Jeremy Travis, Director November 1997

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

National Institute of Justice

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: Early

findings and research methods

pertaining to a national evaluation of

the effectiveness of the Gang

Resistance Education and Training

(G.R.E.A.T.) program, a school-based

gang prevention strategy taught to

middle school students.

Key issues: During the 1980s and

1990s, gang affiliation by youths and

their involvement in criminal activity

became a major concern for law

enforcement and the public. The

G.R.E.A.T. program was developed to

reduce adolescent involvement in

criminal behavior and gangs. The

national evaluation of the program

consists of a two-pronged research

approach: (1) a preliminary study

comparing students who completed

G.R.E.A.T. with others who either

had not participated or had enrolled

but failed to finish, and (2) a

longitudinal quasi-experimental

design assessing both the short- and

long-term effectiveness of G.R.E.A.T.

Key findings: Early findings from

the national evaluation are based on

a cross-sectional survey of 5,935

eighth graders from 42 schools in 11

locales where G.R.E.A.T. is taught.

Researchers are also assessing the

training of police officers who teach

the program.

Preliminary results indicate that

students who completed the

G.R.E.A.T. lessons reported more

prosocial behaviors and attitudes

than their peers who did not finish

the program or failed to participate

in the first place. Among other

findings:

• Lower rates of self-reported

delinquency and gang membership.

Youth delinquent gangs continue to

generate concern among criminal

justice professionals and the general

public. Gang membership and related

criminal activity increased in the late

1980s and early 1990s, and the availability of firearms has led to more gangrelated homicides. One way to address

these problems is to find ways to

prevent youths from joining gangs.

In 1991 police officers from the Phoenix Police Department and from Mesa,

Glendale, and Tempe, Arizona, and

special agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms developed

Gang Resistance Education and

Training (G.R.E.A.T.) to reduce adolescent involvement in criminal behavior

and gangs. G.R.E.A.T. is a national,

school-based gang prevention program

in which uniformed law enforcement

officers teach a 9-week curriculum to

middle school students. As of June

1997, more than 2,400 officers from 47

States and the District of Columbia

had completed G.R.E.A.T. training.

Given this rapid program expansion, the

National Institute of Justice, in cooperation with the Treasury Department’s

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, sponsored a comprehensive,

multisite evaluation to assess

G.R.E.A.T.’s effectiveness. Initial

findings indicate the program is having

a positive effect on student attitudes

and behaviors and is deterring them

from involvement in gangs.

This Research in Brief discusses the

evaluation’s design and methodology,

G.R.E.A.T.’s program and officer

training, and preliminary findings of a

cross-sectional study.

Evaluation design

Context. The research design for the

national evaluation considered previous

research and public policy on gangs.

Consensus is lacking about the magnitude of the gang problem, the extent and

level of gang organization, and the action

needed to address the issue. Some of the

epidemiological and etiological issues

can be traced to different methodologies

and theoretical perspectives. Policy

differences can be attributed to competing government priorities and to the

limited number of evaluations of programs undertaken to address the gang

phenomenon. However, a number of

suppression, intervention, and prevention programs with evaluative components have been implemented in the past

few years at local and national levels.1

Knowledge about gangs traditionally has

come from one of three sources: observational or case studies,2

 law enforcement

records,3

 and surveys.4 On one point

continued...

National Evaluation of G.R.E.A.T.

by Finn-Aage Esbensen and D. Wayne Osgood

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice
there is considerable consensus among

researchers: the high rate of criminal

offending among gang members.

Two objectives and two strategies.

The national evaluation of G.R.E.A.T.

has two primary objectives: (1) to

perform an outcome analysis examining

G.R.E.A.T.’s short- and long-term

effects on students and (2) to conduct a

process evaluation assessing the quality

and effectiveness of officer training (see

“G.R.E.A.T. Officer Training”).

Two strategies were developed to

determine program effectiveness. The

first is a cross-sectional study of students in 11 locales where G.R.E.A.T. is

taught; group questionnaires were

administered to a sample of eighthgrade students. The second strategy,

which recognizes the limitations of

retrospective, cross-sectional designs, is

a prospective longitudinal study initiated at six sites.5

 A quasi-experimental

research design guided the assignment

of classrooms to experimental and

comparison groups. Students in both

groups completed pretests and posttests

during the first half of the 1995–96

school year and will be administered

questionnaires annually through fall

1999.

Cross-sectional survey

For the first study, a cross-sectional

survey of 5,935 eighth-grade students

was completed in spring 1995. Survey

results were used to create a treatment

group and a comparison group to assess

G.R.E.A.T.’s effectiveness in the 11

cities where the survey was administered. These cities had delivered the

G.R.E.A.T. program during the 1993–94

school year, when the targeted students

were seventh graders. Surveying these

students as eighth graders permitted a

1-year followup to their program

2

Issues and Findings

continued...

• More communication and

attachment with parents.

• Greater commitment to school and

lower levels of perceived obstacles to

academic achievement.

The questionnaire administered to

the eighth graders used five

background characteristics—sex,

race, age, family status, and parental

education—to determine whether

significant differences existed

between students who completed

the G.R.E.A.T. program and students

who comprised the comparison

group. Differences between the

groups were small, and initial

findings of the program’s positive

impact are not a product of

preexisting differences between the

G.R.E.A.T. participants and comparison students.

Target audience: Gang, delinquency prevention, and juvenile

justice specialists and researchers;

law enforcement agencies; school

administrators; and State and local

policymakers.

 G.R.E.A.T. Officer Training

Currently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and the Phoenix Police Department coordinate officer training and,

with the Orange County, Florida, Sheriff’s Office, share management responsibility for the

G.R.E.A.T. program.

Evaluators attended five officer training sessions as well as one G.R.E.A.T. management

training session during fiscal year 1995. Despite some shortcomings, G.R.E.A.T. officer

training has many strengths that prepare officers to become successful classroom instructors.

Primary among them is the supportive learning environment the training staff creates for the

officers. Instructors deal with officer students in an enthusiastic, engaging, and encouraging

manner. The instructional format provides a spirit of camaraderie and cooperation, and a

repeated emphasis on professionalism creates a context of mutual respect. Further, the

strategy of modeling each lesson of the curriculum and requiring officers to present a lesson

is the keystone to the training process, which repeatedly exposes officer students to material

they themselves will soon be teaching in their own classrooms.

Other strengths of the training program include its use of occasional role-play techniques and

group exercises. In addition, the curriculum focuses on several important skills—including

meeting basic needs, resolving conflict, taking responsibility, and setting goals—that can be

taught to middle school students and may be instrumental in achieving the goal of crime-free

adolescents. Its graduation event serves as a motivator and culminating activity.

Research in Brief
participation and also guaranteed

that none of the survey sample were

currently enrolled in the program.

Site selection. In selecting the 11

sites, consideration was given to

geographic location, population

characteristics, and population size.

The cities selected were Phoenix,

Arizona; Torrance, California;

Orlando, Florida; Pocatello, Idaho;

Will County, Illinois; Kansas City,

Missouri; Omaha, Nebraska; Las

Cruces, New Mexico; Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania; Providence, Rhode

Island; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

In those cities, questionnaires were

administered to all eighth graders in

attendance on the specified day at

schools that had offered G.R.E.A.T.

during the previous 2 years. This

resulted in a final sample of 5,935

eighth-grade students from 315

classrooms in 42 schools.

Measures. The questionnaire was

designed to assess the G.R.E.A.T.

curriculum. The goal was to include

questions that would assess specific

aspects of the G.R.E.A.T. program

while also measuring dominant

criminological theories.6

 Several

measures also were developed to

reflect the curriculum’s cognitive

aspects. For example, lesson 3 of the

program introduces students to six

steps and five personal prerequisites

for conflict resolution. A sample

measure for this lesson was to ask

students to respond to the following

statement: “Violence interferes with

a person’s basic right to feel safe and

secure.” (See “The G.R.E.A.T.

Curriculum.”)

Another key measure concerns gang

membership and involvement in gang

activity. Questions were designed to

elicit self-reports of illegal activity.

This technique has been used widely

during the past 30 years and has

provided a good measure of actual

behavior rather than a measure of

police response to behavior.7

 (See

“Measuring Gang Affiliation.”)

Comparison group. A primary

question was whether students who

completed the G.R.E.A.T. program

were comparable to those who did

not complete it—either because they

never participated or dropped out of

the program. The treatment group

and comparison group were defined

through answers to the question,

“Did you complete the G.R.E.A.T.

program?” Of the 5,836 respondents

who answered the question (99

students did not respond), 2,629 (45

percent) reported they had completed the program and thus were the

treatment group. The 3,207 who had

not became the comparison group.

The schools varied substantially,

however, in the number of students

who had completed and who had not

completed the G.R.E.A.T. program.

Since the precision with which

program impact can be established

at each school depends on the

number of students in both treatment

and comparison groups, schools with

3

 The G.R.E.A.T. Curriculum

To meet its objectives of reducing gang activity and teaching the consequences

of gang involvement, the curriculum consists of nine lesson plans to be offered once a

week to middle school students, primarily seventh graders. Each detailed lesson plan

contains clearly stated purposes and objectives. In addition to the nine lesson plans, the

curriculum calls for the teaching officers to discuss gangs and how they affect the

quality of people’s lives. The nine G.R.E.A.T. lessons are:

1. Introduction. Students get acquainted with the G.R.E.A.T. program and the

presenting officer.

2. Crime, Victims, and Your Rights. Students learn about crimes, their victims, and

their impact on school and neighborhood.

3. Cultural Sensitivity and Prejudice. Students explore how cultural differences

affect their school and neighborhood.

4.,5. Conflict Resolution (two lessons). Students are taught how to create an atmosphere of understanding that enables all parties to better address problems and work

on solutions together.

6. Meeting Basic Needs. Students learn how to meet their basic needs without

joining a gang.

7. Drugs and Neighborhoods. Students are educated about how drugs affect their

school and neighborhood.

8. Responsibility. Students examine the diverse responsibilities of people in their

school and neighborhood.

9. Goal Setting. Students learn the need for goal setting and how to establish shortand long-term goals.

For information about G.R.E.A.T., contact the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

at 800-726-7070.

Research in Brief
Research in Brief

4

few students in one of the groups

could contribute relatively little to

the evaluation. Therefore, analysis of

the treatment and comparison groups

was replicated in a restricted sample

of 28 schools where at least 15

students comprised each group.

Controlling for other differences.

Because data were gathered on one

occasion only, a year after students

had completed the program, the

researchers had to compare the

treatment and comparison groups

using statistical controls to rule out

the possibility that differences

between them were attributable to

various background characteristics.

Background characteristics

Questions were asked in the survey

to determine five background characteristics that could be associated

with the outcome measures.8

 The

analysis controlled for the following:

• Sex.

• Race/ethnicity (white, AfricanAmerican, Hispanic, Asian-American, and other).

• Age (there was little variation in

age, because only eighth-grade

students participated in the

evaluation).

• Family status (as reflected in the

adults with whom the youths resided).

• Parental education (defined as the

highest level attained by either

parent).

Not surprisingly, differences surfaced among the 42 schools in racial

composition and socioeconomic

status (as reflected by family status

and parental education).9

 The

analysis, which controlled for

differences between schools, found a

few small but statistically significant

differences in background characteristics between treatment and comparison groups.

Ideally, the treatment and comparison groups would have been

matched, but this could not be

expected in a post hoc evaluation

such as this study. The pattern of

group differences in background

characteristics is ambiguous but

does not appear especially problematic to determining the impact of the

G.R.E.A.T. program.

Comparisons of treatment and

nontreatment groups revealed no

systematic bias. Both groups had

demographic characteristics indicating high or low risk for delinquency,

gang membership, or both. In the

comparison group, 15-year-old

students were overrepresented; in the

treatment group African-American

youths were overrepresented. The

comparison group had fewer females

but more youths from single-parent

homes. Given this inconsistent

pattern and the small size of group

differences, it was concluded that the

outcome measures were not a product

of preexisting differences between

the G.R.E.A.T. and comparison

students.10

Program impact was thus determined

through a model that controlled for

school and the five background

characteristics. Although the results

are consistent, restricting the analysis to the 28 schools tends to

strengthen the magnitude of the

program’s effect.11

Initial results

Early findings indicate that

G.R.E.A.T. appears to be meeting its

objective—to reduce gang affiliation

and delinquent activity. The students

completing G.R.E.A.T. reported lower

levels of gang affiliation and delinquency than did comparison students.

These differences are small but

statistically significant. (See “Statistical and Substantive Differences.”)

Measuring Gang

Affiliation What constitutes a gang

member? In the current research, two

filter questions introduce the gangspecific section of the questionnaire:

“Have you ever been a gang member?”

and “Are you now in a gang?” Of the

total sample, 994 youths, or 17 percent,

indicated they had belonged to a gang at

some point in their lives. In contrast,

slightly more than half of these youths—

522, or 9 percent of the sample—

indicated they were currently gang

members.

In an attempt to limit the sample of gang

members to “delinquent gangs,” two

different measures were employed. First,

a restrictive or conservative definition

limited gang status to those respondents

who stated they were current gang

members and that their gangs engaged

in at least one type of delinquent

behavior (fighting other gangs, stealing

cars, stealing in general, or robbing

people). This resulted in identification of

451 gang members, or 8 percent of the

sample. Second, a more liberal, yet still

somewhat restrictive, definition included

youths who indicated they “had ever

been a gang member” and whose gang

had been involved in at least one of the

four illegal activities. This more liberal

definition produced 623 gang members,

representing 10.6 percent of the sample.

The latter, more liberal, definition was

used for this research.
5

Research in Brief

Exhibit 1. Statistically

Significant Differences

Between G.R.E.A.T. Students and

Comparison Groupa

Variable Difference (%)

Behaviors

Total delinquency - 4

Drug use - 5

Minor offenses - 5

Property offenses - 4

Ever gang member - 4

Attitudes

Attitudes toward police + 5

Bad things about gangs + 7

Guilt from deviance + 5

Impulsiveness - 5

Maternal attachment + 5

Risk seeking - 4

Parental monitoring + 5

Paternal attachment + 6

Peer delinquency - 4

Perception of limited opportunities- 4

Prosocial peers + 5

Positive peer commitment + 5

Risk seeking - 4

Self-esteem + 5

School commitment + 5

Note: This table compares G.R.E.A.T. students

with a comparable group of students who did

not complete the G.R.E.A.T. program. A minus

sign indicates that the G.R.E.A.T. students

reported lower rates than did the comparison

group; a plus sign indicates a higher score for

the G.R.E.A.T. students. Thus, “- 4” for “total

delinquency” means that the G.R.E.A.T. students

reported committing 4 percent fewer delinquent

acts than did the comparison group. Likewise,

“+ 5” for “attitudes toward police” indicates

that the G.R.E.A.T. students had a more positive

attitude toward police officers than did the other

students.

a. Controlling for differences between schools

and for five background characteristics: sex, race,

age, family status, and parental education.

Not only is the aggregate measure of

delinquency lower for the G.R.E.A.T.

group but so are most of the subscales,

i.e., drug use, minor offending,

property crimes, and crimes against

persons. No differences between the

groups were found for rates of victimization or selling drugs.

A number of differences also were

found for attitudinal measures.

G.R.E.A.T. lessons are aimed at

reducing impulsive behavior, improving communication with parents

and other adults, enhancing selfesteem, and encouraging students to

make better choices. The crosssectional survey results (see exhibit

1) reveal that 1 year after completing

the program, G.R.E.A.T. students (in

contrast to the comparison group)

reported the following:

• Lower rates of delinquency.

• Lower rates of gang affiliation.

• More positive attitudes toward the

police.

• More negative attitudes about

gangs.

• More friends involved in prosocial

activities.

• Greater commitment to peers

promoting prosocial behavior.

 Statistical and Substantive Differences

An important distinction exists between statistically significant differences and

substantively important differences. Sample sizes and statistical approaches can affect

the level of statistical significance, sometimes exaggerating an effect and other times

underestimating an effect.

One alternative to relying solely on statistical significance is to examine relative effect

sizes. Effect size (ES) can be defined as “a measure of change due to the treatment as

a proportion of the standard deviation for each measure employed.”* Thus, an ES of

-1 indicates that the treatment group performed one standard deviation lower than

the comparison group; an ES of +1 indicates that the treatment group performed one

standard deviation unit higher than the comparison group. The larger the ES, the

greater the measurable impact of the program. In one review of delinquency treatment and prevention programs, the author found average effect sizes of .17 and

argued that even a small ES of .10 may have practical value when dealing with

criminal activity.**

One way of interpreting an effect size is to convert it to a percentage. This can be

done by dividing the effect size by two. For example, an effect size of .10 represents a

5 percent difference. In the current research, effect sizes were in the .10 range,

indicating modest program effects.

*Gottfredson, Denise C., “School-Based Crime Prevention,” in Larry W. Sherman, et al.,

Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising: A Report to the United States

Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1997.

**Lipsey, Mark W., “Juvenile Delinquency Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Inquiry into the Variability

of Effects,” in Meta-Analysis for Explanation, ed. T.D. Cook, et al., Beverly Hills, California: Sage,

1992.
Research in Brief

6

• Higher levels of perceived guilt at

committing deviant acts.

• More commitment to school.

• Higher levels of attachment to both

mothers and fathers.

• More communication with parents

about their activities.

• Fewer friends involved in delinquent

activity.

• Less likelihood of acting impulsively.

• Lower likelihood of engaging in

risky behavior.

• Lower levels of perceived blocks to

academic success.

The cross-sectional survey also

yielded findings about gang membership that are contrary to popular

perceptions and other research

results. For example, white youths

comprised a larger share of the gang

population (25 percent), in contrast to

previous studies that found that gangs

were predominantly composed of

minorities. (See “Differences Between Gang Members and Nonmembers” and exhibit 2.)

Conclusions and policy

implications

G.R.E.A.T. is one of myriad gang

prevention efforts employed to

reduce adolescent involvement in

crime and gangs. The preliminary

findings of this study support continuation of G.R.E.A.T.; other

prevention programs await evaluation results.

Results from the 1995 cross-sectional survey suggest that students

who participated in G.R.E.A.T.

reported significantly more prosocial

behaviors and attitudes than students

who did not take part in the program.

This 1-year followup survey supports

the idea that trained law enforcement

personnel can serve as prevention

agents as well as enforcers of the law.

These cross-sectional results need to

be viewed with caution, however.

Some differences existed between

treatment and comparison groups

prior to the introduction of the

program. Although most of these

differences were controlled through

available statistical techniques, a

quasi-experimental design such as

that being implemented in the

longitudinal phase of this evaluation

will provide a better assessment of

program effectiveness. This longitudinal design also will allow for

examination of long-term effects.

Differences Between Gang Members

and Nonmembers Contrary to much of the prevailing literature about the male-dominated nature

of gangs, 38 percent of gang members in the sample were females. Although this

figure still indicates that females are underrepresented among gang members, it is to a

far lesser extent than is commonly assumed.*

The racial composition of gang members in this sample reveals that white youths were

proportionately less involved in gangs than African-American and Hispanic youths, but

not to the extent that prior research (often based on case studies of minority populations) has suggested: 25 percent of the gang members in this study are white. In fact, if

some of the “other” category—which comprises white youths who identified themselves as American, Italian, German, Portuguese, and the like—is included, the proportionate difference is reduced even further.

Consistent with earlier assessments of the demographic characteristics of gangs, this

sample reveals that younger youths are underrepresented in gangs, and gang members

are more likely to live with a single parent and have parents with lower levels of

educational attainment. Even within this limited age sample, the youths who were 13

and younger accounted for only 17 percent of gang members, although they represented 31 percent of the nongang sample. At the other extreme, 23 percent of gang

members were 15 years old or older, although only 9 percent of nongang members

were in this age bracket. A minority of youths lived in single parent homes, but gang

members reported living in single parent homes more frequently (40 percent) than

nongang youths (30 percent). Gang members’ mothers, fathers, or both were more

likely not to have finished high school (20 percent for gang members, 11 percent for

nongang youths). These demographic characteristics suggest there may be qualitative

differences in the living situations between gang and nongang youths.

*This discrepancy in rates of female participation in gangs may be due to a combination of

methodological issues. First, relatively few studies have sampled youths as young as 12 and 13.

Second, few studies have used general surveys of adolescent populations.

Finn-Aage Esbensen is a

professor in the Department of

Criminal Justice, University of

Nebraska at Omaha; D. Wayne

Osgood is a professor in the

Department of Sociology,

Pennsylvania State University.
7

Research in Brief

Notes

1. For a review see Howell, James

C., Youth Gang Violence Prevention

and Intervention: What Works,

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Justice, 1996.

2. See, for example, the works of

Campbell, Anne, The Girls in the

Gang, 2d ed., Cambridge, Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell, 1991;

Hagedorn, John M., People and

Folks: Gangs, Crime and the

Underclass in a Rustbelt City, Chicago, Illinois: Lakeview Press, 1988;

Miller, Walter B., “Lower Class

Culture as a Generating Milieu for

Gang Delinquency,” Journal of

Social Issues, 14(1958):

5–19; Thrasher, Frederick M., The

Gang: A Study of One Thousand

Three Hundred Thirteen Gangs in

Chicago, Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1927; Vigil, James

D., Barrio Gangs: Street Life and

Identity in Southern California,

Austin, Texas: University of Texas

Press, 1988.

3. Maxson, Cheryl L., and Malcolm

Klein, “Street Gang Violence: Twice

as Great or Half as Great?” in Gangs

in America, ed. C. Ronald Huff,

Newbury Park, California: Sage

Publications, Inc., 1990; Spergel,

Irving A., “Youth Gangs: Continuity

and Change,” in Crime and Justice:

An Annual Review of Research, ed.

Norval Morris and Michael Tonry,

Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1990.

4. Esbensen, Finn-Aage, and David

Huizinga, “Gangs, Drugs, and

Delinquency in a Survey of Urban

Youth,” Criminology, 31(1993):565–

589; Esbensen, Finn-Aage, David

Huizinga, and Anne W. Weiher,

“Gang and Non-gang Youth:

Differences in Explanatory Variables,” Journal of Contemporary

Criminal Justice, 9(1993):94–116;

Fagan, Jeffrey, “The Social Organization of Drug Use and Drug Dealing

Among Urban Gangs,” Criminology,

27(1989):633–669; Thornberry,

Terence P., Marvin D. Krohn, Alan J.

Lizotte, and Deborah ChardWierschem, “The Role of Juvenile

Gangs in Facilitating Delinquent

Behavior,” Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency,

30(1993):55–87; Winfree, L. Thomas, Teresa V. Backstrom, and G.

Larry Mays, “Social Learning

Theory, Self-Reported Delinquency,

and Youth Gangs: A New Twist on a

General Theory of Crime and Delinquency,” Youth and Society,

26(1994):147–177.

5. The six sites are Las Cruces, New

Mexico; Lincoln, Nebraska; Omaha,

Nebraska; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Phoenix, Arizona; and Portland,

Oregon.

6. Winfree, L. Thomas, Finn-Aage

Esbensen, and D. Wayne Osgood,

“Evaluating a School-Based Gang

Prevention Program: A Theoretical

Perspective,” Evaluation Review,

20(1996):181–203.

7. Hindelang, Michael J., Travis

Hirschi, and Joseph G. Weis,

Measuring Delinquency, Beverly

Hills, California: Sage, 1981;

Huizinga, David, and Delbert S.

Elliott, “Reassessing the Reliability

and Validity of Self-Report Delinquency Measures,” Journal of

Quantitative Criminology,

2(1986):293–327; Huizinga, David,

“Assessing Violent Behavior with

Self-Reports,” in Neuropsychology

of Aggression, ed. Joel Milner,

New York: Kluwer Academic

Publishers, 1991.

Gang NonMembers members

Characteristic % (N) % (N)

Sex

Male 62 46

Female 38 54

(617) (5,202)

Race/Ethnicity

White 25 42

African-American 31 26

Hispanic 25 28

Asian 5 6

Other 15 8

(613) (5,156)

Family Structure

Single parent 40 30

Intact 47 64

Other 13 7

(619) (5,196)

Age

13 and younger 17 31

14 61 60

15 and older 23 9

(606) (5,172)

Father’s Education Level

< High school 20 11

High school graduate 23 21

Some college 11 13

College graduate 11 20

More than college 6 9

Don’t know 28 27

(606) (5,162)

Mother’s Education Level

< High school 19 11

High school graduate 23 26

Some college 18 17

College graduate 15 20

More than college 9 10

Don’t know 17 16

(611) (5,162)

Exhibit 2. Background Characteristics:

Gang Members Versus Nonmembers
8. For a discussion of the correlates

of delinquency and gang membership,

consult Covey, Herbert C., Scott

Menard, and Robert J. Franzese,

Juvenile Gangs, Springfield, Illinois:

Charles Thomas Publisher, 1992; and

Esbensen, Finn-Aage, David

Huizinga, and Anne W. Weiher,

“Gang and Nongang Youth: Differences in Explanatory Variables,”

Journal of Contemporary Criminal

Justice, 1993.

9. “Dummy” variables were created

to control for the mean differences

between schools so that the assessment of program impact is an average of the within-school differences

between G.R.E.A.T. students and

comparison group (weighted according to sample size), adjusted for any

differences in the five background

characteristics.

10. An additional analysis examined

only students from schools at which

no preexisting differences were

found between the treatment and

comparison groups. While some of

the findings differ from those reported here, the same pattern of

program effect was found. These

findings are reported in Esbensen,

Finn-Aage, and D. Wayne Osgood,

“Promising Results from a Gang

Prevention Program,” Annual

Meeting of the Academy of Criminal

Justice Sciences, Louisville, Kentucky, 1997.

11. A copy of the technical report of

this study is available from Finn

Esbensen, Department of Criminal

Justice, University of Nebraska at

Omaha, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

NCJ 167264

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91

This research is supported under grant

number 94-IJ-CX-0058 from the National

Institute of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view in this document are those of

the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S.

Department of Justice.

Research in Brief

The National Institute of Justice is a

component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, and the Office for Victims

of Crime.