Executive Summary v difficult to attain (e.g, a copy <strong>of</strong> youth’s report cards, rather than the staff’s impression <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the evaluation, all but one intervention and two prevention Clubs experienced the loss <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>Targeted</strong> <strong>Outreach</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> implementation, and thus, GITTO and GPTTO’s accomplishments seem particularly impressive. This, combined with the fact that the costs <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> giving youth the same things they seek through gangs— supportive adults, challenging activities, a place where youth feel they belong—appears to be paying <strong>of</strong>f. Further, the estimated incremental cost per youth per year <strong>of</strong> the GPTTO and GITTO approaches are far less than the cost <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> one year <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> using established agencies and enhancing their services to target these harder-toreach youth.
vi <strong>Targeted</strong> <strong>Outreach</strong>