Community Policing and Gang Intervention for Social Justice

Introduction

As Howell (2010) points out, youths "join gangs for protection, enjoyment, respect, money, or because a friend is in a gang" (p. 1). In the city of Cincinnati, gang activity among young people is on the rise, and City Council has expressed concerns over how to address this issue. The city of Mesa, Arizona, recently completed the Mesa Gang Intervention Program (MGIP), which focused on crime prevention among youths. This program primarily focused on the law enforcement aspect of the juvenile criminal justice system; however, it incorporated help from case workers, community leaders, probation officers, and youth workers. The program was a major success. As Mesa and Cincinnati are relatively similar in size, it is recommended that Cincinnati get serious about juvenile crime by implementing its own Gang Intervention Program modeled on MGIP. This paper will show why this program makes sense for Cincinnati and what the relevant literature reveals to support it. It will also propose a funding strategy, identify anticipated outcomes, and assess how crime prevention affects social justice within the local community.

Summary of the Jurisdiction

The city of Cincinnati has five districts, and most of the gang-related activity occurs on the East side of the city. To reduce the amount of juvenile crime and to prevent gang-related crime in the city, the jurisdiction can focus its attention on law enforcement interventions that adopt a community-oriented approach to building bridges. The East side currently offers few opportunities for juveniles in the way of enhanced education, positive outlets for development and growth, and potential for upward mobility. This lack of opportunity is a limitation that the city needs to address, and by addressing it through the strategy of crime prevention, the city can effectively accomplish two goals at once.

Comparison to Other Similar Jurisdictions

Mesa, Arizona; Columbus, Ohio; and Louisville, Kentucky are similar jurisdictions. Cincinnati has a population of approximately 350,000 people. Mesa has a population of 500,000. Columbus has a population of 800,000, and Louisville has a population of 600,000.

Using the SARA model and the Problem Analysis Triangle, one can see that the subjects under discussion are ethnic and minority youths who join gangs during adolescence and who end up involved in criminal activity, in juvenile delinquency centers, and later in prisons as adults. The SARA model (Scan, Analyze, Respond, and Assess) shows that gang activity leads to violence in the community: murders, armed robberies, drug dealing, theft, vandalism, and rioting. Business owners, residents, and the homeless are all impacted. The aim of gang intervention programs like the one in Mesa is to address the youth gang problem at both the individual and project-area levels and to reduce delinquency-related gang problems in the city (Spergel, Wa & Sosa, 2005). The problem is confirmed by the escalation of homicides, reported gang activity by minors, increases in vandalism, armed robbery, assaults, and theft, and increases in drug trafficking. The same issues were apparent in Mesa prior to the intervention and are still apparent in Columbus and Louisville (Spergel et al., 2005). The rise in gang-related juvenile crime in Cincinnati has followed an ongoing trend since 2010, following the gentrification of the city's Over-the-Rhine district, which saw minority populations pushed out of their neighborhoods into the East side. The East side has few recreational parks or services for youths and is considerably more impoverished than the rest of the city.

Analysis of the problem shows that the conditions leading to increases in gang-related crime among juveniles include lack of social bond, lack of education, lack of home life stability, lack of alternatives, and lack of employment (Carson & Esbensen, 2019). The data required for analysis includes police reports for violent offenses, drug selling offenses, property offenses, sex offenses, and other offenses, as well as the overall level of arrests for youths (Spergel et al., 2005). Numerous interventions have been performed in the past. The Mesa intervention was one: it was a five-year program utilizing a case-management approach, involving a team of gang police, probation officers, case managers, and outreach youth workers. The Mesa Police Department acted as lead agency and collaborated with the Maricopa Juvenile and Adult Probation Departments, the Mesa School District, and United Way social agencies, and received strong support from the Mesa City Council (Spergel et al., 2005). The intervention aligned with the theory of social disorganization, which posits that "the cause of crime can be found in the environmental conditions within impoverished areas" (Listwan, 2013). Overall, the intervention was successful: participating youth reduced their level of arrests 18% more than comparison youth over a four-year program period compared to an equivalent four-year pre-program period, and the program area also experienced a 10.4% greater reduction in selected youth-typical crime incidents relative to an average of such incidents across three comparison areas (Spergel, Wa & Sosa, 2005).

The appropriate response to this information is for the city to engage in more community outreach, provide more educational seminars in schools, and authorize more street foot patrols that allow officers to better get to know the community and for the community to get to know its officers. There should not be a divide between the community and the police. Communities should know their police officers as they do their neighbors, and vice versa. If gangs are to lose their appeal for young people, police officers need to lead the fight against gang activity by showing young people that a brighter future is available and that there is a way to reach it. Police must work with case workers, youth workers, community leaders, churches, schools, recreational leagues, and local businesses to bring a new culture to the communities that have been hardest hit—such as the East side.

To assess this plan, it will require using a measure like that used in Mesa. The MGIP employed an S/W Gang Involvement Scale, which provided a way to measure the effects of the program in terms of the youth's degree and context of gang involvement at different points in time. Key elements of its success were the coordination of community leaders, organizations, and law enforcement agencies, whose combined and committed effort made the difference. To measure outcomes over five years, logistical regression analysis was used; in total, 10,933 services, 11,893 direct worker contacts, and 3,140 coordinated worker contacts were provided by project workers to program youth. The Mesa Police kept records on all these contacts, overseeing the entire program and supporting it through their active presence in the community.

Conclusion: How Crime Prevention Affects Social Justice in the Community

In conclusion, crime prevention of the sort proposed herein would allow social justice to flourish in the Cincinnati community. At present, social injustice has prevailed for the benefit of private investors who have profited from rising property values in Over-the-Rhine. The population living there prior to revitalization has been displaced to the East side, which is now experiencing higher gang-related crime numbers. There are too few opportunities for youths on the East side to find themselves, build confidence, learn skills, and develop their potential. The city police can help pave the way to a brighter future through community policing, but they need help from community leaders, case workers, youth workers, churches, local businesses, and schools to create alternatives for young people who might otherwise end up in a gang, then in juvenile delinquency, and ultimately in prison. The MGIP program has demonstrated that crime prevention strategies work. For the sake of social justice, a similar strategy should be implemented in Cincinnati.

References

Aguiar, C. M., & Leavell, S. (2017). A statewide parenting alternative sentencing program: Description and preliminary outcomes. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 87(1), 78–93.

Carson, D. C., & Esbensen, F. A. (2019). Gangs in school: Exploring the experiences of gang-involved youth. Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice, 17(1), 3–23. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1541204017739678

Daly, K. (2016). What is restorative justice? Fresh answers to a vexed question. Victims & Offenders, 11(1), 9–29.

Howell, J. (2010). Gang prevention: An overview of research and programs. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/231116.pdf

Listwan, S. J. (2013). Introduction to juvenile justice (2nd ed.). Retrieved from

Petrosino, A., Petrosino, C. T., & Buehler, J. (2005). "Scared Straight" and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 1(1), 1–62.

Spergel, I., Wa, K., & Sosa, R. (2005). Evaluation of the Mesa Gang Intervention Program (MGIP). School of Social Service Administration, The University of Chicago.