Crime Prevention...Community Building

Southwest Communities for Drug Free Youth
Five Year Project Retrospective

Background

(The Project ended December 31, 2009).

In spring 2004, the Seattle Neighborhood Group applied on behalf of the Southwest Communities for Drug Free Youth (SWCDFY) for funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy for Drug Free Communities Program grant support. This application sought support of a coalition known locally for years as the White Center / South Delridge Community Safety Meeting and then from summer 2008 as the White Center / South Delridge Community Safety Coalition – although for the application’s purpose, the SWCDFY was the name of the “applicant coalition.”

The application targeted the Southwest Seattle Weed and Seed site, which includes part of Delridge in Seattle, and part of White Center in unincorporated King County. These communities not only made up an established Weed and Seed site, together they were also a focal point of the Drug Affected Neighborhoods project of the ONDCP’s 25 Cities Initiative. In brief, the SWCDFY targeted a community highly impacted by drug abuse, drug trafficking, and associated crime.

In its application for Drug Free Communities Support, the SWCDFY laid out several goals:

1. Reduce community laws and norms favorable to drug use by working with the community to set expectations and standards for non-drug use among youth living in the area.
2. Decrease the actual and perceived availability of drugs within the area.
3. Decrease low neighborhood attachment by promoting positive activities that engage youth, families, community members, businesses and law enforcement.
4. Provide opportunities and rewards for youth to engage in pro-social activities in the community, schools and family domain.
5. Expand, strengthen and maintain the Coalition so that it is empowered to take leadership and help make positive changes within the area.

 

In setting these goals, the SWCDFY built on the foundation laid in the Weed and Seed project, especially the work done in bringing together diverse community sectors – including residents, law enforcement, local government, community-based agencies, and businesses – to address crime and community deterioration.

The strategies outlined by the SWCDFY were highly consistent with the work done in the Weed and Seed project. They mirrored the Weed and Seed’s dual focus on “weeding” by engaging in efforts to suppress and reduce drug use, trafficking and crime in Goals 1 and 2, and “seeding” by supporting positive community services in Goals 3 and 4.

In 2005, the Drug Free Communities Program at the federal level moved from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).  SAMHSA is an agency with a public health perspective on substance abuse, and as a result of the move, the program implemented new requirements and funding mandates.  Ultimately, these had a significant effect on the SWCDFY’s activities locally.

The move also required retooling of the coalition’s workplan and objectives. While most activities remained initially unchanged, the objectives were redefined to align with SAMHSA’s two over-arching national goals:

1. Establish and strengthen collaboration among communities, private non-profit agencies, and federal, state, local and tribal governments to support the efforts of community coalitions to prevent and reduce substance abuse.
2. Reduce substance abuse among youth, and over time, among adults by addressing the factors in a community that increase the risk of substance abuse and promoting the factors that minimize the risk of substance abuse.

In response to these national goals, the SWCDFY identified a total of 13 objectives, which were more narrowly defined than the coalition’s initial 5 objectives, but which were in line with each of those initial five objectives. About a year later, working with SAMHSA’s national project staff, SWCDFY again redefined the objectives so that their language would more clearly fit SAMHSA’s language.

In this retrospective, the goals of the SWCDFY are reflected as the *original* goals. These provide a useful overview of the core purposes of the coalition, and express the consistent vision that shaped the coalition’s work throughout.

Accomplishments and Successes Achieved by the SWCDFY

The Coalition achieved a number of notable successes over its five year period of activity, including;

1. Building an engaged community coalition
2. Significant improvements in community safety and perception of safety
3. Development of collaborative working relationships between residents and local businesses to reduce alcohol and drug activity
4. Regulatory and local law changes

 

Building an engaged community coalition

The SWDFYC was successful in building an engaged community coalition by working to address the community’s immediate and pressing need for safety. At the inception of the SWDFYC, the Southwest community was marked by open-air drug dealing, high rates of violence, physical deterioration, and a street scene that discouraged legitimate foot traffic.

By adopting strategies to immediately address these concerns, and building the capacity of residents to participate in their resolution by linking them with law enforcement, code enforcement and other key resources, originally the Weed and Seed Project and ultimately the SWDFYC helped turn the tide in the Southwest Community.

Participation in the Coalition by long-time members is notable. At the same time that this is a success, it is also a challenge, as the Coalition has struggled to expand its outreach, engage a more diverse membership, and include youth.

The Coalition used several approaches to build an inclusive coalition.

1. By inviting business owners to the table for collaborative problem-solving, the Coalition increased its outreach to the SE Asian, East African and Latino communities.
2. By training youth in storefront community assessment, and involving them in Youth Summits to express their needs and observations, the Coalition is training the next generation of community activists.
3. The coalition provided input on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design strategies for the community  including participating in planning for the new HOPE VI housing community in White Center, and has tried to build relationships with members of this community.

 

Community safety and perception of safety

Building on the Weed and Seed framework, the SWCDFY coalition continued regular liaison with local law enforcement from both Seattle and unincorporated King County. As one report on the coalition noted, this has been a unique setting throughout, bringing together officers and residents across jurisdictional boundaries to address local impact of drug traffic and associated crime.

The Coalition adopted several strategies for improving community safety. One was simply training residents on how to observe and report crime and signs of crime, and encouraging regular monthly meetings in which “hot spots” were exhaustively reviewed. Residents became regular contributors to law enforcement efforts by being the “eyes and ears” of the community and persistently pushing for law enforcement attention to troubled areas.

Another was working with representatives of the both King County Code Enforcement  and the City of Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development to identify vacant buildings, properties with code violations, and properties tagged by gangs or housing drug activity. With this information these agencies were able to step up code enforcement activities to clean up these actual and potential trouble areas.

A third strategy that continued successfully throughout the DFC grant period was organizing annual community clean ups and other coalition-sponsored efforts to improve the physical environment of the community. These involved large numbers of volunteers in removing and improving blighted areas. Coalition members also worked collaboratively with King County Parks, the White Center Community Development Association, and the Starbucks company for funding and volunteers to rebuild a notoriously drug-riddled park in an “Ultimate Park Makeover” project. Applying Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, the
transformed White Center Height Park from an isolated and dangerous site to a positive resource for local schools, Southwest Boys and Girls’ Club and the community in general.
 
Collaborative working relationships between residents and local businesses

At its core, the Coalition’s work focused on improving the community environment with regards to substance abuse and violence. A number of strategies were adopted to reach this goal, including attempting to work with local businesses that sell liquor to reduce the impact of their legal activities on the local community and on illegal activities that often occurred adjacent to their locations.

One strategy the Coalition undertook was working with businesses to identify “good neighbor” business practices. During two of the Coalition’s five years, the state Liquor Control Board lacked an agent in the community. While complaint response and enforcement activities continued through the use of Liquor Control Board agents stationed in other communities, the lack of a locally based agent slowed progress on work with businesses to achieve reductions in perceived availability of alcohol and other drugs (which were more likely to be sold near businesses with alcohol licenses). Other strategies bridged that gap.

Because businesses selling liquor were also more likely to be associated with drug-dealing, the Coalition also undertook a strategy to monitor, and in some cases challenge, applications for new and renewal liquor licenses.  Through this process, in the City of Seattle, residents were able to draw up “Good Neighbor Agreements”, which included such agreements as early closing times, restricting single sales of alcohol and fortified spirits, removing pay phones near the store, and restricting outside advertising.  Because this tool was not available in the unincorporated County area, the Coalition eventually began policy advocacy work with the County to make it available, based on its success within the City of Seattle boundaries.

In its efforts to work with businesses, the Coalition also deployed youth, particularly in the first three years when funding for youth serving agency support was available. They conducted storefront assessments measuring the presence of alcohol advertising. The youth and Coalition then approached those store owners to urge reductions in visible advertising and increased vigilance against under-age sales.

Once the Liquor Control Board hired a local agent, attention turned to developing outreach to businesses and there was discussion of having business-to-business forums to increase awareness of regulations related to under-aged sales, and of good neighbor business practices… To date, this effort has encountered some roadblocks, but finding ways to increase use of good neighbor practices is a continuing priority for the Coalition.

Regulatory and Local Law Changes

The Coalition pursued several environmental strategies to reduce drug-related criminal activity. The grassroots reporting conducted by Coalition members about crime “hot spots”, code violations, and vacant buildings all contributed to the ability of law enforcement and regulatory agencies to bring their resources to bear in reducing drug-related crime.

In addition to these grassroots strategies, the Coalition actively engaged in policy advocacy with local jurisdictions, to increase the availability of regulatory, legal and law enforcement remedies to address criminal activity in the community.

On a policy level, the Coalition advocated in 2004 for creation of SOAP (Stay Out of Areas of Prostitution) and SODA (Stay Out of Drug Areas) designation to provide additional tools for law enforcement to use in the neighborhood. Those ordinances were set to expire at the end of 2006, but the Coalition successfully passed renewals through the King County Council.

Several night safety walks were held in 2007 and 2008, providing Coalition members the opportunity to observe conditions around nightclubs and what was perceived as “cruising” in the streets.  Results of these night walks were funneled into the Coalition’s advocacy for new public policy and enforcement of public policies.

Challenges Faced by the Coalition

Over its five year span, the SWCDFY faced a number of challenges, which it was able to address with varying degrees of success. Some of these challenges were local conditions. Others had to do with changes in national policy and practice in the Drug Free Communities Program.

Local challenges

Local challenges included factors related to the Coalition’s structure and oversight, as well as factors outside the Coalition’s scope of control.

Coalition structure and oversight

The SWCDFY was initially established as a program of the Southwest Weed and Seed site, and its governance was integrated with the Weed and Seed Project, as was its staffing, which was shared with Weed and Seed. While this provided continuity with existing coalition members, and ensured that Weed and Seed and SWCDFY activities were coordinated, ultimately it also introduced difficulties when the Drug Free Communities Support Program changed its requirements for coalitions and began to focus on a strategic prevention framework that is not used in Weed and Seed and was unfamiliar to coalition members.

Staffing challenges

Over the course of the Drug Free Communities Project, there were several changes in staffing for the project. Staffing for the project is provided by Seattle Neighborhood Group, the SWCDFY’s fiscal and programmatic agency. The Seattle Neighborhood Group also served as the fiscal and programmatic agent for the Southwest Weed and Seed Project. When a staffing vacancy occurred in the Weed and Seed Project, the DFC coordinator moved into that position. A second DFC coordinator was hired, but only after a vacancy of several months. Then the second coordinator left the agency within five months, and a third DFC coordinator was hired, who has remained with the project to date.

Key partner changes

Three changes in key partner agencies also affected the SWCDFY’s ability to complete its workplan.

1. In December 2006, the Coalition lost its closest law enforcement partner, King County Sheriff’s Deputy Steve Cox, who was killed in the line of duty. Deputy Cox both worked and lived in the community, and his loss left the community reeling with shock and loss for a time before they regrouped to carry on his work.
2. The Washington State Liquor Control Board had a two year vacancy in the agent assigned to the area served by the SWCDFY. While enforcement and complain response continued during this period, the lack of a an on-site, regular representative of the Liquor Control board significantly slowed the Coalition’s ability to work with local business owners and employees to reduce sales of alcohol and tobacco products to minors.
3. As a result of funding limitations in the later half of the Drug Free Communities project, the support that the Coalition could offer to youth-serving agencies was decreased by a federal limitation on use of DFC funding for “direct services”. In year five of the grant, funding for youth services was eliminated as a result of new Drug Free Communities grant parameters. This affected the ability of contracted agencies, facing other funding reductions locally, to continue to support key youth services that were identified as part of the Coalition’s priorities under Goals 3 and 4.

 

White Center / South Delridge Community’s Diversity and Mobility

The diversity of the White Center / South Delridge community is one of its significant strengths – it is a vibrantly diverse community that offers a rich cross-cultural experience for its residents. For agencies working in the area, that diversity is also a challenge, specifically with respect to language. Over half of residents speak English as a second language, many having immigrated to the United States within the past 10 years.  In addition, the community has a significant proportion of renters, which contributes to high rates of community mobility. Both of these factors are barriers in outreach – especially in providing materials that are language-appropriate, and in developing and retaining a strong resident leadership core for the Coalition. As a result, planning for sustainability of the Coalition is challenging in the face of losing strong staff coordination as the Drug Free Communities Support Program funds end.

National Policy and Practice Challenges

The transition of the Drug Free Communities Support Program from the Office of National Drug Control Policy to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration had significant impact on the SWCDFY Coalition and its activities. SWCDFY was not alone in feeling this impact. In fact, in a number of communities nationally, the policy changes announced by SAMHSA led to coalitions opting to non-renew their grants mid-stream in their five year projects.

The most immediate impact was imposition of a 20 percent limit on the amount of DFC funding that could be spent on direct services. SAMHSA defined “direct services” as programs that benefited individuals, rather than communities, and rapidly moved the DFC program nationally to a focus on environmental approaches that affected risk factors at the community level, rather than the individual level. This meant that funding for youth programs was significantly restricted within the SWCDFY budget. Partner agencies providing pro-social activities for youth were faced with significant funding reductions, and this affected availability of staff to work with youth. Because youth are more likely to engage and find their voices with guidance, support and youth-oriented activities, this reduced the coalition’s ability to engage youth voices in their planning. In year five of the DFC grant, this limitation became even stricter, and eliminated all direct-service funding for the Coalition. The effect of this change was seen most clearly in 2007, when a planned youth summit involving multiple agencies ultimately was conducted as a Youth Jam by only a single agency, in large part due to staffing limitations.

Within a year, SAMHSA adopted a significantly more directive approach with funded coalitions. The agency outlined the Strategic Prevention Framework, and required that coalitions work within a planning process based on the prevention framework, reporting activities related to assessment, capacity building, planning, implementation and evaluation. For the SWCDFY, these new requirements were not in line with the Coalition’s structure, history, nor the strategies it had used to be successful in the past as a Weed and Seed community. While the Coalition could report strong outcomes in capacity building and implementation, it struggled to integrate the kind of assessment and planning activities expected by SAMHSA.

Finally, in 2007, SAMHSA greatly tightened its requirements for evaluation. SWCDFY, like many community anti-drug coalitions in Washington State, had largely relied on the state’s Healthy Youth Survey for measurement of the “four core indicators” required by SAMHSA for all DFC grantees. These indicators include:

1. Past 30 day use of tobacco, alcohol and marijuana
2. Average age of onset for tobacco, alcohol and marijuana
3. The percentage of respondents who report that regular use of alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana has moderate risk or great risk
4. The percentage of respondents who report their parents feel regular use of alcohol is wrong or very wrong  and the percentage of respondents who report their parents feel ANY use of cigarettes or marijuana is wrong or very wrong

In 2006, the Healthy Youth Survey administered statewide included a measure for youth reporting that adults disapproval of tobacco, alcohol and marijuana. However, the measure of parental disapproval was not included. After initially apparently allowing an exemption for this one year, given that the state agreed to reinstate the questions in the 2008 survey, SAMHSA later clarified that coalitions were required to collect the data by the end of fiscal year 2007 and report it. This presented significant challenges to the SWCDFY in developing and quickly implementing an additional evaluation survey. At the same time, SAMHSA strongly advised putting in place additional evaluation strategies to supplement the HYS data, and this constitutes an ongoing requirement for any continued or new DFC funding.

Results Indicators

It is difficult to assess the specific contributions of individual funding initiatives and organizations to broad-scale changes in substance abuse on a community level. However, despite the challenges faced by the Coalition, and perhaps as a result of the coordinated strategies of the Coalition and the Weed and Seed initiative, by spring 2008, crime in the neighborhood was at a two year low, and King County Sheriff’s Office statistics showed a drop in drug overdose from 11 in 2004 to 1 in 2007 in the unincorporated County area of the community.

In addition, indicators of community safety in the Healthy Youth Survey were encouraging. Between 2006 and 2008, the percent of youth in 8th grade reporting that they “did not feel safe at school” dropped from 34 percent to 27.5 percent. For 10th graders, the percent of those not feeling safe dropped from 42 to 23.5 percent.

From 2004 to 2008, the percent of 8th graders reporting that they had carried a weapon to school in the previous 30 days dropped from 13.1 percent to 7.8 percent, and for 10th graders from 12.6 percent to 0 percent. Likewise gang affiliation dropped – from 16.5 percent to 7.4 percent for eighth graders and from 12.7 to 5.9 percent for 10th graders.

The Coalition also had some positive effects on perception of drug availability by youth in the targeted communities. In 2004, 26.4 percent of 10th graders identified that it would be “easy or very easy” to obtain drugs such as LSD, methamphetamines, etc… By 2008, that percentage dropped to 16.6. Over the same period, the percent of 10th graders who reported that it would be easy/very easy to access marijuana dropped from 56.1 percent to 41.6 percent. However among 8th and 12th graders, perception that drugs could be had easily actually increased during this period.

Looking Forward

In 2009, as the end of SAMHSA DFC funding approached, the SWCDFY considered whether to apply for a second round of five years of funding. Having considered the changes in the DFC program, and its requirement for progress in the Strategic Prevention Framework planning process, as well as the continuing requirements for participation in the program, the Seattle Neighborhood Group opted not to apply for these funds.

In order to prepare for a successful new DFC application, the Coalition would have to undertake several steps.

1. Develop an understanding of the Strategic Prevention Framework, and decide how that framework could be applied within the Coalition’s community and with Coalition members. While the Coalition has been successful in reducing indicators of violence and actual crime, its core focus has not really been on substance abuse prevention per se. This is borne out in Healthy Youth Survey data, which demonstrate overall limited effects on the four core measures used by SAMHSA in its Drug Free Communities Program.
2. Complete a baseline needs assessment that includes significant community input into issues, strengths and priorities. The current Coalition workplan, which continues to focus largely on community safety and crime prevention, is a strong starting point for a new workplan, but a broader prevention platform will be needed to be successful with DFC.
3. Expand the Coalition membership. The current coalition, built on the Weed and Seed stakeholder model, is heavy on law enforcement, social services, and residents. The DFC process requires a broader set of stakeholders, so ways to bring them to the table must be found.
4. Develop a proposal for sustainability in the long run that is achievable. As a second-round grantee, the sustainability plan will be closely scrutinized.
5. Develop a plan for resident control and oversight of the Coalition.
6. Expand the geographic area to be served by the DFC.

All of these are within reach of the Coalition, if the pay-off of DFC funding is a sufficient incentive. It is clear that the Coalition’s success to date has been due to its attention to local conditions and needs, and its focus on solving local community problems. If working within the DFC framework can be envisioned as continuing to meet those local needs, then a successful application that builds on the Coalition’s considerable experience with environmental approaches to change might be an asset to the community.