2010 calgrip second report to the legislature 2010
TRANSCRIPT
8/6/2019 2010 CalGRIP Second Report to the Legislature 2010
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2010-calgrip-second-report-to-the-legislature-2010 1/12
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE
Governor’s Office of Gang and
Youth Violence Policy
November 2010
8/6/2019 2010 CalGRIP Second Report to the Legislature 2010
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2010-calgrip-second-report-to-the-legislature-2010 2/12
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor Governor ’s Of f ice of Gang and Youth Vio lence Pol icy770 L Street, Suite 1400 - Sacramento, California - 95814Telephone (916) 445-8009; Fax (916) 327-8711
November 29, 2010
Dear Members of the Legislature:
We are pleased to present to you the Governor’s Office of Gang and YouthViolence Policy’s Report to the Legislature . This is our second report, and
summarizes our activities and accomplishments during our second and third years of operation. The office was established pursuant to AB 1381 (Nunez2007).
If you have any questions or wish to discuss this report in greater detail, pleasecontact me at (916) 445-8011 or [email protected]. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Paul L. SeaveDirector
8/6/2019 2010 CalGRIP Second Report to the Legislature 2010
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2010-calgrip-second-report-to-the-legislature-2010 3/12
1
Governor’s Office of Gang and Youth Violence Policy
Report to the Legislature
November 29, 2010
Executive Summary
In May 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger announced his California Gang
Reduction, Intervention and Prevention initiative (CalGRIP) to fund prevention,
intervention, enforcement, job training, and education strategies. Concurrently, the
Governor and Legislature created the Governor’s Office of Gang and Youth Violence
Policy (OGYVP), an office that is located administratively within CalEMA but reports
directly to the Governor’s Office (AB 1381 Nunez).
OGYVP, which opened its doors almost three years ago, has increasingly
focused on (1) promoting strategies and programs that have been rigorously proven toreduce crime and delinquency, and (2) improving, collecting, and analyzing state and
local measures of gang-related homicide and juvenile crime. This report to the
Legislature summarizes OGYVP’s activities and findings during its second and third
years of operation, as a follow-up to its first-year report. They include the following:
• Eight California cities, through CalGRIP grants and the support of three
foundations, are implementing the Safe Community Partnership strategy, the
only proven approach to reducing gang violence. The four cities furthest along
(Fresno, Modesto, Oxnard, and Salinas) have seen their homicides and nonfatal
shootings drop dramatically.
• OGYVP published an authoritative report by national experts listing the
programs and strategies that are most likely to prevent and reduce youth crime
and violence – “evidence-based practices” – as well as those that have no effect.
• OGYVP incentivized adoption of these evidence-based practices through the
third round of CalGRIP grants. Thirteen cities are now working with experts to
implement one or more of these proven programs.
• Twenty-four probation departments were awarded $1.1 million in CalGRIP
grants to implement Aggression Replacement Training, a designated evidence-
based practice, that on average reduces recidivism by 8 percent. These
departments are working with experts to ensure proper implementation.
• OGYVP and The California Endowment are working to establish California’s
“Probation Resource Center for Evidence-Based Practices.” Thus far, three
probation departments (Fresno, Sacramento, and Santa Cruz) have received
8/6/2019 2010 CalGRIP Second Report to the Legislature 2010
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2010-calgrip-second-report-to-the-legislature-2010 4/12
2
funding to implement particular evidence-based practices and an external
consultant will assess the qualitative and quantitative outcomes.
• Six sites received CalGRIP grants to implement the “Teacher Career Pathway,” a
strategy developed in a CalGRIP-funded pilot project that saw 52 percent of the
at-risk participants (31 of 60) proceed through community college and entertheir senior year at CSU Dominguez Hills (due to graduate in June 2011).
• Supplementing DOJ data for the years 2005 through 2009 with a survey of
police and sheriffs’ departments, OGYVP has determined:
Gang-related homicides dropped by 31 percent statewide between
2006 and 2009. By contrast, all other homicides decreased by 13
percent.
The number of gang-related homicides outside Los Angeles County
now virtually equals the number that afflicts Los Angeles – an
extraordinary change given that three-quarters of all California’sgang-related homicides between 1981 and 2001 took place in Los
Angeles.
Fifty percent of all homicides in Los Angeles County are gang-related,
and 25 percent of all homicides outside Los Angeles are gang-related.
• OGYVP’s analysis of DOJ juvenile arrest data revealed that although total
juvenile arrests in California fell by 21 percent during the last 11 years, 11
counties experienced an increase in violent offense arrests and 12 counties saw
an increase in felony arrests during the past five years.
• OGYVP and CalEMA distributed $27.6 million to 38 cities and 25 community-
based organizations through three rounds of CalGRIP grants.
• OGYVP, the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and the Employment
Development Department distributed $21.7 million to 42 job training and
education agencies through three rounds of CalGRIP grants.
• OGYVP has entered into public/private funding partnerships with four
California foundations.
8/6/2019 2010 CalGRIP Second Report to the Legislature 2010
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2010-calgrip-second-report-to-the-legislature-2010 5/12
3
Introduction
Since 1981, California has experienced more than 16,000 gang-related
homicides. These homicides and tens of thousands more gang crimes have occurred
in virtually every city, suburb, and rural area of the state. As the stunning number of
homicides attests, the traditional strategy used to address the violence – arrests of gang members – did not have the desired effect. Indeed, most police chiefs and
sheriffs now believe that we cannot arrest our way out of the gang problem. More
broadly, we now know that juvenile justice systems on average have a negligible or a
negative effect on the recidivism rates of youth who come within their jurisdiction.
In 2007, the Governor announced his California Gang Reduction, Intervention
and Prevention initiative (CalGRIP) to fund prevention, intervention, enforcement, job
training, and education strategies. Concurrently, the Governor and Legislature
created the Governor’s Office of Gang and Youth Violence Policy (OGYVP) in part to
identify programs and strategies that would in fact reduce crime and violence, and to
provide targeted funding with CalGRIP dollars. OGYVP and its partners thus far haveawarded $50 million through three CalGRIP grant programs:
• With CalEMA, three rounds of competitive grants ($9.215 million per round)
have been awarded – 60 grants to 38 cities and 26 grants to 25 community-
based organizations.
• With the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the Employment
Development Department (EDD), three rounds of Workforce Investment Act
competitive grants (totaling $21.7 million) have been awarded – 49 grants to 42
job training and education agencies.
• With the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), $1.1 million in federal juvenile
justice funds have been awarded to 24 probation departments.
This report summarizes OGYVP’s activities during its second and third years of
operation and is available, along with its first-year report, on our Web site
www.calgrip.ca.gov. Our focus has been on 1) promoting strategies and programs that
have been rigorously proven to reduce crime and delinquency, and 2) improving,
collecting, and analyzing state and local measures of gang-related homicide and
juvenile crime.
Funding What Works
Only in the past 20 years have social scientists, policy-makers, and
practitioners begun to understand which programs and strategies in fact prevent and
reduce youth crime. This growing body of knowledge rests on the type of evaluation
that is used to determine the efficacy of new drugs: does the treatment group fare
significantly better than the control or comparison group. OGYVP has promoted the
8/6/2019 2010 CalGRIP Second Report to the Legislature 2010
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2010-calgrip-second-report-to-the-legislature-2010 6/12
4
understanding and implementation of these programs through its own publications,
conferences and workshops, and CalGRIP grants.
These programs – known as “evidence-based practices” – are not a panacea.
They are relatively few in number, can be difficult to implement, do not apply to all
circumstances that call for intervention, and do not exclude the possibility thatunevaluated programs may be effective. Nevertheless, as stewards of public safety and
the public fisc, OGYVP believes that state funds are best spent in support of local
programs and strategies that will be effective, according to the most rigorous
evaluations. To that end, OGYVP has incentivized – not required – the implementation
of such programs through new grant funding.
Evidence-based practices, because they are new and often run counter to
traditional organizational approaches, are challenging to implement correctly. To
increase the likelihood of successful implementation, OGYVP has required
organizations that have been awarded funding for such programs 1) to engage experts
who will provide training and technical assistance, and 2) to report their outcome data(e.g., reduction in crime rates) so that their communities and the state can understand
the extent of success and the need (if any) for program adjustment.
1. Reducing Gang Violence: California’s Safe Community Partnership
In 1996, Boston developed a strategy – named Ceasefire – to address the record-
breaking level of gang violence then raging through the city. Law enforcement,
community and faith leaders, and service providers together focused their attention on
the city’s most violent gang members. The partnership delivered a unified “no
violence” message, explained that violence by a gang member would bring enforcement
action to the entire gang, and offered services and alternatives to gang members.During the four years of implementation, Boston’s homicide rate decreased by 63
percent (according to evaluations). The strategy has been replicated in numerous
other cities during the past 15 years (Chicago, Cincinnati, High Point, Indianapolis,
Stockton) with proven homicide reductions between 25 percent and 50 percent.
Though this strategy has limitations (most cities have had difficulty sustaining it for
more than four years), it is the only proven approach to reducing serious gang
violence.
OGYVP decided to incentivize the implementation of this strategy, now called
the Safe Community Partnership, through the CalGRIP CalEMA grants. In addition,
three foundations – The California Endowment, the California Wellness Foundation,
and the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Benefit Programs –
contributed $1 million to support the first two years of the extensive training and
technical assistance required to implement the strategy, and have committed another
million dollars for the next two years (2011-2012).
8/6/2019 2010 CalGRIP Second Report to the Legislature 2010
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2010-calgrip-second-report-to-the-legislature-2010 7/12
5
Four cities began implementation in late 2009 and early 2010, funded by the
second round of CalGRIP grants. Three have achieved measurable success citywide:
1. Modesto, which had a record-high number of homicides in 2009, began
implementation in February 2010. From March through September 2010 (compared
to the same seven-month period during the previous year), there was an 80 percentreduction in gang homicides (from 10 to 2), a 33 percent reduction in nonfatal gang
shootings (from 61 to 41), and 39 percent reduction in all gang shootings.
2. Oxnard began implementation in October 2009. From November 2009
through September 2010, there was a 17 percent reduction in gang homicides (from 6
to 5), a 48 percent reduction in nonfatal gang shootings (from 33 to 17), and a 44
percent reduction in all gang shootings.
3. Salinas, which had a record-setting number of gang homicides in 2009,
began implementation in December 2009. From January through September 2010,
there was a 50 percent reduction in gang homicides (from 22 to 11), an 18 percentreduction in nonfatal gang shootings (from 55 to 45), and a 27 percent reduction in all
gang shootings.
The fourth city, Oakland, has not yet been able to implement city-wide.
Nevertheless, the 80 gang members thus far targeted by the strategy have had a
recidivism rate of 20 percent compared to the countywide rate of 70 percent.
Four cities have been funded through the third round of CalGRIP grants to
begin implementation in 2010/2011. Fresno began in July 2010, having already
experienced 50 percent more homicides in that year than during the comparable
period of 2009. There were no homicides in August and two in September.Bakersfield began implementation in October and Sacramento began in November.
East Palo Alto is scheduled to begin in early 2011.
2. Reducing Juvenile Crime: Evidence-Based Practices
The State of California invests $1 billion annually in local efforts to prevent and
reduce gang and youth violence. Our counties invest another $1 billion annually in
their juvenile justice systems. But, do we have an investment strategy calculated to
yield increased public safety? The answer, according to a number of national
evaluations, is that we do not.
These evaluations demonstrate that juvenile justice systems typically do not
reduce recidivism and frequently make it worse. They have reached this conclusion
after studying: 1) juveniles in custody, 2) juveniles who undergo “routine”
rehabilitative programs, and 3) even those who are simply “processed” into the system.
To make matters worse, though California’s juvenile arrest rate is below the national
average, our state has the nation’s highest rate of juveniles in local custody – twice the
national average. Given the unintended consequences of current practice generally,
8/6/2019 2010 CalGRIP Second Report to the Legislature 2010
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2010-calgrip-second-report-to-the-legislature-2010 8/12
6
the only policy consistent with public safety – and the policy pursued by this office – is
to bring evidence-based practices to the many juveniles in our 58 county justice
systems who would benefit.
In 2009, OGYVP asked Peter Greenwood, Ph.D., a leading expert in this field, to
clear away the brush surrounding the many practices described as evidence-based
and the many Web sites listing such practices, and develop a list of the programs and
strategies that are most likely to prevent and reduce youth crime and violence. Dr.
Greenwood, after consulting extensively with a panel of experts, authored the report
and list “Preventing and Reducing Youth Crime and Violence: Using Evidence-Based
Practices” (Jan. 2010), which can be found on our Web site. The list is relatively
short, describing 27 programs and 25 strategies that are suitable for implementation
primarily by probation departments and schools, and 11 programs and strategies that
do not work.
Identifying Evidence-Based Practices
This list has limitations. It does not, for example, address all types of problems
that can challenge a community afflicted by gang and youth violence. Nor does it
address programs that have not been evaluated. Nevertheless, this list authoritatively
clarifies what is most reliably considered to be evidence-based and thereby places the
state and communities in a better position to design a comprehensive public safety
strategy.
Using this list of what works, OGYVP incentivized the use of evidence-based
practices through CalGRIP grants:
Incentivizing the Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices
1. CalGRIP CalEMA Grants: In the third round of these competitive grants
(09/10), cities that applied to implement a designated evidence-based practice received
extra points. Of the 24 grants awarded ($9.215 million), 13 went to such applicants.
Each city was required to retain an expert to assist with implementation, and is
working closely with OGYVP to track progress and outcomes. The RFP for the fourth
round of grants – released October 1, 2010 – provides the same incentive.
2. CalGRIP CSA Grants: In 2009, CSA awarded $1.1 million in federal juvenile
justice grants to 24 probation departments to implement Aggression Replacement
Training (ART), a designated evidence-based practice that on average reducesrecidivism by 8 percent in a cost-effective manner. The California Institute for Mental
Health (CIMH), the state’s leading provider of training for ART and several other
evidence-based practices on OGYVP’s list, is assisting virtually all of the departments
with implementation and will be reporting outcome data beginning in early 2011.
8/6/2019 2010 CalGRIP Second Report to the Legislature 2010
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2010-calgrip-second-report-to-the-legislature-2010 9/12
7
As mentioned above, the implementation of evidence-based practices is
challenging. Not only are the practices new, but they are most beneficial for higher
risk youth, and require service providers whose orientation is more therapeutic than
enforcement in nature. Hence, organizations that seriously seek to embed evidence-based practices require training on implementation, quality assurance measures to
ensure that implementation is performed correctly, risk and needs assessment tools to
identify the youth who will most benefit from the practice, and organizational
strategies that will support a mission of rehabilitation. While a number of probation
departments are committed to this vision and moving in this direction, they require
assistance over-and-above existing funding streams.
Probation Resource Center for Evidence-Based Practices
Many of these needs could be met by creating a dedicated resource center for
probation departments. The center could obtain funding for a small number of
probation departments that have a demonstrated commitment to evidence-based
practices. The funding would be used for training, quality assurance, etc. Forsustainability reasons, the resource center should ultimately be controlled by the
probation departments themselves. In fact, OGYVP, in partnership with The California
Endowment and CIMH, has already established an incipient resource center, enlisting
three probation departments (Fresno, Sacramento, and Santa Cruz), and an external
consultant to assess the qualitative and quantitative outcomes.
3. Improving Education/Career Outcomes: the Teacher Career Pathway
While few if any career programs have been proven effective with the same
degree of rigor as the programs on OGYVP’s list of evidence-based practices, a
recently-funded project deserves our full attention. Two years ago, Los Angeles HarborCommunity College, in partnership with CSU Dominguez Hills, obtained a CalGRIP
EDD grant to help 60 at-risk and gang-involved youth obtain their A.A. degree, B.A.
degree, and teacher certification in accelerated fashion – a daunting task. The
designers of this innovative program hoped to succeed, where others had failed, by (1)
dedicating the first semester to math and English remediation, (2) providing 24/7 case
management support, and (3) providing part-time employment in after-school
programs (allowing the participants to earn money and work with students).
The pilot exceeded all expectations. Thirty-one of these students (52 percent)
are now in their senior year of college, and of the 29 students who left the program, 23
(38 percent) have continued their post-secondary education in community college or
four-year college. Almost one-half of the 60 students were at-risk of gang involvement
or gang involved, and their accomplishments have proportionately matched those of
the other participants.
8/6/2019 2010 CalGRIP Second Report to the Legislature 2010
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2010-calgrip-second-report-to-the-legislature-2010 10/12
8
In June 2010, CalGRIP EDD grants ($500,000 per grant) were awarded to six
sets of community colleges and CSUs to replicate the pilot project, now called the
Teacher Career Pathway. With additional support from the Packard Foundation, these
sites will work together and collect and share outcome data in their efforts to match
the pilot’s success.
Improving, Collecting, and Analyzing Criminal Justice Data
Gang-Related Homicides
Understanding gang violence in California has always been hampered by the
lack of reliable and timely criminal justice data. The only statewide information
collected on gang violence is the number of gang-related homicides reported by local
law enforcement agencies to the California Department of Justice (DOJ). In fact, as
explained in our first report, local jurisdictions do not notify DOJ about all gang-
related homicides for a number of reasons. We reported there, based on our survey of
police and sheriff’s departments, that DOJ’s total for the years 2005 through 2007represented only 64 percent of gang-related homicides statewide (1,767 of 2,771). We
recently surveyed local departments for the years 2008 and 2009 and learned that the
total number of gang-related homicides reported to DOJ represented only 73 percent
of the total (1,037 of 1,418).
Now that we have five years of more complete data on gang-related homicides,
several trends are apparent. First, as the chart below reflects, gang-related homicides
statewide consistently
diminished – by a total
of 31 percent – between
2006 and 2009. (Bycontrast, all other
homicides decreased by
13 percent.) Second,
the number of gang-
related homicides
outside of Los Angeles
County now virtually
equals the once-greater
number that afflicted
Los Angeles. This is anextraordinary change, given that almost 75 percent of all gang-related homicides in
California took place in Los Angeles between 1981 and 2001.
921 978872
742
676539 563
450 390 368
382415 422
352308
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
G a n g - R e l a t e d H o m i c i d e s
Year
Gang-Related Homicides, 2005-2009
Statewide
LA
Rest of CA
8/6/2019 2010 CalGRIP Second Report to the Legislature 2010
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2010-calgrip-second-report-to-the-legislature-2010 11/12
8/6/2019 2010 CalGRIP Second Report to the Legislature 2010
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2010-calgrip-second-report-to-the-legislature-2010 12/12
10
Juvenile Violent Offense Arrests2005-2009
Juvenile Felony Arrests2005-2009
County Percent Increase County Percent IncreaseOrange +38% Monterey +24%Alameda +30% Santa Cruz +22%San Diego +26% Ventura +22%Ventura +23% Orange +17%Contra Costa +14% Alameda +12%Yolo +5% Yolo +14%Kern +3% Riverside +6%Riverside +3% Tulare +5%Stanislaus +3% Merced +4% Tulare +3% Fresno +Monterey +2% Sacramento +1%
San Diego +1%
Of the 23 cities we examined, 10 saw increased arrests for violent offenses andeight saw increased felony arrests during the most recent five-year period.
Juvenile Violent Offense Arrests2005-2009
Juvenile Felony Arrests2005-2009
City Percent Increase City Percent IncreaseOakland +282% Oakland +115%Santa Ana +87% Merced +35%Oxnard +43% Salinas +24%Bakersfield +35% Santa Ana +23%Merced +34% Santa Rosa +12%Richmond +28% Bakersfield +10%San Diego +22% Fresno +2%East Palo Alto +18% Visalia +1%Fairfield +14%Santa Rosa +13%
Conclusion
Gang violence is no longer a Los Angeles problem. It is a problem that afflicts
communities large and small across the state. While the hardest work must be done
at the local level, the state has much to contribute – starting with promoting programs
and strategies that have been rigorously demonstrated to reduce violence anddelinquency and then fully supporting local efforts at implementation. Leveraging
state funds with private funds, as OGYVP is doing with four foundations, provides
additional and more flexible support for local efforts. We have learned that gang and
youth violence do not have to be a permanent part of the state’s landscape.