Beth Faulhaber (acting chair), Carla Piluso, Jeff Howes, Bob Robison, Sharron Kelley, Brett Walker

Review of Minutes:

The committee spent a few minutes reviewing the minutes from the first meeting, and looked in particular at the four focus areas that were identified. There was some question as to whether this subcommittee is part of the weeding or seeding efforts. It was determined that we need to focus on both aspects. Bob stated that it will be important for us to engage the community in proactively preventing crime. Carla said that as a component of our efforts, we will need strong law enforcement to augment the community policing effort and that there are times when enforcement will have to take precedence.

Demographics:

Bob began the discussion on demographics by getting the committee up to speed on the work that he and Marty Hammond from GPD have been doing. Unfortunately, due to some technical problems, they were not able to get as far along as they had hoped. He reviewed the criteria that we set up for determining boundaries, and it turns out that our criteria for crime, poverty, and population fit almost perfectly over the four census tracts that encompass the area from Glisan to Division, 162^nd to 202^nd. The only problem is that a small portion of this area is in Portland, which will make gathering crime date in that area a bit problematic. Carla thought that this could be overcome.

In terms of strategies, Sharron said that we ought to find out what the most compelling crime issues are and base our strategies around those issues. Carla said that GPD could figure this out pretty easily. Sharron also shared data on substance abuse that the Health and Social Service Committee is working with, and said that she suspected that many of the most pressing crime issues in the target area are related to substance abuse. If this turns out to be the case, based on GPD data, she has documents on nationally recognized treatment/intervention best practices and encouraged us to utilize them.

The committee decided that, for our purposes, the target area that we are currently working with looks good and that we should move forward based on the suggested boundaries at this time.

Strategy Session:

General Discussion:

Beth led a strategy discussion based on the four focus areas that were identified in the first meeting (reducing crime, reducing poverty, increasing community involvement/spirit, and decreasing peoples’ fear of crime), and suggested that we may want to make separate crime reduction into more specific goals. Jeff thought this was a good idea, and thought we should focus our efforts on improving the overall quality of life in the target area. Carla backed this up, and said that we should employ both law enforcement and code enforcement to achieve this.

Neighborhood Watches:

Neighborhood watches were discussed as one way to accomplish this goal. Carla and Jeff explained neighborhood watches as being a defined area within a five block radius in which neighbors get to know each other, communicate with one another, and serve as the eyes and ears for the police dept. GPD helps them get set up, but after a couple meetings the neighbors are generally on their own. The largest benefit is that the neighbors get to know each other and can share information. The whole concept is somewhat problematic in places such as the target population that have high renter populations and high mobility. Carla said that neighborhood watches are one piece of the puzzle, but that we need to address violent crimes as well. Jeff said that he thought about 80% of all violent offenders are currently in the County’s parole and probation system.

Community Involvement:

Bob said that a possible strategy could be to link law enforcement to parole/probation. He is currently building a bridge between GDP and DCJ by using a certified PO without a caseload in Rockwood to work with GPD. In theory, when a person under County supervision violates their parole, GPD will work with the PO to arrest the violator. This PO will also be working with the Alliance of Latino Parents and in the apartment complexes in Rockwood.

Beth said that PAL will be doing some work in the apartment complexes this summer as well. The idea behind their strategy is to give parents the resources to sustain some of the programs after the summer is over.

Bob asked what the committee thought about the idea of recommending that a safety action team be part of the community policing piece of our grant. Carla said that she supports the idea, but that GPD does not have enough bodies right now to designate officers to Rockwood full time. She also does not want to hire people on grants, because when the funding dries up the program dies. She is willing to explore using the safety action team model, but can’t designate staff at this time.

Bob suggested, in regard to the focus area of increasing community spirit/involvement, that we should continue to support the apartment organizing work that is being done by El Programa Hispano and the Alliance of Latino Parents. He talked about multi-agency public information events at apartment complexes as being a means by which to create more permanent neighborhood watch programs. Carla said that it would be a good idea to create built in incentives for apartment owners to have neighborhood watch programs. As a possible strategy, Bob suggested that we identify the apartments with the highest call rates and get the managers of those places connected with local public leaders to educate them and work with them regarding crime in the complexes. The committee discussed whether or not this was really feasible, since many of the apartment owners are slumlords who don’t seem to care if crime exists in their complexes. Carla suggested that another possible approach would be to help empower the tenants to stand up to their landlords. Sharron asked about code enforcement as a possible tool, to which Carla replied that GPD is working on it but code enforcement in apartment complexes can be problematic and lead to tenant displacement if the landlord gets upset. The committee agreed that code enforcement should ultimately be part of the solution, but it should be handled carefully.

At this point, Sharron suggested that we take a multi-layered, holistic approach for crime prevention and enforcement.

Bob suggested using the Safety Action Team model to have once a month meeting of multi-jurisdictional enforcement/prevention personnel that are interested in the target area. The meetings can serve as a forum for sharing ideas and getting people energized about Rockwood. Carla said she thought this was doable, and that it could be linked to other community groups such as the Alliance of Latino Parents.

Crime Reduction/Violent Crimes:

Beth asked the committee if we should be addressing anything specific dealing with violent crimes at this point.

Carla reiterated her earlier statement that certain crimes, specifically violent crimes, will need to be dealt with through enforcement, but that we can certainly incorporate that as part of our overall strategy.

Jeff talked about services for domestic violence offenders, such as anger management, and said that we should employ these types of strategies. He also inquired about the accessibility of such services in the target area. He said that some offenders may violate their parole or re-offend because they cannot access services. If we can bring services to the target area, that may be a possible crime reduction strategy. Alcohol and drug treatment will have to be part of this strategy, because statistics show that substance abuse is often present in instances of violent crime.

Jeff listed the top five crimes in the target area (to the best of his knowledge at the time of the meeting) as being 1) possession of a controlled substance, 2) DUI, 3) assault, 4) theft, 5) criminal mischief.

Bob suggested that we use links to the community, neighborhood watches, and apartment complexes to take on issues of possession, DUIs, and other A&D issues. Ideally, this will empower community members to police themselves based on landlord/tenant agreements, community courts, and intervention and treatment. Jeff mentioned that local 12 step programs can provide another resource for prevention, intervention, and treatment.

Reducing Poverty:

Since all three other subcommittees are crafting strategies to reduce poverty, the committee decided that we will most likely not draft a strategy specifically aimed at reducing poverty. However, there was recognition that poverty is something that will absolutely be addressed as part of our other strategies.

Next Meeting:

For the next meeting (August 1^st, Barlow Trail Room Gresham City Hall), Bob said that he will work with Marty from GPD to get the following vital crime statistics:

1. Map of crime rate in all of Gresham

2. Tables displaying the frequency of different types of crimes in Rockwood, comparable to the rest of the city

3. The percentage of people arrested in the target area who are currently under County supervision.

These statistics will be used to draft strategies, goals, objectives, tasks, and outcome measures that the committee can present to the steering committee for final approval. The committee agreed that each member will work on drafting some preliminary ideas (hopefully 3 or 4) to bring to the next meeting.