HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/23/2007~~ ~O ~,
.o. 1" a$
Kern County
Michael Rubio, Supervisor - Co-Chair
Ray Watson, Supervisor
Staff: Adel Klein
City of Bakersfield
Irma Carson, Councilmember - Co-Chair
Zack Scrivner, Councilmember
Jacquie Sullivan, Councilmember
Staff: John W. Stinson
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE JOINT CITY/COUNTY
STANDING COMMITTEE TO COMBAT GANG VIOLENCE
August 23, 2007, 9:30 a.m.
Kern County Administrative Center
Board of Supervisor's Chambers
1115 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
AGENDA
ROLL CALL
1. Public Presentations
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons to address the Committee on any matter not on this agenda
but under the jurisdiction of the Committee. Committee members may respond briefly to statements made or
questions posed. They may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff for factual information or
request staff to report back to the Committee at a later meeting. Also, the Committee may act to direct the staff
to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Please state your name and address for the record before
making your presentation. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES.
2, Committee Member Announcements or Reports
3. Hear Report on Recent Gang Activity -Police Chief Bill Rector, Sheriff Donny Youngblood
4. Report tin Intervention and Prevention Activities Status -Supervisor Michael Rubio
5. Determination of Intervention, Prevention, and Suppression Progress Benchmarks
6. Establish Agenda for Next Meeting
7. Establish Next Meeting Date and Time
ADJOURNMENT
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
(Government Code Section 54953.2)
Disabled individuals who need special assistance to attend or participate in a meeting of the Joint City/County
Standing Comrroittee to Combat Gang Violence may request assistance at the County Administrative Office, 1115
Truxtun Avenue., Bakersfield, or by calling 661/868-3198. Every effort will be made to reasonably accommodate
individuals with disabilities by making meeting materials available in alternative formats. Requests for assistance
should be made five (5) working days in advance wherever possible.
C:\DOCU ME-1 \alawrenc\LOCALS-1 \Temp\XPGrpW ise\AGEN DA082307.doc
I~ - - ~o ,,
c
.vA- ~'ii n9~ I
Gang Violence in Kern County:
A Strategic Plan
JOINT CITY /COUNTY STANDING COMMITTEE
TO COMBAT GANG VIOLENCE
Kern County Board of Supervisors:
Michael Rubio, Supervisor - Co-Chair
Ray Watson, Supervisor
Bakersfield City Council:
Irma Carson, Councilmember - Co-Chair
Mike Maggard, Councilmember
Jacquie Sullivan, Councilmember
STRATEGIC PLAN WORKGROUP MEMBERS
JVERALL GOAL
INTRODUCTION
PREVENTION
PREVENTION OBJECTIVE #1
STRATEGY #1
STRATEGY.#2
STRATEGY #3
INDICATORS
rREVENTION OBJECTIVE #2
STRATEGY #1
STRATEGY #2
STRATEGY #3
INDICATORS
INTERVENTION
INTERVENTION OBJECTIVE #1
"RATEGY #1
STRATEGY #2
STRATEGY #3
INDICATORS
INTERVENTION OBJECTIVE #2
STRATEGY #1
STRATEGY #2
STRATEGY #3
INDICATORS
SUPPRESSION
'OPPRESSION OBJECTIVE #1
STRATEGY #1
STRATEGY #2
STRATEGY #3
INDICATORS
SUPPRESSION OBJECTIVE #2
STRATEGY #1
STRATEGY #2
STRATEGY #3
INDICATORS
'3UDGETARY DISCUSSION
IMPLEMENTATION
EVALUATION
NEXT STEPS
The Color of Justice:
An Analysis of Juvenile Adult Court Transfers in California
By Mike Males, PhD and Dan Macallair, MPA
I. Introduction
Over the past 6 years, 43 states have instituted legislation facilitating the transfer of children to the adult
court. The impact of these laws is the gradual erosion of the 100-year-old juvenile justice system.
Founded on the belief that children were entitled to a range of special protections due to their
vulnerability and immaturity, the juvenile court was intended to separate youth from the deleterious
effects of the adult justice system. Inherent in these special protections was the belief that children,
because they have not established fixed criminal careers, were more amenable to adult guidance and
intervention. In addition, social commentators frequently noted that adult prisons and jails were little
more than factories "of vice and viciousness." As a result, within 25 years juvenile courts were in place
in every state.
However, in the past two decades, the juvenile justice system and its underlying premise of treatment
and rehabilitation have come under attack as being too lenient, especially with regard to its capacity to
handle the supposedly more violent, delinquent youth of the 1980s and 1990s. Conservative critics
charged that in the absence of harsh treatment, the system's ability to deter today's allegedly
unprecedented delinquent and violent youth was compromised. When serious youth crime, particularly
homicide, rose during the late 1980s, the conservative ideology of deterrence and incapacitation
received greater credence. Legislators raced to quell growing public fear of youth crime by passing ever-
harsher legislation and demanding penalties commensurate with those given adults. At the present time,
all 50 states have laws on the books allowing juveniles to be tried as adults.'
There is a dearth of research analyzing the effects of this legislation on minority populations. Many
critics charge that the growing numbers of youths being transferred to adult court for criminal
prosecution are disproportionately minority, with African Americans and Hispanics receiving
particularly discriminatory treatment. This contention is supported by studies showing that California's
harsher adult sentencing practices disproportionately affect minority groups. For example, a 1996 study
by the Justice Policy Institute found that compared to whites ("whites" refers to non-Hispanic Anglos),
African Americans were five times more likely to be arrested for felonies, seven times more likely to be
sent to prison, and 13 times more likely to be sentenced under the State's "Three Strikes" law.
At a time when laws affecting the criminal prosecution of youths are being rapidly revised, it is vital to
unde:-stand fully the consequences of these changes. This research examines the impact of adult court
transfers and sentencing on minority youth in California, with a specific look at minority representation
in waivers (transfers of juvenile offenders to adult criminal court) in Los Angeles County.
http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/colorofjustice/coj.html 9/27/2005
II. Research Review on Juveniles in the Justice System
Several recent studies suggest that minority youth are overrepresented at every stage of the justice
system. For example, in a 3-year study of youth in Florida's juvenile justice system, researchers found:
Minority juveniles processed for delinquency offenses in 1987 received more severe (i.e.,
more formal and/or more restrictive) dispositions than their white counterparts at several
stages of juvenile processing. Specifically, we found that when juvenile offenders were
alike in terms of age, gender, seriousness of the offense which promoted the current referral,
and seriousness of their prior records, the probability of receiving the harshest disposition
available at each of several processing stages was higher fox minority°youth-than-for white
youth.2 . _ . _
These disparities were found at every stage of the juvenile justice system. In addition, follow-up
discussions with juvenile justice "decision-makers" revealed that most believed that race was a factor in
decision making.3 Moreover, a study of the juvenile justice system in California found that minority
youth, particularly African American and Hispanic youth, consistently received more severe dispositions='`~
than white youth, and are more likely to be committed to state institutions than white youth for the same
offenses. These findings were consistent with research in other states. For example:
According to a study by Hamparian and Lieber, CaTi'ftsrnia~~had tfie highest numbei-~of
juveniles - 19,567 - in custody in public facilities. Minorities comprised 53.4% of the youth
population statewide, but they accounted for 59% of all juveniles arrested, almost 64% of
the juveniles held in secure detention and 70% of the juveniles placed in secure corrections.'
In Ohio, there were 3,551 juveniles held in custody in public facilities. Minorities comprised 14.3oIo of
the youth population statewide, but they accounted for 30% of the juveniles arrested and 43% of the
juveniles placed in secure corrections.s
In Texas, there were 3, 505 juveniles held in custody in public facilities. Minorities comprised 50% of
the youth population statewide, but they accounted for 65% of the juveniles held in secure detention,
80% of the juveniles placed in secure corrections, and 100% of the juveniles held in adult jails.b
Defenders of current practice argue that these large discrepancies in confinement of minorities result
from differential crime patterns among young people in different racial groups and is not reflective of
racial bias or discrimination in the justice system. However, others argue that racial disparities in the
criminal justice system are the direct result of discrimination.' While the preponderance of studies
indicate some level of bias against minority defendants, the issue remains controversial.€
III. MetlZOdology
This study utilized data collected from the Los Angeles County Probation Department Research
Division, Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, California Youth Authority Research Division,
California Department of Justice Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Department of Finance
Demographic Research Division and the United States Bureau of the Census. The years examined were
1996-98 (arrestees) and 1997-99 (sentencings). Both sets of three-year periods are the most recent for
juvenile arrests and juveniles transferred to adult court. The one-year difference takes into account that
sentencings occur substantially after arrests. Due to the absence of uniform county reporting standards,
adult court transfer statistics from Los Angeles County (which accounts for 40%n of California's juvenile
http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/colorofjustice/coj.html 9/27/2005
transfers to adult court) were used. The most recent data available (1996) were used for the purposes of
the Los Angeles analysis.
The analysis compares the proportions of white, African-American, Hispanic and Asian/Others in the
total juvenile (age 10-17) population and in the total number of juvenile arrestees by offense category
with the respective proportions of their transfers to adult court and sentencings to a California Youth
Authority (CYA) facility. The purpose of this analysis is to test the hypothesis that minority youth are
disproportionately transferred to adult court and sentenced to incarceration compared to white youths in
similar circumstances.
IV. Results
Los Angeles County Analysis (1996)
By population proportions. In 1996, whites comprised 25%, Hispanics 51%, African Americans 13%,
and Asians and other races 11% of Los Angeles County's population between ages 10 and 17 (Table 1).
However, Los Angeles Probation Department data reveal that Hispanic, African American, and
Asian other youth accounted for 95% of the cases where youth were found "unfit" for juvenile court and
transferred to adult court in 1996 (Table 1). Hispanic youth accounted for the largest percentage of cases
found unfit (59%). Expressed as a rate per 100,000 population age 10-17 by race, 11 white, 64 Hispanic,
134 African American, and 30 Asian/other youths were found unfit in 1996. Thus, Hispanic youth are 6
times more likely, African American youth are 12 times more likely, and Asian/other youth 3 times
more likely than white youths to be found unfit for juvenile court and transferred to adult court in Los
Angeles County.
Table 1. Los Anggeles County Minority~outh are transferred
to adult court 2.5 times more than w ute youth after arrest
rates for serious crimes are controlled, 1996
Percerrt oL• 1Nhite Hispanic Black Asianlofher Number
Pop. 10-17 24.7% 51.4% 12.6% 11.3% 998,400
Arrests for:
Uolentcrime 10.4% 51.7% 32.3% 5.6% 7,253
Homicide 2.S 53.9 31.5 11.8 17g
Rape 7.7 45.4 42.3 4.6 130
Robbery 7.1 51.6 36.6 4.8 3,691
Propertys cui me 12.6 56.3 23.4 7.8 1 1,481
Drug felonies 12.8 65.6 19.1 2.5 2,672
All felonies 12.2% 56.0% 25.4% 6.4% 24,013
Transfers to
aduk courtr 5.0% 58.8% 30.1 % 6.1 % 561
Soarce: California Yoatk AatkorrPy, Research divisroa, prraioat byy reQaest, Jaaeary 2000.
California de»iaad dastice Statisires Ceatcw. "CaJiforaia CYb»iRal Jasrice ?rofdes,' Cos
Angeles Coaaty, 15'96, 7aA~e 2~. Sacramento: California De~arrf»eat of Jastrce.
By arrest proportions. It may be argued that the disproportionate .transfer of minority youth to adult
court reflects not discrimination in the transfer system, but the higher arrest rate of minority youth for
serious crimes. This argument is explored in Table I and Figures 1-4.
Figure 1 shows Los Angeles minority youth indeed have higher arrest rates for felony violent crimes
(murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) ranging from 1.2 times (Asian) to 6.1 times (Black) the
arrest rates for white youth. While some of this discrepancy may reflect racial biases in the arrest and
charging system, the result is that the pool of violent arrestees (those most likely to be transferred to
adult court) is disproportionately minority.
http://«~ww.buildingblocksforyouth.org/colorofjustice/coj.html 9/27/2005
Figure 1: L.A. Nonwhite youth violent felony
arrest rates 1.2x to Bx white rates
1996 violence arrests1100i000 age 10-17
All else being equal, we would expect that the proportions of juveniles transferred to adult court and
sentenced to CYA facilities would reflect roughly the same racial breakdown as for violent crime
arrests. However, Figure 2 shows all else is not equal. Los Angeles' transfer rate to adult court for
minority violence arrestees is double that for white violence arrestees. Perhaps, then, minority youth
violence arrestees are accused of more heinous violent crimes or have lengthier criminal records than
white violence arrestees.
youth
Transfersf1,000 violent felony arrests
Examination of the arrest categories suggests little reason for such great racial disparity in transfers of
violent crime arrestees to adult court. For the rarer but more violent offenses most likely to result in
transfer, minority youth offenders are overrepresented for homicide and white youth offenders for rape.
In terms of the more common offenses, minority arrestees tend more toward robbery and white arrestees
more toward aggravated assault. Since aggravated assault by definition involves use of a weapon and/or
serious injury to the victim while robbery constitutes only face-to-face taking of the victim's property
with or without injury, assault would seem a more serious victimization on average and therefore more
likely to occasion transfer. Further, while previous studies have found minority youth are treated more
http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/colorofjustice/coj.html _ 9/27/2005
White All nonwhite Hispanic Black Asian
youth
Figure 2: Violent nonwhite youth arrestees tried
in adult court 2x more than whites
harshly by the justice system than white youths with equivalent criminal records, the state data available
to this study are not sufficient to examine this question. In order to justify a doubled rate of transfer, the
criminal records of minority arrestees would have to be consistently and substantially longer than for
white arrestees accused of similaz violent crimes.
Figure 3 shows that adult courts are considerably more likely to sentence African American and
Asian other offenders to prison than Hispanic or white convicts. The difference is considerable, but it is
based on only 292 sentencings in 1996. The statewide data o^ this subject for 1997-99 shown. in Table 2
and Figure 5 may be more reliable.
Figure 3: Black &Asian youth tried in adult
court are imprisoned more often
Imprisonmentsn 00 aduR court transfers
Figure 4 shows how racial disparities accumulate, even accelerate, as the youth moves into the adult
system. While Figures .1-3 display rates, Figure 4 presents a ratio. Assume that the odds of a Los
Angeles white youth being arrested for a violent offense, transferred to adult court, and sentenced to
prison are arbitrarily set equal to 1. We can then calculate the odds of a Los Angeles minority youth
experiencing those same outcomes relative to a white youth. Compared to white youths, minority youths
are 2.8 times as likely to be arrested for a violent crime., 6.2 times as likely to wind up in adult court, and
7 times as likely to be sent to prison by -adult courts. Thus, something happens after arrest to increase a
minority youth's odds of imprisonment from 2.8 times that of a white youth (based on violence arrest
differences) to 7 times more (based on adult court sentencing).
http://~v~vw.buildingblocksforyouth.org/colorofiustice/coj.html 9/27/2005
White Hispanic Black Asian
Figure 4: L.Q. nonwhite youth have 2.8x arrest rate -
but 7x adult-imprisonment rate
An L A. yoidh's odds (N+hite 1) of:
Viol. Arrest ~Prosccution as Adult Prison
Statewide Analysis (1996-99)
The disparate racial picture indicated by Los Angeles' adult court transfer statistics are reflected in state
sentencing statistics. Compared to their populations and levels of arrest for every offense category
(Table 2), minority youth offenders are much more likely than white youth offenders to be sentenced to
incarceration in California Youth Authority facilities.
Table 2. Minority youth are sentenced more harshly b adult
courts for eqquivalent offenses tlt;an are WI>tite youth,
California,199G-98 (arrests) and 1997-99 (sentencmgs)
3~rear
Percent ofi 44hite Hispanic Black Asianlother Totals
Pop. 10-17 44.6% 35.4% 7.8% 12.2% 11,012,000
Arrests for.
Uolentcrime 23.0% 42.1 °~ 26.8% 8.1 % 62,726
Homicide 11.8 52.2 21.1 14.9 1,047
Rape 24.6 40.6 .29.6 5.1 1,340
Robbery 14.9 40.9 36.7 7.5 23,654
A.g. assault 28.5 42.7 20.4 8.4 36,685
Proper~ycrime 30.1 40.6 18.5 10.8 123,778
Drug felonies 26.3 44.8 24.0 4.9 23,791
All felonies 27.9% 42.4% 20.6% 9.1 % 244,492
Sentencings to CYA byy aduk court:
8.9 51.5 28.6 11.0 639
Sentencings to CYA by iuvenile courE
15.5 50.1 26.4 8.1 5,938
Soarce: Cakfornia Yoetk Aaiborky, Researck divesioa, data ~ovisroA by reQeesf, JaAeary
2000. Calitoraia C78»raalJestice SraYestios Ceatev. "CaliJorgra CYr»raa/Jastke Protdes,"Cos
Aage/es Coaaty, 193&, 7abJe 22. Sacrame.oro: Cafrtorara denaYa»eat of Jesrine.
Whites comprised 45%, Hispanics 35%, African Americans 8%, and Asians, Native Americans, and
other races 12oIo of California's population ages 10-17 in 1996-98. Compared to their proportion of the
population and of juvenile offenders, minority youth are overrepresented at all stages of the juvenile
justice system. Further, wnite youth representation decreased at every stage of the system (arrests,
transfers to adult court, sentencing, and imprisonment) while minority youth representation increased.
CYA data reveal that minority youth are far more likely to be committed to a CYA facility (prison)
http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/colorofjustice/coj.html 9/27/2005
White hlonwhite
through the juvenile court or temporarily housed there until transferred to adult prison at age 18.
Moreover, minority youths are transferred to adult court and imprisoned more often than their
proportions of violent crime arrestees would predict.
Figure 5, like Figure 4, sets the odds of a white youth being arrested for a violent crime, transferred to
adult court, and sentenced to prison equal to 1, then presents the comparative odds of these outcomes
among minority youth. Relative to white youth, Hispanic youth are 2.3 times as likely, African
American youth 6.7 times as likely, and Asian/other youth 1.3 times as likely, to be arrested for a violent
offense. However, after transfer to and prosecution in the adult system, Hispanic youth offenders wind
up being 7.3 times more likely, African American youth offenders 18.4 times more likely and Asian
youth offenders 4.5 times more likely, to be sentenced by an adult court to CYA confinement. Overall,
compared to their respective contributions to California's violence arrest volume, African American,
Hispanic, Asian, and other minority youth offenders are 3 times more likely to be sentenced to CYA
confinement than are white youth offenders arrested for similar offenses.
Figure 5: Nonwhites tried as adults, imprisoned
more even when arrest rates controlled
A California yoirth's odds (VYhite=l) of:
Violence arrest ~ Adult ~,rosecution,
prison
This disproportionately harsh disposition of minority youths by adult courts shows up regardless of the
felony offense category that is used as the index to measure arrest propensity. For example, compared to
their respective contribution to California's felony arrest volume, African American youth offenders are
4.4 times as likely, and Hispanic and Asian youth offenders are 3.8 times as likely to be sentenced to
CYA confinement than are white youth offenders.
Finally, and of increasing concern, transfer from juvenile to adult court appears to exacerbate already
large racial disparities in sentencing (Figure 6). Whites represent 15.5% of juvenile court sentencings to
CYA confinement, but only 8.9% of adult court sentencings to CYA. While compared to white youths
accused of similar crimes, minority youth offenders are somewhat more likely to be sentenced to CYA
facilities by juvenile courts (minority youth are 77.0% of violent crime arrestees, 84.5%r. of CYA
sentencings), they are much more likely to be sentenced to CYA facilities when transfen•ed to adult
courts (91.1 % of CYA sentencings).
http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/colorofjustice/coj.html .9/27/2005
White All nonwhite Hispanic black t~sian
youth
Figure 6: Adult courts more likely than
juvenile courts to imprison nonwhite youths
Adult court
enile court
V. Discussion and Conclusion
This study is the first analysis of racial and ethnic disparity in the transfer of youths to adult court and
sentencing to CYA facilities in California. Like previous studies on racial disparity in the criminal
justice system, this study reveals imbalances that are stark and vast.
Minority youths are 8.3 times more likely than white youths to be sentenced by an adult court to
imprisonment in a California Youth Authority facility. Two factors contribute in roughly equal measure
to this discrepancy:
First, minority youths are 2.7 times more likely than white youths to be arrested for a violent
felony (the crimes most likely to result in transfer to adult court).
Second, once in the system, minority juvenile violent crime arrestees are 3.1 times more likely
than white juvenile violent crime arrestees to be transferred to adult court and sentenced to
confinement in a CYA prison.
While it is debatable whether the disproportionate minority youth arrests are a reflection of race-based
violent crime differentials or racially biased policing and charging policies, the discriminatory treatment
of minority youth arrestees accumulates within the justice system and accelerates measurably if the
youth is transferred to adult court. The limited analysis of Los Angeles County data reveals that the
major factor in the large racial disparities in sentencing lies in the much more frequent transfer of
minority juveniles to adult court. The more complete, statewide analysis shows the outcomes of those
transfers are unusually harsh sentences of minority offenders by adult courts. The reasons for these
disparities are not clear; they do not appear to result from more heinous offenses by minority youth,
although the possibility of systematic differences in prior criminal records cannot be evaluated from
available information. Even when the most conservative and clearly limited index is used (each race's
respective contribution to California's. juvenile homicide volume), minority offenders remain 1.4 times
more likely to be sentenced to CYA confinement by adult courts than are similarly offending white
youth.
Given the current analysis and previous studies showing similar racial discrepancies in other areas of the
juvenile justice and criminal justice systems, future research must begin examining the basis for the
large adult court (and the lesser juvenile court) disparities in sentencing this study found. In 1980, white
youth comprised 30% of the CYA population; in 1998, they comprised 14%. Hispanic youth have risen
from 30% to 49% over the same period. The CYA projects that Hispanic youth will represent 65% of
the CYA population within the next several years. Clearly, if the current trends toward a harsher and
http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/colorofjustice/coj.html 9/27/2005
irvnwnua
more severe criminal justice system continues, minority youth will be affected in accelerating fashion.
As more minority youths are pushed more deeply into the criminal justice system, fewer will be
prepared to enter mainstream society or the labor market.
Although statistical assessments are limited in their ability to analyze underlying, less quantitative or
tangible reasons for these disparities, the current analysis raises troubling issues. Future research needs
to examine the underlying reasons for and solutions to these racial disparities.
VI. Endnotes
1. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1999. Juvenile Offenders and Victims:
1999 National Report. Washington DC: United States Department of Justice.
2. Bishop, Donna & Charles Frazier, 1990. A study of race and juvenile processing in Florida. A
report submitted to the Florida Supreme Court Racial and Ethnic Bias Study Commission.
3. Id. at 5.
4. Hamparian, Donna & Michael Leiber. 1997. Disproportionate Confinement of Minority Juveniles
in Secure Facilities: 1996 National Report. Champaign, II.: Community Research Associates, p 9.
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. Michael Tonry, 1995. Malign Neglect:: Race, Crime, and Punishment in America. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
8. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1995. Minorities and the Juvenile Justice
System: Research Summary. Washington DC: United States Department of Justice.
This study is the first of five reports that will be published this year by Building Blocks for Youth, a
multi-year initiative to protect minority youth in the justice system and promote rational and effective
juvenile justice policies. The initiative has five major components:
1. Research on the disparate impact of the justice system on minority youth, on the effects of new
adult-court transfer legislation in the states, and on the privatization of juvenile justice facilities by
for-profit corporations;
2. Analyses of decisionmaking at critical points in the justice system, including arrest, detention,
adjudication, and disposition;
3. Direct advocacy on behalf of youth in the justice system, particularly on issues that
disproportionately affect youth of color such as conditions of confinement in jails, prisons, and
juvenile facilities; access to counsel and adequacy of representation in juvenile court; and "zero
tolerance" and other issues relating to school suspensions and expulsions;
4. Constituency-building among African-American,.Latino, and Native-American and other minority
organizations, as well as organizations in the medical, mental health, legal, law enforcement, child
welfare, civil rights, human rights, religious, victim's rights, and domestic violence areas, at the
national, state, and local levels;
5. Development of communications strategies to provide timely, accurate, and relevant information
to these constituencies, public officials, policymakers, the media, and the public.
The partners in the initiative are the Youth Law Center, American Bar_Association Juvenile Justice
http://www.buildinQblocksforyouth.org/colorofjustice/coj.html 9/27/2005
Center, Communicat_i_on Works, Communications Consortium Media Center, Center on Juvenile and
Criminal Justice, Juvenile Law Center, Minorities in Law Enforcement, National Council on Crime and
DelinQUencv, and Pretrial Services Resource Center.
The initiative is supported by the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the
Bureau of Justice Assistance, and the Annie E. Casev, Ford, Walter Johnson, The John D. and Catherine
T. MacArthur, and Rockefeller Foundations, and the Center on Crime. Communities & Culture of the
Open Society Institute. This project was supported by award No. 98-JN-FX-KOQ~ awarded by +he Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the supporting foundations.
This research is funded in part by a grant from The California Wellness Foundation (TCWF). Created in
1992 as a private and independent foundation, TCWF's mission is to improve the health of the people of
California through proactive support of health promotion and disease prevention programs.
The Justice Policy Institute is a policy development and research body that promotes effective and
sensible approaches to America's justice system. JPI is a project of the non-profit Center on Juvenile and
Criminal Justice
The authors would like to express a special thank you to Deborah Vargas, Catherine Brown, Vincent
Schiraldi, Marc Schindler, Mark Soler and Jill Herschman, all of whom graciously contributed to the
completion of this report.
Download the adf version of this report
Home /Juvenile Justice Issues /State-by-State Info /Research
Newsroom /About Us / BBY Partners /Contact us
Building Blocks for Youth
For a fair and effective youth justice system
..n crnrrprelrerrsive e%%ort to protect utirtoril)~ ~~outh in the jrestice .c~•stcnr
cued to promote ratiorrnl and e%%nctire,jurenile justice policies...
http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/colorofjustice/coj.html 9/27/2005
Appendix A, page 1
Table 42 Personal crimes of violenrx,1994:
Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations,.
based on race of victims, by type of crime
and perceived race of offender
Percent of single-offendervictimizations
Perceived nice of offender
N t known
Type of crime
and race of victim Number of
single-offender
victimizations
Totai
White
Black
Other o
and ~
available
Crimes of vioence
White
6,830,360
100 %
72.9 %
16.7 %
8.8 %
1.6 %
'
Black 1,100,490 100 °~ 12.3 80.4 5.4 1.9
Completed violence
White
1,804,450
100 %
74.4
14.8
9.3
1.5
'
Black 389,040 100 °k 6.7 89.3 1.3 ' 2.7
Attempted/threatened violence
910
025
5
100 %
72.4
17.3
8.6
1.7
Whke
Black ,
,
711,450 100 % 15.4 75.5 7.7 1.4 '
Rape/Sexual assault
White
313,080
100 %
78.4
10.1
8.5
2.9 '
'
Black 53,670 100 % 10.1 ' 83.5 6.4 ' 0.0
Robbery
White
472,410
100 %
45.5
36.7
13.6
4.3 '
'
Black 180,430 100 % 6.2 ' 89.1 1.4 ' 3.3
Completed/property taken
670
235
100 %
48.3
36.6
11.0
4.1 '
White
Bieck ,
144,570 100 % 5.9 ' 88.2 1.8 ' 4.1 '
With injury
White
83,990
100 %
58.5
24.6 `
5.5 '
11.4 '
`
Black 43,030 100 % 5.9 ' 88.1 6.0 ' 0.0
Without injury
White
151,680
100 %
42.6
43.3
14.1 '
0.0 '
'
Black 101,540 100 % 5.8 ' 88.3 0.0 ' S.9
Attempted to take property
740
236
100 %
42.7
36.7
16.1
4.5 '
White
Black ,
35,870 100 % 7.5 ' 92.5 0.0 ' 0.0 '
With injury
White
60,490
100 %
42.1
32.1 '
18.7 `
7.1 `
Black 10,740 ' 100 % 25.t ' 74.9 ' 0.0 ' 0.0'
Without injury
White
176,260
100 %
42.8
38.3
15.2
3.7 '
Black 25,130 100 % 0.0 ' 100.0 0.0 ' 0.0 '
Assault
White
6,044,870
100 %
74.8
15.4
8.5
1.3
Biack 866,390 100 % 13.7 78.4 6.2 1.7 '
Aggravated
White
1,346,850
100 %
66.3
20.4
11.2
2.1
Black 288,750 100 % 14.9 80.8 4.3 ' 0.0 '
Simple
White
4,698,020
100 %
77.2
14.0
7.7
1.1
Black 577,630 100 % 13.1 77.2 7.1 2.5 `
Note: Detail may not add to total shown because of rounding.
' Estimate is based on about 10 or fewer sample ca ses.
~Inciudes verbal threats of rape and threats of sexual assault.
Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1994 41
The Color of Crime -13- New Century Foundation
Appendix A, page 2
Table 4T. Personal crirnss of violence, 1994:
Percent distribution of muRiple-offender victimizations,
by type of crime, age of victims and perceived age of offenders
Percent of all muftide-offender victimizations
Number of - Peroeived ag e of offenders
multiple- ~ known
Type of crime offender All All All All 30 Mixed and not
and age of victim victimizations Total under 12 12-20 21-29 and over ages available
Crimes of viokrnx~
12-19
984,590
100 °h
0.5 %'
71.0 °k
3.4 %
1.1 °k•
1B.0 %
8.0 %
20-34 879,580 100 % 0.5 ' 30.9 ~ 23.8 6.5 31.5 6.7
35-48 445,530 100 °k 0.0 ' 29.5 8.8 16.4 33.0 12.3
'
50-64 91,290 100 % 0.0 ' 47.6 12.0 ' 17.3 ' 16.0 ' 7.2
'
65 and over 43,530 100 °k 5.0 ' 55.5 9.4 ' S.3 ' 10.3 ' 14.4
Robbery
12-19
193,760
100 ~°
1.1 '
81.1
5.8 '
0.0 '
9.0 '
3.2 '
20-34 216,800 100 °k 0.0 ' 31.7 21.5 6.6 ' 34.3 5.9 '
35-49 124,200 100 % 0.0 ' 29.5 7.5 ' 11.9 ' 40.7 10.4 '
50-64 27,640 100 % 0.0 ' 32.9 ' 15.2 ' 33.1 ' 10.6 ' 8.3 '
65 and over 24,040 100 ~° 0.0 ' 55.5 ' 17.1 ' 0.0 ' 18.7 ' 8.7 '
Assault
12-19
778,500
100 %
0.3 '
69.0
2.9
1.4 '
19.6
6.8
20-34 646,180 100 % 0.7 ' 31.1 24.7 6.6 30.1 6.9
35-49 312,250 100 % 0.0 ' 29.7 8.8 17.9 30.2 13.4
50-64 63,650 100 % 0.0 ' 54.0 10.6 ' 10.4 ' 18.3 ' 6.8 '
65 and over 17,520 ' 100 % 12.5 ' 61.7 ' 0.0 ' 13.3 ' 0.0 ' 12.6 '
Note: Detail may not add to total shown because of rounding.
' Estimate is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases.
~Inciudes data on rape and sexual assault, not shown separately.
Table 48. Personal crimes of violence, 1994:
Percent distribution of multiple-offender victimizations
by type of crime, race of victims and perceived race of offenders
Number of
multiple-
Type of crime offender
and race of victim victimizations Total
ll
white Percent of multiple-offender victimizations
Perceived race of offenders
All Ali Mixed
black other races
Not known
and not
available
Crimes of violence
White 1,894,160 100 °/ 47.4 % 24.3 % 7.9 % 15.5 % 5.0
Black 434,570 100 % 6.9 72.9 4.3 ` 13.1 2.9 '
Robbery
White 374,080 100 % 28.0 40.8 8.9 18.2 4.1 '
Black 173,700 100 % 2.1 ' 87.2 1.5 ' 7.1 ' 2.1 '
Assault
White 1,492,130 100 °/ 52.0 20.2 7.6 14.9 5.3
Black 248,850 100 % 9.2 64.5 6.4 ' 16.4 3.5 '
Note: Detail may not add to total shown because of rounding.
' Estimate is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases.
Includes data on rape and sexual assault, not shown separately.
Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1994 45
The Color ofCrime -14- New Cenhtry Foundation
Page 3 of 5
haven't already consulted with folks in Stockton it might be worth the
effort.
Peace,
Helen Acosta
1928 Third Street
Bakersfield, CA 93304
<span class="title">http://safestate org/index cfm~navid=320
BLUEPRINT TO REDUCE GANG VIOLENCE</span>
<span class="body">
bV : dlo`nrni;~ "•, -,v C,cna~al gill I n~l.,,Ar
More than 300 of California's cities are infestea with
.gangs. My office estimates that there are more than 300,000 ~ ang
members in our state. Gangs have been the driving force for ho,~icide in
many areas of California.
In one especially successful strategy to reduce gang violence, the
City of Stockton has cut gang-related youth homicide since 1997 by more
than 75 percent. Stockton's story is featured. in the first issue of At the Local Level: Perspectives.on Violence
Prevention, a publication my office has launched in partnership with the California Health and~Human Services
Agency.
In "Ending Gang Homicide:. Deterrence Can Work," Stewart Wakeling,
the Juvenile Justice System Coordinator for San Joaquin County,
explains that in 1997 residents of Stockton, which had more then 150
street gangs, feared an epidemic of youth violence. The problem had
spun out of control when several young women --all bystanders -- were
killed in gang violence over the span ofjust a few months.
Monday, July 24, 2006 America Online: Councilmem 1
Page 4 of 5
Stockton responded by adopting Boston's successful anti-gang
program. Under the Stockton approach, termed "Peacekeepers,8~quot; Stockton's
police department reassigned several patrol officers to a new unit
focused exclusively on gangs. The city then followed afive-step
strategy:
(1) Assembled a partnership of local, state and federal law
enforcement agencies, community groups and public social service
agencies to provide a coordinated approach to solving the gang problem.
(2) Analyzed the youth violence problem and used the results in
designing the local approach. Stockton found, for example, that more
than 50 percent of all its homicides were gang-related, and that a
large portion of the gang homicides were driven by conflicts between
Norteno and Sureno gangs. A large proportion of the youth who were
involved in homicides were on probation or parole. Based on this
information, the partner agencies stepped up their supervision of gang
members who were at the highest risk of violence.
(3) Directly and repeatedly communicated the message about violence
and its consequences to gangs. Law enforcement agencies in Stockton met
directly with gang leaders and high-risk youth associated with the
area's gangs, with this message: Any illegal behavior by an active,
violent gang -from driving without a license or registration, to
drinking in public, to selling drugs -would be immediately punished
with any available legal tool.
(4) Responded to those gang members that didn't get the message with awell-coordinated and intensive law
enforcement effort.
(5) Balanced this message with offers for services by gang outreach
workers, social services agencies and faith-based organizations to
provide jobs, strengthen school performance and provide a range of
constructive alternatives to violence.
As a result of this comprehensive strategy, gang-related homicides
among youth in Stockton were reduced from 18 in 1997 to just one the
following year and remained low each year from 1999 through 2001.
School violence also fell substantially.
These steps can be adapted by any city or county to reduce serious
youth violence. For additional information on the "Peacekeepers"
approach, please read At the Local Level at or contact Mr. Wakeling at swakeling@co.san-joaquin.ca.us.
Monday, July 24, 2006 America Online: Councilmeml