Promising Results from the National Evaluation of the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) Program

 Finn Esbensen  E. Desmond Lee Professor of Youth Crime & Violence  Chair, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice  University of Missouri-St. Louis

Presentation Overview

 Why is there interest in youth violence and gang prevention?

 How do we know what works?

 What do terms like “evidence-based”, “model programs” and “effective” really mean?

 Use the G.R.E.A.T. program as an example of how question of program effect is addressed.

NYGS: Jurisdictions Reporting Youth Gang Problems in One or More Years, 1999 2001(N=>1400)

Gang Violence

 Widely documented finding that gang members are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.

 Thornberry and Burch (1997), for example, reported that gang members accounted for 86 percent of all serious offenses in the Rochester Youth Development Study.

 Youths have higher rates of offending during active gang membership than they do either before or after gang involvement

How do we know what works?

 Anecdotal evidence is NOT sufficient  Good intentions are NOT sufficient  Saying that something works or that something is effective, no matter how many times you say it, does NOT make it so  Rigorous evaluation is required

Promising Programs for Violence Prevention



The Blue Prints Program : Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at CU-Boulder

• 

Reviewed over 600 programs

11 were identified as model programs  proven scientifically to be effective in reducing youth aggression, violence, other delinquent behavior, and substance abuse; 

An additional 21 designated as “promising”



That means 570 were not effective or not evaluated

Model Program Designation

 Sound program or theoretical model  Random assignment  Sustained program effect (12 month post treatment)  Replicated in at least one study

What is known about responses to gangs?



Very little

 No shortage of programs - lack of evaluations of existing programs or lack of positive outcomes 

G.R.E.A.T. as example

What is G.R.E.A.T.?

 13 week in-school general prevention program  Taught by uniformed law enforcement officer  Original program developed in 1991 by Phoenix area officers – 9 lessons and mostly didactic  Several efforts to review the curriculum  null findings from longitudinal study  Curriculum review conducted from 1999 – 2000

What is G.R.E.A.T.? - 2

 Program revision 2001 – piloted in 2002  Seattle Social Development Model classroom management, cooperative learning, interactive teaching  Life Skills Training – development self-management and social skills  Interactive and skills building focus  Especially important that program be taught as designed – lessons build on each other  Important to assess program fidelity  Implementation of Revised G.R.E.A.T. in 2003

G.R.E.A.T. LESSONS

     Lesson 1 – Welcome to G.R.E.A.T. - acts as the introduction to the program and introduces the relationship between gangs, violence, drug abuse, and crime. Lesson 2 – What’s the Real Deal - consists of message analysis skills and “facts and fictions” about gangs. Lesson 3 – It’s About Us - focuses on different communities and how students are a part of these, including their responsibilities to their community or communities. Lesson 4 – Where Do We Go From Here - introduces students to the concept of goals and how to set realistic and achievable aspirations. Lesson 5 – Decisions, Decisions, Decisions - focuses on decision making, in which students learn the G.R.E.A.T. decision making model and the impact their decisions have on their goals; students are able to practice making positive decisions.

    

G.R.E.A.T. LESSONS - II

Lesson 6 – Do You Hear What I’m Saying? - teaches the importance of listening to others and the difference between verbal and non verbal communication. Lesson 7 – Walk in Someone Else’s Shoes - instructs students in active listening skills and how to identify others’ emotional states through empathy-building techniques. Lesson 8 – Say It Like You Mean It - teaches refusal skills so students may resist peer-pressure to engage in deviant or delinquent acts; this includes learning about body language and tone of voice. Lesson 9 – Getting Along Without Going Along - consists of recognizing peer pressure and other influences that may push students into delinquency. Lesson 10 – Keeping Your Cool - teaches students to keep calm in the face of anger with anger management tips and practicing the “cooling-off” technique.

G.R.E.A.T. LESSONS - III

   Lesson 11 – Keeping It Together - consists of recognizing anger in others and learning to calm them. Lesson 12 – Working It Out - teaches students to work through problems without fighting and provides tips for conflict resolution, practice of such, and information about where to go for help in their communities. Lesson 13 – Looking Back - consists of a program review and the presentation and discussion of student final projects. 

http://www.great-online.org/

Program Goals

 Measuring Explicit Goals of Program:  Avoid gang membership   Do you consider your group of friends to be a gang?

Are you now in a gang?

 Prevent violence and criminal activity  Self-reported delinquency measures  Develop positive relationships w/law enforcement   “Global” attitudinal scale G.R.E.A.T.-specific attitudes

Lesson Specific Outcomes

 Impulsivity and risk taking  Anger management  Self centeredness  Peer pressure  Negative peer commitment  Peer delinquency  Neutralization (hitting)  Conflict resolution • Refusal skills • Empathy • Active listening • Problem solving • Collective efficacy • Attitudes about gangs • Altruism

Risk Factors

 Analogy with medical field  Genetic and lifestyle factors associated with likelihood of particular illness  Presence of risk factors does not mean that person will be ill; only increased probability  Adopt this approach with violent offending and gang membership  Risk factors in 5 domains: community, school, family, peer, & individual

Risk factors

 The more risk factors and in multiple domains; the greater the risk of gang joining.

 No silver bullet – not all youth living in high-risk neighborhoods join gangs.

 Addressing even one of these risk factors reduces the odds of gang joining and violent offending.

Cumulative Effect of Multiple Risk Factors

70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Non-violent Gang Membership 0 1-5 6-10 11+

Number of Risk Factors

Does the program work?

 Is the program implemented with fidelity?

 Can the program be adopted in a variety of settings?

 Is the program effective?

This research was made possible, in part, by the support and participation of seven school districts, including the School District of Philadelphia. This project was supported by Award No. 2006-JV-FX-0011 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice or of the seven participating school districts.

Finn Esbensen, Ph.D., Principal Investigator University of Missouri-St. Louis Terrance J. Taylor, Ph.D., Investigator University of Missouri-St. Louis Dana Peterson, Ph.D., Investigator University at Albany Wayne Osgood, Ph.D., Investigator Pennsylvania State University Kristy Matsuda, Ph.D., Research Associate University of Missouri-St. Louis Adrienne Freng, Ph.D., Site Coordinator University of Wyoming Dena Carson, Site Coordinator University of Missouri-St. Louis



Site Selection

Site selection:  Geographic and demographic diversity   Nature of community gang problems Law enforcement agency and Program size    G.R.E.A.T. taught at least one year No program saturation Obtained agreements from law enforcement and public school districts  Process:  Created preliminary list of 56 cities (identified by at least one RA, IIR   or BJS staff member) Contacted agencies about G.R.E.A.T. program Resulted in final list of 7 – hoped to recruit 6  Albuquerque, NM ; Chicago, IL; DFW area city, TX; Greeley, CO; Nashville, TN; Philadelphia, PA; Portland, OR

Process Evaluation

 To what extent is G.R.E.A.T. delivered as intended?  If effect found, can it be attributed to the program?

 If no effect found, is it a case of program failure or failed program?

 Triangulation  

GOT observations Classroom observations

   Officer & Supervisor interviews G.R.E.A.T. Officer survey School personnel questionnaires

GOT Observations

 Observations of Training  Observed nine GOTs (1 week and 2 week sessions)  Purpose:  Learn new curriculum as officers are learning it;  Assess quality and consistency of training within and across GOTs  Well-designed and implemented  Reasonable to expect that officers are prepared to teach the program with fidelity

Classroom Observations

(2006-2007 school year)  Purpose:  Assess program delivery regarding:  Dosage   Adherence to intended lessons Quality of instruction  How?

    502 in-class observations of program delivery 108 non-G.R.E.A.T. classes observed  Control classrooms and G.R.E.A.T. when program not taught 33 different officers Each lesson observed between 27 and 49 times – allows us to assess lesson quality in addition to officer implementation fidelity

Findings: Implementation

 We were able to provide feedback on some important lesson-related issues (e.g., time management, student interest, role of teacher, lesson content)  Importantly, of 33 total officers, 27 implemented the lessons in average/above average manner  3 officers were judged not to have delivered the program  Evidence of program fidelity so if effects are found, they can be reasonably attributed to the program.

Outcome Evaluation

 To what extent is G.R.E.A.T. achieving its stated goals?

   Determine both short- and long-term effects Compare students who receive program to students who do not, in an experimental design Multiple, diverse locations

Outcome Evaluation

 Seven cities  Albuquerque, Chicago, DFW area, Greeley, Nashville, Philadelphia, Portland  31 schools total  4 schools in five cities, 5 in Portland, 6 in Chicago  195 classes total (102 GREAT, 93 Control)   24 - 35 classes per city 3 - 12 classes in each school (half receive G.R.E.A.T.)  3,820 students   457 - 614 students per city Between 59 and 186 students per school

Outcome Evaluation

 Random Assignment at classroom level   Equivalent comparison groups No bias in assignment  Active Parental Consent  Students are the program target, so we need their assessments. How do we do this?

     Confidential self-report questionnaires Questionnaires read aloud in group-administered setting Researchers ensure privacy, answer questions Pre- and post-tests 4 annual follow-up surveys

    

Outcome – Student Surveys

Site selection  Aug and Sept 2006 Active consent process  Sept – Oct 2007; Jan & Feb 2008 (two added schools) Survey administration  Pre-tests - Sept 2006 – Feb 2007; Feb & March 2008    Post-tests - Nov 2006 – May 2007; May 2008 Wave 3 – Oct 2007 – March 2008; Dec 2008 – Feb 2009 Wave 4 – Oct 2008 – March 2009; Nov 2009 – Feb 2010   Wave 5 – Oct 2009 – March 2010; Nov 2010 – March 2011 Wave 6 – Oct 2010 – March 2011; October 2011 Data entry (and verification) Preparation of analysis file and outcome analyses



Completion Rates

Active consent rate = 78% (N=3,820)  Pretest completion = 98%  Post-tests = 95%  Wave 3 = 87%  Wave 4 = 83%  Wave 5 = 75%  Wave 6 = 73%   Wave 5 surveyed students in 216 difference schools 66 different schools in Philly

Outcome Results - I

 Compare G.R.E.A.T. students with non-G.R.E.A.T. students   Wave 2 (post-test) and Wave 3 (one year after program) 

A number of significant differences were found:

 11 of 33 significant at p<.05

 3 significant at p<.10

Program Goals - Outcomes

 Avoid gang membership  39% lower odds of gang membership  Develop positive relationships w/law enforcement   More positive attitudes to police (ES=.076) Teaching specific role of police (ES=.204)  Prevent violence and criminal activity  No significant differences

Proximate outcomes

 Favorable G.R.E.A.T. outcomes p<.05

        Less positive attitudes about gangs (ES=.114) More us of refusal skills (ES=0.90) Resistance to peer pressure (ES=.079) Higher collective efficacy (ES=.125) Less hitting neutralizations (ES=.105) Fewer delinquent peers (ES=.083) Less self centeredness (ES=.054) Less anger (ES=.057)

Proximate outcomes

 Favorable G.R.E.A.T. outcomes p<.10

 Less use of lie neutralization   More pro-social peers More pro-social involvement 

So, why are these proximate outcomes important?

 Remember, reducing one or two risk factors reduces odds of gang joining

Bottom Line

 At 12 month post treatment, 2 of the three program goals were met (reduction in gang joining and improvement in attitudes towards police)  A number of proximate factors suggested G.R.E.A.T. has a positive effect  But, effect sizes are modest & no effect on delinquency  Will these effects be sustained across time?

 Are these findings replicated across cities?

 Are there differential effects based on initial level of risk?

Reports

 Website: http://www.umsl.edu/~ccj/html_files/great_evaluation.html 

Reports to Schools & Communities:



2007: Evaluation Overview.

  

2008: Anti-Social Norms among a Sample of Middle-School Students.

2009: Program Implementation and Preliminary Outcome Results.

2010 Report to Schools and Communities: School Safety and Victimization.

 Results from Surveys and Interviews with G.R.E.A.T.-trained Officers. 

Observing the Implementer: Description of Findings, Recommendations, and

Conclusions from GREAT Program Implementation Observations.  School Personnel Survey Report.



G.R.E.A.T. Officer Training (GOT) Report.

That’s all, folks



Thanks for listening



Any questions?