2010 calgrip second report to the legislature 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 1/12

REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE

Governor’s Office of Gang and

Youth Violence Policy

November 2010



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

mailto:[email protected]






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



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.



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

http://www.calgrip.ca.gov/





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).



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,



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.



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

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



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.

2010 calgrip second report to the legislature 2010

Documents