The Boston Indicators Project
Sector Convening Notes
Public Safety Convening
Tuesday, July 25^th, 2006

Brief Project Overview
The Boston Indicators Project is a collaborative project of Greater Boston’s civic community. Recognized for its comprehensive framework and selected by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to help inform the development of national indicators, the project is coordinated by the Boston Foundation in partnership with the City of Boston and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Its goals are: to democratize access to high quality data and information; to foster informed public discourse, and; to track progress on shared civic goals. Since 2000, the project has released four biennial reports, the last three as a summary in hard copy and a detailed web-based report on the award-winning www.bostonindicators.org. The Boston Foundation is committed to issuing a biennial report through 2030, Boston’s 400^th anniversary. 

To begin to frame the findings of each report, the project hosts a series of convenings in each of the ten sectors it tracks: Civic Health; Cultural Life and the Arts; Economy; Education; Environment and Energy; Public Health; Public Safety; Housing; Technology; and Transportation. Each convening, chaired by stakeholders from within the field, includes a range of perspectives from academic experts, community-based practitioners, public agency and foundation staff, private sector representatives, and consumers. 

The convenings range in size from about 20 to 100 participants, the latter for large, complex sectors such as education, civic health and housing, which are broken into sub-sectors, each with its own co-chairs. Each convening uses the same structured agenda, eliciting views on key long –term trends, major developments and accomplishments of the previous two years, and key remaining challenges. The notes are then compiled, reviewed by the co-chairs for accuracy and completeness, and used to frame and prioritize the findings of the next Boston Indicators Report. 

What follows are the notes from the Public Safety convening.

In Attendance:

Co-Chairs: Jorge Martinez, Executive Director, Project RIGHT; Jack McDevitt, Associate Dean of Graduate Studies, Institute on Race and Justice, Northeastern University

Deb Azrael, Director, Harvard Injury Control Center, Harvard School of Public Health
Stephanie Berkowitz, Center for Teen Empowerment
Maria Cheevers
Tom Coury, Executive Director, The Gardiner Howland Shaw Foundation
Jennifer Fahey, Deputy Director, The Crime and Justice Institute
Shirley Fan, Executive Director, AsianTask Force Against Domestic Violence, Inc.
Al Goslin, Superintendent-in-Chief, Boston Police Department
Ray Hammond, Pastor, Bethel AME Church
Cheryl Holmes, Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Writing Consultant
Michael Kozu, GHSNI Weed and Seed Community Coordinator, Project RIGHT
John Larivee, Chief Executive Officer, Community Resources for Justice
Jennifer Maconochie, Director, Strategic Planning and Resources, Boston Police Department
Larry Mayes, Chief of Human Services, City of Boston, Human Services Department
Blake Norton, Operations Director, Public Affairs, Office of the Police Commissioner, Boston Police Department
Lalita Pulavarti, Senior Research and Program Manager, Boston Police Department
Jeff Stone, Steering Committee Co-Chair, City-Wide Dialogues on Boston’s Ethnic and Racial Diversity
Richard Ward, Senior Program Officer, The Boston Foundation
Olinka Briceno, RYI A Way Back

Welcome and Introductions
The co-chairs welcomed participants to the convening and asked participants to describe the primary indicators that they worked with. 

• Truancy issues, including their relationship to MCAS and crime (teen girls)
• Ex-offender screening and other related issues
• The number of guns in the city, how accessible they are, how much they cost
• Mechanisms for people to communicate information to the police
• What’s happening within the court system (some recent high profile cases aren’t going well: Al Goslin’s example)? Jury nullification; we can’t send the message that criminals can “get away with it.”
• Tracking public funding streams; linking the public safety sector with others (problem kids don’t appear overnight)
• Links between homicide and suicide rates (esp. high among young black men)
• Dialogues between community and the police; the number of hours police spend attending community meetings or activities, building trust…soft data on perception/impressions of youth and police towards each other
• Mental health services; substance abuse treatment services (harder to access both now, especially in communities where their impact on violence is more pronounced)
• Anti-immigration policies: how can these impact family/children? Measures of an environment of racial conflict (esp. in Dorchester)?
• Stresses on family (youth violence doesn’t happen in one night)
• Unintended/indirect consequences of violence: people afraid to leave their houses, to go outside or to the gym (obesity?)
• Educational achievement levels as a major index of success in life and means of preventing crime
• Public perception of crime; often a disconnect between perception and statistical realities
• DYS detention population: what is court considering when deciding cases…what is lacking for these youth? Also lack of DYS/DSS data in past five or six years
• Child prostitution issues
• Social and anthropological approaches to public safety issues
• “American Child’s Burden”: impact of adult dissatisfaction, violence, anger on children and its role as a cause of youth violence.
• (Greater) degree of collaboration between public service agencies

Key Long-Term Trends, Recent Developments and Accomplishments, and Remaining Challenges
The co-chairs then asked participants to brainstorm key long-term trends, recent accomplishments and developments, and remaining challenges.

Key Long-Term Trends 

• Employment issues relating to correlation/recidivism (CORI)…not sure what the trend is here.
• Youth mental health issues (both in and out of school) were a major and serious challenge raised frequently in discussion. We don’t really understand what direction the trend is moving.
• Many public safety problems stem from a confluence (“perfect storm”) of the current demographic bulge in the teenage population, the release of ex-offenders with few opportunities upon their release, and cuts in federal funding for community policing and after-school programs.
• Difficulty expanding capacity and prevention programs (e.g., Grove Hall has 6,000 underage kids but only one full-scale, multi-purpose facility, which was difficult to get).
• Numbers on girls involved in youth prostitution are rising; moreover, there are no figures that include boys in commercial sexual exploitation.
• There is a need to educate the public about new trends in criminal activity and crime prevention (domestic human trafficking, systems of care for court-involved kids). Most important is to emphasize the cost effectiveness of crime prevention and the economic costs of crime itself (neutral or beneficial). Raising consciousness on this issue is important particularly in light of recent reductions for prevention funding (need to convince constituents that this is the right way to go; police can’t do it all alone; politicians won’t vote for certain issues out of fear). There hasn’t yet been a critical analysis on prevention and its impact (as well as that of federal policies on public safety (political will isn’t there…need to find the constituents to vote for it: intervention vs. prevention).
• Need to repair the process for data gathering on children who are brought into the ER with violent injuries; Children’s has stopped providing data (used to be available, geocoded). Non-profits that used to gather and track data are scaling back or eliminating these services due to budget and staff shortages (evaluation is the first thing to go, or they pick simplistic “easy measures.”
• Tied to prevention-based activities is the importance of a family-centered approach to crime prevention. Certain resources are currently just being poorly used (e.g., Missouri).
• Some progress is halted by resistance to certain issues, like providing college support for ex-offenders (why give them what we can’t all get?).
• There is a crisis of leadership across the sector. Despite turnover, we’re not developing new leaders to run agencies to run agencies; lack of preparation and grooming for new leadership.
• People see the same rhetoric around crime prevention all the time and it no longer has a productive impact on the public consciousness. It’s time to shift the nature of the discussion and the rhetoric.
• The media is taking the opposite tack towards crime that organizations like BIP are and negatively effecting political will on this issue (but the free speech-free enterprise lobby is very strong). Can we involve the media to get them on the same page? We need marketing experts to package our approach to public safety and make it effective once the media reduces it to sound bites. Traditional media isn’t the whole solution, however, since new formats (iPod, MySpace, etc.) can also help. Important to market preventive approaches to each issue within the sector to the voting middle class (better to “sell” and make a difference than remain “morally superior” and not make as big an impact.
• Diversity is a big part of the equation. Most BPS schools simply don’t have the resources to supply sufficient culturally competent services (can’t use one mold to serve everyone). Equally important, we’re relying on teachers who haven’t been trained to deal with various mental health issues (ADD, depression, sleep deprivation, bipolar disorder, etc.) to step into the role of counselor, as well. Schools can become the gatekeepers, but increased truancy is a problem (need to demystify what resources are available).
• There has been a shift away from asset-based towards deficiency-based approaches to crime (e.g., MCAS). Many asset-based programs/agencies closing “youth voice” programs (lack of youth voice on boards); strategies that worked in early 90s being jettisoned.
• There is a lack of awareness in the failure to view violence as a public health issue, particularly with regard to appropriate steps towards prevention (exp: measles vaccines; just because the vaccine has worked and few people get the measles, doesn’t mean you want to stop using the vaccine!) 
• Impact of federal (and state) policy on public safety issues: there is a correlation noted between a rise in violence and the state of war we are currently in; could be indicative of a shift in funding towards defense or a function of the heightened emphasis on violence portrayed in the media. NCLB and cuts of funding for police, teen pregnancy (all funding cut!), and tobacco programs are also impacts from federal policy (programs used to provide jobs for teens, too).
• Funding drives public policy: when people realize the costs for one person from childhood through incarceration (astronomical, can we measure this?), they will change their attitudes…can we measure the costs of failure?
• The role of fatigue and a sense of hopelessness have a negative impact on crime prevention efforts…nothing’s working, so people give up. We need a leader to keep everyone united.
• There has been a decline in efforts at community policing, largely due to the perception that we’re in “crisis mode,” which tends to shift people’s focus away from soft power: “don’t need social workers now, just boots on the ground”…just like Iraq, you can’t shape society with force alone (BPS hasn’t got the manpower for it, and federal government has retreated from community policing).
• There are fewer funders available since the consolidation and acquisition of many Boston-based corporations. This dearth of opportunities necessitates some out-of-the-box thinking regarding funding.
• More support exists for a rehabilitative approach to public safety, with less emphasis on punitive prison terms and minimum sentences.
• People have continued to fund boot camps and evaluate their ineffectiveness. We need to put real evidence in front of policymakers to show what works.
• Young people are beginning to speak out on crime and public safety issues (movie Street Warriors; Canada’s work: reclaiming city one family, one street at a time).
• At the same time, youth are not being actively included in the process (in schools, they’re being taught the MCAS, not the actual skills it’s designed to test).
• Adults are not taking sufficient responsibility for their impact on youth violence (e.g., the American Child’s Burden noted above). “Just Say No” program asked kids if they would decide to say no to violence; general response was that someone will always be violent (adults, etc.)
• More than half of high school students watch at least three hours of TV per day and surfing the Internet more than 2hrs/day. Kids’ access to violent and/or pornographic content is increasingly high (unsolicited via cell phones, etc.). Despite these forms of exposure, however, most kids seem to “get through” it without becoming criminals. Kids in the suburbs are also exposed but are far less violent…what is it about the violent demographic that’s different, and how do we treat it (how do we measure “resiliency”? Mentorship was described as being an essential component.
• Collaboration across sectors is an important factor to measure.
• There has been an increase in the number of guns used in violent incidents. Is this indicative of greater availability of firearms? Problems also exist with witness intimidation and faster escalation to gun violence: retaliation in response to small provocation, retaliation, court nullification, negative view by neighborhoods of police, repeat etc.
• Trends on immigration differ drastically from those 10 years ago. New demographics and new ethnic communities are forming now (S. America, etc.) which will create new challenges.

Developments and Accomplishments, 2005-2006

• Roxbury Youth Works has had a positive impact focusing on and bringing attention to young women in the justice system (new initiative; Massachusetts’ only comprehensive reentry initiative; achieved through funder collaboration)
• After six years, DYS has initiated a model based on the Roxbury Youth Works’, and is moving to employ it statewide, starting with Worcester. This is a major success story that should be relayed to the public. However, it also presents a challenge, since people must realize that this is not a quick fix (6 yrs.), nor does it mean that the work is done (we need to stay focused; still a one step forward, two steps back phenomenon). 
• Numbers for girls’ crime have gone down. These figures are obfuscated somewhat by the exaggeration of the violent crimes amongst girls (by the media), which have in fact declined, while incidences of prostitution and victimization have climbed.
• Homeland Security has made progress in Boston (Boston Regional intelligence Center metro Boston: increased intelligence gathering/sharing).
• Data collection has begun on racial profiling.
• There has been more political participation among youth, due in part to the efforts of organizations like United Youth and Youth Workers of Boston (city council hearings, statehouse involvement).
• Louis Brawn peace center is ramping up efforts to provide support to victims of violent crime and their families and to prevent retaliatory crime.
• Harvard and Northeastern have done great work in this sector in response to the mayor’s request (hope for more action here in the future).
• The Boston miracle (low homicide rate in ’98-’99: 75 homicides, versus double that in early ‘90s) shows us that the crime problem is solvable; we made real change (consternation that “we had it right before”). Additionally, there is no longer a knee-jerk reaction to blame the police for crime problems; people realize there is more at work here (police have been out in front saying this). Greater level of honesty in acknowledging what’s happening here.
• The state Department of Public Health has all the data on violent deaths in 2005 (links BPD and Medical examiner data, includes also suicides, all unintentional death; hard to get it, though). Is this positive or negative?
• Grove Hall’s improvement from the most violent area to the middle of the pack (now people bring their families out) is evidence that partnerships can work (need to get that message out); getting police coverage is important (programs, and police governing “hot spots” to reduce crime); youth now see police in a more positive light (how can we continue to be constructive in this way?)
• While only having moderate success, Boston is taking the lead in acknowledging and combating human trafficking (shifting to indoor, underground prostitution; once an error is made, people don’t forget).
• More ministers/clergy and people going to work in correctional facilities.
• 2004 Democratic National Convention was a good example of successful policing and soft power strategies.
• Greater levels of adult support for student participation in some areas (Haley school example: peace making philosophy as a way of living/being; kids really get it). Also greater adult focus on youth data.
• Children’s Hospital is showing leadership; BP HC/Human services cabinet: providing jobs, linked focus on public safety (more here?). Key Remaining Challenges
• Despite the significance of the “miracle” of ’98-’99, there is a growing sense that the miracle has passed, and that we’re in a new era.
• People want respect and hope from the law enforcement agencies (citywide dialogue; also parent/youth/police dialogue at Bromley Heath…need more dialogue). Discussions between BPD and local youth have been transformative. Youth are saying that they want more police, but also friendly, respectful relationships with them; they also want more programs (sports, arts, music, etc.) in the neighborhoods (“brilliant” conversation suggestions). More interactions are needed to bring the police together with residents. Protect Right: partnerships work, kids want safe havens but they take time.
• Sustainability is a key issue; must continue to fund projects 10-15 years in the making. If we don’t get the funding to continue many of these youth programs, we’ll lose the next generation of kids (“once they’re lost, they’re lost”).
• Human service agencies don’t have sufficient funding or data/records on the kids they serve.

Key Remaining Challenges 

• Some major problems and increased violence have arisen in communities with “codes of silence” (e.g., Chinatown). Despite suggestions that kids in white and Asian communities (Charlestown, South Boston, East Boston, Chinatown) will be okay, there are major challenges here, as well (gangs recruiting 10-yr. olds; Boston version of Crips vs. Bloods). Chinatown in particular was “left out” in terms of program availability this year.
• Cell phones and texts can quickly increase the size of gang fights, which have escalated more rapidly than in the past.
• Changing immigration policies due to Homeland Security concerns are frightening many people and making them reluctant/afraid to report crime. This makes them easier victims and more likely to turn to gangs as a source of the safety they can’t get from the police. Police harassment is also setting up adversarial relationships.
• Kids’ experience with police is too often based on what they’ve seen in the media and on TV.
• Operation Rolling Thunder is a mixed bag at best. Kids are feeling harassed (esp. young black men; distrust between police and youth: 300 youth in Bowdoin-Geneva), though many parents are calling in to praise it and support expansion (wealthy parents calling police whenever kids are hanging out). Either way, there is a need to market the initiative more effectively as a service, not a police state (“Rolling Thunder” is a bad name).
• The poorest white-demographic community in the country is in South Boston (not Appalachia?); just because kids there tend to die from drugs, not guns, does not mean we should not view it as an equally serious problem.
• We need better frameworks for measurements (that take into account long-term issues). Are we reverting back instead of looking ahead?
• Huge increase in kids applying for jobs, but a lack of job availability; no teen empowerment.