The District of Columbia Mayor’sFocused Improvement Area Initiative:

A Review of Past Practice

Jocelyn FontaineJoshua Markman

Dec 2010

The District of Columbia Crime Policy Institute (DCPI) was established at the Urban Institute in collabora-tion with the Brookings Institution, through the jointly administered Partnership for Greater WashingtonResearch with funding from the Justice Grants Administration in the Executive Office of the Mayor. DCPI isa nonpartisan, public policy research organization focused on crime and justice policy in Washington, DC.DCPI’s mission is to support improvements in the administration of justice policy through evidence-basedresearch. An assessment of the Mayor’s Focused Improvement Areas (FIA) Initiative is one of DCPI’s threeoriginal research projects in FY2010. For more information on DCPI, see http://www.dccrimepolicy.org

©2011. The Urban Institute. All rights reserved.

The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the District of Columbia CrimePolicy Institute, the Urban Institute, the Brookings Institution, their trustees, or their funders.

This report was funded by the Justice Grants Administration, Executive Office of the District of ColumbiaMayor under sub-grant: 2009-JAGR-1114.

We extend our gratitude to the current and previous staff members associated with the Focused ImprovementArea Initiative who graciously offered their time to speak with us.

Acronyms i

1 Introduction 11.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Program Model 32.1 Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2 Human and Social Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.3 Physical and Social Disorder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.4 Outreach Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 Implementation 73.1 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.2 Successes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4 Considerations for Next Steps 11

Appendix A: Map of FIA Areas 13

Acronyms

CFSA Child and Family Services Agency

CSOSA Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency

CSS Court Social Services

DC District of Columbia

DCHAPD DC Housing Authority Police Department

DCOA DC Office on Aging

DCPI District of Columbia Crime Policy Institute

DCPS DC Public Schools

DCRA Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Agency

DDOT Department of Transportation

DHS Department of Human Services

DMH Department of Mental Health

DOES Department of Employment Services

DOH Department of Health

DPR Department of Parks and Recreation

DPW Department of Public Works

DYRS Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services

EOM Executive Office of the Mayor

FEMS Fire and Emergency Medical Services

FIA Focused Improvement Areas

MPD The Metropolitan Police Department

MOCRS Mayor’s Office on Community Relations and Services

OCA Office of the City Administrator

OSSE Office of the State Superintendent for Education

USAO United States’ Attorney’s Office

i

1 Introduction

In March 2010, the Executive Office of the Mayor/Office of the City Administrator asked the District ofColumbia Crime Policy Institute (DCPI) to assess the Mayor’s Focused Improvement Area Initiative. TheFocused Improvement Area (FIA) Initiative, launched in November 2007, was designed to be a community-based initiative that aimed to reduce criminal activity and increase the quality of life in at-risk communitiesby combining community policing with human and social services delivery. In an effort to make recom-mendations on how to strengthen the FIA Initiative, DCPI conducted an assessment based on:

• Interviews with the Initiative’s stakeholders—past and present—on the Initiative’s mission and back-ground, design, and actual implementation;

• Reviews of programmatic materials and administrative records and field observations of the Initia-tive’s processes and procedures; and

• An exhaustive review of the theoretical and empirical literature on best and promising practicesin crime reduction, prevention, and suppression strategies and effective comprehensive communityinitiatives.

Based on the assessment, DCPI has produced three documents to help guide District stakeholders on aredesign of the FIA Initiative, including:

• An examination of past challenges and successes;

• A review of research literature relevant to collaborative crime reduction;1 and

• A strategic plan to guide future efforts.2

This report reviews the FIA Initiative’s past efforts, including implementation processes and procedures,based on conversations with more than a dozen key government stakeholders in agencies associated withthe Initiative, reviews of programmatic materials and administrative records, and field observations overthe past ten months. This report describes the Initiative and how it developed over time in order tohighlight potential opportunities for strengthening the current model. This report develops over foursections. First, the background for the Initiative is described, including a list of the areas where the Initiativewas implemented. The second section details the original program model, including each of the specificcomponents of the Initiative and the outreach efforts. Next, the overall implementation of the FIA Initiativeis summarized, including notable successes and challenges, and points to places where implementationdiffered from the original program design. A fourth and final section highlights some considerations fornext steps, which are taken up in greater detail in the strategic plan document.

Before turning to the background for the FIA Initiative, it is worth noting that this review of past practiceswas not intended as a detailed process or outcome evaluation. The Initiative changed considerably overtime, which means that the Initiative would have been a moving target for evaluation. In its current state, theInitiative does not represent the suite of services, level of effort, oversight or collaboration that existed whenit was initially implemented. Furthermore, the prerequisites necessary for a formal outcome evaluation,such as baseline measures, performance metrics, or possible comparison locations, were not established atthe outset. In sum, this report does not make any independent claims about the Initiative’s overall success(or failure) in reducing crime or violence, nor does it evaluate how the Initiatives’ outputs or performanceare related to crime reductions. Instead, this document intends to provide an overview of the perspectiveof the key FIA Initiative stakeholders, particularly the government stakeholders, to generate discussion

1Jannetta, J., M. Denver, C. G. Roman, N. P. Svajlenka, M. Ross, and B. Orr. 2010. The District of Columbia Mayor’s FocusedImprovement Area Initiative: Review of the Literature Relevant to Collaborative Crime Reduction. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

2Liberman, A., Fontaine, J., Ross, M., Roman, C.G., Roman, J. 2010. Strategic Plan for a Collaborative Neighborhood-Based CrimePrevention Initiative. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

1

about the future of the FIA Initiative. As well, we offer our impressions, as independent observers, of theInitiative’s design and implementation.

1.1. BACKGROUND

The overarching goal of the FIA Initiative was to implement a comprehensive, citywide partnership based inpart on promising practices developed from successful community-based initiatives in other large cities andlessons learned from the District’s previous community-based initiatives.3 The FIA Initiative began in 2007in response to a violent crime spike in the District that prompted the Executive Office of the Mayor (EOM)and the Office of the City Administrator (OCA) to brainstorm with the Metropolitan Police Department(MPD) about how to reduce violent crime, particularly homicides, in specific crime hot spots in the city. Thegoal of the FIA Initiative was to increase police presence and the provision of human and social services toindividuals and their families in specific areas at high risk of violence.

Round One FIA Areas:• Third District (3D) - PSA 302/304• Fifth District (5D) - PSA 501• Seventh District (7D) - PSA 706

Round Two FIA Areas:• First District/Fifth District

(1D/5D) - PSA 103/504• Third District (3D) - PSA 302• Fourth District (4D) - PSA 403/404• Seventh District (7D) - PSA 705

The seven areas targeted for the FIA Initiative were identi-fied in two separate rounds (see Appendix A for maps of theFIA areas). Beginning in November 2007, the first round ofFIA areas were initially chosen because they exhibited ele-vated levels of violence, as identified by an analysis by MPDof trends in violent crime and calls for service data. Begin-ning in May 2008, a second round of FIA areas were added,which included the addition of four other crime hot spots. Thesecond round areas were a mixture of neighborhoods with el-evated levels of violence and neighborhoods that experienceda handful of high-profile homicides. Due to the centrality ofcrime in prompting the Initiative, MPD was tasked with beingthe lead agency in the FIA Initiative with the support fromOCA.

Originally, three Capital City Fellows4 managed the Initiative with direction from MPD and oversight fromOCA and the former City Administrator Dan Tangherlini.5 The Capital City Fellows were placed withinMPD and their full-time responsibility was implementation and day-to-day management of the Initiative.The fellows acted as liaisons between the respective government agencies associated with the Initiative.While each fellow managed one FIA area in the first round (three areas in total), they each managed morethan one as more FIA areas were included in the second round.

3The initiatives included: “Operation CeaseFire” in Chicago, “Ceasefire” in Boston, Baltimore’s “Safe Zones Initiative”, and theformer District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams’ “Hot Spot Initiative” spearheaded by former Metropolitan Police DepartmentChief Charles Ramsey.

4The Capital City Fellows are recent graduates of master’s degrees programs in public administration, public policy, urbanplanning and related fields. Fellows serve a two-year fellowship appointment during which they complete four six-month rotationsin different city agencies. For more information, see: http://dchr.dc.gov/dcop/cwp/view,a,1222,q,530470.asp

5Dan Tangherlini resigned from the Executive Office of the Mayor in 2009 to take a position with the U.S. Department of theTreasury.

2

2 Program Model

To reduce violent crime and increase the quality of life, the Initiative’s focus was designed to be three-pronged: increasing public safety in the FIA areas (or FIAs); increasing human and social services to thehouseholds and families residing in the FIAs; and reducing signs of physical and social disorder (e.g.,broken windows, debris, graffiti) in the FIAs. The key conceptual link between the public safety componentand the human and social services component of the Initiative was to address the root causes of crime (i.e.,crime prevention). The public safety component was designed to suppress violent crime in the FIAs byincreasing police presence, identifying known offenders, and discussing and responding to critical incidents.Meanwhile, the human and social services component was designed to reach out to residents to identify theirservice needs and coordinate service delivery through various city agencies to prevent additional crimes.The physical and social disorder component—similar to the human and social services component—wasdesigned to prevent additional crimes. More specifically, the FIA Initiative was designed to focus on issuestheoretically and empirically associated with crime reduction and prevention, such as school attendance,employment opportunities, youth engagement in meaningful activities, and signs of physical disorder.

The identification and implementation of the FIA Initiative was community-based, while the target of thepublic safety and human and social services components were designed to focus on the households andfamilies in the FIAs. In other words, while specific areas were targeted for the Initiative using place-basedcrime data, aspects of the public safety and human and social services component of the Initiative wereintended to be person-based, targeted to households and families. The households and families targeted forincreased human and social services and public safety efforts within the FIAs were supposed to be identifiedusing three forms of outreach: criminal justice-based; government-based; and community-based.

2.1. PUBLIC SAFETY

Led by MPD, the public safety component of the FIA Initiative was designed to be coordinated among theCourt Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the DC Housing Authority Police Department(DCHPD), the DC Superior Court Family Court: Court Social Services Division (CSS), the Department ofYouth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS), and the United States’ Attorney’s Office (USAO). As the lead agency,MPD was charged with tracking criminal investigations occurring in the FIAs, coordinatiing with the otherpublic safety agencies to identify issues and problem individuals, households, and families residing in theFIAs, and increasing their presence in the FIAs using a community-oriented policing model. Each FIA wasto have a team of dedicated officers that maintained a 24-hour presence in their respective FIA, includingfoot patrol officers, vice officers, and scout cars. Coordination meetings between the public safety agencieswere scheduled to occur monthly, with participation expected from the officers assigned to each FIA, MPDAssistant Chief Diane Groomes and representatives from CSOSA, CSS, DYRS, USAO, and DCHPD. Thegoal of the public safety meetings was for agency representatives to talk about specific people and/orlocations within the FIAs and decide an appropriate strategy for responding. Agencies were charged withthe following:

• CSOSA1 was to focus on assisting MPD with outreach primarily, by providing the police departmentwith a list of names of individuals returning to the FIAs from federal prison.

• Similar to the role for CSOSA, the role of CSS2 and DYRS3 was to assist MPD with outreach by

1Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency is a federal agency managing all convicted federal offenders under communitysupervision in the District of Columbia.

2Court Social Services (CSS) is the juvenile probation system for individuals under age 18 who have not been tried as an adult inthe District of Columbia Superior Court.

3The Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) is the District agency that provides detention and aftercare services to

3

providing information on troubled or court-involved youth, to whom public safety efforts shouldhave been targeted.

• Like MPD’s role, DCHPD was to focus on increasing police officer presence in the FIAs to maintainpublic safety and reduce social disorder in public housing facilities.

From the perspective of MPD, the specific goals for the public safety partners in the FIAs were to: a) reducethe number of homicides; b) reduce the number of guns; c) reduce drug activity; d) reduce the number oftruancy cases; e) work with victims of violent crime; and f) engage with the Department of Human Servicesto provide services. To assess the progress of the FIA Initiative over time and to report on performancemeasures, a public safety database was designed to track the number and location of guns recovered, thenumber and location of drug arrests, the number of accountability visits to individuals returning fromincarceration conducted by MPD/CSOSA, the number of truancy cases, the number of domestic violenceand other victims of violence served, the number of calls for service received in each of the FIA areas,the number of door knocks to distribute needs assessment forms with FIA partners in the FIA areas, andreferrals to the Department of Human Services for additional treatment. Reporting templates were designedfor each agency, which contained the aforementioned performance measures under each agency’s purview.Reports were to be submitted weekly so that MPD could aggregate these measures and produce statisticsrelated to FIA progress.

2.2. HUMAN AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Led by the Department of Human Services (DHS), the human and social services aspect of the FIA Initiativewas designed to be coordinated with the Department of Employment Services (DOES), the Departmentof Mental Health (DMH), DC Public Schools (DCPS), the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), theDepartment of Health (DOH), the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department (FEMS), the DC Officeon Aging (DCOA), the Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Agency (DCRA), and the Office of the StateSuperintendent for Education (OSSE). By design, the focus of the human and social services agencies wason the household and family, not the individual. The purpose of the human and social services agenciesparticipation was to provide comprehensive services to families and households in the FIAs to address someof the root causes of violent crime (e.g., poverty, drug abuse, unemployment). The public safety partners,including MPD and DYRS, were also expected to participate in the human and social services deliverycomponent.

Case managers and social workers from DHS’ Strong Families Program were to develop case managementplans for each household and family that wanted to participate in the FIA Initiative, with input from theother human and social services agencies. Case management plans were to be developed using informationfrom a self-assessment tool that asked about service needs spanning multiple agencies and requested asigned consent to share data across agencies. Case management plans were to be supplemented by aDHS-administered assessment tool. Tasks were to be assigned to the human and social services agencies,including MPD and DYRS, depending on the information gleaned from the assessment tools. As determinedby the self- or DHS-administered assessment tools, tasks assigned to the human and social services agencieswere intended to range from assistance with job opportunities to assistance with income maintenance toassistance with bed bug removal. The human and social services team was to meet weekly to talk aboutactive cases, the status of the tasks assigned to the relevant agencies for the households and families, barriersto addressing household and family needs, and action steps necessary to complete the assigned tasks.

Tasks assigned to the human and social services agencies were to be tracked using a database. This database,which was designed to be used for preparation in the weekly case review meetings, included fields for basicsociodemographic information on individuals in each household and family, household or family needs,and the tasks assigned to the household or family, by agency. Case reports were to be run frequently to

individuals under age 18 committed into their care by the District of Columbia Superior Court.

4

ensure that cases were being managed appropriately and services were being delivered. Case workers fromDHS were to close cases when all of the separate tasks assigned through the assessment forms had beensatisfied or after multiple attempts to reach out to an individual or household were unsuccessful. Once acase was closed, the database was not designed to include long-term tracking of the household or family.That is, the household or family was not supposed to be tracked in the FIA database unless another servicerequest (or task) was submitted. The database was designed so that cases could be viewed by agency,by assigned task and the estimated completion, by individual or household, by neighborhood, or by thereferral (or outreach) method.

2.3. PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL DISORDER

Led by the Mayor’s Office on Community Relations and Services (MOCRS), the physical and social disordercomponent of the FIA Initiative was designed to be coordinated with the Department of Parks and Recreation(DPR), the Department of Public Works (DPW), and the Department of Transportation (DDOT) as well asMPD and DCRA. Staff members from MOCRS were to conduct frequent ”walk-throughs” in the FIAs withthe high-ranking government officials, such as the mayor, city cabinet members, and agency directors toidentify evidence of physical and social disorder in the FIAs (e.g., abandoned cars, broken street lights, andbroken windows). MOCRS was to coordinate walk-throughs in every FIA and take the lead in decidingwhich agency should address a given issue. Communication with the community residents was to be aprimary objective for the walk-throughs, during which government officials could hear directly from thecommunity members about problems they were facing and then to provide information about servicesthe agencies were offering. Also, MOCRS was to coordinate weekend clean-ups to mobilize communitymembers, volunteers, and community- and faith-based organizations in the FIAs.

2.4. OUTREACH EFFORTS

As designed, the FIA Initiative had a three-pronged outreach effort to identify target households andfamilies, specifically as the focus of the public safety efforts and delivery of human and social services.These outreach efforts were to include:

• Government-Based Outreach (human and social services provision): By walking through the FIAs,knocking on the doors of FIA residents, and periodic placement of a resource van or service centerin the FIAs, the government-based outreach was designed to gather a listing of residents in need of,and wanting, the services offered by the human and social services agencies associated with the FIAInitiative. This type of outreach was to be led by the Capital City Fellows/MPD, DHS, DOH, andDOES. Households and families were to fill out a self-assessment form to inform service delivery.The self-assessment form was to be supplemented by a DHS assessment form. The DHS assessmentform was designed to capture the household and family needs in greater detail, by exploring familyassets and deficits using trained case managers and social workers. In addition, DHS was to conducttargeted outreach to specific households and families by reviewing their case management systemsto see who had been engaged with their agency multiple times. The government-based outreach thatoccurred in the FIAs was also designed to include the distribution of energy-efficient light bulbs andsmoke detectors, among other things, to fulfill immediate service needs.

• Criminal Justice-Based Outreach (public safety efforts and human and social services provision):By coordinated monitoring, supervision, and intelligence sharing, MPD, CSOSA, CSS, and DYRSwere to target public safety efforts to the households and families in the FIAs that were known to theiragencies. When other non-criminal justice needs were identified, referrals to the appropriate humanand social service agencies associated with the FIA Initiative were to be made.

5

• Community-Based Outreach (public safety efforts and human and social services provision): Com-munity collaboratives and community- and faith-based organizations operating in the District wereto reach out to residents in the FIAs to inform the public safety efforts and the provision of humanand social services. Organizations associated with the FIA Initiative included nonprofits and public-private entities such as the Columbia Heights/Shaw Collaborative; East of the River Clergy, Police,Community Partnership; Edgewood/Brookland; Far Southeast; Latin American Youth Center; NorthCapital Collaborative; and Peaceaholics. Since the collaboratives and faith- and community-basedagencies already had a presence in the FIAs, the goal for these agencies was to inform the publicsafety efforts to households and families that the collaboratives/organizations knew were at risk ofviolence and to help conduct referrals to the human and social services agencies accordingly. From theperspective of the government stakeholders who designed the FIA Initiative, the community-basedoutreach was not intended to introduce a new activity to these agencies stated missions or activities.Instead, the community-based outreach was designed to ensure that community-based organizationsfunneled individuals and households who they already had contact and interaction with into the FIAInitiative and its associated agencies.

6

3 Implementation

By design, the FIA Initiative was comprehensive and included many stakeholders across city government.Despite some challenges, which are discussed below, many aspects of the Initiative were implementedas designed. While some specific aspects of the Initiative’s design were not fully actualized, the onlysignificant component of the overall design that never developed was the community-based outreach.The other outreach efforts—government-based and criminal justice-based—were generally implemented asdesigned and are still ongoing (albeit less frequently than they occurred originally).

According to the stakeholders, the government-based outreach successfully met its goal of knocking on thedoor of every resident in the FIAs to administer the self-assessments.1 Since the Initiative was implemented,the stakeholders indicated that more than 1,000 individuals completed the self-assessment form designedfor the FIA Initiative. They also indicated that all of the families identified as needing services throughthe assessment forms received some form of follow-up from a FIA partner agency. The community walk-throughs were also implemented as designed, though these walkthroughs are no longer happening. As forreporting on the FIA Initiative’s performance and progress with respect to human and social services, DHScontinues to track active case tasks through the database developed specifically for the FIA Initiative andmanages cases accordingly.

As for the criminal justice-based outreach, though outreach was conducted, it was not based on data andintelligence sharing between the criminal justice agencies. For example, confidentiality laws surroundingDistrict of Columbia youth precluded CSS and DYRS from sending MPD a list of juveniles who had problemsthat needed follow-up or additional treatment. CSS and DYRS did not provide the names or informationof system-involved youth to MPD directly. Therefore, most of the criminal justice-based outreach hasbeen conducted by MPD. As for the FIA Initiative’s performance and progress with respect to crime, MPDcontinues to collect crime data within each of the FIAs, and reports that their internal data show reductionsin crime in the FIAs since the Initiative’s implementation.

Once the Capitol City Fellows associated with the FIA Initiative ended their rotations with the city in 2008,day-to-day management for the overall Initiative shifted to program analysts within the OCA/EOM. Atthis time, management of the Initiative rests within OCA/EOM, though many suggest that DHS should bethe lead management agency. Although the Capital City Fellows no longer manage the Initiative, regular,but separate, public safety and human service meetings are ongoing. During the public safety meetings,officers from each FIA discuss the recent crime patterns in the FIAs and take steps to address these issues.CSOSA is working with MPD to devise a strategy to focus on individuals returning from incarceration tothe FIAs. In the human services meetings, agency representatives continue to manage the cases, discussoutstanding tasks, and identify next steps for the FIA families. Over time, the FIA Initiative seems to haveevolved into two distinct and loosely-related efforts, where the public safety effort is focused on suppressingcrime in the FIAs while the human and social services efforts are focused on increasing service delivery.While leadership from MPD manages the public safety effort of the FIA Initiative, and leadership from DHSmanages the human and social services effort, no one person manages the entire effort across agencies.

3.1. CHALLENGES

While the Initiative received support from the highest level of city government since its inception, the cityleadership did not design the Initiative in such a way as to ensure a sustained interagency, collaborativeeffort focused on measuring and assessing improvements in household and family outcomes or reducingviolent crime in communities. Despite successful implementation of the main components, implementation

1Though FIA stakeholders knocked on every door in the FIAs, some share of FIA residents declined to open their doors togovernment stakeholders or were not at home at the time of the agencies’ visits.

7

of the Initiative faced specific challenges in four broad areas: oversight; collaboration; outreach; and datasharing.

First, though the Initiative includes many stakeholders, there is no one agency or leader within one agencythat has direct oversight over its success (or failure) and performance. Management from the Capital CityFellows ended in late 2008, the City Administrator who initially championed the Initiative resigned in 2009,and management responsibility within the OCA/EOM has changed several times. Yet, there has never beena point person or leader identified within the Initiative with enough political clout to manage the Initiativeand sustain it across agencies. The lack of consistent, authoritative management has led to a reduction inmomentum over time. The two agencies consistently identified as the strongest agency partners in the FIAInitiative—DHS and MPD—assigned staff persons within their agency to lead and manage the effort, butneither agency could compel other government agencies to participate. Though the vision for the overallFIA Initiative was clear, the lack of defined leadership and day-to-day management inhibited success inmeeting goals and objectives.

Second, although meetings on the status of the public safety goals (e.g., calls for service, arrests, andviolent crime rates) and the human and social services tasks were and are occurring, some key agencieshave not had a consistent presence at these meetings. Further, there has been no coordinated effort toidentify and mobilize additional agencies and partners that were not engaged in the FIA Initiative from theoutset, such as the DC Department of Corrections or the Office of Ex-Offender Affairs, for example. Moreimportantly, there has been no coordinated effort to mobilize agencies that exhibited limited engagement inthe Initiative. In addition, meetings on the status of the public safety component and the human and socialservices components were and are not coordinated. These meetings occur within the respective agencies,independently, and are only loosely linked. The limited scope and depth of the partnership is likely due tothe lack of a defined leadership structure.

Third, outreach to the neighborhoods and households and families within the FIAs was inconsistent acrossthe three methods. The FIA Initiative’s outreach efforts were strongest among the government agenciesand weakest among the community collaboratives and faith- and community-based agencies. Within thegovernment-based outreach, some agencies’ outreach to households and families was stronger than others.This is likely related to the flexibility of the agencies, by design, in their ability to outreach into communities,without additional funding or staffing, at alternate times and in innovative ways (e.g., vans and neighbor-hood centers on the weekends or after business hours). The weakness of the community-based outreachmay have been due to the agencies’ limited capacity to do the additional outreach the Initiative stakeholdersenvisioned. Since the collaboratives were not involved in designing the overall strategy, their organizationalcapacity to conduct additional outreach was likely not fully considered before incorporating their servicesinto the Initiative. Further, since most of the city collaboratives are oriented toward youth, the Initiative’sfocus on the household and family may have required expertise and infrastructure these organizations didnot possess. While there was some effort by city stakeholders to incorporate the collaboratives’ outreachinto the FIA Initiative formally through the Community-Based Violence Prevention Fund in 2009, theseefforts never moved forward.

Fourth, outreach to at-risk families by the agencies was limited by prohibitions on agency data sharing,particularly due to confidentiality issues for youth. Ideally, the FIA Initiative would use an active casemanagement database culling information from all of the agencies participating in the Initiative, whichshould be managed by the Initiative’s leadership. For example, instead of needs being identified solelythough the self-assessment forms, the case management database should have used existing, administrativeinformation about service needs and service receipt for households and families in the FIAs. In this way,criminal justice and social service histories across agencies would be maintained in one system. As well,a more comprehensive solution to household and family needs could be identified. Instead of trackingfamilies and their service needs and receipt, the existing FIA database simply tracked whether tasks wereassigned and completed. For example, the Initiative database tracks family needs as identified in the self-assessment forms (assistance with finding a job), what agency that task was assigned to (Department of

8

Employment Services), and then whether the family received that assistance (Department of EmploymentServices called the family and/or sent them information about job opportunities). There was no ability totrack changes in household and family functioning over time and link services to long-term impacts. Tobe clear, using the above example, there was no ability to see whether the family member who neededa job actually got a job or retained a job after a period of time. Further, despite the creation of a publicsafety database to track performance measures across agencies and overall FIA success from a public safetyperspective, data was irregularly collected by some of the agencies. As previously stated, MPD internalrecords demonstrate crime reductions in the FIAs since the Initiative’s inception. Yet, there is no robustempirical data across all of the public safety partners to assess the FIA Initiative’s public safety progressfully.

3.2. SUCCESSES

Based on conversations with numerous stakeholders, several consistent themes on notable successes of theoverall Initiative have emerged.

• Peer learning across government agencies: The FIA Initiative allowed law enforcement and humanand social services agencies to learn from one another. Specifically, police officers assigned to theFIAs have been invested in the service delivery component of the FIA Initiative and report a betterunderstanding of the extent of services available to individuals in the city. In addition, the policeofficers have been trained to identify social and human services issues within households and familiesand to view DHS and other agencies as a partner to address those issues. As a result, the FIA patrolofficers now have an expanded knowledge of the types of services provided by the government.Similarly, human services agencies have learned to work with MPD and now partner with MPDofficers to safely, and thus more efficiently, deliver services within the FIAs.

• Cross-agency relationship building: Though the meetings of public safety and human and socialservice partners has suffered from a lack of participation from some agencies, the agencies that doattend have developed key contacts that provide for a more swift and effective response to householdand family issues. Building a rapport among agencies has facilitated the knowledge of each agency’sfunction, resources, and capacity. Eventually, it may break barriers to information sharing and createa forum to address organizational and logistical barriers to success.

• Changes in the social service paradigm: Some human and social services agencies have been open tochanging the way they conduct their business. These agencies have been open to delivering servicesproactively instead of having households and families come to their offices to receive services. Theyhave been open to going into the communities to find households and families who need services.Further, some agencies appear to have accepted the notion of person-centered or household-centeredservice delivery despite traditional service delivery mechanisms that focus more broadly on thecommunity or city.

• Participation from the households and families within the FIA areas: In general, households andfamilies have participated in the Initiative from the beginning; they have been open to filling outself-assessment forms and DHS assessment forms, consenting to have their information shared acrossagencies, and willing to engage with agencies during the walkthroughs and with the resource vans.While this participation may not have been caused by the FIA Initiative, per se, it is important tonote that households and families were willing to work with government agencies. Stakeholdersnoted that participation across the FIAs varied and their ability to help families and households wasmore successful when the household and family problems necessitated a quick response (e.g., gettinga smoke detector, referral to services) instead of prolonged follow-up (e.g., getting a job, locatinghousing).

9

• Belief in the model: While there have been challenges, there appears to be overwhelming support forthe model underlying the Initiative’s design. A lack of momentum in certain areas is not due to a lackof belief in the need for an integrated law enforcement and human and social services model focusedon the community. Stakeholders believe it is important to address crime holistically by addressingsome of the root causes through the provision of human and social services in addition to a publicsafety response.

10

4 Considerations for Next Steps

Since the FIA Initiative was developed in response to a spike in violent crime, there was limited planningand benchmarking prior to implementation. While several program documents have been produced andperformance measures have been established over the past three years, there is no strategic plan guidingthe overall FIA Initiative that all of the partners have agreed to and are aware of. As a result, there havebeen challenges sustaining the Initiative due to confusion about whether the key goals and objectives forthe Initiative, for the neighborhoods, for the households and families, and for the agencies have been met.

For example, it is not clear what indicators should guide the implementation of the Initiative in other areasor what indicators need to be changed or improved to prompt the Initiative or some partners to move toanother area. Other than the general goal of reducing crime in the FIAs, there were no specific, measurable,long-term outcomes or goals associated with the FIA Initiative, such as: a 10 percent reduction in youthviolence over a specific time period; a 10 percent reduction in truancy rates over a specific period of time;or a 10 percent increase in employment retention among adults or youth over a specific time period. Whileinternal MPD reports demonstrate crime reductions in the FIAs, there should have been more specificityabout how the specific components of the FIA Initiative, some of which are long-term solutions to crimeproblems while others are short-term solutions, fit into an overall strategy designed to impact individual,household, and/or community outcomes. More specificity of goals and how they fit into an overall strategywould help guide implementation in the FIAs and determine whether and when the Initiative should moveto other areas.

There are several key issues that remain unresolved. The resolution to these issues is likely to differwith respect to which public safety or human and social services outcomes have primacy. This furtherunderscores the importance of ensuring these two components are more tightly linked into one coherentstrategy.

• Entrance strategy: Is there an opportunity for additional FIAs? What areas of the city need the servicesand increased police presence? What is the optimal number of FIAs that the city should serve?

• Exit strategy: At what point are the FIAs ready to be “closed out”? What determines success? Whatis the optimal amount of time an area should be included in the FIA Initiative?

• Geographic focus: Is the geographic focus and size of the FIAs—areas that do not entirely map ontodefined neighborhood boundaries—appropriate? Could the FIAs’ size and location be aligned withits key objectives and activities more appropriately?

• Reincorporate performance measurement: Can the Initiative improve its collection of performancemeasurement data such that it is robust enough for analysis? Would the results from the analysis beused to guide future decisions?

• Crime prevention strategy: Is there a role for crime prevention to address risk factors for crime?Should crime prevention target all citizens in a FIA, only those with serious risk factors, and/or thosewho are actively criminal or have been? How do the human and social services data inform wherecrime may be increasing?

• Combination of services in the FIAs: Can the FIA Initiative focus on targeted crime prevention andcrime reduction, i.e., can the focus in some FIAs be on increased police presence to reduce crime whileothers are focused on increasing social services to prevent crime or some combination thereof? Whatis the optimal level and combination of services in these places?

• Leadership: What is the right agency to lead such an initiative, based on the stated long-term goals?What person within that agency can be held responsible for overseeing all of the components? Howshould the agencies communicate and/or collaborate? In what agency should the point person(s) for

11

each FIA be located and how do other agencies communicate, coordinate and collaborate with thosepoint people?

• Key Goals and Objectives: Is a focus on reducing signs of physical and social disorder the rightpriority for the FIAs or should some other objective, such as violence reduction, have primacy?

The goal for the next phase of the Initiative, or any other neighborhood-based crime initiative, is to developa strategic plan for operations that addresses these and other issues. To help District stakeholders do this,DCPI has produced a report on best and promising community-based strategies to document the optionsavailable in designing a comprehensive, community-based strategy with intra-agency collaboration. Withthis information and lessons learned from implementing the FIA Initiative to date, DCPI has also created astrategic plan to aid stakeholders in designing an initiative to meet the District’s needs and capabilities.

12

A Maps of FIA Areas

13

Oxo

n R

unP

ark

FE

RE

BE

E-H

OP

EE

LEM

EN

TAR

YS

CH

OO

L

LEA

RN

ING

CE

NT

ER

HE

ND

LEY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

SC

HO

OL

SIM

ON

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

SC

HO

OL

HA

RT

MID

DLE

SC

HO

OL

DR

AP

ER

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

SC

HO

OL

VALL

EY AV

E

XE

NIA

ST

H R

DR

BLAKNEY LN

AT

LA

NT

IC S

T

COLE BLVD

MARJO

RIE

CT

9TH S

T

WA

HLE

R P

L

YU

MA

ST

XE

NIA

ST

6TH ST

7TH

ST

8TH ST

8TH

ST

SOU

4TH ST

FOXH

ALL P

L

7TH ST

BR

AN

DY

WIN

E S

T

BARNABY ST

BELLEV

R

CONDON TER

CH

ES

AP

EA

KE

ST

BA

RN

AB

Was

hin

gto

n

Hig

hla

nd

s

Co

ng

ress

H

eig

hts

8

3

5

2

4

76

1 70710

4

205

20420

1

504

207

501

402

203

706

602

404

202

401

101

503

405

603

604

403

206

703

208

505

601

502

605

103

705

107

106

607

102

701

105

606

305

704

302

303

307

301

304 30

8

702

Hob

art

Twin

s P

ark

PAR

K V

IEW

RE

CR

EAT

ION

CE

NTE

R

BRU

CE-

MO

NR

OE

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

SCH

OO

L

THIR

DD

ISTR

ICT

POLI

CE

STAT

ION

SCH

OO

L

BU

RR

GY

MN

AS

IUM

BRU

CE

SCH

OO

L

CO

LUM

BIA

HEI

GH

TS F

INA

NC

EPO

ST

OFF

ICE

PAR

K V

IEW

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

SC

HO

OL

PRIN

CET

ON

PL

HO

BA

RT

PL

10TH ST

MO

RTO

N S

T

NE

WTO

N P

L

NE

WTO

N P

L

6TH ST

ST

HO

BAR

T PL

PA

RK

RD

MA

NO

R P

L

LAM

ON

T

ST

WARDER ST

LAM

ON

T S

T

PA

RK

RD

NEW H

KE

EFE

R P

L

LUR

A

LAM

ON

T ST

AR

D S

T

NE

WTO

N P

L

BIA

RD

6TH ST

OTI

S PL

GR

ES

HA

M P

L

GR

ESH

AM P

L

5TH ST

OTI

S P

L

Plea

sant

Pl

ains

Park

Vi

ewC

olum

bia

Hei

ghts

Petw

orth

How

ard

Uni

vers

ity

Just

ice

SY ND

CO

LUM

BIA

HEI

GH

TSR

ECR

EATI

ON

CEN

TER

BELL

MU

LTIC

ULT

UR

AL

SEN

IOR

HIG

H S

CH

OO

L

MEX

ICAN

CU

LTU

RAL

INS

TITU

TE

RE

CR

EAT

ION

FAIR

MO

NT

ST

FULL

ER

ST

UNI

GIR

AR

D S

T

Col

umbi

a H

eigh

ts

Ada

ms

Mor

gan

Mou

nt

Plea

sant

She

rma

nC

ircle

Fo

Circ

Pa

EN

GIN

E 2

4S

TA

TIO

N

TR

UE

SD

EL

LE

LE

ME

NTA

RY

SC

HO

OL

E

ON

SH

ER

MA

NC

IRC

LE

DE

CA

TU

R S

T

JEF

FE

RS

ON

ST

8TH ST

7TH PL

CR

ITT

EN

DE

N S

T

13TH ST

HA

MIL

TO

N S

T

MIS

ING

RA

HA

M S

T

SH

EP

HE

RD

RD

MA

DIS

ON

ST

SHE

RM

AN

CIR

EM

ER

SO

N S

T

DE

LA

FIE

LD

PL

JEF

KE

NN

ED

Y S

T

9TH ST

7TH ST

LO

NG

F

ILLINOIS AVE

GA

LLA

TIN

ST

FA

RR

AG

UT

ST

GEORGIA AVE

DE

LA

FIE

LD

PL

5TH ST

Bri

gh

two

od

P

ark

Petw

ort

h

16th

S

tre

et

Heig

hts

Bri

gh

two

od

Joe

Col

e

Trin

idad

Ros

edal

e

Kin

gman

Fiel

d

NO

RTH

EA

ST

PO

ST

OFF

ICE

EN

GIN

E 1

0S

TATI

ON

GIB

BS

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

SC

HO

OL

R. L

.C

HR

ISTI

AN

LIB

RA

RY

MIN

ER

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

SC

HO

OL

KIN

GS

MA

NS

CH

OO

L

WH

EAT

LEY

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

SC

HO

OL

TRIN

IDA

DR

EC

RE

ATIO

NC

EN

TER

RO

SE

DA

LER

EC

RE

ATIO

NC

EN

TER

18TH PL

20TH ST

YLI

E S

T

ND

EN

PL

QUE

EN S

T

MEI

GS

PL

ISH

ER

WO

OD

ST

LYM

AN

PL

18TH ST

ELLIOTT ST

STAPLES ST

18TH PL

PENN

ST

14TH ST

14TH PL

DU

NC

AN

ST

F S

TKR

AM

ER

ST

K S

T

LAN

G P

L

19TH ST

RO

SE

DA

LE S

EM

ER

ALD

ST

HOLBROOK ST

QU

EEN

ST

F S

T

GA

LES

PL

18TH ST

ATES

ST

NC

AN

PL

ORREN ST

MAR

YLAN

D AV

E

17TH ST

H S

T

18TH ST

CO

RB

IN P

L

18TH ST

OW

EN P

L

LEVI

S ST

I ST

17TH PL

19TH ST

HOLB

RO

OK

TE

R

LEVI

S ST

EAMES PL

16TH ST

RAUM

ST

17TH PL

L S

T

TRINIDAD AV CHIL

DRES

S ST

E S

T

D S

T

RO

SE

DA

LE S

T

GA

LES

ST

H P

L

Trin

idad

Car

ver

Kin

gman

P

ark

Sta

nton

P

ark

Nea

r N

orth

east

Ivy

City

Ann

a J.

Coo

per

Circ

le

Har

ryT

hom

as

y

NJ

and

O S

tsP

ark

New

Yor

kA

ve D

ayca

re

J.F.

CO

OK

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

SC

HO

OL

M.M

. W

AS

HIN

GT

ON

SE

NIO

R H

IGH

SC

HO

OL

RO

ITR

K FF

ICE

ER

YO

OL

EN

GIN

E 6

STA

TIO

N

RO

BU

ND

YS

CH

OO

L

DU

NB

AR

SE

NIO

R H

IGH

SC

HO

OL

EM

ER

YE

LEM

EN

TAR

YS

CH

OO

L

HA

RR

Y T

HO

MA

SR

EC

RE

AT

ION

CE

NT

ER

SU

RS

UM

CO

RD

AC

OM

MU

NIT

YLI

BR

AR

Y

EM

ER

YE

LEM

EN

TAR

YS

CH

OO

L

MC

KT

EC

HH

IGH

MO

RG

AN

ST

BA

TES

ST

O S

T

PA

TT

ER

SO

N S

T

T S

T

U S

TO

D

4TH ST

KIRBY STRA

ND

OLP

H P

L

Q S

T

T S

T

SE

AT

ON

PL

1ST ST

E S

TNEW JERSEY AVE

O S

T

N S

T

2ND ST

3RD ST

3RD ST

FLO

RID

A A

VE

NEW

YO

RK

AVE1ST ST

HA

NO

VE

R P

L

QU

INC

Y P

L

3RD ST

3RD ST

S S

T

TH

OM

AS

ST

U S

T

RH

OD

E IS

LAN

D A

VE

SE

AT

ON

PL

Trux

ton

C

ircl

e

Blo

omin

gda

le

Eck

ingt

on

Le D

roit

P

ark

Log

an C

ircl

e/S

haw

Nea

r N

orth

east

Nor

th

Cap

itol

Str

eet

Edg

ewoo

d

Oxo

n R

unP

ark

way

Oxo

n R

un

Con

gre

gatio

nal

Ada

sIs

rael

Heb

rew

CO

NG

RE

SS

HE

IGH

TS

ME

TR

OE

NT

RA

NC

EM

ALC

OL

M X

ELE

ME

NTA

RY

SC

HO

OL

GR

EE

NE

LEM

EN

TAR

YS

CH

OO

L

15TH ST

13TH ST

SM

ITH

PL

13TH PL

WO

O

D

DR

CONGRESS PL

MIS

SIS

SIP

PI A

VE

14TH PL

Do

ug

lass

Co

ngre

ss

Hei

gh

ts

Was

hin

gto

n

Hig

hla

nd

s

15th St

14th St

16th St

Irving

St

Harva

rd St

Colum

bia R

d

Girar

d St

Fulle

r St

Harva

rd Ct

Mount Pleasant St

Argon

ne Pl

Hiatt Pl

Harvard St

Girar

d St

302

304

303

301

14th

St &

Gira

rd St

NW

MAP I

D: 3

RD D

ISTRI

CT - P

SA's 3

02 &

304

ROUN

D 1 F

OCUS

IMPR

OVEM

ENT A

REA

Crim

e Anal

yst: C

harle

a S.L.

Jack

son, M

.A.

Unit:

Resea

rch &

Analy

sis Br

anch

Date:

Feb

ruary

23, 2

009

Inform

ation

on th

is map

is for

illust

ration

only.

The u

ser

ackno

wled

ges an

d agre

es tha

t the u

se of

this in

forma

tion

is at th

e sole

risk o

f the u

ser. N

o end

orsem

ent, l

iabilit

y, or

respo

nsibil

ity fo

r infor

matio

n or o

pinion

s exp

ressed

are

assum

ed or

accep

ted by

any a

gency

of the

Dist

rict o

fCo

lumbia

Gov

ernme

nt.

Scale

:

Coord

. Sys

tem:

NAD_

1983

_Stat

ePlan

e_Ma

rylan

d_FIP

S_19

00

1:2,72

5

00.0

20.0

40.0

1Mi

les

3RD

DIST

RICT

- PSA

's 30

2 & 30

4RO

UND

1 FOC

US IM

PROV

EMEN

T ARE

A

Rese

arch &

Analy

sis Br

anch

Strate

gic Se

rvice

s Bure

auMe

tropo

litan P

olice

Dep

artme

nt30

0 Ind

iana A

venu

e, Ro

om 51

26Wa

shing

ton, D

C 20

001

202.7

27.41

74 (p

)20

2.727

.0711

(f)

PSA &

DIST

RICT G

EOSP

ATIAL

DAT

A SOU

RCE:

Metro

polita

n Polic

e Dep

artme

nt (M

PD) d

ata as

of02

/23/20

09MA

JOR

ROAD

GEO

SPAT

IAL DA

TA SO

URCE

: Offic

e of th

eCh

ief Te

chno

logy O

fficer

(OCT

O) G

eogra

phic I

nform

ation

Syste

m (G

IS) da

ta as

of 02

/23/20

09.

Metro

polita

n Poli

ce D

epart

ment

Wash

ington

, DC

Febru

ary 23

, 200

9

R St

P St

T St

Q St

S St

Florid

a Ave

N St

O St

3rd St

North Capitol St

2nd St

Bates

St

Quinc

y Pl

Lincoln Rd

Todd

Pl

New Jersey Ave

Rhod

e Isla

nd Av

e

4th St

U St

Seato

n Pl

1st St

Rand

olph P

l

New Y

ork Av

e

Eckington Pl

Thom

as St

Summit Pl

5th St

Hano

ver P

l

Warne

r St Fra

nklin

St

Richa

rdson

Pl

Porte

r Pl

1st St

O St

4th St

O St

1st St

Q St

T St

3rd St

N St

3rd St

T St

S St

Seato

n Pl

1st St

501

308

305

101

504

Rhod

e Isla

nd Av

e, NE

Flor

ida Av

e NE &

Linc

oln

MAP I

D: 5

TH D

ISTRI

CT - P

SA 50

1RO

UND

1 FOC

US IM

PROV

EMEN

T ARE

ACr

ime A

nalyst

: Cha

rlea S

.L. Ja

ckson

, M.A

.Un

it: Re

search

& An

alysis

Bran

chDa

te: F

ebrua

ry 23

, 200

9

Inform

ation

on th

is map

is for

illust

ration

only.

The u

ser

ackno

wled

ges an

d agre

es tha

t the u

se of

this in

forma

tion

is at th

e sole

risk o

f the u

ser. N

o end

orsem

ent, l

iabilit

y, or

respo

nsibil

ity fo

r infor

matio

n or o

pinion

s exp

ressed

are

assum

ed or

accep

ted by

any a

gency

of the

Dist

rict o

fCo

lumbia

Gov

ernme

nt.

Scale

:

Coord

. Sys

tem:

NAD_

1983

_Stat

ePlan

e_Ma

rylan

d_FIP

S_19

00

1:6,15

0

00.0

40.0

80.0

2Mi

les

5TH

DIST

RICT

- PSA

501

ROUN

D 1 F

OCUS

IMPR

OVEM

ENT A

REA

Rese

arch &

Analy

sis Br

anch

Strate

gic Se

rvice

s Bure

auMe

tropo

litan P

olice

Dep

artme

nt30

0 Ind

iana A

venu

e, Ro

om 51

26Wa

shing

ton, D

C 20

001

202.7

27.41

74 (p

)20

2.727

.0711

(f)

PSA &

DIST

RICT G

EOSP

ATIAL

DAT

A SOU

RCE:

Metro

polita

n Polic

e Dep

artme

nt (M

PD) d

ata as

of02

/23/20

09MA

JOR

ROAD

GEO

SPAT

IAL DA

TA SO

URCE

: Offic

e of th

eCh

ief Te

chno

logy O

fficer

(OCT

O) G

eogra

phic I

nform

ation

Syste

m (G

IS) da

ta as

of 02

/23/20

09.

Metro

polita

n Poli

ce D

epart

ment

Wash

ington

, DC

Febru

ary 23

, 200

9

4th St

9th St

Yuma

St

Atlan

tic St

8th St

Valley

Ave

Barnaby

St

Ches

apea

ke S

t

Condon

Ter

6th St

Bran

dywin

e St

H R

Dr

Wheeler

RdWahle

r Pl

Xenia

St

Varney S

t

Foxhal

l Pl

Souther

n Ave

Cole Blvd Belle

vue St

7th St

Blakney Ln

Marjorie

Ct

Barnaby Rd

Monteria

Ct

Xenia

St

8th St

706

705

Cond

on Te

rr, B

arnab

y St

MAP I

D: 7

TH D

ISTRI

CT - P

SA 70

6RO

UND

1 FOC

US IM

PROV

EMEN

T ARE

ACr

ime A

nalyst

: Cha

rlea S

.L. Ja

ckson

, M.A

.Un

it: Re

search

& An

alysis

Bran

chDa

te: F

ebrua

ry 23

, 200

9

Inform

ation

on th

is map

is for

illust

ration

only.

The u

ser

ackno

wled

ges an

d agre

es tha

t the u

se of

this in

forma

tion

is at th

e sole

risk o

f the u

ser. N

o end

orsem

ent, l

iabilit

y, or

respo

nsibil

ity fo

r infor

matio

n or o

pinion

s exp

ressed

are

assum

ed or

accep

ted by

any a

gency

of the

Dist

rict o

fCo

lumbia

Gov

ernme

nt.

Scale

:

Coord

. Sys

tem:

NAD_

1983

_Stat

ePlan

e_Ma

rylan

d_FIP

S_19

00

1:4,90

0

00.0

30.0

60.0

15Mi

les

7TH

DIST

RICT

- PSA

706

ROUN

D 1 F

OCUS

IMPR

OVEM

ENT A

REA

Rese

arch &

Analy

sis Br

anch

Strate

gic Se

rvice

s Bure

auMe

tropo

litan P

olice

Dep

artme

nt30

0 Ind

iana A

venu

e, Ro

om 51

26Wa

shing

ton, D

C 20

001

202.7

27.41

74 (p

)20

2.727

.0711

(f)

PSA &

DIST

RICT G

EOSP

ATIAL

DAT

A SOU

RCE:

Metro

polita

n Polic

e Dep

artme

nt (M

PD) d

ata as

of02

/23/20

09MA

JOR

ROAD

GEO

SPAT

IAL DA

TA SO

URCE

: Offic

e of th

eCh

ief Te

chno

logy O

fficer

(OCT

O) G

eogra

phic I

nform

ation

Syste

m (G

IS) da

ta as

of 02

/23/20

09.

Metro

polita

n Poli

ce D

epart

ment

Wash

ington

, DC

Febru

ary 23

, 200

9

17th St

F St

H St

E St

G St

Neal S

t

12th St

Maryla

nd Av

e

19th St

I St

L St

13th St

Oates

St

M St

Gales

St

Morse

St

14th St

K St

15th St

Benn

ing R

d

Florid

a Ave

Holbrook St

16th St

Orren St

Lang

Pl

Trinidad Ave

Bladensburg Rd

Staples St

Owen

PlLy

man P

l

20th St

Montello Ave

Quee

n St

H Pl

14th Pl

Emera

ld St

18th St

Elliott St

Tennessee Ave

Wylie

St

Levis S

t

Penn

St

Kram

er St

17th PlIsh

erwoo

d St

Meigs

Pl

Gales

Pl

Linde

n Pl

Dunc

an P

l

Rose

dale

St

Dunc

an S

t

Summit St

Benn

ett P

l

Linde

n Ct

Eames Pl

Rose

dale

St

I St

Quee

n St

K St

18th St

H St

F St

16th St

19th St

18th St

20th St

F St

E St

504 10

3

102

5D R

OUND

2 FIA

1D R

OUND

2 FIA

MAP I

D: 1

ST/5T

H DI

STRI

CT - P

SA's 1

03 &

504

ROUN

D 2 F

OCUS

IMPR

OVEM

ENT A

REA

Crim

e Anal

yst: C

harle

a S.L.

Jack

son, M

.A.

Unit:

Resea

rch &

Analy

sis Br

anch

Date:

Feb

ruary

23, 2

009

Inform

ation

on th

is map

is for

illust

ration

only.

The u

ser

ackno

wled

ges an

d agre

es tha

t the u

se of

this in

forma

tion

is at th

e sole

risk o

f the u

ser. N

o end

orsem

ent, l

iabilit

y, or

respo

nsibil

ity fo

r infor

matio

n or o

pinion

s exp

ressed

are

assum

ed or

accep

ted by

any a

gency

of the

Dist

rict o

fCo

lumbia

Gov

ernme

nt.

Scale

:

Coord

. Sys

tem:

NAD_

1983

_Stat

ePlan

e_Ma

rylan

d_FIP

S_19

00

1:6,90

0

00.0

50.1

0.025

Miles

1ST /

5TH

DIST

RICT

- PSA

's 10

3 & 50

4RO

UND

2 FOC

US IM

PROV

EMEN

T ARE

A

Rese

arch &

Analy

sis Br

anch

Strate

gic Se

rvice

s Bure

auMe

tropo

litan P

olice

Dep

artme

nt30

0 Ind

iana A

venu

e, Ro

om 51

26Wa

shing

ton, D

C 20

001

202.7

27.41

74 (p

)20

2.727

.0711

(f)

PSA &

DIST

RICT G

EOSP

ATIAL

DAT

A SOU

RCE:

Metro

polita

n Polic

e Dep

artme

nt (M

PD) d

ata as

of02

/23/20

09MA

JOR

ROAD

GEO

SPAT

IAL DA

TA SO

URCE

: Offic

e of th

eCh

ief Te

chno

logy O

fficer

(OCT

O) G

eogra

phic I

nform

ation

Syste

m (G

IS) da

ta as

of 02

/23/20

09.

Metro

polita

n Poli

ce D

epart

ment

Wash

ington

, DC

Febru

ary 23

, 200

9

11th St

Irving

St

13th St

Park Pl

Keny

on S

t

Warder St

Georgia Ave

Harva

rd St

Otis

Pl

Park

Rd

Lamo

nt St

Sherman Ave

Morto

n St

10th St

Princ

eton P

l

Monro

e St

Hoba

rt Pl

5th St

New Hampshire Ave

Sprin

g Rd

Keefe

r Pl Gres

ham

Pl

6th St

Mich

igan A

ve

Luray

Pl

Mano

r Pl

Newt

on P

l

Colum

bia R

d

Rock Creek Church Rd

Hoba

rt Pl

Otis

PlNe

wton

Pl

Lamo

nt St

6th St

Park

Rd

Lamo

nt St

Otis

Pl

Park

Rd

Mich

igan A

ve

Newt

on P

l

302

501

305

304

404

3D R

OUND

2 FIA

MAP I

D: 3R

D DI

STRI

CT - P

SA 30

2RO

UND

2 FOC

US IM

PROV

EMEN

T ARE

ACr

ime A

nalyst

: Cha

rlea S

.L. Ja

ckson

, M.A

.Un

it: Re

search

& An

alysis

Bran

chDa

te: F

ebrua

ry 23

, 200

9

Inform

ation

on th

is map

is for

illust

ration

only.

The u

ser

ackno

wled

ges an

d agre

es tha

t the u

se of

this in

forma

tion

is at th

e sole

risk o

f the u

ser. N

o end

orsem

ent, l

iabilit

y, or

respo

nsibil

ity fo

r infor

matio

n or o

pinion

s exp

ressed

are

assum

ed or

accep

ted by

any a

gency

of the

Dist

rict o

fCo

lumbia

Gov

ernme

nt.

Scale

:

Coord

. Sys

tem:

NAD_

1983

_Stat

ePlan

e_Ma

rylan

d_FIP

S_19

00

1:5,75

0

00.0

30.0

60.0

15Mi

les

3RD

DIST

RICT

- PSA

302

ROUN

D 2 F

OCUS

IMPR

OVEM

ENT A

REA

Rese

arch &

Analy

sis Br

anch

Strate

gic Se

rvice

s Bure

auMe

tropo

litan P

olice

Dep

artme

nt30

0 Ind

iana A

venu

e, Ro

om 51

26Wa

shing

ton, D

C 20

001

202.7

27.41

74 (p

)20

2.727

.0711

(f)

PSA &

DIST

RICT G

EOSP

ATIAL

DAT

A SOU

RCE:

Metro

polita

n Polic

e Dep

artme

nt (M

PD) d

ata as

of02

/23/20

09MA

JOR

ROAD

GEO

SPAT

IAL DA

TA SO

URCE

: Offic

e of th

eCh

ief Te

chno

logy O

fficer

(OCT

O) G

eogra

phic I

nform

ation

Syste

m (G

IS) da

ta as

of 02

/23/20

09.

Metro

polita

n Poli

ce D

epart

ment

Wash

ington

, DC

Febru

ary 23

, 200

9

4th St

9th St

8th St

5th St

7th St

3rd St

13th St

Galla

tin S

t

Farra

gut S

t

Deca

tur St

Hami

lton S

t

Kenn

edy S

t

Emers

on St

Ingrah

am St

Jeffe

rson S

t

Long

fellow

St

Illinois Ave

Georgia Ave

Madis

on S

t

Kansas Ave

Critte

nden

St

Misso

uri Av

e

Arkansas Ave

Iowa Ave

14th St

Delaf

ield P

l

Shep

herd

Rd

Colorado Ave

7th Pl

3rd Pl

Sherm

an Cir

Madis

on S

t

Critte

nden

St

Delaf

ield P

lDe

lafiel

d Pl

Delaf

ield P

l

3rd Pl

403

404

402

4D R

OUND

2 FIA

MAP I

D: 4T

H DI

STRI

CT - P

SA's 4

03 &

404

ROUN

D 2 F

OCUS

IMPR

OVEM

ENT A

REA

Crim

e Anal

yst: C

harle

a S.L.

Jack

son, M

.A.

Unit:

Resea

rch &

Analy

sis Br

anch

Date:

Feb

ruary

23, 2

009

Inform

ation

on th

is map

is for

illust

ration

only.

The u

ser

ackno

wled

ges an

d agre

es tha

t the u

se of

this in

forma

tion

is at th

e sole

risk o

f the u

ser. N

o end

orsem

ent, l

iabilit

y, or

respo

nsibil

ity fo

r infor

matio

n or o

pinion

s exp

ressed

are

assum

ed or

accep

ted by

any a

gency

of the

Dist

rict o

fCo

lumbia

Gov

ernme

nt.

Scale

:

Coord

. Sys

tem:

NAD_

1983

_Stat

ePlan

e_Ma

rylan

d_FIP

S_19

00

1:7,50

0

00.0

30.06

0.015

Miles

4TH

DIST

RICT

- PSA

's 40

3 & 40

4RO

UND

2 FOC

US IM

PROV

EMEN

T ARE

A

Rese

arch &

Analy

sis Br

anch

Strate

gic Se

rvice

s Bure

auMe

tropo

litan P

olice

Dep

artme

nt30

0 Ind

iana A

venu

e, Ro

om 51

26Wa

shing

ton, D

C 20

001

202.7

27.41

74 (p

)20

2.727

.0711

(f)

PSA &

DIST

RICT G

EOSP

ATIAL

DAT

A SOU

RCE:

Metro

polita

n Polic

e Dep

artme

nt (M

PD) d

ata as

of02

/23/20

09MA

JOR

ROAD

GEO

SPAT

IAL DA

TA SO

URCE

: Offic

e of th

eCh

ief Te

chno

logy O

fficer

(OCT

O) G

eogra

phic I

nform

ation

Syste

m (G

IS) da

ta as

of 02

/23/20

09.

Metro

polita

n Poli

ce D

epart

ment

Wash

ington

, DC

Febru

ary 23

, 200

9

13th St

15th St

Missis

sippi A

ve

Sava

nnah

St

Cong

ress S

t

Alaba

ma Av

e

14th Pl

Cook Dr

Ande

rson P

l

13th Pl

Tanne

r Pl

Smith

Pl

Trento

n Pl

Dogwood

Dr

12th PlSava

nnah

Pl

Savan

nah P

l

705

704

703

706

7D R

OUND

2 FIA

MAP I

D: 7

TH D

ISTRI

CT - P

SA 70

5RO

UND

2 FOC

US IM

PROV

EMEN

T ARE

ACr

ime A

nalyst

: Cha

rlea S

.L. Ja

ckson

, M.A

.Un

it: Re

search

& An

alysis

Bran

chDa

te: F

ebrua

ry 23

, 200

9

Inform

ation

on th

is map

is for

illust

ration

only.

The u

ser

ackno

wled

ges an

d agre

es tha

t the u

se of

this in

forma

tion

is at th

e sole

risk o

f the u

ser. N

o end

orsem

ent, l

iabilit

y, or

respo

nsibil

ity fo

r infor

matio

n or o

pinion

s exp

ressed

are

assum

ed or

accep

ted by

any a

gency

of the

Dist

rict o

fCo

lumbia

Gov

ernme

nt.

Scale

:

Coord

. Sys

tem:

NAD_

1983

_Stat

ePlan

e_Ma

rylan

d_FIP

S_19

00

1:3,92

0

00.0

250.0

50.0

125

Miles

7TH

DIST

RICT

- PSA

705

ROUN

D 2 F

OCUS

IMPR

OVEM

ENT A

REA

Rese

arch &

Analy

sis Br

anch

Strate

gic Se

rvice

s Bure

auMe

tropo

litan P

olice

Dep

artme

nt30

0 Ind

iana A

venu

e, Ro

om 51

26Wa

shing

ton, D

C 20

001

202.7

27.41

74 (p

)20

2.727

.0711

(f)

PSA &

DIST

RICT G

EOSP

ATIAL

DAT

A SOU

RCE:

Metro

polita

n Polic

e Dep

artme

nt (M

PD) d

ata as

of02

/23/20

09MA

JOR

ROAD

GEO

SPAT

IAL DA

TA SO

URCE

: Offic

e of th

eCh

ief Te

chno

logy O

fficer

(OCT

O) G

eogra

phic I

nform

ation

Syste

m (G

IS) da

ta as

of 02

/23/20

09.

Metro

polita

n Poli

ce D

epart

ment

Wash

ington

, DC

Febru

ary 23

, 200

9

D

ecember

2010

URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center2100 M St NWWashington, DC 20037http://www.urban.org