DOI: 10.3886/icpsr06644
title: Effects of the Baltimore County, Maryland, Police Department's Community-Oriented Drug Enforcement (Code) Program, 1990-1992
title: Archival Version

description: This study was an evaluation of the Baltimore County Community-Oriented Drug Enforcement (CODE) Program, which was designed to introduce community policing approaches to combating drug sales in local jurisdictions. In particular, the aim of this project was to assess the effects of the CODE program with respect to citizen attitudes, crime, and market displacement. The CODE program was evaluated as it evolved from 1990 (Phase I) through the end of 1991 (Phase II). In Phase I, a total of seven CODE projects in five of the nine precincts in Baltimore County were funded, and the evaluation examined four of the seven projects. Under Phase II, seven projects in six of the precincts were implemented. The Phase II evaluation examined three of the projects. To measure the effects of the CODE program on citizen perceptions, surveys of adult residents were conducted in each of the four target areas during Phase I and in three target areas during Phase II (Parts 1 and 2). To evaluate the impact of CODE on crime, court records from the Clerk of Courts were examined to determine the dispositional outcomes of adults arrested under the CODE program. In Phase I, burglaries and robberies in each of the four target areas were compared to those in the remainder of the precincts (Parts 3-10). These two crime types were chosen because they were often associated with drug activity. Because of the limited numbers of burglaries and robberies found in the target areas in Phase I, the analysis was expanded in Phase II to include Part I index crimes (Parts 11-14) and Part II crimes, including drug crimes (Parts 15-20). Parts 1 and 2, Community Survey Data, contain variables concerning victimization experiences, fear of crime, drug sales in the neighborhood, crime prevention strategies, satisfaction with police, police visibility, and community organizing before and after the CODE program was implemented. Demographic variables include age, race, gender, education, marital status, and employment. Parts 3-20 include information on offense code, precinct, beat, UCR code, date the crime was reported, date the crime occurred, disposition, number of victims, and relationship of victim to suspect. In addition, Parts 11-20 contain street address and ZIP code variables, and Parts 11-14 include "x" and "y" coordinates.
description: Historically, many police departments enforced laws prohibiting the sale and possession of controlled dangerous substances through centralized, relatively autonomous vice and narcotics units. These narcotics units focused on mid- and upper-level distribution networks to cut off the supplies of drugs at the lower level. With the advent of cocaine, particularly crack, the relatively hidden drug transactions between users and low-level drug dealers evolved into highly visible, potentially violent street-corner activities. In response, some police departments began experimenting with problem-oriented or community-oriented approaches to combating drug sales in their jurisdictions. One such approach was the Community-Oriented Drug Enforcement (CODE) program implemented by the Baltimore County, Maryland, Police Department. Through the CODE program, the police department responded directly to citizen complaints about street-level drug trafficking in specific targeted neighborhoods with cooperative efforts between vice/narcotics detectives and precinct-level officers. Innovative community-oriented tactics were employed in cooperation with community organizations, rental management, and others to respond to citizen complaints about local drug trafficking and to change the conditions thought to contribute to trafficking. Phase I of the CODE program was implemented in 1990 and was characterized as generally more decentralized, with the precincts having the primary responsibility for implementation of both the traditional enforcement efforts, including raids, and the community-oriented programs that followed the raids. Phase II of the CODE program began in 1991 with the establishment of a CODE team administratively located within the vice/narcotics unit, which resulted in a more traditional narcotics emphasis. The aim of this project was to evaluate: (1) how the CODE program was designed and implemented, (2) how the actual precinct-level target projects were implemented, and (3) the effects that the CODE program appeared to have on citizen attitudes, crime, and market displacement.
description: This program evaluation was based upon a nonexperimental research design, since controls for confounding influences through random interventions with control group comparisons could not be employed. The CODE program was evaluated as it evolved from 1990 (Phase I) through the end of 1991 (Phase II). In Phase I, a total of seven CODE projects in five of the nine precincts in Baltimore County were funded, and the evaluation examined four of the seven projects. Under Phase II, seven projects in six of the precincts were implemented. The Phase II evaluation examined only three of the projects due to the ongoing nature of other projects beyond the evaluation period, and other research constraints. To measure the effects of the CODE program on citizen perceptions, surveys of adult residents were conducted in each of the four target areas during Phase I and in three target areas during Phase II (Parts 1 and 2). The Phase I Community Survey consisted only of a post-raid component because of concerns voiced by the police. Door-to-door surveys were conducted by the police in the four target areas, and efforts to develop working relationships between the police and the neighborhood residents and associations were stressed. Pre-raid surveys were added in Phase II, but to accommodate the concerns of vice/narcotics command staff and detectives that the effectiveness of the undercover operations not be compromised or undercover detectives' safety jeopardized, the Phase II community surveys were conducted pre- and post-raids by telephone. Calls to selected households were made at various times of the morning, afternoon, evening, and weekend days. Staff sought to interview the same individuals on the post-raid survey that had been interviewed in the pre-raid surveys. In cases where the pre-raid interviewee was not available, another adult resident of the household was surveyed after the raids. To ensure that the survey was understandable and the items measured what was intended, a large number of items were used from previous NIJ-supported citizen surveys, with some modifications to reflect the population surveyed. Modifications in language and items for the Phase II surveys were also made based upon staff experience in administering the survey in Phase I. To evaluate the impact of CODE on crime, court records from the Clerk of Courts were examined to determine the dispositional outcomes of adults arrested under the CODE program. In Phase I, burglaries and robberies in each of the four target areas were compared to those in the remainder of the precincts (Parts 3-10). These two crime types were chosen because they were often associated with drug activity. Because of the limited numbers of burglaries and robberies found in the target areas in Phase I, the analysis was expanded in Phase II to include Part I index crimes (Parts 11-14) and Part II crimes, including drug crimes (Parts 15-20).
description: Parts 1 and 2, Community Survey Data, contain variables concerning victimization experiences, fear of crime, drug sales in the neighborhood, crime prevention strategies, satisfaction with police, police visibility, and community organizing before and after the CODE program was implemented. Demographic variables include age, race, gender, education, marital status, and employment. Parts 3-20 include information on offense code, precinct, beat, UCR code, date the crime was reported, date the crime occurred, disposition, number of victims, and relationship between victim and suspect. In addition, Parts 11-20 contain street address and ZIP code variables, and Parts 11-14 include "x" and "y" coordinates.
description: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Standardized missing values.; Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used in Parts 1 and 2.
description: Response Rates: The Phase I post-raid survey (Part 1) sought to interview approximately 100 households in each target area. The number of usable surveys obtained was 277, resulting in a response rate of 66.3 percent of all households contacted. For the pre-raid surveys in Phase II (Part 2), the number of selected telephone numbers in each target area not interviewed prior to achieving the desired sample size for each target area was not available. Of the 350 households that responded to the pre-raid surveys, 62.3 percent also responded to the post-raid surveys.
description: Datasets: 
 
 DS0: Study-Level Files 
 DS1: Phase I Community Survey Data 
 DS2: Phase II Community Survey Data 
 DS3: Phase I Tall Trees Burglary Data 
 DS4: Phase I Fontanna Burglary Data 
 DS5: Phase I Turner Burglary Data 
 DS6: Phase I Featherbed Burglary Data 
 DS7: Phase I Tall Trees Robbery Data 
 DS8: Phase I Fontanna Robbery Data 
 DS9: Phase I Turner Robbery Data 
 DS10: Phase I Featherbed Robbery Data 
 DS11: Precinct 1 Part I Crime Data 
 DS12: Target Area 6 Part I Crime Data 
 DS13: Precinct 6 Part I Crime Data 
 DS14: Precinct 11 Part I Crime Data 
 DS15: Precinct 1 Part II 1990 Crime Data 
 DS16: Precinct 1 Part II 1991-1992 Crime Data 
 DS17: Target Area 6 Part II 1990 Crime Data 
 DS18: Target Area 6 Part II 1991-1992 Crime Data 
 DS19: Precinct 6 Part II 1991-1992 Crime Data 
 DS20: Precinct 11 Part II 1991-1992 Crime Data
description: (1) For Parts 11-20, the column locations found in the SAS and SPSS data definition statements were created by ICPSR to best fit the ASCII data files received from the principal investigators. The original record layouts from the principal investigators are included in the appendix of the codebook. Although the data definition statements will read the corresponding data files, there are some discrepancies for certain variables, especially those named BLANK. Users should exercise caution when interpreting these data. (2) The names of the original data files from the principal investigators for Parts 12 and 18 suggested that these data were from Target Area 4. However, these data correspond to Precinct 1, and the hardcopy documentation indicates that Target Area 6 was located in Precinct 1. Therefore, ICPSR has renamed these parts Target Area 6. (3) Users are encouraged to obtain the Phase I and Phase II Final Reports from the National Institute of Justice for a more complete description of the CODE Program implementation and evaluation, as well as the characteristics of each target area. (4) The codebook and data collection instruments are provided as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.
description: Neighborhoods in Baltimore County targeted by the CODE program in 1990 and 1991.
description: Selection of the neighborhoods to target was based on the nature of drug problems within certain neighborhoods, citizen complaints, and previous experience with certain tactics. For the Phase I post-raid Community Survey (Part 1), a convenience sample of approximately 100 households in each target area was selected. During Phase II (Part 2), a random sample of 100 households in Target Area 5 and 100 households in Target Area 6 was selected, and a random sample of 150 households was selected for Target Area 7.