An integrated public health and criminal justice approach to gangs: What can research tell us?

Abstract

There has been a call to better link public health and criminal justice approaches to best address crime problems generally, and youth and gang violence in particular. Importantly, there has yet to be a systematic examination of how criminal justice approaches can be integrated within a public health framework. This paper examines the strengths and challenges with mapping gang research and evidence-informed practices onto a public health approach. Conceptual examination reveals benefits to utilizing an integrated framework, but it also exposes core problems with identification and prediction of gang joining and gang membership. The gang label as a master status is called into question. It is argued that a public health framework can inform public policy approaches as to when the focus should be youth violence versus gangs and gang violence.

Rethinking How We View Gang Members: An Examination into Affective, Behavioral, and Mental Health Predictors of UK Gang-Involved Youth

“…There is growing consensus that a public health approach should be adopted to address youth violence and this includes gang involvement (Gebo, 2016; Neville et al, 2015). The public health approach ‘takes a population-based approach and aims to improve the health and safety of the population’ (Neville et al, 2015: 323).…”

Street Gang Intervention: Review and Good Lives Extension

“…In a public health approach, it is assumed that given the right conditions, any young person could be drawn towards joining a street gang (Gravel et al 2013). As such, by using a universal approach, primary prevention strategies attempt to protect all young people from engaging in adverse behaviors (such as violence and street gang membership), by reducing risk and increasing protective factors (Gebo 2016). Primary prevention strategies include the provision of services which aim to reach and support a whole community.…”

“…Alternatively, as Wong et al (2011) suggest, primary prevention strategies, such as the original G.R.E.A.T and GAGV, may not be effective at reducing street gang involvement as they are too generic, often failing to target risk factors most strongly related to street gang membership. Despite this, the focus on wellbeing and personal growth, rather than individual blame (Gebo 2016), means primary prevention programs are perceived more positively by communities, schools, and policy-makers than targeted prevention and intervention strategies (Tita and Papachristos 2010). As such, future research needs to consider which risk and protective factors, specific to street gang members, should be targeted in primary prevention strategies.…”

“…However, such instruments often suffer from a lack of predictive validity (Gebo and Tobin 2012). As such, secondary prevention strategies are typically targeted at young people who have had contact with law enforcement due to delinquent behavior or those known to have family members or peers in street gangs (Gebo 2016). Such programs tend to be delivered in areas with high rates of street gangs, as exposure to street gangs is a strong risk factor for membership (Public Safety Canada 2007).…”

“…A public health approach to street gang membership has recently been suggested (Gebo 2016), which could guide the development of effective prevention and intervention strategies. WHO (Krug et al 2002) suggests four key elements for a public health approach, including: (1) surveillance, (2) identifying risk and protective factors, (3) developing and evaluating interventions, and (4) implementation.…”