The following essay explores the decision to terminate a federally funded program, Drug Elimination Program (DEP), in public housing developments. This case study of one public house development incorporates qualitative and quantitative data derived from a program evaluation performed in year 2000. A feminist framework directs this research with findings suggesting that the DEP efforts had substantially decreased drug activity and crime in this research setting.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AddS.2001. “Antidrug Program is Facing a Relapse.”Atlanta Journal-Constitution.: B.1.
2.
AlkinM.2003. “Evaluation Theory and Practice: Insights and New Directions.”The Practice-Theory Relationship in Evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation97: 81–89. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
BeckerE.2001 (April 10). “Who Gets What Slice of the President's First Federal Budget Pie.”The New York Times: A-17.
5.
ChristieC.2003, Spring. “Editor's Notes” in The Practice-Theory Relationship in Evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation97(Spring): 1–5.
6.
ChristieC.2003, Spring. “What Guides Evaluation: A Study of How Evaluation Practice Maps Onto Evaluation Theory” in The Practice-Theory Relationship in Evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation97(Spring): 7–15.
7.
Coalition on Human Needs.2003. “Public Housing Drug Elimination Grant Program (PHDEP).” Adapted from the Campaign for Housing and Community Funding Briefing Book, Washington.
8.
CoileZ. (2001, Apr. 10). “Public Housing Repair Could Be Cut/S.F., Oakland May Lose Funds to Repair Units Under Bush Plan.”San Francisco Chronicle. pg. A. 13.
9.
Crime in the United States-1999. (Nov. 22, 2000). Uniform Crime Reports, Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
10.
Crime in the United States-1997. 1998. Uniform Crime Reports, Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
11.
DunworthT.SaigerA.. 1994. Drugs and Crime in Public Housing: A Three-City Analysis. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
12.
Federal Register.1999. Part V, 24 CFR Part 761, Public Housing Drug Elimination Program Formula Allocation; Final Rule. Washington D.C.: Department of Housing and Urban Development.
13.
FettermanD.2003. “Fetterman-House: A Process Use Distinction and a Theory” in The Practice-Theory Relationship inEvaluation, New Directions for Evaluation97(Spring): 47–52.
14.
FullanM.2001. The New Meaning of Educational Change, 3rd ed., New York: Teachers College Press.
15.
FuerstJ.2003) When Public Housing Was Paradise Building Community in Chicago. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
16.
GrunnelM.SaharsoS.. 1999. “Start of the Art: Bell hooks and Nira Yuval-Davis on Race, Ethnicity, Class, and Gender.”The European Journal of Women's Studies6, 2–2: 203–18.
17.
HammettT.FeinsJ.MasonT.EllenI.. 1994. Public Housing Drug Elimination Program Evaluation. Vol. 1, Findings. Washington D.C.: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
18.
HoodD.CassaroD.. 2002. “Feminist Evaluations and the Inclusion of Difference.” In Feminist Evaluation Exploration and Experiences, New Directions for Evaluation96: 27–40, No. 96, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
McGreevyP.BecerraH.. 2002 (Feb. 3). “Agency takes a bite out of housing police.”Los Angeles Times: B. 1.
20.
PillowW.2002. “Gender matters: Feminist Research in Educational Evaluation.” In Feminist Evaluation Exploration and Experiences, New Directions For Evaluation, pgs. 9–26, No. 96 (Winter): 9–26.
21.
PopkinS.GwiasdaV.OlsonL.RosenbaumD.BuronL.. 2000. The Hidden War: Crime and the Tragedy of Public Housing in Chicago. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
22.
PopkinS.GwiasdaV.RosenbaumD.AmendoliaJ.JohnsonW.OlsonL.. 1999). “Combating Crime in Public Housing: A Qualitative and Quantitative Longitudinal Analysis of the Chicago Housing Authority's Anti-Drug Initiative.”Justice Quarterly16, 3: 519–57.
23.
PopkinS.OlsonL.LurigioA.GwiasdaV.CarterR.. 1995. “Sweeping Out Drugs and Crime: Residents' Views of the Chicago Housing Authority's Public Housing Drug Elimination Program.”Crime and Delinquency41, 1: 73–99.
24.
RouseV.RubensteinH.. 1978. Crime in Public Housing: A Review of Major Issues and Selected Crime Reduction Strategies. Washington D.C.: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
25.
Sielbeck-BrownK.BrisolaraS.SeigartD.TischlerC.WhitmoreE.. 2002. “Exploring Feminist Evaluation: The Group From Which We Rise.” in Feminist Evaluation Exploration and Experiences, New Directions for Evaluation96(Winter): 3–8.
26.
StrausbergC.2001. (Mar. 12). “Bush Ripped for Seeking End to Public Housing Programs.”Chicago DefenderXCV, 216: 5.
27.
United States Census Bureau.2001. County and City Data Book: 2000 A Statistical Abstract Supplement. 13th ed.Washington, D.C.United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (April 9, 2001). Executive summary for FY2002. Washington, D.C.: Press Release.
28.
ValeL.2000. From the Puritans to the Projects: Public Housing and Public Neighbors. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
VenkateshS.2000. American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
WalkerA.2001. (March 26). “Eviction Not a Solution.”Boston Globe: B.1.
31.
WebsdaleN.2001. Policing the Poor from Slave Plantation to Public Housing. Boston, MA: Northeastern Press.
32.
WholeyJ.HatryH.NewcomerK.. 1994. “Meeting the Need for Practical Evaluation Approaches: An Introduction.” In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
