|
Policy Implications: What Can Be Done for Boys in DC? Providing Early Intervention
Providing Structure and Supervision Because of the high incidence of violence committed by or against youth during afterschool hours, many communities have focused on providing supervision and structured activities—especially for children at high risk for violence—during that time period (Chaiken, 1998b). The six recommendations below would address specific concerns relating to the lack of supervision for boys in DC during the afterschool hours. Bring boys under control of responsible adults. In many cities across the Nation, juvenile violence is declining (Poe-Yamagata, 1998; Fox and Zawitz, 1998). A growing number of researchers and policy analysts agree that the decline is largely attributable to concerted community efforts to bring adolescents under the control of adults who have the authority to:
The following adults in each community should work together and support one another's efforts to bring children under their control:
Channel energy into productive activities. Many cities have moved beyond simply controlling delinquent behavior to channeling the energy of youth into productive activities—including crime reduction activities. Under the supervision of adults skilled in guiding them, young people are taking the lead in projects such as neighborhood cleanups, vandalism and graffiti removal projects, Neighborhood Watch programs, community pride days, and cross-age tutoring and mentoring programs for younger children (Chaiken, 1998b). Recent research shows that participation in these activities reduces teen pregnancy and substance abuse more than standard educational approaches to delinquency reduction (Allen et al., 1997). Caring adults—parents, other caregivers, and staff in local unaffiliated youth organizations—provide a tremendous potential resource for controlling and guiding youth. A growing body of research, however, also shows that not all afterschool programs are effective at preventing violence and delinquency (Tolan and Guerra, 1994). In fact, sports, one of the most widely provided afterschool activities for adolescent boys, was shown to have little or no positive effect on violence or other forms of delinquent behavior. Rather than focusing on athletic activities, therefore, policymakers may want to provide programs shown to be effective at reducing delinquent behavior (for example, programs intended to teach cognitive skills). In attempting to channel youth's energy in a positive direction, policymakers should also aim to convince DC boys that their earning power in the long run will be higher if they pursue legal money-earning activities in their spare time. By doing so, DC may be able to use the boys' strong economic motivations as an incentive for positive rather than antisocial behavior. In Redding, CA, for example, police officers have capitalized on boys' economic motivations by giving groups of youth "COPS dollars" when they complete projects to improve their neighborhoods. Endorsed by local merchants, COPS dollars can be redeemed at restaurants and other businesses popular with community youth. As a result of this program, boys in blighted areas who used to hang out and get into trouble are removing litter, cleaning up vacant lots, and creating play and recreation areas for themselves and younger children. Judging from their willingness to approach officers and ask what needs to be done in return for COPS dollars, boys—in addition to the police, businesses, and other residents—favor this approach.1 Adjust police patrols. Another action that DC may take to reduce violence and delinquency during afterschool hours is increasing the number of police patrols during the hours that area schools release students. Although one additional patrol car is not likely to have a major impact on levels of afterschool violence, several officers walking the streets and talking to students as they leave school have been effective in other cities. In Eureka, CA, for example, a growing number of assaults involving youth (including drive-by shootings near one school) were essentially eliminated after the police department appointed an experienced officer to serve as a school-based youth/ethnic liaison officer. During school hours, this officer works in partnership with administrators, counselors, and teachers to reduce truancy and other harmful behavior through a combination of teaching, counseling, and coordinated case management. During school breaks and before and after school hours, the officer patrols the streets surrounding the school and stays in radio contact with school staff monitoring school property and nearby areas.2 Other cities' patrol plans have involved not only the police, but neighbors, local business owners, and youth organizations, in an effort to minimize the chance that releasing large groups of students into the community at the same time each day will result in fights or violence (Chaiken, 1998b). Steps taken in other cities include having adults with police walkie-talkies patrol streets near schools each day during arrival and departure times, keeping students engaged in constructive afterschool activities, and transporting students directly home following these activities (by which time children's parents or other caregivers will have returned home from work) (Chaiken, 1998b). Involve national organizations. A survey of seven national youth-serving organizations revealed that such organizations are reaching significantly larger numbers of children at high risk of violence and delinquency in cities other than DC (Chaiken, 1998b). According to the survey, nationally affiliated organizations in other cities are providing constructive activities at the very time children are most at risk for violence in most parts of the country—the afterschool hours. Increasing the involvement of the many local chapters and affiliates of national youth organizations in the District is essential to reducing youth violence and delinquency in DC. Involve local organizations. As the Nation's Capital, Washington, DC, is home to numerous private foundations, firms, Federal agencies, and universities that have spent large sums of money on research, demonstration projects, and evaluations focused on determining what works and what does not work in preventing juvenile violence and delinquency and promoting the healthy and safe development of youth. In fighting violence and juvenile delinquency, the DC community needs to tap into the knowledge, experience, and resources of all of these organizations and enlist their support and active involvement in providing structure and supervision to youth. Address needs of expelled and suspended students. As a result of high rates of suspension and expulsion in DC, large numbers of boys are released into the community without supervision. Without supervision and structured activities, many of these boys are committing delinquent acts. Both to protect the community and to meet the needs of expelled and suspended students, parents, school administrators, government agencies, and youth-serving organizations in DC need to explore ways to deliver safe and meaningful activities to these students during school hours. In cities such as Pocatello, ID, and Eureka, CA, youth who are removed from traditional classrooms because of disruptive behavior are placed in alternative classes with fewer students and with teachers specifically trained to address behavior problems. Rather than allowing students to wander the streets unsupervised, these communities are providing increased supervision. In Pocatello, the community is also securing and seeking the enforcement of injunctions that prohibit students from gathering together outside a school setting during school hours. Applying Swift and Sure Sanctions As shown by LINC's study, a small number of youth in the three DC study neighborhoods are responsible for a large proportion of the crime and violence. To combat youth violence and crime, authorities need to apply swift and sure sanctions to the city's most serious juvenile offenders. These offenders need to be identified and informed of the sanctions for specific categories of delinquent behavior (both for themselves and for any "crews," gangs, groups of friends, or other individuals who act as accessories). In addition, because serious offenders should be sanctioned immediately after committing delinquent acts, the cumbersome process of handling juveniles in courts and corrections must be streamlined. An immediate and substantial response by the criminal justice system to delinquent acts can effectively control serious offenders' worst behavior. In Boston, MA, for example, Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies have worked together to crack down on illegal gun markets, and local agencies have made a concerted effort to identify and control the city's most violent youth (including gang members). As a result of these efforts, escalating rates of youth violence dropped precipitously. To carry out a Boston-type effort and get serious juvenile offenders under control, DC will need the same cooperation among community groups, law enforcement officers, and juvenile justice agencies that took place in Boston and surrounding communities (Kennedy, 1998). This type of community action presents an opportunity for DC and its police department to reorganize immediately—and for a cause that is likely to enjoy the community's full support. It also creates an opportunity for Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the U.S. Department of Justice's Drug Enforcement Administration and Federal Bureau of Investigation, to act as partners in support of the MPD. At the same time, it allows researchers who have studied effective approaches in other cities to provide practical advice to policymakers about the resources, tactics, and personnel needed to apply swift and sure sanctions to the small number of serious and violent juvenile offenders in DC. By sending a clear message that violence and the use of weapons will not be tolerated and applying sanctions immediately for delinquent acts, DC may encourage its most serious juvenile offenders and their friends to pursue noncriminal activities. Reducing Gun Violence Strategies for reducing youth violence involving guns include making guns safer, making them less available, and influencing how youth use them (Mercy and Rosenberg, 1998). Although the first strategy requires technological advances, recent research has revealed a promising measure for reducing gun availability (and, in turn, reducing the number of fatalities and injuries resulting from fights or incidents involving guns) (Kennedy, 1998). Recent research has also revealed a way to affect teens' willingness to stop carrying guns. These measures are described below. Identify and shut down suppliers. Working with local police departments in a number of areas, including DC, ATF has traced guns being used by youth and found that in most cities, guns are being supplied by a limited number of out-of-State gun dealers (Kennedy, 1998). Once identified, some gun suppliers have been closed down. Continued collaboration with ATF is well advised. Enlist the boys' help in reducing gun use. A substantial body of research reveals that in violent neighborhoods, boys carry guns for protection primarily because other boys or men carry guns (Mercy and Rosenberg, 1998). To break this cycle of violence, policymakers need to convince boys that if they stop carrying guns, others will do so too. In neighborhoods such as Arlington, TX, youth workers have found that teens are most likely to stop carrying guns when they are involved in the process of deciding when and where police will enjoin weapon carrying, how the prohibitions will be monitored, and what sanctions will be applied for violations (Chaiken, 1998b). In cities such as Boston, MA (Kennedy, 1998), New York, NY (Bruce Johnson, National Development & Research Institutes, Inc., 1997, personal communication), and Redding, CA,3 groups of boys previously involved in violence were informed by police and other juvenile justice agencies of steps that would be taken to control the entire group if any boy in the group violated any gun laws. Such crackdowns rapidly led to self-policing on the part of formerly violent groups—and a rapid reduction in the number of gun fatalities in those cities (Kennedy, 1998). Improving Coordination Between government agencies and private organizations. Realizing that, under the current organizational structure in DC, no single agency can deal with the many aspects of youth development and the many causes of delinquency, government agencies in the city, including schools, the police department, and child welfare and protective services agencies, should work together and reach out to private organizations to address problems collectively (Chaiken, 1998b). Representatives from these agencies and organizations, as in other cities, could come together to propose and implement coordinated action plans to help both individual children in trouble and small groups of children who may be experiencing or causing problems in their neighborhoods or schools. The combined expertise of representatives from different organizations serves children and their communities well. Among local affiliates of national organizations. Affiliation with national organizations sustains access to proven programs and materials designed by youth development professionals and evaluated by researchers. Executive directors of affiliates of national youth organizations typically work together on an ongoing basis to define the niche that each will fill (Chaiken, 1998b). Although they may not share specific program materials, organizations often share space, keep one another informed of emerging problems facing youth, and support one another's fundraising activities. Officers of different affiliates of national organizations may serve on local boards and commissions together, along with key members of the business community and top administrators of local government agencies. Absent coordination with one another and oversight of a national organization, organizations may duplicate efforts or fail to use funds for direct services to youth. Each unaffiliated organization, for example, needs funds to support costly administrative functions, facility maintenance, preparation of grant proposals, and other fundraising activities. As a result of collaboration among nonprofit youth organizations in many cities, adolescents in poor neighborhoods (those most vulnerable to delinquency) have access to a variety of afterschool programs such as computer classes, drama activities, and tutoring. These programs help youth build skills that in the short term prevent delinquency and that in the long term may promote a successful transition to productive adulthood (Chaiken, 1998c). Given the lack of such coordination in DC, children from the three neighborhoods studied have had access to few such programs.
Based on observations and interviews being carried out as part of NIJ-sponsored LINC project 95-IJ-CX-0047. Data collected by LINC as part of NIJ grant 95-IJ-CX-0047.
| ||||
Although the youngest boys in the sample were on average the least delinquent, some very young boys (13-year-olds) reported seriously delinquent conduct. Such conduct—together with a marked increase in the seriousness of delinquent conduct as boys get older—demonstrates a compelling need for early intervention. Many cities have met this need by offering proven programs such as Head Start and providing parenting classes and home visits to youth at high risk of delinquency (Chaiken and Huizinga, 1995).