Weed and Seed Service Programs



Weed and Seed Respondents 2005 vs. 2008

|Respondent Attribute |Norm |In 2008 |In 2005 |Significantly |

| | | | |Different? |

|Age Range |35 to 45 |27% |25.1% |No |

| |Under 45 |68% |65% | |

|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 | |70% less than $50,000 |65% less than $50,000 | |

|$ 25,000- 40,000 |Norm 2008 | | |Yes |

|$ 35,000 to 50,000 |Norm 2005 | | | |

|Pomona Police District |87 |43.4% |41% | |

| |84 |34.1% |30% |No |

| |83 |22.4% |29% | |

Weed and Seed Service Programs

Statistics

| |weed/ seed |Neighborhood |

| |restore? |watch |

| |Missing |379 |

|Median |40.0000 |

|Mode |50.00 |

|Range |40.00 |

|Percentiles |25 |31.0000 |

| |50 |40.0000 |

| |75 |49.0000 |

Norm for all program is “40” (40/10= 4 or fair)

[pic]

Distribution of Sum of Services for N= 31. 379 “don’t know or no response”. Score of 50 = 10 programs all scored “poor”.

Does respondent attributes influence views on services?

| |Restoration |Neighborhood Watch |Boy Scouts |

|Respondent Attribute |Sig. |Influence |Sig. |Influence |Significant |Influence |

|Age Range |No |No |No |No |No |No |

|Occupation |No |No |NA |NA |NA |NA |

|Student |No |No | NA* |NA* |NA |NA |

|Number of Children under |No | No |No | No |No |No |

|18 | | | | | | |

|Ethnicity |NA |NA |NA |NA |NA |NA |

|Gender |.033 |.401 Viewed |No |No |No |No |

| | |favorably by women | | | | |

|Own or Rent |No |No |No |No |No |No |

|Income |No |No |No |No |No |No |

|Time in area |No |No |No | No |No |No |

|Pomona Police District |No |No |No | No |No |No |

|Length of Time in |No |No |No | No |No |No |

|Neighborhood | | | | | | |

* Number of reported students too small for analysis.

| |Girl Scouts (recoded to 3 grps) |Fist of Gold |Community Arts |

|Respondent Attribute |Sig. |Influence |Sig. |Influence |Significant |Influence |

|Age Range |No |No |No |No |No |NA |

|Occupation |No |No |NA |NA |NA |NA |

|Student |No |No | NA* | NA* |NA |NA |

|Number of Children under |No | No |No | No |NA |NA |

|18 | | | | | | |

|Ethnicity |NA |NA |NA |NA |NA |NA |

|Gender |.032 |.347 Viewed |No |No |No |No |

| | |unfavorable by males | | | | |

|Own or Rent |No |No |No |No |No |No |

|Income |No |No |No |No |No |NA |

|Time in area |No |No |No | No |No |No |

|Pomona Police District |.047 |.274 Least favorable |No | No |No |NA |

| | |in 84 and 87 | | | | |

*Not Applicable, too few observations

| |Fall Festival |Healthy Teens |Parenting |

|Respondent Attribute |Sig. |Influence |Sig. |Influence |Significant |Influence |

|Age Range |No |No |No |No |No |no |

|Occupation |No |No |NA |NA |No |No |

|Student |NA |NA | NA* | NA* |NA |NA |

|Number of Children under |NA | NA |No | No |No |No |

|18 | | | | | | |

|Ethnicity |NA |NA |No |No |No |NA |

|Gender |No |No |No |No |.016 |Yes; female + |

| | | | | | |.49 |

|Own or Rent |No |No |No |No |No |No |

|Income |No |NA |NA |NA |No |NA |

|Time in area |No |No |No | No |No |No |

|Pomona Police District |.009 |Most supportive in 87|No | No |No |No |

*Not Applicable, too few observations

| |National Night Out |

|Respondent Attribute |Sig. |Influence |

|Age Range |No |No |

|Occupation |NA |NA |

|Student |NA |NA |

|Number of Children under |NA | NA |

|18 | | |

|Ethnicity |NA |NA |

|Gender |No |No |

|Own or Rent |No |No |

|Income |No |No |

|Time in area |No |No |

|Pomona Police District |No |No |

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% |

Only 30 persons (8%) reported they had heard of Weed and Seed and 17-24 had responses on sections of the weeding effort. This number of responses is too small to analyze further. Penetration of information about weeding activities as part of Weed and Seed effort is 8%

Summary of Analysis of Independent and Confounding Variables

1. Are there significant differences between the survey respondents in 2005 versus 2008 regarding demographic attributes?

a. No with the exception of “household income” which is significantly lower in 2008 than in 2005.

2. How supportive are residents of “weeding” activities?

a. Those who are knowledgeable about the program favor the activities. However, only 7% (30 respondents) of the community was aware of the program.

3. How supportive were respondents of the “seeding” programs?

a. Generally speaking 8 out of 10 programs received a “good” or better rating. The exceptions were the Boy Scouts and Fist of Gold.

b. The rankings of the programs were as follows from most favorable to least favorable:

i. Fall Festival

ii. Neighborhood Watch

iii. Restoration

iv. Healthy Teens

v. Community Arts

vi. Parenting

vii. Girl Scouts

viii. National Night Out

ix. Boy Scouts and

x. Fist of Gold

c. Boy Scouts and Fist of Gold receive approval rating below 50%

4. Were opinions on seeding services tied to demographic attributes of respondents such as their age, income group, etc.?

a. Generally speaking differences were not tied to demographic attributes of respondents.

b. There were some exceptions: Girl Scouts, Neighborhood Restoration and Parenting programs received significantly greater support from women than men.

c. Girl Scouts and Fall Festival received significantly more support from PPD 84 and 87 than from area 83 but this relationship-- while mathematically significant-- may be spurious. It is difficult to do extensive analysis of the data given the limited number of responses.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download