Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community: A process and impact evaluation of a local Weed and Seed Initiative in Glendale, Arizona 2007 Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community: A process and impact evaluation of a local Weed and Seed Initiative in Glendale, Arizona Prepared by Stephen M. Schnebly, Ph.D. School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Arizona State University And David E. Choate, M.A. Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Arizona State University December, 2007 i About the Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Arizona State University, in order to become more committed to the Arizona community and to society as a whole, is setting a new standard for research universities through the model of the New American University. As a New American University, ASU is measured not by who we exclude, but by who we include; we pursue research that considers the public good; and we assume major responsibility for the economic, social, and cultural vitality of our community. Social embeddedness is core to the development of ASU as the New American University. Social embeddedness is a university-wide, interactive, and mutually-supportive partnership with the communities of Arizona. Toward the goal of social embeddedness, Arizona State University established the Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety in July 2005 to respond to the growing need of Arizona’s communities to improve the public’s safety and well being. The Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety is a research unit within the College of Human Services at Arizona State University. The Center’s mission is to generate, share, and apply quality research and knowledge to create “best practice” standards. The center specifically 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 of 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 P.O. Box 37100 Mail Code 3250 Phoenix, Arizona, 85069-7100 Street Address Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Arizona State University 4701 West Thunderbird Road Glendale, Arizona 85306-4908 Phone (602) 543-5959 Web site http://www.cvpcs.asu.edu/ ii Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community Site Coordinator, Michele Morris, whose terrific energy and support – and endless supply of documentation – made the process evaluation possible. The authors would also like to extend thanks to Nancy Kilfoyle with the Glendale Police Department, who provided the seven years worth of UCR and CFS data used to conduct the impact analysis. The size and complexity of the data required a few repeated attempts to get it out of the system at GPD and into our hands, and she was invariably responsive to our requests. Of course, we also would like to thank colleagues at ASU who provided advice and assistance at several critical stages, particularly the Center’s Director, Charles M. Katz, Ph.D. This project was funded by the Orchard Glen weed and Seed Community. The opinions contained herein are those of the authors and do not represent the position of Arizona State University. © 2007 by the Arizona Board of Regents for and on behalf of Arizona State University and its Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi INTRODUCTION Organizational Structure and Strategy of Weed and Seed Law Enforcement Community Policing Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Neighborhood Restoration 1 1 2 3 6 10 THE PRESENT STUDY [1] 12 METHODS Site Characteristics Exhibit 1:Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Site Characteristics Process Evaluation Impact Evaluation 12 12 13 14 20 FINDINGS Process Evaluation Findings Exhibit 2:Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community Goals Law Enforcement Community Policing Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Neighborhood Restoration Process Summary Impact Evaluation Findings Analytic Strategy Table 1: CFS and UCR Crime Categories by Crime Type Impact on Violent Crime Impact on Property Crime Impact on Drug Crime Impact on Disorder Crime Impact Summary Table 2: Average Monthly CFS and UCR Crime Rates Per 100,000 Residents 21 21 23 24 26 30 35 36 38 39 40 41 50 58 67 75 77 CONCLUSION Recommendations 80 82 REFERENCES 76 APPENDIX 81 [1] This evaluation was approved by Arizona State University Research Compliance Office, IRB #0707001965. iv Table of Figures Violent Crimes Figure 1: Time Series of UCR Part I Violent Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Figure 2: Time Series of CFS for Violent Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Figure 3: Linear Trends of UCR Part I Violent Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Figure 4: Linear trends of CFS for Violent Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Figure 5: Time Series of UCR Part I Violent Crimes in Glendale, 2000-2006 Figure 6: Time Series of CFS for Violent Crimes in Glendale, 2000-2006 Figure 7: Linear Trends of UCR Part I Violent Crimes in Glendale, 2000-2006 Figure 8: Linear trends of CFS for Violent Crimes in Glendale, 2000-2006 42 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 Property Crimes Figure 9: Time Series of UCR Property Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Figure 10: Time Series of CFS for Property Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Figure 11: Linear Trends of UCR Property Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Figure 12: Linear trends of CFS for Property Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Figure 13: Time Series of UCR Property Crimes in Glendale, 2000-2006 Figure 14: Time Series of CFS for Property Crimes in Glendale, 2000-2006 Figure 15: Linear Trends of UCR Property Crimes in Glendale, 2000-2006 Figure 16: Linear trends of CFS for Property Crimes in Glendale, 2000-2006 51 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Drug Crimes Figure 17: Time Series of UCR Drug Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Figure 18: Time Series of CFS for Drug Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Figure 19: Linear Trends of UCR Drug Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Figure 20: Linear trends of CFS for Drug Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Figure 21: Time Series of UCR Drug Crimes in Glendale, 2000-2006 Figure 22: Time Series of CFS for Drug Crimes in Glendale, 2000-2006 Figure 23: Linear Trends of UCR Drug Crimes in Glendale, 2000-2006 Figure 24: Linear trends of CFS for Drug Crimes in Glendale, 2000-2006 60 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Disorder Crimes Figure 25: Time Series of UCR Disorder Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Figure 26: Time Series of CFS for Disorder Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Figure 27: Linear Trends of UCR Disorder Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Figure 28: Linear trends of CFS for Disorder Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Figure 29: Time Series of UCR Disorder Crimes in Glendale, 2000-2006 Figure 30: Time Series of CFS for Disorder Crimes in Glendale, 2000-2006 Figure 31: Linear Trends of UCR Disorder Crimes in Glendale, 2000-2006 Figure 32: Linear trends of CFS for Disorder Crimes in Glendale, 2000-2006 68 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 v ABSTRACT The purpose of the present study was to conduct an evaluation of the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community, using both qualitative and quantitative data to conduct process and impact evaluations. The process evaluation relied on official documents detailing site activities. The impact evaluation relied on Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and call for service (CFS) data from the Glendale Police Department (GPD), spanning 84 months from January 2000 through December 2006, divided into two geographical categories to compare the Orchard Glen weed and Seed site and the rest of the City of Glendale. These raw frequency data were converted into monthly rates based on U.S. Census population estimates to represent the number of crimes per 100,000 people, then grouped into four categories of crime: 1) violent; 2) property; 3) drugs; and 4) disorder. The results of the process evaluation indicated that the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community was actively engaged in activities pursuant of their original site goals, and adapting them as the site developed, and that the efforts were well documented. The impact evaluation indicated that levels of violence, property crime, and disorder all declined in Orchard Glen after the implementation of the Weed and Seed program, and in conjunction with evidence that similar changes generally did not occur throughout the rest of the city of Glendale (i.e., the comparison area), these findings support the conclusion that Weed and Seed program was a likely contributor to the decline in violence, property crime, and disorder that was observed in the Orchard Glen treatment area. vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction and Background The purpose of this study was to conduct an evaluation of the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community. The Weed and Seed strategy is a planned response to complex social and community issues. The comprehensive approach that Weed and Seed employs speaks to the underlying philosophy of its design: that the conditions of violence, substance abuse, and other crimes, and the widespread physical and social disorder of disadvantaged neighborhoods, are complex problems that arise and thrive for a myriad of reasons, and a multi-pronged response, using diverse resources, is the only logical solution. The Weed and Seed strategy uses four central components: 1) law enforcement; 2) community policing; 3) prevention, intervention, and treatment; and 4) neighborhood restoration. Weeding activities are carried out by law enforcement agencies and include community policing techniques. The seeding processes are carried out by residents and public and private social service providers, and include prevention, intervention, and treatment programs, and neighborhood restoration projects. Methods The Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community site is located in Glendale, Arizona. The designated area is approximately 0.27 square miles of residential land, with a population of about 3,000 people, 77% of which are of Hispanic or Latino origin, and 4% AfricanAmerican. The median household income is about 68% of the median household income for the rest of the City of Glendale. First, a process evaluation was conducted to examine the implementation of the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed site’s policies, goals, and planned activities. Second, an impact evaluation was conducted to assess the impact of Orchard Glen Weed and Seed on crime and disorder in the designated program area. The process evaluation for this study relied on a historical examination of the procedures and activities that contributed to the formation of the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed initiative, and the programmatic implementation and activities since official recognition. The impact evaluation focused on the influence that the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community’s activities had on crime and disorder in the designated area. For Weed and Seed sites in general, measures of program impact are based on reductions in crime and improvements to quality of life in the targeted neighborhood. The impact evaluation relied on call for service (CFS) data and Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data from the Glendale Police Department (GPD) from January 2000 through December 2006. vii Findings The process evaluation revealed several major findings. Generally, the evaluation revealed that Orchard Glen had pursued the attainment of their originally defined goals and objectives, and maintained relationships and engaged in activities that maintained the effort. The analysis indicated to evaluators that the 11 goals defined in the site’s 2004 strategic plan were largely adhered to through a sustained commitment by community residents, social service providers, civic leaders, local police, and criminal justice system professionals. The impact evaluation found that in most categories of crime, there was a statistically significant decrease in the rate crime across both CFS and UCR measures in the Orchard Glen area as compared to the rest of the city. While other extraneous factors may have influenced the changes in crime rates, either solely or cumulatively in conjunction with Orchard Glen Weed and Seed efforts, the data does indicate a significant change in the Orchard Glen area during Weed and Seed program implementation. Limitations Even though there is evidence of the success of the Orchard Glen site, data was occasionally lacking that would have allowed for a more rigorous assessment of program goals, objectives, and tasks. The 11 originally defined goals included statements that might have been used to measure programmatic success. Many goals called for percentage reductions or increases in crime or community involvement to serve as quantifiable measures of success. The site’s strategic plan did not however clearly delineate the measures that would be collected to assess the progress of every goal. During the process of program development and implementation, setting up the mechanisms through which one can assess progress toward program goals is critical for evaluation, and when necessary, program improvement, and those measures must also be valid and reliable representations of the intended outcome. Recommendations Evaluators identified the lack of objective quantitative data to assess a few of the goals. Suggestions for program improvement include revisiting the site’s goals and objectives and developing strategies for collecting the data needed to assess program performance and effectiveness. This process would include both clearly identifying the specific data that would be used to measure specific outcomes, as well as the policies and procedures used to collect, maintain, and analyze the data. Additionally, further refinement of the goals and objectives and putting in place mechanisms for assessing them, relevant to the changing needs of the community, the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed initiative could improve upon their successes, bringing even more tangible benefits to neighborhood residents. 1 INTRODUCTION The U.S. Department Justice (DOJ) developed Operation Weed and Seed in 1991 as a crime reduction strategy for high crime neighborhoods across the country, specifically targeting violent crime and drug-related offenses. The Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO) administers Weed and Seed as a unit of the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs. Operation Weed and Seed began as a pilot project in three cities: Kansas City, Missouri; Trenton, New Jersey; and Omaha, Nebraska (Dunworth & Mills, 1999). The number of Weed and Seed sites grew rapidly from the three pilot sites in 1991, to 300 officially recognized Weed and Seed sites in 2005 (Dunworth, Mills, Cordner, & Greene, 1999; CCDO, 2005c). The guiding principle for the strategy is to reduce violent and drug crime rates in high crime neighborhoods by combining traditional law enforcement tactics, public and private sector participation, and providing social services. The difficulty in developing and maintaining dedicated partnerships presents the strategy’s biggest challenge, and its greatest strength, because the collaboration of a broad range of people and organizations motivated to reduce violent and drug crimes, and improve the quality of life for residents in neighborhoods, leverages far-reaching resources into a common goal. Organizational Structure and Strategy of Weed and Seed The Weed and Seed strategy is a planned response to complex social and community issues. The comprehensive approach that Weed and Seed employs speaks to the underlying philosophy of its design: that the conditions of violence, substance abuse, and other crimes, and the widespread physical and social disorder of disadvantaged 2 neighborhoods, are complex problems that arise and thrive for a myriad of reasons, and a multi-pronged response, using diverse resources, is the only logical solution. The Weed and Seed strategy uses four central components: 1) law enforcement; 2) community policing; 3) prevention, intervention, and treatment; and 4) neighborhood restoration. Weeding activities are carried out by law enforcement agencies and include community policing techniques. The seeding processes are carried out by residents and public and private social service providers, and include prevention, intervention, and treatment programs, and neighborhood restoration projects. The sections below discuss these activities as they pertain to the Weed and Seed program. Law Enforcement The law enforcement component is perhaps the most visible element of the weeding process. Traditional law enforcement activities such as patrol, arrest, investigations, prosecutions and probation and parole are the key tools used in this component. The U.S. Attorney’s Office plays a central role in every Weed and Seed site, and is an important part of the law enforcement component. The U.S. Attorney (or his/her designate) helps with the formation of the steering committee and is central to building cooperation between federal, state, tribal, county, and local law enforcement agencies. Weed and Seed sites are communities with higher rates of violent and drug crimes than the larger surrounding community of which they are a part. These areas typically see high rates of homicide, serious and misdemeanor assaults, robberies, auto thefts and burglaries, well-developed open drug markets, high substance abuse rates, domestic 3 violence prevalence, significant gang activity, and public nuisance complaints (Dunworth et al, 1999; JRSA, 2004a; JRSA, 2004b). Traditional police enforcement strategies can be effective in reducing crime rates when appropriate levels of resources are committed to a targeted area. Part of the creation process of a Weed and Seed site is the definition of its designated area, which becomes the geographical focus, or targeted area, for enforcement resources. Law enforcement strategies in Weed and Seed targeted neighborhoods might include sting and reverse-sting drug trafficking operations, dedicating officers to identify and serve arrest warrants, improved responsiveness to calls for service, targeted prosecutions, and more frequent patrol. Accordingly, the law enforcement component of Weed and Seed, in its simplest form, is comprised of intensified traditional policing strategies targeted at specified geographic areas. Community Policing Community policing also plays a major role in Weed and Seed programs. It serves as the bridge between the law enforcement (or the weeding process) component of weed and seed and the social services and neighborhood revitalization (or seeding process) component. Community policing as defined by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services is “a policing philosophy that promotes and supports organizational strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and police-community partnerships” (Community Oriented Policing Services, 2006). Weed and Seed programs embrace the community policing concept of developing “police-community partnerships.” Community Oriented Policing focuses on developing 4 relationships between members of the community and law enforcement. The importance of the relationship between the public and the police is the central issue addressed by the basic assumptions of the community policing philosophy. In defining the policecommunity relationship, Peter K. Manning details eleven assumptions that typically underlie the concept of community policing, cited from Community Policing: Contemporary Policing (Alpert and Piquero, 1998): 1. People desire to see police officers in their local areas of residence and business on a regular and casual basis. 2. The more police they see, the more they will be satisfied with police practices. The more police they see (to some unknown limit), the more secure they will feel. 3. 4. People yearn for personal contact of a non-adversarial character with police. 5. The public is more concerned about crime than disorder. 6. There is a single public, a single public mood, and a ‘common good’ that is known and coherently represented. 7. People are dissatisfied with current police practices. 8. Previous policing schemes have been shown to have failed. 9. Public satisfaction as measured in polls is a valid index of public opinion. 10. The police are responsible for defending, defining, expanding, and shaping the common good of the community by active means. 11. Community policing best meets the above needs. The assumptions detail some of the critical guiding principles of the Weed and Seed strategic philosophy. The central focus of the relationship and interaction between police and the public is a tool for crime prevention, increased public satisfaction, and reducing citizens’ fear of crime in their community. 5 Law enforcement tactics can effectively weed-out criminals and criminal activity in an area through enhanced, focused enforcement. However, for these tactics to have a sustainable effect the community must be supportive of the police and participatory in crime control and prevention efforts. Researchers have asserted that “the success of community policing is assumed to be highly dependent on citizen awareness, understanding, and support of the concept and a willingness to be involved in crime prevention and crime reduction activities” (Webb and Katz, 1994). Through community policing activities, targeted communities attempt to build positive, cooperative relationships with the police that have perhaps not previously existed. Because of the history of neglect, mistrust, and lack of respect between the police and the public in many weed and seed neighborhoods, a number of Weed and Seed sites focused on building a positive and supportive relationship between neighborhood residents and the police (CCDO, 2005a; Geller, 1998; JRSA, 2004c). Under community policing, police officers are not only responsible for crime fighting, but also for working with the community to address broader quality of life issues confronting the community. Officers aid with public disorder complaints, anti-gang and drug education programs in schools and after school programs, assist neighborhood watch groups, help neighbors with dispute resolution, and educate residents about Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). For officers to effectively engage the community and mobilize support for law enforcement activities, they must understand the community they serve. Specifically, it is important that the police understand the historical relationship between the police and neighborhood residents (Miller, 2001), the specific problems and conditions residents 6 face, (including their fears and concerns), and the priorities of community members (CCDO, 2005e; JRSA, 2004c). To this end, the Weed and Seed strategy requires law enforcement to engage in community policing efforts by developing formal relationships with representative members of the community. During the early planning stages of developing a Weed and Seed site, community members work with the police to develop a Weeding plan that will satisfy the needs of the community. This agreement will inform the police about those police services the community believe are most important, and will educate the community about what the police can do to help improve their community in a non-traditional capacity (CCDO, 2005e). Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Prevention, intervention, and treatment (PIT) tasks are designed to identify, reduce, and eliminate physical conditions and social constructs that contribute to violence, crime, and disorder in the community (CCDO, 2005e). For Weed and Seed to be considered effective, significant changes beyond that of declining crime rates typically need to occur. The seeding process is much of what differentiates Weed and Seed from many other crime abatement programs (Dunworth, et al, 1999). While the weeding process begins, and crime reduction efforts are taking shape, the community can begin seeding the neighborhood with initiatives that will maintain and strengthen crime abatement efforts. The prevention, intervention, and treatment component addresses the specific needs of the community to empower itself and assist the at-risk members to desist and resist criminal involvement. 7 The PIT component of the Weed and Seed strategy is the first stage of the seeding process. Improving the community’s access and participation in crime prevention and abatement programs and other social services are the primary purpose of the PIT component. PIT activities include, but are not limited to, building partnerships with, and increasing residents’ access to community organizations, businesses, mental health practitioners, healthcare providers, and substance abuse treatment providers. Increasing resident awareness and access to job training, family counseling, and other social services offers residents opportunities of assistance before resorting to crime. Many of these organizations and individuals already provide these services in or around the designated Weed and Seed site, and may present excellent sources of collaboration. Individual Weed and Seed communities build partnerships with various agencies based on the individual needs of the community. Weed and Seed sites are not funded by the CCDO to meet all of their program goals. Weed and Seed sites receive funding to initiate programs, to recruit and leverage funding from other public or private sources, and to provide supplemental support to existing programs and services that are already working with the community. Leveraging the resources allows the Weed and Seed community to attract existing social service programs into their targeted area. The leveraging of these resources allows the Weed and Seed community to achieve some of their goals of providing prevention, intervention, and treatment services to the residents of their community (CCDO, 2005e; Dunworth et al, 1999; JRSA, 2004c). It is through this cooperative effort that the Weed and Seed site can pursue prevention, intervention, and treatment goals that would otherwise be too expensive to achieve independently. For example, a designated Weed and Seed 8 community that wants to provide more accessible substance abuse treatment to its residents, where an existing substance abuse treatment program is already functioning in or near the designated site, might establish a partnership that will enhance the service delivery to the Weed and Seed community, and minimize the wasting of resources with redundancy, or expand the delivery of services to more people. Prevention, intervention, and treatment efforts have slightly different form and function from one another, but primarily focus on immediate issues and current conditions that adversely affect the community. Prevention activities may include improving neighborhood notifications and communication by informing citizens of recent home burglaries, establishing block watch groups, or initiating a domestic and sexual abuse awareness program in schools, providing literature and helpline numbers in a confidential manner. Intervention activities typically involve a more comprehensive response to specific issues the community wants addressed. Some sites have used truancy reduction programs (JRSA, 2004c) to keep kids in school and out of trouble; others have employed adult literacy programs, vocational training, or parenting classes. Treatment activities are obviously more protracted, intensive, and costly to establish and maintain than most other PIT program activities. However, many designated areas already have organizations and individuals providing the kinds of treatment services in Weed and Seed communities, or in the surrounding jurisdiction. Leveraging resources to provide greater accessibility to substance abuse treatment programs, family counseling services, and health and medical assistance are all examples of treatment efforts used in various Weed and Seed communities. 9 Part of the philosophy of the Weed and Seed strategy is to provide community groups the support, framework, and initial resources to create a coalition in their community, with a comprehensive foundation of disparate groups and individuals gathered under a common banner (CCDO, 2005e). Aligning with this philosophy, the focal point of the prevention, intervention, and treatment component for a Weed and Seed site is the Safe Haven. Every Weed and Seed site is mandated to establish at least one Safe Haven. The Safe Haven is a center that provides a multitude of services to both the youths and adults of the community, it may serve as a coordination center for Weed and Seed activities, be the primary location for educational and other services, and literally a safe place where residents can go to find help (CCDO, 2005e). The guiding principles for a Safe Haven require it to be a multi-service facility that is community, education, and prevention based, culturally relevant, and easily accessible. The Safe Haven must be a multi-service facility, sometimes referred to as a ‘one-stop shop’, serving as a clearinghouse and a central point of community connection. Weed and Seed recognizes the difficulties facing a disadvantaged community to be multifaceted, and developing solutions to these difficulties must be multifaceted. The Safe Haven is a place that centralizes and coordinates these activities. The Safe Haven may host after school activities, sports or fitness programs, adult education classes, community meetings and events, or be an access point to medical or mental healthcare, or substance abuse treatment providers. The most important guiding principle for a Safe Haven is that it must be community based, meaning it must function based on the needs and resources of the community it serves. The second guiding principle, that it be educationally based, 10 illustrates its role in intervention activities, hosting community education classes. Similarly, the prevention basis emphasizes the importance of a community level commitment to prevention initiatives. The fourth guiding principle for the Safe Haven to be effective, is that it must be culturally relevant, reflecting the local community’s culture and diversity. The fifth guiding principle is perhaps an easily overlooked characteristic, that the Safe Haven is easily accessible. A Safe Haven needs to be physically accessible to members of the community, in an area visible, and easy to find and get to, as well as have sufficient hours of operation to be of service to the community when residents need it most. All of these guiding principles for Safe Havens contribute to the prevention, intervention, and treatment mission of the Weed and Seed site, by making the Safe Haven a “home” for the community. Neighborhood Restoration The fourth major component of Weed and Seed is neighborhood restoration. Neighborhood restoration embodies the tasks that directly deal with the physical improvement of the community, but also some of the social disorders issues as well. Restoration of the neighborhood focuses on improving homes and blighted areas in the designated community by leveraging resources to provide help to residents and encourage the rebuilding of dilapidated infrastructure. Municipal departments involved with neighborhood blight, including neighborhood services, city prosecutors offices, as well as neighborhood associations work together to increase code enforcement, eliminate properties with consistent violation problems, and penalize negligent landlords. Neighborhood clean-ups are one example of early neighborhood restoration efforts, 11 where both community and Weed and Seed coalition members partner to eradicate weeds, clean up trash, remove graffiti, and otherwise improve the condition of the neighborhood. Another important approach used in the restoration process brings federal, state, tribal, local, and private agencies and organizations into cooperation with one another, encouraging residential and commercial redevelopment in the Weed and Seed community. Weed and Seed communities often are populated with many empty, abandoned, or condemned homes and businesses (CCDO, 2005e; Dunworth et al, 1999). Demolishing neighborhood eyesores, building new housing and reintroducing businesses to the designated area, are examples of neighborhood restoration efforts aimed at significantly improving residents’ quality of life and reinforcing long-term benefits from the seeding efforts. Revitalizing economic development through business and employment opportunities within the community, and replacing or renovating dilapidated properties is intended to support sustained community growth and improvement. As much as the community policing component relies on the principles set out by Wilson and Kelling in their influential work Broken Windows (1982), so too does the purpose of the neighborhood restoration component. Wilson and Kelling argued that communities that exhibit higher levels of social and physical disorder would also experience higher levels of crime in general (Wilson and Kelling, 1982). The importance of neighborhood restoration then is directly tied to sustaining crime reduction efforts and preventing future criminality. The theory asserts that if neighborhoods are clean, people are more likely to keep them clean, and by extension, if neighborhoods do not tolerate crime, then there will be less crime in the neighborhood. The neighborhood restoration 12 component of the Weed and Seed process becomes the most important for cultivating a sustained reduction in crime for the community. THE PRESENT STUDY The purpose of this study was to conduct an evaluation of the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community. First, a process evaluation was conducted to examine the implementation of the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community site’s policies, goals, and planned activities. Second, an impact evaluation was conducted to assess the impact of Orchard Glen Weed and Seed on crime and disorder in the designated program area. The sections below describe the site characteristics and explain in detail the methodology used to conduct the process and impact evaluations. METHODS Site Characteristics The Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community site is located in Glendale, Arizona. The officially designated site covers just 0.27 square miles (Orchard Glen Weed and Seed 2007 Site Strategy). The Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community site, hereafter referred to as Orchard Glen, is in a centrally located area of Glendale, immediately southwest of the downtown area of the city. The city of Glendale itself is the fourth largest city in Arizona (US Census, 2007), lies adjacent to the city of Phoenix, and dominates the northwest portion of the Phoenix metropolitan area. The site is bounded on the east by 59th Avenue, on the north by Glendale Avenue, on the south predominately by Maryland Avenue, and on the west mostly by 63rd Avenue. A small 13 extension juts from the northwest corner of this otherwise quarter-mile square, bounded by 64th Avenue on the west and Lamar Road on the south. The following shows the key socio-demographic characteristics of the Orchard Glen area and Glendale (U.S. Census 2000 and CCDO, 2007). Exhibit 1: Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Site Characteristics Socio-Demographic Characteristics Geography Area, sq. mi. Demographics Population Percent Males, Age 18 and Up Percent Females, Age 18 and Up Percent Males, Age 17 or Less Percent Females, Age 17 or Less Family Structure Total Households Percent Households with Families Percent Households with Children Percent Single Parent Families with Children Percent Non-Family Households Education Percent Adults Without a High School Diploma Race/Ethnicity Percent White Percent Black Percent American Indian/Eskimo Percent Asian/Pacific Islander Percent Other Percent Hispanic Ethnicity Income/Housing Per Capita Income Median Household Income Percent Renting Percent Same Household Past 5 Years Orchard Glen Glendale 0.27 56 2,915 35.81 28.61 18.77 16.77 218,612 34.43 35.47 15.46 14.64 812 74.63 52.34 20.94 25.37 75,700 71.84 39.86 8.38 28.16 38.44 17.63 60.56 3.76 3.14 1.03 28.04 76.81 75.54 4.69 1.45 2.88 15.43 24.84 10,006 30,630 55.97 57.78 19,124 45,015 35.16 40.92 14 Process Evaluation Process evaluations allow researchers to examine the implementation of program goals and activities. By definition, process evaluations are primarily concerned with the systematic procedures of the subject of evaluation, and are not concerned with programmatic outcomes or results (Creswell, 1994). Process evaluations are an important part of any comprehensive evaluation, and are a critical means of examination. The examination of the implementation procedures and programmatic activities provide validity to any observable differences of program activities, because for any program to demonstrate effectiveness, it must be able to demonstrate that the program was implemented and maintained as intended. A process evaluation often uses fieldwork to provide a descriptive understanding and definition to the issues being evaluated (Creswell, 1994). The process evaluation for this study included: 1) a historical examination of the procedures and activities that contributed to the formation of the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community; and 2) an examination of the specific activities that were implemented and the extent to which they were implemented. The process evaluation also examined the integrity of implementation of selected program activities, and the course of modifications throughout the site’s development. The principal method used to gather data for the process evaluation was a review of official site documents. The process evaluation relied on data collected from official documents of the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community. Through the analysis of historical documents, the foundation of the original goals and plans were compared to the progression and implementation of those goals and plans to offer an assessment of those processes. As 15 such, the process evaluation was not focused on the direct or indirect outcomes of the Orchard Glen Coalition’s Weed and Seed efforts, but rather the methods, policies, procedures, and routines employed to select, assess, adjust, or replace program initiatives. Official Documents Official documents maintained by the site were collected for the present study. Researchers collected 72 separate official documents from the Orchard Glen Site Coordinator, who had gathered and maintained steering committee meeting minutes, service provider progress reports, official police progress reports regarding law enforcement and community policing activities directly related to Weed and Seed planned efforts, and other related documents. Stakeholders providing official documents included the Orchard Glen site coordinator, service delivery agents, Glendale Police Department, faith-based community leaders, and citizen representatives and leaders from the community. The Orchard Glen site supplied a comprehensive collection of these official documents, and evaluators had been able to gather documents detailing the site’s activities from initial planning and development through current activity. Evaluators collected additional documents through specific requests of various stakeholders as necessary, and were supplied with an exhaustive inventory of records and documentation. Documents that were collected included, but were not limited to: the original application for official recognition as a Weed and Seed site; subsequent application submittals to the CCDO; community meeting minutes; police enforcement plans and schedules; community intervention program curricula; service provider internal 16 performance reviews and progress reports; and community activity announcements. These records were important because they documented the planned interventions and the actual implementation of those plans. The original and supplemental applications filed with the CCDO served as data indicating the specific strategies Orchard Glen intended to use for both weeding and seeding program activities. Other official documents allowed us to compare the intended program strategies to those that were actually implemented, and examine the processes used to adapt to challenges and modify strategies during implementation. These documents included, but were not limited to: Orchard Glen Community Coalition Steering Committee meeting minutes; Orchard Glen Steering Committee policies and procedures; memoranda detailing policing enforcement strategies; police enforcement and community policing assignment scheduling; police progress reports; code enforcement strategies and progress reports; Glendale Parks and recreation program details and participation results; letters of support from the local United States Attorney’s Office representative; progress reports for Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) activities; citizen survey results; and public announcements and flyers of program activities. Some of these documents detailed the early community meetings discussing official Weed and Seed designation strategies, what neighborhoods to include, boundary decisions, and prioritizing the needs of the community. The Glendale Police Department (GPD) is perhaps the most important stakeholder group involved in the weeding efforts of the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed site. The steering committee membership focusing on weeding efforts for Orchard Glen includes representatives from Glendale Police Department command staff, including the Chief of the Glendale Police Department Steve Conrad, and Lieutenant Frank Balkcom who chairs 17 the Weeding Subcommittee, and Sergeant Jim Doolittle whose hard work does not go unnoticed by residents of the community; supervisors and officers representing specialized duties including gangs, narcotics, and community policing; senior command staff, including a Chief, from the Glendale Fire Department; city code enforcement officials; neighborhood watch and association leaders; Arizona State Liquor Enforcement; a liaison from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and an agent from the Phoenix office of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Evaluators collected GPD official progress reports, briefing notes, scheduling, and command instructions regarding the commitment and distribution of resources specifically aimed at the Orchard Glen area. Reviewing the GPD documents provided an official record of early enforcement efforts and verified the process of committing police resources to weeding activities. Representatives for the seeding efforts included membership from wide-ranging foci. Perhaps most important among these is the Steering Committee Chair, Natalie Stahl. Mrs. Stahl not only serves as the Chair of the Steering Committee for Orchard Glen, she is the lead resident liaison to the Glendale Police Department for Weed and Seed, local area business owner, and serves on the City of Glendale Planning and Zoning Commission. Orchard Glen is represented by a number of dedicated residents, who routinely participate in neighborhood clean-ups, community activities and regular neighborhood meetings, some of whom include, but not necessarily limited to: Rosie, Karleen and Roberta Miller, who are life long residents of the neighborhood; John Geurs, active long-time resident; and Israel Pablos, who sits on Steering Committee and the SubCommittees for Youth Development and Spanish Speaking Residents. 18 The site’s first Safe Haven, located at Harold W. Smith Elementary School, in the Glendale Elementary School District is represented by the school’s principal, Dr. Ricardo Alvarez. Dr. Alvarez, Smith Elementary, and the Glendale Elementary School District have all been a committed partner in the efforts to provide a place for the community and the Weed and Seed program activities. The City of Glendale also supports the Weed and Seed site with professionals and resources from a wide range of departments. The Glendale Fire Department participates in a wide range of the site’s activities, but related to seeding efforts, both for the prevention, intervention, and treatment strategy and the neighborhood restoration strategy by providing technical assistance, education, and support for the community regarding smoke detectors, water safety, and other safetyrelated educational programs for children, adults, and seniors in the community. Other city officials and representatives include Council Member David Goulet, representatives from the Mayor’s office, the City Manager, Neighborhood Services, Glendale Parks and recreation, the city’s Grants Coordinator, Economic redevelopment office, and for Glendale’s City Center Master Plan. The site’s seeding efforts are also supported by strong partnerships with the faith based community and non-profits. Pastors Jeff and Christine Paparone, who are also residents, provided the location for the second Safe Haven at the Glendale Light and Life Church, and collaborated with a separate church, New Jerusalem Christian Church, that predominately serves the Hispanic residents of the community. While the church has a new pastor, it continues to be a supportive and valuable partner to Weed and Seed. Mike Fitz, CEO of Los Vecinos/CSA serves as the Sub-Committee Chair for Neighborhood Restoration for Orchard Glen and leverages resources from Glendale, Maricopa County, 19 and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) to build or restore homes in Orchard Glen. Paige Thomas, CEO of Quality of Life Community Services, Inc. (aka Glendale Human Services) acts as Orchard Glen’s fiscal agent and sits on the Steering Committee and Sub-Committee Chair for Prevention, Intervention, & Treatment. Additional partners include representatives and/or support from: Communities in Schools; Youth ETC; Kids at Hope; Committee for Children; Phoenix Children’s Hospital; the Legacy Foundation; and Big Brother/Big Sisters, who will sponsor a community center as an additional Safe Haven. The site also relies on a local partner, the Community Medical Services Incorporated Glendale, who is a member organization of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), to provide exigent services for those suspected to need substance abuse treatment, detoxification, or methadone maintenance/detoxification when encountered by medical or police professionals. Orchard glen also has strong support from the business community. The support received from business partners include leveraged resources and donations to services, and representatives who participate in Steering Committee and site activities. Some of these partners include: the Arizona Cardinals; the Phoenix Coyotes; SWIFT Transportation; Price Auto-body; TJM Construction; Door Master; Specialty Roofing; and Jody Serey, CEO of Serey-Jones Publishers, who acts as Orchard Glen’s Public Information Officer. Representatives of other groups have participated and attended steering committee meetings throughout the years since official recognition and initial program implementation, and their contributions to the formation and early development of the 20 site should not be minimized. These include numerous representatives from specific programmatic activities and interventions, police officers, supervisors, crime analysts, and other support personnel who have contributed countless hours and effort to Orchard Glen Weed and Seed implementation activities. Impact Evaluation The impact evaluation focused on the influence that the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community activities had on crime and disorder in the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed area. Impact evaluations examine the results of programmatic expectations. Whether significant differences can be observed in the targeted area/population because of program interventions determine the program’s effectiveness in achieving its goals. For Weed and Seed sites in general, measures of program impact are based on reductions in crime and improvements to quality of life in the targeted neighborhood. The impact evaluation relied on calls for service (CFS) data and Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) data from the Glendale Police Department (GPD) from January 2000 through December 2006. CFS data are comprised of records of all calls placed to the Glendale Police Department (GPD) requesting some form of police assistance, including: emergency 911 calls, citizens’ reports of crime, traffic accidents, and non-emergency calls for police services. The Uniform Crime Report program was created in 1930, and continues to be sponsored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, 2007). The UCR data are collected by local law enforcement, compiled and reported to the FBI. The FBI gathers, maintains, and disseminates UCR data on various geographical scales, nationally. The 21 data reflect those crimes reported to police (known offences), and that fall into specifically designated categories. These data are the most commonly distributed and well-known crime rate statistics used in the United States, and are what most laypersons are exposed to when hearing reports about crime rates in their community. These data permitted us to examine the crime patterns for the Orchard Glen neighborhood prior to initiation of program activities, and since program implementation. Additionally these data allowed us to compare the Orchard Glen area to the surrounding community of Glendale, and assess the relative impact Weed and Seed program activities implemented by examining change between each area. FINDINGS Process Evaluation Findings We evaluated the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community by examining the formal and informal mechanisms by which they developed, maintained, and adapted their intended goals as defined by each of the four components of the Weed and Seed strategy: 1) law enforcement; 2) community policing; 3) prevention, intervention, and treatment; and 4) neighborhood restoration. The Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community developed its site goals around these four components of the Weed and Seed strategy. Orchard Glen originally sought official recognition in 2003, with an unsuccessful application bid. Resubmitting for official recognition with their 2004 application, they were accepted and received official recognition. The 2004 application to the CCDO for official recognition as a Weed and Seed site detailed 11 distinct goals, each with specific objectives, divided into the four core Weed and Seed categories. 22 The 11 goals were developed from the high priority unmet needs and gaps in service for the Orchard Glen community, as identified during the initial planning and needs assessment process. The community needs assessment sought guidance for developing an informed plan guided by the self-identified needs of the community itself. The community needs assessment identified several serious problems related to youth, both criminal and non-criminal. Programs focused on youth at risk, specifically related to drug use and gang affiliation, but also including family violence problems, violence in the schools, and the availability of prosocial after school activities. Residents reported concerns about the volume of open drug market transactions, and the risk to which this market exposed the community’s youth. The volume of drug sales in the community made illicit drugs readily available to youth, encouraging the use of, or least making accessible, numerous dangerous drugs. Also, the community described serious concerns about gang activity, including violence and vandalism, in the area. Residents feared that the blighted conditions of many properties, particularly rental properties, had gotten worse and their neighborhood would continue to decline and deteriorate, inducing even higher crime rates. Residents were also fearful that their neighborhood was becoming increasingly occupied by parolees and probationers who did not have a vested interest in improving the quality of life in Orchard Glen, thus the community identified a need for re-entry programs in the area. The community assessment also revealed that residents felt that the multiunit housing complexes in their neighborhood were serious eye-sores for the community, severely blighted, largely operated by slum-lords, and were rife with criminals. 23 To address these identified community problems, the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community’s strategic plan focused on achieving 11 goals, shown in Exhibit 2 below. Exhibit 2: Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Coalition Goals Law Enforcement 1 Reduce illegal drug and gang activity by 10% 2 Reduce violent crime, specifically domestic violence by 5% 3 Reduce property crimes by 5% Community Policing 1 Reduce illegal drug activity by 10% 2 Review and enhance effectiveness of city codes related to rental properties 3 Reduce volume of transient activity in Orchard Glen by 5% Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Improve the PIT opportunities to the degree of establishing functional programs 1 and services to meet the needs of the site 2 Add a school resource officer to Glendale High School 3 Continue existing youth programs at the second Safe Haven Explore youth and senior job readiness programs to meet the employment needs of 4 youth and seniors in Orchard Glen Neighborhood Restoration and Economic Development To improve the neighborhood stabilization and revitalization through 1 comprehensive coordinated efforts in Orchard Glen. Source: Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Coalition Application for Official Recognition, 2004 Analysis of official documents and stakeholder interview data revealed that the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Coalition had pursued implementation of all 11 of the original goals detailed in the 2004 application during the initial year of recognition and implementation. We generally found that stakeholders had a positive impression of the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed project and they believed that Orchard Glen had adhered to its originally intended mission, consistent with its goals. In the below section we discuss our 24 findings pertaining to Orchard Glen Coalitions implementation of activities related to the 11 goals that they established in 2004 for themselves by the four central components of Weed and Seed: 1) law enforcement; 2) community policing; 3) prevention, intervention, and treatment; and 4) neighborhood restoration. Law Enforcement The Law Enforcement component of the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Coalition’s original site plan called for accomplishing three distinct goals. These three distinct goals are listed below, followed by a discussion of what we found from official documents and key stakeholders. We discuss whether the Orchard Glen Coalition adhered to its site plan, whether activities were employed to implement and accomplish a particular goal, and an overall assessment of the process regarding the efforts related to that specific goal. Goal 1: Reduce illegal drug and gang activity by 10 percent The first law enforcement goal of the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community was to reduce illegal drug and gang activity by 10%. By the 2007 application, this goal had been divided into Goals 1 and 2, each with separate specific objectives and tasks. Review of official documents revealed an ongoing process and commitment to implementation and progress review by Orchard Glen, and in subsequent years, deliberate tracking and measurement of reduction rates. Evaluators found that the process of implementation was followed according to the original plan, reviewed, adapted, and eventually improved upon in subsequent years’ strategies. 25 Goal 2: Reduce violent crime, specifically domestic violence by 5 percent The second law enforcement goal sought to reduce domestic violence in the Orchard Glen community by 5 percent each year. This goal has remained a consistent part of the law enforcement strategy for Orchard Glen. Evaluators found that the site had maintained records measuring the progress of this particular outcome, using CFS and UCR data to measure changes. By example, a 2 percent reduction was reported from 2005 to 2006, and review of official documentation found that the site had continuously adhered to the process of implementation and measuring intended outcomes. Goal 3: Reduce property crimes by 5 percent The third and final goal of the law enforcement strategy plan was kept throughout the site’s implementation period. Official documents revealed that the site had adhered to the planned process of implementing this goal and its associated tasks, had maintained a process for collecting success measurement data, and continued to review and revise tasks and implementation strategies. Law Enforcement Summary The Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Coalition consistently followed a process that adhered to the originally intended goals, either through formalized programs and operations, or informally through embeddedness with the Orchard Glen community. Evaluators collected evidence that supported active engagement in programmatic activities toward attaining all three goals, including modification to the original plan where Goal 1 was divided into two separate and distinct goals in subsequent years. The 26 data collected and reviewed by evaluators found documentation for individual tasks within each goal. Of particular note was the sites thorough collection of outcome progress data, which allowed evaluators the ability to verify the frequency of the action described by the task (i.e. weekly or monthly updates, percentage reductions in incidents, etc.), such that evaluators were able to reliably verify that the specified activities had occurred and were continuously measured. Community Policing The Community Policing component of the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community’s planned strategy initially included three expressed goals. The focus of the community policing goals was aimed at improving those elements of social and physical disorder that hinder efforts to reduce crime, minimize the public’s fear of crime, and foster positive collective efficacy. Goal 1: Reduce illegal drug activity by 10 percent The Community Policing Goal 1 in the 2004 application, reducing illegal drug activity, clearly duplicated part of Goal 1 in the Law Enforcement component of the site’s strategy. In the 2005 application, and since, the site has replaced this goal with “enhancing crime prevention methods through community collaboration” (Orchard Glen, 2005). The site defined three objectives to achieve this goal: 1) to increase community participation in crime prevention programs by 5 percent each year; 2) to increase participation of landlords and owners of rental properties in the Crime Free MultiHousing Program by 5 percent; and 3) to have GPD’s Community Action Team contact 27 rental properties with excessive repeat calls for service and develop a plan to reduce the overall volume of calls by 5 percent. Evaluators found that the implementation plan for this goal has been largely adhered to, with one exception. Reviewing official documents, evaluators were unable to find documentation recording the number of attendees at each monthly public crime prevention meeting, which was intended to serve as the outcome measurement for the goal’s first objective. Other than this singular gap in process documentation, the site’s official documents demonstrated that the implementation plan was closely followed. For example, evaluators found records that the Site Coordinator created a pamphlet providing an overview of Orchard Glen’s Weed and Seed strategy, its goals and objectives, programs offered, and some of the resources available to the community, had the pamphlet translated into Spanish, and established an email and phone number for community members to report problems in their neighborhood, including, but not limited to suspected drug houses, gang activity or graffiti, or code violations. The email and phone were monitored daily by Orchard Glen’s Site Coordinator and the Glendale Police Sergeant assigned to Orchard Glen. Evaluators found further support that the site had adhered to its intended implementation process for Goal 1 of their Community Policing strategy by staging and documenting the tasks described. For example, evaluators found documentation that the site had sent monthly invitations to owners of all rental properties inviting them to attend Managers Against Crime Meetings and quarterly Crime Free Multi Housing Program workshops; had used the Crime Analysis Unit of the Glendale Police Department to generate monthly reports identifying the rental properties with the highest calls for 28 service, and that the Community Action Team contacted the owners and managers of the identified high CFS volume properties, providing the necessary information to the manager/owner to begin the eviction process. Goal 2: Review and enhance the effectiveness of city codes related to rental properties Evaluators found that the site has documented measureable success in this particular goal. The site attained an early success with this goal by assisting with the passage of new city ordinances governing code violations related to both owner-occupied and rental properties, with particular focus on blight conditions and multi-unit housing. The site has continued to develop and implement this goal in different ways. Having achieved the success of the new ordinances early-on, the site had since added plans and tasks to the goal in furtherance of the “enhance” portion of the original intended plan. Evaluators found that the site has supported training sessions for Code Enforcement Officers regarding the new ordinances, and distributed educational brochures to residents about the expectations of the codes and what to do if they have received a code violation warning or citation. The site was also instrumental in developing and establishing the Glendale Rental Inspection Program (GRIP). The GRIP program is designed to identify problematic rental properties regarding blight conditions and high rates of crime related calls for service. GRIP functions as a taskforce of code compliance officers, police, and prosecutors, working with property owners and managers to improve compliance with blight related codes, health codes, and crime reduction strategies. Evaluators found that the site had documented three such 29 problematic rental properties were listed, and the GRIP taskforce was working with property owners and managers. Goal 3: Reduce volume of transient activity in Orchard Glen by 5 percent Evaluators found that the site had documented a number of specific activities aimed at implementing and attaining this goal. In the initial implementation cycle, the site helped secure passage of an Urban Camping Ordinance for the City of Glendale. The ordinance restricts persons from sleeping in vacant lots, parks, and other outdoor public space, restricts other activities associated with living in these spaces (i.e. campfires), and permits police to enforce the ordinance with criminal sanctions. The site also documented the closure of a day labor center in the area as an additional means of reducing transient traffic in the neighborhood. In subsequent years, the site has worked to provide local business and vacant lot property owners with Trespass Authorization forms, streamlining the police’s ability to enforce trespassing violations more expediently. The measurement described would be insufficient to track quantifiable changes, and thus gauge a 5 percent reduction, and evaluators were unable to determine if this measurement has been used. Community Policing Summary The review of official documents and site progress reports provided significant support that the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community’s process of implementing its identified Community Policing goals were thoroughly adhered to. Evaluators found significant support indicating that the strategies and tasks were implemented as described and intended, that the implementation of the specific tasks identified in each of the three 30 goals were well documented, and that the site established and maintained a good record of measuring intended outcomes as described. Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment The Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment (PIT) component of any Weed and Seed site is concentrated on delivering human services targeted at the specifically determined needs of the designated community. It also serves as an important link in the coalition of law enforcement agencies, social service organizations, treatment providers, the private business sector, and neighborhoods (CCDO, 2007). The Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment component is the first part of the Seeding portion of the Weed and Seed strategy. The Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Coalition identified one PIT goal in its original plan with four distinct and separate objectives. Evaluators divided the singular, broad, and somewhat vague goal into four goals, using the site’s four explicitly defined objectives. Goal 1: Improve the prevention, intervention, and treatment opportunities to the degree of establishing functional programs and services to meet the needs of the site Goal 1 as stated above is the site’s original, singular Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment goal. Evaluators divided the goal into four separate goals for analysis, using the site’s four distinct objectives. The first objective then becomes Goal 1 for the purposes of our analysis. Thus, Goal 1 seeks to develop programs aimed at building a safe, family-friendly neighborhood, with a stable infrastructure, clean environment, and a strengthened cultural heritage, with an emphasis on youth involvement and improved opportunities for seniors. The site documented several activities that were implemented 31 toward this goal. The site has partnered with the Phoenix Children’s Hospital, who sponsors the Multi-Ethnic Family Strengthening Program at Orchard Glen’s Safe Haven site, Smith Elementary School. Review also found that the site has partnered with Big Brothers/Big Sisters to build a community center for youth at the Safe Haven, and that the offers counseling and mentoring for adults and children at the second Safe Haven, the Glendale Light and Life Church. The degree to which these programs and opportunities are truly in strict adherence to the intended goal is certainly subjective, however, evaluators were able to determine that the site applied a routine process of implementation and established guidelines for monitoring progress. Goal 2: Add a School Resource Officer to Glendale High School The second PIT goal for Orchard Glen sought to place a Glendale Police Officer in Glendale high School to serve as a School Resource Officer (SRO) to promote antidrug and anti-gang attitudes and to Youth Oriented Community Oriented Policing. Orchard Glen was able to achieve this goal early, and received leveraged funds to support the SRO through the 2006/2007 school year. Unfortunately, the funds previously received from the Cops in Schools grant that provided for the SRO were discontinued. Glendale’s police Chief has offered to support 25 percent of the cost associated with an SRO for Glendale High School, and the site continues to work on securing additional funding to support the remaining 75 percent. The site has documented the original implementation and continued adaptation of pursuing this goal. Evaluators found that the site had followed the originally intended process, and developed and documented alternative plans to continue implementation toward this goal. 32 Goal 3: Continue existing youth programs at the second Safe Haven site An integral part of the Weed and Seed strategy is the site’s Safe Haven. The Safe Haven is described as a highly visible and accessible multiservice center that serves as a community gathering place, as well as a safe location for the community to receive a variety of services for both adults and juveniles (CCDO, 2004). Each Weed and Seed site is expected to have at least one Safe Haven, and is encouraged to have more, as multiple Safe Havens are better able to provide the access and availability of services to a broader range of community members. Goal 3 was modified from the 2004 version (as stated above) such that by 2007 the goal had changed to continuing existing youth programs at all Safe Haven sites and to explore new programs, activities and services to meet the needs of youth from Orchard Glen. Evaluators used both the original goal and the modified goal to assess the site’s programmatic adherence to its implementation plan. Evaluators found significant documentation supporting the site’s commitment and adherence to implementing a broad range of programs and services at both their Smith Elementary School site, and the Glendale Light and life Church site. Specifically, the first Safe Haven, Smith Elementary School, provided programs and services that included: Coffee Talks, which are twice-monthly meetings of about 70 Hispanic/Latina women; Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) meetings; GRASP – the Glendale Recreation After School Program; Touchstone Counseling; Salvation Army services; the American Red Cross; Valley Big Brothers/Sisters; 21st Century Grant, which is an educational enhancement program aimed at helping at-risk youth meet local and state academic achievement standards, particularly in reading and math; Arizona Cactus Pine Girl Scout Council; Back to School clothing drive; Stuff the Bus; volunteer center; 33 Southwest Human Development; United way’s Campfire Boys and Girls meetings; 4-H Extension; Communities in Schools; Adult English as a Second Language (ESL) courses; Youth Evaluation and Treatment Centers (ETC) services; Catholic Social Services; Literacy First; Office of Oral Health; School Improvement Team; and Lightspan Network programs. Programs and services at the second Safe Haven included: the Head Start Program; Earned Income Tax Credit Program; English as a Second Language (ESL) courses; Lamar Family Literacy Program; computer labs with job training through computer software; and other faith-based youth counseling and mentoring services. These programmatic activities document the site’s adherence to its intended implementation plan and its continuous commitment to the revised goal of supporting existing programs and activities, and exploring new opportunities. Goal 4: Explore youth and senior job readiness programs to meet the employment needs of youth and seniors in Orchard Glen The City of Glendale Police department provided funding to conduct DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) and GREAT (Gang Resistance Education And Training) during the first year of implementation. Funding was no longer available following 2005, and those activities have discontinued. Evaluators were unable to find evidence of any continued effort at implementing Goal 4, and would surmise that it should be removed from future strategic plans, or reevaluated with a new implementation plan. 34 Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Summary The Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Coalition has followed a process of implementing prevention, intervention, and treatment programs that largely conforms to achieving its intended goals for this component. The data collected offered strong support that the first three goals were adhered to, and followed a consistent process of emphasis. Goal 1, establishing functional programs and improving prevention, intervention, and treatment opportunities in Orchard Glen, was evidenced to have had a significant amount of programmatic activities attributed to the effort. Goal 2, while experiencing mixed success in the site’s ability to actual achieve maintenance of the outcome, evaluators were able to conclude from the review of official documents that the site had implemented the plan as described, reviewed the progress of the implementation, and amended the plan as necessary to achieve the intended outcome. Evaluators found a significant amount of support documentation that the implementation plan had been rigorously adhered to, and that the site followed a consistent process according to their planned efforts. A large number and variety of programs and services, aimed at multiple subpopulations of the Orchard Glen community clearly indicated to evaluators that continuous effort toward achieving the goal had been maintained and monitored. Goal 4 was found to have little documentation about initial programmatic implementation, detailing youth programs only, ignoring the component of the goal to also examine service opportunities for seniors in the community. Subsequent to the first year of programmatic activity, the goal was not removed or modified, nor was there sufficient documentation indicting why it remained part of the site’s prevention, intervention, and treatment goals. 35 Neighborhood Restoration The Neighborhood Restoration component of the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed strategy detailed just a single goal. The neighborhood restoration component may be the most important piece to sustaining reductions in crime and improvements in the community, because the central focus is developing lasting physical and social reforms. Building a cooperative coalition of federal, state, and local government agencies, together with private-sector businesses, social service providers, and residents is an integral part of neighborhood restoration efforts. Weed and Seed sites were expected to focus on advancing: economic revitalization or development; employment opportunities; and improving the physical environment of the community (CCDO, 2007). Goal 1: Improve the neighborhood stabilization and revitalization through comprehensive coordinated efforts in Orchard Glen The Orchard Glen site has focused its Neighborhood Restoration strategy into a single goal: to improve the overall appearance and remove blight from the neighborhood by improving or removing dilapidated vacant houses, lots, and other properties, particularly those with serious crime problems. In the earliest efforts to achieve this goal, the site sought to improve street-scaping and vacant lot fill-in. Modifications to this goal in subsequent years detailed changing the plants used in the landscaping refurbishment to use only those with little to no maintenance requirements. Also in subsequent years, additional plans and tasks were added to the programmatic activities to this goal. Notably, in 2006 the site partnered with Los Vecinos to construct two new homes and rehabilitate a third, to replace otherwise blighted property in the neighborhood. Orchard Glen also leveraged resources from the City of Glendale’s Revitalization Department 36 select two homes in Orchard Glen for significant rehabilitation renovations, and to demolish a seriously blighted house and rebuild a new home in its place. The site also selects two to four homes as part of their Re-Charge the House program, which selects owner-occupied homes for exterior repainting based on the financial need of the owner and the cosmetic need of the property. Related to the overall appearance of the community, the site includes monthly neighborhood clean-ups to deal with more mundane blight issues. Evaluators were unable to find documentation that these clean-ups have been implemented as planned and recur monthly; evaluators did find evidence of multiple neighborhood clean-up efforts, and records of the scope of the clean-ups conducted, as well as readily-available public information about the event. Neighborhood Restoration Summary The Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community developed a planned process, and implemented programs that supported its originally intended neighborhood restoration goal. Evaluators found substantial support for their commitment to the goal and its associated tasks. The goal was well documented and the process by which they it was implemented thoroughly followed the implementation plan. Process Summary Overall, the review of official documents and other data collected from stakeholders indicated that the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community had largely adhered to its intended goals, and followed a process of achieving those goals. Through the course of implementation, Orchard Glen adapted the originally intended 11 goals as 37 different milestones were reached, the needs of the community changed, or when a necessary change in the community or resources required adjustment. The site maintained exceptional records of their programmatic activities, Steering Committee meetings, and necessary outcome measurements. Evaluators found a preponderance of support that the site has established a sound system of implementation and record keeping, and generally followed appropriate processes. The few shortfalls in documentation or implementation could be easily remedied if a handful of goals and tasks were reviewed and either removed, replaced, or revised. 38 Impact Evaluation Findings We now shift our focus to whether (and how) the strategies and programmatic activities discussed above have impacted levels of crime and disorder in the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed area. Our strategy for assessing program impact is based on a quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test design in which we compare levels of crime in the Orchard Glen treatment area before and after the implementation of Weed and Seed to corresponding levels of crime in a comparison area comprised of the rest of the city of Glendale. Data and Measures The primary data for the impact evaluation were provided by the Glendale Police Department and consist of two distinct measures of crime: calls for service (CFS) data and Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) data. CFS data are comprised of records of all calls placed to the Glendale Police Department (GPD) requesting some form of police assistance, including: emergency 911 calls, citizens’ reports of crime, traffic accidents, and non-emergency calls for police services. For the evaluation, GPD provided data on over one million calls for service that were placed to the department between January 2000 and December 2006. These CFS data were separated by the geographic origin of the calls (Orchard Glen vs. Glendale) so that CFS based-crime rates could be computed for both the Orchard Glen site and the city of Glendale. 1 The GPD also provided evaluators with UCR data files for both the Orchard Glen site and the city of Glendale. These UCR data, which consist of information on de facto 1 The initial CFS data provided to the evaluators were comprised of approximately 1.06 million calls for service that were placed from outside of the Weed and Seed site (i.e., the rest of the city of Glendale), and 16,763 calls for service that were placed by persons residing in the Orchard Glen area. 39 criminal incidents that have been recorded by the police, also span the years 2000 to 2006 and include information on crime type, location of the incident, and the time and date of the incident. 2 These two unique sources of crime data, in conjunction with population totals obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, were used to construct monthly CFS and UCR crime rates (per 100,000) for the Orchard Glen site and for the city of Glendale. 3 These monthly crime rates, which span eighty four months from January 2000 to December 2006, were separated into the following UCR and CFS crime categories: violent crime, property crime, drug crime, and disorder crime. The specific crime types that comprise these crime categories are reported in Table 1. 4 Analytic Strategy To determine whether the Weed and Seed program had an appreciable impact on crime in the Orchard Glen area, we first compare average monthly levels of crime for the period prior to the implementation of the Weed and Seed program with those for the period after the start of the program. The specific start date that was selected to separate the 2000 to 2006 monthly time series into pre- and post-implementation periods is August 2003 – a date that closely approximates the July 25, 2003 OR Award Date for the 2 GPD provided data on 231,513 UCR incidents that occurred in Glendale from 2000-2006 and 3,610 UCR incidents that occurred in Orchard Glen during the same period. 3 Monthly population estimates for Orchard Glen and the city of Glendale were constructed using 1990 and 2000 decennial census data for the city of Glendale and the Orchard Glen neighborhood. For the purposes of measuring population totals, the Orchard Glen site was defined as census tract 928, block 1 in Maricopa County, Arizona. In addition to decennial census data, the study also incorporated an estimate of the July 1, 2006 population of the city of Glendale (also provided by the Census Bureau). Linear interpolation was used on these annual population figures and estimates to produce monthly population estimates for both the Orchard Glen site and for the city of Glendale. The resulting monthly population estimates were then used to compute monthly CFS and UCR crime rates. 4 Note that the CFS based measures typically incorporate a broader range of crimes. Our purpose was not to create identical CFS and UCR measures, but rather to construct comparable yet distinct measures of crime that capitalize on the unique features of each data source. 40 Table 1. Breakdown of CFS and UCR Crime Categories by Crime Type Violent Crime CFS Homicide Shooting Armed Robbery Assault Strong Armed Robbery Fight Assault w/ a Deadly Weapon Threatened Violence Rape/Sexual Assault Violent Crime UCR UCR Part 1 Violence Rape/Attempted Rape Homicide Manslaughter Aggravated Assault Robbery Property Crime CFS Arson Forgery/Fraud Shoplifting Burglary Attempted Burglary Auto Theft Criminal Damage Theft/Atttempted Theft Property Crime UCR Burglary UCR Part 1 Property Crime Shoplifting Arson Theft Auto Theft Drug Crime CFS Dangerous Drugs Narcotics/Marijuana Drug Overdose Drug Crime UCR UCR Part 1 Drug Crime Narcotics/Marijuana Disorder Crime CFS Abandoned Vehicle Noise Disturbance Drunk/Liquor Violation Soliciting Speeding/Racing Incorrigible Juvenile Juveniles Disturbing Harassment Disorder Crime UCR Disorderly Conduct Curfew/Loitering Liquor Violation Prostitution 41 Orchard Glen Weed and Seed initiative. In addition to comparing mean levels of crime, we also examine trends in Orchard Glen’s monthly crime rates both before and after the start of the Weed and Seed intervention. The strategy for assessing program impact concludes by comparing crime levels and trends in the Orchard Glen treatment area with those in a non-matched comparison area. For this evaluation, the city of Glendale (minus the Orchard Glen site) serves as the comparison area. 5 In the sections that follow, we report our findings regarding the impact of the Weed and Seed program on indicators of violent crime, property crime, drug crime, and disorder crime. Impact on Violent Crime Figures 1 and 2 display monthly levels of violent crime in Orchard Glen between January 2000 and December 2006 as well as mean levels of violence both before and after the Weed and Seed program was implemented. Both figures reveal that on average, Orchard Glen experienced less violent crime in the period after the Weed and Seed program was initiated than in the period before the program began. Figure 1 shows that the average monthly UCR violent crime rate fell from 104.75 incidents per 100,000 to 76.97 incidents per 100,000 – a decline of twenty six and one-half percent. Figure 2 reveals a similar drop in the volume of violence-related calls for service (-30.39%). While the findings presented in Figures 1 and 2 suggest that Weed and Seed may 5 Note that the treatment and comparison areas are not matched and cannot be assumed to be equivalent to one another. Additionally, all measures for the city of Glendale were computed without data from the Orchard Glen area (e.g., monthly population estimates for the city Glendale do not include residents of the Orchard Glen area). 42 have reduced levels of violent crime in Orchard Glen, such a conclusion is not supported by this evidence alone. For example, what if the decline in violence began before Weed and Seed was implemented? Similarly, what if violent crime also declined in locations that did not receive the Weed and Seed treatment (e.g., the rest of Glendale)? Figure 1 Time Series of UCR Part 1 Violent Crime in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 UCR Part 1 Violent Crimes Per 100k Residents 350 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 300 Mean Before Weed & Seed 104.75 250 Mean After Weed & Seed 76.97 [-26.52%] 200 150 100 50 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Time by Month and Year Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 43 Figure 2 Time Series of Calls for Service Regarding Violence in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 1,000 Violence CFS Per 100k Residents 900 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 Mean Before Weed & Seed 443.24 800 Mean After Weed & Seed 308.52 [-30.39%] 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Time by Month and Year Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 44 Figure 3 Linear Trends for UCR Violent Crime in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 UCR Violent Crimes Per 100k Residents 350 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 300 Pre- Weed & Seed Trend 250 Post- Weed & Seed Trend 200 150 100 50 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Time by Month and Year Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 45 Figure 4 1,000 Linear Trends for Calls for Service Regarding Violence in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 Violence CFS Per 100k Residents 900 Pre- Weed & Seed Trend 800 Post- Weed & Seed Trend 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 Time by Month and Year Figures 3 and 4 display linear trends of violent crime in Orchard Glen for the periods before and after the Weed and Seed treatment began. Interestingly, both figures reveal that violent crime was on the decline in Orchard Glen before the start of Weed and Seed. However, the graphs also illustrate that during the post-treatment period, the trend of declining violence grew even stronger. That is, the more steeply sloped “post-Weed and Seed” trend lines indicates that even though levels of violence were generally falling prior to the start of Weed and Seed, the trend of decline became even more pronounced (i.e., more rapid) in the months after the program began. To address whether areas that did not receive the Weed and Seed treatment experienced similar declines in violent crime, Figures 5 through 8 report monthly levels of violent crime for the rest of the city of Glendale (i.e., the comparison area). These time 46 series graphs illustrate both mean levels and linear trends in UCR part 1 violent crime and violence-related CFS during the “pre” and “post” treatment periods. Unlike in Orchard Glen, Figure 5 reveals that average monthly levels of violence-related CFS were effectively unchanged (-1.25%) in Glendale, while the UCR violent crime rate actually rose 6.18% during the “post-Weed and Seed” months. Consistent with this evidence, Figures 7 and 8 illustrate that in the months after Weed and Seed began in Orchard Glen, the city of Glendale experienced a general trend of rising violence (based upon both CFS and UCR crime rates). This evidence that the decline in levels of violent crime observed in Orchard Glen cannot be attributed to a broader citywide decline in violent crime (as no comparable citywide decline occurred) supports the conclusion that the Weed and Seed treatment likely played some role in reducing levels of violence in the Orchard Glen target area. 47 Figure 5 Time Series of UCR Violent Crime in Glendale, 2000-2006 UCR Part 1 Violent Crimes Per 100k Residents 80 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 40 Mean Before Weed & Seed 45.95 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Mean After Weed & Seed 48.79 [+6.18%] Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Time by Month and Year Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 48 Figure 6 Time Series of Calls for Service Regarding Violence in Glendale, 2000-2006 Minor Violence CFS Per 100k Residents 350 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 300 250 200 150 Mean After Weed & Seed 239.02 [-1.25%] Mean Before Weed & Seed 242.05 100 50 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Time in Months Jul04 Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 49 Figure 7 Linear Trends for UCR Violent Crime in Glendale, 2000-2006 UCR Part 1 Violent Crimes Per 100k Residents 75 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 50 25 Pre- Weed & Seed Trend Post- Weed & Seed Trend 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Time by Month and Year Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 50 Figure 8 Linear Trends for Calls for Service Regarding Violence in Glendale, 2000-2006 350 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 Violence CFS Per 100k Residents 300 250 200 150 Pre- Weed & Seed Trend Post- Weed & Seed Trend 100 50 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 Time by Month and Year Impact on Property Crime Figures 9 and 10 show that as was the case with violent crime, the Orchard Glen target area generally experienced lower monthly property crime rates during the postimplementation period than it did during the months prior to the start of Weed and Seed. More specifically, the average monthly UCR-based property crime rate fell 13.49% during the post-Weed and Seed months while the CFS-based rate fell 12.73%. In regards to pre- and post-Weed and Seed property crime trends in Orchard Glen, Figures 11 and 12 demonstrate that although UCR and CFS property crime rates were trending downward in Orchard Glen prior to the implementation of the Weed and Seed program, the rate of the decline became even more rapid after the program had started. 51 Figure 9 Time Series of UCR Property Crime in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 UCR Property Crimes Per 100k Residents 800 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 700 Mean After Weed & Seed 330.05 [-13.49%] 600 500 400 300 200 Mean Before Weed & Seed 381.52 100 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Time by Month and Year Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 52 Figure 10 Time Series of Calls for Service Regarding Property Crime in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Property Crime CFS Per 100k Residents 2,000 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 1,500 Mean After Weed & Seed 846.79 [-12.73%] Mean Before Weed & Seed 970.28 1,000 500 0 Jan- Jul- Jan- Jul- Jan- Jul- Jan- Jul- Jan- Jul- Jan- Jul- Jan- Jul00 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 Time in Months 53 Figure 11 Linear Trends for UCR Property Crime in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 UCR Property Crimes Per 100k Residents 800 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 700 Pre- Weed & Seed Trend 600 Post- Weed & Seed Trend 500 400 300 200 100 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Time by Month and Year Jul04 Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 54 Figure 12 Linear Trends for Calls for Service Regarding Property Crime in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 1,600 Property Crime CFS Per 100k Residents 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 Pre- Weed & Seed Trend 0 Jan00 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 Post- Weed & Seed Trend 200 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 Time by Month and Year Interestingly, Figure 13 provides some evidence that suggests that the same forces at work in Orchard Glen also were operating to reduce levels of property crime throughout the rest of the city of Glendale. More specifically, Figure 13 reveals that during the months in which Weed and Seed was operating in Orchard Glen, UCR property crime rates in the rest of Glendale fell from their previous average (-9.71%). One interpretation of this evidence is that the decline in property crime observed in Orchard Glen may not be the result of the Weed and Seed program, but rather of some rival causal factor that lowered property crime rates throughout the city. However, a quick comparison of mean changes in the treatment and comparison areas reveals that the Orchard Glen site 55 experienced a more appreciable decline in UCR property crime rates (-13.49%) than did the rest of Glendale (-9.71%). This suggests that although a rival causal factor may be at Figure 13 Time Series of UCR Property Crime in Glendale, 2000-2006 UCR Part 1 Property Crimes Per 100k Residents 700 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 600 500 400 Mean Before Weed & Seed 494.57 300 Mean After Weed & Seed 446.55 [-9.71%] 200 100 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Time by Month and Year Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 56 Figure 14 Time Series of Calls for Service Regarding Property Crime in Glendale, 2000-2006 Property Crime CFS Per 100k Residents 1,500 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 1,000 Mean Before Weed & Seed 1095.92 Mean After Weed & Seed 1097.35 [0.13%] 500 0 Jan00 Jul- Jan00 01 Jul- Jan01 02 Jul- Jan02 03 Jul- Jan03 04 Jul- Jan04 05 Jul- Jan05 06 Jul06 Time in Months work, it is unlikely to be responsible for the entire decline in UCR property crime that was observed in the Orchard Glen treatment area. Figure 14 also eases concerns regarding the issue of spuriousness. Although the property crime CFS rate declined during the post-implementation period in Orchard Glen (see Figure 10), Figure 14 reveals that no comparable decline in property-crime related CFS was observed in the rest of the city (+0.13%). Figures 15 and 16 illustrate property crime trends in the comparison area of Glendale during the pre- and post-Weed and Seed periods. These figures reveal that although property crime was trending upward prior to August 2003, levels of property crime generally were on the decline in Glendale during the post-implementation months. This evidence suggests that at least some of the decline in property crime rates observed 57 in Orchard Glen may be the result of forces unrelated to Weed and Seed that were fueling a broader citywide decline in levels of property crime. Figure 15 Linear Trends for UCR Property Crime in Glendale, 2000-2006 UCR Part 1 Property Crimes Per 100k Residents 700 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 600 500 400 300 Pre- Weed & Seed Trend Post- Weed & Seed Trend 200 100 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Time by Month and Year Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 58 Figure 16 Linear Trends for Calls for Service Regarding Property Crime in Glendale, 2000-2006 Property Crime CFS Per 100k Residents 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 Pre- Weed & Seed Trend 600 Post- Weed & Seed Trend Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 400 200 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 Time by Month and Year Impact on Drug Crime Figures 17 and 18 present time series graphs of monthly drug crime rates for the Orchard Glen treatment site. These figures provide mixed evidence regarding the influence of the Weed and Seed program on levels of drug crime in Orchard Glen. To begin, Figure 17 reveals that unlike UCR violent and property crimes – which generally were lower in the period after Weed and Seed was implemented – UCR-based drug crime rates rose substantially in the post-implementation months (+58.10%). Figure 18 indicates that this rise in UCR drug crime did not appear to correspond to a rise in drugrelated calls for service. In fact, while UCR-based rates rose over fifty percent in the months after Weed and Seed began in Orchard Glen, the figure reveals that the average number of monthly drug-related CFS fell by 5%. However, once outliers are removed 59 from the early months of the time series (results not shown), the data indicate that monthly CFS-based drug crime rates generally rose as well. 6 While Figures 17 and 18 indicate that drug crime generally rose in Orchard Glen during the months after the start of Weed and Seed, both graphs do appear to indicate the presence of a “weeding effect” shortly after the program was implemented. More specifically, both UCR and CFS drug crimes rose in the months immediately following the beginning of the treatment. However, this rise in rates does not account for the overall rise during the post-treatment period. In fact, the post-implementation rise in drug crime was immediately followed by a general decline in drug crime in the treatment area. Unfortunately, however, this decline in drug-related crime was short-lived. 6 Once three outliers are removed from the first six months of the time series, the pre-Weed and Seed mean drug crime rate becomes 245.59. When compared to the post-implementation mean of 285.35, this indicates that average monthly drug-related CFS rates rose 16% in Orchard Glen during the months after the Weed and Seed Program was implemented. 60 Figure 17 TIme Series of UCR Drug Crime in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 UCR Drug Crimes Per 100k Residents 800 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 700 600 Mean Before Weed & Seed 144.98 500 Mean After Weed & Seed 229.22 [+58.10%] 400 300 200 100 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Time by Month and Year Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 61 Figure 18 Time Series of Calls for Service Regarding Drugs in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Drug Related CFS Per 100k Residents 1,200 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 Mean Before Weed & Seed 299.64 900 Mean After Weed & Seed 285.35 [-4.77%] 600 300 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 Time in Months Approximately eighteen months after Weed and Seed began, levels of both UCR drug crimes and drug-related CFS began to rise in Orchard Glen. It is this final rise in drug crime that predominantly accounts for the overall rise in mean levels of drug crime during the post-Weed and Seed period. Linear trends in UCR and CFS drug crime rates are reported in Figures 19 and 20. The post-Weed and Seed trends revealed in these figures support the results presented above and reveal that levels of drug crime generally were on the rise in Orchard Glen during the post-implementation period. 7 7 Note however, that a non-linear trend line (not shown) provided a better fit to these data. 62 Figure 19 Linear Trends for UCR Drug Crime in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 UCR Drug Crimes Per 100k Residents 800 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 700 600 Pre- Weed & Seed Trend Post- Weed & Seed Trend 500 400 300 200 100 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Time by Month and Year Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 63 Figure 20 Linear Trends for Calls for Service Regarding Drugs in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Drug Related CFS Per 100k Residents 1,200 1,000 Pre- Weed & Seed Trend Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 Post- Weed & Seed Trend 800 600 400 200 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 Time by Month and Year Having assessed levels and patterns of drug crime in Orchard Glen during the period under study, we now turn our eyes to the comparison area of Glendale. Figures 21 through 24 report both mean levels and linear trends in UCR drug crime and drug-related CFS in the city of Glendale during the pre- and post-Weed and Seed periods. These figures reveal that patterns of drug crime in Glendale were similar those observed in the Orchard Glen target site. For example, in both Orchard Glen and the city of Glendale, mean monthly levels of drug crime (both UCR and CFS) generally rose after the start of the Weed and Seed Program. The linear trends graphs also reveal that as was the case in the Orchard Glen site, drug crime generally rose during the post-implementation months. 64 Figure 21 Time Series of UCR Drug Crime in Glendale, 2000-2006 UCR Part 2 Drug Crimes Per 100k Residents 100 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 75 Mean After Weed & Seed 45.06 [+17.22%] Mean Before Weed & Seed 38.44 50 25 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Time by Month and Year Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 65 Figure 22 Drug Related CFS Per 100k Residents Time Series of Calls for Service Regarding Drugs in Glendale, 2000-2006 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 100 75 50 Mean Before Weed & Seed 79.50 Mean After Weed & Seed 80.64 [+1.43%] 25 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Time in Months Jul04 Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 66 Figure 23 Linear Trends for UCR Drug Crime in Glendale, 2000-2006 UCR Part 2 Drug Crimes Per 100k Residents 100 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 75 Pre- Weed & Seed Trend Post- Weed & Seed Trend 50 25 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Time by Month and Year Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 67 Figure 24 Linear Trends for Calls for Service Regarding Drugs in Glendale, 2000-2006 125 Drug Related CFS Per 100k Residents Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 100 75 50 Pre- Weed & Seed Trend 25 Post- Weed & Seed Trend 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 Time by Month and Year Impact on Disorder Crimes Figures 25 and 26 present mean changes in UCR and CFS disorder crimes in the Orchard Glen treatment site. Both figures indicate that monthly levels of disorder-related crime diminished in the period after the Weed and Seed program was initiated. More specifically, UCR-based rates fell 4.35% in the post-implementation months while CFSbased indicator of the volume of disorder crimes fell an even more substantial 32.83%. 8 8 Note that with the October 2005 outlier removed from the data (results not shown), the general decline in UCR based disorder crime is even more pronounced. 68 Figure 25 Time Series of UCR Disorder Crime in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 UCR Disorder Crimes Per 100k Residents 350 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 300 Mean Before Weed & Seed 78.13 250 Mean After Weed & Seed 74.73 [-4.35%] 200 150 100 50 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Time by Month and Year Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 69 Figure 26 Time Series of Calls for Service Regarding Disorder in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 Disorder CFS Per 100k Residents 3,000 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 Mean Before Weed & Seed 1438.13 2,500 Mean After Weed & Seed 966.05 [-32.83%] 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 Time in Months In regards to pre- and post- linear trends in disorder crime, Figures 27 and 28 reveal that while levels of disorder crime in Orchard Glen were falling before Weed and Seed was implemented, the rate of decline did not increase during the postimplementation period. In fact, the figure indicates that UCR-based disorder crime rates were rising during the post-implementation period. Figure 28 also indicates that CFSbased disorder crime rates generally were on the decline in Orchard Glen prior to the start of the treatment period, and that the rate of this decline diminished after the Weed and Seed program was implemented. 70 Figure 27 Linear Trends for UCR Disorder Crimes in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 UCR Disorder Crimes Per 100k Residents 350 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 300 Pre- Weed & Seed Trend Post- Weed & Seed Trend 250 200 150 100 50 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Time by Month and Year Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 71 Figure 28 Linear Trends for Calls for Service Regarding Disorder in Orchard Glen, 2000-2006 3,000 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 Disorder CFS Per 100k Residents 2,500 Pre- Weed & Seed Trend 2,000 Post- Weed & Seed Trend 1,500 1,000 500 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 Time by Month and Year A brief examination of patterns and levels of disorder crime in the rest of the city of Glendale reveals somewhat mixed evidence. In figures 29 and 30 we can see that mean levels of UCR-based disorder crimes rose during the post-Weed and Seed months (+9.87%), while the CFS-based disorder crime rate generally was lower during this period (-5.04%). In Figures 31 and 32, we can see the linear trends of disorder crime for the city of Glendale. While UCR-based disorder crime rates trended upward in the months after the start of Weed and Seed, CFS based rates transitioned from rising prior to the treatment to declining in the post-implementation months. Overall, when these findings are compared with those of Orchard Glen, it appears likely that the Weed and Seed program had some impact in reducing CFS-based disorder crime rates in the treatment area and may have played a role in preventing Orchard Glen from experiencing 72 the general rise in UCR-based disorder rates that was experienced throughout the rest of the city of Glendale. Figure 29 Time Series of UCR Disorder Crime in Glendale, 2000-2006 UCR Disorder Crimes Per 100k Residents 75 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 Mean After Weed & Seed 37.28 [9.87%] Mean Before Weed & Seed 33.93 50 25 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Time by Month and Year Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 73 Figure 30 Time Series of Calls for Service Regarding Disorder in Glendale, 2000-2006 1,000 Disorder CFS Per 100k Residents Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 800 600 400 Mean After Weed & Seed 657.92 [-5.04%] Mean Before Weed & Seed 692.87 200 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Time in Months Jul04 Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 74 Figure 31 Linear Trends for UCR Disorder Crime in Glendale, 2000-2006 UCR Disorder Crimes Per 100k Residents 100 Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 Pre- Weed & Seed Trend Post- Weed & Seed Trend 50 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Time by Month and Year Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 75 Figure 32 Linear Trends for Calls for Service Regarding Disorder in Glendale, 2000-2006 1,000 Disorder CFS Per 100k Residents 900 800 700 600 500 400 Pre- Weed & Seed Trend 300 Post- Weed & Seed Trend Weed and Seed Begins July 25, 2003 200 100 0 Jan00 Jul00 Jan01 Jul01 Jan02 Jul02 Jan03 Jul03 Jan04 Jul04 Jan05 Jul05 Jan06 Jul06 Time by Month and Year Summary of Results and Discussion of Limitations Table 2 reports a general summary of the results discussed above. The table reports the following information: mean levels of crime in Orchard Glen and Glendale both before and after Weed and Seed was implemented, the percentage change in the preand post-period crime rates for each area, and whether the observed changes are statistically significant. 9 9 Statistical significance is based on the results of a series of Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) regression models that examined the relationship between the Weed and Seed treatment and the indicators of monthly levels of violent crime. The results of this series of analyses – which are not reported in tabular output – indicated whether monthly crime rates are significantly associated with the presence of the Weed and Seed Treatment (measured in the regression models as a monthly dummy measure). In all cases, the statistically significant associations revealed in Table 2 were robust and held across a wide array of model specifications (e.g., adjusting for seasonality). For a more detailed discussion of ARIMA models, see Kennedy, 2003. 76 In regards to violent crime, Table 2 reveals that the Weed and Seed program was significantly associated with reductions in both measures of violent crime at the Orchard Glen site. When compared to the evidence that there was no corresponding decline in violence for Glendale at-large, these findings suggest that the Weed and Seed initiative likely played some role in reducing levels of violence in the Orchard Glen community. The findings regarding property crime also suggest that the programs and strategies associated with the Weed and Seed initiative likely produced lower levels of property crime in Orchard Glen. More specifically, this evidence reveals significant reductions in property crime during the months in which the Weed and Seed program was operating. As was the case with violent crime, these reductions in property crime can be seen in both the study’s UCR- and CFS-based measures. These findings from Orchard Glen, in conjunction with evidence that property crime rates fell to a lesser extent throughout the rest of Glendale (or in the case of CFS-based rates not at all), suggest that the Weed and Seed initiative is likely responsible for at least some of the reduction in property crime rates observed in Orchard Glen during the post-treatment period. 77 Table 2. Average Monthly CFS and UCR Crime Rates Per 100,000 Residents Jan 2000 Aug 2003 to to % Jul 2003 Dec 2006 Change UCR Violence Orchard Glen Glendale 104.75 45.95 76.97 48.79 -26.52 ** 6.18 CFS Violence Orchard Glen Glendale 443.24 242.05 308.52 239.02 -30.39 ** -1.25 UCR Property Orchard Glen Glendale 381.52 494.57 330.05 446.55 -13.49 * -9.71 CFS Property Orchard Glen Glendale 970.28 1095.92 846.79 1097.35 -12.73 ** 0.13 UCR Drugs Orchard Glen Glendale 144.98 38.44 229.22 45.06 58.10 17.22 ** CFS Drugs Orchard Glen Glendale 299.64 79.50 285.35 80.64 -4.77 1.43 UCR Disorder Orchard Glen Glendale 78.13 33.93 74.73 37.28 -4.35 9.87 ** 966.05 657.92 -32.83 ** -5.04 CFS Disorder Orchard Glen 1438.13 Glendale 692.87 **p < 0.05; One-tailed *p < 0.10 One-tailed 78 In regard to Weed and Seed’s impact on drug-related crime in the Orchard Glen target area, the findings were less encouraging. As shown in Table 2, UCR-based measures of drug crime rose substantially in Orchard Glen during the post-Weed and Seed period (58.10%), while CFS-based drug crime rates fell slightly (-4.77%). Importantly, however, neither of these changes was statistically significant. 10 The examination of monthly drug crime patterns in the comparison area of Glendale revealed that average monthly levels of drug crime also rose during the months in which Weed and Seed was operating in Orchard Glen, though only the rise in UCR-based drug crime rates was statistically significant. Overall, this evidence supports the conclusion that the Weed and Seed program did not successfully reduce levels of drug-related crime in the Orchard Glen target area. Lastly, the study’s findings regarding disorder crime suggest that the Weed and Seed program likely played a role in reducing levels of disorder crime in Orchard Glen during the post-treatment period. For example, the reduction in CFS-based disorder crime rates in Orchard Glen was significantly associated with the Weed and Seed treatment. While the decline in UCR-based disorder crime rates in Orchard Glen was not significantly different from zero, evidence that levels of UCR disorder crime were rising in the comparison area (and significantly so) suggests that Weed and Seed may have allowed the target area to avoid the rise in disorder crime that occurred throughout the rest of the city. Overall, these findings regarding disorder crime suggests that the Weed 10 Note that the 58.10% increase in UCR drug crime rates fails to reach statistical significance as a result of the extreme variability in drug crime rates during the post-treatment period. 79 and Seed initiative may have successfully influenced (i.e., either reducing or holding steady) levels of disorder in the Orchard Glen target area. Impact Summary In summary, the data that were made available to evaluators by the Glendale Police Department suggest that the strategies and programmatic activities implemented as part of the Weed and Seed program have beneficially impacted levels of crime and disorder in the Orchard Glen target area. While other extraneous factors may have influenced crime rates in treatment area – either solely or in conjunction with the Weed and Seed program – the data indicate substantial changes in the Orchard Glen community in the months after Weed and Seed program implementation. In particular, levels of violence, property crime, and disorder all declined in Orchard Glen after the implementation of the Weed and Seed program. In conjunction with evidence that similar changes generally did not occur throughout the rest of the city of Glendale (i.e., the comparison area), these findings support the conclusion that Weed and Seed program was a likely contributor to the decline in violence, property crime, and disorder that was observed in the Orchard Glen treatment area. 80 CONCLUSION The present study involved both a process and impact evaluation as an assessment of the site’s performance since official recognition and through its program implementation. The Weed and Seed strategy is founded as a community-based crime abatement and prevention initiative, and is closely related to principles of community oriented policing. The evaluation examined the Orchard Glen Community’s adherence to their defined goals and objectives, and the relative success in attaining those goals. A report was prepared for publication by Arizona State University’s Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety, and disseminated to the Orchard Glen Site Coordinator, Steering Committee members, and select members of the Orchard Glen community. Evaluators employed both qualitative and quantitative methods for the evaluation. Qualitative methods relied on interviews with key stakeholders, and an examination of official documents and records maintained by the site. The quantitative methods used relied on analyses of Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) data and calls for service (CFS) data from the City of Glendale Police Department. The use of these combined methods permitted evaluators to compare the reported processes to the originally intended processes, and to examine whether any change in crime occurred as a result of Weed and Seed program implementation. The process evaluation revealed several major findings. Generally, the evaluation revealed that the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community pursued the attainment of 81 their originally defined goals and objectives, and maintained relationships and engaged in activities that maintained the effort. The analysis indicated to evaluators that the 11 goals defined in the site’s 2004 strategic plan were largely adhered to through a sustained commitment by community residents, social service providers, civic leaders, local police, and criminal justice system professionals. Analysis revealed that the community policing efforts in the Orchard Glen community had made significant strides toward establishing a strong bond between the police and the community since the start of the project. Qualitative data suggested that the efforts to establish prevention, intervention, and treatment programs were successful. Evaluators found that Orchard Glen’s record of programmatic activity supported the finding of continued commitment, review, and focus to sustain crime abatement successes in the community, and movement toward sustained neighborhood restoration and revitalization. The impact evaluation relied on seven years of UCR and CFS data from the Glendale Police Department. Evaluators analyzed the data by comparing changes in the rates of both UCR and CFS measures within the Orchard Glen area and by comparison to changes in the measures in the rest of Glendale. Categorizing both measures into violent, property, drug, and disorder related crimes, evaluators were able to look at critical crime and quality of life problems in succinct analysis. The Weed and Seed program was significantly associated with reductions in both measures of violent crime at the Orchard Glen site. When compared to the evidence that there was no corresponding decline in violence for Glendale at-large, these findings 82 suggest that the Weed and Seed initiative likely played some role in reducing levels of violence in the Orchard Glen community. The findings regarding property crime also suggest that the programs and strategies associated with the Weed and Seed initiative likely produced lower levels of property crime in Orchard Glen, as seen in both UCR and CFS measures. Similarly, the study’s findings regarding disorder crime suggest that the Weed and Seed program likely played a role in reducing levels of disorder crime in Orchard Glen during the posttreatment period. Recommendations Evaluators suggest that routine processes be developed for the collection of identifiable, objective quantitative data to assess those individual goals and tasks calling for quantifiable results, but are without a clearly defined process for doing so, as in Goal 3 of the Community Policing component, a 5 percent reduction in transient activity. For this particular goal, having a stated goal with a quantifiable reduction may not be necessary, because unless a reliable and valid measure can be found, reporting quantifiable reductions would be meaningless. Other suggestions for program improvement include revisiting the site’s goals and objectives and developing strategies for revising or removing specific goals, objectives, and tasks that may no longer be applicable to the needs of the community or are reasonably attainable. This process would include both clearly identifying the specific data that would be used to measure specific outcomes, as well as the policies and 83 procedures used to collect, maintain, and analyze the data. With further refinement of the goals and objectives and putting in place mechanisms for assessing those goals and objectives, the Orchard Glen Weed and Seed site could improve upon their successes, bringing even more tangible benefits to neighborhood residents. The final recommendation emphasizes the importance of cooperation among Weed and Seed partners. Cooperation among the diverse groups that make-up a Weed and Seed site is useful not only for program activities, but also to any evaluation. Evaluators experienced a great deal of cooperation and a willingness to participate in the evaluation process, which was critical to the successful completion of the evaluation. Cooperation among the site’s partners is crucial to programmatic activities, but sites should also include as part of their strategic plan an expressed commitment to participate and cooperate in a meaningful way with site evaluations from the beginning. The insight and guidance at the earliest planning stages enables sites to develop, maintain, alter, and achieve their goals in a demonstrable way. 84 REFERENCES Alpert, G.P. and Piquero, A. (1998). Community policing: Contemporary readings. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Bossler, A. and Decker, S. (2004). Evaluation of the St. Louis Weed and Seed Initiative. St. Louis. University of Missouri - St. Louis. City of Hartford. City of Hartford Weed and Seed. Available: http://www.hartford.gov/police/Weed&Seed/weed.htm City of Pittsburg. City of Pittsburg Weed and Seed. Available: http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/weed&seed/assets/05_Weed&Seed_and_PSNcombined_Exec_Summ.pdf Community Capacity Development Office (2005). Developing a Sustainability Plan for Weed and Seed Sites. Washington, D.C. Community Capacity Development Office. Community Capacity Development Office (2005). 2005 Official Recognition Guidelines and Application. Washington, D.C. Community Capacity Development Office. Community Capacity Development Office (2004). The Weed and Seed Strategy. Washington, D.C. Community Capacity Development Office. Community Capacity Development Office (2005). Weed and Seed Implementation Manual. Washington, D.C. Community Capacity Development Office. Community Capacity Development Office (2007) Weed and Seed website homepage available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ccdo/ws/welcome.html. 85 Community Capacity Development Office (2007) Weed and Seed Data Center Orchard Glen Coalition webpage available: http://www.weedandseeddatacenter.org/sitedetail.aspx?sitekey=0456S00 . Community Oriented Policing Services. “What is community policing?” Accessed June, 2006. Available: http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=36 Decker, S. and Huebner, B. (2005). Evaluation of the St. Louis Weed and Seed Initiative: 2001-2005. St. Louis. University of Missouri - St. Louis. Driscoll, L.N., Bora, D.J. and DeTardo-Bora, K.A. (2003). Program Evaluation of the O.N.E. Wheeling Weed and Seed. November 2003. Wheeling Jesuit University. Dunworth, T., & G. Mills, (1999). National Evaluation of Weed and Seed. Research In Brief. Washington, D.C. National Institute of Justice. Dunworth, T., G. Mills, G. Cordner, & J. Greene (1999). National Evaluation of Weed and Seed: Cross-Site Analysis. Washington, D.C. Executive Office for Weed and Seed. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (Accessed December, 2007). Uniform Crime Reports. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm. Geller, W. (1998). “As a Blade of Grass Cuts Through Stone: Helping Rebuild Urban Neighborhoods Through Unconventional Police-Community Partnerships.” Crime & Delinquency 44, 1: 154-177. Harris, R.J., O’Connell, J.P. and Wilhite, S. (2001). Evaluation of Operation Weed and Seed in Wilmington, Delaware. July 2001. Delaware Statistical Analysis Center. 86 Josi, D.A., Donahue, M.E., Magnus, R.E. and Bennett, K.J. (2000) Savannah’s Weed and Seed Program Evaluation (1999): Final Report. August 2000. Public Service Center, Armstrong Atlantic State University. Justice Research and Statistics Association (2004). A Comparison of Homicide Trends in Local Weed and Seed Sites Relative to Their Host Jurisdictions, 1996-2001. Washington, D.C. Justice Research and Statistics Association. Justice Research and Statistics Association (2004). Weed and Seed Crime Pattern Data Analysis. Washington, D.C. Justice Research and Statistics Association. Justice Research and Statistics Association (2004). Weed and Seed Local Evaluation Meta Analysis. Washington, D.C. Justice Research and Statistics Association. Kennedy, Peter. (2003). A Guide to Econometrics, 5th Ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Lowell, Massachusetts Police Department. Lowell Weed and Seed. Available: http://www.lowellpolice.com/about_lpd/policing_ini/weed_and_seed.htm North Central Florida Health Planning Council (NCFHPC), Inc. (1999) City of Ocala Weed and Seed Evaluation Final Report. August 1999. Manning P.K. (1998). Community-Based Policing. In G.P. Alpert & A. Piquero (Eds.), Community policing: Contemporary readings (pp. 23-34). Prospect heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Miller, L. (2001). “Looking for Postmodernism in All the Wrong Places: Implementing a New Penology.” British Journal of Criminology 41: 168-184. 87 Milhalic, S. & K. Irwin (2003). “Blueprints for Violence Prevention: From Research to Real-World Settings – Factors Influencing the Successful Replication of Model Programs.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1, 4: 307-329. Morrison, S. (2000). Evaluation of Albuquerque Weed and Seed Sites: Trumbull and La Mesa Neighborhoods. Albuquerque. University of New Mexico. Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services (2005). Evaluation of the Akron Weed and Seed Program, 2000-2004. Columbus. Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services (2005). Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community Coalition (2003). 2003 Official Recognition Site Strategy. Glendale. Orchard Glen Weed and Seed. Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community Coalition (2004). 2004 Continuation Application Site Strategy. Glendale. Orchard Glen Weed and Seed. Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community Coalition (2005). 2005 Continuation Application Site Strategy. Glendale. Orchard Glen Weed and Seed. Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community Coalition (2006). 2006 Continuation Application Site Strategy. Glendale. Orchard Glen Weed and Seed. Orchard Glen Weed and Seed Community Coalition (2007). 2007 Continuation Application Site Strategy. Glendale. Orchard Glen Weed and Seed. Roehl, J. (2002). Evaluating a Weed and Seed Strategy. Washington, D.C. Justice Research Center. 88 Roehl, J., R. Huitt, M.A. Wycoff, A. Pate, D. Rebovich, & K. Coyle (1996). National Process Evaluation of Operation Weed and Seed. Research In Brief. Washington, D.C. National Institute of Justice. Seattle Neighborhood Group. Southeast Weed and Seed. Available: http://www.sngi.org/sews1.html United States Attorney, Northern District of Alabama. Weed and Seed Northern District of Alabama. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/aln/Pages/weedandseed.htm Webb, V.J. and Katz, C.M. (1998). Citizen ratings of the Importance of Community Policing Activities. In G.P. Alpert & A. Piquero (Eds.), Community policing: Contemporary readings (pp. 427-444). Prospect heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Watters, J.K. and Biernacki, P. (1989). Targeted sampling: Options for the study of hidden populations. Social Problems, 36, 4, 416-430. Wilson, J.Q. and Kelling, G.S. (1982). Broken Windows. The Atlantic Monthly, March, 1982. Volume 249, No. 3; 29-38, New York.