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
 
_______________________________________________