Final Report: Salt Lake City Weed and Seed November 2005

This report is an evaluation of Salt Lake City's Weed and Seed program for 2005. The evaluation is based on "individual logic models [constructed for] four components: 1) law enforcement, 2) communicty policing, 3) prevention, intervention, and treatment; and 4) neighborhood restoration." The report includes recommendations on how the program can be improved, in addition to an evaluation of how successful Weed and Seed was.

IHI UNIVERSITY Of UTAH FINAL REPORT SRIl social research institute G&llege of Social Work *m- Salt Lake City Weed and Seed November 2005 Norma Harris, Ph.D., Director Caren Frost, Ph.D. Brad Lundahl, Ph.D. Jo Yaffe, Ph.D. Mary Moran,, Ph.D. Jerry Cochran, MSW Table of Contents Executive Summary..........................................'.................................. .2 Introduction.....................................................................................6 Evaluation Framework..........................................................................8 Steering Committee.............................................................................9 Target Area.......................................................................................13 Implementation.................................................................................14 Salt Lake City Weed and Seed and the Principles of: a. Coordination and Collaboration............................................................17 b. Community Involvement and Leveraging Funds.......................................20 Law Enforcement..............................................................................22 Community Policing...........................................................................36 Prevention, Intervention and Treatment................................................... .50 Neighborhood Restoration....................................................................60 Comments and Recommendations...........................................................68 1 Executive Summary The evaluation was completed by the Social Research Institute (SRI), College of Social Work, University of Utah. SRI researchers developed a logic model framework to guide the evaluation activities. An overall logic model was developed for the Salt Lake City Weed and Seed initiative that presents the purpose, resources, approaches, components, results, and anticipated outcomes. Individual logic models were then constructed for the four components: 1) law enforcement; 2) community policing; 3) prevention, intervention and treatment; and 4) neighborhood restoration. The logic model framework represents a step-by-step approach to evaluating the effectiveness of the Weed and Seed program in Salt Lake City. The evaluation was completed using a number of methods: document review, conducting data analyses, key informant interviews and focus groups. Residents who participated in the evaluation were provided with monetary reimbursement for their assistance. The evaluation with the vision: to provide a comprehensive response to crime and neighborhood deterioration using nontraditional approaches in four program components in a continuum that ranges from intervention, early intervention, prevention and restoration. Program efforts were designed to control violent crime, drug trafficking, drug related crime, and provide safer neighborhoods for residents. Resources were needed to accomplish the vision. In Salt Lake City, a variety of resources have been available to implement the Weed and Seed initiative including the Department of Justice and other sources. Other resources included the Steering Committee, key stakeholders, and the development of a strategic plan encompassing needs assessments, prioritization of identified needs for fund allocation, 2 establishing goals and objectives, articulating the implementation plans and developing strategies to evaluate the implementation. Four required approaches, intended to maximize all resources through coordination and collaboration, community participation and leveraging resources were examined. The Law Enforcement component was designed to reduce the levels of violent crime, drug activity, and crimes against society. These activities were to increase narcotics enforcement; disrupt organized crime, reduce sexual oriented offenses and remove firearms offenders. Some data were available for each of these activities; however, the data did not suggest trends and were used for a limited analysis only. It was difficult to tell from the data if there was a reduction in levels of violent crime since the data were not collected, reported, or analyzed by law enforcement in this way. Law enforcement efforts for overtime and bike patrols were funded by the Weed and Seed project. According to information obtained in the individual interviews with police officers, funding for law enforcement and its activities was very useful in reducing a variety of crimes in the Weed and Seed area. For example, it appears that law enforcement efforts may have helped to increase overall drug arrests, increase arrests for possession of drugs, decrease property crimes and decrease drive-by shootings. The program goals for Community Policing were to reduce resident identified criminal concerns by increasing resident capacity and increasing targeted deployment of resources, and to maximize the implementation of community oriented and problem solving policing in the target area through enhanced relationships and strategic planning between beat officers, Community Action Teams (CATs) and the community. There are five program strategies which addressed the first goal of reducing resident identified criminal concerns, and two which address the second goal of maximizing implementation of community oriented and problem solving policing. Objectives under these seven program strategies were framed largely in terms of program inputs, rather than outcomes. Quantitative data obtained from program documents were incomplete, but where available, supported that the program strategies were implemented for at least part of the program period. Perceptions of CP effectiveness were obtained from a small number of community residents, who presented mixed opinions about the success of CP efforts. The program goal for Prevention, Intervention and Treatment was to reduce risk factors and enhance protective factors for youth and families within the target area. The program strategy was to develop and support the capacities of parents and youth by coordinating educational and recreation opportunities offered by the site's safe havens and other agencies. There were seven program objectives for this component. The quantitative and qualitative data suggest that this component was successful. This appears to be due in large part to the success of the established safe havens whose funding is well established in the community. Weed and Seed funding was used as a level to other funding. The Neighborhood Restoration component strove to strengthen neighborhoods as a means of preventing and fighting violence and drug related crimes. The Salt Lake Weed and Seed sought to revitalize the identified neighborhoods through improving: (a) recreational opportunities, (b) economic vitality, (c) neighborhood beauty, (d) home ownership, and (e) neighborhood pride. To accomplish these goals, Weed and Seed interfaced with a variety of community agencies (e.g., Neighborhood Housing Services, West Side Leadership, 4 University Neighborhood Partners). From the available data, it appears as though Weed and Seed was partially successful in realizing their objectives. They were involved in and supported a variety of activities which improved recreational opportunities (e.g., park development, community socials) and promoted neighborhood pride (e.g., West Side Banner project, parades, Asset Map). While somewhat less successful, Weed and Seed also supported agencies who sought to promote the economic vitality, beauty, and percentage of home owners in the three communities. Overall, the major stakeholders were grateful for the program and viewed Weed and Seed as successful. For the most part, residents were also satisfied with the programs and services. Even though there were successes, evaluators were not able to determine the strength of the Weed and Seed program. Additionally, evaluators were not able to determine how initial assessments were used in the decision making processes and the available information did not indicate why new and/or different programs were not funded. Because evaluators were not able to link data to many of the specific objectives, there are no trend or comparison data to citywide information. The evaluators offer a number of recommendations about steps to develop a comprehensive evaluation. Salt Lake City Weed and Seed Evaluation Introduction Social Research Institute (SRI) researchers developed a logic model framework to guide the evaluation activities. An overall logic model was developed for the Salt Lake City Weed and Seed initiative. The model presents the purpose, resources, approaches, components, results, and anticipated outcomes (See figure 1). Individual logic models were then constructed for the four components: 1) law enforcement; 2) community policing; 3) prevention, intervention and treatment; and 4) neighborhood restoration. The framework represents a step-by-step approach to evaluating the effectiveness of the Weed and Seed program in Salt Lake City. Researchers also developed a code sheet to determine the extent to which coordination, collaboration, community participation, and leveraging resources were integrated into Weed and Seed Activities. The research was designed to conduct key informant interviews and focus groups in order to obtain perceptions about achievement of the outcomes. Data related to crime statistics, numbers of participants at safe haven events, numbers of parks developed were available and these qualitative efforts were to be an attempt to determine resident perceptions about how safe they felt the neighborhoods were; if programs benefited their families and so forth. The evaluation was completed using a number of methods: document review, conducting data analyses, key informant interviews and focus groups. Residents who participated in the evaluation were provided with monetary reimbursement for their assistance. This report is structured to present the model or suggested practice developed by the Executive Office for Weed and Seed (EOWS) followed by how 6 Salt Lake City Weed and Seed proceeded in development and implementation of the program. The logic model and evaluation begin with the purpose or vision which is to provide a comprehensive response to crime and neighborhood deterioration using nontraditional approaches in four program components in a continuum that ranges from intervention^ early intervention, prevention and restoration. Program efforts are designed to control violent crime, drug trafficking, drug related crime, and provide safer neighborhoods for residents. Resources are needed to realize the vision. In Salt Lake City, a variety of resources have been available to implement the Weed and Seed initiative including the Department of Justice and funds from other sources. Other critical resources include the Steering Committee, key stakeholders, and the development of a strategic plan encompassing needs assessments, prioritization of identified needs for fund allocation, establishing goals and objectives, articulating the implementation plans and developing strategies to evaluate the implementation. Four approaches required by the Department of Justice of all Weed and Seed initiatives are intended to maximize all resources through coordination and collaboration, community participation and leveraging resources. In order to sustain the benefits of Weed and Seed beyond the grant period, these approaches need to be integrated in all program aspects. 7 Figure 1. Salt Lake City Weed and Seed Evaluation Fram( Purpose Provide a comprehensive response to crime and neighborhood deterioration using non-traditional approaches in four program components that range from intervention, restoration early intervention and prevention. These responses are designed to control violent crime, drug trafficking and drug related crime, and provide safer neighborhoods for residents. Resources *DOJ Funds * Other Funds * Steering Committee *Key Stakeholders * Strategic plan Needs assessment Prioritizing - Goals/Obje ctives Implementa tion plan * Evaluation Services Approaches Collaboration: Use collaborative process whereby stakeholders share information, are part of strategic planning process. Coordination: Design programs to maximize all resources, avoid duplication of services. Community Participation: Involve residents and broad citizenry in all activities related to program. Leveraging Resources: Use all available resources in ways that will expand the resource base and provide additional funds. Components Results Law Enforcement: * Increase narcotics Identify arrest, enforcement prosecute, convict *Disrupt organized violent criminals -? crime and drug ^Reduced sexual traffickers in oriented offenses targeted areas. * Removal of firearms offenders Community Policing: Establish mutual trust between law enforcement and residents; include citizens and community in crime prevention, intervention. Prevention, Intervention, Tx: Prevent crime, violence by addressing risk, protective factors associated with drug abuse, crime. Neighborhood Restoration: revitalize areas, improve quality of life thru economic development, improvements in community. * Reduce resident identified criminal concerns *Maximize the implementation of community oriented and problem solving policing in the target area * Student tutoring * Increased youth and youth-parent activities * Increased youth & parent leadership increased involvement with community programs-Sorenson center * Community park * Community corner revitalization *Neighborhood restoration and beautification ¦"Increases program promotion Outcomes * Decreased levels of dug activity, criminal gang activity, crimes against society, and firearms violations *Reduced residents' crime concerns. * Increased resident capacity, increased targeted deployment of resources, enhanced relationships and strategic planning between beat officers, community, and Community Action Teams (CATs).. *Reduced risk factors and enhanced protective factors for youth and families within targeted areas. * Coordinated planning and implementation of economic development, employment opportunities, housing efforts, and SLC Weed and Seed Evaluation Framework Using Resources to Develop the Strategy The Executive Office for Weed and Seed (EOWS) suggests six basic planning stages: • Organize and convene a steering committee; • Select the designated neighborhood; • Conduct a community needs assessment of the designated neighborhood; • Select priorities and strategies to address neighborhood problems and unmet needs; • Identify goals, objectives and major tasks; • Develop an implementation plan. EOWS documents indicate that the steering committee membership should be composed of residents and officials who can play a major role in accomplishing goals and objectives that are established. There must be representation from the U.S. Attorney's Office, residents, city or county government and local law enforcement. Because it is the governing body, the committee should be representative of individuals with vision and leadership, people who will commit time and effort to provide overall management of the program. SLC Weed and Seed Steering Committee: The Salt Lake City Weed and Seed twenty member steering committee, comprised of key professionals and residents, was officially given the responsibility for establishing goals, objectives and tasks, delegating activities to subcommittees, providing 9 implementation guidance, and assessing achievements. According to documents provided by the Weed and Seed Coordinator, the Steering Committee has been the body that has made the major decisions about the Weed and Seed strategy. The committee established site goals, objectives, and tasks; they have delegated activities to subcommittees, provided guidance for implementation, and have assessed the program's achievements. In addition to meeting on a quarterly basis, the Steering Committee has conducted yearly retreats at which time the committee, partner agencies and sub-grantees met to inventory assets, review needs, assess status of current goals and make decisions about the following year's allocations. Once the Steering Committee approves what they refer to as a community analysis summary, the document becomes the comprehensive strategy for the upcoming year. The results of the retreat have been used for submission for yearly funding from the Department of Justice. During the operation of this 5-year grant period, a comprehensive community asset map was completed; a door to door survey of nearly 400 households in a specific area, and the Salt Lake City Economic Development Resource Center developed a comprehensive list of resources for the targeted Weed and Seed area. The steering committee has elected a new chair each year to preside over the quarterly meetings. The Salt Lake City Weed and Seed Steering Committee is judged to be very strong as its members have knowledge and expertise. The addition of the resident members provides even stronger leadership and capacity. The researchers had information about the needs assessments that were conducted during the grant period but did not have access to the outcome. Researchers were not able to discern how the assessments were used in the 10 decision-making process. The available data indicates that there was considerable progress in achieving objectives in the four program components, law enforcement, etc., but it appears that each year the Steering Committee continued to fund the previous year's providers to pursue already identified needs. It does not appear that new or different programs were funded during the grant period. 11 Steering Committee: Name Role/Office Name Role/Office 1 .Mike Harmon Resident 12. VickiMori Neighborhood House 2. John Storrs Resident 13. Edie Trimmer Resident 3. Lt. Kyle Jones SLC Police, Special Invest. 14. Jesse Draper Resident 4. Capt. Zane Smith. SLC Police, Pioneer Patrol 15. Angela Romero Resident 5. Jeanne Robinson Asst. City Prosecutor 16. Archie Archuleta Resident 6. Paul Warner/Melodie Rydalch U.S. Attorneys Office/LECC 17. Ila-Rose Fife Resident 7. Van Turner SLC Council Representative District 11 18. Maria Garcia/Daniel Pacheco Neighborhood Housing Services. 8. Carlton Christensen SLC Council Representative District I 19. Jilene Whitby Resident 9. Eric Jergensen SLC Council Representative District III 20. Rosanita Cespedes/Sean Martin Sorenson Multicultural Center 10. Irene Fisher/Sarah Munro University/Neighborhood Partners 21. Rosemary Kappes/Lona Walton SLC Housing 11. Nano Podolsky SLC School District 22. Katherine Rubalcava Resident Weed and Seed Target Areas: This is the second 5 year Weed and Seed grant; the target area was established during the first 5 year grant and the designation continued into this grant. The Salt Lake City Weed and Seed target area is located in west Salt Lake City and includes the State Fairpark, West Salt Lake (Glendale), and Poplar Grove neighborhoods. The official street boundaries are: North: 600 North; South: 2100 South; West: Redwood Road; East: 1-15 Freeway (from 2100 South to N. Temple; 500 West (from N. Temple to 600 North). The Census Tracts included in the Weed and Seed site are tracts 1006, 1026, 1027, 1028.01, 1028.02 and a portion of 1001 (block groups are 1039, 1040, 1045, 1046, 2003-2009, 2014-2017). The Salt Lake City Police Department beats that cover the Weed and Seed area include beats 213, 214, 216 and 233.The majority of the designated site is located in City Council District 2, however, the northern community of State Fairpark trisects Districts 1, 2 and 3. The designated site falls within Utah Congressional District 1. Community Needs Assessment: Several needs assessments were conducted including a Comprehensive Community Asset Map, completed in 2003, that presented a thorough picture of community assets as well as needs. A survey of 400 households was conducted along the Jordan Parkway to determine how the residents felt about the impact of the Parkway. In response to survey results, additional bike patrols were funded to patrol the Parkway. The Salt Lake City Economic Development Resource Center developed a comprehensive list of resources and statistical data for the targeted Weed and Seed area in a document entitled Westside Bibliography. A Weber State University student also conducted a follow-up perception survey of safety in the community along the Jordan River Parkway. According to 13 Weed and Seed documents, information from these assessments was considered by the Steering Committee in their deliberations. Implementation: The management structure was an integral part of the implementation. The Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) in the Salt Lake City Corporation monitors the Weed and Seed grant. The Weed and Seed Coordinator reports to the HAND Director. The responsibilities of the Coordinator have included being the liaison between the Weed and Seed site and the executive office (HAND), collecting information and writing needed reports, and facilitating the implementation process. Documents provided to us by the Coordinator attribute the accomplishments to the efforts of many people. Weed and Seed officials believe much has been accomplished through the collaborative efforts of the three area community councils, residents, non-profit organizations, the Mayor's Office of Minority Affairs and Youth Programs, the city's Community and Economic Development department, Salt Lake County's Police and Fire departments, the city's Prosecutor's office, local schools and churches, the Federal Enforcement Task Force, the U.S. Attorney's office, the local Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, local FBI officials, many other community professionals, and the Steering Committee. 14 Figure 2. Law Enforcement Sub Grantees Partners Steering Committee Residents USAO & Federal Partners Non-Profits Fiscal Agent (SLC) Site Coordinator Community Policing Sub Grantees Partners Office of Weed & Seed Neighborhood Restoration Sub Grantees Partners Prevention/Intervention/Treatnu Sub Grantees Partners Principles of Coordination, Collaboration, Community Involvement and Leveraging If the fundamental principles that underlie this initiative are implemented, the results of doing so can provide positive direction for many intervention programs serving diverse populations including juvenile and criminal justice, child and family services, aging and adult services and many others. EOWS describes the principle of coordination as a process in which resources are focused and concentrated to avoid duplication of services and to be strategic in services allocation so that all resources are maximized. There are many programs that serve the same vulnerable populations and when coordination is not present, there is often overlap, duplication of services and these vulnerable populations are not served well. By requiring that coordination be involved in Weed and Seed activities, service availability and accessibility are more likely to happen. Collaboration is a process by which agencies, organizations, churches and other entities partner in order that common goals and objectives are developed to meet the specific needs 15 of vulnerable populations. Collaboration replaces the process in which each agency develops their own set of goals and objectives with a process in which common goals are developed. When all agencies embrace collaboration, permanent channels of effective communication among service providers can develop including formal and informal, private and public, schools, churches, and neighborhood entities. Resident participation is also a center piece in Weed and Seed. Community participation empowers residents to become the decision makers over matters of great importance to them. Community participation occurs when residents become members of the steering and other committees. Once residents are empowered and assume responsibility for their own neighborhoods, they are not likely to relinquish the responsibility. Leveraging resources is the fourth approach. The anticipated outcomes of Weed and Seed are ambitious, as they should be. Weeding out crime, violence and drugs is tremendously challenging. Seeding communities with prevention and treatment services and restoring neighborhoods is equally challenging. The challenge is then to leverage funds with available resources so services are expanded and there is the likelihood they will continue once Weed and Seed funding ceases. Leveraging resources requires strategic decisionmaking and commitment on the part of all stakeholders. The researchers developed a code sheet to determine the extent to which these approaches are integrated into all aspects of Salt Lake City Weed and Seed. 16 Salt Lake City Weed and Seed and the Principles: Coordination and Collaboration Coordination activities involving numerous agencies are highlighted in efforts of Salt Lake City's Weed and Seed. The key agencies include three safe havens including two Boys and Girls Clubs and the Sorenson Multicultural Center, the Neighborhood Housing Services, the University/Neighborhood Partnership, Utah Project Safe Neighborhood, Bend in the River and others. The safe havens provide prevention, intervention and limited services for residents and focus on youth activities. Coordination of the three entities has resulted in accessibility to youth programs, academic tutoring and art education. The U.S. Attorney's office has been responsible for coordinating the efforts of the local FBI office, the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agency, and the Salt Lake County Police Department; these agencies deal with illegal drug trafficking, organized crime and production of illegal substances. The Office of the Mayor, along with other city departments including Minority Affairs, Community Development, Economic Development, Fire, Police, Prosecutor's Office, Planning Division and Youth & family Programs have contributed time, staff, and meeting space to assist Weed and Seed in achieving their outcomes. In 2002, the President of the University of Utah created University/Neighborhood Partners (UNP) in order that the University and the Westside could mutually benefit. The advisory board to UNP includes Westside residents and university professionals. The coordinator for Weed and Seed attends all advisory meetings of UNP and several residents from the Weed and Seed steering committee are on the UNP advisory board. The efforts of Weed and Seed and UNP have been especially directed toward the Prevention, Intervention and Treatment component. UNP developed Community Ambassadors who are community residents to provide public education about the target area. UNP developed the Glendale Community Partnership to build up that neighborhood and deal with the issues, and developed the Westside Leadership Program. Since many of the objectives of the UNP are similar to goals and objectives of Weed and Seed, the many efforts are consolidated. Other activities with UNP involve the Hartland Apartments which is a housing complex with over 300 families most of whom do not speak English. In fact, 26 different languages are spoken in the housing complex. Efforts of this collaboration will result in acculturation and transitioning refugees into the communities and providing services to youth and families so they can be successful in becoming self sufficient and obtain citizenship if they desire. Weed and Seed has a strong relationship with Neighborhood Housing Services. This agency is located in the designated Weed and Seed target area and provides residents with assistance for acquiring and maintaining homes, supporting youth development and building community leadership skills. NHS developed a Westside Leadership Institute which provides leadership courses to residents. As a result of these courses, many residents have taken leadership to improve their neighborhoods. The University hosts a graduation ceremony for all residents who complete the ten week leadership training. Other activities involve collaborating with the Utah Project Safe Neighborhood to enhance their capacity to deal with violent crime. Recently released offenders with a history of assault and other crimes can be dealt with more effectively with Project Safe Neighborhood funding. Since many released offenders seek residence in the Westside, it is particularly critical that Weed and Seed continue coordination with this effort. Weed and Seed has a contract with Adult Probation and Parole and law enforcement to identify parolees 18 locating in the community so enhanced supervision of the parolees can be implemented. The site also works on the Project Sentry program targeting youth firearm violence. The Project Sentry program brings together the Salt Lake City Weed and Seed, the West Valley City Weed and Seed, a marketing firm, the Utah Crime Prevention Council and others. Weed and Seed collaborates with the University Bennion Center on an environmental education project along the Jordan River. Bennion Center students, elementary education teachers and students, non-profit agencies and residents work on the Bend-in-the-River project where they learn about wildlife, ecology, and other subjects. Weed and Seed residents participated in their retreat to provide input into their future plans. Plans for expansion of this program are underway. The Community Action Teams (CAT) have been in operation in the Weed and Seed area for some time. CAT provides a multi-disciplinary approach to law enforcement that includes resident participation. There are two CAT teams in the Weed and Seed area that support safer communities. Weed and Seed has a relationship with Neighborhood House Day Care and Senior Services that provide a Police Cadet Mentoring program for area youth; Big Brothers Big Sisters also participate. The area youth participate in arts and crafts, sports and health activities with their Big Brother and Sister mentor. Big Brothers Big Sisters has been found to be very effective early intervention programs as youth participants do better in school overall, have reduced drug involvement, stay in school for long periods of time and have a higher rate of high school graduates. 19 The Salt Lake City School District received a grant to provide special after school services to residents in low-income neighborhoods on the Westside. Professionals involved with UNP including university faculty, Westside principals and teachers have been involved in planning and implementation of the grant. Weed and Seed has communicated with the schools in the Westside in order to enhance their own capacity in serving the children and youth residing in the area. Salt Lake City Weed and Seed and the Principles: Resident Involvement and Leveraging Funds Virtually all of the collaboration and coordination activities have involved residents and have sought to leverage funds and resources to prolong the benefits of Weed and Seed beyond the grant period. According to Weed and Seed documents, the University Neighborhood Partners is being prepared to undertake the leadership role of the Weed and Seed initiative when the grant period ends. An excellent example of leveraging funds occurred when Weed and Seed provided a small amount of funding to the Sorenson Center so they could open on Sundays. The Sorenson Center is funded through a variety of sources but mainly through the city. When the Sorenson Center opened on Sundays, many refugees were able to participate in the programs. Prior participation had not been possible because many refugees work six days a week. The refugee families who were then able to participate in Sunday activities were able to attend family activities, their children were able to attend athletic, arts, computer and other programs that were of tremendous value in becoming acculturated into the community. The chairpersons from the three community councils (State Fairpark, Poplar Grove and West Salt Lake/Glendale) live within the Weed and Seed area and participate on the steering committee. The three councils have been working on improvements in their neighborhoods for long periods of time and the planning efforts will continue when the Weed and Seed grant period ends. According to Weed and Seed records, the collaborations described in previous sections have been part of an overall plan to leverage funds for the continuation of programs assisted by Weed and Seed. The following sections provide logic models and information about the law enforcement, community policing, prevention, intervention and treatment, and neighborhood restoration. 21 Figure 3. SLC Weed and Seed Evaluation Logic Model: Law Enforcement Component lOverall Goal Activities/Objectives Outputs & Measures Outcomes Outcome Measurement [Potential Data Sources [Reduce the levels of violent crime, prug activity, and primes against society by way of coordination and cooperation with federal and local task forces in efforts of restorative j ustice, community responsive deployment of resources, enhanced prosecution, and strategic planning for enforcement Increase narcotics enforcement 5% increase in # search warrants, felony arrests, buys, buy rips, & seizures Measurement: Official Decreased drug activity # of arrests related to drug activity #of meth labs officer perceptions Weed & Seed Data sets LE Interviews records to compare baseline year (2002) to 2003 and 2004 Disrupt organized crime 5% increase in special operations for gangs, arrests of criminal gang members, documented gang members Measurement: Official ^Decreased criminal gang activity # of drive-by shootings # of property crimes citizen perceptions Weed & Seed Data sets LE Interviews records to compare baseline year (2002) to 2003 and 2004 aiiiivimiivviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Reduced sexual oriented offenses 5% increase in arrests for sexual offenses Measurement: Official Decreased crimes against society # of citizen complaints related to sexual offenses citizen perceptions Weed & Seed Data sets LE Interviews records to compare baselind year (2002) to 2003 and 2004 Removal of firearms offenders Reduction in DV involving firearms Reduction in convicted felons possessing firearms Reduction in drug abusers possessing firearms Reduction in number of persons with outstanding federal warrants Measurement: Official Decreased |# of citizen complaints firearms related to firearms violations within pffenses target area citizen perceptions Weed & Seed Data sets LE Interviews records to compare baseline year (2002) to 2003 and 2004 Law Enforcement Data about Weed and Seed Areas July 2005 The overall goal of the Law Enforcement component to Weed and Seed is to "reduce the levels of violent crime, drug activity, and crimes against society." In 2004, the Weed and Seed steering committee added that this reduction would be accomplished "by coordination and cooperation with federal and local task forces in efforts of restorative justice, community responsive deployment of resources, enhanced prosecution, and strategic planning for enforcement." The logic model, provided above, shows the activities related to this portion of the project. The data about Law Enforcement's efforts in the Weed and Seed areas were available on CD from Jacob Brace. Peggy Call, a crime analyst for the SLCPD, compiled the data for the Weed and Seed project. However, as noted in a conversation with Ms. Call, the data did not address all of the activities that Law Enforcement completed from 2001 to the present. Therefore, the data presented are based on the information we received and do not (a) speak to all of the activities law enforcement is working on in the Weed and Seed area or (b) provide enough for any trend analyses to be conducted. To further round out our information about the Law Enforcement component of the Weed and Seed activities, we (Cochran and Frost) conducted four interviews with police officers: two detectives and two sergeants. The data and interviews are summarized in this document. Analyses of Data The four activities that law enforcement was involved in are discussed below along with the pertinent data relating to each activity. The data are presented in terms of calendar years, unless otherwise noted. As a comparison, Table 1 shows information reported by the Salt Lake Police Department to the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics for the Salt Lake City area, of which the Weed and Seed project areas are a part. These data indicate that, with the exception of property and violent crimes in 2002, other crimes appear to be decreasing on a city wide basis. Table 1. Crimes Reported for Salt Lake City (2000 to 2002) Year Population Covered Violent Crimes Forcible Rape Property Crimes 2000 181,743 1,301 137 15,530 2001 184,723 1,166 121 15,272 2002 188,504 1,238 110 17,880 (The following are amendments made to table one by Salt Lake Police Department data analysts in a clarification session on February 2, 2006. • Table one is not representative of the total numbers from each year; it only represents the numbers of crimes reported in overtime policing hours. • Forcible rape is considered a violent crime; the numbers represented under the violent crime heading reportedly already include the forcible rape numbers.) The Weed and Seed areas cover approximately 6.55 square miles in Salt Lake City. In 2003, the number of households in this area was 9,638 composed of approximately 31,841 individuals. The majority of residents were: White (57%) and/or have Hispanic ethnicity 25 (48%). Three facilities were Safe Havens: Sorenson Multicultural Center, Lied Boys & Girls Club, and Capitol West Boys & Girls Club. Activity 1: Increase Narcotics Enforcement According to a brief write-up provided to us by one of the law enforcement officers in the Weed and Seed project, there were approximately 110 search warrants for drug activity in 2003, for varying types and amounts of drugs seized. The total number of warrants issued during the first six months of 2003 was 682 in the Weed and Seed area (compared to 4,399 for the first six months in Salt Lake City in 2003); however, it is unclear to which activities the search warrants were related. In 2001, there were 366 drug arrests in the Weed and Seed area compared to 2,723 in Salt Lake City. Table 2 provides the data up to the end of 2004 for drug arrests. Both citywide and Weed and Seed area numbers appear to fluctuate showing no apparent trend. Data for the baseline year (2000) present information about dangerous drugs, showing that for the Weed and Seed area there were 307 arrests in this area for drugs, while there were 2,021 arrests in the city for drugs. Table 2. Total Number of Drug Arrests for Weed & Seed Area Compared to Salt Lake City Year Weed & Seed Drug Arrests Salt Lake City Drug Arrests 2000 (baseline) 307 2,021 2001 366 2,723 2002 423 2,723 2003 392 3,255 2004 516 2,949 (The following are amendments made to table two by Salt Lake Police Department data analysts in a clarification session on February 2, 2006. 26 • Table two is not representative of the total numbers from each year; it only represents the numbers of crimes reported in overtime policing hours.) Possession of drugs is another area of concern for the Weed and Seed area. This information is presented in Table 3. Table 3. Total Number of Arrests for Possession of Drugs for Compared to Salt Lake City Weed & Seed Area Year Weed & Seed Drug Arrests Salt Lake City Drug Arrests 2001 322 2,346 2002 384 2,400 2003 360 2,938 2004 488 2,671 (The following are amendments made to table three by Salt Lake Police Department data analysts in a clarification session on February 2, 2006. • Table three is not representative of the total numbers from each year; it only represents the numbers of crimes reported in overtime policing hours.) In terms of sales and manufacturing of drugs, Table 4 shows the data for the four calendar years for which we have data. Table 4. Total Number of An Area Compared to Salt Lake ( ests for Sale/Manufacturing of Drugs for Weed & Seed Year Weed & Seed Drug Arrests Salt Lake City Drug Arrests 2001 21 165 2002 22 166 2003 22 214 2004 18 389 (The following are amendments made to table four by Salt Lake Police Department data analysts in a clarification session on February 2, 2006. • Table four is not representative of the total numbers from, each year; it only represents the numbers of crimes reported in overtime policing hours.) 27 Activity 2: Disrupt Organized Crime In terms of disrupting organized crime, the data about property crimes (e.g., burglary, embezzlement, larceny, etc.), crimes against persons (e.g., assault, domestic violation, robbery, rape, sexual assault, etc.), and offenses against society (e.g., common sex, drugs, liquor, weapon offense, etc.) are the best indicators for which we have data. These data present overlapping information for the data discussed in activities 3 and 4 below. These data are provided in Table 5. Table 5. Arrests Relating to Disruption of Crime Year Property Crimes Crimes Against Persons Offenses Against Society 2000 (baseline) 688 230 541 2001 513 390 589 2002 526 348 559 2003 541 365 536 (The following are amendments made to table five by Salt Lake Police Department data analysts in a clarification session on February 2, 2006. • Although this title is referenced in the Weed and Seed documentation, with reference to activity two and in the title of table five, "Disrupt Organized Crime, " there is no significant "organized crime " in Salt Lake City. If this refers to gangs, gangs are not organized crime-they are gangs and should he labeled as such. • In the title of table five, "Arrests Relating to Disruptions of Organized Crime, " the word "disrupt" is not definable. Virtually all arrests disrupt crime, and to count arrests that "disrupt" organized crime is not possible. • In table five, the heading of "Offenses Against Society, " is not a statistic which is captured by the Salt Lake Police data analysts and should be labeled differently; however, to ascertain suitable substitute terminology is difficult in itself clue to a variety of factors.) Table 6 shows the number of drive-by shootings from 2000 to 2004 in the Weed and Seed area. Most drive-by shootings (44%) in the Weed and Seed area occurred on Saturdays and/or Sundays-much the same as for all of Salt Lake City (46% on these days). For the first two months of 2005, there were 5 drive-by shootings. Table 6. Drive-by Shootings in the Weed & Seed Area Year Number of Drive-By Shootings 2000 (baseline) 62 2001 53 2002 78 2003 (1/03 to 6/03 only) 35 2004 38 (The following are amendments made to table six by Salt Lake Police Department data analysts in a clarification session on February 2, 2006. • The totals shown of drive by shootings are those for the whole city of Salt Lake, not just the Weed and Seed area. • It is likely that the number of shootings for 2004 is lower than 2000-2002 for the same reason that the number for 2003 is lower-having measured only half the year.) There was sparse information about gang activities in the data we were provided; however, data broken down by the different areas of the Weed and Seed project was available for an 18-month period (June 2003 to December 2004). These data are presented in Table 7. From these data, it appears that Popular Grove has the most gang-related incidents. In 2003, the 29 Salt Lake City Police Gang Unit reported that it conducted 15 special operations to suppress gang activity. It seized 10 firearms, had 16 felony arrests, and had 17 misdemeanor arrests as a result of these operations. Table 7. Number of Arrests for Gang-Related Activities by Weed & Seed Project Areas from June 2003 to December 2004 Area Arrests for Gang-Related Activities Fair Park 34 Glendale 78 Jordan Meadows 28 Popular Grove 128 Rose Park 30 Westpointe 39 Total 337 (The following are amendments made to table seven by Salt Lake Police Department data analysts in a clarification session on February 2, 2006. • The areas of Jordan Meadoy\>s, Rose Park, and Westpointe, should he omitted as they are not. Weed and Seed areas. However, if they are listed in order to act as comparison groups, omission is not necessary.) In 2004, there were no special operations conducted by the Gang Unit using Weed and Seed funds. For the first two months of 2005, there were 16 gang-related arrests in the Weed and Seed area. Finally, Table 8 illustrates the number of trainings held, students who attended, and hours of training conducted in the Weed and Seed area on methamphetamines and narcotics. 30 Table 8. Trainings, Number of Students, and Number of Training Hours from Narcotics Unit Year Trainings Number of Students Number of Training Hours 2001 59 4,013 173.5 2002 50 5,682 92.25 2003 31 5,227 92.25 2004 39 13,758 169.5 Total 179 28,680 2,089 (The following are amendments made to table eight by Salt Lake Police Department data analysts in a clarification session on February 2, 2006. • Table eight's numbers are somewhat convoluted in the sense that they represent trainings that occurred in areas that were not necessarily Weed and Seed areas. These trainings occurred throughout Salt Lake City-including the Weed and Seed areas. Numbers of attendees also were not necessarily Weed and Seed area residents. These were meetings that were open to the public, and no record was taken as to where attendees lived.) Activity 3: Reduce Sexual Oriented Offenses Table 9 shows the numbers of sexual assaults and sexual offenses for the calendar years 2000, 2001, and 2002. For 2004, there were 9 rapes reported for the Weed and Seed area, along with 27 sexual assaults and 74 sexual offenses for the same time period. 31 Table 9. Comparison of Sexual Assaults and Sexual Offenses in the Weed & Seed (W&S) and Salt Lake City (SLC) Areas_____________________________ . Year Sexual Assaults (W&S) Sexual Assaults (SLC) Sexual Offenses (W&S) Sexual Offenses (SLC) 2000 (baseline) 21 162 50 296 2001 18 130 57 231 2002 30 116 74 280 (The following are amendments made to table nine by Salt Lake Police Department data analysts in a clarification session on February 2, 2006. • Sexual assaults and sexual offenses were not included as targets in the Weed and Seed grant and should not be looked at as a measure of success for the evaluation. What should be included were numbers with respect to prostitution crimes and arrests of such.) In addition for June 2003 to December 2004, we have data indicating the number of sexual assaults and aggravated assaults for the various areas of the Weed and Seed project. For the first two months of 2005, there were 9 sexual assaults in the Weed and Seed area. It appears there is an increase in the number of sexual offenses in the Weed and Seed area; however, it is unclear whether this increase is due to more reporting and arrests or due to more sexual offenses overall. These data are presented in Table 10. Table 10. Sexual and Aggravated Assault Data for Weed & Seed Areas (June 2003 to December 2004)___________________________________________________________ Area Arrests for Sexual Assaults Arrests for Aggravated Assaults Fair Park 14 39 Glendale 22 77 Jordan Meadows 13 24 Popular Grove 42 121 Rose Park 15 44 Westpointe 33 12 Total 139 317 32 (The following are amendments made to table ten by Salt Lake Police Department data analysts in a clarification session on February 2, 2006. • The numbers in table ten should not be compared because sexual assaults and aggravated assaults are not the same type of crime. • The areas of Jordan Meadows, Rose Park, and Westpointe, should be omitted as they are not Weed and Seed areas. However, if they are listed in order to act as comparison groups, omission is not necessary.) Activity 4: Remove Firearms Offenders For the first six months of 2003, there were a total of 108 weapons offenses in the Weed and Seed area. This number represents 21% of the citywide weapons offenses. For the 2004 calendar year, there were only 73 weapons offenses in the same areas. Interestingly, for 2004, there were 82 robberies and 150 aggravated assaults. As noted in the reports, the arrests for these offenses represent the primary arresting offense only. Analyses of Interviews We interviewed four Law Enforcement officers. All four agreed that overall Weed and Seed funds helped pay for manpower and equipment. We asked eight questions of the individuals interviewed. Summaries of their responses are provided below. How have you reduced drugs in the Weed and Seed areas? Once problem areas are identified and legal action is being taken, the department provides programs and interventions to families and communities, e.g., parenting classes and tenant 33 screening. Once interventions are in place, the areas begin to improve. Weed and Seed helped in paying for deployment of more officers; it pays overtime. Overtime hours allow officers to be more proactive in police efforts of drug problems-instead of reactive. The narcotics squad specifically uses the Weed and Seed money to supplement the budget to implement more effective police tactics in the Weed and Seed target areas. These tactics are buying drugs from dealers and then making arrests. The narcotics unit uses Weed and Seed monies to go into schools and provide drug awareness training and prevention programs. When the Weed and Seed monies run out, there should not be any significant problems in the absence of this funding for the narcotics units. The narcotics unit has known the Weed and Seed money was going away, so it has created programs that would be self-sustaining and have found other funding sources. Other programs through Law Enforcement have not been successful in leveraging more funding. How have you reduced sex crimes in the Weed and Seed area? Weed and Seed monies have been used to deploy more officers to work with the sex crimes units; it pays overtime. Overtime is manifested in more undercover work. Women officers dress up as sex workers and arrests are made. Officers have also been able to use Weed and Seed data to identify and track sex crimes trends and patterns as well as offenders. Officers stake out neighborhoods, and wait and watch for sex offences using these data. Police have reduced sex crimes through neighborhood watch and education tools for residents, such as the sex offender website. How have you reduced gangs and gang activities in the Weed and Seed areas? Weed and Seed areas are the worst areas for gang offending in the Salt Lake City area. Weed and Seed pays for increased enforcement in the target areas in daily police work and increased enforcement at community events. The officers also have provided information and classes for parents and kids on what gangs look like and what they do. With this, the residents are able to be more accurate in reporting gang activities. Law Enforcement officers use neighborhood watch to help reduce gangs and gang behaviors. Also, the Weed and Seed money has helped pay for the officers to take youth out on fun/outdoor type of activities. Activities focused on helping these youth graduate from high schools. How have you reduced Domestic Violence in the Weed and Seed areas? The detectives go out and arrest people for whom they have warrants. These warrant arrests are done in overtime work. The interviewees reported that these arrests help men be accountable for their actions. The police department has family specialists look over DV cases or respond to a DV crime scene. If there is a need, these family specialists go to the home or school, and provide services for the children and families. These family specialists serve as advocates for DV victims and their families. How have you reduced guns in the Weed and Seed areas? Weed and Seed money has helped increase enforcement. There is more stringent enforcement for crimes involving firearms. There are joint efforts to enforce gun laws, with groups such as the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) units. Weed and Seed helped to pay for a gunlock program/training. In this program, officers identified people who owned guns, gave them gunlocks, and showed them how to use them. Law Enforcement gets involved with the families and communities to help provide services, such things as information programs and trainings on safe gun ownership. The narcotics unit has increased gun seizure in its unit this year (2005) by over 50 percent. What impact have bike patrols had on the Weed and Seed areas? Weed and Seed has funded bike equipment and overtime police hours. Bikes are a benefit because they are visible, maneuverable, and you can "sneak up" on people more easily ("stealthy")-people do not expect police officers on bikes. These bikes are most effective in small areas. Officers can go on the Jordan River Parkway more easily to prevent and react to crime there. Law enforcement can have more contact with parents to inform them about the activities of their children. Bikes are more interactive and low key-law enforcement officers are "there" in the community but people do not see them as "there" in their faces. When Weed and Seed started, the bike patrols caused a significant decrease in substance abuse related crimes in the Weed and Seed areas-especially the park areas. Have you been able to do personal community contacts? What impact has that had? The CAT teams do some visits, but there is not much of this going on. They also have "Buster" the crime dog (a remote control car) that is deployed at community events and helps officers make contact with the community residents. Units other than the CAT teams do more community contacting. They go to schools, visit kids, and share positive messages with them, which helps the police communicate and interact with residents. These types of activities help the people trust officers more. One negative interaction can leave a very long lasting negative effect on people. Police contact in the communities help reduce and prevent these negative interactions. Increased contact with the community would increase this positive interaction, communication, and trust between the community and the police. Programs Specifically Discussed by the Interviewees Community actions teams (CAT) are multi-agency teams from officers to individuals at the schools along with civilians. These teams have weekly meetings to discuss and hopefully resolve community issues. They provide different resources in the community to help the problems and people involved in these problems. Neighborhood Watch is developed within a community. A leader is chosen; residents are invited to a training meeting; the police provide training on what crimes and criminal behaviors look like; police are available to provide more trainings in the future; and police teach the watch members how and what to report. Then the people are let loose to keep their eyes and ears open for crimes. These residents return to their communities and watch and listen. They report crimes or suspicious behaviors to police officers. Overall Conclusions Law Enforcement is a crucial program for any Weed and Seed project, and it appears that for the Salt Lake project, Law Enforcement made an attempt to decrease violent crime rates. That said, it was difficult to tell from the data if there was a reduction in levels of violent crime since the data were not collected, reported, or analyzed by Law Enforcement in this way. Although Law Enforcement used Weed and Seed funds for overtime efforts in the area, there does not appear to have been a thoughtful coordination of effort among Law Enforcement and the other groups involved in Weed and Seed. This point was illustrated not 37 only through the sparse data, but also through the interviews we conducted wherein the Law Enforcement officials (a) were unable to relate the exact Weed and Seed projects and (b) indicated that they had not worked toward leveraging any additional and/or new resources to continue their work in the Weed and Seed area once the Weed and Seed project was completed. 38 Community Policing (CP) Evaluation The program goals for CP are to: 1) reduce resident identified criminal concerns by increasing resident capacity and increasing targeted deployment of resources, and 2) to maximize the implementation of community oriented and problem solving policing in the target area through enhanced relationships and strategic planning between beat officers, Community Action Teams (CATs) and the community. The logic model reflects the program strategies which were developed in support of this dual focus. Objective data for all activities for these program strategies were extracted from documents provided by the coordinator. Attempts to collect qualitative data relating to perceptions of the effectiveness of these strategies produced only three respondents, all residents of the target area. One of these respondents was interviewed by telephone and the other two responded in writing. At least two of these respondents were Spanish-surnamed. Attempts to interview CAT or patrol officers were not successful. There are five program strategies which address the first goal of reducing resident identified criminal concerns, and two which address the second goal of maximizing implementation of community oriented and problem solving policing. 1. Goal I: Improve resident's capacity for neighborhood management. There were nine program objectives under this program strategy: 1. Provide trainings twice a year to increase residents' awareness of gangs. According to program documents, there were five gang awareness trainings provided in the community during the first half of 2004. Because there was no information collected about the number of residents attending these meetings or 39 their impressions of the trainings, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of these trainings. Two of the residents were aware of the gang awareness training. One resident who served as a respondent reported that prior to the gang awareness trainings, neighborhood residents were more fearful. The trainings provided information about what gangs do, who they target, and what all the graffiti represents, and served to reassure residents and calm their fears of the unknown. Increase problem-solving between residents and CATs. Program documentation did not provide information about the number of CAT referrals from residents. However, all three residents who served as informants reported that they were at least aware of the CAT officers in their neighborhood. One respondent suggested that communications with CAT officers and residents have improved because these officers come to community meetings. In these meetings, the police are willing to share information, answer questions, and help solve community problems. One example was when the police first showed up to community meetings, the people wanted to know why it took so long for police to respond to calls. The police were able to tell the people about the difficulties of police work. As such, people were able to better empathize with the police and be less critical. One of the other respondents commented that the residents of the target area would prefer to have better responses to problems. Inform the public about Project Safe Neighborhood and the area's most wanted fugitives violating federal firearms laws. From program documents, it was determined that 1000 copies of The Dirt were distributed during the first half of 2004. The Dirt was a neighborhood newsletter that talked about the area's most wanted criminals and which gave phone numbers for residents to call about firearms violations. No data were reported about how many calls were logged to these special numbers, and respondents were not asked about their perceptions of the newsletter. 4. Provide special events, such as Night Out Against Crime, offering neighborhood resources. From program documents, it was determined that such programming was offered in 2001, but the number of events and the number of residents participating in these events was not recorded. Resident respondents were not asked to report their perceptions of these special events. 5. Resident leadership and participation in trainings. There were no data recorded in program documents relative to this program objective, and we were not able to obtain interviews with CAT officers to determine their perceptions of any resident projects which resulted from these trainings. 6. Increase participation in mobile watch and neighborhood watch. From program documents, it was determined that there were four meetings to inform residents about mobile and neighborhood watch in 2002, and that 44 residents attended these meetings. Further, it was reported that during the first half of 2004, neighborhood watch was established in the areas of 27 units. One of the resident informants, who was a participant in neighborhood watch, suggested that initially, the neighborhood watch units did not work because the teams were comprised largely of Anglos who believed that minorities were causing all the problems in 41 the neighborhoods. However, when the teams gained diverse representation from the neighborhoods, there was a better watch program in the neighborhoods. These watch programs have led to safer neighbors because residents know where the problems are and are able to report them as soon as they occur. Because we were not able to interview members of the police or CAT teams, we were unable to determine their perceptions of the effectiveness of the neighborhood watch teams. 7. Increase reporting of suspected drug activity (799-DRUG) and children endangered by drugs at home. Although it was reported in program documents that calls were taken on this line in 2002, numbers of calls taken on this line were apparently not recorded. Resident respondents were not asked to report their perceptions of the effectiveness of the drug hotline. 8. Educate minorities in crime prevention strategies. There were no data recorded in the program documentation relevant to this program objective. However, one resident respondent indicated that neighborhood watch teams began to include minority participants, and that when they did, the neighborhood watch teams became more effective. Goal I: Use community response principles and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design to address community issues. There were two program objectives under this program strategy: 1. Police officer representation at community council meetings. Program documentation reported that in the second half of 2002, 12 community council meetings were attended by CAT officers, and that in the second half of 2003, 18 such meetings were attended, as was the case in both the first and second halves of 2004. One of the resident respondents reported that communications between CAT officers and residents has improved since the officers started attending community council meetings (see lb above). 2. Deploy officers based on community comments, calls of service, and crime mapping. Data reported for the evaluation of the Law Enforcement component indicate that with the exception of property and violent crimes in 2002, other crimes appear to be decreasing on a citywide basis, but it is unclear whether this is due to strategic deployment of officers or other factors. Resident respondents were not asked directly if they now felt safer than they did in the past, and a larger sample of the community would be required to determine if people living in the target area do, in fact, feel safer than they did prior to the Weed and Seed initiative. 3. Goal I: Utilize bike patrols to engage residents and deter crime. There were two objectives under this program strategy: 1. Regular bike patrols within target areas are maintained. Documentation provided by the program indicated that in the second half of 2002, bike patrols were deployed for 608 hours, resulting in 142 arrests. In the first half of 2003, number of hours of bike patrol deployment was not reported, but within a 20-day period, 20 citations were made. In the first half of 2004, there were 42 hours of bike patrols deployed. 43 Resident respondents differed widely in their perceptions of the bike patrol initiative. One resident reported that there were not any bike patrols in his neighborhood. Another resident suggested that the bike patrols were the greatest safety measure implemented as part of the Weed and Seed program. The third respondent indicated that he had not seen bike patrols in his neighborhood. However, he was aware of these on the Jordan Parkway. He said that at first, the patrols were not that effective. He said that they were not effective because the people in those areas did not think the patrols were going to last very long. The people assumed these patrols were simply just the "new show." However, as the people in that area realized the bike cops were not going to stop, and they were going to work consistently, they took note. This is the time that the patrols became effective and made the neighborhoods safer. In essence, it was the consistency of the patrols that made them effective and helped make the neighborhoods safer. 2. Document citizen contacts made throughout the neighborhood. Documentation provided by the program indicated that in the second half of 2002, bike patrols made 241 citizen contacts, and that over a 2-day period in the first half of 2003, 34 citizen contacts were made. In the first half of 2004, 100 citizen contacts were made. Goal I: Increase the use of nuisance abatement ordinance to target chronic criminal locations. The objective of this program strategy was to track chronic criminal calls for service and to work with CAT to implement the nuisance abatement process. Program documentation indicates activity during 2002 and 2003 on this objective, but little in the way of outcome data, other than 24 letters filed in connection with the ordinance. Resident respondents were not queried directly about the nuisance abatement process. 5. Goal I: Increase resident coordination and interaction with law enforcement to reduce crime and drug-related activity in and around public housing properties. There were three objectives under this program strategy: 1. Two off-duty SLC patrol officers conduct daily foot patrols of public housing properties and open lines of communication and trust with residents and neighbors. Program records documented that from October, 2002 through June, 2003, 466 hours of foot patrols were provided by off-duty officers around the public housing area. During the first half of 2004, another 472 hours of foot patrol were documented. Unfortunately, attempts to organize focus groups among housing residents were not successful, and so it was not possible to determine their perceptions of the effectiveness of the foot patrol efforts. 2. Off-duty patrol officers attend the bi-yearly resident meetings to assist the Enforcement Coordinator in providing basic safety training. There was no documentation of these activities. 3. Off-duty patrol officers, Housing Authority's HOME Resident Council, and Resident Council, and Resident Advisory Board coordinate activities to reduce crime and drug activity. Weed and Seed program records indicate that a meeting took place, but there was no indication of participation by the off-duty patrol 45 officers. Again, attempts to develop a focus group among public housing residents were unsuccessful, and so it was not possible to determine resident reaction to this effort, and further, we were not able to interview representatives of the Housing Authority. Weed and Seed program materials documented numerous activities on the part of the Public Housing Enforcement Coordinator which relate at least indirectly to the above three objectives, including attendance at resident trainings attended by 30% of the residents, at resident HOME council meetings, attendance at CAT meetings, coordination with Family Property Managers, assistance in 49 investigations, training 94 residents, and 442 hours monitoring properties. Although these activities are documented, without collection of qualitative data from residents and the Housing Authority, it is difficult to determine the impact of these activities. 6. Goal II: Maximize CAT's multidisciplinary problem-solving and prevention approach by improving interaction between beat officers, CAT officers, and residents. There were four objectives for this program strategy: 1. Improve response to call of service by CAT agencies. In 2002, there were 632 complaint follow-ups by CAT teams. Information about numbers of cases opened and cases closed in 2001 were not obtained because the data were reported to have been corrupted. It was reported, however, that these cases were frequently child welfare, health, housing and zoning related. In the first half of 2003, 117 cases were closed, largely relating to zoning, health, elderly, noise, drugs, gangs, children, and junk. While residents were not asked directly to comment on 46 response to call of service, one resident indicated that he would prefer better response to problems from the CAT police in his area. 2. Augment CAT with Patrol by increasing support. There were no data reported on this objective in the program materials, and we were unable to interview either CAT or patrol officers about their perceptions of any activities under this objective. 3. Site meetings held on a rotating basis throughout the target area. In 2002, 70 meetings were held, with at least 710 attending these meetings. In 2003, there were 67 such meetings held, and in 2004, there were 49 meetings held. Residents were not asked to report directly on these meetings, but one respondent, who serves on a neighborhood watch team, reported that the CAT teams have encouraged dialogues with residents and police, and that these dialogues have helped improve mutual understanding between the police and residents, and further, have led to improvements in the communities and in collaboration in problem solving. 7. Goal II: Increase positive resident and police contact. The objective of this program strategy was to dispel misperceptions of crime and the police. The program records documented that in 2002, 20 youth met for two hours with a police officer for a question and answer period. No other such events were documented during the program period. Residents were asked several questions related to their perceptions of beat/patrol officers. One respondent complained that he has had the opportunity to work with some officers on a neighborhood effort, but that it is difficult when officers 47 get transferred out of the area frequently. Another respondent indicated that he knows of police officers who live in his neighborhood and who park their squad cars on the street, and that this strategy is effective to deter criminal activities. This respondent also indicated that some police are good at making community contacts, saying hi, stopping to talk, and waving to people, but that some officers don't make these efforts. The positive contacts that do occur help the community see the police as human, not arrogant, and not haughty. A third respondent reported that she had developed a good relationship with the captain of her local precinct, found him to be responsive to her concerns, and that she felt confident this relationship would continue to be positive. Conclusions regarding the Community Policing Component The community policing component of the Salt Lake Weed and Seed initiative appeared to be very active, with more program objectives than any of the other component areas. These objectives, for the most part, were not attached to specific outcomes, and although implementation of the specified activities was documented for some objectives, it was not documented for all objectives, and further, it was difficult to determine the impact of documented implemented activities. Evaluation of the community policing component was further complicated by difficulties in obtaining the participation of community residents, police or CAT team participants. It is recommended that further efforts in community policing develop and implement both quantitative and qualitative data collection strategies from the outset to maximize the probability that desired outcomes are both obtained and documented. 49 aVUVliVVVlilVllVVVVitM&^iiiiiii Figure 5. Prevention, Intervention and Treatment Logic Model Program Program Program Outcomes Measures Data Sources Goal Strategy Objectives Reduce risk Develop and Educate refugees, Legal center to 2 day refugee Focus group to factors and support the immigrants and non- provide conference determine enhance capacities of English speaking interpreter with 200 benefit to protective parents and residents about their services, people participants factors for youth by rights and outreach, youth and coordinating responsibilities as education and families within educational citizens. mediation target area and recreational Tutor school children Americorp Numbers of Measures of opportunities attending high impact volunteers to students reading and other offered by the schools in the area with work with tutored scores site's safe havens and help of local volunteers. students schools before/after tutoring other agencies. Offer safe haven Boys and Girls Numbers of Focus groups of evenings and after- Club to provide activities, # of parents, youths school programs ESL, academic parents, youth to determine through the Boys and Girls Club support, recreation and life skills. participating value to them Develop the Sorenson Expand hours, Determine # of additional Center as a more attract more expansion, programs, level centered service participants, increase of coordination provider that can serve coordinate other participation, with other clubs, youth, seniors and efforts serving coordinate perception of neighborhood groups. neighborhood with Lied, other orgs. families about programs Provide opportunities to Increase youth Increased # of Focus groups to participate in positive, Capitol West, youth determine value structured activities and Lied club, participating, # of programs increase parent and conduct family of family youth time together. activities activities SO Bring youths and Increase parental Development Focus groups to families together and involvement, of curriculum, determine increase their capacity develop delivery of parents and as leaders. parenting, life curriculum youth perception skills with emphasis on protective factors, develop youth/parent leadership with parents and youth attending of training. Support the community Involve more Determine # of Focus groups by providing well parents in center, parents before with youths and rounded programs, collaborate with and after parents to reducing risk factors, other orgs that effort, determine value developing more serve determine # of programs. opportunities for parents and volunteers to be involved at the Sorenson Center. neighborhood and type of programs available, # of participants Prevention, Intervention and Treatment (PIT) The program goal for PIT is to reduce risk factors and enhance protective factors for youth and families within the target area. The activities funded and/or organized by Weed and Seed are considered to be protective factors but there are no protective factors listed in any of the Weed and Seed documents. The logic model reflects the program strategy which is to develop and support the capacities of parents and youth by coordinating educational and recreation opportunities offered by the site's safe havens and other agencies. Activities conducted in the safe havens, the Sorenson Center and the two Boys and Girls Clubs, included their own activities but interpreting and services from other agencies were also conducted there. The data for all activities for this component were found in the documents provided by the coordinator. There are seven program objectives for this component. 1. Educate refugees, immigrants and non-English speaking residents about their rights and responsibilities. The Legal Center provided interpreter services, educational and mediation services. In addition to this, a two day conference was held in 2003 with 200 people attending. Since there was no listing of who attended, the researchers were not able to determine the value of the workshop. Because of the collaborative activities of Weed and Seed, other organizations including UNP, International Rescue Committee, Catholic Community Services and the Asian Association facilitated activities. 2. Tutor school children attending high impact schools in the area with help of volunteers. Americorp volunteers worked with an average of 70 work-study tutors 52 who assisted a total of 244 students in four schools. Of the 138 students, the average increase in their reading achievement was 74%. Tutors also worked with students from Kindergarten through the sixth grades and 58 students completed the program with positively increased test scores. In addition, students were tutored in the arts; a coordinator worked with students in 6 schools and approximately 500 students who participated in creating artwork around the theme of community revitalization and crime prevention. The artwork was judged by the community and winners were presented prizes at the Spring Fiesta. 3. Offer Safe Haven evening and after-school programs through the Boys and Girls Clubs. Boys and Girls Clubs provided academic support, ESL classes, recreation and life skills. Activities involved 156 parents and youth; 81 new parents attended activities and there were three holiday celebrations where food and other items were provided to participants including 200 pairs of shoes. During a six month period, 139 parents participated in family support programs. In 2003, almost 1,000 people were members of which over 1/3 were youth. Sixty-seven additional teens from Capitol West and 90 from the Lied and Boys and Girls Club became involved 4. Develop the Sorenson Center as a more centered provider offering services to youth, seniors and local neighborhood groups. The hours were expanded at the Center and more activities were presented. When the center opened on Sundays, 1020 adults and youth attended the programs. The center held six family support programs and a total of 249 parents and youth attended. The Center increased the number of volunteers in all programs. In the summer and fall of 2003, all programs reached maximum 53 capacity except for fall soccer and T-ball. The youth soccer had 88 youth, tennis had 82 youth; 65 youths were involved with the computer clubhouse. During 2003, Global Artways provided almost 1,500 students with six different music and art classes. The center has created a league environment similar to the Capitol West Boys and Girls Club and coordinates the gymnasium space to do so. 5. Provide opportunities to participate in positive, structured activities and increase youth and parent time together. The goal was to increase youth membership at the Capitol Boys and Girls Club by 10% in 2004 and to conduct 12 family night activities for 100 parents. They did increase the membership by 178 members; and conducted bingo night and other family support activities. 6. Bring youth and families together while increasing their capacity as leaders and residents. The intent of this objective was to develop life skills based on increasing protective factors. The partnership between the Utah Federation for Youth and the Sorenson Center resulted in the development of a curriculum for better parenting and communication. This effort produced 1000 workbooks and instructors were trained. At the time of this writing, the course had not been delivered. 7. Support the community by providing well rounded programs, reducing risk factors, developing more opportunities for parents and volunteers to be involved at the Sorenson Center. The center offered soccer, tennis, karate, T-ball, boxing, summer basketball, computer center courses, and other summer programs. The events were well attended. The center has also expanded their sports activities with the Northwest Multicultural Center, Boys and Girls Clubs, and other organizations. 54 Summary ofSorensen Center key informant interview Has the Sorensen center invited parents to activities? The center has family nights where they explain activities that are going on with the children. Also, they have award ceremonies for the different sports activities. They also helped her with her Americorps project by letting her make crepes in their kitchen. She likes the center because it has been open on Sundays. With it open on Sundays, she is able to participate in the activities that I would like to be a part of that I normally could not because of her work/school schedule. What is the effect the Center has on your life? It has a positive effect on her life. It provides a great help to her and her family. The mentor program from Americorps helped her son. This program helped teach him how to be courageous when he was losing his baby teeth. The Sorensen Center is also great because it is a cheap and safe way to care for children. They provide food to the children at the center so they do not go hungry while they are there. She feels the center cares for her and the others in the community because of the assistance they provide. How does the Sorensen center work with other centers? The center went and did some activities with the Northwest Multipurpose Center. Also they cover for each other, e.g., if one lacks staffing, the other can lend staff. What other skills has your son learned as a product of participating at the Sorensen center? He has learned computer skills. They also help him with his homework through their tutoring program, so she does not have to help him very much at home. Her son has also learned discipline and to be organized. He has learned to be a part of a group)-to work as 55 part of a group. The group in particular is a group of other children who are refugees from all over the world. Her son learns how to interact with these diverse kids without having problems. She also feels it is good for her son to be exposed to the other cultures represented at the Sorensen Center. The center also has life skills classes for the children, such as cooking. The kids get excited about these classes. Summary ofB& G Club Focus Group The discussion started by discussing which programs the moms were familiar with. They mentioned several including the leadership training program, tutoring, sports, field trips, etc. The moms also spoke about how the club offered an inexpensive place for their children to stay during the day and be safe. The moms also commented that they need this help. Some of them were single moms, and without the services provided by the club, they would have a more difficult time raising their kids. They all stated that, "It takes a community to raise a child." One mom commented that the club helps her kids have something to do during the day instead of watching TV all day. The moms also talked about how much they liked the staff members who worked at the club. They said that one man in particular provides a great male role model for the kids. There were some mixed opinions as to whether there is an existence or problem of drugs and crime. There was no response if there has been an increase or decrease in crime or drugs in the Rose Park area. The end of the group went off on how some of the moms feel that the club does too many programs. The mothers felt that there are too many programs because the kids come home and expect the parents to provide the amount of and quality of activities the club does. 56 Discussion on the power hour The discussion about the power hour was that it is basically tutoring services. The moms said that this helps the kids to get their homework done before they come home. Completed homework turns into more time the moms can spend with their kids in the home instead of the kids having to do homework. Leadership program The kids in the leadership program get to help the other younger children. The leaders go into the community and participate in service project. One mother's son has learned skills on how to better interact with others. Also, her son has learned how to problem solve. However, she said these skills do not translate into his behavior at home. However, one mom commented that her son attends the leader program and his behavior is better and more mature as to how he reacts to problems. Social skills classes The kids are taught to work and live within a behavioral bases society. Also, there is one program that helps the kids learn how to manage money, vote and elect officers in a group, and lead and be led by others. The kids are also learning how to do things like cooking. Family activities The club had a good influence on the family because it was time that the family was able to spend together. It also provided a fun activity that could not be provided by the parents because of their low incomes. Also, it helped the kids see that the parent care to be with the kids because of the time the shared. 57 ESL classes The club does not offer classes, but they do have information about where one can get these types of classes. Parenting classes These classes are not taught at that this location, but there are classes at the Lied Club. The moms were not aware of the impact of these classes. Sports programs Yes there are many done and they are fun for the kids. But, there was no comment about positive or negative impact of the programs. Conclusions regarding the Prevention, Intervention and Treatment Component The activities of the safe havens have been an invaluable part of the Weed and Seed initiative. Hundreds of children, youths and their families attend the programs. In an interview with the Sorenson Center Director, she indicated that the center had obtained limited and critical funding from Weed and Seed. This multicultural center is extremely well managed and is an exemplar. The center is able to provide a variety of activities because of its physical facilities. Through partnerships with a number of entities including Intel, Delta Airlines, the community food bank, the center offers a variety of rich experiences to residents who without the center would not be able to benefit. They are able to feed all youth who go there after school and during the summer because of their partnership with the food bank. Weed and Seed funding allowed the Sorenson Center to open on Sundays, a time needed for refugee families who work six days a week. The director explained that refugee children 58 learn how to play on teams, learn the language more quickly by participating in sports, and learn better ways to handle their aggression. Even though Weed and Seed is not responsible for major funding sources for the safe havens, they have leveraged their funds very well. 59 Figure 6. SLC Weed & Seed Evaluation Logic Model: Neighborhood Restoration Component Overall Goal Activities/Obj ectives Output Output Measurement Potential Data Sources Revitalize neighborhood, improve quality of life through economic development and improving the community's health and wellness. Recreation 1. Create or support the development of parks 2. Promote and support neighborhood festivals and block parties 1. Number of parks created 2. Amount of support given for festivals and block parties. 1. Weed & Seed Data sets NR interviews Economic Development 1. Restore Commercial buildings: North Temple Restoration, Friendly Corner's Project. " 2. Promote business ownership 1. Number of commercial buildings restored or renovated. 2. Number of new business licenses in the area. 1. Weed & Seed Data sets 2. NR interviews Neighborhood jBeautification 1. Renovate dilapidated houses 2. Participate in Graffiti removal 3. Support neighborhood clean-up efforts 1. Number of homes renovated 2. Degree of assistance given to graffiti removal 3. Amount of support directed to neighborhood cleanup efforts 1. Weed & Seed Data sets 2. NR interviews 60 Promote Home Ownership 1. Provide financial assistance to promote home ownership and first-time home ownership in area Promote Neighborhood Pride 1. Place "West Side Pride" banners in neighborhoods. 2. Support the West View newspaper 1. Amount of support 1. Weed & Seed given to promoting Data sets home ownership. 2. NR interviews 1. Banners successfully produced and hung. 2. Support for West View 1. Weed & Seed Data sets 2. NR interviews 61 Neighborhood Restoration Data about Weed and Seed Areas Revitalizing neighborhoods is a primary objective of Weed and Seed Programs as a means to promote community stability and pride. The increase in community stability and pride is seen as a means of reducing crime and improving the quality of life. The Salt Lake Weed and Seed Steering Committee identified several broad goals to revitalize the neighborhoods of focus, namely: improve recreational opportunities, promote economic development, beautify the area, increase home ownership, and strengthen a sense of neighborhood pride. To accomplish these goals, Weed and Seed determined to collaborate and coordinate with other stakeholders as well as involve community residents and leverage resources. This evaluation assessed such efforts and outcomes. The logic model, provided above, shows the activities related to this portion of the project. A qualitative approach to data collection was used, including a focus group, a key informant interview, and a review of Weed and Seed records. The focus group was conducted on July 28, 2005 with individuals referred by Jacob Brace and a staff member from the University Neighborhood Partners. Of the 18 individuals contacted to participate, nine agreed though three later cancelled and three did not attend. Of the three who participated in the focus group, two were residents and one was a resident/employee of a nonprofit agency that sought to improve the community. Each participant had served on boards that worked with Salt Lake Weed and Seed. The key informant interview was with Jacob Brace. Steering Committee minutes, press releases, and other Weed and Seed documents were reviewed. Approach to Neighborhood Restoration Understanding the degree to which Weed and Seed effectively promoted neighborhood restoration is best understood by examining how WS was engaged in this effort. Salt Lake's Weed and Seed primarily supported existing community efforts rather than proposing new initiatives or facilitating the stimulation of unique efforts. Jacob Brace mentioned that the Steering Committee consciously decided to support established community agencies rather than duplicate services. Such support included financial contributions, planning, moral support, provision of supplies, forging connections among agencies, sitting on various community boards, and taking part in existing activities. That the Weed and Seed effort took a role of primarily supporting existing agencies is, at the same time, a strength and weakness. As a strength, Weed and Seed served as a type of case-manager which connected and joined agencies to work on similar activities or linked agencies to financial support. This effort was greatly appreciated and valued by members of the focus group and is sensible in that there are many agencies who share the neighborhood restoration goals endorsed by Weed and Seed. Importantly, Weed and Seed served as a starting point for several projects requiring multi-agency collaboration. Several examples were given where a group would contact Weed and Seed to request that they coordinate the efforts of multiple agencies to accomplish a large task. For example, the creation of Modesto Community Park began with a request from a single group (Kaboom) who requested that Weed and Seed leverage the resources of others (e.g., Home Depot, banks) and coordinate their efforts. As a weakness, Weed and Seed, in at least one case reported by a resident, failed to support the development and implementation of new ideas or plans that existing agencies did not cover. Analyses of Data Assessing the degree to which Salt Lake Weed and Seed uniquely influenced neighborhood restoration is difficult because it primarily played a role of supporting existing programs and served as a type of case-manager by connecting existing programs or providing financial support. Below are listed some of the programs Weed and Seed supported. Activity: Recreation Output 1: Park development. Weed and Seed supported the creation of a playground, at least five parks (e.g., Modesto, Jordan Skate Park, Freemont Trail Head, Peace Gardens, Peace Trees), and the development or improvement of other existing parks or gardens (e.g., Bend in the River). Weed and Seed efforts with parks included coordinating planning between residents and city officials, involving the police in grand openings and ongoing events, and providing physical supplies. On at least one occasion, Weed and Seed was responsible for coordinating the efforts of multiple agencies to successfully complete the park. Output 2: Promote and support neighborhood festivals and parties. Weed and Seed has supported many neighborhood festivals and block parties, such as the Day in the Park (e.g., Jordan Park), Night Out Against Crime, Spring Fiesta, and the Partners in Park Celebration. Weed and Seed has supported these efforts through encouraging law enforcement to attend the events, purchasing supplies, and linking community services to such events. The total amount of support given in terms of staff hours or financial contributions is not known. 64 Activity: Economic Development Output 1: Restore commercial buildings. Weed and Seed worked on two efforts with regard to improving commercial buildings: the North Temple Restoration Project and the "Friendly Corners" and "North Temple" projects. However, little visible progress has been made to date. Efforts have included rallying citizens to advocate for change and bringing community organizations together to study the problems and possible solutions. Output 2: Promote business ownership. Another objective which was not met was Weed and Seed's plan to establish a mechanism to help residents secure business loans. On a positive note, Weed and Seed supported professional development classes to help citizens improve their job skills (e.g., resume writing classes) and supported Neighborhood Housing Services and the West Side Leadership initiative. These efforts may have indirectly promoted economic development. Nevertheless, Weed and Seed does not seem to have clearly improved the economic situation in the targeted communities. Activity: Neighborhood Beautification Output 1: Renovate dilapidated houses. In their stated goals, Weed and Seed intended to renovate dilapidated homes. However, Weed and Seed appears not to have directly engaged in this area, though little is known about the degree to which they participated in such efforts. They did partner with and support an existing agency, Neighborhood Housing Services, which may have supported this effort. Output 2: Graffiti Removal. There is no evidence that Weed and Seed directly participated in graffiti removal. 65 Output 3: Support neighborhood clean-up efforts. Weed and Seed supported the Poplar Grove community in Earth Day clean-up activities and Fair Park and Glendale in other cleanup projects. The degree of impact these programs had and the level at which Weed and Seed was involved is not clearly understood. Activity: Promote Home Ownership Output 1: Provide financial assistance to promote home ownership. Weed and Seed seems to have been remotely involved in activities designed to promote home ownership. Weed and Seed employees have sat on city boards and the Neighborhood Housing Services board which are directly involved with promoting homeownership. Thus, Weed and Seed has provided insight into such efforts, but does not seem to have taken an active role beyond this. Moreover, there appears to be no way of isolating the effect Weed and Seed has had in this effort. Activity: Promote Neighborhood Pride Output 1: West Side Pride Banners. Weed and Seed participated in the placement of pride banners, which were reported to have a positive effect on neighborhood pride.. Output 2: Support the West View. Weed and Seed supported the West View by providing some financial money to support printing. The amount of money is not known. Weed and Seed contributed significantly to advancing neighborhood pride. Residents in the Focus Group reported that Weed and Seed is seen as an active and important partner in the community and contributed to neighborhood morale through purchasing and placing banners throughout the community, supporting a local newspaper, organizing a parade, participating in decision-making through board membership, and being present at community 66 events. The residents in the focus groups indicated that the increase in community pride can be partially attributed to Weed and Seed efforts. For example, Weed and Seed initiated or participated in an "Asset Map" project which encouraged residents to identify and celebrate positive elements in their community (e.g., community centers, parks). This effort was said to be very positive. Conclusion The Salt Lake Weed and Seed enjoyed partial success in promoting neighborhood restoration. On a positive note, Weed and Seed, and Jacob Brace in particular, seem to have served a role in which they coordinated and connected multiple agencies to work on common projects. Moreover, they readily supported many existing community groups who shared similar goals for enhancing the communities' recreation, beauty, pride, stability, and economic vitality. Thus, Weed and Seed seems to have been a welcomed partner in revitalizing the communities of focus. However, the power of the Weed and Seed approach, as envisioned by the Federal Government, may not have been fully realized because the Salt Lake Weed and Seed seemed to primarily support current activities rather than serving a leadership role by conducting needs assessments and rallying efforts around needs that are not being met by current agencies. Of course, there were exceptions and pragmatic issues of working in a community that enjoys many agencies that share Weed and Seed's aims that may have limited opportunities to pursue unmet needs. 67 Researchers Overall Comments and Recommendations Quantitative data provided researchers with numbers of services provided in all of the four components. In order to gather information about outcomes, the research was designed to conduct key informant interviews and focus groups to obtain perceptions about achievement of the outcomes. Data related to crime statistics, numbers of participants at safe haven events, numbers of parks developed were available so these qualitative efforts were an attempt to determine resident perceptions about how safe they felt the neighborhoods were, if programs benefited their families and so forth. Data related to a number of programs were evident, i.e. the numbers of youths and families attending functions, crime statistics, parks developed. However, the researchers were not able to conduct the number of focus groups and key informant interviews as originally planned. Even though many attempts were made to contact residents and professionals, the data collected are minimal. Incentives were offered to residents for their assistance. What data is available is positive for the most part, with more negatives related to community policing but the data is not sufficient to make generalizations or even conclusions about outcomes. Even though the researchers developed a code book to gather specific information about the extent to which Weed and Seed integrated coordination, collaboration, community participation, and leveraging of resources, researchers were not able to use the code sheets because of lack of information. There was little specific information related to coordination, i.e., how agencies partnered to identify resources, strengths, and other factors. The researchers were not able to discern if a strategic plan had been developed to eliminate duplication of services, whether a strategic plan was articulated that outlined specific agency responsibilities and accountability. One can assume coordination was accomplished because of overall success of many programs but the researchers were not able to see a thread of coordination from the beginning of the grant process to the end. Similarly, the researchers were not able to gather specific information about collaboration, i.e., determine the strengths of agency relationships, whether agencies developed a common vision, what level of communication channels were achieved in all four program components. Again, collaboration is evident in the overall accomplishments but the researchers were not able to capture the kind of information the EOWS had suggested. The level of community participation and resident involvement is clearly articulated throughout all Weed and Seed documents. Leveraging resources is evident but to a lesser degree than community involvement. It is not possible to determine what effects the Weed and Seed funding had on many projects such as neighborhood restoration and prevention, intervention and treatment. For example, the Sorenson Center is funded mostly by the city and they have partnered with many entities including banks, Delta Airlines, the food bank, and other entities. It appears that Weed and Seed funding was a very small portion of the Sorenson Center's entire funding allocation. Nonetheless, Weed and Seed funding was strategic and it leveraged other resources. The Social Research Institute was contacted during the final year of funding. Researchers were aware that Steering Committee members wanted certain information from the evaluation: if attendance at safe haven events increased retention in school; if numbers of higher education applications increased because of safe haven participation; if there had been 69 an increase in home ownership through Weed and Seed efforts. Some of the Weed and Seed data items are comprehensive, beginning with baseline data and continuing with yearly increases or decreases. Other data items are less comprehensive, inconsistent and not regularly reported. Other data items are scant or not available so it is difficult or impossible to determine progress in some areas. For a grant effort of this magnitude, it is necessary to determine what items should be evaluated and how to obtain the data to evaluate the items. It is necessary to develop process measures that will be cumulative and lead to conclusions about outcomes. It is therefore evident that evaluators should have been part of the process from the beginning of the grant. Recommendations 1. Weed and Seed officials invite a professional resource/evaluator to participate at the inception of the grant period. 2. Weed and Seed officials invite the evaluator to be a member of the steering committee 3. Educate steering committee and stakeholders about the need for evaluation and therefore data collection. 4. Develop the evaluation design to gather quantitative and qualitative data; secure resources for data collection including baseline information. 5. Consider a control group, i.e., a neighboring geographic area to gather comparison data. Appendix As written by SLC Weed & Seed Administration i i Appendix: As written by the Salt Lake City Weed & Seed administration During the final stages of the evaluation of Salt Lake City Weed & Seed, the site Coordinator resigned. Between the time it took to replace the Coordinator, The Social Research Institute (SRI) at The University of Utah completed the evaluation of Salt Lake City Weed & Seed found in this document.* This evaluation was funded from the 2004 grant. Once the new Coordinator began filling job responsibilities, the evaluation was reviewed and found incomplete for several reasons. The evaluation does not include mention of several Weed & Seed endeavors in the site. It also does not offer sufficient numbers of interviews to draw any conclusion about the successes and failures of the Weed & Seed efforts. No data analyses were conducted, and researchers did not use any of the code sheets originally designed for data interpretation. In addition, the data used in the Law Enforcement section of the document was interpreted, compared and collected incorrectly. When approached, the SRI stated the document to be complete to their knowledge, and if other programs and information were available, it was unknown to them. After several requests, the SRI agreed to meet with Salt Lake City Police Department Analysts who had completed and compiled all data used in the Law Enforcement section of the document. While meeting with the analysts, the SRI agreed they had misinterpreted portions of the data, and therefore added annotations to the pertaining data tables. They did not make any changes to the text analyses of the data. Other concerns presented by the current Weed & Seed Coordinator were not addressed in the amended evaluation. The SRI maintains the quality of the evaluation is sufficient according to the dollar amount they were paid to complete the project. In addition, they state that it is too late to redo any of the portions of the text already completed as it would take days just to review notes on the research conducted. Regardless of the reasons for discrepancies, in order to ensure that the reader of this document is clear on what functions Weed & Seed had on the west side community of Salt Lake from grant years 2001 to 2005, the following pages have been included. The following pages are the budget details for all Weed & Seed funding throughout the five year life of the recognition. This data is not to be interpreted as the only efforts made by Salt Lake City Weed & Seed, but is merely an irrefutable measurement of programs participating in the grant. As this signifies, not all Weed & Seed funded programs are addressed in the evaluation. Furthermore, this attachment is not meant to be representative of success or failure, but rather a mere demonstration of the scope of programs involved with Salt Lake City Weed & Seed, many of which were not considered in this evaluation. * Evaluation was originally completed without any additional narratives offered by Salt Lake Police Department Analysts in the Law Enforcement section of the document. 2001-W0350-UT- BUDGET DETAIL WORKSHEET SLC Weed and Seed 2002 Budget Detail Worksheet Personnel Name / Position Computation Cost W&S Coordinator Salary Grant Monitor's Salary Police Overtime (Joint Task Force) Global Artways Instructor Technology Center Instructor $38,052(100%) $41,412 (.15)= $ 6,212 $31 (1,613 hours) 17 officers = $50,003 $10.00 (505 hours) = $ 5,050 $9.00 (1,404 hours) =$12,636 $38,052 $ 6,212 $50,003 $ 5,050 $12,636 TOTAL $111,953 Name / Position Computation Cost W&S Coordinator's Fringe FICA(7.65%)= $2,911 Retirement (10.34%) = $ 3,935 Medical = $ 5,000 TOTAL = $11,846 $11,846 Grant Monitor's Fringe FICA(7.65%)= $3,168 Retirement (10.34%) = $4,282 Medical = $5,000 TOTAL =$10,995 (.15) =$1,649 $ 1,649 Global Artways Instructor FICA$ 5,000(7.65%) $ 383 Computer Lab Instructor FICA $12,636 (7.65%) $ 967 TOTAL $14,845 Travel Purpose of Travel Location Item Computation Cost Conference / Training Unknown Airfare Hotel Per Diem 2 people x $300 2 people x 5 nights x $125 2 people x 5 days x $30 $ 600 $ 1,250 $ 300 Weed and Seed Regional Conference Unknown Airfare Hotel Per Diem 3 people x $300 3 people x 3 nights x $125 3 people x 3 days x $30 $ 900 $ 1,125 $ 270 Conference / Training Unknown Airfare Hotel Per Diem 4 people x $300 4 people x 3 nights x $125 4 people x 3 days x $30 $ 1,200 $ 1,500 $ 360 TOTAL $7,505 Equipment NONE Supplies 2001-W0350-UT-WS Supply Items Computation Cost Communications Plan Supplies Supplies for Sorenson Technology Center Office and newsletter supplies $1,231 Laser Toner 8@$100 Printer Drum Kits 4 @ $ 80 Paper 6 @ $ 25 CD's, Diskettes and stationary supplies $120 $ 1,231 $ 800 $ 320 $ 150 $ 120 TOTAL $2,621 Construction None Consultants / Contracts Item Cost Contract with Salt Lake County Reads and (45.24% of living allowance for 2 AmeriCorps $10,000 Promotes Service to provide living members) allowances for AmeriCorps tutors in Weed and Seed Area Schools. Community Prevention/Intervention and Treatment mini-grants 4 mini-grants @ $1,000 each $ 4,000 Community/Neighborhood Restoration mini-grants 4 mini-grants @ $1,000 each $ 4,000 Boys & Girls Contract to include: Boys & Girls Program Coordinator $12.45 (1044 hours) = $13,000 $13,000 Boys & Girls Program Coordinator Fringe/Benefits $13,000(14%) $ 1,820 Van Drivers $ 8.25 (200 hours) - $ 1,650 $ 1,650 Van Drivers Fringe/Benefits $ 1,650(14%) $ 231 Incentive program for kid's excellent per- r- ,,. • t T r .,,.., Field trip to Lagoon formance within the r Entrance 30 Kids x $ 7 each $ 210 Club Boys & Girls Club Vans 5,800 miles @ $.325/mi $ 1,885 y ,. Paper, glue, scissors, paint brushes, clay, and film $ 500 Boys & Girls Sports , „ ^ _. ., ¦ ~ „, 3 ,. v 6 Sports Balls @ $ supplies r w 30 each $ 180 Boys & Girls Shirts 100 T-shirts @$ 6.00 each $ 600 Boys & Girls Contract (Sub) TOTAL = $20,076 TOTAL $38,076 TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL $175,000 2001-W0350-UT-WS Budget Summary Budget Category EOWS Core Safe Haven Law Enforcement Totals Personnel 44,264 17,686 50,003 111,953 Fringe 13,495 1,350 0 14,845 Travel 7,505 0 0 7,505 Equipment 0 0 0 0 Supplies 1,231 1,390 0 2,621 Construction 0 0 0 0 Contractual 18,000 20,076 0 38,076 Total 84,495 40,502 50,003 175,000 App. # 2002-W0137-UT-WS Budget Narrative Salt Lake City Weed & Seed Fiscal Year 2002 PERSONNEL ($90,828) 1) A request of $38,052 will cover personnel costs for the full time Weed & Seed Coordinator. Please note that the coordinator participates half his time with "weeding activities" and the other half with "seeding activities." This split is reflected in the Budget Summary. 2) A request of $6,212 will cover the costs for 15 percent of the grant monitor's salary. 3) A request of $10,752 will cover overtime costs for officers providing 336 overtime hours. These hours will be focused on "community responsive" cases such as prostitution or vice issues. This funding is part of the Special Emphasis program to identify and arrest qualified offenders for the Therapeutic Justice system. 4) A request of $10,752 will cover overtime costs for officers providing 336 overtime hours. These hours will be focused on "community responsive" cases such as narcotics issues. This funding is part of the Special Emphasis program to identify and arrest qualified offenders for the Therapeutic Justice system. 5) A request of $5,050 will cover the cost of a part time (505 hours) Global Artways instructor that provides services in the Sorenson Multicultural Center, one of the site's safe havens. 6) A request of $16,380 will cover the cost of a seasonal part-time assistant in the Sorenson Multicultural computer center, working with youth and adults. The increase in the request from last year is due to an increase in wage and hours of the computer center's operation. 7) A request of $432 will cover the cost of a receptionist on Sunday afternoons from 1:00 - 5:00 p.m. for twelve Sundays during the winter. This will make it possible for the Sorenson Multicultural Center to be open and available to neighborhood individuals and groups. A large number of community residents are unable to use the Center during regular weekday hours or Saturday, due to work and family commitments. Opening on Sunday will allow these predominantly immigrant and multi-cultural residents the opportunity for recreation and other community activities. 8) A request of $408 will cover the cost of having a Sorenson Multicultural Center building supervisor on Sunday afternoons from 1:00 - 5:00 p.m. for twelve Sundays during the winter. This person assists those using the facility and maintains order. 9) A request of $408 will cover the cost of having a Sorenson Multicultural Center gym supervisor on Sunday afternoons from 1:00 - 5:00 p.m. for twelve Sundays during the winter. This person supervises gym activities and maintains order. 6 App. # 2002-W0137-UT-WS 10) A request for $906 will cover the cost of having additional hours for the Sorenson Multicultural computer center's staff on Sunday afternoons from 1:00 - 5:00 p.m. for twelve Sundays during the winter. These staff members assist those using the computer center and maintain order. 11) A request for $612 will cover the cost of an additional three hours for the Sorenson Multicultural Center's janitorial staff (2 janitors) to clean the facility after Sunday use for twelve Sundays during the winter. 12) A request for $800 will cover the cost of hiring a Weed & Seed high school student to serve as a summer program assistant at the Sorenson Multicultural Center, allowing the hours of the program to be extended to accommodate working parents. This staff member will assist with checking participants in and out, leading various games and other activities. FRINGE ($15,411) 1) A request of $11,846 will cover fringe costs for the Weed & Seed Coordinator. This is split with weeding and seeding in the Budget Summary. 2) A request of $1,649 will cover 15 percent of the Grant monitor's fringe. 3) A request of $383 will cover the cost of FICA for a part-time Global Artways art instructor at one of the safe havens. 4) A request of $ 1,253 will cover the cost of FICA for the Technology instructor. 5) A request of $33 will cover the cost of FICA for the Sorenson Center Receptionist. 6) A request of $31 will cover the cost of FICA for the Sorenson Center Building Supervisor. 7) A request of $31 will cover the cost of FICA for the Sorenson Center Gym Supervisor. 8) A request of $73 will cover the cost of FICA for the Sorenson Center Computer Staff. 9) A request of $47 will cover the cost of FICA for two janitors at the Sorenson Center for work performed on twelve separate, winter Sundays. 10) A request of $62 will cover the cost of FICA for a Summer Youth position at the Sorenson Center. TRAVEL ($7,505) A request of $7,505 will cover three training conferences for this Weed & Seed Site. Travel is subject to EOWS approval. 1 App. # 2002-W0137-UT-WS EQUIPMENT ($5,200) 1) A request of $200 will cover the cost of youth tennis racquets for the Sorenson Multicultural Center. The tennis program began in September 2001, and has been operating at capacity the entire time. Initially, a grant was received from the Utah Tennis Association to provide racquets to the players, allowing low-income neighborhood youth (ages 7 - 12) to participate. An additional purchase of racquets will assist more youth in taking advantage of this opportunity to learn the sport. 2) A request of $.1,500 will cover the cost of fitness/rehabilitation equipment at the Sorenson Center. Plans are underway to utilize students from the University of Utah who have physical therapy and other related majors as volunteers at the Center; assisting local seniors who are in need of additional therapy after their insurance/Medicare funds are depleted. Having a convenient place located in their neighborhood, will be an attractive incentive for those in need of continuing no-cost care. 3) A request of $3,500 covers audio and visual surveillance equipment for the Salt Lake City Police Department. These funds will assist with the Special Emphasis funds of officer overtime. SUPPLIES ($8,123.72) 1) A request of $3,000 covers the cost of basic soccer uniforms and shin guards for participants in a significantly expanded program. Currently, soccer is offered to boys and girls in grades 2-6. Plans are to offer it next year for kindergarten - 8th grade. Having uniforms available for the players will be an incentive to participate. Assistance with this expansion will be sought from area high school soccer teams, who will be invited to referee and coach the Center's youth. 2) A request of $ 1,200 covers the cost of purchasing t-shirts that identify youth as participants from the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center. The shirts will be used when youth travel on field trips, participate in certain sports activities, or are successful and deserve a reward. Additionally, the shirts will include the local Weed & Seed logo. 3) A request of $3,923.72 will cover office and campaign supplies as well as newsletter production for Weed & Seed area. CONSTRUCTION ($0) CONTRACTS ($165,554.28) 1) A request of $10,000 will cover the cost of 45.24 % of living allowances for AmeriCorps tutors in Weed & Seed area Schools. These tutors will work with children of the elementary age, as well as train community volunteers to assist at each school. Currently there are three elementary schools participating in the Weed & Seed area. 8 App. # 2002-W0137-UT-WS 2) A request of $25,000 will cover the cost of an FBI joint task force. This request includes 156.25 hours for two officers, "buy" money, and informant money. The operation is entirely focused on the production and movement of crystal methamphetamines within or affecting the Weed & Seed area. The Salt Lake City Police Department and the Deputy District Attorney of Utah support this operation. 3) A request of $5,000 will cover the cost of an ATF joint task force. The focus is to implement Project Safe Neighborhood objectives for gun abatement within the Weed & Seed area. The District of Utah's Project Safe Neighborhood Task Force will use the equipment in its active efforts within the Salt Lake City Weed & Seed Site. Project Safe Neighborhoods seeks to heighten coordination among federal, state, and local law enforcement, with an emphasis on tactical intelligence gathering, aggressive prosecution, and enhanced accountability. The equipment purchased through the Weed & Seed funds will be used to facilitate gathering of intelligence and communications involving firearms investigations and prosecutions in the Weed & Seed site. The Salt Lake City Police Department is an active participant in the Project Safe Neighborhood program (also known in Utah as Project CUFF: "Criminal Use of Firearms by Felons.") Project Safe Neighborhood/CUFF statistics gathered through the first two years of operation demonstrate firearms contribute to the crime rate in the Weed & Seed Site. However, through the task force's efforts and those of the Salt Lake City Police Department, several defendants from within the bounds of the Weed & Seed site have been prosecuted for federal firearm violations and given significant federal prison sentences. 4) A request of $27,500 will cover the cost of the Special Emphasis project of Therapeutic Justice programs. The Salt Lake City Prosecutor's Office will use $27,500.00 to fund 100 offenders from the Weed & Seed area in therapeutic justice programs. The programs are offered in partnership with the Salt Lake County Court Services Department and the contract will be with that agency to provide program services for offenders referred from the target area. The therapeutic programs available include a misdemeanor drug court for low level drug offenses, a women at risk program designed to provide rehabilitative services for prostitutes, a Johns Offender program for men who solicit sex, a Healthy Expressions program for offenders who commit public sex acts, a mental health court for offenders whose underlying problem is mental illness, and the Passages restorative justice program for offenders who commit nonviolent property offenses. Where these funds are used will be determined by law enforcement activity in the target neighborhoods, as initially identified by local residents. I.e., if police target prostitution in the Weed & Seed area, there would be a corresponding increase in the number of prostitutes and John's arrested, as well as a corresponding increase in the need for referrals to the appropriate therapeutic programs. Currently, the therapeutic justice programs are limited in the number of offenders who can be accepted. These funds will ensure that appropriate offenders from the target area will have access to these programs, which are all aimed at addressing the underlying causes of crime and thereby reducing recidivism. Most of the programs also address the restoration of the victim and the community as appropriate. 5) A request of $20,054 will cover the cost of Boys & Girls Club expenses for assistance with daily recreation, prevention and guidance programs for over 250 at-risk teens. Specifically, these funds will provide for 10% of the club director's salary, 1,475 hours of teen center staff, program supplies, transportation costs and family night supplies. Boys & Girls Clubs will provide daily recreation, prevention, and guidance programs for over 250 at-risk teens at the Lied Boys & Girls Club. Staff will actively recruit new teens from the Weed & Seed area to participate in Club services. In addition, Club staff will conduct a Family Support program for 9 App. # 2002-W0137-UT-WS parents of Club members. Parent workshops and family activities will be provided for neighborhood parents. Some objectives include: 1. To increase teen membership at the Lied Club by at least 10% (6 teens per quarter) 2. To conduct 12 Family Support Program activities at the Lied Club (3 per quarter) 3. To provide 50 parents with Family Support program activities. (12-13 per quarter). 6) A request of $3,000.28 will cover the cost of Utah Federation for Youth, WOW - Wonderful Outdoor World activities. WOW Camp Fees are registration fees charged for participation. WOW II Fees are also registration fees charged for participation. Coordinated Follow-up Activities are scheduled to reinforce lessons and skills learned at WOW camps. These activities will be coordinated with agencies and programs that partner in WOW. Examples of activities include fishing, canoeing, interpretive and ranger led hikes, watershed education workshops, raptor and other bird watching field trips, substance abuse and violence prevention workshops, and service projects. Fees will be used to cover admission to state parks and national forests, provide activity specific supplies and cover additional activity expenses. A part time program coordinator will be assigned to this project. This person will coordinate activities, prepare supplies and materials, and supervise volunteers. Hours for this project are broken down as follows: 19 hours for each campout and 3 hours per coordinated follow-up activity. The Program Coordinator will be supervised by the Programs Director and will be assisted by other members of the organization to fulfill responsibilities. Participant Supplies allow each participant to receive a sleeping bag and functional flashlight to take home. Craft Supplies are a big part of the camp experience. Participants will create beaded pouches and necklaces and construct dream catchers. These items are keepsakes that will remind campers of their experience at WOW and allow youth to show off their handiwork to friends and family. Education will be included regarding Utah's Native American heritage and cultures. Extra kits have been ordered for staff, community volunteers, or children who need to start over. Travel Mileage reimbursement for Utah Federation for Youth vehicles, volunteers or activity presenters. 275 miles is based on 5 miles for WOW camp in Jordan Park, 100 miles for WOW II camp, and 170 miles for the coordinated activities. These activities are for Weed & Seed youth. 7) A request of $50,000 will cover the cost of enhanced security for 166 Housing Authority properties within the Weed & Seed area. One Enforcement Coordinator (Part Time): Enforcement Coordinator will monitor west side properties weekly for on going violation of criminal and drug related activities. Coordinate with the Off Duty Officers and Family Property Managers to ensure needed property patrols and monitoring are performed at the needed level. Establish partnerships by attending the Community Action Team (CAT) meetings weekly in District 1 and 2. Coordinate with the Salt Lake City Police Department regarding on-going issues in this area. Two Police Officers: Off Duty Salt Lake City Police Officers will provide over the base line security to the 166 west side Public Housing units in the Weed & Seed area. Criminal Background Check: Conduct criminal background check through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) for potential and current Public Housing Resident that will be housed to ensure we are housing families that do not participate in criminal activity. 10 App. # 2002-W0137-UT-WS OTHER COST ($7,378) 1) A request of $5,000 will cover the amount needed for "buy" money in order for the Salt Lake City Police Department to ensure proper support and possible closure on identified cases affecting the Weed & Seed area. Part of these funds will also be used to support the Special Emphasis project. 2) A request for $816 will cover the cost of having a security officer within the Sorenson Multicultural Center on Sunday afternoons from 1:00 - 5:00 p.m. for twelve Sundays during the winter. This person is responsible for patrolling the Center and its grounds, protecting property and maintaining order. A request of $62 will cover the cost of FICA for the Sorenson Center Security provided by CBI security. 3) A request for $1,500 will cover the cost of the stipend paid to a University of Utah sports intern during June, July, and August 2003. This individual will assist with the expanded soccer program, and have duties related to the tennis and golf programs at the Sorenson Multicultural Center. 11 App. # 2003-W0347-UT-WS Budget Narrative Salt Lake City Weed & Seed Fiscal Year 2003 Personnel ($84,872) 1) A request of $39,204 will cover personnel costs for the full-time Weed & Seed Coordinator. Note that the $39,204 is split between "Weed" and "Seed" categorie