HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2009 10 Gang-Free Initiative CLERKS (KA)
PL items
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT.
Item No. /C
+ For Meeting of November 18, 2009
ITEM TITLE: Proposed Gang-Free Initiative
SUBMITTED BY: Dick Zais, City Manager
Dave Zabell, Assistant City Manager
Michael Morales, Deputy Director, C&E Development
Chief Granato, Yakima police Department
Deputy Chief Rosenow, Yakima Police Department
Cynthia Martinez, Senior Assistant City Attorney
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Dick Zais, City Manager 575-6040
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The Yakima City Council Public Safety Committee
met this past Tuesday, November 10, 2009. Councilwoman Sonia Rodriguez
proposed that the City of Yakima adopt a Gang-Free Initiative. She explained her
proposal and provided the attached Exhibit A. The idea was discussed by all
present and the Public Safety Committee Members came to a consensus that a
Gang-Free Initiative should be the next step in the fight against criminal street gangs
infecting the City of Yakima and Yakima County.
Continued on next page.
Resolution Ordinance Contract Other(Specify) Policy
- • Contract Mail to (name and address):
Phone:
Funding Source
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: =
- y Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This is a Council policy decision.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Yakima City Council Public Safety
Committee is forwarding this motion to the full council for consideration. The Committee
Members unanimously approved the discussed motion.
COUNCIL ACTION:
cim/proposed gang-free initiative agenda/page 1 of 2
• Continued from previous page...
Further discussion of the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Model
Plan, lead to the realization that this project could not be added to the duties of a
current city employee nor should the effort be split among several individuals. The
Committee Members speculated that the project will require a full-time dedicated
employee' whose job will be lead, direct and implement Council's Gang-Free
Initiative.
At the end of the Public Safety meeting Councilwoman Sonia Rodriquez moved that
the City of Yakima staff develop a proposal for a Gang-Free Initiative or a
comprehensive long term action plan for the'prevention and intervention of Criminal
Street Gangs, based on the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention
Model Plan. The proposal should include, if appropriate, the creation of a proposed
permanent position, with identified funding options, whose job will be to lead,
coordinate, and implement Yakima City Council's Gang-Free Initiative. The
completed proposal should be reviewed by the Council Public Safety Committee in
the next 60 to 90 days, and upon their approval; go to the full Council for
consideration. •
The motion was unanimously approved by the Public Safety Committee members
• and it was agreed that this motion should be forwarded to the full Council for
consideration at the November 17, 2009 business meeting.
Attached is a draft position paper.
•
•
•
•
cim/proposed gang-free initiative agenda/page 2 of 2
•
•
YAKIMA GANG-FREE INITIATIVE
GANGS ARE ORGANIZED CRIME, OPERATED BY YOUNG ADULTS.
Youth are the soldiers who work their way up the ranks. They are just as often "drafted" as they,
are "recruited." Yakima cannot continue to limit our view of gangs as a "youth problem" or an .
"immigration problem", simply solved by giving more activities or deportation.
In order to be comprehensive and sustainable, our definition of the gang problem must include
not only the "gang lifestyle", but each phase or aspect of the "gang life cycle", such as:
• Family Structure
• Neighborhood Structure
• Youth gang member recruitment, including elementary/ school
• Graffiti tagging crews
O Female gangs, or affiliates (girlfriends, siblings, relatives) of gangs.
o Drug trafficking cartels
•
• Jail and prison gang ActiVity
• Parolees
•
•
A Gang Free Initiative requires substantial investment and accountability, not just coordination
and reporting. It requires a sustained commitment to a model with specific timelines and •
benchmarks for the city and community partners to take action. This action plan must be led by
and answerable to the Yakima City Council.
•
A Gang-Free Initiative should be based on the Five Strategies of the Comprehensive Gang
Model from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).
1. Community Mobilization
2. Opportunities Provision
3. Social Intervention
4. Suppression
5. Organizational Change and Development
•
It is easy to say that efforts currently exist under these strategies, but in reality only #4 —
Suppression, 'is held accountable to the City Council. We need to establish the standards and
keep the attention focused on the outcomes. Examples include:
• Stop the growth of gang membership, not just acts of violence. •
• Establish constant and direct communication with grassroots neighborhood residents in
multiple locations, not just hold forums.
• Timelines and performance measures for emphasis sweeps so we know if it worked, and
what it will take to sustain the results.
Requested Actions: Direct staff to develop the framework for a five-point action plan using the
OJJDP model, and present to the Public Safety Committee (the committee's agenda should be
limited to this single item). The committee is asked to present the plan for formal adoption of by
the city council on December 15, 2009.
•
E . 4-
Position Paper
Community -Based Gang Prevention and Intervention
Purpose of Position Paper:
The Governor's Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee is pleased to present this position paper
regarding, "Community -Based Gang Prevention and Intervention ". This white paper is the
first in a series, which will cover critical and emerging juvenile justice and delinquency
prevention issues.
The Governor's Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee (GJJAC) was established in 1982, by
Executive Order, in response to the federal Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention (JJDP)
Act of 1974, as amended (reauthorized in 2002). The mission of the GJJAC is to promote
partnerships and innovations that improve outcomes for juvenile offenders and
their victims, to build family and community capacity to prevent delinquency, and
to provide analysis and expertise to state and local policymakers.
GJJAC positions and recommendations are based on research and /or evidence -based
practice. It is the intent of this, and future, white paper(s) to inform, encourage, and help
form public policy to improve and enhance the lives of youth, their families, and
communities.
Why did GJJAC select this topic ?:
Perception is reality. If a community perceives increased gang activity and fears groups of
youth, the community has a rea /problem. The challenge in resolving this dilemma is to find
fact among myths or fear, and to work within the community to institute proven prevention
and intervention strategies. The GJJAC has met in several communities during this past year
and we have repeatedly heard of concerns and fear of gangs.
The purpose of this paper is to:
• Provide data regarding youth violence and gangs,
• Present research and evidence -based practice to intervene with youth gangs and
violence, and
• Offer a recommended strategy for community mobilization to counteract youth
violence and gang involvement.
Risk factors for youth gang membership:
Washington State embraces prevention and risk factors
Washington State has long valued research -based youth risk and protective factors as a basis
for community prevention services. Since the early 1980's community -based drug abuse
prevention activities have been tied to the Hawkins - Catalano "Communities that Care" model
(Appendix I). Similarly, State - funded Community Mobilization efforts and many Community
Public Health and Safety Networks use this risk and protective factor research as a basis for
community prevention /intervention activities. The Search Institute developmental assets are
also widely used by communities in Washington State to identify and strengthen protective
"assets" of youth. (Appendix II)
1
Research says,..
Thornberry et al 2004 research presents "developmental pathways to serious and violent
offending" (Appendix III) which identifies specific overt and covert behaviors that are found
to lead to juvenile violent and serious behavior. This research shows that serious delinquent
behavior many times starts with authority conflict behavior around age 7, moderately serious
behavior at age 9.5, and serious delinquency at age 12. The average first contact with
juvenile court is 14.5. This pathway information accentuates the need to prevent or
intervene at an early age, in order to avoid serious and violent offending.
Research-based intervention for juvenile offenders has been operational for several years in
Washington State. Juvenile offenders receive evidence-based programming (such as
Aggression Replacement Training, Functional Family Therapy, Multi-systemic Therapy),, based
on a risk assessment.
Research shows that there is causal risk for gang membership. Risk factors for youth gang
membership include: "youth who grow up in more disorganized neighborhoods; who come
from impoverished, distressed families; who do poorly in school and have low attachment to
school and teachers; who associate with delinquent peers; and engage in various forms of
problem behaviors" (Thornberry, 1998; Hill et a), 1996).
The Seattle youth project ("Early precursors of gang membership, a study of Seattle youth;
Hill, Lui, and Hawkins) found similar risk factors that increased the likelihood of adolescent
gang involvement. These risk, factors span all life domains — individual, peer, family, school,
and community. The accumulation of risk factors identified in the Hawkins/Catalano
"Communities that Care" model (see Appendix I) were used for predicting youth gang
involvement:
• Marginal neighborhoods. Youth who live in neighborhoods where acquaintances
were in trouble were 3 times more likely to join gangs. Those living in
neighborhoods where marijuana is easily available were 3.6 times more likely to
join.
• Family, Juveniles in single-parent families were 2.4 times more likely to join a
gang than those in two-parent households, Parental attitudes towards violence,
poor family management, and low parental attachment correlated with gang
membership
• Academic problems. Youth with learning disabilities were 3.6 times more likely to
join gangs. Those with low academic achievement were 3.1 times more likely to
join.
• Peer groups. Youth who associated with delinquent friends were 2.0 times more
likely to join gangs.
• Drugs and violence. Juveniles who used marijuana were 3.7 times more likely to
join gangs. Youth who engaged in violent behavior at younger ages than their
peers were 3.1 times more likely to join,
2
Youth gang membership:
Definition of Gang:
There is a of consensus of the definition of youth "gang". However, research tends to
use characteristics in identifying gangs. Howell (1994) summarized youth gang
characteristics as:
• Formal organizational structure
• Identifiable leadership
• Identified territory
• Recurrent interaction
• Engaging in serious or violent behavior
Youth gang characteristics:
Studies conducted in the cities of Denver and Rochester (Thornberry, et al) indicate that half
of the male youth gang members remained in a gang for less than one year. The studies
also found that gang members are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.
Many researchers have found that youth gangs have low levels of organization&
sophistication and are typically loose in structure.
National data on youth violence:
The 2001 U.S. Surgeon General (Satcher) report on Youth Violence stated that youth
violence is a public health concern, Major findings and conclusions of that report included
the recognition that effective prevention and intervention strategies DO exist, a broad array
of risk factors must be addressed (individual, family, school, etc.), and program effectiveness
depends on the quality.of the intervention. Mercer (2006) believes that focus on gangs
distracts researchers and policy makers from.the real problem of youth violence.
Based on the 2006 preliminary FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR) (released on June 4, 2007),
the Department of Justice "cautions that there is no evidence that the uptick in crime is a
national trend." (Justice Policy Institute, 6.05,07). The most recent detailed UCR (2005)
report shows that youth are responsible for 15% of violent crime. The 2006 Bureau of
Justice Statistics study reports that 10% of homicide convictions, 12 percent of robbery
convictions, and 4 percent of rape and assault Convictions were youth under age 18.
Even though gang members have a propensity toward criminal activity, gang members
appear to be responsible for fewer than one in four drug sales, fewer than one in' 10
homicides, fewer than one if 16 violent offenses, and fewer than one in 20 index crimes.
(Justice Policy Institute; Gang Wars, July 2007).
State data on youth violence:
The 2006 statewide number and rate of juvenile arrests dropped for the third year in a row.
There were 34,597 arrests (48.2 arrests per 1,000 juveniles age 10 — 17) during 2006.
Violent offense arrests are at an all-time low and the violent crime rate has remained
stagnant, at 2.0 per 1,000 youth. Washington State's juvenile arrests have declined 9.1%
during the past five years (2002 — 2006) from 38,073 arrests in 2002, down to 34,597 arrests
in 2006. The State's juvenile arrests reached as high as 57,773 in 1994.
3
The 2006 Washington Uniform Crime Report show a slight increase (.8%) in reported violent
crime (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), as compared to 2005.
Overall, the state experienced a 7.2% decrease in all index offenses (murder, rape, robbery,
aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft; and arson) compared to 2005.
The 2006 crime rate (per 1,000 population) for all crime index offenses was 48.1, a decrease
of 9.0% from 2005. (Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, March 19, 2007,
press release)
The Washington State Healthy Youth Survey includes questions regarding gang membership
and carrying a gun. Results of 8th, 10 th, and 12 grade students from the past three surveys
(2002, 2004, and 2006) do show increased youth gang membership. (See chart below)
Gang Membership Self-Reported by Students
Petcentave of Studehts'
15 ///
• 10 - ED 2002
1= 2004
2006
5
ki4.1
trff NR:
0 /
Glade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12
' 1r,rl Cludent, wh. mpc.ried Ilrey Ir.cr b n,rb1r pr3clurireg tha pt 12 mr,rrlf,,5
4 Ishire41 Urde 'Qe.rth Survey D.■.pzrrtrn era uf 1.1.2alth (mrvAr'.i.dvAr ors ,Qv/H? Sr')
The Governor's Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee recently surveyed "Community Juvenile
Justice Coordination" groups asking:
• Is your community experiencing an increase in gang activity? If so, what
indicators have been used to identify this increase?
• What strategies are being used (or planned) to prevent and/or intervene with
gangs?
• What assistance is needed in your community for prevention or intervention of
gang membership or activities?
Nine jurisdictions, from four counties responded to this survey. All respondents, except one,
noted an increase in community gang activity. Most respondents were law enforcement
officers. All respondents stressed the importance of the entire community working together
to intervene with gang issues. Many stated that there are not enough community resources
to offer hope and alternatives to youth who are at-risk in becoming gang involved. To quote
a respondent, "A 'gang problem' within a community is not law enforcement's problem; it's a
problem of the community."
4
Research and policy implications
Based on the research and data described in this position paper, the following policy
implications for youth gang prevention/intervention are revealed:
Risk and protective factors must be addressed:
In order to develop appropriate and effective prevention and intervention strategies, both
risk and protective factors must be addressed. Protective factors help strengthen a youth's
resiliency towards gang involvement. (See Appendices II and II).
Recognize opportunities to intervene:.
Research shows youth who join gangs "possess a great need for belonging" at age 13, and
join the gang within 6 months. Those youth have criminal records by age 14. The "window
of opportunity" to provide primary and secondary Prevention services are critical at the pre-
teen age. (Huff, 1998). Some risk factors are more amenable to change than others (see
Appendix V)
Tertiary prevention is needed at time of first property crime:
During early gang involvement (first 2 years of gang membership) first-time property
offenders are found to respond to intervention.
Robust evaluation of gang prevention programs is necessary:
Sherman et al. (1997) review of gang prevention programs found that many programs have
not been evaluated or have either failed to decrease gang violence or have actually increased
it. Competent and stringent evaluation is necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of
prevention and intervention strategies.
A mufti-prong approach is necessary;
Suppression methods are the most common gang intervention strategy, but have been found
to be the least effective (Decker, 2002). Focus should be on reduction of violence, not the
elimination of gangs.
Effective gang prevention and intervention strategies do exist:
Review of gang intervention programs does reveal some "effective" strategies. The Federal
Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Model Program Guide lists 13
promising or effective gang prevention programs. The WSIPP 2006 report "Evidence-based
public policy options to reduce future prison..." state that evidence based practice that work
with violent and seriously delinquent youth are more cost effective and produce more
benefits than traditional punitive measures.
The public supports bigger investments in youth interventions that work:
A 2007 public poll conducted by Zogby International for the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency (Krisberg and Marchionna) shows that the public overwhelmingly supports
rehabilitation and treatment of young people in trouble. Nine out of 10 people believe that
rehabilitation and treatment for incarcerated youth can prevent future crime, and 8 out of 10
thought spending money on rehabilitative services and treatment for youth will save money
in the long run.
Successful community-based gang prevention and intervention:
The Institute for Inter-Governmental Research references research by Curry and Decker
(2003) and Wyrick and Howell (2004) which stresses "over reliance on one strategy or
another is unlikely to produce fundamental changes in the scope and severity of a
community's gang problem. A balance of prevention, intervention, and suppression
strategies and programs is likely to be more effective." (Esbensen, 2000).
5
..A
Common elements of successful strategies:
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) research indicates three
common elements in successful gang prevention/intervention strategies:
• Community leaders recognize the presence of gangs and seek to understand the
nature and extent of the local gang problem through a comprehensive and
systematic assessment of the gang problem,
• The combined leadership of the justice system and the community focuses on the
mobilization of institutional and community resources to address gang problems,
and
• Those in principal roles develop a consensus — based on problem assessment
rather than assumptions — on definitions (e.g. gang, gang incident) specific targets
of agency and inter-agency efforts, and interrelated strategies. Prevention and
intervention efforts focus on the population and/or community areas in which
youth are at greatest risk for gang membership and gang violence. (01:IDP,
Assessment of youth gang problems)
Factors for successful community efforts:
The OJJDP identified critical success factors in three pilot site's comprehensive community
prevention and intervention efforts for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders (The
Comprehensive Strategy: Lessons Learned from the Pilot Sites, JJDP, March 2000). The
factors which ensured a successful community effort are:
• Leadership: The community process must be led by a dynamic, influential, and
respected community leader, who is able to initiate and sustain commitment from
other community leaders and key community organizations.
• Agency and community support: Support is vital because of the significant amount
of staff time that must be dedicated to successful implementation, such as data
collection and analysis, community assessment, training and meetings, and
developing a strategic action plan.
• Maximizing existing resources and systems: Multi-agency and coordinated
approach is a cornerstone to community efforts. Existing resources should be
recognized and built upon to maximize community efforts, and avoid duplication.
• Marketing and Media: Engaging media early in the community process can create
powerful alliances. Media can promote public awareness and generate community
participation in the planning process.
• Training and technical assistance: Training helps assure a common language and •
understanding of the community's strategic plan. Technical assistance helps
community partners to stay focused and provides guidance during all phases of
implementation.
• Early wins: Early accomplishments are possible through well-coordinated efforts.
These early wins are important motivators and serve as evidence to gain additional
community support and participation.
6
4./
Recommended strategy for Washington State
"Community-based Gang Prevention and Intervention"
Based on research and evidence-based practice, a recommended strategy for gang
prevention and intervention must have the following characteristics:
• Prevention, intervention, and suppression strategies which are collaborative and
community-based,
• Restorative justice principles and practices are in place, which balance attention to
community safety and victim restoration equally with offender accountability and
rehabilitation.
• Community characteristics for success are present (six factors as described on
page 6 of this position paper),
• Outcome measures are clearly defined, and are:
o Research-based, and found to be effective in gang prevention, intervention,
and suppression, (See examples found in Appendix VI)
o Data collection tools and methods are clearly identified,
o On-going evaluation and quality assurance mechanisms are present,
• Replicable in multiple community settings (urban, rural, etc.), and
• Programs and practice must be culturally relevant and sensitive to specific racial
and ethnic groups to be served;
To implement a statewide gang prevention and intervention strategy, GJJAC recommends:
• Establish a state "gang prevention and intervention" Initiative, which will fund state-
wide community-based gang prevention and intervention activities and statewide
coordination and evaluation.
• Designate the GJJAC to provide administrative support to the Initiative, including the
"request for proposal" (RFP), selection process, and grants management for
community sites, cross-site evaluation, and statewide coordination,
• Statewide coordination would include training, technical assistance, and consultation.
These services would assist communities in facing typical challenges in planning
implementation, such as data collection and analysis and evaluation tools.
• Up to five (5) communities, representing geographic and ethnic diversity of the state
would be selected through an open and competitive (request for proposal) process to
participate and implement this Initiative.
• Community training would be provided to selected community sites regarding the
Initiative, to include data collection and analysis, performance measures and
evaluation. Initial training would include The National Youth Gang Center's community
assessment tool, as well as many identified prevention, intervention, and suppression
strategies to address specific risk factors in various age groups.
• Based on each community's assessment, the community would develop a
comprehensive/collaborative plan for gang prevention, intervention, and suppression,
which would address the statewide outcomes. (Model Programs, Appendix VI)
• State-wide cross-site evaluation must be initiated from the start on this Initiative.
Development of common definitions and outcomes, as well as adherence to the
program model, are critical for outcome measurements and successful
implementation.
7
•
•
• Selected sites would be funded for up to five years, and would agree t--o participate in
state-wide! training and evaluation of the model. Based on the findings of the
evaluation, expansion of community sites would be considered..
• .
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • : I
•
•
•
8 •
•