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.
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.
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.
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.
Parts 5-13: Organization,
Parts 1-4: Individual
Data for this collection were obtained from questionnaires sent to the respondents.
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.
Several Likert-type scales were used.