Child Welfare Gang Assessment

Chapter I INTRODUCTION

Pervasiveness of Gangs

For more than a century packs have been a important job in the United States. Since the early 1900s, the pack subculture has continued to attest its manner into society. The United States has seen a significant addition in the figure of pack members since 1996. In 1996, gang rank was estimated at 846,000 ( Egley, Howell, & A ; Major, July 2006 ) . In 2008, there were about 1 million pack members ( National Drug, 2009 ) . Gangs are a national job and more specifically a community concern. In 2002, “approximately 85 per centum of all pack members” resided in big metropoliss and suburban counties ( Egley, Howell, & A ; Major, July 2006, p. V ) .

As the figure of packs and gang rank increased, the rate of condemnable activity, drug trade and force besides increased. Gangs are involved in drug usage and gross revenues every bit good as other illegal condemnable activities. Harmonizing to the National Gang Threat Assessment ( 2006 ) , packs are the primary beginning for the distribution of illegal drugs throughout the United States. Between 1960 and 1991 the rate of violent offense increased by 500 per centum ( McCorkel & A ; Miethe, 2002 ) . Harmonizing to Egley ( 2006 ) , “Gang-related homicides have remained a serious job, peculiarly in the gang-problem metropoliss with the largest populations ( p. V ) .

The age scope of pack members has expanded proposing that members are remaining in a pack longer ( Spergel et al. , 1994 ) . Harmonizing to informations from the National Youth Gang Survey ( Egley, 2002 ) , 50 per centum of pack members were under the age of 18 ; 50 per centum were grownups 18 old ages and older ; 94 per centum were males and 6 per centum were females. The racial makeup of packs in the National Youth Gang Survey were Forty-seven per centum Hispanics, 31 per centum African American, 13 per centum White, and 7 per centum Asian ( Egley, 2002 ) . Harmonizing to Spergel ( 1994 ) , “gang members remain in packs longer to prosecute economic addition through progressively serious condemnable acts”

While packs continue to be throughout the United States, it is an increasing job in the province of California. It is estimated that there are 1,300 packs and 150,000 pack members throughout Los Angeles County and 400 packs and 39,000 pack members shacking in the City of Los Angeles ( Bureau of Justice, 2001 ) .

ALSO READ  Licensed Practical Nurse Essay

Hazard Factors

Gangs have a powerful and annihilating consequence on the community due to force and drugs. The exposure of force to a kid frequently has a lifetime consequence. Hazard factors that contribute to a young person fall ining a pack come from many beginnings. As the figure of hazard factors increase in a kid ‘s life the likeliness of fall ining a pack besides increases ( Hill, Howell, & A ; Battin-Pearson, 1999 ) . Risk factors include the person, household, community, equals and poorness.

From the single position, hazard factors include exposure to force, substance maltreatment, kid maltreatment, hapless academic public presentation ( Hill et al. , 1999 ) . Academic failure is noted as being one of the forecasters for pack engagement ( Hill et al. , 1999 ) . A survey of in-between school pupils demonstrated how negative school experiences correlated to gang engagement ( Dishion, Nelson, & A ; Yasui, 2005 ) . Those pupils who adapted good to school and were wining academically steered off from the pupils who were neglecting. As consequences, the failing pupils formed an confederation and developed pervert behaviours which led to fall ining a pack ( Dishion et al. , 2005 ) .

Family kineticss is of major importance in the development of delinquent behaviour. Persons who experience ongoing or frequent domestic force between their parents or defenders, parental substance maltreatment and negative household interactions with the constabulary are more likely to fall in a pack ( Hill et al. , 1999 ) . Families who have generational pack rank leave small room for their kids non to prosecute in the pack life style. Martin Jankowski ( 1991 ) agreed that the household construction and dislocation is a cardinal factor in why young person choose to fall in a pack and that the household is the strongest influence in directing a kid ‘s life and picks. Persons who have equals who engage in delinquent behaviour and who view this type of antisocial behaviour as acceptable are more like to prosecute in delinquent behaviours ( Hill et al. , 1999 ) .

Equally of import are the community hazard factors. Communities where there is easy entree to drugs, low fond regard to the vicinity, transeunt population, at odds with the constabulary and favour antisocial behaviour pose a great hazard to the young person ( Hill et al. , 1999 ) . A longitudinal survey of 808 young person found that the highest community hazard factors occur when marihuana is available and there is a important figure of delinquent young person ( Hill et al. , 1999 ) .

ALSO READ  Women Empowerment And Mental Health Social Work Essay

Socioeconomic features besides factor into pack association. A household ‘s low socioeconomic position does non vouch that the kid will stop up in a pack. However, it is another cardinal factor that increases likeliness of a kid fall ining a pack. There is a stigma attached to inquiring for aid and many households attempt to do make with their low income. Pride gets in the manner. Many of the hapless seek other means to last. The young person want what others have and will happen alternate ways of obtaining what they want. Membership in a pack provides them with an chance to better their fundss. The pick is frequently made without recognizing the badness effects. This frequently means take parting in illegal and condemnable activities which will supply the chance to do money. Since they do non hold to inquire for money, they do non give their pride ( Barden, 1990 ) .

Gang infested communities, kid maltreatment and disregard, hapless vicinity fond regard, drugs and economic sciences all play a function in furthering a delinquent young person. The importance of intercession and bar is critical to the endurance of the kid, household, every bit good as the community.

Purpose of the Program

The intent of this plan is to measure kids and households come ining the kid public assistance system for pack engagement and/or the possible pack engagement and to supply bar and intercession services. DCFS besides has a specialised unit, the Multi-Agency Response Team that works closely with jurisprudence enforcement bureaus during their pack and narcotics probes.

The Department of Children and Family Services ( DCFS ) has implemented a policy, Point of Engagement, which is an up-front appraisal of caretakers ( parents/guardian ) where there is a hazard due to mental wellness, substance maltreatment and domestic force. However, there is no current appraisal in topographic point for pack involved households or young persons. The aim of this plan is to supply an up-front pack appraisal to place at-risk young person every bit good as gang-involved households to diminish pack rank by supplying services and mentioning to community based organisations that specialized in pack bar and intercession plans.

ALSO READ  Online Therapy Paper Essay

The end of the plan is to discourage youth off from packs, strengthen households, prevent generational engagement with the kid public assistance system and packs, provide the household with community based services and unafraid support. This plan will be designed to give the young person and households of hapless communities the chance to better their lives.

CHILD WELFARE GANG ASSESSMENT 7

Mentions

  1. Bureau of Justice Assistance. ( 2001, July ) . Annual study to Congress: Making a safer America, financial twelvemonth 2000, ( NCJ 187302 ) . Retrieved October 10, 2009, from BJA Publications: hypertext transfer protocol: //bja.ncjrs.gov
  2. Egley, A. , Jr. ( 2002, February ) . National youth pack study trends from 1996 – 2000 ( FS 200203 ) . Retrieved September 24, 2009, from NCJRS Web site: www.ncjrs.gov/ ? pdffiles1/ ? ojjdp/ ? fs200203.pdf
  3. Egley, A. , Jr. ( n.d. ) . National youth pack study trends from 1996 – 2000 ( FS 200203 ) . Retrieved September 24, 2009, from NCJRS Web site: www.ncjrs.gov/ ? pdffiles1/ ? ojjdp/ ? fs200203.pdf
  4. Egley, A. , Jr. , Howell, J. C. , & A ; Major, A. K. ( July 2006 ) . National Youth Gang Survey 1999-2001 ( NCJ 209392 ) . Washington, DC: U.S. Government of Justice.
  5. McCorkel, R. C. , & A ; Miethe, T. D. ( 2002 ) . Panic: The societal building of the street pack job. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  6. National Drug Intelligence Center. ( 2009 ) . National Gang Threat Assessment 2009 ( Product No. 2009-M0335-001 ) . Washington, DC: National Gang Intelligence Center.
  7. Spergel, I. , Curry, D. , Chance, R. , Kane, C. , Ross, R. , Alexander, A. , Simmons, E. , … Oh, S. ( 1994, October ) . Gang suppression and intercession: Problem and Response ( NCJ Number 149629 ) . Retrieved September 22, 2009, from Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Web site: hypertext transfer protocol: / ? / ? www.ncjrs.org/ ? pdffiles/ ? gangprob.pdf
  8. Yablonsky, L. ( 1997 ) . Gangsters: Fifty old ages of lunacy, drugs, and decease on the streets of America. New York: New York University Press.