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

Executive Summary
iii
GPTTO and GITTO and what challenges they
encountered. Finally, we investigated GPTTO and
GITTO’s cost.
The evaluation included 21 Boys & Girls Clubs that
used the prevention approach and three Clubs that
used the intervention approach. BGCA selected the
sites through a competitive process in Summer 1997.
All of the prevention Clubs began using GPTTO
either simultaneous with the start of the evaluation
or one year prior. The intervention Clubs developed
their projects between one and three years prior to
the start of the evaluation.
The study included 932 prevention youth and 104
intervention youth who were recruited to each
Club/Project over approximately a 10-month period.
The target youth survey sub-sample consisted of 236
prevention and 66 intervention youth.
Given the complexity of the GPTTO and GITTO
models, the P/PV evaluation used multiple methods
for gathering information:
• To learn about who is recruited and what information
is tracked, the evaluators reviewed case
management records;
• To discover how the youth change, the evaluators
administered a questionnaire to a sample
of GPTTO and GITTO target youth when they
were first recruited and again approximately 12
months later. They also surveyed a comparison
group of youth who did not attend Clubs; and
again approximately 12 months later; 2
• To understand implementation issues at each
Club, evaluators surveyed Club directors one
year after the start of the evaluation; and
• To gather in-depth information about implementation,
evaluators conducted interviews,
held focus groups and collected observation
data on site from three Clubs utilizing the
prevention approach and three using an
intervention approach.
The Findings
Did the Clubs reach their intended population of
youth?
Prevention Clubs drew in a significant number of
new youth (44 on average) who were at high risk of
gang involvement based on such indicators as their
level of association with negative peers, poor academic
histories, and prior involvement in illegal and
delinquent activities. Intervention Clubs were also
successful in attracting new youth (34 on average), a
majority of whom were already gang members or
were demonstrating gang behaviors. Comparisons of
the risk factors (e.g., delinquent behaviors) of both
prevention and intervention youth to other national
studies of youth show that the Clubs are reaching
youth with considerable needs. These youth are also
older, on average, than are the typical Club or youthserving
organization participant (48 percent of prevention
and 96 percent of intervention youth are age
13 or older, as compared with 30 percent of the population
not enrolled in the initiative). Both initiatives
reached youth who may not have made it to the Club
by themselves. Given that older and higher-risk youth
rarely participate in youth organizations, this is a significant
accomplishment.
Did Clubs engage youth and provide them with
positive developmental experiences?
First, Clubs kept a majority of youth engaged for 12
months. Even given the high-risk characteristics of
the youth that can make them difficult to attract and
keep interested, a majority of youth (73 percent and
68 percent for prevention and intervention youth,
respectively) were still attending the Clubs/Projects 3
one year after they were initially recruited. In addition,
attendance rates were high: 50 percent of prevention
and 21 percent of intervention youth
reported having been to the Clubs/Projects several
times per week in the month prior to the follow-up
interview. These levels of retention and participation
are difficult to achieve with any youth or teen, let
alone with youth who have been engaging in highrisk
behaviors.
Second, target youth did experience many youthdevelopment
practices critical to healthy development.
Almost all youth (96 percent of prevention
and 86 percent of intervention) reported receiving
adult support and guidance from at least one Boys &