Executive Summary

Weed and Seed Study 2008

The Masters in Public Administration (MPA) and Political Science (PLS) programs of California State University-Pomona’s College or Letters, Arts and Social Sciences was asked to evaluate the City of Pomona’s Weed and Seed program funded by the Department of Justice (DoJ).

A preliminary (pretest) analysis of the Weed and Seed target area was completed in December 2005. The study area is comprised of three Pomona Police Department (PPD) reporting districts 83, 84 and 87. This area is bounded by Lexington Avenueto the north, the 60 freeway to the south, Reservoir Avenue to the east and the 71 freeway on the west. In spring (April – June, 2008) a post test evaluation was conducted.

The 2005 reportindicated that there were significant differences in resident responses based on PPD district. PPD 87 had the lowest reported crime and a significantly greater number of residents reporting they felt safe during the day and evening. Districts 84 had significantly more reported crimes and less resident satisfaction with the neighborhood. Litter, debris and graffiti were noticeable in this area. District 83 had the greatest number of residentsreporting break-ins and robberies. Residents in 83 indicated they felt unsafe during the day and in the evening.

During the interim (2005 to 2008) the Weed and Seed program supported a number of community policing and service programs including Neighborhood Watch , Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Healthy Teens, and three safe haven efforts: Renacimiento, Philadelphia Recreation Center and Lexington’s After School Program.
In spring of 2008 the MPA/PLS programs reassessed the target area by conducting field observations, surveying 410 residents, and conducting elite interviews with service providers and the Weed and Seed Oversight Committee. Based on the data collected from these sources the research team’s findings (in part) are as follow:

  • There has not been a significant shift in the demographics of the area,
  • Residents are unaware there is a Weed and Seed program but are aware of some limited programs (e.g. Neighborhood Watch and safe haven sites),
  • There has been little substantive change in resident’s perceptions between 2005 and 2008,
  • Crime reports have improved in district 83 and 84 but have declined in 87 and 88,
  • Meaningful programs have been provided to youths but there is little residential support or experience with these programs,
  • There is a strong positive relationship between city programs such as Fall Festival (not a Weed and Seed Program per se) and residents’ sense of community or neighborliness. Seeding programs-- such as safe havens-- appear to have an influence on residents’ willingness to cooperate and collaborate with police,
  • Resident perceptions that policehave reduced the sale and distribution of illegal drugs was strongly associated with resident satisfaction with sport and recreation programs, a positive appraisal of the quality of life in the neighborhood, and significantly less concern about public drunkenness, young persons making noise and hanging out, sales of illegal drug, etc. Strong law enforcement contributes to a greater sense of safety during the day and evening for area residents,
  • Empowerment responses differed by PPD district. The strongest empowerment relationships arose in district 84 and to a lesser extent in 83 and 87. Parent involvement and good feelings about the neighborhood also varied by district with the strongest relationships coming from 83 and 87,
  • Residents are aware of increased police patrols but have not seen police engaged in community policing efforts,
  • PPD 84 appears to have more litter, debris, graffiti, etc. than areas 83 and 87.

Based on elite interviews with the member of the Weed and Seed Committee, Department of Justice documentation and a focus group meeting on April 15 the research team identified five (5) criteria and scored the city as follows on these criteria:

Report Card on Weed and Seed

Criteria / Progress
1. Effective strategy to reduce crime
/ Good
2. Collaboration/ Coordination with CBOs
  • Resident support
  • Services for youth
/ Needs Improvement
3. Target area served / Fair
4. Cooperation and collaboration between police/residents
/ Fair to good
5. Improved Quality of Life: safer, cleaner, greater trust and involvement /
Fair to good

Some key recommendations include:

  • Public information efforts to inform residents of programs,
  • Recreation and cultural programs that are compatible with residents interests and heritage,
  • Festivals or civic events in partnership with business and community agencies,
  • Continued funding and support by DoJ to take advantage of the momentum built since the DoJ intervention in 2006.