Columbia’s CCP: A Case Study
and the Mayor’s Office. The police chief, mayor, city manager, and Assistant City Manager are all involved in the CCP network, as well as the directors of community development, police planning, and community policing. Equally noteworthy is the involvement of non-municipal agencies, including the School District, Boys and Girls Clubs, the Urban League, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council, the Housing Authority, and the Council of Neighborhoods. The latter is a mature and influential organization that interacts with top city officials on a regular basis. Also, the Columbia Housing Authority is cen- trally located in the primary cluster and plays a key role in this initiative. The community mobilizers from the Police Department, who are the center- piece of CCP in Columbia, are based in public housing sites. Field interviews inform us that inter-agency partnerships were functioning at the street level as community mobilizers crossed numerous bureaucratic boundaries to solve family and neighborhood problems. What this network analysis confirms is that similar partnerships were occurring at the upper levels of management.
The remaining two groups are almost too small to be called clusters. In the lower left quadrant, there is a small cluster that is labeled “Alternatives to Incarceration.” The group is defined by personnel from the Department of Juvenile Justice who divert young offenders from the juvenile justice system to programs such as Operation Success (also in the cluster). The other small group is in the upper left quadrant and is labeled “Drug Court/Diversion.” This cluster appears to be built around the drug court and includes staff from the drug court, the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council, and the U. S. Attorney’s office. (Nearby is the judge who started this program). These two small mini- clusters are distant from the primary cluster of key partners in multi- dimensional space.
This network analysis is limited by the data it contains. As with other sites, some networks in Columbia are known to exist at the level of field operations, but are not captured here because their members are not sufficiently repre- sented in the present database. For example, this survey cannot be used to characterize or map the extensive contacts made by the Police Department’s community mobilizers or contacts between diverse members of Columbia’s Council of Neighborhoods. They were simply not listed on the questionnaire.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation