City of Pomona Weed and Seed Strategy

SECTION 1: Program Overview City of Pomona Weed and Seed Strategy (Fisseha and Gabe) OverviewWeed and Seed is a strategy funded by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that is an inventive, comprehensive multi-agency approach to law enforcement, crime deterrence, and community renewal. The Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO) of the Department of Justice (DoJ) oversees the Weed and Seed initiative on behalf of the federal government.According to the Weed and Seed Strategy Committee (Pomona), their Weed and Seed efforts aim to: “prevent, control, and reduce violent crime, drug abuse, and gang activity in a designated high-crime neighborhood.”Weed and Seed utilizes two methods for carrying out the strategy. First is to “weed” out criminals and drug abuse with the help of law-enforcement agencies and prosecutors. The second is for community-based organizations and public agencies “seed” in neighborhood with community services and programs. Armando Lopez, the Weed and Seed Site Coordinator stated that Weed and Seed presents youth and families with the challenge of making a difference in their community as well as providing institutions and agencies with opportunities for collaborative programs. It is important to note that a community-oriented policing component bridges the weeding and seeding elements of the strategy.The prevention, intervention, and treatment components concentrate on an array of services that links law enforcement with social services agencies, the non-profit sector, and the community to improve the quality of life for area residents. Weed and Seed sites are required to establish safe havens, multi-service centers where youth and adult services are available. Through the coordinated use of federal, state, local, and private- sector resources, neighborhood restoration strategies focus on economic development and improvements to housing and the physical environment of a neighborhood.1 Vision The overall goal of the Weed and Seed Strategy is to prevent, control and reduce violent crime, drug abuse and gang activity in the designated high-crime neighborhoods.Every Weed and Seed Strategy focuses on: • Law Enforcement • Community-Oriented Policing • Prevention Intervention and Treatment • Neighborhood RestorationLaw Enforcement  Law enforcement will integrate local, state and federal resources available to address the affected neighborhoods where gang and drug activities are linked.Identified Goals – Reduce the incidents of drug and gang activity by 15%. – Identify, investigate and prosecute highly-visible drug dealers and gang members. Community-Oriented Policing  Partner with non-law enforcement agencies for effective coordination and direct delivery of resources and services to project area residents.Identified Goals – Encourage resident reporting of all illegal weapons, drug and gang activity. – Increase suspect identification through neighborhood victim/witness protection and assistance outreach service programs. Prevention, Intervention and Treatment  Provide culturally appropriate services and educational assistance to neighborhood youth and families.2 Identified Goals – Provide counseling and case management for at-risk youth and anger management training for troubled families. – Increase the availability of various services (i.e., drug treatment, counseling, case management, parenting skills training, educational opportunities).Neighborhood Restoration  Provide training and assistance to promote participation in property revitalization activities and neighborhood rehabilitation.Identified Goals – Improve neighborhood and economic development opportunities within the targeted area. – Decrease areas of blight and incidents of graffiti and vandalism. Target Population Below are the area’s demographics:• Population - 21,023 (approx 14% of Pomona’s population)• Demographics– Latino 77.7% – Households 3,906 – Average Family Income $48,455– Avg. Household Size 4.7– Overcrowding Rate 46.9%– Population under 18 years old 38%– Poverty Rate 19%– Adults over 25 without a high school diploma 59%3 Target Area Located in the southern part of the City of Pomona, the Weed and Seed Strategy directly affects Council Districts 2 and 3 (83rd, 84th and 87th District) bordered by Lexington Ave on the north to the 60 Freeway on the south and by the 71 Freeway (west) to S. Reservoir St (to the east), with the population of about 15,000 residents.History (Hilda Saizow Report)In August of 2001, an Angela/Chanslor/Orchid (ACO) Strike Force project was developed to tackle community problems and public safety concerns. One incident in the area involved innocent bystanders being caught in gang crossfire. The city infuriated by the expanding crime rate, drug and gang violence, the Angela Chancellor neighborhood and the city of Pomona joined forces with local organizations to initiate the ACO Strike Force to “eliminate crime violence, revitalize and restore a safe, positive and productive community environment.”Since its August 2001 inception, the ACO Strike Force Steering Committee had conducted regularly scheduled meetings twice a month. Reports usually related to relevant neighborhood and community “happenings” (positive and negative), community social and cultural events and information on the current status of service delivery programs and/or organizational activities of member agencies and organizations such as the Pomona Police Department which was extensively involved in providing community policing services and anti-gang and drug enforcement effort to the project areas. In an effort to further augment the success of the ACO Strike Force, the Pomona PD had urged the ACOSF committee to adopt a Weed and Seed strategy as a complementary effort to existing ACO initiatives. This approach was seen as a means for improved long- term program performance that would improve communications with neighborhood residents, increase economic opportunities and improve the quality of life in the target area. However, the ACO efforts were not without its share or problems. The Police Department reported that in 2002 the ACO neighborhood was one of the lowest income and highest unemployment areas of the city of Pomona. As a neighborhood of low-to-4 moderate rental rates with relatively affordable apartments, many residents are recent immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and other Central and South American countries. These residents spoke little or no English and unfamiliarity with English provided a barrier for those seeking employment and/or training to become employed in better paying jobs. The residents tended to be transient, seeking safer living conditions for their families. It was difficult for the ACOSF to acquire information about the project area because of the language barrier and the unwillingness by residents to provide surveyors with data that they were concerned might jeopardize their immigrant status or living situation.The ACO area, with its violent crime rate, had the highest Calls for Service (CFS) in the city. The number of crimes on a per capita basis exceeded the average for all neighborhoods in the city.Pomona has the highest crime rate (4,026.9 per one hundred thousand in 2006) of all cities in Los Angeles County with the single exception of the city of Los Angeles (5,029.3). According to the Pomona Police Department’s gang records, the ACO project area –prior to Weed and Seed -- was dominated by the Olive Street gang, which had a membership of 68 persons and a number of unknown affiliates. It was important to the Police Department, members of the steering committee and city residents to weed out crime and introduce (seed) social programs by bringing together the ACO Task Force into the larger Weed and Seed strategy in hopes of getting additional funding to carry out prevention, intervention and treatment efforts in Pomona.5 SECTION 2: Perceptions of Program and Criteria (Anthony Haynes)The Weed and Seed program is a community-based strategy overseen and approved by the United States Department of Justice. The program encompasses four distinct areas: 1. Law Enforcement. 2. Community development and revitalization. 3. Community-Oriented Policing 4. Prevention, Intervention and TreatmentThe main goals of the Weed and Seed program are to prevent increases in violent crimes, drug use or abuse and gang violence. The primary goal for law enforcement during this program will be to “Weed Out” crime in targeted districts. The community development portion of the program will be geared towards “Seeding” the neighborhoods with community-based organizations. Police will involve and engage the community and seek to solve problems collaboratively.  Community intervention and prevention will use social services and the non-profit sector to aid and serve the community.  Safe havens will be established in three locations throughout the target area. a. Renacimiento, near the Angela/Chancellor neighborhoods. b. Philadelphia Community Center c. Lexington Elementary School (Per the Letter of Understanding, April 2008).The utmost importance has been placed on containing the Olive-Street gang and its affiliates operating in the target area. The demise and elimination of the Olive gang is the main goal for the “weeding” aspect of the program. 6 Technical Assistance Perspective on Program in 2006Hildy Saizow summarized the concerns of the Department of Justice regarding the Pomona program.1. The Steering Committee of Weed and Seed did not appear to understand the goals and objectives of program and there was no clear strategy. 2. There was a need to strengthen neighborhood organizations and to support leaders from within the community.3. There was a need to build trust amongst the Steering Committee members. Disagreements and frustrations among members resulted in an unproductive work environment.4. Residents are not involved in the four sub-committees due to lack of meetings.5. There was not an operational Safe Haven in the area. There was a safe haven site outside of the target area that provided tutoring from 2:30 to 4:00 in the afternoon.6. There is a lot of confusion between the service providers and the Steering Committee. There was no criteria to determine what providers to hire and for what purpose.7. There needs to be much more communication between the Steering Committee and the community. Residents are not aware of what the Weed and Seed program is and how they can get involved. 7 8. Improve the effectiveness of the Steering Committee by continuing to meet monthly. (Technical Assistance Summary, March 2006)Weed and Seed Oversight Committee Perceptions of the Program, Goals and Criteria (Focus Group and Elite Interview of April 2005)The Weed and Seed Focus Group and Elite Interviews were more closely aligned with the recommendations of the Department of Justice in 2008 than in 2006. For example Oversight Committee members indicated that: 1. Police patrols have had an increase in presence within the target area 2. Gang injunctions against the Olive St. Gang helped the community 3. License plate reading equipment has helped solve crimes in the target area.Community based support for the Weed and Seed program is best exemplified now by: 1. The National Night Out event which has built the concept of neighborhood and allowed for the residents to feel safe in their homes and neighborhood, 2. The Boy Scouts of America helps the community’s youths build skills outside of home, 3. The Girl Scouts is also a skill builder for the youth, 4. A Parenting program, initially provided by the school district, is independently run by two city employees on a voluntary basis, 5. The Fists of Gold is helping the youths build character and relieve frustrations in a gym and not out on the streets, 6. Safe Havens have been pivotal for the neighborhood of Angela/Chancellor. The Renacimiento Center is the focus of community activities in this area of district 84. The Philadelphia Community Center is small but still active and being used heavily by the youth. Lexington 8 School has had restrictions on the Weed and Seed Program but it is still a Safe Haven site and available for after school programs These programs noted above are examples of efforts for greater community input, coordination and cooperation.Some Community-Oriented Policing has been demonstrated by: 1. The WE TIP hotline which was expanded to the target area to monitor suspicious activity. WE TIP is completely anonymous and builds trust between the police and residents. 2. Community policing has informed residents that there is a neighborhood watch program and currently there are twenty such programs now operating in this area. From this material the research evaluation team believes the overarching criteria to be used for assessing the Weed and Seed program are as follows:  A strategy to reduce crime  Collaboration, coordination and communication among community based organizations o Residential support for these efforts o Programs serve needs of area youth  Programs serve the residents of the target area  Cooperation and collaboration between police and residents  Better quality of life in neighborhoods: safer, cleaner, more trusting, etc. with regards to neighbors, service providers and government agencies.The research team reviewed the criteria for strategies to reduce crime and found three elements of importance: 1. Gang injunctions against the Olive St. Gang. 2. License plate reading equipment to solve crimes in the target area. 3. Police presence and safety has increased in the target area.9 After reviewing the criteria for community based support through collaboration and coordination the research team found multiple items of interest: 1. There is a Weed and Seed oversight committee with Armando Lopez as its coordinator. 2. There is support from the Pomona Police Department who has assigned Cpl. Lena Becker to the Weed and Seed program and who serves on the Oversight Board. 3. Safe Havens have been established to support the youth. 4. Residents of the city are allowed to participate and volunteer their time. 5. Various organizations have become involved in the program. For example, The Boy Scouts of America and The Girl Scouts. 6. The Fall Festival is an opportunity to bring neighbors together to enjoy a safe evening as a community. 7. Parental involvement of the youth in the community is a priority (at the local level) for the Weed and Seed program. 8. Empowerment within the community may be demonstrated by the residents notifying police about local street hoodlums who deface property. 9. Academics, drug counseling and treatment are some of the programs Weed and Seed offers the community.Weed and Seed serves the residents of the target area. It operates in Pomona, California in policing districts 83, 84 and 87.Cooperation between the community and police has shown support on three different occasions: 1. Calls for service to the Police Department for assistance. 2. Growth in Neighborhood Watch programs.10 A better quality of life in neighborhoods can be mentioned in two different examples: 1. Trust and support of neighbors. 2. Trust and support of the police. 3. More programs operated out of community centers 4. Satisfaction with city services and youth programs.These criteria will be utilized to assess the Weed and Seed program in Section 7 of this report.SECTION 3: Crime Statistics for 2005 versus 2008 (Kevin and Michael)This section of the report utilizes crime statistics from the Pomona Police Department for 2004-05 and 2006-07. The data includes information on major felonies (e.g. homicide, rape, robbery, etc.), misdemeanors and arrests by police reporting districts. Three districts (83, 84 and 87) are part of the target area and six districts (75, 81, 85, 86, 88 and 89) surround the target area and are utilized in this study as a comparison group. The underlying assumption of the study is that crime should decrease and police arrests should increase as a result of Weed and Seed in the target districts. In theory there should be not significant changes in the control districts. If there are significant changes in the control areas they may be due to “spill over” effects of increased police activity. Spill over effects can be either negative or positive. A negative effect would be significant increases in crime but a positive effect could be increases in arrests. The analysis of the data is discussed below.The difference between 2005 and 2008 in general for all districts:  There is a significant rise in arrests for serious crimes and there is a significant drop in reported rapes11 400 s 300 e m i r c s u o i r e 200 s r o f s t s e r r a 1000 pre post pre post test54 s e 3 p a r d e t r o p 2 e r10 pre post pre post testBetween 2005 and 2008 there was a significant drop in reported auto thefts in the target area. However, during the same period there was a significant rise in arrests for serious crimes in the control area. Both outcomes are positive for controlling crime. 12 However, the differences were not uniform for all districts in the target and control areas. District differences are discussed below. Districts in the Control AreaDistrict 75  There is no statistical change in District 75 between 2005 and 2008District 81  There is a significant rise in arrests for serious crimes.125 s e m i r 100 c s u o i r e s r 75 o f s t s e r r a 5025 pre post pre post testDistrict 85  There is a significant rise in arrests for serious crimes. 13 120100 s e m i r c s 80 u o i r e s r o f 60 s t s e r r a4020 pre post pre post testDistrict 86  There is no significant change in this district.District 88  There is a significant rise in burglaries and rise in robberies.76 y r a l g r u b 5 d e t r o p e r43 pre post pre post test14 76 y r e b b o r d 5 e t r o p e r43 pre post pre post testDistrict 89  There is no significant change between pre and post periods for this district.The Target Area District 83  There is a significant drop in larceny.7060 y n e c r a l d 50 e t r o p e r4030 pre post pre post test There is a significant drop in reported auto thefts in District 8315 4540 t f 35 e h t o t u a30 d e t r o p e r 252015 pre post pre post test There is a significant rise in arrests for serious crimes in District 83120110 s e m i r 100 c s u o i r e 90 s r o f s t s e 80 r r a7060 pre post pre post testDistrict 84  There is a significant rise in arrests for serious crimes in District 8416 350 s 300 e m i r c s u o i r e 250 s r o f s t s e r r a 200150 pre post pre post testDistrict 87  There is a significant rise in reported burglaries in District 8717.515 y r a l g r u 12.5 b d e t r o p e r 107.5 pre post pre post testSummary:When testing districts 75, 81, and 83-89 with 2005 and 2008, there is a significant rise in arrests for serious crimes and a significant drop in reported rapes; the findings indicate that there has been an overall benefit to the community.The control group, which comprises of districts 75, 81, 85-86, and 88-89, are expected to be unchanged between 2005 and 2008 as the Weed and Seed program was not operating this area. However, there is a significant rise in arrests for serious crimes in 17 the control area; which is beneficial. These results suggest that Weed and Seed efforts may have spilled over from the target area.The target area, which comprises of districts 83-84 and 87, is where the Weed and Seed efforts were focused. When testing for the entire target area, there was found to be a significant drop in the report of auto thefts. These findings suggest that the License Plate Recognition Camera and law enforcement efforts lead to a significant reduction of auto thefts.When testing individual districts in the control area:  There has been no change in districts 75, 86 and 89  In districts 81 and 85, there was a significant rise in arrests for serious crimes. These results suggest that Weed and Seed efforts may have spilled over from the target area  In district 88, there is a significant rise in burglaries and robberies; which is a negative finding. These results suggest that crimes within the targeted area may have moved or relocated to this district.When testing individual districts in the target area:  In district 83 there was a significant drop in larceny, and a significant rise in arrests for serious crimes; both of which may be beneficial to the target area and may be a consequence of the Weed and Seed efforts. Also, there is a significant drop in reported auto thefts. This finding suggests that use of new technology and law enforcement’s focus in this area may have a significant impact of auto thefts in the community.  In district 84, there is a significant rise in arrests for serious crimes; which may also be beneficial.  In districts 87 and 88, there was a significant rise in reported burglaries. Findings that both districts are in proximity to each other and that burglaries are increasing for both areas may indicate a spill over effect.18 SECTION 4: Program Efforts: (Mielish, Solis)In order to determine the efforts put forth by the Weed and Seed agencies, the following items were consulted;  Elite Interviews of Service Providers  Interviews of the Weed and Seed Oversight Committee.These sources proved to be most helpful in analyzing what each stakeholder perceived the costs involved in producing an overall successful product or benefit.Elite interviews of Service ProvidersStudents of Cal Poly Pomona’s Masters in Public Administration MPA 550, Public Policy Program Evaluation, conducted interviews with the leadership of the listed agencies during the months of April and May 2008: Boy Scouts  Community Arts  Fist of Gold Youth Center  Girl Scouts  Neighborhood Watch  Parent Project  Reach Out West End  Safe Havens  Fall Festival  Recreation CenterThe results of the interviews were aggregated in a qualitative analysis, and the following information was extracted from the interviews: 19  Number of people served,  Number of staff needed to support the effort,  Number of contact hours provided, and  Cost to provide service to participant.  Challenges and limitations The analysis of the interviews provided the following conclusions: Collectively, the Weed and Seed agencies provided services to approximately 2,547 persons. However, it was not clear whether the services were to unduplicated persons or not or whether the recipients were exclusively from within the Weed and Seed target area. Additionally, the agencies provided approximately 316 hours of service per month performed by 17 full-time employees and 27 volunteers. In analyzing the cost of services, only the Boy Scouts, Fist of Gold, Girl Scouts and Neighborhood Watch were able to provide such information, as listed below: Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts reported a cost of $250 per child, of which Weed and Seed subsidizes a portion of the total cost. The remainder of the cost is left to the participants to secure through fundraising and other activities. The Fist of Gold receives approximately $50 for up to 100 participants from the target area. However, these funds only cover approximately 18% of total cost per participant. The Neighborhood Watch indicated that it costs anywhere from $2-5 per person. It served 20 groups consisting of anywhere from 10-30 residents. Exact numbers are unavailable. 20 The service providers were also asked about the benefits or outcomes of their program. The responses were varied but able to be placed into three main categories. The predominant responses were centered on: Academic Improvement  Community Involvement, and  Safety/Crime reduction Overall, service providers selected academic improvement as the primary focus of efforts. This category included issues like students learning typing skills, children working on their homework, improving self-esteem, and career goals. The next category selected by providers was community involvement. This encompassed issues like; leadership, civic engagement, and healthier children. The third category was safety which included safety awareness, crime reduction and improved relations between the community and police. When the service providers were asked to identify the challenges they encountered in meeting the needs of the target area, their responses were aggregated and categorized into three topic areas. The predominant responses were centered on:  Capital  Social Environment  Political Environment Overall, the service providers indicated that the category of capital was the most significant challenge. The category included responses such as the lack of adequate funding, transportation for the participants, staffing and facilities. The most frequently mentioned topic in this category was funding followed by transportation and staffing. 21 The category of social environment included issues such as: safety, the neighborhood as a transitory environment, the neighborhood including undocumented immigrants who are less likely to participate in events when law enforcement is involved, the lack of interest from the neighbors, the lack of parental involvement, and events being scheduled during the work day. The responses were evenly distributed; however, safety was mentioned more than the other issues. Lastly, the political environment referred to the lack of unified vision of the Weed and Seed strategy.When the service providers were asked to identify the future limitations facing them in the target area their responses were aggregated and categorized into three categories: Funding  Agency collaboration  Community activism Funding was a limitation reported by a majority of respondents. The funding category was further defined by the providers that the lack of funding would limit their ability to hire staff and/or provide an appropriate level of service. The agency collaboration category included the idea that there is a distinct need to foster interagency efforts in order to continue services in the target area. Collaboration with the local government, non profit and academic institutions were reported as suggestions for future support. The Weed and Seed Oversight Committee Focus GroupDr. Sandra Emerson moderated the focus group for The Weed and Seed Oversight Committee. The students from the MPA 550/PLS 417 observed and aggregated notes from the session conducted on 15 April 2008. The following Committee Members were present:22  Debruyne, Rick Dr. Vice Chair, Weed and Seed Strategy  Emerson, Sandra Dr. Cal Poly Political Science Prof, PLS/MPA Leader  Lopez, Armando Site Coordinator  Gluba, Mark City Manager Asst  Jarod, Andrew Deputy City Attorney  Owens, Jonnie Cal Poly Rep, Dir. Of Community Outreach  Becker, Lena (Cpl) Law Enforcement Committee Chair, Pomona Police Dept. Rep.  Madrigal, Virginia Resident of Pomona  Ibanez, Lyn Pomona Police Dept. Rep. In addition, Cal Poly Pomona Students from the classes of MPA 550 and PLS 417. The responses from the Oversight Committee were analyzed in a similar manner as those of the providers. The analysis also provided similar results in that their answers were aggregated into three primary categories;  Community Involvement  Academic Improvement  Safety/Crime reductionThe difference between the committee responses and those from the Service Providers is in the prioritization of categories. Both the providers and steering committee agreed that safety/crime reduction was less of a priority than community involvement or academic improvement. This difference in ranking community involvement or academic improvement may indicate that there may be lack of communication or a lack of collaboration between the entities. 23 Challenges and Limitations of the Weed and Seed Effort The responses from the Weed and Seed Oversight committee were examined and sustaining program efforts and coordination were identified as challenges for the Weed and seed strategy. SECTION 5: RESIDENT SURVEYS This section of the report describes and analyzes the 7 sections of the resident survey. These sections include:  Residents (2005 and 2008)  Resident Awareness of Weeding and Seeding Programs  Quality of Life  Influences in the Area  Feelings of Empowerment  Experiences with Crime  Police Services  Police Control and PresenceSECTION 5: A. Respondents - 2005 Compared to 2008 (Steve) Residents of the weed and seed districts were predominately under the age of 45 with 68% of those surveyed indicated they were in age categories from 18 to 45. The majority of residents (52%) are employed full time and the balance were employed part-time, self employed, homemakers or retired. Only 8% or respondents were students, either fulltime or part-time. The survey respondents were predominantly Hispanic (86%) and female (53%). Most residents owned their homes (59%). 70% of the residents had an annual household income below $50,000. The largest plurality of residents completing surveys were from the police district 87 (43.4%). District 84 residents comprised 34.1% and district 83 comprised the remaining 22.4% of the surveys.The general demographic statistics of the Weed and Seed area has not changed dramatically since the 2005 survey data. However, it is worth noting that the annual income of a household has decreased. The average income in 2005 was $35,000-24 50,000 and in 2008 was $25,000-40,000. Generally the analysis indicates that the respondent’s demographic attributes did not strongly influence responses.SECTION 5: B. Resident Awareness of Weeding and Seeding (Derek)Members of the community–by and large–have not heard of the Weed and Seed restoration program, and as a consequence many of them have not participated in the program either. When asked if he or she has heard of the Weed and Seed restoration program, 83.9% answer “No” and another 7.1% answered “Don’t know” which may be taken as a “No” given yes/no nature of the question. However, lack of knowledge of the Weed and Seed program does not mean that residents in the target area were not using the seeding services, although the average rate of non-participation in these programs (Neighborhood Watch, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Fist of Gold, effective parenting program, healthy teen program, National Night Out, Fall Festival, community arts program) stood at 72.25%. The most popular program was the Neighborhood Watch Program, with a participation rate of 30.5 percent and 60 percent giving it a favorable rating (“good” or better). Analysis shows that there is only a random relationship between participation in any programs and knowledge of Weed and Seed. Even with the Neighborhood Watch Program, the most popular of the programs, analysis shows a random relationship between participation in the program and knowledge of Weed and Seed. This analysis, combined with the relatively low level of participation, suggests that program participants found these programs by chance rather than publicity generated by Weed and Seed. Of the other programs, the programs that were most popular were the Boy Scouts Program (20.9% participation) and the Fall Festival (19.7% participation), although the Boy Scouts Program suffered from mixed ratings (57.1% rating of “good” or better) while the Fall Festival received much higher ratings (65.8% rating of “good” or better). Girl Scouts, Effective Parenting, Health Teens, and Community Arts all fell in the middle relative to other programs in terms of participation and satisfaction, and Fist of Gold (13.9% participation and 45.1% rating of “good” or better) and National Night Out (14.2% participation and 51.9% rating of “good” or better) came in last in terms of participation and satisfaction.25 The graphs that follow show the ratings of the Seeding efforts and are listed in order rating, going from highest to lowest. The safe havens got the highest ratings compared to the programs (such as Neighborhood Watch), but it should be noted that the available ratings for safe havens and programs were not uniform. The questions regarding the programs had two possible rating choices that were higher than “Good”, and two choices that were lower, while the safe havens only had one possible rating choice higher than “Good” and three lower. Regardless, the safe havens outscored the highest seeding program (Neighborhood Watch).Facilities and programs with high resident support:26 27 28 29 Programs with moderate support:30 31 Programs with limited support:32 Tentative ConclusionsOverall the residents in the community were not aware of Weed and Seed programs. Recreation facilities receive the greatest support along with Fall Festival and Neighborhood Watch. Other programs received modest support. Fall Festival and Neighborhood Watch are established programs in Pomona. While Fall Festival has been identified as a Weed and Seed program, per se it is not supported with Weed and Seed funding but was utilized by the Oversight committee to reach out to the target community. The Weed and Seed funded programs received largely modest support from the residents and two received little support. This variance among programs may suggest a need to reassess the Oversight Committee’s approach to identifying and incorporating services providers for this target area.33 SECTION 5: C. Quality of Life and City Services (Gabe and Audrey)Variables: A2-A4, F47, F48Team Members: Gabriel Montez, Audrey Fernandez, Anthony HaynesResidents of the target areas were given five questions on various quality of life issues in their neighborhood:  Is the neighborhood becoming a better place or worse place to live?  Do neighbors help each other or tend to not get involved?  How many neighbors would you trust to watch your house when you are gone?  How satisfied are you with city services (e.g. garbage pick up; street cleaning)? and  How satisfied are you with recreation and programs for youth.Norms in 2008 Overall responses to the survey showed that participants are satisfied with the quality of life in their neighborhood. Most residents felt that their neighborhood has stayed the same (51.5%) or has become a better place to live (36%). People are more willing to help one another (50.7%) than not get involved (49.3%). People tend to know and trust at least a few (65.9%) of their neighbors. Factors that influenced responses were satisfaction with city cleaning, as well as sports and recreation in the community. Residents are at least somewhat satisfied (35.6%) to very satisfied (44%) with city cleaning and are somewhat satisfied (38.5%) to very satisfied (29.9) with the availability of sports and recreation programs for the youth. 34 How is 2008 different from 2005? Data from 2005 and 2008 indicates slight improvements in the quality of life, but none were significant differences. There was a significant increase in “very satisfied” responses in city cleaning but the relationship was not influential. Satisfaction with sports and recreation also had a significant increase in “very satisfied” responses but the relationship was not strong in either area. What influence did weeding have? There was not any significantly link between the weeding questions and any of the Quality of Life or the City Service questions.What influence did seeding have? The seeding effort did not influence the residents’ feelings about their neighborhood over the past two years or the number of neighbors residents’ knew and trusted. There was a strong relationship between the view of neighbors helping one another and the Fall Festival and parent involvement with children Graph 1: Fall Festival and Neighbors Help35 Graph 2 Neighbors Help with Question on Parent InvolvementThe satisfaction with the availability of sports and recreation programs was also strongly influenced by the perception of parent involvement.Graph 3: Satisfaction with Sports and Recreation and Parent InvolvementWhat influence did other variables have ( >.299)? The questions regarding the resident’s satisfaction with the neighborhood as well as the number of neighbors respondents knew and trusted were not significantly influenced by other variables. The question regarding neighbors helping one another was strongly related to satisfaction with police response to calls regarding a family member and calls regarding issues “other than crimes.” 36 Graphs 4a and b: Police Calls and Feelings that Neighbors Help Resident reported satisfaction with city services was strongly influenced by the sum of concerns of problems in the neighborhood. As the sum of concerns rose, satisfaction with neighborhood declined.37 38 Graph 5: Concerns in areas influence on “satisfaction” with city services100 g n i n a e l c80 y t i c h t i w60 n o i t a c 93.3 i f s i 40 t a 71.7 s% 47.7 200 serious problems (13-22.5) moderate (22.6 to 40) minor (40.5 to 48) sum of concerns in four groupsThe satisfaction with the availability of sports and recreation was strongly influenced by:  the sum of concerns resident had about the neighborhood,  the feeling of safety during the day,  satisfaction with police response to calls regarding issues other than crimes, and  the view of the police controlling of sales of illegal drugs. Graph 6 a: Satisfaction with Sports and Recreation Influenced by “Concerns in 39 Neighborhood”40 Graph 6 b: Satisfaction with recreation as influenced by feeling “safe during the day”Graph 6 c: Satisfaction with recreation as influenced by satisfaction with police responses to “other” than crime calls41 Graph 6 d: Satisfaction with recreation as influenced by police control of illegal drug salesTentative Conclusions There have been a few noticeable changes in the Quality of Life indicators between 2005 and 2008. There was a lack of strong indicators for all questions. When questioned about the activities regarding Weeding programs participants had little knowledge or awareness. However, residents were aware of the increased number of policing efforts in the area including: drug enforcement, arrests, community policing, prevention and treatment efforts, and revitalization. Although participants are aware of these activities, they were not able to tie these changes to the Weed and Seed Program because they did not know it existed. The seeding effort had limited impact on the Quality of Life factors in the target area, or with resident satisfaction with city services (street cleaning). This suggests that the Weed and Seed committee may need to find a way to promote and inform residents of their program. Overall, residents are satisfied with city services, including trash pick-up and street cleaning, and sport and recreation. Satisfaction with sports and recreation appears linked to a number of factors involving police activities: response to calls and control of illegal drug use and sales. It may be that as police presence and enforcement rises, residents feel safer and avail themselves of sport and recreations services in their neighborhoods. 42 SECTION 5: D. Influence on Issues in Neighborhood (Becky)Variables: A5 to A 17, G 60Team Members: Becky Chen, Mario Gonzales, Kevin Kearney, Danielle Lyons, Amy Kinnick, Fisseha MogesResidents of target areas were given 13 questions on various matters and asked to assess whether the following factors were of serious, moderate, minor, or no issue in the neighborhood: litter and trash on the streets, public drunkenness, young people hanging out and making noise, young people vandalizing property and painting graffiti, drug dealing on the streets and other public places, illegal drug sales in stores and businesses, illegal drug sales out of homes or apartments, burglary and other property crimes, robbery and other street crimes, presence of gangs, use of illegal drugs, lack of drug treatment, and lack of jobs or job opportunities. Residents were also asked to assess how involved parents are in their neighborhood in programs for the youth.Norms in 2008 Resident responses for the 13 neighborhood issues indicated that 69.23% were no longer an issue, 15.38% of issues were only minor, and 15.38% were serious. The issues that residents feel are serious are young people vandalizing and painting graffiti, as well as the lack of jobs or job opportunities. Residents also responded that parents are somewhat involved in their neighborhood programs for the youth.Norms of 13 Neighborhood IssuesNo Issue (9) Minor Issue (2) Serious Issue (2)43 How is 2008 Different from 2005? When comparing factors between 2008 and 2005, the pretest and post-test showed a difference in results for drugs sold out of both homes and stores (see graphs below). The tests show that public opinion on views of drugs sold out of homes and stores is now a lesser problem in 2008 than in 2005. All other factors tested had either no significant results, or were significant, but did not have strong influences. What Influence did Weeding Have? In analyzing the influence that weeding had on neighborhood issues, it was found that there was no direct effect between program weeding and respondents’ views about factors in the neighborhood. However, there were several significant and strong 44 relationships between views on neighborhood factors and the relative level of police activity and satisfaction with police work.The level of satisfaction with the police controlling the sale and use of illegal drugs showed a significant relationship when analyzed with neighborhood factors. This shows that the level of seriousness decreased for: gang presence, illegal use of drugs, lack of drug treatment facilities and drugs being sold out of stores and businesses, as satisfaction with the police control of sale and use of drugs increased (see graphs below). The level of seriousness for drugs being sold out of homes and apartments also decreased as satisfaction with police control of sale and use of illegal drugs increased, particularly for those who own and rent homes. Renters had a statistically stronger relationship than those who owned homes.The analysis also showed that as the level of satisfaction increased for police responding with aid to persons other than a family member, the level of parent involvement in children’s programs also increased, while the level of seriousness for lack of drug treatment facilities decreased.45 In other police activity, increase in the level of satisfaction of police response to incidents other than crime was related to the increase of the level of parent involvement in children’s programs. It was also related to a decrease in the level of seriousness for lack of drug treatment facilities.An increase in residents not calling the police in the past 2 years is statistically related to the decrease in the level of seriousness of illegal use of drugs. What Influences did Seeding Have? In analyzing the influence that seeding had on neighborhood issues, it was found that there was no direct effect between program seeding and respondents’ views about factors in the neighborhood. The results suggest that seeding efforts may not have been a strong influence in neighborhood issues.In analyzing the influences that seeding had on neighborhood issues, it was found that the as satisfaction for the Community Arts Program increased, the level of seriousness decreased for burglary and property crimes as well as young people hanging out and making noise (see graph below). What Influence did Other Variables Have? (>.299) In analyzing the influence that other variables had on neighborhood issues, it was found that a neighborhood’s satisfaction, safety, crime, and city services had more of an effect 46 on respondents’ views about factors in the neighborhood. This suggests that as residents feel more comfortable and satisfied with their neighborhood, the neighborhood issues become less of a factor. In analyzing other variables that had an influence on neighborhood issues, residents’ feelings about their neighborhood were a strong factor on the issues. As their satisfaction for their neighborhood increased, the level of seriousness decreased for issues such as: drugs being sold out of stores, burglary and other property crimes, robberies and other street crimes (see graph below), gang presence, illegal use of drugs, and lack of drug treatment facilities. The level of parent involvement also increased as the satisfaction for the neighborhood increased (see graph below). How safe residents feel is also a strong influence and falls under the category of “Crime in Neighborhood.” As residents feel the level of safety increases when they’re alone during the day and at night, the level of seriousness decreases on the issues of: drugs being sold out of stores and business, drugs being sold out of homes and apartments (see graph below), burglary and other property crimes, robberies and other street crimes, gang presence (see graph below), and illegal use of drugs. There is also a relation showing that as residents feel safer at night, the level of seriousness decreases for lack of drug treatment facilities. There was also a significant relationship showing that the increasing use of public parks and recreation is associated with an increasing view by residents that illegal drugs in stores and businesses is of no issue (see graph below).47 48 Residents’ perception of city programs was also a strong influence in neighborhood issues. As satisfaction increased for city programs such as street cleaning and the availability of sports and recreation programs for youth in the neighborhood, the level of seriousness decreased for issues such as: drugs being sold out of stores and business and robberies and other street crimes. The level of seriousness for lack of drug treatment facilities also decreased as the satisfaction for recreation programs increased.Another significant relationship is associated with an increase in the number of residents who have not had something stolen from them or their family in the last two years and the rising number of residents who feel that illegal use of drugs and robberies and other street crimes are no longer an issue. The increase in the number of residents who in the last two years did not have their homes/garage/property broken into also saw an increase in the number of residents who saw robberies and other street crime as no issue.Some other influences on neighborhood issues show that as parent involvement increases, the level of seriousness decreases for young people hanging out and making noise. Also, as more residents are likely to get city services, and as the sum of concerns decreases, the level of parent involvement increases. Were there relationships due to confounding variables or respondent attributes? Two confounding variables had an influence on neighborhood issues. They showed that as residents with an income of 40k or less increases, the level of seriousness for litter and trash on the street decreases (see graph below). Also, as the number of owners increase, the level of seriousness for drugs sold out of homes or apartments decreases (see graph below).49 Tentative Conclusions There were not many notable changes between 2008 and 2005. This suggests that opinions on neighborhood issues have remained about the same and have not worsened. There was no direct effect between weeding and respondents’ views on neighborhood issues; however, the data suggests that satisfaction with the level of police activity has a significant relationship to the level of seriousness on the issues. 50 There was also little influence from seeding on neighborhood issues as only the Community Arts Program had a significant and modestly high influence. This may suggest that residents are either not aware of the community programs available, or they do not have a direct effect on neighborhood issues.Other influences such as neighborhood satisfaction, safety, crime, and city services also had an effect on neighborhood issues. Overall, the data suggests that the level of seriousness for neighborhood issues is decreasing. This may mostly be due to police satisfaction. However, one question to ask after analyzing the data is why “seeding” had so little influence on the issuesSECTION 5: E. Empowerment (Solis)Questions The questions in this section seek to identify if residents in the Weed and Seed area felt empowered when dealing with issues relating to their neighborhood. For instance, one question asked about the likelihood of residents getting involved when they witnessed someone spray painting, while another question asked about the likelihood of residents calling the City of Pomona to report inadequate city services. The last question in this area gauged how satisfied residents were with their neighborhood. The norms in 2008 The overall norm for this group represents a positive view with “somewhat likely” to get involved and “somewhat satisfied” with the neighborhood. Furthermore, these analyses provided generally positive results with approximately two-thirds of residents feeling empowered in each of the categories discussed below. 51  63.13% of respondents felt that residents would get involved in stopping someone spray painting, compared to 36.87 % of residents reporting they would not get involved.  65.82% of respondents felt that residents would get involved in calling the city to report inadequate city services, compared to 34.18% of respondents who would not get involved.  79.7% of respondents were statisfied with the neighborhood while 20.3% reported they were either somewhat dissatisfied or dissatisfied. youths spray painting today get city service steps40125100 30 y c t n n e 75 e u c q r 20 e 36.07% e r PF 36.97%50 27.06% 28.85% 23.61% 10 19.05% 25 13.26% 15.13%0 0 a very likely b. somewhat likely d. not likely at all c. somewhat unlikely b. somewhat likely a very likely d. not likely at all c. somewhat unlikely youths spray painting today get city service steps80 d o o h r o 60 b h g i e N h t i w40 d e 73.81% i f s i t a S y r e 20V 35.85% 24.44%0 minor (40.5 to 48) moderate (22.6 to 40) serious problems (13-22.5) sum of concerns in four groupsDifferences between 2005 and 2008Empowerment overall does not show a significant difference between 2005 and 2008, the only exception is with residents calling for city services. This statistically significant 52 relationship, however, is weak.Weeding  The weeding component of the Weed and Seed strategy seemed to have no influence with the empowerment of the residents. 53 Seeding Efforts Where there indirect influence of police activities than influenced responses? In this section, there is one possible relationship; however, we cannot determine the relationship with certainty, because of the nature of the data. For instance at first glance it appears that when we look at how “Overall concerns” (littler, trash, etc) influences “Neighborhood Satisfaction (B-20)”. This relationship appears significant and strong, however, upon closer examination, we cannot infer with certainty the validity of the relationship, due to in the nature of the data. Other factorsWhat other factors seem to have an influence on responses in this area?  In matters of empowerment there seems to be a direct correlation between willingness to report city services and whether they own their home or rent. For instance; those who felt more likely to call for city services (B-19) and had a positive view of the police controlling illegal drug (D-34) used was largely dependent on whether they owned their home or were renters. Owners had more of a negative (Fair and Poor Job) view of police controlling illegal drugs. (See two charts below)54 50 s e c i v r e s40 y t i c r o f l l 30 a c o t y l 42.86% e 20 k i l 34.21% y r e V 10 20.00% 17.91%0 a. very good job b. good job c. fair job d. poor job police control sale/use of illegal drug own or rent? 50 owner renter s e c i v 40 r e s y t i c r o 30 f l l a c o 46.15% 45.10% t43.33% y l 20 e k i l31.03% y r e 24.32% V 1012.50% 11.54% 8.70%0 a. very good job b. good job c. fair job d. poor job police control sale/use of illegal drug There is also a strong relationship between “Parental involvement” (Q-60) with residents calling for city services (B-19). Those who seem to be empowered to call for city services also strongly view parents involved (see chart below). 55 6050 s e c i v r e s 40 y t i c r o f l l a 30 c o t 52.54% y l e k i l 20 y r e V 26.88% 10 11.76% 9.09%0 very involved somewhat involved somewhat uninvolved uninvolved parents involved When analyzing peoples’ perceptions whether they felt safe during the day or at night, it appears responses corresponded to specific PPD districts. However, in order to analyze the relationships with “neighborhood feel” (B-20), we recode this variable into two categories (1 = for Satisfied, and 2= Not satisfied). o For example people in district 87 indicated often feeling “very unsafe” or “somewhat unsafe” during the day. Their responses (noted in tan below) are higher than for the other two target districts (83 and 84) noted in green and blue.56 s p 100.00 u District of PPD o r 83 rpt district g84 rpt. district o 87 rpt. district w t 80.00 n i- d o o h r 60.00 o b h g i e 92.08% 89.47% 90.62%N 84.78% 85.71% 40.00 h t 75.44% i w d 54.55% e i f s 42.11% 42.86% i 20.00 t 33.33% 33.33% aS 25.00%0.00 a. very safe b. somewhat safe c. somewhat unsafe d. very unsafe safe alone during day o District also seem to further influence concerns about night time safety which was strongest for PPD 84, followed by 83 and weakest in 87. However people in district 87 indicated “very unsafe” feelings more often 57 than the other districts. s p District of PPD u 100.00 o 83 rpt district r g 84 rpt. district 87 rpt. district o w t n 80.00 i- d o o h r 60.00 o b h g i 95.65% 95.65% e 93.88% 91.18% 88.57% 88.89% N83.78% h 40.00 t i 70.00% 71.05% w60.71% d e i 50.00% f s i 40.00% t 20.00 a S0.00 a. very safe b. somewhat safe c. somewhat unsafe d. very unsafe how safe alone after darkConclusionsThe tentative conclusions are as follows: When it comes to empowerment, the Weed and Seed target areas has distinct districts regarding: The way residents see the police as able to control drugs Their assessment of parent involvement,58  Their assessment of some neighborhood concerns (littler, trash, etc) and  Feelings of safety during the day and night. SECTION 5: F. Perceptions and Experiences with Crime (Michael and Derek)This section discusses the respondents’ perceptions and experiences with crime in the neighborhood for the past 2 years. Respondents were asked to six questions to understand the perception of crime in the Weed & Seed area. A summary of the question and response is listed below in Table 1.Table 1: Norms for Responses in 2005 and 2008 Questions of Safety & Crime 2008 Response 2005 ResponseHow safe do you feel out alone 55% very safe and 31% 45% very safe and 42% during the day? somewhat safe somewhat safeHow safe do you feel out alone 26% very safe and 33% 18% very safe and 36% after dark? somewhat safe somewhat safeToday, how often does worry 17% very often, 34% 13% very often, 34% about crime prevent you from somewhat often somewhat often visiting public parks or other neighborhood places? In the past 2 years, has anyone 84% no 77% no broken into your home, garage or property to steal something? In the past two years, has anyone stolen something from 13% yes 10% yes you or a member of your family by force or threatening you with harm in your neighborhood? In the past two years, have you 11% yes 7% yes or a member of your family been knifed, shot, or attacked with some other weapon by anyone at all? (other than incidents already mentioned)Norms in 2008 Approximately 55% of residents who were surveyed in the Weed & Seed felt very safe during the day. The norms for all 6 questions are noted above in Table 1. How is 2008 Different from 200559 There is a significant increase from 2005 when only 45% of the respondents felt very safe but the influence is weak. However, statistical analysis of feeling safe at night and worrying about crime indicates that the changes between the pre and post test periods are largely random. Regarding the respondent’s experience with break-ins, there is a significant decrease but a weak influence between the pretest in 2005 (sig=.017, influence=.090) to posttest in 2008. The number of break-ins decreased by 7%; from 23% in 2005 to 16% in 2008. What Influence did Weeding Have? ‘Weeding’ efforts had an influence on the perception of safety and crime. Residents who were satisfied with police response over the past two years felt safer during the day (sig=.000, influence=.368) and at night (sig=.000, influence=.313) (see Graph 1, 2, 3, & 4 below). Weeding efforts had no influence on other areas.Graph 1: During the day60 Graph 2: During the dayGraph 3: At night61 Graph 4: At nightWhat Influences did Seeding Have?The data also indicates that ‘seeding’ had one influence. Approximately 52% of the respondents felt that the use of the Renaciemento Center was a significant and contributing factor to feeling safe during the day. A little over half of the respondents who use the center reported feeling very safe during the day (sig=.034, influence=.521) (see Graph 5). This finding suggests that safe havens may contribute to the perception of safety in the neighborhood. Reponses to break-ins appeared to be influenced by the Fall Festival. The Fall Festival may create community awareness and allow residents to interact with each other in the community. Interaction among residents increases awareness of who resides in the neighborhood and produces an informal neighborhood watch. The seeding efforts did not appear to have influenced other areas. 62 Graph 5: Renacimiento Center Use with Feelings of being SafeWhat Influence did Other Variables Have?Further analysis of the data also indicates that other factors have an influence on responses in the Weed and Seed area. The perception of safety during the day increases among those who feel that neighborhood factors such as crime and litter are of little to no importance in the neighborhoods. Satisfaction with recreation programs and city services (garbage collection) was influential, but the relationship is likely to be spurious. While neighborhood factors influenced the perception of safety during the day, they did not have any impact on the perception of safety at night. Furthermore, the only area that influenced their use of public parks was the respondent’s views of drug sales in stores and business (sig=.000, influence=.309). This suggests that the concern of drug sales may prevent them for enjoying public parks. The respondents’ experience with break-ins also impacted their views on robberies and drug use. Most of the residents who indicate that they were not victims of robbery noted that burglary and drug use was a “non issue” in their neighborhood. These respondents were more likely to be satisfied with the police response if they had to call the police to report a crime that involved a family member (see Graph 7). However, respondents 63 who had experienced a break-in were more likely to be dissatisfied with police response (see Graph 7).Graph 6: Satisfied with Call for family member/No experience with robbery in past 2 years.Graph 7 Break-ins and Importance of Drugs as Issue in Neighborhood. 40 s r a e Y2 t s a P e 30 h t n i s n i - k a e r B 20 o t" s 35.21% e Y " d e d n 22.64% 22.41% o 10 p s e R o h W6.02% % 0 serious moderate minor no issue Robbery or Street Crime64 Were There Relationships Due to Confounding Variables or Respondent Attributes? Whether the respondents income was above or below $40,000 (sig=.007, influence=.363) seems to have influenced his/her perception of safety at night. Those who are more like to feel safe are below $40,000 while those who are more likely not to feel safe are above $40,000.Tentative Conclusion More residents are feeling very safe in the neighborhood today than they did in 2005. Although the experience with crime decreased slightly from 2005, the perception of crime had not significantly improved. The respondents who were satisfied with the police response felt safe during the day and at night, but more weeding efforts could help improve the perception of crime in the neighborhood. Seeding had a minor impact and could provide a more positive perception of the neighborhood. SECTION 5: G. Police Services (Steve, Tim and Brian) Variables: D27 to D34 Team Members: Steve Parker, Tim Johnson, Brian Chang.Residents of the target area were asked to assess police responses to various situations: calls for service for crimes against a member of their family, calls for police service for “other than” a crime, calls for community concerns and a question on how effective the police were regarding controlling the sale and use of illegal drugs.Norms In 2008 The respondents were generally satisfied with police response to calls for service and community concerns and believed that the police were doing a fair to good job of controlling the sale and use of illegal drugs.How is 2008 Different From 2005 When comparing factors between 2008 and 2005, the data indicated a difference in satisfaction with calls for service involving a family member and satisfaction with police control of the sale and use of illegal drugs. See Graph A below which indicates a drop in dissatisfied responses between the pre and post test periods.65 Graph A: Satisfaction with Police Calls 2005 and 2008.The data suggests respondents’ opinions of calls for service involving a family member and other than a crime call for service is lower in 2008 than in 2005 but residents are somewhat more satisfied with police control of sale and use of illegal drugs.Graph B Control of Illegal Drugs What influence did Weeding have?In analyzing the influence that weeding had on the assessment of police services, it was found that there was no direct effect between program weeding efforts and respondents’ 66 views of police services. However, there were several significant relationships between police services and their views on the issues in the neighborhood.The level of satisfaction with police controlling the sale and use of illegal drugs showed a significant relationship when analyzed with neighborhood factors. This indicates that the level of seriousness decreased for: gang presence, illegal use of drugs, lack of drug treatment facilities, vandalism, feeling safe during the day and night, and drugs being sold out of stores and homes as satisfaction when police control of the sale and use of illegal drug increased. Also as concerns for vandalism, sale of illegal drugs, use of illegal drugs and gangs declined satisfaction with police handling of calls for family member rose. What Influences Did Seeding Have? In analyzing the influence that seeding had views of police services, it was found that there was no direct effect between program seeding and respondents’ views of police services. The exception to this rule is that satisfaction with police calls to family members rose when respondents had attended and favorably assessed Fall Festival and to a lesser extent the Arts program. There were several significant relationships between police services and the view on the programs in the neighborhood. The respondents that were satisfied with the availability of sport programs for youths were more likely to be more satisfied with police control of the sale and use of illegal drugs  Respondents were also more likely to view police more positively, with regard to response to community concerns, if they attended the Fall Festival. Respondents were more likely to associate positive responses to police calls for family members with feelings of safety during the day and eveningThe analysis suggests that as the level of involvement by parents in children programs increased so did satisfaction of police response with aid to persons other than a family member.67 Influence Of Other Variables (>.299) In analyzing the influence that weeding had views of police services, it was found that satisfaction with police services increased when the respondents had a positive view of neighborhood services. This was especially true for older residents and home owners rather than renters.Police presence throughout the area had a slight influence on whether respondents viewed police as responsive to calls for service for family members and for calls other than a crime. These relationships were significant but not highly influential. Tentative conclusions There were not many notable changes from 2005-2008. This suggests that opinions of police services have not dramatically changed in response to increased police services and patrols. However, as perceptions of reduced: gang presence, illegal use of drugs, lack of drug treatment facilities, vandalism, unsafe conditions during the day and night, and drugs sales from stores and homes is associated with greater police’s control of illegal drugs in the area and to a lesser degree greater satisfaction with police calls regarding family members.Other influences such as age, whether they rent or own a home, police presence, involvement in the Fall Festival, sporting programs and parent involvement in children programs also contributed to a more positive view of police’s control over the sale and use of illegal drugs.Overall the data suggests that police response to drug related crimes has increased and had a positive effect on resident perceptions. Police activities in other areas have had a lesser effect on perceptions of the effectiveness of the police especially with regard to calls for “other than for crimes”.68 SECTION 5: H. Policing Presence and Control (Angie)Variables: 35 to 39Team Members: Angelina Jungo, Hannah Chung, and Robert MielishResidents of the target area were given 5 questions regarding their community’s interaction with police officers in casual conversation, while on patrol in a vehicle, while walking in the area or as a witness to an arrest. The majority of the questions ask respondents to answer with a yes or no. The question regarding, "contact with a police officer in the last six months". ranged from no contact to weekly contact. Norms in 2008 The residents’ responses indicated they typically did not have contact with an officer to discuss neighborhood concerns (72.2%). 79.8% of residents surveyed indicated they saw police patrolling in vehicles. 81.2% of respondents indicated they normally did not see offices walking in the neighborhood and had no experience with observing officers chatting with members in the community (81.5 %). However, residents did witness officers making arrests (69.8 %).How is 2008 different from 2005? There is no significant difference between 2005 and 2008 with regard to communication between police and residents. The graph below demonstrates there is a slight decline in community and police interaction.69 Graph 1 Residents Talking with Police (2005 to 2008)40.00 r e c i f f o 30.00 e c i l o p o t20.00 d e k l a t 31.23%% 23.58% 10.000.00 2005 2008 Pre 05, Post 08 ____What influence did Weeding have? The influence of weeding services in the target area was measured by whether or not participants contacted police for any reason over the past two years. The relation between on going communication by residents and whether there was a call for service was significant and moderately strong. Graph 2 Conversations with Police and Calls for Service70 e c i l o 40.00 p h t i w n o i 30.00 t a s r e v n o 20.00 c a34.23% d a h% 10.00 17.14%0.00 called police didn't call in past 2 years Call police for family, other than family, other than crimeWhat influence did Seeding have? The Weed and Seed initiative, specifically the seeding projects in the area, has had an influence on continuing conversations with police regarding neighborhood concerns. The influence seeding efforts has been to increase communication between residents and the police especially if the resident has used the safe havens and/or attended a community social event.The interactions between police and residents appear to vary significantly depending on which safe haven the resident utilizes. While the relationships are significant they have only a moderate influence. Graphs 3-5 demonstrate the differences in resident communication with police from each of the safe haven sites. The greatest improvement is at Renacimiento with a 25.74% increase (Graph 3) versus the increase of 12.48% at Philadelphia (Graph 4) and 14.57% at Lexington (Graph 5). Graph 3 Communications via Renacimiento71 e c i l o 50.00 p h t i w n 40.00 o i t a s r e 30.00 v n o c46.67% a 20.00 d a h%10.00 20.93%0.00 a yes b no use Renacimiento?__72 Graph 4: Communication via Philadelphia40.00 e c i l o p h t i w 30.00 n o i t a s r e v n 20.00 o c a 33.33% d a h% 10.00 20.85%0.00 a yes b no use PhiladelphiaGraphe 5: Communication via Lexington c i l o p 40.00 h t i w n o i t 30.00 a s r e v n o 20.00 c a34.78% d a h% 10.00 20.21%0.00 a yes b no use Lexington facilities73 General improvement in communication with police is most evident in circumstances where resident have participated in recreation activities or attended social gatherings (Graph 6)Graph 6: Conversations with police as result of resident participation40.00 e c i l o p h t 30.00 i w n o i t a s r e v 20.00 n 37.65% o c a d a h% 10.00 21.35%0.00 participant not participant Participant at Recreation OR Attends meeting__What influence did Other variables have? Other factors influence communication between police and residents. Observations of arrests by police and observations of friendly conversations with fellow residents both increase the likelihood that respondents would engage in conversations with police. 74 Graph 7 Arrests as related to conversations with police40.00 e c i l o p h t i w 30.00 n o i t a s r e v n 20.00 o 38.38% c a d a h% 10.00 16.81%0.00 a. yes b. no seen police arresting in neighborhood__Were there relationships due to confounding variables or respondents attitudes? Demographic attributes of respondents did not influence answer to questions about police presence in the area. The exception to this rule was whether the respondent was an owner or renter. Graph 8 below suggests that respondents who are renters have significantly more communication with police officers but that this relationship is weak. 75 Graph 8: Owners vs. Renter Communication with police25.00 e c i l o p h t i 20.00 w n o i t a s 15.00 r e v n 24.56% o 23.71% c a10.00 d a h%5.000.00 owner renter own or rent? __ Tentative conclusionsFrom the information collected it appears that the participants’ involvement in the safe heavens is a good indicator of continual communication with the police regarding community concerns. The data collected shows that this conclusion is particularly true of the Renacimiento center more than other safe haven sites.SECTION 5: I SUMMATION (Amy)TBD76 SECTION 6 Windshield SurveyWindshield Survey and Urban Design – Hector Section 6 describes the physical attributes of PPD 83, 84 and 87. Public efforts to enforce sanitation, housing standards and zoning influence how residents use public spaces, perceive the quality of life in their neighborhood and thwarts crime and community disorganization. The academic research in this area has been extensive but the initial work provides important lessons Weed and Seed programs. One of the earliest studies was by Wilson and Kelling who coined the term the “broken window theory”. Wilson and Kelling’s Broken Window Theory The State of New Jersey in the 1970’s instituted a “Safe and Clean Neighborhood” program designed to improve the quality of community life in cities throughout the State. One of the components of the program required police officers to do walking beats which had been widely viewed by police as ineffective and by police officers as punitive. Academic experts on policing doubted that foot patrol would have any impact on crime rates as well but since the state was paying for officers to do the walking beats the program was implemented.After five years, a survey of the program yielded expected results; crime had not been reduced and in fact in some areas had increased. The significant finding was that residents of the foot-patrolled neighborhoods seemed to feel more secure than persons in other areas and tended to believe that crime had been reduced. In addition, foot patrol areas had a more favorable opinion of the police than did those living elsewhere. Furthermore, officers walking beats had higher morale, greater job satisfaction, and a more favorable attitude toward citizens in their neighborhoods than did officers assigned to patrol cars.77 The argument then became how can a neighborhood be "safer" when the crime rate has not gone down -- in fact, may have gone up? Finding the answer requires the understanding of two key issues;  The conditions or factors that most often frighten people in public places. Many citizens, of course, are primarily frightened by crime, especially crime involving a sudden, violent attack by a stranger. This risk is very real. But equally real is another source of fear -- the fear of being bothered by disorderly people. Not violent people, nor, necessarily, criminals, but disreputable or obstreperous or unpredictable people. At the community level, disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked, in a kind of developmental sequence. Social psychologists and police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken and is left un-repaired; all the rest of the windows will soon be broken. This is as true in well maintained neighborhoods as in run-down ones. Window-breaking does not necessarily occur on a large scale because some areas are inhabited by determined window-breakers whereas others are populated by window-lovers; rather, one broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing. . (Wilson J. and Kelling, G. The police and neighborhood safety: broken windows, Atlantic 127, 29-38)Philip Zimbardo, a Stanford psychologist, reported in 1969 experiments testing the broken-window theory. He arranged to have an automobile without license plates parked with its hood up on a street in the Bronx and a comparable automobile on a street in Palo Alto, California. The car in the Bronx was attacked by "vandals" within ten minutes of its "abandonment." The first to arrive were a family -- father, mother, and young son -- who removed the radiator and battery. Within twenty-four hours, virtually everything of value had been removed. Then random destruction began -- windows were smashed, parts torn off, upholstery ripped. Children began to use the car as a playground. Most of the adult "vandals" were well dressed, apparently clean-cut whites. The car in Palo Alto sat untouched for more than a week. Then Zimbardo smashed part of it with a 78 sledgehammer. Soon, passersby were joining in. Within a few hours, the car had been turned upside down and utterly destroyed. Again, the vandals appeared to be primarily respectable citizens. Untended property becomes fair game for people out for fun or plunder, and even for people who ordinarily would not dream of doing such things and who probably consider themselves law-abiding. Because of the nature of community life in the Bronx -- its anonymity, the frequency with which cars are abandoned and things are stolen or broken, the past experience of "no one caring" -- vandalism begins much more quickly than it does in staid Palo Alto, where people have come to believe that private possessions are cared for, and that mischievous behavior is costly. But vandalism can occur anywhere once communal barriers -- the sense of mutual regard and the obligations of civility -- are lowered by actions that seem to signal that "no one cares." The citizen who fears the ill-smelling drunk, the rowdy teenager, or the importuning beggar is not merely expressing his distaste for unseemly behavior; he is also giving voice to a bit of folk wisdom that happens to be a correct generalization -- namely, that serious street crime flourishes in areas in which disorderly behavior goes unchecked. The unchecked panhandler is, in effect, the first broken window.Consequently while individual efforts by citizens to maintain their homes and communities are important, the public sector’s ongoing role to enforce housing, zoning, sanitation, public use standards are critical for both aesthetic and safety reasons. Windshield Survey: Introduction The field researchers systematically observed the neighborhoods in Pomona districts 83, 84 and 87 during the week of May 18th. Observers used a common evaluation form that required making notations regarding:79  type of structures,  level of maintenance and/or repair,  condition of environment,  evidence of the litter, garbage and graffiti,  evidence of traffic,  noise levels,  odors, and  use of open area by residents.The reports are noted below. To view WINDSHIELD REPORT—GO ON LINE TO http://www.csupomona.edu/~smemerson/evaluationmpa550/project.htmSECTION 7: Conclusions and Recommendations TBD80

City of Pomona Weed and Seed Strategy

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support