Omaha's anti-gang strategies

Omaha's anti-gang efforts — by many accounts stronger now than ever — pale beside the programs that cities such as Cincinnati have mounted.

Depending on who's talking, that difference is either unfortunate or perfectly understandable, even advantageous.

On paper, the two cities' approaches to gangs seem similar. Both use versions of tactics pioneered in the Boston Gun Project of the mid-1990s, even the same jargon and labels to describe them. But in practice, differences are obvious. For starters, the approaches differ in scale and degree of organization.

Cincinnati's mayor and City Council, goaded by a record 89 homicides in 2006, overhauled the Police Department to focus it on gang violence. They hired the guru of the Boston project, professor David Kennedy, as consultant. Enlisted University of Cincinnati crime researchers to sleuth causes and measure results. Cemented partnerships with state and federal law enforcement. Contracted with private providers for faster social services. Hired “street workers” to work with gang members. Designed ad campaigns.

All this activity is marshaled under one organization, the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence, or CIRV, directed by a governing board the mayor leads.

In Omaha, with an average of 32 homicides a year over the past decade, the anti-gang effort is more diffused and dependent on informal collaboration.

Law enforcement aspects are centered in a specialized part of the Police Department, the gang unit. More than ever, officials say, it works with other agencies and private groups, but it doesn't direct them. University of Nebraska at Omaha researchers chip in when there is money to hire them. Social services and direct work with gang members are done mainly by other government agencies or private groups working on their own.

Some specific comparisons:

Ÿ “Focused deterrence” — the soul of CIRV. The idea is to zero in on hard-core gang members, mainly by summoning them two or three times a year to “call-ins” for a message with a stick, carrot and sermon: Police describe evidence already gathered and threaten to go after a whole gang if just one member kills; social workers offer help to all who want out of gang life; and clerics and neighborhood elders urge gang members to do right.

The message is repeated on the street, in person, in letters, on billboards. Most important, says a University of Cincinnati report on CIRV, is “relentless delivery” on the threats to punish whole gangs. Dread of collective punishment is what prods a gang's members to pressure one another and gives all gangs a face-saving way to maintain calm, says Kennedy.

Omaha police used similar group meetings earlier this decade, then in 2003 shifted with federal funding to a program that emphasizes gun prosecutions, Police Chief Alex Hayes said.

Deterrence meetings with multiple gang members were dropped in favor of home visits with individuals, but some group deterrence is preserved, he said, because word of home visits filters out. Police also time the visits to head off trouble before big events, such as recent Juneteenth celebrations.

One drawback to call-ins, Hayes said, is that they require “banking” evidence against gang members, building a case against them but holding it over their heads as a threat instead of prosecuting. That's difficult to justify to a public demanding gang members be jailed, he said.

Ÿ “Intelligence gathering.” Cincinnati emphasizes knowing many details about gang members — who's in which gang, who are the fringe wannabes, who hangs with whom and where, who are the parents and girlfriends, who is on probation or parole and with what conditions, what is the word on the street about each past homicide — on and on.

The data goes into sophisticated software that analyzes social relationships, identifies patterns and helps cops predict trouble and deliver on threats.

In Omaha, Hayes said, gang data — such as last known addresses, aliases, possible gang affiliations, crimes committed — is put in a database and shared during weekly meetings.

On the chief's wish list — if money were no object — is better software, along with hiring all 820 officers the city has authorized, not just the 802 now on board, as well as more cameras and surveillance gear.

Cincinnati's kind of crusade has the advantage of mobilizing vast resources against gang violence, said Hank Robinson, research chief of UNO's School of Criminology and Criminal Justice. But it has drawbacks, too.

“One of the most important lessons” of efforts requiring that much political clout to muster, he said, “is nobody can point to a program that can be sustained. ... Things fall in and out of political favor.”

Even Boston, where the strategy was born, slipped after key personnel left and only now is rebuilding, say the academics who helped design the program.

In the long run, a more decentralized anti-gang effort like Omaha's could prove more durable, Robinson said, because each part has its own set of leaders and pool of supporters — less vulnerable to the departures of key players. Another plus, said Hayes, is that gang members are less suspicious of outreach from people not connected to police.

City officials credited Omaha's efforts — key arrests, more tips from citizens and community events — with reducing north Omaha shootings in early June.

Still, Robinson sees a less-than-communitywide commitment to ending gang violence here, a less acute sense of urgency in west Omaha.

Bottom line, he said: All cities weigh priorities differently.

“It sounds really crass,” he said, “but communities prioritize their spending based on the urgency of the problems they see” — whether it's shootings, garbage pickup or potholes.

Staff writer Juan Perez Jr. contributed to this report.

« Metro/Region

Share