Community Safety Scorecard - Advancement Project California€¦ · • Urban Peace: Reduces and...

Project completed in collaborationwith Advancement Project’s Urban Peace& Healthy City programs andthe Violence Prevention Coalition

CommunitySafetyScorecardCity of Los Angeles 2011

Advancement Project ClosingtheOpportunityGap

AdvancementProjectisapublicpolicychangeorganizationrootedinthecivilrightsmovement.Weengineerlarge-scalesystemschangetoremedyinequality,expandopportunityandopenpathstoupwardmobility.Ourgoalisthatmembersofallcommunitieshavethesafety,opportunityandhealththeyneedtothrive.

•Healthy City:Transformshowpeopleaccessanduseinformationabouttheircommunities.HealthyCityisaninformation+actionresourcethatunitescommunityvoices,rigorousresearchandinnovativetechnologiestosolvetherootcausesofsocialinequity.

•Urban Peace:Reducesandpreventscommunityviolence,makingpoorneighborhoodssafersothatchildrencanlearn,familiescanthriveandcommunitiescanprosper.

Violence Prevention Coalition

TheViolencePreventionCoalition(VPC)isapublic/privatenetworkofcommunity-basedorganizations,individuals,institutionsandagenciesintheGreaterLosAngelesareadedicatedtoworkingtogethertopreventviolenceusingapublichealthapproach.

ThemissionoftheVPCistobeapowerful,unifiedvoicetoaddresstheepidemicofviolenceandaresourceformemberorganizationsthatarecommittedtodevelopinghealthy,safecommunities,advocatingforaprevention-basedapproachtoreducing/eliminatingviolence,andcreatinghealthycommunitiesandassuringsocialequity.

Community Safety Scorecard City of Los Angeles 1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 2

Citywide Public Safety Map 4

The Community Safety Scorecard: 5What Does It Tell Us?

Selected Scorecards 6

Scorecard Process: Comprehensive 12Violence Reduction Logic Model

Methodology 14

Recommendations 15

Conclusion 22

AppendixA: 23Community Safety Scorecards

AppendixB: 40Citywide List of Ranks & Grades

AppendixC: 46Correlation Table

AppendixD: 49Data Sources & Methodology Narrative

“Although overall crime continues to drop in Los Angeles, we continue to see gang violence as one of the serious threats facing our city.” MayorAntonioVillaraigosa,January8,2010

“If this can’t be a safe city, this can’t be a great city.” L.A.PoliceDepartmentChiefCharlieBeck, January7,2011

2 Community Safety Scorecard City of Los Angeles

Executive Summary

A fternineconsecutiveyearsofrecordcrimereduction,mostLosAngelesneighborhoodsenjoyunusuallyhighsafety.In2007,Mayor

AntonioVillaraigosamadetheboldparadigmshiftfrom“businessasusual”tolaserfocusongangzonesandresourceconcentrationintocommunitiessufferingthehighestlevelsofviolence.HealsocreatedtheOfficeofGangReductionandYouthDevelopment(GRYD),asingleaccountabilitystructurechargedwithcitywideviolenceprevention,ganginterventionandseamlesscoordinationwithLAPDandneighborhoodleaders.Thereisrenewedhopeinthesecommunities.Andthereisundisputedproofthat,asaresultofthesenewpolicies,gangcrimehasdroppeddramatically.InandaroundGYRD’s2010SummerNightLightssafeparksprogram,gangrelatedhomicideplungedby57%.

TheCity’shistoricreductionsincrimewouldnothavebeenpossiblewithouttheMayor’schangeinpolicydirection,sustainedfocusongangGRYDzones,strongsupportoftheGRYDoffice,partnershipwithcommunityleadersandthestrongbackingofformerLAPDChiefBillBrattonandcurrentChiefCharlieBeck.

Nonetheless,citywidecrimereductiondoesnotmeanthatwehavesufficientlyreducedtheriskfactorsthatcause

traumaandviolenceinourpoorestneighborhoods,wherenearly300,000childrenstillsufferthediseasesthatresultfromchronicexposuretodebilitatingcommunityconditions.Ninetypercentofchildrenlivinginhotzonesreportedhavingwitnessedorbeenavictimoffelonylevelviolence;athirdtestatwarlevelsofPTSD;approximatelyafifthsufferclinicaldepression;resultinginterriblehealthepidemics,suchasobesityanddiabetes.1 Ifthatwerenotenough,homicideisstilltheleadingcauseofprematuredeathforyoungmenfromtheseneighborhoods.2

TheAdvancementProject’sUrbanPeaceandHealthyCityprograms,incollaborationwiththeViolencePreventionCoalition,presentthisCommunitySafetyScorecardtooltodocumenttheinequitabledistributionofpublicsafetyandmapthesafetygapsamongneighborhoods.This Scorecard shows that crime reduction is an important beginning but it is not enough to create safety or reduce the PTSD of kids in gang zones still exposed to chronic violence and trauma. ThisScorecardshowswhattoexpandandwhattofixineachZIPcodetogobeyondcrimereductiontotraumareductionandrealsafety.

Nothing in this Community Safety Scorecard should be interpreted or used to diminish the progress made in the past several years or be used to argue against the City’s new policy and program direction that resulted in the historically low crime rates.Infact,theScorecardprovidesfurthersupportforstayingthecourseinconcentratingtheCity’sinvestmentintothehighestneedand,therefore,thehighestprioritycommunities.TheScorecardshowsthatevenasweapplaudthegainsmadeincrimeratereduction,thecommunitiesthatrankthelowestintheScorecardneedfocusandattentioninmultipleareasinordertoachievesustainablesafety.

TheCommunitySafetyScorecardisanx-rayofsafetyindicatorsandcommunityconditionsforeachZIPcodeintheCityofLosAngeles.Itisasnapshotof

“ Crime is at historic lows, but the 300,000 children of L.A.’s hot zones still are not sufficiently safe. After you’ve reduced crime, what else has to happen to reduce trauma and produce safety for kids in the gang zones?”

Connie Rice, Founding Co-Director, Advancement Project

1 Stein,BradleyD.,Jaycox,LisaH.,Kataoka,SherlyH.,Wong,Marleen,Tu,Wenli,Elliott,MarcN.,Fink,Arlene,“AMentalHealthInterventionforSchoolChildrenExposedtoViolence,”JournaloftheAmericanMedicalAssociation,Vol.290,No.6,August6,2003,pp.603-611.

2 AdvancementProject’sUrbanPeaceprogram,CalltoAction:ACaseforaComprehensiveSolutiontoLA’sGangViolenceEpidemicReport.

http://v3.advancementprojectca.org/sites/default/files/imce/ p3_report.pdf


interrelatedandinteractingsocio-economicriskandprotectivefactors,crimeandschoolperformancedatathatcontributetoormitigateviolenceinacommunity.ItpinpointsthesafestZIPcodesaswellasthosewhereourrelianceontherecentsuccessincrimereductionhasnotbeenenoughtodeliverminimallyadequatesafety.Inthesafestneighborhoods,peoplewalktheirdogsatnight.Inunsafeneighborhoods,childrenoftencannotwalktoschoolsafely,attendschoolwithoutencounteringgangrecruiters,safelyparticipateinafterschoolactivities,orwalkhomewithoutfear.ThisScorecardhighlightswherethecommunity,andthepublicandprivatesectors,havethemostworktodotodeliverbasicsafety.

TheCommunitySafetyScorecardoffersdataattheZIPcodelevel;andisthefirsttoofferdatabycategorizingbothprotectiveandriskfactorsforviolence,includingschoolconditions.No other scorecard presents community conditions at such a focused geographic level citywide.ThisScorecardmeasuresandgivesgradesinthefourcategoriesofschoolconditions,riskfactors,protectivefactors,andsafety.Safetyislargelyinformedbytheformerthreecommunityconditions.Thesegradesindicatethestatusofsafety-relatedconditionsintheZIPcodes.Thesescoresdonotreflecttheeffortsofthepoliceorthecommunityontheground,whichmaybeextraordinary,butmaypointtoinsufficientmeasurestomovethemeteronsafetyforanentireZIPcode.

Themainfindingsofthisreportcanbefoundonpage10.Theyunderscoretheneedforapublichealthfocused,sustained,long-termefforttoimprovepublicsafetyincommunities.ThecitywidesafetyscoremaprevealsthatpublicsafetyinequityinLosAngeles’communitiesexists.Despitetheinequity,eachcommunityhasauniquearrayofassetsandrisks,andthusanystrategyimplementedmustbeneighborhoodbasedandbuildupontheresourcesthatalreadyexistinthearea.TheevidencealsoshowsthatwhenanyonecategoryoftheScorecardisatan“F”therestofthecategoriesarenegativelyaffected,thuspointingtotheneedforcoordinatedactionamongallsectors.Basedonthisscoringtechnique,thescorespresentedforeachZIPcodearerelativetothescoresofotherZIPcodesintheCityofLosAngelesandarenottiedtoanyexternalscoringcriterion.

TheCommunitySafetyScorecardcanalsohelpilluminateforcommunitiesapathtosustainableviolencereduction

solutionsbyindicatingthespecificcommunityconditionsthatrequirethemosturgentattentionfrombothpublicandprivatesectors.Withsuchknowledge,communitiesinLosAngelescanmoveclosertobuildingpartnershipsanddevelopingthecomprehensivestrategiesnecessarytoreduceviolenceoverthelongterm.Consequently,thisreportalsomakesaseriesofrecommendationsthatenablesthetransformationofcommunitiesbyimprovingtheirgradefromfailing(F,thebottom20%ofZIPcodes)toexcellent(A,thetop20%ofZIPcodes).Theserecommendationsprovideasampleroadmaponhowtoimplementacomprehensivecommunity-basedviolencereductionstrategythatfacilitatesthecoordinationandcollaborationofallsectorsworkingtogethertoachievesustainablechange.

Forfuturephases,theScorecardwillseektouseanexternalscoringcriterionforeachindexcategorytobetterrepresentandtrackhoweachZIPcode’sgrademayimproveorworseninsubsequentanalyses.Thisstudyoffersspecific,violence-correlateddataattheZIPcodelevelinasufficientlyrobustdesign.Ifrepeated,theScorecardwillserveasameaningfulbenchmarkforcomprehensiveviolencereductionefforts.Furthermore,theCommunitySafetyScorecardwillseektoincludedatathatwereunavailableforthisfirstphase,includingmoredataonprotectivefactorslikecommunitycohesion,anddeeperinformationonriskfactorslikedomesticviolence,childreninfostercare,posttraumaticstressdisorder,anddepression.Thisdatawillalsobemorebroadlyavailableanduseableonline.Thegoalistoeventuallybuildafulldatabaseofsafetyindicatorsthat,indexedtogether,willgiveathree-dimensionalassessmentofneighborhood,familyandindividualconditionsthatcorrelatetosafety.n

“ Violence is not a normal way of life, but in Los Angeles, it is often viewed this way. Change is necessary to reduce the acceptance of violence as a fact of life, and this requires a community-wide commitment.”

BillieWeiss,Founder,ViolencePreventionCoalition ofGreaterLosAngeles


Citywide Public Safety Map

MapcreatedbyHealthyCity,November2010.DataclassifiedtohighlightthetenmostsafeZIPcodesinlightgreyandthetenleastsafeZIPcodesindarkgrey.Ranks,identifiedinparentheses,basedonSafetyScoreIndexcreatedusingGangCrimeRate(LAPD,2007),ViolentCrimeRate(LAPD,2008),andChildAbuseRate(DCFS,2008).GeographicdatafromNAVTEQ,2010.


Safety• Gang Related Crime • Violent Crime• Child Abuse

School • High School Academic Performance Index (API)• High School Truancy• Middle School API• Middle School Truancy• High School Graduation Rate

Risk Factors• Percent Families in Poverty• Percent Unemployment • Percent Single Parent Families• Percent High School Students Scoring Below Basic in English• Percent Middle School Students Scoring Below Basic in English

Protective Factors• Violence Prevention Services Rate• Youth Violence Prevention Nonprofit Revenue per Capita• Percent High School Teachers with Full Credentials• Percent Middle School Teachers with Full Credentials• Percent Active Voting Population

The Community Safety Scorecard

What Does It Tell Us?

TheCommunitySafetyScorecardprovidesasnapshotcomparisonofcommunitiesthroughouttheregion.Itprovidesausefultoolforstakeholdersseeking

tounderstandthediverseneighborhoodbasedneedsincommunitiesacrossLosAngelesandthereforethestrategiesneeded.Importantly, the Community Safety Scorecard shows in no uncertain terms the kind of disparity that exists in Los Angeles.ByminingmultipledatapointsbasedonUrbanPeace’sfindingsfromover16comprehensiveneedsassessments,theScorecardhelpsidentifypressingsolutionstocommunityviolencebyliftingupthemosturgentindicatorsineachofthoseareas.

Thecitywidemaponpage4(andonbackcover)providesageneralviewoftheregionalstateofcommunitysafety.ItisevidentthatthecommunitiesthatareleastsafearenotspreadoutacrosstheCity,butaregeographicallyconcentrated,indicatingthesecommunitiesarelackingpublicsafetyinisolationfromtherestoftheCity.Theregion’sleastsafeareasarelocatedinthesouth-easternpartsoftheCity,whilethesafestareasarethoseinthenorthandwesternpartsoftheCity.

IndividualCommunitySafetyScorecardsprovidegreaterdetailastowhatissuesposebarrierstoincreasingsafetyinhighviolenceneighborhoods.TheScorecardscontain an index of a number of indicators in safety, school conditions, risk and protective factors by ZIP code. Each ZIP code is then given a community grade from A to F, based on its relation to other ZIP codes in the region. The Scorecard ranking translates, for example, into “most safe” to “least safe”.

Gradesareobtainedusinganaggregateofseveralsocio-economiccategoriesandindicators,outlinedontheright.

InthefollowingpagesyouwillfindsamplesoftheCommunitySafetyScorecardswiththeZIPcodesthatscoredthehighestandthelowestrankingsinallthecategories.ThisunderscoresthedisparitythatexistsbetweenLosAngelesneighborhoods.3

3 SeeAppendixAforalookatmoreofthe“best”and“worst” CommunitySafetyScorecardsandseeAppendixBforacomplete lookattheRanks&GradesofallZIPcodes.

Data Indicators


Cross-cutting findings include:

When any one category of the Scorecard is at an “F” the rest of the categories are also negatively

affected. For example, ZIP code 90068 has an “A” in safety, but an “F” in the school conditions scale, and a “B” and “C” rating in risk and protective factors, based on the relative grading methodology used.4

Many of the ZIP codes graded “least safe” are located across multiple jurisdictions, i.e. cross-city

areas, unincorporated County areas, or multiple City Council districts. This is evident in the ZIP codes of 90058, 90002, and 90061.

ZIP codes surrounding the least safe areas seem to be at the tipping point of safety and can easily become “least safe” areas as well, demonstrating these surrounding communities also need attention and resources. For example, ZIP code 90007 ranks in the middle range of safety, almost falling into the least safe category, probably given the fact that it is located between ZIP codes 90015 and 90037- two ZIP codes ranked among the top ten “least safe” ZIP codes in the City.

There were also some anomalous ZIP codes, such as 90014, 90021, 90013, and 90058 where the protective factors were high either at an “A” “B” or “C” and thus the rest of the categories would be expected to score at a similar ranking, but they were actually at a much lower rank of a “D” or “F”. A closer look at these ZIP codes shows how investments in a single community sector are not enough to raise outcomes in the rest of the sectors. This is consistent with the idea that one factor alone cannot solely sustain a safe community; therefore investing in only one sector, be it schools, risk, or protective factors, may not be enough to sustainably lower violence.

A high number of risk factors such as poverty and unemployment were correlated strongly to a lack of protective factors, inadequate school conditions and ultimately low levels of safety; examples of this

can be found in practically every “least safe” ZIP code. Such concentrated disadvantage highlights the historic lack of investment for some parts of the City of Los Angeles.

TheresearchthatinformstheScorecardsmakesclearthatschoolconditions,riskfactors,andprotectivefactorsareallcloselyinterrelatedandjointlyinformthelevelofviolenceorsafetyinacommunity.

4 SeeCommunitySafetyScorecardforZIPcode90068onpage29.


Based on a correlation analysis, there were also other specific strong relationships that exist between indicators that are elements of the overall category scores; essentially, the following correlations are overarching patterns in all the ZIP codes: 5

• A strong relationship exists between high rates of poverty and high percentages of single parent families.

• A strong correlation exists between high poverty rates, high single parent families and high gang crime.

• A strong relationship exists between high rates of child abuse and high rates of unemployment.

• A strong correlation exists between high rates of child abuse and high rates of gang and violent crime.

• A strong correlation exists between high rates of poverty and high percentages of high school students scoring below basic in English.

• A strong correlation exists between high unemployment and high rates of gang and violent crime.

• A strong correlation exists between high rates of gang crime and high percentages of high school students scoring below basic in English.

• A strong correlation exists between high rates of violence prevention services per 1,000 residents and high unemployment rates.

• A strong correlation also exists between high rates of violence prevention services per 1,000 residents and violent and gang crime.

• It is important to remember here that correlation tests do not indicate causality; rather correlation tests reflect a relationship that exists between two indicators. For example, in ZIP code 90058 we can see that there is a high number of protective factors,

yet the safety score is an “F”. This could be due to a low score in both risk factors and school conditions, indicating that protective factors cannot act alone to raise the safety score.

5 RefertoFullCorrelationtableinAppendixC.

Itisevidentfromthesefindingsthatthescaleandscopeofcommunitylevelriskfactorsiscloselylinkedtoaneedforplace-basedcomprehensivestrategiestoreduceviolence.Successfulstrategiesincommunitiesgraded“leastsafe”mustencompassacomprehensive,multi-sector,neighborhood-basedapproachandincludechilddevelopment,economicdevelopment,andcommunitydevelopmentmodelsthataddressthemajorunderlyingdriversofviolence.

TheScorecardhighlightskeyareasofregionaldisparity,therebyprovidingcommunitystakeholdersawaytoobjectivelyassesswhetherpublicandprivatefundingiscommensuratetotheneed.ThegoaloftheScorecardistobecomeanongoingperiodicassessmentofpublicsafetyovertime,whichcanbeusedtoadvocateforbetterandwiserallocationofprivateandpublicmonies.Withoutattentiontotheinfrastructureneededtosupportsustainedeconomic,social,andsafegrowthcitywide,theScorecardshowshowLosAngeleswillcontinuetofallbehindothermetropolitancitiesinprovidingequitablyforallitscitizens.n


Scorecard Process

Comprehensive Violence Reduction Logic Model TheCommunitySafetyScorecardwascreated

throughresearchbasedonUrbanPeace’sComprehensiveViolenceReductionLogic

Model.TheLogicModelisacomprehensivedocumentthatcatalogstherootconditionsofgangviolenceinLosAngeles,documentsthelatestevidence-basedstrategiestoaddressthoserootconditions,highlightsresearch-basedevaluationofwhichindicatorscouldbestmeasurethesuccessofthosestrategies,andliststhedatasourcesfromwhichthoseindicatorscouldbeorshouldbeattained.TheAdvancementProjectconductedanexhaustiveresearchprocessthatultimatelyidentified10rootcommunityconditionsthatallowgangviolencetotakeroot,flourish,andexpand.

Atitscompletion,theComprehensiveViolenceReductionLogicModelidentifiedhundredsofstrategies,activities,indicatorsanddatapoints.

The10rootconditionsarelistedbelow.

1 Lack of Targeted Suppression that Follows a Community Policing Model Including:OverbroadSuppression;LackofPositive

CommunityRelations;LackofStrategicPartnerships

2 Lack of Comprehensive Primary Prevention Infrastructure

Including:LackofSafePublicSpaces;LackofCoordinatedServicesandActivitiesthatareAccessibletoallResidents

3 Lack of Community Economic Investment, Workforce Development and Family Economic Success

Including:LackofaStrongBusinessInfrastructure;LackofLocal,Well-payingJobsandJobTrainingResources;LackofAccesstoServicesthatPromoteFamilyEconomicSuccess

4 Lack of Effective Re-entry Strategies and Support Including:LackofComprehensiveTransitionPlanning

IncludingaFamilyEngagementComponent;LackofJobSkillsTrainingandWorkforceParticipationOpportunities;LackofAccesstoQualityHealthandMentalHealthCareServices

5 Early Academic Failure and Lack of School Attachment

Including:LackofSchoolSafety;LackofSchool-BasedServices;Under-resourcedandOvercrowdedSchools

6 Family Isolation and Lack of Access to Support Structures

Including:LackofAccessandAvailabilityofFamilySupportServices;LackofaCoordinatedServiceDeliveryModelTargetedatAt-risk/High-riskFamilies;CulturalBarriersforImmigrantandMonolingualParents

7 Lack of Community Cohesion to Improve Public Safety Including:LackofTrustandCommunicationamong

Residents;FewOrganizedSocialInstitutionsand CivicEngagementEvents

8 Inadequate Government Coordination and Accountability

Including:LackofDataDrivenandDataSharingPolicies;LackofMulti-jurisdictionalCoordination;LackofAccountability;LackofEquitableFunding

9 Poor Access to Quality Health and Mental Health Care Services

Including:LackofAccesstoQualityHealthandMentalHealthServices;LackofServicesforAt-RiskandHigh-RiskResidents

10 High Rates of Gang Violence Including:NormalizationofViolence


A visual representation of the logic model process foronly one root community condition of violence

Root Community Condition

Sub-category of Root Condition

Strategies

Activities

Measures

Outcome

LackofComprehensivePrimaryPreventionInfrastructure

EnhanceSafePassagestoschools,parks,andotherfacilitiesthatserveyouth

LackofCoordinatedServicesandActivitiesthatareAccessibletoallResidents*

Crimeratesaroundparksandotherpublicspaces

Residents’perceptionsofsafetythroughasurvey

Crimeratesinandaroundtheschool

Student’sperceptionsofsafetyinandaroundtheschool

Robust Primary Prevention

Literature Review

and Evaluation

LackofSafePublicSpaces

Improveurbanspatialplanningandbuiltenvironmenttoreduceenvironmentalcontributorstocrimeincoordinationwiththecommunity

ConductCPTED**withresidentsinhotspotstoidentifykeyenvironmentalcontributorstocrimeanddevelopanactionplantoaddresstheproblems

Developagreementswiththepublicbetweenthepublicsector,CBOs,ganginterventionandcommunitytoengageincommunitypolicingintheparksandotherpublicspaces

Coordinatewithschools,parentgroups,police,andotherstocreateSafePassagestoandfromschool

Creationofagreementitselfisameasure

Surveyovertimeontheeffectivenessofproject

*Thestrategies,activities,measures,andoutcomesforthissub-categoryarenotoutlinedhere.Thisis meanttodemonstratetheexhaustivenessofonlyonesub-category,butnotoftheentirerootcondition.** CrimePreventionThroughEnvironmentalDesign(CPTED)


E xtensiveresearchfortheLogicModelgeneratedover1,400potentialindicators;manyofwhichcouldnotbeusedbecauseofthelack

ofavailabilityofrepresentativedata.OnceavailabledatasetswereidentifiedforeachindicatorattheZIPcodelevel,acorrelationanalysiswasdonetoidentifywhichschool,protective,andriskfactorsweremoststronglyrelatedtosafetyindicators.Finally,fromthislist,theresearchersfromHealthyCity,UrbanPeace,andTheViolencePreventionCoalitionofGreaterLosAngelesselectedthemostrelevantindicatorsforthepurposeoftheCommunitySafetyScorecard.

Theindicatorsweregroupedintofourbroadcategories:safety,school,riskfactorsandprotectivefactors.EachcategoryoftheScorecardhadaminimumofthreeindicatorsthatwereusedtodetermineitsfinalgradeandrank.Forexample,forthesafetycategory,indicatorsusedincluded:gang-relatedcrimerateper1,000residents,violentcrimerateper1,000residentsandchildabuserateper1,000children.TheseindicatorswereindexedtocreateastandardizedscoreforeachZIPcode.Thefactorswereweighedequallytoconstructthefinalindexscoresincepreviousresearchdidnotsupportweighting

oneindicatormorethananother.TheindexscorewasthenrankedamongallCityofLosAngelesZIPcodesandassignedthecorrespondinglettergrade,withanAgradeforZIPcodesinthetop20%;aBforZIPcodesfallingintothesecondquintile;aCforthethird;andDandFforthefourthandfifthquintiles,respectively.Basedonthistechnique,thegradespresentedforeachZIPcodearerelativetothegradesoftheotherZIPcodesintheCityofLosAngelesandarenottiedtoanyexternalscoringcriterion.IfaZIPcodewasmissingavalueforoneoftheindicatorsusedintheindex,thescorewascalculatedusingtheremainingindicators,ZIPcodeswherethiswasthecasearenotedwithanasteriskintheRanks&Gradestables.6,7n

Methodology

6 ForacompletelistofcitywideRanks&Grades,seeAppendixB.7 ToaccesstheextendedDataSources&Methodologynarrative,seeAppendixD.


ThisCommunitySafetyScorecardreporthighlightsthepublicsafetydisparitiesthatexistintheCityofLosAngeles,whileatthesametime

underscoringtheneedforcollectiveactioninreducingentrenched,communitylevelviolence.Inessence,therecommendationscallforasustained,school-centered,assetandneighborhood-based,comprehensiveviolencereductioneffortthatisimplementedincoordinationwithallpublicandprivatesectorsandthatworkstogetherwithlocalcommunitystakeholders.

ForZIPcodeswhichreceivedaC,D,orFinthecategoryofsafety,itisprobablethatthelevelofviolenceentrenchmentinthecommunitynecessitatestheimplementationofthecomprehensiveviolencereductionstrategy.CommunitieswithascoreofAorBinthecategoryofsafetymaynotnecessarilyneedtofullyimplementacomprehensiveviolencereductionstrategy,butcannonethelesstakeelementsfromthemodelandimplementthemasneeded.Thefollowingaresomecriticalstepsthatallcommunitiesshouldtakeinordertoassesswhatneedstohappentoreduceviolence.FortheC,D,andFcommunitiesabasiccompilationoftheelementsofacomprehensivestrategyareoutlinedbelow.8

All Communities Should Completea Comprehensive CommunityNeeds Assessment

ThisCommunitySafetyScorecardprovidesasnapshotoftheconditionsinthecommunity,butamoreexhaustivecommunityneedsassessmentshouldbedoneinordertofullyassesswhataretheaccumulatedriskandprotectivefactorsforviolenceandgangentrenchment.A comprehensive community needs assessmentisusedtobetterunderstandthedemographicand

socioeconomicconditions,aswellastheviolencedynamicsinthearea.Thisassessmentshouldcombinestatisticaldataanalysisandcommunityengagedresearchtounderstandandoutlinetherootcommunityconditionsofviolenceinthearea,aswellasidentifytheassetsandresourcesthatexistinthecommunity.Acomprehensiveneedsassessmentshouldformthefoundationofaneighborhood-basedcomprehensiveviolencereductionstrategy.9

Understand the Community Violence Reduction Model

Afterthecompletionoftheneedsassessment,communitiesshouldseektounderstandtheelementsofacomprehensiveviolencereductionstrategy.Thefollowingrecommendationslistattemptstodescribethemanyelementsofacomprehensiveviolencereductionstrategy.Theseelementsmakeupthebasisofapublichealthapproach.Thesamplestrategieslistedarebynomeansexhaustive;theyaresimplyanattempttodescribethespanandcomplexityofstrategiesthatneedtobeimplementedinordertofully,meaningfully,andeffectivelyaddresstherootconditionsofviolence.Someofthestrategieslistedwouldalsorequiretheestablishmentofadatacollectionadvocacyplatform,giventhatsomeofthedatanecessarytomeasureprogressinspecificstrategiesmaynotcurrentlybecollected,oravailable.Nonetheless,allrecommendationsoutlinedarevitaltoinstitutingacomprehensiveviolencepreventionandreductionstrategy.Therecommendationslistalsoprovidesabasicdefinitionofeachelementandoutlinessamplestrategiesthatcouldbeimplemented.Onlyuntilthefiveelementsandthethreeguidingprinciplesinthefollowingpagesareinplacewilltherebeareductionintheconditionsthatsustainviolence.

Recommendations

8 Foramoreindepthanalysisofthemodel,pleaserefertoAdvancementProject’sUrbanPeaceprogram,CalltoAction:ACaseforaComprehensiveSolutiontoLA’sGangViolenceEpidemicReport.http://v3.advancementprojectca.org/sites/default/files/imce/p3_report.pdf

9 FormoreinformationonhowtoconductaComprehensiveCommunityNeedsAssessment,pleaserefertoAdvancementProject’sUrbanPeaceprogram’sframeworkforimplementingacomprehensiveviolencereductionstrategy.http://v3.advancementprojectca.org/?q=ap-ca-urban-peace


Create a Community-Based Violence Reduction Action Plan

Itisimportantthatallsectorsinacommunity,includingthepublicandprivatesector,community-basedorganizations,schools,lawenforcement,serviceproviders,andcommunitymembersunderstandthemodel.Onceallsectorscometoaconsensusabouttheconditionsinthecommunityandunderstandthemodel,everyoneneedstoworktogethertocollectivelydraftandimplementaCommunity-Based Violence Reduction Action Plan.Thisactionplanshouldbeinformedbythecommunityneedsassessmentandtheelementsofthemodel,andshouldaddressthemostsalientrootcommunityconditionsintheZIPcode.10Afeasibleplanshouldincorporatemeasureableprocessandoutcomeobjectivessothatprogresscanbemonitoredandchangescanbemadeasnecessarytoensurethattheworkismovinginthedesireddirection.Acomprehensiveviolencereductionstrategyshouldfocusonprimaryprevention,intervention,suppression,reentry,andcommunityinvestment.Allandanystrategiesshouldbejointlyplannedandhighlycoordinated;onlythencancommunitiescountertheconditionsandriskfactorsthatspawncommunityviolence.11

Ascommunitiesmovethroughtheimplementationofthepublichealthmodel,itisimportanttoconsiderreachingandmaintainingabasiclevelofsafety—a“threshold

levelofsafety”—thatwillensurethecomprehensiveviolencereductionstrategyissustainableovertime.

Therecommendationsthatfollowhavebeendividedupintoeightoverarchingcomponentsofacomprehensiveapproach,followedbyageneraldefinition,andrecommendedsamplestrategies.Mostoftherecommendationsarespecifictocertainsectors,butnonethelessallsectorsshouldbeinvolvedineveryaspectforthepurposesofkeepingeachotheraccountableandtoveteverystrategyandactivitythatwillgetimplemented.Communitysafetygoesbeyondlawenforcement.Whilepolicecanadoptalternativepolicingmethods,theireffortscanhavethegreatestimpactwhenschoolsalsoprioritizesafetyandacademicsuccessforat-riskyouth,serviceproviderscoordinatetoprovideacontinuumofsupport,andparentsandyouthparticipateindevelopingandimplementinganeighborhoodspecificsafetyactionplan.Communitieswithentrenchedviolenceneedeachsectortofulfilltheirrolewithinthemodel,andtogethercreatethemechanismforaneffectivelyfunctioningcomprehensive,wraparound,violencereductionstrategy.

10 Toreviewtherootcommunityconditions,pleaserefertothe“ScorecardProcess:ComprehensiveViolenceReductionLogicModel”sectiononpage12.

11 FormoreinformationonhowtoorganizecommunitystakeholderstocometogethertobuildaCommunity-BasedViolenceReductionActionPlan,pleaserefertoAdvancementProject’sUrbanPeaceprogram’sframeworkforimplementingacomprehensiveviolencereductionstrategy.http://v3.advancementprojectca.org/

?q=ap-ca-urban-peace.

Reaching a “threshold of community safety”Thegoalforcommunitiesrated“leastsafe”istoimplementcomprehensivestrategiesthatwillhelpsustainabasiclevelofsafetythatallowsfortheimplementationofotherbroaderpreventionandinterventionstrategies.

12 FormoreinformationpleaserefertoAdvancementProject’sUrbanPeaceprogram’sframeworkforimplementingacomprehensiveviolencereductionstrategy.http://v3.advancementprojectca.org/?q=ap-ca-urban-peace

Ifthis“thresholdofsafety”isnotobtained,communitiesmustcontinuetomonitor,evaluate,andbuttressthestrategies.Thepublichealthapproachencouragesfocusoncontainingtheimmediate“violenceoutbreaks”beforeattemptingbroadercommunity-widetreatments,toensureoutcomesachievedthroughtheinterventionsaresustainableoverthelongterm.Communitystrategiesmustberesponsivetorealtimeviolencedynamicsinacommunity,duringthetreatmentprocess.12


1 Equitable Distribution of Resources Governmentsoftenfailtodeliver

comprehensivesolutionstothechallengeswithwhichviolenceriddenandsocio-economicallydisadvantagedareasmustcontend.Withinthesecommunities,thereisofteninadequategovernmentcoordinationandaccountabilitythatpreventsasustainedandeffectiveimplementationofpoliciesthatwillsupporthealthyfamilies.Equallyimportant,thegovernmentmustprovideabalancedinvestmentthatmeetsthescaleandscopeoftheneedincommunitiestoreduceconditionsthatsustainviolence.

2 Primary Prevention Infrastructure

A“safetynet”intheformofarobust,comprehensiveprimarypreventioninfrastructureisavitalelementnecessaryforthesuccessfuldevelopmentofchildren,youth,andtheirfamilies.Elementsofaprimarypreventioninfrastructureinclude:safeanduseablepublicspaceslikeparksandschools,qualityaffordablehousing,qualityearlychildcareandeducation,accesstopublictransportation,sportsandrecreationopportunities,andastrongserviceinfrastructurethatisaccessibletoallresidents.

Comprehensive Violence Reduction Strategy Elements:

Recommended Sample Strategies• Restoreandincreasefundingforbasicsafetynetservicesandprogramstofamiliesandschoolsinthehotzones;fundingshouldincludeservicesintheentirespectrumofprevention,intervention,reentry,communitycapacitydevelopment,neighborhoodinvestment,highqualitycradletocareereducation,mentalhealthservices,andhealthyfoodaccess,amongothers.

• Launchaninitiativethatwillprovideapermanentstreamoffundingforwraparoundsafetyactivities,andthatincludesfundingfornon-profitagencies,communitypolicingresourcesandjobdevelopment,amongotheractivitiesthatpromotesafety.

• Ensureeffectiveandequitabledistributionofpublicresourcesthatreflectsbasic,adequatesafetyinallcommunities.

• Conductevaluationbasedonanactionorstrategicplanwithmeasurableobjectivesandoutcomesthatcanbemonitoredtoassessprocessandoutcomesoftheequitabledistributionofresources.

• Increaseinvestmentingangfocusedpreventionandinterventionprogramsthatarecommensuratetotheneedinthearea.

• Ensurecoordinationandcollaborationofprivate,public,academic,non-profit,community-based,andfaith-basedsectorsinassuringtheequitabledistributionofresourcesamongcommunitiesandamongprevention,intervention,suppression,andreentryprogramming.

Recommended Sample Strategies• Counterthecultureofviolence,andinitiatenormchangestrategythrough apreventioninfrastructure.• Ensurecoordinationandcollaborationbetweentheprivateandpublicsectorsonprimaryprevention.

• Focusonbothcommunitylevelconditionsandindividuallevelconditions.• ConductevaluationbasedondelineatedobjectivesintheActionPlanandmonitorprogressandachievementofgoals,includingeconomicdevelopmentgoalsandeducationalgoals.

• BuildarobustMulti-SectorViolenceReductionCommunityCollaborativethatincludesrepresentativesfromthepublicandprivatesectors,communityorganizations,lawenforcement,schools,andcommunitymembers.WorktocollectivelycomeupwithanActionPlanthatwillguideallcoordinatedworktosuccessfullyreduceviolenceandtoensurestablefundingstreamsfortheviolencereductionproject.


3 Intervention

Incommunitiesdeeplyentrenchedwithviolence,hard-coreganginterventionprofessionalscanreachoutandconnectwithyouthandadultswhoclaimgangmembership,andwiththosewhohaveclosefriendshipsorassociationswithcurrentorformergangmembers.Hard-coreganginterventionprofessionalscanpotentiallynegotiatewithhigh-riskindividualsandgangstodecreaseviolence,negotiateceasefires,respondtocontrolrumorsthatcancauseretaliatoryshootings,interveneincrises,etc.

• Createaschool-centeredstrategy,giventhepotentialtoreachlargeportionsofthecommunity.

• Createcommunityleadershiptrainingandskillsdevelopmentprogramstobuildthecapacityofcommunitymemberstoengagewiththepublicsectorthroughlocalschoolsand/orlocalcommunityorganizations.

• Worktoincreasecommunityeconomicinvestment,workforcedevelopment,andfamilyeconomicindependence;ensurethatstrategiesimplementedcreatesustainableeconomicsuccess.

• EnhancecapacityoflocalCBO’stoincreaseprimarypreventionprograms,servicecoordinationandinteragencycollaborationwithintheZIPcode.

• Enhancepublicsectorcoordinationofservicesandactivitiessothattheyareaccessibletoallresidents.Focusonhelpingtomaximizeservicesforfamiliesofhigh-riskchildrenandyouth.


• Ensurecoordinationandcollaborationofprivate,public,academic,non-profit,community-based,andfaith-basedsectorsonthecreationofaprimarypreventioninfrastructure.

Recommended Sample Strategies• Counterthecultureofviolence,andinitiatenormchangestrategythroughinterventionservices.

• Conductevaluationbasedonanactionorstrategicplanwithmeasurableobjectivesandoutcomesthatcanbemonitoredtoassessprocessandoutcomesoftheinterventionstrategies.

• Monitortheprogressofinvestmentinthefieldofinterventionandthenumberoftrainedinterventionprofessionals.

• Substantiallyincreaseinvestmentinimprovedtrainingandoversightforganginterventionprograms.

• Linkinterventionworkerstoemploymentandotherreferralservicesfortheirclients.

• Enhancepublicsectorcoordinationofservicesandactivitiessothattheyareaccessibletoallresidents.Thefocusshouldbeonhelpingtomaximizeservicesforfamiliesofhigh-riskchildrenandyouth.

• Provideservicestoyouththroughformalpartnershipswithviolencepreventionservices,mentalhealthservices,drugandalcoholtreatment,servicesandotherserviceproviders.


• Ensurecoordinationandcollaborationofprivate,public,academic,non-profit,community-based,andfaith-basedsectors,onthedevelopmentofastronginterventioninfrastructure.

Primary Prevention Infrastructure(continued)


4 Targeted Suppression that Follows a Community Policing Model

Toooftenoverbroadsuppressionleadstothetargetingofanentirecommunity,todisproportionateminoritycontact,andtostrainedcommunityrelations,whichfurthererodespublictrustandtheabilityoflawenforcementtoeffectivelydeterandinvestigatecrimeandpromotesafety.Implementingaproblemsolving,communitypolicingmodelinhighcrime,urbanneighborhoodsisvitaltocreatingthepublictrustandpartnershipnecessaryforreducingviolence.

5 Reentry

Highviolencecommunitiesusuallyhavehighconcentrationsofformerlyincarceratedandsystem-involvedyouthandadults.Thispopulationisoftenunpreparedtofullyreintegrateintothefabricofthecommunity.Alackofcoordinatedreentryresourcesputsthesereturningresidentsatrisksofre-offending.Thereintegrationofthispopulationrequirescoordinationbetweenthepublicsector,communitybasedorganizations,faith-basedorganizationsandotherstakeholdersinordertolinkthemtoasupportsysteminthecommunity.

Recommended Sample Strategies• Counterthecultureofoverbroadsuppression,andinitiatenormchangestrategythroughtheimplementationofacommunitypolicingmodel.

• Conductevaluationbasedontheprogressofthedevelopmentandimplementationofatargetedsuppression,communitypolicingmodel.

• Workwithprofessionalganginterventionworkerstointerveneingangrelatedconflicts.Interventionistswillhelpensurethelevelofviolenceisdown,andtheareaissafeenoughforothertypesofintervention.

• Officersmustbetrainedandfluentincommunitypolicing;LAPDandLASDwillneedtoacceleratethetransitiontoproblemsolvingcommunitypolicing,anddevelopthecapacitytoworkwithcommunitymembers.

• Localpoliceentitiesmustseekcoordinationwithotherlawenforcementpartnerstoensuretargetedpolicingandsuppressionstrategies.

• Providealternativestoarrestforyouth,minorsandfirsttimeoffendersthroughformalpartnershipswithgangintervention,violencepreventionservices,mentalhealthservices,drugandalcoholtreatmentservices,andotherserviceproviders.

• Lawenforcemententities,particularlyLAPDandLASD,mustworktoeliminateoverbroadsuppressiontacticsthattargetanentirecommunity,andinsteaddevelopstrategiesthatwillcomplementcomprehensiveneighborhood-basedpreventionandinterventionstrategies.

• Ensurecoordinationandcollaborationofprivate,public,academic,non-profit,community-based,andfaith-basedsectorsontheimplementationofacommunitypolicingstrategy.

Recommended Sample Strategies• Counterthecultureofrecidivismandinitiatenormchangestrategythroughtheimplementationofcomprehensivetransitionplanningpriortoreleasefromjuvenilehallorprison.

• Conductevaluationbasedonanactionorstrategicplanwithmeasurableobjectivesandoutcomesthatcanbemonitoredtoassessprocessandoutcomesofthereentrystrategies.

• Buildandstrengthenholisticreentryservicesandservicesthatcanprovidewraparoundtreatmentforhigh-riskfamilies.Provideindividualizedtransitionplanningandcasemanagementfromcommunitybasedagenciesincollaborationwithotherrelevantentities.

• Ensurecoordinationandcollaborationofprivate,public,academic,non-profit,community-based,andfaith-basedsectorsontheimplementationofarobustreentrysystemforjuvenilesandadults.


1 Community-Based & Culturally Competent Service Delivery

Familiesinhighpoverty,highviolenceareasareoftenisolatedfromasupportinfrastructurebecauseofthelackofaccessibilityandavailabilityofsuchservices.Familiesfaceamultitudeofchallengessuchaslanguagebarriersandunprotectedlegalstatus.Forthesereasonsanyinitiativemustbecommunitybased,honortheexistingleadershipandassetsofthecommunityandmustdeliverculturallycompetentservices.

2 Built-In Accountability

Initiativeswithoutaccountabilitymeasuresfail.Anyinitiativemusthavebuiltinaccountabilitymeasuresthatwillensuretheinitiativeisregularlyevaluatedandthatitisworking.Boththepublicsectorandthecommunitymustholdthemselvesaccountable.Forthisreason,thepublicsectormustendorsedatadrivenpolicies,andmulti-jurisdictionalandmulti-departmentalcoordination.Communitybasedgroupsandcollaborativesmustalsoworktoensureaccountabilitystructuresforthemselvesandthepublicsector.

Recommended Sample Strategies•Counterthecultureofa“cookiecutter”approachtodeliveryofservices,byadvocatingforoutreachtoisolatedfamilies.

• Investinexistingcommunityleadershipinfrastructureandcapacitybuilding.

•Conductevaluationbasedonanactionorstrategicplanwithmeasurableobjectivesandoutcomesthatcanbemonitoredtoassessprocessandoutcomesofthedeliveryofquality,culturallycompetentservices.

•Createcommunityleadershiptrainingandskillsdevelopmentprogramstobuildthecapacityofcommunitymemberstoengagewiththepublicsectorthroughlocalschoolsand/orlocalcommunityorganizations.

•Worktoincreasecommunitycohesiontoimprovesafetybybuildingtrustandcommunicationamongresidents,especiallyinmultiracialcommunities.

•Enhancepublicsectorcoordinationofservicesandactivitiessothattheyareaccessibletoallresidents.Focusonhelpingtomaximizeservicesforfamiliesofhigh-riskchildrenandyouth.

•Ensurecoordinationandcollaborationofprivate,public,academic,non-profit,community-based,andfaith-basedsectorsontheimplementationofacommunity-basedandculturallycompetentservicedeliverymodelthatreachesallisolatedcommunitiesintheZIPcode.

Recommended Sample Strategies•Ensurethecreationofasingleaccountabilitystructurewithenoughauthoritytoholddepartmentsandagenciesaccountableforpublicsafety.

•Increasecollaborationandaligningofmissionswithinandbetweendepartmentstoensureallentitiesaremovingtowardsasimilargoalofachievingpublicsafetyandjointpoliticalwillonviolencereduction.

•Ensurecross-agencypolicyplanning,operations,andfunding.•Developandimplementaccountabilitystructures,suchasMOU’s andpre/post-surveys.•BuildarobustMulti-SectorViolenceReductionCommunityCollaborativethatincludesrepresentativesfromthepublicandprivatesectors,communityorganizations,lawenforcement,schools,andcommunitymembers.WorktocollectivelycomeupwithanActionPlanthatwillguideallcoordinatedworktosuccessfullyreduceviolenceandtoensurestablefundingstreamsfortheviolencereductionproject.

•Ensurecoordinationandcollaborationofprivate,public,academic,nonprofit,community-based,andfaith-basedsectorsonkeepingthepublicsectoraccountableforcommunityviolencereduction.

Comprehensive Violence Reduction Strategy Guiding Principles:


3 Data-Driven Policy Making

Withinhighcrimecommunitiesandcommunitiesingeneral,governmentefficacyisoftenimpededbyanoveralllackofdatadrivendecision-making,data-sharingpolicies,andutilizationofsoundevaluationmethods.Theabsenceofdata-drivenpoliciesinmanywayshelpscontributetoinadequategovernmentcoordinationandaccountabilitythatpreventsasustainedandeffectiveimplementationofpoliciesthatwillsupporthealthyfamilies.Advocatingtopolicymakerscanpromotetheimplementationoflongterm,solutionsthatprioritizetheuseofdatadrivenplanningandevaluationmeasures.

.

Recommended Sample Strategies•Conductevaluationbasedonanactionorstrategicplanwithmeasurableobjectivesandoutcomesthatcanbemonitoredtoassessprocessandoutcomesonconcretedatadrivenpolicymaking.

•Ensurepolicybaseddiagnosisanddatadrivenpolicyplanning.•Goalsandprogrammingmustbetiedtobestpracticesandresearch.•Ensurecross-jurisdictionalagencypolicyplanning,operations,funding,andevaluations.

•Eliminateregulatorybarriersforinformationsharingbetweendepartmentsandacrossagencies.

•Developprotocolsforinformationsharing.•Buildanorganizationalculturethatpromotesintelligentdata-sharingpolicies.

•Standardizeandclassifydataacrossdepartmentsandentitiesundersimilarlanguagetoensuresuccessfulandeffectivedatasharing.

•Thepublicsectormustadopttheuseofempiricalproceduresanddatatoinfluencedecision-making,resourceallocation,andprogramoperation.n


T heScorecardprovidesabetterunderstandingofthechallengesyouthandfamiliesinparticularareasoftheCityfaceeveryday.Itclearly

demonstratesthedisparityinpublicsafetyequitythatexistsinLosAngeles.Throughgradingtheschoolconditions,riskfactors,andprotectivefactors,thistoolpointstospecificreasonswhycommunitiescontinuetosufferhighlevelsofcrime.

ThecurrentpoliticalconditionsinLosAngelespresentaperfectopportunityfordecisiveactionagainsttheepidemicofviolencethatcontinuesinspecificareasoftheCity.By focusing the Scorecard on small geographic areas, it becomes easier to identify what strategies need to be undertaken at each ZIP code and also at the citywide level.

Thistoolispresentedinhopesthatitgeneratesconstructivedialogueandinspiresaction.ItisnotsimplyareportontheinequityofpublicsafetyinLosAngeles,butisalsoatooltoadvocateforcontinuedinvestmentinqualityschools,communitypolicingefforts,strongcommunity-basedpreventioninfrastructure,andreentryservicesinthecommunitiesthatneeditmost.

ThisScorecardshouldserveasagalvanizingcallforfoundations,grassrootsandgrasstopsadvocates,policyorganizations,communityorganizations,andcommunitymemberstobuildthepublicandpoliticalwilltostrengthencommunityinfrastructureacrossLosAngelesinordertoguaranteeeveryfamilycanliveandthriveinasafeenvironment.n

Conclusion


TheCommunitySafetyScorecardsthatfollowaretheScorecardswiththehighestandlowestscoresoverallonallcategoriesofsafety,schoolconditions,riskandprotectivefactors.InstudyingtheseScorecardsitisevidentthatwhenschoolconditions,riskandprotectivefactorsareatan“A”,safetyisoftenatan“A”aswell.Thisvalidatestheideathatallsectorsmustworktogetherinordertoachievesafetyinacommunity.

Appendix ACommunity Safety Scorecards


Appendix BCitywide List of Ranks& Grades


ZIP code Rank Grade

90272 1 A90049 2 A90290 3 A90024 4 A90067 5 A90010 6 A90210 7 A90068 8 A90077 9 A91602 10 A90293 11 A90292 12 A91436 13 A90048 14 A90035 15 A91604 16 A91326 17 A90046 18 A90025 19 A90732 20 A90045 21 A90066 22 B90041 23 B91316 24 B91307 25 B91311 26 B91607 27 B90502 28 B91356 29 B90069 30 B91403 31 B91325 32 B91364 33 B91040 34 B90291 35 B

ZIP code Rank Grade

91042 36 B91367 37 B91423 38 B90034 39 B90020 40 B90036 41 B90027 42 B91401 43 C90065 44 C90004 45 C91335 46 C91345 47 C90012 48 C91606 49 C91306 50 C91406 51 C90039 52 C90005 53 C91405 54 C91601 55 C90042 56 C91304 57 C90001 58 C90247 59 C90710 60 C90032 61 C91324 62 C91340 63 D90026 64 D91342 65 D91411 66 D90248 67 D90019 68 D91605 69 D90007 70 D

ZIP code Rank Grade

91331 71 D90006 72 D91303 73 D91352 74 D90038 75 D90031 76 D91402 77 D90731 78 D91343 79 D90744 80 D90029 81 D90063 82 D90023 83 D90016 84 F90028 85 F90057 86 F90033 87 F90018 88 F90017 89 F90047 90 F90011 91 F90062 92 F90043 93 F90008 94 F90044 95 F90015 96 F90002 97 F90037 98 F90061 99 F90058 100 F90003 101 F90013 102 F90021 103 F90014 104 F

Safety Score Ranks & GradesZIPcodesatthetopofthescaleorwith“A”gradeswereidentifiedassafeandthoseatthebottomorwith“F”gradeswereidentifiedasunsafe.


ZIP code Rank Grade

91356 1 A90049 2 A90272 2 A91326 4 A91401 5 A91423 5 A91364 7 A91307 8 A91324 9 A91345 10 A90069 11 A90034* 12 A90290 13 A90036 14 A90048 14 A91325 16 A91304 17 A90041 18 A91367 19 A90065 20 A91311 21 A91405 22 B90731 23 B90732 23 B91316 25 B91402 26 B91602 27 B91604 27 B91607 27 B90039 30 B90004* 31 B90005* 31 B90010* 31 B90020* 31 B91335 35 B90038 36 B

ZIP code Rank Grade

90046 36 B90045 38 B90293 38 B91606* 40 B91040 41 B91042 41 B90024 43 C90025 43 C90067 43 C90077 43 C90210 43 C91601* 48 C91406 49 C91436 49 C91403 51 C91411 51 C90066 53 C90292 53 C90502 55 C91306 56 C90027 57 C91342 58 C90710 59 C90291 60 C90744 61 C91331 62 C90035* 63 D90014 64 D90015 64 D91303 66 D90247 67 D90248 67 D91605 69 D91343 70 D90019* 71 D90037* 72 D

ZIP code Rank Grade

90058 73 D90003 74 D91340 75 D90042 76 D91352 77 D90017 78 D90033 79 D90031 80 D90043* 81 D90029* 82 D90062* 83 D90028 84 F90068 84 F90008 86 F90016 86 F90018 88 F90007* 89 F90044* 90 F90047* 90 F90063 92 F90001 93 F90012 94 F90023 95 F90021 96 F90013 97 F90006* 98 F90057 99 F90026 100 F90061 101 F90032 102 F90011 103 F90008 86 F90002 104 F

School Score Ranks & GradesZIPcodesatthetopofthescaleorwith“A”gradeswereidentifiedashavinggoodschoolsandthoseatthebottomorwith“F”gradeswereidentifiedashavingpoorschools.

*Interpretrankandscorewithcaution,oneormoreindicatorsmissingforthisZIPcode.


ZIP code Rank Grade

90272 1 A91326 2 A90049 3 A90290 4 A91307 5 A90077 6 A91436 7 A91364 8 A91367 9 A90210 10 A90036 11 A90048 12 A91356 13 A90069 14 A91316 15 A91311 16 A91324 17 A91604 18 A91345 19 A91040 20 A90732 21 A91325 22 B90293 23 B91304 24 B90046 25 B91423 26 B91602 27 B90024 28 B90041 29 B90502 30 B90034 31 B90025 32 B91403 33 B91607 34 B90067 35 B

ZIP code Rank Grade

91306 36 B90292 37 B90010 38 B90066 39 B90045 40 B91042 41 B90068 42 B90035 43 C90039 44 C90065 45 C91335 46 C91405 47 C90710 48 C91401 49 C91343 50 C91406 51 C91411 52 C90291 53 C90020 54 C90248 55 C91402 56 C90004 57 C90027 58 C91606 59 C91303 60 C91342 61 C90731 62 C90005 63 D91605 64 D90038 65 D90042 66 D91601 67 D91340 68 D91352 69 D91331 70 D

ZIP code Rank Grade

90012 71 D90028 72 D90744 73 D90247 74 D90032 75 D90031 76 D90063 77 D90026 78 D90019 79 D90017 80 D90015 81 D90029 82 D90023 83 D90033 84 F90057 85 F90062 86 F90007 87 F90006 88 F90058 89 F90016 90 F90043 91 F90018 92 F90001 93 F90011 94 F90008 95 F90047 96 F90014 97 F90003 98 F90037 99 F90002 100 F90044 101 F90061 102 F90021 103 F90013 104 F

Risk Factor Ranks & GradesZIPcodesatthetopofthescaleorwith“A”gradeswereidentifiedashavingfewriskfactorsandthoseatthebottomorwith“F”gradeswereidentifiedashavingmanyriskfactors.


ZIP code Rank Grade

90048 1 A90010* 2 A91436 3 A90272 4 A91367 5 A90290* 6 A91326 7 A90069 8 A91364 9 A90017 10 A91307 11 A90058 12 A91311 13 A90039 14 A90049 15 A91040 16 A91042 17 A90291 18 A90293 19 A90027 20 A90067 21 A91324 22 B90041 23 B90045 24 B90021 25 B90292 26 B90066 27 B90732 28 B91604 29 B90036 30 B90065 31 B90731 32 B91325 33 B91423 34 B91356 35 B90013 36 B

ZIP code Rank Grade

91345 37 B90012 38 B91607 39 B91406 40 B91602 41 B90046 42 B91405 43 C90014 44 C91304 45 C91340 46 C91306 47 C90031 48 C91401 49 C91403 50 C91335 51 C90034 52 C90077* 53 C90710 54 C90042 55 C91343 56 C90026 57 C90068 58 C90210 59 C90502 60 C91601 61 C91316 62 C91605 63 D91352 64 D90038 65 D91402 66 D90057 67 D90035 68 D90028 69 D90043 70 D90025 71 D90024 72 D

ZIP code Rank Grade

90248 73 D90744 74 D90033 75 D90004* 76 D90020* 77 D90005* 78 D91411 79 D90032 80 D91606* 81 D90015 82 D90047 83 D91331 84 F90023 85 F91342 86 F90062 87 F90008 88 F90029* 89 F91303 90 F90006 91 F90001 92 F90063 93 F90019* 94 F90007 95 F90247 96 F90044 97 F90016 98 F90037 99 F90003 100 F90011 101 F90018 102 F90002 103 F90061 104 F

Protective Factor Ranks & GradesZIPcodesatthetopofthescaleorwith“A”gradeswereidentifiedashavingmanyprotectivefactorsandthoseatthebottomorwith“F”gradeswereidentifiedashavingfewprotectivefactors.

*Interpretrankandscorewithcaution,oneormoreindicatorsmissingforthisZIPcode.


Appendix CCorrelation TableThistableillustratesthecorrelationsamongvariablesandbetweenvariablesandoutcomes.Pleaserefertothefollowingpageforafulldescriptionofthevariablenames.


Gang GangcrimerateViolent ViolentcrimerateHomicide HomiciderateHSTruancy HighschooltruancyMSTruancy MiddleschooltruancyHSAPI HighschoolAPIMSAPI MiddleschoolAPIHSFullCred HighschoolteacherswithfullcredentialsMSFullCred MiddleschoolteacherswithfullcredentialsHSClass HighschoolaverageclasssizeMSClass MiddleschoolaverageclasssizeHSSusp HighschoolsuspensionrateMSSusp MiddleschoolsuspensionrateHSExp HighschoolexpulsionrateMSExp MiddleschoolexpulsionrateHSGrad HighschoolgraduationrateHSEngBel Highschoolpercentofstudentsscoring belowbasicinEnglishCSTexamHSMathBel Highschoolpercentofstudentsscoring belowbasicinMathematicsCSTexamMSEngBel Middleschoolpercentofstudentsscoring belowbasicinEnglishCSTexamMSMathBel Middleschoolpercentofstudentsscoring belowbasicinMathematicsCSTexamChildAbuse SubstantiatedchildabuseratePoverty PercentfamiliesinpovertyAvgRes AveragelengthofresidenceSingle PercentsingleparentfamilieswithchildrenUnemp PercentpeopleunemployedLang Percentpeoplespeakinglanguage otherthanEnglishathomeChildCare PercentchildrenwithoutchildcarespacesMedInc Medianhouseholdincome

Alcohol Alcoholoutletsper1,000peopleUninsured PercentpeoplewithoutinsuranceGreen Greenspaceper1,000peopleGrocery Grocerystoresper1,000peopleVote PercentactivevotingpopulationYVRev Revenuefromyouthviolenceprevention nonprofitspercapitaVPServ Violencepreventionservicesper1,000people

Note: Foralistofdatasourcesforvariablesused intheScorecardanalysispleaserefertothe methodologydocument,AppendixD.

Variable Name Definitions


The104ZIPcodeschosenforthisanalysiswerebasedonZIPcodeswhichwereeitherentirelyorpartiallylocatedwithinthegeographicboundaryof

theCityofLosAngeles.SeveralZIPcodesthatmetthiscriterionwereremovedfromtheanalysisduetomissingdata.ThefollowingZIPcodeswerenotcoveredbyLAUSDschoolattendanceboundariesandthereforehadnoschooldatamatch:90056,90059,90230,90232,90245,90402,90501,91214,91504,and91344.ThreeZIPcodeswerelocatedmostlyonschoolcampusesandthereforehadnodataavailableforamajorityoftheindicators,theseincluded:90090,90095,and91330.ZIPcode91608islocatedinUniversalCityandthereforehadnopopulationdataavailable.ThreeadditionalZIPcodeswereremovedfromtheanalysisduetoextremelylowpopulationestimates(lowpopulationin2010&2009,zeroin2008,notavailablefor2007),theseincluded:90071,90089,and90094.Also,ZIPcode90064wasinadvertentlyremovedfromtheanalysis,althoughbasedonthisZIPcode’ssafetyindexvaluesitwouldhavenotrankedinthetoporbottomtenZIPcodeshighlightedintheCommunitySafetyScorecards.

Thenumbersforeachdatasetbelowcorrespondwiththesuperscriptnumbersseenoneachscorecard.

Safety Score

Thesafetyscorewascalculatedusingthethreeindicatorslistedbelow.TheseindicatorswereindexedtocreateastandardizedscoreforeachZIPcode.Becausepreviousresearchdidnotindicateorwasmixedontheneedtoweighoneindicatormorethananother,thereforethestandardizedvalueforeachindicatorwasweighedequallytoconstructthefinalindexscore.Thisscorewasthenrankedamongthe104ZIPcodesintheCityofLosAngelesusedintheanalysis.Thescorewasalsoconvertedintogradesbasedonwhichquintileitfellintoforeachindex,with“A”beingasafeneighborhoodand“F”anunsafeneighborhood.Basedonthisscoringtechnique,thescorespresentedforeachZIPcodearerelativetothescoresoftheotherZIPcodesintheCityofLosAngelesandarenottiedtoanyexternalscoring

criterion.Numberscorrespondtothefootnotesintheactualscorecards.

1 Gang Related Crime Rate:CalculatedusingLosAngelesPoliceDepartment(LAPD)crimedatafrom2007dividedby2007PopulationStatisticsfromGeolytics,multipliedby1,000.

2 Violent Crime Rate: CalculatedusingthetotalnumberofHomicide,AggravatedAssaultandRobberycrimesfromLAPDCrimedatafrom2008,dividedby2008PopulationStatisticsfromGeolytics,multipliedby1,000.

3 Child Abuse Rate:Calculatedusingnumber ofSubstantiatedChildAbuseReferralsfromthe LosAngelesCountyDepartmentofChildrenandFamily

Services2008data,dividedby2008PopulationStatisticsforPeopleunder18fromClaritas,multipliedby1,000.

Asshowninthefullcorrelationtable(onpage46),theindicatorsusedtocalculatethesafetyscorehadstrongcorrelationswitheachother(astrongcorrelationbeingonewithacoefficientgreater/lessthan+/-0.60),andthereforetheserelationshipsmaybeintensifyingtheoverallscoreforeachZIPcode.

School Score

Theschoolscorewascalculatedusingthefiveindicatorslistedbelow.TheseindicatorswereindexedtocreateastandardizedscoreforeachZIPcode.Becausepreviousresearchdidnotindicateorwasmixedontheneedtoweighoneindicatormorethananother,thereforethestandardizedvalueforeachindicatorwasweighedequallytoconstructthefinalindexscore.Thisscorewasthenrankedamongthe104ZIPcodesintheCityofLosAngelesusedintheanalysis.Thescorewasalsoconvertedintogradesbasedonwhichquintileitfellintoforeachindex,with“A”meaningtheneighborhoodhasagoodschoolscoreand“F”meaningithasapoorone.Basedonthisscoringtechnique,thescorespresentedforeachZIPcodearerelativetothescoresoftheotherZIPcodesintheCityofLosAngelesandarenottiedto

Appendix DData Sources & MethodologyNarrative


anyexternalscoringcriterion.IfaZIPcodewasmissingavalueforoneoftheindicatorsusedintheindex,thescorewascalculatedusingtheremainingindicators,ZIPcodeswherethiswasthecasearenotedwithanasteriskintheRanks&Gradestables.

AstheanalysisaimstoincorporatetheimpactofvariousindicatorsfrommiddleschoolsandhighschoolsintheZIPcodeareas,eachZIPcodewasconnectedtovaluesfromamajormiddleschoolandamajorhighschool.“Majorschool”isdefinedasaschoolwhichhasaschoolattendanceboundarycoveringthemajorityoftheZIPcodeboundary.UsuallytheschoolattendanceboundariesdonotmatchexactZIPcodeboundaries–oftentheyarelargerthanZIPcodeboundariesorpartiallycovermultipleZIPcodeareas.SchoolattendanceboundarieswithineachZIPcodewereidentifiedandtheschoolswiththelargestattendanceboundariesofeachZIPcodeareawereselectedasthe“MajorSchools”forthespecificZIPcode.Asaresult,eachZIPcodewasmatchedwithonemiddleschoolandonehighschool.SomeschoolsarelistedformorethanoneZIPcode.

Asstatedabove,someschoolscovermorethanoneZIPcodeareaandsomeschoolsarenotcountedtowardanyZIPcodesduringtheZIPcodematchingprocess.Usingtheschoolattendanceboundarycoverageisarelativelygoodwayofattributingthevaluesofacertainschooltotheresidentsofacertainneighborhood,althoughthisprocessdoesoverlookthedatabelongingtootherschoolswhichstillexistandincertaincommunitieswhichmaynotbeconsidered“MajorSchools”.

4 High School API:AssignedtoeachZIPcodeusingtheabovedefinedmethodology,datafromCaliforniaDepartmentofEducation2008BaseAPIfile.

5 High School Truancy:AssignedtoeachZIPcodeusingtheabovedefinedmethodology,datafromCaliforniaDepartmentofEducationDataquestQuerysystemforschoolyear2008-2009.

6 Middle School API:AssignedtoeachZIPcodeusingtheabovedefinedmethodology,datafromCaliforniaDepartmentofEducation2008BaseAPIfile.

7 Middle School Truancy: AssignedtoeachZIPcodeusingtheabovedefinedmethodology,datafromCaliforniaDepartmentofEducationDataquestQuerysystemforschoolyear2008-2009.

8 Graduation Rate: AssignedtoeachZIPcodeusingabovedefinedmethodology,datafromCaliforniaDepartmentofEducationDataquestQuerysystemforschoolyear2007-2008.

Asshowninthefullcorrelationtable,therewasastrongcorrelationbetweenGraduationRateandHighSchoolAPI(astrongcorrelationbeingonewithacoefficientgreater/lessthan+/-0.60),andthereforethisrelationshipmaybeintensifyingtheoverallscoreforeachZIPcode.

Risk Factors

Theriskfactorscorewascalculatedusingthefiveindicatorslistedbelow.TheseindicatorswereindexedtocreateastandardizedscoreforeachZIPcode.Thisscorewasthenrankedamongthe104ZIPcodesintheCityofLosAngelesusedintheanalysis.Thescorewasalsoconvertedintogradesbasedonwhichquintileitfellintoforeachindex,with“A”meaningtherearefewriskfactorsintheneighborhoodand“F”meaningtherearemany.Basedonthisscoringtechnique,thescorespresentedforeachZIPcodearerelativetothescoresoftheotherZIPcodesintheCityofLosAngelesandarenottiedtoanyexternalscoringcriterion.

Riskfactorstoincludeinthisscorewerebasedonthestrengthofthecorrelationsbetweenindividualindicatorsandtheoutcomeindicators(outcomeindicatorsincluded:GangCrimeRate,ViolentCrimeRate,HomicideRate,ChildAbuseRate,HighSchoolandMiddleSchoolAPI,HighSchoolandMiddleSchoolTruancy,andGraduationRate).Theindicatorswiththemostimpactonthemostoutcomeindicatorswerechosentoindextogethertocreatetheriskfactorscore.Refertothefullcorrelationtablefordetails.

9 Percent Families in Poverty:CalculatedusingthenumberoffamiliesbelowpovertydividedbythetotalnumberoffamiliesineachZIPcode,datafromClaritas2010.

10 Percent Unemployment: Calculatedusingthenumberofpeopleunemployeddividedbythelaborforce(thoseemployedandunemployed,omittingthosenotinthelaborforceandthoseintheArmedForces),datafromClaritas2010.

11 Percent Single Parent Families: Calculatedusingthenumberoffamilieswithsinglemotherandsinglefatherhouseholdersdividedbythetotalnumberoffamilieswithchildren,datafromClaritas2010.

12 Percent High School Students Scoring Below Basic in English:AssignedtoeachZIPcodeusingmethodologydefinedintheschoolscoresection.CalculatedusingdatafromtheCaliforniaStandardizedTestingandReporting(STAR)datafrom2009fortheCSTEnglish-LanguageArtstest.


Weaddedthepercentofstudentsineachgradescoringbelowandfarbelowbasic,thenaveragedthetotalbelowbasicpercentagefromthegradesparticipatingineachschooltoobtainasinglepercentageforeachschool.

13 Percent Middle School Students Scoring Below Basic in English: AssignedtoeachZIPcodeusingmethodologydefinedintheschoolscoresection.CalculatedusingdatafromtheCaliforniaStandardizedTestingandReporting(STAR)data

from2009fortheCSTEnglish-LanguageArtstest.Weaddedthepercentofstudentsineachgradescoringbelowandfarbelowbasic,thenaveragedthetotalbelowbasicpercentagefromthegradesparticipatingineachschooltoobtainasinglepercentageforeachschool.

Asshowninthefullcorrelationtable,severalindicatorsusedincalculatingtheoverallschoolscoreexhibitedstrongcorrelationswitheachother(astrongcorrelationbeingonewithacoefficientgreater/lessthan+/-0.60),andthereforetheserelationshipsmaybeintensifyingtheoverallscoreforeachZIPcode.

Protective Factors

Theprotectivefactorscorewascalculatedusingthefiveindicatorslistedbelow.TheseindicatorswereindexedtocreateastandardizedscoreforeachZIPcode.Becausepreviousresearchdidnotindicateorwasmixedontheneedtoweighoneindicatormorethananother,thereforethestandardizedvalueforeachindicatorwasweighedequallytoconstructthefinalindexscore.Thisscorewasthenrankedamongthe104ZIPcodesintheCityofLosAngelesusedintheanalysis.Thescorewasalsoconvertedintogradesbasedonwhichquintileitfellintoforeachindex,with“A”meaningtherearemanyprotectivefactorsand“F”meaningtherearefew.Basedonthisscoringtechnique,thescorespresentedforeachZIPcodearerelativetothescoresoftheotherZIPcodesintheCityofLosAngelesandarenottiedtoanyexternalscoringcriterion.IfaZIPcodewasmissingavalueforoneoftheindicatorsusedintheindex,thescorewascalculatedusingtheremainingindicators,ZIPcodeswherethiswasthecasearenotedwithanasteriskintheRanks&Gradestables.

Protectivefactorstoincludeinthisscorewerebasedonthestrengthofthecorrelationsbetweenindividualindicatorsandtheoutcomeindicators(outcomeindicatorsincluded:GangCrimeRate,ViolentCrime

Rate,HomicideRate,ChildAbuseRate,HighSchoolandMiddleSchoolAPI,HighSchoolandMiddleSchoolTruancy,andGraduationRate).Theindicatorswiththemostimpactonthemostoutcomeindicatorswerechosentoindextogethertocreatetheriskfactorscore.Refertothefullcorrelationtablefordetails.

14 Violence Prevention Services Rate: Calculatedusingacountof2-1-1servicesforeachZIPcode,dividedby2010PopulationStatisticsfromClaritas,multipliedby1,000.The2-1-1serviceswerechosenbasedoncriteriadeterminedthroughpreviousprimaryandsecondaryresearchperformedbytheAdvancementProjectforitsCalltoActionreportandmultipleNeedsAssessmentscommissionedbytheCityofLosAngeles,theCountyofLosAngeles,andtheHousingAuthorityoftheCityofLosAngeles.Theprimaryresearchconsistedofleadingfocusgroups,conductingone-on-oneinterviews,anddistributingsurveystoresidentsandotherprimarystakeholderswithinnumerousneighborhoodswithhighratesofviolenceinLosAngelesCounty.

15 Youth Violence Prevention Nonprofit Revenue per Capita:CalculatedusingthetotalrevenuefromyouthviolencepreventionnonprofitslocatedineachZIPcode,datafromtheNationalCenterforCharitableStatistics2006database,dividedby2007PopulationStatisticsfromGeolytics.NonprofitswerechosenasYouthViolencePreventionbasedonthecategoriesprovidedbytheNationalTaxonomyofExemptEntitiesCoreCodesClassificationSystem.Thechosenentitieslikelyaddresstherootconditionsofviolence,whicharebasedonpastresearchfromtheAdvancementProject’sCalltoActionreportandothersubsequentresearch.Thesenonprofitsincludethosethatprovidedirectservices,advocacy,policy,orresearchanalysisonthetopicofviolence.

16 Percent High School Teachers with Full Credentials: AssignedtoeachZIPcodeusingmethodologydefinedintheschoolscoresection,datafromCaliforniaDepartmentofEducation2008BaseAPIfile.

17 Percent Middle School Teachers with Full Credentials:AssignedtoeachZIPcodeusingmethodologydefinedintheschoolscoresection,datafromCaliforniaDepartmentofEducation2008BaseAPIfile.


18 Percent Active Voting Population:CalculatedusingvotingdatafromtheStatewideDatabaseattheUniversityofCaliforniaBerkeleyforvoterswhovotedinthe2008GeneralElection,dividedbythe2008PopulationStatisticsforpeopleage18andolderfromClaritas.Forthesamepurposeasdescribedforschooldata,eachZIPcodeareaneedstocontainvoterprecinctinformation.Unliketheschoolattendanceboundaries,voterprecinctboundariesarealotsmallerthanZIPcodeboundariesanditisimpossibletodeterminewhichsingleprecinctrepresentswhichZIPcodearea.Toresolvethisissue,multipleprecinctslocatedineachZIPcodeboundarywerematchedtoZIPcodeandthesumofvotersintheZIPcodeboundaryiscalculated.IfaprecinctwasentirelycontainedbyZIPcodeboundaryorifmorethan50percentoftheprecinctareawascontainedbytheZIPcodeboundary,thenumberofvotersfromtheprecinctwascountedunderthatspecificZIPcode.Asaresult,eachprecinctarecountedonlyoncethroughoutthematchingprocess.Duetothismethod,itisexpectedthatthecalculatedvoterparticipationratewillbeanunderestimationofactualvoterparticipationrate.

Data & Analysis LimitationsThedataandanalysisusedtocreatethescorecardscomewithseverallimitations,severalofwhichareoutlinedineachspecificindexsectionabove.Overall,themethodologyforgradingeachindexwasbasedonwhichquintiletheindexscorefellinto,andthereforewasarelativerepresentationofeachZIPcodecomparedtotheremainingZIPcodesintheCityofLosAngeles.Forfutureresearch,itwouldbebesttouseanexternalscoringcriterionforeachindexcategoryastobetterrepresentandtrackhoweachZIPcode’sgrademayimproveorworseninsubsequentanalysis.Also,fortheindiceswheretheindividualindicatorsusedincreatingthefinalscoreswerehighlycorrelatedamongeachother,itwouldbebestinfutureanalysistochooseoneindicatorfromeachcorrelatedpairthatbestrepresentstheconceptthatisbeingmeasuredand,ifnecessary,doadditionalresearchtodetermineifotherindicatorscanreplacetheonesbeingremoved.Additionally,thedataforeachindicatorwasnotrepresentativeofthesamecalendaryear,thiswaspartiallyaddressedbyusingthepopulationfromthedata’scorrespondingyearforratecalculations.Also,theanalyseswerecompletedataZIPcodelevelduetotheunavailabilityofdataatasmallergeographicallevel.Theremaybetrendsthatcouldbeseenatsmaller

geographies,especiallywithschoolandcrimedata,whichcannotbeseenhereduetothelargergeographicalscope.Also,thescorecardsdonottakeintoaccountcommunityfactorsthatmaymoreaccuratelyrepresentconditionsineachZIPcode,asaccesstothattypeofdatawasunavailableforthisanalysis.n

WritingandEditing

Maribel MezaSeniorPolicyAnalyst,AdvancementProject

DataAnalysis

Dagmar PudrzynskaPaul, MCJDataCoordinator,AdvancementProject

Juhyun Yoo, MPAResearchAnalyst,AdvancementProject

EditorialReviewCommittee

Connie Rice, JDFoundingCo-DirectorofAdvancementProject

Susan Lee, JDDirectorofUrbanPeace,AdvancementProject

John KimCo-DirectorofAdvancementProjectandDirectorofHealthyCity

Chris Schweidler, PhDSeniorResearchManager,AdvancementProject

Amy Sausser, MADirectorofFoundationRelations&Communications,AdvancementProject

Billie Weiss, MPHAssociateDirector,SouthernCaliforniaInjuryPreventionProgram,UCLASchoolofPublicHealth

Paul Hsu, PhDAssistantAdjunctProfessorUCLASchoolofPublicHealth

Acknowledgements

TheViolencePreventionCoalitionofGreaterLosAngeles

TheRobertWoodJohnsonFoundation

TheCaliforniaEndowment

TheCaliforniaWellnessFoundation

TheJewishCommunityFoundation

Printing,FoxPrinting

Safety Score by ZIP code, City of Los Angeles

91344

91214

90501

90245

91504

90230

90064

90059

90232

90402

90056

90094

91608

90089

90095

90071

90090

90089

91330

91342(65)

91042(36)

90290(3)

91311(26)

90049(2)

91352(74)

91307(25)

90272(1)

91356(29)

90210(7)

91326(17)

91304(57)

91331(71)

90045(21)

90744(80)

91367(37)

91406(51)

90027(42)

90068(8)

90077(9)

91364(33)

91040(34)

90731(78)

91335(46)

91343(79)

90023(83)

91325(32)

91605(69)

91316(24)

90065(44)

90032(61)

91436(13)

90066(22)

91604(16)

90042(56)

90011(91)

91306(50)

91324(62)

91423(38)

90026(64)

90016(84)

90043(93)

90247(59)

91401(43)

90001(58)

91405(54)

91345(47)

90018(88)

90002(97)

90037(98)

91601(55)

90036(41)

91607(27)

91303(73)

90046(18)

90044(95)

90731(78)

90047(90)

90058(100)

90248(67)

90039(52)

91402(77)

90019(68)

90031(76)

90003(101)

91403(31) 90041

(23)

91340(63)

90008(94)

90012(48)

91606(49)

90063(82)

90033(87)

90710(60)

90034(39)

90024(4)

90007(70)

90061(99)

90004(45)

90293(11)

90025(19)

90732(20)

90291(35)

90502(28)

90035(15)

91602(10)

91411(66)

90069(30)

90292(12)

90021(103)

90062(92)

90006(72) 90015

(96)

90048(14)

90028(85) 90038

(75)

90029(81)

90020(40)

90067(5)

Legend

City of Los Angeles

Safety Score Rank1 - 10 (Most Safe)

11 - 42

43 - 73

74 - 94

95 - 104 (Least Safe)

Data Not Available

±0 2.5 5 7.5 101.25Miles

Safety Score Rank by ZIP Code, City of Los Angeles

Map created by Healthy City, November 2010. Data classified to highlight the ten most safe ZIPCodes in dark green and the 10 least safe ZIP Codes in red. Ranks, identified in parentheses,based on Safety Score Index created using Gang Crime Rate (LAPD, 2007), Violent Crime Rate(LAPD, 2008), and Child Abuse Rate (DCFS, 2008). Geographic data from NAVTEQ, 2010.MapcreatedbyHealthyCity,November2010.Dataclassifiedtohighlighttheten

mostsafeZIPcodesindarkgreenandthetenleastsafeZIPcodesinred.Ranks,identifiedinparentheses,basedonSafetyScoreIndexcreatedusingGangCrimeRate(LAPD,2007),ViolentCrimeRate(LAPD,2008),andChildAbuseRate(DCFS,2008).GeographicdatafromNAVTEQ,2010.

1910WestSunsetBlvd.Suite500LosAngeles,CA90026www.AdvancementProjectCA.org213.989.1300

Community Safety Scorecard - Advancement Project California€¦ · • Urban Peace: Reduces and...

Documents

Transcript of Community Safety Scorecard - Advancement Project California€¦ · • Urban Peace: Reduces and...