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

Program

Finn EsbensenE. Desmond Lee Professor of Youth Crime &

ViolenceChair, Department of Criminology and

Criminal JusticeUniversity of Missouri-St. Louis

Presentation OverviewWhy 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 ViolenceWidely 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 forViolence 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 DesignationSound 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 littleNo 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 curriculumnull findings from longitudinal study

Curriculum review conducted from 1999 – 2000

What is G.R.E.A.T.? - 2Program revision 2001 – piloted in 2002

Seattle Social Development Model - classroom management, cooperative learning, interactive teaching

Life Skills Training – self-management and social skills development

Interactive and skills building focusEspecially important that program be taught as

designed – lessons build on each otherImportant to assess program fidelity

Implementation of Revised G.R.E.A.T. in 2003

G.R.E.A.T. LESSONSLesson 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 - IILesson 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 - IIILesson 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 GoalsMeasuring 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 OutcomesImpulsivity and risk

takingAnger managementSelf centerednessPeer pressureNegative peer

commitmentPeer delinquencyNeutralization (hitting)Conflict resolution

•Refusal skills

•Empathy

•Active listening

•Problem solving

•Collective efficacy

•Attitudes about

gangs

•Altruism

Risk FactorsAnalogy with medical fieldGenetic and lifestyle factors associated with

likelihood of particular illnessPresence of risk factors does not mean that

person will be ill; only increased probabilityAdopt this approach with violent offending

and gang membershipRisk factors in 5 domains: community, school,

family, peer, & individual

Risk factorsThe 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

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

0 1-5 6-10 11+

Non-violent

Gang Membership

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., InvestigatorPennsylvania State University

Kristy Matsuda, Ph.D., Research Associate University of Missouri-St. Louis

Adrienne Freng, Ph.D., Site CoordinatorUniversity of Wyoming

Dena Carson, Site CoordinatorUniversity 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 EvaluationTo 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?

TriangulationGOT observationsClassroom observationsOfficer & Supervisor interviewsG.R.E.A.T. Officer surveySchool personnel questionnaires

GOT ObservationsObservations 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 implementedReasonable 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 delivery108 non-G.R.E.A.T. classes observed

Control classrooms and G.R.E.A.T. when program not taught

33 different officersEach 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 manner3 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 effectsCompare students who receive program to students who

do not, in an experimental designMultiple, diverse locations

Outcome EvaluationSeven 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 city3 - 12 classes in each school (half receive G.R.E.A.T.)

3,820 students457 - 614 students per cityBetween 59 and 186 students per school

Outcome EvaluationRandom Assignment at classroom level

Equivalent comparison groupsNo bias in assignment

Active Parental Consent

Students are the program target, so we need their assessments. How do we do this?Confidential self-report questionnairesQuestionnaires read aloud in group-administered settingResearchers ensure privacy, answer questionsPre- and post-tests4 annual follow-up surveys

Outcome – Student Surveys Site selection

Aug and Sept 2006Active consent process

Sept – Oct 2007; Jan & Feb 2008 (two added schools)Survey administration

Pre-tests - Sept 2006 – Feb 2007; Feb & March 2008Post-tests - Nov 2006 – May 2007; May 2008Wave 3 – Oct 2007 – March 2008; Dec 2008 – Feb 2009Wave 4 – Oct 2008 – March 2009; Nov 2009 – Feb 2010 Wave 5 – Oct 2009 – March 2010; Nov 2010 – March

2011Wave 6 – Oct 2010 – March 2011; October 2011

Data entry (and verification)Preparation of analysis file and outcome analyses

Completion RatesActive 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 - ICompare G.R.E.A.T. students with non-G.R.E.A.T.

studentsWave 2 (post-test) andWave 3 (one year after program)

A number of significant differences were found:11 of 33 significant at p<.053 significant at p<.10

Program Goals - OutcomesAvoid gang membership

39% lower odds of gang membership

Develop positive relationships w/law enforcementMore positive attitudes to police (ES=.076)Teaching specific role of police (ES=.204)

Prevent violence and criminal activityNo significant differences

Proximate outcomesFavorable 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 outcomesFavorable G.R.E.A.T. outcomes p<.10

Less use of lie neutralizationMore pro-social peersMore pro-social involvement

So, why are these proximate outcomes important?

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

Bottom LineAt 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?

ReportsWebsite:

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, folksThanks for listeningAny questions?