Columbia’s CCP: A Case Study
that they were not supported by other existent agencies or programs; they were). How much greater their impact will be with the availability of CCP- funded service providers remains to be seen.
However, I have no doubt social service, housing, employment, and other services still serve clients independently of the police department, residential officers, and mobilizers—even in target areas. The CPD, mobilizers and other officers, however, served at least two purposes: first, they made access to troubled areas possible to both service organizations and commerce and, sec- ond, they served, and brokered services to, some of the most troubled and troublesome clients. Of course, the CPD does this work within the context of their commitment to controlling their “turf” and to working preventively with children and youths.
This, of course, returns us to a question raised earlier. Is this police work? Could mobilizers do the same work if they were not police? Are mobilizers doing for citizens what other agencies should be doing? These questions, of course, have been the subject of much debate over the past decade. Their ob- vious significance in Columbia’s neighborhoods adds more to the controversy.
Finally, what was the importance of CCP funds? Preliminarily, CCP funds appeared to be used, first, to further or complete Chief Austin’s implementa- tion of community policing. As such, the funds were used to pursue an active agenda. Second, CCP funds were used, whether intentionally or not, to test the capabilities of police as community mobilizers in a community context of a broad political, organizational, and social consensus about what needs to be done in communities. This test was interesting and promising. Moreover, funds provided resources, while not exclusively, nonetheless especially for mobilizers. The level of their activities and their worth is yet largely to be determined.
BOTEC Analysis Corporation