Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report 1

This project was supported, in whole or in part, by grants number 2012-CK-WX-K031; 2014-CK-WX-K053, and
2015-CK-WX-K10 awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. The
opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) or contributor(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific individuals, agencies, companies, products, or services
should not be considered an endorsement by the author(s), contributor(s), or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the
references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.

The internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of publication. Given that URLs and websites
are in constant flux, neither the author(s), the contributor(s), nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity.

The U.S. Department of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or
otherwise use and to authorize others to use this resource for Federal Government purposes. This resource may be freely
distributed and used for noncommercial and educational purposes only.

Recommended citation:

Heinen, Beth, Rebecca Mulvaney, Daniel Fien-Helfman, Kaitlyn Mihalco, Julie Silverman, and Chelsey Thompson. 2020.
Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT): Final Report. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services.

Published 2020
 iii

Contents
Letter from the Director . ..................................................................... . . .v

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

I. CP-SAT Project Background. ................................................................ . . . 1

Operationalized community policing. 2

CP-SAT development phase 1: CP-SAT long form. 5

CP-SAT development phase 2: CP-SAT short form. 7

II. CP-SAT Administration. 9

CP-SAT guidance and resources. 9

CP-SAT administration process. 11

CP-SAT reporting. 13

III. CP-SAT Results: Summary Analytics. 15

CP-SAT psychometrics and participation. 15

CP-SAT overall results. 17

Overall CP-SAT item-level findings. 19

IV. CP-SAT Results by Module. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Community partnerships. 21

Problem solving. 24

Organizational transformation. 27

Community partner perspective. 29

V. CP-SAT Results by Staff and Agency Characteristics. 33

CP-SAT scores by staff type. 33

CP-SAT scores by sworn staff size. 37

CP-SAT scores by size of population served. 39

CP-SAT scores by agency type. 42

CP-SAT scores by geographic location. 46

iv Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Conclusion. 49

Appendix A. CP-SAT Instrument. 51

Appendix B. Informational Materials. 69

Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report. 76

Appendix D. CP-SAT Postcard. 123

Appendix E. CP-SAT Command Staff Flyer. 124

Appendix F. Data Confidentiality Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Appendix G. CP-SAT Marketing Flyer. 126

Appendix H. Example ICF CP-SAT Communication Plan. 127

Acronyms. 138

About ICF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

About the COPS Office. 140

 v

Letter from the Director

Colleagues:

The philosophy, strategy, and practice of community policing encompasses a broad range of best practices. While this breadth
is one of its great strengths, it does pose challenges for research and assessment: organizations which implement community
policing may take very different approaches. The field has long needed a better tool to determine which community policing
strategies and practices are successfully taking root in our communities. To this end, I am pleased to present this comprehen-
sive report on the Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool, or CP-SAT. This is a self-administered survey designed to
measure the extent of agencies’ activities in the three components of community policing: Community Partnerships, Problem
Solving, and Organizational Transformation. This survey was given to sworn staff, civilian staff, and community partners at
960 agencies across the United States—including every agency that received a COPS Hiring Program grant between 2011
and 2016.

The agencies that participated each received a tailored report on their results—data that helped them pinpoint their strengths,
find the areas where they could focus on improvement, and celebrate their successes. Through this report, the rest of the field
can also reap the benefits of this important and much-needed research. The composite data, aggregated and analyzed here,
can help advance the national conversation on community policing by providing data on what agencies are doing, how they
are succeeding, and what training and funding they need to continue to innovate.

I would like to thank the COPS Office’s partners at ICF International for all their work in developing, administering, and
analyzing the CP-SAT tool, as well as each of the 166,932 CP-SAT participants, who took the time to share their expertise and
to let us all learn from their experiences.

Sincerely,

Phil Keith, Director

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
vi

Acknowledgments
As with any project of this magnitude and scope, this report COPS Hiring Program application. They both played central
could not have been accomplished without the contributions roles in the initial conceptualization of the project and
of many dedicated individuals. In addition to those listed provided guidance throughout. We would also like to thank
here, we would like to thank all of the countless individuals our former program managers Nazmia Comrie and Patrice
who offered their input and the wide range of practitioners Howard for their guidance and responsiveness.
and academics who provided important feedback and
We would also like to acknowledge the role of the COPS
direction in the early days.
Office Grants Administration Division, specifically Wanda
We would also like to thank the many agencies who partici- Seawright, Gerald Moore, Calvin Hodnett, and especially
pated in pilot testing of the Community Policing Self- Judith Williford. Their tireless efforts to follow up with
Assessment Tool, which was a significant commitment on grantees to ensure the completion of the surveys signifi-
their part when the burden of the instrument was at its cantly contributed to the success of this effort, which could
greatest, especially the Appleton (Wisconsin) Police Depart- not have been completed without their assistance.
ment. All future versions of this effort would not have been
In addition, former COPS Office Director Bernard Melekian
possible without the experience and knowledge gained from
should be recognized for immediately seeing the value in
their willingness to serve as test cases.
this project and for having the courage to make the Commu-
We would like to thank our project partners at the Police nity Policing Self-Assessment instrument a mandatory
Executive Research Forum (PERF), including Bruce Taylor requirement for COPS Office grantees. Without his leader-
and Chris Koper who provided invaluable input into the ship, we would not have been able to develop this compre-
initiative. We are grateful to PERF for their true partner- hensive picture of community policing in the United States.
ship throughout.
Finally, we would like to thank the men and women of law
We would like to also offer thanks to Matthew Scheider and enforcement who took the time to fill out the survey and
Robert Chapman, who conceived of the notion of a commu- who devote themselves every day to the greater good. It is
nity policing self-assessment tool as an outgrowth of their our sincere hope that the results of this process were helpful
work on defining community policing and enhancing the to you in your critically important work.
 vii

Executive Summary
Since the early days of community policing, experts have This report provides a complete account of the CP-SAT’s
noted how difficult it is to determine the status of commu- development and administration, survey results, and
nity policing (CP) implementation at an agency level, much analysis of the survey data. Section I of the report details the
less how the various ranks and functions of an agency history of the development of the CP-SAT survey tool.
practice it over time.1 One reason was that a straightforward Section II provides an account of the administration of the
and objective tool was not available. Accordingly, in 2005 the CP-SAT to the CHP funding recipients, including the
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented instructions for self-administration given to each agency,
Policing Services (COPS Office) provided funding to ICF including how to keep responses confidential and how to
International (ICF) to develop the Community Policing report survey data back to ICF.
Self-Assessment Tool, or CP-SAT. The tool was designed to
Each law enforcement agency received a summary report
measure the extent of agencies’ community policing activi-
of its scores for both CP-SAT administrations in order
ties in all three components of community policing:
to document changes in community policing activities
Community Partnerships, Problem Solving, and Organi-
over time. The summary report also provided second-
zational Transformation.
administration benchmark data from other agencies for
The CP-SAT was made available for use by law enforcement comparison and to help with interpretation of results.
agencies that received a COPS Hiring Program (CHP) Section III provides overall results across all agencies for
grant between 2011 and 2016. Each agency administered the CP-SAT results. These findings suggest that, on average,
the CP-SAT survey twice. In all, the CP-SAT was adminis- agencies had the largest room for improvement in develop-
tered more than 1,500 times to 960 unique law enforcement ing partnerships with the community, such as government
agencies, representing more than 150,000 respondents agencies and local businesses. This report analyzes those
across the United States and its territories. results among command staff and line officers and across
small, medium, and large agencies.

1. K.J. Peak, Encyclopedia Of Community Policing And Problem Solving, (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2013).
 1

I. CP-SAT Project Background

The Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) is a self-administered survey that has been taken by 960
law enforcement agencies, representing more than 150,000 respondents across the United States and its territories.
The CP-SAT provides a measure of how law enforcement officers and community partners view their agency’s work
in three different areas of community policing (CP): Community Partnerships, Problem Solving, and Organizational
Transformation.

Since the early days of community policing, experts have to build a body of knowledge about what it means to
noted how difficult it is to determine the status of commu- implement and advance CP. Initially, the CP-SAT was
nity policing implementation at an agency level, much less developed as a paper-and-pencil-based assessment, but
how the various ranks and functions of an agency practice it was later transitioned to an online web-based survey.
over time.2 One reason was that a straightforward and
Since fiscal year 2011, the COPS Office has worked in
objective tool was not available. Accordingly, in 2005 the
partnership with ICF to provide the CP-SAT both as a
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented
mandatory grant requirement to COPS Hiring Program
Policing Services (COPS Office) provided funding to ICF
(CHP) grantees at the beginning and end of their grant
International (ICF) to develop the CP-SAT.
periods and as a voluntary resource to COPS Hiring Recov-
The CP-SAT program of research helped operationalize the ery Program (CHRP) grantees and tribal law enforcement
CP philosophy; filled a void by creating a much-needed agencies (LEA). The CP-SAT is completed by all sworn staff,
assessment model; informed national program, training, and by civilian staff who worked on community partnerships or
funding objectives toward CP implementation; and brought problem solving, and by representatives from community
agencies closer to establishing behavioral norms for police partners who are knowledgeable about the agency and how
around CP. The assessment’s results can advance CP in each it interacts with partners. All respondents are surveyed
participating agency by helping identify inefficiencies and about CP behaviors exhibited individually and by the agency.
enhance CP efforts. In addition, researchers can use the data

2. Peak, Encyclopedia of Community Policing (see note 1).

2 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

As of the end of 2016, the CP-SAT has been successfully definition was in turn promulgated by the COPS Office and
administered 1,590 times at 960 agencies and collected data served as the launching point for the community policing
from 166,932 participants. Following each administration, self-assessment tool.
the ICF administration team generated and delivered a
Under this definition, CP is a philosophy that promotes
tailored summary report to each participating agency. Using
organizational strategies which support the systematic use of
these reports, agencies were able to enhance CP efforts
partnerships and problem-solving techniques in order to
through the identification of CP strengths and areas for
proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise
improvement. These results helped support strategic
to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear
planning, identify a list of training needs, and promote the
of crime.3 The CP model balances reactive responses to calls
agency’s CP successes to the public and governing officials.
for service with proactive problem solving, centered on the
Over a series of projects across five years, the following causes of crime, disorder, and fear of crime. CP requires
steps were taken to create and validate the final version police and citizens to join as partners to identify and
of the CP-SAT: effectively address these issues. The CP-SAT measures the
three key components of CP—community partnerships,
zzOperationalized CP
problem solving, and organizational transformation.
zzCP-SAT development phase 1: CP-SAT Long Form
Community partnerships
zzCP-SAT development phase 2: CP-SAT Short Form
CP prioritizes collaborative partnerships between LEAs and
Each step is briefly described in the following sections.
the individuals and organizations they serve to develop
solutions to problems and increase trust in police. Commu-
Operationalized community policing
nity partners may be individuals or organizations who have
In 2003, the COPS Office systematically identified and formally agreed to work together with LEAs to pursue
reviewed all of the currently available articulated definitions common goals. Examples of community partners include
of community policing. They proceeded to conduct a other government agencies (e.g., human and health services,
wide-ranging series of focus groups, interviews with neighboring law enforcement, public works), community
subject-matter experts, and literature reviews to identify the members or groups (e.g., town hall meetings, neighborhood
commonalities among these definitions in order to create a associations, storefronts), nonprofits and service providers
single standardized definition of community policing. This (e.g., victims’ groups, support groups, advocacy groups),

3. Community Policing Defined (Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2014),
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-p157-pub.pdf.
 I. CP-SAT Project Background 3

private business (e.g., visitor centers, local chambers of problems. Lastly, Assessment attempts to determine if the
commerce), and the media (e.g., news channels, newspa- response strategies were successful.5 The Problem Solving
pers).4 The Community Partnerships module of the CP-SAT module of the CP-SAT contains the following subsections:
contains the following subsections:
zzGeneral Problem Solving
zzEngagement with a wide range of partners
zzScanning

zzGovernment partnerships (non-law enforcement)

zzAnalysis

zzCommunity organization and local business partnerships

zzResponse

zzGeneral engagement with the community

zzAssessment

Problem solving
Organizational transformation
CP emphasizes engaging in the proactive and systematic
Effective CP focuses on the alignment of organizational
examination of identified problems to develop effective
management, structure, personnel, and information systems
responses and evaluate them rigorously. This process is
to support community partnerships and proactive problem
based on the SARA model: Scanning, Analysis, Response,
solving. In agency management, law enforcement agencies
and Assessment. Scanning involves identifying a basic
make critical changes to institutional climate and culture,
problem; determining the nature, scope, and seriousness of
leadership, formal labor relations, decision-making and
the problem; and establishing baseline measures. Next, the
accountability, strategic planning, performance manage-
Analysis stage develops an understanding of the dynamics of
ment, and policy and procedures. In addition, organizational
the problem and the limits of current responses, through
structure, hiring processes, personnel supervision and
establishing correlations and cause and effect. Response
evaluations, and training may also come under scrutiny.6
involves developing and implementing strategies to address
The Organizational Transformation module of the CP-SAT
the problem by searching for strategic responses to bring
contains the following subsections:
about lasting reductions in the number and extent of
zzAgency Management

zzPersonnel Management

zzLeadership

zzTransparency

4. COPS Office, Community Policing Defined (see note 3).

5. COPS Office, Community Policing Defined (see note 3).
6. COPS Office, Community Policing Defined (see note 3).
4 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Figure 1. CP-SAT framework

Community policing definition

Community policing elements

Community partnerships Problem solving Organizational

transformation
Collaborative partnerships The process of engaging in
between the law enforcement the proactive and systematic The alignment of policies and
agency and the individuals examination of identified practices to support commu-
and organizations they serve problems to develop effective nity partnerships and proac-
to develop solutions to responses. tive problem solving.
problems and increase trust
1. General problem solving 1. Agency management
in police.
2. Problem solving process 2. Personnel management
1. Engagement with a
– Scanning 3. Leadership
wide range of partners
– Analysis 4. Transparency
2. Government partnerships
(Non–law enforcement) – Response
– Assessment
3. Community organization
and local business
partnerships

4. General engagement
with the community

Problem solving
1. Partnership with
law enforcement

2. General engagement
and communication with
the community
 I. CP-SAT Project Background 5

These three CP components each constitute a module in developed as a paper-and-pencil assessment, but was later
the CP-SAT. The CP-SAT framework is depicted in figure 1 transitioned to an online platform after a needs assessment
on page 4, which lists each of the CP-SAT sections study determined the readiness of police agencies to partic-
and subsections. ipate in a web-based survey. The tool was developed through
an iterative revision process based on three rounds of pilot
CP-SAT development phase 1: tests involving six LEAs to ensure internal consistency,
CP-SAT Long Form
clarity, and accuracy of items and content validation ratings.
The CP-SAT was the first assessment of its kind to systemat-
The final CP-SAT Long Form met all of the criteria set forth
ically measure CP across a large number of LEAs. The
during development, meeting scientific standards for rigor
CP-SAT was created based on more than five years of work
and serving as a practical tool for agencies. The key benefits
(from roughly 2005 to 2011) by the COPS Office, ICF, and
of the final tool were that it reliably captured a wide range of
the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). One of the
staff and community partner perceptions, assisted in
priorities for this project was to create a tool that could not
strategic planning, helped identify training needs, enabled
only meet requisite scientific standards, but also be user-
performance reporting, and provided a tool for education
friendly, receive wide acceptance from practitioners, and be
and communication.
cost-effective for agencies to administer. Accordingly, the
The CP-SAT Long Form, like the current version of the
team used a transparent process, involving formal and
CP-SAT, was divided into three modules corresponding to
informal discussions with many practitioners in the field, to
the three core CP principles. There were six versions, or
identify the elements of CP and understand which of them
forms, of the CP-SAT Long Form tool tailored to various
are most important and what they look like in practice. The
rank levels within the organization and to outside partners:
research team conducted focus groups in conjunction with
meetings of the National Sheriffs’ Association and the zzOfficers

International Association of Chiefs of Police and convened a

zzSupervisors
discussion with several COPS Office Regional CP Institute
zzCommand staff
directors and staff. The team hosted a session focusing on
usability issues at a PERF annual meeting. The team also zzCivilian staff
secured the support and participation of numerous law
zzCommunity partners
enforcement agencies, which helped develop the operation-
zzCross-agency teams
alized CP framework and served as data collection, valida-
tion, and usability testing sites. Each version of the CP-SAT Long Form had between 165
and 464 items, depending upon the respondent type, with
The definition of CP, as described in the previous section,
a 30- to 60-minute response burden for each participant.
was used as a framework for the development of an initial
Command staff members had the largest number of items
assessment tool. This CP-SAT Long Form was originally
6 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

to complete (based on their broader knowledge of the entire keeps historical records of problem solving activities, but
agency), and the community partners had the fewest items does not assess the impact of these activities on crime or
to complete (based on their more limited view of all aspects citizen perceptions.
of the agency). See figure 2 for a screenshot from the Com-
To fully assess the implementation of CP, it is important to
munity Partnerships module of the CP-SAT Long Form.
have a strong understanding of what CP comprises in an
It is important to note that the CP-SAT is a process assess- agency and how it is being implemented, which is what the
ment tool, not an impact assessment tool. In other words, CP-SAT is meant to provide. Nevertheless, agencies that use
the tool focuses on the processes used by agencies imple- the CP-SAT should also consider the various data they may
menting CP (i.e., how well is an agency implementing CP?) have within their agency that could supplement this assess-
rather than the results of those processes (i.e., what are the ment by providing information about outcomes of CP
effects of an agency’s implementation of CP?). Moreover, the efforts, such as community surveys or crime statistics. The
CP-SAT assesses the extent to which officers attend commu- process and outcome data together would provide a rich
nity events and meetings or the extent to which the agency view of the agency’s CP.

Figure 2. Screenshot from CP-SAT Long Form

 I. CP-SAT Project Background 7

CP-SAT development phase 2: remain true to the core of the previously-validated CP-SAT
CP-SAT Short Form Long Form, while at the same time allowing respondents to
complete it in a more manageable and practical timeframe
Although the CP-SAT Long Form was a powerful tool,
and improve within-agency response rates.
completing the assessment required agencies to voluntarily
invest a significant amount of time on the parts of an The CP-SAT Short Form (henceforth simply “CP-SAT”) was
administrator and each participant. Because only about 15 developed over a period of approximately one year to allow
agencies chose to invest this time, and because of feedback departments to reliably measure progress in implementing
from debrief focus groups within those agencies, the CP in a way that minimizes burden and cost to agencies. The
CP-SAT Long Form was only made available for about one final CP-SAT has 109 items and takes an average of 15
year before the COPS Office sought to make this resource minutes for an individual participant to complete, compared
more user-friendly for widespread use. To reduce the to the 30 to 60 minutes it took a participant to complete the
resource burden on each agency that used the CP-SAT, the CP-SAT Long Form. No individual participant views more
COPS Office, ICF, and PERF set out to develop a shortened than 87 total items, with most stakeholder types viewing 73.
version of the tool. The CP-SAT Short Form was intended to The CP-SAT is also available in Spanish for agencies that

Figure 3. Screenshot from CP-SAT Short Form

8 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

request it for their staff or community partners. See figure 3 transferred to the online survey platform Verint Enterprise
on page 7 for a screenshot of the initial staff type question at Feedback Management and was pilot tested to ensure the
the beginning of the English-language CP-SAT. items and process were clear and comprehensive. ICF
designed a summary report template and automated process
To create a shorter version of the CP-SAT, ICF, PERF, and
for LEAs to receive feedback on their CP efforts after their
the COPS Office reviewed potential dimensions and items
agencies completed the CP-SAT, as well as instructional
from the CP-SAT Long Form for inclusion on the updated
materials that described the background of the CP-SAT,
assessment. In addition, ICF integrated feedback from two
general information about the tool and administration
panels of CP experts who reviewed each section of the
process, the benefits of participation, and the steps necessary
assessment and recommended the most appropriate sections
to participate (see figure 4). The final CP-SAT instrument is
and items for inclusion. Once the CP-SAT was finalized and
found in appendix A.
approved by the COPS Office, the draft instrument was

Figure 4. Screenshot from CP-SAT informational materials

 9

II. CP-SAT Administration

From 2010 to 2011, the CP-SAT was offered on a voluntary basis to any LEA interested in administering it in their
agency. Starting in 2012, ICF partnered with the COPS Office to administer the CP-SAT on a voluntary basis to all
2009 CHRP grantees and on a mandatory basis to all CHP grantees, starting with the 2011 CHP grantees. CHP
grantees were required to administer the CP-SAT twice over the course of their grants: once toward the beginning
and once toward the end. In addition, all tribal LEAs, whether a COPS Office grantee or not, were provided the
opportunity to voluntarily participate in the CP-SAT up to twice. In the roughly five years (between 2012 and 2016)
that the COPS Office supported the administration of the CP-SAT, nearly 1,000 separate LEAs administered the
assessment, with more than 600 of those agencies participating twice. Note that agencies that had participated in the
CP-SAT within the past five years (e.g., under a previous grant with the COPS Office) were exempt from
administration—that is, agencies with multiple CP-SAT grants needed to participate in the CP-SAT only twice in
a five-year period. In addition, 2014 CHP and 2015 CHP grantees did not complete a second CP-SAT administra-
tion due to the ending of the CP-SAT research program; only 2011, 2012, and 2013 CHP grantees administered the
CP-SAT in their agencies twice.

To most efficiently administer the CP-SAT to hundreds of CP-SAT guidance and resources
LEAs each year, the CP-SAT administration team grouped Although the ICF CP-SAT administration team coordinated
all administering agencies into waves (i.e., administration the administration process, the CP-SAT is a self-assessment
dates). There were typically four administration waves each tool and each LEA was responsible for administering the
year, with roughly 60 to 120 agencies participating in each CP-SAT in its agency—for example, sending its own invita-
wave. Agencies were assigned to an administration date tion and reminder emails. ICF assisted the agencies every
based on their administration cycle (i.e., first or second step of the way through the CP-SAT administration process,
administration), agency type (e.g., police, sheriff, tribal), and including developing and providing many administration
agency size, so that communications could be tailored and resources to agencies in order to make the process straight-
more easily managed by the administration team. forward, easy, and as quick as possible. Resources available
The following sections summarize the processes employed to agencies included the following, which are found in this
by the ICF CP-SAT Administration Team to successfully report’s appendices.
administer the CP-SAT: guidance and resources, the admin- zzCP-SAT instrument (see appendix A). A PDF version of
istration process, and reporting. the CP-SAT instrument was available for agencies to view
the survey items prior to survey administration.
10 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

zzInformational materials (see appendix B). These zzCP-SAT postcard (see appendix D). This optional post-

Microsoft PowerPoint slides provided a summary of the card allowed agencies to distribute the CP-SAT survey
CP-SAT purpose, benefits, and administration details, link via paper to agency staff and community partners.
including example invitation and reminder email
zzCP-SAT command staff flyer (see appendix E). This
language for agency key contacts to adapt and send to
optional resource was provided to agency key contacts to
agency staff. These materials were tailored to agency type,
assist with getting approval and buy-in from agency
size, and administration wave and were sent to all
command staff. This one-page flyer provided an overview
participating agencies prior to CP-SAT administration.
of the survey as well as a summary of the benefits and
zzExample CP-SAT report (see appendix C). A PDF administration process.
version of an example CP-SAT results report was avail-
zzData confidentiality statement (see appendix F). This
able for agencies to view the format and types of infor-
document described the data confidentiality procedures
mation included in the report that they would receive
governing the collection, storage, and reporting of
after CP-SAT participation. The example CP-SAT results
CP-SAT data. As with the command staff flyer, the data
report provided to agencies presented fake example
confidentiality statement was also typically used to get
data; however, the results report in appendix C summa-
approval and buy-in from agency command staff to
rizes actual final CP-SAT data in the same format as the
administer the CP-SAT in their agency.
results reports that each participating agency received
zzCP-SAT marketing flyer (see appendix G). This flyer was
after administration.
used by the COPS Office to notify agencies of the
zzCP-SAT web page. This COPS Office web page pro-
opportunity to administer the CP-SAT on a voluntary
vided information about the benefits, content, and
basis. This one-page flyer provided an overview of the
administration process of the CP-SAT, including 22
CP-SAT, its benefits, and contact information for inter-
frequently asked questions with answers for agency
ested agencies.
administrators and staff.
In addition, the ICF team created, continuously modified,
zzCP-SAT resources web page. This COPS Office
and implemented a detailed communication plan that listed
web page provided links to various COPS Office
up to 17 contact points (e.g., emails and phone calls) per
resources organized by CP-SAT topic to assist agen-
agency for each administration (see appendix H). ICF
cies in implementing actions to improve CP based
contacted participating agencies regularly before and during
on their agency’s CP-SAT Results.
CP-SAT administration to ensure each agency understood
the administration process and the actions they needed to
 II. CP-SAT Administration 11

take. In addition to the regular communication that ICF had The CP-SAT administration process for each agency is
with agencies and the COPS Office, ICF administration team summarized as follows:
members could be reached by both email and telephone
1. COPS Office and ICF introduced CP-SAT. Each grantee
during normal business hours. The CP-SAT help line was
agency received an email from the COPS Office notifying
monitored by a minimum of one CP-SAT administration
it of the CP-SAT opportunity or requirement. This email
team member Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
included basic information about the CP-SAT (e.g.,
p.m. Eastern Time. In addition, the CPSAT@icfsurveys.com
benefits to participation) and informed grantees that the
email was monitored daily by CP-SAT administration team
ICF CP-SAT administration team would contact them
members. Key contacts and chief executives used these
with more details. About one week after the COPS Office
communication methods to ask questions, update agency
email, ICF emailed each agency with their assigned
information, and inquire about updated response rates.
CP-SAT administration period and requested confirma-
tion of their administration dates and agency key con-
CP-SAT administration process
tact information.
The CP-SAT was designed as an agency-wide initiative,
2. Agency identified key contact. Each agency then
reflecting the philosophy of the COPS Office that CP
selected a key contact who would be responsible for
should be practiced across all levels and all sworn staff in
administering the CP-SAT to participants.
an agency. Thus, the CP-SAT is meant to be completed
by the following individuals: 3. Agency confirmed CP-SAT dates. Each agency key

contact emailed or called ICF to formally agree to assign

zzAll sworn staff across all levels
an administration date and start the CP-SAT process.
zzCivilian staff who work on community partnerships or
4. ICF provided administration details. Once the agency
problem solving
confirmed its administration date, ICF emailed the
zzRepresentatives from community partners who are7
agency the CP-SAT informational materials (see appen-
knowledgeable about the agency and how it interacts dix B), The informational materials provided all relevant
with partners. details about administration, including example an

Involving all of these participants allowed for the assessment pre-invitation and invitation, reminder email language,

to accurately measure the extent to which CP has been imple- the survey URL, and the agency passcode.

mented within an LEA. The CP-SAT included questions

tailored for different stakeholder types (e.g., line officers,
command staff, community partners) to ensure only rele-
vant CP information was collected from each participant.

7. Community partners include individuals and organizations who have formally agreed to work together in the pursuit of common goals. Community
partnerships involve a two-way relationship that involves collaboration, shared power, and shared decision-making with the LEA.
12 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

5. Agency prepared for CP-SAT administration. The assessment items. Each CP-SAT participant completed
agency key contact prepared for CP-SAT administration the 15-minute survey individually, answering questions
via the following steps: about both their own and the agency’s CP activities. The

– Coordinating with the agency’s chief executive to normal administration period for all agencies was three

ensure a pre-survey notification email was sent from weeks, but agencies were given up to three extension

the chief executive to all CP-SAT participants one day weeks (for a total of six weeks of administration) to meet

before the administration period began. response rate requirements.

– Finalizing survey invitation and reminder email – Large agencies. ICF provided sampling assistance to

language (example language provided in the informa- agencies with 1,200 or more sworn staff to ease the

tional materials). time burden of CP-SAT administration for large

agencies. Prior to administration, large agencies
– Compiling an email list of CP-SAT participants.
provided ICF a list of sworn staff names (or random
6. Agency administered CP-SAT. The agency key contact IDs) along with each individual’s rank, tenure, gender,
administered the CP-SAT via the following steps: assignment (e.g., patrol, detective), shift, and geo-

– Day before administration start date. Agency key graphic location (e.g., district, precinct), where

contact coordinated pre-survey notification, to be available. ICF used random sampling to draw a list of

emailed from or announced by chief executive to 600 sworn staff to invite to participate in the CP-SAT.

all CP-SAT participants. Each random sample drawn was checked for repre-
sentativeness against the demographic information of
– Administration start date. Agency key contact sent
the agency population. If any random samples were
invitation email (including survey link and agency
found to be outside acceptable ranges of representa-
passcode) to all CP-SAT participants.
tiveness, they were redrawn.
– One week after administration start date. Agency
– Small agencies. To protect the confidentiality of
key contact sent first survey reminder email
individuals, agencies with four or fewer sworn staff
(including survey link and agency passcode) to
administered the CP-SAT differently than other
all CP-SAT participants.
agencies. Small agencies were required to complete
– Two weeks after administration start date. Agency the CP-SAT together as a group. The key contact
key contact sent second survey reminder email organized a meeting for all sworn staff and appropri-
(including survey link and agency passcode) to all ate civilian staff to convene as a group to complete the
CP-SAT participants. survey. During this meeting, sworn staff and civilian

7. Participants completed CP-SAT. Once the survey

staff discussed each of the survey questions and

invitation was emailed, participants clicked (or copied) submitted only one survey response reflecting the

the survey URL link provided in the survey invitation and combined and agreed-upon opinions of the agency.

entered their agency-specific passcode to access the

 II. CP-SAT Administration 13

8. ICF tracked response rate. ICF consistently moni- The COPS Office provided additional outreach to any
tored the response rates of participating agencies agency that was not achieving needed response rates—
throughout the administration period. During the first specifically, ICF provided the COPS Office a list of any
week of administration, ICF contacted all agencies that agencies that had not yet started the CP-SAT by one week
had not yet started the assessment (i.e., had a 0 percent into the designated administration period. In addition, ICF
response rate) to encourage and guide participation. In provided the COPS Office a list of agencies that were below
addition, ICF provided all administering agencies their their grant requirement or were below the 80 percent
current response rate each week throughout the adminis- reporting requirement after four weeks of CP-SAT adminis-
tration so they were regularly aware of their administra- tration, so that the COPS Office representatives could reach
tion progress. out to agencies to encourage CP-SAT administration, in
compliance with their grant requirements.
– Minimum response rates. Starting in 2015, the Office
of Budget and Management required all agencies to
CP-SAT reporting
achieve at least an 80 percent response rate order to
receive a CP-SAT report. This figure was regularly A tailored CP-SAT results report was provided to the chief

communicated to agencies as the goal response rate. executive and CP-SAT key contact of all participating LEAs

In addition, all agencies had a minimum response rate that achieved an 80 percent sworn staff response rate. The

requirement that they were required to achieve in results report summarized agency results in a user-friendly

order to satisfy their CHP grant’s CP-SAT require- format and provided benchmark data from other agencies to

ment. These response rates varied by sworn size of the serve as a comparison and better help with interpreting

agency, as shown in figure 5 on page 14. agency strengths and weaknesses. See figure 5 on page 14 for
screenshots from an example CP-SAT results report.

Table 1. Grant response rate requirement by sworn staff size

Number of sworn staff Response rate requirement

5 to 150 50%

151 to 500 40%

501 and greater* 25%

*Note: Sampling agencies were required to achieve 25 percent of their sample frame
size (which was 600 sworn staff after 2014). Prior to 2014, large agencies who chose
not to sample were required to get a minimum of 300 responses.
14 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Although the report did not interpret the data collected, it administration benchmark data from other agencies to serve
allowed the agency to assess the extent to which CP had as a comparison and better help with interpretation of results.
been implemented across the agency and among units and The reports were generated using an automated process to
ranks. Through the identification of CP strengths and areas ensure the process was efficient, accurate, and secure.
for improvement, agencies were able to enhance their CP
To maintain confidentiality, any values in the report that
efforts. In addition to summarizing CP-SAT scores for each
were generated with fewer than three data points (i.e., fewer
section and subsection of the CP-SAT, agencies were provided
than three respondents) automatically displayed as “N/A” in
descriptive statistics (e.g., number of responses, mean, and
the report to protect participants’ responses. To further
standard deviation) for each item on the CP-SAT to further
protect confidentiality, a shortened version of the report was
aid in report interpretation and strategic decision-making.
delivered to smaller agencies; this shortened version only
After agencies participated in the CP-SAT for a second time, provided summary results by CP-SAT section and subsec-
they received a CP-SAT second administration results report tion, and did not break out each result by stakeholder type.
that provided their summary scores for both CP-SAT The ICF CP-SAT administrators sent each participating
administrations, in order to document changes in CP agency a PDF copy of its results report within two weeks of
activities over time. The report also provided second data collection completion.

Figure 5. Screenshot from CP-SAT results report

 15

III. CP-SAT Results: Summary Analytics

The ICF team performed summary analytics on all CP-SAT data. The results of these analyses are presented here in
summary and are broken down by module and by staff and agency characteristics in the following chapters.

CP-SAT psychometrics and participation the ending of the CP-SAT research program. A total of 835
agency first administrations and 599 agency second adminis-
Prior to conducting descriptive data analyses, the ICF team
trations occurred as part of this CHP grant requirement.
conducted basic psychometric analyses on the CP-SAT
During the five-year period in which the CP-SAT was
instrument to make sure the results were reliable. First, ICF
administered, other agencies were offered the opportunity
calculated the reliability estimates for the CP-SAT as a whole
to participate in the CP-SAT on a voluntary basis, including
and the individual CP-SAT modules using Cronbach’s alpha.8
2009 CHRP grantees, tribal agencies, Collaborative Reform
Internal consistencies for the CP-SAT were acceptable, with
agencies, and other LEAs that requested participation (on
Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .79 to .97. Next ICF per-
a case-by-case basis). A total of 125 agency first admini-
formed a Principal Components Exploratory Factor Analysis
strations and 33 agency second administrations occurred
(EFA)9 to investigate the factor structure of the CP-SAT. EFA
on a voluntary basis. See figure 7 on page 22 for the total
results suggest the CP-SAT is a three-factor model10 consis-
number of agency CP-SAT participants broken down by
tent with the three modules in the CP-SAT; however, all
grant program.
factors are moderately correlated, suggesting that all CP-SAT
items measure CP as a whole. Next, Table 3 on page 16 provides the total number of
individual respondents and number of agencies that partici-
Next, the ICF team examined the sample characteristics of
pated in the CP-SAT broken down by staff type. There were
CP-SAT agencies and CP-SAT participants. The vast majority
a total of 91,608 participants who completed a first CP-SAT
of agencies that participated in the CP-SAT did so as part of
administration and 69,093 individuals who completed a
CHP grant requirements. CHP grantees from 2011 to 2013
second CP-SAT administration. Line officers are the most
were required to participate in the CP-SAT twice—once at
numerous staff type to complete the CP-SAT for both the
the beginning and once near the end of each agency’s grant—
first administration (N = 55,468) and second administration
while 2014 CHP and 2015 CHP grantees participated in only
(N = 42,933).
one CP-SAT administration due to funding restrictions at

8. L.J. Cronbach, “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests,” Psychometrika 16, no. 3 (1951): 297–334.
9. Since some items are only seen by particular staff types, only the 71 items that were presented to all participants were examined in the EFA.
10. EFA 3-Factor Model with Oblimin Rotation, Cumulative Variance Explained = 58.50 percent; Factor 1 Loadings = .42 to .90;
Factor 2 Loadings = .29 to .86; Factor Loadings 3 = .52 to .84.
16 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Table 2. Total number of agency CP-SAT participants by grant program

Grant program 1st administration 2nd administration

2009 CHRP* 63 9

2011 CHP 227 223

2012 CHP 199 189

2013 CHP 178 182

2014 CHP** 114 1

2015 CHP** 121 2

Tribal* 51 24

Voluntary* 7 2

Total per Administration 960 632

Total = 1,592

*Voluntary administrations.
**2014 CHP and 2015 CHP Grantees did not complete a second CP-SAT administration due to the
ending of the CP-SAT research program.

Note: Agencies that had already participated in the CP-SAT within five years were exempt from the
CP-SAT requirement under a later grant.

Table 3. Total number of individual and agency CP-SAT participants

Relationship
with the agency 1st administration 2nd admininistration

Participants Agencies Participants Agencies

Line officer 55,468 905 42,933 601

First-line supervisor/ 17,338 876 12,962 582

middle management

Command staff 5,302 912 4,107 593

Civilian staff 6,821 699 5,391 461

Community partner 6,679 654 3,700 372

Total 91,608 960* 69,093 632

*The total number of represented agencies is not the sum for each staff type; it represents the number of agencies
for whom any staff type completed the CP-SAT. Most agencies had participants from more than one staff type, and
no staff type was represented by all participating agencies.
 III. CP-SAT Results: Summary Analytics 17

CP-SAT overall results Community Partnerships activities, on average, were rated

lowest over time (MT1 = 2.93, MT2 = 2.97) compared to the
All questions asked participants to rate the extent of CP
other types of CP activities. Problem solving (MT1 = 3.18,
activities on a Likert-type scale (i.e., 1 = Not at all, 2 = A
MT2 = 3.24) and organizational transformation (MT1 = 3.17,
little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = To a great extent). Results
MT2 = 3.24) had slightly higher means with larger increases
are reported as average agency values (means) for each
from the first administration to the second administration
question or set of questions. Specifically, results consist of
(DT1,T2 = .06, ∆ T1,T2 = .07, respectively).11 These findings
the mean for each agency, which are then calculated into an
suggest that on average, agencies had the largest room for
overall mean with other agencies for each administration
improvement in developing partnerships with the commu-
period (i.e., agencies of all sizes are equally weighted).
nity, such as with government agencies and local businesses.
Figure 6 illustrates overall summary means for each of the LEAs tend to report more problem solving behaviors and
three modules: Community Partnerships, Problem Solving, higher organizational support for CP activities than forming
and Organizational Transformation. Summary scores reflect partnerships with the community (see figure 6).
the mean of 14 Community Partnership items, 24 Problem
Solving items, and 42 Organizational Transformation items.

Figure 6. CP-SAT summary

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.04 ∆+.06 ∆+.07

A lot 4.0

3.18 3.24 3.17 3.24

2.93 2.97
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Community Problem Organizational
partnerships solving transformation

Nt1=960; Nt2=632

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

11. MT1 = mean for 1st administration; MT2 = mean for 2nd administration; DT1,T2 = mean change from 1st to 2nd administration.
18 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Table 4. Overall CP-SAT: Item-level findings

Item number Item Mean/Mean change

Highest-scoring items

Item 32 In identifying and prioritizing the problems MT1 = 3.96, MT2 = 3.98
in your community, to what extent do you
consider … Offenders?

Item 30 In identifying and prioritizing the problems MT1 = 3.91, MT2 = 3.94
in your community, to what extent do you
consider … Locations?

Item 31 In identifying and prioritizing the problems in MT1 = 3.85, MT2 = 3.89
your community, to what extent do you con-
sider … Victims?

Item 29 How often do you conduct problem solving in MT1 = 3.84, MT2 = 3.90
your daily work?

Lowest-scoring items

Item 73 (Command Only) How much does your agency MT1 = 2.41, MT2 = 2.54
involve the community in recruitment, selec-
tion, and hiring processes (e.g., the community
might help identify competencies and participate
in oral boards)?

Item 41 How much do you work with stakeholders in MT1 = 2.55, MT2 = 2.59
developing responses to problems?

Item 19 To what extent do non-government partners MT1 = 2.55, MT2 = 2.61

share accountability for the partnership activities?

Most-improved items

Item 55 (Command Only) To what extent are com- ∆T1, T2 = .17

munity partners represented in planning and
policy activities (e.g., budgeting, citizen
advisory panels)?

Item 56 (Command Only) To what extent does your ∆T1, T2 = .17

agency prioritize CP efforts in making budgetary
decisions?

Item 72 (Command Only) To what extent does recruit ∆T1, T2 = .13

field training in your agency include …
Developing partnerships?
 III. CP-SAT Results: Summary Analytics 19

Overall CP-SAT item-level findings they used problem solving a lot within their daily work.
Command staff rated community involvement with recruit-
In additional to the overall module means, we also examined
ment, selection, and hiring processes lowest on the entire
individual item means across the entire assessment to
CP-SAT. Some additional areas for LEAs to improve
identify the highest and lowest scoring questions on the
included working with stakeholders to develop responses to
CP-SAT. Table 4 on page 18 displays highest, lowest, and
community problems and developing stronger relationships
most improved items over time for the entire CP-SAT. On
and accountability with nongovernment partners for
average, respondents thought offenders, locations, and
partnership activities. To review all first and second admin-
victims were identified and prioritized “a lot” when consid-
istration item means, please see appendix C.
ering problems in the community. In addition, LEAs felt
 21

IV. CP-SAT Results by Module

This chapter details CP-SAT results broken down more other government agencies, nonprofits that serve
specifically within each of the three CP-SAT modules and the community, the local media, and individuals in
the section completed by community partners. the community.

Each section of the chapter provides a brief overview of the – Example item: To what extent do the following types
module, the module’s subsections, means for first and of organizations actively participate as community
second administrations for each section, and notable partners with your law enforcement agency?
item-level findings.
zzGovernment partnerships (non–law enforcement).

Examples of non–law enforcement government agencies

Community partnerships
in the community include parks, public works, traffic
As noted earlier, community partnerships are defined as engineering, code enforcement, and the school system.
existing collaborative partnerships between the LEA and the The score for government partnerships represents the
individuals and organizations they serve to develop solu- depth of the LEA’s engagement with these partners. The
tions to problems and increase public trust. Items in this questions in this section ask about the extent of involve-
module measured the strength, quality, and mutuality of ment with these partners, such as collaboration in
partnerships between LEAs and other entities, including developing shared goals and communication with
government partnerships, community organization and government partners.
local business partnerships, and general engagement with
– Example item: To what extent do government partners
the community, shown in figure 7 on page 22 and described
share accountability for the partnership activities?
in the following sections.
zzCommunity organization and local business partner-
zzEngagement with a wide range of partners. Examines
ships. Examples of nongovernment partners include
the extent of active participation of numerous types of
block watch groups, faith-based organizations, neighbor-
potential community partners with each agency. These
hood associations, nonprofit service providers, media,
potential partners include other law enforcement agen-
cies, other components of the criminal justice system,
22 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

local businesses, and youth clubs. The score for commu- questions in this section measure general involvement
nity organization and local business partnerships rep- with the community, such as attending community events
resents the depth of the LEA’s engagement with these and meetings.
partners. The questions in this section ask about the
– Example item: To what extent do you involve commu-
extent of involvement with these partners, such as
nity members in solutions to community problems?
collaboration in developing shared goals and frequency
Although community partnerships as a whole scored lower
of communication with community organization and
than other CP activities assessed on the CP-SAT, LEAs’ best
local business partners.
partnership activities were in partnering with a wide range
– Example item: How often do you communicate with
of partners, such as other law enforcement agencies, other
non government partners?
government agencies, business operating in the community,
zzGeneral engagement with the community. Refers to and the local media (MT1 = 3.11, MT2 = 3.16). LEAs reported
the extent to which the agency proactively reaches out lower levels of resources devoted to, collaboration with, and
to the community to involve it in the CP process. The communication with government partners (MT1 = 2.82, MT2
= 2.85), community organizations and local businesses (MT1
= 2.84, MT2 = 2.87), and general engagement with the

Figure 7. Community partnerships summary

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.05 ∆+.03 ∆+.03 ∆+.04

A lot 4.0

3.11 3.16
2.85 2.84 2.87 2.85 2.89
Somewhat 3.0 2.82

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Wide range Government Community General
of partners partnerships organization and engagement with
local business the community
Nt1=960; Nt2=632 partnerships

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

 IV. CP-SAT Results by Module 23

community (MT1 = 2.85, MT2 = 2.89). All partnership LEAs felt that other government agencies and other compo-
activities show a small improvement from the first to the nents of the criminal justice system proactively participated
second administration (DT1,T2 = .03 to .05), with the wide as community partners for their agencies more than other
range of partnerships showing the largest increase over types of partners. Although LEAs did not perceive business
time (DT1,T2 = .05). community partners as actively engaging with their agen-
cies, their perceptions from first to second administration
Community partnerships item-level findings
increased, thus signifying improvement with business
Item means were reviewed across all subsections within the partnerships. Furthermore, LEAs felt that community
Community Partnerships module. Item means ranged from partnerships only shared some accountability in partnership
2.57 to 3.66 on a 5-point scale. In addition, mean changes activities and that non-government partners only partly
over time were reviewed for each community partnership collaborated in the development of goals for problem-
item; these ranged from .01 to .08 improvement. Table 5 solving efforts. To review all first and second administra-
provides the highest and lowest Community Partnerships tion item means, please see appendix C.
module item scores for the first and second CP-SAT admin-
istrations and the item with greatest improvement over time.

Table 5. Community Partnerships module: item-level findings

Item number Item Mean/Mean change

Highest-scoring items

Item 3 To what extent do the following types of organ- MT1 = 3.66, MT2 = 3.72
izations actively participate as community part-
ners with your law enforcement agency?...Other
components of the criminal justice system

Item 4 To what extent do the following types of organiza- MT1 = 3.43, MT2 = 3.48
tions actively participate as community partners
with your law enforcement agency?...Other
government agencies

Lowest-scoring items

Item 19 To what extent do non-government partners share MT1 = 2.55, MT2 = 2.61
accountability for the partnership activities?

Most-improved items

Item 7 To what extent do the following types of organiza- ∆T1, T2 = .08

tions actively participate as community partners
with your law enforcement agency?...Businesses
operating in the community.
24 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Problem solving zzScanning. The questions in this section reflect the extent
to which stakeholders identify problems by drawing upon
The Problem Solving module
a wide variety of police and community information.
Table 6 on page 26 provides the mean scores for each section
– Example item: In identifying and prioritizing the
of the Problem Solving module. This module measures the
problems in your community, to what extent do you
degree of agency-wide commitment to go beyond traditional
consider. . .Locations?
police responses to crime to proactively address a multitude
of problems that adversely affect quality of life. The first zzAnalysis. The questions in this section reflect the extent
section of the module contains questions about general to which stakeholders collect and analyze police and
problem-solving topics, such as the amount of time officers community data on elements, contributors, and past
are given to engage in the problem-solving process and the responses to problems.
scope of technology resources available for problem solving. – Example item: When analyzing a problem, to what
The next subsections examine problem-solving processes extent do you. . .Analyze the strengths and limitations
and are framed around the SARA (Scanning, Analysis, of past or current responses to the problem?
Response, and Assessment) model. The sections include ques-
zzResponse. The questions in this section reflect the extent
tions on identifying and prioritizing problems, analyzing
to which participants develop and implement both
problems, responding to problems, and assessing problem-
enforcement and non enforcement responses with
solving initiatives, as shown in figure 8 on page 25. The
long-term potential for eliminating problems.
results presented here represent a snapshot of the agencies’
problem-solving approaches and activities. The results are – Example item: In responding to problems, to what
reported in five major sections: extent do you focus on long-term solutions that
address underlying conditions of problems?
zzGeneral Problem Solving. General measure of the extent

to which the agency facilitates and engages in problem zzAssessment. The questions in this section reflect
solving. The questions in this section reflect topics such the extent to which stakeholders evaluate the effective-
as the amount of time officers are given to engage in ness of responses to problems and adjust responses
problem solving and the frequency of conducting as appropriate.
problem solving in their daily work. – Example item: When assessing your problem-solving
– Example item: To what extent are officers in your efforts. . .To what extent do you (or someone else)
agency given the shift time to engage in the determine if the response was effective, compared to
problem-solving process? baseline data?
 IV. CP-SAT Results by Module 25

Figure 8. Problem Solving summary

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.09 ∆+.03 ∆+.07 ∆+.05 ∆+.05

A lot 4.0 3.69 3.72

3.32
3.25
3.04 3.13 3.03 3.08
Somewhat 3.0 2.88 2.93

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
General problem Scanning Analysis Response Assessment
solving

Nt1=960; Nt2=632

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

On average in the Problem Solving module, LEAs report 3.96, MT2 = 2.59 to 3.98). On average, LEAs thought offend-
higher levels of scanning problem solving activities (MT1 = ers, locations, and victims were identified and prioritized “a
3.69, MT2 = 3.72) than general problem solving, analysis, lot” when considering problems in the community. In
response, and assessment activities over time; however, addition, LEAs felt they used problem solving a lot within
scanning activities had a smaller improvement over time their daily work. Conversely, results show that LEAs could
(DT1,T2 = .03) than any other problem solving subsection have room for improvement in working with stakeholders in
(DT1,T2 = .05 to .09). Furthermore, LEAs reported lower levels developing responses to problems, being familiar with the
of response problem solving activities over time (MT1 = 2.88, SARA model, and giving officers shift time to engage in the
MT2 = 2.93). problem-solving process. Although officers’ awareness of the
SARA model had one of the lowest means on the CP-SAT
Problem solving item-level findings
for both first and second administrations (MT1 = 2.57, MT2 =
As noted in the overall results section, the four highest-rated 2.69), LEAs reported significant improvements over time
items on the entire CP-SAT were from the Problem Solving (DT1,T2 = .12). Table 6 on page 26 provides the highest and
module. Item means within the Problem Solving module lowest Problem Solving module item scores for the first and
ranged from 2.55 to 3.98 on a 5-point scale (MT1 = 2.55 to
26 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Table 6. Problem Solving module: Item-level findings

Item number Item Mean/Mean change

Highest-scoring items

Item 32 In identifying and prioritizing the MT1 = 3.96, MT2 = 3.98

problems in your community, to
what extent do you consider …
Offenders?

Item 30 In identifying and prioritizing the MT1 = 3.91, MT2 = 3.94

problems in your community, to
what extent do you consider …
Locations?

Item 31 In identifying and prioritizing the MT1 = 3.85, MT2 = 3.89

problems in your community, to
what extent do you consider …
Victims?

Item 29 How often do you conduct problem MT1 = 3.84, MT2 = 3.90
solving in your daily work?

Lowest-scoring items

Item 25 How aware are you of the Scanning, MT1 = 2.57, MT2 = 2.69
Analysis, Response, and Assessment
(SARA) model?

Item 26 To what extent are officers in your MT1 = 2.75, MT2 = 2.83
agency given the shift time to
engage in the problem-solving
process?

Most-improved items

Item 25 How aware are you of the Scanning, ∆T1, T2 = .12

Analysis, Response, and Assessment
(SARA) model?

Item 37 When analyzing a problem, to what ∆T1, T2 = .11

extent do you … Research and
conduct analyses based on best
practices?
 IV. CP-SAT Results by Module 27

second CP-SAT administrations as well as the items with zzAgency Management. Resources and finances; planning

greatest improvements over time. To review all first- and and policies; and organizational evaluations. Of the 11
second-administration item means, please see appendix C. Agency Management questions, seven were given to
command staff only. The command-only questions
Organizational transformation pertain to agency planning, policies, and organizational
assessments. The questions all staff received pertain to
The Organizational Transformation module
resources available for CP.
Organizational transformation refers to the alignment of
– Example item: To what extent are the problem-solving
organizational management, structure, personnel, and
data available to you accurate?
information systems to support community partnerships
and proactive problem solving. Figure 9 provides the mean zzPersonnel Management. Recruitment, selection, and
scores for each section of the Organizational Transformation hiring; personnel evaluations and supervision; training;
module. This module measures four aspects of organiza- and geographic assignment of officers. Of the 18 Person-
tional transformation: nel Management questions, two were answered by line

Figure 9. Organizational Transformation summary

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.03 ∆+.09 ∆+.07 ∆+.06

A lot 4.0
3.31 3.38 3.31
3.16 3.19 3.14 3.25
3.05
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Agency Personnel Leadership Transparency
management management

Nt1=960; Nt2=632
Of the 11 Agency Management questions, seven were answered by only command staff.
Of the 18 Personnel Management questions, two were answered by only line officers, three
by only first-line supervisors or middle management and command staff, and five by only
command staff.

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

28 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Table 7. Organizational Transformation module: Item-level findings

Item number Item Mean/Mean change

Highest-scoring items

Item 53 (Command only) To what degree has your MT1 = 3.83, MT2 = 3.92
agency included community policing values
(e.g., empowerment, trust, accountability,
problem solving, and community partnership)
in its mission statement?

Item 54 (Command only) To what degree does your MT1 = 3.68, MT2 = 3.79
agency’s strategic plan (or similar document)
include goals or objective statements that
support community policing?

Item 79 To what extent does your Chief/Sheriff stress MT1 = 3.52, MT2 = 3.57
the importance of … Community policing to
personnel within your agency?

Lowest-scoring items

Item 69 (Line Officers Only) To what extent do perfor- MT1 = 2.58, MT2 = 2.67
mance evaluations hold you accountable for …
Developing partnerships with external groups?

Item 90 To what extent does your agency provide MT1 = 2.73, MT2 = 2.82
community members with information on …
Crime maps?

Most-improved items

Item 56 (Command only) To what extent does your ∆T1, T2 = .17

agency prioritize community policing efforts
in making budgetary decisions?

Item 72 (Command only) To what extent does recruit ∆T1, T2 = .13

field training in your agency include … Developing
partnerships?
 IV. CP-SAT Results by Module 29

officers only and three by command staff, supervisors, Organizational transformation item-level findings
and middle management only. These questions ask about Figure 16 on page 39 provides the highest and lowest
officer performance evaluations and manager/supervisor Organizational Transformation module item scores for the
evaluations, respectively. An additional five questions on first and second CP-SAT administrations as well as the items
the extent to which CP principles are reflected in recruit- with greatest improvements over time. As noted previously,
ing, selection, and hiring were answered by command two of the three highest means within this module were only
staff only. The remaining eight questions were answered seen by command staff. Command staff were perceived as
by all staff and ask about training, geographic assign- using their mission statements, strategic plans, and organiza-
ments, and decision-making. tional goals to include and support CP efforts. In addition,
– Example item: To what extent do performance evalua- sworn staff answered that their chiefs or sheriffs stressed the
tions hold you accountable for . . . developing partner- importance of CP with all agency personnel. Some areas for
ships with external groups? LEAs to improve organizational support for CP included
involving the community in recruitment and selection for
zz Leadership. These questions pertain to the work, actions,
new hires, holding line staff accountable for developing
and behaviors of leadership, such as the chief/sheriff and
partnerships with external stakeholders, and providing
top command staff, when it comes to supporting CP.
community members with crime maps. Command staffs’
– Example item: To what extent does the top command perceptions of involving community partners in planning
staff at your agency . . . communicate a vision for and policies, considering CP when making budget decisions,
community policing to personnel within your agency? and including how to develop partnerships in staff training
zzTransparency. These questions reflect the extent to were the most improved CP support activities. Table 7 on
which the agencies are open and forthcoming with the page 28 provides the highest and lowest Organizational
community about crime and disorder problems and Transformation module item scores for the first and second
police operations. CP-SAT administrations as well as the items with greatest
improvements over time. To review all first- and second-
– Example item: To what extent does your agency
administration item means, please see appendix C.
provide community members with information
on . . . crime maps?
Community partner perspective
Mean scores across all sections of the Organizational
The Community Partner Perspective module
Transformation module were moderately high over time
(MT1 = 3.05 to 3.31; MT2 = 3.14 to 3.38), and all four subsec- Community partnerships involve collaboration, shared

tions displayed improvements from the first to second power, and shared decision-making with the LEA’s. In the

administration. The personnel practices that support CP Community Partner Perspective module, community part-

activities had the lowest scores over both administrations ners answered questions about the depth of their partner-

(MT1 = 3.05; MT2 = 3.14), but showed the largest average ship and collaboration with their LEA, as well as their

improvement over time (DT1,T2 = .09).

30 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

perceptions of their LEA’s engagement and communication Figure 10 on page 31 displays mean scores for the two
with the general public. Agencies select community partners subsections in the Community Partner Perspective module.
to complete the assessment based on the existence of formal Partners rated their specific partnership with the LEA higher
agreements to work together in the pursuit of common (MT1 = 3.85, MT2 = 3.79) than the LEA’s engagement and
goals. Community partners may include the following: communication with the general public (MT1 = 3.60, MT2 =

zzOther government agencies 3.55). Mean scores in both sections of the Community
Partner Perspective module decreased from the first admin-
zzCommunity members / groups
istration to the second administration (DT1,T2 = -.06, DT1,T2 =
zzNonprofits / service providers
-.04), however, all ratings are very high.
zzPrivate business
Community partner perspective item-level findings
zzMedia
Although partners’ ratings of their LEA decreased slightly on
The Community Partner Perspective section is composed
average from the first to the second CP-SAT administration,
of two subsections, as follows:
community partners have very positive perceptions of their
1. Partnership with the Law Enforcement Agency. LEAs. Figure 7 on page 22 lists the items with the highest
Comprises seven items asking partners to rate the and lowest means from the Community Partner Perspective
involvement, collaboration, accountability, and frequency section, as well as the largest decrease over time. Partners
of communication with the LEA in the last year. had very high trust on average for their LEAs (though this
decreased by 3.25 percent over time), communicated
– Example item: To what degree is the law enforcement
regularly with their LEAs, and felt their LEAs are aware of
agency involved in problem-solving projects with
community members’ priorities. Some areas for LEAs to
your organization?
improve based on partner ratings were in communicating a
2. General Engagement and Communication with the
CP vision to community members and providing a mecha-
Community. Comprises 11 items asking partners to rate
nism for community feedback. Table 8 on page 32 provides
the LEA’s engagement and communication with the
the highest and lowest Community Partner Perspective
general public in the last year.
module item scores for the first and second CP-SAT admin-
– Example item: To what extent do officers in the law istrations as well as the items with the largest decrease over
enforcement agency introduce themselves to commu- time. To review all first- and second-administration item
nity members (e.g., residents, organizations, groups)? means, please see appendix C.
 IV. CP-SAT Results by Module 31

Figure 10. Community Partner Perspective summary

To a great extent 5.0

∆-.06 ∆-.05
3.85 3.79
A lot 4.0 3.60 3.55

Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Partnership General engagement
with the and communication
law enforcement agency with community

Nt1=960; Nt2=632

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

32 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Table 8. Community Partner Perspective module: Item-level findings

Item number Item Mean/Mean change

Highest-scoring items

Item 96 (Partner only) To what extent does your organiza- MT1 = 4.33, MT2 = 4.20
tion trust the law enforcement agency (e.g., share
information, believe that the department takes
accountability seriously, believe the agency
follows through on commitments, and believe
the agency will be honest about problems)?

Item 97 (Partner only) How often does the law enforcement MT1 = 4.06, MT2 = 4.07
agency communicate with your organization?

Item 102 (Partner only) To what extent is the law enforce- MT1 = 3.83, MT2 = 3.80
ment agency aware of the priorities of commun-
ity members?

Lowest-scoring items

Item 107 (Partner only) To what extent does the law MT1 = 3.48, MT2 = 3.40
enforcement partner … Provide residents with a
mechanism to provide feedback to the agency?

Item 104 (Partner only) To what extent does the law MT1 = 3.50, MT2 = 3.46
enforcement partner … Regularly communicate
with residents (for example, through websites,
newsletters, public meetings)?

Largest decreased item

Item 96 (Partner only) To what extent does your organiza- ∆T1, T2 = -.13
tion trust the law enforcement agency (e.g., share
information, believe that the department takes
accountability seriously, believe the agency
follows through on commitments, and believe
the agency will be honest about problems)?
 33

V. CP-SAT Results by Staff and Agency Characteristics

In the following section, the overall CP-SAT module means CP-SAT scores by staff type
are broken down by several staff or agency demographic All CP-SAT participants were required to select which staff
variables, including the following: type best describes their level in or relationship with their

zzStaff type agency using the following categories:

zzSize of the agency (sworn staff size) zzLine officers

zzSize of population served by agency zzFirst-line supervisors / middle management

(supervisors / management)
zzAgency type
zzCommand staff
zzGeographical location
zzCivilian staff
In collaboration with the COPS Office, the CP-SAT team
identified category bands within each of these demographic zzCommunity partners
variables for better interpretation during data analysis.
CP-SAT results for each of these characteristics are described
in the following sections.
34 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Figure 11. Community partnerships scores by staff type

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.05 ∆+.05 ∆+.07 ∆+.00

A lot 4.0
3.44 3.51
3.27 3.27
2.84 2.92 2.97
2.79
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Line officer Supervisor/ Command staff Civilian staff
management

Line officer (Nt1=905, Nt2=601); Supervisor/management (Nt1=876, Nt2=582);

Command staff (Nt1=912, Nt2=593); Civilian staff (Nt1=602, Nt2=416)

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

Community partnership scores by staff type (MT1 = 3.44, MT2 = 3.51) tended to have higher perceptions

Please see the CP-SAT instrument in appendix A to view of the agency’s role in CP, while line officers’ (MT1 = 2.79,

guidance given to participants on how to choose the most MT2 = 2.84) perceptions were, on average, a full point lower

appropriate staff type. Figure 11 displays the overall Com- than those of command staff. In addition, perceptions of

munity Partnerships module means broken out by staff type. community partnerships by all sworn staff types (i.e.,

Line officers and command staff differ in their perceptions excluding civilian staff, which stayed constant) improved

of the agency’s community partnerships. Command staff from the first administration to the second administration
(DT1,T2 = .05 to .07).
 V. CP-SAT Results by Staff and Agency Characteristics 35

Figure 12. Problem solving scores by staff type

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.07 ∆+.06 ∆+.08 ∆+.04

A lot 4.0
3.52 3.60
3.38 3.42
3.15 3.18 3.24
3.08
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Agency Personnel Leadership Transparency
management management

Line officer (Nt1=904, Nt2=601); Supervisor/management (Nt1=874, Nt2=582);

Command staff (Nt1=912, Nt2=592); Civilian staff (Nt1=591, Nt2=384)

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

Problem solving scores by staff type problem solving across administrations (MT1 = 3.52, MT2 =

Figure 12 displays the Problem Solving module means by 3.60), while line officers had lower perceptions of the

staff type. All staff types in the Problem Solving module had agency’s role in problem solving across time (MT1 = 2.79, MT2

high mean scores across time (MT1 = 3.08 to 3.52, MT2 = 3.15 = 2.84). In addition, perceptions of problem solving by all

to 3.60). As in the Community Partnerships module, sworn staff types improved from the first to second adminis-

command staff had higher perceptions of the agency’s role in tration (DT1,T2 = .04 to .08).
36 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Figure 13. Organizational transformation scores by staff type

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.07 ∆+.07 ∆+.09 ∆+.02

A lot 4.0
3.53
3.44 3.40 3.42
3.15 3.14 3.21
3.08
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Line officer Supervisor/ Command staff Civilian staff
management

Line officer (Nt1=904, Nt2=600); Supervisor/management (Nt1=874, Nt2=582);

Command staff (Nt1=911, Nt2=591); Civilian staff (Nt1=685, Nt2=449)

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

Organizational transformation scores by staff type scores from the first to the second administration (DT1,T2 =

Figure 13 displays Organizational Transformation module .04 to .08). However, command staff (MT1 = 3.44, MT2 =

means by staff type. All staff types in Organizational 3.53) had the highest perceptions of organizational support

Transformation module had high perceptions of organiza- for CP over time, while line officers had the lowest percep-

tional transformation agency behaviors across time (MT1 = tion of organizational support for CP over time (MT1 = 3.08,

3.08 to 3.40, MT2 = 3.15 to 3.53), and also improved their MT2 = 3.15).
 V. CP-SAT Results by Staff and Agency Characteristics 37

Figure 14. Community partnerships scores by sworn staff size

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.03 ∆+.06 ∆+.03

A lot 4.0

3.05 3.08
2.89 2.95 2.85
Somewhat 3.0 2.82

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Small Medium Large
(1–25 sworn staff) (26–99 sworn staff) (100+ sworn staff)

Small, 1–25 sworn staff (Nt1=380, Nt2=242); Medium, 26–99 sworn staff (Nt1=329, Nt2=209);
Large, 100+ sworn staff (Nt1=250, Nt2=181);

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

CP-SAT scores by sworn staff size Community partnerships scores by sworn staff size

Next, CP-SAT scores were investigated by agency sworn staff Figure 14 displays Community Partnerships module means

size (i.e., the number of sworn staff employed by an agency). by sworn staff size. Small agencies had the highest percep-

For the analyses, numbers of sworn staff were broken down tions of community partnership activities over time

into the following three categories: (MT1 = 3.05, MT2 = 3.08), while large agencies members (MT1
= 2.82, MT2 = 2.85) consistently had the lowest community
zzSmall (1–25 sworn staff)
partnership perceptions across time. In addition, agencies of
zzMedium (26–99 sworn staff) all staff sizes showed improvements in staff perceptions of

zzLarge (100 or more sworn staff) community partnerships from the first to second adminis-
tration (DT1,T2 = .03 to .06).
38 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Figure 15. Problem solving scores by sworn staff size

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.07 ∆+.07 ∆+.04

A lot 4.0

3.26 3.33
3.13 3.20 3.12 3.16
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Small Medium Large
(1–25 sworn staff) (26–99 sworn staff) (100+ sworn staff)

Small, 1–25 sworn staff (Nt1=381, Nt2=242); Medium, 26–99 sworn staff (Nt1=329, Nt2=209);
Large, 100+ sworn staff (Nt1=250, Nt2=181);

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

Problem solving scores by sworn staff size

Figure 15 displays the Problem Solving module means by

the sworn staff categories. Agencies of all sworn staff sizes
had relatively similar, moderate perceptions of problem
solving behaviors (MT1 = 3.12 to 3.26, MT2 = 3.16 to 3.33);
however, small agencies (MT1 = 3.26, MT2 = 3.33) had slightly
higher perceptions than other sworn staff sizes. All sworn
staff sizes displayed improvement in their perceptions of
problem solving behaviors from the first to the second
administration (DT1,T2 = .04 to .07).
 V. CP-SAT Results by Staff and Agency Characteristics 39

Figure 16. Organizational transformation scores by sworn staff size

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.06 ∆+.09 ∆+.07

A lot 4.0
3.29 3.35
3.19 3.15
3.10 3.08
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Small Medium Large
(1–25 sworn staff) (26–99 sworn staff) (100+ sworn staff)

Small, 1–25 sworn staff (Nt1=381, Nt2=242); Medium, 26–99 sworn staff (Nt1=329, Nt2=209);
Large, 100+ sworn staff (Nt1=250, Nt2=181);

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

Organizational transformation scores by sworn staff size

Figure 16 displays the Organizational Transformation

module means broken out by sworn staff size. Small,
medium, and large agencies all indicated moderately high
perceptions of their agencies’ organizational transformation
behaviors across time (MT1 = 3.08 to 3.29, MT2 = 3.15 to
3.35), and all agency sizes, on average, exhibited improve-
ments in perceptions of organizational support for CP from
the first administration to the second administration
(DT1,T2 = .06 to .09).
40 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

CP-SAT scores by size of population served Community partnerships scores by size

of population served
Next, module means were broken down by the size of the
Figure 17 displays the mean Community Partnership ratings
population served. The following categories were used to
by size of population served. Similar to the sworn staff size
display the CP-SAT module results:
breakdowns, agencies that serve fewer than 2,500 people
zzCategory 1: population of 2,499 or fewer (MT1 = 3.25, MT2 = 3.33) displayed the highest perceptions of

zzCategory 2: population of 2,500 to 49,999 community partnership behaviors across time compared to
larger agencies. In addition, agencies serving populations
zzCategory 3: population of 50,000 to 349,999
under 2,500 had the largest improvement in community
zzCategory 4: population of 350,000 or more partnership activities over time (DT1,T2 = .08).

Figure 17. Community partnerships scores by size of population served

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.08 ∆+.05 ∆+.04 ∆+.03

A lot 4.0

3.25 3.33
2.93 2.98
2.86 2.90 2.76 2.79
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Population Population Population Population
2,499 and under 2,500–49,999 50,000–349,999 over 350,000

Population 2,499 and under (Nt1=87, Nt2=53); 2,500–49,999 (Nt1=572, Nt2=365);

50,000–349,999 (Nt1=247, Nt2=173); over 350,000 (Nt1=53, Nt2=41)

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

 V. CP-SAT Results by Staff and Agency Characteristics 41

Problem solving scores by size of population served

Figure 18 displays the mean Problem Solving scores by

size of the population served. Although perceptions of
all problem-solving behaviors were high across agencies
of all sizes, agencies that serve fewer than 2,500 people
(MT1 = 3.51, MT2 = 3.63) indicated the highest levels of
problem-solving behaviors across time. Furthermore,
agencies serving fewer than 2,500 people had the largest
improvement in perceptions of agency problem-solving
behaviors from the first to the second CP-SAT administra-
tion (DT1,T2 = .12).

Figure 18. Problem solving scores by size of population served

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.12 ∆+.08 ∆+.04 ∆+.03

A lot 4.0 3.63
3.51
3.15 3.23 3.17 3.14
3.13 3.11
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Population Population Population Population
2,499 and under 2,500–49,999 50,000–349,999 over 350,000

Population 2,499 and under (Nt1=88, Nt2=53); 2,500–49,999 (Nt1=572, Nt2=365);

50,000–349,999 (Nt1=247, Nt2=173); over 350,000 (Nt1=53, Nt2=41)

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

42 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Organizational transformation scores CP-SAT scores by agency type

by size of population served
CP-SAT scores were further broken down by the following
As with the other two modules of the CP-SAT, small
agency types:
agencies serving under 2,500 people (MT1 = 3.59, MT2 = 3.68)
had the highest perception of organizational transformation zzPolice or municipality. A police agency provides

behaviors over time (see figure 19). In addition, small law enforcement services in a specific city, municipal-

agencies exhibited the largest increase in perceptions of ity, town, or village. It includes agencies classified as

organizational transformation behaviors from the first to the county police, municipal government, public housing,

second administration (DT1,T2 = .09). police, and regional police department on their COPS
Office grant applications.

Figure 19. Organizational transformation scores by size of population served

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.09 ∆+.07 ∆+.07 ∆+.05

A lot 4.0 3.68
3.59
3.15 3.22 3.17 3.12
3.10 3.07
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Population Population Population Population
2,499 and under 2,500–49,999 50,000–349,999 over 350,000

Population 2,499 and under (Nt1=88, Nt2=53); 2,500–49,999 (Nt1=572, Nt2=365);

50,000–349,999 (Nt1=247, Nt2=173); over 350,000 (Nt1=53, Nt2=41)

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

 V. CP-SAT Results by Staff and Agency Characteristics 43

zzSheriff. A sheriff agency is a law enforcement agency that Community partnerships scores by agency type
provides law enforcement or jail services pertaining to a Figure 20 displays Community Partnership module means
county or subdivisions of a state. It includes agencies classi- by the three agency types. Perceptions of community
fied as sheriff on their COPS Office grant applications. partnerships for all agency types were relatively low across
zzTribal. A tribal agency provides law enforcement services time (MT1 = 2.87 to 2.95, MT2 = 2.89 to 2.99); however, all
in Native American tribal jurisdictions. It includes agency types’ perceptions of community partnerships
agencies classified as tribal, tribal police, BIA tribal, improved slightly from the first to second administration
Federally recognized tribal, Federally recognized tribal (DT1,T2 = .02 to .04).
council, and Federally recognized tribal – other on their
COPS Office grant applications.

Figure 20. Community partnerships scores by agency type

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.04 ∆+.04 ∆+.02

A lot 4.0

2.93 2.97 2.95 2.98 2.87 2.89

Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Police or Sheriff Tribal
municipality

Police or municipality (Nt1=761, Nt2=499); Sheriff (Nt1=113, Nt2=86); Tribal (Nt1=61, Nt2=30)

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

44 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Problem solving scores by agency type

Figure 21 displays the mean Problem Solving module scores

broken down by staff type. On average, all agency types
displayed relatively similar perceptions of problem-
solving behaviors across time (MT1 = 3.16 to 3.18, MT2 = 3.18
to 3.24), and all agency types reported improvements in
problem-solving activities over time (DT1,T2 = .02 to .06).

Figure 21. Problem solving scores by agency type

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.06 ∆+.06 ∆+.02

A lot 4.0

3.18 3.24 3.16 3.22 3.16 3.18

Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Police or Sheriff Tribal
municipality

Police or municipality (Nt1=762, Nt2=499); Sheriff (Nt1=113, Nt2=86); Tribal (Nt1=61, Nt2=30)

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

 V. CP-SAT Results by Staff and Agency Characteristics 45

Organizational transformation scores by agency type

Figure 22 displays the Organizational Transformation

module means broken out by staff type. As with the other
two CP-SAT modules, all three agency types had relatively
high perceptions of organizational transformation behaviors
across time (MT1 = 3.11 to 3.18, MT2 = 3.13 to 3.24) and
exhibited improvement in perceptions between the first and
second administrations (DT1,T2 = .02 to .07).

Figure 22. Organizational transformation scores by agency type

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.06 ∆+.07 ∆+.02

A lot 4.0

3.18 3.24 3.17 3.24 3.11 3.13

Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Police or Sheriff Tribal
municipality

Police or municipality (Nt1=762, Nt2=499); Sheriff (Nt1=113, Nt2=86); Tribal (Nt1=61, Nt2=30)

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

46 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Figure 23. Community partnerships scores by geographic location

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.03 ∆+.04 ∆+.06 ∆+.06 ∆-.30

A lot 4.0
3.26
3.01 3.05
2.85 2.89 2.88 2.94 2.91 2.97 2.96
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Northeast South Midwest West U.S. Territories

Northeast (Nt1=140, Nt2=95); South (Nt1=280, Nt2=174); Midwest (Nt1=233, Nt2=151);

West (Nt1=290, Nt2=200); U.S. Territories (Nt1=16, Nt2=12)

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

CP-SAT scores by geographic location Community partnerships scores by geographic location

The last agency characteristic breakdown examined was by Figure 23 displays the mean partnership scores broken down

agency geographic location. Agencies were classified into by geographic location. Although agencies in the U.S.

geographic region categories based on U.S. Census Region Territories (MT1 = 3.26) rated their community partnership

Destinations. The following geographic categories were used behaviors higher, on average, during the first administration

for analyses: than did agencies in other locations, these ratings decreased
during the second administration (MT2 = 2.96, DT1,T2 = -.34).
zzNortheast
This lower perception of community partnerships for the
zzSouth second administration aligns with the community partner-

zzMidwest
ship scores of other geographic locations. LEAs in all
geographic locations other than U.S. Territories improved
zzWest
their community partnerships behaviors over time (DT1,T2 =
zzU.S. Territories .03 to .06).
 V. CP-SAT Results by Staff and Agency Characteristics 47

Figure 24. Problem solving scores by geographic location

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.06 ∆+.05 ∆+.10 ∆+.07 ∆-.32

A lot 4.0
3.58
3.34
3.29 3.18 3.23 3.26
3.10 3.16 3.08 3.16
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Northeast South Midwest West U.S. Territories

Northeast (Nt1=140, Nt2=95); South (Nt1=280, Nt2=174); Midwest (Nt1=233, Nt2=151);

West (Nt1=291, Nt2=200); U.S. Territories (Nt1=16, Nt2=12)

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

Problem solving scores by geographic location agencies in the U.S. Territories displayed a decrease in

Figure 24 displays mean ratings of problem-solving activities problem solving activities during the second administration

by agency geographic location. While average problem- (MT2 = 3.27, DT1,T2 = -.36). However, in all other geographic

solving behavior ratings were relatively high for all agencies locations, ratings of problem-solving activities increased

across time, agencies in the U.S. Territories rated their over time. The Midwest demonstrated the greatest increase

problem-solving activities highest for the first administra- in problem solving behaviors over time (DT1,T2 = .10),

tion (MT1 = 3.63), followed by the South (MT1 = 3.29), the followed by the West (DT1,T2 = .07), the Northeast (DT1,T2 =

West (MT1 = 3.16), the Northeast (MT1 = 3.10), and the .06), and the South (DT1,T2 = .05).

Midwest (MT1 = 3.08). As with the other CP-SAT modules,

48 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Figure 25. Organizational transformation scores by geographic location

To a great extent 5.0

∆+.06 ∆+.04 ∆+.11 ∆+.08 ∆-.27

A lot 4.0
3.32 3.36 3.21 3.21 3.35
3.07 3.13 3.10 3.13 3.08
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

0.0
Northeast South Midwest West U.S. Territories

Northeast (Nt1=140, Nt2=95); South (Nt1=280, Nt2=174); Midwest (Nt1=233, Nt2=151);

West (Nt1=291, Nt2=200); U.S. Territories (Nt1=16, Nt2=12)

First administration Second administration ∆ First to second administration change scores

Organizational transformation scores U.S. Territories had a significant decrease in reports of

by geographic location
organizational transformation behaviors in the second
Figure 25 displays the Organizational Transformation CP-SAT administration (MT2 = 3.09, ∆ T1,T2 = -.32), while all
module means by geographic location. Similar to the other geographic locations increased their perceptions over
results of the first two CP-SAT modules, all geographic time. The greatest improvements in perceptions of organiza-
locations’ organizational transformation perceptions were tional support for CP from the first to the second CP-SAT
relatively high for the first administration, with the U.S. administration came from the Midwest (DT1,T2 = .11),
Territories perceptions the highest (MT1 = 3.41), followed by followed by the West (DT1,T2 = .08), the Northeast (DT1,T2 =
the South (MT1 = 3.32), the West (MT1 = 3.13), the Midwest .06), and South (DT1,T2 = .04).
(MT1 = 3.10), and the Northeast (MT1 = 3.07). In addition,
 49

Conclusion
For more than a dozen years, the CP-SAT program of zzCommand staff indicate higher levels of CP behaviors on
research operationalized the framework for community average than other staff types, while line officers indicate
policing and developed and administered a CP assessment lower CP behaviors on average than other staff types.
to more than 160,000 police officers and their partners in
zzCommunity partners rated their LEAs very highly, but
more than 1,500 agency administrations to 960 agencies.
their ratings of CP decreased over time.
The key takeaways from the rich CP-SAT data resulting
zzSmaller agencies (in both number of sworn staff and
from this program of research are as follows:
population served) reported higher CP behaviors on
zzLEAs reported higher average problem-solving behaviors
average than larger agencies.
and organizational support for CP than partnerships with
zzAverage ratings of CP behaviors did not vary significantly
the community over time. This suggests community
by agency type (i.e., police, sheriff, tribal) or by the
partnership behaviors as an area to target for improvement.
agency’s geographic location.
zzPerceptions of CP showed small, but very consistent,
This unprecedented series of CP-SAT projects were
average improvements between the first and second
foundational for moving the philosophy of the COPS
administration of the CP-SAT.
Office into practice.
 51

Appendix A. CP-SAT Instrument

Please copy and paste your Agency passcode directly into the space below. (It is imperative that it
appear exactly the same as it does in your invitation email.)

___________________

Below is an example showing where to find the Agency Passcode in your invitation email. Your Agency
Passcode is unique to your agency and will not be the same as shown below.

(ONLY if Agency Passcode is entered incorrectly)

You entered an incorrect agency passcode. Your agency passcode can be found in the survey invitation
email you received. Please return to the previous page and try again.
52 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of
partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public
safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.

The Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) is designed to assess three key areas in community
policing: community partnerships, problem solving, and organizational transformation. The three key areas of
community policing included in this tool are described below.

 COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
Collaborative partnerships between the law enforcement agency and the individuals and organizations
they serve to develop solutions to problems and increase trust in police.

 PROBLEM SOLVING
The process of engaging in the proactive and systematic examination of identified problems to
develop effective responses.

 ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION
The alignment of organizational management, structure, personnel, and information systems to
support community partnerships and proactive problem solving.

The majority of questions follow the same format. Please indicate your response by selecting the appropriate
answer. You may skip any survey items you do not feel comfortable answering, but we encourage you to respond to
as many items as possible.

Your responses to this survey will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. There are no individual
identifiers in the data that the agency will receive, and the agency will not be able to link an individual’s data
to their email address. This is not a test and there are no right or wrong answers. Please answer each question
honestly.
 Appendix A. CP-SAT Instrument 53

1. Please choose the response that best indicates your level or relationship with the agency:

○ Line officer
○ First-line supervisor/Middle management
○ Command staff
○ Civilian/Non-sworn staff
○ Community partner

If you do not work for the police agency, please select “Community partner.” A community partner is an individual who has, or
works for an organization that has, formally agreed to work in a partnership with a law enforcement agency in the pursuit of
common goals. Community partnerships involve a two-way relationship that involves collaboration, shared power, and shared
decision-making with the law enforcement agency (e.g., media, business owner, city employee in Public Works department).

If you are a volunteer for the police agency who provides support services to the agency without monetary benefit, please select
“Civilian/Non-sworn staff.” Services a volunteer performs typically include community outreach, telephone work, research,
and other administrative tasks.

If you are a detective or a member of a special operations unit (e.g., gang unit, SWAT, school resource officer), please select the
level of sworn staff that best fits with your level in the agency. For example, please select “First-line supervisor/Middle
management” if you are a supervisor, but select “Line officer” if you have a non-supervisory position in your unit.
54 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Community Partnerships
Community partnerships refer to collaborative partnerships formed between the law enforcement agency and the
individuals and organizations the agency serves in order to develop solutions to problems and increase trust in police.

The following questions ask about your agency’s community partnership activities during the last year.

No A little Moderate Significant Extensive

involvement involvement involvement involvement involvement
2. (Civilian Only) Please indicate your level
of involvement with community partnerships
in your agency. ("Community
partnerships" refer to collaborative
partnerships formed between the law
enforcement agency and the individuals and ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
organizations the agency serves in order to
develop solutions to problems and increase
trust in police.)

[If 1 = No involvement or 2 = A little involvement, skip to Problem Solving section]

Engagement with a Wide Range of Partners

To what extent do the following types of organizations actively participate as community partners with your
law enforcement agency? (“Actively participate” refers to information sharing, attending meetings, problem
identification, and/or problem solving.)

To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
3. Law enforcement agencies (e.g., Federal, State,
and/or other jurisdictions) who serve the community. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
4. Other components of the criminal justice system
(e.g., probation, parole, courts, prosecutors, and ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
juvenile justice authorities).

5. Other government agencies (e.g., Parks, Public

Works, Traffic Engineering, Code Enforcement, ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Schools).

6. Non-profit/community-based organizations that

serve community members. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
7. Businesses operating in the community.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
8. The local media.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
9. To what extent do individuals in the community
actively participate as community partners with your ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
law enforcement agency?
 Appendix A. CP-SAT Instrument 55

Government Partnerships (Non-law enforcement)

The following questions refer to non-law enforcement government agencies in your community, such as parks,
public works, traffic engineering, code enforcement, and/or the school system.

To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
10. To what extent does your agency provide sufficient
resources (e.g., financial, staff time, personnel,
equipment, political, and/or managerial support) to ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
support the work of its government partnerships?

11. To what extent are you involved in implementing

problem-solving projects with government partners? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
12. To what extent do you collaborate in developing
shared goals for problem-solving efforts with ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
government partners?

13. To what extent do government partners share

accountability for the partnership activities? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Very
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
Often

14. How often do you communicate with government

partners? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
56 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Community Organization and Local Business Partnerships

The following questions refer to non-government partners, such as block watch groups, faith-based organizations,
neighborhood associations, non-profit service providers, media, local businesses, and youth clubs.

To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
15. To what extent does your agency provide sufficient
resources (e.g., financial, staff time, personnel,
equipment, political, and/or managerial support) to ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
support the work of its non-government partnerships?

16. To what extent do non-government partners trust

your law enforcement agency (e.g., share information,
believe that the department takes accountability
seriously, believe the agency follows through on ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
commitments, believe the agency will be honest about
problems)?

17. To what extent are you involved in implementing

problem-solving projects with non-government ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
partners?

18. To what extent do you collaborate in developing

shared goals for problem-solving efforts with non- ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
government partners?

19. To what extent do non-government partners share

accountability for the partnership activities? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Very
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
Often

20. How often do you communicate with non-

government partners? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

General Engagement with the Community

To what extent do you… To a great

Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
21. Involve community members in solutions to
community problems? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
22. Make contact with a wide range of community
members to assess community priorities? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
23. Attend community events and meetings?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
 Appendix A. CP-SAT Instrument 57

Problem Solving

The following questions ask about problem solving work by you and your agency during the last year. Problem
solving is a proactive, analytic process for systematically:

• Identifying neighborhood problems through coordinated community/police assessments (Scanning)

• Collecting and analyzing information about the problems (Analysis)
• Developing and implementing responses with the potential for eliminating or reducing the problems
(Response)
• Evaluating the responses to determine the effectiveness (Assessment).

Problem solving goes beyond traditional crime responses to proactively address a multitude of problems that
adversely affect quality of life.

No A little Moderate Significant Extensive

involvement involvement involvement involvement involvement
24. (Civilian Only) Please indicate your
level of involvement with your agency's
problem-solving efforts. ("Problem
solving" is the process of engaging in the
proactive and systematic examination of ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
identified problems to develop effective
responses.)

[If 1 = No involvement or 2 = A little involvement, skip to Organizational Transformation section]

General Problem Solving

To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
25. How aware are you of the Scanning, Analysis,
Response, and Assessment (SARA) model? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
26. To what extent are officers in your agency given the
shift time to engage in the problem-solving process? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
27. To what extent does your agency keep historical
records (e.g., lessons learned, after action report) of ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
problem solving for future reference?

28. To what extent does your agency coordinate

problem-solving efforts across the agency (e.g., separate ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
police divisions and shifts)?

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often

29. How often do you conduct problem
solving in your daily work? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
58 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Problem Solving Processes: Scanning

In identifying and prioritizing the problems in your

To a great
community, to what extent do you consider… Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
30. Locations?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
31. Victims?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
32. Offenders?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
33. In identifying and prioritizing the problems in your
community, how much do you use non-law enforcement
information (e.g., community surveys, community ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
partners, input from caregivers, parole officers,
landlords or business managers)?

Problem Solving Processes: Analysis

When analyzing a problem, to what extent do you…

To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
34. Examine a comprehensive set of factors, such as
the location, day of week, time of day, season and
environmental factors (e.g., street lighting and ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
landscape)?

35. Analyze the strengths and limitations of past or

current responses to the problem? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
36. Examine a range of non-police data (e.g.,
government records, community surveys, school ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
information)?

37. Research and conduct analyses based on best

practices? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
38. Gather information about the victims affected by
a problem? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
39. Gather information about offenders contributing
to a problem? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
40. Gather information about locations contributing
to a problem? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
 Appendix A. CP-SAT Instrument 59

Problem Solving Processes: Response

To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
41. How much do you work with stakeholders in
developing responses to problems? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
42. In responding to problems, to what extent do you
focus on long-term solutions that address underlying ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
conditions of problems?

43. To what extent do you determine a response based

on results of problem analysis? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
44. To what extent do your problem-solving responses
supplement enforcement activities with prevention-
oriented strategies, such as situational crime prevention, ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
nuisance abatement, zoning, and involving social
services?

Problem Solving Processes: Assessment

When assessing your problem-solving efforts…

To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
45. How much do you (or someone else) examine
whether the response was implemented as planned? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
46. To what extent do you (or someone else) determine
if the response was effective, compared to baseline data? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
47.To what extent do you (or someone else) analyze the
nature of the problem further if a response does not ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
work?

48. To what extent do you (or someone else) analyze the

response further if a response does not work? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
60 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Organizational Transformation

Organizational transformation refers to the alignment of policies and practices to support community
partnerships and proactive problem-solving.

The four aspects of organizational transformation measured on this survey are organized as follows:
• Agency Management
• Personnel Management
• Leadership
• Transparency

The following questions ask about your agency’s management, personnel practices, leadership, and transparency
during the last year.

Agency Management
To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
49. To what extent are you readily able to access
relevant information (e.g., police, community, and
research data) to support problem solving? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
50. To what extent are the problem-solving data
available to you accurate? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
51. To what extent does your agency provide the data
(e.g., through reports or intranet access) that you need
to engage in effective problem solving? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
52. To what extent has your agency acquired the
necessary information technology hardware and
software (e.g., crime analysis, mapping) to support ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
problem solving?

53. (Command only) To what degree has your agency

included community policing values (e.g.,
empowerment, trust, accountability, problem solving, ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
and community partnership) in its mission statement?

54. (Command only) To what degree does your

agency's strategic plan (or similar document) include
goals or objective statements that support community ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
policing?

55. (Command only) To what extent are community

partners represented in planning and policy activities ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
(e.g., budgeting, citizen advisory panels)?

56. (Command only) To what extent does your agency

prioritize community policing efforts in making ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
budgetary decisions?
 Appendix A. CP-SAT Instrument 61

57. (Command only) Does your agency conduct a review of the

performance of the organization regularly (e.g., at least once every year)? Yes No

[If No, skip to 61]

To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
58. (Command only) To what extent did your
agency’s most recent effort to evaluate organizational
performance reflect overall impacts of your community ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
policing efforts?

59. (Command only) In assessing your organization’s

community policing efforts, to what extent does your
agency incorporate community assessment tools (e.g., ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
surveys, citizen feedback letters, online input)?

60. (Command only) To what extent did your agency

share the results from your most recent effort to
evaluate community policing? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Personnel Management
To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
61. To what extent does your agency require
demonstrated competency in community policing (e.g.,
ability to form productive partnerships, completion of a ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
successful problem-solving project) for promotion?

62. How well are expectations for your role in

community policing defined by your law enforcement ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
agency?

To what extent are officers in your agency trained in…

To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
63. Problem solving?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
64. Building community partnerships?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
65. To what extent is community policing an agency-
wide effort involving all staff? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
66. To what extent are officers in your agency given
adequate uncommitted time to proactively work with ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
the community?
62 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
67. To what extent are geographic, beat, or sector
assignments long enough to allow officers in your ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
agency to form strong relationships with the
community?

68. To what extent does your agency give patrol

officers decision-making authority to develop ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
responses to community problems?

To what extent do performance evaluations hold you

accountable for… To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
69. (Line Officers Only) Developing partnerships with
external groups?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
70. (Line Officers Only) Using problem solving?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○

To what extent does recruit field training in your

To a great
agency include… Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
71. (Command only) Problem solving?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
72. (Command only) Developing partnerships?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○

To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
73. (Command only) How much does your agency
involve the community in recruitment, selection, and
hiring processes (e.g., the community might help ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
identify competencies and participate in oral boards)?

74. (Command only) To what extent does your agency

recruit officers who have strong general problem- ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
solving skills?

75. (Command only) To what extent does your agency

recruit officers who have an interest in working ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
collaboratively with the community?
 Appendix A. CP-SAT Instrument 63

To what extent do performance evaluations hold

managers and supervisors in your agency accountable
for… To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
76. (First-Line Supervisor/Middle Management
& Command only) Encouraging community policing
among officers they supervise? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
77. (First-Line Supervisor/Middle Management
& Command only) Developing partnerships with ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
external groups?

78. (First-Line Supervisor/Middle Management

& Command only) Using innovative problem ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
solving?

Leadership

To what extent does your Chief/Sheriff stress the

importance of… To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
79. Community policing to personnel within your
agency? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
80. Community policing externally?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○

To what extent does the top command staff at your

To a great
agency… Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
81. Communicate a vision for community policing to
personnel within your agency? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
82. Advocate partnerships with the community?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
83. Value officers’ work in partnership activities?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
84. Value officers’ work in problem solving?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○

To what extent do first-line supervisors in your

To a great
agency… Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
85. Establish clear direction for community policing
activities? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
86. Empower officers to do community policing?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
64 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Transparency

To what extent does your agency provide community

To a great
members with information on… Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
87. Agency activities?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
88. Crime problems?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
89. Crime-prevention tips?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
90. Crime maps?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
91. To what extent does your agency communicate
openly with community members? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
 Appendix A. CP-SAT Instrument 65

Community Partner Perspective

Partnership with the Law Enforcement Agency

The following questions refer to your organization’s partnership with the local law enforcement agency
during the last year.

Not at all A little Somewhat A lot To a great extent

92. (Partner only) To what degree is the

law enforcement agency involved in
problem-solving projects with your ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
organization?

93. (Partner only) How much does the

law enforcement agency collaborate in
developing shared goals for problem- ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
solving efforts with your organization?

94. (Partner only) To what degree does

the law enforcement agency provide
sufficient resources (e.g., financial, staff
time, personnel, equipment, political, ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
and/or managerial support) to support
the work of your partnership?

95. (Partner only) To what extent does

your organization share accountability
with the law enforcement agency for the ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
partnership activities?

96. (Partner only) To what extent does

your organization trust the law
enforcement agency (e.g., share
information, believe that the department
takes accountability seriously, believe ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
the agency follows through on
commitments, and believe the agency
will be honest about problems)?

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often

97. (Partner only) How often does the
law enforcement agency communicate
with your organization? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
66 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

98. (Partner only) Please indicate the statement that best describes the relationship between your organization
and the law enforcement agency:

□ Interaction with the law enforcement agency involves one-way communication from the law
enforcement agency to your organization (for example, educating and/or informing the
organization about current law enforcement initiatives).

□ Interaction with the law enforcement agency involves one-way communication from your
organization to the law enforcement agency (for example, informing the law enforcement agency
of community-related concerns).

□ Interaction between your organization and the law enforcement agency involves two-way
information sharing (for example, your organization collects information on community priorities
and concerns for the law enforcement agency and the law enforcement agency provides
information about responses).

□ Interaction with the law enforcement agency involves collaboration, shared power, and shared
decision-making between the law enforcement agency and your organization to determine
community needs, priorities, and appropriate responses.

General Engagement and Communication with the Community

The following questions refer to the law enforcement agency’s engagement and communication with the
general public during the last year.

To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
99. (Partner only) To what extent does the law
enforcement agency involve community members in ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
solutions to community problems?

100. (Partner only) To what extent do officers in the

law enforcement agency introduce themselves to ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
community members (e.g., residents, organizations, and
groups)?

To a great
Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
101. (Partner only) To what extent does the law
enforcement agency develop relationships with
community members (e.g., residents, organizations, and ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
groups)?

102. (Partner only) To what extent is the law

enforcement agency aware of the priorities of ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
community members?

103. (Partner only) To what degree are beat

assignments in the law enforcement agency long enough ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
to allow police to form strong relationships with the
community?
 Appendix A. CP-SAT Instrument 67

To what extent does the law enforcement partner… To a great

Not at all A little Somewhat A lot
extent
104. (Partner only) Regularly communicate with
residents (e.g., through websites, newsletters, public ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
meetings)?

105. (Partner only) Communicate with the community

openly? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
106. (Partner only) Share information on crime
problems with external parties? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
107. (Partner only) Provide residents with a
mechanism to provide feedback to the agency? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
108. (Partner only) Make it easy for community
residents and others to contact the beat officer assigned ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
to their area?

109. (Partner only) Communicate a vision for

community policing externally? ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
68 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Thank you for completing the Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT).

Your feedback will be used to help create a better understanding of your agency’s community policing
achievements and activities.

This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number # 2010-CK-WXK-003 awarded by the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
References to specific companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement by the author(s) or
the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: A person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a valid OMB control number. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to
be up 17 minutes per response, which includes time for reviewing documentation. Send comments regarding this
burden estimate or any other aspects of the collection of this information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to the COPS Office; 145 N Street, NE; Washington, D.C. 20530, and to the Public Use Reports Project,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503.
 69

Appendix B. Informational Materials

Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT)

COPS Hiring Program (CHP) Grantee

Information Materials

1
70 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Definition of Community Policing (CP): A philosophy that promotes

organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships
and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate
conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social
disorder, and fear of crime.

Purpose of CP-SAT: This assessment allows agencies to measure the

extent to which CP has been implemented within an agency.

Background of CP-SAT: This tool was developed with significant input from
community policing experts and practitioners and was designed to meet
scientific standards for rigor, while also being user-friendly. This tool was
created based on 5+ years of work by COPS, ICF International, and Police
Executive Research Forum and has been administered in agencies across
the country. The tool is being administered by ICF International on behalf of
the COPS Office.

CP-SAT Modules
The CP-SAT measures the three key components of community policing:

 Community Partnerships. Collaborative partnerships between the law

enforcement agency and the individuals and organizations they serve to develop
solutions to problems and increase trust in police.

 Problem Solving. The process of engaging in the proactive and systematic

examination of identified problems to develop effective responses that are
evaluated rigorously. This module is based on the SARA model (i.e., Scanning,
Analysis, Response, Assessment).

 Organizational Transformation. The alignment of organizational

management, structure, personnel, and information systems to support community
partnerships and proactive problem-solving.

3
 Appendix B. Informational Materials 71

Description of CP-SAT
 15-minute survey
– Command staff: 87 questions
– Officers & Civilians: 73 questions
– Community Partners: 19 questions

 Completed by ALL SWORN STAFF, civilian staff who work on community

partnerships and/or problem solving, and representatives from community
partners who are knowledgeable about the agency and how it interacts
with partners.

 Includes questions tailored for different agency stakeholder types (e.g.,

patrol officers, command staff, community partners*).
* Community Partners include individuals/organizations who have formally agreed to work together in the pursuit of
common goals. Community partnerships involve a two-way relationship that involves collaboration, shared
power, and shared decision-making with the law enforcement agency.

Benefits

 The CP-SAT allows agencies to measure the extent to which

community policing has been implemented in various units and ranks
within an agency.

 Agencies will receive an automated report, which summarizes their

results in a user-friendly format.
NOTE: Agencies must obtain at least an 80% response rate from
sworn staff to receive a CP-SAT Results Report.

 Agencies will be able to enhance community policing efforts through the

identification of community policing strengths and areas for
improvement.

5
72 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Process for Participation: Overall Steps

Step 1: Agency receives email from ICF International with assigned CP-SAT
administration period (Start Date – End Date; 3 week period).

Step 2: Agency selects a key contact to be responsible for administering the CP-
SAT to agency staff and community partners.

Step 3: Agency key contact emails or calls ICF (CPSAT@icfsurveys.com or

877.99.CPSAT) to formally agree to assigned administration date and start
the CP-SAT process.

Step 4: Once agency contacts ICF to agree to administration date, agency

receives email from ICF International with details about CP-SAT
administration (including example pre-invitation, invitation and reminder
email language, survey URL, and agency passcode).

Process for Participation: Overall Steps (cont.)

Step 5: Agency key contact:
 Coordinates with agency’s Chief Executive to ensure the pre-survey notification email
(see slide 9) will be sent from the Chief Executive to all CP-SAT participants 1 day before
the administration period begins.
 Finalizes survey invitation and reminder email language (see slides 10 & 11 for example
language).
 Compiles email list of ALL SWORN STAFF, civilian staff who work on community
partnerships and/or problem solving, and representatives from community partner
organizations who are knowledgeable about the agency and how it interacts with partners
and the community.

Step 6: Agency key contact coordinates pre-survey notification, as well as emails

survey invitation and two survey reminders to staff and community partners on
specified dates.
 Day before Start Date: Email pre-survey notification
 Start Date: Email survey invitation.
 1 Week after Start Date: Email reminder 1.
 2 Week after Start Date: Email reminder 2.
7
 Appendix B. Informational Materials 73

Process for Participation: Overall Steps (cont.)

Step 7: ICF tracks response rate and emails agencies with low response rate
after two weeks of administration.

Step 8: After the three-week administration period ends, ICF generates a

summary report and emails the report to agency key contact.

NOTE: Agencies must obtain at least an 80% response rate from sworn
staff to receive a CP-SAT Results Report.

Please note that, in an effort to maintain participant confidentiality, data from

sections of the CP-SAT survey with fewer than 3 respondents (including
Community Partners) will not be displayed in the Results Report.

Process for Participation: Pre-Survey Notification Email Language

Dear [XX] agency staff,

This email is to notify you and request your participation in our agency’s upcoming and required administration of the Community
Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT), which is an online survey that collects information about our agency’s practice of
community policing. As a requirement of our COPS Hiring Program (CHP) grant, our administration period will begin tomorrow,
[Start Date].

Tomorrow you will receive the CP-SAT invitation email from [First Name Last Name of Key Contact] that includes the URL and
passcode for you to participate in the online assessment. I strongly encourage you to participate. The assessment will take you
approximately 15 minutes to complete. Your participation will help our agency gather valuable data, allowing us to enhance our
community policing practices and identify community policing strengths and areas for improvement.

Thank you,
[First Name Last Name of Chief Executive]
[Title of Chief Executive]
[Police Agency]

This is example pre-survey notification

email language. Please adapt text in red
or write new language.
9
74 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Process for Participation: Invitation Language

Dear [XX] agency CP-SAT participants,

As a requirement of our COPS Hiring Program (CHP) grant, our agency is participating in the Community Policing Self-
Assessment Tool (CP-SAT), which is an online survey that collects information about our practice of community policing. Our
agency is required to participate in this assessment, which you access by clicking the URL below. Through your participation in this
assessment, our agency will be able to gather valuable data allowing us to enhance our community policing practices and identify
community policing strengths and areas for improvement. The assessment is sponsored by the COPS Office and is administered
by ICF International.

Your responses to this survey will be kept confidential. There are no individual identifiers in the data that the agency will receive,
and the agency will not be able to link an individual’s data to their email address. This is not a test, and there are no right or wrong
answers. Please answer each question honestly. The assessment will take you approximately 15 minutes of your time.

Assessment URL: [URL]

Agency Passcode: [Include the agency passcode provided in your email from the CP-SAT Administration Team]
(You will be prompted to enter your agency passcode when you click the above URL. Please copy and paste the above passcode
to ensure accuracy).

Please complete the assessment by [End Date]. If you have any questions, please contact [First Name Last Name] at [555-555-
5555].
This is example invitation email
Thank you, language. Please adapt text in
[First Name Last Name]
[Title] red or write new language.
[Police Agency]
10

Process for Participation: Reminder Language

Dear [XX] agency CP-SAT participants,

This is a reminder to participate in the Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT). If you have already completed the
assessment, thank you. If you have not yet completed the assessment, please do so by clicking on the URL below. Our agency is
required to participate in this survey as part of our COPS Hiring Program (CHP) grant. Through your participation in this
assessment, our agency will be able to gather valuable data that will allow us to better monitor our implementation of community
policing and identify community policing strengths and areas for improvement. The assessment is sponsored by the COPS Office
and is administered by ICF International on behalf of COPS.

Your responses to this survey will be kept confidential. There are no individual identifiers in the data that the agency will receive,
and the agency will not be able to link an individual’s data to their email address. This is not a test, and there are no right or wrong
answers. Please answer each question honestly. The assessment will take you approximately 15 minutes of your time.

Assessment URL: [URL]

Agency Passcode: [Include the agency passcode provided in your email from the CP-SAT Administration Team]
(You will be prompted to enter your agency passcode when you click the above URL. Please copy and paste the above passcode
to ensure accuracy).

Please complete the assessment by [End Date]. If you have any questions, please contact [First Name Last Name] at [555-555-
5555].
This is example reminder email
Thank you,
[First Name Last Name]
language. Please adapt text in
[Title] red or write new language.
[Police Agency]
11
 Appendix B. Informational Materials 75

Example Report
An automated report will provide a summary of your agency’s data, as well
as benchmark data from other agencies that are similar in sworn staff size,
population served, and agency type in a user-friendly format.

12

Next Steps
 Agency key contact finalizes pre-survey notification, survey
invitation, and reminder email language and compiles email list of
all participants.
 Agency key contact obtains necessary approvals and takes action
to ensure pre-survey notification is sent from the Chief Executive
on the specified date.
 Agency key contact emails survey invitation and two survey
reminders to staff and community partners on specified dates.

Email or call ICF at CPSAT@icfsurveys.com or 877.99.CPSAT

(877.992.7728) with any questions or visit
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2673 for more
information.
13
76

Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report

Community
Policing
Self-Assessment

Community Policing
Self-Assessment
Tool (CP-SAT)
Results Report
1st & 2nd Administration

CP-SAT Results Report: ALL Agencies

by ICF International, for the

U.S. Department of Justice,
COPS Office

April 19, 2017

 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 77

Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool

Grant Period: ALL CP-SAT
Date Report Run: 4/19/2017

The Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) is intended to assess the extent to
which the community policing philosophy has been implemented throughout participating
agencies. Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which
support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively
address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social
disorder, and fear of crime.

The CP-SAT is designed to measure three key areas in community policing: Community
Partnerships, Problem Solving, and Organizational Transformation. The three key areas of
community policing included in this report are described below.

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
Collaborative partnerships between the law enforcement agency and the
individuals and organizations they serve to develop solutions to problems and
increase trust in police.

PROBLEM SOLVING
The process of engaging in the proactive and systematic examination of identified
problems to develop effective responses.

ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION
The alignment of organizational management, structure, personnel, and
information systems to support community partnerships and proactive problem
solving.

This report first presents summary scores for each section within the CP-SAT across all
participating agencies. Following the summary scores, it provides the average rating for each
question on the CP-SAT.

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

2
78 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Summary Scores
This report summarizes the survey findings across command staff, supervisors, officers,
civilian staff, and community partners. Exhibit 1.0 provides the total number of individual
respondents, as well as the number of agencies that participated in the assessment.

All questions were rated on a Likert-type scale (e.g., 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat,
4 = A lot, 5 = To a great extent). Results are reported as mean agency values (averages) for
each question or set of questions. Specifically, results are first averaged for each agency and
then the mean is calculated across agency-level scores, so that agencies of all sizes are
equally weighted.

Exhibit 1.0. Total Number of Respondents

1st Admin 2nd Admin
Relationship with the Agency Participants Agencies Participants Agencies
Line Officer 55,468 905 42,933 601
First-line Supervisor/ Middle
17,338 876 12,962 582
Management
Command Staff 5,302 912 4,107 593
Civilian Staff 6,821 699 5,391 461
Community Partner 6,679 654 3,700 372
Total 91,608 959* 69,093 631*

*The total number of represented agencies is not the sum for each staff type; it represents the number of
agencies for whom any staff type completed the CP-SAT. Most agencies had participants from more than one
staff type, and no staff type was represented by all participating agencies.

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

3
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 79

Understanding Report Exhibits

For all exhibits, two CP-SAT data bars are presented per topic:
▪ The light blue bar represents the average agency score from the
first round of CP-SAT administration, and

▪ The dark blue bar represents the average agency score from the
second round of CP-SAT administration

Exhibit 2.0 illustrates overall summary scores for each of the three modules: Community
Partnerships, Problem Solving, and Organizational Transformation. Summary scores reflect
the mean of 14 Community Partnership items, 24 Problem Solving items, and 42
Organizational Transformation items.

Exhibit 2.0. CP-SAT Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great 5.0
extent

A lot 4.0
3.18 3.24 3.17 3.24
2.93 2.97
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Community Partnerships Problem Solving Organizational
Transformation

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

4
80 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Summary Scores (Cont.)

Exhibit 2.1 provides the overall scores for the Community Partnerships module by
stakeholder type. Community partnerships are defined as collaborative partnerships between
the law enforcement agency and the individuals and organizations they serve to develop
solutions to problems and increase trust in police. The major topics in this section include
level of interaction with different types of partners, the extent to which the agencies have a
wide range of partnerships, and the agencies' general engagement with the community.

Exhibit 2.1. Community Partnerships Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great 5.0
extent

A lot 4.0
3.44 3.51
3.27 3.27
2.79 2.84 2.92 2.97
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Line Officer First-Line Command Staff Civilian Staff
Supervisor/ Middle
Management

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

5
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 81

Summary Scores (Cont.)

The Problem Solving module measures the degree to which there is agency-wide
commitment to go beyond traditional police responses to crime to proactively address a
multitude of problems that adversely affect quality of life. Exhibit 2.2 provides the overall
scores for the Problem Solving module by stakeholder type. The first section of the module
contains questions about general problem solving topics, such as time officers are given to
engage in the problem-solving process and technology resources available for problem
solving. The next section examines problem-solving processes and is framed around the SARA
model. The section includes questions on identifying and prioritizing problems, analyzing
problems, responding to problems, and assessing problem-solving initiatives.

Exhibit 2.2. Problem Solving Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great 5.0
extent

A lot 4.0
3.52 3.60
3.38 3.42
3.08 3.15 3.18 3.24
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Line Officer First-Line Command Staff Civilian Staff
Supervisor/ Middle
Management

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

6
82 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Summary Scores (Cont.)

Exhibit 2.3 provides the overall scores for the Organizational Transformation module by
stakeholder type. The Organizational Transformation module measures the alignment of
policies and practices to support community partnerships and proactive problem solving.
There are four aspects of organizational transformation measured on this assessment: agency
management, personnel management, leadership, and transparency with the community.

Exhibit 2.3. Organizational Transformation Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great 5.0
extent

A lot 4.0
3.44 3.53 3.40 3.42
3.08 3.15 3.14 3.21
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Line Officer First-Line Command Staff Civilian Staff
Supervisor/ Middle
Management

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

7
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 83

Community Partnerships
Community partnerships are defined as collaborative partnerships between the law
enforcement agency and the individuals and organizations they serve to develop solutions to
problems and increase trust in police. The results presented here represent a snapshot of
the agencies' partnership activities. The results are reported by the four major sections
outlined below.

The Community Partnerships module includes four concepts:

Engagement with a Wide Range of Partners

Examines the extent to which there is active participation of numerous types of
potential community partners with the agency. These potential partners include
other law enforcement agencies, other components of the criminal justice system,
other government agencies, non-profits that serve the community, the local
media, and individuals in the community.

Government Partnerships (Non-law enforcement)

Examples of non-law enforcement government agencies in the community include
parks, public works, traffic engineering, code enforcement, and/or the school
system. The score for government partnerships represents the depth of the
engagement with these partners.

Community Organization and Local Business Partnerships

Examples of non-government partners include block watch groups, faith-based
organizations, neighborhood associations, non-profit service providers, media,
local businesses, and youth clubs. The score for community organization and local
business partnerships represents the depth of the engagement with these
partners.

General Engagement with the Community

Refers to the extent to which the agency proactively reaches out to the community
to involve it in the community policing process.

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

8
84 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Community Partnerships (Cont.)

Exhibit 3.0 provides the mean scores for the extent to which various types of organizations
actively participate as community partners with the law enforcement agencies. “Actively
participate” refers to information sharing, attending meetings, problem identification, and/or
problem solving.

Exhibit 3.0. Engagement with a Wide Range of Partners

1st 2nd
Types of Partners
Administration Administration

Law enforcement agencies (e.g., Federal, State,

and/or Other Jurisdictions) who serve the 3.66 3.72
community

Other components of the criminal justice system

(e.g., probation, parole, courts, prosecutors, and 3.43 3.48
juvenile justice authorities)

Other government agencies (e.g., Parks, Public

Works, Traffic Engineering, Code Enforcement, 3.20 3.25
Schools)

Non-profit/ community-based organizations that

2.89 2.96
serve community members

Businesses operating in the community 2.91 2.99

The local media 2.79 2.80

Individuals in the community 2.87 2.93

*First-line Supervisors/Middle Management
Note: 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = To a great extent.

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

9
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 85

Community Partnerships (Cont.)

Exhibit 3.1a provides the mean scores for the first and second round of administrations for all
agencies, broken down by staff type for the extent to which various types of organizations
actively participates as community partners with the law enforcement agencies.

Exhibit 3.1a. - Engagement with a Wide Range of Partners

Line Officer First-line Sup*
Types of Partners 1st 2nd 1st 2nd
Admin Admin Admin Admin

Law enforcement agencies (e.g., Federal, State,

and/or Other Jurisdictions) who serve the 3.55 3.95 3.64 3.66
community

Other components of the criminal justice system

(e.g., probation, parole, courts, prosecutors, and 3.33 3.68 3.39 3.43
juvenile justice authorities)

Other government agencies (e.g., Parks, Public

Works, Traffic Engineering, Code Enforcement, 3.09 3.67 3.17 3.18
Schools)
Non-profit/ community-based organizations that
2.78 3.42 2.87 2.85
serve community members

Businesses operating in the community 2.85 3.34 2.94 2.83

The local media 2.68 3.20 2.70 2.80

Individuals in the community 2.79 3.35 2.86 2.86

Note: 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = To a great extent.

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

10
86 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Community Partnerships (Cont.)

Exhibit 3.1b provides the mean scores, for the first and second round of administrations for
all CHP agencies, broken down by the remaining staff type for the extent to which various
types of organizations actively participates as community partners with the law enforcement
agencies.

Exhibit 3.1b. - Engagement with a Wide Range of Partners

Cmd Staff Civilian Staff Total

Types of Partners
1st Admin 2nd Admin 1st Admin 2nd Admin 1st Admin 2nd Admin

Law enforcement agencies (e.g.,

Federal, State, and/or Other
4.02 4.05 3.71 3.98 3.66 3.72
Jurisdictions) who serve the
community

Other components of the criminal

justice system (e.g., probation,
3.78 3.88 3.48 3.73 3.43 3.48
parole, courts, prosecutors, and
juvenile justice authorities)

Other government agencies (e.g.,

Parks, Public Works, Traffic
3.59 3.68 3.20 3.70 3.20 3.25
Engineering, Code Enforcement,
Schools)

Non-profit/ community-based
organizations that serve community 3.32 3.37 2.91 3.41 2.89 2.96
members

Businesses operating in the

3.18 3.24 2.91 3.34 2.91 2.99
community

The local media 3.22 3.27 2.82 3.20 2.79 2.80

Individuals in the community 3.21 3.29 2.90 3.30 2.87 2.93

Note: 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = A lot, 5 = To a great extent.

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

11
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 87

Community Partnerships (Cont.)

Exhibit 4.0 provides the mean scores for government partnerships, community organization
and local business partnerships, and general engagement with the community. Items in these
sections measured the strength, quality, and mutuality of partnerships.

Exhibit 4.0. Community Partnerships Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a 5.0
great
extent
4.0
A lot
2.82 2.85 2.84 2.87 2.85 2.89
3.0
Somewhat
2.0
A little
1.0
Government Partnerships Community Organization General Engagement with
Not at all and Local Business the Community
Partnerships

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

12
88 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Community Partnerships (Cont.)

Exhibit 4.1 provides the mean scores for government partnerships by stakeholder type. The
questions in this section ask about the extent of involvement with these partners, such as
collaboration in developing shared goals and communication with partners.

Exhibit 4.1. Government Partnerships Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great 5.0
extent

A lot 4.0
3.46 3.54
3.15 3.18
Somewhat 3.0 2.85 2.91
2.62 2.66

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Line Officer First-Line Command Staff Civilian Staff
Supervisor/ Middle
Management

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

13
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 89

Community Partnerships (Cont.)

Exhibit 4.2 provides the mean scores for non-government partnerships, specifically those
with community organizations and local business partners, by stakeholder type. The
questions in this section ask about the extent of involvement with these partners, such as
collaboration in developing shared goals and communication with partners.

Exhibit 4.2. Community Organization and Local Business Partnerships Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great 5.0
extent

A lot 4.0
3.37 3.44
3.18 3.17
2.84 2.87
Somewhat 3.0 2.69 2.73

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Line Officer First-Line Command Staff Civilian Staff
Supervisor/ Middle
Management

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

14
90 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Community Partnerships (Cont.)

Exhibit 4.3 provides the mean scores for general involvement with the community, such as
attending community events and meetings. These scores are provided by stakeholder type.

Exhibit 4.3. General Engagement with the Community Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great 5.0
extent

A lot 4.0
3.44 3.50
3.01 2.99
Somewhat 3.0 2.71 2.76 2.82 2.87

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Line Officer First-Line Command Staff Civilian Staff
Supervisor/ Middle
Management

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

15
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 91

Problem Solving
Problem solving is defined as the process of engaging in the proactive and systematic
examination of identified problems to develop effective responses. The results presented
here represent a snapshot of the agencies' problem-solving approach and activities. The
results are reported by the five major sections outlined below.

The Problem Solving module includes five concepts:

General Problem Solving

General measure of the extent to which the agency facilitates and engages in
problem solving.

Scanning
Extent to which participants identify problems drawing upon a wide variety of
police and community information.

Analysis
Extent to which participants collect and analyze police and community data on
elements, contributors, and past responses to problems.

Response
Extent to which participants develop and implement both enforcement and non-
enforcement responses with long-term potential for eliminating problems.

Assessment
Extent to which participants evaluate the effectiveness of responses to problems
and adjust responses as appropriate.

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

16
92 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Problem Solving (Cont.)

Problem solving goes beyond traditional crime responses to proactively address a multitude
of problems that adversely affect quality of life. Exhibit 5.0 provides the mean scores for
each section of the Problem Solving module.

Exhibit 5.0. Problem Solving Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great 5.0
extent

A lot 4.0 3.69 3.72

3.25 3.32
3.04 3.13 3.03 3.08
2.88 2.93
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

General Scanning Analysis Response Assessment
Problem
Solving

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

17
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 93

Problem Solving (Cont.)

Exhibits 5.1 provides mean scores for general problem solving by stakeholder type. The
questions in this section reflect topics such as the amount of time officers are given to
engage in problem solving and the frequency of conducting problem solving in their daily
work.

Exhibit 5.1. General Problem Solving Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great 5.0
extent

A lot 4.0
3.38 3.49 3.28 3.33
2.96 3.05 3.05 3.13
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Line Officer First-Line Command Staff Civilian Staff
Supervisor/ Middle
Management

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

18
94 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Problem Solving (Cont.)

Exhibits 5.2 provides mean scores for the problem-solving process "scanning" by stakeholder
type. The questions in this section reflect the extent to which stakeholders identify problems
drawing upon a wide variety of police and community information.

Exhibit 5.2. Scanning Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great 5.0
extent
3.90 3.92 3.78 3.80
A lot 4.0 3.63 3.67 3.66 3.71

Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Line Officer First-Line Command Staff Civilian Staff
Supervisor/ Middle
Management

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

19
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 95

Problem Solving (Cont.)

Exhibits 5.3 provides mean scores for the problem-solving process "analysis" by stakeholder
type. The questions in this section reflect the extent to which stakeholders collect and
analyze police and community data on elements, contributors, and past responses to
problems.

Exhibit 5.3. Analysis Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great 5.0
extent

A lot 4.0
3.51 3.59 3.43 3.53
3.18 3.25 3.23 3.29
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Line Officer First-Line Command Staff Civilian Staff
Supervisor/ Middle
Management

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

20
96 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Problem Solving (Cont.)

Exhibits 5.4 provides mean scores for the problem-solving process "response" by stakeholder
type. The questions in this section reflect the extent to which participants develop and
implement both enforcement and non-enforcement responses with long-term potential for
eliminating problems.

Exhibit 5.4. Response Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great 5.0
extent

A lot 4.0
3.40 3.50
3.13 3.14
2.90 2.97
Somewhat 3.0 2.72 2.78

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Line Officer First-Line Command Staff Civilian Staff
Supervisor/ Middle
Management

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

21
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 97

Problem Solving (Cont.)

Exhibits 5.5 provides mean scores for the problem-solving process "assessment" by
stakeholder type. The questions in this section reflect the extent to which stakeholders
evaluate the effectiveness of responses to problems and adjust responses as appropriate.

Exhibit 5.5. Assessment Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great 5.0
extent

A lot 4.0
3.46 3.53 3.40 3.43
3.06 3.10
2.90 2.95
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Line Officer First-Line Command Staff Civilian Staff
Supervisor/ Middle
Management

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

22
98 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Organizational Transformation
Organizational transformation refers to the alignment of policies and practices to support
community partnerships and proactive problem solving. The results presented here
represent a snapshot of the department’s principles of organizational transformation. The
results are reported by the four major sections outlined below.

The Organizational Transformation module measures four concepts:

Agency Management
Resources and finances; planning and policies; and organizational evaluations.

Personnel Management
Recruitment, selection, and hiring; personnel evaluations and supervision; training;
and geographic assignment of officers.

Leadership
The work, actions, and behaviors of leadership, such as the chief/sheriff and top
command staff, when it comes to supporting community policing.

Transparency
The extent to which the agency is open and forthcoming with the community
about crime and disorder problems and police operations.

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

23
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 99

Organizational Transformation (Cont.)

Organizational transformation refers to the alignment of organizational management,
structure, personnel, and information systems to support community partnerships and
proactive problem solving. Exhibit 6.0 provides the mean scores for each section of the
Organizational Transformation module.

Exhibit 6.0. Organizational Transformation Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration

To a great 5.0
extent

A lot 4.0
3.31 3.38 3.25 3.31
3.16 3.19 3.05 3.14
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Agency Personnel Leadership Transparency
Management Management
Note: Of the 11 Agency Management questions, 7 were answered by only command staff.
Of the 18 Personnel Management questions, 2 were answered by only Line Officers, 3 were
answered by only First-Line Supervisors/Middle Management and Command Staff, and 5
were answered by only Command Staff.

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

24
100 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Organizational Transformation (Cont.)

Exhibit 6.1 provides mean scores for agency management by stakeholder type. Of the 11
Agency Management questions, 7 were given to command staff only. The command only
questions pertain to agency planning, policies, and organizational assessments. The
questions that all staff receive pertain to resources available for problem solving.

Exhibit 6.1. Agency Management Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great 5.0
extent
A lot 4.0
3.39 3.49 3.29 3.29
3.08 3.11 3.20 3.25
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Line Officer First-Line Command Staff Civilian Staff
Supervisor/ Middle
Management

Note: Of the 11 Agency Management questions, 7 were answered by only command staff.

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

25
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 101

Organizational Transformation (Cont.)

Exhibit 6.2 provides mean scores for personnel management by stakeholder type. Of the 18
Personnel Management questions, 2 are answered by line officers only, and 3 are answered
by command staff, supervisors, and middle management only. These questions ask about
officer performance evaluations and manager/supervisor evaluation, respectively. An
additional 5 questions on the extent to which community policing principles are reflected in
recruiting, selection, and hiring, are answered by command staff only. The remaining 8
questions are answered by all staff and ask about training, geographic assignments, and
decision making.

Exhibit 6.2. Personnel Management Summary

To a great 5.0 1st Administration 2nd Administration
extent

A lot 4.0
3.27 3.37 3.31 3.34
2.97 3.06 2.97 3.06
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Line Officer First-Line Command Staff Civilian Staff
Supervisor/ Middle
Management

Note: Of the 18 Personnel Management questions, 2 were answers by only Line Officers, 3
were answered by only First-Line Supervisors/Middle Management and Command Staff, and
5 were answered by only Command Staff.

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

26
102 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Organizational Transformation (Cont.)

Exhibit 6.3 provides mean scores for leadership by stakeholder type. These questions pertain
to the work, actions, and behaviors of leadership, such as the chief/sheriff and top command
staff, when it comes to supporting community policing.

Exhibit 6.3. Leadership Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great 5.0
extent

A lot 4.0 3.74 3.81

3.56 3.60
3.16 3.25 3.27 3.34
Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Line Officer First-Line Command Staff Civilian Staff
Supervisor/ Middle
Management

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

27
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 103

Organizational Transformation (Cont.)

Exhibit 6.4 provides mean scores for transparency with the community by stakeholder type.
These questions reflect the extent to which the agencies are open and forthcoming with the
community about crime and disorder problems and police operations.

Exhibit 6.4. Transparency Summary

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great 5.0
extent

A lot 4.0
3.59 3.70 3.48 3.53
3.17 3.23 3.26 3.32

Somewhat 3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all 1.0

Line Officer First-Line Command Staff Civilian Staff
Supervisor/ Middle
Management

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

28
104 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Community Partner Perspective

Community partners answered questions about the depth of their partnership and
collaboration with their law enforcement agency as well as their perceptions of their law
enforcement agency's engagement and communication with the general public. Exhibit 7.0
provides two numbers: 1) the total number of community partner respondents across all
agencies, and 2) the number of agencies that received at least one response from a
community partner respondent(s).

Exhibit 7.0. Number of Community Partner Respondents

Admin 1 Admin 2
Participants 6,679 3,700
Agencies 654 372

Exhibit 8.0 provides mean responses from the community partner perspective.

Exhibit 8.0. Community Partner Perspective

1st Administration 2nd Administration
To a great
extent 5.0

A lot 4.0 3.85 3.79

3.60 3.55

Somewhat
3.0

A little 2.0

Not at all
1.0
Partnership with the Law Enforcement General Engagement and
Agency Communication with the Community

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

29
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 105

Appendix

The appendix provided in the pages that follow gives the average scores for the first round of administration
on each survey question. These data are reported at the agency level. "N" is the number of agencies with
responses for that item, "Mean" is the agency-level average rating for the item, and "SD" is the standard
deviation (i.e., measure of typical spread or variation around the average) of the agency-level ratings for the
item.

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Community Partnerships
Engagement with a Wide Range of Partners
To what extent do the following types of organizations actively participate as community partners with your
law enforcement agency? (“Actively participate” refers to information sharing, attending meetings, problem
identification, and/or problem solving).
3. Law enforcement agencies (e.g.,
Federal, State, and/or other jurisdictions) 958 3.66 0.43 632 3.72 0.36 0.06
who serve the community.
4. Other components of the criminal
justice system (e.g., probation, parole,
959 3.43 0.42 632 3.48 0.37 0.05
courts, prosecutors, and juvenile justice
authorities).
5. Other government agencies (e.g., Parks,
Public Works, Traffic Engineering, Code 959 3.20 0.47 632 3.25 0.47 0.05
Enforcement, Schools).
6. Non-profit/community-based
organizations that serve community 959 2.89 0.45 632 2.96 0.41 0.07
members.
7. Businesses operating in the community.
958 2.91 0.46 632 2.99 0.43 0.08

8. The local media. 958 2.79 0.52 632 2.80 0.52 0.01
9. To what extent do individuals in the community
actively participate as community partners with your 959 2.87 0.44 632 2.93 0.42 0.06
law enforcement agency?

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

30
106 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Community Partnerships (Cont.)
Government Partnerships (Non-law enforcement)
10. To what extent does your agency provide
sufficient resources (e.g., financial, staff time,
personnel, equipment, political, and/or managerial 958 3.15 0.47 631 3.20 0.45 0.05
support) to support the work of its government
partnerships?
11. To what extent are you involved in implementing
problem-solving projects with government partners? 959 2.68 0.51 631 2.70 0.47 0.03

12. To what extent do you collaborate in developing

shared goals for problem-solving efforts with 958 2.60 0.51 630 2.65 0.48 0.05
government partners?
13. To what extent do government partners share
959 2.61 0.46 631 2.67 0.43 0.06
accountability for the partnership activities?
14. How often do you communicate with government
partners? [1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = 959 3.04 0.49 631 3.05 0.45 0.01
Often, 5 = Very often]

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

31
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 107

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Community Partnerships (Cont.)
Community Organization and Local Business Partnerships
15. To what extent does your agency provide
sufficient resources (e.g., financial, staff time,
personnel, equipment, political, and/or managerial 958 2.97 0.47 631 3.02 0.45 0.05
support) to support the work of its non-government
partnerships?
16. To what extent do non-government partners trust
your law enforcement agency (e.g., share
information, believe that the department takes
959 3.38 0.48 631 3.40 0.45 0.02
accountability seriously, believe the agency follows
through on commitments, believe the agency will be
honest about problems)?
17. To what extent are you involved in implementing
problem-solving projects with non-government 959 2.65 0.53 631 2.65 0.45 0.01
partners?
18. To what extent do you collaborate in developing
shared goals for problem-solving efforts with non- 958 2.57 0.52 631 2.60 0.47 0.03
government partners?
19. To what extent do non-government partners
share accountability for the partnership activities? 958 2.55 0.46 631 2.61 0.43 0.07

20. How often do you communicate with non-

government partners? [1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = 959 2.96 0.46 631 2.97 0.42 0.01
Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Very often]

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

32
108 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Community Partnerships (Cont.)
General Engagement with the Community
To what extent do you…
21. Involve community members in
958 2.90 0.48 632 2.91 0.43 0.01
solutions to community problems?
22. Make contact with a wide range of
community members to assess 959 2.85 0.52 632 2.91 0.48 0.07
community priorities?
23. Attend community events and
meetings? 959 2.81 0.61 632 2.85 0.57 0.04

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

33
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 109

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Problem Solving
General Problem Solving
25. How aware are you of the Scanning, Analysis,
960 2.57 0.66 632 2.69 0.63 0.12
Response, and Assessment (SARA) model?
26. To what extent are officers in your agency given
the shift time to engage in the problem-solving 960 2.75 0.58 632 2.83 0.56 0.08
process?
27. To what extent does your agency keep historical
records (e.g., lessons learned; after action report) of 959 2.98 0.56 632 3.08 0.54 0.09
problem solving for future reference?
28. To what extent does your agency coordinate
problem-solving efforts across the agency (e.g., 960 3.08 0.54 632 3.15 0.51 0.07
separate police divisions and shifts)?
29. How often do you conduct problem solving in
your daily work? [1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = 960 3.84 0.38 632 3.90 0.34 0.06
Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Very often]

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

34
110 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Problem Solving (Cont.)
Problem Solving Processes: Scanning
In identifying and prioritizing the problems in your community, to what extent do you consider…
30. Locations? 959 3.91 0.34 632 3.94 0.31 0.02
31. Victims? 959 3.85 0.38 632 3.89 0.33 0.04
32. Offenders? 959 3.96 0.33 632 3.98 0.31 0.03
33. In identifying and prioritizing the problems in your
community, how much do you use non-law
enforcement information (e.g., community surveys, 959 3.02 0.46 632 3.08 0.43 0.06
community partners, input from caregivers, parole
officers, landlords or business managers)?

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

35
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 111

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Problem Solving (Cont.)
Problem Solving Processes: Analysis
When analyzing a problem, to what extent do you…
34. Examine a comprehensive set of
factors, such as the location, day of week,
time of day, season and environmental 959 3.49 0.41 632 3.53 0.38 0.04
factors (e.g., street lighting and
landscape)?
35. Analyze the strengths and limitations
of past or current responses to the 959 3.32 0.42 632 3.36 0.38 0.04
problem?
36. Examine a range of non-police data
(e.g., government records, community 959 2.79 0.48 632 2.89 0.45 0.10
surveys, school information)?
37. Research and conduct analyses based
on best practices? 959 2.84 0.49 632 2.96 0.45 0.11

38. Gather information about the victims

affected by a problem? 958 3.25 0.48 632 3.34 0.43 0.09

39. Gather information about offenders

contributing to a problem? 959 3.53 0.43 632 3.58 0.38 0.04

40. Gather information about locations

contributing to a problem? 959 3.52 0.42 632 3.57 0.38 0.05

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

36
112 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Problem Solving (Cont.)
Problem Solving Processes: Response
41. How much do you work with stakeholders in
developing responses to problems? 959 2.55 0.53 631 2.59 0.50 0.05

42. In responding to problems, to what extent do you

focus on long-term solutions that address underlying 959 3.05 0.47 632 3.10 0.44 0.05
conditions of problems?
43. To what extent do you determine a response
based on results of problem analysis? 959 2.93 0.46 631 2.97 0.44 0.04

44. To what extent do your problem-solving

responses supplement enforcement activities with
prevention-oriented strategies, such as situational 957 2.99 0.47 632 3.06 0.45 0.07
crime prevention, nuisance abatement, zoning, and
involving social services?
Problem Solving Processes: Assessment
When assessing your problem-solving efforts…
45. How much do you (or someone else)
examine whether the response was 959 3.02 0.46 631 3.07 0.44 0.05
implemented as planned?
46. To what extent do you (or someone
else) determine if the response was 959 2.93 0.49 632 3.00 0.45 0.07
effective, compared to baseline data?
47. To what extent do you (or someone
else) analyze the nature of the problem 959 3.08 0.49 631 3.12 0.46 0.04
further if a response does not work?
48. To what extent do you (or someone
else) analyze the response further if a 959 3.10 0.50 632 3.14 0.47 0.04
response does not work?

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

37
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 113

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Organizational Transformation
Agency Management
49. To what extent are you readily able to access
relevant information (e.g., police, community, and 960 3.22 0.51 631 3.25 0.45 0.03
research data) to support problem solving?
50. To what extent are the problem-solving data
available to you accurate? 960 3.20 0.47 632 3.21 0.43 0.02

51. To what extent does your agency provide the data

(e.g., through reports or intranet access) that you 960 3.28 0.51 631 3.29 0.48 0.01
need to engage in effective problem solving?
52. To what extent has your agency acquired the
necessary information technology hardware and
software (e.g., crime analysis, mapping) to support 960 3.04 0.59 631 3.09 0.57 0.05
problem solving?
53. (Command only) To what degree has your agency
included community policing values (e.g.,
empowerment, trust, accountability, problem solving, 910 3.83 0.74 590 3.92 0.70 0.09
and community partnership) in its mission statement?

54. (Command only) To what degree does your

agency's strategic plan (or similar document) include
goals or objective statements that support 910 3.68 0.80 590 3.79 0.76 0.11
community policing?
55. (Command only) To what extent are community
partners represented in planning and policy activities 910 2.97 0.82 589 3.14 0.79 0.17
(e.g., budgeting, citizen advisory panels)?
56. (Command only) To what extent does your agency
prioritize community policing efforts in making 911 3.22 0.78 589 3.39 0.78 0.17
budgetary decisions?

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

38
114 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

Organizational Transformation (Cont.)
Agency Management (Cont.)
1st Admin 2nd Admin
D%
N % N %
57. (Command only) Does your agency conduct a
review of the performance of the organization 5248 4072
regularly (e.g., at least once every year)?
Yes 79.2% 81.1% 1.9%
No [If No, skip the next 3 questions] 20.8% 18.9% -1.9%
1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
58. (Command only) To what extent did your agency’s
most recent effort to evaluate organizational
performance reflect overall impacts of your 837 3.36 0.61 554 3.47 0.61 0.11
community policing efforts?
59. (Command only) In assessing your organization’s
community policing efforts, to what extent does your
agency incorporate community assessment tools 837 3.05 0.77 554 3.14 0.75 0.09
(e.g., surveys, citizen feedback letters, online input)?

60. (Command only) To what extent did your agency

share the results from your most recent effort to 834 3.01 0.81 555 3.12 0.80 0.11
evaluate community policing?

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

39
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 115

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Organizational Transformation (Cont.)
Personnel Management
61. To what extent does your agency require
demonstrated competency in community policing
(e.g., ability to form productive partnerships, 959 2.95 0.56 631 3.04 0.52 0.09
completion of a successful problem-solving project)
for promotion?
62. How well are expectations for your role in
community policing defined by your law enforcement 959 3.12 0.57 631 3.22 0.53 0.10
agency?
To what extent are officers in your agency trained in…
63. Problem solving? 960 3.30 0.50 630 3.39 0.47 0.09
64. Building community partnerships? 960 3.04 0.58 631 3.15 0.54 0.11
65. To what extent is community policing an agency-
wide effort involving all staff? 960 3.08 0.63 631 3.18 0.58 0.09

66. To what extent are officers in your agency given

adequate uncommitted time to proactively work with 960 2.83 0.64 632 2.92 0.61 0.08
the community?
67. To what extent are geographic, beat, or sector
assignments long enough to allow officers in your
agency to form strong relationships with the 960 3.17 0.62 632 3.22 0.59 0.05
community?
68. To what extent does your agency give patrol
officers decision-making authority to develop 960 3.21 0.58 632 3.26 0.56 0.05
responses to community problems?
To what extent do performance evaluations hold you accountable for…
69. (Line Officers Only) Developing
partnerships with external groups? 904 2.58 0.59 601 2.67 0.53 0.09

70. (Line Officers Only) Using problem

solving? 903 3.02 0.58 601 3.11 0.55 0.09

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

40
116 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Organizational Transformation (Cont.)
Personnel Management (Cont.)
To what extent does recruit field training in your agency include…
71. (Command only) Problem solving? 908 3.45 0.74 586 3.57 0.69 0.12
72. (Command only) Developing 908 3.20 0.77 589 3.33 0.75 0.13
partnerships?
73. (Command only) How much does your agency
involve the community in recruitment, selection, and
hiring processes (e.g., the community might help 908 2.41 0.94 589 2.54 0.97 0.12
identify competencies and participate in oral boards)?

74. (Command only) To what extent does your agency

recruit officers who have strong general problem- 909 3.44 0.76 589 3.52 0.72 0.08
solving skills?
75. (Command only) To what extent does your agency
recruit officers who have an interest in working 908 3.47 0.76 588 3.55 0.75 0.08
collaboratively with the community?
To what extent do performance evaluations hold managers and supervisors in your agency accountable for…
76. (First-Line Supervisor/Middle
Management & Command only)
950 3.10 0.73 624 3.19 0.69 0.09
Encouraging community policing among
officers they supervise?
77. (First-Line Supervisor/Middle
Management & Command only)
950 2.97 0.74 625 3.04 0.68 0.07
Developing partnerships with external
groups?
78. (First-Line Supervisor/Middle
Management & Command only) Using 950 3.07 0.71 624 3.13 0.66 0.06
innovative problem solving?

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

41
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 117

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Organizational Transformation (Cont.)
Leadership
To what extent does your Chief/Sheriff stress the importance of…
79. Community policing to personnel
within your agency? 958 3.52 0.64 631 3.57 0.61 0.06

80. Community policing externally? 957 3.48 0.64 632 3.54 0.60 0.06
To what extent does the top command staff at your agency…
81. Communicate a vision for community
policing to personnel within your agency? 959 3.23 0.65 631 3.30 0.60 0.07

82. Advocate partnerships with the

community? 959 3.36 0.62 632 3.42 0.57 0.06

83. Value officers’ work in partnership

activities? 959 3.31 0.64 631 3.36 0.59 0.05

84. Value officers’ work in problem 959 3.36 0.62 632 3.41 0.59 0.05
solving?
To what extent do first-line supervisors in your agency…
85. Establish clear direction for
community policing activities? 959 3.07 0.60 631 3.16 0.56 0.09

86. Empower officers to do community

policing? 959 3.18 0.60 632 3.29 0.58 0.11

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

42
118 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Organizational Transformation (Cont.)
Transparency
To what extent does your agency provide community members with information on…
87. Agency activities? 959 3.29 0.56 631 3.36 0.51 0.07
88. Crime problems? 959 3.36 0.53 632 3.42 0.51 0.05
89. Crime-prevention tips? 959 3.40 0.55 631 3.45 0.54 0.05
90. Crime maps? 959 2.73 0.73 632 2.82 0.69 0.09
91. To what extent does your agency communicate
openly with community members? 959 3.48 0.53 632 3.53 0.50 0.04

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

43
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 119

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Community Partner Perspective
Partnership with the Law Enforcement Agency
92. (Partner only) To what degree is the law
enforcement agency involved in problem-solving 655 3.69 0.69 373 3.65 0.70 -0.04
projects with your organization?

93. (Partner only) How much does the law

enforcement agency collaborate in developing shared
goals for problem-solving efforts with your 655 3.64 0.68 373 3.56 0.77 -0.07
organization?
94. (Partner only) To what degree does the law
enforcement agency provide sufficient resources
(e.g., financial, staff time, personnel, equipment, 653 3.72 0.66 371 3.66 0.76 -0.06
political, and/or managerial support) to support the
work of your partnership?
95. (Partner only) To what extent does your
organization share accountability with the law 654 3.69 0.66 372 3.61 0.71 -0.08
enforcement agency for the partnership activities?

96. (Partner only) To what extent does your

organization trust the law enforcement agency (e.g.,
share information, believe that the department takes
accountability seriously, believe the agency follows 654 4.33 0.57 372 4.20 0.74 -0.13
through on commitments, and believe the agency will
be honest about problems)?

97. (Partner only) How often does the law

enforcement agency communicate with your
organization? [1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 654 4.06 0.60 371 4.07 0.66 0.01
= Often, 5 = Very often]

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

44
120 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D%
N % N %
Community Partner Perspective (Cont.)
Partnership with the Law Enforcement Agency (Cont.)
98. (Partner only) Please indicate the statement that
best describes the relationship between your 6405 3471
organization and the law enforcement agency:
1 = Interaction with the law enforcement
agency involves one-way communication
from the law enforcement agency to your
organization (for example, educating 5.8% 5.0% -0.80%
and/or informing the organization about
current law enforcement initiatives)

2 = Interaction with the law enforcement

agency involves one-way communication
from your organization to the law
9.4% 9.0% -0.40%
enforcement agency (for example,
informing the law enforcement agency of
community-related concerns)
3 = Interaction between your organization
and the law enforcement agency involves
two-way information sharing (for
example, your organization collects
information on community priorities and 45.7% 48.2% 2.50%
concerns for the law enforcement agency
and the law enforcement agency provides
information about responses)

4 = Interaction with the law enforcement

agency involves collaboration, shared
power, and shared decision-making
between the law enforcement agency and 39.1% 37.7% -1.40%
your organization to determine
community needs, priorities, and
appropriate responses.]

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

45
 Appendix C. All Agency CP-SAT Results Report 121

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Community Partner Perspective (Cont.)
General Engagement and Communication with the Community
99. (Partner only) To what extent does the law
enforcement agency involve community members in 647 3.54 0.62 372 3.50 0.75 -0.04
solutions to community problems?
100. (Partner only) To what extent do officers in the
law enforcement agency introduce themselves to
community members (residents, organizations, and 649 3.81 0.62 372 3.78 0.74 -0.02
groups)?
101. (Partner only) To what extent does the law
enforcement agency develop relationships with
community members (residents, organizations, and 649 3.83 0.62 371 3.81 0.77 -0.02
groups)?
102. (Partner only) To what extent is the law
enforcement agency aware of the priorities of 648 3.83 0.61 372 3.80 0.70 -0.03
community members?
103. (Partner only) To what degree are beat
assignments in the law enforcement agency long
646 3.50 0.69 369 3.50 0.76 0.00
enough to allow police to form strong relationships
with the community?

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

46
122 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

Appendix: CP-SAT Descriptive Statistics by Question (Cont.)

1st Admin 2nd Admin
D Mean
N Mean SD N Mean SD
Community Partner Perspective (Cont.)
General Engagement and Communication with the Community (Cont.)
To what extent does the law enforcement partner…
104. (Partner only) Regularly
communicate with residents (for example,
through websites, newsletters, public 647 3.50 0.69 371 3.46 0.80 -0.04
meetings)?
105. (Partner only) Communicate with the
community openly? 647 3.60 0.66 372 3.55 0.76 -0.05

106. (Partner only) Share information on

crime problems with external parties? 644 3.52 0.63 369 3.46 0.79 -0.06

107. (Partner only) Provide residents with

a mechanism to provide feedback to the 648 3.48 0.68 372 3.40 0.82 -0.08
agency?
108. (Partner only) Make it easy for
community residents and others to
contact the beat officer assigned to their 646 3.52 0.73 370 3.45 0.83 -0.07
area?
109. (Partner only) Communicate a vision
647 3.41 0.73 371 3.32 0.87 -0.09
for community policing externally?
N = Number of agencies with responses to the item, Mean = the average agency-level rating for the item, SD
= the standard deviation of agency-level scores for the item, and D Mean = the mean change from the 1st
admin to the 2nd admin.
Note: Q2 and Q24 are civilian items that screen out civilian staff who have a small or no level of involvement
in community policing within their agency. These items have been excluded from this appendix.

CP-SAT Results Report: All Agencies

 123

Appendix D. CP-SAT Postcard

CP-SAT Community Policing Self Assessment Tool

How’s your community policing going? Take CP-SAT and find out.

Please Help Our Agency https://survey.icfsurveys.com/se.ashx?s=04BD76CC1E43EC40

By Completing the CP-SAT Agency Passcode: [password]

Our agency is participating in the Community Policing Self- Through your participation in this assessment, our agency will be
Assessment Tool (CP-SAT), which is an online survey that collects able to gather valuable data to identify community policing strengths
information about our practice of community policing. and areas for improvement, and enhance our community policy
practices.
100% confidential
Thank you for supporting our agency with your participation.
Takes about 15 minutes If you have questions, please contact:
Tailored to your position
[FirstName LastName at 555-555-1212]

, Visit Us Online - http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2673

CP-SAT Community Policing Self Assessment Tool

How’s your community policing going? Take CP-SAT and find out.

Please Help Our Agency https://survey.icfsurveys.com/se.ashx?s=04BD76CC1E43EC40

By Completing the CP-SAT Agency Passcode: [password]

Our agency is participating in the Community Policing Self- Through your participation in this assessment, our agency will be
Assessment Tool (CP-SAT), which is an online survey that collects able to gather valuable data to identify community policing strengths
information about our practice of community policing. and areas for improvement, and enhance our community policy
practices.
100% confidential
Thank you for supporting our agency with your participation.
Takes about 15 minutes If you have questions, please contact:
Tailored to your position
[FirstName LastName at 555-555-1212]

, Visit Us Online - http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2673

124

Appendix E. CP-SAT Command Staff Flyer

CP-SAT OVERVIEW
The Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) is a 15- Benefits of CP-SAT
minute online survey that your agency is required to administer  No Cost – Services are fully
twice (beginning and end of your grant period) as a COPS Hiring covered by the COPS Office for CHP
grantees
Program (CHP) grantee. CP-SAT confidentially captures
information about community partnerships, problem solving,  Comprehensive – Allows for input
and organizational impact from all ranks of sworn staff, as well from officers, supervisors,
command staff, civilian staff, and
as from civilian staff and community partners, in order to help community partners
law enforcement agencies measure their progress in
 Quick – Takes about 15 minutes for
implementing community policing. Upon completing the CP-
participants to complete
SAT, your agency will receive a results report that summarizes
your agency’s data and helps your agency to enhance its  Valuable – Use the report data in
grant applications, community
community policing efforts through the identification of presentations, strategic planning
strengths and areas for improvement.

Administration Steps
1. Agency key contact compiles participant email list including the following:
a. All sworn staff
b. Civilian staff (i.e., non-sworn) who work on community partnerships and/or problem solving
c. Community partners/organizations that are knowledgeable about the agency and how it
interacts with partners and the community
2. Agency key contact emails survey invitation and two survey reminders (ICF provides sample language)
to participants on the dates specified below:
a. (INSERT ACTUAL DATE): Email Survey Invitation
b. (INSERT ACTUAL DATE): Email Reminder 1
c. (INSERT ACTUAL DATE): Email Reminder 2
3. Agencies with a low response rate are emailed after two weeks of administration
4. (INSERT ACTUAL DATE): Administration period ends
5. Chief executive and agency key contact receives summary report via email

For additional information about the CP-SAT and administration process, please visit
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2673
 125

Appendix F. Data Confidentiality Statement

Confidentiality of Data

Confidentiality of participant data is of great importance to the COPS Office and ICF International. All CP-SAT
responses are anonymous. The data collection process provides no way to identify which participants completed the
CP-SAT. Additionally, there are no individual identifiers in the data and no one (e.g., the agency, the COPS Office,
ICF International) will be able to link an individual’s data to their name, email address, or other personally-
identifiable data.

Data are reported to each agency in aggregate at the agency-level; no individual responses are reported. Additionally,
the CP-SAT modules and subsections are broken down by staff type when sufficient number of responses are
collected. Any individual item or subsection where fewer than three responses are collected will not be displayed on
the agency’s report.

Large agencies that request sampling assistance are asked to provide a roster of staff to ICF International. This data is
used to select a representative sample of staff to invite to take the CP-SAT and no data, including staff name and email
address, can be linked to participant responses. Additionally, ICF maintains the security of all data provided by
maintaining the data on secure servers that are only accessible by project team staff. Although name and email
address are requested as part of the roster to aid the agency is creating the sample frame’s email list, agencies can opt
to provide a unique identifier (e.g., number) to ICF that is later mapped back by the agency to the appropriate email
addresses prior to administration.

All CP-SAT data will ultimately be provided to the COPS Office for future research use. In the dataset that the COPS
Office will receive, all agency-identifiable data (e.g., agency name) will be removed from the data and certain
demographics characteristics (e.g., size, geographic location) will be included for research purposes.

If you have any questions about confidentiality of data or anything else regarding the CP-SAT, please feel free to call
the ICF International CP-SAT administration team at CPSAT@icfsurveys.com or 877.99.CPSAT (877.992.7728).
126

Appendix G. CP-SAT Marketing Flyer

CP-SAT
Community Policing Assessment
for COPS Hiring Grantees

How’s your community policing going?

Take the CP-SAT and find out.

CP-SAT (Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool) is an online

survey that helps you measure your agency's progress in implementing
community policing. CP-SAT confidentially captures information
about community partnerships, problem solving, and organizational
impact. You’ll receive an easy-to-use automated report that summarizes
your agency’s data so you can understand strengths and areas for
improvement.

No cost – The COPS Office is underwriting the cost

of the CP-SAT for its hiring grantees
Comprehensive – Allows for input from officers,
supervisors, command staff, civilian staff, and
community partners
Quick – Takes about 15 minutes for participants
to complete Email CPSAT@icfsurveys.com
Valuable – Use the report data in grant applications, or call 877.99.CPSAT (877.992.7728)
community presentations, strategic planning, and
benchmarking

Visit Us Online
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2673
 127

Appendix H. Example ICF CP-SAT Communication Plan

Overview of 2016 CP-SAT Administration Periods for 2015 and 2013 CHP
# Grant (Admin #) Wave Admin Period
1 2015 CHP (1st Admin) 1 March 8 – March 29
2 2015 CHP (1st Admin) 2 May 3 – May 24
3 2013 CHP (2nd Admin) 3 Aug 2 – Aug 23
4 2013 CHP (2nd Admin) 4 Sept 27 – Oct 18

COPS Hiring Program (CHP)

Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) Communication Plan 2016
Communication/
Medium/ Target Communication
Timeline/Date Schedule Purpose Content
Media Audience Source
Numbering
Initial Communication/Scheduling CHP Agencies (Wave Scheduling Template)
All agencies provide COPS Office with grant
acceptance notification by 1/1/16. COPS
COPS Office provides
Office provides ICF Admin Team with final
ICF with updated list of ICF Admin
January 12, 2016 N/A Email COPS Office list of grantee acceptors. This includes all the
grantees, including Team
information for each agency participating in
award accepted data
the CP-SAT, including date grantee accepted
CHP award.

Provides ALL CHP agencies with project

Wave 1 & 2: background, participation requirements for
COPS Office notifies
January 19, 2016 CHP grant; 2 administration dates; ICF will
ALL CHP agencies of Batch Email ALL CHP
1.0 COPS Office contact agencies in 1 week:
the upcoming CP-SAT or Letter agencies
Wave 3 & 4:
process
June 14, 2016 Wave 1 & 2: January 26, 2016
Wave 3 & 4: June 21, 2016

1
 128 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

COPS Hiring Program (CHP)

Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) Communication Plan 2016
Communication/
Medium/ Target Communication
Timeline/Date Schedule Purpose Content
Media Audience Source
Numbering

Provides Specific types of agencies with

Specific project background, participation
Wave 1 & 2: 2.0: Non-
Agency Type requirements for CHP grant; notify agencies
January 26, 2016 Sampling ICF notifies Specific
• Small ICF drafts and of assigned administration date; ask agencies
2.1: Sampling Agency Types with
Batch Email (<5 sworn) sends email to to confirm administration date by 4.5 weeks
Wave 3 & 4: 2.2: Small assigned administration
• Sampling participants before admin start date:
June 21, 2016 2.3: Sheriff date
2.4: Spanish (>1200
sworn) Wave 1 & 2: February 5, 2016
Wave 3 & 4: July 1, 2016

Reminds all NON-CONFIRMED agencies to

Wave 1 & 2: ICF reminds ALL email or call CP-SAT hotline to confirm
February 2, 2016 agencies who have not ALL CHP assigned administration date before deadline
ICF drafts and
3.0 yet confirmed Individual NON- of 4.5 weeks before admin start date:
sends email to
Wave 3 & 4: administration date to Email CONFIRMED
participants
June 28, 2016 email or call CP-SAT agencies Wave 1 & 2: February 5, 2016
hotline to confirm Wave 3 & 4: July 1, 2016

Provides all NON-CONFIRMED agencies

ICF notifies ALL with the information provided in previous
Wave 1 & 2: agencies who have not email (3.0); Emphasizes the importance of
ALL CHP
February 8, 2016 yet confirmed confirming administration date; Extends
4.0 Individual NON- ICF drafts and
administration date and deadline to confirm to 3.5 weeks before
Email CONFIRMED sends email
Wave 3 & 4: reminds them to COPS Hiring Program admin start date.
agencies (CHP)
July 5, 2016 confirm; Extends
Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) Communication Plan 2016
deadline to confirm Wave 1 & 2: February 12, 2016
Communication/ Wave 3 & 4: July 8, 2016
Medium/ Target Communication
Timeline/Date Schedule Purpose Content
Media Audience Source
Numbering
Wave 1 & 2:
ICF notifies COPS GAD
February 15,
with a list of NON- ICF Tracker Lead Provides COPS GAD with a table of all
2016
5.0 COMPLIANT agencies ICF Emails COPS GAD drafts and sends NON-COMPLIANT agencies, including PoC
that have not confirmed email name and contact information. 2
Wave 3 & 4:
administration date
July 11, 2016
Acknowledges non-sampling agencies in
WAVE 2 or 4 for confirming admin start date
and identifying key contact; informs key
contact that we will provide administration
ICF thanks non-sampling details one month prior to start date.
agencies that confirm
6.0: Non- Wave 2/4 and informs Wave 2: April 5, 2016
Sampling in key contact we will be in Wave 4: August 30, 2016
Wave 2 & 4: Individual
Non-Subsequent touch one month before All Agencies
As agencies Emails, ICF drafts and
Wave administration period assigned to Acknowledges sampling agencies in WAVE
confirm admin Informational sends email
6.1: Sampling in Wave 2 or 4 2 or 4 for confirming admin start date and
date Materials
Non-Subsequent ICF thanks sampling requesting sampling support; identifies
Wave agencies that want variables needed to provide sampling
sampling support for support. Requests support and notifies
confirming Wave 2/4 deadline to submit sworn staff roster at least
six weeks prior to start date.

Wave 2: April 5, 2016

Wave 4: August 16, 2016
Administration Wave
 Appendix H. Example ICF CP-SAT Communication Plan 129

COPS Hiring Program (CHP)

Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) Communication Plan 2016
Communication/
Medium/ Target Communication
Timeline/Date Schedule Purpose Content
Media Audience Source
Numbering
Provides Specific Agency Type with project
background, participation requirements for
CHP grant; reminds agencies of assigned
administration date; attached informational
materials; provides survey URL and agency
passcode. Include the following dates:

Pre-Survey Notification: 1 day prior to

admin start date
Wave 1: March 7, 2016
Wave 2: May 2, 2016
Wave 3: August 1, 2016
Wave 1 & 3: Wave 4: Sept. 26, 2016
As agencies
confirm admin 7.0: Non- Initial Invitation: Admin start date
date Sampling ICF provides Specific Individual Wave 1: March 8, 2016
7.1: Sampling Agency Types in Emails, Specific ICF drafts and Wave 2: May 3, 2016
Wave 2: 7.2: Small upcoming wave with Informational Agency Type sends email Wave 3: August 2, 2016
April 5, 2016 7.3: Sheriff administration details Materials Wave 4: Sept. 27, 2016
7.4: Spanish
Wave 4: Reminder 1: 1 week following admin start
August 30, 2016 date
Wave 1: March 15, 2016
Wave 2: May 10, 2016
Wave 3: August 9, 2016
Wave 4: October 4, 2016

Reminder 2: 2 weeks following admin start

date
Wave 1: March 22, 2016
Wave 2: May 17, 2016
Wave 3: August 16, 2016
Wave 4: October 11, 2016

4
 130 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

COPS Hiring Program (CHP)

Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) Communication Plan 2016
Communication/
Medium/ Target Communication
Timeline/Date Schedule Purpose Content
Media Audience Source
Numbering
Reminder for Specific types of agencies to
get approval from Chief Executive on pre-
survey notification email and finalize
invitation and reminder email language
(including survey URL and agency
passcode) and to send initial invitation on
Admin Start Date.

Pre-Survey Notification: 1 day prior to

admin start date
Wave 1: March 7, 2016
Wave 2: May 2, 2016
Wave 1: Wave 3: August 1, 2016
February 23, Wave 4: Sept. 26, 2016
2016
Initial Invitation: Admin start date
ICF sends PoC at ALL
Wave 2: 8.0. Non- Batch Email Wave 1: March 8, 2016
agencies (see agency
April 19, 2016 Sampling based on Specific ICF drafts and Wave 2: May 3, 2016
type) email reminding
8.1: Sampling Agency Type Agency Type sends email Wave 3: August 2, 2016
them the administration
Wave 3: 8.4: Spanish (Mail Merge) Wave 4: Sept. 27, 2016
period starts in 2 weeks
July 19, 2016
Reminder 1: 1 week following admin start
Wave 4: date
Sept. 13, 2016 Wave 1: March 15, 2016
Wave 2: May 10, 2016
Wave 3: August 9, 2016
Wave 4: October 4, 2016

Reminder 2: 2 weeks following admin start

date
Wave 1: March 22, 2016
Wave 2: May 17, 2016
Wave 3: August 16, 2016
Wave 4: October 11, 2016

5
 Appendix H. Example ICF CP-SAT Communication Plan 131

COPS Hiring Program (CHP)

Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) Communication Plan 2016
Communication/
Medium/ Target Communication
Timeline/Date Schedule Purpose Content
Media Audience Source
Numbering
Quick reminder for Specific Agency Types to
send pre-survey notification on Monday (1
day before admin period starts):

Wave 1: March 7, 2016

Wave 2: May 2, 2016
Wave 3: August 1, 2016
Wave 4: Sept. 26, 2016
Wave 1:
March 3, 2016
…and initial invitation on Admin Start
ICF sends PoC at ALL Date.
Wave 2: 9.0: All Agencies
agencies, (see agency Batch Email
April 28, 2016 except Small Specific
type) a quick reminder to based on ICF drafts and Wave 1: March 8, 2016
and Spanish Agency Type
arrange for pre-survey Agency Type sends email Wave 2: May 3, 2016
Wave 3: 9.2: Small in wave
notification and send (Mail Merge) Wave 3: August 2, 2016
July 28, 2016 9.4: Spanish
initial invitation Wave 4: Sept. 27, 2016
Wave 4:
Quick reminder for only SMALL agencies to
Sept. 22, 2016
send the initial survey invitation to
Community Partners on Admin Start Date
(Tuesday).

Wave 1: March 8, 2016

Wave 2: May 3, 2016
Wave 3: August 2, 2016
Wave 4: Sept. 27, 2016
Wave 1:
March 8, 2016
Individual agencies
Wave 2:
Admin period begins and will be responsible
May 3, 2016
agency PoC disseminates Verint ALL agencies for communicating
Verint CP-SAT survey goes live
invitation email to Website in wave start date to sworn
Wave 3:
participants staff & sending
August 2, 2016
email
Wave 4:
Sept. 27, 2016

6
 132 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

COPS Hiring Program (CHP)

Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) Communication Plan 2016
Communication/
Medium/ Target Communication
Timeline/Date Schedule Purpose Content
Media Audience Source
Numbering
Reminder for agencies with 0 responses to
Wave 1: send survey invitation if they haven’t already
March 10, 2016 done so. See if ICF can provide any
10.0: All
assistance to their agency in helping them
Agencies except ALL agencies
Wave 2: ICF tracks agencies with send out assessment
Small and (except Small
May 5, 2016 0 responses and contacts
Spanish Individual agencies) in ICF drafts and
agency PoC to make sure Reminder 1: 1 week following admin start
10.4: Spanish Email wave with 0 sends email
Wave 3: they sent out the survey date
sworn staff
August 4, 2016 invite Wave 1: March 15, 2016
(no reminder for responses
Wave 2: May 10, 2016
Small agencies)
Wave 4: Wave 3: August 9, 2016
Sept. 29, 2016 Wave 4: October 4, 2016

Wave 1:
March 11, 2016

Wave 2: ICF calls agencies with 0 Reminder for agencies with 0 responses to
ALL agencies
May 6, 2016 responses to notify the send survey invitation if they haven’t already
in wave with 0
11.0 agency PoC of response COPS
Phone Hiring Program (CHP) ICF administrator done so. See if ICF can provide any
sworn staff
Wave 3: rate and identify any assistance to their agency in helping them
Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) Communication Plan 2016
responses
August 5, 2016 issues send out assessment
Communication/
Medium/ Target Communication
Timeline/Date
Wave 4: Schedule Purpose Content
Media Audience Source
Sept. 30, 2016 Numbering
12.0A: All
agencies except
Reminder for ALL agencies (see agency
Small and
type) to send survey reminder to all
Spanish
participants on:
(ABOVE Rep.
Req)
Wave 1: Wave 1: March 15, 2016
12.0B: All
March 14, 2016 Wave 2: May 10, 2016
Agencies except
Wave 3: August 9, 2016
Small and
Wave 2: Wave 4: October 4, 2016
Spanish ICF sends agency PoC Batch Email
May 9, 2016
(BELOW Rep. reminder to send draft based on Specific ICF drafts and
Agencies that have surpassed the 80% report
Req) reminder #1 email to Agency Type Agency Type sends email
Wave 3: requirement will be notified, while agencies
12.2B: Small agency participants (Mail Merge)
August 8, 2016 that are below the 80% requirement will be
(BELOW Rep.
notified of their current response rate and
7
Req)
Wave 4: told the number of additional sworn
12.4A: Spanish
October 3, 2016 participants needed to meet the 80%
(ABOVE Rep.
response rate to receive a Result Report.
Req)
12.4B: Spanish
Small agencies are reminded to send the
(BELOW Rep.
reminder email to their community partners.
Req)

Wave 1:
March 16, 2016
ICF provides COPS
Office with contact
Wave 2:
information for the
May 11, 2016 Provides COPS Office with a list of agencies
agencies that have 0 or ICF drafts and
13.0 ICF Emails COPS Office that have either 0 or extremely low response
extremely low response sends email
Wave 3: rate to contact and encourage participation.
rate so they can begin
Aug. 10, 2016
monitoring and outreach
efforts
Wave 4:
October 5, 2016

8
 Appendix H. Example ICF CP-SAT Communication Plan 133

COPS Hiring Program (CHP)

Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) Communication Plan 2016
Communication/
Medium/ Target Communication
Timeline/Date Schedule Purpose Content
Media Audience Source
Numbering
14.0A: All
agencies except Reminder for ALL agencies (see agency
Small and type) to send survey reminder to all
Spanish participants, including community partners
(ABOVE Rep. on:
Req)
Wave 1:
14.0B: All Wave 1: March 22, 2016
March 21, 2016
agencies except Wave 2: May 17, 2016
Small and Wave 3: August 16, 2016
Wave 2:
Spanish ICF sends agency PoC Batch Email Wave 4: October 11, 2016
May 16, 2016
(BELOW Rep. reminder to send draft based on Specific ICF drafts and
Req) reminder #2 email to Agency Type Agency Type sends email Agencies that have surpassed the 80% report
Wave 3:
14.2B: Small agency participants (Mail Merge) requirement will be notified, while agencies
Aug. 15, 2016
(BELOW Rep. that are below the 80% requirement will be
Req) notified of their current response rate and
Wave 4:
14.4A: Spanish told the number of additional sworn
Oct. 10, 2016
(ABOVE Rep. participants needed to meet the 80%
Req) response rate to receive a Result Report.
14.4B: Spanish
(BELOW Rep. Small agencies are reminded to send the
Req) reminder email to their community partners.

Wave 1:
March 24, 2016 *15.0: All
ICF informs agencies
agencies Below
that have not met ALL agencies Provides agencies that have not met
Wave 2: Grant Req.
response rate that have not minimum response rate with information on
May 19, 2016
requirement of their met minimum the number of participants needed and the
* This Phone calls ICF administrator
current response rate response rate agencies current percentage of sworn
Wave 3: communication
and the # of additional associated participation. Agencies are contacted
Aug. 18, 2016 may not occur
participants needed for with the Grant individually.
within a given
compliance
Wave 4: admin period
Oct. 13, 2016

9
 134 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

COPS Hiring Program (CHP)

Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) Communication Plan 2016
Communication/
Medium/ Target Communication
Timeline/Date Schedule Purpose Content
Media Audience Source
Numbering
Wave 1: March
29, 2016

Wave 2: ALL agencies

May 24, 2016 in wave that
Verint
Admin period ends have satisfied N/A N/A
Website
Wave 3: CP-SAT
August 23, 2016 requirements

Wave 4:
October 18, 2016
Wave 1:
March 30, 2016 Notifies COMPLIANT agencies that their
administration was successful (satisfied their
ALL agencies
Wave 2: ICF notifies CP-SAT requirements) and that they will
in wave that
May 25, 2016 COMPLIANT agencies receive an agency report via email within the
Batch Email met required ICF drafts and
16.0 of meeting 80% response COPS Hiring Program (CHP) next couple of weeks (all compliant
(Mail Merge) response rate sends email
Wave 3: rate required for Result agencies should receive report within 2-3
Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) Communication Plan 2016
to receive
August 24, 2016 Report weeks of admin end date).
Report
Communication/
Medium/ Target Communication
Timeline/Date
Wave 4: Schedule Purpose Content
Media Audience Source
October 19, 2016 Numbering

17.0A: All
Agencies except ICF informs agencies
Wave 1: Small (ABOVE that have not met
Notifies all NON-COMPLIANT agencies of
March 30, 2016 Grant Req but response rate required to
its current response rate and required
BELOW Rep. receive Result Report
response rate; extends admin period 1 week
Wave 2: Req) (80%) of their current ALL agencies
(until 4 weeks after admin start date).
May 25, 2016 response rate and the # in wave not
Individual ICF drafts and
17.0B: All of additional participants meeting
Emails sends email Wave 1: April 5, 2016
Wave 3: Agencies except needed to receive required
Wave 2: May 31, 2016
August 24, 2016 Small (BELOW Report. As a result, the response rate
Wave 3: August 30, 2016
Grant Req) administration period for
Wave 4: October 25, 2016
Wave 4: these agencies is being
October 19, 2016 17.2: Small extended an additional
(BELOW Grant week.
Req) 10

11
 Appendix H. Example ICF CP-SAT Communication Plan 135

COPS Hiring Program (CHP)

Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) Communication Plan 2016
Communication/
Medium/ Target Communication
Timeline/Date Schedule Purpose Content
Media Audience Source
Numbering
Wave 1:
Batch 1 Starts
(80% in weeks 1-
3): March 30;
Batch 2 Starts
(80% in weeks 4-
6): April 20

Wave 2:
Batch 1 Starts
(80% in weeks 1-
3): May 25; Batch
2 Starts (80% in
weeks 4-6): June ICF runs and Individual agency data and agency
ALL agencies
15 ICF provides ALL provides Summary benchmark data provided to each compliant
Individual in wave that
18.0 COMPLIANT agencies Reports to each agency in wave. Report delivery email also
Emails met required
Wave 3: with Summary Reports compliant agency request contact or chief exec to provide
response rate
Batch 1 Starts in wave confirmation of Summary Report delivery
(80% in weeks 1-
3): August 24;
Batch 2 Starts
(80% in weeks 4-
6): September 14

Wave 4:
Batch 1 Starts
(80% in weeks 1-
3): October 19;
Batch 2 Starts
(80% in weeks 4-
6): November 9

12
 136 Community Policing Self-Assesment Tool (CP-SAT) | Final Report

COPS Hiring Program (CHP)

Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) Communication Plan 2016
Communication/
Medium/ Target Communication
Timeline/Date Schedule Purpose Content
Media Audience Source
Numbering
Wave 1:
Batch 1 Starts
(80% in weeks 1-
3): March 30;
Batch 2 Starts
(80% in weeks 4-
6): April 20

Wave 2:
Batch 1 Starts
(80% in weeks 1-
3): May 25; Batch ICF notifies NON- SMALL
2 Starts (80% in COMPLIANT SMALL agencies (<4
weeks 4-6): June agencies of our inability sworn) in Notifies NON-COMPLIANT SMALL
15 to provide a Results wave that did agencies that it will not receive a Report
19.2: Small Individual ICF drafts and
Report (i.e., agency did not follow Summary because the agency did not follow
(Non-Compliant) Emails sends email
Wave 3: not follow the required required admin the admin process (>1 sworn/civilian
Batch 1 Starts admin process by process and response submitted)
(80% in weeks 1- submitting more than 1 submit only 1
3): August 24; sworn response). response
Batch 2 Starts
(80% in weeks 4-
6): September 14

Wave 4:
Batch 1 Starts COPS Hiring Program (CHP)
(80% in weeks 1- Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) Communication Plan 2016
3): October 19;
Batch 2 Starts Communication/
Medium/ Target Communication
Timeline/Date
(80% in weeks 4- Schedule Purpose Content
Media Audience Source
6): November 9 Numbering
ICF notifies ALL
20.0A: All
agencies less than 80%
Agencies except
sworn response rate of
Small (ABOVE Notifies all NON-COMPLIANT agencies of
additional extension to
Wave 1: Grant Req but its current response rate and response rate
try to meet response rate
April 6, 2016 BELOW Rep. required to receive Result Report; Agencies
required to receive
Req) below grant rate requirement are also
Result Report. ICF drafts and
Wave 2: ALL agencies notified of the agency Turnover to COPS;
13
sends email
June 1, 2016 20.0B: All in wave that extends admin period another 1 week (until
ICF notifies NON- Individual
Agencies except have not met 5 weeks after admin start date).
COMPLIANT agencies Emails 20.2 is a phone call
Wave 3: Small (BELOW required
of their current response to NON-
August 31, 2016 Grant Req) response rate Wave 1: April 12, 2016
rate and the additional COMPLIANT
Wave 2: June 7, 2016
number of sworn staff
Wave 4: 20.2: Small Wave 3: September 6, 2016
required to participate to
October 26, 2016 (BELOW Grant Wave 4: November 1, 2016
satisfy grant rate
Req) (Phone call
requirement. Also
follow-up)
notifies agencies of
COPS turnover.
Wave 1:
April 6, 2016
ICF notifies COPS of
Wave 2: NON-COMPLIANT
June 1, 2016 agencies with unmet ICF Tracker Lead Provides COPS Office with a list of agencies
21.0
response rates and ICF Emails COPS GAD drafts and sends that remain NON-COMPLIANT after 1 week
Wave 3: agencies less than 80% email extension period.
August 31, 2016 sworn response rate for
them to contact
Wave 4:
October 26, 2016
 Appendix H. Example ICF CP-SAT Communication Plan 137

COPS Hiring Program (CHP)

Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CP-SAT) Communication Plan 2016
Communication/
Medium/ Target Communication
Timeline/Date Schedule Purpose Content
Media Audience Source
Numbering
Wave 1:
April 20, 2016

Wave 2:
June 15, 2016 ICF informs agencies All agencies
below the 80% sworn that did not get Notifies ALL agencies that received less than
22.0 Individual ICF drafts and
Wave 3: response rate of our at least 80% an 80% sworn response that they will not
Emails sends email
September 14, inability to provide a sworn staff receive a Report Summary.
2016 Report Summary response rate.

Wave 4:
November 9,
2016

15
138

Acronyms
CP-SAT– Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool

CP– community policing

COPS Office– U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

PERF– Police Executive Research Forum

CHP– COPS Hiring Program

CHRP– COPS Hiring Recovery Program

LEA– law enforcement agency

EFA– exploratory factor analysis

 139

About ICF
Headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia, ICF provides profes- provided by our human capital experts, who specialize in
sional service solutions that deliver impact in areas critical conducting workforce studies and improving management
to the world’s future. ICF is fluent in the language of change, challenges faced by organizations and the individuals who
driven by markets, technology, or policy. Since 1969, we comprise them. Our staff are well known for designing and
have combined a passion for our work with deep industry deploying assessments and analytics across the range of
expertise to tackle our clients’ most important work chal- human capital disciplines, including training, workforce
lenges. Our more than 7,000 employees serve federal, local, planning, selection, promotion, engagement, recruitment,
international, and commercial clients from more than 69 retention, and succession planning.
ICF offices worldwide. The services for this project were
140

About the COPS Office

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Since 1994, the COPS Office has invested more than $14
(COPS Office) is the component of the US Department billion to add community policing officers to the nation’s
of Justice responsible for advancing the practice of commu- streets, enhance crime fighting technology, support crime
nity policing by the nation’s state, local, territorial, and prevention initiatives, and provide training and technical
tribal law enforcement agencies through information and assistance to help advance community policing. Other
grant resources. achievements include the following:

Community policing begins with a commitment to building zzTo date, the COPS Office has funded the hiring of
trust and mutual respect between police and communities. It approximately 130,000 additional officers by more than
supports public safety by encouraging all stakeholders to 13,000 of the nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies in
work together to address our nation’s crime challenges. both small and large jurisdictions.
When police and communities collaborate, they more
zzNearly 700,000 law enforcement personnel, community
effectively address underlying issues, change negative
members, and government leaders have been trained
behavioral patterns, and allocate resources.
through COPS Office–funded training organizations.
Rather than simply responding to crime, community
zzTo date, the COPS Office has distributed more than eight
policing focuses on preventing it through strategic prob-
million topic-specific publications, training curricula,
lem-solving approaches based on collaboration. The COPS
white papers, and resource CDs and flash drives.
Office awards grants to hire community policing officers
zzThe COPS Office also sponsors conferences, round
and support the development and testing of innovative
tables, and other forums focused on issues critical to
policing strategies. COPS Office funding also provides
law enforcement.
training and technical assistance to community members
and local government leaders, as well as all levels of COPS Office information resources, covering a wide range
law enforcement. of community policing topics such as school and campus
safety, violent crime, and officer safety and wellness, can be
downloaded via the COPS Office’s home page, www.cops.
usdoj.gov. This website is also the grant application portal,
providing access to online application forms.
 The Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool, or CP-SAT, was developed by ICF Inter-

national to measure the extent of agencies’ community policing activities in the areas of

community partnerships, problem solving, and organizational transformation. It provides

a way to determine the status of community policing implementation at the agency level,

at different ranks and functions and across time.

The CP-SAT was made available for use by law enforcement agencies that received a COPS

Hiring Program grant between 2011 and 2016: It was administered more than 1,500 times to

960 unique agencies, representing more than 150,000 respondents. This report provides an

account of the development, administration, and results of the CP-SAT over that time and

analyzes CP-SAT results among command staff and line officers and across small, medium,

and large agencies. These data offer a much-needed benchmark for researchers: a detailed

snapshot of community policing practices in use across the field.

U.S. Department of Justice ICF

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 9300 Lee Highway
145 N Street NE Fairfax, VA, 22031
Washington, DC 20530
Visit ICF online at https://www.icf.com/.
To obtain details about COPS Office programs, call
the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770.

Visit the COPS Office online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

e061801880
Published 2020