U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
 

U.S. Department of Justice
 

Office of Justice Programs
 

810 Seventh Street NW. 

Washington, DC 20531 

Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

Attorney General 

Laurie O. Robinson 

Assistant Attorney General 

Jeff Slowikowski 

Acting Administrator
 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
 

Office of Justice Programs 

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp 

This document was prepared by the National Gang Center under Cooperative Agreement Number 

 2007–JV–FX–0008 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of 

Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice
­

Statistics; the Community Capacity Development Office; the National Institute of Justice; 

the Office for Victims of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 

Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART).
­
Second Edition 


October 2010
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreword
 

Since its inception, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Juvenile 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has initiated and supported a 

broad range of research, demonstration, evaluation, and training 

and technical assistance initiatives to prevent and reduce gang crime. A 

central focus of these anti-gang efforts is to support community endeavors 

to provide youth with a safe environment in which to grow up. 

As part of that comprehensive initiative, OJJDP launched the Gang Reduction Program in 2003. 

The multimillion-dollar initiative was designed to reduce gang crime in targeted neighborhoods 

by incorporating research-based interventions to address individual, family, and community factors 

that contribute to juvenile delinquency and gang activity. The program leveraged local, State, and 

Federal resources in support of community partnerships that implement progressive practices in 

prevention, intervention, suppression, and reentry. 

Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model provides 

communities considering implementing the comprehensive gang model with critical information 

to guide their efforts. The Report describes the research that produced the model; outlines best 

practices obtained from practitioners with years of experience in planning, implementing, and 

overseeing variations of the model in their communities; and presents essential findings from 

evaluations of several programs that demonstrate the success of the model in a variety of 

environments. 

OJJDP commends the progress made in the demonstration sites, and we wish them continued success. We remain committed to assisting other communities in assessing their gang problems and 

developing a complement of anti-gang strategies and activities to address this complex challenge. 

Jeff Slowikowski 

Acting Administrator 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Foreword • iii 
 

Acknowledgments
 

T his document is the result of the work of many people at the 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 

the National Gang Center, and communities across the country. 

OJJDP wishes to thank those who have worked to support the OJJDP 

Comprehensive Gang Model and other multistrategy anti-gang initiatives 

to reduce gang crime, especially violence, in targeted communities. 

Many people contributed directly and indirectly to this Report. Dr. Spergel and his colleagues 

at the University of Chicago conducted the research and guided the early development of the 

Comprehensive Gang Model. 

With funding and leadership from OJJDP, the Model has been tested in various forms in more 

than 20 sites. Hundreds of community members have contributed their vision, energy, and leadership to the planning and implementation processes in their communities. They shared with us the 

practices that were most helpful to them along the way. Space does not permit listing them individually, but this Report would not have been possible without the vision and hard work of these 

partners. 

Finally, we would like to recognize the contributions of the staff of the National Gang Center, who 

provide technical assistance and training to the communities demonstrating the Model, and who 

assisted in preparing this Report. 

Acknowledgments • v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents • vii 

Foreword ................................................................................................................................................. iii 

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................v 

Purpose and Organization of the Report...............................................................................................ix 

Development of OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model......................................................................... 1 

Research Foundation of the Comprehensive Gang Model ............................................................ 1 

National Assessment of Gang Problems and Programs........................................................... 1 

Development of the Comprehensive Community-Wide Gang Program Model .................... 2 

OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model .............................................................................................. 3 

The Comprehensive Gang Model in Action—OJJDP’s Gang Reduction Program ......................... 3 

Best Practices for Planning and Implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model .............................. 5 

Convening a Steering Committee.................................................................................................... 6 

Administering the Program.............................................................................................................. 7 

Lead Agency............................................................................................................................... 7 

Program Director ..................................................................................................................... 10 

Assessing the Gang Problem .......................................................................................................... 11 

Planning for Implementation......................................................................................................... 14 

Implementing the Program............................................................................................................ 16 

Maintaining the Steering Committee .................................................................................... 16 

The Intervention Team ............................................................................................................ 19 

Outreach Workers.................................................................................................................... 20 

Law Enforcement Personnel ................................................................................................... 23 

Selecting Program Activities........................................................................................................... 25 

Intervention Activities ............................................................................................................. 25 

Prevention Activities................................................................................................................ 25 

Suppression/Social Control Activities...................................................................................... 27 

Reentry Activities..................................................................................................................... 28 

Sustaining the Program.................................................................................................................. 29 

Notes....................................................................................................................................................... 33 

References .............................................................................................................................................. 35 

Appendix A: Demonstration and Testing of the Comprehensive Gang Model................................. 37 

Appendix B: Multistrategy Gang Initiative Survey ............................................................................. 53 

Table of Contents 
 

Purpose and Organization 

of the Report 

T his Report provides guidance for communities that are considering how best to address a youth gang problem that already exists or threatens to become a reality. The guidance is based on 

the implementation of the Comprehensive Gang Model (Model) developed through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

(OJJDP), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and tested in OJJDP’s Gang 

Reduction Program. 

The Report describes the research that produced the Model, notes essential findings from evaluations of several programs demonstrating the Model in a variety of environments, and outlines 

“best practices” obtained from practitioners with years of experience in planning, implementing, 

and overseeing variations of the Model in their communities. 

The Model and best practices contain critical elements that distinguish it from typical program 

approaches to gangs. The Model’s key distinguishing feature is a strategic planning process that 

empowers communities to assess their own gang problems and fashion a complement of antigang strategies and program activities. Community leaders considering this Model will be able 

to call on the OJJDP Strategic Planning Tool at no cost (http://www.iir.com/nygc/tool/default.htm). 

OJJDP’s Socioeconomic Mapping and Resource Topography (SMART) system is another online 

resource available through the OJJDP Web site (go to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp, and select 

“Tools”). 

The main section of the Report presents best practices for the Comprehensive Gang Model and 

highlights results of a survey and a meeting of practitioners regarding their experiences in implementing the Model. This section contains specific practices that work best in a step-by-step planning and implementation process for communities using the Comprehensive Gang Model 

framework and tools. 

Purpose and Organization of the Report • ix 
Development of OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model • 1 

Section 1: 

Development of OJJDP’s 

Comprehensive Gang Model 

Research Foundation of the Comprehensive Gang Model 

T he Comprehensive Gang Model is the product of a national 

gang research and development program that OJJDP initiated 

in the mid-1980s. A national assessment of gang problems and 

programs provided the research foundation for the Model, and its key 

components mirror the best features of existing and evaluated programs 

across the country. 

National Assessment of Gang Problems 

and Programs 

In 1987, OJJDP launched a Juvenile Gang Suppression and 

Intervention Research and Development Program that Dr. 

Irving Spergel of the University of Chicago directed. In 

the initial phase, the researchers conducted the first comprehensive national assessment of organized agency and 

community group responses to gang problems in the 

United States (Spergel, 1990, 1991; Spergel and Curry, 

1993). It remains the only national assessment of efforts 

to combat gangs. In the second phase, Spergel and his 

colleagues developed a composite youth gang program 

based on findings from the national assessment. 

In the research phase of the project (phase one), Spergel’s 

research team attempted to identify every promising 

community gang program in the United States based on 

a national survey. At the outset, this study focused on 101 

cities in which the presence of gangs was suspected. The 

team found promising gang programs in a broad range 

of communities across the Nation. Once programs and 

sites were identified, the team collected information on 

the magnitude and nature of local gang problems from 

representatives of each agency or organization that other 

participants identified as being affiliated with or being a 

partner in each local program. Spergel and his team of 

researchers interviewed program developers and reviewed all available program documentation. 

The more demanding project goal was to identify the 

contents of each program and self-reported measures of 

success. The team made an effort to identify the “most 

promising” programs. In each of the most promising community programs, the research team identified the agencies that were essential to the success of the program. 

Finally, Spergel and his team made site visits to selected 

community programs and agencies. 

Spergel and Curry (1993, pp. 371–72) used agency representatives’ responses to five survey questions1

 to determine the strategies that communities across the country 

employed in dealing with gang problems. From respondents’ answers to these questions, the research team 

identified five strategies—community mobilization, social 

intervention, provision of opportunities, organizational 

change and development, and suppression (see “Five 

Strategies in OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model” on 

page 2).2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Five Strategies in OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model Five Strategies in OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model

Community Mobilization: Involvement of local citizens, 

including former gang-involved youth, community groups, 

agencies, and coordination of programs and staff functions within and across agencies. 

Opportunities Provision: Development of a variety of 

specific education, training, and employment programs 

targeting gang-involved youth. 

Social Intervention: Involving youth-serving agencies, 

schools, grassroots groups, faith-based organizations, police, and other juvenile/criminal justice organizations in 

“reaching out” to gang-involved youth and their families, 

and linking them with the conventional world and needed 

services. 

Suppression: Formal and informal social control procedures, including close supervision and monitoring of ganginvolved youth by agencies of the juvenile/criminal justice 

system and also by community-based agencies, schools, 

and grassroots groups. 

Organizational Change and Development: Development 

and implementation of policies and procedures that result 

in the most effective use of available and potential resources, within and across agencies, to better address the 

gang problem. 

n n n

Source: Spergel, 1995, pp. 171–296. 

2 • Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model 

Development of the Comprehensive 

Community-Wide Gang Program Model 

Spergel and his colleagues (Spergel, 1995; Spergel et al., 

1992; Spergel and Curry, 1993) developed the Comprehensive Community-Wide Gang Program Model as the final 

product of the gang research and development program 

that OJJDP funded. From the information gathered 

through its multimethod study in phase one (Spergel, 

Curry, et al., 1994), the Spergel team developed technical 

assistance manuals for each of the 12 types of agencies that 

should be part of a successful local community response to 

gangs, including organizations that range from grassroots 

child-serving agencies to law enforcement, courts, and 

prosecutors’ offices (Spergel, Chance, et al., 1994). 

Spergel and his colleagues also offered the general community design of an ideal Comprehensive CommunityWide Gang Program Model. An ideal program should 

undertake several action steps (Spergel, Chance, et al., 

1994, pp. 2–5): 

n Addressing the problem. A community must recognize 

the presence of a gang problem before it can do anything meaningful to address the problem. 

n Organization and policy development. Communities 

must organize effectively to combat the youth gang 

problem. 

n Management of the collaborative process. In a typical 

community, the mobilization process evolves through 

several stages before fruition. 

n Development of goals and objectives. These must include short-term suppression and outreach services for 

targeted youth, and longer term services, such as remedial education, training, and job placement. 

n Relevant programming. The community must systematically articulate and implement rationales for services, tactics, or procedures. 

n Coordination and community participation. A mobilized community is the most promising way to deal 

with the gang problem. 

n Youth accountability. While youth gang members must 

be held accountable for their criminal acts, they must 

at the same time be provided an opportunity to 

change or control their behavior. 

n Staffing. Youth gang intervention and control efforts 

require a thorough understanding of the complexity 

of gang activity in the context of local community life. 

n Staff training. Training should include prevention, intervention, and suppression in gang problem localities. 
Development of OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model • 3 

 

 

 

 

n	 Research and evaluation. Determining what is most 

effective, and why, is a daunting challenge. 

n	 Establishment of funding priorities. Based on available 

research, theory, and experience, community mobilization strategies and programs should be accorded the 

highest funding priority. 

In 1993, Spergel began to implement this model in a neighborhood in Chicago. Soon thereafter, OJJDP renamed the 

model the Comprehensive Gang Prevention and Intervention Model (Spergel, Chance, et al., 1994, p. iii). 

OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model 

The 1992 amendments to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act authorized OJJDP to carry out additional activities to address youth gang problems. An 

OJJDP Gang Task Force outlined plans for integrated officewide efforts to provide national leadership in the areas of gang-related program development, research, 

statistics, evaluation, training, technical assistance, and 

information dissemination (Howell, 1994; Tatem-Kelley, 

1994). 

This background work led to the establishment of OJJDP’s 

Comprehensive Response to America’s Youth Gang Problem. The Comprehensive Response was a five-component 

initiative that included establishment of the National 

Gang Center, demonstration and testing of OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model, training and technical assistance 

to communities implementing this Model, evaluation of 

the demonstration sites implementing the Model, and 

information dissemination through the Juvenile Justice 

Clearinghouse. Implementation and testing of the Comprehensive Gang Model were the centerpiece of the initiative. OJJDP prepared two publications specifically to 

support demonstration and testing of the Model: Gang 

Suppression and Intervention: Problem and Response 

(Spergel, Curry, et al., 1994), and Gang Suppression and 

Intervention: Community Models (Spergel, Chance, et al., 

1994). 

Communities that use the Comprehensive Gang Model 

will benefit from the simplified implementation process 

that OJJDP has created. OJJDP synthesized the elements 

of the Comprehensive Gang Model into five steps: 

1. The community and its leaders acknowledge the youth 

gang problem. 

2. The community conducts an assessment of the nature 

and scope of the youth gang problem, leading to the 

identification of a target community or communities 

and population(s). 

3. Through a steering committee, the community and its 

leaders set goals and objectives to address the identified problem(s). 

4. The steering committee makes available relevant 

programs, strategies, services, tactics, and procedures 

consistent with the Model’s five core strategies. 

5. The steering committee evaluates the effectiveness 

of the response to the gang problem, reassesses the 

problem, and modifies approaches, as needed. 

These steps have been tested in several settings. Information on those initiatives is provided in appendix A. 

The Comprehensive Gang Model 

in Action—OJJDP’s Gang Reduction 

Program 

Over the years, OJJDP has tested and refined the Comprehensive Gang Model to meet new challenges and address 

gang problems in new locations. Using the Comprehensive Gang Model, OJJDP developed and funded the Gang 

Reduction Program (GRP). 

Gangs are often the result of system failures or community dysfunction. So, to address youth gang violence, the 

OJJDP Administrator decided to test whether the Model 

could be used to initiate community change in certain 

cities. In 2003, OJJDP identified four demonstration sites: 

Los Angeles, CA; Richmond, VA; Milwaukee, WI; and 
4 • Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model 

North Miami Beach, FL. Each test site faced a different 

gang problem. 

Once sites had been identified, OJJDP held meetings with 

senior political and law enforcement officials and made 

an offer: OJJDP would provide resources to support a test 

of the Comprehensive Gang Model if the city agreed to 

change how they currently addressed youth gang problems. Each city would now focus on balancing gang 

prevention with enforcement and commit to using community organizations and faith-based groups to ultimately sustain the work. Additionally, each site would have a 

full-time coordinator, funded by OJJDP, with direct access 

to senior political and police leadership. This coordinator 

would be free from substantive program responsibilities 

and would ensure that each participating agency or organization met its obligations. He or she would also ensure 

that the data and information generated by the effort 

would be collected and shared. Each participating agency 

remained independent, but was under the oversight of 

the gang coordinator, who had the ability to obtain support or intervention from OJJDP leadership and local 

authorities (e.g., mayor, police chief, or governor). 

In addition to reducing gang violence, the goal of GRP 

was to determine the necessary practices to create a community environment that helps reduce youth gang crime 

and violence in targeted neighborhoods. Because of this, 

GRP focused on two goals: to learn the key ingredients 

for success and to reduce youth gang delinquency, crime, 

and violence. GRP accomplishes these goals by helping 

communities take an integrated approach when targeting gangs: 

n	 Primary prevention targets the entire population in 

high-crime and high-risk communities. The key component is a One-Stop Resource Center that makes services 

accessible and visible to members of the community. 

Services include prenatal and infant care, afterschool 

activities, truancy and dropout prevention, and job 

programs. 

n	 Secondary prevention identifies young children (ages 

7–14) at high risk and—drawing on the resources of 

schools, community-based organizations, and faithbased groups—intervenes with appropriate services 

before early problem behaviors turn into serious delinquency and gang involvement. 

n	 Intervention targets active gang members and close 

associates, and involves aggressive outreach and recruitment activity. Support services for gang-involved 

youth and their families help youth make positive 

choices. 

n	 Suppression focuses on identifying the most dangerous and influential gang members and removing them 

from the community. 

n	 Reentry targets serious offenders who are returning to 

the community after confinement and provides appropriate services and monitoring. Of particular interest 

are displaced gang members who may cause conflict 

by attempting to reassert their former gang roles. 

The program has several key concepts: 

n	 Identify needs at the individual, family, and community levels, and address those needs in a coordinated 

and comprehensive response. 

n	 Conduct an inventory of human and financial resources in the community, and create plans to fill gaps and 

leverage existing resources to support effective gangreduction strategies. 

n	 Apply the best research-based programs across appropriate age ranges, risk categories, and agency 

boundaries. 

n	 Encourage coordination and integration in two directions: vertically (local, State, and Federal agencies) and 

horizontally (across communities and program types). 

Highlights of activities from each of the Gang Reduction 

Program sites—Richmond, VA; Los Angeles, CA; North 

Miami Beach, FL; and Milwaukee, WI—are presented in 

the next section. 
Best Practices for Planning and Implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model • 5 

Section 2: 

Best Practices for Planning and 

Implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model 

T he best practices presented in this report are based on years of 

demonstration and evaluation in many sites across the country. 

Appendix A provides an overview of these demonstration initiatives, beginning with the initial implementation of the Model in the 

Little Village neighborhood in Chicago in the early 1990s, through OJJDPsponsored demonstrations of the Model in five sites in the mid-1990s, to 

OJJDP’s current efforts to implement its Gang Reduction Program (GRP). 

To determine which practices would be most beneficial to 

communities intent on implementing the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model, the National Gang Center (NGC) 

collected data from these sources: 

n	 Comprehensive Gang Model Survey. A Comprehensive 

Gang Model Survey (see appendix B) was conducted in 

July 2007. It collected information pertaining to several sites in the original demonstration program (Spergel Model), the Rural Gang Initiative, the Gang-Free 

Schools and Communities Initiative, and the Gang Reduction Program, and from selected projects and programs in Oklahoma, Utah, Nevada, and North Carolina 

that used the OJJDP Model but OJJDP did not fund. 

The survey included questions about the assessment 

and implementation processes, program coordination, 

the lead agency, administrative structure, prevention, 

intervention and the intervention team, suppression, 

reentry, organizational change and development, and 

sustainability. 

n	 Practitioner Meeting. The preliminary survey results 

were used to develop an agenda for a meeting that 

OJJDP sponsored in November 2007. Representatives 

from OJJDP, NGC, the initial demonstration sites, 

Gang-Free Schools and Communities programs, Gang 

Reduction Program projects, and programs in Oklahoma, Utah, Nevada, and North Carolina met to 

discuss and record best practices based on their experience with comprehensive anti-gang programming. The 

meeting also produced a timeline for use by communities that are considering implementing such efforts. 

n	 Evaluation Reports and Staff Observations. “Best practices” of demonstration programs (described in appendix A) and observations of OJJDP and NGC staff who 

have worked with these programs for 15 years were 

noted in the evaluations. 

The best practices identified from these sources are organized into seven categories—convening a steering committee, administering the program, assessing the gang 

problem, planning for implementation, implementing 

the program, selecting program activities, and sustaining 

the program—and are described below. 
6 • Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Convening a Steering Committee 

How a community begins to address gang problems differs depending on the event or events that draw public 

attention to the issue. In some cases, a high-profile, often 

tragic event occurs that galvanizes the community and 

stimulates mobilization to address gangs. In other cases, a 

groundswell of public support to deal with gangs builds 

more gradually and lacks only an individual or agency to 

serve as a catalyst. At some point, key agencies and community leaders begin to openly discuss and address gang 

issues. At that point, a standing task force, committee, or 

organizational structure (henceforth referred to as the 

steering committee) should be convened and begin to 

work on next steps. Ideally, this group oversees an assessment of the local gang problem and, using data obtained 

through the assessment, develops strategies to combat it. 

In virtually every demonstration of OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model, the effectiveness of its steering committee has been crucial in determining the success or failure 

of the community in implementing a comprehensive 

approach. 

To be effective, the steering committee should: 

n	 Include, at a minimum, representation from the 

following groups: law enforcement, corrections, 

probation/parole (juvenile and adult), schools, social 

services agencies, local units of government, faithbased organizations, religious institutions, employment programs, and community residents. 

n	 Make and oversee policy for the project. 

n	 Oversee and provide general direction to the agencies 

collaborating in conducting an assessment of the gang 

problem and planning/implementing the project. 

The membership of the steering committee is an essential 

element in determining program success. Steering committees with well-respected leaders (chairs or cochairs) 

who have a reputation for problem-solving and objectivity have proven most successful. 

Best results have been obtained when the steering committee mixes two groups: 

n	 Individuals from upper-level management in key partnering agencies who can effect organizational change 

within their own agencies. 

n n n OJJDP Compr OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model ehensive Gang Model

Core Strategy: Community Mobilization 

Critical Elements 

u Local citizens, including youth, community groups, and 

agencies, are involved, and programs and functions of 

staff within and across agencies are coordinated. 

u A steering committee is available to initiate the project 

by involving representatives of key organizations and 

the community and to guide it over time by responding 

to barriers to implementation, developing sound policy, 

lending support to the project where and when appropriate, and taking general ownership of the communitywide response. 

u The steering committee also is charged with creating 

and maintaining interagency and community relationships that facilitate program development. For example, 

the committee could create coordinated outreach and 

law enforcement policies and practices and facilitate 

the development of community groups such as block 

watches, neighbors/mothers against gangs, or other 

community alliances and coalitions. 

u The program is supported and sustained across all levels 

(top, intermediate, and street/line) of the criminal and 

juvenile justice systems, schools, community-based and 

grassroots organizations, and government. 
Best Practices for Planning and Implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model • 7 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n	 Individuals with influence within the community, including residents, and representatives of grassroots 

community groups, neighborhood associations, religious organizations, and advocacy groups. 

Steering committees have been most successful when 

they have established a formal structure, such as 

adoption of bylaws describing how the committee would 

function. Using an approach such as Robert’s Rules of Order provides a way to consider opposing opinions and 

can assist the committee in reaching consensus on difficult issues. Execution of memorandums of understanding (MOUs) among key agencies commits them to 

assessment tasks and long-term roles in implementing 

comprehensive strategies to address identified gang 

problems. 

Highlights From the Field—Convening a 


Steering Committee
 

Richmond, VA. The organizational structure in Richmond includes an executive committee, leadership 

committee, and four subcommittees to help with 

oversight, strategic planning, and implementation. 

Even though membership remained consistent for 

the most part, there were some major changes in 

top leadership during the funded period. These 

changes included a change in governor, two attorneys general, a mayor, and a new police chief. The 

strength of the collaborative partnership initially 

formed allowed for a smooth transition during 

these changes and allowed staff to remain on task. 

Pittsburgh, PA. Pittsburgh’s Gang-Free Schools 

program initiated memorandums of understanding 

between steering committee members and key 

agencies that enabled the project to maintain momentum during a citywide financial crisis and sustain participation from agencies that withdrew 

from other initiatives. 

Administering the Program 

Selecting the appropriate lead agency and program director are crucial steps in ensuring program success. 

Lead Agency 

Unlike other initiatives, the lead agency in these multidisciplinary programs does not assume control of the initiative, but instead provides an administrative framework to 

facilitate the work of the intervention team and the 

steering committee. A wide variety of agency types have 

led these initiatives. No matter which agency assumes 

primary responsibility for this initiative, its credibility and 

influence within the community are directly correlated to 

the success of planning and implementation activities. 

The lead agency has a number of important 

responsibilities: 

n	 Providing a secure location to house client intake information, consent forms, and intervention plans. 

n	 Tracking the activities of the partnering agencies. 

n	 Coordinating the activities and meetings of the intervention team and the steering committee. 

n	 Providing an administrative framework for hiring staff, 

if necessary. 

n	 Administering funds and grant contracts as directed by 

the steering committee. 

As set forth in table 1, experience has shown that each 

type of agency has its advantages and disadvantages. 

Each community has varying needs based on existing 

community dynamics (e.g., local politics, existing collaborations, agencies’ management capacities, and the location of the target area), which will inevitably influence 

the selection of the lead agency for the program. 

Lead agencies will incur significant costs when building 

and administering the multiagency infrastructure of the 

program. These costs are closely associated with the 

gang coordinator’s position. In OJJDP’s GRP demonstration, approximately $150,000 was budgeted for the position and necessary support. Although no site used all of 

those funds in any given year, the value of a full-time 

employee’s ability to focus partners on the message, 
 

 

Table 1: Lead Agency Advantages/Disadvantages: Program Implementation Characteristics 

Lead Agency Advantages Disadvantages 

Law •	Law	enforcement	involved	in	planning	and	 •	Community	members	may	not	understand	the	

Enforcement implementation 

•	Processes	in	place	for	crime	and	gang	

information sharing 

•	Greater	access	to	daily	updates	regarding	

criminal activity 

•	Access	to	financial	and	business	management

support 

role of program personnel 

•	It	may	be	difficult	to	overcome	distrust	between	

outreach workers and law enforcement, resulting 

in obstacles to information sharing 

Prosecutors •	Able	to	leverage	the	participation	of	law	 •	They	may	be	perceived	as	interested	only	in	

and Other enforcement agencies prosecuting/incarcerating gang members 

Criminal •	Access	to	police	incident	reports	and	law	 •	They	may	not	have	a	strong	connection	to	the	

Justice enforcement data target community 

Entities •	Access	to	financial	and	business	management	

support 

•	There	may	be	historic	distrust	between	criminal

justice entities and service providers 

City •	Access	to	key	personnel	in	city	departments	and	 •	Shifts	in	political	leadership	can	destabilize	the	

Government elected officials 

•	Access	to	sensitive	data	from	law	enforcement

•	Credibility	and	buy-in	from	city	agencies

•	Access	to	financial	and	business	management	

support 

•	Ability	to	set	policy	for	key	agencies	

program 

•	City	policies	and/or	budget	constraints	may	

make it difficult to hire personnel 

School •	Buy-in	from	school	administrators	to	ensure	 •	They	may	be	unwilling	to	provide	services	to	

Districts local school participation in the intervention 

team 

•	Access	to	educational	data

•	Large	enough	to	absorb	the	program	once	other	

funds are spent 

•	Access	to	financial	and	business	management	

support 

youth not enrolled in school 

•	Decisionmaking	may	be	bogged	down	by	

district policies 

•	Hiring	policies	may	make	it	difficult	for	school	

districts to employ outreach workers 

Local •	Working	knowledge	of	the	target	area •	Agencies	may	lack	experience	in	working	with	

Service •	Experience	with	community	planning	 gang-involved clients 

Providers and action •	Gang	programming	may	not	be	given	a	priority

•	They	lack	administrative	structure	to	manage

funds/grants 

State •	Resources	and	credibility	 •	The	lead	agency	may	be	located	well	away	

Agencies •	Expertise	in	grant	management	and	

administration 

•	Access	to	financial	and	business	

management support 

from the actual program activities 

•	State	agencies	may	often	be	perceived	as	

outsiders without a strong connection to the 

target community 

•	They	have	less	awareness	of	local	politics	and	

historical issues 

8 • Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model 
Best Practices for Planning and Implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model • 9 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Compr The Comprehensive Gang Model in Action— ehensive Gang Model in Action—

OJJDP’s Gang Reduction Pr s Gang Reduction Program

Richmond, Virginia 

The Richmond project (Gang Reduction and Intervention 

Program [GRIP]) target area consists of two police reporting sectors in south Richmond. The target area is a 

suburban-type community of single-family homes and 

apartments. The area is transitioning from a middle-class 

to a working-class population, with an increase in Hispanic 

residents. Traditional “homegrown” African-American 

gangs also reside in the area. Law enforcement reported 

representation and activity by members of Hispanic gangs 

with roots in the western United States and Central America. Law enforcement is concerned about gang crime and 

delinquency directed against Hispanic workers in the area, 

who are often reluctant to report crimes. The traditional 

African-American gangs are the prevalent gang presence 

in membership and activity. 

Prevention activities are aimed at the broad population of 

families and youth who are at risk of becoming involved in 

gang and delinquent activity. Prevention activities include: 

u One-Stop Resource Center—an information and referral 

case management entry point to prevention services. 

u Prenatal and infancy support. 

u English as a Second Language for Hispanic residents. 

u Spanish as a Second Language, with an emphasis on 

providing language skills to those serving the Hispanic 

population. 

u Class Action Summer Camp. 

u Richmond school resource officers train the Class Action 

curriculum in target-area schools under the auspices of 

the Gang Reduction Program. 

u Public awareness programs and community events. 

u School-based educational and family wraparound 

services. 

u Sports and life-skill activities and training. 

u Theater group to showcase issues involving ganginvolved youth. 

u Gang awareness training to community and service 

providers. 

u Hispanic liaison to link the program to local Hispanic 

residents. 

u Mentoring/tutoring for youth at risk of gang 

involvement. 

u Immigration services to Hispanic residents. 

u Afterschool and summer programs for elementary and 

middle school youth. 

u Arts and recreation for at-risk youth. 

Intervention activities are supported by a multidisciplinary 

intervention team that conducts case-management activities, including street outreach to support gang-involved 

youth, with the goal of providing an alternative to gang 

membership. Activities with individual youth are targeted 

toward that goal and tracked via case-management software. Related activities include: 

u Job training development and placement through 

public/private partnerships. 

u Entrepreneurial training for at-risk youth. 

u Role modeling and mentoring. 

u Truancy and dropout prevention programs.
 

u Mental health and substance abuse services.
 

u Educational support and GED services.
 

u Tattoo removal.
 

u Community service projects.
 

Suppression activities include directed police patrols, community policing, community awareness, supporting increased law enforcement intelligence sharing, establishing 

a multiagency law enforcement and prosecution response 

to target gang leaders, increasing the number of school 

resource officers in target area schools, and expanding 

neighborhood watch teams in partnership with the Richmond Police Department and community members. GRIP 

also supports police department review of crime data for 

evaluation purposes. 

Reentry activities are closely tied to the multidisciplinary 

intervention team and include self-sufficiency skill training 

and job training and placement. Support services—such as 

food, transportation, and other services—are available. 
10 • Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model 

 

keep promised work on schedule, and assure that problems were quickly brought to the attention of senior political or operational leadership far exceeded the cost in 

dollars. Moreover, in Los Angeles and Richmond, the site 

coordinators have become part of their employing agencies, because their leadership does not want to return to 

their prior way of doing business. In North Miami Beach, 

the coordinator and others are forming a nonprofit organization to raise money and continue the work with support from their law enforcement partners. 

Highlights From the Field—Lead Agency 

Richmond, VA. Richmond’s GRP demonstration designated the Virginia Attorney General’s office as 

the lead agency, allowing the project to interact 

with a larger number of partners. The experience 

and credibility offered through oversight by the 

attorney general’s office allowed the project to leverage greater support. 

Los Angeles, CA, and Houston, TX. The lead agency 

for both the Los Angeles and the Houston demonstrations was the mayor’s office. That office was 

able to influence and coalesce the community 

around the project. 

Miami-Dade, FL. The Miami-Dade County Public 

Schools served as the lead agency for its community’s Gang-Free Schools project. This agency was 

able to provide consistent and wide-reaching school 

district support that enabled the project to set up a 

community-based facility where key partners utilized an existing school district property to 

co-locate. 

Pittsburgh, PA. The Pittsburgh Gang-Free Schools 

project benefitted from the Pittsburgh Public 

Schools serving as lead agency because it allowed 

project staff to access crucial school-level data 

about clients involved in the program and leverage 

districtwide services. 

Program Director 

The program director is the key to successful implementation of the Comprehensive Gang Model. Selection of a 

program director with specific skills and abilities is of paramount importance. Best results have been obtained 

where the steering committee and the lead agency jointly develop a written job description for this position and, 

in concert, select the program director. This step may be 

difficult, especially where funding for that position is being raised through joint contributions or as a result of a 

grant. In Los Angeles, the GRP coordinator position was 

of great interest to the police department and mayor’s 

office.	While	each	agency	attempted	to	exercise	substantial control on the selection process, OJJDP, by virtue of 

its funding control, mediated the discussions. The result 

was that both agencies have been well served by a talented and committed coordinator who has remained in 

place during the entire 4-year program. 

Program directors with these skills have produced the 

best results: 

n	 The skills to understand and work within complex systems such as criminal justice, education, and social 

services. 

n	 An understanding of data collection and analysis protocols, as well as how to read, interpret, synthesize, 

and clearly explain data orally and in writing to a 

wide range of audiences. 

n	 The skills to understand and develop short- and longterm plans for implementation. 

n	 The skills to move flexibly among a variety of complex 

tasks—from public speaking and writing grants to 

managing program funds and effectively supervising 

personnel. 

n	 The skills to work well with personnel at different levels of responsibility, from agency heads to grassroots 

personnel, and from a variety of disciplines: law enforcement, education, social services, justice systems, 

and outreach. 

n	 Meeting facilitation, conflict resolution, and consensusbuilding skills that enable the program director to 

serve as an intermediary between agencies, resolve 

differences of opinion during meetings, and effectively 

address potentially inflammatory and emotional 

topics. 
Best Practices for Planning and Implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model • 11 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n	 The skills to understand the risk factors leading to Assessing the Gang Problem 

gang involvement, local gang activities and gang 

Conducting a comprehensive assessment of the commu­ research, community dynamics and history, and prenity’s gang problem is the foundation for planning and vention/intervention/suppression strategies; and to 

implementing	the	Comprehensive	Gang	Model.	Where	 explain these concepts to others from a variety of 

assessments were done methodically and comprehen­ educational and cultural backgrounds. 

sively, efficient and effective targeting resulted. The 

n The skills to supervise, engage, and motivate staff assessment process helped projects determine types and 

from a variety of agencies and racial/cultural/economic levels of gang activity, gang crime patterns, community 

backgrounds, including staff over whom the director perceptions, and service gaps. The assessment also assistmay not have direct supervisory authority. This is espe- ed steering committees in identifying target populations 

cially important when working with outreach staff to be served, understanding why those populations merwho may have prior offending histories, prior gang ited attention, and making the best use of available

resources. affiliation, and unstable work histories. 

Members of the steering committee must share power Program directors who generate passion and enthusiand influence during the assessment phase. Real power­ asm, and who inspire others, achieve solid results. The 

sharing among key agencies at this juncture has not only importance of the program director’s role cannot be 

been shown to have an influence on data collection, but overstated. 

OJJDP Compr OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model ehensive Gang Model

Core Strategy: Organizational Change and Development 

Critical Elements 

u Policies and procedures that result in the most effective responsibility for social intervention and outreach 

use of available and potential resources within and workers assist with the suppression of serious crime and 

across agencies are developed and implemented. violence). 

u The policies and practices of organizations, particularly u A case management system and associated data system 

of agencies providing intervention team staff, are are established so that contacts and services by all memadapted to conform to the goals and objectives of the bers of the intervention team can be monitored for 

project as identified through the strategic planning purposes of effective targeting, tracking youth entry 

exercises. into and exit from the program, and measuring outcomes at individual and program area levels. u Each program, agency, or community representative on 

the steering committee ensures that its internal units u Staff development and training for the intervention 

are cooperating with and supporting the work of the team are conducted for the different types of team parintervention team. ticipants separately and collectively, especially regarding data sharing, joint planning, and implementation u Various agencies learn not only to understand the com­ activities. plex nature of the gang problem and cooperate closely 

with each other in the development and implementa- u Special training, close supervision, and administrative 

tion of the program, but also to assist other organiza- arrangements are established, particularly for youth 

tions, particularly agencies involved with the outreach workers and law enforcement, to carry out 

intervention team, to achieve their respective mission their collaborative roles in a mutually trustworthy 

objectives. fashion. 

u In the process of collaboration, a team approach means u Organizational policies and practices become inclusive 

a maximum sharing of information about targeted and community oriented with special reference to the 

youth such that activities of team members are modi- interests, needs, and cultural background of local resified in a generalist direction (e.g., police take some dents, including the targeted youth. 
12 • Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

has been particularly beneficial in forming and maintaining the partnerships needed for success over the life of 

the project. 

Communities should make sure that each participating 

agency benefits from collaboration. Clear communication 

is critical. Simply assuming that overall goals will be 

meaningful to all partners may result in some partners 

feeling discouraged or that they are being asked to do 

work that only benefits other groups or interests. Since 

partners interested in addressing gangs share many interests in helping the at-risk population, and almost all work 

that improves the community or situation of at-risk kids 

adds to anti-gang efforts, finding shared goals need not 

be difficult. Once each partner identifies their interest 

and goals, they should keep a record of how well those 

interests are met. Meeting goals may involve raising 

funds to help a service provider, increasing the number of 

volunteers who provide specific aid, or increasing local or 

national media exposure. Finally, collecting baseline data 

will help demonstrate the value of each partner’s work 

and the collaboration’s ability to leverage resources. 

Selecting representatives from a cross-section of agencies 

to work on each assessment task will produce stronger 

coalitions. The steering committee should designate an 

agency to coordinate the assessment process. 

Prior to beginning work on the assessment, the 

steering committee should identify the scope and extent 

of	the	assessment.	Will	the	assessment	be	conducted	

communitywide? If a smaller area of the community is to 

n n n The Compr The Comprehensive Gang Model in Action— ehensive Gang Model in Action—

OJJDP’s Gang Reduction Pr s Gang Reduction Program

Los Angeles, California 

The Los Angeles Gang Reduction Program site is located in 

the Boyle Heights area, 3 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. It is home to a large immigrant population made up 

mostly of residents from Mexico and Central America. Five 

major	gangs	inhabit	the	target	area,	including	White	

Fence (established in the 1930s), Varrio Nuevo Estrada 

“VNE” (established in the 1970s and inhabiting the Estrada 

Courts Public Housing Development), Indiana Dukes, Opal 

Street,	and	Eighth	Street	(inhabiting	Wyvernwood	Apartments). A number of street-front, grassroots community 

organizations, health providers, churches, and youth centers are located in the neighborhood and have a history of 

involvement in gang prevention and intervention activities. Five public elementary and middle schools are located 

in the target area, with more than 5,000 students enrolled. 

The Los Angeles Police Department’s Community Law Enforcement and Recovery (CLEAR) Program is a targeted 

gang suppression program and operates as a partner in 

the Boyle Heights community. 

Prevention activities focused on providing youth with alternatives and support to prevent or resist gang involvement include: 

u Early College Awareness and Literacy Program for fifth 

grade students and their parents. 

u Afterschool programs for elementary and middle school 

youth at high risk of gang membership. 

u “The Story Project”—an afterschool multimedia communication program to encourage school attendance 

and increase students’ grade point average. 

u Prenatal and infancy support for high-risk mothers to 

reduce risk factors related to gang involvement. 

u Intensive case management for youth and families 

residing in the target area, including mentoring for 

high-risk males ages 10–14. 

u Gang awareness training for schools, residents, local 

businesses, and parents. 

Intervention and reentry activities are primarily case managed by a multidisciplinary team. Other intervention services for gang members in the Los Angeles plan include: 

u Individual and group counseling for behavior, substance 

abuse, and other needs. 

u Educational and vocational training.
 

u Tattoo removal.
 

u Anger management and conflict resolution.
 

Suppression activities are conducted in the target area by 


the CLEAR program. CLEAR involves targeted gang enforcement, prosecution, and community awareness.
 
Best Practices for Planning and Implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model • 13 

be assessed, some preassessment work should be done, 

including a scan of overall violent crime statistics, to identify an appropriate target area. 

OJJDP	developed	the	Web-based	Socioeconomic	Mapping	

and Resource Topography (SMART) system, which provides a substantial amount of community-level data, from 

the U.S. Census to Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data, and 

a Community Disadvantage Index (a research and data 

derived index that provides a way to compare the 

strength of one community against another). The SMART 

system is free of charge and available online (go to the 

OJJDP	Web	site,	http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp,	and	

select “Tools”). 

Because of the importance of the assessment, it is critical 

that the steering committee allots sufficient time to conduct data collection and analysis. The more extensive the 

assessment, the more time-consuming and expensive this 

process will be. Because most communities do not have 

unlimited funds, best results were produced when the 

steering committee identified and prioritized critical data 

to be collected and set a reasonable timeline for these 

activities. This timeline may range from 3 months to more 

than a year, depending on the scope of the assessment. 

Data collection was initiated more quickly and proceeded 

more smoothly when the steering committee established 

written agreements with the key agencies. These written 

agreements identified the types of data to be collected, 

specified whether an archival record review was needed, 

and indicated the time frame within which the review 

should be conducted. If analysis and explanation of the 

data are required, the written agreement should also set 

forth these responsibilities. Furthermore, based on experiences at multiple sites, the written agreement ensures 

that the data, once collected, are available to all parties 

and cannot be hidden or removed from the assessment. 

Progress is enhanced when the steering committee agencies agree to underwrite or conduct pieces of the assessment and to create contracts for specific tasks that the 

assessment requires. Ideally, these written agreements 

will also commit key agencies to ongoing data collection. 

To ensure that data are collected consistently and without discrepancies, and where State law does not define 

these terms, the steering committee must establish definitions of “gang,” “gang member,” and “gang crime.” 

In many cases, it may be necessary to conduct a manual 

archival record review of law enforcement data during 

the initial assessment. Most sites found these manual archival record reviews to be a necessary, but expensive and 

time-consuming, process. They also found it best to identify protocols that, when key agencies and the steering 

committee put them into place, would make it easier to 

collect data in the future. Some sites ultimately amended 

computerized police incident reports to include a “gangrelated” check box. Other sites established protocols to 

channel specific types of reports to the gang unit for 

regular review. 

Assistance from a local research partner trained in statistical analysis can benefit an assessment greatly. Some data, 

such as gang crime data, community demographic data, 

and school statistics, can almost certainly be collected 

without a research partner. But sites planning to interview gang members; conduct focus groups with parents, 

community residents, or school staff members; or use indepth survey instruments should consider engaging a research partner with some expertise in data analysis. That 

partner can work through processes such as obtaining 

consent and ensuring and protecting confidentiality. The 

research partner also should perform more complex data 

analyses, as required. As with other service providers, 

staff should establish a detailed scope of work or a job 

description for the research partner. The scope of work 

may include a summary of the data reports to be developed and a timeline for completion. The scope of work 

also should include a process for addressing issues that 

may arise with the research partner’s quality of work and 

timeliness. 

In addition to collecting the data mentioned above, sites 

that conducted comprehensive assessments found that 

they were better equipped during the planning and implementation process to design appropriate responses, 
14 • Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model 

target appropriate populations to serve, and implement 

program activities if they did the following: 

n	 Investigated underlying demographic factors that 

affect local gang problems. 

n	 Measured the extent of gang activity in schools. 

n	 Included qualitative educational factors affecting 

local youth. 

n	 Surveyed residents and youth about perceptions of 

gangs. 

n	 Inventoried community resources to address gangs. 

Highlights From the Field—Assessing the 

Gang Problem 

Los Angeles, CA. The Los Angeles GRP project identified gaps in services by conducting a community 

resource assessment and holding focus groups in 

the community. This information helped the project 

in the development of the strategic plan and mapping out funding levels for each of the program’s 

components—primary prevention, secondary prevention, intervention, re-entry, and suppression. 

Richmond, VA. An assessment of police incident reports for gang-affiliated offenses led to a change 

in the way that the police department captured 

gang-related incidents. Reports now require officers 

to input any information that assists with identifying gang affiliation. 

Pittsburgh, PA. In Pittsburgh, the assessment process used in the Gang-Free Schools project led to 

extensive changes in the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police’s methods of capturing gang crime data and the 

creation of a new gang intelligence collection system. Pittsburgh Public Schools surveyed all students 

in three grades (5, 7, and 9) across the entire school 

district. These student surveys helped the community address widespread denial. 

Houston, TX. In Houston, the GFS demonstration 

conducted an archival review of police incident reports that revealed that more than 80 percent of 

police incidents involving gangs were missed in the 

existing data collection system, and has led to routine record reviews by the gang enforcement squad 

in the target community. 

Planning for Implementation 

The steering committee serves as the primary decisionmaking body for implementation planning. It should use 

the assessment as a guide in formulating a strategic plan 

to mitigate the community’s gang problem. 

The steering committee should synthesize data collected 

from the assessment into a usable form for planning purposes. Specifically, the steering committee needs to know 

the following information: 

n	 Types of gang-related crime. 

n	 Patterns of change in gang incident rates. 

n	 Locations of gang crime. 

n	 Increases/decreases in numbers of gangs and gang 

members. 

n	 Level of citizen concern about gang activity. 

n	 Community perceptions of gang activity. 

n	 Gang-related activity in schools. 

n	 Changes in community demographics. 

Planning objectives are used to: 

n	 Determine the criteria for targeting clients that this 

multidisciplinary approach will serve (age, race, gender, gang affiliation, etc.). 

n	 Determine a geographic area of the community to be 

served (if necessary). 

n	 Determine the goals of the program; intervention, 

prevention, and suppression strategies; and types of 

services to be provided. Activities, goals, and objectives 

also are identified based on the problems described 

during the gang assessment. 

n	 Determine the targets for intervention by the multidisciplinary team and the composition of the team itself. 
Best Practices for Planning and Implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model • 15 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n	 Assign staff members to an intervention team to coordinate provision of services to clients and manage 

client cases. 

Practices that have proved helpful to the planning process include: 

n	 Providing steering committee members with a copy of 

the assessment report and thoroughly discussing the 

data and the problems identified as a result of the 

data review. 

n	 Conducting training on the program model with each 

of the partnering agencies prior to the planning 

process. 

n	 Introducing the model in a formal manner with multimedia materials, such as OJJDP’s online Strategic Planning Tool (http://www.iir.com/nygc/tool/), which helps 

identify programs and compare existing community 

resources with existing needs. 

The Compr The Comprehensive Gang Model in Action— ehensive Gang Model in Action—

OJJDP’s Gang Reduction Pr s Gang Reduction Program

North Miami Beach, Florida 

The North Miami Beach Gang Reduction Program, known 

as PanZou (reclaiming the community), target area comprises the city of North Miami Beach, which is located in 

northeast Miami-Dade County, FL. The area was originally 

a middle-class retirement area with few services for youth 

and families. The community has changed over the last 20 

years to a working-class area populated by a largely Haitian population, and residents have to rely on services provided in other areas of Miami-Dade County. Transportation 

is an issue, as is the lack of service providers who are familiar with the primary Haitian language, Creole. Local law 

enforcement reports indicate that the city population is 

approximately 50 percent Haitian, with undocumented 

Haitians representing an estimated additional 10 to 15 

percent. The city economy is primarily service oriented 

without the presence of any major industries. 

Prevention activities are aimed at the broad at-risk population, with several appropriate activities also available to 

gang youth being served at the intervention level. The 

project also is involved in various community awareness 

activities. A One-Stop Resource Center is operating in the 

target area. Prevention activities include: 

u Mentoring for youth at risk of gang involvement. 

u Early literacy for Haitian youth. 

u Youth empowerment (life skill classes) and midnight 

basketball. 

u Strengthening Families Program, focused on parenting 

skills and reducing substance abuse and behavioral 

problems in youth ages 10–14. 

u Intensive case management. 

u Alternatives to suspension for middle and high 

school youth. 

u Truancy interdiction. 

u Developing Intelligent Voices of America (DIVAs) for 

young women (ages 8–18) to develop social, emotional, 

and behavioral competence. 

u Man-Up! For young men between the ages of 12–18 to 

develop social, emotional, and behavioral competence. 

u Increased recreational opportunities for elementary and 

middle school youth. 

u Self-sufficiency training.
 

Intervention activities are centered on a multidisciplinary 


team providing intensive case management and street outreach to gang members and their families. Activities 


include:
 

u Substance abuse counseling.
 

u On-the-job training. 

u Referrals to community agencies, including counseling 

and tattoo removal. 

u Six Rounds to Success Boxing Program (mentoring and 

physical and boxing skills). 

u Community service opportunities. 

Suppression activities involve additional directed foot and 

bike patrols in “hot spot” gang-crime areas, identification 

of gang leaders, and coordination with juvenile probation 

on gang activity. In partnership with the Gang Reduction 

Program, the North Miami Beach Police Department created a specialized gang unit, increased gang intelligence 

gathering, and increased participation with the local Multiagency Gang Task Force. 
16 • Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n	 Engaging representatives from other communities that 

have successfully implemented comprehensive models 

to provide training and guidance on program planning and implementation. 

n	 Attending neighborhood association, chamber of commerce, and other community meetings on a regular 

basis to hear their ideas on gang programming. 

Highlights From the Field—Planning for 

Implementation 

Gang Reduction Program. All GRP projects found 

that involving individuals from experienced sites 

was effective in training on implementation activities such as the operation of the multidisciplinary 

intervention team. 

Richmond, VA. Richmond invited approximately 

100 people to participate on their four working subcommittees broken down into the following groups: 

prevention, intervention, suppression, and reentry. 

The subcommittees consisted of State and local government, nonprofit, for-profit, faith-based, and 

community organizations. They determined gaps in 

community services and made recommendations. 

Participation by these large groups allowed for 

greater input from the community and a commitment to seeing the program succeed. 

Los Angeles, CA. The Los Angeles GRP used the 

community resource assessment and focus groups 

to help develop their strategic plan and map out 

funding levels for each programmatic area of the 

project. 

Riverside, CA. Riverside, one of OJJDP’s initial demonstration sites, placed emphasis on training steering committee members on the Model and the 

importance of their roles as decisionmakers and in 

oversight of the project. An orientation on the project was also implemented for each new steering 

committee member. 

Implementing the Program 

The implementation process is accelerated when the 

steering committee agencies, the lead agency, and the 

program director conduct startup and capacity-building 

activities prior to beginning services. These activities 

include: 

n	 Developing contracting protocols and/or requests for 

proposals. 

n	 Developing program policies and procedures. 

n	 Selecting intervention team members. 

n	 Determining what training is needed for key agencies 

to serve gang-involved youth and how and by whom 

this training will be conducted. 

n	 Determining sources of clients and referral processes. 

n	 Creating a consent and intake process for clients. 

n	 Determining how outcome data from clients will be 

collected, stored, and analyzed. 

n	 Developing job descriptions for key personnel. 

n	 Training intervention team members on their roles 

and responsibilities. 

Maintaining the Steering Committee 

The role of the steering committee during program implementation may include: 

n	 Making decisions regarding program changes or 

expansion. 

n	 Ensuring that the program is responsive to the needs 

of program clients and the community. 

n	 Ensuring that key agencies continue to participate in 

and support the program. 

n	 Conducting training and activities to increase community awareness of the program. 

n	 Identifying ways to ensure long-term sustainability. 

The members of the steering committee should be champions of the program as a vehicle for change within the 

community. The chair and/or cochair should be passionate 

and committed to the program and should work to ensure that the steering committee maintains its 

momentum. 
Best Practices for Planning and Implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model • 17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the steering committee’s role shifts from planning to 

implementing gang strategies, it may be difficult to keep 

committee members engaged. Strategies used to maintain effective steering committees have included: 

n	 Holding meetings consistently at a regular time/date. 

n	 Developing a newsletter for program partners. 

n	 Engaging steering committee members in gang awareness education and community mobilization activities. 

n	 Identifying an active and committed chairperson with 

positive visibility in the community. 

n	 Providing a formal orientation process for new 

members. 

n	 Holding annual retreats to identify future activities 

and reinvigorate the group. 

n	 Making personal contact with all members periodically 

(program director). 

n	 Acknowledging members’ key contributions. 

n	 Providing members with written materials and reports 

on program activities in advance of meetings. 

n	 Using meeting time productively—not to report on 

activities, but for decisionmaking. 

It is also the role of the steering committee to plan for 

sustaining the program. Sustainability planning should 

begin during the assessment and planning phase and 

continue throughout the life of collaboration. Ideally, 

the implementation plan developed during the initial 

planning stage should include goals related to sustainability, such as ensuring ongoing data collection and 

analysis for the purpose of self-evaluation. 

In FY 2008, OJJDP pilot tested two faith-based and community organization sustainability training events. (Information from these trainings is available on the OJJDP 

Web	site.)	Any	program	targeting	children,	youth,	or	

families must be able to sustain efforts over time. Failure 

to sustain a program may do harm—it might inhibit personal action or reaffirm the notion that no one is willing 

to make a long-term commitment to the child or the 

community. 

As partners come on board, they should be asked what 

they plan on doing to sustain their involvement for the 

long term and whether they can help other partners do 

the same. In Richmond, VA, OJJDP partnered with the 

OJJDP Compr OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model ehensive Gang Model

Core Strategy: Provision of Opportunities 

Critical Elements 

u The community, through an appointed steering committee, develops a variety of educational, training, 

and employment programs or services targeted to 

gang youth and those at high risk of gang involvement. 

u Special access to social and economic opportunities in 

the community is provided for gang-involved youth 

and youth at high risk of gang involvement. 

u Opportunities and services are provided in such a way 

that they do not encapsulate, segregate, or alienate 

gang youth or those at high risk from mainstream 

institutions. 

u Mechanisms for identifying and addressing youth at 

risk of gang involvement are in place in the elementary, 

middle, and high schools within the targeted area(s). 

u Education, training, and job opportunity strategies are 

integrated with those of social services, particularly 

youth outreach work, along with close supervision 

and social control, as necessary. 

u Local residents and businesses are supportive and 

involved in the provision of educational and training 

opportunities and job contacts for targeted gang 

youth and those at high risk. 

u Access to social opportunities also is provided to 

other gang members and associates of targeted 

youth. 
18 • Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model 

Virginia Attorney General and the Mayor of Richmond to 

hold a public education campaign for local organizations 

that support local programming and social services. The 

event brought partners together with funders and individuals	with	access	to	a	wide	variety	of	resources.	While	

OJJDP did not play any role in matching partners’ needs 

to resources, this sort of public education often has that 

effect. Partners should consider how they will keep their 

communities aware of their work and of their needs. 

New members should be trained prior to attending steering committee meetings. Providing orientation to new 

members is vital to ensuring that the multidisciplinary 

gang program remains true to identified problems and 

long-term goals. This orientation should include providing new members with copies of the assessment, the implementation plan, and an overview of current activities. 

Other ways to keep stakeholders engaged in the steering 

committee include: 

n	 Holding periodic elections for chair and/or cochair. 

n	 Conducting refresher training on program goals and 

the program model. 

n	 Ensuring that regular steering committee attendance 

is addressed in MOUs between the key agencies. 

n	 Directing contacts by the chair and/or cochair(s) with 

key agencies that are not regularly participating. 

Elections and subsequent turnover in political offices can 

affect the steering committee. Agency responsibilities 

may shift under new administrations. Changes in political 

leadership may also mean shifts in programmatic and 

funding priorities. OJJDP encountered this situation in 

both Los Angeles and Richmond. From the outset, the 

OJJDP administrator supported addressing as early as possible the leadership issue, both on the community and 

political level. Both Los Angeles and Richmond leadership 

were told that they had to agree up front to do business 

differently in the pilot areas and to recognize and accept 

that by focusing on a particular area the project would 

probably have some impact on surrounding areas. This is 

because gangs will respond to increased attention in the 

pilot area by moving away. Leaders must also accept that 

funding was limited to filling gaps in existing programs 

and not creating new “mouths” to feed. Leaders also 

committed to develop ways to sustain what they built 

during the program with their own funds or private community resources. 

These discussions took substantial time and required 

high-level involvement. In Los Angeles, the police and 

mayor had significant input about whether to accept the 

funding under the conditions offered, and the city council weighed in and considered the issue for nearly 4 

months. 

Having existing MOUs or written agreements can help 

these multidisciplinary programs remain a priority despite 

changes in administration. Other activities that have been 

shown to be helpful in maintaining momentum include: 

n	 Ongoing data collection. 

n	 Self-evaluation to show program success. 

n	 Regular reporting on outcomes to steering committee 

members and elected officials. 

n	 Recognition of the achievements of individual clients. 

n	 Regular awards ceremonies to highlight the contributions of key individuals and agencies and the accomplishments of program clients. 

n	 Regular briefings by program staff to key agencies and 

elected officials. 

Planning for personnel and leadership changes must be 

part of any long-term endeavor. One of the most important reasons for continuing any program or effort is if it 

saves money or effectively leverages limited resources. No 

one will end programs that can document that they are 

saving taxpayer dollars and increasing public safety. 
Best Practices for Planning and Implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model • 19 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Intervention Team 

Highlights From the Field—Maintaining the 

Steering Committee The intervention team is a primary component of the 

comprehensive approach. The steering committee should Riverside, CA. During implementation, many steering committee members stopped attending meet- determine the composition of this team and assign repreings because they did not feel they were needed at sentatives to serve on it. Because the intervention team 

the table after the planning stage. The project di- brings together individuals from disparate disciplines and rector held face-to-face meetings with former and experiences, building a functional team is probably the current members to provide current information 


about the project and their role. most complex aspect of the model.
 

Pittsburgh, PA. Steering committee members were The intervention team: provided a packet of meeting materials prior to 


meetings to ensure that time was not wasted durn Identifies appropriate youth/clients/individuals for this ing the meeting. The steering committee chair ensured that the meeting time was reserved for program.
 

substantive issues impacting the project. 


Richmond, VA. n Engages these people to work with the team. Staff are extremely dedicated to 

maintaining and growing partnerships. In addition, 

staff receive requests from organizations and per- n Assesses them on an individual basis to determine 

sons who wish to become involved in the collabora- their needs, goals, and issues.
 

tive partnership. 


n Develops an individualized intervention plan for each 

client. 

OJJDP Compr OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model ehensive Gang Model

Core Strategy: Social Intervention 

Critical Elements 

u Youth-serving agencies, schools, grassroots groups, u Street outreach is established to focus on core gang 

faith-based and other organizations provide social youth and later on high-risk youth, with special capacity 

services to gang youth and youth at high risk of gang to reach both nonadjudicated and adjudicated youth. 

involvement as identified through street outreach u The primary focus of street outreach services is ensuring and driven by the problem assessment findings. safety while remaining aware of and linking youth and 

u Social intervention is directed to the target youth indi- families to educational preparation, prevocational or 

vidually and not primarily to the gang as a unit, al- vocational training, job development, job referral, parthough understanding and sensitivity to gang structure ent training, mentoring, family counseling, drug treatand “system” are essential to influencing individual ment, tattoo removal, and other services in appropriate 

gang youth and providing effective intervention. ways. 

u All key organizations located in the target area are u Outreach activities such as recreation and arts are careencouraged to make needed services and facilities fully arranged so as not to become a primary focus but 

available to gang youth and youth at high risk of a means to establish interpersonal relationships, degang involvement. velop trust, and provide access to opportunities and 

other essential resources or services. u Targeted youth (and their families) are provided with 

a variety of services that assist them to adopt prosocial u In-school and afterschool prevention and education 

values and to access services that will meet their social, programs such as Gang Resistance Education and Traineducational, and vocational needs. Mental health ser- ing (G.R.E.A.T.), anti-bullying, peer mediation, tutoring, 

vices are a critical ingredient. and others are offered within the target area(s), as are 

community programs to educate parents, businesses, 

and service providers. 
20 • Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model 

n	 Ensures that multiple services in the individualized intervention plan are integrated. 

The team should work together to determine whether 

referred individuals are appropriate for their services 

and then work as a team to serve these clients. 

Key agencies should quantify and clarify their participation on the intervention team through MOUs (previously 

discussed under steering committee). These memorandums should address information sharing/confidentiality 

issues, the role each member will play in the team, the 

member’s participation level on the team, and other responsibilities the member’s agency may have in intervention team activities. 

At a minimum, the following key agencies that are crucial 

to an effective intervention team should be represented 

on the team: 

n	 Law enforcement representatives involved in gang investigation and enforcement. 

n	 Juvenile and adult probation/parole officers who will 

have frequent contact with program clients. 

n	 School officials who can access student educational 

data for program clients and leverage educational 

services. 

n	 Appropriate social service and/or mental health providers who can leverage services and provide outcome 

information to the team. 

n	 A representative who can assist in preparing program 

clients for employment and find them jobs. 

n	 Outreach workers who can directly connect to program clients on the street, in their homes, or at school. 

Other agencies may be asked to participate on an asneeded basis, including faith-based organizations, 

recreational programs, community development organizations, and grassroots organizations. 

Based on data collected during the assessment process, 

screening criteria for clients should be regulated by the 

steering committee. The screening criteria are designed 

to help the team narrow down possible referrals to ensure that they serve the most appropriate clients for gang 

intervention. Items to consider when developing target 

criteria include a demographic profile from police incident reports, an aggregate demographic profile of 

known gang members from gang intelligence files, and 

information collected from student surveys and school 

data. The screening criteria should be strictly adhered to; 

otherwise, the program risks losing its desired focus and 

effect. 

The intervention team should develop protocols for client 

intake assessments, obtaining consent/releases to serve 

clients, and sharing information across agency 

boundaries. 

Sharing data across service areas and with law enforcement raises many issues. Successful efforts are characterized by solid relationships, clear protocols, and a 

commitment that information sharing is done to help 

individuals and not law enforcement. Other data and information sharing protocols already exist for law enforcement purposes, and judicial warrants are always available 

in the appropriate case. 

Outreach	Workers

The outreach component of this model is critical to program success. An outreach worker’s primary role is to 

build relationships with program clients and with other 

gang-involved youth in the community. Outreach workers 

typically work in the community, connecting with hardto-serve youth. These workers often constitute the primary recruitment tool for the program and serve an 

important role in delivering services. Outreach workers 

are the intervention team’s eyes and ears on the street, 

giving the team perspective on the personal aspects of 

gang conflicts and violence and how these affect the 

team’s clients. In addition to relationship building, outreach workers’ responsibilities include: 

n	 Identifying appropriate clients and recruiting them for 

the program. 
Best Practices for Planning and Implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model • 21 

Highlights From the Field—Intervention Team 

Richmond, VA. At the beginning of the GRP project, 

the project coordinator recognized that many organizations had come together on the team that were 

not used to sharing information or strategizing together. Professional bonds and the ability to communicate across agencies have been strengthened 

through the collaborative process, which resulted in 

the free exchange of information between organizations. The project has recognized and responded 

to the growing Hispanic population of the target 

area by providing culturally appropriate activities 

to that population. The Richmond intervention 

team has recommended funding for more than 

50 programs, many of which can be used as 

referral sources to the intervention team. 

Los Angeles, CA. Establishing policies and procedures, such as an information sharing protocol, 

helped to clearly define members’ roles and boundaries, which facilitated the team’s functioning. Establishing individual relationships among team 

n	 Identifying youths’ needs and goals to help the team 

develop a more comprehensive intervention plan. 

n	 Coaching and providing role models for each youth. 

n	 Coordinating appropriate crisis responses to program 

clients following violent episodes in the community. 

n	 Providing assistance to families in distress, ranging 

from accessing basic needs to helping resolve family 

conflicts. 

n	 Visiting clients who are incarcerated and helping to 

reconnect them to services when they are released 

from custody. 

n	 Resolving conflicts and/or mediating between clients, 

their families, other youth, and/or agencies. 

n	 Acting as a liaison between program clients and service providers/schools to facilitate client access to 

services. 

n Working	with	clients	who	are	seeking	employment,	

from helping these youth develop résumés, to 

members by participating in team trainings and 

team retreats helps build rapport and trust among 

members, which in turn helps the functioning of 

the entire team. 

Riverside, CA. Information shared by outreach 

workers and probation during intervention team 

meetings helped provide missing links in investigations or followup with cases. The team also worked 

together to identify gaps in services and participated in joint staff training that focused on how to 

work effectively with gang-involved youth. 

Pittsburgh, PA. The team was able to bring 

together representatives from law enforcement, 

probation, and outreach, along with school representatives, from agencies that had a long history of 

distrust and hostility. The relationships of mutual 

respect established by the intervention team led to 

widespread support among participating agencies. 

identifying their skills and qualifications, to helping 

them apply for jobs or work with workforce services 

programs. 

n	 Conducting gang awareness presentations in schools. 

Developing written job descriptions for outreach workers 

helps ensure that all parties are aware of the role of outreach workers within the team and the community. Some 

programs have hired former gang members. The rationale behind hiring individuals with previous gang connections is their perceived ability to gain street credibility. 

However, these previous ties may cause strained relationships between the outreach workers and other partners 

such as schools, law enforcement agencies, and other 

criminal justice entities. One option to ensure that outreach workers have street credibility is to hire individuals 

from the target community who do not have gang ties. 

If programs hire former gang members, it is extremely 

important that local law enforcement vet these hires to 

ensure that the prospective outreach workers’ gang ties 

are indeed broken. Further, outreach workers need to 

understand that their conduct in the community must be 
 

 

22 • Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model 

above reproach, or else the entire program’s integrity can 

be compromised. Agencies that hire former gang members need to monitor these employees’ behavior on and 

off the job to ensure that they stay true to their mission 

in the program. 

Outreach workers may be employed by the lead agency, 

or the steering committee may contract outreach services 

from an existing program. Table 2 illustrates the pros and 

cons to both of these approaches. 

Almost all communities that have implemented comprehensive initiatives have found that intensive professional 

development will likely be needed. Most skilled outreach 

workers have excellent relationship-building skills with 

youth, as well as indepth knowledge of the community 

and the youth who live there. However, outreach workers 

may have difficulty interacting with partners from other 

disciplines and navigating the educational and/or criminal 

justice systems. Outreach workers will likely need training 

on administrative requirements of the job, such as managing a caseload, maintaining appropriate professional 

boundaries with clients, communicating effectively, and 

documenting client contacts. 

Building trust between street outreach workers and law 

enforcement officers must begin with the first meeting of 

the team. Outreach workers must understand that they 

are not police officers and should be discouraged from 

riding in police vehicles, attending meetings in police stations,	or	carrying	police	radios.	Whether	he	or	she	has	

had prior law enforcement experience or has a concealed 

carry permit, an outreach worker cannot carry weapons 

on his person or in his or her vehicle. Similarly, law enforcement officers need to understand that the outreach 

worker	is	not	a	police	informant.	With	the	exception	of	

information that could prevent bodily harm, law enforcement should not expect street outreach workers to provide police officers with gang intelligence. 

Outreach worker turnover can affect the program’s process. Program staff should develop a contingency plan 

when an outreach worker position is vacant to ensure 

that client services are not disrupted and that client referrals are processed according to program policies. Projects 

that do not have a contingency plan will experience difficulty maintaining contact with active intervention clients and will have a waiting list for referrals. 

Table 2: Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages of Internal Versus Contract Outreach 

Lead Agency Advantages Disadvantages 

Outreach Workers 

Employed by 

Lead Agency 

•	Greater	control	and	accountability	over	the	job	

performance of outreach workers 

•	Opportunities	for	intensive	professional	

development 

•	Many	lead	agencies	may	resist	hiring	individuals	

who have a criminal history 

•	Outreach	workers	must	maintain	boundaries	to	

avoid being considered police informants 

•	Outreach	workers	may	not	have	a	strong	connection to the community, and it may take time to 

develop these connections 

Outreach Workers 

Employed by 

Contracted Entity 

•	Often	have	a	longstanding	history	working	with	

high-risk populations in the community 

•	May	have	an	existing	client	base	that	can	be	leveraged for this program 

•	Steering	committee	and/or	lead	agency	may	have	

less control over the job performance of outreach 

workers 
Best Practices for Planning and Implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model • 23 

Highlights From the Field—Outreach Workers 

Los Angeles, CA. The Los Angeles GRP outreach 

provider provided a “one-stop shop” for job training and preparation, job placement, counseling, 

and case management. The outreach provider also 

partnered with the mentoring program working 

with prevention clients to complete a mural project. 

Successful intervention clients spoke to prevention 

clients about their experiences and ways to avoid 

similar pitfalls. 

Richmond, VA. Richmond partnered with the high 

school located in the target area that was experiencing behavioral challenges with at-risk and ganginvolved youth. The school allowed Richmond staff 

to conduct meetings and bring resources directly to 

the school. These resources included the outreach 

workers and mentors. Richmond staff’s involvement 

in the school has led to ongoing conversations with 

State and private organizations to bring a free 

health clinic directly into the high school. 

North Miami Beach, FL. Outreach workers in North 

Miami Beach were selected based on their professional experience and their ability to work with the 

Haitian population, the program’s primary target 

population. In addition to staff being bilingual and 

having experience working with the Haitian population, they also provide support and education to 

program clients by facilitating participant self-help 

groups. 

Pittsburgh, PA, and Houston, TX. Outreach workers 

for the Gang-Free Schools programs in Pittsburgh 

and Houston worked with law enforcement and 

school representatives to identify potentially volatile situations following violent incidents in the 

community, and to keep the peace on school campuses in the target area. Outreach workers routinely were involved in mediations between rival gangs 

in the target area and counseling with program 

clients. 

Miami-Dade, FL. Outreach workers from the MiamiDade Gang-Free Schools project identified families 

of program clients that were in need of food and 

basic assistance and built relationships with these 

families by providing gift baskets at the holidays 

and ongoing food delivery. 

Law Enforcement Personnel 

The selection of law enforcement personnel is crucial to 

the success of the program. Law enforcement officers selected to work with the program should have: 

n	 A strong connection with the community and the ability to build trusting relationships with community 

members, outreach workers, and other intervention 

team members. 

n	 A clear understanding of the gang culture. 

n	 The ability to communicate effectively with gang 

members. 

n	 An understanding of the need for a comprehensive 

approach to address the gang problem. 

n	 The respect of their peers, which may have a positive 

impact on the entire agency’s perception of the 

program. 

Program staff may face significant challenges initially engaging law enforcement in the program. There may be 

historical distrust between law enforcement and other 

program partners. Staff may have to use unconventional 

strategies to initially engage law enforcement, such as 

providing overtime pay to conduct gang-crime analysis 

and to target and expand suppression strategies, recognizing their participation, and bestowing awards. 

Consistent representation from law enforcement agencies is crucial to program success. This ensures that officers understand their roles, are familiar with program 

clients, and have established relationships with program 

partners. Some programs found that establishing a periodic rotation for law enforcement representatives gave 

the program greater exposure within law enforcement 

agencies, resulting in an improvement in the agency’s 

understanding and attitudes toward the program. 
24 • Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highlights From the Field—Law Enforcement Personnel 

Los Angeles, CA. The Los Angeles GRP partnered 

with the Los Angeles Police Department CLEAR suppression program to participate on the intervention 

team. The project developed a simplified referral 

system using a “ticket book” for street patrol officers to make referrals to the project for youth and 

their families. 

Richmond, VA. The Richmond GRP intervention 

team included sector patrol officers and gang unit 

representatives. The project partnered with the police department as they initiated a new gang unit 

by providing equipment, gang member tracking 

software, and arranging technical assistance from 

existing gang units in other communities to provide 

feedback and consultation. They supported overtime for directed patrol in high-risk areas of the 

target community. 

Miami-Dade, FL. Using information provided by the 

intervention team, gang enforcement officers in 

the Miami-Dade Gang-Free Schools project adjusted 

schedules and officer coverage to address immediate gang-related issues in the community. As a result, gang incidents dropped substantially on and 

around school campuses in the target area. 

n n n The Compr The Comprehensive Gang Model in Action— ehensive Gang Model in Action—

OJJDP’s Gang Reduction Pr s Gang Reduction Program

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 

In 2004, the Milwaukee Gang Reduction Program was 

launched in the target area comprising three neighborhoods located in the central area of the city: Metcalfe 

Park, Midtown, and Amani. The area is economically depressed, with high unemployment and school dropout 

rates, and has a history of gang crime and violence, including Chicago-influenced gangs. Several middle and elementary schools, including two charter schools, are located in 

the communities; however, many of the area students do 

not attend public school in the target area. 

Prevention activities were a priority for the Milwaukee 

program, given the population and nature of the target 

area. Activities included: 

u “Finding Paths to Prosperity”—a primary prevention 

program that included financial literacy. 

u Truancy intervention. 

u “Positive Alternatives to Violence”—afterschool career 

development program. 

u Vocational life skills for youth ages 12–17 at risk of 

gang involvement. 

u Parental support (first-time single mothers).
 

u Subsidized youth employment.
 

u Family empowerment program to help families with 


high-risk youth access health care. 

u Behavioral health program targeted at youth with 

signs of early delinquency. 

u Community mobilization to direct residents to 

programs. 

Intervention and reentry activities were centered on a 

multidisciplinary team approach to case management for 

gang members. Street outreach was provided to recruit 

and	support	youth	assigned	to	the	team.	The	“Wraparound Milwaukee” model, an identified best practice, was 

used to establish a service-vouchering system to support 

the multidisciplinary intervention team’s services to clients. 

Service vouchers were available for training, counseling, 

skills training, or other identified needs that promote and 

support self-sufficiency, including job training and placement and related concerns—such as tattoo removal and 

work attire—for gang members and those returning to 

the community from confinement. 

Suppression activities were coordinated and tracked 

through a community prosecutor with the Milwaukee 

County District Attorney’s Office and the Milwaukee 

Police Department officers assigned to the project. The 

community prosecutor coordinated prosecution decisions 

regarding gang-related and other crime and abatement 

procedures aimed at reducing crime. The community prosecutor also coordinated a suppression team that targets 

gang leaders and habitually violent offenders for suppression activities. The Milwaukee Gang Reduction Program 

supported an information system with assistance from 

the local High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area to assist 

community prosecution in compiling and sharing gang 

intelligence among the local police district, the police 

department’s gang intelligence unit, and other levels 

of local law enforcement. 

The Milwaukee site ceased operations in spring 2007. 
Best Practices for Planning and Implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model • 25 

Selecting Program Activities 

Selecting the appropriate program activities is an important step to ensure program goals are achieved. Activities 

fall into four general categories—intervention, prevention, suppression, and reentry. 

Intervention Activities 

The intervention team, especially the outreach workers, is 

a primary service-delivery mechanism in this comprehensive approach. Some best practices include the following: 

n	 Intervention team members should review each client 

at referral; obtain consents to serve the client; perform 

an intake evaluation (one or more members can be 

assigned to this task); and then, as a team, discuss the 

client’s needs and issues and brainstorm together to 

create an appropriate intervention plan for each 

client. 

n	 If referrals to services at specific agencies will be made 

by the team, the agency receiving the referral needs to 

follow up with the team to provide updated information on the client’s behavior and participation. Service 

providers need to be readily accessible and culturally 

competent and should regularly participate in intervention team meetings to ensure that they can provide client status updates and are aware of client 

service needs. 

n	 Types of services that most teams will need to provide 

include employment assistance, vocational training, 

remedial/alternative education assistance, group counseling, individual counseling, substance abuse services, 

mentoring, and services for families (such as support 

groups and/or parenting classes). 

n	 It is important to clearly outline the roles and responsibilities of each member of the team, as well as rules 

about information sharing prior to accepting clients. 

n	 Setting a consistent meeting place, time, and day of 

the week will help to ensure regular participation by 

key agencies. Another strategy to ensure that the 

meeting does not go past the scheduled end time is 

to establish a client rotation schedule. 

Highlights From the Field—Intervention 

Activities 

Richmond, VA. The most successful programs were 

those that were either offered directly in the target 

area or where transportation was provided. Even 

though Richmond has public transportation, the 

community readily engaged with groups that 

brought services to them. An example is the OneStop Resource Center, which is located in the middle 

of an apartment complex with more than 4,000 residents. Many of Richmond’s programs are housed in 

the center, including a free health clinic and computer lab for area youth. 

Los Angeles, CA. The GRP program’s outreach provider is a well-respected and established service 

provider within the target community. The provider 

offers the majority of the project’s intervention services, including job readiness, job placement, counseling, and case management services. 

Riverside, CA. The intervention team created services that did not exist previously. They established 

a job training program for clients that covered topics such as how to fill out job applications, how to 

conduct an interview, and appropriate interpersonal skills on the job site. 

Houston, TX. Good communication and trust building with clients and their families were the biggest 

factors to successfully targeting gang members and 

at-risk youth. Providing the services directly and 

through referrals to other agencies showed the clients that the project staff were serious about offering help. 

Miami-Dade, FL. Miami-Dade created an on-the-job 

training program by partnering with a local homebuilder. With the assistance of school personnel and 

outreach staff, this program provided an incentive 

to engage youth from the target area in gaining 

needed job skills, improving social interactions, 

and boosting school attendance. 

Prevention Activities 

Even if their initial strategies did not include prevention, 

most comprehensive gang programs have eventually incorporated prevention programming. These prevention 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n n n OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model

26 • Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model 

strategies should have a direct connection to the problems identified in the assessment process (and through 

ongoing data collection) and also should be specific to 

gang issues to accomplish the desired effect of reducing 

gang violence. Primary prevention strategies focus on the 

entire population in communities. Secondary prevention 

strategies are activities and services targeted to youth 

ages 7–14 who are at high risk of joining gangs. 

Primary prevention activities undertaken by these initiatives have included conducting workshops and trainings 

to increase community awareness about gangs, hosting 

communitywide events, and working to change conditions contributing to gang involvement within the targeted community. Targeted prevention activities 

successfully utilized by these types of initiatives have included tutoring, mentoring, and afterschool care. 

Secondary prevention programming is often focused on 

the families, siblings, or associates of intervention clients. 

The steering committee may also identify the need to 

increase access to secondary prevention programming or 

to expand the types of services available after program 

implementation begins as a result of gaps in services, extended service waiting periods, and changes in community dynamics. To avoid duplication, a survey of existing 

resources should be undertaken to identify available prevention activities and services. 

Just as with intervention programming, both primary and 

secondary prevention service providers must understand 

the gang culture and possess experience working with 

at-risk youth and their families. 

u There are formal and informal social control procedures 

and accountability measures, including close supervision 

or monitoring of gang youth by agencies of the criminal and juvenile justice systems, and also by communitybased agencies, schools, and grassroots groups. 

u Gang suppression or control is structurally related to 

community- and problem-oriented policing and to gang 

enforcement and tactical units. 

u Police administration and police officers on the intervention team assume key roles in the development and 

implementation of important aspects of the program, 

not only through suppression but through gang prevention, social intervention, and community mobilization. 

u Gang crime data collection and analysis (i.e., crime analysis) are established to accurately and reliably assess the 

gang problem and its changes over time. Definitions of 

gang-related incidents, gangs, and gang members are 

maintained. Gang intelligence is routinely collected and 

analyzed. It is also highly desirable to have gang crime 

data geo-coded and analyzed, preferably using automated “hotspot” mapping techniques. 

OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model 

Core Strategy: Suppression 

Critical Elements 

u Police contact with targeted youth is regularly and appropriately quantified, shared, and discussed with other 

members of the intervention team for purposes of team 

planning and collaboration. Contacts should be generally consistent with the philosophy of community and 

problem-oriented policing. 

u Aggregate-level data bearing on the gang problem are 

regularly shared with all components of the project, 

particularly the steering committee. 

u Professional respect and appropriate collaboration between police and outreach workers and other team 

members are essential. 

u Tactical, patrol, drug/vice, community policing, and 

youth division units that have contact with targeted 

youth and gang members provide support to the intervention team through information sharing and mutual 

collaboration and support. 

u Targeted enforcement operations, when and where 

necessary, are consistent with program goals and are 

coordinated with the intervention team to have the 

maximum impact. 
Best Practices for Planning and Implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model • 27 

Highlights From the Field—Prevention Activities 

Richmond, VA. Through meetings with community 

representatives, project staff learned that there was 

a need for a number of programs that ultimately 

led to the funding of more than 50 programs. For 

example, community members identified the need 

for longer afterschool hours and options for summer activities. The project expanded their partnership with Boys and Girls Clubs, and also entered 

into a partnership with the faith-based Richmond 

Outreach Center to provide additional activities and 

longer hours. A viable One-Stop Office has been a 

key part of integrating services to clients. The ability of the Office of the Attorney General to reach 

out to all partners and successfully communicate 

the overall goals of the project has contributed to 

successfully integrating services for clients. 

Miami-Dade, FL. The main prevention efforts were 

a direct response to a student survey that asked students what would keep them from getting involved 

in gang activities. The response was “something to 

do or a job.” The project designed an on-the-job 

training program that has been a main draw for 

students. The greatest success of the on-the-job 

training component of the project was the resulting 

level of pride and commitment that the youth 

showed while participating in the program. This 

component provides long-term effects and knowledge that the youth can use for career advancement and entrepreneurship. 

Houston, TX. Gang awareness presentations resulted in more calls from residents to report suspected 

gang-related crime according to reports from 

police. 

Suppression/Social Control Activities 

Suppression in these comprehensive programs goes 

beyond law enforcement activities. Ideally, all program 

partners work together to hold the targeted youth accountable when necessary. Law enforcement’s role in 

these programs includes: 

n	 Ongoing crime data analysis. 

n	 A high level of information sharing between agencies 

and across disciplines. 

n	 Participation in the intervention team and steering 

committee. 

n	 Suppression activities tailored to address specific gangrelated problems. 

n	 Apprising other intervention team members of unsafe 

situations. 

Gang crime data should drive gang suppression strategies 

used in the target community and should also be responsive to the local community, the intervention team, and 

the steering committee. These strategies should be 

viewed as part of a larger whole, rather than as singular, 

one-time-only activities. 

Some examples of successful suppression strategies 

include: 

n	 Participating in joint police/probation activities, including conducting probation searches of the homes and 

vehicles of gang-involved probationers. 

n	 Targeting enforcement to the times, places, and events 

where data analysis and historic gang enforcement 

patterns indicate gangs are active. 

n	 Designing investigative strategies to address specific 

gang-related crimes. 

n	 Executing directed patrols of locations where gang 

members congregate. 

n	 Conducting community forums to address incidents. 

n	 Establishing community prosecution and/or vertical 

prosecution strategies to prosecute gang crime more 

effectively. 

n	 Making informal contacts with targeted youth and 

their families. 

Program partners should work together with law enforcement to enforce community norms for youth behavior. These activities may be used in concert with 

suppression strategies to address less serious antisocial, 

gang-related behavior. Examples of ways that other partner agencies can assist with suppressing gang activity 

include: 
28 • Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model 

n	 Use of in- and out-of-school suspensions, when 

needed. 

n	 Tracking and reporting of attendance/grades. 

n	 Tracking of program participation. 

n	 Being aware of and supporting conditions of 

probation/parole. 

n	 Reinforcing program requirements and supporting 

other programs’ rules. 

In the best programs, suppression is integrated with 

services. Even outreach workers play a significant role in 

addressing negative behaviors with program clients and 

requiring accountability. 

Reentry Activities 

Reentry within these comprehensive programs is often 

handled as an overlapping function with intervention. 

Because gang-involved individuals are almost constantly 

entering or leaving one system or another, and because 

many of them are frequently incarcerated for brief 

periods of time, intervention clients are generally served 

during incarceration through regular contacts and prerelease planning. 

Program staff should develop a policy for serving clients 

who become incarcerated during the program. The 

length and location of incarceration may affect the program’s ability to maintain contact and services to a client. 

In general, clients serving sentences of less than 6 months 

to 1 year should receive at least monthly contacts from 

outreach workers or other team members—face-to-face 

or by e-mail or telephone. The intervention team may 

consider closing the cases of clients serving long-term 

sentences, but it should remember that any contact with 

a client during incarceration may have a positive impact. 

Beyond maintaining intervention clients, it is recommended that the program be aware of the influence of 

incarcerated gang members returning to the community 

and develop policies to address these individuals. For instance, the program may want to establish a relationship 

Highlights From the Field—Suppression/Social Control Activities 

Richmond, VA. The directed patrol program used 

crime statistics and crime data logs to determine 

high crime days and times in the target area. Additional foot, bicycle, motorcycle, and walking officers were added during those times. This resulted 

in a significant decrease in crime during those periods. During the funded periods, Richmond dropped 

from being the 5th most dangerous city to the 15th. 

Since then, it has dropped to 29th. 

Riverside, CA. Any proposed suppression strategies 

were discussed at the intervention team meeting 

and brought to the attention of the steering committee for their guidance and approval. 

North Miami Beach, FL. North Miami Beach partnered with the local police department to implement directed patrols and the continuation of a 

truancy interdiction program. 

Houston, TX. The law enforcement and criminal 

justice partnership assisted in providing more visibility and presence of gang unit officers to deter 

youth on probation from committing more crimes. 

The police improved their gang intelligence process 

through getting to know youth and families on a 

personal level and interaction with other criminal 

justice agencies. This strategy also helped prevent 

gang shootings or fights around schools and parks. 

Police initially started out with a “suppression only” 

mentality, but soon understood the benefits of establishing a relationship with gang members that 

would then lead to information that could help 

solve or prevent crimes. 

Miami-Dade, FL. Changes were made to the field 

interview cards officers used to more effectively 

capture gang information and gang crime data. 

This change was a result of the direction of the 

steering committee’s leadership and their commitment to communicate with law enforcement. 
Best Practices for Planning and Implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model • 29 

with probation/parole authorities, and also with corrections personnel, to identify gang members who are due 

to be released. Outreach workers can visit these inmates 

prior to release to help develop a supportive plan for 

their return to the community and to recruit them into 

the program. 

Common needs for clients reentering the community include housing, drug and alcohol treatment, and job training and placement. Especially critical are job training and 

placement opportunities for convicted offenders, and 

programs should consider ways to make these opportunities economically feasible for both intervention and reentry clients. Transportation assistance that addresses safety 

issues for these clients is also important. 

Probation/parole representatives who serve on the intervention team can also ensure that clients receive needed 

services and supervision. Probation and parole officers 

are familiar with reentry services within the community 

and can educate the team members on available services. 

Programs may want to augment existing services in communities where reentry programs are inadequate for the 

target population or are scarce. 

Highlights From the Field—Reentry Activities 

Houston, TX. Outreach workers in Houston maintained regular contact with incarcerated clients, 

and developed prerelease case management 

plans to help individuals transition back into the 

community. 

Richmond, VA. Richmond funds two programs with 

two agencies to provide offender reentry programs 

to inmates prior to release back into the community. These programs help incarcerated youth deal 

with issues such as completion of high school education, drug and alcohol abuse, and family and parenting issues. In addition, Richmond has partnered 

with faith-based programs that offer residential 

programs for reentering offenders. 

Sustaining the Program 

Programs should begin planning for long-term sustainability during the initial stages of implementation. Programs that were sustained long-term had two key 

practices. First, they standardized and institutionalized 

data collection to show program outcomes. Access to 

these data was invaluable for leveraging funds and 

resources. Second, these programs utilized strong and 

engaged steering committees that shared ownership and 

responsibility for the programs among the key agencies. 

The importance of these two factors in sustaining multiagency programs cannot be overstated. 

Other successful strategies included: 

n	 Participating in statewide efforts to further develop 

anti-gang strategies backed by Federal and State 

funds. Programs that can demonstrate positive outcomes and that have a good reputation in the target 

community are more likely to be funded as a part of 

larger efforts. 

n	 Seeking the local business community’s support for 

specific elements of the program such as the intervention team, outreach workers, or specific prevention 

programs. 

n	 Pursuing commitments from key agencies to dedicate 

staff time to the project prior to implementation 

through the use of MOUs or letters of commitment. 

n	 Leveraging funds from other agencies or planning for 

the program to be absorbed within an established 

agency. 

n	 Requiring sustainability planning from contracted 

agencies. This may enable program partners to identify resources to sustain that element of the program 

after the original funding expires. 
 

 ’ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3: Timeline for Implementing a Comprehensive 

Gang Program 

This timeline provides a general idea of the activities in each phase and, based on experiences of other comprehensive 

projects, the approximate length of time it takes to complete the activities in each phase. Each community s administrative 

structure and practices, community politics, and community readiness will dictate the actual length of each phase. 

Assessment and Planning (6–12 months) 

u Identify key stake holders. 

u Form a steering committee. 

u Establish gang definitions. 

u Hire a project coordinator. 

u Solicit a research partner. 

u Conduct a comprehensive community assessment 

(including the community resource inventory). 

Capacity Building (3–6 months) 

u Complete the contract procurement process for 

program services. 

u Develop program policies and procedures. 

u Advertise, hire, and train new staff to provide services. 

u Develop a client referral and recruitment process. 

u Select intervention team members. 

u Conduct intervention team training. 

u Provide gang awareness training to project 

service providers. 

u Develop a community resource referral and 

feedback process. 

u Develop a program referral process. 

u Train project partners on the project referral process. 

u Develop a data collection and analysis system. 

Full Implementation (12–18 months) 

u Initiate program services. 

u Initiate client referral process. 

u Begin client intake process for prevention and 

intervention clients. 

u Begin conducting client reviews during 

intervention team meetings. 

u Begin providing focused suppression efforts. 

u Begin conducting community prevention activities. 

u Reach program caseload capacity. 

See table 3 for a timeline that provides a general idea of 

the activities in each phase and, based on experiences of 

other comprehensive projects, the approximate length 

of time it takes to complete the activities in each phase. 

Each community‘s administrative structure and practices, 

community politics, and community readiness will dictate 

the actual length of each phase. 

See “Implementation Tools” for a list of publications, 

tools, and other resources to help communities assess 

their gang problems, develop implementation plans for 

addressing gang problems and establish intervention 

teams, plan strategies for reaching out to and intervening to change the risky behaviors of gang-involved youth, 

and develop management information systems for capturing program referral and individual client and contact 

data. Many of these resources can be customized for individual communities. 

30 • Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strategic Planning Tool—This electronic tool was developed to assist in assessing a community’s gang problem 

and planning strategies to deal with it and can be found 

at http://www.iir.com/nygc/tool. The tool has four interrelated components. The “Planning and Implementation,” 

“Risk Factors,” and “Program Matrix” components provide 

information for all communities, but the “Community 

Resource Inventory” component can be customized for 

any community. 

Client Track—This free management information system 

was developed by the National Gang Center to assist comprehensive programs with capturing client and referral 

data. The database captures program referral information, 

individual client data (including a detailed intake assessment), program service data, contacts with clients by 

length and agency, and intervention plans. It is available 

on compact disc upon request from the National Gang 

Highlights From the Field—Sustaining the Program 

Los Angeles, CA. The mayor has identified six additional zones to implement the comprehensive 


anti-gang model. The mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development was created and a 


deputy mayor was chosen to oversee the city’s gang 


prevention, intervention, and reentry efforts.
 

Richmond, VA. Richmond has hosted meetings on 


sustainability for its service providers in partnership 


with the Department of Justice. Most of the organizations providing services through funding have 


agreed to sustain their programs beyond the funded period. Richmond’s staff is committed to seeking 


out private and foundation funding to continue to 


Implementation Tools

A Guide to Assessing Your Community’s Youth Gang 

Problem contains a blueprint for conducting an indepth 

assessment of the gang problem in the community and 

tools for the assessment process. It describes the data variables, sources of data, and data-collection instruments. It 

also provides suggestions on how to organize and analyze 

the data and guidelines for preparation of an assessment 

report that will present the results of the data-collection 

effort. For users’ convenience, individual chapters or the 

entire document can be downloaded at http://www.iir. 

com/nygc/acgp/assessment.htm. 

Planning for Implementation provides a guide to development of an implementation plan for comprehensive gang 

programs. It also describes the work of an intervention 

team, including street outreach workers’ roles. For users’ 

convenience, individual chapters or the entire document 

can be downloaded at http://www.iir.com/nygc/acgp/ 

implementation.htm. 

sustain other programs as needed. Richmond has 

also been asked to share the OJJDP Model with 

other jurisdictions across Virginia. 

North Miami Beach, FL. North Miami Beach incorporated as a nonprofit entity after Federal funds were 

exhausted. Incorporating as a nonprofit allows the 

project to apply for grants they would not have 

been eligible for under a state agency. 

Miami-Dade, FL. The strong level of support for the 

project from agencies on the steering committee 

led to the project being sustained by existing agencies once Federal funding was exhausted. 

Center. 

Best Practices for Planning and Implementing the Comprehensive Gang Model • 31 
 

Notes

1. The five survey questions were: (1) What are your units’ 

or organizations’ goals and objectives in regard to the 

gang problem? (2) What has your department (or unit) 

done that you feel has been particularly successful in 

dealing with gangs? (3) What has your department (or 

unit) done that you feel has been least effective in dealing with gangs? (4) What do you think are the five best 

ways of dealing with the gang problem that are employed by your department or organization? and (5) 

What activities do gang or special personnel perform 

in dealing with the problem? 

2. Individuals and collective factors were identified as 

having community mobilization as a strategy based on 

their use of one or more goals and/or activities from a 

list of options in Spergel’s research that led to formulation of the Comprehensive Gang Model. For example, 

any strategy that attempted to create community 

solidarity, education, and involvement was viewed as 

using community mobilization strategies. Prevention 

efforts involving multiple agencies were treated as community mobilization. All references to meetings with 

community leaders and attending meetings of community associations were regarded as reflecting a community organization strategy. 

Networking was considered the most basic community 

mobilization strategy as long as networks were not restricted exclusively to justice system agencies. Creating 

networks of law enforcement agencies only was classified 

as another strategy: suppression. Advocacy for victims 

was subsumed under the community mobilization strategy when the programs attempted to integrate offenders 

back into the community or to repair relations between 

victims and offenders. Victim advocacy was labeled suppression when the program was clearly a strategy of 

crime control. 

Notes • 33
 

References

Howell, J.C. (1994). Recent gang research: Program and 

policy implications. Crime and Delinquency 40(4): 

495–515. 

Spergel, I.A. (1990). Strategies and perceived agency effectiveness in dealing with the youth gang problem. In 

C.R. Huff (ed.), Gangs in America (pp. 288–309). Newbury 

Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 

Spergel, I.A. (1991). Youth Gangs: Problem and Response. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Spergel, I.A. (1995). The Youth Gang Problem. New York, 

NY: Oxford University Press. 

Spergel, I.A., Chance, R., Ehrensaft, C., Regulus, T., Kane, 

C., and Laseter, R. (1992). Technical Assistance Manuals: 

National Gang Suppression and Intervention Program. 

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, School of Social 

Service Administration. 

Spergel, I.A., Chance, R., Ehrensaft, C., Regulus, T., Kane, 

C., Laseter, R., Alexander, A., and Oh, S. (1994). Gang 

Suppression and Intervention: Community Models. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Spergel, I.A., and Curry, G.D. (1993). The national youth 

gang survey: A research and development process. In A. 

Goldstein and C.R. Huff (eds.), The Gang Intervention 

Handbook (pp. 359–400). Champaign, IL: Research Press. 

Spergel, I.A., Curry, G.D., Chance, R., Kane, C., Ross, R., 

Alexander, A., Simmons, E., and Oh, S. (1994). Gang 

Suppression and Intervention: Problem and Response, 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Tatem-Kelley, B. (1994). A Comprehensive Response to 

America’s Gang Problem. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

References • 35
Appendix A • 37 

Appendix A: 

Demonstration and Testing of 

the Comprehensive Gang Model 

T hroughout the development and implementation of the 

Comprehensive Gang Model, OJJDP has attempted to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the Model through a variety 

of demonstration initiatives. Evaluation findings from these 

initiatives are presented here. 

Little Village Implementation of the 

Comprehensive Gang Model 

With funding that the U.S. Department of Justice (Violence in Urban Areas Program) provided in March 1993, 

Spergel began implementing the initial version of the 

Comprehensive Gang Model in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago, a low-income and working-class 

community that is approximately 90 percent MexicanAmerican (Spergel, 2007). Called the Gang Violence Reduction Program, the project lasted 5 years. The program 

targeted and provided services to individual gang members (rather than to the gangs as groups). It targeted 

mainly older members (ages 17–24) of two of the area’s 

most violent Hispanic gangs, the Latin Kings and the Two 

Six. Specifically, the Little Village program targeted more 

than 200 of the “shooters” (i.e., the influential members 

or leaders of the two gangs). As a whole, these two 

gangs accounted for about 75 percent of felony gang 

violence in the Little Village community—including 12 

homicides in each of the 2 years before the start of project operations (Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 2006). 

The primary goal of the project was to reduce the extremely high level of gang violence among youth who 

were already involved in the two gangs. Outreach youth 

workers—virtually all of whom were former members of 

the two target gangs—attempted to prevent and control 

gang conflicts in specific situations and to persuade gang 

youth to leave the gang as soon as possible. Drug-related 

activity was not specifically targeted. Instead, outreach 

activities included a balance of services, such as crisis intervention, brief family and individual counseling and 

referrals for services, and surveillance and suppression 

activities. (Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 2006). 

As seen in table A1 (page 43), the process evaluation of 

the Gang Violence Reduction Program (Spergel, Wa, and 

Sosa, 2006) revealed that it was implemented very well. 

Altogether it achieved an “excellent” rating on the following 8 (of 18) program implementation characteristics: 

interagency/street (intervention) team coordination, 

criminal justice participation, lead agency project management and commitment to the model, social and crisis 

intervention and outreach work, suppression, targeting 

(especially gang members), balance of services, and intensity of services. 

Spergel (2006) examined the effects of the Little Village 

project on the approximately 200 hardcore gang youth 

targeted for services during the period in which they 

were served by the program. The following are some of 

his findings: 

n Self-reports of criminal involvement showed that 

the program reduced serious violent and property 

crimes, and the frequency of various types of offenses 
38 • Appendix A 

including robbery, gang intimidation, and drive-by 

shootings. 

n 	The program was more effective with older, more violent gang offenders than with younger, less violent 

offenders. 

n 	Active gang involvement was reduced among project 

youth, mostly for older members, and this change was 

associated with less criminal activity. 

n 	Most youth in both targeted gangs improved their educational and employment status during the program 

period. 

n 	Employment was associated with a general reduction 

in youth’s criminal activity, especially in regard to reductions in drug dealing. 

Spergel (2006) next compared arrests among project 

youth versus two control groups, one that received minimal services, and the other that received no services from 

project workers. This comparison revealed the following: 

n 	Program youth had significantly fewer total violentcrime and drug arrests. 

n 	The project had no significant effect on total arrests, 

property arrests, or other minor crime arrests. 

Because the Little Village project specifically targeted the 

most violent gangsters and the common presumption is 

that such youth are typically drug involved, Spergel examined program effects on subgroups of offenders with 

violence and drug involvement and with violence and no 

drug involvement, using the comparison groups. Program 

effects were strong for both of these groups, but slightly 

stronger for the violence and no-drug subsample. 

Spergel (2006) also compared communitywide effects of 

the project on arrests in Little Village versus other nearby 

communities with high rates of gang crime. His analysis 

compared arrests in the periods before and during which 

the program was implemented and revealed the 

following: 

n 	The project was less effective in its overall impact on 

the behavior of the target gangs as a whole, that is, 

changing the entrenched pattern of gangbanging and 

gang crime among the target gangs, than in reducing 

crime among targeted members. Gang violence was 

on the upswing during the project period (1992–1997) 

in this general area of Chicago—one of the deadliest 

gang-violence areas of the city—but the increase in 

homicides and other serious violent gang crimes was 

lower among the Latin Kings and Two Six compared 

with the other Latino and African-American gangs in 

the area. 

n 	Similarly, the increase in serious violent gang crimes 

was lower in Little Village than in all other comparable 

communities. Residents and representatives of various 

organizations perceived a significant reduction in 

overall gang crime and violence in Little Village during 

the program period. 

In summary, although the outcomes for the Little Village 

project are mixed, the results are consistent for violent 

crimes across analyses at all three impact levels: (1) individual, (2) group (gang), and (3) community (especially in 

the views of residents). A similar impact was not seen on 

gang drug activity, although drug selling was reduced 

among older gang members when the project helped 

them get jobs. Given that the project targeted gang violence, not drug activity, this result was not completely 

unexpected. 

The evaluation suggested that a youth outreach (or social 

intervention) strategy may be more effective in reducing 

the violent behavior of younger, less violent, gang youth. 

A combined youth outreach and police suppression strategy might be more effective with older, more criminally 

active and violent gang youth, particularly with respect 

to drug-related crimes. The best indicators of reduced 

total offenses were older age, association with probation 
Appendix A • 39 

 

officers, and spending more time with a wife or steady 

girlfriend. The best predictors of reduced violent offenses 

were a youth’s avoidance of gang situations, satisfaction 

with the community, and more exposure to treatment for 

personal problems. 

Interactive and collaborative project outreach worker efforts, combining suppression, social support, and provision of social services, were shown to be most effective in 

changing criminal involvement of gang members. Larger 

program dosages (multiple providers and greater frequency and duration of services) proved to be important 

and were associated with reduced levels of arrests for 

violent crimes. Four types of services or sanctions predicted successful outcomes among program youth: suppression (particularly by police), job referrals by youth 

outreach workers, school referrals (mainly by outreach 

youth workers), and program dosage (contacts by all 

workers together). 

Initial Demonstration Sites 

In the first of its initiatives, OJJDP competitively selected 

five sites that demonstrated the capacity to implement 

the Comprehensive Gang Model: Mesa, AZ; Riverside, CA; 

Bloomington-Normal, IL; San Antonio, TX; and Tucson, 

AZ. Each of these projects was funded in 1995, and OJJDP 

anticipated that these sites would be funded for 4 or 5 

years and would adopt the two main goals of the Model: 

n	 To reduce youth gang crime, especially violent crime, 

in targeted communities. 

n	 To improve the capacity of the community, including 

its institutions and organizations, to prevent, intervene against, and suppress the youth gang problem 

through the targeted application of interrelated strategies of community mobilization, social intervention, 

provision of opportunities, organizational change and 

development, and suppression. 

OJJDP emphasized the five strategies in the implementation process described above. Brief descriptions of each of 

the projects follow.a 

Mesa Gang Intervention Program 

The target area for the Mesa Gang Intervention Project, 

coordinated by the City of Mesa Police Department, was 

defined by the service areas of two junior high schools 

that were home to approximately 18 gangs with an estimated 650 members. The project intervention team 

comprised the project director, a case management coordinator, two gang detectives, one adult and three juvenile probation officers, two outreach workers, and a 

youth intervention specialist—all of whom were housed 

in a central location in the target area. The project team 

used a case-management approach to ensure that progress was made with each youth in accordance with an 

intervention plan. Gang detectives and probation officers 

held program youth accountable through surveillance 

and routine monitoring and support, while outreach 

workers and staff from community-based agencies ensured delivery of services such as counseling, job referrals, 

drug and alcohol treatment, and other social services. 

In general, both program and comparison youth reduced 

their average levels of arrests (and self-reported offenses). However, program youth had an 18-percent greater 

reduction in total arrests than comparison youth (Spergel, 

Wa, and Sosa, 2005a). The reduction in total arrests was 

greater for the oldest age group (18-year-olds and older) 

and the youngest age group (12- to 14-year-olds) than it 

was for 15- to 17-year-olds. Females in the program 

showed a significantly greater reduction in arrests than 

did males. 

Project success was also evident at the program area level. Total incidents of crime that youth typically committed 

(including violent, property, and drug-related crimes and 

status offenses) declined 10 percent more in the program 

area than in the average of the three comparison areas. 

Furthermore, the program was more effective with gang 

youth who frequented the target area as compared with 

program gang youth who associated with gangs in the 

comparison areas. 

The evaluators observed that the Mesa Gang Intervention 

Project did not incorporate all of the elements of the 
40 • Appendix A 

 

Comprehensive Gang Model in program development, 

particularly the use of outreach workers in the neighborhood and collaboration with grassroots organizations 

(Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 2005a). 

The program evaluators identified the major factor that 

contributed to the project’s success as highly skilled community and lead agency staff who were committed to a 

balanced social intervention and control approach, particularly the provision of social intervention services to 

moderately delinquent, nonviolent, and at-risk youth 

(Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 2005a). However, the evaluators 

noted that the program should have included more seriously delinquent youth in the target group. 

Riverside Building Resources for the 

Intervention and Deterrence of Gang 

Engagement 

Officials changed the original name of the Riverside (California) Comprehensive Gang Model to Building Resources 

for the Intervention and Deterrence of Gang Engagement (BRIDGE) in 1999 and focused its 5-year (1995–2000) 

operation on two areas of the city with high rates of 

gang crime—Eastside and Arlanza (Burch and Kane, 1999; 

Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 2005b). A steering committee that 

consisted of public, private, grassroots, and faith-based 

organizations guided the project. The project director 

and the steering committee shifted the project focus 

to the development of an intervention team to deal directly with gang youth referred by the Riverside County 

Juvenile Probation Department. Reducing incidents of 

youth gang violence became the main program goal. 

Gang-involved youth ages 12–22 in the two communities 

were targeted for intervention. 

Formation of an intervention team was a key factor 

in the success of the program (Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 

2005b). The intervention team consisted of several core 

members, including the project coordinator, police officers, probation and parole officers, the outreach worker, the social service provider, and others. In daily 

meetings, the team shared information that provided 

opportunities for intervention with project youth. Case 

management involved the development and implementation of a treatment plan by the intervention team. Eligible clients had to meet several criteria: being a known 

gang member, residing in or engaging in gang activity 

within the target area, having a history of violence, and 

warranting intensive supervision by police and probation 

working as a team. Police and probation officers made 

home visits, performed area surveillance, made arrests, 

and maintained other controls on project youth. 

The project effectively reduced arrests for both serious 

and nonserious violent crimes after program participation 

and in comparison with a control group (Spergel, Wa, 

and Sosa, 2005b). Program youth also had fewer repeat 

drug arrests. The largest reduction in total violent crime 

arrests occurred when probation officers, police officers, 

outreach workers, and job and school personnel integrated their services for youth. Total services—that is, a 

combination of individual counseling, job services, schoolrelated services, suppression activities, family counseling, 

group services, and material services—accounted for 

much of the reduction in arrests. Youth who received services for 2 years or more showed the greatest reductions 

in number of arrests. However, there was no evidence 

that the project reduced either program youth’s involvement in gangs or the size of gang membership in the 

project area. 

Bloomington-Normal Comprehensive 

Gang Program 

This project included all of Bloomington and Normal, IL, 

in its target area, where eight gangs with 640 members 

were located. These twin cities are centrally located 

within the State in McLean County, midway between 

Chicago and St. Louis (Burch and Kane, 1999; Spergel, 

Wa, and Sosa, 2005c). The lead agency was Project 

Oz, a youth-serving organization with many years of 

experience meeting the social service needs of youth and 
Appendix A • 41 

families. The Community Youth Liaison Council (formerly 

the Bloomington Mayor’s 1990 Task Force to Study 

Gangs) served as the project’s steering committee. Key 

day-to-day management staff and personnel included the 

project director, the project coordinator, the crime analyst 

and, to some extent at the beginning, the local evaluator. 

These central figures operated largely within the framework of perspectives, intentions, and interests of the 

Community Youth Liaison Council and its principal constituent organizations. Gang-suppression tactics were given the highest priority by the Bloomington-Normal gang 

program. 

The program evaluation concluded that the BloomintonNormal gang program did not follow the Comprehensive 

Gang Model. The evaluators found that the program focused extensively on suppression and failed to implement 

several key components of the Model: 

It emphasized a suppression approach. It did not include grassroots groups, and did not develop an adequate outreach worker approach. Little attention 

was paid to an appropriate mix of strategies for different youth, to the modification of the roles of the different types of workers, and to how different agency 

workers were to function together to create an improved, interorganizational, street-level-worker structure and process to meet the interests and needs of 

gang youth, and the needs of the community, within 

the framework of the Model. (Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 

2005c, pp. 14–15, 17) 

In summary, the evaluators found that, when appropriate 

statistical controls were used, the program had no effect 

in steering individual youth away from gangs and delinquency, as compared with similar youth in the comparison site (Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 2005c). Rather, the 

program was associated with an increase in arrests for 

program youth, particularly those without prior arrest 

records. However, there was evidence (based on selfreports) that parts of the program were useful in reducing subsequent offenses for certain youth. 

San Antonio Gang Rehabilitation, 

Assessment, and Support Program 

The target community of the San Antonio (Texas) Gang 

Rehabilitation, Assessment, and Services Program 

(GRAASP), located on the outer limits of the southwest 

side of the city, was home to 15 gangs with an estimated 

1,664 members. The program area initially included three 

small neighborhoods (Burch and Kane, 1999; Spergel, Wa, 

and Sosa, 2005d). The San Antonio Police Department 

was the lead agency. The project coordinator, outreach 

staff, and job developer operated out of a project office 

near the target area. Street-based outreach workers assisted other social service agency employees, probation 

officers, a job developer, Texas Youth Commission staff, 

city police assigned to community policing and tactical 

units, and others to provide services, opportunities, and 

support to youth in the program, while also instituting 

sanctions, including arrest, for criminal or delinquent 

acts. Outreach workers met monthly to discuss coordination and case management. 

A lack of management attention and oversight hindered 

efforts to establish an intervention team and provide outreach services (Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 2005d). GRAASP 

focused on individual program youth (and to some extent 

their families) using a case-method approach. There was 

no structural or systematic means for providing services 

to, and establishing interrelated controls for, program 

youth. Coordination of services, if it occurred, was on an 

ad hoc basis, at the request of GRAASP outreach workers. 

It is likely that the absence of a significant GRAASP effect 

was because the police department, local agencies, and 

grassroots groups did not adequately support the Model. 

The evaluators observed that the leadership may never 

have come to understand the nature of the Comprehensive Gang Model initiative and the structure required to 

develop and implement it in San Antonio (Spergel, Wa, 

and Sosa, 2005d). Unfortunately, the dimensions of San 

Antonio’s gang problem were never specifically defined. 

Gang suppression strategies lacked a targeted focus. 
42 • Appendix A 

GRAASP essentially became an outreach, social-service 

support program to gang-involved youth who were referred mainly by juvenile probation and parole officers. 

An integrated interagency approach to the gang problem 

that focused on provision of opportunities to gang members was needed but never developed. In the end, the 

limited efforts to meet the social-development and socialcontrol needs of program youth were inadequate. Although arrest levels for program youth were generally 

lower than for comparison youth (except for drug arrests), none of the differences in arrest levels was statistically significant. The evaluators observed an increase in 

the total number of arrests for both program and comparison youth. 

Tucson Comprehensive Gang Program 

The Tucson (Arizona) project focused on four neighborhoods where four main gangs with an estimated 350 

members were located. The project operated from offices 

in a Boys & Girls Club in the target area. Street outreach 

workers, probation officers, a police gang unit officer, 

and others worked daily to provide youth with services 

and opportunities, to encourage youth to pursue constructive and positive activities, and to hold youth accountable for negative or criminal acts. Weekly meetings 

of the entire project team to review progress and reevaluate community needs supplemented weekly outreach 

staff meetings. The Our Town Family Center was designated as the lead agency, although its interest was limited largely to service delivery, and it had little experience 

in dealing with gang youth who were juvenile offenders 

(Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 2005e).b 

Key findings from the evaluation that compared outcomes for youth in the program with outcomes for a 

comparable group of unserved youth (and also compared 

outcomes among program youth) include the following: 

n	 Although program youth showed a decrease in yearly 

total arrests versus nonprogram youth, the difference 

was not statistically significant. 

n	 There was less of an increase in arrests for serious violent crime for program youth than for comparison 

youth, but the difference was not statistically 

significant. 

n	 The program may have decreased more yearly arrests 

among 15- and 16-year-olds than with the youngest 

age group (10- to 14-year-olds). 

n	 Behavioral improvements among females involved in 

the program were marginally better than among program males. The researchers speculated that the greater number of contacts that outreach youth workers 

and case managers had with program females may 

have made this marginal difference. 

In summary, a comprehensive communitywide approach 

to the youth gang problem did not develop in Tucson 

(Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 2005e). Existing organizational, 

interorganizational, and community interests and structures prevented the program from adopting the Comprehensive Gang Model. The focus of the lead agency was 

on an early intervention program, particularly addressed 

to younger youth, using mainly its own social services. 

The Tucson Police Department became only peripherally 

involved in support of the program, and key community 

agencies and grassroots organizations were not integrally 

involved in program development. Lastly, and most significant, the project had few discernable positive impacts 

on the delinquent behavior of youth who were served. 

Process and Impact Evaluation Findings 

To develop a composite picture of the process and impact 

outcomes of the initial Comprehensive Gang Model implementations, the evaluators combined the Chicago Little Village evaluation with the studies of the five 

demonstration sites (Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 2006). The 

evaluations across the five sites—Mesa, Tucson, Riverside, 

San Antonio, and Bloomington-Normal—were simultaneous and interrelated, but not interdependent, requiring 

extensive collaboration among local projects. 

Spergel and his colleagues assessed (a) program elements, 

(b) strategies, and (c) operating principles in terms of 

their importance to successful implementation of the 
 

 

 

TAble A1: Program Implementation Characteristics: 


Degree of Importance and Levels of Implementation
 

Program Implementation Characteristics 

Degree of 

Importance 

to Program 

Success† 

Levels of Implementation 

by Project Site‡ 

Chicago Mesa Riverside BloomingtonNormal San 

Antonio 

Tucson 

Program Elements (Structure)

City/County Leadership *** 2 4 4 1 1 1 

Steering Committee ** 1 4 3 1 1 0 

Interagency Street Team/Coordination *** 4 4 3 0 0 0 

Grassroots Involvement * 3 1 1 0 1 0 

Social Services: Youth Work, 

Individual Counseling, 

Family Treatment, and Recreation 

** 3 3 3 2 3 3 

Criminal Justice Participation *** 4 4 4 1 1 0 

School Participation ** 1 3 3 3 2 0 

Employment and Training ** 3 1 4 3 1 0 

Lead Agency/Management/Commitment *** 4 4 4 0 0 0 

Strategies 

Social Intervention: Outreach and 

Crisis Intervention ** 4 3 3 1 1 0 

Community Mobilization: Interagency 

and Grassroots ** 1 3 2 1 0 0 

Provision of Social Opportunities: 

Education, Job, and Culture ** 3 2 2 2 1 0 

Suppression *** 4 4 3 0 0 0 

Organizational Change and Development *** 2 4 4 0 0 0 

Operating Principles

Targeting Gang Members/ 

At-Risk Gang Youth *** 4 2 3 1 3 3 

Balance of Service *** 4 3 3 0 0 0 

Intensity of Service * 4 3 3 1 0 0 

Continuity of Service ** 2 1 2 2 0 2 

Source: Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 2006, pp. 216–217 

†Importance of characteristic to success: ***=extremely, **=moderately, *=somewhat 

‡Levels of implementation: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, 1=poor, 0=none 

Comprehensive Gang Model. This assessment was based 

on interviews with program staff and youth, service 

tracking records, and field observations (see table A1). 

Although none of the sites fully implemented these 

three critical program implementation requirements, the 

three sites (Chicago, Mesa, and Riverside) that showed 

the largest reductions in violence and drug-related crimes 

implemented more of them. 

Three of the communities (Tucson, San Antonio, and 

Bloomington-Normal) either made fatal planning mistakes (such as selecting a lead agency that failed to perform) or involved key agencies in the community that 

were unwilling to work together. But when it was wellimplemented in three of the sites, the Comprehensive 

Gang Model effectively guided these communities (in 

Chicago, Mesa, and Riverside) in developing services and 

Appendix A • 43 
44 • Appendix A 

strategies that contributed to reductions in both gang 

violence (Chicago, Mesa, and Riverside) and drug-related 

offenses (Chicago and Mesa) (Spergel et al., 2006). At the 

successful sites, a key factor was length of time in the 

program. When youth were in the program for 2 or more 

years, there were fewer arrests for all types of offenses. 

In general, arrest reductions were greater among older 

youth and females than among younger youth and 

males. General deterrence effects (across the project 

area) were not as strong as the program effects for individual youth. Nevertheless, these three sites were somewhat successful in integrating police suppression with 

service-oriented strategies. In summary, the evaluation 

indicates that, when properly implemented, a combination of prevention, intervention, and suppression strategies was successful in reducing the gang problem 

(Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 2006). 

Rural Gang Initiative 

In 1999, OJJDP launched the Rural Gang Initiative in response to feedback from the field that a gang violence 

reduction approach was needed for rural communities 

and findings from the 1997 National Youth Gang Survey 

that the number of gangs and gang members in rural 

areas was growing. This initiative was the first attempt to 

adopt the Comprehensive Gang Model in a nonmetropolitan area and served as a test case to determine 

whether rural communities can successfully implement 

(or need to implement) such a resource-intensive 

approach. 

Through a competitive process, OJJDP selected four communities to participate in the Rural Gang Initiative: 

Glenn County, CA; Mt. Vernon, IL; Elk City, OK; and 

Cowlitz County, WA. Each of the four sites completed the 

first-year assessment and implementation plan, both activities required by the OJJDP grant. 

OJJDP determined that the assessment in two sites 

(Cowlitz County and Elk City) did not indicate an 

ongoing gang problem serious enough to merit an 

intensive approach such as the Model. However, OJJDP 

did agree that the communities needed to address various risk factors through prevention strategies and create 

interventions for use when gang behavior did occur. 

OJJDP made suggestions to guide these sites in writing a 

new proposal to obtain reduced funding to address their 

particular gang problems. In one site, data from the assessment served as a basis for successful grant applications to support services and activities identified in the 

assessment. 

Mt. Vernon and Glenn County received approval for an 

additional year’s funding to implement the Model. Both 

communities operated an intervention team and provided services to clients for an additional 2 years. Steering 

committees were also active in both sites. However, turnover in the project coordinator position in both sites 

hampered a consistent understanding and application of 

the Model strategies over time. In 2002, grant funds had 

expired and neither site could sustain the project with 

local funding or new grants. 

The national evaluation of the Rural Gang Initiative was 

not completed because of staffing issues with the national evaluators, and OJJDP elected not to continue the evaluation. Nonetheless, the evaluation team had prepared 

an interim process evaluation report and cross-site analysis for the first year of the program. The interim report 

examined three activities—community mobilization, assessment, and implementation planning—and revealed 

the following (National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2000, pp. 54–56): 

n	 Each of the four sites had a catalyst who envisioned 

the community as a viable candidate for the process, 

essentially initiating the process. 

n	 The significant role that the project coordinator 

played cannot be overstated. This role is pivotal to the 

orchestration of the project. 

n	 The support of law enforcement in the project had a 

positive effect in each site. 
Appendix A • 45 

n	 There appears to be a direct correlation between the 

intensity of efforts expended to ensure appropriate 

agency representation on the steering committee and 

resultant gains in inclusiveness. 

n	 Lack of automated gang crime data can hamper data 

collection for the assessment. 

n	 Mobilizing and educating agency representatives who 

will collect the information facilitates the assessment 

process. 

n	 The movement from assessment data to development 

of an implementation plan proved challenging to the 

steering committees. 

n	 Steering committees struggled with prioritizing problems and determining appropriate target populations 

using the assessment data. 

Gang-Free Schools and Communities 

Initiative 

In 2000, OJJDP began the Gang-Free Schools and Communities Initiative, comprising two programs—the GangFree Communities Program and the Gang-Free Schools 

Program. 

Gang-Free Communities Program 

The Gang-Free Communities Program was funded in six 

sites in 2001: Broward County, FL; Lakewood, WA; East 

Los Angeles, CA; Louisville, KY; San Francisco, CA; and 

Washington, DC; although the Louisville and Washington, 

DC, sites soon dropped out of the program.c

 The Federal 

funds were seed money for Model implementation startup, and communities were to leverage local resources in 

addition to Federal funds to continue demonstrating the 

Model. 

The remaining four sites were successful in conducting 

assessments and developing implementation plans for 

the chosen target areas. Each site began implementation 

of the Model, some more successfully than others. Lakewood, WA, and Broward County, FL, began implementation immediately, including serving clients through an 

intervention team. The remaining two sites were unsuccessful in fully coalescing their communities and key 

agencies to fully participate in the steering committees, 

to develop viable intervention teams, and to enroll clients. In late 2003, OJJDP announced that it would not 

invite the sites to apply for continued funding, and by 

early 2004, all sites had expended Federal funding and 

could not continue the projects with local funding or 

other grants. 

Although there was no evaluation of the Gang-Free Communities Program, OJJDP did request the National Gang 

Center to develop a “process description” of the four active sites during the assessment and planning phases. This 

process description provided a limited number of lessons 

learned (National Youth Gang Center, 2003, pp, 46–48): 

n	 Key project personnel—such as the project coordinator, staff from the lead agency, and key steering committee members—should be on board before plans for 

conducting the assessment are completed. 

n	 Complicated hiring processes and layers of bureaucracy in large cities complicate a timely selection of 

staff and disbursal of funds. 

n	 Having a capable, full-time project coordinator is critical to the successful operation of the project. 

n	 The project coordinator must have frequent contact 

with the lead agency for the effective and timely execution of the tasks associated with the Gang-Free 

Communities process. 

Gang-Free Schools Program 

In 2000, as part of the Gang-Free Schools and Communities Initiative, OJJDP provided funding to fully develop a 

school component to the Comprehensive Gang Model. 
46 • Appendix A 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The distinctive features of the Gang-Free Schools Program are the planning and implementation of special or 

enhanced programs within the school setting and the 

linking of the school component to community-based 

gang prevention, intervention, and suppression activities. 

Four sites—Houston, TX; Pittsburgh, PA; Miami-Dade 

County, FL; and East Cleveland, OH—participated in this 

program.d 

Several best practices and/or lessons learned were identified in the evaluation report on the Gang-Free Schools 

projects. The following excerpts from the report address 

key factors that influence the success (or failure) of a 

project. 

Community Capacity 

If communities do not have services in place and prior 

existing relationships (with memorandums of understanding [MOUs]) in place, [then they] will not be able 

to provide the necessary interventions to their clients. 

A community capacity assessment should be part [of 

this effort]. When . . . cities . . . are beleaguered with 

financial problems, . . . the financial issues tend to impede the level of services, programming, and activities 

that are available to youth and their families. [These 

programs] need the support of surrounding community organizations and police departments in order to 

be completely successful. . . . Additionally, local budget constraints may hamper the institutionalization 

and sustainability of the program in the future. 

(COSMOS Corporation, 2007, p. xiv) 

Role of the Project Coordinator 

The role of the project coordinator is one of the most 

critical elements contributing to the success of the 

project. The title “project director” would perhaps be 

more reflective of the duties and responsibilities of this 

individual. . . . Traits of successful project coordinators 

include having an ability to network and effectively 

communicate the issues; being integrated within 

the city’s existing organizational infrastructure (e.g., 

within the school system, mayor’s office, etc.); having 

in-depth information about key project issues; maintaining a deep long-term commitment to the project; 

and an understanding of basic research principles. 

Because this role requires the project coordinator to 

serve as the liaison to various oversight entities (the 

steering committee, the intervention team), the project coordinator should have outstanding interpersonal 

skills and an energetic and outgoing personality. 

(COSMOS Corporation, 2007, pp. xiv–xv) 

Project Location 

Intervention programs of this nature may be more 

productive when situated and managed within school 

systems (e.g., board of education), as opposed to law 

enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies naturally tend to focus on suppression components rather 

than embracing a more broad-based approach, leading to uneven pursuit of activities. 

(COSMOS Corporation, 2007, p. xv) 

Range of Intervention Activities Offered and Age 

Span of Clients Eligible To Participate 

Programs like the [Gang-Free Schools] project may 

have long-term success with juveniles and young 

adults if intervention strategies are intermingled with 

prevention strategies and are offered to both younger 

and older clients. More and more youth are getting 

actively involved in gang-related and juvenile delinquent activities at a younger age, especially in elementary school. Thus, a model that incorporates both 

prevention and intervention strategies that are age 

appropriate (e.g., 8 to 24 years old) may yield greater 

benefits over time for society generally and the youth 

population specifically. 

(COSMOS Corporation, 2007, p. xv) 

In addition to the more common and obvious youth 

interventions, such as employment and educational 

opportunities, . . . [communities] should be urged to 

customize intervention programs according to the 

cultural issues and needs of the individuals in each 
Appendix A • 47 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

city. Some young people . . . needed extra help with 

learning and understanding the English language, and 

others needed major assistance with drug, alcohol, 

and mental [health] problems. Furthermore, some of 

the youth lacked positive role models, so they may 

benefit from a strong mentoring component in an 

intervention program. 

(COSMOS Corporation, 2007, p. xvi) 

Parental and Community Member Involvement 

Parents’ and community members’ involvement in the 

steering committee and intervention team may be key 

to learning the true tone and inner workings of a 

community and to getting young people to actively 

participate in the intervention programs. 

(COSMOS Corporation, 2007, p. xvi). 

Role of Outreach 

It may be imperative to have community members 

who have been active in the project neighborhood to 

serve as outreach workers because young people seem 

to relate to, respond to, and respect these individuals 

more. Outreach workers from the participating neighborhoods have a strong record and seem to be better 

predictors of referring youth who will benefit from 

the intervention programs and who will stay active in 

the program. 

(COSMOS Corporation, 2007, p. xvi) 

Project Title 

Two cities involved in GFS created different project 

names that did not include the word “gang.” . . . 

The term “gang” being used in the project name or 

during school or community discussion seemed to be 

a hindrance when seeking youth involvement in the 

program . . . A project name that does not use . . . 

“gang,” but reflects that the purpose is to diminish 

juvenile delinquency through intervention and/or prevention may increase youth enrollment in the project. 

(COSMOS Corporation, 2007, p. xvii) 

The four sites enrolled more than 400 clients in their programs during the more than 4-year project period. The 

majority of youth remained enrolled in the program for 

more than 2 years. During their time in the program, 

outreach workers made frequent contact with the youth, 

with the average length of each contact ranging from 

33 to 41 minutes. Analysis shows that the more time the 

outreach workers spent per contract, the more likely the 

youth would remain in the program. It was also noted that 

greater length of time per contact was positively related 

to less alcohol use and fewer arrests at the Houston site. 

Evaluation data show that youth currently attending 

school were less likely than their peers who were not 

attending school to be rearrested and to use drugs and 

alcohol over the duration of the study. Also, youth who 

were more involved in their gangs were more likely to be 

expelled more often from school, to receive disciplinary 

infractions at school, and to be jailed more often. 

(COSMOS Corporation, 2007, p. xx) 

Gang Reduction Program 

As part of U.S. Department of Justice’s Anti-Gang Initiative, OJJDP’s Gang Reduction Program was designed to 

reduce gang activity in targeted neighborhoods by 

incorporating a broad spectrum of research-based interventions to address the range of personal, family, and 

community factors that contribute to juvenile delinquency and gang activity. The program integrates local, State, 

and Federal resources to incorporate state-of-the-art 

practices in prevention, intervention, and suppression. 

The program was implemented in four demonstration 

sites—Richmond, VA; Los Angeles, CA; North Miami 

Beach, FL; and Milwaukee, WI—beginning in 2003. 

As part of the initiative, the Urban Institute conducted an 

independent 3-year evaluation to assess program implementation, examine outcomes related to reductions in 

crime and gang activity, and identify improvements in prosocial behaviors of youth. The following excerpts provide 

a summary of findings from the evaluation (Cahill and 

Hayeslip, 2010): 
48 • Appendix A 

The brief strategic planning process was the first major challenge faced by all sites. The short time allowed 

for Phase I planning permitted the implementation of 

some activities, but these were generally extensions of 

programs already in place. In all sites, much or most of 

Phase I was actually devoted to further problem identification and information gathering in an effort to 

better understand the nature of local problems, 

resources, and relevant evidence-based practices. 

Much of the progress achieved to date at each of the 

sites is attributable to the leadership of each site’s 

coordinator. Coordinators, however, would have benefited from more direction and technical assistance on 

organizing local efforts. Sites independently developed similar organizational designs: steering committees (termed “advisory” in Los Angeles) representing 

broad community interests. Coordinators relied on 

steering committees for management and decisionmaking support. The inclusive committees were a 

mixed blessing: while they represented diverse interests related to gang reduction, some participating 

organizations expected to secure substantial funding 

from GRP, and disrupted planning and implementation because of individual agency priorities rather 

than participating to fulfill the mission of GRP. Early in 

the process, competition for funds, political infighting, 

and unrealistic expectations had occasional negative 

effects on collaboration, communication, and committee functioning. These effects diminished over time. 

Substantial variation in the levels of collaboration 

and communication existed. Stakeholders focused 

on suppression efforts, especially in Los Angeles and 

Richmond, seemed to function more collaboratively 

and effectively because of prior experience working 

together. Where functioning was more problematic, 

member attrition and turnover was more prevalent. 

However, over the course of implementation, collaboration improved, as did local committee functioning. 

Conforming to strict procurement rules had negative 

effects on implementation. The time required to get 

programs up and running in target communities was 

longer than anyone anticipated. Also, some capable 

providers with little experience in the competitive bidding process were disqualified due to missed deadlines 

or submission of incomplete applications. In other cases, complicated application procedures discouraged 

providers from applying. 

In contrast to many previous crime prevention and 

reduction efforts, all sites successfully implemented 

the GRP model and significant implementation successes were observed in all sites. Sites developed strategic plans approved by OJJDP and consistent with 

target area needs and problems; local governance and 

communication steadily improved as did partnerships 

among core members as the program developed; 

coordinator outreach resulted in a broad participation 

in GRP planning and implementation; a significant 

number of specific programmatic activities across all 

GRP components—prevention, intervention, and 

suppression—were operational by late 2007; and GRP 

has improved communication about gang issues within the target areas and among participating 

organizations. 

Successful outcomes related to crime reduction were 

seen in some of the sites although results varied. Los 

Angeles showed a significant reduction in crime rates, 

with levels of serious violence, gang related incidents, 

gang-related serious violence, and citizen reports of 

shots fired all decreasing significantly after the implementation of GRP there. Smaller drops in those measures were found in the comparison area, and no 

evidence of displacement was identified. Serious violent crime and gang-related incidents also declined 

sharply in Richmond following implementation. 

Although serious violent and gang-related incidents 

declined following GRP implementation in North 

Miami Beach, those changes were not significant. 

Changes in Milwaukee also were not significant. 

Although very little strategic planning for sustainability had taken place at any of the four sites at the time 

of the previous report in 2006, three of the four sites 

have since undertaken significant steps towards sustaining at least portions of the initiative beyond the 
Appendix A • 49 

federal funding period. In Los Angeles, the GRP model 

was implemented citywide with local funding and 

termed “Gang Reduction and Youth Development 

Program.” In North Miami Beach, after struggling to 

find a government-based fiscal agent to sustain the 

partnership, the initiative was incorporated as a nonprofit organization in late 2007. In Richmond, the 

close relationship that developed between the Virginia Office of the Attorney General (OAG) and the 

Richmond Police Department (RPD) through the GRP 

effort ensured that a significant portion of the efforts 

undertaken by the RPD were sustained. In 2008, the 

program was expanded to include a neighborhood in 

the northern part of the city, with many of the original partners providing services in the new area. 

GRP effectively ended in Milwaukee in 2007 because 

of a lack of any concerted efforts to sustain it. Despite 

the lack of sustainability plans, some local stakeholders reported in late 2007 that they were still optimistic 

about continuing certain components of the GRP 

model. One major suppression component— 

community prosecution—has continued with local 

funding support in Milwaukee. 

The final findings from the Urban Institute’s independent 

evaluation are reported in full in the OJJDP bulletin 

Findings From an Evaluation of OJJDP’s Gang Reduction 

Program. 

Notes 

a. These project descriptions are adapted from the OJJDP 

Fact Sheet, Implementing the OJJDP Comprehensive 

Gang Model (Burch and Kane, 1999), and also refer to 

information provided in the more comprehensive project 

and evaluation reports. 

b. It is noteworthy that the Tucson Police Department 

had previously organized a community policing effort in 

the Las Vistas/Pueblo area—the original program area. 

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 an interest in 

reducing violence and addressing the gang problem. Our 

Town attempted to use this group as the project’s steering committee, but this did not materialize. At the same 

time, the Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Violence—comprising criminal-justice 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. 

c. The Louisville site dropped out of the program shortly 

after an assessment was completed in 2001, stating that 

the data collected were not conclusive enough to support 

implementing such a comprehensive program. They were 

also concerned that the impending merger of city and 

county governments posed significant issues that affected 

the viability of the project. After September 11, 2001, 

homeland security and related activities took precedence 

in Washington, DC, for several months. The grantee was 

the Metropolitan Police Department, which was focusing 

all its attention on more immediate problems. Further, 

the grantee and the lead agency could not find compatible ground on which to launch this initiative. Consequently, the Washington, DC, site was unable to complete 

an assessment. 

d. The lead agency for the Gang-Free Schools project in 

Houston was the Mayor’s Anti-Gang Office, a division of 

the Mayor’s Office of Public Safety and Drug Policy. The 

lead agency convened a steering committee composed of 

members from several key agencies, including the Houston Police Department, Houston Mayor’s Office, Houston 

Independent School District, and Harris County Juvenile 

Probation (COSMOS Corporation, 2007, pp. 3.14–16). 

The steering committee, in conjunction with the Mayor’s 

Anti-Gang Office, selected Houston’s target area for the 

Gang-Free Schools initiative (COSMOS Corporation, 2007, 

pp. 3.14, 18). This area—directly east of downtown— 

originally included five police beats commonly referred to 

as the Greater East End, populated primarily by residents 

of Mexican origin. This target area included five distinct 

neighborhoods: Magnolia, the Second Ward, Lawndale, 

Eastwood, and Idylwood. Between 2003 and 2007, 128 

youth were enrolled as clients by and received services 

from the project. 
50 • Appendix A 

 

 

 

 

The School District of Pittsburgh served as the lead 

agency for the Pittsburgh project (COSMOS Corporation, 

2007). The steering committee and the assessment team 

initially assessed the entire city of Pittsburgh because 

crime was so widely dispersed over many areas of the city. 

The steering committee considered 23 areas from four 

regions of the city (north, south, east, and central), ultimately selecting the east region as the target area. From 

2003 to 2007, 93 youth were enrolled as clients by and 

received services from the project. 

The Miami-Dade County Public Schools served as lead 

agency for the Miami project, with the Miami-Dade 

County School Police Department performing most of the 

administrative functions (COSMOS Corporation, 2007, p. 

6.11). The steering committee was composed of key 

agencies that provided services throughout metropolitan 

Miami-Dade County. It selected a project coordinator 

who would work directly with the school police but not 

within the local law enforcement agency. Northwest 

Miami-Dade County was selected as the target area for 

implementation (COSMOS Corporation, 2007, pp. 6.18– 

19, 22). From the period 2003–2006, 150 youth were 

enrolled in and received services from the project. 

The Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Prosecutor’s Office 

served as the East Cleveland Gang-Free Schools project’s 

lead agency. A steering committee composed of key 

agencies that pledged their support to the initiative was 

convened, and the steering committee selected the entire 

city of East Cleveland as the target area rather than attempting to target particular neighborhoods. (COSMOS 

Corporation, 2007, p. 5.9, 5.12). The project encountered 

numerous difficulties during the assessment process, including the failure of research partners to attend steering 

committee meetings, turnover in the project coordinator 

role, and an assessment report that was judged inadequate (COSMOS Corporation, 2007, p. 5.11, 5.15). However, despite staffing problems and external issues, the 

project completed the assessment phase with a core 

group of participants who were willing to contribute 

time and resources to implementing the Gang-Free 

Schools project (COSMOS Corporation, 2007, p. 5.15). 

During the period 2003–2006, 98 youth were enrolled 

in and served by the project. 

References 

Burch, J., and Kane, C. (1999). Implementing the OJJDP 

Comprehensive Gang Model. Fact Sheet #112. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

Cahill, M., and Hayeslip, D. (2010). Findings From an Evaluation of OJJDP’s Gang Reduction Program. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

COSMOS Corporation (2007). National Evaluation of the 

Gang-Free Schools Initiative. Unpublished draft report 

submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Bethesda, MD: COSMOS Corporation. 

National Council on Crime and Delinquency (2000). 

National Evaluation of the First Year of the OJJDP Rural 

Gang Initiative: Cross-Site Analysis. Unpublished draft 

report submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. Oakland, CA: National Council 

on Crime and Delinquency. 

National Youth Gang Center (2003). Gang-Free Communities Process Description. Unpublished draft report submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. Tallahassee, FL: National Youth Gang Center. 

Spergel, I.A. (2007). Reducing Youth Gang Violence: The 

Little Village Gang Project in Chicago. Lanham, MD: 

AltaMira Press. 
Appendix A • 51 

Spergel, I.A., Wa, K.M., and Sosa, R.V. (2005a). Evaluation 

of the Mesa Gang Intervention Program (MGIP). Washington, DC: Unpublished report submitted to the Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Accessible at the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. 

Spergel, I.A., Wa, K.M., and Sosa, R,V. (2005b). Evaluation 

of the Riverside Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention and Suppression. Report submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: Unpublished report. Accessible at the National Criminal Justice 

Reference Service. 

Spergel, I.A., Wa, K.M., and Sosa, R.V. (2005c). Evaluation 

of the Bloomington-Normal Comprehensive Gang Program. Report submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: Unpublished report. Accessible at the National Criminal Justice 

Reference Service. 

Spergel, I.A., Wa, K.M., and Sosa, R.V. (2005d). Evaluation 

of the San Antonio Comprehensive Community-Wide 

Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention and Suppression. Report submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: Unpublished report. Accessible at the National Criminal Justice 

Reference Service. 

Spergel, I.A., Wa, K.M., and Sosa, R.V. (2005e). Evaluation 

of the Tucson Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach 

to Gang Prevention, Intervention and Suppression. Report submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: Unpublished report. 

Accessible at the National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service. 

Spergel, I.A., Wa, K.M., and Sosa, R.V. (2006). The comprehensive, community-wide, gang program model: Success 

and failure. In J. F. Short and L. A. Hughes (eds.), Studying 

Youth Gangs (pp. 203–224). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. 
Appendix B • 53 

 

Appendix B: 

Multistrategy Gang Initiative 

Survey 

T he purpose of the survey is to gather information regarding 

multistrategy gang initiatives in your community and to solicit 

observations pertaining to several types of anti-gang initiatives 

funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Not 

all topics and questions apply to every project. Follow-up interviews will be conducted 

with some respondents to help gather further information on trends identified through 

the survey. 

Site you represent: 

Please provide a written response to each question: 

Assessment/Implementation Planning 

1.	 Did your project conduct a communitywide assessment of your gang or youth violence problem? Yes No 

2.	 What data were most useful in developing the implementation plan? 

3.	 Describe the process your project used to select a target area of the community. 

4.	 Describe how the project identified service gaps in the target community and how those service gaps were 

addressed. 
54 • Appendix B 

 

 

5. What suggestions do you have for strengthening the data collection process to assist in program planning 

and implementation? 

6.	 If applicable, describe the roles and responsibilities of your project’s research partner during the assessment 

and implementation process. 

Project Coordinator Role 

7.	 Describe the critical skills and characteristics project coordinators should possess to successfully direct a 

multistrategy gang initiative. 

8.	 What significant obstacles did the project coordinator encounter during assessment and/or implementation? 

How did the project coordinator overcome the obstacles? 

Lead Agency 

9.	 Describe your project’s administrative structure, including the type of lead agency, if any (e.g., city government, 

law enforcement, school district). 

10. What were the advantages and disadvantages of your project’s administrative structure and lead agency? 

Steering Committee/Advisory Board 

11. Did your site use a committee made up of partner agencies, such as a steering committee/advisory board? 

If not, skip to the Prevention Services section. Yes No 
Appendix B • 55 

12. Describe the steering committee/advisory board’s formal and informal roles in the project (e.g., leadership, types 

of decision making, resource development). 

13. Describe the process used to select representatives for this group. 

14. Describe the process used to establish and update formal agreements regarding this body’s functioning (e.g., 

bylaws, memorandums of understanding). 

15. What major challenges did your project encounter in developing and maintaining your site’s steering committee, 

and what strategies did your project use to address them? 

16. What strategies should be used to create and maintain a successful steering committee or advisory board? 

Prevention Services 

17. Describe the main prevention efforts your project engaged in for youth at high risk of gang involvement and 

their families. 

18. How did your project identify prevention strategies that were used? 

19. Describe successes and challenges that your project experienced in implementing prevention strategies. 
56 • Appendix B 

Intervention Team 

20. What main agencies participated on your intervention team? 

21. Which agencies were most critical to the effective functioning of an intervention team? Describe their roles 

in ensuring that clients receive optimum case management and services. 

22. In what ways was the intervention team able to create a positive impact, beyond providing case management 

and services to clients (e.g., institutional change, resource development)? 

23. What agencies were most difficult to engage in the intervention team and why? 

24. Describe challenges that your intervention team encountered in becoming organized and operational, 

and discuss the strategies used to address the challenges. 

Suppression 

25. What types of suppression strategies were utilized in conjunction with this project? 

26. What role did law enforcement/criminal justice agencies play on the intervention team? 

27. Describe how new or existing suppression strategies were implemented by the project. 
Appendix B • 57 

28. What other social control mechanisms were utilized by agencies participating in the project to address clients’ 

negative behaviors? 

Reentry 

29. Describe program services that were provided to previously incarcerated clients returning to the community. 

30. What challenges did your project face in providing services to this population? 

Organizational Development 

31. Describe policy and procedural changes that participating agencies made as a result of their participation. 

32. Describe the strategies that your project used to engage nonfunded partners in activities. How effective were 

those strategies? 

Resources 

33. List and describe the resources your project used for guidance in planning and implementing the project. 

34. What additional resources and support would have been helpful to your project for planning and implementing 

the project? 
58 • Appendix B 

 

Sustainability 

35. Is your project working to sustain the multistrategy gang initiative model long-term? If no, skip to the Lessons 

Learned section. Yes No 

36. Describe the plans your project is exploring or has in place to sustain the project. 

37. Describe the funding or collaboration challenges your project has encountered in sustaining your multistrategy 

gang program. 

Lessons Learned 

38. How successful was your project in targeting gang members and at-risk youths? 

39. What factors contributed most to successfully targeting these groups in your project? 

40. How successful was your project in integrating services for clients or “wrapping” them around youth and their 

families? 

41. What factors contributed most to successfully integrating services for clients? 

42. How successful was your project in providing a balance of prevention, intervention, and suppression strategies? 
Appendix B • 59 

43. What factors contributed most to successfully providing a balance of prevention, intervention, and suppression 

strategies? 

If you are interested in participating in a follow-up interview, please include your name, e-mail address, and phone 


number below.
 

Name: 


E-mail Address: 


Phone Number: 

 

U.S. Department of Justice PRESORTED STANDARD 

Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

DOJ/OJJDP
 

PERmIT NO. G–91
 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention *NCJ~231200*

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300