U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Facilitating Between Gang Members and Police

NCJ Number
172136
Journal
Negotiation Journal Volume: 13 Issue: 2 Dated: (April 1997) Pages: 185-207
Author(s)
N Carstaphen; I Shapiro
Date Published
1997
Length
23 pages
Annotation
This article describes a 10-stage dialogue process intended to improve relations between police and gang-related youth in a suburb near Washington, D.C. and suggests ways to improve such efforts.
Abstract
The dialogue process took place in a small, predominantly Hispanic community where the relationship between the police and Latino youth was severely strained. The number of youths in gangs in the community was growing. Gang violence and juvenile crime had increased. The police had responded by using hard-line policing models prevalent in tougher neighbors. The participating police offers were part of a new community policing program. They felt torn between the traditional hard-line tactics and new approaches to community policing. The participating youths felt constantly harassed by the police. An unsuccessful meeting led to the dialogues that began in November 1995. The dialogues were modeled after processes used successfully in divided societies to change conflictual relationships over time. The dialogue group met 10 times over 5 months and had 6-12 participants, including 4-8 youths and 2-4 police officers. The authors designed and conducted the dialogue series; they were both doctoral students at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University. The stages were not completely linear and were of varying lengths. The stages included (1) understanding the context, (2) meeting the people, (3) providing a safe environment, (4) understanding the issues, (5) examining different viewpoints, (6) finding common ground, (7) reflecting on the dialogue, (8) looking beyond the group, (9) planning joint actions, and (10) checking up. The process appeared to produce significant changes in the relationship between the participants, although it was only a first step toward a more comprehensive process of community problem-solving. Notes and 14 references