Gangs have evolved into a wide spread problem in the last few decades that desperately need to be dealt with immediately. Harvard University researchers, coupled with law enforcement officers, analyzed crime data and discovered that approximately 75% of the homicides, which occurred in large cities, were gang related (Jordan 1). Gangs have the power to ruin communities and towns by raising crime and drug rates, and are almost impossible to do away with. Many types of gang intervention and prevention programs have been implemented in different cities across the United States with a mixed variety of successes and failures. The type of programs that have shown to be successful need to be repeated and integrated into more communities over the nation to control the growth of gangs and the deterioration they cause.

The most prosperous strategies for dealing with gangs are those which place emphasis on prevention and intervention rather than suppression and enforcement. Although suppression is the strategy most frequently used, it generally fails in reducing or controlling juvenile crime if used by itself with no intervention or follow up programs (Pannell tape #258-93). Most schools currently are taking the increased enforcement idea, yet this is not proving to accomplish very much. In 1992 two hours before New York's Mayor was scheduled to give a speech to the student body of one high school, a student came in and shot and killed two classmates. At the time the shootings occurred there were seventeen police officers in the building with additional security personnel and special measures that had been taken since the mayor was on the grounds (Shields 8). Heightening security and adding increased law enforcement officers does not do the job with gang or youth violence. While it may move to resolve the issue after the fact it does nothing to control violence overall. Today's youth have proven over and over again the ability to act in the midst of added protection and enforcement. Given this diverse measures need to be administered if any effect in the war against gangs is to arise.

While stepped up security has not indicated to be very lucrative, neither has short-term incarceration. Increased publicity and stricter rules for incarceration have, in fact, sustained adverse effects. They actually give the individual prestige among peers. The publicity generated by gang violence provides kids with the recognition they so desire. One child reported to the Boston Globe that "Kids like to have their names in the paper, even if someone is killed...." The ability to boast about such acts they have committed gives them the tough and fearless image they so want to project. So consequently types of programs that aim to increase arrests and incarcerations of gang members are not very productive. In the early 1970s, a program entitled CRASH was established. CRASH was a specially trained police unit, which took the traditional approach of waging war on the gang problem by putting large numbers of gang members in jail. Hindsight has shown and confirmed that this approach hardly makes a dent in the presence of gangs. In the short term it forces gang members to relocate, but in the long run does nothing, for

While stricter punishment and an increased proportion of incarcerations have proven to be fairly ineffective, there are still many types of gang intervention programs that have received success. The different approaches that have gained ground in the baffle against gangs are centered around or take one of the three different form types. These include community mobilization, using a number of resources from the area, social intervention that involves counseling, tutoring and other assistance, or providing opportunities within the community such as job assistance and recreational programs. The programs that have done well in the past usually include several common factors, which seem imperative for success. These being they have many sponsors both public and private, involve police and community service agencies, reach out to at-risk youths and provide a variety of services such as counseling, positive life experiences and goals (Silverman 415). These different gang reduction programs all take on one of two distinct courses of action. The two methods to reduce the existence of gangs are either directed at prevention or intervention. A wide range of programs in both these areas has been implemented across the country with varying levels of success.

DARE is a very popular preventative program model that has been used all over the United States. It, on the contrary, has not been overly successful. The programs central idea is to assist youths in foiling peer pressure by saying ~o" to alcohol, drugs, and violence. Part of the reason minimal success has been gained from it is due to the fact that it oversimplifies. It vastly underestimates the complexities involved in the task of just saying no. Peer pressure is not that easy to stand up against without a backing and better ways of enabling a kid to do so would be greatly more effective. To grasp a beffer understanding of why this agenda is ineffectual, one must look to the motives compelling today's youths into joining gangs. One main reason they engage in gangs is because they have low self-esteem and yearn to be accepted by their peers and feel as if they are a part of something, regardless of the fact that a gang may not be the most productive form of association. Telling these already insecure kids to go against the grain simply because it is the right thing is just too naive to the real issues at hand. To help these kids abstain from joining gangs they must find a sense of belonging coming from some surrogate source. They need the support provided by this acceptance to be able to stand up to such evils as gangs and violence, for it has been demonstrated to be too hard to do alone.

It has been shown that troubled youths on average do not have a good supportive family backing. If questioned many young gang members would consider their respective gang to be their families. As stated earlier to gain that sense of belonging, which was resultantly absent from their lives, they became a member of a gang. For these types of youth, reassurance is what they really need. One program set up to counteract this issue was the PACT program. In this program Parents And Children Together aimed at early intervention by increasing parental responsibility, involvement, commitment, and awareness. The program founders insisted that the nucleus of the gang problem centered in family background and social characteristics and that these two elements predisposed a youth to gang membership. This type of program works well "before" a youth joins a gang, but is not very effective as an "after" approach (Sloan). It is good for prevention, but not successfi~l in intervention. The reason being once a child is in a gang, it becomes their family and they are no longer looking for guidance from their biological one. The child most likely already rejected the family they grew up with or did not feel their support prior to membership, which is why they joined their gang in the first place. The key to a method such as this one is that it is installed and intervenes before a child seeks out a gang to establish the acceptance they lack. If this is done accordingly, as was the case with PACT, these programs have proven highly prosperous for prevention. Once a child is actually associated with a gang, however, intervention not prevention techniques are essential for prompting youth to relinquish membership.

Notable intervention strategies all have certain characteristics in common. Most every one of them suggests targeting those children who are the most vulnerable to gang membership. They advise early peer counseling and support group sessions, along with conflict resolution and anger management programs. Establishing tutoring and mentoring schedules permits young people to experience success in school for a change. This empowers young people and boosts their self esteem, a major player in enabling youths to say no to gangs. One good intervention spot is directed at those who are in jail, for the California Youth Authority estimates that four out of every five inmates become affiliated with a gang (Haddock & Ginsburg A-14). The objective here is to keep individuals from becoming repeat offenders and helping them to turn their lives around.

One program acting in this manner to intervene with juvenile offenders and reduce the amount of repeats was called the Tarrant County Advocate Program. Targeted youth currently on probation were assigned a paid advocate who worked intensively with the youth and his family, providing close supervision and mentoring, conflict resolution and interpersonal skills, and links to appropriate community resources and support systems. This pilot program was implemented into a town in Texas, and proved to be quite worthwhile. Of the 210 kids who successtally completed the program in 1997, only 89 were re-arrested and only 40 were subsequently adjudicated (Jordan 8). This is a rapid decrease from the usually high figures of repeat offenders who seem to be on a continual cycle that fails to be terminated until intervention is established. If programs such as this one have demonstrated to be so overtly usefial the obvious question arises as to why they are not widely accessible and more frequently administered. The reason behind this is a simple, but demoralizing one. Communities need the backup support of all citizens and legislatures to provide the flinding for such measures to be taken. While the TCAP program does cost money, the benefits seem to far outweigh the costs, but all members of society need to acknowledge this and in effect call for and support bills enabling like measures to be implemented. Until this happens necessary action can not be put into place, and alternatives need to be examined.

Mentoring programs, through peer tutoring, are similar and very inexpensive ways of combating the comparable problems in school children. In this system, kids help other kids by assisting them in raising their academic skills and consequentially their confidence in themselves. It also provides the youth with a friend and ally, which they definitely need. By raising their confidence in the academic realm of life, they may find an interest or see a reason as to why to stay more involved in school. Having a goal in mind, such as aiming for a higher education, gives a youth an incentive to stay on the right path of life. Only when this aspiration becomes bleak do they look to other resources, for they view this path as unattainable or hopeless and accordingly give up. This is where gangs come into play. Prior to this denomination, though, intervention is possible.

One type of network which provides support and gives youth a light at the end of the tunnel leading them in the right direction are church or youth groups. The guidance and faith these programs give participants provides the added boost in the right direction, and the confidence needed to make the correct decisions. Close contact with youth also enables fast measures to be taken if students are starting to deter from the accepted paths. For these programs to be effective, however, individuals must have faith and share the beliefs of the program. Churches and youth groups can not be a source of intervention to be used nationwide due to cultural and religious differences. This is why there are so many different methods for dealing with gang members, because all individuals respond differently to different measures and what works for one person will not necessarily work for another.

One type of intervention that seems to work very well in certain areas is after school alternative programs, which can take on many forms. These can involve sports activities, community service opportunities, career awareness instruction, tutoring and mentoring, or any other extra curricular activities. As is wisely stated by Dick Tillson, a California Youth Authority who has studied at risk youth, "Kids need alternative to gangs and some positive adult leadership," as well as a place to "hang out" (Haddock and Ginsburg A-l). To negate gang issues in this way, the Boys and Girls Club of America has instituted many of these in cities across the United States, which have been quite beneficial. One such program was implemented in Illinois and called The Douglas Center. It was formed in an area that is about 75 to 85% gang affiliated youths and was labeled an unofficial neutral zone where anyone could come and play football, basketball, or a variety of other sports. Walter Smith coached the teams and allowed anyone to play ball as long as they didn't make trouble. Along with the regular games, he also took them traveling and had a camping trip at the end of their season (Orr 28). This program gave the youth something to do instead of gening into trouble and actually bestowed upon them an incentive to stay out of it. This program was flinded, although very marginally, but proved extremely successfiil. The problem with the majority of these programs comes primarily from flinding issues (Slovacek). Without money to support their installation and activities, they can not provide any service to the community.

Another alternative, which involves the community, and is not as costly, is the implementation of community policing units. For this to work, however, it is imperative that the whole town cooperates. There are many different forms or styles of this type of intervention but they all rely heavily on neighborhood resident volunteers who aff end training sessions given by local police. Trained graduates patrol their neighborhoods and report suspicious activity with police radios and such. When installed in Fort Worth, Texas this reduced crime by 56%. Upon installation in 1991 there were 105 people representing 11 neighborhoods, this figure has grown immensely to current day in which 3,700 volunteers are active in 167 neighborhoods. This depicts how successfiil such a system can be. The main objective of these programs is to involve the whole community and spur them into action (McDonald). This program is ideal in that not much flinding is required, but on the other hand, it is essential that the whole town become involved to make it effectual. This is a reason why it does not always work because people do not have the time or motivation to participate, and without volunteers, it can not be activated. Community policing is another great strategy, but yet again, it too runs into roadblocks.

There are numerous programs involving intervention or prevention, which would greatly alleviate the country of it's growing gang disturbances. The problems, however, lie in the application of such agendas. Gangs are a growing problem which communities should take notice of They raise the crime and drug rate and have the power to demoralize whole towns or cities. To protect themselves and their families, citizens need to work together to formulate or call for flinding of such prevention and intervention programs, as have been laid out above. The underlying premise in these programs is a good one, and well understood by many. "If you want a drug and gang free community, you must begin with the areas you can control~your homes, streets, neighborhoods, and schools," as is clarified Walter Williams, a specialist in community anti-drug efforts (Forbes 26). There are so many programs which have shown great success, but all of them take a combined effort of citizens, community officials, sponsors, law enforcement agents and agencies along with a general will to make a change. History has demonstrated repeatedly that criminal groups in the U.S., whatever their ethnic origin, eventually extend their corruption tentacles to the larger community as they seek more power, influence and money (Joe 408). Gangs therefore are everyone's problem and unless something is done, they will continue to grow and infect every community across the country. The only way to control this spread and save the very places we reside is for all members of society to collaborate together and mobilize. In essence we need to gang up on gangs.