Category: Crime

Summary

Under the assessment of the problem, the problem that is under investigation will be identified and discussed (hate crimes in New York) in detail by examining the various facts and information available on the problem.

The historical time line of the project will also be discussed where the events that provided a background to the problem will be identified and explained. Quantitative information will also be used to provide a more realistic description of the problem.

The policies that are available to deal with the problem will also be identified and highlighted within the research paper to determine their effectiveness in dealing with the problem under study. The literature review section of the paper will involve analyzing the various sources of literature that contain information on the problem.

The literature review will involve assessing reports, publications, articles, journals and scholarly books to gain more information on the topic. The stakeholder analysis section of this research paper will involve identifying the various clients and stakeholders of the research information.

These are the people who will be affected by the research findings and who will be responsible in implementing the policies designed to deal with the problem. The stakeholders are also the clients of the study’s outcomes. Option specification will involve identifying 3 to 5 options that can be used to remedy the problem at hand. Each of these options will be designed to include a change to the policy that has been used in dealing with the problem.

The options will be discussed in a table format where the changes that are involved will be highlighted as well as the people responsible for implementing the change. The general view of the stakeholders will also be determined to see if they agree to the changes in policy.

The option analysis section will deal with a five step basic assessment of the options outlined in the option specification stage. The first step will involve conducting a political feasibility to determine whether there is stakeholder consensus or opposition to the plan.

An administrative feasibility assessment will also be conducted to determine whether there will be any complexities during the implementation of the plan as well as legal constraints. The financial feasibility assessment will be conducted to determine whether any expenditures or savings will be derived from the options chosen to change the policy.

Equity will involve determining the fairness of the options selected in dealing with those affected by the problem while effectiveness will determine whether the selected options or option will achieve the desired results. Once the five step basic assessment has been conducted, a suitable recommendation will be selected to deal with the problem.

Introduction

The purpose of this project will be to focus on the topic of hates crimes in the state of New York which has been on the increase and how these hate crimes can be reduced through the formulation of effective policies.

Hate crimes are any acts of violence or discrimination that are directed towards an individual believed to belong to a certain social group or society which can be a religious group, an ethnic society, a political affiliation or a sexual orientation group (Bell, 2002: Bowling, 2003).

Hate crimes usually involve physical violence, assault or damage to property and any other form of violence that is directed to an individual that belongs to any of the above mentioned groups. Hate crimes are a serious offence as they cause a lot of psychological trauma to the people who are victims of this form of violence (Jacobs & Potter, 1998).

The NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services defines hate crimes as any criminal acts that involve violence, intimidation and destruction of property based on biasness and prejudice of an individual believed to be from a minority group. The NYS law stipulates that a person is guilty of committing a hate crime when they intentionally intimidate or persecute a person based on their religion and religious practices, race, color, gender, disability or sexual orientation.

A person is also guilty of committing a hate crime when they intentionally commit the act with the full knowledge or belief of the victim’s religion, gender, disability, ethnic background, sexual orientation and color (New York State, 2003).

The current laws and policies in place to deal with hate crimes have mostly focused on defining the specific acts that constitute hate crimes, defining perpetrators of hates crimes under the penalty-enhancement laws and creating distinct civil actions that are meant to deal with hate crimes (Spodek, 2010).

In the United States, the laws that are in place to deal with hate crimes mostly focus on persecuting people who are found guilty of committing hate crimes on individuals perceived to be from a different religion, nation, sexual orientation, gender or race. Hate crimes are a criminal offence in all of the states of America and the penalties that are usually served to hate crime perpetrators are usually very severe (Schwartz, 2006).

Clients of the Research

The purpose of this policy analysis will be to analyze and assess hate crimes in New York and the policy framework that has been instituted by the state of New York to address the escalating cases of hate crimes in the state.

The information gathered from this policy analysis is meant to provide important data to the various government and state agencies within New York that are involved in human rights and hate crime awareness campaigns that will enable them to react to the growing cases of hate crimes directed towards minority groups.

The information garnered from this study will also be useful in helping government agencies such as the Office of the Governor of New York and the Mayor to formulate important policies that are meant to deal with hate crimes in New York and the United States in general

Role of the Researcher

As an independent analyst contracted by the state of New York to assess the policies that exist on hate crimes, my role in the policy analysis process will be to analyze the various facts, findings, discussions and literature that exist on hate crimes in the state of New York and also carry out an assessment of the problem under study by looking at the various actions that lead to the increase of hate crimes in New York.

The role of the policy analyst will also be to gain vital quantitative data on the problem under assessment by reviewing various statistics and reports that have been done on hate crimes in the state of New York. By reviewing important statistical information, the analyst will be able to provide useful facts that will shade more light on hate crimes and the victims of hate crimes in the state of New York.

Action Forcing Event of the Research

The action forcing event that has formed the foundation for this research is the increasing prevalence of hate crimes in the state of New York. A hate crime that occurred in 2008 that was a cause of alarm for many statesmen in New York was the attack of two Ecuadorian brothers, Jose Sucuzhanay and Romel Sucuzhanay on December 8, 2008.

The perpetrators of the Ecuadorian attack were anti-gay and anti-Hispanic racists who attacked the two brothers because they were Hispanics and they also believed that they were gay.

The attack which took place in Brooklyn ended with Jose Sucuzhanay losing his life five days after being admitted in hospital. This attack together with other hate crimes that occurred the following year showed the escalating cases of hate crime in the state of New York (Division of Human Rights, 2009).

Assessment of the Problem

According to Fetzer (2010), hate crimes have increased in New York by 14 percent between 2008 and 2009 compared to the previous year’s reported cases of hate crimes. Most of these hate crimes according to Fetzer have been directed towards members of the Jewish community, homosexuals, African-Americans and people from the Hispanic community.

According to the study, the number of hate crimes that were reported to the New York State Police in 2009 amounted to 683 with the most common violent acts being intimidation and vandalism/destruction of property. In 2008, the number of hate crimes reported to the state authorities totaled 599 with the most common targets being members from religious groups, ethnic communities and sexual orientation groups.

These figures are in sharp contrast with the hate crimes reported in 2007 which totaled 493 cases that were directed towards members of a different ethnic race, religion sexual orientation, ethnicity and disability. In 2007, religious groups had the highest number of hate crime offenses when compared to 2008 statistics which showed that hate crimes were committed against people of a different ethnic race or nationality (Fetzer, 2010).

Problem Definition

In the state of New York, hate crimes mostly occur because of the social differences and prejudices that exist within the society where the country’s most populous state has citizens that practice different lifestyles and ways of living (Gerstenfeld, 2011). The growing number of ethnic communities in the state has also contributed to the high number of hate crime incidences in New York.

The remarkable diversity that is being experienced in New York has presented a major challenge for both the local authorities and citizens of the state as a result of the many ethnic groups and societies that live within the state. This has created a situation where many of these groups want their needs to be catered for at the expense of average New York citizens (Levin & Amster, 2007).

Historical Timeline and Background of the Problem

The history of hate crimes in New York mostly has its background in the racial discrimination that many African-American and Hispanic communities faced in the early 20^th century.

Racial discrimination becomes a form of hate crime especially when it becomes violent and harmful. Many African-Americans faced a lot of discrimination during the 19^th and 20^th century which was demonstrated by slavery and violent acts on colored people.

These violent acts were mostly mob beatings, rapes, violent attacks and assaults on people who had African origins. Such discrimination paved the way for hate crimes in the United States where the same ethnic group continued to be attacked and assaulted because of the color of their skin (Tynes et al, 2009).

To respond to hate crimes in the state of New York, Governor George Pataki signed a piece of legislation known as the New York Hate Crimes Act in 2000 which was enacted in the same year to deal with the growing cases of bias or prejudice-based hate crimes in the state.

Under the Hate Crimes Act, people who discriminated against others because of their color, race, gender or sexual orientation were termed to be hate crime offenders who were subject to prosecution by the State of New York. The act specified the type of punishment hate crime offenders would be subjected to if they were found to guilty of committing hate crimes.

The Hate Crimes Act also specified the type of crimes that were considered to be hate crimes or bias motivated crimes committed against the members of a protected minority group. Despite this being the only law used to deal with hate crimes in New York, it marked the beginning of government initiatives in the state of New York to deal with hate crimes (Kristi, 2010).

Quantitative Information about the Problem

The trend of hate crimes against members of minority groups such as homosexuals, African-Americans, the Jewish, Hispanics and disabled people continued to increase during the end of the 20^th century and the beginning of 20^th century where many states in America recorded high incidences of hate crimes against people of different ethnic orientation.

These incidences were mostly common in urban and socially diverse societies that hosted a variety of socially oriented individuals from different ethnic communities and societies (Herek et al, 1998).

According to data released by the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) the incidence of hate crime began to escalate or increase in the year 2000 where 450 more cases of hate crimes were reported to have been committed against homosexuals and 1500 more cases of hate crimes were reported to have occurred in members of a different ethnic race (Shively, 2005).

This increase in ethnic motivated hate crimes continued to increase over eight years where according to data released by the Division of Criminal Justice in New York in 2008, hate crime offenses committed against people of a different ethnic race recorded a higher percentage increase of 14% when compared to crimes committed against the other groups which fall under the protected minority groups (Fetzer, 2009).

Policies on Hate Crime

Most of the hate crime legislature and policies in existence today within the US were developed after the Civil War to deal with the colorblind system of justice and inequality of ethnic communities during that time. Statutes such as Section 241 and 242 were incorporated into the US constitution to deal with individuals who had perpetrated hate crimes on other people.

Some of the acts and policies that fall under these statutes include the first Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act and the Church Arson Prevention Act which was meant to prevent racial attacks on Black American churches (Streissguth, 2009).

Many states in the US have implemented policies to deal with hate crimes and other acts of discrimination that are identified to be hate crimes. While these policies differ from state to state, their main focus is on punishing offenders of hate crimes who are deemed to be criminal perpetrators by the American law (Cogan, 2002).

Many law enforcement agencies in the US have designed and developed policies that are meant to deal with hate crimes in the various states (Gerstenfeld & Grant, 2004).

In New York, various hate crime policies have been formulated to deal with various forms of discrimination, vandalism, assault or violent attacks on women (Jenness, 2003), disabled persons or people believed to be from different social groups and communities.

The state has incorporated a hate crime statute under the Hate Crimes Bill H.R. 2647 that is meant to deal with hate crimes committed against its citizens who are either Americans or Non-Americans. The statute developed by the New York State Division of Human Rights to address any violent, discriminate and socially biased acts committed against the socially diverse citizens of the state (Division of Human Rights, 2009).

The Hate Crimes Act of 2000 is the main statute and law that is used by the state of New York to deal with hate crimes and hate crime offenses against people believed to be from a protected minority group in America. The Hate Crimes Act of 2000 was enacted into law in 2000 by Governor George Pataki to address the increases cases of hate crimes that were taking place in the state at an escalating rate.

During its first year of enactment, the Hate Crimes Act was able to bring down the incidences of hate crimes committed against people of a different sexual orientation, ethnicity, religious affiliation and gender based on a 2002 report released by the Uniform Crime Reports organization (Shively, 2005). While hate crimes still persisted in New York, the act was able to provide law enforcement agencies with the ability to persecute people found guilty of committing hate crime offenses in the state.

Literature Review

Nature of the Problem

There has been a dramatic increase in hate crime literature and research which has contributed in part to government collection programs and statistics that contain qualitative and quantitative information on hate crimes.

The nature of hate crimes in New York is mostly characterized by the type of people targeted by hate crimes and also how the crimes are perpetuated. For example in 2008, there was an escalating case of hate crimes committed on people from certain ethnic communities, sexual orientation groups and religious groups within the state.

Some of these hate crimes included the brutal attack of a Muslim teenager in 2008 by four American teenagers, the stabbing of an Ecuadorian immigrant, Marcelo Lucero by a mob of teenagers in Long Island looking for Latinos to beat up, the shooting of a transgender woman by a perpetrator who thought she was gay and the violent attack of two Ecuadorian brothers in Brooklyn by three anti-gay and anti-Hispanic men (Division of Human Rights, 2009).

In the case of the Muslim teenager, the perpetrators were anti-Obama as they shouted Obama while beating up the teenager with a baseball bat. The perpetrators in the stabbing of the Ecuadorian immigrant were teenagers who were discriminative of Latinos or people of Hispanic descent as they had said they were driving around Patchogue looking for Latinos to beat up. In the case of Latiesha Green, a transgender woman, the perpetrator shot her because he thought that she was gay.

This mistaken identity was mostly attributed to the fact that she was sitting inside a car with her brother. The perpetrators of the Ecuadorian attack were anti-gay and anti-Hispanic racists who attacked the two brothers because they were Hispanics and they also believed that they were gay (Division of Human Rights, 2009).

These alarming incidences of hate crimes demonstrate that the problem is escalating in the State of New York and that there is an urgent need to impose restrictions and measures that will ensure hate crimes are dealt with in New York.

According to Perry (2003), the long term nature of hate crimes is that it never tends to stop unless the relevant authorities stop it through the implementation of effective interventions. Perry notes that the nature of these crimes usually ends in the loss of a life, property, income and the emotional destruction of a person’s well-being.

The perpetrators of these crimes initially tend to instill fear in their victims and force them to leave or adapt to the normal way of life (Hall 2005).

In response to the increasing cases of hate crimes against people of a different sexual orientation, race, religion and color, the New York State Division of Human Rights established a Hate Crimes Task Force (HCTF) in January 2009 to respond to the escalating cases of bias-motivated crimes in the State of New York.

The purpose of this task force was to develop effective interventions that would be used to prevent hate crimes in New York as well as increase the awareness levels of New Yorkers to enable them build tolerance to all members of the society (Division of Human Rights, 2009).

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation (GLAAD) and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community in the Bronx area of New York have conducted outreach and awareness campaigns on the need to live harmoniously within the New York society (Grautski, 2010).

The state of California has also been able to establish a hate crimes taskforce through a joint collaboration with the FBI office located in Riverside County and the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department in California.

The hate crimes task force which was formed in 2003 was meant to address the escalating cases of hate crimes in the Los Angeles and Riverside Counties of California by enabling the local FBI to have more investigative depth when it came to investigating hate crimes in the state.

One notable achievement of the task force was the arrest of 18 white supremacists who were in possession of guns, ammunition and Nazi paraphernalia (FBI, 2006).

Another state in America that has recorded high incidences of hate crimes is the state of Massachusetts which has established a hate crimes task force known as the Governor’s Task Force on Hate Crimes.

This task force was created by Governor William Weld and it was later given a permanent status by Governor Paul Cellucci in 1998. The task force was meant to address hate crimes in the state of Massachusetts by creating awareness of what constitutes hate crimes in public schools and communities (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2007).

The state of New Jersey has also recorded high incidences of hate crimes mostly committed against homosexuals and lesbians. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation was established in 2006 to deal with the rising cases of homophobic attacks committed against members of the lesbian community (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2006).

Other states that have developed hate crimes taskforces and committees to deal with the rising cases of hate crimes include the Tennessee Equality Project Foundation which helps the victims and families of hate crimes by offering them with protection and justice against hate crime perpetrators (TEP, 2011) and the Northern District of Texas Hate Crimes Task Force which was established by the state of Texas in collaboration with the civil rights working group in the area to deal with the awareness of communities in Dallas, Texas on hate crime offenses (FBI Dallas, 2011).

State of Scholarly Knowledge and Research

While there has been a long history of criminal literature that has mainly focused on bigotry and bias as aspects of crime, the study of hate crime began to receive some substantial frequency during the past recent years.

The study of hate crime has increased from the occasional research work conducted during the 1980s by criminal researchers such as Finn and McNeil (1988) and Weiss and Ephross (1989) to a steady flow of studies, reports and quantitative data that has characterized many 21^st century criminologists such as Berk et al (2003), Barnes and Ephross (1994), Dharmapala (2004), Boeckmann and Turpin (2002) and Kuehnle and Sullivan (2001).

The various bodies of research that exist on hate crimes have outlined the various causes and consequences of hate crimes to be caused by social prejudices and societal indifferences where the original citizens of the society are not willing to adopt the styles of living of any new social or ethnic group (Craig, 2002).

Other causes of hate crimes have been caused by the non-conformity to societal values and beliefs where new citizens to the society refuse to change their ways of living to suit the present society’s views and values (Craig, 2003).

Economic and financial problems have also been a major contributor to the occurrence of hate crimes where the citizens of a particular society struggle to utilize the scarce resources that exist with that society (Perry, 2003). Modernization and urbanization have also contributed in a large way to the various forms of hate crimes that mostly occur in highly urbanized and populous areas such as New York (Green et al, 2003: McPhail, 2002).

The major conclusions that have been derived from hate crime studies conducted by Rayburn et al (2003), Steen and Cohen (2004) and Shively et al (2001) are that hate crimes are more prevalent than what has been reported in criminal investigations and government reports. This means that the majority of hate crime victims do not report any violent attacks and assaults to the police or any state agencies that deal with human rights.

The conclusions of hate crime studies have also shown that hate crimes have a serious and negative consequence on the victims of these crimes who eventually suffer from psychological trauma (Flint, 2004).

The research work has also concluded that the perpetrators of hate crimes are usually individuals who belong to certain extremist groups that are guided by certain beliefs and values which they deem to be acceptable to the other members of the society (Shively, 2005).

The theories that have been postulated to explain hate crimes include the behavioral and social sciences such as the personality theories where the various personalities and characteristics of people are analyzed to determine their behavior towards other people (Johnson & Byers, 2003). The personality theories have proved to be important in determining the behavioral characteristics of individuals who commit hate crimes.

Some of the personality theories have identified people who are aggressive in nature and also authoritative are more than likely to engage in hate crimes. Other theories that have been used to discuss the causes of hate crimes are the social and behavioral theories which mostly focus on the modernization of societies around the world and how members of these modern societies react to foreigners or groups that do not display similar tendencies and behavior (Rose & Mechanic, 2002).

According the various studies that have been conducted on hate crime in the US, many states have implemented government-sponsored hate crime initiatives that involve the local justice and law enforcement agencies. Apart from government initiatives, various states have implemented statutes that are meant to protect their citizens against any hate crimes (Franklin, 2002).

Washington and Oregon were the first states in America to enact hate crime statutes that were meant to persecute any perpetrators of hate crimes in those states. This paved the way for the other states in the country to enact statutes that would be used to deal with hate crimes directed towards religious groups, sexual orientation groups, political affiliation groups and disabled persons (Anti-Defamation League, 2003).

Stakeholder Analysis

Key Influential Players

The six key influential players and organizations in the State of New York that have a direct impact on the formulation of hate crime statutes, policies and laws include the Division of Human Rights, the Governor of the state of New York, the Hates Crime Task Force, law enforcement agencies and the Division of Criminal Justice (Division of Human Rights, 2009).

The NYS Division of Human Rights in New York deals with the prosecution of offenders who have been found to engage in unlawful discriminatory practices against people of a protected minority group.

The decision characteristics that are used by the Division of Human Rights in prosecuting hate crime offenders include the race, origin or ethnicity of the hate crime victims, the sexual orientation of the victims and their religious affiliations (Muslims, Islamists, Protestants and Jews). The Division of Human Rights usually receives, investigates and resolves any complaints of racial discrimination based on these characteristics (DHR, 2010).

The key figure charged with the operation of DHR is the commissioner of the organization who is currently Galen Kirkland. He has developed a vocal stand against hate crimes by speaking against any form of discrimination or bias motivated attacks that have been done on people from a protected minority group.

He has made his opinions clear about hate crimes by publicly responding to hate crime assaults that have been committed on minority groups within the state of New York. Kirkland publicly spoke out against the perpetrators of hate crime when he commented on the sentencing of Dwight DeLee, a hate crime perpetrator who killed a transgender woman, Lateisha Green, because he thought that she was gay.

Kirkland supported the court’s decision to sentence DeLee to life imprisonment by saying that the decision was meant to serve as a reminder that the state of New York was not tolerant to hate crimes. Kirkland noted that changes needed to take place within the American society that would reduce the level of bigotry and biasness that existed amongst the various community members.

This was a process that was going to take a lot of time but In the meantime, Kirkland together with the Governor developed a Hate Crime Task Force that would deal with hate crimes in New York (Mulvaney & Centeno, 2009).

The Office of the Governor in New York is mostly mandated with enforcing any state laws or policies that might affect the governance of New York. The Office of the Governor is instrumental in dealing with hate crimes in New York as it has the necessary authority and power to enact hate crimes policies and laws. The Governor’s office in New York established a Hate Crime Task Force in 2009 that would respond to the growing cases of hate crimes in the city.

The decision characteristics that the office considered to deal with hate crimes in New York racially motivated offenses or attacks where the race characteristics include African Americans, Latinos, Muslims or Hispanics, religious motivated offenses where the decision characteristics include Muslim, Islamists or Jews, sexual-orientation offenses where the decision characteristics used to make a decision include homosexuals, lesbians or transgender or ethnically motivated hate crimes where the decision characteristics include nationality of the victim, community practices of the victim and the relationship that the victim’s home country has with the United States (Division of Human Rights, 2009).

The previous Governor of New York, David Paterson, has also been instrumental in the enactment of various laws that will curb hate crimes in the United States. While he was not as vocal as Mayor Bloomberg or the commissioner of DHR, the Governor initiated several hate crime task forces to deal with the escalating cases of hate crimes especially after the death of Lateisha Green, the death of two Hispanic brothers and the brutal stabbing of a Muslim cab driver, Ahmed Hassan Sharif.

The Hate Crimes Task Force (HCTF) which was established by the Office of the Governor is charged with dealing with victims of hate crimes as well as reporting hate crime perpetrators to the appropriate authorities. The HCTF is also charged with creating awareness of the diversity in the State of New York to ensure residents are tolerant of each other.

The decision characteristics that the HCTF uses to carry out its mandate include the type of protected minority group targeted by bias motivated crimes (disabled, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race and color), the perpetrators of the crime (age, race, nationality, gender, and ethnicity) and the type of offense (murder, robbery, assault, intimidation, arson, burglary, vandalism, burglary).

Some of the members of the task force include Tina Stanford, the chairlady of the Crime Victims Board and Lorraine Cortes, the Secretary of State of New York.

Both Stanford and Cortes are dedicated to reducing the level of hate crimes in New York where each member in their own capacities deal with victims of hate crimes.

For example Stanford manages the crime victims board which deals with people who have been assaulted through racial motivation or minority group biasness. Cortes on the other hand deals with formulating policies and laws that will be used to deal with hate crime perpetrators in the state of New York.

Cortes support for the Hate Crimes Task Force developed by Governor Paterson was evident when she commended him for developing a unit that would deal with the escalating cases of hate crime. Her support for dealing with hate crimes was also evident during the funeral of an Ecuadorian immigrant who had been killed Hispanic racists (Macropoulos, 2008).

The law enforcement agencies that exist in the state of New York include the NYPD, the NYS Division of Criminal Justice, NYS Division of State Police and the NYS Department of Correctional Services. The main purpose of these government departments is to maintain order within New York by identifying, prosecuting and detaining criminal offenders.

The decision characteristics that are used by these state agencies when dealing with cases of hate crimes include the type of protected minority group that has been targeted by bias motivated crimes (disabled, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race and color), the perpetrators of the crime (age, race, nationality, gender, and ethnicity) and the type of offense (murder, robbery, assault, intimidation, arson, burglary, vandalism, burglary).

These five groups have the ability to impact on any decision the client chooses with regards to implementing a policy to counter the escalating cases of hate crimes in New York.

Denise O’ Donnell, the Commissioner of the Division of Criminal Justice, has played an instrumental role in establishing the Hate Crimes Task Force in the western part of New York. Her professional history also demonstrates her dedication to reducing hate crimes and discrimination in the state of New York.

For example, during her tenure as the chief federal prosecutor for the 17 counties that fall in the western district of New York, O’Donnell was able to establish a program that would prevent discrimination when it came to housing for members from minority or ethnically diverse groups such as the Hispanics and the Black Americans.

During her 2007 appointment as the commissioner of DCJ, O’Donnell vowed to reduce violent crime in the state which encompassed sexual offenses, gun violence and racially motivated crimes (DCJS, 2007).

Support to Change

All these organizations have provided support to the various government agencies in the state of New York such as the federal and state courts in persecuting perpetrators of hate crimes. Their continued support to vital government policies and statutes will be important as the US government is committed towards fighting hate crimes in the country.

The Office of the Governor in the State of New York has proved to be an important government office as it has established the Hate Crime Task Force to deal with increasing cases of bias-motivated crimes in the state.

Under the stewardship of Governor David A. Peterson, the taskforce has developed strategies and goals that will be used to prevent hate crimes within the state of New York by increasing the awareness of the citizens towards hates crimes.

The taskforce is meant to cater to the diverse needs of the ethnically varied New York state and its citizens who have mostly been subjected to hate crimes such as vandalism, assault, verbal or physical attacks and discrimination (Division of Human Rights, 2009).

Option Specification

The current hate crimes policy in New York is meant to deal with any acts of violence that are committed against individuals from a sexual orientation group (homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals), an ethnic community in the United States (Hispanics, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans), a religious group (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Islam) and a racial group (African-Americans, Asians).

The options that are available to the government office in New York charged with the overall welfare of New Yorkers will be to; develop protocols for state agencies and community based organizations that are concerned with hate crime victims, create a hate crimes policy for all law enforcement agencies within the state of New York, provide hate crime training to state prosecutors, support the development of hate crime curricula that is meant to increase awareness on hate crimes in New York (Division of Human Rights, 2009).

The first strategic option will involve developing protocols for state agencies and community based organizations that are involved with providing services to victims and witnesses of hate crimes. This will entail changing the policy that is concerned with protocols that are used in dealing with hate crimes.

This policy change came about from the Immigration Subcommittee based in New York that developed a hate crime protocol that would be used to provide a consistent approach to responding to hate crime victims (Division of Human Rights, 2009).

The proposed policy change to the hate crime protocol will therefore complement the work that is being done by the state agencies to address the plight of hate crime victims and witnesses by providing suitable guidelines that will be used to document hate crime offenses.

The procedure will require all state agencies and organizations to seek assistance and report any hate crimes to the state of New York police force thereby reducing crimes related to hate. The state offices that will be responsible for the implementation of the hate crime protocol will include the NYS immigration department, state agencies, community based organizations in New York and the Division of Human Rights.

The second option will involve developing curricula that will be used to increase hate crime awareness and also reduce the social stigma of protected minority groups in the state of New York. This policy developed by the Education and Outreach Subcommittee in New York aims to develop curricula that will be used to reduce the stigma of minority groups in educational settings as well as in the New York society.

This material will be distributed in various social institutions in the state to ensure that all members of the society are aware of the dangers of hate crimes. Increased awareness in the state will reduce the rate of hate crimes as victims will be able to speak out on any bias motivated offense committed against them and the members of the New York society will also be able to report any hate crimes witnesses and perpetrators to the police.

Awareness will also ensure that the members of the society do not tolerate any hate crime offenses and are aware of the various human rights organizations that have been established to deal with this issue. The NYS state agencies that will be involved in the exercise include the State Education Department, NYS United Teachers (NYSUT), the Hate Crimes Task Force and the Office of the Governor.

The third option that can be used to effect a policy change in hate crimes is conducting hate crime training for state prosecutors and attorneys in the state of New York. Experienced prosecutors who have dealt with hate crimes in the various counties of New York will go through a one-day training course that will enable them to learn on how to conduct hate crimes investigations, presenting hate crimes issues to juries and also how to work with community based organizations to reduce the cases of hate crimes in New York.

Training prosecutors and all criminal attorneys on hate crimes will reduce the number of hate crimes in the State where attorneys will be able to properly present hate crimes court cases before the judiciary for appropriate persecution.

The hate crimes training initiative for state prosecutors was a request made by the Deputy Secretary of the Division of Criminal Justice, Denise O’Donnell, who wanted the training of state prosecutors and attorneys updated. The state offices that will be responsible for the implementation will therefore be the Office of the District Attorney, the Depart of Justice for the State of New York, the Division of Criminal Justice Services and the New York Prosecutor’s Training Institute (NYPTI).

The fourth option will involve developing hate crime policies for all law enforcement agencies in the state of New York. This will involve developing a model policy that will be used by all law enforcers in the state to deal with victims and witnesses of hate crimes. This policy option has its basis on the training of 400 law enforcement officers in 2008 that received training on domestic extremism in the state.

This model policy will be useful in training officers on how they can be able to identify and define hate crimes and also what investigative steps they will use to deal with the perpetrators of hate crimes. The policy will also outline the procedure that police officers have to follow when investigating and arresting perpetrators of hate crimes.

The policy and training is meant to reduce the level of hate crimes in New York by providing sensitivity training, hate crime investigative skills and correct hate crime offense reporting. The government offices and agencies that will be involved in the development of hate crime policies for law enforcement officers will be the NYS police departments and the arm of Criminal Justice Services.

Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation criteria that will be used analyzing the selected options will involve conducting a political feasibility to determine whether all the major stakeholders agree to the changes on hate crime policies within the state.

The administrative feasibility of the policy problem will involve determining the administrative complexities that will be involved in implementing any of the options as well as the labor and man hours needed to implement the policy changes. The financial feasibility as an evaluation criterion will assess each option to determine the amount of financial resources needed to implement and operationalize the policy in the state.

Equity will measure whether the selected option will be fair to all the parties that are concerned with reducing the levels of hate crimes in the state while effectiveness will determine whether the selected option will effectively reduce the rate of hate crimes in New York. Effectiveness will be measured by monitoring the performance measures of the selected option.

Option Analysis

The political feasibility of the problem will be determined by the extent of policy changes that need to be made to ensure the issue of hate crimes has been dealt with in the state. If all the political stakeholders of the policy such as the Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg agree that policy changes need to be made to the existing hate crime policies then the options suggested will be viable.

The option of modifying the existing hate crime policies used by law enforcement agencies will be more politically viable than the other three options because it deals with hate crime policies that will be used by law enforcement agencies to deal with cases of hate crimes in New York. Since both the mayor and the Governor want to reduce the cases of hate crimes, this will be the most politically feasible option (Grattet & Jenness, 2001).

The administrative feasibility of training all state prosecutors and law enforcement agencies on hate crime protocols will not be administratively feasible as it will require a lot of time, money and resources to develop training programs for the many law enforcement officers and attorneys in the State of New York.

The option of training public prosecutors on ways of handling hate crimes will also involve making a few amendments to the Penal Law of New York to ensure that state prosecutors are able to handle the different groups affected by hate crimes.

These amendments to the Penal Law will include a subdivision that will deal with hate crimes committed on the personal property of a person believed to be from a different race, religion, nationality, gender, age or sexual orientations and another subdivision that will deal with the persecution of perpetrators believed to have committed hate crimes based on the protected classes of social groups mentioned in before (Marcus, 2002).

This option will present some legal constraints and complexities to the obligated bodies during the implementation process which might in the end take a long time to implement.

The administrative feasibility of developing curricula for hate crime awareness is more preferable when compared to the other three options as it will ensure that a large area of the state has been covered by hate crime awareness campaigns and educational tours conducted by the State Education Department and the Hate Crimes Task Force.

With regards to financial feasibility, the options of conducting hate crime training for state prosecutors and developing curricula that will be used for hate crime awareness will be more less costly when compared to developing policies for law enforcement agencies and protocols that will be used by community based organizations which will all require a substantive amount of money to be implemented into the Hate Crimes law that is currently use in the state of New York.

Training state prosecutors on how to handle hate crimes will reduce the amount of time spent in court dealing with law suits or cases filed against suspects of hate crimes while training law enforcement officers will also reduce the amount of time and money spent on reporting and investigating hate crimes.

The important stakeholders who are responsible for the financial feasibility of the policy change will be the Office of the Governor, the Division of Criminal Justice, the Office of the District Attorney and the Hate Crimes Task Force.

In terms of equity, the option of modifying hate policies for law enforcers will be fair to the social groups mostly affected by hate crimes as it will enable the various police departments in New York to cater to the various victims and witnesses of hate crimes in New York. The policies will ensure that law enforcers are sensitized on how to handle victims of hate crimes so that they gain equitable justice. The participation of the police commissioner of the NYS state police department, Col. Tom Fazio, will ensure that all officers operating within the jurisdiction are sensitized on how to handle hate crimes and also conduct exhaustive investigations to ensure that the perpetrators of hate crimes have been apprehended. This option will therefore offer more equitability when compared to the other options.

The effectiveness of the options will mostly be determined by whether it will reduce the rates of hate crime in New York. This will be measured by the performance outcome of the options where each option will be accorded a measure that will be used to assess whether it has been effective in reducing the rate of hate crimes within the state.

As the policies have as yet not been implemented or effected, the effectiveness of the most suitable policy will be determined by the number of people that are targeted under the policy.

The policy option of developing curricula based on hate crimes will reach a far larger number of people in the state when compared to training for state prosecutors and law enforcers as it will ensure that all the residents of the state have been sensitized on the importance of reducing stigma on protected minority groups.

This option will therefore be more effective as a large number of people will be targeted by the awareness and sensitization efforts.

Recommendations

While all the options will effectively deal with hate crimes in New York, the option that has a high probability of dealing with hate crimes is developing protocols that will be used by state agencies and organizations that deal with hate crimes. This option is more suitable and relevant to the current situation as it will be able to reduce the incidences of hate crime currently being experienced in the state of New York. Once the protocols are implemented, they will be able to effectively reduce the incidences of hate crimes as law enforcement agencies will be equipped with the necessary investigative and reporting procedures.

Argument for the Option

The development protocols of protocols for state agencies and organizations concerned with hate crime victims and witnesses is the best option of dealing with hate crimes in New York as it will not require any additional resources or staff to implement. This protocol will utilize the systems that currently exist to strengthen the consistent approaches of dealing with hate crime victims and witnesses.

The hate crime protocols will compliment the work being done by the state agencies and organizations by providing more tools and materials that will be used to respond to hate crimes. The protocols will be used to provide training to police officers on how they can conduct hate crime investigations and they can also be used by the state prosecutor’s office to persecute hate crime offenders in court.

Argument against the Options

These protocols will however take a long time to implement and operationalise because they will necessitate administrative and organizational restructuring which will require a lot of money.

They will also need to be debated on by the various stakeholders of the policy change to determine whether they can be effective in reducing the rates of hate crimes in New York. These debates might be subject to political interference where the majority vote might see the protocols not being approved at all.

In the long term however, they will equip many state agencies with the proper mechanisms and tools to deal with victims and witnesses of hate crimes where equipping community based employees will ensure that they are able to minimize the amount of psychological trauma incurred by the victim as a result of the hate crime.

Closing Summary

Once the most viable and feasible options have been selected, the next step for the policy analyst will involve presenting the selected options to the various stakeholders of the policy for debate and enactment.

References

Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (2003). State hate crimes/statutory provisions. New York: Anti-Defamation League.

Barnes, A., & Ephross, P. H., (1994). The impact of hate violence on victims: emotional and behavioral responses to attacks. Social Work, 39(3), 247-251.

Bell, J., (2002). Policing hatred. New York: New York University Press.

Berk, R. A., Boyd, E. A., & Hammer, K. A., (2003). Thinking more clearly about hate-motivated crimes. Hate and Bias Crime, 49-60.

Boeckmann, R. J., & Turpin, P.C., (2002). Understanding the harm of hate crime.

Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), 207-225 Bowling, B., (2003). Racial harassment and the process of victimization: conceptual and methodological implications for the local crime survey. Hate and Bias Crime, 61-76.

Cogan, J. C., (2002). Hate crime as a crime category worthy of policy attention. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(1), 173-185.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2007). Governor’s task force in hate crimes. Web.

Craig, K. M., (2002). Examining hate-motivated aggression: a review of the social psychological literature on hate crimes as a distinct form of aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(1), 85-101.

Craig, K. M., (2003). Examining hate-motivated aggression: a review of the social psychological literature on hate crimes as a distinct form of aggression. Hate and Bias Crime, 109-116.

Dharmapala, D., (2004). Penalty enhancement for hate crimes: an economic analysis. American Law and Economics Review, 6(1), 185-207.

DCJS (2007). Denise O’Donnell confirmed as DCJS commissioner. Web.

DHR (2010). NYS Division of Human Rights. Web.

Division of Human Rights (2009). Hate crime task force recommendations. Web.

FBI (2006). Behind the numbers: Hate crimes task force nets results. Web.

FBI Dallas (2011). Partnerships. Web.

Fetzer, M., (2010). Hate crime in New York State 2009 annual report. Web.

Finn, P., & McNeil, T., (1988). Bias crime and the criminal justice response. Cambridge, Massachusetts: ABT Associates Incorporated.

Flint, C., (2004). Introduction to spaces of hate: geographies of discrimination and intolerance in the USA. Spaces of Hate, 1-20.

Franklin, K., (2002). Good intentions: the enforcement of hate crime penalty-enhancement statutes. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 154-172.

Gerstenfeld, P. B., (2011). Hate crimes: causes, controls, and controversies. Thousan Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Gerstenfeld, P. B., & Grant, D. R., (2004). Crimes of hate: selected readings. Thousand Oaks: California.

Grattet, R., & Jenness, V., (2001). The birth and maturation of hate crime policy in the United States. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(4), 668-696.

Grautski, A., (2010). Activists react to anti-gay hate crime. Web.

Green, D. P., McFalls, L. H., & Smith, J. K., (2003). Hate crime: an emergent research agenda. Hate and Bias Crime, 27-48.

Hall, N., (2005). True crime. New Jersey: Willan Publishers.

Herek, G. M., Berrill, K., & Berrill, K. T., (1998). Hate crimes; confronting violence against lesbians and gay men. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

Jacobs, J. B., & Potter, K., (1998). Hate crimes: criminal law and identity politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jenness, V., (2003). Engendering hate crime policy: gender, the dilemma of difference and the creation of legal subjects. Web.

Johnson, S. D., & Byers, B. D., (2003). Attitudes toward hate crime laws. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(3), 227-235.

Kuehnle, K., & Sullivan, A., (2001). Patterns of anti-gay violence: an analysis of incident characteristics and victim reporting. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 928-943.

Kristi, R., (2010). New York state hate crime laws. Web.

Levin, B., & Amster, S.E., (2007). Making hate history: hate crime and policing in America’s most diverse city. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(2), 319-348.

Marcus, N. A., (2002). Perceptions of hate crime perpetrators and victims as influenced by race, political orientation and peer group. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(10), 108-135.

Macropoulos, A., (2008). In mourning an immigrant, a call for unity on Long Island. Web.

McPhail, B. A., (2002). Gender boas hate crimes: a review. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse: A Review Journal, 3(2), 125-143.

Mulvaney, J. E. & Centeno, L., (2009). Statement by Division of Human Rights Commissioner Galen Kirkland on the Sentencing of Dwight DeLee. Web.

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (2006). Act locally: New Jersey. Web.

New York State (2003). Hate crimes act of 2000: Laws of New York. Web.

Perez, R., (2010). Where do hate crimes happen in the US? Web.

Perry, B., (2003). Accounting for hate-crime. Hate and Bias Crime, 97-108.

Rayburn, N. R., Mendoza, M., & Davison, G., (2003). Bystander’s perceptions of perpetrators and victims of hate crime. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1055-1074.

Rose, S. M., & Mechanic, M. B., (2002).Psychological distress, crime features, and help-seeking behaviors related to homophobic bias incidents. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(1), 14-26.

Schwartz, L., Ulit, I. T., & Morgan, D., (2006). Straight talk about hate crime bills: anti-gay, anti-transgender bias stall federal hate crimes legislation. Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 7(2), 171-186

Shively, M., (2005). Study of literature and legislation on hate crime in America. Web.

Shively, M., McDevitt, J., Cronin, S., & Balboni, J., (2001). Understanding the prevalence and characteristics of bias crime in Massachusetts high schools.

Northeastern Center for Criminal Justice Policy Research Spodek, T., (2010). Hate crimes in New York State. Web.

Steen, S., & Cohen, M., (2004). Assessing the public’s demand for hate crime penalties.

Justice Quarterly, 21, 91-124 Streissguth, T., (2009). Hate crimes. New York: Infobase Publishing TEP (2011). Report a hate crime. Web.

Tynes, B. M., Neville, H. A., & Utsey, S. O., (2009). Handbook of African American psychology. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Introduction

The State of California aims to achieve a safe as well as drug-free community through enforcement of various prevention programs. The state officers have the duty to prevent targeted crimes in cooperation with the local as well as federal officers. They are also assisted by the local community members. One of the programs that have been implemented by the state is the Gang Violence Suppression Program which was created through the California Penal Code, Chapter 3.5 (Davis, 2003).

The program aims to minimize gang violence within the California community. It also aims to change potentially dangerous activities of gangs into more valuable as well as constructive behavior. The program helps remove dangerous weapons such as guns, explosives among others from the street. It removes violent offenders such as career criminals as well as repeat offenders from the streets of California.

The program uses CALGANG Information System to track gangs as well as their members which is necessary for investigating gang-related crimes. GVS program therefore provides funds to the California Department of Justice to operate the CALGANG System since it is the lead agency among the components of the GVS Program.

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to analysis the success and the effectiveness of Gang Violence Suppression Program in California.

Thesis Statement

The Gang Violence Suppression Program has achieved significant success in reducing gangs and gang-related crimes.

Reasons for establishment

According to Justia US Law (2009), it was realized by the California legislature that gang violence and gang activities were fast growing in the state. School age pupils and students were also not left out in this and their level of involvement was increasing.

Besides, there were several schools that provided education to many youths who were involved in gang activities; however, these schools were not able to effectively implement programs which could help prevent the students from getting involved in gang activities since there was no statewide funded program in institutions for such purposes.

The legislature also found evidence that the parents of those involved in gangs do not have appropriate parenting skills considering that the youths get involved in gangs while still young. Gang involvement is usually a result of lack of positive role models (Justia US Law, 2009).

Gang Violence Suppression Program was therefore established to support the district attorneys’ offices in prosecuting offenders involved in gang violence; and the local law-enforcement agencies in crime and criminal identification, investigation as well as apprehension of suspected offenders of gang violence.

It was also implemented to assist county probation departments to provide extensive supervision to gang members on probation. It was also established to support prevention as well as intervention of gang violence through school districts. Finally, it was found that it was necessary to achieve gang violence suppression through community-based organizations (Justia US Law, 2009).

Elements of the Gang Violence Suppression Program

Suppression activities involved in the GVS Program include the use of computerized criminal identification as well as tracking systems, community based organizations, vertical prosecution in addition to specialized police response (Davis 2003). It also applies intensive probation supervision and education provision through schools.

Specialized police response

This component of GVS Program focuses mainly on developing expert gang units in law enforcement agencies so as to help in investigation, identification as well as apprehension of offenders involved in gang violence. The specialized law enforcement divisions work together with other agencies funded by the program to address gang violence problems within the community.

They share intelligence information as well as strategies. They are responsible for providing crime analysis especially in gang related crimes as well as the gangs and their members. They also facilitate processes of community policing with an aim of achieving gang suppression. The law enforcement division is also responsible for enforcing curfew as well as truancy violations.

Prosecution

The prosecution component carries out vertical prosecution criminals found to be involved in violent gangs. This is done by specialized prosecutors while ensuring protection to cooperating witnesses from acts of retribution as well as intimidation that could come from gang members.

They provide existing information particularly on prosecution patterns for gang-related crimes so as to help in crime analysis. They also defend against pretrial release of criminals involved violent crimes and are awaiting trial and also minimize the plea bargaining by such offenders.

Probation

This component is responsible for providing intensive supervision to offenders identified to belong to violent gangs and is put on probation so as to ensure that they adhere to the conditions of their probation. Probation component works hand in hand with law enforcement as well as prosecution agencies in enforcing some specific provisions of probation which are used for monitoring gang members who are on probation.

Prevention

Here, community based organizations help in preventing as well as intervening in impending violent gang activities. They communicate and mediate with such gang members who live in the community. It also provides gang awareness education to adult members of the community and counseling programs. The component ensures cooperative working relationship among all the components by providing cultural as well as linguistic support.

Education

The program provides gang violence prevention as well as intervention services to violent gang activities that could occur in schools. Specialized gang units are used to train school administrators, students and teachers on gang activity indicators and proper responses.

Effectiveness of GVS Program

Combined efforts of law enforcement, justice and probation institutions, community organizations and schools have produced significant results in fighting violent gangs and related crimes. According to Davis (2003) studies have shown that vertical prosecution of offenders involved in gangs and related crimes has been a very effective approach. The program has lead to reduced caseloads due to vertical prosecution; has promoted additional investigative support; and has also provided resources for supporting victims.

The program has also promoted more convictions of gang members and violent offenders. It has improved the level of commitments within the state prisons. It has provided support to the fight against narcotics crossing its borders and within the community. The law enforcement aggressively investigates tips on drug as well as gang related activity within the community.

The program helps to remove hard-core gang members who live in the community since there is intense supervision on them (Everhart & Kirby, 2003). In addition, the knowledge of the repercussions for getting involved in gang-related activities discourages other youths from active involvement. It reduces the street gang subculture through education.

Statistical Analysis of the success of the program

Statistical data of the activities of the GVS Program have shown that the program has been very effective

The table below shows the progress report of the program between 1998 and 2001. The report revealed that significant accomplishments of the objectives of the law enforcement component.

Extracted from Davis (2003); Gang Violence Suppression Program

In the period of 2001-2004, the program’s law enforcement arm received funding of about $1,203,639. During this period, individuals who were identified as belonging to gangs were 15,383 and the crimes that were investigated by the specialized unit were 1,893 while members of gangs who were arrested were 1,961 (Davis, 2003).

The table below shows the accomplishments that were made by the prosecution component in 1998-2001.

Extracted from Davis (2003); Gang Violence Suppression Program

According to 2008/09 performance statistics of the California Emergency Management Agency, 1,520 suspected gang members were arrested and out of that, 487 were convicted. During the same period, the GVS attorney prosecuted 267 gang-related cases. 298 offenders were put under intensive probation supervision. The education arm was also able to provide education services to 391 individuals as 194 received prevention services from the community based organizations (California Emergency Management Agency, 2011).

Impacts of societal factor on GVS Program

Community engagement

Local experience has shown that community involvement in crime prevention, intervention as well as suppression provides greater chance of success. Engaging the community members through community-based programs have helped in mediating with gang members in the community and providing counseling to both parents and elders of the community.

Community-based organizations provide tips to the law enforcement on potential gang activity and also help in investigations. Community engagement has enhanced the law enforcement’s community policing program.

Poor parenting skills

Parents are less committed to responsible parenting activities and have let their children carefree providing them with the room to get involved in gang activity. Youths enter criminal gangs at an early age due to lack of proper counseling and guidance. According to Mendoza (2010), children join these gangs as early as age 12-14. They also lack good role models.

Community norm

In some areas within the state, gang violence or crime is the norm of the community making it had to achieve significant gang violence suppression. The community is used to experiencing such crimes and they therefore find it hard to report them since they fear the potential repercussions. It is therefore difficult to implement measures that could prevent violence.

Drug peddling and abuse

Substance abuse as well as the easy access to alcohol has greatly influenced youths’ involvement in gang activity. According to Mendoza (2010) substance abuse increases crime and also provides self-medication for both psychological and mental illness. On the other hand, criminal gangs usually depend on revenue from the sale of drugs. Violence erupts time and again whenever gang leaders in certain neighborhood do not receive their share from the sale of drugs. This restrains GVS Program’s reduction objectives.

Technological advancements

Technological advancements applied in the law enforcement tracking as well as managing gang crime by the law enforcement component of the program include computerized information systems, tracking, computerized mapping, as well as offender identification (Baca, 2007).

Computerized system is also used in object-oriented databases (US Department of Justice, 2000). The Gang Violence Suppression Program uses the CALGANG Information System to carry out computerized gang geomapping such that it is able to track the locations gangs as well as gang-related gun violence.

Hotspots of gang crimes as well as youth services are linked by this system. The system is used for managing data on gangs, gang members and criminal patterns and this is used for gangs and gang activity analysis. The program has therefore been very effective in gang activity intervention, prevention as well as suppression.

Conclusion

Law enforcement agencies need to apply broad-based multidisciplinary collaborative units which have representatives from probation, prosecution, schools, community-based organizations and the law enforcement itself. They should focus enforcement efforts which aim at reducing hard-core gang members, providing safety planning to schools and mobilizing community-based organizations.

The California Gang Violence Suppression program has been able to effectively reduce gangs as well as gang activities. It has been able to achieve most of its objectives through its five components. Through coordination of its components it has been able to effectively respond to gang criminal activities as well as complaints from citizens concerning gang problems within the community including fighting narcotics crossing its borders.

Reference List

Baca, L. D. (2007). Southern California gang suppression & intervention operations center: Los Angeles office. Web.

Davis, G. (2003). Gang violence suppression program, Final evaluation report. California: Governor’s Office Criminal Justice Planning. Web.

Everhart, M. P. A., & Kirby, L. (2003). California gang violence suppression program final evaluation report. Sacramento, CA: National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

Justia US Law. (2009). California penal code – section 13826-13826.7; Chapter 3.5. Gang violence suppression. Web.

Mendoza, G. B. (2010). Salinas comprehensive strategy for community-wide violence reduction. Web.

US Department of Justice. (2000). Youth gangs programs and strategies. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.

The California Emergency Management Agency. (2011). Gang violence suppression program. Web.

Introduction

For this week’s discussion board, I chose to analyze the article by Braga and Bond (2008), titled “Policing crime and disorder hot spots: A randomized controlled trial.” Though written a decade ago, the article outlines topical questions in the field that are prevalent in the discussions of governmental representatives, police officers, and lawyers. This assignment will briefly overview the paper’s theoretical framework, evaluate its methodological approach, assess the explanation of the findings, and compare it to the contemporary paradigm of academic sources.

Theoretical Framework

It is essential to note that the article’s central theoretical concept is devoted to the prevalent strategy for policing: dealing with physical and social disorder. Such an objective is justified for it aims to prevent severe misdemeanors. Braga, Welsh, & Schnell (2015) supported the article’s initial claim, arguing that opposing policing disorder is one of the best ways to minimize rates of serious crimes in high-risk neighborhoods.

The concept of policing disorder, as a problem-oriented policing framework, appeared later in a number of studies. For instance, on the one hand, Weisburd (2018) discussed the effect of hot spot allocation on problem-solving strategies through the perspective of policing responses. On the other hand, Braga (2015) revisited the implemented strategy when interpreting systematic observations of disorders at the treatment places in her systematic review. The aforementioned examples demonstrate the high significance of the central theoretical framework of the original article on the basis of empirical evidence.

Methodological Approach

In the original study, the methodological approach used involved two groups of subjects in a randomized block field experiment. Allocated with the help of random stratification, seventeen pairs of hot spots were held to a multitude of treatment conditions (Braga & Bond, 2008). Treatment conditions utilized were held close to the standards of general policing disorder strategy to avoid instances of biased, thoroughly designed problem-oriented solutions.

A similar methodological approach has been later used in the study of Ratcliffe, Groff, Sorg, and Haberman (2015), where citizens, rather than police officers were questioned about the impact of hot spots to avoid bias in the responses. Though the two studies had different core purposes, the same statistical and methodological types of research contribute to the high validity of the original article.

Assessment of the Findings

The findings of the analyzed research suggested that the evaluation of hot spots revealed critical reductions in crime and disorder call rates for service. As stated by Barak, Weinborn, and Sherman (2016) who systematically observed social and physical disorders at the treatment places, no evidence of significant crime displacement was correlated to the relative allocation of control places. Both researches by Barak et al. (2016) and Braga and Bond (2008) support the phenomenon of exhaustive causal mechanisms that comprehensively reveal the crime-prevention gains through the prism of situational prevention strategies. To minimize misdemeanor arrests and enforce social service strategies, a more in-depth mediation analysis is needed.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the article by Braga and Bond (2008) presents satisfactory empirical evidence when arguing about the issue of policing crime and disorder hot spots. The theoretical framework developed, as well as the methodological approach used, is congruent with the later studies conducted in the field. Findings generated by the authors are applicable not only to further academic research but also to the everyday work of the police officer, providing valuable insights into the effects of policing disorder. Though the research was limited to one city, its conclusions can be utilized in a wide number of settings.

References

Barak, A., Weinborn, C., & Sherman, L. W. (2016). “Soft” policing at hot spots—do police community support officers work? A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(3), 277-317.

Braga, A. A., & Bond, B. J. (2008). Policing crime and disorder hot spots: A randomized controlled trial. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 46(3), 577-607. Web.

Braga, A. A. (2015). Crime and policing revisited. New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2015. NCJ 248888

Braga, A. A., Welsh, B. C., & Schnell, C. (2015). Can policing disorder reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(4), 567–588. Web.

Ratcliffe, J. H., Groff, E. R., Sorg, E. T., & Haberman, C. P. (2015). Citizens’ reactions to hot spots policing: Impacts on perceptions of crime, disorder, safety and police. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 393-417.

Weisburd, D. (2018). Hot spots of crime and place-based prevention. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(1), 5-25. Web.

Abstract

The cases of juvenile crimes have arisen so much in the UAE that it is now considered as a public crisis. Some of the causes for the rise in juvenile crime rates in the region include: parental neglect and drug abuse among other factors.

The most effective way to deal with the problem is to increase the numbers of the police officers especially in the parts where the problem is most rampant. The proposed strategy is actually less expensive taking into account the damages caused by juvenile criminal activities.

Introduction

There has been a sharp rise in juvenile delinquency in the UAE in the last two decades. For instance, the juvenile crime rate rose by 33% in 2009 alone; the increase should be a great concern since most of the youths carry the crimes into adulthood. It is now evident that more young people than adults in the UAE are increasingly becoming violent and difficult to control (Abiad and Mansoor 303).

Unfortunately, the juvenile justice system has been slow at responding, and the measures that it has put in place to deal with the problem are neither sufficient nor effective in dealing with the crisis (Abiad and Mansoor 304).

Burfeind and Bartusch argue that more teenagers than adults commit serious violent offences (65). For that reason, the criminal justice system in the AUAE needs to divert its attention to the juveniles more than it does with the adults.

The best way to deal with the juvenile delinquency problem is hiring more police officers, who should be allowed to arrest and arraign the young people who commit violent crimes in adult courts (Siegel and Wesh 307). This paper proposes employment of more police officers to help deal with the problem of the rise in juvenile crimes in the UAE.

Methodology

Based on scholarly evidence, this paper proposes increasing police number in the UAE to assist in reducing the juvenile crime rate in the region. The effectiveness of the policing strategy in reducing juvenile crime rate is a topic that has been discussed by many scholars; it is available in several literatures, including peer-reviewed studies.

Consequently, this proposal will rely on literature review to obtain the relevant information about the topic. Several literatures will be evaluated to ensure that the data obtained is reliable and valid.

The fact that there are several scholars who have addressed the problem shows that there is sufficient information about the problem. The information obtained in the literature review will be used to outline the causes of the rise in juvenile crime rates, the most effective strategy that can help the government to deal with the problem, the importance of using the proposed strategy, and the consequences of not implementing it.

Discussion

Causes of Rise in Juvenile Crime Rate in the UAE

There are several factors that have led to the increased juvenile crime rates in the UAE. Firstly, most of the juveniles commit criminal activities as a result of lower intelligence, which is worsened by lack of a proper education (Abiad and Mansoor 304).

The young people who are both unintelligent and uneducated get involved in anti-social activities as a result of uncontrolled aggressive and impulsive behavior. These kinds of young people are also unable to delay gratification, which motivates them to get involved in illegal activities just to get what they want in life (Siegel 240).

Secondly, many young people in the UAE have turned to abusing drugs, which makes them vulnerable to committing criminal offences even without their knowledge. Most juvenile offenders in the UAE use very powerful drugs such as cocaine and bhang.

Researchers reveal that the use of illegal drugs is the most serious cause of the rise in juvenile delinquency in the UAE; for instance, Siegel and Wesh argue that a big number of juveniles who use alcohol often fall victim to juvenile crime (308).

Thirdly, most families have neglected their children and they don’t care about their children’s behavior or the groups they associate with. The lack of good parental care, child abuse and constant parental conflicts are also other factors that push the juveniles to engage in criminal activities. Some of the juveniles also engage in criminal offences as a result of their parent’s lack of social norms and defiance of the main laws (Siegel 241).

Lastly, the UAE police service has for a long time overlooked the juvenile crimes; sometimes they regard the crimes as negligible. The police service has constantly directed most of its efforts to dealing with adult crimes (Siegel 241). The young people have taken advantage of the police’s assumption to commit criminal offences as much as they please (Siegel and Wesh 307).

How to Deal with the Rise in Juvenile Crime Rate in the UAE

Although there could be other strategies of dealing with the rise in juvenile crime rate in the UAE, the most effective one would be to hire more police officers. The extra police officers could be used to create a special branch in the police service whose mandate will be purely be to deal with the case of juvenile offenders (Siegel 243).

The implementation of the proposed strategy will cost the UAE government a significant amount of money. The implementation involves hiring more police officers, training the hired recruits, and providing them with the necessary equipment to enable them carry out their duty.

The implementation expenses will also require the government to avail other funds, which will be used to pay the officers’ salaries and to build residential houses for them.

The implementation process is likely to cost the government of the UAE a total sum of $8 million. The total amount will include: $1 million that will be used to pay the officers who will be carrying out the recruitment, $1.5 million for training the recruited individuals, $3.5 million that will be used to pay the salaries of the newly employed police officers, and $2 million that will be used to build residential houses for the new officers.

Summary of the Budget

Importance of Implementing the Proposed Strategy

The benefits that will come with the implementation of the proposed strategy surpass the costs that will be incurred during the implementation process. The destruction that the juveniles cause in the region through their involvement in criminal activities is just too much and cannot be compared to the implementation cost (Burfeind and Bartusch 66).

The setting of the special branch will certainly improve the police’s functions in relation to juvenile cases. The proposed strategy will enhance the way police officers are expected to do patrols, investigations and other special operations (Elrod and Ryder 155).

Police patrol is one of the main strategies that law enforcement uses to control crime in the UAE. When more police officers are employed and the extra number assigned to look into the juvenile issues, they will help in making the patrol more effective.

Since most juveniles are neither stubborn nor repeat offenders, putting more police officers on patrol is likely to deter them from engaging in criminal offences such break and enter. In addition, the more the police numbers on patrol, the more arrests that will be made; consequently, more juvenile offenders will be arraigned in the UAE courts (Siegel 240).

The employment of extra police officers is also expected to see more intense investigation and rehabilitation of the young offenders. The increase in juvenile crime rates to an extent has been caused by slow investigation due to the lack of enough detectives. When police numbers are increased in the region, there will enough detectives to speed up the investigations involving juvenile cases (Elrod and Ryder 155).

The extra police officers could also offer other special programs such as rehabilitation to less serious juvenile crimes. Such special programs are known to reduce juvenile crime rates, especially those that are caused by the lack of good parental care (Elrod and Ryder 156).

Conclusion

The ever rising cases of juvenile crimes in the UAE region are now a great concern for the UAE government. The rise in juvenile crime rates in the region has been caused by among other factors, parental neglect, family conflicts and child abuse, drug abuse and lack of a good education.

However, the problem can be effectively dealt with by increasing the number of police officers. The implementation of the proposed strategy is actually less expensive when compared to the damages caused by the juvenile’s involvement in criminal activities. The proposed program will cost the government close to $8 million.

Works Cited

Abiad, Nisrine, and Farkhanda Zia Mansoor. Criminal Law and the Rights of the Child in Muslim States: A Comparative and Analytical Perspective. London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2010. Print.

Burfeind, James W., and Dawn Jeglum Bartusch. Juvenile Delinquency: An Integrated Approach. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2011. Print.

Elrod, Preston, and Scott Ryder. Juvenile Justice: A Social, Historical, and Legal Perspective. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2011. Print.

Siegel, Larry. Introduction to Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2010. Print.

Siegel, Larry, and Brandon Wesh. Juvenile Delinquency: The Core. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.

Abstract

This proposal suggests that increasing the number of police officer in the UAE will help in managing the rising cases of Juvenile delinquency. The proposal however recognizes that beyond police intervention, the real causes of juvenile delinquent behavior are entrenched in the society.

The police can therefore only play a complimentary role, but other people in the society (most especially parents) need to play their rightful role in guiding and disciplining their children.

Introduction

As a fairly new state that was established in 1971, the United Arabs Emirates (UAE) is undergoing social challenges that other countries have and still encounter in development. One such social challenge is the rising cases of crimes committed by young people under the age of 18 years. In 2008 for example, 315 crimes committed by underage persons were reported (Abiad and Mansoor 303).

Five years earlier in 2003, only 240 cases of similar nature had been reported. Among some of the reasons cited for the increasing rate of juvenile delinquency include the inability of the criminal justice system to adapt to changes brought about by a changing society, which has been infiltrated by immigrants from different social and cultural backgrounds (Abiad and Mansoor 303).

Managing Juvenile Crime in the UAE

The UAE has adopted international standards in the management of criminal justice for underage offenders. Specifically, the UAE uses the 1976 Federal Law no. 9 to manage juvenile crime (UAE Embassy 10). In accordance with the federal law, juvenile offenders are entitled to human treatment during questioning, trial and the entire legal process.

The law further prohibits the justice system from punishing juvenile offenders with financial penalties, death or imprisonment; further, repeat juvenile crimes are not recognized in the UAE justice system. This then means that a repeat juvenile offender is treated like a first time offender by the justice system (UAE Embassy 10).

To afford juvenile offenders the humane treatment that corresponds with their age, only the public prosecutor’s office and other selected specialized departments have the mandate to handle juvenile crime cases (UAE Embassy 10).

The maximum sentencing of a juvenile offender is one and a half years, which the offender serves in a rehabilitation or detention centre specifically meant for underage offenders (Abiad and Mansoor 310). Observably, the lenient manner in which the criminal justice system handles juvenile crime is arguably encouraging the increase of underage crime.

On one hand, the justice criminal system is not to involve the parents by failing to impose financial penalties on the offenders. Financial penalties would be paid by parents, and would be a reminder that they need to improve on their parenting. On the other hand, the criminal justice system in the UAE seem too lenient on offenders by failing to punish them in a manner that would discourage them from repeat offences.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Increasing police officers in specific high-rate juvenile delinquency crime areas will significantly decrease criminal activity therein.

Hypothesis 2: Criminal activity in specific high-rate juvenile delinquency crime areas that do not receive more police officers will not register any changes.

Hypothesis 3: A reduction of specific crimes (such as fist fights, sexual molestation) in areas with increased police patrol will lead to less obvious juvenile crimes happening within homes. Such will include consensual sex and increased drug use among minors, which will occur outside the patrolling presence of the police officers.

Methodology

This project will adopt a situational crime prevention approach, whereby, more police officers will patrol specific high-risk areas where acts of juvenile delinquency have occurred in the past and are likely to occur in the future. Such areas will be the experimental locations and in order to avoid intrusion in to otherwise neutral places, the police patrols will not be conducted in schools, or homes.

However, the patrols will be conducted near the school environment especially when the children are going home from school and in targeted residential neighborhoods during weekends and holidays when the children are not attending schools. Other gathering points such as playgrounds or specific alleys will also be identified for patrol by police as possible high-risk crime areas.

The patrolling police officers, and all the reports filed in specific police stations will be this report’s main source of findings. The patrolling police officers will be asked to observe and report any crimes committed by juveniles in their area of patrol.

They will be required to record whether such crime was averted in good time, and if not, if the perpetrators were apprehended. The nature of the crime will also be recorded by the police officer to enable this project determine the prevalence of specific kind of crimes in the UAE.

For comparison reasons, the volume of police on patrol, and the frequency of the patrols in the identified control areas will not be changed. However, police officers on duty will be asked to gauge the incidence of crime therein and report the same in identified police stations.

Additionally, any complaints reported by members of the public in both the areas with increased police patrols and those with ‘normal’ police patrols will be taken into account.

Complaints from the public will be specifically relevant for purposes of supporting or disapproving hypothesis three, which is based on the argument that delinquent behavior on the streets is likely to be substituted with delinquent behavior occurring in indoor environments.

Literature review

Juvenile delinquency in the Arab region has been rated as being less serious when compared to other regions in the world. In the UAE for example, the surge in wealth attained from trading in oil means that young people face lower socio-economic difficulties when compared to their counterparts in poorer nations (Cox, Allen, Hanser, and Conrad 336).

Incidentally, the UAE wealth has attracted migrants who not only bring in different cultures and beliefs, but also contribute to continued urbanization, a rapidly changing social infrastructure, sudden affluence, and “a heterogeneous population” (UN Congress 5).

Consequently, there appears to be a conflict between the new (imported) values and beliefs, and the traditional Arabic values, which are founded in Islam (UN Congress 5). Such conflict brings about confusion, and children are often on the losing end, since their identities are not well formed, and often times, they develop social division depending on one’s origin, sense of belonging and even the kind of upbringing that one is exposed to.

The unstable formative years that children go through has been cited as one of the main reasons why the UAE is witnessing increased cases of juvenile delinquency (Cox et al. 337). Additionally, the busy lifestyles adopted by parents, mean that children no longer have the security and advice that previous generations received from adults in the home environment.

Consequently, most of the vital lessons they learn, are obtained from televisions or from their peers (Cox et al. 338). Unfortunately, not all lessons obtained from such channels are positive; in fact, most of the juvenile delinquent behavior is either done in groups, or is indirectly influenced by the perpetrator’s peers (UN Congress 6).

Commenting about the rising cases of juvenile crime in the Emirates, high ranking police officers seem to stress that the main causes of such crimes stem from the society. The director of the Family Security Department of Human Rights in Dubai Police was for example quoted saying that “broken families and peer pressure were the two main reasons behind juvenile delinquency” (Abiad and Mansoor 304).

Unstable domestic environments (especially among girls), the pursuit of luxury, and drug abuse were other contributing factors to the rising cases of juvenile crime (Abiad and Mansoor 304).

Notably, police officers may not be able to intervene in all social issues that are thought to contribute to juvenile delinquency; however, they play a critical role in identifying the causes for delinquent behavior and by so doing, create knowledge and information that can be utilized by the criminal justice system and other governmental and non-governmental organizations to create societal changes that would impact positively towards the reduction of crimes committed by juveniles.

Notably, juveniles throughout the world are less predictable and exhibit less respect towards police officer on patrol compared to adults (Cox et al. 118). As such, it has been observed that “many youth view the police officer on patrol not as a deterrent to delinquent behavior, but as a challenge to avoid detection and confrontation while loitering at night” (Cox et al. 118).

As such, young people bent on engaging in lawless activities will try to evade the police net in any way possible especially when parental supervision is minimal and negative peer influence overwhelming. Consequently, police officers, even in increased numbers as suggested in the experimental area herein may still have a hard time keeping up with the petty mischief or intricate criminal behaviors meant to evade detection.

Execution of the program

In addition to setting the experimental area and identifying the control area for this project, the police in both cases should take care regarding how they portray themselves to the young people and the community at large. In Australia for example, it has been observed that a majority of young people perceive police officers as agents of harassment rather than agents of protection (McDonald 89).

For such reasons, the police in UAE should adopt a community-friendly approach in the experimental area, through initiatives such as community policing, in order to make themselves acceptable within the target communities.

Being young offenders, and depending on the intensity of the crime committed, police officers should also be advised to consider giving first time offenders an official caution before charging them in a court of law (McDonald 89).

By so doing, the young offenders will have the knowledge that the consequences of engaging in crime are dire, and that the police officers are lenient and willing to help them reform. The officers will need to record all kinds of crimes and the action taken for purposes of obtaining an informative analysis towards the end of the program.

One of the non-punitive approach that police officers can use for first time offenders during the program will involve summoning the parents to the offender and warning them of the consequences that will follow if the offence (or any other crime if committed and detected in future).

By so doing, (Bogenschneider 16) observes that the police would be encouraging strict parenting. However, where such encouragement do not bear fruit, police should treat delinquent behavior seriously by providing definite consequences in order to dissuade the culprits from repeating the same, and deterring others from similar behavior.

Evaluation Plan

The program is expected to run for six months, which will be divided as follows:

Possible outcomes

In the experimental area, it is probable that the level of criminal offences by juveniles will decrease as the program enters its third month. In the beginning of the program however, it is likely that juvenile offenders will try to evade the police net rather than quit their delinquent behaviors.

With an increased police presence however, it would be expected that most such juvenile delinquents will be arrested, in which case some may end up in welfare, criminal courts, or juvenile courts, while other may be informally handled by the police and released depending on the intensity of the crimes committed (Siegel and Welsh 306). In the controlled area however, not much change is expected to happen.

If anything, and if the two areas under investigation in the proposed program are nearby, it would be expected that the controlled area would register an increase in crime as more juvenile offenders would relocate to areas with less intensive police patrols.

To evaluate if such will be the case, the police officers in the controlled area will be requested to identify and record whether any of the juvenile offenders apprehended during the program period are from neighboring areas.

It is also likely that the experimental area will register more juvenile crimes reported by parents or residents, as offenders hide from police presence thus shifting their criminal activities into neighborhoods and homes as hypothesized in the third concept of this proposal.

Proposed Budget

Executing the proposed program is likely to cost the UAE government an estimated $5 million as illustrated in the table below. Since this is an experimental program whose real worth will only be determined after the 6-months period, officers will be obtained from other police departments. They will however need to receive training to equip them with skills needed in handling juvenile crimes. The costs will be allocated as follows:

Conclusion

Curbing the rising cases of juvenile delinquency will take more than a better equipped and responsive justice system; it will need the input from parents, schools, the government and entire communities. While this proposal is cognizant of the fact that curbing juvenile delinquency will require the input of different community stakeholders, it acknowledges the critical role that police officers play in enforcing law and order.

This proposal further acknowledges the deterrent role that police presence has on criminal activity. Based on the two aforementioned police roles therefore, this essay proposes that increasing the number of police officer will play a pivotal role in reducing the rates of juvenile delinquents in the UAE.

Works Cited

Abiad, Nisrine and Mansoor Farkland Zia. Criminal Law and the Rights of the Child in Muslim States: A Comparative and Analytical Perspective. London: BIICL, 2010. Print.

Bogenschneider, Karen 2011, Do We Know Enough to Prevent Youth Crime? Web.

Cox, Steven, Allen Jennifer, Hanser Robert, and Conrad John. Juvenile Justice. 7^th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2011. Print.

McDonald, John 2004, Police Initiatives in Juvenile Justice. Web.

Siegel, Larry and Welsh Brandon. Juvenile Delinquency: The Core. London: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.

UAE Embassy 2009, The UAE National Report. Presented in Accordance with Article 15(a) of the Appendix to the Decision of the Human Rights Council. PDF File. Web.

United Nations Secretariat. Prevention of Delinquency, Juvenile Justice and the Protection of the Young: Policy Approaches and Directions. Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. United Nations: Havana Cuba, 1999. Print.

During the 1990s, New York City experienced significant drops in all forms of crime and disorder. According to official data gathered from the New York City Police Department (NYPD), between 1990 and 1998, violent index offenses fell over 50% and property felonies dropped by over 60%. Murder alone dropped from a high of 2,262 in 1990 to 645 in 1998 – a decline of over 70%. Robbery, the “bellwether crime” that is the general gauge of violence in the city, also dropped significantly – from a high of 100,280 in 1990 to 39,357 by 1998 – a 60%) decline.

While many cities across the United States benefited from declining crime rates in the 90s, New York’s achievements are among the most heralded. For example, the drop in the sheer number of homicides in NYC alone accounts for a substantial proportion of murder reduction in the nation as a whole (Blumstein & Rosenfeld, 1998).

Few debate that New York has become a safer place since the late 80s and early 90s. Nevertheless, many disagree as to the causes of the crime reduction. Some claim that starting in the early 90s, changes in NYPD management, policies, and practices all had major impacts on crime rates. Others however, claim that while there may have been changes in policing in the early 90s, the fact that these changes accompanied the decline in crime is more of an historical coincidence – crime would have gone down regardless of police intervention as a result of other factors that influence illegal activity.

Despite the considerable discussion among criminologists, politicians, practitioners, and the media, few have offered any real evidence as to the causes of declining crime rates in the city – rather, debates over these causes continue (and may always continue), often ending in speculation. This paper provides a critical analysis of the community policing initiative which contributed to the rapid decline in crime in NYC during the 1990s.

The Debate – A Brief Anecdote

During the plenary session of the 1999 NIJ Research and Evaluation Conference, two of the panelists, Professor Richard Curtis of John Jay College and Chief Charles Ramsey of the Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department, debated the causes of crime reduction in the United States during the 1990s.¹ Drawing on ethnographic research in several communities in New York City, Curtis offered that changes in drug markets have accounted for substantial drops in crime. More specifically, his research suggested that inner city youths became acutely aware of the social ills and unchecked violence associated with the crack-cocaine era of the late 80s and early 90s.

Realizing the damage caused by crack and heroin, inner city youths began to make conscious decisions to avoid the use and distribution of these narcotics. Their decisions, Curtis claimed, subsequently resulted in the restructuring of drug conditions, the reduction in violence, and the decline in overall criminal activity. These effects occurred independent of demographic factors and police efforts to control crime².

Ramsey developed a different position. Although he acknowledged that changing drug markets may have influenced crime patterns in the specific areas that Curtis studied, the same could not be said for other places that had benefited from declines in crime. Indeed, in describing his experiences, Ramsey indicated that crack was still a significant problem in many communities. In addition, many youths had not yet come to the realization that drugs and violence were powers of the past to be shunned by those in the present. Ramsey however, was not so quick to suggest an explanation for crime reduction, and only reluctantly offered his opinion that improvements in the economy probably had an influence.

It initially appeared, at least to this author, that Ramsey was developing an argument that would credit improved methods of policing as a major reason for crime reduction nationwide. Instead however, he led his comments down a different (and somewhat surprising) path. He first indicated that, as chief, he would not take credit for crime drops because he did not want the police to be held responsible when crime inevitably starts to increase.

Indeed, he said, if efforts to address social causes of crime are not implemented now, there could be significant spikes in crime as the teenage population increases over the next decade. Second, while he acknowledged benefits of the community policing philosophy, he suggested that community policing happened to hit the United States at a fortuitous time – an historical coincidence that gives the illusion that community policing had an impact on crime, even though crime would have gone down anyway as the result of unknown social factors.

The Debate – Explanations of Criminal Activity

The discussants’ remarks at the plenary session summarized above raise two major questions that remain at the forefront of criminological debate. The first (admittedly global) question relates generally to crime trends at the societal and communal levels in the United States during the 1990s: What are the underlying causes of crime and disorder in communities, and, more specific to the discussion above, what are the factors that cause crime to increase and decrease? The second question, related to the first but more relevant to this dissertation, is directed specifically at crime control efforts: Can the police and/or other agencies of criminal justice proactively reduce crime, or can they only react to changing patterns that are beyond their influence?

Changes in Policing as the Explanation for Crime Reduction in New York

As crime dropped nationally and in New York in the 90s, a variety of opinions were offered as explanations. One leading argument gave politicians and policy makers credit for various improved and/or innovative crime reduction policies. In New York specifically, many cite crucial managerial and operational changes within the police department as the primary impetus for crime reduction in the city.

Supporters of this position in NYC focus on the administrations of Mayor Rudolph “Rudy” Guiliani and his first police commissioner, William Bratton. Starting with Guiliani’s appointment of Bratton in 1994, NYPD experienced fundamental transformations in administration and operations. Bratton, borrowing from private-sector management theory and drawing on his experiences as head of the NYC Transit Police and the Boston Police departments (among others), implemented a focused theory of action to address the crime problem in New York (Kelling & Bratton, 1998; Bratton, 1998). This theory of action emphasized assertive order-maintenance policing by line personnel, as well as methods of managerial accountability for police supervisors of all ranks (see generally, Bratton, 1998; Kelling &Bratton, 1998; Maple, 1999; Silverman, 1999).

Steep declines in criminal activity followed the implementation of Bratton’s policies and later continued through the administrations of NYPD’s next commissioners, Howard Safir, Bernard Kerik, and most recently, Raymond Kelly.

Bratton’s emphasis on proactive order-maintenance, which has been described as a marked difference from the reactive mode of policing NYPD was accustomed to (Kelling & Bratton, 1998), was grounded in the ‘broken windows’ hypothesis developed by Wilson and Kelling (1982). As is well known, Wilson and Kelling reasoned that disorder and other ‘minor’ offenses are linked to more serious violence and criminal activity in a developmental sequence.³

Therefore, if the police, working with the community, can control disorder and ‘minor’ offenses, more serious criminal activity can be averted. Bratton had had success applying this theory to reduce crime in the New York City subways when he was head of the Transit Police (Kelling & Coles, 1996).⁴ He applied similar strategies in New York when he became commissioner several years later.

More is to be said about the ‘broken windows’ theory, Bratton’s theory of action, and the current strategies of the NYPD later in this document – indeed, these are all key components to the development of the questions addressed in this brief critique. For now however, suffice it to say that a lead argument in the New York City crime reduction story gives credit to improved and innovative methods of policing, first instituted under Bratton and continuing through to the present.

In order to offer a balanced critique on crime reduction, it is at least prudent to mention some of the factors which may contribute to this reduction. Two of the most important factors are demographic and social changes. As with economic revitalization, changing demographic patterns (particularly changes in the youth population) are often offered as potential explanations for fluctuating crime rates.

Indeed, the age-crime connection is perhaps the most often recognized and studied in the social sciences. Examinations of the aggregate age-crime curve reveal that crime tends to peak sharply in late adolescence and then declines (at first slowly, then more rapidly) through young adulthood to eventual desistance in later adulthood (Blumstein et al, 1986, 23). Although some debate arose during the mid-1980s concerning the true interpretation of the age-crime curve, it is generally accepted that crime is by and large a youthful pursuit, particularly involving young males in their mid to late teens and early twenties (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983; Farrington, 1986; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).

In fact, there is often the unquestioned assumption that “[t]he nation’s Crime Index rate… is likely to be strongly affected by the age composition of the population” (Steffensmeier & Harer, 1999, 237).

In addition to criminal justice innovations, economic revitalization, and demographic fluctuations, there are a host of other opinions offered by social scientists, policy analysts and journalists that attempt to explain crime reduction in NYC and in the United States. Many of these explanations imply that fundamental social or cultural changes occurred that caused the reversal of the upward crime trends of the late 80s and early 90s.

Some explanations that have been offered include declining alcohol consumption (Parker & Cartmill, 1998), improved emergency medical services, statistical regression to mean crime rates, an overall “civilizing process” of the general population, better community and neighborhood anti-crime organization, and positive changes in the legitimacy of political and social institutions, such as education, welfare, and family stability (LaFree, 1998; 1999). However, perhaps the most often discussed social factor that has been linked to the decline in crime in the country (and certainly in NYC) is fluctuations in drug use, particularly trends involving crack cocaine.

While an association between drugs and crime has been studied for some time, the relationship between the crime spike of the late 80s and early 90s and the crack epidemic during the same years has received considerable attention. At the national level, the argument generally goes that the expansion of crack cocaine markets (which began in the mid-80s in poor, urban areas) and the later contraction of those markets (in the early to mid-90s) coincide with crime increases and decreases over the same time period. While there is relatively little scientific evidence that links crack to crime in a causal fashion, the apparent correlation between crack trends and rates of violence has resulted in one of the more popular explanations for fluctuations in national violent crime rates according to the media and criminological discourse.

A number of reasons are offered for why crack is associated with crime, especially violent crime. Some hypothesize that the addictive nature of crack, its stimulant effect, and the economic burden it places on users, forces users to resort to illegitimate means (such as robbery) in order to fuel their habit (Lattimore et al, 1997; Riley, 1998). Others suggest that the “market” atmosphere of crack selling accounts for increasing violence (especially homicide) among dealers as they compete for control over turf (Lattimore et al, 1997; Riley, 1998), and decreasing violence as the markets naturally “mature” over time (Blumstein & Rosenfeld, 1998).

In light of the information presented here, one can clearly see the underlying debate with regards to the efficacy of the community policing efforts set forth by the NYPD. One does not debate the fact that there was a significant decrease in crime which is coincidental with the new community policing efforts. The debate however does involve the notion that the new policing initiative was single-handedly responsible for this decrease. One can only add some clarity to the subject and speculate at best but there will be no definite answer.

References

Baumer, E. (1994). Poverty, crack, and crime: a cross-city analysis, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31(3), 311-327.

Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J.A. & Visher, C.A. eds. (1986). Criminal Careers and ‘Career Criminals’ (vol.1). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Blumstein, A. & Rosenfeld, R. (1998). Explaining recent trends in U.S. homicide rates, The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 88(4), 1175-1216.

Bratton, W.J. (1998). Turnaround: How America’s Top Cop Reversed the Crime Epidemic. New York: Random House.

Farrington, D.P. (1986). Age and crime. in Michael Tonry & Norval Morris (eds.) Crime and Justice, Vol.7. pp. 189-250. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gottfredson, M. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Hirschi, T. & Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime, American Journal of Sociology, 89(3), 552-584.

LaFree, G. (1998). Social institutions and the crime ‘bust’ of the 1990s, The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 88(4), 1325-1368.

LaFree, G. (1999). Declining violent crime rates in the 1990s: Predicting crime booms and busts, Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 145-168.

Lattimore, P.K., Trudeau, J., Riley, J.K., Leiter, J., Edwards, S. (1997). Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities: Trends. Context, and Policy Implications -an Intramural Research Project. U.S. Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice.

Kelling, G.L. & Bratton, W.J. (1998). Declining crime rates: insiders’ views of the New York City story, The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 88(4), 1217-1231.

Kelling, G.L. & Coles, C.M. (1996). Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Maple, Jack (1999). The Crime Fighter. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Parker, R.N. & Cartmill, R.S. (1998). Alcohol and homicide in the United States 1934-1995 – or one reason why U.S. rates of violence may be going down, The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 88(4): 1369-1398.

Riley, K.J. (1998). Homicide and drugs: a tale of six cities, Homicide Studies. 2(2): 176-205.

Silverman, Eli B. (1999). NYPD Battles Crime: Innovative Strategies in Policing. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Steffensmeier, D. & Harer, M.D. (1999). Making sense of recent U.S. crime trends, 1980 to 1996/1998: Age composition effects and other explanations, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36(3), 235-274.

Wilson, J.Q. & Kelling, G.L. (1982). Broken windows: the police and neighborhood safety, The Atlantic Monthly, March, 29-38.

Footnotes

1. The Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. Washington, DC. July 18, 1999. The plenary session discussion is summarized in: Sudhir Venkatesh, Richard Curtis, and Charles H. Ramsey (1999), “Looking at Crime From the Street Level: Plenary Papers of the 1999 Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation – Enhancing Policy and Practice Through Research, Volume 1.” National Institute of Justice Research Forum, November 1999, NCJ178260.
2. Curtis’ remarks at the conference are reflected in several of his writings. See, for example, Curtis (1999).
3. Disorder and ‘minor’ offenses refer to a wide range of acts and conditions that may or may not be wrongs in the legal sense, but can be described as “incivility, boorish and threatening behavior that disturbs life, especially urban life” (Kelling and Coles, 1996: 14). Disorder can generally be classified into two groupings – social and physical (Skogan, 1990). Social disorders include such behaviors as public drinking and drug use, aggressive panhandling, youth gangs who loiter and harass, and street prostitution. Physical disorders include such conditions as litter, vandalism, graffiti, and abandoned vehicles and buildings.
4. While Bratton’s policies in the subways were comprised of many tactics, an example that perhaps best illustrates the application of the ‘broken windows’ theory involved assertive enforcement of laws against fare beaters. Essentially, police enforcement of fare beating laws was followed by a significant reduction in robberies in the subways. This tactic, along with its link to ‘broken windows,’ is described in detail by Kelling and Coles (1996).

CPTED in Hughesville, MD

Hughesville is a small town in Maryland with a population of just over 2 000 people. The annual crime rates are quite low with no significant fluctuation in the crime occurrence between the town center and other areas (Neighborhood Scout, 2016). The annual number of crimes per 1 000 of the population is 12.46, with 27 total property crimes, and only two violent crimes in 2016 (Neighborhood Scout, 2016). Chances of becoming a violent crime victim in Hughesville are 1 in 1164, which is about five times less than the state average of 1 in 224 (Neighborhood Scout, 2016). However, these figures are higher for property crimes: the chances of becoming a victim of a property crime are 1 in 86, which is only two times lower than the state average of 1 in 40 (Neighborhood Scout, 2016). Finally, there are only three crimes per square mile each year, which is more than ten times lower than the national median of 32.8 and 20 times lower than the Maryland median of 61 (Neighborhood Scout, 2016).

Low crime rates in small US towns are no surprise: the majority of the population knows each other, and there are usually only a few business or shops in town that could be worth targeting by robbers. These circumstances also affect the use of crime prevention strategies in the area. Despite the fact that most streets have CCTV and decent street lighting, other strategies for crime prevention through environmental planning (CPTED) are virtually non-existent. Few houses have visible alarms that would deter the potential criminals from attempting a property crime. Most of the businesses and shops have alarms, but are not surrounded by any protective structures, such as fences, and do not have any night-time security guards. Paid parking lots are monitored by CCTV, but the fence surrounding them is low and weak, making them easy to penetrate. Overall, the environmental planning methods used for crime prevention in town are scarce.

Questions

Who should be involved in a CPTED project and why?

CPTED project planning has many stakeholders, including the local government, the state government, police, local residents, and business owners. Diane Zahm (2011) argues that the production of a CPTED plan is not an isolated activity, but rather a community action in which all the stakeholders should have a say (p. 25). Firstly, the involvement of all the different stakeholders is needed, because many of them would have ideas and propositions that could improve the plan. Secondly, as Zahm (2011) notes, “broad community support for the plan enhances the potential for success during plan implementation” (p. 25). Overall, it is important to engage the local communities, business owners, and other stakeholders in the planning process as much as possible, as this will ensure the effectiveness of the devised strategy.

Why is land development and land use important to physical and informational security?

There are two ways in which land use and land development can affect crime levels of a certain area. Firstly, poor use of land results in littering, a high number of vacant lots, declining property values, and the poverty of agricultural sector; these features have an adverse effect on the quality of life in the area, and thus raise the crime level (Zahm, 2011, p. 15). Lack of land development is also indicative of the overall lack of respect for property and the community, as well as of the bad neighborhood stability (Zahm, 2011, p. 33). Secondly, the infrastructure of the area, including allocation of buildings, transportation nets, and other features, can either facilitate the crime or be an obstacle to undesired behavior, which makes it important to consider this factor in the development of a CPTED plan.

How does landscaping prevent crime?

Most importantly, landscaping allows creating barriers, both real and perceptual, to entry into the facilities that can be subject to property crime (Zahm, 2011, p. 7). For instance, a line of trees or a fence can help to define the borders of a site in order to decrease trespassing, whereas the positioning of street lighting in accordance with the landscape can help to identify a threat before the crime occurs.

Why is it important to focus on access control for people with disabilities? How does this aid in the prevention of crime?

In most modern communities, there are many adjustments to the structure of buildings and streets that facilitate the movement and access of the people with disabilities. Some of these features that grant access to disabled people can also be helpful in preventing property crimes. For instance, automatic doors in most places are controlled by a difficult system of locks that is much harder to unlock from the outside than many traditional locking mechanisms.

In a conclusion statement, do you think your community is doing enough to prevent crime? Why/Why not?

Hughesville, MD does not have a sufficient structure of environmental barriers to criminal behavior. For example, most of the buildings have no visible alarms or fences, whereas the entrances into many shops and other businesses are locked by traditional locks rather than more advanced mechanisms. Despite the fact that there are not that many rich businesses in town – for instance, there are no large jewelry stores or bank offices – there are still many property crimes each year that could be prevented by simple adjustments to the landscape and infrastructure of the town. Clearly, a thorough environmental design plan could become an important part of the local crime prevention scheme in the future and would help in decreasing the number of crimes.

References

Neighborhood Scout (2016). Hughesville crime rates. Web.

Zahm, D. (2011). Using crime prevention through environmental design in problem-solving. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Problem-Solving Tools Series, 8. Web.

Introduction

Transnational organized crime is one of the issues that the United States’ government is currently struggling with as it tries to keep its borders safe. According to Best (2011), the position of the United States as the leading economy in the world, and as the world’s only Superpower makes it a major target of organized terror groups. That is why the government, through various intelligence agencies and security forces, is keen on dealing with these threats before they can affect the country. To deal with the problem of organized crime, it is important to understand its genesis and the environment within which it thrives. In this paper, the researcher seeks to answer the following questions.

Is transnational organized crime a symptom or a cause of the unstable international system of national governments?

According to Downing and Matt (2012), organized crime can cause serious instability in the international system of national governments. A good example of organized crime that can cause instability to the systems is drug trafficking. When drug traffickers get hold of political power by bribing those entrusted with the topmost offices in the country, they can control the internal systems and ensure that they deliberately create instability to enable them to conduct their illegal businesses. When they notice that a regime is keen on creating stability, they can use their influence and financial capability to get them out of the office or even assassinate them (Walsh, 2010). The fear that these gangs create forces those who come to political power to work as per their wish. Under such circumstances, it is almost impossible to have stable international systems of national governments.

A study by Borene (2010) indicates that transnational organized crime is a symptom, not a cause, of the unstable international system of national governments. These criminal organizations have a foundation. They start from somewhere and they need a specific environment to thrive. When there are strong internal systems and structures within a country, these criminal organizations will be identified early before they can gain strong footing. The founders of such criminal organizations will have no platform to initiate their activities. They will be captured and subsequently taken into custody to face justice.

A good example of transnational organized crime that clearly demonstrates that these organizations thrive in unstable countries is the ISIS (Pollack, 2014). This terror outfit was unheard of when Iraq had a stable government. Although the government was governed by a dictator, there were clear structures and systems that made it almost impossible for these criminal gangs to thrive. However, when the country became unstable, ISIS found a good environment within which it could thrive. The leaders of this group noticed that there was a gap that they could capitalize on and they successfully created a terror group that is not only a threat to the countries in the Middle East but also Western nations (Kuriscak, 2011).

The terror groups swiftly moved to Yemen, Syria, and Libya soon after stable governments collapsed. For instance, Libya had a stable government where it was almost impossible for these terrorists to operate. However, when the dictatorial government was toppled, the country became unstable because there was no legitimate leadership in the country. The country is now battling with the problem of ISIS and other terror groups because of the lack of proper governance structures. It is a clear indication that transnational organized crime is a symptom of an unstable government. When the government is unstable, organized criminal groups easily emerge because of the vacuum in leadership.

References

Best, R. A. (2011). Intelligence information: Need-to-know vs. need-to-share: Congressional Research Service. Web.

Borene, A. (2010). The U.S. intelligence community law sourcebook: A compendium of national security related laws and policy documents. Chicago, Ill: American Bar Association.

Downing, M. & Matt, A. (2012). The domestic counterterrorism enterprise: Time to streamline. Web.

Kuriscak, J. (2011). Intelligence sharing silos between the FBI and the CIA. Washington, DC: Cengage.

Pollack, F. (2014). Coalition theater-level intelligence sharing: Overcoming failures and strengthening relationships. Norfolk, VA: National Defense University.

Walsh, J. I. (2010). The international politics of intelligence sharing. New York: Columbia University Press.

Introduction

The dilemma of a death penalty versus a life sentence has been discussed for decades, yet no consensus has been achieved. The problems in addressing the subject matter are evident. The very concept causes an immediate emotional response, clogging the process of reasoning. Furthermore, different ethical perspectives do not allow reaching an agreement. Since the justice system is supposed to be geared toward rehabilitating criminals as opposed to merely punishing them, it seems that capital punishment is not to be included in the list of possible penalties.

Analysis

The possibility of a mistrial is the primary reason for arguing against the identified measure. Even if it seems that every chance for proving the accused not guilty has been exhausted, there is still a chance that the person who is on trial is not responsible for the crime and that a mistake has been made. Therefore, a death penalty would be a tragic instance of a mistrial.

Furthermore, racial biases need to be listed among the essential reasons for protesting against a death penalty. There is no secret that the contemporary justice system is not fully protected from racial and ethnic biases, as a recent study by Burt et al. (649) shows.

Therefore, there is always a threat that people of certain ethnicities will receive harsher sentences than the rest of the population. Given the gravity of the outcome, i.e., the death of the person that was possibly innocent or guilty to a lesser degree than stated in the course of the trial, the concept of capital punishment must be viewed as the prerequisite for increasing the negative effects of justice miscarriages.

It should also be borne in mind that the introduction of a death penalty implies that the current framework of crime categorization must be reconsidered. To be more specific, the classification of crimes into misdemeanors and felonies is to be revisited. The line between the felony that warrants a life sentence and the one that entails capital punishment will have to be drawn. The identified decision is going to be rather difficult to make since the eye-for-an-eye principle is hardly applicable to the contemporary justice system. In other words, it will be necessary to decide in which case a murderer must be imprisoned, and in which case they must be sentenced to death.

Pandora ’s Box of ethical and moral dilemmas that the inclusion of capital punishment into the contemporary justice system will open is beyond terrifying. Apart from the necessity to redesign the very foundation of the modern justice system, it will challenge the contemporary ethical and moral norms. Since a death penalty is basically a state-approved murder, it is likely to tear the very fabric of the social morality apart. Convincing people that killing intentionally is in line with the modern idea of justice, it will pervert the idea of the justice system, which is to rehabilitate criminals.

Therefore, a death penalty is not to be incorporated into the framework of the justice system. The very concept of capital punishment is far too controversial to allow it to exist. It subverts the ethical and moral standards that humankind must uphold to achieve global wellbeing. Therefore, the very notion of capital punishment as a form of retribution must be excluded from the modern system of justice, including both its legal and social domains.

Works Cited

Burt, Callie Harbin, et al. “Racial Discrimination, Ethnic-Racial Socialization, and Crime: A Micro-sociological Model of Risk and Resilience.” American Sociological Review , vol. 77, no. 4, 2013, pp. 648-677. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Web.

Introduction

Community-Based Policing also known as CBP is the partnership between police and community in enacting administrative policies. It is a long-term concept of dealing with crimes at the local level that involves resource mobilization by the two parties. CBP is an inclusive legal procedure that is effective in curbing societal issues. It is also hailed for its long-term benefit and the involvement of the public makes it popular.

This is because its legal administration is not coerced but rather consent-driven. In addition, the policing needs of a community are tailor-made to suit the needs of a given society as opposed to general administrative policies that might not apply in serving the interests of a given community. This essay highlights the relevance of community policing in combating crimes at the community level.

Universal Principles of CBP

The number one principle that is observed in implementing CBP is the use of democratic processes as provided for in the constitution. Apart from democracy, CBP processes should be guided by the practice of ethical codes among police officers. Police officers in the program should also be as professional as possible when working with society members. A good CBP program will also be classified as effective if it protects the lives of the public and avoids the use of force at all costs. The use of force should be restricted to cases where there is a need to protect the life of a police officer or a civilian, but the force used has to be kept to the minimum level.

The fourth guiding principle of initiating a CBP is to make the process a mechanism of protecting the lives of community members and property unlike the detection motive of the general police services. CBP has been successful due to the adoption of policy procedures that are understood by the public especially in matters of accountability and legal terms. Also, community policing should uphold human dignity in line with international human rights advocacy. This means that the use of torture as a method of interrogation should never be practiced in a CBP policy. Lastly, the policing ideals should not be based on discriminatory acts; for instance, gender biases, racial discrimination, ethnicity, religious practices, and nationality.

Partnership

Partnership in the CBP program should be an all-inclusive process that engages all stakeholders in community services. After colliding with all stakeholders, an effective CBP should offer training services on the ideals of the program for the entire society to embrace the program. The most likely partners for most community-based policing programs are the: government, non-government organizations and religious bodies, business organizations, human rights activists, local government, police services, and community members.

The role of partners is important in CBP because the partners are responsible for formulating legal policies that are beneficial to members in any given locality. With a pool of several divergent views of the partners, the policies will likely reflect the real needs of the majority of community members. The partnership is easily managed if the formulation, implementation and, coordination of all programs are agreed on by the partners.

In conclusion, it is it can be said that the role of CBP is fundamental in restructuring the administrative sector of our nation. The ideals of CBP are public driven and that explains why the program has been successful in its implementation. It is however important that all stakeholders be involved in a partnership to avoid ill motives and maintain the public support of CBP.