decided to work together to protect and ensure a better social, economic, and business climate in their neighborhood." (City of Green Bay website: http://www.ci.green- bay.wi.us/neigh assoc/AssociationDefinition.html) For four years (2009-2012) Project Clean Sweep has focused not only on the underlying causes of social disorder; it employs a new strategy of community involvement which informs residents, generates citizen tips, arrests drug dealers and restores peace and order. # SARA MODEL ## Scanning Citizens, very vocally voiced their opinions that they did not want drugs where they lived. However, many complaints were directed at the nuisances and social disorder that drug houses may have potentially created. The citizens who live in the Navarino Neighborhood voiced their concerns not only to their neighborhood officers, but to other city officials, including the mayor. The common theme was the adverse affect that social disorder was having upon their quality of life. Why were there so many unhappy neighborhood residents? Why was the call volume so much higher than in other areas of the city? Why were there so many repeat calls for service? Why so many nuisances? The officers suspected and the overwhelming facts revealed that the underlying cause was illegal drug activity. Neighborhood residents expressed their feelings about the direction their neighborhood was going. Visible police activity such as a SWAT raid were justified but left neighbors wondering if it was safe to let their children out to play. The problem was identified by neighborhood officers Brian Schilt and Paul Van Handel. They did see what resembled drug dealing at problem houses even right out in the street. In cases of reporting suspected drug activity many citizens, understandably, chose to remain anonymous. Others reported secondary activity and social disorder. They were either unsure it was related to drugs or perhaps unwilling to assert the connection. The neighborhood area is 1.5 miles wide by 2 miles long. (See figure 1 appendix) Preliminary review suggested a high concentration of street level drug activity. Neighborhood officers met regularly with residents to discuss their concerns. Aside from the secondary effects of the neighborhood drug house, the situation generated fear. Initially, some residents were reluctant to talk about the drug culture that was pervasive in their neighborhood. Rather, they made reports about frequent disturbances, loud parties, foot traffic, vehicle traffic, pedestrians blocking the roadway, littering, graffiti, and suspicious vehicle reports. ## Analysis The Green Bay Redevelopment Authority estimates the target area contains the highest percentage of rental property at $70 \%$, compared to the rest of Green Bay at $44 \%$. A high concentration of rental housing increases the risk of drug activity because the population is more transient and the character of the neighborhood is reliant on the management and screening techniques of property owners. This also turned out to be a greater challenge in gaining useful information and intelligence on suspected drug activity. The problem was identified through analysis of police calls. This analysis revealed a concentration of problems resulting in frequent police calls for service. In fact, the Navarino neighborhood showed the highest concentration of police activity in the city. Probation and Parole Agents, worked closely with the neighborhood officers. These agents shared valuable information regarding their clients such as drug history and absconders in the neighborhood. It was interesting to note that probationers and parolees often lived in close proximity to the neighborhoods area of problem addresses. Several collection methods were used to research the problem. To start with, much of the analysis was done from January through March 2009. Clean Sweep began April 1st, 2009. Further analysis continued from January through August each year for consistency. Final analysis concluded with information gathered from January 2012 through August 2012. The Green Bay Electronic Reporting Program (GERP) which was initiated in 2006 assisted in identifying the geographic location of police activity, including arrests and citations. Because GERP is paperless, reports were made available instantly. Information was also gathered through Computer Aided Dispatch or (CAD) records. These records proved to be a valuable resource in identifying trends and other police activity that did not rise to the level of a police report. The Neighborhood Associations were vigilant in pointing out problem addresses and suspicious activity. Following up on many of their tips identified some of the same "street drug type locations" as well. We paid close attention to the observations of neighborhood residents. It can be said that "perception is reality". But in the case of residents that live in a neighborhood that is being overrun with nuisances or street level drug activity their life is affected everyday by their surroundings. The observations of neighborhood residents confirmed what the data showed; that call volume was directly related to the presence of a drug house. "What matters most is that these offenders are in the communities in groups, they are in gangs, they are in drug crews, they are in chaotic groups. And those groups drive the action to a shocking degree" (Dr. David Kennedy from the article "Interrupting Violence", www.NPR.org, November 1, 2011). Neighborhood events and day to day interaction with the community proved to be a valuable medium of communication. The officers found that citizens were more comfortable reporting suspicious activity during informal contacts. In many cases the suspicious situation or problem turned out to be related to a drug house. Officers Schilt and Van Handel learned that some of the best tips came directly from the citizens. Another source of information was the drug tip line, a phone number that citizens could call, anonymously to reported suspected drug activity. The drug tip line was well established and had been in existence for many years; however, it may have been underutilized. Operation Clean Sweep used it to initiate and confirm suspected drug houses. The drug tip line was credited as being the most frequent source of information that initiated drug investigations. Unfortunately, the tip line was not interactive. Messages could be left but there was no way to glean additional information from the caller. Officers Van Handel and Schilt had to take the information for what it was worth at the time. Patrol Officers that worked in the downtown neighborhood became very well acquainted with problem addresses. These officers were instrumental intelligence gatherers for a potential search warrant. Patrol Officers had the knowledge to recognize the drug potential right away. They later became critical assets in knowing the layout of the location for a search warrant and operations plan. Drug Task Force Agents were a primary intelligence gathering asset. They were extremely knowledgeable and helpful. They assisted in some cases with confidential informants and could give specific information about various dealers and buyers in the neighborhood. This also helped neighborhood officers confirm that they were on the right track. The analysis revealed that social disorder and other secondary crimes were most concentrated around suspected drug houses. Police call volume to the Navarino neighborhood was disproportionate to the rest of the city. In 2008 for example, while crime was beginning to drop in the rest of Green Bay, the Navarino neighborhood was experiencing an increase. Neighborhood residents saw the same problems the police did and voiced their concerns. The pieces of the drug puzzle were fitting together, leading us to the undeniable conclusion that drug houses and neighborhood crime/social disorder were clearly linked. Officers Schilt and Van Handel developed a strategy with the following goals in mind: - Reduce crime and reduce police call volume to the Navarino Neighborhood by removing drug houses - Develop the trust of neighborhood residents and cultivate additional information - Work with landlords to screen tenants and prevent drug houses from taking hold - Involve neighborhood residents in the solution # Response: Operation Clean Sweep formally began on April $1^{\text {st }}, 2009$ with the first drug search warrant. The previous work had all lead to these problem locations. Officers Schilt and Van Handel gathered information from all of the previously described sources and compiled a list of addresses for further investigation. ## The Investigation As drug tips came in Officers Schilt and Van Handel set out to confirm the activity through their own investigation. One of the most common methods was through garbage pulls. This was not an easy or enviable task but proved to be one of the most valuable. Garbage day was a busy day for the officers, at times examining as many as 40 bags of garbage at a time! It meant getting dirty. While the officers acknowledged that other methods were available, garbage searches were quick and reliable, something this neighborhood in crisis needed. Through garbage investigation as well as all of the other information gathering assets and tools the suspected drug information was almost always found to be correct. It was the garbage investigation that was the final step in obtaining a warrant. Once the warrant was obtained officers had only 5 days to put an operations plan together and determine if they had enough police assets to execute the warrant. Once the plan was in place, the search warrants were executed. The Drug task Force assisted at times but was busy with larger cases. An agreement was reached with the DTF allowing neighborhood officers to conduct their own investigations but with open communication with the DTF. The Task Force still provided manpower and assistance with interviews. Community Officers provided information from their cases to the DTF and many times common buyers and sellers were identified through this mutual collaboration. ## Traditional Enforcement In most cases the SWAT Team was used to execute the search warrant where it was found that a potential suspect had prior offenses involving weapons. SWAT was also used if manpower was taxed and multiple warrants needed to be executed on the same day. Besides SWAT's expertise in taking dangerous suspects safely into custody, the visible show of force had a chilling effect on drug dealers. In some cases community officers, partnered with patrol officers, and the Drug Task Force (DTF) to form entry teams and assist with the search. Arrests for drugs found at each location were only the beginning. DTF agents interviewed each subject and determined to what extent the dealer or dealers were selling or using. This information would be used by DTF and Community officers for subsequent investigations. From April, 2009 to Fall 2012, (54) drug search warrants were conducted. Evidence found at warrant locations resulted in arrests in almost every case. Most of the investigations resulted in the seizure of marijuana. See figure 2a. ![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-0.jpeg) Figure 2a. Type of drugs seized Over the four year time period 2009-2012 Project Clean Sweep made 97 arrests out of the 54 Warrants conducted. See Figure 2b (warrants and arrests each year). ![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-1.jpeg) Figure 2b. Warrants and Arrests The high arrest rate confirmed the accuracy of citizen tips and other information sources. It also began to paint the picture that the community officer's analysis showed. The street level drug activity was the reason for the high call volume and nuisance activity/ social disorder that followed. At the beginning of Project Clean Sweep on June 16th, 2009 a drug search warrant was conducted which included six separate residences all being entered simultaneously by the Green Bay SWAT Team. This was the largest drug search warrant that had ever been conducted to date. It was located in a high nuisance area of the neighborhood and was essentially in a one block area. (See appendix, page 28) # Abatement The City of Green Bay has adopted a nuisance ordinance. The ordinance creates a mechanism of accountability for both tenants and landlords. When neighborhood problems arise, community officers meet with landlords to develop an abatement plan. In each investigation where drug activity was confirmed, Officers Schilt and Van Handel developed a Nuisance Abatement Plan with the landlord. This in many cases included at the discretion of the landlord, evicting the tenant. In cases where delivery or manufacture could be established, the landlord was issued a notice, giving them the legal basis to conduct a 5-day drug nuisance eviction. This Abatement plan also put the address and landlord on notice for one year. If the address where a drug warrant had been served had a subsequent search warrant or call where an arrest/citation was made the landlord could be fined. The citations for maintaining a public nuisance could result in a fine of $\$ 1,306.00$. In cases where a chronic nuisance could be established under city ordinance, the landlord was billed at a rate of $\$ 60.00 /$ hour for police services. Cooperative landlords were not penalized; rather the officers simply provided them the necessary documentation so that they could legally evict the problem tenant. Uncooperative landlords faced fines and other civil penalties. It was necessary to do this to ultimately have a chance at achieving the desired "end state". This was to have the address back on solid drug free footing, reduce or eliminate future problem or drug type tenants through educating the landlord and holding them responsible. Another part of the abatement strategy was to involve the City of Green Bay Inspection Department. Following each of the investigations, the inspection department was notified. Housing inspectors conducted building inspections to insure that any address that was undergoing nuisance abatement was safe and free of violations. Any violations were brought to the attention of the landlord at the abatement meeting. In addition to the housing inspectors, the Green Bay Fire Department accompanied Community Police on follow up visits to install smoke detectors in the problem residence. All of these events resulted in visits from officials that were welcomed by the law abiding and unwelcome by those who were not. # Neighborhood Notifications During our community contacts we learned that neighborhood residents, while happy we were taking action against drug houses, were frightened by the massive show of force by the SWAT Team. In order to alleviate their concerns, we provided neighbors with an informational flyer about the arrests following each search warrant. The flyers included the names, photographs and the charges of the suspects. The flyer served two purposes. One, neighbors were accurately and quickly informed of what took place in their neighborhood. Second, the suspects were publicly shamed and their reputation in the drug community was diminished. These were all tools necessary to not only eliminate the problem, but to also let the community know that police were there for them. Dr David Kennedy in his Newsweek article warned about law enforcement being too heavy handed in past approaches. He warned that "if the community is pushed further away it would create additional space for the bad guys to operate" (from Always on my mind, Newsweek, January 31, 2009). These practices kept the community informed, let them get involved and ask questions as well as give feedback. ## Involving the Media The local newspaper and television stations were sent information about drug warrants in the neighborhood. They in turn publicized it and interviewed officers Van Handel and Schilt. The neighborhood association and residents could see their community officers on the news talking about the problem and not only felt prompted but obligated to participate and call in activity that they saw in their neighborhood. It appeared that certain news stations were eager to be the ones who helped promote the solution. Community officers were frequently asked at the conclusion of the interview to "Say again how a citizen can call in a tip and remain anonymous". # Helping Drug Endangered Children Although dramatic results were achieved using this law enforcement and citizen team approach the job was not done. Beginning in October 2010, two search warrants were conducted on suspected drug houses. As in past, the SWAT team was used again. One additional community partner assisted us this time. A newly formed Drug Endangered Child Team (DEC) made up of social services case workers stood by until called in and then took care of children at the scene. Case workers took custody of children and found them a safe place to live until the case was over. This provided for even greater outreach and follow through. Now, broken families were not just being pushed to another part of the neighborhood, but were instead being helped immediately. ## Assess Drug related problems were not new to the neighborhood but citizens became fed up and began to organize. Officers involved in Clean Sweep credit the citizen involvement in reaching what they describe as the tipping point. The total overall number of calls for service in the neighborhood affected immediately dropped over 1,117. From 2008 the year before the program was initiated to 2009 the year the program was implemented. (Statistics gathered Jan $1^{\text {st }}$ to Aug $31^{\text {st }}$ each year). In 2012 the program is believed to have been instrumental in reducing total call volume by 1,984 calls (2008-2012). This includes all types of calls for service. (See figure 3) ![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-2.jpeg) Figure 3. Total Calls for Service Calls for service from 2004 to 2008 show a fairly consistent increase. In fact, as figure 3 shows, calls increased for 5 years with only a very minor drop in 2007. This resulted in a 1,681 increase from 2004 to 2008. Since Clean Sweep began in 2009 the calls for service dropped 1,984 (20082012). Ultimately, this shows a $16.7 \%$ decrease in the number of calls to the Downtown Green Bay area. It appeared the project was succeeding. Officers Van Handel and Schilt concluded that these were not the big time dealers as one might expect. It was the small time dealers who would cause havoc or lessen the quality of life in the neighborhood. This was confirmed by the quantities of drugs seized. These quantities were small and varied from 5 to 50 grams of marijuana. Small amounts of crack cocaine were recovered in some cases. These small amounts told us one thing; at least as many people who were selling drugs, were using them as well. In our interviews with drug suspects we learned it was people that were attracted to drug use and small sales that brought them to an atmosphere where they felt comfortable, undetected and free to sell drugs. The level of street drug activity showed dealers and users that had very little money in their pockets. Dr. David Kennedy noted in a published article, "Your average dealer is scraping by, living at home." (Newsweek 01/31/09 "Always on my mind"). Some of the biggest indicators of crime resolution began to turn around in 2010. One of these indicators was Disturbances. A significant decline was noticed in 2009. In fact, disturbances had dropped to one of the lowest levels in many years. See figure 4 . Disturbances had gone down to the lowest level in 7 years. From 2008-2012, from the year before the the project had taken place to current, the calls to the neighborhood for disturbances were reduced by 154 . This also showed the project was beginning to have the desired results. (See figure 4) In 2012 the program has reduced disturbances to a total of 1216, the lowest number the neighborhood has seen in 10 years. In 2003 disturbances were at the highest level with 1533. This showed a total drop in calls of 317 or $20.7 \%$ over the 10 year period. ![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-3.jpeg) Figure 4. Disturbances in the target area Another area looked at statistically was Disturbances involving a weapon. Although this number peaked in 2010 it has steadily and consistently dropped from 2010 to 2012. Disturbances involving a weapon decreased by $35 \%$ since 2010. This showed that reducing the number of street level drug houses had a positive effect on lowering this area of violent crime. ![img-4.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-4.jpeg) Figure 5. Disturbances involving a weapon ![img-5.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-5.jpeg) Figure 6. Damage to property Property damage was an important indication of social change and behavior. One of the biggest complaints that neighborhood residents had was nuisance activity that resulted in property damage. They believed that this was a direct sign of quality of life in their neighborhood. Yet statistically this was one of the most inconsistent areas over the past ten years that the Department recorded in the Neighborhood. Finally, since 2010 this number has dropped. In fact, damage to property is at its lowest point in the last 10 years with only 109 reported calls. From the peak of activity in 2008 with 213 calls to 2012 with only 109, this showed a $48.8 \%$ decrease and another area at an all time low. We believed that this was a result of the reduction of drug nuisance houses also. See figure 6. ![img-6.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-6.jpeg) Figure 7. Ordinances The number of ordinance violations had dropped in the neighborhood (2011-2012), to the lowest point in ten years. In 2003 they were at an all time high of 283 . They dropped to 148 in 2012. This showed a drop of 135 calls over this time or a $47.7 \%$ decrease. See Figure 7 Ordinances. Officers believed that even though ordinances were not the large scale crime issues it was a direct reflection and pointed to the quality of life type issues that the neighborhood residents were so concerned about every day. Figure 7. Noise complaints also reflected the quality of life and behavior that was in the neighborhood. This was another area that was a concern to neighborhood residents. To them, Noise, property damage and disturbances were a direct reflection on the status of life in the neighborhood. Loud noise disturbing involved everything from houses with loud noise, an individual and even vehicles. In 2012 this area has dropped to the lowest point in the last 10 years. From 335 calls in 2003 to 166 total calls in 2012. This is a drop of 169 or $50.4 \%$. See Figure 8. ![img-7.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-7.jpeg) Figure 8. Noise Complaints As anticipated, officers did see a rise in drug related calls. We attribute this to increased publicity and outreach and, as a result, more people reported drug related activity to the police. They did this because police, the media and their fellow neighbors were prompting them to get involved. Citizens began to see results and knew their tips would be acted on. See figure 9 ![img-8.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-8.jpeg) Figure 9. Drug # Neighborhood Survey Results In the fall of 2010 and again in the fall of 2012, a survey was conducted of neighborhood residents. This was a random survey conducted which asked them to rate on a 1-5 scale how they felt about their neighborhood both in a "Quality of life" sense and from a "safety perspective". In each of the 5 questions asked, 1 indicated the citizen felt that their neighborhood was worst or lowest ever and 5 meant it was at the highest or best ever. The five questions were: Question 1. Do you feel the level of drug activity had decreased over the past 3 years in their neighborhood? (1 being no decrease at all, 5 being most significant decrease in recent years) ![img-9.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-9.jpeg) Question 2. Do you feel as of this past summer and fall that nuisance activity has increased or decreased in your neighborhood? ( 1 worst ever, 5 being best it's been in recent years). ![img-10.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-10.jpeg) Question 3. Do you feel that you are safer now and over this past summer than in the recent years? ( 1 being not safe at all, 5 being safest felt in your neighborhood). ![img-11.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-11.jpeg) Question 4. How would you rate the quality of life that you have experienced this past summer to early fall? ( 1 being very poor, 5 being excellent or best it's been in several years). ![img-12.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-12.jpeg) Question 5. Overall, do you feel the quality of life has improved over the past several months, or gotten worse? ( 1 being gotten worse, 5 being best it's been). ![img-13.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-13.jpeg) Assessing the results of the survey revealed that not only did residents have a positive view of their neighborhood but that they felt from 2010 to 2012 it had gotten better overall. In fact, the majority of residents poled had answered a 4 to 5 on every question. It showed that the residents as well as law enforcement shared an optimistic view of the neighborhood. It was perhaps the first signs that showed the neighborhood had began to potentially heal it's own wounds. It showed that the recovery was taking place on the inside as citizens felt they had a constructive part in taking their neighborhood back and improving their own quality. # Convincing Skeptical Residents In the beginning of the project community officers Van Handel and Schilt met with residents to talk about the problems and strategies. Residents were adamant that increased police patrols and arrests for disorderly behavior were the answer. The officers agreed that the neighborhood concerns about social disorder were important but believed that increased patrols and arrests would only treat the symptoms of the problem. Officers Schilt and Van Handel's instincts told them the drug problem was the root cause and tried to convince the neighborhood. At a neighborhood meeting in January of 2010, one resident asked "How will we know that it's working? How will we know that this neighborhood is finally getting better?". But by the end of August of 2010, the majority of neighborhood residents in Navarino agreed, it was the best summer they could remember. One member exclaimed "It's like Ozzy and Harriet over here!" Television and newspapers stories about the drug arrests provided a great source of information to the community. The officers made extensive use of this free advertising. The more newspaper articles and TV news aired stories about drug arrests, the more tips came in. ## Conclusion Traditional police methods including drug raids had been tried here before. So how was "Project Clean Sweep" different? In addition to traditional drug raids the officers conducted neighborhood notifications. These notifications resulted in increased communication with residents who revealed the locations of even more drug houses. The officers followed up with abatement actions that resulted in the eviction of these problem tenants. Officers Van Handel and Schilt believed that by reducing the problem of street level drug activity in a concentrated area it would also reduce the types of calls associated with those who use and sell drugs. Further, officers involved the inspection department to correct housing code violations. This made sure the property was safe. Child Protective Services was also brought in during the investigation when children were involved. This agency was involved right at the scene and found immediate safe placement for children. They also provided follow up services. The media brought the problem into the open and compelled neighbors to report more drug activity. Previous drug search warrants had targeted certain key or hot spot drug locations where a large amount of dealing was taking place over a wide area in the neighborhood. This project attempted to take back the neighborhood in a systematic approach one city block at a time. It also focused on problematic behavior in a given area and not just drugs. This method proved effective in decreasing crime and nuisances while at the same time improving the quality of life in a large inner city neighborhood. # Appendix The neighborhood targeted is approximately 1.5 miles wide by 2 miles long. (Figure 1) ![img-14.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-14.jpeg) Figure 1. Target Area Brown County Crime Prevention Association Meeting ![img-15.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-15.jpeg) In September 2010, the Brown County Crime Prevention Association held their annual meeting. Various awards were presented to agencies for outstanding work in the community. As the banquet reached the midway point Lt. Bill Bongle, Green Bay Police Department, Community Police Supervisor went to the podium. He introduced officers Van Handel and Schilt. He then gave the crowd a synopsis of a news article from the Press-Gazette and explained how using community resources and involvement helped take back the city neighborhood. Both officers were given award plaques for their drug arrest work and community building efforts for the year 2010. This was just one way the community said thank you through the Crime Prevention Association. The Wisconsin Association for Community Oriented Policing (WACOP) also presented Project Clean Sweep with the 2012 Sir Robert Peel Award in February 2012. ![img-16.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-16.jpeg) Newspaper article-February 22, 2010 ![img-17.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-17.jpeg) Green Bay Drug Bust | greenbaypressgazette.com | Green Bay GPG-News | Green Bay Press-Gazette ![img-18.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-18.jpeg) Green Bay police execute search warrants for drugs at six addresses on Doty Street and S. Webster Avenue early Tuesday, June 16, 2009. Photo by H. Marc Larson/Press-Gazette print photo | photos main page | buy photo Recommend ![img-19.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-19.jpeg) ![img-20.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-20.jpeg) Green Bay Police Department community officer Paul Van Handel, left, visits with Don Terrien on Tuesday near Joannes Park in Green Bay. Terrien was out walking his dog Mocha Jo. The department is exploring a switch to a more district-oriented type of police work. Photos by Evan Siegle/Press-Gazette # Fighting crime the community way ## Green Bay police explore creating neighborhood specialists ## by Doug Schneider ## (sen) Bay Press-Gazette In an effort to reduce crime and improve crvice, Green Bay police officials are proposing some organizational changes. Chief Jim Arts says a move to what is known a "district-oriented policing" would make the lepartment more effective in preventing neighborhood crime, and more efficient in responding o crime and other service requests. "You solve problems by making people more responsible for them," Arts said. Modeled after an approach used in Madison and some other cities, district policing would ledicate captains and teams of officers to each of four sectors of the city - two on each side of the Fox River. Arts said the captains and their officers would be expected to become specialists in their neighborhoods, getting to better mow key players and addressing specific problems. ![img-21.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/13-12_green_bay/img-21.jpeg) Community police offiear Paul Van Handel, center, shares a laugh with with teenagers Tuesday at Joannes Park in Green Bay. ## suri pull of $s$ State la on Afghi By Larry Bivina Press-Gazette-Wedlie WASHING'D was among 251 end of May with in the House of of an accelerab from Afghanistan Although the nens of the vo support for coz ence in Afgha Navy SEALS a bin Laden last o As President announce his pl al, Petri has no said Tuesday to military operat ous country an the fight again to the Afghan mose. But Petri saic has to be fluid. "We need to : to make sure : pull our and 1 the Fond du L said. Vitconsin's delegation rel bivaleace in b and the Senate in Afghanistan how to end it. ers want a sp. stantial reduct gradual withd ability of the. alone. That is the k R-Lawrence, so drawal measur have a good tr Ribble said, ci example. "However 30 in such a way on itself," Rib leave it worse Ribble said withdrawal, 1 ground came $b$ dation is to $p$ # Agency and officer Information The level of participation from within the department was tremendous. During the approximate four years of this project, Community officers received assistance from other community Police officers that agreed to leave their neighborhoods and assist during drug search warrants. K-9 handlers from the department also helped at the search warrant scene by use of their dog in order to detect drugs. Patrol Officers assisted with transports, searching some of the residences and provided information on potential house layouts for operations plans. The Green Bay SWAT Team was a critical asset in doing many entries. Without this unit not as many warrants could have been done in such a short time. The Drug Task Force has several Green Bay Police Dept officers on it. They along with other Task Force members from all over the county provided assistance with search and interviews. Community Service Interns assisted in doing neighborhood notifications. They distributed flyers to neighbors with the arrest information from each search warrant on it. Community Police Supervisors were always briefed on each operation and accompanied the drug search warrant team. Lastly, the Chief of Police in Green Bay who approved of the overtime expenses and use of SWAT; gave the operation the resources it needed at the critical time. Project Contact Persons: ## Paul Van Handel Community Police Officer 307 S Adams St Green Bay, Wi. 54301 Phones- Work Cell, (920)639-6678, Office (920)448-3143 FAX: (920) 448-3248 Email- paulva@ci.green-bay.wi.us ## Brian Schilt Detective, Investigations 307 S Adams St Green Bay, Wi. 54301 (920) 655-4641, (920)448-3259 FAX: (920)448-3248 Email- briansc@ci.green-bay.wi.us