ALAMEDA COUNTY VIOLENCE PREVENTION CORE GROUP:
OCTOBER 30, 2003 MEETING SUMMARY

Core group meeting participants: Tony Crear, Bill Riley, Richard Word, Arnold Perkins, Valerie Street, Russ Giuntini, Mario Robinson, London Wright, Toni Iton, Sara Bedford, Page Tomblin, Lucas Daumont, Walter Jackson, Shirley Poe, Paul Leonard, and Patricia Ector.

On October 30, 2003, the Alameda County Violence Prevention Core Group had its first meeting of phase II in the blueprint development process. The remaining meetings will occur from December 2003 through March 2004. The Core group is the body responsible for defining and shaping solutions to the recommendations delineated in Toward a Lifetime Commitment to Violence Prevention in Alameda County: Background and Preliminary Recommendations. In addition, members of the Core group serve as ambassadors of the project, spreading the word, obtaining participation, input, and buy-in.

Action Steps

• Send names of youth candidates for Core Group to Supervisor Miley's office after confirming interest and availability (Core Group)
• Review draft paper on structure options and consider possibilities for Alameda County (Core Group)
• Send names of any large violence prevention initiatives that should be taken into account in developing the blueprint (Core Group)
• Invite Dean Calhoun to participate on Core Group (Supervisor Miley's Office)
• Invite 3 youth candidates to participate on Core Group and remaining youth to participate on Advisory Board. (Supervisor Miley's Office)
• Review violence prevention strategies of various cities within Alameda County (Core Group)
• Suggested: Convene CBO in a separate meeting to obtain their perspectives/feedback

Expectations: Core group members shared their expectations for both the group and the blueprint. These expectations are as follows:

• A coordinated approach that addresses the root causes of violence within Alameda County needs to be developed.
• This effort should be sustainable
• There is currently no one place to bring everything together, and this is needed to foster effective violence prevention efforts.
• The group should construct a central clearinghouse for a coordinated approach to violence prevention that would tear down current barriers
• It is imperative that the group does not let this effort die off
• It is important to secure a funding piece
• We should be realistic about resources -- current departmental violence prevention efforts should be reviewed, and decisions should be made regarding which programs should remain, and which programs should be removed or restructured
• Innovative ideas for resources should be explored -- don't rule out utilizing community colleges and student interns
• Effective prevention efforts in other arenas (alcohol abuse, drug trafficking) should be examined, and we should use these successes to assist in developing a strategic approach to violence prevention
• The blueprint should focus on the root causes of violence
• The term "healthy environment" should be defined. Policy should be developed which ensures that the elements which compose a healthy environment exist in every community in Alameda County
• The blueprint should be creative, and look at the big picture, not serve as a "band-aid" approach.
• Acknowledge that the peer culture is strong, and address it within the blueprint
• Address the problem of youth who do not care about living/dying because they lack positive opportunities
• Truancy rates should be addressed -- possibly through the creation of a program whereby county officials donate time to schools identified as at risk

Phase II organization:
Core group members were asked to review a proposed structure for meetings of the Core Group and Advisory Group. Rachel Davis of Prevention Institute briefly presented the draft meeting plan for Phase II (October 2003-March 2004), which outlined the five core group and three advisory board meetings. Nancy Lyons, Deputy Director of the Little Hoover Commission will share what the Commission learned about government structures in their study of youth crime and violence prevention.

Leadership and participation:
The Core group considered final membership issues. The group confirmed that it was critical that members were in a position to speak for their organizations and are able to make decisions and commitments during meetings. While there was some consideration of adding a number of other representatives, the group identified overall size as an important consideration. Core group members agreed that the group was about the right size, and that increasing it significantly would decrease the effectiveness of the group to accomplish the type of work that needs to be done. With that in mind, the group decided that 3 more youth should be added to the Core group to ensure youth representation and that one community-based organization would be added to the Core Group. Supervisor Miley committed to extending an invitation to Deane Calhoun of Youth Alive. Core group members agreed to submit youth candidates directly to Supervisor Miley's office, after they had confirmed interest. Supervisor Miley's office will make the final decision once they have the candidates based on balance (e.g. gender, race/ethnicity, geography, etc.). Youth who are not selected will be asked to participate on the Advisory Board. Supervisor Miley confirmed that transportation issues will be taken care of. The group also raised the idea of having a separate youth advisory group, made up entirely of interested youth, which could provide advice and input to the Core Group.

Members expressed the importance of having the community's voice be a part of developing the blueprint. A comment was made that CBOs' viewpoints need to be heard. Members suggested that this could be done through having a separate CBO meeting process and presenting their findings to the core group. Adding members to the advisory board was mentioned as an alternative to increasing the size of the core group. Finally, it was agreed that some community meetings should take place and that Core group members should participate in these.

Core group members suggested representation from two groups, Oakland Unified School District, and the County Administrator's Office.

Core group feedback on Toward a Lifetime Commitment to Violence Prevention:
Several people had submitted comments to Prevention Institute prior to the meeting. Core group members were also asked for feedback at the meeting to finalize the content. This was critical because the work of the Core group will be to shape solutions to the issues laid out in the report. Overall, the response to the report was positive, although suggestions for improvement were given. Comments pointed toward the need to recognize what the cities within Alameda County are doing currently to address violence. The need to emphasize the importance of the county working collaboratively with the cities it houses was mentioned. Another major suggestion was to ensure that the violence prevention blueprint effort is sustainable. The core group agreed that as it moved forward in developing a violence prevention blueprint, that it is critical that the proposed solutions be grounded in an understanding of the neighborhoods for which they are developed. This requires an understanding of "gangsta" culture, violence as a means of protection, as well as the materialism that is propagated within these neighborhoods in combination with a heightened lack of resources.

Prioritization of risk/resilience factors:
Prevention Institute presented 3 Keys to Violence Prevention (Key 1: Violence is complex and requires a comprehensive approach, Key 2: Risk and resiliency factors must be addressed, Key 3: Violence prevention requires an integrated strategy for action), a violence prevention framework for use in Alameda County. Following this, group members were asked to look at the previously established risk/resiliency factors (laid out in the report), and list any additional factors they thought were relevant to violence within the county. Each member then prioritized their top risk and top resilience factor, and informed the group of these. Economic disparity was the risk factor listed most often, and economic development was the top resilience factor. Youth culture was a new risk factor that was introduced which was not presented in the report. It was mentioned that youth are getting their norms from the media, more specifically through "gangsta" music, and the overriding culture of consumerism. A pervasive problem facing these youth is that they have no hope for the future, and often times participate in risk-filled behaviors (such as violence) as a result of this lack of hope. Participants commented that the violence prevention blueprint needs to work to change these cultural norms. Members turned in their rankings, which are summarized in the following table:

RISK FACTORS	RESILIENCE FACTORS
Poverty/Lack of Jobs/Lack of Career Paths (12)	Economic Capital (13)
Illiteracy/School Failure/Academic Failure/ Truancy (11)	Meaningful Opportunities for Participation (12)
Alcohol and other drugs (9)	Positive Attachments and Relationships (12)
Firearms (8)	Good Physical and Mental Health (8)
Family Dynamics (7)	Social Capital (6)
Incarceration/ Re-entry (6)	Built Environment (4)
Community Deterioration (6)	Services and Institutions (4)
Discrimination and Oppression (5)	Emotional/Cognitive Competence (4)
Media Violence (5)	Artistic and Creative Opportunities (3)
Witnessing and Experiencing Violence (4)	Ethnic, Racial, and Intergroup Relations (1)
	Media/ Marketing (1)

Creating a Structure for Violence Prevention in Alameda County:
A critical part of the Core Group's work will be developing a structure for communication, coordination, and accountability for violence prevention for the County. Core group members were presented with a document outlining four main structure options, and the pros and cons of these options. The options -- a violence prevention office, a high-level coordinating council, a coalition of program staff and/or community representatives, and an oversight body -- are not necessarily mutually exclusive or exhaustive. Core group members should think about these structure options, as well as additional structure possibilities that will be discussed at the next core group meeting. This will be a major focus of the December meeting, and Nancy Lyons, Deputy Director of the Little Hoover Commission will share what they learned about government structures in their study of youth crime and violence prevention. The study culminated in Never Too Early, Never Too Late to Prevent Youth Crime and Violence and is available on their website at http://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhcdir/report159.html.

Linking with key initiatives within Alameda County:
Core group members agreed that there are many effective efforts going on in the county. It is critical that these not be duplicated and that they are built upon. To this end, Core Group members delineated other major efforts that we need to account for and include as we move ahead. The following activities/initiatives were delineated:

• East Bay Safety Corridor
• City of Oakland Violence Prevention Plan
• Safe Passages
• Khadafy Foundation
• Bob Jackson - Acts Full Gospel - Men of Valor
• NSC out of OPD
• Ashland Neighborhood Coalition
• Lower San Antonio Collaborative (safety group)
• ARS - SSA Another Road to Safety
• MAMA: Mothers Against Murder and Assault
• Alameda County Domestic Violence Coalition
• Mayor's Roundtable on Violence
• Minors in Prostitution
• 2nd Step

Please mail additional initiatives to Supervisor Miley's office or Prevention Institute.

Next steps:

• It is critical that a funding component be established as a way to move forward with the development of a violence prevention blueprint
• Research what other cities are doing with regard to violence prevention-it is important to be knowledgeable about current efforts

Future meetings:
The next core group meeting will be on December 18, from 3-6 pm. The location will be announced at a later date.

The next full advisory board meeting is on Thursday, January 15 from 4-6 pm.

Materials:
Materials for the blueprint development process, including those distributed to the Core Group and Advisory Board, are available at PreventionInstitute.

Return to top of page

Putting Prevention at the Center of Community Well Being
www.PreventionInstitute.org