2022

CRIME CONTROL PLAN

THREE YEAR UPDATE
 2022
CRIME CONTROL PLAN
THREE YEAR UPDATE

VISION
STRENGTHENING COMMUNITIES,
PROMOTING SAFETY, EXPANDING OPPORTUNITIES
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
CHIEF’S MESSAGE
Addressing the safety of Salt Lake City starts with an acknowledgement of
the women and men of the Salt Lake City Police Department. No matter
their assignment or rank, they come to work committed to strengthening
our neighborhoods, promoting safety and expanding opportunities for the
community. From the department’s newest officers to our most seasoned, our
police department is comprised of people who embody our mission of serving
as guardians of our community to preserve life, maintain human rights, protect
property, and promote individual responsibility and community commitment.
Everything the Salt Lake City Police Department does is geared toward
strengthening our community and building and maintaining relationships.
For Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, the Salt Lake City Police Department is
authorized 750 total full-time employees. Of those, 594 are sworn
members of law enforcement. The department continues its recruitment
and hiring efforts for sworn members as well as its professional staff, including social workers and records
clinicians. The department’s budget for FY23 increased 24.7% from FY22 to $103,944,583 million.
In 2020, the Salt Lake City Police Department launched its first Crime Control Plan (CCP) to address
violent crime. The department’s CCP continues to evolve and build upon the years prior. We account for our
successes and study our areas of opportunities. Since 2020, substantial time and effort has gone into reducing
violent crime in the city, yet more work is needed. The 2021 CCP had four overall goals: lowering crime,
improving response times, filling funded and unfunded sworn positions and continuing to build community
relationships. The department approached its 2021 goals through short-, medium- and long-term strategies.
I am proud of the work we have accomplished in the last two years. Cities across the United States are
continuing to grapple with a surge in violent crime, including gun violence and murders. In Salt Lake City,
we are pushing forward with new strategies to help ensure the city’s future safety for all, including those
experiencing homelessness. The SLCPD is engaged in a comprehensive and collaborative approach with
many stakeholders to address criminal activity and livability issues. Officers enforce the city’s no camping
ordinance, but they first prioritize education and work compassionately to provide people resources and
advocacy to encourage and support lasting behavioral changes. However, public safety is unique. The
criminal justice system today remains much more complex than it did even five years ago. The achievements
and failures of the criminal justice system often get placed on law enforcement. To truly embark on a crime
reduction plan that will be successful, SLCPD needs support from local government and our community. That
is why we continue to rely heavily on our partnership with the United States Attorney’s Office in Utah to support
Project Safe Neighborhoods. This program is key to coordinating resources and identifying and arresting the
most violence-prone individuals within our community.
As a police department, we are committed to relying on data more than ever to focus our attention and
resources on crime. The backbone of this year’s CCP is the partnership between the Salt Lake City Police
Department and the University of Texas at San Antonio and the department’s continued and expanded
use of Stratified Policing in collaboration with Dr. Roberto Santos and Dr. Rachel Santos. The geographic
concentration of violent crime in Salt Lake City is consistent with a large body of literature describing urban
crime, particularly violent crime, as a phenomenon primarily occurring in a few small geographic areas. That is
why our approach to reducing violence will focus heavily on hot-spot policing; problem-oriented, place-based
policing; and focused deterrence. Simultaneously, we continue incorporating the well-researched principles
of stratified policing to improve policing services, reducing crime and the harm caused by offenders and
maintaining our positive relationship with our community.

MIKE BROWN

3
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
CONTINUED FOCUS AND IMPACT AREAS

STAFFING

CRIME REDUCTION

CALLS FOR SERVICE

COMMUNITY LIVABILITY

COMMUNITY-BASED POLICING

HOMELESSNESS

4
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
TIMELINE AND STATUS

JANUARY 2021
Iteration #1 of the Salt Lake City Police Department’s Crime Control Plan (CCP) is published.

GOAL
To drive overall crime below the five-year
average benchmark and to impact violent
and property crime in targeted areas that
have been identified as spiking.

STATUS: ü Ongoing Achieved Not Completed

OBJECTIVES PROGRESS:
• Implement a data-driven, comprehensive approach to address people, Achieved and
places, and behaviors impacting violent crime. ongoing.
• Increase clearance rates and solvability of violent and property crime. Ongoing.
• Improve coordination and communications within the department Achieved and
and with external partners. ongoing.
• Optimize departmental resources using technology. Achieved and
ongoing.

5
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
NOVEMBER 2021
Iteration #2 of the Salt Lake City Police Department’s Crime Control Plan is published.

GOALS FOR CRIME CONTROL PLAN #2

Lower crime.

Achieved
STATUS: ü Ongoing ü Not Completed
in part

YEAR TO DATE CITY-WIDE CRIME

January 1 – October 2, 2022

Violent Crime: Down 4.5%

Property Crime: Down 10%

Total Crime: Down 9%

Improve response times.

Achieved
STATUS: ü Ongoing ü Not Completed
in part

PRIORITY 1-3 RESPONSE TIME AVERAGES

6
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
Fill funded and unfunded sworn
positions.

STATUS: ü Ongoing Achieved Not Completed

SEPARATIONS 77 MONTH TRENDLINE - JULY 2016 THROUGH OCTOBER 01, 2022

Separations

Continue building community

relationships.

STATUS: ü Ongoing ü Achieved Not Completed

COFFEE WITH A COP HISPANIC HERITAGE FESTIVAL

PAY-IT-FORWARD

BIKE REGISTRATION

PIZZA WITH THE POLICE KAVA EVENT

7
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
STRATEGIES PROGRESS:
• Develop the SLCPD Violent Criminal Apprehension Team (V-CAT). Achieved and
ongoing.
• Expand recruitment efforts. Ongoing with
future budget
consideration.
• Continuous lateral hiring. Ongoing.
• Implement Civilian Response Team (CRT) Ongoing.
• Introduce hiring incentives to include signing bonuses Ongoing with
and retention bonuses. future budget
consideration.
• Submit budget amendments (FY22) for additional funding. Achieved.
• Work with SLC911 Director to expand the current
Ongoing.
SLCPD Call Diversion Program.
• Work with the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office and other
Ongoing.
criminal justice stakeholders on jail release issues.
• Work with the Salt Lake County District Attorney on the
Ongoing.
“High Utilizer Program.”
• Fill funded and unfunded sworn positions. Ongoing.
• Assess through strategic planning to increase the authorized
Ongoing.
staffing of the department.
• Continue Project Safe Neighborhoods commitment with Achieved and
federal partners. ongoing.

OCTOBER 2022
Iteration #3 of the Salt Lake City Police Department’s Crime Control Plan is published.

GOALS
Reduce violent crime in Salt Lake City’s
most violence-prone areas and among
the most violence-prone offenders.

Reduce aggregate levels of reported

violence city-wide.

STRATEGIES
• Continue the strategies outlined in the second edition of the Salt Lake City Police Department’s
Crime Control Plan.
• Implement the Salt Lake City Police Department’s strategic plan to address violent crime in
collaboration with the University of Texas at San Antonio.
• Continue and expand upon the department’s use of Stratified Policing in collaboration with Dr.
Roberto Santos and Dr. Rachel Santos.

8
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
VIOLENT CRIMINAL APPREHENSION TEAM (V-CAT)

CONCEPT PLANNING EXECUTION IMPLEMENTATION MONITOR COMPLETE

In FY23, the department will implement a Violent Criminal Apprehension Team (V-CAT). The
team will be comprised of one sergeant and nine officers. Members have been selected and the
department anticipates moving the selected officers into their positions in November 2022 as the
funded positions graduate from the academy and become available for field work.
Funding of the V-CAT is possible through a COPS Hiring grant and city matching funds. The objective
of the V-CAT squad will be to specifically address violent crime patterns and repeat violent crime
offenders in Salt Lake City. V-CAT will create targeted responses to identify, apprehend and prosecute
individuals within our community who engage in violent conduct. The V-CAT will have a citywide span
of management and will work with division commanders to address violent crime issues.

IMPACT AREA

10 NEW OFFICERS ADDED TO SLCPD AUTHORIZED STAFFING LEVEL

9
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
RECRUITMENT, HIRING AND RETENTION

CONCEPT PLANNING EXECUTION IMPLEMENTATION MONITOR COMPLETE

Like police agencies throughout the United

States, the Salt Lake City Police Department
has struggled with a staffing shortage. As of
October 3, 2022, the department is down 41
sworn police officers. In 2022, the SLCPD
announced it would provide a $5,000 hiring
bonus for lateral officers. Competition for
lateral officers in Utah and throughout the
United States is enormous. Police agencies
in California, Washington, Oregon and New
Orleans, among others, have implemented
$30-40,000 hiring bonuses paid over time.
The SLCPD will continue to
work with city administration
to seek authorization and
funding for increasing the
department’s hiring bonus
for all new sworn employees,
recruitment, as well as
retention bonuses.
In October 2022, the city
hired a dedicated recruiter
for the police department.
The intention is to broaden
the scope of recruiting for
SLCPD police officer and
professional staff positions.

IMPACT AREA

10
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
COMMUNITY REESTABLISHMENT AREAS

CONCEPT PLANNING EXECUTION IMPLEMENTATION MONITOR COMPLETE

In mid-2020, the SLCPD – as part of our commitment to providing high-quality and community
supported police services, launched a formalized and extensive downtown community reestablishment
and crime mitigation effort to clean-up the illegal camps, get people inside and into needed services,
enforce city and state laws, and to deter criminal activity and illegal camps from re-establishing.
Initially, the department’s focus areas included:
• Rio Grande Street – 200 South
to 400 South
• 500 West – 200 South to 400 South TIME SPENT BY MITIGATION
• 300 South – 500 West to 600 West OT OFFICERS THIS YEAR:
12,333 Hours
• 600 West South Temple
• 600 West – 1000 West to North Temple FELONY ARRESTS:
In 2021, the department expanded 216
reestablishment areas to include
MISDEMEANOR ARRESTS:
• 300 South Main Street 192
• 200 East 200 South
• 800 West North Temple
• Liberty Park
Department overtime makes it possible to staff these additional patrol shifts. The department
anticipates continuing these shifts into 2023, pending budget approval.
These overtime shifts have allowed
officers to increase their presence
in the community and have a
great impact on public safety.
For example: while working an
overtime shift, a SLCPD officer
stopped a female near Taufer Park.
The officer confirmed the woman
had felony warrants. During a
search incident to arrest, the officer
located a loaded handgun and a
distributable amount of drugs in the
woman’s possession.
SLCPD continues to assist the
city’s Rapid Intervention Team and

11
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
the Salt Lake County Health Department on camp abatements. It is the responsibility of the SLCPD
to serve as an assisting agency during an abatement.
Another recent success can be found around 300 South and Main Street. Earlier this year, many of
the businesses were concerned with the aggressive panhandling occurring in the area. Business
owners reported people congregate in front of their storefronts and some of the people experiencing
homelessness would engage in illegal drug dealing and use. After holding several meetings with
these businesses, working in conjunction with the department’s District Community Liaison Officer
(DCLO) for Central Division, the department’s BCEO, and other city resources, the Office of Mayor
Erin Mendenhall devoted additional city resources in the area so people experiencing homeleness
could obtain an identification, help getting a job, clothes, and food. The collaborative work done by
the SLCPD and Mayor’s Office has helped improve the cleanliness of that area, and the department
continues to receive positive feedback from business owners.

IMPACT AREA

12
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
BUSINESS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OFFICER

CONCEPT PLANNING EXECUTION IMPLEMENTATION MONITOR COMPLETE

In April 2021, the SLCPD successfully launched its Business Community Engagement Officer (BCEO)
position. This sworn member of law enforcement is assigned to the SLCPD’s Central Division and
reports to the Division Commander. The officer serves as a direct point of contact for business
operators and owners.
All the BCEO’s working hours are dedicated to building and maintaining relationships with downtown
businesses and coordinating with the business community’s law enforcement needs. When the BCEO
is not contacting a business or in a community meeting, they will be doing property checks at local
businesses that have expressed concerns. This position puts the detective out into the community on a
regular basis. A recent example of the success of this program can be seen with the reduction of crime
in the entertainment district along Pierpont Avenue in downtown. In early 2022, the area was inflicted
with numerous incidents of violent crime including a stabbing, shooting and multiple aggravated assaults.
After sitting down with the business owners in the area, SLCPD put together a collaborative and holistic
plan to help mitigate the violent crime. The plan included hiring off-duty officers to block the road around
midnight to keep cars from cruising up and
down in front of the entertainment venues.
Officers worked between the hours of 11
p.m. and 2 a.m. on Pierpont to increase
the police presence. The business owners
also took steps to mitigate crime and the
potential for crime to occur. The work of
the department and business owners has
significantly reduced the number of issues
the businesses on Pierpont Avenue have
had to deal with.
Pending budget authorization, it is the
intent of the department to expand the
BCEO program to the Pioneer and Liberty
patrol divisions as staffing and resources allow. This type of direct, business-to-police liaison has
strengthened the department’s relationship with its business community in the downtown core.

IMPACT AREA

13
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
CIVILIAN RESPONSE TEAM

CONCEPT PLANNING EXECUTION IMPLEMENTATION MONITOR COMPLETE

As previewed in 2021, the SLCPD has made significant progress implementing a Civilian Response
Team (CRT) to handle low-level calls for service. These low-level calls can be addressed either via
telephone or by sending a police specialist instead of a sworn officer to handle the case. This system
allows sworn officers to remain available for high priority calls for service. The intent of this program
is to augment and enhance the current police response service within the city through diversity in
response teams, like the current co-response model with social workers. Similar models across the
country have shown great results to help divert those non-hazard, low-level calls for service from
going out into the field.
In the FY23 budget, the City Council funded the creation of the Civilian Response Team consisting of
12 non-sworn responders and one Lieutenant to establish and oversee the program.
It is anticipated this program will be operational in spring 2023.
The CRT is intended to be a public safety response to low-hazard, non-emergency police related
calls-for-service. This is a recommendation from the Matrix Operational Audit and has been funded
by the city administration and legislative body.
The CRT will provide support by responding to telephonic case reports and select in-person requests
during high call-volume times and days of the week. The CRT employees will typically not work with
an officer – instead they will be developed as an independent response service that supports the
police response. For example, the team may be used to block traffic and take reports on certain calls
for service.
The CRT will be an added program to the SLCPD repertoire of services offered to SLC residents,
businesses, and visitors.

14
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
Adding the formal leadership to the development team will be a critical component to a successful
outcome.
The steering committee determined that the oversight must be a sworn position due to the
complexity of the overlap of traditional police work with a new civilian response model. A sworn
Lieutenant position will provide continuity, consistency, experience, and proven leadership with
response operations within the city. The department has had success with this type of leadership
model in the past.
The CRT is expected to be operational in spring 2023.

IMPACT AREA

15
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
TELEPHONIC CALLS FOR SERVICE

CONCEPT PLANNING EXECUTION IMPLEMENTATION MONITOR COMPLETE

In October 2021, to divert additional low-level, non-hazard calls for response from the field, the
department launched a program expanding our ability to take and process telephonic calls for
service. This was necessary due to low staffing levels. The SLCPD is using overtime funding for
this program and will explore requesting the appropriate budget to continue funding it. To sustain
this responsiveness, additional and ongoing funding will need to be considered. Typically, the most
common calls for service handled by phone include unwanted persons, citizen assist, and suspicious
persons. Without this program, most, if not all, of those calls for service would have been dispatched
to patrol officers out in the field and thereby keeping them held down on a call and unable to be out
proactively patrolling or available for a high priority, in-progress emergency. Notably, the SLCPD has
seen great improvement in the “Hold Times” for telephonic call for service, as outlined below.

CALLS HANDLED AND AVERAGE HOLD TIME FOR TELEPHONIC POLICE RESPONSE
Month Calls Handled by Phone Average Hold Time
October-21 428 0:57:22
November-21 693 0:43:32
December-21 928 0:14:12
January-22 665 0:19:49
February-22 942 0:31:09
March-22 1404 0:39:10
April-22 1708 0:41:14
May-22 1828 1:04:07
June-22 1480 1:29:19
July-22 1872 1:01:49
August-22 2303 0:56:30
September-22 1412 0:27:22

IMPACT AREA

16
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
CALL DIVERSION AND EXPANDING ONLINE REPORTING

CONCEPT PLANNING EXECUTION IMPLEMENTATION MONITOR COMPLETE

The SLCPD recognizes how critical it is to provide an immediate response to all levels of calls
of service. The department is in the process of exploring an automated process that will send
text messages to the person calling 9-1-1, keeping them updated on the status of their call. This
technology will be integrated into the department’s computer assisted dispatch protocol and will
give the department the ability to communicate any potential response delays. For example, if an
officer responding to a lower priority call for service is diverted to a higher priority call, this new
technology would inform the person of the situation and allow them the ability to file an online report,
if applicable. This technology can allow the department to solicit feedback from the initial 9-1-1 caller.
The department continues
to work with the executive
leadership at SLC911, a
separate city department,
to implement policies and
procedures related to
expanding both call diversion
and online reporting. It is the
department’s goal to explore
technology and funding
resources that will allow online
reporting kiosks to be placed
throughout the city. Recently,
the SLCPD paired up with
a local resource center and

PRIORITY 1-3 RESPONSE TIME AVERAGES OCTOBER 2021 - SEPTEMBER 2022

17
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
established a crime reporting room within the center to allow users to file online reports, such as theft
reports, because the department continuously saw an increase in calls for service at that location
that did not need an in-person response. Because of the collaboration, which included outreach
and training, calls for service at that location decreased by half. The department will increase its
presence at resources centers with its Homeless Resource Center squad.

IMPACT AREA

18
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
A STRATEGIC PLAN TO ADDRESS VIOLENT CRIME

INTRODUCTION
The attached addendum sets forth the department’s strategic plan for reducing violent crime in the
City’s most violence-prone areas and among its most violence-prone offenders. To accomplish this,
the department will implement and analyze evidence-based and problem-solving procedures that
reduce crime and change the department’s culture from being reactive to proactive.
The plan acknowledges that violent crime – as seen in other cities – is geographically concentrated to a
relatively small number of places. For example, from June 2021 – June 2022, 12 addresses accounted
for approximately 11% of the City’s reported violent crime. Further, it is well known that a small proportion
of offenders account for a large portion of criminal activity1.
To address the criminal activity occurring within Salt Lake City, the SLCPD will utilize a well-
established and researched model of hot-spots policing. Through this process, the Salt Lake City
Police Department will increase police visibility at and around addresses where violent crime is
concentrated. The hot-spots model utilizes the “problem analysis triangle.” The triangle explains that
crime occurs when a motivated offender and a victim (person) or target (place) come together at a
particular time and place. For police, by removing one element of the triangle “systematically can
prevent multiple crimes in the long term2.”
The department will also focus on Problem-Oriented, Place-Based Policing. Where hot-spots
policing is done in the short term, Problem-Oriented, Place-Based Policing is a mid-term solution
that will have the department leading and coordinating with other city agencies to identify and
improve the conditions that contribute to violent crime at crime-prone locations. As an example, the
department’s Pioneer Patrol Division identified an area prone to violent crime. A solution required
better lighting to be installed. While the department has no ability to install or improve lighting
conditions on its own, the division commander worked with the city to address this issue with
the appropriate city department. As the department’s violent crime reduction strategy continues
to expand, the department, in conjunction with the mayor, will develop a working group of key
stakeholders from local government to address crime and its causes at violence-prone places.
Finally, part of the department’s longer-term strategy to reduce violence will involve a focused-
deterrence model. This approach aims to change the behavior of high-risk offenders through
a combination of deterrence, arrest, community involvement and the provision of alternatives
to violence. This is a holistic, resource-intensive process involving multiple law enforcement
and community partners, including federal law enforcement agencies and the United States
Attorney’s Office. Under this model, the department will continue its involvement in Project Safe
Neighborhoods.

1 Clark, R. V., and Eck J. (2005)

2 Santos and Santos (2022)

19
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
RECENT EXAMPLES OF THE SLCPD’S STRATEGIC PLAN TO ADDRESS VIOLENT CRIME
All three Salt Lake City Police patrol divisions have an identified focus area. In the three identified
focus areas referenced below, SLCPD worked with the department’s crime analysts to identify crime
patterns and to increase police visibility at or near those locations to deter violent crimes.
• The Pioneer Patrol Division focus area border is from
200 North to South Temple and 700 West to 1000 West.
• The Central Patrol Division focus area border is from
200 South to 400 South and 200 West to South State Street.
• The Liberty Patrol Division focus area border is from
1300 South to 1500 South and 200 West to South State Street.

AUGUST 2021 TO AUGUST 2022 COMPARISON

• The Pioneer Patrol Division focus area saw
33% fewer violent crimes in August 2022 when compared to August 2021.
• The Central Patrol Division focus area saw
28% fewer violent crimes in August 2022 when compared to August 2021.
• The Liberty Patrol Division focus area saw
71% fewer violent crimes in August 2022 when compared to August 2021.

SEPTEMBER 2021 TO SEPTEMBER 2022 COMPARISON

• The Pioneer Patrol Division focus area saw
11% fewer property crimes in September 2022 when compared to September 2021.
• The Central Patrol Division focus area saw
18% fewer property crimes in September 2022 when compared to September 2021.
• The Liberty Patrol Division focus area saw
11% fewer property crimes in September 2022 when compared to September 2021.

CITY-WIDE VIOLENT CRIME CITY-WIDE PROPERTY CRIME

SEPTEMBER 2021 COMPARED TO SEPTEMBER 2022: SEPTEMBER 2021 COMPARED TO SEPTEMBER 2022:
• Down 12.8% • Down 14.9%

RESPONSE TIMES:
September 2022: 10m:24s
September 2021: 14m:14s
August 2022 - Priority 1 - 11m:27s
September 2022 - Priority 1 - 10m:24s
Improvement: 01m:03s
Priority 1-3 Overall Average August 2022: 40m:33s
Priority 1-3 Overall Average September 2022: 29m:08s
Improvement: 11m:25s

20
 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK.
SEE NEXT PAGE FOR
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO
VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION PLAN

21
Salt Lake City Police Department
Violent Crime Reduction Plan

Michael R. Smith, J.D., Ph.D.

Rob Tillyer, Ph.D.
Brandon Tregle, J.D., Ph.D.

&

Mike Brown
Chief of Police
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document sets forth Salt Lake City’s strategic plan for reducing violent
crime in the City’s most violence-prone areas and among its most violence-
prone offenders with the goal of reducing aggregate levels of reported
violence City-wide. As of August 2022, violent crime in Salt Lake City has
decreased by 3.6% year-to-date compared to the same period in 2021.
However, when viewing crime statistics over a more extended period, violent
street crime1 increased approximately 20 percent over the past two years,
driven primarily by an upsurge in aggravated assaults.
In Salt Lake City, as in most cities, violent crime is geographically concentrated
to a relatively small number of places. The geographic concentration of violent
crime in Salt Lake is consistent with a large body of literature describing
urban crime, particularly violent crime, as a phenomenon primarily occurring
in a few small geographic areas.

For example, from June 2021-June 2022, 12 addresses accounted

for roughly 11% of the City’s reported violent crime. Together,
those addresses recorded eight or more crimes of violence
apiece during this time period.

In any city, violent crime is caused by a combination of social, structural,

and environmental conditions, many of which are outside the direct control
of the police. As the social and economic fallout of the Covid 19 pandemic
continues to put pressure on public services and the criminal justice system,
policy-makers at the state and local levels must be cognizant of the role
that well-intended policies can have on crime and violence. Long-term
solutions to violent crime in Salt Lake City will require strategic policing
and a commitment from policy-makers and the community to address the
underlying conditions that contribute to violent victimization, including
homelessness, urban blight, and decay. Thus, the successful execution of
this plan will require active participation, cooperation, and investment by
a wide-range of stakeholders in Salt Lake City, including City leadership,
multiple city agencies and departments, federal and state government and
law enforcement partners, community and faith-based organizations, non-
profits, research partners, and community members themselves.
1 As used here, violent street crime refers to the Part I violent offenses of murder/non-
negligent manslaughter, aggravated assault, and robbery and does not include family
violence-related offenses or sexual assaults.

i
A strategic plan to address rising violent crime is a necessary first step to
reducing violence and victimization. Evidence from other cities that have
successfully reduced violent crime shows the following factors as integral to
success:
• Clear communication and reinforcement of this plan
by the chief and SLCPD leadership team
• Buy-in and commitment from line officers to implement
the strategies
• Engagement and support from City leaders
• A willingness to evaluate and modify current legal and social
practices as needed to address the underlying challenges that
facilitate and contribute to violent crime
• Alignment between all components of the criminal justice system
• Community support
• Consistent, honest, and ongoing evaluation of the implementation
and impact of the plan
• Broad recognition that violent crime is a community problem and
not only a police responsibility.

Hot Spots Policing

Drawing from a substantial
body of research on the
positive impacts hot spots
policing can have on reducing
violence, this plan begins
with a short-term focus on
substantially increasing
police visibility at and around
addresses where violent crime
is concentrated and prioritizing
street-level deterrence of
potential offenders in these
areas. The strategy is evidence-
based and relies on increased
police visibility rather than
generalized “stop and frisk,”
zero tolerance policing, or
other dragnet tactics. Based on
crime analysis and mapping,

ii
the SLCPD will assign officers to be highly visible at hot spot locations
identified by crime analysis as the most violence-prone and at times when
violence is most often reported. Pre-post implementation data on crime,
arrests, and calls for service will be tracked at and around the targeted hot
spots, and violence-prone locations will be reviewed and adjusted every 60-
90 days.

Problem-Oriented, Place-Based Policing

In the mid-term, the SLCPD will lead and coordinate with other city agencies
on a problem-oriented, place-based policing (POPBP) strategy designed to
identify and ameliorate the underlying conditions that contribute to violent
crime at crime-prone places. Place-based strategies addressing physical
and social disorder are an effective, evidence-based approach to improve
criminogenic conditions, reduce fear of crime, and encourage greater, pro-
social use of public space. During the first six months of implementation,
initial violent places will be identified using crime analysis and local police
knowledge and intelligence.
A POPBP Board and working group made up of stakeholder government
agencies (e.g., Building Inspections, Civil Enforcement, Youth & Family
Services) will be used to design tailored, place-based strategies to address
crime and its causes at violent places. Traditional police enforcement efforts
(investigations and arrests) will be coupled with civil enforcement, nuisance
abatement, environmental design changes, and disorder-focused efforts
(graffiti abatement, trash clean up, abandoned vehicle removal, weed/brush
removal) and other efforts to alter the criminogenic nature of the targeted
places. Again, pre- and post-implementation data will be tracked in and
around the targeted locations and adjustments made, if needed, to the
strategy based on data trends. As crime declines in the targeted areas, new
places will be identified and brought into the strategy.

Focused Deterrence
The longer-term strategy to reduce violence will involve implementation of a
focused deterrence model in Salt Lake City. First designed and implemented
in Boston in the 1990s, focused deterrence strategies have proven successful
in reducing violent crime in several cities where they have been applied
and evaluated. The goal of focused deterrence is to change the behavior of
high-risk offenders through a combination of deterrence, arrest, community
involvement, and the provision of alternatives to violence. A key feature of
most successful focused deterrence strategies is the clear communication
to gang members and other violent offenders of the risks associated with

iii
continued criminal activity and the alternatives available to them under a
robust suite of counseling/mental health, substance abuse, education, and
job-related services made available to them within the strategy.

Focused deterrence is a holistic, resource-intensive process involving

multiple law enforcement and community partners, including federal law
enforcement agencies and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Initially, the SLCPD
will work with research partners, city leadership, and other stakeholders
to prioritize offenders for focused deterrence interventions. The nature of
those interventions may vary according to the problems identified and at-
risk populations implicated (gang violence vs. drug markets). The support
and partnership of social service organizations, including city agencies,
non-profits, and community-based leaders and groups, is necessary and
will be sought. A careful evaluation of the implementation and impact of
this strategy will be designed and carried out by academic partners at the
University of Texas at San Antonio to facilitate modification and/or replication
of the strategy to address additional at-risk populations as progress
is made.

iv
 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

Salt Lake City is a mid-sized city and with a residential population of approximately 200,000,
swelling to a nearly 400,000 daytime population. Moreover, visits to the urban core of Salt
Lake City have surged to 155% of their level one year before the COVID-19 pandemic, and
continued residential population growth is rapid (Semerad, 2022). Salt Lake City is served
by a police department with a current strength of approximately 530 officers.2 The Salt Lake
City Police Department (SLCPD) is tasked with controlling violent crime while responding
to calls for service, investigating property crimes, and providing for the overall safety of the
citizens of Salt Lake City. SLCPD is committed to working with other city agencies and the
community to reverse an increasing trend in violent crime over the past two years.
While violent crime has decreased in 2022 compared to 2021, overall street-level violent
crime3 in Salt Lake City has risen approximately 20 percent in 24 months from May 2020
through May 2022. May 2022, for example, saw 109 violent street crimes reported compared
to 93 the previous May (see Figure 1 below).

FIGURE 1: OVERALL VIOLENT STREET CRIME TREND, JUL 2019-MAY 2022

NFV: Non-Family Violence

This increase suggests the need for a police-led, but community-wide response to tamping
down violence and arresting and aggressively prosecuting violent offenders in the short
term and a comprehensive set of public safety solutions in the longer term. To be effective,
2 The SLCPD has an authorized strength of 593 officers and is short-staffed based on operational strength
by about 24%. The department is actively trying to recruit and hire additional officers in a challenging
police labor market.
3 Figure 1 below reflects Part 1 violent street crimes only - murder/non-negligent manslaughter, aggravated
assault, robbery – and does not include family violence-related offenses or sexual assaults.

1
those solutions should address the social and physical disorder and fear of crime associated
with an increasing homeless population living on the streets of Salt Lake City. Compelling
research evidence suggests that reducing physical and social disorder will contribute to an
overall reduction in crime in targeted places (Braga et al., 2019).
In Salt Lake City, as in most cities, violent crime is geographically concentrated in a relatively
small number of places. During the past 12 months, just 12 of the most violence-prone
addresses within the city accounted for roughly 11% of all reported violent street crime. This
geographic concentration of violent crime is consistent with a large body of literature
describing urban crime, particularly violent crime, as a phenomenon primarily occurring in a
few small geographic areas or locations. Similarly, research indicates that a relatively small
number of offenders (5%) account for the majority of violent crime. These two facts suggest
that carefully-tailored, place-based and offender-focused strategies will be the most efficient
and effective at reducing violent street crime. However, to be effective, they must be coupled
with swift and certain prosecution, adjudication, and a functional correctional system (jails
and prisons) to remove persistently violent people from the community and to deter others
from continued violence. Addressing the underlying conditions that give rise to violent
people and places is a long-term goal that will require community-wide commitment and
resources.
In any city, violent crime is caused
by a combination of social,
structural, and environmental
conditions, many of which are
outside the direct control of the
police. As the social and economic
fallout of the Covid 19 pandemic
continues to put pressure on
public services and the criminal
justice system, policy-makers at
the state and local levels must be
cognizant of the role that well-
intended policies can have on
crime and violence. The linkage
between social and physical disorder and crime and fear of crime is well-established in the
literature but may be moderated by collective efficacy4 in neighborhoods and is strongly
influenced by concentrated poverty (O’Shea, 2006; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Taylor
et al., 1985; Wei et al., 2005; Yang, 2009). Violent crime, and especially robbery, as subset of
violent crime, is directly correlated with levels of physical disorder (Sampson & Raudenbush,
1999; Wei et al., 2005).
In Salt Lake City, evidence of homelessness and physical disorder is noticeable, and the homeless
4 Collective efficacy refers to cohesion among neighborhood residents coupled with shared expectations
of informal social control of public space.

2
concentrate in a number of encampments and around shelters, which are also hot spots for
violent crime. Research suggests that the disorder conditions produced by large numbers of
people living on the streets will have a reciprocal relationship with crime, violence, and fear
of crime (Yang, 2009). Moreover, it is well understood that the homeless are victimized at
rates that far exceed those of the non-homeless and are especially vulnerable to predatory
violence (Ellsworth, 2018; Fitzpatrick et. al, 1993). While the police are a necessary component
of violent crime reduction and prevention, they do not make policy, influence the amount or
concentration of physical or social disorder, or control the factors that produce concentrated
poverty. Long-term solutions to violent crime in Salt Lake City will require strategic policing and
a commitment from policy-makers and the community to address the underlying conditions
that contribute to violence, including urban blight and decay.
Finally, as criminal justice and bail reform efforts continue to gain traction throughout the
nation, prosecutors and judges must be cognizant of how prosecution and bail decisions
can impact violent crime by increasing the number of offenders who are not prosecuted
or who are on pre-trial release, a portion of whom will commit additional crimes while
on release pending trial.5 Thus, the successful execution of this plan will require active
participation, cooperation, and investment by a wide-range of stakeholders in Salt Lake
City, including City leadership, multiple City agencies and departments, federal and state
law enforcement partners, community and faith-based organizations, non-profits, research
partners, and community members themselves.

Goals and Objectives

The SLCPD is committed to
renewing its efforts to reducing
violent crime in the city by
developing this multi-faceted,
violence reduction strategy
based on the best available
science. Drawing from a
substantial body of research
on the positive impacts that
hot spots policing can have
on reducing violence, this plan
begins with a short-term focus
on substantially increasing
police visibility at locations
where violent crime is concentrated and prioritizing street-level deterrence in these areas. Building
outward, the plan incorporates a mid-term strategy focused on violent places within the city using
a Problem-Oriented, Place-Based Policing (POPPB) approach. Finally, over the longer-term, the
5 See Cassell & Fowles (2020) for a recent discussion of bail reform in Chicago and its impact on public
safety.

3
SLCPD will lead a focused deterrence strategy to help break the cycle of violence among the
small number of repeat and high-risk offenders who are responsible for committing most of the
violent crime in Salt Lake City. All of these strategies are evidence-based, and all have shown
success in other cities.
By implementing these strategies, the Salt Lake City Police Department seeks to accomplish
the following goals:
• In partnership with other city agencies and the community, reverse the increasing
trend in reported violent crime
• Reduce the annual number of victims of violent crime
• Increase community trust and engagement with the SLCPD to facilitate solving
crimes of violence and successfully prosecuting violent offenders
• Improve place-based conditions that contribute to violence in coordination with
other City stakeholders

Keys to Success
Violent crime reduction is unlikely to be successful without a clear strategy for success. The
details of this plan are outlined below to ensure that all stakeholders understand the goals
and the specific strategies to be applied in addressing the violent crime problem in Salt
Lake City. The creation and adoption of a strategic crime reduction plan is a necessary but
insufficient element to achieving the goal of reducing violent crime over the long-term.
Several additional factors need to be present to enhance the likelihood of success:
• Clear communication and reinforcement of this plan by the chief and SLCPD
leadership team
• Buy-in and commitment from line officers to implement the strategies
• Engagement and support from city leaders (i.e., Mayor and City Council) to include:
o commitment of resources to support the plan
o mobilization of city services to underpin aspects of the plan (i.e., the mid-
term and long-term strategies)
• A willingness to evaluate and modify current legal and social practices as needed
to address the underlying challenges that facilitate and contribute to violent crime
• Recognition that policy and practical alignment must exist between all components
of the criminal justice system to ensure that the legal and corrections components
of the system support the goals of the plan
• Community support to include businesses, faith-based leaders, neighborhood
associations, and other professional organizations/communities (i.e., health,
education, etc.)
• Consistent, honest evaluation of implementation and impact to facilitate
modifications, as needed, to promote success

4
 • Broad recognition that violent crime is a community problem that can be partially
addressed by the SLCPD but cannot be fully addressed without action taken by the
state, city, and community to tackle deep-rooted social problems (i.e., homelessness,
employment opportunities, domestic violence, education, etc.)

NEAR-TERM STRATEGY

Hot Spots Policing

Considerable evidence suggests that police can be effective at reducing violent crime in
small areas with high rates of violence. Often referred to as “hot spots policing,” some of
the strongest evidence of the impact that police can have on crime comes from more
than 25 years of research showing that a relatively small number of areas generate the
majority of violent crime in most American cities and that crime can be reduced in those
areas through targeted police enforcement (Braga et al., 2019; National Research Council,
2004; Weisburd & Telep, 2014). Hot spots policing can be implemented fairly quickly and
can reduce reported violent crime in targeted areas by 10-50 percent (Corsaro et al., 2019;
Groff et al., 2015; Rosenfeld et al., 2014). Moreover, there is little evidence that violent
crime is spatially displaced to surrounding areas when hot spots policing is implemented
and considerable evidence that areas adjacent to hot spots also can expect lower crime
rate benefits (albeit to a lesser degree) from the police treatment effects (Weisburd et al.,
2006). Little is known, however, about the potential displacement of crime associated with
hot spots policing to other areas of the city or to different crime types (Weisburd & Telep,
2014).
While there is no universally accepted definition of a “hot spot,” hot spots often consist of
street segments or similar small areas that are no more than a city block long and which
extend no more than a half a block on either side of the segment, although many research
studies have evaluated police interventions in larger hot spots (see Rosenfeld et al., 2014
– average hot spot contained 8 street segments and Groff et al., 2015 – average hot spot
was the size of 22 football fields). The appropriate size of a hot spot should be driven by
empirical considerations, such as the spatial distribution and density of crime, as well as
considerations of geography and local police operational knowledge of street activity. In
some cities, specific addresses may serve as appropriate hot spots for the concentration of
police resources.
What police actually do in hot spots policing and whether some tactics are more effective
than others have also been the subject of research and evaluation. In their most recent
meta-analysis of hot spots research studies, Braga et al. (2019) found that problem-
oriented policing strategies generated moderately higher impacts on crime than merely
increasing police presence with extra officers or patrols. Problem-oriented policing refers
to police strategies targeted at specific problems with solutions tailored to those problems
(Goldstein, 1990). Hot spots dominated by illegal drug sales may require different policing

5
tactics than areas with high levels of illegal prostitution, for example. While some research
has evaluated hot spot strategies targeted at specific types of violent crime (e.g. robberies
or gun crimes), most hot spot strategies focused on violent crime seek to reduce all types
of serious violent crimes.
A few studies have examined specific tactics and their effects on crime at hot spots. Recently,
Corsaro et al. (2019) investigated whether foot patrols or stationary marked police vehicles
with emergency lights illuminated had a greater impact on crime and calls for service within
hot spots. They found that lighted patrol cars reduced violent crime in hot spots while foot
patrols had the greatest impact on property crime. Groff et al. (2015) compared foot patrol,
problem-oriented policing, and offender-focused tactics within experimental and control
hot spots and found that only offender-focused tactics had an impact on violent crime. The
experimental hot spots showed a 42% decrease in all violent crimes and a 50% decrease in
violent felonies compared to their controls. Importantly, modern hot spot strategies rely on
increased police visibility and intelligence-led offender targeting rather than generalized
“stop and frisk,” oversaturation, or dragnet tactics that can lead to mistrust of the police and
community resentment.
Offender-focused police strategies are based in an intelligence-led policing framework and
derive from the empirical premise that a small percentage of offenders are responsible for
most crime (Clarke & Eck, 2005; Ratcliffe, 2008). By proactively targeting repeat offenders,
police can theoretically have a greater impact on crime than by targeting places alone
(National Research Council, 2004). This strategy has the added benefit of leaving a smaller
police “footprint” within
communities by focusing
attention on known repeat
offenders rather than all
persons who happen to be
out on the street. Offender-
focused policing requires
good intelligence on where
repeat offenders live and/
or where they are likely to
engage in future crime.
In the Groff et al. (2015)
study, the Philadelphia
Police Department employed
dedicated teams of officers who were exempt from answering calls for service and who proactively
contacted, questioned, stopped, and arrested known offenders in the experimental hot
spots.
Hot spots policing has become a well-accepted strategy to address crime in urban areas,
which is disproportionately found in micro-areas with high rates of crime. In a recent
nationally representative survey of U.S. law enforcement agencies, the National Police

6
Research Platform found that 75% of agencies surveyed employed hot spots policing as
a crime control strategy. Braga et al.’s (2019) most recent updated meta-analysis of hot
spots policing studies reviewed 78 tests of hot spots policing across 65 eligible studies and
found noteworthy crime control gains in 62 of the 78 tests reviewed. Problem-oriented
strategies focused on changing the characteristics of crime-prone places were moderately
more effective than increasing police presence or traditional enforcement activities (Braga
et al., 2019), and recent evidence suggests that a hot spots approach focused on repeat
offenders is potentially even more effective than other place-based problem-oriented
approaches (Groff et al., 2015).
That said, evidence is lacking that hot spots policing as it has been implemented and
evaluated in most cities to date can effectively reduce crime in an entire city or within larger
sections of cities (Sherman et al., 2014; Weisburd et al., 2017; Weisburd & Telep, 2014). For
example, in an evaluation conducted in Dallas 10 years ago, Weisburd et al. (2015) found
measurable reductions in crime within treatment hot spots that experienced increases in
patrol time, but these reductions were not measurable within the larger geographic patrol
beats where the treatment hot spots were located. Because the experiment resulted in only
a 2% increase in unallocated patrol time to hot spots, Weisburd et al. (2015) theorized that
the patrol dosage level was insufficient to produce large enough crime reductions gains
that might have been observed at the beat level. Based on the observed levels of crime
reduction in hot spots associated with the 2% increase in unallocated patrol time, Weisburd
et al. (2015) estimated that if unallocated patrol time could have been increased to 25%,
then crime could theoretically have been reduced by as much as 25% within the treatment
beats. In a subsequent experimental simulation, Weisburd et al. (2017) demonstrated a
hypothetical 13% reduction in street robberies within a large police borough when one
third of patrol officers were assigned to spend 50 percent of their time at the top five hot
spots within their beats and a 21% reduction in robberies when half of patrol officers spent
all of their time at the top five hot spots.
Taken together, the hot spots policing literature suggests several key factors that might
produce optimal crime control within hot spots and possibly within larger areas surrounding
those hot spots or even across an entire city (Weisburd et al., 2017):
• Hot spots must receive enough “dosage” to produce measurable crime control
gains beyond the boundaries of the hot spots themselves
o Dosage reflects both the number of hot spots that receive intervention,
and the amount of time police devote to each hot spot
o Concentrating available patrol resources on hot spots may result in
fewer officers assigned to lower crime areas and longer response
times, especially for non-emergency calls
• Police activities at hot spots matter
o High-visibility presence (marked cars with lights on) and offender-
focused tactics may be more effective than foot or drive-by patrols at
reducing violent crime

7
 • Police behavior matters
o When police focus on procedural justice and are viewed as legitimate
by the public, crime control gains are likely to be enhanced (Tyler et
al., 2015)

Hot Spots Policing in Salt Lake City

Criminologists from the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA research partners) have
evaluated the geographic concentration of crime in Salt Lake City and have found that
violent crime is highly concentrated at a relatively small number of addresses in the city.
Violence-prone locations in Salt Lake City include certain stores, hotels, homeless shelters,
convenience stores, and apartment complexes. With this in mind, the SLCPD will employ
a hot spots policing strategy that initially focuses on violence-prone addresses and which
increases police visibility at or near those locations to deter violent offenders.
First, working with UTSA
researchers, SLCPD will update
the locations of violent crime
hot spots throughout the city
by focusing on addresses where
robberies, aggravated assaults,
and homicides occurred over the
past 12 months and within the
most recent 60-90-day period
to ensure that hot spots are
appropriately identified. Initially,
this empirically-driven analysis
will seek to identify the small
percentage of addresses where
violent crime is most heavily concentrated (Weisburd et al., 2015). Once these addresses are
identified, they will be rank ordered from highest to lowest city-wide and within police
divisions. It is expected that some divisions may have few or even no high crime addresses
while others may have multiple high crime hot spots. Depending upon available resources,
SLCPD will seek to treat as many violence-prone addresses as possible with a goal of
treating, at minimum, those addresses that together account for at least 10% of all violent
crime in the City. Hot spot locations will be adjusted (if needed) every 60-90 days based on
changing crime patterns, and police resources will be re-deployed accordingly.
Second, once identified and rank-ordered within divisions, the high violent crime addresses
will be evaluated by SLCPD commanders and their officers and hot spot boundaries
adjusted, if appropriate, based on unique geographic features (e.g., a mall or shopping
center) and local operational knowledge of crime patterns and trends. The list of current
hot spots that emerges from this process will be mapped, revisited, and updated every 60-
90 days.

8
Finally, the hot spots will receive a high visibility “treatment” consisting of the systematic
assignment of patrol officers to remain in the hot spots with their emergency lights
activated for 15 minutes (the optimal dosage period) every hour during peak hours of
crime as identified in each hot spot through crime analysis.6 Strong evidence exists that
hot spots policing reduces crime in targeted micro-areas, and all available resources will
be brought to bear in an effort to drive down violent crime in sectors and city-wide by
concentrating sufficient dosage in the targeted violent crime hot spots identified through
the process described above.
Implementation of the strategy is expected to begin in September 2022, and impacts will
be assessed every 90 days as described below. Adjustments to the hot spot boundaries
and/or re-deployment of officers to new hot spots will be made every 90 days if needed
based on changes in observed crime patterns.
Measurement and Evaluation

To assess the impact and effectiveness of the near-term hot spots policing strategy,
reported violent crime counts, arrests, and calls for service data will be obtained for the
treated hot spots, police divisions, and city-wide for 24-36 months leading up to the
implementation of the strategy and monthly thereafter. Violent crime counts also will
be obtained and evaluated for catchment areas surrounding the hot spots to check for
crime displacement or diffusion of benefits resulting from the intervention. Violent crime
counts will be reviewed descriptively at each of the four levels (hot spots, catchment areas,
divisions, city-wide) on a monthly basis and patterns or changes assessed. At 60-90-day
intervals, changes to crime and the other metrics will be evaluated and compared to the
previous 60-90-day period. Quarterly reports will be prepared and disseminated internally
within the SLCPD and externally to city council and other stakeholders as appropriate. Semi-
annually, broader and more detailed analyses will be conducted by the UTSA research team
to evaluate impacts of the strategy on violent crime, arrests, and calls for service within the
hot spots, catchment areas, divisions, and city-wide. These analyses also will include an
assessment of plan implementation and fidelity to ensure officers are present at the hot
spots in accordance with the deployment plans (peak crime hours/days of the week). When
emerging hot spots are identified, they will be added to the treatment protocols; likewise,
hot spots that are no longer “hot” will be removed.
Every six months, the Chief of Police will lead an intensive strategic review to assess the
effectiveness of the strategy and to recommend any changes or adjustments. The possible
addition of place-focused, problem-oriented strategies also will be evaluated during the
strategic review sessions. To facilitate transparency and stakeholder input, biannual reports
will be produced for public release outlining the hot spots strategy, detailing observed
changes in violent crime, and noting any changes recommended to the strategy.

6 As in Las Vegas (see Corsaro et al., 2019) and Dallas, patrol officers will be assigned to these high visibility
hot spot times each hour via dispatch. This will help ensure fidelity to the strategy. If resources or
unforeseen events do not allow for the assignment of officers to hot spots during certain hours, these
gaps will be documented and accounted for in the ongoing evaluation of the efficacy of the strategy.

9
 MID-TERM STRATEGY

Problem-Oriented, Place-Based Policing (POPBP)

A robust body of literature has documented the effectiveness of hot spots policing at
reducing crime in targeted areas. A recent meta-analysis of this research found that
problem-oriented strategies carefully tailored to address the underlying conditions that
contribute to recurring problems in crime-prone locations were more effective at reducing
crime than merely increasing or intensifying traditional police activities (Braga et al., 2019).
Moreover, a variety of problem-oriented, place-based strategies have been implemented
and evaluated and have shown success at reducing a broad range of offenses from property
crimes like burglary or theft to drug-related crimes and violent crime (Braga & Bond, 2008;
Eck & Spelman, 1987; Hinkle & Weisburd, 2008; Hinkle et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 2011).
While place-based crime reduction strategies often have a law enforcement component,
they frequently require the involvement of other stakeholders who can help address the
conditions that make a particular location attractive for crime. Routine activities theory
suggests that three elements must come together in time and space for a crime to occur: A
vulnerable victim, a motivated offender, and the lack of a capable guardian (Cohen & Felson,
1979). A recent Campbell Collaboration systematic review of 28 studies that examined the
effects of reducing physical (vacant lots, trash, graffiti, etc.) and social (public drinking/
drug use, prostitution, loitering, etc.) disorder on crime found that 26 of the 30 effects tests
reported statistically significant crime reduction impacts in the targeted areas associated
with the problem-oriented, disorder abatement strategies utilized (Braga et al., 2019).
Thus, problem-oriented, place-
based crime prevention strategies
seek to remove one or more of
the necessary pre-conditions to
crime to prevent victimization
and reduce the likelihood that
crime will reoccur at a targeted
location. Reducing social and
physical disorder can be a powerful
deterrent to would-be offenders and
stimulate guardianship through the
increased, pro-social use of space.
As noted, place-based crime prevention often requires a multidimensional response to a
set of underlying conditions that make a particular place amenable to crime. City services
are often needed to address social and physical disorder that contribute to fear of crime and
that reduce the use of public space. Reducing homelessness, open-air drug use, litter, poor
lighting, code violations, or aggressive panhandling requires resources and involvement

10
by city, county and state agencies, non-profits, or even volunteers. Likewise, a formal
assessment and the application of principles of crime prevention through environmental
design (CPTED) may be needed to improve natural surveillance and guardianship of
businesses, streets, or public parks where violent crime occurs.
Problem-driven solutions may involve improved lighting, the removal or installation
(depending upon conditions) of barriers to vehicular or foot traffic, the enforcement or
adoption of building or zoning regulations, nuisance/disorder abatement, or traditional
law enforcement measures such as conducting investigations and arresting or issuing
citations to law violators. Above all, creative thinking, multi-disciplinary approaches, and
appropriate resources are necessary to design and implement situational crime prevention
strategies to reduce the incidence of violence at places where it is concentrated.
Urban Blight and Disorder Abatement

Rooted in “broken windows” theory (Wilson & Kelling, 1982), a growing body of literature
has documented the association between urban blight and crime, including violent crime
(Kondo et al., 2015; Branas et al., 2016; Branas et al., 2018; Connealy, 2022; Wheeler et al.,
2018). Efforts in Philadelphia and Buffalo to remediate vacant lots and/or abandoned or
neglected buildings led to measurable reductions in firearms assaults and other crimes in
and around the treated areas compared to comparable untreated areas (Branas et al., 2016;
Wheeler et al., 2018). In a follow-up study using a randomized controlled trial design (the
“gold standard” in research design to show cause and effect), Branas and his colleagues
(2018) obtained funding to randomly assign vacant lots in Philadelphia for treatment
through the application of a vacant land ordinance that allowed city-contracted workers
to remove trash and debris, grade the land, plant a small number of trees, hydroseed the
lot with grass, and install a low wooden fence with gaps to encourage use of the lots as
micro parks within neighborhoods. Approximately 375 lots were randomly assigned and
treated (some more extensively than others) at an average cost of $5 per square meter
and maintained afterwards at an average cost of $.50 per square meter. The researchers
measured crime and neighborhood perceptions of crime in and around the treated sites
and found significantly reduced perceptions of crime through surveys of residents and a
statistically significant reduction in all reported crime (-4.2%), gun assaults (-2.7%), and
burglaries (-6.3%) in the treated areas compared to the untreated areas; the effects were
even more pronounced in neighborhoods below the poverty line. Kondo et al. (2015) found
similar effects associated with the installation of working doors and windows to improve
the facades of abandoned buildings, and recently, Connealy (2022) also demonstrated the
salience of urban decay (deteriorated streets and sidewalks, dilapidated buildings, vacant/
unkempt land) on the formation and persistence of crime hot spots in Indianapolis. Taken
as a whole, this body of evidence suggests that place-based strategies to control crime
should include efforts to remediate urban decay, particularly in and around hot spots for
violent crime.

11
POPBP in Salt Lake City
Violent crime in Salt Lake City is highly concentrated at a relatively small number of
addresses, and many of the places where violent crime repeatedly occurs are businesses
or homeless shelters. Some motels, convenience stores, gas stations, and small number of
apartment complexes also disproportionately contribute to violent crime in Salt Lake City.
Thus, the existing pattern of violent crime in Salt Lake City suggests the need for a place-
based strategy that would involve partnerships between businesses (including apartment/
motel management), the SLCPD, and other city agencies to address the conditions in and
around these locations that make them attractive targets for violent crime. A holistic,
problem-oriented response to such conditions will require detailed problem definitions,
tailored, evidence-based solutions, and the careful assessment of results (Goldstein, 1990).
As a promising mid-term strategy to address violence, the SLCPD, in coordination with other
city agencies and stakeholders, intends to implement a POPBP process in Salt Lake City to
complement the hot spots strategies it will implement in the shorter term. Realistically, a
POPBP strategy will take 6-12 months to put into place and will require training and buy-in
from multiple stakeholders. The following table was adapted from Herold et al. (2020) and
serves to illustrate how the POPBP process will unfold in Salt Lake City.

TABLE 1: The POPBP Process

IMPL E M ENTATI ON STEPS
Select violent locations
Select and train SLCPD POPBP unit
Establish, train, and obtain buy-in from POPBP Board members
Establish and train POPBP working group
POPBP working group assesses the nature and extent of the problem(s)
• Collect community intelligence
• Gather and analyze agency-specific data
Develop solutions to problem(s) identified; present to POPBP Board
• Enforcement solutions
• Environmental solutions
• Community solutions
Implement solutions
Assess implementation and effectiveness
Make adjustments as needed
• Continual assessment

To maximize its chances for success, the POPBP process requires buy-in from multiple
stakeholders and a careful, data-driven process that starts with identifying violence-prone
hot spots and investigating them exhaustively to understand the nature of the problems

12
that contribute to the violence occurring at these locations. Police and other POPBP
stakeholders will require training on the POPBP process and/or investigative techniques,
and the police must have (or put in place) a functional process for collecting and analyzing
data and intelligence related to potential POPBP sites.
Once likely sites have been identified, Chief Brown, working with the Mayor, will lead the
development of a POPBP Board (stakeholder agency leaders) and working group (mid-level
managers) to oversee the implementation of place-based operations plans. The working
group will be responsible for gathering information about the violence-prone places,
carefully defining the problems there, and developing creative solutions. The POPBP Board
will review the information gathered and proposed solutions, approve the place-based
plans, and commit the resources necessary to carry them out. The careful tracking and
analysis of pre- and post-intervention metrics (agreed upon by the Board) is vital and will be
carried out by the UTSA research partners. The effects of the interventions must be carefully
assessed and documented and adjustments made to the plans if necessary to optimize
success. Critically, the plans must include a strong maintenance component purposely
designed to ensure that crime reduction gains are maintained and not squandered as
attention is shifted to other sites (Herold et al., 2020).
During the first six months of implementation, initial violent places will be identified by the
SLCPD POPBP unit using traditional crime analysis methods and local police knowledge and
intelligence. The process of putting together the POPBP board will begin concurrently, and
the initial training of police POPBP personnel will take place during the initial six-month
period. The Chief of Police will lead the POPBP Board and will be principally responsible
for constituting the Board with support from the Mayor. Once the Board is in place, its
members and working group designees will be trained on the POPBP process and goals
within six months. Likely membership of the Board will include the following:
TABLE 2: Initial POPBP Board Membership
CITY DEPARTMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Police • Lead POPBP board
• Gather intelligence
• Conduct criminal investigations
• Make arrests
• Deter criminal activity
• Analyze crime and public-safety related data
City Attorney • Legal review of recommended intervention strategies as
needed
• Drafts municipal code changes as needed
Building Services • Building inspections
• Code compliance
• Civil enforcement

13
Civil Enforcement • Enforcement (zoning, weeds, etc.)
• Vacant/boarded housing
Community & • Housing solutions
Neighborhoods • Community problem-solving
Compliance • Impoundment of abandoned vehicles
• Parking issues
Economic Development • Business investment/development
Fire Department • Identify/address fire hazards and fire code violations
Housing Stability • Housing programs
• Provision of services/shelter
• Impact and needs assessments
Planning • Zoning-related issues
Public Lands • Parks and recreation
• Use and maintenance
Redevelopment Agency • Livability
• Neighborhood improvement
Streets • Street improvements
• Street design
Transportation • Public transportation
• Traffic problems/concerns
Waste & Recycling • Illegal dumping
• Trash removal
Youth & Family • Youth programs
• Summer jobs
• Family support

Once the POPBP board and working group are in place and trained, the SLCPD POPBP unit
and POPBP working group will begin an intensive information-gathering process on the
sites to identify the precise nature and scope of the underlying problems driving violent
crime in and around them. This information-gathering and analysis phase will culminate
in the development of potential solutions to the problems identified. Problems identified
and solutions proposed will be incorporated into site-specific operations plans that will
include timelines for implementation, responsible parties, and metrics for measuring
implementation and effectiveness of each proposed solution. These strategies likely will
involve traditional police enforcement and crime prevention activities but also should
include a multipronged and multi-disciplinary strategy to address the underlying problems
that facilitate violence at the crime-prone place. Changes to the physical environment, code
enforcement, and even traffic flows may need to be addressed as part of a comprehensive
place-based violence reduction strategy. Once operations plans have been developed, they
will be presented to the POPBP board for its input, eventual approval, and commitment of
resources.

14
Measurement and Evaluation

To assess the implementation and effectiveness of the POPBP strategy on violent crime in
Salt Lake City, the UTSA research team will conduct a process and impact evaluation of the
strategy. Process evaluations are designed to document the implementation of programs
and policies, assess whether they were implemented as intended, and identify any obstacles
to implementation. An outcome (or impact) evaluation focuses on whether the program
or strategy as implemented had its intended effect. In this case, the overarching goal of
the strategy is to reduce violent crime (robberies, aggravated assaults, homicides) and its
associated metrics such as shootings or violence-related calls for service in and around
crime-prone places. The process evaluation will make use of problem-specific metrics to
assess expected outcomes such as arrests made, code violations written, nuisances abated,
or environmental changes made to document implementation. The POPBP working group
will be asked for input on implementation metrics that should be tracked, and these will
be systematically gathered and analyzed by the UTSA research team and reported semi-
annually following POPBP implementation.
On the outcome side, the POPBP working group will again work with the UTSA researchers
to identify appropriate effectiveness metrics such as violent crimes, shootings, or violence-
related calls for service received pre- and post-intervention. A 6-month pre and 6-month
post intervention period will be utilized initially to gauge the impact of the strategy on
the agreed-upon impact metrics collected in and around the crime-place locations and
surrounding areas. Once maintenance plans are put in place to maintain crime reduction
gains at targeted sites, the SLCPD and UTSA researchers will continue to follow key outcome
metrics over time (e.g., 24-36 months) to track long-term effects.

LONG-TERM STRATEGY
Longer-term crime reduction strategies require additional time and resources to
implement compared to short-term or mid-term strategies. In most cases, they also require
collaboration with outside stakeholders, which may include other city departments,
federal law enforcement agencies, schools, businesses, community groups, and non-profit
organizations. The long-term violence reduction strategy proposed below is evidence-
based and has proven successful in other cities after rigorous evaluation.

Focused Deterrence
First designed and implemented in Boston in the 1990s, focused deterrence strategies
(sometimes referred to as “pulling levers”) have proven successful in reducing violent crime
in a number of cities where they have been applied and evaluated (Braga et al., 2018; Corsaro,
2018; Engel, 2018). A leading expert in the design and evaluation of these approaches to
reducing street-level violence has stated unequivocally that “focused deterrence strategies
save lives” (Engel, 2018). The goal of focused deterrence is to change the behavior of high-

15
risk offenders through a combination of deterrence, incapacitation (arrest), community
involvement, and the provision of alternatives to violence (Braga et al., 2018). A key feature
of most focused deterrence strategies is the clear communication to gang members and
other violent offenders of the risks associated with continued criminal activity and the
alternatives available to them under a robust suite of social service, education, and job-
related services made available to them under the strategy. Focused deterrence strategies
have been successfully implemented in cities such as Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Chicago,
New Orleans, Oakland, Detroit, and Seattle among others and have shown statistically
significant, and in some cases, substantively large reductions (15-34%) in reported violent
crime (McGarrell et al., 2006; Engel et al., 2010; Papachristos & Kirk, 2015; Corsaro & Engel,
2015; Saunders et al., 2016).
Components of Focused Deterrence

While focused deterrence strategies typically contain common elements, they should
be viewed as problem-oriented policing strategies that work best when tailored to a
specific crime problem or offending population (e.g., gang violence, youth homicide) in a
city or area of a city. These strategies emphasize the development of an interagency law
enforcement team often consisting of local, state, and federal partners (law enforcement,
prosecutors, probation/parole, etc.), which relies on local intelligence to identify high risk
offenders or groups of offenders within the targeted risk group. The law enforcement team
then develops a strategy to target the offenders utilizing all available legal remedies –
arrest and prosecution (often with federal partners taking the lead on drug and gun-related
crimes), gang injunctions, place-based strategies to close down buildings or houses used to
facilitate crime, etc. Key to the strategy is (1) a deterrence message communicated directly
and repeatedly to the target population, and (2) offering violent lifestyle alternatives to
the targeted offenders, which may involve the provision of social services, education, job
training, substance abuse treatment, or direct employment with willing partners in the
private or non-profit sectors (Braga, 2018).
The deterrence message is often communicated through “call-ins” or offender notification
meetings whereby offenders are invited or required (as a condition of probation or parole)
to appear and hear deterrence messaging from law enforcement officials and respected
community voices (e.g., clergy or family members of victims). At these meetings, social
service representatives are also available to offer prosocial alternatives to the threat posed
by law enforcement of arrest and long-term incarceration in a federal penitentiary. Cities
that have used focused deterrence strategies successfully sometimes have made use of
street workers (often former gang members) to communicate the deterrence message
directly to gang members on the street and to serve as a resource to connect them with
social services (CICF, 2021; Engel et al., 2010; McGarrell, et al., 2006). Each offender also
should be assigned to a caseworker for follow-up and tracking from initial contact through
final disposition.

16
Focused deterrence strategies come in several varieties. The original Boston Ceasefire
model, later replicated and modified in Cincinnati and other cities, focused on gangs
and violent criminal groups. Other cities have copied the High Point, NC drug market
intervention (DMI) program that focused on identifying and arresting violent drug dealers
while suspending criminal proceedings against non-violent drug offenders within targeted
drug markets (Kennedy & Wong, 2009). These non-violent offenders were then provided
moral support and encouragement from family members and/or community leaders and
social service support from city or non-profit agencies. Based on the High Point experience,
DMI has been rated as “effective” by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ, 2014). A final type
of focused deterrence targets repeat offenders by leveraging available legal tools (arrest
and prosecution), deterrence through the use of “moral” voices from the community, and
the provision of social service alternatives (Braga, 2018; Papachristos et al., 2007).

Focused Deterrence in Salt Lake City

As part of its strategy to help provide long-term solutions to violent crime in Salt Lake City,
the SLCPD will lead problem-based, focused deterrence strategies tailored to particular
violent crime problems, neighborhoods, and offender groups. In partnership with the UTSA
research team, the SLCPD will utilize problem-oriented policing methods to clearly identify
underlying violent crime patterns in Salt Lake City and its neighborhoods,7 and then it will
design tailored strategies to address those problems drawn from the success of focused
deterrence models in other cities.
Focused deterrence is a holistic, resource-intensive process involving multiple law
enforcement and community partners. Initially, the SLCPD will work with its academic
partners, city leadership, and other stakeholders to prioritize problems and people for
focused deterrence interventions. The nature of those interventions may vary according
to the problem identified (gang violence vs. neighborhood-based open-air drug markets),
recognizing that some problems may overlap. As studies that have documented success
have found, law enforcement partners at the local, state, and federal level will be engaged
and brought onboard early in the process. These partners may include the FBI, U.S. Attorney’s
Office, DEA, ATF, Salt Lake County District Attorney, Utah Adult Probation & Parole, and
others.
Given the resource-intensive nature of focused deterrence, initially one problem and/
or neighborhood will be selected for intervention. High risk offenders will be identified
from a combination of arrest data and criminal intelligence maintained by SLCPD and/or
federal law enforcement. The initial plan will be drawn-up as outlined above, and it will be
continually assessed as part of the evaluation process once enacted. If resources allow, a
second (or even third) focused deterrence effort may be undertaken simultaneously based
on the emerging evidence and lessons learned from the first.

7 Neighborhoods may be defined in the traditional sense using historically understood neighborhood
boundaries (e.g., Sugarhouse, University/Foothill, the Avenues) or it may focus on troublesome housing

17
Engaging in the SARA8 problem-oriented process and laying the groundwork for the
partnerships needed to ensure programmatic success will take 6-12 months from the time
implementation of the strategy begins. It is anticipated that the actual implementation of a
focused deterrence strategy likely will begin in the latter half of 2023 or early 2024. By that
time, the impact of the short and mid-term strategies that are part of SLCPD’s overall violence
reduction strategic plan will have been measured and felt. The impact of these shorter-
term strategies may affect the crime problems identified and chosen for intervention using
a focused deterrence approach. In this way, the long-term focused deterrence strategy will
build upon the expected success of the earlier components of the overall violent crime
reduction plan, and the components will work synergistically to reduce violent crime in
Salt Lake City and lay the groundwork for long-term change.
The resources needed to successfully implement focused deterrence are considerable.
Most cities that have utilized this approach have hired (or assigned) a full-time, senior-level
director to oversee implementation of the strategy. Service providers must be identified,
funding secured, and contracts or memoranda of understanding drawn up and signed.
The cooperation of federal partners must be obtained and criteria established for federal
prosecution when needed. The support of community and faith-based leaders, victim or
survivor groups, family members, and other “moral voices” from the community will be
necessary. Cooperation from other elements of the criminal justice system, especially the
Salt Lake County prosecutor, is vital for success. In planning for the implementation of
focused deterrence, the SLCPD chief and other city leaders may consider the development
of a strategy to identify philanthropic partners who may be willing to help underwrite the
initial and ongoing costs of the initiative and its evaluation. In sum, the time and effort
needed to manage an effort of this magnitude requires a capable leader and appropriate
staff (both police and non-police) to support and sustain the initiative for several years
until processes are routinized and long-term impacts are felt.
Measurement and Evaluation

A scientifically valid process and impact evaluation of the Salt Lake City focused deterrence
strategy is essential for measuring and documenting programmatic successes and failures.
The UTSA research team will be engaged to conduct an independent evaluation of the
strategy. An evaluation of this magnitude will be a considerable investment, but it is critical
to know if the strategy was implemented as intended and had the impact it was intended to
achieve. Before-and-after measures of crime, calls for service, quality of life, and community
perceptions of safety will be key outcome indicators the UTSA team will consider. Carefully
documenting the fidelity with which the strategy is implemented is also important and
necessary to produce a “lessons learned” document that can serve as an implementation
guide for subsequent iterations of the strategy.

8 Scanning, analysis, response, and assessment (Goldstein, 1990).

18
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This document serves as the Violent Crime Reduction Strategic Plan for Salt Lake City and
the Salt Lake City Police Department. It contains evidence-based short, mid, and long-term
strategies to address violence and its underlying conditions in Salt Lake City over the next
three years.
In the short-term, the SLCPD will execute a hot spots policing strategy to significantly
increase police visibility in violent crime hot spots and deter violent offenders. As a mid-
term strategy, the SLCPD will coordinate and lead a problem-oriented, place-based policing
strategy to identify crime-prone places, arrest offenders when needed, and address the
underlying environmental conditions conducive to crime. Long-term, the SLCPD will lead
a focused deterrence strategy to arrest and prosecute violent offenders, deter others from
committing violent crimes, and facilitate the provision of social services to crime-prone
individuals willing to take advantage of them. From short-term to long-term, the SLCPD is
also committed to facilitating the scientific evaluation of these strategies by credible and
independent evaluators to document programmatic successes or failures and to provide a
roadmap for future leaders in Salt Lake City and beyond to follow in their continuing efforts
to reduce violence and the toll it takes on individuals and families in the community.
These strategies are evidence-based and purposely designed to work synergistically to
lower violent crime and improve the environmental conditions that facilitate it, recognizing
that lowering poverty, improving education, reducing unemployment, eliminating
homelessness and food insecurity, and supporting families are also critical to reducing
violence in communities in the long term.

19
TPD Crime Plan Timeline: Year 1 (Sep 2022-Aug 2023)
MONTH Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
TASKS                        
  Hot Spots Policing
Allocate resources based on recent analyses X X X X X X X X X X X X
Evaluate treatment effectiveness   X     X     X     X  
Modify treatment application as necessary     X     X     X     X
Prepare interim report on treatment effectiveness     X     X     X     X
Prepare comprehensive report on longer term trends
and patterns           X           X
  Problem-Oriented, Place-Based Policing (POPBP)
Select and train TPD POPBP unit            X            
Establish and train POPBP board and working group              X  X        
Gather pre-intelligence to select violent micro-

20
locations           X         
Conduct internal and stakeholder information-
gathering sessions             X X     
Present POPBP plan to Board for approval                 X   
Execute strategy X X X
Evaluate effectiveness; adjust; add new sites                    
Prepare summary report                    
  Focused Deterrence
Convene program stakeholders                  
Establish and train program board                    
Program planning                  
Identify at-risk offenders & locations                  
Conduct offender call-in meetings                      
Intensive enforcement/people & places                      
Monitor implementation                      
Prepare summary report on outcomes                        
TPD Crime Plan Timeline: Year 2 (Sep 2023-Aug 2024)
MONTH Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
TASKS                        
  Hot Spots Policing
Allocate resources based on recent analyses X X X X X X X X X X X X
Evaluate treatment effectiveness   X     X   X    X 
Modify treatment application as necessary     X     X     X     X
Prepare interim report on treatment effectiveness     X     X     X     X
Prepare comprehensive report on longer term trends
and patterns           X           X

21
  Problem-Oriented, Place-Based Policing (POPBP)
Select and train TPD POPBP unit                        
Establish and train POPBP board and working group                        
Gather pre-intelligence to select violent micro-
locations X                 
Conduct internal and stakeholder information-
gathering sessions    X X           
Present POPBP plan to Board for approval        X          
Execute strategy X X X X X X X X X X X X
Evaluate effectiveness; adjust; add new sites     X           X   
Prepare summary report       X           X   
  Focused Deterrence
Convene program stakeholders       X         
Establish and train program stakeholders         X               
Program planning          X X            
Identify at-risk offenders & locations          X X            
Conduct offender call-in meetings         X    X   
Intensive enforcement/people & places X X X X X X
Monitor implementation X X X X X X
Prepare summary report on outcomes                
Prepare comprehensive report                    
TPD Crime Plan Timeline: Year 3 (Sep 2024-Aug 2025)
MONTH Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
TASKS                        
  Hot Spots Policing
Allocate resources based on recent analyses X X X X X X X X X X X X
Evaluate treatment effectiveness   X     X     X     X  
Modify treatment application as necessary     X     X     X     X

22
Prepare interim report on treatment effectiveness     X     X     X     X
Prepare comprehensive report on longer term
trends and patterns           X           X
  Problem-Oriented, Place-Based Policing (POPBP)
Select and train TPD POPBP unit                        
Establish and train POPBP board and working group                        
Gather pre-intelligence to select violent micro-
locations X                 
Conduct internal and stakeholder information-
gathering sessions    X X           
Present POPBP plan to Board for approval        X            
Execute strategy X X X X X X X X X X X X
Evaluate effectiveness; adjust; add new sites     X           X   
Prepare summary report       X           X   
  Focused Deterrence
Convene program stakeholders                
Establish and train program board                        
Program planning                        
Identify at-risk offenders & locations                        
Conduct offender call-in meetings  X    X   X    X     
Intensive enforcement/people & places X X X X X X X X X X X X 
Monitor implementation X X X X X X X X X X X X 
Prepare summary report on outcomes X            X     X
Prepare comprehensive report            X X      

23
 REFERENCES

Berk, R. & MacDonald, J. (2010). Policing the homeless: An evaluation of efforts to reduce
homeless-related crime. Criminology & Public Policy, 9, 813-840.

Braga, A.A. & Bond, B.J. (2008). Policing crime and disorder hot spots: A randomized
controlled trial. Criminology, 46, 577-607.

Braga, A.A., Turchan, B.S., Papachristos, A.V., & Hureau, D.M. (2019). Hots spots policing
and crime reduction: An update on an ongoing systematic review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15, 289-311.

Braga, A.A., Welsh, B.C., & Schnell, C. (2019). Disorder policing to reduce crime: A
systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1050.

Braga, A.A., Weisburd, D., & Turchan, B. (2018). Focused deterrence strategies and crime
control. Criminology & Public Policy, 17, 205-250.

Branas, C.C., South, E.C., Kondo, M.C., Hohl, B., Bourgois, P., Wiebe, D.J., MacDonald, J.M.
(2018). Citywide cluster randomized trial to restore blighted vacant land and its effects on
violence, crime, and fear. PNAS, 115, 2946-2951.

Branas, CC., Kondo, M.C., Murphy, S.M., South, E.C., Polsky, D., & MacDonald, J.M. (2016).
Urban blight remediation as a cost-beneficial solution to firearm violence. American Journal
of Public Health, 106, 2158-2164.

Cassell, P.G. & Fowles, R. (2020). Does bail reform increase crime? An empirical assessment
of the public safety implications of bail reform in Cook County, Illinois. Wake Forest Law
Review, 55, 933-983.

Central Indiana Community Foundation. (2021). Community-based violence prevention

partnership toolkit. Indianapolis, IN: Author. Available at https://www.cicf.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/06/OPHS-2019-VIOLENCE-PREVENTION-TOOLKIT.pdf.

Clarke R., & Eck J. (2005). Crime analysis for problem solvers in 60 small steps. Washington
DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available at https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-
w0047-pub.pdf.

Cohen, L.E. & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.

24
Connealy, N.T. (2022). The influence, saliency, and consistency of environmental crime
predictors: A probability score matching approach to test what makes a hot spot. Justice
Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2022.2106292.

Corsaro, N. (2018). More than lightning in a bottle and far from ready-made. Criminology
& Public Policy, 17, 251-259.

Corsaro, N., & Engel, R.S. (2015). The most challenging of contexts: Assessing the impact
of focused deterrence on serious violence in New Orleans. Criminology & Public Policy, 14:
471–505.

Corsaro, N., Engel, R.S., Herold, T.D., & Yildirim, M. (2019). Implementing gang and gun
violence reduction strategies in Las Vega, Nevada: Hot sports evaluation results. IACP/
UC Center for Police Research and Policy. Alexandria, VA: Authors. Available at https://
www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/Research%20Center/LVMPD_Hot%20Spots%20
Experiment_Final%20Report_FINAL.pdf.

Culhane, D.P. (2010). Tackling homelessness on Los Angeles’ skid row. Criminology & Public
Policy, 9, 851-857.

Eck, J. & Spelman, W. (1987). Problem-solving: Problem-oriented policing in New Port News.
Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

Ellsworth, J.T. (2018). Street crime victimization among homeless adults: A review of the
literature. Justice Quarterly, 14, 96-118.

Engel, R.S. (2018). Focused deterrence strategies save lives: Introduction and discussion of
an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Criminology & Public Policy, 17, 199-203.

Engel, R.S., Corsaro, N., & Tillyer, M.S. (2010). Evaluation of the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce
Violence (CIRV). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati Policing Institute.

Fitzpatrick, K.M., La Gory, M.E., & Ritchey, F.J. (1993). Criminal victimization and the
homeless. Justice Quarterly, 10, 353-368.

Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Groff, E. R., Ratcliffe, J. H., Haberman, C. P., Sorg, E. T., Joyce, N. M., & Taylor, R. B. (2015).
Does what police do at hot spots matter? The Philadelphia Policing Tactics Experiment.
Criminology, 53, 23–53.

25
Herold, T.D. (2019). P.N.I.: Place network investigations. Presentation to IACP Research
Advisory Committee. Available at https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/5.%20
THerold%20IACP%202019.pdf.

Herold, T.D., Engel, R.S., Corsaro, N., & Clouse, S.L. (2020). Place network investigations in Las
Vegas, Nevada: Program review and process evaluation. IACP/UC Center for Police Research
and Policy. Alexandria, VA: Authors. Available at https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/
files/Research%20Center/LVMPD_PIVOT%20Program%20Review_Final.pdf.

Hinkle, J.C. & Weisburd, D. (2008). The irony of broken windows policing: A micro-place
study of the relationship between disorder, focused police crackdowns and fear of crime.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 503-512.

Hinkle, J.C., Weisburd, D., Telep, C.W., & Petersen, K. (2020). Problem-oriented policing for
reducing crime and disorder: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell
Systematic Reviews, 16. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1089.

Kennedy, D.M. & Wong, S. (2009). The High Point Drug Intervention Strategy.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services. Available at https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-p166-pub.pdf.

Kondo, M.C., Keene, D., Hohl, B.C., MacDonald, J.M., Branas, C.C. (2015). A difference-in-
differences study of the effects of a new abandoned building remediation strategy on
safety. PLOS One, 10, e0129582. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129582.

McGarrell, E.F., Chermak, S., Wilson, J.M., & Corsaro, N. (2006). Reducing homicide through a
“lever-pulling” strategy.” Justice Quarterly, 23: 214–229.

National Research Council. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence.
In W. Skogan & K. Frydl (Eds.), Committee on law and justice, division of behavioral and
social sciences and education (Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and
Practices). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available at https://www.nap.edu/
download/10419.

NIJ. (2014). Program profile: High point drug market intervention. CrimeSolutions, National
Institute of Justice. Retrieved May 30, 2022, from https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/
ratedprograms/361

26
O’Shea, T.C. (2006). Physical deterioration, disorder, and crime. Criminal Justice Policy
Review, 17, 173-187.

Papachristos, A.V. & Kirk, D.S. (2015). Changing the street dynamic: Evaluating Chicago’s
group violence reduction strategy. Criminology & Public Policy, 14: 525–558.

Papachristos, A.V., Meares, T.L., & Fagan, J. (2007). Attention felons: Evaluating Project Safe
Neighborhoods in Chicago. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 223–272.

Ratcliffe, J.H. (2008). Intelligence-Led Policing. Collumpton, UK: Willan Publishing.

Rosenfeld, R., Deckard, M. J., & Blackburn, E. (2014). The effects of directed patrol and self-
initiated enforcement on firearm violence: A randomized controlled study of hot spot
policing. Criminology, 52, 428–449.

Sampson, R.J. & Raudenbush, S.W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces:
A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 603-
651.

Saunders, J., Ober, A.J., Kilmer, B., & Greathouse, S.M. (2016). A Community-Based, Focused-
Deterrence Approach to Closing Overt Drug Markets. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Semerad, T. (2022, August 21). Why downtown SLC has blown past the pandemic
and is topping the competition. The Salt Lake Tribune. https://www.sltrib.com/
news/2022/08/21/why-downtown-slc-has-blown-past/

Sherman, L. W., Williams, S., Ariel, B., Strang, L. R., Wain, N., Slothower, M., & Norton, A.
(2014). An integrated theory of hot spots patrol strategy: implementing prevention by
scaling up and feeding back. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 30, 95–122.

Taylor, B., Koper, C.S., & Woods, D.J. (2011). A randomized controlled trial of different
policing strategies at hot spots of violent crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7,
149-181.
Taylor, R.B., Shumaker, S.A., Gottfredson, S.D. (1985). Neighborhood-level links between
physical features and local sentiments: Deterioration, fear of crime, and confidence.
Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2, 261-275.

27
Tyler, T.R., Goff, P.A., & MacCoun, R.J. (2015). The impact of psychological science
on policing in the united states: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law
enforcement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16, 75-109.

Wei, E., Hipwell, A., Pardini, D., Beyers, J.M., & Loeber, R. (2005). Block observations of
neighborhoud physical disorder are associated with neighbourhood crime, firearm
injuries, and deaths, and teen births. Journal of Epidemiological Community Health, 59,
904-908.

Weisburd, D., Braga, A.A., Groff, E., & Wooditch, A. (2017). Can hot spots policing reduce
crime in urban areas? An agent-based simulation. Criminology, 55, 137–173.

Weisburd, D., Groff, E.R., Jones, G., Cave, B., Amendola, K.L., Yang, S., Emison, R.F. (2015).
The Dallas patrol management experiment: Can AVL technologies be used to harness
unallocated patrol time for crime prevention? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11,
367-391.

Weisburd, D., Wyckoff, L. A., Ready, J., Eck, J. E., Hinkle, J. C., & Gajewski, F. (2006). Does
crime just move around the corner? A controlled study of spatial displacement and
diffusion of crime control benefits. Criminology, 44, 549-592.

Weisburd, D. & Telep, C.W. (2014). Hot spots policing: What we know and what we need to
know. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 30, 200-220.

Wheeler, A., Kim, D., & Phillips, S. (2018). The effect of housing demolitions on crime in
Buffalo, New York. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 55, 390-424. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022427818757283.

Wilson JQ, & Kelling GL. (March 1982). Broken windows: police and neighborhood safety.
Atlantic Monthly, 249. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-
windows/304465/.

Yang, S. M. (2009). Assessing the spatial–temporal relationship between disorder and

violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(1), 139-163.

28
 A publication of the
Salt Lake City Police Department
©2022
475 South 300 East
Mailing Address:
PO Box 145497
SLC, Utah 84114-5497
www.slcpd.com