Engagement, Not Enforcement - Arizona Coalition to End

Engagement, Not Enforcement: Collaborating with Law Enforcement on Engagement and Assessment of Service Resistant Populations
Lt. Charlie Consolian, City of Phoenix PD
Margaret Kilman MPA, Human Services Campus
Melissa Kovacs PhD, Maricopa County
Noor Singh MPA, Maricopa County
History
•  The Human Services Campus opened in 2005 •  Primary partner agencies: Central Arizona Shelter
Services (CASS), Lodestar Day Resource Center
(LDRC), Maricopa County Healthcare for the
Homeless, St. Joseph the Worker, St. Vincent de
Paul, Terros/Safe Haven
•  Mission: Using the Power of Collaboration to Create
Solutions to End Homelessness
Human Services Campus •  More than 15 agencies on site – “one stop shop” for
single adults experiencing homelessness
•  Services include ID/Birth Certificates (Homeless ID
Project), Outreach and behavioral health (Southwest
Behavioral Health), EMT and access to substance
use/abuse treatment (Community Bridges, Inc.)
•  More than 1,000 individuals access services on the
Campus each day
Coordinated Access/Assessment
•  Regional Coordinated Access/Assessment Center for
single adults •  More than 5,500 assessments conducted (VI-SPDAT)
•  Prioritization of resources Engagement not Enforcement
•  Can’t arrest our way of homelessness
•  Ending homelessness through
housing and services connection
•  Collaborating with services providers
to engage folks rather than criminalize
the homeless experience
•  Accountability Collaboration •  Misdemeanor Repeat Offender Program (MROP)
•  Security Operations Team (bi-monthly) – Identify
frequent engagers with PD •  All officers have received Assertive Engagement and
VI-SPDAT training through the Human Services
Campus
•  Case conferencing and open communication
Prioritization •  Acuity based on VI-SPDAT score
•  Medical or mental health issues
•  Overall vulnerability •  VI-SPDAT score prioritizes for housing interventions,
navigation, and case management
Accomplishments
•  39 assessments conducted since July 2014
highest score 15
lowest score 8
mean, median, mode = 11
•  4% decrease in overall crime (2012 – 2013)
3% decrease in property crime / 4% decrease in
violent crime
•  15% (6) of clients assessed by PD have had positive
housing outcomes Intersec(on of Jail Usage, Homelessness, & Mental Health – Maricopa County, AZ 7.8% of all Jail bookings in Maricopa County are for Homeless SMI individuals 20.6% of all Jail Bookings were for self reported Homeless individuals 15.3% of U.S. jail populaAon is made up of homeless inmates (Greenberg et al, 2008) 7.8% Homelessness is measured as those who reported an episode of homelessness currently or at any point in the last 12 months. In Arizona, the state Department of Behavioral Health Services denotes individuals as SMI, and we and Maricopa County jails follow their classifica(on. Percentage of Homeless & Homeless SMI in Jails Gender Breakdown of Homeless and SMI Individuals in Jails 23% 77% Homeless 22% 32% 78% 68% Homeless SMI Male General Jail Popula(on Female General Jail Popula(on is defined as Non-­‐SMI individuals with no self reported episode of homelessness currently or in the last 12 months in Maricopa County. Median Length of Stay (LOS) Analysis Homeless and Homeless SMI individuals stay 3 DAYS LONGER in Maricopa County Jails than General Jail Popula(on. Frequency of Jail Usage Volume Analysis of Maricopa County Jails (6 Months) Most Common Charges 5 Most Common Charges for Homeless Ø  ProbaAon ViolaAon -­‐ 13% Ø  Dangerous Drug Possession/Use -­‐ 8% Ø  Drug Paraphernalia-­‐Possession/
Use – 5% Ø  Failure To Appear 2nd Degree – 5% Ø  NarcoAc Drug – Possession/Use – 3% 5 Most Common Charges for Homeless SMI Ø  ProbaAon ViolaAon – 10% Ø  Criminal Trespassing 3rd Degree/
Property – 5.6% Ø  Failure To Appear 2nd Degree – 5% Ø  Dangerous Drug-­‐Possession/Use – 5% Ø  Disorderly Conduct-­‐FighAng – 4% Community Engagement
•  Monthly community meetings
•  Creating sustainable community for stakeholders
•  Participatory feedback opportunities for residents,
business owners, and person’s experiencing
homelessness (forums, focus groups, grievance
process)
Goals
•  To increase outreach and service
connection – particularly for individuals not
accessing resources on the Campus
•  Develop stronger collaborative
relationships between service providers and PD
•  Maintain safe neighborhoods
and reduction in crime
Challenges
•  Defining roles and responsibilities
•  Exploring outreach opportunities
•  Officer buy-in •  Cultural differences between PD and services
providers
•  Competing priorities
•  Accountability Next Steps
•  Continued training
•  Developing clear processes for assessment •  Examining new models of PD involvement in ending
homelessness initiatives
•  Expanding partnerships with services providers
Questions?
Contact
[email protected]
Margaret Kilman [email protected]
Melissa Kovacs
[email protected]
Noor Sing
[email protected]
Lt. Charles Consolian