The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
The text below includes the Executive Summary from the complete document. Read the full report in PDF format (553 pages, 16 MB).
Abstract
This report presents interim findings of the Urban Institute's evaluation of the Gang Reduction Program (GRP), a $10 million, multi-year, federal initiative to reduce gang crime in Los Angeles, California; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; North Miami Beach, Florida; and Richmond, Virginia. The evaluation found substantial variation in collaboration levels among partners in each site, but each site achieved significant implementation successes. The effects of GRP in each site were mixed, and only one site, Los Angeles, showed a significant reduction in crime levels. By late 2007, however, three sites had undertaken significant steps towards sustaining GRP beyond the federal funding period.
Executive Summary
This report presents the interim findings of the Urban Institute's (UI) implementation
process and outcome evaluation of the GRP. The GRP is a $10 million, multi-year initiative
sponsored by the Offce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to reduce
crime associated with youth street gangs in four U.S. cities: Los Angeles, California;
Milwaukee, Wisconsin; North Miami Beach, Florida; and Richmond, Virginia.
UI is conducting an independent evaluation of the GRP implementation process and
its outcomes in each of the four cities. This report represents an interim presentation of
results even while the GRP continued operation in three of the four sites beyond the period
covered here. The implementation process component of the evaluation summarizes the
progress of the initiative in each site from its launch in the spring of 2003 through mid
to late 2007. The outcomes component of the evaluation considers the effects of the GRP
in each site over nearly the same time period (through early 2007 in most cases), and
examines whether each site experienced significant changes in relevant indicators (e.g.,
youth gang crime) that might be attributed to GRP. The report thus documents the:
- Strategic planning process for each of the four sites;
- Implementation of strategic plans and site fidelity to strategic plans;
- Nature of the collaboration between partners and how it changed over time;
- Obstacles and successes associated with the GRP implementation process;
- Preliminary findings on the effects of GRP in each site; and
- Cross-site lessons on implementation of OJJDP?s GRP model and the preliminary
outcomes in each site.
In late 2007, after the period covered in this report, the evaluation was on-going; the
findings presented here should thus be read as preliminary.
Implementation process data have been collected through direct observations of GRP
planning activities, collection and review of relevant documents from each site, and interviews
with GRP coordinators, steering and subcommittee members, and local stakeholders.
A variety of community-level outcome measures were collected in each site, with data from
local police departments forming the central element of the outcome analysis. The following
summarizes key findings regarding the implementation process and preliminary
outcomes across all four sites.
The brief strategic planning process was the first major challenge faced by all sites. The
short time allowed for Phase I planning permitted the implementation of some activities,
but these were generally extensions of programs already in place. In all sites, much or
most of Phase I was actually devoted to further problem identification and information
gathering in an effort to understand the nature of local problems, resources, and relevant
evidence-based practices.
Much of the progress achieved to date at each of the sites is attributable to the leadership
of each site's coordinator. Coordinators, however, would have benefited from
more direction and technical assistance on organizing local efforts. Sites independently
developed similar organizational designs: steering committees (termed 'advisory' in Los
Angeles) representing broad community interests. Coordinators relied on steering committees
for management and decision-making support. The inclusive committees were a
mixed blessing: while they represented diverse interests related to gang reduction, some
participating organizations expected to secure substantial funding from GRP, and disrupted
planning and implementation because of individual agency priorities rather than
participating to fulfill the mission of GRP. Early in the process, competition for funds,
political infighting, and unrealistic expectations had occasional negative effects on collaboration,
communication, and committee functioning. These effects diminished over
time.
Substantial variation in the levels of collaboration and communication existed. Stakeholders
focused on suppression efforts, especially in Los Angeles and Richmond, seemed
to function more collaboratively and effectively because of prior experience working together.
Where functioning was more problematic, member attrition and turnover was
more prevalent. However, over the course of implementation, collaboration improved, as
did local committee functioning.
Conforming to strict procurement rules had negative effects on implementation. The
time required to get programs up and running in target communities was longer than
anyone anticipated. Also, some capable providers with little experience in the competitive
bidding process were disqualified due to missed deadlines or submission of incomplete
applications. In other cases, complicated application procedures discouraged providers
from applying.
Significant implementation successes were observed in all sites. Sites developed strategic
plans approved by OJJDP and consistent with target area needs and problems; local governance
and communication have steadily improved and partnerships among members
have developed; coordinator outreach resulted in a broad participation in GRP planning
and implementation; a significant number of specific programmatic activities across all
GRP components were operational by late 2007; and GRP has improved communication
about gang issues within the target areas and among participating organizations.
The findings on the effects of GRP in each site were mixed. The results revealed that
only one site, Los Angeles, showed a significant reduction in crime levels, with serious
violence, gang related incidents, gang-related serious violence, and citizen reports of shots
fired all decreasing after the implementation of GRP there. Smaller drops in those measures
were found in the comparison area, and no evidence of displacement was identified. In
Milwaukee and North Miami Beach, no significant changes in the measures were found
after GRP implementation, and in Richmond, the period after implementation actually saw
a modest increase in serious violence and gang-related measures. While the comparison
area in Richmond also saw increases in two of the measures, those increases were to a
smaller degree than in the target area. Increased crime awareness and reporting of gang
crimes among target area residents may help to explain the unexpected increases in some
crime measures that were found in Richmond.
While very little strategic planning for sustainability had taken place at any of the
four sites at the time of the previous report in 2006, by late 2007, three of the four sites
had undertaken significant steps towards sustaining at least portions of the initiative
beyond the federal funding period. In Los Angeles, the GRP model was implemented
city-wide with local funding and termed the "Gang Reduction Zone Program." In North
Miami Beach, after struggling to find a government-based fiscal agent to sustain the
partnership, the initiative was incorporated as a non-profit organization in late 2007.
In Richmond, the close relationship that developed between the Virginia Office of the
Attorney General (OAG) and the Richmond Police Department (RPD) through the GRP
effort had ensured that a significant portion of the efforts undertaken by the RPD would
be sustained, and the OAG was also planning an expansion of the model into other parts
of the city.
The full report is available in PDF format. (553 pages, 16 MB)
PDF