Title: National Evaluation of Weed and Seed: Hartford Case Study. Series: Research Report Author: Terence Dunworth, Gregory Mills, Thomas F. Rich, and Kristen Jacoby Published: National Institute of Justice, August 1999 Subject: Drug law enforcement, drug abuse prevention and education, community policing, crime mapping, police manpower deployment, problem oriented policing 37 pages 85,000 bytes ------------------------------- Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420 (877-712-9279 for TTY users). ------------------------------- U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice National Evaluation of Weed and Seed Case Study: Hartford, Connecticut Research Report Executive Office for Weed and Seed National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, DC20531 Janet Reno Attorney General Raymond C. Fisher Associate Attorney General Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General Noel Brennan Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jeremy Travis Director, National Institute of Justice ------------------------------- Office of Justice Programs World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov National Institute of Justice World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij ------------------------------- National Evaluation of Weed and Seed Hartford Case Study RESEARCH REPORT Terence Dunworth, Ph.D. Project Director Gregory Mills Deputy Project Director Prepared by Thomas F. Rich Hartford Site Leader Kristen Jacoby August 1999 NCJ 175696 National Institute of Justice Jeremy Travis Director Steve Edwards Program Monitor ------------------------------- Prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, by Abt Associates Inc., under contract #95-DD-BX-0134. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. ------------------------------- The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. ------------------------------- Acknowledgments This evaluation could not have been completed without the assistance and cooperation of many persons involved in the Hartford Weed and Seed effort. We appreciate their willingness to be open and candid during the evaluation. Special thanks go to former U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut, Christopher Droney (now a Federal judge), and Hartford Police Chief Joseph Croughwell. We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Stephen Cox, Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice at Central Connecticut State University, who assisted in the evaluation work. Contents Acknowledgments 1.0. Introduction 2.0. Case Study Objective and Methodology 3.0. Site History and Description 3.1. City Characteristics 3.2. Target Area Characteristics and Nature of Problems 3.3. Other Funding Sources 4.0. Program Structure and Chronology 4.1. Formal Organization and Structure for Weed and Seed Program 4.2. Budgetary Information 4.3. Program Milestones 4.4. Local Evaluation 5.0. Key Implementation Issues and Interpretation 5.1. Approach to Weeding 5.2. Approach Community Policing 5.3. Approach to Seeding 6.0. Effects of Weed and Seed 6.1. Analysis of Crime Data 6.2. Survey of Community Residents 6.3. Seeding Program Participant Interviews 7.0. Future Directions and Degree of Institutionalization Appendix A List of Exhibits Exhibit 3.1: Map of Hartford Weed and Seed Area Exhibit 3.2: Map of Stowe Village Exhibit 3.3: Part 1 Crimes per 1,000 Residents Exhibit 4.1: Hartford Weed and Seed Funding Summary Exhibit 4.2: Hartford Weed and Seed Project Milestones Exhibit 5.1: Part 1 Arrests per Capita by Month Exhibit 5.2: Drug Arrests per Capita by Month Exhibit 5.3: Disposition of Weed and Seed Arrests Exhibit 6.1: Part 1 Crimes per Capita by Month Exhibit 6.2: Part 1 Crime Trends by Census Tract: 1993-1996 Exhibit 6.3: Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents, Hartford Exhibit 6.4: Perceptions of the Neighborhood, Hartford Exhibit 6.5: Victimization, Hartford Exhibit 6.6: Police Response, Hartford Exhibit 6.7: Community Involvement, Hartford Exhibit 6.8: Perceptions of Social Services and Other Programs, Hartford Exhibit 6.9: Perceptions of the Weed and Seed Program, Hartford Appendix A: Map of Census Tracts Near Stowe Village ------------------------------- 1.0. Introduction Unveiled in 1991, Operation Weed and Seed represents an ambitious attempt to improve the quality of life in America's cities. The ultimate goals of Weed and Seed are to control violent crime, drug trafficking, and drug-related crime in targeted high-crime neighborhoods and to provide a safe environment, free of crime and drug use, in which law-abiding citizens can live, work, and raise their families. Weed and Seed, administered by the Executive Office for Weed and Seed (EOWS), is grounded in the philosophy that targeted areas can best be improved by a two-pronged strategy of "weeding" out violent offenders, drug traffickers, and other criminals by removing them from the targeted area and "seeding" the area with human services and neighborhood revitalization efforts. Community policing is intended to serve as the "bridge" between weeding and seeding. Three key objectives emphasize the government-community partnership spirit that is at the heart of Weed and Seed: 1. To develop a comprehensive, multiagency strategy to control and prevent violent crime, drug trafficking, and drug-related crime in targeted high-crime neighborhoods. 2. To coordinate and integrate existing and new Federal, State, local, and private sector initiatives, criminal justice efforts, and human services, concentrating those resources in the project sites to maximize their impact on reducing and preventing violent crime, drug trafficking, and drug- related crime. 3. To mobilize community residents in the targeted sites to assist law enforcement in identifying and removing violent offenders and drug traffickers from their neighborhoods and to assist other human services agencies in identifying and responding to service needs of the target area. Weed and Seed sites thus draw on the resources of a variety of agencies at all levels of government, private and other public organizations, and individual community residents. Specific strategies and program components designed to achieve these three objectives fall into one of four Weed and Seed program elements: 1. Law enforcement. Weed and Seed's law enforcement goals are the identification, arrest, prosecution, conviction, and incarceration of narcotics traffickers and violent criminals operating in the target area. 2. Community policing. An objective of community policing is to establish mutual trust between law enforcement and the public. This is the bridge between weeding and seeding: law enforcement officials enlist the community's help in identifying patterns of criminal activity and locating perpetrators; simultaneously, police help the community solve problems. 3. Prevention, intervention, and treatment. This element of the program is intended to reduce risk factors and to enhance protective factors that are associated with drug abuse, violence, and crime in the target area. "Safe havens" in the target areas typically coordinate the prevention, intervention, and treatment activities. 4. Neighborhood restoration. The goal of this element is to enable residents in the target area to improve their community morale, their neighborhood's physical appearance (buildings, parks, streets, lighting, and so forth), and local economic and business conditions. An important structural feature of Weed and Seed is the local steering committee. The EOWS requires that each site have a steering committee, formally chaired by the U.S. Attorney for the district in which the site is located, that is responsible for "establishing Weed and Seed's goals and objectives, designing and developing programs, providing guidance on implementation, and assessing program achievement."[1] Steering committee members include representatives from key local, State, and Federal agencies, and other stakeholders in the Weed and Seed target area, such as business leaders, tenant association leaders, and other community activists. The requirement to convene a steering committee reflects the EOWS's belief that, for neighborhood revitalization to work, all key stakeholders must participate in the decisions that affect the target area. Funded sites were divided into two groups: officially recognized sites and demonstration sites. Officially recognized sites were currently implementing Weed and Seed strategies in their jurisdictions, and had submitted documentation summarizing their strategy to the EOWS but had not yet received full funding from the EOWS. After the EOWS designated a site as "officially recognized," the site was eligible for demonstration status and full Weed and Seed funding. 2.0 Case Study Objective and Methodology This case study is one of eight completed for the National Evaluation of Weed and Seed, under the direction of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). In 1994, NIJ selected the following eight sites for the national evaluation: o Four demonstration sites that first received funding in FY 1994: --Hartford, Connecticut --Las Vegas, Nevada --Sarasota and Manatee Counties, Florida --Shreveport, Louisiana o Two demonstration sites awarded continuation funding in FY 1994: --Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania --Seattle, Washington o Two officially recognized sites: --Akron, Ohio --Salt Lake City, Utah Four of these sites (Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, Sarasota/Manatee, and Shreveport) were also recipients of funds from the National Performance Review Laboratory (NPRL).[2] This case study documents the activities implemented under the Weed and Seed program in Hartford and assesses the program's impact at this site. The final evaluation report compares the eight sites and presents overall conclusions on the Weed and Seed program. The evaluation activities undertaken for this case study include: (1) onsite observation of program activities; (2) inperson interviews with program staff, key law enforcement personnel, community leaders, service providers, and participants; (3) review of program documents; (4) a survey of target area residents; and (5) analysis of computerized crime and arrest records provided by the local police department. 3.0. Site History and Description 3.1. City Characteristics The city of Hartford is located midway between New York and Boston and is the urban hub of Connecticut's capital region. Hartford, which serves as the region's major employment, service, government, and cultural center, covers only 18.2 square miles and has a population of roughly 140,000, making it one of the country's smallest urban areas. Approximately 250,000 to 300,000 people, or roughly twice the population of Hartford, enter the city for some portion of the day for employment, entertainment, or other reasons. The city of Hartford contrasts sharply with the surrounding towns, which are primarily suburban communities with middle to upper income populations. In fact, while the State of Connecticut has the country's highest per capita income, Hartford has for a number of years been one of the Nation's poorest cities in terms of the percentage of residents living below the poverty line. 3.2. Target Area Characteristics and Nature of Problems Hartford's Weed and Seed target area is the Stowe Village public housing development in the city's Northeast neighborhood. Exhibit 3.1 shows the location of Stowe Village within the city. Exhibit 3.2 shows a closeup view of Stowe Village. The boundary of Stowe Village encompasses an area of about one-tenth of a square mile. Within this area, there are 33 buildings--a community center, housing authority offices, and 31 tenant buildings. In the 33 buildings are approximately 550 public housing units. The tenant buildings are either two or three stories, with common entrances and hallways. Approximately 1,300 people live in Stowe Village. Demographic statistics show that Stowe Village is one of the poorest sections of Hartford, which in turn is one of the poorest cities in the Nation. According to Hartford's 1994 Weed and Seed proposal, only 23 of the roughly 440 adults in Stowe Village (approximately 5.2 percent) were "gainfully employed." Thus, virtually the entire population is dependent on state and Federal assistance programs, such as Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC). Stowe Village has a tenants' association, which for a variety of reasons, has not been as well organized or as active as many other community organizations in Hartford. One of the Weed and Seed objectives in Hartford has been to increase the effectiveness of this organization. Through the years, Stowe Village had gained a reputation as one of the city's primary crime centers, with substantial gang and drug activity. Hartford's 1994 Weed and Seed proposal noted that "[at the present time, Stowe Village is a center of operation and, in some instances, residence, for two of the three major gangs operating in Hartford, the Los Solidos and the 20 Love gangs." As shown in exhibit 3.3, crime statistics reflect these perceptions of Stowe Village in the 2 years prior to Weed and Seed. For example, the number of Part 1 crimes per 1,000 residents in 1993, in Stowe Village was 223.8, about 67 percent higher than the city's overall figure and about four and one-half times the national average. The 1993 per capita Part 1 crime rate in Stowe Village was also significantly higher in two other comparable Hartford public housing developments--43 percent higher than in Nelton Court and 94 percent higher than in Dutch Point. (Exhibit 3.3 also shows how the crime rate has dropped in Stowe Village since the start of Weed and Seed. This issue will be discussed later in section 6.) 3.3. Other Funding Sources A broad array of human service programs and services already existed in Stowe Village prior to Weed and Seed. In fact, one of the important reasons why Stowe Village was selected as the Weed and Seed target areas was the desire to leverage existing and anticipated U.S. Housing and rban Development (HUD) initiatives directed toward Stowe Village. Perhaps the most important of these programs was the Family Investment Center. About the time Hartford initially applied for Weed and Seed unding, the Hartford Housing Authority received $1 million from HUD to develop and operate a Family Investment Center in Stowe Village. Since opening in 1995, the Center has focused on providing education, job training, and employment opportunities for Stowe Village families. Other programs and services offered in Stowe Village include programs funded by the Federal government (e.g., the HUD-funded Drug Elimination Program and employment training programs, Head Start, and Hartford Housing Authority Youth Division programming), the State of Connecticut (e.g., the Mt. Olive Day Care Center), nonprofit organizations (e.g., the United Way's support of the Stowe Village YMCA and the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving's support of Project MaSH), and private companies (e.g., corporate sponsorship of the B Club). Two programs that existed in Stowe Village before the start of Weed and Seed received Weed and Seed funds to expand their program offerings. Hartford was one of five cities to receive funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation in 1993 to develop and implement programs designed to reduce teenage pregnancy and prevent HIV and AIDS in youths. With these funds, Plain Talk/Hablando Claro was established in Stowe Village. In addition, the Connecticut Department of Mental Health (DMH) provided initial funding to the Community Mental Health Center in Hartford to provide onsite mental health counseling services in Stowe Village in 1994. The DMH funds were used to assign a full-time staff person to Stowe Village, using space provided by the Hartford Housing Authority. 4.0. Program Structure and Chronology 4.1. Formal Organization and Structure Hartford's Weed and Seed program has a steering committee, a weed committee, and a seed committee. o Weed and Seed steering committee. Hartford's Weed and Seed steering committee is cochaired by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut and the Chief of Police of the Hartford Police Department (HPD). Steering committee meetings are open to the public, and, since November 1995, have been held at the Stowe Village Community Center. Steering committee meetings are primarily occasions in which the key persons involved in Weed and Seed meet and inform each other what they have accomplished and what they are currently working on. The meetings also afford an opportunity for target area residents and other citizens to learn about and get involved in the program. o Weeding committee. The weeding committee meets monthly to review the status of weeding activities and to plan future tactics and strategies. These meetings are not open to the public. Committee members include HPD's Chief of Police and several police supervisors, the U.S. Attorney, and the local FBI Special Agent in Charge. In general, weeding primarily involves a single organization--the HPD, with overall weeding activities coordinated by the Deputy Chief in charge of the North Police Service Area. State and Federal law enforcement resources are involved on an as- needed basis. o Seeding committee. The Coordinator for Human Resources at the Hartford Housing Authority, and former program director of the Stowe Village Family Investment Center, coordinate the seeding activities. The seed coordinator holds monthly meetings with the seeding service providers in Stowe Village, most of whom receive Weed and Seed funds through subcontracts to the Housing Authority. A key purpose of these meetings is to coordinate the activities of the service providers so that they are working together as a team. The Weed and Seed effort has benefitted from HUD's Operation Safe Homes initiative, which has been operating in Stowe Village since 1995. Safe Homes has a more formal organizational structure than the Weed and Seed effort in Hartford, and has established five subcommittees: public safety, education, employment/training, social services, and youths. There is particular overlap with Weed and Seed on the public safety and social services subcommittees. For example, the chair of the social services subcommittee is also the seed coordinator. There is no full-time Weed and Seed coordinator in Hartford. Day-to-day decisionmaking authority is exercised primarily by the weed coordinator and the seed coordinator. Strategic decisionmaking authority is shared between the police department, which is the Weed and Seed grantee, and the U.S. Attorney, who has also been instrumental in garnering the support and cooperation of other governmental agencies. 4.2. Budgetary Information Funding allocations, and in particular awards made to the seeding service providers, are made by HPD, in consultation with the U.S. Attorney and the Hartford Housing Authority. Exhibit 4.1 summarizes Hartford Weed and Seed funding by year, funding source, and programmatic element (FY 1997 funds will not be used until the summer of 1998.) Not reflected in this exhibit are inkind contributions (particularly from HPD and the Hartford Housing Authority) or other programs in Stowe Village that were not funded by Weed and Seed. The funding allocation in exhibit 4.1 reflects the dual goals of Hartford's Weed and Seed program--enhancing police presence in Stowe Village and implementing a wide array of seeding programs. Compared to other sites in the national evaluation, Hartford is directing a significantly higher percentage of its Federal award to seeding programs. In addition, the seeding funding has emphasized programmatic initiatives, particularly adult training and employment programs and youth programming, rather than community capacity building. This emphasis seems appropriate, given that Hartford's target area had a near 100-percent unemployment rate prior to Weed and Seed. 4.3. Program Milestones Exhibit 4.2 lists a number of important funding and programmatic milestones related to Weed and Seed from the time Hartford made its initial application for funding in June 1994. Further details on the programmatic elements are explained later in this report, but this exhibit should provide a historical reference for the project. As is typical with Federal grant funds awards, there was some delay between the time the city was notified that they had been awarded a Weed and Seed grant from the U.S. Department of Justice (October 1994) and when the various weeding and seeding activities became operational. In January 1995, the Hartford Court of Common Council authorized the City Manager to accept the Federal funds and authorized the awarding of subgrants to the various subcontractors. For example, contracts with the Connecticut Prison Association and Hartford Hospital were executed in June 1995, while contracts with Abt Associates and the Hartford Housing Authority were not executed until September 1995 and October 1995, respectively. 4.4. Local Evaluation Abt Associates is conducting the local Weed and Seed evaluation in Hartford. Two year-end reports have been completed to date, with a third report to be delivered in July 1998. The local evaluation has three components. First, a qualitative assessment of Weed and Seed program activities is conducted. This was carried out through regular onsite and telephone interviews with personnel from the Hartford Police Department, the U.S. Attorney's Office, other law enforcement agencies, the Hartford Housing Authority, the many Stowe Village service providers, the Stowe Village Tenants Association and other resident organizations. Evaluation staff also attended Weed and Seed steering committee and Operation Safe Homes meetings in Hartford. Second, surveys of Stowe Village youths were conducted in the spring of 1996 and 1997. In each survey, approximately 100 youths were questioned about awareness and participation in Stowe Village programs and services, attitudes toward school, and perceptions of safety and quality of life. Both surveys employed a non-random, opportunistic methodology. Third, analyses were conducted of computerized police department data, including calls for service, reported crimes, and arrests. For these analyses, the Hartford Police Department provided tapes containing details of each call for service, reported crime, and arrest occurring in the city since January 1, 1993, which is 2 years prior to the start of Weed and Seed. The third year-end local evaluation report will focus on the impact of Weed and Seed in Stowe Village. 5.0. Key Implementation Issues and Interpretation 5.1. Approach to Weeding The Hartford Police Department (HPD) has overall responsibility for the weeding activities in Stowe Village. In that role, they have utilized a variety of department resources, including the patrol division, the vice and narcotics division, the community service officer unit, the mounted patrol unit, and the traffic enforcement unit. There is no "Weed and Seed Unit" within HPD, as police resources assigned to Stowe Village have remained in their organizational unit. In addition, Federal and State law enforcement agencies have participated in specific weeding activities in Stowe Village. For example, a few arrests involving weapons charges have been referred to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Defining the start date of weeding activities can be somewhat arbitrary since Stowe Village has always had significant police presence. For example, in December 1994, an extensive enforcement effort that targeted gangs, violent crime, and drug activity was carried out in Stowe Village. However, the first "official" Weed and Seed enforcement action began in January 1995, when the vice and narcotics division launched an extensive undercover operation in Stowe Village. Vice and narcotics detectives conducted a series of surveillance and undercover buy operations, with the goal of identifying and obtaining warrants on as many drug sellers in Stowe Village as possible. Ultimately, detectives served many arrest warrants in March 1995 as a result of the operation. Also in March 1995, a Federal grand jury returned an 85-count indictment against 38 persons alleged to be members of the Los Solidos gang, one of the major crime organizations in Hartford, whose operations were centered in Stowe Village. The indictment was read following the arrest of six alleged Los Solidos gang members, which resulted from a cooperative effort of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. Police presence Through the use of Weed and Seed funds and through inkind contributions from HPD, there has been an increase in police presence in Stowe Village, as summarized in the following chart: As shown in exhibit 4.1, approximately $180,000 from each Weed and Seed grant has been used to increase police presence in Stowe Village through the use of overtime for the Stowe Village beat officers, community service officers (CSO), vice and narcotics detectives, and other specialized units. According to HPD, these funds have supported an additional 40 to 80 officer-hours in Stowe Village per week. Police presence in Stowe Village has been further enhanced through the opening in May 1995 of a police substation at a central location in Stowe Village. The CSO, beat officers, and patrol officers use the substation as office space, a place to meet with residents, and as a place to question suspects. The substation is also used for meetings and other community functions. Tactics The most intensive weeding efforts were carried out during the first 6 to 8 months of the project (starting in January 1995). Following the completion of the initial undercover operation in March 1995, detectives from HPD's vice and narcotics division continued special operations (surveillance, reverse sting operations, and executions of search warrants) in Stowe Village through the middle of August 1995. Based on information in HPD's Weed and Seed log books, 20 of these operations were conducted between January and August 1995. Of these, 13 resulted in at least 1 arrest, 10 resulted in multiple arrests, and 4 resulted in 10 or more arrests. Many of these operations targeted major gang leaders and drug operations. One surveillance operation in May 1995 netted 500 bags of heroin and four arrests, including a major drug dealer and gang leader living in Stowe Village. After the completion of the March 1995 undercover operation, HPD also embarked on a "second phase" of weeding that focused on conducting high visibility patrol operations. This involved the beat officers and CSO assigned to Stowe Village working extended shifts and other specialized units within HPD (e.g., mounted patrol unit, traffic enforcement unit) being assigned to Stowe Village on an as-needed basis. Since the summer of 1995, HPD has continued an emphasis on high visibility patrol. The HPD views this as a highly successful strategy (based in part of the reduction in crime in Stowe Village--see section 6) and sees no reason to make significant changes in tactics. Vice and narcotics detectives have conducted a few special operations since August 1995, mostly from January to April 1996. An additional tactic should be noted. In early December 1995, after months of planning and discussions, vehicular barriers were erected in Stowe Village that blocked three of the four entrances to Stowe Village. Vehicles can now enter Stowe Village only by traveling westbound on Kensington Street (see the map in exhibit 3.2). The primary motivation for installing the barriers was to discourage persons living outside Stowe Village from driving to Stowe Village to purchase drugs or commit other crimes. After the barriers were first installed, community response to the barriers was mixed. Some residents commented that they appreciate the reduction in traffic. Others have explicitly stated that they think the barriers have helped reduce the level of drug activity in Stowe Village. For others, the barriers have fueled resentment toward the city. At one steering committee meeting, one resident complained that "we are being caged in; now our children will expect to be caged in from now on." In addition, residents have complained about the disruption to bus routes, the difficulty emergency vehicles have had getting into Stowe Village, and the ugly appearance of the barriers. The appearance of the barriers has been somewhat improved by having shrubbery planted in and around these barriers. In any event, the barriers will remain one of the most visible signs of the Weed and Seed program. Weed and Seed arrests For the purposes of this report, a Weed and Seed arrest is defined as any arrest made in the Weed and Seed target area. To determine the number of arrests made in Stowe Village and how that number has changed over time, we requested from HPD computerized arrest records dating from January 1993 (2 years prior to the start of Weed and Seed). We then used the address where the arrest was made to determine if the arrest was made in Stowe Village. We also examined arrests in the area immediately surrounding Stowe Village (referred to as the "catchment area"--see the map in appendix A), other Hartford public housing developments, and the city as a whole. Exhibit 5.1 shows the number of arrests (persons arrested) for Part 1 crimes made in Stowe Village and in the rest of the city per 1,000 residents by month from January 1993 to March 1997. Exhibit 5.2 shows the corresponding numbers for drug arrests. The midpoint of these graphs, January 1995, is when Weed and Seed started in Stowe Village. In both graphs, "best fit" curves have been superimposed to show the overall trend. The graph of Part 1 arrests shows a drop in the arrest rate over the first year of Weed and Seed (42 arrests in 1995 compared to 67 in 1994), and then an increase over the second year (51 in 1996 compared to 42 in 1995). The trends in drug arrests are clear, and show rapidly falling rates over the second year of Weed and Seed, almost to the point where the drug arrest rate in Stowe Village is comparable to the rate for the rest of the city. The number of drug arrests in Stowe Village dropped from 261 in 1995 to 157 in 1996, a 40-percent reduction. Perhaps what is most notable about Stowe Village arrest trends are the wide variations in month-to-month arrest totals over the past 4 years. In Stowe Village, there are a few months with exceptionally high-arrest totals. A closer look at the arrest data show that these spikes are due primarily to large numbers of arrests on a single day of the month, most likely due to a massive police sweep or raid. For example, in July 1994, the month with the single highest total of all arrests (including Part 1 and drug arrests), 69 of the 97 arrests were made over 3 days. In April and June 1995, the 2 months with the highest totals during the Weed and Seed effort, 8 days accounted for 62 arrests (41 percent of the arrests were made during 13 percent of days). Overall, the number of days in which 10 or more arrests were made in a single day in Stowe Village was 5 in 1993, 10 in 1994, 4 in 1995, 1 in 1996, and, as of the end of March, 0 in 1997. Interestingly, all 4 of the "10 or more arrest days" in 1995 resulted from special operations by the vice and narcotics division--two from serving warrants and two from reverse sting operations. In fact, one factor that helps explain the drop in the number of "mass arrest days" is that vice and narcotics special operations have yielded fewer arrests in 1996 compared to 1995. Of the 20 special operations conducted in 1995, 4 resulted in 10 or more arrests, as noted above. Thirteen of the 20 (65 percent) resulted in at least 1 arrest. In 1996, a higher percentage of the special operations resulted in at least 1 arrest--of the nine conducted, seven (78 percent) resulted in at least one arrest. However, none of the 9 special operations conducted in 1996 resulted in 10 or more arrests. This provides some statistical evidence that, on the whole, drug dealing in Stowe Village is being conducted on a much smaller scale than before. This finding is consistent with comments by Hartford police personnel regarding the drug dealing situation in Stowe Village. Prosecution of Weed and Seed arrests As of mid-1997, nearly all Weed and Seed arrests have been referred to the Hartford State's Attorney. Ten Weed and Seed arrests have been or were in the process of being prosecuted at the Federal level. These Federal-level cases have involved major Stowe Village gang leaders and drug dealers, so the importance of these arrests should not be underestimated. In particular, two of the gang leaders prosecuted in March 1995 are currently serving 10-year prison sentences. For Weed and Seed cases referred to the State's attorney, HPD's crime analysis unit tracks the status of each arrest. As of June 1997, 612 Weed and Seed arrests had been disposed. Exhibit 5.3 shows the disposition of four categories of Weed and Seed arrests--all arrests, felony arrests (arrests involving at least one felony charge), nonfelony arrests (arrests involving only misdemeanor charges), and felony drug arrests (arrests involving at least one felony drug charge). In total, slightly more than half (53 percent) of all Weed and Seed arrests are dismissed. Only 18 percent of arrests resulted in the incarceration of the offender. Forty-four percent of felony arrests are dismissed (compared to 66 percent of misdemeanor arrests). Twenty-two percent of felony arrests result in an incarceration (compared to 13 percent of misdemeanor arrests). For those felony arrests that did result in an incarceration (N=113), 39 percent received a sentence of less than 2 years, 40 percent received a sentence of 2 years or more but less than 5 years, and 21 percent received a sentence of 5 years or more. Finally, the disposition distribution for felony drug arrests is nearly identical to that for all felony arrests. The percentage of arrests that result in dismissal is clearly high. The question is how this percentage compares to non-Weed and Seed arrests in Hartford. Data on the prosecution of all Hartford arrests have not been examined for this evaluation, so we cannot assess whether or not the disposition of Weed and Seed arrests is substantially different from non- Weed and Seed arrests. However, if we were to examine the dispositions of other sets of arrests, in all likelihood we would find similar disposition statistics, particularly for felony cases--according to personnel from the State's attorney's office "a serious case is a serious case" and how it is handled does not depend on the location the arrest was made. While there is no difference in the handling of serious cases and no vertical prosecution of Weed and Seed cases, it is nevertheless important to recognize steps taken to enhance the prosecution of Weed and Seed arrests. The most important step is that communication between the State's attorney's office and HPD has, according to both offices, improved over the past year, especially with regard to alerting the State's attorney as to which cases are particularly important. Also, HPD officials are pleasantly surprised that they have been receiving telephone calls from the State's attorney's office regarding specific Weed and Seed cases. In general, according to State's attorney's personnel, a mind set has been established within the State's attorney's office that Weed and Seed is an important program, and, thus, "we try to do something with [Weed and Seed cases]." This starts by stamping "Weed and Seed" on the jacket of case folders of Stowe Village arrests. A specific example of how "special attention" would be given involves an arrest for a minor offense that would ordinarily be dismissed by the prosecutor; in such cases, the State's attorney will often request that a fine be imposed instead. Still, as personnel from the State's attorney's office point out, the court-- and, in particular, independent-minded judges--have the final say in any sanctions imposed. And, on more than one occasion, the presiding judge has rejected the State's attorney's call for a fine, rather than a dismissal, on a Weed and Seed arrest. 5.2. Approach Community Policing The most significant inkind contribution from the police department is assigning a Community Service Officer (CSO) exclusively to Stowe Village. This represents a substantial increase in CSO presence for Stowe Village, as other CSOs in Hartford are assigned to entire neighborhoods, which are several times larger and more populous than Stowe Village. CSOs do not typically respond to calls for service and can therefore devote the vast majority of their time to problem solving. The Stowe Village CSO has focused on fostering better community relations, organizing community activities, coordinating the Building Captain program, working at the Wish School (adjacent to Stowe Village), and participating in Family Investment Center activities. In addition, as explained later in this section, the CSO has taken a lead role in other important community programs. For example, in 1996, the Stowe Village CSO helped organize and run a first-ever police summer youth academy. Twenty-four Stowe Village youths, ages 11 to 13, participated in the program, in which the youths were taught about police work and were taken on field trips by the Stowe Village CSO and two of the other HPD CSOs. The program received extensive and very positive coverage in local newspapers, and will be repeated in Stowe Village in subsequent summers. The program was funded primarily through inkind contributions from the HPD. Overall, the CSO appears to be extremely well liked in Stowe Village. 5.3. Approach to Seeding For the seeding component of the Weed and Seed program, Hartford has used Federal Weed and Seed funds to implement a number of youth, social service, and employment programs in Stowe Village. Combined with new programs funded through sources other than Weed and Seed and programs available at Stowe Village prior to Weed and Seed, Stowe Village now has an impressive array of onsite programs and services, as outlined below. Drug counseling and referral The Connecticut Prison Association has received funding to establish and operate a drug counseling and referral service in Stowe Village. This program has been operating in Stowe Village since March 1995 and is staffed by one full-time male counselor and one part-time female counselor. The current female counselor has lived in Stowe Village for the past 8 years and was previously a volunteer at Plain Talk/Hablando Claro. The program offers individual counseling, group counseling (including groups for men, women, and people of color), family counseling, and 12- step recovery meetings. Referrals are made to detoxification facilities and to inpatient and outpatient treatment centers, including the inpatient treatment facility, run by the organization Hogar Crea, which opened in the spring of 1997 in Stowe Village. The Stowe Village staff has also made it a point to visit and provide support for clients in jail. The number of new clients at the program has varied by time of year, with low levels during summer months and high levels in winter months. According to the counselors, summer provides many opportunities for addicts to "hustle for money," which makes them less likely to seek counseling. During the first year of operation, the number of new clients ranged from 3 in September 1995 to 20 in December 1995, with an overall average of 10 new clients per month. Importantly, the program had been successful in attracting persons who had never before sought drug treatment--of the program's first 128 clients, 74 percent had never sought treatment. The Stowe Village program also appears to be successful in attracting females, who are traditionally more reluctant to seek treatment. Thus far, 40 percent of the clients have been female. Starting in late 1997, the Stowe Village drug counseling staff have initiated a new program called the Family Reunification Program. Under this program, staff attempt to reunite adult males leaving prison with their children that live in Stowe Village. Youth violence prevention training Weed and Seed funds were awarded to Hartford Hospital to implement youth violence prevention programs in Stowe Village. In turn, the hospital subcontracted with the Community Renewal Team (CRT) to actually conduct the programs. The first year's program, operated in the first half of 1996, involved two groups, one all girls and one co-ed, led by an adult instructor. CRT has modified its approach for the second year programs, offering a "kids teaching kids" program called Youth Helping Youth, in addition to an "adult teaching kids" program called The Violence Prevention Program. CRT established an office in Stowe Village and uses this office to conduct these two programs. The Violence Prevention Program. The Violence Prevention Program is based on the concept that violence is a learned behavior. The program's primary violence prevention techniques are to teach youths the negative aspects of using violence, show them the long term negative outcomes of violence, teach them to recognize a potentially violent situation, and provide them with alternatives to using violence. This program consists of 10 1-hour sessions designed to provide students with information on the risks of violence and homicide, teach various alternatives to violence such as conflict resolution techniques, and create an environment that is nonviolent and values violence prevention behavior. The program meets twice a week for 10 weeks with approximately 10 to 15 middle and high school youths attending each session. Each session is conducted in a group setting, with a program facilitator providing an overview of each session. The sessions are structured around individual and group activities. For example, one session titled, "There's More to Lose than to Gain from Fighting," challenges students to compare the positive and negative consequences of fighting. The session attempts to demonstrate that the negative consequences of fighting outweigh the positive. To do so, students are asked to make a list of the positive consequences of fighting (e.g., winning, proving a point) and a list of the negative consequences (e.g., getting hurt, being embarrassed). Youth Helping Youth. The second CRT program, Youth Helping Youth, is based on the "kids teaching kids" approach, in which a group of youths from Stowe Village travel to various schools, youth programs, and church groups in the Hartford area and make presentations on teen issues. The presentations are conducted in the form of skits and role plays. Following each skit, the youths and the program director discuss the situation and its implications with the audience. The goal of this program is to have the youths teach their peers about the problems associated with violence, drug use, and sexual relationships. An adult instructor from CRT trains a group of Stowe Village youths who become "peer educators." The group meets twice a week to practice the presentations and to develop new role plays and skits. The youths are encouraged to create new role plays and they appear to enjoy this opportunity. Ten to 12 students regularly participate in the Youth Helping Youth program. The peer educators are recruited from students who have successfully completed the Violence Prevention Program. Adult mentoring program. In the third year of Weed and Seed, the scope and focus of the violence prevention program changed. A new vendor, the Connecticut Children's Medical Center, was selected to implement a parent mentoring program in Stowe Village. The goal is to train a group of Stowe Village parents who, in turn, can train other Stowe Village parents in the areas of anger management, peer counseling, parenting skills, and other topics related to violence prevention. A special emphasis will be placed on identifying and counseling teenage mothers. This change in focus resulted from requests from the Weed and Seed service providers and from Stowe Village parents. Weed and Seed service providers will identify 20 Stowe Village parents for the training, which will last 20-25 hours per month for 2 months. Girls biking program Funding from Weed and Seed and a variety of private sources have supported a girls biking program called COGS (Communities for Girls Succeeding). Weed and Seed funds were used to purchase the bicycles and the majority of other equipment (helmets and protective pads), while volunteers operated the program. The goal of the program is to provide positive female role models to girls from Stowe Village. Furthermore, the program seeks to (1) provide a unique source of exercise and enjoyment for inner-city girls; (2) expose girls from the city to places outside of Hartford; (3) give girls the opportunity to develop a particular skill; (4) offer continuing opportunities for girls who choose to pursue cycling through competitions and scholarships; and, (5) help girls develop self- confidence and independence. The number of girls who participate in the rides ranges from 4 to 20. The ages of the girls range from 9 to 16 years old. The program coordinator, who is assisted by other volunteers that are recruited from all types of backgrounds, believes it is important to have the girls meet and talk with successful women from "all walks of life." Only women are chosen as volunteers because the program coordinator believes that girls have few opportunities to interact with only women in these types of settings. Girls soccer program Weed and Seed funding has been used to support a girls soccer team. The team is part of the Hartford Police Athletic League program and is designed to give girls an opportunity to play competitive sports against other youths in the greater Hartford area. In addition, the soccer program seeks to help girls develop self-confidence and independence, teach girls good sportsmanship through competition with girls of similar ages but different backgrounds, and expose the girls to areas outside the city of Hartford. There are five girls from Stowe Village that actively participate on the team. (Other team members are from outside Stowe Village.) These girls are between the ages of 13 and 16. The soccer coach recruits the girls by going to Stowe Village and asking girls if they want to participate. The incentive for the girls to participate is that they can keep their uniforms and will receive trophies if their team wins the league championship. Youth pregnancy, HIV, and AIDS prevention Plain Talk/Hablando Claro received Weed and Seed funding to offer programs for Stowe Village youths aimed at reducing teen pregnancies and preventing HIV and AIDS. These funds allowed Plain Talk/Hablando Claro to expand their program offerings in this area, which had been initiated prior to Weed and Seed with funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Weed and Seed funds represented about a 20-percent increase over their existing funding. Starting in October 1995, Plain Talk/Hablando Claro offered two youth- oriented programs, "Always on Saturdays" for boys and "Weekdays at the Library" for girls. Approximately 20 youths participated in each program. With their second year of Weed and Seed funding, Plain Talk/Hablando Claro has continued these two programs and added a program for adult men, which focuses on teaching adult men how to talk to youths about sexuality and how to be positive role models. The two youth-oriented programs have adult instructors and stress the "adult-to-youth" rather than "youth-to-youth" model. Youth discipline and self-esteem The Mushaba Force Youth Foundation received funding during both the irst and second year of Weed and Seed to teach discipline and self-esteem to youths in Stowe Village. Recruitment flyers for the program stated that the program allows children to "learn self-discipline, self-confidence, and self-defense while having fun." The "fun" part of the program was undoubtedly gymnastics and martial arts. Classes are taught at the Mushaba Force headquarters, which is about three blocks from Stowe Village. Approximately 20 boys and girls, aged 8-14, participated in the program. Program leaders stressed that the program was more than just a gymnastics and martial arts program. Other activities included planting flowers in Stowe Village, tutoring children with their homework, and, in general, providing children with a safe and supportive atmosphere. The program appears to have a devoted following among participants, their parents, and Weed and Seed officials. Mental health counseling The Hartford Community Mental Health Center received first and second year Weed and Seed funding to provide mental health counseling services to Stowe Village residents. During the first year, Weed and Seed funds supplemented funding provided by the State Department of Mental Health, which, as noted in section 3, had been used to establish mental health counseling services in Stowe Village in 1994. Thus, during the first part of 1995, two full-time staff persons were assigned to Stowe Village. Later in 1995 when the State funding ended, a single counselor was serving Stowe Village clients. Initially, the counselors saw clients at the center's Stowe Village office. Toward the end of 1995, however, staff vacated this office and moved back to the center's headquarters on Main St., about three blocks from Stowe Village. According to staff from the Community Mental Health Center, there were two significant problems with the Stowe Village office. The first was that, because of the stigma associated with mental health problems, residents were hesitant to be seen walking into the mental health offices and preferred to be seen offsite at the center's Main Street offices. A second, more immediate problem, concerned the safety of the counselors. One counselor was assaulted near the center's office and subsequently resigned the position. Throughout 1996 and into 1997, the Weed and Seed-funded counselor saw 15 to 20 Stowe Village residents per month. The majority of the clients were long term "chronic" cases, who had counseling every month during the year. Clients were mostly females in their 40s and 50s. Family case management services The Greater Hartford Urban League received funding to provide a full- time advocate/case worker to assist Stowe Village families by providing information, referral services, and counseling. The Urban League works closely with the Family Investment Center by conducting needs assessments and developing activity plans for each family enrolled at the Family Investment Center. The Weed and Seed seeding coordinator and the Urban League case manager established a set of procedures for working with Stowe Village families. The first step is for families to enroll in the Family Investment Center. By late 1997, approximately 350 families were enrolled. (The total number of families in Stowe Village has increased, as additional apartments have reopened for occupancy; the total number of families is now approximately 535.) After signing a contract with the Family Investment Center, an initial intake interview is scheduled. During the intake interview the case worker and the client discuss what type of work the client desires and what steps must be taken to secure a job in that field. By the end of 1997, the Family Investment Center had helped 230 residents obtain employment. This represents a substantial achievement for the Weed and Seed project and for Stowe Village--as noted in section 3, Hartford's 1994 Weed and Seed proposal stated that only 23 Stowe Village residents had jobs. Computer lab The Hartford Housing Authority received funding to provide computer training to Stowe Village youths. The computer lab opened in March 1996, and has since become very well known and popular among Stowe Village residents. The lab has 18 top-of-the-line computers (13 personal computers and 5 Macintosh computers), a color scanner, a color ink jet printer, and a laserjet printer. The lab has also purchased several types of educational computer programs and is connected to the Internet. The lab also provides noncomputer assistance to participants. While at the lab, students receive tutoring and are required to complete school homework assignments before they can use the lab. The lab coordinator also invites guest speakers into the lab to talk about youth-related problems. Besides operating the computer lab, the coordinator is active in assisting residents in a variety of ways. For instance, he provides transportation for residents to work and to school, has taken parents to school to meet with school officials regarding their child, helps parents locate their children when they are late for curfew, and has also held social gatherings at the lab. The computer lab appears to have had positive effects on those students who frequent the lab. For example, two students have become "experts" in the lab such that the other students come to them for help instead of the lab coordinator. In addition, before any youths can use the computer, he/she must successfully complete a basic tutorial on the inner workings of computers and a typing test. With the installation of the Internet on the lab's computers, the lab coordinator has been developing relationships with other youth groups across the country. For example, youths in Stowe Village have been exchanging letters with youths from a program in Washington State. The computer lab also created a newsletter, which describes the lab as well as other services available for Stowe Village residents. This newsletter announces community activities and provides biographies and special achievements of Stowe Village residents. Photography lab Early in the Weed and Seed program, funds were earmarked for establishing a photography lab in Stowe Village. As of December 1997, however, the lab had not yet opened. Housing Authority personnel cited delays in the request for proposal and purchasing processes (e.g., no one responded to the Authority's first request for proposals for the photography equipment) as the reason the lab had not yet opened. A photography instructor had been hired and he developed a training curriculum, and the lab recently purchased photography equipment, including cameras and dark room equipment, but this equipment had not yet arrived. Given the delays in opening the photography lab, Weed and Seed project personnel decided in early 1998 not to establish a standalone photography lab, but instead integrate photography in with the activities in the computer lab. One project that has already been planned is production of a newspaper published by Stowe Village youths. Equipment at the computer lab would be used to write the stories and print copies of the newspaper. Weed and Seed personnel hope to involve a local Hartford newspaper in this activity. Community organizing services ONE/CHANE has received Weed and Seed funding to provide community organizing services in Stowe Village. An organizer was initially hired in mid-1995. Later, he was replaced by another organizer, who has been onsite since March 1996. The community organizer has been involved in a variety of activities since March 1996. Generally, these activities can be grouped into three categories. The most common activity could be called "notifying residents of upcoming events and, if necessary, arranging transportation to the events." Examples include notifying residents of tenants' association elections and of summer job openings, and transporting residents to ONE/CHANE rallies, a "summer youth jam," and a youth jobs rally. The two other categories of activities are attending meetings (e.g., block captain, Safe Homes, and building captain meetings) and helping to organize Stowe Village events (e.g., the annual spring Health Fairs). Building Captain program Starting in mid-1996, Weed and Seed funds have been used to establish a Building Captain program in Stowe Village. Under this program, which is based on a similar program in the Bellevue Square public housing development, one resident in each of the 23 buildings will be designated as the building captain, and will be responsible for addressing problems in the building, working with other building tenants to keep the common areas clean, and attending monthly meetings. Building captains would report uncooperative and/or unruly tenants to the Stowe Village Tenants' Association, which would then decide how to handle problem tenants. The premise behind this program is to empower residents to maintain the upkeep of their building--it is the responsibility of the building captain to oversee problems in the whole building, but it is the responsibility of each tenant to clean and monitor the area around their apartment. HPD's community service officer led the effort to start this program, although, according to HPD, there were some initial problems, as many of the tenant applicants had outstanding warrants and unpaid telephone bills. The initial compensation for the building captains was a $100 per month payment and free local telephone service. The Building Captain program has made a noticeable impact on those buildings with active captains. When walking through various buildings in Stowe Village, it was obvious which buildings had captains and which did not. For instance, in buildings with active captains, the hallways are clean with little or no graffiti on the walls, whereas buildings with no building captains commonly have trash in the halls, graffiti on the walls, and a strong odor of urine in corner areas. Programs outside Weed and Seed A number of other important programs and services have opened in Stowe Village since the start of Weed and Seed. Though not directly funded by Weed and Seed, Weed and Seed helped bring these services to Stowe Village through the leveraging power of the program. For example, the Adams Medical Clinic affiliated with the St. Francis/Mt. Sinai health care system opened in Stowe Village about 6 months into the Weed and Seed effort, in October 1995. Additionally, the Connecticut Department of Social Services (DSS), opened a Stowe Village office in July 1996. According to Family Investment Center staff, an excellent working relationship has developed between themselves and staff at the DSS, such that staff from both organizations will often visit prospective employers and employment agencies together. 6.0. Effects of Weed and Seed 6.1. Analysis of Crime Data Exhibit 6.1 shows the number of Part 1 crimes per 1,000 residents by month for both Stowe Village and the rest of Hartford. Superimposed on the graph are the "best-fit" curves. The exhibit also shows the start date of Weed and Seed. Aggregating these crime data by year show that crime has decreased faster in Stowe Village than the rest of Hartford. Part 1 crime in Stowe Village dropped 25.9 percent from 1994 to 1995 (the first year of Weed and Seed) and 27.1 percent from 1995 to 1996 (the second year of Weed and Seed). The drop during the first year is particularly notable since during that year the number of Part 1 crimes in the rest of the city was basically unchanged (0.9-percent drop). Not shown in exhibit 6.1 are crime figures for the area surrounding Stowe Village--this area, referred to as the "catchment area" in the map in appendix A. Part 1 crime in the catchment area also dropped substantially: 21.4 percent and 36.6 percent in the first 2 years of Weed and Seed, respectively, suggesting that crime was not displaced to areas immediately adjacent to Stowe Village. Another measure of the changes in crime over the entire time period involves comparing 1994 to 1996--that is, comparing the year before the start of Weed and Seed to the most recent year's statistics (see exhibit 3.3). By this measure, Part 1 crime dropped 46 percent in Stowe Village, compared to 22 percent citywide; violent Part 1 crime (homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) dropped 52 percent in Stowe Village, compared to 34 percent citywide; and all Part 1 and 2 crimes dropped 34 percent in Stowe Village, compared to 8 percent citywide. Census tract-level crime statistics The final method we used for examining crime statistics was to assess changes in crime at the census tract level across the entire city. There are 49 census tracts in Hartford, and using the address where the crime occurred, we were able to determine in which census tract crimes occurred. All of Stowe Village and most of the Stowe Village catchment area are within the same census tract and account for about 70 percent of the area of that tract. The map in appendix A shows the census tract boundaries in the vicinity of Stowe Village. Exhibit 6.2 shows the percentage change in the number of Part 1 crimes in 1993 and 1994 compared to 1995 and 1996 (the 2 years prior to Weed and Seed versus the first 2 years of Weed and Seed) by census tract. The citywide reduction over these 2 periods was 15 percent. Thus, in exhibit 6.2, the two darkest shades represent areas with reductions greater than the citywide average, while the two lightest shades represent areas with smaller reductions or with increases. The exhibit shows that the Stowe Village census tract is one of four tracts with a more than 30-percent decline in Part 1 crimes. The reduction in the Stowe Village tract (36.2 percent) is surpassed only by the tract encompassing Bellevue Square (40.3 percent) and by a small tract immediately south of Bellevue Square (47.3 percent). The boundaries of these three census tracts can be seen more clearly in the map in appendix A. 6.2. Survey of Community Residents In each of the eight sites participating in the National Weed and Seed Evaluation, a survey of target area residents was conducted at two separate time intervals. During March-July 1995, the Institute for Social Analysis conducted a total of 1,531 interviews among the eight sites. In December 1997-January 1998, Abt Associates conducted a total of 1,995 interviews with a separate group of residents in the same eight target areas. In the following discussion, these data collection efforts are referred to as the 1995 and 1997 surveys. General survey design and operations The objective of the survey was to assess changes in citizens' awareness of the Weed and Seed program and their opinions about police activity, crime, public safety, and the general quality of life in their neighborhoods. In the interest of comparing the findings obtained from the two surveys, the 1997 survey was designed with the following features: o For each site, the geographical boundaries of the survey area were the same in 1995 and 1997. For Hartford, all the respondents from both surveys lived in the Stowe Village public housing development. o The verbatim wording of questions from the 1995 survey was retained in 1997. In selected items additional response categories were added in 1997, to provide a more complete range of possible responses. For these items, care was taken in the analysis to aggregate responses in ways that would preserve the comparability of the findings between 1995 and 1997.[3] There were also some notable differences in the methods used in the two surveys: o The 1995 survey consisted of inperson interviews, based on city- provided address lists. The 1997 interviews were conducted by telephone, based on listed telephone numbers for residential addresses within the survey area. o The 1995 survey consisted of 83 substantive items. The 1997 survey included only a subset of these, 31 substantive items. (For both surveys, the count excludes items related to respondent demographic characteristics and other basic interview data.) The 1995 interviews required 30 to 40 minutes. The 1997 interviews typically lasted 12 to 15 minutes. The decision to proceed in 1997 with telephone interviewing and a shortened instrument was based on the difficulties experienced in 1995 in completing the targeted number of 400 interviews per site. In none of the sites was this target reached. In the 1997 Hartford survey, 53 telephone interviews were completed. Given that we were provided with a list of only 145 Stowe Village telephone numbers and that 65 of these numbers were not active numbers (i.e., the phone was disconnected), 53 completed interviews represents an excellent response rate (66 percent). Hartford survey findings The findings from the interviews conducted in Stowe Village in 1995 and 1997 are shown in exhibits 6.3 through 6.9 and summarized in the text below. Demographic characteristics of survey respondents (Exhibit 6.3) The respondents in the 1995 and 1997 surveys were similar in terms of age (mean age of 31.7 years in the 1995 survey, compared to 33.3 in the 1997 survey), size of household (mean number of household residents of 3.0 in the 1995 survey, compared to 3.1 in the 1997 survey), and gender (82 percent of the 1995 survey respondents were female, compared to 79 percent of the 1997 survey respondents). There were some differences in the ethnicity of the respondents, with Hispanics the most common ethnicity in the 1995 survey (46 percent of the respondents) and blacks the most common ethnicity in the 1997 survey (55 percent of the respondents). The most significant difference is in the employment status of the respondents. In the 1995 survey, only 6 percent of the 83 respondents indicated that they were working part-time or full-time. This figure is consistent with the employment rate noted in Hartford's 1995 Weed and Seed application (see section 3.2). However, in the 1997 survey, this percentage increased to 43 percent. Again, this percentage is consistent with figures reported by the Family Investment Center and it reflects the fact that finding jobs for Stowe Village residents is a key focus of Weed and Seed in Hartford. Perceptions of the neighborhood (Exhibit 6.4) Eleven different measures of neighborhood perceptions were tested in both surveys. In all but one of these measures, the survey responses indicated improvements in Stowe Village. Some of the measured improvements, however, were not statistically significant. Measures in which statistically significant changes were detected include perceptions of: o How serious a problem is violent crime--20 percent of respondents in the 1995 survey indicated that violent crime is "not a problem at all" or "a small problem," compared to 61 percent in the 1997 survey. o How serious a problem is gang activity--29 percent of respondents in the 1995 survey indicated that gang activity is "not a problem at all" or "a small problem," compared to 58 percent in the 1997 survey. o How serious a problem is drug use--12 percent of respondents in the 1995 survey indicated that drug use is "not a problem at all" or "a small problem," compared to 21 percent in the 1997 survey. o How safe do you feel alone outside after dark--27 percent of respondents in the 1995 survey indicated that they feel "very safe" or "somewhat safe," compared to 51 percent in the 1997 survey. o Over the past 2 years, has the neighborhood become a better place to live--45 percent of respondents in the 1995 survey indicated that Stowe Village had become a better place to live over the preceding 2 years, compared to 55 percent in the 1997 survey. Victimization (Exhibit 6.5) Differences in responses to victimization questions in the 1995 and 1997 surveys are statistically insignificant. For example, the percentage of respondents indicating that someone had broken into their apartment within the past 2 years was 19 percent in the 1995 survey and 21 percent in the 1997 survey. Police response (Exhibit 6.6) Statistically significant improvements were detected in two important measures of citizen's attitudes toward the police regarding: o How good a job are the police doing in controlling the use and sale of drugs--55 percent of respondents in the 1995 survey indicated that the police are doing a "very good job" or a "good job" of controlling the use and sale of drugs, compared to 68 percent in the 1997 survey. o How responsive are police to community concerns--51 percent of respondents in the 1995 survey indicated that the police are doing a "very good job" or a "good job" in responding to community concerns, compared to 79 percent in the 1997 survey. Community involvement (Exhibit 6.7) Three measures of community involvement showed statistically significant improvement from 1995 to 1997--participation in antidrug rallies or marches (10 percent of respondents indicated they had in the 1995 survey, compared to 23 percent in the 1997 survey), participation in citizen patrols (7 percent of respondents indicated they had in the 1995 survey, compared to 15 percent in the 1997 survey), and attendance at neighborhood cleanups (29 percent of respondents indicated they had in the 1995 survey, compared to 53 percent in the 1997 survey). Perceptions of social services and other programs (Exhibit 6.8) Statistically significant improvements were detected in two important measures of citizens' perceptions of other social services: o The availability of sports, recreation, and other programs for youth--57 percent of respondents in the 1995 survey indicated that they were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with these opportunities for youths, compared to 68 percent in the 1997 survey. o The availability of drug treatment services--32 percent of respondents in the 1995 survey indicated that they were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the availability of drug treatment services, compared to 58 percent in the 1997 survey. Perceptions of the Weed and Seed program (Exhibit 6.9) Not surprisingly, a significantly higher percentage of respondents in the 1997 survey had heard of Weed and Seed compared to the 1995 survey respondents--while only 11 percent of the 1995 respondents had heard of Weed and Seed, 40 percent of the 1997 survey respondents had. Familiarity with three Weed and Seed-supported programs among the 1997 survey respondents was also high--74 percent had heard of the Family Investment Center, 83 percent had heard of the Building Captain program, and 66 percent had heard of the computer lab. General observations on the survey findings The survey analysis discussed in this section shows statistically significant improvements in citizens' perceptions of their neighborhood, in police responsiveness, in community involvement, and in perceptions of other city services. In this respect, the findings of the survey analysis and the crime statistics analysis presented in section 6.1 are consistent--both point to an overall improvement in the quality of life in Stowe Village. 6.3. Seeding Program Participant Interviews Stowe Village girls basketball team An afterschool basketball team for girls is conducted at a middle school adjacent to Stowe Village. The program coordinators (and basketball coaches) are three Hartford police officers who donate their time to the program. The team participates in a league of 10 teams, all of which are from the Hartford area. Eleven girls are on the team; they range in age from 9 to 11. The team has been together since the beginning of November 1997. Most of the girls heard about the team from their middle school physical education teacher. Reasons why they chose to participate were mostly for the fun of playing basketball and the chance to be on a team. None of the girls had ever participated in an organized team sport before this experience. The girls practiced approximately two to three times a week, depending on the number of games scheduled. At practice, the coaches focused on fundamentals of playing basketball (dribbling, shooting, and defense). The coaches stressed the importance of working together as a team. The girls stated that they enjoyed the practices and have learned a lot about playing basketball. They also talked about their affection for their coaches. The games are played either at the middle school or at the gym or recreation center of the opposing team. The girls like playing these games for a couple of reasons. First, it gives them the opportunity to meet girls from other areas of Hartford. They liked this because they had never had a chance to talk to other students outside of their school. Second, they liked playing in the games because a lot of people come and watch (the average home attendance is between 40 and 50 people). Quite a few parents and other students would come to the games. The girls liked this because it made them feel important, individually and as a team. When asked what they would do if this program were not available, several of the girls said they would have nothing to do. A couple said they would go to the community center in Stowe Village, and one girl said she would go to homework club (a program offered by a nonprofit organization outside of Stowe Village). Many of the girls said they used to go to the computer lab in Stowe Village (the computer lab was closed in November 1997 and will reopen in a new facility in February 1998). Overall, they really like this program and are glad they have had this opportunity. They had learned a lot about playing basketball and operating as a team. They did not have any dislikes, except that a couple of players on other teams were poor sports. Also, there is nothing they would change about the program. Their parents liked their involvement with the team. This was evident, given the number of parents who regularly attended the games. The girls did not know what changes this program has had on their lives but speculated it has probably had positive effects. When asked about the effects of the girls basketball team on Stowe Village, the girls did not believe it was having a real effect. They did say that other Weed and Seed programs, particularly the computer lab, were having a lot of positive effects on Stowe Village. They did suggest that there should have been more efforts to get more Stowe Village youths involved in the basketball team. The girls also believed that there are a lot of interesting activities in Stowe Village for kids their age. They pointed out that this has only been true over the last year. Before that, there was not very much to do. In general, the girls said that they have seen a lot of positive changes in the past year or two. They have noticed that there is not as much violence and drugs in their neighborhood than there was last year. Almost all of them said they liked living in Stowe Village and would not change anything about it. Comments from other Stowe Village residents and officials Persons living or working in Stowe Village that have been interviewed by the evaluation team have consistently indicated that Stowe Village is a safer place. Prior to Weed and Seed, public safety was the primary concern of Stowe Village residents, according to the city's Weed and Seed FY 1994 proposal. Now, as one Stowe Village resident commented, "we can go outside at night to get a soda" and "young kids are outside playing at night." An employee of one of the seeding service providers, who does not live in Stowe Village but occasionally visits the area, commented that "I wouldn't have considered parking my car in Stowe Village before this year." A female service provider who is also a long-time resident of Stowe Village "definitely noticed a difference" in the safety of the area and commented that she now feels safe walking at night in Stowe Village. One Stowe Village mother commented at the spring 1996 health fair that "this place is getting back to the way it used to be." One Stowe Village service provider made the observation that race relations in Stowe Village have improved. She commented that "there used to be separate black and Hispanic communities within Stowe Village," but that this is not the case anymore. Finally, it should be noted that public comments by Weed and Seed program leaders have also been extremely positive. In the May 15, 1996 issue of Law Enforcement News an article highlighted the positive changes occurring in Stowe Village; the headline of this article read "Hartford sees light at end of drug-gang tunnel." In June 1996, at the Hartford Downtown Council's Renaissance Awards, a number of city leaders pointed to signs of Hartford's "rebirth." The Hartford Chief of Police chose to highlight Stowe Village and the Weed and Seed program. In sum, Weed and Seed officials in Hartford believe that Weed and Seed has been tremendously successful and has helped completely transform Stowe Village. The findings discussed in this case study support that view. 7.0. Future Directions and Degree of Institutionalization As of the Fall of 1997, Hartford's Weed and Seed program has been supported by two Federal awards, one for $683,424 and the other for $750,000. A third-year award of $790,000 will sustain the program at past levels through June 1998. Federal support for the fourth year, which covers the period from July 1998 through June 1999, has been cut drastically, to $225,000. This funding reduction, we believe, is not an indication of dissatisfaction at the Federal level with Hartford's program, but simply reflects the desire of the Federal Executive Office for Weed and Seed to fund more sites at lower funding levels. Although future appropriations are clearly uncertain, it seems likely that future Weed and Seed awards, if any, in Hartford will not return to previous high levels. Thus, from the Fall of 1997 to June 1998, Hartford's challenge is to develop a plan to sustain the progress made in Stowe Village with a significantly lower level of Federal funding. At the same time, Hartford is considering developing a Weed and Seed program in another area of the city. Hartford's preliminary plan for accomplishing these dual objectives is contained in the city's FY 1997 Weed and Seed proposal. The plan has four main components. First, the FY 1997 Weed and Seed award will support a "core set" of seeding initiatives in Stowe Village starting in the summer of 1998. These will likely include the computer lab, Plain Talk/Hablando Claro, the Police Youth Academy, the girls biking and soccer programs, and the Mushaba Force Foundation. Second, Weed and Seed officials will attempt to identify alternative funding sources, including other Federal awards (e.g., the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program), private sector donations, and other community resources. Third, Hartford hopes to develop a network of Weed and Seed volunteers and mentors, to be coordinated by a full-time Weed and Seed staff person, that can work in the target areas to sustain the program. And fourth, responsibility for the seeding programs will be shifted from the police department and other city agencies to target area residents (e.g., the building captains in Stowe Village). Notes: 1. Executive Officer for Weed and Seed, "Operation Weed and Seed Implementation Manual," p. 2-1. 2. The National Performance Review Task Force (now renamed the National Partnership for Reinventing Government) designated a number of governmental organizations or activities as National Performance Review Laboratories (now Reinvention Laboratories) to test "reinventing government" initiatives. These labs have developed more efficient ways to deliver government services by creating new partnerships between entities, streamlining bureaucratic processes, and empowering organizations to make substantial changes. The mission of the Weed and Seed Reinvention Laboratory is to develop more effective mechanisms that combine and deliver Federal, State, and local resources in Weed and Seed sites. 3. For example, in questions on "how good a job are the police doing" in different aspects of law enforcement, the 1995 survey allowed the respondent to indicate "a very good job, a good job, a fair job, or a poor job." Additionally, the 1997 survey also allowed the respondent to indicate "a very poor job." The findings below have aggregated the "poor job" and "very poor job" responses for 1997 before comparing the pattern of responses with 1995. ------------------------------- About the National Institute of Justice The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a component of the Office of Justice Programs, is the research agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Created by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, NIJ is authorized to support research, evaluation, and demonstration programs, development of technology, and both national and international information dissemination. Specific mandates of the Act direct NIJ to: o Sponsor special projects, and research and development programs, that will improve and strengthen the criminal justice system and reduce or prevent crime. o Conduct national demonstration projects that employ innovative or promising approaches for improving criminal justice. o Develop new technologies to fight crime and improve criminal justice. o Evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice programs and identify programs that promise to be successful if continued or repeated. o Recommend actions that can be taken by Federal, State, and local governments as well as by private organizations to improve criminal justice. o Carry out research on criminal behavior. o Develop new methods of crime prevention and reduction of crime and delinquency. In recent years, NIJ has greatly expanded its initiatives, the result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Crime Act), partnerships with other Federal agencies and private foundations, advances in technology, and a new international focus. Some examples of these new initiatives: o New research and evaluation are exploring key issues in community policing, violence against women, sentencing reforms, and specialized courts such as drug courts. o Dual-use technologies are being developed to support national defense and local law enforcement needs. o The causes, treatment, and prevention of violence against women and violence within the family are being investigated in cooperation with several agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. o NIJ's links with the international community are being strengthened through membership in the United Nations network of criminological institutes; participation in developing the U.N. Criminal Justice Information Network; initiation of UNOJUST (U.N. Online Justice Clearinghouse), which electronically links the institutes to the U.N. network; and establishment of an NIJ International Center. o The NIJ-administered criminal justice information clearinghouse, the world's largest, has improved its online capability. o The Institute's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program has been expanded and enhanced. Renamed ADAM (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring), the program will increase the number of drug-testing sites, and its role as a "platform" for studying drug-related crime will grow. o NIJ's new Crime Mapping Research Center will provide training in computer mapping technology, collect and archive geocoded crime data, and develop analytic software. o The Institute's program of intramural research has been expanded and enhanced. The Institute Director, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, establishes the Institute's objectives, guided by the priorities of the Office of Justice Programs, the Department of Justice, and the needs of the criminal justice field. The Institute actively solicits the views of criminal justice professionals and researchers in the continuing search for answers that inform public policymaking in crime and justice.