summary of key findings - lagryd.org€¦ · this report series was funded by the city of los...
TRANSCRIPT
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGSSPRING 2017 EVALUATION REPORT SERIESfrom the City of Los Angeles Mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development
All graphics for YSET and SET ©2012 City of Los Angeles. All rights Reserved. The YSET and SET were created by the City of Los Angeles Mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development and are the copyright of the City of Los Angeles. These materials may not be reproduced, modified, displayed, published, or otherwise distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written consent of the City of Los Angeles.
prepared by
THE GRYD RESEARCH AND EVALUATION TEAM HOUSED AT CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES.
This report series was funded by the City of Los Angeles contract number C-128086 (“Research Consulting for GRYD”) with California State University, Los Angeles.
Permission to use these data was provided by the City of Los Angeles Mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this study, however, are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the GRYD Office.
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS2
GRYD GANG PREVENTIONREFERRAL AND ENROLLMENTfrom September 1, 2011 – March 31, 2016
GRYD PREVENTION CLIENT PROFILE
PROGRAM COMPLETION
61% 39%
LATINO
73%
AFRICANAMERICAN
23%OTHER
4%AGE ATINTAKE
AGE
13-15
47%AGE10-12
53%
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM COMPLETION
UNSUCCESSFUL PROGRAM COMPLETION
TOTALPROGRAM
EXITS
2,499
37% 927 Clients
63% 1,165 Clients9,0984,9453,781
REFERRALS
ELIGIBLE (54%)
ENROLLED (77%)
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM COMPLETION
UNSUCCESSFUL PROGRAM COMPLETION
AVERAGE ENROLLMENT
LENGTH IN DAYS
365
240
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM COMPLETION
UNSUCCESSFUL PROGRAM COMPLETION
AVERAGE NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES ATTENDED
0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101+NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES ATTENDED BY CLIENT
1-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 12-15 15-18 18-21 21-24 24+MONTHS OF SERVICES COMPLETED BY CLIENT
17%
45%48%
53%
69% 69%
60%
66%69%
64%
3%
PERC
ENT
OF
SUC
CES
SFU
L PR
OG
RAM
CO
MPL
ETIO
N
PERC
ENT
OF
SUC
CES
SFU
L PR
OG
RAM
CO
MPL
ETIO
N
56
26
58% 60%<1% 53%9% 65%45% 63%37%
3September 2017THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES MAYOR’S OFFICE OF GANG REDUCTION AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
GRYD SERVICES
GRYD GANG PREVENTIONCHANGES IN YSET RISK FACTORS MONTHS:
CHANGES OBSERVED AMONG GRYD PREVENTION CLIENTS COMPARED TO HIGH-RISK YOUTH ON PROBATION IN LOS ANGELES COUNTYAnalyses were conducted that examined changes in risk over time among a sample of GRYD Prevention clients and a comparison group of high-risk youth on Probation in LA County enrolled in a recent study funded by the National Institute for Justice.
1,023 GRYD Prevention Clients GRYD CLIENTS REPORTED
fewer risk factors at YSET-R THAN THE COUNTY YOUTH
58% OF CLIENTS SAW ENOUGH reduction in risk level THAT THEY WERE NO LONGER ELIGIBLE FOR SERVICES.
AFTER RECEIVING GRYD PREVENTION SERVICES
FOR 6 MONTHS
ANTISOCIALTENDENCIES
CRITICAL LIFE EVENTS
NEGATIVE PEER INFLUENCE
PEER DELINQUENCY
IMPULSIVE RISK TAKING
WEAK PARENTAL SUPERVISION
GUILT NEUTRALIZATION
-20%CHANGE
-28%CHANGE
-25%CHANGE
-33%CHANGE
-17%CHANGE
-24%CHANGE
-20%CHANGE
-26%CHANGE
-25%CHANGE
-36%CHANGE
-13%CHANGE
-19%CHANGE
-20%CHANGE
-27%CHANGE
COMPARISON GROUP DESCRIPTION COMPARISON GROUP RESULTS
COMPLETED UNSUCCESSFULLY [ PERCENT CHANGE AFTER 6 MONTHS ]
COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY [ PERCENT CHANGE AFTER 6 MONTHS ]
60%40%
LATINO
77%
LATINO
83%
AFRICANAMERICAN
20%
AFRICANAMERICAN
8%
OTHER
3%
OTHER
9%GRYD SERVICES
179 County Youth
70%30%
HE HITME FIRST!
The average number of risk factors
6.2 6.1
2.7
5.1
FO
R GRYD CLIENTS
REDUCED
57%
FOR COUNTY YOUTH
REDUCED
16%
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS4
GRYD GANG INTERVENTION FAMILY CASE MANAGEMENT
REFERRAL AND ENROLLMENTfrom February 1, 2012 – May 16, 2016
GRYD INTERVENTION FAMILY CASE MANAGEMENT CLIENT PROFILE
67% 33%4,8783,2832,854
REFERRALS
ELIGIBLE (67%)
ENROLLED (87%)AGE
12AGE
18AGE
47LATINO
67%
AFRICANAMERICAN
30%OTHER
3% YO
UNGEST AVERAGE OLDEST
PROGRAM COMPLETION
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM COMPLETION
UNSUCCESSFUL PROGRAM COMPLETION
TOTALPROGRAM
EXITS
1,876
38% 711 Clients
62% 1,165 Clients
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM COMPLETION
UNSUCCESSFUL PROGRAM COMPLETION
AVERAGE ENROLLMENT
LENGTH IN DAYS
180
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM COMPLETION
UNSUCCESSFUL PROGRAM COMPLETION
AVERAGE NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES ATTENDED
10
353
1-100 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101+NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES ATTENDED BY CLIENT
1-3>1 3-6 6-9 9-12 12-15 15-18 18-21 21-24 24+MONTHS OF SERVICES COMPLETED BY CLIENT
45%
59%
83% 81%87%
82%85%
50%
88%
80%
13%14%
PERC
ENT
OF
SUC
CES
SFU
L PR
OG
RAM
CO
MPL
ETIO
N
PERC
ENT
OF
SUC
CES
SFU
L PR
OG
RAM
CO
MPL
ETIO
N
67% 72%8%20% 58%24% 63%46% 75%57%
30
AGE AT ENROLLMENT
95% 14-25
5September 2017THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES MAYOR’S OFFICE OF GANG REDUCTION AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
Engaged in at least ONEof these behaviors
Engaged in TWO or moreof these behaviors
69%
46%
GRYD GANG INTERVENTION FAMILY CASE MANAGEMENT
CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS AT ENROLLMENT CHANGES IN BEHAVIOR AND RISK FACTORSAfter receiving GRYD FCM services for 6 months clients showed reductions in participation in crime and violence and changes in gang identify.
Kicked, attacked or hit someone with
your fists
Been involved in a
gang fight
Used a weapon of force to get money or things from people
Carried a weapon
Threatened or hurt someone
to get them to do what you
want
Stolen money or things from
a person (no weapon)
Attacked someone with
a weapon
AGE AT FIRST GANG ASSOCIATION
62% 12-15
RiskFactorsFAMILY
ORGANIZATIONDynamics among parent
and children
GANG COHESIONTime spent with gang
FAMILY COHESION
Time spent with family
NEGATIVE POLICE
RELATIONSOption of
local police
FAMILY EMOTIONAL
TIES*
Emotional attachment to family
SELF-DIFFERENTIATION
Views self as separate from gang
GANG EMOTIONAL TIES
Emotional attachment to the gang
FAMILY ACHIEVEMENT
Legacy of family achievement
over time
IMPULSIVE RISK TAKING
Impulsivity and attraction to
risk taking
KEY PROTECTIVE AND RISK FACTORS FOR GANG IDENTITY AND INVOLVEMENT IN VIOLENCE
ProtectiveFactors
*while family emotional ties have been identified as a risk factor for these clients, this factor is more complicated as can serve as either a risk or protective factor depending on the levels of gang involvement among family members.
1
1
2
5
3
4
2
3
4
SELF-REPORTED POSITION IN GANG
NON-VIOLENT CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR
GANGCOHESION
VIOLENT CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR
GANG EMOTIONAL TIES
-23%CHANGEAFTER 6 MONTHS
-38%CHANGE AFTER
6 MONTHS
-17%CHANGE AFTER
6 MONTHS
-22%CHANGEAFTER 6 MONTHS
-17%CHANGEAFTER 6 MONTHS
RISK FACTOR REDUCTION
BEHAVIORAL CHANGES
AGE WHEN THINKING ABOUT REDUCING
INVOLVEMENT
51% 16-18
VIOLENT ACTIVITIES IN
THE PAST 6 MONTHS
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS6
GRYD INTERVENTION INCIDENT RESPONSE & GANG CRIME
GRYD INCIDENT RESPONSE (IR) CHARACTERISTICSJanuary 1, 2014 – December 31, 2015 • Matched LAPD and GRYD IR data
ACTIONS TAKEN AND CONTACTS MADE IN THE FIRST 24 HRS FOLLOWING AN INCIDENT
NUMBER OF INCIDENTS FOR WHICH GRYD IR WAS
NOTIFIED
NUMBER OF INCIDENTS WITH SOME TYPE OF ACTION TAKEN
BY GRYD IR
OF INCIDENTS WITH ACTION TAKEN, NUMBER OF INCIDENTS
INSIDE OF GRYD IR ZONES
1,536
792 (52%)
596 (75%)
TYPE OF INCIDENTS
65% Single Victim Shooting
9% Multiple Victim Shooting
2% Other
24% Homicide
TYPE OF INCIDENT 2014-2015
(N=792)
2014-2015 GRYD IR Regional Program Coordinators
2014-2015 GRYD IR Community Intervention Workers
PRIMARY ACTIONS TAKEN FOLLOWING AN INCIDENT
PRIMARY ACTIONS TAKEN FOLLOWING AN INCIDENT
PRIMARY CONTACT MADE FOLLOWING AN INCIDENT
PRIMARY CONTACT MADE FOLLOWING AN INCIDENT
%
%
%
%
96% Phone calls / Emails
15% Deployed to the scene, hospital, or community
12% Other actions
88% Deployed to the scene, hospital, or community
80% Phone calls / Emails
67% Canvassed the community / Outreach
59% Controlled the diffusion of rumors
35% Connected victim / Victim’s family to services
96% Contact LAPD
19% Other Contact
4% Contact Council Office
43% Contact Victim’s Family
31% Contact with Victim or Perpetrator’s Gang
30% Contact LAPD
12% Other Contact
6% Contact Council Office
7September 2017THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES MAYOR’S OFFICE OF GANG REDUCTION AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
GRYD INTERVENTION INCIDENT RESPONSE & GANG CRIME
DEFINING RETALIATORY GANG CRIMERetaliatory gang crimes are most frequently defined based on qualitative evidence such as knowledge about the suspects or victims involved and the history of interactions between individuals or groups. This research defines a retaliation in statistical terms as any gang crime that can be shown to be causally related to one more prior gang crimes. Non-retaliatory, background crimes are therefore gang crimes that are statistically independent of any prior event.
2014-2015 South Los Angeles GRYD IR ZonesALL GANG CRIMES
All gang aggravated assaults and homicides in South Los Angeles GRYD IR Zones
BACKGROUND Background gang aggravated
assaults and homicides.
RETALIATION EVENTS Retaliation gang aggravated
assaults and homicides.
79%
21%AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS
HOMICIDE
17% RetaliatoryPERCENTAGE OF INCIDENTS:
83% Background
ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF GRYD IR ON RETALIATORY GANG CRIME Between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2015
LAPD recorded
6,646gang-related
crimes
GRYD IR recorded being notified of
1,078of these gang-related
crimes
AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS, ATTEMPTED ROBBERY, CRIMINAL HOMICIDE, SHOTS FIRED, ROBBERY, AND SHOTS FIRED AT DWELLINGS.
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS8
+
ESTIMATES OF THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF GANG RETALIATIONS WERE MADE FOR TWO SCENARIOS, BOTH INDICATING THAT WHEN NOTIFIED OF INCIDENTS,
GRYD IR has a measurable impact on the number of gang retaliations:
For every 100 gang crimes known to both LAPD + GRYD IR, there are an additional 13.5 retaliations known to LAPD alone.
For every 100 gang crimes known to LAPD + GRYD IR there are 0.2 additional retaliations known to both.
For every 100 gang crimes where GRYD IR is not notified of the initial incident, there are an additional 19.3 retaliations known to LAPD alone.
For every 100 gang crimes where GRYD IR is not notified of the initial incident, there are 4.8 additional retaliations known to both.
Summary of these findings is that when GRYD IR knows about the initial incident, retaliation is 30% less common.
Summary of these findings is that when GRYD IR knows about the initial incident, retaliation is 96% less common.
RETALIATORY INCIDENTS KNOWN ONLY TO THE LAPD
RETALIATORY INCIDENTS KNOWN ABOUT BY BOTH LAPD + GRYD IR
RETALIATORYINCIDENTS
-30%
RETALIATORYINCIDENTS
-96%
GRYD INTERVENTION INCIDENT RESPONSE & GANG CRIME
100GANGCRIMES
100GANGCRIMES
100GANGCRIMES
100GANGCRIMES
19.3RETALIATIONS THAT LAPD ALONE KNOWS ABOUT
13.5RETALIATIONS THAT LAPD ALONE KNOWS ABOUT
0.2RETALIATIONS THAT LAPD AND GRYD IR KNOW ABOUT
4.8RETALIATIONS THAT LAPD AND GRYD IR KNOW ABOUT
LAPD NOTIFIED
LAPD NOTIFIED
LAPD & GRYD IR NOTIFIED
LAPD & GRYD IR NOTIFIED
+
+ +
+
9September 2017THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES MAYOR’S OFFICE OF GANG REDUCTION AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
$88.8 MILLION
$21.3 MILLION
THE COSTS OF GANG CRIME
$+ =10FEWER
HOMICIDES
175FEWER
AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS
The combined benefit of GRYD IR
citywide is estimated at more than
$110.2 MILLION
over two years.
Citywide, it is estimated that
GRYD IR prevented
185VIOLENT CRIMES
2014-2015
+For every 100 gang crime notifications received by LAPD + GRYD IR there are on average 13.6 violent retaliations.
For every 100 gang crimes where GRYD does not receive notification there are on average 24.0 violent retaliations.
Summary of these findings is that when GRYD IR knows about the initial incident, there are 43.2% fewer retaliations.
RETALIATORY INCIDENTS WHEN GRYD IR RECEIVES INITIAL INCIDENT NOTIFICATION
43.2%FEWER
RETALIATIONS
100GANGCRIMES
100GANGCRIMES
THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF VIOLENT RETALIATIONS IS
13.6
THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF VIOLENT RETALIATIONS IS
24.0LAPD NOTIFIED
LAPD & GRYD IR NOTIFIED
+
GRYD INTERVENTION INCIDENT RESPONSE & GANG CRIME
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS10
GRYD SUMMER NIGHT LIGHTS (SNL) SNL OverviewFROM 2008-2016, THERE HAVE BEEN APPROXIMATELY
SNL 2016 A SUMMER OF TRANSFORMATIONS
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
MEALS SERVED
431,577
3,563,052MEALS SERVED
5,650,283SITE VISITS
SNL is held in 32 CITY PARKS historically impacted by gang-related violence
Operates between the hours of 7:00 PM TO 11:00 PM during summer months
Offers VIOLENCE REDUCTION programming and COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT activities
HEALTHY OPTIONS Such as turkey burgers,
chicken breast, low-sugar drink mix, and fresh produce.
CITYWIDE EMPLOYMENT TOTAL
827
359 SNL Youth Squad Members
253 Sports Officials
64 Site Coordinators
16 Cluster Coordinators
5 SNL Office Staff 88 Seasonal CIW
42 Artists
TOTAL SITE VISITS ESTIMATE
690,523VISIT AVERAGE
ESTIMATE AT 32 SNL SITES
21,578
11September 2017THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES MAYOR’S OFFICE OF GANG REDUCTION AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
PERC
ENT I
DENT
IFIED
AS A
PROB
LEM
PERC
ENT I
DENT
IFIED
AS A
PROB
LEM
GRYD SUMMER NIGHT LIGHTS (SNL) PROBLEMS FACED BY COMMUNITIESDuring community feedback forums at 5 parks, residents of the community attending SNL programming and Youth Squad hired for SNL for the summer of 2016 were asked to rate possible issues as being a “big problem”, a “minor problem”, or “not a problem” in the community.
HOME
LESS
NESS
DRUG
USE
DRINK
ING/AL
COHO
L
DRUG
SALE
S
GANG
INTIM
IDATIO
N
GANG
RECR
UITME
NT
FIGHT
S
ASSA
ULTS
DOME
STIC
VIOLE
NCE
SHOO
TINGS
SCHO
OL-B
ASED
VIOL
ENCE
HUMA
N/SEX
TRAF
FICKIN
G
GRAF
FITI *
HOME
LESS
NESS
DRUG
USE
DRINK
ING/AL
COHO
L
DRUG
SALE
S
GANG
INTIM
IDATIO
N
GANG
RECR
UITME
NT
FIGHT
S
ASSA
ULTS
DOME
STIC
VIOLE
NCE
SHOO
TINGS
SCHO
OL-B
ASED
VIOL
ENCE
HUMA
N/SEX
TRAF
FICKIN
G
GRAF
FITI *
HOME
LESS
NESS
DRUG
USE
DRINK
ING/AL
COHO
L
DRUG
SALE
S
GANG
INTIM
IDATIO
N
GANG
RECR
UITME
NT
FIGHT
S
ASSA
ULTS
DOME
STIC
VIOLE
NCE
SHOO
TINGS
SCHO
OL-B
ASED
VIOL
ENCE
HUMA
N/SEX
TRAF
FICKIN
G
GRAF
FITI *
100908070605040302010
100908070605040302010
Community Residents
Youth Squad
Community Intervention Workers (CIW)CIW were also asked about the main issues in and around SNL parks during focus groups.
PERCENT OF PROBLEM (MINOR OR BIG)
PERCENT OF PROBLEM (MINOR OR BIG)
CIW IDENTIFIED AS A GENERAL PROBLEM
CIW EXPRESSED SERIOUS CONCERN
100%
93%86% 82% 79% 78%
95%89% 85%
79%
*This category was not asked about from Community Residents nor Youth Squad.
TOP5
PRO BL E MS
TOP5
PRO BL E MS
This program helps you immediately;
it’s like a family
and you’re not alone. There’s always a solution to the problem and it give you more hope. It’s given my children and myself
more self-esteem. I have more self-esteem than I
used to.– PARENT PARTICIPANT
We don’t see them as case managers. We see them as family. They really care.
We receive a lot of support and help. It’s the trust that we have with them;
the support that they offer.– PARENT PARTICIPANT
It is life-changing. I came here to look for a job. They put me and my
husband in touch with someone...and we actually got to work. Now we have our house, a car –we’re doing really
well. I feel blessed and grateful for the program.– YOUTH PARTICIPANT
We trust our case managers
and they help us.– YOUTH PARTICIPANT
vital support
ongoing commitment
working with families
creating a community
I was going to quit school but
they encouraged
me to stay in.
– YOUTH PARTICIPANT
Let’s say I wanted to join a gang and be a gang member…
by going to this program it’ll like
help me by preventing that – not being a gangster.– YOUTH PARTICIPANT