What works to prevent youth violence: evidence summary

Deterrence and fear-based approaches

Classification: Negative effect / Potentially harmful

Background

Programmes that aim to deter young people from involvement in gangs or violence using scare tactics or confrontational techniques are intended to highlight the negative consequences of engaging in that behaviour (Lipsey, 2009). These include interventions such as “Scared Straight” and other juvenile awareness programmes for preventing youth violence^[32] and delinquency take young people (specifically those who were considered to be at high-risk of engaging in violent or criminal activity) on visits to adult prisons.

Available Evidence

It was assumed that providing the young people with testimonials from those who were currently incarcerated, and exposing them first-hand to the reality of prison life, would scare or shock them into not engaging in violence. However, evidence has demonstrated that these programmes are associated with increased risk of offending (Petrosino et al., 2013) and their implementation should be avoided. Whilst these studies are predominantly based on male participants and programmes in the USA, so their applicability to girls and a UK context is not conclusive, there is arguably sufficient evidence to warrant caution against using them. It is not clear why these programmes lead to an increase in risk. However, it has been suggested that one explanation may be “peer-contagion” (defined within the literature as the transmission or transfer of violence-related behaviour from one adolescent to another).

Classification: Inconclusive

Approaches specific to reducing and preventing gang involvement and subsequent gang violence

Gang membership in youth can be associated with high levels of violence. Strategies that address gang-violence, encourage gang members to change their behaviours and prevent young people from joining gangs may be an important component in violence prevention strategies. Overall, research on what works to prevent gang involvement and subsequent gang violence is very limited. This does not mean that effective gang-specific programmes do not exist, but that it is not possible to draw reliable conclusions on the effectiveness of these approaches based on the evidence that is currently available.

It has been suggested that Universal strategies may offer limited utility within this context as most young people are not at risk of engaging in gang violence or joining a gang (Gravel et al., 2013). Moreover, it may be challenging to identify, recruit, and retain young people to these programmes who are involved in a gang or at risk of becoming a gang member in these programmes (Brisson et al., 2020). It has been suggested that programmes that are tailored specifically to youth involved in gangs may only serve to increase social cohesion between these young people (Gravel et al., 2013).

The WHO Practical Handbook on School-Based Violence Prevention (2016:31) highlighted Gangs Resistance Education And Training (G.R.E.A.T.) as one programme that decreases the risk of gang membership in young people in North America. The handbook notes that the programme comprises “a classroom curriculum aimed at 8- to 13-year-olds that aims to prevent violent behaviour and gang membership as well as develop positive relationships between youths and police. The 13 lessons are delivered by police officers, who receive training in working with youths. Lessons include developing social and emotional skills and learning about crime and gang membership”.

The results of a multi-site evaluation involving young people across 7 cities in the United States demonstrated that young people who participated in G.R.E.A.T were 39% less likely to report gang memberships than young people who were not involved in the programme (at one year follow up).  However, G.R.E.A.T did not have a significant impact on rates of violent offending (Esbensen et al., 2012).

One example of a community-based approach that has been implemented within a Scottish context is the Community Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV). The programme offers access to diversionary activity, personal development, and employment preparedness in exchange for adherence to a “no violence, no weapon” pledge, which was monitored through police systems. A preliminary^[33] post hoc before-and-after quasi-experimental design compared rates of criminal offending (including violent and non-violent offences) in male youths aged 16–29 who engaged with the initiative with age-matched gang-involved youths from an equally deprived area of the city. Violent offending reduced across all groups over the time of the evaluation. In the cohort followed for 2-years, the rate reduction was greater in the intervention group (52%) than the comparison group (29%). The reduction in the rate of physical violence was not significantly different between the intervention group and the comparison group; however, the rate of weapons carrying was reduced more in the intervention group than the comparison group (84% vs 40% respectively in the 2-year follow-up cohort) (Williams, Currie, Linden, & Donnelly, 2014). The authors note that these results suggest that adopting a public health approach with gang-related youth was associated with reduced weapon carriage, which can prevent consequences for victims, offenders, and society.

Overall, it is important to remember, however, that gangs are only part of the problem of the overall picture of youth violence.