Program Profile: Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS)

This is a community-based program that brings police, local government agencies, and the community together to prioritize problems and prevention efforts in Chicago, Ill. The goal is to solve neighborhood crime problems, rather than react to only to their symptomatic consequences. The program is rated Promising. Police beats or geographical units that implemented the program experienced a statistically significant reduction in crime and calls to 911, compared with police beats that did not.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals

The Chicago (IL) Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) is a community-based program established to transform policing efforts into an efficient five-step process for law enforcement. The goal of CAPS is to solve neighborhood crime problems, rather than merely to react to their symptomatic consequences.

Target Sites

The program was developed by the Chicago Police Department (CPD) in 1993. The program began in five policing districts but expanded to encompass the entire city of Chicago after a testing phase. Program development included the collaborative efforts of each district’s commanders, senior department executives, and civilian planners.

Program Activities

Program activities consist of law enforcement’s concentrating more intensively on the community and on prevention, while rotating with other teams that handle lower-priority and rapid response calls.

A five-step process was created for CPD to implement CAPS. The process consists of 1) identifying and prioritizing problems, 2) analyzing problems, 3) strategizing designs to deal with problems, 4) implementing a plan, and 5) evaluating effectiveness. Meetings with law enforcement and community advisory committees happen on a monthly basis; extensive trainings with both groups occur regularly. Efficient use of city services and new technology also are components to help target crime in each area. For example, the Mayor’s Liquor License Commission, the Department of Streets and Sanitation, and the Department of Buildings collaborate to manage small crime before they become larger issues (CPD 1998).

Community commitment and involvement are another main component of CAPS. Civic education, media ads, billboards, brochures, festival booths, and rallies are being used to promote awareness of CAPS throughout Chicago neighborhoods.

Key Personnel

Law enforcement, community residents, local government, and assigned lieutenants from CPD are all important in implementing CAPS. Collaboratively, all parties are part of the identification, implementation, and resolution process.

Study

The evaluation of the Chicago (IL) Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) by Kim and Skogan (2003) used a time-series analysis to test the effectiveness of the city-run program.

Crime data was aggregated from information on 3.9 million individual crime incidents that were reported to the police from January 1996 through June 2002 (78 months). The data on 911 calls was aggregated from 23.4 million calls to the city of Chicago’s Office of Emergency Management and Communications from January 1999 through April 2002 (40 months). Data collection was broken into two data sets. For the first data set, the Chicago Police Department originally selected 74 geographical units; 37 beats were to receive CAPS, and 37 were to be used as comparison units. However, because of unavailable data, 66 units were examined; 33 received the CAPS intervention, and 33 were used as comparison units. The second data set of 911 calls consisted of 50 units; 25 beats received the CAPS intervention, and 25 were comparison units.

For each data set, there were nine possible configurations of comparisons—with three configurations being considered successful.

The following list presents the nine different configurations of comparison, with the successful configurations bolded. The three bolded configurations are considered successful because their outcome met the intended results of the CAPS program. For example, in configurations 1 and 2, crime decreased following the intervention and increased or remained unchanged in comparison areas that received no intervention. Configuration 4 shows that crime remained unchanged during implementation and increased in comparison.

1. Decrease in crime on the beat and increased crime in the comparison
2. Decrease in crime on the beat and unchanged crime in the comparison
3. Decrease in crime on the beat and decreased crime in the comparison
4. Unchanged crime on the beat and increased crime in the comparison
5. Unchanged crime on the beat and unchanged crime in the comparison
6. Unchanged crime on the beat and decreased crime in the comparison
7. Increase in crime on the beat and increased crime in the comparison
8. Increase in crime on the beat and unchanged crime in the comparison
9. Increase in crime on the beat and decreased crime in the comparison

A Box–Jenkins Intervention Analysis was conducted for each time series. It distinguishes between gradual and immediate changes in crime, whether those changes were through June 2002, were temporary, or were permanent in nature, and whether trends in the study beats were unique or simply matched trends in similar areas of the city. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

Skogan and colleagues (2002) explain that implementation required police and neighborhood residents to be trained in handling problems using the following five-step process:

1. Identify problems, and prioritize them incorporating community input.
2. Analyze information about those who committed the offense, their victims, and crime locations.
3. Design strategies that address the chronic character of priority problems by thinking “outside the box” of traditional police enforcement tactics, using new resources that were developed by the city to support problem-solving efforts.
4. Implement the strategies—a step that requires special skill and effort by the community, police, and other city departments as they attempt to put plans into actual motion.
5. Evaluate effectiveness through self-assessments to determine how well the plan has been carried out and what good has been accomplished by it.

Additional information can be found in the 2002 report by Skogan and colleagues.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Chicago (Ill.) Community Policing Evaluation Consortium. 2004a. “Community Policing in Chicago, Year 10: An Evaluation of Chicago’s Alternative Policing Strategy.” Chicago, Ill.: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

Chicago (Ill.) Community Policing Evaluation Consortium. 2004b. “Evaluation Summary.” Chicago, Ill.: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

City of Chicago, Ill. 1993. “Fact Sheet: The Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy.” Chicago, Ill.: Chicago Police Department.

Chicago (Ill.) Police Department. 1998. “CAPS at 5: A Report on the Progress of Community Policing in Chicago.” Chicago, Ill.: Chicago Police Department.

Lombardo, Robert M., and David E. Olson. 2010. “The Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy: A Reassessment of the CAPS Program.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 33(4):596–606. (This study was reviewed but did not meet CrimeSolutions criteria for inclusion in the overall program rating.)

Skogan, Wesley G. 1996. “Evaluating Problem-Solving Policing: The Chicago Experience.” Evanston, Ill.: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.

Skogan, Wesley G. 1998. “Community Policing in Chicago.” In Geoffrey Alpert and Alex R, Piquero (eds.). Community Policing: Contemporary Readings. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press, Inc.

Skogan, Wesley G. 2005. “Evaluating Community Policing in Chicago.” In Kent R. Kerley (ed.). Policing and Program Evaluation. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. (This study was reviewed but did not meet CrimeSolutions' criteria for inclusion in the overall program rating.)

Skogan, Wesley G., Susan M. Hartnett, Jill DuBois, Jennifer T. Comey, Karla Twedt–Ball, and J. Erik Gudell. 2000. Public Involvement: Community Policing in Chicago. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Skogan, Wesley G., Susan M. Hartnett, Jill DuBois, Jennifer T. Comey, Marianne Kaiser, and Justine H. Lovig. 2000. Problem Solving in Practice: Implementing Community Policing in Chicago. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Skogan, Wesley G., Lynn Steiner, Jill DuBois, J. Erik Gudell, and Aimee Fagan. 2002. “Taking Stock: Community Policing in Chicago.” Evanston, Ill.: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.

Travis, Jeremy. 1995. “Community Policing in Chicago: Year 2.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Street-Level Drug Law Enforcement

This practice includes targeted-policing approaches for reducing drug and drug-related offenses. This practice is rated Promising in reducing reported, drug-related calls for services and offenses against persons. This practice is rated Ineffective in reducing reported property offenses, public order calls for service, and total offenses.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Drug and alcohol offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Property offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Public order offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?