Two Decades of G.R.E.A.T.

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12061
• Date: 01 August 2013
• Published date: 01 August 2013

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

EVALUATION OF THE G.R.E.A.T.

PROGRAM

Two Decades of G.R.E.A.T.

Considering the History and Evaluation of One of the

Longest-Running Gang Prevention Programs

Andrew V.Papachristos

Yale University

The Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program is more than a delin-

quency prevention initiative: It is a cultural entity. During the past 20 years, thousands

of students in hundreds of schools have gone through the curriculum. Members of the

very first cohort are now old enough that their own children may be sitting through the

G.R.E.A.T. program. More than that, however, people know about G.R.E.A.T. regardless

of whether they have experienced it or know exactly what the program does. For instance,

when I asked a nonacademic friend if he “had ever heard of the G.R.E.A.T. program,” he

replied quickly: “Isn’t that like D.A.R.E. but with gangs?” Although a highly unscientific

sampling strategy, my friend’s response illustrates the pervasiveness of G.R.E.A.T. in the

public consciousness. People know about the program, have seen its logo, or have heard its

name mentioned. I am, literally, writing this introduction with a G.R.E.A.T. pen I received

at a conference, and a matching coffee mug is buried in a desk drawer. If you still doubt

my argument, then simply type “great” into a Google search box: The second result is the

webpage for the G.R.E.A.T. program (the first result is the dictionary definition of the

word). As far as branding goes, G.R.E.A.T. is a huge success.

But the successful branding of G.R.E.A.T. does not necessarily mean it achieved its

stated programmatic goals of decreasing gang delinquency and violence. Luckily for policy

makers and academics, G.R.E.A.T. is one of only a handful of instances in the gang-

prevention world where rigorous and systematic evaluation has been engaged at virtually

every turning point of the program’s life. Esbensen, Osgood, Peterson, Taylor,and Carson’s

(2013, this issue) article represents the latest and greatest evaluation of G.R.E.A.T. providing,

in my opinion, the “best yet” evidence of the efficacy and ongoings of the program. It builds

Direct correspondence to Andrew V. Papachristos, Yale University, 493 College St., Room 201, New Haven, CT

06511–8907 (e-mail: andrew.papachristos@yale.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12061 C2013 American Society of Criminology 367

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 12 rIssue 3