REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE

Governors Office of Gang and Youth Violence Policy

November 2010

G o v e r n o r s O f f i c e o f G a n g a n d Yo u t h V i o l e n c e P o l i c y
770 L Street, Suite 1400 - Sacramento, California - 95814 Telephone (916) 445-8009; Fax (916) 327-8711

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor

November 29, 2010

Dear Members of the Legislature: We are pleased to present to you the Governors Office of Gang and Youth Violence Policys 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 (Nunez 2007). If you have any questions or wish to discuss this report in greater detail, please contact me at (916) 445-8011 or Paul.Seave@calema.ca.gov. Thank you. Sincerely yours,

Paul L. Seave Director

Governors 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 Governors Office of Gang and Youth Violence Policy (OGYVP), an office that is located administratively within CalEMA but reports directly to the Governors 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 to reduce 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 OGYVPs 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 evidencebased 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 Californias Probation Resource Center for Evidence-Based Practices. Thus far, three probation departments (Fresno, Sacramento, and Santa Cruz) have received 1

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 enter their 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 Californias gang-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. OGYVPs 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 communitybased 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.

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 Governors 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 have awarded $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 communitybased 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 OGYVPs 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 3

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 that unevaluated 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: Californias Safe Community Partnership In 1996, Boston developed a strategy named Ceasefire to address the recordbreaking level of gang violence then raging through the city. Law enforcement, community and faith leaders, and service providers together focused their attention on the citys 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, Bostons 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).

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 percent reduction 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 percent reduction 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 Californias juvenile arrest rate is below the national average, our state has the nations highest rate of juveniles in local custody twice the national average. Given the unintended consequences of current practice generally, 5

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. Identifying Evidence-Based Practices 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. 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. Incentivizing the Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices Using this list of what works, OGYVP incentivized the use of evidence-based practices through CalGRIP grants: 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 reduces recidivism by 8 percent in a cost-effective manner. The California Institute for Mental Health (CIMH), the states leading provider of training for ART and several other evidence-based practices on OGYVPs list, is assisting virtually all of the departments with implementation and will be reporting outcome data beginning in early 2011.

Probation Resource Center for Evidence-Based Practices 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 evidencebased 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. 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. For sustainability 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 OGYVPs list of evidence-based practices, a recently-funded project deserves our full attention. Two years ago, Los Angeles Harbor Community 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.

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 pilots 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 gangrelated homicides for a number of reasons. We reported there, based on our survey of police and sheriffs departments, that DOJs total for the years 2005 through 2007 represented 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 Gang-Related Homicides, 2005-2009 diminished by a total 1,200 of 31 percent between 978 921 2006 and 2009. (By 1,000 872 contrast, all other 742 800 676 Statewide homicides decreased by 563 539 600 13 percent.) Second, 450 390 368 LA the number of gang400 415 422 related homicides 382 352 Rest of CA 200 308 outside of Los Angeles 0 County now virtually 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 equals the once-greater Year number that afflicted Los Angeles. This is an extraordinary change, given that almost 75 percent of all gang-related homicides in California took place in Los Angeles between 1981 and 2001.
Gang-Related Homicides

Third, approximately one of every two homicides in Los Angeles was gangrelated for each year between 2005 and 2009. DOJ data suggests that this has been true for at least nine years. Percentage of Homicides Reported as GangFourth, outside Los Related, 2005-2009 Angeles, approximately one 70% of every four homicides 56% 60% was gang-related for each 52% 52% 50% LA 47% year between 2005 and 50% 2009. While only one-half 40% the Los Angeles rate, it 30% Rest of should be remembered CA 30% 28% 20% 26% 26% 24% that in 1981 three percent 10% of this areas homicides 0% were gang-related and that 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 the percentage has grown Year steadily since then. For a fuller discussion of Californias gang-related homicide numbers, please see the OGYVP report at our Web site: Homicide in California 1981 2008: Measuring the Impact of Los Angeles and Gangs on Overall Homicide Patterns, by George Tita, Ph.D., and Allan Abrahamse (April 2010). Juvenile Arrests Commentators have noted that juvenile arrests in California have been decreasing for a number of years. Specifically, over the past 11 years, total juvenile arrests in California have decreased by 21 percent (from 258,125 to 204,696), as have juvenile arrests for misdemeanors (21 percent), felonies (15 percent), and violent offenses (19 percent). Disaggregating this data, however, reveals great variation among counties and among cities, and underscores the need for state and local policymakers to examine local data. In a report on this subject, Juvenile Arrests in California, 1999-2009: Statewide and Local Rates and Trends (forthcoming), OGYVP examined the juvenile arrest data for the state, 23 of the 30 largest counties, and 23 large cities. We found, as the table below reflects, that while few counties varied from the state-wide decrease over the past 11 years, the picture looks very different during the last five years (20052009). During that period, 11 counties experienced an increase in violent offense arrests and 12 counties saw an increase in felony arrests. (See tables on the next page).
Percentage

Juvenile Violent Offense Arrests 2005-2009 County Percent Increase Orange +38% Alameda +30% San Diego +26% Ventura +23% Contra Costa +14% Yolo +5% Kern +3% Riverside +3% Stanislaus +3% Tulare +3% Monterey +2%

Juvenile Felony Arrests 2005-2009 County Percent Increase Monterey +24% Santa Cruz +22% Ventura +22% Orange +17% Alameda +12% Yolo +14% Riverside +6% Tulare +5% Merced +4% Fresno +2% Sacramento +1% San Diego +1%

Of the 23 cities we examined, 10 saw increased arrests for violent offenses and eight saw increased felony arrests during the most recent five-year period. Juvenile Violent Offense Arrests 2005-2009 City Percent Increase Oakland +282% Santa Ana +87% Oxnard +43% Bakersfield +35% Merced +34% Richmond +28% San Diego +22% East Palo Alto +18% 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 and delinquency 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 states landscape. Juvenile Felony Arrests 2005-2009 City Percent Increase Oakland +115% Merced +35% Salinas +24% Santa Ana +23% Santa Rosa +12% Bakersfield +10% Fresno +2% Visalia +1%

10