New group combatting gun violence in Champaign County

New group combatting gun violence in Champaign County

A new group has emerged in the fight against gun violence in Champaign County.

The Champaign County African-American Safety Net has been working since last month to call for an end to the gunfire and to provide opportunities and support for young people that will steer them away from trouble.

Jonte' Rollins is the Social Marketing and Communications Coordinator for the Access Initiative of Champaign County and a Co-coordinator of the new Safety Net group.  She said the group is hoping that the words of respected community leaders will sink in with the young people who are committing the gun crimes.



Rollins also said that this new group is designed to work with and not against other local groups with a similar goal, such as the Champaign Community Coalition and the Champaign Community and Police Partnership.

It you want to get involved with the Champaign County African-American Safety Net, click here.

Sections (2):News, Local
Topics (1):Social Services

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

sweet caroline wrote on July 02, 2013 at 4:07 pm

News flash:  Gangs don't care about social programs aimed at reducing gun violence.  These programs are only preaching to the choir.

whatithink wrote on July 02, 2013 at 6:07 pm

This group must be racist?  How can someone else join if they are not "african-american"?  If a bunch of white people started the "white people against guns", they would be profiled as being racist, so why isn't this group?  Let's be fair here.

spangwurfelt wrote on July 03, 2013 at 6:07 pm

O haha yukyukyuk!

auntsonyas wrote on July 02, 2013 at 6:07 pm

Don't be ignorant, they've simply identified a problem and are trying to solve it. The first line on their website is "EVERYONE, especially African American community members, must commit to protecting our neighborhoods and children." 

personali wrote on July 02, 2013 at 8:07 pm

Really?

sweet caroline wrote on July 02, 2013 at 10:07 pm

Really what? 

Bulldogmojo wrote on July 03, 2013 at 11:07 am

Poverty and crime always go hand in hand. If you have more financial and educational opportunities presented to you in life the less likely you will engage in crime. This has always been the case throughout human history. Not a lot of gangs hanging out in Glencoe.

C-U Townie wrote on July 04, 2013 at 4:07 pm

Where do I start with what's wrong with this picture? I've attended meetings where the African American members of the meetings don't want this to be a race thing. But now a group is saying it IS a race thing. I agree with the other poster who said if a group of white citizens formed an organization it would definitely be deemed racist. On top of which why is there again silos of effort being made? If you already have TWO groups, both who boast a desire to improve police-community relationships why is there now a THIRD group trying to do this? Work with? Then don't create a new group. Access, the coalition, and CCAPP can create their own initiative together.

This is just another way for Access Initiative to say that they are doing something for the community. They don't efficiently serve the families in their system. Leave this work to another group who can try and save the town. Everyone thinks they have the answer. No one wants to collaborate. No one wants to share resources. No one wants to acknowledge that this takes effort from the entire community. And btw, unless they are effectively using resources to address the ENTIRE community then they are just putting a bandaid on the problem. But hey, that's how Access helps their families. No surprise they've applied that approach to another cause. They aren't totally to blame. I can't speak too highly of the coalition. They haven't done jack in the year+ they've been brainstorming how to help the community. 

As these groups pretend to heal the world those who need help continue to fall through the cracks. Can I sign up for an Access meeting where funds are spent on excessive meals? Can I waste an afternoon listening to organization leaders talk about working TOGETHER to help the community? Or maybe attend a meeting that is about helping the public but where the public isn't allowed to hear what's discussed? 

Ya'll are my heroes. 

45solte wrote on July 07, 2013 at 9:07 am

Does Access run on a grant? If so, perhaps the number of years left to draw a salary off of it are dwindling. New non-profit = new grant opportunities=continued paycheck. Many complain of greedy corporate types, but, the non-profit can be considered just another business model (piously pretending otherwise). Repetition of alleged services makes sense for those wanting to line their pockets.


And if these groups want to address social issues, maybe it's time they included the usually excluded fatherhood factor. And don't tell me fathers are absent because they're all in prison, as this would assume they were all being full-time dads and role models for their kids before they ended up in prison (repeatedly). I don't think the statistics bear that out.


 '...so used to hustling money
That I don't understand no 9 to 5 work....'
-Akon


What does some of the research say about protecting against poverty? Finish high school, work full-time, get married before having kids. It's hard work. All of it. And it's the way most people do it. Not everybody living in Glencoe had it handed to them, as one poster implied. Absent fathers = a-ok? because the left has all but destroyed, by design, the nuclear family? There is a legacy cutting across racial, economic, and other social factor lines that suggests anything but a-ok (for kids).


Flame away, as I don't think I can respond back. Near to my 8-article limit.