Community Policing in Chicago, Year Two: An Interim Report

• NCJ Number: 156071
• Date Published: 1995
• Length: 100 pages
• Grant Number(s): 91-DB-CX-0017; 92-DB-CX-0017; 94-IJ-CX-0046; 93-IJ-CX-K014; 94-IJ-CX-0011
• Agencies: NIJ-Sponsored
• Publication Type: Program/Project Description

Annotation

This is an interim evaluation report for the second year of Chicago's Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS), which began in April 1993 in an effort to implement community policing.

Abstract

The heart of the CAPS is the reorganization of policing around small geographical areas. Officers assigned to beat teams identify and deal with a broad range of neighborhood problems in partnership with neighborhood residents and community organization. To give beat officers time to do this, some of the responsibility of responding to 911 calls has been shifted to rapid response teams and tactical units. A prioritizing system was developed for coordinating the delivery of municipal services to support local problemsolving efforts. This report is based on an ongoing evaluation of the planning, implementation, and impact of CAPS throughout the city. Most of it focuses on what occurred in five prototype police districts where all of the program elements were field tested. The material presented in this report was obtained through surveys of neighborhood residents, interviews with officers from all levels of the Chicago Police Department, discussions with community leaders, observations of meetings and training sessions, and a systematic survey of neighborhood activities. An analysis of reported crime figures and survey reports of victimization and neighborhood problems found a significant decrease in perceived crime problems in all five prototype areas. Optimism about the police increased significantly in four prototype areas. Other matters analyzed in the evaluation were program visibility, police supervisors' opinions about CAPS, beat meetings, partnerships in action, community organization involvement, district advisory committees, and court advocacy. 5 tables and 15 figures