Reducing the fear and reality of crime in every neighborhood will be one of the major challenges for the mayor whom Philadelphians will elect next month.

So it is imperative that the major candidates, Democrat John F. Street and Republican Sam Katz, have a plan to attack crime and its root causes. Many of the more than 500 people who participated in The Inquirer's year-long Citizen Voices project on the mayoral race focused not only on the need for more police - and better-equipped and trained police - but also on alternative sentencing and crime prevention, such as after-school programs.

For much of the early campaign, Mr. Katz had a smart and popular answer: Keep Police Commissioner John F. Timoney, the former number two cop in New York City when crime plummeted. He has gained high marks here for his approach to running a department formerly plagued by a practice of under-reporting crime while the city wasn't keeping pace with others in reducing real crime.

Then on Oct. 2, Mr. Street was goaded by his opponent into making a politically expedient exception to his policy of not naming future department heads. Some may wonder at the depth of a commitment he had to be pushed into making.

In fairness, Mr. Street gets credit for leading the effort on City Council to look for new police leadership and worked with Mayor Rendell to land Mr. Timoney in the first place.

The question now is which candidate is better able to lead on public safety.

Mr. Street has promised that Philadelphia would join other cities to sue gun manufacturers to force them to make safer weapons. Mr. Katz has said, belatedly, that he would seriously consider that "possibility" as part of a program to deter gun violence.

The cornerstone of Mr. Street's anti-crime efforts is a proposal to hire an auxiliary force of mostly retired police officers, including prison guards and probation officers. That force would eventually relieve as many as 400 officers now engaged in everything from responding to complaints of abandoned cars to administrative chores. The addition of those officers would then create a combined force of 1,000 cops working against illegal drug activities.

Mr. Street said he would "go through the city budget with a fine tooth comb" to find the funds for this project. He doesn't see this as a difficult task because, unlike his opponent, he has not promised such deep cuts in city taxes.

But his plan has gotten little traction on City Council and a chilly reception from the Fraternal Order of Police. Mr. Street insists that coming contract negotiations with the FOP should leave room for compromise.

He also has an elaborate after-school program that would increase current spending by about $200,000, money he says can be found in future budgets.

By contrast, Mr. Katz's position on crime and safety offers mostly broad proposals, such as a plan to create community-sited courts that would deal with low-level crimes such as vandalism, graffiti, shoplifting and prostitution. Those courts would mete out alternative sentencing such as community service or drug treatment for minor offenses, and would be staffed by "redeploying" personnel.

Mr. Katz would appoint a deputy mayor for public safety and improve police effectiveness through "structural reforms in recruitment and training," including prospects from the military, as Mr. Timoney has suggested.

Mr. Katz also would expand after-school programs, using schools and community recreation centers to keep children off the street. But he does not say how he'd fund them.

Voters will need to have faith in the unfulfilled details of Mr. Katz's broad proposals, particularly because of his pledge to cut the wage tax more deeply. For that matter, Mr. Street's promise to "comb the budget" he's been combing for years, looking for extra cash to hire retired cops and expand after-school programs, also is built on faith.

And both candidates will have to figure out how to pay for the presidential present of 750 extra officers when the federal crime funds created to hire them soon run out.

Voters will have to listen carefully in the final days of the campaign in deciding whose program and whose leadership promises the safer future for Philadelphia.