What Works With Gangs

Progress has been slow in developing antigang programs. Preventing gangs from forming and eliminating established gangs altogether seems impossible when they are rooted in the cracks of our society—most prevalent in large cities with long histories of socioeconomic deprivation and racial-ethnic conflicts (Howell, 2015). Nevertheless, past reviewers of gang programs have been fixated on finding a “magic bullet”—that is, exclusively model or exemplary programs (Elliott and Fagan, 2017; Gravel, Bouchard, Descormiers, Wong, and Morselli, 2013; Klein and Maxson, 2006; Wong, Gravel, Bouchard, Descormiers, and Morselli, 2016). Each of these reviews has important shortcomings, commonly, failure to include all relevant studies, use of inconsistent criteria for determining program effectiveness, and the application of the “model” program or “blueprint” criterion requiring random assignment of subjects for “effective” or “exemplary” ratings in cases where this is unacceptable. For example, as a matter of public safety, gangs cannot be randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. Moreover, even small benefits would be welcomed in economically disadvantaged inner cities with long histories of gang violence, given that historically gang-ridden communities present special challenges. As one example, Spergel’s (2007) Comprehensive Gang Program proved to be moderately effective in the Little Village community of Chicago in which a protracted “war on gangs” that was waged by police and embroiled community agencies clearly impeded Spergel’s innovative programming (Vargas, 2016). In this policy essay, I applaud the positive outcomes of a gang-adapted program, Functional Family Therapy-Gang (FFT-G). I draw attention to this breakthrough program in the context of existing state-of-the-art of gang prevention and “comprehensive” gang intervention and suppression programs. The reality is that several programs not designated