Week 5 Project - Due Sep 20, 5:59 PM CJ6004 Criminal Justice

Week 5 Project - Due Sep 20, :59 PMMCJ6004 Criminal Justice Plan

The seventh stage of planned change—Initiating the Program or Policy Plan—focuses on weaknesses of the first six stages of planned change. It is critical for the planner to review the first six stages in order to ensure a greater chance of success. This week you will prepare a report in Microsoft Word reviewing the implementation of your program or policy. You will then evaluate outcomes. This report is to be presented to an audience that includes members of the Center for Justice, the Mayor of Fictionland, and the Chief of Police.

The report should include the following elements:

Part I: Compilation of previous steps, with additional detail

• A summary of the problem-solving technique employed.
• A list of two potential sources contributing to the problem. Also argue why you believe these factors are responsible for the community-police problem(s) in Fictionland.
• A summary of the newly created goal(s) and objective(s).
• A detailed explanation of the program or policy adopted.
• An action plan.
• Tools used to conduct a process evaluation.
• Tools used to conduct an outcome evaluation.
• Conclusion to the program or policy implementation and outcome.

Part II: Create measures for evaluation of the design and objectives of your program or policy for the Fictionland Police Department

Include the following points in your report:

• Considering the objectives that you created in a previous assignment, create two measures to evaluate the effectiveness of your program or policy for every objective.
• Include a statement as to why these measures are valid measures.

Name your file MCJ6004_W5_A2_LastName_FirstInitial.doc, and submit it to the Submissions Area by the due date assigned. Cite any sources using APA format on a separate page.

Paper For Above instruction

The effective initiation and implementation of a community policing program within Fictionland requires a systematic approach encompassing planning, evaluation, and continuous improvement. In this report, I will review the steps taken to implement a community-oriented policing policy, evaluate its outcomes, and propose measures for ongoing assessment.

Part I: Compilation of Previous Steps with Additional Detail

The problem-solving technique employed for this initiative was a collaborative community analysis combined with evidence-based policing strategies. By engaging community stakeholders, law enforcement officials identified key issues such as distrust between residents and police and frequent disturbances in high-crime neighborhoods. The analysis data was supplemented by crime statisticsand citizen surveys, which clarified priority issues and informed intervention strategies.

Two primary sources contributing to the policing problem in Fictionland were identified as socioeconomic disparities and inadequate community engagement. Socioeconomic disparities create stressors that contribute to higher crime rates, while limited community outreach hampers trust-building efforts. These factors are supported by research demonstrating that economic inequality correlates with higher crime rates (Sampson & Wilson, 1995) and that community engagement improves cooperation between police and residents (Skogan & Hartnett, 2005).

The goal of the program was to foster trust and collaboration between police and the community, with objectives focusing on improving community relations, reducing crime rates, and increasing resident participation in problem-solving initiatives. The policy adopted was a community policing model emphasizing proactive outreach, neighborhood patrols, and partnership-building activities.

The action plan involved training officers in community engagement techniques, establishing regular town hall meetings, and deploying foot and bike patrols to enhance visibility. The process evaluation tools included officer activity logs, community feedback forms, and officer interviews. Outcome evaluations relied on crime statistics, resident surveys assessing perceptions of safety, and participation rates in community meetings.

The implementation phase faced challenges such as resistance within law enforcement to shift from traditional patrol methods, but ongoing training and leadership support facilitated adaptation. The program's outcomes indicated a gradual increase in community trust levels, a slight decrease in certain crime metrics, and higher participation in community events. These results suggest a positive impact, although continuous assessment is necessary to sustain improvements.

Part II: Evaluation Measures for the Program

For each objective, two specific measures are proposed:

Objective 1: Improve community relations

• Measure 1: Number of community engagement events held annually—this quantifies officer presence and outreach efforts. It is valid because increased engagement correlates with improved relationships (Sampson & Laub, 1993).
• Measure 2: Resident perception survey scores regarding trust in police—this directly assesses community attitudes and is validated through established survey instruments.

Objective 2: Reduce neighborhood crime rates

• Measure 1: Monthly reported crime incidents in targeted neighborhoods—objective tracking of crime reduction. Its validity is rooted in crime trend analysis (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).
• Measure 2: Clearance rate of cases related to community policing initiatives—this evaluates investigative effectiveness linked to community efforts, validated by crime solving literature (Sherman, 1995).

These measures are valid because they are quantifiable, directly related to objectives, and supported by existing research demonstrating their correlation with community policing success.

References

• Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford University Press.
• Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime and the life course: Toward a developmental and social psychology of criminals. Stanford University Press.
• Sampson, R. J., & Wilson, W. J. (1995). Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban inequality. In J. Hagan & R. D. Peterson (Eds.), Crime and inequality (pp. 37-54). Stanford University Press.
• Skogan, W., & Hartnett, S. (2005). Screening services, police, and communities: Lessons from Chicago. Crime & Delinquency, 51(4), 504–529.
• Sherman, L. W. (1995). Problem-oriented policing. Crime & Delinquency, 41(4), 541–557.