This Appendix Has the Following Section

Appendix D

This Appendix has the following section:

1. Analysis of the respondents’ attributes including the differences between 2005 (pre test) and 2008 (post test) periods. (Section H)

2. The weeding questions and findings in 2008 (Section E 40 to E45; G49-53)

3. The seeding questions and findings in 2008 (Section E46;G54 to 59)).

4. Analysis of sections A through D which address resident responses to questions about their neighborhoods, crime, and city services. In each section the appendices includes:

a. Questions

b. Norm (e.g. median and/mode)

c. Relationship with:

o Quality of life responses and views of city services (A2 to A4; F47 and F48)

o Factors that influence respondent’s perceptions of the neighborhood (A5 to A17; G60)

o Perceptions of empowerment by respondents (B18-B20)

o Experiences with crime (C21 to C26)

o Residents views of police services (D27 to D34)

o Police activities and police control in the area (D35-D39)

o Confounding variable analysis: These are instances where a significant relationship is identified but is attributed to a characteristic of the respondent (age, income) rather than due to weeding/seeding activities or related conditions in the area.

The analysis reported below represents relationships that are statistically significant (p. .05). This means the relationship is not the result of random chance. Also reported is the influence or strength of the relationship between questions. The general applied is that:

<. 10 is not relevant or important

.10 to .199 is a weak relationship

.2 to .299 is a modest relationship

.3 and above is a strong relationship and may merit consideration in understanding the cause-effect relationships between questions as understood by area residents. Readers should be cautioned that mathematically significant and modest to strong relationships may exist but not be relevant or important.

Analysis of the respondents’ attributes including the differences between 2005 (pre test) and 2008 (post test) periods. (Section H)

· Questions in Section H include

Age range of respondent,
Respondent’s occupation,
Respondent’s student status
Number of persons in household 18 and under,
Respondent’s ethnicity,
Respondent gender,
Respondent homeowner or renter, and
Respondent’s income.

· The summary of attributes of respondents in both periods is noted below:

Respondent Attribute / Norm / In 2008 / In 2005 / Significantly Different?
Age Range / 35 to 45
Under 45 / 27%
68% / 25.1%
65% / No
Occupation / Employed full time / 52% / 58.4% / No
Student / status / 8% / 7. 6% / No
Number of Children under 18 / 2 or fewer / 66% / 70.9% / No
Ethnicity / Hispanic / 86% / 82.2% / No
Gender / Female / 53% / 53.7% / No
Own or Rent / Owner / 64% / 70.6% / No
Income
$ 25,000- 40,000
$ 35,000 to 50,000 / Norm 2008
Norm 2005 / 70% less than $50,000 / 65% less than $50,000 / Yes
Pomona Police District / 87
84
83 / 43.4%
34.1%
22.4% / 41%
30%
29% / No

The weeding questions and findings in 2008 (Section E 40 to E45)

· Questions on weeding include:

Have you been involved in any community meetings?
Have you attended any neighborhood meetings?
Was anyone from the police department been at these community meetings?
Have you been to any social get-togethers?
Were police officers at these events?
Have you had of a program called Weed and Seed?

Did Weed and Seed in this community include:
increased drug enforcement
increases in arrests
more vigorous policing
community policing
prevention, intervention and treatment
neighborhood revitalization
Have police gotten tougher regarding drug dealing
Has increased activity resulted in reduced drug dealing
Are there more or less program or activities or youth?

· Out of 410 responses, 30 respondents indicated they had heard of Weed and Seed programs. 374 persons indicated they didn’t know of a Weed and Seed program. Consequently with so few responses it was not possible to engage in further statistical analysis of direct weeding efforts between 2005 and 2008.

· The typical responses to these questions are noted below:

Weeding Activities:

Weeding / Number / % Yes / % No
Heard of Weed and Seed / 374 / 8 (30 persons) / 92
Heard of Drug Enforcement / 19 / 63.2 / 36.8
Increased Arrests / 20 / 55 / 45
Vigorous Policing / 24 / 66.7 / 33.3
Community Policing / 24 / 70.8 / 29.2
Prevention and Treatment / 21 / 76.2 / 23.8
Revitalization / 17 / 65 / 35%

The seeding questions and findings in 2008 (Section E46).

· Questions on seeding

If the have heard of any of the following program did they consider the program: excellent, very good, good, fair, poor or didn’t apply? The programs listed were:
neighborhood restoration
neighborhood watch
boy scouts
girl scouts
fist of gold
healthy teen program
national night out
community art program
fall festival

Summary of finding for contracted programs:

Seeding Effort / Median / Mode
Fall Festival / Very good / Very good
Neighborhood Watch / Good / Good
Health Teen / Good / Very good
Community Arts Program / Good / Good
Parenting Program / Good / Good
Girl Scouts / Good / Good
National Night Out / Good / Poor
Boy Scout / Good / Poor
Fist of Gold / Fair / Poor
N=31

Questions

Did respondent or family members use Renacimiento and if so what was their assessment of its facilities and services:
Did respondent or family members use Philadelphia community center and if so what was their assessment of its facilities and services.

iv. Did respondent or family members use Lexington after school programs and if so what was their assessment of its facilities and services:
very good, good, fair, poor, very poor or no response

Seeding Effort / Median / Mode / Yes Responses
Renacimiento use / NA / No 82%
Renacimeinto assessment / No response / NR 83.1%
N=366 / 32
Philadelphia use / NA / No 82.9%
Philadelphia assessment / No response / 71.2%
N=215 / 64
Lexington use / NA / No 86.0%
Lexington assessment / No response / NR 76.1%
N=374 / 49

· Total number of unduplicated yes responses =115. These “recreation users” were largely program users since most programs were provided at recreation sites. About 25% of the 410 respondents used the centers and/or seeding programs.

4. Analysis of sections
QUALITY OF LIFE and CITY SERVICES (A2-A4; F47.F48) Anthony, Audrey and Gabe.

a. Questions

· Is neighborhood becoming a better or worse place?

· Do neighbors help each other or don’t get involved?

· How many neighbors would you trust to watch your house when you are gone? No one, a few, many or don’t know.

· How satisfied are you with city services (e.g. garbage pick up; street cleaning)

· How satisfied are you with recreation and programs for youth?

a. Norm (e.g. median and/mode)

neighborhood in past 2 years * Pre 05, Post 08 Crosstabulation

Pre 05, Post 08 / Total
2005 / 2008 / 2005
neighborhood in past 2 years / a better / Count / 86 / 141 / 227
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 29.7% / 36.0% / 33.3%
b. worse / Count / 46 / 49 / 95
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 15.9% / 12.5% / 13.9%
c. same / Count / 158 / 202 / 360
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 54.5% / 51.5% / 52.8%
Total / Count / 290 / 392 / 682
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0%

Slightly more indicating “better” but no significant difference between 2005 with 2008

neighbors help or not involved * Pre 05, Post 08 Crosstabulation /
/ Pre 05, Post 08 /
/ 2005 / 2008 / Total /
neighbors help or not involved / a. help each other / Count / 129 / 180 / 309 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 46.6% / 50.7% / 48.9% /
b. do not get involved / Count / 148 / 175 / 323 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 53.4% / 49.3% / 51.1% /
Total / Count / 277 / 355 / 632 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0%

Slightly more “help each other” but not significant difference.

how many know/trust * Pre 05, Post 08 Crosstabulation /
/ Pre 05, Post 08 /
/ 2005 / 2008 / Total /
how many know/trust / a. no one / Count / 62 / 84 / 146 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 20.2% / 21.2% / 20.8% /
b. a few / Count / 204 / 261 / 465 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 66.4% / 65.9% / 66.1% /
c. many / Count / 41 / 51 / 92 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 13.4% / 12.9% / 13.1% /
Total / Count / 307 / 396 / 703 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0%

Slightly more indicating “a few” but difference is not significant.

satisfaction with city cleaning * Pre 05, Post 08 Crosstabulation /
/ Pre 05, Post 08 /
/ 2005 / 2008 / Total /
satisfaction with city cleaning / a. very satisfied / Count / 111 / 178 / 289 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 36.5% / 44.0% / 40.8% /
b. somewhat satisfied / Count / 150 / 144 / 294 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 49.3% / 35.6% / 41.5% /
c. somewhat dissatisfied / Count / 32 / 49 / 81 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 10.5% / 12.1% / 11.4% /
d. very dissatisfied / Count / 11 / 34 / 45 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 3.6% / 8.4% / 6.3% /
Total / Count / 304 / 405 / 709 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0%

Significant increase in “very satisfied” responses, but weak influence of whether 2005 or 2008..

satisfaction with sport and recreation * Pre 05, Post 08 Crosstabulation /
/ Pre 05, Post 08 /
/ 2005 / 2008 / Total /
satisfaction with sport and recreation / a. very satisfied / Count / 40 / 86 / 126 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 18.6% / 29.9% / 25.0% /
b. somewhat satisfied / Count / 103 / 111 / 214 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 47.9% / 38.5% / 42.5% /
c. somewhat dissatisfied / Count / 48 / 54 / 102 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 22.3% / 18.8% / 20.3% /
d. very dissatisfied / Count / 24 / 37 / 61 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 11.2% / 12.8% / 12.1% /
Total / Count / 215 / 288 / 503 /
% within Pre 05, Post 08 / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0%

Significant increase in “very satisfied” responses, but weak influence of whether 2005 or 2008..

o Factors that influence respondent’s perceptions of the neighborhood (A5 to A17; G60)

Question / A2 / A3 / A4 / F 47 / F48
Σ of A5-A17 / NS and NI / .292 / .293 / -.380 Strong / .349 Strong
A5 litter / NS and NI / NA / Sig but NA / -.371 Strong / .294
A6 drinking / NS and NI / .269 / Sig but NA / -.384 Strong / .253
A7 hanging out / NS and NI / .272 / Sig but NA / -.254 / .193
A8 vandalizism / NS and NI / .252 / Sig but NA / -.213 / .243
A9 street drugs / NS and NI / .255 / Sig but NA / -.225 / .266
A10 drugs (stores) / NS and NI / .282 / Sig but NA / -.307 Strong / .358 Strong
A11 drugs (home) / NS and NI / .245 / Sig but NA / -.281 B / .307 Strong
A12 burglary / NS and NI / .226 / Sig but NA / -.272 / .247
A13 robbery / NS and NI / .248 / Sig but NA / -.299 / .248
A14 gangs / NS and NI / .228 / Sig but NA / -.282 / .245
A15 drug use / NS and NI / .274 / Sig but NA / -.283 / .273
A16 drug treatment / NS and NI / .277 / Sig but NA / -.268 / .344 Strong
A17 jobs opportunity / NS and NI / NA / Sig but NA / NA / .192 Weak

§ Perceptions of empowerment by respondents (B18-B20)

Question / A2 / A3 / A4 / F47 / F48
B 18 spray paint / NI / .278 / NI / NI / .199
B 19 services / .111 / .269 / NI / .279 / .320
B 20 how feel / NI / .279 / -.213 / .282 / .304

§ Experiences with crime (C21 to C26)

Question / A2 / A3 / A4 / F47 / F48
C21 safe during day / ns / .265 / NI / .327 / .348
C 22 safe at night / .109 / .220 / NI / .333 / .279
C23 safe use of public parks etc. / ns / .164 / NI / NI / .118
C24 home broken into / .188 / .203 / NI / NI / .190
C25 stolen / .178 / .172 / NI / .301 / .207
C26 assault / ns / .144 / NI / .279 / .196

o Residents views of police services (D27 to D34)

Question / A2 / A3 / A4 / F47 / F48
Sum of Calls / .134 / ns / NI / NI / .244
D27 call for family / -- / -- / -- / -- / --
D28 satisfied with police response to family / ns / .335 / -.275 / .317 / .239
D29 call for other than family / -- / -- / -- / -- / --
D30 satisfied with police response for other / ns / Ni / Ni / .353 / .366
D31 call for other than crime / -- / -- / -- / -- / --
D32 satisfied with police for other than crime / ns / .343 / Ni / .220 / .265
D33 police responsive? / .168 / .231 / Ni / ,283 / .252
D34 police controlling sales of illegal drugs / .206 / .207 / Ni / .344 / 459

o Police activities and police control in the area (D36-D39)

Question / A2 / A3 / A4 / F47 / F48
D 36 police patrolling / NS / 202 / NI / NI / NI
D 37 police walking / NS / NI / NI / NI / NI
D 38 police chatting / .138 / NI / NI / NI / NI
D 39 police arresting / NS / NI / NI / NI / NI

o Attended community meetings or social meeting in area (Weeding)

Question / A2 / A3 / A4 / F47 / F48
Sum 41 meetings social and otherwise in neighborhood / .183 / .145 / .222 / NI / NI

o Seeding Programs and Neighborhood facilities