Title: Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches Series: Monograph Author: Bureau of Justice Assistance Published: April 2000 Subject: community policing, law enforcement communication 57 pages 118,784 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. ---------------------------- U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance Monograph Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance ---------------------------- U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531 John Ashcroft Attorney General Office of Justice Programs World Wide Web Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov Bureau of Justice Assistance World Wide Web Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA For grant and funding information contact U.S. Department of Justice Response Center 1-800-421-6770 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. ---------------------------- BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches April 2001 Monograph NCJ 184956 ---------------------------- Foreword Crime continues to be a major concern in our nation's communities. Public safety and quality of life are of critical importance to citizens, elected officials, and community services providers. Although public and private agencies and businesses have an interest and investment in preserving public safety, neither 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), a collaborative approach to reducing crime and increasing public safety, has proven its effectiveness. Under the aegis of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, CCP was initiated in 1994. The 15 CCP jurisdictions were able to successfully solve many of their crime prevention and control problems through partnerships developed between the community and local criminal justice agencies. These jurisdictions have done an exceptional job in developing their own resources, coordinating and implementing new programs and strategies, and reaching out to other sites and communities to share their experiences and assist with replication endeavors. This monograph details the planning, sustainment, and support strategies used by the sites and describes specific, successfully implemented programs. Many of the strategies developed and instituted focus on community mobilization, community policing, youth and gang initiatives, community prosecution, and alternatives to incarceration. Bureau of Justice Assistance ---------------------------- Contents Executive Summary Chapter 1 Planning, Sustainment, and Support Strategies o Action Planning, Sustainment, and Infrastructure Development o Planning Strategy --Implementation of Neighborhood Policing (Boston) o Sustainment Strategies --Maryland HotSpot Communities Initiative (Baltimore) --Neighborhood Initiative/Neighborhood Strategy (Wichita) o Support Strategies --Greater Atlanta Data Center (Metro-Atlanta) --Community Mobilizers (Columbia) --Colorado Consortium for Community Policing (Metro-Denver) --East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership (California) --Neighborhood Police Officers (Fort Worth) --Problem-Solving Committees (Hartford) --Safe Futures Consortium (Metro-Omaha) --Community Policing and Mobilization (Phoenix) --Community Action Teams (Salt Lake City) --Problem-Solving Training (Seattle) --Neighborhood Planning Councils (Wilmington) Chapter 2 Interventions o CPTED (Metro-Atlanta) o Save a Neighborhood Program (Baltimore) o Youth Services Provider Network (Boston) o Community Parenting Program (Columbia) o Line Officer Grant Program (Metro-Denver) o Domestic Violence Program (East Bay Corridor, California) o Drug Rehabilitation Court (Fort Worth) o Community Court (Hartford) o Safe Schools Project (Metro-Omaha) o Juvenile Justice Committee (Phoenix) o Community Peace Services (Salt Lake City) o Youth Call II Action Anti-Violence Fund (Seattle) o Community Education Program (Wichita) o Juvenile Drug Diversion Court (Wilmington) Chapter 3 Conclusion Sources for Further Information ---------------------------- Executive Summary The Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP) is a crime prevention and public safety initiative, developed by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), that seeks to improve the quality of life in a community. The three principles underlying the CCP approach to public safety are o Partnership and collaboration. o Shared problem solving. o Changing how public safety works. CCP provides a framework for citizens, government agencies, and private organizations to work together to make a better life for everyone, no matter what the size of their community. It helps bring people together, enables them to define a meaningful role for themselves in solving a problem, and enables them to work on the problem through a deliberate planning and implementation process. A unique aspect of CCP is its emphasis on linking community policing and community mobilization in the neighborhoods. Community members and neighborhood groups work with police for mutual benefit and positive results. CCP also focuses on equal participation of those playing a role in the process. Each stakeholder, whether a store owner, a neighborhood resident, the licensing and inspection commissioner, or a neighborhood police officer, comes to the table with an equal vote. Jurisdictions that use the CCP approach to public safety have developed or put their unique stamp on interventions involving community prosecution, drug courts, crime prevention through environmental design, community corrections, and similar programs that adhere to the underlying principles of CCP. Several of these interventions have been cited by CCP sites as promising approaches that other jurisdictions may be interested in learning more about and replicating. In designing the program, BJA required that sites engage in both strategic and sustainment action planning, and encouraged them to establish an infrastructure that would enable each jurisdiction to advance its individual strategies. These too are considered promising approaches and may serve as examples for new sites to adapt for their own jurisdictions. The following table lists the approaches by site. The remainder of this document describes each of the approaches. ---------------------------- CCP sites table is 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. ---------------------------- Chapter 1 Planning, Sustainment, and Support Strategies Action Planning, Sustainment, and Infrastructure Development The sites participating in the Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP) were required by the program's sponsor, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), to engage in a planning process to develop o A strategic action plan for their jurisdiction including goals and strategies for a crime control, crime prevention, and community organization effort. o Sustainment strategies to continue their program after the cessation of federal funding. o The infrastructure to manage and support the implementation and operation of their plans. Because the basic ideas underlying the planning process used by the sites are central to the CCP approach, the planning process has been deemed promising. Certain sustainment and infrastructure strategies developed by the sites are also considered promising approaches. Strategic Action Planning The sites have attested to the strategic planning process as a promising approach. In a focus group designed to elicit thoughts about factors that contributed to the success of the program, the fact that the sites had to engage in the process received prominent mention. The focus group also stressed the importance of maintaining planning as an ongoing process to enable stakeholders to continually reassess and modify the plans. The major steps of CCP strategic planning include o Convening a team of the jurisdiction's key stakeholders, including elected officials, community leaders, and those individuals and/or organizations that are influential in the jurisdiction's crime control and prevention efforts. o Developing a shared vision of the future, considering the history of the jurisdiction's partnerships, politics, and processes as a context for the program. o Gathering and analyzing data pertaining to the jurisdiction's economic and social conditions, crime problems, and local public or private resources and programs that are or could be directed toward crime reduction. o Developing goals and strategies for a crime control, crime prevention, and community organization effort that will address identified problems and contribute to achievement of the vision. o Developing an action plan to carry out the strategies. o Developing a plan to manage the implementation of the action plan. o Developing an evaluation plan. Sustainment Strategies Although each site received multiyear funding from BJA to establish the planning process, develop a strategic plan, and implement the CCP approach, federal support was to eventually end and sites were expected to locate other resources to continue their efforts. Toward that end, each CCP site sent three team members to a sustainment action planning workshop, whose goal was to facilitate each site in making tangible progress toward developing and implementing a sustainment action plan, considering that each site may be at a different place in the development and implementation of the sustainment process. As noted at the workshop, although it is never too late to plan for sustainment, such planning should begin with the initial strategic planning efforts. Workshop attendees learned that two critical activities are involved in sustainment action planning: the organization of sustainment action planning and the planning itself. Organization includes o Creating an action planning team. o Revisiting the CCP planning process. o Reviewing and assessing the CCP mission. o Revising CCP goals as necessary. Sustainment action planning includes o Formulating the sustainment mission, goals, and success factors. o Identifying approaches (strategies) to achieve sustainment objectives. o Assessing resources. o Assessing management structures. o Ensuring action through time/task charting. o Assessing the action plan progress. After the workshop, each group returned to its site to create teams to engage in the process in the context of their individual needs, resources, and environment. Infrastructure Development Jurisdictions use an infrastructure to manage and support the implementation and operation of their plans. The infrastructure comprises several components, including the partnership structure, the type and level of partnership, the rules or procedures the partners have developed to conduct their collaborations, and the mechanisms used to share leadership and resources. Each CCP site developed a unique infrastructure based on its history, culture, level of sophistication, and economic outlook. Planning Strategy: Implementation of Neighborhood Policing (Boston) In 1994, Boston initiated a strategic planning effort, based on the CCP approach, with the following goals: o Implement a neighborhood policing strategy that reduces crime by identifying and addressing community priorities. o Involve police and citizens in development of the strategic plan, understanding that the community is its own best asset in its defense and improvement, and that the police and community, acting together, can significantly influence crime reduction. The decentralized planning process involved more than 400 participants on 16 planning teams, representing 10 Boston Police Department (BPD) districts, 5 BPD functions, and 1 citywide effort. The district commanders maintained leadership of the planning effort in their districts to ensure that they adhered to BPD values and the strategic planning process, including involvement of the community. This effort was a significant departure from previous BPD practice. Strategic plans were jointly created by the police and the community. Once in motion, the project was driven by BPD. Background In 1994, the police commissioner set out to lead BPD to a proactive style of policing, recognizing the fundamental shortcomings of the reactive, next-available-unit policing approach that had been the conventional strategy. No obvious method was evident for shifting a large, diverse city and its police department from one approach to the other. The most promising method was to engage the police and Boston's communities in a comprehensive strategic planning process. Strategy The strategy was designed by a planning team composed of sworn and civilian personnel representing all BPD ranks and functions. The design team began by developing a new mission statement. It also determined that there should be 16 planning teams representing BPD administrative, geographic, and functional areas to make the planning process inclusive. These planning teams included o A citywide team, led by the commissioner, with civic and business association leaders, city administrators, clergy, the police union, human service providers, police middle managers, academic experts, and criminal justice agencies. o Ten police district teams, with membership drawn from the same stakeholder categories as the citywide team but on the neighborhood level. o Functional teams in the five key areas of administrative services, internal investigations, investigative services, operations, and special operations. The functional teams included allied professional agencies from the federal, state, and local levels and the community as partners. The design team developed a planning workbook to ensure that each team would follow the same process. Each team's charge was to create a set of goals, with concrete strategies and tactics, to support the overall mission. In 2-week cycles between March and July 1995, the teams assessed internal and external strengths, problems, opportunities, and challenges. In phase 1, two facilitators were assigned to each team, one as the lead and the other to record the proceedings. Each team member received meeting minutes before the next meeting. Team leaders and facilitators received the minutes from all 16 teams. Training, question-and-answer, and critique sessions involving combinations of team members, leaders, and facilitators were held at critical points over the life of the project. When problems were identified, technical assistance was provided to help local groups solve them. Phase 2, the development of implementation plans, resulted from these sessions. Results A strategic plan for neighborhood policing was developed, detailing goals and realistic, time-specific strategies such as o District action councils in which police and other basic service departments meet regularly in each of the 10 districts to act on community problems that impact public safety. o Quantifiable crime reduction goals based on specific neighborhood concerns. o Beat teams--a new strategy in which officers take ownership and responsibility by receiving assignments based on grouped city blocks in order to work with residents on problems. o Nonpolice stakeholders playing a larger role in implementation and strategy oversight within the strategic partnership teams. A major result has been intensive police union involvement. Evaluators suggest that, as a result of this project, BPD has strategically aligned itself with Boston's neighborhoods. Two significant challenges were to prevent the project from drifting in 16 different directions and to prevent it from becoming a decentralized process in name only. Sustainment Strategy: Maryland HotSpot Communities Initiative (Baltimore) The Maryland HotSpot Communities Initiative is a statewide community-based crime prevention and crime control initiative based on Baltimore's positive CCP results. The HotSpot Initiative provides grants and technical assistance to communities throughout the state that meet certain criteria in public safety and crime prevention. Background The original CCP approach to crime prevention and control was conducted in a handful of Baltimore neighborhoods. The initial effort has been expanded through the initiative to other communities and continued with funding support from the Mayor's Office on Criminal Justice (MOCJ), city agencies, nonprofit organizations, community associations, statewide support from the governor, and the Maryland General Assembly. The initiative is coordinated through the Governor's Office on Crime Control and Prevention (GOCCP). GOCCP funds MOCJ to implement the initiative in partnership with community associations and other organizations, including some of the original CCP partners and neighborhood teams. GOCCP also funds the initiative in other communities throughout the state. Strategy All interested communities in Baltimore were invited to submit a proposal to MOCJ. Technical assistance was offered to help communities complete the proposal. Applicants were selected based on the following criteria: level of crime in the neighborhood, strong neighborhood associations, a public safety committee, support from community stakeholders, availability of additional resources, and successful completion of antidrug training through the Citizen's Planning and Housing Association. A HotSpot grant brings a community both city and state resources to use toward crime reduction and improving a community's quality of life. The strategy is carried out through several core and enhancing elements. Core elements include community mobilization, policing, supervision of high- risk offenders, and maintenance/nuisance abatement; afterschool programs; and local coordination by MOCJ. Enhancing elements include community prosecution, juvenile intervention, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), victim outreach, community support for addiction recovery, and housing and business revitalization. All of the city's HotSpot communities have the core elements and some of the enhancing elements in place. Areas on which successful communities have focused to build capacity include antidrug activities, community education, unification of communities, innovative solutions to neighborhood problems, improved response to social and human services, and coordination of planning efforts and action steps with foundations and grant awards such as Weed and Seed. Results The CCP approach has been sustained locally and statewide as the collaborative Maryland HotSpot Communities Initiative. Baltimore alone has 12 HotSpots, benefiting more than 120,000 residents. Sustainment Strategy: Neighborhood Initiative/Neighborhood Strategy (Wichita) Sustainment of Wichita's CCP program was facilitated by its being an integral part of the city's comprehensive strategic plan. Background Wichita approached the sustainment action planning process by reviewing its Neighborhood Initiative/Neighborhood Strategy program, a 6-part strategic plan that includes 78 specific action steps developed in partnership with the community. The key elements of the city's strategic plan, of which CCP is a part, remain the focus of the city's comprehensive crime control strategy. Strategy Because the CCP approach to crime prevention and control was an integral part of Wichita's strategic plan, sustainment meant reviewing CCP components and the city's strategic plan. Therefore, continuation and expansion of CCP had to be done in the context of the city's overall efforts and required involvement of key stakeholders, including the mayor, the city manager, members of the city council, city agency representatives, neighborhood residents, business representatives, school officials, church representatives, and others. During the sustainment planning process, the mission "to make Wichita one of the safest major cities of its size in America"was reaffirmed. The leadership and commitment by city officials to that reaffirmation has outlasted different political administrations. Wichita exhibits broad multisector institutional and citizen-based commitment to the CCP approach. It has also become adept at reallocating existing resources and accessing new funding and nonfinancial resources, including effective public-private partnerships needed to continue and expand its strategy. Results The overarching guide for the city, the Neighborhood Initiative/ Neighborhood Strategy, included CCP's comprehensive collaborative approach to public safety and crime prevention. Since the initiative was established, accomplishments under the plan include o Development of advisory boards for each council district in the city. o Development of mini-city halls in each quadrant of the city. o Expansion of the Youth Recreation Alliance, before and afterschool programs in 10 of 15 schools. o Creation of a centralized housing and revitalization department. o Development of a Safe Haven, a community center for adults and youth that is drug, alcohol, and gun free. Support Strategy: Greater Atlanta Data Center (Metro-Atlanta) The Greater Atlanta Data Center (GADC) is a cooperative network of local law enforcement agencies to improve the use and dissemination of information relevant to reducing crime and violence in the Metro-Atlanta area. GADC's primary purpose is to provide law enforcement agencies with the technical assistance and support to implement a practical, flexible, secure, and results-oriented geographic information system (GIS). Such a system can be invaluable in helping to prevent crime and reduce violence in various ways-- from departmental planning and crime analysis to trend tracking across jurisdictions and distribution of personnel. The data center is driven by law enforcement, can be improved as desired without major additional costs, and allows unending multijurisdictional tie-ins. Background The expansive Metro-Atlanta area generates numerous layers of data. Metro-Atlanta sought a unit to centralize these data and make them available to all relevant partners. Based at the A. L. Burruss Institute of Public Service at Kennesaw State University, GADC maintains geographic mapping information- -from physical facts about the city limits and building locations to demographic information about the neighborhoods. Initial funding from the Metro-Atlanta Project Pact provided computer equipment and a file server and brought together members of law enforcement, academia, and the community to build a foundation for the continued work of the data center. Driven by law enforcement agencies, GADC provides technical assistance and support for area departments through a computer-based network. A police chiefs council and a GIS working group bring in-the-field information to GADC to help meet the organization's objectives. Strategy GIS is a computer system capable of assembling, storing, manipulating, and displaying geographically referenced information. GIS integrates information from database tables with map features to enable detailed spatial and statistical analyses and depiction of a wide range of data across geographic and political boundaries. The system is designed to provide law enforcement personnel with efficient tools for enhancing community policing, community presentations, crime analysis and prevention, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), crime trend analysis, cross-jurisdictional crime patterns, departmental and unit planning, intelligence gathering and investigations, interdepartmental communication and cooperation, neighborhood watch programs, personnel distribution, and self-evaluations. GADC goals include o Increasing the accessibility and use of information by providing the means to visualize and integrate data via GIS software. o Improving dissemination of information through support for secure input, storage, and retrieval of crime-related data. o Providing the ability to retrieve, analyze, and integrate shared information relevant to public safety. o Instituting partnerships among local law enforcement agencies and educational institutions to provide technical support in the area of GIS. Strategies to realize GADC's goals include o Developing and expanding the GIS capabilities of the partnered police departments. o Providing a secure network for data and information exchange among police jurisdictions. o Integrating crime-incident data into the custom GIS application to provide a way to analyze crime regionally. o Providing application and data development and technical support. Results In 1999, GADC established a pilot program in Cobb County that is being used to demonstrate the program's effectiveness in crime mapping for police departments. The county's seven law enforcement agencies are using the system. Each of the three larger departments has a crime analyst on staff who works directly with GADC. The four smaller departments share a crime analyst. These analysts provide information and data to the departments and serve as liaisons between the law enforcement agencies and the center. Funding from the U.S. Department of Justice Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has made it possible for the center to continue its work, although securing initial funding was difficult. The goal is for each of the six Metro-Atlanta Project Pact partner jurisdictions to use the system over the next several years. Its demonstrated success should encourage other counties to provide the funds and staff to make GADC a reality in their areas. Challenges may include overcoming obstacles to new technology and establishing trust among law enforcement and support agencies. Support Strategy: Community Mobilizers (Columbia) Columbia's community mobilization effort is being spearheaded by three police officers, called community mobilizers, who are jointly supervised by Columbia's police and community service departments. Background The Columbia Police Department has been nationally recognized as an innovative police agency with a significant commitment to communities. At least two principles were established early on that continue to influence how policing is conducted in Columbia: the police officer's role has been expanded beyond law enforcement, and police now participate in community activities. A natural outgrowth of these principles was to assign officers the task of mobilizing communities. Strategy A police officer is assigned to each of three target neighborhoods. They have separate offices in the neighborhood and usually work in plain clothes, although they are known as police officers. Their activities include running rap sessions in schools, dealing with street problems such as abandoned cars and illegal car repairs, speaking at community meetings, managing traffic problems, sponsoring or coaching athletic activities, developing legal clinics, and organizing community cleanups. Their standing in the community, especially with youth, is high because they focused on youth early on, believing that doing so would enhance the likelihood of success. Each community mobilizer has learned to collaborate effectively, but each has a different style. One pioneered rap sessions in the schools, giving minority youth in particular an opportunity to express their perceptions of problems they have in school in a group. Another uses informal community service and mediation to deal with youth and their problems. The third community mobilizer focuses on community organization, which includes a neighborhood legal clinic. The officer/mobilizers are supported by residential police officers, five in each of the three target neighborhoods, who provide close support and collaboration, in addition to their own community efforts. The mobilizers can be thought of as the hub of a wheel. City agencies, service agencies, and volunteer efforts are at the rim, to be brought in as needed. Mobilizer duties include working with citizens, organizations, and agencies to identify problems and solutions. Many problems can be solved by the citizens themselves, whereas others can be managed by existing agencies or programs. The Columbia community mobilization effort is designed to give the mobilizers the tools to provide the broadest base of services. Results One of the greatest problems stemming from the success of the community mobilizers is their limited number. Other communities are requesting their services or the assignment of mobilizers to their neighborhoods. As a result, Columbia has recently begun to rotate veteran patrol officers to serve as community mobilizers. Support Strategy: Colorado Consortium for Community Policing (Metro-Denver) The Colorado Consortium for Community Policing (now referred to as the Colorado Regional Community Policing Institute) grew out of two BJA-sponsored initiatives, Pulling America's Communities Together (PACT) and CCP. The consortium developed in response to an increase in violent crime in Metro-Denver. Its primary goal is to support and develop community policing partnerships and practices. Background The public's outrage and fear of crime escalated with the Summer of Violence in 1993, when numerous random incidents of violence occurred, including the shooting of a 2-year-old child visiting the zoo. Public officials from the federal, state, and local levels came together and signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that called for an immediate and long-term strategy to combat crime and reduce the public's fears. The MOU specified a risk-focused prevention model that would maximize the involvement of citizens while focusing on changing the environment. The strong support by public officials and the additional support of a partnership consisting of 45 agencies and grassroots organizations who organized the Summer of Safety in 1994 provided an opportunity to move forward on several programs to increase crime prevention and public safety. CCP funds provided initial support for several initiatives including crime mapping and the development of the consortium. Strategy Recognizing the public's desire to feel safer and reduce crime, Metro-Denver officials, in conjunction with the signers of the MOU, focused on several efforts such as the advancement of community policing. To educate police officers and the public, and to develop active partnerships between them, the consortium focused on providing training programs. One of the first tasks was to organize a committee to develop a training curriculum. The committee's current director was assigned to design a standardized community policing curriculum. This training needed to provide adequate information on basic community policing, be applicable to the Metro-Denver region, and balance the needs of police professionals and community members. The initial curriculum was based on a model provided by the National Consortium for Community Policing that consisted of four key modules: problem solving, community partnership, strategic planning and implementation, and management and supervision in the community policing context. Volunteers were trained to teach the curriculum, often during 2-day training sessions held monthly. Both police officers and community members were invited to the sessions. Results In 1996, 1 year after it was formed, the consortium's scope was expanded statewide. In 1997, the consortium partnered with the Metro-Denver Neighborhood Resource Center and Colorado State University and became one of the institutes for the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). The institute is supported by various grants and now provides training and innovative programs across Colorado for police and community members under the umbrella of community policing. As the institute expanded in scope, the curriculum expanded. It now consists of four separate types of general training and offers intensive sessions for police departments that request community policing training specific to their individual jurisdictions. Furthermore, through the initial training efforts of the consortium and the work of the institute, a specified number of community policing training hours has become a requirement of police academies statewide. Support Strategy: East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership (California) The East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership is a regional collaborative consisting of more than 48 public and private organizations, including cities, counties, school districts, higher-education institutions, and law enforcement agencies. It covers a 75-mile region along the I-80 Freeway in the Oakland-San Francisco Bay area and encompasses more than 1.5 million people. The partnership collaborates to address public safety and community-related issues. Background The partnership began in reaction to increased youth violence and gang activity in the late 1980s. In June 1993, a weekend of violence with an alarming rise in homicides committed by and against the area's youth set the stage for the partnership's inauguration. Neighborhood residents and public officials came together to form the coalition and mobilize community support on a range of critical issues. Strategy Public officials organized a roundtable of elected officials, policymakers, law enforcement personnel, and community members. They realized that geography and boundaries meant nothing to youth involved in criminal activities. After a series of meetings, an MOU was signed by representatives of the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and Richmond to launch the partnership. Leadership, an essential ingredient, was provided early on by California State Assemblyman Tom Bates, the founding chair. In addition to recruiting new cities, he was able to obtain in-kind support such as office space and staff. The East Bay Community Foundation is the fiscal agent and has been since the beginning of the partnership in 1994. The foundation is a private, philanthropic, nonpolitical organization. It initially assisted the partnership in promoting cooperation among members and continues to play an important role. CCP and the National Funding Collaborative supported formation of the partnership. Eighteen months later, the administrative voting arm of the partnership, the Corridor Council, designed its organizational structure, which includes several standing committees, and approved bylaws ensuring equal voting of members. The council sets policy, approves expenditures, authorizes grant applications, and provides direction to the executive director. The executive director provides administrative guidance to the committees, who are responsible for planning, grant management, and project implementation related to their subject area, i.e., education, law enforcement, juvenile justice, economic development, community outreach, personnel, and youth council. The membership of the partnership is active and diverse, including representatives from all segments of East Bay Corridor communities such as youth and youth organizations, community activists, political leaders, institutional leaders, philanthropic leaders, technical staff, and consultants. One of the partnership's first tasks was to clarify the group's direction. The council's standing committees developed goals and made policy recommendations in conjunction with data gathered from the assessment. This information was incorporated into the strategic planning process, which resulted in a work plan for the partnership. Each member then agreed to the plan and committed to it formally. To handle a particular issue, the partnership identifies the most appropriate organization to run a program, which is then implemented by interagency or technical work teams. This approach helps define authority and responsibilities for each project and reduces tensions that could arise from negative competition between agencies. The partnership has found several components critical to its function, such as ongoing communication, adequate time, staff involvement, volunteer involvement, diversified membership, constant recruitment of members, and financial and nonfinancial support. Results The partnership continues to address important issues. Participants remain active, and new members are constantly recruited. The partnership maximizes coordination and leveraging of federal, state, and local funds and other resources to develop programs that affect neighborhood residents. It has enabled communities to prevent crime, reduce the fear of crime, and return a sense of hope to neighborhoods once thought beyond help. Support Strategy: Neighborhood Police Officers (Fort Worth) Neighborhood police officers (NPOs) are the centerpiece of the Fort Worth Police Department's community policing program. NPOs serve as the department's "chief of the beat."They have "24-7"responsibility for their beats; are issued their own cars, beepers, and cell phones; and are expected to respond to events whenever they occur rather than work on a fixed schedule. Although each of Fort Worth's four field divisions has a sergeant who supervises the NPOs in the division's districts, NPOs must be self-motivators. NPOs want the job because they like the perks and shift flexibility, enjoy working closely with the public, and believe that community-oriented work represents the future of the department. Background Fort Worth's community policing program evolved over more than a decade, beginning in 1985, when the new police chief began to hold community forums to discuss police and safety issues. In 1986, as a first move toward decentralizing the department, a "territorial command"concept was implemented by creating four divisions, each under the command of a captain. The next major change was the formation of the Code Blue program in 1991 in response to burgeoning crime rates and the resulting political pressure. Under Code Blue, retired officers were rehired to staff administrative positions, thus freeing up officers for field activity; a victim assistance office was established; a civilian patrol program was created; and 40 police officers were hired to staff a new NPO unit in each of the 4 field operation divisions. Strategy NPOs are assigned to specific neighborhoods to address the root causes of crime. They are freed from routinely responding to 911 calls so that they can focus on diverse community outreach and problem-solving activities. Examples include organizing weekend neighborhood cleanups, enrolling residents in automobile theft prevention programs, speaking at school and church assemblies, and coaching sports teams. In one district, they are supporting a model block program that uses city funds to upgrade residential buildings in a 10-block area. Recently, other city agencies have begun to request NPO involvement in their programs. NPOs like their job because it permits them to focus on caring for their beat. In addition, they receive the 3-percent salary increment paid to officers who work the evening shift. Some non-NPOs have thought that NPOs are not doing "real"police work, but the resentment appears to be waning as many NPOs routinely handle jobs that other officers may not want to handle. Another solution to the potential isolation of NPOs is better communication. In one district, under the supervision of their sergeant, NPOs meet monthly with other beat officers to discuss beat issues. NPOs get community input and feedback at public meetings. In addition, each district has a community advisory committee made up of local residents and merchants. The chairs of these committees constitute a citywide advisory council that meets under the auspices of the police chief and city manager. The committees meet monthly, select their own officers, and develop their own agendas. Results When the program started in 1991, there were 40 NPOs, 10 in each division. By 1996, their number had grown to 89, with the formation of police districts in each division. The first districts were funded by Weed and Seed. Subsequent CCP and other funding has enabled the NPO concept to be extended citywide. Support Strategy: Problem-Solving Committees (Hartford) Problem-solving committees (PSCs) have been established in each of Hartford's 17 neighborhoods. The purpose of PSCs is to give local residents the opportunity to participate in the development of priorities and to link neighborhood leaders with officials to solve problems and improve public safety and the quality of life in their neighborhoods. Background Because Hartford has a rich tradition of independent community organizations in most of its neighborhoods, community mobilization and participation have been a priority in its efforts to improve public safety. Hartford's community mobilization program is built on the premise that public safety and community building are not the prerogative of the few; rather, everyone has the right and the responsibility to participate. The community mobilization program attempts to make this possible in Hartford's neighborhoods through the creation of PSCs in which residents, churches, businesses, and institutions are invited to share their views on the neighborhood, its priorities, its problems, and solutions to those problems. Strategy Hartford found that establishment of PSCs requires a great deal of work up front to ensure that a neighborhood can use a PSC effectively and that it is staffed with individuals who are able to represent their neighborhood. Before a PSC is established, the neighborhood should be organized, ideally having at least one paid organizer and/or a nonprofit community organization with organizers on its staff. Assuming that the neighborhood has these resources, a list of all participatory groups in the neighborhood should be developed as a source of PSC leadership. Participatory groups are community based, for example, tenant groups, networking groups, merchant and block organizations, congregations, clubs, and those focused on mobilization. Social service agencies, health care and provider organizations, and groups from other programs are not included because the intent is to involve neighborhood residents rather than the professionals working in the neighborhood. Hartford's major hurdle was to get agreement that leadership in the PSCs should be limited to participatory groups because in many neighborhoods the paid staff of nonprofit program agencies were accustomed to speaking on behalf of the neighborhood. After developing a list of participatory groups, Hartford determined which leaders of these groups to interview to assess their leadership capabilities and the extent to which they share the program vision. A minimum of 20 individuals should be interviewed in each neighborhood, a process that can take as long as 2 weeks to accomplish by an experienced organizer. On the basis of their interview results, individuals were invited to serve on the PSC and then trained in problem solving and on how to represent others. Assistance was provided to PSC members to help them develop plans that encouraged participation by neighborhood residents in deliberations about how consensus would be achieved on neighborhood priorities. By involving members in planning and designing the PSC's operational processes, the members were more likely to support them. This involvement contributed to building a neighborhood-based constituency for the program, so critical for political support. The PSCs' primary purpose is to identify and prioritize their neighborhood's issues and concerns. In addition, they must see that action is taken. Collaborative problem solving with the leadership in the Hartford Police Department and in other city and criminal justice agencies is essential. Training these professionals to appropriately respond to the PSCs' invitation to participate in problem solving was also necessary. In addition to the PSCs, Hartford created the Community Planning and Mobilization Committee, a citywide mechanism composed of representatives from each PSC that lets PSC leaders share information and work on issues of mutual concern. Results The creation of a network of PSCs in Hartford neighborhoods is resulting in the decentralization of power and decisionmaking and providing more opportunities for community participation. The network has already had notable success in designing and implementing a system change. The new community court was developed partly in response to neighborhood concerns about nuisance crimes and the inability of existing courts to deal effectively with such crimes. Support Strategy: Safe Futures Consortium (Metro-Omaha) The Safe Futures Consortium is Metro-Omaha's collaborative that addresses issues critical to the community including crime prevention and public safety. It is a consortium of Omaha-based agencies and individuals who recognized a need for a metropolitanwide coordinated approach to youth-related issues. The consortium developed as a mechanism to streamline efforts between state and local initiatives and several smaller coalitions striving for similar results. It has become an important vehicle for planning and implementing programs and for forging partnerships in the Omaha area. Background The administration of Omaha's CCP developed through the University of Nebraska at Omaha, UNOmaha, and the city of Omaha because of the mechanism set up to distribute the grant. As the complexities of this arrangement increased, the university hired a program coordinator to monitor the planning and implementation of CCP, serve as a link between the local leadership team and funders, oversee the dissemination of information on youth-based violence and crime prevention, and develop and coordinate the Safe Futures Consortium efforts. Before Safe Futures, several collaboratives, each with its own mission, addressed youth issues, although not necessarily in a coordinated fashion. Safe Futures was an effort to facilitate communication, consolidate information, and unite the leadership. The consortium mirrored the CCP approach to increased public safety and improved quality of life while focusing on youth violence and youth problems. Strategy The coordinator position in Omaha is critical to the ongoing operation of the consortium. This individual maintains communication among the partners, attends to day-to-day activities, and oversees various programs and projects. The coordinator, with support from UNOmaha, designs planning sessions and facilitates review and assessment of the vision set forth by the Safe Futures partners. The consortium adheres to a common vision to support safety, social functioning, basic needs, economic opportunities, and health and educational opportunities for area youth. Its primary goals are to create a central clearinghouse for information on collaborative efforts, develop a framework for planning and implementation of goals, educate the community to raise awareness of issues and solutions, and ensure that planning is dynamic and responsive to community needs. Results The Safe Futures Consortium is a flourishing vehicle for progress in the area of community safety in Metro-Omaha. Partnerships are increasing and strengthening, resulting in more programs with positive results. Support Strategy: Community Policing and Mobilization (Phoenix) Phoenix has been instrumental in supporting changes in policing at the street and management levels. One of the most significant changes has been at the supervisory/management level, where Phoenix has funded community policing lieutenants in a move to decentralize police services and strengthen participation of neighborhood residents. The lieutenants have been instrumental in the expansion of community policing and community mobilization concepts and innovations citywide. Background Each precinct in Phoenix has been subdivided into at least three geographic areas. A lieutenant has been assigned as an area manager for beat officers and officers whose primary responsibility is to solve neighborhood problems. All officers are expected to be generalists, and they work with neighborhood residents on solving whatever neighborhood problems develop throughout their precinct. The lieutenants oversee their area's activities and are given considerable autonomy in tackling neighborhood issues in their precincts. Lieutenant activities include forging relationships with neighborhood residents and groups, and with social service agencies, city agencies, schools, and local businesses, to directly involve the community in problem solving. CCP funds enabled Phoenix to develop the precursor to the current program. Originally, one lieutenant was assigned to a downtown neighborhood with a history of community participation, which had been chosen as a pilot project. Strategy The initiative began in 1995 with a pilot project to fund a lieutenant to oversee the neighborhood police unit in Phoenix's Coronado neighborhood. The move was intended to establish greater precinct accountability for the neighborhood by strengthening locally based relationships. One of the reasons for selecting the Coronado neighborhood was the existing strong neighborhood association, the Greater Coronado Neighborhood Association (GCNA), that was recognized by residents and police. GCNA is a forceful organization that uses a committee structure, follows established policies and procedures, elects officers regularly, and tackles a wide range of neighborhood issues. The lieutenant worked with GCNA and other neighborhood stakeholders to develop goals for crime prevention efforts. Stakeholders included community leaders and representatives from businesses, nonprofit organizations, local government agencies, the faith community, schools, and neighborhood groups. What began as a pilot program is now citywide. The lieutenants, the central management team and best advocates for community policing, meet monthly to discuss problems and share ideas. These meetings have become an effective vehicle for disseminating community policing knowledge among the precincts. The lieutenants see themselves as agents of organizational change, helping to implement community policing and community mobilization concepts throughout the department. Results The lieutenants are credited with challenging the status quo and changing traditional problem-solving methods. A critical component of this innovation is the relationship developed and strengthened between the police and local residents through the neighborhood association. Precinct-based strategic planning is undertaken in collaboration with these neighborhood stakeholders and is then used in the development of the department's biannual strategic plan. Numerous projects such as a community resource center, an at-risk youth garden project, an antigraffiti program, an adopt-a-park program, a juvenile court center, and an afterschool and summer recreation program have been developed in Coronado and replicated elsewhere. Statistics indicate that overall crime is down and community participation is up. What began as a small pilot project in one neighborhood has evolved into a citywide initiative with ongoing funding and support. Support Strategy: Community Action Teams (Salt Lake City) Salt Lake City's community action teams (CATs) are core groups of service professionals, representing city, county, and state agencies, that meet weekly to address crime and disorder problems. CATs serve as conduits for communication between government agencies and city neighborhoods about issues ranging from quality-of-life problems, such as parking and code enforcement, to serious public safety problems, such as drive-by shootings. Each agency brings unique resources, responsibilities, abilities, and knowledge to the table. Background A focus of Salt Lake City's approach to crime prevention and control has been to create new organizational structures that facilitate the coordination and integration of a comprehensive, neighborhood-based, service-delivery system integrating multiple services and citizens in a proactive problem-solving process. Toward that end, independent agencies in city and county government, the criminal justice system, and various social service groups redefined roles and relationships. From this effort, two new integrated multiagency delivery systems were created, one of which was CATs. Strategy CATs are organized along the boundaries of the city's seven city council districts. They meet weekly to discuss issues concerning their communities and to fashion collaborative, creative, and comprehensive solutions. They work on issues referred to them by the community through the police department, city council, mayor's office, community councils, or other state, city, and county agencies. Key members of each CAT initially included the following: o A police officer from the Salt Lake City Police Department's Community Support Services Division, who brings access to police resources and expertise in law enforcement strategies. o A community mobilization specialist from the police department, whose primary role is to facilitate problem solving for citizens and to enhance citizen involvement. This person is also the city council members' contact with the police department and serves as a liaison within the department (along with the police officer on the CAT) to secure the participation of the appropriate law enforcement resources. o A youth and family specialist, who links young offenders with alternatives to incarceration. As a CAT member, this person develops working relations with other members of the team and existing resources for youth and families. o A probation officer, who provides information to the CAT about probationers or other court-supervised youth in the CAT's target area. The officer develops treatment plans for probationers, provides counseling and supervision, and can adjust a case with restitution, community service hours, or detention. o A representative of the mayor's community affairs office, who serves as a liaison between the city government and the public by working with relevant city agencies, other than police. This individual is an ombudsman for the community, working closely with the community council and listening to citizen concerns and complaints. o An assistant city prosecutor, who serves as a legal advisor, files cases for prosecution, and develops alternatives to prosecution as warranted. To date, the community role on the CAT team has been an open slot, with people from the community coming to CAT meetings, depending on the issues to be discussed. It was decided that local residents should not be invited as CAT members because of confidentiality issues. The issue of team member territoriality was initially a problem with CATs. This issue disappeared when CATs began having success and team members realized that working together and sharing responsibilities solved problems more quickly with longer lasting results. Midlevel manager buy-in was also a problem. Although replacing managers who did not support CATs with those who did was one solution, another was to give managers a stake in CAT success. This was done by making them members of a Super CAT team of midlevel and upperlevel managers, who address problems that cannot be solved by CATs. Results CATs have resulted in better allocation of government services and a reduction in buck-passing among government agencies. Usually, citizens make just one call through a CAT to reach the appropriate agency. Since 1996, the number of participating agencies has increased from the original 6 partners to 20. Although no funding was promised, they recognized the value of partnering and many of these agencies joined CATs voluntarily. The diversity and dedication of each team member made the CATs a powerful problem-solving tool for Salt Lake City. CAT team members receive more personal satisfaction from their jobs by being problem solvers rather than enforcers. Support Strategy: Problem-Solving Training (Seattle) The Seattle Police Department established a cadre of in-house instructors to provide basic problem-solving training and a train-the-trainer program to the department and other city employees, city residents, and law enforcement agencies. Background The original goal of this activity was to use CCP funds to train all employees of the police department in the SARA (scanning, analysis, response, and assessment) approach to problem solving. Seattle reached that goal and, in doing so, obtained a valuable resource--the trainers themselves. Some have become Advanced Problem Solving and Supervisor Problem Solving session trainers. This cadre of trainers has been used extensively in Seattle and across the nation. Strategy Training trainers, identifying trained individuals who would do well in a classroom, and developing and finalizing the curriculum were among the first critical steps. Training was first conducted within the police department. After each session, participants assessed their own ability to solve problems with SARA. The ratings gathered from these assessments have been consistently high. Some of the challenges included officer resistance to the problem-solving approach, around-the-clock training (all employees were trained during their regular shifts), and maintaining trainer availability and readiness while on regular assignment. Results All police staff are familiar with SARA. Expectations about problem solving are clearly stated to all employees. Explanation of the expectations provides shared understanding and vocabulary for undertaking problem-solving activities. A major benefit of this approach is that it can be sustained. Funding for curriculum development, equipment, and consultant time to train the trainers were high initial expenses. Since then, materials and overtime costs for trainers have been the only additional expenses. When training outside Seattle, materials and overtime are billed to the requesting department or law enforcement agency. Support Strategy: Neighborhood Planning Councils (Wilmington) Neighborhood planning councils (NPCs) are central to Wilmington's community mobilization effort. Although the idea for NPCs predated CCP, strengthening neighborhood associations was a critical part of the CCP effort. Little that Wilmington planned to do under CCP, including community policing, could proceed effectively unless NPCs grew into sophisticated, smoothly functioning organizations. Consequently, CCP provided a structure and rationale for the NPCs, as well as continued funding, and has been instrumental in their development and expansion. Background Mayor James Sills, who took office shortly before the advent of CCP in Wilmington, viewed neighborhood involvement as critical to restructuring a city government that had developed a reputation for being unresponsive to its residents. Mayor Sills, an advocate of citizen-oriented service delivery, challenged each city department to work more closely with the neighborhoods. Some neighborhoods, primarily the poorer, inner-city ones, had community organizations in place when the mayor took office, and, with the city's renewed interest, they became the first successful NPCs. Indeed, they were successful enough to be consulted about community mobilization strategies when the CCP proposal was being developed. With the added stimulation provided by CCP, existing NPCs were strengthened and new ones developed. Nine NPCs currently represent all of Wilmington's neighborhoods. Strategy The monthly NPC meetings serve as a forum to discuss neighborhood issues. A typical NPC meeting may address a wide array of issues--for example, a minister seeking to start a church in the neighborhood, a representative from the Healthy Start Program discussing health care for infants and pregnant women, an announcement of a field trip for families, and a discussion about which vacant lots should be cleaned by a community service program for probation violators operated under the aegis of the Delaware Superior Court. Two NPCs have formed their own community development corporations (CDCs) and hired staff using Community Development Block Grant funds. The community development section of the city's planning department provides technical assistance to the CDCs. Each NPC is required to have a member who oversees problem-solving activities. This individual has the telephone numbers of all of the city's agency directors. The mayor's administrative assistant ensures that complaints from NPCs get resolved. Individual residents may also lodge complaints on a hotline operated by the city's community affairs office. The planning department employs two outreach specialists to provide NPCs with technical assistance. One outreach specialist works with three of the most successful NPCs, which represent neighborhoods with the highest crime statistics. These NPCs are now the umbrella organizations for the existing civic associations and other community organizations. One factor in the NPCs' success is that city council members representing these neighborhoods have been very supportive. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in neighborhoods where city council members viewed NPCs as competitors because residents traditionally contact council members first for access to city services. However, the outreach specialists have succeeded in including city council members in the work of NPCs so that a relationship as allies is developing. The fact that the city council has granted NPCs new legal powers and additional funding attests to the success of this strategy. NPC leaders have formed the Neighborhood Planning Council Leadership Group, which receives training and participates in retreats. It meets with the city council to discuss policy and to convey the financial and legal needs of the NPCs. Significantly, the NPC leadership group sought and obtained a city ordinance making NPCs a permanent part of city government, ensuring their survival through political changes. Results NPCs have been sustained and have recently received additional funds through the city council to continue their neighborhood activities. ---------------------------- Chapter 2 Interventions Interventions are the strategies and projects the sites developed within the CCP framework. Each site was instructed to incorporate community mobilization and community policing into its overall approach. In addition, the site could focus on components that fit the particular jurisdiction from the following categories: o Community prosecution and diversion. o Antigang and youth activity. o Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). o Drug courts. o Alternatives to incarceration. The interventions that sites selected as promising approaches are diverse. These interventions are described in this chapter. CPTED (Metro-Atlanta) Metro-Atlanta has used CPTED--a method of reducing the perception of crime, the opportunity for crime, and crime itself by altering the physical environment--as one of its major strategies to reduce crime and violence. Since 1994, Metro-Atlanta has demonstrated CPTED's effective impact in various settings, including residential and commercial neighborhoods and suburban schools. A study is under way of a homeowners association using CPTED to improve the safety of a subdivision. Also, for the first time, a project is being conducted in collaboration with a major school system to incorporate CPTED concepts in school property design, facility maintenance, and building plans for new construction. Background Metro-Atlanta sought to design a crime prevention and control strategy that included multiple components and methods that would be responsive to changing social conditions, emerging community initiatives, and fluctuating resources. Metro-Atlanta sought best-practice solutions that could be implemented across the entire Metro-Atlanta area and would have the potential for nationwide replication. A wide range of interventions involving community policing, community mobilization, crime prevention, and crime control were implemented. A key component of this CPTED was the physical restructuring of neighborhoods. Strategy To help new practitioners apply CPTED and to ensure its effectiveness, Metro-Atlanta, when defining the effort's goal, determined whether it was to be used reactively to reduce existing crime problems or proactively to reduce physical features or conditions that encourage crime in a project being planned. One of the most cost-effective approaches was determined to be a proactive one that formally incorporates CPTED considerations into local zoning ordinances. That way, planners, architects, and developers are required to provide for a safer environment as an inherent element of the design process rather than as a costly afterthought. As a caveat, Metro-Atlanta warns that no single effort can be a panacea for reducing crime. It also emphasizes that CPTED solutions must be tailored to the particular geographic area and cannot be universal. Metro-Atlanta defines the major goals of a CPTED training program as an ability to o Undertake a complete CPTED analysis process from physical assessment to development of recommendations to mobilization of community support. o Use the six components of a CPTED analysis or audit that include setting goals, crime data collection, condition surveys, demographic data collection, community input, and action plan development, with recommendations and estimated costs. o Define CPTED benefits to various stakeholders. o Use CPTED's methodology of movement patterns, integrated/segregated street patterns, space analysis, and site analysis. o Use basic CPTED techniques, including access control, surveillance, territorial reinforcement, and territorial maintenance. o Understand the role of computer modeling, create spatial relational databases that can be updated, and use spatial software. Metro-Atlanta initiates CPTED projects in two phases. Phase 1 includes meeting with stakeholders to build support for the program; preparing maps of the study area; collecting crime, demographic, and condition data; forming focus groups with residents and merchants; selecting a site; and establishing goals. Phase 2 involves creating a CPTED study team; identifying program obstacles and how to overcome them (including understanding local and state laws, regulations, and policies affecting CPTED); and identifying resources needed for the effort. Results Over the past few years, Metro-Atlanta CPTED studies have been completed in two areas: a five-location study of neighborhoods and business areas and a three-location study of high schools. The five-location study resulted in a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development award, and the results of the study were used to help secure funding to implement many of the improvements. The school studies were turned over to the school boards, and the CPTED recommendations have been incorporated in a school's renovation plans. A special workbook and training CD have been distributed nationally to help communities learn from the work done in Metro-Atlanta. The CD covers a variety of topics from access control and surveillance to territorial reinforcement and maintenance. They are designed for interactive learning and application of CPTED principles. Save a Neighborhood Program (Baltimore) The Save a Neighborhood Program (SAN) is a neighborhood-based effort in the Baltimore area designed to involve neighborhood residents in taking positive, prompt action against physical problems such as blight in their community. Background In Baltimore, CCP is a collaborative effort to create and implement a six-part strategy to eliminate open-air drug trafficking in neighborhoods. It comprises 42 community organizations, 6 city agencies, the police department, and 10 nonprofit organizations. The approach stresses the building of comprehensive community infrastructures to simultaneously affect the many factors that have contributed to the increased crime in their neighborhoods. CCP, SAN, and the city's Neighborhood Service Centers (NSCs) designed a program that adopted the findings of current research suggesting that the ability to respond rapidly to problem physical conditions is a critical resource in communities that are implementing a comprehensive approach to crime prevention and control. This collaborative program was created to empower neighborhood residents to develop workable solutions to such conditions in relatively short periods. Strategy SAN works with Baltimore's 13 core communities--where the CCP approach is used under the guidance of teams consisting of residents, a community organizer, a foot patrol officer, and a community lawyer--and 6 HotSpot clusters to determine needs in the community that focus on blight. Once these needs are identified and assessed, SAN provides training to the community to tackle problems by, for example, boarding up and sealing empty and dilapidated homes that have become drug houses in the midst of its neighborhoods. Other examples include the removal of trash, graffiti, and high weeds, and constructing fencing for and planting community gardens. In addition to adult community members, youth who are required to obtain community service hours for high school graduation are recruited to participate. SAN training may include implementation strategies and action steps in addition to information on laws and ordinances a neighborhood can use to revitalize the community. Availability of legal counsel through the Community Law Center and pro bono attorneys is a critical resource in the revitalizing effort. The community, SAN, community lawyers, and others have used laws already on the books to remove blight, including o The Vacant House Receiver Law, which allows communities to initiate the process for taking an abandoned property away from an irresponsible landlord and giving it to a developer of affordable housing. o The Drug Nuisance Law, which allows a community to file suit against a property being used by drug dealers. o Self-help nuisance abatement laws, which allow communities to board up vacant drug houses. Results Baltimore's neighborhoods are being revitalized by community residents working in SAN. More than 100 properties have been boarded up, tenants from 24 houses involved in drug trafficking have been evicted, and more than 100 problem properties have been cleaned up through code enforcement measures. In several cases, the landlords were sentenced to community service. Youth Services Provider Network (Boston) The Youth Services Provider Network (YSPN) is a partnership between the Boston Police Department and the Boys & Girls Clubs of Boston that provides professional resources to respond more effectively to police concerns for at-risk and troubled youth. Background Police were frustrated that arrest was the main option available when they encountered troubled or at-risk youth, often in the course of a domestic dispute call. The police department took the initiative in addressing this problem. Working closely with the Boys & Girls Clubs, the department designed and developed YSPN, an entity that has been woven successfully into police work. Strategy YSPN makes the professional skills of licensed clinical social workers (LCSWs) available in local police stations. When YSPN began, police officers could refer an at-risk youth or the youth's family to the district community service officer who would, in turn, make a referral to one of the appropriate service agencies. However, the complexity and wide-ranging problems of referred youth necessitated the involvement of a clinical social worker to make an appropriate referral. To make a referral, police officers now call the district's LCSW and provide the name and phone number of the youth at risk. The LCSW reaches out to the youth and family to develop an appropriate service plan. YSPN referrals can also be made indirectly through incident reports filed by police. Most of the youth that have been referred are 13- to 16-year-olds on probation or are recognized as status offenders or abused children. Referrals receive assistance under a three-tiered system of care: crisis intervention, case management, and individual and family therapy. Crisis intervention. This involves short-term interventions focused on finding appropriate resources to meet the needs of youth and their families. An assessment of families' and individuals' strengths and weaknesses determines the level of service provided. An intervention may be as short as one meeting with the youth and his or her family, but additional access to an LCSW is available. Case management. Youth and their families are seen weekly or monthly for guidance and support counseling, with the goal of referring clients to local nonprofit organizations for appropriate service. Individual and family therapy. Youth and their families have weekly psychotherapy sessions for issues related to truancy, delinquency, school performance, and family dynamics. Youth are usually seen individually and family meetings are held monthly. If clients exhibit an ambivalence about working with traditional social service agencies, YSPN enables access to social services through home visits and flexible scheduling. Approximately 50 percent of the YSPN caseload is focused on crisis intervention, 30 percent on case management, and 20 percent on individual and family therapy. Results Originally a pilot program in one police district, YSPN has been expanded to three other districts and to the citywide Youth Violence Strike Force. Response from police officers, youth, and their families has been positive, strengthening the relationship between police and the community. Police officers have grown to trust and rely on LCSWs, appreciating their skills and commitment and the level of caring they have for troubled youth. Since June 1996, YSPN has accepted more than 1000 referrals. Community Parenting Program (Columbia) Columbia's parenting program focuses on survival training for parents. It is a community empowerment program run as a collaborative effort with several agency partners. Background The Family Service Center developed the parenting program in 1996. It was designed to mentor parents in family skills. Initially, the program was targeted to the Henley Homes housing site, but it expanded in 1997 to include another housing site, Latimer Manor. Strategy After development of the program, it was recognized that the collaborative assistance of more agencies would be needed to deal with a myriad of associated issues. Partners were recruited quickly. The following agencies contribute in a number of ways: o Columbia Housing Authority provides sites, distributes publicity, identifies and refers clients, and provides volunteers and transportation through church volunteers. o Boys & Girls Clubs of America identifies a pool of teenagers to attend child-care training through voluntary associations and local churches. o Baptist Medical Center provides teenagers with childcare training. o Volunteer Action Center of the Midlands recruits volunteers to serve as leaders for children's activities. o Family Service Center designs and provides training, screens parents and children for group services, evaluates their efforts, and maintains records. Results During the first sessions at Henley Homes, all clients were 18- to 34-year-old women at or below the poverty line. Because most of the women were from the site, transportation was not needed, although babysitting was provided so they could attend the sessions. This was arranged through the agencies and volunteers collaborating on the parenting program. Line Officer Grant Program (Metro-Denver) The Line Officer Grant Program is an innovative partnership between police and communities. It encourages beat officers to work with community members to identify problems and implement solutions. The program provides up to $2,000 in support of these community activities. Background This initiative was intended to encourage stronger partnerships between neighborhood police officers and residents by acknowledging that the lack of funds limits solutions to problems. The idea came from the police department's criminal justice division and was put into practice in Metro-Denver in 1995. Strategy The decision to award a grant rests with a committee of community and police officials. Whereas committee members are open to new and innovative methods of responding to crime problems, they consider several questions in making a funding decision: o Have both an officer and a community member signed the application? o Have the partners gone through the SARA (scan, analyze, respond, assess) model of problem solving in developing the funding request? o Has the application been endorsed by the jurisdiction's police chief or sheriff? When proposals are denied, it is primarily because they lack a community partner. Committee members generally do not accept proposals submitted to obtain equipment or implement a program not involving the community. However, committees usually grant appeals in the event of a rejection. The application is a one-page form. Funds are usually made available within 30 days. The types of activities that have been funded include youth education and intervention programs, nuisance abatement, physical and social order control, situational crime prevention, and community-based enforcement. Evaluations of the program indicate that the most successful grants are characterized by strong support from the jurisdiction's police chief or sheriff, high community involvement in developing the application, and implementation of the response by officers. Results Feedback from line officers, community members, and police and city managers indicates that the grants are among the most successful community policing initiatives in the state. More than 400 grants have been awarded. The program's success and popularity have since spawned its expansion to major cities across the United States, including Atlanta, Fort Worth, and Seattle. The Colorado General Assembly provided 1 year of support for the initiative with a general fund appropriation, and several municipalities have sustained the program by incorporating funding for the grant program into their annual budget. Domestic Violence Program (East Bay Corridor, California) The East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership has combined regional resources to address domestic violence. Working with the courts, social and health services, community representatives, and nonprofit providers, the partnership set the following goals: o Standardized operating protocols for the police. o Training for all officers in the region on standardized policies and domestic abuse problem solving. o Collaboration between police and other groups to produce the best response to domestic violence. Background Recognizing that an increase in domestic violence was a common issue throughout the region, the partnership and its law enforcement committee believed it could be addressed more effectively by combining regional resources and standardizing arrest, reporting, and victim assistance procedures. Given East Bay's significant transitory population, such standardization also was considered useful in tracking and dealing with offenders who crossed jurisdictional boundaries. In addition, the partnership believed something needed to be done about domestic violence incidents that were often being handled in a one-sided manner: jailing the aggressor, giving little treatment or help to the victim. Strategy Standardized operating protocols and training curriculums for domestic violence were developed based on California statutes and on the collective experiences of the local police chiefs and sheriffs. These standardized procedures were developed to help officers use their discretion more appropriately. In designing the training program, the partnership enhanced state-mandated training by identifying and providing officers with instruction in the types of assistance available to domestic violence victims. Thus, officers are able to inform victims about the various options available to them. In addition, to assist victims, police departments in the region have developed emergency response teams composed of police officers and civilians from nonprofit counseling organizations. The response teams can provide immediate assistance, such as information regarding domestic violence laws, protective orders, temporary shelter, and appropriate counseling services. Quality response involves maintaining contact with the victims. Agencies in the region have begun to enhance domestic violence reports by including high-quality Polaroid photographs. Officers are trained to take pictures of all evidence at the scene of a crime, including weapons, property damage, and injuries. The photographs, taken shortly after a call for service, are then attached to the report for quick reference and can help the prosecutor better reconstruct the incident. Finally, domestic violence reports have been enhanced with a supplemental information form that includes the relationship of the offender to the victim, the length of the relationship, the presence of children during the offense, the relationship of the incident to other crimes noted on the report, previous domestic violence history and the criminal justice system's response, types of weapons involved, the extent of injury to either party, the existence of protective orders on file, the presence and role of substance abuse in the incident, the demeanor of the parties, and the types of victim assistance provided. The full report is entered into a centralized data management system accessible by the appropriate agencies. Results Methods of tracking domestic violence cases and providing services for victims have been at the forefront for the partnership and its law enforcement committee. This initiative is viewed as a major problem-solving effort in which the police have had direct involvement. It has drawn partners from other government agencies and nonprofit organizations and continues to be expanded as its successes are communicated throughout the region. Drug Rehabilitation Court (Fort Worth) The Tarrant County Drug Rehabilitation Court (DRC) targets adult offenders ages 17 and older who are charged with possession of specified amounts of controlled substances or with attempting to obtain a controlled substance by fraud. Offenders who meet the eligibility requirements and volunteer to participate must agree to complete a 12-month treatment program. Charges are dismissed upon successful completion of the program. Background DRC is one of two components of the Tarrant County Drug Impact and Rehabilitation Enhanced Comprehensive Treatment Project. DRC was established in 1995 to break the cycle of drug abuse and criminal behavior of adults ages 17 and older who had committed minor drug offenses. The other component, the Drug Impact Court, facilitates the prosecution of more serious drug cases, with the judges serving as impartial referees, making decisions on matters of law. In comparison, DRC maximizes the diversion of offenders from prosecution to treatment, with the judge taking the role of leader and active participant in the coordination of court services and treatment programs and links to supportive services needed to achieve positive behavioral changes for those who have committed minor drug offenses. Strategy Referrals to DRC are made by the Tarrant County Pretrial Release Agency. The Tarrant County district attorney has the final say on whether an offender is admitted into the program and prosecution deferred. Day-to-day operation of the program is administered by a program supervisor and a staff of three case managers, a case manager aide, and a receptionist. A prosecuting attorney, a defense attorney, and two bailiffs provide legal and other support during court sessions. The program has three phases. Phase 1 (2 weeks). Phase 1 begins with arrest and arraignment. The pretrial officer conducts an initial screening while the offender is in jail and refers appropriate candidates to the case management team for assessment. On acceptance into the program, the offender appears before the DRC judge at the next available date. Phase 2 (14 weeks). Phase 2 stresses a drug-free lifestyle and social adjustment. Services include substance-abuse treatment, coping skills education, gender and culture issues, employment attainment, stress management, parenting skills, and learning to use community resources and support groups. Group meetings, curriculum-based cognitive skills training, and individual and family counseling are optional. During this phase, the offender makes frequent progress reports to the DRC judge, and the case management team keeps the court advised on treatment. Phase 3 (34 weeks). The judge may extend this final phase for the offender to comply with all terms of the program contract. This phase emphasizes aftercare, individual counseling, increased involvement with self-help groups, remaining drug and arrest free, and financial responsibility. Results The University of North Texas conducted an outcome evaluation of DRC. Because breaking the cycle of drug use and crime is the primary rationale for the establishment of drug treatment programs, rearrest rates were one of the key outcomes investigated. The evaluation found that 14.4 percent of the individuals exiting DRC were arrested and charged with a crime within 1 year of leaving the program. Community Court (Hartford) The Hartford Community Court, the second such court in the nation, opened its doors on November 10, 1998, after 2 years of intensive planning. This court hears nuisance cases, including nonviolent misdemeanors and municipal ordinance violation cases, and serves Hartford's entire population of approximately 130,000 residents. The court provides alternative sanctions such as community service in local neighborhoods in lieu of previous sanctions that might have included fines or incarceration if a case was not dismissed. The community court was developed and implemented by stakeholders throughout the city and state to help improve the quality of life in communities throughout Hartford. Background This effort grew from Hartford's Community Planning and Mobilization Committee, which is a collaboration of its 17 neighborhood-based problem-solving committees composed of neighborhood residents, city agencies, and police (see chapter 1, p. 15). The community court idea developed from discussions in which committee members agreed that quality-of-life crimes were negatively impacting their neighborhoods in a significant way and that the existing system did not adequately address such offenses. Strategy From these discussions, a core group of critical stakeholders came together with key project planners to discuss the court's potential. One of the first steps was to travel as a delegation to New York City to learn about the only existing example, the Midtown Community Court. This onsite visit energized a core of delegates who coordinated a larger working group of local, state, and community representatives to move the effort forward. A few months later, the judge for the court joined the planning process and played an integral role in conceptualizing the court's processing and sanctioning procedures. Additional stakeholders were recruited who became strong allies and advocates. Community residents lobbied the state legislature in support of enabling legislation. Resources and financial support were generated from a multitude of sources, including federal grants (such as CCP), state funds, city funds, and in-kind support such as the building for the court and renovations. As the court was being implemented, much attention was focused on educating the police and the public about the benefits of the new court and their roles in its development. The police were recognized as the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system and, as such, would need to follow up on nuisance cases, write summons, and enforce warrants. Their support and buy-in of the community court was critical. Community residents had also grown wary of the criminal justice system. They often saw a nonresponsive system that did nothing when low-level crimes were committed. The community court would, theoretically, provide renewed faith and accountability in the system. The Community Planning and Mobilization Committee serves as the court's advisory board. The committee meets monthly with the court's judge and the CCP director as part of an ongoing assessment of community conditions. Results The community court has provided more than 25,000 hours of community service to the city of Hartford since it began operation. It is receiving positive feedback from city residents and municipal and state agencies and is a model to other interested jurisdictions. Safe Schools Project (Metro-Omaha) The Safe Schools Project (SSP) is a proactive approach to school safety. This initiative is being implemented as a pilot project in seven Omaha public secondary schools. Project participants have focused on improving communication and building relationships to allow existing school, police, and community resources to be used more efficiently and effectively. Unlike other school safety initiatives that focus on district level policy, SSP is focused on the individual school and precinct level. Background School safety is a concern in Omaha neighborhoods. This initiative developed as a way to link school and community safety issues by bringing together concerned individuals and organizations. Although several stakeholders worked together before this initiative, more involvement was needed at the neighborhood level by residents, police officers, school personnel, and other city and private agencies. Strategy This initiative was developed to build stronger relationships among schools, police, and neighborhoods; make better use of existing resources; develop long-range plans for safety issues relative to schools; and provide a multidimensional view of school safety. One consideration throughout this effort has been how to build on and strengthen the capacity of existing resources without building new structures that might overlap with other programs or that could not be sustained. With this in mind, overall coordination of this initiative was provided by the Safe Futures Consortium, whose role is community planning. Additional resources were identified through the planning process and include staff time and funding needs for equipment such as radios, surveillance cameras, and staff training. Teams were organized to address four phases of the project including o Overall environmental assessment and relationship building. o Review of internal school climate and crisis preparedness. o Defining and formalizing ongoing school partnerships. o Neighborhood-based networking among neighborhood watches, citizen patrols, McGruff Homes, schools, and police to ensure a safe walk to and from school. Results Relationships and communication among schools, police, and the city are continuing and becoming more productive. Information sharing has also increased among schools and other organizations as a result of school review team meetings. Additional resources to enhance school and neighborhood safety were secured as a result of SSP. Overall, participants began to view school safety as a community issue and a shared responsibility. Because SSP was conducted as a proactive initiative rather than a response to crises, the teams looked at varied aspects of safety. Participants have expressed enthusiasm and an interest in maintaining the relationships that have developed. Juvenile Justice Committee (Phoenix) The Juvenile Justice Committee (JJC) was developed in Phoenix in 1995 as an alternative to prosecution for juveniles committing misdemeanors. This restorative justice model is triggered before the juvenile enters the criminal justice system. Juveniles deemed appropriate for JJC are sanctioned and monitored by members of their community. Background This effort began as a way to establish alternative consequences for youthful offenders, involve neighborhood residents, and design how the community would physically benefit. The development of JJC created opportunities outside the criminal justice system for teenagers in the Coronado neighborhood. The youth would be accountable to their neighborhood and would "pay back"for harm they caused. At the same time, if they completed their assignment successfully, they would avoid involvement with the law and have a better chance of becoming law-abiding citizens. This initiative was also considered as a way to involve neighborhood residents in community problems. It had the potential of bridging gaps between people of different incomes, race, and cultures while developing mutual community standards. Strategy A critical component of this initiative is an active community organization. The Greater Coronado Neighborhood Association (GCNA) helped develop JJC and continues to provide assistance through interested and concerned volunteers. GCNA members also assisted in securing the Coronado Community Center in an old church that houses several community-based programs, including a probation field office and JJC. Juvenile probation officers help coordinate the program and instruct residents in the types of sanctions that can be issued and the services from nonprofit organizations that juvenile offenders and their families could use. JJC members, who are neighborhood residents, decide the consequences for first- and second-time nonviolent offenders who admit guilt and are willing to take responsibility for their actions. Sanctions may include community service, restitution, and/or appropriate self-help classes. JJC members match juveniles and their families with volunteers for support but also contract with a counseling agency to monitor compliance with the mandated sanction. If the monitoring agency finds noncompliance, the case is referred back to juvenile court for further action and more severe consequences. Results What began as a pilot project in the Coronado neighborhood has grown to 30 JJCs throughout Phoenix and has been replicated in neighborhoods in other states. Furthermore, the Coronado JJC served as the precursor for another neighborhood initiative, the teen court, which began in 1997. This peer court involves a local high school, the YMCA, and JJC and addresses school-related and community issues involving teenagers. Community Peace Services (Salt Lake City) Community Peace Services (CPS) is a partnership among the Salt Lake City School District, the mayor's office, and the city prosecutor's office to mobilize community resources to address alternatives to prosecution. Background To modify the future behavior of offenders, Salt Lake City wanted to introduce a new way to think about certain kinds of violators by linking prosecution and education, thus providing individuals with the skills and knowledge to avoid future prosecution. The message it sent to these violators was "Instead of prosecuting you, we will give you the option of taking classes. If you complete them satisfactorily, we won't charge you with the crime."It was believed that this approach would help the community begin to address the root causes of problems such as domestic violence and could link community resources in new ways. Planning meetings took place in 1995 to brainstorm the possibilities. The result of these meetings was CPS, which provides a framework for integrating a range of community services pertaining to families. Strategy The CPS program includes preventive education, intervention, and mediation and serves as both a provider and broker of services. One of the first CPS education initiatives was a domestic violence course called Choices. Offered as an alternative to prosecution, this 10-week course provides separate tracks for men and women. The women's course covers self-assessment of behaviors, changing unhealthy patterns, and moving from victimization to a healthy support system. The men's course covers male socialization, alternative relationship skills, and making a commitment to caring and respectful relationships. Another CPS course is the Stop Teen Tobacco Obsession Program, an interactive course that examines how tobacco impacts young people. CPS intervention courses include citizenship skills and neighborhood law. Mediation programs include a peer mediation team training program for youth to develop conflict resolution skills. A community-based mediation center in which community members can access mediation services was also developed under CPS. All of the above courses require the education of court personnel regarding the need, purpose, and use of the courses. CPS has provided this education and developed forms to be used by judges, court officers, and prosecutors. There are multiple providers of these courses, but CPS must cultivate relationships with each provider agency. The school district, in particular, has been very progressive in promoting partnerships between criminal justice and social service agencies. All CPS courses are available for referrals from CAT groups (see chapter 1, p. 19). So far, the most popular CPS service used by CAT is the mediation program. Results CPS has been sustained as a component of the Salt Lake City Education Department. The overall plan is to run CPS as a business that pays for itself. Toward that end, a sliding fee scale is used for some of the courses. Youth Call II Action Anti-Violence Fund (Seattle) The Youth Call II Action fund awards grants of up to $1,000 to youth to undertake small, locally initiated antiviolence projects. Background Seattle's Department of Neighborhoods has operated a program of small grants awarded to adults to confront violence. CCP funding enabled the department to start a new program of grants directed at youth between ages 12 and 21. Strategy The grant application is a simple two-page document. Any group of five or more youth can request funds for their antiviolence initiatives, but gangs and/or individuals are prohibited from receiving grants. Proposals are reviewed by a nine-member youth panel, assisted by an adult, whose advice is intended to teach principles of good fiscal stewardship and fairness during deliberations. After legal review, the panel's recommendations are made to the department's director. The first awards were made in 1995. Forty applications were submitted, and 18 awards were granted. Funded projects have included Peace for the Streets by Kids from the Streets (downtown homeless youth creating projects to raise awareness of homeless youth issues related to violence) and a special issue of the Garfield High School Newspaper with an antiviolence theme. Although the Department of Neighborhoods does not monitor the grantees, a staff person calls each group to get verbal reports of their activities. When the program began, the department was surprised to receive so many high-caliber proposals. The department attributed this to its outreach efforts to solicit proposals from youth groups and to its special focus on hard-to-reach youth. As with any startup, the program has had its difficulties. The city has had trouble finding agents who can receive money on behalf of minor-aged grantees, and a few young grantees were difficult to locate after their award was made. Also, department staff believe the program has not elicited proposals in the expected numbers from middle-income neighborhoods because the youth there work and have little time for volunteer activities. In addition, it has been difficult to get competitive proposals from "unaffiliated" youth to compete with proposals from youth who were working with established community organizations. Results In 1997, the Department of Neighborhoods opened up the fund to additional areas of interest for young people. This continued until June 1998. Funds totaling more than $60,000 were awarded to 72 youth-led projects, such as Anti-Violence Music Video through the Garfield Teen Center 4-H Program, mediation training provided by the RESPECT Committee, First Annual Asian and Pacific Islander Youth Conference by the Asian and Pacific Islander Leaders of Tomorrow, and A Day to Chill Community Fair by the Seattle Young People's Project antiviolence initiative. Community Education Program (Wichita) The Community Education Program (CEP) offers local residents and community agencies the opportunity to become partners in addressing community concerns based on the principles of self-determination, self-help, leadership development, institutional responsiveness, integrated service delivery, and decentralization. This program provides a mechanism that promotes empowerment so that community residents can identify issues and needs and engage a responsive network of education and service providers. Background The Wichita CEP is a package or series of strategies that strives to increase community mobilization, decrease neighborhood problems, and improve the quality of life in the neighborhoods. For example, organizing support for lighted schools, which are public schools kept open beyond traditional hours to provide training and educational opportunities for neighborhood residents, is one of these strategies. The overall program is based on the philosophy that opportunities for lifelong learning are a significant key to individual, family, and community empowerment. Strategy The goals of the program include o Developing lighted school partnerships in targeted neighborhoods to provide facilities and supportive services for community education activities. o Involving local residents in a process of asset-based community development planning. o Identifying local resources for strengthening individuals, families, and communities via lifelong learning opportunities. o Developing a decentralized and responsive network of service providers to integrate service delivery in ways that empower community residents to improve their quality of life. The strategies include o Opening pilot lighted schools in Colvin Elementary School and Northeast Magnet High School. o Developing neighborhood advisory councils and providing training in asset-based community development. o Identifying needs and assets in the targeted communities. o Implementing strategic planning. o Developing and strengthening partnerships based on identified needs. o Expanding the program through additional lighted schools. o Launching the CEP initiative citywide, with programs at all city sites. o Assigning CEP coordinators to assist the neighborhood advisory councils with strategic planning, plan implementation, partnership building, interagency coordination, program development, and facility management. The most challenging aspect of the program is working through the government and school partnerships. Difficulties frequently arise in assisting school administrators and staff to think beyond traditional K-12 education and to think in terms of family learning and development and lifelong learning and to understand the concept of community education as a whole. Such an understanding is essential to partnership efforts, sustained community development, and individual and community empowerment. Results Educational services have been made available to neighborhood residents through CEP. In addition, increased citizen involvement, interagency cooperation, and networking are evident in the targeted communities. Several initiatives and partnerships have developed through CEP that have assisted the efforts of local neighborhoods toward empowerment, including o Healthy Options for Planeview, which assists in health issues in the Colvin neighborhood. o Partnerships with SRS/AmeriCorps Welfare to Work, which has assisted 35 community residents in their transition from welfare to work via education and on-the-job training. o Community Housing Services Partnerships, which has assisted more than 75 households in preparing for home ownership within the last 2 years. o Campaign to End Childhood Hunger and the Midwest Anti-Hunger Network, which are partnering with neighborhoods to address sustainable food security issues. o Family Learning programming, which has increased parental involvement in the targeted schools and includes English classes for speakers of other languages, adult basic education, and computer skills training. Juvenile Drug Diversion Court (Wilmington) The Wilmington Juvenile Drug Diversion Court is supervised and monitored by Delaware's family court. Under the diversion concept, drug charges are held open as long as a juvenile is in treatment and maintaining compliance. Charges are dropped on successful completion of the program. Most juveniles are in the program for 6 to 12 months and are expected to be employed and/or in school during that period. The youth range in age from 11 to 19 years. There are several juvenile drug courts in the United States, but the Wilmington court is unique in that it begins work with juveniles immediately after their arrest, enabling rapid assessment of their needs. Background The Wilmington Juvenile Drug Diversion Court was developed under the assumption that providing drug treatment, education, and support services to juveniles is a desirable alternative to prosecution. Strategy The police are responsible for notifying arrested juveniles at the police station that they are eligible for the program. To be eligible, the youth must be a Wilmington resident or have been arrested in Wilmington, have been arrested on misdemeanor drug charges, and have no prior criminal record. Violent and/or felonious drug abusers are excluded. Participation in the program by the juvenile's family or guardian is a condition for admission. The court facilitates and monitors treatment provided by SODAT--Delaware, a nonprofit substance abuse treatment provider. Each juvenile in the program and his or her parents or guardian must appear before the judge at least once a month. All active participants must attend treatment groups weekly and meet individually with a counselor monthly. If a youth is not succeeding, additional resources may be found to support a more intensive program. SODAT provides services other than drug counseling, such as employment counseling and individual, group, and family therapy. SODAT also maintains relationships with high schools; principals; the juvenile probation department, to which a youth is assigned after completing the program; and the district attorney's office. Results An evaluation of the Juvenile Drug Diversion Court by the Statistical Analysis Center of Delaware found that, 12 months after leaving the program, the recidivism rate for an experimental group that complied with SODAT treatment was 23 percent, compared to 75 percent for a group that had not complied with SODAT treatment and 51 percent for an untreated comparison group. As a result of these findings, the program is being expanded statewide. ---------------------------- Chapter 3 Conclusion The CCP approach began as a BJA demonstration program in 1994. The jurisdictions that have planned, implemented, and sustained the approach, with its collaborative method of addressing crime prevention and public safety issues, have adopted it for the long term. They have invested their energies and resources in CCP and will continue to do so because it o Brings together individuals and agencies affected by crime problems with those who can provide solutions. o Empowers these individuals and agencies to take an active role in developing solutions through a collaborative process. o Is neither particularly costly nor complex, but it does require a willingness to meet and communicate; share resources including time, staff, and dollars; and be open to systemic change. This document has described various strategies and processes that have been used and tested by CCP sites. Their results have been largely positive and may be replicated in other communities. ---------------------------- Sources for Further Information Site Contacts Metro-Atlanta Andrew Copassaki Metro-Atlanta Project Pact 127 Church Street, Suite 270 The Brumby Building at Marietta Station Marietta, GA 30060 770-528-4607 Fax: 770-528-4632 E-mail: ajcconsult@compuserve.com Baltimore Patricia Smith, Director CCP/HotSpots Mayor's Office on Criminal Justice 10 South Street, Suite 400 Baltimore, MD 21202 410-396-4370 Fax: 410-625-2107 E-mail: Patricia_Smith@mail.ci.baltimore.md.us Boston James Jordan Strategic Planning and Resource Development Boston Police Department One Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 617-343-5863 Fax: 617-343-4507 E-mail: jordanj.bpd@ci.boston.ma.us Columbia Roland Smallwood City of Columbia 1225 Laurel Street Columbia, SC 29201 803-733-8635 Fax: 803-988-8014 E-mail: rsmallwood@columbiasc.net Metro-Denver Lance Clem Division of Criminal Justice 700 Kipling Street Denver, CO 80215 303-239-5717 Fax: 303-239-5735 E-mail: lance.clem@cdps.state.co.us East Bay Corridor Maria Theresa Viramontes Campbell Executive Director East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership 1222 Preservation Park Way Oakland, CA 94612 510-832-7071 Fax: 510-832-7073 E-mail: ebpscp@vdn.com Fort Worth David Garrett Fort Worth Police Department Research and Planning Unit 350 West Belknap Fort Worth, TX 76102 817-877-8067 Fax: 817-877-8270 E-mail: degarrett@compuserve.com Hartford Rae Ann Palmer, Director Comprehensive Communities Partnership 525 Main Street Hartford, CT 06103 860-543-8681 Fax: 860-722-6216 E-mail: raeann_palmer@ursa.hartnet.org Metro-Omaha Mary Lopez Safe Futures Consortium Department of Public Administration Peter Kiewit Conference Center 1313 Farnam Street, Room 232 Omaha, NE 68182 402-595-1213 Fax: 402-595-2366 E-mail: mlopez@unomaha.edu Phoenix Commander Kim Humphrey Arizona Regional Community Policing Institute 2643 East University Phoenix, AZ 85034 602-223-2514 Fax: 602-244-0477 E-mail: khumphrey@azpost.state.az.us Salt Lake City Raymond Christy, Director Community Peace Services 1234 South Main Street, Room 237 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 801-578-8578 Fax: 801-578-8535 E-mail: raymond.christy@slc.k12.ut.us Jeanne Robison, CCP Coordinator 349 South 200 East, Fifth Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84111 801-535-7767 Fax: 801-535-6331 E-mail: jean.robison@ci.slc.ut.us Frances Gomez, Administrative Assistant Community Affairs, Office of the Mayor 451 South State Street, Room 335 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 801-535-7734 Fax: 801-535-6331 E-mail: frances.gomez@ci.slc.ut.us Seattle Colleen Laing Seattle Police Department 700 Third Avenue, Suite 540 Seattle, WA 98104 206-386-0057 Fax: 206-386-0053 E-mail: colleen.laing@ci.seattle.wa.us Gary Owens, Project Manager Neighborhood Matching Fund Seattle Department of Neighborhoods 2301 Jackson Street, Suite 208 Seattle, WA 98144 206-684-0718 Fax: 206-233-8561 E-mail: garry.owens@ci.seattle.wa.us Wichita Maaskelah Chinyere-Jeng Community Education Program Coordinator Colvin Neighborhood Resource Center/Colvin Elementary School 2820 South Roosevelt Wichita, KS 67210 316-688-9377 E-mail: jeng_m@ci.wichita.ks.us Twyler Bibbins Community Education Program Coordinator Northeast Family Learning Center Northeast Magnet High School 1847 North Chautauqua Wichita, KS 67214 316-688-9369 E-mail: bibbins_t@ci.wichita.ks.us Tom Smith, Grants and Aid Coordinator City Hall 455 North Main Street, 12th Floor Wichita, KS 67202 316-268-4271 Fax: 316-268-4656 E-mail: smith_t@ci.wichita.ks.us Wilmington Wilbur Fletcher Community Outreach Specialist Louis Redding/City County Building Wilmington Planning Department 800 French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 302-571-4126 Fax: 302-571-4119 Thomas Maloney SODAT, Inc. 625 Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801 302-656-4044 Fax: 302-656-3439 Greer Peacock Community Outreach Specialist Louis Redding/City County Building Wilmington Planning Department 800 French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 302-571-4126 Fax: 302-571-4119 For more information about Bureau of Justice Assistance programs, contact: Bureau of Justice Assistance 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531 202-616-6500 World Wide Web: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA 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. 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. ---------------------------- Notes ---------------------------- Bureau of Justice Assistance Information General Information Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for general information or specific needs, such as assistance in submitting grant applications and information about training. To contact the Response Center, call 1-800-421-6770 or write to 1100 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005. Indepth Information For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding opportunities, requesters can call the BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), shares BJA program information with state and local agencies and community groups across the country. Information specialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publication distribution, participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities. The Clearinghouse can be reached by: o Mail P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849-6000 o Visit 2277 Research Boulevard Rockville, MD 20850 o Telephone 1-800-688-4252 Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. eastern time o Fax 301-519-5212 o Fax on Demand 1-800-688-4252 o BJA Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA o NCJRS Home Page www.ncjrs.org o E-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org o JUSTINFO Newsletter E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org Leave the subject line blank In the body of the message, type: subscribe justinfo [your name]