An evaluation of the kino coalition weed and seed strategy: 2002-2006 
|
|
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Statistical Analysis Center Publication
Our mission is to sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, productivity and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in Arizona
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy Tucson, Arizona 2002-2006
October
2006
ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION
Vice-Chairperson ROBERT CARTER OLSON Pinal County Attorney JOSEPH ARPAIO Maricopa County Sheriff DOUGLAS L. BARTOSH, Chief Cottonwood Police Department DUANE BELCHER, Chairperson Board of Executive Clemency
DAVID K. BYERS, Director Administrative Office of the Courts
CLARENCE DUPNIK Pima County Sheriff
JENNIFER ECKSTROM, Mayor City of South Tucson
TONY ESTRADA Santa Cruz County Sheriff
TERRY GODDARD Attorney General
DANIEL HUGHES, Chief Surprise Police Department
BARBARA LAWALL Pima County Attorney
TOMMIE CLINE MARTIN Gila County Supervisor
RICHARD MIRANDA, Chief Tucson Police Department
RALPH OGDEN Yuma County Sheriff
DAVID SANDERS Pima County Chief Probation Officer ANDREW P. THOMAS Maricopa County Attorney
DORA SCHRIRO, Director Department of Corrections
LINDA SCOTT Former Judge
ROGER VANDERPOOL, Director Department of Public Safety
JOHN A. BLACKBURN, JR. Executive Director PHILLIP STEVENSON Statistical Analysis Center Director DAVID CHOATE Arizona State University Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Faculty Research Associate MITCH HALFPENNY Statistical Analysis Center Senior Research Analyst
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission's Statistical Analysis Center would like to thank all those who contributed to this report. Particular recognition goes to the residents of the Kino coalition area, CODAC staff, and the staff of Councilman Stephen Leal for their cooperation and participation in the stakeholder focus groups; and to Katie Valenzuela for providing the documentation and guidance needed to understand the development of the Kino Coalition. SPECIAL THANKS TO: Steve Ballance, Arizona State University Autumn Figueroa, Tucson Police Department Charles Katz, Arizona State University
This project was made possible by Grant No. 2004 WS-Q4-K003 from the U.S. Department of Justice through the Justice Research and Statistics Association. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Justice and JRSA. This document is available in alternate formats by contacting the Commission Office at (602) 364-1146.
Table of Contents Introduction: Organizational Structure and Strategy of Weed and Seed............1 Part I: The Present Study...................................................................................5 Site Characteristics......................................................................................6 Part II: Methodology.............................................................................................9 Process Evaluation.......................................................................................9 Impact Evaluation......................................................................................14 Part III: Findings.................................................................................................17 Process Evaluation.....................................................................................17 Impact Evaluation......................................................................................36 Part IV: Summary and Conclusion.......................................................................44 References.............................................................................................................49 Appendix 1: Adult Focus Group Interview Guide.................................................52 Appendix 2: Juvenile Focus Group Interview Guide........................................... 53
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
INTRODUCTION This report fulfills part of the requirements of a grant from the Department of Justice through the Justice Research and Statistics Association. It describes the results of a process and impact evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed site in Tucson, Arizona. The evaluation was conducted from February through June of 2006, and covered the first four years of Kino's existence as an accepted site. Organizational Structure and Strategy of Weed and Seed The U.S. Department Justice (DOJ) developed Operation Weed and Seed in 1991 as a nation wide crime reduction strategy for neighborhoods with high crime rates. The strategy specifically targets violent crime and drug-related offenses and the communities in which they occur. The Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO) administers Weed and Seed as a unit of the DOJ's Office of Justice Programs. The guiding principle for the strategy is to reduce violent and drug crime rates in high crime neighborhoods by combining traditional law enforcement tactics with public and private sector participation, and the provision of social services. 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. 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 activities are carried out through prevention, intervention, and treatment programs, and neighborhood restoration projects.
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 among federal, state, tribal, county, and local law enforcement agencies. Weed and Seed sites are neighborhoods with higher rates of violent and drug crimes than the larger surrounding community of which they are a part. The law enforcement
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
1
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
component is, in its simplest form, typical traditional policing activities conducted with more intensity by applying more operations and activities to the targeted area.
Community Policing
The second component, community policing, serves as the bridge among the law enforcement, or weeding, process, and the social services and neighborhood revitalization, or seeding, process. 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 (COPS), 2005)." For Weed and Seed the important part of the community policing philosophy is "police-community partnerships." The principle role of community oriented policing in Weed and Seed sites is to build, foster, and support an effective and cooperative relationship between members of the community and law enforcement. Law enforcement tactics can effectively weed-out criminals and criminal activity in an area through enhanced, focused enforcement, but for the crime reduction to have sustainability other than through the permanent and intense presence of police, the community must be supportive of the police, and work with them to dissuade future criminal activity in their community. Community policing engages the community and places officers in positions of service that make them not only representatives of law enforcement, but also of 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 without formal criminal justice intervention, and educate residents about Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment
The third component of the Weed and Seed strategy is the first of the seeding components. Prevention, intervention, and treatment tasks are designed to identify, reduce, and eliminate physical and social conditions that contribute to violence, crime, and disorder in the community. For Weed and Seed to be considered successful, positive, significant changes need to occur in the designated area beyond the law enforcement's impact on crime. The seeding process is much of what differentiates Weed and Seed from many other crime abatement programs. While crime reduction efforts are taking shape, the community can begin seeding the neighborhood with initiatives that will maintain and strengthen the crime abatement effects. The prevention component includes building partnerships with community organizations, businesses, mental health practitioners, healthcare providers, substance abuse treatment programs, and others. Many of these organizations and individuals
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
2
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
will already be providing these services in or around the designated Weed and Seed site, and may present excellent sources of collaboration. Prevention efforts should 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 by providing literature and helpline numbers in a confidential manner. Intervention activities involve a more comprehensive response to specific issues the community wants addressed. Intervention programs may focus on truancy reduction, adult literacy, vocational, or parenting classes, in the hope that by providing these services, at-risk members of the community may find positive alternatives to criminal behavior. Treatment activities are more protracted, intensive, and costly to establish and maintain than most other program activities. However, many designated areas already have organizations and individuals providing needed treatment services in Weed and Seed designated areas, or in the surrounding community. Part of the philosophy of the Weed and Seed strategy is to provide community groups the support, framework, and initial resources to create a service coalition in their community, with a comprehensive foundation of disparate groups and individuals gathered under a common banner. Weed and Seed sites must leverage their resources to build a cooperative effort with existing programs and services. A site that wants to provide more accessible substance abuse treatment to their community, where an existing substance abuse treatment program is already functioning in or near the designated site, should establish a partnership that will enhance the service delivery to the Weed and Seed community and minimize redundancy. The focal point of the prevention, intervention, and treatment component 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. The Safe Haven is a multi-service facility that is community, education, and prevention based, culturally relevant, and easily accessible. It is also a clearinghouse and a central point of community connection. Weed and Seed recognizes the difficulties facing a disadvantaged community as multifaceted, and that developing solutions to these difficulties must also be multifaceted. The Safe Haven is a place that centralizes and coordinates these activities. Most importantly, the Safe Haven must be community based, meaning it must function based on the needs and resources of the community it serves.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
3
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Perhaps an easily overlooked characteristic that is important to the success of the Safe Haven's mission is its ease of accessibility. A Safe Haven needs to be 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. The Safe Haven might host after school activities, sports or fitness programs, adult education classes, community meetings and events, or be an access point to medical care, mental health services, or substance abuse treatment providers. 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: the physical improvement of the community. Restoration of the neighborhood focuses on improving homes and blighted areas in the designated community by leveraging resources to help residents and encourage the rebuilding of dilapidated infrastructure. The restoration process brings federal, state, tribal, local, and private agencies and organizations together and encourages 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. Removing neighborhood eyesores, building new housing, and reintroducing businesses to the designated area will significantly improve residents' quality of life and reinforce longterm benefits from the seeding efforts. This process requires a significant effort to leverage resources and maximize funding for neighborhood restoration. However, with improvements in crime and disorder and the existence of an organized group of motivated and dedicated citizens, business leaders and other sources for neighborhood restoration can be persuaded to recognize the benefits of commercial revitalization.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
4
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
PART I: THE PRESENT STUDY The purpose of this study was to conduct a process and impact evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed site in Tucson, Arizona. The process evaluation was conducted to examine the implementation of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition site's policies and goals. The impact evaluation was conducted to assess the effect of Kino 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.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
5
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Site Characteristics The Kino Coalition Weed and Seed site is one of 10 active Weed and Seed sites in Tucson is in southern Arizona, Arizona, and one of three in the city of Tucson.1 approximately 60 miles from the international border with Mexico, and has a population of 494,000 (2004 Census estimate). It is the second largest city in Arizona. The Kino Weed and Seed site, hereafter referred to as Kino, is in a centrally located area of Tucson, just southeast of the city's downtown area (Map 2). The designated area (Map 3) is approximately 6.3 square miles of mixed residential and industrial land (Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO), 2006). Commercial properties in the area are primarily focused on industrial uses because of the proximity of an interstate and large railroad yard. The area gets its name from the Kino Parkway, a freeway opened in 1982 that connects central Tucson with Interstate 10. Kino Parkway runs through the middle of the Kino site.
1
The others are: The Westside Coalition and The 29th Street Coalition.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
6
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
The officially designated site is comprised of five areas recognized by Tucson's Department of Neighborhood Resources as city neighborhoods: South Park, Western Hills II, Las Vistas, Pueblo Gardens and Millville. Millville is almost exclusively commercial property. The site has two anomalous characteristics. It is somewhat isolated from the rest of the city even though the distance to downtown Tucson is only about five miles. A large portion of the northern boundary is shaped by the wide swath of railroad lines and most of the southern boundary is an interstate. A good part of the western boundary meets South Tucson, a separate municipality. Secondly, population density (about 1,500 persons per square mile) is lower than almost all other areas of the city (3,000 and more persons per square mile). Most residences are small single family homes located on fairly large lots. There are also large tracts of undeveloped land.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
7
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Exhibit 1 shows the key socio-demographic characteristics of the Kino area and Tucson (U.S. Census 2000 and CCDO, 2006). Exhibit 1: Kino Weed and Seed Site Characteristics Socio-Demographic Characteristics Kino Area Tucson Geography Area, sq. mi. 6.3 226 Demographics Population 9,981 486,699 Percent Males, Age 18 and Up 31.8 36.4 Percent Females, Age 18 and Up 32.1 39.0 Percent Males, Age 17 or Less 18.5 12.0 Percent Females, Age 17 or Less 17.6 12.5 Family Structure Total Households 2,763 192,891 Percent Households with Families 79.6 58.3 Percent Households with Children 56.1 46.9 Percent Single Parent Families with Children 22.7 8.5 Percent Non-Family Households 20.4 41.7 Education Percent Adult population without a high school 50.2 19.6 diploma Race/Ethnicity Percent White 37.7 70.2 Percent Black 12.7 4.3 Percent American Indian/Eskimo 3.5 2.3 Percent Asian/Pacific Islander 1.2 2.5 Percent Other 40.2 20.6 Percent Hispanic Ethnicity 77.0 35.7 Income/Housing Per Capita Income $9,983 $21,587 Median Household Income $26,663 $41,994 Percent Renting 36.9 46.6 Percent Lived in Residence for Less than Five Years 49.8 60.8
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
8
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
PART II: METHODOLOGY Process Evaluation The process evaluation for this study included: 1) an examination of the procedures and activities that contributed to the formation of the Kino Coalition; 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 two methods used to gather data for the process evaluation were: 1) a review of official site documents; and 2) focus group interviews conducted with key stakeholders. Stakeholders to the Kino Weed and Seed site included a wide range of people, agencies, and organizations involved in some segment of law enforcement, community policing, crime prevention, intervention and treatment, or neighborhood restoration of the Kino Weed and Seed site's initiatives and activities. Stakeholder organizations participating in weeding and seeding activities are included in Exhibit 2 below. The table is divided into six different partnership groups based on their organizational characteristics and role in the Kino Weed and Seed site. Each partnership group is identified as being primarily involved in: 1) law enforcement or community policing activities (weeding); 2) intervention, treatment, or neighborhood restoration efforts (seeding); or 3) providing guidance or assistance to overall efforts (support). Through the analysis of the historical documentation, the foundation of the original goals and plans were compared to the progression and implementation of those objectives to offer an assessment of those processes. As such, the process evaluation was not focused on the direct or indirect outcomes of the Kino 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 Researchers collected 69 separate official documents from Kino stakeholders. Stakeholders who provided official documents included the Kino site coordinator, service delivery agents, safe haven representatives, Tucson Police Department, neighborhood association leaders, faith-based community leaders, and Tucson City Council representatives. The Kino site did not have a comprehensive collection of official documents and evaluators employed three different strategies to collect the information. First, we asked stakeholders to provide virtually any document they had maintained that was related to Kino Weed and Seed. Stakeholders were asked to gather and provide anything that documented early planning sessions, activities, or communications.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
9
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Second, as we gathered documents following the initial request, we began asking for additional documents similar to those already provided. For example, we were supplied with steering committee meeting minutes from one meeting after our initial request, and as part of our second strategy, we asked for all such meeting minutes that had been maintained during the life of the Kino Coalition. The third strategy for collecting official documents stemmed from our focus group sessions with key stakeholders. As discussions led into programmatic activities evaluators had not yet been aware of, stakeholders were asked to provide any documentation they had made related to those topics. Exhibit 2: Kino Weed and Seed Stakeholder Organizations
Law Enforcement Partners (Weeding)
Tucson Police Department City of Tucson Attorney's Office Arizona National Guard Pima County Attorney's Office Pima County Adult Probation Arizona Dept of Public Safety - GITEM City of Tucson Ward 5 Council Office
Business Partners (Seeding)
Mr. K's BBQ Arizona Federal Credit Union PEBEE, Inc.
Faith Based Partners (Seeding)
Grace Temple Baptist Church Cross Horizon Ministries South Highland Church
Community Partners (Seeding)
Las Vistas Neighborhood Association Pueblo Gardens Neighborhood Association South Park Neighborhood Association Western Hills II Neighborhood Association Pueblo Gardens Neighborhood Association Holmes Tuttle Boys & Girls Club Kino Teen Center Pueblo Gardens Elementary School Quincie Douglas Neighborhood Center Southside Community School CODAC Behavioral Health Services Tucson Community Food Bank Tucson Urban League Pima Council on Aging The Youth Corps of America
Local Government Partners (Seeding)
Ward 5 Council Office Pima County Supervisor - District 2 City of Tucson Community Services & Hope VI City of Tucson Parks and Recreation City of Tucson Neighborhood Resources Tucson-Pima Public Library
Federal Partners (Support)
United States Attorney's Office U.S. Department of Justice Housing and Urban Development Office of National Drug Control Policy Drug Enforcement Administration
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
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
10
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
schedules; community intervention program curricula; and community activity announcements. These records were important because they documented the planned interventions and the actual implementation of those interventions. The original and supplemental applications filed with the CCDO served as data indicating the specific strategies the Kino Coalition 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: minutes of neighborhood association meetings; Kino Coalition Steering Committee meeting minutes; Kino Coalition Policies and Procedures Manual; memoranda detailing policing enforcement strategies; police enforcement and community policing assignment scheduling; police progress reports; letters of support from the local United States Attorney's Office representative; and public announcements and flyers. Some of these documents detailed the early community meetings discussing official Weed and Seed designation strategies, including what neighborhoods to include and the prioritization of community needs. Documentation of the formation, early activities, and meetings around the time of the creation of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition were limited. Combined with the original application for official recognition, there was sufficient data to describe what was originally intended and established. These data were not detailed and establishing a thorough understanding of how Kino developed itself, its policies, and activities was limited. Data gathered from the official documents maintained by principal stakeholder groups allowed evaluators to examine both weeding and seeding activities in Kino. This method does have limitations. Because the Kino Coalition did not develop a formalized routine of data collection for the purpose of a comprehensive evaluation at the onset of their work, official documents were not necessarily and consistently maintained. Many early documents such as planning meeting minutes, public event announcements, and community meetings were not well maintained, which led to better documentation for some stakeholder groups or activities than for others. The Tucson Police Department (TPD) is perhaps the most important stakeholder in the weeding efforts of the Kino Weed and Seed site. The Weeding Steering Subcommittee for Kino includes representatives from TPD command staff for the area, a community policing officer assigned to the Kino area, a TPD gang unit detective, Pima County Adult Probation, and the Tucson City Prosecutor's Office. Evaluators collected TPD official briefing notes, scheduling, and command instructions regarding the commitment and distribution of resources specifically aimed at the Kino area. Reviewing the TPD documents provided an official record of early enforcement efforts and verified the process of committing police resources to weeding activities. The principal provider of social services selected for the Kino area was CODAC Behavioral Health Services, Inc. Documentation of seeding activities and programs offered by CODAC were very detailed and included program curriculum materials,
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
11
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
evaluation forms and feedback, and community information packets. Evaluators collected data from CODAC representatives detailing the "Strengthening the Families" program including its curriculum, selection and implementation strategies used, and participants' assessments. Official documents were collected from other key stakeholders as well, including: 1) officials from the Ward Five office of the Tucson City Council; 2) representatives from Tucson Parks and Recreation; 3) members from the Tucson-Pima Public Library; 4) local faith-based leaders; 5) representatives from the Tucson Urban League facility located in the Kino area; 6) leaders from the Boys and Girls Club located in the Kino area; and 7) the City of Tucson Neighborhood Resources Department. Focus Group Interviews Focus group participants were self-selected based on their individual roles as stakeholders in the Kino community or as members of an organization involved with the Kino activities. Stakeholder organizations and individuals were identified for focus group participation using three strategies. First, during initial meetings with the Kino Site Coordinator, evaluators supplied a list detailing the types of organizations and individuals who might typically be considered stakeholders in a Weed and Seed site. This list included: local police agencies; city prosecutor office; county probation department; neighborhood associations; community service organizations working in the area or providing services to area residents; businesses associated with the site; faith-based organizations; and city departments providing services in the designated area. This list was used as a guide by the Kino Site Coordinator to contact relevant stakeholders and ask if they would be willing to participate in a focus group session. Focus group participants recruited by the Site Coordinator were further instructed by evaluators at the time of the interview session that: 1) their participation was voluntary; 2) they would not be identified by name; 3) no foreseeable harm would come to them for their participation; and 4) their participation was intended for the sole benefit of conducting an evaluation of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition and its activities. Second, members and representatives from stakeholder groups who volunteered for participation in the focus group were asked to identify other stakeholder organizations and individuals. These additional organizations and individuals were considered for participation based on their potential value to the evaluation. Evaluators considered the described role of other potential participants based on the identifying stakeholders' assessments. The third strategy evaluators used was to contact additional potential participants identified during early stakeholder focus group sessions. Among the 39 organizations identified as partners to the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition, 27 were represented during
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
12
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
stakeholder focus groups, or more than 78 percent of all partner organizations. Most of the absentees among participant organizations came from business and federal partners. Stakeholder organizations were represented by individual representatives from CODAC, the primary social service provider and seeding activity manager; clergy from several local places of worship involved in the community; representatives from Tucson Parks and Recreation, who manage the Quincie Douglas Neighborhood Center and the recently opened public swimming pool; local area school officials, including a principal and school counselor; representatives from other Kino Safe Havens; youths from the community; and community and neighborhood association leaders. Focus group participants chiefly engaged in weeding activities were: the lead TPD patrol officer assigned as the community policing officer in the Kino area; a TPD gang unit detective who works in the Kino area; a lieutenant from TPD who serves as the fiscal manager of weeding funds; the Captain of the TPD Operations Division South, the police subdivision that serves the Kino area; representatives from Pima County Adult Probation; and a prosecutor from the Criminal Division of the Office of the City Attorney for Tucson. Exhibit 3 below summarizes the focus groups conducted. Exhibit 3: Focus Group Data Collection Summary Focus Group CODAC Program Coordinators CODAC Program Staff Neighborhood Associations and Citizens Ward 5 Council Office Faith-based Groups Safe Haven Representatives Kino Executive Committee Teen Advisory Board Weeding Steering Committee Total Participants Date 3/27/2006 3/27/2006 3/27/2006 3/27/2006 3/27/2006 3/29/2006 3/29/2006 3/29/2006 4/12/2006 Participants 5 7 6 2 6 3 6 3 7 45
Focus groups were conducted in a semi-structured format with evaluators serving as the facilitators. Facilitators began each session with a brief description of the purpose and nature of the focus group session and the contribution they would make to the evaluation of the Kino site. Facilitators used a pre-defined list of 12 questions (Appendix 1) to begin and guide focus group discussions, but individual groups were allowed significant latitude to discuss topics or issues as they arose during the discussion. Participants routinely explored topics that were not directly in response to guiding questions, which offered unexpected breadth and depth to the discussion. Focus group discussions included information about the historical foundation of the Kino site, transitions and challenges during implementation, current activities, and future goals and expectations.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
13
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Our focus groups were structured in a manner that fostered open discussions, which elicited detailed and honest perceptions of the implementation of the Kino Weed and Seed site. As noted by Krueger focus group interviews "have been helpful in assessing needs, developing plans..., testing new programs and ideas, improving existing programs, and generating information for constructing questionnaires" (Krueger, 1994, p. 37). While focus groups have been found to be an effective tool for understanding processes, they do have some limitations, which include: 1) complex qualitative data can be difficult to analyze; 2) they require skilled moderators; and 3) allow only limited cross-group comparisons (Krueger, 1994). Impact Evaluation The impact evaluation focused on the influence that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition activities had on crime and disorder in the Kino Weed and Seed area. Impact evaluations examine the results of programmatic interventions. Significant changes that are observed in the targeted area or population because of program interventions and initiatives illustrate 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 call for service data from the TPD for the period 1999 through 2005. A call for service is an event to which a Tucson Police employee must respond to evaluate or take action, or an event that comes to the attention of police or is initiated by police that requires formal documentation. Calls for service include: Citizens reporting a shooting, a traffic accident with injuries, burglaries, ringing alarm bells, suspicious activity or problems with a neighbor; or officers finding a stolen vehicle, detectives making an arrest, officers searching out and arresting a fugitive, or officers conducting field interviews of persons observed in suspicious circumstances. CFS data were chosen instead of police crime report or arrest reports because they are more amenable to analysis of quality of life issues, which are not captured in reported crime or arrest data. The CFS data extract consisted of almost 2.2 million individual calls capturing information on both criminal and non-criminal incidents. Calls that were not directly related to an obvious criminal event, such as abandoned vehicles, loitering, or juvenile offenses were examined as quality of life measures related to residents' perception of physical and social disorder. Measures of crime were constructed from CFS data that TPD had coded as criminal incidents. We excluded calls coded as duplicates by the TPD, calls related to traffic stops or accidents, civil matters, alarms, and other calls not directly related to a crime or neighborhood disorder issue. 2 The CFS data was delivered in geographic information systems shapefiles, which allowed the evaluators to identify and separate data for the Kino Weed and Seed
2
From Tucson Police Department website: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/police/terms.htm
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
14
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
designated area from the rest of the city. Furthermore, because there was at least one record for each call for service, the data set could be used to develop rates based on Kino population figures. The TPD offense codes were categorized into four measures of crime: 1) violent crime; 2) property crime; 3) drug crime; and 4) disorder. Additionally, we constructed a fifth measure that represented the total number of calls from the four measures above. Our violent crime measure included calls such as homicides, assaults, and robberies; property crime included crimes such as burglaries, motor vehicle thefts, fraud, and criminal damage; drug crime was defined using narcotic drug laws; and our disorder measure included concerns such as prostitution, public intoxication, and vagrancy. After categorizing relevant calls into our four measures and excluding those calls described earlier, more than 632,000 individual calls remained in our analysis, which included more than 13,500 calls from the Kino neighborhoods, and almost 619,000 from the rest of the city. The specific call codes assigned to our four constructed measures are listed in Exhibit 4. Exhibit 4: Crime Measures Constructed from Calls for Service Codes Violent Homicide Aggravated Assault Other Assaults Robbery Sexual Assault Other Sex Offenses Weapons Disorder Disorderly Conduct Juvenile Violations Prostitution Public Intoxication Vagrancy Property Arson Burglary Criminal Damage Embezzlement Forgery & Counterfeiting Fraud Larceny Motor Vehicle Theft Stolen Property Drugs Narcotic Drug Laws
Evaluators converted the CFS data from raw frequencies to rates based on population. Specifically, we divided the number of calls in a given month by the estimated population for the appropriate calendar year and multiplied the result by 1,000. This yielded standardized values representing the number of calls for service per 1,000 people. Converting the raw frequencies into rates standardized the data and allowed evaluators to make comparisons across years by controlling for changes in population.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
15
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
The impact evaluation relied on a quasi-experimental, pre-test/post-test design (Campbell and Stanley, 1963). This design is well suited for studies involving large populations where a targeted portion of the population receives a treatment and another portion does not receive the treatment; the latter group theoretically serving as a control, or comparison group. For the purposes of this evaluation, the Kino area and its residents were regarded as our `target' or `experimental' group and were compared to the rest of the City of Tucson, which served as our `control' or `comparison' group. The two groups are further examined in a pre-test/post-test environment through our examination of CFS data dating four years before Kino Weed and Seed strategies were initiated and continuing throughout the Kino site's implementation to the end of 2005. These data permitted us to examine the crime patterns for the four Kino neighborhoods for three years prior to the formation of the Coalition and four years after program implementation. Additionally, these data allowed for the comparison of the Kino area to the surrounding community of Tucson, and an assessment of the relative impact of Weed and Seed program activities by examining change within each area. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to examine changes in the rates of calls for: 1) violent crime; 2) property crime; 3) drug-related crime; and 4) non-criminal, disorder related issues between the 36 months of pre-test CFS data and the 48 months of post-test CFS data. These tests allowed us to examine: a) the Kino Weed and Seed site's effectiveness in reducing crime; and b) the citizens' self-perceived quality of life. In doing so, we were able to examine changes in our categorized CFS data for our target and comparison areas, before and after program implementation. Likewise, we examined changes in calls for service for non-criminal concerns that were associated with disorder.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
16
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
PART III: FINDINGS Process Evaluation The process evaluation for this study examined the integrity of implementation of selected program activities and the course of modifications to the Weed and Seed strategy throughout the site's development. The two methods used to gather data for the process evaluation were: 1) a review of official site documents; and 2) focus groups conducted with key stakeholders. This portion of the evaluation was not specifically concerned with the direct or indirect outcomes of the Kino Coalition's Weed and Seed efforts, but rather the methods, policies, procedures, and routines employed to carry out program initiatives. We evaluated the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition by examining the formal and informal mechanisms by which they developed, adapted, and maintained 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 initial application to the CCDO for official recognition as a Weed and Seed site detailed 26 distinct goals (Exhibit 5). Each of these goals were divided into one of the four core Weed and Seed categories and contained specific objectives that were focused on four high priority and unmet challenges for the Kino community. They included: 1. 2. 3. 4. Illegal drug activity, especially involving youth and gangs. Gun violence, especially involving youth and gangs. Poverty and unemployment, especially as they effect youth and young adults. Lack of involvement in community efforts due to changing racial, ethnic, or language differences and barriers (Kino Weed and Seed Coalition, 2001).
Official Documents
A review of official documents revealed that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition had pursued implementation of 25 of the original 26 goals in the five years of official activities. Several official documents were used to delineate which of the original goals were addressed and when, including: 1) Kino's Community Action Plan; 2) the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition's Annual Progress Report; 3) the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition's official Policies and Procedures manual; 4) Tucson Police Department Operations South Division's Action Plans for Pueblo Gardens, Western Hills II, South Park, and Las Vistas; and 5) Tucson Police Department Operations South Division memoranda detailing standing orders for personnel assignments related to the Kino area.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
17
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Exhibit 5: Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Goals Law Enforcement 1 Create and maintain a Kino Weeding Steering Committee. 2 Increase police patrols in the Kino area at least 25%. 3 Increase public awareness of positive law enforcement efforts. 4 Reduce recidivism in the neighborhood by 5% each year. 5 Reduce drug dealing within the neighborhood by 5% each year. 6 Decrease the illegal use of guns and gang graffiti by 5% each year. 7 Reduce incidences of speeding and traffic problems by 10% each year. Community Policing 1 Increase participation in crime prevention programs by 5% each year. Maintain neighborhood access to police and communication between 2 community members and police officers. Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Utilize the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Seeding Committee to establish 1 and nurture a coalition of service providers working in the Kino neighborhoods. 2 Increase successful completion of probation by 5% each year. Increase participation in drug use and gang prevention programs by 5% 3 each year. Ensure that health intervention and treatment opportunities are available 4 within the community. 5 Reduce adolescent and teen birth rates. Increase educational achievement for all ages of residents by 5% each 6 year. 7 Improve participation in job readiness programs by 5% each year. Neighborhood Restoration and Economic Development 1 Increase resident participation in community activities. Maximize efficiency by minimizing duplication of efforts and leveraging 2 resources through partnerships across neighborhood organizations. 3 Increase opportunities for social connections within the community. 4 Provide a clean and safe environment within the neighborhoods. 5 Improve housing conditions in the neighborhoods. 6 Increase homeownership rates in the neighborhoods. Advocate for increased public reinvestment in the neighborhood's 7 infrastructure. 8 Improve commercial environments and business success. Improve personal savings and investment in housing, education, training, 9 and micro-enterprise. 10 Improve job opportunities for residents in the area.
Source: Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Application for Official Recognition, 2001
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
18
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Stakeholder Focus Groups
The second component of the process evaluation was focus groups with key stakeholders in the Kino Weed and Seed area. Evaluators used the stakeholder focus groups to gain an insider perspective of Kino site activities. The focus groups were held to elucidate an historical recollection of site processes, provide a detailed illustration of current activities, and aid the evaluation of the Kino site's adherence to the site's original goals. Evaluators administered nine focus group sessions, with two to seven participants each, totaling 45 participating stakeholders. Evaluators used a 12-item interview guide to facilitate discussions, enhance recall, and elicit information (Appendix 1). The interview guide was used to facilitate the discussion process, as participants were permitted significant latitude to discuss topics as they arose in individual focus group sessions. This method allowed evaluators to use close-ended questions as introductory or icebreaker topics to initiate the discussion, which then moved into openended questions to obtain greater detail on site activities. An important advantage of using this approach is to put participants at ease in the interview setting with easy to answer, objective, close-ended questions before shifting into the subjective, personal perspective format of open-ended questions. The open-ended questions allow respondents to express what is on their mind, in their own words, and can produce unintended or unforeseen insights (Krueger, 1994). Among the responses from the focus group sessions, all nine groups recalled activities of the Kino Weed and Seed site at the time of inception. All groups reported positive impressions regarding the balance and cooperation between weeding and seeding efforts. Generally, the focus groups indicated that the Kino Coalition had adhered to its originally intended mission, consistent with its goals, albeit with some modification to specific tasks and objectives. Law Enforcement Goals The Law Enforcement component of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition's original site plan called for seven distinct goals.
Goal 1: Create and maintain a Kino Weeding Steering Committee.
Reviews of both official documents and responses from stakeholder interviews confirmed that this goal was met early in the process and has been consistently maintained throughout the implementation period. Evaluators were also supplied with two summaries of Kino Weed and Seed Weeding Subcommittee meetings that indicated that the subcommittee routinely discussed ongoing issues related to the general strategies for which they were responsible. The data from these meeting minutes supported that the subcommittee continued to scan, analyze, respond, and assess their operational plan to incorporate tasks and objectives
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
19
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
supportive of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition's law enforcement and community policing strategies. Stakeholder focus groups supported that a Weeding Subcommittee was formed and was active in Kino program activities from the beginning. Participants from the following stakeholder focus groups all discussed the formation, role, and, or activities of the Weeding Subcommittee: the Weeding Subcommittee itself; CODAC Staff; CODAC Program Coordinators; Neighborhood Associations and Citizens; Ward V City Council; and the Kino Weed and Seed Executive Committee.
Goal 2: Increase police patrols in the Kino area at least 25 percent.
Evaluators collected documents and conducted stakeholder interviews verifying that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition, through the Tucson Police Department's role, addressed this goal. Memoranda from the TPD supports that at the outset of intervention, two officers were committed to full-time directed patrol and community policing in the Kino area and did not respond to calls for service outside the area unless it involved a priority emergency. In later implementation years (early 2004), the commitment was reduced to one full-time officer. While data was not collected to verify an increase of at least 25 percent, the data that was gathered indicated a commitment to increase patrol time in the Kino area was established even prior to official recognition, and that it has maintained throughout implementation. Stakeholder groups also provided support for an increase in police patrol in the Kino area. Notably, the neighborhood association and citizens' group described changes in their community that resulted from an increased presence and positive relationship with police.
Goal 3: Increase public awareness of positive law enforcement efforts.
Stakeholder interviews with members of the community, particularly with the citizens' and faith based groups, provided anecdotal support for changes in the public's perception of police and their activities. Citizens supplied unanimously positive and supportive feedback about the differences they have observed. The residents also reported that their neighborhoods had become safer and attributed much of these changes to law enforcement efforts of the TPD drug and gang detectives, but also cited the importance of the Pima County Adult Probation Department (PCAPD), particularly in clean-up efforts. The faith-based group also spoke of being more aware of policing activities in recent years, observing changes in enforcement, increased attendance at community meetings, and the staging of community safety events and fairs. Aggregated data directly measuring an increase in public awareness of positive law enforcement efforts was not available.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
20
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Goal 4: Reduce recidivism in the neighborhood by 5 percent each year.
Criminal history or other data measuring recidivism rates in the Kino community was not collected by evaluators. The call for service data collected from TPD was used to construct measures of crime for the purpose of this evaluation. CFS data does not allow for an analysis of recidivism rates, as it does not track offenses of specific individuals over time. The focus group interview with the Weeding Subcommittee provided support that efforts to reduce recidivism was addressed to some degree, but did not provide quantifiable data to measure five percent annual reductions. The Weeding Subcommittee included, but was not limited to, representatives from TPD and Pima County Adult Probation. These representatives discussed the occasional use of joint patrols throughout program implementation years. The joint patrols were directed patrols within the Kino community that included a TPD officer and patrol car, with a probation officer riding along. The purpose of the joint patrols was to conduct routine check-ups on probationers in the area, as well as provide support from the probation department when police contacted a probationer in response to a call for service. The participants described this as an effective means of informing probationers living in the area that they would be closely monitored to further discourage recidivism.
Goal 5: Reduce drug dealing within the neighborhood by 5 percent each year
Reducing open-air drug markets in the Kino area was identified as an important goal by several participants in multiple stakeholder focus group sessions. Citizens and criminal justice professionals alike described the drug trade in the Kino community as a serious problem. Participants from the citizens' group reported that before Kino Weed and Seed existed, even the police were afraid to come into their neighborhoods. Citizens' group participants would see open market drug deals taking place in broad daylight and, "residents simply wouldn't leave their homes at night." Stakeholders representing the city council reported that the TPD has staged "three or four sweeps in recent years," effectively reducing open drug markets and crime in the area. Additionally, the Weeding Subcommittee reported the successes of two undercover drug interdiction operations. The first operation used undercover narcotics investigators to identify drug houses and dealers resulting in 40 arrests with very good prosecution rates. A second operation in 2002 resulted in 33 arrests. When describing the undercover operations, one city council group participant asserted that "intelligence [about criminal activity] is driven by the neighborhood." Evaluators also reviewed official documents collected from stakeholders detailing drug enforcement activities. Records of the interdiction from TPD discussed the successes of the operations, the number of search warrants served, arrests, and resulting convictions. Evaluators were unable to collect data sufficient to make a precise assessment of whether Kino's drug dealing experienced annual declines of five percent. We were able
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
21
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
to determine that the Kino Coalition engaged in efforts to create and sustain reductions in drug dealing activity in the Kino community, as a matter of process.
Goal 6: Decrease the illegal use of guns and gang graffiti by 5 percent each year.
Data measuring annual rates of illegal gun use and gang graffiti was not collected by evaluators. As a result, it was not possible to analyze if Kino experienced 5 percent annual declines in graffiti and gun crimes. A review of the official documents did not yield information about specific programmatic activities that were aimed at reducing the illegal use of guns. One stakeholder group reported that law enforcement had participated in community events, which included gun safety information. Stakeholder focus group participants identified that the TPD gang unit officers and detectives were active in the area. Gang officers conducted the Gang Resistance Education And Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program for area youth and brought educational materials, presentation vehicles, and officers to community events. A gang unit detective from the TPD also reported having conducted numerous presentations at neighborhood association meetings, Kino Steering Committee meetings, and other public venues. These presentations were intended to educate the public about gangs and gang crime, how to identify gang related graffiti, graffiti abatement programs, and warning signs for at-risk youth.
Goal 7: Reduce incidences of speeding and traffic problems by 10 percent each year.
Citizens reported to evaluators during focus group interviews that speeding, reckless driving, and traffic concerns were a problem for them at the time the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition was formed. The importance of these concerns is evident by their inclusion in the goals for law enforcement. The stakeholder focus groups for the Weeding Subcommittee, the Executive Council, the residents, and the city council all reported that the Kino Coalition, at the urging of residents, approved purchasing two radar speed detection devices for TPD and provided funds for overtime expenses to enhance traffic enforcement in the Kino community. Stakeholders from the groups that discussed the traffic concern issue also reported that problems with speeding and reckless driving have declined. Official documentation that might have detailed the effects of these efforts were not among those collected by evaluators, therefore an assessment of whether the enhanced enforcement actually resulted in 10 percent annual declines could not be determined.
Law Enforcement Summary
The Kino Weed and Seed Coalition predominately followed a process that adhered to the originally intended goals, either through formalized programs and operations, or
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
22
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
informally through embeddedness with the Kino community. Evaluators collected evidence that supported that programmatic activities were actively engaged in attaining goals one, two, three, and five. The data collected about joint patrol activities lend support to recidivism reduction efforts (goal four), and focus group data provided evidence that the Kino Coalition had pursued reductions in traffic related problems, although official documentation was not available. Law enforcement goal six, reducing illegal use of guns and gang graffiti was the only one of seven that lacked sufficient evidence to indicate a process toward achieving the goal. Community Policing Goals The Community Policing component of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition's planned strategy included only two expressed goals. The focus of the community policing goals was aimed at improving those elements of social disorder that hinder efforts to reduce crime, minimize the public's fear of crime, and foster collective efficacy.
Goal 1: Increase participation in crime prevention programs by 5 percent each year.
Data collected from official documents supported that the Kino Coalition engaged in bringing the community into crime prevention programs from the outset. Data from TPD, the Executive Committee and from Kino Coalition Safe Havens indicated that throughout the implementation period, several outreach events and programs were used to educate and involve the community in crime prevention. Stakeholder focus group data from the Weeding Subcommittee, city council, residents, safe havens, and the Kino Executive Committee all reported various outreach efforts to extend the exposure and availability of crime prevention programs for the Kino community. Programs identified included: G.R.E.A.T. gang education program; gun safety; and graffiti abatement programs. Data about actual enrollment or participation in crime prevention programs was unavailable and not collected; therefore the five percent annual increase objective could not be measured.
Goal 2: Maintain neighborhood access to police and communication between community members and police officers.
Stakeholders participating in different focus group sessions reported that police officers, probation officers, and community prosecution unit attorneys have attended neighborhood association meetings, community meetings, and other events. They further described police officers as routinely attending community meetings and events, including, but not limited to: hosting a booth and giving safety lessons at the Kino community's annual Halloween Party, which has been ongoing for four years; staging
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
23
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
safety fairs; hosting four Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) etching events; promoting the use of gun locks at community events; and offering free child fingerprinting. Other community policing activities included TPD and probation officers riding together in the neighborhood, making routine checks on probationers in the area, and engaging community members to improve familiarity with, and communication between, law enforcement and Kino residents. One resident recalled how neighborhood association presidents were provided cell phones that gave them immediate access to community policing officers to report non-emergency crimes or neighborhood disorder problems directly without having to go through more impersonal, routine channels. They also described the TPD officer assigned to the Kino community as their officer. The community policing officer said that he has witnessed a "huge turnaround" and that he is frequently invited to celebrate birthdays, weddings, and graduations. He stated that residents from the Kino area "never would have done that [invited a police officer to personal events] before." He also explained that residents "have become very helpful and friendly," have learned to call on other city services to help with noncriminal issues, and take pride in the neighborhoods like never before. Another participant said that residents "almost cried when they thought [the community policing officer] was going to leave [the Kino area]." The captain in charge of Operations South Division said of residents in the Kino community, "they're making calls, asking for the police to be a part of the community, where they would never have done that before." Evaluators reviewed official documents of the Kino Coalition and found substantial evidence of routine interaction between law enforcement agencies and professionals and the community. Data collected from TPD clearly identifies resources allocated to community policing goals. Data on scheduling and patrol assignments indicate that at least one full-time community policing officer has been assigned to the Kino neighborhoods for the entire implementation period. Data also indicated that substitute officers were used to cover regular days off, or vacation and sick days, using officers familiar with the area, and perhaps more importantly, officers with whom the community was familiar. Data collected from official documents also recorded community event participation, meeting attendance, and routine, open lines of communication between the police and Kino residents.
Community Policing Summary
Participants from the Executive Committee, the Weeding Subcommittee, and the Ward V City Council's Office discussed feedback they have had from residents. They reported that the perception and feelings toward police has changed dramatically. Previously, most residents would have been apprehensive to have a police officer around; but now, if a police officers does not attend their community events, people have their feelings hurt. The attitudes of police about the neighborhood have also changed. Before Kino Weed and Seed, officers would respond to a call for service with six cars, lights flashing,
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
24
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
no matter what the particular issue. Now calls are usually responded to with just one car and one officer. Residents and members of the Executive Committee reiterated these sentiments. The stakeholders consistently reported an improvement in neighborhood cohesion and communication with the police. Residents reported feeling safer and being treated with more respect as a community. Because an accurate analysis of actual participation and enrollment in crime prevention programs was unable to be conducted due to insufficient data, evaluators were unable to determine whether the site achieved a five percent annual increase in crime prevention program participation. This limitation did not restrict our analysis of the process of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition's efforts in achieving its intended community policing goals. The level of commitment observed and resources dedicated toward achieving this goal indicated that the Kino Coalition adhered to a process of achieving its intended community policing goals. Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Goals The Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment 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, 2006). The Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment component is the first part of the Seeding branch of the Weed and Seed strategy. The Kino Weed and Seed Coalition identified seven goals in its original plan.
Goal 1: Utilize the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Seeding Committee to establish and nurture a coalition of service providers working in the Kino neighborhoods.
The Kino Weed and Seed Coalition's 2004 Community Action Plan (CAP) was one of the official documents collected and provides data from the approximate midpoint in the life of the Kino Coalition. The 2004 CAP described the community service providers and their sponsored projects for 2004, detailing what risk factors and problem behavior would be addressed in furtherance of Site goals (CAP, 2004). The CAP used results from the 2002 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) to track several measures of risk and protective factors among area youth. The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission conducts the Arizona Youth Survey every two years in Arizona schools with 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students and measures a number of issues. Among questions asked on the AYS are several measures of the respondent's risk and protective factors including: a) family structure; b) household composition; and c) community and school social embeddedness. The CAP summarized different programs to be provided to the Kino community and which risk and protective factors could be addressed in each program. Using these program summaries, evaluators delineated which programs, as listed in the 2004 Community Action Plan, could be directly tied to satisfying goals from the original
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
25
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Kino strategy. Exhibit 6 lists examples of programs and their respective service providers that were implemented to address the needs of the Kino Weed and Seed community. Stakeholder focus group sessions provided extensive data about social services delivered to residents of the Kino community during program implementation. The participants from two focus groups, CODAC staff and CODAC program coordinators, were each active in programs aimed at Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment efforts. One program identified as a programmatic success was the Strengthening Families Program (Molgaard, Kumpfer, and Fleming, 2001). Focus group participants asserted that the Strengthening Families Program was very successful and that they received very positive feedback from program graduates. The participants also identified other programs they were involved with including: Stop Bullying Now (Health Resources and Services Administration, 2006), a bullying prevention program delivered to middle school students; a family violence prevention program sponsored by a grant from the United Way; the Teen Advisory Board, a body made-up of local Kino area teens; and a training program through the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA), which aids neighborhood coalitions in developing "safe, healthy, drug-free communities" (CADCA, 2006). Exhibit 6: Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Programs and Providers Provider Program AZ Army National Guard DEFY ? Drug Education For Youth Boys and Girls Club Keystone Service Club Boys and Girls Club Smart Moves / Street Smarts CODAC PATHS ? Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies CODAC Strengthening Families (6-11 and 10-14 age groups) Head Start Head Start HUD Hope VI Kids Forever Kids Forever Kino Teen Center Teen Parents Classes Kino Teen Center Prenatal Care Classes Neighborhood Associations MLK Breakfast Neighborhood Associations Community events (i.e. community Halloween Party) Pueblo Gardens Mentoring Quincie Douglas, SSCS Homework help/tutoring Southside Community School Parent Connection - Moms & Tots Southside Community School Family Literacy Tucson Parks and Recreation KIDCO Tucson Parks and Recreation Youth Sports Leagues Tucson Parks and Recreation Strength and Fitness Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Safe Havens
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
26
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Goal 2: Increase successful completion of probation by 5 percent each year.
Data measuring successful completion rates of probationers in the Kino area was not collected, therefore we could not make a determination regarding five percent annual increases in probation completion. Official documentation that detailed program activities aimed specifically at successful probation completion was not collected. Data was collected that addressed enhanced monitoring of probationers (i.e. the aforementioned joint patrols of TPD and PCAPD officers) indicating that Kino engaged in efforts pursuant of increased successful completion of probation. Focus group participants from the Weeding Subcommittee and the Kino Executive Committee reported that officers from Pima County Adult and Juvenile probation were active in the Kino community. They reported that individual officers were assigned to probationers in the area, which ensured that probation officers would be familiar with the community, the residents, and the probationers living in Kino.
Goal 3: Increase participation in drug use and gang prevention programs by 5 percent each year.
Data collected from official documents and stakeholder interviews indicated that drug use and gang prevention programs had been implemented in the Kino area. Specific data measuring the enrollment rates of the programs was not collected or made available and therefore we were unable to determine if participation rates experienced five percent annual increases during program years. Collected data included program information from the National Guard sponsored Drug Education For Youth (DEFY) program. The DEFY program recruited youth from the Kino area for their summer programs, which teach participants about drug and alcohol risks, resistance strategies, effective peer pressure management, and promoting healthy lifestyles (DEFY, 2006). Stakeholder focus groups also produced data on drug and gang prevention program activities made available to Kino residents through Weed and Seed efforts. Members from the Weeding Subcommittee, the Executive Committee, CODAC, and the Safe Havens reported that the G.R.E.A.T. program was made available at community events and area schools throughout the implementation period. They also reported that the DEFY program was part of the Kino Weed and Seed initiatives during the implementation period. Reviewing data collected from official documents and stakeholder interviews indicated that drug use and gang prevention programs were made more accessible to Kino youths and residents through Kino Weed and Seed program activities. The evidence indicated that the Kino Coalition adhered to a process of increasing drug and gang prevention program participation among community members.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
27
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Goal 4: Ensure that health intervention and treatment opportunities are available within the community.
Data collected from official documents and stakeholder interviews confirmed that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition followed a process of increasing accessibility to health intervention, education, and treatment to community members. The data collected from our document review indicated that a mobile clinic had been frequently stationed at the Quincie Douglas Neighborhood Center, providing non-emergency health care and screening services to economically disadvantaged residents. The mobile clinic, Community Health Action On Wheels, was sponsored by CODAC and the Rural Health Office in the College of Public Health at the University of Arizona and established regular services in the community, delivering health care to the underserved and uninsured residents of the Kino community. Stakeholder interviews also yielded data that substantiated efforts by the Kino Coalition to improve healthcare availability in the community. One Safe Haven, the Kino Teen Center, reported offering numerous healthcare services, including, but not limited to: routine physicals for youth participating in sports programs; sexually transmitted disease education; STD testing; and immunizations; and prenatal care. Services at the Kino Teen Center were offered to juveniles and adults up to 21 years of age and clients were charged fees based on a sliding scale of what they could afford.
Goal 5: Reduce adolescent and teen birth rates.
Official documents that detailed programs aimed at reducing teen birth rates, if they existed, were not made available to evaluators. Interviews with stakeholders also yielded limited information regarding efforts aimed at this particular goal. Stakeholders from the Safe Haven group reported offering teen parenting education and prenatal care, and participants from CODAC reported that some programs offered education about the risks of destructive decisions and how to avoid them, including sex, pregnancy, and parenting issues. Overall, very little evidence was collected indicating that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition maintained a consistent process of addressing and achieving this particular goal.
Goal 6: Increase educational achievement for all ages of residents by 5 percent each year.
The goal of increasing educational achievement in the Kino community was originally defined in the official recognition application as focusing on dropout prevention programs and increasing access to educational opportunities. Indirectly related to this goal, evaluators collected data indicating that the Kino Coalition worked with the Tucson Urban League, the Southside Community School, Pueblo Gardens Elementary, Quincie Douglas Neighborhood Center, Kino Teen Center, and the Holmes Tuttle Boys and Girls Club to support improved access to a wide range of educational opportunities.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
28
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Evaluators did not collect any data that indicated the Kino Coalition had directly been involved in dropout prevention programs. The collected data provided evidence that the Kino Coalition worked with schools and social service groups to increase educational opportunities to community members of all ages. Safe Haven stakeholders reported educational programs for adolescents and adults that included: sex education; parenting; computer use training; job interviewing skills; vocational training; literacy programs; English classes for Spanish-speakers; science and math summer school programs; after-school tutoring; youth leadership and public speaking programs; GED classes; sewing classes; and programs that taught youth about peer pressure, the influence of the media, and critical thinking strategies.
Goal 7: Improve participation in job readiness programs by 5 percent each year.
Specific data measuring job readiness program participation was not collected, so evaluators could not determine the progress toward a five percent annual participation increase. We collected data from official documents and stakeholder interviews indicating that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition included job readiness training in its programmatic activities. Two separate Safe Havens offered occupational training through job readiness classes, interviewing strategies, computer skills, literacy classes, and GED certifications. Stakeholders discussed the challenges many residents face regarding employability and cited English language classes as also being an important part of vocational training. Data regarding specific job readiness programs was not collected, but stakeholders and document reviews both indicated that the Kino Coalition had supported programs that would improve the quality, quantity, and accessibility of vocational training for Kino residents.
Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Summary
The Kino Weed and Seed Coalition has followed a process of implementing prevention, intervention, and treatment programs that largely conforms to achieving its originally intended goals for this component. The data collected offered strong support that the first goal, establishing and nurturing a coalition of service providers, was adhered to and followed a consistent process of emphasis. The six Kino Safe Havens were all involved in these activities, as was CODAC, Kino's primary service provider. Other individual goals in this component had mixed evidence concerning the success of implementation efforts. Goals related to successful probation completion (#2), teen pregnancy (#5), and job readiness (#7) had limited support from data collected. While there were anecdotal reports of these programmatic activities, there was little or no data collected from official documents. Goals concerning drug and gang prevention programs (#3), healthcare (#4), and education achievement (#6), all had data that
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
29
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
substantiated that these goals were actively pursued through programmatic activities throughout the implementation period. Stakeholders working as service providers discussed some of the challenges and failures faced by Kino. They identified that finding culturally appropriate and inclusive prevention, intervention, and treatment programs was difficult and that securing sufficient resources continued to be challenging. Limited resources mean limited implementation saturation. One participant said: "if we had the resources to deliver more programs to more people, we could reach more people in need." Overall, the data indicated that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition predominately followed a process that was supportive of achieving its originally intended goals for the prevention, intervention, and treatment component of its Weed and Seed strategy. Neighborhood Restoration Goals The Neighborhood Restoration component of the Kino Weed and Seed strategy has 10 goals. 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 are expected to focus on advancing economic revitalization or development, employment opportunities, and the improvement of the physical environment of the community (CCDO, 2006).
Goal 1: Increase resident participation in community activities.
Numerous examples from our collected data support that the Kino Coalition routinely engaged in community outreach events and activities throughout program implementation years. Data collected from official documents and stakeholder interviews reported program activities such as: an annual community Halloween Party at the Quincie Douglas Neighborhood Center; community clean-ups; street address and sign painting; an annual Martin Luther King Jr. Day Breakfast for the community; a `senior prom' event staged for senior residents, with youth from the neighborhood handling decorations and hosting; and special events for the openings of a new public library and swimming pool in the Kino community area. These events relied on the member organizations of the Kino Coalition to provide sponsorship for games, prizes, food, and other activities at no charge to community members. The creation of new public resources that had never been in the area previously, such as the public swimming pool and public library, but also by the building of the new community center, had an impact on resident participation. Several stakeholders described that having these new community gathering places, and staging
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
30
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
free public events there, created an environment within the Kino community where residents had opportunity to gather in a safe and comfortable place.
Goal 2: Maximize efficiency by minimizing duplication of efforts and leveraging resources through partnerships across neighborhood organizations.
As previously discussed, the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition established numerous partnerships with government agencies, businesses, non-profit service providers, and community members. The data collected from official documents and stakeholder interviews demonstrated that the Kino Coalition developed a process of building partnerships, leveraging resources, and maximizing efficiency. One representative from the Safe Haven stakeholders reported that Pueblo Gardens Elementary School leveraged resources by hosting after-school tutoring for neighborhood children, provided free facilities for the Strengthening Families Program, worked with the National Guard and its DEFY (Drug Education For Youth) program, and served the community by offering referrals to other Kino Coalition and CODAC services available to the residents in the community. Data also showed extensive cooperation and leveraging of resources among Tucson Parks and Recreation, Tucson-Pima Public Library, Tucson Urban League, the Holmes Tuttle Boys and Girls Club, area churches and ministries, and the Kino community. The breadth and depth of the cooperative partnerships was a clear indication of efforts to maximize efficiency and leverage resources.
Goal 3: Increase opportunities for social connections within the community.
The original goal for increasing social connectedness in the Kino community was defined by two key objectives: 1) host regular neighborhood unity events, such as barbeques or block parties; and 2) host fun days for kids. Each of these two objectives, and thus this goal, were adequately addressed by the Kino Coalition in programmatic activities described in the first Neighborhood Restoration goal. The same activities and initiatives aimed at increasing resident participation in community events were activities that met the objectives for this goal.
Goal 4: Provide a clean and safe environment in the neighborhoods.
Law enforcement activities contributed to the goal of providing a clean and safe environment in the neighborhoods through directly improving safety. The weeding efforts contributed to making the neighborhoods safer by targeting open-air drug markets, aggressively removing criminals from the community, and increased police presence.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
31
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Neighborhood restoration efforts contributed to making the community environment cleaner. Data collected during stakeholder interviews from the City Council, the Weeding Subcommittee, the Kino Executive Committee, and residents reported cooperative neighborhood clean-up efforts. They described that from the very beginning the Coalition used probationers for clean-up projects in the area. Using probationers to remove trash and weeds from vacant lots and abandoned properties and paint house exteriors took advantage of required community service hours, leveraged resources and minimized costs to the Kino Coalition. Resident stakeholders reported that the streets were safe again, the neighborhoods were cleaner, and police removed vagrants and drug dealers from the community's public park.
Goal 5: Improve housing conditions in the neighborhoods.
The improvement of housing conditions is one of the elements of the National Weed and Seed strategy used as part of obtaining official recognition because Weed and Seed sites target economically depressed areas with substandard housing conditions (CCDO, 2006). Using data collected from official documents and through stakeholder focus group sessions, evaluators found that during the early stages of the formation of the Kino Coalition citizens and local Tucson government officials worked on a housing improvement initiative that looked at Weed and Seed as a strategy for sustainability. One resident, and others agreed, that a previous neighborhood association president from South Park was instrumental in the creation of the Kino area. They reported that the South Park neighborhood had received a Hope VI grant to improve housing conditions in the neighborhood. It was this program, coupled with knowledge about the City of South Tucson's Weed and Seed site adjacent to the South Park neighborhood that led neighborhood leaders into discussions of forming their own Weed and Seed coalition. From the beginning, this same early South Park resident leader wanted to include the adjoining neighborhoods of Las Vistas, Pueblo Gardens, and Western Hills II. The merging of these four neighborhoods seemed a logical fit because of their demographic similarity to one another and dissimilarity to the rest of Tucson and the geographic features that lent cohesion as a singular designated area. The efforts to improve housing conditions using the Hope VI grant fostered the development of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition, and the Coalition continued to seek revenue and support to continue improving living conditions for residents in the Kino community.
Goal 6: Increase homeownership rates in the neighborhoods.
The Kino Coalition set a goal of increasing homeownership rates among Kino residents with the belief that higher rates of owner-occupied housing contribute to sustained reductions in crime. Evaluators collected data that substantiated program activities that contributed to achieving this goal. Data from official documents referred to classes
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
32
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
teaching residents about savings, credit scores, and the home buying process. Stakeholder sessions also revealed Kino Coalition activities aimed at supporting homeownership. Stakeholders from the Residents group, the City Council, and the Executive Committee reported on some of the economic developments in the area resulting from Kino Weed and Seed advocacy efforts. These included helping attract a homebuilder to construct a new development of homes within Kino, and advocating for the limitation and improved control of multi-unit housing. They also supported a developer who converted a dilapidated old ice-making facility located on the north end of the Kino area into luxury lofts. We were unable to collect data detailing changes in homeownership rates, but to the end of engaging in a process of pursuing the goal, the Kino Coalition made efforts that could contribute to increased homeownership.
Goal 7: Advocate for increased public reinvestment in the neighborhood's infrastructure.
We found that programmatic efforts and successes related to other goals also supplied data that illustrated that the Kino Coalition had developed formal activities that substantiated the process of achieving this goal. Evidence of public and private reinvestment included: the new Quincie Douglas Neighborhood Center; the new public library; a community swimming pool; the Southside Charter School, a Safe Haven that was formed to serve the students living in the Kino community; new housing developments; and street signage and resurfacing.
Goal 8: Improve commercial environments and business success.
There are few retail businesses operating in the Kino area, and several participants from multiple stakeholder groups emphasized the community's need to expand commercial development, both for improved quality of life and sustained progress on crime reduction and neighborhood restoration. Evaluators found through stakeholder interviews that the Kino Coalition had advocated for improved commercial development, seeking to attract a major grocery chain, a "big box" store, and a retail center. Seeing their community as underserved by available retail stores, residents advocated together with the City Council to develop large sections of undeveloped land, vacant properties, condemned businesses, and renovate industrial zones.
Goal 9: Improved personal savings and investment in housing, education, training, and micro-enterprise.
The Kino Weed and Seed Coalition helped develop and open a credit union in the community dedicated to serving the needs of the Kino residents. Evaluators found that stakeholders reported having advocated for the credit union as an alternative to payday
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
33
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
loan check cashing businesses that proliferated in the Kino area. Stakeholders described the payday loan businesses as "preying on people," taking advantage of those in need. Evaluators also found evidence that improved housing conditions, education, and training in a variety of areas were commonly available in the Kino area because of program activities. Job training, computer skills, healthy life choices, parenting classes, and sewing classes that were offered as part of other Kino Coalition activities also contributed to the programmatic process toward achieving this goal.
Goal 10: Improve job opportunities for residents in the area.
Combined with the efforts involved with other goals, evaluators found that various program activities of the Kino Coalition attempted to improve job opportunities in the community. Through educational programs such as GED classes, computer classes, and vocational training, the Kino Coalition built a broader range of occupational skills for residents. Through the advocacy for commercial development, particularly retail outlets, created numerous entry-level jobs well suited to those residents living nearby. The data collected supported that Kino had developed and implemented programs that would contribute to improved job opportunities and other economic development.
Neighborhood Restoration Summary
The Kino Weed and Seed Coalition developed a planned process and implemented programs that supported its originally intended neighborhood restoration goals. Substantial support was found for their commitment to goals one through four. Residents had greater opportunity to participate in community activities and increase their connectedness, and they felt that Kino's neighborhoods were safer and cleaner than before. It was further found that the Kino Coalition had fostered numerous relationships and maintained a broad coalition of members, which afforded them excellent opportunities to leverage resources and maximize efficiency. Other neighborhood restoration goals were found to have been largely addressed by program activities that addressed other program goals. The Hope VI grant supported improved housing conditions and homeownership rates. Increased public investment, improved commercial development, training and education, and improved job opportunities were also part of the Kino Coalition's program activities throughout the implementation period.
Annual Progress Reports and Changes in Goals
The Kino Weed and Seed Coalition prepared progress reports detailing site activities over the preceding year and the tasks and programs aimed at achieving their identified goals. Data was collected from these progress reports to examine which activities the
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
34
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
report identified could be tied to our template of originally intended strategies. The most recent of these progress reports, detailing the Kino Coalition's 2005 fiscal year, contained data that illustrated changes in the structure and language of Kino's goal statements and objectives providing important markers for the process evaluation. The changes largely stayed consistent with the goals of the original plan submitted with the initial application for official recognition. The goals were restructured with a condensed list of modified goals that synthesized similar goals and objectives from the original plan into a more concise statement of goals and objectives. The modified goals for the law enforcement component synthesized most of the original goals. Excluded from specifically defined objectives and tasks were: ? ? Increased patrols (Law Enforcement Goal #2 in Exhibit 5); Reduced speeding and traffic related problems (Law Enforcement Goal #7 in Exhibit 5).
The newly synthesized goals for the law enforcement component responded to goals from other components of the original Kino Weed and Seed strategy, specifically: ? ? ? ? improving successful completion of probation (Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Goal #2 in Exhibit 5); leveraging resources; providing a clean and safe environment; and improving housing conditions in the neighborhood (Neighborhood Restoration Goals 2, 4, and 5 in Exhibit 5).
The modified goals and objectives for the community policing component addressed both of the original goals, but was expanded to support goals from other components in the original plan, including: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? increasing public awareness of positive police activities; coalition building; increase participation in gang and drug use prevention programs; increasing resident participation in community activities; leveraging resources; increasing social connectedness in the community; improving housing conditions; and providing a safe and clean environment.
The modified goals for the prevention, intervention, and treatment component included provisions specifically relevant to all of the original goals, except for increasing probation success. However, it also detailed objectives and tasks that provided support to nine of the 10 original neighborhood restoration goals.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
35
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
The new neighborhood restoration goals retained objectives and tasks that supported all 10 of the original goals, as well as tasks directly related to the prevention, intervention, and treatment goal of fostering coalition building. Collectively, the current goals and objectives detailed in the 2005 Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Annual Progress Report continue to support all 26 of the original goals established in the initial application for official recognition.
Policy and Procedures Manuals
The Kino site's Policies and Procedures guide was also used to assess the Coalition's adherence to their originally intended site plan. Data from the site's self-created policies and procedures manual describe the site's emphasis on particular programmatic activities and plans. In part, the organizational structure as defined in the Policies and Procedures manual indicates Kino's commitment to some of the original goals: 1) to create and maintain a Seeding Subcommittee; 2) to create and maintain a Weeding Subcommittee; 3) to maintain neighborhood access to police and communication between community members and police officers; 4) to establish and maintain a coalition of service providers in the Kino area; 5) to increase resident participation in community activities; 6) to increase opportunities for social connections within the community; 7) to leverage resources through partnerships across neighborhood organizations; and 8) to advocate for increased public reinvestment in the neighborhood's infrastructure. While not all of the goals and objectives set forth in the original strategic plan are represented in the Policies and Procedures, the goals related to organization structure of the site are supported. Data from official Tucson Police Department documents indicated that the original goals for both the law enforcement and community policing elements of the Weed and Seed strategy were a routine part of the standing orders and action plans for officers working in the Kino area. The data included personnel assignments, enforcement strategies, planned community policing activities, memoranda, and action plans of the Operations Division South, the TPD division responsible for the Kino area. Impact Evaluation As mentioned earlier, the impact evaluation uses call for service (CFS) data from the Tucson Police Department to determine whether the strategies used by the Kino Coalition had an effect on crime and disorder in the Kino area. Exhibit 7 below shows the number of calls for service per 1,000 population and the percent change for a given year relative to the preceding year's CFS rate, for each of the three pre-test period years, March 1999 through February 2002, and four post-test period years, March 2002 through February 2006. The exhibit also includes the results of our pre/post analyses. To compare the mean CFS rate for 36 months of data during the pre-test period to the mean CFS rate for 48 months of post-test data, independent samples t-tests were conducted. The results of these significance tests are shown in the column labeled as
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
36
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Pre-Post Change. Also shown is the Post-Test Period Change, which is the percent change in CFS rates from the first year of program implementation to the most recent year. As shown in Exhibit 7, the Kino area routinely experienced declines in the rates of CFS. The rate of violent crime CFS in the Kino area declined by more than 11 percent during the first year of implementation, and in year four experienced a decline of more than 17 percent. When compared to the 36 month average of pre-test rates, the mean posttest rate significantly declined by 0.91 calls per 1,000 people. In Tucson as a whole, the violent crime CFS rate experienced a slight increase of 0.03, which was not a significant change. Exhibit 7 shows that the property crime CFS rate for Kino declined by more than 15 percent during the first year of implementation, increased by slightly more than 1 percent in the second year, and then declined in the third and fourth years by almost 14 and 23 percent, respectively. Overall the property crime CFS rate declined almost 33 percent during the implementation period. Tucson more generally experienced a decline of almost 26 percent during the same period. The pre/post analyses revealed that Kino's implementation period decline of 1.55 calls per 1,000 was a significant decline. Tucson's decline of 0.11 was not a significant change. Exhibit 7 further shows that CFS rates for drug crime had an erratic pattern in the Kino area, with a slight decrease in the first year of about 3 percent, declining by nearly 20 percent in the second year, then seeing a sharp increase of more than 22 percent in the third, and finally dropping dramatically in year four by more than 38 percent. Overall, the pre-post analysis showed that Kino had experienced a significant decline of 1.12 calls per 1,000 residents. Conversely, Tucson experienced a significant increase of 0.11 in its pre/post drug crime CFS rates. Exhibit 7 also shows that rates for disorder calls increased more than 11 percent during the first year, followed by decreases in each subsequent year, of approximately 5.6, 10.0, and 19.6 percent. When compared to the pre-test period, CFS rates for disorder increased by 0.03, although it was not a significant change. Disorder rates for Tucson have declined each year since 2003, and overall post-test rates were 0.11 lower, which represented a significant decline. Total CFS for the Kino area showed consistent declines throughout implementation years, with an almost 10 percent drop the first year, followed by drops of 4.8 percent, 5.1 percent, and 23.9 percent in each of the subsequent years of implementation. When compared to the pre-test period, total CFS rates for Kino dropped 3.54 calls per 1,000 residents during the post-test period, which was a significant change. Tucson's post-test rates declined 0.09, but was not significant.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
37
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Exhibit 7: Calls for Service and Percent Annual Change by Program Year
Pre-Test Period Year Year Year -3 -2 -1 Mar Mar Mar 1999 2000 2001 to to to Feb Feb Feb 2000 2001 2002 Violent Kino % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. Tucson % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. Property Kino % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. Tucson % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. Drugs Kino % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. Tucson % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. Disorder Kino % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. Tucson % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. Total Calls for service Kino % Change Tucson % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. n/a 14.38 2.19 14.69 7.15 15.75 -1.52 15.51 2.90 15.96 -4.20 15.29 -17.19 12.66 -0.09 -18.36
b
Post-Test Period Year 1 Mar 2002 to Feb 2003 Year 2 Mar 2003 to Feb 2004 Year 3 Mar 2004 to Feb 2005 Year 4 Mar 2005 to Feb 2006 a
PrePost Change 3/99 ? 2/02 vs. 3/02 ? 2/06
PostTest Change Year 1 vs. Year 4
n/a 4.16 n/a 2.63
4.95 4.36 -1.03 2.60
-7.62 4.03 4.40 2.72
-11.09 3.58 -0.74 2.70
-6.16 3.36 -2.57 2.63
0.03 3.36 1.72 2.68
-17.29 2.78 1.12 2.71 0.03 -0.91*
-22.36
0.21
n/a 8.11 n/a 9.32
-10.10 7.29 4.17 9.71
17.77 8.58 9.47 10.63
-15.47 7.26 -2.72 10.34
1.16 7.34 5.51 10.91
-13.94 6.32 -6.62 10.19
-22.79 4.88 -24.70 7.67
-1.55*
-32.78
-0.11
-25.81
n/a 5.00 n/a 0.89
-56.51 2.17 7.31 0.95
19.93 2.61 -0.25 0.95
-3.09 2.53 1.77 0.97
-19.56 2.03 6.77 1.03
22.25 2.49 4.93 1.08
-38.14 1.54 -0.13 1.08 0.11* -1.12*
-39.17
11.89
n/a 1.51 n/a 1.53
0.54 1.51 -7.25 1.42
8.15 1.64 1.28 1.44
11.35 1.82 3.72 1.49
-5.56 1.72 -7.73 1.38
-10.05 1.55 -3.16 1.34
-19.62 1.25 -10.42 1.20 -0.11* 0.03
-31.72
-19.96
n/a 18.77
-18.28 15.34
9.91 16.86
-9.90 15.19
-4.82 14.46
-5.14 13.72
-23.86 10.44 -3.54*
-31.26
CFS per 1,000 Pop.
* Significant at p < 0.05 a Year 4 Calls for service estimated from 10 months data (March 2005 to December 2005) using 2005 monthly average, adjusted by average percentage difference of available CFS data from each January and February from 1999 through 2005. b Total Calls for service for this analysis includes only those calls coded by the Tucson Police Department into one of the above four categories.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
38
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
The following five charts display the annual changes in CFS data and the relationships between Kino and Tucson rates. Chart 1 shows the CFS rates for violent crime for the three pre-test period years and four post-test period years for both Kino and Tucson. During that time the rates for the City of Tucson remained relatively stable, differing by no more than 0.09 calls per 1,000 persons over the study period. Rates in the Kino area declined annually. This trend represented a decline of more than 36 percent from two years prior to Kino Weed and Seed recognition to the current year.
CHART 1: Violent Crime Call for Service Rates in Kino Weed and Seed and Tucson 1999 through 2005
5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
4.16
4.36 4.03 3.58 3.36 3.36 2.78
Calls Per 1,000 Population
2.63
2.60
2.72
2.70
2.63
2.68
2.71
1999
2000
Implementation Start
2001
2002 Year
2003
2004
2005
Kino
Tucson
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
39
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Chart 2 shows the CFS rates for property crime. The rates follow similar trajectories, although the overall decline in the Kino area from 8.11 calls per 1,000 residents to 4.88 was a statistically significant decline, whereas the decline for Tucson from 9.32 in 1999 to 7.67 in 2005 was not a significant decline in property crime CFS rates.
CHART 2: Property Crime Call for Service Rates in Kino Weed and Seed and Tucson 1999 through 2005 14.00
Calls Per 1,000 Population
12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 1999 9.32 8.11
9.71
10.63
10.34
10.91
10.19 7.67
8.58 7.29 7.26 7.34 6.32 4.88
2000
Implementation Start
2001
2002 Year Kino
2003
2004
2005
Tucson
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
40
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Chart 3 shows the CFS rates for drug crimes. The exhibit shows that Tucson remained relatively stable from the pre-test period to the post-test period, however, the slight increase from 0.89 in 1999 to 1.08 in 2005 represented a statistically significant change. The drug crime rates for the Kino Weed and Seed area were at a high of 5.0 calls per 1,000 residents in 1999, dropped sharply during 2000, and fell to a low of 1.54 in 2005. When compared to the pre-test period, this change represented a significant decline in drug crime CFS rates during the post-test period.
CHART 3: Drug Crime Call For Service Rates in Kino Weed and Seed and Tucson 1999 through 2005 6.00 Calls Per 1,000 Population 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.89 1999 0.95 2000
Implementation Start
5.00
2.61 2.17
2.53 2.03
2.49 1.54
0.95 2001
0.97 2002 Year Kino
1.03 2003
1.08 2004
1.08 2005
Tucson
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
41
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Chart 4 shows the CFS rates for disorder incidents. The CFS rates for disorder or quality of life related issues were very similar in the Kino area and Tucson in 1999, 1.51 and 1.53, respectively. The rates in the Kino area peaked at 1.82 calls per 1,000 persons during the first year of implementation in 2002, and declined each subsequent year to a low of 1.25 in 2005, although this change was not significant. When compared to the pre-test CFS rates, the CFS rates for Tucson significantly declined during the post-test period. It is plausible that the notable increase in Kino in 2002 is attributable to increased police and citizen involvement and concern in the area.
CHART 4: Disorder Crime Call for Service Rates in Kino Weed and Seed and Tucson 1999 through 2005 2.00 Calls Per 1,000 Population 1.82 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 1999 2000
Implementation Start
1.64 1.51 1.53 1.42 1.44 1.51 1.49
1.72 1.55
1.38
1.25 1.34 1.20
2001
2002 Year Kino
2003
2004
2005
Tucson
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
42
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Chart 5 shows the aggregated CFS rates for the four crime measures (violence, property, drugs, and disorder). The rates in both Tucson and Kino have declined from 1999 to 2005. Tucson experienced declines in total CFS rates during the post-test period, when compared to pre-test rates, although these changes were not significant. For Kino the steady decline in the post test years from the pre-implementation period was significant.
CHART 5: Total Crime Call for Service Rates in Kino Weed and Seed and Tucson 1999 through 2005 20.00 Calls Per 1,000 Population 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 1999 2000
Implementation Start
18.77 15.75 14.69 16.86 14.38 15.34 15.51 15.19 14.46 13.72 15.96 15.29 12.66
10.44 2001 2002 Year Kino Tucson 2003 2004 2005
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
43
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
PART IV: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Process Summary Overall, the review of official documents and data collected during stakeholder focus groups indicated that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition had largely adhered to its intended goals and followed a process for achieving those goals. Through the course of implementation, the Kino Coalition developed the originally intended 26 goals into a synthesized and concise set of goals with specific objectives that continued to adhere to the intent of the original goals. Exhibit 8 below reiterates the original goals of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition and the information source that indicated adherence to the intended processes.
Exhibit 8: Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Original Goals and Process Adherence Annual Community Tucson Progress Action Plan Police Original Goals Report 2004 Dept 2005 Law Enforcement Create and maintain a Kino Weeding Steering 1 X X Committee. Increase police patrols in the Kino area at X X 2 least 25%. Increase public awareness of positive law 3 X X X enforcement efforts. Reduce recidivism in the neighborhood by 5% X X 4 each year. Reduce drug dealing within the neighborhood 5 X X by 5% each year. Decrease the illegal use of guns and gang X X X 6 graffiti by 5% each year. Reduce incidences of speeding and traffic 7 X X problems by 10% each year. Community Policing Increase participation in crime prevention 1 X X X programs by 5% each year. Maintain neighborhood access to police and 2 communication between community members X X X and police officers.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
44
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Exhibit 8: Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Original Goals and Process Adherence (cont.) Annual Community Tucson Progress Action Plan Police Original Goals Report 2004 Dept 2005 Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Utilize the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Seeding Committee to establish and nurture a 1 X X X coalition of service providers working in the Kino neighborhoods. Increase successful completion of probation X 2 by 5% each year. Increase participation in drug use and gang 3 X X prevention programs by 5% each year. Ensure that health intervention and treatment 4 opportunities are available within the X X community. 5 Reduce adolescent and teen birth rates. X X Increase educational achievement for all ages X X 6 of residents by 5% each year. Improve participation in job readiness 7 X X programs by 5% each year. Neighborhood Restoration and Economic Development Increase resident participation in community 1 X X activities. Maximize efficiency by minimizing duplication of efforts and leveraging resources through 2 X X partnerships across neighborhood organizations. Increase opportunities for social connections 3 X X within the community. Provide a clean and safe environment within 4 X X the neighborhoods. Improve housing conditions in the 5 X X neighborhoods. Increase homeownership rates in the 6 X X neighborhoods. Advocate for increased public reinvestment in 7 X X the neighborhood's infrastructure. Improve commercial environments and X X 8 business success. Improve personal savings and investment in 9 housing, education, training, and microX X enterprise. Improve job opportunities for residents in the X X 10 area.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
45
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
The anecdotal information collected from stakeholder groups and documentation of steering committees and departmental policies provide strong evidence of the Coalition's efforts to achieve the specified goals. This information was a counterbalance to the lack of quantitative data which would have demonstrated attainment of quantifiable goals, such as a five percent reduction in graffiti or illegal use of guns, or five percent increases in programs aimed at drug use or job readiness. In regard to implementing prevention, intervention, and treatment programs service providers faced the challenge of providing culturally appropriate material to a population that included many adults who were recent immigrants to the United States and spoke only Spanish. Impact Summary The rates of calls for service for violent, property, drugs, and total crimes in the Kino Weed and Seed area declined significantly during the four years of official programmatic activities when compared to the three years prior. Crimes or concerns related to quality of life, or disorder, issues did have a slight increase during the implementation years compared to the pre-test years, but the change was not significant. In as much as Tucson can serve as a comparison to the Kino Weed and Seed area, the changes in CFS rates between the two were very different. Tucson saw a significant increase in drug crime CFS rates and a significant decrease in CFS rates of disorder crime. The increase in violent CFS rates, and decreases in property and total CFS rates were not significant. There are important limitations to using Tucson as a comparison group to the Kino area. It must be stressed that direct statistical comparison cannot be drawn between the two groups because any findings could arguably be influenced by uncontrolled or unknown factors. Given this caveat, the rates for Tucson did provide a context for describing what was happening to CFS rates in the Kino Weed and Seed area. Some CFS rates increased during years of program implementation, particularly in disorder related concerns. These increases were not unexpected and do not necessarily indicate a programmatic failure. Other evaluations of Weed and Seed sites have found that measures of crime may increase during program implementation (NIJ, 1999), only to experience declines in subsequent years. Increased rates may be a result of many factors external or internal to Weed and Seed program activities, and may be an indication of a positive program outcome such as improved community and law enforcement communication and support (NCFHPC, 1999; Josi, et al, 2000; Harris et al, 2001; and Driscoll et al, 2003).
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
46
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Conclusion The data available to evaluators provides evidence that the strategies adopted by the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed site have been successful. There has been a statistically significant decrease in the rate of calls for police service in the area, and both the police and members of the community believe their community policing efforts have established a strong bond between them since the start of the project. The efforts to establish prevention, intervention, and treatment programs have been described as successful by coalition stakeholders. The expansion of the Quincie Douglas Community Center, the building of a library and swimming pool, and the growth of the Southside Charter School have provided permanent, safe, and comfortable community gathering places, which should help to sustain changes in the community. There are also signs of future economic improvement in the building of new homes and the coalition's willingness to participate in zoning decisions. Even though there is evidence of the success of the Kino site, data was frequently lacking that would have allowed for the rigorous assessment of each and every program goal. In 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. For some of Kino site's goals, assembling the appropriate data was a daunting, if not impossible task. The Kino site's goal of reducing recidivism by five percent is one example of a goal that was created without establishing the processes to assess whether that goal was met. To properly assess reduction in recidivism among neighborhood residents, a data base of those living in the neighborhood who were arrested in a given (or base) period of time (e.g., the year prior to program implementation) would have had to be assembled. Then the individual persons in the data base would have to be tracked to determine if they recidivated. As illustrated above, measuring neighborhood resident recidivism rates is not impossible. Unfortunately, the steps needed to establish the appropriate data collection strategy were not taken, rendering the measurement of progress toward achieving the goal impossible to assess. For other goals (e.g. reduction of adolescent and teen birth rates) data may be available, but not easily accessible at the neighborhood level. Additionally, this particular goal also points at an incongruence in goal setting: confusion between the roles of process vs. impact measures. Given the developmental stage of the Kino site, a more useful goal might have been the establishment of a model teen pregnancy prevention program. The purpose of Weed and Seed is to develop and implement a strategy that will over time have an impact on the quality of life in the neighborhood. It may take time for that strategy (which is a process) to have the desired impact. Therefore, in the absence of explicit strategies that address the problem of teen pregnancy an intermediate step in the Weed and Seed process that is measurable would be the establishment of a model teen pregnancy prevention program, not the outcome or impact of the program itself.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
47
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
The data collection challenges of the Kino Weed and Seed site serves as a guide to future Weed and Seed sites. The limitations in the effective measurement of Kino's original strategic plan are educational for those communities that might receive future Official Recognition and funding. Future sites should be careful to not just clearly identify goals and objectives, but also the mechanisms for effectively measuring those goals and objectives to ensure a well developed and comprehensive programmatic and evaluation strategy. In many places in this report, the lack of objective quantitative data to assess some of the goals has been noted. Suggestions for program improvement include revisiting the site's goals and objectives and putting in place strategies for collecting the data needed to assess program performance and effectiveness. Still, even though objective, quantitative data to support the coalition's strategies has frequently been lacking, the consistently positive information gathered from official documentation and focus groups supports the conclusion that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition has been a success. With further refinement of the goals and objectives and putting in place mechanisms for assessing those goals and objectives, the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed site could improve upon their successes bringing even more tangible benefits to neighborhood residents.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
48
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
REFERENCES City of Hartford. City of Hartford Weed and Seed. Available: http://www.hartford.gov/police/Weed&Seed/weed.htm City of Pittsburgh. City of Pittsburgh 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 (2005). 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 (2006) Weed and Seed website homepage available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ccdo/ws/welcome.html. Community Capacity Development Office (2006) Weed and Seed Data Center Kino Coalition webpage available: http://www.weedandseeddatacenter.org/sitedetail.aspx?sitekey=365S0. Community Oriented Policing Services. "What is community policing?" Available: http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=36 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. Drug Education For Youth (2006). DEFY website available at: http://www.hq.navy.mil/defy/default.htm . 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.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
49
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
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. Health Resources and Services Administration (2006) Stop Bullying Now. Available online at: http://stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/index.asp?area=main U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 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. Kino Weed and Seed Coalition (2004). Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Action Plan. Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kusche, C.A. & Greenberg, M.T. (1994) The PATHS Curriculum. Seattle: Developmental Research and Programs. 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. Miller, L. (2001). "Looking for Postmodernism in All the Wrong Places: Implementing a New Penology." British Journal of Criminology 41: 168-184.
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
50
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
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. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Truancy Reduction demonstration Program. Available: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/Programs/ProgSummary.asp?pi=36&ti=11&si=32&kw=&st rItem=&strSingleItem=&p=topic&PreviousPage=SearchResults 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). Roehl, J. (2002). Evaluating a Weed and Seed Strategy. Washington, D.C. Justice Research Center. 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 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. Drug Free Communities Support Program. Available: http://drugfreecommunities.samhsa.gov/history/history.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
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
51
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Appendix 1: Adult Focus Group Interview Guide
Focus group interviews are loosely guided with the following questions, but each group is allowed significant latitude to deviate from, or emphasize topic areas during discussions.
1. What agency (group/company) are you with and what is your position? 2. How long have you personally been involved with the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition? 3. How long has your agency (group/company) been involved with the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition? 4. With which neighborhoods do you work? 5. Do you live in the Kino Weed and Seed designated area? a. Which neighborhood? 6. In what Weeding/Seeding activities do you participate? 7. To the best of your knowledge and in your own opinion, assess the balance between Weeding and Seeding efforts. 8. What are some of the strengths of the site? 9. What are some of the weaknesses of the site? 10. Describe some of the challenges or failures of implementation you experienced. a. Were they resolved, and if so, how? 11. Give an example of one of the most important accomplishments or biggest failures you experienced while working on some aspect of Weed and Seed. 12. What more do you think you, your agency, or other Weed and Seed stakeholders need to fulfill Kino's Weed and Seed mission?
An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy
52
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Appendix 2: Juvenile Focus Group Interview Guide
Focus group interviews are loosely guided with the following questions, but each group is allowed significant latitude to deviate from, or emphasize topic areas during discussions.
1. How long have you been on the Teen Advisory Board? 2. Do you live in the Kino Weed and Seed community area? a. Which neighborhood? 3. Do you go to school in the area, or outside the area? 4. Did you go on the Washington D.C. trip? a. What were some of the things you learned there, or what do you remember best about the experience? 5. Have you participated in any neighborhood clean-ups or other restoration projects? a. If so, what did you do and what are your feelings about the experience? 6. Have you ever used the facilities or participated in any programs at the Quincie Douglas Center? a. If so, what did you do and what are your feelings about the ex
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
| Rating | |
| TITLE | An evaluation of the kino coalition weed and seed strategy: 2002-2006 |
| CREATOR | Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. Statistical Analysis Center Publication. |
| SUBJECT | Operation Weed and Seed (U.S.); Crime prevention--Arizona--Citizen participation; |
| Browse Topic |
Crime and violence |
| DESCRIPTION | 57 pages (PDF version). File size: 1661.314 KB. October 2006. |
| Language | English |
| Publisher | Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. |
| TYPE | Text |
| Material Collection |
State Documents |
| Acquisition Note | http://azcjc.gov/publications/publications.asp |
| RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
| DATE ORIGINAL | 2006-10 |
| Time Period | 2000s (2000-2009) |
| ORIGINAL FORMAT | Born Digital |
| Source Identifier | CJC 1.2:E 81/2 |
| Location | 123508550 |
| DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | Kino_WS_Eval.pdf |
| DIGITAL FORMAT | PDF (Portable Document Format) |
| REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library Division. |
| File Size | 1661.314 KB |
| Full Text | Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Statistical Analysis Center Publication Our mission is to sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, productivity and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in Arizona An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy Tucson, Arizona 2002-2006 October 2006 ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION Vice-Chairperson ROBERT CARTER OLSON Pinal County Attorney JOSEPH ARPAIO Maricopa County Sheriff DOUGLAS L. BARTOSH, Chief Cottonwood Police Department DUANE BELCHER, Chairperson Board of Executive Clemency DAVID K. BYERS, Director Administrative Office of the Courts CLARENCE DUPNIK Pima County Sheriff JENNIFER ECKSTROM, Mayor City of South Tucson TONY ESTRADA Santa Cruz County Sheriff TERRY GODDARD Attorney General DANIEL HUGHES, Chief Surprise Police Department BARBARA LAWALL Pima County Attorney TOMMIE CLINE MARTIN Gila County Supervisor RICHARD MIRANDA, Chief Tucson Police Department RALPH OGDEN Yuma County Sheriff DAVID SANDERS Pima County Chief Probation Officer ANDREW P. THOMAS Maricopa County Attorney DORA SCHRIRO, Director Department of Corrections LINDA SCOTT Former Judge ROGER VANDERPOOL, Director Department of Public Safety JOHN A. BLACKBURN, JR. Executive Director PHILLIP STEVENSON Statistical Analysis Center Director DAVID CHOATE Arizona State University Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Faculty Research Associate MITCH HALFPENNY Statistical Analysis Center Senior Research Analyst ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission's Statistical Analysis Center would like to thank all those who contributed to this report. Particular recognition goes to the residents of the Kino coalition area, CODAC staff, and the staff of Councilman Stephen Leal for their cooperation and participation in the stakeholder focus groups; and to Katie Valenzuela for providing the documentation and guidance needed to understand the development of the Kino Coalition. SPECIAL THANKS TO: Steve Ballance, Arizona State University Autumn Figueroa, Tucson Police Department Charles Katz, Arizona State University This project was made possible by Grant No. 2004 WS-Q4-K003 from the U.S. Department of Justice through the Justice Research and Statistics Association. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Justice and JRSA. This document is available in alternate formats by contacting the Commission Office at (602) 364-1146. Table of Contents Introduction: Organizational Structure and Strategy of Weed and Seed............1 Part I: The Present Study...................................................................................5 Site Characteristics......................................................................................6 Part II: Methodology.............................................................................................9 Process Evaluation.......................................................................................9 Impact Evaluation......................................................................................14 Part III: Findings.................................................................................................17 Process Evaluation.....................................................................................17 Impact Evaluation......................................................................................36 Part IV: Summary and Conclusion.......................................................................44 References.............................................................................................................49 Appendix 1: Adult Focus Group Interview Guide.................................................52 Appendix 2: Juvenile Focus Group Interview Guide........................................... 53 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission INTRODUCTION This report fulfills part of the requirements of a grant from the Department of Justice through the Justice Research and Statistics Association. It describes the results of a process and impact evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed site in Tucson, Arizona. The evaluation was conducted from February through June of 2006, and covered the first four years of Kino's existence as an accepted site. Organizational Structure and Strategy of Weed and Seed The U.S. Department Justice (DOJ) developed Operation Weed and Seed in 1991 as a nation wide crime reduction strategy for neighborhoods with high crime rates. The strategy specifically targets violent crime and drug-related offenses and the communities in which they occur. The Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO) administers Weed and Seed as a unit of the DOJ's Office of Justice Programs. The guiding principle for the strategy is to reduce violent and drug crime rates in high crime neighborhoods by combining traditional law enforcement tactics with public and private sector participation, and the provision of social services. 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. 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 activities are carried out through prevention, intervention, and treatment programs, and neighborhood restoration projects. 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 among federal, state, tribal, county, and local law enforcement agencies. Weed and Seed sites are neighborhoods with higher rates of violent and drug crimes than the larger surrounding community of which they are a part. The law enforcement An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 1 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission component is, in its simplest form, typical traditional policing activities conducted with more intensity by applying more operations and activities to the targeted area. Community Policing The second component, community policing, serves as the bridge among the law enforcement, or weeding, process, and the social services and neighborhood revitalization, or seeding, process. 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 (COPS), 2005)." For Weed and Seed the important part of the community policing philosophy is "police-community partnerships." The principle role of community oriented policing in Weed and Seed sites is to build, foster, and support an effective and cooperative relationship between members of the community and law enforcement. Law enforcement tactics can effectively weed-out criminals and criminal activity in an area through enhanced, focused enforcement, but for the crime reduction to have sustainability other than through the permanent and intense presence of police, the community must be supportive of the police, and work with them to dissuade future criminal activity in their community. Community policing engages the community and places officers in positions of service that make them not only representatives of law enforcement, but also of 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 without formal criminal justice intervention, and educate residents about Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment The third component of the Weed and Seed strategy is the first of the seeding components. Prevention, intervention, and treatment tasks are designed to identify, reduce, and eliminate physical and social conditions that contribute to violence, crime, and disorder in the community. For Weed and Seed to be considered successful, positive, significant changes need to occur in the designated area beyond the law enforcement's impact on crime. The seeding process is much of what differentiates Weed and Seed from many other crime abatement programs. While crime reduction efforts are taking shape, the community can begin seeding the neighborhood with initiatives that will maintain and strengthen the crime abatement effects. The prevention component includes building partnerships with community organizations, businesses, mental health practitioners, healthcare providers, substance abuse treatment programs, and others. Many of these organizations and individuals An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 2 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission will already be providing these services in or around the designated Weed and Seed site, and may present excellent sources of collaboration. Prevention efforts should 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 by providing literature and helpline numbers in a confidential manner. Intervention activities involve a more comprehensive response to specific issues the community wants addressed. Intervention programs may focus on truancy reduction, adult literacy, vocational, or parenting classes, in the hope that by providing these services, at-risk members of the community may find positive alternatives to criminal behavior. Treatment activities are more protracted, intensive, and costly to establish and maintain than most other program activities. However, many designated areas already have organizations and individuals providing needed treatment services in Weed and Seed designated areas, or in the surrounding community. Part of the philosophy of the Weed and Seed strategy is to provide community groups the support, framework, and initial resources to create a service coalition in their community, with a comprehensive foundation of disparate groups and individuals gathered under a common banner. Weed and Seed sites must leverage their resources to build a cooperative effort with existing programs and services. A site that wants to provide more accessible substance abuse treatment to their community, where an existing substance abuse treatment program is already functioning in or near the designated site, should establish a partnership that will enhance the service delivery to the Weed and Seed community and minimize redundancy. The focal point of the prevention, intervention, and treatment component 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. The Safe Haven is a multi-service facility that is community, education, and prevention based, culturally relevant, and easily accessible. It is also a clearinghouse and a central point of community connection. Weed and Seed recognizes the difficulties facing a disadvantaged community as multifaceted, and that developing solutions to these difficulties must also be multifaceted. The Safe Haven is a place that centralizes and coordinates these activities. Most importantly, the Safe Haven must be community based, meaning it must function based on the needs and resources of the community it serves. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 3 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Perhaps an easily overlooked characteristic that is important to the success of the Safe Haven's mission is its ease of accessibility. A Safe Haven needs to be 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. The Safe Haven might host after school activities, sports or fitness programs, adult education classes, community meetings and events, or be an access point to medical care, mental health services, or substance abuse treatment providers. 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: the physical improvement of the community. Restoration of the neighborhood focuses on improving homes and blighted areas in the designated community by leveraging resources to help residents and encourage the rebuilding of dilapidated infrastructure. The restoration process brings federal, state, tribal, local, and private agencies and organizations together and encourages 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. Removing neighborhood eyesores, building new housing, and reintroducing businesses to the designated area will significantly improve residents' quality of life and reinforce longterm benefits from the seeding efforts. This process requires a significant effort to leverage resources and maximize funding for neighborhood restoration. However, with improvements in crime and disorder and the existence of an organized group of motivated and dedicated citizens, business leaders and other sources for neighborhood restoration can be persuaded to recognize the benefits of commercial revitalization. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 4 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission PART I: THE PRESENT STUDY The purpose of this study was to conduct a process and impact evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed site in Tucson, Arizona. The process evaluation was conducted to examine the implementation of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition site's policies and goals. The impact evaluation was conducted to assess the effect of Kino 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. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 5 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Site Characteristics The Kino Coalition Weed and Seed site is one of 10 active Weed and Seed sites in Tucson is in southern Arizona, Arizona, and one of three in the city of Tucson.1 approximately 60 miles from the international border with Mexico, and has a population of 494,000 (2004 Census estimate). It is the second largest city in Arizona. The Kino Weed and Seed site, hereafter referred to as Kino, is in a centrally located area of Tucson, just southeast of the city's downtown area (Map 2). The designated area (Map 3) is approximately 6.3 square miles of mixed residential and industrial land (Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO), 2006). Commercial properties in the area are primarily focused on industrial uses because of the proximity of an interstate and large railroad yard. The area gets its name from the Kino Parkway, a freeway opened in 1982 that connects central Tucson with Interstate 10. Kino Parkway runs through the middle of the Kino site. 1 The others are: The Westside Coalition and The 29th Street Coalition. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 6 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission The officially designated site is comprised of five areas recognized by Tucson's Department of Neighborhood Resources as city neighborhoods: South Park, Western Hills II, Las Vistas, Pueblo Gardens and Millville. Millville is almost exclusively commercial property. The site has two anomalous characteristics. It is somewhat isolated from the rest of the city even though the distance to downtown Tucson is only about five miles. A large portion of the northern boundary is shaped by the wide swath of railroad lines and most of the southern boundary is an interstate. A good part of the western boundary meets South Tucson, a separate municipality. Secondly, population density (about 1,500 persons per square mile) is lower than almost all other areas of the city (3,000 and more persons per square mile). Most residences are small single family homes located on fairly large lots. There are also large tracts of undeveloped land. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 7 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Exhibit 1 shows the key socio-demographic characteristics of the Kino area and Tucson (U.S. Census 2000 and CCDO, 2006). Exhibit 1: Kino Weed and Seed Site Characteristics Socio-Demographic Characteristics Kino Area Tucson Geography Area, sq. mi. 6.3 226 Demographics Population 9,981 486,699 Percent Males, Age 18 and Up 31.8 36.4 Percent Females, Age 18 and Up 32.1 39.0 Percent Males, Age 17 or Less 18.5 12.0 Percent Females, Age 17 or Less 17.6 12.5 Family Structure Total Households 2,763 192,891 Percent Households with Families 79.6 58.3 Percent Households with Children 56.1 46.9 Percent Single Parent Families with Children 22.7 8.5 Percent Non-Family Households 20.4 41.7 Education Percent Adult population without a high school 50.2 19.6 diploma Race/Ethnicity Percent White 37.7 70.2 Percent Black 12.7 4.3 Percent American Indian/Eskimo 3.5 2.3 Percent Asian/Pacific Islander 1.2 2.5 Percent Other 40.2 20.6 Percent Hispanic Ethnicity 77.0 35.7 Income/Housing Per Capita Income $9,983 $21,587 Median Household Income $26,663 $41,994 Percent Renting 36.9 46.6 Percent Lived in Residence for Less than Five Years 49.8 60.8 An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 8 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission PART II: METHODOLOGY Process Evaluation The process evaluation for this study included: 1) an examination of the procedures and activities that contributed to the formation of the Kino Coalition; 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 two methods used to gather data for the process evaluation were: 1) a review of official site documents; and 2) focus group interviews conducted with key stakeholders. Stakeholders to the Kino Weed and Seed site included a wide range of people, agencies, and organizations involved in some segment of law enforcement, community policing, crime prevention, intervention and treatment, or neighborhood restoration of the Kino Weed and Seed site's initiatives and activities. Stakeholder organizations participating in weeding and seeding activities are included in Exhibit 2 below. The table is divided into six different partnership groups based on their organizational characteristics and role in the Kino Weed and Seed site. Each partnership group is identified as being primarily involved in: 1) law enforcement or community policing activities (weeding); 2) intervention, treatment, or neighborhood restoration efforts (seeding); or 3) providing guidance or assistance to overall efforts (support). Through the analysis of the historical documentation, the foundation of the original goals and plans were compared to the progression and implementation of those objectives to offer an assessment of those processes. As such, the process evaluation was not focused on the direct or indirect outcomes of the Kino 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 Researchers collected 69 separate official documents from Kino stakeholders. Stakeholders who provided official documents included the Kino site coordinator, service delivery agents, safe haven representatives, Tucson Police Department, neighborhood association leaders, faith-based community leaders, and Tucson City Council representatives. The Kino site did not have a comprehensive collection of official documents and evaluators employed three different strategies to collect the information. First, we asked stakeholders to provide virtually any document they had maintained that was related to Kino Weed and Seed. Stakeholders were asked to gather and provide anything that documented early planning sessions, activities, or communications. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 9 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Second, as we gathered documents following the initial request, we began asking for additional documents similar to those already provided. For example, we were supplied with steering committee meeting minutes from one meeting after our initial request, and as part of our second strategy, we asked for all such meeting minutes that had been maintained during the life of the Kino Coalition. The third strategy for collecting official documents stemmed from our focus group sessions with key stakeholders. As discussions led into programmatic activities evaluators had not yet been aware of, stakeholders were asked to provide any documentation they had made related to those topics. Exhibit 2: Kino Weed and Seed Stakeholder Organizations Law Enforcement Partners (Weeding) Tucson Police Department City of Tucson Attorney's Office Arizona National Guard Pima County Attorney's Office Pima County Adult Probation Arizona Dept of Public Safety - GITEM City of Tucson Ward 5 Council Office Business Partners (Seeding) Mr. K's BBQ Arizona Federal Credit Union PEBEE, Inc. Faith Based Partners (Seeding) Grace Temple Baptist Church Cross Horizon Ministries South Highland Church Community Partners (Seeding) Las Vistas Neighborhood Association Pueblo Gardens Neighborhood Association South Park Neighborhood Association Western Hills II Neighborhood Association Pueblo Gardens Neighborhood Association Holmes Tuttle Boys & Girls Club Kino Teen Center Pueblo Gardens Elementary School Quincie Douglas Neighborhood Center Southside Community School CODAC Behavioral Health Services Tucson Community Food Bank Tucson Urban League Pima Council on Aging The Youth Corps of America Local Government Partners (Seeding) Ward 5 Council Office Pima County Supervisor - District 2 City of Tucson Community Services & Hope VI City of Tucson Parks and Recreation City of Tucson Neighborhood Resources Tucson-Pima Public Library Federal Partners (Support) United States Attorney's Office U.S. Department of Justice Housing and Urban Development Office of National Drug Control Policy Drug Enforcement Administration 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 An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 10 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission schedules; community intervention program curricula; and community activity announcements. These records were important because they documented the planned interventions and the actual implementation of those interventions. The original and supplemental applications filed with the CCDO served as data indicating the specific strategies the Kino Coalition 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: minutes of neighborhood association meetings; Kino Coalition Steering Committee meeting minutes; Kino Coalition Policies and Procedures Manual; memoranda detailing policing enforcement strategies; police enforcement and community policing assignment scheduling; police progress reports; letters of support from the local United States Attorney's Office representative; and public announcements and flyers. Some of these documents detailed the early community meetings discussing official Weed and Seed designation strategies, including what neighborhoods to include and the prioritization of community needs. Documentation of the formation, early activities, and meetings around the time of the creation of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition were limited. Combined with the original application for official recognition, there was sufficient data to describe what was originally intended and established. These data were not detailed and establishing a thorough understanding of how Kino developed itself, its policies, and activities was limited. Data gathered from the official documents maintained by principal stakeholder groups allowed evaluators to examine both weeding and seeding activities in Kino. This method does have limitations. Because the Kino Coalition did not develop a formalized routine of data collection for the purpose of a comprehensive evaluation at the onset of their work, official documents were not necessarily and consistently maintained. Many early documents such as planning meeting minutes, public event announcements, and community meetings were not well maintained, which led to better documentation for some stakeholder groups or activities than for others. The Tucson Police Department (TPD) is perhaps the most important stakeholder in the weeding efforts of the Kino Weed and Seed site. The Weeding Steering Subcommittee for Kino includes representatives from TPD command staff for the area, a community policing officer assigned to the Kino area, a TPD gang unit detective, Pima County Adult Probation, and the Tucson City Prosecutor's Office. Evaluators collected TPD official briefing notes, scheduling, and command instructions regarding the commitment and distribution of resources specifically aimed at the Kino area. Reviewing the TPD documents provided an official record of early enforcement efforts and verified the process of committing police resources to weeding activities. The principal provider of social services selected for the Kino area was CODAC Behavioral Health Services, Inc. Documentation of seeding activities and programs offered by CODAC were very detailed and included program curriculum materials, An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 11 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission evaluation forms and feedback, and community information packets. Evaluators collected data from CODAC representatives detailing the "Strengthening the Families" program including its curriculum, selection and implementation strategies used, and participants' assessments. Official documents were collected from other key stakeholders as well, including: 1) officials from the Ward Five office of the Tucson City Council; 2) representatives from Tucson Parks and Recreation; 3) members from the Tucson-Pima Public Library; 4) local faith-based leaders; 5) representatives from the Tucson Urban League facility located in the Kino area; 6) leaders from the Boys and Girls Club located in the Kino area; and 7) the City of Tucson Neighborhood Resources Department. Focus Group Interviews Focus group participants were self-selected based on their individual roles as stakeholders in the Kino community or as members of an organization involved with the Kino activities. Stakeholder organizations and individuals were identified for focus group participation using three strategies. First, during initial meetings with the Kino Site Coordinator, evaluators supplied a list detailing the types of organizations and individuals who might typically be considered stakeholders in a Weed and Seed site. This list included: local police agencies; city prosecutor office; county probation department; neighborhood associations; community service organizations working in the area or providing services to area residents; businesses associated with the site; faith-based organizations; and city departments providing services in the designated area. This list was used as a guide by the Kino Site Coordinator to contact relevant stakeholders and ask if they would be willing to participate in a focus group session. Focus group participants recruited by the Site Coordinator were further instructed by evaluators at the time of the interview session that: 1) their participation was voluntary; 2) they would not be identified by name; 3) no foreseeable harm would come to them for their participation; and 4) their participation was intended for the sole benefit of conducting an evaluation of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition and its activities. Second, members and representatives from stakeholder groups who volunteered for participation in the focus group were asked to identify other stakeholder organizations and individuals. These additional organizations and individuals were considered for participation based on their potential value to the evaluation. Evaluators considered the described role of other potential participants based on the identifying stakeholders' assessments. The third strategy evaluators used was to contact additional potential participants identified during early stakeholder focus group sessions. Among the 39 organizations identified as partners to the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition, 27 were represented during An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 12 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission stakeholder focus groups, or more than 78 percent of all partner organizations. Most of the absentees among participant organizations came from business and federal partners. Stakeholder organizations were represented by individual representatives from CODAC, the primary social service provider and seeding activity manager; clergy from several local places of worship involved in the community; representatives from Tucson Parks and Recreation, who manage the Quincie Douglas Neighborhood Center and the recently opened public swimming pool; local area school officials, including a principal and school counselor; representatives from other Kino Safe Havens; youths from the community; and community and neighborhood association leaders. Focus group participants chiefly engaged in weeding activities were: the lead TPD patrol officer assigned as the community policing officer in the Kino area; a TPD gang unit detective who works in the Kino area; a lieutenant from TPD who serves as the fiscal manager of weeding funds; the Captain of the TPD Operations Division South, the police subdivision that serves the Kino area; representatives from Pima County Adult Probation; and a prosecutor from the Criminal Division of the Office of the City Attorney for Tucson. Exhibit 3 below summarizes the focus groups conducted. Exhibit 3: Focus Group Data Collection Summary Focus Group CODAC Program Coordinators CODAC Program Staff Neighborhood Associations and Citizens Ward 5 Council Office Faith-based Groups Safe Haven Representatives Kino Executive Committee Teen Advisory Board Weeding Steering Committee Total Participants Date 3/27/2006 3/27/2006 3/27/2006 3/27/2006 3/27/2006 3/29/2006 3/29/2006 3/29/2006 4/12/2006 Participants 5 7 6 2 6 3 6 3 7 45 Focus groups were conducted in a semi-structured format with evaluators serving as the facilitators. Facilitators began each session with a brief description of the purpose and nature of the focus group session and the contribution they would make to the evaluation of the Kino site. Facilitators used a pre-defined list of 12 questions (Appendix 1) to begin and guide focus group discussions, but individual groups were allowed significant latitude to discuss topics or issues as they arose during the discussion. Participants routinely explored topics that were not directly in response to guiding questions, which offered unexpected breadth and depth to the discussion. Focus group discussions included information about the historical foundation of the Kino site, transitions and challenges during implementation, current activities, and future goals and expectations. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 13 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Our focus groups were structured in a manner that fostered open discussions, which elicited detailed and honest perceptions of the implementation of the Kino Weed and Seed site. As noted by Krueger focus group interviews "have been helpful in assessing needs, developing plans..., testing new programs and ideas, improving existing programs, and generating information for constructing questionnaires" (Krueger, 1994, p. 37). While focus groups have been found to be an effective tool for understanding processes, they do have some limitations, which include: 1) complex qualitative data can be difficult to analyze; 2) they require skilled moderators; and 3) allow only limited cross-group comparisons (Krueger, 1994). Impact Evaluation The impact evaluation focused on the influence that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition activities had on crime and disorder in the Kino Weed and Seed area. Impact evaluations examine the results of programmatic interventions. Significant changes that are observed in the targeted area or population because of program interventions and initiatives illustrate 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 call for service data from the TPD for the period 1999 through 2005. A call for service is an event to which a Tucson Police employee must respond to evaluate or take action, or an event that comes to the attention of police or is initiated by police that requires formal documentation. Calls for service include: Citizens reporting a shooting, a traffic accident with injuries, burglaries, ringing alarm bells, suspicious activity or problems with a neighbor; or officers finding a stolen vehicle, detectives making an arrest, officers searching out and arresting a fugitive, or officers conducting field interviews of persons observed in suspicious circumstances. CFS data were chosen instead of police crime report or arrest reports because they are more amenable to analysis of quality of life issues, which are not captured in reported crime or arrest data. The CFS data extract consisted of almost 2.2 million individual calls capturing information on both criminal and non-criminal incidents. Calls that were not directly related to an obvious criminal event, such as abandoned vehicles, loitering, or juvenile offenses were examined as quality of life measures related to residents' perception of physical and social disorder. Measures of crime were constructed from CFS data that TPD had coded as criminal incidents. We excluded calls coded as duplicates by the TPD, calls related to traffic stops or accidents, civil matters, alarms, and other calls not directly related to a crime or neighborhood disorder issue. 2 The CFS data was delivered in geographic information systems shapefiles, which allowed the evaluators to identify and separate data for the Kino Weed and Seed 2 From Tucson Police Department website: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/police/terms.htm An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 14 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission designated area from the rest of the city. Furthermore, because there was at least one record for each call for service, the data set could be used to develop rates based on Kino population figures. The TPD offense codes were categorized into four measures of crime: 1) violent crime; 2) property crime; 3) drug crime; and 4) disorder. Additionally, we constructed a fifth measure that represented the total number of calls from the four measures above. Our violent crime measure included calls such as homicides, assaults, and robberies; property crime included crimes such as burglaries, motor vehicle thefts, fraud, and criminal damage; drug crime was defined using narcotic drug laws; and our disorder measure included concerns such as prostitution, public intoxication, and vagrancy. After categorizing relevant calls into our four measures and excluding those calls described earlier, more than 632,000 individual calls remained in our analysis, which included more than 13,500 calls from the Kino neighborhoods, and almost 619,000 from the rest of the city. The specific call codes assigned to our four constructed measures are listed in Exhibit 4. Exhibit 4: Crime Measures Constructed from Calls for Service Codes Violent Homicide Aggravated Assault Other Assaults Robbery Sexual Assault Other Sex Offenses Weapons Disorder Disorderly Conduct Juvenile Violations Prostitution Public Intoxication Vagrancy Property Arson Burglary Criminal Damage Embezzlement Forgery & Counterfeiting Fraud Larceny Motor Vehicle Theft Stolen Property Drugs Narcotic Drug Laws Evaluators converted the CFS data from raw frequencies to rates based on population. Specifically, we divided the number of calls in a given month by the estimated population for the appropriate calendar year and multiplied the result by 1,000. This yielded standardized values representing the number of calls for service per 1,000 people. Converting the raw frequencies into rates standardized the data and allowed evaluators to make comparisons across years by controlling for changes in population. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 15 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission The impact evaluation relied on a quasi-experimental, pre-test/post-test design (Campbell and Stanley, 1963). This design is well suited for studies involving large populations where a targeted portion of the population receives a treatment and another portion does not receive the treatment; the latter group theoretically serving as a control, or comparison group. For the purposes of this evaluation, the Kino area and its residents were regarded as our `target' or `experimental' group and were compared to the rest of the City of Tucson, which served as our `control' or `comparison' group. The two groups are further examined in a pre-test/post-test environment through our examination of CFS data dating four years before Kino Weed and Seed strategies were initiated and continuing throughout the Kino site's implementation to the end of 2005. These data permitted us to examine the crime patterns for the four Kino neighborhoods for three years prior to the formation of the Coalition and four years after program implementation. Additionally, these data allowed for the comparison of the Kino area to the surrounding community of Tucson, and an assessment of the relative impact of Weed and Seed program activities by examining change within each area. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to examine changes in the rates of calls for: 1) violent crime; 2) property crime; 3) drug-related crime; and 4) non-criminal, disorder related issues between the 36 months of pre-test CFS data and the 48 months of post-test CFS data. These tests allowed us to examine: a) the Kino Weed and Seed site's effectiveness in reducing crime; and b) the citizens' self-perceived quality of life. In doing so, we were able to examine changes in our categorized CFS data for our target and comparison areas, before and after program implementation. Likewise, we examined changes in calls for service for non-criminal concerns that were associated with disorder. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 16 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission PART III: FINDINGS Process Evaluation The process evaluation for this study examined the integrity of implementation of selected program activities and the course of modifications to the Weed and Seed strategy throughout the site's development. The two methods used to gather data for the process evaluation were: 1) a review of official site documents; and 2) focus groups conducted with key stakeholders. This portion of the evaluation was not specifically concerned with the direct or indirect outcomes of the Kino Coalition's Weed and Seed efforts, but rather the methods, policies, procedures, and routines employed to carry out program initiatives. We evaluated the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition by examining the formal and informal mechanisms by which they developed, adapted, and maintained 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 initial application to the CCDO for official recognition as a Weed and Seed site detailed 26 distinct goals (Exhibit 5). Each of these goals were divided into one of the four core Weed and Seed categories and contained specific objectives that were focused on four high priority and unmet challenges for the Kino community. They included: 1. 2. 3. 4. Illegal drug activity, especially involving youth and gangs. Gun violence, especially involving youth and gangs. Poverty and unemployment, especially as they effect youth and young adults. Lack of involvement in community efforts due to changing racial, ethnic, or language differences and barriers (Kino Weed and Seed Coalition, 2001). Official Documents A review of official documents revealed that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition had pursued implementation of 25 of the original 26 goals in the five years of official activities. Several official documents were used to delineate which of the original goals were addressed and when, including: 1) Kino's Community Action Plan; 2) the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition's Annual Progress Report; 3) the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition's official Policies and Procedures manual; 4) Tucson Police Department Operations South Division's Action Plans for Pueblo Gardens, Western Hills II, South Park, and Las Vistas; and 5) Tucson Police Department Operations South Division memoranda detailing standing orders for personnel assignments related to the Kino area. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 17 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Exhibit 5: Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Goals Law Enforcement 1 Create and maintain a Kino Weeding Steering Committee. 2 Increase police patrols in the Kino area at least 25%. 3 Increase public awareness of positive law enforcement efforts. 4 Reduce recidivism in the neighborhood by 5% each year. 5 Reduce drug dealing within the neighborhood by 5% each year. 6 Decrease the illegal use of guns and gang graffiti by 5% each year. 7 Reduce incidences of speeding and traffic problems by 10% each year. Community Policing 1 Increase participation in crime prevention programs by 5% each year. Maintain neighborhood access to police and communication between 2 community members and police officers. Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Utilize the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Seeding Committee to establish 1 and nurture a coalition of service providers working in the Kino neighborhoods. 2 Increase successful completion of probation by 5% each year. Increase participation in drug use and gang prevention programs by 5% 3 each year. Ensure that health intervention and treatment opportunities are available 4 within the community. 5 Reduce adolescent and teen birth rates. Increase educational achievement for all ages of residents by 5% each 6 year. 7 Improve participation in job readiness programs by 5% each year. Neighborhood Restoration and Economic Development 1 Increase resident participation in community activities. Maximize efficiency by minimizing duplication of efforts and leveraging 2 resources through partnerships across neighborhood organizations. 3 Increase opportunities for social connections within the community. 4 Provide a clean and safe environment within the neighborhoods. 5 Improve housing conditions in the neighborhoods. 6 Increase homeownership rates in the neighborhoods. Advocate for increased public reinvestment in the neighborhood's 7 infrastructure. 8 Improve commercial environments and business success. Improve personal savings and investment in housing, education, training, 9 and micro-enterprise. 10 Improve job opportunities for residents in the area. Source: Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Application for Official Recognition, 2001 An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 18 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Stakeholder Focus Groups The second component of the process evaluation was focus groups with key stakeholders in the Kino Weed and Seed area. Evaluators used the stakeholder focus groups to gain an insider perspective of Kino site activities. The focus groups were held to elucidate an historical recollection of site processes, provide a detailed illustration of current activities, and aid the evaluation of the Kino site's adherence to the site's original goals. Evaluators administered nine focus group sessions, with two to seven participants each, totaling 45 participating stakeholders. Evaluators used a 12-item interview guide to facilitate discussions, enhance recall, and elicit information (Appendix 1). The interview guide was used to facilitate the discussion process, as participants were permitted significant latitude to discuss topics as they arose in individual focus group sessions. This method allowed evaluators to use close-ended questions as introductory or icebreaker topics to initiate the discussion, which then moved into openended questions to obtain greater detail on site activities. An important advantage of using this approach is to put participants at ease in the interview setting with easy to answer, objective, close-ended questions before shifting into the subjective, personal perspective format of open-ended questions. The open-ended questions allow respondents to express what is on their mind, in their own words, and can produce unintended or unforeseen insights (Krueger, 1994). Among the responses from the focus group sessions, all nine groups recalled activities of the Kino Weed and Seed site at the time of inception. All groups reported positive impressions regarding the balance and cooperation between weeding and seeding efforts. Generally, the focus groups indicated that the Kino Coalition had adhered to its originally intended mission, consistent with its goals, albeit with some modification to specific tasks and objectives. Law Enforcement Goals The Law Enforcement component of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition's original site plan called for seven distinct goals. Goal 1: Create and maintain a Kino Weeding Steering Committee. Reviews of both official documents and responses from stakeholder interviews confirmed that this goal was met early in the process and has been consistently maintained throughout the implementation period. Evaluators were also supplied with two summaries of Kino Weed and Seed Weeding Subcommittee meetings that indicated that the subcommittee routinely discussed ongoing issues related to the general strategies for which they were responsible. The data from these meeting minutes supported that the subcommittee continued to scan, analyze, respond, and assess their operational plan to incorporate tasks and objectives An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 19 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission supportive of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition's law enforcement and community policing strategies. Stakeholder focus groups supported that a Weeding Subcommittee was formed and was active in Kino program activities from the beginning. Participants from the following stakeholder focus groups all discussed the formation, role, and, or activities of the Weeding Subcommittee: the Weeding Subcommittee itself; CODAC Staff; CODAC Program Coordinators; Neighborhood Associations and Citizens; Ward V City Council; and the Kino Weed and Seed Executive Committee. Goal 2: Increase police patrols in the Kino area at least 25 percent. Evaluators collected documents and conducted stakeholder interviews verifying that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition, through the Tucson Police Department's role, addressed this goal. Memoranda from the TPD supports that at the outset of intervention, two officers were committed to full-time directed patrol and community policing in the Kino area and did not respond to calls for service outside the area unless it involved a priority emergency. In later implementation years (early 2004), the commitment was reduced to one full-time officer. While data was not collected to verify an increase of at least 25 percent, the data that was gathered indicated a commitment to increase patrol time in the Kino area was established even prior to official recognition, and that it has maintained throughout implementation. Stakeholder groups also provided support for an increase in police patrol in the Kino area. Notably, the neighborhood association and citizens' group described changes in their community that resulted from an increased presence and positive relationship with police. Goal 3: Increase public awareness of positive law enforcement efforts. Stakeholder interviews with members of the community, particularly with the citizens' and faith based groups, provided anecdotal support for changes in the public's perception of police and their activities. Citizens supplied unanimously positive and supportive feedback about the differences they have observed. The residents also reported that their neighborhoods had become safer and attributed much of these changes to law enforcement efforts of the TPD drug and gang detectives, but also cited the importance of the Pima County Adult Probation Department (PCAPD), particularly in clean-up efforts. The faith-based group also spoke of being more aware of policing activities in recent years, observing changes in enforcement, increased attendance at community meetings, and the staging of community safety events and fairs. Aggregated data directly measuring an increase in public awareness of positive law enforcement efforts was not available. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 20 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Goal 4: Reduce recidivism in the neighborhood by 5 percent each year. Criminal history or other data measuring recidivism rates in the Kino community was not collected by evaluators. The call for service data collected from TPD was used to construct measures of crime for the purpose of this evaluation. CFS data does not allow for an analysis of recidivism rates, as it does not track offenses of specific individuals over time. The focus group interview with the Weeding Subcommittee provided support that efforts to reduce recidivism was addressed to some degree, but did not provide quantifiable data to measure five percent annual reductions. The Weeding Subcommittee included, but was not limited to, representatives from TPD and Pima County Adult Probation. These representatives discussed the occasional use of joint patrols throughout program implementation years. The joint patrols were directed patrols within the Kino community that included a TPD officer and patrol car, with a probation officer riding along. The purpose of the joint patrols was to conduct routine check-ups on probationers in the area, as well as provide support from the probation department when police contacted a probationer in response to a call for service. The participants described this as an effective means of informing probationers living in the area that they would be closely monitored to further discourage recidivism. Goal 5: Reduce drug dealing within the neighborhood by 5 percent each year Reducing open-air drug markets in the Kino area was identified as an important goal by several participants in multiple stakeholder focus group sessions. Citizens and criminal justice professionals alike described the drug trade in the Kino community as a serious problem. Participants from the citizens' group reported that before Kino Weed and Seed existed, even the police were afraid to come into their neighborhoods. Citizens' group participants would see open market drug deals taking place in broad daylight and, "residents simply wouldn't leave their homes at night." Stakeholders representing the city council reported that the TPD has staged "three or four sweeps in recent years" effectively reducing open drug markets and crime in the area. Additionally, the Weeding Subcommittee reported the successes of two undercover drug interdiction operations. The first operation used undercover narcotics investigators to identify drug houses and dealers resulting in 40 arrests with very good prosecution rates. A second operation in 2002 resulted in 33 arrests. When describing the undercover operations, one city council group participant asserted that "intelligence [about criminal activity] is driven by the neighborhood." Evaluators also reviewed official documents collected from stakeholders detailing drug enforcement activities. Records of the interdiction from TPD discussed the successes of the operations, the number of search warrants served, arrests, and resulting convictions. Evaluators were unable to collect data sufficient to make a precise assessment of whether Kino's drug dealing experienced annual declines of five percent. We were able An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 21 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission to determine that the Kino Coalition engaged in efforts to create and sustain reductions in drug dealing activity in the Kino community, as a matter of process. Goal 6: Decrease the illegal use of guns and gang graffiti by 5 percent each year. Data measuring annual rates of illegal gun use and gang graffiti was not collected by evaluators. As a result, it was not possible to analyze if Kino experienced 5 percent annual declines in graffiti and gun crimes. A review of the official documents did not yield information about specific programmatic activities that were aimed at reducing the illegal use of guns. One stakeholder group reported that law enforcement had participated in community events, which included gun safety information. Stakeholder focus group participants identified that the TPD gang unit officers and detectives were active in the area. Gang officers conducted the Gang Resistance Education And Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program for area youth and brought educational materials, presentation vehicles, and officers to community events. A gang unit detective from the TPD also reported having conducted numerous presentations at neighborhood association meetings, Kino Steering Committee meetings, and other public venues. These presentations were intended to educate the public about gangs and gang crime, how to identify gang related graffiti, graffiti abatement programs, and warning signs for at-risk youth. Goal 7: Reduce incidences of speeding and traffic problems by 10 percent each year. Citizens reported to evaluators during focus group interviews that speeding, reckless driving, and traffic concerns were a problem for them at the time the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition was formed. The importance of these concerns is evident by their inclusion in the goals for law enforcement. The stakeholder focus groups for the Weeding Subcommittee, the Executive Council, the residents, and the city council all reported that the Kino Coalition, at the urging of residents, approved purchasing two radar speed detection devices for TPD and provided funds for overtime expenses to enhance traffic enforcement in the Kino community. Stakeholders from the groups that discussed the traffic concern issue also reported that problems with speeding and reckless driving have declined. Official documentation that might have detailed the effects of these efforts were not among those collected by evaluators, therefore an assessment of whether the enhanced enforcement actually resulted in 10 percent annual declines could not be determined. Law Enforcement Summary The Kino Weed and Seed Coalition predominately followed a process that adhered to the originally intended goals, either through formalized programs and operations, or An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 22 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission informally through embeddedness with the Kino community. Evaluators collected evidence that supported that programmatic activities were actively engaged in attaining goals one, two, three, and five. The data collected about joint patrol activities lend support to recidivism reduction efforts (goal four), and focus group data provided evidence that the Kino Coalition had pursued reductions in traffic related problems, although official documentation was not available. Law enforcement goal six, reducing illegal use of guns and gang graffiti was the only one of seven that lacked sufficient evidence to indicate a process toward achieving the goal. Community Policing Goals The Community Policing component of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition's planned strategy included only two expressed goals. The focus of the community policing goals was aimed at improving those elements of social disorder that hinder efforts to reduce crime, minimize the public's fear of crime, and foster collective efficacy. Goal 1: Increase participation in crime prevention programs by 5 percent each year. Data collected from official documents supported that the Kino Coalition engaged in bringing the community into crime prevention programs from the outset. Data from TPD, the Executive Committee and from Kino Coalition Safe Havens indicated that throughout the implementation period, several outreach events and programs were used to educate and involve the community in crime prevention. Stakeholder focus group data from the Weeding Subcommittee, city council, residents, safe havens, and the Kino Executive Committee all reported various outreach efforts to extend the exposure and availability of crime prevention programs for the Kino community. Programs identified included: G.R.E.A.T. gang education program; gun safety; and graffiti abatement programs. Data about actual enrollment or participation in crime prevention programs was unavailable and not collected; therefore the five percent annual increase objective could not be measured. Goal 2: Maintain neighborhood access to police and communication between community members and police officers. Stakeholders participating in different focus group sessions reported that police officers, probation officers, and community prosecution unit attorneys have attended neighborhood association meetings, community meetings, and other events. They further described police officers as routinely attending community meetings and events, including, but not limited to: hosting a booth and giving safety lessons at the Kino community's annual Halloween Party, which has been ongoing for four years; staging An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 23 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission safety fairs; hosting four Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) etching events; promoting the use of gun locks at community events; and offering free child fingerprinting. Other community policing activities included TPD and probation officers riding together in the neighborhood, making routine checks on probationers in the area, and engaging community members to improve familiarity with, and communication between, law enforcement and Kino residents. One resident recalled how neighborhood association presidents were provided cell phones that gave them immediate access to community policing officers to report non-emergency crimes or neighborhood disorder problems directly without having to go through more impersonal, routine channels. They also described the TPD officer assigned to the Kino community as their officer. The community policing officer said that he has witnessed a "huge turnaround" and that he is frequently invited to celebrate birthdays, weddings, and graduations. He stated that residents from the Kino area "never would have done that [invited a police officer to personal events] before." He also explained that residents "have become very helpful and friendly" have learned to call on other city services to help with noncriminal issues, and take pride in the neighborhoods like never before. Another participant said that residents "almost cried when they thought [the community policing officer] was going to leave [the Kino area]." The captain in charge of Operations South Division said of residents in the Kino community, "they're making calls, asking for the police to be a part of the community, where they would never have done that before." Evaluators reviewed official documents of the Kino Coalition and found substantial evidence of routine interaction between law enforcement agencies and professionals and the community. Data collected from TPD clearly identifies resources allocated to community policing goals. Data on scheduling and patrol assignments indicate that at least one full-time community policing officer has been assigned to the Kino neighborhoods for the entire implementation period. Data also indicated that substitute officers were used to cover regular days off, or vacation and sick days, using officers familiar with the area, and perhaps more importantly, officers with whom the community was familiar. Data collected from official documents also recorded community event participation, meeting attendance, and routine, open lines of communication between the police and Kino residents. Community Policing Summary Participants from the Executive Committee, the Weeding Subcommittee, and the Ward V City Council's Office discussed feedback they have had from residents. They reported that the perception and feelings toward police has changed dramatically. Previously, most residents would have been apprehensive to have a police officer around; but now, if a police officers does not attend their community events, people have their feelings hurt. The attitudes of police about the neighborhood have also changed. Before Kino Weed and Seed, officers would respond to a call for service with six cars, lights flashing, An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 24 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission no matter what the particular issue. Now calls are usually responded to with just one car and one officer. Residents and members of the Executive Committee reiterated these sentiments. The stakeholders consistently reported an improvement in neighborhood cohesion and communication with the police. Residents reported feeling safer and being treated with more respect as a community. Because an accurate analysis of actual participation and enrollment in crime prevention programs was unable to be conducted due to insufficient data, evaluators were unable to determine whether the site achieved a five percent annual increase in crime prevention program participation. This limitation did not restrict our analysis of the process of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition's efforts in achieving its intended community policing goals. The level of commitment observed and resources dedicated toward achieving this goal indicated that the Kino Coalition adhered to a process of achieving its intended community policing goals. Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Goals The Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment 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, 2006). The Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment component is the first part of the Seeding branch of the Weed and Seed strategy. The Kino Weed and Seed Coalition identified seven goals in its original plan. Goal 1: Utilize the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Seeding Committee to establish and nurture a coalition of service providers working in the Kino neighborhoods. The Kino Weed and Seed Coalition's 2004 Community Action Plan (CAP) was one of the official documents collected and provides data from the approximate midpoint in the life of the Kino Coalition. The 2004 CAP described the community service providers and their sponsored projects for 2004, detailing what risk factors and problem behavior would be addressed in furtherance of Site goals (CAP, 2004). The CAP used results from the 2002 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) to track several measures of risk and protective factors among area youth. The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission conducts the Arizona Youth Survey every two years in Arizona schools with 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students and measures a number of issues. Among questions asked on the AYS are several measures of the respondent's risk and protective factors including: a) family structure; b) household composition; and c) community and school social embeddedness. The CAP summarized different programs to be provided to the Kino community and which risk and protective factors could be addressed in each program. Using these program summaries, evaluators delineated which programs, as listed in the 2004 Community Action Plan, could be directly tied to satisfying goals from the original An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 25 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Kino strategy. Exhibit 6 lists examples of programs and their respective service providers that were implemented to address the needs of the Kino Weed and Seed community. Stakeholder focus group sessions provided extensive data about social services delivered to residents of the Kino community during program implementation. The participants from two focus groups, CODAC staff and CODAC program coordinators, were each active in programs aimed at Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment efforts. One program identified as a programmatic success was the Strengthening Families Program (Molgaard, Kumpfer, and Fleming, 2001). Focus group participants asserted that the Strengthening Families Program was very successful and that they received very positive feedback from program graduates. The participants also identified other programs they were involved with including: Stop Bullying Now (Health Resources and Services Administration, 2006), a bullying prevention program delivered to middle school students; a family violence prevention program sponsored by a grant from the United Way; the Teen Advisory Board, a body made-up of local Kino area teens; and a training program through the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA), which aids neighborhood coalitions in developing "safe, healthy, drug-free communities" (CADCA, 2006). Exhibit 6: Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Programs and Providers Provider Program AZ Army National Guard DEFY ? Drug Education For Youth Boys and Girls Club Keystone Service Club Boys and Girls Club Smart Moves / Street Smarts CODAC PATHS ? Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies CODAC Strengthening Families (6-11 and 10-14 age groups) Head Start Head Start HUD Hope VI Kids Forever Kids Forever Kino Teen Center Teen Parents Classes Kino Teen Center Prenatal Care Classes Neighborhood Associations MLK Breakfast Neighborhood Associations Community events (i.e. community Halloween Party) Pueblo Gardens Mentoring Quincie Douglas, SSCS Homework help/tutoring Southside Community School Parent Connection - Moms & Tots Southside Community School Family Literacy Tucson Parks and Recreation KIDCO Tucson Parks and Recreation Youth Sports Leagues Tucson Parks and Recreation Strength and Fitness Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Safe Havens An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 26 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Goal 2: Increase successful completion of probation by 5 percent each year. Data measuring successful completion rates of probationers in the Kino area was not collected, therefore we could not make a determination regarding five percent annual increases in probation completion. Official documentation that detailed program activities aimed specifically at successful probation completion was not collected. Data was collected that addressed enhanced monitoring of probationers (i.e. the aforementioned joint patrols of TPD and PCAPD officers) indicating that Kino engaged in efforts pursuant of increased successful completion of probation. Focus group participants from the Weeding Subcommittee and the Kino Executive Committee reported that officers from Pima County Adult and Juvenile probation were active in the Kino community. They reported that individual officers were assigned to probationers in the area, which ensured that probation officers would be familiar with the community, the residents, and the probationers living in Kino. Goal 3: Increase participation in drug use and gang prevention programs by 5 percent each year. Data collected from official documents and stakeholder interviews indicated that drug use and gang prevention programs had been implemented in the Kino area. Specific data measuring the enrollment rates of the programs was not collected or made available and therefore we were unable to determine if participation rates experienced five percent annual increases during program years. Collected data included program information from the National Guard sponsored Drug Education For Youth (DEFY) program. The DEFY program recruited youth from the Kino area for their summer programs, which teach participants about drug and alcohol risks, resistance strategies, effective peer pressure management, and promoting healthy lifestyles (DEFY, 2006). Stakeholder focus groups also produced data on drug and gang prevention program activities made available to Kino residents through Weed and Seed efforts. Members from the Weeding Subcommittee, the Executive Committee, CODAC, and the Safe Havens reported that the G.R.E.A.T. program was made available at community events and area schools throughout the implementation period. They also reported that the DEFY program was part of the Kino Weed and Seed initiatives during the implementation period. Reviewing data collected from official documents and stakeholder interviews indicated that drug use and gang prevention programs were made more accessible to Kino youths and residents through Kino Weed and Seed program activities. The evidence indicated that the Kino Coalition adhered to a process of increasing drug and gang prevention program participation among community members. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 27 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Goal 4: Ensure that health intervention and treatment opportunities are available within the community. Data collected from official documents and stakeholder interviews confirmed that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition followed a process of increasing accessibility to health intervention, education, and treatment to community members. The data collected from our document review indicated that a mobile clinic had been frequently stationed at the Quincie Douglas Neighborhood Center, providing non-emergency health care and screening services to economically disadvantaged residents. The mobile clinic, Community Health Action On Wheels, was sponsored by CODAC and the Rural Health Office in the College of Public Health at the University of Arizona and established regular services in the community, delivering health care to the underserved and uninsured residents of the Kino community. Stakeholder interviews also yielded data that substantiated efforts by the Kino Coalition to improve healthcare availability in the community. One Safe Haven, the Kino Teen Center, reported offering numerous healthcare services, including, but not limited to: routine physicals for youth participating in sports programs; sexually transmitted disease education; STD testing; and immunizations; and prenatal care. Services at the Kino Teen Center were offered to juveniles and adults up to 21 years of age and clients were charged fees based on a sliding scale of what they could afford. Goal 5: Reduce adolescent and teen birth rates. Official documents that detailed programs aimed at reducing teen birth rates, if they existed, were not made available to evaluators. Interviews with stakeholders also yielded limited information regarding efforts aimed at this particular goal. Stakeholders from the Safe Haven group reported offering teen parenting education and prenatal care, and participants from CODAC reported that some programs offered education about the risks of destructive decisions and how to avoid them, including sex, pregnancy, and parenting issues. Overall, very little evidence was collected indicating that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition maintained a consistent process of addressing and achieving this particular goal. Goal 6: Increase educational achievement for all ages of residents by 5 percent each year. The goal of increasing educational achievement in the Kino community was originally defined in the official recognition application as focusing on dropout prevention programs and increasing access to educational opportunities. Indirectly related to this goal, evaluators collected data indicating that the Kino Coalition worked with the Tucson Urban League, the Southside Community School, Pueblo Gardens Elementary, Quincie Douglas Neighborhood Center, Kino Teen Center, and the Holmes Tuttle Boys and Girls Club to support improved access to a wide range of educational opportunities. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 28 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Evaluators did not collect any data that indicated the Kino Coalition had directly been involved in dropout prevention programs. The collected data provided evidence that the Kino Coalition worked with schools and social service groups to increase educational opportunities to community members of all ages. Safe Haven stakeholders reported educational programs for adolescents and adults that included: sex education; parenting; computer use training; job interviewing skills; vocational training; literacy programs; English classes for Spanish-speakers; science and math summer school programs; after-school tutoring; youth leadership and public speaking programs; GED classes; sewing classes; and programs that taught youth about peer pressure, the influence of the media, and critical thinking strategies. Goal 7: Improve participation in job readiness programs by 5 percent each year. Specific data measuring job readiness program participation was not collected, so evaluators could not determine the progress toward a five percent annual participation increase. We collected data from official documents and stakeholder interviews indicating that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition included job readiness training in its programmatic activities. Two separate Safe Havens offered occupational training through job readiness classes, interviewing strategies, computer skills, literacy classes, and GED certifications. Stakeholders discussed the challenges many residents face regarding employability and cited English language classes as also being an important part of vocational training. Data regarding specific job readiness programs was not collected, but stakeholders and document reviews both indicated that the Kino Coalition had supported programs that would improve the quality, quantity, and accessibility of vocational training for Kino residents. Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Summary The Kino Weed and Seed Coalition has followed a process of implementing prevention, intervention, and treatment programs that largely conforms to achieving its originally intended goals for this component. The data collected offered strong support that the first goal, establishing and nurturing a coalition of service providers, was adhered to and followed a consistent process of emphasis. The six Kino Safe Havens were all involved in these activities, as was CODAC, Kino's primary service provider. Other individual goals in this component had mixed evidence concerning the success of implementation efforts. Goals related to successful probation completion (#2), teen pregnancy (#5), and job readiness (#7) had limited support from data collected. While there were anecdotal reports of these programmatic activities, there was little or no data collected from official documents. Goals concerning drug and gang prevention programs (#3), healthcare (#4), and education achievement (#6), all had data that An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 29 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission substantiated that these goals were actively pursued through programmatic activities throughout the implementation period. Stakeholders working as service providers discussed some of the challenges and failures faced by Kino. They identified that finding culturally appropriate and inclusive prevention, intervention, and treatment programs was difficult and that securing sufficient resources continued to be challenging. Limited resources mean limited implementation saturation. One participant said: "if we had the resources to deliver more programs to more people, we could reach more people in need." Overall, the data indicated that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition predominately followed a process that was supportive of achieving its originally intended goals for the prevention, intervention, and treatment component of its Weed and Seed strategy. Neighborhood Restoration Goals The Neighborhood Restoration component of the Kino Weed and Seed strategy has 10 goals. 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 are expected to focus on advancing economic revitalization or development, employment opportunities, and the improvement of the physical environment of the community (CCDO, 2006). Goal 1: Increase resident participation in community activities. Numerous examples from our collected data support that the Kino Coalition routinely engaged in community outreach events and activities throughout program implementation years. Data collected from official documents and stakeholder interviews reported program activities such as: an annual community Halloween Party at the Quincie Douglas Neighborhood Center; community clean-ups; street address and sign painting; an annual Martin Luther King Jr. Day Breakfast for the community; a `senior prom' event staged for senior residents, with youth from the neighborhood handling decorations and hosting; and special events for the openings of a new public library and swimming pool in the Kino community area. These events relied on the member organizations of the Kino Coalition to provide sponsorship for games, prizes, food, and other activities at no charge to community members. The creation of new public resources that had never been in the area previously, such as the public swimming pool and public library, but also by the building of the new community center, had an impact on resident participation. Several stakeholders described that having these new community gathering places, and staging An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 30 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission free public events there, created an environment within the Kino community where residents had opportunity to gather in a safe and comfortable place. Goal 2: Maximize efficiency by minimizing duplication of efforts and leveraging resources through partnerships across neighborhood organizations. As previously discussed, the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition established numerous partnerships with government agencies, businesses, non-profit service providers, and community members. The data collected from official documents and stakeholder interviews demonstrated that the Kino Coalition developed a process of building partnerships, leveraging resources, and maximizing efficiency. One representative from the Safe Haven stakeholders reported that Pueblo Gardens Elementary School leveraged resources by hosting after-school tutoring for neighborhood children, provided free facilities for the Strengthening Families Program, worked with the National Guard and its DEFY (Drug Education For Youth) program, and served the community by offering referrals to other Kino Coalition and CODAC services available to the residents in the community. Data also showed extensive cooperation and leveraging of resources among Tucson Parks and Recreation, Tucson-Pima Public Library, Tucson Urban League, the Holmes Tuttle Boys and Girls Club, area churches and ministries, and the Kino community. The breadth and depth of the cooperative partnerships was a clear indication of efforts to maximize efficiency and leverage resources. Goal 3: Increase opportunities for social connections within the community. The original goal for increasing social connectedness in the Kino community was defined by two key objectives: 1) host regular neighborhood unity events, such as barbeques or block parties; and 2) host fun days for kids. Each of these two objectives, and thus this goal, were adequately addressed by the Kino Coalition in programmatic activities described in the first Neighborhood Restoration goal. The same activities and initiatives aimed at increasing resident participation in community events were activities that met the objectives for this goal. Goal 4: Provide a clean and safe environment in the neighborhoods. Law enforcement activities contributed to the goal of providing a clean and safe environment in the neighborhoods through directly improving safety. The weeding efforts contributed to making the neighborhoods safer by targeting open-air drug markets, aggressively removing criminals from the community, and increased police presence. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 31 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Neighborhood restoration efforts contributed to making the community environment cleaner. Data collected during stakeholder interviews from the City Council, the Weeding Subcommittee, the Kino Executive Committee, and residents reported cooperative neighborhood clean-up efforts. They described that from the very beginning the Coalition used probationers for clean-up projects in the area. Using probationers to remove trash and weeds from vacant lots and abandoned properties and paint house exteriors took advantage of required community service hours, leveraged resources and minimized costs to the Kino Coalition. Resident stakeholders reported that the streets were safe again, the neighborhoods were cleaner, and police removed vagrants and drug dealers from the community's public park. Goal 5: Improve housing conditions in the neighborhoods. The improvement of housing conditions is one of the elements of the National Weed and Seed strategy used as part of obtaining official recognition because Weed and Seed sites target economically depressed areas with substandard housing conditions (CCDO, 2006). Using data collected from official documents and through stakeholder focus group sessions, evaluators found that during the early stages of the formation of the Kino Coalition citizens and local Tucson government officials worked on a housing improvement initiative that looked at Weed and Seed as a strategy for sustainability. One resident, and others agreed, that a previous neighborhood association president from South Park was instrumental in the creation of the Kino area. They reported that the South Park neighborhood had received a Hope VI grant to improve housing conditions in the neighborhood. It was this program, coupled with knowledge about the City of South Tucson's Weed and Seed site adjacent to the South Park neighborhood that led neighborhood leaders into discussions of forming their own Weed and Seed coalition. From the beginning, this same early South Park resident leader wanted to include the adjoining neighborhoods of Las Vistas, Pueblo Gardens, and Western Hills II. The merging of these four neighborhoods seemed a logical fit because of their demographic similarity to one another and dissimilarity to the rest of Tucson and the geographic features that lent cohesion as a singular designated area. The efforts to improve housing conditions using the Hope VI grant fostered the development of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition, and the Coalition continued to seek revenue and support to continue improving living conditions for residents in the Kino community. Goal 6: Increase homeownership rates in the neighborhoods. The Kino Coalition set a goal of increasing homeownership rates among Kino residents with the belief that higher rates of owner-occupied housing contribute to sustained reductions in crime. Evaluators collected data that substantiated program activities that contributed to achieving this goal. Data from official documents referred to classes An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 32 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission teaching residents about savings, credit scores, and the home buying process. Stakeholder sessions also revealed Kino Coalition activities aimed at supporting homeownership. Stakeholders from the Residents group, the City Council, and the Executive Committee reported on some of the economic developments in the area resulting from Kino Weed and Seed advocacy efforts. These included helping attract a homebuilder to construct a new development of homes within Kino, and advocating for the limitation and improved control of multi-unit housing. They also supported a developer who converted a dilapidated old ice-making facility located on the north end of the Kino area into luxury lofts. We were unable to collect data detailing changes in homeownership rates, but to the end of engaging in a process of pursuing the goal, the Kino Coalition made efforts that could contribute to increased homeownership. Goal 7: Advocate for increased public reinvestment in the neighborhood's infrastructure. We found that programmatic efforts and successes related to other goals also supplied data that illustrated that the Kino Coalition had developed formal activities that substantiated the process of achieving this goal. Evidence of public and private reinvestment included: the new Quincie Douglas Neighborhood Center; the new public library; a community swimming pool; the Southside Charter School, a Safe Haven that was formed to serve the students living in the Kino community; new housing developments; and street signage and resurfacing. Goal 8: Improve commercial environments and business success. There are few retail businesses operating in the Kino area, and several participants from multiple stakeholder groups emphasized the community's need to expand commercial development, both for improved quality of life and sustained progress on crime reduction and neighborhood restoration. Evaluators found through stakeholder interviews that the Kino Coalition had advocated for improved commercial development, seeking to attract a major grocery chain, a "big box" store, and a retail center. Seeing their community as underserved by available retail stores, residents advocated together with the City Council to develop large sections of undeveloped land, vacant properties, condemned businesses, and renovate industrial zones. Goal 9: Improved personal savings and investment in housing, education, training, and micro-enterprise. The Kino Weed and Seed Coalition helped develop and open a credit union in the community dedicated to serving the needs of the Kino residents. Evaluators found that stakeholders reported having advocated for the credit union as an alternative to payday An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 33 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission loan check cashing businesses that proliferated in the Kino area. Stakeholders described the payday loan businesses as "preying on people" taking advantage of those in need. Evaluators also found evidence that improved housing conditions, education, and training in a variety of areas were commonly available in the Kino area because of program activities. Job training, computer skills, healthy life choices, parenting classes, and sewing classes that were offered as part of other Kino Coalition activities also contributed to the programmatic process toward achieving this goal. Goal 10: Improve job opportunities for residents in the area. Combined with the efforts involved with other goals, evaluators found that various program activities of the Kino Coalition attempted to improve job opportunities in the community. Through educational programs such as GED classes, computer classes, and vocational training, the Kino Coalition built a broader range of occupational skills for residents. Through the advocacy for commercial development, particularly retail outlets, created numerous entry-level jobs well suited to those residents living nearby. The data collected supported that Kino had developed and implemented programs that would contribute to improved job opportunities and other economic development. Neighborhood Restoration Summary The Kino Weed and Seed Coalition developed a planned process and implemented programs that supported its originally intended neighborhood restoration goals. Substantial support was found for their commitment to goals one through four. Residents had greater opportunity to participate in community activities and increase their connectedness, and they felt that Kino's neighborhoods were safer and cleaner than before. It was further found that the Kino Coalition had fostered numerous relationships and maintained a broad coalition of members, which afforded them excellent opportunities to leverage resources and maximize efficiency. Other neighborhood restoration goals were found to have been largely addressed by program activities that addressed other program goals. The Hope VI grant supported improved housing conditions and homeownership rates. Increased public investment, improved commercial development, training and education, and improved job opportunities were also part of the Kino Coalition's program activities throughout the implementation period. Annual Progress Reports and Changes in Goals The Kino Weed and Seed Coalition prepared progress reports detailing site activities over the preceding year and the tasks and programs aimed at achieving their identified goals. Data was collected from these progress reports to examine which activities the An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 34 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission report identified could be tied to our template of originally intended strategies. The most recent of these progress reports, detailing the Kino Coalition's 2005 fiscal year, contained data that illustrated changes in the structure and language of Kino's goal statements and objectives providing important markers for the process evaluation. The changes largely stayed consistent with the goals of the original plan submitted with the initial application for official recognition. The goals were restructured with a condensed list of modified goals that synthesized similar goals and objectives from the original plan into a more concise statement of goals and objectives. The modified goals for the law enforcement component synthesized most of the original goals. Excluded from specifically defined objectives and tasks were: ? ? Increased patrols (Law Enforcement Goal #2 in Exhibit 5); Reduced speeding and traffic related problems (Law Enforcement Goal #7 in Exhibit 5). The newly synthesized goals for the law enforcement component responded to goals from other components of the original Kino Weed and Seed strategy, specifically: ? ? ? ? improving successful completion of probation (Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Goal #2 in Exhibit 5); leveraging resources; providing a clean and safe environment; and improving housing conditions in the neighborhood (Neighborhood Restoration Goals 2, 4, and 5 in Exhibit 5). The modified goals and objectives for the community policing component addressed both of the original goals, but was expanded to support goals from other components in the original plan, including: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? increasing public awareness of positive police activities; coalition building; increase participation in gang and drug use prevention programs; increasing resident participation in community activities; leveraging resources; increasing social connectedness in the community; improving housing conditions; and providing a safe and clean environment. The modified goals for the prevention, intervention, and treatment component included provisions specifically relevant to all of the original goals, except for increasing probation success. However, it also detailed objectives and tasks that provided support to nine of the 10 original neighborhood restoration goals. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 35 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission The new neighborhood restoration goals retained objectives and tasks that supported all 10 of the original goals, as well as tasks directly related to the prevention, intervention, and treatment goal of fostering coalition building. Collectively, the current goals and objectives detailed in the 2005 Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Annual Progress Report continue to support all 26 of the original goals established in the initial application for official recognition. Policy and Procedures Manuals The Kino site's Policies and Procedures guide was also used to assess the Coalition's adherence to their originally intended site plan. Data from the site's self-created policies and procedures manual describe the site's emphasis on particular programmatic activities and plans. In part, the organizational structure as defined in the Policies and Procedures manual indicates Kino's commitment to some of the original goals: 1) to create and maintain a Seeding Subcommittee; 2) to create and maintain a Weeding Subcommittee; 3) to maintain neighborhood access to police and communication between community members and police officers; 4) to establish and maintain a coalition of service providers in the Kino area; 5) to increase resident participation in community activities; 6) to increase opportunities for social connections within the community; 7) to leverage resources through partnerships across neighborhood organizations; and 8) to advocate for increased public reinvestment in the neighborhood's infrastructure. While not all of the goals and objectives set forth in the original strategic plan are represented in the Policies and Procedures, the goals related to organization structure of the site are supported. Data from official Tucson Police Department documents indicated that the original goals for both the law enforcement and community policing elements of the Weed and Seed strategy were a routine part of the standing orders and action plans for officers working in the Kino area. The data included personnel assignments, enforcement strategies, planned community policing activities, memoranda, and action plans of the Operations Division South, the TPD division responsible for the Kino area. Impact Evaluation As mentioned earlier, the impact evaluation uses call for service (CFS) data from the Tucson Police Department to determine whether the strategies used by the Kino Coalition had an effect on crime and disorder in the Kino area. Exhibit 7 below shows the number of calls for service per 1,000 population and the percent change for a given year relative to the preceding year's CFS rate, for each of the three pre-test period years, March 1999 through February 2002, and four post-test period years, March 2002 through February 2006. The exhibit also includes the results of our pre/post analyses. To compare the mean CFS rate for 36 months of data during the pre-test period to the mean CFS rate for 48 months of post-test data, independent samples t-tests were conducted. The results of these significance tests are shown in the column labeled as An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 36 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Pre-Post Change. Also shown is the Post-Test Period Change, which is the percent change in CFS rates from the first year of program implementation to the most recent year. As shown in Exhibit 7, the Kino area routinely experienced declines in the rates of CFS. The rate of violent crime CFS in the Kino area declined by more than 11 percent during the first year of implementation, and in year four experienced a decline of more than 17 percent. When compared to the 36 month average of pre-test rates, the mean posttest rate significantly declined by 0.91 calls per 1,000 people. In Tucson as a whole, the violent crime CFS rate experienced a slight increase of 0.03, which was not a significant change. Exhibit 7 shows that the property crime CFS rate for Kino declined by more than 15 percent during the first year of implementation, increased by slightly more than 1 percent in the second year, and then declined in the third and fourth years by almost 14 and 23 percent, respectively. Overall the property crime CFS rate declined almost 33 percent during the implementation period. Tucson more generally experienced a decline of almost 26 percent during the same period. The pre/post analyses revealed that Kino's implementation period decline of 1.55 calls per 1,000 was a significant decline. Tucson's decline of 0.11 was not a significant change. Exhibit 7 further shows that CFS rates for drug crime had an erratic pattern in the Kino area, with a slight decrease in the first year of about 3 percent, declining by nearly 20 percent in the second year, then seeing a sharp increase of more than 22 percent in the third, and finally dropping dramatically in year four by more than 38 percent. Overall, the pre-post analysis showed that Kino had experienced a significant decline of 1.12 calls per 1,000 residents. Conversely, Tucson experienced a significant increase of 0.11 in its pre/post drug crime CFS rates. Exhibit 7 also shows that rates for disorder calls increased more than 11 percent during the first year, followed by decreases in each subsequent year, of approximately 5.6, 10.0, and 19.6 percent. When compared to the pre-test period, CFS rates for disorder increased by 0.03, although it was not a significant change. Disorder rates for Tucson have declined each year since 2003, and overall post-test rates were 0.11 lower, which represented a significant decline. Total CFS for the Kino area showed consistent declines throughout implementation years, with an almost 10 percent drop the first year, followed by drops of 4.8 percent, 5.1 percent, and 23.9 percent in each of the subsequent years of implementation. When compared to the pre-test period, total CFS rates for Kino dropped 3.54 calls per 1,000 residents during the post-test period, which was a significant change. Tucson's post-test rates declined 0.09, but was not significant. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 37 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Exhibit 7: Calls for Service and Percent Annual Change by Program Year Pre-Test Period Year Year Year -3 -2 -1 Mar Mar Mar 1999 2000 2001 to to to Feb Feb Feb 2000 2001 2002 Violent Kino % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. Tucson % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. Property Kino % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. Tucson % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. Drugs Kino % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. Tucson % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. Disorder Kino % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. Tucson % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. Total Calls for service Kino % Change Tucson % Change CFS per 1,000 Pop. n/a 14.38 2.19 14.69 7.15 15.75 -1.52 15.51 2.90 15.96 -4.20 15.29 -17.19 12.66 -0.09 -18.36 b Post-Test Period Year 1 Mar 2002 to Feb 2003 Year 2 Mar 2003 to Feb 2004 Year 3 Mar 2004 to Feb 2005 Year 4 Mar 2005 to Feb 2006 a PrePost Change 3/99 ? 2/02 vs. 3/02 ? 2/06 PostTest Change Year 1 vs. Year 4 n/a 4.16 n/a 2.63 4.95 4.36 -1.03 2.60 -7.62 4.03 4.40 2.72 -11.09 3.58 -0.74 2.70 -6.16 3.36 -2.57 2.63 0.03 3.36 1.72 2.68 -17.29 2.78 1.12 2.71 0.03 -0.91* -22.36 0.21 n/a 8.11 n/a 9.32 -10.10 7.29 4.17 9.71 17.77 8.58 9.47 10.63 -15.47 7.26 -2.72 10.34 1.16 7.34 5.51 10.91 -13.94 6.32 -6.62 10.19 -22.79 4.88 -24.70 7.67 -1.55* -32.78 -0.11 -25.81 n/a 5.00 n/a 0.89 -56.51 2.17 7.31 0.95 19.93 2.61 -0.25 0.95 -3.09 2.53 1.77 0.97 -19.56 2.03 6.77 1.03 22.25 2.49 4.93 1.08 -38.14 1.54 -0.13 1.08 0.11* -1.12* -39.17 11.89 n/a 1.51 n/a 1.53 0.54 1.51 -7.25 1.42 8.15 1.64 1.28 1.44 11.35 1.82 3.72 1.49 -5.56 1.72 -7.73 1.38 -10.05 1.55 -3.16 1.34 -19.62 1.25 -10.42 1.20 -0.11* 0.03 -31.72 -19.96 n/a 18.77 -18.28 15.34 9.91 16.86 -9.90 15.19 -4.82 14.46 -5.14 13.72 -23.86 10.44 -3.54* -31.26 CFS per 1,000 Pop. * Significant at p < 0.05 a Year 4 Calls for service estimated from 10 months data (March 2005 to December 2005) using 2005 monthly average, adjusted by average percentage difference of available CFS data from each January and February from 1999 through 2005. b Total Calls for service for this analysis includes only those calls coded by the Tucson Police Department into one of the above four categories. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 38 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission The following five charts display the annual changes in CFS data and the relationships between Kino and Tucson rates. Chart 1 shows the CFS rates for violent crime for the three pre-test period years and four post-test period years for both Kino and Tucson. During that time the rates for the City of Tucson remained relatively stable, differing by no more than 0.09 calls per 1,000 persons over the study period. Rates in the Kino area declined annually. This trend represented a decline of more than 36 percent from two years prior to Kino Weed and Seed recognition to the current year. CHART 1: Violent Crime Call for Service Rates in Kino Weed and Seed and Tucson 1999 through 2005 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 4.16 4.36 4.03 3.58 3.36 3.36 2.78 Calls Per 1,000 Population 2.63 2.60 2.72 2.70 2.63 2.68 2.71 1999 2000 Implementation Start 2001 2002 Year 2003 2004 2005 Kino Tucson An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 39 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Chart 2 shows the CFS rates for property crime. The rates follow similar trajectories, although the overall decline in the Kino area from 8.11 calls per 1,000 residents to 4.88 was a statistically significant decline, whereas the decline for Tucson from 9.32 in 1999 to 7.67 in 2005 was not a significant decline in property crime CFS rates. CHART 2: Property Crime Call for Service Rates in Kino Weed and Seed and Tucson 1999 through 2005 14.00 Calls Per 1,000 Population 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 1999 9.32 8.11 9.71 10.63 10.34 10.91 10.19 7.67 8.58 7.29 7.26 7.34 6.32 4.88 2000 Implementation Start 2001 2002 Year Kino 2003 2004 2005 Tucson An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 40 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Chart 3 shows the CFS rates for drug crimes. The exhibit shows that Tucson remained relatively stable from the pre-test period to the post-test period, however, the slight increase from 0.89 in 1999 to 1.08 in 2005 represented a statistically significant change. The drug crime rates for the Kino Weed and Seed area were at a high of 5.0 calls per 1,000 residents in 1999, dropped sharply during 2000, and fell to a low of 1.54 in 2005. When compared to the pre-test period, this change represented a significant decline in drug crime CFS rates during the post-test period. CHART 3: Drug Crime Call For Service Rates in Kino Weed and Seed and Tucson 1999 through 2005 6.00 Calls Per 1,000 Population 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.89 1999 0.95 2000 Implementation Start 5.00 2.61 2.17 2.53 2.03 2.49 1.54 0.95 2001 0.97 2002 Year Kino 1.03 2003 1.08 2004 1.08 2005 Tucson An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 41 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Chart 4 shows the CFS rates for disorder incidents. The CFS rates for disorder or quality of life related issues were very similar in the Kino area and Tucson in 1999, 1.51 and 1.53, respectively. The rates in the Kino area peaked at 1.82 calls per 1,000 persons during the first year of implementation in 2002, and declined each subsequent year to a low of 1.25 in 2005, although this change was not significant. When compared to the pre-test CFS rates, the CFS rates for Tucson significantly declined during the post-test period. It is plausible that the notable increase in Kino in 2002 is attributable to increased police and citizen involvement and concern in the area. CHART 4: Disorder Crime Call for Service Rates in Kino Weed and Seed and Tucson 1999 through 2005 2.00 Calls Per 1,000 Population 1.82 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 1999 2000 Implementation Start 1.64 1.51 1.53 1.42 1.44 1.51 1.49 1.72 1.55 1.38 1.25 1.34 1.20 2001 2002 Year Kino 2003 2004 2005 Tucson An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 42 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Chart 5 shows the aggregated CFS rates for the four crime measures (violence, property, drugs, and disorder). The rates in both Tucson and Kino have declined from 1999 to 2005. Tucson experienced declines in total CFS rates during the post-test period, when compared to pre-test rates, although these changes were not significant. For Kino the steady decline in the post test years from the pre-implementation period was significant. CHART 5: Total Crime Call for Service Rates in Kino Weed and Seed and Tucson 1999 through 2005 20.00 Calls Per 1,000 Population 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 1999 2000 Implementation Start 18.77 15.75 14.69 16.86 14.38 15.34 15.51 15.19 14.46 13.72 15.96 15.29 12.66 10.44 2001 2002 Year Kino Tucson 2003 2004 2005 An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 43 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission PART IV: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Process Summary Overall, the review of official documents and data collected during stakeholder focus groups indicated that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition had largely adhered to its intended goals and followed a process for achieving those goals. Through the course of implementation, the Kino Coalition developed the originally intended 26 goals into a synthesized and concise set of goals with specific objectives that continued to adhere to the intent of the original goals. Exhibit 8 below reiterates the original goals of the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition and the information source that indicated adherence to the intended processes. Exhibit 8: Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Original Goals and Process Adherence Annual Community Tucson Progress Action Plan Police Original Goals Report 2004 Dept 2005 Law Enforcement Create and maintain a Kino Weeding Steering 1 X X Committee. Increase police patrols in the Kino area at X X 2 least 25%. Increase public awareness of positive law 3 X X X enforcement efforts. Reduce recidivism in the neighborhood by 5% X X 4 each year. Reduce drug dealing within the neighborhood 5 X X by 5% each year. Decrease the illegal use of guns and gang X X X 6 graffiti by 5% each year. Reduce incidences of speeding and traffic 7 X X problems by 10% each year. Community Policing Increase participation in crime prevention 1 X X X programs by 5% each year. Maintain neighborhood access to police and 2 communication between community members X X X and police officers. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 44 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Exhibit 8: Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Original Goals and Process Adherence (cont.) Annual Community Tucson Progress Action Plan Police Original Goals Report 2004 Dept 2005 Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment Utilize the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Seeding Committee to establish and nurture a 1 X X X coalition of service providers working in the Kino neighborhoods. Increase successful completion of probation X 2 by 5% each year. Increase participation in drug use and gang 3 X X prevention programs by 5% each year. Ensure that health intervention and treatment 4 opportunities are available within the X X community. 5 Reduce adolescent and teen birth rates. X X Increase educational achievement for all ages X X 6 of residents by 5% each year. Improve participation in job readiness 7 X X programs by 5% each year. Neighborhood Restoration and Economic Development Increase resident participation in community 1 X X activities. Maximize efficiency by minimizing duplication of efforts and leveraging resources through 2 X X partnerships across neighborhood organizations. Increase opportunities for social connections 3 X X within the community. Provide a clean and safe environment within 4 X X the neighborhoods. Improve housing conditions in the 5 X X neighborhoods. Increase homeownership rates in the 6 X X neighborhoods. Advocate for increased public reinvestment in 7 X X the neighborhood's infrastructure. Improve commercial environments and X X 8 business success. Improve personal savings and investment in 9 housing, education, training, and microX X enterprise. Improve job opportunities for residents in the X X 10 area. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 45 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission The anecdotal information collected from stakeholder groups and documentation of steering committees and departmental policies provide strong evidence of the Coalition's efforts to achieve the specified goals. This information was a counterbalance to the lack of quantitative data which would have demonstrated attainment of quantifiable goals, such as a five percent reduction in graffiti or illegal use of guns, or five percent increases in programs aimed at drug use or job readiness. In regard to implementing prevention, intervention, and treatment programs service providers faced the challenge of providing culturally appropriate material to a population that included many adults who were recent immigrants to the United States and spoke only Spanish. Impact Summary The rates of calls for service for violent, property, drugs, and total crimes in the Kino Weed and Seed area declined significantly during the four years of official programmatic activities when compared to the three years prior. Crimes or concerns related to quality of life, or disorder, issues did have a slight increase during the implementation years compared to the pre-test years, but the change was not significant. In as much as Tucson can serve as a comparison to the Kino Weed and Seed area, the changes in CFS rates between the two were very different. Tucson saw a significant increase in drug crime CFS rates and a significant decrease in CFS rates of disorder crime. The increase in violent CFS rates, and decreases in property and total CFS rates were not significant. There are important limitations to using Tucson as a comparison group to the Kino area. It must be stressed that direct statistical comparison cannot be drawn between the two groups because any findings could arguably be influenced by uncontrolled or unknown factors. Given this caveat, the rates for Tucson did provide a context for describing what was happening to CFS rates in the Kino Weed and Seed area. Some CFS rates increased during years of program implementation, particularly in disorder related concerns. These increases were not unexpected and do not necessarily indicate a programmatic failure. Other evaluations of Weed and Seed sites have found that measures of crime may increase during program implementation (NIJ, 1999), only to experience declines in subsequent years. Increased rates may be a result of many factors external or internal to Weed and Seed program activities, and may be an indication of a positive program outcome such as improved community and law enforcement communication and support (NCFHPC, 1999; Josi, et al, 2000; Harris et al, 2001; and Driscoll et al, 2003). An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 46 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Conclusion The data available to evaluators provides evidence that the strategies adopted by the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed site have been successful. There has been a statistically significant decrease in the rate of calls for police service in the area, and both the police and members of the community believe their community policing efforts have established a strong bond between them since the start of the project. The efforts to establish prevention, intervention, and treatment programs have been described as successful by coalition stakeholders. The expansion of the Quincie Douglas Community Center, the building of a library and swimming pool, and the growth of the Southside Charter School have provided permanent, safe, and comfortable community gathering places, which should help to sustain changes in the community. There are also signs of future economic improvement in the building of new homes and the coalition's willingness to participate in zoning decisions. Even though there is evidence of the success of the Kino site, data was frequently lacking that would have allowed for the rigorous assessment of each and every program goal. In 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. For some of Kino site's goals, assembling the appropriate data was a daunting, if not impossible task. The Kino site's goal of reducing recidivism by five percent is one example of a goal that was created without establishing the processes to assess whether that goal was met. To properly assess reduction in recidivism among neighborhood residents, a data base of those living in the neighborhood who were arrested in a given (or base) period of time (e.g., the year prior to program implementation) would have had to be assembled. Then the individual persons in the data base would have to be tracked to determine if they recidivated. As illustrated above, measuring neighborhood resident recidivism rates is not impossible. Unfortunately, the steps needed to establish the appropriate data collection strategy were not taken, rendering the measurement of progress toward achieving the goal impossible to assess. For other goals (e.g. reduction of adolescent and teen birth rates) data may be available, but not easily accessible at the neighborhood level. Additionally, this particular goal also points at an incongruence in goal setting: confusion between the roles of process vs. impact measures. Given the developmental stage of the Kino site, a more useful goal might have been the establishment of a model teen pregnancy prevention program. The purpose of Weed and Seed is to develop and implement a strategy that will over time have an impact on the quality of life in the neighborhood. It may take time for that strategy (which is a process) to have the desired impact. Therefore, in the absence of explicit strategies that address the problem of teen pregnancy an intermediate step in the Weed and Seed process that is measurable would be the establishment of a model teen pregnancy prevention program, not the outcome or impact of the program itself. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 47 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission The data collection challenges of the Kino Weed and Seed site serves as a guide to future Weed and Seed sites. The limitations in the effective measurement of Kino's original strategic plan are educational for those communities that might receive future Official Recognition and funding. Future sites should be careful to not just clearly identify goals and objectives, but also the mechanisms for effectively measuring those goals and objectives to ensure a well developed and comprehensive programmatic and evaluation strategy. In many places in this report, the lack of objective quantitative data to assess some of the goals has been noted. Suggestions for program improvement include revisiting the site's goals and objectives and putting in place strategies for collecting the data needed to assess program performance and effectiveness. Still, even though objective, quantitative data to support the coalition's strategies has frequently been lacking, the consistently positive information gathered from official documentation and focus groups supports the conclusion that the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition has been a success. With further refinement of the goals and objectives and putting in place mechanisms for assessing those goals and objectives, the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed site could improve upon their successes bringing even more tangible benefits to neighborhood residents. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 48 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission REFERENCES City of Hartford. City of Hartford Weed and Seed. Available: http://www.hartford.gov/police/Weed&Seed/weed.htm City of Pittsburgh. City of Pittsburgh 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 (2005). 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 (2006) Weed and Seed website homepage available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ccdo/ws/welcome.html. Community Capacity Development Office (2006) Weed and Seed Data Center Kino Coalition webpage available: http://www.weedandseeddatacenter.org/sitedetail.aspx?sitekey=365S0. Community Oriented Policing Services. "What is community policing?" Available: http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=36 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. Drug Education For Youth (2006). DEFY website available at: http://www.hq.navy.mil/defy/default.htm . 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. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 49 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 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. Health Resources and Services Administration (2006) Stop Bullying Now. Available online at: http://stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/index.asp?area=main U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 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. Kino Weed and Seed Coalition (2004). Kino Weed and Seed Coalition Action Plan. Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kusche, C.A. & Greenberg, M.T. (1994) The PATHS Curriculum. Seattle: Developmental Research and Programs. 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. Miller, L. (2001). "Looking for Postmodernism in All the Wrong Places: Implementing a New Penology." British Journal of Criminology 41: 168-184. An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 50 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission 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. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Truancy Reduction demonstration Program. Available: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/Programs/ProgSummary.asp?pi=36&ti=11&si=32&kw=&st rItem=&strSingleItem=&p=topic&PreviousPage=SearchResults 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). Roehl, J. (2002). Evaluating a Weed and Seed Strategy. Washington, D.C. Justice Research Center. 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 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. Drug Free Communities Support Program. Available: http://drugfreecommunities.samhsa.gov/history/history.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 An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 51 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Appendix 1: Adult Focus Group Interview Guide Focus group interviews are loosely guided with the following questions, but each group is allowed significant latitude to deviate from, or emphasize topic areas during discussions. 1. What agency (group/company) are you with and what is your position? 2. How long have you personally been involved with the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition? 3. How long has your agency (group/company) been involved with the Kino Weed and Seed Coalition? 4. With which neighborhoods do you work? 5. Do you live in the Kino Weed and Seed designated area? a. Which neighborhood? 6. In what Weeding/Seeding activities do you participate? 7. To the best of your knowledge and in your own opinion, assess the balance between Weeding and Seeding efforts. 8. What are some of the strengths of the site? 9. What are some of the weaknesses of the site? 10. Describe some of the challenges or failures of implementation you experienced. a. Were they resolved, and if so, how? 11. Give an example of one of the most important accomplishments or biggest failures you experienced while working on some aspect of Weed and Seed. 12. What more do you think you, your agency, or other Weed and Seed stakeholders need to fulfill Kino's Weed and Seed mission? An Evaluation of the Kino Coalition Weed and Seed Strategy 52 Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Appendix 2: Juvenile Focus Group Interview Guide Focus group interviews are loosely guided with the following questions, but each group is allowed significant latitude to deviate from, or emphasize topic areas during discussions. 1. How long have you been on the Teen Advisory Board? 2. Do you live in the Kino Weed and Seed community area? a. Which neighborhood? 3. Do you go to school in the area, or outside the area? 4. Did you go on the Washington D.C. trip? a. What were some of the things you learned there, or what do you remember best about the experience? 5. Have you participated in any neighborhood clean-ups or other restoration projects? a. If so, what did you do and what are your feelings about the experience? 6. Have you ever used the facilities or participated in any programs at the Quincie Douglas Center? a. If so, what did you do and what are your feelings about the ex |
|
|
| A |
|
| B |
| C |
|
| D |
| E |
| F |
| G |
| H |
| I |
| J |
| L |
| M |
|
| N |
| O |
| P |
|
| R |
| S |
|
| T |
|
| U |
| V |
| W |
| Y |
|
|