Policing & Program Evaluation

1. Policing & Program Evaluation Community Policing in Chicago

2. Basics • Conducted by Northwestern University • Quasi-experimental design • Study examined impact of Chicago’s COP • Examined neighborhood problems • Combined process & impact evaluations

3. Policy Space • Research VERY timely • COP is issues with international appeal • COP continues to be dominant policing philosophy • COP seems to be effective • Great way to broaden evaluation methodologies – evaluate ‘new’ issues

4. Process evaluation Examine program design and implementation Document a program’s theory Or, how developers thought it was supposed to work Impact evaluation Analyze effects program has on problem Strength depends on design and how well it measures what program might accomplish 2 Types of Evaluations

5. Background • COPS came to Chicago in May, 1993 • Was in the form of Chicago’s Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) • District commanders, senior department executives, civilian planners outlined policies & procedures necessary to make community policing workable

6. COPS • Problem solving orientation • Field tested in 5 diverse experimental districts • In experimental districts officers used problem solving • Officers divided into beat teams and rapid response units

7. Mission Statement • “It is this focus on prevention through a stronger government-community partnership that holds real hope for addressing some of the City’s most difficult neighborhood problems – and for doing so in a way that is far less expensive than constantly reacting to those problems after the fact”

8. Partnerships • Monthly beat meetings held in each of the 54 small beats in the 5 experimental areas • These were public meetings with residents and beat team members • Procedures developed to link city services with COPS

9. City Services • Beat officers able to quickly mobilize • Building inspectors • Street cleaners • Repair trucks • Other applicable service providers • Able to get cars towed, squatters removed, graffiti cleaned, trash removed

10. Research Design • Program impact measures came from resident surveys • Random samples of residents • 2 surveys at 2 time periods • Respondents surveys 18 months apart • Program effects assessed based on changes over time between the surveys

11. Design • 1990 Census data used to select city areas closely matching the experimental areas • Crime rates not used as matching criteria • Matching criteria included race, home ownership, % residents living in large buildings

12. Evaluability Question – From Class • In this evaluation changes in conditions in the comparison areas were used to represent what would have happened in the experimental districts in the absence of the program (COPS wasn’t extended to entire city until after evaluation period)

13. Results • Survey #1 response rate was 59% • Survey #2 response rate was 60% • Those less likely to respond • Hispanics • Men • Those with less education • Young • Renters

14. Impact on Neighborhood Problems • First examined ‘big’ problems identified by residents • 2 biggest were ‘street drug dealing’ and ‘shooting and violence by gangs’ • Correlation between those 2 measures was 0.72

15. Impact on Problem Clusters • Major Crime: car vandalism, auto theft, burglary, street crime, rape • Reliability 0.85 • Gangs and Drugs: street drug dealing, shootings and gang violence • Correlation between the two measures 0.72 • Physical Decay: vacant lots with trash, abandoned cars, abandoned houses, graffiti • Reliability 0.75

16. Displacement? • Geographic • Time • Border areas to experimental districts identified as possible displacement sites • Researchers examined change scores for the 3 areas defined as displacement zones • No evidence of any displacement