---
title: "Lexington Green Apartments"
type: "pdf"
year: "2000"
canonical: "/projects/885"
---

# NEW CASTLE COUNTY 

# Table of Contents

- [NEW CASTLE COUNTY](#new-castle-county)
  - [POLICE](#police)
- [Herman Goldstein Award Summary](#herman-goldstein-award-summary)
  - [Lexington Green Apartments](#lexington-green-apartments)
- [Submission date: May 12, 2000](#submission-date-may-12-2000)
  - [Herman Goldstein Problem Oriented Policing Award](#herman-goldstein-problem-oriented-policing-award)
- [New Castle County Police Department](#new-castle-county-police-department)
- [APPENDIX \#1](#appendix-1)
- [Herman Goldstein Award](#herman-goldstein-award)
  - [Lexington Green Apartments](#lexington-green-apartments)

## POLICE

![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/00-22/img-0.jpeg)

PROBLEM ORIENTED POLICING

HERMAN GOLDSTEIN AWARD

PROJECT BASED SECTION 8 HOUSING

# TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Nominating letter from Colonel John L. Cunningham Chief of Police
Tab\# 1-Summary of project

Tab\# 2-Description of project

Tab\# 3-SARA Model PowerPoint Slides

Tab\# 4-Appendix I

Tab\# 5- Appendix 2

Tab\# 6-Diagram of Apartment Complex

Tab\# 7- Proposed legislation to enhance information: sharing

Tab\# 8- Agency and officer information

# Herman Goldstein Award Summary 

## Lexington Green Apartments

The New Castle County Police Department applied the SARA model to an apartment complex that generated repeat calls for service. Lexington Green Apartments accounted for 484 calls for service in 1999. We zeroed in on the largest category, which was the disorderly conduct, nuisance crimes entry. Our preliminary problem statement was "Repeat calls for service are generated by the residents of Lexington Green?"

Three analysis charts were created. The first area to be addressed was the location. In the location analysis the team wanted to know what specific buildings in the complex were causing the most problems. The leasing policies and eligibility to live in the complex were also of interest. Other concerns were the lighting and maintenance conditions as well as the general layout of the complex.

The team next conducted a victim analysis. During this step the victim demographics and residency status -were determined. Additionally, the team inquired as to the residents perceptions concerning problems in the complex. The last category to be analyzed was the suspect group. Of particular interest was the residency status, age and mode of transport.

At the conclusion of the analysis segment we drafted a new problem statement. We -concluded that evictions were not taking place due to poor exchange of information between the managers, the housing authority, the courts and the police. Our problem statement was "interagency sharing of information is inadequate to facilitate the eviction process". Note that the original problem statement could only be dealt with by the police. The new problem statement calls for a cooperative effort of stakeholders to solve the problem.

In evaluating the data collected we concluded that we would not be able to eliminate the problem but we could certainly reduce it. The short-term goals that were set were:

1) Meet with management
2) Meet with stakeholders
3) Establish roll call training on section $S$ issues
4) Make up cheat sheet on section 8

Long term goals:

1) Arrange for regular information sharing meetings
2) Encourage use of the "Model Section 8 Lease"
3) Face lift-update-Encourage owner to make repairs
4) Create a position for Housing Liaison Officer

Based on our goals we have achieved a satisfactory level of success. Two separate stakeholder meetings were held which addressed the exchange of information. The owner agreed to make repairs. The police department contacted the County Attorney and got clearance to provide more detailed crime statistics to the manager so she could initiate evictions. The magistrate court agreed to review eviction cases to make certain that the judges were enforcing the leases as written. Calls for service are down and stakeholders report an improvement in the quality of life. The assessment process is still on-going but based on early returns we are optimistic.

# Submission date: May 12, 2000 

## Herman Goldstein Problem Oriented Policing Award

The New Castle County Police Department initiated training in Problem Oriented Policing in January of 1999. Twenty-Six officers attended a four-day seminar to learn the basics of Problem Solving and the SARA Model. In February of 1999 thirteen of the original twenty-six officers were invited back to attend a train-the-trainer session. The goal of the Department was to train the entire three hundred twenty nine-member agency in Problem Oriented Policing. Personnel assigned to the Human Resources Unit established a three-day training process. An outside vender, Strategic Business Systems, educated the department in Effective Community Relation Skills, followed by one day' for the classroom training of Problem Solving and SARA and one day for a problem solving practical application. The thirteen instructors met once a month to create the curriculum. The executive staff was consulted for input on what situations or areas they wanted to have addressed. Colonel John Cunningham had set a department goal of reducing calls for service by ten percent. In order to achieve this goal it was decided to address locations which generated repeat calls for service. A list of communities and businesses that met this criterion was assembled. The committee then reviewed the list to determine which ones would provide the best opportunity for applying the SARA model. As the list was compiled it became apparent that apartment

complexes accounted for many of the repeat calls. The team was well aware that some of these complexes had very high concentrations of Section 8 housing, but it was unclear just what part this played in the demand for police. One of the complexes that made our list was a project based Section 8 housing complex known as Lexington Green.

Lexington Green Apartments were built in the early 1980's and had generated a large number of calls for service since their inception. Long time members of the department recounted how this complex had experienced violent situations involving drugs, shootings and near riots throughout the years. These same subject matter experts reported that other complexes located within the same proximity as Lexington Green did not seem to be plagued with the similar repeat calls problem. A statistical comparison was performed for The Village of Kent Apartments, The Village of Canterbury Apartments and The Village of Windhover Apartments. All three complexes are within eyesight of Lexington Green Apartments. (Refer to Appendix 1 for details) That meant to the committee that this location stood out from the surrounding community for some reason. Due to the longevity of the problem it was realized that underlying conditions were present which brought victims and suspects together at a common location to

complete the crime triangle. Lexington Green was selected to use as a practical application for one of the groups being trained in Problem Oriented Policing. On February 14, 2000 a group of twenty officers were assigned to perform the initial stages of a SARA Model in order to reduce repeat calls and to improve the quality of life in the community. In order to facilitate the scanning process a complete statistical report was compiled. The committee had decided during its infancy to adopt the following definition of a problem when used in the context of POP: two or more incidents, related in one or more ways, causing harm or likely to cause harm and there is a public expectation of police service. The statistical report indicated that during the period from 02-01-99 to 02-14-00 there were four hundred eighty four calls for service in this complex. The types of calls which generated the most frequent responses were alarm activations, domestic related disturbances, disorderly conducts, drugs, loud radios, property checks, public relations and requests to prevent a breach of peace. Lexington Green clearly constituted a problem in which the SARA model could be applied. There were two or more incidents, they were related by location and victim group, they caused harm and there was definitely a public expectation of police service based on the fact that four hundred eighty. four times the police

were called.

A laundry list of potential problems was created. Potential problems identified included violent crime resulting from drug related activities, poor community reputation, decreased availability of officers for surrounding communities, and the diminished quality of family life as evidenced by the high volume of domestic related incidents. The next step was to prioritize the potential problems to narrow the scope of problem solving. It was the collective belief of the class that by targeting crimes of disorder, the drug dealing and domestics would also decrease. The final step in the scanning process was to create a problem statement. Since most of the reported incidents centered around Lexington Green's residents, the group concluded that Lexington Green residents were tolerant of activity that lowered their quality of life.

Prior to beginning the analysis stage a stakeholder list was assembled. The stakeholders were identified as the complex owner, the management company that oversees the property, the housing agency who authorizes the section 8 housing, the residents, the surrounding communities, the elected officials who represent the area and the County Government. Additional stakeholders were identified as the court system, probation and parole, child

# New Castle County Police Department 

Herman Goldstein Program Oriented Policing Award
protective services and citizens of Delaware who are waiting for public assistance housing. By developing a comprehensive stakeholder list, resources can be made available to assist with the problem solving process.

The group was now ready to begin the analysis stage. The instructors emphasized that analysis is the most crucial step in problem solving. By asking probing questions pertaining to the victims, location and suspect, officers can learn about what underlying conditions cause the problem to take place at this location involving these victims and these suspects. It can not be indicated strongly enough that improper analysis leads to inadequate response. Great care was taken in preparing for the analysis stage. The class was divided into three groups. Each group was assigned an instructor to help them with their assignment. The first group handled the statistical analysis. This group worked out of Headquarters as this was the location where data could be run from the in-house computer system and police reports could be pulled from the records unit. It should be noted that even though class time was limited to eight hours, by splitting the responsibilities among a team of people, an accurate appraisal of data was performed. The type of information this group was looking for was what locations in the

complex were causing the most harm. They also wanted to know what time of day and days of the week generated the most calls for service. The residence status of both the victims and suspects was determined. The wanted status of the residents was checked. A further function of this group was to interview the detectives and drug investigators assigned to this area to learn the status of pending cases and also to get their perspective on the causes of problems in this community. The group was able to obtain from the New Castle County Fire Dispatcher a detailed map of Lexington Green and surrounding communities. This proved invaluable in planning the eventual response.

The second group was sent to the New Castle County Government Center. The Government Center serves as the central repository of records pertaining to the business of New Castle County Government. This group was assigned to determine who the owners of record are for Lexington Green. They also were to learn if there were any pending housing codes violations in this complex. Tax records were made available to the group and these records helped establish school information and status of school taxes, sewer taxes and property taxes. Additionally since New Castle County administers a certificate and voucher Section 8 program, the group was assigned to interview the County personnel

who regulate this program. One of the resource people made available to the group was retired New Castle County Police Major who is familiar with the SARA model and is also an authority on housing related issues. This networking produced a resource that was extremely helpful on similar SARA projects.

The third group responded to Lexington Green Apartments. Their job was to interview the on-sight manager, any residents who were available, the surrounding community leaders and the maintenance staff. The purpose of these interviews was to learn what these stakeholders felt represented the underlying conditions that caused crime to be a problem in this community. The group was also charged with gathering photographic evidence that documented quality of life issues. Specific information concerning the owner, the management company, the lease agreement, and rent structure were also gathered during this process.

All three teams and their instructors reconvened at the training location to assemble the remaining pieces of the SARA model. An analysis worksheet was created for the victim, location and suspect. Each worksheet contained a "what" column that addresses what the group wanted to know. It also contained a "where" column that indicated where the information could be

acquired. A "who" column recorded what team member was responsible for that segment of the assignment. An "answer" column contained the actual information which was sought. Refer to the analysis worksheets attached to this document. (Refer to Appendix 2)

The following will be a summary of the information that was developed. The group focused primarily on the victim side of the crime triangle and addressed location secondarily. The suspect side was saved for last due to the fact that police traditionally target suspects of which there is an endless supply if victims are vulnerable and the location is conducive to crime. To better understand the victims, the group wanted to know who they were. This information was available through the computerized records management system. It was determined that females were the victims in the domestic incidents in almost every case. In the other crimes the victims were predominantly the residents of the complex as opposed to non-residents or visitors. The racial breakdown of the victims is seventy-five percent black and twenty-five percent white. This is consistent with the population breakdown as was determined through the rental office. Officers wanted to know what the qualifications were to live in Section 8 housing. They learned this from management and also from the

resident expert at the New Castle County Government Center. The information obtained indicated that this complex was Project Based Section 8 housing. Project Based Section 8 programs are a Federal Government program but is administered by the Delaware State Housing Authority. Project Based Section 8 means that every unit is rented to people in need of Government assistance to meet their monthly rent. This came as a surprise to many members of the group. Equally surprising was the information that only three adult males were listed on any of the leases. Since eligibility for rental in Project Based Section 8 is based on total household income it became apparent to the class that many adult males are living illegally in the complex. These adult males are not listed on the lease therefor their income is not calculated into the rent. Since many of the crimes reported are those of disorder, all of the residents are potential victims. The group interviewed residents as to what they thought was causing the repeat calls for police service. The residents said they felt that management was unable to deal with problem residents and that these problem residents, making up a small number of the total population, accounted for most of the problems. Many of the interviewed residents were ready and willing to provide names of chronic offenders. Residents also felt that even when management tried to

get problem tenants evicted that they were unsuccessful.
The location analysis also provided many interesting questions and answers. Investigators wanted to know why this complex had a higher demand for police service than other complexes in the same geographic area. It was learned that this complex was the only project based section 8 community in the entire Bear-Glasgow area. Other such communities existed in Newark, Claymont and Edgemoor. Not so coincidentally it was determined that a company called Arbor Property Management was the organization that oversees all four properties. Quite by accident, the other three properties were on our list of SARA projects for other classes due to repeat call analysis. The group was also interested in knowing what the leasing policies were. A sample lease was acquired. It was determined that even though this complex stated in their lease that criminal record checks were required that they did not in fact occur. One of the most surprising facts learned in this process was the rent that is charged for each unit. The office provided the rent scale, which ranged in the seven hundred dollar per month range for an efficency apartment to 1,000+ dollars per month for a fourbedroom apartment. What made this fact so astounding was the poor upkeep of the buildings and grounds. While surveying the grounds

the group observed rotted exterior wood, melted emergency lights, unsecured hallway heaters, garbage, trash, and urine odors in the stairwells.

The specific locations in the complex where the majority of crimes originated were the stairwell areas of two buildings, Hancock Building and Brandywine Building. These two buildings are located on opposite sides of the complex. Further analysis revealed that problem families lived in both buildings and that adult males not listed on leases resided in both. While the lease forbids loitering in stairwells there were no signs warning violators that they could be arrested if they were determined to be loitering. This limited the ability of the police department to make arrests for loitering without first issuing a warning. A review of security in the complex revealed that private security was occasionally present but was viewed as ineffective by residents. Contractual police officers were no longer working extra duty jobs due to the fact that invoices for their jobs had gone unpaid by the management company. A further review of calls for service indicated that most incidents occurred between 5 p.m. and 3 a.m. The complex has a 10 p.m. curfew for anyone under 18 however it is rarely enforced. This is a lease condition that only management can enforce.

The group next focused attention on the suspect side of the crime triangle. It was determined that most of the offenders were males and were in their early twenties. Of this group there was an even split between residents and non-residents. The preferred modes of transportation were automobile for nonresidents and pedestrian transit for residents. An analysis of crime prevention checks performed on suspicious persons indicated that most of the suspects claimed they were visiting a problem individual in Hancock Building or a problem individual in Ingleside building, even when the interview took place in front of the Brandywine Building.

During the analysis stage the manager was interviewed to determine what she thought was the underlying cause of the problems in her complex. The manager stated that she was not able to get detailed information from the police department concerning police activity in the community. She was not being told when arrests were made so that she could begin eviction hearings. She was also not aware what police reports were available to subpoena for eviction hearings. Additionally when officers learned that adult males were living in the complex illegally, they did not pass this information on to the office.

To address the above situation the records unit supervisor

was contacted to help determine what laws applied to the police department regarding the release of crime statistics. The supervisor indicated that the State Bureau of Identification controlled the release of information and would be able to provide what legal precedent guided these situations. According to the State, New Castle County Police Department is prohibited from releasing detailed arrest and statistical information to anyone who is not part of the criminal justice system.

At the conclusion of the analysis process the group had developed a new problem statement. The new statement was "interagency sharing of information is inadequate to facilitate the eviction of problem tenants." The new problem statement changed the direction of the class from traditional policing interventions to a partnership approach where all of the stakeholders had a role in improving the quality of life in this community.

Based on the new problem statement the group was ready to begin the response stage. The level of response selected was to reduce the problem. The group determined that total elimination of crime and the related lifestyle problems that ensue could never be completely accomplished. It was felt however that significant improvement could occur if only those people who were

New Castle County Police Department
Herman Goldstein Program Oriented Policing Award
authorized to live in the complex were permitted to stay there, as authorized in the HUD rental agreement. Additionally, if existing safeguards were enforced the quality of life could improve. To facilitate this, two types of goals were set. Shortterm goals would be designed to involve everyone, be based on analysis, be easy to achieve and would show success. Long term goals would be based on analysis, attack underlying conditions, provide long term relief, and involve stakeholders.

Short-term goals were addressed first. Since the new problem statement indicated that sharing of information between agencies was inadequate, a meeting of stakeholders was a must to begin the sharing process. A separate meeting with management to review the maintenance issues that were uncovered during the process was also identified as a short-term goal. The group decided to contact the alarm companies who protected the complex to reduce repeat alarms. Part of the perception of Lexington Green being a problem community is the constant police response. By reducing the number of unnecessary alarm responses officers could be utilized for more pressing concerns in other communities. Along the same lines, the Domestic Violence Unit was contacted to advise them of the number of repeat domestics in this one community. They agreed to look at what was causing this aspect of

the police response since we knew that only three adult males were allowed to live in the complex. Closer scrutiny of domestic violence reports could also help identify HUD violations and address two concerns at the same time. It did not make sense that there should be as many domestic type incidents.

The group concluded that since most of the members had learned many things they did not know about section 8 housing that it was reasonable to believe that the rest of the department could benefit from a training session on section 8 issues. The Human Resources Unit agreed to follow this recommendation in the annual in-service training program.

Long term goals that were set to arrange for regular information sharing among stakeholders, have Lexington Green use the model HUD lease, press the ownership to make necessary repairs and establish and train a liaison officer to deal with housing issues.

The final step of the SARA model process is the assessment stage. In any successful SARA project assessment must be on going. That has been, and continues to be the case with this project. The group decided to perform the assessment in two stages. The first stage would measure the success in meeting our short and long term goals. The second stage would be to assess

quality of life changes as measured by stakeholders opinions, subject matter experts opinions and finally by statistical comparison.

Immediately upon completion of this project the on sight manager and the regional manager agreed to meet with the New Castle County Police Problem Solving Sergeant to assess the quality of life changes which could be made at the complex. The maintenance and crime prevention concerns were raised. Management agreed to post no loitering signs in all the stairwells. They also agreed to make daily property checks to remove any signs of drug activity and graffiti. In order to make the required repairs a larger maintenance budget would be requested from the owner. The police department agreed to move a tactical foot patrol into the community on a temporary basis to assist with identifying problem tenants and helping prepare eviction cases.

Two stakeholders meetings were scheduled. At the first meeting the owner traveled from Connecticut to offer his input and assistance. Unfortunately the management company elected not to participate. However when the Delaware State Housing Authority and a State Senator and a representative of the Speaker of the State House did attend the meeting, the owner felt compelled to assure the future cooperation of the management company. It was

also very helpful to have a state senator asking the Housing Authority why the continued problems were being tolerated in this community. All parties left the meeting with a realization that we each had a stake in the quality of life in this community. A second meeting was held in the State Capitol, which was called by the Speaker of the Delaware House of Representatives. All concerned parties including the management company attended this meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting the Speaker agreed to research the legal implications of the information exchange process. He agreed to introduce whatever laws were necessary to fix this problem. Attached to this report is a copy of his proposed legislation.

As a result of establishing a good working relationship with the management company similar concerns in the other projectbased complexes have been addressed. The Problem Solving Sergeant has met with the management of all four complexes and the information exchange process has improved. Long-term goals that have been met are that a facelift has begun at Lexington Green. No longer is graffiti visible. Crack bags and broken up cigars used for smoking marijuana no longer litter the grounds.

The final step in the process is to assess the perception of the quality of life. In interviews with residents the New Castle

New Castle County Police Department
Herman Goldstein Program Oriented Policing Award

County Police Department has been told that an improvement has been noticed. One of the main problem families has been evicted and the second is pending. Officers working the area have noticed a decrease in calls for service and sense the community is showing signs of improvement. Finally there is the statistical evidence. From January 1 through May 1 of 1999 NCCPD responded to 152 calls for service. In 2000 during the same time period calls for service have been reduced to 110. This represents a twenty eight percent decrease. (Refer to Appendix 2)

In conclusion, New Castle County Police became aware of a situation at Lexington Green Apartments that was generating repeat calls for service. The police department started the process by believing that the problem was crime related and that the police department had primary responsibility for solving the problem. An analysis was conducted and in the process many facts were learned that steered the investigators in as different direction. The group learned about project-based section 8 and the requirements for living in one of these communities and the limitations. Stakeholders came together and discussed the roles they could play in improving the quality of life. Agreements were made to improve the exchange of information and work together. Improvements in the aesthetics were made and patrols resources

New Castle County Police Department Herman Goldstein Program Oriented Policing Award
were used to target problem residents. This project is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the problem solving approach to policing is more efficient than traditional arrest and release policing.

# APPENDIX \#1 

Calls for service comparison:
Lexington Green Apartments
Village of Windhover Apartments
Village of Kent Apartments
Village of Canterbury Apartments

DEVELOPMENT CALL TYPE DESCRIPTION
COUNT
LEXINGTON GREEN APTS ALARM
ALARME
ASAULJ
ASAULT
ASSIST
ASSTED
ASTEMS
ATTWAR
BURG
CHKWEL.
CHLDNG
CIVIL
CUSTOY
DISC
DISCON
DISCOX
DOMSTJ
DOMSTX
DRUGS
DRUGX
FRAUD
GUNVIO
HANGUP
INJPER
LOUPAR
LOURAD
MISIHV
MISPER
MISPEX
NOISE
OPR
PARKED
PBOP
PHONE
PROPCK
PUBREL
ROBJW
SEX
STOP
SUICIX
SUSPER
SUSVEH
TBHJ
TBHPHO
THEFT
UNAUTH
UNK
VEHTHF

BURGLARY/INTRUSTON ALARM
OCC'D DWELLING/ROB/PANIC/DURES
ASSAULT JUST OCCURRED
ASSAULT REPORT
ASSIST OTHER AGENCY OR OFFICER
ASSIST THE FIREDEPT
ASSIST EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVS
WARRANT ATTEMPT REQUEST
BURGLARY REPORT
CHECK ON THE WELFARE
CHILD NEGLECT COMPLAINT
CIVIL COMPLAINT/REPORT
CUSTODY DISPUTE REPORT
911 DISCONNECT CALL
DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPORT
DISORDERLY CONDUCT IN PROGRESS
DOMESTIC FIGHT JUST OCCURRED
DOMESTIC FIGHT IN PROGRESS
DRUG VIOLATION REPORT
DRUG VIOLATION IN PROGRESS
FRAUD/FORGERY REPORT
GUN VIOLATION REPORT
911 HANG UP
INJURED PERSON REPORT
LOUD PARTY
LOUD RADIO REPORT
MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATION
MISSING PERSON REPORT
LOST CHILD/ELDERLY SUBJECT
NOISE ORDINANCE COMPLAINT
OTHER PROPERTY RECOVERED
PARKING VIOLATION
PREVENT BREACH OF PEACE
STRANGE PHONE CALL REPORT
PROPERTY CHECK
PUBLIC RELATIONS
ROBBERY JUST OCCURRED W/WEAPON
SEX COMPLAINT
VEHICLE STOP
SUICIDE IN PROGRESS
SUSPICIOUS PERSON
SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE
THREAT BODILY HARM JUST OCC'D
TBH BY PHONE
THEFT REPORT
UNAUTH
UNAUTHORIZED USE MOTOR VEHICLE
UNKNOWN INCIDENT
VEHICLE THEFT REPORT


CALLS FOR SERVICE

REPORTED FROM

|  DEVELOPMENT | 911  |
| --- | --- |
|   | CALL TYPE  |
|   | DESCRIPTION  |
|   | COUNT  |


| DEVELOPMENT | CALL TYPE | DESCRIPTION | COUNT |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| LEXINGTON GREEN APTS | ABAND | ABANDONED M/V | 1 |
|  | ALARM | BURGLARY/INTRUSION ALARM | 6 |
|  | ANIMAL | ANIMAL COMPLAINTS | 2 |
|  | ASAULJ | ASSAULT JUST OCCURRED | 2 |
|  | ATTWAR | WARRANT ATTEMPT REQUEST | 1 |
|  | BURG | BURGLARY REPORT | 1 |
|  | BURGJ | BURGLARY JUST OCCURRED | 1 |
|  | CHKWEL | CHECK ON THE WELFARE | 2 |
|  | CRIMIS | CRIMINAL MISCHIEF REPORT | 1 |
|  | DISC | 911 DISCONNECT CALL | 2 |
|  | DISCOJ | DISORDERLY CONDUCT JST OCC'D | 2 |
|  | DISCON | DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPORT | 6 |
|  | DISCOX | DISORDERLY CONDUCT IN PROGRESS | 9 |
|  | DOMSTC | DOMESTIC DISPUTE REPORT | 2 |
|  | DOMSTJ | DOMESTIC FIGHT JUST OCCURRED | 5 |
|  | DOMSTX | DOMESTIC FIGHT IN PROGRESS | 7 |
|  | DRUGX | DRUG VIOLATION IN PROGRESS | 5 |
|  | FIGHTX | FIGHT IN PROGRESS | 2 |
|  | FRAUD | FRAUD/FORGERY REPORT | 1 |
|  | HANGUP | 911 HANG UP | 1 |
|  | HARASS | HARASSMENT REPORT | 2 |
|  | LOUPAR | LOUD PARTY | 1 |
|  | LOURAD | LOUD RADIO REPORT | 8 |
|  | MENTAX | MENTAL PATIENT VIOLENT | 1 |
|  | MISINV | MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATION | 2 |
|  | MISPEX | LOST CHILD/ELDERLY SUBJECT | 1 |
|  | NOISE | NOISE ORDINANCE COMPLAINT | 1 |
|  | OPEN | OPEN DOOR/WINDOW | 2 |
|  | PARKED | PARKING VIOLATION | 1 |
|  | PBOF | PREVENT BREACH OF PEACE | 5 |
|  | PERGUN | PERSON WITH A GUN | 1 |
|  | PROPCK | PROPERTY CHECK | 7 |
|  | PUBREL | PUBLIC RELATIONS | 7 |
|  | SEX | SEX COMPLAINT | 1 |
|  | SHOFIR | SHOTS FIRED | 1 |
|  | STOP | VEHICLE STOP | 1 |
|  | SUSPER | SUSPICIOUS PERSON | 2 |
|  | TBHPHO | TBH BY PHONE | 3 |
|  | THEFTJ | THEFT JUST OCCURRED | 1 |
|  | TREPAX | TRESPASS IN PROGRESS | 1 |
|  | VEHTHF | VEHICLE THEFT REPORT | 1 |


| DEVELOPMENT | CALL TYPE | DESCRIPTION | COUNT |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| VLG OF WINDHOVER AFTS | ANIMAL | ANIMAL COMPLAINTS | 2 |
|  | ASSIST | ASSIST OTHER AGENCY OR OFFICER | 1 |
|  | BURG | BURGLARY REPORT | 9 |
|  | BURGJ | BURGLARY JUST OCCURRED | 1 |
|  | CHKWEL | CHECK ON THE WELFARE | 2 |
|  | CRIMIS | CRIMINAL MISCHIEF REPORT | 3 |
|  | DISCON | DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPORT | 1 |
|  | DISCOX | DISORDERLY CONDUCT IN PROGRESS | 1 |
|  | DOWSTC | DOMESTIC DISPUTE REPORT | 1 |
|  | DOWSTJ | DOMESTIC FIGHT JUST OCCURRED | 4 |
|  | DOMSTX | DOMESTIC FIGHT IN PROGRESS | 4 |
|  | HARASS | HARASSMENT REPORT | 1 |
|  | LOUPAR | LOUD PARTY | 1 |
|  | LOURAD | LOUD RADIO REPORT | 1 |
|  | MISINV | MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATION | 3 |
|  | MISPER | MISSING PERSON REPORT | 1 |
|  | PBOP | PREVENT BREACH OF PEACE | 3 |
|  | PHONE | STRANGE PHONE CALL REPORT | 1 |
|  | PUBREL | PUBLIC RELATIONS | 4 |
|  | SUSPER | SUSPICIOUS PERSON | 1 |
|  | SUSVEH | SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE | 1 |
|  | TBHX | THREAT BODILY HARM IN PROGRESS | 1 |
|  | THEFT | THEFT REPORT | 4 |
|  | TREPAS | TREPAS REPORT | 1 |
|  | UNKACC | UNKNOWN ACCIDENT | 1 |
|  | VENTHF | VEHICLE THEFT REPORT | 1 |
|  | VENTHJ | VEHICLE THEFT JUST OCCURRED | 1 |

DEVELOPMENT CALL TYPE DESCRIPTION COUNT

VLG OF WINDHOVER AFTS ASSIST ASSIST OTHER AGENCY OR OFFICER 2
BURG BURGLARY REPORT 1
CRIMIJ CRIMINAL MISCHIEF JST OCCURRED 1
CRIMIS CRIMINAL MISCHIEF REPORT 1
CRIMIX CRIMINAL MISCHIEF IN PROGRESS 1
DISCON DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPORT 1
DISCOX DISORDERLY CONDUCT IN PROGRESS 6
DOMSTC DOMESTIC DISPUTE REPORT 1
DOMSTJ DOMESTIC FIGHT JUST OCCURRED 1
DOMSTX DOMESTIC FIGHT IN PROGRESS 4
FRAUD FRAUD/FORGERY REPORT 1
GUNVIX GUN VIOLATION IN PROGRESS 1
MISINC MISCELLANEOUS INCIDENT 1
MISINV MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATION 1
MISPER MISSING PERSON REPORT 3
000SX OVERDOSE IN PROGRESS 1
PDACC PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENT 1
PHONE STRANGE PHONE CALL REPORT 1
PROPCK PROPERTY CHECK 1
PUBREL PUBLIC RELATIONS 4
SHOFIR SHOTS FIRED 1
SUSPER SUSPICIOUS PERSON 1
SUSVEH SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE
TBHJ THREAT BODILY HARM JUST OCC 'D 1
THEFT THEFT REPORT 6
THEFTJ THEFT JUST OCCURRED 2
UNAUTH UNAUTHORIZED USE MOTOR VEHICLE 1
VEHTHF VEHICLE THEFT REPORT 6

| DEVELOPMENT | 911 | DESCRIPTION | COUNT |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| VLG OF KENT APTS | ASSIST | ASSIST OTHER AGENCY OR OFFICER | 1 |
|  | BURG | BURGLARY REPORT | 1 |
|  | CRIMES | CRIMINAL MISCHIEF REPORT | 1 |
|  | DISCON | DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPORT | 3 |
|  | DISCOK | DISORDERLY CONDUCT IN PROGRESS | 2 |
|  | DOAE | 10-91 IN RESIDENCE | 1 |
|  | DOMSTC | DOMESTIC DISPUTE REPORT | 1 |
|  | DOMSTX | DOMESTIC FIGHT IN PROGRESS | 4 |
|  | DRUGX | DRUG VIOLATION IN PROGRESS | 1 |
|  | GUNVIX | GUN VIOLATION IN PROGRESS | 1 |
|  | LOUPAR | LOUD PARTY | 1 |
|  | LOURAD | LOUD RADIO REPORT | 5 |
|  | MISINV | MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATION | 2 |
|  | MISPEK | LOST CHILD/ELDERLY SUBJECT | 1 |
|  | OPEN | OPEN DOOR/WINDOW | 1 |
|  | OPR | OTHER PROPERTY RECOVERED | 1 |
|  | PBOP | PREVENT BREACH OF PEACE | 2 |
|  | PDACC | PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENT | 1 |
|  | PHONE | STRANGE PHONE CALL REPORT | 2 |
|  | PROPCK | PROPERTY CHECK | 1 |
|  | SUSVEH | SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE | 1 |
|  | TBHPHO | TBH BY PHONE | 1 |
|  | THEFT | THEFT REPORT | 5 |
|  | TRFVIO | TRAFFIC VIOLATION REPORT | 1 |
|  | UNAUTH | UNAUTHORIZED USE MOTOR VEHICLE | 1 |
|  | VEHTHF | VEHICLE THEFT REPORT | 1 |

| DEVELOPMENT | 911 | DESCRIPTION | COUNT |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
|  | CALL TYPE |  |  |
| VLG OF KENT APTS | ASAULJ | ASSAULT JUST OCCURRED | 1 |
|  | CRIMIS | CRIMINAL MISCHIEF REPORT | 4 |
|  | CRIMIX | CRIMINAL MISCHIEF IN PROGRESS | 1 |
|  | DISC | 911 DISCONNECT CALL | 1 |
|  | DISCON | DISORDERLY CONDUCT REPORT | 1 |
|  | DISCOX | DISORDERLY CONDUCT IN PROGRESS | 1 |
|  | DOAE | 10-91 IN RESIDENCE | 1 |
|  | DOMSTC | DOMESTIC DISPUTE REPORT | 2 |
|  | LOURAD | LOUD RADIO REPORT | 10 |
|  | PHONE | STRANGE PHONE CALL REPORT | 1 |
|  | PROPCK | PROPERTY CHECK | 2 |
|  | PUBREL | PUBLIC RELATIONS | 2 |
|  | ROBJW | ROBBERY JUST OCCURRED W/WEAPON | 2 |
|  | TBHJ | THREAT BODILY HARM JUST OCC'D | 1 |
|  | TBHPHO | TBH BY PHONE | 1 |
|  | THEFT | THEFT REPORT | 3 |
|  | THEFTJ | THEFT JUST OCCURRED | 1 |
|  | VEHTHF | VEHICLE THEFT REPORT | 3 |

CALLS FOR SERVICE
REPORTED FROM 01/01/1999 TO 05/01/1999

| DEVELOPMENT | 911 | DESCRIPTION | COUNT |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| VLG OF CANTERBURY APIS | ABUSE | CHILD/ELDERLY ABUSE REPORT | 1 |
|  | ALARM | BURGLARY/INTRUSION ALARM | 1 |
|  | ASAULT | ASSAULT REPORT | 1 |
|  | BURG | BURGLARY REPORT | 3 |
|  | BURGXE | BURGLARY INPROG OCC'D DWELLING | 1 |
|  | CUSTDY | CUSTODY DISPUTE REPORT | 1 |
|  | DISC | 911 DISCONNECT CALL | 2 |
|  | DOMSTC | DOMESTIC DISPUTE REPORT | 1 |
|  | DOMSTX | DOMESTIC FIGHT IN PROGRESS | 1 |
|  | DRUNK | DRUNK TRANSPORT NON VIOLENT | 1 |
|  | LOURAD | LOUD RADIO REPORT | 1 |
|  | HISINV | MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATION | 1 |
|  | PBOP | PREVENT BREACH OF PEACE | 2 |
|  | PHONE | STRANGE PHONE CALL REPORT | 5 |
|  | PUBREL | PUBLIC RELATIONS | 3 |
|  | ROB | ROBBERY REPORT | 1 |
|  | SUICIX | SUICIDE IN PROGRESS | 1 |
|  | SUSPER | SUSPICIOUS PERSON | 1 |
|  | TBHPHO | TBH BY PHONE | 1 |
|  | THEFT | THEFT REPORT | 2 |
|  | VEHTHF | VEHICLE THEFT REPORT | 1 |


CALLS FOR SERVICE
REPORTED FROM 01/01/2000 TO 05/01/2000

|  | 911 |  |  |
| :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- |
| DEVELOPMENT | CALL TYPE | DESCRIPTION | COUNT |
| VLG OF CANTERBURY APTS | ALARM | BURGLARY/INTRUSION ALARM | 2 |
|  | ASAULT | ASSAULT REPORT | 1 |
|  | CRIMIS | CRIMINAL MISCHIEF REPORT | 2 |
|  | DISC | 911 DISCONNECT CALL | 1 |
|  | DOMSTJ | DOMESTIC FIGHT JUST OCCURRED | 1 |
|  | DOMSTX | DOMESTIC FIGHT IN PROGRESS | 3 |
|  | LOURAD | LOUD RADIO REPORT | 1 |
|  | MISINV | MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATION | 1 |
|  | MISPER | MISSING PERSON REPORT | 1 |
|  | PROP | PREVENT BREACH OF PEACE | 1 |
|  | PDACC | PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENT | 1 |
|  | PDHR | HIT AND RUN PDACC | 1 |
|  | PHONE | STRANGE PHONE CALL REPORT | 2 |
|  | PROPCK | PROPERTY CHECK | 3 |
|  | PUBREL | PUBLIC RELATIONS | 2 |
|  | THEFT | THEFT REPORT | 1 |

$\cdot$ 24

# Herman Goldstein Award 

## Lexington Green Apartments

Section 3 -Agency and officer information

1. This problem solving initiative was adopted at the Problem Solving Unit level of the Department and utilized a Problem Oriented Policing Class being taught by in-house instructors to perform the Scanning and Analysis steps. The Response and Assessment steps wereperformed by the Problem Solving Unit.
2. Twenty-six officers in the Department received training through the Law Enforcement Assistance Network (LEAN) and thirteen officers received advanced training through a train the trainer seminar. The thirteen officers trained the Staff first and then trained the entirepolice department.

Communities experiencing problems with repeat calls for service were identified for the practical applicationprocess. The Department benefited by applying a problem solving process to an existing problem and the class gained experience in applying the SARA Model.
3. No incentives were provided to officers engaged in the problem solving process.
4. Manuals provided by LEAN were used toguide the team during the problem solving process. Each officer was provided with a notebook that held Power-point slides used to teach the class.
5. The New Castle County Police Department began applying the SARA Model in 1999 to two sample projects. We noticed that theproblem identification stage and the

analysis component were easily achieved. Response, particularly the accountability aspect, was somewhat more challenging. Without a clear senses of who would be involved in the follow-up it was difficult to setgoals. This is a natural offshoot of the training process and after suffering the growing pains the organization settled into a comfortable routine. Information was transferred through the chain of command that allowed the Chief of Police to be kept abreast of the on going results of the project.
6. The resources committed to thepr ject consisted of the use of the two person tactical foot patrol unit, the problem solving sergeant and, as necessary, the mounted, traffic and criminal investigation units. None of the costs of thisproject exceeded the normal police department budget limits.
7. Project contact person:
a. Senior Sergeant Keith A. Sparks
b. Community Policing Problem Solving Supervisor
c. New Castle County Police Department 3601 N. DuPont Highway
d. New Castle, DE. 19720
e. (302)571-7953
f. (302) 571-7921
g. KSPARKS@CO.NEW-CASTLE.DE.US