Do Anti-Gang Violence Programs Work?
As most gang workers and police know, gang activity and gang crime is often a very hard thing to assess by looking at just statistics alone. The National Gang Center website, formerly the National Youth Gang Center, states that it has a good analysis of “evidence based” findings. They also have nearly 15 years of data collected by their annual National Youth Gang Survey of 2,500 U.S. law enforcement agencies. Groups like the NGC focus on youth gangs, but not the vast majority of adult offenders that police crime and gang data bases (whether or not they admit they even exist for fear of legal issues) show are gang affiliated. There appears to be a denial of some facts on the part of NGC and a big problem for communities when it comes to trying to get an accurate description of gang related issues they may be facing. (See the NGC Response in below Comment section). While the NGC and major government funded groups like them do some real good work in many areas, the widely-circulated and relied upon gang information released from groups like them often controls subsequent government grant funding:
http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/
Some critics point out this so called evidence and stats generated by it can be skewed and sometimes misleading. Agencies may choose not to fill out surveys, do it incomplete, or enter info based on their own systems that may not be entirely accurate. Studies written on gangs are often based on this data and are often authored by college professors that have little to no hands on experience working with street gangs. It is often hard to match these academic studies with reality in the field. First of all, there is no gang definition or validation form that is standard nationwide. Different agencies define gang members differently. Competing data systems like GANG-NET and RISS do exist. This can lead to discrepancies in reports on levels of gang activity which are often relied upon as “scientific proof”. No matter how the data is gathered, many communities have tried to address gang violence problems via local government supported programs.
In Seattle during the 2009-12 fiscal years, the Youth Violence Prevention Initiative budget included a multi-million dollar effort to try and change how the city dealt with youth violence. This included monitoring gang members, who commit a far higher number of crimes than your average youth, but was not exclusively limited to gang members. It was noted, youth-at-risk, gang associates, and so called Wanna-B’s will often commit crimes in efforts they say will protect themselves, or to impress older Original Gangsters (OGs), or so that other youth will fear them. The Initiative serves about 800 young people a year who are at highest risk of perpetuating violence or becoming victims. In 2008, five teenagers were shot to death in Seattle, then-Mayor Greg Nickels brought together community leaders, principals, members of the faith community, and others to develop a new approach to preventing youth and gang-related violence. The program was continued under Mayor-elect Mike McGinn. Previously, the city had a “Team for Youth” program that in early years seemed to work effectively but some said had outgrown the times. Others said the change was more about youth service providers jockeying for position for government funding:
http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/education/youthInitiative/AboutUs.htm
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa points to a 17% overall reduction in gang crime since the city’s new anti-gang program started, but there again stats can be skewed, and the drop in crime may not be entirely attributed to such programs. One piece of the Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD) Program that seems to be working well is the Summer Night Lights (SNL) program which keeps parks in gang-plagued neighborhoods open at night during the summer. But, many critics also point out that gang and drug intervention programs are easily infiltrated by gang members who may use these programs as fronts. This includes the hiring of many “former" male gang members as well as hiring female staff that often are married or have boyfriends who are or were gang members. In Los Angeles, it was found that some gang intervention workers were involved in criminal activity, funding was scrapped for some programs and a new initiative was put in place. Other people say only past gang members can understand current gang members and their issues. Regardless, ever since it was implemented, there has been a lot of debate over the L.A. Mayor’s expensive gang program:
http://mayor.lacity.org/Issues/GangReduction/index.htm
In Chicago, a long tradition of gang violence surged in 2010-12. Some former gang officers stated that it was due in part to a new generation of gangsters eager to make their mark on neighborhoods. Some former Chicago Police Department staff confided that the department changed how it operated after several scandals hit the Gang Units and not always in good ways. Some officers believed CPD engaged in de-policing for fear of being investigated or wrongfully accused by gang members. They said it was best to just sit back and not be pro-active any longer. Gang crime soared! In particular, as it was pointed out, gang crime would go up when there was a gang shooting and right afterwards there was a retaliatory shooting so the crime rate doubled right there unless better efforts were made to be pro-active after a gang shooting. "The Chicago Police Department is going to retool our gang strategy from top to bottom", said Supt. Garry McCarthy on March 19, 2012. McCarthy said the department's new strategy will include a gang audit that merges two kinds of intelligence data into a central repository for the beat officer. This effort was supported by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel who was the former Chief of Staff for President Barack Obama. Meanwhile, Chicago’s Cease Fire program hired former gang members as “Interrupters”. The program focused on three main stages to reduce violence: 1) Identification & Detection, 2) Interruption, Intervention, & Risk Reduction, 3) Changing Behavior and Norms:
http://ceasefirechicago.org/how-it-works
All four of the above cited programs with internet links have their critics and their supporters. Again, the problems raised above often makes it very hard to tell if gang prevention and intervention programs are always effective. Still, we must try to combat gang problems in our communities. We must try to figure out how well it is working but not just rely on stats alone. Gang unit officers, youth intervention workers, gang prevention workers are the real experts when it comes to dealing with gangs. Parents and school staff are also big stakeholders. I say survey all of them "anonymously" in the areas of Suppression, Intervention, and Prevention, because otherwise they might feel compelled to rate their success higher due to employment or funding issues, and that will likely be a good gauge if programs and agencies really work? We must also remember that it can cost $40,000 or more a year to house somebody in prison. A police officer’s salary can range from $50,000 a year to nearly $100,000 in some places. A small amount of money spent on trying to prevent and deter youth from joining gangs or time spent intervening with young people can save us all a lot as a society in the long run and give us a quality of life that money alone cannot measure!
What are your thoughts on gang prevention, intervention, and suppression programs? Do they work or are they just a waste of tax payers’ money?
http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/
Some critics point out this so called evidence and stats generated by it can be skewed and sometimes misleading. Agencies may choose not to fill out surveys, do it incomplete, or enter info based on their own systems that may not be entirely accurate. Studies written on gangs are often based on this data and are often authored by college professors that have little to no hands on experience working with street gangs. It is often hard to match these academic studies with reality in the field. First of all, there is no gang definition or validation form that is standard nationwide. Different agencies define gang members differently. Competing data systems like GANG-NET and RISS do exist. This can lead to discrepancies in reports on levels of gang activity which are often relied upon as “scientific proof”. No matter how the data is gathered, many communities have tried to address gang violence problems via local government supported programs.
In Seattle during the 2009-12 fiscal years, the Youth Violence Prevention Initiative budget included a multi-million dollar effort to try and change how the city dealt with youth violence. This included monitoring gang members, who commit a far higher number of crimes than your average youth, but was not exclusively limited to gang members. It was noted, youth-at-risk, gang associates, and so called Wanna-B’s will often commit crimes in efforts they say will protect themselves, or to impress older Original Gangsters (OGs), or so that other youth will fear them. The Initiative serves about 800 young people a year who are at highest risk of perpetuating violence or becoming victims. In 2008, five teenagers were shot to death in Seattle, then-Mayor Greg Nickels brought together community leaders, principals, members of the faith community, and others to develop a new approach to preventing youth and gang-related violence. The program was continued under Mayor-elect Mike McGinn. Previously, the city had a “Team for Youth” program that in early years seemed to work effectively but some said had outgrown the times. Others said the change was more about youth service providers jockeying for position for government funding:
http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/education/youthInitiative/AboutUs.htm
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa points to a 17% overall reduction in gang crime since the city’s new anti-gang program started, but there again stats can be skewed, and the drop in crime may not be entirely attributed to such programs. One piece of the Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD) Program that seems to be working well is the Summer Night Lights (SNL) program which keeps parks in gang-plagued neighborhoods open at night during the summer. But, many critics also point out that gang and drug intervention programs are easily infiltrated by gang members who may use these programs as fronts. This includes the hiring of many “former" male gang members as well as hiring female staff that often are married or have boyfriends who are or were gang members. In Los Angeles, it was found that some gang intervention workers were involved in criminal activity, funding was scrapped for some programs and a new initiative was put in place. Other people say only past gang members can understand current gang members and their issues. Regardless, ever since it was implemented, there has been a lot of debate over the L.A. Mayor’s expensive gang program:
http://mayor.lacity.org/Issues/GangReduction/index.htm
In Chicago, a long tradition of gang violence surged in 2010-12. Some former gang officers stated that it was due in part to a new generation of gangsters eager to make their mark on neighborhoods. Some former Chicago Police Department staff confided that the department changed how it operated after several scandals hit the Gang Units and not always in good ways. Some officers believed CPD engaged in de-policing for fear of being investigated or wrongfully accused by gang members. They said it was best to just sit back and not be pro-active any longer. Gang crime soared! In particular, as it was pointed out, gang crime would go up when there was a gang shooting and right afterwards there was a retaliatory shooting so the crime rate doubled right there unless better efforts were made to be pro-active after a gang shooting. "The Chicago Police Department is going to retool our gang strategy from top to bottom", said Supt. Garry McCarthy on March 19, 2012. McCarthy said the department's new strategy will include a gang audit that merges two kinds of intelligence data into a central repository for the beat officer. This effort was supported by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel who was the former Chief of Staff for President Barack Obama. Meanwhile, Chicago’s Cease Fire program hired former gang members as “Interrupters”. The program focused on three main stages to reduce violence: 1) Identification & Detection, 2) Interruption, Intervention, & Risk Reduction, 3) Changing Behavior and Norms:
http://ceasefirechicago.org/how-it-works
All four of the above cited programs with internet links have their critics and their supporters. Again, the problems raised above often makes it very hard to tell if gang prevention and intervention programs are always effective. Still, we must try to combat gang problems in our communities. We must try to figure out how well it is working but not just rely on stats alone. Gang unit officers, youth intervention workers, gang prevention workers are the real experts when it comes to dealing with gangs. Parents and school staff are also big stakeholders. I say survey all of them "anonymously" in the areas of Suppression, Intervention, and Prevention, because otherwise they might feel compelled to rate their success higher due to employment or funding issues, and that will likely be a good gauge if programs and agencies really work? We must also remember that it can cost $40,000 or more a year to house somebody in prison. A police officer’s salary can range from $50,000 a year to nearly $100,000 in some places. A small amount of money spent on trying to prevent and deter youth from joining gangs or time spent intervening with young people can save us all a lot as a society in the long run and give us a quality of life that money alone cannot measure!
What are your thoughts on gang prevention, intervention, and suppression programs? Do they work or are they just a waste of tax payers’ money?
Your post titled “Do Anti-Gang Violence Programs Work?” raises a number of issues and I commend you for trying to get a discussion going on this topic, even though the ground has been plowed over and over. I would also like to correct some statements you made.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the National Gang Center’s annual survey has never claimed to “provide evidence-based findings”. Our Web site has a tool where readers can access information on evidence-based programs, or evaluations of programming, but neither has nothing to do with the survey.
As you pointed out, the survey is sent to around 2,500 law enforcement agencies annually. It has been administered for the past 16 years and we get an average 85% response rate. In the survey, we ask recipients to provide estimates of gang activity in their jurisdictions. Why estimates? Because with a couple of exceptions, most law enforcement agencies in the country do not keep records of the numbers and types of crimes committed by gangs in their jurisdiction. I don’t mean that they don’t keep accurate records. I mean they don’t keep any. So we ask them to estimate things like numbers of gang members and numbers of gangs or percentage of their gang members who are female. You rightly pointed out that there are issues with data on gangs. But NGC does not provide these data. They are provided by law enforcement officials and we just analyze it.
Secondly, you are correct when you say that the NGC survey focuses on youth gangs, but you are incorrect to say that it ignores adults. The survey asks law enforcement to: report information solely for youth gangs, defined as “a group of youths or young adults in your jurisdiction that you or other responsible persons in your agency or community are willing to identify as a ‘gang’. Motorcycle gangs, hate or ideology groups, prison gangs, and exclusively adult gangs were excluded from the survey.
You say that, “This appears to be a big denial of facts on the part of NGC and a big problem for communities when it comes to trying to get an accurate description of gang related issues they may be facing.” We’re not denying anything. The survey aggregates all the data provided in order to give a national picture. Single cities and counties are not identifiable in our report. If a community is trying to get an accurate description of their gang problem, they cannot get it from the survey. They need to look to their own agencies: police, probation, schools, social services, etc. to contribute observations, perceptions, and data. NGC provides a guide to gathering and analyzing these data to help communities assess and understand their gang problems and to plan and implement strategies to combat gangs.
http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Comprehensive-Gang-Model/Assessment-Guide
We are working with cities in Washington and all across the country, but the data comes from the community, not from us.
We would welcome any suggestions from you or your readers as to how police and sheriffs departments can improve their gang crime recording and reporting.
John Moore
Director
National Gang Center
Over the last month, some have questioned the value of the Tacoma City Council’s decision to conduct a comprehensive gang assessment. The city had good reason to conduct this study.
ReplyDeleteWe did it because we recognize that we cannot simply arrest our way out of gang violence. We also know that targeted and strategic efforts focusing on prevention are the most effective way to keep youth out of and away from gangs.
The recently completed Gang Project Assessment did not happen in a vacuum. It was done at the request of and in partnership with an extensive list of community stakeholders, including the Tacoma Police Department.
As is the case with many cities today, resources for programs cannot meet the many needs of our communities. Taking a comprehensive look at our community’s gang problem and determining the most effective path forward to reduce and prevent gang violence will help us focus on prevention and intervention. If we reduce the number of youth who join gangs, we spend fewer resources on offenders who cycle through the criminal justice system.
The U.S. Department of Justice has grant funding available for gang-prevention and intervention efforts. Without a community gang assessment, Tacoma cannot qualify for some of this funding. We conducted this study to find the key touch points of influence to ensure that kids don’t turn to gangs in the first place. And we conducted this study to make Tacoma a safer place for all of its residents.
Our community has made vast improvements in fighting its problems with gangs over the last few decades. Tacoma is not the same community it was 30 years ago, but we recognize that gang problems continue to exist. The new information from this assessment offers tips for how we can improve our gang-prevention efforts and change the path of youth who often turn to gangs for a sense of belonging.
What we found through the assessment is that we can effect the biggest change in Tacoma’s gang problem by intervening and offering options other than gang membership as an attractive choice for middle school youth.
We also found that there were serious gaps in our previous knowledge and data about those who are in Tacoma’s gangs. Police intelligence would tell us that the majority of gang members are over the age of 18, whereas school data and one-on-one interviews show that youth under 18 make up the majority of gangs.
These initial findings are just the start of an ongoing effort that will include work with community members, the education community, the Tacoma Police Department and many others to improve our neighborhoods and reduce gang violence. Working with the city manager, we will develop recommendations and an implementation plan. We will also begin applying for grant funding to help ensure that we can move the plan forward.
One final point regarding the study itself: This is the first gang assessment to use geo-spatial data in its reporting. Instead of looking at four or a dozen printed reports and analyzing relationships – the geo-spatial data mapping gives us instant views of gang-related information around a particular location, whether it be a school, a neighborhood or a larger region of the city. Since conducting our gang assessment, we have been told that the National Gang Center and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention view Tacoma’s study as the model assessment.
The Tacoma Gang Project Assessment is a starting point for turning the tide against Tacoma’s gang problems. It’s an investment in our community’s future. And once we begin impacting the lives of youth who would otherwise turn to gangs, it will become an investment in a better life for many Tacoma residents.
Victoria Woodards
Tacoma City Council
Chair-Public Safety, Human Services and Education Committee
The Tacoma Gang Asessment is now posted on-line:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cityoftacoma.org/Page.aspx?cid=15920