It was bad enough that I am locked up in juvenile hall, but I thought everything was going well until one day I was called to go to the nurse. When I went to meet with the nurse, I was told that I was pregnant. I thought, “What am I going to do now?”

I always told myself that if I ever got pregnant, I would not get an abortion. But this is a really tough decision for me, because I just barely turned 17 and I haven’t finished high school yet.

The worst part about it is I will be locked up during my whole pregnancy. That’s horrible.

Now, I have to worry about telling my boyfriend and about how he is going to take it. And the same for my family — I am worried about what their reaction will be. This is building up more stress for me, and it’s painful.

The good part is I know my mom and my true friends are here for me. But I have to really think long and seriously about how I will take care of my baby. I don’t want to depend on my mom all the time, because she’s getting old and she’s already been through enough with me and my brothers and sisters.

I have to finish high school and get a job so I can provide for myself and for my baby.

It feels good when you make your own money and buy the things that you want and need and don’t have to worry about other people buying you things. Now I have a baby to look after and take care of, so I have to work harder.

Another good thing is now I know I will not get into trouble any more. I could never risk being locked up, or worse, after I have my child. I could never leave my baby.

Originally published Aug. 20-26, 2008

The Yonkers, New York Police Department (YPD) created a Gang Intervention Unit I in May of 2001. The unit was formed to combat a rise in gang activity and gang violence.

The YPD Gang Unit was the first such police unit formed in Westchester County. It remains the only fulltime gang unit in the county.

There has been a noticeable decrease in the identification of new gang members since the inception of the gang unit, and information and intelligence gathered by the gang unit has been used to solve numerous homicides, assaults and other crimes, both gang and non-gang related.

In October of 2004, the YPD Gang Unit and the FBI concluded a yearlong investigation, which resulted in the recovery of 19 firearms, a large quantity of crack cocaine and the arrest of 26 members of the Bloods street gang and their associates. This joint investigation has successfully hampered the ability of the Bloods street gang to conduct criminal activity and has prevented further gang violence. Also, the publicity of these successful operations has deterred other youths from joining such street gangs.

In addition to city agencies and recommunity groups, the YPD Gang Unit has developed and maintained strong working relationships with outside agencies such as the FBI, DEA, ATF, Westchester County District Attorney’s Office, U.S. Attorney’s Office and countless local police departments from as far away as California. The gang unit has learned that the utilization of the resources of these agencies has proven to be priceless.

One helpful lesson learned from the program is the success of the two-prong approach taken by the YPD Gang Unit. The gang unit has taken an aggressive approach toward the policing of street gangs in the city of Yonkers, while maintaining a working relationship with community groups, and in many cases even gang members. The aggressive approach has proven successful in that many of the more hardened and violent street gang members have been incarcerated and removed from the street. This approach has also resulted in a decrease of successful gang recruitment, as youths are more hesitant to join these gangs. The community involvement has proven to be successful as the gang unit seems to have maintained the respect of the community, which has resulted in the gathering of intelligence from the public.

Another lesson learned is that the intelligence gathered by the gang unit has proven to be an invaluable tool. In many cases, valuable time has been saved on important investigations by using information gathered by this unit. A prime example of this is a homicide investigation that began after the body of a murdered Hispanic male washed up on the shore of the Hudson River. Due to the condition of the body, the male was unrecognizable and his identity was a mystery. The investigation was at a standstill until YPD Detectives utilized the resources of the gang unit. By viewing photos of the victim’s tattoos, a gang unit detective was able to identify the male as a Mexican gang member who was well known to him.

Through routine intelligence gathering, this gang unit detective had previously identified this male as a gang member and had recorded all of his tattoos. This information led to the identification of this then nameless homicide victim, and ultimately the solving of this case. Without this intelligence, this transient, illegal immigrant would likely have remained unidentified and the murder would be unsolved.

The first step for cities interested in replicating this program should be to assess the community and determine if, in fact, there is gang activity and, if so, how severe the problem is. If the severity of the problem warrants the creation of a specialized police gang unit, it should consist of experienced and motivated police officers, detectives or supervisors. This unit should work closely with as many community groups as possible while utilizing the resources of local and federal agencies.

Originally published Aug. 20-26, 2008

Nov. 4 may prove to be the biggest election in United States history. Voter turnout is likely to be the largest ever. But in addition to choosing the next American president, California voters will also decide on several ballot measures, including Proposition 6.

Prop. 6 is a ballot initiative sponsored by Republican state Senator George Runner and funded by billionaire Henry Nicholas. Depicted by proponents as the Safe Neighborhoods Act, the proposition will divert billions from schools, health care and firefighters to fund surveillance and increased incarceration.

The initiative will cost California taxpayers $1 billion in fiscal year 2009-2010, $500 million in the subsequent year and more each year thereafter for prisons, jails and law enforcement costs. Prop. 6 would require spending at least a half a billion dollars on new prison construction at a time when California spends four times as much per prisoner than per public school student.

In recent years, advocates and practitioners alike have tended to agree that the harsh “get tough on crime” measures of the ’90s were not cost effective. Prop. 6 is a politically motivated effort that runs counter to virtually all non-partisan policy analysis that show that prevention and treatment efforts are far less costly and much more effective than the heavy-handed measures Prop. 6 would mandate. Even the powerful California prison guards union, which has always advocated for increased incarceration, has recently acknowledged the need for more rehabilitative and treatment programs, especially for youth.

Prop. 6 proponents claim to fund “crime prevention programs,” yet Prop. 6 would eliminate some of the current funding for mental health and drug treatment without providing any new prevention programs — only three percent of Prop. 6 funds would go to youth-targeted alternatives.

Although California’s overall juvenile felony rate is now at its lowest level since 1955, Prop. 6 would facilitate the prosecution of more youth as adults. The ballot initiative would create more than 50 changes to criminal law, which would result in increased sentencing and incarceration even though prisons are already at nearly 200 percent capacity.

Nicholas, who donated millions to get two crime-related initiatives on the November ballot, was charged earlier this year on a 21-count indictment that includes charges of supplying prostitutes to big-ticket customers, drug use and trafficking, conspiracy, security fraud and making death threats. Nicholas donated a combined total of $5.9 million to get two initiatives on the ballot, including Prop. 6.

Numerous organizations and officials have come out to officially oppose Prop. 6, including the Children’s Defense Fund, NAACP, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers and Service Employees International Union, California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Don Perata, Oakland Police Chief Wayne Tucker, California firefighters and the California Legislative Black Caucus, which has argued that the initiative would have an uneven negative impact on the black community.

Prop. 6 is a throwback to the “get tough on crime” glory days of mandatory minimum sentences, the myth of the juvenile super predator and the illinformed calls for the National Guard to patrol urban neighborhoods. The policies that grew out of this era cost billions to taxpayers but did not result in making a difference. New studies, evaluations and assessments have proven that draconian measures, while removing some violent individuals from society for a time, have caused more harm to neighborhoods than good. The benefits do not outweigh the costs.

Prop. 6 may touch an emotional chord with those who rightfully want an immediate impact on crime, but the price tag is far too large, the outdated tactics are ineffective and the initiative’s proponents are insincere. California voters should reject Proposition 6.

Originally published Aug. 20-26, 2008

I really miss and need my mom and her chicken noodle soup. When I was out, I didn’t have the right appreciation for my mom, and I hardly came home. Now that I’m locked up, I miss my mom and need her.

Right before I was locked up, three guys jumped me, knocked me down, kicked me, broke my jaw and almost killed me. My jaw is hurting me, and I have told the staff here to let me have some soft food because I can’t chew, but I’m very hungry. My jaw is still messed up.

These guys kicked me in my face until I almost died. They tried to kill me. I was lucky an ambulance came fast. When I woke up, I was in the ambulance. Then I fell back to sleep. My jaw is broken, cracked to my chin. The whole corner of my jaw was hanging down to my cheek, almost off. My mouth was all open. I couldn’t even close it.

The surgeon fixed my jaw five weeks ago, but my uncle punched me in the jaw and broke it again. The guys who beat me up got away, and I’m in here.

My neck feels ripped up to the back of my head. Every time I lay down on the block of cement that is my bed, it’s too hard for me. When I wake up, it hurts even more.

Now that I’m in here, they don’t feed me right. I don’t feel so good. I’m really hungry all the time. All they gave me for lunch was French fries and grapes. The grapes are cool, but I couldn’t eat the French fries because I can’t chew.

All I want is chicken soup. That’s all I ask for, but they won’t give me that. I want a lot of chicken soup, white rice and beans. When I told the nurse what happened to me and that I needed special foods because I can’t chew, she just laughed at me.

I want to go back to my mom’s house. I want to eat her chicken soup. There’s always a big pan of chicken soup on the stove for me when I am at home. I didn’t appreciate it before, but I will not let that happen again. As soon as I get out, I am going to my mom’s house and I am going to spend more time with her and my family.

Originally published Aug. 13-19, 2008

One of the greatest challenges facing young people and especially those most at risk of engaging in violent behavior is the substandard quality of education they receive from their schools. And one of the major obstacles to improving education is the extremely low wages teachers earn, causing many highly capable educators to choose other career paths. Then there is also the challenge of how difficult it is to fire bad teachers, who are tenured members of a teachers union.

There is a new innovative proposal in Washington, D.C., and a three-year-old initiative in Denver that seeks to address these challenges. While neither could be considered successful yet, the fresh, innovative ideas are inspiring.

In Washington, D.C., the new, energetic chancellor of the school district, who was specifically hired to reform a devastated school system, has proposed a new program that would compensate effective teachers up to more than $100,000, but also make it easier to dismiss poor performing teachers.

The new D.C. chancellor, Michelle Rhee, has maintained that recruiting in and retaining higher quality teachers is essential to any overhaul of schools. Currently, all teachers gain tenure and certain protections against sudden dismissal after two years of service.

Under Rhee’s new plan, there are two options for teachers. The “red” option allows teachers to retain tenure rights in exchange for a 28 percent raise over five years.

Under the “green” option, the annual salary and bonuses for a teacher with five years of experience could go from $46,500 to as much as $101,000 by 2010. Pay for a teacher with 10 years of service could jump from $56,200 to as much as $122,500.

Teacher performance would be evaluated using a series of criteria, probably including improved student performance on standardized tests. But in exchange for a pay schedule that would make D.C. teachers among the best paid public school instructors in the country, they would have to spend a year on probation, exposing them to the possibility of being fired. D.C. has secured millions in foundation grants to pay for the new program.

The D.C. plan is inspired by a similar initiative in Denver, where Rhee formerly led a nonprofit organization that trains teachers. Denver’s ProComp program is a groundbreaking compensation system that links teacher pay to the school district’s instructional mission.

Denver voters approved $25 million in new property taxes to implement the system, which rewards teachers for student growth on test scores, service in high-risk schools and other factors. About half of Denver’s teachers opted into ProComp, and new teachers are automatically assigned.

ProComp is a nine-year bargained agreement between the Denver Classroom Teachers Association and Denver Public Schools that is designed to link teacher compensation more directly with the mission and goals of the school system.

ProComp has four components that allow teachers to build earnings: Knowledge and skills, where teachers earn compensation for acquiring and demonstrating knowledge and skills by completing annual professional development units or earning additional graduate degrees and national certificates; professional evaluation, where teachers are recognized for their classroom skill by receiving salary increases every three years for satisfactory evaluations; student growth, when teachers are rewarded for the academic growth of their students; and market incentives, where teachers receive bonuses for teaching in hard to serve schools.

Originally published Aug. 13-19, 2008

I have constantly referred to the problems that produce violence and the potential solutions as complicated and complex. The causes have been developing for decades, and therefore the solutions will not be quick-fix overnight wonders. Though the public and even politicians seem to want immediate relief from violent crime, real longer-term solutions require intense, protracted, long-term remedies.

This is where the need to understand the difference between prevention, intervention and suppression come in. In response to a surge of violence, a town hall meeting or city council meeting may call for action. The response is often “we need more police” or “we need more mentoring programs.” Neither one of these will result in an immediate impact on violence. To add officers to the force, you have to recruit, hire and send cadets through the academy. That’s often a year’s process. And mentoring is violence prevention, but it will rarely if ever net immediate results in crime reduction.

There are two fronts in combating violence that need just as much attention, resources and expertise. These two fronts are often lumped together but require different approaches and understanding. There are the existing circumstances that cause violence now, and then there are persisting conditions that cause individuals to grow up and make poor decisions to engage in violent behavior.

The existing conditions are the easy availability of guns, along with young men and women who have dropped out of school, don’t have meaningful employment, are involved in a gang or street crew, are under-educated, and/or have experienced some trauma and pain in their life. As complex as that list of current circumstances sounds, that’s still oversimplified.

Engaging in a 10-year effort to improve schools, and raising money to one day fund many more community programs, like providing inhome nursing to poor single mothers with newborns, family counseling and tutoring, are all vitally necessary, yet will not affect the mostly 18-30- year-old black males living in one of the Bay Area hot spots who are victims one day and perpetrators the next in the deadly cycle of violence that engulfs the inner cities.

Violence prevention often comes in the form of programs, but is mostly about changing the underlying conditions that most of those involved in violence come from: poverty, substandard schools, unemployment and systematic racism. Violence prevention programs include early childhood education, youth development, family counseling and other mental health services, drug treatment and employment training. There is significant under investment in violence prevention programs, and the more important work of eradicating the underlying conditions that cause violence has been nearly ignored.

Intervention is working directly with those involved in violent behavior or at high risk of engaging in violence. Intervention includes conflict mediation, street outreach workers who canvas high crime areas and provide opportunities to individuals in those neighborhoods, and case management that comes along with a “hot spot” campaign.

Suppression is just that — putting a temporary lid on crime. This is mostly the job of law enforcement and includes tactics like borrowing police from other jurisdictions and focusing patrols on a particular area, or serving all outstanding warrants and conducting parole and probation sweeps in which the slightest violator is arrested. Oakland’s recent, infamous “Operation Nutcracker” is a suppression tactic. These initiatives are short-lived, are sometimes effective and come at great cost to the taxpayers.

There are successful tactics, strategies and programs in prevention, intervention and suppression. But there has to be an understanding of the difference, an appreciation for the complexity of each area and a clarity that one doesn’t produce the other — violence prevention doesn’t produce an immediate reduction in crime, and suppression doesn’t result in long-term solutions.

Serious investment and understanding of these three areas is vital to a successful effort to combat violent crime. Short attention spans, political expediency, emotionalism and lack of knowledge of best practices all often thwart the implementation of an effective overall strategy to successfully reduce violence.

The Globe has dedicated this series and its resources to educate and inform politicians, practitioners and the public on these issues so we seek and utilize real solutions to the epidemic of black on black crime.

Originally published Aug. 13-19, 2008

Since I’ve been in jail
I feel alone more than ever
I never thought I would get caught
I thought I was too smart
Too clever

Why do I do what I do?
I thought I would never know
Until it finally hit me
The friends have got to go

I feel helpless and alone
Whenver I’m in my cell
While others
Are laughing joyfully
They enjoy being in hell

I miss my family dearly
But my freedom even more
Thinking my family resents me
My heart is ripped and torn

I find my only joy
Throwing my feelings on a page
Instead of lashing out at others
In a devious evil rage

My mother can’t save me here
The government holds the thrown
I’m in a room full of human beings
But I still feel alone — all alone!

Originally published Aug. 6-12, 2008

Pathways to Peace is a street-level outreach team that establishes a rapport with Rochester, New York’s violent youth and gangs, assesses their needs and situation, and then links them to resources to prevent youth and gang violence. Pathways uses both traditional and non-traditional intervention and is deemed necessary for the survival of our youth.

Pathways to Peace was created in 1998 is to reduce youth/gang violence in Rochester by working closely with all available community resources, including schools, families, law enforcement, human service agencies and faith-based organizations to improve overall public safety and quality of life.

Other services of Pathways to Peace include dispute mediation; professional, youth and community training/ education; gang mapping/tracking; and youth violence/gang consultation.

Pathways to Peace measures the number of youth referred for services, youth linked to resources, and recidivism of violence. There are other demographic data that are collected, but the main measure of Pathways to Peace is the number of youth served and the reduction of youth violence.

A portion of the Mayor’s Office budget finances Pathways to Peace. Pathways also receives Weed and Seed and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant funding to support a position and special programs.

Pathways to Peace is a bridge between violent and gang youth and community resources. Staff members link youth to those resources. Some participating agencies are the Urban League of Rochester, Center for Dispute Settlement, Center for Youth Services and many others.

Pathways works with local law enforcement, especially school resource officers, to identify gang and violent youth. It also works with the probation department to make sure youth have adequate support to successfully follow through with intervention plans.

Community-based organizations and businesses provide the services and opportunities for clients. The community gets involved by referring youth to Pathways to Peace. (The program accepts referrals from anyone.) Agencies and community members also participate in trainings facilitated by Pathways.

Major lessons learned from Pathways to Peace are to not overextend team members and take on responsibilities that compromise the quality of the service provided. New and nontraditional programs and ideas are not immediately accepted or appreciated by everyone, so it is important to focus on the mission, be patient and allow good works to validate a program’s existence.

Frequent training is very important because crime and gang trends change quickly, and it is important to be aware of those changes so the appropriate program adjustments can be made. Free and open communication is important, especially between a program such as Pathways and the police.

It is necessary to understand that suppression and intervention are very different, and both need to respect the other. When both approaches learn to appreciate each other, they compliment one another very well. This is when creative strategies are able to be implemented and work effectively.

Originally published Aug. 6-12, 2008

The Youth Violence Reduction Partnership (YVRP) — a collaboration involving the district attorney’s office, adult and juvenile probation, police, other city agencies and community organizations — began operations in Philadelphia in 1999.

Inspired by the successful “Boston Miracle” and modeled to work in the particular circumstances of Philadelphia, its goal is to steer young people, ages 14 to 24 and at greatest risk of killing or being killed, away from violence and toward productive lives.

To accomplish this, YVRP provides them with a combination of strict supervision and ongoing support. Each participant is assigned to a team that includes a probation officer and a community street worker, who work intensively with the young person to make sure that he (and, less often, she) not only stays out of trouble but starts on a path toward responsible adulthood.

YVRP was developed in response to widespread concern about high levels of gun violence and homicides among teenagers and young adults. From 1996 to 1999, for example, 1,460 people were murdered in Philadelphia. Fifty-three percent of the accused killers were ages 18 to 24, and an additional 10 percent were 12 to 17 years old. A high percentage of the victims were also young — 34 percent were 18 to 24 years old, and 6 percent were 12 to 17 — and most were victims of gun violence. In fact, among the 18- to 24-year-old victims, almost 9 out of 10 (88 percent) died from guns.

Not surprisingly, the murders were concentrated in the city’s poorest neighborhoods — almost half (49 percent) occurred in just five of the 25 police districts — and both the murderers and victims often had criminal histories. Astudy of 100 randomly selected murder victims showed that 52 percent had been charged with at least one offense prior to their murder and, on average, had 3.7 arrests.

Data such as these strongly suggested that concentrating resources and intensifying efforts with targeted groups in specific police districts could have a meaningful impact on reducing gun violence and homicides. Thus, YVRP focuses its effort on known offenders in their late teens and early 20’s — encompassing the ages of those who are at the highest risk of killing or being killed — along with younger teens who have shown themselves to be heading down a path that is likely to lead to escalating crime and violence.

YVRP has a straightforward strategy: Identify the young people in the targeted districts who are at greatest risk of killing or being killed, and provide them with strict supervision and consistent support to help them to stay away from violence and to develop attitudes, behaviors and skills that can lead them toward becoming productive and responsible adults. While each municipality will need to adapt the approach to work within its particular governmental structures and local conditions, several elements of the model seem essential for success in planning, operating, maintaining and strengthening the initiative.

While definitive information on the impacts of YVRP will not be available until a comparison study is completed, performance data from the initiative are promising: YVRP is serving young people intensively and getting them involved in positive activities. From January 2000 through December 2006, YVRP served more than 1,818 young people, who remained active in the program an average of eight months.

Street outreach workers and probation officers visited each youth — in his or her home or elsewhere in the community — an average of 13 times per month. On average, almost half of participants were involved in positive supports each month they were active in the program.

Importantly, those who stay in YVRP for the longer-term remain involved in some type of positive support over time. For example, among participants who were in YVRP for three or more consecutive months, 78 percent had been involved in positive supports on a continuing basis for a three-month period. And among participants who were in YVRP for six consecutive months, the vast majority (89 percent) had been involved in at least one type of positive support, including more than 57 percent in a job and 35 percent of those not of compulsory school age in an educational support.

Most participants have avoided becoming involved in violence. While active in YVRP, only 4 percent of participants have been victims of a violent crime involving a gun; overall, only 6 percent have been victims of any kind of violent crime. The intensive supervision that underlies YVRP is a likely contributor to these results. A central purpose of the supervision is to catch probation violations — which could include, for example, participants violating curfews, or restrictions on where they can go or whom they can associate with, as well as using drugs or carrying a weapon — before problems escalate.

Recently, Philadelphia has experienced an increase in homicides — a peak of 406 in 2006 as compared with numbers in the high 200’s and low 300’s in the early 2000’s. But data indicate that YVRP may still be having a positive effect on the number of young people who are victims of homicide.

The data suggest that YVRPis associated with a decrease in homicides among youth: On average, homicides among 7- to 24-year-olds went down 32.7 percent in the districts in which YVRP has been implemented. Furthermore, analyses show that these differences persist even when we account for the homicide rate in the city as a whole. While these data do not prove that YVRP is responsible for the relatively better findings — cause-and-effect relationships are always difficult to document, particularly with a comprehensive intervention taking place in complex community settings — they suggest that YVRP may be making a difference.

This article was adapted from a report written by Linda Jucovy and Wendy S. McClanahan on behalf of the nonprofit organization, Public/Private Ventures.

Originally published Aug. 6-12, 2008

Although I am back in juvenile hall, I am going to make sure I avoid going to adult prison. The last time I was here I spent a year here. I completed a life skills class that has helped me, and I have a lot of lost time to make up for.

But the last time I got out, I hadn’t learned my lesson yet. I committed a string of robberies. I also decided to get my hands in the drug game a little bit to make some extra money.

Everything was going good. I was living on my own, paying for rent and food. I had my lady and I was just having the time of my life. But then I got kicked out of my place because the landlord found out I was selling drugs. I was homeless for a while, but I finally found a new place to live.

My mom wouldn’t even let me use the toilet, let alone live with her. So it was all on me. I continued to conduct my illegal business and use drugs myself.

All of the robberies caught up with me, though. The police came to my place looking for my girl, who was on the run, and they found the stolen property. I wasn’t arrested, but I was given a notice to appear for court. I was left only selling drugs, but that brought in just enough money to buy food and drugs, not pay the rent.

So I continued to rob houses. But after coming out of one house one night, I was stopped by a cop. He searched me and found some rare coins on me and he knew it was strange for me have them, so he kept snooping and eventually found out I had just robbed a house. He brought me in and fingerprinted me, interrogated me, and honestly, I was ready to get locked up because of all the stress and guilt I was going through for committing those robberies.

I just wanted to get away, and now I realize it’s because I wanted something different for myself but did not know how to get it. I was not arrested and locked down though, due to my mom kicking me out, which is illegal. Child Protective Services got involved, and the focus was shifted off of me and onto my mom.

I got house arrest pending court, and they told my mom to let me move back in. So, I moved into my pad, vowing to not commit any new robberies. Before that I had given up on the idea of going to college, but now I was recommitted to the goal.

I was finally locked up for the robberies. So here I am now. I turn 18 years old in a couple of months and I should be starting college in September.

I am honestly through with the criminal life. I have an opportunity to go to college, and I will be 18 soon, and I never want to be in the adult system.

Originally published July 30 – Aug. 5, 2008