Targeted Outreach - Governor's Office of Crime Control & Prevention ...

Executive Summary
v
difficult to attain (e.g, a copy of youth’s report cards,
rather than the staff’s impression of whether they had
shown improvement academically).
Staff turnover presented a challenge to Clubs’
ability to develop and maintain relationships
with referral agencies and youth, as well as
meeting documentation requirements.
During the first year of the evaluation, all but one
intervention and two prevention Clubs experienced
the loss of at least one key staff member (a case manager,
outreach coordinator or project director). As a
result, they had to train new staff in the Targeted
Outreach philosophy and documentation process,
and give them time to rebuild relationships with targeted
outreach youth and staff from referral agencies.
Conclusions
Whether GPTTO can prevent gang membership and
GITTO can stop it for more than the 12-month study
period remains to be seen. This evaluation could not
definitively answer this question, although it did provide
preliminary evidence that more participation in
GPTTO and GITTO could help prevent or reduce
gang-related delinquent activities for youth.
This evaluation took place early in the initiative,
while Clubs were still in the developmental stages of
implementation, and thus, GITTO and GPTTO’s
accomplishments seem particularly impressive. This,
combined with the fact that the costs of implementing
GPTTO and GITTO are relatively low, demonstrates
that GPTTO and GITTO hold promise by
preventing negative youth outcomes (such as stealing,
substance use and contact with the courts) and
reducing youth involvement with gangs.
Overall, GPTTO and GITTO seem to be meeting
their goals. Clubs succeeded at getting and keeping
youth at high risk of gang involvement in the Club.
GPTTO and GITTO youth received key developmental
supports at the Club, ones that they might otherwise
seek through involvement with gangs. Youth
who participated more frequently experienced positive
outcomes. The overarching philosophy of giving
youth the same things they seek through gangs—
supportive adults, challenging activities, a place where
youth feel they belong—appears to be paying off.
Further, the estimated incremental cost per youth per
year of the GPTTO and GITTO approaches are far
less than the cost of gang suppression. Building their
programs up from seed money ($4,000 for prevention
and $15,000 for intervention) received from
OJJDP through BGCA, programs raised additional
funds ranging from $3,000 to $46,000 (prevention),
and $22,000 to more than $1 million (intervention).
These funds cover the direct costs of one year of
implementation. They are direct costs and do not
include resources spent on Club operating expenses
or management, facility upkeep or maintenance, or
the in-kind contributions of Club staff and collaborating
agencies. Thus, the average incremental cost
per GPTTO youth was $340, for GITTO youth,
$1,889. The relatively low figures mark the advantage
and efficiency of using established agencies and
enhancing their services to target these harder-toreach
youth.