Partnership, Problem-Solving, and Research Integration - Key Elements of Success in SACSI: Phase I Findings From the National Assessment of the Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiative

• NCJ Number: 204349
• Author(s): James R. Coldren, Jr. Ph.D.; Sandra K. Costello J.D.; David R. Forde Ph.D.; Janice Roehl Ph.D.; Dennis P. Rosenbaum Ph.D.
• Date Published: April 2002
• Length: 63 pages
• Grant Number(s): 1999-IJ-CX-K013
• Agencies: NIJ-Sponsored
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)

Annotation

This draft report presents an assessment on the implementation of the federally funded Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiative (SACSI), initiated in 1998 as an innovative approach to multi-agency, strategic planning approaches in crime reduction.

Abstract

In 1998, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), U.S. Department of Justice created the Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiative (SACSI) model which was implemented in five United States cities, Indianapolis, Memphis, New Haven, Portland, and Winston-Salem. SACSI is a model approach to multi-agency, strategic planning approaches to crime reduction. SACSI promotes three key approaches: collaboration, problem solving and strategic planning, and integration of research teams into SACSI partnership. In 1999, NIJ funded a national assessment project to study the implementation of local SACSI initiatives extensively and offer helpful information to other jurisdictions considering the implementation SACSI approaches. This report presents the assessment of the implementation of SACSI in the first five sites focusing on the three key approaches. Several lessons learned from the SACSI include: (1) leadership coordinated through the U.S. Attorney's Offices works effectively; (1) leadership is a shared commodity in SACSI partnerships; (3) community outreach of various kinks provides an effective means of service delivery and communication to various constituencies; (4) groups that capitalize on existing partnerships and historically productive relationships among key leaders tend to experience smoothers implementation processes; (5) integration of research into the planning process provides clear benefits and opportunities; and (6) the inclusion of non-traditional, non-law enforcement partners requires a balance between the need for additional support and perspectives and the need to restrict exposure to sensitive information and official (private) meetings and balance the need for quick impact and long-term success. Tables and references