This evaluation examined projects funded by the GVS Program between July 1, 1998, and June 30, 2002. During this time, 82 agencies received funding in various funding models and funding cycles. Issues addressed in the evaluation were whether the grant objectives were achieved, whether the program elements worked, whether the grant funds were spent efficiently, whether the targeted problem was addressed, and lessons learned for the benefit of other agencies. The purpose of the GVS Program is to reduce the level of gang violence and divert potentially dangerous gang activity into more positive and constructive behavior. The program funds local projects selected competitively for 3-year cycles. For this evaluation, projects were reviewed for the previously funded 3-year cycle (fiscal year 1998/99-fiscal year 2000/2001) and the first year of the current 3-year cycle (fiscal year 2001/2002-fiscal year 2003/2004). Two models were used to implement the GVS Program during these periods: the multi-component model and the single component model. The purpose of the multi-component model is to develop a comprehensive, coordinated approach for the prevention, intervention, and suppression of violent gang activities in a specific target area. The effort involves law enforcement, prosecution, probation, prevention, and education. The single component model focuses on funding community-based organizations for the prevention component. During the period reviewed, all components of the GVS Program achieved their objectives. The CALGANG system successfully tracked information on gangs and gang members and shared that information with law enforcement agencies across the State. The program implemented strategies and methods proven to be effective by national research. Many of the projects were independently evaluated and found to be effective. The GVS Program used 95 percent of all funds allocated for anti-gang activities. Although the GVS Program is addressing gang problems in 11 communities in the State, the funding available is insufficient to address all of the State's gang problems and is facing severe reductions in the future. Lessons for other agencies include the establishment of broad-based multidisciplinary collaborative teams with representatives from law enforcement, prosecution, probation, community organizations, and schools. They should mount enhanced enforcement efforts that target hardcore gang members, and school safety planning and community mobilization should be conducted. 6 tables, 12 references, and 11 appendices that present relevant State laws, data on gang-related homicides, and evaluation instruments