DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03337
title: Evaluation of the Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) Program in the United States, 1995-1999
title: Archival Version

description: This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the Gang
 Resistance Education And Training (GREAT) program by surveying five
 different groups: students in a cross-sectional design (Part 1), law
 enforcement officers (Part 2), educators (Part 3), parents (Part 4),
 and students in a longitudinal design (Part 5). Middle school students
 in the cross-sectional design were surveyed to examine GREAT's short-
 and long-term effects, and to assess the quality and effectiveness of
 officer training. Law enforcement officers were surveyed to determine
 whether their perceptions and expectations of the GREAT program varied
 depending on sex, race, rank, age, level of education, and length of
 time working in policing. Data were collected from middle school
 personnel (administrators, counselors, and teachers) in order to
 assess educators' attitudes toward and perceptions of the
 effectiveness of the GREAT program, including the curriculum's
 appropriateness for middle school students and its effectiveness in
 delinquency and gang prevention both in the school and in the
 community. Parents were surveyed to assess their attitudes toward
 crime and gangs in their community, school prevention programs, the
 role of police in the school, and their satisfaction with and
 perceptions of the effectiveness of the GREAT program. The middle
 school students participating in the longitudinal aspect of this study
 were surveyed to examine the change in attitudes and behavior, germane
 to gang activity, over time. Variables for all parts were geared
 toward assessing perception and attitudes about the police and the
 GREAT program and their overall effectiveness, community involvement,
neighborhood crime, and gang-related activities.
description: Youth delinquent gangs continue to generate
 concern among criminal justice professionals and the general
 public. Considerable agreement exists regarding the high rate of
 criminal offending among gang members. With the apparent increase in
 gang membership and activity during the past decade, and the
 availability of increasingly lethal weapons, the level of criminal
 activity by gang members has taken on new importance for law
 enforcement agencies, schools, the community, and prevention
 efforts. One way to address the growing gang 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 (ATF) developed Gang Resistance Education And Training
 (GREAT), whose stated objective is to (1) reduce gang activity, and
 (2) educate a population of young people about the consequences of
 gang involvement. GREAT, modeled after the Drug Abuse Resistance
 Education (DARE) program, is a national, school-based gang prevention
 program in which uniformed law enforcement officers teach an
 eight-lesson curriculum to middle school students in one-hour sessions
 over a nine-week period. The sessions cover such topics as conflict
 resolution skills, cultural sensitivity, goal setting, and resisting
 peer pressure. The curriculum also relies on cooperation from school
 administrators as well as teacher involvement. This study sought to
 evaluate the effectiveness of the GREAT program by surveying 
 students from eleven sites in a cross-sectional design (Part 1), 
 law enforcement officers (Part 2), educators (Part 3), parents (Part 4),
 and students from six sites, who participated in four years of follow-up
 interviews (Part 5). Students in middle school, participating in a
 cross-sectional design, were surveyed to examine GREAT's short- and
 long-term effects, and to assess the quality and effectiveness of
 officer training. Law enforcement officers were surveyed to determine
 whether their perceptions and expectations of the GREAT program varied
 depending on sex, race, rank, age, level of education, and length of
 time working in policing. Data were collected from middle school
 personnel (administrators, counselors, and teachers) in order to
 assess educators' attitudes and perceptions of the effectiveness of
 the GREAT program, including the curriculum's appropriateness for
 middle school students and its effectiveness in delinquency and gang
 prevention, both in the school and in the community. Parents were
 surveyed to assess their attitudes toward crime and gangs in their
 community, school prevention programs, the role of the school in
 prevention programming, the role of police in the school, and their
 satisfaction with and perceptions of the effectiveness of the GREAT
 program. The middle school students participating in the longitudinal
 aspect of this study were surveyed to examine the change in attitudes
and behavior toward gangs and gang-related activities over time.
description: For Part 1, two ex post facto comparison groups
 were created to provide for assessment of the effectiveness of the
 GREAT program. Because the program was designed to be taught in 7th
 grade, 8th-grade students were surveyed to allow for a one-year
 follow-up while guaranteeing that none of the participants was
 currently enrolled in the program. This part of the study focused on a
 one-year follow-up because measurable program effects should be most
 apparent over a shorter time span and a later follow-up would present
 greater tactical difficulties as students dispersed to different
 schools on the transition to senior high school. One of the
 prerequisites for site selection was to identify cities in which the
 GREAT program had been administered during the school year 1993-1994
 (when the targeted students were 7th-graders). In 1995, questionnaires
 were administered to all 8th-graders in purposively selected schools
 who were in attendance on the specified day. The final sample
 comprised 5,935 8th-grade students from 315 classrooms in 42
 schools. Of the respondents, approximately 45 percent reported they
 had completed the GREAT program and this group became the treatment
 group. The remaining respondents who had not completed the GREAT
 program comprised the comparison group. For Part 2, in order to gauge
 attitudes of officers with the GREAT program and assess where and when
 GREAT had been implemented, surveys were mailed to officers who had
 successfully completed GREAT Officer Training (GOT). Officers had to
 complete a 40-hour or 80-hour GREAT training session before being
 allowed to teach the program. These training sessions covered
 substantive and practical considerations in implementing and
 administering the program. The ATF coordinated the GOT, and its
 research staff provided mailing labels of all officers who had
 completed GOT before July 1999. In August 1999, members of the study's
 research staff mailed survey packets to approximately 3,900
 officers. Along with the survey, each packet consisted of a cover
 letter explaining the purpose of the evaluation and informing the
 officers that their responses would be anonymous. The ATF also posted
 a message on their official Web site encouraging officers to complete
 and return their surveys. Overall, 1,224 officers returned completed
 surveys. For Part 3, members of the research team developed a survey
 instrument, during the summer of 1999, to assess the views of school
 personnel on a variety of subjects relating to GREAT. Many of the
 questions included on the questionnaire were incorporated from other
 questionnaires used in Part 1 and Part 2 to allow for comparison of
 perceptions across different groups. New questions were also created
 to address some of the specific concerns about the GREAT curriculum.
 The survey was reviewed by two school personnel, who offered
 suggestions for clarity of measurement items. Once schools were
 selected, the research team identified a contact person at each school
 who would be willing to distribute and collect the questionnaires, and
 mail them back to the research office. For their time spent and in
 order to motivate their efforts, contact persons were monetarily
 compensated. The principal of each purposively selected middle school
 was contacted by telephone and the purpose and procedure of the study
 were explained. Through this initial contact with the principals,
 individuals acting as contact persons were identified. The contact
 persons provided an estimate of the number of administrators,
 teachers, and counselors at their schools, and the appropriate number
 of questionnaires were mailed to the attention of the contact person
 along with (1) a letter of explanation of the process to be followed,
 (2) a completion rate form to be filled out by the contact person, and
 (3) a consultant fee form so that the contact person could be
 compensated by the university accounting office. Each questionnaire
 distributed to school personnel was accompanied by a letter of
 explanation of the survey's purpose, instructions regarding anonymity
 and the return of the questionnaire to the contact person, and a ruler
 as a token of appreciation for answering the survey. Each school was
 allowed approximately two to three weeks for completion and return of
 questionnaires. For Part 4, questionnaires were developed by the
 evaluation team and sent to parents in mid-June 1998 with a cover
 letter explaining the purpose of the survey and requesting parents'
 (or guardians') participation. In order to increase response rates,
 approximately two weeks after the surveys were sent, reminder
 postcards were sent to nonrespondents. Collection of surveys ended in
 early October 1998. For Part 5, the longitudinal research strategy
 implemented, with a quasi-experimental research design and assignment
 of classrooms to treatment, allowed for data collection on two groups
 of students -- those participating in GREAT and those not
 participating. Both groups of students had an equal risk for future
 delinquency and gang involvement. The University of Nebraska
 Institutional Review Board approved a component of the research design
 allowing passive parental consent (students were included unless
 specifically prohibited by parents) during the pre- and post-test data
 collection. These surveys were conducted two weeks prior to and two
 weeks following completion of the GREAT program. Active parental
 consent (students were excluded unless written approval for
 participation was obtained from parents) was required for the four
 subsequent annual follow-up surveys. To obtain active parental
 consent, three direct mailings were made to parents of survey
 participants. Included in the mailings were a cover letter, two copies
 of the parent consent form for student participation, and a business
 reply envelope. All parents not responding after the second mailing
 were contacted by telephone. School personnel also cooperated by
 distributing consent forms and cover letters at school. The results
 of the active consent process led to an overall retention of 67
 percent of the initial sample. At the beginning of the academic year,
 class lists from all participating classrooms were obtained. Each
 student appearing on these lists was assigned a uniquely identifiable
 number to be used throughout the longitudinal data collection
 phase. These lists contained names of individuals who had moved or
 failed to enroll for some other reason. Students whose names did not
 appear on the lists but who were in attendance were added to the
 list. The pre-tests were administered during the spring of 1995 to
 6th- and 7th-graders. Follow-up surveys were administered to the same
sample of students annually from 1996-1999.
description: Variables in Part 1 (Cross-sectional Design) and
 Part 5 (Longitudinal Design) include the level of gang activity,
 fights, and racial conflict in respondents' schools, whether
 respondents had ever used illegal drugs and if so, which kind, whether
 they had carried weapons, attacked or hit someone, lied about their
 age, destroyed property, or skipped school, and whether they felt
 guilty for any of their behaviors. Respondents were also asked their
 opinions of gangs, such as whether they were cool, exciting, or fun,
 or interfered with the safety in the neighborhood or at school.
 Students also answered questions designed to assess their attitudes
 toward the police and their parents. Demographic variables for Parts 1
 and 5 include the sex, race, and age of the respondent. Part 2
 (Officers) variables provide information on respondents' perceptions
 of and experience with the GREAT program, the community in which they
 worked, their law enforcement agency, their agency's involvement with
 the GREAT program, and their perceptions of the lessons taught.
 Demographic variables for Part 2 include the sex, race, age, and
 education level of each respondent. Variables in Part 3 (School
 Personnel) cover issues facing respondents' schools and students,
 attitudes and opinions of school-based prevention programs and the
 delivery methods of prevention programs, the role of police officers
 in schools, the environment in and around which they worked, the
 importance of helping youths avoid drugs, alcohol, and delinquency,
 and the overall effectiveness of the GREAT program. Demographic
 variables for Part 3 include the sex and race of each respondent. For
 Part 4, questionnaires sought parents' responses to questions
 regarding school environment, crime and gangs in the community, school
 prevention programs, the role of the school in prevention programming,
 the role of the police in the school, satisfaction with and
 perceptions of the effectiveness of the GREAT program, and
demographics such as race, highest level of education, and income.
description: Response Rates: Part 1: The response rate is unknown. Part 2:
 The response rate was 31 percent. Part 3: The response rate was 67
 percent. Part 4: The response rate was 32 percent. Part 5: The 
 questionnaire completion rate for the pre- and post-tests were
 87 percent and 80 percent, respectively. The annual completion rates 
 for years one, two, three, and four of the follow-up were 86 percent,
76 percent, 69 percent, and 67 percent, respectively.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used in all parts.
description: For Part 1, records provided by ATF, the federal
 agency with oversight of the GREAT program, were used to identify
 prospective sites in which two or more officers had been trained to
 teach GREAT prior to January 1994. Cities were selected based on
 geographic location, population characteristics, and population
 size. Eleven cities meeting the selection criteria were chosen. 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. Reasons for sample exclusion included: (1) a number of
 cities had not yet implemented the program, (2) not all the sites had
 processed enough students through the program the prior year for the
 retrospective data collection planned, and (4) in some sites, police
 officers had instructed all 7th-graders, so there could be no
 comparison group of students who had not received the GREAT
 training. At the selected sites, schools that had administered the
 GREAT program during the 1993-1994 school year were chosen. In 1995,
 questionnaires were administered to all 8th-graders in attendance on
 the specified day at the selected schools from the 11 selected
 sites. The final sample comprised 5,935 8th-grade students from 315
 classrooms in 42 schools. For Part 2, all officers who had
 successfully completed GREAT Officer Training (GOT) before July 1999
 were included in the sample. For Part 3, six cities were purposively
 selected for inclusion in the study based upon three criteria: (1) the
 existence of an operative GREAT program, (2) geographical location to
 provide geographic and ethnic diversity, and (3) the cooperation of
 school districts and law enforcement agencies in each site. The six
 sites included Phoenix, Arizona, Lincoln, Nebraska, Omaha, Nebraska,
 Las Cruces, New Mexico, Portland, Oregon, and Philadelphia,
 Pennsylvania. Surveys were mailed to all personnel in selected schools
 within the six sites. The researcher warns that results for Part 1 and
 Part 3 should not be generalized to middle school students and
 personnel as a whole because neither sample was randomly selected.
 For Part 4, questionnaires were sent to parents of all students 
 participating in the longitudinal component of the evaluation for
 whom current addresses were available. For Part 5, six cities were 
 purposively selected for inclusion in the longitudinal phase
 of the study based on three criteria: (1) the existence of a viable
 GREAT program, (2) geographical diversity, and (3) the cooperation of the
 school districts and the police department in each site. The selected
 cities were Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Portland, Oregon, Phoenix, 
 Arizona, Omaha and Lincoln, Nebraska, and Las Cruces, New Mexico. 
 The sample for Part 5 was comprised of 22 schools, 153 classrooms, and 
approximately 3500 students.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Student Survey Data, Cross-Sectional Design
DS2: Law Enforcement Officer Survey Data
DS3: School Personnel Survey Data
DS4: Parent Survey Data
DS5: Student Survey Data, Longitudinal Design
description: Part 1: Eighth-grade students in any of 11 selected cities
 where the GREAT program was administered during the 1993-1994 school
 year. Part 2: Law enforcement officers who had completed GOT before
 July 1999. Part 3: Middle school personnel (administrators, teachers,
 and counselors) in six selected sites with the existence of an
 operative GREAT program. Part 4: Parents of students, who were 
 from six selected sites participating in the longitudinal component of 
 the study. Part 5: 6th- and 7th-grade students in any of six
selected cities where the GREAT program was administered.
description: The user guide, codebook, and data collection
 instruments are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF)
 files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated
 and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe
 Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat
Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.