--- title: "Responding to the Public Safety Needs of a Travel Stop Area" type: "pdf" year: "2018" canonical: "/projects/860" --- # Multnomah County SHERIFF'S OFFICE Troutdale, Oregon # Table of Contents - [Multnomah County SHERIFF'S OFFICE](#multnomah-county-sheriffs-office) - [Responding to the Public Safety Needs of a Travel Stop Area using Surveys and Targeted Response Plans](#responding-to-the-public-safety-needs-of-a-travel-stop-area-using-surveys-and-targeted-response-plans) - [Summary of Project](#summary-of-project) - [Project title: Responding to the Public Safety Needs of a Travel Stop Area using Surveys and Targeted Response Plans](#project-title-responding-to-the-public-safety-needs-of-a-travel-stop-area-using-surveys-and-targeted-response-plans) - [Responding to the Public Safety Needs of a Travel Stop Area using Surveys and Targeted Response Plans](#responding-to-the-public-safety-needs-of-a-travel-stop-area-using-surveys-and-targeted-response-plans) - [A. Scanning:](#a-scanning) - [B. Analysis:](#b-analysis) - [C. Response:](#c-response) - [What responses did you use to address the problem?](#what-responses-did-you-use-to-address-the-problem) - [D. Assessment:](#d-assessment) - [Agency and Officer Information:](#agency-and-officer-information) - [Appendix A: Map of Frontage Road Study Area and Calls for Service Chart](#appendix-a-map-of-frontage-road-study-area-and-calls-for-service-chart) - [Appendix B: Initial Survey](#appendix-b-initial-survey) - [Multnomah County Sheriff's Office](#multnomah-county-sheriffs-office) - [Frontage Road Public Safety Project](#frontage-road-public-safety-project) - [17. OPTIONAL INFORMATION](#17-optional-information) - [Appendix C: Follow-up Survey](#appendix-c-follow-up-survey) - [Frontage Road Public Safety Project: Late Summer Follow-up Survey](#frontage-road-public-safety-project-late-summer-follow-up-survey) - [Survey Questions:](#survey-questions) - [Additional Comments and/or Suggestions for the Sheriff's Office:](#additional-comments-andor-suggestions-for-the-sheriffs-office) ## Responding to the Public Safety Needs of a Travel Stop Area using Surveys and Targeted Response Plans Implementing proactive policing to address livability concerns and criminal activity Lieutenant James EriksenAnalyst Wendy Lin-KellyAnalyst Kevin Maurelli # Summary of Project ## Project title: Responding to the Public Safety Needs of a Travel Stop Area using Surveys and Targeted Response Plans This problem-solving project was conducted in 2017 in the City of Troutdale (Oregon), specifically the area of Frontage Road. Primarily a travel stop, Frontage Road businesses largely serve travelers and truck drivers. The Multnomah County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) analyzed the problems that were occurring in the area, implemented actions as a response, and assessed the impact of these actions. The goals were to build relationships with the community, gather information on crime and perceptions of safety, and develop an effective response plan. Scanning: The Patrol Division Commander requested information from the Planning and Research (P\&R) unit on law enforcement activity along the Frontage Road business corridor. Initial scanning of the area led to the Commander wanting to implement proactive policing efforts aimed at addressing livability concerns and criminal activity. Analysis: Four years of calls for service and reported offense data were analyzed. The analysis included trends in incident rates over time, comparisons with the rest of Troutdale, and incident time of day and day of week. The analysis showed that the focus area was characterized by higher crime rates relative to the rest of the City and by different crime types (i.e. prostitution, drugs, and alcohol-related). Calls for service in the area were more frequent between 9 pm and 3 am and occurred consistently throughout the week. Response: The lieutenant assigned to this project understood the need for additional information from the community, specifically, what concerns the employees had about crime in the area and how they felt about current police performance. Working with P\&R, MCSO conducted a survey in April 2017 of the employees in this area. The survey was designed to measure views of police services, crime, safety, and issues of concern. Using data from the survey, the lieutenant developed a patrol response plan, where deputies met with the businesses, patrol time was increased, and specialized services were provided. The plan was implemented for three months beginning in June 2017. In August, a follow-up survey was conducted to measure changes in attitudes as a result of the patrol response plan. Assessment: P\&R analyzed the August survey data. Results indicated that, after the response plan was implemented, the majority of the employees in the area noticed increased patrol presence, felt safer in the area, and thought police were doing a good job addressing crime. # Responding to the Public Safety Needs of a Travel Stop Area using Surveys and Targeted Response Plans ## A. Scanning: What was the nature of the problem? Background. The area of the City of Troutdale along Frontage Road generates a significant number of calls for service relative to the rest of Troutdale. This area represents $0.015 \%$ of the city's total square miles, but $15.7 \%$ of the calls for service. Unique to this area is the fact that it has no residential population ${ }^{1}$. Frontage Road provides access to several businesses that support travelers and commerce. Frontage Road businesses include truck stops, gas stations, fast food restaurants, and motels. Police calls for service generated in the area are characterized by concerns over theft, prostitution, drugs, homelessness, and traffic. Outside of Frontage Road, the City of Troutdale has a relatively low crime rate (51.2 NIBRS Group A crimes per 1,000 residents). Most calls for service are for Suspicious Person /Vehicle /Circumstance, Theft, Disturbance, and Traffic Accidents. [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{1}$ The population of the city of Troutdale is 16,035 per the PSU Center for Population Research, 2016 estimate. The travel stop area. The Frontage Road area has proportionately more, and different types of crimes, than the rest of the City of Troutdale. This area requires a targeted approach, different than the rest of the city, to address crime and gauge perceptions of safety. Travel stops have unique characteristics - they tend to be distinct areas off major roads or highways, where people work but do not live. Research indicates that areas zoned for business have more crime than residential or mixed-use areas. Typically, visitors to Frontage Road stop to refuel, rest, and have a meal. The trucking business requires large parking lots that are often fairly secluded. Motels in the area address the needs of travelers and are often comparatively inexpensive. Restaurants are typically fast food. Problems. Calls for service in this area are predominantly Unwanted Persons, Suspicious Subject/Vehicle/Circumstance, Theft, and Disturbance. Higher numbers of reported offenses include Prostitution, Drugs, Alcohol, Disorderly Conduct, and Assault. Activity is most frequent during late night hours ( 9 PM to 3 AM) throughout the week. A 2017 study released by the Joint Office of Homeless Services, reported the overall number of people experiencing homelessness in Multnomah County (Oregon) increased by almost 10\% between 2015 and 2017. The impact can be seen around Frontage Road. Businesses deal with panhandling and loitering, including some people encountering aggressive behavior. Area employees report homelessness as having a negative impact on business. The Motel 6 in the area called for police services 199 times in 2016. Speeding can also be an issue around Frontage Road, as drivers exit and enter the nearby freeway. There were 33 traffic accidents around the area and law enforcement conducted 383 traffic stops in 2016. How was the problem identified? Frontage Road is half a mile from the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office's Troutdale Community Policing Center. In early 2017, the law enforcement Commander requested information on this area. Working with Planning and Research, they reviewed four years of calls for service and offense data. How and why was this problem selected from among problems for special attention? This problem was selected after data analysis revealed the high proportion of crime occurring in this specific area. With no residential population, the area still accounted for over 10.5\% of the City of Troutdale's overall reported crimes. The size and composition of the area ( 0.09 square miles, approximately 13 businesses that mostly support the needs of travelers) is relatively small and manageable for targeted response efforts. The characteristics of this area led to the hypothesis that a program could be established to gather more information on the community's public safety needs, build relationships with businesses, and where police resources could be redirected with little difficulty and few additional resources. Also, the effects of a program in this area might not necessarily result in displacement to surrounding areas since the area itself is relatively isolated. Changes attributed to any program in this area could be consistently tracked over time with crime and/or survey data. What was the initial level of diagnosis/unit of analysis (e.g., crime type, neighborhood, specific premise, specific offender group)? The unit of analysis was the neighborhood (compared to the whole city) and the data used were police calls for service and general offenses. All crime types were considered with the additional consideration of improving livability for visitors and employees who work in the area. # B. Analysis: What methods, data and information sources were used to analyze the problem (e.g., surveys, interviews, observation, crime analysis)? The Multnomah County Sheriff's Office Patrol Division Commander requested an analysis of the police calls for service and reported offenses. The resulting crime analysis report focused on data trends over four years, calls and offenses of livability concern, and an analysis of time of day and day of week. How often and for how long was it a problem? The highway interchange near Frontage Road was adjusted as one-way streets in 1990. Around this same time, the truck stop and other area businesses were established. Homeless conditions in the area have increased over the past few years. Who was involved in the problem (offenders, victims, others) and what were their respective motivations, gains and losses? In addition to visitors who may have reported crimes in the area, 13 area businesses (and their 267 employees) were involved in the problem. The employees' motivation was addressing crime and suspicious activity, finding compassionate solutions to homeless issues, and the desire to feel safe in the areas of their work. Gains for the businesses included improved relationships with law enforcement and reduced interactions with unwanted persons. Losses to businesses due to the problem include lost revenue due to customers not feeling safe, employees not feeling safe at night or when approaching unwanted persons, and loss from theft. What harms resulted from the problem? - Employees working in the area reported crime incidents - Customers of area businesses have been victims of crime (car prowl, theft, etc.) - Employees, especially of specific businesses and during the nighttime, did not feel safe in the area - Trash and graffiti were cited by businesses as issues in the area - Illegal activities occurred, including specifically at one of the motels How was the problem being addressed before the problem-solving project? What were the results of those responses? Businesses and/or visitors would call 911 or the police non-emergency telephone number to report a crime. Incidents were documented with police reports. What did the analysis reveal about the nature and extent of the problem? The analysis revealed that the area of Frontage Road in Troutdale had a disproportionate amount of crime when compared to the rest of the city. Analysis also revealed that different types of crime were occurring in this business district. The characteristics of this travel stop area required law enforcement to have a more adaptive and targeted response. It was also revealed that more information was needed to determine the extent and impact of the problems in the area. What did the analysis reveal about the causes and underlying conditions that precipitated the problem? The analysis revealed that: - Undeveloped areas and open spaces around Frontage Road may attract activity such as loitering and illegal dumping. - Easy access to a major highway may cause problems with speeding and accidents. - Large truck stop parking lots can result in obscured places which may lead to illicit activity, such as prostitution and drug dealing. - Travel stop facilities (showers, inexpensive motel rooms, fast food, etc.) may attract problems associated with trespassing and unwanted persons. What other information was analyzed to better understand the problem (e.g., time of occurrence, location, features of the physical and social environment of the problem)? Time of occurrence (including time of day, day of week, and seasonality) and location were analyzed in the original scan of the problem. This helped law enforcement understand that calls for service occurred more frequently at night and were distributed fairly evenly across the days of the week. The Motel 6 had more problems and is located slightly away from the other businesses, on the other side of an undeveloped area of Frontage Road. What were the community perspectives on the problem? The community reported concerns with unwanted persons, DUII, and vice calls, and MCSO law enforcement realized the need for additional information on community perspectives. # C. Response: What were the project goals and corresponding measurable objectives? The project goals included: - Partnering with area businesses - An assessment of citizen perspectives on quality of life and areas of improvement - Developing informed strategies to reduce crime and increase feelings of safety Measurable objectives included: - Amount of police presence in the area - Results from pre- and post- surveys on perceptions of crime, victimization, and police performance - Police calls for service and reported offenses What range of possible response alternatives were considered to deal with the problem? Response alternatives for dealing with the problem included convening community business meetings, establishing a neighborhood watch program, installing cameras, establishing a police satellite office, increased lighting of secluded areas, posting signs reiterating the enforcement of laws, installing a radar speed sign, and enlisting the assistance of local homeless advocate organizations. What, specifically, did you learn from your analysis of the problem that led to your choice of a new response to the problem? We learned during the analysis of the problem that examining calls for service and reported offense data only told one part of the story. The businesses experienced public safety issues related to livability and feelings of safety, beyond criminality, that were unique to this part of Troutdale. We learned that we needed to better understand the public safety perceptions of the area and that it was important to communicate with the area businesses. This led to our response of conducting a survey of the people that worked in the area and then developing a targeted patrol response plan. # What responses did you use to address the problem? The responses used to address the problem included meeting with business managers, surveying employees in the area, providing additional patrol time, and coordinating efforts with the MCSO homeless outreach unit. In the spring of 2017, the patrol lieutenant decided to collect more information by conducting a survey of all Frontage Road area business employees. The survey asked questions on perceptions of crime, victimization, and police performance. Most importantly, the survey development created a positive interaction between MCSO and the community, opening up a dialogue as the survey was discussed and distributed to the employees in the area. In April, the survey was distributed to all 267 employees across the 13 businesses in the area. This paper survey was collected a week later and resulted in a $51 \%$ response rate. Survey results indicated: - On average, the perception was that the area had a moderate level of crime (average 5.44, with $0=$ no crime and $10=$ high level). - Almost half of the respondents felt a need for more police patrols in the area, although they felt moderately safe (average 5.16, $0=$ very safe and $10=$ extremely unsafe). - Trash and litter, people drunk or high in public, homelessness, drug dealing and trespassing were identified as issues that the majority of respondents considered a "serious" problem. Based on the survey results, the patrol lieutenant developed a targeted response plan. Between June and August, deputies provided extra patrol to the area beyond responding to calls for service, visiting 387 times and providing over 56 hours of police presence. A deputy point of contact was established with the local businesses managers. In addition, a "Decoy Patrol Vehicle," using a marked patrol car, was parked in the area (mostly around the Motel 6) throughout the day and evening as a way to deter crime. In response to concerns over homeless people around Frontage Road, MCSO deployed the MCSO Homeless Outreach and Programs Engagement (HOPE) Team 20 times to the Frontage Road area. HOPE is a dedicated team of sworn staff who work to build relationships with vulnerable populations and connect them with services. In August, five months after the initial survey, a follow-up survey of business employees was conducted to determine if the dedicated police activities during the summer months resulted in changes to satisfaction with police presence, feelings of safety, and perceptions of serious public safety issues. The follow-up survey resulted in a $66 \%$ response rate. Who was involved in the response to the problem? The patrol lieutenant was the key member responding to the problem. The lieutenant initiated the survey of employees of the area, made contacts with the area businesses, and, eventually, initiated patrol response plans and coordinated other MCSO efforts. The lieutenant met with area business managers who provided insight on what topics were most of concern to them and to determine how MCSO could survey their staff. The MCSO Planning and Research unit also met with some of the area businesses, assisted in developing the survey questionnaire, would perform analysis of survey results, and provided data on crime. Patrol deputies and the MCSO HOPE Team provided dedicated resources to this area. What factors were considered in deciding which potential responses to implement (e.g., legality, community values, potential effectiveness, cost, practicality)? Factors considered in deciding responses to implement included community values, cost, and practicality. Also considered was potential effectiveness for both collecting additional data with the survey and with creating a response plan. As there was no budget available for this project, paper surveys were distributed and collected by the patrol lieutenant, which increased opportunity for interactions with the community and which was also cost effective. What resources were available to address the problem? This project did not incur any costs. Resources available included: - Patrol lieutenant to manage the project and establish relationships with community members - Planning and Research for survey development and analysis; crime data analysis; evaluation services - Access to patrol - Access to the MCSO HOPE Team What difficulties were encountered during response implementation? Difficulties during response implementation included: - Change in personnel assignments, as the key project team patrol lieutenant was reassigned before the project was completed - Staff turnover at area businesses where the same respondents did not fill in the pre and post surveys - Quality control and verification of survey responses # D. Assessment: Were response goals and objectives achieved? The project goals (partnering with area businesses; assess citizen perspectives on quality of life, what needs improvement, and where public safety can be advanced; and develop informed strategies to reduce crime and increase feelings of safety) were achieved. Objectives (police presence; results from pre- and post- surveys on perceptions of crime, victimization, and police performance; police calls for service and reported offenses) were generally achieved. What specific impact did the implemented responses have on the problem? Impacts from implemented responses include: - Positive, collaborative relationships were built between patrol staff and the area businesses - Better understanding of the concerns and perceptions of the employees in the area - Increase in knowledge of what police activities might be effective to improve conditions in this community - Development of an informed patrol response plan that required minimal additional resources - Increase in the percent of people working in the area feeling police are doing a good job addressing crime - Majority of employees feeling safer in the area in August than they did five months prior More detailed measurements of impact, both positive and negative, include: - $77 \%$ of survey respondents noticed the increase in police presence and $68 \%$ responded that they felt safer during the last five months. - Concerns over drug use/dealing continued at the same level over the five months, with over half of the survey respondents considering it a "serious" problem and over a quarter considering it a "minor" problem. - Issues concerning homelessness continued to be considered a problem with over 90\% of respondents feeling it was a problem in both April and August, although there was a slight decrease in those who considered it "serious" versus "minor." - Despite the increase in police presence between April and August, there were also increases in "seriousness" of some problems. There was a $2 \%$ increase in drugs being considered a serious problem ( $51 \%$ to $53 \%$ ) and a $3 \%$ increase in those considering the area a "high" crime area ( $18 \%$ to $21 \%$ ). - In April, 74\% of respondents felt police were doing a good job addressing crime. In August, $85 \%$ felt police were doing a good job. - In the three months following the project period (September to November), dispatched calls for service decreased by $24 \%$. - Conversely, for the three months after the decrease (December to February), dispatched calls for service increased again by $53 \%$. How did you measure your results? Results were measured through surveys (pre- and post- police response plan implementation), and analysis of calls for service and reported offense data. For how long was the effectiveness of the problem-solving effort evaluated? The problem solving efforts were evaluated for five months - the time from the initial survey in April, to the follow-up survey in August. Between June and August, the patrol response plan was implemented. Who conducted the evaluation? The evaluation was conducted by the patrol lieutenant and the MCSO Planning and Research unit. Were there problems in implementing the response plan that affected the project outcomes? There were very few problems in implementing the response plan. Not having enough patrol staff or overtime funds limited our ability to provide extra patrol at night (when area employees felt the least safe) and to conduct missions (which would be interrupted if patrol were dispatched to a call). In addition, the Eagle Creek Wildfire in the Columbia River Gorge started on September 2, 2017, closing traffic along I-84 (the main highway served by Frontage Road) and requiring additional patrol deputy resources. If there was no improvement in the problem, were other systemic efforts considered to handle the problem? How might the response have been more effective? The response plan may have been more effective by: - MCSO coordinating with the property owners of the vacant lots. MCSO may have been able to arrange clean-up services for areas suffering from illegal dumping and implemented some environmental changes to discourage dumping and loitering. - Additional staff being available to provide patrol at night may improve feelings of safety in the area. - Organizing a neighborhood "business watch" and monthly meeting for the community. - Creating a data dashboard or regular report to track crime in the Frontage Road area in a timely manner. - Increasing communications with the community through a monthly newsletter, social networking website, and/or the creation of an email dedicated to community tips, requests, and non-emergency issues. - Requesting use of an Automatic License Plate Reader from a neighboring jurisdiction (Portland Police Bureau or the Gresham Police Department) to scan for suspicious vehicles. Was there any evidence of displacement (i.e., shifting the problem somewhere else or to some other form of problematic behavior)? The Frontage Road location is primarily a travel stop that is fairly isolated from the rest of the City of Troutdale. There are few surrounding areas where crime may be displaced. An analysis of incidents with in a 2000 foot buffer around the study area show no increase in dispatched calls for service during, or following, the response implementation. Was there any evidence of diffusion of benefits (i.e., that the responses had a positive effect beyond your expectations, such as that conditions also improved in nearby areas not directly targeted by the responses) The diffusion of benefits could be seen in MCSO patrol striving to create better relationships with all the communities they serve. MCSO deputies working with Frontage Road business managers highlighted the benefit of collaboration. Will your response require continued monitoring or a continuing effort to maintain your results? The response requires continued monitoring and effort to maintain results. A regular report of activity in the area is recommended by the Planning and Research unit. As business staff turnover in this area seems high ( $34 \%$ of respondents had worked at their current job less than one year), law enforcement should continue to work closely with businesses on establishing relationships and communicating public safety needs. # Agency and Officer Information: Key Project Team Members: Lt. James Eriksen, Kevin Maurelli, Wendy Lin-Kelly Project Contact Person. Include: Name: James Eriksen Position/Rank: Lieutenant Address: 2955 NE $172^{\text {nd }}$ Place City/State/Postal code: Portland, Oregon 97230 Phone: 503-988-0040 Email: james.eriksen@mcso.us Summary of Project Word Count: 385 Description Word Count: 3343 ![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/18-07_multnomah_county/img-0.jpeg) # Appendix A: Map of Frontage Road Study Area and Calls for Service Chart | Calls for Service in the Frontage Road Study Area | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | # Appendix B: Initial Survey ## Multnomah County Sheriff's Office 234 SW Kendall Ct, Troutdale OR 97060 Exemplary service for a safe, livable community MICHAEL REESE SHERIFF 503 988-7300 PHONE www.mcso.us ## Frontage Road Public Safety Project The Multnomah County Sheriff's Office invites you to complete this survey regarding Frontage Road in Troutdale, Oregon. It will take approximately five minutes of your time and is completely confidential. Your participation will help our agency improve its response to public safety along Frontage Road. This survey is designed to gather opinions and experiences from those that work in this community. It will assess livability in this area of Troutdale. Please indicate your responses to each item by selecting the appropriate answer based on your opinions, feelings and experiences. ![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/18-07_multnomah_county/img-1.jpeg) 1. Please rate how serious you feel the level of crime is in the South Frontage Road business community ( $0=$ no crime, $5=$ moderate level of crime, $10=$ high level of crime rate) ![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/18-07_multnomah_county/img-2.jpeg) 2. In the past two years, do you perceive the level of crime in the business community has increased, decreased or stayed the same? $\qquad$ Increased $\qquad$ Decreased $\qquad$ Stayed the Same $\qquad$ Unknown 3. In the past two years, do you perceive the amount of police protection in this area has increased, decreased or stayed the same? $\qquad$ Increased $\qquad$ Decreased $\qquad$ Stayed the Same $\qquad$ Unknown 4. Do you feel there is a need for more police patrols, less police patrols or about the same number of police patrols in the business community? $\qquad$ More Police Patrols $\qquad$ Less Police Patrols $\qquad$ About the Same Police Patrols 5. In the past two years, have you been a victim of a crime in this area? $\square$ YES $\square$ NO What was the nature of the crime? $\square$ PROPERTY $\square$ PERSON CRIME Was this incident reported to the police? $\square$ YES $\square$ NO $\square$ UNKNOWN 6. In the past two years, have you observed a crime while working in this area? $\square$ YES $\square$ NO Was this incident reported to the police? $\square$ YES $\square$ NO $\square$ UNKNOWN 7. In the past two years, has someone informed you of a crime that occurred at your business or nearby? $\square$ YES $\square$ NO Was this incident reported to the police? $\square$ YES $\square$ NO $\square$ UNKNOWN 8. How safe do you feel in this area? ( $0=$ Very Safe - 10=Extremely Unsafe)? ![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/18-07_multnomah_county/img-3.jpeg) 9. Do you feel more crimes in this area are committed by juveniles, adults or are they about the same? $\qquad$ Juveniles $\qquad$ Adults $\qquad$ About the Same 10. What types of crimes do you feel are more of a problem in this area? 11. What can be done to reduce crime in this area? $\qquad$ 12. How likely do you think you may be a victim of a crime in this area in the next 12 months? $\qquad$ Likely $\qquad$ Not Likely 13. Do you consider the South Frontage Road business community a high, medium or low crime area? $\qquad$ High Crime Rate $\qquad$ Medium Crime Rate $\qquad$ Low Crime Rate 14. Do you feel the police are doing a good job addressing crime in this area? $\square$ YES $\square$ NO 15. Do you see a need for an organized community response to crime in this area (example: regular businesses meeting with police, crime watch, etc.)? $\square$ YES $\square$ NO If yes, would you be willing to participate? $\square$ YES $\square$ NO 16. For each of the following, would you say it is a serious problem, a minor problem or not a problem at all in the business community? a. Trash and Litter Serious Problem $\qquad$ Minor Problem $\qquad$ Not a Problem $\qquad$ b. Graffiti Serious Problem $\qquad$ Minor Problem $\qquad$ Not a Problem $\qquad$ c. Unsupervised youth Serious Problem $\qquad$ Minor Problem $\qquad$ Not a Problem $\qquad$ d. Too much noise Serious Problem $\qquad$ Minor Problem $\qquad$ Not a Problem $\qquad$ e. People drunk or Serious Problem $\qquad$ Minor Problem $\qquad$ Not a Problem $\qquad$ high in public f. Abandoned cars Serious Problem $\qquad$ Minor Problem $\qquad$ Not a Problem $\qquad$ g. Homelessness Serious Problem $\qquad$ Minor Problem $\qquad$ Not a Problem $\qquad$ h. Prostitution Serious Problem $\qquad$ Minor Problem $\qquad$ Not a Problem $\qquad$ i. Drug dealing Serious Problem $\qquad$ Minor Problem $\qquad$ Not a Problem $\qquad$ j. Traffic/Speeding Serious Problem $\qquad$ Minor Problem $\qquad$ Not a Problem $\qquad$ k. Car break-ins Serious Problem $\qquad$ Minor Problem $\qquad$ Not a Problem $\qquad$ I. Trespassing Serious Problem $\qquad$ Minor Problem $\qquad$ Not a Problem $\qquad$ # 17. OPTIONAL INFORMATION Where do you work? $\qquad$ What hours do you typically work? $\qquad$ How long have you worked here? $\qquad$ 18. Other Comments: $\qquad$ $\qquad$ $\qquad$ Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. If you have additional information or concerns, please feel free to contact Lt. James Eriksen of the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office. Email - james.eriksen@mcso.us Phone - (503) 988-0392 # Appendix C: Follow-up Survey ![img-4.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/18-07_multnomah_county/img-4.jpeg) **Multnomah County Sheriff's Office** 234 SW Kendall Ct, Troutdale OR 97060 *Exemplary service for a safe, livable community* **MICHAEL REESE SHERIFF** 503 988-7300 PHONE www.mcso.us ## Frontage Road Public Safety Project: Late Summer Follow-up Survey **Introduction:** Earlier this summer, the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office conducted a survey of employees of the businesses around Frontage Road, Troutdale. Survey results indicated that the overall crime rate was considered moderate, employees were aware of crimes occurring in the area, and there was a need for more police presence. Over the past few months, the Sheriff's Office increased services to the north Frontage Road area, which included increased patrols and outreach to the homeless population. **Next Steps:** The Sheriff's Office is now following up and would like your feedback on whether our efforts made a difference to how you, and others, feel about crime and safety in this area. The survey is brief – only eight questions – and we thank you for taking the time to provide input. The survey will be collected on 9/22/2017. As this public safety project wraps up and we measure our effectiveness, know that the Sheriff's Office will continue to provide public safety services to all residents and businesses in our jurisdiction and, due to the feedback we already received, our commitment to having a presence in the area around Frontage Road remains. ## Survey Questions: 1. During the summer, did you notice an increased police presence around the area? ☐ YES ☐ NO 2. Did you feel safer in this area during the last five months (April to August) than you did before? ☐ YES ☐ NO 3. Do you currently consider homelessness a serious problem, minor problem, or not a problem at all in this area? ☐ Yes ☐ No 4. Do you currently consider drugs (use and/or dealing) a serious problem, minor problem, or not a problem at all in this area? ☐ Yes ☐ No 5. Do you currently feel there is a need for more police patrols, less police patrols or about the same number of police patrols? ☐ Yes ☐ No 6. Do you currently consider Frontage Road to be a high, medium or low crime area? ☐ Yes ☐ No 7. How can they improve? ☐ Yes ☐ No ## Additional Comments and/or Suggestions for the Sheriff's Office: If you have additional information or concerns, please feel free to contact Lt. James Eriksen of the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office. Email – james.eriksen@mcso.us Phone - (503) 988-0392