MENU TITLE: Youth Gangs in America. Series: OJJDP Published: March 21, 1997 25 pages 41,000 bytes U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Youth Gangs in America: An Overview of Suppression, Intervention, and Prevention Programs NATIONAL SATELLITE TELECONFERENCE March 21, 1997 A Production of Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention U.S. Department of Justice 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20531 in association with Juvenile Justice Telecommunications Assistance Project Eastern Kentucky University Training Resource Center 301 Perkins Building Richmond, KY 40475-3127 Michael A. Jones, Project Director Juvenile Justice Telecommunications Assistance Project 606-622-6671 ------------------------------ OJJDP National Satellite Teleconference Youth Gangs in America: An Overview of Suppression, Intervention, and Prevention Programs TABLE OF CONTENTS Broadcast Objectives Agenda Youth Gangs in America: The Problem Programs: o Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) o Fort Worth's Comin' Up Program o Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project Program Panelists Resources Telephone Protocol Previous OJJDP Teleconferences Evaluation Form ---------------------------------------- BROADCAST OBJECTIVES This satellite teleconference is designed to: o Share promising program strategies related to gangs. o Promote OJJDP's initiatives. o Provide an opportunity for viewers to interact with experts and local project directors. ------------------------------ YOUTH GANGS IN AMERICA OJJDP National Satellite Teleconference AGENDA March 21, 1997 Broadcast Time 1:30 p.m. (ET) 12:30 p.m. (CT) 11:30 a.m. (MT) 10:30 a.m. (PT) The following information is presented in this order: Activity Approximate Duration Timetable (ET) Preteleconference Activities (conducted by local facilitator) 30 minutes 1:00 - 1:30 Preteleconference activities should include familiarization with site surroundings, introduction of other participants, an introduction and program overview provided by the site facilitator, and a review of Participant Packet materials. 1. Test Slate 30 min. 1:00 - 1:30 2. Teleconference Begins -- 1:30 3. Youth Gangs in America: An Overview 5 min. 1:30 - 1:35 4. Opening Remarks 4 min. 1:35 - 1:39 5. GREAT Program Introduction 1 min. 1:39 - 1:40 6. GREAT Program 12 min 1:40 - 1:52 7. Discussion/Call In 20 min 1:52 - 2:12 8. Comin' Up Program Introduction 1 min. 2:12 - 2:13 9. Comin' Up Program, Fort Worth, Texas 12 min. 2:13 -2:25 10. Discussion/Call In 20 min 2:25 - 2:45 11. Break 10 min. 2:45 - 2:55 12. Little Village Program Introduction 1 min. 2:55 - 2:56 13. Little Village Program, Chicago, Illinois 12 min. 2:56 - 3:08 14. Discussion/Call In 20 min 3:08- 3:28 15. OJJDP Upcoming Events 1 min. 3:28- 3:29 16. Closing Credits 1 min. 3:29 - 3:30 17. Teleconference Ends -- 3:30 18. Postteleconference Call-In 30 min. 3:30 - 4:00 Postteleconference discussion should focus on key issues discussed in the program. ------------------------------ YOUTH GANGS IN AMERICA: An Overview of Suppression, Intervention, and Prevention During the past two decades, the United States has seen the problems of youth gangs grow at an alarming rate. Since 1980, the number of cities with youth gang problems has increased from an estimated 286 with more than 2,000 gangs and nearly 100,000 gang members (Miller, 1982) to about 2,000 cities with more than 25,000 gangs and 650,000 members in 1995 (National Youth Gang Center, 1996). Youth gangs are present and active in nearly every State including Alaska and Hawaii and in Puerto Rico and other territories. Few large cities are gang free, and many cities and towns with populations under 25,000 are reporting gang problems. Thus, the problems of youth gangs are affecting new localities such as small towns and rural areas. The problem of youth gangs is not new to the United States. Research literature indicates that youth gangs have probably been in existence in various forms for more than 200 years. Studies also show that many of the reasons that youth gangs first evolved are very similar to what perpetuates gangs today and what makes gang life attractive to new recruits. Reasons for becoming a gang member include difficulties in social and cultural adjustment due to migration and population shifts; enhancement of prestige or status among friends (Baccaglini, 1993); the feeling of power and a sense of security and protection; the development of social relationships and a sense of identity (Vigil & Long, 1990); and the attractive opportunities for excitement, selling drugs, and making money (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996). In 1995, the National Youth Gang Center conducted surveys of more than 4,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States. Of those responding, 58% reported youth gang problems in their jurisdiction, using their own definitions (Moore, 1996). Assessing the entire scope of the problem has been difficult. There is no formal consensus of what characteristics exactly constitute a _youth gang._ Definitions vary from one jurisdiction to the next; nevertheless, youth gangs are commonly thought of as having the following characteristics; a gang name and recognizable symbols, a geographic territory, a regular meeting pattern, and an organized and continuous course of criminality (Chicago Police Department, 1992). According to a national law enforcement study conducted by G.D. Curry in 1996 for the National Youth Gang Center, the ethnicity of gang members is estimated as 48% African-American, 43% Hispanic, 5% Caucasian, and 4% Asian. Researchers point out that even despite the high percentage of minority group members, African-American and Hispanics have no special predisposition to gang membership. Rather, they are simply overrepresented in areas most likely to lead to gang activity (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993). Patterns of criminality and gang-related activities also vary with ethnicity. African- American gangs are relatively more involved in drug trafficking; Hispanic gangs, in turf-related violence; Asian and Caucasian gangs in property crimes (Spergel, 1990). In recent years, the age range of youth gang members has also expanded. The ages range from 12-21 with the numbers of members increasing on the upper and lower ends. A relationship between youth gangs, violence and criminal activity clearly exists. Gang members commit serious and violent offenses at a rate several times higher than non-gang youth. Even those members who do not have delinquency records have higher adjusted frequencies of hidden delinquency than do non-gang youth with delinquent records. Although the problem itself is not new, the rapid growth of youth gangs in recent years and the violence associated with membership is cause for great concern. So what alternatives do professionals and community members have to deal with the youth gang problem? Over the past several decades, many different strategies and combinations of strategies have been designed and implemented in an effort to prevent and or control the youth gang problems. Due to the lack of rigorous scientific evaluations, we cannot say with certainty which strategy or what combination of strategies has been most effective. Among the strategies utilized to date are general prevention activities, including recreation, community mobilization, advocacy, and intervention, including traditional outreach or street work, which has attempted to redirect gang youth to more prosocial lifestyles and activities. With the decline of youth outreach or street work and other intervention efforts in the late 1970_s and thereafter, a dominant police suppression approach developed. Vigorous law enforcement became a key strategy to protect local communities. The goal was to arrest, effectively prosecute, and remove gang members from society through long prison sentences. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) embarked on a long term research and development effort known as the National Youth Gang Suppression and Intervention Program. In addition to a literature review and analysis of dominant youth gang and related theory, this program was designed to gather information from the criminal and juvenile justice field, regarding the most _effective_ responses to the youth gang problem being utilized by many different types of agencies and organizations. This information, together with the literature review and the theoretical analysis, was used to create a comprehensive program model to assist communities in dealing with the gang violence problems through intervention and suppression efforts that pick up where prevention leaves off. The program found that although more conclusive evaluations of gang prevention, intervention, and suppression strategies are still needed, the following principles and strategies appear to be associated with sustained reduction of gang problems: Community leaders must recognize the presence of gangs and seek to understand the nature and extent of the local gang problem, including prevention, intervention, and suppression. Those in principal roles must develop a consensus on definitions (e.g., gang, gang incident); specific targets of agency and interagency efforts; and interrelated strategies - based on a problem assessment, not assumptions. The combined leadership of the justice system and the community must focus on the mobilization of institutional and community resources to address gang problems. Under these guiding principles, the following coordinated strategies should be utilized: o Community mobilization (including citizens, youth, community groups, and agencies) o Social and economic opportunities including special school, training, and job programs. These are especially critical for older gang members who are not in school, but may be ready to leave the gang or decrease participation in criminal gang activity for many reasons, including maturation and the need to provide for family. o Social intervention (especially youth outreach and work with street gangs directed toward mainstreaming youth). o Gang suppression (formal and informal social control of the justice system, community agencies and groups). Community-based agencies and local groups must collaborate with juvenile and criminal justice agencies in surveillance and sharing of information under conditions that protect the community and the civil liberties of youth. o Organization development (the appropriate organization and integration of the above strategies). OJJDP is currently in the process of implementing and testing in five sites the model developed through the research and development process. The sites are: Mesa, Arizona; Tucson, Arizona; Riverside, California; Bloomington, Illinois; and San Antonio, Texas. As described above, the model requires the mobilization of the community to address gang-related violence by making available social intervention, providing social/academic/vocational and other types of opportunities, support gang suppression through law enforcement, prosecution and other community control mechanisms, and by supporting organizational change and development in community agencies to more adequately address gang violence prone youth. Although a variety of strategies and program elements are possible, the intermediate goal is suppression and intervention with the ultimate goal of reducing the youth gang violence problem. The model is based in part on the premise that policies of deterrence, prevention, or rehabilitation in and of themselves are insufficient to confront the youth gang problem. Operational strategies and methods of carrying them out must be systematically integrated. In the first year of the project, the demonstration sites began an ongoing problem assessment process to identify the full nature and extent of the gang problems in the community as well as its potential causes. The assessment process also helps communities to understand what may cause gang violence in their community and to identify benchmarks by which program success can be measured. These demonstration sites participated in various training and technical assistance activities including two cluster conferences sponsored by OJJDP. In addition, the demonstration sites began planning for strategy development and service provision and made progress towards full community mobilization. In some cases, communities built upon existing planning structures or bodies for mobilization and planning purposes as opposed to creating new structures. In year two, the demonstration sites are continuing implementation of the model and building upon the sustained mobilization, planning, and assessment processes. Additionally, the demonstration sites have begun targeting gang violence prone youth and those youth involved in gang violence. Although each community and its youth problem are different, the same model is being implemented in each site _ although slightly adapted to meet specific needs of the community. The experiences of the demonstration sites in this effort will be included in the discussions during this teleconference. In addition to the demonstration sites, the Chicago Police Department has also been implementing and testing this same model in the Little Village neighborhood _ a program featured in this teleconference. Although many different strategies are possible to deal with the youth gang problem, program that incorporate multiple approaches in an integrated and collaborative way have been found to be the most promising. The following sections of this document highlight three promising programs aimed at gang prevention, intervention, and suppression. ----------------------------- GANG RESISTANCE EDUCATION AND TRAINING (G.R.E.A.T.) Background Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program is an innovative school-based prevention program in which uniformed law enforcement officers teach a core curriculum to elementary and middle school students. The curriculum is based on a goal of reducing gang involvement and youth violence by giving students a new philosophical outlook concerning gang activity and the tools needed to resist gang pressure. The curriculum is designed to help youth become responsible members of their communities by setting goals for themselves, resisting pressures, learning how to resolve conflicts, and understanding how gangs impact the quality of their life. G.R.E.A.T. was developed in 1991 by law enforcement agencies in the greater Phoenix area. Currently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), and the Phoenix Police Department coordinate officer training. As of July 1996, more than 2,000 officers from 47 States and the District of Columbia had completed G.R.E.A.T. training. The cumulative number of children who have received the program is more than 2 million (Esbensen & Osgood, 1996). Curriculum Overview G.R.E.A.T. is a program designed to decrease gang violence across our Nation. The curriculum is taught by trained, certified, uniformed police officers to elementary, junior high, and middle school children. G.R.E.A.T. students are provided an opportunity to discover for themselves the ramifications of gang violence through structured exercises and interactive approaches to learning. Included within the G.R.E.A.T. curriculum are many optional and extended activities that reinforce classroom instruction. Both the police officer and teacher work together to reduce gang involvement in the school and the community. Another integral part of the G.R.E.A.T. program is the followup summer project. The summer component is filled with classroom curriculum and extracurricular activities, not only reinforcing the 9-week school program, but providing G.R.E.A.T. students with opportunities for cognitive, social, and self-esteem building opportunities. Middle School Curriculum The core curriculum is the middle school curriculum. The 9 sessions to be taught in 45-minute blocks for 9 consecutive weeks are: Session 1: Introduction Lesson Purpose: To acquaint students with the G.R.E.A.T. program and their officer. Session 2: Crime/Victims and Your Rights Purpose: To familiarize students with concept of crimes, their victims, and their impact on the neighborhood. Session 3: Cultural Sensitivity/Prejudice Purpose: To familiarize students with cultural differences and their impact on the neighborhood. Session 4: Conflict Resolution (A) & (B) Purpose: To create an atmosphere of understanding that would enable all parties to better address problems and work on solutions together. Session 5: Meeting Basic Needs Purpose: To equip students to meet their basic needs rather than joining a gang. Session 6: Drugs/Neighborhoods Purpose: To help students understand the correlation between drugs and their effects on their neighborhood. Session 7: Responsibility Purpose: To help students understand the diverse responsibilities of people within their community. Session 8: Goal Setting Purpose: To help students understand the need for goal setting and how to establish long range goals. The G.R.E.A.T. program has also developed an introductory curriculum for elementary students and an intermediate curriculum for 5th and 6th grade students. Each of these curricula is designed to be taught in 45-minute blocks for 4 consecutive weeks. Summer Component The Summer Recreation Program continues to build on the G.R.E.A.T. school-based program. Goals for the summer component are: o To provide opportunities for youth at risk to enhance life and social skills. o To help make youth at risk aware of alternatives to gang involvement. o To add structure during summer vacation. In addition to a well-rounded and structured curriculum, youth enjoy recreational games, outings, and community service projects. Curriculum Development The G.R.E.A.T. courses were designed by police officers for police officers to teach. Many progressive departments are using School Resource Officers, others are using patrol officers from the neighborhood beats. Both approaches have received favorable feedback. Evaluation With the rapid expansion of G.R.E.A.T., a comprehensive multisite evaluation was funded by the National Institute of Justice in September 1994 to assess the program's effectiveness. The evaluation had two primary objectives: (1) a process evaluation assessing the quality and effectiveness of officer training and (2) an outcome analysis examining short- and long-term effects of the program on students. Two different strategies were developed to determine program effectiveness. First, a cross-sectional study of 11 locales with G.R.E.A.T. programs had questionnaires administered to a sample of 5,935 eighth-grade students in 1995. Recognizing the weaknesses of retrospective, cross-sectional designs, a prospective longitudinal panel design was initiated at six sites selected to represent the geographical and population diversity of the United States. A quasi-experimental research design guided the assignment of classrooms to experimental and control conditions. Both groups of students completed pre- and post-tests during the first half of the 1996-97 school year. The longitudinal design calls from annual questionnaire administrations through fall 1999 to this panel of students (Esbensen & Osgood, 1996). The results from the cross-sectional survey of the 5,935 eighth- grade students suggest that students who participated in the G.R.E.A.T. program reported significantly more "prosocial" behaviors and attitudes than those students who did not participate in the program. This 1 year followup survey supports the notion that trained law enforcement personnel can serve as prevention agents as well as enforcers of the law. One caveat remains. These cross- sectional results need to be viewed with caution. Some differences existed between two groups prior to the introduction of the program. While researchers controlled for most of these differences through available statistical techniques, a quasi-experimental design such as that implemented in the longitudinal phase of this evaluation will provide a better assessment of program effectiveness (Esbensen & Osgood, 1996). For More Information To obtain further information on the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program, please contact the ATF - G.R.E.A.T. Program Branch at 800-726-7070 or 202-565-4560 in Washington, D.C. The fax number if 202-565-4588. For the latest updates concerning the G.R.E.A.T. program, look for the web site on the Internet at http://www.atf.treas.gov/great/great.htm. --------------------------------------- FORT WORTH'S COMIN' UP PROGRAM A Gang Intervention Program Sponsored by the Boys and Girls Clubs of America Background This Gang Intervention Program is one of many gang reduction projects sponsored by the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. It is directed at youth between the ages of 12-21 who are involved in gang activity within the metropolitan area of Fort Worth, Texas. The goals of Comin' Up is to positively impact the lives of youth involved in gangs by providing needs-based services and activities as part of an overall effort to reduce the level of gang violence in Fort Worth. Specific objects and activities include: 1. Identifying gang members in need of this program's services by seeking referrals from the police, schools, juvenile probation, and other relevant agencies and organizations. 2. Providing extended services in eight targeted areas that have attracted and involved 708 gang-involved youth. 3. Identified and targeted 324 gang members for intensive case management and service provision. 4. Assessing the needs and interests of each targeted youth, and develop specific plans of action to meet their needs. 5. Providing needs-focused services and activities (e.g., jobs training and development, academic programming) directly through the project, and through a clearly defined network of available collaborating agencies and organizations. 6. Referring family members to appropriate services, as special needs are identified while working with specific program participants. 7. Establishing relationships and respect between youth from different areas and neighborhoods in the city that would otherwise interact negatively or even violently. 8. Employing 18 program participants to serve as part-time community outreach workers, assist in recruitment, and further access and dialog with gang-involved youth. 9. Supporting the development of truces among rival gangs as issues arise, and reduce random gang violence, through peer mediation and project staff involvement. How It Works Comin' Up program staff collaborate with middle and high school administrators, juvenile courts, adult and juvenile probation and parole, the Fort Worth Police Department, and relevant agencies to assist in identifying youth who need the program. In addition, those gang members who are part-time Outreach Workers also assist in recruiting gang-involved youth. The program budget currently stands at $586,000 with half of the funding coming from Fort Worth Police Department seized assets. Six of the eight sites are located in Fort Worth Parks and City Services Department recreation centers, and two (2) are located in Boys & Girls Clubs. The eight sites provide services to Comin' Up members and visitors after regular programming is finished. Activities Extended services include both interest-based programming (basketball, volleyball, swimming, flag football, table games, art, etc.), and needs-based services include classes on communication sills, jobs training, GED classes, conflict resolution, alcohol/drug abuse education/prevention, parenting, and sex education. As members attend regularly, their specific needs are assessed by the program Coordinators and part-time Youth Development Specialists. An action plan is developed with the member setting his or her own goals, such as attaining a driver's license, FED, job, or personal counseling. If appropriate, a member may be referred to an outside agency that can provide more intensive counseling. Families of Comin' Up members are also eligible for referral to service agencies. These services include, but are not limited to, financial assistance, employment search, transportation, and education. Relationships and respect between youth from different gangs are developed primarily through sports tournaments and field trips. Prior to participation in any tournament or league play, members must attend conflict resolution and anger management classes. They must also agree to behave appropriately and not engage in the use of any activities such as gang signs, dress, or language. Field trips, used as rewards for consistent participation and completion of certain services, include trips to sporting events, river tubing, and recreation parks. Other intersite activities might include participation in a citywide cleanup or graffiti abatement program. Program staff involve acknowledged gang leaders in mediation meetings at neutral sites. In addition, program staff spend time at schools in their areas mediating disputes both on and near campus, and educating teachers and administrators in gang behavior and proper response to reduce violence. The Results The Comin' Up Gang Intervention Program provides a positive and healthy alternative to negative gang behavior. The Program offers a late-night place for fun and educational activities, surrounded by caring, interested staff. Many gang members are completing their high school or GED education, and some are even attending college. The Jobs Training program has assisted several hundred gang members in finding either part-time or full-time employment, all of which has contributed to increased self-esteem and feelings of self-worth. Most important, Fort Worth continues to experience reductions in gang-related violent crime. The Fort Worth Citizens Crime Commission, a non-profit organization charged with the task of examining gang issues to reduce gang violence and analyzing Fort Worth Police Department's crime statistics, reports a 77% reduction in gang-related homicides and a 66% reduction in aggravated sexual assaults from 1995 to 1996. The Comin' Up Program's impact on these reductions must be considered in context with the prevention and enforcement initiatives also underway in the community. For More Information To obtain more information on Fort Worth's Comin' Up Program, contact Joe Cordova, Executive Director, Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Fort Worth, 3218 East Belknap Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76111-4739, or call 817-834-4711. --------------------------------------- THE LITTLE VILLAGE GANG VIOLENCE REDUCTION PROJECT A Comprehensive and Integrated Approach Street gang or youth gang programs and their evaluation require a multifaceted approach. However, such an approach has not generally been used. While numerous theories seek to explain gang phenomena, and several gang program strategies have sometimes been employed simultaneously, research and evaluation have generally been based on one-dimensional approaches. The dominant policy and program strategy at the present time emphasizes law enforcement and suppression, but it and strategies of prevention frequently lack rationale, specificity, and measures of effectiveness with respect to the gangs to be suppressed or the behavior to be prevented. Background The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project employs social disorganization theory (Thrasher, 1927; Bursik and Grasmick, 1993; Spergel, 1995) in interaction with opportunity theory (Cloward and Ohlin, 1960) and theories about the origins of the underclass (Miller, 1958; Wilson, 1987) to account for the development of the youth gang problem. The Project addresses primarily the more serious problem of violence among older hard-core gang youth, mainly 17 to 24, residing in a community of approximately 70,000, based on the 1990 census, that is 90% Mexican and Mexican-American. Little Village is southwest of Chicago's Loop or central business district, in the Chicago Police Department's 10th Police District. The community is not among the poorest in Chicago, although it has one of the highest gang violence prevalence rates. It does not have one of the worst general crime rates in the city. In many respects, it is a thriving community with a wide array of economic, social, cultural, religious, educational, and medical institutions, or ready access to them. The goal of the Gang Violence Reduction Project initiated in July 1992 is the reduction of serious gang-motivated violence, as defined by the Chicago Police Department, especially gang homicide, aggravated battery, and aggravated assault, in six police beats of the 10th Police District, which includes Little Village. The team responsible for implementing the program consists of a unit of police officers, including a part-time sergeant, a part-time Neighborhood Relations officer, and two full-time tactical officers; a unit of Cook County Adult Probation officers, presently made up of a full-time supervisor and 2 full-time probation officers; and a unit of community youth workers comprising a full-time supervisor and the equivalent of three full-time community youth workers. An independent, but closely affiliated community organization, Neighbors Against Gang Violence (NAGV), formed largely through the efforts of the Project, includes representatives of four Catholic and two Protestant churches, two Boys and Girls clubs, a job agency, the alderman's office, and other local organizations and residents. The Gang Violence Reduction Project (GVRP) is sponsored by the Research and Development Division of the Chicago Police Department. Funding is approximately $500,000 per year over a 4-year period and comes from the Federal Violence Reduction in Urban Areas Program through the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (the State Criminal Justice Planning Agency). The Cook County Adult Probation Department and the University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration, subcontract with the Police Department. The Early Warning System, the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, and the Crime Analysis Section of the Chicago Police Department cooperate closely with the Project in providing aggregate and individual-level data about gang incidents, offenders, and victims for Little Village and six other comparison areas. The Project has targeted to date approximately 200 youth identified as "Shooters," "influentials," or gang leaders from the two predominant violent gang constellations in the area - the Latin Kings and Two-Six. These youth are primarily identified and located by community youth workers. The youth receive a range of services and contacts, individual and family counseling, conflict mediation, school and job referral, GED classes, limited job orientation and training, advocacy in court, and some recreational services and referrals to other agencies for other problems or service needs. Police, probation officers, community youth workers, and the workers of NAGV are respectively and interactively available to provide appropriate social support, opportunities, and social controls to these youth, including arrest, violation of probation, visits to youth in prison, and parent and local community wide interagency meetings, and resource development on behalf of the targeted gangs and their members. A key element of the Program is close coordination, especially the sharing of information about the target youth among the various units of the Project and its affiliated community organization, NAGV. The team meets on a weekly or biweekly basis. Workers use beepers and cellular phones to remain in contact with each other. Workers are on duty mainly in the late afternoon and evening, including weekends - often until 1 or 2 in the morning, and later if necessary. Again, it should be emphasized that attention is directed mainly to the most violent youth in each of the two gang constellations. Together these two major gangs have accounted for 75 percent of the heavy gang violence in the area in recent years. Members of the two gangs, 17 to 24 years of age, generally have been responsible for almost 70 percent of gang homicides, aggravated batteries, and aggravated assaults in the community. In the third year of the Project, a group of about 48 "shorties," that is, gang members mainly 14 to 16 years of age, who were involved in shootings, were also targeted or included in the outreach program, receiving the same special interactive attention from the various Project units. Program Evaluation Our preliminary findings indicate the following: 1. Based on official police incident reports of gang homicides, aggravated batteries and aggravated assaults - added together to form an index - Little Village police beats showed the smallest rise in gang violence compared with six other similar high gang violence areas over a 3-year period. Comparing incident rates for the first 3 Project years to a 3-year pre-Project period, there was a 39.6% rise (actually less if the most recent 9-month period is included) in the number of incidents in Little Village compared with an average 72.0% in the other six areas. The area with the next smallest rise showed an increase of 56.2% in this 3-year analysis. 2. Based on police arrest date, Program youth showed a reduction or a leveling off of total crime, including violent crime, in the first 2 years of the Program compared with 2 comparison groups comprised of members of the same gangs arrested with Program youth but not targeted or served. There were statistically significant increases in police arrests for the two comparison groups but not for the Program group. 3. Furthermore, based on self-report data from targeted youth, there was evidence that the Program youth who received coordinated services and contacts from police and community youth workers experienced a greater reduction in gang crimes compared with those who received only contacts and services from one type of Project worker. 4. A survey of community resident and local organizations related to their perceptions of gang crime at different time periods revealed a greater reduction in perceived gang crime between Times I (at the start of the Project) and II (2 years later) in Little Village compared with residents and local organization in Pilsen, an adjacent, almost identical community. At the present time, the plan is to continue the Project with a local organization assuming responsibility for managing the Community Youth Work Unit. The University staff will remain to assist with coordination and to conclude the evaluation. For More Information To obtain more information on the Little Village Project, contact Barbara McDonald, Director of Research and Development, Chicago Police Department, 1121 South State Street, Room 401, Chicago, IL 60605 or call 312-747-6208. ________________________________________________ YOUTH GANGS IN AMERICA OJJDP National Satellite Teleconference PROGRAM PANELISTS Shay Bilchik, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 633 Indiana Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20531; PH: 202-307-5911; Fax: 202-514-6382 Mr. Bilchik was confirmed by the United States Senate as Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1994. Prior to that time, he served as Associate Deputy Attorney General. Mr. Bilchick's career began in the State of Florida where he worked 17 years as a prosecutor. He served as a Chief Assistant State Attorney and as the coordinator of many special programs, including all juvenile operations as the Police-Juvenile Prosecutor Liaison and the School- Juvenile Prosecutor Liaison. Joe Cordova, Executive Director, Boys and Girls Club of Greater Forth, 3218 East Belknap Street, Fort Worth, TX 76111-4739; Phone: 817-834-4711; Fax: 817-222-0911 Mr. Cordova has been Executive Director of the Fort Worth Boys and Girls Club for the past 7 years. He has held previous positions in Waco, Texas, and Farmington, New Mexico. In 1994, he implemented the Comin' Up Program and has received numerous awards for his civic work in the Fort Worth Area. Constance C. Hester, Special Agent, U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 800 K Street, NW, Suite 750, Washington, DC 20001; Phone: 202-565-4560; Fax: 202-565-4588 Agent Hester has been with ATF for 7 years. Prior to joining ATF, Agent Hester was a narcotic agent with a 3-county collaborative law enforcement agency in Georgia. In 1993, she came a certified G.R.E.A.T. instructor, subsequently becoming a G.R.E.A.T. team leader. Since that time, Agent Hester has taught the G.R.E.A.T. curriculum to over 3,000 students. Nola Joyce, Assistant Director, Research and Development, Chicago Police Department, 1121 South State Street, Room 401, Chicago, IL 60605; Phone: 312-747-6208; Fax: 312-747-1989 John Moore, Executive Director, National Youth Gang Center, Institute for Intergovernmental Research, P.O. Box 12729, Tallahassee, FL 32317; Phone: 904-385-0600; Fax: 904-386-5356; E- mail: nygc@iir.com The National Youth Gang Center, funded by OJJDP, assists State and local jurisdictions in the collection, analysis, and exchange of information on gang-related demographics, legislation, literature, research, and promising program strategies. Mr. Moore has been instrumental in coordinating considerable research of gang issues around the United States. Frank Sanchez, Jr., Director, Delinquency Prevention Programs, Boys and Girls Club of America, Atlanta, GA; Phone: 404-815-5763 Mr. Sanchez coordinates a variety of delinquency prevention initiatives for the Boys and Girls Club of America and works closely with programs that directly impact youth gang violence. Herman Warrior, Project Director, Tucson's Comprehensive Community- Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program; Phone: 520-323-1708 Mr. Warrior is currently an Administrator at OUR Town Family Center in Tucson, Arizona, a private, non-profit organization which provides services to high-risk youth and their families. In this capacity, he is the Project Director of Tucson's OJJDP funded gang project. Mindy Shannon Phelps (Moderator) Ms. Phelps is moderating her first OJJDP national satellite teleconference. Her professional experience includes serving as a co-anchor of WLEX-TV's evening news. WLEX is an NBC affiliate located in Lexington, Kentucky. Ms. Phelps has also served as Press Secretary for the Governor's Office in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. --------------------------------------- YOUTH GANGS IN AMERICA OJJDP National Satellite Teleconference RESOURCES Blumstein, Alfred. (1996). Youth Violence, Guns, and Illicit Drug Markets. National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Burch, James and Chemers, Betty. (1997 Forthcoming). A Comprehensive Response to America's Youth Gang Problem: Fact Sheet. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Comprehensive Gang Initiative - Addressing Community Gang Problems: A Model of Problem Solving. (1996). Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. Esbensen, Finne-Aage & Osgood, D. Wayne. (Forthcoming). National Evaluation of G.R.E.A.T. - Research in Brief. National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Finn, Peter & Murphy, Kerry H. (November 1996). Preventing Gang and Drug-Related Witness Intimidation. National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Gang Suppression and Intervention: An Assessment. (1994). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ146494. Gang Suppression and Intervention: Community Models. (1994). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ148202. Gang Suppression and Intervention: Problem and Response. (1994). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ149629. Howell, James C. (Forthcoming). Youth Gangs in the United States: An Overivew. National Youth Gang Center. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Juvenile Gun Violence and Gun Markets in Boston. (1997). National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. 1995 National Youth Gang Survey. (Forthcoming). National Youth Gang Center. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Research Bulletin: Street Gangs and Crime. (September 1996). Report from the Governor's Commission on Gangs. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Agency. Rising Above Gangs and Drugs: How to Start a Communtity Reclamation Porject. (1995). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Spergel, Irving A. (1995). The Youth Gang Problem: A Community Approach. Oxford University Press. Victims of Gang Violence: A New Frontier in Victim Services. (October 1996). Office for Victims of Crime, U.S. Department of Justice. Weisel, Deborah Lamm, et al. (1997). Police Response to Gangs. An NIJ Report. Police Executive Research Forum. Many of the aforementioned publications can be obtained by contacting the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000 . 800-638-8736. TELEPHONE PROTOCOL The telephone is a key component in allowing participants to communicate with the panelists in the television studios. The questions that are asked and comments that are made generally reflect what many others are thinking and provide perspective and depth to the teleconference. We will try to get as many calls on the air as possible. If you call in, please be patient. Our operators may be handling other calls. The following information will assist you. 1. If the phone is in the same room as the TV(s), you should be ready to lower the volume before you go on the air to reduce noisy feedback. 2. Dial the following number to ask a question or make a comment: 1-800-895-4584. 3. When your call is answered, please state your question to the operator briefly and clearly. YOU WILL BE PUT ON HOLD. 4. When you are to be put on the air, another operator will come on the line and ask your home State. She will inform you when you are next on the air and that this would be a good time to turn down the sound on your TV. PLEASE TURN DOWN THE SOUND ON YOUR TV. 5. When you are on the air, please state your name, city and State and ask your question loudly and clearly. 6. After you have finished with your conversation, please hang up. **CELLULAR PHONES** Please do not use cellular phones to place your calls. Cellular phones may produce static interference that may result in your being disconnected. ------------------------------ Prior Satellite Teleconferences Produced by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Conditions of Confinement in Juvenile Corrections and Detention Facilities September 1993 Community Collaboration June 1995 Effective Programs for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders October 1995 Youth-Oriented Community Policing December 1995 Juvenile Boot Camps February 1996 Conflict Resolution for Youth May 1996 Reducing Youth Gun Violence August 1996 Youth Out of the Education Mainstream October 1996 Has the Juvenile Court Outlived Its Usefulness? December 1996 For Further Information For videos of previous OJJDP teleconferences, please contact the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, PO Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000; call 800-638-8736; fax 301-519-5212; or e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org. For information on future OJJDP programs, contact the Juvenile Justice Telecommunications Assistance Project, Eastern Kentucky University, 301 Perkins Building, Richmond, KY 40475-3127; call 606-622-6671; fax 606-622-2333; or e-mail njdadeh@aol.com. ------------------------------ YOUTH GANGS IN AMERICA TELECONFERENCE DATA AND EVALUATION FORM Directions: Please provide the information requested in this questionnaire regarding teleconference evaluation. Part I: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION 1. Gender o Male o Female 2. Age o 20-30 o 31-40 o 41-50 o 51 & above 3. College Degree o None o BA/BS o MA/MS o Doctorate o Other (Describe): 4. Current Position o Upper Management o Mid-Management o Line Staff o Other (Describe): 5. Years in Current Position o 3 or Less o 4-6 o 7-10 o More than 10 6. Years Experience in Youth-Related Programs o 3 or Less o 4-6 o 7-10 o More than 10 PART II: CONFERENCE EVALUATION (Circle the number that best reflects your rating.) Strongly Disagree = 1 Strongly Agree = 5 7. Local Site Facilitation -- The facilitator was knowledgeable and responsive to participants' concerns. o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 8. Participant Materials -- The material complemented the program. o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 9. Viewing Site -- The conference room was comfortable and appropriately arranged for clear viewing and hearing. o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 10. Television Sound -- The televised sound was audible and clear. o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 11. Broadcast Reception -- The television image was sharp. o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 12. Television Visuals -- All visuals were readable and clear (charts, graphics, diagrams, etc.). o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 13. Panelist Effectiveness -- Topic -- The panelists were knowledgeable about the topic. o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 14. Panelist Effectiveness -- Implementation -- The panelists were knowledgeable about program implementation. o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 15. Panelist Effectiveness -- Delivery -- The panelists were clear and effective in presenting their points. o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 16.Presentation of New Ideas -- I acquired new knowledge, information, and ideas. o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 Teleconference Evaluation Form Broadcast Date: June 12, 1997 17. Overall Effectiveness of the Medium (teleconference) -- The teleconference medium was an effective information dissemination tool. o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 18. Comparative Effectiveness of the Medium -- As compared to traditional delivery (speakers, materials), the teleconference was more effective for me as a means of acquiring new knowledge. o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 19. Future Use of Video Teleconference Programming -- Video teleconferences should be used for future training and information dissemination by OJJDP. o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 Part III: ANTICIPATED APPLICATION OF NEW IDEAS, KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION GAINED THROUGH TELECONFERENCE 20. I anticipate being able to apply knowledge gained o Never o Immediately o Within 1-6 months o Within 7-12 months o After at least one year 21. Implementation of new ideas/knowledge in my organization/agency/program depends on o Self only o Supervisor o Head of organization/agency/program o Legislation o Other ( Describe): Part IV: ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY 22. What did you find most beneficial about this teleconference? 23. How could the teleconference have been more productive and worthwhile for you? 24. What topics would you like to see covered in future teleconferences? 25. Additional comments: Please return this evaluation form to your facilitator _______________________________________________