Pennsylvania Weed and Seed (PAWS): Evaluating the Lancaster (LWS) and York (YWS) Initiatives

• NCJ Number: 221270
• Author(s): Neil Alan Weiner, Ph.D.; Hyekyung Choo, M.S.W.; Kimberly Flemke, Ph.D.; Zvi Eisikovits, Ph.D.; Zeev Winstok, Ph.D.; Arik Rimmerman Ph.D.
• Date Published: December 2003
• Length: 264 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
• Corporate Author: University of Pennsylvania
• Sale Source: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Report (Summary); Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This is the full report of evaluations of the Lancaster (LWS) and York (YWS) Pennsylvania Weed and Seed (PAWS) initiatives, which focused on reducing targeted crimes, especially drug-trafficking and violent crimes in selected and narrowly drawn "target areas."

Abstract

The PAWS has performed well overall in the two sites evaluated, especially in identifying potential sites for targeting, delivering the PAWS vision, and in working collaboratively. It has performed well in finding worthy partners for interventions, and it has shown commitment and intensity in efforts to identify how best to serve its constituents, mainly through its training and technical assistance. The evaluation of the two sites has shown, however, that each PAWS activity could and should be improved. The full set of PAWS activities could benefit from improved integration with one another so as to strengthen support for a limited set of critical goals/objectives. The evaluation addressed four issues. First, it identified which prevention, intervention, and treatment programs were delivered by participating PAWS partners. Second, it sought evidence that PAWS reduced violent, crimes, drug crimes, and quality-of-life crimes, while increasing community trust in the police. Third, it determined whether community-policing activities served as a bridge between the law-enforcement and neighborhood restoration of PAWS. Fourth, it determined what neighborhood restoration occurred within the PAWS communities. The first three issues became the evaluation's emphases because of limitations in the availability of data that could link PAWS activities to specific neighborhood restoration projects. The evaluation obtained data and information from briefing notes prepared by the Executive Director of PAWS, focus groups, key informant interviews, and a household survey in PAWS and matched non-PAWS areas of the two sites, in order to determine respondents' perceptions of various PAWS-related neighborhood goals/objectives.