Public Safety Discussion Group with YIP

A City That Works - May 29, 2008

This was an interesting, exciting night, with many individuals highly engaged in the topic and who were prepared to stay much longer to continue discussing the topic and the concerns associated with it. Of the 40 or so participants from the large group of Young Involved Philadelphia, about seven individuals chose to discuss public safety.

The group really seemed to be interested in ways to change the physical environment that would prevent or deter crime. The group was comprised of young adults in their twenties with one exception, a European woman in her later years who was not born in the United States. The group had both men and women. The group was excellent, with people actively listening to each other, asking clarifying questions, unpacking issues together, and engaging in excellent dialogue. -- Moderator Ted Enoch

What does this goal mean to you?

• Public-transit locations, especially subway and underground trolley locations, would be completely safe. Police presence would be visible, and no one would ever wait for a ride alone.

• Police would be visible every hour in every neighborhood.

• Philadelphia would be teeming with young professionals, who would be constantly moving to our city.

• People would stop asking Philadelphia residents if “they feel safe where they live” or refer to “Killadelphia.”

• Subways stations would not be scary. They would be easier to use.

• Streets would be better lit with more effective, ground level “positive lighting.”

• There would be fewer addicts.

Performance measures (What would success look like?):

• Real improvements in police visibility on the streets, measures through

→ Increases in deployments/posts of officers

→ Neighborhood checkpoints, where officers actually sign public logs

→ Citizens’s surveys that show an increased awareness of police in their communities

→ Surveys showing that citizens are increasingly learning names of local officers

(Although a minority member of the group noted that it is not always a positive when the police and the citizenry are on a first name basis.)

• 100 percent of underground public-transportation locations would have video surveillance.

• Offensive odors in neighborhoods would decrease.

→ More citizens would be calling the sanitation department.

→ Inspections would increase for neighborhood cleanliness

→ Logs would demonstrate that a “cleaning” official had inspected a neighborhood or street

• The murder rate, alone, is not sufficient as a sole area to concentrate on:

→ Muggings would decrease by 25 percent.

→ Rapes would decrease by 25 percent.

→ Home and car break-ins would decrease by 25 percent.

→ And finally, ALL CRIME WOULD DECREASE BY 25 percent per year.

• Streets would be better lit, as measured by:

→ Less complaints about city lighting.

→ More people (survey) being willing to walk to locations after 9 p.m.

• A sense of trust is restored in the citizens as to the police department, as measured through citizen surveys/polls.

• An increase in the use of “blue light” emergency phones, as measured by:

→ An actual increase in the amount on the streets

→ Citizens report an increase in their awareness of them and belief in their use and effectiveness (polls)

• 911 and Emergency Response rates improve by 25% in terms of time to arrive at an emergency location.

Customer-service standards:

• “Philadelphia, where police will say hello to you.”

• “If your district’s police aren’t the friendliest, they will throw you a picnic.”

• “Where neighborhoods that are the cleanest, get a free picnic.”

• “If there is no security guard or police at your subway or trolley stop, your ride is free.”

• “Where if an intersection gets three comlaints about traffic, officials come to direct traffic.”