Program Profile: San Diego (Calif.) Drug Abatement Response Team (DART)

This is a program designed to reduce drug dealing at residential rental properties by encouraging improved property management practices. The program is rated Effective. The treatment group that implemented the full program experienced a statistically significant reduction in crime, compared with the control group However, there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment and control groups in the eviction of persons convicted of drug offenses.

An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial .

Program Goals/Target Sites

The San Diego Drug Abatement Response Team (DART) in California was a program designed to reduce drug dealing at residential rental properties by encouraging improved property management practices. It leveraged the authority of civil law to pressure landlords into addressing problems at rental properties where drug problems had been identified.

San Diego DART targeted private rental properties that had been subjected to some form of drug enforcement. In more than half of the cases, this enforcement activity was a search warrant–based raid. Other actions included knock-and-talk events (police requested permission to search the premises for drugs); buy–bust events (an undercover office made a buy, which led to an arrest); parole searches; and Fourth Amendment waiver actions.

The targeted behaviors included increased evictions of persons convicted of drug offenses and reduced drug-related criminal activity. One hundred and twenty one properties were selected for this program. Most properties were owned by individuals or partnerships (94.9 percent), and most owners indicated that they could spend little or nothing to improve the property.

Program Components

The program targeted landlords and attempted to motivate positive changes through the possibility of nuisance abatement, which is a civil process whereby a property owner is sued to resolve public nuisances (such as drug dealing or prostitution) at a property. A suit carries the possibility of a large fine or even the loss of the property. The legal process is expensive and time-consuming, which explains why this strategy was combined with others.

Some properties received letters from the DART. The letter informed them of the drug activity at the property and explained that the police would help them get rid of the drug dealers, if they wished. The letter also informed them that they could be sued under California law if they failed to remove the nuisance. Once the letter was sent, no further actions were taken by the police unless the property owner requested help.

A second group of properties also received a letter. This letter differed from that received by the first group: it emphasized the legal action the city of San Diego could take if the owners did not resolve the drug dealing problems at their property. The letter instructed owners to contact the police so that an interview could be scheduled; if the owner did not contact the police, the police followed up with them. At the scheduled meeting, the owner and police were joined by a member of the city’s Code of Compliance. They all inspected the property and developed a plan for mitigating drug activities.

Program Theory

The program is grounded theoretically in routine activity theory. Through place-management improvements, the environment that was previously attractive is changed (Eck and Wartell 1998).

Study

Eck and Wartell (1998) used a randomized control design to test the impact on crime rates of improved property management for residential rental properties in San Diego (Calif.). The researchers selected 121 residential rental properties that had been subjected to some form of drug enforcement between June and November 1993. These properties were divided into one control group with no contact ( n = 37), one treatment group that received only a letter ( n = 42), and one treatment group that received a letter from, and meeting with, a member of the San Diego Drug Abatement Response Team (DART) ( n = 42). The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the difference between the control group and the treatment group that received a letter from and a meeting with a member of DART.

Police crime data on reported felonies were collected for 30 months and then aggregated into five 6-month units. In addition, information about the 121 sites was collected, including data on suspects and on the crime or drug events at the sites 3 months prior to the enforcement act and 3 months subsequent to that effort. Logs were maintained, documenting police interactions with owners in the treatment groups. A phone survey of property owners was used to gather information on the properties, and environmental surveys were conducted to assess the physical structure of properties. A narcotics unit detective went to each site to try to buy drugs to collect data on the availability of drugs at each site.

Since some sites were prone to higher rates of crime than other sites, the analysis controlled for pretreatment differences in crime levels at the sites. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Street-Level Drug Law Enforcement

This practice includes targeted-policing approaches for reducing drug and drug-related offenses. This practice is rated Promising in reducing reported, drug-related calls for services and offenses against persons. This practice is rated Ineffective in reducing reported property offenses, public order calls for service, and total offenses.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Drug and alcohol offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Property offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Public order offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?