Promising and Model Crime Prevention Programs - Volume I

PDF (1.3MB)

ISBN: 978-0-662-48748-7

Table of Contents

National Crime Prevention Centre
October 2008

Introduction

The National Crime Prevention Centre's (NCPC) mission is to provide national leadership on effective and cost-efficient ways to prevent and to reduce crime by addressing risk factors in high risk populations and places. It concentrates on two core activities: firstly, it supports targeted crime prevention practices, and secondly it builds and shares practical knowledge. For this purpose, crime prevention practices should be integrated with the activities of existing community programs and services, build on the knowledge of risk and protective factors, and use evidence-based practices. In addition, these practices should be measurable and focused on specific prioritiesFootnote 1.

This document is part of an ongoing effort at the NCPC to promote and disseminate information and knowledge on effective crime prevention programs, strategies and initiatives.

This information is not intended to dictate what must be done nor is it intended to instruct organizations to replicate the models listed below. It is primarily meant to be a source of inspiration for all those concerned with reducing delinquency, violence, and insecurity. It includes concise descriptions of innovative, promising and model prevention programs. It illustrates how to create successful prevention programs in an effective and sustainable manner with key actors and helps to understand how successful crime prevention can be implemented.

This document is based on findings from crime prevention literature reviews which identify model and promising crime prevention programs. It is not intended to replace, but rather to accompany and complement, existing program resources. This document relies, in large part, on reviews of the evidence provided in comprehensive, high-quality evaluations of crime prevention programs and initiatives from Canada and from other countries. Although not all of the primary sources cited in these and other texts are mentioned in this document, it is strongly encouraged to further consult other relevant resources.

This document has been developed in the first place for use by NCPC Program Officers and community groups applying for federal crime prevention funding in order to help guide them in the development and implementation of local crime prevention initiatives.

Program Selection

In 2007, the NCPC established new directions and priorities which focus on:

The programs selected for this document are examples of programs that respond to the NCPC's priorities. It is not to be considered a comprehensive list of all promising and model programs.

Programs included in the list can fall anywhere along the services continuum from early prevention to aftercare programs for offenders. Some programs and models listed target more than one issue, age group and population.

They can include, but are not limited to delinquency prevention, probation community support, community service, school-based programs, conflict resolution, family therapy, parent training, mentoring and restorative justice. The programs have been selected from different sources of model and promising programs, particularly:

Programs selected for inclusion met minimum criteria to be considered innovative, promising or model programs. The textbox below highlights the definitions we have used.

Definitions

Model Program:
A prevention program that meets the highest scientific standard for effectiveness (scientifically proven prevention and intervention programs), as evidenced in published evaluations; has a significant, sustained preventive or deterrent effect or reduction of problem behavior, the reduction of risk factors related to problem behavior; or the enhancement of protective factors related to problem behavior and has been replicated in different communities or settings.
Promising Program:
Prevention programs that meet scientific standards for effectiveness; but they do not meet all of the rigorous standards of Model programs. They are recognized and encouraged with the caution that they be carefully evaluated. In general, when implemented with minimal fidelity these programs demonstrate promising (perhaps inconsistent) empirical findings using a reasonable conceptual framework and a limited evaluation design (single group pre- post-test).
Innovative Program:
Prevention programs that test new approaches and theories to interventions with at-risk populations. They are based on a strong theoretical framework that links the proposed intervention to the risk factor(s), target population and desired outcomes. Innovative projects show demonstrated changes through limited research design and require causal confirmation using more appropriate experimental techniques. These programs are recognized and encouraged with the caution that they be carefully evaluated.

(Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2000; OJJDP, US, 2007; Welsh, 2007).

Additionally, selected programs respond to the following criteria:

Key Ingredients for Success

Each program identified here rests on specific elements that are key to its success. However, there exist some key elements that appear to be universal to successful crime prevention programs. These include:

Programs in Aboriginal Communities

Domestic Violence Treatment Option

Program Rating: Innovative program

Target Population: Adult offenders

The Domestic Violence Treatment Option court (DVTO) was created in 2000 as a response to the high rates of domestic violence, a significant First Nations population that felt victimized by the formal justice system and a perception that few victims actually reported domestic assaults to the police.

The Domestic Violence Treatment Option (DVTO) in Whitehorse, Yukon, is a specialized court and treatment program for dealing with domestic violence cases. The DVTO court sought to engage multiple stakeholders, including police, probation officers, a specialized Crown attorney, victim services and women's groups.

For cases of spousal or partner abuse, it represented a comprehensive intervention system rather than traditional sentencing in a criminal court. The DVTO also provided the offender and, indirectly, the victim with an opportunity to choose a Spousal Abuse Program (SAP).

Method

The SAP provided treatment to assist men and women change their abusive attitudes and behaviour. The treatment program consisted of ten weeks of group therapy held twice a week for two hours. It was followed by six weeks of aftercare. In addition to helping offenders examine the underlying factors behind their abusive actions, the treatment program taught clients new skills for managing their emotional stress.

There were three groups that went through the SAP:

The goals of the project were to:

Evaluation

At the end of the project, process and outcome evaluations were conducted. Comparisons were drawn between the three groups who went through the SAP. Re-assault rates of these groups were compared with studies on domestic violence courts conducted by Palmer (1992) and Gondolf (2001). During the evaluation period, 318 clients were involved in the DVTO. Follow-up reports of reoffences continued until the end of the project using a variety of police information systems. A combination of methodologies and techniques were used including observation, standardized instruments, program forms/information systems and data from other agencies.

The process evaluation indicated that:

The outcome evaluation indicated that:

Program Development Contact Information:

Territorial Court of Yukon
P.O. Box 2703, J-3E
Whitehorse, Yukon
Y1A 2C6
Tel.: 1-800-661-0408, ext.: 5441
E-mail: courtservices@gov.yk.ca

For more information or to receive a copy of the final evaluation report please contact the National Crime Prevention Centre at 1-800-830-3118 or visit our website at: www.publicsafety.gc.ca/NCPC

Or visit the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family's website at: ww.ucalgary.ca/~crilf/index.html

Gwich'in Outdoor Classroom Project

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: Aboriginal children aged 6 to 12

The Gwich'in Outdoor Classroom project was a culture-based crime prevention program in the communities of Fort McPherson and Aklavik, Northwest Territories. The project was designed for Aboriginal children aged 6 to 12, living in remote northern communities. Participating children faced multiple risk factors associated with crime, such as a lack of attachment to school and to community role models, addictions, involvement in youth gangs and lack of parental support.

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

Process and outcome evaluations were conducted. Methods of data collection included interviews, standardized tests of children's functioning, informal community and regional discussions and program observation. Evaluators paid particular attention to cultural and environmental factors during the data collection phase. The evaluation was based on collected pre- and post- test data. In total, 112 participants took part in the evaluation including a comparison group in the Aklavik community.

The process evaluation showed that:

The outcome evaluation showed that:

Program Development Contact Information:

Gwich'in Tribal Council
Chief Jim Koe Zheh

1-3 Council Crescent
P.O. Box 1509
Inuvik, NT
X0E 0T0
Tel.: 1-867-777-7900

References

Capobianco, Laura and Margaret Shaw. 2003. Crime Prevention and Indigenous Communities: Current International Strategies and Programmes. Montréal: International Crime Prevention Centre. Available from: www.crime-prevention-intl.org/publications/pub_1_1.pdf

Government of the Northwest Territories. Dept. of Education, Culture and Employment. 1993. Dene Kede Curriculum Document, Grades K-6. Yellowknife: Department of Education, Culture and Employment.

Public Safety Canada. National Crime Prevention Centre. 2007. Gwich'in Outdoor Classroom Project. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada. Available from: www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2007-es-10/index-eng.aspx

Programs for Offenders

Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA)

Program Rating: Innovative program

Target Population: Young/adult male sex offenders at highest risk of reoffending detained to the last day of their sentence

COSA involves a group of 4 - 7 trained volunteers who commit themselves to support and hold accountable a person who has been detained to the end of sentence because of a sexual offence history (called core member) who is returning to the community. The Core members' participation is voluntary.

The main purpose of COSA is "to promote successful integration of released men into the community by providing support, advocacy, and a way to be meaningfully accountable in exchange for living safely in the community" (CSC, 2002).

Method

Additional Information

Geography: Communities further away from institutions have the challenge of contacting the core member personally before the end of their sentence. For instance, an offender in Drumheller released to Winnipeg will not easily make personal contact with the COSA team before arriving in Winnipeg. Moreover, COSA experiences difficulties when an offender moves after COSA support has been established;

Training: The turnover in institutional and community staff demand on-going education and training;

Recruitment: The challenge in recruitment is finding volunteers who can commit to a one year term as well as ensuring that the motives and capabilities of potential volunteers are appropriate to the task of providing support for high risk offenders; and

Experience: Volunteers are affected when they listen to the core member describe their crime and need help to process the impact of this experience.

Evaluation

Program Development Contact Information:

Correctional Service Canada
National Headquarters
340 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0P9
Tel.: 613-992-5891

References

Canada. Correctional Service Canada. 2001. Circles of Support and Accountability: Evaluation Report. Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service Canada.

Canada. Correctional Service Canada. 2002. Circles of Support and Accountability: A Guide to Training Potential Volunteers: Training Manual 2002. Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service Canada.

Wilson, R., J. Pichca, and M. Prinzo. 2005. Circles of Support and Accountability: an Evaluation of the Pilot Project in South-Central Ontario. Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service Canada.

Multisystemic Therapy (MST)

Program Rating: Model program

Target Population: Youth engaged in offending, families

Multisystemic therapy (MST) views individuals as being a part of an interconnected network of systems and reduces delinquency by targeting one or any combination of these systems. MST is a family and community based treatment that addresses antisocial behaviour in juvenile offenders. MST targets youth who are already involved in the juvenile justice system and are at risk of being imprisoned.

The main goals of MST are:

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

Evaluations of the MST program demonstrate that juvenile offenders that have received treatment have 25 to 70% reductions in long-term rates of arrest, have 47 to 64% fewer out-of-home placements, have improved family functioning and decreased mental health problems.

Program Development Contact Information:

Marshall Swenson, MSW, MBA
MST Services, Inc.
710 J. Dodds Boulevard
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Tel.: 843-856-8226
E-mail: marshall.swenson@mstservices.com
Web site: www.mstservices.com/ or www.mstinstitute.org

References

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 2006. Multisystemic Therapy (MST). Blueprints Model Programs Fact Sheet Series. Boulder, Colorado: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioural Science, University of Colorado, 1998; updated August 2006. Available from: www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/model/programs/MST.html

Multisystemic Therapy Services. 2007. Multisystemic Therapy - an Overview. Mount Pleasant, SC.
Available from: www.mstservices.com/overview_a.pdf

National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices. Intervention Summary: Multisystemic Therapy. (n. d.)
Available from: http://nrepp.samhsa.gov/programfulldetails.asp?PROGRAM_ID=102

Promising Practices Network on Children, Families and Communities. 2007. Multisystemic Therapy. Santa Monica, CA: Rand C.
Available from: www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=81

Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program (SHOCAP)

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: Youth committing serious or frequent criminal acts

SHOCAP is a case management system with extensive partnership between criminal justice agencies and community services. The goal of SHOCAP is to share information and resources between agencies working with serious habitual juvenile offenders. SHOCAP helps agencies give additional attention to chronic juvenile offenders by holding them immediately accountable for their actions and by helping them access services relevant to their needs.

The goals of the SHOCAP project are to:

Method

Additional Information

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has developed a training and technical assistance program. The process includes an intensive 1-day orientation for local executives of public and private agencies emphasizing SHOCAP's philosophy and the need to enhance juvenile justice system resources as well as the Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program training, a 40-hour course that helps jurisdictions develop their own unique interagency agreements. The course requires the participation of policy-level officials from law enforcement, education, juvenile court, juvenile probation and parole, juvenile detention and corrections, prosecution, and social services. Other technical assistance is available upon request depending on the availability of funding.

Evaluation

In a 1995 independent evaluation, SHOCAP participants cited the following significant benefits:

Program Development Contact Information:

Lieutenant John Mickler
Project Director
Decatur Police Department
333 South Franklin
Decatur, IL 62523
Tel.: 217-424-2739

For futher information regarding SHOCAP programs and training, contact:

Bob Hubbard
Program Manager, Training and Technical
Assistance Division, OJJDP
Tel.: 202-616-3567

References

Alberta. Solicitor General and Public Security. 2000. Serious and Violent Offenders Program.
Available from: www.solgps.alberta.ca/safe_communities/community_awareness/serious_violent_offenders

Calgary Police Service. 2008. Keeping an Eye on Young Offenders to Prevent Crime.
Available from: www.calgarypolice.ca/community/cpa_12.html

Medaris, Michael. 1996. Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Available from: www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/shocap.txt

Utah Board of Juvenile Justice. 2008. Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program.
Available from: www.juvenile.state.ut.us/SHOCAP/SHOWEB.PDF

Programs for Children At-Risk Ages 6 to 11

Boys & Girls Club of Canada/America - Programs and Services for At-Risk Youth and Families

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: At-risk youth aged 5-18, families in high-need communities

The Boys and Girls Club is a positive and safe place where children and youth can participate in quality programs and services that promote their healthy growth and development. The Clubs are governed by volunteer boards of directors. The Clubs provide an array of services such as: summer camps; recreational programs; group homes; school-age childcare; drug counselling programs; leadership development programs; peer counselling; support program for teen mothers; or alternative education programs for school dropouts.

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

21 evaluations of Club programs and activities over 20 years were examined to determine Club membership's overall impact:

Program Development Contact Information:

Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada
7100 Woodbine Ave., Suite 204
Markham, Ontario
L3R 5J2
Tel.: 905-477-7272
E-mail: info@bgccan.com

References

Arbreton, A.J.A., J. Sheldon, & C. Herrera. 2005.Beyond Safe Havens: a Synthesis of Research on the Boys & Girls Clubs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
Available from: www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/186_publication.pdf

Boys and Girls Club of America. 2007.
Available from: www.bgca.org/

Boys and Girls Club of Canada. 2006.
Available from: www.bgccan.com/index.asp

Fast Track

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: Youth at-risk, grades 1 through 6

Fast Track is a long-term prevention program that views antisocial behaviour as stemming from multiple influences in the child's life, including the school, the home, and the peer group. The program targets youth in grades 1 through 6 who have disruptive behaviour and poor peer relations. The program has been implemented with success in Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and the United States.

The main goals of Fast Track are:

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

Evaluations of the effectiveness of Fast Track have demonstrated that compared to the control groups, youth who participated in the program had better feedback about their behaviour from parents and teachers, they were less disruptive and aggressive within the classroom, there was less physical punishment used by parents, and parents were more involved in school activities.

Program Development Contact Information:

Mark T. Greenberg, Ph.D.
Human Development and Family Studies Tr-Madison
110 Henderson Building South
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802-6504
Tel.: 814-863-0112
Fax: 814-865-2530
E-mail: prevention@psu.edu
Web site: www.fasttrackproject.org/

References

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 2006. Fast Track. Blueprints Promising Programs Fact Sheet Series. Boulder, Colorado: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioural Science, University of Colorado.
Available from: www.colorado.edu/cspv/publications/factsheets/blueprints/pdf/FS-BPP05.pdf

Fast Track. 2001. Project Overview.
Available from: www.fasttrackproject.org/fasttrackoverview.htm

Linking the Interests of Family and Teachers (LIFT)

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: Youth at-risk, grades 1 and 5

Linking the Interests of Family and Teachers (LIFT) is a school-based intervention program focusing on conduct problems. It aims to intervene early in a child's development and target the behaviours and factors that lead to delinquency in later life. The program is directed towards school-age boys and girls in grades 1 and 5 and their families who live in at-risk neighbourhoods.

The main goals of LIFT are:

Method

Additional Information

Program Development Contact Information:

John B. Reid
Oregon Social Learning Center
160 East 4th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
Tel.: 541-485-2711

References

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 2006. Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT). Blueprints Model Programs Fact Sheet Series. Boulder, Colorado: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioural Science, University of Colorado. 2000; updated August 2006.
Available from: www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/promisingprograms/BPP09.html

Child Trends. 2003. Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT). Washington, DC: Child Trends.
Available from: www.childtrends.org/lifecourse/programs/LinkingtheInterestsofParentandTeachers.htm

Reid, J., J. Eddy, R. Fetrow, and M. Stoolmiller. 1999."Description and Immediate Impacts of a Preventive Intervention for Conduct Problems". American Journal of Criminology, (27)4: 483-517.

Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (BPP)

Program Rating: Model program

Target Population: Youth aged 7-18

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (BPP) is a multi-component, universal school-based program that aims to reduce and prevent bullying. It is designed to restructure the school environment to eliminate the opportunities and rewards that exist for bullying. BPP targets students in elementary, middle, and junior high schools. Every student within a school participates in almost every aspect of the program; however, special interventions are set aside for children who are either victims or perpetrators of bullying. BPP was designed and originally implemented in Norway, but has been implemented in other countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany.

The goals of the BPP are to:

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

The first program evaluation took place in Norway and involved 2500 children in grades 4 through 7 from 42 elementary and junior high schools. The study showed that there were substantial reductions in self-reported bullying and bully victimization. Furthermore, there was a decrease in self-reported vandalism, theft, violence, and alcohol use.

A second study showed a 30% to 70% reduction in student reports of being bullied and bullying others. Additionally, there were significant improvements in classroom order and discipline and more positive attitudes towards schoolwork.

Program Development Contact Information

Dan Olweus, Ph.D.
Research Center for Health Promotion
University of Bergen
Christiesgt, 13, N-5015
Bergen, Norway
Tel.: 47-55-58-23-27

References

Bauer, N., Lozano, P. & Rivara, F. 2007. "The Effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in Public Middle Schools: a Controlled Trial". Journal of Adolescent Health, (40): 266-274.

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 2006. Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Blueprints Model Programs Fact Sheet. Boulder, Colorado: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. SAMSHA's Model Programs: The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Rockville, MD: SAMSHA.
Available from: www.nvbest.org/models/samsha/programsheets/OlweusBullying.pdf

Police Athletic League (PAL)

Program Rating: Innovative program

Target Population: Youth aged 6-18

PAL is an organization in many American police departments in which members of the police force coach young people, both boys and girls, in sports, and help with homework and other school-related activities. The purpose is to build character, help strengthen police-community relations, and keep children off illegal drugs.

The goal of PAL is to help develop and protect children during their critical development years using education, recreation, socialization and arts to inspire them to lead meaningful and productive lives.

Method

Additional Information

There is a time commitment for any police department to sponsor a PAL program and to provide the flexibility for PAL coordinators to run the program in addition to their official duties as police officers.

Evaluation

Program Development Contact Information:

National Association of Police Athletics / Activities Leagues, Inc.
658 West Indiantown Road, Suite #201
Jupiter, FL 33458
Tel.: 561-745-5535

References

Baltimore Police Department. Division of Planning and Research. 1998. Juvenile Victimization Comparison for Goodnow Pal Center Area. Baltimore, MD: Baltimore Police Athletic League.

National Association of Police Athletica/Activities League Inc. Available from: ww.nationalpal.org/index.php

SNAP™ (Stop Now and Plan)

Program Rating: Model program

Target Population: Children and youth engaged in offending, aged 6-12

The SNAP™ program is a community based program for children who have come into contact or are at risk of coming into contact with the criminal justice system and display early signs of anti-social or aggressive behaviour. The program uses behaviour modification techniques to decrease the risks of the children engaging in future delinquent behaviour. SNAP™ focuses on both boys and girls in between the ages of 6 and 12.

The main goals of SNAP™ are:

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

Program Development Contact Information:

Child Development Institute
197 Euclid Ave.
Toronto, Ontario
M6J 2J8
Tel.: 416-603-1827
E-mail: mail@childdevelop.ca

References

Augimera, L., D. Farrington, C. Keegl, and D. Day. 2007. "The SNAP™ Under 12 Outreach Project: Effects of a Community Based Program for Children with Conduct Problems". Journal of Child and Family Studies, (16)6: 799-807.
Available from: www.springerlink.com/content/8083461515035734/?p=ed46e6cb38314c75bac1a56460f6edcd&pi=0

Child Development Institute. 2004. SNAP Material and Training Order Forms. Available from: www.childdevelop.ca/public_html/research/publications.html

Granic, I., O'Hara, A., Pepler, D. & Lewis, M. 2007. "A Dynamic Systems Analysis of Parent-child Changes Associated with Successful "Real-world" Interventions for Aggressive Children". Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, (35): 845-857.

SNAP™-Pittsburgh. 2007. Fewer Delinquents, Fewer Criminals.
Available from: http://psvp.org/SNAP/SNAP%20Documents/0627%20SNAP%20short%20story.pdf

Programs for Youth At-Risk Ages 12 to 17

Community Youth Development Study (CYDS)

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: Youth aged 12-18 with substance abuse and behaviour problems at the community level

CYDS is a 5-year intervention study designed to determine the effectiveness of the Communities That Care ® (CTC) system in promoting healthy youth development and reducing levels of youth drug use, violence, delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and school drop out. CTC is a strategic framework for planning and managing prevention activities at the community level. It endorses the use of community-specific data on risk and protective factors to guide the selection of science-based prevention programs.

Operating under the CTC framework, CYDS attempts to:

MethodFootnote 3

This approach requires the involvement of the community as well as local professionals (police, social workers, education and health professionals) a board of key stakeholders to oversee the planning and implementation of the program.

Additional Information

Evaluation

Program Development Contact Information:

J. David Hawkins
Social Development Research Group
School of Social Work
University of Washington
9725 3rd Avenue NE, Suite 401
Seattle, WA 98115
Tel.: 206-543-7655
E-mail: jdh@u.washington.edu

References

Communities That Care. 2007.
Available from: http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/features/ctc/resources.aspx

France A. & I. Crow. 2005. "Using the 'Risk Factor Paradigm' in Prevention: Lessons from the Evaluation of Communities that Care". Children & Society, (19): 172-184.

Hawkins J. 1999. "Preventing Crime and Violence through Communities that Care". European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, (7): 443-458.

Functional Family Therapy (FFT)

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: Youth at-risk aged 11-18, families

Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is a family-based prevention and intervention program for youths aged 11 to 18 with delinquency, substance abuse and violence issues. It has been successfully applied with various ethnic groups, in different socioeconomic contexts and for different issues (drug/alcohol use, delinquency and violence).

FFT is a multisystemic prevention program designed to:

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

Program Development Contact Information:

Doug Kopp
Functional Family Therapy, LLC
1611 McGilvra Boulevard East
Seattle, WA 98112
Cell: 206-409-7198
Fax: 206-664-6230
E-mail: dkfft@msn.com
Web site: www.fftinc.com

References

Functional Family Therapy Website. Available from: www.fftinc.com/

Mihalic S., K. Irwin, et al. 2001. "Blueprint for Violence Prevention". Juvenile Justice Bulletin. U.S Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, July 2001.
Available from: www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/jjbul2001_7_3/contents.html

Sexton T. & J. Alexander. December 2000. "Functional Family Therapy". OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Family Strengthening Series. Washington, DC: U.S Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Available from: www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/jjbul2000_12_4/contents.html

Leadership and Resiliency Program (LRP)

Program Rating: Model program

Target Population: Youth aged 14-19

The Leadership and Resiliency Program (LRP) attempts to enhance youths' internal strengths and resiliency while preventing involvement in substance use and violence.

The program is designed to:

Method

For each component there is a curriculum that provides a program description, specific descriptions of several group activities, sample forms and releases, required supplies and replication tips.

Additional Information

Evaluation

A pre-test and post-test evaluation demonstrated that program participants realized:

Program Development Contact Information:

Laura Yager, M.Ed., LPC, CCP-ATOD
Director, Prevention Services
Alcohol and Drug Services
Fairfax-Falls Church Community Services Board
3900 Jermantown Road, Suite 200
Fairfax, VA 22030
Tel.: 703-934-5476
E-mail: Laura.yager@fairfaxcounty.gov
Web site: www.fairfaxcounty.gov/csb/

References

Fairfax-Falls Church Community Services Board. Fairfax County, Virginia.
Available from: www.fairfaxcounty.gov/csb/

SAMHSA Model Programs.
Available from: http://nrepp.samhsa.gov/legacy_fulldetails.asp?LEGACY_ID=93

Life Skills Training (LST)

Program Rating: Model program

Target Population: Youth aged 12-15

Life Skills Training (LST) is a school-based prevention program that targets the early drug and alcohol use of adolescents. LST mainly focuses on adolescents in junior high school (grades 6 and 7). The program was primarily developed for use in middle-class schools with mainly Caucasian children; however, the efficacy of LST has been demonstrated to transfer successfully to inner-city ethnic minority populations.

The main goals of the LST program are to:

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

Program Development Contact Information:

National Health Promotion Associates, Inc.
711 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, NY 10604
Toll-Free: 800-293-4969
Tel.: 914-421-2525
Fax: 914-421-2007
E-mail: lstinfo@nhpamail.com
Web site: www.lifeskillstraining.com/

References

Botvin, G. & Griffin, K. 2005. "Prevention Science, Drug Abuse Prevention, and Life Skills Training: Comments on the State of the Science". Journal of Experimental Criminology, (1): 63-78.

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 2007. Blueprints Model Programs: Life Skills Training (LST). Blueprints for Violence Prevention Series. Boulder, Colorado: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.
Available from: www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/modelprograms/LST.html

Life Skills Training. (n.d.).
Available from: www.lifeskillstraining.com/

Mackillop, J., K. Ryabchenko, and S. Lisman. 2006."Life Skills Training Outcomes and Potential Mechanisms in a Community Implementation: A Preliminary Investigation". Substance Use & Misuse, (41): 1921-1935.

National Health Promotion Associates. Life Skills Training. (no date).
Available from: www.lifeskillstraining.com/index.php

Promising Practices Network on Children, Families and Communities. 2007. Life Skills Training. Santa Monica, CA: Rand C.
Available from: www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=48

Smith, E., J. Swisher, and J. Vicary. 2004. "Evaluation of Life Skills Training and Infused Life Skills Training in a Rural Setting: Outcomes at Two Years". Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 48(1): 51-70.

Project Towards No Drug Abuse (Project TND)

Program Rating: Model program

Target Population: Youth at-risk aged 14-19

Project Towards No Drug Abuse (Project TND) is based on a motivation-skills-decision-making model. This means that it targets motivation factors, skills, and decision-making factors that put an individual at risk for developing drug abuse problems. It was developed as a classroom-based drug abuse prevention program to be used among continuation (alternative) high school youth, aged 14-19. These youth have been transferred out of the regular school system due to behavioural and functional problems. The project focuses on this population because these youth are at a higher risk of drug abuse than youth in the standard high schools.

The goals of Project TND are:

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

One study involving approximately 3000 youth from 42 schools demonstrated that 30 days after the completion of the program there was a 27% reduction in cigarette use, a 22% reduction in marijuana use, a 26% reduction in hard drug use, a 9% reduction in alcohol use, and a 6% reduction in victimization among males.

Program Development Contact Information:

Jim Miyano
USC Institute for Prevention Research
1000 South Fremont Avenue, Unit 8
Alhambra, CA 91803
Tel.: 800-400-8461
E-mail: miyano@usc.edu
Web site: www.usc.edu

References

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 2006. Blueprints Model Programs: Project Towards No Drug Abuse (Project TND). Blueprint for Violence Prevention Series. Boulder, Colorado: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioural Science, University of Colorado.
Available from: www.colorado.edu/cspv/publications/factsheets/blueprints/FS-BPM12.pdf

Project Towards No Drug Abuse. (n.d.). Training materials available from: http://tnd.usc.edu/

SAMSHA's National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices. (n.d.). Intervention Summary: Project Towards No Drug Abuse.
Available from: www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/programfulldetails.asp?PROGRAM_ID=62

Sussman, S., C. Dent, and A. Stacy. 2002. "Project Towards No Drug Abuse: a Review of the Findings and Future Directions". American Journal of Health Behaviour, 26(5): 354-365.

University of Southern California. Institute for Prevention Research. (n.d.). Project Towards No Drug Abuse (TND).
Available from: http://tnd.usc.edu/index.php

Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP)

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: Youth at-risk aged 14-19

The Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP) is a long-term, multi-component intervention program that aims to reduce dropout rates and delinquency in disadvantaged high school students and promote positive academics and raise graduation rates. The program targets students entering ninth grade who come from low-income families and lasts for the four years that they are in high school.

The main goals of the QOP are:

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

Program Development Contact Information:

C. Benjamin Lattimore
Opportunities
Industrialization Centers of America, Inc.
1415 North Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122
Tel.: 212-236-4500, ext. 251

Andrew Hahn
Brandeis University
Heller Graduate School
The Center for Human Resources
Waltham, MA 02254-9110
Tel.: 617-736-3851

References

Child Trends. 2002. Guide to Effective Programs for Children and Youth.
Available from: www.childtrends.org/Lifecourse/programs/QuantumOpportunitiesProgram.htm

Lattimore, B. C., S. F. Mihalic, J. K. Grotpeter and R. Taggert. 1998. "The Quantum Opportunities Program", in D. S. Elliott (dir.). Blueprints for Violence Prevention. Boulder (Colorado): Centre for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

Mihalic, S., K. Irwin, D. Elliott, A. Fagan, and D. Hansen, D. 2001 "Blueprints for Violence Prevention". OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 7(3) July 2001.
Available from: www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/jjbul2001_7_3/contents.html

Promising Practices Network on Children, Families and Communities. 2002. Quantum Opportunities Program.
Available from: www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=27

Schirm, A., Rodriguez-Planas, N., Maxfield, M. & Tuttle, C. 2003. The Quantum Opportunity Program Demonstration: Short-term Impacts. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Available from: www.doleta.gov/reports/papers/QOP_short_term_impacts.pdf

Strengthening Families Program (SFP) for Parents and Youth 10-14

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: Youth aged 10-14, families

Strengthening Families Program (SFP) is a universal, family-based intervention program that aims to increase protective processes within the family and decrease potential risk factors. It is designed for use with youth between the ages of 10-14 and their families. However, it was specifically designed for students in grade 6 and their families. SFP has been implemented in 33 rural, Midwestern schools, which were mainly composed of white, middle-class youth.

The main goals of SFP are:

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

Program Development Contact Information:

Richard Spoth
Institute for Social and Behavioral Research
ISU Research Park
Building 2, Suite 500
2625 North Loop Drive
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50010
Tel.: 515-294-9752
Web site: www.exnet.iastate.edu/sfp

References

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 2006. Blueprint Promising Programs: Strengthening Families Program for Parents and Youth 10-14. Blueprint for Violence Prevention Series. Boulder, Colorado: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioural Science, University of Colorado.
Available from: www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/promisingprograms/BPP18.html

Department of Health Promotion and Education. (n.d.). Strengthening America's Families: Effective Family Programs for Prevention of Delinquency.
Available from: www.strengtheningfamilies.org/index.html

University of Utah. Department of Health Promotion and Education. (n.d.). Strengthening Families. Training Sessions, Manuals, and Materials. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Available from: www.strengtheningfamiliesprogram.org/

Wraparound Milwaukee

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: Youth at-risk aged 13 to 17

Wraparound Milwaukee is a comprehensive care program that focuses on delivering strength-based, individualized care to delinquent youth and their families. It was designed to reduce the number of youth being institutionalized by providing family-based treatment and programs within the community. The program targets youth ages 13 to 17 with serious emotional, behavioural, and mental health needs and their families.

The goals of Wraparound Milwaukee are:

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

Three years after the program, it was demonstrated that youth who received interventions from Wraparound Milwaukee had a significant reduction in recidivism rates. They had a significant decrease in felony referrals, misdemeanour referrals. They also committed fewer sex offences, property offences, assault offences, and weapons offences.

Program Development Contact Information:

Bruce J. Kamradt
Wraparound Milwaukee
9201 Watertown Plank Road
Wauwatosa, WI 53226
Tel.: 414-257-7639
Fax: 414-257-7575
E-mail: bkamrad@wrapmilw.org
Web site: http://www.milwaukeecounty.org/WraparoundMilwaukee7851.htm

References

Helping America's Youth. (n.d.). Programs to Help Youth: Wraparound Milwaukee.
Available from: http://guide.helpingamericasyouth.gov/programdetail.cfm?id=43

Kamradt, B. 2000. "Wraparound Milwaukee: Aiding Youth with Mental Health Needs". Juvenile Justice, 7(1): 14-23.

Milwaukee County. (n.d.). Wraparound Milwaukee.
Available from: www.milwaukeecounty.org/WraparoundMilwaukee7851.htm

Youth Inclusion Program (YIP)

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: Youth aged 13-16, identified as being at high risk of involvement in offending

YIPs are neighbourhood-based and aim to reduce youth crime and anti-social behaviour in neighbourhoods
by creating a safe place where youth can go to learn new skills, take part in activities with others and get
help with their education. Positive role models - the workers and volunteer mentors - help to change young
people's attitudes to education and crime.

Each project has the following goals:

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

An independent national evaluation of the first three years of YIPs found that:

Program Development Contact Information:

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales
11 Carteret Street
London SW1H9DL
Tel.: 02072713033
E-mail: enquiries@yjb.gov.uk

References

Morgan Harris Burrows. 2003. Evaluation of the Youth Inclusion Programme: End of Phase One Report. London: Youth Justice Board.
Available from: www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Resources/Downloads/YIP-Evaluation03.pdf

Youth Justice Board.
Available from: www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/yjs/Prevention/YIP/

Programs for Youth At-Risk Ages 16 to 24

Job Corps

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: Youth at-risk aged 16-24

Job Corps is an American federal effort designed to help disadvantaged youth become responsible, employable and productive citizens by providing material resources, emotional support, information, technical and academic knowledge, and social supports and interactions.

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

Program Development Contact Information:

U.S. Department of Labor
Frances Perkins Building
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210
Tel.: 1-866-487-2365

References

Job Corps: Available from: http://jobcorps.dol.gov/

Schochet, P., J. Brughardt, & S. Glazerman. 2000. National Job Corps Study: the Short term Impacts of Job Corps on Participants' employment and Related Outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.
Available from: www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/3f/7d.pdf

Schochet, P., J. Brughardt, & S. Glazerman. 2001. National Job Corps Study: the Impacts of Job Corps on Participants' Employment and Related Outcomes. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Available from: www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/19/44/c4.pdf

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC)

Program Rating: Model program

Target Population: Youth at-risk, families

The Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) is a cost effective alternative to incarceration, hospitalization, or residential treatment. The MTFC model is based on the Social Learning Theory, which states that interactions with individuals help to shape behaviour in social contexts. Interactions within the family help to build pro-social patterns of behaviour that the child can use outside of the home. The model also uses a multi-modal treatment approach, which includes behavioural skills training in several different settings such as the home, school, and peer group. The program targets teenagers with histories of chronic criminal behaviour. The individuals targeted have problems with antisocial behaviour, emotional disturbance and are at risk of being hospitalized in a psychiatric institution or being imprisoned.

The major goals of MTFC are:

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

Evaluations of MTFC have demonstrated that youth who participate in the program compared to those who do not spent 60% fewer days incarcerated 12 months after the completion of the program. Additionally, they had fewer arrests, ran away from their programs less, used less hard drugs during the follow-up period, and had better school attendance.

Program Development Contact Information:

Gerard Bouwman
TFC Consultants, Inc.
1163 Olive Street
Eugene, OR 97401
Tel.: 541-343-2388
E-mail: gerardb@mtfc.com
Web site: www.mtfc.com/

References

Chamberlain, P., & S. F. Mihalic. 1998. Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care: Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Book Eight. Blueprints for Violence Prevention Series. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.
Available from: www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/modelprograms/MTFC.html

Chamberlain, P. 2003. "The Oregon Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care Model: Features, Outcomes, and Progress in Dissemination". Cognitive and Behavioural Practice, 10(4): 303-312.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. SAMHSA Model Programs.
Available from: www.modelprograms.samhsa.gov/pdfs/model/multi.pdf

Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP)

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: General population and high-risk children

The Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP) is a multi-year, school-based intervention that is guided by the social development model, which integrates elements of social control, social learning, and differential association theories. This model stresses that families and school participate in the youth's life to build competency and skills for success, and build strong bonds between the individuals involved. Drawing upon the social control theory, these bonds prevent youth from engaging in socially unacceptable behaviours. The SSDP also uses a risk-reduction and skill-development strategy to reduce delinquent and problem behaviours in participating youth. The SSDP can be used for either the general population or high-risk children in grades 1 through 6.

The SSDP seeks to:

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

Program Development Contact Information:

J. David Hawkins, Ph.D.
University of Washington
Social Development Research Group (SDRG)
9275 3rd Avenue NE, Suite 401
Seattle, WA 98115
Tel.: 206-685-1997
E-mail: sdrg@u.washington.edu
Web site: http://depts.washington.edu/ssdp/

References

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 2006. Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP). Blueprints Model Programs Series. Boulder, Colorado: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioural Science, University of Colorado.
Available from: www.colorado.edu/cspv/publications/factsheets/blueprints/FS-BPP17.pdf

Hill, K., J. Howell, J. Hawkins, & S. Battin-Pearson. 1999."Childhood Risk Factors for Adolescent Gang Membership: Results from the Seattle Social Development Project". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36(3): 300-322.

O'Donnell, J., J. Hawkins, R. Catalano, R. Abbott, & E. Day. 1995. "Research Preventing School Failure, Drug Use, and Delinquency Among Low-Income Children: Long-Term Intervention in Elementary Schools". American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65(1): 87-100.

Promising Practices Network. 2006. Seattle Social Development Project.
Available from: www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=64

Programs for Addressing Youth Gang Involvement

Boston Gun Project and Operation Ceasefire

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: Youth aged 6 to 18 involved in gang and gun violence

The Boston Gun Project and Operation Ceasefire intervention are comprehensive strategies designed to address gun and gang violence. They were developed as problem-oriented policing interventions expressly aimed at reducing youth homicide and youth firearms violence in Boston, Massachusetts.

The initiative represented an innovative partnership between academics and practitioners who worked together to diagnose the city's youth homicide problem and to develop and implement viable responses. The Boston Police Department and researchers from Harvard University initiated the project by approaching other key criminal justice and social service partners and stakeholders in the city to participate on a working group and support a research-based process. These stakeholders initially included: the departments of probation and parole, social workers, the Office of the Suffolk County District Attorney, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the U.S. Attorney's Office, Department of Youth Services, and the City of Boston School Police.

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

Program Development Contact Information:

James Jordan
Gary French
Boston Police Department
1 Schroeder Plaza
Boston, MA 02120
Tel.: 617-343-5096 or 617-343-4444

David Kennedy
Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
79 JFK Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Tel.: 617-495-5188

References

Braga, Anthony A., David M. Kennedy, Anne M. Piehl and Elin J. Waring. 2001. "Part I. Developing and Implementing Operation Ceasefire." In Reducing Gun Violence: the Boston Gun Project's Operation Ceasefire. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Braga, Anthony A., David M. Kennedy, Anne M. Piehl and Elin J. Waring. 2001. "Part II. Measuring the Impact of Operation Ceasefire." In Reducing Gun Violence: the Boston Gun Project's Operation Ceasefire. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Braga, Anthony A., David M. Kennedy, Anne M. Piehl and Elin J. Waring. 2001 "Problem-Oriented Policing, Deterrence, and Youth Violence: An Evaluation of Boston's Operation Ceasefire". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(3): 195-225.

National Institute of Justice. 2001. Reducing Gun Violence: The Boston Gun Project's Operation Ceasefire. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Available from: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/188741.pdf

Gang Prevention through Targeted Outreach / Gang Intervention through Targeted Outreach

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: Youth aged 6 to 18 who are at risk of gang membership

The Gang Prevention through Targeted Outreach program was initiated to help local Boys & Girls Clubs:

Method

Additional Information

Evaluation

The evaluation included 21 Boys and Girls Clubs that used the prevention approach and 3 Clubs that used the
intervention approach. The prevention Clubs began using Gang Prevention through Targeted Outreach (GPTTO)
either simultaneous with the start of the evaluation or 1 year beforehand. The intervention Clubs developed their
projects between 1 and 3 years before the start of the evaluation. The study included 932 prevention youths and
104 intervention youths. The target youth survey subsample consisted of 236 prevention and 66 intervention
youths. The evaluation concluded that frequent GPTTO attendance is associated with:

Program Development Contact Information:

Boys and Girls Club of America
National Headquarters
1275 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30309-3506
Tel.: 404-487-5700
E-mail: info@bgca.org

References

Arbreton, Amy J.A., and Wendy S. McClanahan. 2002. Targeted Outreach: Boys and Girls Clubs of America's Approach to Gang Prevention and Intervention. Philadelphia, Pa.: Public/Private Ventures.
Available from: www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/148_publication.pdf

OJJDP Comprehensive Gang (or "Spergel") Model

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: Youth aged 12 to 25 involved in gangs

The Spergel Model is a balanced, three-pronged approach that encompasses prevention, intervention and suppression activities. The model presumes that gangs become chronic and serious problems in communities where key organizations are inadequately integrated and sufficient resources are not available to target gang-involved youth. To address these problems, the Comprehensive Gang Model calls for community institutions -- including law enforcement, social welfare agencies, and grass roots organizations -- to work together to achieve a more integrated, team-oriented approach.

The main goal of the Spergel Model is to reduce and prevent gang crime and violence.

The model was piloted in the Little Village neighbourhood of Chicago, Illinois, starting in 1992. With some subsequent modifications, this design gave rise to the OJJDP Comprehensive Community-Wide Gang Model in 1995 and has been implemented and tested in 5 sites across the United States: Bloomington-Normal, Illinois; Mesa, Arizona; Riverside, California; San Antonio, Texas; and Tucson, Arizona. According to Wyrick (2005; 2007), the OJJDP has implemented this model in over 25 urban and rural locations since 1995.

Method

Additional Information

For a discussion of some of the problems encountered during the implementation of the OJJDP Comprehensive Community-Wide Gang Model, the reader should consult Klein and Maxson (2006) and Spergel (2007). Some implementation problems included:

A New Generation : Spergel Model

The Gang Reduction Program (GRP), similar to the Spergel model, proposes a step-by-step process to reduce youth gang crime and violence. This process leads to a thorough assessment of the gangs' issues, resources and services with the goal of designing a tailored strategy. The GRP model is more focused on the prevention and re-entry aspects to reach out not only to gang-involved youth, but also to high-risk youth and on young or adult offenders to engage them into positive lifestyles.

In order to implement GRP successfully, the following key components must be included:

The GRP was piloted in four targeted communities of limited geographic area (approximately 5 square miles) that are characterized by significant existing program investment, strong indicators of citizen involvement, and high rates of crime and gang activity. The sites are located in: East Los Angeles, California; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; North Miami Beach, Florida; and Richmond, Virginia.

The Urban Institute is conducting a 3-year evaluation to assess program implementation, examine outcomes related to reductions in crime and gang activity, and identify improvements in prosocial activities and protective factors in the lives of high-risk youth. Evaluation of the GRP includes a pre/post comparison group design and a longitudinal time-series. The interim crime outcomes indicate the Los Angeles was the most successful site. Interim reports note challenges associated with implementation and coordination with three of the pilot sites, particularly Milwaukee who experienced serious implementation and measurement issues and has since been dissolved.

Evaluation

The Little Village pilot program in Chicago was evaluated by Spergel and Grossman using a quasi-experimental design. The evaluation collected and analyzed data on 493 youths who were either program youths (195), quasiprogram youths who received some services (90), or a comparison group who did not receive services (208). Data collection included interviews, criminal history records, aggregate level police arrest data, field observations, community surveys, and focus groups. The evaluation concluded that:

Program Development Contact Information:

Irving A. Spergel
School of Social Service Administration,
University of Chicago
969 East 60th Street
Chicago, IL 60637-2640
Tel.: 773-702-1134
Fax: 773-702-0874
E-mail: iasperge@midway.uchicago.edu

References

Burch, Jim and Candice Kane. 1999. Implementing the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model. OJJDP Fact Sheet #112, July 1999. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Klein, Malcolm W. and Cheryl L. Maxson. 2006. Street Gang Patterns and Policies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1999. Implementing the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
Available from: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/fs99112.pdf

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2002. OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model: a Guide to Assessing Your Community's Youth Gang Problem. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
Available from: www.iir.com/nygc/acgp/assessment/assessment.pdf

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2002. OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model: Planning for Implementation. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
Available from: www.iir.com/nygc/acgp/implementation/implementation.pdf

Spergel, Irving A. 2007. Reducing Youth Gang Violence: the Little Village Gang Project in Chicago. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira.

U. S. Department of Justice. Gang Reduction Program (GRP). (n.d.). Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Available from: www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/programs/ProgSummary.asp?pi=38

Wyrick, Phelan A. 2005. Comprehensive Responses to Youth Gangs. A Presentation Given at the Gang Prevention Summit, Fairfax County, Virginia, February 25, 2005. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Available from: www.fairfaxcounty.gov/gangprevention/summit/ojjdp_model_files/frame.htm#slide0043.htm

Philadelphia Youth Violence Reduction Partnership

Program Rating: Promising program

Target Population: Youth at-risk of violence under the age of 24

The Philadelphia Youth Violence Reduction Partnership (YVRP) is an intervention project involving members of street gangs in police precincts where the homicide rate among young people is the highest. The project was implemented in the first precinct in 1999 and was later extended to two additional precincts; essentially, the program aims to reduce violent crime-particularly homicide-committed by or against young people.

The YVRP is a result of the close partnership between various public agencies (police, probation) and community organizations (street workers, religious organizations) who were already working with this client group or whose mandate was to do so. Each of these agencies was working independently of the other. However, it was assumed that cooperation between the organizations through joint action would help intensify interventions with young people, which would further discourage them from engaging in crime and would promote social reintegration.

With the financial support of various charitable foundations, the organizations involved met to discuss a potential pilot project for curbing violence with a view to integrating the various existing initiatives in the precinct through close operational cooperation between the organizations. Similar intervention projects set up a few years earlier, involving youth at risk in rough neighbourhoods in some U.S. cities such as Boston and Baton Rouge, showed promising results. Using these initiatives as a model, the leaders of the Philadelphia project organized a two-day mission with the Boston project's managers to learn more about their experience, in anticipation of similar projects adapted for Philadelphia.

Method

The adapted Philadelphia project involves two main components: closer surveillance of some young people at high risk for crime and victimization, combined with the implementation or optimization of some measures to facilitate their social reintegration.

The young people were selected based on the following criteria: under 24 years of age, living (or having committed crimes) in the targeted neighbourhood, and at risk of committing or becoming a victim of a violent crime. The vast majority of the young people identified had previously been arrested for a serious crime: drug trafficking, robbery, attempted murder. Those who had never been arrested had, nonetheless, been identified as individuals at risk.

The main feature of this type of project is closer surveillance of the targeted youth. The level of surveillance exercised by the police and probation services through the YVRP far exceeds the level normally provided by these agencies. Joint police-parole officer patrols, focussing on targeted youth, took place about three times per week to maintain close surveillance of their activities and to ensure that they obeyed the conditions of their release. This surveillance was meant to show the targeted youth that they were more likely to be punished for their crimes and that any violation or breach of the conditions of their probation would be penalized. A"zero-tolerance" policy was adopted with respect to certain behaviours such as violence, possession of firearms, and drug trafficking. The joint interventions of the police and probation officers also demonstrated close cooperation between these two agencies.

Additional Information

The intensive management of a smaller number of cases enabled the probation officers to visit the workplaces and homes of the targeted youth more frequently, in addition to the usual formal meetings. This allowed more time to better assess their situation and guide them toward the appropriate resources as needed (therapy, employment assistance, etc.). The probation officers worked varying hours in order to monitor the youth through flexible schedules (early in the morning or late at night, during the week or on weekends).

At the same time as increased surveillance, community outreach workers (Philadelphia Anti-Drug/AntiViolence Network) played a decisive social reintegration role insofar as they developed a meaningful rapport with the youth involved and guided them toward resources that would help them get off the streets. Being involved in the project, they were aware of the young people's probation conditions and encouraged them to obey them to avoid disciplinary actions. Essentially, their goal was to foster relationships with the youth and identify their respective needs in order to do what was necessary to fulfill these needs in a pro-social manner. They acted as a bridge between the young people and the resources available to them in their neighbourhood.

Evaluation

Overall, the project was implemented as planned, and some issues surrounding implementation and coordination were resolved along the way. The data collected show that the front-line workers were able to closely monitor the targeted youth, and they carried out nearly 24 interventions per month, including about ten home visits. The number of interventions depended on the severity of the problems and individual needs. Nearly 800 young people were monitored through this four-year program.

The evaluation data show that the homicide rate attributable to street gangs decreased overall in the precincts in which this program was implemented, as was the case in Boston. Close surveillance made it possible to detect a large number of offences that were subsequently penalized. Lastly, the front-line workers were able to persuade a significant number of young people to attend assistance or rehabilitation programs. Additional assessments will be needed to identify the program's long-term effects.

Program Development Contact Information:

Denise Clayton
Coordinator
Youth Violence Reduction Partnership
City of Philadelphia
Office of the Managing Director
1401 JFK Blvd., Room 10-003
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Tel.: 215-686-4595
E-mail: denise.clayton@phila.gov

References

Braga, A., D.M. Kennedy, E.J. Waring and A. Piehl. 2001. "Problem Oriented Policing, Deterrence, and Youth Violence: an Evaluation of Boston's Operation Ceasefire". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28 (3):195-225.

McClanahan, W.S. 2004. "Alive at 25: Reducing Youth Violence through Monitoring and Support," Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Available from: www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/174_publication.pdf


Footnotes

  1. 1 See Public Safety Canada. National Crime Prevention Centre. Blueprint for Effective Crime Prevention. 2007. Available from: www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/spprtng-mplmtn/index-eng.aspx.
  2. 2 Thornton, Timothy N., Carole A. Craft, Linda L. Dahlberg, Barbara S. Lynch and Katie Baer. 2002. Best Practices of Youth Violence Prevention: a Sourcebook for Community Action. Revised version. Atlanta, Georgia: Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available from: www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/bestpractices.htm
  3. 3 The policies, actions and programs selected by the CYDS have yet to be disclosed. This factsheet will be updated as the project reveals more information about its method and results.
  4. 4 Each component has been developed within a research framework that supports the development of resiliency factors.
Date modified: