Researchers looked at local crime prevention structures, leadership in crime prevention initiatives, crime and victimization rates, demographic and economic factors in crime, and the presence of a significant ethnic minority population. They found that effective interagency crime prevention was not possible without adequate organizational arrangements. Informal interagency structures had the advantage of allowing for quick response, but formal interagency structures had a more durable scope of jurisdiction at the local level. Positive linkages between interagency crime prevention and local structures generated increased ownership of crime-related issues and raised the public profile of crime prevention work. Coordination and leadership were essential for effective interagency crime prevention, although perceptions concerning what agency was in the lead often varied considerably among local jurisdictions. The involvement of specialist external agencies produced significant benefits for local areas in terms of expertise, resources, and coordination. Even though crime prevention successes were demonstrated at the local level, responsibility for crime prevention at the central government versus local level was not clearly delineated. Interagency crime prevention projects visited and questions raised in the course of the research are listed in an appendix. 19 references