Final Assessment of the Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiative (SACSI) in New Haven, Connecticut, 1994-2001 (ICPSR 4223)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiative (SACSI), named TimeZup, in New Haven, Connecticut by measuring the impact of the program on public safety, public fear, and law enforcement relationships and operations.

Study Design View help for Study Design

To assess the impact of TimeZup on public safety, Spectrum Associates gathered predata and postdata on: the number of violent gun crimes committed in New Haven in 1994-2001 (Part 1), the number of calls for service for shots fired in New Haven in 1996-2001 (Part 2), and the number and types of firearms seized by the New Haven Police Department (NHPD) in 1995-2001 (Part 3). The study also included surveys of probationers, parolees, and inmates on transitional supervision who had attended a lever-pulling meeting (Part 4). The primary goal of the lever-pulling meetings was to have the meeting attendees "spread the word" about what TimeZup was all about. Surveys were distributed to the meeting attendees from March 2000 to February 2001. A total of 216 surveys was distributed and 129 were completed. To measure the impact of TimeZup on public fear, Spectrum Associates conducted a baseline survey in the fall of 1998 with 600 adult New Haven residents on their feelings about New Haven. The survey was repeated with 250 adult New Haven residents in the fall of 2001 (Part 5).

Sample View help for Sample

Part 1 includes all violent gun crimes committed in New Haven, Connecticut from 1994-2001. Data were gathered from New Haven Police Department's (NHPD) computerized systems. Part 2 includes all calls for service for shots fired in New Haven from 1996-2001. Data were gathered from NHPD's computerized systems. Part 3 includes all firearms seized by the NHPD from 1995-2001. Data were gathered from NHPD property room logs. Regarding Part 4, the first lever pulling meeting was held in August 1999 in the Fair Haven district. Through the end of 2001, a total of 17 meetings were held with over 425 offenders who were under supervision by the Office of Adult Probation, Board of Parole, or Department of Corrections. Surveys were distributed to the meeting attendees from March 2000 to February 2001. A total of 216 surveys were distributed and 129 were completed. For Part 5, a baseline survey was conducted in the fall of 1998 with 603 New Haven residents on their feelings about New Haven, and the survey was repeated with 250 New Haven residents in the fall of 2001. For both surveys, respondents were randomly surveyed from listed telephone numbers, and all respondents were aged 18 or over. Individuals with someone in the household working in law enforcement or for the city were excluded. Respondent demographics reflect the demographics of the city's resident population.

Universe View help for Universe

Part 1: All crimes committed in New Haven, Connecticut from 1994-2001. Part 2: All calls for service in New Haven, Connecticut from 1996-2001. Part 3: All guns seized in New Haven, Connecticut from 1995-2001. Part 4: All persons on probation, parole or in transitional supervision from August 1999 to 2001. Part 5: All residents of New Haven, Connecticut aged 18 years or more in 1998 and 2001.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Source View help for Data Source

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

Variables in Part 1, Firearm Crimes, include the year, month, date, and time of the incident, the type of crime (assault, murder, or robbery) and in which police precinct the crime occurred. Variables in Part 2, Calls for Service, include the year, month, date, and time of the call, the start call code (gunshots or shooting), the end call code, and which police precinct received the call. Part 3, Firearms Seized, includes variables on the year and type of weapon seized. Variables in Part 4, Offender Meeting Atendee Survey, include the date and location of the meeting, whether the respondent was on probation, parole or in transitional supervision, the respondents' perception of the meeting, the extent to which the respondent was worried about being on the "List," the amount of impact the respondent felt the initiative would have on New Haven's gun problem, the likelihood of the respondent contacting the community services presented at the meeting, whether or not the respondent had informed friends and family about the initiative/what they were doing at the meeting, whether or not the respondent had warned friends and family about the "List." and the number of people the respondent had told about the initiative. Part 5, Resident Phone Survey, includes demographic variables on the respondent such as age, gender, ethnicity, highest level of education, employment status, household income, marital status, and how long they had lived in New Haven. Respondents were asked about their overall perceptions of New Haven and their satisfaction with the quality of life in New Haven. They were then asked to rate whether each of the following was "not a problem," a "minor problem," or a "major problem": public transportation, youth gangs, the quality of New Haven's schools, rundown or neglected buildings, prostitution, homeless sleeping on sidewalks or benches, violent crime committed with guns, and illegal drug use. Respondents were asked if they or any member of their household had been the victim of street crime, their level of fear about being a victim of street crime, any changes in their level of fear, and what type of street crime they feared the most. Respondents were also asked if their neighborhood faced problems with abandoned cars or buildings, rundown and neglected building, poor lighting, trash, empty lots, public drinking and drug use, public drug sales, vandalism or graffiti, prostitution, begging, loitering, kids skipping school, homeless people sleeping on streets, and people carrying or using guns. They were then asked if the existence of these problems made their neighborhood feel less safe. Respondents were also asked to estimate the percentage of the following offenders who were arrested and the percentage who were imprisoned: burglary offenders, sexual assault offenders, illegal gun possessors, and violent gun crime offenders. Respondents were asked if they had ever heard gunshots in New Haven, and if so, when the gunshots were last heard, how many gunshots were heard, and if they called the police when the gunshots were heard. Finally, respondents were asked if they had heard of any programs in New Haven designed to reduce gun crimes. If so, they were asked if they knew the name of the program and which agencies or organizations were involved, and how they learned of the program.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

For Part 4, a total of 216 surveys was distributed and 129 were completed for a response rate of 60 percent.

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

Parts 1-3: None. Parts 4 and 5: Several Likert-type scales were used.

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2006-01-06

Version History View help for Version History

Weight View help for Weight

None