Policy Options for Reducing Youth Involvement in Gangs in Low Income Areas

POLICY

Youth and Gangs in Low Income Areas

This assignment is based on Burgess’ concentric model, which divides urban centers into five zones that differ by income levels and distance from the central business district (Allen et al., 2005). Gang activity is more prominent in the ‘loop’ (the CBD), the transition zone, which is characterized by low incomes and slum conditions, and the factory zone, which is dominated by factories and few residential units, thus producing a conducive environment for gangs to operate.

Section 1: The Problem, its Importance, and Causes

Data from the US Department of Justice (DoJ) points to sharp rise in gang violence in the United States over the last decade (Department of Justice, 2020). Gang activity is mostly concentrated in the country’s largest cities (Department of Justice, 2020). In its most recent Youth Gang Survey, the National Gang Center (NGC) identified around 30,000 gangs with a membership of 850,000 operating in the US (National Gang Center, 2019). Over 80 percent of gang activity is concentrated in suburban counties and larger cities, with rural counties accounting for less than 5 percent (National Gang Center, 2019). The estimate of 30,000 gangs is the highest since 1998 and represents an increase of 15 percent from 2005 (National Gang Center, 2019).

Unfortunately, gang activity increases the risk of crime. The National Gang Center (2019) estimates that 13 percent of homicides in the US annually are committed by gangs. In the cities of Los Angeles and Chicago, the cities with the largest numbers of gangs in the US, gangs account for approximately 50 percent of homicides (National Gang Center, 2019). The two cities account for close to 30 percent of all gang-related homicides in the country, while rural counties with fewer or no reported gangs report less than 5 percent of gang-related homicides (National Gang Center, 2019). At the same time, gangs are heavily involved in the sale and illegal distribution of drugs and other controlled substances, increasing the risk of drug-related crime. The National Gang Center (as cited in Barnes et al., 2010), estimates that gang members account for approximately 43 percent of illegal drug sales in the US. This conclusively shows a positive association between gang activity and crime levels.

At the individual level, gang involvement negatively impacts the development and behavior of adolescents and youth. They provide a platform for young people to learn violent and antisocial behavior, which increases the risk of involvement in delinquency (Augustyn et al., 2014). Studies have also shown that youth involved in gangs are less likely than those who are not gang members, to complete high school and are more vulnerable to teenage pregnancies (Augustyn et al., 2014). Other studies have focused on the long-term impact and found that gang involvement increased the risk of crime-involvement and maladaptive parenting behaviour in adulthood (Leeb et al., 2008; Augustyn et al., 2014).

Given the negative impact of gangs on the social fabric of society as well as public safety, it is beneficial to develop programs and interventions that minimize the risk of gang affiliation among the youth. The first step is to identify the causes or risk factors for youth involvement in gangs. Few interventions have been implemented to address the problem, and these are rarely subjected to effective policy evaluation, which breeds ineffectiveness.

Causes of Youth Involvement in Gangs

A lot of literature exists on the risk factors for youth involvement in gangs. A review of the available literature was conducted to identify the most common causes of gang membership among the youth. Studies used as sources of information were based in the US and published in credible peer-reviewed journals. Peer-reviewed studies have been subjected to thorough scrutiny by experts to ensure their quality and validity, which makes them credible sources of information. In addition, the study also obtained expert opinion on the subject matter from Dr. Christopher Edward and Dr. Edmund McGarrell, both professors at Michigan State University, with research interests in the areas of youth violent, street gangs, adolescent development, and crime. The URL links to their academic profiles are provided in the references section of this text.

The literature review and discussions with experts classified the causes of youth involvement in gangs into five: individual factors, family factors, school-related factors, peer-related factors, and community factors.

Higginson et al. (2018) found a positive correlation between gang involvement and prior delinquency, alcohol and substance use, and victimization in childhood and adolescence. According to Higginson et al. (2018), prior delinquency and use of substances interfered with an individual’s belief in moral order, making it easier for them to be develop gang affiliation. At the same time, victimization affects how an individual perceives themselves and others, making them less likely to align with other people’s feelings or show empathy. Lenzi et al. (2014) found that gang affiliation positively correlated with gang affiliation among individuals across the lifespan. Adolescents who have suffered victimization may also join gangs as a means to gain the respect of their peers through intimidation and to satisfy their need to feel loved and accepted (Taylor, 2013).

Lenzi et al. (2014) found that negative family environments were also a cause of gang affiliation among youth and adolescents. A negative family environment is indicated by poor supervision, poor parental management, lack of parental support, gang affiliation among parents, and family dysfunction resulting from divorce and separation that leads to single-parent homes. Poor parental management and lack of strong parent-child bonds increases the risk of consistent indiscipline, particularly when adolescents have nobody to talk to or go unpunished because the parents are too busy or the father is absent. In this case, adolescents join gangs as a means to release frustrations and temporarily ‘act out’ or escape the frustrations they suffer at home (Taylor, 2013). In women-led single parent homes, boys may join gangs as a way of defying the mother’s authority and enhancing their masculinity (Taylor, 2013). In low-income settings, financial difficulties in the family pushes adolescents to join gangs so as to make quick money and satisfy their esteem needs by buying cars and winning the attention of peers (Taylor, 2013).

Studies have also found a strong relationship between gang affiliation and school-related factors such as academic failure, lack of prosocial involvement opportunities, low school attachment, and negative labelling by teachers and schoolmates (James, 1998; Lenzi et al., 2014). According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, poor relations with peers and teachers at school may push adolescents to join gangs in pursuit of the need for love and a sense of belonging (Lenzi et al., 2004). Consistently poor academic performance is also a cause for gang affiliation as it causes frustration that leads one to want to prove their masculinity and toughness in non-conventional ways (Taylor, 2013). In low-income areas, studies have shown that schools lack funding for proper after-school programs (Gottfredson et al., 2004). As such, the youth are left out on the streets as they await their parents to return from work, particularly if the parents cannot afford to pay someone to look after the children during that period (Gottfredson et al., 2004). As they interact with peers, such adolescents could be pushed into gang membership, especially if those with whom they associate are delinquents or gang members themselves.

Finally, community factors that cause gang membership among the youth include high rates of crime and violence, easy access to drugs and illicit substances, existing gangs, ease of obtaining firearms, and norms that support gang activity (Lenzi et al., 2004). Youth living in socially disorganized communities feel unsafe and may join gangs as a means to resist structural violence in the community or in pursuit of protection from other gangs (Lenzi et al.,2004).

Community and institutional school-related factors may require comprehensive policies that are beyond the scope of this text. The policies proposed in the subsequent sections focus on addressing peer-related and individual causes of gang affiliation among the youth.

Section 2: Constraints on Policy

One of the primary constraints is budgetary limitations, which may dictate policy design and prospects of sustainability, particularly for policy options that depend on federal and state funding. Any proposed programs aimed at addressing the identified issue need to operate within certain budgetary allocations and limitations. Budgetary limitations may particularly be a concern in this case because parents in low-income areas may not be in a position to offer meaningful financial contributions towards the sustainability of developed programs.

The second fundamental constraint is legislation. Any programs seeking to address the problem of gang affiliation among the youth in low-income areas will need to be within the confines of applicable state and federal law. The third is resource constraints that may limit policy developers to hiring a certain number of personnel or investing in a certain level of technology that may not be optimum levels for effective implementation. For instance, due to resource constraints, program developers may have to hire a limited number of staff who may not adequately cater for the needs of all youth in an area. These constraints inform the policy options proposed in the next subsection.

Section 3: Description of Policy Options

Based on the identified constraints, this text recommends two policy options to address the problem of youth involvement in gangs. The first is that local community-based institutions (CBOs) such as Boys and Girls Club and the YM/YWCA partner with other stakeholders such as religious institutions to offer out-of-school after-school programs to youth and adolescents in low-income areas on a volunteer basis. The CBOs’ primary role would be to hire volunteer instructors who would offer social skills training, academic assistance, specialty activities such as soccer, sailing, karate, and entrepreneurial activities, arts and crafts, and other forms of recreational activities to adolescents (Gottfredson et al., 2004). Gottfredson et al. (2004) found that the most effective after-school programs were those that incorporated interventions aimed at enhancing character development and building social skills. In this regard, the programs would be structured as to emphasize these two elements by for instance, integrating interventions for individual and group therapy. The CBO could develop grant proposals that would be shared with local stakeholders, requesting for donations in-kind in the form of learning materials and a van for transporting participants. The same funding proposal could be sent to the local crime district board for financial assistance with participants’ snacks during sessions and other small expenses such as telephone and fuel.

The second policy option is to defund other tax programs to provide funding to school-based after-school programs that would be run and managed by school districts. The programs could operate in a similar fashion to the volunteer programs proposed above, and would focus on providing academic support as well as art and craft, environmental conservation, and sports programs to help adolescents aim for a better future. State governments could offer tax credits to parents who enroll their children and also seek federal funding to sustain the program (Gottfredson et al., 2004).

Criteria for Assessing Options

The policy options will be assessed using eight criteria proposed by Savage (2019):

i) Effectiveness – the likelihood that the policy option will achieve the objectives or goals that it was meant to achieve. This criterion ensures that policy options are relevant to the community’s needs

ii) Efficiency – the ability to realize policy goals at the lowest possible cost. This helps to minimize costs given that the program targets low-income areas.

iii) Equity – the extent to which the policy’s cost and benefits demonstrate fairness and justice among the population subgroups

iv) Freedom/liberty – the extent to which the policy restricts or extends the privacy rights and choices of individuals. Programs that are too intrusive or restrictive may be unattractive for the youth, who are the target population.

v) Technical feasibility – whether there is available and reliable technology to implement the policy given the low income levels

vi) Administrative feasibility – whether the implementers have the resources and skills to implement the policy well amidst the identified constraints

vii) Political feasibility – the extent to which elected officials will approve and support the policy’s implementation

The analyst will assess the policy options by gathering data and also engaging selected stakeholders to give their views. They will collect data from participants before and a few months after participating in the program to determine whether the program has effectively reduced the risk of engaging in deviant behaviour. This will provide a means to quantify and evaluate the degree of change in participants. The analyst will also conduct interviews with stakeholders such as volunteers, elected leaders, participants, and parents to understand the policy’s political feasibility, technical feasibility, equity, freedom, and administrative feasibility. Both of these methods will provide a means to obtain first-hand responses and ideas from stakeholders that may not be obtainable through any other means.

Section 4: Actual Comparison of Options on Criteria and Recommendation of the Best Option

i) Effectiveness – after-school programs have been shown to be effective in reducing delinquent tendencies among adolescents. School-based after-school programs may be more effective in reducing gang involvement because they are likely to be more organized and have better access to resources, competent trainers, and good technologies to monitor and track behavioral changes in participants.

ii) Efficiency – the school-based after-school program is more cost-efficient as its benefits will be spread out over a larger number of adolescents in school.

iii) Equity – the school-based after-school program demonstrates fairness in the allocation of government resources as it emphasizes the idea of defunding some existing programs to fund programs in low-income areas.

iv) Freedom/Liberty – the mandatory school-based after school programs limit the ability of participants to take part freely and also limit the choices available in terms of services offered

v) Technical feasibility – the school-based program has access to better technologies than the volunteer community-based afterschool program.

vi) Administrative feasibility –school-based after school programs have the advantage in administrative feasibility as they have more access to human and financial resources, differently from the volunteer-community based program, which depends on donations.

vii) Political feasibility – since the program targets low-income areas and economically-vulnerable populations, both options have a low political risk as elected officials may view it as images of moral conscience. However, the idea to defund other programs to fund the school-based after school program in low-income areas may not be acceptable to elected officials, particularly if the programs to be defunded are part of the leader’s primary agenda.

The school-based afterschool program dominates the community-based volunteer program in 4 of the 7 criteria. This alternative policy option ranks better in two criteria: liberty/freedom and political feasibility. This finding makes school-based afterschool program the optimum policy for addressing the youth gang affiliation problem in low-income areas.

Section 5: Equity Impact Assessment/Analysis

A racial equity impact assessment is one of the requirements for public subsidies and federal funding (Race Forward, n.d.). It is an examination of how different ethnic and racial groups will be affected by a proposed policy or decision (Race Forward, n.d.). The aim of the equity impact assessment is to remedy long-standing inequities and prevent institutional racism (Race Forward, n.d.). As part of the equity impact assessment to assess the possible effects of the policy on different racial groups, the analyst will take the following steps. First, stakeholders will be accurately identified to determine the racial groups that are most affected by the identified problem. Secondly, the analyst will take steps to engage stakeholders from different ethnic groups, particularly those widely affected by the gang problem, in developing and assessing the policy proposals (Race Forward, n.d.). By engaging stakeholders across the ethnic divide, the analyst will ensure that the program contributes towards reducing disparities and discrimination.