Compare and contrast “intervention” and “suppression” approaches to gang involvement. For each approach, provide an example of a program and describe how it demonstrates these differences in practice, noting evidence in favor or against that program’s evaluated effectiveness.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

First, students should define the terms. “Intervention” programs and strategies provide sanctions and services to younger youths who join gangs. Suppression” programs target the most violent gangs and older, more criminally active gang members. Students should mention that the programs share similar goals--to reduce overall gang activity. They differ in the targeted populations and behaviors, with prevention programs being proactive--and suppression programs being reactive to gang violence. Students should select an example of each type of program as discussed in the chapter. For example, an intervention program might be Aggression Replacement Training (ART). ART is a cognitive-behavioral program administered to juvenile delinquents 3 times per week in small groups. Its curriculum contains structured learning training, anger training, and moral education. The program has been rated as “effective,” providing a cost-benefit to stakeholders while producing benefits in a variety of contexts. An example of a suppression program is the Hardcore Gang Investigations Unit, a prosecutorial suppression program using a specialized unit that was created in Los Angeles. It features reduced caseloads, additional investigative support, resources for assisting victims, and vertical prosecution. Evaluations have rated this program as “effective” in a number of ways, including fewer case dismissals, more convictions (especially on the most serious charge), more prison commitments, and fewer rejected cases.