QualitativeEvaluationofZeroArmedPerpetrators……

1、Qualitative Evaluation of Zero Armed Perpetrators (ZAP):A Summary ReportLynn K. Harvey, Ph.D.Associate Professor of SociologyDepartment of Social Sciences and Center for Community SafetyWinston-Salem State UniversityJanuary 2005The Center for Community Safety at Winston-Salem State University works

2、in partnership with the Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro as the Project Safe Neighborhoods Research Partner for the United States Attorneys Office, Middle District of North Carolina. These efforts are supported by PSN funding (Awa

3、rd #2002-GP-CX-0220) through the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice.Qualitative Evaluation of Zero

4、Armed Perpetrators (ZAP):A Summary ReportBackgroundZero Armed Perpetrators (ZAP) is a program initiated by the Forsyth County District Attorney in July 2000. The program is designed to review all firearm cases that come to the attention of the DA's office, with the ultimate purpose of reducing g

5、un violence in Winston-Salem and Forsyth County. Given this purpose, ZAP fits well within the overall strategy of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN). The program seeks to identify the most dangerous offenders and develop prosecution strategies that can lead to the removal of those individuals from the

6、 streets of the city and the county.ZAP is coordinated by an individual within the DA's office, with help from an assistant. A meeting to review all recent gun cases is held weekly. Invited to the meeting are representatives of state and federal prosecutors' offices; city, county, state and

7、federal law enforcement agencies; state adult and juvenile probation offices; the city/county school system; the county attorneys office; and a university-based community outreach center. Participants share information about each case and the individuals involved, and a decision is made about what c

8、harges to pursue and whether the case should be taken to the state or federal court.MethodologyZAP meetings were observed from January through July 2004. During that period the ZAP director identified 15 individuals, including the District Attorney and two other members of the DA's staff, as mem

9、bers of a core group. The director provided the researcher with contact information for those individuals, a majority of whom had been observed attending the meetings on a frequent basis. Individual interviews were conducted with twelve of those "core group" members between July 8 and Augu

10、st 31, 2004, and with the ZAP director on October 15, 2004.The interviews were structured around 12 questions (although those asked of the ZAP director were somewhat different from those directed to the others.) The interview included questions about the person's job and initial involvement with

11、 ZAP, frequency of ZAP meeting attendance, reasons for attending (or not attending) the meetings, costs and benefits of attendance and their relative weight, perceptions of what about the meeting works well and not so well, whether the meeting provides adequate opportunity to contribute information,

12、 and desired changes in the way the program works (see attached interview guides).Interviews were not tape recorded, but notes were transcribed using word-processing software as soon as possible after each interview. Responses were examined one question at a time, with an eye toward identifying both

13、 common and unique comments.ResultsTypically attending the meetings during the observation period were representatives of the District Attorney's office, the United States Attorney's Office, the Winston-Salem Police Department, the Forsyth County Sheriff's Office, the North Carolina Depa

14、rtment of Community Corrections, and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Attending less frequently were representatives of the WSSU Center for Community Safety. Rarely or never observed in attendance were state law enforcement officials; court counselors (juvenile probation

15、 officers); school system personnel; and a representative of the county attorneys office.The following perceptions were common among interview respondents:§ Most of the individuals that attend the ZAP meetings have worked together for a number of years. This experience is seen as having created

16、 a level of comfort among the participants that enhances the process.§ Many of the participants in the meeting are in positions that do not involve direct or indirect reporting relationships. Because people do not have to “answer to one another,” they do not hesitate to express their opinions a

17、bout the cases being discussed.§ The major cost involved for most of the participants is the time spent in the meeting, although some also spend time preparing for the meeting.§ Two benefits of attending the meetings were most often cited by respondents: receiving valuable information and

18、maintaining important working relationships.§ Numerous respondents also mentioned another beneficial outcome of the ZAP program: having better incident reports written by law enforcement officers than were available in the past to be used in prosecuting cases.§ Most respondents see the ben

19、efits of attending ZAP meetings as clearly outweighing the costs, but a few do not, saying that the time involved in the weekly meetings is too great for the level of benefits received.Interview respondents cited the following as problems or limitations associated with the ZAP program:§ The pro

20、gram is not tied into other elements of the violence-reduction strategy, such as Operation Reach, Notification, and work to assist ex-offenders returning to the community.§ Some partners are not fully engaged.§ Too much time is spent on some cases, especially those dealing with BB guns.

21、67; Some cases do not need to be reviewed at all in these meetings.§ Decisions about cases have to be made too quickly, before all the relevant information is available.§ Some agencies that benefit from ZAP do not devote enough resources to supporting it.§ Front-line law-enforcement o

22、fficers do not routinely receive (1) information showing that the program works and (2) official recognition when they do good work that supports the program.ConclusionsThe Zero Armed Perpetrators program is perceived by its participants as a valuable and effective part of Winston-Salem/Forsyth Coun

23、tys strategy to reduce gun violence. However, it could be even more valuable and effective (1) if other strategic partners participated; (2) if there were a mechanism by which information employed and developed in the ZAP meetings could be routinely disseminated to all partners; (3) if front-line la

24、w enforcement officers were made aware of the programs successes and were rewarded for their work in making those successes possible; and (4) if partner agencies increased resources devoted to supporting the programs goals. Meeting each of those conditions is more difficult in times of severe budget

25、 constraints, but the first three appear to be attainable, even under current circumstances. Post-meeting documentation and dissemination of decisions made and actions taken might be particularly valuable to the partnership and the overall strategy. Another problem cited by respondents - the timing

26、and pace of steps in the criminal justice system process - which also affects ZAPs effectiveness, is probably a reality with which program participants must contend rather than change.Even participants who complain about the number of cases reviewed in the meeting generally recognize the value of a comprehensive approach that can uncover unanticipated co