california state polytechnic university, pomona pomona

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

POMONA


CSU PomonaMaster’s of Public Administration/

Political Science

December 1, 2005

Weed & Seed Program Evaluation


Weed & Seed Program Evaluation

• “The Team”

• Pre-Test Phase

• Program Implementation

• Post-Test Phase


Weed and Seed Strategy

What issues were the focus of the evaluation?

• Law Enforcement• Community Policing• Prevention – Intervention – Treatment• Neighborhood Restoration


Evaluation Overview

• Evaluation Reinforced Some Assumptions

• New Issues Emerged– Differences among the districts – Useful for implementation


Program Environment andCurrent Operations


Current Operations and Environment

•Pomona Police Department

•Patrol Division

•Records Division


Patrol Division

• Strengths– Officers work well as a team– Familiarity with assigned

neighborhood– Information sharing

• Challenges– Residents hesitancy to talk with police– Cultural & language barriers– Shortage of officers


Patrol Division

• Possible effects of Weed & Seed– Bottleneck of the adjudication process– Potential delay in calls for service– Hindrance to the patrol process

• Survey Analysis– Residents feelings toward their

neighborhood


Records Division

Function•Records Management System

•State Criminal Justice databases

•Report Statistics to DOJ & State


Records Division

• Strengths – Manager Judy Ramsey– Staff

• Challenges– Cumbersome paper system– Backlog– Employee retention– Lack of resources

• Potential effect of weeding


Focus Groups and

Elite Interviews


FOCUS GROUP

Federal vs. Local


•Reducing Crimes•Establishing or improving after-school programs•Integrating social services and delivery of those services•Employment of more youth in an effort to increase their participation in the community, and•Empowering residents by encouraging them to cooperate with each other and participate in the improvement of their community’s quality of life. Also a renewed focus on the literacy of youth and residents is a program goal.

Ways the Weed and Seed Committee intended to measure Success


Elite Interviews

• Areas of agreement:– Presence of gangs– Lack of youth programs– Cultural barriers and the need for the

assimilation of new immigrants into the community, and

– Lack of trust between residents and the City’s Police Department


Elite Interviews – Differences and Challenges

• Differences among Committee members:– Residents lack of education– Concerns about the influence of

unelected representatives on programs and policies, and

– The impact of old and perhaps outdated, infrastructure in the City


Models for Success of the Weed and Seed Program

• Analysis suggested four (4) models that the Weed and Seed Program should focus on:1. High Blight = High Crime: focus

resources on physical restoration of the area

2. Youth Development = New City: focus resources on serving young children and youth, making a positive impact on their future


Models For Success (cont’d)

3. Diversity…A Gap Breaker: Focus on gaining a better understanding of immigrant and non-immigrant issues and work to resolve them.

4. Community Policing: The Pomona Police Department should focus on fostering positive community relations, particularly with the Spanish-speaking community of the target area, in a effort to gain their trust.


Record Description and Analysis-City Wide


Trends in Robbery Arrests for the City of Pomona from 1997-2003: Citywide and

Juveniles

140

120

100

80

7654321

Sequence

Logarithmic

Linear

Observed

Felony robbery arrests

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

7654321

Sequence

Logarithmic

Linear

Observed

Juvenile felony robbery arrests


Juvenile Burglary Arrests (cont…)

70

60

50

40

30

7654321

Sequence

Linear

Observed

Juvenile felony arrests for burglary

•City Wide-Not Significant

•Juvenile-Significant


Motor Vehicle Arrests (cont…)

240

220

200

180

160

7654321

Sequence

Felony arrests for motor vehicle theft

Quadratic

Linear

Observed

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

7654321

Sequence

Logarithmic

Linear

Observed

Juvenile felony arrests for motor vehicle theft


Drug Arrest 1997-2003

340

320

300

280

260

240

220

7654321

Sequence

Quadratic

Linear

Observed

Felony arrests for narcotics

20

15

10

5

0

7654321

Sequence

Quadratic

Linear

Observed

Juvenile felony arrests for narcotics


Trends in Adult Assault and Juvenile Rape 2001-2004

Linear Regression

2001.00 2002.00 2003.00 2004.00

year reported- city wide

80.00

90.00

100.00

110.00

120.00

130.00

adult agg. assault arrest = -22316.00 + 11.20 * yearR-Square = 0.44

Linear Regression

2001.00 2002.00 2003.00 2004.00


1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

juv. rape arrest = -1199.00 + 0.60 * yearR-Square = 0.60


Burglary Arrests: Adults and Juveniles

Linear Regression

2001.00 2002.00 2003.00 2004.00


30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

juv burglary arrest = 10651.00 + -5.30 * yearR-Square = 0.56

Linear Regression

2001.00 2002.00 2003.00 2004.00


130.00

135.00

140.00

145.00

150.00

adult burglary arrest = 10750.00 + -5.30 * yearR-Square = 0.59

Compare w/ 1997-2003• not significant

Compare w/ 1997-2003•Declining pattern


Auto Theft Arrests: Adults and Juvenile

Linear Regression

2001.00 2002.00 2003.00 2004.00


120.00

130.00

140.00

150.00

160.00

170.00

adult auto theft arrest = -21880.50 + 11.00 * yearR-Square = 0.46

Linear Regression

2001.00 2002.00 2003.00 2004.00


20.00

30.00

40.00

juv. auto theft arrest = 11050.00 + -5.50 * yearR-Square = 0.39

Compare w/ 1997-2003 •increasing pattern

Compare w/ 1997-2003 •decreasing pattern


Juvenile Drug Arrests

Linear Regression

2001.00 2002.00 2003.00 2004.00


10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

juv misdem. drugs arrest = -15798.00 + 7.90 * yearR-Square = 0.56

Compare w/ 1997-2003 •decreasing pattern of felony drug crimes


Record Description and Analysis-By District


District Data

• The Weed & Seed districts report higher incidence of crimes in the following categories:

• Homicides• Rapes• Robbery• Assaults• Burglary• Larceny• Auto theft


0.44 1.44

8

39.33

13.89

52.33

40.11

108.33

0.06 0.723

12.28

7.39

31.44

17.06

37.61

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Homicides Rapes Robbery Assaults Burglary Larceny Auto Theft SeriousCrimes

Crime

Per

cen

tag

es

Weed & Seed

Typical District

Weed and Seed Area -VS- Typical District


District Data

• Actual Arrests in the Weed & Seed Districts almost tripled as compared to the Typical districts.

• District 84 reports more crime than Districts 83 and 87.

-District 84 residents are twice as likely to report assaults.


FIELD OBSERVATIONDESCRIPTION AND

ANALYSIS


Field Observations

•The Instrument–DOJ Framework–Descriptive Definitions

•Observers–Gender–Ethnicity


Field Observations

Private Areas

Public Areas

Both

Glass 15.8% 10.5 6.0%

Garbage 21.1 17.3 19.5

Graffiti 17.3 12. 5.3

DEBRIS


Field Observations


Field Observations

848783

police reporting dist

50

40

30

20

10

0

% o

bs

erv

ed

ve

hic

les

mo

vin

g-6

or

mo

re

44.83%

32.61%

24.07%

Traffic


Field Observations

Police Observation


Field Observations

• Pets, Odors, Noise– Area, District,

North/South– Observers’

Gender/Ethnicity

• People– Adults observed

most frequently– Area, District,

North/South– Observers’

Gender/Ethnicity


Survey Overview and Description of Process


Resident Surveys

• When, Where, and How• Neighborhood conditions: - Police, City Services, Crime - Now vs. 2 years ago• Conducted on last weekend of October

2005• Population 14,664 => 326 Surveys• Target Area Parameters: 60 Freeway

South, Lexington Ave North, Reservoir Street East, 71 Freeway West.


Districts

878483


Survey Respondents

• Hispanic• Full time worker under 45• 2/3 Property owners• Income $35,000 to $50,000• 3 or fewer children


Resident Surveys

13 Questions• 25% Neighborhood Perception No Serious Issue Differences• 24% Vandalism among youth• 26.1% Thought not an issue

• 23.3% Lack of jobs as a serious issue• 25.5% Do not know if it is or not


Survey Analysis Neighborhood


•Asked 32 questions regarding their neighborhood

•Significance in only 8 areas

•5 of these areas showed moderate relationship vs strong relationship



Do know/trust more or fewer * age in 3 groups


over 5536-55under 36

age in 3 groups

50

40

30

20

10

0

% k

no

w a

nd

tru

st

mo

re

th

an

2 y

ears

ag

o


How residents viewed drug usage in their neighborhood


87 rpt. district84 rpt. district83 rpt district

District of PPD

50

40

30

20

10

0

% r

esp

on

ses

illeg

al d

rug

use

isse

rio

us

pro

ble

m


Views on Robberies Linked to Views on Gangs


no issueminormoderateserious

presence of gangs

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

% v

iew

s t

ow

ard

ro

bb

ery

or

str

ee

t c

rim

e


Views on Robberies Linked to Views About Jobs


no issueminormoderateserious

lack of jobs

50

40

30

20

10

0

%vi

ew

s t

ow

ard

ro

bb

ery

or

stre

et

cri

me


Views on Robberies Linked to Drug Treatment


no issueserious

lack of drug treatment

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

% v

iew

s t

ow

ard

ro

bb

ery

or

str

ee

t c

rim

e


EMPOWERMENT


Neighborhood Empowerment

Stop Spray Painting

Neighborhood assessment

Take steps in getting city

services


What are the residents views about the likelihood of stopping spray painting

• 58% - Very likely• Over 55 – More

likely

TODAY VS. 2 YEARS AGO

• Equal percentage -More likely and no change


age groups (years)

80

60

40

20

0

% li

kely

to in

terr

upt y

outh

s sp

ray

pain

ting

76.09%

57.69%

50.93%



Age in 3 Groups

60

50

40

30

20

% lik

ely

of

yo

uth

s s

pra

y p

ain

tin

g

57.9

44.1

22.2

33.3

27.5

23.6

a. maleb. female

respondent's gender

Males are more likely to intervene than females

What are the residents views about the likelihood of stopping spray painting


• 68% - very likely to somewhat likely• 40% under the age of 36 – unlikely• Older residents – more likely


• Residents feel they are as willing to take steps today as they felt two years ago

What are the residents views about taking steps to get city services


• 48% - satisfied • 32.5% - somewhat

satisfied• Older - more

satisfied


• 42% - same• 33% - more

satisfied

What are the residents views of the neighborhood


age in 3 groups

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

% s

atis

fied

with

nei

ghbo

rhoo

dco

mpa

red

to tw

o ye

ars

ago

84 rpt. district

87 rpt. district

83 rpt districtDistrict of PPD


• District 84 and 87 – more satisfied

• District 83 – less satisfied

• District 84 – as age increases, neighborhood satisfaction declined

TODAY VS. 2 YEARS AGO:• Owners – more satisfied

than renters

Which residents are dissatisfied with the neighborhood

renterowner

own or rent?

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

% d

issat

isfied

with

neig

hbor

hood

com

pare

d to

two

year

s ago

83 rpt district

87 rpt. district

84 rpt. districtDistrict of PPD


Crime and Safety


Crime in the Neighborhood

• Difference between Districts

• District 83

PPD


Safety in the Neighborhood

• Difference between Districts

• Large Percentages

PPD


Safety and Gender

• Gender Differences


Police and City Services



• Calls regarding family members were viewed more positively.

• Views regarding controlling the sale of illegal drugs were more negative.

• District 84 had most positive views of police.



• Police response to calls regarding a family member.– 36% working

outside of the home were very satisfied.

– 15% not working outside of the home very satisfied.


Summary of Survey Findings


• Empowerment with spray painting varied by gender and age.

• Neighborhood satisfaction varied by district.

Summary of Survey


Summary of SurveyKey Findings

• Whether residents trusted neighbors today versus two years ago varied by age.

• How residents viewed drug usage varied by district.


• Signs of home break-ins varied by districts.

• Concerns about safety after dark varied by district.

• District 83 reported more incidents with crimes.

Summary of Survey


• Economic factors as indicators of positive attitudes towards police:– Satisfaction with police response to call about

family member vs. working or not– Income vs. improvement of police

responsiveness over past two years

• Most likely to speak with police officers:– Renters vs. owners– Having 1 child or less in home

• District 84 showed most positive views of police

Summary of Survey


Conclusions and Recommendations


Crime

• Decline– Robbery arrests– Burglary arrests– Narcotics arrests

• Rise– Motor vehicle arrests– Juvenile rape cases– Adult assault arrests

• Lowest crime level: District 87• Highest crime level: District 84


Neighborhoods

• Quality of structures– Good to excellent vs. fair to poor– Few physical problems– Exceptions:

• Litter• Traffic

• No police presence during the weekend• Major differences were between districts


Districts

• District 87– Bordered by Reservoir and Towne– Least concern with crime– Most positive neighbor image

• District 84– Bordered by Garey and Towne– Most reported crimes and litter– Highest support for police efforts

• District 83– Bordered by 60 and 71 freeways and Garey– Greatest amount of traffic– Highest number of residents feeling unsafe


Recommendations

• Encourage anonymous tips• Customize programs for district

needs• Expand daytime role of officers• Additional personnel and/or

technology resources


MPA/PLS thanks to :

Pomona City Manager's Office

Weed and Seed Committee

California State Attorney General's Office

Pomona Police Department especially the:

Patrol Division

Records Bureau

Cadet Program

CSU Pomona's Kellogg Foundation and --

Participating Residents of Pomona's Weed and Seed area

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Thank you.Q&A in Multipurpose Room

POMONA

california state polytechnic university, pomona pomona

Documents