ALAMEDA COUNTY VIOLENCE PREVENTION ADVISORY BOARD:
MARCH 4, 2004 MEETING SUMMARY

Participants
On March 4, 2004, the Core Group held its third phase II meeting relating to the blueprint development process. Meeting participants were: Valerie Street, Joy Walton, Robert Benson, Dean Chambers, Arnold Perkins, Dale Amaral, Mario Robinson, Deane Calhoun, Sara Bedford, Darryl Stewart, Anna Gee, Seth Kaplan, Tony Crear, Supervisor Nate Miley, Darryl Stewart, Anna Gee, Larry Cohen, Rachel Davis, Howard Pinderhughes, Danice Cook, and Jessica Gould.

Opening Remarks
Supervisor Miley reiterated the need for a comprehensive model that addresses violence prevention in Alameda County. By ensuring that such a model exists, the County will be better able to obtain and utilize violence prevention in an effective manner. Supervisor Miley explained that Alameda County is more likely to receive funding with a comprehensive sustainable plan in place than if the County is randomly participating in various violence prevention activities that are unconnected to each other. To address the level of violence within the county in the most effective way possible, it is essential that the Core Group and Advisory Board develop a solid, stable foundation for a sustainable comprehensive.

Ratification of December 18th Core Group Meeting Summary
Core Group members ratified the meeting notes from the December 18th, 2003 meeting. These notes can be found at preventioninstitute.org/alameda.html.

Coordinating Council and Other Structure-Related Elements
Core Group members determined that a structure model is needed that pulls all county players together that have a role to play in violence prevention. The Coordinating Council should be comprised of two main groups, depicted as concentric circles.

The first of these groups will be composed of individuals at the county level who can work to address and move forward county level issues surrounding violence prevention. The second group will be a broader group made up of county government representatives, as well as non-county members such as cities, schools, community, business, etc. Core Group members were in agreement that there needs to be an Office of Violence Prevention, and, that perhaps the best structure for the office would be one that is based on the EDAB (Economic Development Alliance for Business) model. To ensure that department and agency heads are highly committed to this process it would be necessary to clearly state that this is part of their job description -- not something "extra."

If the structure were based upon EDAB, there would be a director who works for the county, reports to the County Administrator and who can meet with the BOS to keep them informed about the office. This should be someone at a high enough level that she/he can ensure participation from other key sectors within the county. Members also agreed that the office and Coordinating Council need to be staffed, and suggested that participating agencies dedicate staffing resources to accomplish this. A couple of suggestions to foster accountability were mentioned. These were: to require the office staff to generate a monthly report for the first year, and to create a "report card" system whereby the office would generate an annual report relating to each type of violence, and how effectively it was being addressed by the office.

Funding for the office was a concern that was voiced several times throughout the group session. Group members agreed that the office needs a committed funding source that is not in danger of being cut, to ensure that violence prevention remains a major priority of the county in its work. While there could be more expanded funding when additional pots of money were available, a suggestion was made that each department within the county contribute 2% of their budget each year to fund the office. Group members looked to the EDAB model, which charges a fee for membership, and discussed the possibility of tying into an already established fee (i.e. fines/penalties) to ensure a stable funding source. Applying for special funding from foundations, CDC, corporations, etc was an idea that was raised, and everyone agreed this needed to be for supplemental efforts, not for core activities. Core Group members indicated four main areas of concern with regard to funding. These are: 1) There must be a stable infrastructure with funding for staffing 2) Participating agencies should contribute staffing resources 3) special funding, such as grants, should be sought after 4) it is important that the office carry forth the message that violence is the most significant problem that Alameda County faces, and that this is the reason for many of the county's problems (lack of money, etc.), and that as such, deserves to receive an adequate amount of stable funding.

This group answered some of the questions posed by the Core Group and Advisory Board, and developed a set of new questions that need to be addressed. The following are questions that were raised regarding a structure:

• How do we engage participants from multiple sectors to be involved in the Coordinating Council?
• Should the Coordinating Council be comprised primarily of individuals at a high level organizationally, or of individuals who have a strong commitment to violence prevention at any level?
• Is EDAB the correct model for a violence prevention structure for Alameda County?
• Should we have a structure subgroup that can research structure options and report back to the Core Group?
• Should there be a "report card" mechanism in place (i.e.: how are we doing regarding X type of violence) to foster accountability?
• How do we fund an office of violence prevention? We need committed funding that won't be cut.

Community Engagement
Next steps to engage the community include presenting this effort to city mayors, city managers, city police chiefs, school districts, and the remaining board of supervisors to get their support around this effort. Core group members want to inform city officials that the blueprint is a countywide strategy, but it was also developed to enhance city violence prevention strategies and initiatives. Upon buy-in and support from the above city officials, the core group wants to work with them to identify the key local/community leaders that need to be informed about our plan. These groups will be engaged before the completion of the blueprint to inform them about current status and direction and to get their input before finalization. Those identified local/community leaders will then, along with the support of the core group, inform and educate community members about our efforts. Community members will be asked to play a role in this process, which could include mobilizing their community around violence prevention initiatives on the county and city levels.

Further ideas to engage community members included hosting town hall meetings in various cities in the county, which would be another mechanism to garner community input and buy-in around violence prevention in general, and also, the county-wide violence prevention blueprint. To ensure long-term community input and buy in, core group members discussed the need to develop a mechanism to ensure community members' continuous engagement in the process.

Next Meeting Date
Core Group members agreed that it is important for the Core Group to meet again before the next Advisory Board meeting. The next Core Group meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 15th from 2-5 PM.

Priority Risk and Resilience Factors
Core Group members continued to build upon the work that they have done brainstorming specific activities to address each prioritized risk/resilience factor across the Spectrum of Prevention. The outcomes follow for firearms, family dynamics, incarceration/re-entry, good physical/mental health, media, and built environment. For definitions of these, please see Toward a Lifetime Commitment to Violence Prevention in Alameda County: Background and Preliminary Recommendations.

Level of Spectrum	Risk Factor: Firearms
1. Strengthening Individual Knowledge and Skills	Educational programs about consequence of using firearms. Generate information & educational media campaigns about legislative & systems changes.
2. Promoting Community Education	PSA campaign about what to do with guns if they are found by children.
3. Educating Providers	What guns can do and how you can dispose of them.
4. Fostering Coalitions and Networks	Gun manufacturers, police chiefs, doctors, NRA, mayors, teachers & educators
5. Changing Organizational Practices	More effective gun tracing. Agreement across agencies that confiscated firearms is destroyed after tracing. Publicize new laws & systems changes to reduce gun violence & the consequences of not obeying the law
6. Influencing Policy and Legislation	Restrict age for possession of firearms-statewide. Extend legislation to surrounding areas in the community. Needs to be consistent laws regulating bb & pellet guns. Fund and improve statewide system for tracing firearms. Regional strategies for control of firearms. Statewide stolen gun legislation-improve tracing. Promoting personalized gun production. Law prohibiting sale of guns without safety devices. Gun registry. Promote passage of consistent statewide concealable firearm law. Reduce flow of guns into illegal market and address issue of Traders Sports, Inc. being identified by BATF as one of top sellers of guns used in crime in the United States

Level of Spectrum	Risk Factor: Family Dynamics
1. Strengthening Individual Knowledge and Skills	Involving men in families: mentoring programs (positive minds); teaching male responsibility.
2. Promoting Community Education	Outreach programs into community to assist families. Health education, mentoring. Community probation has a program that can assist with paying utilities and buying food.
3. Educating Providers	Providing trainings to agencies re: hiring ex-offenders.
4. Fostering Coalitions and Networks	Involving faith community and extended families, business (Rotary clubs, Lions clubs and the Chamber of Commerce)
5. Changing Organizational Practices	Agencies need to review & amend their policies, re: hiring offenders. Local & co. government should examine their practices re: hiring ex-offenders. Have companies set aside positions for ex-offenders.
6. Influencing Policy and Legislation	Livable wages for families. Policies that aren't too harsh on felons -- it's important to support these families. Monetary rewards (tax credits) to employers who employ ex-offenders. Create groups to assist felons re-entering community, make punishment have an "end point."

Level of Spectrum	Risk Factor: Re-Entry/Incarceration
1. Strengthening Individual Knowledge and Skills	Provide education regarding anger management, job training, parenting skills, responsibilities, fatherhood, how to apply for independent living skills programs. 12 steps program Ensure providers develop mental health skills/therapy programs that are applicable to the "real world" life situations of individuals served in the justice system.
2. Promoting Community Education	Build community for restorative justice, understand impact on offender, victim, & community.
3. Educating Providers	Restorative justice model/restitution, best practices on skill development -- updated.
4. Fostering Coalitions and Networks	Bring in community organizations into facilities to provide services. (e.g. AA) Include judges
5. Changing Organizational Practices	Habilitation model-mental health, holistic/family approach. Employment development. Restorative justice within prison system, build into probation, court system. Ensure that justice facilities are open and staffed during hours when community based organizations can come into the facilities and provide services.
6. Influencing Policy and Legislation	Mandated state services to increase individual knowledge and skills. Citizen rights (e.g. voting, working, food stamps etc.) Upon release. Policies relating to the transition from prison-parole (planning etc). Resources for community for mental health re-entry. Intermediate sanctions (drug court option).

Level of Spectrum	Resilience Factor: Good Physical/Mental Health
1. Strengthening Individual Knowledge and Skills	Knowledge of services and assistance, early education about nutrition.
2. Promoting Community Education	Teach nutrition as science in schools. Door to door education. Churches and Health Dept. working in schools. Anti stigma campaign-mental health, obesity. Public Education about the difficulties of young parenthood. Promotion of family planning & birth control.
3. Educating Providers	Educate the food industry. Warning signs in fast food stores.
4. Fostering Coalitions and Networks	Mayors & elected officials should be included. Enlist community members in health care/wellness strategies. Media-use to help educate the public.
5. Changing Organizational Practices	School based health centers including mental health counseling. Physical Education consistent for acute care for mentally ill inmates. Improve park maintenance. Community based preventive care models. Evaluate existing services-mental health. Looking at best practices in mental health. Look to Santa Clara for a model.
6. Influencing Policy and Legislation	Regulate access to fast food in schools. Policies, which encourage businesses that sell healthy, fresh food. Renew state commitment to mental healthcare, revisit the state approach to mental health. Food warning labels. Lawsuits for the cast of poor nutritional food. Develop more effective deterrents to young parenthood.

Level of Spectrum	Resilience Factor: Media
1. Strengthening Individual Knowledge and Skills	Training/mentoring program for youth.
2. Promoting Community Education	Have community members write op. ed. pieces regarding the media framing community in a positive way.
3. Educating Providers	Youth should talk to editorial board. "Youth corner" -- space for youth in the media to voice their concerns.
4. Fostering Coalitions and Networks	Meeting w/editorial boards of media channels. Collaborate w/ business to influence the media. KPFA. BIMS group. Pixar -- engage them in our work. Collaborate w/ individuals that delegate the news stories. Business, city mgrs, mayors. Bellva Davis, Barbara Rodgers, Dennis Richmond. Sponsors/advertisers, smaller newspapers.
5. Changing Organizational Practices	Positive news stories around youth successes/violence pictures. Complete community effort to change media practices. Mayor should highlight youth once/month doing something positive
6. Influencing Policy and Legislation	Talking to people in upper mgmt. in media who assign stories. Ask stations to do "60/40" positive news stories. 50/50 about community. Involve mayors, city managers, Chamber commerce. City/county request media to report positive stories.

Level of Spectrum	Resilience Factor: Built Environment
1. Strengthening Individual Knowledge and Skills	Involve Youth/children in large community murals. Understand complexity & hope of prevention, instate walkable communities.
2. Promoting Community Education	In-kind condo fees/ clean paint obligation. Clean, aesthetically pleasing, graffiti free, attractive, lighting. Improve physical appearance of schools. Map abandoned housing, fix up & sell to low-income.
3. Educating Providers	Financial institutions to assist w/ decreasing the number of abandoned buildings. Redevelopment agencies (blight, lighting, businesses)
4. Fostering Coalitions and Networks
5. Changing Organizational Practices	Tie art commission to new development.
6. Influencing Policy and Legislation	Increase home ownership & ensure that no building sits abandoned for x months/abatement. Mixed-income housing. Promote commercial districts (restaurants, movies, etc.) Get state/feds to provide counties w/resources saved as result of keeping people out of prison-reinvest savings to community. Ratio of units to open space. Tie in w/ infrastructure project, (jobs). Walkable community.

Return to top of page

Putting Prevention at the Center of Community Well Being
preventioninstitute.org