Developing Local Police and Federal Law Enforcement Partnerships: G.R.E.A.T. as a Case Study of Policy Implementation

Abstract

This article deals with the evolution of the Gang Resistance Education and Training program (G.R.E.A.T.), from conceptual idea to policy implementation. In late May 1991, U.S. Senator Dennis DeConcini attended a "town hall meeting" of Phoenix-area police agencies. At that meeting, informal discussions about a law enforcement-based anti-gang program similar to Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) was discussed. By the spring of 1992, a prototype program was presented to a school in the Phoenix area. Within months of this offering, the resulting program was being offered in schools across the nation. From that point to the present, there seems to be little disagreement as to what has transpired. It is toward the origins of the program that this article is directed, and to the sometimes tortuous path that the program and its progenitors followed to go from idea to implementation of G.R.E.A.T. Ultimately, our goal is to compare and contrast this instance of intergovernmental cooperation with the extant literature and determine the extent to which the creation of G.R.E.A.T. as a case study adds to our understanding of how criminal justice policy moves from an idea to implementation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bardach, E. (1980). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.

Derthick, M. (1970). The influence of federal grants: Public assistance in Massachusetts. Washington, DC: Brookings.

Elmore, R. (1982). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. In W. Williams (Ed.), Studying implementation: Methodological and administrative issues (pp. 18-35). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

Esbensen, F.-A. (1995, March). The national evaluation of the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T) program: An overview. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Boston, MA.

Esbensen, F.-A. , & Osgood, D. W. (1997). National evaluation of G.R.E.A.T. Research in Brief Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Goggin, M. (1987). Policy design and the politics of implementation. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press.

Goggin M. , Bowman, A. O'M. , Lester, J. P. , & O'Toole, L. J., Jr. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: Toward a third generation. Glenview, IL: Scott.

G.R.E.A.T. mission statement . (1994, May). G.R.E.A.T News, 3, 1.

10.

Humphrey, K. R. , & Baker, P. R. (1994). The GREAT program: Gang Resistance Education and Training. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 63(9), 14.

11.

Ingram, H. (1990). Implementation: A review and suggested framework. In N. Lynn & A. Wildavsky (Eds.), Public administration: The state of the discipline (pp. 462-480). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

12.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

13.

Magaw, J. W. (1995). ATF's role in a GREAT program. The Police Chief, 62(5), 8.

14.

Matland, R. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Policy, 5(2), 145-174.

15.

Maupin, J. R. (1993). Risk classification systems and the provision of juvenile aftercare. Crime & Delinquency, 39(1), 90-105.

16.

Maynard-Moody, S. , Musheno, M. , & Palumbo, D. (1990). Street-wise social policy: Resolving the dilemma of street-level influence and successful implementation. Western Political Quarterly, 43(4), 833-848.

17.

O'Toole, L., Jr. (1986). Policy recommendations for multi-actor implementation: An assessment of the field. Journal of Public Policy, 6(2), 181-210.

18.

Palumbo, D. J. , & Ferguson, J. L. (1995). Evaluating Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT): Is the impact the same as that of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE)? Evaluation Review, 19, 597-619.

19.

President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice . (1967). Task force report: The police. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

20.

Roberg, R. R. , & Kuykendall, J. (1993). Police and society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

21.

Romczek, B. S. , & Johnston, J. M. (1999). Reforming Medicaid through contracting: The nexus of implementation and organizational culture. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 107-139.

22.

Sanders, O. (n.d.). Dare to find out more. Wellington, New Zealand: DARE New Zealand.

23.

U.S. Department of Treasury . (n.d.). Ask the Phoenix police chief how the fight against youth gangs is going and he will give you a one word answer: Great [G.R.E.A.T. Brochure]. Washington, DC: Author.

24.

Van Meter, D. , & Van Horn, C. (1975). The policy implementation process: A conceptual framework. Administration and Society, 6(4), 445-488.

25.

Walker, S. (1992). The police in America: An introduction. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

26.

Williams, W. (1980). The implementation perspective: A guide for managing social service delivery programs. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

27.

Winfree, L. T., Jr. , Esbensen, F.-A. , & Osgood, D. W. (1996). Evaluating a school-based gang-prevention program: A theoretical perspective. Evaluation Review, 20(2), 181-203.

28.

Zatz, M. S. (1987). Chicano youth gangs and crime: The creation of a moral panic. Contemporary Crises, 11, 129-158.