The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Evaluation of the Tucson Comprehensive 

Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, 

Intervention and Suppression Program 

Author(s): Irving A. Spergel; Kwai Ming Wa; 

Rolando V. Sosa 

Document No.: 209190 

Date Received: May 2005 

Award Number: 97-MU-FX-K014 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to 

traditional paper copies. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
Evaluation of the Tucson Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to 

Gang Prevention, Intervention and Suppression Program 

Irving A. Spergel, Kwai Ming Wa, Rolando Villarreal Sosa 

with 

Elisa Barrios and Annot M. Spergel 

School of Social Service Administration 

The University of Chicago 

969 East 60th Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60637 

October, 2004 

© School of Social Service Administration, The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 

This evaluation was supported by a grant from the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (D.O.S. Agreement # 97-MU-FX-K014-S-4). Points of view are those 

of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the United States Department of 

Justice. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Acknowledgments (Tucson) 

Many thanks to all who helped with the National Evaluation of the Comprehensive, 

Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program in 

Tucson, Arizona. The National Evaluation could not have been completed without the 

cooperation and considerable effort of local community agency leaders, program workers and the 

local evaluator. To the challenge of developing a comprehensive program addressed to the youth 

gang problem was added the burden of assisting in the implementation of a complex evaluation. 

Project-related agency administrators and program staff provided access to program and 

comparison youth for interviews and collected their criminal-justice histories. Program staff 

completed extensive reports on the services and contacts provided to youth. Outreach youth 

workers, police and probation, and the local evaluator were collaborators in the National 

Evaluation, and all Project-related administrators and workers contributed to the advancement of 

knowledge about what can and cannot be done to reduce the youth gang problem. 

Recognition is due to Our Town Family Center staff: Sue Krahe-Eggleson, Executive 

Director; Herman K. Warrior, Program Director and Chairperson of the Steering Committee, 

Karen Pugh, the succeeding Program Director, Val Alexander, Case Manager, and David 

Underwood, Project Community Worker; to Sergeant George Rodriguez, Gang Unit, the Tucson 

Police Department; Doug Newell, Assistant Director, Boys and Girls Club of Tucson; Chris 

Miller, Director of Substance Abuse Services and Cindy Yrum-Calenti, both of La Frontera 

Center; Don Shaw, Director of Juvenile Probation, Pima County Juvenile Court Center; and 

Linda Schloss, Principal of Catalina High School. 

Renee Yank, of The Quail Enterprises, the key Local Evaluator assigned to the Project, is 

owed special thanks. Without her commitment, resourcefulness and persistent efforts, we could 

not have completed various components of the Evaluation. 

Irving A. Spergel and Staff, National Evaluation 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Evaluation of the Tucson Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to 

Gang Prevention, Intervention and Suppression Program 

i


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Gang Research, Evaluation and Technical Assistance (GRETA) Projects 

Staff 

Irving A. Spergel, Principal Investigator 

Candice Kane, Co-Principal Investigator 

Kwai Ming Wa, Assistant Research Director 

Rolando V. Sosa, Senior Research Analyst 

Elisa Barrios, Assistant Projects’ Manager 

Annot M. Spergel, Editorial Coordinator 

ii 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Evaluation of the Tucson Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to 

Gang Prevention, Intervention and Suppression Program 

The University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration 

© 2004 by the University of Chicago 

All rights reserved. 

iii 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table of Contents 

Chapters 

1. Program and Evaluation Background .......................................... 1.1


2. Evaluation Issues and Problems .............................................. 2.1


3. Program and Comparison Areas and the Gang Problem ........................... 3.1


4. Development of the Project ................................................. 4.1


5. Organizations’ Perceptions of Crime and Program Performance Assessments .......... 5.1


6. Research Method: Data Management, Measurement and Analysis ................... 6.1


7. Selected Characteristics of Program and Comparison Youth ........................ 7.1


8. Program Services and Worker Contacts ........................................ 8.1


9. Arrest Outcomes: Program and Comparison Youth ............................... 9.1


10. Aggregate Gang and Community Crime Change ............................... 10.1


11. Executive Summary ..................................................... 11.1


Appendix A – Police Arrest Charges ............................... Appendix A - Page 1


References ........................................................ References - 1


iv 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Illustrations 

Charts 

Chart 1.1 – Comprehensive Gang Program Model ................................. 1.35 

Chart 1.2 – Comprehensive Gang Program: Process Model .......................... 1.36 

Chart 2.1 – Evaluation Model ................ ................................. 2.25 

Tables 

Chapter 3 

Table 3.1 – Selected Demographic Characteristics of the Program and Comparison Areas and the 

City of Tucson ............................................................. 3.11 

Table 3.2 – Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Program and Comparison Areas and 

the City of Tucson .......................................................... 3.12 

Chapter 5 

Table 5.1 – Organization Survey: Mean Ratings of the Seriousness of Gang and Non-Gang 

Crime in Program Area ...................................................... 5.10 

Table 5.2 – Organization Survey: Seriousness of the Gang Problem Experienced by 

Organizations .............................................................. 5.11


Table 5.3 – Organization Survey: Perceptions of the Success of Program Strategies Concerning 

the Gang Problem .......................................................... 5.12 

Table 5.4 – Assessment Summary: Model Performance Indicators: Mean Scores and Rank . 5.14 

Chapter 7 

Table 7.1 – Demographic Characteristics of Youth Samples: Gender .................. 7.11 

Table 7.2 – Demographic Characteristics of Youth Samples: Race/Ethnicity ............ 7.12 

Table 7.3 – Demographic Characteristics of Youth Samples: Age Categories at Program 

Entry ..................................................................... 7.13


v 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 7.4 – Number of Youth Arrested: Prior-to-Pre-Program, Pre-Program and Program 

Periods ................................................................... 7.14 

Table 7.5 – Total Arrest Frequency Category: Pre-Program Period Only ............... 7.15 

Table 7.6 – Arrests by Type of Offense: Comparison and Program Youth: Pre-Program 

Period ................................................................... 7.16 

Table 7.7 – Arrest Patterns of Youth Samples: All Arrest Periods ..................... 7.17


Table 7.8 – Confinement Experience – Youth with Arrests: Pre-Program and/or Program 

Periods ................................................................... 7.18 

Table 7.9 – Gang-Membership Status of Youth: From Time-I Self-Report Data or WorkerTracking Data .............................................................. 7.19 

Table 7.10 – Gang-Membership Status and Gang Activity of Youth: Time-I Interview ..... 7.20 

Table 7.11 – Type of Drug Selling/Drug Use: Youth Interviewed at Time I ............. 7.21 

Chapter 8 

Table 8.1 – Source of Youth Referral to Program: By Year and 6-Month Period .......... 8.19 

Table 8.2 – Selected Demographic Characteristics of Program Youth at Program Entry: 

By Year and 6-Month Period .................................................. 8.20 

Table 8.3 – Dosage of Services and Contacts to Youth .............................. 8.21 

Table 8.4 –Number (Percentage) of Types of Services by 6-month Period for All Youth ... 8.22 

Table 8.5 – Number (Percentage) of Types of Services by Type of Worker .............. 8.23 

Table 8.6a – Number (Percentage) of Types of Services by Gender .................... 8.24 

Table 8.6b – Number (Percentage) of Types of Services by Age Category ............... 8.24 

Table 8.6c – Number (Percentage) of Types Services by Race/Ethnicity ................ 8.25 

Table 8.6d – Number (Percentage) of Types of Services by Gang-Membership Status ..... 8.26 

Table 8.6e – Number (Percentage) of Types of Services by Level of Prior-to-Pre-Program and 

vi 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Program Arrests ............................................................ 8.27


Table 8.6f – Number (Percentage) of Types of Services by Level of Pre-Program 

Confinement ............................................................... 8.28 

Table 8.7a – Number of Direct Contacts per Youth: by Gender and Type of Project Worker 8.29 

Table 8.7b – Number of Direct Contacts per Youth: by Age Category and Type of Project 

Worker ................................................................... 8.29


Table 8.7c – Number of Direct Contacts per Youth: by Race/Ethnicity and Type of Project 

Worker ................................................................... 8.30 

Table 8.7d – Number of Direct Contacts per Youth: by Gang-Membership Status and Type of 

Project Worker ............................................................. 8.30


Table 8.7e – Number of Direct Contacts per Youth: by Level of Prior-to-Pre-Program and PreProgram Arrests and Type of Project Worker ..................................... 8.31 

Table 8.7f – Number of Direct Contacts per Youth: by Level of Pre-Program Confinement and 

Type of Project Worker ...................................................... 8.31


Table 8.8a – Coordinated Contacts: by Type of Worker and Type of Worker Contacted: Total 

Program Period – January 1996 through June 1999 ................................ 8.32 

Table 8.8b – Coordinated Contacts: by Type of Worker and Type of Worker Contacted: First 

Half of Program Period – January 1996 through September 1997 ..................... 8.33 

Table 8.8c – Coordinated Contacts: by Type of Worker and Type of Worker Contacted: Second 

Half of Program Period – October 1997 through June 1999 .......................... 8.34 

Chapter 9 

Table 9.1 – An Analysis of Variance of Change in Yearly Total Arrests ................ 9.19 

Table 9.2 – An Analysis of Variance of Change in Yearly Total Serious Violence Arrests .. 9.22 

Table 9.3 – An Analysis of Variance of Change in Yearly Total Violence Arrests ........ 9.24 

Table 9.4 – An Analysis of Variance of Change in Yearly Total Drug Arrests ............ 9.27 

Table 9.5 – An Analysis of Variance of Change in Yearly Total Property Arrests ......... 9.30 

vii 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 9.6 – An Analysis of Variance of Change in Yearly Total “Other” Arrests ......... 9.33


Chapter 10 

Table 10.1 – Arrest Change Patterns by Type of Arrests (N = 234) .................... 10.9 

Table 10.2 – Youth-Reported Gang Membership Changes: Program Youth (N = 92) and 

Comparison Youth (N = 50) ................................................. 10.10 

Table 10.3 – Youth-Reported Serious Gang Crime in Community: Time I and Time II ... 10.11 

Table 10.4 – Police-Reported Gang Membership Change: Time I and Time III .......... 10.12 

Table 10.5 – Police-Reported Community Gang Crime Change: Program and Comparison Areas: 

Time I and Time III ........................................................ 10.13 

Table 10.6 – City of Tucson Official Crime Counts: Pre-Program Period (1992-1995) and 

Program Period (1996-1999) ................................................. 10.14 

viii 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Chapter 1 

Program and Evaluation Background 

Introduction 

In 1994, in accordance with Sections 281 and 282 of the Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Act of 1974, as amended, the U.S. Department of Justice developed a collaborative 

process to respond to America’s gang problem (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, 1994). OJJDP wanted to implement a comprehensive approach of gang prevention, 

intervention, and suppression through local programs around the country. Five cities – 

Bloomington-Normal (McLean County), Illinois; San Antonio, Texas; Mesa, Arizona; Tucson, 

Arizona; and Riverside, California – were selected and awarded funds for periods of four or five 

years to develop and conduct a series of coordinated efforts to assess the nature and extent of the 

local gang problem, and to plan and implement comprehensive, community-wide programs. 

The comprehensive initiative also provided funding for technical assistance, and for an 

evaluation of the development and impact of these programs. This report of the Tucson Project 

is the fifth of a series of evaluations of the five programs. 

History 

Youth gangs were in existence and had been troublesome for many decades in large 

cities, among them Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, Detroit, 

San Antonio, and Cleveland (Miller, 2001). Youth gang violence, gang-related drug activities, 

and other forms of gang crime became increasingly prevalent in cities and towns of varying sizes, 

1.1


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
and in rural areas as well. Violence was increasingly lethal in several of the larger cities, 

particularly in Los Angeles and Chicago in the late 1980s and throughout much of the 1990s. 

Drive-by shootings claimed the lives of rival gang members as well as those of innocent 

bystanders. Entrepreneurial gang members also became active in the distribution of illegal drugs. 

A range of other types of organized group crimes committed by youth was also prevalent. 

A disturbing trend during the 1980s and 1990s was the emergence (or re-emergence) of 

the gang problem in large- , mid- , and small-sized cities, in suburban areas, small towns, rural 

areas and on Indian reservations, in almost all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the territories. 

However, the specific scope, nature and severity of the gang problem in those jurisdictions were 

not clearly determined. Successful approach(es) for addressing the problem were not evident, at 

least based on “hard” data. 

In an early national survey of law-enforcement agencies, officials in 91% of the 79 largest 

U.S. cities reported the presence of youth gang problems (Curry, Fox, Ball and Stone, 1992). It 

conservatively estimated that during 1991 there were 4,881 gangs, with nearly 250,000 gang 

members. An estimated 780,200 gang members were active in 28,700 youth gangs in 1998. This 

was a decrease from 1997's figures of 816,000 gang members and 30,500 gangs (National Youth 

Gang Center, November, 2000). In 1996, 1997, and 1998, Curry, Maxson, and Howell 

examined gang homicide trends in 1,216 cities with populations greater than 25,000. A total of 

237 cities reported both a gang problem and at least one gang-related homicide for each of these 

years. However, relatively few of the cities, excepting Los Angeles and Chicago, reported large 

numbers of gang homicides (Curry, Maxson and Howell, 2001). 

The characteristics of the gang problem – including such terms as gang, gang member, 

1.2 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
and gang incident – have not been clearly or consensually defined. A street gang or youth gang, 

for program and policy-development purposes, may be differentiated from adult crime gangs, 

prison gangs, motorcycle gangs, drug gangs, tagger groups, racist and terrorist groups, or even 

minor delinquent groups. Nevertheless, categories of gangs, crime organizations, threat or 

delinquent groups can be connected. What generally distinguishes the youth gang are group 

symbolism and cohesion, identification with turf, a commitment to violence and (increasingly) 

drug use and drug selling, and a range of both minor and serious delinquent activity. 

Most active youth-gang members are between the ages of 12 and 20, sometimes younger 

or older. While gangs comprise mainly males, females increasingly are identified as gang 

members, often in separate cliques or groups. Female gang members tend to be less violent than 

males, less chronically delinquent, and less committed to the gang. Youth in the same gang may 

engage in variable patterns of delinquent behavior, and usually have different statuses in, and 

degrees of attachment to, the gang, which vary over time. Gang youth, as identified in police 

data, generally come from low-income, minority, disrupted or problem families from particular, 

often racially/ethnically-segregated neighborhoods. The definition of a gang, a gang member and 

a gang incident may vary from state to state, or city to city, and may depend on: 1) whether the 

youth has been identified as a member of a defined criminal gang, or associates with gang 

members and/or is on a police gang-membership or gang-associate list; or 2) gang-motivated 

incident criteria, i.e., the youth has been involved in an a delinquent or criminal event involving 

certain distinctive gang characteristics, such as drive-by shooting, intimidation, retaliation, use of 

symbols, signs, public disturbances and graffiti (Klein, 1995; Spergel, 1995). The definitions 

incorporated in state law often become a basis for increased law-enforcement activity and more 

1.3


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
severe justice-system processing. The gang-membership definition generally results in 

identification of larger numbers of youth as gang members than does the gang-motivational 

definition (Maxson and Klein, 1990). 

Some progress has been made in describing and explaining the gang problem. We know 

little about why gang problems arise and develop in some cities and not in other, apparently 

similar cities. Very little progress has been made in learning or demonstrating how to deal with 

the problem successfully. In recent decades, law enforcement has been the dominant agency 

attempting to control or resolve the problem, which nevertheless continues to develop and spread 

in sometimes cyclical, seemingly unpredictable ways. Increasingly, policy makers, program 

operators, and researchers have concluded that the youth-gang problem is highly complex, and 

that therefore a better-informed and coordinated effort is required from key community and 

public-agency groups to correctly identify and target problem gangs and gang youth, and then to 

develop an appropriately interrelated approach to successfully address the problem. It is possible 

that more systematically addressing the gang problem, and carefully researching program process 

and effect, will also provide improved knowledge about the nature and scope of the problem. 

Preliminary Efforts 

In 1987, OJJDP funded The Juvenile Gang Suppression and Intervention Program, a 

research and development initiative to investigate and describe conditions that perpetuate the 

youth-gang problem, and to develop a model for local community efforts to reduce it. Literature 

reviews, national surveys, site visits, conferences, reports, intervention and technical assistance 

models were produced (Spergel and Chance, 1992). The reports of that R & D program 

1.4


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
concluded that the gang problem varied somewhat from community to community, but that it 

was a result of a combination of interactive factors: poverty, rapid population movement, racism, 

segregation and social isolation of minority groups, weak family structure, adolescent youth in 

crisis, the development of youth-gang subcultures, and, in particular, community disorganization, 

or fragmentation of levels and types of community efforts to address the problem (Spergel, 

1995). 

A model approach was developed based on the notion that local institutions had to better 

coordinate their efforts and target particular community sectors and unsatisfactory organizational 

arrangements, as well as particular gangs, gang members and youth highly at risk of gang 

involvement (Ibid, 1995). In 1994, OJJDP solicited applications for, and subsequently launched, 

the five-site demonstration and test of the Comprehensive, Community-Wide Approach to Gang 

Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program (the “Comprehensive Gang Program”). A 

comprehensive evaluation, training and technical-assistance effort, and the creation of a national 

advisory board were to be closely related to the set of demonstration programs (Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1994). 

Theory 

The Comprehensive Gang Program Model derives from Community Social 

Disorganization theory and, to some extent, from theories such as Differential Association, 

Opportunity, Anomie, Social Control and Community Organization. The community-based 

program model builds on the ideas and research of Battin-Pearson, Thornberry, Hawkins and 

Krohn (1998), Bursik and Grasmick (1993), Cloward and Ohlin (1960), Cohen (1980), Curry and 

1.5


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Spergel (1988), Haynie (2001), Hirschi (1969), Klein (1971, 1995), Kobrin (1951), Kornhauser 

(1978), Markowitz, Bellair, Liska and Liu (2001), Merton (1957), Morenoff, Sampson and 

Raudenbush (2001), Sampson (1991), Sampson and Groves (1989), Sampson and Laub (1993), 

Shaw and McKay (1972), Spergel (1995), Sullivan and Miller (1999), Sutherland and Cressey 

(1978), Suttles (1968), Thrasher (1927), Veysey and Messner (1999) and Zatz (1987). 

Gang-problem communities (or segments of communities) are viewed as comprising two 

overlapping types – chronic and emerging. The first is characterized by an established, 

marginalized population and a long-term, serious gang problem. The second is characterized by 

a recently-arrived, less-marginalized population and a less serious gang problem. Scope, 

duration, and severity of both adult and juvenile crime, including gang crime, tend to be greater 

in the chronic than in the emerging gang-crime communities or their segments. Turf-based gang 

violence and drug-crime markets, although not always closely related, seem to be more prevalent 

in chronic gang-problem communities; a range of minor offenses, less serious violence and 

increasing drug-crime activities seem to be more prevalent in emerging gang-problem 

communities. The nature of the gang problem and the response to it are also based on state, city 

or community perceptions of the problem and their level of concern, as well as on the nature of 

organizational and political interests in addressing the problem. 

Organized crime and youth-gang crime are often better developed and interrelated – and 

integrated across local communities and the city – in chronic than in emerging gang-problem 

communities. Local conventional institutions may or may not be weaker in emerging gang-crime 

communities, but they are better integrated with conventional institutions of the city or the larger 

community. Fear and moral panic may lead to a special defense against and control of 

1.6


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
newcomer, low-income, minority populations in emerging gang-crime communities (Cohen, 

1980; Zatz, 1987). Levels of victimization due to violence are still lower in emerging gangcrime communities, but higher in chronic gang-crime communities. 

Socialization of youth to the gang in the chronic gang-problem community is more likely 

to occur because of the presence of established criminal organizations, weak or conflicted 

policies of conventional agency systems, extensive alienation of low-income, minority 

populations and lack of social opportunities (Venkatesh, 1999). Youths’ access to illegitimate 

opportunities and organized gangs may not be as well-developed in the emerging gang-problem 

community, where legitimate opportunities may be relatively more available, and pressures 

against illegitimate behaviors may be greater (Cloward and Ohlin, 1960). 

Social-intervention and suppression strategies are poorly integrated in chronic gangproblem communities. The police pay more attention to serious gang crime, while social 

agencies and grassroots organizations are mainly interested in youth who are at risk and not 

necessarily those who are gang-involved or committing crimes. Suppression and intervention 

strategies are carried out in a manner unrelated to each other in local community contexts. In 

emerging and chronic gang-problem communities, social intervention and suppression strategies 

are somewhat better-integrated when targeted to youth committing less-serious gang offenses. In 

both chronic and emerging gang-problem communities, the schools, the justice system and 

social-service agencies often seem to overreact to or deny the presence of low-income, minority 

youth who are gang-member offenders. 

In the chronic gang-problem community, particularly for those youth committed to the 

gang lifestyle, greater responsibility may be necessary at the city or county level for mobilizing 

1.7


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
and changing local and area-wide entrenched institutions, coordinating strategies and efforts, and 

developing and extending resources to control and reduce serious gang problems. In the 

emerging gang-problem community, particularly for youth at risk and those less committed to the 

gang lifestyle, greater capacity may be available at the local neighborhood or community level 

for mobilizing and integrating less-well-developed local institutions, focusing on the 

coordination of prevention and social-intervention strategies addressed to less-serious gang 

problems. However, chronic and emerging gang-problem sectors of a community or region may 

overlap and interact, and therefore variable strategies, targets, and institutional arrangements may 

be required over time. 

The Comprehensive Gang Program Model 

The OJJDP Comprehensive, Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, 

Intervention, and Suppression Program Model consists of three sets of interrelated components: 

program elements, strategies, and implementation principles, all directed to the nature and scope 

of the gang problem and related demographic, socioeconomic, organizational and other local 

community factors (Chart 1.1). Coordinated policies, programs, and worker efforts have to take 

place at individual-youth, organization, and community levels. Ideally, all components of the 

Model have to be present, and developed effectively in order for a substantial reduction of the 

gang problem to occur. 

Program Elements 

A series of program structures and processes are necessary to implement the Model, 

1.8


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
which require a steering committee, lead-agency management, an interagency street team 

(including youth outreach workers), grassroots involvement, social services, criminal-justice 

participation, school participation, and employment and training. 

The Steering Committee has to engage the leadership of the community – including the 

mayor’s office, city council, police and probation departments, other public agencies, local 

schools and grassroots and community-based organizations – in a comprehensive effort 

consisting of gang-problem assessment and analysis, policy planning, strategy development, 

acquisition of resources, pilot-program implementation and refinement, and implementation of 

the Model. The adaptation of the Comprehensive Gang Program Model requires local 

government support, justice-agency (preferably police) leadership, criminal-justice-system 

coordination and modification of policy, as well as front-line collaborative involvement of 

community-based youth agencies, schools, businesses and employment sources, local grassroots 

groups (particularly churches and neighborhood groups), and even of former gang members 

themselves. The Steering Committee has to bring key community leaders together in a cohesive 

structure, with the encouragement and support of the mayor, city council or city administrator to 

guide the general development of the Gang Program and its approach, one which will both 

protect the community and target delinquent gang-involved and highly-at-risk youth for purposes 

of social development and suppression. 

Lead-Agency Management. A lead agency has to be selected to develop, manage and 

coordinate the various elements of the Comprehensive Gang Program Model. Such an 

organization must have a background of work with gang-involved or highly at-risk gang youth, 

and a broad understanding of their needs and problems. It should have the capacity to mobilize 

1.9


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
its own agency resources as well as those of other agencies and non-profit organizations to enlist 

grassroots support, and develop additional resources to sustain the Program. A police 

department (preferably), but possibly a public school system, community mental-health agency, 

probation department, or a special youth authority may be positioned to undertake leadership 

and/or responsibility for interorganizational and program development. Much depends on the 

lead agency’s commitment to the approach – consisting of outreach and broad, well-balanced 

social services and community participation as well as suppression/social control targeted to 

highly at-risk and delinquent gang youth. 

A special requirement is that the lead agency have not only sufficient management 

capability, but interest and experience in dealing with the gang problem, as well as an 

understanding of and genuine commitment to the comprehensive, community-wide gangprogram approach. The normal bureaucratic impulse to acquire and use resources to meet 

established organizational interests and services-provision must be restrained. It is inappropriate 

for an agency or a consortium of agencies to “buy into the approach,” and simply to “split the 

pie,” so that they continue to do what has usually been done, only now with additional resources. 

The lead agency must be truly committed to a different institutional and community-participatory 

approach, which ensures that appropriate policy and practices are developed to truly implement 

the Model. 

The Interagency Street Team should comprise direct-service personnel (especially police, 

probation, outreach youth workers and case managers, as well as school officials and community 

organizers) who will continually interact with each other in regard to ongoing assessment of 

youth and gang situations, service and activity planning and collaboration, and contacting gang1.10


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
involved and/or highly-at-risk youth and their families. The team and their agencies must 

address specific neighborhood contexts and situations that influence the behavior of targeted 

gang youth. The outreach or street team is the direct-service component of the Gang Program. 

Its members are in communication with local groups and neighborhood residents, and it operates 

during day-time as well as evening and late night hours, on weekends, and during crisis times. 

The outreach youth worker has an especially important role to play. He may be a former 

influential gang member from the neighborhood, now with a conventional work record and fully 

identified with the norms and values of legitimate society, yet still sensitive to the current needs 

and problems of the local youth-gang sub-society and culture. He should be someone who is 

“streetwise” and able to relate comfortably to the targeted youth. His knowledge is essential to 

the assessment of the nature of youth-gang problem situations, and the facilitation of the outreach 

efforts of the rest of the staff. Qualified and trained outreach youth workers – in collaboration 

with other team members – can provide appropriate access to youth-gang members and their 

families, help define the gang problem, and serve as mediators between the gang, the family, and 

established local community and institutional sectors. While the use of outreach youth workers 

has inherent risks, the benefits to program outcome outweigh these risks. 

Grassroots Involvement. Key parts of the community that must be involved in the 

Comprehensive Gang-Program approach are: 1) established agencies such as police, schools, 

key governmental organizations, and other local agencies concerned with the interests of the 

local and larger community; and 2) the grassroots community, comprising family, neighborhood 

groups, block clubs, political associations, citizen groups, churches, and other organizations 

whose members tend to live and interact more often with local citizens, including gang youth in 

1.11


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
the area. 

Established social and criminal-justice agencies often set key program policies (affecting 

the lives of the residents) which are primarily based on the values and interests of the middleclass community or the city at large, and often control access to opportunities for education and 

jobs. Grassroots organizations tend to focus on social support, social control, crisis intervention 

and socialization issues more directly related to the expressed needs of the local (usually lowerincome) minority population. Neighborhood groups may also be weak, ephemeral, and in 

conflict with each other over limited resources. 

Communication and interaction between the various parts of the community in respect to 

the gang problem are often characterized by ambivalence, avoidance or antagonism as certain 

problems or issues are denied, exaggerated, and become a source of conflict. A gang-problem 

community is usually characterized not only by a lack of resources, but also by a lack of 

sufficient interdependence and cooperation between certain established agencies and grassroots 

organizations. Grassroots elements must collaborate with each other (as well as with established 

agencies), participate in determining the direction of the program, and assist in the operation of 

the program street team. 

Social Services. A variety of social-service activities have to be provided to ganginvolved program youth and their families, including any younger siblings who may be at high 

risk of gang membership and delinquent behavior. Targeted program youth often require crisis 

intervention and referral, and/or direct help with school, employment, and drug-use problems, as 

well as with gang-related controls and personal-development issues. Social services should also 

be provided to targeted youth (and to some degree their families) who may need assistance with 

1.12


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
housing, public aid, health care, family dysfunction and conflict-resolution, immigration, racism, 

and other problems which directly affect gang youth or may be conducive to their gang behavior. 

The street team provides front-line, initial and often sustaining services to gang-involved 

and gang-at-risk youth, especially the difficult task of referring and sustaining gang youth in 

mental-health and specialized drug or treatment services, which may not be available or 

accessible to begin with. The outreach youth worker and other team members – police, 

probation, the school teacher or disciplinarian, the neighborhood organizer – as well as leadagency staff are interactively responsible for social support and control services for gang youth. 

Each member of the team must share some responsibility for a complementary and/or similar 

approach to the youth’s and community’s gang problem. 

Criminal-Justice-System Participation. Police (including gang detectives, communitypolice and youth-division, school-resource and narcotics officers), juvenile and adult probation, 

juvenile and adult parole, and prosecutors and judges must be knowledgeable about the specific 

scope and nature of gang-crime in the target area, and participate appropriately in the 

community’s response to it. They must also be closely identified with the Comprehensive Gang 

Program. Police and probation especially need to be concerned with the valid social control and 

suppression of the targeted youth, mainly those who are delinquent and gang-involved. They 

must be careful not to target and label as gang members those youth who are not at high risk for 

gang involvement. Judicial authority, prosecution, detention and other justice-system elements 

must support the street team through graduated sanctions, in such a way as to facilitate the 

youth’s social development and rehabilitation as well as to protect the community. 

Police and probation administrators must encourage, if not require, the street-level 

1.13


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
officers to collaborate with each other as well as with other members of the street team 

(including outreach youth workers, teachers and job-development personnel) in an integrated 

social-development and social-control approach. The police have a special responsibility to 

accurately assess the gang problem, and especially to refer youth for services, as well as to 

address the gang problem in as balanced and rational a way as possible (in terms of short- and 

long-term effects), especially recognizing the close connection between the gang problem, 

race/ethnic issues, family concerns, political pressures and conflicting community interests. 

School Participation. Principals, teachers, and disciplinarians of regular public, 

parochial, and alternative (community, opportunity) schools are key components of the 

Comprehensive Gang Program Model. Schools, already overwhelmed with a range of 

educational, social and financial problems, are generally reluctant to deal with the gang problem 

other than by transferring, suspending, or expelling disruptive youth. The Steering Committee 

and Lead-Agency Administrator have to facilitate better understanding of the problem, and 

(especially) persuade and assist school personnel to modify their schools’ “zero-tolerance” 

practices that can serve only to alienate and eliminate gang-involved and at-risk youth from a 

positive learning experience. The street team should participate in the life of the school, and 

assist school staff in addressing gang-related issues, thereby encouraging better development and 

use of educational opportunities by gang youth. Targeted youth need to be mainstreamed, to the 

extent possible, within the context of an enriched and controlled regular school environment, so 

that they will receive a fully appropriate education to prepare them for productive life course and 

career development. 

The use of alternative schools may or may not be the best way to address the educational 

1.14 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
and behavioral problems of gang youth. Special tutorial assistance and collaborative 

arrangements with social agencies and therapeutic programs may assist gang youth to remain in 

regular school, and to make better use of educational opportunities. If the youth is referred to an 

alternative school, a high-quality educational program (often with therapeutic and effective 

controls) must be provided, with a firm commitment by the school administrator to return the 

youth to a mainstream school as soon as possible. Outreach youth workers have a special 

responsibility not only to help program youth make the best use of available learning resources, 

but to advocate on his/her behalf, mediate conflicts with teachers, and assist school staff in better 

understanding the nature of gang pressures on program youth which arise from situations and 

crises both inside and outside the school. Outreach youth workers, police and probation officers 

may be able at times to control or neutralize some of these pressures. 

Employment and Training. Obtaining a job is critical to the transition of youth from the 

gang to legitimate, productive and satisfying adult roles. Adolescent (particularly olderadolescent) gang youth regard a job as a sign of meaningful entry into the conventional adult 

world, and to the social status and economic rewards it brings. It is often a more acceptable and 

desirable opportunity than returning to school (and overcoming obstacles to school achievement). 

Getting and holding a full-time job is a significant step for the youth, one which indicates he no 

longer needs the gang, nor has the time and motivation to associate with gang members and 

participate in gang life. Success on the job may be a basis for returning to school. Jobs and 

work-skills training often provide a legitimate and satisfying basis for leaving the gang. 

Education and job development can be combined through creative arrangements between school, 

business and industry. 

1.15


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
The youth worker and the job developer are key personnel responsible for motivating 

youth to participate in training programs and get jobs, and helping them sustain a job once 

employed. A major task of the job developer is contacting employers and training institutions to 

facilitate access to job and training opportunities for gang youth. Special arrangements may be 

required to open up jobs for youth who may at first be marginal workers. Special incentives 

(such as tax breaks) may be necessary to enable employers to hire gang youth. Neighborhood 

residents, former gang members, and the youth’s family are sources of information about hiring 

opportunities, and can be a stimulus to gang members to seek employment. Steady girlfriends or 

wives also play an important part in urging gang youth to get a job, sustaining him on the job, 

and keeping him away from gang activity. 

Steps in the Approach 

The steps in the implementation of the Comprehensive Gang Program Model (Chart 1.2) 

are as follows:1 

•	 The community leadership, including those in established agencies and grassroots groups, 

the mayor’s office and political leaders, as well as business leaders and the media must 

acknowledge that a youth-gang problem exists. 

•	 The Steering Committee, including criminal-justice and youth agencies, schools, and 

other major public, nonprofit, and faith-based organizations, together with grassroots 

groups, must: conduct an assessment of the nature and scope of the youth-gang problem 

in the identified target community where gang crime (particularly violence and often drug 

1

 Adapted from OJJDP Gang-Free Schools and Communities Initiatives 2000. 

1.16 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
selling) is most prevalent; develop and use appropriate definitions or descriptions of a 

delinquent/criminal gang, a gang member, or a youth who is at risk of gang membership; 

select which particular gangs are to be targeted; and identify the organizations available to 

address the gang problem in its various interrelated aspects. A special assessment team, 

including university researchers, should assist in this process. The researchers have 

responsibility for assessing program development and evaluating individual-youth and 

area outcomes of the program. 

•	 Once the Steering Committee is established, a process is undertaken in which a set of 

goals and objectives is determined, with the assistance and involvement of the lead 

agency and community leaders at influential and grassroots levels. The goals and 

objectives must address the identified gang problem and its causal factors (based on the 

results of the assessment), and be refined over time as a better understanding of the gang 

problem and what organizations are doing about it emerges. Because of the lack of 

effective communication, congruence of operations, or meaningful interaction of key 

organizations and community agencies and groups, special meetings with resulting 

documentation describing organizational roles, responsibilities, and issues will be 

necessary. 

•	 The key goals of the program must be the reduction of youth-gang crime in relation to the 

social-development of gang youth and those youth at high risk for gang involvement. 

This is to be accomplished by improving the capacity of the community groups and 

agencies to address the problem through the application of interrelated strategies of 

community mobilization, opportunities provision, social intervention, suppression, and 

1.17


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
organizational change and development, targeted to the particular gang problem. 

• The Steering Committee, the lead agency and community leaders (perhaps involving 

changing personnel and the addition of agencies and community groups) must interact 

with each other over time to produce and sustain relevant and increasingly effective 

programming, i.e., strategies, services, tactics and procedures consistent with the 

Comprehensive Gang Program Model, particularly its five “core strategies” (see below). 

• The Steering Committee and community leaders, as indicated above, must develop an 

effective ongoing process that assesses the operation, outcome and impact of the 

program, preferably through systematic evaluation procedures. If program results are 

positive – i.e., gang crime is absolutely or relatively reduced – then sufficient resources 

must continue to be provided to sustain program activity and development, and especially 

to institutionalize its structure and assure long-term funding. 

• The process of program development, intervention and attempting to cope with the youthgang problem not only contributes to a determination of whether the Model has been 

appropriately applied, but to an ongoing assessment and understanding of the basic nature 

and changing scope of the problem. 

Strategies 

The Comprehensive Gang Program Model is multi-faceted, involving multi-layered, 

interacting strategies addressed to individual youth, family members, gang peers, agencies and 

the community. It is based on theory, research and practice which proposes that the gang 

problem is systemic, and is a response to rapid social change, lack of social-development 

1.18


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
opportunities, poverty, institutional racism, existing criminal organizations and opportunities, 

and also to the fragmentation and inadequacy of approaches to the problem across multiple 

organizations. The five core Model strategies and their associated cultural elements are as 

follows: 

Community Mobilization 

•	 Key established organizations – police, probation, social agencies, schools, manpower 

agencies, community organizations (including local-agency and grassroots groups), as 

well as churches, block clubs, and political groups, along with local residents and even 

former gang members – must be involved and advise on problem definition, analyses, 

policies, planning, and program measures to be undertaken. These efforts should be 

developed and coordinated by the Steering Committee and the lead agency. This is not 

easy to consummate successfully, and requires judgement, selectivity, and the 

participation of the variety of organizations and community groups that should be 

involved within the framework and purposes of the Model. 

•	 A Steering Committee made up of representatives of key established agencies and 

community organizations (including grassroots groups and faith-based organizations, as 

well as political and governmental leaders) is closely involved in the development of 

program policies and practices, across agencies and community groups, in support of the 

operation of the multi-disciplinary street team. Key established agencies will generally 

have to modify policies and practices to support the work of the street team and achieve 

the objectives of the Model. The lead agency takes special responsibility for aiding 

1.19


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
agency administrators and community group leaders to cross organizational boundaries, 

and getting the Steering Committee to take collective ownership of the comprehensiveprogram initiative. 

•	 The lead agency along with the Steering Committee initiates, develops, and maintains 

interagency communication and relationships across agencies and community groups. A 

special challenge is modifying established law-enforcement, school, and governmental 

policy to include the participation of faith-based and grassroots groups, as well as former 

youth-gang members, in the Steering-Committee process. Awareness of population 

change and sensitivity to the neighborhood and its culture, its varied organizational 

interests, the needs of gang youth, and the concerns and complaints of local residents, are 

essential issues for consideration in the operation of the Steering Committee, the street 

team, and the lead agency. The multi-disciplinary street team must participate in 

Steering-Committee discussions, and assist in a broad array of community and 

neighborhood gang-program-focused development efforts which may evolve from 

Steering-Committee considerations. 

Again, it is essential that the lead agency genuinely “buy into” ‘the 

Comprehensive Gang Program Model, and not use the presence or superficial 

development of the Steering Committee as a “cover” for obtaining additional resources to 

pursue its own particularistic organizational objectives. 

Social Intervention 

•	 The street team, especially the youth outreach-worker staff, must collaborate with social1.20


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
service agencies, youth agencies, grassroots groups, schools, and faith-based and other 

organizations in directly providing gang and highly at-risk youth with appropriate 

combinations of prevention, intervention and control services, depending on individualyouth and community needs. Gangs and their members are different, and change over 

time; differential diagnoses and treatment/intervention-planning must continually occur. 

All gang-involved youth should not necessarily be provided with the same pattern or 

dosages of social controls and services, or even with highly-coordinated services or 

worker contacts. Issues of labeling youth as “gang involved” or “highly at risk for gang 

involvement” should be carefully addressed. 

•	 Street outreach services focus simultaneously on protecting community citizens 

(including gang youth) from gang crime, enforcing the law, serving the interests and 

needs of targeted youth and their families, and on assuring the linkage of youth to social 

services and the case-coordination of these services. 

•	 Group activities are carefully developed so as not to cohere delinquent or gang youth to 

each other. Primary attention is on individualized youth needs, and the interests of ganginvolved and highly-at-risk youth which, if met, contribute to their better transition and 

attachment to mainstream institutions of school, training and employment, and to 

association with non-gang peers. 

•	 Sensitivity to the influence of gang norms and values, and street-team skill in the use of 

group, community and situational structures and processes are important, particularly at 

times of crisis when violent and serious criminal behavior is likely to occur and has to be 

prevented and controlled. 

1.21


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
• A clear, mutually-understood and accepting relationship between the street team 

(including the youth outreach worker), the individual youth and the gang must be 

established so that the youth and the gang clearly understand the purpose of the program, 

the nature and scope of the team’s operation and the interdependent roles of team 

members. 

• Social intervention and social control should not be restricted to a 9 AM to 5 PM agencybased workday routine of making contact and assisting youth with social-development 

needs, school attendance, and meeting justice-system reporting requirements. Outreach 

(including social intervention) focuses on contacts with youth in the neighborhood, at 

home, and in hangouts during evenings, on weekends, and in crisis times, and continually 

and consistently persuading youth to assume their legitimate obligations to the 

neighborhood and the larger society. 

• The staffing of the social-intervention component is not a simple matter. Outreach youth 

workers must be qualified by a high order of understanding of the local gang culture and 

community, social maturity, and the ability to establish appropriate relationships not only 

with gang youth on their turf but with criminal-justice and social-agency personnel. 

Often a combination of former gang influentials and trained or professional youth 

workers or social workers comprises the most appropriate staffing arrangement to 

conduct social-intervention activities. 

Provision of Social Opportunities 

• Access to opportunities, especially for further education, training, and jobs must be 

1.22 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
provided to gang youth and those at high risk of gang involvement. Such access has to be 

structured, and supported through the collective policy and administrative efforts of the 

Steering Committee, the lead agency and other local community agencies, and the 

implementation activities of the street-level team. 

•	 The members of the Steering Committee should be in a position to provide special and/or 

additional and sustained access to opportunity systems in their own agencies and across 

organizations, in order to better mainstream program youth into legitimate society. 

Appropriate arrangements have to be made to avoid segregating gang youth from 

mainstream society in the course of providing opportunities to them. 

•	 The street team (especially the outreach youth workers and case managers) serves to 

mediate relationships and modify exclusionary policies and practices of agencies, so that 

targeted youth have access to and are carefully prepared to make use of educational and 

training programs and jobs. In this process, agency, school, and employment personnel 

must be willing and prepared to modify their practices, and to assist these vulnerable 

youth who have special needs and social limitations. Social-control and socialintervention tactics have to be carefully integrated in this process. 

•	 The street team collaborates with local residents and families, as well as with grassroots 

groups, businesses, schools, and social-agency personnel in the provision of, and access 

to, opportunities for gang-involved and highly at-risk youth. 

•	 The opportunity-needs of siblings, parents and peers of program youth are also addressed, 

to the extent possible, particularly as the fulfillment of those needs may assist in 

facilitating the transition of program youth to non-delinquent and non-gang roles. 

1.23


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
•	 Of special importance is encouragement of the contributions of businesses, industry, 

government, and legislators in providing improved access to school, job, and training 

opportunities for lower-income and minority (including gang) youth, in part through not 

excluding those youth who may have criminal records. Opportunities should be 

provided, with appropriate social-control and social-support measures. 

Suppression/Social Control 

•	 The development of formal and informal procedures of social control in order to hold 

youth accountable for their behavior is integral to a comprehensive approach to gang 

youth. Highly-targeted sweeps and interdiction of gang youth about to engage in (or who 

have actually engaged in) criminal acts may be appropriate. However, labeling as gang 

members those youth who are not gang members, and simply targeting (or “profiling”) 

minority youth for a whole range of minor and questionable offenses, are inappropriate. 

Social control must be based on an understanding of the gang youth’s behavior and his 

context, the scope of agency responsibility, mutually-positive communications, respect 

for youth, some level of youth accountability, and law-enforcement discretion in use of 

suppression tactics, and must focus on youth who are involved, or may be involved, in 

serious delinquent behavior. 

•	 Controls or suppression measures are broadly conceived, and range from arrest and 

warnings to behavior-modeling, advice, counseling, crisis-intervention and positive 

attention paid to youth interests and needs by members of the street team. Carefully 

structured arrangements may be required in which activities such as recreation, athletic 

1.24


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
events, holiday and family celebrations, cultural and ethnic events, group meetings, or 

conflict-mediation sessions can be provided, involving police, probation, youth workers 

and the gang youth together in sharing mutual or communal experiences, obligations and 

benefits. At the same time, information-sharing by all team members about serious 

criminal acts by gang members is required so that offenders are accurately identified, 

lawfully arrested and prosecuted. 

•	 Suppression involves the street team organizing neighbors to patrol neighborhoods, 

encouraging them to report criminal acts to the police, making sure that gang youth show 

up for probation or parole interviews and court appearances, as well as getting gang youth 

not to hang on the streets, not to incur neighborhood disapproval, and to help clean up 

litter and remove graffiti. 

•	 Social control also requires the defense of gang youth from false accusation and 

prosecution, illegal harassment and/or brutal treatment by police officers, and defending 

or vouching for youth in court when they are falsely accused or brought in for violations 

of local laws (which themselves may prove to be illegal and/or unconstitutional). The 

street team, the lead-agency administrators, Steering-Committee members and 

community leaders must not only directly and indirectly contribute to the suppression of 

unlawful (especially serious) criminal behavior, but to the modification of criminaljustice-system policies and practices that unjustly target and criminalize and/or punish 

gang youth. 

•	 Descriptions of the nature and scope of gang crime, especially gang incidents, must be 

carefully developed, and appropriate data collected, managed, and used. Accurate and 

1.25


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
meaningful gang information should be routinely collected and shared among members of 

the street team and the Steering Committee – with due regard to issues of confidentiality 

– as a basis for ongoing diagnosis and assessment of the community gang problem and 

the development of effective policies and programs. 

•	 Special commitments by police administrators to accept the Model, and special training 

sessions for gang specialists or team police to implement the Model correctly, may be 

required to assure that police and criminal-justice personnel participate in the 

Comprehensive Gang Program. The purpose of the Program is not simply to assist police 

or probation to acquire intelligence in order to make better arrests, but also to train the 

police to refer troublemakers and troubled gang youth to social and mental-health 

agencies, when appropriate. 

•	 Suppression, along with social intervention, opportunities-provision and relevant 

organizational change, should be viewed as part of an interrelated and interdependent 

community-building process focused on reducing gang crime and safeguarding the 

community. The lead agency, the members of the street team and the Steering Committee 

share responsibility for carrying out the suppression or social-control functions critical for 

building a “good” community, one of benefit to gang-involved youth as well as to other 

citizens of the local and larger communities. Not all gang members are likely to be or to 

become delinquents and/or serious offenders. Most gang youth in gang-crime 

communities will normally grow out of their delinquent and/or criminal gang 

involvement. 

1.26


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Organizational Change and Development 

•	 Organizational change and development underlie the strategies of the Comprehensive 

Gang Program Model. Local institutions must change, and local agency and communitygroup procedures must be developed both to reduce gang crime and to interactively meet 

the social and control needs of gang youth. Single-minded law enforcement or enhanced 

preventive and treatment services alone may be ineffective and even exacerbate the gang 

problem. 

•	 Positive change in individual youth-gang-member behavior may occur naturally in due 

course, but can be hastened and facilitated through interdisciplinary and collaborative 

activities by the team of workers within a context of agency and local community support 

for the Model. The activities of street-team personnel, community groups and agencies 

may have to be modified to achieve a more generalist mission, e.g., the police take some 

responsibility (and the probation officer even greater responsibility) for social 

intervention, the outreach workers assist with suppression of serious crime and violence, 

and the community organizers encourage distrusting, fearful neighborhood residents to 

communicate with the police about gang-crime incidents, and collaborate with law 

enforcement on better ways to address the problem. 

•	 Organizational policies, practices, and worker responsibilities have to become more 

community-oriented, even communal, taking into consideration the particular interests, 

needs, and cultural backgrounds of local residents, including those of the targeted gang 

youth themselves. Panicked and punitive responses to the gang problem by old-time 

members of the community, together with elitist, bureaucratic, non-community-oriented 

1.27


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
agency approaches to gang youth, are counter-productive. 

• Administrative arrangements, special training, and close supervision of staff must be 

established so that each type of worker knows and understands what the other street-level 

workers are doing in the community, in order to develop mutually respectful and effective 

collaborative roles. 

• Appropriate measures must evolve for data sharing, interactive social intervention, 

suppression-planning and other implementation activities. Not all types of data about 

youth gang-member activities have to be shared, nor all types of team-member activity 

planned together; only those that significantly contribute to and impact the achievement 

of program objectives and goals. 

• Data systems and case management are established so that contacts and services provided 

by all members of the street intervention team can be documented and monitored for 

effective targeting and ongoing assessment of youth, program planning, and measuring 

program service quality and effects. These data then become the basis for evaluating 

outcomes at individual, gang, program, agency, interagency, and community levels. 

Program Implementation Principles 

A special set of principles guides the practice of the various organizations, community 

groups, and staffs in the implementation of the Model strategies. These principles constitute the 

way to develop, successfully carry out, and ultimately sustain the Comprehensive Gang Program 

Model. 

1.28


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Targeting 

It is critically important that the Steering Committee and lead agency select the right 

neighborhoods, gangs and youth in the community who account for the gang problem, and that 

they identify the organizations addressing (or which should be addressing) the problem. This 

includes identifying the most significant aspects of the gang problem, based on careful ongoing 

assessments of gang situations, the specific youth involved, and the locations and contexts of 

gang activities. There are many cultural and organizational myths which create obstacles to 

appropriate identification and assessment of the gang problem. Police may claim that the gang 

problem is pervasive throughout the whole city, when in fact gang incidents, gang hangouts, and 

where gang youth live tend to be concentrated only in certain parts of a community. Youth 

agencies may claim they are serving at-risk or gang-involved youth, when they are not. Schools 

committed to “zero tolerance” and rigid suspension policies for minority youth who may (or may 

not) be gang members can contribute to the development of the gang problem. 

A careful assessment of the gang problem from a street-based as well as an agency-based 

perspective is necessary to determine which gangs and gang members are most involved in 

serious crime (including drug selling and violence), where and when the gang offenses are being 

committed, and what specific community situations and changed organizational policies and 

practices are critical to understanding and addressing the specifics of the problem. It is important 

not only to regard the gang problem as systemic, but to focus on the most serious aspects of the 

problem. Hardcore youth, including key gang leaders and influentials, are the critical focus of 

initial attention, in order to develop access to other gang members and, ultimately, focus on gang 

activity by at-risk youth. 

1.29


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Unfocused violence-prevention, general public-health approaches, non-targeted 

suppression, and reactive citizen demonstrations (such as neighborhood marches or protest 

meetings) may be useful for particular agency- or community-cathartic purposes, but may be of 

little value for problem-solving and positive community development in regard to the gang 

problem. Ceremonial meetings by interagency coalitions may also become devices to avoid 

dealing with the problem. Responses based strictly on political interests, narrow agency 

missions, political opportunism, professional turf considerations, ignorance of the details of the 

gang problem, and impulsive collective action are to be avoided. 

Balance of Strategies 

Once the specific problem(s), target area(s), target gang-youth, and involved institutions’ 

or agencies’ policies and practices are identified, a set of balanced strategies must be considered 

and operationalized. Dominance of particular strategies in regard to program development may 

be inappropriate. One type of program service and/or set of control activities will not be suitable 

for all circumstances or for all youth. There are varying community gang-problem situations. 

Different gang youth have different commitments to the gang life, and varying degrees of 

troublesome problems during the course of their careers. Targeting only hardcore gang youth for 

suppression, younger gang youth or wannabees for prevention services, and “creaming” selected 

youth for jobs are not consistent with the Model. A differential mix and dosage of multiple 

strategies is required for different circumstances and specific categories of program youth at 

different times. 

An imbalanced strategy may result in a dominant suppression approach, which 

1.30 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
contributes to excessive imprisonment of youth who could have been readily served in the 

community with a combination of treatment, opportunities-provision and graduated sanctions. 

An imbalanced strategy may serve to label at-risk (especially minority) youth as gang members 

and make them more subject to arrest for minor offenses (or even non-offenses). An approach 

which focuses only on recreation and group activities may increase gang cohesion, and the 

solidification of delinquent norms, and may not meet the longer-term socialization and 

community-integration needs of alienated gang youth. 

An appropriate mix of agency and grassroots participation is extremely important. A 

basic goal of the Model – to improve community capacity to address youth-gang crime – cannot 

be achieved unless critically important organizational and community-based components are 

involved in the program’s development. The Model is not served if established social or youth 

agencies or law-enforcement organizations participate only to carry out their traditional nontargeted approaches. On the other hand, if the program is primarily based on grassroots 

participation, adequate resources may not be available to organize, implement, sustain, or 

institutionalize the approach. Community-building and social integration relevant to the gang 

problem across different community sectors have to take place. 

Intensity (Dosage) of Services/Contacts 

Dosage refers to the duration, frequency and continuity of particular worker contacts, 

services and strategies carried out for different categories of youth. An optimum dosage may be 

necessary for a positive outcome. However, a balance of appropriate strategies, types of workers 

and worker contacts is also required. The nature of specific services and contacts may be more 

1.31


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
important than the amount or intensity of services or contacts provided. Coordination among 

team workers in relation to particular types of youth may be more important than the specific 

range or intensity of services or strategies provided by each of them. Once the youth begins to 

make progress, it may be beneficial for him to disassociate himself from the program. The 

particular purpose and appropriate intensity of relationships of particular workers with different 

types of youth are important in predicting outcome for different categories of youth in the 

program. 

Continuity of Services/Contacts 

The same worker or the same combination of workers providing services and contacts for 

a substantial period of time may have more influence in determining positive outcome than 

different workers contacting particular youth for only short periods of time. Continuity of 

personalized, positive contact is important, particularly for gang delinquent youth who have 

special needs for social support and control, and for building trusting relationships with adults. 

Gang youth are often distrustful of adults and exploitive of relationships with them. They may 

view workers as undependable, rejecting, hostile, or easily manipulated. It takes a good deal of 

time for the worker(s) to develop a positive working (controlling and helping) relationship with 

certain gang youth. Service interruption and lack of continuity of contact may result in further 

alienation of the youth, and interfere with the program’s plan for his or her rehabilitation. A 

return to, or intensification of, gang behaviors may result from the absence of (or undependable 

contacts with) a worker during periods of crisis, which the youth may not be able to manage on 

his own. An accessible and responsive worker whom the youth trusts and needs at such junctures 

1.32


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
may be critically important. 

Commitment 

The Comprehensive Gang Program Model challenges existing agency policies and 

procedures and professional specialization norms. The development of new knowledge and 

skills may create extra work pressures and distress, at least in the transition period to newer 

approaches. Commitment on the part of key community leaders and program operators to the 

promise and the validity of the approach, however, may not come as quickly as it does to the 

operational street staff. Appropriate Steering-Committee, lead-agency-management and 

supervisory commitment have to be developed. Lead-agency administrators and supervisors and 

Steering-Committee members may not be fully aware of the challenges faced by street-team 

workers, of the special needs for support (and sometimes controls) in their outreach activities, or 

(particularly) of the problems and frustrations of outreach youth workers in carrying out their 

work on the streets. Steering-Committee members and program administrators must persevere in 

their collaborative interagency and program-support efforts. They must periodically renew their 

commitment to the Comprehensive Gang Program approach through special meetings and 

conferences. 

Work with gang youth and gang problems is complex, difficult and frustrating. Gang 

youth are often undependable, elusive, and hostile in their relationships with adults and peers, 

and require a high level of effort, firmness and sensitivity by workers to a variety of factors. The 

team workers on the street have to develop multidimensional skills. Traditional agency, school, 

and other institutional staff may not be interested in, prepared for, or have sufficient resources to 

1.33


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
work with troublesome gang youth. Street-team, lead-agency-administrator, Steering-Committee 

and associated-agency staff efforts together must be reinforcing, and combine to introduce an 

integrated world of real opportunity, social support, and constraints for gang youth. 

In the final analysis, the commitment of political and community leaders to the value of 

the program should be based on solid evidence of the reduction of gang crime, along with 

governmental and political support to assure the continuing commitment of Steering-Committee 

members, program administrators and staff to the Comprehensive Community-Wide Gang 

Program Model. 

1.34


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
1.35

Chart 1.1 

Comprehensive Gang Program Model 

Goal 1: Improve Community Capacity to Address Youth Gang Crime 

Goal 2: Reduce Gang Crime 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Chart 1.2 

Comprehensive Gang Program: Process Model 

Steps in the Application of the Approach 

OJJDP Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention and Suppression Program 

(Adapted from Candice Kane) 

1.36 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Chapter 2 

Evaluation Issues and Problems 

We do not attempt to review the literature on gang (or gang violence) prevention, 

intervention, or suppression programs. A growing list of such reviews exists (Curry, 1995; 

Decker, 2003; Howell, 2000; Klein, 1995; Mihalec, Irwin, Elliott, Fagan and Hansen, 2001; Reed 

and Decker, 2002; Sivilli, Yim and Nugent, 1995; Spergel, 1995). Gang programs in earlier 

decades generally emphasized single-strategy approaches to gang prevention, social intervention, 

crisis intervention, community organization, street work, interagency coordination, or community 

organization. Evaluations of these programs suggested negative, indeterminate, or in a very few 

cases limited positive results (Howell, Egley and Gleason, 2000). Community-based gang 

programs were said to fail for a range of reasons: poor conceptualization, vague or conflicting 

objectives, weak implementation, organizational-goal displacement (particularly by police and 

youth agencies), interagency conflict, politicization, lack of sustained effort, insufficient 

resources, etc. 

The evidence that a particular approach, or in some cases a combination of approaches, 

does or does not work, however, may be due not only to program design or implementation, but 

also to the failures of public policy and the limitations and weaknesses of evaluation research 

methodologies (Curry, 1995). Gang-program approaches assessed as successful may not 

necessarily be sustained, and those assessed as failures but consistent with community myth and 

traditional agency interests may continue to flourish. Evaluation research has probably had little 

or no impact on gang-program development, and has not contributed to the creation of alternate 

2.1


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
or modified approaches to the gang problem. This may be due to the complexity of issues and 

operations of community-based gang programs, and to the difficulties of designing and 

implementing the necessary complex evaluations of such programs in the community. 

Ideally, program-evaluation models require experimental or quasi-experimental designs 

and rigorous procedures, but these cannot easily be applied in the real world of gang-context, 

gang-program development, policy changes and difficult-to-observe program operations. 

Evaluation research is expected to be objective, and preferably independent of program 

operations. However, the complex, difficult and often politicized nature of community-based 

gang programming requires not only an objective but an interdependent and sustained 

relationship among evaluation and program personnel from program start (or even conception) to 

finish. This relationship characterizes the best of classic community-based gang program 

researches (Gold and Mattick, 1974; Klein, 1968, 1971; Miller, 1962), limited as they were by 

present-day methodological and statistical considerations. 

Below, we discuss briefly the elements of gang research methodology which we believe 

are essential for effective evaluation of gang-programs, and which we have had to address in our 

present evaluation of the Comprehensive, Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, 

Intervention, and Suppression Program. 

Cooperation with Program Operators and Data Managers 

Project directors and program operators are prone to distrust gang researchers, who may 

have insufficient knowledge of their program’s operations, interests and constraints. Gang 

project or program directors are under conflicting pressures to accommodate program 

2.2


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
development to the interests and needs of funders, community residents, steering committees or 

advisory boards, partner programs or agencies (including criminal-justice and social-service 

agencies), as well as the media, government officials, politicians, and the program youth 

themselves. This is particularly so in the case of a demonstration program which is not expected 

to last more than four or five years. 

Program operators generally regard evaluators as a necessary evil (since they may affect 

the flow of funding for the program) and as costly in terms of time and effort which they believe 

should be directed instead to ongoing program or agency operations. Evaluations not only 

interfere with program operations, but overburden information systems (to the extent they exist). 

Program administrators can be skilled at avoiding, or partially complying with, evaluator requests 

for data; and even when pressured or compelled to comply, may provide incomplete or 

inadequate data for evaluation purposes. The gang-program administrator’s interest and desire to 

comply with the evaluation-research’s design and need for data are tempered by his agency’s 

need to survive in a limited-resource environment. 

Gang-program operators tend to be over-stressed by the complexity, frustration and 

unpredictability of community-based gang-program operations. They may be subjected to a 

pervasive sense of impending program failure. They tend not to know much about gangs or gang 

youth, or how or whether they can conduct a community-wide or street-based program that will 

provide clearly positive results. On the other hand, the evaluator also enters the chaotic, 

community gang-problem arena without sufficient understanding of complex interagency/community-group relationships and conflicts, and the diverse interests of the various 

influential actors associated with the program. These actors usually control various kinds of 

2.3


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
program-process or outcome data essential to the achievement of research-evaluation objectives. 

The evaluator therefore must expend considerable effort to understand local-agency, 

community and program contextual factors and establish a basis for positive relationships with 

those who control data sources. The commitments and procedures for access to evaluation data 

have to be negotiated and often renegotiated. The gang-program evaluator (and his associates) 

has to engage key program-related personnel as soon as possible, and regard them not only as 

providers of data but in fact as partners in the development of a successful evaluation. Reliable 

and valid data have to be obtained so that findings are objective and meaningful to key agency 

and community constituents, funders, program operators, and the research community. 

Research Design 

Good program evaluation ideally should be designed to assess program process, 

individual gang-member outcome, and the program’s impact on the gang and the community, 

based on an explicit (hopefully well-developed) program model which is theoretically relevant 

and operationally practicable. The program evaluator’s primary purpose is not to test a theory, 

but to test a program model which usually contains elements of several theories. Gang programs 

in the real world cannot be encompassed by one set of theories or policy interests. This is a 

particularly difficult challenge for social scientists, including criminologists, who are often more 

interested in testing particular theoretical propositions than describing the specific nature and 

determining the effects of a program model, especially a comprehensive program model. 

Funders are often interested in testing policy, which is not usually clearly formulated and 

embodied in the projects they support. Program managers are concerned mainly with matters of 

2.4


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
program development which contribute to their agency’s value – economic, political and 

organizational. A consensus must be reached in the funder+program operator+evaluator 

relationship as to acceptable goals and specific objectives of the program to be tested. This 

process may drag on a long time, with consensus and satisfaction among those involved never 

fully achieved. 

The purposes, program components, objectives and activities that reduce gang-delinquent 

behavior, especially violence, need to be specified and agreed upon by the program operator, key 

influentials and the evaluator: what key-agency services and worker contacts are to be provided, 

for which types of youth, how and for what purposes (i.e., what project activities are expected to 

produce what intended results). Research variables, i.e., independent, mediating, outcome, and 

control factors (e.g., youth demographics, gang-membership status and delinquency 

characteristics), must be articulated and related to the program model, as well as conditioned by 

the reality of program structure and operation. Ultimately, the main job of the evaluator is to 

know what the program components are, what they are intended to do, and what they in fact do. 

This process occurs through ongoing dialogue, mutual accommodation between the project 

operator and evaluator, and research observations. The evaluator+program-operator relationship 

determines what and how evaluation-design procedures for data collection and analysis are 

implemented and related to the program model. Obviously, some flexibility has to be built into 

the implementation of both the program and evaluation models. The researcher and program 

operator set initial ground rules, but still have to negotiate continually to accommodate the needs 

of both program and evaluation implementation in a complex, open-community and interagency 

context. 

2.5


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
At the present time, community-based gang program evaluation research is not fully 

experimental research, in which all elements are (ideally) rigidly controlled. At best, it is quasiexperimental, with room for limited change in research design and modification of program 

practices. 

Technical Assistance 

An intermediary may be required to assure that informed and focused program 

development is initiated and sustained, while meeting the needs of the program operator and 

serving the interests of the funder and the evaluator. Ideally, the technical-assistance team is 

established to warrantee or monitor the investment of the sponsor or funder and guide program 

development, i.e., provide knowledge and expert assistance to the program operator. While the 

technical assistant mainly assists the program operator, he also helps the evaluator, the program 

operator and the funding agency work together on the application and testing of the program 

model. 

The program and evaluation models have to be effectively articulated and sustained. 

Additions, gaps, failures, and changes in program operations have to be identified and accepted 

as early as possible, and accounted for. The evaluator and the technical assistant have a special 

responsibility, along with the funder, to monitor and control the integrity of the program model 

for research purposes. This complexity of relationships, which can handicap mutual 

understanding and effective implementation of the program model, is to a considerable extent 

avoided when the program operator and the evaluator are the same person, when the evaluator 

and the technical assistant are partners with the program operator in the development of the 

2.6


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
program model, and/or when the funder or sponsor of the program is knowledgeable and strongly 

identified with the evaluator’s conception of the program model and its implementation. 

Start-Up Problems 

Program-Youth Selection. An initial problem in the implementation of the 

Comprehensive Gang Program Model arises when youth selected are not representative of the 

expected program universe, i.e., they are not gang members or youth clearly at high risk for gang 

involvement. The problem may be compounded because the program operator and the evaluator 

often do not know what the characteristics of gang youth in the community truly are until a 

sufficient number of youth have actually entered the program. Procedures for who is eligible for, 

and admitted to, the program may not be adequately developed, accepted, or clearly 

communicated to program staff and/or referring agencies. Conflicting views may arise early as 

to who is or should be eligible for the program. Certain gang or highly at-risk youth may not be 

available or easily recruited, or even allowed into the program. 

Sources of reliable information about target-youth characteristics (e.g., gang membership) 

may not be available at the start of the program. Police, probation, schools, or in-house-oriented 

youth workers may not know the identity and location of gangs, the specific character of their 

activities, and which youth identified or associated with the gang are at what level of risk. Gangrelated information about youth referred to the program ideally should be obtained from multiple 

sources: official police records, established youth agencies, neighbors, local community groups, 

family members, peer groups, and former and (especially) present gang members themselves. 

Constraints of law, police practice, community attitudes, and level of program 

2.7


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
interviewer/researcher skill may not make this a simple task. 

The evaluator must know as soon as possible which youth are selected in terms of age, 

race/ethnicity, gender, justice-system background and gang-membership status, as well as why 

they are referred to the program, and by whom. We know from previous research that gender, 

age, race/ethnicity, and prior arrests of youth may be critical factors in determining eligibility for 

the program, and expected outcomes. Females are less likely than males to be serious or chronic 

delinquents, or gang members. Younger gang youth, 12 to 14 or 15 years of age, are more likely 

to show increasing levels of gang delinquency than older gang youth; gang members tend to be 

more seriously and chronically delinquent than associate gang members. 

The research or theoretical interests of the evaluator may deter him from a close 

examination of who these youth are, and why they got into the program. He may be less 

interested in the types of youth who should be in the program (based on the program model) than 

in the specific characteristics of youth or gangs which may be more useful to his own ongoing 

research or theory development. He may focus too much on hardcore or at-risk youth, females 

rather than males, or the psychological or structural characteristics of gangs, and insufficiently on 

the nature and selection of youth consistent with the program model. The acquisition of simple, 

basic data (on age, gender, race/ethnicity, and – as soon and reliably as possible – gangmembership status and offense or arrest history) for youth who enter the program is essential for 

program-development and evaluation purposes. These data become the basis for comparisonyouth sample selection, and the control variables in multivariate analyses of program outcome. 

Gang-Membership Status and Prior Delinquency. Extensive research indicates there is a 

2.8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
very close relationship between gang membership and the youth’s delinquent behavior, especially 

during the youth’s active gang-membership phase. Obviously, the evaluator’s task is to 

determine to what extent the youth is a gang member as well as a delinquent (and what types of 

delinquency he or she commits) in order to match criteria for selection into the program. Each of 

these two, complex factors must be considered as variables, yet they may not be known to 

program staff, and not necessarily clearly revealed even by gang youth themselves. A key 

proposition not recognized or accepted by many policy and program operators, or even by 

researchers, is that not all gang youth are or will become delinquent, and not all delinquents are 

or will be gang members. Certain non-delinquent and non-gang delinquent youth may respond 

worse to the program in terms of outcome than gang youth who may be less delinquent and less 

committed to the gang life. Most community-based gang programs probably deal with a varied 

sample of gang and non-gang, delinquent and non-delinquent youth. 

Multiple sources of data from field observations, youth self-reports, police records, and 

program-worker reports may be required to determine eligibility of youth for the program, and 

may condition outcome. Consistency of findings about the nature and level of gang 

identification and delinquency provides validity as to how the youth is to be classified. 

Delinquency and gang-involvement scales may have to be developed. Different types of 

delinquency and different patterns of peer association should be identified and addressed prior to 

and over the course of the youth’s involvement in the program. Gang youth may change their 

configurations or patterns of offending (from concentration on disorderly conduct or 

interpersonal violence to relatively more criminal-gain behavior, including drug selling), or may 

build legitimate careers. 

2.9


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Sampling. Typologies of gangs and gang youth abound (Klein, 1995; Spergel, 1995; 

Fagan, 1989; Spergel and Wa, 2003). The nature and purpose of the program and some 

assessment of the community’s actual gang problem should determine the gang and/or pre-gang 

youth universe from which to select the program sample. Characteristics of the universe of gangs 

and youth at-risk and their location in a particular community may be based on police, other 

criminal-justice, school, youth-agency, and media information, and occasionally on community 

surveys. The youth referred to a gang program may or may not be representative of gang youth, 

or youth highly at risk for gang involvement known to the police or other agencies in the 

community. 

In earlier decades, youth in community gang programs were selected based on field or 

street observations of, and work with, particular gangs and their membership. Based on these 

observations, youth in specific gangs were the primary targets of service, research and evaluation. 

Recently, program youth appear to be recruited more often from existing youth or social 

agencies, probation, school, and correctional caseloads. This may reflect the increased 

prevalence and dispersion of the youth-gang problem, or a lack of familiarity with the gang 

problem in its street context by established agency personnel and researchers. 

Another essential task of the evaluator in quasi-experimental research is to select a 

comparison-group sample, i.e., non-served gang youth with characteristics similar or equivalent 

to program youth. However, as suggested earlier, both the program operator and evaluator may 

not clearly know a priori, up front, or even during the program period what the gang or 

delinquency characteristics of program youth are. A time lag usually exists between the selection 

of program and comparison youth. Finding, selecting and interviewing appropriate comparison 

2.10


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
youth may not be easy. Police, probation, and youth agencies may have insufficient information 

about the characteristics of gang youth selected for the program, and even less information about 

appropriate comparison gang youth, where they are located and how they are to be contacted. 

Comparison gang youth often tend to be less delinquent or problematic than program youth. 

When a community-wide consortium establishes a gang program, it usually tries to focus on the 

most eligible gang youth, and sometimes gang members in the most gang-problematic 

neighborhood. Known gang youth arrested for very serious crimes and/or violence tend not to be 

eligible for community-based gang programs – they are usually confined. 

Probably the best solution to the problem of obtaining or developing similar (let alone 

equivalent) samples in the open community (other than random selection which may be possible 

under certain conditions, not discussed here) is to use several types of comparison groups, if 

funding permits. Co-arrestee gang members from the same gangs are often similar; youth from 

other or the same-named gangs in an equivalent gang area in the same city may be sufficiently 

comparable. Individual program youth may be used as their own controls, matched for an earlier 

and equivalent age period when they were not served, i.e., using a growth-curve model for 

analysis purposes. This option assumes that community contexts, gang patterns, and police 

practices have been comparable during the pre-program and program periods, which may not be 

the case. Usually, there are insufficient numbers of non-served comparison youth available in the 

program or comparison areas for analysis purposes. Researchers may select a comparison group 

from a comparable city, but this may create special problems for analysis unless communitycontext factors are controlled. Appropriate measurement and multivariate analytic techniques 

can, within limits, compensate for not randomly selecting program and comparison youth from 

2.11


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
the same community universe. 

Sources of Data and Data-Collection Instruments 

Multiple sources of data and multiple units or levels of analysis are essential in 

community gang-program research. Gang- and community-level gang incident or arrest data, as 

well as observations of field situations are important for interpreting and explaining individuallevel findings, and their possible relationship to aggregate or field findings. Researcher-fieldobservation, police-arrest or individual-youth-interview data alone may not be a sufficient basis 

for evaluation of program impact. Interviews, field observations and police and agency-worker 

program records of individual youth together, as well as gang and community-level data, are 

required to measure program-effect patterns. The classic use of either field observations or arealevel police data as a primary basis for determining program effects and theory development, 

unrelated to what the worker(s) do with particular youth, is not adequate for policy or program 

evaluation research (Decker, 2003; Klein, 1971; Miller, 1957; Short and Strodtbeck, 1965). 

Data-collection and analytic methods to determine the effects of gang programs on individual 

youth in relation to changes at the gang-as-a-unit and community levels are yet to be adequately 

developed. 

Program-Process Data. Special worker-service or program-tracking devices have to be created to 

describe the key program activities or worker contacts provided to, and/or received by, program 

youth. Existing agency records (whether police, probation, or social-agency) may be insufficient 

for purposes of testing the program model. Evaluation of comprehensive gang programs must 

2.12


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
develop commonly understood terms for use across different agencies, community groups and 

staffs. Unique worker agency-related roles and missions have to be taken into consideration. 

The problem of collecting data from workers or agency records is further compounded when 

information derived from multiple sources across multiple agencies has to be integrated. 

Common definitions of program measures must be established, since services or contacts 

may have different meanings and purposes for different agencies and worker disciplines. The 

nature of collaboration or coordination among workers and agencies in the provision of services 

and controls has to be viewed as an important program variable. The changing patterns of 

coordination of different worker contacts may be an important measure of program development, 

with effect on program outcome. The variety of measures developed to obtain data on 

meaningful program effects also has to include types and dosages of services provided by the 

different workers. 

Measurement. The need to integrate data sets, to control for differences in background between 

program and comparison youth, and the differences in program-exposure period – all create 

formidable measurement problems in community-based, gang-program research. Meaningful 

connections across variables have to be established. The use of factor-analytic procedures may 

not be sufficient. Key program-model concepts and propositions are critically important as a 

basis for selection of and combining variables or interaction terms, and interpretation of findings. 

Appropriate scales may be required to reduce ratio or interval data to ordinal or nominal-level 

data, especially when program and comparison-youth characteristics are highly disparate and 

sample size is small. 

2.13


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Special measures or indices have to be created to test program model effects. For 

example, a gang-involvement scale may have to be conceptualized and specific items introduced 

to measure change over time, not only in terms of the youth’s original gang- or non-gangmembership status, but in terms of an associated or causal cluster of items such as rank in the 

gang, level of gang participation, time spent with gang friends, gang victimization, gangmembership status of parents or siblings, etc. 

Analysis. Differences in findings of key characteristics of program and comparison youth have 

to be related to the specific effects of the program. Whether the program or parts of the program 

are successful or unsuccessful in predicting or accounting for differences for program youth 

compared to the non-served sample may best be determined through the use of multivariate 

analytic procedures such as General Linear Modeling and Logistical Regression. Such analyses 

may still be unconvincing unless other sources of data using both the same and different units of 

analysis (such as gang, agency, program-structure, and community-level arrest changes) are 

available to throw light on and connect the reasons for, or consequences of, the individual-level 

change findings. In other words, the analysis of program effects based on individual-level 

findings may not be sufficient to determine what the program accomplished or failed to 

accomplish unless there is some evidence of related effect at gang-as-a-unit and community 

levels. 

The congruence of findings in the relationship of the same or similar variables using 

different sources of data (e.g., youth self-reports, police arrest data, field observations and 

agency progress reports) and different units of analysis (group, community-level), and their 

2.14


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
possibly-reciprocal relationships, are the bases for making judgements about the value of the 

program. Furthermore, researcher quantitative observations and program-operator qualitative 

observations, as well as theory and prior research findings, provide reference points against 

which to measure the reliability and validity of the findings, and to aid in their interpretation. 

The limitations and degrees of rigor of the different program-related evaluation analyses have to 

be duly acknowledged. 

The Evaluation Model 

The Tucson program evaluation examined the nature of project implementation and the 

services and contacts provided to individual youth, based on the requirements of the 

Comprehensive Gang Program Model. It examined individual-youth outcome in relation to the 

nature and scope of services and contacts provided by different workers, and to a limited extent 

the impact of the program on gang and non-gang crime at the community level. Available 

qualitative and quantitative data from different sources were examined at different levels of 

analysis to determine the value of the program model as developed and tested in Tucson. 

The Evaluation Model was based on a relationship of factors which condition and/or 

interact with and influence each other, beginning with context (including community socialdisorganization factors) and ending with changes-in-crime factors at the individual-youth, gang, 

and community levels. Ideally, a variety of intermediate factors (such as organizational 

relationships, program structure, services and worker contacts provided, changes occurring in 

youth life-course/life-space behaviors and law-enforcement policies and practices) should have 

been identified, and the direction and strength of their influence analyzed (Chart 2.1). 

2.15


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
I. Community Social-Disorganization Factors 

Certain ecological, economic, social, and cultural conditions or changes created the 

community circumstances favorable to the development of the gang problem, which included 

groups of youth engaged in violence, drug selling and other criminal activities. The generating 

circumstances included: the rapid movement, expansion, and/or shift of population (particularly 

of low-income minority groups) into the program area, and the relative decline of a stable, 

middle-class, often non-minority population; the concentration of a large adolescent male 

minority population weakly integrated into basic socialization, educational and employment 

systems in the community; and the development of criminal structures as alternate opportunity 

systems. 

II. Organizational and Interorganizational Factors 

Local institutions were unable to accommodate the interests and needs of a population 

that required increased access to services, social and economic opportunities, and controls on 

youth who were in gangs and at high risk for gang membership. Key city, county, and local 

governmental and non-governmental interests and leadership were not able adequately to 

coalesce to address these problems, without the guidance, constraint and aid of public resources. 

Key mandated organizations and strategies had to be included in the development of a 

comprehensive program. To what extent and how they were included, and the nature of change, 

if any, in strategies and practices directed to the gang problem, had to be assessed. 

Organizational and interorganizational factors would determine the way the program evolved and 

developed. 

2.16


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
III. Program-Implementation Structures 

A steering committee had to be established, containing representatives of Modelmandated organizations including criminal-justice and social agencies, grassroots and 

community-based groups, business and religious groups, and with the support and leadership of 

local governmental officials to set and advise on policy for the program. A program structure 

was then to evolve from and/or be closely related to the steering committee, which would be 

responsible for implementing the program with its interrelated strategies of community 

mobilization, social intervention (including outreach youth services), provision of social 

opportunities, suppression/social control, and organizational change and development in the 

selected community. A key component of the program structure was to be an interagency, 

interdisciplinary street team to target youth, both gang-involved and those at high risk. 

IV. Services and Worker Contacts 

A street team of police, probation officers, outreach youth workers, case managers, and 

others was to target eligible youth referred to the program from court, police, schools, youth 

agencies, neighbors, and even fellow gang members. The team was to collaboratively provide a 

range of services, social opportunities, and controls for the targeted youth. 

V. Changes in Youth Circumstances and Behaviors 

The key objectives of the street team, within the framework of steering-committee and 

program leadership and direction, was to change the criminal behavior (particularly violence) of 

program youth to more pro-social behavior patterns, while protecting established community life 

2.17


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
and property, especially by reducing the youth’s gang involvement, facilitating his school 

achievement and conformity to school rules and responsibilities, and providing access to training 

and jobs. Increased resources and access to treatment services for the youth and his family, 

additional social and cultural opportunities, as well as appropriately targeted suppression services 

were to be provided interactively. 

VI. Individual-Youth Outcome 

Changes in the life space and life course of program youth due to program activities were 

expected to result in a reduction of criminal behavior, particularly violence and drug selling and 

drug use. The evidence of the success or failure of the program at the individual-youth level was 

to be a reduction, increase, or no-change in the youth’s self-reported offenses and official arrests, 

compared to similar youth not exposed to the program. 

VII. Law-Enforcement Policy and Practice 

Effective participation by police and probation officers on the street team, and the 

involvement of criminal-justice administrators on the steering committee, were expected to 

contribute not only to greater understanding of target-community and family social problems, 

greater collaboration with social-agency functions, and better understanding of program-youth 

problems, but also to improved intelligence regarding the gang problem and better-targeted 

surveillance and control of program-youth behaviors. This was to lead to better prevention and 

suppression of the area gang problem, and relatively lower rates of arrests of program and area 

gang youth. The nature and extent of police-department leadership and staff involvement in the 

2.18


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
program could be key determinants of the way the Model was adopted, and resulting change or 

non-change in the scope of the problem at individual, gang, and area levels. 

VIII. Gang-as-a-Unit Crime Change 

Program effects at the individual-youth level were expected to result in gang-level 

behavioral changes (such as gang size and the reduction of violence) depending on the degree to 

which program youth were representative of active gangs, the structure of the established gangs, 

and the extent to which program workers reached out to targeted gang youth and their gangs in 

the neighborhood. 

IX. Target-Area Outcome Crime Change 

Changes in target-area crime, particularly gang-related violent incidents, were contingent 

upon changes in (and/or control of) program-youth behavior, and especially related gang-as-aunit behavior. It was expected that the program would directly and powerfully influence program 

youth behavior, but also (less directly and powerfully) contribute to change in gang-as-a-unit 

behavior. These changes were expected also to have an effect on the rates of gang and (possibly) 

non-gang crime generally in the area. 

Implementing the Evaluation 

The evaluations of the Comprehensive Gang Program Model across the five sites – Mesa, 

Tucson, Riverside, San Antonio, and Bloomington-Normal – were simultaneous, complex and 

interrelated (but not interdependent), requiring extensive collaboration among local project 

2.19


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
personnel, local evaluators and technical-assistance and national-evaluation teams, within the 

general guidelines set by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and aided by 

the suggestions of a National Advisory Board. Major problems of research design, program 

modification and implementation, data collection, sample development, and analysis had to be 

addressed and resolved at the various stages of the evaluations. The National Evaluator, at the 

University of Chicago, was responsible for overall research design, instrument development, 

coordination of data collection and management within and across sites, interim and final 

analyses, and reports. The National Evaluator had no responsibility for program implementation 

at the particular sites, and limited direct responsibility for the selection of the program- and 

comparison-youth samples, but he did implement certain data-collection procedures. The Local 

Evaluator at each site was selected and funded by the local Project Director, under guidelines 

formulated by the National Evaluator and OJJDP. 

Problems 

Solutions to evaluation problems were dependent in large measure on the satisfactory 

resolution of program-development issues, e.g., getting the program off the ground, 

understanding the Model and how to implement it, and accepting required data-collection 

procedures at the local sites. Not all components of the Model were adopted or adequately 

implemented by the local site operators; not all procedures for local data collection were 

followed. Difficulties of data collection were not fully anticipated. Different program and 

evaluation problems were encountered at each site; some were fully resolved, some were not. 

The problems of insufficient understanding and acceptance of the Model by the local sites 

2.20 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
were largely handled by OJJDP management and technical-assistance staff, but also involved the 

National Evaluator. Much of the early problem of Model implementation and local-evaluation 

data collection surfaced around the issue of who was to be selected for the program. At first, 

some of the local Project Directors assumed that focus of the program was prevention and early 

intervention, i.e., targeting at-risk, usually younger youth who were not yet gang members, or 

those with less serious police records. Some of the key organizations at various sites assumed 

that the funds they received were to help them keep doing what each organization separately had 

been doing all along, not necessarily targeting gang youth or coordinating their efforts with other 

organizations. This misconception was substantially resolved over time. 

None of the lead agencies had experience in developing a program combining socialservice and suppression activities. The initial applications to OJJDP may not have clearly 

articulated the criteria for the selection of youth into the program. None of the agencies and only 

one of the Local Evaluators had the experience and sufficient know-how to reach gang 

delinquents on the streets. Grassroots organizations, neighborhood groups or former gang 

members with access to gangs or gang youth were generally not involved in program planning or 

implementation. The programs generally were based on referrals of gang youth on probation 

(mainly juvenile probation) who were not serious offenders. Schools often referred youth who 

were suspended or expelled, or who were regarded as troublesome, but not necessarily seriously 

gang-involved or at high risk for gang involvement. Relatively few youth were referred through 

the efforts of outreach youth workers or police. 

2.21


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Selecting Comparison Areas and Youth Samples 

The selection and interviewing of comparison-youth samples would require extensive 

efforts, particularly by the Local Evaluators. A comparable gang-problem community, where the 

program was not established, had to be chosen. It was not always clear which areas contained 

comparable youth, and comparison samples could not be selected until substantial numbers of 

program youth were in the Project and their characteristics identified. At four of the five sites, 

another area of the same city was selected; at the fifth site, another similar city (or set of twin 

cities) was chosen. Each Local Evaluator had his or her own research interest, which sometimes 

was similar or complementary to the evaluation mission of the National Evaluator, sometimes 

not. There were changes of Local Evaluators at two of the sites. The local Project Director, 

while accountable for the selection and funding of the Local Evaluator, did not necessarily 

provide him with access to sources of data, sometimes not even data on youth in the lead-agency 

program or in other Project-related agencies. 

Data Collection 

A variety of continuing obstacles had to be overcome. The original plan for data 

collection included: individual-youth surveys of 100 program and 100 comparison youth to be 

administered by Local Evaluators at annual interview periods; detailed program-service records 

of contacts by workers with each youth, to be gathered every three months by the different 

program workers at each site; and complete police arrest and confinement histories for all 

program and comparison youth, to be collected by Local Evaluators with the aid of Project 

administrators. With the help of the National Evaluator, these expectations were met. The effort 

2.22


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
to obtain official school records and misconduct histories for each program and comparison 

youth had to be aborted because of the unavailability of such records, and the lack of complete 

attendance or grade records. Gang-as-a-unit and area-level crime data on all gangs were 

generally obtained from gang-crime police and crime analysts in the program and comparison 

areas. Organization surveys were also collected by the National Evaluation staff directly from 

20-25 administrators of key agencies and organizations addressing the gang problem in the 

program and comparison areas. 

The data collected also included: on-site observations of program operations by Local 

and National Evaluation staff; periodic interviews of Project staff; minutes of SteeringCommittee and cluster (multi-site, Project-staff) meetings; summaries of monthly telephone 

conferences with key program staff from each site; reviews of yearly funding applications, 

progress reports and records of special communications by each site with OJJDP; and, lastly, 

program-performance measures based on interviews with key local-agency and SteeringCommittee personnel at the end of the 4- to 5-year program periods. Site visits by the National 

Evaluation staff were made two or three times per year. Periodic visits to the National 

Evaluation office in Chicago were also made periodically by some site Project Directors and 

Local Evaluators to provide information and resolve evaluation issues. 

In many respects, data collection represented the most difficult and time-consuming part 

of the evaluation process, extending well into the data-organization, cleaning, and data-analysis 

phases. Problems of data reliability were sometimes not discovered until later in the program, 

often at the data-cleaning and analysis stages of the Evaluation. Missing and incorrect data were 

discovered belatedly and corrected at considerable expense of time and effort to Project staff and 

2.23


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Evaluators. These issues – resolved in due course – contributed to the delay in the production 

and delivery of final, highly reliable and valid Evaluation reports. 

2.24


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Chart 2.1


Evaluation Model


(Comparison-Area Components = I, II, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX)


Levels of Effect 

2.25 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Chapter 3 

Program and Comparison Areas and the Gang Problem 

In this chapter, we describe the demographic and socioeconomic contexts of the gang 

problem in the program and comparison areas. Our description of the gang problem is limited by 

the lack of detailed data on the problem within the boundaries of the program and comparison 

areas; we depend heavily on perceptions of informants – mainly the police. 

The Program and Comparison Areas 

Tucson, in Pima County, located in southern Arizona just north of the Mexican border, 

was the second largest city in the State, with a population of 405,390 in 1990. It had long been a 

city with a great diversity of racial and ethnic groups and cultures. While non-Hispanic whites 

were still the largest group (almost 61%, compared to 25% nationally), the city’s minority, 

Hispanic population had increased to 35.7% by 2000, compared with about 13% nationally.1 

Tucson had a very high proportion of Hispanic population (mainly of Mexican origin), which 

was expected to increase in the years ahead. 

Tucson’s major industries in 2000 were educational, health, and social services (23.2%), 

retail trade (12.5%); arts, entertainment, accommodation, and food services (11.4%); and 

professional, scientific, management, administration, and waste-management services (10.8%). 

While the general breakdown of industry was similar to that of the United States as a whole, 

Tucson had significantly less of a manufacturing sector (8.6%) compared to the nation as a whole 

 City of T ucso n Pla nning D epa rtmen t, 200 2. Census 2000. The Basics, p. 5. 

3.1 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

1
(14.1%).2 

In 1995, the Tucson Project originally included only the Las Vistas/Pueblo Gardens 

neighborhoods, but it expanded to include Western Hills and South Park in 1996 (the second year 

of Project operations). The comparison area, Elvira, was also expanded to include Desert Hills. 

Both areas were small, about 11⁄2 square miles each, and both were located in the southern part of 

the city, somewhat distant from central-city commercial and cultural life. 

Demographic and Socioeconomic Profiles of the Program and Comparison Areas 

The youth gang problem was largely a function of the concentration of low-income, 

minority, often newly-arrived populations in the program and comparison areas. In the 

following, we summarize the generally similar demographic and socioeconomic characteristics 

(and changes over time) of the program and comparison areas, in contrast to the city as a whole, 

between 1980 and 1990 (Table 3.1 and 3.2). 

Population. In contrast to the city of Tucson’s overall population increase from 330,537 to 

405,390 (22.6%) between 1980 and 1990, the program areas had a much smaller increase – from 

11,293 to 11,743 (4.0%); and the comparison area population actually declined in the same 

period – from 8,749 to 8,217 (-5.2%) (U.S. Census). It is important to note that the absolute 

numbers in the program and comparison areas are relatively small, and are more statistically 

sensitive to population percentage increases and decreases. 

 Ibid, p. 27. 

3.2 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

2
Race/Ethnicity. In 1990, while the Hispanic population (mainly of Mexican origin) comprised 

28.9% of the total population in Tucson as a whole, it comprised 60.6% of the population in the 

program area, and 73.4% in the comparison area. However, the Hispanic population had grown 

only 40.0% in Tucson, but increased by 12.0% in the program and comparison areas. The white 

(non-Hispanic) population had dropped in Tucson (-5.2%), but more in the program (-7.6%) and 

comparison (-14.6%) areas. The program and comparison areas continued to become 

increasingly Hispanic and decreasingly non-Hispanic white. The population of other 

racial/ethnic groups was small (less than 2%) in the city as well as in the program and 

comparison areas, except for the African-American population in the program area (16.4% – only 

slightly less than the non-Hispanic white population – 18.7%). 

Age. While there was evidence of a similar aging of population in the city and the program and 

comparison areas, particularly for the 65-years-and-over sector, there were greater differences in 

percentages of the various youth populations. For example, the under-20-year-old group made 

up 32.4% of the city-wide population in 1990, while it comprised 41.5% of the population in the 

program area and 42.2% in the comparison area. This disproportionate youth population was the 

context for a potentially greater youth gang problem in the program and comparison areas, 

relative to the city as a whole. 

Education. The level of educational attainment in 1980 and 1990 was much lower in the 

program and comparison areas than in Tucson as a whole. High school graduation rates for 25-

year-olds and over in 1990 were 50.1% in the program area and 59.1% in the comparison area, 

3.3


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
but much higher (78.6%) in the city. The city high school drop-out rate was 67% for Hispanic 

youth, and higher for gang youth in the program and comparison areas. 

In one high school that served many of the youth from the program area, 51.0% of youth 

age 13 and 14 years were suspended freshman (First-Year OJJDP Funding Application, 

September, 1994). A good deal of tension existed at some of the high schools. Security 

personnel, police officers and mediation teams from some of the social agencies (including the 

Project’s lead agency, Our Town) were used to quell conflicts between newcomer, Mexicanyouth arrivals and established local Mexican-American youth groups, who were often gang 

members. 

Local program-area police officers noted that jobs were no longer available for youth. 

Opportunities to join the military had largely disappeared for youth without high school degrees. 

“Poor kids, including gang youth, ended up in prison to obtain opportunities.” The local police 

officers also claimed that the key problem was the lack of recreational facilities. The city had 

“withdrawn its interest in kids and became more interested in meeting the social and recreational 

needs of older folks” (Spergel Site Visit, December, 1995). 

Income and Poverty. Between 1980 and 1990, median family income dropped from $22,753 to 

$22,022 (-3.2%) in the program area, and even more sharply in the comparison areas – from 

$35,721 to $28,548 (-20.0%). Average median family income increased slightly for the city as a 

whole – from $31,168 to $31,706 (1.7%) – between 1979 and 1993 (U.S. Census). 

The percentage of families that fell below the poverty level grew from 10.2% to 14.4% in 

the city as a whole, but the rate of increase was greater in the program area – from 21.9% to 

3.4


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
28.6% – and even greater in the comparison area – from 8.7% to 23.1%. The poverty rate in 

1990 was twice as high in the program area, and almost as high in the comparison area, as in the 

city as a whole. The unemployment rate in 1990 was 16.6% in the program area and 10.6% in 

the comparison area, but only 8.3% in the city as a whole. Female-headed households comprised 

less than 20.0% in the city as a whole, but about 25% in the program and comparison areas. The 

growth in housing units was smaller in the program and comparison areas than in the city overall. 

Our Town’s first funding application noted that “Tucson was identified as a city with a 

chronic gang problem. Las Vistas and Pueblo Gardens [originally targeted] were considered by 

the Tucson Police Department to be among the worst sections of Tucson ...” (First Year OJJDP 

Funding Application, September, 1994). The increasing segregation of a minority Hispanic 

(mainly Mexican-origin population), high rates of unemployment, reduced family income, and 

increased poverty rates combined with a substantial level of female-headed households and the 

presence of a relatively large youth population could have provided the basis for social and 

economic disorganization and the development of a youth gang problem in the program and 

comparison areas in 1990. 

Crime and the Gang Problem 

The scope of the crime and gang problem in the program and comparison areas was not 

adequately determined because of the non-availability of specific gang-related police statistics, 

disaggregated on a particular neighborhood basis. Nevertheless, some crime statistics and 

estimates of the gang problem on a larger area basis were available. The 1993 reported crimeincident rate for the south side of Tucson, which included the program area, was much higher 

3.5


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
than for the rest of the city, particularly in regard to homicides, other violent offenses, drive-bys, 

domestic violence, child abuse/neglect and drug offenses. 

A Gang Unit Lieutenant and Sergeant reported that youth gangs existed in certain parts of 

the city for decades. Barrio feuds were present at least since the 1950s, but serious violence did 

not exist prior to the 1980s. The Gang Unit officers spoke of trying to separate hardcore from 

peripheral gang youth. Car clubs developed in the mid-1980s and caused a good deal of trouble, 

including shootings. Car club members cooperated with police; in fact, police supervised the car 

clubs for a while, and serious gang activities then subsided. The problem of gangs in its more 

serious form started up again with the arrival of the CRIPS and the Bloods in the mid-1980s. 

The most serious violence occurred in the early 1990s (Spergel, December, 1996 Site Visit 

Notes). 

The second-year Tucson funding application noted that the city had “traditional barrio 

gangs which have been around for generations.” An important difference between Tucson gangs 

and gangs in other urban areas was that Tucson gangs, at least for a period of time in the early 

1980s and 1990s, were interracial. Many Hispanic street-gang members claimed Blood and 

CRIP gang affiliation because of their common residence in particular parts of the city. But this 

pattern declined as gang affiliation became based on race and ethnicity. “The Texas Brown 

Pride, Mexican Pride, Surenos (Spanish for Southerners) and Sur Trece (Spanish for South 

Thirteen) are being used to proclaim alliance with ... ethnicity. Most of the current gang conflict 

involved Hispanic youth who still claimed Blood affiliation rather than Brown Pride or Sureno 

affiliation” (Second-Year OJJDP Funding Application, June, 1996). 

The scope and severity of the gang problem – in the city as a whole, but not in particular 

3.6 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
neighborhoods – appeared to be somewhat determined. In the Mayor’s 1995 annual state-of-thecity speech he declared that “Tucson has seen a frightening increase in crime – especially violent 

crimes.” He reported that there were more than 100 homicides, and one of every five victims 

was under the age of 18 years (Ibid). However, police estimates were that not more than 12% to 

15% of crime in the city was gang-related (Kane, Field Visit December, 1995). A Gang Unit 

officer noted that there had been an average of about 50 homicides a year in the city, with 80 in a 

recent peak year, and that 10 to 15 of those could be categorized as gang-related (Spergel Site 

Visit, December, 1996). Furthermore, it was not clear whether juvenile arrests (or adult arrests) 

and/or gang arrests were going up or down, based on data provided in Tucson’s first-year funding 

application. Juvenile arrests citywide decreased from 395 in 1994-1995 to 386 in 1995-1996, 

and gang arrests decreased from 254 to 241 in the same period. However, an increase in assaults 

citywide was also reported during the first seven months of 1995, compared to the same period in 

1994 (Second-Year OJJDP Funding Application, June, 1996). During 1993, Tucson had a 

monthly average of 20 crimes involving gang shootings or suspected gang shootings; they 

increased to a total of 232 during the first seven months of 1994. During the first quarter of 

1996, about 48.0% of the juvenile court incident-referrals from Las Vistas were gang members or 

suspected gang youth. Forty-one percent (41.0%) of the drug incidents and 56.4% of the violent 

incidents were attributed to gang members. 

While gangs and gang members were said to be mobile across neighborhoods, the Pima 

County Juvenile Court indicated that 220 out of 226 offenses were committed by youth residing 

in the target area in 1994-1995 (Second-Year OJJDP Funding Application, June, 1996). 

According to statistics of the Tucson Police Department, Gang Intelligence Team Mission 

3.7


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
(GITM), there were 2 gang-related homicides in the program area and 4 aggravated assaults in 

1995 (Ibid). One community-policing officer claimed that drive-bys were a near nightly 

occurrence, and that assaults were common, even if homicides were few. On the other hand, the 

same officer stated that junk cars were more of a concern to the community than gangs. He was 

also aware of crack houses, which the police were watching. Beat officers were trying to move 

gang members out of the neighborhood as part of the citywide Safe Streets initiative (Spergel 

Site Visit, December, 1996). Where they were supposed to be moved was not clear. 

Characteristics of the Gangs 

The characteristics of gang members were also not clearly specified. The program and 

comparison areas consisted mainly of subsets of three clusters of gangs – several still racially and 

ethnically mixed: 

Bloods: Western Hills Posse, 36 Street (Tre 6), Vista and South Park Family 

CRIPS: Manzanita Lynch Mob, North 4th Ave, PJs, 22nd Street Tiny Dukes, Westside 

Project CRIPS 

Hispanic: Barrio Centro, Barrio Hollywood, Barrio Libre, Barrio Vista Carson 

(California), Hanover Gardens (Second-Year OJJDP Funding Application, June, 1996). 

Police Gang Unit members (including 3 detectives and 6 officers serving mainly as 

investigators) believed that the average gang member was about 21 years old. Most gang 

members were local, except for African-American gangs. Las Vistas was considered the most 

gang-infested area; however, Elvira (the comparison area) may have contained the most-serious 

gang problem (Spergel Site Visit Notes, December, 1996). 

3.8


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Based on gang intelligence data, to what extent the gang problem citywide was a juvenile 

or young-adult problem was not clear. There were 1,685 gang members identified citywide 

(5.0% were reported to be in the Las Vistas area). Citywide, only 287 (17.0%) were reported to 

be 17 years and younger, the rest were estimated to be 18-20 years (39.4%) and 21-25 years 

(41.8%). The average age of gang members known to the police was said to be 21 years (Ibid). 

Only 99 gang members were identified in the program area and 70 in the comparison area; fewer 

were juvenile gang members in the program area (11.1%) and slightly more in the comparison 

area (21.4%). 

The Hispanic gangs in the program and comparison area appeared to be more involved in 

intergang conflict with each other. There was relatively more drug selling by youth or among 

young adults in the African-American gangs than in the Hispanic gangs, although there may have 

been more connection between Hispanic prison gangs and Hispanic street gangs in regard to drug 

selling. Gangs did not appear to be highly structured. Leadership was not centralized, and gang 

members could have close friends in different gangs. When conflicts occurred, it was often 

through drivebys or ad hoc confrontations at bus stops, gas stations, shopping areas, and 

restaurants. On the other hand, the first Project Coordinator noted that youth didn’t ordinarily 

hang out on the streets, but rather at each other’s houses, at the park or the Boys or Girls Clubs 

(Monthly Conference Call, January, 1997). 

It was apparent that a good deal of reliable and consistent information on the nature and 

scope of the gang problem was not available, either to the police or the Project. It was possible 

that the Tucson Police Department’s requests for laptop computers may have been more to 

increase knowledge in the city about crime and gangs than to perform Project-related activities. 

3.9


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Our Town, the lead agency, seemed to have little familiarity or direct experience with the gang 

problem. 

After an incomplete attempt at a community assessment of the gang problem, Our Town 

reported: 

“... Until recently, the largest problem most communities [in Tucson] 

faced was gang denial. Capturing statistical data for gang crime was inconsistent 

because basic definitions were not standardized. The Tucson Police Department 

Gang Interdiction Unit began tracking gang data in January 1990" (Second-Year 

OJJDP Funding Application, June, 1996). 

3.10


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 3.1 

Selected Demographic Characteristics of the Program and Com parison Areas 

and the City of Tucson 

Population 1980 1990 %a 1997b 1980-1997 %c 

Tucson 330,537 405,390 22.6 456,821 38.0 

Program Area 11,293 11,743 4.0 

Comparison Area 8,749 8,297 -5.2 

Race/Ethnicity (%)d 

Tucson Program Area Comparison Area 

1980 1990 %a 1980 1990 %a 1980 1990 %a 

White 68.9 63.7 -5.2 26.3 18.7 -7.6 35.8 21.2 -14.6 

Black 3.6 4.1 0.5 22.6 16.4 -6.2 1.0 1.4 0.4 

American Indian 1.3 1.2 -0.1 2.0 1.9 -0.1 1.1 2.5 1.4 

Asian/Pacific Is. 1.1 2.0 0.9 0.4 2.1 1.7 0.6 1.2 0.6 

Other 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 

Hispanic Origin 24.9 28.9 4.0 48.6 60.6 12.0 61.4 73.4 12.0 

Mexican 

(% of Hispanic) 

90.6 90.6 93.8 95.2 1.4 95.9 96.5 0.6 

Sex 1980 1990 %a 1980 1990 %a 1980 1990 %a 

Females 51.7 51.3 -0.4 51.3 50.6 -0.7 51.5 50.2 -1.3 

Males 48.3 48.7 48.7 49.4 48.5 49.8 

Sex Ratio 

(M/100 Females) 

95.0 94.8 95.0 97.6 94.2 99.2 

Age (%) 1980 1990 %a 1980 1990 %a 1980 1990 %a 

Under 10 13.7 14.4 0.7 23.0 21.2 -1.8 24.0 18.6 -5.4 

10-14 6.9 6.3 -0.6 9.6 10.3 0.7 11.1 13.2 2.1 

15-19 9.6 7.7 -1.9 10.0 9.8 -0.2 10.7 10.4 -0.3 

20-24 12.7 10.3 -2.4 10.9 6.5 -4.4 7.0 6.3 -0.7 

25-34 18.0 19.0 1.0 17.3 16.1 -1.2 16.5 17.4 0.9 

35-64 27.6 29.7 2.1 23.3 28.4 5.1 26.3 28.4 2.1 

65+ 11.7 12.6 1.9 5.9 7.7 1.8 4.4 5.7 1.3 

a

 Indicates the percentage change which occurred from 1980 to 1990. 

b

 Indicates the population of Tucson in 1997, based on population projections by the City of Tucson Planning Department. 

 Indicates the percentage change which occurred from 1980 to 1997. 

d

 The category White does not include Hispanics (identified as Spanish Origin in the 1980 Census) who also identified themselves 

as Black, American Indian, Asian, and Other. The category Mexican is the percentage of those Hispanics who identified 

themselves as being of Mexican ancestry. 

3.11 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

c
--- --- ---

Table 3.2 

Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Program and Com parison Areas and of the City of Tucson 

Education Tucson Program Area Comparison Area 

(% 25/25+ years) 1980 1990 %a 1980 1990 %a 1980 1990 %a 

Less than 9th Grade 14.9 9.4 -5.5 39.3 28.5 -0.8 42.5 18.1 -24.4 

HS Graduate 72.7 78.6 5.9 50.4 50.1 -0.3 57.5 59.1 1.6 

Some College 21.0 25.9 4.9 14.0 17.8 3.8 14.6 18.7 4.1 

Bachelor’s Degreeb 19.2 12.7 5.2 2.3 2.0 2.6 0.6 

Graduate/Professional 

Degree 

8.0 1.5 1.9 

Income 1980 1990 %a 1980 1990 %a 1980 1990 %a 

Median Family Income 

(79/89 in 1993 dollars) 

31,168 31,706 1.7 22.753 22,022 -3.2 35,72 

1 

28,548 -20.0 

Median Household Income 

(79/89 in 1993 dollars) 

25,239 25,343 0.4 20,773 20,116 -3.2 34,62 

8 

26,903 -24.6 

Female-Headed 

Households (%) 

15.7 19.7 4.0 21.8 26.2 4.4 10.6 23.6 13.0 

Families Below Poverty (%) 10.2 14.4 4.2 21.9 28.6 6.7 8.7 23.1 14.4 

Employment 1980 1990 %a 1980 1990 %a 1980 1990 %a 

Labor Force (# workers) 155,210 201,391 29.8 4,668 4,753 1.8 5,938 3,643 -38.6 

Civilian 152,737 196,051 28.4 4,584 4,729 3.2 5,853 3,618 -38.2 

Non-civilian 2,473 5,340 116.0 84 24 -71.4 85 25 -70.6 

Unemployment (%) 6.5 8.3 -1.8 10.8 16.6 5.8 9.7 10.6 0.9 

Residence (%)c 1975 1985 %d 1975 1985 %d 1975 1985 %d 

Same House 43.5 41.5 -2.0 45.6 53.1 7.5 62.4 58.8 -3.6 

Different House/Same 

County 

22.5 27.9 5.4 21.6 28.3 6.7 24.8 25.0 0.2 

Outside County, State, Etc. 34.0 30.6 -3.4 32.8 18.6 -14.2 12.8 16.2 3.4 

a

 Indicates the percentage change which occurred from 1980 to 1990. 

b

 Bachelor’s Degree in the 1980 Census is defined as 4 or more years of college education; in th e1990 Census it refers only to 

those who received a bachelor’s degree. 

 Percentage of persons age 5 and over who reported in the 1980 and 1990 Censuses where they had lived 5 years earlier, i.e., in 

1975 and 1985 (respectively). 

d

 Indicates the percentage change which occurred from 1975 to 1985. 

3.12 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

c
Table 3.2 continued 

Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Program and Com parison Areas and of the City of Tucson 

Housing 1980 1990 %a 1980 1990 %a 1980 1990 %a 

Number of Units 137,249 183,338 33.6 3,626 3,942 8.7 2,361 2,740 16.0 

Total Occupied 125,266 162,685 29.9 3,381 3,507 3.7 2,304 2,450 6.3 

Owner-Occupied (%) 47.9 42.0 -5.9 57.0 53.3 -3.7 2,304 2,450 6.3 

Renter-Occupied (%) 39.5 48.4 8.2 32.4 41.7 9.3 15.9 35.3 19.4 

Other (%) 12.6 9.6 -3.0 10.6 5.0 -5.6 2.5 4.0 1.5 

3.13


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Chapter 4 

Development of the Project 

A comprehensive community-wide approach to the youth gang problem did not develop 

in Tucson. Existing organizational, interorganizational, and community interests and structures 

prevented the adoption or appropriate adaptation of the OJJDP Model. The lead agency, Our 

Town Family Center (OTFC/Our Town), was primarily – almost exclusively – interested in the 

delivery of social services. The Tucson Police Department (TPD) preferred to become only 

peripherally involved in support of the program, and key community agencies and grassroots 

organizations were not substantively engaged in the development of the Project. The Project 

became an effort to meet the needs of program youth mainly within the framework of the existing 

Our Town services. 

The context for many of the Project’s problems was evident early on, at the time of a 

series of OJJDP orientation meetings conducted in Kansas City in June 1995, just prior to the 

development of the Tucson Project’s structure, planning, and program operations. The Tucson 

agency representatives expressed a primary interest in “provider participation by community 

agencies and leaders on the development of a task force, a mission statement and a way to act in 

resolution of the gang problem.” They discussed problems of information-sharing and 

definitions pertaining to the local gang problem, and also expressed concern about the 

fragmentation of agency relations and lack of knowledge about the gang problem. The issues 

and concerns raised were: 

• There was no system of formal linkages or flow of information among agencies and 

4.1 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
community groups, and even within organizations, in respect to the gang problem; 

•	 State, county and city government and the schools had different definitions of the gang 

problem; 

•	 No database existed on the nature and scope of the gang problem. There had been no 

systematic collection of gang data (particularly across agencies), no analysis of data on 

the overall problem, and no general sharing of information about the gang problem; 

•	 There was a need for community mobilization, particularly in respect to developing 

interagency and community support for addressing the gang problem; 

•	 Knowledge of which agencies and organizations were working with gang youth, a 

commitment to working with gang youth, and development of knowledge and consensus 

on ways to work with gang youth were specifically needed (Meeting Notes of National 

Evaluation Staff Meeting, Kansas City, June 6, 1995). 

Most of these concerns and issues were never adequately addressed in the course of the four 

years of operation of the Tucson project. 

Prior to the award of OJJDP funds, there appeared to be no history of mobilization 

specifically to address the gang problem. The TPD had earlier organized coalitions of agencies, 

schools, ministerial groups and community groups to assist in neighborhood reclamation, i.e., 

controlled suppression of crime. These efforts involved mainly activities by the police “to 

eliminate drug dealers” and enforce curfews. The efforts helped mainly to suppress gang 

activities (First-Year OJJDP Funding Application, September, 1994). 

The TPD also had organized a community-policing effort in the Las Vistas/Pueblo 

4.2


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Gardens area – the original program area. It conducted a community cleanup and leadershiptraining activities, assisting community members to access resources and services, but there was 

apparently little coordination of such efforts across agencies. In 1995, a separate citywide 

coalition of agencies was formed, known as TASK 1 (Taking a Stand for Kids) – a consortium of 

many organizations with interests in violence and the gang problem in the program area as well 

as other parts of the city – which Our Town attempted to utilize as the Project’s Steering 

Committee. There was talk of incorporating TASK 1 into the Mayor’s Task Force on Youth 

Violence – an even broader consortium of organizations including justice-system agencies. 

Somehow a few of these agencies became associated with the Our Town Project. 

TASK 1 submitted a proposal to the City of Tucson to fund a series of programs targeted 

to at-risk and gang-involved youth in an area larger than the target neighborhoods. The services 

to be provided included social and recreational activities, vocational training and job placement, 

enhanced educational opportunities, family counseling, and neighborhood improvement and 

beautification. The application was accepted, but funded at a reduced level. The agencies 

involved included La Frontera,1 Our Town Family Center, the Boys and Girls Club and Youth 

Development. Each was to expand its ongoing services, but there was no provision for 

coordination of their efforts. These three organizations later became contract agencies under the 

OJJDP Gang Program Grant, with Our Town as the lead agency (Quarterly Report to OJJDP, 

June-September, 1995). Although the TPD, the Pima County District Attorney’s Office, and the 

Probation and Parole Departments were associated with the TASK 1 structure and efforts, they 

did not become closely involved in their operations. 

1

 A child and fa mily-treatm ent age ncy. 

4.3 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
However, the TASK 1 agencies took on a social-development mission of interest 

primarily to social-service agencies, which Our Town adopted for its own purposes .... 

“to develop and implement a comprehensive program for gang prevention, 

intervention, and suppression that will mobilize the multi-disciplinary leadership 

of the community. We will provide an environment that is safe and productive. 

We will encourage positive lifestyles and the growth of a healthy self-esteem. We 

will develop networks of resources. We will change lives by providing 

opportunities in education, employment, training, support services, safe housing 

and leadership development” (Second-Year OJJDP Funding Application, June, 

1996). 

After the OJJDP grant was awarded, problems quickly arose as to how to integrate the 

interests of the various agencies and consortia concerned with youth violence and youth 

development in Tucson. The relationship of TASK 1 to the Steering Committee was not 

clarified, nor was the leadership role of Our Town accepted by local neighborhood leaders. One 

of the leaders of the Las Vistas Neighborhood Association expressed frustration and raised 

questions about the head of Our Town, who was accused of having a history of starting and then 

abandoning projects in the program area. 

At TASK 1 meetings in early 1996, questions were raised by representatives of various 

agencies as to what TASK 1's purpose was, and especially what its relationship to Our Town and 

the OJJDP Gang Project was to be. There was growing unease about the lack of full involvement 

by the TPD and other criminal-justice agencies. Was TASK 1 and/or the Gang Project to have 

4.4


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
mainly a social-development focus? One member of TASK 1 stated “we are still waiting to hear 

from TPD how they will support the Project.” A question was also raised as to how TASK 1 

would relate to the Mayor’s Task Force. 

At a meeting of TASK 1 in February 1996, the chairperson announced his resignation, 

since his agency would be working on the Our Town Gang Program Grant, and he “did not want 

to have a conflict of interest.” One member of Task 1 “agreed that we need to start separating 

from the grant ... we are not an appendage to the Our Town grant.” Another TASK 1 agency 

representative “supported the idea that TASK 1 was originally supposed to be broader than a 

therapeutic community; there is nothing wrong with this, but TASK 1's focus needs to be broader 

and we need funding.” 

A transition team was organized that suggested TASK 1 break from Our Town to ensure 

its own identity. The split would enable TASK 1 to be independent of Our Town, allow for 

gang-program monies to be spread across all the agencies, provide money for a part-time 

coordinator, and allow for more organizational structure. “This split would be an amicable 

business arrangement. It was proposed and accepted that a transition committee be formed with 

the task of coordinating and reorganizing TASK 1 with the goal of becoming a more structured 

and formalized group with less dependence on Our Town Family Center ...” (TASK 1 March 20, 

1996 Meeting Minutes, in Second-Year OJJDP Application, June, 1996). 

At the same time, the Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Violence – comprising criminaljustice and other agencies and community leaders – seemed to be taking a different, more 

suppression-oriented approach to the gang problem than either the TASK 1 or Our Town 

leadership. Minutes of Task Force meetings of February 6 and February 20, 1997 were included 

4.5


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
in Our Town’s Third-Year Funding Application, July, 1997. The Chief of the TPD was reported 

to be investigating the possibilities of adopting the Boston Gun Control Model as a basis for 

getting police officers and probation officers to partner together to address Tucson’s youth 

homicide rate. 

The Mayor’s Task Force made reference to the use of “gang veteranos” (older, less-active 

gang members) in some of the gang-problem neighborhoods. They were reported to have 

considerable influence and “should be utilized to be positive leaders in their barrios. They could 

provide job counseling, basic work-place rules and etiquette training, and information on tattoo 

removal. In doing this the ‘veteranos’ would be helping their younger counterparts become 

productive members of society” (Ibid). Included in the Mayor’s Task Force agenda were such 

issues as: 

• Police/Probation-Officer Partnerships 

• “Veteranos” 

• Civilian Conservation Corps 

• Alternative Education Sites 

• Promoting Volunteerism on School Campuses 

It appeared that there were three consortia of agencies, community groups, and schools 

meeting separately, with different purposes and agendas. Many of the same agencies were 

variably involved in the three consortia. TASK 1 was preparing to address the interests and 

needs for services of a wide assortment of youth, probably not simply gang or at-risk youth; Our 

Town was interested in providing its services to gang youth and youth at risk of gang 

4.6


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
involvement; and the Mayor’s Task Force was interested in addressing general issues of youth 

violence citywide. 

Our Town Family Center Agency (OTFC/Our Town) 

Our Town, founded in 1949 by volunteers whose task was to visit and assist probationers, 

was a social-service agency with a tradition of, and considerable influence in, the development of 

services citywide, as well as in the program area. It appeared to be continually expanding under 

strong and resourceful leadership. The staff had grown from 30 in 1990 to 180 in 1995. Our 

Town was engaged in the provision of a variety of services – in the program area and throughout 

the city – including family-crisis services, programs for runaways, suicide prevention, mentalhealth services, sheltered care, independent living arrangements, and services to female 

prostitutes, as well as general case-management services. They were interested in mediating 

problems in school settings around parent-child, teacher-teacher, and child-teacher conflicts, 

some of which included gang issues. Mediation-training was provided to various school 

personnel. Our Town’s Director reported it had outreach workers in the neighborhoods, and was 

also engaged in community-organization services. The agency had close relationships with the 

nearby Boys and Girls Club, and referred clients for services to a variety of agencies, particularly 

to La Frontera, a family agency (Spergel Site Visit Notes, December, 1998). 

Our Town had special interests in prevention and early-intervention programs, but little 

experience in dealing on a neighborhood basis with gang youth who were juvenile offenders. 

Only one of its staff, who was not involved in the OJJDP Gang Project, appeared to have some 

prior experience working with gang youth in the neighborhood. Motivation on the part of agency 

4.7


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
leadership and staff to establish a special, broad-based interagency outreach program addressed 

to gang-involved youth was not clearly evident in this contact with the National Evaluators. Our 

Town was willing accept referrals of youth into its existing service arrangements. To what extent 

a relationship would be established with a variety of organizations – including grassroots 

organizations, employment agencies, schools, criminal-justice agencies (particularly police) – 

specifically in relation to the youth gang problem was uncertain, despite claims in the First-Year 

Funding Application (Ibid). 

Our Town stated that the goal of its project was “to develop a comprehensive gang 

prevention, intervention and suppression program for two neighborhoods located in Tucson ... A 

coalition has formed to address the problem. The coalition involves a broad spectrum of 

members from probation, police and city and county, government, as well as private citizens. 

The coalition plans to utilize the juvenile justice model design referred to as a ‘Comprehensive 

Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention and Suppression’ program” (FirstYear OJJDP Funding Application, September, 1994). 

In the remainder of this chapter we explore Our Town’s development of the Project’s 

structure (i.e., the creation of a coalition of agencies, particularly the Steering Committee, to 

guide the program) and its utilization of the justice system, particularly the integration of the 

Tucson Police Department into program operations. 

Development of the Project Structure 

Steering Committee 

Our Town did not develop an adequately-functioning Steering Committee to guide the 

4.8


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Project in its development and activities during its four-year period of operations. Our Town 

leadership apparently did not clearly understand or accept the nature and purpose of the Steering 

Committee, especially the need for other agencies and community groups to identify with or 

become part of the Project. Our Town administrative staff may have conceived of the Steering 

Committee as a group of other agencies whose purpose was to assist Our Town in providing its 

services to targeted youth. The Steering Committee was regarded by Our Town staff as an 

arrangement of individuals and representatives of organizationas closely related to the interests of 

the program neighborhood. 

“Our goal is to the staff of the Advisory Committee with local decision 

makers from local government and organizations who have specific impact on the 

target neighborhood. These individuals will include residents of neighborhood 

associations, community activists, local businessmen and, moreover, individuals 

from the religious community and social service organizations who provide 

services to the target neighborhood” (Progress Report, January-March, 1997). 

Our Town never accepted the idea of the Project as a collaborative, cross-agency project 

assisting at policy and administrative levels to develop and implement the OJJDP Model in 

Tucson. The Steering Committee, whether at the local neighborhood-organization or 

established-agency level, was primarily supposed to show up at meetings and lend support to the 

programs carried out by Our Town, with a few agencies serving as contractors in the provision of 

services. The notion of a community-wide coalition of agencies collaboratively addressing the 

community’s gang problem was not developed. 

4.9


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
During the four-year Project period, the Steering Committee functioned spasmodically, 

almost as a volunteer committee of Our Town to legitimize its OJJDP grant. The chairman and 

leader of the Steering Committee was also the original Project Director. He left the position with 

Our Town and the Project in the second year of Project operations to become principal of an 

alternative school. Still closely identified with the interests of Our Town, he apparently retained 

his chairmanship of the Steering Committee, which met only infrequently. The Agency Director 

of Our Town was present at the occasional Steering-Committee meetings only when OJJDP 

administrators attended. 

There were occasional efforts to use the TASK 1 group or the Mayor’s Task Force on 

Youth Violence as a kind of Steering Committee. In a progress report for the last quarter of 

1996, Our Town vaguely reported “plans are underway to revitalize TASK 1 by incorporating it 

into the Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Violence. An Advisory Committee for the OJJDP gang 

grant is being formed made up of persons associated with the target area” (Quarterly Report, 

Year Two, October 1-December 31, 1996). A few months later the National Technical 

Assistance Consultant commented on Our Town’s efforts to build a Steering Committee, as 

follows: 

“This project has never had its own Steering Committee. At the outset, it 

was an offshoot of a group with a broader focus, then part of a new initiative 

started by the Mayor. [The former Project Director] and the [Agency Director] are 

now thinking the Project needs its own ‘advisory’ group. We indicated a strong 

committee task force which included local community representatives was key to 

effective community mobilization” (C. Kane Memo to I. Spergel, March 30, 

4.10


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
1997). “[The former Project Director] is acknowledging the need for a Steering 

Committee to provide feedback to staff, and down the road to advocate for the 

Project (C. Kane Memo to I. Spergel, October 24, 1997). 

In January 1998, Our Town staff called a meeting of representatives of agencies that had 

some involvement with the Project. OJJDP administrators, the National Technical Assistance 

Consultant, and the Local and National Evaluators, as well as Our Town staff attended. There 

was little expressed reaction to OJJDP’s and the Technical Assistance Consultant’s presentations 

about the purpose and nature of the federal initiative. There seemed to be a general lack of 

interest in the Project, and little expression of their desire to participate in either the Steering 

Committee or the program, other than on a limited and pro forma basis. In the few comments by 

persons present from the local agencies, there was little clarity about how to go about 

implementing the Project Model, and a good deal of “floating uncertainty or anxiety by the 

OTFC staff.” At the end of the meeting, the National Evaluator commented that the group 

seemed to be potentially more of an advisory group to Our Town than an institutional board. The 

former Project Director, who chaired the meeting, half-heartedly agreed. (Report by I. Spergel of 

Steering Committee Meeting, January 9, 1998). 

The Our Town Progress Report of the same meeting indicated a different view about 

results of the meeting. It stated: 

“In January, Tucson held the first Steering Committee meeting. The discussion ... 

encouraged the group to examine what issues they may have to enable us to do our work more 

effectively” (Progress Report, January-March, 1998). It listed the Steering-Committee 

4.11


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
members: Catalina High School, Principal; Tucson Police Department, Chief; Pima County 

Criminal Justice Court Center, Director; Outreach County Attorney’s Office Liaison; La 

Frontera, Director of Substance Abuse Services; Boys and Girls Club, Associate Director; 

Tucson Urban League, Assistant Director; Esperanza Agency, Therapist; Utterbach Elementary 

School, Principal; Cavette Elementary School, Principal; Project Yes, Director; Quail 

Enterprises, Director [also the Local Our Town Project Evaluator]; State Corrections Department 

of Parole (Juvenile Division), Supervisor; Local Councilman’s Office, Aide; principal of another 

local school. 

Community Mobilization 

Toward the end of the third year of Project operations, the OJJDP Program Manager 

invited Our Town’s Agency Director to submit a proposal for fourth-year funding to implement 

the OJJDP Gang Program Model. One of the areas identified for Project-implementation effort 

was community mobilization. 

“A great deal of effort is required to further develop the Steering 

Committee and integrate local agencies and neighborhood groups into the 

development of the project. How much actual improvement and support by 

Steering Committee members other than demonstrated by Probation is unclear 

[Probation was primarily responsible for referring youth to the program.] A 

weakness in community mobilization has been lack of staff capacity and 

commitment in the community mobilization effort ...” (Letter from the OJJDP 

Program Manager to the Our Town Agency Director, July 17, 1998). 

4.12 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
In its fourth-year funding application in August, 1998, Our Town stated its intention of 

“expanding the membership, commitment and role of the Steering Committee.” In its appended 

Quarterly Report (April-June, 1998), Our Town indicated that “a plan for revitalizing the 

Steering Committee meetings will be devised. Those who have not attended will be contacted to 

give continued support to attend and participate in the meetings.” 

However, in their April 1999 field visit to the Project, a National Evaluation staff 

member and the National Technical Assistance Consultant also attended a Steering-Committee 

meeting on April 15, 1999, and made the following comments in their report: 

“The Friday morning Steering Committee meeting was not well attended. 

Police and Prosecutor’s officers were late. No one came from Probation or the 

schools. There were representatives of Parole and service agencies [those with 

contracts to provide services to program youth]. Those who came seemed 

interested. We participated in discussions about expanding the membership, 

shifting ownership of the Project from Our Town to partner agencies, and how to 

build more support for the Project” (C. Kane Memo to I. Spergel, re: Tucson Site 

Visit, April 16, 1999). 

The National Evaluation staff member noted that ... “little or no ownership of, or a 

personal accountability towards, the Steering Committee [was made]. On a few occasions, 

members made references such as ‘your’ meeting and ‘your goals’ (meaning Our Town Family 

Center’s)” (L. Ollendorff, Report of Tucson Site Visit, April 15-16, 1999). 

In its fifth-year funding application (not granted), Our Town stated: 

4.13 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
“A Steering Committee has increased its commitment during Year Four, 

moving from quarterly to monthly meetings beginning in February 1999 ... The 

Committee works to secure ongoing funding for the Project for Year 6 and beyond 

... The Steering Committee will expand its role to take on more of the problemsolving and decision-making related to day-to-day activities of the Project. 

... Attendance at the meetings has been down for the last year and some of 

the members have little or no input into the Project. [Also] agencies currently 

represented on the Committee need to be ... someone that can be consistent .. To 

date, the Steering Committee has done very little policy setting, problem solving, 

or future planning” (Fifth-Year OJJDP Funding Application, July, 1999). 

Neighborhood Organization. In its original funding application, Our Town stated it 

would develop a coalition of social-service agencies, schools, justice-system agencies and 

grassroots organizations, as well as a survey of “residents of the neighborhood and involve them 

immediately in the Project to insure that the Project meets their particular needs” (First-Year 

OJJDP Funding Application, September, 1994). 

Our Town did establish a Drop-In Center in its first year of program operations (i.e., the 

second funded Project year). It rented a house belonging to a local community activist who had 

recently retired. The house had been used by an older African-American lady as a small center to 

provide limited services, and young neighborhood children had been involved in recreation 

activities there (Quarterly Report, January-March, 1997). Its purpose would be to “provide youth 

and residents a local, safe, and accessible place to meet with Project staff to address their needs. 

4.14


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
The center will be used primarily by youth enrolled in the program and secondarily by 

neighborhood residents” (Report #2, October-December 1996, in Second-Year OJJDP Funding 

Application, June, 1996). The facility was to become an outpost office for Project youth workers 

and case workers. In actuality, however, it was little used by neighborhood residents or program 

youth. 

“The grassroots neighborhood organization in the program area did not 

appear to be actively involved in the program and with community mobilization ... 

the target neighborhood comprised of four individual neighborhoods poses a 

special problem in dealing with issues of community mobilization. In the past 

two of the smaller neighborhoods have stagnated because of local activists 

holding personal grudges. By using surveys and selecting a broad number of 

individuals it is hoped to avoid the frustration that cloud progress and excludes 

participation for many residents” (Fourth-Year OJJDP Funding Application, 

August, 1998). 

The Project neighborhood-organization worker did undertake a survey of 65 local 

residents and organizations, which served more to inquire about delinquency and gang conditions 

in the area than as a prelude to involving local organizations in the work of the Project. The 

neighborhood-organization worker continued to attend local neighborhood-association meetings. 

It was not clear how the survey and attendance at neighborhood-organization meetings was 

related to Project purposes and efforts (Fourth-Year Quarterly Progress Report, OctoberDecember, 1998). 

4.15


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Among his criticisms of the Our Town program, the OJJDP Program Manager noted that 

“an adequate level of grassroots involvement in the development of the program had not been 

demonstrated” (Letter from Program Manager to Our Town Agency Director, July 17, 1998). 

Our Town’s application for fifth-year funding further noted that “community members have not 

been involved in the Steering Committee” and “there has not been a large amount of feedback 

from the community to the Project” (Fifth-Year OJJDP Funding Application, July, 1999). 

In sum, although the Our Town Project had letters of support from a variety of 

organizations in order to file various applications for OJJDP funding, attempts at forming an 

effective Steering Committee did not succeed. The Steering Committee was hardly more than an 

intermittent, visiting advisory committee. The Committee met irregularly, with changing 

membership participation; at one period it did not meet for nearly a year. Our Town 

Administration used the quasi-existence of the Steering Committee to show that they had some 

interest in broader community-agency support, but, nevertheless, they would strictly control 

allocation of OJJDP funds and the development of the Project. 

Tucson Police Department Collaboration 

In his July, 1998 letter to the Our Town Agency Director, the OJJDP Program Manager 

also indicated that the second of his major concerns with the Project was law enforcement. 

Another major structural problem was the limited (and probably the absence of) major interest, 

cooperation and collaboration on the part of the Tucson Police Department (TPD). This affected 

the development of the Project. The reasons for the TPD’s not fully supporting the Project were 

unclear. There may have been lack of priority for the gang problem in Tucson (relative to other 

4.16


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
law-enforcement concerns) and a lack of law-enforcement resources, combined with insufficient 

knowledge about the scope and severity of the gang problem and what to do about it. 

The TPD Chief provided letters of support for the Our Town Project’s first application for 

OJJDP funding. He stated that he (as did the Pima County District Attorney) supported Our 

Town’s application, which “will address gang prevention and family intervention” (First-Year 

OJJDP Funding Application, September, 1994). The TPD also indicated its interest in 

participating in the “TASK 1 meetings and appropriate subcommittees” (Letter of Support for 

Second-Year OJJDP Funding Application, June, 1996). In the TPD’s letter of support for Our 

Town’s fourth-year funding application, it stated it “will continue to be active in its participation 

in TASK 1 meetings and subcommittees as appropriate .. We are supporting Our Town Family 

Center and its efforts in the gang project” (Fourth-Year OJJDP Funding Application, August, 

1998). 

The Police Gang Unit was interested in better information about gang problems, but its 

main task was suppression. It was especially interested in assessment issues and strengthening 

its data-gathering capacity, and particularly in improving its computer technology systems. The 

TPD also believed that “an integrated approach of enforcement, prevention and education was 

important” (Second-Year OJJDP Funding Application, June, 1996). 

In 1996, the original Our Town Project Director was asked by the Police Chief to sit on 

the TPD’s Steering Committee, and to look at police information technologies in particular 

(Progress Report, January-March 1997). In the following Quarterly Progress Report, Our Town 

noted that they “purchased 10 laptops for TPD to enable ...the detectives of the gang unit to be 

able to access their ... database while on the streets” (Progress Report, April-June, 1997). 

4.17


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Nevertheless, the level of involvement of police personnel in the Project’s operations was 

of key concern to the OJJDP Program Manager. He traveled to Tucson in May, 1998 to discuss 

the “level of involvement of the [TPD’s] gang unit officer assigned to the Project team ... the 

detective’s role has been limited to infrequent contact with only a few of the youth targeted ... 

contacts are not very substantive ... due to the detective’s work schedule (weekdays 9 am – 5 pm) 

... his primary assignment was to investigate gang crimes [generally] occurring in the target 

area” (C. Kane Memo to I. Spergel, Site Visit, June 5, 1998). 

The TPD’s Assistant Chief responded positively to the Program Manager’s visit, and 

noted that a tactical officer might be a “better fit” with the Project than a gang intelligence 

officer. The Assistant Chief observed that the Department’s tactical team did not exist when the 

Project began, and that the TPD was short-staffed at the present time, but a change might take 

place. Following the site visit, the OJJDP Program Manager and Technical Assistance 

Consultant stopped by to see the Pima County District Attorney, who at first misunderstood the 

purpose of the visit; he thought it was an offer of funds (Ibid). Following the visit “a tactical 

officer was assigned to the Project ... Project senior staff were invited to participate in weekly 

TPD intelligence meetings and [police] officers assigned to the Project could attend Project case 

staffings” (Fourth-Year OJJDP Funding Application, August, 1998). 

Project Crisis and Termination 

A crisis occurred in relation of the TPD’s collaboration with the Evaluation of the 

Project. It became evident that the TPD would not or could not provide aggregate-level incident 

data (gang and/or non-gang) for the program and comparison areas during the pre-program 

4.18


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
period because of the high costs involved (Letter of Local Evaluator to the TPD Assistant Chief, 

April 2, 1999). The provision of such data had been agreed to by Our Town and the TPD in the 

original negotiations for award of funding for the Project. At about the same time, the National 

Evaluation staff member also noted that ... 

“Tucson officers in the city and county” seem to be increasingly 

suppression-oriented towards gang members and criminals in the community. 

Over the past year, the Tucson Police Department has increased the use of police 

sweeps throughout the city. Furthermore, ... Pima County District Attorney’s 

Office has advocated the implementation of the ... ‘Criminal Eviction Assistance 

Program’ which allows landlords to give renters a ‘notice of immediate eviction’ 

within a 24-hour period. Activities that lead to eviction can include gang 

activities and any other crime activity that disturbs the neighborhood” (L. 

Ollendorff, Tucson Site Visit, April 15-16, 1999). 

In support of Our Town’s application for fifth-year OJJDP funding, the TPD said it 

“would not support the gang program if the two funded positions at the TPD (Tactical Officer 

and Crime Analyst) weren’t fully funded by the Project” (C. Kane Memo to I. Spergel, July 2, 

1999). Earlier (June 28, 1999), the new Chief of Police had indicated in a letter to the Our Town 

Agency Director: 

“... After careful consideration, I regret to advise you that the Police 

Department will not be in a position to provide any direct support for this grant in 

the coming year. While I am appreciative of your ongoing efforts, staffing and 

4.19


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
fiscal concerns preclude our continuing involvement. 

We nevertheless, look forward to continuing our effective working 

relationships with Our Town in other programs that serve the community. Thank 

you for considering us for involvement in this grant effort ...” 

The Agency Director of Our Town made a last ditch effort to save the Project. She met 

with the Mayor after the TPD Chief sent a letter saying he could not support the Project in terms 

of the fifth-year grant application. The Mayor made a call to the Chief and then called the 

Agency Director, saying basically the matter was out of his hands. There was nothing he could 

do... (OJJDP Program Manager’s E-Mail to Technical Assistance and National Evaluation Staff, 

July 15, 1999). 

Some progress had been made in implementing a service program, but existing Our Town 

Project operations had not been sufficiently changed to accommodate the essential structure and 

purpose of the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Program Model. Adequate collaboration with the 

TPD had not developed. The Steering Committee minutes of the Spring, 1999 meeting stated 

that “the most significant change [of the Project structure in relation to the Model] has been TPD 

inviting OTFC to participate in weekly Gang Task Force Meetings where youth enrolled in the 

program are discussed” (Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, April 16, 1999). 

In a memo to the OJJDP Project Manager in regard to Tucson’s application for fifth-year 

funding, the National Evaluation Director noted: 

“The application reveals a serious lack of cooperation from the Tucson 

Police Department; inability by Our Town to develop effective community 

4.20


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
mobilization .. the Project has been mainly an extension of the social service 

program of Our Town ... Based on a conversation with [the Our Town Agency 

Director] .. July 12, 1999 ... I believe Our Town has no serious expectation of an 

OJJDP award for fifth-year funding ... The Director of the Project was budgeted 

for 10% of time for the proposed fifth year, and only 25% in prior years ... How 

adequate can the program be developed when the Agency Director meets once a 

week with the Project Program Coordinator?...” (I. Spergel Memo to OJJDP 

Program Manager, July, 1999). 

The Deputy Administrator of OJJDP wrote to the Agency Director of Our Town Family 

Center on August 5, 1999, saying that they would not approve its fifth-year application for 

funding to continue the Project. 

“It is with regret that I must inform you that OJJDP will decline the option 

to provide extended support to the Tucson Gang Project (Las Vistas/Pueblo 

Gardens). 

The primary reason for this decision is due to the Tucson Police 

Department’s (TPD’s) decision to discontinue its gang suppression support for the 

Project due to ‘staffing and fiscal concerns’ as cited in [Tucson Police Chief’s] 

letter to you of June 28, 1999 ... Without support of the TPD, Tucson will be 

unable to implement this model or sustain the program.” 

4.21


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Chapter 5 

Organizations’ Perceptions of Crime 

and 

Program Performance Assessments 

We attempted to measure changes in perceptions of gang and non-gang crime among 

representatives of Project-related organizations, and changes in their own organizations’ program 

strategies, between the first and third year of Project operations. These changes could possibly 

indicate the nature and extent to which the Model strategies were adapted by the key 

organizations who were participating in and/or affecting the development of the Project. We also 

assessed the extent to which Model structural elements, strategies, and principles-of-practice 

were achieved, based on the views of those community and agency leaders closest to the program 

at the end of the Project period, and also on the observations of local Tucson Project-related 

personnel and the National Evaluators. In this report, we provide findings comparatively across 

the five demonstration sites, with focus on the Tucson Project. Based on these findings, we saw 

no evidence of a positive effect on program-youth and area gang-related criminal behaviors. 

Organization Survey (Rolando V. Sosa) 

The purpose of the survey of the Project-related organizations was to discover whether 

and how the executives’ or administrators’ (and sometimes supervisors’) perceptions of gang and 

non-gang crime – and their own programs’ strategies about the gang problem in their areas – 

changed between the first and third years of the Project period. Representatives of key 

organizations were interviewed at each of the five national Project-demonstration sites. Surveys 

5.1


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
were conducted in the first and third years of the Project, i.e., the latter part of 1996 and early 

months of 1997, and again in the latter part of 1998 and the early months of 1999. The Project 

Lead-Agency Administrator at each site provided a list of local organizations and contact persons 

at the initial (Time I) survey, and the list was revised or updated at the follow-up (Time II) 

survey. During the Time-I survey, representatives of 132 organizations across the five sites were 

interviewed; representatives of 104 organizations were interviewed during the Time-II survey. 

At Time II, several organizations were either no longer active or related to the program, some 

didn’t respond to the survey, and several new organizations were added. Organization 

representatives interviewed at both Time I and Time II generally represented relatively more 

continually-active Project participants. Several of the organizations responding to the Time-II 

survey were only peripherally involved in the program at Time I, but had become more active by 

Time II. 

Representatives of 19 Tucson Project-related organizations completed (or partially 

completed) interviews at both Time I and Time II (somewhat fewer than the average for the five 

sites as a whole: 20.8). The same respondent at a particular organization did not necessarily 

complete both the Time-I and Time-II survey. The 19 organizations in Tucson completing the 

survey at both Time I and Time II were: 

Tucson Police Department 

Pima County District Attorney’s Office 

Pima County Juvenile Court Center 

Pima County Juvenile Probation 

Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (Juvenile Parole) 

5.2 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Our Town Family Center


Boys and Girls Club


La Frontera Family Treatment Agency


Utterback Family Resource and Wellness Center


Catalina High School


Utterback Middle School


Rincon High School


Townsend Middle School


Vail Middle School


Citizen and Neighborhood Services


City Councilman’s Office


Tucson Mayor’s Office


Youth Works


Peebee


Four new agencies were added at Time II, and administered a combined Time-I/Time-II 

survey. The same personnel in fourteen of the nineteen organizations responded at both Time I 

and Time II. The persons who represented their organizations at both the Time-I and Time-II 

interviews were more influential in the implementation of their agencies’ Project-related service 

components than those interviewed only at Time I or Time II. 

Crime Problems. Respondents across the five Project-demonstration sites were able to 

5.3 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
differentiate gang and non-gang delinquency or crime without difficulty. In general, gang crimes 

of all types were regarded as a more serious community problem than non-gang crimes, both at 

Time I and Time II. At Time I, gang crime was regarded as a serious program-area problem at 

three of the five sites, including Tucson, and fell significantly at time II – to the level of 

moderately-serious – at two of the sites, but not in Tucson (Table 5.1). 

Across all of the sites, gang drug-crime was generally regarded as the most serious of all 

types of crime at both Time I and Time II. Drug and serious-violence crime (gang and non-gang) 

were viewed by Tucson respondents as at a higher level of severity compared to all the other 

sites, both at Time I and Time II. The level of severity of non-gang serious violence had 

significantly increased only in Tucson at Time II. Gang property-crime was also viewed as 

serious. In general, all types of crime, gang and non-gang, were viewed as more serious in 

Tucson than at any of the other sites. In general, there was less evidence of a perception of 

change for the better in levels of gang and non-gang crime in Tucson compared to other Project 

sites. 

Gang Problems Affecting the Organizations. In the organization survey we asked not only how 

serious the gang problem was in the program area, but also how serious it was as confronted by 

the particular organization in its particular operations. Each organization might have experienced 

the gang problem differently in terms of its own varied purposes, and the scope and nature of its 

operations. 

On average, all organizations at each site felt that the gang problem it was directly 

confronting was becoming less serious; three sites, including Tucson, felt it had significantly 

5.4


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
improved. At Time I, the gang problem was perceived as getting worse in Tucson (perhaps more 

so than at other sites), but improving significantly at Time II (Table 5.2). 

Implementation of Program-Related Strategies. At both Time I and Time II, organization 

respondents were asked to rate the general effectiveness of the Gang Program Model strategies in 

addressing the gang problem across their respective program communities. The strategies were 

specified under the categories of community mobilization, social intervention, provision of social 

opportunities, suppression, and organizational change and development. Community 

mobilization was identified as particularly important in the first years of the Project across all the 

sites. A great deal of attention was directed to its component strategies or substrategies: 

coordination in defining the gang problem; coordination in information sharing; community 

participation and planning. Defining the gang problem was regarded as particularly important in 

Tucson. Community participation and planning was also important. Only in Tucson at Time I 

was there a less-than-average agreement about what should be done about the gang problem, but 

there was improvement at Time II. 

At Time II, organizations at the various sites (including Tucson) viewed their communitymobilization strategies as “fair” to “good” in respect to coordination in defining the gang 

problem, sharing information, and community participation and planning – and as generally 

improving, particularly in respect to information-sharing. There was a general perception across 

sites (but not Tucson) of some decline in community participation, particularly citizen 

participation. Community participation and planning had improved slightly, but remained at a 

“fair” to almost “good” level. At Time II, the suppression strategy was generally regarded as 

5.5


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
“good” or close to “good” across the sites (including Tucson). The implementation of the 

strategies of social intervention and social-opportunities provision was seen as “fair” to “good” at 

all sites (including Tucson). However, social intervention was rated at a higher level than socialopportunities provision, but was still seen as only “fair” or “average” across all sites (including 

Tucson) (Table 5.3). Access to employment opportunities was worse in Tucson compared to the 

other sites at Time II – at the “poor” to “fair” level. 

In sum, Tucson organization respondents perceived the gang problem to be a serious one 

at Time I, and still almost as serious a problem at Time II. More progress was made in the 

perception of a reduction of gang violence than in the gang drug problem, which was perceived 

as a very serious problem in Tucson and the other sites. Tucson respondents saw the gang 

problem their organizations were facing as very serious at Time I, though it was perceived as 

somewhat improving at Time II. They perceived that their strategies of community 

participation/planning and interagency coordination in respect to information-sharing were 

average, but getting better. Suppression by law enforcement was perceived as close to a “good” 

level, at both Time I and Time II. Tucson respondents perceived some slight progress between 

Time I and Time II in their provision of social opportunities (particularly employment training 

and placement), and in social intervention or social services for gang youth. Overall, Tucson 

representatives generally perceived their success in addressing the gang problem as at a lower 

level than at other program sites. They scored lower than other sites on 16 of 18 measures of 

organizational perception of quality of community strategies to address the gang problem. 

5.6


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Project Performance Indicators (Lorita A. Purnell and Elisa Barrios) 

In the final months of the Project, the National Evaluators asked key Project-related 

agency administrators, Steering-Committee members and local community leaders to assess how 

well the local Projects did in respect to certain OJJDP Model standards. A series of 17 

performance-rating scales derived from the Comprehensive Gang Program Model were used to 

measure the assessments. In Tucson, six agency and local Project-related personnel supplied the 

ratings, including the first and second Project Directors of the Our Town Family Center, the 

Local Evaluator, a Supervisor of the Department of Juvenile Correction (Parole), a Supervisor of 

La Frontera (a treatment agency), and a representative of Tucson Youth Development. 

Assessments were also made by two senior members of the National Evaluation team who were 

closely involved with the Project (having visited and observed program operations on several 

occasions). 

The rating scales covered the key Model category indicators: the program elements – 

team approach, Steering Committee, grassroots involvement, youth outreach, criminal justice, 

school participation, employment/training, lead-agency management; the program strategies – 

community mobilization, social intervention, opportunities provision, suppression/social control, 

organizational change and development; and the program implementation principles – targeting, 

balance, intensity, continuity, commitment. (There were varying numbers of subcategories for 

each of the major categories). The scale for each subcategory was: 0 = no good; 1 = poor; 2 = 

fair; 3 = good; 4 = very good. The largest numbers of subcategories were in four major 

categories: lead-agency management, suppression/social control, criminal-justice, and schools. 

Missing responses were mainly due to the raters’ lack of knowledge about particular aspects of 

5.7


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
the Project operations (Table 5.4). 

The scores for subcategories of major categories were first summed and averaged for all 

respondents (not counting missing scores). The scores of the 6 Tucson-Project raters and the 2 

National Evaluators were each averaged separately, then combined (without weighting) and 

compared. The score for all 8 raters together was 2.4, in the lower half of the “fair” range. The 

scores of the 6 local Project respondents were in the upper “poor” range (2.9); the scores of the 2 

National Evaluators were slightly below the “poor” range (1.9). However, no police or probation 

representatives completed the survey, so we have some questions about the representativeness 

and completeness of the Tucson performance-indicator responses. 

Of special interest was the difference in the scores of the Tucson-Project and NationalEvaluation raters; the Project’s ratings were consistently higher (2.88; “fair”) than the National 

Evaluators’ (1.92; “poor”). However, when we used score rankings, the Tucson-Project and 

National-Evaluator rankings were almost identical. The Tucson-Project and National-Evaluator 

rankings closest at the higher end of the performance scale were: targeting, youth outreach, and 

social intervention. The rankings closest at the lower end were: Steering Committee, grassroots 

involvement, employment and training, and opportunities provision. The rankings furthest apart 

were: organizational change and development, balance, and criminal justice. 

Thus, there was relative consistency across the high and low rankings of the two groups 

of respondents – national and local – but at different levels. Both Tucson-Project and NationalEvaluator raters, in addition to agreeing on what factors or criteria were relatively “best” in the 

program, also indicated which were relatively “worst.” The rankings were largely consistent 

with field observations of events during the program period, except that the National Evaluators 

5.8


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
perceived that the Project had done much more poorly than the Tucson-Project raters believed in 

respect to balance of strategies and changing organizational policies, as well as collaboration 

with the criminal-justice system, especially the police. 

5.9


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 5 .1 

Organization Survey 

Mean Ratingsa

 of the Seriousness of Gang and Non-G ang Crime in Program Area 

By Site and By Time Period 

Type of Crimeb 

San Antonio 

(n=12) 

Time I Time II 

Tucson 

(n=18) 

Time I Time II 

Mesa 

(n=17) 

Time I Time II 

BloomingtonNormal 

(n=24) 

Time I Time II 

Riverside 

(n=15) 

Time I Time II 

Totalc 

(N=86) 

Time I Time II 

Gang 

Total 4.27 3.61* 4.27 3.97 3.66 3.09* 3.07 3.11 4.00 3.29 3.74 3.36*** 

 Serious Violence 4.32 3.45 4.40 3.92 3.55 3.08* 3.25 3.10 3.66 3.39 3.76 3.35*** 

 Other Violence 4.27 3.50* 4.21 4.07 3.62 2.85* 3.07 2.93 3.88 3.46 3.72 3.30*** 

Drugs 4.33 4.04 4.50 4.38 3.94 3.62 3.85 4.04 4.13 4.15 4.11 4.04 

 Property 4.27 3.76* 4.00 3.64 3.47 3.06 2.41 2.53 3.70 3.35 3.41 3.16* 

Non-gang 

Total 2.93 2.95 3.15 3.37 2.87 2.31 2.39 2.40 3.06 2.45 2.81 2.64 

 Serious Violence 2.89 2.60 2.63 3.09* 2.54 2.11 2.31 2.15 2.68 2.35 2.55 2.41 

 Other Violence 2.55 2.80 3.14 3.43 2.82 2.03* 2.18 2.11 2.88 2.35* 2.67 2.47 

Drugs 3.09 3.36 3.72 3.91 3.47 2.88 3.21 3.31 3.67 3.53 3.43 3.39 

 Property 3.11 3.41 3.21 3.19 3.16 2.43* 2.29 2.33 3.10 2.70 2.89 2.71

 For differences between time periods: * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001. 

Instruments: Time I and Time II Organization Surveys 

Evaluation of “The Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program” 

School of Social Service Administration 

The University of Chicago 

Rolando Luis Villarreal Sosa 

a

 Rating Scale: 1=No Problem; 2=Small Problem; 3=Moderate Problem; 4=Serious Problem; 5=Very Serious Problem. 

b

 The survey asked: “For each crime, please rate how serious a crime problem you think exists in [specific program area for each site] in the last 6 months.” Specific 

crimes were: serious violence – robbery, battery without a weapon, battery with a weapon, drive-by shootings; other violence – threats/intimidation, possession of a knife, 

possession of a gun; drugs – selling drugs and using drugs; and property – vandalism/graffiti, breaking and entering, car theft. 

Number of organizations providing a valid response; the total number of organizations completing a survey at both Time I and Time II was 104. 

5.10 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

c 
Table 5.2 

Organization Survey 

Seriousness of the Gang Problem Experienced by Organizations 

By Site and By Time Period: Mean Ratings 

Survey Item San Antonio 

(n=13) 

Time I Time II 

Tucson 

(n=15) 

Time I Time II 

Mesa 

(n=17) 

Time I Time II 

BloomingtonNormal 

(n=23) 

Time I Time II 

Riverside 

(n=15) 

Time I Time II 

Total 

(N=83)a 

Time I Time II 

Gang Problem Experienced 

by Organizationb 1.92 2.23 1.33 2.13** 1.59 2.12** 1.74 2.35** 1.87 2.67 1.69 2.30*** 

For differences between time periods: * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001. 

Instrum ents: Tim e I and Tim e II O rganization Surveys 

Evaluation of “The Comprehensive Com munity-W ide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program” 

School of Social Service Administration 

The University of Chicago 

Rolando Luis Villarreal Sosa 

a Number of organizations providing a valid response; the total number of organizations completing a survey at both time periods was 104. 

b Rating Scale: 1=Became Worse; 2=Stayed About the Same; 3=Became Better. In the Time I Organization Survey, the question was: “Over the last 3 years, would you 

say the youth gang problem experienced by your organization has become worse, stayed about the same, or become better?” In the Time II Organization Survey, the question differs 

only in reference to the time period: “Over the last year, would you say the gang problem experienced by your organization has become worse, stayed about the same, or become 

better?” 

5.11 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 5.3 

Organization Survey 

Perceptions of the Success of Program Strategies Concerning the Gang Problem 

By Site and By Time Period: Mean Ratingsa 

Strategy 

San Antonio 

(n=13) 

Tucson 

(n=21) 

Mesa 

(n=17) 

BloomingtonNormal 

(n=25) 

Riverside 

(n=19) 

Totalb 

(N=95) 

Time I Time 

II Time I Time II Time I Time II Time I Time II Time I Time II Time I Time II 

Community Mobilization 

Coordination: Organizations Defining the Gang 3.81 3.62 3.53 3.78 3.53 3.56 3.70 4.07 3.20 3.53 3.55 3.74 

Problem 

Agreement On What a Gang Is 4.23 3.95 3.84 3.95 3.76 3.76 3.80 4.28 3.53 3.92 3.82 3.99 

Agreement On Which Individuals Are Gang 

Members 3.77 3.69 3.68 4.00 3.59 3.71 3.64 4.00* 3.00 3.44 3.53 3.78 

Agreement On What A Gang Incident Is 3.46 3.69 3.63 3.89 3.76 3.47 3.88 4.12 3.16 3.58 3.61 3.79 

Agreement On What Should Be Done About 

The Youth-Gang Problem 3.77 3.23 2.90 3.35 3.00 3.29 3.48 3.88 3.16 3.18 3.25 3.41 

Coordination: Organization Information- Sharing 3.38 3.25 3.08 3.44 3.06 3.53 3.33 4.27* 2.69 3.36 3.11 3.64*** 

Sharing Information About Criminal Actions Of 

Specific Gang Youth 3.77 3.38 3.30 3.60 3.24 3.65 3.38 4.38* 2.81 2.42 3.27 3.73 

Sharing Information About Service Needs Of 

Specific Gang Youth 3.08 3.17 2.89 3.42 2.88 3.41 3.20 4.16* 2.66 3.26 2.95 3.55 

Community Participation and Planning 2.88 2.31 2.79 2.84 3.03 3.00 3.68 3.72 2.72 2.61 3.08 2.98 

Citizen Action Regarding Gangs 3.23 2.23 2.67 2.81 3.00 2.82 3.52 3.32 2.45 2.42 2.99 2.78 

Community Planning Regarding Gangs 2.54 2.38 2.90 2.86 3.06 3.18 3.84 4.12 3.00 2.79 3.16 3.15 

For differences between time periods: * p<.05; ** p<.01; and *** p<.001. 

a Rating Scale: 1=Poor; 2=Fair; 3=Average; 4=Good; 5=Excellent. 

b

 Number of organizations providing a valid response; the total number of organizations completing a survey at both time periods was 104. 

5.12 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 5.3 (continued) 

Organization Survey 

Perceptions of the Success of Program Strategies Concerning the Gang Problem 

By Site and By Time Period: Mean Ratings a 

Strategy 

San Antonio 

(n=13) 

Tucson 

(n=21) 

Mesa 

(n=17) 

BloomingtonNormal 

(n=25) 

Riverside 

(n=19) 

Total b 

(N=95) 

Time I Time 

II Time I Time II Time I Time II Time I Time II Time I Time II Time I Time II 

Social Intervention 2.62 2.85 3.00 3.15 3.06 3.29 3.60 3.64 2.42 3.84 2.99 3.28* 

Local Service-Agency Programming To Deal With 

The Gang Problem 2.62 2.85 3.00 3.15 3.06 3.29 3.60 3.64 2.42 3.84 2.99 3.28* 

Social Opportunities 2.31 2.38 2.39 2.47 2.47 2.79 2.35 2.85 2.32 2.81 2.37 2.69* 

Employment Opportunities For Gang Youth 2.23 2.08 1.95 2.15 2.06 2.35 1.83 2.46 1.62 2.38 1.93 2.28* 

Access To Education Programs For Gang Youth 2.38 2.69 2.80 2.85 2.88 3.24 2.88 3.25 3.14 3.22 2.84 3.07 

Suppression 3.83 3.58 3.95 3.95 3.82 4.00 4.40 4.48 3.37 3.84 3.92 4.01 

Law Enforcement Efforts Regarding Gangs 3.83 3.58 3.95 3.95 3.82 4.00 4.40 4.48 3.37 3.84 3.92 4.01

 For differences between time periods: * p<.05; ** p<.01; and *** p<.001. 

Instrum ents: Tim e I and Tim e II O rganization Surveys 

Evaluation of “The Comprehensive Com munity-W ide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program” 

School of Social Service Administration 

The University of Chicago 

Rolando Luis Villarreal Sosa 

5.13


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 5.4 

Assessment Summary 

Model Performance Indicators – Mean Scores and Ranka 

Indicator Project-Related 

Personnel 

National Evaluators Combined 

Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank 

Score Score Score 

Team Approach 2.73 8 1.91 4 2.32 4.5 

Steering Committee 2.03 18 .59 18 1.31 18 

Grassroots Involvement 2.12 16 1.17 16 1.65 17 

Youth Outreach 3.25 2 2.03 3 2.64 2 

Criminal Justice 2.62 12 1.68 7 2.15 9.5 

School Participationb 2.19 17 1.28 14 1.74 15 

Employment/Training a 2.44 14 1.00 17 1.72 16 

Lead-Agency Management 2.66 10 1.48 12 2.07 11 

Community Mobilization 2.33 15 1.50 10.5 1.92 14 

Social Intervention 3.06 3 2.17 2 2.62 3 

Suppression/Social Control 2.98 4 1.65 8 2.32 4.5 

Organizational Change and 

Development 

2.73 8 1.22 15 1.98 12 

Targeting 3.58 1 3.00 1 3.29 1 

Balance 2.63 11 1.75 5.5 2.19 7 

Intensity 2.83 5 1.75 5.5 2.29 6 

Continuity 2.73 8 1.63 8 2.18 8 

Commitment 2.80 6 1.50 10.5 2.15 9.5 

Totals 2.88 1.92 2.40 

a Scale: 0 = No Good; 1 = Poor; 2 = Fair; 3 - Good; 4 = Very Good 

b These 2 program elements comprise the program strategy of opportunities provision. 

5.14 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Chapter 6 

Research Method: Data Management, Measurement and Analysis 

The Evaluation attempted to answer two interrelated questions: 1) how, and to what 

extent, was the Comprehensive Community-Wide Gang Program Model implemented?; and 2) 

did the Tucson program contribute to a reduction in youth gang crime relative to comparable 

youth not served, particularly at the individual-youth level, and possibly at the program-area 

level? We addressed the first question in the previous chapters in terms of the Project’s origin 

and structure, the development of its response to the gang problem, and the extent to which the 

program elements, strategies, and principles were adapted in a manner consistent with the OJJDP 

Model. 

We now move to a discussion of the more specific nature of program services, worker 

contacts, and arrest outcomes (and to some extent self-report outcomes) for individual youth. 

Before we proceed, however, we need to describe the research methods used, i.e., research design 

(including the instruments employed to gather data) and the resolution of problems we 

encountered in data collection and analysis to obtain our findings, first at the individual level and 

(in a later chapter) at the gang and area levels. We pay special attention to data-collection, dataintegration and sample-comparability problems, and the procedures used to overcome many of 

them. 

At the start of the program, we planned for a sample at each site of 100 program youth 

and 100 comparison youth, identified as delinquent gang members (or youth at high risk of gang 

involvement) and whom we would be able to interview at least twice. The youth were expected 

6.1


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
to be mainly between the ages of 12 and 20 years at program entry, predominantly male (but with 

a substantial number of females), mainly Latino and/or African-American and (to a lesser extent) 

non-Hispanic white, Asian, and/or Native American. We expected the samples to reflect the 

nature of the gang-delinquency problem at each of the selected sites, based on community and 

agency perceptions, and especially on police arrest data. Equivalent gang-problem program and 

comparison areas, and equivalent program and comparison youth were to be chosen by local 

Project and Evaluation personnel, based on criteria consistent with the Comprehensive Gang 

Program Model, i.e., focusing on gang-involved youth who had arrest records or were at high risk 

for arrest. Many of these expectations were met. 

Data Management 

A great deal of extra and unanticipated research time and effort was involved in resolving 

data issues, especially data-reliability. The time needed to determine the reliability and accuracy 

of data extended into the analysis period. We often discovered discrepancies in information 

about a particular youth obtained from different sources, e.g., probation and police. We describe 

how these problems were resolved under the following headings: data collection, collaboration, 

data-infrastructure development, accessing and transferring data, and sample comparability. 

Data Collection 

Our key individual-level data-collection instruments were the Individual Gang-Member 

Survey for program and comparison youth, the Worker Tracking Form for program youth only, 

and police arrest histories for both program and comparison youth (interviewed and non6.2


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
interviewed). Somewhat simpler and shorter forms were used to collect data on program 

exposure (i.e., dates of entry to and exit from the program) and risk period (i.e., the amount of 

time the youth spent in detention or corrections and was not at risk for crime activity or arrest in 

the community). 

After youth (and/or parental) informed consents were obtained, the Individual GangMember Survey was administered to Tucson program and comparison youth by interview staff of 

the Local Evaluator, Quail Enterprises, Inc. The hour-long interview requested information from 

the youth regarding: demographics (gender, race/ethnicity, age); gang activity; school 

performance; employment; leisure time and friends; crime and fear in the neighborhood; the 

youth’s neighborhood relationships; gang-membership status; gang structure, size, and activities; 

family composition and relationships; self-reported delinquency; self-reported arrests; criminaljustice experience; and the nature of his or her response to program activities and worker 

contacts. Information on self-esteem and alienation was also gathered. The interviews were 

administered at least two times, at intervals approximately one year apart – Time I and Time II. 

However, while 106 of the 126 program youth completed a Time-I interview, only 92 completed 

a Time-II interview; all of the 101 comparison youth completed a Time-I interview, but only 

51completed a Time-II interview. The re-interview rate was 86.8% for program youth and 

50.5% for comparison youth. Without criminal-justice, local-agency or other sources of 

assistance, it was extremely difficult for the Local Evaluator to obtain Time-II comparison-youth 

interviews. 

A program-services tracking form was completed by each Project worker having contact 

with each program youth. Basic socio-demographic information was collected, as well as the 

6.3


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
dates of the youth’s contacts with the worker, average number and duration of contacts with the 

youth, the Project workers’ perceptions of the youth’s gang-membership status, reasons for the 

youth being in the program, sources of referral, types of services the worker provided, types of 

referrals made, the workers’ perceptions of their own helpfulness in providing services to youth, 

and which other Project workers were contacted in servicing program youth. The Worker 

Tracking Form was completed on a quarterly basis for each individual program youth contacted 

by the Project worker (mainly probation officers, case managers, outreach youth workers and 

police). 

The local-site police Crime Analyst and/or Local Evaluator collected the entire police 

history of each program youth and comparison youth in the Tucson police records, whether the 

youth was interviewed or not, and whether the program youth had a worker-tracking record or 

not. The criminal history included information on all juvenile and adult arrests, warrants or 

suspect cases: dates and locations of arrests; home addresses of the youth; gang-involvement 

characteristics; arrest charges; nature of weapons used; brief description of each arrest incident; 

disposition of the incident; and whether the youth was placed in custody. In Tucson, as at the 

other four demonstration sites, police histories included all of the youth’s contacts with the 

police, prior to his/her program entry and updated through the end of the youth’s program period 

(and the equivalent period for comparison youth). 

Collaboration 

The implementation of the research design was influenced by the structure of the 

Evaluation. Those directly involved in the Evaluation included a National Evaluation team at the 

6.4


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
University of Chicago, Local Evaluators at each of the five sites, program and evaluation 

management staff of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department 

of Justice, and a National Advisory Board. A Technical Assistance team was closely associated 

with, if not integrated into, the complex program/research Evaluation structure. The National 

Evaluation was directed by the Principal Investigator from the School of Social Service 

Administration, University of Chicago. He and his team were responsible for the design 

consistency and quality control of the Evaluation, including sampling frames, data-collection 

instruments, and management of the Evaluation across the local sites. Local Project personnel 

administered program- and comparison-youth interviews, collected individual police arrest 

histories, and completed worker-tracking records. The National Evaluation team, with the aid of 

local agency personnel, collected community-crime, census, gang-as-a-unit, programperformance-indicator, organization-survey and qualitative, on-site observational and other data. 

All individual-level and aggregate-level data were processed, cleaned, and analyzed by the 

National Evaluation staff in Chicago. 

The OJJDP Special Emphasis and Research and Development Divisions’ Program 

Managers and other OJJDP administrative staff played significant roles in the development and 

coordination of the program and the Evaluation research. OJJDP staff worked to assure the 

proper implementation of the Model. Most importantly, they assisted and pressured the Local 

Evaluators and Project Directors to complete their Evaluation-related assignments in conformity 

with the National-Evaluation and Program-Model requirements. The OJJDP staff mediated 

conflicts that arose between National Evaluators, Local Evaluators and local program staff. On 

the other hand, the National Evaluators helped resolve differences at some sites between local 

6.5


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
program staff and Local Evaluators, who were not always in close communication and 

collaboration with each other, particularly in respect to the collection of individual gangmember-survey data. Collection of worker-tracking data from service providers, particularly 

from probation and police, presented special problems for the National Evaluation staff. 

Collaboration between local program-development and Local Evaluation staffs was 

structured (to an extent) into the combined local-program and Evaluation budgets. Local 

Evaluation funding came out of the local-site’s program budget, as determined by the local 

Project Director. The National Evaluation and Technical Assistance staffs were also closely 

integrated; their functions were carried out by some of the same people, although funded from 

different budgets. Since the Model and ways to implement it were developed at the University of 

Chicago, the Principal Investigator took primary responsibility for the National Evaluation; the 

Co-principal Investigator of the Evaluation took primary responsibility for Technical Assistance 

tasks. Both worked in close collaboration with each other. 

A National Advisory Board was established, comprising three national experts in the 

areas of gang research and gang-program development. The Advisory Board met annually with 

OJJDP Program and Research Managers and the National-Evaluation and Technical-Assistance 

teams to advise on research design, review Evaluation objectives and procedures, assess 

Evaluation progress, and recommend modification of Evaluation strategies. They also 

participated in selected cross-site, program-leadership meetings. However, the Advisory Board 

was not directly involved in the development of local-program and/or Local-Evaluation 

procedures, or resolution of specific problems that arose therefrom. 

6.6


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Data-Infrastructure Development 

Relevant information had to be collected and data-processing systems developed at the 

local level to provide the National Evaluators with useful data that would be comparable across 

sites. It was not always clear on what basis certain youth were included in the program and 

others not, what the relevant gang and non-gang characteristics of the youth were, how the 

youth’s problems were diagnosed, what activities or treatments were appropriate, etc. Youthand-family and other social agencies, as well as some probation departments, did not collect the 

kind of systematic identifying, contact or service-provision data that would be useful for crosssite National-Evaluation purposes. There was also a special problem in regard to gathering gangincident or offense data from police sources. The definition and procedures for collection of 

these data at the individual-youth or community levels were not established prior to the 

beginning of the Project periods. 

The definition of a gang incident at some of the sites may simply have referred to a 

situation involving a drive-by shooting or graffiti. A gang incident at most sites was essentially a 

criminal event in which an identified gang member had been involved. The police departments 

at the different sites had to develop procedures for specifically identifying a gang or non-gangrelated incident; whether a gang incident was based on gang function or purpose, or whether it 

was based simply on the youth’s identification as a gang member. A gang incident was usually 

based on the involvement and identification of a subject – offender or victim – who was 

classified by various (law-enforcement) agencies as a gang member. Local police data systems 

had to be designed or redesigned to accommodate both national and local operational definitions, 

and data-collection and data-organizing procedures. 

6.7


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
A further problem was clarification of whether individual youth in the police files were 

suspects, offenders, or arrested on a warrant. A suspect might not necessarily be arrested, yet 

could be regarded as equivalent to an arrestee in some sites. Also, a warrant arrest did not 

necessarily mean that a new crime or incident had occurred; the youth may simply have violated 

a probation condition. In Tucson (as at the other sites), the problems of interpreting police data 

were resolved by using only individual-youth arrests, and not suspect or warrant cases. 

The collection of aggregate or community-level police data created additional problems 

for the local police Crime Analyst and/or Local Evaluator. It required the realignment of police 

beats and districts for criminal-incident or arrest-reporting purposes, and using program and 

comparison-area boundaries determined by the National Evaluation, further specified by where 

program and comparison youth hung out, their residence locations, and where they were arrested. 

Aggregate-level arrest or incident data at the area level were not provided in Tucson, 

although they were at the other four sites. The Tucson Police Department claimed that 

reorganizing police districts to match program and comparison areas, and especially obtaining 

pre-program-period arrest data were too costly and required additional resources. Such resources 

– money and manpower, other than originally agreed to – were not available from the Tucson 

Police Department or Our Town Family Center. 

Accessing and Transferring Data 

Data Sources. Access to data sources at the local sites was closely related to the problem 

of developing appropriate data systems which would be useful to both the Local and National 

Evaluators. The data were often located in different sections or bureaus of police departments 

6.8


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
(e.g., juvenile, adult, and drug-crime units), which might have to be accessed separately to obtain 

a complete youth arrest history. Arrest dispositions also might only be located at court centers, 

corrections departments or detention centers, and not in police records; criminal-case data were 

sometimes available in computerized form, sometimes only in hard copy; the police and sheriff 

dealing with the same youth in the program or comparison area might not customarily share data; 

police crime analysts and court clerks were generally reluctant to provide access to case records 

to outsiders. Access to confinement information about youth was also difficult to obtain from 

probation, court or corrections systems. 

Criminal-justice data were particularly difficult to access and use for cross-site 

comparison purposes. Special arrangements had to be made through local police chiefs, chief 

probation officers, and sometimes presiding judges to accommodate Local and NationalEvaluation needs. Official data systems varied; offense codes differed at each site. Data were 

sometimes provided in a local-police computer format and submitted on a disk. These data often 

contained local-classification errors which had to be corrected as well as converted to the 

National Evaluation system. Software systems might be different and incompatible across the 

Police-Department, Local-Evaluator, and National-Evaluation operations. Police-department 

data systems changed over time, and different local data analysts could not always readily access 

data from their own departments’ systems. Errors in data transfer from local police Crime 

Analysts to Local Evaluators, and then to the National Evaluators, were numerous. 

Interviews. Interviewing gang youth and those at high risk of gang involvement 

presented another series of problems. Local interviewers were often students and women with 

middle-class backgrounds who had little familiarity with gang youth or gang-problem 

6.9


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
neighborhoods. Many of the interviewers were fearful of contacting youth at their homes or in 

public areas, particularly in the evening or on weekends. Interview locations that assured 

privacy, safety, and some comfort for both the youth and the interviewers were difficult to 

arrange. Interviewing youth at local Project offices, where police or probation staff might be 

present, was inappropriate. Special skills, sensitivity, and Spanish-language ability were also 

often required to adequately explain the purpose of the research and obtain informed consents 

from the youth (and a parent, if the youth was a juvenile). Contacting and obtaining informed 

consents from comparison youth was particularly difficult at some sites. Considerable effort was 

required to reestablish contact with a youth in the open community to obtain second or third 

interviews. As time went on, the youth might no longer have contact with the Project or with the 

comparison area’s “broker”, intermediary organizations, or with the Local Evaluator. 

Worker-Contact Data. Obtaining permission from agency directors – and cooperation 

from their Project-related workers – to complete program-process data (i.e., standardized workerservice or contact-activity records from the different types of workers) proved to be another 

formidable challenge. Project-related agencies had their own systems of recordkeeping, and their 

workers did not welcome the additional bureaucratic burden of keeping extra records. It was 

difficult for police or probation to understand why the recordkeeping they did for their own 

agencies was not sufficient for Project purposes. Some of the workers did not believe the 

National Evaluation Worker Tracking Form was adequate enough to document all that they were 

doing in the Project. 

Cooperation and Training. Inherent in the process of obtaining good data was not only 

training local data collectors, but also developing cooperation with local Project management 

6.10


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
staffs. Local Evaluators and their data collectors not only had to have aid from Project staff and 

permission from the justice system to access different existing local-agency data sources – 

whether police, court, or school records – but required training in how to use such local sources. 

National-Evaluation staff provided special training in the use of the Individual Gang-Member 

Survey for the data collectors at each of the local sites. 

Sample Comparability 

A major challenge was establishing comparability of gang-involved and highly gang-atrisk youth in the program and comparison areas. We needed to find non-program-served, 

comparable youth from a comparable gang-problem area or community. We expected that Local 

Evaluators could identify such communities and would have sufficient know-how and skill to 

obtain interviews from such youth. Police sometimes provided information on comparable gangproblem areas, but finding specific youth (or groups of youth) to match program youth was no 

easy matter. 

Ideally, the nature and scope of the youth-gang problem, and specific information about 

the youth-gang population in both the program and comparison areas, should have been known 

before each site’s program was implemented and the Evaluation developed. This was not the 

case. The details of program-youth gang-membership status, gang structure, gang process, and 

the delinquency problems in the program areas were just beginning to be known to program 

personnel and the Local Evaluators as the Projects were starting up. There was usually less 

specific knowledge of the gang problem and the gang population in the comparison-area 

communities than in the program-area communities. While it was not clear how representative 

6.11


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
program youth were of the general youth-gang population in the program areas, at least gang 

youth characteristics in the program areas ordinarily would become known over time, which was 

not as often the case in the comparison areas. 

Measurement 

We had to overcome problems of: 1) not-clearly matched samples; 2) different policearrest practices in different local city jurisdictions or across cities; 3) erratic timing of interviews; 

4) missing worker-tracking data (especially from the early days of the program); and 5) different 

time periods for collection and integration of various types of data. Nevertheless, while the 

collection of youth-specific data from different sources initially made for extra NationalEvaluation staff burdens, it served to indicate gaps and contradictions in the data, and allowed 

the National-Evaluation staff to go back to Local-Evaluation and program personnel to 

supplement the data, and develop reliable, accurate and relevant information. 

Mismatched Samples. While youth in the program and comparison samples were usually 12 to 

20 years of age, both samples sometimes contained a few youth who were older than 20 years. 

We included all of these youth in the analyses. (Generally, there were no youth in our samples 

under 12 years of age.) To facilitate age comparisons between program and comparison samples, 

we adjusted for specific youth-age differences by placing youth in three general age categories – 

14 years and under, 15 to 17 or 18 years, and 18 or 19 years and over – depending on the age 

distribution at the sites, and especially when state criminal law specified the age cut-off between 

juvenile and adult status. In general, program and comparison youth at each site were mainly 

6.12


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
between 14 and 18 years of age, male, Latino (Mexican-American), to some extent AfricanAmerican, and to a very limited extent non-Latino white, Native American, and Asian-American. 

Erratic Timing of Interviews. Program youth were not always administered a Time-I interview 

immediately when they came into the program. In a few cases, Time-I interviews took place 

before the program officially began, but generally they were administered at any time within the 

first three months of the youth’s entering the program. The interval between the Time-I and 

Time-II interviews of program youth was generally a year to a year-and-a-quarter, but a handful 

of youth were administered Time-II interviews slightly before the end of the 1-year interval, or 

slightly after the 11⁄4-year interval. We tested (or compared) youth interviewed at somewhat 

different Time-I and Time-II periods; in all cases, the differences in interview intervals did not 

significantly affect outcome findings. 

Comparison youth were generally interviewed at a slightly later time period than were 

program youth. Comparison youth had to be matched to program youth by gender, and their ages 

had to be adjusted to match those of program youth at the time of the program youth’s entry into 

the program. In addition, criminal-history periods of comparison youth had to be matched to 

those of individual program youth, using age, gender, program-entry date and length of time in 

the program (see Matching Youth Samples, below). 

Missing Worker-Tracking Data. Another research problem was not simply that certain workers 

were reluctant to complete the Worker Tracking Form describing the kinds of services they 

provided to youth, and/or the contacts they made with other workers around program youth. At 

6.13


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
some sites, worker-tracking did not commence until several months after the program had been 

underway. For the period prior to worker-tracking data collection, we sometimes had no detailed 

evidence of services or worker contacts provided to specific youth. However, we did have 

relatively accurate official program-entry dates, criminal histories, and youth-confinement 

records for all program youth, as well as the youth’s own record of services received (from the 

Individual Gang-Member Survey). We were able to determine statistically whether earlier, nonrecorded program-services data would have made a difference in outcomes for program youth 

during the matched program and pre-program periods. They did not. 

Different Arrest Patterns Across Areas. We learned belatedly that arrest and gang-memberidentification procedures and practices of police in the program and comparison areas might 

differ. The police in one area might arrest youth for certain status offenses and not for others, or 

they could be more pro-active in identifying gang youth and arresting them for a different range 

of offenses or crimes (minor or major) in one area of the city than another, or in different and/or 

comparable cities. This could explain why frequency of arrests varied among program and 

comparison youth across the five demonstration sites. Based on interview and self-reported 

offense data, and controlling for key youth characteristics (e.g., school performance, 

employment, family structure, household income, personal problems, use of or selling drugs), the 

youth samples from the program and comparison areas might be similar in other ways, but might 

differ because of differing police-arrest practices. This proved to be a special problem when 

comparison youth came from a different city than program youth, rather than just from a different 

area of the same city. 

6.14


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
The best we could do to show that an adequate match existed between the Project and 

comparison-youth samples was to use different sources of gang-membership-identification and 

outcome data (i.e., Project-agency worker perceptions, and youth self-report and police offense 

and arrest data – sometimes in separate multivariate analyses), and test whether similar, or 

explainable, change patterns would emerge. We could also examine trends within the program 

and comparison areas, and compare similarities and differences at the individual-youth arrest and 

gang-offense levels with those at the gang-as-a-unit and general-community levels. 

Different Time Periods for Data Collection. Ideally, all of the data at the individual-youth level 

(gang-member-survey, worker-tracking, police-arrest, program-exposure, and confinementperiod) should have been integrated into one data set. But this assumed that the data-collection 

time frames for each youth would match, i.e., that interviews, services provided, worker contacts, 

police arrests, and program exposure covered the same periods for each youth. They did not. 

Official police data at some sites covered a longer period than the interview interval or 

even the program period. The police arrest-history period was selected to include both a matched 

pre-program and program exposure period. The total program worker-tracking period was about 

3 years; the interval between the Time-I and Time-II interviews was usually shorter – 1 to 11⁄4 

years – and generally represented only a part of the total program and criminal-history periods. 

Our preferred analysis time period became the longer, police arrest-history period, matched to 

program-exposure and equivalent pre-program-exposure periods. 

6.15


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Analysis 

In order to identify any program-youth-outcome changes that might be due to Project 

effects, we established that the youth had to be in the program a minimum of one month. 

Detailed program-service, program-exposure, police-history, and to some extent self-reported 

offense data would be the source for determining the Project’s success or failure in the 

prevention, intervention, and suppression of delinquency and crime, particularly at the 

individual-youth level. At some of the sites, we analyzed the data in different stages, moving 

from large-sample analyses with less extensive data, to more complex and richer analyses using 

smaller youth samples. Ordinarily, the sequence of steps in our approach were: 

1. Compare the effects of the program on program youth relative to similar youth not in 

the program, over similar periods of time. While the advantage of this approach was the 

utilization of the longest period of possible Project effect, it did not include detailed data on 

characteristics of program youth obtained from worker-tracking and interview records. All we 

could do was control for age, gender, race/ethnicity, for whether the youth (or Project personnel) 

said he had been a gang member, and for pre-program arrests and confinement periods. We 

determined effects of the program on youth using the outcome variables of changes in total 

arrests, serious violence arrests, total violence arrests (serious and less serious), property 

arrests, drug arrests, and other arrests (usually for minor offenses) in a series of multivariate 

analyses. 

2. Compare arrest changes for program youth between the pre-program and program 

periods, especially to identify successful program-service efforts. If there were differences in 

arrest outcomes for program youth relative to comparison youth (which there were not in 

6.16


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Tucson), compare the effects of the program on youth using not only police-arrest change data, 

but also specific worker-tracking service and contact data. These program service/contact 

variables were indicators of key elements of the Model strategy at the individual-youth level. We 

used the same control, dependent and independent variables as we did in the analysis described 

in the paragraph above. 

3. As in (1) above, compare the possible effects of the program (now using self-report 

data instead of police arrest data) and the general or imputed (but non-detailed) programexposure effects during the 1 to 11⁄4 -year period between the Time-I and Time-II interviews. The 

advantage of this approach lay in using the youth’s self-reported offenses (including specific 

gang-related behaviors) as well as contextual data (neighborhood, family, gang, etc.) more 

extensively over the six-month-prior-to-Time-I and six-month-prior-to-Time-II interview 

periods, 1 to 11⁄4 years apart. Again, controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, gang-membership 

status and pre-program self-reported offenses, we looked for differences over time in total 

offenses, serious violence offenses, total violence offenses, property offenses and drug-selling 

offenses. Limitations in measuring change were the short interview-interval period and the small 

size of the samples, particularly the comparison sample at Time II. We were only partially able 

to carry out this part of the analysis in Tucson. 

4. Compare the effects of the patterns of program services and contacts on program youth 

and introduce mediating variables derived from the interview findings, such as changes in youth 

neighborhood and life-space/life-course characteristics (e.g., gang-membership status, gang 

involvement, size of the gang, school participation and employment). The key outcome variable 

was changes in number of police arrests, assuming that mediating change factors in the Time6.17


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
I/Time-II interview intervals were related to outcome based on differences between the preprogram and program arrest periods. Similar control and outcome variables using police arrest 

data were employed. We were interested in the effects of the program variables (e.g., individual 

and family counseling services, suppression, etc.) on the mediating variables, and finally in the 

effects of the changes in the mediating variables on the changes in the outcome variables for 

different program youth. This analysis would be particularly useful depending on whether there 

were significant differences already found in the analyses conducted above. We did not carry out 

this part of the analysis in Tucson. 

Matching Youth Samples (Kwai Ming Wa) 

Our analysis strategies depended on establishing equivalency in the program and 

comparison-youth samples. We had to make sure that our comparison youth – and those 

program youth with no worker-tracking records and less than one month of services/contacts – 

were adequately matched on key demographics (especially age and gender) and programexposure time to those of our program youth who had tracking records and a month or more of 

services/contacts. Special assessment and matching procedures were required. 

Our total sample in Tucson consisted of 227 youth. We compared the program and 

comparison samples, concentrating on the program youth with worker-tracking records and a 

month or more of services/contacts (N = 126), and the comparison youth with no worker contacts 

or services (N = 101). Only 106 of the 126 program-sample youth were interviewed at Time I; 

all 101 of the comparison-sample youth completed a Time-I interview. Police arrest histories 

(which covered the entire [longer] program and pre-program periods) were more relevant, time6.18


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
wise, than interviews (which covered the shorter program period only), and were used as a basis 

for measuring delinquency-pattern changes. 

The purpose of the matching procedure was to establish appropriate program and preprogram periods in which to compare youth from the two samples on gender, age, and length of 

program exposure. The objective was to match comparison youth who had arrest records with 

program worker-tracked youth who had arrest records. This would provide each comparison 

youth with a hypothetical program entry and exit date, determined by the matched programyouth’s entry and exit dates. The number of arrests could then be counted for both program and 

comparison youth in equivalent program and pre-program periods. When a youth had no arrest 

history, the estimated length of time in the program (or its equivalent), whether long or short, had 

no effect on the arrest-count procedure. Arrests in the program and pre-program periods would 

always sum to zero. 

We identified a sample of youth who had arrests before July 1, 1999 (i.e., the end of the 

Project period) – 111 worker-tracked program youth with one month or more of program 

exposure, and 68 comparison youth. In our analyses, we focused on those youth arrested in the 

matched program and pre-program periods only (program youth n = 110; comparison youth n = 

67). Almost all youth (whether program or comparison) with arrests histories had arrests in the 

program and/or pre-program period (they may also have had arrests in the prior-to-pre-program 

or post-program periods as well); 88.17% of program youth but only 67.3% of comparison youth 

had arrests in the matched program and pre-program periods. 

The specific matching strategy was to pair comparison youth with arrests with programworker-tracked youth with arrests, by gender and also by age (closest birthday), on a one6.19


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
comparison-youth to one-program-youth basis. (Generally, the birthdays of the matched 

comparison and program youth occurred within a month or two of each other.) The comparison 

youth without arrests in the program and pre-program periods were matched to the remaining 

program youth (worker-tracked, with and without arrests) on the basis of gender and age. The 

inclusion of all youth with no arrests would not have been useful in further analyses of changes 

affecting the total samples, since there were many more comparison youth than program youth 

without arrests. 

6.20


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Chapter 7 

Selected Characteristics of Program and Comparison Youth 

In this chapter, we present a picture of program and comparison youth mainly in the preprogram period and/or at the Time-I interview. We focus on single-dimensional descriptive 

characteristics of youth: demographics, arrests, self-reports, gang-membership status, 

probation/parole status, confinement experience, and selected behaviors such as drug use and 

drug selling. These differences are statistically controlled in our later multivariate analyses. The 

nature and scope of Project-worker contacts and services to program youth, and their effects on 

some of these characteristics, are also described in the following chapters. 

Our discussion covers 227 youth – 126 youth who participated in the Project and received 

services, and 101 comparison youth. We use data from several sources – the Individual GangMember Survey, the Project’s worker-tracking records, and Tucson’s Police and Probation 

Department’ records – to describe our three sub-samples: program youth with worker-tracking 

records (N = 122), program youth with no worker-tracking records (N = 4), and the comparison 

youth (N = 101). Only 106 program youth, but all 101 comparison youth completed a Time-I 

Individual Gang-Member Survey. Tucson Police Department and Pima County Probation 

Department records were searched to obtain data on all 227 youth. 

Demographic Characteristics 

Gender. Males were the majority in our samples. Of the total sample (N = 227), 70.5% 

were male and 29.5% were female. The gender distribution was fairly similar across the two 

7.1


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
samples: comparison (71.3% males; 28.7% females) and program (69.8% males; 30.2% females) 

(Table 7.1). 

Race/Ethnicity. Latinos (Mexican-American) comprised the large majority of youth in 

the comparison sample (79.2%), with a smaller group of African-Americans (12.9%), followed 

by a slightly smaller group of youth of other race/ethnic backgrounds (7.9%). Latinos (MexicanAmerican) comprised the bare majority of youth in the program sample (50.0%), followed by a 

substantial group of African-Americans (41.3%) and youth of other race/ethnic backgrounds 

(8.7%). The composition of youth in the “other” race/ethnic category was somewhat more 

Native-American than non-Latino White or Asian-American, in both samples (Table 7.2). 

Age. The ages of youth were categorized into three groups: under 14, 15 and 16, and 17 

and over. The 14-and-under group was the largest (50.2%) of the total sample, and much larger 

in the comparison sample (63.4%) than in the program sample (39.7%). The 15- and 16-year-old 

group was larger in the program sample (51.6%) than in the comparison sample (31.7%). The 

17-and-over group was the smallest age group in both samples (program sample = 8.7%; 

comparison sample = 5.0%). We note that age is a very important predictor of future arrests 

during the adolescent period; younger adolescents are more likely to increase their arrests than 

older adolescents. 

The program and comparison samples contained particularly young youth; 33.7% of the 

comparison sample and 23.0% of the program sample were 13 years old. The Tucson samples 

were the youngest of any of the five demonstration sites. There were only 2.0% of the 

comparison youth and 5.6% of the program youth who were 19 to 21 years old (Table 7.3). 

7.2


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Arrest Histories 

Arrest histories were obtained from the Tucson Police Department for all program and 

comparison youth who were arrested in the city of Tucson. The histories covered all the youth’s 

arrests1

 prior to June 30, 1999 (when the Project ended). Youth were generally arrested in the 

police district where they lived or their gang hung out. 

The focus of our Evaluation was on arrest-pattern changes at the individual-youth level 

between the matched pre-program and program periods (based on the length of time the program 

youth was in the program, and the equivalent period for matched comparison youth; see Chapter 

6). A few youth were arrested only in the period prior to the pre-program period. Most youth 

were arrested across a variety of periods, particularly the program and pre-program periods. 

Most important, far more of the program youth had arrest records (93.6%) than did comparison 

youth (60.3%). 

Arrest Patterns. Of the total 227 youth, only 179 (78.9%) are included in this chapter’s 

descriptive analysis of youth arrested in the pre-program and/or program periods, and sometimes 

in the prior-to-pre-program or post-program periods. (Our focus in later multivariate analyses is 

on differences between the pre-program and program periods only.) However, it is important to 

indicate patterns and profiles of arrests of the sample youth in all of the periods, and to 

demonstrate that our pre-program-period and program-period arrest findings are representative of 

the frequencies and types of arrests of the sample youth across their entire arrest histories to date. 

More program youth (93.2%) had arrest histories than comparison youth (70.3%). Only a 

1

 Th e eight typ es of ar rest cha rges ar e cate goriz ed as : serious violen ce, tota l violenc e, dru gs, pro perty, 

weapo ns, public disturban ce, alcoho l, other. See Ap pend ix A for a com plete list of charges. 

7.3 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
small percentage of program youth (29.1%) had no arrests in either a prior-to-pre-program, preprogram, program or post-program period, while very few program youth (6.4%) had no arrests 

across all periods. In all periods, there were more program youth (85.7%) than comparison youth 

(48.5%) arrested, particularly in the pre-program period (Table 7.4). 

Furthermore, while program youth tended to cluster in the categories of medium-/highfrequency arrests, comparison youth tended to cluster in the categories of no/low arrests in the 

pre-program period. While only 17.5% of program youth had no arrests in the pre-program 

period, 55.5% of comparison youth had no arrests in the pre-program period. Also, 31.8% of 

program youth had 4 or more arrests in the (matched) three-year pre-program period, while only 

9.9% of comparison youth had 4 or more arrests in that period. Program youth were more likely 

to be chronic offenders (Table 7.5). 

A greater percentage of program youth than comparison youth were arrested for each 

category of offense in the pre-program period. This was particularly so for serious violence 

(18.3% versus 4.4%), public disturbance (33.7% verus 22.2%), and drug offenses (25.0% verus 

17.8%). Furthermore, program youth were more likely to be arrested for multiple categories of 

offenses than were comparison youth. Arrests across the different offense categories were higher 

for program youth (2.3 per youth) than for comparison youth (1.8 per youth). Program youth 

were responsible for (or at least involved in) 27.8% more arrests than comparison youth in the 

pre-program period (Table 7.6). 

A specialization effect towards more violence and drug offenses persisted for program 

youth across all arrest periods – prior-to-pre-program, pre-program, program, and post-program. 

The percentage of arrests for violence-and-drugs, and for violence or drugs alone, tended to be 

7.4


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
considerably greater as a proportion of total arrests (85.6% for program youth versus 69.0% for 

comparison youth). On the other hand, the percentage of arrests for all other types of offenses – 

excluding violence and drugs – was greater as a proportion of total arrests for comparison youth 

(31.0%) than for program youth (14.4%) (Table 7.7). 

Probation/Parole and Confinement Histories 

We obtained information on the probation/parole status and confinement experiences of 

comparison and program youth, both from youth interviews at Time I and/or Time II and from 

the Pima County Juvenile Court Center. More program youth (74.5%, n = 79) were on probation 

or parole than comparison youth (42.6%, n = 43), regardless of interview time period. Only 4 

program youth and 5 comparison youth had been on parole, but 2 program youth had been both 

on parole and probation at the Time-I interview. 

A higher proportion of program youth with arrest records in the pre-program and/or 

program periods (n = 111) had confinement experience, (i.e., incarceration or detention) than did 

comparison youth (n = 68) – almost three times as many program youth (53.1%, n = 59) as 

comparison youth (19.1%, n = 13). Program youth also spent more time in detention and 

correctional institutions: 15.3% of program youth but only 4.4% of comparison youth spent more 

than 10.0% of time in confinement during the pre-program and program periods (Table 7.8). 

Gang-Membership Status 

There were some interesting differences in gang-membership patterns between program 

and comparison youth. Based on self-reports at the Time-I interview (and confirmed by worker7.5


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
tracking data), fewer program youth were gang members (52.4%) or associate gang members 

(28.6%) than comparison youth (58.4% gang members; 41.6% associate gang members). The 

key difference was that a substantial number of program youth (19.1%) declared they were nongang youth; no comparison youth said they were not gang members (Table 7.9). Furthermore, 

there appeared to be limited differences in the levels or progression of gang membership between 

the two samples over time. At the Time-I interview, fewer program youth (49.1%) than 

comparison youth (57.4%) said they were former gang members, while slightly more comparison 

youth (29.7%) than program youth (25.5%) reported they had always been active as gang 

members (Table 7.10). In Chapter 9, we examine whether the program had a differential effect 

on youth who were gang members, gang-member associates or non-gang youth, and in Chapter 

10, whether the Project was associated with a change in the gang-membership status, per se, of 

program youth. 

Drug Selling, Drug Use and Alcohol Use 

Distinctions between drug use and drug selling among program and comparison youth 

were somewhat apparent and, again, may have reflected different levels of youth commitment to 

certain types of delinquent behaviors, and consequent arrest patterns. At the Time-I interview, a 

higher percentage of comparison youth (35.0%) than program youth (23.6%) said they were 

selling drugs, but a slightly higher percentage of program youth (59.4%) than comparison youth 

(54.5%) said they were using drugs. Program youth were relatively more likely to have been 

involved in arrests for violence, and comparison youth for illegal drug activity, in the preprogram period (Table 7.11). 

7.6


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Drug Selling. There were some differences in the kinds of drugs the youth admitted 

selling and the scope of their drug-selling activities. The primary drug sold was marijuana. Of 

those selling drugs, slightly more comparison youth (80.0%) said they sold marijuana than 

program youth (72.0%); more comparison youth (64.7%) than program youth (40.0%) sold 

cocaine; more program youth reported selling crack (60.0%) than comparison youth (34.3%). 

These differences may be accounted for by the different racial/ethnic configurations of the 

samples. More of the program youth were African-American, and perhaps had better access to 

market and distribution sources of crack. Comparison youth (17.1%) were more likely than 

program youth (8.3%) to have reported selling methamphetamines, possibly for similar reasons. 

Fewer youth in both samples sold other kinds of drugs. The range of drugs sold was clearly wide 

for both samples. 

Drug Use. There was somewhat less difference in patterns of drug use. Almost all youth 

who said they used drugs used marijuana (comparison = 98.2%; program = 96.8%). Cocaine-use 

was slightly more prevalent for comparison youth (31.5%) than program youth (22.6%). A larger 

proportion of comparison youth (25.9%) had access to and used LSD than did program youth 

(9.5%). Although crack was not widely used, more program youth (4.8%) used it than did 

comparison youth (1.9%). A considerable number of program youth (11.1%) and comparison 

youth (7.4%) sniffed glue. 

Alcohol Use. A higher proportion of youth in both samples said they consumed alcohol 

more than any kind of drug (comparison youth = 67.0%; program youth = 65.1%). A higher 

proportion of youth in both samples answered the questions about alcohol use than drug use. 

Frequency of Selling/Use. More comparison youth than program youth responded to 

7.7


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
frequency questions about selling drugs (program n =9; comparison n = 35) and using drugs 

(program n = 26; comparison n = 54); we are not sure why. Of special interest was that while 

almost 4 times as many comparison youth indicated they sold drugs about 18 days a month, a 

much smaller number of program youth indicated they were selling drugs 15 days of the month. 

It was apparent that drug selling was a more important activity for comparison youth than 

program youth. 

Drug-use frequencies were equivalent in both samples (comparison youth = 16 days per 

month; program youth = 15 days per month). Alcohol use was slightly heavier for comparison 

youth (8 days per month) than for program youth (6 days per month). Use of drugs was more 

frequent than use of alcohol in both samples. Of special interest is that while program youth 

were more often serious offenders, we could argue that comparison youth were more often 

committed to using and selling drugs. Furthermore, more comparison youth (63.4%) were under 

14 years of age than program youth (39.7%). 

Summary 

The large majority of youth in the two samples (N = 227) were males (70.5%). Slightly 

more males were in the comparison sample (71.3%) than in the program sample (69.8%). 

Although youth in both samples were mainly Latino (Mexican-American), they predominated 

more in the comparison sample (79.2%) than in the program sample (50.0%). AfricanAmericans were a much larger subsample in the program sample (41.3%) than in the comparison 

sample (12.9%). There were very high proportions of younger youth (14-years and younger) in 

both samples, but particularly in the comparison sample (63.4%) compared to the program 

7.8


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
sample (39.7%). Relatively few youth were 17-years and over in either the program sample 

(8.7%) or the comparison sample (5.0%). 

Program youth were considerably more delinquent than comparison youth (based on 

arrest and more-extensive confinement records). Ninety-three and six-tenths percent (93.6%) of 

the program youth, but only 60.3% of the comparison youth, had arrest records. Program youth 

had been arrested more often. More program youth (55.6%) compared to comparison youth 

(19.8%) had chronic arrest records, i.e., 2 or more arrests in the pre-program period alone. 

Of special note was the different patterns of offenses for which program and comparison 

youth were arrested in the total criminal-history arrest period (prior-to-pre-program, pre-program, 

program, and post-program). While 85.6% of program youth had arrests for violence/drugs 

(including violence/no drugs and drugs/no violence), only 69.0% of comparison youth had these 

arrests. Drug arrests were relatively more frequent for program youth (35.7%) than for 

comparison youth (19.8%). On the other hand, property arrests and “other” arrests (excluding 

violence and drug arrests) were more frequent for comparison youth (31.0%) than for program 

youth (14.4%). 

Self-report data indicated that more comparison (35.0%) youth were involved in selling 

drugs than program youth (23.6%). Patterns of drug use were similar for both samples. Slightly 

more program youth (59.4%) than comparison youth (54.5%) used drugs. Both samples of youth 

said they were using and selling drugs every other day in the month. There was more-frequent 

use of drugs than alcohol. The principal drug used was marijuana; the principal drugs sold were 

marijuana and powdered cocaine. The problem of drug-use was more serious among younger 

comparison than program youth. 

7.9


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
More program youth (74.5%) than comparison youth (42.6%) had probation/parole 

experience, and more program youth (53.1%) than comparison youth (19.1%) had detention 

and/or correctional-institution experience (and for longer periods of time). 

There were some unexpected differences in patterns of gang- and associate-gangmembership status in the two samples. At the Time-I interview, more program youth reported 

they were non-gang youth (19.1%) than did comparison youth (0%). 

7.10


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 7.1 

Demographic Characteristics of Youth Samples (N = 227) 

Gender 

Youth Sample 

Male Female Total 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

Comparison 72 

(71.3) 

29 

(28.7) 

101 

(44.5) 

Program 88 

(69.8) 

38 

(30.2) 

126 

(22.5) 

Total 160 

(70.5) 

67 

(29.5) 

227 

(100.0) 

7.11


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 7.2 

Demographic Characteristics of Youth Samples (N = 227) 

Race/Ethnicity 

Youth Sample 

AfricanAmerican Latino 

(MexicanAmerican) 

Othera Total 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

Comparison 13 

(12.9) 

80 

(79.2) 

8 

(7.9) 

101 

(44.5) 

Program 52 

(41.3) 

63 

(50.0) 

11 

(8.7) 

126 

(55.5) 

Total 65 

(28.6) 

143 

(63.0) 

19 

(8.4) 

227 

(100.0) 

a

 Com parison Sam ple: non-Latino white (n = 2), Native-American (n = 5), Asian-Am erican (n = 1); 

Program Sam ple: non-Latino white (n = 3), Native-American (n = 6), Asian-Am erican (n = 3). 

7.12 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 7.3 

Demographic Characteristics of Youth Samples (N = 227) 

Age Categories at Program Entry 

Youth Sample 

14 and Undera 15 to 16 17 and Overb Total 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

Comparison 64 

(63.4) 

32 

(31.7) 

5 

(5.0) 

101 

(44.5) 

Program 50 

(39.7) 

65 

(51.6) 

11 

(8.7) 

126 

(55.5) 

Total 114 

(50.2) 

97 

(42.7) 

16 

(7.1) 

227 

(100.0) 

a

 There were 63 youth under 14 years old: in the comparison sample, 3 youth were 11 years old, 

11 were 12 years old, and 20 were 13 years old – totaling 34 youth under 14 years of age; in the program 

sam ple, 1 you th wa s 9 yea rs old , 5 we re 11 , 9 we re 12 , and 14 w ere 1 3 year s old – totaling 2 9 youth 

under 14 years of age. 

b

 There were 9 youth over 18 years: in the comparison sample, 1 youth was 19 years old and 1 

was 20 years old – totaling 2 youth over 18 years of age; in the program sam ple, 2 youth were 19 years 

old, 4 were 20, and 1 was 21 years old – totaling 7 youth over 18 years of age. 

7.13 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 7.4 

Number of Youth Arrested (N = 227) 

Prior-to-Pre-Program, Pre-Program and Program Periods 

Youth 

Sample 

Arrest Period 

Total 

Prior-toPreProgramPeriod Only PreProgram 

and Other 

Periods

 ProgramPeriod Only No Arrests 

n n n n n 

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 

Comparison 3 49 19 30 101 

(3.0) (48.5) (18.8) (29.7) (44.5) 

Program 7 108 3 8 126 

(5.6) (85.7) (2.4) (6.4) (55.5) 

Total 10 157 22 38 227 

(4.4) (69.2) (6.7) (16.7) (100.0) 

7.14


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 7.5 

Total Arrest-Frequency Category 

Pre-Program Period Only 

Youth Sa m ple 

Arrest-Freque ncy Category 

0 = None Low = .1 to1 .9 Me dium = 2 to 3 .9 High = 4 and 

higher 

n % n % n % n % 

Com parison 

(N = 101) 

56 55.5 25 24.8 10 9.9 10 9.9 

Program 

(N = 126) 

22 17.5 34 27.0 30 23.8 40 31.8 

Total 

(N = 227) 

78 34.4 59 26.0 40 17.6 50 22.0 

7.15


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 7.6 

Arrests by Type of Offensea 

Comparison and Program Youthb 

Pre-Program Period 

Arrest Category c 

Comparison Youth 

(N=45) 

Program Youth 

(N=104) 

n % d n % c 

Serious Violence 2 (4.4) 19 (18.3) 

Less-Serious Violence 17 (37.8) 42 (40.4) 

Drugs 8 (17.8) 26 (25.0) 

Property 23 (51.1) 58 (55.8) 

Weapons 1 (2.2) 4 (3.9) 

Public Disturbance 10 (22.2) 35 (33.7) 

Alcohol 3 (6.7) 8 (7.7) 

Other 17 (37.8) 49 (47.1) 

Total Arrestse 81 (100.0) 241 (100.0) 

a

 The type of offense refers to the eight categories of arrest charges for which youth were 

arrested (see Appendix A). 

b Excludes 4 program youth with no worker-tracking records, and their matched comparison 

youth. 

c

 The sum of youth arrested in these eight categories does not equal the total number of youth 

who were arrested in the pre-program period. If a youth was arrested more than once for the same or 

different types of offenses, he was recorded each time in the different arrest categories. 

d

 Percentage of youth who were arrested in a particular arrest category. 

e Total arre sts is the sum of youth arrested in the eight offense categories. The same youth may 

have been arrested more than once in the same category, or in several categories. 

7.16 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 7.7 

Arrest Patterns of Youth Samples (N=227) 

All Arrest Periodsa 

Youth Sample 

Violence b/Drugs 

Violence/No 

Drugs 

Drugs/ No 

Violence 

No Drugs/No 

Violence c No Arrests Total 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

N 

% 

Comparison 14 

(13.9) 

29 

(28.7) 

6 

(5.9) 

22 

(21.8) 

30 

(29.7) 

101 

(44.5) 

Program 31 

(24.6) 

56 

(44.5) 

14 

(11.1) 

17 

(13.5) 

8 

(6.4) 

126 

(55.5) 

Total 45 

(19.8) 

85 

(37.5) 

20 

(8.8) 

39 

(17.2) 

38 

(16.7) 

227 

(100.0) 

a

 All youth were classified by type by arrests, regardless of whether arrests occurred in prior-to-pre-program, pre-program, program or 

post-program periods. 

b

 Includes serious and less-serious violence arrests


 Includes arrests for all types of offenses excluding violence and/or drugs.


7.17 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

c
Table 7.8 

Confinement Experience – Youth with Arrests (N = 179) 

Pre-Program and/or Program Periods 

Youth 

Sample 

% Confinement a 

Total 

Youth None <0.1 0.1 to 0.24 >=0.25 

n n n n n 

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 

Comparison 55 10 2 1 68 

(80.9) (14.7) (2.9) (1.5) (38.0) 

Program 52 42 11 6 111 

(46.9) (37.8) (9.9) (5.4) (62.0) 

Total 107 52 13 7 179 

(59.8) (29.1) (7.3) (3.9) (100.0) 

a

 The ratio of days in detention and/or incarceration to days at risk in the program and/or preprogram period. 

7.18 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 7.9 

Gang-Membership Status of Youth (N = 227) 

From Time-I Self-Report Data or Worker-Tracking Dataa 

Youth Sample 

Non-Gang 

Youth 

Gang Member Associate 

Gang Member 

Total 

n 

(%) 

n 

(%) 

n 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

Comparison 0 

(0.0) 

59 

(58.4) 

42 

(41.6) 

101 

(44.5) 

Program 24 

(19.1) 

66 

(52.4) 

36 

(28.6) 

126 

(55.5) 

Total 24 

(10.6) 

125 

(55.1) 

78 

(34.4) 

227 

(100.0) 

a

 If the self-report and worker-tracking data differed, the self-report data were used. 

7.19 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 7.10 

Gang-Membership Status and Gang Activity of Youth 

Time I Interviewa

 (N=227) 

Youth Sample 

Non-gang 

Youth 

Former Gang 

Member 

Active Six 

Months Prior 

to Interview 

Active in Past 

Six Months Always Active Unknown Total 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

N 

(%) 

N 

% 

Comparison w/ Interviews 0 

(0.0) 

58 

(57.4) 

10 

(9.9) 

3 

(3.0) 

30 

(29.7) 

0 

(0.0) 

101 

(44.5) 

Program w/ Interviews 20 

(18.9) 

52 

(49.1) 

7 

(6.6) 

0 

(0.0) 

27 

(25.5) 

0 

(0.0) 

106 

(46.7) 

Program w/o Interviews 4 

(20.0) 

0 

(9.0) 

0 

(0.0) 

0 

(0.0) 

0 

(0.0) 

16 

(80.0) 

20 

(8.8) 

Total 24 

(10.6) 

110 

(48.5) 

17 

(7.5) 

3 

(1.3) 

57 

(25.1) 

16 

(7.1) 

227 

(100.0) 

a

 For those program youth (n=20) who were not interviewed, no specific gang activity or change-status is reported. However, program 

youth could be identified as either a gang member or non-gang youth from the worker-tracking data (see Table 7.9). 

7.20 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 7.11 

Type of Drug Selling/Drug Use 

Youth Interviewed at Time I (N = 207) 

Type of Drug 

Drug Selling Drug Use 

Comparison (n = 100) Program (n = 106) Comparison (n = 101) Program (n = 106) 

Response = 

yes and no 

(n)

 % 

yes 

Response = 

yes and no 

(n) 

% 

yes 

Response = 

yes and no 

(n) 

% 

yes 

Response = 

yes and no 

(n) 

% 

yes 

Any Drug (100) 35.0 (106) 23.6 (101) 54.5 (106) 59.4 

Marijuana (35) 80.0 (25) 72.0 (55) 98.2 (63) 96.8 

Cocaine (34) 64.7 (25) 40.0 (54) 31.5 (62) 22.6 

Crack (35) 34.3 (25) 60.0 (54) 1.9 (63) 4.8 

Heroin (35) 0.0 (25) 0.0 (54) 1.9 (63) 1.6 

Methamphetamine (35) 17.1 (24) 8.3 (54) 5.6 (63) 6.4 

PCP (35) 5.7 (24) 0.0 (54) 3.7 (63) 3.2 

LSD (35) 3.1 (24) 8.3 (54) 25.9 (63) 9.5 

Glue — — — — (54) 7.4 (63) 11.1 

Gas — — — — (54) 1.9 (63) 1.6 

Other (32) 3.1 (24) (4.2) (50) 4.0 (58) 3.2 

Alcohol (100) 67.0 (86) 65.1 

7.21


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Chapter 8 

Program Services and Worker Contacts 

(Rolando V. Sosa) 

Introduction 

The OJJDP Comprehensive, Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, 

Intervention, and Suppression Program was based on the assumption that not only the individual 

youth, but the community and its organizations and programs were involved in both the creation 

and the solution (or amelioration) of the youth gang problem. The Comprehensive Gang 

Program Model was based on concepts of community disorganization and lack of socioeconomic opportunities. It assumed that key organizations in the community were not 

adequately coordinated in developing an appropriate program-approach of worker contacts and 

services, and that sufficient resources might not have been available to target gang-involved or 

highly gang-at-risk youth. A truly comprehensive approach was necessary, one which included 

different types of agencies and local groups concerned with and/or closely related to gang youth, 

their families, and to those at highest risk of gang delinquency. The Model required that agencies 

and grassroots groups develop and refocus their programs to better target youth, particularly 

through an appropriate combination of coordinated school, job, counseling, and suppression 

activities. 

The Projects at the five Model demonstration sites were not only expected to mobilize 

agency and grassroots elements, but to establish outreach contacts with targeted gang youth who 

were partially, and not interactively, served and socially controlled. From a structure and process 

8.1


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
perspective, the Model required not only a steering committee of community leaders and the 

involvement of representatives of key organizations, but also an outreach team consisting of 

street-level workers from the key organizations and community groups concerned with the youthgang problem. The community direct-service or contact team should include police officers, 

probation officers, outreach youth workers and case managers, as well as teachers, manpower 

workers and specialized treatment workers. In particular, probation and police officers should be 

interested in providing social support as well as suppression. Outreach youth workers should 

come from the same gang neighborhoods and be able to assist youth with social support, e.g., 

crisis intervention, access to drug treatment and family counseling, as well as referral for training, 

jobs, and further education. 

The workers were to target selected youth from certain gangs and gang segments. The 

youth were expected to be gang members who were chronic delinquents, gang associates, and 

youth at high risk for both gang membership and delinquency. The Project team was to 

implement program strategies – particularly social services, provision of social opportunities, and 

suppression – in an interrelated and balanced manner. Agency services would have to be 

modified and coordinated, with emphasis on outreach. Worker services and contacts would 

extend over a period of months or years, with intensive and frequent contacts with hardcore 

gang-delinquent youth. The workers were expected to be skilled both in working with gang 

youth and agencies, as well as highly committed to implementing the Model. 

In Tucson, the Comprehensive Gang Program Model was not as well developed as it 

could have been. Probation officers were the primary source of referral of youth to the program 

during the Project period, followed by Our Town – the lead agency. The program was primarily 

8.2


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
social-service in its orientation, with focus on early intervention for younger youth. Outreach 

youth workers and case managers were the key providers of services and contacts; 

probation/parole officers and to some extent treatment-agency workers were less collaboratively 

involved. The participation of police and neighborhood or grassroots organizations in the work 

or direction of the program was even more limited. 

A targeting question was whether the Project in fact worked more with gang-at-risk and 

less-delinquent youth than with seriously gang-delinquent youth. The majority of youth in the 

program did not have a history of serious violence or drug arrests. Youth with fewer arrests were 

generally provided with more services than those who had more arrests. Outreach youth workers 

were not street-based; they generally confined their services and contacts to youth referred to the 

program by juvenile probation officers. Coordination of Project-worker, police, and probation 

contacts and services was not fully developed. Outreach youth workers and case managers took 

almost all responsibility for services to program youth, and for initiating contacts with workers of 

other agencies on their behalf. 

The Worker Tracking Form 

The major instrument for obtaining data regarding services to and contacts with program 

youth by the different Project workers was the 12-page Worker Tracking Form. It contained 

mainly closed-ended, check-off items, but also some open-ended questions. Each worker was 

expected to classify and summarize the nature and scope of his/her direct contacts with program 

youth and the services provided (including referral services) during each three-month calendar 

quarter. An accounting of coordinated contacts was also very important, i.e., which other 

8.3


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
workers (both Project workers and workers from outside Project-related agencies, e.g., schools 

and treatment agency workers) were contacted in regard to the youth. This information measured 

the nature and level of coordination of efforts in regard to particular youth, a key indicator of the 

collaboration component of the Comprehensive Gang Program Model. 

The Worker Tracking Form requested the following types of information from the 

worker: identification of the worker and his organization; identification of the youth; the youth’s 

demographics (age, race/ethnicity, etc.) and gang affiliation (along with rank in the gang); the 

dates of worker contact with the youth (first contact after program entry, first and last contact in 

the reporting period); number and types of contacts with the youth; types of services provided; 

referrals made on behalf of the youth; a rating of the youth’s progress; identification of services 

or referrals felt by the worker to be most helpful to the youth; and observations and ratings by the 

worker regarding the youth’s degree of involvement in various gang and non-gang delinquent 

activities during the reporting period. 

Fifty-five (55) services or activities of workers were identified, and then classified into 8 

major service/activity categories for analytic purposes: case planning, group-oriented services, 

individual counseling, family counseling, school-related services, job-related services, 

suppression, and material support. Project probation officers, police and outreach youth workers 

and various other Project-affiliated workers from outside agencies were the principal workers 

expected to supply services to or have contacts with youth. At the Tucson site, Worker Tracking 

Forms were completed mainly by outreach youth workers, probation officers, and case managers, 

and to a limited extent by Project police officers and contracted treatment-agency workers. No 

other types of workers (even though sometimes closely involved in providing services and 

8.4


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
contacts to program youth) completed the Tracking Forms. 

Project strategies were indicated by specific categories of services and contacts, for 

example: social intervention – individual counseling, group discussion and family counseling 

(including crisis intervention); social opportunities provision – vocational or job-related and/or 

education-related services such as job placement, school placement, GED program and 

continuing education; suppression – arrest, probation, parole, confinement, detention, 

monitoring, surveillance. The strategy of community mobilization or interagency collaboration at 

the direct-service or worker-contact level was indicated at the level of the worker’s coordinated 

contacts, i.e., referrals, planning, and activities with each other in relation to a particular youth. 

The strategy of organizational change and development at the aggregate level was indicated by 

the program’s focus on the different types and combinations of services and contacts the Project 

developed over time. 

Forms Completed. One-thousand and ninety-eight (1,098) Worker Tracking Forms for 

125 program youth were completed during the Tucson Project period. (One additional youth 

appeared in program-entry records, but no information was available on the length of his stay in 

the program, or any services provided to him.) Outreach youth workers began to complete forms 

in January 1997, when program operations started. 

We included all 125 youth with worker tracking records in the aggregate-level program 

service/contact analysis. However, only 111 of these youth were provided with Project services 

and contacts for one month or more during the program period. Of the 125 youth, 106 completed 

a Time-I gang-member interview. Our analysis revealed that there was little difference in the 

characteristics of youth, or in the scope or nature of services and contacts provided to youth, 

8.5


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
whether they were interviewed or not. 

A total of 5,097 services were provided, and 13,541 worker contacts made (probably 

underestimates) to the 125 program youth during the 31⁄2-year program period, 1996-1999. An 

average of 8.7 Worker Tracking Forms were completed for each of the 125 youth. Eight 

outreach youth workers and four case managers completed 727 (66.2%) forms; six juvenile 

probation officers completed 131 (11.9%); two juvenile parole officers completed 17 (1.6%); one 

police officer and one police detective with the TPD Gang Unit completed 81 (7.4%); and one 

clinician and two counselors from local treatment and community-based youth agencies 

completed 142 (12.9%) forms. 

We believe the content of the forms provided an adequate basis to analyze the effects of 

different patterns of worker services and contacts for all youth in the program. The Tracking 

Forms, in addition to program-youth entry and exit records, were independent data sources 

accounting for youth and the length of time they were in the program. 

Sources of Referral to the Program, and Youth Characteristics 

All youth (N = 125) who participated in the program were included in the aggregate-level 

program-services and worker-contacts analysis, whether they were interviewed or not. Almost 

three-quarters of the youth (74.4%) were referred to the program by Juvenile Probation officers; 

15.2% by Our Town workers (from youth already in their own agency program); and 8.0% 

directly by families in the community. Almost all youth (96.8%) entered the program in the first 

2 1⁄2 years of Project operations (Table 8.1). 

The program comprised mainly males (69.6%) (females =30.4%). The youth were 

8.6


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
primarily Latino (Mexican-origin) (48.0%), but there were also substantial numbers of African 

Americans (40.0%). Other racial/ethnic groups represented were American Indians (4.8%), nonLatino whites (2.4%), Asian Americans (1.6%), and youth who claimed a bi-racial background 

(3.2%). The two largest age groups were the 15- to 17-year-olds (49.6%) and the 10- to 14-yearolds (41.6%); the 18- to 21-year-olds were the smallest group (8.0%) (Table 8.2). 

Dosage of Services and Worker Contacts 

Youth were in the program for an average of 20.8 months (median = 19.4 months). They 

were provided with more contacts than services, at least based on the worker-tracking reports. 

On average, youth were provided with 5.3 contacts and 2.0 services per month. While a variety 

of workers had contacts with youth, relatively few of the contacts were coordinated contacts. On 

average, less than one (0.9) of the approximately five worker contacts per youth per month were 

coordinated contacts. Workers from Our Town operated pretty much on their own (Table 8.3). 

Types of Services Provided, and Change Patterns Over Time 

The primary services or activities were case planning (24.1%) and group counseling 

(20.3%). Considerably less individual counseling (13.9%) and family counseling (29.8%) 

occurred than would have been expected and (perhaps) required, given the young age of most 

youth and their extensive arrest backgrounds. Job services (4.1%) and school services (8.5%) 

were least often provided. Moderate amounts of suppression services (13.8%) and material 

support (12.6%) were also given (Table 8.4). 

More youth were provided services in the latter part of the program than in the first part. 

8.7 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
However, relatively more services per youth were provided in the earlier part of the program, 

particularly individual counseling, family counseling, job and school services, and even 

suppression activities. More case planning and group counseling were made available in the 

latter years of the program. The quality of services differed between the early and latter parts of 

the Project’s duration. In the second half of the program, more youth were provided with less 

services, which tended to be less individualized. The greatest decrease occurred for suppression 

services, from 20.1% of total services in the first six months of program operations, when it was 

the primary service offered, to 8.8% in the last six months. 

The greatest number of services to the most youth over the 31⁄2-year program were 

provided by Our Town outreach youth workers and case managers (28.8 services per youth), 

followed by probation officers (17.0 services), treatment-agency personnel (13.0 services), and 

police (3.9). The outreach youth workers and case managers primarily provided case planning 

(28.2%), and group (23.6%), school-related (11.0%), and job-related services (5.7%). The 

probation officers mainly provided suppression (57.0%) and case planning (18.2%). Police said 

they provided significant amounts of group services (27.4%), individual counseling or advice 

(22.3%), and case planning (17.7%), as well as suppression services (29.1%). Treatment-agency 

workers provided the greatest amount of individual counseling (51.8%) and family counseling 

(16.6%), but the least amount of case planning (9.5%), to the fewest youth (n = 41) (Table 8.5). 

Patterns of Service 

Patterns of services varied somewhat based on the particular demographic characteristics 

and criminal histories of program youth, i.e., gender, age, race/ethnicity, gang-membership 

8.8


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
status, pre-program arrests,1

 and pre-program confinement length. 

Gender. Although there were more males (69.6%) than females (30.4%) in the program, 

males and females were provided with equivalent numbers of services per youth over the entire 

program period: 40.8 services per female, 40.7 services per male. Types of services varied. As a 

proportion of total services, males were provided with relatively more suppression (15.0%) than 

were females (11.0%), but females were provided with slightly more family counseling (4.1% 

versus 2.4%), individual counseling (15.7% versus 13.1%), and school services (9.2% versus 

8.1%) compared to males (Table 8.6a). 

Age. An important difference in the pattern of services provided to youth was based on 

age. Younger youth 10-14 years old were provided with relatively more services per youth (49.0) 

than were 15- to 17-year-olds (37.6), and more than twice as many services as the 18- to 21-yearolds (20.7). The difference in patterns of services-provision by age of youth was unexpected. 

The youngest age group (10-14 years) was provided with the most suppression, group 

counseling, and family counseling, and the least case planning and material support. The 15- to 

17-year-olds were provided with slightly more case planning, material support, individual 

counseling and job services than the other age groups; they were provided with the least amount 

of suppression and job services. The oldest age group (18 to 21 years) was provided with an 

average amount of all types of services, compared to the other age groups (Table 8.6b). 

Race/Ethnicity. The two major racial/ethnic groups receiving services were the 

1

 For p urpo ses of late r analyse s, we foc used on ar rests in the p re-pro gram and p rogra m pe riod s. Prepro gra m a rrests refers to the total number of arrests the youth had during the pre-program period, which covered the 

period just prior to the youth’s entry into the program, and is equivalent to the length of time the youth was in the 

pro gram . Ho weve r, a sma ll numb er of yo uth (n = 16) had n o arre sts in the pr e-pro gram or pr ogra m pe riod , but did 

have arrests in the prior-to-pre -program and/or p ost-program periods. T hese youth also we re provid ed with services; 

we identify them as the “excluded” group. 

8.9 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Latino/Mexican-American youth (n = 60) and the African-American youth (n = 50). While 

Latino youth were provided with slightly more services per youth (41.3) than African-American 

youth (38.0), there were some differences in the types of services provided. African-American 

youth were provided with more case-planning and job/school services, and less individual/family 

counseling and suppression services. More individual counseling was provided to Latino youth 

(16.4%) than to African-American youth (9.9%). It was difficult to compare patterns of services 

for youth of other race/ethnic backgrounds; so few were in the program (Table 8.6c). 

Gang-Membership Status. Gang members were provided with slightly more services per 

youth (42.1) than were gang associates (40.9) or non-gang youth (37.0). The most important 

difference in pattern of suppression services provided was between gang members (15.1%) and 

gang associates (14.5%), compared to non-gang youth (8.5%). In other words, non-gang youth 

were generally provided with more non-suppression types of services, and gang associates were 

provided with somewhat more school-related services (Table 8.6d). 

Pre-Program Arrests. There was little to distinguish the various service patterns among 

pre-program arrestee groups. Youth with pre-program arrests generally were provided with more 

services. Youth with 0 pre-program arrests were provided with 30.0 services; those with more 

than 0 and less than 1 pre-program arrests, 48.9; those with 1 to less than 2 pre-program arrests, 

39.2; and youth with 2 or more pre-program arrests, 43.8. Youth with fewer arrests were 

provided with slightly more case planning and group services. Those with more arrests in the 

pre-program period were provided with more suppression services and slightly more individual 

and family counseling (Table 8.6e). 

Pre-Program Confinement. Most youth had little or no history of detention or 

8.10 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
incarceration in the pre-program period. Those with no pre-program confinement (n = 64) 

comprised 51.6% of youth; 27.4% (n = 34) had less than 5.0% of time in pre-program 

confinement; 6.5% (n = 8) had more than 5.0% but less than 10.0% of time in confinement; and 

14.5% (n = 18) had 10.0% or more of pre-program time in detention or incarceration. Those 

youth with less confinement experience were generally provided with more services, though 

youth with more confinement experience were provided with slightly more case planning, 

material support, individual counseling and job services (but not necessarily with more 

suppression services). Youth with less confinement experience were provided with more group 

counseling and school services, but all these differences were small (Table 8.6f). 

In sum, the differences in patterns of services-provision were mainly that younger youth 

were provided with more services than older youth (especially more suppression for the 10- to 

14-year-old group), and that gang members were provided with somewhat more suppression 

services than gang associates and non-gang youth. Overall, there wasn’t really a lot of difference 

in the types of services provided to youth. 

Patterns of Worker Contacts 

The purpose and nature of the program may have been better reflected in the pattern of 

worker contacts than the pattern of services provided. While there was generally limited 

variation in the types of services provided to different youth, substantial variation occurred in the 

number of contacts by the different kinds of workers with program youth of differing 

characteristics. This was particularly the case in regard to the differential distribution of contacts 

made by outreach youth workers and case managers compared to probation/parole officers, who 

8.11


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
together had the most contacts with youth in the program. The status or role of the worker 

should have been critical in determining the nature and effect of this (apparently) similar serviceprovision. 

Gender. Males were provided with more contacts per youth during the program period. 

Outreach youth workers and case managers had an overall higher rate of contacts with females 

(72.5) than with males (51.8). This contrasted with the relatively greater proportion of contacts 

by Project probation/parole officers with males (47.6) than with females (19.4). Treatment 

workers reported fewer contacts with youth, and had almost twice as many contacts (15.9) with 

females as with males (8.5). Police had few contacts with youth; slightly more with females 

(1.3) than with males (1.0) (Table 8.7a).

Age. Outreach youth workers and case managers had a higher rate of contact with youth 

across all age groups (particularly with 18- to 21-year-olds) than did probation/parole officers. 

This could have been for jurisdictional reasons restricting probation and parole officers to dealing 

with juveniles. Nevertheless, focus by all workers was on the youngest age group (10-14 years), 

which had the highest number of contacts. Probation/parole officers had relatively more contacts 

with 10- to 14-year-olds than with 15- to 17-year-olds, compared to outreach youth workers and 

case managers. Treatment workers and police focused their efforts more on the younger (10- to 

14-year-old youth) than on other age groups (Table 8.7b). 

Race/Ethnicity. There were more contacts with Latino youth than with African-American 

youth, by all types of workers. The difference was more marked for probation workers (46.4 and 

30.2) than by outreach youth workers and case manager (60.1 and 52.0). It was most marked for 

treatment workers, who had almost 8 times as many contacts with Latinos (16.7) as with African 

8.12


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Americans (2.2) (Table 8.7c). 

Gang-Membership Status. Project workers overall had more contacts with gang members 

than with gang associates, and more contacts with gang associates than with non-gang youth. 

However, probation/parole officers had relatively more contact with gang members (49.7); 

outreach youth workers and case managers were more often in contact with gang associates; 

police were also more often in contact with gang associates; and treatment workers more often 

with non-gang youth. Priority targeting of gang members was carried out only by 

probation/parole officers (Table 8.7.d). 

Pre-Program Arrests. Overall, Project workers targeted delinquent rather than nondelinquent youth. This was particularly so for probation/parole, police officers, outreach youth 

workers and case managers. Nevertheless, overall priority appeared to be targeting youth who 

were starting their delinquent careers (as evidenced by arrests in the pre-program period); that is, 

youth who had arrests, but less than one arrest per year, on average, during the program period. 

This was particularly true for outreach youth workers, case managers and treatment workers. The 

most delinquent youth were relatively more often targeted for contacts by probation/parole and 

police officers (Table 8.7e). 

Pre-Program Confinement. Again, the overall focus of contacts was on program youth 

with no or little pre-program confinement (i.e., detention or correctional institution) experience. 

Relatively more contacts by outreach workers and police were directed to youth with no or 

limited confinement experience. Probation workers appeared to focus their contacts on youth 

with some limited confinement experience in the pre-program period (Table 8.7f). 

8.13


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Coordinated Worker Contacts 

Data from worker-tracking records permitted us to construct a worker coordination 

variable, i.e., types of coordinated contacts that each type of Project worker initiated with other 

types of workers, both inside and outside the Project. Coordination involved sharing 

information, planning complementary activities, and carrying out joint efforts in regard to 

particular youth. The Model required coordination of different types of workers who had 

different strategies with gang youth. Increased coordinated contacts was a sign of reduced 

community disorganization at the formal, organizational level. It indicated a balance and 

integration of different strategies in work with gang youth and gang situations. An increasing 

level of coordination was expected to result in lower levels of arrests of program youth. 

There were 13, 541 worker contacts with program youth; however, only 2,217 (16.4%) of 

these were coordinated contacts. This suggested a somewhat low level of coordination or 

collaboration of workers with each other in respect to program youth. Outreach youth workers 

and case managers were the primary initiators of coordinated contacts with probation and police 

officers, school, treatment and non-Project agency workers, as well as with other workers within 

Our Town. Outreach youth workers and case managers accounted for almost two-thirds (65.5%) 

of all coordinated contacts during the 31⁄2-year period of program operations, in contrast to 

probation/parole (18.2%), police (4.4%), and treatment personnel (11.9%) (Table 8.8a). 

Not only were Our Town Project outreach youth workers and case managers the 

predominant initiators of coordinated contacts, but the primary receivers of these contacts were 

other Our Town staff. In other words, the outreach youth workers and case managers were 

mainly oriented to similar workers in their own agency. No other type of Project-related worker 

8.14


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
was so heavily oriented to their own staff for coordinated contacts. A greater proportion of 

probation/parole, police, and treatment workers initiated their coordinated contacts with outreach 

youth workers and case managers than vice versa. 

Although total worker coordinated contacts increased between the first and second halves 

of the program, the proportion of coordinated contacts within agencies increased, especially for 

outreach and treatment workers. Outreach youth workers and case managers increased their 

coordinated contacts with other Our Town workers from 52.8% to 70.4% of total contacts. 

Outreach youth workers and case managers decreased their coordinated contacts with police, 

probation/parole and school personnel. On the other hand, probation/parole and police workers 

increased their coordinated contacts with school workers, outreach youth workers and case 

managers (Table 8.8b-c). 

Our Town workers (and also treatment-agency workers) were increasingly oriented to 

their own social-intervention strategies and less to a social-control or suppression strategy. 

Police and probation/parole workers became increasingly oriented to a social-intervention and 

social-opportunity strategy. Over the course of the program period, probation/parole, police, and 

treatment workers were increasingly committed – while Our Town outreach workers and case 

managers were decreasingly committed – to the collaborative Model. Our Town appeared to 

operate more and more on the basis of a straight social-intervention model. 

Summary 

The analysis of services and worker contacts provided to 125 Tucson program youth was 

based on data derived from 1,098 Worker Tracking Forms over the full 31⁄2-year program period, 

8.15


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
January 1, 1996 through June 30, 1999. (Almost ninety percent [89.6%] of youth entered the 

program in a two-year period between July 1996 and June 1998.) The forms (an average 8.7 per 

youth) were completed every three months by Project workers, mainly by outreach youth workers 

and case managers (66.0%), but also by probation and parole officers (13.6%), police (7.4%), and 

other Project-related agency workers (13.0%). 

A total of 5,097 services and 13,541 direct worker contacts were provided by Project 

workers to program youth; 2,217 (16.4% – less than 1 in 5) of all worker contacts were 

coordinated contacts, i.e., involved some level of collaboration with other workers. Most youth 

(74.4%) were referred to the program by juvenile probation and parole officers; the remainder 

(15.2%) primarily by Our Town Family Center itself. On average, youth spent 20.8 months 

(median 19.4) in the program, and were provided with an average of 2.0 services and 5.3 contacts 

per month. 

On average, youth were provided with slightly more services in the earlier than in the 

later years of the program. The percentage of services provided were: case planning (24.1%); 

group counseling (20.3%); individual counseling (13.9%); suppression (13.8%). Lower levels of 

school-related (8.5%), job-related (4.1%) and family counseling (2.9%) services were also 

provided. On average, outreach youth workers provided the largest number of services per youth 

(28.8) to the largest number of youth (n = 120), followed by probation/parole (17.0 services per 

youth to 55 youth), treatment workers (13.0 services per youth to 41 youth), and police (3.9 

services or contacts per youth to 45 youth). 

Patterns of services provided were generally similar regardless of demographic 

characteristics of youth. There were more than twice as many males as females in the program. 

8.16


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
About an equal number of services per youth were provided to males and females (40.8 and 

40.7); males had slightly more suppression contacts than females. Younger youth (10-14 years) 

were provided with more services, on average, than older youth, including slightly more 

suppression services. There was little difference in patterns of services based on the 

race/ethnicity of youth, except that Latino youth were provided with slightly more job and 

school-related services. Gang and associate gang members were provided with slightly more 

services, particularly suppression services, than non-gang youth. In general, the focus of services 

was on youth who had less than 1 arrest per year, on average, in the pre-program period. 

The dominant characteristic of the program appeared to be early social intervention, with 

focus on youth who were younger and just beginning their delinquency careers. There was less 

difference in patterns of services provided by different Project workers than in the patterns of 

who they provided services to. Outreach youth workers, case managers and treatment workers 

had relatively more contacts with females than males; probation and parole officers were 

relatively more often in contact with males than females. All types of workers focused their 

contacts more often on younger rather than older youth. Outreach youth workers and case 

managers had relatively more contacts with gang associates and non-gang youth than gang 

members, while probation and parole officers had relatively more contacts with gang members 

than associate gang members. 

Our Town outreach youth workers and case managers initiated coordinated (or 

collaborative) contacts mainly with other workers, rather than vice versa. This pattern of 

coordinated contacts increased as the program developed, so that by the last half of the Project 

period the Our Town workers’ coordinated contacts were 70.4% of their total contacts. The 

8.17


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
largest proportion of coordinated contacts by Our Town workers was with other workers in their 

own agency. Project workers from other agencies were relatively more likely to coordinate with 

Our Town workers than with their own agency personnel. 

Our Town appeared to operate more on the basis of a traditional social-intervention 

model than the collaborative social-intervention/suppression/ social-opportunities and 

interagency-collaborative Model of the OJJDP Comprehensive, Community-Wide Approach to 

Gang Prevention, Intervention and Suppression Program. 

8.18


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Table 8.1 

Source of Youth Referral to Program 

By Year and 6-Month Period 

Source of 

Referral 

Year and 6-Month Period 

percent and (n) 

1996 1997 1998 1999 Total % 

(n) 1-1 to 6-30 7-1 to 12-31 1-1 to 6-30 7-1 to 12-31 1-1 to 6-30 7-1 to 12-31 1-1 to 6-30 

Probation/Parole 6.4 

(8) 

11.2 

(14) 

22.4 

(28) 

16.8 

(21) 

16.0 

(20) 0 1.6 (2) 

74.4 

(93) 

Our Town Family 

Center 0 0.8 (1) 

3.2 

(4) 

2.4 

(3) 7.2 

(9) 

0.8 

(1) 

0.8 

(1) 

15.2 

(19) 

Family 0.8 

(1) 0 0 1.6 (2) 

5.6 

(7) 0 0 8.0 (10) 

Self 0 0 0 0.8 

(1) 0 0 0 0.8 (1) 

School 0 0 0 0 0.8 

(1) 0 0 0.8 (1) 

Don’t Know 0 0 0 0 0.8 

(1) 0 0 0.8 (1) 

Total 7.2 

(9) 

12.0 

(15) 

25.6 

(32) 

21.6 

(27) 

30.4 

(38) 

0.8 

(1) 

2.4 

(3) 

100.0 

(125) 

8.19

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Table 8.2 

Selected Demographic Characteristics of Youth at Program Entry 

By Year and 6-Month Period 

Year and 6-Month Period 

Selected percent and (n) 

Demographic 

Characteristics a 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total % 

(n) 1-1 to 6-30 7-1 to 12-31 1-1 to 6-30 7-1 to 12-31 1-1 to 6-30 7-1 to 12-31 1-1 to 6-30 

Male 6.4 

(8) 

11.2 

(14) 

15.2 

(19) 

18.4 

(23) 

16.8 

(21) 0 1.6 (2) 

69.6 

(87) 

Female 0.8 

(1) 

0.8 

(1) 

10.4 

(13) 

3.2 

(4) 

13.6 

(17) 

0.8 

(1) 

0.8 

(1) 

30.4 

(38) 

Latinob 0.8 

(1) 

4.8 

(6) 

17.6 

(22) 

8.0 

(10) 

14.4 

(18) 

0.8 

(1) 

1.6 

(2) 

48.0 

(60) 

African-American 4.8 

(6) 

5.6 

(7) 

5.6 

(7) 

11.2 

(14) 

12.0 

(15) 0 0.8 (1) 

40.0 

(50) 

American Indian 0.8 

(1) 0 0 2.4 (3) 

1.6 

(2) 0 0 4.8 (6) 

Non-Latino White 0.8 

(1) 

1.6 

(2) 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 (3) 

Asian American 0 0 0.8 

(1) 0 0.8 (1) 0 0 1.6 (2) 

Bi-racial 0 0 1.6 

(2) 0 1.6 (2) 0 0 3.2 (4) 

10 to 14 3.2 2.4 9.6 9.6 14.4 0.8 1.6 41.6 

years old (4) (3) (12) (12) (18) (1) (2) (52) 

15 to 17 

years old 

4.0 

(5) 

7.2 

(9) 

16.0 

(20) 

10.4 

(13) 

12.0 

(15) 0 0 49.6 (62) 

18 to 21 

years-old 0 2.4 (3) 0 1.6 (2) 

4.0 

(5) 0 0 8.0 (10) 

Totalc 7.2 

(9) 

12.0 

(15) 

25.6 

(32) 

21.6 

(27) 

30.4 

(38) 

0.8 

(1) 

2.4 

(3) 

100.0 

(125) 

a One youth with missing birth date was excluded from the age-category analysis; age at program entry could not be calculated. 

b Primarily youth of Mexican ancestry.


Row and column percentage totals do not sum due to rounding.


8.20 

c 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Table 8.3 

Dosage of Services and Contacts to Youth (N=124)a 

Months in Program Total 

Services 

Services 

per Youth 

per Month 

Total 

Direct 

Contacts 

Direct 

Contacts 

per Youth 

per Month 

Total 

Coordinated 

Contacts 

Coordinated 

Contacts 

per Youth Mean Median per Month 

20.8 19.4 5,066 2.0 13,541 5.3 2,217 0.9 

a Excludes one youth who was in the program for less than 1 month. 

8.21 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Ta ble 8 .4 

Num ber of Types of Servicesa by 6-month Period for All Youth (N=125) 

(1,098 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Case Material Group Individual Family Job School Suppression Total Number c Services 

Year & 6-Mo. Period b Planning Support Counseling Counseling Counseling Services Services Services Services of Youth per Youth 

1997 1 100 75 120 140 44 47 54 146 726 47 15.4 

1997 2 197 170 137 161 26 46 105 120 962 69 13.9 

1998 1 354 180 287 183 16 53 119 166 1358 102 13.3 

1998 2 368 113 288 95 22 17 91 194 1188 104 11.4 

1999 1 207 103 203 128 40 44 62 76 863 101 8.5 

To tals 1226 641 1035 707 148 207 431 702 5097 423 12.0 

Percentage of Types of Servicesa by 6-month Period for All Youth (N=125) 

(1,098 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Case Material Group Individual Family Job School Suppression 

Year & 6-Mo. Period b Planning Support Counseling Counseling Counseling Services Services Services Total % 

1997 1 13.8% 10.3% 16.5% 19.3% 6.1% 6.5% 7.4% 20.1% 100.0% 

1997 2 20.5% 17.7% 14.2% 16.7% 2.7% 4.8% 10.9% 12.5% 100.0% 

1998 1 26.1% 13.3% 21.1% 13.5% 1.2% 3.9% 8.8% 12.2% 100.0% 

1998 2 31.0% 9.5% 24.2% 8.0% 1.9% 1.4% 7.7% 16.3% 100.0% 

1999 1 24.0% 11.9% 23.5% 14.8% 4.6% 5.1% 7.2% 8.8% 100.0% 

To tals 24.1% 12.6% 20.3% 13.9% 2.9% 4.1% 8.5% 13.8% 100.0% 

a. Overall there were 5,097 services provided to 125 youth. Eight outreach youth workers and four case m anagers com pleted 66.0% of the forms; six 

juvenile probation officers completed12.0% of the forms; two juvenile parole officers completed 1.6% of the forms; one police officer and one police gang 

detective completed 7.4% of the forms; and one clinician and two counselors from com munity-based youth and treatment organizations completed 

13.0% of the forms from January 1996 to June 1999 (1,098 forms). 

b. Period 1 = 1/1-6/30; Period 2 = 7/1-12/31. 

c. The number of youth with particular services/contacts is not exclusive of the number of youth also provided with other types of services/contacts. 

8.22 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Ta ble 8 .5


Num ber of Types of Services by Type of Worker (N=125)


(1,098 Worker Tracking Forms)


Case Material Group Individual Fam ily Job School Suppression Total Num ber a Services 

Type of Worker 

Outreach W orkers b 

Planning 

973 

Support 

581 

Counseling 

814 

Counseling 

347 

Counseling 

52 

Services 

198 

Services 

378 

Services 

107 

Services 

3450 

of Youth 

120 

per Youth 

28.8 

Probation/Parole 171 34 96 44 7 6 45 534 937 55 17.0 

Police 31 5 48 39 0 0 1 51 175 45 3.9 

Treatment Agency 51 21 77 277 89 3 7 10 535 41 13.0 

To tals 1226 641 1035 707 148 207 431 702 5097 261 19.5 

Percentage of Types of Services by Type of Worker (N=125) 

(1,098 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Case Material Group Individual Fam ily Job School Suppression 

Type of Worker Planning Support Counseling Counseling Counseling Services Services Services Total % 

Outreach W orkers b 28.2% 16.8% 23.6% 10.1% 1.5% 5.7% 11.0% 3.1% 100.0% 

Probation/P arole 18.2% 3.6% 10.2% 4.7% 0.7% 0.6% 4.8% 57.0% 100.0% 

Police 17.7% 2.9% 27.4% 22.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 29.1% 100.0% 

Treatment Agency 9.5% 3.9% 14.4% 51.8% 16.6% 0.6% 1.3% 1.9% 100.0% 

To tals 24.1% 12.6% 20.3% 13.9% 2.9% 4.1% 8.5% 13.8% 100.0% 

a The number of youth with particular services/contacts is not exclusive of the number of youth also provided with other types of services/contacts. 

b Includes youth outreach workers and case managers. 

8.23

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Table 8.6a 

Num ber of Types of Services by Gender (N=125) 

(1,098 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Case Material Group Individual Family Job School Suppression Total Number Services 

Gender Planning Support Counseling Counseling Counseling Services Services Services Services of Youth per Youth 

Male 868 426 739 464 84 147 289 532 3549 87 40.8 

Female 358 215 296 243 64 60 142 170 1548 38 40.7 

To tals 1226 641 1035 707 148 207 431 702 5097 125 40.8 

Percentage of Types of Services by Gender (N=125) 

(1,098 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Case Material Group Individual Family Job School Suppression 

Gender Planning Support Counseling Counseling Counseling Services Services Services Total % 

Male 24.5% 12.0% 20.8% 13.1% 2.4% 4.1% 8.1% 15.0% 100.0% 

Female 23.1% 13.9% 19.1% 15.7% 4.1% 3.9% 9.2% 11.0% 100.0% 

To tals 24.1% 12.6% 20.3% 13.9% 2.9% 4.1% 8.5% 13.8% 100.0% 

Table 8.6b 

Num ber of Types of Services by Age Category (N=124)a 

(1,096 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Case Material Group Individual Family Job School Suppression Total Number Services 

Age Category Planning Support Counseling Counseling Counseling Services Services Services Services of Youth per Youth 

10-14 years old 575 293 555 347 85 57 221 416 2549 52 49.0 

15-17 years old 579 313 436 338 63 135 197 269 2330 62 37.6 

18-21 years old 67 34 40 21 0 15 13 17 207 10 20.7 

To tals 1221 640 1031 706 148 207 431 702 5086 124 41.0 

Percentage of Types of Services by Age Category (N=124)a 

(1,096 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Case Material Group Individual Family Job School Suppression 

Age Category Planning Support Counseling Counseling Counseling Services Services Services Total % 

10-14 years old 22.6% 11.5% 21.8% 13.6% 3.3% 2.2% 8.7% 16.3% 100.0% 

15-17 years old 24.8% 13.4% 18.7% 14.5% 2.7% 5.8% 8.5% 11.5% 100.0% 

18-21 years old 24.0% 12.6% 20.3% 13.9% 2.9% 4.1% 8.5% 13.8% 100.0% 

To tals 24.0% 12.6% 20.3% 13.9% 2.9% 4.1% 8.5% 13.8% 100.0% 

a Excludes 1 youth with 2 worker-tracking records whose age at program entry could not be determined. 

8.24

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Table 8.6c 

Num ber of Types of Services by Race/Ethnicity (N=125) 

(1,098 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Case Material Group Individual Family Job School Suppression Total Number Services 

Race/Ethnicity Planning Support Counseling Counseling Counseling Services Services Services Services of Youth per Youth 

Latino a 561 302 502 405 91 85 171 358 2475 60 41.3 

African American 502 236 407 188 29 94 200 246 1902 50 38.0 

American Indian 62 19 27 33 5 5 9 22 182 6 30.3 

Non-Latino W hite 36 36 25 36 10 8 12 48 211 3 70.3 

Asian American 19 14 11 19 2 6 14 10 95 2 47.5 

Bi-racial b 46 34 63 26 11 9 25 18 232 4 58.0 

Totals 1226 641 1035 707 148 207 431 702 5097 125 40.8 

Percentage of Types of Services by Race/Ethnicity (N=125) 

(1,098 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Case Material Group Individual Family Job School Suppression 

Race/Ethnicity Planning Support Counseling Counseling Counseling Services Services Services Total % 

Latino a 22.7% 12.2% 20.3% 16.4% 3.7% 3.4% 6.9% 14.5% 100.0% 

African-American 26.4% 12.4% 21.4% 9.9% 1.5% 4.9% 10.5% 12.9% 100.0% 

American Indian 34.1% 10.4% 14.8% 18.1% 2.7% 2.7% 4.9% 12.1% 100.0% 

Non-Latino W hite 17.1% 17.1% 11.8% 17.1% 4.7% 3.8% 5.7% 22.7% 100.0% 

Asian American 20.0% 14.7% 11.6% 20.0% 2.1% 6.3% 14.7% 10.5% 100.0% 

Bi-racial b 19.8% 14.7% 27.2% 11.2% 4.7% 3.9% 10.8% 7.8% 100.0% 

To tals 24.1% 12.6% 20.3% 13.9% 2.9% 4.1% 8.5% 13.8% 100.0% 

a Primarily of Mexican ancestry. 

b Includes 2 participants who were African American/Latino, and 2 who were Mexican American/American Indian. 

8.25

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Table 8.6d


Num ber of Types of Services by Gang-Mem bership Status (N=125)


(1,098 Worker Tracking Forms)


Gang-Mem bership Case Material Group Individual Family Job School Suppression Total Number Services 

Status a Planning Support Counseling Counseling Counseling Services Services Services Services of Youth per Youth 

Gang Member 637 347 511 401 77 118 197 408 2696 64 42.1 

Gang Associate 365 184 330 161 37 52 166 219 1514 37 40.9 

Non-Gang Youth 224 110 194 145 34 37 68 75 887 24 37.0 

To tals 1226 641 1035 707 148 207 431 702 5097 125 40.8 

Percentage of Types of Services by Gang-M embership Status (N=125)

(1,098 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Gang-Mem bership Case Material Group Individual Family Job School Suppression 

Status a Planning Support Counseling Counseling Counseling Services Services Services Total % 

Gang Member 23.6% 12.9% 19.0% 14.9% 2.9% 4.4% 7.3% 15.1% 100.0% 

Gang Associate 24.1% 12.2% 21.8% 10.6% 2.4% 3.4% 11.0% 14.5% 100.0% 

Non-Gang Youth 25.3% 12.4% 21.9% 16.3% 3.8% 4.2% 7.7% 8.5% 100.0% 

To tals 24.1% 12.6% 20.3% 13.9% 2.9% 4.1% 8.5% 13.8% 100.0% 

a One youth had no self-reported gang membership status (he did not complete Time-I Individual Gang-Member Survey), so the Project-worker-reported 

gang-membership status was used. 

8.26

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Table 8.6e 

Num ber of Types of Services by Level of Prior-to-Pre-Program and Pre-Program Arrests (N=125) 

(1,098 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Level of

 Prior-to-Pre-Program Case Material Group Individual Family Job School Suppression Total Number Services

 & Pre-Program Arrests Planning Support Counseling Counseling Counseling Services Services Services Services of Youth per Youth 

Excluded a 109 51 95 41 5 13 34 36 384 16 24 

None b 55 21 50 23 3 8 22 28 210 7 30.0 

Less than 1 382 194 360 256 80 60 132 199 1663 34 48.9 

1 to < 2 302 143 230 130 22 40 111 197 1175 30 39.2 

2 or More 378 232 300 257 38 86 132 242 1665 38 43.8 

To tals 1226 641 1035 707 148 207 431 702 5097 125 40.8 

Percentage of Types of Services by Level of Prior-to-Pre-Program and Pre-Program Arrests (N=125) 

(1,098 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Level of 

Prior-to-Pre-Program Case Material Group Individual Family Job School Suppression

 & Pre-Program Arrests Planning Support Counseling Counseling Counseling Services Services Services Total % 

Excluded a 28.4% 13.3% 24.7% 10.7% 1.3% 3.4% 8.9% 9.4% 100.0% 

None b 26.2% 10.0% 23.8% 11.0% 1.4% 3.8% 10.5% 13.3% 100.0% 

Less than 1 23.0% 11.7% 21.6% 15.4% 4.8% 3.6% 7.9% 12.0% 100.0% 

1 to < 2 25.7% 12.2% 19.6% 11.1% 1.9% 3.4% 9.4% 16.8% 100.0% 

2 or More 22.7% 13.9% 18.0% 15.4% 2.3% 5.2% 7.9% 14.5% 100.0% 

To tals 24.1% 12.6% 20.3% 13.9% 2.9% 4.1% 8.5% 13.8% 100.0% 

a Eight (8) youth had arrests either in the prior-to-pre-program or post-program periods; arrest records for 3 youth were missing. 

b Five (5) youth had no arrests. 

8.27

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Table 8.6f 

Num ber of Types of Services by Level of Pre-Program Confinement (N=124)1 

(1,096 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Level of 

Pre-Program Case Material Group Individual Fam ily Job School Suppression Total Num ber Services 

Confinement Planning Support Counseling Counseling Counseling Services Services Services Services of Youth per Youth 

None 630 309 577 386 86 93 245 331 2657 64 41.5 

< 5% 370 195 281 185 39 64 127 250 1511 34 44.4 

5 - < 10% 73 44 53 40 3 13 9 20 255 8 31.9 

>= 10% 143 88 111 95 19 37 49 101 643 18 35.7 

To tals 1216 636 1022 706 147 207 430 702 5066 124 40.9 

Percentage of Types of Services by Level of Pre-Program Confinement (N=124)1 

(1,096 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Level of 

Pre-Program Case Material Group Individual Family Job School Suppression 

Confinement Planning Support Counseling Counseling Counseling Services Services Services Total % 

None 23.7% 11.6% 21.7% 14.5% 3.2% 3.5% 9.2% 12.5% 100.0% 

< 5% 24.5% 12.9% 18.6% 12.2% 2.6% 4.2% 8.4% 16.5% 100.0% 

5 - < 10% 28.6% 17.3% 20.8% 15.7% 1.2% 5.1% 3.5% 7.8% 100.0% 

>= 10% 22.2% 13.7% 17.3% 14.8% 3.0% 5.8% 7.6% 15.7% 100.0% 

Totals 24.0% 12.6% 20.2% 13.9% 2.9% 4.1% 8.5% 13.9% 100.0% 

a Excludes one youth with 2 worker-tracking records providing no information concerning pre-program level of confinement. 

8.28

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Table 8.7a 

Num ber of Direct Contacts per Youth – by Gender and Type of Project Worker (N=125) 

(1,098 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Type of Project W orker Number 

Gender Outreach * Probation Police Treatment Total of Youth 

Male 51.8 47.6 1.0 8.5 108.8 87 

Female 72.5 19.4 1.3 15.9 109.1 38 

To tals 58.1 39.0 1.1 10.7 108 .9 125 

Table 8.7b 

Num ber of Direct Contacts per Youth – by Age Category and Type of Project Worker (N=124)a 

(1,096 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Type of Project W orker Number 

Age Category Outreach* Probation Police Treatment Total of Youth 

10-14 years old 66.3 57.9 1.5 15.7 141.4 52 

15-17 years old 57.0 30.1 0.7 8.3 96.2 62 

18-21 years old 26.6 0.0 1.2 0.8 28.6 10 

To tals 58.4 39.4 1.1 10.8 109 .7 124 

a Excludes 1 youth with two worker-tracking records whose age at program entry could not be 

determined. 

* Includes youth outreach workers and case managers. 

8.29 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Table 8.7c 

Num ber of Direct Contacts per Youth – by Race/Ethnicity and Type of Project Worker (N=125) 

(1,098 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Type of Project W orker Number 

Race/Ethnicity Outreach* Probation Police Treatment Total of Youth 

Latino a 60.1 46.4 1.2 16.7 124.4 60 

African-American 52.0 30.2 0.8 2.2 85.2 50 

American Indian 29.5 8.2 0.2 14.2 52.0 6 

Non-Latino W hite 97.7 147.3 3.0 15.3 263.3 3 

Asian American 119.0 24.0 2.5 6.5 152.0 2 

Bi-racial b 87.0 11.3 2.0 21.3 121.5 4 

To tals 58.1 39.0 1.1 10.7 108 .9 125 

a Primarily of Mexican ancestry.


b Includes participants who were African-American/Latino and 2 who were Mexican-American/


American Indian.


Table 8.7d 

Num ber of Direct Contacts per Youth by Gang-M embership Status and Type of Project Worker 

(N=125) 

(1,098 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Gang-Mem bership Type of Project W orker Number 

Status Outreach* Probation Police Treatment Total of Youth 

Gang Member 56.1 49.7 1.0 10.5 117.4 64 

Gang Member 64.5 30.1 1.4 7.2 103.2 37 Associate


Non-Gang Youth
 53.3 24.3 0.7 16.8 95.0 24 

To tals 58.1 39.0 1.1 10.7 108 .9 125 

* Includes youth outreach workers and case managers. 

8.30 
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Table 8.7e 

Num ber of Direct Contacts per Youth – by Level of Prior-to-Pre Program 

and Pre-Program Arrests and Type of Project Worker (N=125) 

(1,098 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Level of 

Prior-to-Pre-Program Type of Project W orker Number

 & Pre-Program Arrests Outreach* Probation Police Treatment Total of Youth 

Excluded a 41.2 8.3 0.6 6.4 56.4 16 

None b 51.6 9.1 0.3 2.7 63.7 7 

Less than 1 71.4 43.5 1.2 22.9 139.0 34 

1 to < 2 53.8 35.0 1.0 4.3 94.1 30 

2 or More 57.8 56.7 1.4 8.3 124.1 38 

To tals 58.1 39.0 1.1 10.7 108 .9 125 

a Eight (8) youth had arrests in either the prior-to-pre-program or post-program period;


arrest records for 3 youth were missing.


b Five (5) youth had no arrests.


Table 8.7f 

Num ber of D irect Contacts per Y outh – by Lev el of Pre-Prog ram C onfinem ent 

and T ype of Project W orker (N=1 24) a 

(1,096 Worker Tracking Forms) 

Level of Pre-Program Type of Project W orker Number 

Confinement Outreach* Probation Police Treatment Total of Youth 

None 61.1 24.3 1.3 14.0 100.7 64 

< 5% 61.2 69.7 0.8 6.1 137.8 34 

5 - 10% 48.5 30.3 0.8 4.5 84.1 8 

>= 10% 44.9 39.8 0.9 11.3 96.9 18 

To tals 215 .7 164 .1 3.8 35.9 419 .5 124 

a

 Excludes one youth with 2 worker-tracking records providing no information concerning his 

pre-program level of confinement. 

* Includes youth outreach workers and managers. 

8.31 
---

---

---

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Table 8.8a 

Coo rdinated C ontacts 

By Type of Worker and Type of Worker Contacted 

Total Program Period – January 1996 through June 1999

 Type of Worker 

Initiating Contact 

Type of Worker Contacted 

percent and (n) 

Police Probation/ 

Parole School Outreach Othera Within Worker Organization 

Totalb 

(N) 

Outreachc 4.8 

(70) 

18.7 

(271) 

19.9 

(289) 

23.3 

(339) 

33.3 

(483) 

65.5 

(1,452) 

Probation/Parole 5.4 

(22) 

25.2 

(102) 

28.7 

(116) 

23.5 

(95) 

17.1 

(69) 

18.2 

(404) 

Police 13.3 

(13) 

2.0 

(2) 

49.0 

(48) 

22.4 

(22) 

13.3 

(13) 

4.4 

(98) 

Treatment Agency 0.8 

(2) 

16.3 

(43) 

4.2 

(11) 

30.0 

(79) 

34.2 

(90) 

14.4 

(38) 

11.9 

(263) 

Total 

(N) 

4.2 

(94) 

14.7 

(327) 

18.2 

(404) 

11.0 

(243) 

24.6 

(546) 

27.2 

(603) 

100.0 

(2,217) 

a

 The highest percentages of coordinated contacts with personnel from “other” organizations in this period were with La Frontera, Inc.(39.8%) (a 

nonprofit community-based behavioral health agency providing a wide variety of treatment services for children and adults) and the lead agency – Our Town 

Family Center (26.9%). The other 33.3% of coordinated contacts were with individuals from an assortment of agencies and institutions (e.g., Project YES, Adobe 

Mountain School, Boys and Girls Club, Arizona Department of Economic Security, Tucson Rotary Club, Pima County District Attorney’s Office, La Esperanza). 

b

 Percentages are based on the number of coordinated contacts reported in 1,098 Worker Tracking Forms for 125 program youth. An average of 17.7 

coordinated contacts were provided to each youth. 

 Includes outreach youth workers and case managers. 

8.32 

c
---

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Table 8.8b 

Coordinated Contacts 

By Type of Worker and Type of Worker Contacted 

First Half of Program Period – January 1996 through September 1997 

Type of Worker 

Initiating Contact 

Type of Worker Contacted 

percent and (n) 

Police Probation/ 

Parole School Outreach Othera W ithin Worker Organization 

Totalb 

(N) 

Outreach 5.9 

(19) 

22.2 

(72) 

20.4 

(66) 0 21.6 (70) 

29.9 

(97) 

52.8 

(324) 

Probation/Parole 7.2 

(13) 

19.9 

(36) 

21.5 

(39) 

27.6 

(50) 

23.8 

(43) 

29.5 

(181) 

Police 0 10.0 

(1) 0 30.0 (3) 

30.0 

(3) 

30.0 

(3) 

1.6 

(10) 

Treatment Agency 0 11.1 

(11) 

4.0 

(4) 

27.3 

(27) 

47.5 

(47) 

10.1 

(10) 

16.1 

(99) 

Total 

(N) 

5.2 

(32) 

13.7 

(84) 

17.3 

(106) 

11.2 

(69) 

27.7 

(170) 

24.9 

(153) 

100.0 

(614) 

a

 The highest percentage of coordinated contacts with personnel from “other” organizations in this period was with the lead agency – Our 

Town Family Center. The other 56.5 % of coordinated contacts were with individuals from an assortment of agencies and institutions (e.g., La 

Frontera, Inc., Project YES; Adobe Mountain School; Boys and Girls Club; Arizona Departm ent of Econom ic Security; Tucson Rotary Club; Pim a 

County District Attorney’s Office; La Esperanza). 

b

 Percentages are based on the number of coordinated contacts reported in 226 Worker Tracking Forms for 60 program youth. An 

average of 10.2 coordinated contacts per youth were provided to each youth. 

8.33 
---

---

---

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Table 8.8c 

Coordinated Contacts 

By Type of Worker and Type of Worker Contacted 

Second Half of Program Period – October 1997 through June 1999 

Type of Worker 

Initiating Contact 

Type of Worker Contacted 

percent and (n) 

Police Probation/ 

Parole School Outreach Othera W ithin Worker Organization 

Totalb 

(N) 

Outreach 4.5 

(51) 

17.6 

(199) 

19.8 

(223) 

23.8 

(269) 

34.2 

(386) 

70.4 

(1,128) 

Probation/Parole 4.0 

(9) 

29.6 

(66) 

34.5 

(77) 

20.2 

(45) 

11.7 

(26) 

13.9 

(223) 

Police 13.6 

(12) 

2.3 

(2) 

51.1 

(45) 

21.6 

(19) 

11.4 

(10) 

5.5 

(88) 

Treatment Agency 1.2 

(2) 

19.5 

(32) 

4.3 

(7) 

31.7 

(52) 

26.2 

(43) 

17.1 

(28) 

10.2 

(164) 

Total 

(N) 

3.9 

(62) 

15.2 

(243) 

18.6 

(298) 

10.9 

(174) 

23.5 

(376) 

28.1 

(450) 

100.0 

(1,603) 

a

 The highest percentage of coordinated contacts with personnel from “other” organizations in this period were with La Frontera, Inc. 

(41.2%), (a nonprofit community-based behavioral health agency providing a wide variety of treatment services for children and adults). The other 

58.8% of coordinated contacts were with individuals from an assortm ent of agencies and institutions (e.g., the lead agency – Our Town Fam ily 

Center, Project YES, Adobe Mountain School, Boys and Girls Club, Arizona Department of Economic Security, Tucson Rotary Club, Pima County 

District Attorney’s Office, La Esperanza). 

b

 Percentages are based on the number of coordinated contacts reported in 872 Worker Tracking Forms for 122 program youth. An 

average of 13.1 coordinated contacts per youth were provided to each youth. 

8.34 
Chapter 9 

Arrest Outcomes: Program and Comparison Youth 

(Kwai Ming Wa) 

Introduction 

In this chapter, we examine outcomes of program and comparison youth using arrest 

variables. We are interested in the program’s effectiveness in reducing arrests for program youth 

relative to the comparison youth (who were not provided with services and worker contacts). We 

use statistical models to control for differences between program-youth and comparison-youth 

characteristics, and to tell us to what extent certain youth characteristics and program effects 

account for changes in arrest patterns during the program period compared to the pre-program 

period. 

As we observed in earlier chapters, the Tucson Project did not substantially adopt or 

implement the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Program Model. It did not develop an effective 

Steering Committee, involving collaboration with justice-system agencies (particularly the 

Tucson Police Department), grassroots organizations and social agencies. It also did not develop 

an adequate, street-level, collaborative social-development-and-suppression team approach. The 

focus of the lead agency – Our Town Family Center (Our Town) – was on an early intervention 

program, particularly addressed to younger youth, utilizing mainly its own social services. 

There were research limitations in our use of the comparison sample, which was younger 

than the program sample, and contained a smaller number of African Americans. Comparison 

youth were considerably less delinquent and had less confinement experience. Given these 

9.1


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
limitations, we exercised great care in controlling for variations in characteristics of the samples. 

Multivariate statistical models were constructed to adjust for the skewness of sample 

characteristics. We believe the results of the analysis reflect a fair estimate of the effectiveness 

of the Project in reducing different types of arrests for program youth relative to comparison 

youth. 

The General Linear models (GLM) estimated differences or changes in the mean number 

of arrests for program-worker-tracked youth and comparison youth between the pre-program and 

program periods, controlling for demographic and criminal-justice background characteristics of 

the youth. In the GLM models, we used six dependent (outcome) variables: yearly total arrest 

changes, which included arrests for all of the categories of offenses; yearly total serious violence 

arrest changes, which included arrests for serious violence offenses such as homicide, 

aggravated battery, aggravated assaults, and aggravated robbery; yearly total violence arrest 

changes, which combined arrests for serious violence and less-serious violence such as simple 

assault, simple battery, attempted robbery, street fighting, and intimidation; yearly total drug 

arrest changes; yearly total property arrest changes, and yearly total “other” arrest changes. 

The GLM models provided us with information to determine if the mean level of change 

in arrests decreased, increased or stayed the same – not only in the program and comparison 

samples, but in subsamples based on age, gang-membership status, length of time in the program 

(or its equivalent for comparison youth), pre-program arrest history, and confinement experience 

(detention and incarceration). We included all program and comparison youth with arrest 

1

 Refer to Ap pend ix A for a listing of charges for the different catego ries of arrests. 

9.2 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

1 
histories in the program and/or pre-program period in all of our analyses.2 

The dependent (outcome) variables measured the mean yearly differences in the number 

of arrests for youth between the pre-program and program periods. For each of the six dependent 

variables in the GLM models, the number of arrests was annualized in order to control for 

varying numbers of arrests and confinement periods during the different program-period lengths. 

The program periods were matched with pre-program periods for each youth.3 In addition to 

arrests, we used several control variables in our models – gender, age, race/ethnicity, gangmembership status and length of time in the program. Despite their young ages, the youth 

(especially program youth) had extensive confinement histories, so we also included the length of 

time the youth were confined in the pre-program period as an important control variable. 

Eight independent variables were included in the GLM equations to explain variance in 

each of the six dependent (outcome) variables (except for serious violence arrests, where we use 

six independent variables because of the small number of these offenses committed and nongang-youth arrested for them). The independent variables were: project – program youth with 

worker-tracking records and comparison youth, both interviewed at Time I; level of pre-program 

yearly total arrests for the particular category of offense4; pre-program confinement length (.0; 

2

 One program youth and 1 comparison youth were excluded from the violence arrest change mod els. W e 

considered them to be outliers because they had very high numbers of violence arrests in the pre-program and 

program periods. However, they were includ ed in all of the other arrest-change mod els. 

3

 First, the m ean nu mbe r of yearly arrests was calc ulated using the total num ber of each yo uth’s arrests 

during the program and matched pre-program period, divided by the length in years for each period. Second, the 

mean yearly change was calculated by subtracting the mean number of yearly arrests in the program period from the 

mean number of yearly arrests in the pre-program period. 

4

 The levels or categories o f pre-program yearly total arrests were ranke d as follows: 1) no ne = no arrests; 

2) low = 0.01 to 0 .99 arrests; 3) me dium = 1.0 to 1.99 arrests; and 4) high = 2 or more arre sts. 

9.3 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
.001 to .02; .02 to .1; .1 or more)5

; gender (male and female); race/ethnicity (African-American, 

Latino, others); age group at program entry (14 years and under, 15 to 16 years, 17 years and 

over); gang-membership status – whether youth were gang members, gang associates, or nongang youth; and program length (i.e., length of time in the program: less/more than two years).6 

Up to seven interaction terms were added to the models: project × age group at program entry; 

project × gender; project × race/ethnicity; project × gang-membership status; project × 

program length; project × pre-program yearly total arrests7; and project × pre-program 

confinement length. The following sections present the findings of the “best” GLM models to 

determine whether the Project had an effect in reducing arrests for program youth compared to 

comparison youth with similar demographic characteristics, and in similar time frames. 

GLM Models 

Yearly Total Arrests 

In the GLM model for yearly total arrest changes – consisting of 67 comparison youth and 

110 program-worker-tracked youth (N = 177) – the model explained 33.9% of the variance in the 

dependent variable, and was significant (p<0.001). Pre-program yearly total arrests (p<0.01), age 

group (p=0.021) and gender (p=0.041) were the significant variables in this model, and program 

length (p=0.084) was the marginally significant variable. The findings using the pre-program 

5

 Perc ent pre -prog ram c onfine men t is determ ined fro m the ra tio of d ays of d etentio n and /or inca rcera tion to 

length of time (measured in days) a program or comparison youth was in the program. 

6

 Note that program length for comparison youth is equivalent to the program length of their matched 

program youth. 

7

 Youth who had zero pre-program and zero program arrests [“zero-zero”] were excluded from the GLM 

mod els. 

9.4 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
yearly total arrests variable signified a regression effect; i.e., the greater the number of preprogram-period arrests, the fewer the number of program-period arrests, and the fewer the 

number of pre-program-period arrests, the greater the number of program-period arrests. The age 

variable indicated that the youngest age group (10-14 year olds) had an increase in arrests that 

was significantly greater than it was for 15 and 16 year olds (p<0.015), and almost significantly 

greater than it was for 17- to 21-year-olds (p<0.051). However, these pattern differences 

occurred across combined samples of program and comparison youth, with no difference 

between program and comparison youth by level of pre-program yearly total arrests or by age 

group. The only significant subcategory difference was between two program age groups. The 

youngest program age group (10-14 years old) increased their level of arrests, while the 15- to 

16-year-olds decreased their level of arrests, in the program period compared to the pre-program 

period (p<0.006). In other words, the program may have done a better job with 15- 16-year-olds 

than with the youngest age group (10- 14-year-olds), controlling for a variety of other factors 

(Table 9.1). 

A somewhat similar pattern occurred for gender differences. There was no significant 

difference between program females and comparison females – both decreased their arrests; and 

there was no significant difference between program males and comparison males – both 

increased their arrest levels. The only difference was that program females did marginally better 

than program males (p<0.094). It could be that the greater number of contacts that outreach 

youth workers and case managers had with program females made this marginal difference. 

Unexpectedly, we found that the longer the program youth was provided with worker 

contacts or services, the less he decreased his arrests in the program period. However, 

9.5


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
differences in program length were not significant for comparison youth. Program length or 

maturation could have had some effect in either sample because the youth in both samples – 

especially in the comparison sample – were predominantly in the younger age groups, when 

delinquency rates normally were expected to increase. 

Finally, we observed that while there was a decrease in yearly total arrests for program 

youth (LS mean = -0.34), there was less of a decrease for comparison youth (LS mean = -0.19). 

The difference was not statistically significant (p<0.580) when controlling for other factors, since 

comparison youth were generally younger and less delinquent in the pre-program period, and 

would normally be expected to increase their arrest rates more than program youth. 

None of the other independent variables or any of the interaction terms were significant as 

main effects. In other words, the Project had no statistically significant or close-to-significant 

effect in accounting for a change in the patterns of yearly total arrests for program youth, and had 

no significant effect in reducing yearly total arrests for any subgroup of program youth. 

Yearly Total Serious Violence Arrests 

About 20% (n = 36) of the total samples of program and comparison youth with arrests in 

the program and/or pre-program periods (N = 177) had arrests for serious violence8

 (homicides, 

aggravated battery, aggravated assault and/or aggravated robbery): 8 comparison youth; 28 

program youth. We reduced the size of our sample by eliminating 1 comparison and 1 program 

youth who were in the program for less than three months, and whose arrests for serious violence 

8

 The levels of pre-program yearly total serious violence arrests were: 1) none = no serious violence 

arrests; 2) low = 0 .01-0.04 9 arrests; 3) med ium - 0.05 to 1 .0 arrests; and 4) high = 1 or mo re serious violence arrests. 

9.6


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
were high and concentrated, so that annualizing violence arrests would have inflated and skewed 

the results for the small samples in the analysis. 

The GLM model for change in yearly total serious violence arrests – consisting of 7 

comparison youth and 27 program youth (N = 34) – explained 80.4% of the variance in the 

dependent variable, and was significant (p<0.001). Pre-program yearly total serious violence 

arrests (p<0.003) was the only significant variable in this model (Table 9.2). We used only six 

independent variables and four interaction terms, eliminating the gender and gang-membership 

status variables, since only 1 comparison female was arrested for a serious violence offense, and 

1 comparison youth was not a gang member or associate gang member. None of the variables, 

other than pre-program yearly total serious violence arrests, was significant, or even close to 

being marginally significant. The lack of significant difference may be accounted for by the fact 

that few youth had more than 1 pre-program-period or program-period serious violence arrest, 

and youth with no pre-program-period serious violence arrests had serious violence arrests in the 

program period. Youth with low/medium/high levels of serious violence arrests in the preprogram period decreased their serious violence arrests in the program period. 

In any case, the LS mean for yearly serious violence arrests increased less in the program 

sample (+0.04) than in the comparison sample (+0.16). There was no statistically significant 

difference in serious violence arrest patterns between the program and comparison youth, but the 

difference between the LS mean for program youth with no pre-program serious violence arrests 

(+0.84) and those with low/medium/high levels of serious violence arrests (-0.75) was highly 

significant (p<0.001). In other words, the program did suppress or reduce serious violence 

arrests for youth with a pattern of pre-program, serious violence arrests, as well as for youth who 

9.7


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
had no pre-program serious violence arrests. 

In general there was less of an increase in serious violence arrests for program youth than 

for comparison youth, but the difference was not statistically significant and was primarily due to 

the fact that there was a greater tendency for youth with pre-program serious violence arrests to 

reduce these arrests, and that most of the comparison youth had no serious violence arrests, while 

the program youth did. In sum, the Project had no effect on change in patterns of serious 

violence arrests. 

Yearly Total Violence Arrests 

One-hundred-two (102) youth – 34 comparison youth, and 68 program youth – had 

histories of violence arrests (both serious and less serious)9. While four times as many program 

youth as comparison youth had pre-program serious violence arrests, only twice as many 

program youth had pre-program combinations of serious and less serious violence arrests. The 

result of the GLM model with change in yearly total violence arrests as the dependent variable 

explained 54.7% of the variance, and was significant (p < 0.001). Pre-program yearly total 

violence arrests (p < 0.001) was the only significant variable in this equation (Table 9.3), 

although gang-membership status was almost marginally significant (p < 0.130). The interaction 

term project × pre-program yearly total violence arrests was marginally significant (p<0.053). 

No other independent variables or interaction terms came close to being even marginally 

significant. However, we note that the LS mean reduction for yearly total violence arrests was 

9

 The levels of pre-program yearly total violence arrests were: 1) none = no violence arrests; 2) low = 0.01 

to 0.049 arrests; 3) medium = 0.05 to 1 arrests; and high = 1 or mo re violence arre sts. 

9.8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
lower in the program sample (-0.23) than in the comparison sample (-0.07). Program youth (n = 

22) with high levels of all kinds of violence arrests in the pre-program period reduced their 

arrests significantly more (p=0.014) than did comparison youth (n = 5) with similarly high levels. 

There was no difference in numbers of yearly total violence arrests in the program-youth 

and comparison-youth subsamples based on a variety of youth characteristics. Of some interest 

was that program youth who were gang members did worse than program youth who were 

associate gang members and non-gang youth. Program gang members increased their levels of 

combined serious and less-serious violence arrests, while associate gang members and non-gang 

youth reduced theirs (p = 0.014). We also note that 15- and 16-year-old program youth decreased 

their levels of total violence arrests, while 10- 14-year-olds increased theirs (p <0.029); and 

program youth with a program length of two years or more generally reduced their levels of total 

violence arrests more than youth with a program length of less than two years (p < 0.075). 

In other words, while the Project had no significant overall effect on the reduction of both 

serious- and less-serious violence arrests than would have occurred without the provision of 

services or worker contacts, program youth generally had somewhat greater reductions in serious 

violence arrests than comparison youth. The statistically significant changes were only between 

subsamples of program youth: 15- and 16-year-olds did better than 10- 14-year-olds, non-gang 

youth and associate gang members did better than gang members, and those in the program for 

shorter periods of time did better than those in the program for longer periods. It appeared likely 

that the Project was somewhat effective for youth 15 and 16 years old, and for youth who were 

non-committed gang members and were in the program for a brief period. This kind of mixed 

Project effect could not be construed as successful in respect to violence reduction. 

9.9


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Yearly Total Drug Arrests 

Over the course of the pre-program and program periods, a total of 54 youth – 15 

comparison youth and 39 program youth, i.e., 30.5% of the total sample (N = 117) – were 

arrested on drug charges.10 A higher percent of program youth (35.5%) than comparison youth 

(22.4%) had drug arrests. The GLM model for yearly total drug arrest changes explained 53.9% 

of the variances in the dependent variable, and was significant (p<0.001). 

The only significant variable in the model was pre-program yearly total drug arrest 

changes (p<0.001), a strong regression effect. Youth in both samples who had drug arrests in the 

pre-program period had no (or fewer) drug arrests in the program period, and youth who had no 

drug arrests in the pre-program period had drug arrests in the program period. There was no 

difference in this pattern between program or comparison youth (Table 9.4). No other 

independent variable or interaction term came close to being significant, or even marginally 

significant. Program youth (LS mean = +0.129) increased their yearly drug arrests slightly more 

than comparison youth (LS mean = +0.117). 

There were essentially no differences across subsample characteristics of program and 

comparison youth (e.g., age, gender, race/ethnicity, gang-membership status), except possibly 

age. All program youth 17 years and older reduced their levels of drug arrests, while all younger 

program youth (10-14 years and 15-16 years) increased their levels of drug arrests. While 13 

program youth 14 years and younger increased their drug arrests, 8 comparison youth 14 and 

under decreased theirs. Also, program gang-member youth slightly decreased their drug arrests, 

10 The levels of pre-program yearly total drug arrests were: 1) none = no drug arrests; 2) low = 0.01 to 0.49 

arrests; 3) med ium = 0.0 5 to 1.0 a rrests; and 4) high = 1 or mo re drug arre sts. 

9.10 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
while comparison gang-member youth increased theirs; this difference was not statistically 

significant. As with total violence arrests, the Project was not particularly effective with younger 

youth in reducing drug arrests. 

We observed that the longer the youth was in the program, the more likely he was to have 

increased drug arrests; this was not the case for comparison youth. None of these differences 

approached statistical significance, however. In sum, the Project did not have an effect in 

lowering levels of drug arrests during the program period. 

Yearly Total Property Arrests 

A majority of youth had arrests for property crime 11 in the pre-program and/or program 

period (63.8%; N = 113). There was hardly any variation in percentage of property arrests 

between comparison youth (64.6%, n = 43) and program youth (63.6%, n = 70) over the two 

periods. The GLM model for yearly property arrest change explained 66.0% of the variance on 

the dependent variable, and was significant (p<0.001) (Table 9.5). 

The only significant variable in the model was pre-program yearly total property arrest 

change (p<0.001). The pattern of change for program and comparison youth with different levels 

of pre-program property arrests was essentially the same in terms of regression effect. However, 

yearly property arrests declined slightly more for program youth (LS mean = -0.39) than for 

comparison youth (LS mean = -0.30). One other independent variable – gang-membership status 

– was marginally significant (p<0.074), but the differences between program and comparison 

11 The levels of pre-program yearly total property arrests were: 1) none = no property arrests; 2) low = 0.01 

to 0.99 a rrests; 3) medium = 1.0 to 1 .99 arrests; and 4 ) high = 2 o r more p roperty arrests. 

9.11 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
youth in terms of property-arrest change were minor. 

While all categories of youth experienced a decrease in property arrests, the level of 

decline in property arrests was higher for the comparison gang-member youth than for 

comparison non-gang youth and associate gang members. Nevertheless, there was no evidence 

of significantly different patterns of change in property arrests between program and comparison 

youth based on gang-membership status. 

Gender was the other independent variable in the model that approached some marginal 

significance (p<0.188). Females generally had greater reductions in property arrests than did 

males; the difference was somewhat greater between program females and males than between 

comparison females and males. In general, there was little difference across the two samples 

based on the gender characteristic. 

Also, we found little difference in levels of reduction of property arrests based on age 

group across the two samples. However, there was a marginal statistical difference in the 

program sample between the oldest group, 17-21 years, and the youngest group, 10-14 years. 

The oldest program-youth age group had a considerably higher reduction in property arrests 

(p<0.071), and the youngest age group had the lowest level of reduction. 

Finally, we note that although there were no statistical differences generally across 

sample subcategories, there was one notable, marginally significant Project accomplishment: for 

youth who were in the program for two years or more, there was a likelihood (p=0.082) of a 

somewhat larger reduction in property arrests than for youth who were in the program for less 

than two years. 

9.12


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Yearly Total “Other” Arrests 

Most youth (70.6%, n =125) in both samples were arrested for a range of “other” (usually 

minor) offenses such as curfew violation, drinking (minors), gang loitering, resisting an officer, 

unlawful possession of a firearm, and status offenses; fewer were arrested for violence, drugs, or 

property offenses. Somewhat more program youth (75.5%, n = 83) than comparison youth 

(62.7%, n = 42) had such “other” arrests during the pre-program or program periods. The GLM 

model for yearly total “other” arrest change explained 43.6% of variance in the dependent 

variable, and was significant (p<0.001). The pattern of change for both samples was a reduction 

in “other” arrests – slightly better for comparison youth (LS mean = -0.44) than for program 

youth (LS mean = -0.32), but the difference was not statistically significant (Table 9.6). 

There were two independent variables that were significant in the model: pre-program 

yearly total “other” arrests12 (p<0.001) and program length (p<0.039). The patterns were the 

same for program and comparison youth. Those with more pre-program-period “other” arrests 

had fewer program-period “other” arrests, and those with fewer pre-program-period “other” 

arrests had more program-period “other” arrests. Furthermore, those program youth with less 

exposure to the program did better, i.e., had more of a reduction in “other” arrests than youth 

with a greater program-exposure period. 

In general, while there was a reduction in “other” (minor) arrests for youth in both the 

program and comparison samples, there was little evidence that the Project contributed to this 

reduction. 

12 The levels of pre-program yearly total “other” arrests was ranked as follows: 1) none = no “other” 

arrests; 2) low = 0 .09 to 0.9 9 arrests; 3) med ium = 1.0 to 1.99 a rrests; and 4) high = 2 or mo re “other” arrests. 

9.13


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Summary 

We used General Linear Models (GLM) to determine whether there were differences in 

arrest patterns for program and comparison youth between the pre-program and program periods. 

Six different outcome or dependent variables were employed: yearly total arrest changes, yearly 

total serious violence arrest changes, yearly total violence arrest changes, yearly total drug 

arrest changes, yearly total property arrest changes, and yearly total“other” (minor offenses) 

arrest changes. 

For each of the six outcome variables in the GLM models we usually used eight 

independent variables (and related interaction terms) to explain variance in the dependent 

variables; project – program/comparison youth; pre-program yearly total arrests for the 

particular arrest variable: gender – male/female; race/ethnicity – Latino/non-Latino; age group at 

program entry – 14 and under/ 15 to 16/ 17 and over; gang-membership status – gang member/ 

associate gang member/non-gang youth; program length – length of time in the program, or an 

equivalent period for comparison youth (2 years or more/less than 2 years); and pre-program 

confinement length. The models used included only youth who had arrests for the particular 

category of offense. The “best” models used were each significant (p<0.001). 

Total Arrests. In the yearly total arrest change model there were 110 program and 67 comparison 

youth. The two significant main-effect variables were pre-program yearly total arrests (p=0.001) 

and age group (p=0.021). These factors affected both samples in similar fashion. The youth with 

fewer or no arrests in the pre-program period had more arrests in the program period, and youth 

with more arrests in the pre-program period had fewer or no arrests in the program period (a 

9.14


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
regression effect). Younger youth (10-14 years) had the greatest increase in total arrests 

compared to the older age groups. In other words, the Project itself had no statisticallysignificant or close-to-significant effect in accounting for change in yearly total arrest patterns of 

youth. Such changes would have occurred anyway. The only statistically significant subcategory 

difference was between two program age groups: the 10- 14-year-old age group increased their 

total arrests, while the 15- 16-year-olds decreased their total arrests (p=0.006). Program females 

did marginally better than program males. 

We observed that there was a slight but non-significant decrease in total arrests for 

program youth, and there was a slight increase for comparison youth. We also noted that the 

decrease in total arrests was slightly greater for youth in the program for a shorter rather than a 

longer period of time, suggesting less direct Project effect. Again, these change patterns were not 

statistically significant. 

Serious Violence Arrests. Seven (7) comparison and 27 program youth had arrests for serious 

violence in the program and/or pre-program periods. The only significant independent variable 

in the Model was pre-program total serious violence arrests. There was less of an increase in 

serious violence arrests for program youth than comparison youth, but this difference was not 

significant (p=0.67). The difference was probably accounted for by the fact that more 

comparison youth than program youth had no arrests for serious violence in the pre-program 

period (a regression effect), and they had relatively more serious violence arrests in the program 

period. In other words, the Project had no effect on changing the patterns of serious violence 

arrests for program youth, which increased slightly during the program period. 

9.15


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Total Violence Arrests. The model for change in yearly arrests for all types of violence – serious 

and less-serious – included 68 program youth and 34 comparison youth. Again, only preprogram yearly total violence arrests was a significant independent variable in the equation. 

While there was no overall difference between program- and comparison-youth arrest outcomes, 

program youth had a slightly higher reduction in total violence arrests in the program period 

relative to the pre-program period than did comparison youth. Furthermore, the subcategory of 

program youth (n = 22) who had high levels of total violence arrests in the pre-program period 

reduced their total violence arrests significantly more than did the comparison youth (n = 5) who 

also had high levels of pre-program total arrests (p=0.014). 

Significant changes in yearly total violence arrest levels also occurred within the program 

sample. Program non-gang youth and associate gang members reduced their levels of total 

violence arrests while gang members increased theirs (p=0.014). Further, program 15- 16-yearolds decreased their levels of total violence arrests, while the 10-14-year-olds increased theirs 

(p=0.029). However, youth in the program for two or more years did marginally better in 

reducing their total violence-arrest levels than did youth in the program for less than two years 

(p=0.075). Overall, the Project was not effective in reducing total violence arrests. 

Drug Arrests. A higher percent of program youth (35.5%) than comparison youth (22.4%) were 

arrested on drug charges during the pre-program and/or program periods. Both program youth 

(LS mean = +0.13) and comparison youth (LS mean = +0.12) increased their drug arrests. The 

only significant variable in the model affecting both samples was pre-program yearly total drug 

arrests, i.e., the regression effect. 

9.16


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
None of the other characteristics of program and/or comparison youth were statistically 

significant or even marginally significant in explaining drug-arrest changes. We noted that 

program youth were likely to increase their drug arrests the longer they were in the program. 

Nevertheless, the Project had no significant effect contributing either to an increase or decrease 

in drug arrests, other than what would have occurred without the Project. 

Property Arrests. A majority of program youth (63.6%) and comparison youth (64.6%) were 

arrested for property crime. Both samples of youth experienced a reduction in property crime 

between the pre-program and program periods. Again, the only significant variable in the model 

was pre-program yearly total property arrests – the regression effect – which did not differ in 

the samples. Gang membership status was a marginally significant main effect (p=0.074). 

Property-arrest declines were greater for program and comparison youth who were gang 

members than for those who were gang member associates or non-gang youth. 

Females tended to have a greater reduction in property arrests than males. This was 

particularly evident in the program sample (p = 0.188). Also, the oldest-age program youth (17­

21 years) did marginally better in reducing property arrests than the youngest-age program youth 

(10-14 years) (p=0.071). Again, youth who were in the program for two years or more did 

marginally better in reducing property arrests than youth in the program for less than two years 

(p=0.082). 

There was no evidence that the Project overall had a significant effect, positive or 

negative, on the decrease in property arrests for program youth, other than what would have 

occurred anyway. The best we could conclude was that certain categories of program youth did 

9.17


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
better than other categories in reducing their levels of property arrests. 

“Other” Arrests. The most prevalent arrests during the pre-program and/or program periods were 

for “other” (minor) crimes or status offenses, both for program youth (75.5%) and comparison 

youth (62.7%). Both program and comparison youth reduced their levels of “other” arrests. 

There were two significant variables as main effects in the model: pre-program yearly total 

“other” arrests (p<0.001) – the regression effect – and program length (<0.039). The longer the 

youth was in the program, the greater the reduction in his “other” arrests. However, the same 

effect occurred for comparison youth over the equivalent program period. Essentially, this 

represented a maturation effect, which the Project had nothing specifically to do with. 

In general, none of the slight differences in changes in arrest levels between the program 

and comparison-sample youth were statistically significant. 

9.18


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 9.1 

An Analysis of Variance of Change in Yearly Total Arrests (Controlling for Yearly Total 

Arrests in the Pre-Program Period). 

9.1(a) GLM Summary Table (R-square=0.339)*** 

Source Adjusted 

df 

Adjusted 

MS F Pr > F 

Project: 

Comparison, Program Worker-Tracked 1 0.323 0.10 0.753 

Gender: 

Male, Female 1 13.748 4.24 0.041* 

Race/Ethnicity: 

Latino, Non-Latino 1 0.321 0.10 0.753 

Age Group at Program Entry: 

14 & under, 15 to 16, and 17 & over 2 12.841 3.96 0.021* 

Gang-Membership Status: 

Gang Member, Gang Associate/Non-Gang 

Youth 

1 0.587 0.18 0.671 

Program Length: 

<2 Yr vs >=2 Yr 1 9.787 3.02 0.084 

Confinement Length (%): 

Zero, .001 to .02, .02 to .1, > .1 3 1.266 0.39 0.760 

Pre-Program Yearly Total Arrests: 

None, Low, Medium, High 3 18.499 5.71 0.001** 

Project VGender 1 0.005 0.00 0.969 

Project VRace/Ethnicity 1 0.092 0.03 0.866 

Project VAge Group 2 2.534 0.78 0.459 

Project VGang-Membership Status 1 1.703 0.53 0.470 

Project VProgram Length 1 0.010 0.00 0.955 

Project VPre-Program Yearly Total Arrests 3 2.343 0.72 0.540 

Within error 154 3.240 — — 

Total 176 — — — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001 . 

9.19 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
9.1(b) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total Arrests (and Standard Error) and Pairwise t Test for 

Project V Age Group Interaction 

Project Age Group 

Adjust 

-ed 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted Mean(i)=Adjusted 

Mean(j) 

i/j 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Comparison 14 & under 0.358 0.430 37 1 — * 

Comparison 15 to 16 -0.140 0.512 24 2 — 

Comparison 17 & over -0.792 0.812 6 3 — 

Program 14 & under 0.279 0.346 44 4 — † 

Program 15 to 16 -0.868 0.342 40 5 * † — 

Program 17 & over -0.419 0.453 26 6 — 

For differences between groups: ƒ p = .13; * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.1(c) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total Arrests (and Standard Error) and Pairwise t Test for 

Project V Gender Interaction 

Project Gender Adjust 

-ed 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted 

Mean(i)=Adjusted 

Mean(j) 

i/j 1 2 3 4 

Comparison Female -0.540 0.584 17 1 — 

Comparison Male 0.158 0.399 50 2 — 

Program Female -0.672 0.405 30 3 — ƒ 

Program Male 0.000 0.270 80 4 ƒ — 

For differences between groups: ƒ p = 0.094, * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.20 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
9.1(d) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total Arrests (and Standard Error) and Pairwise t Test for 

Project V Program Length Interaction 

Project Program 

Length 

Adjust 

-ed 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted 

Mean(i)=Adjusted 

Mean(j) 

i/j 1 2 3 4 

Comparison <2 Yr -0.441 0.483 35 1 — 

Comparison >=2 Yr 0.058 0.487 32 2 — 

Program <2 Yr -0.602 0.303 63 3 — 

Program >=2 Yr -0.070 0.361 47 4 — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.21 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 9.2 

An Analysis of Variance of Change in Yearly Total Serious Violence Arrests (Controlling 

for Yearly Total Serious Violence Arrests in the Pre-Program Period). 

9.2(a) GLM Summary Table (R-square=0.804)*** 

Source Adjusted 

df 

Adjusted 

MS F Pr > F 

Project: 

Comparison, Program Worker-Tracked 1 0.038 0.18 0.672 

Race/Ethnicity: 

African American, Latino 1 0.001 0.00 0.949 

Age Group at Program Entry: 

14 & under, 15 to 16, 17 & over 2 0.017 0.08 0.621 

Program Length: 

<2 Yr vs >=2 Yr 1 0.001 0.01 0.933 

Confinement: 

Yes, No 1 0.063 0.31 0.585 

Pre-Program Yearly Total Serious Violence 

Arrests: 

None, Low/Medium/High 

1 2.392 11.66 0.003** 

Project VRace/Ethnicity 1 0.000 0.00 0.982 

Project VAge Group 2 0.033 0.16 0.851 

Project VProgram Length 1 0.018 0.09 0.772 

Project VPre-Program Yearly Total Serious 

Violence Arrests 1 0.168 0.82 0.376 

Within error 21 0.205 — — 

Total 33 — — — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001 . 

9.22 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
9.2(b) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total Serious Violence Arrests (and Standard Error) and 

Pairwise t Test for Project V Pre-program Yearly Total Serious Violence Arrests 

Interaction 

Project 

Pre-Program 

Yearly Total 

Serious Violence 

Arrests 

Adjusted 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted 

Mean(i)=Adjusted Mean(j) 

i/ 1 2 3 4 

Comparison None 0.648 0.384 5 1 — † 

Comparison Low/Medium/High -0.321 0.465 2 2 — * 

Program None 0.841 0.158 9 3 * — ‡ 

Program Low/Medium/High -0.752 0.157 18 4 † ‡ — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.23 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 9.3 

An Analysis of Variance of Change in Yearly Total Violence Arrests (Controlling for 

Yearly Total Violence Arrests in the Pre-Program Period). 

9.3(a) GLM Summary Table (R-square=0.547)*** 

Source Adjusted 

df 

Adjusted 

MS F Pr > F 

Project: 

Comparison, Program Worker-Tracked 1 0.258 0.32 0.572 

Gender: 

Male, Female 1 0.637 0.80 0.375 

Race/Ethnicity: 

Latino, Non-Latino 1 0.377 0.47 0.495 

Age Group at Program Entry: 

14 & under, 15 to 16, 17 & over 2 0.436 0.54 0.582 

Gang-Membership Status: 

Gang Member, Gang Associate/Non-Gang 

Youth 

1 1.879 2.35 0.130 

Program Length: 

<2 Yr vs >=2 Yr 1 0.377 0.47 0.495 

Confinement Length (%): 

Zero, .001 to .02, .02 to .1, > .1 3 0.276 0.35 0.793 

Pre-Program Yearly Total Violence Arrests: 

None, Low, Medium, High 3 7.667 9.57 0.000*** 

Project VGender 1 0.014 0.02 0.897 

Project VRace/Ethnicity 1 0.072 0.09 0.766 

Project VAge Group 2 0.809 1.01 0.369 

Project VGang-Membership Status 1 1.066 1.33 0.252 

Project VProgram Length 1 1.504 1.88 0.175 

Project VPre-Program Yearly Total Violence 

Arrests 3 2.141 2.67 0.053 

Within error 79 0.801 — — 

Total 101 — — — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001 . 

9.24 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
9.3(b) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total Violence Arrests (and Standard Error) and Pairwise 

t Test for Project V Gang-Membership Status Interaction 

Project Gang-Membership Status Adjust 

-ed 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted 

Mean(i)=Adjusted 

Mean(j) 

i/j 1 2 3 4 

Comparison Gang Associate/ 

Non-Gang Youth -0.113 0.335 14 1 — 

Comparison Gang Member -0.026 0.311 20 2 — 

Program Gang Associate/ 

Non-Gang Youth -0.525 0.197 33 3 — * 

Program Gang Member 0.074 0.185 35 4 * — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.3(c) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total Violence Arrests (and Standard Error) and Pairwise 

t Test for Project V Program Length Interaction 

Project Program 

Length 

Adjust 

-ed 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted 

Mean(i)=Adjusted 

Mean(j) 

i/j 1 2 3 4 

Comparison <2 Yr -0.153 0.377 16 1 — 

Comparison >=2 Yr 0.014 0.298 18 2 — 

Program <2 Yr 0.041 0.215 36 3 — ƒ 

Program >=2 Yr -0.493 0.206 32 4 ƒ — 

For differences between groups: ƒ p = 0.075, * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.25 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
‘

‘

‘

‘ ‘

‘

9.3(d) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total Violence Arrests (and Standard Error) and Pairwise 

t Test for Project V Age Group Interaction 

Project Age Group 

Adjust 

-ed 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted Mean(i)=Adjusted 

Mean(j) 

i/j 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Comparison 14 & under -0.072 0.333 21 1 — 

Comparison 15 to 16 0.010 0.341 10 2 — 

Comparison 17 & over -0.146 0.620 3 3 — 

Program 14 & under 0.095 0.214 30 4 — * 

Program 15 to 16 -0.509 0.196 24 5 * — 

Program 17 & over -0.263 0.273 14 6 — 

For differences between groups: ƒ p = .13; * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.3(e) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total Violence Arrests (and Standard Error) and Pairwise 

t Test for Project V Pre-Program Yearly Total Violence Arrests Interaction 

Project 

PreProgram 

Yearly 

Total 

Violence

 Arrests 

Adjust 

-ed 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted Mean(i)=Adjusted Mean(j) 

i/j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Comparison None 0.632 0.397 17 1 — 

Comparison Low -0.247 0.538 6 2 — * 

Comparison Med -0.561 0.429 6 3 — 

Comparison High -0.102 0.485 5 4 — * 

Program None 1.154 0.292 16 5 * — 

Program Low -0.184 0.319 14 6 — 

Program Med -0.402 0.241 16 7 — 

Program High -1.470 0.250 22 8 * — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.26 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 9.4 

An Analysis of Variance of Change in Yearly Total Drug Arrests (Controlling for Yearly 

Total Drug Arrests in the Pre-Program Period). 

9.4(a) GLM Summary Table (R-square=0.539)*** 

Source Adjusted 

df 

Adjusted 

MS F Pr > F 

Project: 

Comparison, Program Worker-Tracked 1 0.001 0.00 0.971 

Gender: 

Male, Female 1 0.027 0.05 0.824 

Race/Ethnicity: 

Latino, Non-Latino 1 0.088 0.17 0.686 

Age Group at Program Entry: 

14 & under, 15 to 16, 17 & over 2 0.750 1.41 0.256 

Gang-Membership Status: 

Gang Member, Gang Associate/Non-Gang 

Youth 

1 0.047 0.09 0.767 

Program Length: 

<2 Yr vs >=2 Yr 1 0.001 0.00 0.983 

Confinement: 

Yes, No 1 0.629 1.19 0.283 

Pre-Program Yearly Total Drug Arrests: 

None, Low/Medium/High 1 10.854 20.46 0.000*** 

Project VRace/Ethnicity 1 0.013 0.02 0.877 

Project VGang-Membership Status 1 0.425 0.80 0.376 

Project VProgram Length 1 0.640 1.21 0.279 

Project VConfinement Length 1 0.666 1.26 0.269 

Project VPre-Program Yearly Total Drug 

Arrests 1 0.001 0.00 0.991 

Within error 39 0.530 — — 

Total 53 — — — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001 . 

9.27 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
9.4(b) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total Drug Arrests (and Standard Error) and Pairwise t 

Test for Project V Gang-Membership Status Interaction 

Project Gang-Membership Status Adjust 

-ed 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted 

Mean(i)=Adjusted 

Mean(j) 

i/j 1 2 3 4 

Comparison Gang Associate/ 

Non-Gang Youth 0.027 0.510 3 1 — 

Comparison Gang Member 0.206 0.299 12 2 — 

Program Gang Associate/ 

Non-Gang Youth 0.305 0.204 16 3 — 

Program Gang Member -0.047 0.181 23 4 — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.4(c) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total Drug Arrests (and Standard Error) and Pairwise t 

Test for Project V Program Length Interaction 

Project Program 

Length 

Adjust 

-ed 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted 

Mean(i)=Adjusted 

Mean(j) 

i/j 1 2 3 4 

Comparison <2 Yr 0.248 0.372 8 1 — 

Comparison >=2 Yr -0.015 0.389 7 2 — 

Program <2 Yr 0.003 0.186 18 3 — 

Program >=2 Yr 0.256 0.205 21 4 — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.28 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
9.4(d) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total Drug Arrests (and Standard Error) and Pairwise t 

Test for Project V Pre-Program Yearly Total Drug Arrests Interaction 

Project Pre-program 

Yearly Total Drug 

Arrests 

Adjusted 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted 

Mean(i)=Adjusted Mean(j) 

i/ 1 2 3 4 

Comparison None 0.755 0.441 7 1 — * * 

Comparison Low/Medium/High -0.522 0.364 8 2 * — † 

Program None 0.771 0.208 14 3 † — ‡ 

Program Low/Medium/High -0.513 0.189 25 4 * ‡ — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.29 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 9.5 

An Analysis of Variance of Change in Total Yearly Property Arrests (Controlling for 

Yearly Total Property Arrests in the Pre-Program Period). 

9.5(a) GLM Summary Table (R-square=0.660)*** 

Source Adjusted 

df 

Adjusted 

MS F Pr > F 

Project: 

Comparison, Program Worker-Tracked 1 0.062 0.14 0.710 

Gender: 

Male, Female 1 0.780 1.76 0.188 

Race/Ethnicity: 

Latino, Non-Latino 1 0.156 0.35 0.554 

Age Group at Program Entry: 

14 & under, 15 to 16, and 17 & over 2 0.185 0.42 0.660 

Gang-Membership Status: 

Gang Member, Gang Associate/Non-Gang 

Youth 

1 1.447 3.27 0.074 

Program Length: 

<2 Yr vs >=2 Yr 1 0.477 1.08 0.302 

Confinement Length (%): 

Zero, .001 to .02, .02 to .1, >.1 3 0.606 1.37 0.257 

Pre-Program Yearly Total Property Arrests: 

None, Low, Medium, High 3 12.290 27.77 0.000*** 

Project VGender 1 0.027 0.06 0.804 

Project VRace/Ethnicity 1 0.601 1.36 0.247 

Project VAge Group 2 0.390 0.88 0.418 

Project VGang-Membership Status 1 0.517 1.17 0.283 

Project VProgram Length 1 0.422 0.95 0.331 

Project VPre-Program Yearly Total Property 

Arrests 3 0.132 0.30 0.827 

Within error 90 0.443 — — 

Total 112 — — — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001 . 

9.30 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
9.5(b) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total Property Arrests (and Standard Error) and Pairwise 

t Test for Project V Gang-Membership Status Interaction 

Project Gang-Membership Status Adjust 

-ed 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted 

Mean(i)=Adjusted 

Mean(j) 

i/j 1 2 3 4 

Comparison Gang Associate/ 

Non-Gang Youth -0.076 0.287 13 1 — 

Comparison Gang Member -0.528 0.190 30 2 — 

Program Gang Associate/ 

Non-Gang Youth -0.327 0.148 32 3 — 

Program Gang Member -0.444 0.137 38 4 — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.5(c) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total Property Arrests (and Standard Error) and Pairwise t 

Test for Project V Gender Interaction 

Project Gender Adjust 

-ed 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted 

Mean(i)=Adjusted 

Mean(j) 

i/j 1 2 3 4 

Comparison Female -0.394 0.272 8 1 — 

Comparison Male -0.210 0.224 35 2 — 

Program Female -0.520 0.182 17 3 — ƒ 

Program Male -0.250 0.108 53 4 ƒ — 

For differences between groups: ƒ p = 0.167, * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.31 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
9.5(d) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total Property Arrests (and Standard Error) and Pairwise 

t Test for Project V Age Group Interaction 

Project Age Group 

Adjust 

-ed 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted Mean(i)=Adjusted 

Mean(j) 

i/j 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Comparison 14 & under -0.334 0.196 27 1 — 

Comparison 15 to 16 -0.222 0.253 13 2 — 

Comparison 17 & over -0.350 0.427 3 3 — 

Program 14 & under -0.150 0.163 26 4 — ƒ 

Program 15 to 16 -0.444 0.146 29 5 — 

Program 17 & over -0.562 0.195 15 6 ƒ — 

For differences between groups: ƒ p = .071; * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.32 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 9.6 

An Analysis of Variance of Change in Yearly Total “Other” Arrests (Controlling for 

Yearly Total “Other” Arrests in the Pre-Program Period). 

9.6(a) GLM Summary Table (R-square=0.436)*** 

Source Adjusted 

df 

Adjusted 

MS F Pr > F 

Project: 

Comparison, Program Worker-Tracked 1 0.120 0.09 0.768 

Gender: 

Male, Female 1 1.614 1.17 0.281 

Race/Ethnicity: 

Latino, Non-Latino 1 1.815 1.32 0.253 

Age Group at Program Entry: 

14 & under, 15 to 16, and 17 & over 2 2.427 1.77 0.176 

Gang-Membership Status: 

Gang Member, Gang Associate/Non-Gang 

Youth 

1 1.032 0.75 0.388 

Program Length: 

<2 Yr vs >=2 Yr 1 6.043 4.40 0.039* 

Confinement Length (%): 

Zero, .001 to .02, .02 to .1, > .1 3 0.423 0.31 0.820 

Pre-Program Yearly Total “Other” Arrests: 

None, Low, Medium, High 3 15.657 11.39 0.001*** 

Project VGender 1 0.774 0.56 0.455 

Project VRace/Ethnicity 1 2.770 2.01 0.159 

Project VAge Group 2 0.959 0.70 0.500 

Project VGang-Membership Status 1 0.016 0.01 0.914 

Project VProgram Length 1 0.738 0.54 0.465 

Project VPre-Program Yearly Total “Other” 

Arrests 3 0.939 0.68 0.565 

Within error 102 1.375 — — 

Total 124 — — — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; ** p < .01; and *** p < .001 . 

9.33 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
9.6(b) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total “Other” Arrests (and Standard Error) and Pairwise t 

Test for Project V Race/Ethnicity Interaction 

Project Race/ 

Ethnicity 

Adjust 

-ed 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted 

Mean(i)=Adjusted 

Mean(j) 

i/j 1 2 3 4 

Comparison Latino -0.059 0.403 52 1 — 

Comparison Non-Latino -0.812 0.462 15 2 — 

Program Latino -0.358 0.229 56 3 — 

Program Non-Latino -0.285 0.241 54 4 — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.6(c) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total “Other” Arrests (and Standard Error) and Pairwise t 

Test for the Confinement Length Main Effect 

Confinement 

Length (%) 

Adjust 

-ed 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted 

Mean(i)=Adjusted 

Mean(j) 

i/j 1 2 3 4 

Zero -0.235 0.229 106 1 —

 .001 to .02 -0.258 0.313 26 2 —

 .02 to .1 -0.496 0.320 25 3 — 

>.1 -0.526 0.364 20 4 — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.34 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
9.6(d) Adjusted Mean Yearly Total “Other” Arrests (and Standard Error) and Pairwise t 

Test for Project V Program Length Interaction 

Project Program 

Length 

Adjust 

-ed 

Mean 

Std 

Err N 

Pr > |T| 

Ho: Adjusted 

Mean(i)=Adjusted 

Mean(j) 

i/j 1 2 3 4 

Comparison <2 Yr -0.803 0.400 35 1 — 

Comparison >=2 Yr -0.068 0.425 32 2 — 

Program <2 Yr -0.498 0.212 63 3 — 

Program >=2 Yr -0.145 0.252 47 4 — 

For differences between groups: * p < .05; † p < .01; and ‡ p < .001 . 

9.35 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Chapter 10 

Aggregate Gang and Community Crime Change 

Our Town Family Center’s comprehensive gang project was expected to focus on 

coordinated, interagency and enhanced provision of community-based services and controls to 

delinquent youth-gang members and youth at high risk of gang membership. Our Town was 

primarily interested in providing services to program youth, and paid limited attention to 

interagency coalition-building and community involvement. An effective partnership with the 

Tucson Police Department in the development of the Project was not adequately developed. 

Based on the Comprehensive Gang Program Model, it was anticipated that a reduction in 

the gang problem at the program-youth level would go along with and possibly contribute to a 

reduction of the problem at the gang-as-a-unit and community levels. While the findings 

discussed in Chapter 9 indicated that the Project did not have a significant effect on arrest 

patterns of program youth compared to equivalent (non-served) comparison youth, we wondered 

if it was still possible that there was a greater relative reduction in arrests at the gang-as-a-unit 

and community levels in the program area than in the comparison area, during the program 

period, that might be attributed to Project effects. 

Our questions could not be reliably answered, however, because of the lack of arrest data 

at the gang-as-a-unit and specific community-area levels. These data were not availalbe for long 

enough periods of time, and could not be controlled for demographic characteristics, as were the 

individual-youth crime-change data. We had to rely on youth self-report data and police 

perceptions of crime-incident changes. 

10.1


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Youth Arrest Pattern Changes 

We did not know if the arrest patterns of youth in the program and comparison samples 

(Table 10.1) adequately represented the arrest patterns of their gangs or gang incidents in the 

program and comparison areas. Program youth were more seriously and chronically delinquent, 

compared to comparison youth. Nevertheless, as gang youth, they could have represented 

different subsamples of the gang problem in the two communities. The gang problem still could 

have been more serious in the comparison area than in the program area. 

In the pre-program period, program youth were arrested primarily for property crime 

(44.3%), less-serious violence (18.6%), and serious violence (11.4%); comparison youth were 

arrested primarily for property crime (49.0%) and drug crime (28.6%). In the program period, 

the patterns of arrests changed sharply for program youth. There was a drop in property crime 

arrests (25.4%), a drop in less-serious violence arrests (17.9%), and a sharp increase in serious 

violence (19.4%) and drug (20.8%) arrests. 

In the pre-program and program periods, the pattern of arrests for comparison youth 

remained relatively unchanged. In both periods, comparison youth were arrested primarily for 

property crime (49.0% vs. 52.1%) and drugs (28.6% vs. 25.0%). Program youth comprised more 

serious and chronic offenders at both the start and the end of the program period. The Project 

was not associated with a benign shift in crime patterns, although it was associated with a slight, 

non-statistically significant reduction in total arrests. 

Youth Self-Report Delinquency Changes 

Self-report data were obtained for program youth (N = 92) and comparison youth (N=51) 

10.2


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
only during the program period, at Time I (1996-1997) and Time II (1997-1998), about a year 

apart. From the range of incidents included in the 26-item self-report inventory (including 

violence, property, and drug crimes), both program and comparison youth more often reported 

less-serious than more-serious offenses. More comparison than program youth reported offenses, 

but there was little difference in the pattern of offenses reported at Time I and Time II. The 

pattern of reduction for the different types offenses at Time I was the same in both samples. 

Nevertheless, there were interesting slight differences in drug selling, drug use, alcohol 

use and access to hand guns that favored program youth. The number of program youth who 

reported they sold drugs at Time I (n = 22) dropped at Time II (n = 17) – a 5.4% decline. The 

number of comparison youth who reported they sold drugs at Time I (n = 15) dropped slightly at 

Time II (n = 14) – a 2.0% decline. Also, the percent of program youth who said they used drugs 

declined more for program youth (13.0%) than for comparison youth (11.8%). On the other 

hand, the percent of program youth using alcohol increased 8.4%, but decreased 15.5% for 

comparison youth. The percent of program youth who said they had access to a handgun 

decreased 22.0%, more than the 15.7% for comparison youth. 

Gang Membership Changes. Based on self-reports of changes in gang membership (not 

controlling for age), it was difficult to determine whether program or comparison youth were 

more or less likely to become or continue as gang members. We found that program youth were 

likely to become gang members, and comparison youth more likely to give up their gang 

affiliation. Seventeen-and- four-tenths percent (17.4%) of program youth who were not gang 

members at Time I became gang members at Time II, while 20.0% of comparison youth who said 

10.3


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
they were gang members at Time I declared they were not gang members at Time II. Of youth 

who said they had “always been a gang member,” the decline was not as great for program youth 

– from 24 at Time I to 11at Time II; the decline for comparison youth was greater – from 16 at 

Time I to 0 at Time II. Nevertheless, a greater percentage of program youth (28.9%) than 

comparison youth (3.8%) said they were former gang members at Time II. Program youth 

appeared to have a more sustained commitment to gang membership than comparison youth, but 

gang membership was a changing characteristic for both samples (Table 10.2). 

Perceptions of Gang Size and Gang-Crime Patterns 

Program and comparison youth and Tucson Police Department Officers were asked to 

indicated any changes in the size of gangs and the severity of gang crime in the program and 

comparison communities at different times during the program period. The views of the youth 

and police respondents did not necessarily match. 

Reports by Program and Comparison Youth 

Gang Size. In the Time-I and Time-II interviews, youth were asked about the size of their 

gangs. At Time I, program youth reported that their gangs or gang subsections were larger than 

did the comparison youth. At Time II, youth in both samples reported that their mean gang size 

had grown larger. In the program sample, male gangs or subsections grew on average from 98 to 

134 members, and female gangs or subsections grew from 41 to 47 members. In the comparison 

sample, male gangs or subsections grew relatively larger, on average – from 55 to 106 members 

– and female gangs or subsections grew from 25 to 28. The increase in size was not statistically 

10.4


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
significant within or across gangs. 

Gang Crime Changes. Program and comparison youth were also asked to judge whether 

different types of gang crime (total crime, violence, property, and drug crime) were “no 

problem,” a “small problem,” a “moderate problem,” a “serious problem,” or a “very serious 

problem” in their communities at each time period. Gang drug crime was perceived by program 

and comparison youth as the most serious of all community-level gang crimes. It was viewed as 

either serious or very serious by almost two-thirds of all youth in the samples at Time I, and then 

by more than 50.0% at Time II. Similar decreases in gang violence were perceived by program 

and comparison youth. Program youth saw a greater reduction in gang property crime and 

comparison youth saw a greater reduction in gang drug crime. Nevertheless, these perceptions of 

patterns of gang crime and their declines over time were similar for program and comparison 

youth (Table 10.3). 

Reports by Tucson Police 

Interviews were conducted by a National Evaluator with three Tucson Police Officers – a 

Gang Unit officer, a supervisor, and a community-policing officer – all with knowledge of gangs 

and gang activities in the program and comparison areas. The interviews were conducted three 

times during the Project period, at nine-month intervals, between November 1998 (Time I) and 

May 2000 (Time III). The changes in gang size and gang crime severity were based on 

differences in estimates of the Officers at the Time-I and Time-III interviews. Information was 

obtained on gang size and the severity of gang crime in each of the gangs in the program and 

comparison areas. At both Time I and Time III, the Officers identified characteristics of 8 gangs 

10.5


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
in the program area and 7 gangs in the comparison areas over time. (Four of the gangs in each of 

the two areas had identical names, and probably were the same gangs.) 

Gang Size. The police estimated that gangs in the program area were larger than gangs in 

the comparison area, but both areas had generally lost gang members between Time I and Time 

III. Six of the eight gangs in the program area and four of the seven gangs in the comparison area 

were said to have lost members. The decline in total gang membership in the program area was 

29.3% – from 719 to 509, which was greater than the 8.6% decline in the comparison area – from 

455 to 370. 

The four gangs with the same names in the program and comparison areas differed in 

membership size and membership change from the other gangs in the areas. Total membership 

of the four same-named gangs in the program area was 39 at Time I and 34 at Time III, a decline 

of 12.8%. Total membership of the same-named four gangs in the comparison area was larger, 

with a 30.4% greater decline – from 230 to 160 (Table 10.4). 

Gang Crime Change. The Police Officers were asked to rate the severity of crime 

committed by each gang on a ten-point scale (from 0 = lowest to 10 = highest) for total gang 

crime, violence, property, and drugs. The ratings were totaled and averaged for all the gangs in 

the program and comparison areas, both at Time I and Time III. At both times, the Officers rated 

total gang crime and different types of gang crimes as two or more times more serious for 

comparison-area gangs than for program-area gangs. This was certainly not consistent with 

findings of the youth self-reports. Crime in the four same-named gangs in both areas was 

reported to be less serious than in the other two gangs. Again, drug crimes were generally rated 

as the most serious, and property crimes the least serious, in both areas at both time periods. 

10.6


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
The general trend of gang crime in both areas was down at Time III. However, the level 

of violence was generally up for program-area gangs, especially the other gangs, but slightly 

down from an already low level for the same-named gangs in the program area. The highest 

level of violence and drug crime was for the other gangs in both areas at Time III. The four 

same-named gangs in the program area were reported to have the lowest level of violence and 

drug crime of all gangs in the two areas (Table 10.5). There was no consistency in the findings 

about levels of and changes in gang-crime seriousness over similar time periods based on the 

different sources of data. Perhaps youth and police were looking at different sectors of the gangcrime elephant. 

City of Tucson Gang Crime Statistics 

Tucson Police Department Uniform Crime Report (UCR) crime statistics were available 

on a citywide basis for the pre-program period (1992-1995) and program (1996-1999) period, 

although community-level police statistics were not. Also, the citywide statistics for crime 

incidents were not broken down by whether they were gang or non-gang-related (Table 10.6). 

Total citywide Part I1 crime counts declined by 9.0% (homicides by 7.9%; aggravated 

assaults by 6.4%). Part I serious non-violent crime counts also declined, at least for burglary 

(3.4%) and larceny (15.0%), but not for motor vehicle theft, which increased by 9.2%. The 

1

 Pa rt I offe ns es are crim es desig na ted by th e F BI a s “m os t se rious ,” inclu ding hom icid e, rob be ry, 

forcible rape, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, arson and larceny. Part II offenses are 

crimes designated by the FBI as “less serious,” including simple assault, stolen property, criminal damage 

to property, fraud, embezzlement, disorderly conduct, vagrancy, runaways, curfew and loitering violations, 

suspicion, drunkenness, liquor law violations, drug abuse violations, weapons violations, gambling, 

pros titution, an d se vera l other o ffen ses . They are com piled in te rm s of th e nu m ber o f reports m ade to 

law-enforcement agencies and the number of arrests made. 

10.7 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
decreases in citywide Part II crime counts that might be closely associated with gang-related 

crime incidents did not completely match the decline in Part I counts. Part II assaults increased 

12.3%, criminal damage to property increased 5.1%, and narcotics-law violations increased 

17.0%. On the other hand, counts of stolen property decreased 7.2%, and weapons violations 

decreased 20.0%. 

Still, we cannot be sure that citywide increases or decreases in Part I and Part II crime 

counts reflect similar changes at the program and comparison-area levels. We do not know 

whether crime generally increased or decreased, or by how much. 

Summary 

Appropriate data were not generally available to measure the influence of the Project on 

changes in crime at the program and comparison-community levels. We did not have aggregate 

community incident or arrest data on which to base a fully adequate analysis. The data we 

obtained provided conflicting findings as to whether crime by gangs increased or decreased in the 

program area relative to the comparison area, and we cannot conclude that more or less of the 

various types of crimes occurred in the program area relative to the comparison area during the 

program period. Even if we had evidence that the number of gang members and severity of gang 

crime decreased more in the program area than in the comparison area, we still would not be able 

to demonstrate that it was due to Project effects. The Project probably made no difference in 

changing crime behavior at the individual, gang or community levels. 

10.8


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 10.1 

Arrest Change Patternsa 

by Type of Arrests (N = 234) 

Comparison Youth and Program Youth 

Type of Arrest 

Com parison Youth Arrests (N = 97) Program Youth Arrests (N = 137) 

Pre-Program 

Period 

Program Period Pre-Program 

Period 

Program Period 

n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) 

Serious Violence 2 (4.1) 0 (0.0) 8 (11.4) 13 (19.4) 

Less-Serious Violence 3 (6.1) 2 (4.2) 13 (18.6) 12 (17.9) 

Drugs 14 (28.6) 12 (25.0) 7 (10.0) 14 (20.8) 

Pro perty 24 (49.0) 25 (52.1) 31 (44.3) 17 (25.4) 

W eapons 2 (4.1) 1 (2.1) 1 (1.4) 1 (1.5) 

Police Disturbance 2 (4.1) 3 (6.3) 1 (1.4) 2 (3.0) 

Alcohol 1 (2.0) 2 (4.2) 2 (2.9) 1 (1.5) 

Others 1 (2.0) 3 (6.3) 7 (10.0) 7 (10.4) 

Total 49 (100.0) 48 (100.0) 70 (100.0) 67 (100.0) 

a

 Focus of this table is on the number of youth arrested for comm itting particular types of crimes, 

not the frequency of arrests by youth for a particular crim e (as in Table 7.6). 

10.9 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 10.2 

Youth-Reported Gang Membership Changes 

Program Youth (N = 92) and Comparison Youth (N = 50)a 

Interviewed at both Time I and Time II 

Interview 

Time 

Non-Gang Youth Former Gang Member Current Gang Member Always a Gang Member Total Youth 

Program Comparison Program Comparison Program Comparison Program Compariso Program Comparison 

n 

n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) 

Time I 16 (17.4) 0 (0.0) 47 (5.1) 26 (52.0) 5 (5.4) 8 (16.0) 24 (26.1) 16 (32.0) 92 (100.0) 50 (100.0) 

Time II 0 (0.0) 10 (20.0) 66 (71.0%) 25 (50.0) 9 (9.8) 15 (30.0) 11 (17.0) 0 (0.0) 92 (100.0) 50 (100.0) 

Gang – 100.0% +100.0% -28.9% -3.8% +44.4% +46.7% -54.9% -100.0% 

Membership 

Change 

a

 Fourteen (14) of the 106 program youth and 51 of the 101 com parison youth who did not com plete both Time-I and Tim e-II interviews are 

not in this analysis. 

10.10 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 10.3 

Youth-Reported Serious Gang Crimea

 in Community 

Time I and Time II 

Youth Sample Percent Reported Serious Gang Crime 

Total Gang 

Crime 

Violence Property Drugs 

Time I Tim e II Time I Tim e II Time I Tim e II Time I Tim e II 

Comparison Youth 

Time I (N = 51) 

Time II (N = 46) 

33.3 23.4 39.2 27.7 27.5 25.4 68.6 55.5 

Program Youth 

Time I (N = 89) 

Time II (N = 84) 

39.3 23.8 39.3 25.0 37.1 19.1 63.6 57.1 

a

 Sample youth were asked to rate the amount of specific types of gang-related crimes present in 

their communities: property – vandalism (graffiti), breaking and entering, car theft; violence – robbery, 

threats, battery without a weapon, battery with a weapon, driveby shooting, possession of a knife, 

possession of a gun; drugs – using drugs, selling drugs; and total of property, violence, and drugs. 

The youth were asked to categorize the amount of crime as “small”, “moderate,” “serious,” or 

“very serious.” The categories were combined for analysis purposes as “small”, “moderate,” and 

“serious/very serious.” 

10.11 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 10.4 

Police-Reported Gang Membership Change 

Time I and Time III 

Program and Comparison Areas 

Total Gang Membership Percent Change 

Time I Time II 

Sample Area Gangs 

Program (N=8) 719 509 -29.3% 

Comparison (N=7) 455 370 -18.6% 

Same-Named Gangs 

Program (N=4) 39 34 -12.8% 

Comparison (N=4) 23 160 -30.4% 

Other Gangs 

Program (N=4) 680 475 -30.1 

Comparison (N=3) 225 210 -6.7 

10.12


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 10.5 

Police-Reported Community Gang Crime Change 

Program and Comparison Areas 

Time I and Time III 

Seriousness of Crime Scorea 

Violence Drugs Property 

Time I Time II Time I Time II Time I Time II 

Area/Gangs 

Program (N=8) 2.8 3.5 4.25 3.9 0.5 0.4 

Comparison (N=7) 6.1 6.0 6.1 5.7 1.1 1.1 

Same-Named Gangs 

Program (N=4) 2.3 1.0 1.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 

Comparison (N=4) 5.5 5.3 5.5 4.8 4.0 2.0 

Other Gangs 

Program (N=4) 3.3 6.0 6.8 6.8 0.0 0.0 

Comparison (N=3) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 

a

 The Tucson Police respondents rated each of the gangs on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the 

most serious level of gang crime. Scores for all of the gangs in each area were averaged at Time I and at 

Tim e III. 

10.13 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Table 10.6 

City of Tucson Official Crime Countsa 

Pre-Program Period (1992-1995) and Program Period (1996-1999) 

Pre-Program 

Period 

Program Period Percent Change 

Part I Crimes 

Total 201,694 183,560 -9.0% 

Homicide 194 179 -7.7% 

Aggravated Assault 13,461 12,597 -6.4% 

Part II Crimes 

Other Assault 34,651 38,908 +12.3% 

Narcotic Drug Laws 15,491 18,127 +17.0% 

Part I and Part II 

Assaults 

48,112 51,505 +7.1% 

Source: Tucson Police Department Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics, June 2004 

a

 Part I offenses are crimes designated by the FBI as “most serious,” including hom icide, robbery, 

forcible rape, aggravated assault, burglary, m otor vehicle theft, arson and larceny. They are compiled in 

term s of the number of reports of law-enforcement agencies and the num ber of arrests reported. Part II 

offenses are crimes designated by the FBI as “less serious,” including sim ple assault, stolen property, 

criminal damage to property, fraud, embezzlement, disorderly conduct, vagrancy, runaways, curfew and 

loitering violations, suspicion, drunkenness, liquor law violations, drug abuse violations, weapons 

violations, gambling, prostitution, and several other offenses. They are compiled in terms of the number 

of reports made to law-enforcement agencies and the number of arrests made. 

10.14 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Chapter 11 

Executive Summary 

Introduction 

The Tucson Gang Project was one of five demonstrations to test the Model of the Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Comprehensive Community-Wide 

Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program. Our Town Family Center 

(OTFC), the lead agency in Tucson, submitted its application for the “Las Vistas/Pueblo Gardens 

Gang Project” in September, 1994. The program period of operations was from 1996 through 

1999. 

The Comprehensive Gang Program Model required the development of interrelated 

strategies of community mobilization, social intervention, provision of social opportunities, 

suppression and organizational change in a cluster of criminal-justice and social-service agencies, 

schools, and grassroots and other organizations working together to serve and control a target 

group of gang delinquents, as well as youth highly at risk for gang involvement. A Steering 

Committee of local community, city and county leaders was to be developed to advise on policy 

and program development. An interagency team of outreach youth workers, case managers, 

police, probation officers, and personnel of other social agencies was to be established to provide 

interrelated, appropriate services and controls to targeted youth recruited for participation in the 

program. 

Technical assistance experts and officials of OJJDP provided substantive management 

advice and monitoring of the Project’s implementation. University of Chicago researchers, with 

11.1


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
the aid of a local evaluation team, conducted a process, outcome and impact evaluation of the 

program and its effects. The Evaluation involved comparing the effects of the Project on 

program youth from the target communities with equivalent, non-served youth from a 

comparison community in Tucson. Crime changes at the gang-as-a-unit level and across the 

program and comparison areas were also evaluated. 

Program and Comparison Areas 

In 1996, the program area of Las Vistas/Pueblo Gardens was expanded to include the 

nearby Western Hills and South Park neighborhood; the comparison area, also in the southern 

part of Tucson, included the Desert Hills and Elvira neighborhoods. The program and 

comparison areas were small, each about 1 or 1.5 miles square, located in the southern part of the 

city, distant from central city economic, commercial and cultural resources. While the 

population of the city had increased from 330,537 in 1980 to 405,390 in 1990 ( 22.6%), the 

population of the program area had increased from 11,293 to 11,743 (4.0%); the comparison-area 

population had decreased from 8,749 to 8,297 – a 5.2% loss. In 1990 the citywide population 

was predominantly white (63.7%), but the population of the program and comparison areas was 

mainly Hispanic, almost completely of Mexican origin (program area = 60.6%; comparison area 

= 73.4%). Between 1980 and 1990, the citywide Hispanic population had increased three times 

more in the program and comparison areas (12.0% each) than in the city as a whole (4.0%). 

The economic status of the city and the program and comparison areas varied sharply: the 

1990 median family income was $31,705 in the city, a rise of 1.7% since 1980; the median 

family income in the program area was $22,003, a decrease of 3.2%; and the 1990 median family 

11.2


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
income in the comparison area was $26,903, a decrease of 20.0%. The 1990 U.S. Census 

indicated that 14.4% of families in the city, 28.6% in the program area, and 23.1% in the 

comparison area were below the poverty line. 

The two areas were characterized by an increasing concentration of a low- or lowerincome minority Hispanic population, and a growing youth population. The areas were ripe for 

the development of an increasing crime rate and a gang problem. 

The Tucson Gang Problem 

Specific knowledge of crime, including gang-crime statistics, was not available on a 

local-area basis in Tucson, but crime data on the south side of Tucson – including both program 

and comparison areas – were available. According to Our Town, homicides and gang drivebys in 

the south side of the city were reported to be much higher than in the rest of the city. According 

to the opinions of law-enforcement officers, youth gangs had existed in certain parts of the city 

for decades. Gang feuds in the barrios, including in the program and comparison areas, had 

existed since the 1950s, but gang violence was not serious prior to the 1980s. Serious gang 

violence arrived when Mexican-origin and African-American youth in low-income minority 

areas adopted the names of “Bloods” and “Crips.” 

Based on available data, it was not clear whether juvenile (including juvenile gang) 

arrests were going up or down in the city. According to police data, the average age of gang 

offenders in the city was 21 years. At the start of Project operations, 56.4% of violent incidents 

in the Las Vistas neighborhood were attributed to gang members, and 48% of all juveniles 

referred to juvenile court from Las Vistas were said to be gang members. In recent years, 10% to 

11.3


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
15% of the 50 homicides, on average, were reported to be gang homicides. The gang problems in 

the program and comparison areas at the start of the program period were not consistently 

described. One community-policing officer claimed that drivebys were almost nightly 

occurrences in the program area. The same police officer also complained that junk cars were 

more of a concern to local residents. 

The gangs and their distinctive behaviors – in the city and in the program and comparison 

areas – were said to be increasingly identified by particular race and ethnicity. Although some of 

the gangs still comprised both Latino and African-American youth, more of the strictly Latino 

gangs were supposed to be involved in inter-gang conflict, and relatively more of the strictly 

African-American gangs were said to be into drug selling. However, Project police claimed there 

was a close relationship between Latino prison gangs and street gangs in regard to drug selling. 

Addressing the Gang Problem 

City government and political leaders did not become clearly aware of and/or sufficiently 

concerned about the gang problem until the early 1990s. The second Our Town OJJDP Funding 

Application (1996) stated that “until recently the largest problem most communities faced was 

gang denial.” State, county, and city governments and the schools each had different definitions 

of the gang problem. Adequate data about the nature and scope of the gang problem was not 

available, and no system of agency and community collaboration for addressing the problem 

existed. The need to work out a system of communication and formal linkages among agencies 

about what to do about the gang problem was never adequately addressed in the course of the 

program. 

11.4


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
In the early Project years, a variety of interagency gang coalitions formed for brief periods 

to address the general problem of violence in Tucson, including gang-related violence in the 

program area. The Tucson Police Department’s community-policing program had some interest 

in the gang problem in the program area. TASK I (Taking a Stand for Kids), a coalition of 

social-service agencies and community groups, was mainly concerned about crime prevention 

and social services for youth. The Mayor’s Task Force on Violence, comprising a broad 

coalition of criminal-justice/social agencies and community groups, was focused on youth 

violence. 

Our Town was part of the various organizing efforts. After receiving OJJDP funds for 

implementing the Comprehensive Gang Program Model, Our Town attempted to make use of the 

TASK I coalition of agencies as the Project’s Steering Committee. The effort was ultimately 

unsuccessful. 

Problems quickly developed early in the Project because of the inability of Our Town to 

integrate its own agency-service interests and those of TASK I. Our Town was interested 

primarily in extending and developing its existing service program to meet the social needs of the 

delinquent gang and at-risk youth and their families who were referred to the Project. TASK-I 

social and community agencies would become peripherally related to the Project over time. The 

Tucson Police Department (also only peripherally engaged in the development the Project) was 

interested mainly in resources to develop and improve its computer technology and crimeinformation systems. Pima County Juvenile Probation was associated with the Project mainly 

through referral of probationers to the program, and the nearby Boys and Girls Club provided 

access to its facilities for program youth. 

11.5


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Our Town did not develop a comprehensive approach to the gang problem. It contacted 

and involved a limited number of social agencies, schools, and community groups who met only 

sporadically to provide token support and receive information about the progress of the Project. 

A pro-active and sustaining Steering Committee was not established. Our Town appeared to be 

interested only in sustaining and/or funding an expansion of its own established services. 

Community Organization Perceptions and Project Assessments of the Gang Problem in the 

Project Area 

Leaders of 18 local organizations interested in the gang problem in the program area 

(including agencies contracted by Our Town to participate in the Project) were interviewed by 

National Evaluation staff – early in the program (Time I) and two years later (Time II). Agency 

administrators perceived the community’s gang problem to be serious at Time I, and almost as 

serious at Time II. More progress was made in the reduction of gang violence than in the 

reduction of the gang drug problem, which still was regarded as the most serious of all gang 

problems. Tucson agency-administrator respondents believed that they had made some progress 

in the provision of social-intervention services, but the progress was limited. They saw their 

success at Time II as less than was the case with administrators at the other Gang-Program 

demonstration sites. 

In assessments of Project effectiveness made by local-agency respondents as well as by 

the National Evaluators, the consensus was that the Project did poorly in the development of a 

Steering Committee, grassroots involvement and the development of improved education and 

employment opportunities. The Local and National Evaluators believed that the Project did best 

11.6


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
in targeting gang youth who were serious offenders and youth who were at high risk of gang 

involvement, and also in providing social-intervention and outreach services, but that the Project 

did not develop an effective interagency service team in collaboration with police and probation 

officers. 

Characteristics of Program and Comparison Youth 

The total sample in the Evaluation analysis consisted of 126 program youth from the 

target area who were provided with services, and 101 comparison youth from the comparison 

area who were not provided with services. There were similar proportions of males and females 

in the analysis (program sample = 69.8% males and 30.2% females; comparison sample = 71.3% 

males and 28.7% females). There were fewer Latinos (50.0%) and more African-Americans 

(41.3%) in the program sample than in the comparison sample (79.2% and 12.9%, respectively). 

Similar small proportions of non-Latino whites, Native Americans and Asian Americans were in 

each sample. Youth in the samples were young: 14 years and under = 39.7% in the program 

sample and – much larger – 63.4% in the comparison sample; 15 and 16 years = 51.6% in the 

program sample and 31.7% in the comparison sample; 17 and over = 8.7% in the program 

sample and 5.0% in the comparison sample. More program (74.5%) than comparison (42.6%) 

youth had police arrest histories and extensive confinement records. Program youth had more 

serious violence arrests but fewer drug arrests in the pre-program period. Based on self-reports, 

there was little difference in gang membership patterns in the two samples. At the Time-I 

interviews, somewhat more comparison youth (100.0%) than program youth (81.9%) declared 

that they were gang members, but the reverse was true at Time II. Key differences in the samples 

11.7


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
were that program youth were older and more seriously delinquent than comparison youth. 

Program Services Provided 

Our Town Family Center’s program focused largely on the provision of services to youth 

by case managers and outreach youth workers. There was some use of neighboring Boys and 

Girls Club facilities, and occasional contacts with probation officers, police, and school staff. 

Emphasis was on early-intervention services for mainly younger youth. 

There were 5,097 services provided, and 13,541 direct worker contacts with 125 program 

youth. Of the direct worker contacts, 16.4% were in coordination with other workers, mainly 

Our Town agency workers. Most youth were referred to the program by juvenile probation and 

juvenile parole (74.4%), and by workers within Our Town’s program (15.3%). On average, a 

youth spent 20.8 months in the program and was provided with 1.9 services, 4.9 direct workers 

contacts, and 0.8 coordinated worker contacts per month. 

Types of services provided to youth over the program period were: case planning 

(24.1%), group counseling (20.3%), individual counseling (13.9%), suppression (13.8%), schoolrelated services (8.5%), job-related services (4.1%), and family counseling (2.9%). More 

services-per-youth were provided to youth 10-14 years old (49.0) than to the 15- 17-year-olds 

(37.6) or the 17-and-older youth (20.7). More services were provided to youth who had a small 

number of arrests than to youth who had no arrests or many arrests. In general, the program 

focus was on social-support services within the walls of the Our Town facility, and less on 

balanced social-intervention and control strategies. A team approach involving social-service 

and suppression-type workers in collaborative planning and action around particular youth or 

11.8


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
gang-problem situations in the community was not developed. 

Arrest Outcomes 

In a series of multivariate (GLM) analyses – controlling statistically for differences in 

gender, age, race/ethnicity, gang-membership status, length of time in the program, pre-program 

arrests, and pre-program confinement periods – we found no statistically significant differences 

in change patterns for total arrests, serious violence arrests, total violence arrests, drug arrests, 

property arrests, and other (minor) arrests between program and comparison youth, between the 

pre-program and program periods. Program youth did slightly better than comparison youth in 

reducing their total arrests, total violence, property, and minor arrests, but did slightly worse in 

increasing their drug arrests. The most important change for both program and comparison youth 

was a regression effect: youth who had more arrests in the pre-program period had fewer arrests 

in the program period, and youth who had fewer arrests in the pre-program period had more 

arrests in the program period. 

Focusing on program-sample effects only, there was a tendency for youth with shorter 

periods of time in the program to do better than those in the program for longer periods, 

particularly in the reduction of total arrests, serious violence arrests, drug arrests, and other minor 

arrests, but not of total violence or property arrests. Program youth gang members had a slight 

increase in arrests for violence, while non-gang youth and “wannabe” gang members had 

significant reductions in violence arrests. Females did somewhat better than males in reducing 

property arrests. None of these program subsample change patterns was statistically significant, 

however. 

11.9


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Overall, we found no Project effects that could be associated with lowering (or 

increasing) arrests. Similar non-Project effects were found when analyzing program- and 

comparison-youth self-reported offense changes during the first two years of the program period. 

Aggregate-Level Community Effects 

Based more on perceptual than “hard” police data, the Project appeared to have little 

effect in lowering gang crime in the program area relative to the comparison area. Crime, 

particularly serious crime, was generally declining in the city as a whole; no equivalent data was 

available to make the same determination at the local-community level. Nevertheless, there was 

statistical evidence that minor violence, criminal damage to property and especially narcotics-law 

violations were still increasing citywide. There were contradictory views by police and the gang 

youth from the program and comparison areas as to whether the size of gangs was growing or 

declining, although there was some agreement that gang crime, including violence, property and 

drug crime, was generally decreasing in both areas. These views were not consistent with 

citywide police statistics. Even if gang crime were declining more in the program area than in 

the comparison area, it was not clear that the change could be attributed to the efforts of the 

Project, since there had been no significant change in arrest patterns of program youth relative to 

comparison youth. 

The Our Town Project’s interrelated service, control, opportunity-provision and 

community-mobilization efforts were not sufficient to modify arrest patterns at the individualyouth or community-area levels. 

11.10


This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Appendix A 

Police Arrest Charges 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Crime Charges 

Serious Violence Murder 

Attempted Murder 

Manslaughter 

Aggravated Battery 

Aggravated Assault 

Armed Robbery 

Armed Violence 

Drive-By Shooting 

Criminal Sexual Assault/Abuse 

Violence Battery Child Abuse 

Robbery Street Fighting 

Kidnapping Mob Action 

Arson Educational Intimidation 

Assault Hate Crime 

Home Invasion 

Attempted Aggravated Battery 

Stalking 

Telephone Harassment 

Attempted Robbery Intimidation 

Hijacking/M otor Vehicle Ethnic Intimidation 

Domestic Assault Racial Incident 

Domestic Battery Unlawful Restraint 

Sex Crime Protection Order 

Property Burglary Possession of Mislaid Property 

Auto Theft Criminal Damage to Property 

Theft Criminal Damage to Land 

Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle 

Receipt of Stolen Motor Vehicle 

Criminal Damage to (M otor) Vehicle 

Graffiti 

Sale of Stolen Motor Vehicle Vandalism 

Theft of Lost Property Trespass 

Attempted Burglary Criminal Trespass to Residence 

Attempted Theft Criminal Trespass to Land 

Shoplifting Criminal Trespass to Property 

Possession of Stolen Property Criminal Trespass to (M otor) Vehicle 

Receipt of Stolen Property Possession of Burglary T ools 

Appendix A - Page 1 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Crime Charges 

Drugs Manufacture/Distribution/Delivery of 

Controlled Substance 

Under the Influence of Cocaine 

Possession of Controlled Substance Under the Influence of M eth 

Possession of Cannabis/Marijuana Under the Influence of Cannabis/Marijuana 

Possession of Non-Narcotic Controlled 

Substance 

Driving under the Influence of Drugs 

Weapon Unlawful Use of Weapons Unlawful Possession of W eapons 

Aggravated Discharge of Firearm Possession of Firearm and Ammo 

Unlawful Sale of Weapons Unregistered Gun Carriage 

Unlawful Possession of Firearms No FOID 

Public 

Disturbance 

Resisting/Obstructing a Peace Officer Gang Loitering 

Disorderly Conduct Gang Assembly 

Reckless Conduct Unlawful Assembly 

Curfew Violation Contempt of Court 

Loitering Obstruction of Justice 

Alcohol Driving under the Influence of Alcohol/Drugs Possession of Alcohol/Minor 

Sale of Alcohol/Minor Possession of Alcoholic Beverage 

Minor Drinking Drinking 

Intoxication of Minor Transportation of Open Alcohol 

Other Other Child Neglect 

Status Offense Child Care Referral 

Attempted Suicide Forgery 

Motor Vehicle Act Bank Fraud 

Fraudulent/Unlawful ID 

Contributing to Delinquency of Minor 

Exhibitionism 

Public Indecency 

Maintaining a Public Nuisance 

Appendix A - Page 2 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
References 

Battin-Pearson, Sara R., Terrence P. Thornberry, J. David Hawkins, and Marvin D. Krohn. 1998 

(October). “Gang Membership, Delinquent Peers, and Delinquent Behavior.” OJJDP 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Bursik, Robert J., Jr., and Harold G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime. New York: 

Lexington Books. 

Cloward, Richard A. and Lloyd F. Ohlin. 1960. Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of 

Delinquent Gangs. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. 

2nd Cohen, Stanley. 1980. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of Mods and Rockers. 

GEd. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 

Curry, G. David, Cheryl L. Maxson, and James C. Howell. 2001 (March). Youth Gang 

Homicides in the 1990s. OJJDP FACT Sheet. U.S. Department of Justice. Office of 

Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Curry, G. David. 1995 (July). Responding to Gang-Related Crime and Delinquency. A Review 

of the Literature. Prepared for Abt Associates, and the National Institute of Justice. 

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri– St. Louis. 

Curry, G. David, Robert L. Fox, Richard A. Ball, and Darryl Stone. 1992. National Assessment 

of Law Enforcement Anti-Gang Information. Resources (Draft Final Report) 

Criminology Department, University of West Virginia. 

Curry, G. David and Irving Spergel. 1988. Gang Homicide, Delinquency, and Community. 

Criminology 26: 381-407. 

Decker, Scott H. 2003. Policing Gangs and Youth Violence: Where Do We Stand, Where Do 

We Go From Here? In Policing Gangs and Youth Violence, Scott H. Decker (ed.) 

Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth, Pp. 287-293. 

Fagan, Jeffry E. 1989. The Social Organization of Drug Use and Drug Dealing Among Urban 

Gangs. Criminology 27(4) 663-669. 

Gold, Martin and Hans W. Mattick. 1974. Experiment in the Streets: The Chicago Youth 

Development Project. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of 

Michigan. 

Haynie, Dana L. 2001. Delinquent Peers Revisited: Does Network Structure Matter. American 

References - 1 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Journal of Sociology 106(4): 1013-57. 

Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 

Howell, James C. 2000 (August). Youth Gang Programs and Strategies, Summary. National 

Youth Gang Center. Institute for Intergovernmental Research. U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

Howell, James C., Arlen Egley, Jr., and Debra Gleason. 2002 (June). Modern-Day Youth 

Gangs. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Klein, Malcolm W. 1995. The American Street Gang. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Klein, Malcolm W. 1971. Street Gangs and Street Workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice 

Hall. 

Klein, Malcolm W. 1968. From Association to Guilt: The Gangs Guidance Project in Juvenile 

Gang Intervention. Los Angeles, CA: Youth Studies Center, University of Southern 

California and the Los Angeles County Probation Department. 

Kobrin, Solomon. 1951. The Conflict of Values in Delinquency Areas. American Sociological 

Review 16 (1); 653-66l. 

Kornhauser, Ruth. 1978. Social Sources of Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Markowitz, Fred E., Paul E. Bellair, Allen E. Liska, and Jianhong Liu. 2001. Extending Social 

Disorganization Theory: Modeling the Relationships Between Cohesion, Disorder, and 

Fear. Criminology 39 (2): 293-319. 

Maxson, Cheryl, and Malcolm W. Klein. 1990. Street Gang Violence: Twice As Great or Half 

as Great? Pp. 71-100 in Gangs in America, edited by C. Ronald Huff. Newbury Park, 

CA: Sage. 

Merton, Robert K. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. 

Mihalic, Sharon, Katherine Irwin, Delbert Elloitt, Abigail Fagan, and Diane Hansen. 2001 (July). 

Blueprints for Violence Prevention. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. U.S. Department 

of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

Miller, Walter B. 2001 (April). The Growth of Youth Gang Problems in the United States: 

References - 2 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
1970-1998. U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Miller, Walter B. 1962. The Impact of a 'Total-Community' Delinquency Control Project. Social 

Problems 19 (2): 168-191. 

Miller, Walter B. 1957. The Impact of a Community Group Work Program on Delinquent 

Crime Gangs. Social Service Review, 21 (4): 390-406. 

Morenoff, Jeffrey D., Robert J. Sampson, and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 2001. Neighborhood 

Inequality, Collective Efficacy, and the Spatial Dynamics of Urban Violence. 

Criminology 39 (3): 517-560. 

National Youth Gang Center. 2000 (November). 1998 National Youth Gang Survey. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 1994. A 

Comprehensive Response to America’s Gang Problem. FY 1994 Discretionary 

Competitive Program Announcements. Washington, D.C. Pp. 38-51. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 2000. 

Gang-Free Schools and Community Initiatives. Washington, D.C. 

Reed, Winifred L. and Scott H. Decker. 2002 ( July). Responding to Gangs: Evaluation and 

Research. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

National Institute of Justice. 

Sampson, Robert J. 1991. Linking the Micro-and Macrolevel Dimensions of Community Social 

Organization. Social Forces 70 (1): 43-64. 

Sampson, Robert J. and W. Byron Groves. 1989. Community Structure and Crime: Testing 

Social Disorganization Theory. American Journal of Sociology 94: 774-802. 

Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning 

Points Through Life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 

Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry D. McKay. 1972. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas, revised 

edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Short, James F., Jr., and Fred L. Strodtbeck. 1965. Group Process and Gang Delinquency. 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

References - 3 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Sivilli, June S., Robert K. Yin, M. Elaine Nugent. 1995 (March). Evaluation of Gang 

Interventions: Final Report. Prepared for the National Institute of Justice. Office of 

Justice Programs. U.S. Department of Justice. 

Spergel, Irving A. 1995. The Youth Gang Problem: A Community Approach. New York: 

Oxford University Press. 

Spergel, Irving A., Kwai Ming Wa, et al. 2003 (February). Follow-Up Report, Evaluation of the 

Gang Violence Reduction Project (GVRP) in Little Village, Chicago – The Role of the 

Youth Worker with Various Types of Gang Youth. Chicago: School of Social Service 

Administration, University of Chicago. 

Spergel, Irving A., Editor and Ron Chance, Co-Editor. 1992. Technical Assistance Manuals. 

School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, in cooperation with the 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 

— Community Based Youth Agency: Technical Assistance Manual. 1992 (January). Candice 

M. Kane with the assistance of Irving A. Spergel. 

— Community Mobilization: Technical Assistance Manual. 1992 (January). Irving A. Spergel. 

— Corrections: Technical Assistance Manual. 1992 (January). Thomas Regulus. 

— Employment: Technical Assistance Manual. 1992 (January). Robert L. Laseter. 

— General Community Design: Technical Assistance Manual. 	1992 (January). Irving A. 

Spergel. 

— Grassroots Organization: Technical Assistance Manual. 1992 (January). Irving Spergel. 

— Judges: Technical Assistance Manual. 1992 (January). Ron Chance. 

— Parole: Technical Assistance Manual. 1992 (January). Thomas A. Regulus. 

— Police: Technical Assistance Manual. 	1992 (January). Irving A. Spergel and Kenneth 

Ehrensaft. 

— Probation: Technical Assistance Manual. 1992 (January). Ron Chance. 

— Prosecutor: Technical Assistance Manual. 1992 (January). Candice M. Kane. 

— School: Technical Assistance Manual. 1992 (January). Robert L. Laseter. 

References - 4 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Sullivan, Mercer L., and Barbara Miller. 1999. Adolescent Violence, State Processes, and the 

Local Context of Moral Panic. Pp. 261-283 in J. Mc C. Heyman (ed.). States and Illegal 

Practices. New York: Berg. 

Sutherland, Edwin and Donald R. Cressey. 1978. Principles of Criminology. 10th ed. New York: 

J.B. Lippincott. 

Suttles, Gerald D. 1968. The Social Order of the Slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Thrasher, Frederick. 1927. The Gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Venkatesh, Sudhir Alladi. 1999. Community-Based Interventions into Street Gang Activity. 

Journal of Community Psychology 27(5): 1-17. 

Veysey, Bonita M. and Steven F. Messner. 1999. Further Testing of Social Disorganization 

Theory: An Elaboration of Sampson's and Groves's 'Community Structure and Crime.' 

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36 (2): 156-174. 

Zatz, Marjorie S. 1987. Chicano Youth Gangs and Crime: The Creation of Moral Panic. 

Contemporary Crisis 11: 129-158. 

References - 5 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.