Home > All News > 2008 News
Gang intervention risky but must be attemptedBy Connie Rice and Charlie Beck Connie Rice is civil-rights attorney. Charlie Beck and is a deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. Article Last Updated: 05/11/2008 09:09:35 PM PDT
Gang intervention is a dirty, dangerous business conducted in places and with people that most of society avoids like their life depended on it. (By the way, it does.)
The truth is that intervention is a risky vocation that requires enough street credibility to win access and survive. That credibility, in effect a license to operate, can only be obtained by prior experience as a gang member.
This brings us to the balance of risks and benefits in working with and funding people who, by definition, have a criminal history and have been part of what we all consider to be the scourge of Los Angeles - gangs.
So, the questions are these: Is hard-core street-gang intervention a risky but needed resource in the war on gang violence? Can gang intervention be responsibly implemented?
We believe the answer to both questions is yes.
In the midst of historic crime reductions, Los Angeles' poorest neighborhoods still suffer a youth gang homicide epidemic. More than 500 young people have lost their lives to gang-related homicide in the past two years.
The greatest success in reducing this horrific statistic has occurred in the Watts area, where the Los Angeles Police Department and the community achieved a 51 percent reduction in gang homicides for 2007. One of the most significant factors contributing to this stunning reduction was hard-core gang intervention as practiced through the Watts Gang Task Force chaired by Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn.
Hard-core gang intervention workers mediated disputes, responded to shooting scenes, dispelled rumors and in general did everything in their power to prevent the next shooting. They also participated in regular meetings with a large coalition of community members and government officials including the city attorney, law enforcement, the Fire Department, clergy members and the Human Relations Commission. This allowed for strategic coordination that produced unprecedented results.
But all was not perfect. Some individuals associated with gang intervention were arrested. Others who were arrested falsely claimed to be intervention workers in bids for leniency. Some police officers refused to work with intervention workers and undermined the program. Media and others rightly questioned whether gang intervention was worth the risks involved.
If we value human life above all else, the answer is yes.
But what if we could greatly reduce the risk while increasing the benefits? We believe that this will occur as we consolidate the authority for these programs under the Mayor's Office to provide expert monitoring and evaluation that has been sorely lacking.
An equally important piece addressing the qualifications of intervention workers is a mandatory gang-intervention training academy that will provide accreditation, operations criteria, standards of conduct and a background screening process. This proposed academy, for which private funding is being sought, will include an introduction to intervention for law enforcement and fire personnel to break down the barriers and years of mistrust.
All of these investments and developments are under way. The results over time should be a significant improvement in the performance of gang intervention, reduced risks, and hopefully more of the outstanding results seen in Watts.
No system absolutely prevents human failure. But we can minimize the risks, and by doing so build a program that will save the lives of young people and begin the process of making Los Angeles the source of the solution instead of the problem.
| 
Expert Witness
Some Gangs Get Sued