The state of Georgia created a program that is similar to the neighborhood watch the differences in program is to aim their concentration on criminals who continues to cause a threat to their community.
The program known as the Atlanta Project Safe Neighborhoods is a strategic collaboration of the local state, and federal laws enforcement and erections agencies for the purpose of apprehending and identifying the most violent criminals on the streets. (Tummy Meredith, 2013, p. 1) In completing the week-5 assignment in researching article analysis, was focused on the Atlanta Project Safe Neighborhoods journal. And will cover the 9 questions in detail and will be directed towards the Research article Analysis assignment. In this paper the author is asked to give an opinion as to whether the study could have been improved.
The author has addressed that question. Identify the purpose of the research study, problem, and questions. The Atlanta Project safe Neighborhoods (USN) main goal is to keep violent criminals off the street and place them in jail and or prison and thus to keep neighborhoods safe. USN, along with Violent Repeat Offender (FRO) met up on a monthly basis to discuss identified offenders, share agency and specific information and report on investigations, strategies and the apprehension efforts in regards to the law enforcement and prosecutorial tactics.
The purpose is selective incapacitation of that small proportion of highly active career criminals with a vast impact on local crime. (Tummy Meredith, 2013, p. ) In 201 2 the Project Safe Neighborhood (USN), the U . S. Attorney, Violent Repeat Offender and Applied Research Services Inc. (EARS) developed a data- driven methodology in creating a yearly list which focuses on crimes of interest, accurately reflects their catchments area and identifies offender targets with maximum potential for contributing to local violent crimes.
Describe the design of the study. EARS and the Georgia Bureau of Investigations (GOBI), Georgia Crime Information Center (GUCCI) provides EARS with regular electronic extract of the entire state of Georgia computerized criminal history (rap sheets) data. Applied Research Services (EARS) and GUCCI have shared data among each other with data-driven operational research projects. The data shows all arrest and convictions from 1 990 until 2012 in the state of Georgia. (Tummy Meredith, 2013, p. ) The study used a four-step, iterative process to arrive at a top-1 50 list. Provide one example of inductive logic and one example of deductive logic presented in the results. The logical reasoning that repeat, violent offenders are likely to repeat again is deductive logic. The study is predicated on the use of criteria to deduce that criminal history of an extreme type points to the likelihood that the Suspect will violently offend again or break the rules of parole or probation for which they can be re-incarcerated.
It is inductive logic to infer that re-arrest of the selected 1 50 will necessarily have the largest impact on violent crime in the six-county area. Identify whether the research study is a quantitative or qualitative design. Explain your answer. In this research it is determined that a qualitative researcher’s aim to gather an in-depth understanding of human behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior. The qualitative method investigates the why and how of decision making, not just what, where, when.
The Atlanta Project Safe Neighborhoods (USN) and the other agencies working together along with data and strategies to apprehend and prosecute violent criminal based on the information that the Georgia Crime Information Center (GUCCI) provides to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GOBI). It is a quantitative design from the perspective that the study deals in numbers and infers probability of re- offense. It is qualitative in that it distinguishes between violent crimes by sighting them so that the more aggravated are given greater value in the ranking and sorting of the offenders.
Identify the methodology, population, and sampling methods and return rate, if applicable. The methodology is initially quantitative and the data are not sampled but derived from the entire GUCCI database and then culled to the six-county metro area. The additional steps 2-4 are iterative and based on criteria selected by the USN and associated agencies. (Tummy Meredith, 201 3, What were the findings of the study? According to the “Study or finding” they have referred it to the mistreated successes as having shown a positive result.
The credit goes to the collaboration power of the Violent Repeat Offender (FRO) partners. An example they used was a few offenders that have used weapons such as guns, prior criminal history and jail or prison time they have done in assisting them on making sure these violent criminals are charged, convicted and are place in jail ands or prison and that they remain off the streets. Therefore, this program has successfully proved it works and it has help in keeping the violent criminal to be accountable for their actions and to place hem in prison and for them to remains listed as a violent offender.
Describe the author’s conclusions and recommendations. The conclusion states that the collaboration bet”/en law enforcement, corrections and the U. S. Attorney office ensures that violent offenders are prosecuted to the extreme, fullest extent of the law. (Tummy Meredith, 2013, p. 4) Furthermore, the unique alliance between the Project Safe Neighborhoods (USN), Applied Research Services (EARS), Violent Repeat Offender (FRO), Georgia Bureau (GOBI) and the Georgia Crime Information Center (GUCCI) has made the team of agencies to utilize cutting edge analytical tragedies.
The unprecedented mining of automated data and collaboration ensures that the toughest, most violent criminals are off the streets in the state of Georgia. So far there has not mention of any recommendations in this journal. In your opinion, could the study have been done differently or improved? Detail your response. The demonstrated successes of the program substantiates the validity of the criteria selected and applied throughout the 4-step process used by the USN.
The examples of Adequacies Johnson and Wildfire Jackson illustrate the point nicely. In my opinion the study was conducted very professionally. There was no profiling based on race. The data mining was highly effective. The inter-agency cooperation delivered results because inter-agency communication and exchange of data were very high, This also points to the value of information technology in Law Enforcement. My one criticism of the study is that it continues to be reactive law-enforcement.
It does not address a root-cause for crime in the 6-county area or any measures other than to reduce crime other than the most expensive option; which is additional incarceration. Other than for the most serious crimes, these repeat offenders ill be out on the streets again, committing more crimes, requiring re-arrests. This is an excessive cost to society. Conclusion The research article analysis was on the Atlanta Project Safe Neighborhoods in the State of Georgia.
The State of Georgia created a program that is similar to the neighborhood watch the differences in program is the aim on criminals who continue to cause a threat to their communities. The program known as the Atlanta Project Safe Neighborhoods (USN) is a strategic collaboration of the local state, and federal laws enforcement and corrections agencies for the purpose of apprehending and identifying the most violent Iranians on the streets.
I covered the nine questions and answered the conclusion and recommendations that the Atlanta Project Safe Neighborhood had offered in their conclusion. I judge the methodology to be sound and the results to validate the methodology; particularly the two examples given of violent, repeat offenders who were taken off the streets. The methodology appears to be free of bias and such things as racial profiling.