Title: Comprehensive Communities Program: Program Account.
Series: Bulletin
Author: Bureau of Justice Assistance
Published: March 2001
Subject: community policing, crime prevention
23 pages
53,248 bytes

----------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file.
To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file
available from this Web site or order a print copy from BJA at 800-688-4252.

----------------------------

Comprehensive Communities Program: Program Account

Introduction

Crime continues as a major concern in our nation's communities. Public safety
and quality of life are of critical importance to citizens, elected representatives,
and service providers. Although public and private agencies and businesses
have an interest and investment in preserving public safety, neither public
agencies nor private businesses can do this job alone. 

Experience has taught us that problems can be solved better and more
efficiently when tackled by communities as a whole rather than by individuals
working alone. Partnerships work, and the Comprehensive Communities
Program (CCP) is a collaborative approach that has proved its effectiveness in
reducing crime and increasing public safety.

This bulletin addresses issues that individual stakeholders such as mayors, city
managers, members of city or county councils, city or county department
heads, law enforcement officials, community organizations, nonprofit agencies,
local business owners, and neighborhood residents must face as they work
together toward crime reduction and a better quality of life. The bulletin
suggests that community partners can carry out a more strategic and focused
approach to solving crime problems. Basic information is provided about the
CCP approach by highlighting jurisdictions that have used it successfully. 

This account describes the principles and critical elements comprising CCP and
shares the findings and experiences of jurisdictions that have participated in the
program. It also presents findings from the national evaluation and local
assessments of the program and describes the plans developed by jurisdictions
to sustain their programs. By learning more about the CCP approach,
communities can enhance their ability to build partnerships, implement effective
strategies, and engage local residents as important and equal players.

Overview

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) initiated the nationwide crime
prevention and crime control initiative CCP in 1994. Fifteen jurisdictions have
participated in this public safety initiative. The problem-solving strategies
developed by these sites serve as blueprints for reducing crime and improving
the quality of life in our nation's communities.

CCP sites developed visions of safer communities, empowered residents,
included key stakeholders as partners in problem solving, and crafted
interventions to make their neighborhoods and communities safer. Two essential
components of CCP, community policing and community mobilization, are the
linchpins for achieving meaningful and long-term success. CCP brings
neighborhood residents and police together to solve crime-related problems.
Additional crime control/prevention initiatives adopted by CCP sites include
community prosecution, drug courts, crime prevention through environmental
design, antigang initiatives, and community corrections.

CCP's straightforward approach

o Brings together the people who are most affected by crime.

o Enables them to define a meaningful role for themselves in solving the
problem. 

o Empowers them to tackle crime problems through a deliberate planning,
implementation, and sustainment process.

A national evaluation found that CCP had accelerated public safety initiatives in
its communities and had deepened and broadened their range of collaborations.
CCP sites have reported violent crime rate reductions in target areas compared
with rates in non-CCP areas. They also reported significant increases in levels
of activity in CCP-related programs such as community policing training,
neighborhood leadership training, gang resistance training, drug courts, teen
courts, alternatives to incarceration, truancy reduction partnerships, and
police/resident partnerships.

Program Approach

The CCP approach views reduced crime and enhanced public safety as vital
parts of an overall effort to improve quality of life. The goals,[1] principles, and
critical elements[2] comprising CCP are described below.

Goals

CCP's goals are to

o Suppress violence and restore the community well-being needed to recapture
neighborhoods for law-abiding residents.

o Initiate comprehensive planning and enhance intergovernmental and
community relationships to focus on the problems and concerns of local
residents.

o Develop a comprehensive, multiagency strategy within the community to
identify the causes and origins of violence and to control and prevent violent
and drug-related crime.

o Use community policing and other efforts to encourage citizens to take an
active role in problem solving.

o Coordinate federal, state, local, and private agency resources, and
concentrate those resources on reducing violent and drug-related crime.

Program Principles

Several key principles form the foundation for CCP. They include partnership
and collaboration, shared problem solving, and changing how public safety
works.

Partnership and collaboration. Crime prevention, intervention, and enforcement
must be reinvented to support a collaborative approach that involves key
stakeholders continuously in the planning and delivery of public safety services.
This collaborative approach includes federal, state, and local government
representation. It is jurisdictionwide in membership, invites the participation of
residents from affected neighborhoods, and gives each member an equal voice
in the collaborative's deliberations.

Shared problem solving. CCP's crime control and prevention strategy is built at
the local level from the start. There is a community/neighborhood focus on
defining problems and developing and applying solutions. Innovative ideas and
approaches are encouraged in formulating the crime prevention, intervention,
and enforcement strategy, with a minimum imposition of constraints on that
strategy.

Changing how public safety works. A common vision of the community's future
is developed by the partners engaged in the collaborative approach to public
safety. This shared vision is reflected in the community's mission statement and
goals for its strategy. The objectives are feasible, trackable, and measurable.
Resources are provided and shared among the collaborative's members to
carry out and sustain the public safety strategy.

Critical Elements

In addition to the program principles, the CCP approach is characterized by a
set of critical elements. Each element is fundamental to the overall CCP 
philosophy and involves strategic planning, program management and
operation, evaluation, and sustainment. 

Strategic planning. The CCP approach should start with a strategic planning
process that brings key stakeholders together to achieve a mutual understanding
and definition of their community's public safety problems. The process should
be based on an analysis of data and include the formation of a shared vision of
the jurisdiction's future and the development of a mission statement, goals, and
performance measures that support the vision. The strategic planning effort
should include representatives from the neighborhoods affected by the public
safety problem. This group should continue in a program oversight capacity
during both program planning and implementation to assess progress and to
update or modify plans. 

The implemented program strategy should be based on data-driven problem
identification, comprehensively address the multiple causes of crime, and
support experimentation with new ideas and innovative approaches to the
solution of persistent problems.

Management and operation. A well-defined management structure, with clearly
delineated roles and responsibilities, is needed to coordinate the strategic
planning efforts and to see that the various tasks involved in operating the public
safety initiative are implemented.

Evaluation. Process and outcome evaluations should be built into the design of
the public safety strategy. Evaluation findings should be used to improve or
modify program operation.


Sustainment. To be successful, the public safety strategy must be viewed as a
long-term effort. Therefore, plans for sustaining the strategy should be built from
the start. These plans must include a method to find or develop local funds to
replace funds derived from external sources, as well as ways to obtain
nonfinancial resources.

CCP in Practice

Fifteen sites participated in CCP:[3] Metro-Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore,
Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Columbia, South Carolina; Metro-Denver,
Colorado; Metro-District of Columbia; East Bay Corridor Area, California;
Fort Worth, Texas; Hartford, Connecticut; Metro-Omaha, Nebraska; Phoenix,
Arizona; Salt Lake City, Utah; Seattle, Washington; Wichita, Kansas; and
Wilmington, Delaware.

All the major regions of the contiguous United States are represented by these
sites, which range in size from large cities such as Atlanta to smaller cities such
as Wilmington. Five sites are multijurisdictional regions: Metro-Atlanta, Metro-
Denver, Metro-District of Columbia, East Bay Corridor Area, and Metro-
Omaha. Various site characteristics and approaches have been accommodated
within CCP. For example:

o CCP includes multijurisdictional, multineighborhood, and single-neighborhood
target sites.

o The legal entity leading CCP differs among the sites and includes police
departments, the office of the mayor or city manager, state or local criminal
justice coordinating councils or agencies, a city planning office, a city grants
office, and a university.

o In four sites, CCP is part of a larger federal initiative, PACT (Pulling
American Cities Together).

o The sites differ in the primary focus of their CCP approach, which ranges
from strategies that deal with at-risk youth to drug abatement programs
to initiatives aimed at enhancing the broader quality of life in targeted
neighborhoods.

o Each site has identified a promising practice that is believed to be worth
replicating elsewhere. With the exception of two sites that chose drug courts as
their promising practice, each site chose a different promising practice, again
suggestive of the different ways in which the sites have implemented the CCP
approach. 

o Each site has sustained its approach to crime prevention and control in ways
that reflect its individual needs, resources, infrastructure, and leadership.

CCP Principles and the Sites

All CCP sites function within the underlying principles outlined above. Although
the sites differ in geography, population, local culture, politics, economics, and
resources, they all maximize the flexibility of the CCP approach by adhering to
the principles in ways tailored to their individual needs. The examples in this
section illustrate some of the ways CCP sites have realized the program's
principles. 

Partnership and Collaboration 

The success of the CCP approach stems from the unique nature of the
partnerships developed within each site. Stakeholders are neighborhood
residents, local political leaders, government agency representatives, the
business community, educators, social service providers, the faith community,
and other groups. Broad-based partnerships are critical to building consensus
and achieving long-lasting results.

Strengthen commitment. Individuals actively involved in project planning and
implementation become committed to the success of a project. Ownership of
an initiative is felt by the different members as they work together toward
developing solutions to problems.

Provide better solutions. Different stakeholders bring different perspectives to
the process. Successful public safety strategies address the needs, interests, and
concerns of all stakeholders, not just a select group.

Ensure accountability. A strong degree of accountability for carrying out
promises is realized when stakeholders conduct work and make commitments-
-much more so than when nonparticipants simply sign off on a proposal they
did not help develop.

In the planning phase, the stakeholders should work as a team to define a
problem and agree on a course of action. The team must bring various
perspectives together if the initiative is to succeed. Team composition is critical
and must include the stakeholders whose action, or inaction, could have a
significant impact on the initiative or who would themselves be significantly
affected by the effort. These individuals must be able to make decisions and
commit resources for their organizations or agencies. No important stakeholder
can be ignored. All key stakeholders must endorse the task and accept the level
of participation required to plan, implement, and sustain the jurisdiction's public
safety strategy.

The team must devote the time and energy needed to make the endeavor
successful from its inception through program implementation and sustainment.
To ensure continued commitment, the team must make effective use of the
members' time, mandating the need for strong leadership. A strong leader must
be able to foster team building and help overcome agency rivalry, member
conflicts, and distrust.

Salt Lake City created Community Action Teams (CATs), groups of service
professionals representing government agencies that address crime and disorder
problems. CATs are organized according to the city's seven council districts.
Each CAT brings together a wide range of resources and expertise to focus on
problems in the district.

CATs serve as the conduit for communication between neighborhood residents
and government agencies. They have successfully addressed issues ranging
from quality-of-life concerns, such as parking and code enforcement, to serious
public safety problems, such as drive-by shootings. The diversity and
dedication of CAT members have made them a powerful problem-solving tool.

Shared problem solving. What stakeholders have in common or what they can
agree on must be identified. One way to do this is to assess a jurisdiction to
determine and prioritize its problems so that remedies can be developed. This
requires a process that rewards new ideas, is focused on neighborhoods,
consists of an agreed- upon vision of the future, and uses combined resources
and leadership skills. 

----------------------------

Table 1: CCP Site Characteristics

Jurisdiction--Geographic Target Size--Coordinating Office or Agency--Focus
of CCP Approach--Promising Practice

Metro-Atlanta--Multicounty, PACT--Pulling America's -Cities Together
(PACT)--Crime/violence reduction--Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design

Baltimore--Eight neighborhoods--Mayor's Coordinating Council on Criminal
Justice--Antidrug activity--Maryland HotSpots Initiative

Boston--Citywide--Police department--Youth--Strategic planning, Youth
Service Providers Network

Columbia--Three neighborhoods--Mayor's office--At-risk youth, drug
addiction--Community mobilizers

Metro-Denver--Six counties, PACT--State Administrative Agency--
Community mobilization/quality of life--Line officer grant program

Metro-District of Columbia--District PACT--Grants office--At-risk youth,
drug addiction--Urban services program

East Bay Corridor Area--Multicity, multicounty--East Bay Corridor
Partnership--Reduction in homicides/quality of life--Domestic violence policy

Fort Worth--Citywide--Police department--Crime reduction/community
mobilization--Adult drug court

Hartford--Citywide--City manager--Neighborhood quality of life--
Problem-solving committees

Metro-Omaha--Two counties, PACT--University of Nebraska--Juveniles--
School safety

Phoenix--One neighborhood--Police department--Quality of life/crime
reduction--Community policing expansion

Salt Lake City--Citywide--Mayor's office--Youth offenders/gangs/quality of
life--Community action teams

Seattle--Citywide--Police department--Problem-solving training--
Problem-solving training

Wichita--Citywide--City manager--Crime reduction--Community education,
community mobilization

Wilmington--Citywide--City planning --At-risk youth--Juvenile drug court

---------------------------- 

The decision process is critical. Decisions should be made by consensus instead
of by majority vote because an initiative's success depends on the cooperation
and support of all stakeholders. Generally, stakeholders will follow through on
decisions they agree with but not necessarily on those voted for over their
objections. The decisionmaking process should be formalized. Rules and
policies should be set up before a conflict brings attention to the need for such
policies.

Hartford established problem-solving committees (PSCs) in each of the city's
17 neighborhoods to provide an opportunity for every resident to participate in
the development of neighborhood priorities. Each PSC is composed of the
leaders of participating neighborhood groups including congregations, clubs,
and tenant, merchant, and block associations. 

Hartford drew up a list of neighborhood groups and identified and interviewed
their leaders to establish PSCs. The leaders were then trained in problem-
solving strategies and the development of neighborhood-focused crime control
and prevention plans. The Community Planning and Mobilization Committee, a
citywide mechanism comprising representatives of each PSC, enables leaders
to share information and work on issues of mutual concern. 

PSCs link neighborhood leaders with government officials to solve problems
pertaining to public safety and the quality of life. The Hartford Community
Court was developed in response to the PSCs' concerns about the impact of
nuisance crimes on the quality of life in neighborhoods and the ineffectiveness of
existing court procedures to deal with such crimes. 

Changing how public safety works. Changing how a jurisdiction does its daily
business is an important outcome of the CCP approach. Frequently, individuals
and organizations resent and resist change. Promoting change and sustaining an
initiative require enthusiasm, leadership, persistence, and commitment. CCP
sites have shown that it is possible to change how things are done in various
ways.

Using CCP funding, Seattle created a cadre of police department trainers with
expertise in the SARA model of problem solving.[4] These officers, in turn,
have provided basic problem-solving training both within the department and to
other city employees and residents. Individuals going through the
train-the-trainer curriculum receive an initial 3-day course that includes basic
problem solving, coaching skills, and a cultural competency session that stresses
race, gender, and sexual orientation issues. This is followed by a continuous
series of in-service sessions stressing communication and teaching skills. 

Before CCP, each police precinct in Phoenix had seven officers and a sergeant
assigned to a neighborhood unit. CCP funds enabled Phoenix to post a
lieutenant with considerable autonomy to tackle local problems in some of the
neighborhood units. The lieutenants work with residents to formulate goals and
solve problems, oversee the neighborhood police and community action officers
in the precinct, and build community relations. Working closely with other city
agencies to solve problems is an important part of their job, and the lieutenants
meet monthly to share problems and ideas. These meetings have become a
vehicle for developing concepts and disseminating knowledge about what
works throughout the department. Through these meetings and because of the
lieutenants' enthusiasm, what began as a pilot project in 1995 is now a citywide
initiative sustained through the city budget.

Critical Elements and the Sites

Strategic Planning

Strategic planning for CCP has been a comprehensive, time-intensive process.
Before engaging in such an effort, a need to bring a diverse group of people
together for an extended period to deal with crime must be established, and the
jurisdiction's chief political executive must support the following:

o An inclusive and comprehensive strategic planning process.

o Community input for problem solving.

o A long-term effort (at least 5 years) to plan, implement, and sustain the
program.

o An evaluation of the program and processes and a plan for taking corrective
action.

o An innovative approach to crime prevention, intervention, and control.

Strategic planning is a process of deciding what to do and how to do it before
action is taken. It is concerned with both avoiding incorrect actions and
increasing the likelihood that opportunities will be maximized. Because the
environment in which planning occurs is always changing, the strategies
developed are always subject to revision. 

Strategic planning is a process that has no natural conclusion. It is a fluid and
flexible process that requires long-term commitment. Although it requires time
and patience, the benefits of good planning make the investment worthwhile. It
helps provide stakeholders with a clear sense of purpose, a sense of
comradery, and a clearer understanding of shared values that bind the partners.

All CCP sites engaged in a data-driven strategic planning process to develop
crime prevention, intervention, and enforcement strategies for their jurisdictions.
Through this process, they developed

o A vision of where they wanted their jurisdiction to be at a future point with
regard to decreasing crime and improving the quality of life. 

o A mission statement for their crime prevention and control strategies. 

o Realistic, specific, and measurable goals and objectives for their mission.

o Performance measures as indicators of success and progress. 

o Action steps for implementing and carrying out their crime prevention and
control strategy. 

In 1994, Boston initiated a decentralized strategic planning effort with 16
planning teams involving more than 400 participants. The participants 
represented a broad cross section of citizens and 10 Boston Police Department
(BPD) districts, 5 BPD functions, and 1 citywide effort. The purpose of the
planning effort was to create a strategic plan for a neighborhood policing
strategy that would reduce crime and fear by identifying and addressing
community priorities, involve line police and citizens in creating the plan,
promote an understanding that the community is its own best asset in its defense
and improvement, and demonstrate that the police and the community acting
together can make a difference in the reduction of crime and fear. 

The two-phase planning effort first concentrated on neighborhood problems
that needed to be addressed to improve the quality of life and then on
developing strategies, tactics, and resources to manage those problems. The
police and communities jointly created each neighborhood's plan under the
citywide planning process. They aired serious issues, had important
conversations, agreed, disagreed, struggled, and risked trusting each other.
Once in motion, the project was driven from the beat level of BPD. 

Strategic Planning: Lessons Learned

CCP sites took up to 3 years to plan, implement, and sustain their public safety
strategies. Several of the sites found this to be too short. Five years is
preferable, with 1 year to plan, 3 years to implement, and 1 year to sustain the
initiative.


The CCP approach requires bringing together a diverse group of individuals
who have different levels of authority and responsibility. CCP sites found that
getting the acceptance of all stakeholders as equals was a major challenge, as
was dealing with competition among the stakeholders for limited funds. Other
challenges included getting stakeholders to agree on the nature and causes of
the problems, how to address the problems, and the importance of maintaining
a long-term perspective in addressing them.

Bringing together agencies and individuals to work collaboratively on a common
problem has many benefits. Such collaborations enhance the delivery of
services and create new problem-solving capacities. 

One of CCP's most noteworthy characteristics is its bottom-up approach,
rather than one in which program characteristics are dictated from above.
Despite welcoming this approach, many CCP sites found it difficult to deal
effectively with their common mandate of including neighborhood residents,
community organizations, government agencies, and private entities as equal
partners in the formulation of policy, plans, and action steps.

Providing opportunities for all stakeholders to actively participate in the planning
process is critical to success. During the strategic planning sessions in Boston,
for example, criticism sessions were held with team members and team leaders
that proved to be particularly helpful for troubleshooting problems. 

Program Management and Operation

A well-defined management structure that provides oversight and coordination
is critical to the success of any public safety initiative. Management must have
strong skills in areas such as financial planning, budgeting, and program
development. CCP sites found several characteristics to be critical components
of a successful management strategy and of effective program managers:

o Well-defined management responsibilities and clear lines of authority. 

o Trustworthiness, reliability, perseverance, patience, and commitment.

o Honesty about what can and cannot be accomplished. 

o An ability to view both successes and failures as learning experiences.

o Strong leadership and organizational skills.

o Immediate access to key leaders.

o Knowledge about the jurisdiction's history.

o Political neutrality.

Managerial Tasks

Administrating and coordinating. Management must oversee the development of
a clear vision and mission for the public safety initiative. The vision, mission,
goals, and objectives must be reiterated as often as needed to help establish
program parameters and direct the stakeholders to their common ground.

Managing expectations. Management must focus on both challenges and
solutions, not just one or the other. Management must create expectations that
are in the purview of the vision and reasonable in terms of program resources
and capabilities.

Recruiting. Management must recruit new stakeholders and maintain their active
participation throughout the community. The manager must assist in delineating
and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of all the partners and in identifying
and developing leaders within the group of stakeholders. The manager should
provide positive reinforcement and tangible benefits (e.g., incentive grants,
leadership positions/ roles) to maintain stakeholders' continued interest. 

Communications. Management should provide opportunities for constant
communication among partners at all levels. Regular meetings should be held to
promote increased cooperation and sharing among the stakeholders.

Marketing. Management must constantly market its comprehensive crime
prevention and control strategy to expand the program and recruit new
partners. Even small successes should be communicated to advertise the
program and provide positive feedback to active participants. Management
must learn from obstacles and challenges and apply that knowledge to future
endeavors, as opposed to using obstacles to inhibit future activity.

Securing financial support. Management must generate integrated funding
streams to reduce dependency on any one supporter. Opportunities for
financial investment from stakeholders, including neighborhood groups, should
be developed as a way to demonstrate commitment. 

Developing contracts. Management should establish concrete, written
documents such as contracts or memoranda of understanding among the
stakeholders participating in the initiative. These documents formalize
partnerships and clarify roles, expectations, products, and outcomes. 

The organizational placement of the manager may differ, as is the case with the
CCP sites, but the manager must have access to policymakers and
stakeholders and the authority to take action.

The East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership adopted a committee
structure to manage its CCP initiative. The Corridor Council, its coordinating
body, is designed to oversee and facilitate the work of the partnership. The
council sets policy, approves the annual budget, authorizes grant applications,
and hires the partnership's executive director. The council comprises mayors,
city managers, legislators, school superintendents, members of community-
based organizations, and business, labor, and religious leaders. Several standing
committees--including those dealing with education, law enforcement, juvenile
justice, economic development, community outreach, personnel, and youth--are
responsible for strategic planning and grant management. The executive director
manages the committees and provides oversight. 

The management structure in Baltimore consists of a coordinator and
neighborhood-based community organizers. Community organizers work with
neighborhood groups, residents, community policing officers, and
representatives of city agencies. The organizers are trained and supported from
the centrally based coordinator, located in the Mayor's Coordinating Council
on Criminal Justice. Despite three changes in the coordinator position, the CCP
structure remains intact.

Lessons Learned

Community mobilization efforts have the best chance for success in sites where
there is strong community leadership, the importance of citizen input is
understood, the mechanisms for soliciting ongoing input are institutionalized, the
achievements of successful community groups are celebrated, and attention is
paid to continued effective communication.

Inclusion of community groups is not trouble free. For example, some
grassroots organizations may be accused of selling out their constituencies,
especially groups that work with gangs or in circumstances where the
relationship between police and gangs has been contentious. Such groups may
have a problem maintaining credibility with their constituencies when they
become involved with police, prosecutors, and other government agencies.

Inclusion may be troublesome for traditional government agencies. When police
become involved in neighborhood problem solving, for example, they may find
themselves squeezed between emerging neighborhood priorities and
longstanding law enforcement priorities. 

CCP sites encountered challenges in bringing about change, including
overcoming the fear of change, dealing with cynicism, and maintaining
momentum as changes were implemented. Several sites had leadership
changes, primarily midmanagement, during the course of the program and found
it challenging to maintain program momentum during and after these changes.

Program Evaluation and Sustainment

Evaluation

Evaluation must be integrated into the strategic planning process from its
inception to help determine whether the effort is on track to meet stakeholders'
expectations. Furthermore, evaluation helps identify lessons learned and
program characteristics that can be defined and shared with others facing
similar challenges.

Evaluation addresses questions such as: Is the program accomplishing what it
intends? Is it cost effective? Should it be continued into a future funding cycle?
Could certain changes increase the possibility of success?

Most CCP sites conducted local evaluations of their public safety collaborative
or specific projects. 

Phoenix partnered with the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at the University
of Arizona to train members of the Greater Coronado Neighborhood
Association in how to conduct an evaluation. Association members surveyed
more than 300 neighborhood residents regarding their perceptions of public
safety and fear of crime. The institute assisted the residents in this effort and
determined that more than one-third of the respondents felt crime had
decreased and they were safer.

In Fort Worth, an evaluation of the Tarrant County Drug Impact and
Rehabilitation Enhanced Comprehensive Treatment Project was conducted in
conjunction with the University of North Texas to determine the project's
effectiveness in reducing recidivism among participants. The drug court project
analysis concentrated on the effects of the 3-year-old program.

On the national level, the BOTEC Analysis Corporation conducted a program
evaluation of CCP with funds provided by the National Institute of Justice.[5]
Six CCP sites were studied in-depth, and findings from that evaluation are
described below in Program Outcomes and Results. 

Sustainment

The CCP approach to reducing crime and improving the quality of life is a long-
term undertaking. It involves significant change in how local government,
community organizations, and residents relate to each other and function as a
group. When successful, use of the CCP approach results in a major shift in
how business is done. In this context, sustainment is defined by the 1997 CCP
Sustainment Action Plan Review Report as "the continuation of the jurisdiction's
collaborative crime prevention and control strategy, regardless of the name
'CCP'."[6]

Sustainment requires a long-term commitment of financial resources, in-kind
(nonfinancial) resources, staff, and time and a strong commitment to the process
itself. Obtaining the participation and support of new stakeholders, in addition
to maintaining the support of those already involved, is an essential step.
Sustainment cannot be an afterthought. Planning for sustainment should be part
of the process from the start to preserve the total strategy. 

Wichita ensured sustainment by including CCP in its citywide strategic plan, the
Neighborhood Initiative, Neighborhood Strategy. This plan was formulated in
1993 and continues to involve stakeholders throughout the city as more
programs are added. Sustainment of Wichita's comprehensive collaborative
approach to crime control is focused on more than just CCP because it
involves several initiatives that move the stakeholders closer to their vision for
the city. The plan commitment by the stakeholders is evident in that the plan has
survived major changes in the local political landscape. 

Columbia constructed a sustainment action plan that reassessed its planning
strategy for long-term change. These subsequent revisions and assessments led
to the realization that additional stakeholders would be critical to the plan's
success. The plan provided opportunities for stakeholders to measure how
much progress they had made, affording them instances to highlight and applaud
their progress and paving the way for positive future outcomes. In short, it
reaffirmed their commitment to pursue changes in how public safety works and
provided the excitement and enthusiasm needed to push their strategy further.

Metro-Denver's CCP has been sustained and is an integral part of a larger
statewide comprehensive crime prevention strategy. The principal partners in
Metro-Denver's original effort were committed to the CCP approach and
continued their collaboration even after CCP funding expired. In 1998, the
original participants reflected on their efforts and decided to extend the
geographic reach of their collaboration. In 1999, they developed the statewide
Colorado Public Safety Partnership, drawing its executive board members from
diverse units of local government. The partnership is staffed through the
Colorado Department of Public Safety in cooperation with BJA and the
Executive Office for Weed and Seed.

Baltimore's CCP has been sustained and expanded within the city through the
municipal budget and adapted as a statewide strategy through Maryland's
HotSpots Initiative. HotSpots provides statewide grants and technical
assistance to communities and neighborhoods that meet certain criteria in public
safety and crime prevention. The statewide HotSpots Initiative is coordinated
through the Governor's Office on Crime Control and Prevention (GOCCP).
GOCCP works in partnership with the original CCP community organizers,
neighborhood teams, and other representatives from the Mayor's Office on
Criminal Justice in Baltimore.

A HotSpots grant brings to a community both city and state resources to help
reduce crime and improve a community's quality of life. Areas that communities
may focus on include antidrug activities, community education, community
unification, innovative solutions to neighborhood problems, Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED) (particularly involving public parks
and areas with pay phones that have become open-air drug markets), youth
involvement such as the Youth Tribunal, improved response from human and
social services to neighborhoods, and coordinated planning efforts and action
steps with other grant awards such as Weed and Seed. 

Program Outcomes and Results

National

CCP has produced significant outcomes for the jurisdictions in which it has
been implemented. These outcomes have been noted both in the national
evaluation undertaken for the National Institute of Justice by the BOTEC
Analysis Corporation and in local evaluations, experiences, and observations
undertaken by the sites themselves.

BOTEC describes the following outcomes:

o Robust partnerships were formed among several federal, state, and local
stakeholders that are broader and deeper than were expected.

o Within the sites, the integration of police, criminal justice agencies, and other
public and private agencies exceeded expectations.

o New leadership was developed while current leadership was included,
maintained, and often strengthened.

o Enthusiasm and ongoing participation in planning led to action that produced
visible results, which reinforce the importance and effectiveness of this
collaborative approach.

o Community policing was implemented and/or expanded in conjunction with
community mobilization advancements.

o This commingling of community policing and mobilization produced greater
results than either initiative could have achieved independently.

o Comprehensive crime prevention and control strategies were localized and
adapted to meet individual sites' needs and were implemented based on local
capacities. Each site then approached its problems with tailored solutions that
helped make it unique and effective.

o Government and service delivery systems were reinvented not just in the area
of public safety but also in basic city services such as housing, sanitation, and
public works. These new systems will not easily be undone and have changed
how day-to-day business is conducted.

o Neighborhoods and communities are being taken seriously as the basic units
for thinking about problems and working toward solutions, lessening the idea
that professionals are the primary repository of best practices. 

o Sustainment of CCP after federal funding ended has been striking and
widespread. All of the sites have maintained significant portions of their CCPs,
including maintaining organizational and community networks that did not exist
at the start. Although these developments may have occurred regardless of
CCP, BOTEC believes that CCP accelerated the process and broadened and
deepened the range and level of collaborations and that "CCP was the right
program, at the right time, in the right places."

Local

On the local level, the sites report

o Violent crime rate reductions of up to 50 percent in CCP target areas.

o Reductions in ancillary measures such as property crime, gang crime, and
reported overall crime. 

o Significant increases in levels of activity in CCP-related programs such as
community policing training, drug courts, teen courts, alternatives to
incarceration, truancy reduction partnerships, and police-resident partnerships.

o Increases in the number of closed drug houses, active block watchers, and
organized neighborhood cleanups.

These local outcomes reflect the overall flexibility and effectiveness of the CCP
approach to combating crime and strengthening communities. The following
examples are reported by the sites themselves.

Metro-Atlanta. CPTED recommendations were included in the Gwinnett
Central High School's $7 million renovation. CPTED work in Roosevelt Circle,
Cobb County, won a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
award. A CPTED workbook and training CD were created and sent across
the country. To get youth involved in public safety, a Youth Empowerment
Grants program was established to provide incentive grants to youth groups for
innovative initiatives. 

Baltimore. In most CCP target areas, violent crime rates decreased between 20
and 40 percent over the grant period. More than 250 stakeholders received a
community resource manual developed by the Baltimore City Community
Support for Recovery Program that began under CCP.

Boston. No juvenile was killed by firearms in the city between July 1995 and
December 1997. The Youth Service Providers Network has served more than
700 youth since its inception in 1996.

Columbia. In its first year, 90 youth were involved in an alternative-to-
incarceration partnership among the city, the Department of Juvenile Justice, the
Columbia Police Department, and a school district. Twenty students were
chosen by the community mobilizers to participate in the city's first Youth
Leadership Training provided by the city, the Richland School District, and area
businesses. 

Metro-Denver. An analysis of 1995 crime data shows an overall downward
trend for Metro-Denver compared with the rest of the state. Aurora, a CCP
partner, has been graffiti free since its cleanup effort in July 1998.

Metro-District of Columbia. District PACT has focused its CCP approach on
at-risk youth and drug addiction through an urban services program.

East Bay Corridor Area. The extended-day program involves 400 schools in
the area with 75 full-service sites that provide youth violence prevention and
afterschool day care. In 1996, a working policy-level committee of youth, the
Youth Council, was formed to involve youth in public safety. The council has
developed programs and recommended funding to groups for youth activities.

Fort Worth. Part I reported crimes showed a 15-percent decrease in 1996.
More than 3,000 Fort Worth residents participate in the police-resident
partnership Citizens on Patrol.

Hartford. Since beginning its CCP partnership, violent crime has been reduced
by more than 20 percent in Hartford and continues to decrease each year.
Neighborhood residents, in partnership with the city and state criminal justice
agencies, are now working on solutions for improving quality of life and
decreasing criminal activity. The Hartford Community Court, a partnership
between the city and the state of Connecticut, opened on November 10, 1998,
to adjudicate nonviolent misdemeanor offenses and violations of the municipal
code. Since opening, more than 20,000 hours of community service have been
completed in Hartford's neighborhoods. 

Metro-Omaha. Registration for Neighborhood Builders, a training course for
neighborhood leaders, continues to increase. To date, 126 people have been
trained, and most have assumed leadership positions within their
neighborhoods. Also, the Nebraska Legislature adopted a uniform definition of
school truancy modeled after the definition developed by the Omaha
Community Partnership working group.

Phoenix. Over a 3-year period in the CCP-targeted area, property crimes have
dropped 20 percent, calls for service decreased over 27 percent, and gang-
related crime decreased over 24 percent, compared to citywide crime rates,
which are increasing or decreasing much more slowly. More than 70 drug
houses have been closed in the targeted neighborhood, and more than 3,000
arrests have been made. Home values in the neighborhood have increased by
50 percent.

Salt Lake City. In cooperation with the county felony drug court, Salt Lake
City has developed a misdemeanor drug-sentencing protocol whose goals
include lessening the felony court's caseload and providing faster sentencing.
This early intervention program uses peer review panels that issue both
sanctions and rewards. Judicial resources are only involved when an offender
does not successfully complete the program.


Seattle. Police referred more than 250 defendants to the King County Drug
Court in its first 6 months of operation. The recently developed Seattle Watch
Program uses crime analysis statistics and anecdotal evidence from communities
to enhance coordination of resources and accountability in the precincts.

Wichita. Beginning in January 1999, all commissioned police officers in the city
received training in community policing. Fifty-two youth participated in the
Lighted School's Summer Latch Key Program during the first 8 weeks of the
summer. The goal of the program is to "latch on" to at-risk youth with "keys" to
keep them productive, active, and off the streets.

Wilmington. The recidivism rate for the CCP Drug Diversion Program is less
than 4.3 percent, in contrast to the national rate of 67 percent. The Community
Restorative Justice Program provides neighborhood cleanups, and
approximately 40 probationers and community service team members
participate on weekends.

Conclusion

CCP is an effective, proven approach to increasing crime prevention, reducing
the fear of crime, and improving quality of life in neighborhoods. Jurisdictions
using this approach have had positive results, ranging from reduced crime rates
to residents being able to sit on their front porches without fear of harassment. 

Equally important, CCP communities and neighborhoods have developed new
and innovative partnerships, found solutions through a problem-solving process,
and committed to changing how public safety works. By following CCP's
underlying principles, they have made progress in and feel better about their
communities as safer places in which to live.

Notes

1. Bureau of Justice Assistance Comprehensive Communities Program Update.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice,
1996.

2. Criminal Justice Associates. Focus Group Synthesis Report (unpublished).
Washington, DC: Criminal Justice Associates, 1998.

3. CCP sites listed as "Metro" or metropolitan are also Pulling America's Cities
Together (PACT) sites. PACT is a BJA-sponsored multijurisdictional/
multicounty collaborative program coordinated by each site's U.S. Attorney's
Office. PACT sites include Metro-Atlanta, Metro-Denver, Metro-District of
Columbia, and Metro-Omaha.

4. SARA (scanning, analysis, response, and assessment) is a particular and
deliberate problem-solving process used by many sites in community policing
and community mobilization initiatives. Its focus is on identifying and researching
the problem, taking action to resolve it, and examining the solutions to
determine whether they were appropriate and effective.

5. Kelling, G.L., et al. "The Bureau of Justice Assistance Comprehensive
Communities Program: A Preliminary Report." National Institute of Justice
Research in Brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S.
Department of Justice, 1998.

6. CCP site teams developed sustainment action plans through a planning
process. A review team of BJA staff, technical assistance providers, and site
peers assessed the plans and provided the sites with implementation assistance.

For Further Information 

For information about Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) grants and programs,
contact:

Bureau of Justice Assistance 
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531
202-514-6278
World Wide Web: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

For further information on program evaluation at the state and local levels, visit
the BJA Evaluation Web Site: www.bja.evaluationwebsite.org. 

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
1-800-688-4252
World Wide Web: www.ncjrs.org

Clearinghouse staff are available Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.
eastern time. Ask to be placed on the BJA mailing list.

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center
1-800-421-6770 or 202-307-1480

Response Center staff are available Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
eastern time.

----------------------------

This document was prepared by Criminal Justice Associates, under grant
number 95-DD-BX-K017, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings,
and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of
the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of
the U.S. Department of Justice. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a
component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau
of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

----------------------------

NCJ 184955
March 2001