Loading...
02/21/2012 03Bii Yakima Gang Free Initiative Report - Distributed at the Meeting [2011 Community Action Plan] i s4r;1-Do+ccJ zpi/ 1 i 1 The City of Yakima Gang Free Initiative: Community Action Plan: A Comprehensive Approach to the • Prevention, Intervention, & Suppression of Youth Gangs 1 , !- • /r4 4 - 1- 11-4P. / it T4.4" '.( l?! • ) kL 11)114 4. `tip *tf. ♦+ *1 • . 0fATt9 1 Februar y 2 , 2012 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 2012 City of Yakima Gang Free Initiative Community Action Plan: A Comprehensive Approach to the Prevention, Intervention & Suppression of Youth Gangs ' Produced and Funded by ' The City of Yakima and Yakima City Council Under the supervision of The City of Yakima Gang Free Initiative ' Chair Maureen Adkison, Council Member ' Kathy Coffey, Council Member Dave Ettl, Council Member ' Michael Morales, Interim City Manager LT. Mike Merryman, Project Director I With research and development support provided by Magallan Consultancy 1 1 1 2011 Community Action Plan Page 2 Y g 1 I I This document and the efforts described herein were funded through a Special Ordinance from the I Yakima City Council through the General Contingency Fund. I For additional copies of this document, contact: Terri Croft, Administrative Assistant Yakima Police Department I 200 S. 3rd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Phone: 509 - 575 -6178 I Fax: 509-575-3003 tcroft @ci.yakima.wa.us I GFI Advisory Group I Maureen Adkison Luz Gutierrez t Dr. Elaine Beraza Nick Hughes Kathy Coffey Jack Maris Greg Copeland Nick Marquez I Chris DeVilleneuve Cynthia Martinez Carole Folsom -Hill LT. Mike Merryman Dr. Adam Hoverman Michael Morales I Pat Garcia Eva Valdivia I STATEMENT OF REPRODUCIBILITY With reference to the publisher, The City of Yakima, permission is granted, free of charge, to I 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 I in this report is quoted, the source should be credited. I I 2011 Community Action Plan Page 3 I Y g I I I 2012 City of Yakima Gang Free Initiative I Community Action Plan: A Comprehensive Approach to the Prevention, Intervention & Suppression of Youth Gangs I TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 6 I Data Workbook 7 I Community Profile 7 Introduction 8 I GFI Advisory Group 10 Youth Development Team 11 I Gang Free Initiative (YFDC) Coordinator 12 Community Action Plan 13 III Youth & Family Development Center (YFDC) 13 I Yakima School District Truancy Center 13 Referral & Screening 15 Individual Needs Assessment 15 Outreach 16 I Multi - Family Group 17 Community Mobilization 18 I Opportunities Provision 19 I Intervention Priorities 20 Suppression Priorities 21 I Targeted Emphasis Patrols 22 Organizational Change & Development 23 I Appendix A: GFI Community Profile (Including Data Workbook) 24 I I 2011 Community Action Plan Page 4 I .1 I City of Yakima Gang Free Initiative p I 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. u Mission Statement: I 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 11 I I I I I I I 2011 Community Action Plan Page I Y ge 5 I I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Yakima Community Action Plan for the Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression of ' Gangs (The Plan) represents the recommendations of the GFI Advisory Group to the City of Yakima for addressing the gang issue. Unlike other plans, it emphasizes prevention and intervention strategies at the neighborhood level and positions the City of Yakima together with community ' partners in a researched based, data driven, and outcome focused effort over the next 3 to 5 years. Four central assumptions frame the overall architecture to the Committee's recommended strategy. ' The City of Yakima and its partners endeavor to: 1. Facilitate total community involvement through strategic guidance and leadership. ' 2. Prevent the growth of gang activity and violence in Yakima through multidimensional collaborative efforts. 3. Pursue necessary funding through collaborative efforts. ' 4. Restore Yakima neighborhoods by reducing gang violence and problem activity throughout the City. I While key findings are outlined in the Introduction to this Plan, the Advisory Group's Community Action Plan is based on the following fundamental constructs: t • A multidimensional anti -gang strategy should target youth between the ages 11 -20 who exhibit high -risk behaviors and gang involvement. • Young people who would move up the ladder of gang membership and activity are those who commit intentional acts of violence or are arrested for gang related incidents. • The impact of gang members' actions not only adversely affects their parents, siblings, and other family members but the whole community — including the victims of gang violence I who must deal with the horror of losing a loved one and the agony of having to deal with a variety of agencies to get restitution and support. ' • No single program will fix the gang problems in our community. • Strong public leadership by the City Council, City Manager and Chief of Police is essential. ' • A coordinated and organized effort among all City departments, other government and community agencies is required to see results that integrate prevention, intervention, and suppression. ' • To be effective, all programs and services focused on gang prevention and intervention must be culturally competent, linguistically sensitive, and accessible to the entire community. ' These constructs must be evident in the partnership agreements entered into by collaborating entities with the City of Yakima. This action plan targets the greater City of Yakima with special emphasis on "hubs" of gang activity t in three neighborhoods— Northeast, North Central, and Southeast. In addition the Committee has established the following goals: 2011 Community Action Plan Page 6 1 I 1) Establish the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model as the operating system, I and 2) Reduce youth crime, violence, delinquency and academic failure through the prevention, intervention and suppression of youth gangs. Focusing on the goals stated above, the Advisory Group recommends to the City of Yakima the I following five strategic objectives: Objective 1: Establish an effective coordinated collaboration process to impact gang activity I citywide. Objective 2: Develop joint partnerships to help address the gang issues within the City of Yakima. I 1 Objective 3: Establish a data and research analysis process to keep the City Council, City Manager and GFI Committee aware of gang trends and anti -gang research on an ongoing basis. I Objective 4: Based on existing funding, build capacity in existing, effective and promising gang prevention and intervention programs /strategies on a neighborhood basis. I Objective 5: Develop a sustainable funding strategy for the Community Action Plan. Data Workbook I The Advisory Group's discussions of the community assessment data set the stage for development of the Action Plan for the first year of the project. Before the planning process began, the Advisory I Group members participated in the collection, analysis and interpretation of Community Demographic Data, Law Enforcement Data, School Data, Yakima County Risk Profile, and the OJJDP Student Survey. This background information can be found in the Data Workbook included as Appendix A. Community Profile I The 2011 Community Profile was produced for the benefit of key community stakeholders, policymakers and service providers. The Profile presents data and its analysis to support the I development of a citywide anti -gang approach to reducing juvenile crime and violence in Yakima. The Gang Free Initiative, commissioned by the Yakima City Council, developed the Community Profile to support the fight against youth gangs and associated problem behaviors. The information I contained within the Profile is intended to aid our community partners advance coordination of services, encourage the application of proven strategies, and improve opportunities for funding. I I 2011 Community Action Plan Page 7 I I I I 1 INTRODUCTION Youth gangs and related problem behaviors give communities various reasons for alarm. Gang I 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, I 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). Studies indicate that the level of youth violence is greater when influenced by gang I 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 for I the purpose of gang prevention possible. Past funding has been used primarily on gang suppression. Data collected on gang treatments have I focused on the effects of suppression. Research has focused on drug abuse and other problem behaviors leading the GFI Advisory Group to identify the primary problems within the context of youth gang crime and violence. They include: U 1. Assaults, School -based 2. Bullying, School -based I 3. Graffiti 4. Gang Association /Affiliation I 5. Juvenile Violence 6. Substance Abuse, Youth I 7. Truancy (Unexcused Absenteeism) 8. Weapons, Youth Access to I 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 I responses. The ruthless and violent nature is not limited to gang members. 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 I 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 I him /herself. (Akers & Burgess, 1966; Bandura, 1977, Hawkins & Catalano, 1996) Other themes associated with the resurgence of gangs and associated problem behaviors include I 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 I 2011 Community Action Plan Page 8 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.) It is also worth considering the unique geographic location of the City of Yakima and how it may I have contributed to the rise of gangs and associated problem behaviors. Yakima is also situated between major interstates and highways (1 -90, 1 -82, 1 -182, 184, HW97, HW12.) This makes it easy for clandestine drug manufacturing to occur in remote locations with relative easy access to distribution points. Yakima is also 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. These facts have been 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. The GFI Advisory Group recommends that the City endorsed programming be coordinated and implemented within each of the OJJDP five core strategies. Activities should 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 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 I 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. I • 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. These five OJJDP core strategies are addressed in a more comprehensive manner later in this document. ' 1 2011 Community Action Plan Page 9 The Advisory Group t The work of the collaborating partners, as set forth in this Plan, will be overseen by the City of Yakima GFI Advisory Group, comprised of representatives from agencies and organizations that have an interest in or a responsibility for addressing the community's gang problem. These representatives not only set policy and oversee the overall direction of the gang project, but also take responsibility for spearheading efforts in their own organizations to remove barriers to services and to social and economic opportunities; develop effective criminal justice, school, and social agency procedures; and promote policies that will further the goals of the gang strategy. The GFI Advisory Group is comprised of local stakeholders who 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 Advisory Group will meet, as decided by the Group, to review progress and determine work plan ' priorities. Standing committees may also meet monthly to aid in accomplishing the goals and objective of the Advisory Group. The "committees" will change and evolve as the needs of the Advisory Group change. Currently Advisory Group committees are: 1. Marketing and Community Education Committee. This committee develops and recommends all policies pertaining to the marketing of the Gang Free Initiative, including development and assessment of a comprehensive marketing strategy for the recruitment of ' partners and donors; formulation of a marketing schedule, and development of all marketing materials. Priorities for the first year of implementation include website development, partner outreach, community education, and cultivating media partners such as YPAC /KYVE. t 2. Planning and Development Committee. The aim of this committee is to secure organizational and financial stability for the Gang Free Initiative, promote the mission of the GFI and t ensures the representation of community needs and interests in routine plan updates. Also within the purview of this committee are the priorities described in the Organizational Change and Development strategy. Priorities for year one include facilities acquisition, coordination of fundraising activities, and oversight of the Resource Directory project. 3. Implementation Committee. The purpose of this committee is to ensure the effective and ' efficient implementation of the Community Action Plan. Additionally, this committee will oversee the Community Mobilization objectives as set forth later in this document. Priorities for the first year include identification of potential service providers and, working in tandem with the GFI t Coordinator, negotiate partner agreements (MOU's, MOA's & Contracts) that will govern the delivery of services, and oversee the activities of the Youth Development Team and outreach workers. t In addition to the three standing committees the Advisory Group may, from time to time, establish Ad Hoc committees or temporary workgroups to address specific issues. These committees will have a limited duration and may involve non - Advisory Group members referred to as Advisors. In the ' first year of implementation the Advisory Group will establish a Resource Directory Workgroup. This workgroup will be responsible for the development of the Yakima GFI Resource Directory. Finally, Advisory Group oversight will be provided by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee provides leadership to the Advisory Group by ensuring the vision, mission and activities 2011 Community Action Plan Page 10 I of the GFI are fulfilled. The Executive Committee will include a minimum of two City Council Members, the Project Director, and GFI Coordinator. Youth Development Team ' The Youth Development Team is at the core of the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model [Intervention] and plays a key role in identifying and delivering intervention and prevention services. This team is composed of a multidisciplinary group of professionals from the fields of law enforcement, probation, outreach, education, and social services, who work together to case manage the intervention targets of the action plan and to identify additional prevention, intervention, and suppression activities needed in the target communities. Participation on the Youth Development Team can increase the effectiveness of each agency's efforts, reduce duplication of services, increase access to needed services, and ensure that gang members are held accountable for their actions. The Advisory Group should determine the composition of the Youth Development Team and assign ' representatives to serve on it. At a minimum, the following key agencies are crucial to an effective Youth Development Team and should be represented: • Law enforcement representatives who are very familiar with local gang activity and the target community. • Juvenile and adult probation /parole officers who will have frequent contact with project ' clients. • School officials who can access student educational data for project clients and leverage educational services. • Appropriate social service and /or mental health providers who can connect clients to services and provide outcome information to the team. • A representative who can assist in preparing project clients for employment and place them in jobs. U • Outreach workers who can directly connect to project clients on the street, in their homes, or at school. Other agencies may be asked to participate on an as- needed basis, including faith -based , organizations, recreational projects, community development organizations, and grassroots organizations. ' 1 2011 Community Action Plan Page 11 1 I 1 „i G Ia1, �� Roots I Adult P Agency vo 1 ' roes Pr obano n I Parole bn n I �// Outreach ` Social Wuiker Services Targeted t 1 Gang 1 Members �� aw Family E nk Law nt Services / 1 \ Mental Job i 1 Health Developer School Youth Development Team activities will include: I • Creating individualized case management plans for gang members participating in the project. I • Engaging gang members in direct services to address their specific needs. • Working together to dismantle or surmount barriers to accessing services. I • Holding gang members accountable for negative behaviors. • Assisting gang members in transitioning out of the gang lifestyle. I • Improving the effectiveness of agencies serving gang - involved clients. • Reducing overall gang - related crime in the community. I By identifying and providing concentrated services to those within the gang culture, the team's activities will also serve to improve the quality of life for all residents of Yakima by reducing gang crime and improving community safety. I Ganq Free Initiative (YFDC) Coordinator I The recommended Coordinator position is viewed as instrumental to ensuring a successful implementation of the strategic actions included in this plan. The Coordinator will establish and maintain linkages between public and private partnerships ensuring effective utilization of resources I directed toward the suppression of gang related crime and violence, intervening with gang - involved youth and their families enabling the eventual departure from the gang lifestyle, and prevention of future gang proliferation through coordinated youth development strategies. The position, whether I contracted or secured as a position within the City of Yakima personnel structure is envisioned at an average of 40 hours per week up to 2080 hours per year. I 1 COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN I 2011 Community Action Plan Page 12 Y g I The GFI Advisory Group, based on the understanding of the Yakima gang problem as identified in the Yakima Community Profile, has developed this Community Action Plan. The Plan is designed to meet the goals and objectives of the City of Yakima related to the reduction of gang crimes and violence as well as associated youth problem behaviors. The following narrative represents the recommendations of the GFI Advisory Group to the City of Yakima. YOUTH AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT CENTER (YFDC) The purpose of the Youth & Family Development Center (YFDC) is to establish a physical location from which centralized management and coordination functions supporting the implementation of the Community Action Plan would originate. In addition, the YFDC would function as the community's anti -gang "forum" or single point of access for information and services related to gang suppression, intervention and prevention. The core function of the YFDC is to serve as the nucleus of the strategic actions described throughout this comprehensive anti -gang strategy. The YFDC would offer a variety of partner- driven services and activities including: • Positive Youth Development Programming (e.g., Life Skills, Academic Enrichment, Career /Employment, Recreation.) • Information Dissemination • Outreach • Referrals & Screening ' • Individual Needs Assessments • Multi - Family Groups 1 • Parent Development & Family Reunification • Professional Development & Training 1 In addition, the YFDC would be home to the Youth Development Team, Yakima School District Truancy Center, and GFI Advisory Group whose functions are described in detail throughout this plan. It is the recommendation of the Advisory Group that the City of Yakima prioritizes the formation of a Youth & Family Development Center at one or more of the existing community centers and continues its support as a critical infrastructure item. Yakima Schools Truancy Center The Yakima Schools Truancy Center is a program designed to reduce school truancy among middle ' school and high school students in Yakima. The program will provide outreach, academic support, case management and family support in collaboration with the Yakima School District, Yakima County Juvenile Court, and the Yakima Police Department. Participants in the program are students who have been identified by school authorities, law enforcement, or by representatives of juvenile court for their excessive truancy from school or for ' exhibiting behaviors that typically place students at risk for truancy. The case management services will focus on: 1) Helping students determine their academic and vocational goals, 2) Assisting participants in creating plans to achieve those goals, and 3) Providing referrals to appropriate community resources. 2011 Community Action Plan Page 13 Y g 1 In 2008 the Washington State Institute for Public Policy conducted a study on the effectiveness of targeted truancy and dropout programs in middle and high schools. Three types of programs show improvement in school outcomes: alternative programs (e.g., schools - within - schools), mentoring, and behavioral programs while no positive outcomes were found for alternative schools, academic remediation, or youth development programs. Alternative programs provide specialized instruction 1 to a group of students within a traditional school, often separating them for at least some of their academic courses and integrating them with other students for elective classes. In this sense, alternative programs differ from alternative schools, in which the entire school day is spent in separate facilities that often include different rules and norms from traditional schools. Alternative programs had a positive effect on four outcomes — dropout, attendance, achievement, and graduation. The positive effects are due to a particular intervention model known as Career ' Academies. Career Academies are small learning communities within a larger school. They combine an academic and technical curriculum around a career theme (which differs based on local interest). ' Effective truancy and dropout prevention programs have the following core service components: (Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2009; OJJDP, 2006.) • Academic remediation/ tutoring: Assess students' academic skill deficiencies and provide ' specialized or intensive instruction to improve competency. • Career /technical education: Increase student awareness of the connection between school and work life, and teach technical skills (e.g., through vocational courses, employer internships, etc.). • Case management: Problem -solve barriers to school success and refer student and family to community or other services, based on needs. • Contingency management: Systematically reward desirable behaviors (e.g., on -time I attendance) and punish undesirable behaviors (e.g., not completing homework). • Counseling: Analyze and problem -solve barriers to school success, including personal, family, and social challenges, in a safe, supportive environment. 1 • Mentoring /advocacy: Provide students with a role model who supports their educational endeavors and advocates for their success in the school system. I • Monitoring attendance: Intensively track student attendance and follow up with student and parents to prevent tardies /absences. • Parent outreach: Engage parents in identifying and solving their child's school problems; t often families are referred to social or other supportive services. • Youth development: Provide opportunity for skill - building, horizon expansion, competence, and resilience, and improve connections to school and positive adults. • Referral services: Offer services that meet additional needs of the at -risk population served (e.g., childcare center /parenting classes, school -based health center). The Truancy Center will incorporate 10 of the 10 core services. Referral & Screening (Triage) 2011 Community Action Plan Page 14 Additionally, the Advisory Group recommends that a referral and screening mechanism be established. Referral is an informal, ongoing process for reviewing information related to youth who show signs of being at risk of gang involvement or have been determined to be gang involved. The referral process includes Youth Development Team review of screening and other information on referred youth, and the Teams decision about whether to add the youth to the caseload. Screening or "Triage" is a brief assessment of the youth's current status to determine individual and ' family priorities. It is important that team members create a protocol for screening and assessing new clients. Outreach workers present information about prospective youth to the team, outlining how each youth meets the screening criteria. The team members can then come to consensus about whether a youth is suitable for case management. A screening team including outreach workers and members of the Youth Development Team should ' meet regularly to review the referral materials that have come in. The screening process may indicate the need to refer the youth to crisis services. Upon gathering all information and determining eligibility based on the established criteria, the screening team will make a 111 determination. They will also take into consideration the ability of the program to serve the family based on current caseloads. A waiting list could be created in the future if we reach capacity. Individual Needs Assessment An individual needs assessment instrument should be developed to ascertain the status of each client when he is accepted into the project. The assessment instrument should be used for diagnosis, placement, and treatment planning and applicable in a variety of settings (i.e., school, jail, social service). The assessment should include information on: 1 • The client's future goals, abilities, talents, and desires. • Family situation and structure. ' • Gang involvement of family members. • Other family issues that may affect the client's gang involvement. ' • Criminal history. • Gang history (and gang affiliation). • School history, including special issues such as learning disabilities or a history of behavioral problems. • Gang climate in the client's neighborhood. • Substance abuse or mental health issues. • History of abuse or neglect. ' • Client's employment history and skill levels. • Special circumstances, such as a client who is a teen parent. ' • Agencies that are currently serving the client. • Possible safety issues involving the client. ' • Current needs assessments from any of the team agencies. 2011 Community Action Plan Page 15 Y g 1 • Court requirements such as community service hours and restitution. Outreach ' Outreach activities within the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model play a critical role. The primary focus of the outreach services is to build an ongoing and pro - social relationship with youth and families while linking them to appropriate services. Targeted outreach will be established to focus on core gang involved youth, with special capacity to connect pre- adjudication and in the local community setting. Outreach activities such as recreation and arts will be carefully integrated with existing and new prevention services not to become a primary focus, but rather a means to build ' relationships with clients and provide access to essential resources and services. Outreach will be a critical component to success of the YFDC. Outreach workers will provide information that helps the entire team gain a better understanding of what is going on with the target population and in the target area so that team interactions with gang members will be more informed. Outreach workers will fill in blanks for others on the team who may not be as familiar with the individuals or groups being targeted. Workers may describe treatment needs or ' compounding factors (such as family violence, substance abuse, etc.) that are affecting a youth's behavior. The Advisory Group recommends that outreach be conducted to include the following routine tasks: • Identify youths' needs and goals to help the team develop a more comprehensive intervention plan. ** • Coach and provide role models for each youth. ** ' • Coordinate appropriate crisis responses to project clients following episodes of violence in the community. • Provide assistance to families in distress, ranging from accessing basic services to helping resolve family conflicts. ** • Visit clients who are incarcerated and helping to reconnect them to services when they are ' released from custody. • Resolve conflicts and /or mediating between clients, their families, other youth, and /or agencies. • Act as a liaison between project clients and service providers /schools to facilitate client access to services. • Work with clients who are seeking employment, from helping these youth develop resumes, to identifying their skills and qualifications, to helping them apply for jobs or work with workforce services programs. ** U • Conduct gang awareness presentations in schools. ** * *Indicates existing community resource Multi- Family Group 2011 Community Action Plan Page 16 1 The Advisory Group recommends that a major component of intervention include a variation of the Multi - Family Group (MFG) treatment modality that integrates aspects of family psycho- education, behavioral therapy and multiple - family approaches. In this context MFG will bring families of gang members or those at -risk of joining gangs together for learning and problem - solving, all oriented to the improved functioning both of the family member who's receiving services and the family unit as a whole. ' The intervention begins with a minimum of three single - family engagement sessions, in which the patient's primary practitioner meets with the individual family, often without the youth present. These sessions are accompanied by separate meetings with the youth. When 5 -8 families have completed the engagement process, the facilitators, usually including the youth's case manager, conduct an extensive educational workshop, with youths present. The social /emotional aspects of the gang culture are discussed, after which the practitioners present and discuss guidelines for the family management of everyday problems resulting from the youth's gang membership and problem behaviors. The first meeting of the ongoing psycho - educational multi - family group follows the workshop by one or two weeks; its format includes a bi- weekly meeting schedule, 1 1/2 hour session length, leadership by two facilitators and participation by 5 -8 youth and their families. In most instances, ' the decision to have a given youth attend is based upon his or her gang status and possibility for disruptive behavior such a group may provoke. From this point forward, youth are strongly encouraged to attend and actively participate. The task of the facilitator, particularly at the beginning, is to adopt a business -like tone and approach that promotes a calm group climate, oriented towards learning new coping skills and engendering hope. ' The MFG's primary working method is to help each family and patient to apply the family guidelines to their specific problems and circumstances. This work proceeds in phases whose timing is linked to the severity of gang involvement of the youth. The approach maintains stability by systematically applying the group problem - solving method, case -by -case, to difficulties in implementing the family guidelines and fostering change. Practitioners continue to use problem - solving and brain - storming in the MFG to identify and find jobs and social contacts with the youth, to find new ways to enrich their social lives. This process prepares the way for the patient to go on to work on behavior change, which occupies much of the final phase of the MFG process. COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION 111 2011 Community Action Plan Page 17 Y g 1 ' The Advisory Group involves representatives of key organizations and other community leaders within the City of Yakima. It guides implementation of the Plan by responding to barriers to implementation, developing sound policy, lending support to the project where and when appropriate, and taking general ownership of the communitywide response. 1 The Advisory Group must also create and maintain interagency and community relationships that facilitate project development. Advisory Group members will work with residents in the target neighborhoods and community leaders to elicit their ideas and afford them a voice in identifying services and activities in the community. The committee will facilitate the development of community groups including but not limited to block watches, parent support groups, or other community alliances and coalitions. ' Community residents in the target area(s) will be offered programs and training to educate parents, business owners, and neighborhood groups about gangs. In the first 3 years of implementation Community Mobilization efforts will focus on accomplishing the following strategic actions: ' • 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. ** t • 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) t • Increase Block Watch participation in target neighborhoods. ** • Expand and enhance neighborhood based volunteerism targeting youth development programming. ** 2011 Community Action Plan Page 18 • Educate and inform citizens how to report gang crimes. * *Indicates existing community resource OPPORTUNITIES PROVISION Opportunities Provision refers to the development of a variety of specific education, training, and ' employment programs targeting at -risk and low level gang - involved youth. Special access to economic opportunities in the local and wider community must be provided for targeted youth including job - related education opportunities such as special educational and vocational skills and readiness training structured within regular schools, training programs, and mainstream job opportunities. Education, training, and job opportunity strategies should be integrated with those of social service, particularly youth outreach work, along with close supervision and social control, as necessary. Grassroots, faith - based, and community youth agencies can be involved through the sponsorship of training, tutoring, remedial education, vocational, and job development /placement programs for targeted youth. The City Administration and the City Council should prioritize funding of existing, effective, ' promising programs that establish targets for outcomes and outputs in a coordinated and collaborative manner with the City's funding source, i.e. Parks and Recreation, Police Department or private foundations. In addition, the City should enter into collaborative funding ventures only in instances where the partner has provided assurances regarding the use of evidence based programs and adherence with the core operating principles adopted by the GFI Advisory Group. The Resource Directory mentioned in the previous section is intended to create a neighborhood -based inventory of gang prevention and intervention programs and activities closely aligned with GFI's core operating principles and utilization of evidence -based programs. The directory may also assess which programs in the community have had internal or external evaluations completed and analyze evaluation results in order to develop criteria for future funding of promising prevention and intervention programs and activities. ' The Planning and Development and Implementation Committees should work collaboratively in the priorities described above and in initiating activities that target the following strategic actions: • 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. ** • 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). • Facilitate school reentry. ** • Expand structured out -of- school programming. ** • Expand gun safety education opportunities for youth. ** i Action Plan Page 2011 Community o e 19 a g 1 • 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. * *Indica existing community resource Prevention partnerships should focus on promoting programs that have outcomes that are effective and reflect a direct impact on gangs and at -risk youth's ability to make positive choices. Therefore, the Advisory Group should build capacity by having the City co- sponsor with local foundations workshops and community forums on evaluation methods and evidence -based programming. In addition, the GFI Advisory Group should establish criteria for providing endorsement with reviews every two years to make sure that partner agencies are responsive to changes within target service ' areas and clients. Finally, the Advisory Group recommends that the City Administration and City Council strongly support the GFI's effort to set up coordinated partner driven activities in the targeted ' neighborhoods. Coordination should be institutionalized within every City department to include practices, partnerships and /or technology that will support positive youth development. In addition, the City should establish cross - departmental communication procedures with City ' Departments to proactively address gang issues. The Advisory Group further recommends that the City establish formal agreements with community based organizations (inclusive of Faith Based groups) that support the City's effort to effectively impact gang activity. City departments should ' work with community organizations to enhance funding applications. The Advisory Group will monitor progress and, through the Implementation Committee, regularly generate reports for the City's Public Safety Committee. Intervention Priorities A fully integrated behavioral health model is required in order to effectively intervene in the gang problem. This would include a partnership among schools, law enforcement, social and 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 agency's role and leaves no one with a ' global understanding of the problem. 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' t 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 other entities. This greatly limits the accessibility of services for people who are presently alienated from mainstream interventions. Additionally, the ' 2011 Community Action Plan Page 20 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. The following intervention actions are recommended by the Advisory Group: • Expand trauma intervention services for victims, families and perpetrators. ** • 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. ** * *Indicates existing community resource The Advisory Group also recommends the development of a Youth Development Team to facilitate identifying youth who would benefit from the services made available via the YFDC. SUPPRESSION A strong targeted law enforcement presence was seen as fundamental 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 are 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. 2011 Community Action P lan Page 21 Y g 1 Targeted Emphasis Patrols ' The Steering Committee recommends the City of Yakima expand the Targeted Emphasis Patrols as they serve to increase visibility, and awareness that the police are in the area and prepared to act. Targeted Emphasis Patrols can be characterized as an increase in either the certainty or severity of ' official police reaction to gang activity in a specific area. Targeted Emphasis Patrols are proactive and have been effective in addressing general crime problems in addition to the gang targets in and around Yakima. ' With the recently established Yakima County Gang Court, a multiagency approach to targeting current gang members with suppression measures while also targeting entire gangs with police ' suppression is now possible. Enhance coordination can be achieved through Targeted Enforcement Teams consisting of gang unit investigators, a probation officer, a deputy district attorney, and a district attorney investigator. The teams will work together to selectively incarcerate the most ' violent and repeat older gang offenders in the most violent gangs, enforce probation controls on younger, less violent gang offenders, and arrest gang leaders in "hot spots" of gang activity. Once offenders are identified, they are monitored closely for new offenses and undergo intensive ' supervision when on probation for violation of probation terms and conditions. The following suppression actions are also recommended for the Targeted Enforcement Team by the Steering Committee: ' • 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. ** * *Indicates existing community resource ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE & DEVELOPMENT ' The policies and practices of organizations, particularly of agencies providing Intervention Team members and partnering in the provision of services must accommodate the goals and objectives of ' 2011 Community Action Plan Page 22 the Action Plan. Each program, agency, or community representative on the Advisory Group will ensure that its internal units are cooperating with one another and supporting the work of the Intervention Team. Professional development and training for the Intervention Team will be conducted for the different types of team participants separately and collectively. Training will focus on data sharing, joint planning, and intervention activities. Special training, close supervision, and administrative arrangements will also be established for outreach workers and law enforcement to support their collaborative roles. Organizational policies and practices should become increasingly inclusive and community- oriented. Awareness of the interests, needs, and cultural backgrounds of local residents and target youth will be emphasized throughout the change process. Driven primarily by the Advisory Group Planning and Development Committee, Organizational Change and Development activities will target the following strategic actions: • 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. ** • 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. t • 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. * *Indicates existing community resource 2011 Community Action Plan Page 23 Y g I I I APPENDIX A GANG FREE COMMUNITY PROFILE I (including Data Workbook) I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 2011 Community Action Plan Page 24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2011 Community Action Plan Page 25 I I I I 1 r_d" - - le y .!-_,T .:f- Y4:. "0 „,icErix.3- ,..,t,, .4 I ,...„. Vik 114 11;4 1 4‘ 4 1 ” 0 A 1 j e i s ) ) h I r ti Mfr S LL / / l T y ., iotivr, 9 I a I D ata W orkbook I Gang -Free Initiative I March 19, 2011 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Magallan Consultancy 10408 W. Willow Way * Pasco, WA 99301 509 - 543 -3616 * info @magallan.org 2 I I Table of Contents I I Section 1: Yakima School Data 6 Table 1.1: Washington State School -Based Weapons Incidents 7 I Table 1.2: Yakima County School -Based Weapons Incidents 7 Table 1.3: City of Yakima School -Based Weapons Incidents 8 1 Table 1.4: Yakima County School -Based Behavior Incidents 9 Table 1.5: City of Yakima School -Based Behavior Incidents 9 I Table 1.6: Yakima County Truancy Report (Grade 1 -8) 10 Table 1.7: City of Yakima Truancy Report (Grade 1 -8) 10 I Table 1.8: Yakima County Truancy Report (Grade 9 -12) 11 Table 1.9: City of Yakima Truancy Report (Grade 9 -12) 11 1 Section 2: Yakima Crime Data 12 Figure 2.1: City of Yakima Homicides, 2009 13 I Figure 2.2: City of Yakima Homicides, 2010 14 Figure 2.3: City of Yakima Homicides Rate 15 I 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 I Figure 2.8: Washington Hispanic Street Gangs 20 Figure 2.9: City of Yakima Gang Related Cases By Month 21 I 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 I 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 I I 4 I GFI Data Workbook 1 ' 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 1 ' 5 City of Yakima I I Section 1: 1 1 1 Yakima School i District Data I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 I GFI Data Workbook I Table 1.1: Washington State School -Based Weapons Incidents Year No. of No. Re- Handguns Rifle Other Total Knives Other Total I Districts porting Shotguns Firearms Firearms Daggers Weapons 2005 296 296 53 15 64 132 1891 961 3116 (100 %) I 2006 296 296 30 11 37 78 1988 1243 3387 (100 %) 2007 296 296 41 9 25 75 1981 1095 3151 • 2008 295 (100%) 43 11 20 74 1912 1018 3004 (100 %) 2009 295 295 30 14 26 70 1898 1000 2968 I (100 %) 2010 295 295 47 8 75 4 130 1842 3000 (100 %) I Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. I I Table 1.2: Yakima County School -Based Weapons Incidents Year Enroll- Hand- Rifle Other Total Knives Other Total ment guns Shotguns Fire- Fire- Daggers Weapons I 2005 48246 4 0 arms arms 1 5 95 43 148 2006 49139 0 1 1 2 109 79 192 I 2007 48249 1 1 5 7 145 67 219 2008 48822 4 I 1 6 116 38 160 I 2009 49170 0 1 I 2 126 78 206 2010 50799 4 1 1 6 104 51 161 t Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. NOTES: I I I I 7 i City of Yakima I 1 I I Table 1.3: City of Yakima School -Based Weapons Incidents I Yea Enroll- Handguns Rifle Other Total Knives Other To- r ment Shotguns Fire- Fire- Daggers Weapons tal arms arms I 2005 23118 0 0 0 0 52 28 80 2006 23802 0 1 0 1 60 49 111 I 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 I 2010 24807 4 0 0 4 39 36 79 Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. I I I I I I NOTES: I I I I 8 1 GI l Data Workbook I Table 1.4: Yakima County School -Based Behavior Incidents Year Enrollment Bullying Alcohol Drug Alcohol Violent Assault Total I (HIB) w/Drug Offenses 2004- 48809 828 388 0 0 7 723 1946 05 2005- 49793 908 37 307 65 45 686 2048 I 06 2006- 48358 1193 4 335 65 33 694 2324 07 I 2007- 48822 1630 II 262 56 12 866 2837 08 2008- 49170 1263 11 339 60 17 851 2541 I 09 2010 50799 724 441 80 I Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Table 1.5: City of Yakima School -Based Behavior Incidents I Year Enrollment Bullying Alcohol Drug Alcohol Violent Assault Total (HIB) w/Drug Offenses I 2004- 23436 494 170 0 0 3 260 927 05 2005 - 24142 495 13 162 43 27 262 1002 06 I 2006- 23249 573 0 204 40 6 344 1167 07 2007- 23573 959 3 175 34 1 334 1506 I 08 2008- 23674 860 3 214 36 3 339 1455 09 I 2010 50799 326 - 275 32 - - Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. I NOTES: I I 1 I I 9 City of Yakima Table 1.6: Yakima County Truancy Report (Grade 1 -8) 1 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 vied Forward ' sences a month a School Year from Prior Year 2004 -05 14201 1571 1617 265 47 I 2005 -06 14988 1856 1911 245 59 2006 -07 14313 1079 1272 256 3 2007 -08 14867 1165 1225 339 25 I 2008 -09 12015 1038 1178 164 14 2009 -10 12260 1159 1343 122 28 I Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. I Table 1.7: City of Yakima Truancy Report (Grade 1 -8) Year Students Students with Five Students with Ten Total Truancy Total Truancy I 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 I 2004 -05 7613 998 1091 151 27 2005 -06 7927 1034 1109 192 41 2006 - 07 6549 635 789 162 2 2007 - 6624 781 774 252 24 2008 -09 7815 655 772 122 12 I 2009 -10 7254 635 784 50 27 Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. I I I NOTES: U I I 10 1 I G1 1 Data Workbook 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 I 2005 -06 9701 2884 2797 283 46 2006 -07 7852 2798 2963 505 14 I 2007 -08 11250 3738 3992 599 7 2008 -09 10985 3341 3956 399 3 2009 -10 10727 3787 3760 171 7 I Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. I I 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 - 4451 1408 1419 135 25 I 2005 - 5177 1793 1741 165 30 2006 - 5036 1594 1675 369 0 I 2007 -08 6493 2393 2645 371 4 2008 - 6366 2481 2745 313 0 2009 -10 6296 2354 2576 80 7 I Source: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. I NOTES: I I I I I 11 City of Yakit section 2: � City ofYakima Crime Data 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GFI Data Workbook 1 I 1 Figure 2.1: City of Yakima Homicides, 2009 10 Yakima PD al ll• 'S r • Homnriws • • '7- ' `y` .. f Jan 37 ••c Q9 — - • ' ' -1;1:1 atelmeLGU • ' o y 7" ' w �•F 41 •- �x :. °.-._ -tea-- a --�.s: e�: �±a�Y a *..! . ,7 • La4errl 11 CAS ES_200918Noctl onl ` 'r I• • • all other .111U013. as i� Y GROUP I 1 -. - . - w • mi IRDER (9) • t ` • •x . 7 n•. ••.•••••• rwn�w••al• \•a4. Ppcsasephamon PHI., I •�" J, C -, :2-* j a _ R n..w\n....rwM e. •o a. .. i A • •!! _ - • ± S • 4b . ▪ ' e OO1N gm m..y mi..... s d U Source: Yakima Police Department. I I NOTES: I I I I 1 3 I City of Yakima I I I Figure 2.2: City of Yakima Homicides, 2010 I I . . I tn..r �.. 1 1` r t j Yakima' 1'1) 1 J I e 1 Jan - 31 Dec 20IQ Ptepared by ♦ • r.' r , .. • b1..._! . ! %.*` � } . �: r o 6 . . � , 7 , a l! t I•l - I 1 I 2,4 i 5 1 111 1 0 11 2\\ ' • V `. C ASES 20,0 (Selection) • .atl other values • ' GROUP • e • MURDER t121 1"Thii ! wa 3 I ...... Y.Y. • �Jf ,.�r .♦ IY• r w.i..r Airy k • j b I v... m..o.o. ..a...I..IS•.. I. r,., rn t � MI. ••• r e e a aim. mil* el p.��w Or . ! 5 S°.. "w w.... 0,4 t ! 11 •...a.ir.r. n.wrn.. • ! , t � � 1 Source: Yakima Police Department. I NOTES: I I I I 14 I I GFI Data Workbook 1 Figure 2.3: City of Yakima Homicides Rate Murders 20 18 R` = 0.9259 ' 16 14 ' 12 - 10 - Projected rate of 1.8 ' 8 - . - nnn in ?n11 ' 4 2 - 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Yakima Police Department. 1 NOTES: 1 I 1 1 i 15 City of Yakima ' 1 Figure 2.4: City of Yakima Weapons Calls Trends ' g y p 1 Annual Weapons Calls 2500 2000 1500 1 1000 ' 500 1 0 1 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1 Source: Yakima Police Department. I 1 NOTES: ' I I I 16 1 G1 I Data ti\ orkbook 1 Figure 2.5: City of Yakima Weapons Calls, 2009 -2010 I I I 1. •• ∎•,: le _ ) °0° e g o.% • r�`� —6 1 \ s p I I Source: Yakima Police Department. I I NOTES: I I I I 1 7 City of Yakima Figure 2.6 City of Yakima Weapons Violations Trends Weapons Violations 120 I 100 - 1T1� 105 80 1 60 - Drive By Shootings 52 Poss. Illegal Weapon 40 -Assault w /gun 20 -- �9 15 13 ' 0 2008 2009 2010 1800 1600 1538 1400 1 1200 1000 1059 800 Shots Fired 600 , 400 200 I 0 2008 2009 2010 I Source: Yakima Police Department. NOTES: I I I 1 18 ' I GUI Data Workbook I I I Figure 2.7 I ACTIVE WASHINGTON STATE STREET GANGS BY COUNTY o CANADA 0 Vacs oom I Sam !win . ‘ 10 PUGET ! "``a Ferry SOUND I., 0 Stevan, t ; Q "111 a m Joflorson a ,� . Douglas o I U Z M . 8 t .,,„,, 35 •.— — — w ,I' 0 • ( Spoken U v 7�' a CL. r* - VGtt�tos ;5n1 I mires Wl+dtttnn 8 1 • 0 0 Sw aman,o ..4umb,• O n F 0 0 0 No: To Sca!o OREGON I Source: Northwest HIDTA I I NOTES: I I I I I 19 City of Yakima 1 1 Figure 2.8: Washington Hispanic Street Gangs g g P g s d ' ' 1 °, I r I mr ,H 0 0 0 III II 0 P 1 0 0 0 0 I I 0 0 -- - I © r 0 �1 1 I 1 I 01 , I , 1 1 Source: STG -Gang Specialist Gabe Morales. King County Jail 1 1 NOTES: 1 1 1 1 20 r G1:1 Data Workbook r I Figure 2.9: City of Yakima Gang Related Cases by Month ' 250 — - — II 200 - -- 1 150 - I 2010 100 - —2009 111 4W4kVillr 50 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Source: Yakima Police Department. NOTES: I I I r 21 City of Yakima I I Figure 2.10 Juvenile Aggravated Assault Arrests. r Yakima Y^^ f lr z E 200 1CO mr- Source: US DOJ; Federal Bureau of Investigation r I OTES• r r r r 77 GFI Data Workbook ' Figure 2.11 Juvenile Arrest Rate. Yakima 16.000 14.E 12.000 10.000 8.000 g 6.000 " 4.000 ' 2.000 O il M *SP NI° a % „EP Source: US DOJ; Federal Bureau of Investigation 1 NOTES: I I 1 I I 23 City of Yakima Figure 2.12: Juvenile Drug Abuse Violation Arrests Yakima y 4.x} L = .r "44- qr � � o a � 'L M A R 1 Source: US DOJ; Federal Bureau of Investigation 1 NOTES. I I I I 24 GFI Data Workbook i r r Figure 2.13: Juvenile Murder Arrest Rates Yakima r 3 .. 30 r 2s r 15 10 A � 0 i ii „ts) eio ote e? ' fP° e 6P f ik ‘ Source: US DOJ; Federal Bureau of Investigation r NOTES: r r r r 1 25 Cit y • of Yakima ' t Figure 2.14: Juvenile Violent Crime Index. Yakima goo 603 r t 203 I 5 Source: US DOJ; Federal Bureau of Investigation 1 NOTES. I I I I I GFI Data Workbook Figure 2.15: Total Violent Crime Index 1 i Yakima 300 ,5o loo A 50 0 .4,5% ro t, . Ark Ati ftv igi o4 # 61 AP A 43 _ Ali Source: US DOJ; Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTES: I I I I 27 I I 1 Section 3: I 1 1 Yakima County i 2010 Risk Profile 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Gil Data Workbook I Domain /Factor Indicators ■Standardized Scores for Cascadia Co unty ■Counties Like Us I 1 Community Domain -043 The Indicator Profile Availability of Drugs A Icohol Retail Licenses -046 allows you to compare I 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 I indicator by domain and 02 summary measures Extreme Family Eco- Food Stamp Recipients 0 46 (factors). I nomic Deprivation (All Ages) emporary Assistance to 0 00 Needy Families (TANF), 0 30 I Child Recipients -0 22 Unemployed Persons 0 20 I (Age 16 +) 1 94 Transitions and Mo- Net Migration, 3 Year Moving 0 20 I bility A verage -0.82 Existing Home Sales -143 I 1. New Residence Construction 0 15 I Each Summary -0.05 Measure (factor) has 1 AOD Problems ' Icohol- Or Drug - Related -0 to 8 indicators. I Deaths More information is Clients Of State - Funded Al- 0.08 I 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 I 18 +) -0 42 rrests, Drug Law Violation _0.74 I (Age 18 +) 0.03 • rrests, Violent Crime 0 51 I Adult Violent Crime (Age 18 +) I lower state rate higher I f 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. I 29 it', sf "itkiiit1 1 Domain /Factor Indicators •Standard¢ed Scores for Yakima County • Counties Like Us I Community Domain Availability of Drugs • Icohol Retail Licenses -0.09 I -0.58 obacco Retail and Vending 014 I Machine Licenses -0 61 Extreme Family Eco- Food Stamp Recipients 2.19 t nomic Deprivation (All Ages) 0 48 emporary Assistance to I Needy Families (TANF), 2 83 hild Recipients 0.51 Unemployed Persons 1 29 I (Age 16 +) 0 46 Transitions and Mobility Net Migration, 3 Year Mov- -0.82 I ing Average 0 96 Existing Home Sales o 33 1 -0 12 New Residence Construc- -1 23 I ion -0 29 AOD Problems • Icohol- or Drug - Related -0.29 1 Deaths -0 27 Clients of State - Funded Al- ohol or Drug Services (Age 1 98 18 + ) 0.68 • rrests, Alcohol - Related 0.10 I (Age 18 +) -0.88 rrests, Drug Law Violation -0 04 1 (Age 18 +) -0 69 I Adult Violent Crime • rrests, Violent Crime 1 68 (Age 18 +) 0.79 1 I 30 I G11 Data. Workbook I Domain /Factor I ndicators •Standardized Scores for Yakima County • Counties Like Us 1 Community Domain Low Neighborhood Prisoners in State Correc- I Attachment and Com- 0.08 munity Disorganiza tional Systems 0 78 tion (Age 18 +) I Population Not Registered to 1.29 Vote 0 03 I Registered and Not Voting in the November Election 0.52 I -0.30 Family Domain I Family Problems Divorce -0.62 0 43 I Victims of Child Abuse and Neglect in Accepted Referrals 0.53 0.17 I School Domain Freshmen Who Leave School Senior Class Loss Before Their Senior Year 1.16 i -0.59 I Low School Test Poor Academic Performance, 1 81 Scores Grade 10 WASL (Age 15) 0.10 I Poor Academic Performance, 1 94 Grade 7 WASL (Age 12) 0.26 I Poor Academic Performance, Grade 4 WASL (Age 9) 1.83 I 0.15 Individual /Peer Domain I Early Criminal Justice rrests, Alcohol - or Drug - Involvement Related (Age 10 -14) 0 23 0.83 I rrests, Vandalism 2.64 (Age 10 -14) 1.03 I . 31 I C'itN or \ akima Domain /Factor Indicators • Standard¢ed 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 Fuld Mortality 0 14 (Ages 1 -17) -0 13 Births 2 18 (Mothers Age 10 -17) 0.29 exually Transmitted 1.07 Disease Cases (Birth -19) -0.56 Suicide and Suicide Attempts 1.49 (Age 10 -17) 0.39 1 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 a 32 ' (;H Data Workbook 1 Domain /Factor Indicators •Standardized Scores for Yakima County • Counties Like Us Problem Outcomes 60 ' Criminal Justice Offences, Domestic Violence -0 05 I 1.64 otal Arrests, (Age 10 -14) o s2 ' 1.84 rrests, Property Crime 0.51 ' (Age 10 -14) 1 89 rrests, Property Crime 1.21 (Age 10 -17) ' rrests, Property Crime 1.14 2 20 (Age 18 +) 2.00 rrests, Violent Crime 0.16 (Age 10 -17) 0.78 Substance Use Icohol- Related Traffic Fatali- 0.85 ies Per All Traffic Fatalities rrests, Alcohol Violation 0 30 (Age 10 -17) 0.15 ' 'rrests, Drug Law Violation 1.51 (Age 10 -17) 0 23 Clients of State - Funded Alco- 1.77 t hol or Drug Services (Age 0.59 10 -17) 1 ' 33 City of Yakima Section 4: 1 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 � i 1 34 GFI Data Workbook Figure 4.1 t Local State 100 80 77 60 40 I — 20 a 0 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 Figure 4.2 • Local Sims 100 ' 80 60 40 '° 1 20 , 0 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 NOTES: I I I I City of Yakima I Figure 4.3 I Lifetime Marijuana Use Percent of students who report having ever smoked marijuana I ■ Racal Shale I 100 80 I 60 40 3, I 20 il 13 i t 4 1 i I 0 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 Figure 4.4 I Current Marijuana Use Percent of students who report smoking marijuana in the past 30 days I ■ Local Shale I 100 80 I 60 40 I a 20 to 40 l I 1 Y le IN 0 I Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 NOTES. . I I I I 36 GPI Data Workbook 1 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 10 11 s �� e 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 16 ,76 17 T 79 1 a 1 0 ' Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 NOTES: I I I I 37 City of Yakima Figure 4.7 , Bullying 1 Percent of students who report being bullied in the past 30 days I Local State 100 ' 80 ' 60 40 30 32 30 77 I x I 24 I 77 20 ,� '� I 0 " Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 NOTES: 1 I 1 I 38 � GFI Data Workbook Figure 4.8 Weapon Carrying At School ' Percent of students who report carrying p ry g a weapon on school property in the past 30 days Local State 100 ' 80 60 40 ' 20 5 ._. 7 1 0 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 NOTES: I 1 I I 39 of ' akima ' Figure 4.9 ' Gang Membership Percent of students who report being members of a gang in the past year • Local stale 100 ' 80 ' 60 40 20 7 6 7 6 0 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 NOTES: I 1 I I 40 1 GFI Data Workbook I I Figure 4.10 Perceived Availability of Alcohol I Percent of students who report alcohol would be very hard to get ■ Local = Slate I 100 I 80 60 GO 49 40 j ' 1 20 ,1 z 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 get I I Local stale I 100 84 80 I 60 as I 20 _ii 0 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 I NOTES: I I I I I 41 City of Yakima Section 5: 1 1 2011 GFI Youth Survey I NOTES: 42 G1 l Data 0 1 ' Instrument: OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model Youth Survey n = 289 1 Gender: Male = 50% Female = 49% Race & Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino = 75% White = 18% 1 Black = 3% American Indian = 3% Other = 1% Age: 1 11 =7% 12= 18% 13 = 26% 1 14 = 39% 15 = 8% Grade: 6th =25% 7th =9% 8th = 64% 1 NOTES: i 1 1 1 1 43 City of Yakima School Experiences I Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total I fell safe at my school. MS MS MS Clark MS I No! 4% 6% 11% 7% 7% No 20% 4% 8% 14% 11% I Yes 49% 61% 49% 60% 55% Yes! 25% 29% 30% 18% 26% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total I Enjoy being in school? MS MS MS Clark MS Never 6% 3% 15% 12% 9% I 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 I Hate being in school? MS MS MS Clark MS Never 17% 22% 8% 8% 14% I Seldom 10% 11% 23% 12% 14% Sometimes 42% 43% 38% 45% 42% Often 14% 15% 16% 12% 15% I Almost always 17% 7% 12% 21% 14% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total I Try to do your best work in school? MS MS MS Clark MS Never 1% 0% 4% 4% 2% I Seldom 1% 3% 1% 5% 3% Sometimes 27% 21% 21% 23% 23% Often 14% 24% 23% 23% 21% I Almost always 56% 50% 49% 42% 50% I NOTES: I I I I 44 I I G1'I Data Workbook I Life Experiences Washington Franklin Wilson MS Lewis & Total I 29. Carried a handgun? MS MS Clark MS a. None 94% 89% 93% 89% 91% b. 1 6% 10% 1% 5% 6% I c. 2 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% d. 3 0% 0% 3% 3% 1% I e. 4 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% Washington Franklin Wilson MS Lewis & I 30. Sold illegal drugs? MS MS Clark MS Total a. None 85% 75% 84% 75% 80% I b. 1 7% 10% 5% 15% 9% c. 2 6% 6% 3% 4% 5% d. 3 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% I e. 4 1% 1% 5% 4% 3% I Washington Franklin Wilson MS Lewis & Total 32. Been arrested? MS MS Clark MS a. None 83% 74% 84% 86% 82% I b. 1 7% 18% 7% 5% 9% c. 2 7% 6% 0% 3% 4% d. 3 1% 0% 5% 1% 2% I e. 4 1% 0% 3% 4% 2% I Washington Franklin Wilson MS Lewis & Total 33. Dropped out of school? MS MS Clark MS a. None 79% 86% 85% 92% 85% II b. 1 14% 6% 10% 5% 9% c. 2 4% 3% 1% 0% 2% d. 3 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% I e. 4 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% NOTES: I I I I I 45 Citti' of Yakima Life Experiences I Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 34. Been members of a gang? MS MS MS Clark MS I a. None 72% 76% 89% 84% 80% b. 1 11% 7% 3% 5% 7% I c. 2 4% 6% 1% 4% 4% d. 3 6% 3% 1% 3% 3% e. 4 7% 6% 5% 4% 6% I Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 41. Carried a handgun? MS MS MS Clark MS I 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% I f. 14 0% 1% 1% 3% 1% g. 15 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I h. 16 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% i. 17 or older 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & I Total 43. Belonged to a gang? MS MS MS Clark MS a. Never have 82% 92% 89% 92% 89% I b. 10 or younger 0% 1% 3% 1% 1% c. 11 3% 0% 1% 3% 2% I d. 12 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% e. 13 10% 3% 1% 1% 4% f. 14 3% 0% 0% 3% 1% t g. 15 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% h. 16 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% i. 17 or older 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% NOTES: I I I I 46 I 1 Gil Data 1 I Life Experiences Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total I 44. Take a handgun to school? MS MS MS Clark MS a. Very wrong 79% 83% 73% 74% 77% b. Wrong 14% 13% 14% 15% 14% I c. A little bit wrong 4% 1% 10% 5% 5% d. Not wrong at all 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 1 Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & 45. Steal anything worth more than $5? MS MS MS Clark MS Total I 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% I d. Not wrong at all 8% 4% 7% 7% 7% I Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 46. Pick a fight with someone? MS MS MS Clark MS a. Very wrong 42% 33% 30% 32% 34% I b. Wrong 27% 33% 37% 32% 32% c. A little bit wrong 25% 24% 19% 26% 24% I d. Not wrong at all 4% 10% 12% 11% 9% 49. It is all right to beat up people if they start Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total I the fight. MS MS MS Clark MS a. No! 25% 28% 11% 15% 20% b. no 10% 21% 26% 19% 19% I c. yes 42% 29% 23% 29% 31% d. Yes! 23% 22% 38% 37% 30% I NOTES: I I I I 47 t City of' Yakima Life Experiences I 54. Done crazy things even if they are a little Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total dangerous. MS MS MS Clark MS I a. Never 55% 54% 34% 41% 46% b. I've done it, but not in the past 13% 17% 26% 22% 19% I year c. Less than once a month 6% 8% 7% 11% 8% d. About once a month 13% 4% 8% 7% 8% I 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 I 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% I 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% I g. 30 to 39 times 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% h. 40+ times 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & 61. Been drunk or high at school? MS MS MS Clark MS Total I a. Never 77% 86% 85% 77% 81% b. 1 or 2 times 13% 10% 8% 4% 9% I 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% I 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% I NOTES: I I I I 48 I I GM Data Workbook I Life Experiences 68. Are there any gangs at your Washington Franklin Wilson MS Lewis & Clark I Total school? MS MS MS a. No 3% 14% 14% 7% 9% b. Yes 44% 38% 29% 36% 36% I 54% 49% 55% 53% 53% c. Don't know I 69. Do any of the students at your Washington Franklin Wilson MS Lewis & Clark Total school belong to a gang? MS MS MS I a. No 1% 14% 7% 8% 8% b. Yes 45% 35% 44% 44% 42% I c. Don't know 54% 51% 48% 44% 49% 70. What about gangs that don't I have members attending your Washington Franklin Wilson MS Lewis & Clark school...have any of those gangs MS MS MS Total come around your school in the I past six months? a. No 3% 17% 12% 19% 13% I b. Yes 37% 15% 16% 14% 21% c. Don't know 61% 65% 67% 62% 64% I 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? I 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% I d. Almost every day 4% 1% 0% 4% 2% e. Don't know 45% 26% 29% 33% 33% I NOTES: I I I I 49 I City of Yakima I Life Experiences I I 72. Have gangs been involved in the Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & I sale of drugs at your school in the past MS MS MS Clark MS Total six months? a. No 10% 14% 8% 18% 12% 1 b. Yes 21% 17% 12% 14% 16% c. Don't know 58% 33% 40% 45% 44% I 73. Have any gang members brought Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & guns to your school in the past six MS MS MS Clark MS Total I months? a. No 20% 18% 18% 25% 20% b. Yes 10% 6% 4% 10% 7% I c. Don't know 58% 39% 38% 41% 44% 87% 63% 60% 75% 71% I 1 I I I I NOTES: I I I I 50 I Gil Data Workbook I Gang Experiences Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total I 83. Have you ever belonged to a gang? MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 76% 88% 81% 84% 82% I b. Yes 20% 13% 12% 15% 15% 84. If you have ever belonged to a gang, did Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total I 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 g Wilson Lewis & Total I 85. Are you a gang member now? MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 63% 54% 59% 38% 53% b. Yes 35% 43% 35% 66% 45% I Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & 90. You can join before age 13. MS MS MS Clark MS Total I a. No 28% 11% 23% 38% 25% b. Yes 35% 76% 59% 56% 57% I I I I NOTES: I I I I I 51 Cite of V`akima Gang Experiences I 99. Why did you join the gang? Mark all that Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total I apply. MS MS MS Clark MS a. For fun 28% 0% 59% 66% 38% b. For protection 35% 11% 12% 38% 24% I c. A friend was in the gang 7% 22% 12% 28% 17% d. A brother or sister was in the 21% 11% 12% 19% 16% I gang e. I was forced to join 0% 0% 12% 0% 3% f. To get respect 21% 11% 23% 47% 26% I 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% I j. Not in a gang 21% 22% 12% 9% 16% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & I Total 101. Get in fights with other gangs MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 0% 11% 12% 19% 10% t b. Yes 63% 87% 47% 66% 66% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 1 102. Provide protection for each other MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 0% 11% 0% 0% 3% I 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% 1 I NOTES: I I U I 52 I GII Data Workbook I Gang Experiences I Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total 104. Rob other people MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 28% 33% 33% 19% 28% I b. Yes 35% 65% 65% 66% 58% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total I 105. Steal cars MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 28% 43% 0% 38% 27% I b. Yes 35% 54% 59% 47% 49% Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total I 106. Sell marijuana MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 14% 22% 0% 9% 11% b. Yes 49% 76% 70% 75% 68% I Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & Total I 107. Sell other illegal drugs MS MS MS Clark MS a. No 28% 43% 12% 28% 28% b. Yes 35% 54% 47% 56% 48% I Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & 108. Damage or destroy property MS MS MS Clark MS Total I a. No 7% 33% 12% 28% 20% b. Yes 56% 65% 47% 56% 56% I I NOTES: I 1 I I 53 City of Yakima I J Neighborhood Experiences I Washington Lewis & I 126. My neighbors notice when I'm do- Franklin MS Wilson MS Clark MS Total MS ing a good job and let me know. a. No! 39% 29% 36% 47% 38% I b. no 38% 32% 32% 36% 34% c. yes 14% 22% 21% 12% 17% d. Yes! 8% 11% 5% 4% 7% I Washington Lewis & Franklin MS Wilson MS Total 1 127. I like my neighborhood. MS Clark MS a. No! 10% 11% 8% 14% 11% b. no 21% 15% 15% 12% 16% I c. yes 41% 43% 37% 47% 42% d. Yes! 28% 31% 32% 25% 29% I 128. There are lots of adults in my Washington Lewis & neighborhood I could talk to about MS Franklin MS Wilson MS Clark MS Total I something important. a. No! 20% 19% 26% 30% 24% b. no 44% 26% 30% 26% 32% I c. yes 24% 35% 22% 32% 28% d. Yes! 13% 19% 15% 11% 15% I Washington Lewis & Franklin MS Wilson MS Total 143. I feel safe in my neighborhood. MS Clark MS I a. No! 8% 7% 4% 8% 7% b. no 28% 17% 18% 18% 20% c. yes 41% 44% 45% 52% 46% I d. Yes! 23% 31% 18% 19% 23% I NOTES: I I I I 54 I G1 =I Data Workbook I Family Experiences I I I Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & 154. The rules in my family are clear. MS MS MS Clark MS Total I a. No! 1% 0% 5% 7% 3% b. no 10% 4% 7% 8% 7% I c. yes 48% 41% 44% 45% 44% 45% d. Yes! 50% 33% 37% 40% P155. Has anyone in your family ever had a se- Washington Franklin Wilson Lewis & vere alcohol or drug problem? MS MS MS Clark MS Total a. No 59% 61% 63% 63% 62% I b. Yes 41% 36% 27% 34% 35% I I I 1 NOTES: I I I I I 55