“Safe Places to Go and Things to Do”:
Political Texts from Urban Youth of Color
Abstract: This
paper is the first to examine the “political texts” of urban youth of
color. It presents their statements
about what kinds of policies and programs would improve their lives.
Urban youth of color are presented as one
of our nation’s major threats.
Broad-brushed as “gang-related” and mythologized on “real-life” TV
shows, young men and women of color are constructed as a surly, silent foe of
America. Scholars have recently turned
their attention to championing youth of color in a variety of ways: Jonathan Kozol [1991, 1995], Alex Kotlowitz
[1991], Greg Donaldson [1993], and Darrell Dawsey [1995] have brought us rich
and sympathetic ethnographies. Martín
Sánchez Jankowski [1991], Joan Moore [1991], and Felix Padilla [1991] have
explored and explained the political economic realities that produce and shape
gang activity. Robert Coles [1986] has
engaged deeply with young peoples’ psyches, showing them to be brave, generous,
and wise about the political events of their nations. Lisa Delpit [1995] and many others have taken us inside schools and
shown us what is happening to youth of color there. Youthworkers Arturo Hernandez [1995] and Joe Marshall [1996] have
provided a crucial perspective by sharing insights from their important work
with youth on the street. These works
make valuable points about the role of oppression in the lives of young people,
about youths’ struggles for good lives, and about the opportunities for
institutional change that could vastly improve the lives of urban youth of
color. However, since Carlos Muńoz’
1989 Youth, Identity, and Power, few
scholars have presented American urban youth of color as political actors. Perhaps Tricia Rose comes closest in Black Noise [1994], an exploration of
the politics of rap as it is wielded by youth of color.
This
paper presents the findings of a discourse analysis of “youth political texts”
— youth newspapers, political and policy statements, and youth-written votes
and surveys. These materials are
important because they provide youths’ collective, negotiated, and dialogic
representations of their political positions.
I requested materials from any program that provided materials for youth
to give voice to their own views of what needs to happen to improve their lives
and their communities.[1] The texts I analyzed were produced by youth
between the ages of 9 and 22 working in 34 youth leadership programs in 10
cities. They included several issues
each of 11 different newspapers written by youth, as well as program
newsletters, press releases and other public statements written by youth,
surveys conducted by youth, and articles written about youths’ political
actions. I call the method “discourse
analysis” because this unusual data is composed of such a variety of types of
documents. Rather than pursuing strict
content analysis, I read the texts for discursive themes. One of the interesting findings from this
discourse analysis is the degree of unanimity among urban youth of color across
the country regarding policies on crime, education, and the role of adults and
community organizations. I also draw on
interviews with youthworkers which were conducted in fourteen cities during
1993. [Starr 1994]
Why
is it necessary to write a study that shows that youth of color have something
to say? Historically people of color and children have been constructed as mute
and unprepared to participate in self-governance. The combination of these customs with the sensationalized fear of
youth crime has produced a dangerous situation in which youth of color are both
brutalized and sialenced. In an effort
to protect them, many of us who wish to help collaborate in their
silencing. A tiny minority of
youth-serving organizations have organized their programs to enable youth to
produce knowledge and give voice politically.
That the following discourse exists at all is due to their visionary
work. Too much of even the most
sympathetic youthwork is organized around defending youths’ willingness to
conform to the system, if just given the chance. What has happened such that this is the most we hope for
them? This study presents a glimpse of
how well youth can analyze their own situation and how intelligently they can
fashion and present solutions to their problems.
According to youth who participated in the
Mayor’s Youth Development Task Force in Chicago, the second most important way
to “improve the lives of young people” is to give teens “a chance to build
working skills in their communities.” When asked how the city should spend new
funds for youth, 46% of the 5000 San Francisco high school participants in
Youth Vote 1994 chose “more jobs and training”. [Coleman Advocates for Youth,
San Francisco] This was the top
vote-getter of several options and in some neighborhoods received up to 62% of
the vote. When youth from East Bay
Asian Youth Center (EBAYC) asked 511 Asian and Pacific Islander Oakland youth
ages 12 to 17 what three things would most help young people stay away from
violence, the top answer was jobs. The
second answer was safe places to get job training. Former Attorney General Janet Reno also believed that job
training was essential to addressing youth violence, but she said nothing about
the provision of living wage jobs to trainees. [in Children’s Express 1994: 16]
Youth at the Boston Children and Youth Advocacy Day in 1994 said that the way to reduce violence in communities is having the government “supply teens with jobs that help young people to gain skills and that pay enough to support single and parenting teens (not just flipping burgers).” Youth recommended work that would benefit the community, like rehabilitating “burned-out buildings and convert[ing] them into apartments or youth centers.” The jobs should also help youth “get experience in a field of interest (paid internships at hospitals for aspiring doctors).”
Empowered Youth Educating Society (EYES),
a youth policy group, puts jobs as the first point in their violence-reduction
policy platform: “Well paying jobs should be available to all young
people. Our society must view it as a
responsibility to make sure that all young people have a chance (at least) to
survive in our economic system.”
Researchers have documented that “gainful employment” is one of the
strongest deterrents to youth criminality. [Elliott 1994, Sampson & Lamb
1993]
Open up more recreation programs 24 hours
a day.… If it was up to me, this place would be open 24 hours a day, staffed 24 hours a day… with sports activities,
culture activities, bands, music, and food.
Youthworker
Ray Balberan
Eighty
one percent of youth who participated in Youth Vote 1994 agreed that “youth
violence would be reduced if kids had ‘more safe places to go and things to do’
” (in some neighborhoods 89% of youth agreed with this statement). When asked in another question what would
make them “feel safer after school and on weekends?”, the highest vote getter
on a list of options was “safe places to go and things to do”. According to
youth who participated in the Mayor’s Youth Development Task Force in Chicago,
the most important “way to improve the lives of young people” is “a citywide
system of centers where youth and their families can go to find safe
activities.” [Addae 1994] The third highest response to EBAYC’s survey of what
would help youth stay away from violence was “safe places to have a good time”.
The second point on EYES’ violence-prevention policy platform is
enough
community centers so that there are community centers available to all young
people at all hours. Centers should be
organized and directed by young people, and adults should work with young
people every step of the way in order to offer information, encouragement, and
confidence in the capabilities of youth.
The centers should be safe places that are free and public, and there
should be funding available to have interesting programming that addresses the
needs of the young people in that community.
Resources should also be available to make sure that all programs are
publicized well, so that young people are aware of what is happening. Schools are possible places for community
centers to be housed.
The
issue of hours of availability is central.
Youthworkers and programs are moving toward 24 hour recreational
facilities in order to extend the availability of safe “alternatives to the
streets”. YMAC’s Youth Vote 1993 found
that expanding public library hours to Sunday so that students have a place to
do homework over the weekend is more important to high school students than
refurbishing the facilities or buying new books. YouthVote 1994 asked how the city should spend new funds for
youth. The second highest vote getter (after jobs) was “more youth centers for
fun activities”, with 24% of the vote.
Personal/career counseling got 13%, tutoring and other school help got 12%,
and community service opportunities got 5%.
In
Youth Vote, youth rated the three most important thing that would get them to
go to a youth program. The quality of the facilities is as important as the
activities offered within them. Youth
will go somewhere where their friends go, because they want to hang out with
people that they like. Other questions
on the ballot confirmed that youths’ most common and most preferred after-school activity is hanging out and talking
with friends, winning easily over sports/athletic, TV and video games, and
shopping or hanging out at the mall or wharf.
So developing an appealing program means attracting groups of youth who are friends and making the program a new social
center.
Another
question on the ballot asked youth what facility youth would like to see the
city develop in the next year. A teen
entertainment center with videos, pool tables, ping-pong, bowling, etc. got 40%
of the vote, a teen nightclub got 33% (up to 72% in some schools). The less popular options were a recording
studio for teens interested in music industry, a theater which features plays
written and performed by teens, and a teen cafe. Teen nightclubs, teen nights at adult clubs, and non-profit
substance-free teen parties like “Friday Night Live” have been successful,
attracting many youths and remaining safe.
Youth
Vote 1994 also asked youth what kind of equipment is most important to have at
a youth center. 21% said computers (up
to 28% in some neighborhoods), table games like ping pong and pool also got
21%, weight training got 16% (ranging from 9% to 29%), swimming pool got
14%. The least popular types of
equipment were video/filmmaking, art studio, lounge with comfortable chairs,
and video games.
Sixty-eight
percent of youth are “willing to help develop the program” for the new youth
center. And finally, Youth Vote found
some exciting news which could help with youth programs’ funding dilemmas. Even though 60% of youth have never been to an after-school program,
68% of youth are willing to pay “a small fee (like $5/month) for quality
recreational, educational, or other after-school programs”. In some neighborhoods 79% of youth are
willing to pay.
According to Youth
Vote 1993 high school students had “more unanimity” on sex-related issues than
any other issue: 92% said that AIDS
education should be mandatory. 89% said
condoms should be distributed in schools.
66% said that counseling should be mandatory for each student the first
time they are given condoms.
According to Planned Parenthood, 85% of
Americans agree that sex education should be taught in public schools. Planned Parenthood also found that teens who
have had a comprehensive sex education course at school are more likely to use
birth control regularly. Youth conclusions at the Children’s and Youth Advocacy
Day in Boston stressed that sex education be taught well and made interesting
“so teens will listen and understand what to be careful about.” Youth at this forum also proposed that
condom distribution become a new community norm. Not only schools should distribute condoms to youth, but also
outreach groups and parents.
According to a Youth Outlook! (YO!)
survey, 63% of “teens”[2]
use condoms. According to important
studies of young gay men’s safe sex behavior, accurate knowledge about AIDS
transmission and safe sex practices aren’t enough to cause young men to change
their behavior. These studies find that
the education approach must eroticize safe
sex in order to increase condom use rates. [Kegeles, Coates & Hays 1991]
The same approach is probably necessary to get young people to use birth
control consistently.
Youth Victory on Issues Concerning
Empowerment (VOICE) of Washington D.C.[3]
and many other advocates assert that “abstinence is an unrealistic option for
many young people. So as many adults
choose to make this a moral issue, young people are not listening, and more and
more teens are dying.” They agree that condoms should be handed out in schools
“in conjunction with information via video, pamphlet, and guest speakers.” They also endorse daycare in schools to
support teen mothers.
Another issue on which youth political
texts showed unanimity was the need for
more teachers of color and teachers from the community. This is the highest priority for educational
change. Schools that serve urban youth
need teachers of color, teachers with bilingual abilities, and “teachers with a
love for teaching, with love for the job.”
A second main area of concern is the
condition of facilities. In explaining
why youth are “not interested in education” Youth VOICE listed the very first
factor as “facilities are dilapidated, damp, drafty, and dark.” Youthworker John Nauer says “a nice school,
it made you wanna come to school. But
when you come to a school…it’s dirty…most kids get turned off.” Youth VOICE
recommends refurbishing all schools with designs and ideas from students.
Youth feel disrespected by school
administrators’ unwillingness to clean up filthy, inoperative, and unsafe
bathrooms. Schools blame youth for the
conditions of bathrooms. Students can’t
understand why they are any different from users of any other bathrooms, which
are allocated resources for cleaning and repair. In an article in YO!, youth
described how young entrepreneurs are making money by providing shuttle
services back and forth to the nearest McDonald’s so students can use the
restrooms there.
Youth also feel extremely disrespected by
the unavailability of books and the use of outdated books. The lack of books is often listed as a sign
of injustice in the school system.
Youth propose that schools be
reorganized. Some propose that schools
should be smaller and should be modeled on the “community schools” or “Beacon
schools” idea, in which schools are centers of community services, provide
adult as well as youth education, house community meetings, and are open for
recreational and club activities until late at night. [see Day 1994] Staffed by AmeriCorps youth, the Morton
McMichael School in Mantua, West Philadelphia now “stays open until 9:00 p.m.
four nights a week and all day on Saturdays. [Goldsmith 1995] Youth VOICE explains that schools should be
community centers, which would mean that “every
person in the school must be trained on how to be effective counselors, and not
just lecturers.” YouthVote asked youth
“if a school in your neighborhood was open every night (including weekends) and
had all kinds of fun activities for teens, would you go?” 71% of students said “yes”, and in some
neighborhoods over 90% said “yes”.
Youth also speak out against rules that
exclude students from activities if their grades aren’t good; this policy
alienates some youth from school even more because they feel it’s impossible to
make it. Grade floors may exclude youth
from the only parts of school that keep them there at all (extracurriculars and
sports). Grade punishments become a
burden when youth try to apply for jobs and when they start applying for
drivers licenses and insurance.
The third main area of concern to youth
and youthworkers is the need for the curriculum to be responsive to different
racial and ethnic groups. High school
students are walking out to protest lack of ethnically responsive curriculum.
[Sanchez 1994] Along with the necessity of a multi-cultural curriculum, youth
see that schools have the responsibility to do broader public education work on
issues of race/ethnic diversity, sexuality, and gender. In discussing “diversity” issues in their
schools, students tend to agree that they see interracial
relations and relationships as a way to “learn”. But they believe the
schools have a responsibility to provide events and educational sessions to
help students understand each other and get to know each other.
The other major curricular issue youth
raise is the issue of practical “relevance”. Youth VOICE says “Students do not
feel they are learning anything of value…there seems to be minimal, if any,
relevance in the student’s life.” It’s
not enough for teachers and other adults to say that a subject is important,
they have to show why and how it’s important.
This is also expressed as a pedagogic issue. Youth VOICE says “Students feel that teachers are out-of-touch
with reality. Many teachers are tenured
and/or older and are not familiar with the ‘new youth order’, where lectures
are no go and students like to see, rather than hear.” In an article called “What Can Be Done to
Make School Interesting?” in New Youth
Connections, students commented on pedagogy, critiquing teachers who don’t
provide hands on activities and opportunities for students to answer
questions. They say teachers shouldn’t
be surprised when students “fall asleep, daydream, or just simply get annoyed”
when faced with a lecture. Alexie
Torres of El Puente says “Teens learn best in the streets, not in traditional
classrooms.” A student at the extremely successful Community-as-School Program
says “A lot of grown-ups seem to think we aren’t learning if we aren’t strapped
to a desk!” [Checkoway 1992] At New
Visions school in New York, students will be included in curricula design. “We’re gonna be the leaders,” says Jessica
Burgos.
Youth VOICE says that current programs for
training and recertification of teachers are inadequate because “it is unclear
what new things they are learning”.
Teachers need to be learning about technology, discussion groups, peer
counseling methods, and experiential curricula. Finally, students say that schools should “demand more” of their
corporate “partners”.
Youths’ views on schools are probably not
surprising to most educators. What is
useful about reviewing youths’ statements is that efforts at educational change
have obviously not been adequate, and that students (by educators) should be
seen as political allies in the struggles for funding, facilities, and teacher
training.
Youths’ top two
proposals for violence prevention, jobs and safe places with safe activities at
all hours, have already been discussed in this chapter. This section now turns to the other ideas
that have been put forth for violence prevention.
What’s important to look at on the youth
surveys is not only the top three answers, but what didn’t win out. In the EBAYC survey, more jobs, safe places
to get education or job training, and safe places to have a good time won out
over former Attorney General Janet Reno’s “adults to talk to” about personal
& family problems [in Children’s Express 1994: 16] and also over the
following: Better understanding between
racial and ethnic groups; better understanding between males and females;
teenagers helping younger children with their schoolwork and teaching them not
to get in trouble; eliminating guns; more cultural and sports activities; more
police to patrol schools and neighborhoods; not having as many liquor stores
around; and keeping people who commit crimes in jail longer. EBAYC survey designers also had the
brilliance to ask youth which three things would have the least effect in helping
young people stay away from violence.
The answers: eliminate guns, hire more police to patrol schools and
neighborhoods, not have as many liquor stores around. In Youth Vote 1994 on the
question asking youth what would make them feel safer, “more police” received
between 19% and 31%, depending on the neighborhood.
EBAYC’s results on gun control are very
interesting. They contradict the
research of LH Research, which found that 57% of young people support immediate
banning of handguns for young people. [Lou Harris in Children’s Express 1994:
31] Youth VOICE recommends reducing gun availability, increasing waiting
periods, requiring frequent recertification, and holding manufacturers and
stores liable for some killings. The
American Academy of Pediatrics recommends banning civilian ownership of
handguns, and is working to “help families and communities choose safer means
of self-protection.” Their “message is
that it is possible to protect children or guns, but not both.” [Dr. Katherine
Christoffel in Children’s Express 1994: 37]
Some people are concerned about the implications of banning guns. We are witnessing the development of
police-state conditions in urban neighborhoods where people of color live. Certain populations are becoming policed and
jailed populations. Banning private
ownership of weapons would increase the imbalance of power in those
conditions. People would have no
defense against a growing police/military state. While youth may not see gun
control as the solution, this does not mean they are arming themselves to
create a sense of safety. Only 12% of
Youth Vote 1994 respondents said that having a gun or weapon to defend
themselves would make them feel safer.
Only
14% of Youth Vote 1994 respondents said more conflict resolution would help.
This low rating for conflict resolution in YouthVote is interesting in light of
the fact that conflict resolution has been so widely touted as a solution to
youth problems by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Satcher in
Children’s Express 1994: 41] and others.
EYES supports conflict resolution in schools because it is a way to
provide jobs for teens, which is a top priority. But they explain that conflict resolution doesn’t address the
root causes of violence. They insist that money for “drug free zones” and the
police departments’ DARE program in the schools should be spent to hire youth
to do this work.
EYES worked with Teens on Target, Youth of
Oakland United, Children of War, and the Youth Empowerment Project in bi-weekly
coalition meetings to develop a proposal for school safety by and for Oakland
students that was presented to the Oakland School Board. They identified the cause of violence at
school as usually disputes carried onto campus by non-students. So the motivation behind their plans is to
provide safety without treating students as criminals. Police should only be
used on campus if they are “trained to mediate in a non-confrontational
way.” Generally, having police on
campus “creates tension and atmosphere of oppression.” [Apter & Goldstein
1986] Campus supervisors should be trained in conflict resolution strategies
because they “actually cause more conflict than they prevent”. Parent patrols should be avoided because
“people end up fighting to defend a parent who has been disrespected by another
student.”
The coalition also says that dress codes
may be appropriate “for dealing with issues of economic inequality and theft”
but do not address “the root causes of violence”. EYES demands that “ALL students should have a say in the decision
to restrict freedom of expression” and a role in defining exactly what will be
restricted. Apparently the dress code
that the District developed “include[d] items that have nothing to do with
violence and robbery.”
EBAYC youth also came up with a
violence-prevention proposal. They
asked the City of Oakland to devote one percent of the general fund budget to
programs for youth, which would raise the total spent on youth programs by a
factor of ten. EYES’
violence-prevention proposal includes “drastic decrease” of media violence and
elimination of stereotypes of youth because “Youth will not stop committing
violence if violence is what is expected from them.” To really “end violence” oppression must be addressed, which
means “means giving every human being good support…and the possibility of
having a good life.” This also means
including young people in making rules and laws and full participation in the
political system.
Youth and youthworkers agree that youth
should have a much greater role in developing the violence-prevention
strategies. Sherman Spears of Youth
Alive!/Teens on Target says “I really wish that kids were given more
opportunity to be involved in the solution for violence because they are the
ones that are most at risk and they genuinely know what needs to be done to
reduce the violence that affects their lives.” [in Children’s Express 1994:
38] Domico Curry of Seattle Youth
Involvement says “Then you need an understanding from youth that they can make
a difference.” [23] Spears and Curry
were involved in violence before becoming youthworkers.
Dealing with violence will require a
complex set of policies that address youths’ many legitimate needs, their
communities’ disempowerment, and the U.S.’ relationships with its own citizens
and with those of other countries, particularly as an increasing proportion of
urban youth are refugees from drug wars in Central America.
Youth propose that
police, like teachers, need to be from the community. Some just say “We need more cops of color!” [Children’s and Youth
Advocacy Day]. Others say that police
must be required to live in the community.
A youthworker says “Local police.
They have to live in the neighborhood.
That would help us because we get a lot of police brutality where the
kids get beat up a lot by the police here.”
Youth at Children’s and Youth Advocacy Day
presented two police problems that need to be addressed. First the police “assume that everyone with
a beeper is a drug dealer” and second, people “have to wait hours for police to
answer our calls”. It seems that the
police have their own priorities and interpretations of public safety that do
not match the expectations of the people in the communities they “serve”.
Youth Vote 1994 asked youth what the
mission of the Youth Guidance Center (the local facility for detention of youth
who have committed crimes) should be.
Sixty nine percent of youth said it should be rehabilitation rather than
punishment. At some schools 93% of
students voted for rehabilitation.
Youthworkers are also interested in the development of alternatives to
incarceration, particularly education programs.[4]
Youth
themselves are providing a solution to gangs through the truce movement. Youth
say “We started this mess, now we got to clean it up.” Some of the
organizations are involved in entrepreneurship development programs.
Unfortunately, many adults are not in support.
Police officers take credit for reductions in violence that accompany
gang truces. Chicago’s “major media,
municipal officials and the police department have all criticized the gang
peace summit as a scam designed to give credibility to what is essentially a
criminal enterprise.” [Muwakkil 1993] Youthworkers, policymakers, social
service agencies, adults, and youth need to support the gang truces in every
possible way.
The
policy implications of this research support the conclusions of many other
researchers and authors. Racism is an
incredibly destructive force that looms large in youths’ lives,
institutionalized and condoned by schools, police forces, courts, and our
national and local economies. Dignified
employment opportunities may be the single most powerful policy that could be
brought to bear on the situation of youth of color. AIDS education in schools is essential. Schools must teach the histories of people of color and hire
teachers of color. Youth need safe
places and activities in their communities at all hours. Police must live in the communities they
patrol. Criminal justice must be
focused on developing the people in its care.
Gang prevention should follow the lead of gang members’ own approach to
peace. This study of youth political
texts shows that with some support young people of color can make and present
policy analyses and proposals to address the urgent issues in their
communities.
The
federal 1994 AmeriCorps funding gave no grants to organizations “to organize
politically, or assault more intractable social ills.” Applicants had to argue that the service
would produce “direct and demonstrable results.” Even staff of AmeriCorps are torn between solving individual
problems and working for institutional change. A staff member tells the parable
of saving babies from the river and eventually going upstream to find out why
there are babies in the river. Nobody
would want to let the babies drown in favor of searching out the cause. But ut’s one thing to catch the babies while
wading upstream to the source. It’s
another thing for youth-serving organizations to put an incredible amount of
energy into competing with one another for funding for their baby-catching
technology while leaving the political challenges unmade. “It’s not just the
deaths that we need to be concerned about, it’s the loss of outrage.” [John
Calhoun, Exec Dir of Youth as Resources, in Children’s Express 1994: 34]
Yakini
Ajanaku, a Boston youthworker, explains that programs must understand their
challenge as more than just enabling youth to survive the environment and
resist the temptation of the streets: “Making it…only means that they got into
the system. The tragedy about the [ones
who do is] they aren’t equipped to come back out and help the other five.”
Ajanaku’s idea is that individual development must be defined as developing the
ability to contribute to the community’s struggle for transformative change.
The
Black Panthers and the Young Lords spent the morning providing breakfast for
children and the rest of the day in militant activities confronting racist and
classist structures. Meeting needs and
struggling for political change were seen as equally urgent by these community
development organizations. Organizations
that support youth in producing political texts provide meaningful activity in
a safe place that develops their political skills, attempting to prepare young
people to change the things that need to be changed.
Apter, Steven J. and Arnold P. Goldstein. 1986. Youth Violence: Programs & Prospects.
New York: Pergamon
Checkoway, Barry and Janet Finn. 1992. Young People as
Community Builders. 1992: Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Study of Youth
Policy, School of Social Work, University of Michigan.
Children’s Express.
1994. National Hearings on
Violence in the Child’s Life: At Home,
at School & on the Streets, October 25-27, 1993”, Susan Goodwillie,
ed. Washington DC: Children’s Express Foundation, Inc.
Coles, Robert. 1986. The
Political Life of Children. Boston:
Atlantic Monthly Press.
Dawsey, Darrell. 1995. Living
to tell About it: Young Black Men in America Speak their Piece. New York:
Anchor.
Day, Jane. 1994. Changing
Lives: Voices from a School that Works.
Lanham MD: University Press of
America.
Delpit, Lisa. 1995. Other
People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: New Press.
Donaldson, Greg. 1993. The
Ville: Cops and Kids in Urban America. New York: Anchor.
Elliott, D. S. 1994 “Serious Violent Offenders: Onset, Developmental Course, and Termination
— The American Society of Criminology 1993 Presidential Address” Criminology, 32.1.
Goldsmith, Suzanne. 1995 “Americorps: The Story Waiting to be Told”. Who Cares:
Journal of Service and Action [Washington DC]. Spring 1995: 16-22.
Hernandez, Arturo. 1995. Peace
in the Streets. Midvale UT:
Northwest Publishing Co.
Jankowski, Martín Sánchez. 1991. Islands in the Street: Gangs
and American Urban Society.
Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Katz, Jesse. 1994. “Crips and Bloods Factions Prepare Ground
for Widespread Gang Truce” Los Angeles
Times, May 19, 1994: B1, B3.
Kegeles, Susan, Thomas Coates, Robert Hays. 1991.
“Understanding the high rates of HIV risk-taking among young gay and bisexual
men: The Young Men’s Survey”, paper
presented at the VII International Conference on AIDS, Florence Italy. This knowledge has been known and used by
gay men in materials and workshops since 1981.
Kotlowitz, Alex. 1991. There
Are No Children Here: The Story of Two
Boys Growing up in the Other America. New York: Doubleday.
Kozol, Jonathan. 1991. Savage
Inequalities: Children in America’s
Schools. New York: HarperPerennial.
Kozol, Jonathan. 1995. Amazing
Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation. New York: Crown.
Lewis, Gregory. 1994. “Gang veteran’s new aim: Showing Teens Tragedy of Guns” San Francisco Examiner, Sunday August
21, 1994: C1, C5.
Marshall, Joe. 1996. Street
Soldier. New York: Delacorte.
Moore, Joan W. 1991. Going
Down to the Barrio: Homeboys and
Homegirls in Change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Muńoz, Carlos, Jr. 1989. Youth,
Identity, and Power : The Chicano Movement.
London: Verso.
Muwakkil, Salim. 1993. “Ganging Together” In These Times, April 5: 14-18.
Muwakkil, Salim. 1993. “Increase the Peace” In These Times, Nov 15: 22-23.
Muwakkil, Salim. 1993.
“Youth Movement: Street gangs take part in street protests” In These Times, Oct 18: 6-7.
Padilla, Felix M. 1991. The
Gang as an American Enterprise. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Rodriguez, Luis J. 1993. Always
Running: La Vida Loca: Gang Days in L.A. Willimantic CT: Curbstone Press.
Rose, Tricia. 1994. Black
Noise: Rap Music and Black Culture in
Contemporary America. Hanover,
NH: Wesleyan University Press.
Sampson, R. J. and J.H. Lamb. 1993. Crime in the Making. Cambridge MA:
Harvard UP.
Sanchez, Marta. 1994. “Latino Students Walk Out” Third
Force, Center for Third World Organizing, Oakland, March/April, 2.1:5-6.
Shenk, Joshua 1994. “National Service: Getting Grants Done” Who Cares?: A Journal of Service and Action, Washington DC, Fall:
10-14.
Sklar, Holly. 1995. Chaos
or Community: Seeking Solutions, Not Scapegoats for Bad Economics. Boston:
South End Press.
Starr, Amory. 1994. It
Takes the Whole Village: Beyond the War on Youth in Urban Communities. unpublished book manuscript.
[1] This approach was developed in response to the insightful
criticism of Michael James and the suggestions of Christina Valdez.
[2] The term ‘teen’ is frequently used by youth policy
organizations. We will use it when
referring to statements made specifically about this group. Otherwise, we will continue to use ‘youth’.
[3] Youth VOICE is a youth policy leadership group associated with
The Entrepreneurial Development Institute.
Their policy proposals were developed from a series of speak outs (at
which no one over the age of 30 could speak) and planning meetings.
[4] the following organizations are advocating for alternative
sentencing: National Center on
Institutions and Alternatives, Alexandria VA, Campaign for an Effective Crime
Policy, Washington DC.