IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

LANCASTER CRIME COMMISSION

RECOMMENDATIONS

PREPARED BY THE

PUBLIC SAFETY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

WITH SUPPORT FROM

AND

Franklin & Marshall College

OCTOBER 2007

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Public Safety Research Institute expresses its appreciation to all persons and organizations
that dedicated their time to this inquiry, including:

Millersville University

Mary H. Glazier, PhD
Sociology/Anthropology Department

Betty J. Finney, PhD
Professor Emerita, Psychology Department

Amanda Altice '07
Intern, Center for Opinion Research
Intern, Public Safety Research Institute

Jackie Good '07
Intern, Center for Opinion Research
Intern, Public Safety Research Institute

Andrea Reich '06
Intern, Center for Opinion Research
Intern, Public Safety Research Institute

Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education Professional Development Fund

Faculty Grants Committee

Franklin and Marshall College

Berwood Yost
Director, Floyd Institute for Public Policy
Director, Center for Opinion Research

Angela Knittle
Project Coordinator of Community Research
Center for Opinion Research

Table of Contents

Introduction	1
Public Safety Research Institute Study	5
Methodology	6
Findings	9
Discussion of Themes	9
"Fixing Broken Windows" Theory in Lancaster	9
Reaction to Overall Lancaster Crime Commission Efforts	10
Feasibility of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations	12
Communication and Publicity	14
Recommendations for Future Initiatives	16
Implementation of Crime Commission Recommendations	21
1 The Quality of Life in Lancaster's Neighborhoods	21
2 Community Policing and Law Enforcement Organization	35
3 Law Enforcement Response and Reaction	39
4 Prosecution and Judicial System Relationship and Readiness	42
5 Juvenile Justice	47
Discussion	54
Appendix A: Moderator's Guide .	59
Appendix B: Lancaster Crime Commission Reports.	60

Introduction

In 2000 Mayor Charlie Smithgall, with the endorsement of the Lancaster
County Commissioners, created the Lancaster Crime Commission (LCC). The
Crime Commission's charge was to develop recommendations that address the
problem of crime in the city of Lancaster. The LCC was comprised of fourteen
commissioners who were organized into four committees: Executive,
Administrative, Resource Development and Finance. Crime Commission
members also served on several other committees with persons from the
community:

Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice
Housing and Real Estate
Neighborhood, Community Policing and Community Relations
Research

With the support of an executive director, a secretary and two staffers,
these committees gathered information about the current efforts of social service
organizations and government agencies to address crime and quality of life issues
in Lancaster City. The Lancaster City Bureau of Police assigned an officer on a
full time basis to assist the Commission. In its initial report, published in March
2001, the LCC adopted the "fixing broken windows" theory to support and guide
the development of strategies to combat high rates of crime and disorder in
Lancaster City. The "fixing broken windows" approach suggests that if
communities attend to seemingly minor problems such as vandalism, noise,
littering and graffiti, they will reduce more serious problems like robbery and
assault. In consultation with George Kelling, one of the chief proponents of this
theory, the LCC determined that this theory was applicable to Lancaster and made
it the guiding principle for all its endeavors.

During the next two years, the LCC employed the "fixing broken
windows" perspective in developing the following special projects: the Quality of
Life Task Force, Operation Clean Sweep, the Faith Based Initiative, and the
Police Reorganization Task Force. In 2002, because it was dissatisfied with the

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

speed with which Crime Commission recommendations were being implemented,
the LCC embarked on the "Crime Commission Strategic Initiative" program.
Forty persons of diverse professional, cultural and economic backgrounds were
assigned to four Strategic Initiative Task Forces. These task forces worked in
concert with the LCC's members and professional staff as well as with
representatives of the Office of the District Attorney and the Lancaster City
Bureaus of Fire and Police. They consulted with experts, community officials and
criminal justice professionals and held public hearings to solicit the input of
hundreds of persons, both public officials and private citizens. In 2003, relying
heavily on the recommendations of the Strategic Initiative Task Forces, the LCC
issued its Final Report. The report included approximately sixty-five specific
recommendations designed to lower crime and improve the quality of life in
Lancaster. A majority of the recommendations were directed to existing
agencies/organizations. In addition, the LCC adopted seventeen resolutions that
reaffirmed the recommendations made in earlier Crime Commission reports1 and
gave impetus to the development of four new organizations: the Public Safety
Research Institute, the Lancaster Community Safety Coalition, the Lancaster
Police Foundation and the East King Improvement District.

The LCC selected five major topic areas on which to focus its
recommendations:
- The Quality of Life in Lancaster's Neighborhoods
- Community Policing and Law Enforcement Organization
- Law Enforcement Response and Reaction
- Prosecution and Judicial System Relationship and Readiness
- Juvenile Justice

The Quality of Life in Lancaster's Neighborhoods

With the theory of "fixing broken windows" as a guide, the LCC
addressed the problem of the cumulative effects of minor irritants on quality of

1 All Lancaster Crime Commission reports are listed in Appendix B.

2

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

life in Lancaster. The recommendations that addressed quality of life issues
focused on nuisance crime reduction, improved code enforcement in public and
private housing, changes in enforcement and supervision of Section 8 housing2,
and improvement in social service coordination.

Community Policing and Law Enforcement Organization

In its Final Report, the Crime Commission recognized that the "linchpin"
for executing the "fixing broken windows" strategy is community policing. All of
the recommendations in this area focused on the improvement, implementation
and expansion of the comprehensive plan for restructuring the Lancaster Bureau
of Police developed by former Chief William Heim. The recommendations
included acceleration of the adoption and implementation of the proposed plan, an
increase in the number of police officers, expansion of the use of non-uniformed
professional administrative staff members, the improved retention of police
officers, the creation of a computerized internal crime tracking and accountability
system, the development of an independent assessment system, and the creation
of a formal, continuing police/community education and information system.

Law Enforcement Response and Reaction

The recommendations in this area addressed the numerous concerns of
police and citizens about the delay in dispatching police officers. The
Commission recommended the immediate implementation of the enhanced 911
system, a 911 substation in police headquarters, a new county wide telephone
dispatching system, and the formation of a new unit in the police department to
manage the new 911/311 system. The final recommendation in this area
advocated an "aggressive, long term marketing and informational campaign" that
would educate the members of the public on the use of 911 and help them
differentiate between emergency and non-emergency reporting.

2 Section 8 housing refers to the Housing Choice Voucher Program, which is federally funded
subsidized housing for low-income families and individuals.

3

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

Prosecution and Judicial System Relationship and Readiness

The LCC expressed its strongest dissatisfaction with the judicial system.
Citing high recidivism rates, heavy caseloads in the District Attorney's office,
non-enforcement of all Drug Free Schools Zone codes, and an understaffed police
force, the LCC recommended reorganization of the judicial system. It proposed
that the reorganization include the creation of a drug court, a night court, and a
community court. It recommended the use of the accelerated docket system in
Lancaster County civil and criminal courts and the aggressive and consistent
enforcement of all drug laws. In order to support this reorganization, it
recommended that eight new prosecutors be added to the District Attorney's
office.

The LCC addressed the issue of recidivism by recommending that the city
"aggressively pursue" the federally funded Weed and Seed program; that the
Office of Probation and Parole institute a probation/parole and police officer
cooperative program; and, that the Office of Probation and Parole supply police
officers with a list of probationers and parolees, their addresses and status. It also
recommended that a central warrant service and central booking system be
instituted.

Juvenile Justice

The final area of concern for the LCC was juvenile justice. In the belief
that the Juvenile Probation and Parole needed to be "significantly restructured",
the LCC recommended broadened hours, curfew calls and home visits; the use of
electronic monitoring; the elimination of boot camp; and, a complete review of
the use of the county juvenile detention center.

The LCC also addressed the issue of early intervention as a means of
preventing juvenile delinquency. It recommended expanded mental health
services for pre-adjudicated juveniles and dysfunctional families; screening for
alcohol and drugs, learning disabilities and mental health issues for all adjudicated
youth; the establishment of a Curfew Center; the placement of school resource

4

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

officers in all middle and high schools; the expansion of dropout and truancy
prevention programs; the increased use of alternative punishment programs; and,
a court system more open to citizen involvement.

Public Safety Research Institute Study

The Lancaster Crime Commission recommended the formation of a public
safety research group, composed of faculty and students from local colleges and
universities, as well as community leaders. This group, founded in 2003, is
currently functioning as the Public Safety Research Institute (PSRI), "a public
policy research and educational resource to those in the public and private sectors
who continue to be involved in the drive to make the greater Lancaster
Community safer" (Final Report, 2003:15). Since its establishment, it has
conducted research for the James Street Improvement District and the East King
Improvement District, as well as for the Bureau of Police in Lancaster City and
the Lancaster Community Safety Coalition. It recently began an investigation of
the recidivism rates of probationers and parolees supervised by the Lancaster
Office of Adult Probation.
In 2005, the Public Safety Research Institute began a study to investigate
the implementation and acceptance of the LCC's recommendations by social
service organizations and government agencies. The goals of this study were:
- To pull together a total picture of the progress that has taken place
since the Crime Commission report
- To inform policy makers of progress
- To identify overlapping efforts and gaps in community efforts.
(PSRI Minutes, 1/7/2005)

PSRI constructed two data collection projects to accomplish the intended
goals. One project, a web-based survey, provided PSRI with some information
regarding the response of social service organizations, governmental agencies and
houses of worship in Lancaster City to the LCC recommendations. PSRI

5

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

presented the results of this survey to the Cross Problems group sponsored by the
United Way in September 2005. The second project, which is discussed here,
employed interviews with representatives of the social service organizations and
government agencies that were specifically charged with implementing the
recommendations of the Crime Commission. These interviews offered an
opportunity to learn how well the LCC had convinced agency personnel of the
usefulness of the "fixing broken windows" philosophy; how receptive the
agencies were to the specific recommendations the LCC made; the extent to
which the agencies had implemented the recommendations; and, suggestions for
future crime reduction initiatives.

Methodology

PSRI researchers reviewed the Final Report of the Lancaster Crime
Commission to identify the recommendations made in it and to determine which
social service organizations and government agencies the LCC had charged with
implementing them. More specifically, the researchers enumerated all the
recommendations that emerged from the work of the Strategic Initiative task
forces. In preparing these recommendations, each task force consulted experts in
the field, conducted public hearings and reviewed all the prior work of the LCC,
its committees and associated task forces. As such, these recommendations
represent the culmination of the work of the LCC.
The researchers constructed a list of the specified social service
organizations and government agencies, identified the executives in charge of
those social service organizations and government agencies, and obtained contact
information for them. During the first round of interviews conducted in August
and September 2005, researchers attempted to schedule thirty to forty-five minute
face-to-face interviews with the director or head of each social service
organization or government agency. Of the thirty-two possible social service
organizations and government agencies identified, representatives of twenty-two
agencies agreed to be interviewed.

6

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

The research team developed a list of open-ended questions3 to guide the
conversations with the respondents. Although the interviewers used questions as a
guide for the interviews, they allowed the executives to discuss freely the issues
surrounding the activities of the LCC.

After allowing the respondents to express their general impressions of the
LCC and its activities, the interviewers gave respondents a copy of the Crime
Commission's recommendations that specifically mentioned their organization or
agency. Then, the interviewers asked the respondents a series of questions
regarding their reactions to the specific recommendations. Respondents
sometimes engaged in lengthy discourses on topics related to issues other than the
Crime Commission recommendations and had to be redirected back to the
relevant issues.

In most cases, interviewers met the respondents in their office and, with
their consent, tape-recorded the conversations that followed. County court-related
officers requested a group interview, so interviewers met with six representatives
of court-related offices as a group. Representatives of court-related agencies
refused to permit the interviewers to tape-record that interview. The interview
with a county commissioner was also not taped because of court regulations.
Interviewers took notes of the interviews that were not tape-recorded.

Following the interviews, the research team transcribed the tape-recorded
interviews and typed a summary of the unrecorded interviews. They then
reviewed the interviews to identify common themes expressed by the respondents.
Some of the themes emerged directly from the questions that were asked in the
interviews, while others reflected issues and concerns that the researchers had not
anticipated. Five themes were common to many of the interviews.
1. Awareness of the "Fixing Broken Windows" theory and strategy
2. Reaction to the overall efforts of the LCC
3. The feasibility of the LCC recommendations
4. Communication between the LCC and agency representatives and
with the public

3 Appendix A - Moderator's Guide

7

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

5. Suggestions for an improved process and possible topics for future
initiatives

Following the analysis of the themes, PSRI researchers prepared a list of
the recommendations and noted next to each recommendation what the
respondents had told the interviewers about the extent to which that
recommendation had or had not been implemented. Examination of this
document revealed that there was no information available for a substantial
number of the recommendations. To address this information gap, PSRI
researchers determined which representatives of governmental agencies and
human service organizations could supply the missing information. Beginning in
June 2006, two PSRI representatives conducted supplemental interviews with 18
additional people. These interviews were conducted face-to-face (four), by phone
(ten) and by email (four). The interviewers provided each respondent with the
specific recommendations made to the organization he or she represented and
asked the respondent whether or not the recommendation had been implemented.
The respondents were able to provide that information and often offered
comments regarding the reasons some of the recommendations had not been
implemented. The interviewers took notes on the information the respondents
supplied. Adding the information secured through the supplemental interviews to
that obtained in the original interviews offers a comprehensive overview of the
implementation of LCC recommendations and provides additional observations
on the reasons why some of them have not been implemented. Because the
interviewers who conducted the first phase of interviews assured their respondents
that their comments were confidential, the identity of the individuals providing
any information is not revealed.

8

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

Findings
Discussion of Themes

"Fixing Broken Windows" Theory in Lancaster

The "fixing broken windows" perspective dominated all Lancaster Crime
Commission reports and received wide publicity. Not surprisingly, all respondents
knew about this perspective and most supported it.

"Kelling and Coles came up with a book and it seemed to fit [the situation facing
Lancaster City]."

"Well, I think with fixing broken windows you are looking at addressing some of
the small problems, before they become big problems and what we do is we help
to address those smaller problems within neighborhoods."

"Well, we actually reorganized the whole department, as you know, to try to
adhere better to a "fixing broken windows" philosophy.... I think it has some
merit because if people who are prone to be disorderly or commit crimes know
that there's no repercussion from doing so, either from the police or even from
the community...it's going to be a prevalent behavior. So, it's going to be an
important part of a community strategy to prevent crime."

Some of the people interviewed felt that although the "fixing broken
windows" theory was applicable to Lancaster City, the LCC should have gone
further, at least examining other theories, if not incorporating them into the
development of its recommendations.

"We [the Crime Commission] latched on to a particular theory, and I don't know
that we gave other theories enough of chance or blended them. To me one of the
biggest problems is that if you only rely on one theory, you only get, potentially,

9

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

one result, and it might be more appropriate to look at multiple theories and how
they might apply in one place."

"There's the 'fixing broken windows' concept that take[s] care of some of the
small blights and things that are in disrepair and fix[es] them and it improves the
overall neighborhood and safety. But, we [our organization] take it a step farther
in... there's another study done by Dr. Felton Earls in Boston. I'm not sure if
you've heard of it, where it's called 'collective efficacy'. And it stresses getting
the stakeholders in the community involved, getting people around the table that
live in the neighborhood to say, 'how can we improve the quality of our
neighborhood.' And the point there is that having those people involved on an
on-going basis is more sustainable change and something other than a quick fix.
Now, some of the people that support 'collective efficacy' say its better than
'fixing broken windows', or that two are competing theories. We don't say they
are competing at all. They can be done in tandem and in cooperation with each
other."

Reaction to Overall Lancaster Crime Commission Efforts

Most of the respondents offered their observations about the overall efforts
of the LCC. The Crime Commission Final Report, with its pointed criticisms of
current criminal justice system operations and its advocacy of substantial changes,
generated both very positive and strongly negative reactions. Some people felt
that the report made social service organizations, government agencies and the
citizens of Lancaster more aware of the problems that Lancaster city was facing.

"When I read the Crime Commission Report, there is nothing I fundamentally
disagree with. All the recommendations in there are valid ones, important ones."

"At first there was a lot of skepticism, but at the end, I think it came out pretty
good. Overall it helped the city. You can't solve a problem until people recognize
10

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

there is a problem. And that was part of their original charges. To find a problem
and let's see how we can work around it."

Others felt that the report's focus placed too much attention on the city
itself and took attention away from efforts to improve the surrounding
communities and county as a whole.

"... [I]t created some conflict between the city and the people outside of the city,
in terms of law enforcement and others. So, I would say overall what it says is
the philosophy of the crime commission report is that... as the city goes so does
the county. That is, the city is in a decline then the whole county is in a decline,
because of people from all over the county come to the city to buy drugs and use
drugs and then they take them out into the county and then sell them, so that this
was a real hub and that philosophy isn't shared by people outside of the city."

"[The] Crime Commission Report has never really concerned us. [Our] focus is
never just the city. Sometimes we are forced to look at the city as a population,
but [we] never make decisions unique to the city, city specific."

However, another respondent offered the opinion that the emphasis on the
city was reasonable.

"I think they did focus on the city because that's where the crime and disorder is
for the most part. If you dispersed the extra resources we have across the county,
a lot of it would be wasted."

And at least one county official offered the opinion that the focus on
problems in the city was important because the "city is the heart of the county. If
the city goes downhill, so does the county."
Another criticism was that the LCC was mistaken about some of the issues
it addressed.

11

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

"This [the report] says that the agencies are fragmented and suffer from turf
issues.... I think that is a misplaced description of reality."

"I think I get a little uncomfortable when these new organizations kind of crop
up, yet they don't really have a real grasp on what exists already. And I think
they really need to be more familiar before they decide there could be additions,
changes, or that kind of thing."

"The Crime Commission process was fundamentally flawed; the people on the
commission did not understand the system or where players fall into the system."
"I thought it was not idealistic but sort of pie in the sky, wishful thinking, over-
simplified, naÃ¯ve, political."

From the perspective of these respondents, despite the extensive research
it did, the LCC failed to grasp all the important nuances in the ways government
agencies and human services organizations operate.

Feasibility of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

Because the Final Report contains scores of recommendations that ask
governmental agencies and community organizations to modify current programs,
create new programs and/or eliminate other programs, the feasibility of these
recommendations is a significant issue. Some of the agencies used these
recommendations as guideposts in their planning process.

"Yeah we've implemented just about all of the recommendations from the Crime
Commission."

"So it helped me with goal setting and long term planning and all those sort of
clichÃ© terms, to figure out where we want to be in four years, five years in terms
of hiring more [staff]... It helped to lay the groundwork for that."
12

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

In other cases, the LCC recommendation spurred organizations to work
together to establish a new entity or initiative.

"But, the concept of an improvement district, these six [organizations] read it in
the Crime Commission Report and said, 'we can do this.' They [the
organizations] pulled together and formed a plan.... Most of what we are doing is
directly working toward these points here.... Not that some of these activities
weren't happening, but pulling them together into a focused intentional program,
developing the neighborhood plan, and going out and getting funding for it is a
result of that recommendation, and we are now working within the spirit of that
plan, and see ourselves as being very effective and instrumental in achieving one
of the recommendations of the Crime Commission Report."

However, other respondents vehemently disputed the perspective of the
LCC or the wisdom of its recommendations.

"Well first of all I disagree with the assumption that the system is broken, that's
like my big problem, because the people who I interact with have a very positive
experience."

"The last thing, we do not need to create additional non-profits. In fact this is a
perfect example of misplaced leadership - to recommend that a new non-profit
be established."

Other social service organizations and governmental agencies felt the
recommendations were irrelevant to their organization, because they were already
engaging in the activities that were mentioned in the recommendations.

"[This program] had long been initiated before the recommendations.... Our
move to initiate this was not based on their recommendation."

13

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

"[O]ur move to initiate this was not based on their recommendation, so I don't
want to take the thunder from this, but I think we were simultaneously going
down the same path, the same direction."

"You see the other thing that escaped them was that we always have worked
together. [W]e continue to be very cooperative with all the city agencies,
bureaus, and departments, whatever they may be."

"Yeah we have made a ton of changes in our organization but nothing related to
the crime commission."

Another concern expressed by some respondents was the cost of
implementing all of the LCC recommendations.

"As for some of the other goals I really think in terms of public reception, there
were concerns that this would result in higher taxes for everyone throughout the
county, and I think that has been a negative area of feedback that they have
received."

Communication and Publicity

Communication is an important part of an undertaking that attempts to
accomplish goals as ambitious as those of the Lancaster Crime Commission.
Because the LCC viewed the issue of crime reduction very broadly, interaction
with diverse social service organizations and government agencies was necessary.
Although issues of communication between the LCC and governmental agencies
and social services agencies did not emerge in most of the interviews, the
perspective of some respondents on the nature of their communication with the
LCC was highly critical. For example, the head of one agency complained,

"I never felt that I was given an opportunity to explain to the commission why
the [program] of Lancaster was not the monster that some of those programs are
14

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

in those very large cities.... I went prepared to share information. I had handouts,
I had facts, I had figures.... And it was a little inquisition where I was hammered
for 2 hours...."

Another respondent described a colleague's reactions in similar terms.

"The [individual called to testify] felt that he was being asked questions with an
end in mind.... The hearing felt like an investigation, an interrogation."

On the other hand, representatives of other organizations commented that
their testimony before the crime commission provided them with new insights and
led to specific recommendations being made that they viewed as constructive.

"No, like I said, they didn't even know who we were or what we did until I went
in there."

"I thought they were well received. I think it showed how our concerns
translated into how the crime commission articulated their concern about...and
those kinds of issues."

The Crime Commission also attempted to elicit information from the
general public and to educate them regarding its preferred strategies to improve
public safety in Lancaster city. One respondent expressed approval of the LCC's
efforts to recruit citizen input.

"You know I think that, I like the fact, as I understand it there was a lot of citizen
involvement, in the front end, getting people's information, understanding, and
perceptions. I'd like to see as much grow out of citizen involvement as possible.
It always feels like it is the same people making the same recommendations and
the same decisions... "

However, others questioned the extent to which the community remains
aware of the Commission's efforts.
15

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

"But if I were to go out on the street now and say to somebody, 'Do you know
about the Crime Commission Report and what is in it', very few people would
probably know about it. The organizations that are working in the area would,
but I don't think the residents knew that much about it."

"There is just so much information that the neighbors didn't have, that residents
didn't have, you know. And it is stuff that shouldn't be that complicated but to
find the information, to understand the processes, you know for the average
resident who doesn't want to carve out that much time, it is very hard. So, part of
it is people don't understand the details about what the police can and can't do,
they don't understand the city's budget, all those sorts of things, it is very hard
for people to understand that in an easy way."

Recommendations for Future Initiatives

The Crime Commission has dissolved, leaving several newly created
organizations, a list of recommendations, and, some believe, a number of loose
ends. Many respondents, especially those with generally positive views of the
Crime Commission, thought it should have remained in existence longer.

"One thing is the Crime Commission sun-setted. You know, it was in existence
for just a few short years, not enough to make sweeping changes. So, that's the
first thing I would advocate, that you don't have a sunset date, that you're around
for a long time."

Some referred to the LCC resolution calling for the creation of "The
Lancaster Committee of 100," an independent, political and community action
organization to advocate for full implementation of the "fixing broken windows"
strategy of public safety enhancement and quality of life improvement.

"Yeah a committee to follow through and reorganize it...I don't think that this is
that old that a committee couldn't still be established to go back through, which
16

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

is what you are doing here, checking out what was done and what wasn't done,
and maybe come up with a recommendation that a committee, I don't know
about a committee of 100, but a committee be created to get back into this and
from your report find out what was or wasn't done, ok these things were done,
these weren't, let's get someone moving on these things that they did
recommend."

"I think that I would have kept it in existence longer. I would have had a phase
of doing all the research, because their research was so well done, put together. I
would have had an implementation aspect of it. Now, I know that there are some
things that were divided up, the Lancaster Alliance took part of it and created the
Lancaster Safety Coalition, and those types of things, but there is no meeting
point at which the Lancaster Crime Commission oversees the implementation of
the recommendation. So, I would change that."

Another view expressed was that implementation of the LCC
recommendations would progress further if stronger and more centralized
leadership directed the changes.

"It would be nice to have someone with a lot of 'oomph' in charge to get
everybody to do what they need to do.... You know if we had some charismatic
person with some weight who could bring this together.... I mean it would be nice
to have a czar. If we had, you know some counties have a single county
executive...and a person like that, if they're really good might be able to have a
good effect on the County's mission."

Other respondents made specific recommendations.

"I'd like to see it keep trying to help the housing division.... But the big need is
more housing inspectors.... So better litter enforcement would be helpful.... And
we need a lot emphasis on code enforcement."

17

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

"And maybe more funding to help property owners get paint, or even to get an
elderly person who doesn't have the ability mentally or physically to take care of
their property - have more to assist the elderly people in getting their properties
painted and make sure the roof doesn't leak."

"I would like it to focus on the greater integration of police, courts, probation,
corrections, to see if we couldn't get more on the same page with how the entire
criminal justice system responds to crime and disorder."

Some people mentioned the need for additional resources to implement changes.

"I talk and I listen to people talk about how they are going to change the world,
but the fact is somebody needs to muster the political will you know to invest
more in the people who are delivering the services. You can't spend $300,000 to
criticize the people in the system; you need to spend money to get better people
in the system.... [U]nless you fundamentally change the resources that are
committed to your area of interest, you are not going to change it."

"I'm also a big fan of law enforcement in general, but somebody needs to win the
lottery and give [the police chief] a couple of million dollars for better computers
and software."

One respondent saw the potential contribution the LCC could make in obtaining
those resources.

"[T]he Crime Commission can keep the heat on the city and the community. We
do need community support and the community has been coming forward with
funding for computers to bring the housing staff up to modern age. That's been
very good. Getting grants, that continues to need to be done. But if our housing
stock declines, there goes the city."

Another respondent noted the necessity of involving municipalities other
than Lancaster City. He observed that from the perspective of public officials and
18

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

police officers from outside the city, it was unclear how they would benefit from
addressing the city's crime problem. In the future, he said, it is important to
involve people from outside the city to build support for changes to the county
court system.

"A lot of the major issues were focused on the city and how the city would
benefit from an improved county court system. When that message was
delivered to the public, a lot of people outside the city a lot of municipalities and
other police forces [were] saying, wait a minute you want to increase our taxes
and raise all this money...and people saying, no we are not going to fund the
city's crime problem. So you have, if you were to do it again you need to involve
people from outside the city, public officials and law enforcement officials if we
are going to address any wide sweeping changes to the county court system."

Someone with a similar perspective offered the opinion that in the future,
work needed to be done to coordinate efforts to address problems of crime and
disorder.

"We have a lot of organizations that are basically trying to do the same thing,
and there is a lot of redundancy. And they're not big enough or powerful enough
to get things done, but they're all kind of spinning their wheels, getting little bits
of money from the same sources or different sources, and having their own little
programs and not being really effective."

One respondent recommended that future efforts include input from a
more diverse population. She said, "More women, more minorities, might have
participated". Another agency head commented favorably on the degree of citizen
involvement in the LCC and said, "I'd like see as much grow out of citizen
involvement as possible".

One respondent, who commented critically regarding the Crime
Commission's recommendations for his agency, nevertheless concluded by
saying:
19

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

"It [the Crime Commission Report] served a wonderful, useful purpose.... I mean
I hope it doesn't get stale. I hope that there are other grass roots groups out there
looking at other crime commissions' recommendations and working to build
whatever it might be that is needed.... I just hope it doesn't get stale and gather
dust."
20

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

Implementation of Crime Commission Recommendations

This section summarizes the extent to which each of the recommendations
of the five Strategic Initiative task forces of the LCC has been implemented as of
September 2007. Following each Strategic Initiative task force recommendation
(printed verbatim, in bold) is a commentary taken from the words of the people
interviewed describing their view of how the recommendation is being
implemented or offering their opinion regarding the lack of implementation. The
extent of implementation and the reasons for a lack of implementation are the
opinions of the persons interviewed. Other persons may have different
explanations or may believe that not all of these recommendations are
implemented as fully as the respondents claimed in their interviews.

This systematic examination of the recommendations of the Crime
Commission is an effort to insure that the Final Report does not "get stale and
gather dust". It is designed to provide a foundation for future efforts and to call
attention to the issues that have impeded change and that may limit the success of
future efforts to implement LCC recommendations.

1. The Quality of Life in Lancaster's Neighborhoods

Nuisance Crime Reduction

A. "Fixing Broken Windows": The full and immediate implementation by
the Lancaster Bureau of Police, Lancaster Bureau of Fire, Lancaster Parks
and Recreation Department, and the Lancaster City Department of Housing
and Neighborhood Development of the Fixing Broken Windows strategy.
The result will be better-managed public safety, improvements in the quality
of life in all of the neighborhoods, and the provision for 24-7 citywide
community policing coverage.

21

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

In its initial report released in March 2001, the Lancaster Crime
Commission affirmed, "fixing broken windows" as the model for its
efforts to fight and prevent crime and disorder. By the time the final
report was released, the Lancaster Bureau of Police had begun the process
of establishing problem-oriented policing throughout the department and
implementing the "fixing broken windows" strategy. The Lancaster
Crime Commission gave impetus to this reorganization of the department
by creating an environment in which broad changes became possible. The
changes were also facilitated by the media's focus on crime issues, help
from the federal government and the flexibility and willingness of the
District Attorney to entertain new ideas. The Lancaster Bureau of Police,
through a reorganization plan establishing problem-oriented policing
throughout the department, sought to implement the "fixing broken
windows" strategy. However, according to an internal survey of Lancaster
city police officers, their response to the reorganization plan was mixed.
Some officers endorsed the plan and understood what was expected of
them. Others supported problem-oriented policing but were not sure what
was expected of them. A third group endorsed problem oriented policing
but disagreed with how it was being executed. Finally, some officers
dismissed problem-orienting policing as a form of social work.

Since fall 2006, police have stepped up enforcement of quality of life
violations as measured by increased numbers of citations for speeding,
noise, and other quality of life violations. In addition, officers are making
meaningful connections in neighborhoods resulting in stakeholders and
residents complimenting the behavior of officers.

The Department of Housing and Neighborhood Development has merged
with the Department of Economic Development. This produces a more
cohesive and unified approach to addressing quality of life issues. Housing
Inspectors have begun using a new software system that allows for
22

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

computerized tracking of code violations and complaints. This helps
identify problem properties. The Bureau of Zoning and Inspections is
working to develop a team approach with the Bureau of Fire to conduct
systematic inspections of the City's rental housing stock. The Bureau
does work closely with the Bureau of Police to enforce City housing
codes. Finally, the Department of Public Works /Bureau of Streets and
Parks has received funds to develop a comprehensive master plan for all
City parks.

B. Ordinance Enforcement: The development by the Lancaster Bureau of
Police, the Lancaster Bureau of Fire, the Lancaster City Housing and
Neighborhood Development Department of a coordinated and aggressive
action plan for consistent enforcement of the full range of quality of life
ordinances in all neighborhoods of the city.

The Bureau of Police, Bureau of Fire and Lancaster City Housing and
Neighborhood Development Department (now known as Economic
Development & Neighborhood Revitalization) have cooperated to
implement this recommendation. The police now give more attention to
smaller crimes. The Lancaster Bureau of Police and the Lancaster Bureau
of Fire meet on a regular basis. A computerized database shared by
housing and police is being established.

The East King Improvement District (EKID) has established a
neighborhood assessment team to facilitate coordination between police,
fire and housing departments and block coordinators in addressing the
problems of problem properties in the EKID area. The Northwest Safety
Coalition works with the James Street Improvement and Downtown
Improvement Districts.

23

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

C. Code and Zoning Review. The systematic review of all city ordinances,
including zoning, should be undertaken by the Bureau of Planning and City
Council to guarantee the consistent and aggressive setting of high standards
for the quality of life and public safety of residents.

Prior to the Crime Commission report, the City Planning Commission had
recommended revisions in some zoning ordinances to provide crime
prevention through environmental design methods and to address quality
of life concerns associated with dance clubs. One of the goals of the
Lancaster City Comprehensive Plan passed in 1993 is "to strengthen
neighborhoods and to make all neighborhoods desirable, safe places to
live". In some respects, the Crime Commission supported the work of the
Planning Commission rather than vice versa.

The Lancaster City Council felt that the recommendations the Crime
Commission addressed to their organization were appropriate and
relevant. They responded to these recommendations by establishing an
ongoing process of review of the city ordinances, with particular attention
to those ordinances that impact quality of life, economic development,
public safety and taxes. Following is a brief description of the ordinances
amended or passed as a result of this review:

- Urban Redevelopment Law - amended definition of blighted property to allow
for quicker redevelopment
- Amended City Code to speed the process for which properties with underlying
contamination can meet DEP requirements
- Amended the city code to eliminate the occupation tax and replace it with earned
income tax
- Amended the zoning ordinances to prepare for implementation of the
comprehensive plan, shape development, promote economic development,
protect the character and residential areas of the city and improve the quality of
life
- Amended the noise ordinance to provide greater control and regulation of
excessive sound
- Amended the city code to bring regulations regarding the food code into state and
federal compliance
24

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

- Passed resolutions authorizing application to DCED for Elm Street programs
which provide grants to communities for streetscape improvements, planning and
project management. Grants were approved by DCED and are funds are currently
being used for improvements in two neighborhoods
- Amended the city code to change evaluation procedures for promotion in the
police department allowing the department greater flexibility in developing
procedures for promotion
- Amended the city code to standardize the building code in compliance with the
Uniform Construction Code
- Amended the code to permit housing inspectors and other employees designated
by the Director of Public Safety to issue parking tickets
- Rezoned tract of land at the Kerr Glass site to allow for mixed use development
- Passed an ordinance providing for tax exemption for improvements to
deteriorated property
- Authorized the transfer of certain city-owned property to SACA to allow for
building of new homes and increasing home ownership
- Passed an ordinance to increase fines for curfew violations
- Applied for HUD grants to improve the welfare of the homeless
- Passed an ordinance to increase fines for code violations in the area of housing,
brush, grass and weeds, health standards, electrical standards, public nuisances,
traffic and vehicles
- Established the Central Market Trust to oversee the business of Central Market
- Authorized the purchase of computer software to automate the process of the
Bureau of Housing and Structural Inspections
- Adopted major changes in fines and enforcement procedures for many sections
of the Traffic Code
- Reorganized city departments to consolidate department of economic
development and created an office of grants to centralize all grant applications
- Submitted an application for a keystone grant to support an expansion of the
library in downtown Lancaster City
- Passed a resolution to authorize the administration to submit a planning grant
application to PA DCED to engage the Brookings Institute to develop a strategic
development plan for the City of Lancaster
- Amended zoning ordinance to allow for expansion at Lancaster General Hospital
- Amended the neighborhood police ordinance to expand the number of
community police officers
- Passed a resolution supporting a county-wide Department of Health to coordinate
efforts aimed at safeguarding the health of children and families
- Passed an ordinance amending the city code to expand the animal control to
include cats
- Passed a resolution to execute an amendment to a cooperation agreement
between the city of Lancaster and the PA Academy of Music governing a
redevelopment assistance capital program grant for the expansion of the
Academy's current facility. This increases the grant amount from 6 million to 8.5
million.
- Approved application for numerous historic preservation projects

25

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

D. Aggressive Prosecution and Adjudication: The public and formal
commitment by the Lancaster Bureau of Police, the office of the Lancaster
County District Attorney and the individual District Justices of the City of
Lancaster to the aggressive prosecution and adjudication of ordinance and
summary offense quality of life crimes.

The reorganization of the Bureau of Police made issuing citations for
minor violations a priority. Police have increased the number of charges
filed for noise violations, speeding, littering, public urination and other
quality of life violations since the reorganization. Code enforcement
officers are also much more aggressive in bringing charges of sanitation
violations and in citing properties that do not meet the standards of the city
code.

E. Simpler Complaint Procedures: The development of a streamlined and
simple complaint procedure for citizens reporting quality of life crimes that
will be implemented and can be expanded by the Lancaster Bureau of Police
and the Lancaster County District Attorney's Office.

It does not appear that this has occurred. The Bureau of Police developed
a Citizen's Crime Report for minor theft and vandalism but it was not used
much.

F. 911-311-211 Telephone System: The creation of a new countywide
telephone dispatching system which includes provision for emergency calls
(911), calls for non-emergency municipal services (311), and calls for social
services (211).

The costs associated with establishing a 311 line (about $1 million) seem
to have precluded its establishment. Also, if establishment of 311 and 211
lines resulted in more calls to Lancaster County-Wide Communications,
26

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

its staffing needs would increase, also increasing costs. Current revenues
are based on the $1.25 monthly fee charged per phone line. Consumer
abandonment of landlines in favor of cell phones jeopardizes that source
of revenue. Legislation will be needed to permit the fee to be charged on
cell phones also.

Currently, Lancaster County-Wide Communications receives calls
regarding municipal services on their non-emergency line. By using their
electronic internal phone directory, they are able to refer to appropriate
offices within one minute.

G. 211 Clearing House: The development of a clearing house/referral service
to support the establishment of 211 social service telephone dispatch system.

United Way LINC currently provides information and referrals to people
seeking information about social services. LINC is advocating for
establishment of 211service but it is currently not available in
Pennsylvania.

H. Pro-Bono Prosecution Program: The expansion of the existing pro bono
prosecution program of the District Attorney's office to supplement DA staff
in the prosecution of nuisance crime. Similarly, the abilities of the Lancaster
City Solicitor's Office should be expanded in a pro bono manner to handle
an expected increased load of civil offense litigation. The Lancaster Bar
Association is encouraged to become the leading partner taking on the
responsibility for the recruitment of attorneys to serve in the aforementioned
pro bono programs. Participating attorneys are afforded unique
opportunities to serve their city and county, while receiving invaluable legal
experience.

27

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

The District Attorney's office has worked with local attorneys on
curtailing public nuisances, especially bars and nuisance properties.
Volunteer attorneys succeeded in having one bar closed down. This action
encouraged other bars to implement changes to avoid being closed. The
office of District Attorney has also completed a manual for police officers
to use as a guide for drug and alcohol related nuisance enforcement. In
addition, an assistant District Attorney has been assigned responsibility in
this area.

The Lancaster Bar Association operates a pro bono program, in which
approximately one half of the county's lawyers participate. It handles
3,000 to 4,000 cases per year and is already overtaxed. In response to this
crisis, the Lancaster Bar Association established a foundation that raised
enough money to pay the salary of an attorney at Mid-Penn Legal Services
who will exclusively handle custody cases. This appointment may help to
free up some of the Bar Association's resources to handle other matters,
for example landlord tenant issues.

I. Crime Mapping System: the creation of a crime and disorder incident
mapping system and database that is secure, operates in real time and is able
to provide all law enforcement, code enforcement, education and social
service professionals with the current information they need to coordinate
their quality of life improvement efforts.

The Bureau of Police purchased a crime mapping system but it has not
been used much, for a variety of reasons, including the challenges of
meshing information obtained from different systems. The Bureau of
Police continues to work on improving its ability to map incidents and
make that information available to the public. However, the community is
a long way from implementing a comprehensive system as described in
this recommendation.
28

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

Code Enforcement

A. Computerization of the Housing and Neighborhood Development
Department

Installed and operational.

B. More officers. Net addition of five new professionally trained code
enforcement officers.

The Housing Bureau has nine housing inspectors, an increase of four.

C. Minimum residential leases. The codification of minimum residential
lease requirements for all city properties.

A Rental Housing Task Force that is reviewing the rental housing
ordinance and licensing program and making recommendations for
revisions will address this.

D. Higher fees. Increase in fees and fines to liquidate additional costs.

The city will begin enforcing existing city ordinances that permit it to
charge for follow-up inspections if all required improvements are not
completed when the first follow-up inspection is scheduled and held.

E. Property inspection. Inspections of properties every four years
(minimum).

The city will soon be implementing systematic inspection of property
interiors and exteriors. This will replace the current complaint based
system of inspections.
29

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

F. Accountability for repeat offenders. The city should regularly publish the
names of our most recalcitrant landlords and inform insurers and mortgage
holders when repeated offenses occur.

The Rental Property Task Force and City Solicitors are reviewing the legal
implications of this approach.

Section 8 Scattered Site Housing

A. Rigorous HUD Enforcement. The rigorous enforcement by the Lancaster
City Housing Authority of all HUD tenant-screening guidelines.

The Lancaster City Housing Authority enforces HUD tenant screening
guidelines.

B. Section 8 Housing Supervision. The development and implementation by
the Lancaster City Housing Authority of a rigorous supervision program for
all Section 8 participants (tenants and landlords). Such a program should
require:
- Monitoring of all police and code enforcement activity on site
- Monitoring criminal activity by participants
- Monitoring quality of life crime and disorder complaints
- Maintaining a record of identity of all site residents, and
- Providing the Lancaster Bureau of Police, Lancaster Bureau of Fire
and the Lancaster City Housing and Neighborhood Development
Department with current monthly lists of all city Section 8 program
properties.

Although the Lancaster City Housing Authority does not publish monthly lists
of Section 8 properties for other agencies, it does provide updates on Section 8
units to the Lancaster Bureau of Police. The Lancaster Bureau of Police and
the Lancaster City Housing Authority have worked cooperatively to address
30

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

problems posed by problem properties and problem tenants. The Housing
Authority reviews incident reports that the city police provide them to
determine which are associated with Section 8 or other public housing sites. It
tracks violations, monitors the quality of life and investigates crime and
disorder associated with all the properties over which the Housing Authority
has jurisdiction. When appropriate, it refers concerns to the Bureau of Fire.
The Housing Authority also enables Lancaster police to conduct a training
session with parole officers regarding removal of tenants from Section 8
Housing for drug violations. The size of its staff limits the Housing
Authority's ability to supervise rigorously all Section 8 tenants.

C. Living Conditions Monitoring and Social Service Access. The
development by the Lancaster City Housing Authority of a program that
insures that the living and economic conditions of all Section 8 tenants, and
their impact on neighborhoods, are being monitored and that they are
provided access to the appropriate range of social services.

The Lancaster City Housing Authority currently contracts with Tabor
Community Services to run two programs for Section 8 tenants, the
Family Self Sufficiency Program and the Home Ownership Voucher
Choice Program. The Department of Housing receives the funds for these
programs from HUD, who mandates that both of these programs must be
offered to all Section 8 tenants. Currently there are more than 700 Section
8 tenants in Lancaster. Of these, 70 are enrolled in these two programs. All
clients are notified twice a year that the programs are available but
participation in the programs is voluntary. However, if more tenants were
interested in the program, they would have to be placed on a waiting list
because there are not enough funds to increase the staff that would be
needed. At one point, HUD did fund 2 full-time positions but recently has
cut the funding to one full-time position.
31

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

As time allows, Housing Authority caseworkers do make an effort to
facilitate contact between their clients and whatever help they need.

Social Services Coordination

A. The creation of a permanent council of representatives of city social
service, criminal justice and law enforcement agencies with the goal of
providing better coordination, greater information sharing and cooperation
between agencies, community policing officers and residents of the city's
neighborhoods.

Social service, criminal justice and law enforcement agencies have not
formed a permanent council. Previous efforts to do this include a
Lancaster County initiative to set up a Family System Services Reform
Board that would have established a single point of entry for clients into
the social service system. However, it was unsuccessful because of the
variety of funding sources involved, inconsistencies in the information
each agency requires and issues pertaining to client confidentiality. Even
though many organizations share information informally, challenges to
establishing a formal council remain. Several respondents disputed the
assertions of the Crime Commission that social services in Lancaster
County are fragmented and that agencies do not cooperate with each other.

The organization that most closely approximates the services of the
recommended council is United Way LINC. It provides free confidential
information and referral services to people throughout Lancaster by phone,
mail, email or in person. It has also compiled a searchable community
services resource database listing all agencies that provide programs on a
regular basis to people living in Lancaster County. In addition to
providing information and referral services, United Way LINC also holds
monthly Cross Problems meetings at which representatives from agencies
and non-profits share information and have an opportunity for networking.
32

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

Other examples of existing interagency collaborations include the Office
of Special Offenders Services and the Lancaster County Homeless
Management Information System.

There has been significant improvement in the cooperation between local,
state and federal law enforcement agencies, particularly in the areas of
drugs and guns. Examples of collaborative efforts include Project Safe
Neighborhoods and the Route 222 Corridor grants. The District
Attorney's Office also initiated the development of the Special Emergency
Response Team, which consists of 40 members from 13 police
departments. Beginning in spring 2007, a State Parole agent has attended
weekly Criminal Investigative Division briefings at the Lancaster City
Bureau of Police to facilitate the sharing of information and coordination
of efforts. The Lancaster City Police are also collaborating with the Boys
and Girls Club to insure that youth cited for curfew violations receive
services if necessary.

The federal Weed and Seed program also allows for collaboration between
law enforcement, social service agencies and the faith based community.

B. The adoption of a system of organizing the delivery of services of all
human service agencies and institutions around the geographic structure of
the neighborhood-based Lancaster City Community Policing District system
(including but not limited to MHMR, Probation and Parole, Children and
Youth, SDL, CAP, Neighborhood Services, the Department of Housing and
Neighborhood Development and the United Way Agencies).

This recommendation has not been implemented and seems to have little
support. One respondent indicated practical problems of work
assignment, supervision, consultation and triage when all of the agency's
workers are not housed under one roof. Another expressed the view that
33

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

more resources for social service agencies are a higher priority than a new
delivery system. A third suggested that better trained and more highly
paid police and social service staff is necessary to insure that services are
delivered appropriately.
34

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

2. Community Policing and Law Enforcement Organization

Community Policing

A. Acceleration and Accountability - The acceleration of the adoption and
implementation of Lancaster City's proposed plan for community policing
and the adoption of an internal measurement standard of individual and
collective performance based on safety and the quality of life of the
individual neighborhoods of the city.

In order to evaluate the efforts of the department's reorganization plan, the
Lancaster Bureau of Police developed a new performance appraisal for
police officers geared to Problem Oriented Policing.

B. More police on the street - the expansion of the authorized complement of
sworn officers of the Lancaster City Bureau of police by 24 before the end of
2004. In addition, the planned quota for sworn officers in each district should
be brought up to full complement as quickly as possible.

The effort to increase the number of sworn officers in the Lancaster Police
Department was partially successful. This was due to a large degree to the
Lancaster Alliance and the Lancaster City Council who raised money to
hire additional officers. Progress was made on assigning a planned quota
for officers in each district. However, there are still holes, some of them
unavoidable due to retirements, illness, etc.

C. Non-Uniformed Assistance - The expansion of the complement of non-
uniformed professional administrative staff members of the Lancaster
Bureau of Police by 12 before the end of 2004.

35

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

The complement of non-uniformed professional administrative staff
member was increased by four or five persons. The Bureau of Police
planned to use these new staff members as a trial to see if additional
members were necessary.

D. Officer Retention - The adoption of the principle of maintaining parity in
pay, overtime, and benefits of uniformed officers as the core of the ongoing
effort to retain current and recruit future community policing officers. It is
important that the city stop losing its officers to neighboring communities
and that it be able to recruit the best officers of other departments to staff its
new community policing system.

There has been no progress made on this. City financial difficulties make
it unlikely that city police officers will receive salaries and benefits
comparable to those of other departments.

E. Computerized Tracking System - the creation of a computerized, internal
crime tracking and accountability system similar to the COMPSTAT system
used successfully in NYC. The model provides for immediate sharing of
intelligence among districts, rapid and coordinated deployment during peak
crime times at likely crime locations, relentless follow-up of all
recommendations and accountability and evaluation of each officer's
performance.

The Bureau of Police has begun using computerized crime data to identify
problem locations. After implementing problem solving strategies at these
locations, computerized data provide information regarding the
effectiveness of these strategies. Despite some successes, obtaining
information in a timely fashion still remains a challenge.

36

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

F. Independent assessment - the creation of an independent assessment entity
to establish objective criteria for determining success that includes, yet goes
beyond crime statistics. Such an entity would determine what data should be
routinely gathered, compared and analyzed to track exactly how the police
are performing, and would establish a process for the regular distribution of
this information to police and city managers, to community groups, to the
media and to the general public.

This has not been done. The Public Safety Research Institute does provide
independent assessment of some police activities upon the request of the
Lancaster Bureau of Police.

G. Police-Community relations - the creation of a formal, continuing police-
community relations education and information program to be conducted by
the Lancaster Bureau of Police and the Department of Housing and
Neighborhood Development aimed at:
- Informing individual residents how community policing and
community police officers will work in their neighborhoods and how
they and their neighbors may assist the community police officers in
improving the safety and quality of life of their neighborhoods;
- Informing (training) the individual citizens of the city how they can
most effectively access police and other city services in emergency and
non-emergency situations, outlining the kinds of responses that can be
expected from calls for service and communicating the parameters of
a citizen complaint procedure;
- And establishing a formal ongoing dialogue between the assigned
community policing officers and the individuals and groups of each
policing district which will allow the officers to better understand
their neighborhoods and allow the residents to learn to better trust
their assigned community officers.

37

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

There are a number of ongoing efforts to improve police-community
relations and to educate the community regarding the police. These
include quadrant meetings at which police meet with members of the
community to address issues. Unfortunately, these meetings are often
poorly attended. A number of landlord/tenant educational seminars were
held. The Bureau of Police conducted a citizens' and students' police
academy. The Bureau of Police is considering repeating it. The Lancaster
Bureau of Police is planning to create a citizens' advisory board with 6-8
persons of diverse backgrounds including representatives of businesses
and faith-based groups.

The Lancaster County Human Relations Commission Police-Community
Committee organizes activities and programs to build better rapport
between police and citizens. The Police-Community Committee was
responsible for initiating Community Day.
38

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

3. Law Enforcement Response and Reaction

Law Enforcement Reaction

A. Immediate implementation of the "enhanced 911"

Some features of this had already been done at the time of the
recommendation. Lancaster County-Wide Communications is now in
Phase 2, which allows it to identify the location of persons calling on cell
phones.

B. The deployment of a 911 substation for the city of Lancaster located
within the new police headquarters.

This has not been implemented. In fact, policies have gone in the opposite
direction. Although the Bureau of Police recognizes that creating a 911
substation in the city would be costly, it believes that there would be
advantages. Despite receiving more calls than any other municipality,
Lancaster Bureau of Police has no more influence than any other
municipality in shaping the policies of Lancaster County-Wide
Communications. Differences persist in city police preferences and
Lancaster County-Wide Communications' policies. Lancaster County-
Wide Communications records only the information provided by the first
person who calls regarding an incident whereas when it handled its own
dispatching, the Lancaster Bureau of Police recorded information from
everyone who called. It also maintained communication with callers
throughout the incident.

C. The creation of a new countywide telephone dispatching system that
includes provisions for emergency calls (911), call for social services (211),
and calls for non-emergency municipal services (311).
39

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

The costs associated with establishing a 311 line (about $1 million) seem
to have precluded its establishment. Also, if establishment of 311 and 211
lines resulted in more calls to Lancaster County-Wide Communications,
its staffing needs would increase, also increasing costs. Current revenues
are based on the $1.25 monthly fee charged per phone line. Consumer
abandonment of landlines in favor of cell phones jeopardizes that source
of revenue. Legislation will be needed to permit the fee to be charged on
cell phones also.

Currently, Lancaster County-Wide Communications receives calls
regarding municipal services on its non-emergency line. By using its
electronic internal phone directory, they are able to refer to appropriate
offices very quickly. United Way LINC also provides information and
referrals to people seeking information about social services.

D. The development and staffing of a new administrative unit of the police
department which would manage the new 911-311 system as it impacts
municipal services as well as manages the handling of non emergency police
calls. Special emphasis would be placed on calls and complaints regarding
quality of life crimes.

This recommendation is relevant only if the other recommendations
regarding 911-311 are implemented.

Non-Emergency Phone System

A. 91/41/811 Public Information Campaign. The development and execution
by the county of an aggressive, long-term marketing and informational
campaign. Such a program would be designed to acquaint the public with the
new 91/41/811 system, to help the residents of all of the communities of the
county to understand the difference between emergency and non-emergency
reporting, and to educate the public about expected response time.
40

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

It is not clear what the "91/41/811 system" refers to, but might possibly be
a misprint. Regardless, Lancaster County-Wide Communications does not
experience much inappropriate use of the emergency number and does not
see the need for a campaign to educate the county residents regarding the
difference between emergency and non-emergency reporting.
41

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

4. Prosecution and Judicial System Relationship and Readiness

Judicial System Reorganization

A. The creation of a Drug Court to handle certain kinds of drug offenses. The
idea is to find alternatives to incarceration as punishment for drug users, as
opposed to drug dealers.

The plans to implement a Drug Court preceded the publication of this
recommendation in 2003. The Drug Court began operation in January
2006. In its first year, it enrolled 77 clients and graduated 5. The
recidivism rate for those enrolled is 21%, lower than that of a comparison
group.

B. The creation of a Night Court at which district justices are routinely
available after normal hours.

There is no plan to implement this recommendation. Magisterial district
judges are on call to do arraignments. There are practical problems
associated with having the Magisterial District Justice courts operate
outside of normal business hours.

C. The creation of a Community Court with one Common Pleas judge
dedicated to accelerating the adjudication of quality of life prosecutions and
civil complaints related to quality of life offenses.

When cases involving quality of life violations arise, they are assigned to a
judge just as other cases are. There is no delay associated with handling
these cases; therefore dedicating a single judge to them is unnecessary.

42

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

D. The application of the accelerated docket system in Lancaster County civil
and criminal courts.

There is no plan to change the way cases move through the Lancaster
County Court of Common Pleas. Criminal and civil courts are held every
month except August. The addition of several new judges in 2008 will
necessitate some changes in the way cases are scheduled.

E. The countywide insistence that the police and the district attorney's office
aggressively and consistently enforce all of the drug related enhanced
prosecution and sentencing laws. These laws include, but are not limited to:
the Drug Free School Zone Law; the Federal Gun and Drug Laws; and the
former Pennsylvania House Bill 417 as it becomes law.

It is currently the policy of the police and the district attorney's office to
enforce aggressively and consistently the drug-related enhancements
available under Pennsylvania and federal law.

F. The staff and budget of the office of district attorney should be expanded
to handle the new strategies of energetic enforcement of quality of life laws
and enhanced prosecution and sentencing laws. Eight new prosecutors
should be added and trained before January 2004.

The Office of the District Attorney added six new prosecutors and
increased the starting salary.

Probation System

A. Lancaster city's participation in the federally funded Weed and Seed
Program should be aggressively pursued and driven by the "Fixing Broken
Windows", community policing, neighborhood quality of life enhancement
43

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

strategies for crime control and prevention espoused in the initial and
subsequent reports of the Crime Commission.

After arduous efforts, Lancaster received a federal Weed and Seed
designation and approval as a federal Weed and Seed funding site. Its
programs initially included a curfew center and a computer-training
program for inner city youngsters. In 2007, the curfew center closed and
the money that supported it was redirected to support enforcement of all
quality of life offenses and wrap around services for youth apprehended
for curfew violations.

The initial effort to obtain federal Weed and Seed designation preceded
the recommendations of the Lancaster Crime Commission although the
Lancaster Crime Commission did advocate strongly on behalf of the
program.

B. The office of Probation and Parole should institute a 12-month pilot
Probation/Parole Officer-Community Police Officer Cooperative Program.
The pilot program should be limited to a targeted policing district
geography, use only volunteer probation and parole officers and community
policemen and be designed to address the training, safety, manpower,
mission conflict and jurisdictional concerns raised by the President Judge in
reviewing the programs operating successfully in other cities. The goals of
the program would be to:
- Develop ways that community police officers and probation/parole
officers can work together to enhance the safety of the neighborhoods
of Lancaster City
- Insure that the terms of the sentences of the court are abided to by the
convicted felons who continue to live in the city, and to
- Provide those sentenced to probation or parole the highest possible
likelihood of reform
44

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas and Adult Probation and Parole
Services do not support implementation of this program. Their view is
that proactive involvement with the police conflicts with the probation
officers' responsibility to detect violations and enforce court mandates.
Pennsylvania State Parole agents sometimes ride with Lancaster city
police officers. A State Parole agent also attends weekly Criminal
Investigation Division briefings at the Lancaster City Bureau of Police.

C. The Office of Probation and Parole should adopt the policy of supplying
local police departments with a current listing of the addresses of all
probationers and parolees and a description of their status in the system.

Police officers are able to obtain computerized information regarding
people on county probation and parole. However, Adult Probation and
Parole does not supply local police with this information.

Warrant and Booking

A. Central Warrant Service. A county-wide, county-funded central warrant
service force should be established within the Sheriff's Department and
charged with serving warrants on behalf of all county police agencies.

This would require a substantial transfer of expense from individual police
departments to the county. It would require support from the county
commissioners, individual police departments and the Sheriff's
Department. Until all of these parties are interested in pursuing this
recommendation, no action to establish a county funded central warrant
service force is expected.

B. The Lancaster County court system should institute a countywide central
booking system equipped with video arraignment capability.

45

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

The Lancaster County Court is looking very seriously at implementing
such a system. Video arraignment is a logical outgrowth of increased
police use of Live Scan, technology that provides for the digital capture of
fingerprints and the immediate transmission of fingerprint records. The
infrastructure for video conferencing is in place. Police departments from
south and west of the city are booking suspects at the Lancaster Bureau of
Police. Eventually, all bookings countywide will occur there.
46

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

5. Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Court

A. Broadened Hours, Curfew Calls, and Home Visits. The office of Juvenile
Probation should institute sweeping changes in when and how juvenile
probation officers deal with their probationers, including:
- Creating work shifts that cover the 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. period daily
- Adding routine "curfew calls" to the prescribed supervision
procedure
- Mandatory once-a-month in-home visits, as well as mandatory
parent/family contact.
We also believe that Lancaster County's Juvenile Justice system is not
making the most effective use of available resources, often relying on full-
scale residential placement programs, which are extremely expensive ($150-
220 per day) and achieve very disappointing results with recidivism rates of
70 percent and higher. These youth are therefore consuming most of the
resources available at precisely a time in their lives when it is too late - and
the "help" will do the least good. We strongly recommend the use of
alternatives to provide certain youthful offenders opportunities for treatment
before they are deeply enmeshed in the juvenile justice system, when the
chance of saving them is diminished.

Establishing a new work shift for juvenile probation officers would require
currently unavailable financial resources to pay the probation officers and
other courthouse personnel. Juvenile probation officers do have some
contact with their clients during non-traditional hours and outside the
courthouse.

It has been standard procedure for more than 30 years to assign curfews to
juveniles. Probation officers, with the assistance of parents, monitor
47

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

adherence to curfews. The policy of the Office of Juvenile Probation is to
maintain regular contact with parents, to educate them regarding their
responsibilities to supervise their children, and to engage them in efforts to
do so.

Juvenile court operations have changed to some degree since the issuance
of the Crime Commission Final Report. Funding from the Pennsylvania
Commission on Crime and Delinquency is currently paying the salaries of
an assistant district attorney and a public defender with exclusive
responsibility for juvenile cases.

B. The county should expand the use of electronic monitoring as an
alternative to more expensive and less effective juvenile offender supervision.

Electronic monitoring is used in some cases as an alternative to detention
of juveniles at the Youth Intervention Center. It is not used for youth
alleged to have committed possession with intent to deliver drugs, drug
sales, weapons offenses and sex offenses. In some instances, youth on
electronic monitoring are not in school and assistance is not available to
help them with problems while at home. At the Youth Intervention Center
school is provided 12 months of the year, and youth detained there are
assessed for mental health and drug and alcohol problems. When
necessary, detained youth are referred for mental health services.

C. The Boot Camp program should be eliminated.

The County of Lancaster does not have a Boot Camp program.

D. A utilization and review study should be undertaken concerning current
and potential uses of the Juvenile Detention Center. Using the facility as a
temporary shelter for child welfare cases is not appropriate.
48

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

There is ongoing review of the operations at the Youth Intervention
Center. Since the county began accepting out-of-county youth for
detention, utilization of the Youth Intervention Center has improved.
Eventually, the county could consider locating a community based mental
health or drug and alcohol facility for juveniles at the Youth Intervention
Center.

The Youth Intervention Center provides shelter care for youth who would
otherwise be detained in private shelters with youth from large urban areas
who have more serious behavioral and emotional issues. Finding stable
foster care for these youth is very challenging.

Early Intervention

A. Greater Investment. The greater Lancaster community must invest more
heavily in early intervention and treatment programs for at-risk youth.
Interventions should include providing:
- Expanded mental health services for pre-adjudicated juveniles
- Mental health counseling for dysfunctional families
- An expansion of school outreach programs to identify at-risk youth
and families and link them to prevention programs.

The Children and Youth Agency responded to this recommendation by
setting up an early intervention program for pre-juveniles, ages 9-13, who
had been involved in minor legal skirmishes. The program was run under
the auspices of the Boys and Girls Club. It involved quick, in-home
response. Lack of funding required that the program be discontinued but
some of the services continue to be provided through the Adolescent
Response Unit.

Mental health services are available for youth detained at the Youth
Intervention Center under contract with a private provider.
49

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) and the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice have
awarded a three-year grant to the Lancaster Safe Schools/Healthy Students
Initiative. This project is a partnership between the School District of
Lancaster, Lancaster Bureau of Police, Juvenile Probation & Parole,
Lancaster County Mental Health & Mental, Retardation Services and the
School & Community Network. The goal is to expand prevention and
intervention services to at-risk youth.

B. Youth Screening. The County of Lancaster should require that all
adjudicated youth receive mental health, drug and alcohol, and learning
disabilities screening.

Lancaster County Court relies on a myriad of community professionals in
their respective fields to assess the needs of juveniles. The Court has
utilized the Problem Severity Index (PSI) that is now called the
Intervention Needs and Competency Assessment (INCA). The Youth
Intervention Center utilizes a validated screening instrument called the
Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI-II) that screens for
drug and alcohol as well as mental health issues. The Court relies on the
local school districts and the Intermediate Unit to provide assessments for
learning disabilities. Pennsylvania is in the process of selecting both
screening and assessment tools that are validated for use throughout the
state.

C. Drug/Alcohol Treatment Centers: County government, the courts and the
social service community should work together to extensively expand the
capacity and effectiveness of Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centers. This
would help insure that all drug or alcohol dependent juvenile offenders, with
adjudications including dependency treatment, have a program immediately
available to them.
50

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

Reduced funds for drug and alcohol treatment have made it impossible to
increase the resources available for drug and alcohol treatment. A serious
problem is the loss of money for drug and alcohol treatment from the
Temporary Aid to Needy Family funds.

D. The City of Lancaster should establish at least one continually operating
Curfew Center to hold juvenile curfew and truancy violators until their
parents or guardians can assume responsibility for them. Ideally such a
center should be operated under contract by one of the youth agencies of the
city, and would be staffed by early intervention social service professionals.
A Curfew Center could serve as an entry point in the County social service
system and educational support services system.

A curfew center began operating in February 2005 two nights per week,
one weekend night and one weekday night, staffed by employees of the
Boys and Girls Club and held on the premises of Neighborhood Services.
Over the course of more than a year, curfew violations decreased and the
need for the center lessened. Under the guidance of the federal Weed and
Seed administrators, the center closed on October 1, 2007 and money set
aside for rental of the space and payroll for the staff was redirected in two
key areas. First a significant amount of the money was added to
the police overtime details to enforce Quality of Life violations in the
Weed and Seed target area. Secondarily approximately $8,000 will fund a
"Wrap Around Program" administered by the Boys and Girls Club. Their
staff will follow-up with curfew violators to determine why they were out
after curfew hours and, if appropriate, will enroll the youth in a guidance
program.

E. School Resource Officers: The Bureau of Police and the School District of
Lancaster should cooperate on the occasional placement of uniformed
community police officers in city middle and high schools. These School
51

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

Resource Officers will allow the police to better understand the youth of the
community and provide students a view of police in a non-adversarial
situation. The Team Program currently in operation with the police should
continue and grow.

The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative has provided funding for five
school resource officers. The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative has
supported the TEAM program.

F. The Lancaster School District dropout and truancy prevention programs
should be dramatically expanded to enlist the aid and participation of all
youth serving agencies, organizations and institutions in the city as well as
the police department and the business community.

The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative has led to a significant
increase in programs to assist with dropout and truancy issues. The
Phoenix Academy has increased the number of students in its program.
There is also a program called Twilight, where students can make up
missed work and graduate on time. The School Resources Officers are
involved in student programs designed to help with the truancy and
dropout problems.

G. Alternative Punishment Programs: Restorative justice programs such as
LAVORP (Lancaster Area Victim Offender Reconciliation Program) and
Youth Aid Panels should be established in the neighborhoods of the city as
alternatives to traditional adjudication of minor juvenile offenses such as
truancy and quality of life crimes. Juvenile probation and the minor
judiciary should be encouraged to divert minor offences into these
alternative programs.

52

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

The District Attorney's Office hired a retired police officer part time to
recruit, train and oversee the Youth Aid Panel program. He works with an
assistant district attorney to promote the expansion of the program. There
are ongoing efforts to train volunteers for new Youth Aid Panels and to
promote their use. Both the Youth Aid Panels and the Office of Juvenile
Probation refer cases to the Lancaster Area Victim Offender
Reconciliation Program.

H. More open Court System: Lancaster County courtsâ€”juvenile and adultâ€”
should explore ways to allow greater openness and more routine citizen
involvement in its activities. Inviting public scrutiny and sharing with the
public the measures the court uses to evaluate the success of the components
of the Lancaster County judicial system would engage the community more
fully in the responsibility for improving and maintaining public safety and
justice.

All proceedings in criminal court are open to the public. By law, certain
juvenile court hearings are closed for the protection of the welfare of the
child who is the subject of the proceedings. The public is entitled to
communicate its views on the court system to the court and to the county.
However, statutes and case law primarily dictate the court's actions in the
administration of justice.
53

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

Discussion

In assessing the implementation of the LCC recommendations presented
above, it is important to keep in mind several points. First, this is a snapshot view
of a fluid situation. All persons interviewed answered based on their knowledge
of what their organization or agency had done in response to the
recommendations at a particular point in time. Subsequent to the interviews,
these actions may have been abandoned or changed or other initiatives may have
begun. Between the end of the interviews and the final report, PSRI
representatives received information through informal communications
suggesting that there continues to be movement with regard to the implementation
of some recommendations. However, it would have been inappropriate to make
ad hoc modifications to the information systematically obtained during the
interviews. Therefore, any steps taken after October 2007 are not included in the
section describing the implementation of recommendations.
Second, the information obtained regarding the implementation of the
LCC recommendations is reported in the words of the people interviewed. In
some cases, their statements are condensed, but to the greatest extent possible, the
report strives to let the people charged with implementation of the
recommendations explain what they did or did not do and why. The statements
reported reflect their perspective on the recommendation they are addressing, not
a neutral party's objective and validated determination that this is exactly what
has been done. In some cases, others may disagree with the accuracy of what is
reported. For example, people may question whether the steps that have been
taken to implement a recommendation are sufficient or they may dispute a
respondent's assertion that a certain recommendation is unwise or unnecessary.
The goal of this report is not to resolve these disagreements, but simply to provide
a starting point for forward-looking discussions of how much of what the LCC
recommended has occurred and what additional efforts community members
would like to undertake.
54

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

A key component of this discussion is a review of the recommendations
that respondents reported as being not implemented. In some cases, the reason is
a lack of funds. For example, the Community Policing and Law Enforcement
Organization section of the report recommends improving officer retention by
"the adoption of the principle of maintaining parity in pay, overtime, and benefits
of uniformed officers as the core of the ongoing effort to retain current and recruit
future community policing officers". The financial difficulties of the City of
Lancaster make it unlikely that it will be able to offer salaries and benefits
comparable to those of suburban departments. The adoption of a new countywide
telephone dispatching system that would provide a 311 line for non-emergency
calls for municipal services is another recommendation that requires money that is
not currently available. The LCC offered support for a 911 substation in
Lancaster City, but without a change in the way funds are allocated for emergency
dispatch, that is also unlikely to occur. The lack of financial resources also
prevents the creation of 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. shifts for juvenile probation officers.
In some instances, inadequate funds have not prevented adoption of
recommendations entirely; however, they have limited their implementation. This
is particularly evident in the recommendations for preventive services and
interventions for at-risk youth found in the Juvenile Justice section of the report.
For example, the Children and Youth Agency responded to the LCC
recommendations for greater investment in early intervention and treatment by
creating an in-home, quick response program for pre-teens who had minor
skirmishes with the law and were at-risk for becoming more seriously delinquent.
However, a loss of funds resulted in discontinuation of some aspects of this
program. Despite the well-established link between substance abuse and crime,
inadequate funding for drug and alcohol treatment persists. This lack of funds has
undermined the ability of the juvenile justice and child welfare systems to address
effectively the LCC recommendation that all "drug or alcohol dependent juvenile
offenders...have a program immediately available to them."
In other cases, there are substantive differences of opinion between the
LCC and the agencies charged with implementing recommendations regarding the
55

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

wisdom of the recommendation. These conflicting views are most apparent with
regard to the LCC's view that there is need to coordinate the delivery of social
services and criminal justice services and its recommendation that probation
officers and police officers pilot a cooperative program. With regard to the latter,
representatives of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas and the
Lancaster County Office of Adult Probation consistently expressed their
disagreement with this proposal. Probation officers are expected both to offer
support to their clients' efforts to address the problems that led them to criminal
activity and to enforce the terms of their probation and parole. This enforcement
sometimes entails sending a client to prison for non-compliance or because of an
arrest on new charges. Probation officers are challenged to balance the demands
of those two aspects of their role. The difference of opinion between the LCC and
the local court over having probation officers work in partnership with police
officers stems from conflicting views over whether the job of a probation officer
is primarily to assist client rehabilitation or primarily to enforce the conditions of
probation. Progress in implementing this recommendation will depend on the
court and the Office of Adult Probation becoming convinced that having
probation officers take a more proactive role in enforcing conditions of probation
will not necessarily impair their ability to be effective in helping clients deal with
problems and desist from crime.
Two recommendations for social services coordination also received little
support. One recommendation was to create a permanent council of
representatives to facilitate better coordination, greater information sharing and
better cooperation among social service and criminal justice agencies. Several
respondents disputed the need for such a council and contradicted the LCC's
assertion that agencies did not share information and collaborate. They provided
examples of existing interagency collaborations, such as the Office of Special
Offender Services and the federal Weed and Seed program. Others pointed out
that previous efforts to establish a single point of entry into the social service
system had failed due to differences in the information each agency requires and
issues pertaining to client confidentiality. The second recommendation, to
56

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

organize the delivery of social services in conjunction with neighborhood policing
districts, received little support. One agency head saw too many logistical
problems associated with decentralizing its staff. Other respondents noted that
more funding for services and better training for police and staff would
accomplish more than reorganizing the delivery of services.
Reviewing the recommendations of the LCC has revealed them to be
complex and ambitious. In light of that, it is important to note that the agencies
and organizations charged with implementing recommendations made good faith
efforts to cooperate. In general, they accepted the intent and overall philosophy
of the report, even if they did not agree with all the specific suggestions. As a
result, the recommendations of the LCC resulted in the initiation of new
programs, the revision of old programs and facilitated the development of
programs already in process. The activities of the LCC also resulted in extensive
publicity on issues of public safety, effective policing and community concerns
regarding more effective crime prevention. This publicity, and the ongoing
discussion of the best ways to control crime and improve the quality of life of
Lancaster residents, has created a climate that supports innovations such as the
Drug Court.
Although in its Initial Report, the LCC endorsed "The 'Fixing Broken
Windows' strategy for fighting and preventing (emphasis added) crime and
disorder" most of its recommendations primarily address the effectiveness or
efficiency of law enforcement, the court system and the various agencies and
organizations to which the recommendations were addressed, as opposed to
focusing directly on the issue of prevention. Furthermore, there was less progress
in implementing prevention recommendations, such as expanded mental health
services for at risk families and drug and alcohol services for juveniles, as
opposed to changing the staffing of the police department or securing more code
enforcement. While system improvement is important, it will not necessarily
result in a significant reduction in crime. It is also important for the community to
address underlying factors that contribute to high crime ratesâ€”the social and
cultural isolation associated with poverty, the unavailability of affordable
57

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

housing, limited access to medical and dental services, and educational failure -
and to intervene early to identify and treat mental health disorders and addiction.
If a review of the Crime Commission's recommendations leads to a continued
conversation about public safety enhancement and quality of life improvement,
both examining the underlying causes of crime and finding the resources to
address them should be a part of it.
58

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

Appendix A: Moderator's Guide
- Are you familiar with the work of the Crime Commission?
- Did you have any involvement with Crime Commission meetings, activities or
volunteer work?
- What do you know about "Fixing Broken Windows"?
- What was your immediate reaction to the recommendations?
(Feelings, action taken)
- Do you feel the recommendations were congruent with the goals and
programs of your agency?
- In other words, did you feel that your organization should have been
held responsible for carrying out the recommendations charged to
you?
- In the past two years, how have you responded to the Crime
Commission recommendations? Such as:
o Change structure
o Form partnerships
o Strengthen existing partnerships
o Reallocation of funds
o Initiating new programs
o Strengthen existing programs
o Drop old programs
- Did you think that any of the recommendations made to your agency
were important enough to modify or drop current programs in favor of
the recommendations?
- Was it possible for you to make the changes you wanted to make?
59

Implementation of Lancaster Crime Commission Recommendations

Appendix B: Lancaster Crime Commission Reports

Lancaster Crime Commission, Initial Report, March 2001.

Report of the Task Force on Code Enforcement, March 2002.

Report of the Police Reorganization Task Force, March 2002.

Final Recommendations of the Committee on Housing, Real Estate and
Quality of Life, August 2002.

Lancaster Neighborhoods: Perceptions of Disorder, Crime and
Community Life, August 2002.

Annual Report, Mayor's Quality of Life Task Force, August 2002.

Lancaster Crime Commission, Final Report, February 2003

.
60