--- title: "Community Law Enforcement Action and Response Program" type: "pdf" year: "2009" canonical: "/projects/701" --- # **Lexington Division of Police** # Table of Contents - [**Lexington Division of Police**](#lexington-division-of-police) - [**Lexington, Kentucky**](#lexington-kentucky) - [**Community Law Enforcement Action and Response Program (C.L.E.A.R.)**](#community-law-enforcement-action-and-response-program-clear) - [Lexington/Fayette County Overview](#lexingtonfayette-county-overview) - [Community Law Enforcement Action and Response Unit (C.L.E.A.R.)](#community-law-enforcement-action-and-response-unit-clear) - [Summary:](#summary) - [Program Description](#program-description) - [Scanning:](#scanning) - [Analysis:](#analysis) - [Response:](#response) - [CLEAR Unit Program Case Study:](#clear-unit-program-case-study) - [Case Study Example:](#case-study-example) - [Scanning:](#scanning) - [Analysis:](#analysis) - [Response:](#response) - [Assessment:](#assessment) - [Assessment:](#assessment) - [Agency and Officer Information](#agency-and-officer-information) - [Project Contact:](#project-contact) - [Lexington Division of Police Lexington, Kentucky](#lexington-division-of-police-lexington-kentucky) - [Appendices](#appendices) - [Community Law Enforcement Action and Response Program (C.L.E.A.R.)](#community-law-enforcement-action-and-response-program-clear) - [Lexington/Fayette County Kentucky](#lexingtonfayette-county-kentucky) - [Village Neighborhood](#village-neighborhood) - [Hollow Creek \& Winburn Neighborhoods](#hollow-creek-winburn-neighborhoods) - [**Eastland Neighborhood**](#eastland-neighborhood) - [Woodhill Neighborhoods](#woodhill-neighborhoods) - [Centre Parkway Neighborhoods](#centre-parkway-neighborhoods) - [Martin Luther King Neighborhood](#martin-luther-king-neighborhood) - [Georgetown Neighborhood](#georgetown-neighborhood) - [Calls for Service Comparison in CLEAR Unit Program Neighborhoods 2004/2005 to 2008](#calls-for-service-comparison-in-clear-unit-program-neighborhoods-20042005-to-2008) ## **Lexington, Kentucky** ![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-0.jpeg) # **Community Law Enforcement Action and Response Program (C.L.E.A.R.)** *Submitted to:* **The Center for Problem Oriented Policing** *For Consideration in:* **The 2009 Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem Oriented Policing.** **June 1, 2009** # Table of Contents Lexington/Fayette County Overview ..... 3 Summary ..... $4-5$ Description of Program ..... $6-20$ Agency Information and Project Contact ..... 21 Appendices ..... 22 Exhibit \#1: Map of Lexington/Fayette County ..... 23 Exhibit \#2: Map of Cardinal Valley/Village Neighborhood area ..... 24 Exhibit \#3: Map of Hollow Creek/Winburn Neighborhood area ..... 25 Exhibit \#4: Map of Eastland Neighborhood area ..... 26 Exhibit \#5: Map of Woodhill Neighborhood area ..... 27 Exhibit \#6: Map of Centre Parkway Neighborhood area ..... 28 Exhibit \#7: Map of Martin Luther King Neighborhood area ..... 29 Exhibit \#8: Map of Georgetown Neighborhood area ..... 30 Exhibit \#9: Photograph of CLEAR Unit Officers ..... 31 Exhibit \#10: Photographs of Officer Interaction ..... 32 Exhibit \#11: Photographs of Case Study Location ..... 33 Exhibit \#12: Photographs of Quality of Life Issues ..... 34 Exhibit \#13: Photographs of Bike Officers ..... 35 Exhibit \#14: Photographs of Property Inspections ..... 36 Exhibit \#15: Photographs of Graffiti and Removal ..... 37 Exhibit \#16: Calls for Service Comparison in CLEAR Unit Program Neighborhoods 2005 to 2008 ..... 38 Exhibit \#17: Reported Crime: CLEAR Unit Program Neighborhoods Compared to Citywide Totals and Yearly Averages. ..... 39 # Lexington/Fayette County Overview The city of Lexington was founded in June 1775 in what was then Virginia, 17 years before Kentucky became a state in 1792. In 1792 Fayette County was established and the city of Lexington became the largest city within the county. In the 1800's, Lexington became one of the largest and wealthiest cities west of the Allegheny Mountains. So cultured was its lifestyle, Lexington gained the nickname "Athens of the West." As the area began to grow in the 1900's, so did its economic diversity and importance. The population of Lexington experienced a significant increase from 1950 to 1970 and began to provide numerous government services that were not available outside the city limits. In 1974, after great debate, the county and city governments merged to create the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. Since that time Lexington has grown to encompass over 285.5 square miles or 739.4 kilometers (Refer to Exhibit \#1) and has an estimated population of 282,114 residents (2007 US Census Bureau). Lexington is now the second largest city in Kentucky and the 66th largest in the United States. Lexington is known worldwide for its horse industry and for being the home of the University of Kentucky. The primary law enforcement duties within the city are the responsibility of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Division of Police. The Division of Police has an authorized strength of 595 sworn employees and is the third largest law enforcement agency within the Commonwealth of Kentucky. # Community Law Enforcement Action and Response Unit (C.L.E.A.R.) ## Summary: In 1974 the county and city governments merged to create the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. This consolidated agency began to discover there were certain facets of the city that required greater attention concerning the amount of police services utilized. Over the next thirty years these facets were identified and the agency began concentrating on seven neighborhoods that consistently had a higher volume of calls for service and reported crimes than adjacent neighborhoods with approximately the same number of residents. As these neighborhoods were identified, the agency began looking at ways to combat the crime and quality of life issues prevalent in these designated communities. From 1974 to 2006, there were a number of programs and projects designed to address the issues that had a negative impact on these neighborhoods. Each program had a minute degree of success; however none of them were able to achieve the intended goals concerning the challenges facing to these neighborhoods. In 2006, the Lexington Division of Police took an affirmative step in addressing these issues when, after conducting a great deal of research, the Division created the Community Law Enforcement Action Response Unit (CLEAR). The CLEAR Unit's mission statement is based on two distinct policing concepts: proactive law enforcement and, more importantly, problem-orientated policing. The CLEAR Unit is divided into two segments; Neighborhood Coordinators and Neighborhood Response Officers. The Unit's efforts are concentrated in seven neighborhoods within the city that have historically had the highest crime rates and the greatest volume of calls for service. Neighborhood Coordinators focus their efforts on citizen complaints, quality of life issues and work closely with other government entities. The Response Officers address crime trends and patterns via the use of proactive patrols and innovative crime reduction techniques. Both segments address issues utilizing the SARA model and operate cohesively to ensure effective and timely responses occur. In 2009, a review of reported crimes and calls for service was conducted regarding the neighborhoods assigned to the CLEAR Unit. The statistical information related to the designated neighborhoods, compared to the same information from a study completed in 2006, suggests that in the neighborhoods assigned to the CLEAR Unit the overall crime rate was down $8 \%$ and calls for service were down $5 \%$. These decreases have been linked to the efforts of the CLEAR Unit program and its operation in each neighborhood. # Program Description ## Scanning: In the spring of 2006, then Police Chief Anthany Beatty and current Police Chief Ronnie Bastin of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Division of Police commissioned an indepth historical review regarding statistical data related to reported crime and calls for service in Lexington. A review of this material by the Division's Planning and Analysis Section revealed that seven (7) neighborhoods within Lexington experienced an inordinate amount of both statistical categories. These neighborhoods are as follows: Cardinal Valley/Village; Winburn/Hollow Creek; Eastland; Woodhill; Centre Parkway; Martin Luther King and Georgetown (Refer to Exhibits \#2 to \#8 for reference purposes). Some of these identified neighborhoods have had a longstanding reputation regarding the presence of criminal activity, while some had only experienced an influx of this type of activity in the late 1990's. And, while this statistical data was reviewed to ensure the correct locations were identified, these neighborhoods were routinely informally acknowledged by Urban County Council Members, neighborhood residents, police officers and other governmental and non-governmental entities as being the genesis of an excessive amount of criminal activity. A review of this data indicated that during 2004 and 2005 these seven neighborhoods accounted for approximately $20.39 \%$ of all Part I crimes occurring in the city (Refer to Exhibit \#16). The review also revealed that during this two-year time period officers responded to an average of 22,699 calls for service in these neighborhoods each year. These statistics are disproportionate when considering that the combined population of these seven neighborhoods comprise less then $10 \%$ of the city's total population. This review also showed that these neighborhoods were not only experiencing an inordinate amount of crime and calls for services, but prior efforts to address these areas had been ineffective. These neighborhoods were also adversely impacted the Division of Police's ability to address the needs of other neighborhoods and crime-related issues in other areas of the city due to the large amount of resources that needed to be allocated to these seven neighborhoods. # Analysis: When it became apparent that these seven neighborhoods necessitated additional agency attention, the Division of Police and several entities within the Urban County Government began the process of analyzing all relevant statistical information related to these neighborhoods. They also began the arduous task of incorporating innovative means of measuring the issues associated with these neighborhoods that were criminal in nature and those that had a negative impact on the residents' quality of life. They incorporated these new measurement tools in conjunction with historical means of measurement such as UCR data and victimology surveys. In the 1990's, law enforcement agencies in general adopted new ways of measuring crime and how productive their approaches had been concerning combating criminal activity within their respective jurisdictions. There was an understanding in the law enforcement community that crime displacement was having an overwhelming impact on crime statistics, and in an effort to generate positive statistical information the nature of these measurements was revolutionized. This issue became a hurdle that the Division of Police needed to address because it became clear that the environment associated with these seven neighborhoods had not changed, and therefore the crime statistics accurately reflected this pervasive atmosphere. The Lexington Division of Police needed to challenge the ethos within these neighborhoods and it understood that the primary way to have a positive impact in these neighborhoods was to enlist the cooperation of the residents. The data that was collected through historical means fortified the Division's theory that there was an inordinate amount of criminal activity in the seven neighborhoods. They also surveyed a cross section of the population in these neighborhoods to identify issues surrounding the residents' quality of life concerns and their perception of the services being provided by the Division of Police. The agency knew that by incorporating innovative programs such as Midnight Basketball and PAL Boxing the cooperation from within the community would improve; however, it was clear that in order to bring about real change concerning quality of life issues and public perception of police efforts, the agency had to reduce criminal activity. Each of the seven identified neighborhoods contained a majority of the city's multihousing units and over a period of time these neighborhoods became more integrated. The operation of small businesses within these neighborhoods had also steadily declined while the number of vacant single family homes increased. Community and agency perception also suggested that a large percentage of the offenders responsible for committing crimes in these neighborhoods also resided within these same neighborhoods. This fact alone perpetuated the criminal behavior in these neighborhoods and created additional issues for the Division to resolve. Because the victims of these crimes believed that the perpetrators often lived within their community, reporting many of the crimes that had been committed was delayed. The Division of Police knew that a response to these issues was imminent and quite necessary. At that particular time in the law enforcement community there was an established conducive manner in which these types of issues were resolved. It was also understood within the law enforcement community, that agencies desperately needed a new direction, and many departments had begun adopting community-oriented policing programs. A number of departments had chosen to adopt these new programs if for no other reason than to qualify for funding being offered by the Federal Government. While operating under the guise of community policing, many of these same agencies still subscribed to what had been the established rule concerning "crime fighting". The proactive approach to crime fighting was simplistic. If there was an area within a city or jurisdiction with a high volume of criminal activity, a group of proactive officers was organized, given a mandate that included a significant amount of generated activity, and sent on their way with the affirmation that the only way the city would be safe was for this group of selected individuals to make the arrests necessary to bring about law and order. Based on that widely held perspective, the Division of Police followed suit and formulated the Fourth Platoon, a specialized unit that was assigned specifically to the neighborhoods mentioned and whose mandate included the premise of communityoriented policing. Not unlike a great number of similar programs operating at that time around the country, this unit was arrest driven. Fourth Platoon Officers saw themselves as "crime fighters" and even though they may have been operating under the semblance of community-oriented policing very little of this ideology was actually utilized. It was not that the Division of Police was reluctant to change or the fact that they disagreed with these new ideologies concerning the manner in which law enforcement agencies should operate. Like many other agencies across the country it had been primed with these new philosophies, but their practical application would take some time. There were no established standards concerning these new approaches to law enforcement and it was inevitable that agencies like the Division of Police, who were pioneers in terms of their commitment to these new ideologies and who had fully consented to undertake this task, would suffer some setbacks. In the late 1990's the Fourth Platoon was disbanded and the agency created a sector system. The city was divided into three sectors and each sector was assigned its own roll call facility in a geographic area that was most conducive to community needs; once again displaying their commitment to the community-oriented policing model. Each of these sectors had its own special assignment squad whose mandate was similar to that of the Fourth Platoon, they were to focus their attention on the seven neighborhoods and utilize their arrest powers to mitigate the criminal element within these neighborhoods. Unfortunately the success of this approach mirrored that of the Fourth Platoon. It would not be accurate to categorize these units as failures. Each of them respectively made considerable improvements in the outlined neighborhoods and successfully removed elements of our society that were prepared and eager to commit acts of criminality in the listed communities. Their impact on the volume of calls for service was positive but could not be sustained over a lengthy period of time. The same held true concerning their impact on the Part I crime statistics. An examination of the arrest data generated by these units revealed a positive impact; yet one that lacked the persistency necessary to achieve the overall intended goals. The Division of Police had established that it could address the level of criminal activity in these neighborhoods by focusing on the indicated offenders and by making the necessary arrests; but only for several weeks or months at a time. The agency also realized that while the crime rates appeared to wane in the seven identified neighborhoods, displacement created inflated rates in adjacent pockets throughout the city, therefore repudiating the intended objective of an overall crime reduction. # Response: In 2006, Chief Beatty and Assistant Chief R. Bastin envisioned a dynamic program that would address both the chronic criminal and quality of life issues in Lexington. This program evolved as the CLEAR Unit in July of 2006 (Refer to Exhibit \#9) with the mission to: "develop cooperative relationships with neighborhoods, the Division of Police, schools, governmental divisions, and other non-governmental providers to proactively address community and neighborhood quality of life concerns." As an agency, the Division of Police had attempted to address these issues in the seven outlined neighborhoods through community-oriented policing methodology and proactive policing strategies. However, when those avenues did not generate the results desired the decision was made to adopt a program that more closely mirrored the problem-oriented policing model. The vision of the program was to develop an enhanced problem based unit that would include Neighborhood Response Officers and Neighborhood Coordinators who would work closely together to address chronic issues in the selected geographic neighborhoods. Although similar in nature to previous programs utilized by the agency and other programs throughout the country, this initiative would differ in several distinct ways. The combined focus would allow for greater comprehensive tactics and a marked increase concerning the allocation of resources. The unit would utilize problem solving methods juxtaposed with criminology theories, such as "broken windows", and incorporated the SARA model to address chronic quality of life issues. The program would also incorporate measurement tools to evaluate its progress. Lastly, the program would develop a distinctive identity within the agency and focus on establishing positive relationships within the community (Refer to Exhibit \#10). Upon review of previous programs it was determined that building permanent relationships with other governmental agencies would be tantamount to the success of this new program. Introductory planning meetings were held with the identified stakeholders. These meetings included representatives from the Divisions of Code Enforcement, Fire and Emergency Services, Parks and Recreation, Planning, the Department of Social Services, LexCall, Fayette County Public Schools and other governmental and non-governmental entities. During these meetings procedures were discussed and protocols developed for communicating needs and requests. While most of the meetings were held in formal settings there were several opportunities to interact in informal settings. These informal opportunities developed personal relationships leading to stronger partnerships and eliminating any animosity from previous years. More importantly, these meetings provided the participants with input and ownership in the development of the program. These partnerships also enabled the CLEAR Unit to better facilitate a comprehensive approach to community needs. Officers who were selected to participate in the CLEAR Unit Program as Neighborhood Coordinators immediately began receiving intense instruction regarding problem-oriented policing techniques and concepts prior to deployment in their assigned neighborhood. These officers attended training regarding problem-oriented policing hosted by the Regional Cops Office and the Regional Community Oriented Policing Institute. The training contained problem-solving techniques and community policing techniques, which they were required to utilize when addressing the needs in their neighborhoods. Neighborhood Response Officers were responsible for addressing crime trends and patterns via the use of directed patrols and proactive crime reduction techniques. These officers primarily concentrated their efforts on identifying and apprehending criminals, with an emphasis given to criminal street gang activities and street level drug offenders. However, unlike past endeavors, they also employed the problem oriented policing ideology when identifying the issues and individuals who most negatively affected their assigned neighborhoods. With the aforementioned methodology in place, the CLEAR Unit began to immediately address both crime concerns and quality of life issues within the seven designated areas with a discernible amount of success. This combined application of the problem oriented policing concept had an immediate impact on crime and calls for service. The CLEAR Unit began integrating this new practice both formally and informally in every applicable circumstance. Officers were now routinely dismissing the archaic methods previously utilized to address daily issues and were now able to more readily identify the true cause of a problem, formulate a plan of action, implement the plan and properly evaluate any progress and/or the need to review the original perceived problem. This seemingly simplistic exercise soon became the most common practice when addressing issues in these seven neighborhoods; and at times it appeared to be the only procedure that was pursued. # CLEAR Unit Program Case Study: Below is a short case study that provides some insight into how the CLEAR Unit Program uses problem-oriented policing techniques to address crime and quality of life issues in the identified. This case study example is indicative of the type of issues that the unit routinely addresses and illustrates how, when using the problem oriented policing approach, programs like the CLEAR Unit can dramatically affect a number of the social issues that can plague a community. It is also important to note that the unit utilizes the same approach in all seven neighborhoods assigned and have had the same basic results. ## Case Study Example: 1340 Alexandria Drive: This address, located in the Cardinal Valley/Valley Neighborhood, is comprised of eight separate multi-housing buildings (Refer to Exhibit \#11). Each building has approximately eight single-family units and the complex houses approximately 170 residents. Over several years the complexes façade had gradually deteriorated and the quality of life and criminality issues that negatively affected this location progressively increased (Refer to Exhibit \#12). The inception of this project commenced when the Division of Police observed a consistent increase in Part I crimes and the number of calls for service at this address. Prostitution, narcotics activity, vandalism and criminal street gangs were becoming prevalent and addressing these challenges corresponded with the CLEAR Unit's directive. In the spring of 2008 the CLEAR Unit identified this as a location of interest and began to implement the SARA model to abate these concerns. # Scanning: There were a number of crime related and quality of life issues associated with this apartment complex that were acknowledged and those issues were established through collaborative means. The CLEAR Unit's neighborhood coordinators worked extensively with Code Enforcement, the Fayette County Health Department, Sanitation, Streets \& Roads, Social Services and Building Inspection to identify the core problems associated with this apartment complex. The complex had become a haven for illegal activity and past proactive law enforcement efforts had little, if any, positive or long-term effect. Drug traffickers, prostitutes, criminal gang members and other criminal elements were perceived to operate with limited opposition and thus such activity became not only accepted, but the norm. ## Analysis: Relevant data was then collected on this address and compared to apartment complexes in the same general vicinity. This information substantiated the complaints that had been generated by citizens in the community, community leaders, Urban County Council Members and members of the Division of Police. The data revealed that 1340 Alexandria Drive had approximately 200\% more calls for service than 1346 Alexandria Drive, which is an apartment complex with the same occupancy rate directly across the street. The crime-related issues that were associated with this address had been enduring for a number of months. The prostitution, narcotics activity and vandalism associated with this address began to affect the social constraints established within that community and the negative elements related to these activities began to proliferate to adjacent multihousing units. # Response: Once the underlying conditions that perpetuated these problems had been established the CLEAR Unit, in conjunction with the additional government entities previously listed, formulated a plan of action to address the issues related to this apartment complex. CLEAR Unit Response Officers utilized bicycles to provide omnipresence on the property and made numerous arrests related to the criminal activity taking place (Refer to Exhibit \#13). Mounted Units monitored the property during the day while Code Enforcement and Sanitation conducted inspections on all of the units associated with the complex (Refer to Exhibit \#14). The Health Department, Social Services and the property's management removed many of the problematic tenants and several of the units were condemned as a result of their failed inspection. No loitering and trespassing signs were posted and strictly enforced by CLEAR Unit Officers. The vandalism and gang related graffiti that was prevalent throughout the complex was addressed by the Fayette County Sheriffs Department, which immediately improved the complexes façade (Refer to Exhibit \#15). By improving the property's façade the CLEAR Unit, as well as the assisting government entities, actually improved the security of the entire complex. Target hardening the complex through environmental design included projects such as trimming back the overgrown shrubs, repairing fences and replacing street lights. All of these things not only improved the property's image but also made it a safer place to live. # Assessment: The inception stage of this project was challenging; however, the data collected suggests that the overall intended goal was accomplished. In the three months following the completion of this project the reported calls for service associated with this address were reduced by $79 \%$ ( 57 to 12 ) compared to the same time frame from the previous calendar year. These numbers stayed consistent through the 2008 calendar year and have not wavered in the first several months of 2009. By removing the criminal element associated with this complex; which had a direct impact on the listed reduction; and improving the overall environment, the quality of life issues concerning this address also improved. The agency received fewer citizen complaints and there was a marked reduction in criminal activity. The amount of resources that had been allocated to this address were no longer required and allowed the agency to utilize these additional officers for projects elsewhere that required the same type of attention. What was even more compelling was the fact that the calls for service in the Cardinal Valley/Village area as a whole did not increase. In fact the total adjusted calls for service in this neighborhood were down $10 \%$ in 2008 as compared to 2007 (4989 to 4488), which demonstrates that the issue of displacement did not occur. ## Assessment: Since its inception in 2006, the CLEAR Unit has received significant support from neighborhood residents, community leaders, elected officials, other government agencies and personnel within the Division of Police. And, while there was some concern regarding whether the program would be able to operate to its fullest potential (due to division wide personnel shortages when it first began) as the program gained notoriety and status, both personnel availability and resource allocation became a Division priority. The CLEAR Unit Program doubled in size from 2006 to 2008, based on the perception that the program was positively affecting the identified areas of concern; however, the program's overall impact on the seven identified neighborhoods and the city as a whole was still truly speculative. In the spring of 2009, a statistical examination was completed to gauge the overall effectiveness that the CLEAR Unit was having on the seven identified neighborhoods. The data examination was conducted by members of the CLEAR Unit, the Planning and Analysis Section and representatives from the University of Kentucky and Eastern Kentucky University. This program review was conducted just two years after the program's inception to allow for a timely evaluation, to determine if the program was operating in the manner prescribed by the CLEAR mandate, and to ensure that the program was in fact having the desired effect. To measure the CLEAR Unit's effectiveness in the seven identified neighborhoods, a statistical review was completed that included the number of reported crimes and the number of calls for service. This review compared the combined average of the total statistics in the years 2004 and 2005 to the years 2007 and 2008 (2006 was not compared as the CLEAR Unit Program was only in operation for 5 months that year). A review of this data revealed that those neighborhoods assigned to the CLEAR Unit Program experienced an average decrease of approximately $8 \%(4,762$ to 4,404$)$ in the total number of reported crimes (Refer to Exhibit \#16). The review of the calls for service in these neighborhoods revealed that in 2008 they experienced an average of 5\% less calls for service than they did in 2004/2005 (Refer to Exhibit \#17). The significance of this information was magnified when further data review revealed that those neighborhoods not assigned to the CLEAR Unit Program experienced a 1\% decrease in crimes reported during 2007/2008 as compared to 2004/2005, (18,314 to 18,585), thus negating any contention that the program would only cause crime displacement . It was also determined that the $6 \%$ decrease in reported crimes in the seven CLEAR neighborhoods in 2007 compared to 2005 accounted for approximately $39 \%$ of the $5 \%$ crime reduction reported citywide from 2005 to 2007 (11,807 to 11,169). The extent of the overall effect the CLEAR Unit had on reported crime was most apparent when data indicated that the seven neighborhoods only accounted for $17 \%$ of all of the crimes reported in Lexington in 2008, compared to 20.39\% in 2004/2005; a decrease of $15 \%$. Lastly, the statistical information indicates that there is no significant crime increase throughout the city which clearly suggests that crime is not being simply displaced into the neighborhoods that are not assigned to the CLEAR Unit. This joint review demonstrates that the CLEAR Unit Program was not only effective in reaching its original goals of reducing both reported crime and calls for service in the seven identified neighborhoods, but it has had a significant effect on crime citywide. In 2007, Lexington experienced its lowest reported total Part I crime numbers in over thirty years. Based on the above information it is apparent that this end could not have been achieved without the formation and operation of the CLEAR Unit Program. In reflection the only avenue that could have been taken to increase the effectiveness of the program would have been an earlier implementation of it. Due to the program's success, deliberations are ongoing regarding the CLEAR Unit's expansion. That expansion would potentially include a number of additional neighborhoods within Lexington. Due to the CLEAR Unit Program's successful multifaceted approach to reducing crime and addressing quality of life issues via the use of problem orientated policing techniques, the Division of Police has received numerous correspondences from its regional law enforcement partners requesting information on the program. Unlike some projects that may be short in duration or limited in scope, the Lexington Division of Police's CLEAR Unit Program will have a long lasting and profound effect on future operations within the Division of Police and on the residents within the seven neighborhoods currently served by the program. The CLEAR Unit Program will also continue to make Lexington a safer city for all its residents. # Agency and Officer Information The CLEAR Unit Program was initiated with and continues to exist thanks to the support of numerous local government entities, neighborhood residents, community leaders and countless individuals within the Lexington Division of Police. The effectiveness of the CLEAR Unit Program requires a collaborative effort and is dependant on the willingness of all those involved to work for the same goals. By stressing teamwork the overall effectiveness is magnified and continues to be a driving force in developing a new culture within the Division of Police that centers on the use of problem orientated policing. The SARA model is now routinely used by other units and sections within the Division of Police to review and implement diverse projects and responses to various issues. Every officer within the Division has received training on the use of the SARA model and supervisors receive advanced training in the proper allocation of this very useful technique in addressing issues. While it would be nearly impossible to list all the members of the Division of Police who played a role in the construction and operation of the CLEAR Unit Program, the following members have had the most profound effect: 1. Police Chief Ronnie Bastin 2. Retired Police Chief Anthony Beatty 3. Lieutenant Ken Armstrong (Application Co-Author) 4. Sergeant Chris Young 5. Sergeant Chris Schnelle 6. Sergeant Bryan Maynard 7. Sergeant Jason Yeager (Application Co-Author) ## Project Contact: Assistant Chief David Boggs Lexington Division of Police 150 East Main Street Lexington, Kentucky 40507 (O) 859-258-3600 Ext\# 2360 (C) 859-576-3796 dboggs@LFUCG.com ![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-1.jpeg) # Lexington Division of Police Lexington, Kentucky ## Appendices ## Community Law Enforcement Action and Response Program (C.L.E.A.R.) # Lexington/Fayette County Kentucky ![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-2.jpeg) Black arrows used to indicate location of seven neighborhoods within the city and corresponds with the exhibit number associated with the neighborhood. Exhibit #1 # Village Neighborhood ![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-3.jpeg) Prepared by Eugenia Johnson Smith, Crime Analyst Lexington Division of Police For Official Use Only! February 2007 # Hollow Creek \& Winburn Neighborhoods ![img-4.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-4.jpeg) # **Eastland Neighborhood** ![img-5.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-5.jpeg) **Prepared by: Eugenia Johnson-Gnith, Cribus Analyst** **Geologian Division of Police** **For: O'Malley Roe, Analyst** **February 2007** ![img-6.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-6.jpeg) # Woodhill Neighborhoods ![img-7.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-7.jpeg) # Centre Parkway Neighborhoods ![img-8.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-8.jpeg) # Martin Luther King Neighborhood ![img-9.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-9.jpeg) # Georgetown Neighborhood ![img-10.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-10.jpeg) | ![img-11.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-11.jpeg) | ![img-12.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-12.jpeg) | | :--: | :--: | ![img-13.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-13.jpeg) Exhibit \#9 ![img-14.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-14.jpeg) ![img-15.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-15.jpeg) Exhibit \#10 ![img-16.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-16.jpeg) Exhibit \#11 ![img-17.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-17.jpeg) ![img-18.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-18.jpeg) ![img-19.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-19.jpeg) ![img-20.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-20.jpeg) **Exhibit #12** ![img-21.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-21.jpeg) Exhibit \#13 ![img-22.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-22.jpeg) ![img-23.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-23.jpeg) Exhibit \#14 ![img-24.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-24.jpeg) Exhibit \#15 Reported Crime: CLEAR Unit Program Neighborhoods Compared to City Wide Totals and Yearly Averages. ![img-25.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-25.jpeg) Blue Refers to Citywide Totals and Red Refers to CLEAR Neighborhoods. Exhibit #16 # Calls for Service Comparison in CLEAR Unit Program Neighborhoods 2004/2005 to 2008 ![img-26.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-21/img-26.jpeg) *In 2008 the 7 neighborhoods averaged a 5% decrease in the number of Calls for Service when compared to the combined averaged total of 2004/2005.* *Exhibit #17*