National Archive of Criminal Justice Data

This dataset is maintained and distributed by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), the criminal justice archive within ICPSR. NACJD is primarily sponsored by three agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Process Evaluation of the Comprehensive Communities Program in Selected Cities in the United States, 1994-1996 (ICPSR 3492) RSS

Principal Investigator(s):

Summary:

This study was a process evaluation of the Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP) intended to develop insights into how community approaches to crime and drug abuse prevention and control evolved, to track how each site implemented its comprehensive strategy, to determine the influence of preexisting ecological, social, economic, and political factors on implementation, and to monitor the evolution of strategies and projects over time. Intensive evaluations were done at six CCP sites: Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Columbia, South Carolina; Fort Worth, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Seattle, Washington. Less intensive evaluations were done at six other CCP sites: Gary, Indiana; Hartford, Connecticut; Wichita, Kansas; the Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area; the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area; and the East Bay area of northern California. At all 12 sites, 2 waves of a Coalition Survey (Parts 1 and 2) were sent to everyone who participated in CCP. Likewise, 2 waves of the Community Policing Survey (Parts 3 and 4) were sent to the police chiefs of all 12 sites. Finally, all 12 sites were visited by researchers at least once (Parts 5 to 13). Variables found in this data collection include problems facing the communities, the implementation of CCP programs, the use of community policing, and the effectiveness of the CCP programs and community policing efforts.

Access Notes

  • One or more files in this study are not available for download due to special restrictions ; consult the restrictions note to learn more. You can apply online for access to the data. A login is required to apply for access. (How to apply.)

    Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Dataset(s)

DS0:  Study-Level Files
Documentation:
DS1:  Coalition Survey, Phase 1
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS2:  Coalition Survey, Phase 2
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS3:  Community Policing Survey, Phase 1
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS4:  Community Policing Survey, Phase 2
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS5:  Baltimore, Maryland Organizations, Phase 1
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS6:  Baltimore, Maryland Organizations, Phase 2
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS7:  Columbia, South Carolina Organizations, Phase 1
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS8:  Columbia, South Carolina Organizations, Phase 2
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS9:  Salt Lake City, Utah Organizations, Phase 1
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS10:  Salt Lake City, Utah Organizations, Phase 2
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS11:  Seattle, Washington Organizations, Phase 1
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS12:  Seattle, Washington Organizations, Phase 2
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS13:  Wichita, Kansas Organizations, Phase 2
Documentation:
Download:
No downloadable data files available.

Study Description

Citation

Kelling, George L., Mona R. Hochberg, Sandra Lee Kaminska, Ann Marie Rocheleau, Dennis P. Rosenbaum, Jeffrey A. Roth, and Wesley G. Skogan. Process Evaluation of the Comprehensive Communities Program in Selected Cities in the United States, 1994-1996. ICPSR03492-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2009-06-30. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03492.v1

Persistent URL:

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote XML (EndNote X4.0.1 or higher)

Funding

This study was funded by:

  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (1994-IJ-CX-0065)
  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (1996-DD-BX-0098)

Scope of Study

Subject Terms:   community decision making, community development, community involvement, community leaders, community organizations, community participation, community policing, crime control, crime reduction, neighborhood change, police citizen interactions, police community relations, police effectiveness, process evaluation

Smallest Geographic Unit:   Parts 1-2: Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP) site (city), Part 3-4: State, Parts 5-13: None

Geographic Coverage:   Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, California, Colorado, Columbia (South Carolina), Connecticut, Denver, East Bay, Fort Worth, Gary, Georgia, Hartford, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Salt Lake City, Seattle, South Carolina, Texas, United States, Utah, Washington, Wichita

Time Period:  

  • 1995-09--1997-04
  • 1995-09--1997-04
  • 1995-09--1997-04
  • 1995-09--1997-04
  • 1995-11--1997-03
  • 1997-12--1998-01
  • 1996-01--1997-03
  • 1997-12--1998-01
  • 1995-11--1997-01
  • 1997-12--1998-01
  • 1995-09--1996-12
  • 1997-12--1998-01

Date of Collection:  

  • 1995-09--1997-04
  • 1995-09--1997-04
  • 1995-09--1997-04
  • 1995-09--1997-04
  • 1995-11--1997-03
  • 1997-12--1998-01
  • 1996-01--1997-03
  • 1997-12--1998-01
  • 1995-11--1997-01
  • 1997-12--1998-01
  • 1995-09--1996-12
  • 1997-12--1998-01

Unit of Observation:   Parts 1-4: Individual, Parts 5-13: Organization

Universe:   All individuals involved in planning and implementing the Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP), all residents involved in the community mobilization segment, all individuals and agencies receiving CCP funding, and all police chiefs in all CCP sites.

Data Types:   survey data

Data Collection Notes:

Organizations data for Boston, Massachusetts; Fort Worth, Texas; Gary, Indiana; Hartford, Connecticut; the Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area; the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area; and the East Bay area of northern California are not available as part of this data collection. Phase 1 of the Wichita, Kansas Organizations data are also not available.

Dates for Part 13 were unavailable.

Methodology

Study Purpose:   The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) initiated the Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP) in 1994. Its purpose was to integrate law enforcement with social programs and public agencies with nongovernmental organizations and individuals to control crime and improve the quality of life. This study was an evaluation of CCP intended to develop insights into how community approaches to crime and drug abuse prevention and control evolved, track how each site implemented its comprehensive strategy, determine the influence of preexisting ecological, social, economic, and political factors on implementation, and monitor the evolution of strategies and projects over time.

Study Design:   In order to complete a process evaluation of the Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP), BOTEC Analysis Corporation conducted intensive evaluations at 6 of the 16 CCP sites (Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Columbia, South Carolina; Fort Worth, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Seattle, Washington). Next there followed less intensive evaluations at another three individual sites (Gary, Indiana; Hartford, Connecticut; and Wichita, Kansas) and at three multi-jurisdictional sites (the Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area, the East Bay area of northern California, and the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area). The process evaluations were conducted from September 1995 to April 1997. A Coalition Survey (Part 1) was sent to individuals involved in planning and implementing CCP, residents involved in the community mobilization segment, and individuals and agencies receiving funding. The survey asked recipients about their involvement in CCP and their perceptions of the program planning and implementation process. A second survey (Part 2) was sent later to track changes and progress over time. The Community Policing Survey was sent to each of the 12 sites' police chiefs. The survey (Part 3) provided a baseline on the extent to which the sites had implemented community policing prior to CCP. A second wave of the Community Policing Survey (Part 4) was also sent to track changes and progress over time. All 12 sites were visited at least once. Evaluation methods used in the intensive evaluation sites included reviews of relevant documents, a minimum of three site visits by 2 researchers, and follow-up telephone calls (Parts 5-13). Examples of program observations during the site visits included attending partnership building meetings, visiting programs, and riding along on police patrols. Research team members interviewed many CCP participants, including public officials, community representatives, police, and social service providers.

Sample:   The six sites for the intensive evaluations (Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Columbia, South Carolina; Fort Worth, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Seattle, Washington) were chosen because they were ready to begin implementation, their plans were especially interesting or ambitious, they were geographically diverse, or they allowed for the study of a variety of management processes. No information on how the other six sites were chosen was provided. At each of the 12 sites, individuals involved in planning and implementing the Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP), residents involved in the community mobilization segment, and individuals and agencies receiving funding, were sent two waves of the Coalition Survey. Likewise, the police chiefs of all 12 sites were sent 2 waves of the Community Policing Survey.

Weight:   none

Mode of Data Collection:   mail questionnaire

Data Source:

Data for this collection were obtained from questionnaires sent to the respondents.

Description of Variables:   Part 1, the Coalition Survey, Phase 1, includes variables which asked respondents about different problems facing their communities, such as illicit drug dealing, drug abuse, public drunkenness, under-age drinking, unemployment, teen pregnancy, truancy, homelessness, trash and physical decay, violence, police misconduct, prostitution, guns, and gangs. Other variables pertain to who was involved in the Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP) planning phase and the implementation phase, and the types of programs the CCP has been involved in and how effective those programs have been. Part 2, the Coalition Survey, Phase 2, includes variables on the progress of CCP programs, continued involvement in the programs, and the respondents' personal feelings about the coalition and their efforts. Part 3, the Community Policing Survey, Phase 1, includes variables which asked about the extent to which the police departments were currently using community policing. Other variables asked how important it was for the police to be trained in certain areas, such as community relations, cultural diversity, problem solving, community policing, communication skills, and organizing groups. Finally, Part 3 variables asked about the effects of community policing, including reducing crime and fear, and increasing information from citizens. Part 4, the Community Policing Survey, Phase 2, contains variables on the implementation of community policing, what policies and programs are being used, the training of the police force, and the effects community policing is having. Parts 5 through 13 contain variables asking about the different organizations involved in the CCP in each city.

Response Rates:   not available

Presence of Common Scales:   Several Likert-type scales were used.

Extent of Processing:  ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

  • Standardized missing values.
  • Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release:  

Related Publications ?

Variables

Utilities

Metadata Exports

If you're looking for collection-level metadata rather than an individual metadata record, please visit our Metadata Records page.

Download Statistics

Found a problem? Use our Report Problem form to let us know.