Findings From the Evaluation of OJJDP's Gang Reduction Program

• NCJ Number: 230106
• Author(s): Meagan Cahill; David Hayeslip
• Date Published: December 2010
• Length: 20 pages
• Grant Number(s): 2007-JV-FX-0323
• Agencies: OJJDP
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation

Annotation

This issue reports on the findings of an independent evaluation of the impact of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP's) Gang Reduction Program (GRP) on gang-related crime in Los Angeles, CA; Milwaukee, WI; North Miami Beach, FL; and Richmond, VA.

Abstract

OJJDP's primary goal in implementing GRP was to reduce gang crime and violence. In order to achieve this goal OJJDP aimed to implement programs that were comprehensive, integrated, and coordinated. GRP's multipronged implementation approach requires community stakeholders to develop local plans to address family, peer, school, and community needs. Next, stakeholders identified local resources that could be used to meet these needs. After these planning objectives had been met, communities could use Federal support to enhance the delivery of appropriate resources and services to meet the identified needs. The evaluation found that all sites successfully implemented the GRP model. Three of the four sites also executed plans to sustain elements of the program as Federal funding expired. Anticipated outcomes related to crime reduction were found in most of the sites, although results varied. The nature of the pre-post comparison group design, however, precludes concluding there were cause and effect relationships between GRP and the positive outcomes measured. Successful GRP implementation was found to be linked to strong leadership of a site coordinator, close oversight by OJJDP during the strategic planning and implementation phases, and the availability of technical assistance. The GRP was not intended to be a one-size-fits-all approach to gang prevention and reduction. The model was designed to be sufficiently flexible to allow sites to adapt their approach to local conditions while incorporating features of the GRP model. Implications of the findings for practice and future sites are outlined. 5 figures, 11 endnotes, and 26 references