X hits on this document

PDF document

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared ... - page 30 / 48

94 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

30 / 48

Columbia’s CCP: A Case Study

Columbia Network Analysis

The original network sample in Columbia contained 39 target individuals. The level of contact between these individuals was relatively high compared to other sites4. Individual respondents reported having contact with any- where from 28% to 64% of the total network (with a median of 46%). Thus, all 39 targets met the minimum criterion for inclusion in the network analy- sis, i.e., having contact with at least 10% of the total network “at least every few months.” Two of the five most frequently contacted persons were from the Planning Division of the City’s Community Services Department— the Planning Director (64%), and the Grants Coordinator (59%). Of the other three, two were from the Boys and Girls Clubs (64%) and the Urban League (59%) and the third was the Chief of Police (59%).

A two-dimensional smallest-space analysis was used as the best way to depict the observed relationships. Kruskal’s stress statistic was very satisfactory. The stress value is .20 and the R² value is .81. The two dimensions are not easily interpretable, perhaps because the data tended to cluster around one major network. The horizontal axis seems to be partially definable by mu- nicipally-driven, neighborhood-focused programs on the right side (e.g. youth- oriented prevention and community policing activities organized primarily by city departments and other agencies), in contrast to judicially-driven di- version and juvenile justice interventions on the left side. The vertical axis may reflect a distinction between politicians/senior executives on the top and

operational managers below the horizontal axis.

Less ambiguous is the interpretation of key clusters in the network.

The

analysis in Columbia yielded one large high-density cluster and two small, low-density clusters. The major cluster, labeled “Key Agency Partners,” cov- ers both the upper right and lower right quadrants, spreading across the horizontal (x) axis. This group of individuals illustrates a true multi-agency partnership at the management level, as the key actors in the primary agen- cies report having regular contact and communication with one another for both planning and implementation functions. The City of Columbia’s Police Department Planning Division is at the hub of the planning and implementa- tion process. City agencies represented in this primary cluster include the Police, the Community Development and Planning Divisions of the Commu- nity Services Department, Parks and Recreation, the City Manager’s Office,

4Sites with smaller networks (or at least fewer survey respondents) generally have network members who interact more frequently. Thus, as might be ex- pected, these differences between sites in the amount of contact are partially attributable to the size of the network.

BOTEC Analysis Corporation

26

Document info
Document views94
Page views94
Page last viewedFri Dec 02 18:44:02 UTC 2016
Pages48
Paragraphs1496
Words16856

Comments