JJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model calls for the implementation of five strategies for dealing with gang-involved youth.

The comprehensive communitywide approaches to gang-free schools and communities component provides support for communities to follow the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model for reducing community youth gang problems. The evidence of the impact of gang membership on serious crime is widely supported (see, for example, Thornberry, 1994; Esbensen and Huizinga, 1993; Klein, 1995). OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model, or the Spergel model, calls for the implementation of five strategies for dealing with gang-involved youth in communities implementing the model. These strategies include (1) mobilizing community leaders and residents to plan, strengthen, or create new opportunities or establish linkages to existing organizations for gang-involved youth; (2) using outreach workers to engage gang-involved youth; (3) providing and facilitating access to academic, economic, and social opportunities; (4) conducting gang suppression activities and holding gang-involved youth accountable for their behavior; and (5) facilitating organizational change and development to help community agencies better address gang problems through a team problem-solving approach that is consistent with the philosophy of community-oriented policing (Burch and Kane, 1999, p. 1). Although the SafeFutures sites are responsible for implementing all components of the Model, at this point in the demonstration phase, none has fully done so. This section highlights selected features of sites’ innovative approaches to various aspects of the Model.

The first component of the Model calls for a process to mobilize communities to address such problems by creating a gang task force to develop a comprehensive community approach to implement recommended interventions. The Model requires involvement of 11 agencies, including a range of justice system agencies (such as law enforcement, courts, corrections, parole, probation, and prosecution), schools, grassroots organizations, the overall community, and youth employment and community-based youth agencies (Spergel et al., 1994). This approach seeks to replace the benefits that at-risk youth may associate with gang membership with more prosocial protective factors through prevention and intervention. Essentially, the model marries suppression activities with community outreach to provide services such as employability training and job placement to gang-involved youth. Funding for this component is available for a maximum of $400,000 per year to each SafeFutures site under Part D of the JJDP Act.

ang prevention programs apparently have been subject to relatively little critical evaluation.

Gang prevention programs apparently have been subject to relatively little critical evaluation (Sherman et al., 1997). Both Spergel (1995) and Howell (1997) suggest that while no evaluation has revealed successful implementation of a gang prevention strategy, some promising strategies do exist. Thompson and Jason (1988) found that gang prevention classes with some afterschool options led to very low rates of later gang participation, although the study was greatly weakened by high attrition. Woodson (1981) looked at a program creating gang “sanctuaries and summits” and found declining murder rates as a result. However, this study was seriously compromised by other efforts undertaken in the city at the same time.

More attention has been focused on evaluating gang intervention programs, although many of these efforts were not methodologically rigorous (Sherman et al., 1997). Three programs (Miller, 1962; Gold and Mattick, 1974; Torres, 1981) found no significant decline in delinquent and criminal behavior. Klein (1968) and Spergel (1986, 1995) found that some types of programs, specifically crisis intervention, conflict mediation, job and school referrals, and direct interventions to reduce gang cohesion, resulted in less serious violent crime by gang members. Programs that use mediation or negotiation involving broader segments of the community—including probation officers and civilians in addition to police and social workers—to reduce risk factors appear to be more successful (Sherman et al., 1997). Also, it has been suggested that encouraging individual cities to tailor their programs to the local gang situation would lead to more positive outcomes (Klein, 1995).

The evaluation that was conducted of the first 3 years of the Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago, IL—a prototype of the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model—reports some promising results. Although the components of community mobilization and organizational change were not fully implemented, the program successfully employed a cohesive team to implement the following strategies: social intervention by community youth workers; provision of social opportunities in education, job training, and employment through the development of local contacts and support networks; and targeted suppression of gang violence through project police and probation teams. Evaluation results indicated that this multimodal program was successful in reducing or relatively lowering the rate of gang crime, especially serious gang violence, for individual youth, targeted gangs, and the Little Village area (Spergel et al., 1999).

Under this component, sites not only provide some direct services to youth but also emulate the OJJDP Model by performing activities that do not entail direct service (e.g., establishing gang task forces, developing gang databases, undertaking community mobilization). This section focuses on provision of services to youth.¹²

ase management/ referral was the most commonly provided activity across sites under the gang-free component.

Case management/referral was the most commonly provided activity across sites under the gang-free component, although in some programs it appears to have been fairly informal. Job skills training of some kind was provided by most sites, consistent with the Model. Some sites, such as St. Louis, provided employability training primarily as a free-standing program to which youth could be referred by various partner agencies. Others blended employability training into other programs, such as Contra Costa and Seattle’s Back to School Program, a joint effort between Central Youth and Family Services and the Department of Youth Services, which includes a school reentry component and a vocational component.

Several sites developed innovative programs under this component.

St. Louis, MO. St. Louis SafeFutures subcontracted with a peer outreach program (Healthstreet/Community Outreach for Risk Reduction [CORR]), initiated for drug-involved youth, to use a similar approach for outreach to gang-involved youth (or those at risk for gang involvement). Outreach workers, some of whom formerly were gang involved, seek to increase awareness of viable alternatives to gang involvement, including SafeFutures activities and services. Outreach workers (accompanied by a supervisor) are in the community most weekdays to contact youth, establish relationships, and make referrals (primarily for job training and counseling). Healthstreet support staff perform more formal case management, referral, and followup functions for youth who express interest in pursuing the options described. During year 3, some of the staff also began working with schools to obtain contact information on youth who had academic difficulties and attendance problems and /or had been suspended or turned away from school that day because of lateness. Outreach workers offer such youth referrals to SafeFutures services and also function as advocates and go-betweens to help these youth be readmitted (where applicable).

During year 3, the outreach efforts initiated under SafeFutures were combined with similar efforts associated with St. Louis’s implementation of the Cease Fire model initiated in Boston. This citywide effort is led by the U.S. Attorney’s office. It includes a gang outreach program administered by the Central Baptist Church, which works in neighborhoods outside the SafeFutures target area. SafeFutures has referred youth ineligible for its services to the Central Baptist program; these referrals represent a broadening of linkages. SafeFutures staff and Healthstreet/CORR staff participate in monthly meetings of Cease Fire’s gang outreach subcommittee, and there have been joint training sessions (some supported by SafeFutures) for outreach workers from both organizations. SafeFutures staff and CORR workers teamed with Central Baptist staff and other Cease Fire partners to implement a “Bright Side Blitz” aimed at mobilizing the community and cleaning up the neighborhood in a priority “hotspot.”

fter a recent gang-related homicide, the Cease Fire partners fanned out within the affected neighborhood to try to prevent retaliatory violence.

After a recent gang-related homicide, the Cease Fire partners fanned out within the affected neighborhood to try to prevent retaliatory violence by diffusing the emotionally charged atmosphere. In addition to offering grief therapy and victim services, SafeFutures staff arranged safe housing for two youth who needed to be at a distance from the area.

Seattle, WA. In Seattle, the SafeFutures Youth Center (SFYC), which focuses on Asian/Pacific Islander youth, falls under both the delinquency prevention program and gang-free schools and communities components. SFYC provides case management for youth identified as needing such services, primarily gang members, juvenile offenders, or those with family dysfunction (particularly abuse). SFYC has a Vietnamese and a Cambodian case manager to serve youth of those ethnicities, and there are plans to add a Laotian case manager during year 4. Because juveniles on probation are mandated to remain in school, the program has focused on one-on-one tutoring and homework assistance to help youth meet this requirement. The center also provides afterschool activities, such as informal support/discussion groups, recreation, and “hanging out.”

In year 3, SFYC added an academic reentry program for high school dropouts and those expelled from school. These youth receive high school credit in general studies classes geared to help them return to the school system. The program has a certified teacher and operates 5 days per week, year round. In effect, the program functions as an alternative school for these youth.

SFYC also provided parent education and support programs, including home visits and two parent support groups (one each for Cambodian/Laotian and Vietnamese parents). These programs offered monthly workshops on topics such as what the roles are of various systems (e.g., child protective services, police department, schools, DYS, etc.), what to do if one’s child has contact with law enforcement, and how to deal with parent-child conflict. The last is a key issue because youth often acculturate rapidly and in ways that do not support ancestral values, while parents often wish to retain their traditional heritage.

The center moved from its initial site to a location closer to the High Point housing project where most of the youth served by the program live. Center staff are involved in community efforts, such as a “Tattoo Summit,” a collaborative effort with the Police Department Gang Unit and the King County Department of Public Health to help youth who wish to terminate their gang involvement by establishing a program for removing their gang-related tattoos.

SFYC has obtained status as a nonprofit organization, which will facilitate its sustainability after SafeFutures funding is no longer available.

Imperial County, CA. Imperial County’s Law Enforcement Team (LET), also known as the Intervention Team, falls under both the delinquency prevention program and gang-free schools and communities components. Originally, the team was located in the police department and included two juvenile probation officers, a deputy sheriff, and a Brawley police officer. Their work as a team represents a systems reform effort. During year 3, the team’s office was relocated to a police substation in a Brawley public housing complex located in the heart of gang territory. Also assigned to the substation are two housing police officers and a Police Athletic League (PAL)/Community Oriented Policing (COPS) officer, further expanding justice system interaction, if not the team itself. Two LET members also have an office at the high school to make them more accessible to youth and families. In addition, during year 4, the team is being expanded to include outreach workers, a Family Resource Center coordinator, and other key service providers.

s the program matured, the team began implementing a more comprehensive gang intervention agenda.

Since the early stages of the initiative, the team has participated in identification of and intervention with gang members, joint “gang sweeps” between probation and the Brawley Police Department (and, sometimes, other agencies), and joint home visits and patrol activities by the team’s probation officer and sheriff’s deputy. As the program matured, the team began implementing a more comprehensive gang intervention agenda to better address the OJJDP Model guidelines. This led to new areas of emphasis, such as collecting gang data (including mapping areas of high gang activity), targeting gang hotspots, and implementing a street outreach component.

LET members perform interventions with youth who have had contact with law enforcement or the courts or who have been identified as at-risk youth. These interventions may include one-on-one counseling with the youth and/or parent or joint counseling/intervention with youth and parent(s). Referrals to various services are made in conjunction with such counseling. In addition, team members make presentations on delinquency and gangs to schools and community groups. Team members also are involved in the probation office’s skills training program (a family strengthening effort). Two serve as instructors, while other team members make presentations to these classes on topics such as drugs and gangs.

chools call on team members periodically to counsel students after a fight or other incident.

Some team members make periodic visits to elementary schools to informally counsel youth referred by school staff for problem behavior, most of whom are then referred to the FRC or other services. These visits were initiated during year 1, and this effort was expanded during year 2 into a program involving presentations by gang-involved probationers to elementary school youth identified as at risk of gang involvement. Schools also call on team members periodically to counsel students after a fight or other incident. One of the probation officers on the team also conducts “school drop-ins” to create a visible law enforcement presence at schools and informally monitors nonprobation youth identified by schools as gang involved. These kinds of interactions and information sharing between schools and justice system agencies also reflect systems reform.

One LET probation officer supervises a reduced caseload of 25 actively gang-involved youth. The lower caseload enables more intensive supervision. The other probation officer on the team supervises an informal probation caseload of 30 high-risk youth or first-time offenders, in addition to her LET activities. Youth on either caseload (and members of their families) have been referred for a variety of services supported by SafeFutures, including mental health or substance abuse counseling.

Contra Costa County, CA. Contra Costa established an aftercare program focused on gang-involved youth on probation (referred to as “core team” youth) during year 2. This program was implemented as a variation of an aftercare program that provides transitional aftercare for all youth leaving the youth ranch facility (discussed in the section “Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offender Programs”). Participation is restricted to males because the ranch is an all-male facility. SafeFutures funds a deputy probation officer (DPO) to provide intensive probation oversight for a caseload of approximately 50 youth, typically for 4 to 6 months after leaving the ranch. These youth are also assigned to a case manager through the Youth Services Bureau (YSB) or the International Institute. (The three YSB core team case managers are also assigned to middle or high schools as FSC case managers, as discussed in the section “Family Strengthening and Support Services”) Case managers refer youth to a variety of services, including employment programs.

Core team staff members meet every 2 weeks to review the status of each youth and discuss possible changes in services needed, whether probation should be revoked, etc. These meetings also enable staff to share information about gang activity in general, which may provide insight into issues or behaviors of a particular youth. In addition to the DPO and case managers, core team meetings are typically attended by the social worker and SafeFutures supervisor from YSB, staff from the youth ranch, and the directors of the agencies that provide employment programs for core team youth. The intention was that police representatives would attend these meetings, but their participation has been irregular, in part because their role with respect to this group does not seem clear to them.

reaking bread together helps to develop bonds among the youth.

A weekly group meeting of core team youth is held because these youth expressed interest in coming together as a community. The youth dubbed the group the “YSB Soldiers.” The case managers and YSB staff typically participate in these meetings, which provide an opportunity for staff to learn about current issues affecting the youth and about gang-related issues in the community. Meetings may include presentations or videos (e.g., related to employment or youth violence). A meal is provided because staff perceive that “breaking bread” together helps to develop bonds among the youth, even though they are of different ethnicities and belong to different gangs. This reportedly has resulted in at least one case where one core team member protected another—who was associated with a rival gang—from being hurt in a gang incident.

Two employment-related services receive SafeFutures support to serve core team youth. One of these, YouthBuild (YB), is an existing employment training program for youth ages 17 to 24 who do not have high school diplomas. YB provides extensive hands-on training and instruction in construction skills combined with academic training leading to a general equivalency or high school diploma. The program also instills values through leadership development and community service. SafeFutures funds are used to reserve several YB slots for SafeFutures youth and for stipends provided to SafeFutures youth. The second employment-related service is an “employment aftercare” program provided through Opportunity West (OW). An OW employment specialist develops jobs (i.e., identifies willing employers) and places core team youth in them. This program does not include formal job training, although the employment specialist provides informal counseling, work orientation, and résumé assistance and holds periodic workshops/meetings to address issues related to employment. The OW jobs, which are generally labor intensive (e.g., maintenance work in city buildings), are intended to develop basic work skills and an employment track record for the youth. SafeFutures funds are used to support the half-time employment counselor and to subsidize the salaries of youth during their “training period” (6 to 10 weeks, depending on the number of hours worked per day), after which OW helps youth find unsubsidized jobs.

Comprehensive Responses to Youth At Risk: Interim Findings From the SafeFutures Initiative

OJJDP Summary • November 2000