Share This Article
Article Summary
Cincinnati’s taxpayer-funded public safety program is facing scrutiny over whether it can demonstrate measurable results from its summer youth violence prevention efforts. The Cincinnati Collaborative Foundation reported declines in robberies, aggravated assaults and shooting incidents in the Central Business District, but critics say the figures do not establish that the program caused the reductions. The debate highlights calls for stronger performance tracking and accountability for public spending.
Cincinnati’s public safety program is facing questions about its effectiveness after officials reported declines in several downtown crime categories but critics questioned whether the city has enough data to prove the initiative is working.
The Cincinnati public safety program, led by the Cincinnati Collaborative Foundation (CCF), uses community outreach and youth engagement to help prevent violence.
However, a former city councilmember and a government watchdog say the city needs stronger evidence to determine whether the taxpayer-funded effort is producing measurable results.
Cincinnati Collaborative Foundation reports summer outreach efforts
The Cincinnati Collaborative Foundation presented its summer public safety activities to Cincinnati City Council’s Public Safety and Quality of Life Committee on Tuesday, Oct. 20.
CCF President Iris Roley described the initiative as an example of continued cooperation among community organizations and public safety partners.
“Collaboration around public safety is well and alive in the year of 2026,” Roley said, according to WCPO 9 News.
The initiative focused on preventing youth violence through community outreach and engagement as Cincinnati moved from summer into fall.
Community care monitors helped connect young people with resources and supported activities intended to reduce violence and improve neighborhood safety. The broader effort also involved youth programming, including Rec @ Nite.
The city allocated approximately $54,000 for the summer programming, according to WCPO’s reporting on the initiative.
However, questions remain about whether the foundation can demonstrate a direct connection between its activities and changes in local crime rates.
Downtown Cincinnati crime declines, but questions remain
Figures presented by Roley showed year-over-year declines in three reported crime categories in Cincinnati’s Central Business District.
The reported figures included:
| Crime category | Previous year | Current year | Reported change |
| Robberies | 40 | 25 | Down 37.5% |
| Aggravated assaults | 24 | 16 | Down 33.3% |
| Shooting incidents | 11 | 7 | Down 36.4% |
These figures indicate fewer reported incidents in each category during the comparison period.
However, the declines do not establish that the foundation’s outreach efforts caused the improvements.
Other factors, including police deployment, broader crime trends and other community-based initiatives, could have contributed to the changes.
The figures also cover specific crime categories in the Central Business District. They should not be interpreted as evidence of equivalent declines across all of Cincinnati.
Critics call for stronger performance measurements
Former Cincinnati City Councilmember Steve Goodin and former U.S. Inspector General Todd Zinser questioned whether the city has sufficient data to evaluate the program’s effectiveness, according to WCPO.
Their concerns center on the difference between documenting program activities and demonstrating measurable public safety outcomes.
For example, counting the number of young people contacted or community events held can show how much work the initiative performs. Those figures alone cannot establish whether the program prevents violence or reduces crime.
A more comprehensive evaluation could track the number of young people served, referrals to community resources, de-escalation interventions and changes in crime in areas where the initiative operates.
Comparing those outcomes with similar areas and examining trends over time could also help officials determine whether the program contributes to improvements in public safety.
Cincinnati faces questions about taxpayer spending
The debate over the foundation’s summer initiative raises broader questions about how the city evaluates publicly funded community safety programs.
The approximately $54,000 allocated for summer programming represents a specific portion of the foundation’s work. It should be distinguished from its broader city contracts for community outreach and violence prevention.
WCPO has previously examined the city’s contracts with Roley and raised questions about contract oversight, payments to subcontractors and the effectiveness of related initiatives.
However, questions about performance measurement do not, by themselves, establish that public funds were misused.
The issue is whether Cincinnati can demonstrate that its investment produces meaningful results for residents.
Clear performance targets, consistent reporting and independent evaluations could help city officials determine whether the initiative merits continued funding or requires changes.
For residents and taxpayers, the distinction matters: a program can conduct extensive outreach without necessarily demonstrating that it reduces violence.
The latest discussion puts the focus on whether Cincinnati can move beyond reporting activities and declining crime figures to establish the impact of its public safety investments.
FAQs
How much taxpayer money was allocated for the summer program?
Approximately $54,000 was allocated for the summer programming, according to WCPO’s reporting. This amount should be distinguished from the foundation’s broader contracts with the city.
Why are critics questioning the program’s effectiveness?
Critics argue that documenting outreach activities is not enough to demonstrate that a program prevents violence. They want measurable outcomes that connect the city’s spending to improvements in public safety.
Could Cincinnati change its funding for the foundation?
Future funding decisions depend on the city’s budget priorities, contractual obligations and evaluation of the foundation’s work. Officials could consider additional reporting requirements or revised performance measures when reviewing the program.
