Alive at 25

47 Pages·2004·0.91 MB·English

A
L I V E
AT
25
Reducing Youth Violence Through Monitoring and Support
Wendy S. McClanahan
Field Report Series
Public/Private Ventures June 2004
A
L I V E
AT
25
Reducing Youth Violence Through Monitoring and Support
Wendy S. McClanahan
Field Report Series
Public/Private Ventures June 2004
Public/Private Ventures is a Board of Directors Research Advisory
national nonprofit organiza- Siobhan Nicolau, Chair Committee
tion that seeks to improve the President Jacquelynne S. Eccles, Chair
Hispanic Policy Development Project
effectiveness of social policies University of Michigan
Gary Walker
and programs. P/PV designs, President Ronald Ferguson
Kennedy School of Government
tests and studies initiatives Public/Private Ventures
Robinson Hollister
that increase supports, skills Amalia Betanzos Swarthmore College
President
and opportunities of residents Wildcat Service Corporation Alan Krueger
of low-income communi- Yvonne Chan Princeton University
ties; works with policymakers Principal Reed Larson
Vaughn Learning Center University of Illinois
to see that the lessons and
Mitchell S. Fromstein Milbrey W. McLaughlin
evidence produced are re- Chairman Emeritus David Jacks Professor of Education and
flected in policy; and provides Manpower Inc. Public Policy
Stanford University
training, technical assistance Christine L. James-Brown
President and CEO Katherine S. Newman
and learning opportunities to United Way International Kennedy School of Government
practitioners based on docu- John A. Mayer, Jr. Laurence Steinberg
mented effective practices. Retired, Chief Financial Officer Temple University
J.P. Morgan & Co. Thomas Weisner
Matthew McGuire UCLA
Vice President
Ariel Capital Management, Inc.
Maurice Lim Miller
Director
Family Independence Initiative
Anne Hodges Morgan
Consultant to Foundations
Marion Pines
Senior Fellow
Institute for Policy Studies
Johns Hopkins University
Cay Stratton
Director
National Employment Panel,
London, U.K.
William Julius Wilson
Lewis P. and Linda L. Geyser
University Professor
Harvard University
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people and agencies in Philadelphia Georgio Fox and Suzanne Seigel from
have contributed to the Youth Violence the Philadelphia Police Department; Jo
Reduction Partnership (YVRP) in impor- Ann Lawer, Anthony Nazzario and Denise
tant ways. The William Penn Foundation Clayton from Philadelphia Safe and Sound;
funded P/PV’s involvement in the devel- Jim Randolph and Anne Marie Ambrose
opment of YVRP, and generously sup- from the Department of Human Services,
ported the last five years of P/PV’s work Juvenile Justice Services Division; W. Kevin
evaluating the program. Reynolds, Frank Snyder and Joe Ciarone
from Adult Probation and Parole; Barry
John J. DiIulio, Jr., former senior advisor
Savitz from Behavioral Health Systems;
and board member at P/PV, played a
Judge Kevin Dougherty, Jim Sharp, James
critical role in the initiative’s start-up,
King and Irwin Gregg from Juvenile
bringing together Philadelphia leaders
Court; Cathie Abookire, George Mosee,
around the issue of youth violence.
Laurie Williamson and Michael Cleary
Joseph Tierney, former vice president of
from the District Attorney’s Office; Inez
Greater Philadelphia Initiatives at P/PV,
Love, Jr., Rocko Holloway and James
was a major contributor to YVRP’s early
Paige from Philadelphia Anti-Drug/Anti-
implementation. His determination and
Violence Network; Gwendolyn Morris
leadership expertly guided P/PV’s evalu-
from the School District of Philadelphia;
ation of YVRP from 1998 through 2002.
Joseph Tierney, now at the University of
Finally, instrumental to YVRP’s success
Pennsylvania, and Paul Jay Fink from the
are the co-chairs of the initiative—John
Youth Homicide Review Team. Laurie
Delaney, Deputy District Attorney, and
Williamson and Michael Cleary have kept
Naomi Post, former President and CEO
YVRP on track as project directors. The
of Philadelphia Safe and Sound—who
Management and Operations Committees
have both committed their careers to
are also central to the partnership’s success.
saving the lives of Philadelphia youth and
making the city’s most violent neighbor- Many people at P/PV contributed to this
hoods safer. Their leadership has mo- report. Bill Hangley, Jr., culled through
tivated others and has made YVRP the years of qualitative data to unearth the
strong collaborative effort that it is today. youth’s views on the partnership. He also
helped with early drafts. Shawn Bauldry
Many thanks are due to the city officials,
and Nikki Johnson expertly analyzed years
agencies, clergy members and others
of monthly data reports and homicide
who so diligently stuck with YVRP
and violence data. Chrissy Labs, Carol
during its development, start-up and
Kersbergen and Lindsay Sciandra helped
early implementation. District Attorney
collect the monthly data for this report,
Lynne Abraham; John Timmony, former
and Angela Jernigan, William McKinney
Police Commissioner of Philadelphia,
and Becca Raley interviewed partici-
and his successor, Police Commissioner
pants and staff. Gary Walker and Karen
Sylvester Johnson; the Honorable James
Walker provided feedback on drafts of
Fitzgerald, Administrative Judge of the
the report. Bryon Johnson reviewed drafts
Trial Division; the Honorable Myrna
and helped organize the literature review
Field, the Administrative Judge of Family
for the report. Jana Moore edited the
Court; and Former Mayor Ed Rendell
report and provided critical advice about
and his successor, Mayor John Street, all
its form; Joanne Camas did the final
provided strong support for the partner-
copyediting. Chelsea Farley organized the
ship. The leadership of YVRP’s Steering
production of this report, and Malish and
Committee has also been essential. The
Pagonis developed the graphic design.
committee’s members include Patricia
Much appreciation is also due to the
hard-working probation officers, street
workers and police officers and their
supervisors, who carry out the day-to-day
operations of the partnership. They have
the commitment and determination to
make YVRP work and to help save the
lives of youth whom many others have
given up on.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly,
congratulations to the YVRP participants
for their efforts to turn their lives around,
make better choices and help their neigh-
borhoods become safer places to live.
FOREWORD
It is easy and probably wise to avoid representing on the cover of a report the
real horror of some young people’s lives. As Susan Sontag notes in her recent book,
Regarding the Pain of Others, it is not at all certain that such images stimulate
compassion—or when they do, that it is actionable compassion.
Still, at P/PV, we think it is important to remember that some young people live with
death as a daily threat; some also embody that threat to others. These youth, though
modest in number, influence the daily lives of those around them to an astonishing
degree. They can “set the tone” for a neighborhood.
This report tells the story and some of the results of the Youth Violence Reduction
Partnership (YVRP), an innovative effort to identify those youth in particular high-
crime neighborhoods “most likely to kill or be killed”—and to offer them both in-
creased support and opportunities and increased supervision and monitoring. The
increased supervision also leads to a greater likelihood that YVRP participants will be
caught if they do commit a crime.
YVRP’s close collaboration between community organizations, the district attorney’s
office, the police department, the judiciary, and probation and parole has produced
promising results—namely, an increase in the number of young people “alive at 25.” It
bears repeating in high-crime neighborhoods around the country.
Gary Walker
President
Public/Private Ventures
1
1
INTRODUCTION
The world remains a threatening, often dangerous place for children and youth.
And in our country today, the greatest threat to the lives of children and
adolescents is not disease or starvation or abandonment, but the terrible reality
of violence.
Donna Shalala,
former Secretary of Health and Human Services
Few would disagree with the notion that of key resources and supports, which,
violence in the United States remains at combined with geographic and economic
unacceptably high levels. Even with recent isolation, has been found to be associ-
declines in lethal violence, homicide ated with high rates of crime and violence
rates in the U.S. are dramatically higher (Wilson, 1987). Other research highlights
than they were in the 1950s and 1960s. the role that weak neighborhood net-
More troubling still is the realization works play in crime. Weak social networks,
that perpetrators and victims of violence such as those found in impoverished and
are often youth and young adults. From ethnically diverse neighborhoods, reduce
1996 through 1999, 1,460 people in a community’s ability to support youth
Philadelphia died at the hands of another, and (informally) supervise their behavior
and, as in most urban areas, almost two (Sampson & Groves, 1989).
thirds of the murderers and 40 percent of
While neighborhood conditions contribute
the victims were 24 years old or younger
to youth violence, so do other family and
(Tierney, McClanahan and Hangley, 2001).
individual risk factors. Family dysfunction
(Zingraff, Leiter, Myers and Johnson, 1993;
The Causes of Youth Violence
Farrington, 1989; McCord, McCord and
Research on crime and delinquency points Zola, 1959), involvement with antisocial
to a host of individual, social and eco- peers (Lipsey and Derzon, 1998), being
nomic conditions that contribute to this a victim of violence (Lipsey and Derzon,
violence. Some theories posit that neigh- 1998; Widom, 1989; Farrington, 1989) and
borhood decay and poverty in American substance abuse (Lipsey and Derzon, 1998)
urban centers cause many young people to are all associated with youth violence.
reject the prospect that they will ever have
But clearly not all youth who experience
legitimate opportunities for success. It is
these hardships turn to crime and violence.
not uncommon for youth raised in such
We know that certain factors can protect
high-crime areas to expect to die young.
or shield youth from exposure to specific
Consequently, many accept crime, drug use
risks for violence. Protective factors like an
and ultimately violence as means of escaping
intolerant attitude toward deviance and
or coping with such hardships (Anderson,
violence, a commitment to school, positive
1999; Wilson, 1987; Maruna, 2001).
peers, a strong and positive attachment
Others emphasize that urban neighbor- to parents and religious commitment
hoods high in violence are isolated from have been linked to reductions in various
the mainstream American labor market. forms of antisocial behavior (Resnick et al.,
These neighborhoods are populated by 1997). These factors have been shown to
individuals lacking training and skills, protect at-risk youth from deleterious out-
with little or no experience in the work- comes such as gang involvement, drug use
force or long bouts of unemployment and and drug dealing (Johnson et al., 2000a,
minimal education. They face a dearth Jang and Johnson, 2001).
2 3
The Challenge of Reducing Youth Although a secular undertaking, YVRP
Violence drew its inspiration from what has become
known as the Boston Miracle.1 In the
Researchers and practitioners know what
1990s, in response to a dramatic increase
contributes to violence. They also un-
in youth homicide in Boston and frustra-
derstand the factors that protect young
tion with existing programs designed to
people from violence. And yet, they have
intervene with violent youth, a faith-based
been largely unsuccessful in designing
coalition implemented a unique initiative
interventions that reduce such violence.
that combined intense supervision of
Well-known efforts like boot camps, shock
high-risk youth by police and parole
probation, intensive supervision and even
officers with significant support services
community policing have failed to yield
from outreach workers. Boston officials
evidence that systematically links such
have acknowledged the importance of the
interventions or approaches to reduced
program in contributing to a 75 percent
youth violence. Some juvenile awareness
decrease in the city’s murder rate.
programs, such as Scared Straight, have
been shown to actually increase crime Recognizing the success of Boston’s
(Morris and Tonry, 1990; Petrosino et al., model, Philadelphia’s city officials set out
2003). The intensive probation programs to implement a similar program to stem
of the 1980s and 1990s also showed no the tide of youth violence. With sup-
long-term reduction in recidivism rates port from the William Penn Foundation,
(Petsilia, 1999; Petersilia and Turner, Public/Private Ventures (P/PV)—led by
1993; Sherman et al., 1997). Further, John J. DiIulio, Jr.—brought together the
there is little experimental evidence on city’s key law enforcement officials, other
the effectiveness of general community agency heads, and community leaders
policing efforts (Sherman, et al., 1997; working on the issue of youth violence
Websdale, 2001; Wilson and Kelling, 1982; (see Appendix A for a list of agencies that
Wilson, 1987, 1993, 1996). participated in YVRP’s development).
Visits to Boston’s program and early YVRP
It is reasonable to ask why it has been so
planning meetings culminated in a firm
difficult to systematically reduce youth
commitment to develop a multi-agency
violence in America. Although we are
effort that would reduce youth violence
not certain of the answer, it is instructive
in Philadelphia (for more information
to note that none of the programs listed
on the history of YVRP, see Tierney and
above are explicitly designed to confront
Loizillon, 1999).
young people’s violent behavior and life-
styles while simultaneously directing them YVRP began operations in June 1999. Its
toward activities and supports that pro- goal was to steer youth, ages 14 to 24 years
mote pro-social or conventional behavior. old and at greatest risk of killing or being
killed, toward productive lives. The vast
Philadelphia’s Youth Violence Reduction majority of youth participating in YVRP
Partnership have survived against overwhelming odds—
omnipresent guns and drugs, economic
In 1999, seeking to reduce Philadelphia’s
and educational deprivation, and un-
homicide rate and put violent youthful
stable upbringings. The youth in YVRP
offenders on the path to a productive
live in the most violent neighborhoods
adulthood—and aware of the challenges
in Philadelphia, and many have seen
inherent doing so—various youth-serving
or been involved in horrible acts of
organizations and criminal justice agen-
violence. Almost all YVRP participants
cies partnered to found the Youth
are under court supervision, meaning
Violence Reduction Partnership (YVRP).
they have a probation or parole officer,
and most have been convicted of or
2 3
adjudicated2 on a violent or drug-related to help connect the young offenders to
charge at least once. school, work or counseling while ensuring
strict enforcement of their probation.
YVRP is unique in that it provides par-
ticipants with increased support and Later in this report, we will outline YVRP’s
increased supervision. Violent offenders accomplishments in detail. In general,
on non-YVRP probation typically have a YVRP is serving youth as intended and is
much different experience from that of getting them involved in positive activities.
YVRP’s participants. Probation depart- Preliminary evidence also suggests that
ments are short on resources, and adult YVRP is stemming homicides and keeping
probation officers in Philadelphia face high-risk youth and young adults alive in
caseloads as large as 250 individuals. targeted communities.
Most adult probationers in Philadelphia
• From June 1999, when the program
see their officer no more than once a
began, to July 2003, when research for
month, in the probation office, for about
this report ended, YVRP served more
five minutes—too little time to make a
than 800 young people.
meaningful difference in a person’s life.
While juvenile probation officers handle • Each month, on average, YVRP partici-
smaller caseloads, they still face many pants are seen by YVRP staff about nine
situations that demand far more support times in their homes and five or six
than they can provide. It is simply not times elsewhere.
realistic to expect that probation officers,
• Typically, 56 to 84 percent of YVRP
by themselves, will be able to meet the
participants are involved in some kind
vast needs posed by the high-risk proba-
of positive support.
tioners they supervise.
• There has been a significant decrease
In YVRP, street workers, smaller caseloads
in the number of homicides in the dis-
and police partnerships help to bridge
tricts where YVRP has been operating.
the gaps. In consultation with probation
officers, street workers develop mentoring
Goals of the YVRP Study
relationships with the participants and
connect them with critically needed As part of the founding team, P/PV docu-
social supports ranging from mental mented YVRP’s implementation from the
health counseling to jobs. Furthermore, start. With the generous support of the
in YVRP, probation officers have much William Penn Foundation, P/PV set out
smaller caseloads, allowing them time to to answer two questions:
more closely supervise their probationers.
What does it take to develop and implement a
Police are central to YVRP’s work, as well.
collaborative youth violence reduction initiative?
Police accompany probation officers to
the homes and hangouts of YVRP partici- What early challenges arise and what successes
pants, reminding them that the police can be achieved?
support probation; importantly, these
This report was designed primarily to de-
visits also mean that police can interact
scribe the YVRP program and to show the
with community members outside of the
preliminary link between YVRP and youth
context of enforcement.
violence reduction in Philadelphia. A
YVRP involves more than 10 public and second report will examine the nuts and
private organizations and a line staff of bolts of YVRP implementation—in that
more than 50 police officers, probation report, we will provide details about the
officers and street workers. The line staff challenges and obstacles of implementing
members aim to see YVRP participants and YVRP. Further research will ascertain if
their families more than 25 times a month the program has helped participants in
definitive ways.