Harden, B. (1997, October, 23). Boston’s approach to juvenile crime encircles youths, reduces slayings. The Washington Post, p. A03.

OVERVIEW

For the past two years, Boston has been extremely successful in stopping violent juvenile crime.

Since July 1995 not one juvenile has been shot to death in Boston, and only one teenager has been murdered. By comparison, in the same time period, 70 juveniles have been murdered in Washington, D.C., 24 in Richmond, Virginia, and 69 in Baltimore, Maryland.

Surprisingly, Massachusetts has the second lowest rate of juvenile incarceration in the country (after Vermont) although it is one of the 48 states that has made it easier for violent teenagers to be tried as adults.

The key to Boston’s success is its unique combination of preventative features and penalties. The city pays young ex-offenders to hang out with troubled teenagers and persuade them not to settle scores with firearms. There is an automatic one year sentence for anyone with a gun in school. Anyone who sells drugs near a school goes to jail for two years. When particularly harsh sentences are passed, fliers advertising the sentence are dispersed throughout gang neighborhoods.

When Boston’s Youth Violence Strike Force decides to smash a boomlet of juvenile violence, they order an "Operation Ceasefire" that begins with an neighborhood meeting.

Parents and gang members are invited, and the Strike Force explains that there will be zero tolerance of crime in their area. Information is constantly shared: officers meet weekly with parents, teachers, and community leaders to discuss neighborhood teenagers on probation. Through programs like "Operation Night Light," they ensure that probation is enforced and unpleasant. Police officers blanket a school after gang violence to prevent any possible retaliation. When there is evidence that a teenager is "a really bad person," the district attorney and the courts employ a "fast track" system to put the teenager behind bars.

Boston’s success has gathered much attention, as the federal government highlights Boston’s collaborative approach as a model for other cities and has financed a five-year "Safe Futures" test project in six communities across the country.

The "community-sized octopus" of crime prevention seems to be working in Boston. Kids are getting the message, says Robert Sinkler, one of the "street workers": " ‘Kids aren’t stupid. They listen, some of them anyhow.’ "

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

1. Why do you think this community-wide approach works so well?
2. Does it work better than simply increasing incarceration rates? Explain. Is it worth the extra effort?
3. What feature of the program seems most effective?
4. What role could churches play in this community-wide effort to reduce violent crime?
5. Why do you think kids pick up weapons?
6. Where are the adults to blame in this crisis?

IMPLICATIONS

1. This broad approach is effective because it does not simply rely on one "magic bullet" to solve the crime problem; it utilizes the entire community in apprehending violent offenders. Churches offer late-night open gyms, while teachers and police share information on troubled youth.
2. This type of model can be adapted and applied in any community. Bringing together a variety of community leaders is challenging, but the results can be worth the effort: a unified approach against youth crime is incredibly effective and rewarding.