The key to reducing street violence in San Francisco is to “focus on and invest” in a small number of “groups” that have committed the majority of San Francisco’s homicides and shootings in the last 3.5 years, according to a study presented at the Police Commission Wednesday night.
The study was conducted by the California Partnership for Safe Communities, a violence prevention organization that closely examined all 162 homicides in San Francisco from January 2017 to June 2020. It also examined 124 non-fatal shootings between January 2019 and June 2020.
A major finding: 12 “high-risk social networks,” or “groups” — not to be confused with gangs — are responsible for a majority of San Francisco’s gun violence, said Vaughn Crandall, a co-director of California Partnership for Safe Communities, which worked with the San Francisco Police Department on the study.
The presentation emphasized that shootings and homicides have dropped precipitously in San Francisco since the mid-90s. Killings spiked around 2007, when there were 13.6 homicides per 100,000 residents. In 2018, that rate dropped to 5.2, according to the study.
But, after a 17 percent jump in homicides last year, Chief Bill Scott said he wants the rate to drop to zero, and agreed with Crandall that it’s not only a matter of putting individual actors behind bars. He said the networks of violence were “deeply rooted” and “the support has to be focused on the right people at the right time.”
A majority of homicides, 53 to 70 percent, could be traced back to “group dynamics,” Crandall said. Meanwhile, 50 to 77 percent of non-fatal shootings were connected to the groups. Another factor of street violence, Crandall said, was “street disorder,” which is violence connected to homelessness and the drug market — mostly in the Tenderloin. Together those categories accounted for 38 percent of homicides.
But groups committing violence toward other groups to settle disputes was the main driver of the violence, Crandall said. Many of the groups are spread out across the city — in the Bayview, Mission, Ingleside, Park and Northern policing districts, according to the study, which did not specify neighborhoods. Many of the “groups” in the Mission are connected to Norteño and Sureño gangs, whereas groups elsewhere appeared to have fewer formal gang affiliations.
“The concentration of risk is very, very tight — it’s a small number of folks who are extremely high risk, and we have to be able to more effectively engage and support them if we’re going to reduce retaliation shootings,” Crandall said.
Crandall did not provide a detailed methodology on how he grouped the small number of high-risk individuals. But he did say that, after looking at the cases with SFPD investigators, “patterns and relationships” within the small groups emerged. Many of the groups, he said, were “informal and fluid, but they were identifiable.”
He cautioned that “groups” are different from “gangs,” as gangs have a concrete legal definition that can have “collateral consequences” for individuals who are not directly involved in violence — such as gang enhancements or being added to gang databases. Labeling people gang members, he added, is “not a very direct way to focus on violence.”
By contrast, “groups” are defined as people living “high-risk lifestyles,” are socially connected to each other, and resort to violence to resolve disputes. “Most of those groups are probably not gangs by the statutory definition,” Crandall said, “but they are involved in identifiable patterns of conflict that are resulting in people being shot and murdered.”
Furthermore, those involved in homicides — victims and suspects — are mostly Black and Latino men who are older adults. The average age of homicide suspects and victims in San Francisco is 37, the study found, and many of them have been arrested multiple times. Victims and suspects of non-fatal shootings, meanwhile, are an average 28-years-old and have been arrested multiple times.
Furthermore, 67 percent of homicide victims and suspects and 85 percent of shooting victims and suspects are Black and Latino men, the study found.
“Those folks have extremely difficult situations, and it is not easy to address the issues that put them at risk either from a justice system intervention standpoint or from a community intervention,” Crandall said.
“It’s a heavy lift,” he added, but the silver lining is that the focus only needs to be on “less than 200” a year — a collaboration between community intervention specialists, the probation and parole departments, the District Attorney, and the police department. Crandall did not say what exactly these departments needed to do and how they needed to “work together.”
“Most cities invest most of their prevention dollars in a younger and lower risk population,” he said. “And the evidence is strong that actually, if we want to reduce violence in the near term, the place to do it is investing in this older and very highest-risk population.”
all the mysterious “Groups” but can’t name or describe any of the groups….yeahhhhh.
Good to see data and objective, measurable information on this topic. Too many people / citizens use blind emotion, fear and anger around discussing crime. Much better to be objective & rational to come up with effective strategies
So, the police, probation and parole, and DA need to “work together,” and it will be a “heavy lift,” but there are apparently no concrete steps identified that this “working together” will involve. And, the study has identified “high-risk groups” that are “involved in identifiable patterns of conflict that are resulting in people being shot and murdered,” but they are not gangs.
I am certainly glad this study was done, so that all the government agencies tasked with addressing violence can now pat themselves on the back and claim they did something while they continue to do nothing.
If I understand the graphic, it explicitly demonstrates that most groups are subsets, or functional factions, of gangs. But gangs are not an issue?
The author may have a logic problem there.
Is logic still permitted or is it, you know…
Bullshit they are gangs
When is a gang not a gang? When our fearless leaders, who have armed guards watching them 24 7 that we pay for, don’t want to seem ‘racist’ by calling them gangs. They’re just ‘groups’ Why not use the word ‘fraternity’ to make it even more palatable?
Campers,
Here’s my favorite balladeer said about what I think is prime motive of murderers.
Boils down to: “Please pay attention to me.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWKpblxejWE
Go Giants!
h.
Which group was Nando in?
This sounds like a very good analysis by SFPD. It reads as if they recognize that wider socio-economic circumstances impact the likelihood of someone being involved in violent crime without blaming the individual for those circumstances. I was surprised that the age profile was so high.
Let’s spend a bunch of money to produce a report that doesn’t suggest a solution. Invest taxpayer money!!!
This is a crock! Invest invest invest is all SF ever plans to do. Cut the funds and prosecute these criminals! People know right from wrong. Let’s stop babying our people and hold them accountable. The real SF is hurting.
The “real” sf?
It has been shown over and over again that locking people up in cages for long periods of time leads to more violence over time. It might feel better for poeple to punish people but it actually just leads to more crime. Which makes sense. Locking poeple away in brutal conditions deprives children of fathers and makes it harder to get a job (more likely to steal). Do you think locking up people for doing drugs made them stop doing drugs or just ruined a generation of people?
Are you hurting, for real? I bet you don’t even live here.
Studies show that investing in groups like these with resources and supporting them by solving the root of the problem causes them to not reoffend. Do you know how expensive it is to incarcerate 1 person for life? Costs way more than it costs to help people that are struggling to survive. Those who are convicted and have been through the system are highly likely to reoffend. Being chewed up and spit out by our prison system doesn’t help them or anybody, and especially not the state’s pocket.
Why cant you prosecute the criminals now? It’s too late for them to be rehabbed.
Then try to stop the bleeding with programs to not create first time offenders.
It will help some, however for many it’s a way of life. Why do some rappers who make 100’s of 1000’s continue down the same path of crime? Also in their world, 16 is prime and 25 over the hill. It’s the law of the jungle, and the older men 25 and up are taken out of the game.
Um, when they are in prison they can’t shoot anyone. And we’ve been throwing money on useless programs and various ‘charitable’ organizations run by friends of those in City Hall. It’s really simple. Use a gun, you’re in prison for a minimum of 50 years. No exceptions. Including juveniles. But apparently our DA and his predecessor feel that charging career felons with gun enhancements is ‘racist’ so they don’t use those laws. Apparently ‘gun control’ means disarming law abiding citizens and aiding and abetting in career felons ensures that they can get, and use, guns with impunity.