Skip to main content

Asking Who in Gang Violence Prevention

Tony Cheng
JD Candidate at New York University, School of Law
PhD Candidate at Yale University, Sociology Department


Who do violence preventers target to achieve violence prevention?  Targeting is a process of defining what qualifies as relevant violence and selecting concretely on whom to focus efforts.  Law enforcement are not the only ones making targeting decisions—non-profits are increasingly deploying credible street outreach workers (SOWs) who can build relationships with targeted gang members and channel prosocial influences.  SOW-oriented programs have existed since the 1930s, but have gained new life with Cure Violence’s public health approach, which conceptualizes SOWs as interveners positioned to block the transmission of violence among the highest risk targets.  Yet we know remarkably little about how SOWs build relationships and which strategies actually work.  Program evaluations of Cure Violence replications have yielded mixed results, sometimes even revealing increased violence.  My article “Violence Prevention and Targeting the Elusive Gang Member” provides insights into how SOWs make targeting decisions, and in doing so, generates insights into why only some programs have succeeded and what can be done moving forward. 


Drawing on eighteen months of fieldwork in a gang violence prevention program in Connecticut called Bullet-Free Bridgeport, this ethnography finds that in addition to standard qualifications such as age and residence, SOWs only recruited gang members who were deemed “ready” to change their lives.  No form or internal document mentioned this readiness requirement.  Instead, it was communicated orally in roll call meetings as SOWs vetted potential targets.  Youth interested in SOW services demonstrated readiness by staying in contact with SOWs, showing up to required activities, and complying with other program rules.  SOWs’ focus on readiness was motivated by demands from program funders who measured effectiveness by the total number of intakes; supervisors who wanted to avoid trouble cases of non-ready clients; and SOWs themselves who feared “getting played” by clients interested in the perks associated with a SOW relationship (like free food and movie tickets) but not in participating in formal services (like anger management or drug rehabilitation).  By requiring readiness, however, SOWs only recruited fringe gang members or whom they called “wannabes,” as opposed to those most central.  Thus while the violence prevention model prioritizes the most active and highest risk gang members, a youth’s very centrality may deter—rather than justify—providing them services.  

Policy efforts should focus on closing the gap between workers’ actual incentives and realities, and with the model’s conception of them.  One option is to further limit the pool from which SOWs can select clients to a neighborhood, for instance, so SOWs are encouraged to focus on each and every client.  Another option is for funders and supervisors to differentially reward recruitment of more central gang members.  Both options can help incentivize recruitment of those not yet ready, but active nonetheless.  Thus evaluating the success of any social service program requires examining who is offered services to begin with.  In the case of violence prevention, this insight translates into the question: who is being targeted in the first place?    

Popular posts from this blog

Comment: Making valid claims in social science research: A comment on Jenness and Calavita

By Tom Tyler, Yale Law School

I am writing to comment on several methodological issues raised by the article by Valerie Jenness and Kitty Calavita, entitled “It depends on the outcome”: Prisoners, grievances, and perceptions of justice”. I am pleased that the methodology blog for Law and Society Review has been created and provides a forum to discuss research design issues. I will address three aspects of the study: operationalization of the variables; statistical analysis; and inclusiveness of the literature review.

The Jenness/Calavita paper studies California prisons using data collected through interviews with prisoners. The paper says that it tests the perceptual procedural justice model, in particular there are frequent references to the Tyler model, in a prison setting. The study concludes that “prisoners privilege the actual outcome of disputes as their barometer of justice” showing “the dominance of substantive outcomes” (from the abstract)”.

I agree with Jenness and Cala…

The Roots of Life Without Parole Sentencing

By Christopher Seeds, New York University



Since the early 1970s, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP)—an extreme prison sentence offering no reasonable possibility of release—has emerged as a routine legal sanction and penal practice in the United States. A century, even several decades ago, this would have been unexpected. Yet today, with more than 50,000 prisoners so sentenced and hundreds of laws authorizing it, LWOP is firmly entrenched in American penal policy, in judicial and prosecutorial decisionmaking, and in public discourse. Two general theses—one depicting LWOP as a replacement penalty for capital crimes; another linking LWOP with tough-on-crime sentencing policy of the mass incarceration era—have served as working explanations for this phenomenon. In the absence of in-depth studies, however, there has been little evidence with which to carefully evaluate these narratives.

My article, “Disaggregating LWOP: Life Without Parole, Capital Punishment, and …

Europeanization or National Specificity? Legal Approaches to Sexual Harassment in France, 2002–2012

By Abigail Saguy, UCLA

Sexual harassment represents a massive problem for working women worldwide. A recent social media campaign has brought increased awareness to this fact. In late 2017—after three-dozen women accused Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment, assault, or rape—millions of women posted “Me Too” on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and other social media platforms. Taking inspiration from African American activist Tarana Burke—who, in 2007, started an offline “Me Too” campaign to let sex abuse survivors know that they were not alone—actress Alyssa Milano launched this online Me Too campaign to shift the focus from Weinstein to victims. She hoped this would “give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”[1] While some posted simply, “Me Too,” others provided wrenching detail about abuse they had sometimes never before shared publicly. In France, a similar social media campaign flourished, under the hashtag “balance ton porc,” loosely translated as “sq…