Conclusion

In terms of secondary prevention approaches, some youth are at higher risk of joining gangs. Although social structural conditions associated with gang formation and demographic characteristics attributed to gang members are diverse (and despite the facts stated above), youth gangs are still more likely to be found in socially disorganized or marginalized communities. Secondary prevention strategies should, therefore, focus on communities and youth exposed to these greater risk factors. Community-level gang problem assessments may help guide prevention strategies by identifying areas and groups of youth that are most at risk for gang activity.

Tertiary prevention programs, such as CAP and a variety of gang suppression techniques, have shown little promise. Some detached worker programs produced the unintended consequence of increasing gang cohesion (Klein, 1995). Operation Hammer, CRASH, and similar law enforcement crackdowns have proven to be inefficient suppression approaches to gang activity and are not cost effective.

In conclusion, there is no clear solution to preventing or reducing gang activity, although some promising programs have been identified. As Short (1996:xvii) indicated (italics in original):

Systematic and sustained research is necessary if we are to understand gangs or any aspect of human behavior. A corollary is equally important. If they are to be successful, efforts to prevent, intervene with, or suppress gangs also must be systematic, sustained, and based on local knowledge and on research that is systematic and up to date.

Recent findings from the Seattle study (Battin-Pearson et al., 1997), in which early predictors of gang affiliation were identified, highlight the importance of early primary prevention strategies. Additionally, given results from relatively recent studies of girls in gangs and girls who associate with gang members but are not part of the gang (Deschenes and Esbensen, 1999; Esbensen and Deschenes, 1998; Fleisher, 1998; Miller, 1998), prevention programs may need to consider gender as part of their efforts.

Much of this Bulletin has focused on individual factors. However, prevention efforts that concentrate only on individual characteristics will fail to address the underlying problems. As Short (1997:181-194) states:

Effective interventions at the individual level that seek to control violence thus require that macro-level factors . . . be taken into consideration. . . . Absent change in the macro-level forces associated with these conditions, vulnerable individuals will continue to be produced. It follows that . . . to be effective in reducing overall levels of violent crime, interventions directed primarily at the individual level must address the macro-level as well. . . . A substantial body of research demonstrates . . . that single approaches, whether based on prevention, suppression, coordination of agency programs, community change, or law enforcement, are unlikely to prevent gang formation or to be successful in stopping their criminal behavior.

This overview of gang prevention strategies has sought to highlight the complexity of the youth gang issue, dispel some common stereotypes about youth gangs, and provide a framework within which to develop prevention programs. Clearly, there is no one "magic bullet" program or "best practice" for preventing gang affiliation and gang-associated violence. The youth gang problem is one that will be best addressed through a comprehensive strategy that incorporates primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention approaches. The Comprehensive Gang Model is one example of a multifaceted approach that targets individual youth, peer groups, families, and the community.