Thursday, June 18, 2009
Police and Gangs
This video speaks for itself... (Or does it?).
Having been a resident of Los Angeles for some time and having had direct contact with gang members and police, I have realized that not all is what it seems. Gang Members and Police who claim to want to help the community don't and Vice Versa. Gang Intervention is a great idea in theory and has worked for some cities including Watts. Police Community relations has improved and crime is down. This does not mean, however, that (that) same gang member won't shoot at or kill that same Police Officer. Gang Members will always be from where they are from and tension will always persist between the community and Police. Take for example the incident involving Los Angeles Grape Street Crip Gang Interventionist Marlo "Bow Wow" Jones in which Bow Wow robbed a famous rap artist visiting Los Angeles. (See that story here) or the claims made by ex LAPD 77th division officers Ryan Moreno and Chuck Garcia that Janice Hahn is "on the side of Gang Members from the Jordan Downs Hosing Projects" and transferred them out of their "Beat" due to complaints from Gang Leaders that they were being "too tough".
"For years, many police officers, especially in anti-gang units, have complained that the LAPD's receptivity to complaints have made officers susceptible to false allegations. That debate, which often has pitted officers against reform advocates, frequently has been aired in squad rooms. Monday's lawsuit offers a rare opportunity for the competing perspectives to be heard in court." (Source:Patrick McGreevy Times Staff Writer)
It is also interesting to see unique LAPD Blogs (this one was removed but we still have it here.) that discuss with frankness the issues surrounding duty on the streets, gangs, politics, complaints etc.
Another good site to visit is the Ethics In Policing website which discusses issues that plague police in all communities.
This article is brain food to begin the discussion:
"Police are tyrants" vs. "Police need to be tough in gang ridden areas"
To be totally honest with you, some Police are just human. In my personal opinion some are good, some are stubborn, and some are just flat out interesting (aka too dumb to be on the job). Bad decisions are made by all, but when you are a Police Officer, the actions of one can adversely affect us all.
This Post is an open discussion on all issues dealing with Police, Gangs, and the ACLU's involvement in the "Politics" of community relations, policing and fairness.
Please leave your comments below.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Gang Free Schools - Is it Possible?
Gang-Free Schools and Communities Program
The Gang-Free Schools and Communities Program was launched in 2000 to address and reduce youth gang crime and violence in schools and communities throughout the nation. Four sites were selected (East Cleveland, OH; Houston, TX; Miami/Dade County, FL; and Pittsburgh, PA) through a competitive process to participate in the two phases of this program, which is a replication of the Office's Comprehensive Gang Model.
In phase 1, sites assembled steering committees and assessment teams drawing on the wide range of stakeholders in each community. Sites then assessed gang problems extensively by using multiple sources of information, including school and law enforcement records, community leaders, students, parents, teachers, and youth gang members. Applying their assessment findings, sites developed strategic plans for implementing OJJDP's Comprehensive Gang Model. Implementation plans included designs for gang prevention, intervention, and suppression at the community level, with an emphasis on school involvement.
In phase 2, sites are now implementing their strategic plans and delivering services and anti-gang activities in schools and across the communities. Specific activities vary across sites, but all sites follow the five broad strategies outlined in the Comprehensive Gang Model: community mobilization, social intervention (including street outreach efforts), opportunities for educational and vocational advancements, suppression, and organizational change.
The program I just described is headed up by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
I would like to get your thoughts on this program and whether or not you think it works, and if so, why or why not. It would be very interesting to see what suggestions we may be able to come up with.
The Gang-Free Schools and Communities Program was launched in 2000 to address and reduce youth gang crime and violence in schools and communities throughout the nation. Four sites were selected (East Cleveland, OH; Houston, TX; Miami/Dade County, FL; and Pittsburgh, PA) through a competitive process to participate in the two phases of this program, which is a replication of the Office's Comprehensive Gang Model.
In phase 1, sites assembled steering committees and assessment teams drawing on the wide range of stakeholders in each community. Sites then assessed gang problems extensively by using multiple sources of information, including school and law enforcement records, community leaders, students, parents, teachers, and youth gang members. Applying their assessment findings, sites developed strategic plans for implementing OJJDP's Comprehensive Gang Model. Implementation plans included designs for gang prevention, intervention, and suppression at the community level, with an emphasis on school involvement.
In phase 2, sites are now implementing their strategic plans and delivering services and anti-gang activities in schools and across the communities. Specific activities vary across sites, but all sites follow the five broad strategies outlined in the Comprehensive Gang Model: community mobilization, social intervention (including street outreach efforts), opportunities for educational and vocational advancements, suppression, and organizational change.
The program I just described is headed up by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
I would like to get your thoughts on this program and whether or not you think it works, and if so, why or why not. It would be very interesting to see what suggestions we may be able to come up with.
G.R.E.A.T. Program - Does it work?
The goal of the G.R.E.A.T. Program is to help youth develop positive life skills that will help them avoid gang involvement and violent behavior. G.R.E.A.T. uses a communitywide approach to combat the risk factors associated with youth involvement in gang-related behaviors. The curricula were developed through the collaborative efforts of experienced law enforcement officers and specialists in criminology, sociology, psychology, education, health, and curriculum design and are designed to reinforce each other. The three (3) different curricula are intended for different audiences and are most effective when youth are exposed to more than one of the curricula. The lessons included in each curriculum are interactive and designed to allow students to practice positive behaviors that will remain with them during the remainder of their development years.
Over the 15 years since the G.R.E.A.T. Program went nationwide, many law enforcement agencies and schools from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam have implemented the program. In 2006, the G.R.E.A.T. Program was delivered in 400 communities across the United States. In order to maintain the integrity of the G.R.E.A.T. Program, it is necessary to have a strong organizational structure to regulate decisions and program or curricula changes.
The structure of the G.R.E.A.T. Program oversight organization is depicted in this one-page interactive Organizational Chart. It shows the relationship between the federal and regional partners and the local communities. Click the button below to view a PDF version of the Organizational Chart.
http://www.great-online.org/Organization/organizationchart.aspx
G.R.E.A.T. Governing Policies
The G.R.E.A.T. Program is governed by a Strategic Plan, Policy Manual, Training Procedures, and Quality Review Committee Guidelines. Each of these documents is made available below:
Strategic Plan
The G.R.E.A.T. Strategic Plan, last revised in February 2006, is a statement of the short- and long-term goals of the G.R.E.A.T. national program through 2010. It contains several overall goals and the specific objectives that must be accomplished in order for the national program to measure its success. The following button will provide the full text of this document in PDF.
http://www.great-online.org/Share/PDF/GREAT_2010_StrategicPlan.pdf
Policy Manual and Training Procedures
The G.R.E.A.T. Policy Manual and G.R.E.A.T. Training Procedures provide policy guidance and help to ensure the consistency of the program. These documents were created and are periodically updated by the National Policy Board and National Training Committee, respectively. The following buttons will provide the full text of these documents in PDF.
http://www.great-online.org/Share/PDF/GREAT_Policy_Manual.pdf
http://www.great-online.org/Share/PDF/GREAT_Training_Procedures.pdf
G.R.E.A.T. Quality Review Committee Guidelines
The G.R.E.A.T. Quality Review Committee Guidelines outline the terms and conditions of using the G.R.E.A.T. trademarked logo so that the products displaying the G.R.E.A.T. name are appropriate and of the highest quality. The following button will provide the full text of this document in PDF.
http://www.great-online.org/Share/PDF/QualityGuidelines.pdf
I would to get your thoughts on the G.R.E.A.T. Program to see if it is working, if it is not, why it does, why it doesn't etc.
Please be as honest as you can as it will only benefit us all in the end.
Over the 15 years since the G.R.E.A.T. Program went nationwide, many law enforcement agencies and schools from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam have implemented the program. In 2006, the G.R.E.A.T. Program was delivered in 400 communities across the United States. In order to maintain the integrity of the G.R.E.A.T. Program, it is necessary to have a strong organizational structure to regulate decisions and program or curricula changes.
The structure of the G.R.E.A.T. Program oversight organization is depicted in this one-page interactive Organizational Chart. It shows the relationship between the federal and regional partners and the local communities. Click the button below to view a PDF version of the Organizational Chart.
http://www.great-online.org/Organization/organizationchart.aspx
G.R.E.A.T. Governing Policies
The G.R.E.A.T. Program is governed by a Strategic Plan, Policy Manual, Training Procedures, and Quality Review Committee Guidelines. Each of these documents is made available below:
Strategic Plan
The G.R.E.A.T. Strategic Plan, last revised in February 2006, is a statement of the short- and long-term goals of the G.R.E.A.T. national program through 2010. It contains several overall goals and the specific objectives that must be accomplished in order for the national program to measure its success. The following button will provide the full text of this document in PDF.
http://www.great-online.org/Share/PDF/GREAT_2010_StrategicPlan.pdf
Policy Manual and Training Procedures
The G.R.E.A.T. Policy Manual and G.R.E.A.T. Training Procedures provide policy guidance and help to ensure the consistency of the program. These documents were created and are periodically updated by the National Policy Board and National Training Committee, respectively. The following buttons will provide the full text of these documents in PDF.
http://www.great-online.org/Share/PDF/GREAT_Policy_Manual.pdf
http://www.great-online.org/Share/PDF/GREAT_Training_Procedures.pdf
G.R.E.A.T. Quality Review Committee Guidelines
The G.R.E.A.T. Quality Review Committee Guidelines outline the terms and conditions of using the G.R.E.A.T. trademarked logo so that the products displaying the G.R.E.A.T. name are appropriate and of the highest quality. The following button will provide the full text of this document in PDF.
http://www.great-online.org/Share/PDF/QualityGuidelines.pdf
I would to get your thoughts on the G.R.E.A.T. Program to see if it is working, if it is not, why it does, why it doesn't etc.
Please be as honest as you can as it will only benefit us all in the end.
Adolescent Homicides in Los Angeles
Are They Different From Other Homicides?
Why would we expect homicides that involve adolescents to differ from other homicides?
First, the research on age-based violent offending patterns (Elliott, 1994)tells us that most juveniles "mature out," especially when they get jobs and form relationships that help keep them out of trouble. The serious and violent offender research points to only a small number of chronic offenders that continue to cause trouble well into adulthood.
Second, developmental theorists tell us there is something special about adolescents: peer influences are stronger and we might expect more spontaneous or expressive violence (Elliott and Tolan, 1998; Flannery, Huff and Manos, 1998). Certainly, we expect more co-offending and youth-involved events that would have amore chaotic or less organized flavor. Status issues might come into play more and there may be less thoughtful reasoning around the use of guns.
Finally, routine activities theory tells us that youth hang out more. They have more unstructured time, engage in risky behaviors, and have more opportunity for violence exposure than do adults.
I want to get your thoughts on this issue - Based on the little information I have provided, what are your thoughts and concerns with this view?
Why would we expect homicides that involve adolescents to differ from other homicides?
First, the research on age-based violent offending patterns (Elliott, 1994)tells us that most juveniles "mature out," especially when they get jobs and form relationships that help keep them out of trouble. The serious and violent offender research points to only a small number of chronic offenders that continue to cause trouble well into adulthood.
Second, developmental theorists tell us there is something special about adolescents: peer influences are stronger and we might expect more spontaneous or expressive violence (Elliott and Tolan, 1998; Flannery, Huff and Manos, 1998). Certainly, we expect more co-offending and youth-involved events that would have amore chaotic or less organized flavor. Status issues might come into play more and there may be less thoughtful reasoning around the use of guns.
Finally, routine activities theory tells us that youth hang out more. They have more unstructured time, engage in risky behaviors, and have more opportunity for violence exposure than do adults.
I want to get your thoughts on this issue - Based on the little information I have provided, what are your thoughts and concerns with this view?
Gang Prevention Strategies
Prevention Strategies
Given the risk factors associated with violent offending and gang affiliation, are specialized prevention and intervention programs necessary for gang members? This is a critical question that has been asked all too infrequently in research on gang behavior. The trend has been to study gangs as a phenomenon distinct from delinquency in general. Despite the recent emphasis on gangs as a separate topic in research literature, there is reason to believe that gangs and gang programs should also be studied within the overall context of juvenile delinquency. For example, the works of Esbensen and Huizinga (1993), Thornberry et al. (1993), and Battin et al. (1998) suggest that, while the gang environment facilitates delinquency, gang members are already delinquent prior to joining the gang. However, rates of delinquent activity increase dramatically during the period of gang membership. From a prevention and intervention perspective, three thoughts emerge. First, the finding that delinquency generally precedes gang membership suggests that gang programs should not be limited to gang intervention or suppression. General prevention efforts that target the entire adolescent population may also prove beneficial in reducing youth gang involvement. Second, certain risk factors associated with gang membership have been identified. As such, prevention and intervention strategies that specifically target at-risk youth are warranted. Third, given the level of delinquent activity that occurs within the gang environment, specific programs that seek to intervene in the lives of gang-affiliated youth should also be encouraged.
This section addresses the following types of prevention efforts (Johnson, 1987):
Primary prevention focuses on the entire population at risk and the identification of those conditions (personal, social, environmental) that promote criminal behavior.
Secondary prevention targets those individuals who have been identified as being at greater risk of becoming delinquent.
Tertiary prevention targets those individuals who are already involved in criminal activity or who are gang members.
The preceding discussion of risk factors emphasizes the necessity for all three strategies. In addition, law enforcement has tried a variety of suppression strategies designed to disrupt gang activity.
The past 60 years have seen a variety of gang prevention and intervention strategies. These strategies include efforts that focus on environmental factors and the provision of improved opportunities—for example, the Chicago Area Project developed by Shaw and McKay (1942), the Boston Midcity Project evaluated by Miller (1962), and the Mobilization for Youth program in New York (Bibb, 1967); programs with a distinct social work orientation [most notably the detached worker approach reported by Klein (1971) and Spergel (1966)]; and the strategy of gang suppression by law enforcement [for example, Chicago's Flying Squad (Dart, 1992)]. Most of these programs experienced short lifespans because changes did not take place immediately or because of a change in administrative priorities. For a review of past programmatic approaches to the gang problem, consult Howell (1995, 1998, and 2000), Klein (1995), or Spergel (1995).
It is important to note that, in the overall history of America's response to youth gangs:
Gang prevention programs have been rare. They require accurate knowledge of the predictors of gang membership, that is, identifying likely gang members, and they require knowledge of the causes of gangs and gang membership. Finally, they require knowledge of the likely impact of prevention efforts. (Klein, 1995:137)
As indicated previously, there is a general lack of consensus about why gangs emerge and why juveniles join gangs. Therefore, it is more difficult to develop gang prevention programs and assess their impact.
Prevention Programs
Primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention: The Chicago Area Project.
The history of gang intervention in the United States shows that early programs emphasized prevention. . . . The Chicago Area Project (CAP) (Sorrentino, 1959; Sorrentino and Whittaker, 1994), created in 1934, was designed to implement social disorganization theories, which suggested that community organization could be a major tool for reducing crime and gang problems. CAP was designed to involve local community groups, that is, indigenous community organizations, in improving neighborhood conditions that were believed to foster the formation of youth groups. (Howell, 1998:3)
CAP is representative of a community change approach and is perhaps the most widely known delinquency prevention program in American history. CAP was based on the theoretical perspective of Shaw and McKay and is summarized in their 1942 publication. Its intent was to prevent delinquency, including gang activity, through neighborhood and community development. CAP organized community residents through self-help committees based in preexisting community structures such as church groups and labor unions. Consistent with the research findings of Shaw and McKay, it was believed that the cause of maladaptive behavior was the social environment, not the individual. CAP and other similar programs are, at least in part, primary prevention efforts that target all adolescents in the neighborhood.
During the latter part of the 1940's, CAP introduced its detached worker program, which focused on either at-risk youth (secondary prevention) or, in some instances, current gang members (tertiary intervention). It recruited community members to help develop recreational activities and community improvement campaigns (e.g., health care, sanitation, education). These individuals worked with specific neighborhood gangs and served as advocates for gang members. This included advocating for gang members when they were confronted by the justice system and helping them find employment, health care, and educational assistance, among other services. The intent of the detached worker program was to transform the gang from an antisocial youth group to a prosocial group.
CAP's detached worker component was adopted by numerous other programs, including the Boston Midcity Project (Miller, 1962), Los Angeles' Group Guidance Program and Ladino Hills Project (Klein, 1968), and Chicago's Youth Development Project (Caplan et al., 1967). Although based on sound principles, Klein's Ladino Hills Project (which was a carefully designed implementation and evaluation of the detached worker program) led to the conclusion that the detached workers created an unintended outcome: increased gang cohesiveness, which resulted in increased gang crime. According to Klein (1995:143), "Increased group programming leads to increased cohesiveness (both gang growth and gang 'tightness'), and increased cohesiveness leads to increased gang crime." Klein (1995:147) concluded, "We had affected them but not their community. The lesson is obvious and important. Gangs are by-products of their communities: They cannot long be controlled by attacks on symptoms alone; the community structure and capacity must also be targeted."
Klein's research focused on detached workers targeting gang members (tertiary prevention), but the overall effectiveness of the CAP model remains in question. In regard to the community change approach described previously, subjective assessments by individuals involved with the project proclaimed its success. To date, however, the evaluations of this strategy have not reported a reduction in gangs or in gang activity. One review of delinquency programs stated that the measures collected by the program staff "have never been reported in ways that permit outsiders to assess the extent to which the Chicago Area Project accomplished its announced goal of preventing delinquency" (Lundman, 1993:74). In fact, evaluations of the Boston Midcity Project and other projects based on community organization and detached workers have documented that the programs failed to reduce delinquency and gang activity.
OJJDP promotes Spergel's Comprehensive Gang Model as a comprehensive communitywide response to gangs. This model consists of the following five strategies, which are representative of secondary and tertiary prevention:
(1) Mobilizing community leaders and residents to plan, strengthen, or create new opportunities or linkages to existing organizations for gang-involved or at-risk youth;
(2) using outreach workers to engage gang-involved youth;
(3) providing or facilitating access to academic, economic, and social opportunities;
(4) conducting gang suppression activities and holding gang-involved youth accountable; and
(5) facilitating organizational change and development to help community agencies better address gang problems through a team 'problem-solving' approach that is consistent with the philosophy of community oriented policing. (Burch and Kane, 1999)
Evaluations of this program have been initiated, but to date no results have been published. An evaluation of the Little Village Project, a precursor to the Comprehensive Gang Model, has shown promising preliminary results (Spergel and Grossman, 1997; Spergel et al., 1999).
Primary prevention: School-based prevention programs.
Schools provide one of the common grounds for American youth. Although growing numbers of children are being home schooled, the majority participate in the public education system. In recent years, schools have become a focal point for general delinquency prevention programs. The average middle school provides 14 different violence, drug, and other social problem prevention programs (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1999). One gang-specific prevention program that has received considerable attention is the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program. The Phoenix Police Department introduced this school-based program in 1991 to provide "students with real tools to resist the lure and trap of gangs" (Humphrey and Baker, 1994:2). Modeled after the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program, the 9-week G.R.E.A.T. program introduces students to conflict resolution skills, cultural sensitivity, and the negative aspects of gang life. G.R.E.A.T. has spread throughout the country; to date, it has been incorporated in school curriculums in all 50 States and several other countries.
The objectives of the G.R.E.A.T. program are "to reduce gang activity and to educate a population of young people as to the consequences of gang involvement" (Esbensen and Osgood, 1999:198). The curriculum consists of nine lessons offered once a week to middle school students (primarily seventh graders). Law enforcement officers (who always teach the program) are given detailed lesson plans that clearly state the purposes and objectives of the curriculum. The program consists of the following nine lessons: introduction; crime, victims, and your rights; cultural sensitivity and prejudice; conflict resolution (two lessons: discussion and practical exercises); meeting basic needs; drugs and neighborhoods; responsibility; and goal setting. The curriculum includes a discussion about gangs and their effects on the quality of people's lives and addresses the topic of resisting peer pressure.
To date, two evaluations have reported small but positive effects on students' attitudes and their ability to resist peer pressure (Palumbo and Ferguson, 1995; Esbensen and Osgood, 1999). Using a multisite, pre- and posttest research design, Palumbo and Ferguson reported that students in the G.R.E.A.T. program had a "slightly increased ability" to resist the pressures to join gangs. The authors acknowledged, however, that "the lack of a control group prevents assessments of the internal validity. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the results . . . were due to G.R.E.A.T. as opposed to other factors" (Palumbo and Ferguson, 1995:600). A second multisite evaluation of G.R.E.A.T. examined the program's effectiveness. This evaluation compared eighth grade students who had completed the program with a comparable group of students who had not participated in G.R.E.A.T. The G.R.E.A.T. students self-reported less delinquency and had lower levels of gang affiliation, higher levels of school commitment, and greater commitment to prosocial peers, among other positive outcomes. However, the statistically significant effects were modest in terms of effect size, with an average between-group difference of about one-tenth of a standard deviation (Esbensen and Osgood, 1999).
As evidenced by the curriculum, the intent of the G.R.E.A.T. program is to provide life skills that empower adolescents with the ability to resist peer pressure to join gangs. The strategy is a cognitive approach that seeks to produce a change in attitude and behavior through instruction, discussion, and role-playing. Another notable feature of the program is its target population. In contrast to suppression and intervention programs, which are directed at youth who already are gang members, G.R.E.A.T. is intended for all youth. This is the classic, broad-based primary prevention strategy found in medical immunization programs: They intervene broadly, with a simple and relatively unintrusive program, well before any problem is detectable and without any attempt to predict who is most likely to be affected by the problem.
Secondary prevention: Boys & Girls Clubs of America program and the Montreal program.
The Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) has developed a program "to aggressively reach youth at risk of gang involvement and mainstream them into the quality programs the Club already offers" (Boys & Girls Clubs of America, 1993). This program, Gang Prevention Through Targeted Outreach, is an example of secondary prevention and consists of structured recreational, educational, and life skills programs (in conjunction with training) that are geared to enhance communication skills, problem-solving techniques, and decisionmaking abilities. This strategy targets youth who are at risk of becoming involved in gangs and seeks to alter their attitudes and perceptions and to improve their conflict resolution skills.
The BGCA outreach program also involves at-risk youth in conventional activities. Through its case management system, BGCA maintains detailed records on each youth, including participation in program activities, school attendance, contact with the justice system, and general achievements or problems. This information allows caseworkers to reward prosocial behavior or to take proactive measures in the event the youth engages in behaviors likely to lead to gang involvement (for example, skipping school, breaking curfew, and associating with delinquent friends).
Feyerherm, Pope, and Lovell (1992) conducted a process evaluation of 33 different BGCA gang intervention programs. Their examination focused on the degree to which the clubs implemented the gang intervention model and the extent to which clients received the various treatment components. The researchers concluded that "the youth gang prevention and early intervention initiative by Boys & Girls Clubs of America is both sound and viable in its approach" (Feyerherm, Pope, and Lovell, 1992:5). The researchers also collected descriptive information on risk factors and found that 48 percent of participants showed improvement in school (more than one-third of the youth improved their grades, and one-third improved their school attendance). However, to date, no evaluation results have been published that address the effectiveness of this strategy in reducing gang involvement. BGCA has also expanded this program in recent years to reach out to youth who have become involved with gangs.
The Montreal Preventive Treatment Program (Tremblay et al., 1996) is another secondary prevention program. It addresses early childhood risk factors for gang involvement by targeting boys from low socioeconomic backgrounds who display disruptive behavior while in kindergarten. It offers parents training sessions on effective discipline techniques, crisis management, and other parenting skills while the boys participate in training sessions that emphasize development of prosocial skills and self-control. An evaluation of the program showed that, compared with the control group, significantly fewer boys in the treatment group were gang members at age 15.
Tertiary prevention. Tertiary prevention programs target individuals who are already involved with gangs.
Although this approach includes detached worker programs such as those described above, a more common strategy implemented during the past decade has relied on law enforcement suppression tactics. Two such programs serve as examples. During the early 1990's, the Chicago Police Department experimented with the "Flying Squad," a special unit comprising young officers selected from the department's three gang units. According to Dart (1992), Chicago's chronic gang problem had left residents feeling intimidated and harassed. In response, the Chicago Police Department decided to give the impression of an omnipresent police force by assigning an additional 100 officers (the Flying Squad) to the Gang Crime Section and saturating an area of approximately 5 square blocks every night. It is interesting that while the intent of this tactic was to hold gangs accountable to the fullest measure of the law, the author acknowledges that "to win the war . . . there must be a marriage of intervention, prevention, and suppression strategies aimed at deterring and containing gang activity" (Dart, 1992:104). As with most gang prevention programs, this program was short lived and was disbanded by 1998.
The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), with its long history of dealing with gangs, organized a suppression unit in 1977. It was known as the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (CRASH) unit, and its mission was to combat gang crime. This unit was a "high profile gang control operation, carried out by uniformed patrol officers, stressing high visibility, street surveillance, proactive suppression activities, and investigative follow-through arrests" (Klein, 1995). At approximately the same time, LAPD began Operation Hammer, in which hundreds of officers saturated a predesignated area and arrested citizens for every possible legal violation and suspicious activity. Evaluations of these types of suppression efforts are lacking, but the consensus is that they are not likely to be an effective means of combating gang crime (Klein, 1995; Spergel and Curry, 1995).
Law enforcement also has responded to juvenile violence and gangs with new ordinances, including curfew laws, antiloitering laws, and civil injunctions. These suppression tactics limit the ability of certain groups of people (based on age or group affiliation) to congregate in public places based on the belief that such restrictions will reduce gang activity. However, constitutional concerns (that is, violations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments) have been raised, and a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision declared that a Chicago antiloitering law was unconstitutional. This law targeted gang members (that is, persons the police believed to be gang members) by prohibiting the gathering of two or more people in any public place. Other jurisdictions have implemented civil injunctions and statutes that restrict or prohibit gang members from gathering in particular places (for example, parks, specific street corners, playgrounds) or from engaging in specific acts or wearing certain paraphernalia (wearing pagers or bandannas, riding bicycles, flashing gang signs). Evaluations of these city ordinances are mixed, as is legal opinion assessing their constitutionality (American Civil Liberties Union, 1997).
For more information visit the Gang Page at the LA Crime Prevention website.
Given the risk factors associated with violent offending and gang affiliation, are specialized prevention and intervention programs necessary for gang members? This is a critical question that has been asked all too infrequently in research on gang behavior. The trend has been to study gangs as a phenomenon distinct from delinquency in general. Despite the recent emphasis on gangs as a separate topic in research literature, there is reason to believe that gangs and gang programs should also be studied within the overall context of juvenile delinquency. For example, the works of Esbensen and Huizinga (1993), Thornberry et al. (1993), and Battin et al. (1998) suggest that, while the gang environment facilitates delinquency, gang members are already delinquent prior to joining the gang. However, rates of delinquent activity increase dramatically during the period of gang membership. From a prevention and intervention perspective, three thoughts emerge. First, the finding that delinquency generally precedes gang membership suggests that gang programs should not be limited to gang intervention or suppression. General prevention efforts that target the entire adolescent population may also prove beneficial in reducing youth gang involvement. Second, certain risk factors associated with gang membership have been identified. As such, prevention and intervention strategies that specifically target at-risk youth are warranted. Third, given the level of delinquent activity that occurs within the gang environment, specific programs that seek to intervene in the lives of gang-affiliated youth should also be encouraged.
This section addresses the following types of prevention efforts (Johnson, 1987):
Primary prevention focuses on the entire population at risk and the identification of those conditions (personal, social, environmental) that promote criminal behavior.
Secondary prevention targets those individuals who have been identified as being at greater risk of becoming delinquent.
Tertiary prevention targets those individuals who are already involved in criminal activity or who are gang members.
The preceding discussion of risk factors emphasizes the necessity for all three strategies. In addition, law enforcement has tried a variety of suppression strategies designed to disrupt gang activity.
The past 60 years have seen a variety of gang prevention and intervention strategies. These strategies include efforts that focus on environmental factors and the provision of improved opportunities—for example, the Chicago Area Project developed by Shaw and McKay (1942), the Boston Midcity Project evaluated by Miller (1962), and the Mobilization for Youth program in New York (Bibb, 1967); programs with a distinct social work orientation [most notably the detached worker approach reported by Klein (1971) and Spergel (1966)]; and the strategy of gang suppression by law enforcement [for example, Chicago's Flying Squad (Dart, 1992)]. Most of these programs experienced short lifespans because changes did not take place immediately or because of a change in administrative priorities. For a review of past programmatic approaches to the gang problem, consult Howell (1995, 1998, and 2000), Klein (1995), or Spergel (1995).
It is important to note that, in the overall history of America's response to youth gangs:
Gang prevention programs have been rare. They require accurate knowledge of the predictors of gang membership, that is, identifying likely gang members, and they require knowledge of the causes of gangs and gang membership. Finally, they require knowledge of the likely impact of prevention efforts. (Klein, 1995:137)
As indicated previously, there is a general lack of consensus about why gangs emerge and why juveniles join gangs. Therefore, it is more difficult to develop gang prevention programs and assess their impact.
Prevention Programs
Primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention: The Chicago Area Project.
The history of gang intervention in the United States shows that early programs emphasized prevention. . . . The Chicago Area Project (CAP) (Sorrentino, 1959; Sorrentino and Whittaker, 1994), created in 1934, was designed to implement social disorganization theories, which suggested that community organization could be a major tool for reducing crime and gang problems. CAP was designed to involve local community groups, that is, indigenous community organizations, in improving neighborhood conditions that were believed to foster the formation of youth groups. (Howell, 1998:3)
CAP is representative of a community change approach and is perhaps the most widely known delinquency prevention program in American history. CAP was based on the theoretical perspective of Shaw and McKay and is summarized in their 1942 publication. Its intent was to prevent delinquency, including gang activity, through neighborhood and community development. CAP organized community residents through self-help committees based in preexisting community structures such as church groups and labor unions. Consistent with the research findings of Shaw and McKay, it was believed that the cause of maladaptive behavior was the social environment, not the individual. CAP and other similar programs are, at least in part, primary prevention efforts that target all adolescents in the neighborhood.
During the latter part of the 1940's, CAP introduced its detached worker program, which focused on either at-risk youth (secondary prevention) or, in some instances, current gang members (tertiary intervention). It recruited community members to help develop recreational activities and community improvement campaigns (e.g., health care, sanitation, education). These individuals worked with specific neighborhood gangs and served as advocates for gang members. This included advocating for gang members when they were confronted by the justice system and helping them find employment, health care, and educational assistance, among other services. The intent of the detached worker program was to transform the gang from an antisocial youth group to a prosocial group.
CAP's detached worker component was adopted by numerous other programs, including the Boston Midcity Project (Miller, 1962), Los Angeles' Group Guidance Program and Ladino Hills Project (Klein, 1968), and Chicago's Youth Development Project (Caplan et al., 1967). Although based on sound principles, Klein's Ladino Hills Project (which was a carefully designed implementation and evaluation of the detached worker program) led to the conclusion that the detached workers created an unintended outcome: increased gang cohesiveness, which resulted in increased gang crime. According to Klein (1995:143), "Increased group programming leads to increased cohesiveness (both gang growth and gang 'tightness'), and increased cohesiveness leads to increased gang crime." Klein (1995:147) concluded, "We had affected them but not their community. The lesson is obvious and important. Gangs are by-products of their communities: They cannot long be controlled by attacks on symptoms alone; the community structure and capacity must also be targeted."
Klein's research focused on detached workers targeting gang members (tertiary prevention), but the overall effectiveness of the CAP model remains in question. In regard to the community change approach described previously, subjective assessments by individuals involved with the project proclaimed its success. To date, however, the evaluations of this strategy have not reported a reduction in gangs or in gang activity. One review of delinquency programs stated that the measures collected by the program staff "have never been reported in ways that permit outsiders to assess the extent to which the Chicago Area Project accomplished its announced goal of preventing delinquency" (Lundman, 1993:74). In fact, evaluations of the Boston Midcity Project and other projects based on community organization and detached workers have documented that the programs failed to reduce delinquency and gang activity.
OJJDP promotes Spergel's Comprehensive Gang Model as a comprehensive communitywide response to gangs. This model consists of the following five strategies, which are representative of secondary and tertiary prevention:
(1) Mobilizing community leaders and residents to plan, strengthen, or create new opportunities or linkages to existing organizations for gang-involved or at-risk youth;
(2) using outreach workers to engage gang-involved youth;
(3) providing or facilitating access to academic, economic, and social opportunities;
(4) conducting gang suppression activities and holding gang-involved youth accountable; and
(5) facilitating organizational change and development to help community agencies better address gang problems through a team 'problem-solving' approach that is consistent with the philosophy of community oriented policing. (Burch and Kane, 1999)
Evaluations of this program have been initiated, but to date no results have been published. An evaluation of the Little Village Project, a precursor to the Comprehensive Gang Model, has shown promising preliminary results (Spergel and Grossman, 1997; Spergel et al., 1999).
Primary prevention: School-based prevention programs.
Schools provide one of the common grounds for American youth. Although growing numbers of children are being home schooled, the majority participate in the public education system. In recent years, schools have become a focal point for general delinquency prevention programs. The average middle school provides 14 different violence, drug, and other social problem prevention programs (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1999). One gang-specific prevention program that has received considerable attention is the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program. The Phoenix Police Department introduced this school-based program in 1991 to provide "students with real tools to resist the lure and trap of gangs" (Humphrey and Baker, 1994:2). Modeled after the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program, the 9-week G.R.E.A.T. program introduces students to conflict resolution skills, cultural sensitivity, and the negative aspects of gang life. G.R.E.A.T. has spread throughout the country; to date, it has been incorporated in school curriculums in all 50 States and several other countries.
The objectives of the G.R.E.A.T. program are "to reduce gang activity and to educate a population of young people as to the consequences of gang involvement" (Esbensen and Osgood, 1999:198). The curriculum consists of nine lessons offered once a week to middle school students (primarily seventh graders). Law enforcement officers (who always teach the program) are given detailed lesson plans that clearly state the purposes and objectives of the curriculum. The program consists of the following nine lessons: introduction; crime, victims, and your rights; cultural sensitivity and prejudice; conflict resolution (two lessons: discussion and practical exercises); meeting basic needs; drugs and neighborhoods; responsibility; and goal setting. The curriculum includes a discussion about gangs and their effects on the quality of people's lives and addresses the topic of resisting peer pressure.
To date, two evaluations have reported small but positive effects on students' attitudes and their ability to resist peer pressure (Palumbo and Ferguson, 1995; Esbensen and Osgood, 1999). Using a multisite, pre- and posttest research design, Palumbo and Ferguson reported that students in the G.R.E.A.T. program had a "slightly increased ability" to resist the pressures to join gangs. The authors acknowledged, however, that "the lack of a control group prevents assessments of the internal validity. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the results . . . were due to G.R.E.A.T. as opposed to other factors" (Palumbo and Ferguson, 1995:600). A second multisite evaluation of G.R.E.A.T. examined the program's effectiveness. This evaluation compared eighth grade students who had completed the program with a comparable group of students who had not participated in G.R.E.A.T. The G.R.E.A.T. students self-reported less delinquency and had lower levels of gang affiliation, higher levels of school commitment, and greater commitment to prosocial peers, among other positive outcomes. However, the statistically significant effects were modest in terms of effect size, with an average between-group difference of about one-tenth of a standard deviation (Esbensen and Osgood, 1999).
As evidenced by the curriculum, the intent of the G.R.E.A.T. program is to provide life skills that empower adolescents with the ability to resist peer pressure to join gangs. The strategy is a cognitive approach that seeks to produce a change in attitude and behavior through instruction, discussion, and role-playing. Another notable feature of the program is its target population. In contrast to suppression and intervention programs, which are directed at youth who already are gang members, G.R.E.A.T. is intended for all youth. This is the classic, broad-based primary prevention strategy found in medical immunization programs: They intervene broadly, with a simple and relatively unintrusive program, well before any problem is detectable and without any attempt to predict who is most likely to be affected by the problem.
Secondary prevention: Boys & Girls Clubs of America program and the Montreal program.
The Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) has developed a program "to aggressively reach youth at risk of gang involvement and mainstream them into the quality programs the Club already offers" (Boys & Girls Clubs of America, 1993). This program, Gang Prevention Through Targeted Outreach, is an example of secondary prevention and consists of structured recreational, educational, and life skills programs (in conjunction with training) that are geared to enhance communication skills, problem-solving techniques, and decisionmaking abilities. This strategy targets youth who are at risk of becoming involved in gangs and seeks to alter their attitudes and perceptions and to improve their conflict resolution skills.
The BGCA outreach program also involves at-risk youth in conventional activities. Through its case management system, BGCA maintains detailed records on each youth, including participation in program activities, school attendance, contact with the justice system, and general achievements or problems. This information allows caseworkers to reward prosocial behavior or to take proactive measures in the event the youth engages in behaviors likely to lead to gang involvement (for example, skipping school, breaking curfew, and associating with delinquent friends).
Feyerherm, Pope, and Lovell (1992) conducted a process evaluation of 33 different BGCA gang intervention programs. Their examination focused on the degree to which the clubs implemented the gang intervention model and the extent to which clients received the various treatment components. The researchers concluded that "the youth gang prevention and early intervention initiative by Boys & Girls Clubs of America is both sound and viable in its approach" (Feyerherm, Pope, and Lovell, 1992:5). The researchers also collected descriptive information on risk factors and found that 48 percent of participants showed improvement in school (more than one-third of the youth improved their grades, and one-third improved their school attendance). However, to date, no evaluation results have been published that address the effectiveness of this strategy in reducing gang involvement. BGCA has also expanded this program in recent years to reach out to youth who have become involved with gangs.
The Montreal Preventive Treatment Program (Tremblay et al., 1996) is another secondary prevention program. It addresses early childhood risk factors for gang involvement by targeting boys from low socioeconomic backgrounds who display disruptive behavior while in kindergarten. It offers parents training sessions on effective discipline techniques, crisis management, and other parenting skills while the boys participate in training sessions that emphasize development of prosocial skills and self-control. An evaluation of the program showed that, compared with the control group, significantly fewer boys in the treatment group were gang members at age 15.
Tertiary prevention. Tertiary prevention programs target individuals who are already involved with gangs.
Although this approach includes detached worker programs such as those described above, a more common strategy implemented during the past decade has relied on law enforcement suppression tactics. Two such programs serve as examples. During the early 1990's, the Chicago Police Department experimented with the "Flying Squad," a special unit comprising young officers selected from the department's three gang units. According to Dart (1992), Chicago's chronic gang problem had left residents feeling intimidated and harassed. In response, the Chicago Police Department decided to give the impression of an omnipresent police force by assigning an additional 100 officers (the Flying Squad) to the Gang Crime Section and saturating an area of approximately 5 square blocks every night. It is interesting that while the intent of this tactic was to hold gangs accountable to the fullest measure of the law, the author acknowledges that "to win the war . . . there must be a marriage of intervention, prevention, and suppression strategies aimed at deterring and containing gang activity" (Dart, 1992:104). As with most gang prevention programs, this program was short lived and was disbanded by 1998.
The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), with its long history of dealing with gangs, organized a suppression unit in 1977. It was known as the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (CRASH) unit, and its mission was to combat gang crime. This unit was a "high profile gang control operation, carried out by uniformed patrol officers, stressing high visibility, street surveillance, proactive suppression activities, and investigative follow-through arrests" (Klein, 1995). At approximately the same time, LAPD began Operation Hammer, in which hundreds of officers saturated a predesignated area and arrested citizens for every possible legal violation and suspicious activity. Evaluations of these types of suppression efforts are lacking, but the consensus is that they are not likely to be an effective means of combating gang crime (Klein, 1995; Spergel and Curry, 1995).
Law enforcement also has responded to juvenile violence and gangs with new ordinances, including curfew laws, antiloitering laws, and civil injunctions. These suppression tactics limit the ability of certain groups of people (based on age or group affiliation) to congregate in public places based on the belief that such restrictions will reduce gang activity. However, constitutional concerns (that is, violations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments) have been raised, and a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision declared that a Chicago antiloitering law was unconstitutional. This law targeted gang members (that is, persons the police believed to be gang members) by prohibiting the gathering of two or more people in any public place. Other jurisdictions have implemented civil injunctions and statutes that restrict or prohibit gang members from gathering in particular places (for example, parks, specific street corners, playgrounds) or from engaging in specific acts or wearing certain paraphernalia (wearing pagers or bandannas, riding bicycles, flashing gang signs). Evaluations of these city ordinances are mixed, as is legal opinion assessing their constitutionality (American Civil Liberties Union, 1997).
For more information visit the Gang Page at the LA Crime Prevention website.
Los Angeles Gangs - MS 13
MS 13 is the United States Most Dangerous Gang
They perpetrate violence—from assaults to homicides, using firearms, machetes, or blunt objects—to intimidate rival gangs, law enforcement, and the general public.
They often target middle and high school students for recruitment. And they form tenuous alliances...and sometimes vicious rivalries...with other criminal groups, depending on their needs at the time.
Who are they?
Members of Mara Salvatrucha, better known as MS-13, who are mostly Salvadoran nationals or first generation Salvadoran-Americans, but also Hondurans, Guatemalans, Mexicans, and other Central and South American immigrants. And according to our recent national threat assessment of this growing, mobile street gang, they could be operating in your community...now or in the near future.
Based on information from FBI investigations, from our state and local law enforcement partners, and from community organizations, we’ve concluded that while the threat posed by MS-13 to the U.S. as a whole is at the "medium" level, membership in parts of the country is so concentrated that the FBI has labeled the threat level there "high."
Highlights from the FBI threat assessment
MS-13 operates in at least 42 states and the District of Columbia and has about 6,000-10,000 members nationwide.
Currently, the threat is highest in the western and northeastern parts of the country, which coincides with elevated Salvadoran immigrant populations in those areas.
In the southeast and central regions, the current threat is moderate to low, but recently, we've seen an influx of MS-13 members into the southeast, causing an increase in violent crimes there.
MS-13 members engage in a wide range of criminal activity, including drug distribution, murder, rape, prostitution, robbery, home invasions, immigration offenses, kidnapping, carjackings/auto thefts, and vandalism.
Most of these crimes, you'll notice, have one thing in common—they are exceedingly violent. And while most of the violence is directed toward other MS-13 members or rival street gangs, innocent citizens often get caught in the crossfire.
MS-13 is expanding its membership at a "moderate" rate through recruitment and migration. Some MS-13 members move to get jobs or to be near family members—currently, the southeast and the northeast are seeing the largest increases in membership. MS-13 often recruits new members by glorifying the gang lifestyle (often on the Internet, complete with pictures and videos) and by absorbing smaller gangs.
MS-13 members typically work for legitimate businesses by presenting false documentation. They primarily pick employers that don't scrutinize employment documents, especially in the construction, restaurant, delivery service, and landscaping industries.
MS-13 has no official national leadership structure.
MS-13 originated in Los Angeles, but when members migrated eastward, they began forming cliques that for the most part operated independently. These cliques, though, often maintain regular contact with members in other regions to coordinate recruitment/criminal activities and to prevent conflicts. We do believe that Los Angeles gang members have an elevated status among their MS-13 counterparts across the country, a system of respect that could potentially evolve into a more organized national leadership structure.
The FBI, through its MS-13 National Joint Task Force and field investigations, remains committed to working with our local, state, national, and international partners to disrupt and dismantle this violent gang. For more information visit their website at http://www.fbi.gov or http://www.lacrimeprevention.com/gangs http://www.gangresearch.org http://www.lagangs.us
They perpetrate violence—from assaults to homicides, using firearms, machetes, or blunt objects—to intimidate rival gangs, law enforcement, and the general public.
They often target middle and high school students for recruitment. And they form tenuous alliances...and sometimes vicious rivalries...with other criminal groups, depending on their needs at the time.
Who are they?
Members of Mara Salvatrucha, better known as MS-13, who are mostly Salvadoran nationals or first generation Salvadoran-Americans, but also Hondurans, Guatemalans, Mexicans, and other Central and South American immigrants. And according to our recent national threat assessment of this growing, mobile street gang, they could be operating in your community...now or in the near future.
Based on information from FBI investigations, from our state and local law enforcement partners, and from community organizations, we’ve concluded that while the threat posed by MS-13 to the U.S. as a whole is at the "medium" level, membership in parts of the country is so concentrated that the FBI has labeled the threat level there "high."
Highlights from the FBI threat assessment
MS-13 operates in at least 42 states and the District of Columbia and has about 6,000-10,000 members nationwide.
Currently, the threat is highest in the western and northeastern parts of the country, which coincides with elevated Salvadoran immigrant populations in those areas.
In the southeast and central regions, the current threat is moderate to low, but recently, we've seen an influx of MS-13 members into the southeast, causing an increase in violent crimes there.
MS-13 members engage in a wide range of criminal activity, including drug distribution, murder, rape, prostitution, robbery, home invasions, immigration offenses, kidnapping, carjackings/auto thefts, and vandalism.
Most of these crimes, you'll notice, have one thing in common—they are exceedingly violent. And while most of the violence is directed toward other MS-13 members or rival street gangs, innocent citizens often get caught in the crossfire.
MS-13 is expanding its membership at a "moderate" rate through recruitment and migration. Some MS-13 members move to get jobs or to be near family members—currently, the southeast and the northeast are seeing the largest increases in membership. MS-13 often recruits new members by glorifying the gang lifestyle (often on the Internet, complete with pictures and videos) and by absorbing smaller gangs.
MS-13 members typically work for legitimate businesses by presenting false documentation. They primarily pick employers that don't scrutinize employment documents, especially in the construction, restaurant, delivery service, and landscaping industries.
MS-13 has no official national leadership structure.
MS-13 originated in Los Angeles, but when members migrated eastward, they began forming cliques that for the most part operated independently. These cliques, though, often maintain regular contact with members in other regions to coordinate recruitment/criminal activities and to prevent conflicts. We do believe that Los Angeles gang members have an elevated status among their MS-13 counterparts across the country, a system of respect that could potentially evolve into a more organized national leadership structure.
The FBI, through its MS-13 National Joint Task Force and field investigations, remains committed to working with our local, state, national, and international partners to disrupt and dismantle this violent gang. For more information visit their website at http://www.fbi.gov or http://www.lacrimeprevention.com/gangs http://www.gangresearch.org http://www.lagangs.us
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
