The good news is that gang activity and crime have dropped since 2004.  In 2007, gang offenses in public schools were down 37%.   Much of the good news is attributed to the efforts of the Northern Virginia Gang Task Force.

In releasing the Northern Virginia Comprehensive Gang Assessment, a study of the region’s gang activity from 2003 to 2008, officials emphasized that although middle school gang activity is a concern, gangs are less of a problem in Northern Virginia and its schools than they are elsewhere. They credited the task force and a strong regional economy.

“The task force is working. It is making a difference,” said Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), who was instrumental in forming the group. “People are looking to this area for what is a growing problem nationwide.”

Across Northern Virginia, gang members are responsible for 5 percent of violent crime and 2 percent of crime overall, according to the report. Law enforcement officials estimate the number of gang members in the area at 5,000 and the number of gangs or cliques at 80 to 100. About 3,000 of the gang members come from Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, but the Southside Locos, Bloods, Crips and 18th Street also have significant a regional presence.

“Unlike many settings in the United States . . . gangs in Northern Virginia have failed to gain an entrenched foothold,” said Kenneth F. Billingsley, the director of information and demographic services for the Northern Virginia Regional Commission and the report’s author.

“There is no evidence in the data to suggest a worsening of the conditions in Northern Virginia public schools.”

 

Responsible residents need to make sure that our local politicians and the community mouthpieces do not misrepresent gang activity and use it for political gain. Nothing stirs a community up like thinking MS-13 is taking over the neighborhood. Finding balance is the important issue. Communities need to remain vigilant and at the same time, not see gang members crawling out from under every rock. Validating gang wannabees is not in the best interest of schools or communities.

Unlike many settings in the United States . . . gangs in Northern Virginia have failed to gain an entrenched foothold,” said Kenneth F. Billingsley, the director of information and demographic services for the Northern Virginia Regional Commission and the report’s author.

“There is no evidence in the data to suggest a worsening of the conditions in Northern Virginia public schools.”

No police officers from anti-gang units spoke at the news conference, and Arlington and Fairfax counties declined to make any available for comment on the report afterward.

Despite the good news in the report, more and more students are forging their first gang ties at younger ages, Billingsley said. In interviews with 50 current and former gang members and their associates, researchers found that 75 percent of gang members joined by age 14 and 25 percent joined by age 12, according to the report.

Immigration and shifting demographics are also cause for concern, authorities said. More than 40 percent of the gang members arrested by the regional gang task force were charged with a U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement violation, according to the study.

Gangs are “still a threat,” said Loudoun County Sheriff Stephen O. Simpson. “They’re still here. They’re still living in the communities.”

It is important to note that not all gangs mentioned above are Latino gangs.

Full article in the Washington Post.

“Most of the illegal immigrant arrestees referred to ICE have committed only minor crimes. If the objective of the County’s immigration enforcement effort is to reduce serious crime, then the current policy does not provide a very efficient means of achieving it. If the objective is to remove illegal immigrants, then ICE does not have sufficient resources to handle the large numbers of referrals that would result. ICE currently tries to limit the types of offenses for which it will pick up illegal immigrants to more serious crimes in jurisdictions other than Prince William County.”

It is clear to me that this one, brief but succinct paragraph, just about sums up why I feel like this county’s policy has no real direction. What is this policy suppose to do? Because from this interim UVA report, both objectives are failing. 

Although the supervisors were unanimous in their vote for the immigration-related law enforcement policy in July and October 2007, they were divided in their thoughts about what the policy should do.
When we spoke with them in summer 2008, the supervisors listed their own motivations for supporting the policy. Of the five supervisors we spoke with, four had participated in the initial unanimous vote in October 2007 (the fifth was elected in November 2007 on a platform opposing the policy). Among them, two indicated that the policy, which they supported and thought would improve public safety, was directed only toward criminal illegal immigrants. A third supervisor said that the initial motivation was to try to reduce such neighborhood conditions as overcrowding in homes, cars parked on lawns and crowded emergency departments in the local hospitals. The fourth supervisor reported that the policy was intended to remove all illegal immigrants from the county. Members of the Board of Supervisors also thought that the policy could reduce costs and save the public money, as indicated in the framing of the resolution.

How can we accurately determine whether the policy is reaching its intended goals if our Supervisors don’t agree on what the policy is suppose to achieve.

Basically, the debate is as follows:

With the release of the new data, which cover the first 10 months of enforcement, people on both sides of the debate claim that the numbers prove their case. Advocates of the policy say the low numbers of illegal immigrants arrested show that it is working as a deterrent. Opponents say the statistics show that the rhetoric about the safety threat posed by illegal immigrants was overblown.

By one measure, critics said, the policy has failed: The County’s crime rate rose last year for the first time since 2004. That increase was driven largely by a surge in property crime, including burglaries and larcenies. But the number of major violent crimes plummeted almost 22 percent from the year before — more proof, advocates say that the policy has worked.

“I think what the stats show is the effectiveness of the program,” said Board of Supervisors Chairman Corey A. Stewart (R-At Large), who fought hard for passage of the policy.

As evidence that the measure is working, Stewart pointed out that illegal immigrants were charged with several homicides in 2007, compared with none in 2008. Two men who were in the country illegally were charged with four of Prince William’s nine homicides in 2007, police said.

“There were a series of very serious crimes, high-profile crimes committed by illegal aliens” before the policy, Stewart said. “Frankly, illegal immigrants have done one of two things: They have either left the county, or they simply are being very careful not to commit any crimes and end up in jail.”

Corey is attempting to turn a year or 2 into a theory. Crime statistics just don’t work that way Corey. Experts in the field believe our crime statistics are as they are because of Chief Deane’s leadership in getting more professionals involved in crime fighting. It stands to reason, the more cops out there, the fewer crimes committed and the fewer committed crimes that go unsolved. Our police force is just excellent and our police chief has an extremely good national reputation.

There is much good in Prince William County. There is much to crow about. However, the Immigration Resolution isn’t one of those things. It caused dissention amongst residents and brought an undesirable focus on our county. Corey Stewart ought to be promoting the county based on the professional accomplishments of Chief Deane and a lowered crime rate (prior to 2008), rather than attempting to blow sunshine all over himself for ‘running the illegals out of town.’