Metadata

Process Evaluation of the Comprehensive Communities Program in Selected Cities in the United States, 1994-1996

Version
v1
Resource Type
Dataset : survey data
Creator
  • Kelling, George L. (Rutgers University. School of Criminal Justice, and Harvard University. Kennedy School of Government)
  • Hochberg, Mona R. (BOTEC Analysis Corporation)
  • Kaminska, Sandra Lee (University of Illinois-Chicago, and Institute for Public Safety Partnerships)
  • Rocheleau, Ann Marie (BOTEC Analysis Corporation)
  • Rosenbaum, Dennis P. (University of Illinois-Chicago)
  • Roth, Jeffrey A. (Urban Institute)
  • Skogan, Wesley G. (Northwestern University. Institute for Policy Research)
Other Title
  • Version 1 (Subtitle)
Publication Date
2009-06-30
Funding Reference
  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice
  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice
Language
English
Free Keywords
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
Description

  • Abstract

    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.

  • Abstract

    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.

  • Abstract

    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.

  • Abstract

    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.

  • Methods

    none

  • Methods

    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..

  • Methods

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

  • Methods

    Response Rates: not available

  • Table of Contents

    Datasets:

    • DS0: Study-Level Files
    • DS1: Coalition Survey, Phase 1
    • DS2: Coalition Survey, Phase 2
    • DS3: Community Policing Survey, Phase 1
    • DS4: Community Policing Survey, Phase 2
    • DS5: Baltimore, Maryland Organizations, Phase 1
    • DS6: Baltimore, Maryland Organizations, Phase 2
    • DS7: Columbia, South Carolina Organizations, Phase 1
    • DS8: Columbia, South Carolina Organizations, Phase 2
    • DS9: Salt Lake City, Utah Organizations, Phase 1
    • DS10: Salt Lake City, Utah Organizations, Phase 2
    • DS11: Seattle, Washington Organizations, Phase 1
    • DS12: Seattle, Washington Organizations, Phase 2
    • DS13: Wichita, Kansas Organizations, Phase 2
Temporal Coverage
  • 1995-09 / 1997-04
    Time period: 1995-09--1997-04
  • 1995-09 / 1997-04
    Time period: 1995-09--1997-04
  • 1995-09 / 1997-04
    Time period: 1995-09--1997-04
  • 1995-09 / 1997-04
    Time period: 1995-09--1997-04
  • 1995-11 / 1997-03
    Time period: 1995-11--1997-03
  • 1997-12 / 1998-01
    Time period: 1997-12--1998-01
  • 1996-01 / 1997-03
    Time period: 1996-01--1997-03
  • 1997-12 / 1998-01
    Time period: 1997-12--1998-01
  • 1995-11 / 1997-01
    Time period: 1995-11--1997-01
  • 1997-12 / 1998-01
    Time period: 1997-12--1998-01
  • 1995-09 / 1996-12
    Time period: 1995-09--1996-12
  • 1997-12 / 1998-01
    Time period: 1997-12--1998-01
  • 1995-09 / 1997-04
    Collection date: 1995-09--1997-04
  • 1995-09 / 1997-04
    Collection date: 1995-09--1997-04
  • 1995-09 / 1997-04
    Collection date: 1995-09--1997-04
  • 1995-09 / 1997-04
    Collection date: 1995-09--1997-04
  • 1995-11 / 1997-03
    Collection date: 1995-11--1997-03
  • 1997-12 / 1998-01
    Collection date: 1997-12--1998-01
  • 1996-01 / 1997-03
    Collection date: 1996-01--1997-03
  • 1997-12 / 1998-01
    Collection date: 1997-12--1998-01
  • 1995-11 / 1997-01
    Collection date: 1995-11--1997-01
  • 1997-12 / 1998-01
    Collection date: 1997-12--1998-01
  • 1995-09 / 1996-12
    Collection date: 1995-09--1996-12
  • 1997-12 / 1998-01
    Collection date: 1997-12--1998-01
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
Sampled 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. Smallest Geographic Unit: Parts 1-2: Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP) site (city), Part 3-4: State, Parts 5-13: None
Sampling
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.
Collection Mode

  • mail questionnaire

    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.

Note
Funding insitution(s): 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).
Availability
Download
One or more files in this study are not available for download due to special restrictions; consult the study documentation to learn more on how to obtain the data.
Alternative Identifiers
  • 3492 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)
Publications
  • Kelling, George L.. Columbia's Comprehensive Communities Program: A Case Study. NCJ 178562, . 1998.
    • ID: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/178562NCJRS.pdf (URL)
  • Kelling, George L., Hochberg, Mona R., Kaminska, Sandra Lee, Rocheleau, Ann Marie, Rosenbaum, Dennis P., Roth, Jeffrey A., Skogan, Wesley G.. The Bureau of Justice Assistance Comprehensive Communities Program: A Preliminary Report. Research in Brief.NCJ 171132, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 1998.
    • ID: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/171132.pdf (URL)
  • Kelling, George L., Kennedy, Randall, Musto, David F., Petersilia, Joan, Cook, Philip. Perspectives on Crime and Justice: 1997-1998 Lecture Series. NCJ 172851, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 1998.
    • ID: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172851.pdf (URL)
  • Kelling, George, Rocheleau, Ann Marie. Boston's Comprehensive Communities Program: A Case Study. NCJ 178561, . 1998.
    • ID: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/178561NCJRS.pdf (URL)
  • Rosenbaum, Dennis P., Kaminska-Costello, Sandra L.. Salt Lake City's Comprehensive Communities Program: A Case Study. NCJ 178931, . 1998.
    • ID: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/178931NCJRS.pdf (URL)
  • Roth, Jeffrey A., Kelling, George L.. Baltimore's Comprehensive Communities Program: A Case Study. NCJ 178930, . 1998.
    • ID: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/178930NCJRS.pdf (URL)
  • Skogan, Wesley G., Rosenbaum, Dennis P.. Fort Worth's Comprehensive Communities Program: A Case Study. NCJ 178563, . 1998.
    • ID: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/178563NCJRS.pdf (URL)
  • Skogan, Wesley G., Roth, Jeffrey R.. Seattle's Comprehensive Communities Program: A Case Study. NCJ 178560, . 1998.
    • ID: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/178560NCJRS.pdf (URL)

Update Metadata: 2015-08-05 | Issue Number: 6 | Registration Date: 2015-06-15