Get documents about "Weed and Seed Service Programs
Shared by: HC12091814549
-
Stats
- views:
- 0
- posted:
- 9/18/2012
- language:
- Unknown
- pages:
- 9
Document Sample
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 52% 58.4% No
full time
Student status 8% 7. 6% No
Number of Children 2 or fewer 66% 70.9%
under 18 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 65% less than
$ 25,000- 40,000 Norm 2008 $50,000 $50,000 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/ Neighbor
seed hood boy girl fist of effective healthy national fall
restore? watch scout scout gold parent teen night out arts festival
N Valid 80 125 77 64 51 62 59 52 59 73
Miss- 330 285 333 346 359 348 351 358 351 337
Median 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Presented in order of community preference:
fall festival
40
30
Percent
20
31.51%
23.29% 24.66%
10
10.96% 9.59%
0
excellent very good good fair poor
fall festival
Norm for Fall Festival is “good” but most frequent response is “very good”. 66% good to
excellent
neigborhood watch program
40
30
Percent
20
32.80%
10
23.20%
15.20% 16.80%
12.00%
0
excellent very good good fair poor
neigborhood watch program
Norm for Neighborhood Watch is “good”. 60% good to excellent
25.0%
20.0%
Percent
15.0%
23.75%
10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%
16.25%
5.0%
0.0%
excellent very good good fair poor
weed/seed restoration
Norm for Weed and Seed Restoration efforts is “good” with 60% ranking it good to
excellent.
healthy teen program
25
20
Percent
15
23.73% 22.03% 22.03%
10
15.25% 16.95%
5
0
excellent very good good fair poor
healthy teen program
Norm for Healthy Teen program is “good” but most frequent response is “very good”.
59.93% good to excellent
community arts program
40
30
Percent
20
30.51% 28.81%
10 18.64%
10.17% 11.86%
0
excellent very good good fair poor
community arts program
Norm for Community Arts program is “good”. 59.32% good to excellent
effective parenting program
25
20
Percent
15
24.19% 24.19%
10 19.35%
17.74%
14.52%
5
0
excellent very good good fair poor
effective parenting program
Norm for Effective Parenting is “good”. 58.06 % good to excellent
girlscout program
40
30
Percent
20
34.38%
31.25%
10
14.06% 12.50%
7.81%
0
excellent very good good fair poor
girlscout program
Norm for Girl Scout Program is “good” 56.25% indicate “good to excellent”.
national night out
40
30
Percent
20
30.77% 32.69%
10
13.46% 15.38%
7.69%
0
excellent very good good fair poor
national night out
Norm for National Night Out is “good” but most frequent response is “poor”. 51% good to
excellent
boyscout program
30
Percent
20
29.87%
27.27%
10 18.18%
11.69% 12.99%
0
excellent very good good fair poor
boyscout program
Norm for Boy Scout program is “good” most frequent response is “poor”, 47.14%
indicate good to excellent
fist of gold
40
30
Percent
20
35.29%
10 19.61% 19.61%
13.73% 11.76%
0
excellent very good good fair poor
fist of gold
Norm for Fist of Gold is “fair”; most frequent response is “poor’; 45.10% good to
excellent.
Sum of Scores for All Contracted Programs
Statistics
sum of restore, watch, scouts, teens, night, arts, festival, etc.
N Valid 31
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)
sum of restore, watch, scouts, teens, night, arts, festival,etc.
25
20
Percent
15
10
5
0
10.00 19.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 26.00 31.00 32.00 34.00 39.00 40.00 44.00 46.00 47.00 48.00 49.00 50.00
sum of restore, watch, scouts, teens, night, arts, festival,…
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 Sig. Influence Sig. Influence Significant Influence
Attribute
Age Range No No No No No No
Occupation No No NA NA NA NA
Student No No NA* NA* NA NA
Number of No No No No No No
Children under
18
Ethnicity NA NA NA NA NA NA
Gender .033 .401 No No No No
Viewed
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 No No No No No No
District
Length of Time No No No No No No
in
Neighborhood
* Number of reported students too small for analysis.
Girl Scouts Fist of Gold Community Arts
(recoded to 3 grps)
Respondent Sig. Influence Sig. Influence Significant Influence
Attribute
Age Range No No No No No NA
Occupation No No NA NA NA NA
Student No No NA* NA* NA NA
Number of No No No No NA NA
Children under
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 .047 .274 Least No No No NA
District favorable in
84 and 87
*Not Applicable, too few observations
Fall Festival Healthy Teens Parenting
Respondent Sig. Influence Sig. Influence Significant Influence
Attribute
Age Range No No No No No no
Occupation No No NA NA No No
Student NA NA NA* NA* NA NA
Number of NA NA No No No No
Children under
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 .009 Most No No No No
District supportive in
87
*Not Applicable, too few observations
National Night Out
Respondent Sig. Influence
Attribute
Age Range No No
Occupation NA NA
Student NA NA
Number of NA NA
Children under
18
Ethnicity NA NA
Gender No No
Own or Rent No No
Income No No
Time in area No No
Pomona Police No No
District
Weeding Activities:
Weeding Number % Yes % No
Heard of Weed and 374 8 (30 92
Seed persons)
Heard of Drug 19 63.2 36.8
Enforcement
Increased Arrests 20 55 45
Vigorous Policing 24 66.7 33.3
Community Policing 24 70.8 29.2
Prevention and 21 76.2 23.8
Treatment
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.
