Successful Practices & Strategies Vol. 2 | No. 4

City of Hayward 

Hayward, California 

http://www.hayward-ca.gov

Community policing element 

Community partnerships, problem solving, 

organizational transformation 

Problem/issue 

Problem properties 

Problem description 

Every community has its problem properties—homes, apartment buildings, or run-down businesses 

prone to blight and rife with criminal behavior. These public nuisances often present significant public 

safety challenges within the properties themselves, but they also degrade the quality of life in the 

surrounding community and threaten the livability of our neighborhoods. Problem properties often act 

as a magnet for criminal activity and antisocial behavior. These facilities—homes, apartments, or 

dilapidated businesses—are notorious for blighting the neighborhood, attracting bad actors, and 

degrading the broader sense of public safety in the surrounding community. 

Community policing strategies implemented 

The city of Hayward’s synchronized multi-agency safe housing (S.M.A.S.H.) program goes far beyond 

simply using community policing strategies to achieve law enforcement objectives. In fact, the program 

could best be described as a pure distillation of the community policing philosophy. The effort quite 

literally could not exist without regular cooperation and support from the surrounding community, a 

transformative organizational mindset focused exclusively on outcomes, and a creative, relentlessly 

adaptive problem-solving approach that leverages all resources available to achieve the stated goals. 

The city’s holistic approach to dealing with these problem properties begins with “active listening” 

throughout the organization. The most obvious conduit for information is a record of calls for police 

service. In addition, valuable information occasionally arrives in the form of complaints to city officials, 

calls to code enforcement, and first-hand accounts from fire and medical personnel attending to 

incidents at or around the property. When a problem property is identified as a potential candidate for a 

S.M.A.S.H. operation, nearby residents who have made multiple complaints about the property are 

identified to facilitate any appropriate post-operation follow-up. After each operation, the police 

department, fire department, and code enforcement meet with on-site property management to 

discuss findings and strategies moving forward. 
2 

The S.M.A.S.H. program is, at its heart, a creative problem-solving structure. Instead of dealing with 

public nuisance properties as a pure law enforcement issue, the city employs a broader perspective, 

bringing all available resources to bear on the problem. This involves the engagement of the police 

department’s district command unit and patrol division, city code enforcement, the fire department, the 

probation department, the city attorney’s office, and our youth and family services bureau. By 

addressing a multi-faceted problem via all available angles, the S.M.A.S.H. program ensures that no 

stone is left unturned and all problems in the building—both primary and secondary—are adequately 

addressed. 

The successful implementation of the S.M.A.S.H. program requires a transformative organizational 

mindset, not only among police department personnel but also among the various city departments 

involved in the operations. The approach is inherently collaborative, requiring a high degree of tactical 

cooperation and a shared commitment to pre-determined goals. For departments that usually function 

exclusively within their own purview and established operating procedures, S.M.A.S.H. requires creative 

thinking about how employees across the organization can best work together. Because every problem 

property presents a slightly different challenge, all participants in the program must find ways to adapt 

most effectively in order to ensure success. 

Change and/or impact as a result of these community policing efforts 

Nearly every S.M.A.S.H. operation immediately upgrades the quality of life in the surrounding 

community. Criminals are taken off the streets. Negligent landlords are pressed to clean up health and 

safety violations or be taken to court. Problem tenants are served eviction notices. Innocent tenants—

often children and the elderly—who were previously subject to criminal behavior and dangerous 

conditions are liberated from unsafe situations and provided with advocates and resources to ensure 

their well-being afterward. By eliminating these hives of negativity in the community, the entire 

neighborhood experiences both direct and residual benefits. 

Lessons learned through program implementation 

Despite the overwhelming success of this program, there have been instances in which property owners 

have allowed or, worse yet, actively participated in the criminal or chronic nuisance behavior that the 

S.M.A.S.H. operations were implemented to resolve. In these circumstances, some cases resulted in 

costly and time consuming civil litigation. Although the city eventually prevailed, including but not 

limited to securing a court-ordered demolition of one problematic home, two cases took more than two 

years to resolve. Chronic nuisance and criminal behavior continued throughout the litigation. As a 

means of expediting this process and supporting the S.M.A.S.H. program’s success, in 2013, the city of 

Hayward adopted a property related social nuisance ordinance that provides administrative authority 

for the city to hold property owners accountable for such behavior occurring on their properties. This 
3

has allowed the city to work with the property owners to abate the issues, providing them guidance, 

training, and opportunities to participate in programs such as crime free multi-housing, neighborhood 

watch, and crime prevention through environmental design, to name a few. If the property owners 

choose to ignore their responsibilities, the city now has an option to fine the owners up to $5,000 per 

violation. This ordinance has provided a viable alternative to the civil litigation process and has been 

successful in gaining cooperation from a variety of owners, who may have otherwise been less willing to 

work with the city.

The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the 

U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an 

endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement 

discussion of the issues. 

The Internet references cited in this document were valid as of the date of publication. Given that URLs and websites are in 

constant flux, neither the author(s) nor the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services can vouch for their current validity. 

Published 2015