The Hollenbeck Initiative was a replication of
The Hollenbeck area was chosen as the target site for the initiative because of its high rates of gang activity and violent crime; gangs were predominantly composed of Hispanic members. Hollenbeck is a 15-square-mile area east of downtown
The Hollenbeck Initiative used collaboration among law enforcement agencies, community organizations, and institutions to design the Operation Ceasefire program. These partnerships provided information and support necessary to implement the program. Originally, these organizations planned on providing such services as tattoo removal, substance abuse treatment programs, and job training. However, in the wake of the
After the shooting in
In addition to the immediate actions taken against members of the two gangs involved in the event, several other measures were used. Activity in health and welfare agencies and housing units in the territories of both gangs was scrutinized for suspicious activities. Rewards were offered to the public in exchange for information leading to arrests in the triggering event and other events involving these gangs.
Los Angeles Police Department officers, special units in LAPD, collaboration of criminal justice agencies, and community partners including social service agencies.
It was found that the majority of homicides in Hollenbeck were a result of gang disputes relating to respect and territory wars, rather than drug disputes or other types of crime. Thus, an initiative was designed to specifically target problematic gang activity in the area. Gang activity is usually concentrated in small areas in cities with high levels of disorder, drug dealing, and violence. Since gangs are often spatially concentrated in their own areas, known as “turfs,” the intervention could theoretically be concentrated on these specific areas.
A theory of “collective accountability” was used to apprehend gang-affiliated offenders—that is, all gang members would be held accountable for the actions of any individual member. Police officers emphasized this message whenever an arrest of a gang member was made, to communicate a message of zero tolerance for gang activity and to deter future violence.
Tita and colleagues (2003) found that during the six-month intervention period, violent crime decreased by about 28 percent in both Boyle Heights and in the remainder of the Hollenbeck area. There appears to have been no greater reduction of crime in
In the five targeted police reporting districts, violent crime decreased by 37 percent during the six months after the intervention. This was a significant change in comparison to the rest of
In the six months following the intervention, the number of violent crimes in the targeted Census block groups decreased 36 percent, while those in the matched Census block groups decreased only three percent. In the Census block groups overlapping the targeted reporting districts, violent crime decreased significantly compared with the matched blocks.
In the six months after the intervention, gang crimes in targeted reporting districts (RDs) decreased by 34 percent, and gang crimes in the remainder of Boyle Heights decreased by 52 percent. Although the rate of decrease for the entire six-month period was greater in the remainder of Boyle Heights than in the targeted RDs, statistical analysis showed that the decrease in gang crime during the four months of the suppression period in the targeted RDs was greater than the decrease in the remainder of Boyle Heights.
In the Census block groups, gang crime did not decrease significantly. The intervention does not appear to have had any significant effect on gang crime in the targeted Census block groups, compared with the matched block groups.
In Boyle Heights, gun crime decreased significantly in the intervention period and continued to decrease in the deterrence period, compared with the remaining areas of Hollenbeck.
During the intervention, gun crime decreased by 33 percent in the five targeted police reporting districts and 32 percent in the remainder of
The decrease in the targeted Census block groups area was 28 percent, greater than the 18 percent decline in the matched Census block groups. The effect was particularly strong during the suppression period but returned to pre-intervention levels during the deterrence period.