CITY OF SEATTLE HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT

GANG NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

March 22, 2008

Prepared by:

Davis Y. Ja & Associates Inc. and Building The Bridges

Davis Y. Ja and Associates, Inc. 362 Victoria Street ▪ San Francisco, CA 94132 415 ▪ 585 ▪ 2773 (phone) www.dyja.com 415 ▪ 239 ▪ 4511 (fax)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Davis Y. Ja & Associates, Inc. (DYJA) and Building The Bridges (BTB) would like to acknowledge the following for their contributions to this report:

City of Seattle Human Services Department, Patricia McInturff, Director Eric Anderson, Youth Development and Achievement Director Terry Hayes Darryl Cook Nancy Thome

Seattle/King County Gang Prevention and Outreach Work Group: Camilla Campbell (Co-Chair) Terry Hayes (Co-Chair) Roland Akers Julie Allen Jason Canfield Maure Carrier Ken Conley Darryl Cook Leanetta Jessie Christine Kahikina Al Lebar John Leers Nancy Thome Mark Wirschem Riva Zeff

Evaluation Team

Davis Y. Ja, Ph.D. – Principal, DYJA Norma Timbang – Research Team Lead, DYJA Dennis Turner – Executive Director, BTB Mary Gee, – Research Associate, DYJA

Claudia Alexandra Paras – DYJA Zachary K. Smith – DYJA Joanne Alcantara – DYJA Tania Yowson – DYJA Ann Kim Novakowski, MPH – DYJA Larry Bennett - BTB

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 2 March 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sections Page

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 6

Methods 6

Report Format 8

Section 1: Findings from Institutional Reports & Data Sets 10

Section 2: Youth Surveys 21

Section 3: Community Stakeholders Interviews 28

Section 4: Policymakers/Public Officials Interviews 34

Section 5: ReInvesting In Youth Promising Practices Evaluation 47

Section 6: “Best” Practice/“Evidence Based” Practices Review 50

Conclusions/Recommendations 68

Appendices 70

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 3 March 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In February 2008, the City of Seattle Human Services Department in response to service providers and community members reporting concern for a possible increase in youth gang activity, implemented a need assessment project to assess youth gang related issues in Seattle and King County. This project will potentially contribute to the development or enhancement of prevention and intervention programs through the City and King County. To this end, a consultant team of researchers, Davis Y. Ja and Associates, Inc. (DYJA), and gang prevention specialists, Building The Bridges (BTB), was contracted to conduct a brief needs assessment project. The methods of data collection included interviews with community stakeholders and policy makers and public officials and surveys of youth primarily in South Seattle, West Seattle, and South King County. Additional evaluation methods included research into publicly accessible data and other reports on gang related and youth violence related data as well as a brief literature search of best practices in gang interventions. Also included are data from community forums conducted by the Seattle/King County Gang Prevention and Outreach Work Group and the Reinvesting in Youth Promising Program Evaluation. The following are highlights of the key findings of this project.

• Qualitative data from interviews and surveys indicate that gang violence and/or youth violence has increased in the last 2 or 3 years and youth violence was more severe than in recent past. • The best current estimates indicate that there are 85 to over 200 gangs identified in King County. • Data from interviews, community forums, youth surveys, BTB feedback, and the Reinvesting in Youth data, indicate that gang membership is generational, e.g., gang members often have parents or close adult family members who were or are gang members. • Youth surveys, data from other research projects, law enforcement, community forums, and BTB’s feedback indicate that guns, including automatic weapons, are readily available and accessible to youth. Anecdotally, there are indications that guns are sometimes supplied by gang members, or family members who are gang members, or are easily accessible in the home, due to “careless adults.”

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 4 March 2007 • Health and school-based surveys seem to indicate that middle school youth, in particular, 8th graders, tended to report higher levels of risk behaviors. • The Reinvesting in Youth Promising Program Evaluation baseline data (2005-06) of 394 youth indicates that 28% identified as former gang members and 23% currently associated with companions or friends who identified with gang membership. • In general, community forums participants and community stakeholders recommend earlier gang prevention strategies be developed for elementary school age children. • Community forums, interviewees from community programs and public officials indicated that additional funding is needed for enhancing existing programs, to establish more programs that are culturally competent, and to engage parents and community members. • The majority of youth respondents indicated that they believe youth violence and gang- related violence have increased in both schools and communities. • The majority of youth respondents indicated that they had a friend who is a gang member (77%) and/or family member, (52%). • Youth respondents indicated that more school based programs, positive recreational and sports activities, more “positive influences” (e.g., family and friends), employment programs, and safe places to hang out were needed. • Regarding the definition of “gangs”: Participants in community forums expressed concerns regarding profiling of gangs as any African American youth or any youth of color gathering in a public space. Additionally, public officials, including law enforcement, indicated that the definition of “gang member” activity needed to be clarified. Within the context of all data collected and the community forums, there was a tendency to conflate violent and criminal activities by youth who may or may not identify as gang members with violent and criminal activities by gang members for the purpose of advancing the goals of the gang. • When asked what influences gang activity, youth respondents provided a variety of reasons. Many replied that media, television and music, create the belief that gangs are “cool.” Others said that the gang culture is influenced by anger, pain, and fear experienced in youths’ home life. They indicated that many are looking for a place to belong, have a family, or develop a sense of power.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 5 March 2007

INTRODUCTION Both public safety representatives and community leaders have raised concerns that gang incidents, including violence and intimidation and other gang-related crime, have been increasing throughout Seattle in recent years. According to the King County Sheriff’s Office, Seattle-King County gang incidents have increased from 392 in 2003 to 528 in 2006, with 210 reported in the first three months of 2007. The Seattle Police Department estimates the number of active street gangs in Seattle and its suburbs to be between 30 and 60.

Last year, the City of Seattle adopted a budget allocating $500,000 of new funds in the 2008 Human Services Department (HSD) budget to address the issues of gang affiliation and potential criminal activity among youth and young adults in the greater Seattle area. HSD will be preparing a proposal that documents the scope of the problem of gang violence and crime in Seattle and outlines specific prevention and intervention strategies that can be implemented to address the growing concern of gang activity in Seattle.

To this end, The City of Seattle Human Services Department’s Youth Development and Achievement division (HSD) contracted with research and gang prevention consultants, Davis Y. Ja & Associates, Inc. (DYJA) and Building the Bridges (BTB), to conduct a need assessment and to collect, analyze data and information related to gang violence prevention and intervention. This research project was conducted between February 1 and February 29, 2008. DYJA and BTB are submitting this report on the findings of this research project.

METHODS With the Human Service Department’s guidance, DYJA and BTB implemented a diverse set of methods that was used to collect data on the needs for gang prevention and intervention, including the following.

• Conducted analysis of institutional reports and datasets collected and recorded by State, Regional and local governments, and community stakeholders that would identify the prevalence of gang activity and key indicators, risk factors, and trends that are associated with at-risk youth

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 6 March 2007 becoming involved in gang membership and illegal activity. HSD provided information on possible institutional data sources and the consultants located publicly accessible data on line.

• Conducted interviews with policy makers, public officials and key community stakeholders to assess the current status of criminal street gangs and the criminal activity they are involved in specifically in South King County, Southeast, Southwest, Central and Downtown Seattle. The targeted list of interviewees for this data collection method was provided by HSD.

• Through secondary data and a literature review, identified best practices for gang prevention and intervention including both locally developed strategies, promising approaches and research tested programs. HSD provided information on possible data sources and the consultants located publicly accessible data on line.

• Conducted surveys of youth, primarily in Southeast, Southwest, Central and Downtown Seattle regarding youth gang related activities, concerns regarding gang violence, and youth gang sets. HSD provided information on sites for survey data collection, including convenience sampling locations such as community based youth programs and public schools. Additionally, the consultants worked together to identify potential locations and known areas of youth gang activity.

• An additional data source was the Reinvesting in Youth Promising Practices Evaluation project, conducted by DYJA. Baseline data were reviewed for risk factors associated with gang membership and three promising practices are included in the “best” practice section.

HSD worked with DYJA and BTB on the development of data collection instruments, to include a semi-structured interview instrument for use with policy makers/public officials, a semi-structured interview instrument for use with key community stakeholders (e.g., gang intervention specialists, youth program service providers, etc.), and a survey instrument for use with youth (ages 11 - 24). (See Appendix 1 – “Data Collection Instruments”) BTB conducted the youth survey data collection and community stakeholders surveys. These were primarily collected one-on-one, with the exception of 11 of the youth surveys which were self-administered. DYJA conducted the policy

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 7 March 2007 maker/public official interviews and community stakeholder interviews, conducted the literature reviews, incorporated community forum data, drafted and developed the final report.

The data were entered, organized, and analyzed by DYJA staff, in consultation with the BTB staff. Quantitative data were entered in an Excel database, summarized, and percentages were calculated. The Qualitative data was analyzed through comparing and contrasting interviews and identifying themes from all respondents. DYJA conducted the literature review and research on both publicly available databases and statistics (including RIY’s Promising Programs Evaluation) and best practices/evidence based practices which subsequently were summarized for applicability for youth gang prevention/intervention in Seattle-King County given the findings of this project.

Finally, the consultants attended a series of three gang prevention public forums facilitated by the Seattle/King County Gang Prevention & Outreach Work Group (the Workgroup) a team of primarily King County and City of Seattle staff who are working to develop cross-jurisdiction prevention and intervention strategies as a follow up to a seminar on youth violence and gang issues held last July. The forums were held in the communities known for high levels of gang activities – Central District, SeaTac, and West Seattle. In the context of this report, the consultants occasionally refer to some of the comments made by public forum participants in order to highlight data that might be associated with these comments. The Workgroup is planning additional forums in South King County.

REPORT FORMAT The following report is divided into findings developed from each source of data. There are a total of six assessment sections with a seventh and final section summarizing our recommendations. Section one, Findings from institutional reports and data sources, includes a compilation and summary from secondary institutional sources including local, statewide and federal reports, findings and online data streams that provide information on local youth and gang conditions. Section two, Youth Interviews, provides information from sixty-six youth interviews conducted for this report by BTB. Section three, Community Stakeholders Interviews, provides information from interviews with fifteen community stakeholders conducted by BTB. Section four, Policy Maker Interviews, provides information from interviews with fifteen policy makers and public officials conducted by DYJA. Section five, Reinvesting In Youth Promising Practices Evaluation, provides a summary of the gang data

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 8 March 2007 extracted from the recently completed Reinvesting in Youth Promising Practices evaluation completed by DYJA in February, 2008. Section six, “Best” Practice/“Evidence Based” Practice Review, provides a research summary of the “best practices” and “Evidenced based practices” in gang violence intervention strategies. Finally, we also include a summary and recommendations from our assessment project.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 9 March 2007 SECTION ONE: FINDINGS FROM INSTITUTIONAL REPORTS AND DATA SOURCES

The following information is taken from publicly accessible surveys and government and institutional reports and records found online. If there are significant or obvious trends in the data from year to year or between age groups it was noted, otherwise the data is presented as is from the state level through the city or district level. It is also important to note that the data presented is based on frequencies and percentages. Significance testing was not conducted since raw data files were not available. Subsequently, the information is only indicative of potential trends. The data is divided into categories based on their specific relationship to youth violence and gang involvement.

YOUTH VIOLENCE The King County Sheriff’s Gang Report from 2007 indicates that there are approximately 85 gangs they have identified in the King County area. Additionally, further breakdown of gang sets and additional field work by BTB, gang intervention consultants to this project, indicate that there are over 200 gangs operating in the King County area (see BTB list in Appendix 1).

Youth Homicide According to the Washington State Department of Health: • Age 18 and under - 2000-2004 in King County - an average of 2.3 out of every 100,000 deaths for youth under the age of 18 were the result of homicide. This average was approximately the same for each prior year since 1995. • All ages - 2000-2004 in King County - there was an average of 3.7 out of every 100,000 deaths resulting from homicide. This rate was highest in Southeast Seattle with an average of 16.7 out of every 100,000 deaths. • All ages - Central Seattle had an average of 8.6 out of every 100,000 deaths resulting from homicide, (“King County,” 2007). • Age 18 and under - In the same survey from 2000-2004 in King County, an average of 1.4 out of every 100,000 deaths for youth under the age of 18 were caused by firearms. This average decreased statistically significantly from the average of 1995-1997, just over 2 out of every 100,000 deaths.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 10 March 2007 • All ages - In comparison with persons of all ages in King County from 2000-2004, there was an average of 7.2 out of every 100,000 deaths resulting from firearm use. This rate was highest in Upper Snoqualmie Valley with an average of 14.1 out of every 100,000 deaths. • All ages - Central Seattle had an average of 8.0 out of every 100,000 deaths resulting from firearms use (“King County,” 2007).

Weapon Incidents The Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction: • 2006 to 2007 school year - out of the 253,227 public school students in King County, there were 19 firearm incidents and 413 knife incidents on school property • 2006 to 2007 school year - out of the 44,792 public school students in the Seattle district, there were 3 firearm incidents and 53 knife incidents on school property • 2002 to 2003 school year - there were 30 firearm incidents and 380 knife incidents in King County public schools • 2002 to 2003 school year - 10 firearms incidents and 67 knife incidents in Seattle district public schools • 1998 to 1999 school year - 22 firearm incidents and 384 knife incidents in King County public schools. • 1998 to 1999 - 1 firearms incident and 59 knife incidents in Seattle district public schools, (“Weapons”, 2000).

Youth Assault The Washington State Department of Health, from 2000-2004 in King County: • An average of 11 out of every 100,000 hospitalizations for youth under the age of 18 was the result of assault. This average showed a statistically significant decrease from the average of 1995-1997, with approximately 19 out of every 100,000 hospitalizations. • In contrast with persons of all ages in King County from 2000-2004, there was an average of 31.1 out of every 100,000 hospitalizations resulting from assault. This rate was highest in Downtown and Central Seattle with an average of 178.2 out of every 100,000 hospitalizations, (“King County,” 2007).

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 11 March 2007 The 2004 Communities that Care Youth Survey: • In 2002, 12.7 percent and in 2004, 11.5 percent of sampled 6th grade Seattle public school students attacked someone with the intention to harm. • For the same respective years of 2002 and 2004, these percentages were o 17.8 and 18.9 percent for 8th graders, o 14.6 and 14.6 percent repeated for 10th graders, o 11.8 and 10.6 percent for 12th graders.

The 2006 Healthy Youth Survey for King County: • The percentage of 6th graders who reported being in a physical fight in 2004 and 2006 were 30.6 and 33.3 percent, respectively. These percentages decreased as school year increased. • For the same respective years of 2004 and 2006, the percentages were o 33.1 and 31.4 percent for 8th graders, o 28.0 and 25.9 percent for 10th graders, o 20.1 and 18.4 percent for 12th graders.

Youth Crime/Arrest The 2004 Communities that Care Youth Survey: • 3.6 percent in 2002 and 2.2 percent in 2004 of sampled 6th grade Seattle public school students had been arrested. These percentages increased in higher school years. • For the same respective years of 2002 and 2004, the percentages were o 8.0 and 8.0 percent repeated for 8th graders o 7.5 and 7.6 percent for 10th graders, o 7.2 and 6.0 percent for 12th graders. • In 2002, 2.6 percent and 2004, 3.1 percent of sampled 6th grade Seattle public school students had stolen or tried to steal a vehicle. These percentages increased in higher grade levels. • For the same respective years of 2002 and 2004, the percentages were o 5.6 and 6.2 percent for 8th graders o 6.1 and 5.8 percent for 10th graders o 5.1 and 4.0 percent for 12th graders

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 12 March 2007 Gang Involvement The 2004 Healthy Youth Survey for the entire state of Washington (Einspruch, 2005): • 8th graders who reported belonging to a gang in 2002 and 2004 were 7.5 and 8.5 percent, respectively. • For the same respective years of 2002 and 2004, these percentages were o 4.7 and 6.2 percent for 10th graders, o 5.6 and 4.8 percent for 12th graders.

WEAPONS

Weapon Carrying The 2004 Healthy Youth Survey for the entire State of Washington (Einspruch, 2005): • There was little change in the percentage of public school students who reported carrying a weapon during school in the past 30 days from 2002 to 2004, though the percentages increased as the grade level increased. • The percentage of 8th graders who reported carrying a weapon during school in 2002 and 2004 were 5.5 and 5.4 percent, respectively. • For the same respective years of 2002 and 2004, the percentages were o 6.0 and 6.9 percent for 10th graders o 6.9 and 7.7 percent for 12th graders. • There was a decrease in the percentage of weapon carrying in general in the past 30 days from 1992 to 2004 for public school students. • The percentage of 8th graders who reported carrying a weapon in the past 30 days decreased from 23.6 percent in 1992 to 10.0 percent in 2004. • For the same time span of 1992 to 2004, these percentages decrease from o 22.2 to 9.6 percent for 10th graders o 20.2 to 8.3 percent for 12th graders.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 13 March 2007 The 2006 Healthy Youth Survey for King County: • The percentage of 6th graders who reported carrying a weapon to school in the past 30 days in 2004 and 2006 were 2.9 and 2.7 percent, respectively. These percentages increased in higher school years. • For the same respective years of 2004 and 2006, the percentages were o 4.3 and 5.3 percent for 8th graders, o 6.5 and 6.8 percent for 10th graders, o 5.8 and 5.6 percent for 12th graders. • The percentage of 8th graders who reported carrying a weapon in general in the past 30 days in 2004 was 9.5 percent. • For the same year, these percentages were o 9.8 percent for 10th graders, o 8.6 for 12th graders.

The 2004 Communities that Care Youth Survey: • In 2002, 1.3 percent and in 2004, 1.1 percent of sampled 6th grade Seattle public school students had taken a handgun to school. • For the same respective years of 2002 and 2004, these percentages were o 2.3 and 2.8 percent for 8th graders, o 2.0 and 2.8 percent for 10th graders, o 1.9 and 2.6 percent for 12th graders. • In 2002, 2.8 percent and 2.2 percent in 2004 of 6th grade Seattle public school students had carried a handgun. These percentages slightly increased in higher school years. • For the same respective years of 2002 and 2004, the percentages were o 5.3 and 6.3 percent for 8th graders, o 4.2 and 4.4 percent for 10th graders, o 4.8 and 4.3 percent for 12th graders.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 14 March 2007 Perceived Availability of Weapons The 2004 Communities that Care Youth Survey: • 16.5 and 18.0 percent of sampled 6th grade Seattle public school students reported a perceived availability of handguns in their community in 2002 and 2004, respectively. These percentages generally increased in higher school years. • For the same respective years of 2002 and 2004, the percentages were o 29.6 and 30.8 percent for 8th graders, o 17.0 and 17.5 percent for 10th graders, o 25.8 and 24.8 percent for 12th graders.

SCHOOL CLIMATE

School Suspension The 2004 Communities that Care Youth Survey reported: • In 2002, 13.1 percent and in 2004, 11.9 percent of sampled 6th grade Seattle public school students had been suspended from school. • For the same respective years of 2002 and 2004, these percentages were o 17.8 and 18.9 percent for 8th graders, o 11.6 and 12.9 percent for 10th graders, o 8.8 and 9.7 percent for 12th graders.

School Safety The 2006 Healthy Youth Survey for King County: • The percentages of 6th graders who reported feeling safe at school in 2004 and 2006 were 89.9 and 88.6 percent, respectively. • For the same respective years of 2004 and 2006, these percentages were o 84.7 and 83.4 percent for 8th graders, o 80.5 and 83.5 percent for 10th graders, o 85.2 and 83.7 percent for 12th graders.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 15 March 2007 • The percentage of 6th graders who reported being bullied in school in the past 30 days in 2004 and 2006 were 28.8 and 28.8 percent repeated, respectively. These percentages decreased as school year increased. • For the same respective years of 2004 and 2006, the percentages were o 27.2 and 25.7 percent for 8th graders, o 20.4 and 21.9 percent for 10th graders, o 12.1 and 12.7 percent for 12th graders.

SUMMARY OF LITERATURE SEARCH ON QUANTITATIVE DATA This summary consisted of data collected by the Washington State Department of Health, health surveys of both youth and adults, school-based surveys, and research study surveys of youth.

Homicides The State Department of Health data seem to indicate a decrease in youth homicides in King County from 1995-97 to 2000-04, from an average of 2.0 out of 100,000 to 1.5. However, for all ages (youth and adults), data indicates that in 2000-2004 there were a higher number of deaths by firearms in Central Seattle (8.0 of 100,000) compared to the data for the entire State (7.2 of 100,000). Notably, for all ages, the Upper Snoqualmie Valley area was impacted by deaths by firearms by a rate of 14.1 out of 100,000. Also, for all ages, in King County, 2000-2004 data indicates there was an average of 31.1 out of every 100,000 hospitalizations resulting from assault with the highest rates almost 6 times higher in Downtown and Central Seattle – an average of 178.2 out of every 100,000. In comparison, for those under age 18, the data indicates a decrease of hospitalizations due to assault in King County from 19 out of every 100,000 in 1995-97 to 11 out of every 100,000 in 2000- 04.

Weapons at Schools King County Schools (includes Seattle) In King County, there was a spike in the reported firearm incidents on school property in the 2002- 03 school year of 30 reported incidents, compared to 22 in the 1998-99 school year and 19 in the 2006-07 school year. There was a substantial increase in reports of knife incidents on school property in King County during the 2006-07 school year of 413 incidents, compared to 380 in 2002- 03 and 384 in 1998-99.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 16 March 2007 Seattle Public Schools There were an increased number of firearm incidents reported in Seattle schools in 2002-03 of 10, as compared to 1 in 1998-99 and 3 in 2006-07. In 1998-99 school year in Seattle, there were 59 knife incidents, compared to 67 in 2002-03 and 53 in 2006-07.

Overall, in the 2002-03 school year in both King County and Seattle Public Schools there seemed to be substantial weapons incidents reported in comparison to the 1998-99 and 2006-07 school years.

Risk Behaviors by Grade Levels Sixth Grade: The data collected from publicly available reports indicate mixed results regarding risk behaviors for 6th graders. For instance, 6th graders might be more likely to be involved in physical fights than they were in 2004 – increasing from 30.6 to 33.3% between 2004 and 2006. The data showed a decrease in the 6th graders reporting that they attacked someone with the intention to harm – from 12.7 in 2002 to 11.5 in 2004 – and a decrease in arrests from 3.6 in 2002 to 2.2 in 2004. The number of 6th graders reporting that they had taken a handgun to school decreased from 1.3% in 2002 and 1.1% in 2004. The percentage of 6th graders who reported carrying a weapon to school in the past 30 days in 2004 and 2006 were 2.9 and 2.7 percent, respectively. With regard to school risk factors: 13.11 and 11.9 percent of sampled 6th grade Seattle public school students had been suspended from school in 2002 and 2004, respectively. The percentages of 6th graders who reported feeling safe at school in 2004 and 2006 were 89.9 and 88.6 percent, respectively. Interestingly, there was an increase of 6th graders reporting that they had stolen a vehicle or tried to steal a vehicle from 2.6 in 2002 to 3.1 in 2004. This particular data might be reflective of comments made in community forums and public official interviews which indicated that younger juveniles were being recruited by gangs for purposes of theft. Anecdotally, it is believed that the older gang members recruit younger juveniles because they know that younger juveniles would be treated less harshly in juvenile courts.

In one report, school suspensions for 6th graders went down from 13.11% in 2002 to 11.9% in 2004. Sixth graders reporting feeling safe at school also decreased from 89.9% in 2004 to 88.6% in 2006. The percentage of 6th graders who reported being bullied at school in the last 30 days remained the same between 2004 and 2006 at 28.8%.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 17 March 2007 Eighth Grade: There were several indicators of high risk behaviors, increases in violence, and gang activity in the data regarding 8th graders. There was an increase of 8th graders who reported belonging to a gang between 2002 and 2004 of 7.5% and 8.5%, respectively. The number of 8th graders reporting that they attacked someone with the intention to harm also increased from 17.8 in 2002 to 18.9 percent in 2004. Conversely, for 8th graders, the number reporting involvement in physical fights in 2004 was 33.1% and 31.4% in 2006. There was no change in the percentage of arrests reported by 8th graders between 2002 and 2004 at 8% for both years. However, there was an increase in the number of 8th graders reporting that they had stolen a vehicle or tried to steal a vehicle from 5.6% in 2002 to 6.2% in 2004. The number of 8th graders reporting that they had taken a handgun to school increased from 5.3% in 2002 to 6.3% in 2004. In one report, the percentage of 8th graders who reported carrying a weapon in general in the past 30 days decreased from 23.6 percent in 1992 to 10.0 percent in 2004. However, in another report, the percentages of 8th graders who reported carrying a weapon to school in the past 30 days showed an increase in 2004 and 2006 from 4.3% and 5.3%, respectively. Of concern is that in 2002, 29.6% of 8th graders reported a perceived availability of handguns and this number increased to 30.8% in 2004. This is higher than what was reported by 6th, 10th, and 12th graders in both years. There was an increase of 8th graders reporting that they belonged to a gang, from 7.5 in 2002 to 8.5 in 2004. Overall, this data regarding 8th graders is important to consider in that when compared with data regarding 6th, 10th, and 12th graders, the 8th graders seem to be at higher risk of violent and criminal behaviors.

While 6th graders reported a decrease in school suspensions between 2002 and 2004, 8th grade school suspensions seemed to increase from 17.8% in 2002 to 18.9% in 2004. Eighth graders reporting that they felt safe at school decreased between 2004 and 2006, from 84.7 to 83.4 percent. Interestingly, 8th graders reporting they had been bullied in the last 30 days decreased from 27.2 to 25.7 percent between 2004 and 2006. Essentially, this data might indicate that bullying and fear have decreased for 8th graders. On the other hand when bullying was discussed amongst staff from HSD and researchers, other questions that arose included – Are they less fearful because they might be bullying others? Also, a further question that emerged related to potential cultural influences in that, are they possibly afraid, but won’t talk about fear because it would be a sign of weakness?

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 18 March 2007 Tenth Grade: There was a decrease in numbers of 10th graders reporting that they had stolen or tried to steal a vehicle from 6.1% and 5.8% in 2002 and 2004, respectively. The data from one report indicates that there was a decrease in the 10th graders reporting being in a physical fight from 28.0% in 2004 to 25.9% in 2006. However, in 2002, 4.7% of 10th graders reported belonging to a gang as compared to 6.2% in 2004. In 2002, 6.0% of 10th graders reported carrying a weapon during school as compared to 6.9% in 2004. In one report, 9.8% of 10th graders reported carrying a weapon in general in the past 30 days in 2004. In another report, 22.2% of 10th graders reported carrying a weapon in general in 1992 as compared to 9.6% in 2004. Overall, reports of carrying weapons in the last 30 days amongst 10th graders were higher than 6th, 8th, and 12th graders, while perceived availability of guns was lower for 10th graders than the other grades in 2004. Unfortunately, 17.0% of 10th graders in 2002 and 17.5% in 2004 reported perceived availability of guns. One survey indicated that 2.0% of 10th graders carried a handgun to school in 2002 and 2.8% reported specifically carrying a handgun to school in 2004. Interestingly, 10th graders have the lowest reports of perceived availability of guns compared to 8th graders and 12th graders.

There was an increase in school suspensions reported by 10th graders from 11.6% in 2002 to 12.9% in 2004. Reports of feeling safe in school amongst 10th graders increased from 80.5% in 2004 to 83.5% in 2006. The number of 10th graders reporting being bullied in school in past 30 days was 20.4% in 2004 and 21.9% in 2006. Not surprisingly, this percentage decreases the higher the grade level.

Twelfth Grade: The data shows mixed results for risk behaviors amongst 12th graders. The percentage of 12th graders reporting that they attacked someone with intention to harm in 2002 decreased from 11.8% to 10.6% in 2004. In 2004, 20.1% of 12th graders reported being in a physical fight, decreasing to 18.4% in 2006. There was very little change between 2002 and 2004 in the percentage of students reporting they had been arrested. However, there was decrease of 12th graders reporting they had stolen or tried to steal a vehicle between 2002 and 2004, 5.1% and 4.0% respectively. There was also a decrease in reports of gang involvement from 12th graders, from 5.6% in 2002 to 4.8% in 2004. Conversely, there was an increase in the number of 12th graders reporting carrying a weapon from 6.9% in 2002 to 7.7% in 2004. Interestingly, another report indicates that there was a decrease in

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 19 March 2007 12th graders reporting that they had carried a weapon in the past 30 days, from 20.2% in 1992 to 8.3% in 2004. Perceived availability of guns amongst 12th graders decreased slightly from 25.8% in 2002 to 24.8% in 2004. Of the 12 graders, 1.9% reported taken handguns to school in 2002, increasing to 2.6% in 2004 – the largest increase during this period of all the grades discussed above.

The percentage of twelfth graders reporting suspension from school in 2002 was 8.8% increasing to 9.7% in 2004. This was the lowest rate of suspension reported compared to 6th, 8th, and 10th graders in both years. The percentages of 12th graders feeling safe at school in 2004 and 2006 were 85.2% and 83.7% respectively. The percentages of 12th graders reporting being bullied in school in the past 30 days were 12.1% in 2004 and 12.7% in 2006. Not surprisingly, these are substantially lower percentages than reported by 6th, 8th, and 10th graders in both years.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 20 March 2007 SECTION TWO: YOUTH SURVEYS

For this report, youth were surveyed directly and were recruited using convenience sampling. BTB implemented the youth surveys. HSD and The Workgroup provided recommendations of schools and community programs that could provide access to potential youth participants. In addition to these recommended sites, BTB identified respondents at the mall, parks, schools, on the streets, and at agencies serving at-risk and/or gang-involved youth. BTB previously knew none of the respondents. Incentives were provided to youth who agreed to complete the survey, a $20 gift card for a sports gear store. The BTB staff conducted fifty-five of the surveys directly with the youth one-on-one, and an additional eleven surveys were self-administered for a total of 66 surveys. Qualitative data from this survey is presented in Tables 1-4.

All of the youth surveyed reside in King County, with the majority of respondents residing in the greater Seattle area (77%). Several live in Auburn (15%), and 1-2% of respondents live in Kent, Enumclaw, Des Moines, and Burien. Many respondents were Latino (27%) and African American (21%). The remaining youth were White (12%), Mixed race (12%), Asian (11%), Native American (11%), and Pacific Islander (6%). The sample group was 59% Male and 41% Female. The majority of the youth interviewed live in stable housing (92%).

Respondents felt that gang activity and youth violence have been increasing both in their schools and in their communities. Indications of increased gang activities include seeing more gang affiliations (such as graffiti, tags, or colors), fights, shootings and/or deaths.

Youth felt that schools (60%) provided more support than their community (38%). Many respondents felt that communities could help youth by providing more activities in community centers, Boys & Girls clubs, and schools. Respondents felt that they needed a place to go to where bad behavior is discouraged, where youth can go to chill or hang out, and where they can get involved in positive activities such as sports. Several felt that youth needed mentorship from adults in the community. Outreach, listening, and talking to youth about the dangers of gang violence were identified as some things communities could do to help. Two respondents also felt that church or prayer could help. Another two respondents felt that increased security in communities could help, including painting over gang signs. Most youth interviewed perceived police to be “somewhat

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 21 March 2007 friendly” (56%). Finally, some youth felt that there was nothing communities could do. One respondent felt that “There is not much to do now. It’s up to them to choose which way they like.”

Suggestions for what schools can do to help youth included offering more after school programs and activities, talking to and educating youth about gang violence, and providing security. Youth felt that by getting involved in sports or other activities they will feel less inclined to join a gang, suggesting that one of the problems they face is boredom or having nothing better to do than to hang with a bad crowd. Some felt that schools could do more to control gangs, including changing the dress code. One respondent said, “If you can change the ways of two young gang members, they can go and change several.” Another respondent said, “I wish there was something, but so far I didn’t see nothin’ help. They’ve tried though. Just don’t give up on trying to help.”

Approximately half of respondents have a family member that belongs to a gang (52%), and one third have a friend that belongs to a gang (77%). Although respondents knew gang members, many did not feel pressure to join a gang themselves (76%) compared to those who did (24%). When asked what could be done to prevent youth from joining a gang, many reiterated that youth needed to stay busy, whether in after school or community programs or by getting jobs. It was also important to respondents that youth have positive influences in their lives, either through friends or supportive parents. Other suggestions for preventing youth from joining gangs included:

♦ “Try and guide them into the right direction before gangs get to it.” ♦ “Harsher punishment for gang related crimes. Keep them off the street.” ♦ “Nothing can stop this.” ♦ “I WISH I knew the answer.” ♦ “Don’t show it on TV!”

Many respondents did not feel bullied by gang members in school (86%) or in the community (76%). When issues do arise in school or at home, respondents were asked if they have outlets for talking about them. Respondents were somewhat split with 48% feeling like they did have outlets and 52% feeling like they did not have outlets. These outlets included parents and/or other family

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 22 March 2007 members, friends, teachers, counselors, co-workers, church, and mentor. Several respondents included sports and music as outlets.

BTB staff asked youth whether they believed Seattle and King County has a gang problem, and 82% of respondents believe we do. They believed it to be concentrated in the Central District, South Park, Skyway, and the Southside. Other suggested areas of concentrated gang activity included Burien, Cleveland, Rainier Beach, White Center, the Westside, and Tacoma. Asked whether they believed gang violence was being addressed by the communities they live in, respondents were somewhat split (45% yes and 55% no). Indications that gang violence was being addressed by their communities included:

♦ “I see a few posters now and then trying to get kids involved in ‘good’ activities.” ♦ “Because the teachers are very alert.” ♦ “Cops are cracking down.” ♦ “Because we have a lot of meetings/assemblies about them.”

Despite the increase in gang and youth violence, many respondents felt a low level of fear in their communities (60% responded that they are unafraid), while 35% felt somewhat afraid and 5% felt very afraid. Many respondents (72%) also noticed an increase in youth with weapons. They believed these weapons to come from parents, family members, elders, other gang members, and the streets. They believed youth to acquire these weapons either illegally or from careless adults.

Respondents were asked to think about the things that influences gang culture. Many replied that media, television and music, create the belief that gangs are “cool.” Others said that the culture is influenced by anger, pain, and fear experienced in youths’ home life. They said that many are looking for a place to belong, have a family, or develop a sense of power. One respondent said that gang culture is influenced by “not having your own mind.” Some felt that gang members simply lacked discipline and positive influences in their lives. A few noted that drugs and money influence gang culture. Still others noted that racial tensions were a factor in gang culture as well.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 23 March 2007 Finally, youth were asked if they had any last thoughts about what they see in their schools and in their communities. Some felt that there wasn’t a problem in their school or community. One stated, “There’s not a lot of gangs; People just want to look hard core.” Several reiterated that there is a lack of discipline among people they know, in schools, and in the community. “The lack of discipline in our schools and community contribute to youth crimes more than anything else, in my opinion.” One respondent felt the gang situation is “hopeless.”

Table 1. Youth survey responses to Demography (Total N = 66)

DEMOGRAPHY PERCENTAGE RESPONSE RESIDENCE Seattle 77% 51 Auburn 15% 10 Burien 3% 2 Des Moines 2% 1 Enumclaw 2% 1 Kent 2% 1 RACE & ETHNICITY White/Euro-American 12% 8 Black/African American 21% 14 Asian 11% 7 Pacific Islander 6% 4 Latino 27% 18 Native Amer/Alaska Native/First Nation 11% 7 Mixed Race 12% 8 GENDER Male 59% 39 Female 41% 27

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 24 March 2007 Table 2. Youth survey responses to Community

QUESTION PERCENTAGE RESPONSE 1) Do you believe gang activity has increased in your community? * Yes 71% 47 No 29% 19 Total 66 2) Do you believe gang activity has increased in your school? Yes 62% 41 No 38% 25 Total 66 3) Do you think there is an increase of gang activity in your community? * Yes 49% 32 No 51% 33 Total 65 4) Is youth violence increasing in your community? Yes 59% 39 No 41% 27 Total 66 5) Do you feel that your school provides you with enough support, guidance and resources to help you stay out of gangs? Yes 60% 39 No 40% 26 Total 65 6) Do you feel that your community provides you with enough support, guidance and resources help you stay from gangs? Yes 38% 25 No 62% 41 Total 66 7) How do you perceive the police? Friendly 23% 15 Somewhat Friendly 56% 37 Unfriendly 21% 14 Total 66 8) Do you have a stable place to live? Yes 92% 61 No 8% 5 Total 66 * Discrepancy in questions and responses

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 25 March 2007 Table 3. Youth survey responses to support & pressure

QUESTION PERCENTAGE RESPONSE 1) Have you ever felt pressure to join a gang? Yes 24% 16 No 76% 50 Total 66 2) Do you have any family members that are in gangs? Yes 52% 34 No 48% 32 Total 66 3) Do you have any friends that are in gangs? Yes 77% 50 No 23% 15 Total 65 4) Have you ever been bullied or threatened by a gang member in your school? Yes 14% 9 No 86% 57 Total 66 5) Have you ever been bullied or threatened by a gang member in your community? Yes 24% 16 No 76% 50 Total 66 6) As a youth do you feel that you have an outlet when you have issues in school or at home? Yes 48% 30 No 52% 33 Total 63

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 26 March 2007 Table 4. Youth survey responses to safety & gang perceptions Question Percentage Response 1) Do you believe that Seattle & King County has a gang problem? * Yes 82% 54 No 18% 12 Total 66 2) Do you believe the issue of gang violence is being addressed in your community and school? Yes 45% 30 No 55% 36 Total 66 3) Please rate your level of fear regarding gang violence. Very afraid 5% 3 Somewhat afraid 35% 23 Unafraid 60% 39 Total 65 4) Do you believe King County has a gang issue, if so, do you feel it is concentrated in certain areas of King County? * Yes 62% 40 No 38% 24 Total 64 5) Do you see an increase in youth using weapons? Yes 72% 47 No 28% 18 Total 65 *Discrepancy in questions and responses

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 27 March 2007 SECTION THREE: COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

The researchers conducted a total of 15 interviews with stakeholders referred by HSD. The interviewees included youth program and community service providers, school staff / school program managers, law enforcement, juvenile justice program staff, gang intervention specialists, and counselors. Interviews were conducted both in person and by telephone. As per guidance from HSD, the interviews targeted respondents familiar with the Central District, South Seattle, and South King County.

HOT SPOTS AND GANG SETS Descriptions of hot spots and gang sets primarily included areas in the Central District, South Seattle, West Seattle, White Center, SeaTac, and Burien. The North End was also mentioned. Membership primarily consisted of youth of color and immigrant youth. The following specifics were mentioned by interviewees. • Deuce 8 or 28 and Jackson • South End • Rainier and Henderson • Madison and Union • Rainier Valley • South Park • Rainier Beach • Summit and Ingraham schools (North End) • “LP” • G.D.’s • SUR x 3 • Blood • Crip

GANG DESCRIPTION AND CRIMINAL ACTIVITY The following is a list of terms used by interviewees to describe gang members. A few of these descriptions affirm concerns shared in other sections of this document regarding stereotyping of

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 28 March 2007 youth in general as gang members. These descriptions also shed light on the need for developing a clearer definition of youth gangs and challenging the assumptions about “gang member” appearance. This includes understandings of youth attire and graffiti as expressions of gang membership versus youth trends in clothing and graffiti not identified with gang membership. • Graffiti on clothes/backpacks/notebooks • Everything / less identifiable (indicating lack of visibly identifiable differences from other youth) • Sagging pants • Baggy clothes and colors • “Dickies”, flannel shirts • Drug use and selling • Car Jacking • Robbery • Petty theft • Car theft • Assault • Use of weapons • Graffiti/tagging • Vandalism • Hustling • Prostitution • Recruiting other members by giving them gifts – CDs, bicycles, coats • Ages 10 – 25 • All of these – as well as many looking like average youth

RISK FACTORS /FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH AT-RISK BEHAVIORS In addition to this list below, community stakeholders identified “ethnic minorities” as a potential risk factor. It is important to note that this must be taken in context of interviews, i.e., interviewees were not just indentifying risk factors, but were also identifying who might be the most likely to identify as a gang member. Identifying “ethnic minorities” as a risk factor in the context of the

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 29 March 2007 interviews was understood to be based on knowledge of disproportionality, the connections between ethnic families and families of color living in poverty and youth at-risk behaviors, rather than stereotyping. Additionally, in terms of cultural competence and the need for culturally specific prevention and intervention, it is understood that there are cultural values specific to ethnic minorities which can be considered protective factors. • No strong positive male influence • History of exposure to violence • Juvenile Justice involvement • Mental health concerns • Substance abuse issues • Domestic violence at home • Single parent household / Mother working lots of hours • Teen pregnancy • Parents with substance abuse problems • Learning disabilities • Generational / adult family members gang affiliated or former gang affiliated • Cyclical – e.g., impact of juvenile justice records on ability to get a job as adult • Negative experiences in school system • They tend to be younger and more naive, willing to do anything to be accepted by their peers.

TRENDS This is a list of trends that might indicate an increase in gang activities and the kinds of activities that seem reflective of gang membership. However, these are also situations that can be construed as stereotyping and assumptions regarding gang membership. Additional work is needed to discern between assumptions and definitions regarding “trends” in gang activities. • Frequent gathering or hanging out • Lots of information coming from youth • Recruiting younger members • Graffiti

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 30 March 2007 • Neighborhoods with higher gang activity like Rainier Beach/Rainier Valley • Media exploiting, more sensational • Criminal activities are on the rise – violence; car prowl; home invasion • School drop out of youth • Regulated to home area • Community motivated (territorial) • Racial tensions that is quickly labeled as gang activity • Girls suspended for threats to murder • Girls being prostituted

PREVENTION/INTERVENTION STRATEGIES Interviewees were asked to share ideas of what might work in terms of prevention or intervention of gang activities. Most of the responses below were based on interviewee experiences as service providers, school staff, or gang intervention specialists. • People who can relate to youth • “….we don’t want your treatment because it doesn’t speak to us….” • Street outreach/money • Jobs • Early intervention/prevention • Active tutoring • Couples counseling • Respond to issues of race • Culturally relevant role models • Substance abuse programs • Alternative programming • Providing them a sense of their history (ie. African history) • Prevention, intervention, suppression through community impact • Bridging schools • “getting the youth involved in positive things that aren't just for the moment”

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 31 March 2007 • “the time frame that our program's contracts say we can work with a gang involved/affiliated youth” • “our work becomes a lifestyle change that will be for the betterment of the youth and his/her future”

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS In general, the descriptions of “gang” member provided by respondents are difficult to interpret in that the question itself can lead to stereotypical and racist assumptions about gangs. Some community members see “gang” as a highly racialized term and a term which perpetuates negative stereotypes of people of color, especially African American youth. Unfortunately, there are also difficulties in determining definitions of “gang” activity or membership. Comments from local law enforcement and community stakeholders describe different understandings of the term “gang.” Law enforcement officials differ amongst themselves in terms of what might be a “gang” related crime, e.g., a crime committed by a person who identifies as a gang member, or a crime which furthers the interest of a gang. This data indicates the need to further develop our understanding of gang related crimes and violent and criminal activities committed by youth in general as there is some conflation between the two.

Anecdotally, there is some indication that gang recruitment targets younger juveniles. This seems to be a change from just a few years ago where the youth identifying as gang members seemed to be older. This information also reflects comments from law enforcement, which have also seen younger children becoming involved in gang related activities. Gang recruitment activities incorporate the use of incentives such as gifts of “CDs, bicycles, and coats.” There are also anecdotal reports of girls being recruited for sex work in schools, but there have been conflicting anecdotes of whether this is gang related recruitment or not. There might also be some conflation of some criminal activities with gang membership, e.g., “tagging” vs. graffiti that is not gang affiliated.

In general, this qualitative data and research by BTB indicates that there are at least 4 gang sets and a number of “hybrid” gangs, totaling close to 200 gangs identified in the local area. (See Appendix, “Gang Sets”) The “hot spots” or areas most frequently identified with high level of gang activity were Central and South Seattle and South King County. Additionally, community forums and anecdotal information from law enforcement indicate substantial gang related activities in the

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 32 March 2007 Northgate Mall and Ingraham High School areas. However, most of the direct data collection for this project focused on Central and South Seattle and South King County.

Community stakeholders were asked to identify risk factors associated with gang activities. In general, the risk factors mentioned include factors that are standard in assessment of high risk youth, including previous juvenile justice involvement, issues regarding school or truancy, mental health challenges, substance abuse, violence in the home and their neighborhood, lack of supervision, no strong male role model, learning disabilities, and younger age. Additionally, lack of employment and access to recreational resources were noted not only in these interviews, but also in the community forums.

Interviewees were also asked if there was a perceived increase or decrease in gang membership. Most interviewees could not identify a specific point in time when, but did identify that they perceive an increase. Indicators they mentioned were graffiti, hearing about more gang activity, more violence, car prowling, and home invasions. Some also talked about territorial conflicts amongst gang members and racially motivated gang activities. There were also a few comments regarding violence used by female youth. However, again, it is difficult to discern whether there has been some conflation with gang membership and other high risk youth behaviors. Community members acknowledged that some of these activities might not be about gang related activities, but about youth who have committed crimes in general.

Prevention and intervention strategies focused primarily on development of employment activities and training, street outreach, public education on anti-racism, substance abuse prevention and treatment, building the parent/s’ skills, community involvement, community programs, tutoring programs, mentoring, developing the skills of school staff, and programs within the schools and bridging schools with services. During interviews and community forums gentrification and racism were mentioned as contributing to the displacement of low income families and spread of youth and or gang violence. There were several comments regarding the need for culturally relevant programs, including culturally or ethnic specific role models to reach out to youth, providing African American history and/or culturally specific interventions, e.g., “….we don’t want your treatment because it doesn’t speak to us….”

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 33 March 2007 SECTION FOUR: POLICY MAKERS / PUBLIC OFFICIALS INTERVIEWS

The research team conducted a total of 15 interviews with policy makers and public officials, including law enforcement and programs funded to work specifically with juvenile offenders. The interviewees were referred to the research team by the HSD and the Workgroup and interviews were conducted by phone. The data below quantifies some of the themes repeated throughout the interviews and includes quotes to highlight or further describe some of those themes. It is important to note that these quotes are perceptions and/or opinions shared by the interviewees and may not accurately reflect actual events or situations.

INDICATORS THAT YOUTH GANG VIOLENCE HAS INCREASED 13 of 15 interviewees indicated gang violence has increased.

• Criminal Activity – Interviewees gave examples of criminal activity that they either witnessed or heard about from youth, service providers or community members, including: o Guns 10/13 o Violent Assaults 10/13 o Shootings 9/13 o Tagging and Graffiti 7/13 o Drug 6/13 o Robberies 6/13 o Drive –bys 5/13 o Auto Theft 3/13 o Defacing of Property 2/13 o Stabbings 2/13

“….more graffiti was visible – then you get into what’s tagging and what’s gang related graffiti --- I’ve concluded that if a community says there’s more graffiti – it’s is about intimidation of a community, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s gang related or tagging if that community is scared…If a community perceives that there is a gang problem, then there is a gang problem because they are scared…”

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 34 March 2007 “In LA in the late 80’s there was code of conduct amongst gangs that “you don’t shoot on Mama’s front porch” so when you wanted to get at someone you would wait for them to come out and only shoot at them. Now gangs will just shoot the house and kill whoever’s living there – so if the shooting was directed at one person you may have more victims by association because other people were living there or around the street.”

“One example was that in White Center an officer was killed by BGD (Black Gang Disciple) he had just killed another gang member – when the officer responded he didn’t know what he was walking into and the gang member shot him, that’s the most extreme side of it.”

“When I was 13 years old, I couldn’t tell you how to get a gun…Kids know how to make the contacts on the streets to get a gun these days… another example – it was after a funeral for a gang member who had been killed, we had reports of gun shots of kids, 13 and 15 – The 13 year old claimed he got the gun at the funeral, gang members were handing out guns for protection – he was testing out the gun…”

“From 2004 Risk Factor data it shows that 39,000 children statewide are living in a home that has a loaded and unlocked gun.”

• Violent Behavior Activity from Youth – Interviewees reported these observations from schools, youth program services, juvenile detention centers and on the streets. o Violent Acts, Fights 8/13 o Dress, Clothing, Paraphernalia 7/13 o Making Gang Signs 7/13 o Group Congregation in Public Spaces 6/13 o Marking Territory and Intimidation 6/13 o Marked Absences from homes/schools 3/13

“Parents are saying my child is not coming home…behavior and attitude is belligerent – there is more of challenge to get clients attention…this last year has been hard because kids are in involved in gangs and gangs have their attention.”

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 35 March 2007 “Been hearing reports more gang activity, more fighting, kids in detention, we see in our ART – Aggression Replacement Training, one of the evidence programs treatments programs where there are groups, we have 30 group sessions kids role play staying out of trouble, controlling their anger and making good decisions. We recently had kids in different gangs fighting with each other in the same ART session.”

“I’m seeing groups of kids coming to court now too, he’s bringing five or six friends to court with markers of clothing to being gang related.”

“We also hear from people in HUD an increase in signs of gang activity in public housing, graffiti, tagging and kids mimicking gang behavior.”

• Gang Recruitment – Interviewees who spoke about these indicators were getting them from youth and school officials. o Female recruitment/gang activity 5/13 o Older gang members to younger kids 4/13 o Passive recruitment in schools 2/13

“Getting younger kids such as 8 or 9 year old to go into residential burglary. If these kids get caught they don’t have a record so they are first time offenders and sent to diversion court and get off with fewer charges. That’s one example of how gangs are using younger kids in crimes.”

“There’s also a lot of prostitution especially in the summer, many girls are out being prostituted in gang life….Areas that you can see a lot of youth prostitution are in North Seattle...Gang members recruit the cute girls to them to use them – cute girls get recruited first so that the boys jump into to the gang.”

• Internet – Participants who addressed this spoke passionately about the proliferation of things they could observe and how it was a part of youth gang culture. o MySpace 3/13

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 36 March 2007 “Especially if there’s a shooting, while the police are speculating on whether it was gang I can go onto MySpace and they will have more information than the news.…There will be kids saying RIP—sometimes retaliation talk so you know it was a gang involved shooting.…know this before the police do….”

“I see a lot – their web backgrounds are in gang colors, names, signs.…I can tell who is affiliated, because whoever recently died there will be a lot RIP claiming their sets….they will just claim their name, on their back splash – in their tittles, or quotes their street names – the other kids street names.…Sometimes posing with weapons, throwing hand signs, have pictures with them smoking weed and drinking alcohol.”

• Self Disclosure/Reporting - Participants obtained this information from youth in schools, social service programs and in juvenile detention centers. The trend is that most youth are not trying to hide their gang affiliations and are very vocal and transparent about it. o Youth identifying to be in gang 9/13

“Being affiliated or associated or claiming to belong to some gang – I hear our clients say things like “I’m a BGD, (Black Gang Disciple) or I’m a Deuce 8?” I’m hearing that more and more and before I wasn’t hearing that before. Before when we screened for that and kids said “I don’t do that” …now kids are saying that they are in gangs or refusing to answer the questions, which is an indicator of probably being in a gang.”

“I am also seeing kids in integral parts of town hot spots – growing number of young people who would congregate and I would talk to them and ask if they had gang affiliations and they would tell me who they were with.…”

“We have over 275 kids served --- more than half were level 1 which means hardcore gang members.”

“Five years ago less than 1% of our clients would say that they were involved with gangs. Now out of every five screens 80-90% of the clients answer that they are involved in gangs.”

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 37 March 2007 • Calls and Requests from Community – Participants spoke about the places that request their services or expertise and that there is a marked increase in the amount of calls and requests they get in relation to youth gang activity. o Schools 7/13 o Community 6/13 o Parents 1/13

• Media o News 5/13

WHEN DID YOUTH GANG VIOLENCE INCREASE AND WHY? In addition to quantifying the most recent marked increase in youth gang activity, several participants addressed that this was also an increase from what they perceived to be a trend.

• Two –Three years ago 9/13 • Four to Five Years Ago 2/13 • 1 year 1/13

WHAT AREAS IN SEATTLE SHOW AN INCREASE IN YOUTH GANG ACTIVITY? In addition to naming parts of Seattle, participants also named King County areas because they recognized that the increase in Seattle is related to kids who were gentrified out of their old neighborhoods and are returning to Seattle gang ties.

• South Seattle 9/13 • Central Area 8/13 • Rainier Beach 6/13 • West Seattle/Delridge 6/13 • Burien 3/13 • Federal Way 3/13 • SeaTac/Auburn 2/13 • Tacoma 2/13

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 38 March 2007 • Kent 1/13 • Des Moines 1/13 • Skagit County 1/13

“For example deuce 8 gang is from 23rd and Jackson, some of those kids who are part of that gang live in Skyway, Federal Way, Burien – it’s become a regional problem because of gentrification and families that lived in Seattle five years ago can’t afford it so they move out to Auburn, Skyway, Burien-- those areas are having more problems and the gang members still have ties to their old neighborhood but are in a new area.”

CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUTH GANGS IN SEATTLE/KING COUNTY These are terms used to by interviewees to describe the current perception of gang structures. • Transient Gangs • Hybrid Gangs • Gang Make Up and Structure • Profiles of youth gang members • Disenfranchised Youth • Generational • Criminal Activity

“It’s not about the money for them, it’s about respect and status because they are not robbing people they are shooting them….It’s about wanting to be seen, they feel invisible somehow.”

“Teenagers in 1990 who were 13 or14 year olds – they are now early 30 late 20’s and their kids are being raised as gang bangers – I’ve seen preschoolers going to school as gang bangers, wearing the colors and signs.”

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 39 March 2007

WAYS THAT GANG VIOLENCE AND CRIME HAS CHANGED IN SEATTLE/KING COUNTY The 8 interviewees who identified a change commented on the following: • Use of guns 4/8 • Technology 2/8 • Retaliation 1/8 • Younger Member Recruitment 1/8 • Attitudes towards authority 1/8

“Youth violence has increased more in the last several years, the ease of young kids getting guns and using kids – 11 or 12….Kid with gun arrested – not a lot that can be done.…if it’s a violent offense we can put it to trial.”

“It used to be that youth gang used to carry hand guns now they are automatic weapons…gang members don’t have rumbles anymore they carry 9mm glocs.”

“They get really violent with each other….sometimes burn to death girlfriends who date other gang members just to prove how tough they are….”

“Technology has changed it Facebook and Myspace to promote gang phenomenon…kids posting things, what set they’re with, if they have conflict with other sets, dumb stuff.”

“Now these gangs have young members, recruiting the young to get them ready for battle so some of that has changed.”

“Youth gang members have no compunction to get into a shooting with law enforcement…General violence and less concerned about confrontations with police or anyone in authority.”

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 40 March 2007

RISK FACTORS • Economics 7/10 • Families 7/10 • Lack of Pro-Social Activities 5/10 • Academic Success 4/10 • Lack of Role Models 4/10 • Self Esteem 4/10 • Truancy 2/10 • Geographic Location 1/10

“Parents that don’t care about their children, it makes the children vulnerable to want to be accepted – a gang may also offer protection, status, things that a child isn’t getting from the family structure – also economic structure that the family is not able to provide…”

“The whole gang scene is about selling dope in some areas, you need to have money for some things, a lot of guys will prefer to sell dope because it’s easier and faster than going and working a min wage job. An example of their thinking is “Do I do a transaction of two minutes for$ 40 or do I work 8 hours for $40.”

“I got kids calling me, one kid said “ I don’t want to sell drugs these guys want me to see drugs just please get me a job….I don’t want to do this” .…He’s forced to sell drugs because he can’t get a job, he’s not in school and he’s addicted.”

“It’s not about the money for them (African American male gang members), it’s about respect and status because they are not robbing people they are shooting them.…It’s about wanting to be seen, they feel invisible somehow.”

“I think that when kids don’t have a connection to their schools or community and or to their family, that they want to find some place to connect and the gang offers them that opportunity. And

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 41 March 2007 when they don’t have a hope that they would receive from a solid education then I think it’s more tempting to find your support from a gang.”

“I think that what kids are looking for glorifications of gangs – technology makes gangs looks sexy, kids who don’t have role models or feeling of belonging to their community, family, -- they get a sense of belonging to gangs – able to make money, all things that may be missing in their home life but their gang life offers to them”

“If other resources don’t exists , then your child is left to figure out, and sometimes they join gangs because there are role models and types of mentorship….be with someone who has nice car, rims, music system, money that becomes attractive as opposed to other things.”

“Cook, house cleaner, Day and Evening shift – trying to put food on the table and winter bills – kids fall through cracks we need programs for them after school program.”

“If you are youth in gang infested area – you have to claim something so that you are protected, it’s easier to align with a set so that you have protection when you go out, as opposed to not having any affiliation at all – most kids feel that they need it some kids can escape it.…”

DELIVERY GAPS IN PROGRAMS 9 interviewees indicated gaps and issues regarding service delivery as follows:

• More Resources for Community Programs 4/9 • More Resources for Schools 4/9 • Sharing information/collaboration between systems 3/9 • English language for immigrant families 2/9 • Lack of general facilities for youth and recreation 2/9 • Lack of Resources for cities outside of Seattle 2/9 • More Resources for Prosecutors 2/9 • Jobs For youth 1/9

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 42 March 2007 • Lack of Education Amongst System workers 1/9 • Limitation of Jurisdiction 1/9 • More Resources for Law Enforcement 1/9 • Stakeholders sharing same risk factors 1/9

“(In King County).…a youth was incarcerated and was released that information wasn’t released to Social Service agency.…that youth had nowhere to live and lived under a bridge and ended up burglarizing a home….in addition the appropriate information from the Social Service agencies wasn’t provided to the youth.”

“Cause of these gaps – perceived obstacles to information sharing – there are too many agencies that believe that they are not authorized that they can share information across systems….too many people are scared of lawsuits or litigation for their agencies if they release information…They need to be educated on the circumstances where they can share and are obligated to share information across systems to help reconnect at risk youth.”

“Politics say we can’t work together…I wish there was a collaboration between probation officers and community agencies, coordinating and collaborating services.”

“POC (people of color) communities not enough parental supervision – English barrier parents may not entirely understand what is going in community, difficulty in communication with law enforcement and don’t have cultural competency.”

“The (funder) decided they were not going to focus on the most high risk youth – it took away the opportunity for helping those who most needed it.…one example is that a case manager would be working with three young men who were at risk for gang involvement, in the past what they would do is work to get them jobs, counseling, youth activities, recreation activities, family counseling to get them back in school….when (funder) made that shift the case manager had no reason to work with those three men at all and they had to work with younger kids in schools.”

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 43 March 2007 “I think these folks need safe housing, need a special life services and it doesn’t exist….need special court specialists.…need to have identities and things protected and there are no systems working together to provide those services because their families need specific services too such as counseling, therapy, medication….they are just being plugged into regular services which do not suit their needs.”

“Always delivery gaps in the system…we serve Seattle king county, you cross on Roxbury and you’re in Burien, you cross the street and you are in West Seattle. We can work with the kids on the right side not the left side….the city says you can’t work them.”

SUMMARY OF POLICY MAKER / PUBLIC OFFICIAL INTERVIEWS The criminal activities mentioned were similar to those mentioned by the community stakeholders, with particular emphasis on violent assaults, use of guns, and shootings. Several mentioned tagging and graffiti as well as drugs and robberies. One official inferred that whether or not it’s labeled gang activity, it is important to take into account community perceptions of gang activity and community fear. There was also some concern that gang activity has changed to the extent that the gang members no longer discern between shooting the targeted individual versus generally shooting at the member’s home and no longer maintaining codes of honor which left family members out of the fray. Additionally, the concern for accessible guns was reflected in this data collection as in other data collected for this project.

Indicators of increased gang activity identified by the interviewees include an increase in the visible use of gang colors, increased frequency of members gathering in public places including accompanying other members to court wearing colors, increase in tagging, and using gang signs. The use of internet websites, some displaying gang colors, to promote or discuss gang activity on MySpace and Facebook, in particular, was mentioned by interviewees and anecdotally by law enforcement officers. Interviewees mentioned websites where youth display photos of gang members, sometimes posing with weapons, using gang hand signs, and gang members using drugs or alcohol.

One interviewee mentioned that half of the youth (of 275) they served were assessed as “hardcore” gang members. Another interviewee estimated that less than 5 years ago only 1% of the youth they

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 44 March 2007 served in their program identified gang involvement. This number increased for their program to an estimated 80 to 90% of their clients. Interestingly, requests for assistance with gang related response were mostly from schools and community members, with only one interviewee mentioning that parents request assistance. Several interviewees indicated that media reports also show an increase – however – during community forums, this was challenged as sensationalizing gang activities by news reporters.

The majority of interviewees believed that they started noticing the increase in gang activities about 2 or 3 years ago. The areas most frequently identified as hot spots were the Central District, South Seattle, West Seattle, and several areas in South King County. Interviewees also mentioned an increase of generational or single families with a number of members in gangs including parents and their children. Additionally, interviewees mentioned they had seen younger gang members and one mentioned seeing preschoolers dressed in gang colors and signs. One law enforcement interviewee mentioned younger juveniles using guns, a comment which reflects anecdotal information from other law enforcement officials and associated with concerns that younger juveniles are being exploited for purposes of gang related activities. Law enforcement and criminal justice interviewees concurred that there is an increase in the severity of violence used and the use of handguns as well as automatic weapons.

Risk factors mentioned during these interviews with public officials and policy makers were reflective of those highlighted in the community stakeholder interviews and other data collected for this project, including single parents who are focused on working for economic survival and forced to leave youth unsupervised, families with no income or low income, lack of employment which will enable self-sufficiency, lack of connection to school and academic support, lack of role models, gang violence in their environment, and homelessness after incarceration. Additionally, this data and community forums indicated that gentrification impacts communities by displacement and economic challenges, influencing the spread of gang activity.

Interviewees mentioned that more collaboration between systems was needed, more resources are needed for community programs and schools, and culturally specific and language specific resources are needed (e.g., parents need interpreters to help with communicating with law enforcement). Interviewees made comments which indicate that services and funding structures sometimes do not

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 45 March 2007 meet the specific needs of the youth and further research is needed to identify gaps in funding and other funding challenges.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 46 March 2007 SECTION FIVE: THE RIY PROMISING PRACTICES EVALUATION

In addition to providing the City of Seattle with this needs assessment, DYJA was the evaluator for the Reinvesting in Youth (RIY) Promising Program Evaluation. This was a four year project developed to evaluate the effectiveness and help increase the capacity of community-based organizations working to prevent juvenile justice involvement primarily with youth of color. During the evaluation, 394 youth were interviewed one-on-one over multiple waves, and the following baseline data were collected in 2005 and 2006 from a total of six youth serving agencies. Only one of the programs where the data was collected focused on juvenile justice involved youth; the others worked with at risk youth.

Table 5. Data from the RIY Additional Measures Tool I think you are safer, and have protection, if you join a gang Disagree a lot 53% Somewhat disagree 11% Neither agree/disagree 27% Somewhat agree 8% Agree a lot 2% I will probably join a gang Disagree a lot 64% Somewhat disagree 10% Neither agree/disagree 19% Somewhat agree 4% Agree a lot 3% Some of my friends at school belong to gangs Disagree a lot 22% Somewhat disagree 8% Neither agree/disagree 22% Somewhat agree 28% Agree a lot 20% I think it’s cool to be in a gang Disagree a lot 60% Somewhat disagree 14% Neither agree/disagree 20% Somewhat agree 5% Agree a lot 2% My friends would think less of me if I joined a gang Disagree a lot 26% Somewhat disagree 15% Neither agree/disagree 32% Somewhat agree 10% Agree a lot 18%

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 47 March 2007 Table 5. Data from the RIY Additional Measures Tool (con’t) I believe it is dangerous to join a gang: you will probably end up getting hurt or killed if you belong to a gang Disagree a lot 6% Somewhat disagree 5% Neither agree/disagree 21% Somewhat agree 21% Agree a lot 48% I think being in a gang makes it more likely that you will get into trouble Disagree a lot 4% Somewhat disagree 4% Neither agree/disagree 15% Somewhat agree 21% Agree a lot 56% I belong to a gang Disagree a lot 71% Somewhat disagree 4% Neither agree/disagree 15% Somewhat agree 4% Agree a lot 7% Some people in my family belong to a gang, or used to belong to a gang Disagree a lot 34% Somewhat disagree 4% Neither agree/disagree 20% Somewhat agree 16% Agree a lot 26%

Table 6. Data from Washington State Risk Assessment Tool History of anti-social friends/companions:

Been a gang member/associate 28% Current friends/companions youth actually spends time with:

Gang member/associate 23%

SUMMARY OF RIY DATA A little more than half of the youth interviewed did not believe joining a gang would make them safer or think they would have protection. However, about 27% seemed to neither agree nor disagree with this perspective. When asked if they would join a gang, 7% identified that they somewhat agreed or agreed a lot. When asked if their friends at school were in gangs, 48% indicated

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 48 March 2007 that they either somewhat agreed or agreed a lot. When asked if their friends would think less of them if they were in a gang, 26% disagreed a lot. The majority of interviewees identified that being in a gang would get them into a lot of trouble and that being in a gang was dangerous.

Unfortunately, when asked if some of their family belonged to or used to belong to a gang, 42% responded that they either somewhat agreed or agreed a lot. Twenty-eight percent identified that they had been a gang member or associate. Twenty-three percent indicated that they currently spend time with friends or companions who identified as gang members or associates. This data concurs with the data described above in the interviews with community stakeholders, policy makers and public officials, and anecdotal information from law enforcement which indicate that there are a substantial number of youth with generational ties to youth gangs. Alarmingly, this data identifies that approximately one-quarter of the 394 youth interviewed had some affiliation with a gang or gang members.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 49 March 2007 SECTION SIX: YOUTH GANG VIOLENCE “BEST” AND “EVIDENCE-BASED” PRACTICES

The following programs aim to reduce and prevent youth violence and gang involvement. All of the programs have undergone process and/or outcome evaluation with positive results. The programs are divided into five categories based on the type of prevention and the target population. The intervention and therapeutic treatment programs target individuals who have already committed acts of violence, demonstrated maladaptive behavior, or are current gang members. The middle school prevention programs, elementary school prevention programs, and after school time prevention programs target children who are at-risk but may not yet be involved with gangs or violent activities. The female specific prevention/intervention programs specifically target at-risk or gang-involved female youth. Additionally, a final category includes programs which have shown some success in the Seattle and King County areas.

INTERVENTION

Caught in the Crossfire

In 1994 the non-profit public health organization Youth ALIVE! began the Caught in the Crossfire program in Oakland, California. The program involves an emergency room-based intervention focusing on reducing gang-related youth violence and death, (McGloin, 2005). Youth who are admitted to hospitals for gang-related injuries receive bedside visits from intervention specialists who are former victims of violence. The specialists work with the youth to identify needs of employment, social services and mental health. Once the youth are out of the hospital, the specialists meet with the youth on an ongoing basis to encourage a nonviolent reintegration into society through assistance from youth service professionals such as probation officers, schoolteachers and hospital medical social workers. The specialists also introduce the youth to resources such as educational, recreational, and job training programs, counseling, and legal assistance, (Becker et al., 2004).

Since 1994, the Caught in the Crossfire program has served over 1,000 youth in Oakland. A yearlong evaluation of the program found that 98 percent of the youth participants were not

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 50 March 2007 recurrent victims of violence and none of the youth retaliated against their assailants. In an evaluation, which compared youth participants with youth victims not involved in the program, found that one year after the injury the youth participants were 70 percent less likely to be arrested and 60 percent less likely to have any criminal involvement. The Caught in Crossfire program has been implemented in additional hospitals in Milwaukee, San Francisco, and throughout Massachusetts, (Becker et al., 2004).

Operation Ceasefire

In 1996 the National Institute of Justice, the Boston, Massachusetts Police Department, and researchers from Harvard University implemented Operation Ceasefire. The Operation was a policing intervention program, which focused on reducing youth homicide and youth firearms violence. This was carried out in two components. The first component involved a systematic tracking of and an attack on firearms traffickers who were supplying youth with guns. The second component involved telling gangs explicitly that the Boston Police Department would no longer tolerate any violence. Whenever gang violence occurred, the Operation would send the gangs involved a message that they were going to be under a high level of scrutiny and subsequently put police officers and caseworkers in the gangs’ neighborhoods. The caseworkers additionally offered to provide gang members with health and social services, educational resources, and drug intervention programs, (Braga & Kennedy, 2002).

Following the implementation of Operation Ceasefire, Boston youth homicides fell from an average of 44 youth homicides a year between 1991 and 1995 to 26 homicides in 1996 and 15 homicides 1997. In order to see if this decrease was correlated with Operation Ceasefire, a time series analysis was conducted in one high-risk district that linked the Operation with a 63 percent decrease in youth homicides and a 44 percent decrease in youth gun assaults, (Braga & Kennedy, 2002).

Tri-Agency Resource Gang Enforcement Team (TARGET)

In 1992 the Orange County, California police and sheriff’s departments, District Attorney, and County Probation Department created the Tri-Agency Resource Gang Enforcement Team in

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 51 March 2007 Westminster, California. TARGET aims to reduce gang crimes by first identifying the most violent gang offenders with the worst criminal records. The identified gang members are then closely watched for repeat offenses or violations of probation, in which case they are searched and arrested. Each TARGET team consists of gang investigator police officers, a probation officer, a deputy district attorney, and a district attorney investigator. Since its creation, TARGET teams have been implemented in six others areas of Orange County, (Howell, 2000).

During TARGET’s first 2 years of implementation, the teams identified 647 gang members and labeled 77 of them as high-rate offenders and gang leaders. Ninety-nine percent of these gang members were convicted and sent to juvenile detention or correctional facilities and there was a 62 percent decrease in major gang-related crime in the area. In the years following, criminal activity in the area decreased, including a 57 percent decrease in gang homicides from 1993 to 1999. TARGET won the National League of Cities 1993 award for Exemplary Local Government Criminal Justice Programs, (Howell, 2000).

Operation Cul-De-Sac

In 1990 the Los Angeles Police Department implemented Operation Cul-de-Sac in an effort to reduce gang-on-gang violence and homicide. The Operation focused on reducing the capability to commit a violent crime by installing traffic barriers to block automobile access in several neighborhoods where gang violence was rampant, (McGloin, 2005). These neighborhoods had the highest levels of drive-by shootings, gang homicides, and street assaults in the Los Angeles area. The traffic barriers prevented easy access to major thoroughfares from these areas, making it difficult to commit a drive by shooting and quickly escape from the area, (Lasely, 1998).

In a one-site evaluation sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, crime levels in the area before and during the implementation of Operation Cul-De-Sac and when the Operation ended 2 years later were compared. The number of homicides in the site before and during implementation decreased from 7 to 1 and then increased again after the Operation ended. The number of assaults in the site before and during implementation decreased from 190 to 138. In a comparison site that did not receive traffic barriers, homicide and assault levels during the

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 52 March 2007 same time period did not decrease. Additionally, no evidence was found indicating that violence from Operation Cul-de-Sac sites were displaced into surrounding areas, (Lasley, 1998).

Bringing Everyone’s Strengths Together (BEST)

In 1991 the San José City Council, in coordination with the Mayor’s Gang Prevention Task Force, began funding the Bringing Everyone’s Strengths Together program to provide prevention, intervention, and suppression services for youth gang violence in Santa Clara County, California. The program aims to get 12 to 21 year old high-risk and gang-affiliated youth back into schools, reconnected with their families, and to exhibit prosocial and responsible behavior. BEST program providers promote strengths in youth and their families, communities, and schools by involving youth in leadership program planning and evaluation, supportive and safe environments, and diverse structured activities to build assets such as social competence and personal identity. The program providers also work with families to encourage resiliency in their children by being supportive and setting high expectations for their children at home, in school, and in the community, (“The Bringing,” 2007).

An evaluation was conducted on the Bringing Everyone’s Strengths Together program in the 2005-2006 fiscal year. In a survey administered to the BEST program’s participants and staff in 2006, 87 percent of youth and 91 percent of parents were satisfied with the program, 69 percent of youth reported an improved ability to connect with adults, and 71 percent of youth, 73 percent of parents, and 82 percent of staff reported that the youth participants met their targeted changes in building assets. In Santa Clara County, there was an 87 percent decrease in referrals to the California Youth Authority from 154 referrals in 1996 to 20 referrals in 2006, a 59 percent decrease in Juvenile Hall referrals from 7033 referrals in 1995 to 2893 referrals in 2006, a 52 percent decrease in rate of violent juvenile crime per 100,000 youth from 627 youth in 1994 to 300 youth in 2004, and a 31 percent declining trendline of gang-related incidents from November 1, 2003 to September 30, 2006, (“Bringing,” 2006).

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 53 March 2007 OJJPD Comprehensive Gang Model (Spergel Model)

In 1995 the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention funded five communities to implement a Comprehensive Gang Model developed by Irving Spergel to reduce gang violence and crime in the areas. The intricate model includes several sequential strategies targeted at gang-affiliated or at-risk youth and their surrounding communities. The first step involves community leaders and residents creating and strengthening academic, economic, and social opportunities and agencies for youth in their communities. Street outreach workers then set out to engage youth in these opportunities. Gang suppressions activities are then held and accountability is enforced for gang-affiliated youth. The final step involves modifying the previous program components as they evolve within the communities, (Burch & Kane, 1999).

One community to receive funding for the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model was the city of Mesa, Arizona. The targeted area for the program encompassed the service areas of two junior high schools and contained 18 gangs with 650 gang members at the time of implementation of the program. The program utilized 2 gang detectives, 1 adult and 3 youth probation offices, and 2 outreach workers who collaborated with several community agencies. A long-term evaluation following the course of the 5-year program involved 258 youth who received program services and 96 youth in the same area who received no program services as a control group. In a comparison of a 4-year program period to a 4-year pre-program period, the participating youth decreased their arrest rates 18 percent more than that of the control group during the same time periods. In comparison to three similar areas where the program was not implemented, over the course of the entire program, the program area had a 10.4 percent greater decrease in youth- typical crime incidents than those of the comparison areas. The greater decrease in incidents was most significantly attributed to prior total arrests in the area, the program’s effects, and community/institutional collaboration, (Spergel, Wa, & Sosa, 2005).

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 54 March 2007

THERAPEUTIC TREATMENT

Mulitsystemic Therapy (MST)

Multisystemic Therapy is an intensive home-based treatment involving the family and community of 12 to 17 year old violent and/or drug abusing juvenile offenders at risk for out-of home placement. The theory behind MST, “views individuals as being nested within a complex network of interconnected systems that encompass individual, family, and extrafamilial (peer, school, neighborhood) factors,” (“Blueprints,” 2004). The treatment aims to improve youths’ behaviors in their natural environment by addressing factors related to delinquent behavior. The treatment also aims to teach parents the appropriate skills needed to teach their children responsible behavior. Treatment usually lasts for 60 hours over the course of 4 months, (“Blueprints,” 2004).

A 2006 study on Multisystemic Therapy used 93 juvenile offenders randomly assigned to either MST or, as a control group, treatment as usual services. Sixth months following the onset of treatment, the MST youth demonstrated significantly higher functioning than the control group youth. Eighteen months following the onset of treatment, the MST youth had significantly fewer re-arrests than the control youth. Across several studies led by multiple researchers, Multisystemic Therapy produced 25 to 70 percent decreases in long-term re-arrest rates and 47 to 64 percent decreases in long-term number of days in out-of-home placement, (“Complete,” 2007).

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC)

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care involves specially trained community foster families taking care of teenagers with severe criminal behavior and/or mental health problems at risk of incarceration or hospitalization. The foster families provide youth with intense at-home supervision, limit setting, positive reinforcement, and mentoring in order to create a therapeutic living environment. The foster families attend group meetings with their supervisors while the biological parents are offered family therapy with the hope of eventual reconciliation with their

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 55 March 2007 children. The parents learn methods to manage their youths’ behavior and pay supervised visits to their children at the foster family homes, (“Blueprints,” 2004).

In a 2005 study of Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, 81 female juvenile offenders were randomly assigned to either MTFC or, as a control group, community-based group care. One year after the onset of care, the MTFC youth reported 62 percent fewer days spent in detention or correctional facilities than the control group youth. The MTFC youth also reported significantly fewer official criminal referrals than the control group youth. The MTFC caregivers also reported significantly less delinquent behavior than the control group caregivers, although the same decrease was not reported from the youth themselves, (“Multi-dimensional,” n.d.).

Family Integrated Transitions (FIT)

The Washington State Legislature initiated the Family Integrated Transitions program in 2000 to reduce recidivism rates of juvenile offenders, particularly with substance abuse and mental health disorders. FIT was developed by the Department of Social and Health Services Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration and integrates treatment aspects of Multisystemic Therapy, Motivational Enhancement Therapy, Relapse Prevention, and Dialectical Behavior Therapy. The treatment aims to change youths’ behavior in their home environment using the strengths of family, community, and school to promote this change. FIT is first administered to convicted youth during their last two months of residential stay. The treatment then continues for four to six months while the youth are under parole, (Aos, 2004).

An evaluation of the Family Integrated Transitions program was conducted using 104 youth who received treatment when the program was piloted. In comparison to a control group of 169 similar youth who did not participate in the program, 18 months following the onset of treatment, 27.0 percent of the FIT youth were reconvicted compared to 40.6 percent of the control group youth. The drop in recidivism from the FIT participants is statistically significant, (Aos, 2004).

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 56 March 2007 Functional Family Therapy (FFT)

Functional Family Therapy is a prevention and intervention treatment program for 11 to 18 year old youth at-risk or with histories of substance use and maladaptive or acting out behaviors such as Conduct Disorder and Disruptive Behavior Disorder. The treatment involves a series of phases used to enhance youths’ protective factors and reduce risk factors for antisocial behavior. The phases consist of engagement to prevent early program dropout, motivation to change maladaptive behavior, assessment of interpersonal relationships and systems and their relation to possible changes in behavior, actual behavior change through activities such as communication training, parenting skills, and conflict management, and finally generalization of a family’s functional needs in the context of the limitations and resources of the community. Trained probation officers or mental health professionals carry out the treatment at home or in clinical, educational, or institutional settings in a minimum of 8 to 15 sessions (“Blueprints,” 2004).

The Family Project, the largest Functional Family Therapy research organization in the United States, conducted a 2-yearlong evaluation of FIT by contacting 231 families whose children had been referred to The Family Project by probation officers. Eighty percent of these families had completed FIT treatment. In comparison to a control group of youth who received treatment as usual probation services in the same time period, 1 year following the completion of treatment, the recidivism rates of the FIT youth were roughly half as that of the control group, 19.8 and 36 percent, respectively, (Sexton & Alexander, 2000).

MIDDLE SCHOOL PREVENTION

Se Puede

In 1996 the Se Puede or “You Can” school-based program was implemented in the tri-city area of Alamo, Pharr, and San Juan, Texas in order to prevent at-risk middle school youth from gang involvement and drug use. The tri-city area had about 5,000 gang members in 1999, according to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency prevention. The program uses teachers, counselors, and school security personnel as positive role models to counter the daily youth exposure to gangs. The program lasts for one year and involves individual and group

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 57 March 2007 counseling, curriculum for substance abuse and violence, and weekend camping trips to develop survival skills and youth-mentor relationships, (Howell, 2000).

In a 1999 yearlong evaluation of the Se Puede program, participants showed a decrease in gang involvement despite an increase in the number of gangs in the tri-city area. Of the 926 participants, 20 percent stopped participating in gangs after 6 months and an additional 10 percent stopped after 12 months. Over the course of the evaluation, the number of participants having no contact with law enforcement increased from 34 to 65 percent, (Bilchik, 1999).

Gang Resistance Education and Training Program (GREAT)

In 1991 Phoenix, Arizona law enforcement partnered with local educators and community leaders to develop the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program. The program consists of a middle school-based 9-week curriculum taught by uniformed police officers. The course covers a variety of topics, including cultural sensitivity, conflict resolution, responsibility, goal setting, and the effects of drugs on neighborhoods. The program is designed to be low intensity and capable of reaching large population of students. The aim is to provide students with the self-esteem necessary to resist the peer pressures associated with joining gangs, (Howell, 2000).

A short-term follow-up study was conducted using GREAT participants 12 and 18 months after completion of the program. These participants reported a decreased amount of gang affiliation, including drug use and violent crimes, in comparison to reports prior to participation in the program. Compared to a control group, the GREAT participants reported more positive attitudes towards police and negative attitudes about gangs, and fewer delinquent friends, (Howell, 2000).

An additional long-term follow-up study was conducted using GREAT participants in 1-year intervals up to 4 years after completion of the program. This study measured self-reported prosocial attitudes and behavior. Compared to a control group, there were no significant differences in prosociality from participants in the GREAT program 2 years following completion of the program. Four years after completion of the program however, the GREAT participants reported higher levels of prosocial attitudes and behavior compared to the control

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 58 March 2007 group. The lagged effect led to a revision of the GREAT program in 2001, calling for higher levels of classroom teacher involvement and a greater focus on active learning rather than lecturing, (Esbensen et al., 2002).

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PREVENTION

Montreal Preventive Treatment Program

The Montreal Prevention Experiment began in 1985 as a treatment to prevent the onset of antisocial behavior and consequential poor school performance in young children. The experiment used elementary school boys aged 7 to 9 whose former kindergarten teachers had identified them displaying disruptive behavior. During the two-year treatment the children and their parents met on an ongoing basis with caseworkers. The parents were taught skills such as monitoring behavior, effective discipline, and managing family crises. The child participants attended group sessions with undisruptive peers and were taught prosocial and self-control skills using role-playing, peer modeling, and reinforcement techniques, (Howell, 2000).

The child participants of the experiment received follow-up evaluation for several years after the treatment ended. One area of the follow-up included an assessment of delinquency, including theft, trespassing, fighting, and gang involvement. In comparison with a control group, the evaluators found that 31.8 percent of participants committed at least one theft between the ages of 10 and 12 compared to 54.9 percent of the control group. Five years after the implementation of the program, the evaluators found that 2 percent of participants reported gang engagement compared to 19 percent of the control group, (Tremblay et al., 1994).

Gang Resistance is Paramount (GRIP)

In 1982, the city of Paramount, California formed the Gang Resistance Is Paramount program in order to dissuade youth from future gang membership. The program takes use of schools, families, and the local government to implement three main components. The first component consists of neighborhood meetings for parents, which provide support and assistance for preventing their children from gang involvement. The second consists of courses for second

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 59 March 2007 and fifth grade students that teach self-esteem and alternative activities to gang involvement. The courses also cover issues such as peer pressure, tattoos, drug use, and the consequences of gang activity. The third component consists of follow-up courses for ninth grade students that serve to reinforce the lessons learned from the previous courses, (Howell, 2000).

Several studies have been conducted on the GRIP program. One study found that 50 percent of participants were undecided about gang involvement before participating in the program while 90 percent of participants had negative attitudes towards gangs after program participation. There was no change in indecision about gang involvement for a control group over the same time period. An additional two studies that measured attitudes of seventh and ninth graders after participating in the fifth grade courses found that 90 percent of participants still had negative attitudes towards gangs. A final study found that 96 percent of 3,612 past program participants were not identified as gang members in local police records, (Arnette & Walsleben 1998).

In a separate study which compared 735 participants who completed the entire GRIP program with students who were not participants, the evaluators found that the participants were moderately less likely to have negative attitudes about gang activities or report gang involvement compared to the non-participants. The evaluators also found that 72 percent of the participants felt that drugs and alcohol a large factor of gang life compared to 59 percent of the non- participants, (Solis, Schwartz, & Hinton, 2003).

AFTER SCHOOL TIME PREVENTION

Gang Prevention Through Targeted Outreach

In 1991 the Boys & Girls Club of America implemented the Gang Prevention Through Targeted Outreach program to provide at-risk youth with alternative activities to gang violence. The program uses representatives from community agencies, schools, social service organizations, and law enforcement to recruit at-risk youth into recreational, educational, and life skills activities already offered by the Boys & Girls Club. These activities focus on shifting youths’ attitudes away from those associated with involvement in gangs and violence. The activities

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 60 March 2007 work on improving conflict resolution, communication, problem solving, and decision-making skills. The outreach program also uses a case management system to track participants’ involvement in program activities, school attendance, and juvenile justice. The case management system also tracks participants’ individual achievements or problems. This allows case managers to award positive behavior or attempt to intervene when a youth is likely to act in a way indicative of eventual gang involvement, such as skipping school or associating with delinquent peers, (Esbensen, 2000).

An evaluation sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention was carried out in 2002 using over 1,000 youth participants in the outreach program over a ten- month period. The study found that significant amounts of at-risk youth were being recruited into the outreach programs. The study also found that frequent attendance to program activities was positively correlated with a delayed onset of gang behavior, less contact with the juvenile justice system, fewer delinquent behaviors, improved school outcomes, and more positive social relationships, (Arbreton & McClanahan, 2002).

FEMALE SPECIFIC PREVENTION/INTERVENTION

Movimiento Ascendencia

The Pueblo Youth Services Bureau implemented the Movimiento Ascendencia or “Upward Movement” after school program in Pueblo, Colorado to provide female youth with alternative activities to substance use and gang involvement. Outreach workers recruit at-risk or gang- involved females aged 8 to 19 years into the program. Additional female participants are referred into the program. The program involves the teaching of conflict mediation and resolution skills and information on sexuality, pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases. The program also includes activities designed to build cultural awareness, mediation experience, and self-esteem. The program provides a variety of additional resources, including a 9-month long mentoring program, recreational activities, and tutoring, (Williams, Curry & Cohen, 2002).

In an evaluation using surveys to measure seven different types of delinquent behavior, participants who had completed the Movimiento Ascendencia program reported less delinquent

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 61 March 2007 behavior than they had on entering the program, with significant reductions in five of the seven types of delinquent behavior. In a comparison with a control group, the participants in the program had significantly lower grades prior to entering the program. Following the completion of the program, the participants had a significant increase in grades, with insignificant difference in grades compared to those of the control group, (Williams, Curry & Cohen, 2002).

SEATTLE/KING COUNTY BASED

Seattle Team for Youth (STFY)

In 1989 the City of Seattle launched the Seattle Team for Youth (STFY) program to reverse or prevent school dropout for youth ages 11 to 21 and reduce juvenile crime. Seattle Team For Youth’s initial goals were to: prevent and reduce participation of youth in gangs and promote involvement of youth in lawful activities; support the activities of law enforcement; and facilitate coordination and cooperation among local education, juvenile justice, employment and social services. These goals and the strategies developed were based on the Spergel model for gang prevention/intervention which is discussed in more detail in this report. The program’s initial focus to divert youth from gang and criminal involvement was modified in 2005 as the City of Seattle aligned services to focus on improving graduation rates and academic achievement, thus expanding the targeted youth population. In addition, the service coordination and information sharing aspects of STFY within the law enforcement, probation and court services side, critical functions in the Spergel model, were largely dropped from the program as it focused on receiving referrals from Seattle Public Schools.

Youth who participate in the program have already dropped out or are at risk of dropping out of school due to suspensions, expulsions, truancy, poor grades, or lack of credits needed to graduate high school. The program runs through nonprofit community-based agencies in areas of Seattle, WA, with low-income and poor school attendance rates. The case managers are matched with youth based on ethnicity which contributes to cultural relevancy in program services and helps communication with non-English speaking parents and family members. Case managers from these agencies collaborate with local schools to contact targeted youth and enroll

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 62 March 2007 them into the program. The case managers then assess the youth and design an individualized plan aiming to improve their school-related environment. The case managers meet with the youth regularly in school to coordinate opportunities such as tutoring, health and mental health services, employment, housing, and substance abuse treatment, (“Academic,” 2008).

During the 2006-2007 school year, the Seattle Team for Youth program had success in keeping students in school, but the program was not very successful in improving the participants’ academic performance. During this school year and the school year before the STFY program helped 10 students pass the WASL and 67 students graduate. These numbers are very low in comparison to the $1.2 million annual budget of the program. Cost effectiveness may be an issue for this program as an academic achievement model. These low numbers caused revisions to the program for the 2007-2008 school year. STFY may be better positioned as a dropout prevention, retrieval and crime prevention program as indicated by additional outcomes from 2006/07 including 445 high-risk youth who stayed in school/came back to school, and 228 youth that progressed to the next grade level. The revisions currently being considered under the final year of Levy funding which ends in August, 2008 are, “to refocus services on younger students still in school, facilitate a strong transition to high school, use academic data to determine the need for more rigorous case management services, and provide case management for a longer period of time,” (Miller, McInturff, & Guin, 2007).

HSD staff are interested in redirecting the program back to its original focus on crime prevention/intervention and enhance the service coordination role with the criminal justice system. In 2003, Barbara Gurley, principal consultant with the firm Strengthening Services Using Outcomes, issued an evaluation report of Seattle Team For Youth. The evaluation drew parallel’s between STFY’s service coordination approach and aspects of the Coordinated Services model listed as a cost effective crime prevention approach by the Washington State Institute of Public Policy. The outcome evaluation analyzed juvenile justice records, school records and parent and youth interviews to determine the impact of the program. Highlights are listed below.

Quantitative Information about STFY’s Impact from School and Court Data (2003) • Juvenile justice outcomes - The majority of youth had reductions in criminal activity and severity of criminal activity.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 63 March 2007 • A comparison of the six months before STFY enrollment with the six months after showed that 84% of the youth successfully decreased felony referrals. • 87.5% of criminally involved youth had no convictions in the six months after enrollment. (100% of the sample had convictions in the six months prior) • 71% of the youth were successful in decreasing admissions to detention while nearly 65% had no admissions to detention.

The evaluation states: “STFY is achieving considerable success. Case managers were able to establish effective, respectful, and trusting relationships with young people. Youth and families receive culturally appropriate services that are tailored to their specific needs and situations. As a result of participation in STFY, young people and their parents report a variety of positive changes in their lives, including increased academic success, reduced criminal or delinquent behavior, and a greater sense of empowerment both as parents and teens. It has resulted in stronger relationships between the Seattle Police Department and the participating agencies, relationships that enhance the success of agency programs other than STFY as well.”

SafeFutures Youth Center (SFYC)

The Seattle based SFYC program focuses on immigrant and refugee youth involved in the juvenile justice system and/or gang-related activities or for whom risk factors indicate a high potential for involvement. Most youth are referred to the program by the court system, friends, or family members as a result of gang involvement, challenges with family dynamics, or other risk factors. The SFYC’s Comprehensive Service Model, using elements of the Spergel model which have been adapted by local community members, takes youth through a progression of programs that each youth is expected to complete. The program begins with early prevention and intervention, core services, leadership development, college and/or employment development, and volunteer work. Once youth have graduated from the program, there are also some opportunities for them to return as staff. SFYC offers language specific services to youth for whom English is not a first language.

The SafeFutures Comprehensive Service Delivery Program offers a number of core services, including: case management, academics, job training, leadership development, crisis intervention,

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 64 March 2007 support groups, parent education, and other prevention activities. The SafeFutures Youth Center in West Seattle operates as a safe space for youth to enroll in services and come and go as needed. Many youth go to SafeFutures after school and receive help with homework, get involved with leadership and community service projects, work with case managers to set individual goals and plans, work in ethnic and gender specific groups to address social concerns, and work with program staff to address crises that occur with family, friends, school, violence, legal issues, and substance abuse. In the RIY evaluation, SafeFutures was rated amongst the top 3 in reducing risk factors based on cost as well as overall strength of a program based on cost.

Raising Our Youth As Leaders (ROYAL)

The ROYAL Program, a collaborative effort between Society of Counsel Representing Accused Persons, local human service agencies and neighborhood groups, has been in operation for 7 years in King County. The staff is made up of the Program Manager, two Case Strategists, 1.5 Life Coaches, 0.5 Design Engineer, and 0.3 Clinical Supervisors (a total of 4 Supervisors). ROYAL works with representatives from Central Youth and Family Services, YouthCare, Tabernacle, and Everyone Has A Song (EHAS) to address the issue of disproportionate involvement of African American and other youth of color in the juvenile justice system. Within 48 hours of a youth being referred through the criminal justice system, a 30 minute youth screening is conducted, resulting in case assignment to a strategist, followed by a program team (program coordinator, life coach, and case strategist) orientation of 30 minutes to one and a half hours with the youth. The youth then works with a Case Strategist one to two times per week for six to eight months, until his or her file closes. At the same time, the youth works with the Life Coach, meeting one to two times per week. This relationship lasts until the youth decides to suspend services, a loose timeline that is identified by the program staff as two months to three years. Because the youth are referred to SCRAP and the ROYAL program through the court system, probation officers, attorneys or detention staff, 100% of youth served are juvenile justice involved, and deemed at moderate to high risk of re-offending, based on the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA) Scale. An important consideration is that ROYAL is a highly intensive program with substantial funding compared to the other 5 in the evaluation. In the ReInvesting in Youth (RIY) Promising Program Evaluation, ROYAL was rated as the top of 6 evaluated programs in terms of reduction of risk and cost effectiveness. It was also rated

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 65 March 2007 second best in increasing protective factors based on cost. Overall, ROYAL was the top rated program of the 6 programs based on strength and cost.

Street Soldiers Based on the concept that violence is a public health issue, Street Soldiers seeks to move youth away from the culture of violence and toward safer, socially productive alternatives. Participants in Seattle a draw from violent experiences in their own lives to develop workshops that educate their peers about violence at home, at school, and in the community. The focus of Seattle Street Soldiers is to prepare at-risk youth for the demands of the job market by first developing the leadership skills necessary to gain employment and then life skills necessary to maintain it. The Street Soldiers’ 16-week curriculum is delivered in a two hour class, three days per week. The Street Soldiers program’s primary goals are to reduce high-risk behaviors through: 1) increasing attachment to education, 2) increasing knowledge (self and issues related to violence and academic failure), 3) improving critical thinking skills and 4) increasing interpersonal skills. In the RIY evaluation, Street Soldiers was rated the highest of 6 community-based programs in terms of increasing protective factors based on cost. Street Soldiers was rated 2nd to ROYAL in terms of overall effectiveness and cost.

SUMMARY OF “BEST” AND “EVIDENCE BASED” PRACTICES

The programs summarized above describe a variety of choices from mental health treatment models to comprehensive multi-service programs and policing and law enforcement programs. Generally, mental health treatment models are costly and require substantial infrastructure and staffing. Criminal justice based, policing and law enforcement models show some impact, however, community forum participants expressed resistance to using these models as they perpetuate disproportionate minority confinement and do not respond to the root causes of youth violence and criminal behaviors and gang activities. Two of the models above are comprehensive multi-service programs already well-established in Seattle and King County – the OJJDP/Spergel and the STFY models. Additionally, another comprehensive program, “BEST”, contains similar and complementary elements. These three comprehensive programs are less intensive then the mental health treatment models, but provide substantial enough contact for extensive asset development and response to risk factors. Of interest, are the middle school program, Se Puede, and an after

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 66 March 2007 school program, the only female specific program mentioned above, Movimiento Ascendencia. Se Puede has seems less intensive, but shows some promise for middle school prevention. Movimiento Ascendencia also seems less intensive, but shows some promise in reducing risk behaviors and increasing academic achievement. Community forum participants frequently commented on the need for earlier prevention for elementary school children. However, more research is needed to identify potential elementary school and female youth interventions.

Seattle based programs seem to show some promise in terms of having already established infrastructure and some promising program evaluation results. It is also useful to note that these programs have a range of specific impacts based on level of intensity and costs that must be considered. These programs are also located in areas considered to have high levels of gang activity and youth violence.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 67 March 2007

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This research project was conducted within a very limited period of time – 4 weeks – and analysis and report writing were completed within a 10 day period following data collection was completed. Given additional resources and time, a much deeper and richer set of data as well as expanded data analysis could have been produced. Despite these research limitations, this data makes a number of useful inferences and helps to contextualize discussions and perceptions about gang activities in Seattle and King County. Of great concern is the challenge of incorporating perspectives of the community and target population into the development of appropriate prevention and intervention strategies while consciously refraining from negative stereotyping. The tragic impact of gang violence and youth violence has been expressed in all of the sets of data collected. The following recommendations are based on the findings of the data. This list is limited by time allotted for analysis, but could be expanded with further interpretation and research.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Review and/or creation of a mutually understood definition of "gang" activity or membership used by law enforcement, service providers, communities, and youth is necessary to enhance our ability to respond to youth violence and criminal behavior and prevent labeling and racial profiling. • There is concern regarding the higher levels of risk amongst 8th graders and, to a slightly lesser extent, amongst 6th and 7th graders. This indicates the need for intervention in these grade levels as well as prevention at earlier ages. Children should receive appropriate prevention activities and education regarding potential for them to be exploited by gang members for purposes of committing crimes. • There needs to be an increase in the availability of community programs and after school programs, employment training and opportunities, and programs providing comprehensive services and/or wraparound services must be developed. • Existing programs need substantial funding to enhance infrastructure and capacity especially in intervening with higher levels of youth violence and criminal behavior. Further research is needed to identify gaps in funding and other funding challenges.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 68 March 2007 • Investment and incentives must be provided to increase and encourage collaboration and communication amongst providers, school staff, law enforcement, and other stakeholders for the development of a coordinated response. • Community programs must be culturally relevant, age appropriate, ethnically and racially diverse, and incorporate knowledge and experiences of the youth and communities being served as defined by the youth and communities being served. • Prevention and intervention must be developed to respond to specific needs of young women, including issues regarding sexual assault, sex work, and dating violence. • The gang culture and belief systems that support violence and criminal behavior must be addressed. Former gang members and gang members willing to contribute to prevention must be provided opportunities to contribute to the discussions and strategies regarding development of gang prevention and intervention programs and how to stop the cycle of generation to generation violence. • Adult and youth experiences of incarceration and challenges upon re-entry into communities must be considered in order to prevent re-affiliation with previous gang ties which might promote violence and criminal behaviors after exiting incarceration. • Gentrification contributes to disproportionate incarceration of people of color in the juvenile justice and adult criminal justice systems. Policy makers advocating for community development should take into consideration the negative impact of gentrification on lower income communities and communities of color, how this can displace communities, contribute to impoverishment and structural racism, and cause increase in youth high risk behaviors and gang activities in all areas of the county.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 69 March 2007

APPENDICES

Appendix I Gang Sets

Appendix II Citations for Institutional Reports and Data Sources

Appendix III Citations for Literature Search on “Best” and “Evidence-Based” Practices

Appendix III Data Collection Instruments - Youth Surveys - Policy Makers and Public Officials Interview Instrument - Community Stakeholders Interview Instrument

Appendix IV BTB Report on Experiences in the Field

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 70 March 2007

GANG SETS – compiled by BTB

Crip Gang Sets Kelly Park Crips Lakewood Hustler Crips Marvin Gangster Crips Rollin’ 20‘s Rollin’ 90‘s Rollin’ 60's Santana Blocc Crips 32nd Avenue Three King Crips West Covina Neighborhood Crips S.O.S (Son of Samoa) Local Asian Boyz Loc'd Out Crips Togan Crip Gangsters Deuce Othello Blocc Crips Tre-8 Genesee Blocc Crips West Side Marvin Crips Zig Crip Gang Kitchen Crips 46 Hoover Crips Hoover Criminals, 74 Hoover Criminals, 83 Hoover Criminals, 92 74 Hoover Criminals/ Highway Hoovers 107 Hoover Criminals 89th Street East Coast Crips East Side 43rd Eight Trey Gangster Crips Every Body Killer Family Mafia Crips Grape Street Crips Hilltop Crips Holly Park Crips Insane Boyz 46th Crip Gang Tongan Family Crips Trey Crips

Bloods 37th Street Blood Denny Block East Valley Piru Elm Street Piru Low Profile Mafia Bloods Manor Gangster Bloods

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 71 March 2007 Money or Blood Murder On Arrival Native Pride Bloods Yesler Street 3rd Avenue & Pine Street (3P) Pointside Gangsters 44 Rainier Valley Bloods Seattle Mafia Piru Tree Top Piru Villains of Society Valley Hood Piru West Side Street Mobb Oriental Loco Boyz Inglewood Gangster Family Blood Native Son Bloods (mostly white members) South End Bloods South Park Gangster Bloods

Hispanic Gangs Brown Pride Locos 13 Callejones Escondidos 13 Crossroad Eastside Locos 13 Cholos in Azatlan El Monte Flores 13 Florencia 13 Gangster Surenos Cliqua 13 Mara Salvatrucha 13 Puro Mexicano Locos Reyes Del Barrios 13 Insime Surenos Lokotes 13 La Posada Surenos 13 Little Valley Lokotes 13 South Side Criminals 13 West Side 18th Street Barrio Los Humildes 13 South Park Locos 13 South Side Gangsters 13 South Side Locos 13 South Side Playboy Surenos 13 Surenos 13 United Latinos Varrio Brown Neighborhood Varrio Rancho San Pedro 3rd Street Varrio Locos 13 Vatos Locos 13 West Side 18th Street Surenas Malditas Locas 13 (Female gang) MS-13 Latin Kings

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 72 March 2007 Asian & Islander Gangs Oriental Troops (many of Laos members) Young Oriental Troops (many of Laos members) Ghetto Troops Loko Asian Boyz 104th Street Oriental Fantasy Boyz 109th Street Little Ruthless Boyz Scandalous Asian Gang 32nd Block Ruthless Asian Gang 32nd Block Thuggish Asian Gang Filipino Bad Pinoy Mad Pack Loc’d Out Crips Bellingham Raskals Drama Family Kenyon Street Dreamers Sea-Tac Raskals South Park Raskals Asian Boyz Crips Bad Side Posse Demonoys Deuce 9 Diablos 23rd Street Original Loko Boyz Seattle Boyz South Young Crips 46th & Brandon Every Body Killa Hit Squad Connect Gang Lil Bouted Uso Mad Pack Sons of Somoa South End Boys South Side Boys Tongan Crip Gang Tongan Family Crips United Blood Nation Trey Deuce Crips

Folks & BGD Deuce 8 (28th & Jackson) Deuce 0 (20th & Yesler) Deuce Jive Down With The Crew Horton Street (34th & Horton) 46th & 48th Juneau Street Union Street West Side Gangster Disciples

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 73 March 2007 57th Street Mob Insane Family Tre-0 Vista Block Southend Insane Gang East Union Street Hustlers Eastside Hunnerds, clique of EUSH Klick Clack Gang Mad Block Street Mobb 24th & Dearborn 26th & Pine 26th & Cherry 27th & Cherry- Money Over Everything 31th & Cherry- Mind Body Soul Beacon Hill Posse Vicious Folks 46th & Kenyon

Hybrid Gangs Dale Block Hyphy Boys Deuce Six Blocc 8-Ball Dogg Pound Gangsters East African Posse Highrollers Juggalos Money Hungry Click West Side Mafia Family Gangsters Point Side Gangsters 44 Strong (Originally from High Point projects) 504 Boyz (originally from New Orleans) Lil' Thuggin Savages Menace To Society Money Mobb Section 8 or 8 Block Skuff Squad Super Squad The Klique Valley Hood Piru/ Low Profile Valley Hood Piru/ East Union Street Hustlers Young Gunnaz Hyphy Boyz Knockin Out Bitches Maniyaks Monsta Squad Rose Street Smurfs South Cartel South Cloverdale AKA Dale Blocc

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 74 March 2007 Unknown Bitches Danger Squad Knock Out Kings Knock Out Knights Knock Out Queens Lucciauno's Mecca Money Mobb Street Mob (mix of Bloods & Folks)

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 75 March 2007 CITATIONS FOR SECONDARY SEARCH ON QUANTITATIVE DATA

Communities that Care Youth Survey: Summary of survey results. (2004). Seattle, WA: Social Development Research Group. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.seattleschools.org/area/ctc/survey/district.pdf.

Einspruch, E. L. (2005). Washington State Healthy Youth Survey 2004 analytic report. Portland, OR: RMC Research Corporation. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www3.doh.wa.gov/HYS/Documents/HYS2004_AnalyticReport.pdf.

Healthy Youth Survey 2006 report of participating schools, King County, grade 6. (2007). Portland, OR: RMC Research Corporation. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www3.doh.wa.gov/HYS/Documents/2006CntyReports/Co17Gr06.pdf.

Healthy Youth Survey 2006 report of participating schools, King County, grade 8. (2007). Portland, OR: RMC Research Corporation. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www3.doh.wa.gov/HYS/Documents/2006CntyReports/Co17Gr08.pdf.

Healthy Youth Survey 2006 report of participating schools, King County, grade 10. (2007). Portland, OR: RMC Research Corporation. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www3.doh.wa.gov/HYS/Documents/2006CntyReports/Co17Gr10.pdf.

Healthy Youth Survey 2006 report of participating schools, King County, grade 12. (2007). Portland, OR: RMC Research Corporation. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www3.doh.wa.gov/HYS/Documents/2006CntyReports/Co17Gr12.pdf.

Healthy Youth Survey 2004 report of participating schools, King County, grade 6. (2007). Portland, OR: RMC Research Corporation. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www3.doh.wa.gov/HYS/Documents/2004CntyReports/Co17Gr06.pdf.

Healthy Youth Survey 2004 report of participating schools, King County, grade 8. (2007). Portland, OR: RMC Research Corporation. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www3.doh.wa.gov/HYS/Documents/2004CntyReports/Co17Gr08.pdf.

Healthy Youth Survey 2004 report of participating schools, King County, grade 10. (2007). Portland, OR: RMC Research Corporation. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www3.doh.wa.gov/HYS/Documents/2004CntyReports/Co17Gr10.pdf.

Healthy Youth Survey 2004 report of participating schools, King County, grade 12. (2007). Portland, OR: RMC Research Corporation. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www3.doh.wa.gov/HYS/Documents/2004CntyReports/Co17Gr12.pdf.

King County community health indicators (2007). Public health: Seattle and King County. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from http://www.metrokc.gov/health/ CHI/indicators.htm.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 76 March 2007 Report to the legislature on weapons in schools: 1998-1999 weapons report by county. (2004) Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from http://www.k12.wa.us/SafeDrugFree/WeaponsReport/ 1998-99/9899bycounty.pdf.

Report to the legislature on weapons in schools: 2002-2003 weapons report by county. (2004). Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from http://www.k12.wa.us/SafeDrugFree/WeaponsReport/ 2002-03/2002-03%20Weapons-Distict-County.xls.

Report to the legislature on weapons in schools: 2006-2007 school districts by county. (2008). Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from http://www.k12.wa.us/SafeDrugFree/WeaponsReport/ 2006-07/SchoolDistrictsbyCounty.pdf.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 77 March 2007

CITATIONS FOR LITERATURE ON “BEST” OR “EVIDENCE-BASED” PRACTICES

Aos, S. (2004). Washington State’s Family Integrated Transitions program for juvenile offenders: Outcome evaluation and benefit-cost analysis. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute of Public Policy. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=04-12-1201.

Academic achievement: Seattle Team for Youth. (2008). Seattle, WA: Seattle Human Services Department. Retrieved March 4, 2008 from, http://www.seattle.gov/humanservices/youth/academic/teamforyouth.htm.

Arbreton, A. J. A., & McClanahan, W. S. (2002). Targeted outreach: Boys & Girls Clubs of America's approach to gang prevention and intervention. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/148_publication.pdf.

Arnette, J. L., & Walsleben, M. C. (1998). Combating fear and restoring safety in schools. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jjbulletin/9804/contents.html

Becker, M. G., Hall, J. S., Ursic, C. M., Jain, S., & Calhoun, D. (2004) Caught in the crossfire: The effects of a peer-based intervention program for violently injured youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34(177), 177–183. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://www.youthalive.org/pdfs/journal.pdf.

Bilchik, S. (1999). Promising strategies to reduce gun violence. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/173950.pdf.

Blueprints Model programs overview. (2004). Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/model/overview.html.

Braga, A. A., & Kennedy, D. M. (2002). Reducing gang violence in Boston. In Reed, W. L., & Decker, S. H., Responding to gangs: Evaluation and research. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 264-288. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/190351.pdf.

Bringing Everyone’s Strengths Together: Mayor’s Gang Prevention Task Force strategic work plan and BEST cycle XV final evaluation report. (2006). San Jose, CA: Community Crime Prevention Associates. Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://www.sanjoseca.gov/prns/grants/best/Part1.pdf, http://www.sanjoseca.gov/prns/grants/best/Part2.pdf, http://www.sanjoseca.gov/prns/grants/best/Part3.pdf, http://www.sanjoseca.gov/prns/grants/best/Part4.pdf.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 78 March 2007 Burch, J., Candice, K. (1999). Implementing the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model. OJJDP Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S, Department of Justice, 112. Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/fs99112.pdf.

Complete overview: Research on effectiveness. (2007). Mt. Pleasant, SC: MST Services. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from http://www.mstservices.com/complete_overview.php.

Esbensen, F. (2000). Preventing adolescent gang involvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/182210.pdf.

Esbensen, F. A., Freng, A., Taylor, T. J., Peterson, D., & Osgood, D. W. (2002). National evaluation of the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T) program. In Reed, W. L., & Decker, S. H., Responding to gangs: Evaluation and research. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 138-167. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/190351.pdf.

Howell, J. C. (2000). Youth gang programs and strategies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/html/cd_rom/solution_gang_crime/pubs/YouthGangProgra msandStrategies.pdf.

Lasley, J. (1998). "Designing out" gang homicides and street assaults. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/173398.pdf.

McCord, J., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., & Desmarais-Gervais, L. (1994). Boys’ disruptive behaviour, school adjustment, and delinquency: The Montreal Prevention Experiment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17(4), 739-752. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://childtrends.com/Lifecourse/programs/MontrealPrevention.htm

McGloin, J. M. (2003). Street gangs and interventions: Innovative problem solving with network analysis. Washington, DC: Community Oriented Policing Services. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/html/cd_rom/solution_gang_crime/pubs/StreetGangsandInte rventions.pdf.

Miller, H., McInturff, P., & Guin, K. (2006). Levy Oversight Committee. Seattle, WA: Office for Education, Department of Neighborhoods. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://cityofseattle.net/neighborhoods/education/LOC_121107.pdf .

Multi-dimensional treatment foster care (a foster care intervention for severely delinquent youths). Social programs that work. Washington, DC: Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from http://www.evidencebasedprograms.org/Default.aspx?tabid=34.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 79 March 2007 Sexton, T. L., Alexander, J. F. (2000). Functional Family Therapy. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/184743.pdf.

Solis, A., Schwartz, W., & Hinton, T. (2003). Gang Resistance Is Paramount (GRIP) program evaluation: Final report. California: USC Center for Economic Development, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/ced/GRIP_Evaluation.pdf.

Spergel, I. A., Wa, K. M., & Sosa, R. V. (2005). Evaluation of the Mesa Gang Intervention program. Chicago, IL: The School of Social Service Administration, The University of Chicago. Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/209187.pdf.

The Bringing Everyone's Strengths Together program. (2007). San Jose, CA: Department of Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services. Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://www.sanjoseca.gov/prns/grants/best.asp.

Williams, K., Curry, G. D., Cohen, M. (2002). Gang prevention programs for female adolescents: An evaluation. In Reed, W. L., & Decker, S. H., Responding to gangs: Evaluation and research. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 224-263. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/190351.pdf.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 80 March 2007 Building The Bridges

Age ____City______Race______Gender ______Area you live in: Central Seattle__ SE Seattle __ SW Seattle __ South King County (Kent, Skyway, Renton etc…) ____

Community

1a. Do you believe gang activity has increased in your community? ____ Yes _____No

1b. Do you believe gang activity has increased in your school? ____ Yes _____No

2. Do you think there is an increase of gang activity in your community? (If you answered yes) Please give us a description of this activity? ____ Yes _____No

3a. What can communities do to help youth? ______

3b. What can schools do to help youth? ______

4. Is youth violence increasing in your community? ____ Yes _____No

5a. Do you feel that your school provides you with enough support, guidance and resources help you stay out of gangs? _____Yes ______No

5b. Do you feel that your community provides you with enough support, guidance and resources help you stay from gangs? _____Yes ______No

6. How do you perceive the police? Friendly______Somewhat friendly______Unfriendly______

7. Do you have a stable place to live? ______Yes ______No

Youth

8. Have you ever felt pressure to join a gang? ____ Yes _____No

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 81 March 2007

9. What can be done to prevent youth from joining a gang?

10a. Do you have any family members that are in gangs? ____ Yes _____No

10b. Do you have any friends that are in gangs? ____ Yes _____No

11a. Have you ever been bullied or threatened by a gang member in your school? ____ Yes _____No

11b. Have you ever been bullied or threatened by a gang member in your community? ____ Yes _____No

12. As a youth do you feel that you have an outlet when you have issues in school or at home? If you answered yes please let us know who it is (i.e., Parents, Teachers, Counselors, and Mentors, Pastors or someone else)? ____ Yes _____No: ______

Safety & Perception

13. Do you believe that Seattle & King County has a gang problem? ____ Yes _____No ______Somewhat ______

14. Do you believe the issue of gang violence is being addressed in your community and school? ____ Yes _____No (if answered “NO” go to #16)

15. Why do you feel that way? ______

16. Please rate your level of fear regarding gang violence

______Very afraid ______Somewhat afraid ______Not Afraid

17. What do you think influences gang culture? ______

18. Do you believe King County has a gang issue, if so, do you feel it is concentrated in certain areas of King County? _____ Yes ______No: ______

19. Do you see an increase in youth using weapons? _____ Yes ______No

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 82 March 2007

20. Where do you think youth get their weapons from? ______

21. Anything you want to share about what you see in your schools and community? ______

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 83 March 2007 Key Informant Questionnaire for DYJ & Associates, Inc.

Name of Informant: ______Date:______

There are two parts to our questions on gang activities, the first part asks questions regarding your thoughts about gang activities in Seattle/King County. The second part asks about whether you collect this information or data in any way. Here’s the first part:

Part I: Gang Activities

1. Do you believe that youth gang activity has changed over the last three years? Has it increased or decreased?

Increased ____ (ask Q2-3, skip 4) Decreased ____ (skip to Q4)

2. (Ask only if response to number 1 is increased), Could you indicate when you believe the trend of gang activity began to increase in Seattle/King County?

_____ years ago

3. (Ask only if response to number 1 is increased), What areas or parts of Seattle do you feel has experienced the most significant increases in gang activity?

4. (Ask only if response to number 1 is decreased), Could you indicate when you believe the trend of gang activity began to decrease in Seattle/King County?

_____ years ago (Skip to Q 6)

5. (Ask only if response to number 1 is increased), When you think about the recent increases in gang activity, are these increases associated with all ethnic groups? Or are there differences among the ethnicities that experience this increased gang activity?

Now this part of our interview will ask about indicators and data collection and what that information might tell you.

6. What indicators or data might support your assessment gang activity has increased (or decreased)?

7. Do you know of or have you collected quantitative data that supports the fact that gang activity has increased (or decreased)?

Yes ____ No ____ (If no, skip Q8-9) DK _____

8. If you collect data, what are your methods for collecting data on gang activity in Seattle/King County? Don’t collect data____)

9. If you collect data, how do you use it? (Don’t collect data____)

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 84 March 2007

10. Are you aware of common risk factors that promote gang membership and activity?

Yes ____ No ____ DK _____

11. (If respondents collect data) Does your data point to common risk factors that promote gang activity?

Yes ____ No ____ Don’t collect Data______

12. If yes to Q10 and.or 11 above, please describe those risk factors:

13. Is your gang data based on anecdotal or research based?

Anecdotal ____ Research based ____ Both _____

14. What does your anecdotal data indicate?

15. Has gang activity changed in the kind of criminal activities and violence being used by gangs?

Yes ____ No ____ DK______

15a. If so, how:

16. Do you have or are you aware of existing best practices or promising program gang prevention and intervention models that would address the gang situation in Seattle/King County?

17a. Have you assessed or are you aware of the systemic, programmatic, and service delivery gaps in dealing with youth gang activities?

Yes ____ No ____ DK_____

17b. If YES, please describe:

18. In your opinion, do service delivery gaps diminish local, regional and statewide gang intervention and prevention strategies from effectively addressing the current and future increase of gang activity?

Yes ____ No ____ DK_____

19. Are there any other comments you would like to make regarding the issues of youth gangs in Seattle/King County?

Thank you very much for your time and responses to our interview survey. We appreciate this very much, and if you would like a copy of the report when completed, please give me your email and address and it will be sent to you when completed and released.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 85 March 2007 Community Questions

1. What are you hearing about Seattle and King County gangs?

• What gangs are in what area? Cambodian, Hispanic, etc. • Are there any identified "hot spots"? Where are they?

2. What is your experience as it relates to gangs in your community?

• What are youth wearing? Any possible related criminal activity?

3. What sources are you getting your information from?

• Youth self-reporting, family members, teachers, PD, media, etc.

4. What does the gang affiliated/involved youth look like?

• Age group? Ethnicity? Family structure? Involved in the juvenile justice system? School issues? Mental health issues? Substance abuse issues? etc.

5. What trends relating to gang activity in Seattle/King County are you aware of?

6. Is there information or data you have that support or opposes the trends you are aware?

7. What does successful gang prevention/intervention look like in your community?

8. What is your role, as a in addressing the issues?

9. What kind of "informal" services are you providing these youth? ("informal" meaning that your agency does not allocate a budget/receive funding to provide services to gang affiliated/involved youth specifically). How many per year?

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 86 March 2007

• Agency name • Outreach, home visits, academic achievement, drop out prevention, case management (what kind of case management? Wrap around services, social skill development, employment, etc.)

10. What kind of "formal" services are you providing these youth? ("formal" meaning that your agency allocates a budget/receives funding to provide services for gang affiliated/involved youth specifically). How many per year?

• Agency name • Outreach, home visits, academic achievement, drop out prevention, case management (what kind of case management? Wrap around services, social skill development, employment, etc.)

11. Any other comments or questions?

Thank you very much for your time and responses to our interview survey. We appreciate this very much, and if you would like a copy of the report when completed, please give me your email and address and it will be sent to you when completed and released.

Gang Needs Assessment Project - 87 March 2007