Process Evaluation of the Comprehensive Communities Program in Selected Cities in the United States, 1994-1996 (ICPSR 3492)
Version Date: Jun 30, 2009 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
George L. Kelling, Rutgers University. School of Criminal Justice, and Harvard University. Kennedy School of Government; Mona R. Hochberg, BOTEC Analysis Corporation; Sandra Lee Kaminska, University of Illinois-Chicago, and Institute for Public Safety Partnerships; Ann Marie Rocheleau, BOTEC Analysis Corporation; Dennis P. Rosenbaum, University of Illinois-Chicago; Jeffrey A. Roth, Urban Institute; Wesley G. Skogan, Northwestern University. Institute for Policy Research
Summary View help for 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.
Citation View help for Citation
Funding View help for Funding
Subject Terms View help for Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage View help for Geographic Coverage
Smallest Geographic Unit View help for Smallest Geographic Unit
Parts 1-2: Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP) site (city), Part 3-4: State, Parts 5-13: None
Restrictions View help for Restrictions
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.
Distributor(s) View help for Distributor(s)
Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)
Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection
Data Collection Notes View help for 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.
Study Purpose View help for 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 View help for 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 View help for 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.
Universe View help for 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.
Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Data Source View help for Data Source
Data for this collection were obtained from questionnaires sent to the respondents.
Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)
Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection
Description of Variables View help for 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 View help for Response Rates
Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales
Several Likert-type scales were used.Hide
Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date
Version History View help for Version History
- 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
2009-06-30 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.
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.