REDUCING VIOLENT CRIME - SummaSource...Reducing Violent Crime Page 4 Acknowledgements The project...

REDUCING VIOLENT CRIME

Certified Public Manager® Training Program

2014 CPM Solutions Alabama

August 2014

Reducing Violent Crime

REDUCING VIOLENT CRIME PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS Alabama Board of Pardons and Parole

Ken Fetzer

[email protected] Alabama Department of Human Resources

Fannie Ashley

[email protected]

Alabama Department of Labor

Wynona Croskey [email protected]

Tamaya Knox

[email protected]

Tina Moore [email protected]

Angelenna Williams

[email protected]

Alabama Department of Revenue

Johnetta Robinson [email protected]

Alabama Film Office

Tommy Fell

[email protected]


Table of Contents Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................5 Project Task .....................................................................................................................................7 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................8 Other Major Metropolitan Cities Located in Alabama ...................................................................9

Birmingham ..................................................................................................................................9 Huntsville .....................................................................................................................................9 Mobile ..........................................................................................................................................9

Definition of Violent Crime ...........................................................................................................10 Violent Crime Statistics ................................................................................................................10

Table 1: Alabama’s 2013 Reported Violent Crimes ................................................................10 2011-2013 Comparison of Montgomery Versus Other Metropolitan Cities in Alabama ............11

Table 2: Assaults in the Four Major Metropolitan Cities .........................................................12 Table 3: Homicides in the Four Major Metropolitan Cities .....................................................12 Table 4: Rapes in the Four Major Metropolitan Cities ............................................................13 Table 5: Robberies in the Four Major Metropolitan Cities ......................................................13

Past and Present Crime Prevention Programs Utilized in Montgomery .......................................13 Enough is Enough .....................................................................................................................14 Helping Montgomery Families Initiative (HMFI) .....................................................................15

Table 6: 2012-2013 Suspensions by Grade Level for MPS ...................................................16 Table 7: TIP Program: DA Attendance Alert Letters .............................................................17

Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission ...............................................................................17 Prevention Programs Utilized in Other Alabama Cities and Across United States ......................19

Choice Bus Inside Out ...............................................................................................................19 Operation Cease Fire ..................................................................................................................20 Redirection .................................................................................................................................21

Table 8: Redirection: Lower Rates of Recidivism and Placement Outcomes ........................23 YouthBuild .............................................................................................................................23

Proposed Solutions .......................................................................................................................25 Reducing Violent Crime Team Recommendations ......................................................................26

Expanding Montgomery Public Schools Violence Prevention Efforts ......................................26 Table 9: MPS Suspensions for Serious Disciplinary Actions ................................................29

GREAT (Gang Resistance and Education Training) Middle School Classroom Component ...30 SAVE (Sentencing Alternative Vocational Enhancement) ........................................................33

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................35 References ......................................................................................................................................36


Acknowledgements

The project team would like to thank the following individuals for their support, guidance, and assistance throughout this project:

Chief John E. Brown Interim Chief of Police

Montgomery Police Department

Sergeant Denise Barnes Public Relations Officer


Major John Bowman Patrol Division Commander


Lieutenant C. J. Coughlin Major Crimes Bureau Commander Montgomery Police Department

Lieutenant Mike Myrick

Gang Intelligence Unit Montgomery Police Department

Lieutenant R. J. Rider

Domestic Violence Bureau Commander Montgomery Police Department

Corporal Crystal Stout Gang Intelligence Unit


Daryl D. Bailey District Attorney

Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office

Roderick Chambers District Manager

Alabama Board of Pardons and Parole

SoJuan Crenshaw, PhD Career Technical Education Coordinator Alabama Department of Youth Services


Cynthia S. Dillard Executive Director

Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles

Sandra Edwards, MPA Director of Helping Montgomery Families Initiative (HMFI)


Duane Johnson Pretrial Diversion Director


Leatha Maxton, PhD Director of Student Social Services

Montgomery Public Schools

Edward J. Nettles Senior Pastor

Freewill Missionary Baptist Church

Jason Phelps Executive Director

Alabama Construction Recruitment Institute

Sherri Stewart Executive Director

Mattie C. Stewart Foundation

Azzie Taylor Chief Deputy District Attorney


Harold Wells, PhD Assistant Regional Administrator

Southeast GREAT Training Center Nashville, TN

Charles L. Woodley, PhD Chief Psychologist MHM Services Inc.


PROJECT TASK

In February of 2014, the director for the Auburn University at Montgomery’s Outreach Training Solutions, Leslie Meadows, assigned the Reducing Violent Crime Team the task of finding and recommending solutions to help reduce violent crime in Montgomery and throughout the state of Alabama. In an effort to achieve the goal, we listened to numerous subject matter experts to acquire some insight. We compared Montgomery crime statistics to other cities in and outside Alabama. We evaluated initiatives that are being utilized by other cities. We developed strategies and interventions that we are recommending for use in Montgomery and throughout the state of Alabama.


Introduction

Purpose Montgomery is the capital of the State of Alabama, and is home to more than 200,000 citizens. Employers such as the State of Alabama, Maxwell and Gunter Air Force Base, Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, three major hospitals, and a number of universities and schools bring commuters into the city each day. The median household income for Montgomery is $44,674. The city’s vibrant economy, arts and entertainment venues and nationally recognized magnet schools continue to attract people who want to live and conduct business in Montgomery. In 2013, much of this was overshadowed by an unusually high homicide rate. Fifty homicides occurred in Montgomery. This was an increase from 32 homicides in 2012 and 31 homicides in 2011. The rise in violent crime is a concern to city officials, business leaders, and residents alike. Montgomery’s homicide rate is nearly double that of other cities of similar population. For example, during this same year Shreveport, Louisiana had 29 homicides, and Columbus, Georgia reported 22 homicides. The Reducing Violent Crime Team has been tasked to determine how Montgomery compares to other comparable cities in terms of violent crimes and homicide rates, and evaluate the initiatives utilized by other cities to reduce and prevent such acts. Based upon the research conducted, we will develop strategies and interventions that can guide the leaders of Montgomery, and potentially other cities across Alabama, toward the best possible solutions to ensure that the City of Montgomery is a safe and secure place to live and work. Approach The team met with John E. Brown, Chief of Staff for the Montgomery Police Department. Chief Brown and other command staff members of the Montgomery Police Department enlightened our team on a problem facing the Montgomery Police Department and the citizens of Montgomery; the problem being the unusual increase in the number of violent crimes committed during 2013. Chief Brown’s command staff provided our team a distinct portrait of the patterns of violence and the geographical areas of Montgomery where the violence frequently occurs. The Montgomery Police Department is taking proactive measures to secure our community. Due to the Montgomery Police Department’s emphasis on local youth involvement in crime, and these same youth’s progressive involvement in more serious crime as adults; the team decided it would be prudent to concentrate our focus on juveniles. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, homicide is the second leading cause of death for persons between the ages of 10 to 24 years of age in the state of Alabama (2013); consequently, we determined that this age group would be our target demographic. Numerous research studies have concluded that criminal offending escalates during early adolescence, peaks sharply in late adolescence, and declines abruptly in young adulthood (Blumstein and Cohen, 1987; Elliott, 1994; Farrington, 1986; Farrington, Lambert, and West, 1998; Loeber, Wei, Stouthamer-Loeber, Huizinga, and Thornberry, 1999). We began researching online, as well as locally, for programs and resources being utilized to combat the occurrence of violent crimes. From this research, we have chosen


two prevention and one intervention program to recommend to the Montgomery Police Department in conjunction with other local agencies. It is the contention of this team and the Montgomery Police Department that implementing crime intervention and prevention programs early, maybe one of the more promising strategies to curb the violence in the City of Montgomery.

Other Major Metropolitan Cities Located in Alabama Birmingham Birmingham is the largest city located in Alabama with a population of approximately 212,113 residents. The current median household income for Birmingham is $46, 763. The city has major cultural, educational and historical attractions like the Alabama Jazz Hall of Fame, the McWane Science Center, and the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. Birmingham was once known for its thriving manufacturing and steel industry. Now the medical research, banking, trade, government, and service based industries drive this city’s economy. The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Baptist Health Systems, Bellsouth, Alabama Power Company, and Jefferson County Public Schools are the city’s largest employers. Samford University, Miles College, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Birmingham Southern College are located in the city of Birmingham. Huntsville Huntsville is part of the Greater Tennessee Valley region. It is the fourth largest city in the state of Alabama and has a population of approximately 186,254 residents. The median household income for Huntsville is $47,818.00. Huntsville is home to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, Cummings Research Park, and Redstone Arsenal. In the Southeast, Huntsville is noted as a premier place for business due to its broad base of manufacturing, retail, and service industries. The top five employers are Redstone Arsenal, Marshall Flight Center, Huntsville Hospital System, and the Huntsville City Schools. Mobile Mobile is the oldest settlement and the only saltwater port in the state of Alabama. It is the third largest city in the state of Alabama with a population of approximately 194,899 residents. The median household income for Mobile is $39,691.00. The city has educational, cultural, and historical attractions like the Mobile Botanical Gardens, Cathedral Square, and Fort Conde. The city’s largest employers are the Mobile County Public School System, Infirmary Health Systems, University of South Alabama, Walmart, and Austal. It is home to Spring Hill College, the University of Mobile, and the University of South Alabama. Definition of Violent Crime What is a violent crime? According to the law enforcement community, a violent crime is comprised of the crimes of homicide, rape, robbery and assault. These crimes are designated as “violent crimes” because they are offenses perpetrated against a person with a high risk of injury or death to the victim. Media headlines continually report alarming information on violent crimes being committed not only in our city and state, but nationwide.


Violent Crime Statistics

Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center (ACJIC) 2013 Crime in Alabama Report

The Alabama Criminal Justice Center released its annual Crime in Alabama report which provides detailed statistics on the number of reported homicides, forcible rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults. This report indicated that, based on the data collected from law enforcement agencies across the state, Alabama’s crime rate decreased by 4 percent in 2013 in comparison to 2012 (Bailey and Guarino, 2014). There were 20,222 violent crimes reported for 2013; while there were 20,863 violent crimes reported for 2012. Alabama’s violent crime rate for 2013 was 418.4 occurrences per 100,000 residents. On average, there were approximately 55.4 violent crimes reported to law enforcement on a daily basis. Alabama’s 2013 crime rates for homicide, rape, robbery, and assault are depicted above. 2011-2013 Comparison of Montgomery versus Other Metropolitan Cities in Alabama The Reducing Violent Crime Team was tasked with comparing Montgomery to other comparable cities in terms of violent crimes and homicide rates. Within the state of Alabama, we looked closely at the three other major metropolitan areas of Birmingham, Huntsville and Mobile. We wanted to concentrate our focus on crimes such as homicides, forcible rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults. We obtained our data from the Alabama Criminal Justice Center’s annual Crime in Alabama reports for 2011 to 2013. Our team focused on 2013 because Montgomery experienced 50 homicides that year. We wanted to compare the other major metropolitan cities within the state of Alabama’s violent crime rates. The first category that was examined was assaults. Montgomery was ranked fourth with a total of 519 reported aggravated assaults. The second category that we reviewed was homicides.

Homicide Rape Robbery Assault 2011 Violent Crimes 311 1,404 4,885 13,690 2012 Violent Crimes 325 1,264 4,795 14,479 2013 Violent Crimes 342 1,978 4,513 13,389

02000400060008000

10000120001400016000

Num

ber o

f Vio

lent

Crim

es

Repo

rted

in 2

013

Table 1: Alabama's 2011-2013 Reported Violent Crimes


Montgomery ranked second with a total of 50 reported homicides; while Birmingham ranked first with a total of 63 reported homicides. The next category that we studied was rapes. Montgomery ranked fourth with a total of 46 reported cases of rape. Birmingham, Huntsville, and Mobile had more reported cases of rape than the city of Montgomery for 2013. The final category that we investigated was robberies. Montgomery ranked third with a total of 403 robberies while Birmingham had a total of 969 reported robbery cases. After reviewing the data, Montgomery is not the highest ranked for violent crimes.

Birmingham Huntsville Mobile Montgomery2011 1,916 1,049 904 1632012 2,035 1,157 777 1432013 1,755 1,068 1,068 519

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Num

ber

of R

epor

ted

Assa

ults

Table 2: Assaults in the Four Major Metropolitan Cities for Calendar Years 2011-

2013

Birmingham Huntsville Mobile Montgomery2011 54 13 30 312012 67 14 32 322013 63 24 29 50

01020304050607080

Num

ber o

f Rep

orte

d Ho

mic

ides

Table 3: Homicides in the Four Major Metropolitan Cities for Calendar Years 2011-

2013


Past and Present Crime Prevention Programs Utilized In Montgomery

Enough is Enough Program Description: Enough is Enough, implemented in 2007, is a faith-based outreach initiative designed to combat gun violence in the high risk neighborhoods located in the city of

Birmingham Huntsville Mobile Montgomery2011 182 51 48 502012 152 72 45 282013 178 87 88 46

020406080

100120140160180200

Num

ber o

f Rep

orte

d Ra

pes

Table 4: Rapes in the Four Major Metropolitan Cities for Calendar Years 2011-

2013

Birmingham Huntsville Mobile Montgomery2011 1,011 405 637 3492012 983 457 460 3092013 969 391 459 403

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Num

ber o

f Rep

orte

d Ro

bber

ries Table 5: Robberies in the Four Major

Metropolitan Cities for Calendar Year 2011-2013


Montgomery. Founder, Pastor Edward Nettles has worked with the Montgomery Judicial System for over 23 years to provide a second chance for at-risk adolescents through his counseling and mentoring program. Nettles advocates for non-violence and peaceful conflict resolution throughout his community. Program Objective: Reach at-risk youth and young adults through the utilization of community rallies, yard signs, radio, and television. Program Goal: To reduce gun violence in high risk communities, remove local offenders off the streets, and admonish them to make better choices for their lives. Target Age Group: 13 to 21 years of age Target Gender: Both Target Population: Youthful offender and Young Adult Offenders Program Strategy: The program initially began as a component of the Outreach ministry of the Freewill Missionary Baptist Church. Pastor Nettles, Dr. Anthony Molina, Ruben Garrison, and a small group of 15 “community coaches” go out in crime ridden communities establishing relationships, educating the local youth about making wholesome decisions, feeding the hungry, and giving the downtrodden a message of hope. He has also taken his message of non-violence into local night clubs. Cost of implementation: According to Pastor Nettles, the church has spent over a three year period approximately $100,000 on advertising, youth activities, and school clothing. Operation Status: Active Evaluation: According to Pastor Nettles, of Freewill Missionary Baptist Church, Enough is Enough has never been evaluated through a qualitative or quantitative study; however, he did note that the violent crime did decrease between 2009 to 2012 due to the program’s efforts.

Helping Montgomery Families Initiative (HMFI) Program Description: The Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office collaborated with the Montgomery Public Schools in 2007 to establish the Helping Families Initiative (HMFI). The program began providing services in February 2008 initially in 10 pre-selected schools; in March of that same year the program was expanded to include all of the public schools located in Montgomery County. Program Objective: To reduce the number of truancy cases and school suspensions in the Montgomery Public School System. Program Goal: Implement the Truancy Intervention Program in all 53 traditional schools in the city of Montgomery. Target Age Group: 5 to 18 years of age Target Gender: Both Target Population: Any child enrolled in the Montgomery Public School System Program Strategy: HMFI delves into these children’s family and educational histories to pinpoint the source of their behavior issues. After a comprehensive investigation takes place, HMFI may find that the child may be exhibiting the unacceptable behavior due to lack of proper nourishment, inadequate clothing, or improper parenting at home. Once the problem has been identified, these children and their families are connected to the services within the community to meet their needs. To date, HMFI has collaborated with over 50 community partners to provide an assortment of different services to these families. Some of the partners that work closely with HMFI are the Montgomery Police Department, local healthcare professionals, mental health providers, the Alabama Department of Human Resources, local faith-based groups,


the Alabama Department of Youth Services, and other agencies. HMFI currently operates two programs which serve all 53 schools in the district: the Suspension Program and the Truancy Intervention Program (TIP). Cost of Implementation: Montgomery County is making strides to secure funding for the Helping Montgomery Families Initiative through a community shared approach by seeking resources from Montgomery Public Schools and various levels of government to include city, county, state, and the private sector. We contacted Sandra Edwards, the program’s director, and she was not able to provide us with the amount of the program’s annual budget. Operation Status: Active Evaluation: The Helping Montgomery Families Initiative (HMFI) in partnership with the Montgomery Public Schools (MPS), Montgomery County Commission, and the City of Montgomery implemented the Truancy Intervention Program (TIP) in all 53 traditional schools during the 2012-2013 school years. HMFI assisted MPS with direct oversight and monitoring of attendance related activities throughout the school term. HMFI’s Truancy Intervention Program sent 12,705 attendance letters to parents and guardians. They also sent 2,802 warning letters in the Suspension program; 129 assessments for 353 students were completed. These numbers are depicted by the pie charts that are located on page 18. Community Referrals and Linkages to Services totaled 507 for the attendance program and 360 for the Suspension program. MPS District Resource Officers served 1,062 compulsory letters and conducted 301 home visits.

24,57280%

2,6209%

2,3228%

1,0653%

Table 6: Suspensions By Grade Level for the Montgomery Public School System for 2012-

2013

Students Not Suspended

High School StudentSuspensions

Middle School StudentSuspensions

Elementary School StudentSuspensions


Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission (Milwaukee, WI) Program Description: The Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission was implemented in 2005. The program’s premise is based on the inclusion of law enforcement professionals, criminal justice professionals, and local service providers who confer continually to trade information pertaining to Milwaukee’s murders and other violent criminal offenses to structure methods of crime prevention from both a public health and law enforcement perspective. The Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission reviewed 173 murder cases and 99 nonfatal gunshot injury cases beginning May of 2005 through December of 2007. Program Objective: (1) To reduce murders and nonfatal shootings through a multilevel, multidisciplinary, and multiagency homicide review process; (2) To better understand the nature of murder; (3) To develop innovative responses to murder; (4) To focus limited amount of law enforcement and intervention activities on risk that contributed to murder. Program Goal: To establish and support murder prevention and crime intervention strategies while utilizing strategic problem analysis. Target Age: Unspecified Target Gender: Both Target Population: High Risk Offenders Program Strategy: Milwaukee Homicide Review makes suggestions based on the proclivity of identified offenders through the case analysis process. These suggestions range from micro-level techniques and approaches to macro-level policy change. The review process is multi-tiered intervention with four levels. They are as follows:

10,41782%

2,28818%

Table 7: TIP Program: District Attorney Attendance Alert Letters Mailed for

School Year 2012-2013

No Additional InterventionRequired By DistrictAttorney's Office

Additional InterventionRequired By DistrictAttorney's Office


Real time review: The Milwaukee Police Department responds to each murder scene in the intervention districts by immediate response, investigation, increased patrols, and capture of identified offender. Social services agencies are notified within 48 hours of the violent occurrence and provide immediate victim services, case management, mentoring, mental health counseling, emotional support, and residential based health care to impacted families. Criminal Justice Review: The criminal justice review entails a monthly appraisal of each murder. The community police liaison, district officers, and members of the violent crimes, gang crimes, homicide, and vice units all participate in this case analysis. Occasionally, the Criminal Justice Review panel will invite other representatives from other agencies like the local prosecutor’s office, the city attorney’s office, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Milwaukee Public Schools, the Milwaukee Housing Authority, the Medical Examiner’s office, the Department of Corrections, the Wisconsin Department of Justice, the U.S. Marshals, the Milwaukee High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. This analysis focuses on cultivating descriptions of murders in the districts. These reviews are done through the utilization of PowerPoint presentations. Occurrences are listed and reviewed one at a time. Selected team members then provide background information they have obtained on each occurrence. Community Service Provider Review: The community service provider review encompasses observations made from assorted community members based on their organization. It is extremely likely that many youthful offenders had some contact with a social service agency prior to coming into contact with law enforcement (Yessine, 2009). Meetings are structured to look at closed cases and occurrences and to ascertain what community-level aspects contributed to the violent occurrence. The occurrence is analyzed retrospectively and with increased intentness. The gained insight is then utilized in the criminal justice review to raise consciousness and to aid in handling active cases and instituting preventive community resources. Community Review: The final element of the Milwaukee Homicide Review Process is the community review meetings where the community is educated about the nature of the murders and shootings in the identified intervention districts. These gatherings are designed to invite attention from other community residents and stakeholders in the Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission. Statistical data is shared and members of the community are briefed on existing prevention interventions.

Cost of Implementation: Program was funded from state and federal grants that were awarded to the Montgomery Police Department. The amounts of those allocations have not been disclosed. Operation Status: Active Evaluations: Researchers assigned to evaluate Milwaukee Homicide Review found that between January of 1999 and December of 2006 there was a 52% reduction in the monthly count of homicides in Milwaukee as a result of the Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission’s efforts (Azrael, Braga, and Obrien, 2012).


Prevention Programs Utilized in Other Alabama Cities & Across the United States

Choice Bus (Mattie C. Stewart Foundation in Birmingham, AL) Program Description: The Choice Bus is half prison cell and half classroom on wheels. This innovative initiative came about as a result of Dr. Shelley Stewart’s advocacy for literacy. The Choice Bus is a choice experience for the future of America, where parents, educators, and youth alike can visualize for themselves the unfathomable cost of dropping out of school. There are five buses that travel across the United States advocating for young people to complete their education. Program Objective: (1) To expose the connection between dropping out of school and a lifetime behind prison bars; (2) To stimulate discussion about life decisions and the results of those decisions; and (3) To encourage youth’s commitment to obtaining their education. Program Goal: To enable corporate and individual philanthropic giving to fund an initiative that improves education, literacy, and life enrichment for at risk youth. Target Age Group: 10 to 19 years of age Target Gender: Both Target Population: High Risk (Potential Drop Outs) Program Strategy: Dr. Stewart instinctively made a film documentary entitled “The Choice is Yours”, in two of Alabama’s maximum security prisons capturing the raw emotions of the incarcerated who are sharing their life’s story and their experiences behind bars as a result of their failure to complete their education. By conveying the pain of their decisions, these inmates are able to reach these children with a power that educators and parents could never accede to. The film clearly illustrates the consequences of not completing your education. Cost of Implementation: During a typical school day, approximately 350 students can experience the Choice Bus. Groups cannot be larger than 24 students at a time and are scheduled in 25 minute intervals. The children view the documentary and midway through the presentation a life size replica of a prison cell is revealed. At a cost of $1,500.00 per day within the state of Alabama, the Choice Bus demonstrates to 350 students how one bad decision can lead to a prison cell. To date, the Mattie C. Stewart Foundation has three buses that are in operation year round and travel across the United States to schools, churches, and community events. Operation Status: Active Evaluation: According to Sherri Stewart, the executive director of the Mattie C. Stewart Foundation, the Choice Bus has never been evaluated through a qualitative or quantitative study. Operation Ceasefire (Boston, MA) Program Description: Operation Ceasefire, a directed deterrence strategy, was developed by Boston Police Department’s Youth Violence Strike Force in response to the increase in violent crimes being committed in their community by youth offenders. Deterrence theorists argue that crime can be prevented when the costs of committing offenses are perceived by the offender to outweigh the benefits of committing the offense (Braga et al., 2001). The program is one component of a collaborative, exhaustive approach to accost the escalating gang activity and rising violent crime rate. Program Objective: To reduce gang violence, illegal gun possession, and gun violence in the local community.


Program Goal: To apprehend and prosecute criminals who carry weapons, to put other potential violators on notice that offenders will face certain and serious punishment for carrying illegal weapons, and to prevent at risk youth from following the same criminal path. Target Age Group: Under 24 years of age Target Gender: Both Target Population: High risk gang offenders Program Strategy: Known violent gang members were contacted by local law enforcement and community leaders and advised that stiff legal penalties would follow from any violence and gun fire. Essentially, the Boston Police Department would deal with future gun violence swiftly and harshly. They would begin interrupting street level drug distribution, arresting gang members for minor violations like trespassing and public drinking, serving outstanding warrants, seizing monies and assets from drug deals, local prosecutors requesting higher bail amounts, and bringing Federal charges when gang-related drug activity is pervasive. The next plan of action is an upfront attack on black market firearm traffickers who supply weapons to the youth in the inner city. Local, state, and Federal law enforcement officials coordinate their efforts to eliminate these gun sales from taking place in Boston neighborhoods. The program’s multi-faceted approach garnered national attention. Cost of Implementation: The City of Boston received funding from the Strategic Planning Implementation Grant Program in the amount of $1.4 million in 1996. Operation Status: Not Active Evaluations: Study 1 Findings (Braga and colleagues, 2001): Youth Homicides: Pre and post time series data found a compelling 63% decrease in monthly number of homicides in Boston Massachusetts following the implementation of the program. Prior to the implementation of the program, the average homicide rate was 3.5 per month and the post-implementation average homicide rate was 1.3 per month. Citywide Gun Assaults: There was a 25% decrease in the monthly number of citywide firearm assaults. There was a 44% decline in the monthly number of youth firearm assaults in district D-2. Service Calls: There was a 32% decrease in the monthly number of citywide shots fired calls for service. Study 2 Findings (Braga and colleagues, 2005): Researchers found that the program did make a powerful impact on the annual percentage of previously registered firearms that were new with a fast time-to-crime (which is the estimated time between a weapon’s first sale at retail and later recovery in a criminal offense) obtained by the Boston Police Force. Pre and post time comparison indicated that the percentage of registered firearms with a fast time-to-crime increased regularly between 1991 and 1996, arriving at a pinnacle of 53.8 percent of traced firearms in 1996. Then between 1997 and 1999, the percentage of traced firearms with a fast time-to-crime declined greatly to 15.6 percent and continued at this diminished level through 2003. Including 1997, as the initial full year of firearm market intervention, there was a 47% curtailment in the percentage of new traced firearms in the city of Boston, from a median of 40.4 percent between 1991 and 1996 to a median of 21.4 percent between 1997 and 2003. Redirection Program (Tallahassee, FL) Program Description: The Redirection program, implemented in 2004, originated as a cost efficient augmentation for Florida’s youthful offenders. The program is a Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Crime Intervention currently funded by the legislature and administered by


Evidence Based Associates. Redirection offers program participants and their parents alternative solutions that modify services to the individual’s needs. This initiative redirects high risk youthful offenders from state sanctioned residential confinement to community based alternatives validated to reduce juvenile delinquency. The program offers Multisystemic Therapy (MST), Functional Family Therapy (FFT), and Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT). A national evaluation of these juvenile violent crime prevention initiatives concluded that all three of these therapeutic components were instrumental in reducing juvenile arrest rates and the frequency of incarceration (Hand, 2011). Program Objective: (1) to reduce juvenile delinquency; and (2) to provide the state of Florida with a cost effective alternative to juvenile detention. Program Goal: To lower the recidivism rate for high risk youthful offenders. Target Age Group: 10 to 18 years of age Target Gender: Both Target Population: Convicted youthful offenders Program Strategy: Youth are taken from residential detention to one of the three community based alternatives: Multi-systemic Therapy (MST), Functional Family Therapy (FFT), and Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT). Services are provided according to the participant and his family needs. Program administrators concentrate their efforts on developing social competency skills. Cost of Implementation: Redirection Project for Multi-Systemic Therapy, Functional Family Therapy, and Brief Strategic Family Therapy cost $10,428, 922.45 in fiscal year 2010 to 2011. This was a savings of approximately $30 million for fiscal year 2010 to 2011. Operation Status: Active Evaluation: The Justice Research Center analyzed recidivism results for 1,106 youthful offenders who have completed the Redirection program during fiscal year 2010-2011. The data was contrasted to a comparison sample of youthful offenders who completed a standard residential program. The findings are as follows: (1) Rates of felony reconviction for Redirection program participants were 38% lower than the comparison sample; (2) Rates of ensuing juvenile commitment, adult probation, or adult prison were 33% lower for Redirection program participants; (3) Redirection saved the state of Florida $27,000 per youthful offender by not utilizing incarceration; (4) Redirection saved Florida taxpayers from spending approximately $30 million for fiscal year 2010-2011; (5) Over a six year period, Redirection has saved Florida taxpayers approximately $124 million.


YouthBuild (Jacksonville, FL) Program Description: The Jacksonville YouthBuild began in 1995 as a component of the Private Industry Council in collaboration with the City of Jacksonville, Office of Grants Management and Compliance. The program furnishes on-the-job training, vocational preparation, job placement services, GED and Adult Basic Education Instruction, and actual housing rehabilitation experience for youthful offenders who are highs school dropouts and unemployed. All of this is accomplished through a cohesive partnership with Habitat for Humanity of Jacksonville (Habijax), the Jacksonville Housing Partnership, and the Office of Offender Based Programs. The participants must meet the following criteria in order to be admitted into the Jacksonville YouthBuild program: (1) They must demonstrate the need for vocational skills to become gainfully employed; (2) They do not have a high school diploma or GED; (3) They must have a criminal record; (4) They must be deemed to be impoverished; (5) They must demonstrate the ability to pass the Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE) examination; and (6) They must exhibit a cooperative attitude and willingness to exert effort to succeed. Program Objective: To enhance the participant’s willingness to engage in service and to build a lasting relationship with their local community. Program Goal: (1) To assist at risk youth in obtaining their high school diploma or GED; (2) To assist the program participant in developing their job skills; and (3) To provide service to their local communities by constructing affordable housing for the homeless or low income families. Target Age Group: 16 to 24 years of age Target Gender: Male Target Population: Convicted youthful offenders and high school drop-outs Program Strategy: The YouthBuild program embraces a fusion of education, vocational skill enhancement, counseling, leadership reinforcement, community involvement, moral values, and behavioral self-evaluation. During a 9 to 24 month period, enrolled program participants spend 50% of their time learning construction industry skills such as building or rehabilitating housing

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

Re-Arrest Rate Felony Re-ArrestRate

Recidivism Rate Felony Re-Adj/Conviction Rate

Commitment,Adult Probation or

Prison

Table 8: Redirection: Lower Rates of Recidivism and Placement Outcomes

Redirection Matched Residential Sample


for local impoverished families. The remaining 50% of time is utilized on obtaining a GED. Additional services like counseling, life skills training, and financial management classes are afforded to those individuals who demonstrate an obvious need for these services. Cost of Implementation: Program was previously funded by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in the amount of $700,000 and matching contributions by the City of Jacksonville. The in-kind contributions include the office space for the YouthBuild administration and classroom space for GED instruction. On July 01, 2009, the Jacksonville YouthBuild program received additional grant monies from U. S. Department of Labor in the amount of $919,395. This grant expired on June 30, 2012. Operation Status: Inactive Evaluations: 2008 John Jay College Evaluation of Offender Based Project: Researchers found that participants of this program graduate from high school or obtain a GED contrasted to those who have not completed the program (Cohen and Piquero, 2008). The study also demonstrated that YouthBuild graduates, after departing the program, had a conviction rate of 5%; while the conviction rate for those program participants who opted out of the program was 9%. The incarceration rate for YouthBuild graduates is 6%; while the incarceration rate for program participants who dropped out was 13%. 2010 YouthBuild National Evaluation: In 2010, based on analysis sent to YouthBuild USA from 131 partners, 78% of participants completed the program; 63% of these have obtained their GED or high school diploma; 60% have sought postsecondary education opportunities, or have gained employment earning on average $9.20 an hour. The recidivism rates for court referred YouthBuild participants was 40% lower than the national average. Independent research from 2007 exhibits a return on investment of at least $10.80 and up to $43.90 for every dollar spent on any court referred YouthBuild participant and $7.80 to $11.70 for every participant, based on the percentage of offenders who achieves GEDs or diplomas. Therefore, there is compelling evidence that the program is an effective tool that can be used to rehabilitate these offenders.

Proposed Solutions After extensive research, this project team has concluded that there are numerous causes for violent crime. However, this team believes that the three primary contributing factors for the increase in violence in the City of Montgomery can be attributed to poverty, lack of education, and violent social interaction between some of Montgomery’s at risk neighborhoods. There have been numerous studies conducted that have shown the correlation between poverty, high school drop outs, and violent behaviors. Adolescents and young adults who fall into these categories are unequipped and are usually placed in low skilled jobs where they are compensated at minimum wage. At-risk adolescents are twice as likely to be without work, bring in a limited amount of income, or live well below the poverty level. They are frustrated due to their inability to improve the living standard for their family (Gyimah, 2007). So these young people turn to criminal activities like selling drugs to help their families cope with economic distress (Hagedorn and Macon, 1988). Kenneth Huston, of Future Champs, an economic empowerment organization located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, states, “Drug dealers are not drug dealers because they want to be. They see it as an economic opportunity to help them get out of the ghetto.” He further asserts that we can help them turn their lives around if we get them to utilize their business acumen for legitimate business ventures (Nuttall, 2013). Any proposed crime prevention resolution must afford individuals like these we have mentioned the opportunity to


get some type of occupational training to better their chances for gainful employment (Freeman, 1996). Children growing up in poverty are more inclined to enter school with serious deficiencies in social-emotional readiness, with over 40% exhibiting delays in social capacity and communication skills at the onset of their academic careers and over 20% manifesting high rates of troublesome behavior problems that subvert the classroom environment (Kaiser et al., 2000). They lack the ability to problem solve and utilize necessary coping skills. They consequently drop out of school. Research has shown that criminal social interaction increases crime rates for diverse reasons. Advocates of the social multiplier theory have concluded the following:

(1) Offenders learn from each other through social interaction; therefore they become more ingenious and proficient. You see this a lot when you have youthful offenders who enter the adult prison populations or older gang members inducting the younger gang members.

(2) In high crime neighborhoods, offenders commit offenses and other violent acts to garner their street credibility and respect. Some of these individuals will go so far as to brawl with local police to boost their status in the neighborhood. They see this behavior as self-preservation in a tough neighborhood.

Earnest Blackshear, a psychology professor at Alabama State University, says, “At risk male adolescents residing in the poorest areas in Montgomery grow up feeling like the American Dream is unobtainable. These young men live by a street code; therefore if you disrespect them they will retaliate with violence. They are walking on a tight edge of fear,” (Edgemon, 2013).

Reducing Violent Crime Team Recommendations Our team strategy is to utilize a systems approach to community policing; we want to get to the root of the community’s problem (Cronin, 2009). Our primary objectives are to intervene in the lives of those high risk youth who have already had some brush with the law and to prevent others from going down that same road. We have identified three programs that will either offer some type of social service or educational component to these high risk youth. We are proposing the utilization of the following initiatives: (1) GREAT Program (Gang Resistance and Education Training); (2) PBIS (Positive behavior Interventions and Support); and (3) SAVE (Sentencing Alternative Vocational Enhancement). Our goal is to help restore the sanctity of human life and afford at risk youth the opportunity to become a contributing member of society (Rush, 2008). Expanding Montgomery Public Schools Violence Prevention Efforts Program Description: Montgomery Public Schools Violence Prevention Efforts are a combination of policies, research based, scientifically-validated approaches, legal initiatives, programs and partnerships focused on creating a school culture that eliminates or severely hinders violent behavior. It is divided into three tiers which are aimed at preventing and addressing the mildest to most severe of behaviors that promote violence. Tier I Prevention Efforts involved:


Adoption of Anti-Bullying and Harassment Policy Implementation of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Focused Professional Development Targeted Use of Prevention Curricula

Tier II & III Prevention Efforts involve:

Behavior Analyst/Behavior Intervention/Social Work/Counseling Services Behavior Intervention Clinic School-Based Mental Health Services

In 2008, Montgomery Public Schools implemented an initiative that was designed to encourage positive behavior among students. This initiative is known as the School Wide Positive Behavioral Support Initiative and was funded as part of the Safe Schools and Healthy Students Initiative. Since the initiative began, 52 schools have been trained on the implementation of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.

Program Objective: (1) To reduce the number of new problem behaviors; and (2) prevent the worsening of problem behaviors; and (3) decrease the intensity of current problem behaviors. Program Goals: (1) To improve the Montgomery School System classroom culture; (2) reduce the number of disciplinary actions; and (3) create an environment for academic success. Target Age Group: 5 to 18 years of age Target Gender: Both Target Population: At risk pupils enrolled in the Montgomery Public School System Program Strategy: To develop a culture within the schools that promoted and rewarded good behavior, in hopes or minimizing or eliminating actions which promote violent behavior. The adoption of anti-bully policy was the first step in that process. Montgomery recognized that their prevention efforts could only be successful if led by highly trained school leaders therefore; a focus on professional development was the key. Each school participated in the workshop “Bully Proof Your School” which was sponsored by the Family Sunshine Center using grant funding that was received. They used the “train the trainer” model as the trainees (administrators and counselors) from each school district would then in turn train the staff at their schools, after attending the training themselves. As a part of the Tier I Prevention Efforts, the Montgomery Public School System use targeted prevention curricula to ensure that the message was uniform and consistent. They chose to utilize the Family Sunshine Center’s Bullying Prevention Education Program. They chose to teach “Wise Owl” & “Bully Proof” which are evidence-based curricula that teach social and emotional skills for violence prevention. They also taught “Too Good for Violence” (evidence-based curriculum) in Elementary Schools in all 4th grade classrooms. The program was taught by school counselors as part of their classroom guidance program. This curriculum was extended to 6th, 7th, and 8th grades during the 2011-2012 school year as a part of the Physical Education class. As a part of the Tier II & III Prevention Efforts a Behavior Analyst and Behavior Interventionists are used. A Behavior Intervention Clinic is also available. The analyst reviews the data that has


been collected. For examples they may look at office discipline referrals by month, time of day, places where they occur and other designated factors to find the patterns that exist. This is the task of the analyst. The behavior interventionist interprets the data as related how staff should respond to the data and what specific interventions should be applied to change the behavior. Social workers and Mental Health workers perform the traditional roles as needed regarding the specifics of each case. Montgomery recognizes that that the business of prevention is complex so they involve as many partners as possible. Below are some of their Community Partnerships which help to make a difference in the Montgomery Public Schools.

Respect Others, Create Kindness (ROCK) Task Force Crime-Stoppers Peer Mediation Program Council on Substance Abuse (COSA)

Drug Education Presentations S.T.E.P. Program

In-School counseling services Helping Montgomery Families Initiative

Cost of Implementation: There cost would be minimal because the program currently exists within the school system. Staff qualified to implement and continue the program is also currently in place. In Montgomery each school does their own assessment, as each school has a team of 5 to 10 persons who have been trained for that purpose. They review their own data and as trained, they put together a plan for their school based on that data. Montgomery public schools employ a behavior analyst who is in charge of the program now. That analyst does monthly reports to show what the behavioral data looks like. The School System also employs an interventionist, a social worker, a counselor, psychologist and psychiatrist. Operation Status: Active Evaluations: One of the great characteristics of MPS Prevention Efforts is the automatic continual evaluation process which is completed by each school. The results are organized and sent for analyzing and potential interventions as necessary and the process starts over each month. One example which is demonstrated on the bar graph on page 37 is the reduction in suspensions for serious disciplinary actions, which decreased by over 1800 in one school year. Furthermore, MPS did not try to reinvent the wheel instead they took advantage of the many youth targeted programs that were already being used to address the problems that ultimately contribute to bad behavior. One such program was the truancy portion of the Helping Montgomery Family Initiatives (HMFI) which shared the same clientele as MPS. As a result of their coordination and collaboration, actions to address truancy in ways that require accountability are now being utilized and the result are excellent. The plot lines and pie charts shown on page 17 as a part of the HMFI program are also statistics for MPS and they illustrate that actions to address truancy issues in MPS increased from one attendance letter being sent by the district attorney’s office in 2007 to over two hundred district attorney attendance letters being sent in 2013. Additionally, the statistics on the pies shows that after the initial letter is sent over 80 percent of the offenders require no additional action to achieve compliance.


GREAT (Gang Resistance Education and Training) Program Description: GREAT is a school-based life-skills competency program taught by resource police officers currently employed in the local school districts across the country. GREAT is devised to enable youth to make astute decisions, avoid violent contentions, be responsible, set positive goals, combat peer pressure, and form positive attitudes toward police officers. We are recommending the utilization of this program because it is community oriented, cost effective, and evidence based.

The GREAT Program currently consists of three independent but complementary components:

1. Middle and Elementary School Components: The middle school and elementary school components are skills-based modules fashioned to attain changes in behaviors, attitudes, and awareness through the practice of facilitative teaching, positive behavior reinforcement, symbiotic and interactive learning strategies, and protracted teacher activities. The middle school curriculum component was constructed in 1991 as an eight lesson curriculum. However, after undergoing a one year extensive multidisciplinary study in 2000, the program extended the curriculum to 13 lessons. Noted crime prevention experts explicitly stated that the program needed to affix more emphasis on active learning and increase instructor involvement. In 2001, the revised curriculum was successfully commandeered by 14 cities and in 2003 it was implemented nationally. It is fashioned to provide pupils with the necessary skills to combat gang influence and youth violence. The recommended educational program is fashioned to be taught in the classroom at the introductory level of junior high or middle school. However, the program can be easily initiated at the sixth, seventh, or eighth grade levels as well. It has integrated the National English Language Arts Standards and National Health Education Standards and is based on effective research practices. To date, approximately 134,000 elementary school students and more than 273,000 middle school pupils have undergone GREAT training (Office of Juvenile Justice, 2011).

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

School Year 2011-2012 School Year 2012-2013

Table 9: MPS Suspensions for Serious Disciplinary Actions




2. Summer Outreach Program: The summer component expounds on the school-based curricula by presenting students the opportunity to reinforce their social skills by engrossing themselves in amusing and wholesome activities, adding structure to the summer months. GREAT has fostered alliances with nationally recognized institutions, such as the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Families and Schools Together (FAST), and the National Association of Police Athletic/Activities Leagues, Inc. (PAL). These collaborations galvanize positive relationships among the community, parents, schools, and the law enforcement community. 3. GREAT Family: GREAT Families is a research-based family-fortifying program. This component provides users with a six-session family curriculum and a family/community resource guide. The GREAT Families curriculum employs group interaction, activities, and skills practice to bring on board parents and children. The utilization of this component cultivates positive family functioning and provides struggling parents with new skill sets. Consider the positive impact that this program will have on the local community as a whole. Peter Greenwood, the executive director of the Association for the Advancement of Evidence Based Practice, states that “the most successful community programs emphasize family interactions and provide skills to the adults who supervise and train children.” Program Lessons for GREAT Pupils: The program’s educational modules provides thirteen 30- to 45-minute lessons structured to be taught in chronological order with no less than one day and no more than two weeks between lessons. Several lessons are accompanied by a family contract that the pupil takes home clarifying the lesson and advocating for parent/student interrelationship.

Program Objective: To instruct and certify law enforcement professionals in the GREAT educational curriculum so that they can return to their communities and equip adolescents with the necessary life skills. Upon completion of the training program, the school resource officer is certified to teach the middle school, elementary school, and summer program components. Program Goal: To prevent at risk youth from joining gangs and engaging in violent crimes. Target Age Group: 8 to 16 years of age Target Gender: Both Target Population: School Aged Children Program Strategy: Sworn/certified criminal justice experts are placed in the classroom to teach at risk children the fundamental philosophies of the GREAT Program. The following sworn law enforcement personnel are qualified to become certified GREAT instructors: local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement officers and agents; military police; probation officers; corrections officers (currently employed in the criminal justice system); police officers (reserve, part-time, or retired); and probation officers. In order for the criminal justice professionals to be certified to provide instruction regarding any of the GREAT educational material, successful completion of GREAT Officer Training (GOT) is mandatory. The training furnishes intelligence of current gang trends, while equipping the trainees with the vital skills needed to instruct in a classroom setting. The educational component can be used in partnership with other crime prevention programs to encourage positive relationships among the community, parents, schools, and law enforcement. Cost of Implementation: There are minute costs correlated with the implementation of the GREAT Program in local communities. Our proposal is that current school patrol officers (school resource officers) could undergo the GREAT training program. The training is offered to qualified law enforcement professionals through a federal grant; therefore, the only costs for


the trainees will be travel and meals. If the trainees utilize the instruction offered at their regional training site lodging is provided as well. The City of Montgomery is located in the Southeast region; therefore, the designated training facility for this area will be located in Nashville, Tennessee which should minimize cost.

Once the training program has been completed, the basic classroom program expenditures will be minimal. The pupil’s handbooks and program certificates are furnished free of charge through a federal grant. The certified law enforcement professional will be able to order these materials online. Items like T-shirts, pencils, and pens can be ordered by the certified law enforcement professional through an authorized vendor as motivational tools. Funding Sources: (1) Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Deadline to apply for funding: June10, 2014; (2) Office of Community Policing Services (COP) Deadline to apply for funding: June 23, 2014; (3) Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) (Applications are not being accepted at this time). Funding will be available for 2015. Operation Status: Active Evaluation: The most recent evaluation of the program done by graduate students indicates that one-year and four-year post program surveys of GREAT pupils demonstrated statistically compelling positive program results on the following measures: (1) GREAT pupils possessed a more positive attitude toward law enforcement, (2) GREAT pupils possessed a more positive attitude about law enforcement professionals being in the classroom, (3) Gang involvement was less appealing to the GREAT pupil, (4) GREAT pupils were more equipped to deal with peer pressure, (5) The mutual trust between the GREAT pupil and their local communities was increased, (6) Aggression levels were decreased as pupils learn to utilize self-control, (7) Gang memberships decreased, (8) Pupils discontinued risk seeking behaviors, and (9) GREAT pupils developed an altruistic attitude for their fellow man. An additional component was added to the evaluation where all inclusive surveys were disseminated to teachers and school administrators to assess their response to the GREAT program. This was done because research has shown that local school consideration carries weight in executing crime prevention programs (Carless, 2003; Elias et al., 2003). If local educators conclude that the educational component is difficult to implement and utilize then this component of the GREAT Program is useless (Duffy, 1993). The educators’ assessment resulted in the following statements: (1) 91% of teachers and administrators support law enforcement professionals being in schools, (2) 94% of administrators and 87 percent of teachers are in favor of having GREAT in their local schools, (3) 100% of administrators and 83% of teachers say GREAT addresses problems facing their pupils, (4) 88% of administrators and 80% of teachers agree that GREAT equips pupils with the necessary life skills needed to avoid gangs and violence. The evaluation concludes: “Our multicomponent evaluation found that the GREAT Program is utilized as it is intended and has the expected program effects on youth gang membership and on a number of risk factors and social skills thought to be correlated with gang membership. Results one year post program showed that a 39% reduction in the odds of gang membership among students who had participated in the program; compared to an average of 24% reduction in odds of gang membership for those who had not participated in the program. This was four years following the completion of the GREAT program.


SAVE (Sentencing Alternative Vocational Enhancement) Program Desription: SAVE is an alternative sentencing program that can be implemented in the Montgomery Circuit Court where high risk youthful offenders are afforded the opportunity to get their GED and learn a vocational trade such as air-conditioning, welding, plumbing, electrical, carpentry, and painting. Program Objective: To provide alternative sentencing options for high risk youthful offenders. Program Goal: To reduce the recidivism rate for the targeted population. Target Age Group: 16 to 21 years of age Target Gender: Both Target Population: Convicted youthful offenders Program Strategy: Montgomery Circuit Court judicial officials will utilize alternative sentencing as a means to motivate the youthful offender to stop engaging in criminal activity . Juvenile court cases will be screened by a designated person from the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, the Montgomery District Attorney’s Office, or the Public Defender’s Office to determine the suitability of the program for the selected participant. Program eligibility criteria would include the following: (1) age; (2) education; (3) criminal history; (4) behavioral issues; (5) mental health history; (6) substance abuse history; and (7) employment history. Once the participant has been properly screened and approved for the program, the case will be referred to the SAVE docket. The presiding judge, district attorney, and defense attorney will formulate an individualized performance plan according to the participant’s specific needs. If the participant needs to obtain their GED they will be partnered with an agency who can assist them in doing so. If the youthful offender needs vocational instruction the program can assist the participant in getting enrolled into a program that he has shown interest in. The presiding judicial official will schedule court review dates to ascertain the participant’s progress in the program. Between scheduled court review dates, the participant will be supervised by a probation and parole specialist to ensure the youthful offender’s adherence to the program’s guidelines. The presiding judicial official will have full discretion as to what the sentencing options are. If the youthful offender reoffends, the presiding judge has the discretion to revoke the bail bond and have the participant rearrested by law enforcement. The judicial official can then move the court case from under the auspices of the SAVE program and to the criminal court docket. If the youthful offender adheres to the individulized program plan, the presiding judge can dismiss or nol prosse (latin for “not pursue”) the court case. However, the district attorney does have the option to re-open the case if the program participant reoffends. The decision of the court will be dependent upon the compliance level of the participant. Cost of Implementation: The program will need funding for one full time probation specialist, instructional costs, and other administrative expenditures. Operation Status: Inactive Evaulation: Researchers at area universities could conduct an empirical study to follow program participants for a two year period following the implementation of the SAVE program.


Conclusion The Reducing Violent Crime Project team reviewed seven initiatives involving six different cities. Though some were impressive and most afforded success in a limited, one dimensional way, this team was in search of solutions to problems that were complex and sometimes stemmed generations. With that in mind, we selected three programs that we believed would cover many of the core problems that MPD and other law enforcement agencies encounter when dealing with youthful offenders. Our first choice was GREAT. We value GREAT because the program is cost effective and its core principle is school based life competency skills which are usually lacking in those who find themselves on the wrong side of law enforcement. GREAT’s nation-wide element and the fact that is affiliated with the Boys and Girls club also meant that accessibility to it would not be a problem. Finally, its gang resistance focus was appropriate for us because although, the presence of Gangs in our city are minimal; it is evident that there are small “loosely organized groups” who do battle, and who can shoulder some of the responsibility for the increased homicide number we saw in 2013. The expansion of Montgomery Public Schools (MPS) Prevention Effort was selected because it was the most comprehensive approach that we reviewed. The fact that it is currently implemented in the Elementary and Middle schools in Montgomery and showing promise made it an invaluable choice for our group. Another factor was the components of the three tiers and the proactive approach which allow problems and potential problems to be dealt early and even prevents occurrence in many cases. Additionally, their choice of Positive Behavior Interventions and Support (PBIS) whose core principles acknowledge help and hope for all children, and provide procedures to help that happen in a research based, scientifically validated way was a huge factor. Finally, the comprehensiveness of MPS’s prevention effort is evident by the generous availability of professional staff geared toward assessment, screening, diagnosing and monitoring, and the use of data to accomplish to these tasks. This team is keenly aware that crime will always be present, yet Alabama’s prisons are the most crowded in the country. We recognize that many of the young people who end up in trouble are practicing the only behavior they “know”. We believe that the SAVE program is meant to convey to those youthful offenders who have not committed a violent crime, that the system recognizes that they made a mistake and doesn’t minimize the breaking of the law or the damage they caused, but the system does believe in redemption and second chances. Although their life will now have additional stipulations, they have a chance at making it right and a second chance at making a good life for themselves. We don’t want a world without accountability, but we also can’t imagine a world without grace which has afforded most of us second chances in some form or the other, at some point in our life. Our hope is that our recommendations will be implemented and that we will see violent crime and all crime continue to decrease in Montgomery and ultimately throughout the great State of Alabama.


References Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center. Crime in Alabama 2012. http://acjic.alabama.gov/file-2012_cia.pdf. Azrael, Deborah, Braga, Anthony A., & Obrien, Mallory (2012). Developing the capacity to understand and prevent homicide: An evaluation of the Milwaukee homicide review commission. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute for Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/240814.pdf. Bailey, Muriel (2014, July 26). Alabama crime rate down in 2013, 2014 second consecutive year for decrease. WAFF 48 Nightly News Cast. Huntsville, AL: National Broadcasting Company. Bierman, Karen L., Domitrovich, Celene E., Nix Robert L., Gest, Scott D., Welsh, Janet A., Greenberg, Mark T., Blair, Clancy, Nelson, Keith E., Gill, Sukhdeep (2008). Promoting academic and social-emotional school readiness: The head start REDI program. Child Development, 79, 1802-1817. Bradshaw, Catherine P., Reinke, Wendy M., Brown, Louis D., Bevans, Katherine B., & Leaf, Phillip J. (2008). Implementation of school wide PBIS in elementary schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education & Treatment of Children, 31, 1-26. Braga, Anthony A., Kennedy, David M., Waring, Elin J., Piehl, Anne Morrison (2001). Problem oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: An evaluation of Boston’s operation ceasefire. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 195-225. Braga, Anthony A., & Pierce, Glenn L. (2005). Disrupting illegal firearms markets in Boston: The effects of operation ceasefire on the supply of new handguns to criminals. Criminology & Public Policy, 4, 717-748. Braga, Anthony A., & Weisburd, David L. (2011). The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Empirical evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1-36. Carless, D.R. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task based teaching in primary schools. System, 31, 485-500. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2013, December 27). Five leading causes of death among person ages 10-24, Alabama, 2008-2010. www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence /stats_at-a_glance/al.html City of Jacksonville Office of Juvenile Justice and Offender Based Comprehensive Strategy Annual Report (2009). Jacksonville, FL: Office of Juvenile Justice and Offender Based Programs.


Cohen, Mark A., & Piquero, Alex R. (2008). Costs and benefits of a targeted intervention program for youthful offenders: The YouthBuild USA Offender Project. New York, NY: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York Graduate Center. Council member objects to funding truancy program (2011, September 29). WSFA, Montgomery, AL: National Broadcasting Company. Crimesolutions.gov Cronin, Edward (2009). Law enforcement through community engagement: From productivity to purpose. Reflections, 10, 21-27. Duffy, G.G. (1993). Teachers’ progress toward becoming expert strategy teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 109-120. Dunlop, Tarisi (2013). Why it works: You can’t just PBIS someone. Education Digest, 79, 38-40. Edgemon, Erin (2013). Local experts say Montgomery’s rising rate of violence is driven by poverty. Elliott, Delbert (1994). Serious violent offenders: Onset, developmental course, and termination: The American Society of Criminology 1993 Presidential Address. Criminology, 32, 1-21. Elliott, Delbert (1998). Prevention programs that work for youth: Violence prevention. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science. Esbensen, Finn-Aage, Peterson, Dana, Taylor, Terrance J., & Osgood D. Wayne (2012). Is GREAT effective: Does the program prevent gang joining? Results from the national evaluation of GREAT. St. Louis, MO: University of St. Louis. Farrington, David P. (1986). Age and crime. In Tonry, M., & Morris, N. Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Farrington, David P., Lambert, Sandra, & West, Donald J. (1998). Criminal careers of two generations of family members in the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Crime and Crime Prevention, 7, 85-106. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (2011). 2008-09 Comprehensive Accountability Report: Outcome evaluation, quality assurance and program accountability. Tallahassee, FL: Department of Juvenile Justice. Retrieved from http://www.djj.state.fl.us/Research/PMindex.html. Freeman, R. B. (1996). Why do so many young American men commit crimes and what might we do about it? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, 25-42.


George, Randall (2010). Reverend nettles receives max community achievement award. Montgomery Business Journal, 3. Gertler, Jessica (2013, July 30). Montgomery pastor says new gun law could cause more gunfire. CBS 8. Montgomery, AL: Columbia Broadcasting System. Guarino, Mark (2014, February 19). FBI reports a drop in crime in 2013: Why the rate continues to fall. The Christian Science MonitorWeekly, Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0219/FBI-reports-a-drop-in-crime-in-2013. Gyimah-Brempong, Kwabena. (2007). Crime and Race: A Plea for New Ideas. Review of Black Political Economy, 34, 173-185. Hagedorn, John M., & Macon, Perry (1988). People and folks: Gangs, crime, and the underclass in a rustbelt city. Chicago, IL: Lake View Press. Hand, G., Winokur-Early, K, & Blankenship, J. (2011). Evaluation of Evidence Based Associates Redirections Project: Outcome evaluation report 2011. Tallahassee, FL: Justice Research Center. Hand, G., Winokur-Early, K. Chapman, S., & Blankenship, J. (2011). Redirection Continues to Save Money and Reduce Recidivism: Methodology Appendix. Tallahassee, FL: Justice Research Center. Henry, Bryan (2008, September 18). Enough is enough founder refuses to give up hope in face of recent murder. WSFA 12 Nightly News Cast. Montgomery, AL: National Broadcasting Company. Jackson, Pamela (1991). Crime, youth gangs, and urban transition: The social dislocations of postindustrial economic development. Justice Quarterly, 8, 379-397. Kaiser, A.P., Hancock, T.B., Cai, Xinsheng, Foster, E.M., and Hester, P.P. (2000). Parent reported behavioral problems and language delays in boys and girls enrolled in Head Start classrooms. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 26-41. Kennedy, David M., Piehl, Anne Morrison, & Braga (1996). Youth violence in Boston: Gun markets, serious youth offenders, and a use reduction strategy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59, 147-196. Kennedy, David M., Braga, Anthony A., Piehl, Anne Morrison (2001). Reducing gun violence: The Boston gun project’s operation ceasefire. Washington, DC: U S Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/188741.pdf. Langan, Patrick A. & Levin, David J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 193427.


Lee, Daniel Y., Holoviak, Stephen J. (2006). Unemployment and crime: An empirical investigation. Applied Economic Letters, 13, 805-810. Leslie, Anne (2007). YouthBuild USA youthful offender project year 1. YouthBuild USA (August). (Available at www.youthbuild.org). Loeber, Rolf, Wei, Evelyn, Stouthamer-Loeber, Magda, Huizinga, David, & Thornberry, Terence P. (1999). Behavioral antecedents to serious and violent offending: Joint analyses from the Denver youth survey, Pittsburgh youth study, and the Rochester youth development study. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 8, 245-263. Machi, Sara (2014, January 02). 2013 homicide rates rise in Shreveport, Bossier City. KTBS 3. Shreveport, LA: American Broadcasting Company. Mathur, Sarup R., & Nelson, C. Michael (2013). PBIS as prevention for high risk youth in restrictive settings: Where do we go from here? Education & Treatment of Children, 36, 175-181. Nettles, Edward (2010, July 29). Alabama voices: Calling the village. Nuttall, Rebecca (2013, June 26). Violence prevention group moves in new direction. New Pittsburgh Courier City Edition, pp. A4. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2011). Title V incentive grants for local delinquency prevention programs 2008 Report to Congress (NCJ 231131). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2014). Explanation for offending. Justice Research. (NCJ 243975). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing office. Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (2006). Redirection as effective as residential delinquency programs, achieved substantial cost avoidance. Retrieved from http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0634rpt.pdf. Piquero, Alex R. Farrington, David P., & Blumstein, Alfred (2003). The criminal career paradigm. In Tonry, Michael. Crime and justice: A review of research, 30. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Police Department of Columbus, GA 2013 Crime Statistics. http://www.columbusga.org/police/UCR_stats.htm. Rush, Bobby L. (2008, October 19). Curbing youth violence is something we can do. Michigan Citizen, pp. A7. Sprague, Jeffrey R., Scheuermann, Brenda, Wang, Eugene, Nelson, C. Michael, Jolivette, Kristine, Vincent, Claudia (2013). Adopting and adapting PBIS for secure juvenile justice settings: Lessons learned. Education & Treatment of Children, 36, 121-134.


Stewart, Shelley and Mattie C. Stewart Foundation, October 2008. Inside Out: A message of truth from inside prison wall. (Motion Picture). United States: Piranha Pictures. Sussman, Steve, Earleywine, Mitchell, Wills, Thomas, Cody, Christine, Biglan, Tony, Dent, Clyde W., & Newcomb, Michael D. (2004). The motivation, skills, and decision making model of drug abuse 1 prevention. Substance Use and Misuse, 39, 1971-2016. Swain-Bradway, Jessica, Swoszowski, Nicole C., Boden, Lauren J., Sprague, Jeffrey R. (2013). Voices from the field: Stakeholder perspectives on PBIS implementation in alternative educational settings. Education & Treatment of Children, 36, 135-145. Thompson, Ashley (2013, January 1). Enough is enough campaign to be more active in 2013. CBS 8 Big Story. Montgomery, AL: Columbia Broadcasting System. Tomberg, Kathleen A. (2013). Youth development through service: A quality assessment of the YouthBuild AmeriCorps Program. New York, NY: Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York. U. S. Government of Accountability Office (2007). YouthBuild program: Analysis of outcome data needed to determine long-term benefits, February. GAO-07-82. Winokur-Early, K., Hand, G., & Blankenship, J. (2013). Florida redirection: Cost effective evaluation. Tallahassee, FL: Justice Research Center. www.birminghamal.gov/about-birmingham.aspx www.city-data.com/ www.hsvcity.com www.cdc.gov Yessine, Annie K., & Bonta, James (2009). The offending trajectories of youthful Aboriginal offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 51, 435-472.

REDUCING VIOLENT CRIME - SummaSource...Reducing Violent Crime Page 4 Acknowledgements The project...

Documents

Transcript of REDUCING VIOLENT CRIME - SummaSource...Reducing Violent Crime Page 4 Acknowledgements The project...