Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08/02/2011 08 Gang Free Initiative 2011 Community Profile
0 BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For meeting of: August 2, 2011 ITEM TITLE: Gang Free Initiative 2011 Community Profile SUBMITTED BY: Michael A. Morales, Interim City Manager Steve Magallan, Magallan Consultancy CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Michael Morales, Interim City Manager (575 -6040) SUMMARY EXPLANATION: After months of planning, research, and data analysis, the City of Yakima's Gang Free Initiative ( "GFI ") recently released its "Community Profile ". The profile includes an analysis of indicators that lead youth to become involved in gang activity in Yakima, strategies that can be implemented to counteract behaviors that lead to gang activity, and recommendations regarding the best approach to implement such strategies. The profile was developed by the GFI Steering Committee, a group of 25 community members representing a diversity of local interests including government, non - profit organizations, faith - based institutions, private business, etc. The GFI was established by the City Council in early 2010 to develop strategies to build cooperation and coordination among various organizations to provide and enhance prevention, intervention, and suppression efforts related to combating gang violence and gang crime in Yakima. Ordinance . Resolution Contract . Other Report Funding Source APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: � City Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report. BOARD /COMMISSION /COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: • The City of Yakima Gang Free Initiative: Community Profile J 1# i 417 T � Y t ait 3 Aillk 5 . ! left/6k 4 0. IP h I 1 " • ) h ‘ 1 I L 4 71 1 I I I II 11 i to. T 0 A L • G �.- ' ' "F oIry L ti _ July 27 2011 0 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile A comparative analysis of the social, economic and environmental influences supporting the existence of youth gangs and associated problem behaviors. Produced and Funded by The City of Yakima and Yakima City Council Under the supervision of The City of Yakima Gang Free Initiative Steering Committee Chairman Maureen Adkison, Council Member Co -Chair Kathy Coffey, Council Member Co -Chair Dave Ettl, Council Member • Michael Morales, Interim City Manager LT. Mike Merryman, Project Director With research and development support provided by MagaIlan Consultancy • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 2 This document and the efforts described herein were funded through a Special Ordinance from the Yakima City Council through the General Contingency Fund. • For additional copies of this document, contact: CaIly Price, Executive Assistant Yakima City Manager's Office 129 North 2 " Street Yakima, WA 98901 Phone: 509 -575 -6040 Fax: 509 - 576 -6335 cprice @ci.yakima.wa.us GFI Steering Committee Maureen Adkison Luz Gutierrez Uriel Arias James Hagarty Owens Barrios Pastor Rick Harpel III Dr. Elaine Beraza Esther Huey Darrell Blue Nick Hughes Greg Bohn Jerry Lopez Virginia Brown Jack Maris Kathy Coffey Nick Marquez Greg Copeland Cynthia Martinez Chris Devilleneuve Porfirio Navarro Pastor Jim Engle Pastor Dan Roa Dave Ettl Sonia Rodriguez True Carole Folsom -Hill Eva Valdivia Pastor Elias Garcia Ken Trull Pat Garcia Dick Zais STATEMENT OF REPRODUCIBILITY With reference to the publisher, The City of Yakima, permission is granted, free of charge, to photocopy pages of this document that are not copyrighted. Permission to reproduce from government sources is traditionally freely granted by the U.S. Government. If the analysis included in this report is quoted, the source should be credited. III 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 3 .4 , 1'�'' , f OFFICE OF THE MAYOR f ` 129 North Second Street V 0 I i II City Hall, Yakima, Washington 98901 Phone (509) 575 -6050 • Fax (509) 576 -6335 4+'fI.11 F11 Dear Community Stakeholder: The Yakima City Council is pleased to present the 2011 City of Yakima Gang Free Initiative Community Profile. The report is the product of the hard work and dedication of several community partners. We appreciate all of the people and organizations that assisted in the production of this research. The City of Yakima is experiencing increases in juvenile crime, violence, delinquency and academic failure largely due to the resurgence of street gangs. The influence of any one gang has regional implications due to mobility and the availability of social networking technology. As a result, these gangs and their behaviors plague cities, neighborhoods, and streets throughout the Yakima Valley. In response to concerns about the growing presence of gangs and gang crime in our community, the Yakima City Council authorized the development and implementation of a "City of Yakima Gang Free Initiative" (GFI). The GFI is ill based on the core strategies of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP) Comprehensive Gang Model. This model and other Best Practices are being used by communities across the country to effectively address gang crime and violence. The Yakima City Council is committed to the development and implementation of a citywide comprehensive anti -gang strategy. With the assistance of the GFI Steering Committee, and with facilitation and technical assistance from Steve Magallan, the City has developed and identified service programs that will address the most pressing needs and problems. The information contained herein provides measurable data that can be used to focus our efforts in the most productive ways and to maximize our existing resources. Moreover, this report represents our continuing commitment to increasing and intensifying prevention efforts in the City of Yakima. Sincerely, 1 CL Micah Cawley Mayor • Yakimr lw IF1�rkac I► rIII • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile A comparative analysis of the social, economic and environmental influences supporting the existence of youth gangs and associated problem behaviors. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 7 Methods & Rationale 8 Strategic Planning Matrix 10 The City of Yakima 12 Chronology of Efforts 13 The Gang Free Initiative 14 Demographics 17 Crime & Justice Indicators 19 The Gang Presence 26 OJJDP Student Survey 27 School Indicators 31 Health & Wellness Indicators 33 Executive Summary 34 Problem Statements 34 Goals & Objectives 36 Conclusions 39 Comprehensive Anti -Gang Strategy (Action Planning) 42 Appendix A: GFI Data Workbook 43 • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 5 • City of Yakima Gang Free Initiative Vision Statement: The vision of the GFI is to create a safe, peaceful, gang -free community resulting in a high quality of life for our families. Mission Statement: The City of Yakima Gang Free Initiative will engage the community to develop suppression, prevention and intervention strategies that support and promote positive youth development. i • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 6 • Introduction The City of Yakima is committed to engaging partner organizations and providing the necessary resources to support a comprehensive anti -gang strategy. The Gang Free Initiative, commissioned by the Yakima City Council, is pleased to provide this tool in the fight against youth gangs and associated problem behaviors. The information contained herein will assist our community partners to advance coordination of services, encourage the application of proven strategies, and improve opportunities for funding. We endeavor to expand and enhance the programs and activities that suppress, intervene and prevent youth gang activities while promoting the vigorous development of our youth. The 2011 Community Profile is produced for the benefit of key community stakeholders, policymakers and service providers. This profile presents data and analysis to support the development of a citywide anti -gang approach to reducing juvenile crime and violence in Yakima. • • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 7 Methods & Rationale • The city of Yakima has witnessed a sharp increase in juvenile crime, violence, delinquency and academic failure largely due to the resurgence of street gangs. The influence of any one gang has regional implications due to mobility and exploitation of social networking technology unavailable in the 80s and 90s. Youth gangs and their behaviors have plagued our cities, neighborhoods and streets — particularly hardest hitting the Hispanic /Latino community. In response to concerns about the chronic presence of gangs and gang crime in our community, in November 2009, the Yakima City Council, led in part by then Council Member Sonia Rodriguez directed City Staff to develop a framework for the implementation of a "City of Yakima Gang Free Initiative," (GFI). The proposed City of Yakima GFI is based on the five core strategies of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP) Comprehensive Gang Model. This model and other Best Practices are being used by communities across the country to effectively address gang crime and violence. The City Council has taken the lead in bringing about the development of a citywide comprehensive anti -gang strategy. The Council, through the institution of the GFI Steering Committee, has adapted the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model to develop service programs that will address the most pressing needs and problems. The program design and implementation schedule represents an organized and logical sequence of activities within the context of the Model divided into six phases. Each phase was implemented by the GFI Steering Committee with facilitation and technical support provided by Steve Magallan of Magallan Consultancy. Phase 1: Readiness (1 to 3 months): Readiness refers to the stage at which a community has the • willingness to engage in a particular initiative, understanding of the effort necessary to achieve success, and has dedicated the core resources to set the initiative in motion. Phase 2: Capacity (3 to 6 months): Community capacity is the collective ability of residents to respond to stresses, create and take advantage of opportunities, and meet the needs of the community by drawing on as much local capital as possible. Phase 3: Assessment (6 to 9 months): A comprehensive community assessment examines the strengths and challenges of a community. The assessment process also serves to identify and frame a problem around the root causes also known as risk factors. Additionally, the assessment process reveals limitations in our current approach by aligning existing resources with needs. Phase 4: Planning (3 to 6 months): The planning process establishes the overall direction we wish our initiative to take over the longer term with careful consideration of the activities and resources required to achieve your goals. Phase 5: Implementation (TBD): Implementation refers to the execution strategy of the activities outlined in the Comprehensive Anti -Gang Strategy. Phase 6: Evaluation (ongoing): Evaluation is the systematic acquisition and assessment of information to provide useful feedback about our initiative. Targeting the greater city of Yakima with special emphasis on "hubs" of gang activity in three neighborhoods, the GFI has set out to implement comprehensive anti -gang strategies and efficiently coordinate the resources and activities that support them, thereby reducing gang 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 8 • activity in targeted neighborhoods. Under the goals of 1) Establish the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model as the operating system and 2) Reduce youth crime, violence, delinquency and academic failure through the prevention, intervention and suppression of youth gangs the GFI Steering Committee has completed this community profile to guide development of our core strategies: Community Mobilization, Opportunities Provision, Social Interventions, Suppression and Organizational Change and Development. 1 III • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 9 MagaIlan Consultancy Yakima Gang Free Initiative Strategic Planning Matrix Readiness • Review and analyze OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model accomplishments to date. • Educate and inform the Organizational community. Community Opportunities • Develop operational Mobilization Social Interventions Provision Suppression Change & framework. Development • Identify root causes (risk • Conduct comprehensive • Conduct comprehensive • Conduct comprehensive • Hire and train Program factors). inventory of existing inventory of existing inventory of existing Director /Coordinator. • Solicit community input community resources. community resources. community resources. • Create epidemiologic through neighborhood • Align current efforts with • Align current efforts with • Align current efforts with profile of the community N specific town hall identifiable needs. identifiable needs. identifiable needs. to better understand the E meeting series. • Analyze resources for • Analyze resources for • Analyze resources for source and cause of the L N • Launch public appropriateness, cultural appropriateness, cultural appropriateness, cultural youth gang problem. N awareness campaign. competency, and competency, and competency, and • Align current efforts with CI) Q sustainability. sustainability. sustainability identifiable needs. E • Conduct comprehensive E review of policies, LL procedures & c O ordinances. Vz • Acknowledgement of the • Secure commitments of • Secure commitments of • Secure commitments of • Adopt a timeline for O youth gang problem. capital to support Social capital to support capital to support completion of remaining > • Identify and mobilize key Intervention Activities: Opportunities Provision Suppression Activities: tasks and delivery of i O. stakeholders under a 1. Human Capital Activities: 1. Human Capital products. v shared vision. 2. Social and Cultural 1. Human Capital 2. Social and Cultural • Establish strategic '- • Empower steering Capital 2. Social and Cultural Capital planning workgroups O committee with clear 3. Physical Capital Capital 3. Physical Capital and meeting schedule. as mission and directives. 4. Financial Capital 3. Physical Capital 4. Financial Capital • Initiate search for N w • Secure commitments of 4. Financial Capita Program N c.) capital to support Director /Coordinator. Q a strategic planning. U) 1 U 1. Human Capital 2. Social and Cultural Capital N 3. Physical Capital 4. Financial Capital • Initiate training series in comprehensive strategic planning, community mobilization and assessment. 2 City of Yakima Community Profile Pa 0 III • • 0 MagaIlan Consultancy • Draft preliminary • Determine objectives • Determine objectives • Determine objectives • Determine objectives Comprehensive Plan for Social Intervention. for Opportunities for Suppression. for Organizational and solicit input through • Identify and /or tailor Provision. • Identify and /or tailor Change and m town hall meetings. activities to each • Identify and /or tailor activities to each Development. S • Finalize objective and assess activities to each objective and assess • Incorporate The Plan c Comprehensive cultural competency. objective and assess cultural competency. into the public co Strategy for a Gang- • Outline implementation cultural competency. • Outline implementation awareness campaign. 0. Free Yakima (The activities and determine • Outline implementation activities and determine • Adopt a timeline for Plan). measurable outcomes activities and determine measurable outcomes implementation. for each strategy. measurable outcomes for each strategy. for each strategy. • Update public • Identify and prioritize • Identify and prioritize • Identify and prioritize • Identify and prioritize awareness campaign required resources for required resources for required resources for required resources for to educate and inform implementation. implementation. implementation. implementation. c the community on • Create short- and long- • Create short- and long- • Create short- and long- • Create short- and long- o implementation term sustainability term sustainability term sustainability term sustainability ca activities. strategies. strategies. strategies. strategies. a) • Secure commitments • a) Secure commitments • Secure commitments • Secure commitments E for resources to for resources to for resources to for resources to a) support support support support a implementation. implementation. implementation. implementation. � • Execute required • Execute required • Execute required • Execute required service contracts, service contracts, service contracts, service contracts, agreements, and /or agreements, and /or agreements, and /or agreements, and /or MOUs. MOUs. MOUs. MOUs. • Establish process • Establish process • Establish process • Establish process • Establish process evaluation protocols. evaluation protocols. evaluation protocols. evaluation protocols. evaluation protocols. c • Establish outcome • Establish outcome • Establish outcome • o Establish outcome • Establish outcome '� evaluation protocols. evaluation protocols. evaluation protocols. evaluation protocols. evaluation protocols. = • Establish impact • Establish impact • Establish impact • Establish impact • Establish impact O evaluation protocols. evaluation protocols. evaluation protocols. evaluation protocols. evaluation protocols. W • Incorporate findings • Incorporate findings • Incorporate findings • Incorporate findings • Incorporate findings into public awareness into public awareness into public awareness into public awareness into public awareness campaign. campaign. campaign. campaign. campaign. 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 11 The City of Yakima • May 31, 2010 was the end of an abnormal holiday weekend in Yakima. By most accounts the weekend will be remembered for its depressing rains, below average temperatures and for being very much out of character for the mostly sunny and largely rural region in Washington State —best known for its apples and award winning wines. However, for one family Memorial Day will live forever in their memories as the day their son was brazenly gunned down in their own front yard. Daniel, at just 18 years of age, was shot 10 times in broad daylight by multiple members of a rival gang while children played just steps from where he fell. Shots rang out again just a few hours later and a few miles away from Daniel that left a 20 year old man fighting for his life in an entirely unrelated act of violence. Shocking indeed, these events are indicative of the staggering rise in violent crimes and in a ruthless nature lurking in and around the city of Yakima. The summer months have traditionally been known for higher violent crime rates as days are longer and the pleasant temperatures keep people outside later. However, Yakima had already taken on the gang problem with much success. Like most communities around the country, the 1980's and '90s were characterized by high juvenile crime and violence largely attributed to gangs. And, like most communities, the City saw dramatic decreases in juvenile crime as a result of increased youth programming and beefed up suppression efforts. Juvenile crime, in fact, continues to fall in and around Yakima yet gang - related indicators such as violent crimes, weapons and drug related offenses are rising at staggering rates. • • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 12 • ! • Yakima: A History of Action School Resource Officers School Security /ID Gangs • Yakima Police Activities League Neighborhood Resource Officers YPD Gang Enforcement Unit DARE (2) Fatherhood Initiative • Child Abuse Council Neighborhood Watch Groups • Citizens for Safe Streets Community Mental Health Methadone Clinic National Night Out 100 Jobs for 100 Kids Block Watch Gang Intervention Project Rods House Excel High School Epic Place Street Gangs efined HOLE National Guard Casa Hogar S stems f Care DARE Neighbor sod Resource Of icers Safe treets GREAT BIRP Triumph Treatment Center ang Fr Initiative Drug Awareness Campaign Yakima County Subs ante Ab se Co liti Emph sis Patrols YPD Explorers Guardian Ange Count Gang ommission Southeast Community Canter MAS OICE Y uth Center CASA Esp anza Build the Bridges J nior hievement 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Juvenile Crime Act (1968) Spergel Gang Intervention & Suppression Rural Gang Initiative Comprehensive Strategy Community Approach to Gangs Juvenile Crime Act Revised Gang Free Communities & Schools Gang Reduction Program CORRESPONDING FEDERAL INITIATIVES 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 13 The Gang Free Initiative • The City of Yakima has been engaged in gang intervention and prevention efforts for several years. Those efforts have been implemented directly through the Yakima Police Department, or through partnerships with agencies such as the Yakima School District (school resource officers), OIC through the gang prevention /intervention efforts at the Southeast Community Center, and several other programs. These programs have been successful in reaching thousands of Yakima youth and providing them with education and experiences designed to keep them on a productive life path. Additionally, suppression efforts by the Yakima Police Department have been stepped up and modified by the department over the past five years. As a result of these enhancements to the City's suppression efforts, many successful prosecutions for crimes related to gang activity have occurred, and more importantly, the statistics demonstrate a continuing decline of crime per capita in most areas. Given our community experience with gangs and gang related crime, we have reached the following driving assertions: • The gang problem is not one which we can arrest our way out of and sustain success. • Success in addressing the gang problem will require the engagement of community members, social service providers and the faith based community. • Additional resources and greater coordination is required in the areas of suppression, prevention and intervention. • Greater coordination among the City's efforts, and those of other agencies engaged in • suppression, prevention and intervention is required. Past and present suppression, prevention and intervention efforts directed at gang crime and violence have been substantial, but unbalanced and uncoordinated. The community's willingness and ability to adequately fund efforts intended to eliminate and /or reduce gang activity in Yakima has presented a constant challenge. That challenge has largely been how to effectively deploy personnel and resources in a manner that achieves the desired outcome(s) expected by the community we serve. Figure 1 outlines the basic organizational structure under which the GFI Steering Committee will operate. This Steering Committee, comprised of approximately 27 local stakeholders, will work closely with the GFI Consultant. The Steering Committee will focus their efforts on furthering the GFI objectives via various tasks as they relate to the reduction of gang related crimes and activity within the City. The City Council will serve as the GFI Executive Committee. The GFI Steering Committee will report to the Council on the progress of the GFI efforts on a regular basis. The Steering Committee will set policy and oversee the functions of the Suppression, Prevention and Intervention Committees. The three committees will be convened by a City Council representative. In January, 2010, the Council considered options including, but not limited to, the development of a new GFI project. Discussions revolved around how to staff, manage, direct, or otherwise facilitate the development of a strategy or strategies to address gang issues. In considering available resources and staff capabilities, the City Manager and Police Chief determined that Lieutenant Mike Merryman be designated as the principal staff person dedicated to the GFI effort. This was formally announced to the City Council during the March 2 GFI briefing. III 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 14 • Figure 1: GFI Organizational Chart g g GFI EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE City Council Fiscal Agent — City of Yakima GFI DIRECTOR Mike Merryman Administrative Support CaIly Price } GFI CONSULTANT Steve Magallan I STEERING COMMITTEE (27) (Chair - Kathy Coffey) Kathy Coffey Carol Folsom -Hill Sonia Rodriguez Maureen Adkison Ester Huey Deanna Hernandez Dave Ettl Luz Gutierrez Greg Bohn Dick Zais Nick Marquez Eva Valdivia Greg Copeland Uriei Arias Pastor Daniel Roa James Hagarty Gustavo Camacho Pastor Elias Garcia Cynthia Martinez Chris DeVillanueve Don Jones Elaine Beraza Nick Hughes Darrell Blue Ken Trull Pat Garcia Pastor Jim Engel • /' Suppression \ / Prevention / Intervention Committee Committee Committee Dave Ettl Kathy Coffey Maureen Adkison Nick Hughes (Chair) Luz Gutierrez (Co- Chair) Sonia Rodriguez (Co Chair) Greg Copeland Eva Valdivia (Co- Chair) Nick Marquez (Co- Chair) Cynthia Martinez Jim Hagarty Elaine Beraza Elias Garcia Chris DeVillanueve Carole Folsom -Hill Greg Bohn / / \ / Community Assessment Workgroup Michael Morales Nick Marquez Chris DeVillanueve Pat Garcia Cesar Abreau Understanding the need for specialized expertise and additional capacity to sustain the GFI effort, City Council approved the hiring of a GFI "Consultant" to assist with the development and implementation of the GFI strategies, including the critical element of community engagement. The GFI Consultant will be funded out of the General Contingency Fund through a Professional Services Contract through September 30, 2011. Funding of this resource beyond 2011, including the possibility of outside resources, will be examined as part of the annual budget development process. As part of early GFI efforts in public engagement, the City of Yakima Gang Awareness Campaign was launched on April 10, 2010 with the showing of a one -hour TV special called, "Gangs — Taking Back II/ our Community" on local stations KYVE, KAPP, KNDO, KIMA, and KCYU. A few days later, a related 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 15 public service ad campaign was launched utilizing television, radio and print media. Through both the TV special and the ads that are running now, community members have been encouraged to call local organizations like Yakima County 211 and ESD 105 for help and resources dealing with gang issues. The idea for the Yakima Gang Awareness Campaign was developed last year as part of an effort by Council Member Coffey to bring together representatives from local government, non - profit agencies, schools, media, law enforcement, and other organizations to discuss how best to inform the community about the negative impacts of gangs in Yakima. Through a series of meetings, the concept of a broad, sustained media campaign emerged as an achievable first step. The effort to address gang crime and violence in the City of Yakima and make our community safer must be multi- faceted involving members of the community and representatives of our social network, and will require a clear long -term vision and commitment on what needs to be done to make that happen. The role of those involved in this effort must primarily be that of "Vision Casters" and policy setters. The proposed GFI framework outlines the structure in which a Steering Committee will work to carry out the direction of the Council, to "Reduce gang related crimes and activity within the City of Yakima." The Data Workbook (Appendix A) includes more detailed information on indicators used in the planning process and was used to augment the information summarized below. III III 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 16 Demographics The 2010 Census reported the City of Yakima at 91,067 residents —a 27% increase from 2000. The racial makeup of the city is at 59% White, 3% African American, 3% Native American, and 1% Asian /Pacific Islander. Hispanic or Latino of any race is represented within 41.3% of the total population. The age distribution includes 28% below the age of 18 and 72% at 18 years of age or over. The American Community Survey estimates 34% percent of Yakima households have children under the age of 18 living with them, 44% were married couples living together, 14% had a female householder with no husband present, and 37% were non - families. About 21% of the population and 15.7% of families are living below the poverty line, including 32% of those under age 18 and 12% of those ages 65 or over. Figure 2: Population by Race —City of Yakima. City of Yakima Population by Race, 2010 • Hispanic, 37587, 36% ' Pac. Islander, 6 *. , 83, 0% _ Asian, 1347, 1% American Indian, 1838, 2% Black, 1556, 2% Source: US Census, 2010. Figure 3: Population by Race – Target Neighborhoods American Indian, Target Neighborhoods 922, 2% Population by Race, 2010 Black, 887, 2% Asian, 252, 0% White, 16790, 35% Hispanic, 29260, 61% • Source: US Census, 2010. 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 17 One of the primary indicators provided through the SMART system is the Communities Disadvantage • Index or CDI. "Community disadvantage" is an index commonly used to summarize the general socioeconomic conditions of an area. The CDI available here combines three weighted census tract measures: the percent of persons living below the federal poverty line, the percent of persons receiving public assistance, and the percent of families with minor children that are female- headed. CDI scores range from 0 to 10, where 10 indicate that the tracts are the most disadvantaged in the country and 0 indicates the least disadvantaged. Table 1 provides the most recent CDI score for the City of Yakima and the targeted neighborhoods. Table 1: Target Community CDI, 2000. Community Disadvantage Index Yakima Aggregate 7 Yakima Target Neighborhoods 10 Source: Socioeconomic Mapping and Resource Topography System. 2010 Census population density and housing figures have also been released. Within the city of Yakima population density is decreasing 6.14% to 3,351 per square mile. Total housing units have increased 22% to 34,829 —a net increase of 6,186 new homes over the past 10 years. The number of vacant homes has decreased to 1,755 representing a 5% vacancy rate. III III 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 18 • Crime & Justice The Socioeconomic Mapping and Resource Topography System (SMART) system generated a series of juvenile crime indicator trends for Yakima County. Figure 4: Yakima County Juvenile Arrest Rate 16,{kOD 14,E 12,41 10,000 4. 0 ". „ate Source: US Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report. • The series clearly demonstrates that while juvenile crime as a whole continues to decline (Figure 4) a resurgence of gang - related criminal activity began as early as 2004 (Figure 5). The cogent trends became most noticeable in 2007 with dramatic spikes in drug abuse, aggravated assault and murder. Figure 5: Yakima County Juvenile Violent Crime Index GOO 44D 2d9i7 Source: US Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report. The annual statistics for all Part I (Serious Violent) crimes have been extracted, collated and analyzed using various methodologies and strategies. The following is a summary of crime statistics for the city of Yakima Police Department pertaining to incidents reported between January 1 and • December 31 for years 2006 through 2010. The number of violations recorded in 2010 may change due to reclassification, unfounded incidents, and data entry as the Records Management System 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 19 (RMS) is constantly updated and there is an active and current backlog of data entry. The data being • examined was collected from different sources to include the current RMS; the Monthly Report prepared for the Chief of Police; Crime View version 9.3; DEC and Automated Tactical Analysis of Crime (ATAC). Figure 6: Part 1 Offenses Part 1 Offenses Comparison & Percent Change 1 5000 — — 80.0% 1 4000 — — 60.0% 43% — 40.0% 3000 — 2000 — 13% 3% 7% — 20.0% -14% 4%_ 0.0% 1000 — — -20.0% 0 -40.0% Criminal Forcible Robbery Assaults Burglary Larceny Vehicle Arson Homicide Rape Theft Theft 2008 IN= 2009 'r—% Change Source: Yakima Police Department. III It is no surprise to know that the trend we are seeing is percolating into a core of violent crimes stimulated by the proliferation of gangs, gang members, drug markets, burglaries, car prowls, vandalism as well as the chaotic situation involving weapon violations. This analysis, as well as the charts and graphs below, present a side by side comparison of the violent crimes year to date. The data in Table 2 and 3 reflect a marked increase in violent crimes involving gang and related activities. Table 2: City of Yakima Violent Crimes Yakima 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ALLASSLTS 1615 1550 1481 1523 ROBBERY 160 137 134 136 RAPE 59 62 47 67 MURDER 4 7 8 9 14 TOTAL 1838 1756 1670 1735 Source: Yakima Police Department. Table 3: City of Yakima Weapons Violations Yakima 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 All Calls 2142 2052 2376 1794 833 Drive By -- -- 15 46 52 Possession -- -- 24 20 13 Assault -- -- 105 103 105 III 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 20 • Shots Fired -- -- 1059 1411 1538 Source: Yakima Police Department Figures 7 and 10 illustrate the rising trend in murder rates. It is clear that the bulk of murders and other violent crimes are perpetrated within the Yakima city limits. Figure 7: Yakima County Murder Rates Yakima County Murder Rates by City 25 20 15 • Sunnyside ■ Yakima City 10 Toppenish 5 ■Yakima County 0 JIJ JI I 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 • Source: US Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report. Implementation of various emphasis patrols were the contributing factors for the decline in gang related crimes observed in 2009 and 2010. Figure 9 below indicates the comparative changes by month during calendar years 2009 through 2010. Figure 8: Gang Related Cases by Month. Gang Related Cases by Month City of Yakima 200 150 100 -2009 -2010 50 - 0 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Source: Yakima Police Department. 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 21 The map below depicts the concentration of all weapon calls received within the City of Yakima III during 2010. In addition, the maps detailing all homicides within the city of Yakima were prepared for illustration purposes. It is worth mentioning that the majority of homicides during 2010 were concentrated within Police Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5. When compared with the murder rates of Washington's larger metropolitan areas the city of Yakima's murder rate is three times that Figure 9: 2010 Weapons Calls by District x ' ' a.... n w \ j., 3Y I A d �,,. ..f b r..e•.., I F T.. _ -,.,z.�.n..��. ,a. _. 4 _ > } ` • ��,., gyp, J T 0 H rN • i • a s • • wr : ': tom• •. i•. r...... s'• • F • • • • ��• • - i • •. • • • • . • f • . • t •. .••. w • . • •'. . : . . • • • ••S• . `1 i • 4 . 1 • • 8 --- - • • • ... .5 ., s ■ - TK.•.• : Y ` COM.. u • ; a• � Tiuw f , Sr n711 Goa* p.•• A. 'W P•W i y' , Source: Yakima Police Department. of Seattle and Tacoma and double the US rate. Finally, the city of Yakima is 354th out of 393 in population but ranks 88 overall in most violent and in the top 15 of most violent US cities with populations between 75,000 and 99,999. (F.B.I. "Crime in the United States 2008 ".) These crime figures coupled with a consistently high dropout rate for minorities (48 %), extreme child poverty (32 %), high unemployment (10.4 %), and high substance abuse among youth (Youth AOD arrests: 4.0/1,000 compared to 2.13/1,000 state rate) predict, without intervention, continued increases in youth violence. ID 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 22 • Figure 10: Yakima Murder Rate Murders 2009 Murder Rate per 100,000 12 14 10 R2 =0.843 10 8 8 6 4 6 2 0 4 .tea 't C � f 2 �`i �a 0 1 1 I 1 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 4 Source: Yakima Police Department. The following graphs produced within the SMART system illustrate a consistent theme —the increasing violent nature of Yakima juvenile gangs. Juvenile aggravated assault arrests have increased 125% since 2001 followed by a sharp increase in juvenile drug abuse violations from in 2004 to 2007. • Figure 11: Yakima County Juvenile Aggravated Assault Arrests Figure 12: Yakima County Juvenile Drug Abuse Violations 200 j \ N41\ 100 Q 1— 1, 000 ^ % :131 4 , , 4 0 � = � y p , � 80D , \ e " - " 1"--.--*-4reANIVfri 200 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 23 Source: US Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report. • As mentioned previously, the countywide indicators reveal significant decreases in the juvenile murder rate and total violent crimes arrest rate from anti -gang efforts stemming from the 80s and 90s. The current resurgence in gang related crime and violence can be traced back to 2002 and coincides with the sharp increases in county juvenile drug activity —a well known source of gang revenue. (Figures 11 & 12) • • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 24 Figure 13: Yakima County Juvenile Figure 14: Yakima County • Murder Rate Total Violent Crime Index Rate 25 300 30 i 250 25 200 150 j 5 50 0� 0 Source: US Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report. Yakima County Juvenile Detention was opened in 1995 with a capacity of 94 beds. Over the past 15 years the detention center capacity has fallen to 42 —a 55% reduction. Figure 16 shows the steady decline in capacity over time. Figure 15: Detention Center Capacity 100 Detention Center Capacity • 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 1 1 1995 2001 2002 2010 Source: Yakima County Detention Center. • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 25 The Gang Presence California style Hispanic gangs have been in Washington since the 1970s. The Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) office reports the majority of the Hispanic gang activity is located in Eastern Washington led by Nuestra Familia and Nortenos in the city of Yakima. Several cities throughout Yakima County have active Hispanic gangs with the majority of the activity localized within Sunnyside, Toppenish, and the city of Yakima. Nuestra Familia and Nortenos were present in the city of Yakima since the late 1970s. The Mexican Mafia (La EME) and Surenos were active in the Yakima Valley since the 1980s. The HIDTA report also reveals a split between Nuestra Familia (NF), Norte 14, La EME and Sur 13 which have become widespread throughout the County. According to area law enforcement agencies, Yakima County gang members have adopted paramilitary characteristics with a rigid hierarchical structure more prone to overt acts of violence. Recent intel heightened threat levels as gang members are planning attacks on law enforcement officers around Yakima County. Gang - related crimes and violence are also concentrated around major Indian reservations including the Yakama Reservation bordering Toppenish. Eastern Washington and nearby Indian reservations have experienced significant increases in violent crimes, marijuana grows, prescription drug abuse, and methamphetamine abuse. Some major gangs found on or near our reservations include 40 Block, Gangster Disciples, Crips, Indian Pride Organization, Native Gangster Bloods (NGB), Native Gangster Crips (NGC), Native Family, Native Pride, and Northwest Native Bloods. (HIDTA, 2010.) As the gang mentality becomes more prevalent on the reservation, organized gangs with leadership in urban areas have exploited the unique vulnerabilities of the remote rural community with limited law enforcement resources. This provides ideal conditions for drug dealing operations used to • finance gangs. Additionally, gang members and drug dealers exploit the complexity of jurisdictional challenges to prosecuting crimes on the reservation. (HIDTA, 2010.) Figure 19: Gangs in Washington. CANADA San 4ua, 10 PUGET R .• ( l i m n 7 kand Shwn 1 Jealarson / Lmdn 35 i - w - J /�Sr D gookon U w Gant a 15 Nh 0mon Pactic akarnaria Ira _.�• Ain f To Sr..k• OREGON Source: Northwest HIDTA With only a fraction of Washington's total population residing within the boundaries of Yakima County, we rank 3` among the state's more prolific gang activity areas following King (Seattle) and Pierce (Tacoma) Counties. • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 26 • OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model Student Survey The GFI Steering Committee recognized the importance of the student perception and its ability to provide additional depth to the community assessment. The OJJDP Gang Model Student Survey measures student perceptions specific to gangs and gang participation and gives an overview of specific risk factors that may be affecting our youth. As such, the Steering Committee sanctioned the administration of the Student Survey which took place in the Spring of2011. The survey produced valuable information useful in determining the seriousness of the gang problem and what level of intervention needed to reduce gang related youth problem behaviors. In addition to providing information on the characteristics of gangs in our community, the student survey measures the degree of bonding to gangs among students who indicate gang membership. The survey items measured five levels of gang bonding: • Level one —Ever involved in a gang • Level two — Currently a gang member • Level three — Currently a member of a delinquent gang • Level four — Currently a member of a delinquent gang that is organized • Level five — Currently a core member of a delinquent gang that is organized Analysis of survey information made it easier to identify areas or populations that are experiencing high levels of multiple risk factors or low levels of protective factors associated with gang involvement. This information ultimately guided the GFI prevention planning and strategy development. • The OJJDP Student Survey was conducted using a smaller sample of in- school youth that included 289 Yakima School District middle school students. Following OJJDP's recommended procedure, Yakima Police Department DARE Officers supervised the survey administration. The format was self - administration following uniform instructions and one class period (50 minutes) in which to answer as many questions as possible. The surveys were conducted over the course of one week beginning March 28, 2011. The gender distribution was statistically even at 50% male and 49% female. The respondents can be further described as follows: Table 4: 2011 Student Survey Demographics Item Percentage n 289 Hispanic 75% White 18% Black 3% American Indian 3% 11 years 7% 12 Years 18% 13 Years 26% 14 Years 39% 15 Years 8% 6th Grade 25% 7th Grade 9% 8cn Grade 64% • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 27 Table 5 and 6 illustrate the extent and severity of youth gang involvement in the City of Yakima. III While useful, the Student Survey is limited in that the responses reflect only a fraction of the student population. Efforts to include a sampling of the high school student population will continue into 2012. Table 5: Percent of School Population Reporting Gang Involvement Percent of School Population Reporting Gang Involvement Yes No Total Male 26 (18 %) 115 100% Female 17 (12 %) 122 96% All 43 (15 %) 237 97% 11 -14 35 (14 %) 219 98% 15 —17 8 (33 %) 16 100% 18 + NA NA All 43 (15 %) 237 97% Source: OJJDP Student Survey, 2011. The Yakima School District also participates in the biannual administration of the Washington State Healthy Youth Survey. The state sponsored survey measures health risk behaviors that contribute to morbidity, mortality, and social problems among youth in Washington State. These behaviors include alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use, behaviors that result in unintentional and intentional 111 injuries (e.g., violence), dietary behaviors, physical activity, and related risk and protective factors. The 2010 administration is the twelfth statewide survey of Washington's students and included 3,030 respondents from the following grade cohorts: • 873 (82 %) of Grade 6 students • 762 (74 %) of Grade 8 students • 776 (67 %) of Grade 10 students • 619 (79 %) of Grade 12 students Figures 20 and 21 further support the emergence of more serious problem behaviors in grades 6 through 8. However, the two surveys did not support each other in the percent of students who report being members of a gang in the past year. The Healthy Youth Survey reported an average of 7% reporting gang membership in grades 8, 10 and 12. However, the OJJDP Student Survey reported 15% gang membership among middle school respondents —more than doubling that of the Healthy Youth Survey. (Figure 22) Ill 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 28 • Table 6: Antisocial Behaviors Committed Antisocial Behaviors Committed at Least Once in the Last 12 Months, as Self- Reported by Gang and Nongang- Involved Respondents Behavior Gang - Involved Nongang- Total Involved Been drunk or high at school (Q61) 25 (58 %) 23 (10 %) 48 (17 %) Attacked someone intending to seriously 17 (40 %) 19 (8 %) 36 (12.4 %) hurt them (Q60) Carried a handgun(Q56) 9 (21 %) 6 (3 %) 15 (5 %) Sold illegal drugs (Q57) 13 (30 %) 4 (2 %) 17 (6 %) Been suspended (Q55) 19 (44 %) 45 (19 %) 64 (22 %) Been arrested (Q59) 6 (14 %) 7 (3 %) 13 (4.4 %) Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle 8 (19 %) 4 (2 %) 12 (4 %) (Q58) Taken a handgun to school (Q62) 3 (7 %) 2 (1 %) 5 (2 %) Source: 2011 OJJDP Student Survey. Figure 20: School -based Bullying Bullying • Percent of students who report being bullied in the past 30 days • Local State 100 80 60 - - 40 30 I 24 20 I '2 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 Source: Washington State Healthy Youth Survey, 2010. • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 29 Figure 21: Weapons Carrying at School • Weapon Carrying At School p Y g Percent of students who report carrying a weapon on school property in the past 30 days Local State 100 80 60 40 20 8 5 7 7 9 7 1 0 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 Source: Washington State Healthy Youth Survey, 2010. Figure 22: Gang Membership I • Gang Membership Percent of students who report being members of a gang in the past year Local State 100 80 60 40 20 7 6 7 6 6 5 1 - 1 0 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 Source: Washington State Healthy Youth Survey, 2010. • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 30 • School Indicators The Yakima School District is the largest primary and secondary education agency providing publicly supported education to almost 15,000 students (80 %) of the City of Yakima's school -aged youth. The racial and ethnic representation does not mirror that of the City with 67% Hispanic, 27% White, and 6% evenly split between the Black and American Indian students. Over 80% of the student population is enrolled in the Free or Reduced Meals program. Twenty -seven percent require varying levels of transitional Bilingual education support and 1 out of 5 students is a registered migrant subject to seasonal inter /intrastate relocations. District -wide achievement indicators are mostly positive with an 82% on -time graduation rate increasing to 95.6% when adjusted for extended graduations and the annual dropout rate is 5 %. However, the Washington Measurement of Student Progress has reported less than 50% meeting Math and Science proficiency from 2007 to 2010 and up to 40% of the student population are failing to meet the Reading and Writing proficiency standards. Figure 16: Washington State Measurement of Student Progress Reading Writing a v `m 100 . 100 td 80 61 80 2 60 90 4D I m o '111111 4 a i • 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 10th 0 4th 7th 101h ❑ 2007.08 WASL 1 2008 -09 WASL ___12007-08 WASL • 2-09 WASL • 2009 -10 MSP/HSPE • 2009 -10 MSPA ISPE Math Science 100 100 t5 80 A 8 60 160 I: 40 d a 0 0 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 10th 5th 8th 10th 2007 -08 WASL • 2008 -09 WASL 12007-08 WASL • 2008 -09 WASL • 2009 -10 MSPMSPE • 2009 -10 MSPMSPE Source: Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. * The trends in juvenile crime previously described are echoed in schools throughout the county. Behavioral incidents resulting in either suspension or expulsion have increased consistently over the past 6 school years. The surge in school -based problem behaviors beginning in 2007 becomes even more telling when coupled with juvenile crime indicators. • *The Washing Assessment of Student Learning was replaced in 2009 -10 by the Measurements of Student Progress (MSP; grades 3 -8.) and the High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE; grades 10 -12). 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 31 Figure 17: Yakima County Behavior Incidents • Yakima County Behavior Incidents by School 4000 — I 3500 3000 2500 Yakima County 2000 Yakima 1500 Sunnyside 1000 Toppenish 500 0 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 09 -10 Source: Washington State Office of the Superintendent. Figure 18: School -Based Weapons Incidents School -Based Weapons Incidents 100% • 80% - -- 60% 40% 20% 0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 • Yakima School District • Yakima County Source: Washington State Office of the Superintendent. Figure 18 represents proportion of total where the cumulative total of Yakima County incidents is represented in Red and the number of incidents committed within Yakima School District is represented in Blue. (i.e., 2005; 80/148 or 54 %) • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 32 • Health & Wellness Health factors in the County Health Rankings represent what influences the health of a county. Four types of health factors are measured including health behaviors (diet & exercise, substance use, and unsafe sexual practices), clinical care (access to care and quality of care), social and economic (community safety, income, education, employment, and family and social support), and physical environment factors (natural versus man - made). In turn, each of these factors is based on several measures. Health outcomes in the County Health Rankings represent how healthy a county is. Two types of health outcomes are measured including how long people live (mortality) and how healthy people feel while alive (morbidity). In the most recent study Yakima County ranks 34 out of 39 counties in Health Factors (Figure 20) and 30 out of 39 in Health Outcomes (Figure 21). Figure 20: Health Factors 2011 Health Factors - Washington WA SI SA M 5N CH IE KT SP KG KI _ - -- WM GP • Wks:: —� , w, CL CA Rank 1 -10 Rank 11 -20 • Rank 21 -29 • Rank 30 -39 County Health Rankings Source: County Health Rankings, University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 2011. Figure 21: Health Outcomes 2011 Health Outcomes - Washington WA 5) PE \ , SA S fL 7 IS 1 SN 3E DO VA II WM BE wt Y CO sk r' Rank 1 -10 Rank 11 -20 Rank 21 -29 • Rank 30 -39 — County Health Rankings ....... Source: County Health Rankings, University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 2011. 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 33 Executive Summary • Youth gangs and related problem behaviors give communities various reasons for alarm. Gang involved youth are responsible for more serious and violent offenses at a rate several times higher than non -gang- members (Howell, 1998). Gang members have an increased probability than their non -gang peers to commit assault, carrying concealed weapons in school, auto and other theft, intimidating or assaulting victims and witnesses, participating in drive -by shootings and homicides, and using, selling, and stealing drugs. This is true with similar upbringings and familial constructs (Huff, 1998). Finally, studies indicate that the level of youth violence is greater when influenced by gang membership than that of other highly delinquent peers (Thornberry, 1998; Huizinga, 1997). The City of Yakima has many resources to address gang violence and gang recruitment. The small number of social agencies and the relatively small target area to be served makes collaboration and gang planning possible. Agencies are highly motivated to be engaged in the construction of collaboration of services. All youth need trusting and meaningful relationships with adults, but youth at risk of joining gangs are greater need of those relationships, especially when decisions about joining a gang are often made in the absence of any engaged and trustworthy bond with a responsible adult. Several programs have enlisted former gang members as mentors for at -risk youth. However, hiring adults with past involvement can lend its own set of problems to a new and precarious relationship. For instance, is the adult's motivation to counsel the youth out of or into a gang? Will the youth resist working with a person who was in a rival gang? On the other hand, it can be difficult finding community members who have an interest in mentoring at -risk youth. There is often a narrow • perception of what a gang member is or is not, and many people do not see beyond the color or style of clothing a gang member wears or the tattoos he or she sports. What is frequently missing is the understanding of a personal history that leads a person to deciding to become a gang member. Often potential gang members have experienced a traumatic situation that makes them skeptical of, and cynical toward, authority and the larger society as a whole. Past funding has been used for gang suppression and data collected on gang treatments have focused on the effects of this suppression. There is a dearth of information on gang treatment. Gang behavior and gang activity are terms that are used often and loosely, but are not well defined. Research has focused on drug abuse and other problem behaviors leading the GFI Steering Committee to identify the primary problems within the context of youth gang crime and violence. They include: 1. Assaults, School -based 2. Bullying, School -based 3. Graffiti 4. Gang Association /Affiliation 5. Juvenile Violence 6. Substance Abuse, Youth 7. Truancy (Unexcused Absenteeism) 8. Weapons, Youth Access to Several themes emerged relative to the root causes of the problem behaviors listed above. First and foremost was a pervasive culture of violence evidenced not only in the criminal behaviors perpetrated by gang members and their affiliates but also expressed among Yakima youth in survey • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 34 • responses. The ruthless and violent nature is not limited to gang members as an increasing trend has been identified among non -gang affiliated youth. The violent culture appears to parallel the increase in violent acts demonstrate by the various media outlets largely associated with global events. For example, the airing of state sanctioned high profile executions and their aftermath during peak youth viewing times and the ease with which youth can access uncensored images of violence via the internet may increase the likelihood that the viewer will engage in violent acts him /herself. (Akers & Burgess, 1966; Bandura, 1977, Hawkins & Catalano, 1996) Other themes associated with the resurgence of gangs and associated problem behaviors include diminished capacity across systems (i.e., schools, police, and social service agencies), cultural divides, parental disconnectedness, fragmented familial constructs, availability of drugs and weapons, low neighborhood attachment and community disorganization. The binding factor among all of them continues to be the extreme economic deprivation (poverty) dominating many of Yakima's neighborhoods. It is important to note that poverty is not a causal factor; however, the influence it places on individuals and communities contributes significantly to complex social dynamics. (Yonas, et al, 2007; Kramer, 2000.) Finally, the unique geographic location of the City of Yakima contributes to the rise of gangs and associated problem behaviors. Yakima is primarily a rural agricultural community with an economy dependent on a consistent flow of migrant farm labor. While the overwhelming majority of migrant laborers operate within the limits of our laws and norms, it would be negligent to ignore the illicit activities easily concealable within the highly mobile nature of the migrant way of life. Criminals exploit well established communication and transportation routes between the Pacific Northwest, Canada, and Mexico. Yakima is also situated between major interstates and highways (1 -90, 1 -82, I- 182, 184, HW97, HW395.) This makes it easy for clandestine drug manufacturing to occur in remote locations with relative easy access to distribution points. This fact was acknowledged by the Federal Government with the designation of Yakima County as a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. It has been well documented that the criminal organizations behind the trafficking of narcotics are largely supported by juvenile gangs who are easily lured to the industry by both romanticized risk and income. Justification for strategies, programs, activities, and policies and procedures that involve each of the key partners can be found within the goals and objectives derived from the assessment findings. GFI endorsed programming will be coordinated and implemented within each of the OJJDP five core strategies. The activities will be closely coordinated and integrated to ensure that the work of collaborating agencies is in line with the comprehensive anti -gang plan. The five strategies will be discussed throughout this manual. They include: • Community Mobilization: Involvement of local residents, including former gang youth, community groups, and agencies; and coordination of programs and staff functions within and across agencies. • Opportunities Provision: Development of a variety of specific education, training, and employment programs targeting gang - involved youth. • Social Intervention: Youth - serving agencies, schools, grassroots groups, faith -based organizations, law enforcement agencies, and other criminal justice organizations reaching out and acting as links to gang - involved youth, their families, and the conventional world and needed services. 111 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 35 • Suppression: Formal and informal social control procedures, including close supervision or monitoring of gang youth by agencies of the criminal justice system and also by community- • based agencies, schools, and grassroots groups. • Organizational Change and Development: Development and implementation of policies and procedures that result in the most effective use of available and potential resources, within and across agencies, to better address the gang problem. The following is a summary of the objectives determined by the GFI Steering Committee Members: Community Mobilization • Increase community partnerships to support expanded school /site -based behavior management. • Increase student reporting of gang activity, bullying and assaults. • Increase the community's awareness of the gang problem. • Identify and expand safe places for youth self expression (i.e., artistic, cultural, recreational). • Decrease or prevent classroom overcrowding. • Increase cultural awareness and tolerance. • Expand opportunities for early non - violence education for youth. • Expand truancy management to include neighborhood -based monitoring. • Improve applied family management skills. • Enhance and expand single parent and nontraditional family support networks. • Expand interagency cooperation. • Establish interagency coordinating entity. • • Expand graffiti abatement with increased community partnerships. • Develop and implement anti - graffiti curriculum. • Increase access and utilization of mental health services. • Establish annual awareness campaign targeting priority problem behaviors. (i.e., Kids Without Guns) • Engage /increase community in reporting drug related juvenile offenses. • Expand and enhance Gang /Drug Tip Hotline to include texting and social mediums. (i.e., Twitter) • Increase Block Watch participation in target neighborhoods. • Expand and enhance neighborhood based volunteerism targeting youth development programming. • Educate and inform citizens how to report gang crimes. Opportunities Provision • Improve Parent /Youth communication. • Increase utilization of modern technological mediums including social networking in anti - gang activities. • Increase personal discipline, leadership and team playing skills among Yakima youth. • Expand trauma intervention services for victims, families and perpetrators. • Increase opportunities for personal story telling through drama, writing, talking circle as a means for healing, hope giving. • Identify and expand opportunities for youth self expression (i.e., artistic, cultural, recreational). • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 36 • • Increase school reentry. • Expand structured out -of- school programming. • Expand gun safety education opportunities for youth. • Increase target youth understanding of risks associated with substance abuse /misuse. • Identify and expand youth supported suppression activities. • Increase target youth understanding of risks associated with guns and violence. • Identify and expand community supported suppression activities. Social Intervention • Establish immediate response protocol for schools. • Enhance and expand peer to peer support network. • Expand access to transitional support services. • Enhance and expand early learning practices to create school attachment or readiness. • Expand integrated youth monitoring system to include family, school liaison, and social /behavioral services network. • Improve coordination between mainstream social /behavioral services and neighborhood associations. • Increase application of diversion options with graffiti offenders. • Decrease attitudes favorable to graffiti. • Establish a youth violence court. • Enhance coordination between social /behavioral services and juvenile court. • Decrease youth attitudes favorable to weapons. • • Increase /improve outreach and referral rates with target youth. • Increase /improve outreach & referral rates with target youth (gang involved). • Expand and enhance gun and ammo surrender programs. Suppression • Expand perpetrator sanctions to include parents /legal guardians. • Expand the application of immediate sanction as per protocols. (TBD) • Expand and enhance truancy patrols and re- engagement strategies. • Increase parental notification and response. • Increase citations for graffiti violations. • Identify and expand youth supported suppression activities. • Improve overall public awareness and approval of suppression strategies. • Increase citations for weapons violations. • Increase # YPD Officers /1000 population to Western States Standard (1.8) or National Standard (2.4)— special emphasis on Gang Unit. • Identify and target top 10% most violent, chronic and serious juvenile drug offenders. • Identify and target top 10% most violent, chronic and serious juvenile offenders. • Expand routine emphasis patrols in high crime neighborhoods. Organizational Change & Development • Improve application of existing policies and procedures. • Achieve 100% implementation and utilization of Anti - bullying Policies. • • Increase family participation in site -based school management. (PTO) • Expand and enhance Zero Tolerance policies targeting youth violence. 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 37 • Increase PSA's promoting alternatives to truancy and academic failure. • Institute Truancy Patrol and Transition Center. • • Support the expansion and enhancement of Community Youth Development. • Establish short-term, mobile art structures for youth. • Establish a graffiti hotline. • Increase laws applicable to weapons crimes. • Implement county juvenile youth /gang court. • Establish formal mechanism for informing City Council. • Enhance and expand (Prioritize) enforcement of existing drug laws. • Assign Juvenile Probation Officer position to YPD • Establish a clearly defined role for the City of Yakima and YPD in expansion of the juvenile courts to include a Gang Court. • Increase juvenile probation /parole capacity to meet city /county demand. • Enhance and expand (Prioritize) enforcement of existing gun /weapons laws. • • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 38 • Conclusion This most recent analysis of the environmental and social conditions contributing to the resurgence of crime and violence often attributed to increased numbers of youth gangs is the first step toward building a comprehensive anti -gang approach. The changing demographics of our community have brought with it new strengths presenting various opportunities for change built upon the common values of our blended community. The opportunities extend to a renewed emphasis of the importance of accountability within each sector and throughout the City of Yakima. Among the leading reasons given by kids involved with gangs, either as members or gang associates, is a desire to be loved, accepted or to be part of a group. That is what gang members commonly promise when they are recruiting. Additional reasons include: • Fun and excitement — Gang members, recruiters and the media glamorize the gang lifestyle. • Identity and a sense of belonging — Gangs may offer a sense of identity to their members and a way to gain attention or status. Kids who do not have strong ties to their families, communities, schools or places of worship may turn to gangs for companionship and as a substitute family. • Peer pressure —If friends or family members are in a gang, kids may be pressured to join a gang. • Financial gain — Being in a gang is often seen as a way to obtain money or possessions. • Failure to realize what being in a gang means — Kids often do not fully understand the III danger, risks and legal problems associated with being in a gang. • Protection — In neighborhoods and areas where gangs are present, kids sometimes feel, or are told, that belonging to a gang will provide protection from other gangs. More recently, researchers are documenting a shift in the collective personality of the youth gang from that of a misguided social support network focused on survival to one that promotes a heightened sense of self void of moral responsibility or social conscience —a Super Id. Simply put, neighborhood based youth gangs of the 80's and 90's manifested moral responsibility and social conscience albeit unhealthy due to the context. Modern youth gangs are no longer neighborhood based and have de- emphasized traditional themes (protection, sense of belonging) and focus more on the development of an ultimate gang persona —one that is more aggressive and quick to resort to violence. Intervention There are large numbers of first generation families from Mexico and Central America complicating the development and delivery of targeted anti -gang intervention services. Research has shown that first generation Hispanic families are more susceptible to gang initiation because the children in these families acculturate more rapidly than their parents, leaving parents powerless to help with or understand the challenges faced by their children. As children become alienated from their families and the "old" culture and way of life, they look for new role models to help them feel empowered and to fill the hole left by the absence of familial ties. Many youth in this situation gravitate toward gangs and yet many more are coming from well established and violent gang cultures from Mexico and Central America. Recent reports revealed juveniles as young as 14 committing heinous crimes III including murder under the employment of drug cartels. 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 39 Often, first generation parents do not have the time to access counseling services for themselves or their children and even more restricting is the belief that seeking mental health care is unacceptable. In addition, there are a disproportionate number of Spanish speaking clients to Spanish speaking counselors. According to the 2010 Census, Hispanics comprise one third (33.7 %) of Yakima's population. Nearly thirty -one percent of the people living in Yakima speak a primary language other than English. Even within the agencies that would likely serve Spanish speakers, only approximately one in five counselors speak Spanish. Logic tells us that the only way to effectively work with families is to talk with them in their own language and to understand their culture. What is known about at -risk youth is that gang participation often begins in 5th or 6th grade. Because of the age factor, cognitive behavioral approaches are inappropriate and ineffectual. What we seek are culturally and developmentally appropriate interventions and the need for deeper engagement by schools in identifying at -risk youth. First generation parents, who may feel that participating in therapy for their family is unacceptable, often welcome school counselors' interventions. However, while school counselors may work with the residual effects of gang activity (e.g., misbehavior, fights, inappropriate clothing, etc.) and are in a position to easily identify gang members, they are not working with outside agencies on gang issues, becoming a major barrier since the majority of Yakima's agencies are referral based. These agencies rely on clients either seeking assistance or being referred to them by another entities. This greatly limits the accessibility of services for people who are presently alienated from mainstream interventions. Additionally, the few agencies that are outreach -based do not appear to work closely with referral -based agencies. This is an important connection because as gang members are identified in outreach programs they may need to be referred to another agency better suited for the client's needs. If the two agencies do not collaborate, the client may feel that he is being passed off to another set of strangers, • repeating the same personal information to a therapist who knows very little about him and his situation and thus he will be more likely to drop out of the program. In order to effectively address the gang problem in Yakima, an integrated behavioral health model needs to be in place. This would include a partnership among schools, social /behavioral health services and outreach agencies. It is especially critical that outreach agencies work collaboratively with referral based agencies. Collaboration, rather than coordination, raises the partnership to a level of equal responsibility and advisement of recommended programs. Coordination alone often results in compartmentalizing each person's role and leaves no one with a global understanding of the problem. Further expansion and enhancement may be accomplished through innovation in partnership with local business owners. Community mobilization that is neighborhood specific and builds skills, provides opportunities to contribute to the intervention efforts cultivate our nontraditional resources. Mobilization activities simultaneously educate the community about the use of data and the importance of measurable outcomes to better enable planning and innovation within the constraints of evidence based strategies. Furthermore, systems changes would integrate existing intervention activities with willing grass roots groups to expand reach of agencies. Prevention Fundamental to the success of any prevention approach is that it serves to increase protective factors that serve to buffer negative external and internal influence while minimizing exposure to risk. Projects that are able to decrease risks and increase protection, especially if they target • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 40 • different areas at the same time and operate over a long period of time, are likely to reduce children's involvement in problem behaviors including gangs and violence. The more risks that are decreased, and the more protective factors increased, the more likely the program is to have an impact. The family and the community are essential to the development of the child's social, emotional, and physical needs. If the family is the source of love, guidance, and protection that youths seek, they are not forced to search for these basic needs from a gang. The family and community share responsibility for teaching children the risk of drugs. Strong education and training are directly related to a youth's positive development. Young people who successfully participate in and complete education have greater opportunities to develop into reasonable adults. Graffiti removal reduces the chance that crimes will be committed. Gangs use graffiti to communicate. Graffiti serves to advertise the gang, and claim credit for a crime, quick removal is essential. Conflict resolution programs teach gangs how to deal better with conflicts and help eliminate gang intimidation tactics. Recreational programs such as sports, music, drama, and community activities help build a sense of self -worth and self- respect in young people. Youth involved in such activities are less likely to seek membership in a gang. Prevention efforts must emphasize strategies for providing realistic alternatives to gang recruitment. Prevention efforts must also support the collaboration of Federal, State, Local Public Service teams, along with Faith -Based Agencies building strategies for combating gang proliferation. • Suppression A strong targeted law enforcement presence was seen as essential to the mission of stemming violence. Targeting high- incidence areas and deploying the same officers to those areas for an extended period of time was considered essential. Effective suppression has been built on gathering and organizing intelligence information on youth gangs and their members. Increased intelligence coupled with specially trained law enforcement officers are better able to recognize gang problems and respond immediately. The specialized unit is also able to communicate with gang members in a positive way. As the community continues to drive greater and more effective prevention and intervention efforts, the more costly suppression resources are better managed and deployed targeting the most violent and chronic offenders. Furthermore, Police departments support prosecution by ensuring that judges were aware of the gang affiliations of defendants before sentencing. This translates into a more effective judicial process that reserves limited detention space for the most violent and chronic offenders. Targeted suppression, in combination with other justice and community interventions will lead to a reduction in gang violence. With suppression resources reserved for those high level offenders, law and justice are better able to introduce or remain open to new and innovative activities for suppression that create a path • toward intervention and ultimately prevention. 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 41 Comprehensive Anti -Gang Strategy (Action Plan) • The GFI Steering Committee will use the Community Profile to guide the development of the City of Yakima Comprehensive Anti -Gang Strategy. The Strategy will outline the programs, activities and key partnerships required to accomplish our objectives. In addition, the Strategy will provide a timeline for implementation, systematic data collection and analysis of project performance and progress towards goals and objectives • 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 42 • APPENDIX A GANG FREE INITIATIVE DATA WORKBOOK III III 2011 City of Yakima Community Profile Page 43 • 4 1 SFr ,..:1-4 4 4 0 'tA.4 :744"ak s' : , J 4 _41 . io I w i t 0 40% I r * 1,,i/iri ' * T T i J •r� ', N . } ' r ICF.,.. -q - SCI /a-% - Vill r L •-._ • D ataW orkboo k 1 Gang -Free Initiative March 19, 2011 • • • Magallan Consultancy 10408 W. Willow Way * Pasco, WA 99301 509 - 543 -3616 * info @magallan.org • 2 • 1 Table of Contents Section 1: Yakima School Data 6 Table 1.1: Washington State School -Based Weapons Incidents 7 Table 1.2: Yakima County School -Based Weapons Incidents 7 Table 1.3: City of Yakima School -Based Weapons Incidents 8 Table 1.4: Yakima County School -Based Behavior Incidents 9 Table 1.5: City of Yakima School -Based Behavior Incidents 9 Table 1.6: Yakima County Truancy Report (Grade 1 -8) 10 Table 1.7: City of Yakima Truancy Report (Grade 1 -8) 10 Table 1.8: Yakima County Truancy Report (Grade 9 -12) 1 Table 1.9: City of Yakima Truancy Report (Grade 9 -12) 11 Section 2: Yakima Crime Data 12 i re 2.1: City of Yakima Homicides, 2009 13 Figure 2.2: City of Yakima Homicides, 2010 1 Figure 2.3: City of Yakima Homicides Rate 15 Figure 2.4: City of Yakima Weapons Calls Trends 16 Figure 2.5: City of Yakima Weapons Calls, 2009 & 2010 17 Figure 2.6: City of Yakima Weapons Violations Trends 18 Figure 2.7: Active Washington State Street Gangs By County 19 Figure 2.8: Washington Hispanic Street Gangs 20 Figure 2.9: City of Yakima Gang Related Cases By Month 21 Figure 2.10: Juvenile Aggravated Assault Arrest 22 Figure 2.11: Juvenile Arrest Rate 23 Figure 2.12: Juvenile Drug Abuse Violation Arrest 24 Figure 2.13: Juvenile Murder Arrest Rate 25 Figure 2.14: Juvenile Violent Crime Index Arrest 26 Figure 2.15: Total Violent Crime Index Arrest Rate 27 Section 3: Yakima County Risk Profile 28 ID 4 GFI Data Workbook • Table of Contents Section 4: Yakima School District Risk Profile 34 Figure 4.1: Lifetime Alcohol Use 35 Figure 4.2: Current Alcohol Use 35 Figure 4.3: Lifetime Marijuana Use 36 Figure 4.4: Current Marijuana Use 36 Figure 4.5: Current Prescription Drug Use 37 Figure 4.6: Substance Use at School 37 Figure 4.7: Bullying 38 Figure 4.8: Weapons Carrying at School 39 Figure 4.9: Gang Membership 40 Figure 4.10: Perceived Availability of Alcohol 41 Figure 4.11: Perceived Availability of Marijuana 41 • Section 5: GFI Youth Survey, 2011 42 Table 5.1: School Experiences 43 Table 5.2: Life Experiences 44 Table 5.3: Gang Experiences 51 Table 5.4: Neighborhood Experiences 54 Table 5.5: Family Experiences 55 • 5 C a aklma • section 1: Yakima School District Data • • 11 =1 Data IA orklst, ,h Table 1.1: Washington State School -Based Weapons Incidents Year No. of No. Re- Handguns Rifle Other Total Knives Other Tota Districts porting Shotguns Firearms Firearms Daggers Weapons 2005 296 296 53 15 64 132 1891 961 3116 (100 %) 2006 296 296 30 11 37 78 1988 1243 3387 (100 %) 2007 296 296 41 9 25 75 1981 1095 3151 (100 %) 2008 295 295 43 11 20 74 1912 1018 3004 (100 %) 2009 295 295 30 14 26 70 1898 1000 2968 (100 %) 2010 295 295 47 8 75 4 130 1842 3000 (100 %) Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Table 1.2: Yakima County School -Based Weapons Incidents Year Enroll- Hand- Rifle Other Total Knives Other Total went guns Shotguns Fire- Fire- Daggers Weapons III arms arms 2005 48246 4 0 1 5 95 43 148 2006 49139 0 1 1 2 109 79 192 2007 48249 1 1 5 7 145 67 219 2008 48822 4 1 1 6 116 38 160 2009 49170 0 1 1 2 126 78 206 2010 50799 4 1 1 6 104 51 161 Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. NOTES: III 7 City of Yakima • Table 1.3: City of Yakima School -Based Weapons Incidents Yea Enroll- Handguns Rifle Other Total Knives Other To- r ment Shotguns Fire- Fire- Daggers Weapons tal arms arms 2005 23118 0 0 0 0 52 28 80 2006 23802 0 1 0 1 60 49 111 2007 23249 0 0 0 44 47 91 182 2008 23573 0 0 1 1 45 20 67 2009 23674 0 1 0 1 58 61 120 2010 24807 4 0 0 4 39 36 79 Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. • NOTES: III 8 G1=1 Data bVorkImo . Table 1.4: Yakima County School -Based Behavior Incidents Year Enrollment Bullying Alcohol Drug Alcohol Violent Assault Total • (HIB) w/Drug Offenses 2004- 48809 828 388 0 0 7 723 1946 05 2005- 49793 908 37 307 65 45 686 2048 06 2006- 48358 1193 4 335 65 33 694 2324 07 2007- 48822 1630 11 262 56 12 866 2837 08 2008- 49170 1263 11 339 60 17 851 2541 09 2010 50799 724 - 441 80 - - Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Table 1.5: City of Yakima School -Based Behavior Incidents Year Enrollment Bullying Alcohol Drug Alcohol Violent Assault Total (HIB) w /Drug Offenses 2004- 23436 494 170 0 0 3 260 927 05 2005- 24142 495 13 162 43 27 262 1002 06 III 2006- 23249 573 0 204 40 6 344 1167 07 2007 - 23573 959 3 175 34 1 334 1506 08 2008- 23674 860 3 214 36 3 339 1455 09 2010 50799 326 - 275 32 - - Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. NOTES. . 9 Cite of Yakima able 1.6: Yakima County Truancy Report (Grade 1 -8) Year Students Students with Five Students with Ten Total Truancy Total Truancy with Unex- or More Unex- or More Unex- Petitions Filed Petitions Car - cused Ab- cused Absences in cused Absences in ried Forward sences a month a School Year from Prior Year 2004 -05 14201 1571 1617 265 47 2005 -06 14988 1856 1911 245 59 2006 -07 14313 1079 1272 256 3 2007 -08 14867 1165 1225 339 25 2008 -09 12015 1038 1178 164 14 2009 -10 12260 1159 1343 122 28 Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Table 1.7: City of Yakima Truancy Report (Grade 1 -8) Year Students Students with Five Students with Ten Total Truancy Total Truancy with Unex- or More Unex- or More Unex- Petitions Filed Petitions Car - cused Ab- cused Absences in cused Absences in ried Forward sences a month a School Year from Prior Year 2004 -05 7613 998 1091 151 27 0 2005 -06 7927 1034 1109 192 41 2006 -07 6549 635 789 162 2 2007 -08 6624 781 774 252 24 2008 -09 7815 655 772 122 12 2009 -10 7254 635 784 50 27 Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. NOTES: III 10 (i11 1)it,i N\ 0rk1hou >I< Table 1.8: Yakima County Truancy Report (Grade 9 -12) Year Students Students with Five Students with Ten Total Truancy Total Truancy • with Unex- or More Unex- or More Unex- Petitions Filed Petitions Car - cused Ab- cused Absences in cused Absences in ried Forward sences a month a School Year from Prior Year 2004 -05 157348 30927 28093 9087 3061 2005 -06 9701 2884 2797 283 46 2006 -07 7852 2798 2963 505 14 2007 -08 11250 3738 3992 599 7 2008 10985 3341 3956 399 3 2009 -10 10727 3787 3760 171 7 Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Table 1.9: City of Yakima Truancy Report (Grade 9 -12) Year Students Students with Five Students with Ten Total Truancy Total Truancy with Unex- or More Unex- or More Unex- Petitions Filed Petitions Car - cused Ab- cused Absences in cused Absences in ried Forward sences a month a School Year from Prior Year 2004 -05 4451 1408 1419 135 25 2005 -06 5177 1793 1741 165 30 III 2006 5036 1594 1675 369 0 2007 -08 6493 2393 2645 371 4 2008 - 6366 2481 2745 313 0 2009 -10 6296 2354 2576 80 7 Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. NOTES: Ill 11 City of Yakima • Section 2: City ofYakima Data Crime • • ,, 12 GFI Data Workbook ill Figure 2.1: City of Yakima Homicides, 2009 Y >s - -•-- - • Y•klmj PD .. : 4.- !i . P2 MN.d LV • 4 " • GAL/ 40 C, il l 1 13 ' • \ -•,. / JJ7 `. ., it ,_ lei a. •Py1.1.1. WAt • rr r l.ger.l 11111 CASES_200! I$NKuon) i ' • r+ • •all other v•4•s, GROUP ^.. r . 4; Jr � j . \,.._ .,- .,-, . 1'4 - D .H — .1 ^.. , , IIw....... M..•n.M. M r. _1 ._.M...... „, . I..........M .� 1f • 1�s .. - _ - .........4.10.1.11.14 64.4 . _ w . -•- • r° - .d.. .a •.s.w.s...r V. r i. , ' . 2144 � s... n. no. .rn.. ••I. 0 p _ o...J.M W .6.14.1 b Source: Yakima Police Department. NOTES: 411/ 13 City of Yakima Il I Figure 2.2: City of Yakima Homicides, 2010 U d 14. It.. l �' Y •i Yikiau PD 1 ' r�r _� ' . IQ S y /ft S '1.1 .... S.CQ¢u ‘ Ir. J . ........ * 4 - , 1 • • # 2 a • v.. r.. _. 6 9 • Lrprnd • 1 ♦ . i CASES 201OIt L ) 7 1 • p • • • II oehw10bV I tl • GROUP j T....9 1 n.. w Y.r i .Y..Y A ♦ j 3 1 ' _ •r.w+r r« 0 Fr..u; 1 MIMr. *.s Y +.1IA1111rY.•A5ww♦'WM may y ! • 1 • rw♦ .wY ♦ A • yM winkomoculelpoSablim ♦�0 Mrr♦..Irf j 1 d z..� 011.1U .»v f X� w M.r+wr.rrr r / t i Source: Yakima Police Department. NOTES: 14 GFI Data Workbook • Figure 2.3: City of Yakima Homicides Rate Murders 20 - 18 16 14 12 10 Projected rate of 1.8 8 .- nnn ?m 1 6 4 • 2 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Yakima Police Department. NOTES: 15 City of Yakima • Figure 2.4: City of Yakima Weapons Calls Trends Annual Weapons Calls 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 • 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Yakima Police Department. NOTES: 16 GFI Data Workbook • Figure 2.5: City of Yakima Weapons Calls, 2009 -2010 r_.„,....i.iris, \''''\ 4, 8 • 1 ,, _....,+..,..., N • o' • : e ' - 0 0 a I I I ( Q r`e� e a y f°°r . �. .. ? ., 4 1 •i ' 1 `f . d � , . ° B . 8 0 � � ° ° ° `o g. lj` J � 'J o• t .� ICJ ` . ° e m .s 1 ° 1 1-7.-- -- -4.— !r d-1-11-12Q 1 • Source: Yakima Police Department. NOTES: IP 17 City of Yakima •re 2.6 City of Yakima Weapons Violations Trends Weapons Violations 120 100 fie' ,,. 105 80 - 60 • Drive By Shootings 52 • Poss. Illegal Weapon 40 --- Assault w /gun 20 15 13 0 2008 2009 2010 1800 1600 1538 1400 1 • 1200 1000 1059 800 Shots Fired 600 400 200 0 2008 2009 2010 Source: Yakima Police Department. NOTES: 18 GI1 Data 1Vorkhook • Figure 2.7 ACTIVE WASHINGTON STATE STREET GANGS BY COUNTY • CANADA 0 San Juan PUGET ( • F.ny SOUND o spa 0 9_2 = 110 8 LM+oohl ar "m a gir 0 o W w a. ak Pl.; PIM .1 PIKOC illumassa 0 ICiddtat 0 .+ Not To Scale OREGON Source: Northwest HIDTA NOTES: 19 City of Yakima 1 • Figure 2.8: Washington Hispanic Street Gangs 1 0 P MEN O 0 C r 0 1- 1 - tH ©_ uJ i 1 Source: STG -Gans Specialist Gabe Morales. Luis County Jail NOTES: 20 GUI Data Workbook 4 111 Figure 2.9: City of Yakima Gang Related Cases by Month 250 200 150 —2010 100 — 2009 ■11/NNAT 50 - 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Source: Yakima Police Department. NOTES: 21 City of Yakima el Figure 2.10 Juvenile Aggravated Assault Arrests. Yakima MO " 400 300 1 CO 7 , 103 A , * 4 1 4C't A , etP eftS de S 40 4 4 Source: US DOJ; Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTES: 22 GFI Data Workbook • Figure 2.11 Juvenile Arrest Rate. Yakima 16.000 14.000 g 12.000 18.000 . 000 6.000 z5 4.000 2.000 0 (g ,e .6 et ,e §) 2 Source: US DOJ; Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTES: 23 City of Yakima • Figure 2.12: Juvenile Drug Abuse Violation Arrests Yakima 1.000 8 : 400 _G 200 5 .4a 40 '74 4b fsitt 4i 05p %%7_ J Source: US DOJ; Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTES: 24 GFl Data Workbook • Figure 2.13: Juvenile Murder Arrest Rates Yakima 35 30 zs � 20 1s - 10 0 41.11.00.1•0•111.11111. 1 " 4 4 P *• 4 4141 O S 49* q.cs? 4, Source: US DOJ; Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTES: 25 City of Yakima • Figure 2.14: Juvenile Violent Crime Index. Yakima Boo soo S aao 1 2 L Source: US DOJ; Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTES: • 26 GFI Data Workbook • Figure 2.15: Total Violent Crime Index Yakima 300 a 230 4r.l°11 % .,4\,......7.1.41 / ° 130 100 Source: US DOJ; Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTES: 27 • Section 3: Yakima County 2010 Risk Profile • • 61.1 Data 1V( »-k :1)(m)1: Domain /Factor Indicators •standardized Scores for Cascadia County • !Counties Like Us Community Domain -0.43 The Indicator Profile Availability of Drugs Icohol Retail Licenses -0.46 allows you to compare the 5 -year standardized rates in both County -0.58 and "Counties Like Us" obacco Retail And Vending -0.57 Machine Licenses groupings for each - -- indicator by domain and 0.27 summary measures Extreme Family Eco- Food Stamp Recipients 0 45 (factors). nomic Deprivation (All Ages) emporary Assistance to 0.00 Needy Families (TANF), 0.30 Child Recipients -0.22 Unemployed Persons o 20 (Age 16 +) 1.94 Transitions and Mo- Net Migration, 3 Year Moving 0.20 bility verage -0.82 Existing Home Sales -1.43 • 1.18 New Residence Construction 0.15 Each Summary -0.05 Measure (factor) has 1 AOD Problems Icohol- Or Drug - Related -0.11 to 8 indicators. Deaths More information is lients Of State - Funded Al- ohol or Drug Services (Age 0 7 available on the "Counties Like Us" 18 +) — construct in Technical -0.83 Notes. rrests, Alcohol - Related (Age -0.53 18 +) -0.42 rrests, Drug Law Violation -0.74 (Age 18 +) 0.03 Adult Violent Crime ' rrests, Violent Crime 0.51 (Age 18 +) lower state rate higher If the 5 year rate was suppressed for data problems, there will be no bar or label. Rates equal to the state mean have a 0.0 label. • 29 City olYakitna E ain /Factor Indicators •Standardized Scores for Yakima County • Counties Like Us Community Domain Availability of Drugs Icohol Retail Licenses 0.09 1 0.58 0.14 obacco Retail and Vending Machine Licenses 0.61 Extreme Family Eco- Food Stamp Recipients 2.19 nomic Deprivation (All Ages) 0.48 emporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), 2.83 Child Recipients 0.51 Unemployed Persons 1.29 (Age 16 +) 0.46 Transitions and Mobility Net Migration, 3 Year Mov- -0.82 ing Average 0.96 • -0.33 Existing Home Sales -0.12 New Residence Construc- -1.23 ion -0 AOD Problems Icohol- or Drug - Related -0.29 Deaths -0 lients of State - Funded Al- ohol or Drug Services (Age 1.98 18 + ) 0.68 rrests, Alcohol - Related 0.10 (Age 18 +) -0.88 rrests, Drug Law Violation -0.04 (Age 18 +) -0.69 Adult Violent Crime ' rrests, Violent Crime 1.68 (Age 18 +) 0.79 • 30 GFI Data Workbook Domain /Factor • I ndicators •Standardized Scores for Yakima County • Counties Like Us Community Domain Low Neighborhood Prisoners in State Correc- Attachment and Com- 0.08 munity Disorganize- tional Systems -0.78 tion (Age 18 +) Population Not Registered to 1.29 Vote 0.03 Registered and Not Voting in the November Election 0.52 -0.30 Family Domain Family Problems Divorce -0.62 0.43 Victims of Child Abuse and Neglect in Accepted Referrals 0.53 0.17 • School Domain Freshmen Who Leave School Senior Class Loss Before Their Senior Year 1.16 -0.59 Low School Test Poor Academic Performance, 1.81 Scores Grade 10 WASL (Age 15) 0.10 Poor Academic Performance, 1.94 Grade 7 WASL (Age 12) 0.26 Poor Academic Performance, Grade 4 WASL (Age 9) 1.83 0.15 Individual /Peer Domain 0.83 Early Criminal Justice rrests, Alcohol- or Drug - Involvement Related (Age 10 -14) 0.23 rrests, Vandalism 2.64 • (Age 10 -14) 1.03 31 City of Yakima *ain /Factor Indicators • Standardized Scores for Yakima County • Counties Like Us Problem Outcomes Child and Family Child Injury and Accident Hos- 0.07 Health pitalizations -0.41 Infant Mortality 1.18 (Under 1 Year) 0.19 Child Mortality 0.14 (Ages 1 -17) -0.13 Births 2.18 (Mothers Age 10 -17) 0.29 exually Transmitted • Disease Cases 1.07 (Birth -19) -0.56 Suicide and Suicide Attempts 1.49 (Age 10 -17) 0.39 0.39 Low Birth Weight Babies -0.40 omen Injury and Accident 0.91 Hospitalizations -0.23 School Weapons Incidents 0.63 School Issues II Grades 0.53 32 GiI Data Workbook Domain /Factor Indicators • •Standardized Scores for Yakima County • Counties Like Us Problem Outcomes 1.60 Criminal Justice Offences, Domestic Violence -0.05 1.64 otal Arrests, (Age 10 -14) 0.52 1.84 • rrests, Property Crime 0.51 (Age 10 -14) 1.89 • rrests, Property Crime 1.21 (Age 10 -17) 2.20 rrests, Property Crime 1.14 (Age 18 +) 2.00 • rrests, Violent Crime 0.16 (Age 10 -17) 0.78 Substance Use ' Icohol- Related Traffic Fatali- ies Per All Traffic Fatalities 0.85 0.30 • rrests, Alcohol Violation (Age 10 -17) 0.15 1.51 rrests, Drug Law Violation (Age 10 -17) 0.23 Clients of State - Funded Alco- 1.77 hol or Drug Services (Age 0.59 10 -17) 33 City of Yakima • Section 4: Yakima School District 2010 Risk Profile • n = 3,030 873 (82%) of Grade 6 students 762 (74%) of Grade 8 students 776 (67%) of Grade 10 students 619 (79%) of Grade 12 students 34 GFI Data Workbook 4110 Figure 4.1 • Local Shale 100 80 r 60 - 40 2 ". 1111 11 20 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 Figure 4.2 Local State 100 80 60 40 '° 111,1 20 111 ,s d 0 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 NOTES: 35 City of Yakima Ore 4.3 Lifetime Marijuana Use Percent of students who report having ever smoked marijuana Local State 100 80 60 46 40 _14— -� 31 � _ 1 24 1 7 1 4 1 ', w� 0 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 Figure 4.4 Current Marijuana Use Percent of students who report smoking marijuana in the past 30 days • Local Stale 100 80 60 40 ZU 20 i 4 4 Grade6 Grade8 Grade 10 Grade 12 NOTES: 36 GFI Data Workbook Figure 4.5 • Current Prescription Drug Use Percent of students who report using a pain killer to get high in the past 30 days • Local State 100 80 60 40 20 ,0 4 „ 0 111 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 Figure 4.6 Substance Use at School Percent of students who report being drunk or high at school in the past year • • Local state 100 80 60 40 20 ,a 0 ?_ Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 NOTES: 411 37 City of Yakima • Figure 4.7 Bullying Percent of students who report being bullied in the past 30 days • Local State 100 80 - - -- - 60 40 - -- - -- - 3o i 24 20 -- • 0 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 NOTES: 38 GFI Data Workbook • Figure 4.8 Weapon Carrying At School Percent of students who report carrying a weapon on school property in the past 30 days Local State 100 - 80 60 - 40 20 9 7 9 7 j: i • Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 NOTES: 39 City of Yakima • Figure 4.9 Gang Membership Percent of students who report being members of a gang in the past year ■ Local • State 100 80 60 40 20 7 6 7 6 6 5 J. Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 NOTES: • 40 GFI Data Workbook III Figure 4.10 Perceived Availability of Alcohol Percent of students who report alcohol would be very hard to get • Local State 100 80 S 60 M 0 40 1 0 i iii 8 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 Figure 4.11 Perceived Availability of Marijuana Percent of students who report marijuana would be very hard to 4 local State 100 64 80 °° 1 63 60 I i 40 I 0 20 I i 17 0 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 NOTES: III 41 City of Yakima • Section 2011 GFIYouth Surve i NOTES: 410 Ma aIlan Coasu Laney 42 GFI Data Workbook Instrument: OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model Youth Survey n = 289 Gender: Male = 50% Female = 49% Race & Ethnicity Hispanic /Latino = 75% White = 18% Black = 3% American Indian = 3% Other = 1% Age: 11 =7% 12 = 18% 13 =26% 14 = 39% 15 =8% Grade: 6th = 25% 7th = 9% 8th = 64% NOTES: - • 43 vt:�alla, L )1s i:uncv City of Yakima School Experiences Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & I fell safe at my school. MS MS MS Clark MS Total No! 4% 6% 11% 7% 7% No 20% 4% 8% 14% 11% Yes 49% 61% 49% 60% 55% Yes! 25% 29% 30% 18% 26% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Enjoy being in school? MS MS MS Clark MS Total Never 6% 3% 15% 12% 9% Seldom 7% 7% 10% 12% 9% Sometimes 35% 31% 32% . 33% 33% Often 17% 29% 22% 21% 22% Almost always 35% 28% 21% 21% 26% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total Hate being in school? MS MS MS Clark MS Never 17% 22% 8% 8% 14% Seldom 10% 11% 23% 12% 14% III Sometimes 42% 43% 38% 45% 42% Often 14% 15% 16% 12% 15% Almost always 17% 7% 12% 21% 14% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total Try to do your best work in school? MS MS MS Clark MS Never 1% 0% 4% 4% 2% Seldom 1% 3% 1% 5% 3% Sometimes 27% 21% 21% 23% 23% Often 14% 24% 23% 23% 21% Almost always 56% 50% 49% 42% 50% NOTES: Magallan Consultancy 44 GFI Data Workbook Life Experiences Washington Franklin Lewis & III MS MS Wilson MS Clark MS Total 29. Carried a handgun? a. None 94% 89% 93% 89% 91% b. 1 6% 10% 1% 5% 6% c. 2 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% d. 3 0% 0% 3% 3% 1% e. 4 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% Washington Franklin Lewis & Wilson MS Total 30. Sold illegal drugs? MS MS Clark MS a. None 85% 75% 84% 75% 80% b. 1 7% 10% 5% 15% 9% c. 2 6% 6% 3% 4% 5% d. 3 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% e. 4 1% 1% 5% 4% 3% Washington Franklin Lewis & Wilson MS Total 32. Been arrested? MS MS Clark MS a. None 83% 74% 84% 86% 82% b. 1 7% 18% 7% 5% 9% • c. 2 7% 6% 0% 3% 4% d. 3 1% 0% 5% 1% 2% e. 4 1% 0% 3% 4% 2% Washington Franklin Lewis & Wilson MS Total 33. Dropped out of school? MS MS Clark MS a. None 79% 86% 85% 92% 85% b. 1 14% 6% 10% 5% 9% c. 2 4% 3% 1% 0% 2% d. 3 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% e. 4 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% NOTES. . IIII 45 Vlagi I in Consultancy City of Yakima Life Experiences • Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & 34. Been members of a gang? MS MS MS Clark MS Total a. None 72% 76% 89% 84% 80% b. 1 11% 7% 3% 5% 7% c. 2 4% 6% 1% 4% 4% d. 3 6% 3% 1% 3% 3% e. 4 7% 6% 5% 4% 6% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 41. Carried a handgun? MS MS MS Clark MS a. Never have 89% 88% 90% 92% 90% b. 10 or younger 6% 4% 3% 1% 3% c. 11 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% d. 12 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% e. 13 4% 1% 1% 1% 2% f. 14 0% 1% 1% 3% 1% g. 15 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% h. 16 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% i. 17 or older 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% III Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & 43. Belonged to a gang? MS MS MS Clark MS Total a. Never have 82% 92% 89% 92% 89% b. 10 or younger 0% 1% 3% 1% 1% c. 11 3% 0% 1% 3% 2% d. 12 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% e. 13 10% 3% 1% 1% 4% f. 14 3% 0% 0% 3% 1% g. 15 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% h. 16 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% i. 17 or older 0% 0% 0% • 0% 0% NOTES: II ivlagallan Consultant 46 GFI Data Workbook Life Experiences Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & • 44. Take a handgun to school? MS MS MS Clark MS Total a. Very wrong 79% 83% 73% 74% 77% b. Wrong 14% 13% 14% 15% 14% c. A little bit wrong 4% 1% 10% 5% 5% d. Not wrong at all 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 45. Steal anything worth more than $5? MS MS MS Clark MS a. Very wrong 46% 47% 42% 40% 44% b. Wrong 23% 26% 27% 30% 27% c. A little bit wrong 23% 21% 23% 22% 22% d. Not wrong at all 8% 4% 7% 7% 7% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 46. Pick a fight with someone? MS MS MS Clark MS a. Very wrong 42% 33% 30% 32% 34% b. Wrong 27% 33% 37% 32% 32% c. A little bit wrong 25% 24% 19% 26% 24% d. Not wrong at all 4% 10% 12% 11% 9 %10 49. It is all right to beat up people if they start Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total the fight. MS MS MS Clark MS a. No! 25% 28% 11% 15% 20% b. no 10% 21% 26% 19% 19% c. yes 42% 29% 23% 29% 31% d. Yes! 23% 22% 38% 37% 30% NOTES. . 0 47 N4a;r,nllan (oa ultuncy City of Yakima • Life Experiences D one crazy things even if they are a little Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & dangerous. MS MS MS Clark MS Total a. Never 55% 54% 34% 41% 46% b. I've done it, but not in the past 13% year ° 17% 26% 22% 19% c. Less than once a month' • 6% 8% 7% 11% 8% d. About once a month 13% 4% 8% 7% 8% e. 2 to 3 times a month 6% 8% 5% 7% 7% f. Once a week or more 8% 7% 12% 11% 10% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 56. Carried a handgun MS MS MS Clark MS a. Never 90% 94% 96% 92% 93% b. 1 or 2 times 1% 3% 1% 3% 2% c. 3 to 5 times 3% 0% 1% 0% 1% d. 6 to 9 times 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% e. 10 to 19 times 3% 0% 0% 1% 1% f. 20 to 29 times 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% g. 30 to 39 times 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% III h. 40+ times 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 61. Been drunk or high at school? MS MS MS Clark MS a. Never 77% 86% 85% 77% 81% b. 1 or 2 times 13% 10% 8% 4% 9% c. 3 to 5 times 1% 1% 4% 8% 4% d. 6 to 9 times 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% e. 10 to 19 times 3% 1% 0% 0% 1% f. 20 to 29 times 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% g. 30 to 39 times 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% h. 40+ times 1% 0% 0% 4% 1% NOTES: a/ Magallan Consultancy 48 GH Data Workbook Life Experiences 68. Are there any gangs at your Washington Franklin Lewis & Clark i school? MS MS Wilson MS Total MS a. No 3% 14% 14% 7% 9% b. Yes 44% 38% 29% 36% 36% c. Don't know 54% 49% 55% 53% 53% 69. Do any of the students at your Washington Franklin Lewis & Clark school belong to a gang? MS MS Wilson MS MS Total a. No 1% 14% 7% 8% 8% b. Yes 45% 35% 44% 44% 42% c. Don't know 54% 51% 48% 44% 49% 70. What about gangs that don't have members attending your Washington Franklin Lewis & Clark school...have any of those gangs MS MS Wilson MS MS Total come around your school in the past six months? a. No 3% 17% 12% 19% 13% 40 b. Yes 37% 15% 16% 14% 21% c. Don't know 61% 65% 67% 62% 64% 71. How often have gangs been involved Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & in fights, attacks, or violence at your MS MS MS Clark MS Total school in the past six months? a. Never 7% 15% 12% 12% 12% b. Once or twice a month 25% 13% 8% 16% 16% c. Once or twice a week 3% 1% 3% 0% 2% d. Almost every day 4% 1% 0% 4% 2% e. Don't know 45% 26% 29% 33% 33% NOTES: III 49 Nlattallan Consultancy City of Yakima Life Experiences • 72. Have gangs been involved in the Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & sale of drugs at your school in the past MS MS MS Clark MS Total six months? a. No 10% 14% 8% 18% 12% b. Yes 21% 17% 12% 14% 16% c. Don't know 58% 33% 40% 45% 44% 73. Have any gang members brought Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & guns to your school in the past six MS MS MS Clark MS Total months? a. No 20% 18% 18% 25% 20% b. Yes 10% 6% 4% 10% 7% c. Don't know 58% 39% 38% 41% 44% 87% 63% 60% 75% 71% • • • NOTES: III RZagallan Consultancy 50 GFI Data Workbook Gang Experiences Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & 0 83. Have you ever belonged to a gang? MS MS MS Clark MS Total a. No 76% 88% 81% 84% 82% b. Yes 20% 13% 12% 15% 15% 84. If you have ever belonged to a gang, did Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total that gang have a name MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 7% 11% 12% 19% 12% b. Yes 92% 87% 82% 85% 86% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & 85. Are you a gang member now? MS MS MS Clark MS Total a. No 63% 54% 59% 38% 53% b. Yes 35% 43% 35% 66% 45% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 90. You can join before age 13. MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 28% 11% 23% 38% 25% b. Yes 35% 76% 59% 56% 57% NOTES: ill 51 Zvlagallan C'offuiltancv City of Yakima Gang Experiences 99. Why did you join the gang? Mark all that Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total apply. MS MS MS Clark MS a. For fun 28% 0% 59% 66% 38% b. For protection 35% 11% 12% 38% 24% c. A friend was in the gang 7% 22% 12% 28% 17% d. A brother or sister was in the 21% gang ° 11% 12% 19% 16% e. I was forced to join 0% 0% 12% 0% 3% f. To get respect 21% 11% 23% 47% 26% g. For money 0% 22% 23% 38% 21% h. To fit in better 0% 11% 0% 9% 5% i. Other 0% 11% 12% 9% 8% j. Not in a gang 21% 22% 12% 9% 16% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 101. Get in fights with other gangs MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 0% 11% 12% 19% 10% b. Yes 63% 87% 47% 66% 66% 1111 Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & 102. Provide protection for each other MS MS MS Clark MS Total a. No 0% 11% 0% 0% 3% b. Yes 63% 87% 70% 85% 76% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 103. Steal things MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 28% 22% 0% 9% 15% b. Yes 35% 76% 70% 75% 64% NOTES: • 411/ Magailan Consultancy 52 GUI Data Workbook Gang Experiences III Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 104. Rob other people MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 28% 33% 33% 19% 28% b. Yes 35% 65% 65% 66% 58% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 105. Steal cars MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 28% 43% 0% 38% 27% b. Yes 35% 54% 59% 47% 49% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 106. Sell marijuana MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 14% 22% 0% 9% 11% b. Yes 49% 76% 70% 75% 68% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 107. Sell other illegal drugs MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 28% 43% 12% 28% 28% b. Yes 35% 54% 47% 56% 48 Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 108. Damage or destroy property MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 7% 33% 12% 28% 20% b. Yes 56% 65% 47% 56% 56% NOTES: 53 ;v?-lga; tan C'onst,3<<u,c • City of Yakima • Neighborhood Experiences Washington Lewis & 126. My neighbors notice when I'm do- MS Franklin MS Wilson MS Total Clark MS ing a good job and let me know. a. No! 39% 29% 36% 47% 38% b. no 38% 32% 32% 36% 34% c. yes 14% 22% 21% 12% 17% d. Yes! 8% 11% 5% 4% 7% Washington Lewis & Franklin MS Wilson MS Total 127. I like my neighborhood. MS Clark MS a. No! 10% 11% 8% 14% 11% b. no 21% 15% 15% 12% 16% c. yes 41% 43% 37% 47% 42% d. Yes! 28% 31% 32% 25% 29% 128. There are lots of adults in my Washington Lewis & neighborhood I could talk to about MS Franklin MS Wilson MS Clark MS Total something important. 0 a. No! 20% 19% 26% 30% 24% b. no 44% 26% 30% 26% 32% c. yes 24% 35% 22% 32% 28% d. Yes! 13% 19% 15% 11% 15% Washington Franklin MS Wilson MS Lewis & Total 143. I feel safe in my neighborhood. MS Clark MS a. No! 8% 7% 4% 8% 7% b. no 28% 17% 18% 18% 20% c. yes 41% 44% 45% 52% 46% d. Yes! 23% 31% 18% 19% 23% NOTES: • Magallan Consultancy 54 GPI Data Workbook Family Experiences 46 Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 154. The rules in my family are clear. MS MS MS Clark MS a. No! 1% 0% 5% 7% 3% b. no 10% 4% 7% 8% 7% c. yes 48% 44% 45% 44% 45% d. Yes! 41% 50% 33% 37% 40% 155. Has anyone in your family ever had a se- Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total vere alcohol or drug problem? MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 59% 61% 63% 63% 62% b. Yes 41% 36% 27% 34% 35% 1110 NOTES: III 55 Magalian ;.'o:siultalley