Title: National Evaluation of Weed and Seed: Seattle Case Study. Series: Research Report Author(s): Terence Dunworth, Gregory Mills, George Bridges, Jennifer H. Frank, Kristen Jacoby Published: National Institute of Justice, August 1999 Subject(s): Drug law enforcement, drug abuse prevention and education, community policing, crime mapping, police manpower deployment, and problem oriented policing 38 pages 91,000 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: Seattle, Washington 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 Seattle Case Study RESEARCH REPORT Terence Dunworth, Ph.D. Project Director Gregory Mills Deputy Project Director Prepared by George Bridges Seattle Site Leader Jennifer H. Frank Kristen Jacoby August 1999 NCJ 175701 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 The authors of this case study gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Seed Coordinator Walter Atkinson, Weed Coordinator Lt. Harry Bailey, the Seattle Police Department, and Kate Greenquist of the U.S. Attorney's Office. 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 4.2 Goals and Strategies 4.3 Budget Information 4.4 Information Systems 4.5 Local Evaluation 5.0 Key Implementation Issues and Interpretation 5.1 Role of Grantee Organization 5.2 Management Structure and Control 5.3 Local Politics 5.4 Approach to Weeding 5.5 Approach to Community Policing 5.6 Approach to Seeding 5.7 Concluding Observations 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 List of Exhibits Exhibit 3.1: Seattle Central District Weed and Seed Target Area. Exhibit 3.2: Seattle Weed and Seed Area Exhibit 3.3: Part 1 Crimes per 1,000 Residents Exhibit 4.1: Seattle Weed and Seed Funding Allocation Plan Exhibit 5.1: Part 1 Arrests per Capita by Month Exhibit 5.2: Drug Arrests per Capita by Month Exhibit 6.1: Part 1 Crimes per Capita by Month Exhibit 6.2: Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents Exhibit 6.3: Perceptions of the Neighborhood Exhibit 6.4: Victimization Exhibit 6.5: Police Response Exhibit 6.6: Community Involvement Exhibit 6.7: Perceptions of Social Services and Other Programs Exhibit 6.8: Perceptions of the Weed and Seed Program ------------------------------- 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 as well as 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, as well as 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 Seattle 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 Seattle, located on Puget Sound 113 miles from the border between the United States and Canada, is a critical site for advanced technology and international trade. A major port city, the greater Seattle area is home to Microsoft, the largest software company in the world, and Boeing, the top exporter in the United States, as well as 1,500 computer development companies and a wealth of other businesses. Seattle is widely considered one of the best cities in the country in which to locate a business and possesses a large skilled work force, strong educational and research facilities, and many diverse resources. Seattle is also the center of the Pacific Northwest for health care and biotechnology, which is expected to be one of the fastest growing industries of the next decade. The population of Seattle in 1995 was 532,900 residents in an area covering 83.9 square miles and consists of a high concentration of non-family households. Historically, the city of Seattle has been a strong proponent of citizen involvement in crime prevention, as well as community policing practices. 3.2 Target Area Characteristics and Nature of Problems Seattle's Weed and Seed target area consists of eight neighborhoods located in a highly congested section east of downtown Seattle known as the Central District. Exhibit 3.1 and exhibit 3.2 show the location of the target area within the city of Seattle. The target area covers approximately 1.2 square miles with a population of nearly 14,000 residents and contains both retail and residential areas. Compared to the city of Seattle as a whole, the target area has a higher percentage of land zoned for multifamily use and a higher percentage of land actually in residential use. The housing structures in the target area tend to be older than those in the rest of the city. Slightly more than half of the housing units are owner- occupied. Most of the employed residents of the target area work in government, finance, insurance, or real estate. However, according to the Washington State Employment Security Department, unemployment in the Central District increased from 8.5 percent in 1990 to 15.7 percent in 1992. Approximately 10 percent of Seattle's university students attend school in the Central District. In addition, the Seattle Public Schools Data Summary reported that nearly 4,500 students attended public school in the Central District in 1993-94. Of these students, more than 40 percent received free or reduced-price lunches and approximately 12 percent of these students performed below their grade level. Nearly 20 percent of the total number of Central District residents, including more than one-fourth of the children, live in poverty. In certain neighborhoods, close to half of the residents live below the poverty level. The Seattle Police Department's East Precinct is located in the heart of this neighborhood. This precinct has undertaken most of the weeding activity in the city and has witnessed significant changes in crime patterns over the past few years with respect to observed levels of drug dealing, assaultive violence, and other serious criminal activity. Exhibit 3.3 shows Part 1 crimes per 1,000 residents in the target area, citywide, and for the United States.[3] As evidenced by the graph, the Central District's average crime rate prior to the start of Weed and Seed was approximately 1.5 times greater than the entire city of Seattle and approximately 2.5 times greater than the United States. Most of these differences are attributed by law enforcement officials to increased gang-related activity in the area. Much of this activity is believed to be associated with the influx of gang members from California who move to the Seattle area and continue their criminal activity. Associated with the increase in reported gang activities was increased activity in the street-level sale of narcotics. Much of the drug-related activity and violent crime was located in a particular corridor (Cherry Street), which runs east-west into the city center. Interviews with officers in the East Precinct (and in other locations in the city) suggest two reasons for the drug trafficking that occurs along this corridor. In part this drug trafficking is tied to residents of the Central District who routinely use narcotics and other illegal drugs, and in part it is due to drug-using members of other parts of the city and suburban areas who enter the corridor to purchase drugs. Many of these offenders are individuals who commute to downtown Seattle and must travel through the Cherry Street corridor on their way to work. The area has also been the focus of many neighborhood and city programs to address the social service needs of area residents. Included among these are local programs such as the Central Area Motivation Program (C.A.M.P.), the Central Area Youth Association (C.A.Y.A.), the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, and Seattle offices of the YMCA and YWCA. In addition, AmeriCorps was one of the Federal programs recently introduced into the area. 3.3 Other Funding Sources One of the challenges in assessing the Seattle program is being able to differentiate the effects of Weed and Seed measures from other federally funded crime prevention/reduction projects. Seattle has a broad base of Federal support for the Seattle Police Department's (SPD's) "problem oriented" policing efforts. Among the programs providing this support are the Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Safe Futures, Youth Gun Violence Initiative, and COPS MORE grants. The latter two grants support significant improve-ments in SPD's youth crime analysis capability in the Seattle area. Most of the grants, however, support better coordinated law enforcement in and around Seattle public schools. Because grant funds typically are used to pay for patrol officer overtime activities, and many grant-related activities are similar, it is difficult to discern the effects of a given program or project on crime levels. 4.0 Program Structure and Chronology 4.1 Formal Organization and Structure The Weed and Seed program in Seattle is organized around two committees. The steering committee, consisting primarily of representatives of Federal and State agencies in law enforcement and human services, has been responsible for directing the Weed and Seed policy in the Seattle area. The citizen advisory committee, made up of representatives from the local community and neighborhood groups, is responsible for hands-on decisions about program funding, monitoring of program operations, and providing specific law enforcement priorities. Weed and Seed grant funds are administered through the Community Policing Bureau of the Seattle Police Department, with weeding operations located and administered in the East Precinct headquarters. The seeding operations are administered through the city of Seattle's Department of Housing and Human Services. 4.2 Goals and Strategies In the initial application for Weed and Seed funding, the applicants stated that "The goal of the program is to restore order to a neighborhood and provide the opportunity to live, work, and raise a family in a safe environment." The identified objectives were: o To control violent and drug-related crime through the full range of weed activities, including intelligence gathering and crime analysis, arrest, detention, prosecution, and incapacitation of offenders from the target neighborhoods. o To enhance public safety and security by mobilizing neighborhood residents to work with police in solving and preventing violent and drug- related crime. o To create a healthy and supportive environment by preventing and combating crime, drug use, unemployment, illiteracy, and disease. o To revitalize the neighborhood by providing adequate housing, a clean and attractive environment, and investment. The second key goal was to "develop an efficient and effective managerial approach to neighborhood problem solving involving community and business groups on all levels of the public sector and educational agencies." Objectives of this goal were to: o Build upon Seattle's successes in developing city/community partnerships to solve problems in neighborhoods. o Extend the partnership concepts to include agencies at the State and Federal level. Enforcement efforts focused on violent crime, gang activity, illegal drug activity, and repeat offenders in the target area. Prevention included a wide range of social, educational, and human services from a variety of agencies. In 1995, the original goals and objectives continued to provide a viable framework for the Weed and Seed program. However, the EOWS required all funded sites to expand their target areas for the 1995-96 grant period. Because no additional funds were provided for this expansion, Seattle officials felt it was in the city's best interest to expand the boundaries of the existing target area rather than add a site geographically located somewhere else in the city. Therefore, during 1995, Seattle proposed to widen the target area for Weed and Seed funds to include the areas of the South Atlantic Street Community and the International District. These areas were selected because they were contiguous to the Central District and would require a less extensive public input process than choosing an entirely new area. The International District was also chosen so that Weed and Seed services would have an impact on Asian populations, which was a priority objective for the program. In 1996, the goals and objectives of the program remained the same. Seattle submitted a grant continuation proposal in April 1997 to extend the Weed and Seed program through September 1998. The city is making a transition from delivering services to coordinating services, focusing on specific areas (i.e., the Weed and Seed target area) throughout the entire city. These efforts are consistent with the Bureau of Justice Assistance's objectives to develop and implement comprehensive strategies to prevent and reduce crime and violence and to encourage active participation of community organizations and citizens in efforts to prevent crime, drug abuse, and violence. These overall objectives also better represent the Seattle strategy than the "four-component strategy" used in previous years to describe the Weed and Seed program goals (law enforcement, community policing, prevention, early intervention and treatment, and neighborhood restoration). The city and police adopted a problem-oriented approach to addressing specific issues, and resources from all four components are routinely incorporated into solutions as appropriate. Viewing each as a separate component, as did the Weed and Seed goals of past years, sometimes only confused the search for realistic solutions. 4.3 Budget Information Seattle submitted its initial Weed and Seed application in April 1992. As mentioned previously, though the city was notified of funding in the fall, projects implemented with grant funds began on January 1, 1993. Weed and Seed grant funds were allocated to the Seattle Police Department to enhance crime control (weeding) in the Central District and to ensure adequate development of community resources designed to prevent crime (seeding). For the periods FY 1993 and FY 1994, approximately 70 percent of the grant funds were allocated to seeding activities, and the remaining 30 percent were allocated to weeding activities in the Central District.[4] Although $745,300 was allocated for seeding and $354,000 for weeding, some of the activities budgeted for the SPD constituted seeding and therefore produced the 70/30 percent split in the budgeted activities. The published summary of seeding activities (June 1993 to December 1995) states that $1,241,798 were allocated to 21 community-based agencies to provide youths, adults, and families with social and recreational activities; educational, vocational, and job readiness training; and employment services and approximately $1,292,301 were allocated to SPD over this same time period. It is important to note that of the $1,292,301 allocated to SPD, $494,697 were actually city funds used to pay the salary of Community Police Team Officers so that more of the Weed and Seed funding could go toward seeding efforts. Many of the Weed and Seed funds allocated to SPD were dedicated to positions such as three additional community police team officers, one crime prevention officer, and two D.A.R.E. officers--who are all part of the seeding activity under the grant. Further, weeding funds were also used to support special emphasis patrols and operations, which combine a problem-oriented and traditional approach to policing, in the Weed and Seed target area.[5] Exhibit 4.1 summarizes Seattle Weed and Seed funding by year. Not reflected in the exhibit are inkind contributions from SPD or other non- Weed and Seed funding in the Central District. For example, additional funds and support for Weed and Seed activities have been obtained through partnerships with the Washington Insurance Council (WIC) and the Just Serve AmeriCorps. The WIC established the Seattle Neighborhood Action Program as a private/public partnership working to reduce crime in the Weed and Seed community. The initial project was funded through a $100,000 grant provided by members of the WIC. One particular neighborhood--Jackson Place--was awarded this grant through its community council and used the grant funds to address crime and safety issues, improve neighborhood appearance, and assist in strengthening the social community of Jackson Place. Partnership funds were used to install new streetlights and new traffic features to reduce cut- through traffic, build a new P-patch (local garden for neighborhood residents to grow produce), install a public art piece, distribute free smoke detectors, plant trees, and hold several neighborhood social events and cleanup activities. In addition, Seattle is one of five cities chosen to operate an AmeriCorps project that addresses community-identified public safety needs in the Weed and Seed area. Twenty-nine AmeriCorps workers participate in 10 organizations in Seattle's Weed and Seed area to address public safety concerns. 4.4 Information Systems SPD used very little Weed and Seed funding for information systems. Apart from two personal computers purchased with Weed and Seed grant money, most recent information system improvements have come from the Youth Gun Violence Initiative grants and COPS MORE funds. 4.5 Local Evaluation The local evaluation of the Weed and Seed program was conducted by Gambrell Urban Inc., a contract research firm with an office in Seattle. The final evaluation report was completed in July 1997. No additional local evaluations were planned with FY 1997 funds. The evaluation had three objectives. First, the evaluation reviewed the goals, approach, and organization of the Seattle Weed and Seed program, focusing on how the program was structured. Second, it examined the approach of the Seattle Police Department to weeding activity, describing patterns of arrest, crime clearance, and other tactical aspects of law enforcement in the Weed and Seed area. Third, the evaluation summarized the seeding activity for the program, including the provision of services to community members in the Weed and Seed area. As part of the evaluation, interviews were conducted with police personnel, service providers supported with seeding funds, residents in the Weed and Seed area, and public officials aware of and involved in Weed and Seed activities. Interviews were also conducted with youths on the streets in the Weed and Seed area. Finally, data were collected and analyzed on patterns of crime and arrest in the Weed and Seed area for the period 1993-96, contrasting the information with data on crime patterns in the city of Seattle as a whole. In general, the local evaluation shows a reduction in crimes reported to the police and in arrests in the Weed and Seed target area that exceeded reductions occurring in the city. Regarding seeding activity, responses by persons interviewed in the Weed and Seed area and officials involved in the programs suggest that most community members are fully aware of the programs supported by seeding funds and are satisfied with the services they provide. The local evaluation was limited in scope. The analyses of crime trends and data are descriptive, focusing primarily on the number of crimes and arrests in the Weed and Seed area and in the city. The analyses make no adjustments for changes in the size of the population or other factors that may contribute to shifts in crime within an area over time. Further, the surveys conducted with residents and street youths relied on limited convenience samples and thus may be unrepresentative of the views of the residents of the target area as a whole. Nevertheless, the overall findings of the local evaluation are consistent with many of the observations of Abt staff who conducted interviews and analyses of the Seattle program. Crime in the area, as reflected in police data and the reports of residents, has been reduced, and residents perceive the community as safer than in previous years. (See section 6.2 for more information on the Abt evaluation findings as to program effects.) 5.0 Key Implementation Issues and Interpretation 5.1 Role of Grantee Organization The Grantee Agency for the Seattle Weed and Seed project is the Seattle Police Department, which administers all local law enforcement activity in the city. As the Grantee Agency for Weed and Seed over the past 4 years, the department has coordinated city, county, State, and Federal agencies participating in the project. While limited coordination of these agencies occurred prior to the Weed and Seed experience, the requirements of the grant and its designation as a demonstration site demanded much more extensive work with agencies and community groups than had taken place in previous years. Coordination of these agencies strengthened ties between the Seattle Police Department, government agencies at all levels, and community groups. The level of funding made available to the Seattle project because of its demonstration site designation enabled the department to capitalize on these ties and to initiate major programs for reducing crime in the Weed and Seed area. By all accounts, significant reductions in crime did occur in the Weed and Seed area. One reason crime decreased may be because the department conducted numerous special operations on drug activity that may have diminished and displaced the activity to areas outside the city of Seattle. Crime may have also decreased because the department significantly enhanced and strengthened its patrol force by combining the Weed and Seed operations and programs with other existing law enforcement programs in Seattle. In either case, the sizable funding granted Seattle, coupled with this more effective coordination of agencies, enhanced the likelihood that major crime reductions in the area would be achieved. 5.2 Management Structure and Control As the Grantee Agency, the Seattle Police Department manages the daily operations of the program out of its Office of Research and Grants Management. Weeding operations are administered by a lieutenant in the East Precinct of the department, whereas the seeding operations are administered by another agency, the Department of Housing and Human Services of the city of Seattle. Seeding decisions are made by the Weed and Seed Citizen's Advisory Committee, a group comprised of SPD officials and community representatives appointed by the Mayor. The committee also advises the department on weeding operations and assists in identifying community crime problems within the Weed and Seed area. Because the weeding coordinator and the seeding coordinator participate actively in the committee's meetings and decisions, they coordinate their respective components with each other. Although it is not possible to determine how closely they coordinate all aspects of seeding and weeding operations, decisions on many aspects of the project are made collectively with the opinions and consent of local organizations and community representatives. One result of this collective decisionmaking has been a broad foundation of support for Weed and Seed projects in the city and specifically among residents in the Weed and Seed area. 5.3 Local Politics When the city proposed applying for funding from the Weed and Seed program in the spring of 1992, many community groups in Seattle expressed public opposition. The opposition centered primarily on proposed weeding programs in the original application and the fear that they were simply measures to harass and control persons living in the proposed target area. In 1992, a community coalition opposed to Weed and Seed emerged. Shortly thereafter, another coalition formed for the purpose of supporting Weed and Seed efforts, and both groups pursued aggressive public campaigns. After heated public debate, the Mayor of Seattle organized and held meetings with the community coalitions and representatives from law enforcement and other agencies involved in the Weed and Seed proposal. These meetings culminated in revisions in the city's proposal and, ultimately, in the Seattle City Council's acceptance of the modified grant in December 1992. This modified proposal increased the operational role of the Citizens Advisory Committee, which is appointed by the Mayor and consists of representatives from resident and community organizations within the Weed and Seed area. In the case of weeding activities, the advisory committee has worked actively with law enforcement to identify crime problems in the Weed and Seed area. Officers in the East Precinct, including the lieutenant who coordinated all weeding programs, report active exchanges between the advisory committee and law enforcement. SPD officials have routinely attended the advisory committee meetings and stated that they have shaped many aspects of weeding activity based on those meetings and other communications with advisory committee members. The weeding coordinator also described his initial skepticism about involving community representatives in decisions about the deployment of East Precinct officers and other weeding programs. He had very limited previous experience in the types of community involvement required by Weed and Seed. Nevertheless, as part of his role in the project, he spent unprecedented amounts of time over the course of the grant in meetings with community representatives. As a result, he is now a strong advocate for community participation in many aspects of policing. Although it remains unclear whether his obvious enthusiasm stems from his experience with Weed and Seed or from the transition to community- oriented policing in SPD, the weeding coordinator (and patrol officers who were interviewed) repeatedly stressed the positive values of giving the community an active voice in law enforcement. Interviews with persons and organizations involved in seeding activities also highlighted the importance of the Citizen's Advisory Committee in allocation decisions for seeding funds. The local evaluation of Weed and Seed in Seattle describes the Committee's involvement in this activity as follows: "The Citizen Advisory Committee allocates Seed funding to a wide variety of existing community agencies . The committee evaluates [proposals] based upon funding criteria which includes enhancing quality of services delivered and helping accomplish goals of the Central Area Action Plan."[6] In summary, the advisory committee makes funding decisions for all of the seeding grants and actively advises law enforcement regarding priorities for weeding activities. 5.4 Approach to Weeding Since its inception, the Weed and Seed plan in Seattle has targeted crime in the Central District, specifically through activities of the officers who work in the SPD's East Precinct. With some minor revisions, the strategy for the grant has been to build on programs that seemed to have performed well in previous years of the grant. In the early years of the grant, the weeding activity entailed a variety of law enforcement measures. Most prominent among these were a series of drug "buy-busts" and "reverse stings" designed to target the crime problems occurring along the East Cherry Street corridor in addition to other crime problems in the Weed and Seed area. For the period--from January 1993 to December 1995--these activities yielded 321 felony arrests, 478 misdemeanor arrests, and the issuance of 137 criminal citations. An additional 84 felony arrests and 67 misdemeanor arrests occurred from January 1, 1996, through September 31, 1996.[7] Exhibit 5.1 details the average number of arrests for Part 1 crimes by month per 1,000 residents from 1991 through 1996. Consistent with the arrest information presented in the local evaluation, the average number of arrests per month increased by approximately 34 percent in 1993 (the year of Weed and Seed's initiation in Seattle). The number of arrests in the target area continued to increase by approximately 23 percent in 1994 and 5 percent in 1995, whereas the number of arrests in the rest of the city increased by approximately 1 percent in 1994 and 0.5 percent in 1995. In 1996, arrest rates began to decline, and although no data on arrests are available from SPD for 1997, interviews with line officers and administrators in the East Precinct suggest the number of arrests have either leveled off or declined in the past year. In fact, as evidenced in the graph, in 1996 the number of arrests in the target area actually fell below the number of arrests in the rest of the city. This decrease in the arrests made in the target area is consistent with information that the crime rate in the target area is declining. Exhibit 5.2 shows the average number of drug arrests by month per 1,000 residents from 1991 through 1996. Consistent with the drug "buy-bust" tactics used by the SPD in the target area, drug arrests began to rise after the initiation of Weed and Seed. In 1993, the number of arrests relating to drugs increased by approximately 4 percent and then continued to increase approximately 37 percent in 1994. Since that time, the number of drug- related arrests have been declining in the target area and increasing in the rest of the city. In fact, 1996 is the first time in more than 5 years that the average number of arrests in the target area has been close to that of the rest of Seattle. This decrease in the number of arrests made in the target area and increase in the rest of the city suggests that the drug activity may have been displaced outside the target area. In the most recent years of the grant, 1996 and 1997, violent crime levels have also diminished in the East Precinct. However, no adjustments were made to account for changes in population level in the Central District, which precludes the ability to make any definitive conclusions about the overall risk of crime in the area. The total levels of homicides, robberies, and assaults have dropped substantially, while the number of property crimes has remained relatively constant. Proponents of the Weed and Seed program argue that the reductions have primarily been the result of the emphasis patrols displacing crime outside the Weed and Seed area. None of the agencies in charge of Weed and Seed grant funds have monitored or collected data on the criminal prosecution of Weed and Seed cases. Although Weed and Seed funds were allocated to support a part- time prosecutor early in the project, there is no information on the rate or success of prosecutions for crimes committed in the Weed and Seed area. The only information on prosecutions obtained in interviews is that none of the crimes resulting in arrest in the Weed and Seed area have been prosecuted at the Federal level; all have been handled in the State courts. 5.5 Approach to Community Policing The Seattle Police Department was one of a handful of departments across the country to launch community policing in the 1980s. Currently, community policing activities are integral to much of the Seattle Police Department's patrol work. The department has a Community Policing Bureau that has been the recipient of numerous Federal grants, in addition to the Weed and Seed grant. In addition, the department relies heavily on projects initiated by line officers for community policing activities. As a result, line officers have a voice in their precinct's operations and policies. Officers have participated in extended discussions and analyses of community crime problems as a result of Seattle's inclusive approach to problem solving. The Weed and Seed program is fully integrated into Seattle's plan for community policing. Officers involved in the East Precinct routinely use community policing methods as part of their approach to policing the area. It is perhaps important to stress that almost all of the grant funds dedicated to weeding have gone into so-called "emphasis patrols" (described below) or into special operations like the "buy/bust/sting" operations that often combine a community policing and traditional approach to policing. Emphasis patrols have played a major role in weeding efforts. In 1993, 58 percent of all overtime hours funded with Weed and Seed grant funds-- which constitutes most of the funds in the weeding component of the program--were dedicated to these special emphasis patrols. These patrols require officers to engage in intensive patrol activity in the Weed and Seed community's neighborhoods by targeting specified community problems and working to get at the root of those problems. An example of the emphasis patrols is illustrated in one of the SPD quarterly reports: The Team has been concentrating in the Yesler Corridor and Terrace Garden Community. Crime Prevention and Terrace Personnel have reported some individuals causing problems. The residents around the AM/PM (a local market) have reported an increase of illegal activity from narcotics to urination. Officer ____ and Sgt. ____ attended the 34/James block watch party on 08/18/96. Residents were very pleased with CPT and ACT's (community policing teams in Seattle) response to their complaints. They were especially pleased with the abatement proceedings on the drug house in their neighborhood.[8] Another example from a report reveals that more traditional law enforcement practices are also used in the emphasis patrols: On 07/31/96 officers conducted an emphasis patrol in this area. R/O's contacted several youths and adults gambling in front of 215 Terry. R/O's made 6 arrests for warrants, criminal trespass and an assault. R/Os also admonished several subjects from the area. Officers also stopped two assault suspects at 12th and Yesler. The assault took place at the Community Center. Based on a complaint from Yesler Terrace staff on 8/01/96, Officer ____ and ___ conducted a knock and talk on 1010 8th Avenue #208. R/O's found marijuana in plain view in the premises and cited the tenant.[9] Many of the other activities involve assignments more traditionally associated with community policing. Officers routinely attend block watch and community council meetings and establish special weed and seed projects in which they facilitate neighborhood work to address local problems. For example, officers worked with AmeriCorps volunteers to establish and paint murals on buildings in the East Cherry corridor. The purpose of this activity was to reduce graffiti and to increase youth involvement in positive social activities within the community.[10] 5.6 Approach to Seeding As noted earlier, the seeding aspects of the grant have been administered by the city of Seattle Department of Housing and Human Services and the Weed and Seed Citizen Advisory Committee. Typically, seeding funds have been used to support community-based organizations. These agencies focus on the social, healthcare, and recreational needs of youths and adults in the Weed and Seed area. One of the challenges of the seeding efforts was to draw on and supplement existing social programs in the Weed and Seed area. While this approach to seeding reinforces existing social service networks, its actual impact on crime reduction is difficult to assess. However, one could interpret some of the seeding program activities as having an effect on crime prevention. One example of this is provided by the New Direction Program conducted by the Central Area Motivation Program. This program had a primary focus on removing youths from gang involvement. Ex-gang members were employed as youth outreach workers and worked collaboratively with the city's SPD anti-gang program to seek out active gang members and encourage them to leave the gang lifestyle. The youths were given an opportunity to return to school, complete their GED, and attend community college and were required to complete a course in conflict management. An additional example is provided by the Seattle King County Health Department Violence Prevention Program, which helps parents/guardians identify signs that might indicate that their child is involved in gangs or drugs. The youths and the parents are given counseling, and the parents participate in a parenting class. A total of 532 people participated in this program. A final example is provided by Seattle Vocational Institute's Project CARE that targeted adults living in the target area with a criminal history or substance abuse problem and provided them with counseling, vocational training, and help with job placement. The goal of this program was to help participants become positive contributors to the community instead of returning to criminal activity. The rationale for funding these agencies is that the programs focus on "at- risk" youths and young adults in the Weed and Seed area and are therefore related to the grant's mission of crime prevention or reduction. The programs are designed to prevent and/or reduce participation in gangs and to discourage youths from abusing drugs. In addition, programs typically involve a mix of social service agencies that support the general purposes of the grant. The programs are much needed in the Weed and Seed community and seeding funds have proven a vital source of support for programs that are not receiving adequate support from local government agencies or private businesses. However, the funding levels from Weed and Seed have remained relatively small; most of the grants are less than $50,000. This relatively small amount of money is often not enough to serve all of the people in the target area who need the services that are being provided through seeding programs. The Urban League's Safe Haven program provides a good illustration of the common issues around low levels of funding facing seeding programs. Participants of this program who were interviewed spoke enthusiastically about many aspects of the program, particularly the afterschool care. However, many noted that services in the program are limited and could accommodate only a small number of youths at a given time. Over the course of the Weed and Seed grant, the Safe Haven provided services to approximately 362 individuals.[11] Many of those served, however, were siblings and adults in the same family. Therefore, while the program provided much needed assistance to disadvantaged youths and their families in the Weed and Seed area, the services reached a very small proportion of families in the target area. Agencies and projects supported with Weed and Seed funds include the following: o African American Heritage Museum supports the architectural design of the Museum. o Art and Youth Alliance paid for youths' stipends for the completion of a mural project at Garfield High School. o Black Dollar Days Task Force--Youth Entrepreneurial Training Program offers support for training 20 youths age 16-21 on how to develop and operate a small business. In the context of fashion design, youths learn about business plans, financing, credit, customer service, marketing, and sales. Training is provided by business owners and includes classroom presentations, field trips, and hands-on projects. o The Central Area Chamber of Commerce (in partnership with the University of Washington School of Business) offers a Training and Technology Transfer Initiative that provides business development workshops and other support services for 25 local businesses. This initiative seeks to strengthen existing businesses, retain and create additional jobs, and foster community development. o The Central Area Farmer's Market is a joint venture of the Seattle 4-H Leaders Association, the Central Area Youth Association, the Department of Social and Health Services Capitol Hill Community Service Office, the East Precinct Community Police Team, and a local store, Richland's Super Mini. The market provides community access to low-cost fresh produce and free nutrition education. It is a place for mothers who are participants in the Women, Infant and Children (WIC) program to redeem WIC vouchers. There are opportunities for backyard growers and residents to sell their homemade crafts and foods, as well as obtain on-the-job training for local youths, and opportunities for community-based organizations to market their program services. o East Cherry YWCA--Family Support Center provides an accessible place where parents and teens can get support and access resources. The Center offers a variety of activities and services including youth and adult employment workshops, job fairs, teen parenting classes, parent advocacy training, and support groups for extended family members with parental responsibilities. The program also offers counseling services, anger management training, and Friday family-night activities that promote positive parent-child relationships. o East Madison YMCA--Youth Tech Program provides support to 25 youths for training in software applications, computer maintenance, computer networking, teaching techniques, and the legislative process. Youths who complete the training are employed as peer tutors and community computer consultants at the YMCA. In addition, the youth trainees learn the lawmaking process through the State legislative session. o Girl's Inc. Operation SMART (Science, Math and Related Technology) is designed to help girls ages 7-16 develop scientific inquiry skills, increase their interest in math and science and become comfortable with math, science, and technology through hands-on scientific discovery activities. o The International District Housing and Social Services, Inc.'s After School Education and Summer Bridge Programs provide 50 limited- English youths ages 7-12 with afterschool and summertime enrichment programs. Culturally relevant and language-appropriate academic and social development activities form the foundation of both programs. o Mid-town Commons Advanced Computer Training Project enhances the computer skills of youths and adults by providing them with access to the Internet, an opportunity to create and maintain a Bulletin Board system, and a basic understanding about urban planning. Students learn how to navigate the information superhighway, perform data base searches, and develop other information-retrieval skills. The program serves 20 youths ages 12-18 and 20 adults. o Seattle Central Community College's Biosphere of Tomorrow Program is a summer science institute for 75 middle school students of color who explore career-related activities in chemistry, biology, math, and computers. The students rotate through three interactive classes with hands-on interdisciplinary activities. This project was in collaboration with the "Breakfast Group," a group of black business and professional men united for community service to provide economic empowerment through effective leadership. o Seattle Indian Center's Youth Intervention Program provides a range of intervention and educational services to inner-city school dropouts, ages 13-19. An integrated health and science curriculum teaches youths about safe health practices. Middle and high school reentry and GED preparation classes provide youths with opportunities for academic success. o Seattle-King County Public Health Department's Garfield/NOVA Teen Health Clinic provides school-based drug and alcohol prevention and intervention services to the students attending Garfield High School and NOVA alternative school. A Drug and Alcohol Counselor conducts onsite substance abuse assessments, facilitates support groups, provides limited treatment, makes referrals to treatment agencies, and provides followup services. o Seattle Parks and Recreation Department's Family Group Program provides overnight camping trips designed to build stronger families. Parents participate in workshops such as health education, job readiness training, and effective parenting while their children take part in activities like swimming, hiking, crafts, and cultural events. o Seattle Vocational Institute's Project CARE (Central Area Resources for Employment) provides hard-to-serve unemployed adults with training in one of the following programs: Adult Basic Education, GED preparation, Medical Assistant, Dental Assistant, Medical Office Administration, Multiple Trades, Business Computer Applications, or Computer-Based Accounting. o Urban League of Seattle--Safe Haven provides a supportive environment in which youths, parents, and community members can access a variety of services, develop relationships, and enhance skills for job-related and personal success. Services available through Safe Haven include employment workshops, financial aid information, GED classes, science fairs, and family literacy services. Sustainability of seeding initiatives According to the seeding coordinator, at the onset of Weed and Seed efforts in Seattle, the Weed and Seed Citizens Advisory Committee was told by EOWS that the program was going to be funded for approximately 2 years. With that in mind, the advisory committee made the decision that it would award grants to agencies that would use the money to enhance present programs rather than start new programs. All of the service providers in Seattle were made aware that Weed and Seed funding was for a finite period of time, and that renewal of the funding was not likely. To learn about program providers' perceptions of the effects of Weed and Seed after funding has ended, Abt evaluators interviewed five providers whose programs were no longer receiving Weed and Seed moneys. Most of the past providers who were interviewed were representatives of agencies that received additional sources of funding other than the Weed and Seed grant. The East Cherry YWCA, for example, is an established organization that used Weed and Seed funding to extend the availability of extant support-group programs. Girls Inc., which administered the Operation SMART program, used funds to purchase computers and equipment for a science room. Still other organizations used funds to hire staff for completely new projects. Some of the providers interviewed indicated that their programs were not able to sustain the level of service that they had been able to provide with the Weed and Seed funding. Instead of successfully obtaining alternate funding to continue what the Weed and Seed money had started, many providers indicated that programs discontinued those elements of their programming that had been funded by the Seed money. Additionally, one service provider was dissatisfied with the program because she felt that a year was not enough time to integrate a new service into her program. However, overall, project directors felt that their programs had achieved the objectives that they identified. In addition, directors stated that working with the Weed and Seed program had helped their group become more organized and more connected to other service providers and the community at large. Most saw a positive impact on the population that was served by their programs. 5.7 Concluding Observations As noted earlier in this report and reflected in exhibit 3.3, there is strong evidence that levels of crime--in terms of the number of Part 1 crimes reported to the police--have declined since 1992-93. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the drug trafficking activity on the East Cherry Street corridor, targeted by SPD early in the Weed and Seed initiative, has been displaced to local communities outside of the Weed and Seed area. When asked about how the reduction in Weed and Seed funds would affect crime control in the Central District, one official stated that he feared the drug trafficking activity may return. He argued that the "buy- busts" and "reverse stings" supported with Weed and Seed money coupled with the "emphasis patrols" throughout the area have significantly tightened community control over crime. As funds supporting police overtime and special operations diminish, control over crime in the area will also diminish unless this money is supplanted by other Federal or local sources. The effects of the weeding initiatives in Seattle continue and now seem confounded with effects of rapid economic and demographic changes in the city. In a recent interview, the SPD captain of the East Precinct (Weed and Seed area) explained that because crime in his area has dropped so low (and been displaced to other precincts and areas outside of the city), his officers are being redeployed to other units in SPD. In other words, he is losing officers and is worried that he will be unable to maintain the services that were provided through Weed and Seed. He spoke philosophically about the problem, recognizing that crime is clearly down and that the reduction in crime is good for the area. However, he repeatedly expressed the concern that with the relocation of his officers he expects the crime rate to rise again. One of the Weed and Seed administrators hopes that some programs will continue creating partnerships and relationships with the private sector, such as the one developed with the Washington Insurance Council. If programs in the community can be maintained by such infusions of support from private industry, many of the community-building effects of the programs can be sustained. 6.0 Effects of Weed and Seed 6.1 Analysis of Crime Data In this section, police data is used to analyze the trends in crime rates before and after the implementation of Weed and Seed in Seattle. At the outset, it is important to note that any observed changes in crime rates in the target area during this time period might reflect factors other than Weed and Seed. For instance, changes in crime reporting may cause the reported crime rates to rise or fall independent of any shift in true crime incidence. Changes in the regional or national economic context may also affect the trends in local crime, favorably or unfavorably. Additionally, an observed reduction in crime for the target area may occur through displacement of crime to adjacent or nearby areas, whose crime rates would correspondingly rise. Finally, as noted previously, there are a number of other contributing factors in Seattle such as the Youth Gun Violence Initiative that also may have affected the crime rates in general. Incident-level police data and geomapping methods have been used to identify the crimes that have occurred in the Central District and in the rest of the city combined. The rest of the city provides a logical comparison area to take account of possible changes in local crime reporting, shifts in local economic conditions or other conventional factors, and the possibility of crime displacement to other areas within the city.[12] Our target area crime data ends in December of 1996 due to a reorganization of the Seattle Police Department's Data Processing Unit. No data are currently available past this date. There have been reductions in the numbers of crimes committed in the Central District since the inception of Weed and Seed as illustrated by the fact that murders steadily dropped from a high of 11 in 1992 to a low of 2 in 1997. Similar reductions have been observed in robberies and nonresidential burglaries. From 1991 to 1995, assaults dropped from a high of 693 in 1993 to a low of 445 in 1997. Similarly, robberies dropped from a high of 225 in 1992 to a low of 125 in 1997.[13] In the most recent years of the grant, 1996 and 1997, violent crime levels have also diminished in the East Precinct. However, no adjustments were made to account for changes in population level in the Central District, which precludes the ability to make any definitive conclusions about the overall risk of crime in the area. The total levels of homicides, robberies, and assaults have dropped substantially, while the number of property crimes has been relatively constant. Proponents of the Weed and Seed program argue that the reductions have primarily been the result of the emphasis patrols, displacing crime outside the Weed and Seed area.[14] Exhibit 6.1 shows the overall trend in Part 1 crimes from 1991 through 1996, which is consistent with the above statistics.[15] The graph details the number of Part 1 crimes by month per 1,000 residents. Between 1992 and 1993, the year before the inception of Weed and Seed, the number of crimes committed in Seattle's target area increased by approximately 3.5 percent. During the first year of Weed and Seed efforts in Seattle's Central District, the number of crimes committed declined by approximately 13 percent and has continued to decline through 1996 at a faster rate than the rest of the city. Overall, since the inception of Weed and Seed, the number of Part 1 crimes committed has declined by 17 percent in the target area, as compared to 10 percent in the rest of the city. Anecdotal accounts of crime reduction offer a similar picture of successful crime reduction in the Weed and Seed area. Interviews with East Precinct patrol officers depict drug-related crimes dropping along Cherry Street in response to sting operations in which SPD narcotics units would "buy and bust" drug dealers along Cherry Street in the late evening and then use the drugs to sell to interested buyers traveling through the corridor (primarily going to work in downtown Seattle) the next morning. Most accounts of this practice suggest that some of the drug-dealing has been displaced to communities south of Seattle, well outside the Weed and Seed community. Police within Seattle report receiving numerous inquiries from police in incorporated and unincorporated areas (Kent, Renton, Tukwila) regarding sudden increases in drug trafficking following the implementation of the "reverse stings" within Seattle. Although drug dealing goes on in the Weed and Seed area, most of the buyers--police argue--are local drug users rather than persons migrating through the area solely to buy drugs. 6.2 Survey of Community Residents Survey methods used in 1995 and 1997 In each of the eight sites participating in the national 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 material, we refer to these data collection efforts as the 1995 and 1997 surveys. General survey design and operations The objective of the survey data collection and analysis was to measure the 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. The 1997 survey was designed to enhance comparability with the prior survey through the following features: o The geographical boundaries of the survey area were the same. o The verbatim wording of the questions from the 1995 survey was retained in 1997, with the exception of additional response categories to selected items in 1997. For these items, care was taken in the analysis to aggregate responses in ways that would preserve the comparability of the findings across the two surveys.[16] Nonetheless, there were some notable differences in the methods used in the two surveys, due to barriers in recruiting participants, as follows: 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 (333 were completed). In none of the sites was this target reached. The 1997 survey design called for 300 completed interviews per site, which was achieved in Seattle. The final disposition of the number of homes called, the breakdown of how many calls were ended in the middle of the survey "break-off," and how many were ended due to a language barrier, for instance, is represented in exhibit 6.2. Survey findings Demographic characteristics of survey respondents (Exhibit 6.2) The average respondent age increased in the 1997 survey, compared to 1995. It is important to note that this age difference in respondents could explain some of the following differences in perceptions between 1995 and 1997 as older individuals may be more cautious in their feelings about safety in their neighborhood. Those interviewed in 1997 appear to have fewer children in the house than those interviewed in 1995; 57 percent of 1995 surveyed households contained no children whereas 73 percent of households reported having no children in 1997. This could be a result of the older age of respondents in 1997--their children may have already moved out of the house. Further, the number of households with 3 or more children dropped from 14 percent in 1995 to 5 percent in 1997. The Central District ethnic makeup has also changed since the 1995 survey. The percentage of blacks decreased from more than one-half in 1995 to one-third in 1997. White respondents increased from 13 percent to 43 percent between 1995 and 1997. Hispanic respondents decreased by 11 percent and Asian/Pacific Islanders increased 5 percent in 1997. The male- to-female ratio moved closer to 1-to-1 in 1997 (47 percent male, 53 percent female), up from 44 percent male and 54 percent female in 1995. Perceptions of the neighborhood (Exhibit 6.3) Overall, neighborhood satisfaction is quite high among 1997 respondents and significantly improved (p<0.01). Ninety percent of Central District respondents in 1997 report being either "Very satisfied" or "Somewhat satisfied" with their "neighborhood as a place to live." Feelings of daytime safety remain virtually unchanged. However, respondents who reported feeling safe "out alone in [their] neighborhood after dark" have increased 14 percent from 1995. Those feeling "Very unsafe" have decreased 13 percent from 1995 to 1997 (p<0.01). Although most 1997 respondents feel their neighborhood has remained "about the same" as a place to live in the 2 years since 1995, nearly 10 percent fewer respondents in 1997 (45 percent versus 54 percent in 1995) feel the neighborhood has become a "better" place to live. Drug sales and use in the Weed and Seed target area were considered less of a problem in 1997 than in 1995 (p<0.01). Slightly more respondents in 1997 perceived crime and gang activity to be a problem, compared to those surveyed in 1995 (p<0.01). The percentage of respondents indicating that property, street, and violent crime are "Big problem[s]" in 1997 was 3 to 7 percent higher than in the 1995 survey (p<0.1) Victimization (Exhibit 6.4) Consistent with the increase in perceived problems with property crime, respondents reporting property crime in the past 2 years have grown from 11 percent in 1995 to 23 percent in 1997 (p<0.01), while levels of reported street and violent crime against respondents and their families have remained the same across the two surveys. Police response (Exhibit 6.5) Responses from 1995 to 1997 regarding how well the police are generally maintaining order in the neighborhood and conducting neighborhood patrols (either by car or on foot) have not changed. Respondent observations of other police presence, however, have increased. In 1997, respondents reported having "seen a police officer patrolling back alleys or in the back of buildings in [their] neighborhood" and "chatting/having a friendly conversation with people in the neighborhood" significantly more often than respondents in 1995 (p<0.01). Surprisingly, a smaller proportion of 1997 respondents felt that police were "very responsive" to community concerns, 43 percent in 1997 as compared to 56 percent in 1995. Community involvement (Exhibit 6.6) Community involvement among 1997 respondents is significantly higher all around than that of 1995 respondents. Increased involvement is especially evident in neighborhood watch programs and cleanup projects, which are up 15 and 17 percent, respectively, over 1995 participation (p<0.01). Perceptions of social services and other programs (Exhibit 6.7) Concurrent with the perceived reduction of drug sales and use in the target area, respondent satisfaction with "the availability of drug treatment services in [their] neighborhood," has risen to 21 percent versus 6 percent in 1995 (p<0.01). Likewise, satisfaction with "the availability of job opportunities in [the] neighborhood" has more than doubled from 8 percent to 19 percent in 1997 (p<0.01). There may be, however, a slight decrease in 1997 in the satisfaction level of "the availability of sports, recreation, and other programs for youths in [the] neighborhood" (although not a significant difference at that level). Perceptions of the Weed and Seed program (Exhibit 6.8) Weed and Seed has experienced a moderate increase in name recognition in the time between the 2 survey years, from 45 percent to 53 percent (p<0.05). Specific programs, however, have been less than successful in making respondents aware of their existence. Only 28 and 27 percent of respondents are aware of the Central Area Resources for Employment Program and the Mid-Town Commons Advanced Computer Training Project, respectively. General observations on the survey findings Although the number of people reporting they felt victimized increased slightly from 1995 to 1997, the survey findings show an improvement between 1995 and 1997 in feelings about public safety, city services, and quality of life among the residents of the Central District. This improvement in residents' perceptions was coupled by increased involvement in the community and a greater awareness of the Weed and Seed program. Although one could interpret each of these trends as reflecting unfavorably or favorably on the Weed and Seed program, it would be incorrect to attribute the observed changes to the Weed and Seed efforts alone. The measured changes may, in part, be the result of the different survey methods used in 1995 and 1997. Even more importantly, it is important to remember that Weed and Seed was first implemented in Seattle in 1993 (2 years before the first survey was completed). Finally, although the observed changes in residents' attitudes may indeed have resulted from Weed and Seed and various community changes set in motion by the program, one could also make the case that improving economic conditions in the United States are primarily responsible instead. 6.3 Seeding Program Participant Interviews To gain the perspective of individuals in the community whom the seeding programs were intended to benefit, interviews were conducted with 40-60 program participants in Seattle. Abt evaluators visited 4 programs and conducted interviews in groups of 7-10 people. These interviews were not intended to measure outcomes of the programs that were visited; they were designed to learn the perceived benefits and drawbacks of the programs for the individuals who participated in them. This analysis is not meant to suggest causality, and, in fact, there is no way to be certain that the benefits or hindrances these people faced during the time they took part in the program are explicitly due to their program participation. Rather, the analysis is meant to present individual perceptions based on present involvement with these specific programs, and any long-term effects of these programs on the lives of the program participants cannot be deduced from these interviews. It is also important to note that the interviews were arranged by the site's Weed and Seed Coordinators. Abt evaluators requested that the site coordinators work with the program directors to arrange the time, place, and group of individuals who were to be interviewed. It is important to note, therefore, that these interviews are not intended to be representative of all participants; interviewees were selected at the discretion of program managers based on participants' availability. The following information is meant to be descriptive and represents a synopsis of the interviews conducted. Common themes are discussed and descriptive quotes were selected to enhance the reader's understanding of participant perspectives. Gay and lesbian support group run by the Garfield Teen Clinic This gay and lesbian support group is run out of Garfield High School and is held once a week during school lunch break. Garfield High School is located in the Weed and Seed community; however, about 50 percent of the students do not live in the target area but are bused to the school. Students can join the group at any time during the year, and there are usually 20 or so students who come on a continuing basis. Although this group is for gay and lesbian teens, currently there is only 1 gay male in the group and approximately 18-20 lesbian girls. When we asked the students why they thought this was, they explained that males face a lot more ridicule at school than females do after admitting they are homosexual. In addition, although the school is multiracial, most of the participants were white teenage girls who did not live in the Weed and Seed target area. Again, the students told us they thought the barriers to admitting one's sexuality may be stronger for students of color. Asked how they found out about the group, many of the girls told us they had seen posters around the school. However, they explained, the posters had not reached everyone. As mentioned above, Garfield High is a multiracial school, but most of the women in the group are white. The students told Abt evaluators that they would like to see more diversity in the group. The students reported that during their meeting time they often discuss common concerns such as harassment by students and/or teachers. "We have a bowl of concerns and/or discussion topics that people would like to talk about, and then we pick them and talk about them." In addition, some of the group members participate in a leadership camp that trains youths on ways to aid in the prevention of problems such as substance abuse and harassment. Upon the students' return from the conference, they work as peer advisors to help others with issues such as these. Before these teens started coming to this group, they said they found very little support from the community. In addition, they explained that school is a good place for this kind of program since they spend so much of their time in school. They feel this program has provided the support they need. They all said they look forward to Thursdays, and they appreciate having a direct link to people in their school who are like them. One girl explained that it is great to have people who really understand her and what she is going through: "A lot of my non-gay friends just don't get what I am going through a lot of times, so it is really helpful to have the group." Afterschool program at the Seattle Urban League--Safe Haven The Seattle Urban League runs an afterschool program out of the Safe Haven for children ages 5 and up. The program runs from 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., and children are only permitted to leave the premises with authorized adults. While at the program the children read, do their homework, and then play games. All of the children told evaluators that their school performance had improved since they started participating in the afterschool program. The program offers the children approximately 10 computers, which they use to play games and learn how to surf the Internet. Abt evaluators tried to interview a group of these students. However, the children were young and had a hard time grasping the questions they were asked. For all of these children, the afterschool program was the only Safe Haven program in which they participated. Most of the children said before they started coming to this program, they would "do nothing after school, just go home and watch television." When asked why they liked coming to the afterschool program, one child said he liked coming because it is a safe place. His mother will let him come to the program even though she doesn't usually like him to go out to play in his neighborhood because it is not as safe. Parents of children who participate in the afterschool program at Safe Haven Abt evaluators spoke with the mothers of the children who participate in Safe Haven's afterschool program. All of the women live in the target area. The women had a great deal to say about the benefits of this Weed-and- Seed-supported program. Many of these women work long hours and told evaluators they had problems finding suitable programs for their children. One woman explained there were other places for children to go, but none of them were as structured and positive as this one. "There are no other options that I know of that are not expensive--except for maybe the community centers, which are good places for your kids to go to spend time, but they are really not structured. I feel like they are really structured here. When my kids misbehave, I know about it, and they are disciplined. I feel safe leaving my kids here because I know they are being watched over and they will not be allowed to leave with just anyone- -I have to come get them, or I have to make arrangements and let them know about my plans." In addition, many of the women were impressed by how much the afterschool program had helped their children in school; when asked if their children's school performance had improved, all of the women said yes. One woman said, "For me it is great because before this program, homework was very difficult for me because I don't speak good English, but now my kids gets help with their homework and are doing much better, and it's great. I am very happy with this program." Seattle Vocational Institute Seattle Vocational Institute runs a number of vocational and continuing education programs that assist urban Seattle residents in building core job skills. In addition, the Institute has a career counseling service as well as a job resource center. The Institute has a 90-percent completion rate and a 93-percent successful job placement rate. The individuals who were interviewed participated in the medical assistant program, the dental assistant program, and the computer training program. As part of the each of these programs, students must complete an internship to get some real world experience. The intensive programs, such as medical assistant and dental assistant, meet every day from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. for 1 full year. The less intensive programs, such as various short-term computer classes, meet only in the evening for a shorter period of time. Weed and Seed funding was allocated to the program and was used to subsidize students' tuition. All of the people who were interviewed received their tuition from Weed and Seed moneys. (In fact, one of their current staff members is a graduate of their program and received subsided tuition from Weed and Seed moneys.) One woman told evaluators that without tuition assistance from Weed and Seed she would not have completed her program. "You know, welfare wants you to work, but the deal is that there is no affordable child care--how do you pay a car note, rent, and child care? So this program really helped me in that area." One of the main, and most obvious, benefits of Seattle Vocational Institute, is the income that the individuals will receive once they start working. In addition, many of the individuals who were interviewed told evaluators their self-esteem has increased since participating in the program. One man exclaimed, "I would like to say that I never thought I could know so much. I am impressed with myself. The teachers here are great and very patient." In addition, one man mentioned he felt that he served as a role model for his peers. After seeing what he accomplished, many of his friends enrolled in the same vocational program. He explained he believed that "when people have jobs, and therefore something income- generating and productive to fill their days, they are less likely to get involved in criminal activity." 7.0 Future Directions and Degree of Institutionalization Officials view the future of Weed and Seed programs in the Greater Seattle area in terms of three stages of evolution. The first stage is the existing Weed and Seed program in the Central District. The second stage entails a new Weed and Seed target area south of the Central District. This project will be established in the South Precinct of the Seattle Police Department and will include suburban communities outside of Seattle that have already been affected by crime displacement from the existing Weed and Seed program. The third stage will be an expansion of Weed and Seed to South King County, the area between Seattle and the city of Tacoma (30 miles south of Seattle), which also has a Weed and Seed site. Officials believe that by ultimately coordinating Weed and Seed programs between South King County and Tacoma, major reductions in crime in the entire Puget Sound area can be achieved. As reflected in their 1997 proposal, SPD plans to continue the current Weed and Seed emphasis on youth antiviolence enforcement and support projects. As noted earlier, the seeding component of the Seattle Weed and Seed project has focused on the delivery of social services to youths, families, and community residents. This emphasis will continue in all Weed-and-Seed-funded projects. Law enforcement will continue to focus on the gangs, particularly to reduce gang-related illegal weapons violations and street level drug trafficking. The seeding projects to be continued include the Teen Health Center, the Safe Haven program, the Central Area Resources for Employment Program, and the MidTown Commons Advanced Computer Training Project. As a primary recipient of Weed and Seed grant funds, the city of Seattle has sought to institutionalize aspects of the original Weed and Seed programs by building some of the grant-funded projects into the general fund budget. For example, additional patrol officers (Community Police Team Officers) have become an established part of normal patrol operations and budgets. The AmeriCorps program, initially part of the Weed and Seed Department of Justice auspices, has been requested through the State of Washington Corporation for National Service, with the city providing the required matching funds. Other city-initiated programs include the formation of the Neighborhood Planning Office (part of the Mayor's Executive Office) that will help coordinate the work of all city departments. This office, along with the newly established Safe Schools Committee (part of a Safe Futures grant from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention), will assist in coordinating services (e.g., those pertaining to gang activity, crime prevention, and area security) between Seattle Public Schools and city agencies. These efforts reflect an attempt on the part of city officials to expand coordinated delivery of city services from the Weed and Seed area to the entire city. This is consistent with the city's avowed commitment to "problem-oriented policing," whereby resources focusing on law enforcement, community policing, crime prevention/intervention, and neighborhood restoration are combined to address community crime problems. Consistent with this commitment, the officials who make up the steering committee of Weed and Seed plan to meet in March 1998 to more effectively coordinate Federal and local funds in the area. Among the issues to be examined at the meeting will be linkages to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds that will enable officials to increase crime control measures in HUD housing areas in Seattle. Finally, the senior leadership of SPD is planning to develop a more effective method of crime analysis for the city. The goal of this initiative is to make more information available on crime problems as they emerge to lower levels within SPD's organization. As described by officials, the initiative would be to create "flexible" Weed and Seed zones so that police can be more effectively deployed around the city as crime is displaced from location to location. Notes 1. Executive Office of 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. Part 1 crimes include violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault) and property crimes (burglary, larceny, auto theft). 4. This formulation includes Seattle Police Department officers dedicated to crime prevention and the D.A.R.E. programs as part of the seeding emphasis. 5. City of Seattle Weed and Seed Program, Activity Summary 1993-95. 6. Weed and Seed Local Evaluation, Gambrell Urban Inc., 1997. 7. Weed and Seed Local Evaluation, Gambrell Urban Inc., 1997. 8. Weed and Seed Quarterly Report, Overview of Emphasis Patrols, July 01, 1996-September 31, 1996, p.11. 9. Weed and Seed Quarterly Report, Overview of Emphasis Patrols, July 01, 1996-September 31, 1996, p. 9. 10. Weed and Seed Quarterly Report, Overview of Emphasis Patrols, July 1, 1996-September 31, 1996, pp. 3-4. 11. Weed and Seed Local Evaluation, Gambrell Urban Inc., 1997. 12. Note displacement may have occurred outside city limits, as indicated in anecdotal reports (section 5.4), such as in Kent and Renton areas. 13.Weed and Seed Local Evaluation, Gambrell Urban Inc., 1997. 14. Weed and Seed Local Evaluation, Gambrell Urban Inc., 1997. 15. Part 1 crimes include homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and auto theft. 16. For example, in questions on "how good a job are the police doing" in aspects different 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." The 1997 survey 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.