November · Volume 90 · Number 10

Community and Law Enforcement: Working Better Together for Our Youth: A Collaborative Approach to Prevent Youth Violence

by Trevor Lida

“Officer, how do I know if my child is involved in gangs and gang violence, and what can I do?” How many times have police officers heard this question or similar ones? The issue of youth involvement in gangs and violent crime is a major problem. To compound matters, there are a number of organizations working toward prevention of gangs and gang violence that are not working together. Individual organizations may be doing positive work to prevent and intervene in the cycle of youth violence, but better coordination of resources and efforts could magnify the positive work and make a substantial impact to disrupt the cycle of youth violence.

Public Health Emergency

Although the number of arrests for youth-related violent crimes has been on the decline since 1995,¹ youth violence continues to be a major concern for the public. Even dating back to 1985, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop identified youth violence as a public health emergency and initiated a report on how public health care professionals could get involved.

He advocated for public and private organizations, as well as communities and policymakers, to work together to address youth violence.² In 2001, Surgeon General David Satcher released the first-ever report on youth violence; it supported Koop’s analysis that youth violence remains a “public health emergency.”³

In 2005, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 5,686 young people between the ages of 10 and 24 were murdered in the United States, an average of 16 homicides each day. In addition, in 2006 more than 720,000 young people between the ages of 10 and 24 were treated in emergency departments for injuries sustained as a result of violence.⁴

A Justice Policy Institute report published in 2007 reviewed the history of gangs and gang violence in three U.S. cities, one of which was Los Angeles. During the past three decades, Los Angeles has spent billions of dollars on the elimination of gangs and gang violence. Many of the city’s efforts have been focused on such suppression tactics as special enforcement teams, gang sweeps, surveillance, and gang injunctions.

The Justice Policy Institute reported: “Spending on gang enforcement has far outpaced spending on prevention programs or on improved conditions in communities where gang violence takes a heavy toll. Los Angeles taxpayers have not seen a return on their massive investment over the past quarter century: law enforcement agencies report that there are now six times as many gangs and at least double the number of gang members in the region.”⁵

Suppression alone will not eliminate youth violence, and it will take a coordinated effort that balances suppression, prevention, and intervention. Law enforcement leaders need to exercise caution in placing too many resources in the suppression realm without balancing the needs of prevention and intervention. The emerging future, if we are to effectively mitigate the destructive impact of gangs in our communities, is collaboration.

Collaborative Effort

A 2007 report by the National League of Cities found that “Collaboration across multiple agencies and systems offers local leaders a more effective and coordinated method of improving outcomes for disconnected youth and a more efficient way of doing business.”⁶ A multifaceted and coordinated approach, which combines suppression, prevention, and intervention, is necessary in order to develop long-term strategies and programs to address youth violence.

Law enforcement, including police, probation, and the district attorney’s office, traditionally provides suppression services. Suppression often involves arresting and incarcerating offenders. Agencies such as the Boys and Girls Clubs, Big Brothers Big Sisters, and youth sports leagues provide prevention services. Prevention programs are important because they help youth get off to a better start in life and prepare them for the future. A number of agencies also provide intervention services that include alcohol and drug rehabilitation, anger management, tattoo removal programs, and family counseling, to name a few. Intervention programs like these help those youth who are at risk get the crucial services they need to turn their lives around.

To provide comprehensive services to encompass all youth and at-risk youth, law enforcement, social service agencies, the faith- and community-based organizations, education, government, and private businesses all play critical roles in providing a wraparound approach to address both the prevention and intervention components of youth violent crime. A wraparound approach is a planning process in which resources are delivered to meet the individual needs of at-risk youth and families. Such services as rehabilitation, job training, education, and recreation programs offer positive alternatives to delinquent behavior and a better chance of future success.

With its long history and its ability to work within the community, as demonstrated through community policing efforts, law enforcement can bring partners together to ensure mechanisms are developed to build a sustainable network. Unlike many community-based organizations, policing has a public mandate for safety and a continuity of service that serves as a natural foundation to lead a prevention and intervention network that will ensure stability and long-term commitment to the effort.

Law enforcement’s around-the-clock availability and daily interactions with the community also make this a good fit. Throughout the course of their work at all times of the day law enforcement officers are often the first point of contact for many youth and families. Officers routinely and repeatedly come into contact with the same youth in the street or with members of the same family. As a result, they are in a position to understand the individual needs of the youth and family and can connect them to necessary resources. There are even law enforcement agencies that have developed cross-network collaborative systems to address concerns of youth violence.

One such system is the Strategic Home Intervention and Early Leadership Development (SHIELD) program in Westminster, California. During the normal course of duty, Westminster officers identify youth likely to become involved in violent crime and ensure they are provided with social services that meet their individual needs. During the first year of operation, 43 randomly selected youth were tracked; 60 percent of those tracked were connected with community resources, 26 percent had moved from the area, and 14 percent of the youth did not receive services because their parents refused to cooperate.⁷

Experiences such as these, and the sustained work to protect communities and link resources, provide the police with a unique opportunity to forge those links and create relationships that will ease the strain on communities resulting from gang violence. In fact, there is a model to help create the collaborative approach that is field-tested and ready to serve as a blueprint for success.

A Collaborative Model

In 1987, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) looked at communities with gang problems and programs to address gang issues throughout the county. As a result, Dr. Irving Spergel of the University of Chicago developed what has become known as the Comprehensive Gang Model. The model supports the collaborative approach and identifies five key steps and strategies that many communities across the country have successfully implemented:

1. The community and community leaders acknowledge there is a youth gang problem.
2. A community assessment is conducted to determine the nature and scope of the problem, which leads to the identification of the population and location of the greatest need for services.
3. A steering committee is organized and with the input of the community and community leaders it identifies goals and objectives and begins a collaborative initiative.
4. The steering committee ensures resources, such as programs and services, are available to the collaborative agencies.
5. The steering committee evaluates the progress of the initiative, reassesses the youth gang problem, and makes changes to the response as necessary.⁸

We will look at the experience of Salinas, California, and its effort to turn this concept into reality. Although gang issues in Salinas are significant, they are not much different from those in other communities.

Acknowledging the problem. The first step to developing a comprehensive model is for a community and its leaders to acknowledge there is a youth gang problem. Salinas, an agricultural city of approximately 150,000 residents, has a history of gangs and youth violence. The Salinas police department estimates there are more than 3,000 gang members or associate gang members in the city.⁹ In March 2007, city officials held a town hall meeting to discuss gangs and youth violence after more than 20 shootings occurred during a six-week span.¹⁰

The same day, a group of high school students and community leaders held a march and rally to protest the amount of violence and call for action. Mayor Dennis Donohue of Salinas said, “(Residents) are showing they’re ready to really engage and join in preventative methods to address the problem.”⁹ Both Salinas city officials and the community wanted to energize Salinas’s efforts to develop a collaboration addressing gang and youth violence.

Community assessment. The next step in the comprehensive model is to bring community stakeholders and leaders together in order to assess the nature and scope of the problem. In Salinas, city officials took advantage of the momentum generated by community members, and during a six-month span they participated in more than a dozen community meetings. These meetings, held in different locations throughout the city, allowed a cross section of community members with different perspectives to assess the gang and youth violence problem.

Community members identified lack of activities and jobs for youth as major contributors to the gang and youth violence problem. Three areas of priority also were identified to help prevent the problems from continuing. These included enhanced literacy, after-school programs, and family programs. The generation of dialogue and ideas helped identify goals and objectives, which is the next step of the process.

The steering committee. The identification of goals and objectives is determined by a steering committee. The steering committee should comprise leaders and executives from different areas of faith- and community-based organizations, education, government, and private businesses. Salinas Mayor Donohue enlisted the aid of community leaders to analyze the scope and nature of the gang and youth violence issue and, along with the community input, determine goals and objectives for the initiative. The city focused on developing a culture of literacy, street outreach to connect youth and families to resources, and job development skills for youth.

Resources allocated. The fourth step in the model is for the steering committee to provide support and resources to the collaborative agencies to complement the initiative’s strategies and programs. In Salinas, funding was dedicated to develop a street outreach program, as well as a job development and job creation program for youth. In terms of literacy, the steering committee encouraged the city to have the Salinas Public Library take the lead. The city supported the recommendation and ultimately added staff, increased the number of hours libraries were open, and changed policies to make it easier for community members, including youth, to get library cards.

Evaluating progress. As Salinas is in the early stages of development in its comprehensive strategy, the next step will be to evaluate the strategies and programs that have been developed. The steering committee will review statistical outcomes and ensure they are consistent with the goals and objectives. If programs are not meeting outcomes, then the steering committee can make adjustments such as redeveloping the program or looking for other areas to target resources.

The Comprehensive Gang Model is a guide, and it provides communities with a starting point. Communities involved in a collaborative effort can exchange best practices, but they need to be mindful of the unique needs of their own community and create strategies and programs that will be consistent with their needs.

Challenges of Collaborations

Although law enforcement is naturally in a good position to lead and guide a collaborative effort to spearhead prevention and intervention strategies, Salinas must address several challenges.

Leadership. As leaders in the community, law enforcement officers are in a prime position to take the lead role in providing and ensuring that prevention and intervention strategies are developed to provide positive, healthy alternatives to violence and gangs.

Law enforcement has the ability to hold other social service and community-based organizations accountable to provide services for at-risk youth and their families in a coordinated fashion. Law enforcement personnel are looked upon as leaders in the community because of the work they do day in and day out with community members. Also, law enforcement is often a first point of contact with at-risk youth and their families.

According to the National League of Cities’ Institute for Youth, Education & Families, “As collaboration partners overcome silos within and between municipal, county and state levels of government, as well as barriers with school districts and community groups, new opportunities emerge and the benefits of working together become increasingly visible.”

Balance of approach. One challenge that must be overcome is an unbalanced collaborative approach that focuses too heavily on suppression and does not provide enough focus on prevention and intervention. Suppression often means increasing staffing levels and overtime work to develop short-term solutions that are designed to prevent crime. Suppression is often the traditional choice when communities see a spike in violent crime. When increased patrols and overtime reduce violent crimes, they are often reduced to previous levels until the next increase or spike in violence. The Justice Policy Institute’s 2007 report stated: “Suppression-oriented activities can provide a feeling of efficacy to law enforcement officers frustrated by their inability to rein in crime and violence, and they create the public impression that policy makers are ‘doing something’ about crime.”

Boundaries. Another challenge law enforcement will face is overcoming boundaries that divide government agencies at the municipal level. This may be accomplished by getting buy-in from top municipal leaders who can exert a positive influence and build support for prevention and intervention strategies and programs. Too often, leaders within the same local government are competing against one another for resources such as funding and personnel.

Eugene Bardach completed a study on collaborations and commented, “[One] major barrier to taking on the collaborative challenge is that resources (such as talented and purposive people and flexible funding) are always scarce. . . . Agencies do not want to give up control over these resources lest their own traditional missions be compromised.”¹¹ Each agency needs to justify its own existence by identifying critical community needs and addressing them. In this case the need for prevention and intervention strategies and programs can cause confrontation and distrust among agencies, and, rather than having a united strategy, individual agencies will look to address the issue on an individual level instead of from a holistic approach.

Interests. Similarly, law enforcement will have to accommodate the interest of participating organizations. After goals and strategies have been defined for an overall goal of reducing youth and gang violence in the community, individual organizations will still have to achieve their respective missions and goals in order to meet the needs of the specific organizations. Collaborative agencies need to learn and respect that each agency has different perspectives, norms, and values. Working together to define common goals and cross training with one another will help to alleviate differences and build respect for one another.

Collaborative agencies working together will strengthen working relationships and foster a comprehensive approach to dealing with gangs and youth violence. Collaborations following the Comprehensive Gang Model will elicit participation from all segments of the community, which will help them become accountable for positive results. Subsequently, communities can overcome the challenges that can often plague collaborations.

Positive Services Are Key

All youth should be provided with alternatives to at-risk behavior in order to be more productive citizens. Youth, as well as their families, need healthy and positive services that help to develop social skills and eliminate dangerous at-risk behaviors.

Intervention is equally important for stopping youth from reoffending and repeating at-risk behavior. Unless youth and families receive intervention, such as job training and education, the cycle of violence will continue in communities. Troubled youth need positive alternatives and increased education and skills in order to lead more productive lives.

The three components of the antiviolence continuum (suppression, prevention, and intervention), should not operate independently; instead they should operate together to provide a full spectrum of antiviolence services. At the heart of a successful community endeavor to reduce youth violence is the strong leadership it takes to hold service providers together and accountable. As service providers work together in collaboration, leadership is still a key component to ensure that a service delivery system is developed and maintained for the benefit of the youth and their families. Because law enforcement personnel are looked upon as natural leaders in the community and because they are often at the heart of dealing with at-risk youth and their families, they are in a prime position to expand from providing simple suppression services to overseeing the entire antiviolence continuum.

¹Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008).
²Never Too Early, Never Too Late to Prevent Youth Crime and Violence (Sacramento: State of California, Little Hoover Commission, 2001).
³Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General, 2001).
⁴“Youth Violence: Facts at a Glance” (Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2008).
⁵J. Greene and K. Pranis, Gang Wars: The Failure of Enforcement Tactics and the Need for Effective Public Strategies (Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute, 2007), 72.
⁶Beyond City Limits (Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities, Institute for Youth, Education, and Families, 2007).
⁷P. A. Wyrick, “Law Enforcement Referral of At-Risk Youth: The SHIELD Program,” Juvenile Justice Bulletin 1 (November 2000).
⁸”Best Practices to Address Community Gang Problems” (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2008).
⁹“Salinas Crime Statistics,” Salinas Police Department, Salinas, Calif., 2008.
¹⁰V. Calderon, “Salinas March, Town Meeting Promote Peace,” Salinas Californian (Internet version), March 27, 2007.
¹¹G. S. Katzmann, Securing Our Children’s Future (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2002).

Trevor Iida is community safety director, Salinas, California (trevori@ci.salinas.ca.us).

Learn about the benefits of joining ICMA and receiving PM magazine as part of your benefits package at http://icma.org/join. To subscribe to PM, call 202/289-ICMA (202/289-4262) or e-mail bookstoremanager@icma.org.