U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Bureau of 

Justice Assistance

Promising Approaches

Monograph

Comprehensive Communities

Program

Comprehensive Communities

Program
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.

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

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.
Bureau of Justice Assistance

Comprehensive 

Communities Program 

Promising Approaches

April 2001 Monograph NCJ 184956
Cover image © 1997 DigitalStock, © Corbis Images, © West Stock.
iii

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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

Foreword
v

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Chapter 1 Planning, Sustainment, and Support Strategies . . . . . . 1

Action Planning, Sustainment, and 

Infrastructure Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Planning Strategy

Implementation of Neighborhood Policing (Boston) . 3

Sustainment Strategies 

Maryland HotSpot Communities Initiative 

(Baltimore) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Neighborhood Initiative/Neighborhood Strategy

(Wichita) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Support Strategies

Greater Atlanta Data Center (Metro-Atlanta) . . . . . 7

Community Mobilizers (Columbia) . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Colorado Consortium for Community Policing 

(Metro-Denver) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership 

(California) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Neighborhood Police Officers (Fort Worth) . . . . . . 13

Problem-Solving Committees (Hartford) . . . . . . . 15

Safe Futures Consortium (Metro-Omaha). . . . . . . 16

Community Policing and Mobilization (Phoenix) . . 17

Community Action Teams (Salt Lake City) . . . . . . 19

Problem-Solving Training (Seattle) . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Neighborhood Planning Councils (Wilmington) . . . 22

Chapter 2 Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

CPTED (Metro-Atlanta) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Save a Neighborhood Program (Baltimore). . . . . . . . . 27

Youth Services Provider Network (Boston) . . . . . . . . . 28

Community Parenting Program (Columbia) . . . . . . . . 29

Line Officer Grant Program (Metro-Denver) . . . . . . . . 30

Domestic Violence Program (East Bay Corridor,

California) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Drug Rehabilitation Court (Fort Worth) . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Community Court (Hartford). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Safe Schools Project (Metro-Omaha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
vi

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Juvenile Justice Committee (Phoenix) . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Community Peace Services (Salt Lake City) . . . . . . . . 38

Youth Call II Action Anti-Violence Fund (Seattle) . . . . . 39

Community Education Program (Wichita) . . . . . . . . . 40

Juvenile Drug Diversion Court (Wilmington) . . . . . . . 42

Chapter 3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Sources for Further Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Contents (continued)
vii

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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

❑ Partnership and collaboration.

❑ Shared problem solving.

❑ 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.
Promising Approaches Developed by Comprehensive Communities Program Sites

CCP Site Planning / Infrastructure Intervention

Metro-Atlanta, Georgia Greater Atlanta Data Center Crime Prevention Through 

Environmental Design 

Baltimore, Maryland Maryland HotSpot Communities Save a Neighborhood

Initiative

Boston, Massachusetts Strategic planning Youth Services Provider Network 

Columbia, South Carolina Community mobilizers Community Parenting Program

Metro-Denver, Colorado Colorado Consortium for Line Officer Grant Program

Community Policing

East Bay Corridor, California East Bay Public Safety Domestic Violence Program

Corridor Partnership

Fort Worth, Texas Neighborhood police officers Drug Rehabilitation Court

Hartford, Connecticut Problem-solving committees Community Court

Metro-Omaha, Nebraska Safe Futures Consortium Safe Schools Project

Phoenix, Arizona Community policing Juvenile Justice Committee

and mobilization

Salt Lake City, Utah Community action teams Community Peace Services

Seattle, Washington Problem-solving training Youth Call II Action Anti-Violence 

Fund

Wichita, Kansas Neighborhood Initiative/ Community Education Program;

Neighborhood Strategy lighted schools

Wilmington, Delaware Neighborhood planning councils Juvenile Drug Diversion Court

viii

Bureau of Justice Assistance
1

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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

❑ A strategic action plan for their jurisdiction including goals and strategies

for a crime control, crime prevention, and community organization effort.

❑ Sustainment strategies to continue their program after the cessation of

federal funding.

❑ 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

❑ 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. 

❑ Developing a shared vision of the future, considering the history of the

jurisdiction’s partnerships, politics, and processes as a context for the

program.

❑ Gathering and analyzing data pertaining to the jurisdiction’s economic

and social conditions, crime problems, and local public or private

Chapter 1
resources and programs that are or could be directed toward crime

reduction. 

❑ 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.

❑ Developing an action plan to carry out the strategies.

❑ Developing a plan to manage the implementation of the action plan. 

❑ 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

❑ Creating an action planning team.

❑ Revisiting the CCP planning process.

❑ Reviewing and assessing the CCP mission.

❑ Revising CCP goals as necessary. 

Sustainment action planning includes 

❑ Formulating the sustainment mission, goals, and success factors. 

❑ Identifying approaches (strategies) to achieve sustainment objectives. 

❑ Assessing resources.

❑ Assessing management structures.

❑ Ensuring action through time/task charting.

❑ Assessing the action plan progress.

2

Bureau of Justice Assistance
3

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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: 

❑ Implement a neighborhood policing strategy that reduces crime by

identifying and addressing community priorities.

❑ 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, nextavailable-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.
4

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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

❑ 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.

❑ Ten police district teams, with membership drawn from the same stakeholder categories as the citywide team but on the neighborhood level.

❑ 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

❑ 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.

❑ Quantifiable crime reduction goals based on specific neighborhood

concerns.

❑ 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. 
5

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

❑ 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 communitybased 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 highrisk offenders, and maintenance/nuisance abatement; afterschool programs; and local coordination by MOCJ. Enhancing elements include
6

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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
7

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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 

❑ Development of advisory boards for each council district in the city.

❑ Development of mini-city halls in each quadrant of the city.

❑ Expansion of the Youth Recreation Alliance, before and afterschool

programs in 10 of 15 schools.

❑ Creation of a centralized housing and revitalization department.

❑ 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
8

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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 computerbased 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

❑ Increasing the accessibility and use of information by providing the

means to visualize and integrate data via GIS software.

❑ Improving dissemination of information through support for secure

input, storage, and retrieval of crime-related data.

❑ Providing the ability to retrieve, analyze, and integrate shared information relevant to public safety.

❑ 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

❑ Developing and expanding the GIS capabilities of the partnered police

departments.

❑ Providing a secure network for data and information exchange among

police jurisdictions.

❑ Integrating crime-incident data into the custom GIS application to

provide a way to analyze crime regionally.

❑ 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
9

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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
10

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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 longterm 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 
11

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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, MetroDenver 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 MetroDenver 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. 
12

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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.
13

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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.
14

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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.
15

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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
16

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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 youthrelated 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
17

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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.
18

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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
19

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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 problemsolving 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:
20

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ 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.

❑ 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.

❑ 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.

❑ 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.

❑ 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.

❑ 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 buyin 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
21

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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 problemsolving 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
22

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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. 
23

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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.
25

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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:

❑ Community prosecution and diversion. 

❑ Antigang and youth activity. 

❑ Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). 

❑ Drug courts.

❑ 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.

Chapter 2
26

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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, MetroAtlanta 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

❑ Undertake a complete CPTED analysis process from physical assessment

to development of recommendations to mobilization of community

support.

❑ 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.

❑ Define CPTED benefits to various stakeholders. 

❑ Use CPTED’s methodology of movement patterns, integrated/segregated

street patterns, space analysis, and site analysis.

❑ Use basic CPTED techniques, including access control, surveillance, territorial reinforcement, and territorial maintenance. 

❑ 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
27

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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 sixpart 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.
28

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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

❑ 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. 

❑ The Drug Nuisance Law, which allows a community to file suit against a

property being used by drug dealers. 

❑ 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
29

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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.
30

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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:

❑ Columbia Housing Authority provides sites, distributes publicity, identifies and refers clients, and provides volunteers and transportation

through church volunteers.

❑ Boys & Girls Clubs of America identifies a pool of teenagers to attend

child-care training through voluntary associations and local churches.

❑ Baptist Medical Center provides teenagers with childcare training.

❑ Volunteer Action Center of the Midlands recruits volunteers to serve as

leaders for children’s activities.

❑ 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-yearold 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
31

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

department’s criminal justice division and was put into practice in MetroDenver 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:

❑ Have both an officer and a community member signed the application?

❑ Have the partners gone through the SARA (scan, analyze, respond,

assess) model of problem solving in developing the funding request?

❑ 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
32

Bureau of Justice Assistance

health services, community representatives, and nonprofit providers, the

partnership set the following goals:

❑ Standardized operating protocols for the police.

❑ Training for all officers in the region on standardized policies and

domestic abuse problem solving.

❑ 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.
33

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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.
34

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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-today 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
35

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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 problemsolving 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.
36

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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

❑ Overall environmental assessment and relationship building.

❑ Review of internal school climate and crisis preparedness.

❑ Defining and formalizing ongoing school partnerships.
37

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

❑ 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
38

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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
39

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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
40

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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. 
41

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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

❑ Developing lighted school partnerships in targeted neighborhoods to

provide facilities and supportive services for community education

activities.

❑ Involving local residents in a process of asset-based community development planning.

❑ Identifying local resources for strengthening individuals, families, and

communities via lifelong learning opportunities.

❑ 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

❑ Opening pilot lighted schools in Colvin Elementary School and

Northeast Magnet High School.

❑ Developing neighborhood advisory councils and providing training in

asset-based community development.

❑ Identifying needs and assets in the targeted communities.

❑ Implementing strategic planning.

❑ Developing and strengthening partnerships based on identified needs. 

❑ Expanding the program through additional lighted schools.

❑ Launching the CEP initiative citywide, with programs at all city sites.

❑ 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
42

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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

❑ Healthy Options for Planeview, which assists in health issues in the

Colvin neighborhood.

❑ 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.

❑ Community Housing Services Partnerships, which has assisted more

than 75 households in preparing for home ownership within the last 

2 years.

❑ Campaign to End Childhood Hunger and the Midwest Anti-Hunger

Network, which are partnering with neighborhoods to address sustainable food security issues.

❑ 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.
43

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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. 
45

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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 

❑ Brings together individuals and agencies affected by crime problems

with those who can provide solutions. 

❑ Empowers these individuals and agencies to take an active role in developing solutions through a collaborative process. 

❑ 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. 

Chapter 3
47

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

Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

Sources for Further Information
Bureau of Justice Assistance

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

48
Comprehensive Communities Program: Promising Approaches

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.

49
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:

❒ Mail

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

❒ Visit

2277 Research Boulevard

Rockville, MD 20850

❒ Telephone

1–800–688–4252

Monday through Friday

8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.

eastern time

❒ Fax

301–519–5212

❒ Fax on Demand

1–800–688–4252

❒ BJA Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

❒ NCJRS Home Page

www.ncjrs.org

❒ E-mail

askncjrs@ncjrs.org

❒ JUSTINFO Newsletter

E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

Leave the subject line blank

In the body of the message,

type:

subscribe justinfo 

[your name] 
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BJA World Wide Web Address

For a copy of this document online, 

as well as more information on BJA, 

check the BJA Home Page at 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJA

PERMIT NO. G–91