Research for Policy 

JUNE 04 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

Evaluating G.R.E.A.T.: 

A School-Based Gang Prevention Program 
This and other publications and products 

found at: 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531 

John Ashcroft 

Attorney General 

Deborah J. Daniels 

Assistant Attorney General 

Sarah V. Hart 

Director, National Institute of Justice 

of the National Institute of Justice can be 

National Institute of Justice 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij 

Office of Justice Programs 

Partnerships for Safer Communities 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

NCJ 198604 
EVALUATING G.R.E.A.T. 

Finn-Aage Esbensen 

Evaluating G.R.E.A.T.: A SchoolBased Gang Prevention Program 

About the Author 

Finn-Aage Esbensen is the 

E. Desmond Lee Professor

of Youth Crime and Violence in the Department 

of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri–St. Louis. 

Few rigorous evaluations 

have been conducted on 

gang prevention programs. 

But one, a careful 5-year longitudinal evaluation, shows 

that Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) 

has modest positive effects 

on adolescents’ attitudes and 

delinquency risk factors but 

no effects on their involvement in gangs and actual 

delinquent behaviors. (For 

insight on the evaluation, 

see “A Tale of Two Studies.”) 

What is G.R.E.A.T.? 

G.R.E.A.T. differs from most 

efforts to reduce gang problems. Typical programs are 

directed at active gang members, and most target youths 

who are at risk for joining 

gangs. The G.R.E.A.T. program, in contrast, is presented 

to entire classrooms without 

attempting to predict which 

students are most likely to 

become involved with a gang. 

The G.R.E.A.T. program is 

aimed at middle school 

students and seeks to— 

■	 Reduce their involvement 

in gangs and delinquent 

behavior. 

■	 Teach them consequences 

of gang involvement. 

■	 Help them develop positive relations with law 

enforcement. 

These three objectives are 

addressed through a 9-hour 

curriculum taught in schools 

by uniformed law enforcement officers. Students are 

taught to set positive goals, 

resist negative pressures, 

resolve conflicts, and understand how gangs impact the 

quality of their lives. 

Does G.R.E.A.T. work? 

G.R.E.A.T. has achieved 

modest positive results. The 

evaluation survey was first 

administered to youths when 

they were in 7th grade and 

readministered annually 

through 11th grade. Results 

show that G.R.E.A.T. was 

able to successfully change 

several risk factors (e.g., 

peer group associations and 

attitudes about gangs, law 

1 
RESEARCH FOR POLICY / JUNE 04 

A T TWO STUDIES 

studies to assess its effectiveness: a 1-year cross-sectional studya and 

a 5-year longitudinal,b c 

d In response, a national evaluation team assessed 

and revised the program. Greater emphasis was placed on incorporating teachers into the lesson plan to enhance the reinforcement of lessons and skills learned. The new curriculum also focused more on 

active learning than on a didactic approach, and booster sessions were 

added to reinforce skills learned in prior years.e Pilots of the new program were tested in 14 cities in 2001 prior to its implementation in 

2002–2003. (At the time of this publication, the revised program curriculum has not been evaluated.) 

a. A cross-sectional study is a research design in which data are collected at one point in 

time. In the 1-year evaluation, for example, eighth-grade students answered questions during 

the spring of 1995. 

same students were asked questions when they were in 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th grades. 

This process allows both individual and group changes to be examined over time. 

c. Quasi-experimental studies are conducted when comparison groups (i.e., the treatment 

group and control group) cannot be created through random assignment. Since students 

from classrooms in this study could not be assigned randomly in all situations, another form 

of matching was used to create comparison groups at some of the schools. 

reported more positive attitudes (e.g., more committed to school) and behaviors (e.g., more 

ticipants had lower rates of self-reported delinquency and less involvement in high-risk factice, National Institute of Justice, 1997, NCJ 167264. 

gram,” in Responding to Gangs: Evaluation and Research, Winifred L. Reed and Scott H. 

139–167, NCJ 190351. 

ALE OF 

The national evaluation of the G.R.E.A.T. program used two separate 

quasi-experimental study. Two years into the 5­

year study, students were not exhibiting the promising returns indicated 

by the 1-year study. 

Notes 

b. A longitudinal study is one in which data are collected at multiple times. In this study, the 

d. One year after completing the G.R.E.A.T. course, participants in the cross-sectional study 

communication with parents) than nonparticipants. Results also showed that G.R.E.A.T. partors associated with gang membership. See Esbensen, Finn-Aage, and D. Wayne Osgood, 

National Evaluation of G.R.E.A.T., Research in Brief, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Juse. Esbensen, Finn-Aage, Adrienne Freng, Terrance J. Taylor, Dana Peterson, and D. Wayne 

Osgood, “National Evaluation of the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) ProDecker, eds., Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2002: 

2 
EVALUATING G.R.E.A.T. 

enforcement, and riskseeking behaviors) associated with delinquency and 

gang membership. These 

changes resulted from 

G.R.E.A.T.’s focus on and 

encouragement of prosocial 

activities that lead youths 

away from involvement with 

delinquent peers and toward 

involvement with peers who 

exhibit more socially acceptable behavior. 

In doing so, G.R.E.A.T. has 

met two of the three program objectives: more favorable attitudes from students 

toward the police and greater 

awareness of the consequences of gang involvement 

as indicated by more negative attitudes from students 

about gangs. Despite the 

success in addressing risk 

factors, the third objective— 

reducing gang membership 

and delinquent behavior— 

was not met. 

Several significant results 

emerged in program participants when they were compared with nonparticipants 

during the last annual followup survey, 4 years after 

program delivery: 

■	 7-percent lower levels of 

victimization. 

■	 5-percent difference in negative views about gangs. 

INTERPRETING R : THE C

PROGRAM E

Even after 12 years of schooling, many students enter college with inadequate math and/or writing skills. If such 

exposure fails to produce desired outcomes, how can the 

effectiveness of smaller dosage programs, such as 

Assessing youth intervention programs is not a simple 

task, especially when considering the number of factors 

ESULTS OMPLEXITY OF 

VALUATION 

G.R.E.A.T., be measured? 

that affect the lives of youths. Yet, a carefully designed 

outcome evaluation, such as the one used in the G.R.E.A.T. 

study, can detect program impact. The impact measured, 

however, may be modest, as is the case in this study. 

■	 5-percent difference in 

favorable attitudes toward 

the police. 

■	 5-percent difference in 

engaging in risk-seeking 

behaviors. 

■	 4-percent difference in 

association with peers 

involved in prosocial 

activities. 

When viewed in the context 

of a risk-focused delinquency 

prevention approach, these 

results suggest that future 

negative behaviors are preventable. The risk-focused 

prevention approach is based 

on extensive research that 

has identified risk factors for 

crime and violence that occur 

among individuals, families, 

and peer groups and in 

communities and schools. 

3 
RESEARCH FOR POLICY / JUNE 04 

FOR MORE 

I

ON 

Contact the 

program office 

Consult the progov/great/ 

index.htm. 

NFORMATION 

G.R.E.A.T.: 

at 800–743–7070. 

gram Web site at 

http://www.atf. 

Prevention strategies can 

then be developed that focus 

on the common risk factors. 

The results also are consistent with research on protective factors that buffer children 

from becoming delinquent 

and contribute to healthy 

behaviors.1 (For additional 

discussion of the results, 

see “Interpreting Results: 

The Complexity of Program 

Evaluation.”) 

Positive perceptions 

of G.R.E.A.T. 

Parent and educator surveys 

revealed positive attitudes 

toward G.R.E.A.T. The majority 

of parents agreed that uniformed officers belong in 

schools and make good 

instructors. Most educators 

agreed that the curriculum is 

appropriate for the students’ 

age and that it addresses the 

problems facing middle 

school students. The instructing officers expressed overwhelming support for the 

program, stating that it improved their relationships with 

the children, the school, and 

the community as a whole. 

What’s the bottom line? 

The G.R.E.A.T. program provides some demonstrable 

benefits: It educates youths 

on the consequences of gang 

involvement, and they develop favorable attitudes toward 

the police. These are important goals. However, the 

program did not reduce 

gang membership or future 

delinquent behavior. Such 

programs should be implemented based on a realistic 

assessment of what they 

can accomplish. Although 

G.R.E.A.T. produced educational benefits and improved 

police relations for a relatively 

small investment, this 9-hour 

G.R.E.A.T. program alone will

not keep children out of 

gangs or reduce delinquent 

behavior. Other strategies 

should be used to meet 

those goals. Additional 

information on such strategies can be found at 

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ 

search/topiclist.asp. 

Note 

1. See Wilson, John J., and James C. 

Howell, Comprehensive Strategy for 

Serious, Violent and Chronic Offenders, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

1993, NCJ 143453; and Elliott, Delbert, Norma J. Hatot, and Paul 

Sirovatka, eds., Youth Violence: A 

Report of the Surgeon General, 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Office 

of the Surgeon General, 2001. 

4 
The National Institute of Justice is the 

research, development, and evaluation 

agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

NIJ provides objective, independent, 

evidence-based knowledge and tools 

to enhance the administration 

of justice and public safety. 

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here 

are those of the authors and do not reflect the official 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

This study was conducted using research 

supported by the National Institute of Justice 

under grant number 94–IJ–CX–0058. 

NIJ is a component of the Office of Justice 

Programs, which also includes the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention, and the 

Office for Victims of Crime.