Inner-City Crime Control Can Community Institutions Contribute? By Anne Thomas Sulton Published by the Police Foundation TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v I. INTRODUCTION A. Inner,City Crime Problems 1 B. Roles of Community Institutions 3 C. Basis for Symposium Project 7 D. Methods in Brief 8 II. SITE VISIT REPORTS A . Introduction 10 B. Families and Friends Programs 1. Children of the Night 12 2. House ofUMOJA Boystown 17 C . Schools and Educational Programs 1.School Program to Educate and Control Drug 23 Abuse-New York City Board of Education and New York City Police Department 2. Special Project on Training of Professionals 27 in Sexual Exploitation Prevention of the Developmentally Disabled- Bellevue Hospital Auxiliary D. Church Programs 1. Centro Sister Isolina Ferre Programa 30 del Dispensario-San Antonio, Inc. 2. Community Re-entry­ 35 Lutheran Metropolitan Ministries Association E. Business and Employment Programs 1. Sunbow Foundation 41 2. Wildcat Service Corporation 46 F. Civic and SelrHelp Programs 1. Around the Corner to the World 51 2. Cabrini-Green Youth Options Program­ 56 Chicago Urban League 3. Community Youth Gang Services Project 61 4. Soul-0-House Drug Abuse Program 65 G. Police Programs 1. East Dallas Community-Police and Refugee 69 Liaison Office-Dallas Police Department 2. Junior Police Cadet Section­ 74 Detroit Police Department 3. Positive Interaction, Dispute Resolution, and Inhalant Abuse Programs- 78 Houston Police Department H . Court Programs 1. Community Dispute Resolution Centers­ 83 Unified Court System of the State of New York 2. Deferred Prosecution/First Offenders Unit­ 88 Dane County District Attorney's Office I. Corrections Program Volunteers in Parole­ 93 State Bar of California III. SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Introduction 97 B. Drug Abuse 99 C. Youth Gangs 100 D. Sexual Abuse and Exploitation 101 E. Crimes Against Inner~City Businesses 102 F. Arson 103 G. Crimes Against the Elderly 104 ii H. Families and Friends 104 I. Schools 105 ]. Churches and Other Religious Organizations 105 K. Business and Employment Opportunities 106 L. Civic and Self-Help Groups 106 M. Entertainment and News Media 107 N. Police 107 0. Courts 108 P. Corrections 109 Q. Research 110 IV. CONCLUSIONS 111 V. REFERENCES 114 VI. APPENDICES A. Project Staff, Consultants, and 121 Advisory Board Members B. About the Author 123 PREFACE Few neighborhoods are crime free, but those less troubled by crime are inhospi­ table to criminal activity because they have considerable social cohesion and are able to influence the nature and quality ofservices provided by government agencies within their communities. A strong network of community organizations and institutions contributes to a system ofshared values that does not tolerate criminal behavior. This type of cohesiveness encourages the cooperation of citizens in ways that engender crime control and increase the likelihood that the commission of illegal acts will be detected. The police are a major part of society's crime fighting network, but acting alone they cannot hope to cope with the tremendous volume ofcriminal activity within our cities. The safety of a community is substantially enhanced when the police, acting in concert with strong community institutions, coordinate and focus their resources to deter criminal behavior. Citizens in our beleaguered inner cities recognize the value of their community institutions. But the energy and creativity citizens can bring to the search for solutions to inner-city crime problems has not been adequately leveraged. Nor have those institutions who work to elevate the quality of life in the community been recognized for their achievement or examined for lessons they can pass on. The proceedings of the National Symposium on Community Institutions and Inner-City Crime described in this report remind us that community organizations are working daily to improve life in inner-city neighborhoods. The 18 programs discussed here are success stories. They emerged from a comprehensive Police Foundation survey of local community programs suggested by national organizations, criminal justice scholars, and government agencies. The impetus for that survey- and the symposium - came from the National Institute ofJustice, which wanted to learn just what programs might help lessen crime in the inner city. They demonstrate that grass-roots initiatives can make an impact on the inner-city environment by using resources within the community to instill pride, create a sense of discipline, and encourage the establishment of enduring personal and community goals. These programs may or may not prevent crime. But they seriously undermine the environment of fear and hopelessness in which criminal behavior thrives. That such programs must exist reminds us that other institutions to which inner-city residents look for a strong value system have not been entirely successful. The National Symposium on Community Institutions and Inner-City Crime spotlighted programs organized and run by inner-city residents working to minimize crime in their own neighborhoods. The community organizations successfully undertaking these programs must now work closely with police to make inner-city neighborhoods safer. Hubert Williams President Police Foundation iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The National Symposium on Community Institutions and Inner-City Crime Project was sponsored by the Police Foundation with a grant from the National Institute of Justice. The project's purposes were to discuss promising inner-c ity crime reduction programs and to identify strategies and techniques that should be considered as this nation shapes the future agenda of urban crime control policy and research. During the project, hundreds of individuals and organizations cooperated with the Police Foundation as it prepared for this important, unique, and timely discus­ sion. The foundation is deeply indebted to them, for this project could not have been completed without their assistance, expertise, and creativity. The project's conceptual framework is based upon Dr. Peter Lejins' crime pre­ vention theories. James Fyfe and Carl Pope drafted portions of the proposal that was submitted to the National Institute of Justice. David Fattah, director of Community Outreach for the House ofUMOJA in Philadelphia, offered detailed analyses of youth gangs and traveled to Washington, D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles, and Ponce, Puerto Rico, for the project at his own expense. H a ttie Carrington served as the project coordinator and gave generously of her time and talents, as did Taqqee Khaliq and other Police Foundation staff. Hubert Williams, president of the Police Foundation, provided support and advice when it was needed most. Richard Bennett, Federico Costales, A. Reginald Eaves, Sister Falaka Fattah, Hal Harlowe, South Kousoum, Jawanza Kunjufu, William Matthews, Rose Ochi, Veronica Pierson, Carl Pope, Patricia Porter, }erie Hideko Tang Powell, James Scott, Balorie Curry Sells, JoAnn Smith, Peggy Triplett, Robert Williams, Vernetta Young, and the late Warren Young served as project consultants. Lee Brown, Houston's chief of police, Fred Rice, Chicago's former superinten­ dent of police, Bishop Robinson, former Baltimore commissioner of police and currently commissioner of public safety and correctional services for the state of Maryland, Benjamin Ward, New York City commissioner of police, and Warren Woodfork, New Orleans superintendent of police, served as the project's advisory board. Anne Thomas Sulton, Ph.D., J.D. Project Director I. INTRODUCTION A. INNER~CI1Y CRIME PROBLEMS According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports, more than 13 million crimes were reported to police in 1988. The Bureau of Justice Statistics victimization surveys indicate that over 34 million crimes actually oc­ curred, and self-report studies support the notion that only a few Americans have not violated any laws. Caveats should accompany reports concerning the amount and extent of crime, because we simply do not know how much of each type occurs (Brown 1977; Blumstein et al. 1986). We do know, however, that inner-city residents disproportionately share in the misery resulting from crime and fear of crime. The entrepreneurial talents and skills of some of the brightest youngsters residing in inner cities are employed in the lucrative trade of manufacturing and distributing intoxicating substances. Boys and girls join associations that traffic illegal narcotics through sophisticated networks of beeper-carrying couriers. They war with each other, deface building, terrorize neighborhoods, and engage in other malicious acts. Prostitutes and runaways crowd the streets, merchants are robbed at gunpoint, buildings are burned, and the elderly are attacked. And, too frequently, bloody, bruised, and battered bodies are placed on cold slabs in city-run morgues. Causes of Crime Literature on crime describes a variety of the causes of and cures for inner-city crime. During the turn of this century, W.E.B. DuBois and other African-American sch o lars addressed these issues at conferences held at Atlanta University, Tuskegee Institute, and Hampton Institute (Greene 1979). During the 1920s and 1930s, ecological and social disorganization theories were advanced by Park, Burgess, McKenzie, Wirth, and others. These theorists essentially argued that crime is caused by social change in urban areas and by the effects of urbanization on the people living there. Crime was viewed as a consequence of the inability