and Network for Safe Communities focuses on enforcement ... nity-driven, stakeholder network for safety, gang interventi
A CALL TO
ACTION
LOS ANGELES’ QUEST TO ACHIEVE COMMUNITY SAFETY 2
Advancement Project is a public policy change organization rooted in the civil rights movement. We engineer large-scale systems change to remedy inequality, expand opportunity and open paths to upward mobility. Our goal is that members of all communities have the safety, opportunity and health they need to thrive. Our signature is reach and impact. With our strong ties to diverse communities, unlikely alliances, policy and legal expertise, and creative use of technology, we and our partners have won over $15 billion to extend opportunity. Whether it is to build 150 schools, transform the City of Los Angeles’ approach to its gang epidemic, or revolutionize the use of data in policymaking, Advancement Project evens the odds for communities striving to attain equal footing and equal treatment. The Urban Peace program at Advancement Project reduces and prevents community violence, making poor neighborhoods safer so that children can learn, families can thrive and communities can prosper. A new approach to preventing community violence, Urban Peace applies public health methods to understand the underlying reasons for violence and creates innovative, holistic ways to change the conditions that lead to them.
ta b l e o f c o n t e n t s
executive summary
3
w e ’ v e c o m e s o fa r
11
the los angeles model
19
Progress and Continued Challenges
25
Prevention
26
I n t e r v e n t i o n
31
S u pp r e s s i o n
38
R e e n t r y
41
E q u i ta b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n of resources
44
e x pa n d i n g L . A . ’ s C o m m i t m e n t to community safety
51
Los Angeles needed to replace an endless “shock and awe” war with a community safety model based on a comprehensive public health approach that melded strategic suppression, prevention, intervention and community mobilization.
2
e xe cu t i v e s u mma ry On January 17, 2007, the Advancement Project Urban Peace program released the groundbreaking report, A Call to Action: A Case for a Comprehensive Solution to L.A.’s Gang Violence Epidemic (A Call to Action).1 A Call to Action explained why Los Angeles’ 30-year “war on gangs” had failed to quell either gangs or gang violence. Six Times As Many Gangs & Twice As Many Gang Members Based on exhaustive research by 45 subject matter experts,2 including law enforcement, A Call to Action documented that after spending $25 billion dollars on a 30-year “war on gangs”, the County of Los Angeles had six times as many gangs, increasing gang violence, and gang participation that had mushroomed to more than 100,000 active members. This massive failure could be seen as a warning that we needed a completely new strategy. The report concluded that Los Angeles needed to replace this endless “shock and awe” war with a community safety model based on a comprehensive public health approach that melded strategic suppression, prevention, intervention and community mobilization. Instead of mainly re-arresting the same gang members, the City and County also needed robust efforts designed to keep the 850,000 children trapped in Los Angeles County’s gang zones safe. As then Los Angeles Police Department Chief of Police William Bratton said, “We cannot arrest our way out of the gang crisis. We need to do the full agenda laid out in A Call to Action.” Since the tremendous media frenzy in the wake of the 2007 release of A Call to Action, Los Angeles has been on an unprecedented quest – an extraordinary experiment to find out what it takes to keep children safe in the worst gang zones. This report is a look back at the five years of work propelled by A Call to Action; a check on the progress L.A. has made; and presents a vision for building on current gains to achieve the final stages of comprehensive public safety in the places where children still suffer chronic exposure to trauma and violence.
City of Los Angeles, California.
3
the turning point With over 100 recommendations, A Call to Action revolutionized Los Angeles City’s struggle with gang violence. The Los Angeles Times hailed the report as “A Marshall Plan for L.A. Gangs”;3 local papers kept the report in the headlines for several weeks; and dozens of television crews sought interviews with its authors. The report hit a nerve: It arrived during a time when end-of-year gang crime statistics appeared, showing gangs spreading to previously gang-free middle class enclaves like the San Fernando Valley, which suffered a 43% increase in gang crime in 2006.4
Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development’s (GRYD) summer violence reduction strategy, Summer Night Lights. This turnaround began with A Call to Action: A Case for a Comprehensive Solution to L.A.’s Gang Epidemic, spearheaded by Urban Peace and its allies.
F r o m W a r t o C o l l a b o r at i o n : The Journey to a New Violence Reduction Model
A Call to Action called for a revolutionary change from the City and all its violence reduction stake“If we had been doing holders, pushing for the adoption of The report also showcased, for the first w h at t h i s r e p o r t a community-driven, asset-based5* time, an army of unlikely allies of police recommends for the public health approach to violence officials, prosecutors, and department – a comprehensive gang violence pa s t 3 0 y e a r s , w e heads joining with community advoreduction model. Before A Call w o u l d n ’ t b e fa c i n g cates, gang interventionists, educators, to Action, Los Angeles’ police and medical and public health profesthe gang crisis we repeatedly arrested the same gang sionals – all standing behind one vision h av e . ” members in a wasteful “war on and calling for large scale change. LAPD –Steve Cooley gangs”, and public sector agenChief William Bratton stated that A Call District Attorney cies and private funders pursued to Action“changed how the City of Los a fruitless, ad-hoc approach to Angeles dealt with its gang crisis – much gangs that may have had individual for the better,” and City Controller Laura Chick noted, “If not program level success, but lacked impact on the overall scale for that report, we’d still be banging our heads against a wall of the problem. Many were doing good work that benefitted and repeating the same failures every year.” individuals, but nothing that could dent the culture or scope of the gang violence. Many of these efforts also focused on F i v e Y e a r s L at e r individual at-risk youth, and sometimes their families, but did not address the underlying conditions in the communiFive years later, in 2011, the City has a surprisingly successful ties where they struggled to survive and in which succeeding story to tell about gang violence reduction, with gang-related generations were inculcated in gang culture. crime reduced by over 15% and 35% fewer gang-related homicides in neighborhoods served by the Mayor’s
*Bolded items in this report are defined in the glossary on page 56. 4
4
Trust-building exercise at Community Safety Partnership training.
Accordingly, the subsequent work of Urban Peace’s program centered on creating innovative ways to apply what we coined the Comprehensive Violence Reduction Strategy (CVRS). There are a number of violence reduction models applied across the country, each addressing disparate community violence factors.6 These violence reduction models have resulted in crime reductions and, in some instances, safer communities. Notwithstanding the success of these other approaches, we believe the CVRS presents the most exhaustive and holistic framework. Understanding that violence is a symptom of deeper conditions, the CVRS focuses on addressing the 10 root conditions of violence7 through five service elements: prevention, intervention, suppression, reentry, and the equitable distribution of resources. Moreover, the CVRS strategy operates under three guiding principles: community-based and culturally competent service delivery, data-driven policy making, and built-in accountability. Unique to our strategy is the recognized need for not just violence reduction, but for sustainable, long-term paths to community transformation and health.
Within this framework, and with the goal of ensuring that A Call to Action’s recommendations were fully implemented, Urban Peace took on several roles: 1 Advocating for the implementation of the recommendations within the City and the Los Angeles Police Department. 2 Building the capacity of all stakeholders to understand and execute the holistic, wrap-around strategy required by the CVRS. 3 Providing training and tools for stakeholders, including the curriculum for the City’s Los Angeles Violence Intervention Training Academy (LAVITA), which serves law enforcement and gang interventionists. 4 Convening stakeholders in different forums to ensure that the CVRS is broadly and deeply understood and that diverse, interested groups work toward the same goals. 5 Building multi-jurisdictional collaboration to broaden the impact of the CVRS.
5
accomplishments The public health, wrap-around Comprehensive Violence Reduction Strategy (CVRS) has driven many of Los Angeles’ achievements over the last five years; achievements that are the result of aggressive cooperation among disparate sectors and organizations. These achievements include: 8
The Los Angeles City Council focused prevention and intervention funding in violence hot zones, as opposed to dividing funds evenly among all 15 council districts, as had been the norm. The Los Angeles Police Department has transformed and continues to refine the way it deals with gangs, from a counter-productive, overbroad suppression approach to relationship-based, problem-solving policing showcased in the five year Community Safety Partnership project. The City of Los Angeles experienced dramatic reductions in crime and its lowest rate since the 1960s. The Urban Peace Academy launched, establishing the only rigorous training program for gang interventionists in the country that sets professional standards for the dangerous work of gang intervention. Urban Peace conducted drill-down community violence assessments in 19 communities, engaging over 5,000 individuals living and working in violence hot zones.
6
The Urban Peace Academy trained over 1,200 gang interventionists and over 400 police officers to work together towards violence reduction. The Belmont Neighborhood Violence Reduction Collaborative launched, implementing the CVRS in a community focused on school safety. Urban Peace developed the City of Los Angeles Community Safety Scorecard that provides a ZIP code level analysis of safety, assigning a letter grade from A to F on a complex set of safety, school conditions, risk and protective factors in a community. Urban Peace released A Framework for Implementing the CVRS in your Neighborhood which provides concrete tools for communities, the public sector, and service providers to work together toward community safety. Urban Peace partnered with the Los Angeles County Probation Department to ensure that the 20,000 youth in their charge are no longer abused or neglected.
6
The City of Los Angeles established t h e M ay o r ’ s o f f i c e o f G a n g R e d u c t i o n & Y o u t h D e v e l o p m e n t O f f i c e ( GRYD ) that created GRYD zones throughout the City in communities with the highest levels of violence. The GRYD office developed a family-centered conceptual model which includes 16 strategy approaches;9 the model informs all of GRYD’s practices, including the Summer Night Lights (SNL) Program10. The GRYD milestones11 included below resulted from its implementation of this conceptual model:
s e c o n d a r y p r e v e n t i o n m u lt i generational family centered programs: • 49.7% of current participants have reduced risk factors and negative behaviors below threshold levels. • 23% of participants have decreased antisocial behavior. • 29% decrease in lack of parental supervision among participants. • 47.3% decrease in gang fights involving participants.
intervention crisis response: • Since April 2011, GRYD staff, along with gang intervention workers and law enforcement, have responded to 2,386 incidents of violence inside and outside of GRYD zones. • GRYD zones have experienced a 29.8% reduction in gang-related crime and a 42.4% reduction in shots fired. • Homicides in GRYD zones have decreased by 50% more than reductions in the rest of the City.12
• 48% decrease in participant involvement in gang activities.
community & Law enforcement e n g a g e m e n t: • Assaults with a deadly weapon against law enforcement in GRYD zones have declined by 48% vs. 9% outside of GRYD zones.
s u m m e r n i g h t l i g h t s ( SNL ) : 13 • Between 2008-2011 there were approximately 1,804,800 visits made to the SNL parks. • More than 1,137,424 meals have been served. • Approximately 3,500 jobs were offered to at-risk individuals.
Why L.A. is Succeeding This unlikely, yet successful experiment has worked for several key reasons. First, local elected officials had the courage to take risks and reform “business as a usual”. For example, in order to carry out the “hot zone gang strategy”, the City Council agreed to take resources and funds from districts with relatively low gang crime and redeploy them to districts with high gang crime – the gang “hot zones”. These resources were sustained despite the fiscal crisis in the City and were augmented by innovative public-private partnerships with philanthropy and business. The problem-solving and mission-oriented mentality of elected leaders, law enforcement, other public sector, and community groups removed the normal focus on
narrow interests and paved the way for the larger violence reduction strategy. The creation of the GRYD office and the reform that has taken place within the Los Angeles Police Department, as well as the expansion of gang intervention workers’ skills, have created a platform for cross-sector, multidisciplinary collaboration and shared accountability to achieve public safety. Neighborhood and data-driven strategies are lifting up the knowledge and leadership in communities and beginning to create community capacity to build and sustain safety solutions.
7
time for a new call to action Despite amazing gains in violence reduction for the City of Los Angeles as a whole, there is still much left to do. We are not yet fully cured of this complex epidemic – the conditions that spawn and sustain gang violence remain largely unchanged in L.A.’s most vulnerable communities. We continue to require holistic, systemic, and politically difficult solutions. We must continue working to ensure that the CVRS is implemented at its full scale.
266,868 children living in poverty c o m m u n i t y v i o l e n c e 373,082 children living in violent crime areas d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e 43,623 children with abuse allegations l a c k o f s c h o o l at ta c h m e n t 34,960 LAUSD suspensions Poverty
To meet the scale and scope of the need:14 Continue to hold government accountable for providing basic safety for every child.
Investment in prevention, intervention, and reentry efforts must be scaled-up to meet the size of the need.
All sectors must fully embrace a problem-solving approach.
Schools must become wrap-around community centers at the heart of community safety solutions.
All stakeholders must act with the mission-outlook – without zeal and commitment shown by community advocates and LAPD the work will not succeed.
Law enforcement reform must persist with a continued focus on implementing strategic – not overbroad – suppression.
All sectors must work toward eliminating the root conditions in communities that perpetuate violence and short change children’s futures.
Seize the opportunity presented by realignment to reform the California criminal justice system by permanently shifting away from mass incarceration and by developing a rehabilitative structure for those returning from incarceration.
The public sector must use public funds for community revitalization strategies. Key stakeholders must engage in meaningful, trustworthy collaboration: top-down, bottom-up, and side-to-side. A creative, nimble, entrepreneurial approach – employed by some City departments like GRYD – must be taken up by all departments that deal with issues of community violence and youth development. All programs and initiatives must continue to employ interracially sophisticated and savvy leaders who embrace skilled assessments; use multi-disciplinary best practices; and enact evaluation-driven policies. We must not let our success in crime reduction thus far diminish the urgency of the continued need for further reductions in violence and in the culture of gangs in our communities. As the mayoral election looms in 2013, a key question facing the City is whether the new mayor will visibly demonstrate his/her backing for a comprehensive public safety approach, garnering strategic partners from the private and the public sectors. This will be proven by making GRYD a permanent, independent institution that
8
Given the racial diversity and demographic shifts in Los Angeles, initiatives aimed at solving protracted issues must observe the need for high multiracial and interracial understanding in order to deliver culturally competent services that truly address the problem.
is adequately resourced and with the political strength to tackle community conditions and supporting LAPD’s continued transformation under its current leadership. Ending the public safety inequity that renders gang violence hot zone communities invisible to the rest of Los Angeles means we must provide youth greater alternatives that preempt gang joining. Political will is necessary to pull together a truly comprehensive solution with real government-community partnerships at both the City and County level, tailored to yield and sustain results for each individual neighborhood. Los Angeles cannot rest until every family and every child enjoy the first of all civil rights – safety – and the first of all freedoms – freedom from violence.
9
9
It was Urban Peace’s innovative approach that lifted A Call to Action from mere report to catalytic document that translated directly into political action.
10
10
W e ’v e c o me s o fa r On January 17, 2007, Advancement Project’s Urban Peace program released its groundbreaking report, A Call to Action: A Case for a Comprehensive Solution to L.A’.s Gang Violence Epidemic. The report put forth a comprehensive set of 106 recommendations to change the paradigm, operation, and strategy for combating gang violence – providing a blueprint for a comprehensive model for action. Unlike many other reports, A Call to Action galvanized political and community leaders to work together and achieve unprecedented progress, permanently shifting L.A. away from the massive “war on gangs” that had failed for the last 25 years.
Transforming Words Into Action Urban Peace and its allies succeeded where prior reports have failed by making sure words on a page were transformed into political action. It was Urban Peace’s innovative approach that lifted A Call to Action from mere report to catalytic document that translated directly into political action. First, the report executed an “inside-outside” strategy – incorporating input and participation from both public sector “insiders” as well as “outside” advocates. In this way, the solutions proposed by the report were embraced by those living in the high violence communities as well as the elected officials responsible for executing the strategy.
11 Girls enjoying lunch during a Summer Night Lights event.
Second, we understood that this crisis needed an exceptional leader within the City to carry out the report’s recommendations, i.e. a “Gang Czar”. Calling on the expertise of City Hall insiders, Urban Peace developed a politically feasible accountability structure to ensure recommended changes were carried out – this transformed into the Mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD).
Forging this broad, multisector consensus was crucial to translating the report’s recommendations into on-the-ground policy change. Finally, throughout the process, Urban Peace actively engaged with key leaders in law enforcement, academic researchers, community-based providers, gang intervention practitioners, and City and County departments to ensure their individual commitments to the report upon its release. Forging this broad, multi-sector consensus was crucial to translating the reports’ recommendations into on-the-ground policy change.
11
gang violence as symptom of a larger disease While A Call to Action became known as “The Gang Report,” the fact remains that it was not about gangs. Gangs are only a very visible symptom of structural, entrenched community conditions that allow a cult of death to flourish and that prevent children and youth from learning, families from thriving, and communities from prospering. In order to sustainably reduce violence, A Call to Action demanded a strategy that did not just focus on gangs, but instead targets the underlying conditions that fuel and sustain violence. Many of the report’s recommendations called on the City to invest in prevention and intervention resources. The ultimate goal was a long-term, wrap-around solution in neighborhoods with the highest concentration of violence.
“the larger political c o n s e n s u s i s t h at neighborhoods hidden behind the veil of poverty will remain dangerous, o pp o r t u n i t y- l e s s a n d p e r p e t u a l ly p o o r . We, ‘the folks who c o u n t, ’ d o n o t envision ever including invisible los Angeles in the prosperity e q u at i o n . ” –connie rice Co-Director, Advancement Project
The report made clear, and law enforcement leaders agreed, that violence was not the sole purview of
law enforcement. While targeted suppression activities were necessary, law enforcement also needed to coordinate with prevention and intervention providers. A Call to Action focused on schools as the center of violence prevention activities, opening early and staying open late for enrichment activities, engaging parents, and providing highly coordinated early intervention for the children most likely to become victims or perpetrators of violence. Law enforcement, the City, the County, and L.A. school districts were called upon to partner with communities, to leverage their resources, and to constantly collaborate on a unified campaign to reverse the culture of violence and destruction that had become the norm in gang impacted neighborhoods.
The Reception of A Call to Action The release of the report drew more than 1,000 people to City Hall with civic, faith, and law enforcement leaders, as well as community members directly impacted by violence, demanding that the report’s recommendations be put on a fast track for implementation. Hundreds of local and national media outlets covered the report’s hearing, including the Los Angeles Times which dubbed the report a “Marshall Plan to reduce gang violence.”15 Despite public and media support, the game-changing consensus we sought was not immediately forthcoming. In the weeks after its release, there was a flurry of action from various levels of government, the majority of which squarely fell in the realm of overbroad suppression – the exact opposite of the comprehensive solution articulated in the report.
12
Over time that changed. Urban Peace and its army of allies continued to push the report’s vision of wrap-around services, a law enforcement-civic partnership, cross-sector collaboration, and an inside-outside political strategy. Law enforcement leaders like Chief William Bratton, Chief Charles Beck, and Sheriff Leroy Baca repeatedly demonstrated unwavering support. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa boldly – and against expectations – established the Mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development built upon the core principles articulated in the report. Controller Laura Chick’s 2008 followup report largely affirmed the findings of A Call to Action. Buttressed by this critical partner support, Urban Peace kept pushing the City and the County to create A Call to Action’s wrap-around public safety strategy and to build the strength of the nascent GRYD office.
inamost and vViolent i o l e nCrime t c r idecreased me decre s e d areas i n m of o sLos t aAngeles r e a s obetween f l o s a2007 ngel e s 2011. between 2007 and 2011 Change in Violent Crime* by ZIP Code, between 2007 and 2011
ZIP Codes with Increases in Violent Crime*
91342 91344
F
91345 91324
91331
91040
91343
91325
91352
I
91304
91402 91306
91307
91042
91340
91326 91311
91303
91335
91406
91364
91356
91607 91601
91316 91436
91606
91401
91411
91367
91605
91405
91602
91403 91423
90041
91604 90068 90077 90049
90210
90046
Change in number of violent crimes -165
decrease 0 increase
D
90042
90038
Increase by (%) 1
20
49
90036
ZIP Codes with Decreases in Violent Crime*
E
90293
90045
90047 90044 90003
49
GRYD Zone (as of July, 2012) A 77th II B Baldwin Village/Southwest C Boyle Heights/Hollenbeck D Cypress Park/Northeast E Florence-Graham/77th F Foothill/Pacoima G Newton H Ramona Gardens / Hollenbeck I Panorama City/Mission J Rampart K Southwest II L Watts/Southeast
90065
90029 90032 90026 90004 90031 H 90020 J90057 90012 90005 90035 90033 90019 90006 90017 90063 90025 90015 90013 90064 90034 90007 90021 90018 90016 C 90023 90011 B K 90008 90058 90066 G 90062 90037 90230 90291 90043 A 90056 90292 90001 90048
90402
90039
90028
90069
90024
90272
90027
90002
L
90059
90061 90247 90248
90501 90502
90710 90744
90731
90731
90732
Decrease by (%)
1
25
50 100
Geographic data from Esri, NAVTEQ, DeLorme, City of Los Angeles Mayor’s Office. Violent crime data from the Los Angeles Police Department. *Violent crime includes aggravated assault, homicide, and robbery for this analysis.
gains since 2007 Since the release of the report, L.A. has experienced a remarkable drop in crime, reporting low crime rates not seen since the 1960s. In 2010, the number of homicides in L.A. fell below 300 for the first time since the early 1990s when the City experienced more than 1,000 homicides annually.16, 17 While California has seen crime rate reductions statewide, Los Angeles’ most dramatic decreases have occurred where A Call to Action’s comprehensive strategy has been put into place: GRYD zones.
As the following charts illustrate, the strategy to bring prevention, intervention and community policing together, nowhere better implemented than in the Mayor’s Summer Night Lights park program, demonstrate that a comprehensive, community-based approach can have a dramatic impact on gang-related crime.
13
c h a n g e i n c r i m e – SNL ( S u m m e r N i g h t L i g h t s ) Pa r k s
ange in Crime - SNL parks and PAD Parks (2006 - 2010)
L (Summer Night Light), PAD (Parks After Dark)
V i Violent o l e n t CCrime, rime, % hange %CChange
-20
-15
-10
-5
g a n g - r e l at e d C r i m e , % C h a n g e
0
SNL SNLParks Parks
SNL Parks
SNL SNLComparison ComparisonParks Parks
SNL Comparison Parks
PAD Parks PAD Comparison Parks a g g r avat e d a s s a u lt, % C h a n g e
incidents with shots fired, % Change
Aggravated Assault, % Change -30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
SNL Parks
SNL Parks
SNL SNLParks Comparison Parks
SNL Comparison Parks
SNL Comparison Parks
PAD Parks
Data from Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department
PAD Comparison Parks We have also achieved a decided shift in the public discourse on violence and gangs; they now include the comprehensive a from Los Angeles Police that Department and Los Angeles strategy was advocated in the Sheriffs report.Department For Los Angeles City the strategy has gone from a heavy-handed war on gangs to a comprehensive, holistic strategy. There is recognition of the need to prevent youth from joining gangs by offering real alternatives and pathways to opportunity.
In L.A., we now speak of community safety as more than just a numerical decrease in crime statistics. Instead, we talk about safety in terms of whether children are being traumatized on their way to school. We talk about strengthening families so that they can replace gangs as the primary support structure for our high risk youth. Finally, gang interventionists and law enforcement, unlikely allies who in 2007 would not sit at the same table, now work together and routinely credit each other for the peace on our streets.
Scale, Scope and Intensity of Los Angeles Gang Problem Continues to Require Comprehensive Responses We rightfully celebrate the past five years’ remarkable achievements and applaud the efforts of law enforcement, the GRYD office, and of elected and community leaders. At the same time, we remain mindful that the conditions that spawn and sustain gangs and the violence that prompted A Call to Action remain largely unchanged in the City’s most vulnerable communities. Moreover, new threats in the form of cartels and other international organized crime are about to make this terrain more treacherous.
14
We have laid many important pieces of the foundation for long-term violence reduction, yet much work remains to be done. To permanently reverse the violence-spawning conditions in Los Angeles’ violence hot zones and to completely reverse gang culture, we must stay the course and simultaneously increase investment to meet the scale of the problem.
I n d i s p e n s a b l e A d v o c at e s & C o m m u n i t y Pa r t n e r s The success of the last five years could never have been achieved without the organized efforts of many partners. It has taken a tremendous amount of neighborhood by neighborhood collaboration to advance the mission of comprehensive violence reduction.
The efforts and commitment of the following individuals and agencies have undoubtedly contributed to Los Angeles’ remarkable progress. It is with the following partners that we celebrate the success achieved thus far and with whom we will continue to collaborate:
Antonio Villaraigosa Mayor of the City of Los Angeles Charles L. Beck Los Angeles Police Chief Leroy D. Baca Los Angeles County Sheriff William T. Bratton Former Los Angeles Police Chief Los Angeles City Councilmembers and, in particular Tony Cardenas as the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Gang Violence and Youth Development Laura Chick, Former LA City Controller and Wendy Greuel, Current Controller Bill Fujioka CEO of the County of Los Angeles Guillermo Cespedes, Los Angeles Deputy Mayor and all our partners at the mayor’s office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD) The Urban Peace Academy and all Partners as well as the Professional Standards Committee, Executive Advisory Committee, Advisory Council, Curriculum Development Workgroup, and all instructors Los angeles City Attorney’s Office All Violence Reduction and Prevention Agencies across Los angeles County Gang Intervention Agencies across Los angeles County Los angeles Victim Service Organizations
This work also could not have been possible without the steadfast and courageous investment by the philanthropic community. The following have been indispensable partners: The Annenberg Foundation The Bank of America Charitable Foundation The California Community Foundation The California Endowment The Jewish Community Foundation The Ralph M. Parsons Foundation The Rose Hills Foundation The Weingart Foundation The W.M. Keck Foundation 15
d e c r e a s e d g a n g - r e l at e d c r i m e i n c i d e n t s i n l o s a n g e l e s , 2 0 0 6 a n d 2 0 1 1
Decreased Gang-Related Crime Incidents in Los Angeles, 2006 and 2011 Gang-related Crime (2006)
Gang-related Crime (2006) Gang-related Crime (2011)
2006
ZIP codes with t
Total Gang-Related Total Gang-Related 1 90011 a Crime Incidents Crime Incidentsa
7,436 7,436
2 90003 3 90044
4 90037 In the year before the release of A Call to 5 90033 Action: The Case for a Comprehensive In the year before the release of A Call to Solution to Los Angeles Gang Violence 6 90043 Action: The Case for a Comprehensive Epidemic, there were 7,436 gang crime Solution to Los Angeles’ Gang Violence 7 90002 incidents. Epidemic, there were 7,436 gang crime 8 90026 Asincidents shown ininthe theAngeles. left, the themap City on of Los 90019 southern and eastern portion of the9 city experienced inequality in public safety. As shown in the map on the left, the 10 90031 These are also with concentrations southern and areas eastern portions of the Cityof minority populations. experienced concentrated gang violence. While the ZIP codes with the most gangThe ZIP codes with the most gang-related related crime incidents in 2006 continue crime incidents in 2006 had high level of to have high levels of gang-related crime gang-related crime incidents in 2011 also. incidents in 2011, these areas have However, they all have experienced a experienced a significant reduction in reduction in gang-related crime over the gang-related crime over the last five years. last 5 years.
De To
Large number of trained gang intervention professionals and law enforcement officers Key training on Key collaboration toward a single one gang-related crime incident to peace strategy could have attributed one gang-related crime incident City of Los Angeles City of Los Angeles this drop in the the gang-related crime incidents.
Key one gang-related crime incident City of Los Angeles ZIP Code Boundaries
ZIP Code Boundaries ZIP Code Boundaries
10 ZIP Codes with the most crime incidents with shots fired
10 ZIP Codes with the 10 ZIP Codes with the most crime incidents most crime incidents with shots fired with shots fired
ZIP codes with the most gang-related crime incidents, ZIP2006 codes with the most gang-related crime incidents, 2006 ZIP code 389
1 90011 336
2 90003 288
3 90044
272
4 90037
259
5 90033
231
6 90043
222
7 90002
198
8 90026 9 90019 10 90031
16
160 154
1 90011 2 90003 3 90044 4 90037 5 90033
6 90043 6 7 90002 8 90026 9 90019 10 90031
8
9
4 1 32
7
10 5
389
1 90003
Gang-related crime incidents reflect all inci2 336 dents reported to the LAPD involving incidents a outside of Los Angeles City boundaries 3 288 Gang-related crime incidents reflect all incidents b The number ofLAPD, gang-related crime incidents reported to the including incidents outside of 4 272 Angeles boundaries. perLos ZIP code City reflects the incidents reported only b to the actual number the incidents 259 The TheLAPD. number of gang-related crime of incidents per ZIP 59 cancode be reflects higherthe forincidents each ZIP code when reported only toincluding the LAPD. 6 6 231reported The actual number of may be higher for each incidents byincidents other agencies. a
90011 90044 90037 8
10
91331 5 4 1
90002
32
7
7 90057
222 Geographic agencies. data from Esri, NAVTEQ, DeLorme, Census 7* 90047 198 TIGER cartographic boundary files. Geographic data from Esri, NAVTEQ, DeLorme, Crime data from Los Angeles Police Department. Census TIGER cartographic boundary files. Crime data 9 90043 160 Gang-related incidents do not include reported from Los Angeles Police Department. Gang-related incidents to domestic sex crime, 154 incidentsrelated do not include reportedviolence, incidents related to 10 90026 suicide, or violence, child abuse. domestic sex crime, suicide, or child abuse. ZIP code when including incidents reported by other
Gang-related Crime (2011)
2011
des with the most gang-related crime incidents, 2006
ZIP codes with the most g
11
1 90003
Total Gang-Related Total Gang-Related 389 Crime Incidents Incidentsaa Crime 336
03
2 90011
5,026 288 5,026
44
37
q
33
3 90044
compared to 32.4% 272 Compared 32.4% 2006 2,410 259 to 2006
2,410 Five years later, 231 the southern and eastern portions of the city continue to 222 the southern and eastern Five years later, experience the large numbers of gangportions 198 of the City continue to experience related incidents, although the number of the majority ofcrime gang-related incidents; gang-related incidents decreased 160 however, the number of gang-related crime throughout the city. 154 has decreased throughout the City. incidents While most ZIP codes with the most gang Targeted investment theGRYD ZIP codes related incidents are in also areas, withtargeted the highest number of the investment in gang-related ‘hot zones’ isincidents producing Continued has positive begun toresults. produce positive long-term investment is still needed to truly results. Continued long-term investment change those communities. is still needed to truly transform these communities.
43
02
26
19
31 of
d
.
20
4 90037 8
9 6
10 5
32
190
5 91331
4 1 7
6 90002
172
7 90057
171
7* 90047
171 161
9 90043 122
10 90026
Change in 10 ZIP codes with the most
b Change in top ten Zip Codes for , 2006 number of gang-related crime Decrease in Gang-Related Crime Incidents b gang-related Crime , 2006 and 2011 and 2011 Top 10 ZIP codes in 2006 and their changes
on rs
2006
ZIP
2011
Incidents
90011 389
Key one gang-related crime incident City of Los Angeles ZIP Code Boundaries
90003 336
10 ZIP Codes with the most crime incidents with shots fired
90044 288 90037 272 90033 259
272 259
90003 90011
6 ZIP codes with the most gang-related crime incidents, ZIP2011 codes with the most gang-related crime incidents, 2011 1 90003 2 90011
272 259
90026 198
231
3 90044 4 90037
ly 8 10 5 ts59 91331 g 6 4 1
e,
90043 231 90002 222
90019 160 90031 154
208 190
6 390002 2
172
7 90057
171
7* 90047
171
7
nt. 9 90043 d 10 90026 me,
161
231
90044
208
90037
172 161
90002 90043
122
90026
104
90033
88
90019
122 48
90031
272
1 90003
259
5 2 90011
231
3 90044
208
4 90037 5 91331 6 90002 7 90057
7 9 7*
10
4 31
190
2
172
6
171
7 9 7*
10
4 31
2 6
171
7* 90047
161
9 90043 10 90026
5
122
17
“The dialogue about HOW community transformation should take place has changed.” Monica Jackson, Executive Director, New Directions for Youth, Inc.
18
18
THE LOS ANGELES MODEL : COMPREHENSIVE VIOLENCE REDUCTION STRATEGy AS A MEANS FOR COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION In the 2007 A Call to Action report, Urban Peace outlined a vision for a comprehensive violence reduction strategy. That vision has guided the work of Urban Peace and has informed the strategies of government, community and law enforcement partners, who have each crafted their own conceptual models to guide their specific violence reduction efforts. Most notably, the Mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD) has developed a family-centered, conceptual model that guides all of its programs and practices and has produced many successes.18 Our reference to the “Los Angeles Model” is an attempt to begin to bring together the many distinct but inter-related and complementary strands of violence reduction work that have emerged since the original A Call to Action. It is neither an exhaustive, nor a complete catalogue of all violence reduction work happening in Los Angeles. Undoubtedly, a dialogue to more clearly define the “L.A. model” should and will continue with all involved stakeholders and practitioners. To begin that larger conversation, this section puts forth Urban Peace’s understanding of the emerging and evolving “L.A. Model.” Los Angeles’ unique approach to violence reduction joins several other models in practice throughout the country. In fact, the current violence reduction experiment in L.A. can find its roots in the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Gang Reduction Program (GRP) that was piloted in the Boyle Heights neighborhood in 2005, itself based on the Spergel model of comprehensive violence reduction. The Spergel model and the GRP identified some of the basic elements of a comprehensive model, but with varying implementation and results across the pilot sites. As a result, neither has articulated, at the practice level, what is meant by covering the spectrum of primary prevention, secondary prevention, intervention, reentry and coordination with law enforcement.19 Other implemented models include Chicago Ceasefire and the Boston Operation Ceasefire as well as its next iteration, Network for Safe Communities.20 These models each emphasize a different element of violence reduction. Chicago Ceasefire focuses on intervention to interrupt the cycle of violence,
Young children take a break from sports during a Summer Night Lights event.
and Network for Safe Communities focuses on enforcement activities vis a vis the most violent perpetrators. While both of these models have produced positive results and important lessons learned through evaluation, neither is comprehensive. What distinguishes the L.A. model from others is that it incorporates comprehensive principles like the Spergel Model, yet it has gone beyond the conceptual stage to actual implementation, resulting in concrete standards for implementing each component of a comprehensive strategy. As noted, a big portion of this accomplishment stems from the GRYD conceptual model that guides the work of the community-based agencies contracted by the City to implement the targeted prevention and intervention programs in the GRYD zones. Moreover, beyond the work of GRYD, Urban Peace’s Comprehensive Violence Reduction Strategy (CVRS) has also produced concrete practice standards for building a community-driven, stakeholder network for safety, gang intervention, law enforcement, and school safety. This advance is unique to L.A. and is the result of three inter-related contexts in which the model has evolved over the past five years. First and foremost, the scale, scope, and intensity of gang entrenchment in some of L.A.’s communities require a comprehensive response that may not be required in other places with fewer gangs, smaller geography, or less entrenched gang dominance, particularly in regards to the influence exercised by prison gangs on street dynamics. Second, political scrutiny stemming from the media pressure and public debate generated by A Call to Action created an imperative for the Mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development to begin implementation almost immediately and to achieve results. Finally, the steadfast backing from the Mayor, the Chief of Police, and other elected, civic, and philanthropic leaders meant that the resources garnered and deployed to the violence hot zones, although still not to scale, were maintained over the past five years.
19
MAy o r ’ s O f f i c e o f G a n g R e d u c t i o n & Y o u t h D e v e l o p m e n t H a s B e e n Key to Success Propelled by these dynamics, L.A. needed to spell out how a comprehensive violence reduction strategy is practiced. Much credit goes to the Mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GYRD) that grappled with the difficult issues of translating a conceptual model into actual practice in the community. Some of the issues GRYD has confronted and answered include: • How to identify youth with the highest risk for joining a gang • Prevention protocol to keep highest risk youth from joining gangs in the first place • The most important elements of self-differentiation that allow youth to embrace alternatives to gang membership • The critical steps of coordination between law enforcement and gang intervention in the first 24 hours after a shooting
Through its targeted prevention, crisis response protocol, Summer Night Lights program, and other elements of the GRYD strategy, the Mayor’s office has created a concrete guide to operationalizing important service elements of a comprehensive strategy. Moreover, through the establishment of the Los Angeles Gang Intervention Training Academy (LAVITA), run by the Urban Peace Academy,21 L.A. has solidified the standards of practice and professionalism for gang interventionists, bringing these practitioners into the comprehensive strategy as legitimate partners to community and school leaders, police, and other stakeholders. At the frontline of gang dynamics and violence, gang intervention workers have been key to de-escalating tension and reducing retaliatory shootings, as well as ensuring the success of safe public spaces strategies such as Summer Night Lights.
• How to mobilize a community around a safe public space to begin to reverse the normalization of violence, (e.g. the Summer Night Lights park program).
ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
RISK
PROTECTIVE
Gender/social inequities
Socioeconomic equality
Low performing schools
High graduation rates
SOCIETAL
COMMUNITY
RELATIONSHIP
20
Violent friends, poor parenting
Parent education
Child abuse, drug abuse
Mentoring
INDIVIDUAL
T h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e V i o l e n c e r e d u c t i o n s t r at e g y ( CVRS ) The Urban Peace program has continued to refine the public health approach to violence reduction first articulated in A Call to Action. Building upon that research and primary data gathered from our engagement with 19 communities since 2006, we have developed a model for gang entrenched communities – the Comprehensive Violence Reduction Strategy (CVRS). The CVRS is an asset-based, public health approach to violence that links all the elements of violence reduction with community development, cultural transformation, multi-jurisdictional coordination, and accountability. Urban Peace’s theory of change asserts that sustainable violence reduction happens when community and government work together under a single, data-driven strategy; are mutually accountable to each other; and invest in communitydriven solutions. Furthermore, we contend that violence reduction leading to a basic level of safety is the first step toward community transformation resulting in better health, educational, and economic outcomes.
Like other public health threats, violence is a symptom of many risk factors interacting at different levels; no single factor can put some individuals or communities at a higher risk than others. Both risk and protective factors exist at four different levels within our social ecology: the individual, the relationship, the community, and the societal (see “Ecological Framework” on previous page). Within this ecological framework, preventing violent behavior or the likelihood of violent behavior is possible, but complex. The public health approach to violence reduction addresses the unique conditions in a given community at the “root” of long-term neighborhood violence. Therefore, a public health approach rejects suppression-only strategies that fail to address the underlying community conditions spawning gangs and violence. This model also goes way beyond incremental, “one child at a time,” solutions to community violence. Instead, the public health model advocates for a wrap-around solution within each high violence community that is linked to a larger, regional strategy.
T e n - F i v e - T h r e e : T h e C o r e T e n e t s o f CVRS 1 0 R o o t C o n d i t i o n s o f C o m m u n i t y- l e v e l V i o l e n c e 1 L a c k o f Ta r g e t e d S u pp r e s s i o n t h at F o l l o w s a C o m m u n i t y P o l i c i n g M o d e l 2 Lack of Comprehensive Primary Prevention Infrastructure 3 L a c k o f C o m m u n i t y E c o n o m i c I n v e s t m e n t, W o r k f o r c e D e v e l o p m e n t, a n d Fa m i ly E c o n o m i c S u c c e s s 4 L a c k o f E f f e c t i v e R e e n t r y S t r at e g i e s a n d S u pp o r t 5 E a r ly A c a d e m i c Fa i l u r e a n d L a c k o f S c h o o l At ta c h m e n t 6 Fa m i ly I s o l at i o n a n d L a c k o f A c c e s s t o S u pp o r t S t r u c t u r e s 7 Lack of Community Cohesion to Improve Public Safety 8 I n a d e q u at e G o v e r n m e n t C o o r d i n at i o n a n d A c c o u n ta b i l i t y 9 P o o r A c c e s s t o Q u a l i t y H e a lt h a n d M e n ta l H e a lt h C a r e S e r v i c e s 1 0 N o r m a l i z at i o n o f V i o l e n c e All of the 19 communities in which Urban Peace has conducted a community violence assessment share 10 common root conditions that contribute to entrenched violence. These conditions manifest themselves differently in each community, reflecting the historical and cultural legacy of each neighborhood, as well as the specific way in which public policy and local practices have evolved.
Some communities may have experienced rapid demographic shifts while others may have a highly transient population – both lead to isolated families. Some may have chronically under-performing schools while others may only have recently experienced a decline – both lead to lack of school attachment for at-risk youth. In short, despite the specifics, we have found that all communities with violence and gang entrenchment have some manifestation of these 10 root conditions. 21
five key elements To combat the 10 root conditions fueling community violence, a sustainable violence reduction initiative must target five key service elements: prevention intervention s u pp r e s s i o n reentry e q u i ta b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s While the first four elements are familiar from other models, Equitable Access is unique and simply means that the other four service elements are equally available to all individuals and communities at-risk of violence and that these services are culturally competent, meeting the true needs of diverse families. This is particularly important in places that have undergone rapid demographic shifts or where there are significant pockets of underserved and isolated segments of the community. As noted above, in Los Angeles, significant strides have also been made in defining the practice of these service elements through the work of GRYD, Urban Peace, and the Urban Peace Academy.
three guiding principles Within the CVRS, solutions pursued under each element must adhere to three fundamental guiding principles: C o m m u n i t y- B as e d & C u lt u r a l ly C o mp e t e nt S er v i ce De l i ve ry Any initiatives must be community based, honor the existing leadership and assets of the community, and must deliver culturally competent services.
Data -Dr i ven Poli cy Ma k i n g
Bu i lt- i n Accou n ta b i li ty
Initiatives must aim to improve the use of data and data-sharing protocols across various public and community based service providers leading to more effective and coordinated service delivery, as well as the ability to track what works.
Any initiative must have built in accountability measures that ensure the initiative is regularly evaluated and effective. Both the public sector and the community must be held accountable.
Children enjoying lunch at the Annual Urban Peace Academy BBQ Celebration.
22
The chart bel ow p r ovi de s a c om pr e h en s i v e ch a rt o f t h e CVRS ’ s t h ree g u i d i n g p ri n ci p le s , f i ve e l e m e nts, a nd te n r o o t co mmu n i t y co n d i t i o n s o f v i o l en ce.
URBAN PEACE GUIDING PRINCIPLES C O M M U N I T Y- B A S E D & C U LT U R A L LY C O M P E T E N T SERVICE DELIVERY
B U I LT- I N A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y
D ATA - D R I V E N POLICY MAKING
FIVE KEY ELEMENTS TO COMMUNITY VIOLENCE REDUC TION
Prevention
Intervention
Suppression
Lack of Targeted Suppression that Follows a Community Policing Model
Reentry
Equitable Distribution Of Resources
Lack of Comprehensive Primary Prevention Infrastructure Lack of Community Economic Investment, Workforce Development, and Family Economic Success
Normalization of Violence
Poor Access to Quality Health and Mental Health Care Services
10 ROOT CONDITIONS OF COMMUNITYLEVEL VIOLENCE
Inadequate Government Coordination and Accountability Lack of Community Cohesion to Improve Public Safety
Lack of Effective Reentry Strategies and Support Early Academic Failure and Lack of School Attachment
Family Isolation and Lack of Access to Support Structures
The question for violence entrenched communities is how the Ten-Five-Three come together into an actionable strategy capable of achieving immediate reductions in violence, but also sustaining a long-term basic level of safety. Through our practice of technical assistance and support of 19 communities, Urban Peace has developed concrete tools that operationalize the Ten-Five-Three. These tools help a community to identify its assets and needs, build a multi-sector stakeholder network for action, and develop the most feasible pathway for violence reduction tailored to that community.22
23
There has been significant progress on many of the recommendations...we believe initial success must be deepened and sustained with greater investment and continued commitment.
24
24
P ROGRESS AND CONTINUED CHALLENGES A Call to Action made 106 recommendations for action. While there has been significant progress on many of them (61% of recommendations are completed or in progress), we believe this initial success must be deepened and sustained with greater investment and continued commitment. The recommendations not yet implemented must serve the blueprint for the next five years. The recommendations covered the steps that the City should take toward developing an entrepreneurial department to lead a citywide, comprehensive violence reduction strategy, as well as how such a department should mobilize research, data, and community input to implement the different elements of such a strategy. The recommendations also touched on the key ways non-City entities, such as County agencies and schools, needed to be mobilized for a truly regional solution to gang violence that met the scale and scope of the problem. Of the 106 recommendations: Nine were rendered moot by the City’s response to the report.
“The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department worked closely with Connie Rice to implement various programs designed to reduce gang violence.” Leroy D. Baca, Los Angeles County Sheriff The vast majority of the recommendations completed or in progress relate to the establishment of the Mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD) and utilizing data-driven policy to concentrate the City’s resources in the highest need communities. In terms of the elements of a comprehensive violence reduction strategy, the City has made giant strides in all elements, although progress in the arenas of prevention and reentry lag behind suppression and intervention practices.
What follows is a detailed review of what recommendations have been 61% COMPLETED and/or acted upon and which await IN PROGRESS action in L.A. around the five 65 or 61% were either A CALL TO ACTION elements of a comprehensive completed or are currently Recommendations violence reduction strategy: in progress. 39% prevention, intervention, reenNOT IMPLEMENTED 41 or 39% have not been try, suppression and equitable 23 implemented. distribution of resources. Urban Peace’s work to ensure full adoption of Given the breadth of the recomthe recommendations is included, and is mendations and the complexity of impledesignated by green text. menting these recommendations in a place as vast, Among the remaining recommendations:
and diverse as Los Angeles, it is a tribute to the tremendous joint efforts that all parties have made.
Young people in communities with high levels of violence are at risk of joining gangs.
25
Prevention
P R E V E N T I O N : AT- A - G L A N C E SUCCESSES:
CONTINUED CHALLENGES:
Creation of 12 GRYD zones across Los Angeles
F unding m ust m eet sc ale and sc o pe o f need
Cre a t i o n o f S a f e P a s s a g e s P ro g r am
Lac k o f lo ng-term sustainability planning ; utiliz ing and po ssibly expanding G RYD zones Lac k of investm ent fro m LAUSD in esta b lishing a robust preventio n infrastruc tu re Expansion o f Safe Passages pro gram to all sc hools in need
The creation and maintenance of a robust primary prevention infrastructure in high violence communities is a critical element in eradicating root conditions of violence. A Call to Action outlined the need for comprehensive prevention efforts to buttress a citywide violence prevention strategy. Of the six prevention-related recommendations in the original A Call to Action, four have been implemented in part or in whole. While these recommendations have been addressed
26
in some way, this implementation does not guarantee the sustainability of these practices. Such concerns must be addressed strategically for current and for any future violence prevention efforts. Nevertheless, groundbreaking citywide violence prevention policies have been established to reinforce what is outlined in A Call to Action, indicating critical steps toward a comprehensive strategy.
26
S u pp o r t i n g C o m m u n i t y T r a n s f o r m at i o n
P l a c e - B a s e d T e c h n i c a l A s s i s ta n c e : B e l m o n t S a f e Pa s s a g e s Over the last five years, Urban Peace has empowered communities to put the Comprehensive Violence Reduction Strategy (CVRS) into practice through our technical assistance to place-based initiatives. In these initiatives, Urban Peace employs principles of community mobilization to build broadbased engagement for community action. In 2009, Urban Peace worked to establish a multi-sector stakeholder network known as the Belmont Neighborhood Violence Reduction Collaborative. Located within the Westlake/MacArthur Park neighborhood of Los Angeles, Belmont is a culturally diverse neighborhood plagued by violence due to the 27 different gangs within its boundaries. Urban Peace began its work in Belmont by recruiting multi-sector coconveners – the “Core Partners.” These included Youth Policy Institute;24 the City’s Rampart GRYD office; World Vision, (a faith-based organization); and the UCLA School of Public Health, which administered the program’s evaluation component. The Core Partners, together with 25 collaborative agencies, came together to address the violence in their community.
Urban Peace and co-conveners provided data that allowed the Collaborative to determine the scope of violence, work to enhance coordination between existing programs, and simultaneously identify and fill critical gaps in these services. Most importantly, the Collaborative empowered residents and students to advocate for safer schools, culturally competent services, and greater accountability from law enforcement and government. Urban Peace continued to provide technical assistance to the Safe Successful Schools workgroup,25 a sub-group of the Collaborative, as it initiated a Safe Passages26 program for schools in the Belmont Zone of Choice.27 Our work on the Safe Passages initiative focused on mission alignment between various public sector, community service providers, and community residents in order to create real student safety in and around Belmont neighborhood schools.
Advancement Project Co-Director, Connie Rice, delivering the key note speech at the First Annual L.A. Gang Violence Prevention and Intervention Conference.
27
Communicating the Public Health Approach to Violence Reduction: gu i ded log ic mo de l standing of the community’s existing resources and needs. The Guided Logic Model outlines the specific relationships between the problems, solutions, and outcomes facing a particular community and empowers participants to implement informed strategies for sustainable violence reduction.
A critical tool in building mission alignment has been the Urban Peace-engineered Guided Logic Model process. The Guided Logic Model process is designed to guide stakeholders and policy makers toward a shared, community-specific, public health understanding of violence reduction. Through this process, participants educate each other about the conditions that sustain violence in their community, while simultaneously moving toward a common, data-driven under-
Root Community Condition
Sub-category of Root Condition
Strategies
Activities
Measures
The chart below is a visual representation of the guided logic model process for a single root community condition of violence.
Lack of Comprehensive Primary Prevention Infrastructure
Lack of Safe Public Spaces
Lack of Coordinated Services and Activities that are accessible to all residents*
Improve urban spatial planning and built environment to reduce environmental contributors to crime in coordination with the community
Enhance Safe Passages to schools, parks, and other facilities that serve youth
Conduct CPTED** with residents in hot spots to identify key environmental contributors to crime and develop an action plan to address the problems
Crime rates around parks and other public spaces
Develop agreements with the public between the public sector, CBOs, gang intervention and community to engage in community policing in the parks and other public spaces
Residents’ perceptions of safety through a survey
Creation of agreement itself is a measure Survey over time on the effectiveness of project
Outcome
Coordinate with schools, parent groups, police, and others to create Safe Passages to and from school
Crime rates in and around the school
Student’s perceptions of safety in and around the school
Robust Primary Prevention
The strategies, strategies, activities, measures, and outcomes for this sub-category are not outlined here. This is meant demonstrate onlyexhaustiveness * *The activities, measures, and outcomes for this sub-category are not outlined here.toThis is meantthe toexhaustiveness demonstrateofthe sub-category, but not of the root condition. ofone only one sub-category, butentire not of the entire root condition. ** Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). ** Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
28
future prevention work Recognizing this demographic shift, Urban Peace has begun work to bolster Latino leadership in Watts. Partnering with Watts Century Latino Organization, Urban Peace seeks to develop curriculum and leadership training to actively engage Latino residents, equipping them with the knowledge, confidence, and tools necessary for on-the-ground policy change. The emerging leaders will work with public sector entities and community based organizations to highlight the needs of the growing Latino community in Watts and advocate for culturally competent programs and services targeted to meet those needs.
Always looking forward, Urban Peace continues to expand its efforts in violence reduction in targeted areas throughout Los Angeles. For Urban Peace, the Watts area of South L.A. is one of those targeted communities. In a 10 year timeframe, the Latino population has grown tremendously in South L.A., tilting the demographics of the area and highlighting the need for culturally competent services that reflect such change. From 2000 to 2010, the Latino population has increased by approximately 35% in the Watts community overall. The African American population has witnessed negative growth, decreasing by 15%. Of the three major housing developments in Watts, all have seen at least a 60% Latino population increase in the past 10 years.
I n c r e a s e i n L at i n o p o p u l at i o n , D e c r e a s e i n A f r i c a n a m e r i c a n p o p u l at i o n
Population change (%), 2000 and 2010 Black /African American 50
40
Latino 30
20
10
-
0
+
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Imperial Courts* Nickerson Gardens* Jordan Downs* Watts City of Los Angeles
Latino and Black/African American Population, % of the total population, 2000 v. 2010 Black /African American Imperial Courts
2000 2010 2000
Nickerson Gardens
Jordan Downs
Watts
2010
Latino 45% 53% 32% 65% 45% 53% 38% 60% 59% 40%
2000 2010 2000 2010
31% 67% 39% 59% 29% 69%
Data from U.S. Decennial Census (2000, 2010). Values for the housing developments and Watts were approximated using block group level data. * Denotes public housing developments in the City of Los Angeles
29
T h e H u b o f t h e C o m m u n i t y: S c h o o l - b a s e d P r e v e n t i o n In L.A.’s hot zone communities, intimidation, gang recruitment, and violence often plague the streets that students traverse to and from to school. These factors deter attendance, resulting in truancy and school drop-out. Simultaneously, harsh school discipline policies and overreliance on law enforcement disproportionately impact male students of color, discourage student success, and needlessly push youth into the juvenile justice system. The map below indicates the number of truancy tickets issued across L.A. GRYD zones and speaks to both the street safety and school policy challenges faced by youth in our hot zones. Safe Passages work addresses these school-related safety issues. Schools are the hub of any community, making teach-
ers and school staff critical partners in any violence reduction and community transformation initiative. Yet, the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Unified School District have not prioritized the creation of seamless prevention networks in each of our high-need community schools. Current Safe Passages programs are not applied uniformly and are often ad hoc in nature. This weak Safe Passages infrastructure leaves our students vulnerable. An adequate education starts with a safe environment. Looking at key violence, school attendance, and community indicators, Urban Peace’s collaborative work on multiple Safe Passages projects strives to bring back the safety and support necessary for youth to achieve their educational potential.
Datime (2004-2010) GRYD Zones d ay t i m e cCurfew u r f e w Citations c i tat i o n sIssued issued ( 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 1and 0) an d GRYD Zones Data from Angeles to d ata f r othe m t hLos e los A n g e l e s Police p o l i c e Department, d e pa r t m e n t, a gaggregated g r e g at e d t o z i p ZIP c o d Code e
118
F 210 5
I 405 101
2
101
101
D
405
10
Daytime curfew citations issued 1
64
189
K
G
A
B C D E F G H I J K L
5
E
367 1591 L
GRYD Zones A
60
C
B
(Data classified by quantile)
10
H
J
77th II Baldwin Village/Southwest Boyle Heights/Hollenbeck Cypress Park/Northeast Florence-Graham/77th Foothill/Pacoima Newton Ramona Gardens / Hollenbeck Panorama City/Mission Rampart Southwest II Watts/Southeast
105
710
110 91
405
Geographic Data from DeLorme Geographic dataEsri, from NAVTEQ, Esri, NAVTEQ, DeLorme
30
intervention
I N T E R V E N T I O N : AT- A - G L A N C E SUCCESSES: Significant City financial support for intervention services over the last five years Creation of 12 GRYD Zones Public sector support for the creation of the Urban Peace Academy
CONTINUED CHALLENGES: Continue/expand funding for intervention work within tightened public budgets to meet the scale and scope of the problem M a i n t a i n i n g t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n m o v e m e n t ’s momentum, developing a viable succession plan for veteran interventionists and ensuring new generations of intervention professionals
Creation of the Los Angeles Violence I n t e r v e n t i o n Tr a i n i n g A c a d e m y ( L AV I TA ) operated by Urban Peace Academy
A Call to Action was an early champion of the burgeoning field of gang intervention. Five years later, the City of Los Angeles has implemented almost all of the reports’ recommendations aimed at building and strengthening the intervention profession. Mayor Villaraigosa boldly embraced A Call to Action’s emphasis on intervention as a vital component of the City’s overall gang strategy in the GRYD zones.28 He increased the total amount of contract dollars for intervention services by
allocating $500,000 of dedicated intervention funding per GRYD zone, and has sustained this level of funding despite the fiscal crisis. While current City funding is insufficient to support intervention work across all of Los Angeles’ gangaffected neighborhoods, the City funded intervention work is appropriately concentrated in the City’s 12 GRYD zones and four non-GRYD communities where the rate of gang-related violent crime is 400% higher than the rest of the City.
Mothers being recognized during the Women Intervention Workgroup 2nd Anniversary Celebration.
31
Andre’s Story
A life transformed
G r o w i n g u p i n Wa t t s , A n d r e C h r i s t i a n h a s b e e n n o s t r a n g e r t o gangs. After spending his younger years heavily involved in the gang lifestyle – including being shot 13 times – something changed: “A light actually came on in my head. Before then, I wasn’t into c h a n g e . I w a s s t u c k i n t h e s t r e e t l i f e a n d s t r e e t m e n t a l i t y. I w a s n ’ t trying to make any kind of peace.” In 1995 Andre began to work to create the exact peace he previously was destroying. He started to reach out to youth within his community to prevent gang violence before it happened – intervention work. Andre knew he could be particularly effective at reducing violence among youth because, as he says, “I was there before – where they at – so I have the tools to change their minds.” When Andre started this work, he did not see the value of i n t e r v e n t i o n t r a i n i n g . “ I t h o u g h t I d i d n ’ t n e e d t r a i n i n g . H o w ’s somebody going to tell me about gang banging when I am right here with it?” But as he continued with his efforts on the ground, he saw his work being limited. That is what brought Andre to a LAV ITA t r a i n i n g r u n b y t h e U r b a n P e a c e A c a d e m y. “ LAV ITA o p e n e d so many light bulbs in my head – like a burst of sunlight. I had been holding myself back for a long time.” After participating in this training, Andre now sees the real value in investing in, training, and professionalizing the field of intervention. He started seeing a change in how effective he was as a gang i n t e r v e n t i o n w o r k e r, thinking to himself, “Dang, maybe this stuff is really needed!” A n d r e c r e d i t s LAV ITA for strengthening the depth and scope of his life-saving work. N o t o n l y d i d t h e U r b a n P e a c e A c a d e m y c h a n g e A n d r e ’s w o r k f o r t h e b e t t e r, h e ’s s e e n t h e i m p a c t p r o f e s s i o n a l i z e d g a n g i n t e r v e n tion has had in his community: “One of the best things that has happened [in our community], period. Making a big difference.” To A n d r e , p r o f e s s i o n a l i z e d i n t e r v e n t i o n i s a b o u t “ s a v i n g l i v e s ” and changing things for future generations so “kids can be kids again.”
32
the urban Peace academy The Academy has made great strides in professionalizing The nascent, yet effective, field of gang intervention the field of intervention through: needed to develop professional standards and regulations to become a powerful force against gang violence that could • The development of minimum levels of qualifications effectively partner with other violence reduction practitioners. and training requirements for gang intervention Accordingly, the Urban Peace Academy has been central • The creation of a tiered professional development track to the legitimization and successful for gang intervention workers expansion of gang intervention work in • The establishment of standards of pracL.A. and beyond. “ t h e y ta u g h t tice and conduct, rigorously enforced by a Professional Standards Committee everything from With strong support from both Mayor Villaraigosa and LAPD Chief Beck, the Urban P o s t- t r a u m at i c Importantly, the Academy has also develPeace Academy was established in 2008 oped parallel training for law enforcement stress disorder to increase ground-level interventionists’ on the basics of gang intervention, allowing a n d P u b l i c h e a lt h , ability to implement a comprehensive for cross-training opportunities and developto healing within violence reduction strategy. By bringing ment of best practices for collaboration with o u r s e lv e s . ” together street-level, professional, and law enforcement. – m i r i a m m e n d e z , academic experts in a multi-disciplinary To date, the Urban Peace Academy has LAVITA Graduate collaborative process, the Urban Peace trained over 1,200 gang intervention and Academy has transformed the field of community workers and over 400 law gang intervention and established an enforcement officers. This has created an intervention framework consistent with A Call to Action’s authentic cadre of intervention workers engaged in positive original recommendations. partnerships with law enforcement, actively preventing gang violence and improving community safety.
Urban Peace Los Angeles Violence Intervention Training Academy (LAVITA) in GRYD Zones A total of 81 violence interventionists were certified through Urban Peace’s LAVITA. They are mapped and counted according to angeles the GRYD zones (and Harbor area) they work in as of their certification The chart number of los violence intervention training academydate. (lavita) inreflects grydthe zones individuals certified and not the capacity of work done by individual intervention workers. Map of GRYD Zones, as of July 2012
Urban Peace LAVITA Graduates
City of Los Angeles GRYD Zone F
GRYD Zone Name 77th II
4
B
Baldwin Village/Southwest
3
C
Boyle Heights/Hollenbeck
7
D
Cypress Park/Northeast
5
E
Florence-Graham/77th
6
F
Foothill/Pacoima
11
G
Newton
6
H
Ramona Gardens / Hollenbeck
4
I
Panorama City/Mission
4
J
Rampart
10
K
Southwest II
12
L
Watts/Southeast
5
Harbor*
5
210
I
170
101
2
134
Total number of graduates
A
101 110
D H
J
C
B
K G
A E
L
*Harbor area is a non-GRYD zone designated by the City of Los Angeles Mayor’s Office.
A total of 81 violence interventionists were certified through Urban Peace’s LAVITA. They are mapped and counted according to the GRYD zones (and Harbor area) they work in as of their certification date. The chart reflects the number of individuals certified and not the capacity of work done by individual intervention workers.
33
The strides made by the Urban Peace Academy have gone hand-in-hand with progressive intervention policies adopted by the City of Los Angeles in response to the original A Call to Action. The Academy was chosen by the City to operate the Los Angeles Violence Intervention Training Academy (LAVITA), the only training platform in the nation for gang intervention workers financed by a government entity. Academy-trained intervention workers staff each of the City’s GRYD zones and Summer Night Lights programs. Because of L.A.’s intervention successes, communities across the nation are beginning to explore gang intervention as a component of their violence reduction strategies and are looking to L.A. – and the Urban Peace Academy in particular – for support. Urban Peace Academy instructors have been called to Sacramento, Long Beach and Columbus, Ohio, as well as internationally, to train not only gang intervention workers but also law enforcement and other violence prevention stakeholders.
To date, the Urban Peace Academy has trained over 1,200 gang intervention and community workers and over 400 law enforcement officers. On the ground this has meant a true force of intervention workers engaged in positive partnerships with law enforcement, actively preventing gang violence and improving community safety.
Urban Peace academy
The Urban Peace Academy engages and trains community members, developing ground-level capacity to implement violence reduction strategies in their own neighborhoods. The Urban Peace Academy organizing strategy deliberately engages former gang members and supports their transformation into peacemakers through training, leadership, and capacity-building opportunities. An integral concept in the Urban Peace Academy’s organizing practices is the “license to operate.” License to Operate, or LTO, is a community organizing concept describing the legitimacy of an actor or organization as perceived by key stakeholders within the community. Former gang members have the actual street credibility to engage warring factions within L.A.’s hot zone communities and effectively de-escalate tensions because they can reach the right people through triangulation of their communication and relationship networks. While base-building with former gang members can prove to be a challenge, Urban Peace Academy’s efforts to build and strengthen the profession of gang intervention have fortified L.A.’s ability to address violence from the ground-up with real time ability to impact violence dynamics at the neighborhood level. Simultaneously, Urban Peace Academy’s training offers a legitimate career path to former gang members whose other employment options are severely limited. By leveraging both respect and authority arising from its track record, Urban Peace Academy has made strides in its community violence reduction goals and its larger efforts to affect community driven change.
34
The Future of Intervention While the expansion and maturation of the gang intervention profession over the last five years has been remarkable, it is clear that continued investment is required to maintain the current positive momentum and overcome looming challenges. One challenge is a chronic lack of resources. Even as intervention has been recognized for contributing to the phenomenal reductions in violent crime within Los Angeles, and particularly reductions in retaliatory shootings (see “Decrease of Incidents with Shots Fired”, pg. 36), the threat of decreased funding for this crucial work remains real, particularly given the current budget cuts and possible shifts in priorities under a new mayoral administration.
“With this training, I’ve been given the tools to be more effective on the streets. I can help y o u t h t h at a r e i n need…My job is to go into the streets, schools, and fa m i l i e s t o s h o w them how they can change their lives.” –guillermo Aguilar, LAVITA Graduate
While present limited intervention funding is being appropriately concentrated in areas exhibiting the highest levels of violence, there exist many other L.A. neighborhoods with violence that receive no intervention resources. These communities present a latent threat for a deadly resurgence in gang violence. Maintenance of current funding and resources is not sufficient. Even greater resources for intervention are needed to fully meet the scale and scope of the problem. Additional resources are critical to nurture a new generation of intervention professionals, to create a viable succession plan for existing veteran intervention professionals, and to ensure that the gains made over the last five years continue.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa with Los Angeles Violence Intervention Training Academy graduates.
35
decrease of incidents with shots fired in los angeles, 2006 and 2011
Decrease of Incidents with Shots Fired in Los Angeles, 2006 and 2011 2006 Shots Fired by Block Group
2006 Shots Fired by Block Group 2011 Shots Fired by Block Group
Total (2006): 3308
Total (2006): 3308
Total (2011): 1,565
2006
a total incidents with shots Total Incidents withfired Shots Fireda
3,288 3,288
ZIP
ZIP codes with the most incidents with shots fired, 2006 1
90003
206
2
90044
204
3
90002
200
4
90011
199
5
90037
6
90033
122
7
90043
121
8
90059
9
90047
153
6
10
4M 5t a 6 i 7o 8g t 9 p 10
The 10 ZIP codes with the highest number of incidents with shots fired were concentrated primarily in the southern portion of the City and one ZIP code in the eastern portion of Los Angeles.
5 4 7 921 3 8
110 98
10 90062
1 T 2d 32
In the year before A Call To Action: The Case for a Comprehensive Solution to Los Angeles Gang Violence Epidemic, there were 3,288 crime incidents with shots fired in the City of Los Angeles.
90
De To Key
Key
Key
one crime incident with shots fired City of Los Angeles
one crime incident with shots fired City of Los Angeles ZIP Code Boundaries
2006
2011
ZIP Incidents 10 ZIP Codes with the 90003 356 most incidents with
Incidents
ZIP
shots fired
one crime incident with shots fire City of Los Angeles
ZIP Code Boundaries
ZIP Code Boundaries
10 ZIP Codes with the most incidents with shots fired
10 ZIP Codes with th most incidents wit shots fired
ZIP C
ZIP codes with the most incidents 90044 with 285shots fired, 2006 ZIP codes with the most incidents with shots fired, 2006 1
90003
1
90003
206
1 9
Crime incidents with 204 shots fired reflect all incidents reported to the LAPD involving a Crime incidents with shots fired reflect all incidents 200Angeles City boundaries incidents outside of Los reported to the LAPD involving incidents outside Los b The number of crime incidents with shots fired Angeles City boundaries. 199 perb ZIP code reflects the incidents reported only 210 90003 The number of crime incidents with shots fired per 153 to ZIP thecode LAPD. The actual number of the incidents reflects the incidents reported only to the 10 canLAPD. be higher for each ZIPofcode when including actual number the incidents may be 5 4 122 The 7 incidents reported other agencies. higher for each ZIPby code when including incidents 9 2 1
2 9
2
90044
204
2
90044
3
90002
200
3
90002
4
90011
199
4
90011
5
90037
5
90037
6
90033
6
90033
90002 90011
218 215 153
90043
122 90037 90059 121
187 176
8
90059
90033 110
159
9
90047
98
7
10 90062
36
206
9090016
123
90008 91605 90007
98 91 87
7
90043
8
90059
9
90047
10 90062
a
6 7
5 4 921 3 8
reported other agencies. 90044 171 Geographic 121 bydata from Esri, NAVTEQ, DeLorme,
Geographic from Esri, NAVTEQ, Census TIGER data cartographic boundaryDeLorme, files. 110 Census TIGER boundary files. Crime Crime data fromcartographic Los Angeles Police Department. data from Losshots Angeles Police Department. Incidents 98 Incidents with fired do not include reported with shots fired do not include reported incidents incidents related to domestic violence, sex crime, 125 90 90002 related to domestic violence, sex crimes, suicide, or suicide, or child abuse. child abuse.
112
90059
89 78
90011 90037
3 8
3 9
4 9 6
5 9
6 9
7 9
8 9
9 9
10 9
Decre Top 1
2011 Shots Fired by Block Group
lock Group
Total (2011): 1,565
2011
Total Incidentswith with shots Shots Fired total incidents fireda Total Gang-Related Crime1,565 Incidentsa
a
1,565
1,565
1,723 compared to 2006with shots fired, 2011 52.4% Compared 52.4% ZIP Codes with the most incidents
q 1,723
to 2006
1 90003 The number of incidents with shots fired 124 2declined 90044 by 52.4% in 2011 compared to 115 The number of incidents with shots fired 2006. 3 declined 90002 by 52.4% in 2011 compared 113 4Most to90047 2006. of the ‘top ten ZIP codes’ 79 continued
9
in the top ten list, nonetheless those 5to be 90011 77 The 10 ZIP codes with the highest areas experienced a dramatic reduction 6 number 90043 incidents with shots 74 fired also in firearmofincidents. The areas with some 7of 90059 experienced dramatic reduction inwith 65 the highestadeclines are also areas firearm incidents. graduated intervention workers, who diffuse 8 90037 61 tensions, engage in rumor control, and help 9 91331 48 prevent retaliatory shootings. 10 90062 46 drop in top 10 Zip Codes for nUmBer of inCidents With DROP IN THE NUMBER b Decrease infired Firearm-Related Incidents OF shots INCIDENTS WITH SHOTS FIRED Top 10 ZIP codes in 2006 and their changes 2006
90003 ent with shots fired90044 s Angeles 90002 90011
ZIP Incidents
2011
206 204 200 199
10 6
Key one crime incident with shots fired City of Los Angeles ZIP Code Boundaries
Code Boundaries
10 ZIP Codes with the most incidents with shots fired
ZIP Codes with the most incidents with shots fired
5 4 21 3 8
8 5 42 1 3 7
90037 153
ZIP Codes with the most incidents with shots fired, 2011 ZIP Codes with the most incidents with shots fired, 2011 90033 122 1 90003 90043 121
2 90044
90059 110
3 90002
6
1 90003
90044 115115 113 90002
2 90044
113
90047 98 4 90047
79
5 90011
77
90062
124 90003 124
90
6 90043
74
7 90059
65
8 90037
61
9 91331
48
10 90062
46
3 90002
124 115 9
113
4 90047 79 77 74 65 61
90047 90011 90043 90059 90037
46
90062
33
90033
Decrease in Firearm-Related Incidents Top 10 ZIP codes in 2006 and their changes
79
5 90011 6 90043 7 90059
9
77 10 6
74
8 5 42 1 3 7
65
8 90037
10 6
8 5 42 1 3 7
61
9 91331
48
10 90062
46
Decrease in Firearm-Related Incidents Top 10 ZIP codes in 2006 and their changes
37
s u pp r e s s i o n
S U P P R E S S I O N : AT- A - G L A N C E SUCCESSES:
CONTINUED CHALLENGES:
Key progressive leadership at the helm of law enforcement agencies (i.e. Chief William Bratton and Chief Charles Beck)
On-going negative perception of law enforcement by community
L A P D s u p p o r t o f t h e M a y o r ’s G R Y D office and strategies Development and implementation of non-suppression strategies and implementation (i.e. directives on limiting the issuance of truancy tickets; changes in impoundment policy) Creation and implementation of the Community Safety Partnership program
The City of Los Angeles has enjoyed almost a decade of progressive law enforcement leadership, first with Chief William Bratton and now with Chief Charles Beck. Chief Bratton re-engineered the LAPD in many ways; he shifted the focus of the department by understanding that tension and distrust of the police are hindrances to reducing crime.29 New LAPD directives limiting the impoundment of cars driven by those without licenses (i.e. undocumented immigrants) and the curtailment of the use of truancy tickets against students on their way to school exemplify LAPD’s problem-solving approach to policing that looks beyond arrests to secure community safety.
38
Community perception of the negative impact of gang injunctions Disproportionate contact with young men of color by law enforcement Cultural competency in rapidly changing population demographics Sustaining the cultural shifts occurring with LAPD
“we all know we cannot arrest o u r s e lv e s o u t o f this problem. So we will continue to work with our communities, as well as with gang prevention and intervention efforts t h at ta r g e t t h e root cause of gang violence.” –chief charles beck, Los Angeles Police Department
As a result of A Call to Action, and the ensuing shift of public discourse around violence reduction efforts, both leaders publicly rejected the idea that crime and violence can be solved by law enforcement alone and have taken active steps towards building authentic partnerships with communities and with civic leaders to build public safety. These steps have included LAPD’s support of the Mayor’s GRYD strategy, including implementation of a formalized, three-way crisis response protocol between GRYD, LAPD, and gang intervention workers, and mandated training for gang officers on collaboration with gang intervention workers, as recommended in A Call to Action.
historic crime reductions isolated and often more vulnerable to intimidation and These and other efforts have brought historic reductions in harassment from gangs. Finally, one of the most important crime for the ninth consecutive year. Most dramatically, over remaining challenges is sustaining and expanding some the last five years since the release of the report, the City of the cultural shifts that have occurred in the LAPD over has experienced a 32.4% reduction in total gang-related incithe past 10 years, and truly institutionalizing the problemdents and a 52.4% reduction of total firearm related incidents solving, community-oriented policing (see maps pages 16 and 36). In addition, approach throughout the department. communities with GRYD zones have ex“God Bless you all perienced a reduction in violent crime Keeping these concerns in mind, the Urfor the work you do! from 2007-2011 (see map page 13). ban Peace program has worked tirelessly I Thank you with all Overall, L.A. continues to experience over the last five years with many partners m y h e a rt f o r y o u r t i m e reductions in crime. – one of the strongest partners being a n d e f f o rt y o u a r e law enforcement themselves – to ensure While progressive policies and crime rep u t t i n g i n t o o p e n L aw community victories around police transduction have had a positive shift in how Enforcements minds, formation. Most notably, the Law Enforcecommunities, particularly communities a n d b u i l d i n g a b r i d g e ment Training through the Urban Peace of color, perceive LAPD, the long history between us and the Academy has been, and continues to be, of strained community-law enforcement a crucial tool for effective engagement relationships and the larger context of c o m m u n i t y. ” with the gang intervention community. failed suppression-focused policies local– A d va n c e d L aw E n f o r c e m e n t T r a i n i n g Pa pa n t rt i c i The Advanced Law Enforcement Training ly and nationally will require a sustained is a daylong training that educates peace effort well beyond the initial steps taken officers about the field of gang intervention and provides in the past five years. Residents in gang-entrenched commustrategies for collaboration that still maintain their mutually nities continue to raise alarms about over-broad suppression independent roles. Since 2009, over 400 law enforcement practices, such as gang injunctions, and their tendency to officers have received the training, including both LAPD and funnel too many youth into the criminal justice system. Los Angeles Sheriff Department, among them lieutenants, In areas that have experienced rapid population shifts, a sergeants, detectives, deputies, and patrol officers. targeted and culturally competent effort is necessary to connect with the largely immigrant communities who are
t h e f u t u r e o f s u pp r e s s i o n : c o m m u n i t y s a f e t y pa r t n e r s h i p With technical assistance from Urban Peace, the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) and LAPD piloted the innovate Community Safety Partnership (CSP): a formal agreement to engage residents and promote safety at the Ramona Gardens, Nickerson Gardens, Jordan Downs, and Imperial Courts public housing developments. CSP is unique for both HACLA and LAPD in its recognition that safety cannot be achieved through traditional policing, but instead requires collaboration among all stakeholders. The agreement mandates relationship-based policing that relies on long-term assignment of police personnel and data-driven community safety planning. LAPD has established a team of dedicated, full-time law enforcement officers at each project site who enforce a relationship-based policing model that engages stakeholders to increase overall “community livability.” Through its ongoing technical assistance, Urban Peace ensures that: 1 Each project site maintains a Community Safety Partnership Team composed of community leaders, service providers, LAPD and HACLA representatives. The Team develops site-specific safety priorities and meets regularly to monitor progress and to solve problems. 2 CSP coordinates with local schools, community-based youth service agencies, and intervention agencies to secure safe routes to and from school, both during and after school activities. 3 CSP coordinates with parks and recreational facilities located within and near the housing developments to maintain safe public spaces for recreational and enrichment activities. The Community Safety Partnership represents an exciting, groundbreaking approach to true community policing. Urban Peace will continue to provide technical assistance for the duration of this pilot program, gathering data and documenting best practices for possible replication and expansion in the future. 39
M e l i s s a’ s S t o r y
A female interventionist’s perspective M el i s s a P i r r a g l i o c a m e to L o s A n g e l e s i n 2002 t o lea ve behind t he ga ng life in S a n D i eg o. A f t er a rri v i n g s h e fo u n d th e s a m e des t r uct ive forces per s is t ed in t wo ver y di ff erent c om m u n i ti e s . Th i s e m b o l d e n e d her t o ma k e it her mis s ion t o s uppor t t hos e who want ed t o l e a v e th e g a n g l i fe . H av i ng rec ei v e d su p p o rt h e rs e l f fro m nonprofit s who enga ge wit h a t - r is k t eens , Mel i s s a ’s d ee p re l i g i o u s fa i th i n s p i re d her t o begin doing ga ng int er vent ion wor k “ i nf or m a l l y ” b y “ try i n g to h e l p p e o p l e come out of t he lifes t yle [s he] ha d come out of . ” As t hi s i nf o rm a l i n te rv e n ti o n w o rk p ick ed- up, M elis s a wa s refer red t o t he Los Angeles Vi ol enc e I n te rv e n ti o n Tra i n i n g A c a d e my (LAVITA). For M elis s a LAVITA wa s a ca t a lys t t ha t a l l owe d h e r to re a l i z e h e r n a tu r a l ca pa cit y t o rea ch people. “ [LAV ITA] definit ely op ened up m y m i n d to th e v a s t o p p or t unit y t here is in rega rd t o ga ng int er vent ion. [ B ef ore LAV ITA], I w a s s o n a rro w l y focus ed, it provok ed me a nd put a lot of pos s ibilit i es at m y fi n g e rti p s . I t s p u rre d a pot ent ia l I didn’t even k now I ha d.” Newl y em p o w e re d a n d i n sp i re d b y her t r a ining wit h LAVITA, Melis s a cont inued t o exp and h e r i n te rv e n ti o n w o rk i n the Sout hga t e, Boyle Height s , Wa t t s , a nd Lynwood c om muniti e s . O n th e g ro u n d , sh e a ct ively us ed t he “ t a ct ics a nd minds et ” s he lea r ned a t t he LAV ITA tra i n i n g , i n o n e c a se even prevent ing a n imminent ga ng s t a bbing. S he c redi ts h e r su c c e s s a s a n i n te r vent ionis t t o a n a bilit y t o wa lk a fine line: “ A s i nt er v en ti o n w o rk e rs , w e h a v e to be profes s iona ls , but we ca n’t los e our grounding i n our re l a ti o n s h i p s – so w e h a v e t o ha ve t echniques t o wa lk a pa t h bet ween t hos e t wo wo rl d s . I a m a b l e to d o so b e ca us e of t he s k ills I lea r ned a t t he Aca demy.” “C om i n g o u t o f th e g a n g l i fe sty le, we under s t a nd how t o lever a ge t he res pect hi er arc h y o f th e s tre e ts i n o u r fa vor. At t he s a me t ime, we need s uppor t a nd t r a inin g a nd t ru s t fro m th e Ci ty. L o y a l ty is huge in t he ga ng lifes t yle, a nd t ha t loya lt y ca n t r a ns la te i n to s o m e th i n g p o s i ti v e – t hos e of us who ha ve got t en out wa nt ing t o s ee o th e r p e o p l e m a k e i t, c o m e out a nd s ucceed.” Melis s a s ees her s elf a nd ot her int er vent ionis t s a s t he cr it ica l “ br idge” bet ween ga ng member s a nd t he res t of s ociet y. As a fema le int er vent ion wor k er, M elissa ha s a pa r t icula r focus in ment or ing young women a s t hey wor k t o get t hems elves out of ga ngs . “ F ema le on fema le int ervent ion is cha llenging beca us e young women a re not t r us t ing of ot her wom en, gener a lly. I n t ha t lifes t yle we t end t o lose our femininit y, beca us e when you a re in a ga ng you ha ve t o s uppres s s o ma ny e mot ions a nd confor m t o t he homeboy image. ” This is where M elis s a ha s felt t he greates t s ucces s a s a n int er vent ionis t : s ee ing t he young women s he ment or s move away from ga ngs , building t heir s elf- es t eem, and re tu rn i n g to s c h o o l to b u ild a ca reer for t hems elves – wha t M elis s a ca lls “ con c rete l i fe c h a n g e s.” W i th h e r l i f e ex per iences a nd t he t r a ining s he received from LAV ITA, M e l i s s a c o n ti n u e s to i n s pire a nd s uppor t “ concret e life cha nges ” for even more g a n g - i n v o l v e d y o u th .
40
reentry
R E E N T R Y: AT- A - G L A N C E C O N T I N U E D R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S : Creation of a seamless transition into society (comprehensive transition planning) C o u n t y, C i t y, a n d l o c a l c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d o r g a n i z a t i o n c o l l a b o r a t i o n a n d s e r v i c e coordination to streamline comprehensive services to the reentering population, with a focus on gang exit strategies Creation of employment opportunities for reentering individuals and revision of criminal record restrictions on hiring policies Creation and expansion of wrap-around youth reentry programs with a focus on school reintegration
With the advent of criminal justice While the City has made great strides realignment through AB 109, the in implementing recommendations “ O u r m o s t i m p o r ta n t County of Los Angeles has been related to gang intervention and goal is to keep kids out pushed to create a countywide plan suppression tactics, progress on of the juvenile justice for addressing the supervision and recommendations related to reentry system. But when they service needs of thousands of indifor both youth and adults has been do become system viduals returning to L.A. from the slower. The City’s primary success i n v o lv e d , w e n e e d t o state’s prisons. While realignment related to reentry lies in its work m a k e s u r e t h at t h e y officially shifts responsibility for a toward a more community-based safety large segment of the reentering strategy, generally. Through increased come out better population to Los Angeles County, funding to community-based service able to succeed.” this shift also presents a unique providers and greater investment in –susan lee, opportunity for the City, should it high violence communities where there National Director of Urban Peace choose to invest in and focus on is also a high concentration of reenterthe reentering population, to foster ing individuals, the City’s efforts to crerehabilitation in order to prevent ate stronger neighborhoods also lay recidivism and facilitate a true reintegration of ex-offenders. a better foundation into which formerly incarcerated individuals can reintegrate. The County and the City of Los Angeles must work with While reentering individuals are tangentially receiving services as a result of the City’s larger neighborhood-based GRYD strategy, much more remains to be done in terms of the focus and scale of services and supports provided. Where the City has yet to take substantial action is around the creation of a “seamless transition” – true integration of services and supports available to people returning from a period of incarceration.
myriad community-based service providers to coordinate and streamline service provision to those reentering. In addition to the housing, employment, physical, and mental health services these individuals will need, significant resources must also be invested in gang exit strategies and support for individuals making the transition out of gang life. L.A. can take cues from other cities that have established official City/County offices of reintegration services, providing a
41
means of coordinated service integration across municipal departments and agencies while funding targeted programming for the reentering population.30 It is only through such coordination and collaboration that the critical “seamless transition” can take place. Beyond coordination of services, central to any reentry strategy is connecting those reentering to stable and sustaining employment. If L.A. is going to truly create a framework within which real reintegration is possible, we must create pathways to employment for those with criminal re-
cords. While the City and County alone cannot tackle all barriers to employment for formerly incarcerated persons, each entity can and must leverage its resources and contracting funds to create opportunities for, and eliminate barriers to, employment for this population. The City and County must examine and reevaluate their own criminal record restrictions on hiring, removing unnecessary prohibitions on civic employment, as well as consider the use of its contracting dollars as a mechanism to promote employment and skills training for those reintegrating.
t h e f u t u r e o f r e e n t r y: y o u t h r e e n t r y Beyond adult reentry, A Call to Action also made recommendations specific to reentering youth. While small but significant steps have been made to provide wraparound services to transitioning youth – for example, through the County’s Probation Youth Community Transition Project (PYCTP) – these limited pilot programs must be scaled up to provide comprehensive services and case management to all youth transitioning out of custody. Similar to reintegrating adults, juveniles attempting to reintegrate back into their families and communities, need strong, coordinated support services that begin prior to release and continue well past the first few weeks out. Unlike adults, reintegrating youth have the additional challenge of educational interruption caused by their time in the juvenile justice system. For these youth, school reintegration is a key piece of their “seamless transition” that is currently left largely unaddressed. As the lead agency responsible for reintegrating youth, the County’s Probation Department must continue to make greater strides at improving its internal accountability structure, with a particular focus on datadriven reforms, while developing greater partnerships
42
with community-based service providers to create an effective network of support for transitioning youth. To this end, Urban Peace has undertaken the Juvenile Probation Data Project, a year-long, multi-disciplinary research study designed to produce a template of outcomes for youth success that can be tracked by Probation and other County departments. Utilizing Urban Peace’s inside-outside strategy, we have partnered directly with Probation, as well as a team of researchers from Cal State L.A., USC, and UCLA, and the Children’s Defense Fund to study how systeminvolved youth and their families fare before, during, and after their contact with Probation. By better understanding the experience of youth in the juvenile justice system, the project will identify needed improvements in data collection and tracking, as well as opportunities for prevention, early intervention, and rehabilitation. The project will culminate in a set of findings and concrete recommendations that provide a clear blueprint to Probation on how to move forward. This will improve internal accountability and, ultimately, create better outcomes for our system-involved youth.
42
The Madeleine
Brand Show NOVEMBER 17, 2011
300,000 L.A. CHILDREN LIVE IN
GANGLAND
by Frank Stoltze
ren at historic lows, but 300,000 child Crime rates in Los Angeles may be new a to g rdin gang violence,” acco still live in so-called “hot zones of ncement Project and Violence Adva The by y rsda Thu ased report rele that focuses on civil rights and p grou it prof Prevention Coalition, a non rt breaks down the City by repo new public policy in Los Angeles. The ds are safest. rhoo hbo neig h whic ZIP code and examines nt crime, child abuse rates, The report looks at gang crime, viole ncy, high school graduation trua ol school test scores, middle scho poverty and “protective factors like rates, risk factors like families in cies working in an area.” the number of social service agen ect said this kind of ZIP code by Proj ent ncem Adva Susan Lee of The ted. ZIP code analysis is unpreceden icity of hundreds of different commun l of geographic analysis. L.A. is a “No report has done that small leve cutter approach,” she said. ties and so we can’t have a cookie 110 corridor, areas in East L.A., and of South L.A., particularly along the s part ded inclu st wor d rate s Area Pacoima. 90272 VS 90002 h, 107th by Firestone Boulevard to the nort while South L.A. (90002: bounded A’s all got 72) (902 F’s. s all sade got ) Pali ific east Pac to the rd to the west, and Alameda Street Street to the south, Avalon Bouleva Pacific Palisades. Middle school truse violent crime and child abu as of rate profit the s time 10 t abou had South L.A. ent v. more than 15 percent. The non 54 percent. Unemployment: 3 perc ancy rates: less than 1 percent v. on groups: $700 per capita v. $23. revenue of Youth Violence Preventi roved advocated for more than just imp Councilman Bernard Parks has long City now and f Chie D LAP er Form in these hot spot neighborhoods. policing to improve the lives of kids ugh Watts riot in ‘65 – you can go thro gs that were brought up after the thin with s the of ship y tion man is rela n, ate catio rtun edu unfo “What’s d: employment, those things were never correcte that report and find that many of police, housing,” said Parks. the n Los Angeles gives an example of n neighborhood just west of downtow Street, Mara Salvatrucha, RockUnio Pico the in code zip 7 9001 The 18th ate in this neighborhood, including challenges. 27 different gangs oper s. Loco ton wood, Temple Street and Burling dle Schoool about how they stay safe 12-year-old boys outside Leichty Mid ol so they cannot kill me or do KPCC’s Frank Stoltze talked to two scho the ight home and straight to stra go just “I , said One gs. gan d and avoi something to me.” back. Maybe they are going my house, and look in front and in to ctly dire go “I , said oler scho The other middle Or jack you.” to try to shank you or something. in the bed. You generally don’t hear that man on the street who’d been stab One boy said he’s recently seen a n Oaks, or Granada Hills. Palisades, or Brentwood, or Sherma ity, ities where violence is a daily real ately 300,000 kids living in commun Susan Lee says, “If we have approxim cal depression to post traumatic stress disorder because of that clini a low.” and these kids have everything from ent because the crime rates are at care about that and not be complac violence, I think it behooves us to areas. exactly what’s needed in specific dents will use the report to look at Lee is hoping the City and local resi
43
e q u i ta b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s
A critical point made in A Call to Action was the failure of government to invest in gang-specific prevention and intervention resources. At the time of the initial report, the City annually spent $26 million on a myriad of prevention and intervention programs – 24 cents a day per child – while over $56 million was invested in suppression efforts. The need was not only for a greater allocation of funds at the prevention end, but also a focusing of City violence reduction resources in the highest need communities. The report called for balanced public investment to build prevention, intervention, and targeted suppression infrastructures in the communities with the greatest need. Early wins have been visible right away. The Mayor’s decision to concentrate the City’s limited resources into the highest
need communities represented a significant policy shift from prior initiatives where funding was usually spread across the City’s 15 council districts, irrespective of need. This shift has the potential for a ripple effect on how other types of public sector resources may be distributed in the future. A Call to Action set the foundation for all of Urban Peace’s policy work. Inequity of resources in L.A. communities leads to the perpetual cycle of poverty, inequality, and violence, engulfing the most disenfranchised residents of our communities – people of color and youth. Urban Peace has addressed this gap by highlighting and uncovering inequity of resources through grounded, datadriven research and the use of Advancement Project’s Healthycity.org data and mapping platform.
Community Safety Scorecard: Research as an Action Tool In order to engage in an equitable distribution of resources, robust data must be employed to map and analyze current resource distribution as compared to community conditions. To meet this need Urban Peace, in collaboration with Healthy City and the Violence Prevention Coalition, created the Community Safety Scorecard: City of Los Angeles 2011 to measure safety, the quality of schools, risk factors – conditions on the ground that research has identified as increasing the risk of violence – and protective factors – those conditions that help to decrease levels of violence in a community – at the ZIP code level for the entire City of Los Angeles. Ultimately, the Scorecard emphasizes the need to understand safety from a public health perspective and also reinforces the argument that public and private resources for violence reduction should be concentrated in areas where the data indicates the highest need. The Scorecard powerfully revealed inequity in access to public safety in the City of Los Angeles, as demonstrated in the maps on page 45. These maps show that the least
44
safe w communities are not spread out across the City, but instead are geographically concentrated in the City’s southern and eastern regions. The Scorecard further illustrated that a high number of risk factors, such as poverty and unemployment, were strongly correlated to a lack of protective factors, such as inadequate school conditions, and ultimately to low levels of safety. A closer look at these ZIP codes made clear that investments in a single community sector are not enough to raise outcomes in the rest of the sectors, which is consistent with the public health concept that one factor alone cannot sustain a community safety initiative. Additionally, many of the ZIP codes graded “least safe” are positioned across multiple jurisdictions (e.g. crosscity areas, unincorporated county areas, or multiple City council districts), highlighting the need for a regional strategy in which both the City and County work to collectively raise outcomes in our communities.31
s n a p s h o t o f c o m m u n i t y c o m pa r i s o n b y c o m m u n i t y s c o r e r a n k i n g s c o m m u n i t y s a f e t y s c o r e c a r d ( A d va n c e m e n t p r o j e c t, 2 0 1 1 )
Safety Score
Safety Score – safety measured by crime rates
School Score Community conditions can be measured by the interplay of risk factors and protective factors. These conditions inform the levels of community safety.
Higher ranking = safer neighborhood. Safety factors include low Community Scores byby ZIPZIP Codes, City of of Los Angeles (2011) Community Scores Codes, City Los Angeles (2011) Communities with the highest risk factors and lowest rates of gang-related crime, violentcrime, and child abuse protective factors have the highest concentrations of Community Scores by ZIP Codes, School City of Score Los Angeles crime, as shown in(2011) each map as score rankings. Safety Score Safety Score School Score
Safety Score
All sectors in a community have to work together to School Score eliminate the conditions that sustain violence.
School Score
Higher ranking = better public schools
Rank 1 - 10 11 - 42 43 - 73 74 - 94
Rank Rank 1 - 110- 10 11 - 42 Rank 11 - 42 43 - 10 73- 73 1 -43 74 - 94 1174 -94 42 95 - 104 4395 -104 73
95 - 104
Rank Rank Rank 1 - 110- 10
1 - 10
11 - 42 Rank 11 - 42 11 - 42 43 - 10 73- 73 1 -43 74 - -94 43 - 73 - 94 1174 42 95 - -104 - 104 4395 73
74 - 94
74 - 94
74 - 94
95 - 104
95 - 104
Risk Factor Score Risk Factor Score
Risk Factor Score
Risk Factor HigherScore ranking = fewer risk factors
Risk Factor Score
Rank Rank 1 - 110- 10 11 - 42 Rank 11 - 42 43 - 10 73- 73 1 -43 74 74 - 94 11 -94 42 95 - -104 - 104 4395 73 74 - 94
95 - 104
Protective Factor Score Protective Factor Score
Protective Factor Score
Protective Factor Score Higher ranking = more protective factors
Protective Factor Score
Rank Rank 1 - 110- 10 11 - 42 Rank 11 - 42 43 - 10 73- 73 1 -43 74 - 94 1174 -94 42 95 - 104 4395 -104 73 74 - 94 Geographic data from Esri, NAVTEQ, DeLorme
45
B l a n c a’ s S t o r y
This is a composite story of a typical youth experience in Los Angeles’ hot zones. Blanca is in the 7th grade. She is a gifted science student who hopes to b e c o m e a d o c t o r o r re s e a rc h e r o n e d a y. B l a n c a l i v e s i n B e l m o n t i n t h e h e a r t o f L o s A n g e l e s ’ u r b a n c o re . S h e h a s l o v i n g p a re n t s w h o b e l i e v e i n t h e p ro m i s e o f A m e r i c a f o r t h e i r c h i l d re n . T h e i r h o m e i s s m a l l , b u t w a r m , w i t h a n e m p h a s i s on living a good life. A s s o o n a s s h e s t e p s o u t t h e f ro n t d o o r, t h i n g s c h a n g e . B l a n c a ’s n e i g h b o rh o o d i s c o n s i d e re d t h e t e r r i t o r y o f 2 7 w a r r i n g g a n g s . O n h e r b l o c k , t h e re h a v e b e e n d r u g a n d g a n g - re l a t e d s h o o t i n g s . F a m i l i e s s t r u g g l e w i t h p o v e r t y a n d i n a d e q u a t e h o u s i n g . T h e re i s a 6 2 % d ro p - o u t r a t e . M a n y o f h e r n e i g h b o r s b a t t l e s e r i o u s h e a l t h i s s u e s , a n d m o s t a re u n i n s u re d . M a n y o f t h e y o u n g p e o p l e i n g a n g h o t z o n e s s u ff e r f ro m PTSD s y m p t o m s a t r a t e s h i g h e r t h a n s o l d i e r s re t u r n i n g f ro m I r a q . B l a n c a ’s s h o r t w a l k t o L i e c h t y M i d d l e S c h o o l i s f r a u g h t w i t h p e r i l . S h e h a s t o c ro s s t h e 5 t h m o s t d a n g e ro u s p e d e s t r i a n i n t e r s e c t i o n i n t h e c o u n t r y. S h e i s c o n f ro n t e d b y g a n g m e m b e r s w h o a c t i v e l y “ e n f o rc e ” t h e i r t e r r i t o r y b y h a r a s s i n g a n d i n t i m i d a t i n g s t u d e n t s w h o t r y t o c ro s s t h e m a n y i n v i s i b l e gang lines in the neighborhood. As Blanca looks ahead to high school, the p i c t u re b e c o m e s e v e n b l e a k e r. A h i g h s c h o o l with a cutting-edge s c i e n c e a n d m a t h c u rriculum is only six blocks a w a y. B u t i t l i e s i n t h e territory of one gang at war with the gang that c o n t ro l B l a n c a ’s b l o c k . The school she needs to p u r s u e h e r d re a m s m i g h t as well be on Mars. U n t i l n o w. T h e w o r k t h a t Urban Peace and their partners have done in B e l m o n t t h ro u g h t h e b u i l d i n g o f t h e B e l m o n t N e i g h b o r h o o d Vi o l e n c e Reduction Collaborative and the launch of the School Safe Passages p ro g r a m w i l l n o t o n l y h e l p B l a n c a , b u t a l l o f h e r p e e r s . T h e S c h o o l S a f e P a s s a g e s p ro g r a m i n B e l m o n t , a n d i n o t h e r c o m m u n i t i e s , b r i n g s t o g e t h e r p a re n t s , t e a c h e r s , p o l i c e , l o c a l b u s i n e s s e s , g a n g i n t e r v e n t i o n i s t s , a n d t h e p u b l i c s e c t o r, t o c o l l e c t i v e l y w o r k t o w a rd s t u d e n t s a f e t y t o a n d f ro m s c h o o l . T h e s e p ro g r a m s e n s u re t h a t y o u t h i n a l l o f o u r c o m m u n i t i e s a re f re e t o l e a r n a n d t h r i v e .
46
P r o t e c t i v e fa c t o r s t o P r e v e n t v i o l e n c e i n c o m m u n i t i e s
Community Safety Scorecard - Protective Factor Rank by ZIP Code Protective Factors to Prevent Violence in Communities
Community Scores Safety by ZIP Codes, City of Los A Community Scorecard c o m m u n i t y s a f e t y s c o r e c a r d ( a d va n c e m e n t P r o J e c t, 2 0 1 1 )
From Community Safety Scorecard (Advancement Project, 2011) Protective Factor Score by ZIP Code
Safety Score
Safety Score by ZIP Code Violence Prevention Services
91342 91344
91326
91345
91325
91040
91331
91330 91324
91343
91306 91303
91335
91406
91364
91356
91605
91405 91411
91367
91504
91606
91401
91607
91316 91436
91601 91602
91403 91423 91604
90077 90049
90290
90272
91214
91352
91402
91304 91307
91042
91340
91311
91608 90068
90041 90027 90039
90046 90210
90069
90028
90065
90042
90029 90038 90032 90004 90026 90031 90048 90036 90090 9009590024 90020 90012 90212 90211 90057 90089 90010 90005 90067 90017 90035 90033 90019 90006 90025 90063 90013 90015 90064 90034 90007 90021 90018 90016 90089 90023 90232 90008 90066 90062 90037 90011 90058 90230 90291 90056 90043 90292 90001
90094
9004490003 90047
Rank 1-10 11-42 43 - 73
High School Teachers with Full
74 - 94 95 - 104
Risk Score with the most and fewest 10Factor ZIP Codes
protective factors
Top 10 and90293 bottom90045 10 ranked ZIP code areas and their ranks for other scores 90002 90059 90061
90245
Rank
1 - 10
11 - 42
43 - 73
74 - 94
95 - 104
Other Ranks
ZIP
Protective Factor Rank
Safety
School
Risk
90048
1
14
14
12
90010
2
6
31
38
91436
3
13
49
7
90272
4
1
2
1
91367
5
37
19
9 per 10,000 persons
74 - 94
90290
6
3
13
95 - 104
91326
7
17
4
90069
8
30
11
14
913641-10
9
33
7
8
9001711-42
10
89
78
9006174 - 94 104
99
101
90002
103
97
104
90018
102
88
88
92
90011
101
91
103
94
90003
100
101
74
98
90037
99
98
72
99
90016
98
84
86
90
90044
97
95
90
101
90247
96
59
67
74
90007
95
70
89
87
90247
Rank
90248
1 - 10
90501
90502
11 - 42 43 - 73
90710
90744
90731 90732
90731
Protective factors are conditions on the ground that contribute to successful and healthy environments and that can help to mitigate violence. School conditions, risk factors, and protective factors are all interrelated factors which jointly inform the level of violence in a community. An imbalance between too many risk factors and too few protective factors can be a cause of unhealthy behavior of youth and adults in the community. Correspondingly, the map above indicates that communities with some of the highest concentration of crime (e.g. south part of Los Angeles) have the lowest concentration of protective factors. The chart indicates that the top 10 ZIP codes with the most protective factors are ranked high in all other scores whereas the 10 ZIP codes with the fewest protective factors are ranked low in all other scores. This demonstrates that the resources and infrastructure for violence prevention are not distributed to the areas of highest needs.
Rank
0
0
4
102 0
percent 90
80
43 - 73 95 - 104
0.8
2
percent
100
88
Geographic data from Esri, NAVTEQ, DeLorme. Protective Factor, School Risk and Safety Score from Community Safety Scorecard (Advancement Project, 2011).
47
Comprehensive Community Needs Assessments: Research as an Action Tool After identifying areas of highest need, it is critical to dive deeper into each individual community and understand its assets, gaps, and crime and gang dynamics in order to implement a successful community-based violence prevention strategy. Toward this goal, Urban Peace has developed a robust protocol for Comprehensive Community Needs Assessments. Urban Peace needs assessments combine statistical data analysis and community-engaged research to understand and outline the conditions at the root of violence in an area. Needs assessments emphasize a ground-level approach that engages residents and community leaders to contribute their expertise, experience and concerns about violence reduction.
In addition to creating a single, consensus picture about the state of violence, Urban Peace needs assessments include a detailed set of specific policy recommendations for each site. All policy mandates and program endorsements are derived directly from the multiple sources of data involved in the assessment, including communitybased resident knowledge and service provider input. Similar to the Assessments, the recommendations are intended for use by all stakeholders, including government agencies, community-based organizations, and resident leadership. Within the recommendations, emphasis is placed on strengthening violence reduction solutions that are already underway, or in new initiatives with a higher probability of success due to greater resource alignment.
ne e ds assessment hi ghli ghts The Urban Peace team has conducted 19 field-based community needs assessments throughout California, including comprehensive assessments in six of the City of Los Angeles’ original 12 Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD) zones and four assessments of Los Angeles County violence reduction demonstration sites. In 2008, Urban Peace is awarded the City contract to conduct community needs assessment for six of the Mayor’s Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD) zone assessments. In 2009, the L.A. County Regional Gang Violence Taskforce selected Urban Peace, in partnership with Cal State Northridge and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, to conduct assessments of the four county demonstration sites. Urban Peace expanded its methodology to include public sector engagement strategies, indepth analysis of capacity gaps and demographic segments, and community history research. The comprehensive nature of the assessments allowed for detailed policy recommendations, comprehensive technical assistance, and support for communities addressing violence at much lower levels than typical L.A. City hot-zones. In 2010, based on its previous assessments for GRYD, the Housing Authority for the County of Los Angeles (HACLA) selected Urban Peace to conduct a community violence needs assessment of the Jordan Downs public housing development. The assessment helped catalyze the expansion of GRYD services in Watts. These findings also helped propel HACLA and LAPD to jointly initiate the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) program, an effort to bring 45 LAPD officers into the three housing developments in Watts and one in Ramona Gardens. Urban Peace partnered closely with LAPD, HACLA and other partners to conduct needs assessments in each of the four housing developments. These assessments informed the design of the CSP program and its officer training. Urban Peace has worked with funding partners such as The California Endowment, the Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles, and the Center for Disease Control to develop further research and technical assistance tools in support of a public health approach to comprehensive gang and violence reduction. Through these collaborations, Urban Peace has provided technical assistance to over 30 site-based networks and organizations supporting violence reduction efforts across the nation.
48
T h e F u t u r e o f E q u i ta b l e A c c e s s While inroads have been made in terms of a more equitable approach to resource allocation, meeting the scale and scope of the need in all of Los Angeles’ communities still needs work. Given the current fiscal crisis, an intentional commitment to long-term funding solutions is necessary. One possiblilty is the creation of a dedicated stream of public funds for violence prevention and youth development.
A restoration and expansion of community-tailored services that addresses the entire spectrum of prevention, intervention, reentry, community capacity development, and neighborhood investment is needed. It is only after we have created a truly equitable baseline of resources that high impact violence reduction efforts can be sustained.
All sectors must be coordinated to serve the needs of youth.
49
The hard-won reforms within LAPD are beginning to create real community trust, bringing crime rates down and making officers safer in the streets. There’s more to be done, and the next mayor must support LAPD’s continued transformation under its current leadership.
50
e x pa n d i n g L . a . ’ s c o mmitme nt to c ommunity safet y
S t r e n g t h e n i n g a n d E x pa n d i n g t h e L . A . M o d e l Despite the national trend of declining crime over the last 22 years, in the summer of 2012, Chicago suffered a 37% increase in homicides, a city in New Jersey came close to declaring a state of emergency after experiencing a dramatic increase in crime, and Houston, New York, and other major cities also experienced dramatic increases in violent crime. Los Angeles City, by contrast, has benefited from a steady decline in gang homicides, assaults, and other serious crime. Even in the context of national and California-wide general crime reductions, the City of Los Angeles’ crime declines are significantly steeper and reflect serious reductions in the toughest category – gang crime. While many meta factors contribute to this trend, part of this success is undoubtedly due to the City’s violence and trauma reduction strategy spurred by A Call to Action. Central to Los Angeles’ effective violence reduction model has been the sustained leadership from the Mayor, the City Council, the Controller and the Chief of Police. While there were differences on issues of implementation, by and large the political will generated behind A Call to Action was sustained for the last five years, preserving funding, allowing experimentation, and jointly overcoming critical challenges. As the mayoral election looms in 2013, a key question facing the City is whether the new mayor will prioritize the mission of violence reduction by continuing to support and nurture factors key to success. For example, it is critical that the trajectory for problem-solving policing initiated under former Chief Bratton and led by Chief Beck continue. The hard-won reforms within LAPD are beginning to create real community trust, bringing crime rates down and making officers safer in the streets. There’s more to be done, and the next mayor must support LAPD’s continued transformation under its current leadership. Equally important, the Mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD) and its many innovations must remain within the mayor’s purview and have expanded resources. The new mayor will have to visibly demonstrate his/her backing for a comprehensive public safety approach, garnering strategic partners from the private and the public sectors. Beyond maintaining the GRYD office, the next mayor will also have to make GRYD a permanent institution, adequately resourced and with the political strength to tackle community conditions requiring longer-term investment. To effectively address these root conditions, GRYD must become an independent entity pulling from both public and private resources, insulated from the election cycle, and exclusively focused on its violence reduction mission.
Los Angeles Violence Intervention Training Academy graduates showcasing their certificates.
51
beyond the city of los angeles
While the City of Los Angeles has begun to address the visible symptoms of its gang violence epidemic, the struggle must be expanded and deepened, tackling root conditions of violence through coordination and cooperation with the County of Los Angeles and beyond.
T h e N e e d C o n t i n u e s t o E x i s t 32 Poverty
266,868 children living in poverty C o m m u n i t y V i o l e n c e 373,082 children living in violent crime areas D o m e s t i c V i o l e n c e 43,623 children with abuse allegations L a c k o f S c h o o l At ta c h m e n t 34,960 LAUSD Suspensions
Advancement Project’s Urban Peace program advocates for the leadership of the City and County of Los Angeles to publicly commit to achieving the following goals: Government and Community Accountability: Government at every level must be held accountable for the basic safety of every child. This means addressing the root conditions of violence in our hot zones. Simultaneously, as a community everyone must reject violence and lawlessness in all of Los Angeles’ neighborhoods. Scaling up prevention, intervention, and targeted suppression: The City and County of Los Angeles must bring up to scale prevention and intervention efforts to meet the need in the hot zones in a culturally competent way. The City must continue to implement strategic suppression that builds trust and partnerships with community members, and the County and other independent law enforcement agencies must work to adopt these principles. Achieve Fear-Free Schools: Beyond Safe Passages to and from school, all students should attend public schools free of bullying, gang intimidation, and all forms of fear. Consistent with A Call to Action, schools in gang zone neighborhoods must become wrap-around centers of opportunity and community vitality by engaging across sectors and coordinating with GYRD, community groups, and law enforcement. Regionally Coordinated County Agencies: The County operates key agencies that have enormous impact on gang areas. It is unacceptable for the County to continue avoiding coordination with more successful City approaches to violence reduction and gang intervention; County agencies must cooperate with each other and with the City to achieve reductions in violence, trauma, and crime. build a reentry network: Los Angeles County must seize realignment as an opportunity to make coordinated, seamless reintegration a reality for its citizens returning from incarceration. By ensuring effective reentry service coordination and support, the County will prevent recidivism, reinforce reductions in crime, and continue to make all of its residents safer. Equitable Community Building: Gang-afflicted areas require investment in people, infrastructure and schools. We must begin by making schools the centers of communities, generating human and intellectual capital. These neighborhoods must receive the same capital, business, educational, and infrastructure investment from which affluent Los Angeles already benefits. Create Viable Employment: As A Call to Action documented, the only proven means for permanently reducing gang violence is viable employment. There needs to be an immediate economic and employment plan for the hot zone communities of Los Angeles. Investment in meaningful career training and placement, along with support services necessary to keep and maintain employment, must be scaled up to meet the needs of all residents. In other words, Father Greg Boyle of Homeboy Industries has it right: “Nothing stops a bullet like job. “
52
Ultimately, ending the public safety inequity that plagues Los Angeles’ “invisible” communities will require long-term solutions that provide every youth in our violent hot zones a real alternative to gang membership. These solutions demand the political will necessary to pull together a truly comprehensive solution with real government-community partnerships at both the City and County level, tailored to yield and sustain results for each individual neighborhood. Achieving community safety is more than ending or reducing violence. Violence and trauma reduction are only the first steps in the transformation of hot zones into livable, safe neighborhoods. True community safety is more than the absence of crime; it is a sustainable peace that allows every community member the opportunity for spiritual, physical, material, and psychological well-being. For all of the progress achieved thus far, we know that too many of our communities still have not achieved this safety threshold. It is up to all of us to build on and expand the efforts of the last five years to achieve true community transformation.
LAPD Chief Charles Beck reading to elementary school-aged children.
53
Neighborhood Boundaries and ZIP Codes in Los Angeles aPP e n dix Source: Los Angeles Times (2010), NAVTEQ (2012) neighborhood boundaries and ziP codes in los angeles
91342
91344
91 37
91326 91311
64
17
69 91325
18 91304
107
114
13
80
91306
91303 91367
83
92
115
67
91402
31
91356
90
91605
91405
97
91411 91401
91214 91504
91606
68
91607 91601
98
85
91436 91403 91423
9160293 91608
88
39
49
91604
90068 90077
90290
90049
70
11 90272 90402
Key ZIP Code
Neighborhood
91367
115
7
94
91352
89
73
91316
91364
91040
84
2
54 91406 99
91335
91331
91343
91042
55 41
71
91345
91330
91324
91307
91340
78
90027
90046
59
50
25
4
35
90039
90065
90041
46
90042
66 48 90028 86 30 6 90069 65 22 26 90026 29 90032 33 56 90048 90031 27 28 8 9003640 113 53 111 16 58 21 90024 110 90095 74 14 63 90067 90035 90033 90063 3 44 75 9002510890064 9 24 62 10 82 79 20 90034 106 52 1 96 90021 72 90016 90023 47 90232 32 5 5790062 90037 90011 61 90008 90058 90066 102 100 90230 87 15 90291 90056 90043 51 23 104 19 90292 76 45 34 90001 90094 60 101 109 90003 90047 77 90045 36 90044 90002 90293 103 38 105 12 90210
90061
90245
91364
90059
90247
48
90036
40
56 113
90010
90008
26
90004 90020
53
110
90006
3
44 1
52 90018
57
32
90062
90248
90026
90005
90019
106
86
90029
90038
90007
90015
90012
90037
90502 90710
42
90013
24 95
90021
96 90089
90501
21
90057 90017
75
43
29 27 90090
47 90011
90732
90058
90731
81
90744
112
81 0
2.5
N
5 Miles
Source: Los Angeles Times (2010), NAVTEQ (2012)
54
Neighborhood 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Adams-Normandie Arleta Arlington Heights Atwater Village Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw Bel-Air Beverly Crest Beverly Grove Beverlywood Boyle Heights
11 12 13 14 15 16
Brentwood Broadway-Manchester Canoga Park Carthay Central-Alameda Century City
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Chatsworth Chatsworth Reservoir Chesterfield Square Cheviot Hills Chinatown Cypress Park Del Rey
24 Downtown
25 Eagle Rock 26 East Hollywood 27 Echo Park 28 29 30 31
El Sereno Elysian Park Elysian Valley Encino
32 Exposition Park 33 34 35 36 37 38
Fairfax Florence Glassell Park Gramercy Park Granada Hills Green Meadows
39 Griffith Park 40 Hancock Park 41 Hansen Dam 42 Harbor City 43 Harbor Gateway 44 Harvard Heights 45 Harvard Park
ZIP Codes 90007 91331 90018 90027 90008 90049 90210 90046 90034 90023 90063 90049 90003 91303 90035 90011 90025 90064 91326 91304 90062 90064 90012 90065 90066 90292 90012 90014 90017 90058 90041 90065 90004 90029 90012 90039 90032 90026 90031 91316 90049 90007 90037 90089 90036 90001 90065 90047 91342 90002 90059 90027 90068 90004 90036 91040 91342 90744 90044 90247 90501 90006 90019 90062
90018 90019 90039 90016 90077 90077 90048 90035 90033 90272 90061 91304 90048 90058 90067 91311 91311 90047
90230 90094 90013 90015 90021 90071 90042 90027 90026 90090 90090 90039 91436 91403 90018 90062 90046 90003 90039 91344 90003 90061 90039 90020 91331 91352 90710 90061 90248 90502 90018 90047
46 Highland Park
90031 90042 47 Historic South-Central 90007 90037 48 Hollywood 90028 90046 49 Hollywood Hills 90068 50 Hollywood Hills West 90046 51 Hyde Park 90043 52 Jefferson Park 90018 53 Koreatown 90004 90006 90020 54 Lake Balboa 91325 55 Lake View Terrace 91342 56 Larchmont 90004 57 Leimert Park 90008 58 Lincoln Heights 90031 59 Los Feliz 90027 60 Manchester Square 90047 61 Mar Vista 90066 62 Mid-City 90016 63 Mid-Wilshire 90034 90005 90019 64 Mission Hills 91340 65 Montecito Heights 90031 90042 66 Mount Washington 90042 67 North Hills 91343 68 North Hollywood 91601 91605 69 Northridge 91324 91330 70 Pacific Palisades 90290 90402 71 Pacoima 91331 91352 72 Palms 90034 73 Panorama City 91402 74 Pico-Robertson 90035 75 Pico-Union 90006 90015 76 Playa del Rey 90066 90230 77 Playa Vista 90094 90245 78 Porter Ranch 91326 79 Rancho Park 90064 80 Reseda 91335 81 San Pedro 90710 90732 82 Sawtelle 90025 83 Sepulveda Basin 91316 91406 84 Shadow Hills 91040 91352 85 Sherman Oaks 91403 86 Silver Lake 90026 90039 87 South Park 90011 88 Studio City 91602 90046 90210
90041 90065 90011
89 Sun Valley
90038
91 Sylmar 92 Tarzana
90046 90069 90005 90019 91406 90018 90032
90019 90035 90010 90036 91345 90032 90065 91602 91606 91325 90272 91356 91340
90007
90 Sunland
93 Toluca Lake 94 Tujunga 95 Uninc. San Pedro 96 University Park 97 Valley Glen 98 Valley Village 99 Van Nuys 100 Venice 101 Vermont Knolls 102 Vermont Square 103 Vermont Vista 104 Vermont-Slauson 105 Watts 106 West Adams 107 West Hills 108 West Los Angeles 109 Westchester 110 Westlake 111 Westwood 112 Wilmington 113 Windsor Square 114 Winnetka 115 Woodland Hills
91352 91605 91040 91342 91340 91316 91356 91601 91040 91214 90731 90007 91401 91605 91607 91601 91607 91401 91405 91411 90291 90044 90062 90044 90003 90044 90002 90016 91304 90025 90045 90004 90006 90017 90024 90077 90731 90004 90010 91306 91364 91367
91504 91042 91342 91335 90049 91602 91042 91352 90732 90089 91405 91606 91602 91402 91406 91343 90292 90037 90037 90059 91307 90064 90293 90005 90015 90057 90049 90095 90744 90005 91324 91356
90094 90230
90731 90064 91403 91436 91214 91504 91423 90029 90037 91604 90068
55
g lo s sa ry Action plan A written document that expresses the goals of an initiative or effort; the required activities and assigned timelines; responsible parties; and the desired outcomes. At-risk The high possibility that an individual or family will suffer a harmful event associated with violent/aggressive behavior, including gang-involved or system-involved individuals. Asset-based A strategy that recognizes and mobilizes individual and community talents, skills and assets, and promotes community-driven development rather than externally-driven development. Base-building The creation and maintenance of a network of support and collaboration between and within critical community actors. Case management Proper assessment of a client’s strengths, weaknesses, and needs; identification of goals; coordination of services from other providers; provision of service referrals as needed; and diligent monitoring of progress towards these ends. Community policing model An untraditional policing model that emphasizes input from community members and stakeholders in police decision-making, strategies, and actions. Successful community policing is based on partnerships between police, community members, and local institutions to proactively address issues of crime, social disorder, or any other issues that community members choose to prioritize. Community Safety Scorecard A ZIP code level analysis of Los Angeles’ communities that measure risk factors, protective factors, school conditions and community violence. The Scorecard functions as a tool for a more meaningful assessment of public safety beyond traditional crime statistics. Comprehensive transition planning An effective transition plan for reentering individuals that includes pre-release planning, housing assistance, individualized linkages to local community resources, coordination of transition plans with local schools, and continuity of medical and mental health care. Comprehensive Violence Reduction Strategy (CVRS) A comprehensive public health model for violence reduction that rejects a suppression-only strategy and an incremental approach to gang violence. Instead, the CVRS calls for a wraparound solution that deals with the root causes of community violence specific to a given hot-zone community. Gang intervention (community-based) Efforts to reach out to, connect with, and serve youth and adults who claim gang membership, have close friendships/association with current or former gang members, and/or have family members (especially parents/guardians or siblings) who are current or former gang members. Hardcore intervention mainly focuses on street mediations, crisis intervention, rumor control, and peace agreements. Key to an interventionist’s effectiveness is his/her “license to operate”, or street credibility within a given community. Gang entrenchment The experience of a community or area suffering from high levels of violence and the dominant presence of gangs. Such areas are further characterized by a large community segments lacking access to necessary resources and services, and often are areas where past efforts for sustained violence reduction have failed. Hot zones See Violence hot zones. License to Operate (LTO) A community organizing concept encapsulating the perceived legitimacy of a given actor within a particular community. LTO is critical to the effectiveness of gang intervention work. Logic model An organized structure for identifying and gaining consensus as to the root conditions of community violence problem and desired programming outcomes. The Logic Model is also used to evaluate program effectiveness. Many other technical assistance tools are imbedded within the Logic Model process.
56
Mission alignment The process of moving two or more sectors toward a consensus about each of their complementary missions. The goal of mission alignment is greater effectiveness for each of the involved sectors. Multi-sector Descriptive of a process or body inclusive of multiple sectors, including private and public, such as schools, business, philanthropy, governmental agencies, law enforcement, faith-based organizations, and neighborhood associations. Normalization of violence A state of perceiving violence as a normal, everyday occurrence often occurring in communities with systemic, entrenched, multigenerational violence. This state is exacerbated by a lack of positive role models, hyper-violent media messaging, and a generalized sense of despair and helplessness about violence, which prevent community members, especially multi-generational gang involved families, from seeing violence as treatable. Place-based initiatives An initiative focused on a particular, geographic location identifiable as a discrete community, where a range of targeted strategies and assets are applied or coordinated in order to achieve better community outcomes. Public sector Elected or governmental agencies, e.g. law enforcement, school districts, fire departments, libraries, and offices of elected officials. Safe Passages A school-focused program that engages parents, students, teachers, gang intervention workers, the public sector, and the business community to ensure students can walk to school and back home safely, without experiencing fear and harassment. Safe Passages efforts can include community members escorting students and patrolling routes to schools, working to create efficient bus routes, and increasing law enforcement patrol before and after school hours. Triangulation A communication method allowing a third party to facilitate conversation between two antagonistic groups by listening to the concerns of each group individually and then sharing appropriate messages and core concerns across groups.
Violence hot zones Communities with particularly high levels of gang and community violence, particularly as compared to surrounding neighborhoods.
57
endn o t e s 1. The report was commissioned in 2005 by the City of Los Angeles Ad-Hoc Committee on Gang Violence and Youth Development (Chairs, Councilmembers Martin Ludlow and Tony Cardenas). 2. The co-authors included Father Greg Boyle, Homeboy and Homegirl Industries; Gila Bronner, The Bronner Group; Maria Casillas, Families in Schools; Way-Ting Chen and Jennifer Li Shen, Blue Garnet Associates; Patti Giggans and Cathy Friedman, Peace Over Violence; Megan Golden and Jena Siegel, Vera Institute of Justice; Peter Greenwood, Ph.D.; Jorja Leap, Ph.D.; David Marquez, JDHM Consultants; Bill Martinez, MCRP; Cheryl Maxson, Ph.D.; Ali Modarres, Ph.D, The Pat Brown Institute, CSULA; Sgt. Wes McBride; Cecilia Sandoval, The Sandoval Group; Howard Uller; Billie Weiss, MPH, Southern California Injury Prevention Research Institute, UCLA. 3. McGreevy, Patrick. “Alarm on gangs sounded: An L.A. study calls for a Marshall Plan-style effort to give young people alternatives and stop the spread of crime into safe communities.” Los Angeles Times 13 January 2007: Print. < http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/13/ local/me-gangs13 > 4. McGreevy, P., and Winton, Richard. “Effects of gang initiative mixed: The LAPD crackdown targeting key groups has stifled street crimes in South Los Angeles, but the problem is on the rise in the Valley.” Los Angeles Times 24 March 2007: Print. < http://articles.latimes. com/2007/mar/24/local/me-gangs24 > 5. Many of the bolded terms in this report that require an extended definition are defined in the Glossary, page 54. 6. Please refer to page 19 to read more about the Los Angeles Comprehensive Violence Reduction Strategy. To learn more about other models please refer to their corresponding websites. 7. See page 21 for the 10 root conditions of violence the Urban Peace team identified through extensive research and engagement in L.A. hot zone communities. 8. For more information on Advancement Project’s Urban Peace work and successes please see our website at: < http:// v3.advancementprojectca.org/?q=ap-ca-urban-peace > 9. The GRYD office, under the leadership of Deputy Mayor Guillermo Cespedes, developed an original, family centered conceptual model of gang violence reduction which informs all of its programs and practices. The model is described and explained in The City of Los Angeles Mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development Comprehensive Strategy, Guillermo Cespedes and Denise Herz (December 2011). 10. Description of Summer Night Lights from the Mayor’s website: “SNL is an anti-gang initiative that keeps parks open after dark—during the peak hours of gang activity—with free food and expanded programming.” For more information please visit: < http://mayor.lacity. org/issues/gangreduction/summernightlights/index.htm > 11. Based on 2011 data. 12. Crime decrease for all GRYD zones communities has been calculated by the GRYD office with 2011 and 2007 LAPD crime data. 13. For violence reduction levels in the City’s SNL parks in comparison to non-SNL sites, please see page 14. 14. Portion adapted from Connie Rice’s autobiographical book, Power Concedes Nothing, One Woman’s Quest for Social Justice in America, from the Courtroom to the Kill Zones. New York: Scribner A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc. 2012. Print. 15. McGreevy, Patrick. “Alarm on gangs sounded: An L.A. study calls for a Marshall Plan-style effort to give young people alternatives and stop the spread of crime into safe communities.” Los Angeles Times 13 January 2007: Print. < http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/13/ local/me-gangs13 > 16. Los Angeles Police Department. “2011 End of Year Crime Snapshot “ Report can be accessed here: 17. The data in the maps of this report are from City of Los Angeles crime data, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD): LAPD provided reported crime records for the years 2006 through 2011 with some exceptions due to data sharing restrictions for certain types of crime incidents. Actual announced crime statistics from LAPD can be different from those in this report. They are mostly higher than what this report shows due to the data sharing restriction. Healthy City aggregated records to block group and ZIP code level data. Values for each ZIP code indicate only the values within the boundary of the City. Excluded crime codes from our analysis include: suicide, domestic violence, child abuse, rape, illegal sexual activities, etc. In addition, please review the ZIP codes and corresponding neighborhood boundaries used in this analysis by referring to page 52 map titled, “Neighborhood Boundaries and ZIP codes in Los Angeles.” 18. The GRYD office laid out each of the practice components of its targeted prevention, intervention, and overall comprehensive strategy in its 2011 comprehensive strategy document: The City of Los Angeles Mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development Comprehensive Strategy, Guillermo Cespedes and Denise Herz (December 2011).
58
en d n o t e s 19. The California Cities Gang Prevention Network, the National Forum on Youth Violence, and the Urban Networks To Increase Thriving Youth (UNITY) are statewide and national networks of cities experimenting with the implementation of a comprehensive strategy. 20. Distinct from the Boston Operation Ceasefire, the Boston Foundation began the StreetSafe Initiative in 2008 bringing together community based and faith based organizations and city agencies to deploy two main strategies in the violence impacted neighborhoods. The strategies include use of street level gang intervention and neighborhood based service delivery. For more information, see: 21. For more information on the Urban Peace Academy, please see page 33. 22. See sections on “Comprehensive Community Needs Assessments: Research as an Action Tool” and “Communicating the Public Health Approach to Violence Reduction: Guided Logic Model” for more information about our tools. In addition, for a particular example of the Ten-Five-Three in action please see the section on “Place-Based Technical Assistance: Belmont/Safe Passages” on pages 47, 28, and 27 correspondingly. 23. It is important to note that some of the recommendations that still need to be completed require robust partnership with Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles Unified School District. Violence and gangs know no jurisdictional boundaries and thus a region-wide strategy is needed to effectively and sustainably reduce crime levels and improve community outcomes. 24. Please see the Comprehensive Evaluation of the Full-Service Community Schools Model in Washington: Showalter Middle School. The Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation. Prepared by: LaFrance Associates, LLC (2005), for a more elaborate description of the Full Service Community School Model. 25. The Safe Successful School Workgroup is one of the three workgroups that self-identified from the logic model process at the Belmont Violence Reduction Collaborative. 26. The Safe Passages is one of several strategies that the workgroup identified as a necessary project that required the collaboration of all the entities that made up the workgroup. 27. Common practice has it that there is one school in a particular geographical area where all students of the neighborhood attend. In a Zone of Choice a family may have different campuses to choose from (Belmont Zone) and/or have several choices amongst small schools within the same campus, this allows students the opportunity to choose the school that best fits their academic needs and interests. See more information here: 28. Los Angeles City Budget for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 can be accessed here: < http://controller.lacity.org/AdoptedBudget/index.htm > 29. Batty, David. “UK riots: police should tackle racial tension, says ‘supercop’ Bill Bratton.” The Guardian 13 Aug 2011: Print. < http://www. guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/13/bill-bratton-advice-uk-police > 30. Examples of integrated offices for reentry related services include the District of Columbia’s Office of Returning Citizens’ Affairs and Philadelphia’s Mayor’s Office of Reintegration Services for Ex-Offenders (R.I.S.E.) 31. The Community Safety Scorecard, City of Los Angeles, 2011 is available as a PDF here: 32. Source: Healthycity.org – Families in Poverty with Children under 18 (2010); Healthycity.org – Children with Abuse Allegations (2010); California Department of Education Dataquest – Total LAUSD Suspensions 2010; 2010 American Community Survey 1-year Estimates, Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months (S1701).
59
Editorial Acknowledgements Project Manager Maribel Meza
Urban Peace Coordinator/ Senior Policy Analyst
Primary Authors Connie Rice, Esq.
Co-Director Advancement Project
Susan Lee, Esq.
National Director of Urban Peace
Maribel Meza
Urban Peace Coordinator/ Senior Policy Analyst
Caneel Fraser, Esq. Senior Policy Analyst
Editors Mike Areyan
Program Associate
Antonio Crisostomo-Romo
Coalition Organizer/Policy Analyst
Jamecca Marshall, MPP Urban Peace Policy Manager
Patricia Neri, MPP Policy Analyst
Fernando Rejon, MA
Urban Peace Academy Manager
Amy Sausser
Director of Development and Communications
Data and Maps By Healthy City Project Management
Data Visualization and Map Production
Caroline Rivas, MSW
JuHyun Yoo, MPAff
Director of Policy and Programs
Research Analyst
Chris Ringewald, MRP, GISP
Sheela Bhongir
Research Manager
Data and Analysis Intern
Amanda Davis
Research (GIS) Intern
Thank You to Urban Peace Funders The Annenberg Foundation The Bank of America Charitable Foundation The California Community Foundation The California Endowment The Jewish Community Foundation
The Ralph M. Parsons Foundation The Rose Hills Foundation The Weingart Foundation The W.M. Keck Foundation
Design Roseanne Costantino Agrodolce Design
60
60
Editorial Acknowledgements Project Manager Maribel Meza
Urban Peace Coordinator/ Senior Policy Analyst
Primary Authors Connie Rice, Esq.
Co-Director Advancement Project
Susan Lee, Esq.
National Director of Urban Peace
Maribel Meza
Urban Peace Coordinator/ Senior Policy Analyst
Caneel Fraser, Esq. Senior Policy Analyst
Editors Mike Areyan
Program Associate
Antonio Crisostomo-Romo
Coalition Organizer/Policy Analyst
Jamecca Marshall, MPP Urban Peace Policy Manager
Patricia Neri, MPP Policy Analyst
Fernando Rejon, MA
Urban Peace Academy Manager
Amy Sausser
Director of Development and Communications
Data and Maps By Healthy City Project Management
Data Visualization and Map Production
Caroline Rivas, MSW
JuHyun Yoo, MPAff
Director of Policy and Programs
Research Analyst
Chris Ringewald, MRP, GISP
Sheela Bhongir
Research Manager
Data and Analysis Intern
Amanda Davis
Research (GIS) Intern
Thank You to Urban Peace Funders The Annenberg Foundation The Bank of America Charitable Foundation The California Community Foundation The California Endowment The Jewish Community Foundation
The Ralph M. Parsons Foundation The Rose Hills Foundation The Weingart Foundation The W.M. Keck Foundation
Design Roseanne Costantino Agrodolce Design
1910 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90026 Phone: 213-989-1300 Fax: 213-989-1309 www.advancementprojectca.org Email:
[email protected] 