--- title: "You Matter to Us" type: "pdf" year: "2019" canonical: "/projects/900" --- # Herman Goldstein Awards 2019 # Table of Contents - [Herman Goldstein Awards 2019](#herman-goldstein-awards-2019) - [You Matter to Us](#you-matter-to-us) - [Summary](#summary) - [You Matter to Us](#you-matter-to-us) - [Project Description](#project-description) - [Scan](#scan) - [Linwood's traumatic events](#linwoods-traumatic-events) - [Linwood's crime problems](#linwoods-crime-problems) - [Community concerns](#community-concerns) - [Jollie Street](#jollie-street) - [Analysis](#analysis) - [Information sharing](#information-sharing) - [Crime Triangle](#crime-triangle) - [Example: Youth hang out](#example-youth-hang-out) - [Youth congregating/ living in Jollie Street are causing disorder, intimidation, thefts and burglaries in Linwood predominately between 2 pm - 6 pm across all days of the week.](#youth-congregating-living-in-jollie-street-are-causing-disorder-intimidation-thefts-and-burglaries-in-linwood-predominately-between-2-pm-6-pm-across-all-days-of-the-week) - [Response](#response) - [Phase 1: Police only activities:](#phase-1-police-only-activities) - [Phase 2: Joint YMTU response: August 2016 - April 2018](#phase-2-joint-ymtu-response-august-2016-april-2018) - [Assessment](#assessment) - [Costs/benefits](#costsbenefits) - [Lessons Learned](#lessons-learned) - [Future Focus - (2019 onwards)](#future-focus-2019-onwards) - [Agency and Officer Information](#agency-and-officer-information) - [Key Project Team Members](#key-project-team-members) - [Project Contact Person](#project-contact-person) - [Appendices](#appendices) - [Appendix A. Maps Showing New Zealand (Left), Location of New Zealand (upper Right) and Jollie Street, Christchurch (lower Right) ${ }^{23}$, Linwood NEST survey Area (bottom)](#appendix-a-maps-showing-new-zealand-left-location-of-new-zealand-upper-right-and-jollie-street-christchurch-lower-right-23-linwood-nest-survey-area-bottom) - [Appendix B. Map showing Linwood's Deprivation Index ratings. ${ }^{24}$](#appendix-b-map-showing-linwoods-deprivation-index-ratings-24) - [Appendix C. Linwood Calls for Service 2013/14 (Figures 1 and 2) and Comparison of CFS and recorded offences 2012/13-2013/14 (Figure 3)](#appendix-c-linwood-calls-for-service-201314-figures-1-and-2-and-comparison-of-cfs-and-recorded-offences-201213-201314-figure-3) - [Appendix D. Figures 4, 5, 6, 7: Linwood Neighbourhood Engagement Survey findings (2015)](#appendix-d-figures-4-5-6-7-linwood-neighbourhood-engagement-survey-findings-2015) - [Appendix E. Map showing social housing in Linwood (2015) in Jollie Street and surrounding streets.](#appendix-e-map-showing-social-housing-in-linwood-2015-in-jollie-street-and-surrounding-streets) - [Appendix F. News Article 1: Life in Jollie Street ${ }^{25}$.](#appendix-f-news-article-1-life-in-jollie-street-25) - [Life in Jollie St: 'You wouldn't last a week'](#life-in-jollie-st-you-wouldnt-last-a-week) - [JOLLIE ST - BY THE NUMBERS](#jollie-st-by-the-numbers) - [Appendix G. Table 1: YMTU Partner Agencies](#appendix-g-table-1-ymtu-partner-agencies) - [Appendix H: Figure 8: Crime Triangle](#appendix-h-figure-8-crime-triangle) - [Appendix I. Table 2: Offender Demographic](#appendix-i-table-2-offender-demographic) - [Appendix L. You Matter to Us Timeline](#appendix-l-you-matter-to-us-timeline) - [Appendix M. Examples of Equity in Action: Castle Hill Trip ${ }^{27}$ and Canterbury Rugby Practice.](#appendix-m-examples-of-equity-in-action-castle-hill-trip-27-and-canterbury-rugby-practice) - [Castle Hill Trip](#castle-hill-trip) - [Canterbury Rugby Practice](#canterbury-rugby-practice) - [Appendix 0: Weighted Quotient Displacement Data](#appendix-0-weighted-quotient-displacement-data) - [WQD Wider Linwood Buffer Zone](#wqd-wider-linwood-buffer-zone) - [Crime overview (a): During the operation...](#crime-overview-a-during-the-operation) - [Geospatial trends (b)](#geospatial-trends-b) - [Displacement effects (c)](#displacement-effects-c) - [Statistical outputs (d)](#statistical-outputs-d) - [Summary (e)](#summary-e) - [Source data (f)](#source-data-f) - [Key](#key) - [Appendix Q. Anecdotal feedback on the response from parents in the community to YMTU team (2018)](#appendix-q-anecdotal-feedback-on-the-response-from-parents-in-the-community-to-ymtu-team-2018) ## You Matter to Us A Prevention First Response to Reduce Harm from Crime, Engage Children in Education and Families with Health and Social Services ![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-0.jpeg) NEW ZEALAND POLICE Ngà Pirihimana o Aotearoa ![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-1.jpeg) MINISTRY OF EDUCATION TE TÄHUHU O TE MÄTAURANGA # Summary ## You Matter to Us Linwood (population 25,100) is a suburb in Christchurch, New Zealand's second biggest city. Linwood suffered from two significant earthquakes (2010 and 2011). The earthquakes significantly impacted many residents, resulting in loss of life and infrastructure damage, escalating the previous social deprivation that Linwood was already facing. To assess the earthquakes' impact on Linwood's children, the Ministry of Education (MOE) asked early childhood education services about their current challenges. Child poverty, long term social deprivation, increased developmental and behavioural challenges, a lack of coordinated social services and a disconnected community were all significant concerns. In addition to these problems, Linwood was well known for its systemic crime. In the years following the earthquakes however, Linwood's calls for service (CFS) increased 33\% and recorded offences increased 15\% - increasing Police demand to Linwood. CFS and offences predominantly related to disorder, suspicious behaviour, dishonesty, violence and traffic related offences. One problematic hotspot was an intersection where local youth washed car windows. To establish the community's perspective, a Linwood Neighbourhood survey found 74\% residents felt unsafe; with concerns on youth related offences including traffic/boy racers, burglary/theft and window washers. Police found many of these youth resided in a well-known street for crime within Linwood - Jollie Street. Eighty four percent of Jollie Street respondents felt unsafe, and their concerns reflected the same youth offences as the overall Linwood respondents. Police and MOE began analysing the problem together, and in 2015, our You Matter to Us (YMTU) team (18 agencies) was established. Analysis revealed poverty, deprivation, absence of equity and a lack of community connectedness were leading youth into crime within Linwood, and specifically within Jollie Street. Our response involved identifying youth offenders, targeted high visibility patrols, a window washing by law, CPTED advice, and community engagement activities - including a hub day with BBQs, building a community garden, referring to social service agencies, providing positive experiences for children/families and establishing parent groups. Between 2014/15 and 2017/18, total victimisations decreased by $60 \%$ with major decreases in burglary, assault and theft. CFS also decreased by $41 \%$. Encouragingly, a 2018 follow up resident's survey found $85 \%$ of respondents now felt safe, compared to $16 \%$ in 2015. Additionally, anecdotal community reports have been incredibly positive. YMTU transitioned out in April 2018, but the response is still ongoing with another partner agency and the community taking the lead to ensure sustainability. (Word count $=394$ ) # Project Description ## Scan Christchurch is Aotearoa New Zealand's ${ }^{1}$ second largest city and is situated on the East Coast of the South Island (Appendix A). Christchurch City's metro area has an estimated resident population of $396,882^{2}$. Within Christchurch city, in its eastern suburbs, is Linwood. As at June 2015 Linwood had an estimated population of $25,100{ }^{3}$ Linwood has suffered from high social deprivation for decades (Appendix B). ## Linwood's traumatic events In the past nine years Christchurch, and Linwood in particular, has experienced significant earthquakes and in March 2019, a terrorist attack. Linwood was one of the hardest hit suburbs by earthquakes in 2010 and 2011 which caused fatalities and significant damage. Extensive damage to homes, buildings and infrastructure escalated the social deprivation associated with long term systemic poverty and caused mental distress for many residents. Each subsequent traumatic event increased the possibility of re-traumatisation from earlier events, potentially impacting further upon resident's physical and mental wellbeing ${ }^{45}$. In 2014, as a result of the earlier earthquakes and the potential impact on children, the Ministry of Education (MOE) conducted a scan (through a survey) of the Linwood Early Childhood Education (ECE) services to ask about current challenges. All services identified child poverty, long term social [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{1}$ Aotearoa New Zealand is in the Southern Hemisphere (Appendix B). It is similar in size to California in the United States with a land mass of 268,021 kilometres ( 103,283 miles). As at March 2019, Aotearoa's population was estimated at 4.95 million people. ${ }^{2}$ Christchurch City Council (2018). Current Population. Retrieved (2019) from: https://www.ccc.govt.nz/culture-and-community/christchurch/statistics-and-facts/facts-stats-and-figures/population-and-demographics/population/current-pop/ ${ }^{3}$ Christchurch City Council. Linwood Ward. Population Data. Retrieved (2019) from: https://www.ccc.govt.nz/culture-and-community/christchurch/statistics-and-facts/community-profiles/linwood-central-heathcote/linwood-ward ${ }^{4}$ The Trauma That Arises from Natural Disasters: Natural disasters often result in mass cases of PTSD for survivors. Retrieved April 152019 from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/somatic-psychology/201004/the-trauma-arises-natural-disasters ${ }^{5}$ [Retraumatization--a conceptional approach]. Retrieved April 152019 from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20301050 deprivation, increased developmental and behaviour challenges in young children, a lack of coordinated health and social services, and a disconnected community. Subsequently, the MOE began connecting with health and social services who confirmed they were also seeing the problems ECE services identified. # Linwood's crime problems In addition to the impact of these problems on Linwood's children, Linwood had been well known for its systemic crime problems for decades. Between the 2012/13 to 2013/14 financial years, calls for service (CFS) in Linwood increased by $33 \%$ and recorded offences increased by $15 \%$ - increasing Police's attention on the area. Examining recorded offences and CFS together, problems were predominantly related to: - Disorder (including antisocial behaviour); - Suspicious behaviour; - Dishonesty related offences (thefts and theft ex-shops); - Violence (primarily minor assaults, intimidation/threats, but also included some serious assaults, grievous bodily harm and aggravated robbery); - Traffic related offences. Examining CFS further revealed a particular hotspot for these problems was a well-known intersection that bordered a shopping centre and smaller retail stores/gas station ${ }^{6}$. Reports to Police indicated that local youth with gang affiliations were using this intersection to wash car windows. Many people felt intimidated by the way youth carried out this window washing business. Youth were making upwards of $\$ 200$ a day and using the corners to sell drugs. The hot times were between 2pm - 6pm with hot days spread fairly evenly across the week, although Saturday was the busiest (Appendix C: Figures 1-3). [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{6}$ The intersection bordered Aldwin's Road, Linwood Avenue intersection and Eastgate Mall (Appendix A, Map) # Community concerns To gain the community's perspectives, including their safety concerns, in February/March 2015, Police undertook a Neighbourhood Engagement Survey ${ }^{7}$ (NEST) of Linwood residents and commercial businesses (Appendix D: Figure 4 \& 5). Overall, 74\% (341) of residential and 85\% (29) of commercial respondents were concerned for their safety. Respondent's biggest concern were youth. While this category on its own does not stipulate what exactly the respondent's problem was with youth, the next three biggest concerns reported were traffic/boy racers, burglary/theft and window washers - which were typically found to be undertaken by youth when corroborated with the CFS information (Appendix D : Figure 6 \& 7). These NEST survey results overlapped with what was identified earlier in CFS and recorded crime, and clearly showed the issues were impacting not just on Police demand, but also the community. ## Jollie Street Whilst responding to other CFS in Jollie Street - a well-known street within Linwood, officers identified that many of these youth residing in the street were involved in the earlier identified Linwood intersection problems. Police focused in on Jollie Street. Examining the 2015 NEST surveys results from Jollie Street alone, showed $84 \%$ of Jollie Street respondents did not feel safe. Their concerns closely reflected the overall Linwood survey results with youth, traffic/boy racers and burglary/theft being the greatest concerns. Youth offenders were clearly a concern for local residents. Jollie Street has a social deprivation ${ }^{8}$ rating of 9 / 10 (10 being the highest deprivation level) and a large concentration of social housing (Appendix E). In September 2015 it received media attention for its high crime and disorder problems (Appendix F). [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{7}$ NZ Police Linwood \& Phillipstown Neighbourhood Engagement Survey 2015 (released 6.5.15) ${ }^{8}$ Socioeconomic Deprivation Indexes: NZ Dep\% NZiDep, Department of Public Health. Retrieved April 142019 from: https://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/departments/publichealth/research/hirp/otago020194.html The Canterbury Police Metro Commander met the MOE Education Manager for Linwood at a cross government forum early 2015. Respective demands/problems in Linwood were discussed and a meeting arranged to discuss collaboration and problem solving to co-develop a response. In October 2015 a joint MOE and Police survey found 22 children aged 3 - 5 years in and around Jollie Street were not enrolled in ECE. These results, and each agencies earlier findings, confirmed that Jollie Street warranted further attention. To determine whether we could tackle this problem using SARA we used Eck \& Clarke's (2003) CHEERS criteria ${ }^{9}$ : Community: Disorder, dishonesty related offences, traffic/boy racers, intimidation were affecting the whole Jollie Street community, including residents and business owners in the wider Linwood area. The area has a high deprivation rating and therefore limited resources to protect themselves against these types of harm, making them more vulnerable to victimisation. Harm: Harm caused from incidents included psychological feelings of intimidation, physical damage and loss of property and physical harm to person. The NEST survey indicated 84\% of Jollie Street residents felt unsafe. Expectation: The community expects police to be the first responders when dealing with crime and disorder. Events: $\quad$ There was an increase in CFS (33\%) including dishonesty offences, disorder and intimidation/violence of shop owners and local residents between financial years 2012/13- 2013/14. The increase required a deeper analysis. A small group of youth [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{9}$ Clarke, R and Eck, J. (2003). Become a Problem Solving Crime Analyst: In 55 Small Steps. Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science. offenders living/congregating in Jollie Street appeared to be responsible for these offences and were preying on vulnerable victims. When confronted they would resort to violence and assault their victims. Recurring: Although CFS for disorder, thefts and intimidation/violence increased between 2012/13 and 2013/14, these problems appear to be chronic in nature, and have been a recognised issue in Jollie Street and surrounds for decades. Similarity: Offending was predominantly youth related and contained within a small geographical area. Youth were known to Police and typically used Jollie Street as either their residence or congregating point. Police were repeatedly called back to deal with the same cohort of youth offenders. This confirmed that the problem of youth in Linwood (specifically Jollie Street) committing thefts, burglary, disorderly behaviour and intimidation could be mitigated using a SARA approach. # Analysis Due to the nature and significant increase in the problem, Police began responding to the problem before the analysis was complete, to stop the escalation of harm. They provided prevention advice to local businesses experiencing intimidation and thefts, increased patrols into the area and targeted and apprehended offenders (see Response section for more detail). It was clear however that the Police response was not addressing the underlying problem, and was not sustainable. Police recognised that a prevention response in partnership with education, health and social service partners was needed to impact on harm and victimisations in this community, and further analysis was needed. # Information sharing Police and MOE built a partnership early 2015 and shared information on the problem. As a result, our YMTU team of 18 partner health, social service and education agencies/ organisations (Appendix G: Table 1) was established in July 2015 to respond to the previous independent MOE and Police scans. Our intention was to first determine what was driving the harm, then collectively take steps to reduce this harm. ## Crime Triangle As a first step, we used the crime triangle (Appendix H: Figure 8), to examine location, offenders and targets/victims in more depth from Police data. Jollie Street has approximately 73 houses. A disproportionately large number of residents were youth offenders (14), known for combinations of drug related, burglary, violence, robbery offences (Appendix I: Table 2), aligning with the earlier CFS/recorded crime information. To quantify the risk locations, CFS of repeat disorder, family harm and burglaries in Jollie Street and surrounds were analysed. A Jollie Street hot spot map (Appendix J) showed 12 hotspots in 2014/15, compared with four in 2013/14. One such hotspot was a local youth hang out: ## Example: Youth hang out Youth offenders would congregate to a local house to consume alcohol/drugs and be truant from school. There was a CFS about a bike stolen by a local youth. An occupant opened the door, to a cold house, holding a 2 year old underdressed with visible signs of neglect. The stench of urine was overwhelming. As the officer looked over the occupant's shoulder, he could see the place was unkempt with rubbish littered through-out. There were two children under five years at the address and reported episodes of family harm. It was clear that deprivation and poverty were issues. At this point in time, we defined the problem as: # Youth congregating/ living in Jollie Street are causing disorder, intimidation, thefts and burglaries in Linwood predominately between 2 pm - 6 pm across all days of the week. We drilled down further to analyse themes impacting on offenders and victims within this vulnerable community, with a special focus on youth, including: - Impacts of poverty and stress on brain development and self-regulation/control for children in the early years ${ }^{1011}$ to determine if poverty/stress could affect health and increase the possibility of a later criminal conviction ${ }^{12}$; - Impact of adverse childhood experiences on children's long term health, social and learning outcomes. ${ }^{13}$ This thematic analysis found the impacts of poverty and stress could lead to a criminal conviction and higher ACE scores could lead to a risk of increased suicide, health harming behaviours and poor educational and employment outcomes. Our YMTU team recognised the need to connect with the community to determine their perspectives on these problems. In August 2016 four YMTU cross agency representatives went into Jollie Street with the Mobile Police Base and four Neighbourhood Police (NPT) team. Police knocked on doors and approached residents, inviting them to join the team at a BBQ and in the mobile hub. The community had a mixed response; some residents demanded to know why the team were there, and some were suspicious not trusting police, given previous interactions. Our YMTU team held 20 hub days (with the BBQ) to engage with residents from September 2016 April 2018. Hungry children and children who don't have opportunities (i.e. extra-curricular activities [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{10}$ Poverty, Stress, and Brain Development: New Directions for Prevention and Intervention retrieved (April) 2019 from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5765853/ ${ }^{11}$ Centre on the Developing Child Harvard University. Toxic stress. Retrieved (April) 2019 from: https://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/key-concepts/toxic-stress/ ${ }^{12}$ Moffitt.T, et al. A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Retrieved (May) 2019 from: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/108/7/2693.full.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2UEElh6j0_gCAio684CM4RtQISfdvP84Jfymc9OTbyFAbH6HCdt7XT8A ${ }^{13}$ Scottish Public Health Network (ScotPHN) 'Polishing the Diamonds' Addressing Adverse Childhood Experiences in Scotland. Retrieved (April) 2019 from: https://www.scotphn.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016_05_26-ACE-Report-Final2.pdf that many children take for granted such as sports or trips away) would line up repeatedly at the BBQ. Residents attending the BBQs and hub were asked what their challenges and aspirations were. The MOE and a social service partner initiated a weekly parent meeting (post initial engagement) to further develop an understanding of needs and challenges. Parents attending indicated an absence of community connectedness, barriers to education and a lack of equitable experiences for children, with some residents feeling shame regarding poverty. It wasn't difficult to see the pathway to youth crime if children don't have their basic needs met, are in unsafe environments, don't have activities, equipment, role models and equity of experience. Using information from our crime data analysis, resident surveys, interagency analysis and conversations with residents we hypothesised: Poverty, deprivation, absence of equity, and community connectedness were leading youth into a life of crime within the Linwood area, and specifically within Jollie Street. Our YMTU team could see potential to: - Prevent harm and victimisation - Increase trust and confidence (Appendix K) - Support child wellbeing and reduce child poverty - Increase educational engagement - Support long term sustainable outcomes to reduce youth crime # Response The response had two phases involving specific Police activities and our cross-agency response. As mentioned earlier, the initial Police response was undertaken to stop harm escalating whilst the analysis was still under way (Appendix L: You Matter to Us Timeline). # Phase 1: Police only activities: Police initiated the following activities in late 2014 to stop the problem escalating. The frequency of some of these activities decreased as demand decreased over time: - Identifying 14 active youth offenders, and alongside Youth Aid Teams, carried out bail checks on offenders, prepared quality notings and prosecution files; - High visibility foot/mobile patrols in peak times through Jollie Street and the problem intersection; - Work with the local city council to create and enforce a window washing bylaw ${ }^{14}{ }^{15}$; - Providing Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) advice to businesses in the local mall and nearby shop owners to reduce risk of theft (e.g. keeping windows clear of advertising to increase visibility, target hardening, alarms). ## Phase 2: Joint YMTU response: August 2016 - April 2018 After the joint analysis and hypothesis development, our YMTU multi agency team implemented a collaborative response to address symptoms and underlying causes through taking services into the community. Linking back to our hypothesis, the overall aim of our joint YMTU response was to: Work with the community to reduce poverty, deprivation and inequities by referring vulnerable individuals to appropriate partner agencies. By providing this support to the community we intended to stop young people's pathway into crime and enable this community to build connectedness through monthly engagement, which long term, would begin to reduce intergenerational deprivation and harm. Our YMTU team worked together to respond to the community's challenges and aspirations. To achieve our aim we needed to increase engagement in health, social services and education with the [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{14}$ Retrieved (May) 2019 from: https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/84155314/bylaw-instantly-stops-windscreen-washers-inchristchurch ${ }^{15}$ Retrieved (May) 2019 from: https://ccc.govt.nz/news-and-events/newsline/show/581 specific objectives of addressing poverty and inequity. However to do this, we needed to build the community's trust and confidence in our multi agency team. We took an Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) approach with the community. This involves examining a community's available resources, skills, and experiences, using these assets and resources as a basis to address community problems ${ }^{16}$. Although there has been little formal evaluation of the effectiveness of type of approach, a qualitative study of practitioners found when addressing health issues, this approach can be socially sustainable. The mechanisms through which ABCD brings change is believed to center on establishing relationships and trust, engagement/connectivity and identifying collective goals. It involved the following activities: - A Jollie Street "Hub day". This was developed because during the analysis phase, parents asked on our first day in Jollie Street to come back and connect with their children. In partnership with Housing New Zealand (HNZ), Police and MOE leased an empty section for 20 months. Our YMTU team went in once a month, over 20 months, to engage with the community; - Police deployed the BBQ each hub day, engaging with parents and children through joining in activities, games and conversation. The intention was to increase trust and confidence, and focus on how police make people feel safe; - Police referred individuals to the appropriate YMTU agency partners to respond to problems as they arose (for example the two children in the youth hang out example who were supported to attend ECE, and be supported by Plunket); - Built a community garden to alleviate food poverty; [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{16}$ Mathie, A., \& and Cunningham, G. (Nov., 2003). From Clients to Citizens: Asset-Based Community Development as a Strategy for Community-Driven Development. Development in Practice, 13 (5), pp. 474-486. Harrison, R., Blickem, C., Lamb, J., Kirk, S \& Vassilev, I. (2019). Asset - Based Community Development: Narratives, Practice and Conditions of possibility - A qualitative study with community practitioners. SAGE Open Journal, 9(1), 1-11. DOI: 10.1177/2158244018823081 - Supported equitable access to experiences for children e.g. organised community excursions (see Appendix M for examples of equity in action); - Supporting community connectedness through organising parent groups. # Assessment From November 2014 to March 2018 we achieved some remarkable results: - Total victimisations ${ }^{17}$ in Jollie Street decreased 60\% between 2014/15 and 2017/18 (Appendix N Figure 9 \& 10). Burglary decreased $68 \%$, assault decreased $90 \%$, and theft decreased $33 \%$. - Possible displacement of crime to surrounding areas was also assessed. Jollie Street was compared to a buffer zone of the wider Linwood suburb and a control area of Riselaw Street in an adjacent community. ${ }^{18}$ Riselaw Street was chosen as the control area because of similarities - both communities have a high level of social housing, close proximity to shopping malls, high schools and deprivation ratings of 8/9. They were also home to gang residents and had similar CFS demand. Using the weighted displacement quotient calculations, the results indicated there was no displacement. The number of victimisations in Riselaw Street stayed stable whereas Jollie Street declined in the same timeframe of 2014/15 to 2017/18 (Appendix O). - CFS decreased in Jollie Street decreased 41\% between 2014/15 (290 calls) and 2017/18 (170 calls). The biggest decreases were in Burglary (91\%), suspicious activity (61\%) and family harm (51\%). We expected an initial increase of CFS in family harm as trust and confidence improved (Appendix P. Figures 11 \& 12), during the response. Residents began calling [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{17}$ In 2014, Police replaced its historic official crime statistic with a new statistic. This meant that we could not reliably compare victimisation data pre 2014 to determine long term victimisation trends. ${ }^{18}$ Jollie Street was compared to a number of buffer zones including two in the greater Linwood Area and of Christchurch metro, all had positive results. Police before situations escalated as they felt safe and trusted in the Police response. This is corroborated with assault victimisations going down. - The 22 children originally identified as not enrolled in early childhood education are now engaged in education. - There have been mixed outcomes with known youth offenders. Youth residing in Jollie Street have not re-offended, however youth that have moved away from the area have reoffended but at a reduced frequency of offending. We listened to community hopes and aspirations and worked together to build a safer more connected neighbourhood, achieving the following intended outcomes: - Impact upon long term intergenerational deprivation. Three parents have engaged in tertiary education and training which will increase their skills and abilities to obtain paid employment. - In July 2018, another Jollie Street NEST survey was undertaken. In comparison to the earlier 2015 survey where only $16 \%$ of respondents felt safe, in $201885 \%$ of Jollie Street respondents felt safe ${ }^{19}$. - Anecdotal reports from the community/YMTU stakeholders (Appendix Q) identified: - The community developed networks to support family harm and support social connections; - The Hub made it easier for families to ask for help; - Increased trust and confidence in YMTU agencies. [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{19}$ Those who identified as feeling safe had lived in the street for an average of six years. # Costs/benefits Costs of CFS (just to Jollie Street) were estimated at approximately \$33,482 per annum in 2014/15. The initial Police only response started late 2014 and was followed by the collaborative YMTU response in August 2016. By the time of the assessment, the numbers of CFS had decreased by 40\%, equating to $\$ 16,823$ per annum. This is a saving of $\$ 16,659$ in Police time alone (when compared to the costs of the 2014/15 year) and has also resulted in an estimated saving of 150 frontline staff hours for deployment in other areas (Appendix R. Table 3 \& 4). But what if we had not intervened at all? A New Zealand Treasury Insights report ${ }^{20}$ suggested that children who have been identified as having four key risks factors (including being abused/neglected, having welfare support, a parent in prison/community sentence and a mother with no formal education) are at risk of ending up on welfare or in correctional facilities as adults. For these currently at risk children, it is estimated that by the age 35 years, the costs of that individual to society will be just over $\$ 270,800^{21}$ compared to a child with no indicators at $\$ 33,100$. While it will take some time to determine what happens to the current children in Jollie street, even the initial steps of enrolling those 22 children in ECE should go some way to reducing their likelihood of later offending. ## Lessons Learned In hindsight, we would have undertaken the NEST survey differently. Although we undertook a follow up survey in Jollie Street, to determine a more holistic view of how perceptions had changed, we would have liked to survey the same Linwood areas again as we did in Scanning, to see if the change in Jollie Street was reflected across the wider Linwood area. Another change we would make is to the survey itself - respondents wrote their concerns free text, and as described, respondent's major concern was "youth". Youth themselves are not a crime/harm problem. Although the [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{20}$ Characteristics of Children at Risk. The NZ Treasury. Retrieved May 2019 from https://treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2016-02/ap16-01-infographic.pdf ${ }^{21}$ Characteristics of Children at Risk, The NZ Treasury. Retrieved April 2019 from: https://treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2016-02/ap16-01-infographic.pdf following three major concerns (i.e. boy racers/ window washers) helped us to draw an inference that these were all youth related events youth, either asking respondents to elaborate, or providing a range of crime/harm types for respondents to tick could have provided more accurate insight. # Future Focus - (2019 onwards) We hypothesised that poverty, deprivation, and an absence of community connectedness and equity were driving youth into a life of crime in Linwood and specifically in Jollie Street. We aimed to work with the community to reduce youth crime through addressing inequities, reducing poverty and deprivation to begin reducing intergenerational harm. CFS and victimisation from youth offending have reduced significantly. This was achieved through targeting the drivers of demand, community engagement and referring to appropriate agencies to help reduce poverty and deprivation. In March 2018 our YMTU team transitioned out of Jollie Street and the project shifted into its next phase. The Methodist Mission are working alongside community leads to build upon outcomes, and MOE and Police have shifted into supporting roles, i.e. continuing to attend community meetings, brokering in organisations (i.e. STEAM ${ }^{22}$ partners) to co-design activities to support equity of experience for children. Regular coffee groups are held for Mums, further supporting networks. Four parent workshops have been held to support knowledge on brain development and parenting. Increasing protective factors through connecting parents and children to education, health and social services, building trust and confidence with community and addressing inequity is likely to impact on long term intergenerational harm. [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{22}$ S.T.E.A.M. - Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Maths With this in mind, MOE and Police have developed and submitted a business case to government to implement this initiative out across east Christchurch with long term goals of a national roll out. Working together to achieve collective impact with our partners was critical to our success. (Word count $=3953$ ) # Agency and Officer Information ## Key Project Team Members Jan Dobson, Collective Impact Project Lead, New Zealand Ministry of Education Senior Sergeant Paul Reeves, New Zealand Police Senior Sergeant Mike Kingston, New Zealand Police ## Project Contact Person Name: Mike Kingston Position/Rank: Senior Sergeant Address: Christchurch Central Police Station, 40 Lichfield Street City/ State/ Postal code: Christchurch 8011 Phone: $\quad+64211911359$ Email: Michael.Kingston@police.govt.nz # Appendices ## Appendix A. Maps Showing New Zealand (Left), Location of New Zealand (upper Right) and Jollie Street, Christchurch (lower Right) ${ }^{23}$, Linwood NEST survey Area (bottom) ![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-2.jpeg) [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{23}$ Maps Courtesy of MapsOpenSourceOnline.com and New Zealand Ministry of Education # Appendix B. Map showing Linwood's Deprivation Index ratings. ${ }^{24}$ ![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-3.jpeg) [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{24}$ Linwood Ward; Christchurch City Council. Retrieved (May) 2019 from: https://www.google.com/search?rls=1C1GCEA_enNZ812NZ812\&q=deprivation+index+score+(2013)+1077+for+Linwood+NZ\&tbm=is ch\&source=univ\&safe=active\&sa=X\&ved=2ahUKEwj8yq32rL3iAhWz7HMBHX8bDrQQsAR6BAgJEAE\&biw=1163\&bih=676\#imgrc=mJP5 wxEdaEgZBM: # Appendix C. Linwood Calls for Service 2013/14 (Figures 1 and 2) and Comparison of CFS and recorded offences 2012/13-2013/14 (Figure 3) ![img-4.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-4.jpeg) **Figure 1: Calls for Service Hot Days in Linwood 2013/14** **Hot Days** | Month | Calls for Service | | --- | --- | | Monday | 7 | | Tuesday | 4 | | Wednesday | 1 | | Thursday | 2 | | Friday | 3 | | Saturday | 4 | | Sunday | 5 | | Thursday | 6 | **Figure 2: "Hot" times of days for calls for service in Linwood 2013/14** ![img-5.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-5.jpeg) **Figure 3: Comparison of CFS & Recorded Offences 2012/13 - 2013/14** ![img-6.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-6.jpeg) # Appendix D. Figures 4, 5, 6, 7: Linwood Neighbourhood Engagement Survey findings (2015) ![img-7.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-7.jpeg) Figure 4: Residential safety concerns (\%) ![img-8.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-8.jpeg) Figure 5: Commercial safety concerns (\%) ![img-9.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-9.jpeg) Figure 6: Linwood respondents' causes of concerns from Neighbourhood Engagement Survey (2015) Note: Respondents could choose multiple concerns. ![img-10.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-10.jpeg) Figure 7: Jollie Street respondents' causes of concern from Neighbourhood Engagement Survey (2015) # Appendix E. Map showing social housing in Linwood (2015) in Jollie Street and surrounding streets. ![img-11.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-11.jpeg) # Appendix F. News Article 1: Life in Jollie Street ${ }^{25}$. ## Life in Jollie St: 'You wouldn't last a week' 08:43, Sep 192015 DEAN KOZANIC/STUFF.CO.NZ Back in 2015, thefts, threats and gangs made Christchurch's Jollie St an undesirable place to live, according to its residents. Out-of-control youth, menacing dogs, Mongrel Mob, Black Power. Myles Hume finds there is never a dull moment for residents living in Christchurch's troubled Jollie St. It's 10am on a Tuesday and it isn't long before the peace is broken in Jollie St. "Put the f***** dog away, I'm sick of it, I'm scared of it. It's tried to attack me twice. The police are just there put your dog away before I ring the pound." The shouting woman holds her school-aged daughter's hand as the mongrel dog confronts them on the footpath. It has been locked outside by its apparent owners who deny any link. A man on a bike tries to shoo the dog away, before two police officers emerge from a house across the street and call animal control. The woman's expletives ring out through the neighbourhood. For many living here, such encounters form part of an ordinary day. Residents in Jollie St, on the eastern border of Linwood, chuckle at the irony in the name. Each has a story to tell. Burglaries, threats, BB gun pellet holes in windows, fear of leaving the house, teenagers leaping into their property to evade police. There have been 50 complaints to the Christchurch City Council about dogs in Jollie St in the last year. Almost $\$ 6000$ in surveillance cameras and security alarms protect one wary homeowner. There have been 50 dog-related complaints to the Christchurch City Council from Jollie St in the past year, along with 12 excessive noise complaints. Housing New Zealand (HNZ) has had five complaints of threats and harassment in recent months. Misbehaving tenants have been evicted, it says. Above all, it is youth crime that has earned Jollie St a reputation as one of the most troubled streets in Christchurch. Jollie St sits on the eastern border of Linwood, just a few hundred metres from Eastgate Mall. The problem has caught the attention of the same police team that stemmed crime in Phillipstown, including in the once notorious Olliviers Rd. It has been tasked with improving the neighbourhood. [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{25}$ Life in Jollie Street: 'You wouldn't last a week'. https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/72095461/null A house down Jollie St could set you back between \$240,000 to \$280,000, according to council valuations. A mix of state housing and homeowners, the street's 74 homes are not all bad. Groomed properties with neat hedges and daffodil gardens are nestled among homes with overgrown lawns and unpulled weeds. A supermarket worker gathers trollies discarded on grass berms. Mongrel Mob and Black Power. Tenants and hard-working homeowners. Residents insist only a handful of households are sources of conflict, crime and chaos. It is the recent headline-grabbing incidents that crop up in conversation. Stories like the youth from the street who took a front-end loader on a joyride and was chased by police for 90 -minutes. He allegedly caused thousands of dollars of damage, including in Jollie St, before armed police shot a tear gas canister through the cab window to stop him. Or that of Tamatea Lorenzo Briggs, who allegedly stole a car and robbed the Woolston Super Liquor with two co-offenders, aged 15 and 16. Several bottles of alcohol were smashed over the store worker's head in the alleged incident. Jollie St was never this bad, residents say, until people displaced from the quakes moved into their street three years ago. "My anxiety is up here, I'm stressed ... I've had a gutsful, it's the intimidation, things getting stolen, I woke up the Sunday before to the armed offenders on my fence fully armed," a resident said. The woman closed the curtains, fearful of retribution if anyone discovered she was speaking out. She has lived in the house for 10 years but has asked HNZ to move. Her wishes were supported by a doctor's letter: "[She] feels intimidated and harassed by her neighbour at [address withheld] and this is directly affecting her health. Her anxiety is getting worse and she feels unsafe in her home." Nearby, a mother who would only go by the name Tina, stands outside an unkempt state house with friend Jackie Galvin and her 2-year-old son. Galvin used to live in Jollie St, but the crime and disorder became too much. "You don't want to sit here and try to raise your children amongst this, it's not good, straight up. You live down here for a week and you wouldn't even last a week. You leave your bike out and it's gone, even a kid's bike, it's gone, and even their shoes," Galvin said. Stuff met with a group of residents who form the core of a new neighbourhood support group in Jollie St. They count six houses as the main cause of trouble. They blame bad parenting and poor HNZ tenancy selection. Some members own their own homes, take pride in their property and love their neighbours. They worry bad residents will drag down the re-sale value of their homes. "I'm 12 minutes to work, I'm five minutes to the beach, why do I need to move due to these people who they [HNZ] have brought into the street?" a homeowner asked. Walton Briggs is worried about what the future holds for his 17-year-old son, Tamatea, who has relatives in Black Power. Standing at the front gate of his red brick, graffitied state house, Walton Briggs blamed Linwood's problems on youth having nothing to do. He is waiting on paperwork to visit his son, who is in prison on remand. "He's a bloody good-hearted soul, he just does some stupid bloody things," he said. "As he's gotten older, we've got no control, I mean what are you going to do, you're not allowed to bash them anymore. I think as some of these police officers say, sometimes these kids need a good boot up the bloody arse, but if you do that, you end up in court for doing it. "I am worried about his future, but I can't do anything about it, it's up to him now, he's got to either pull his tit in or handle the jandal. "Some of these arseholes need to look in their own backyards before they start talking about other people, I mean there are a lot of these kids around here that are in jail." Several agencies, including police, Housing New Zealand and Child Youth and Family have worked together to deal with Jollie St's troubles. The neighbourhood support group and police believe it is time to stop the street's snowballing problems. "These kids have got no parental control. You just know with the teenagers we are dealing with now, we will finally get them off to big boys' jail and then we will be dealing with their younger brothers and sisters," a neighbourhood support member said. Sergeant Todd Webley has had huge success in reducing crime in Phillipstown during the past three years with his neighbourhood policing team. It is a blueprint they are beginning to apply to Jollie St and the surrounding neighbourhood. "Rather than go in there and flood an area with cops, we will be doing a bit of that, but we are also doing the long term initiatives, getting the community to a level where it's sustainable and looks after itself." Webley said the problems in Jollie St centred around disengaged youth who were either truant from school and courses, jobless or did not receive a benefit. They have been known to raise money through crime and window washing at traffic lights, and brought their mates into the street where they caused trouble. Many parents lacked control over the teens because they were intimidated by them. Otherwise well-behaved teenagers joined the group for fear of being targeted. Webley said police would start by establishing a neighbourhood support panel and try to break down inter-generational distrust in police in some households. "A staff member and I went to deal with a burglary, caught the offender, who was a 15-year-old boy from Jollie St, and he was still holding his window washing brush," Webley said. "The conversation went along the lines of: 'Go to school?' 'No.' 'What course are you doing?' 'I don't do any courses.' 'Employed?' 'No.' 'What's your income?' 'No.' He was one I started jacking up to get into a trade ... we started that process but he didn't engage. That's something we need to keep working on. We need to get them engaged in something - and something meaningful." # JOLLIE ST - BY THE NUMBERS * 74 homes in Jollie St. * 50 dog-related council complaints for barking dogs, welfare, wandering dogs, dog attack on domestic animal and registration matters. * 12 excessive noise complaints to council for music and stereo noise. One complaint the noise was deemed excessive and a noise direction was served. * 5 complaints to Housing New Zealand in three months for harassment and threats. * 6 houses blamed by residents for trouble on the street. # Appendix G. Table 1: YMTU Partner Agencies | Government Agencies | - New Zealand Police - Ministry of Education - Housing New Zealand - Ministry of Social Development - New Zealand Fire | | :--: | :--: | | Education | - Kidsfirst Kindergartens Bromley - New Beginnings Preschool - Linwood College - Ministry of Education | | Social, Health \& Family Harm Services | - Christchurch Methodist Mission - Plunket - Te Pua Waitanga ki Otautahi Trust - STAND - Pegasus Health - Canterbury District Health - Dental Service - Aviva - The Loft | | Other | - Christchurch City Libraries - University of Canterbury - Linfield Sports Club (Linwood Rugby Club) | # Appendix H: Figure 8: Crime Triangle Image reference: Encyclopaedia of Criminological Theory, Eck, John E.: Places and the Crime Triangle, SAGE Publications, Inc., 2010. Adapted from Cullen, F., Eck, J., \& Lowenkamp, C. (2002). Environmental corrections: A new paradigm for effective supervision. Federal Probation, 66(2), 28-37. ![img-12.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-12.jpeg) Guardian # Appendix I. Table 2: Offender Demographic Table 2: Number and types of active offenders in Jollie Street as at September 2015 (This includes both adult and youth offenders - some offenders overlap). | Types of offenders: | Number | | :-- | :-- | | Youth offenders | 14 | | Drug | 8 | | Shoplifting | 6 | | Family Harm etc. | 4 | | Burglary | 8 | | Violence / Robbery | 7 | | Vehicle Crime | 5 | Appendix J. Hot Spot Map of Calls for Service 2013/14 to 2017/18 ![img-13.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-13.jpeg) | | | HEAT MAP LEGEND | | | :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- | | | SINGLE | | REPEAT | Appendix K "Our Business" New Zealand Police Strategic Document. ${ }^{26}$ ![img-14.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-14.jpeg) ${ }^{26}$ NZ Police. (2018). Our Business. Retrieved from: https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publication/our-business?nondesktop # Appendix L. You Matter to Us Timeline ![img-15.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-15.jpeg) # Appendix M. Examples of Equity in Action: Castle Hill Trip ${ }^{27}$ and Canterbury Rugby Practice. ## Castle Hill Trip Another example of equity of action was led by YMTU partner the Methodist Mission (MM). The MM organised an excursion for 30 children and parents from the street to go to Castle Hill in the winter 2017. This excursion enabled parents to connect with their children and each other. Most children hadn't been out of Christchurch previously and on the way up commented that, they didn't know cows and sheep lived outside, and they didn't know there was land with nothing on it. ## Canterbury Rugby Practice We supported two young boys who were both passionate about rugby and had dreams of being a provincial rugby player and an All Black. The local rugby club manager (previously a Māori All Black and professional rugby player) joined us each month at the hub. Along with an MOE Education Manager (who had represented Canterbury in rugby) they became amazing role models for the children in the street. The boys were enabled to go to a Canterbury rugby practice and had their photos taken with the All Black captain. [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{27}$ Castle Hill Basin. Retrieved (2019) from: http://www.castlehill.net.nz/castlehill/castlehill.php Appendix N. Figure 9: Total Victimisations in Jollie Street Boundary 2014/15 - 2017/18. Figure 10: Breakdown of Total Victimisations by crime type in Jollie Street Boundary 2014/15 to 2017/18 Figure 9: Total Victimisations 2014/15-2017/8 Figure 10: Total Victimisations by crime type 2014/15-2017/18 ![img-16.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-16.jpeg) Key: Initial Police Response begins YMTU collaborative response begins # Appendix 0: Weighted Quotient Displacement Data ![img-17.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-17.jpeg) ## WQD Wider Linwood Buffer Zone ## Crime overview (a): During the operation... Reported crime in the target area decreased by 39.6 percent. Reported crime in the buffer area increased by 14.9 percent. Reported crime in the city increased by 55.9 percent. ## Geospatial trends (b) The buffer displacement measure was -4.247 The success measure was -0.374 This means that: Crime in the target area was down, and the target area outperformed the city. ## Displacement effects (c) The weighted displacement quotient was 11.345 This means that: The buffer area improved more than the target area. ## Statistical outputs (d) A Chi Square test was employed to see if the changes were significant. The Chi Square statistic was 15.816 with 2 degrees of freedom. The Chi Square significance value was less than 0.001 The Chi Square test shows the changes were statistically significant ( $p<0.05$ ) The Phi measures the association between the target and buffer areas The Phi value is 0.001 When the Phi is close to zero the target and buffer have little effect on each other. ## Summary (e) Crime in the combined buffer and target area increased by 12.7 percent. Crime in the target area was down, and the target area outperformed the city. Overall, there was a positive benefit to the operation. ## Source data (f) Before operation During operation Target area (A) 47 Buffer area (B) 1502 Control area (C) 93 1726 Appendix P. Figure 11: Total Calls for Service in Jollie Street Boundary 2014/15-2017/18. Figure 12: Break Down of Total Calls for Service by type in Jollie Street Boundary 2014/152017/18 Figure 11: Total CFS in Jollie Street boundary 2012/13 - 2017/18 ![img-18.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-18.jpeg) Figure 12: Break down of total CFS by type in Jollie Street boundary 2012/13 - 2017/18 ![img-19.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/19-29_new_zealand_ymtu/img-19.jpeg) # Key Initial Police Response begins $\qquad$ YMTU collaborative response $\qquad$ # Appendix Q. Anecdotal feedback on the response from parents in the community to YMTU team (2018) "I've seen a lot of confidence, mainly within the mothers and being able to reach out and ask for help." "It was a really relaxed environment and amazing to see all the agencies working together there for the community and there for us." "Most families now have the ability to and ask for help, whereas they wouldn't before the hub happened." "Through the agencies being there and not in the office behind the desk where you're not sure of the reception you're going to get." "Just asking for help is a hard thing to do but I think now, since we've had the hub a lot of people can ask for help and they're not ashamed to ask for help." Appendix R. Table 3: Costs/Benefit Analysis. Table 4: Cost of Total calls per service in Jollie Street Table 3: Cost Benefit Analysis Summary | CFS frontline staff hours | 150 returned to deploy elsewhere | | --- | --- | | CFS | $40 \%$ reduction | Table 4: Cost of Total calls per service in Jollie Street 2014/15-2017/18 | Cost Benefit Analysis | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | 2014/2015 | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | 2017/2018 | | 1D | 1. I-Car - 2 x constables per call | | | | | | | 2. $20 \%$ of all calls a sergeant attends | | $\$ 732.21$ | $\$ 436.21$ | $\$ 701.06$ | | | 3. $50 \%$ of all calls have 2 additional constables | | $\$ 2,850.71$ | $\$ 1,698.30$ | $\$ 2,729.40$ | | | 4. Serious Assault calls - 30\% take 5 hours per call | | $\$ 3,795.02$ | $\$ 2,260.86$ | $\$ 3,633.53$ | | | 4. Photography - 40\% of calls (Victim photos 1x staff member .5 hr per event) | | $\$ 392.62$ | $\$ 233.90$ | $\$ 375.92$ | | | 5. Vehicle Running Expenses | | $\$ 5,475.36$ | $\$ 2,882.67$ | $\$ 4,610.46$ | | | Total cost of calls for service | | $\$ 18,947.34$ | $\$ 10,908.53$ | $\$ 17,509.17$ | | | Cost per call for service | | $\$ 403.13$ | $\$ 389.59$ | $\$ 389.09$ | | 3530/1R | 1. I-Car - 2 x constables per call | | | | | | | 2. Vehicle Running Expenses | | $\$ 1,392.15$ | $\$ 1,276.14$ | $\$ 1,353.48$ | | | Total cost of calls for service | | $\$ 4,193.89$ | $\$ 3,397.43$ | $\$ 3,585.91$ | | | Cost per call for service | | $\$ 5,586.04$ | $\$ 4,673.57$ | $\$ 4,939.39$ | | | | | $\$ 155.17$ | $\$ 141.62$ | $\$ 141.13$ | | 1C | 1. I-Car - 2 x constables per call | | | | | | | 2. Vehicle Running Expenses | | $\$ 473.12$ | $\$ 436.72$ | $\$ 400.33$ | | | Total cost of calls for service | | $\$ 3,028.92$ | $\$ 2,470.86$ | $\$ 2,254.00$ | | | Cost per call for service | | $\$ 3,502.04$ | $\$ 2,907.58$ | $\$ 2,654.33$ | | | | | $\$ 134.69$ | $\$ 121.15$ | $\$ 120.65$ | | 4120 | 1. I-Car - 2 x constables per call | | | | | | | 2. SOCO - 60\% of calls 1x staff member 1hr per event) | | $\$ 784.38$ | $\$ 392.19$ | $\$ 507.54$ | | | 3. Vehicle Running Expenses | | $\$ 3,960.90$ | $\$ 1,750.19$ | $\$ 2,254.00$ | | | Total cost of calls for service | | $\$ 5,446.20$ | $\$ 2,492.84$ | $\$ 3,215.08$ | | | | | $\$ 160.18$ | $\$ 146.64$ | $\$ 146.14$ | | Total cost of calls for service (Jollie Street) per year | | | $\$ 33,481.62$ | $\$ 20,982.53$ | $\$ 28,317.97$ |