Understanding and preventing gang violence: problem analysis and response development in Lowell, Massachusetts

Citation

Webster, B.W. and Childress Webster, J. (2006), "Understanding and preventing gang violence: problem analysis and response development in Lowell, Massachusetts", Policing: An International Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm.2006.18129baf.002

Understanding and preventing gang violence: problem analysis and response development in Lowell, Massachusetts

Anthony A. Braga, Jack McDevitt and Glenn L. PiercePolice QuarterlyVol. 9 No. 12006pp. 20-46

Braga et al., begin by noting the extent to which gang violence is a problem in US cities. As examples, they point to Chicago, an area of Los Angeles, and Boston (where a third of homicides, half of homicides, and 60 percent of youth homicides, respectively) are the result of gang violence. Unfortunately, Braga et al., say, practitioners posses a shallow understanding of the problem.

A new policy initiative in the US is Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) where all US Attorney Districts have been assigned funds for hiring academic research partners to facilitate understanding of the data on gun and gang violence. The city of Lowell, Massachusetts was selected for PSN attention by the local US Attorney Districts. Researchers from local universities, Harvard and Northeastern, worked closely with criminal justice practitioners to assess the nature of gun and gang violence.

Braga et al. promote problem oriented policing (POP) and scanning, analysis, response, assessment (SARA) as able tools for developing local responses to gun and gang violence. Problem analysis in POP and SARA is described as action-oriented and indispensable to valid understanding of the problem. However, the initial problem analysis remains the weakest point of the POP and SARA models.

In an effort to tear down the walls that have traditionally separated researchers from police officers, the method used in Lowell departed from the strictest research roles for academics and practitioners. The idea was to get a handle on gun and gang crime in Lowell by testing the existing notions local police, prosecutors, probation officers, US Attorneys, and ATF agents (later to be integrated as a PSN working group).

Official data systems in Lowell provided demographic data and criminal histories of victims and offenders. Braga et al., found some 95 percent of homicide offenders, 82 percent of aggravated assault offenders, 65 percent of homicide victims and 45 percent of aggravated assault victims were arraigned at least once in Massachusetts courts before they committed their crime or were victimized.These previous experiences with the criminal justice system ran the gambit, from disorder offenses and drug offenses to serious and violent offenses.

Aside from knowing the histories of individual victims and offenders it was important to know to what extent the same people were involved in gangs. This was a harder question to answer. The term “gang” is ephemeral.

Whether a gun homicide or aggravated assault was tagged as “gang-related” was determined by matching names and birthdates of victims and offenders with information in a Lowell Police Department (LPD) database. Also, a focus group of detectives and officers from the LPD Investigative Services Division and the LPD Gang Unit met and compared notes and opinions on whether or not a gun incident was gang-related.

Previous research and LPD officers’ anecdotal evidence suggests that most gang violence is expressive (resulting from ego and a history of antagonisms) and not instrumental (resulting from illicit business interests). The data out of Lowell was consistent with previous research that suggested gang conflicts were the result of social networks rather than geographical crime hotspots. Braga et al., also noted that the external validity of this finding could not be extended to every US city.

The problem analysis revealed the gun and gang crime, rather than being epidemic to the entire city, was endemic to a small, but active group of gang members. The response development was based on a typology of five broad strategies: suppression, social intervention, social opportunities provision, organizational change, and community organization. An interagency working group of criminal justice agencies, social service agencies, and community-based groups focused their combined powers on the small number of gang members who accounted for the majority of gun and gang crime.

Braga et al., conclude by stating the broadest lesson from their research is the value of in-depth problem analysis. It was this analysis that revealed criminally active gang members who had ongoing issues with other gangs were the biggest contributors to Lowell’s gun and gang crime. Finally, Braga et al., challenge the reader to participate in academic-practitioner collaborations.

BrandonW. Webster, Jennifer Childress Webster