november 2009 2009 south mountain report Suggested Citation: Choate, D.E. (2009). Comparing South Mountain Neighborhood Arrestees among AARIN Respondents. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety, Arizona State University.. Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network Comparing South Mountain Neighborhood Arrestees among AARIN Respondents by David E. Choate, M.A. November 2009 Acknowledgements The AARIN Project staff thanks Peter Ozanne and Amy Rex for their establishment of the AARIN project and for all of their hard work and assistance on the project. We also thank Maricopa County Manager David Smith and the Board of Supervisors for their continued support for AARIN. Additionally, we would like to thank Sheriff Arpaio of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Chief Conrad of the Glendale Police Department, Chief Gascón of the Mesa Police Department, Chief Carol Boone of the Maricopa County Juvenile Probation, and all of the officers who helped conduct the study. This project was funded by Maricopa County. Opinions contained herein are those of the author and do not represent the position of either Maricopa County or Arizona State University. AARIN Project Staff Charles M. Katz, Principal Investigator Watts Family Director Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Arizona State University Marie L. Griffin, Co-Principal Investigator Associate Professor School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Arizona State University Michael D. White, Co-Principal Investigator Associate Professor School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Arizona State University David E. Choate, Co-Principal Investigator Program Operations Manager Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Arizona State University Casey Malinoski, Data Collection Supervisor AARIN Project Manager Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Arizona State University Shirin Marvastian GIS Analyst Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Arizona State University Jody Arganbright Business Operations Mangaer Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Arizona State University In an effort to reduce our impact on the environment, we have chosen to distribute this report as a digital file. © 2009 by the Arizona Board of Regents for and on behalf of Arizona State University and its Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety. Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety 500 N. 3rd Street, NHI-1, Suite 200 • Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 496-1470 • Web site: http://cvpcs.asu.edu This document may be copied and transmitted freely. No deletions, additions, or alterations of contents are permitted without the expressed written consent of the Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety. Layout and design by Wendy Parker, College of Public Programs Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety Center for Applied Behavioral Health Policy 5 Comparing South Mountain Neighborhood Arrestees among AARIN Respondents November 2009 contents Introduction 1 AARIN Methodology for this Report 10 Policy Implications 22 Arizona Families F.I.R.S.T. Program Annual Evaluation Report, November 2007 AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety 1 Executive Summary Introduction The Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN) is a drug abuse monitoring system that provides ongoing descriptive information about drug use, crime, victimization, and other characteristics of interest among individuals arrested in Maricopa County, Arizona. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors sponsored research at Arizona State University and established AARIN in January 2007 to monitor drug use trends, treatment needs, and at-risk behavior among recently booked arrestees in Maricopa County. In five facilities throughout the County, professionally trained interviewers conduct voluntary confidential interviews with recently booked arrestees. Interview questions focus on a range of topics, including demographics, patterns of drug use (lifetime and recent), criminal activity, gang affiliation, victimization, mental health, citizenship, and treatment experiences. Each interviewee provides a urine specimen to be tested for the presence of alcohol and/or drugs. AARIN serves as a near-real-time information source on the extent and nature of drug abuse and related activity in Maricopa County, Arizona. The information informs policy and practices for police, courts, correctional agencies, and community-based organizations, with the objectives of increasing public safety and addressing the needs of individuals who enter the criminal justice system. AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 College of Public Programs, Arizona State University 2 The South Mountain Neighborhood The South Mountain neighborhood is located in the southern part of the City of Phoenix in Maricopa County. The three zip codes of 85040, 85041 and 85042 comprise the bulk of the neighborhood and serve as the target area boundary for this report. South Mountain is a distressed community, with significant need and limited resources. It is an area that differs from most of the city, with a predominantly economically disadvantaged Latino and African-American population. As part of Maricopa County’s efforts to identify the needs, the gaps in services and resources, and to use data to inform the County about making effective and meaningful policy changes, this report uses data collected as part of the ongoing AARIN project and economic measures derived from U.S. Census data to help examine and potentially guide restoration efforts in South Mountain. The report is divided into two sections for analysis. The first section uses U.S. Census estimates as a basis for understanding some of the community’s social and economic context through demographic characteristics. The second series of analysis relies on data gathered as part of the AARIN project to compare arrestees from the South Mountain area to respondents from the rest of Maricopa County. When the information provided by AARIN respondents is combined with the social and economic characteristics of the South Mountain community at large, meaningful policy implications emerge. AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety 3 The Role of the Maricopa County Manager’s Office in South Mountain The South Mountain community receives a disproportionately high percentage of prison releases returning to the community from the Arizona Department of Corrections. Stakeholders from local, county, and state agencies collaborated to streamline and maximize resources and services to prevent and reduce crime in this targeted area. The Justice System Planning and Information (JSPI) department of the Maricopa County Manager’s Office provides leadership, financial resources, analytical support, and technical assistance for these efforts through its program implementation, research, and program evaluation capacity. In order to reduce the recidivism rates for ex-offenders released to the South Mountain community, JSPI sponsors and evaluates an ex-offender employment program called Pathways to Success, Security and Gainful Employment Solutions (PASSAGES). This program helps male and female adult ex-offenders under community supervision and/or discharged from prison or jail to secure sustainable employment through a comprehensive and personalized array of career planning, job training, educational workshops, mentoring, and social services. In response to needs identified through analyses of juvenile data and community forums, JSPI contracts with community based organizations to provide prevention and intervention programs to reduce the high rates of detention referrals and recidivism for youth in the South Mountain area. JSPI coordinates partnerships among local organizations to sponsor community events at local parks throughout South Mountain during the summer months. These recreational events promote pro-social activities such as sports for at-risk youth, build trust with the local community, and strengthen the working relationship between agencies, encouraging future collaborative efforts. AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 College of Public Programs, Arizona State University 4 Characteristics of the South Mountain Neighborhood Comparing U.S. Census 2008 block groups on several indicators of family, household, and income, the South Mountain area, particularly the 85041 zip code, differed from most of Maricopa County in several key measures. Exhibit 1 displays a five-point scale of average household size throughout Maricopa County. As the inset map shows, the census block groups in the South Mountain area were among the highest average household sizes in Maricopa County. It should be noted that the southern portion of the 85041 and 85042 zip codes include part of South Mountain Park and thus do not contain any residential or commercial properties. Exhibit 1: Average Household Size by Census Block Group in 2008 AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety 5 Exhibit 2: Total Housing Units by Census Block Group in 2008 The area was average in terms of total number of housing units (Exhibit 2), total households (Exhibit 3), family households (Exhibit 4) and total population (Exhibit 5). The combination of these maps, in conjunction with household size, suggests that households and families in the area may be larger than average with a larger number of people living in a smaller number of homes. This may be an indication that housing availability is limited in the target area neighborhoods, and also may suggest a necessity for programs which seek to correct issues related to limited or unstable housing and economic resources. AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 College of Public Programs, Arizona State University 6 Exhibit 3: Total Households by Census Block Group in 2008 Exhibit 4: Total Family Households by Census Block Group in 2008 AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety 7 Exhibit 5: Total Population by Census Block Group in 2008 Upon further examination of the neighborhood characteristics, the residents of the South Mountain area were found to be in the lowest category for per capita income (Exhibit 6), average household income (Exhibit 7), and median household income (Exhibit 8). The per capita income for the residents in the South Mountain area is predominantly in the lowest category, from $0 to about $19,000. Looking at both the average and the median household income rates, the families in the South Mountain area were in the lowest or next to lowest category for each measure. The high-end of the lowest category for average household income was about $56,000 and the lowest category for median household income had a maximum value of less than $44,500. Taking these figures in combination with the fact that this same area was in the highest category for household size, it can be concluded that the typical household in the South Mountain area depends on the least economic resources to support a higher number of people on average. AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 College of Public Programs, Arizona State University 8 Exhibit 6: Per Capita Income by Census Block Group in 2008 Exhibit 7: Average Household Income by Census Block Group in 2008 AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety 9 Exhibit 8: Median Household Income by Census Block Group in 2008 AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 College of Public Programs, Arizona State University 10 AARIN Methodology for This Report In the present study, researchers used interview data obtained from 3,690 recently booked arrestees and detainees at five booking facilities in Maricopa County, Arizona as part of the Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN) collected throughout 2008 and the first half of 2009. Each calendar quarter, professionally trained local staff conducted voluntary and anonymous interviews with adult and juvenile males and females who had been arrested within the past 48 hours. The analysis for this report used information collected using the core instrument for the AARIN project, from interviews with adult and juvenile males and females. Analysis relied on several indicators from the core instrument including sociodemographic characteristics such as race/ethnicity, educational attainment, employment status, current housing arrangement, as well as crime-related variables such as substance use, prior arrests, recent incarceration, gang membership, firearms possession, and the severity and type of current arrest. Analysis specifically compared those respondents living in the 85040, 85041 and 85042 zip codes to other arrestees. Researchers initially contacted 4,536 arrestees, of whom 468 were eligible but declined to participate. Another 378 initially agreed but either did not complete the interview or did not provide a valid urine sample. These 846 cases were removed from the analysis file, leaving 3,690 cases in the analysis file. This report compares those respondents living in South Mountain to other AARIN respondents. The South Mountain target area is the unit of analysis for this report for the purpose of improving the understanding of the resource demands specific to an arrestee population in a targeted intervention area of Maricopa County. Respondents of the South Mountain target area represented 6.9% (n=256) of all respondents in the analysis file (n=3,690). AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety 11 Demographic Characteristics: Comparing AARIN Respondents from South Mountain and the Rest of Maricopa County Exhibit 9 displays the demographic characteristics of respondents by whether they live in the inclusive South Mountain neighborhood bounded by the 85040, 85041 and 85042 zip codes. Comparing the target area to the rest of Maricopa County, analysis did not find a significant difference in the distribution of males and females. While there was a slightly higher proportion of male arrestees in the South Mountain area compared to the rest of Maricopa County, about 82% compared to about 77%, it was not statistically significant. Further analysis indicated significant differences between the South Mountain area and the rest of Maricopa County in racial/ethnic background. Specifically, respondents from the South Mountain area were more likely to be non-white. County-wide about 37% of respondents were white, compared to just 10.9% of respondents from South Mountain. Respondents from South Mountain were predominantly Hispanic or Latino (46.1%), followed by Black or African-American (33.6%). For the rest of Maricopa County, respondents were 38.0% Hispanic or Latino, and just 12.3% Black or African-American. Educational attainment was significantly different across groups. Examining adult respondents, those in the South Mountain target area were significantly less likely to have any education beyond high school. Among target area respondents, 42.5% had less than a high school education, and another 30.3% reported high school or equivalency as their highest educational attainment, leaving just 27.1% of respondents from South Mountain reporting any education beyond high school, compared to nearly 38% of respondents from the rest of Maricopa County. Housing and source of income were not significantly different for respondents from South Mountain compared to other respondents. About 94% of South Mountain respondents reported living in a private residence, compared to 90.3% of all other respondents. Similarly for the respondents’ source of income, 59.8% of South Mountain respondents reported working full- or part-time, compared to about 57% of other Maricopa County respondents. AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 College of Public Programs, Arizona State University 12 Exhibit 9: Demographic Characteristics of AARIN Sample by Target Area South Mountain Maricopa County % N % N Male 82.0 210 76.9 2,638 Female 18.0 46 23.1 794 Sex Race* White 10.9 28 37.2 1,275 African-American 33.6 86 12.3 422 Hispanic/Latino 46.1 118 38.0 1,305 Other 9.4 24 12.5 430 Did Not Graduate HS 42.5 94 34.4 1,019 HS Diploma or GED 30.3 67 27.7 821 Post HS Education 27.1 60 37.9 1,123 93.8 240 90.3 3,101 Public or Group Housing 0.0 0 0.3 10 Hospital or Care Facility 1.6 4 1.4 48 Incarcerated 0.0 0 0.5 18 No Fixed Residence / Other 4.7 12 7.5 257 88.2 225 85.7 2,934 Education* Housing Private Residence U.S. Citizen Main Source of Income None 8.6 22 12.3 420 Working - Full or Part-Time 59.8 153 56.8 1,943 Other Legal Source 23.8 61 22.7 777 7.8 20 8.2 280 Illegal Source *p < .05 AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety 13 Most Serious Current Charge Type and Severity As part of the AARIN data collection process, official data are gathered from the booking record, which includes, but is not limited to, current arrest charges. Specifically, AARIN collects the three most serious charges from the current arrest, based on severity – status (juveniles only), misdemeanor, or felony – and type of offense – violent, drug-related, property, or miscellaneous offenses. Violent offenses include such crimes as homicide, kidnapping, assault, robbery, and rape. Drug related offenses include driving under the influence (DUI) of drugs and/or alcohol, possession or use of dangerous or narcotic drugs, sale and/or trafficking of drugs, and drug or alcohol related contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Property offenses include shoplifting and theft, burglary, criminal damage, fraud, and motor vehicle theft. Miscellaneous offenses include a wide range of crimes; the most commonly seen among Maricopa County arrestees include technical probation violations, failure to pay fines, driving offenses (non-DUI), prostitution, disorderly conduct, and obstruction of justice. Comparing the most serious type of offense on the current arrest between respondents from the South Mountain target area and the rest of Maricopa County revealed no significant differences in type, although severity differed. For example, 23.5% of South Mountain respondents were arrested for a violent offense compared to 19% of respondents from the rest of Maricopa County. The miscellaneous offense category was the most common for both groups (See Exhibit 10). Analysis revealed significant differences based on the severity of the charges between target area respondents and other Maricopa County respondents. For those respondents from South Mountain, 58% were arrested for a felony, compared to about 48% from the rest of Maricopa County. Thus, while the two groups did not differ based on the type of offenses they were arrested and booked for, they did differ based on the severity of the charges. South Mountain area respondents were significantly more likely to have been arrested for a felony. AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 College of Public Programs, Arizona State University 14 Exhibit 10: Most Serious Offense Type by Target Area South Mountain Maricopa County % N % N Violent 23.5 60 19.3 660 Drug-Related 19.2 49 22.5 768 Property 23.1 59 20.9 713 Miscellaneous 34.1 87 37.2 1,269 Offense Type *p < .05 Gang Membership and Affiliation Exhibit 11 displays analyses of the relationship between gang affiliation and respondents from South Mountain and the rest of Maricopa County. Overall, respondents from South Mountain were not significantly more likely to have a current or former gang affiliation than other respondents. However, analyzing gang affiliation of respondents from 85041-only did reveal significant and meaningful differences. Specifically, 17.6% of respondents from 85041 reported either current or former gang membership, compared to less than 12% of other respondents, and were more than twice as likely to be a gang associate (results not in table). Exhibit 11: Gang Membership and Affiliation by Target Area South Mountain Maricopa County % N % N Gang Membership Status Non-Gang Member 79.1 197 83.8 2,810 Gang Associate 6.4 16 4.6 153 Current Gang Member 8.0 20 6.0 200 Former Gang Member 6.4 16 5.6 189 *p < .05 AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety 15 Firearm Possession Comparing respondents from the South Mountain area and the rest of Maricopa County regarding firearm possession in the past 12 months and past 30 days revealed no differences between the groups. In the past 12 months, 13.8% of Maricopa County respondents reported carrying a gun compared to 14.8% of those from South Mountain. Similarly, 9% of respondents from Maricopa County possessed a gun in the past 30 days, compared to 9.4% of South Mountain area respondents (See Exhibit 12). Exhibit 12: Firearm Possession by Target Area South Mountain Maricopa County % N % N Past 12 Months 14.8 38 13.8 473 Past 30 Days 9.4 24 9.0 310 Possessed a Gun *p < .05 AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 College of Public Programs, Arizona State University 16 Victimization More than 26% of respondents from South Mountain reported having been the victim of a gun related crime in the past year. This included whether they had been threatened with a gun, shot at, or shot. Comparing this to the 20.6% of respondents from the rest of Maricopa County who reported being the victim of a gun crime, the South Mountain respondents were significantly more likely to be victimized with a firearm. There were no significant differences between the respondent groups in their rates of victimization involving weapons other than a gun. Similarly, there were no significant differences in assault rates, with about 22% of both South Mountain and Maricopa County respondents reporting being the victim of an assault not involving a weapon in the past 12 months. Finally, examining rates of robbery victimization, 11.7% of respondents from South Mountain reported having been the victim of a robbery compared to about 12% of other respondents (See Exhibit 13). Exhibit 13: Victimization by Target Area South Mountain Maricopa County % N % N Gun-Related Crime* 26.2 67.0 20.6 706.0 Weapon Related (non-gun) 15.6 40.0 19.2 661.0 Assaulted w/o a Weapon 21.9 56.0 22.3 765.0 Robbed 11.7 30.0 11.9 410.0 Victimized in past 12 month *p < .05 AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety 17 Mental Health Problems and Treatment Services Respondents were asked whether they had received any professional help related to a mental health problem or illness. Specifically, they were asked whether they had ever been told they had, or were diagnosed with, an emotional or mental health problem or illness; whether they had ever received treatment for a mental health problem; whether they had ever been prescribed medication for an emotional or mental health problem; and whether they had ever been hospitalized for a mental health problem. Comparing the responses to all four of the professional mental health questions – diagnosed, treated, prescribed medication, or hospitalized - between South Mountain respondents and the rest of Maricopa County respondents, significant differences were found for each measure except rates of hospitalization. Overall, the percent of respondents who reported having had some professional mental health help was consistently lower for South Mountain area respondents than countywide respondents. Exhibit 14: Mental Health Problems and Treatment Need by Target Areas South Mountain % N Diagnosed* 19.9 Treated* 16.0 Maricopa County % N 51 27.8 953 41 24.0 823 Mental Health Problems Prescribed Medication* 16.8 43 23.3 800 Hospitalized 9.8 25 10.2 349 Do you feel you could use treatment? 23.7 22 23.1 243 *p < .05 AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 College of Public Programs, Arizona State University 18 Exhibit 15 displays the opinions of the respondents, by target area, about obstacles that people seeking mental health treatment most typically face. Overall, the South Mountain area respondents did not significantly differ in their opinions compared to those respondents from the rest of Maricopa County. For both groups of respondents, the most common concern described as the biggest obstacle for people to get treatment was that it is too expensive, with more than 31% of South Mountain area respondents identifying it and more than 32% of other respondents. The second most common obstacle identified by both groups was the concern of stigma, or people treating those seeking help differently. When asked whether they thought if removing the biggest obstacle to getting mental health treatment would increase the likelihood that people would get help, there was a preponderance of support from respondents from both the South Mountain area and the rest of Maricopa County. Specifically, 77.5% of South Mountain respondents and 73.4% of other Maricopa County respondents believed that more people would seek help. Exhibit 15: Obstacles for People Seeking Mental health Treatment by Target Area AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety 19 Citizenship Status Exhibit 16 shows the citizenship status of respondents. Comparing the respondents from South Mountain and those from the rest of Maricopa County, there were no significant differences. Twelve percent of respondents from Maricopa County reported that they were in the United States illegally, compared to 9.8% of respondents from South Mountain. Exhibit 16: Citizenship Status by Target Area South Mountain Maricopa County % N % N Illegal Alien 9.8 25 12.0 412 Legal Alien 2.0 5 2.2 77 U.S. Citizen 88.2 225 85.7 2,934 Citizenship Status *p < .05 AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 College of Public Programs, Arizona State University 20 Substance Abuse Exhibit 17 displays the analysis of substance abuse rates comparing respondents from South Mountain to those from the rest of Maricopa County. The table shows the responses and positive urinalyses for alcohol, marijuana, powder and crack cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. The exhibit lists the percent of respondents by area who reported they had used the specified drug in their lifetime, in the past 12 months, 30 days, and 3 days, and whether they tested positive for the drug. More than 37% of respondents tested positive for marijuana (40.0% of South Mountain respondents and 37.3% of others). Almost 26% of South Mountain respondents tested positive for some form of cocaine (powder or crack) compared to just 16% of respondents from the rest of Maricopa County. Overall, South Mountain respondents reported higher recent use rates for both powder and crack cocaine, with significantly higher rates for the past 3 days, 30 days and 12 months. South Mountain respondents reported significantly lower heroin use on every measure (lifetime, 12-month, 30-day, 3-day, and urinalysis) than other respondents. Methamphetamine use among Maricopa County arrestees continues to be a concern. Overall, about 39% of AARIN respondents in the current analysis used methamphetamine in their lifetime and more than 23% used it in the past 12 months. There were also more than 20% of respondents who tested positive for methamphetamine. According to this analysis, this means that 1 in 5 arrestees in Maricopa County had methamphetamine in their system at the time of their arrest and booking. AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety 21 Exhibit 17: Drug Use by Target Area South Mountain Maricopa County % N % N Ever 95.3 244 94.6 3,249 Past 12 Months 73.8 189 75.4 2,589 Alcohol Past 30 Days 64.8 166 64.5 2,216 Past 3 Days 44.9 115 42.9 1,474 Urinalysis 8.6 22 10.5 355 Ever 78.9 202 80.4 2,760 Past 12 Months 49.6 127 50.1 1,721 Past 30 Days 42.6 109 41.5 1,424 Past 3 Days 29.3 75 28.1 965 Urinalysis 40.0 102 37.3 1,264 Ever 47.3 121 47.6 1,634 Past 12 Months 16.4 42 15.3 524 Past 30 Days* 12.1 31 8.4 290 Past 3 Days* 7.4 19 4.3 146 25.5 65 16.0 542 Ever 9.4 24 14.6 503 Past 12 Months 2.3 6 6.3 215 Past 30 Days* 0.8 2 4.3 149 Past 3 Days* 0.4 1 3.1 105 Urinalysis* 2.7 7 6.3 212 Ever 38.7 99 38.8 1,334 Past 12 Months 23.4 60 23.0 790 Past 30 Days 17.2 44 17.7 608 Past 3 Days 9.8 25 11.4 392 Urinalysis 21.6 55 20.5 696 Marijuana Powder Cocaine Urinalysis* Heroin Methamphetamine *p < .05 AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 College of Public Programs, Arizona State University 22 Policy Implications Using data collected from nearly 3,700 arrestees, this report provides insight into the nature and extent of problems facing residents of the South Mountain neighborhood of south Phoenix compared to AARIN respondents from the rest of Maricopa County. The findings suggest that on many measures there are significant differences, particularly severity of offense, gun-related victimization, and crack and powder cocaine use. Residents from South Mountain are also among the most economically disadvantaged. The findings of the report identify four key issues that have substantive policy implications: 1) economic disadvantage; 2) higher rates of crack and powder cocaine use; 3) higher rates of gun-related victimization; and 4) gang affiliation and association. The first key finding with substantive policy implication is the area’s economic disadvantage. Significant economic disadvantage impacts both crime and quality of life of the people living and working in those communities. While it is a daunting issue that is not easily solved, the impact cannot be ignored. It affects the quality of life and availability of supportive resources tied to substance abuse or mental health treatment, as well as occupational options that provide a safety net to criminal involvement. It must be noted that the policy implication here is that specific targeted interventions to reduce crime and improve the quality of life in this community must take the constricted resources into consideration. Any prevention or intervention efforts must account for the community’s limited economic resources and availability to support services. The second issue with policy implications is related to the significantly higher current rates for both crack and powder cocaine use. Cocaine, particularly crack cocaine, typically depends on open drug markets, with multiple dealers with little or no routine interaction with buyers, other than through drug transactions. Targeted enforcement practices of open air drug transactions are well-known to police departments and have been successful in diminishing drug market activity in a multitude of settings for many years. If the South Mountain area has higher rates of crack cocaine use, as the sample indicated, and those South Mountain residents buying crack cocaine typically purchase in their own neighborhood, then targeted enforcement in these areas may prove successful at reducing cocaine use rates in the South Mountain community. The third finding with substantive policy implications is the gun-related victimization rate. South Mountain respondents reported having been shot, shot-at, or threatened at significantly higher rates than respondents from the rest of Mari- AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety 23 copa County. More than 1 in 4 South Mountain respondents had been the victim of a gun crime at least once in the past year. Public education and intervention programs targeting at-risk populations in the South Mountain community could have a meaningful impact on the number of shootings. Research has shown that many programmatic interventions such as Project Safe Neighborhoods and Chicago CeaseFire have been very successful at reducing gun violence in the most dangerous neighborhoods. The fourth finding that has substantive importance, particularly regarding targeted interventions with at-risk youth, is the higher rate of gang affiliation. While the scope of this report looks at the larger South Mountain community, there were additional analyses conducted with particular subsets on particular issues. When looking at the whole of the South Mountain community, significant differences are not found in gang affiliation compared to the rest of the County. However, looking specifically at the respondents from 85041 (n=113), there are significant and meaningful differences between groups. Specifically, 17.6% of the respondents from the 85041 zip code area compared to just 11.6% of other respondents reported current or former gang membership, and more than double (10.2% and 4.5%) reported current gang affiliation. For both adults and juveniles in the 85041 zip code, gang membership and associations occur at about double the rate. Addressing the gang problem is critical. The related risk factors associated with gang membership and affiliation include an increase in more serious and sustained delinquency and criminal behavior, and an increased risk of serious violent victimization. Prevention and intervention aimed at juveniles and young adults to reduce their involvement in gangs would be an important targeted response that would not only improve the lives of those youth, but reduce crime throughout the community. In summary, the analysis indicates a few key substantive differences between respondents from the South Mountain community and the rest of Maricopa County, with farreaching policy implications. Successful best-practice models of prevention and intervention responses that have proven successful in other communities should be applicable in South Mountain. The implementation of any programs must take the economic conditions into consideration, as well as the challenges of cultural competency in a highly heterogeneous community. The recommendations presented here are of course the opinions of the authors, based on the independent interpretations of the findings given the scope of the data used for this report. The specific program selection and implementation process requires a thorough examination, but we hope that this report and its recommendations can serve as a guide to that process. AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 College of Public Programs, Arizona State University 24 About the Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Arizona State University, in order to deepen its commitment to the communities of Arizona and to society as a whole, has set a new standard for research universities, as modeled by the New American University. Accordingly, ASU is measured not by whom we exclude, but by whom we include. The University is pursuing research that considers the public good, and is assuming a greater responsibility to our communities for their economic, social, and cultural vitality. Social embeddedness – university-wide, interactive, and mutually supportive partnerships with Arizona communities – is at the core of our development as a New American University. Toward the goal of social embeddedness, in response to the growing need of our communities to improve the public’s safety and well-being, in July 2005 ASU established the Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety. The Center’s mission is to generate, share, and apply quality research and knowledge to create “best practice” standards. Specifically, the center evaluates policies and programs; analyzes and evaluates patterns and causes of violence; develops strategies and programs; develops a clearinghouse of research reports and “best practice” models; educates, trains, and provides technical assistance; and facilitates the development and construction of databases. For more information about the Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety, please contact us using the information provided below. Mailing Address Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Arizona State University at the Downtown Phoenix campus 500 N. 3rd Street, NHI-1, Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Telephone (602) 496-1470 Web Site http://cvpcs.asu.edu AARIN South Mountain Neighborhoods Report, November 2009 The Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety l ASU College of Public Programs 500 N. 3rd Street, NHI-1, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ l (602) 496-1470 l http://cvpcs.asu.edu