YOUTH GANG PREVENTION STRATEGIES: ANALYZING INTENSIVE SUPPORT AND
SUPERVISION PROGRAMS AND WRAPAROUND APPROACHES
by
Eric Osmond
Bachelor of Arts, Major in Criminal Justice
June 2017
University of the Fraser Valley
MAJOR PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS (CRIMINAL JUSTICE)
In the
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
© Eric Osmond
UNIVERSITY OF THE FRASER VALLEY
Winter 2019
All rights reserved. This work may not be
reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of the author.

Approval

Name: Eric Osmond
Degree: Master of Arts (Criminal Justice) Degree
Title: Youth Gang Prevention Strategies: Analyzing Intensive Support and Supervision
Programs and Wraparound Approaches

Examining Committee
Amy Prevost
Chair
Associate Professor, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

____________________________________________________________
Amanda McCormick
Senior Supervisor
Associate Professor, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

____________________________________________________________
Lindsey Houghton
External Examiner
Staff Sergeant
Combined Forces and Special Enforcement Unit – British Columbia

____________________________________________________________

Date Defended/Approved: April 25, 2019

ii

Abstract

The focus of this major paper will be to analyze intensive support and supervision
programs (ISSP) and wraparound services as prevention and intervention approaches for youth
involved in gangs. This will include reviewing literature and interpreting the results from a
survey administered to five ISSP workers and five youth probation officers to better understand
why youth join gangs, the needs of youth who are at-risk or involved in gangs, common
challenges youth experience when exiting a gang, and the types of approaches used to assist
youth leave a gang. This paper will also examine the formation, demographics, and the history of
gangs, including those in British Columbia (BC), as well as provide an overview of Canadian
laws and policies that have influenced the use of ISSP and wraparound services in recent years.

iii

Acknowledgements

I would first like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Amanda McCormick for assisting me in my
research. I am very appreciative for all of the time, guidance, and support Dr. McCormick has
provided me. This study would not have been possible without her.
I would also like to express my gratitude to all of the faculty and staff in the School of
Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of the Fraser Valley. I have learned an
abundance of information from each of you during my time at the university and I am truly
grateful for the inspiration you have provided me throughout the years.
Dr. Amy Prevost, thank you for providing me the opportunity to participate in the
Masters of Criminal Justice at the university. Cherish Forster, thank you for helping me navigate
through university. Michele Giordano, thank you for encouraging me to pursue graduate studies
and helping me gain experience working in in the criminal justice field.
Thank you to my program manager, Heather Lynch at Options Community Services. I
am appreciative of all of the support you gave to me over the years. I am also grateful for the
opportunity you provided me to work with the youth services team. The knowledge I have
gained at Options has provided me great insight into the issues affecting our community and
inspired this study. I am also thankful to rest of my team at Options in the youth services
department for sharing their experiences and knowledge with me.
Thank you to the youth probation team from the Ministry of Children and Family
Development and the Intensive Support and Supervision team at PLEA Community Services for
sharing your views and information with me in relation to this study.
Thank you to my classmates for sharing your knowledge and experience throughout the
program.

iv

Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for supporting me throughout my
academic journey. Your constant encouragement has helped me get through this challenging and
exciting period in my life. I am truly grateful to be surrounded by such kind and supportive
people.

v

Dedication

I would like to dedicate my major paper to my mother and father. I appreciate all of the
sacrifices you have made throughout my life, in order to allow me to pursue my dreams. Your
constant support and encouragement has helped me significantly and I would have not been able
to get this far without you.

vi

Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. iv
List of tables ........................................................................................................................................... ix
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
B.C. and Gangs......................................................................................................................................... 2
Definitions of Youth Gang................................................................................................................... 3
Traditional Risk Factors ..................................................................................................................... 4

Community Risk Factors ................................................................................................................................ 5
School Risk Factors .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Family Risk Factors .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Peer Risk Factors .............................................................................................................................................. 8
Individual Risk Factors ................................................................................................................................... 9

Risk Factors for B.C. Youth ................................................................................................................. 9
Risk Factors for Youth from Immigrant Families .............................................................................. 10
Trauma .............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Disintegration of Family Relationships ................................................................................................. 12

Protective Factors ............................................................................................................................... 13
Government Efforts ............................................................................................................................ 15
Intensive Support and Supervision .............................................................................................. 16
Review of ISSP in Canada .................................................................................................................. 18
Nova Scotia ....................................................................................................................................................... 18
Alberta ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
B.C. ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Montréal ISSP Evaluation............................................................................................................................ 21

Wraparound .......................................................................................................................................... 24
Wraparound Milwaukee ............................................................................................................................. 25
Surrey Wraparound ...................................................................................................................................... 26

Current Study........................................................................................................................................ 29
Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 29
Participants...................................................................................................................................................... 30
Recruitment ..................................................................................................................................................... 30
Ethics Approval............................................................................................................................................... 31
Informed Consent .......................................................................................................................................... 31
Confidentiality ................................................................................................................................................ 31
Survey Process ................................................................................................................................................ 32
Data Collection and Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 32
Coding ................................................................................................................................................................ 34

Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 34
Youth Probation Officer Overview .......................................................................................................... 34
ISSP Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 35

vii

Risk Factors Leading to Gang Involvement .......................................................................................... 36
Main Objectives of ISSP ................................................................................................................................ 37
Program Strengths and Limitations-ISSP.............................................................................................. 37
Program Strengths and Limitations-Wraparound ............................................................................ 38
Exiting a Gang .................................................................................................................................................. 39
Additional Thoughts ..................................................................................................................................... 41

Discussion and Implications ........................................................................................................... 42
Limitations ............................................................................................................................................ 43
Future Research................................................................................................................................... 44
References ............................................................................................................................................. 46

viii

List of tables
Table 1: Participant Profiles...................................................................................................................... 33

ix

Introduction
The phenomenon of youth gangs has been an ongoing problem that has challenged the criminal
justice system, policy makers, and society for quite some time. Gangs are an issue that significantly
threaten the safety of the public (Gahunia, 2017; Mussa, 2018). While typically the focus of attention in
larger cities, such as Vancouver and Surrey, British Columbia (Lovgreen, 2018), they are not limited to
urban areas and can be found it both large and small communities (Public Safety Canada, 2007). Youth
gangs are not a new concept in Canada, as they been studied over the past 25 years (Gordon, 2000). As a
result, there have been many efforts made to better understand and respond to issues related to youth
gangs, including identifying demographics, risk factors, protective factors, prevention and intervention
strategies, and exiting plans (Public Safety Canada, 2017).
According to the Public Safety Canada (2011), gang membership is one of the strongest predictors
of future violence by youth. In fact, gang-entrenched youth are more than six times as likely to participate
in deviant activities and engage in three to seven times as many violent acts, compared to youth who are
not involved in gangs (Wortley & Tanner, 2006). Furthermore, the number of violent acts performed by
gangs have been increasing in severity in recent years, including further use of firearms, especially by
adolescent members (Summit on Gun and Gang Violence, 2018). In fact, in 2016, there were 141 gangrelated homicides reported in Canada, which was 45 more than the previous year. It appears that gang
violence is the most prevalent in larger Canadian cities, as gang-related homicides in such communities
have doubled since 2013. Youth gang members have also been known to engage in several types of
deviant acts, including property crimes, drug and weapon trafficking, robbery, prostitution, money
laundering, threats, and homicide (McCuish, Bouchard, & Corrado, 2015; Brar, 2017; McConnell, 2015).
In addition to violence, gang activity can present many mental and financial burdens to
community residents. According to Public Safety Canada (2011), gangs can cause residents to
experience fear and intimidation in their own neighbourhoods. Moreover, gang activity can cause
1

repair and insurance rates to increase for home and vehicles owners, as well as decrease the value
of homes when gang members commit crimes against other people’s properties (Public Safety
Canada, 2011). Lastly, gang activity can also increase the expenses allocated to social programs,
law enforcement, judicial systems, and correctional services, which result in increased taxes
(Public Safety Canada, 2011).

B.C. and Gangs
Admission into a gang is typically not a sudden process. According to Howell (2010), membership
often begins through socialization with gang members around the age of 12. However, children as young
as five years old have been to become involved in gang activity as well (Pyrooz & Sweeten, 2015). The
membership process regularly includes prospects having to withstand severe physical attacks from gang
members and being required to commit deviant acts, which may even involve murdering someone
(RCMP, 2018).
In B.C., research suggests that youth gang membership demographics are fairly different
compared to the rest of Canada (McCuish et al., 2015; McConnell, 2015; Brar, 2017). For instance, many
B.C. youth who join gangs are from middle-class families, perform well academically, and are involved in
sports (Bhatt & Tweed, 2018). This phenomenon is unlike most youth in other parts of Canada, who are
typically from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, tend to struggle with school, and are uninvolved in prosocial activities (McConnell, 2015; Public Safety Canada, 2007). Furthermore, in certain cities in B.C.,
there appears to be an over-representation of individuals from specific ethnic backgrounds involved in
gangs. For example, in Surrey, South Asians comprised of 35% of the city’s population in 2016, yet
accounted for 21.3% of gang-related homicides between 2006 to 2014 (Bhatt & Tweed, 2018). While not
all youth involved in gangs in B.C. are from the backgrounds discussed, they do make up a significant
portion of the gang population in the province (Brar, 2017).

2

Definitions of Youth Gang
There are many definitions of the term ‘youth gang’, with varying descriptions between the public,
police, state, and researchers (Dunbar, 2017). According to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (2018), a
youth gang is a group of youth who assemble together to engage in deviant behaviour with the objective
of obtaining power, recognition, and control. These goals are typically achieved through the use of
intimidation and violence as a way to manipulate other individuals and situations (RCMP, 2018). Public
Safety Canada (2007) defined a youth gang as consisting of young individuals who: identify themselves
as a group, are perceived by others as a specific group, and participate in several criminal acts that result
in negative responses from the public and/or the police. The Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit
of British Columbia (CFSEU-BC, 2018) described a youth gang as a group of three or more people that
plan and carry out crimes for profit and are identified by common names, symbols, and colours,
While the definitions from academic sources are fairly similar to those provided by the police and
government, they do provide some additional criteria. For instance, Sharp, Aldridge, and Medina (2006)
believed a youth gang must meet as a group in public areas, have existed for at least three months, have
committed unlawful acts together within the past year, and possess one or more organizational features
(i.e. a group name, controlled territory, hierarchy, or a set of rules). Miller (1975) stated that a youth gang
is a self-developed group of peers, bound together by similar goals, who follow a hierarchy system,
perform acts for specific purposes which typically involve committing crimes, and controlling a specific
territory, facility, or enterprise.
As there is no one single classification that is widely agreed upon, using the main commonalities
from the explanations discussed may be the best way to define a gang generally for the purpose of this
paper (Dunbar, 2017). Based on the definitions mentioned above, youth gangs can be described as a group
of youth between the ages of 12 and 18, who share similar interests, assemble together to carry out goals,
3

are identifiable within a community, are fairly organized, follow a hierarchy and set of rules, and plan and
execute unlawful acts for personal or group benefits.
One of the main reasons that no two exact same definitions for the term, “youth gang” exists is
largely in part because no two gangs are exactly the same (Thrasher, 1927). Many gangs may have
commonalities but they all differentiate in some way or another. This is particularly evident when
considering Canadian gangs, due to the vast diversity of the country and even truer within the scope of
British Columbia, which contains varying geographical landscapes, populations, and crime opportunities
(Dunbar, 2017). As a result, gangs can differ significantly from community to community and must
defined according to local climates. Developing a clear description of the term “gang” with consideration
of local environments can help differentiate gangs from other types of delinquent groups under the law
(Dunbar, 2017). This may allow for more successful prevention and intervention policy and program
development for at-risk youth (Klein & Maxson, 2006).

Traditional Risk Factors
When it comes to identifying the reasons why youth join gangs, there a number of factors that can
be considered. These elements can differ by region, population, and backgrounds of youth. Based on the
literature findings, there are five major traditional factors that typically influence a young person the most.
These include community, school, family, social, and individual risk factors. Youth may experience each
risk factor exclusively or simultaneously. Furthermore, the more elements an individual experiences at a
time, the more their likelihood of joining a gang increases (Howell & Egley, 2005).
In an analysis of several longitudinal studies from the United States, Howell and Egley (2005) discovered
that the research on risk factors associated with gang involvement for youth are typically categorized into
the main developmental areas of an adolescent, also known as risk factor levels, which include:
community, school, family, peer, and individual. The risk factors can be used to determine the likelihood

4

of a young person developing antisocial tendencies and becoming involved in violent and criminal
activities, including gang membership. In particular, while there are several important stages of human
development that can predict delinquency, Howell and Egley (2005) found that the period of early
adolescence was the most important phase in determining whether a youth would join a gang. This stage
typically involves many new challenges for youth that can cause several issues if left unaddressed (Hill,
Howell, Hawkins, & Battin-Pearson, 1999). Still, each risk factor level will be reviewed in the following
section, as they may each provide insight into strategic areas for crime prevention activities.
Community Risk Factors
One the main areas identified are community risk factors. According to Tremblay (2003), as youth
age, they become more vulnerable to the harmful influences of their surroundings. Some of the
community risk factors that can predict gang involvement for young people include easy access to drugs
and weapons, neighbourhoods with delinquent youth, feelings of danger and victimization in one’s
neighbourhood, and minimal community attachment (Hill et al., 1999). Other additional risk factors
associated with one’s community include high neighbourhood arrest rates, community disorganization,
access to firearms, and high substance use rates (Lizotte, Krohn, Howell, Tobin, & Howard, 2000).
Neighbourhoods that experience high levels of marginalization are often unable to form the social
cohesion needed to overcome many of the challenges described and often lack the resources needed to
address the risk factors that influence youth from joining gangs. Furthermore, high crime rate
communities also provide ample opportunities for youth to meet individuals who commit unlawful acts,
increasing their likelihood of engaging in similar activities through negative peer associations (Howell &
Egley, 2005).
School Risk Factors
The next key domain impacting youth engagement in gang activity are school risk factors. One of
the main indicators related to school is academic achievement (Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, &
Tobin, 2003). According to Howell and Egley (2005), students who have lower academic success,
5

become more likely to get involved in criminality, including gang activity. Furthermore, a lack of
academic goals, weak relationships with teachers, low parental academic success, and minimal
commitment to school can also increase the probability youth will join gangs (Thornberry, et al., 2003).
Howell and Egley (2005) found that youth who are labelled at school as being delinquent by
school staff may also become more likely to get involved in gang activity. This highlights the relevance of
labelling theory, which describes how one’s identity and behaviour may be influenced by the words or
labels used to classify them (Becker, 1973). Lastly, bullying victimization has also been found to
attribute to gang membership, as some students join such groups for protection and access to a social
group that will be accepting (Wu & Pyrooz, 2016). This was also found to be evident in the study by
Barnert et al. (2015), which included interviews with incarcerated youth. Most of the subjects felt that the
schools they had attended during their adolescence were dangerous and often resulted in them being
victimized by bullies. This led several to join gangs, in hopes of receiving protection and a sense of
safety. Respondents who joined gangs, would then typically spend less time on their academic goals and
focused more on committing delinquent acts instead (Barnert et al., 2015).
Family Risk Factors
Another domain that can influence a youth’s likelihood to become gang-entrenched are family risk
factors (Howell & Egley, 2005). The influences family members have on young people typically begin to
diminish during teenage years (Thornberry, et al., 2003). This often occurs, as youth become more
independent during this stage of development and tend to be influenced more by their peers, rather than
their parents. Some of the main risk factors associated with a young person’s family include growing up
in a broken home (separated or divorced parents), parental deviance, inadequate maternal and paternal
attachment, lack of supervision, poverty, and experiencing physical or emotional abuse (Thornberry et al.,
2003). Moreover, youth are also susceptible to the influences their siblings have on them. For instance, a
sibling’s display of antisocial or delinquent tendencies can develop into learned behaviour in other family
members (Howell & Egley, 2005). When youth do not have strong positive relationships with their family
6

members, they may become more inclined to join a gang, in order to receive companionship and support
(Barnert et al., 2015).
In connection with family-related risk factors, youth may also join gangs due to socio-economic
challenges. According to the study by Barnert et al. (2015), some of the youth interviewed claimed to
have joined a gang because they had experienced poverty. Many felt that the monetary incentives of gang
activity would provide increased financial stability to better support themselves and their family members
(Barnert et al., 2015). The socio-economic struggles that motivate individuals to engage in unlawful
activities or join a gang can be described by strain theory.
The ideology was originally developed by Durkheim, while classical strain theory was introduced
by Merton (1938). Strain theory focuses on how people fall victim to the pressures of society to achieve
certain goals. The goals usually involve material objectives that individuals may find difficult to achieve,
due to not having the means necessary to do so. The pressure experienced can result in strain and those
who succumb to the stress may turn to criminal activities, in order to accomplish their desired goals
(Agnew, 1992).
Within the realm of strain philosophies exists general strain theory, which was popularized by
Agnew (1992) and which is considered the dominating typology of strain theory, as it encompasses more
than just monetary pressures. In fact, general strain theory concentrates on many different forms of strain,
such as failing to accomplish life goals, loss of assets, and undesirable encounters with individuals.
Furthermore, general strain also focuses on how one’s gender, ethnicity, age, or neighbourhood can
influence their criminality (Agnew, 1992).
Factors that cause strain can lead individuals to feel irritated and frustrated towards society
(Agnew, 1992). As emotions build over time, they can result in high levels of pressure, which may cause
some to turn to deviant behaviour, in order to help “improve” their situation. Delinquency can be a
method used to help a person decrease their feelings of strain by retaliating against societal bodies that
may have caused strain or be used as a coping method (Agnew, 1992). For instance, youth who are unable
7

to find legitimate work and come from low socio-economic backgrounds, may be more inclined to join a
gang, as a way to improve their financial situation, and as a result, reduce their feelings of strain. While
the pressures of strain do not always cause people to commit crimes, some individuals do turn to deviant
behaviour, as a way to manage their circumstances (Agnew, 1992).
Peer Risk Factors
Peer risk factors have also been found to impact a young person’s likelihood to join a gang. One of
the most prominent influence is a youth’s bond with deviant or antisocial peers. As stated by Howell and
Egley (2005), the earlier a person associates with violent or delinquent peers, the more probable they will
become to engage in similar activities. In fact, youth who have relationships with gang members are
significantly more likely to join one themselves. This process can be described through the differential
association theory.
The concept was developed by Sutherland (1942) and suggests that people can learn the
principles, behaviours, methods, justifications, and motives to commit crimes through their connections
with others (Jeffery, 1965). Rather than explain why some engage in unlawful activities, differential
association concentrates more on how people learn to be deviant. Through increased learned behaviours
and methods of deviance over time, individuals may find it less challenging to commit illegal acts
(Jeffery, 1965).
The theory outlines several principles for how differential association may transpire (Burgess &
Akers, 1966). The first set of beliefs are that delinquent attitudes are learned and are achieved through
communication with others. The learning typically takes place in close personal group settings. When
criminality is taught, individuals typically learn how to engage in illegal activities, behaviours, and how to
justify unlawful decisions, in order to continue offending in the future. Furthermore, criminal motivations
are also learned through teachings of laws as advantageous or disadvantageous (Burgess & Akers, 1966).
When advantageous interpretations of the law surpass those that are disadvantages, an individual will be
more likely to become deviant. Differential association can alter in frequency, importance, and
8

concentration. In addition, the stages of learning delinquent behaviour through connections with others is
similar to the learning of any other behaviour, including those that are lawful. Lastly, although deviance is
a statement of basic needs and principles, it is not described by those needs and principles, as lawful
behaviours are also a statement of identical needs and principles (Burgess & Akers, 1966).
Based on the principles of differential association, the theory can be used to help explain how
youth become engaged in criminality, including gang-related activities. Gangs are often comprised of
individuals who communicate with one another, work closely together, and spend lengthy amounts of
time in a group (Dunbar, 2017). Moreover, gangs frequently engage in unlawful behaviours, which can
shape and influence members to become more deviant.
Individual Risk Factors
Another domain found to contribute to youth gang engagement are individual risk factors. Howell
and Egley (2005) discovered that there are typically more individual risk factors in gang-involved youth
than any other type of factor. Some of the main individual elements include early antisocial and deviant
behaviour, substance or alcohol usage, and those who experience high levels of stress are often much
more likely to join a gang than adolescents who do not experience these factors (Thornberry et al., 2003).

Risk Factors for B.C. Youth
While there are several traditional gang-related risk factors commonly identified to influence
young individuals in studies, it is important to note that B.C. youth may also be influenced by additional
factors or be less susceptible to traditional elements (McConnell, 2015; Bhatt & Tweed, 2018). Research
indicates that some B.C. youth who become gang-entrenched come from middle class households,
experience high community and school attachment, and have strong relationships with family members
(McConnell, 2015; Bhatt & Tweed, 2018; Brar, 2017). Individuals from such backgrounds are often
recognized as “non-traditionally” at-risk and join gangs for different reasons than most (Brar, 2017).
Some of the main risk factors that influence B.C. youth are the desire to gain a sense of power, belonging,
9

recognition, status, protection, companionship, excitement, and financial incentives (McConnell, 2015;
Descormiers (2013). Most adolescents who become involved in gangs, have often previously used or sold
drugs and engaged in violent delinquent activities (Public Safety Canada, 2011).
As mentioned, B.C. youth can be highly motivated to join a gang, in hopes of gaining recognition,
status, power, and excitement (McConnell, 2015; Descormiers (2013). Gang members are often perceived
as well connected, respected, and feared, while living lavish and exciting lifestyles (McConnell, 2015;
Bhatt & Tweed, 2018). Gangs are often among the main social bodies within communities and present
members with a number of opportunities to obtain the goals often sought out by B.C. youth.
In addition, financial incentives can also heavily influence youth to join a gang. As B.C. has a
fairly large market for drugs and the process of drug trafficking requires many individuals to maintain
operations, there are usually many opportunities to become involved in the selling and distribution of
drugs (McCuish et al., 2015). In fact, B.C. is one of the greatest producers of marijuana globally, earning
approximately $4 billion yearly (Plecas, Diplock, & Garis, 2013). Furthermore, the province earns an
estimated total of $7 billion annually for all drug businesses (Pearce, 2009). Since much of the drugrelated profits in B.C. are made by gangs, it is evident that there is a high demand for both youth and
adults to get involved in the market (McConnell, 2015).
Risk Factors for Youth from Immigrant Families
When it comes to identifying the reasons why youth join gangs, there a number of risk factors that
can be considered. These elements can differ by region, population, and backgrounds of youth. As Canada
is a country with a fairly diverse population, it is important to also examine how youth from foreign
backgrounds may experience gang-related risk factors as well (Rossiter & Rossiter, 2009).
In a study by Ngo, Calhoun, Worthington, Pyrch, and Este (2015), the risk factors leading to gang
involvement for youth from immigrant families were analyzed. The research involved studying the
experiences of 30 individuals who were gang-entrenched. Based on their findings, Ngo et al. (2015)
discovered that youth from immigrant families, not only experience the same conventional risk factors as
10

youth who are not from immigrant families, such as poverty, low academic success, minimal supervision,
lack of positive relationships with others, peer delinquency, community disengagement, and employment
challenges, they may also experience a number of additional risks factors as well (Ngo et al., 2015).
Trauma
One of the major risk factors for foreign-born youth identified included early exposure to violence
(Ngo et al., 2015; Bersani, 2014). Many of the respondents had directly or indirectly experienced
traumatic events such as war or other forms of conflict. At times, this type of exposure can cause a sense
of normalization and learned behaviour when observed repeatedly (Bersani, 2014). As a result, many of
the respondents believed that when they became gang-entrenched, the activities carried out by members
were not viewed as shocking, as many of the individuals had already been exposed to similar or more
extreme acts (Ngo et al., 2015). Respondents who were born in Canada or other safer countries were also
exposed to the impacts of war or conflict through the posttraumatic behaviours exhibited by their
relatives. This often led many of their family members to become more verbally and physically abusive in
their households and resulted in the divorce of several of the participant’s parents, which caused even
more disruption in their young lives. Moreover, a number of the subjects attributed the abuse between
their parents to excessive drug and alcohol use as coping methods, which also caused further neglect,
violence, and distance from their parents (Ngo et al., 2015).
These experiences often led subjects to idolize the criminal behaviours they were exposed to at
early ages of their lives (Ngo et al., 2015). As a result, when many of the respondents were teenagers,
they were more interested in delinquent activities, rather than pro-social outlets. This led many to turn to
deviant social groups, including gangs, as a means to carry out their desire for violence, substance use,
and other criminal endeavors (Ngo et al., 2015).

11

Disintegration of Family Relationships
Another common risk factor many of the respondents experienced was the disintegration of family
relationships. According to Ngo et al. (2015), the majority of the participants had been raised in
dysfunctional households. Many of the participants credited their strained relationships with their parents
to the challenges faced when acclimating to Canadian culture. The parents from foreign countries often
displayed expectations and roles that significantly differed from Canadian values. These experiences often
caused respondents to feel irritated and pushed many away from their families and into other social
groups to fulfill their voids, often in the form of gangs (Ngo et al., 2015). Rossiter and Rossiter (2009)
also found that youth from immigrant families often experienced disintegration in the relationships with
their family members.
Respondents claimed that their parents typically practiced uninvolved, permissive, or authoritarian
child rearing techniques (Ngo et al., 2015). Many of the participants claimed to have come from singleparent households, large families with multiple siblings, and had parents who had been required to work
extended hours at their jobs, in order to afford basic necessitates. This caused many of the respondents to
experience a lack of guidance during difficult developmental and social obstacles during ages of
adolescence (Ngo et al., 2015).
When it came to maternal and paternal involvement, participants discussed a significant difference
between the two (Ngo et al., 2015). For instance, several of the respondents claimed that they did not have
their father around growing up. As a result, many felt their transition into young adult males were
impacted, as they were unaware of some key societal expectations for how they should behave. Those
who were raised with their fathers, however, often experienced extreme authoritarian child rearing
techniques (Ngo et al., 2015). Many recollected firm rules that did not allow them to participate in
traditional adolescent experiences and a constant overbearing need for perfection in the home. This often
led participants to feel resentment towards their fathers and constant pressure and stress to live up to

12

unrealistic expectations. In addition, many of the respondents also experienced minimal affection from
their fathers and felt their relationships were often distant (Ngo et al., 2015).
On the other hand, most participants who grew up with their mothers experienced permissive
parenting methods (Ngo et al., 2015). While rules were set at times, they were almost never enforced.
This caused difficulties for respondents in understanding ramifications for their actions outside of their
households. Furthermore, expectations for adequate behaviour were seldom communicated to their
children. According to Ngo et al. (2015), these experiences often caused respondents to have higher levels
of freedom and a sense of immunity from consequences, as they were rarely held accountable for their
negative behaviour.

Protective Factors
While some youth do experience the risk factors previously discussed, not all of them participate
in criminal activities. One of the reasons that can help explain why this is true for many is the concept of
protective factors. According to Farrington, Ttofi, and Piquero (2016), a protective factor may decrease
the likelihood of an individual engaging in delinquent behaviour and can diminish the impact risk factors
have on them. Similar to risk factors, protective elements are typically found in the main areas of a young
person’s life, including family, community, school, peer, and individual domains (Dunbar, 2017).
Although studying protective factors can be just as important to understanding why youth join
gangs, there has been significantly less research conducted on the topic in comparison to risk factors. One
explanation provided by Dunbar (2017) for why this may be the case is due to the confusion within the
criminal justice system and academic field in defining protective factors. There is some uncertainty
related to what the term encompasses. In addition, there is some doubt as to whether a protective factor in
one context can also be a risk factor in another. An example shared by Stoddard et al. (2013) involved
how a strong relationship between a youth and their parent could be perceived as a protective factor;

13

however, it could also be classified as a risk factor if the mother or father is involved in gang activities.
While there is less research on the impacts of protective factors on the prevention of criminal behaviour
available, there are some studies that indicate the importance of such elements (Dunbar, 2017).
Knowledge of both risk and protective factors can lead to a better understanding of gang
involvement among young people and provide effective solutions to address some of the challenges
impacting this population group (Peterson & Morgan, 2014). In a study by Gilman, Hill, Hawkins,
Howell, and Kosterman (2014), which tested factors impacting youth behaviours, it was discovered that
when a person strengthened the protective elements in their life, their probability of joining a gang
decreased significantly. McDaniel (2012) also echoed this conclusion in his study, which found that an
increase in protective factors in youth resulted in a lower likelihood of them engaging in gang activities.
In the study by Barnert et al. (2015), incarcerated youth who were interviewed shared their
perspectives on protective factors that they believed could have decreased their likelihood of engaging in
delinquent behaviours and prevented some from joining a gang. The majority of respondents felt that a
stable household was the most important protective factor for at-risk youth. However, this was not the
reality for many of the study participants, as most had lived in homes with high levels of hostility,
divorced parents, poverty, and had weak relationships with their families. When asked to describe their
ideal home environments, numerous respondents shared their desire for a safe and nurturing household,
stronger relationships with their families, and more warmth, supervision, guidance, and support from their
parents (Barnert et al., 2015). In relation to school, participants believed that the schools they had
previously attended were not always ideal for success. When asked to share their thoughts on how to
improve school settings, many felt schools required increased safety measures to protect students, more
vocational skills training, and afterschool services focused on homework and recreation. The addition of
extra afterschool programs could increase academic success in many students and help keep them busier
with pro-social activities, thus giving them less time to get involved in delinquency (Barnert et al., 2015).
Furthermore, some respondents believed that teachers must avoid negatively labelling students and
14

constantly support them, regardless of their past or current behaviour. This was especially important for
youth who did not have positive relationships with their families and peers. Lastly, respondents also
shared protective factors linked to communities (Barnert et al., 2015). Many believed that living in a quiet
community, with warm and friendly neighbours, low crime rates, and cohesiveness could have prevented
them from engaging in crime. In addition, easy access to pro-social amenities in the community was also
very important to several participants, as they felt that such services would have helped them stay off the
streets more (Barnert et al., 2015).
Dunbar (2017) developed a list of protective factors in relation to the five main domains of social
development that could help prevent gang involvement among youth. The first area was family protective
factors, which included strong relationships with family members, family cohesiveness, high level of
parental involvement, intensive supervision, emotionally supportive child rearing practices, and a sense of
belonging. School-related protective factors consisted of academic success, educational goals, feeling
accomplished, strong school obligation, positive bonds with school staff, and a respect for learning. Peerrelated protective factors comprised of associations with pro-social peers, participating in pro-social
activities, positive peer groups, peer support, and mentorship. Community protective factors included
social cohesion and trust among neighbours and residing in an area with low crime rates and low levels of
poverty. Lastly, individual factors involved moderate or high levels of intelligence, strong social skills,
positive coping strategies, strong judgement skills, resilient personality, confidence, and positive values
and views (Dunbar, 2017).

Government Efforts
Using knowledge about risk and protective factors for gang involvement, over the past two
decades, the Canadian government has attempted to address the issues of young offending and youth gang
involvement. Although not directly targeting youth gang members, one of the most significant measures

15

taken was the implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), introduced in 2003 as a
replacement for the Young Offenders Act (YOA). A key goal of the YCJA was to reduce the over-use of
custody through the increased use of police and court diversion methods, especially in instances of first
time offending and cases where more minor crimes were committed (Department of Justice, 2017).
Instead, the YCJA emphasized the use of restoration, prevention, and intervention (Department of Justice,
2017). Notably, the YCJA also reserved custody for more serious and persistent offenders, and
emphasized the need for rehabilitation, at times through intensive supportive programming (Department
of Justice, 2017). Since the introduction of the YCJA (2003), charge and conviction rates for youth have
declined significantly (Doob & Sprott, 2005). As a result, youth incarceration numbers have dropped by
almost 50% (Department of Justice, 2017). Through the YCJA (2003), many promising programs have
been developed to better support at-risk youth. Included in the various services are the ISSP and
wraparound programs, which have become popular approaches aimed at addressing offending and gang
involvement among youth (Department of Justice, 2017; Public Safety Canada, 2012).

Intensive Support and Supervision
One of the youth justice services developed in Canada following the implementation of the YCJA
(2003) was intensive support and supervision programs (ISSP). One of the first times ISSP was made
fully available in Canada was in 2006. Program participation is court-mandated as a sentencing option to
youth on probation. ISSP is provided to clients who require closer supervision and additional support in
the community than a regular probation order, as a method to help them change their behaviour (Public
Safety Canada, 2007).
ISSP has been a model used in other countries including the United States for quite some time;
however, it is still a relatively new program in Canada and as a result, there has not been much research
produced on the service (Weinrath, Doerksen, & Watts, 2015). One of the main goals of ISSP is to
provide rehabilitative support to youth, as an alternative to custody (Mayor’s Task Force on Gang
16

Violence Prevention, 2018). ISSP aims to work in partnership with youth probation officers and
supplements the case management and monitoring provided to clients. In addition, the program aims to
significantly reduce recidivism rates among young offenders and improve community reintegration
(PLEA Community Services, 2019). Most programs in BC offer services to youth between the ages 13-17
and follow a one-to-one mentorship model, where the ISSP worker and client work closely together in the
community. Some of the areas ISSP assists clients with include school, employment, recreation, family
support, substance abuse, restorative justice, counselling, and mentorship, all the while helping them
comply with judge-appointed conditions. ISSP staff often work closely with many community partners, in
order to best support youth and connect them to helpful resources (Mayor’s Task Force on Gang Violence
Prevention, 2018).
In 2016/2017, there were 2,040 guilty sentences under the YCJA in all of Canada (Statistics
Canada, 2019). In total, there were 683 (33%) sentences that led to probation, 345 (17%) that resulted in
custody, and 21 (1%) that led to ISSP. In BC, there were 198 guilty cases under the YCJA in the same
year. In total, 67 (34%) led to probation, 59 resulted in custody (30%), and 14 led to ISSP (7%). Since
2012/2013, there have been 158 guilty sentences under the YCJA resulting in ISSP in Canada. Out of all
the provinces, BC had the highest number of ISSP orders administered with 126 in the same time frame
(Statistics Canada, 2019). Furthermore, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon, Nunavut, and Northwest Territories had a total of zero ISSP
orders administered. In regards to other provinces, Quebec had administered 23, Ontario administered
seven, and Alberta administered two ISSP orders since 2012/2013. In 2016/17, there were 14 male youth
and eight female youth who received an ISSP order in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2019). Furthermore,
there were 13 orders provided to youth between ages 16 to 17, while there were only eight offered to
individuals between 12 and 15 years old. Lastly, there were eight ISSP orders provided to youth who were
guilty of a single offense and 13 to those with multiple guilty offenses (Statistics Canada, 2019).

17

Based on these findings, it is evident that ISSP is most popularly used in BC. Additionally, ISSP
does not appear to be utilized as a sentencing option much in other provinces or territories in Canada.
ISSP is also accessed the most by teens older in age, males, and those found guilty of multiple offences
(Statistics Canada, 2019).
The following section will discuss some of the main ISSP programs in Canada in detail. While
ISSP is most popular in B.C., other provinces, such as Alberta Nova Scotia, and Quebec also appear to
have well-developed ISSP services as well.

Review of ISSP in Canada
Nova Scotia
In Nova Scotia, ISSP is made available through a network of probation officers who offer a more
focused approach to monitoring and supporting youth under community supervision compared to
traditional probation orders (Nova Scotia, 2007). ISSP in Nova Scotia is delivered by probation officers,
as opposed to a separate ISSP worker. This is mainly due to the low caseloads for probation officers in
Nova Scotia, allowing them to become more involved in assisting clients. Aside from monitoring,
probation officers are also responsible for assisting parents, working with schools, community partners, in
order to ensure that youth offenders receive multi-faceted care that effectively supports them in altering
their behaviour. While ISSP can be made available to all youth offenders, the program emphasizes
participation the most for serious and repeat offenders (Nova Scotia, 2007).
Alberta
In the city of Calgary, a specialized service is provided to youth offenders called the Intensive
Support and Supervision Order (ISSO). The service is a sentencing alternative for repeat or serious
offenders (Calgary, 2018). Discretion is used by the courts to determine if the youth would benefit more
from a community-focused option rather than custody. Those under an ISSO typically have convoluted
cases and are monitored and supported at a greater level than those on a traditional probation order
18

(Calgary, 2018). The program attempts to address many of the risk factors impacting a young individual’s
criminal behaviour, with a high emphasis on supporting mental health conditions, educational challenges,
and employment goals. Furthermore, ISSO attempts to ensure clients receive an additional level of
positive community interaction, in order to help them become more successful in meeting their conditions
outlined in their court orders in an effective and timely manner. ISSO is delivered by youth workers, who
report to probation officers and work with many community partners to provide multifaceted support to
clients (Calgary, 2018).
B.C.
ISSP models in B.C. often follow a strengths-based approach, which concentrate on the strengths
of a young person, employing support to promote resiliency and empowerment (PLEA Community
Services, 2019). Through discussions between ISSP workers, probation officers, youth, their family
members, and possible third parties, services are developed in consideration to a client’s specific goals
and needs. These typically include securing safe and affordable accommodation, searching for
employment, improving mental and physical health, building positive relationships with others,
educational support, taking part in pro-social activities, addressing substance related challenges,
developing life skills, mentorship and participating in cultural events (PLEA Community Services, 2019).
Many of the clients that access ISSP services are often involved in or at-risk of being involved in gang
activity (Mayor’s Task Force on Gang Violence Prevention, 2018). As a result, ISSP attempts to address
preventive and protective factors and help avert youth from joining gangs or assist them exit them by
working in partnership with local organizations, such as the RCMP and the CFSEU-BC. Based on
literature reviews, it appears that there are no specific ISSP service evaluations based on B.C. programs.
PLEA Program Evaluation

In a study by McCreary Centre Society (2012), an independent evaluation was conducted on
several justice-related programs offered by PLEA Community Services. The evaluation examined
programs between July, 2008 and January, 2012 and focused on risk and protective factors for youth. The
19

main objective of the study was to measure how effective all of the justice-related programs were at
improving the client’s behaviours, social integration, and emotional capabilities (McCreary Centre
Society, 2012). While ISSP is one of the justice-related services provided by PLEA, the evaluation
grouped all of the justice-related programs together for the purpose of the study, which included five other
services.
The evaluation involved youth completing self-report surveys during program intake (261
participants), upon discharge (128 participants), and six months after discharge (105 participants). In
addition, program staff were also interviewed and asked to share their thoughts related to the services
delivered. During the surveys provided at intake, most of the youth participants indicated experiencing
high rates of delinquent behaviour, unstable living environments, mental health conditions, and substance
use (McCreary Centre Society, 2012).
According to McCreary Centre Society (2012), the majority of the program participants involved
in the study were males. The age range for participants was between 12 and 19 and the average was 16.5
years old. Furthermore, most of subjects were of European or Aboriginal backgrounds, while there was
the least number present from South Asian and African backgrounds (McCreary Centre Society, 2012).
Based on the findings, there were significant differences in the lives of youth between the time of
intake, discharge, and post-discharge. The results from the evaluation were compared to findings from the
2008 BC Adolescent Health Survey (AHS), which examined youth from mainstream schools in the
province. According to McCreary Centre Society (2012), 64% of PLEA participants reported living in
government care at the time of intake, compared to only three percent for youth in the AHS study.
Moreover, most of the PLEA participants claimed to have lived in unstable environments, such as
shelters, on the street, or couch surfing at one time or another. During intake, 65% of PLEA participants
reported to have relocated at least once in the last six months, while 20% claimed to have relocated on
five or more separate occasions. This number differed significantly to those in the AHS study, which
indicated that only 28% of youth had moved in the last 12 months. While, housing stability improved
20

between the time of intake to discharge for clients involved in the residential services at PLEA, those who
were not, did not experience any improvements.
The study also examined the impact programs had on unlawful and aggressive behaviours using
the Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (McCreary Centre Society, 2012). During intake, respondents
reported participating in aggressive and deviant behaviours at frequent rates. For instance, over 50% of
respondents claimed to had been involved in physical altercations or threated someone, 40% had
attempted to steal, 25% had sold hard drugs, and over 25% had been engaged in gang activity. However,
after just six months of participation in PLEA programming, the rates of violent and delinquent behaviour
of respondents decreased substantially. One of the most notable drops involved the rate of gang activity
decreasing from 26% to 10%. In addition, the rates of arrests, charges, and custody detainment all
dropped as well (McCreary Centre Society, 2012). Furthermore, when asked about the effectiveness of
PLEA programming in helping alter criminal behaviour, 78% of respondents indicated that the support
received helped ‘very much’ or ‘quite a bit.’
Another major area examined in the study included school attendance (McCreary Centre Society,
2012). During the time of intake, approximately 59% of respondents reported to had been attending some
form of school regularly. This rate was divided into 12% for mainstream schools and 47% for alternative
schools. However, after just months of participation in PLEA services, 80% of respondents reported
attending some type of school. This increase was evident in both male and female respondents (McCreary
Centre Society, 2012).
After reviewing the results from the evaluation conducted by McCreary Centre Society (2012), it
appears that the justice-related programs at PLEA were fairly effective at helping improve the lives of
their clients. While the study did not indicate the rates for specific programs, it seems that all of the
services were beneficial for youth, including ISSP (McCreary Centre Society, 2012).

Montréal ISSP Evaluation
21

In a study by Public Safety Canada (2017), the Montréal Intensive Supervision Program-Street
Gangs was examined to determine the effectiveness of the service when applied to clients involved in
gangs. While it appears most other ISSP services in Canada focused more on youth, this program
included youth and adults participants. The program was made available from 2009 to 2014 and a total of
142 offenders had participated during the five-year span. Altogether, there were 138 males and four
female offenders that accessed the service, ranging between the ages of 15 to 25. All of the participants
had been involved in street gangs and were at a high risk to reoffend or were perceived to be at-risk of
joining a street gang. The goal of the service was to provide treatment options to clients between different
community agencies and through the continuous sharing of information with different stakeholders. The
main features of the program included increased supervision, support, and referrals for clients (Public
Safety Canada, 2017).
Public Safety Canada (2017) conducted an evaluation on the program, in order to determine the
effectiveness of the service on altering client’s criminal behaviours, community reintegration, and
addressing risk factors. The study design included an analysis of data collected from an experimental
group comprised of 33 program participants and a control group of 45 subjects, consisting of at-risk youth
from several youth centres in Montréal and surrounding areas. Information was collected through case
files, surveys results, and numerous tests, which assessed gang involvement, criminal risk factors,
violence, and recidivism (Public Safety Canada, 2017).
As a method to measure implementation reliability, the objectives recognized in the treatment
plans were linked to the risks and needs of the clients (Public Safety Canada, 2017). Approximately 30%
of the high-risk domains matched with exact objectives in the treatment plans. This may have been due to
the challenges related to interpreting risks and needs assessments into personalized strategies for youth.
Based on the data shared by stakeholders, many found it challenging to engage clients in programming, at
times. Moreover, while most stakeholders were aware of program goals and methods, they were not
always willing to administer certain types of treatment (Public Safety Canada, 2017).
22

In general, it was found that the general risks and needs of clients did not alter much after
participation in the program (Public Safety Canada, 2017). There were however, indications for increased
support needs for positive relationships with others, especially with peers. It was also identified that there
was less need for school and work support required by the experimental group. Overall, evaluators
believed that in order for the program to be successful, more focus should be made towards recreation,
substance abuse, positive relationship building, employment, and education goals (Public Safety Canada,
2017).
In relation to reoffending, the results indicated that those in the experimental group were
reconvicted at a higher rate (25.7%), than those in the control group (15%). There was however, no
substantial variation in the seriousness of the crimes that led to convictions between the two groups
(Public Safety Canada, 2017). While the difference in reconviction rates suggests that the program may
have been unsuccessful at supporting individuals and altering their criminal behaviours, it is important to
note a few possible causes for the differences in rates. For instance, those in the experimental groups often
had a greater history of deviant behaviours and typically experienced more risk factors than those in the
control group, which may have helped explain why they were more likely to be reconvicted (Public
Safety Canada, 2017). In addition, surveillance from the criminal justice system was most likely
heightened on individuals in the experimental group, as they were more known to be serious or chronic
offenders. As a result, their may have been more focus placed on them in the community by the public,
law enforcement, and the courts, thus resulting in more instances of reconvictions (Public Safety Canada,
2017).
Based on these findings, it is difficult to determine whether the Montréal Intensive Supervision
Program-Street Gangs was able to successfully support young offenders (Public Safety Canada, 2017).
The differences in rates between the control and experimental groups were not significantly different.
Moreover, it is difficult to determine if the rates of reconviction were simply higher for the experimental
group due to the reasons mentioned above or if they were actually more likely to commit new crimes
23

compared to the control group. Although stakeholders did find it challenging to engage some clients in the
program, it was also found that not all stakeholders were willing to deliver certain treatment services to
individuals. As the study did not indicate why some stakeholders were reluctant to deliver services or why
program participants were unmotivated, at times, it is difficult to conclude whether the program was
effective or not (Public Safety Canada, 2017).

Wraparound
Another popular program aimed at assisting at-risk youth and those already engaged in gang
activity is the wraparound approach, which is described as an evidence-based method focused on
preventing crime (Public Safety, 2012). The program offers tailored services that address a young
person’s specific goals and needs. Wraparound often utilizes a support team to work in partnership with
clients to develop successful methods to best support them. The program addresses many of the risk
factors previously discussed that increase the likelihood of youth joining gangs.
One of the main wraparound services offered in BC is the Surrey Wrap (Public Safety, 2012). This
program administers support to youth through collaboration between the Surrey RCMP and School
Board. The main objective is to prevent youth from being involved in gang activities through the use of a
wraparound approach. Youth who are at-risk of joining a gang and those already gang-entrenched are the
main targets of the program (Public Safety, 2012).
The service utilizes an “ideology of care” method focused on the following values: voice and
choice, team work, natural supports, multi-organization partnerships, community, culturally competent
resources, determination, and empowerment (Public Safety, 2012). During intake, staff often help a client
develop their wraparound team, which may consist of teachers, family members, mentors, etc. The
program allows youth to become the main focus of their own planning, with the supplementary assistance
of staff and a wraparound team in place to help them accomplish their goals (Public Safety, 2012).

24

Wraparound Milwaukee
One of the main wraparound services in North America is Wraparound Milwaukee. The program
was developed in 1994 and has supported over 11,000 youth since its implementation (Wraparound
Milwaukee, 2016). Service is aimed at assisting at-risk youth and young adults who experience emotional,
behavioural, and mental health needs. The program offers a personalized, flexible, and strength-based
approach that supports clients and their family members. The service is organized through a team of
formal (professional) and informal (client and their family) groups that develop and administer a diverse
range of services intended to safely and cohesively aid the client within the community. Some of the main
issues addressed by the program include academic success, aggressive behaviour, violent tendencies,
bullying, household-related problems, mental and physical health conditions, and community connection
(Wraparound Milwaukee, 2016).
Wraparound Milwaukee is administered by the county’s behavioural health division, which
partners with more than 100 other organizations in the community (Wraparound Milwaukee, 2016). The
main philosophy of the model is to accurately identify the community services a family requires and offer
them. Youth may be referred to this program by probation officers or social workers. The average client
age is 14 years old and ethnic diversity includes multiple backgrounds (Wraparound Milwaukee, 2016).
Since its development, Wraparound Milwaukee has accomplished many milestones. In 2005
alone, the program offered mental health support to over 1000 families (Wraparound Milwaukee, 2005).
Furthermore, youth also improved clinically and were more successful at home, school, and in the
community based on US evaluation standards. In fact, school attendance increases by approximately 10%
in the first year of program participation for students, while family satisfactory rates also improved for the
majority of clients even one month in to service enrolment. Clients also re-offended at a lower rate during
and after program participation, thus improving public safety (Wraparound Milwaukee, 2005)
Aside from the benefits already mentioned, Wraparound Milwaukee is also a more cost-effective
alternative compared to many other services (Wraparound Milwaukee, 2008). For example, the
25

wraparound program cost approximately $4,000 to for each client to participate in 2008. This was
significantly lower compared to group homes ($6,000), corrections ($8,000), and psychiatric inpatient
hospitals ($40,000).
Surrey Wraparound
One of the main wrap services in B.C. is the Surrey Wraparound. The program was developed in
response to Surrey’s high crime rate with the aim of increasing public safety in the community by
preventing gang involvement and delinquency in youth populations (Public Safety Canada, 2012). Surrey
Wraparound is a school based service and is delivered in collaboration through the Surrey School Board
and Surrey RCMP. Program participants include youth who are at-risk of joining a gang and those already
in one (Public Safety Canada, 2012).
Similar to other wrap projects, Surrey’s follows a “philosophy of care” approach, which involves:
voice and choice, partnerships, community and cultural engagement, strength-based, and team-focused
support customized for each individual (Public Safety Canada, 2012). Once a client begins program
participation, a facilitator will help them develop a wraparound team, which will be used to cooperatively
design a care plan. The care plan typically focuses on pro-social, family strengthening, health, or
educational goals (Mayor’s Task Force on Gang Violence Prevention, 2018). Youth can be referred to the
program by many different agencies, however, most are referred from schools or local police. The referral
application obtains information on five main areas, including family, school, community, peer, and
individual risks factors, which allows program administrators to better understand some of the possible
challenges impacting the youth in question (Mayor’s Task Force on Gang Violence Prevention, 2018).
Once an application is received, the data provided is evaluated to better understand some of the
challenges and risk factors affecting the youth (Public Safety Canada, 2012). In total, three forms of
assessment are conducted. The first one determines the level of service required for the youth by
examining traditional risk factors. The second assessment measures non-traditional risk factors, such as
whether the applicant is the first-born or only son in their family, whether their family owns a business,
26

and the ethnic make-up of their peer groups. Lastly, the third assessment used aims to determine the level
of gang involvement of the youth. Furthermore, academic achievement, offense history, and class
attendance records are gathered from school and police records to enhance assessments (Public Safety
Canada, 2012).
Surrey Wraparound targets individuals between the ages of 13 and 18 who are at risk of engaging
in gang activity or who are already involved (Mayor’s Task Force on Gang Violence Prevention, 2018).
One of the other main requirements to be eligible to receive support is that youth must be enrolled in the
Surrey School District. As Surrey is a fairly diverse city containing individuals from a variety of different
backgrounds, the program targets youth who experience both traditional and non-traditional risk factors.
According to Public Safety Canada (2012), adolescents from the traditional risk factor group typically
experience poverty, drug use, or troubled home environments, while those from the non-traditional risk
factor group are mostly from middle class, South Asian backgrounds.
Between 2009 and 2011, the Surrey Wraparound served 132 youth. The average age of
participants was 14 years old. Furthermore, approximately 84% of all youth were male and 60% were of
visible minority (Public Safety Canada, 2012). Based on the assessments conducted, almost all of the
clients involved in the Surrey Wraparound were identified as being moderate or high-risk, with most
suffering from family, educational, substance, and employment related challenges.
According to Public Safety Canada (2012), it takes up to six months of service on average for
adolescents to experience noticeable improvements in the main areas of their lives. Once a client has been
identified to be more self-sustaining, their level of service may decrease, in order to allow the
administrators to focus more on other at-risk youth.
In 2012, Public Safety Canada conducted an evaluation on the Surrey Wraparound using data from
2009 to 2011, in order to determine the effectiveness of the program. The study used an experimental
group, consisting of program participants and compared them to a control group comprised of youth who
were on the waitlist to join the program (Public Safety Canada, 2012). Individuals from the two groups
27

were matched based on their gender, ethnicity, age, and negative police contacts. Some of the methods
used included examining police and school records, questionnaires, and interviews with school staff, law
enforcement, program managers, and service administrators (Public Safety Canada, 2012).
Based on the findings from the study, it was determined that the program was able to effectively
serve its selected population. In fact, approximately 95% of clients were found to be moderate or high
risk, while 53% were gang-entrenched (Public Safety Canada, 2012). Furthermore, it was estimated that
there was a decrease of 67% in negative police encounters in the experimental group, while negative
police contact in the control group almost doubled in the same time frame. In relation to gang prevention,
the program was found to have stopped the creation of at least one gang and substantially increased
intelligence linked to gang activities on and off school property. The study results did not indicate that
school attendance was increased by program participants. Interestingly, those who did attend more, were
actually found to have done so in order to participate in gang activities or to spend time with gangaffiliated youth (Public Safety Canada, 2012).
A cost analysis was also conducted on the program (Public Safety Canada, 2012). It was
calculated that the average price for each client to receive service was approximately $9,000. This figure
was found to be much less expensive than the typical costs allocated to having youth in care or in custody.
In fact, the average cost of incarceration in Canada is over $70,000 annually per youth (Office of
Parliamentary Budget Officer, 2018).
Based on the study findings, it appears that the Surrey Wraparound is a successful service, as it is
able to effectively achieve many of its intended goals (Public Safety Canada, 2012). Moreover, the
program is also cost-effective, especially in comparison to other alternatives that program clients may
have experienced otherwise, such as prison. In addition to costs, when fewer youth are incarcerated, the
entire justice system benefits, as less time and resources are allocated to law enforcement, trials,
prosecutions, and imprisonment (Public Safety Canada, 2012).

28

While the Surrey Wraparound does have several benefits, there are some apparent limitations to
the program as well. For instance, those who are not enrolled in the Surrey School District may not be
eligible for participation (Public Safety Canada, 2012). This restricts a significant portion of the at-risk
youth population, as those in need of support may not always be enrolled in school. Another limitation of
the Surrey Wraparound is that the program does not have an impact on class attendance or tardiness for
participants. According to Public Safety Canada (2012), students who did improve their attendance, did
so, in order to meet with gang-affiliated peers or to engage in gang activities themselves on most
occasions.

Current Study
Given the relative lack of data on the effectiveness of programs like ISSP and Wraparound on
gang involved youth, the current study sought to gather feedback from service providers regarding their
perceptions of how these programs can serve youth at risk for or already involved in gangs.

Methodology
This study followed a qualitative approach and aimed to analyze ISSP and wraparound services as
prevention and intervention approaches for youth involved in gangs. This section summarizes the
methodology used in the study, including the participants, ethics, and data collection process.

29

Participants
A total of 10 participants were surveyed in this study. While the sample was small, it is important
to note that the participants were selected due to their experience and knowledge with one or both of the
programs of focus. The participants included: (a) five ISSP workers from PLEA Community Services,
who had direct experience providing ISSP services to clients in Surrey and Vancouver, BC; and (b) five
youth probation officers from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) Surrey, BC
office, who had experience referring clients to both ISSP and wraparound services.
The criteria required for individuals to participate in this study, included current experience
delivering or referring clients to one or both of the programs of focus. As ISSP is court-mandated, only
youth probation officers are able to refer youth to ISSP services. As a result, only those who were ISSP
workers, wraparound staff, or youth probation officers could participate in the surveys. Individuals who
did not have current experience delivering services or referring clients to ISSP or wraparound programs
were excluded from participation in this study, as they would not have the knowledge or experience to
answer the survey questions.
Recruitment
In order to recruit youth probation officers, the author reached out to management at the Surrey
MCFD office by email, along with a call for participation letter, highlighting the purpose, methodology,
risk, and benefits of the study. The email and letter were forwarded by management to youth probation
officers asking those who were interested to contact the author. The number of youth probation officers
emailed about the study is unknown to the author, as this information was not shared.
In order to recruit ISSP workers, the author reached out to management of the youth justice
programming at PLEA Community Services by email, along with the call for participation letter. The
author’s email was forwarded to the policy and performance office and was requested to complete the
PLEA research policy form. Once completed, the author sent the form back to the policy and performance
office. After the form was reviewed and accepted, the policy and performance office distributed the
30

author’s call for participation letter out to ISSP workers at PLEA Community Services. Those who were
interested in participating in the study, were asked to contact the author by email. The number of ISSP
workers emailed about the study is unknown to the author, as this information was not shared.
Ethics Approval
Before the data gathering process occurred, the author applied for and received ethics approval for
the study from the Research Ethics Board at the University of the Fraser Valley. The author was provided
a Certificate of Human Research Ethics Board Approval. The study was labelled low risk by the Research
Ethics Board and did not pose any major physical, social, or psychological harm towards participants.
One of potential ethical risks identified, included psychological consideration related to feelings of
discomfort, in regards to certain survey questions. The author attempted to reduce this possibility by
notifying participants that they could skip any of questions or could stop the survey process at any point.
Subjects were also notified that they could freely withdraw from the study without consequences prior to
the stated deadline date.
Informed Consent
The author ensured that all of the participants understood the purpose, methodology, roles, risks,
benefits, and confidentiality involved in the research project by providing participants a copy of the
informed-consent form, which described each section in detail. The informed-consent form also explained
that participants could freely withdraw from the study at any point prior to the stated deadline of March
15, 2019. Subjects were unable to participate in the study until they carefully reviewed and signed the
informed-consent form. Once completed, the participants provided the signed informed-consent form
back to the author.
Confidentiality
As the sample of participants involved in the study was fairly small in size, the risk of identifying
participants based on their survey answers was recognized. In order to ensure the identity of the subjects
were anonymous, the author assigned a pseudonym to each participant. In addition, all of the data
31

collected from the surveys was safely stored on a password protected computer system and an encrypted
drive that was locked away in the author’s office when not used. The precautions taken in the study were
described in the informed-consent forms provided to all of the subjects prior to their participation in the
surveys.
Survey Process
After receiving the completed informed-consent forms, the author provided participants with a
link to the online survey by email. The participants were notified that the survey would take
approximately 30 minutes to complete and were provided instructions related to the survey. The
participants were informed that they could complete the survey at a time most convenient for them and
from a location of their choosing.
The participants were notified that the results collected from the surveys could be retained and
developed in to an anonymized aggregated dataset to allow for possible future publications or
presentations. This process was described in the informed-consent form. The participants were also
notified that they if they had any questions or concerns related to the study, they could contact the author,
their supervisor, or the ethics officer from the UFV Human Research Ethics Board. This information,
including the contact details, was provided in the informed-consent forms. Once all of the surveys were
completed, the author analyzed the results to identify any patterns and themes in the data.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data was collected between January and March 2019. The author used an online site to create and
administer surveys for participants. Each participant was provided an informed-consent form that they
were asked to review and sign. Once completed, participants provided the signed consent form back to the
author. The author then provided the participant with a direct link to the online survey.
The author created two surveys for each group of participants, which included ISSP workers and
youth probation officers. While both surveys had similar questions and themes, the differed slightly, in
order to focus more on the perspectives of each group. In addition, the ISSP survey did not include
32

questions related to wraparound approaches, as they may have been unfamiliar with such services. The
youth probation officer survey included questions related to both ISSP and wraparound, as youth
probation officers typically refer clients to each service.
The author informed participants prior to the start of the survey, that they could skip any question
that was inapplicable to them or caused discomfort. The author ensured each participant remained
anonymous by assigning a pseudonym to each individual. ISSP workers were provided pseudonyms
beginning with the letter A, while youth probation officers were provided pseudonyms beginning with the
letter B. The author surveyed five ISSP workers, who had experience delivering ISSP services to clients
and five youth probation officers, who had experience referring clients to ISSP and wraparound services.
After all of the surveys were completed, the author extracted the results from the online site for analysis.
Table 1: Participant Profiles

Alias

Position

Alex

ISSP Worker

Anna

ISSP Worker

Aaron

ISSP Worker

Abby

ISSP Worker

Adam

ISSP Worker

Ben

Youth Probation Officer

Brooke

Youth Probation Officer

Bill

Youth Probation Officer

Brenda

Youth Probation Officer

Bryan

Youth Probation Officer

33

Coding
The author coded the surveys by analyzing the results from each participant and grouping the data
into patterns and themes. This was achieved by grouping answers from the closed-ended multiple choice
questions together and grouping similar answers to the open-ended questions. Some of the themes
included risk factors, protective factors, general client profile overview, service overview, program
strengths and limitations, and recommendations.

Results
The main focus of this study was to analyze the ISSP and wraparound services as prevention and
intervention approaches for youth involved or at-risk of being involved in gangs. Surveys were completed
by ISSP workers and youth probation officers and mainly focused on examining their perspectives in
relation to ISSP services from a delivery and referring viewpoint. Representatives from wraparound
services were unavailable to participate in the survey process. The survey results on wraparound services
was collected from youth probation officers, who neither refer nor deliver wraparound services to clients.
As a result, wraparound survey data was fairly restricted and was mainly only discussed from the
perspectives of youth probation officers, who have limited experience with the program but do understand
the gang-related risk factors impacting youth and some of the effective measures to assist them.
The key themes identified in the survey results included: (1) program objectives; (2) risk factors
youth experienced; (3) gang exiting/diversion strategies; and (4) program strengths and limitations.
Youth Probation Officer Overview
Based on the results collected from the youth probation officer surveys, we can gather some
details related to ISSP services from a referral perspective. According to respondents, the average age of
youth on probation is approximately 17 years old. Some of the assessment measures used when beginning
work with new clients include mental health evaluations, professional expertise, experience, and the
Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). The SAVRY is described to quantify the
34

risk levels for youth in areas, such as family, home, substance use, peer delinquency, employment,
education, hobbies, and attitudes towards their offence.
On average, probation officers have approximately 15 clients on their caseloads and meet with
them bi-weekly for a period of 12 to 18 months. Service is typically provided in a one-to-one setting and
family members are often included in the probation process. Some of the main community partners of the
MCFD youth probation office, include Options Community Services, PLEA, Pacific Community
Resources Society, police, health authorities, and employment services,
The major challenges youth on probation typically experienced in their lives, included poor
educational achievement, lack of mentorship, inadequate levels of supervision, difficulties obtaining
legitimate employment, trauma, and negative associations. Some of the less common issues experienced,
included substance abuse, disconnection from culture, physical or mental abuse, and low engagement in
pro-social activities.
The main objectives of probation included rehabilitating youth, protecting the public, and
improving delinquent behaviours of clients. Some of the key approaches identified to achieve the
objectives, included referring youth to educational services, substance programs, behavioural counselling,
and mentorship support.
ISSP Overview
Based on the results collected from the ISSP worker surveys, we can gather some details related to
the ISSP service at PLEA from a program delivery perspective. The average age of ISSP clients is
approximately 17 years of age. ISSP workers typically have seven to 10 youth on their caseloads at a
time. Support is provided through one-to-one service and family members are involved in the process
occasionally. ISSP staff regularly meet clients once per week and work with them for a period of six to 12
months. Some of the main community partners of PLEA include MCFD, schools, recreation centres,
health authorities, cultural centres, and employment services.

35

The major challenges ISSP clients typically faced in their lives included poor educational
achievement, lack of mentorship, inadequate levels of supervision, substance abuse, and negative
associations. Some of the less common issues experienced, included physical or mental abuse,
disconnection from culture, and engagement in pro-social activities.
The ISSP respondents indicated that most of their clients lived in unstable households, lacked
positive relationships with their family members, and did not have legitimate forms of employment. In
contrast, most clients did not live in poverty, suffer from substance abuse, or experience mental health
conditions. In addition, most of the clients were enrolled in school at the time of the survey.
Risk Factors Leading to Gang Involvement
Based on the ISSP survey results, some of the main reasons believed to influence youth to join
gangs, included a desire to obtain status/respect, negative associations, neglect/lack of supervision from
caretakers, and a longing for fellowship. The weakest perceived risk factors included financial incentives,
low academic achievement, and protection.
According to the youth probation officer survey results, respondents indicated that approximately
five of their current clients were presently or previously entrenched in gang activity or at-risk of being
involved in gangs, which is estimated to make up 30% of their total caseloads. Some of the main reasons
believed to influence youth to join gangs, included a desire to obtain status/respect, neglect/lack of
supervision from caretakers, negative associations, and poor academic achievement. The weakest
perceived risk factors, included financial motivations, companionship, and protection.
The survey results identified how youth can be motivated to join a gang based on both traditional
and non-traditional risk factors. As highlighted by Descormiers (2013) and McConnell (2015), many
youth are influenced to join gang, due to negative associations, neglect/lack of supervision, and a desire
for status/respect, which coincided with the survey data from both groups. The literature findings and
survey results did differ on some risk factors, however. According to McConnell (2015) and McCuish,
Bouchard, and Corrado (2015), many B.C. youth are highly motivated to participate in gang activity for
36

financial incentives; however, both the ISSP and youth probation officer respondents found monetary
motivations to not be a significant reason youth join gangs. Furthermore, the two survey groups also
believed that protection was not a major influence for youth wanting to join gangs. In the study by
Descormiers (2013), which examined the perspectives of youth gang members, it was discovered that a
desire for protection was a common reason adolescents joined gangs. Based on some of the literature
findings and survey results, it appears that the variances in perceived motivating factors may differ from
actual youth perspectives, in comparison to the ISSP and youth probation officer views.
Main Objectives of ISSP
Based on the ISSP worker survey results, the main objectives of ISS, included assisting clients
overcome barriers, helping them reintegrate into the community, improving their delinquent behaviours,
ensuring their court conditions are met, providing mentorship, and addressing risk factors. Some of the
main methods identified to achieve the objectives, included employment, educational, recreational,
counselling, community involvement, substance support, and mentorship.
The survey results were similar to the literature findings on ISSP services and their intended
objectives. As highlighted in the Mayor’s Task Force on Gang Violence Prevention (2018), ISSP aims to
provide rehabilitative support for youth, offer supervision, improve delinquent behaviour, and assist with
community reintegration. Furthermore, in the study by Dunbar (2017), some of the main protective
factors identified to help prevent youth from joining gangs, included academic success, mentorship, prosocial activities, and positive relationships with others, which were areas of focus by the ISSP respondents
in their work.

Program Strengths and Limitations-ISSP
When asked to rate the effectiveness of ISSP services at preventing at-risk youth from joining a
gang on a scale of one to five (one being not effective and five being very effective), ISSP respondents
rated the program at 4.3, while youth probation officers rated the service at 4.1. On a similar scale, ISSP
37

respondents rated the program at 3.7, in relation to its ability to help clients exit a gang, whereas youth
probation officers rated the service at 3.4.
Furthermore, ISSP respondents indicated that they believed the main strengths of ISSP, included
employment support, educational assistance, recreational support, and mentorship. Youth probation
officer respondents felt the major benefits, involved employment support, mentorship, and recreational
support. According to ISSP respondents, some of the limitations of the program and areas for
improvement included family relationship strengthening and cultural support. Youth probation officer
respondents felt the key limitations involved cultural support, family relationship strengthening, and
educational assistance.
Program Strengths and Limitations-Wraparound
While the survey data on wraparound approaches was limited, the youth probation officers did
share some perspectives of the service. When asked to rate the effectiveness of wraparound methods at
preventing at-risk youth from joining a gang on a scale of one to five (one being not effective and five
being very effective), respondents provided an average rating of 4.5. On a similar scale, respondents rated
the service at 2.5, in relation to its ability to help clients exit a gang.
Moreover, respondents indicated that they believed the main strengths of wraparound services,
included educational assistance, employment support, and mentorship. As discussed by McDaniel (2012),
increasing a young person’s protective factors may lower their likelihood of engaging in gang activities.
According to the data identified by Dunbar (2017), it appears that wraparound services do attempt to
strengthen many of the main protective factors of their clients. In the study by Barnert et al. (2015),
incarcerated youth were interviewed and asked to share some of the protective factors they believed that
may have decreased their likelihood of engaging in deviant behaviours and prevented some from joining a
gang. Respondents felt that stronger relationships with family members, positive peer associations,
increased school engagement, and participation in pro-social activities could have prevented some from
following a path of crime (Barnert et al., 2015). Based on the youth probation officer survey results, it
38

appears that wraparound services do focus on many of the main protective factors needed to help youth
resist the desire to join a gang.
One of the main perceived limitations of the approach appeared to be that wraparound services are
often unavailable to youth who are not attending school, which can be a major barrier for those who are
most at-risk and would benefit significantly from the support. This was also one of the main limitations
identified in the evaluation of the Surrey Wraparound, as youth who were not enrolled in the Surrey
School District, were not eligible for participation in the program (Public Safety Canada, 2012). In
addition, some respondents believed that wraparound service providers did not always have the necessary
level of experience or knowledge needed when it came to supportive practices for youth who were more
heavily entrenched in criminal activity and was seen to be better suited for youth who were not already
engaged in serious crimes. Lastly, long wait lists was another limitation of wraparound services identified
by youth probation officers, which was found to be a challenge recognized in the evaluation of the Surrey
Wraparound program (Public Safety Canada, 2012).
Exiting a Gang
In relation to gang exiting measures for youth, ISSP respondents believed the most effective
strategies included recreational involvement, family relationship strengthening, educational assistance,
and employment support. Youth probation officers believed that the most effective measures to help
youth exit a gang involved educational assistance, employment support, and behavioural counselling.
The least effective measures identified by ISSP workers included behaviour counselling and
cultural support. The least effective methods were perceived by youth probation officers involved cultural
connection, gang exiting programs, recreational services, and substance abuse support.
In a study by Weinrath, Donatelli, and Murchison (2016), mentorship was identified to be a
successful method of intervention for gang-entrenched youth. One of the main benefits mentorship
provides is exposing adolescents to pro-social peers and developing positive support systems. In order to
better understand the effect mentorship had on young people, Weinrath et al. (2016) studied participants
39

in the Spotlight Serious Offender Services Unit, which was described as an urban-based Canadian ISPP
service that provides support to youth gang members. The experimental group was compared to a control
group of other high-risk adolescents who did not participate in the mentorship service. The results
indicated that youth involved in the mentorship program reoffended at a significantly less frequent rate
than those in the control group (Weinrath et al., 2016). Mentorship programs were also found to be a key
benefit for youth at-risk of joining a gang or those already entrenched in gangs in Surrey, B.C. by the
(Mayor’s Task Force on Gang Violence Prevention, 2018), especially when the young person, in
question, does not have any other strong relationships with positive adults in their lives. As mentorship is
a major aspect of both ISSP and wraparound services, it is apparent that the two programs can help
provide intervention support to clients.
Some of the main challenges ISSP service providers believed youth experienced when attempting
to leave a gang, included peer pressure and developing positive support systems. Similarily, youth
probation officers felt that the most common challenges clients experienced when exiting a gang,
involved perceived mental or physical harm from gang members and peer pressure.
According to Carson and Vecchio (2015) the perceived fear of physical or mental abuse for
wanting to leave a gang is a fairly common reason many individuals and contributes to many remaining in
a gang for longer than desired. In a study by Brar (2017), former gang members were interviewed. When
asked if they experienced any serious resistance when attempting to exit their former gangs, respondents
reported that they had not experienced any risk of violence. Furthermore, the respondents also reported
that they had witnesed many other members leave a gang without experiencing any negative
consequences (Brar, 2017).
These findings were also echoed in a study by Carson, Peterson, and Esbensen (2013) that
examined the challenges involved in exiting a gang. It was discovered that approximately 50% of
individuals who left a gang, did not experience any undesirable outcomes from other members. Decker

40

and Pyrooz (2011) attributed the absence of negative results to the possibility that many gang members
are fairly sympathetic and supportive of others wanting to leave a gang when desired.
Another challenge identifed in the ISSP and youth probation officer surveys included obtaining
legitimate employment. According to Carson and Vecchio (2015), meaningful and legitimate employment
can be a major reason individuals decide to leave a gang. In the study by Brar (2017), several of the
respondents interviewed discussed that one of the factors that motivated them to join a gang was for
financial incentives; however, those who had exited, claimed that obtaining permanent work was one of
the key factors in helping them leave their former gangs. In addition, no longer having to commit crimes
for money helped respondents feel less paranoid of being arressted (Brar, 2017). As one of the main
focuses of both ISSP and wraparound services highlighted in the surveys is assisting clients obtain
legitimate employment, these approaches may be helpful in assisting clients exit a gang.
Additional Thoughts
One ISSP survey respondent, Anna provided the following thoughts in relation to youth joining
gangs:
I have done this work for many years and youth involved in gangs tend to be from middle class
backgrounds. However, the families of youth need to play active roles, as they tend to know when
their children are involved in gangs and they are either part of the solution or part of the problem.
All the active gang stuff going on in the communities that we can see can be directly attributed to
their families. The few active gang members I worked with that moved on from that lifestyle, did
so because their families played active roles and supported them. The youth that did not get out
had families that ignored the issues, kept their heads down in shame, or were just as criminal as
their youth. Even good families have issues, but it is how they deal with them that make them
strong. A family must be willing to acceptance responsibility and address issues with their youth,
regardless of their background.

Another ISSP respondent, Adam provided the following response, in regards to gang exiting
initiatives:
I have been doing this work for several years and I have never even heard of CFSEU. I had to look
it up doing this survey. Because it is so difficult to get program funding, existing gang exit
programs are very proprietary and do not readily coordinate with others. There are no gang exit
41

programs for youth in the city I work in that coordinate with ISSP. Despite its success
(Representative for Children and Families Award of Excellence), there was no interest from
provincial or federal governments to extend funding for Career Path beyond initial funding for 4
years. There seems to be no interest in preventing gang involvement with youth; services are
short-lived and under-funded.

Discussion and Implications
The current study examined the perspectives of five ISSP workers and five youth probation
officers in B.C. The survey results provided valuable insight into the work that the two groups perform,
program overviews of ISSP and wraparound services, some of the challenges youth experience, and
measures to address the issues identified.
Based on the findings, several implications have been identified. Firstly, the results indicated that
the clients of the ISSP and youth probation officer respondents are often impacted by both traditional and
non-traditional risk factors, in relation to gang membership. The common risk factors identified in both
groups, included a desire to obtain status/respect, neglect/lack of supervision, and negative associations.
These factors matched those identified in the literature (Dunbar, 2017; Descormiers, 2013; Brar, 2017).
However, some of the other main risk factors also described to influence youth in the literature, especially
in a local context, did not match the survey results. In both the ISSP and youth probation officer surveys,
financial incentives were perceived to have a minimal influence on youth, when it came to their decision
to join a gang. This was surprising, as many who have studied B.C. youth found money to be one of the
main motivators for gang membership (McConnell, 2015; McCuish et al., 2015).
Secondly, it appeared that ISSP and wraparound services can be effective at preventing youth
from joining gangs by increasing the protective factors in young people. Both programs focus on assisting
clients overcome barriers, help them reintegrate into the community, attempt to improve criminal
behaviour, and address many of the risk factors impacting youth. These objectives are typically achieved
by providing clients with educational, employment, recreational, counselling, and community support.
According to Dunbar (2017), increasing an individual’s protective factors can help prevent them from
42

joining a gang. This finding was also echoed by former gang-entrenched youth in the study by Barnert et
al. (2015).
Thirdly, both ISSP and wraparound programs appear to possess some qualities that may assist
youth leave a gang. Both survey respondent groups reported that educational and employment support
were some of the most important methods to assist youth exit a gangs. In their study, Carson and Vecchio
(2015) found that obtaining legitimate employment could be a major factor influencing individuals to exit
a gang. This finding was also echoed by the former gang members interviewed in the study by Brar
(2017), who shared that obtaining meaningful employment played a role in helping several of them exit
their former gangs.
Furthermore, literature also indicated that mentorship can play a major role in helping prevent
youth from joining gangs and could be used to help them exit them (Mayor’s Task Force on Gang
Violence Prevention, 2018; Weinrath et al., 2016). Mentorship can help expose youth to pro-social peer
groups, provide them with positive role models, and help them develop support systems. In the study by
Weinrath et al. (2016), mentorship was found to lower the rates of recidivism in gang-entrenched youth.
As ISSP and wraparound both focus on providing clients with mentorship, it appears that the services can
assist youth in their attempts to leave a gang. Based on the findings from the survey results and literature,
it appears that ISSP and wraparound services heavily focus on the main challenges identified to help
youth exit a gang.

Limitations
While this current study did provide some of the perspectives of service providers and referring
bodies related to ISSP and wraparound approaches through survey analysis, the sample of participants
was fairly small. In addition, the exclusion of wraparound staff limited the data from a service provider
perspective. While the youth probation officers did share their viewpoints of wraparound services, they
typically do not refer their clients to such programs, which could have limited their knowledge related to
43

the service. Expanding the sample size of the study and including wraparound staff and other ISSP
workers from additional organizations could have provided additional insightful information on the two
programs of focus.
Although staff from an organization that delivers wraparound services in the Lower Mainland
were asked to be involved in the study, they were unable to participate. As a result, the feedback provided
on wraparound services was collected from youth probation officers, who occasionally refer clients to the
program. While many youth probation officers are familiar with wraparound services, the exclusion of
wraparound staff may have limited insight from a service provider perspective.
Another possible limitation of the study was the use of surveys, as opposed to interviews.
Although surveys can provide a great amount of data, interviews can offer additional information, at
times, including further explanations to questions and quotes. While there were several open-ended
questions included in the surveys, requiring participants to type out responses to questions may have
prevented them from providing detailed answers.
Lastly, participants had the ability to skip any of the questions they did not feel comfortable
answering. In addition, not all questions may have received detailed replies. This could have occurred
because the participant may not have wanted to share negative views about a program, which could have
skewed the data collected for this study.

Future Research
The research on the effectiveness of ISSP services and wraparound approaches as prevention and
intervention methods for at-risk youth and those already involved gang-entrenched is fairly limited in a
local and current context. While there have been studies conducted on the two programs, most of the
research examines services outside of B.C. As previously highlighted, not all youth in B.C. are impacted
by traditional risk and protective factors (McConnell, 2015; Brar, 2017). Furthermore, in many

44

communities in B.C., the youth gang demographics are unlike any other region of Canada (McConnell,
2015).
Although Public Safety Canada (2012) did an evaluation on the Surrey Wraparound, the study was
conducted seven years ago. As the gang landscape in B.C. has changed significantly over the years,
conducting an updated evaluation may provide useful information regarding the program and some of the
factors impacting clients. Similarly, while the McCreary Centre Society (2012) conducted an evaluation
on the programs provided by PLEA, the study was also from seven years ago. Although the study did
indicate that clients benefited significantly from their participation in PLEA, the evaluation grouped all of
the justice-related services together and did not identify how effective each program was individually. As
a result, future research on both of these services in a local and current context may advance knowledge
related to effective gang prevention and intervention approaches for youth.

45

References
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1),
47–87. doi:2443/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x
Barnert, E., Perry, R., Azzi, V., Shetgiri, R., Ryan, G., Dudovits, R., Zima, B., & Chung P. (2015).
Incarcerated youths' perspectives on protective factors and risk factors for juvenile offending: A
qualitative analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 105(7), 1365-71. doi:
10.2105/AJPH.2014.302228
Becker, H. S. (1973). Outsiders: studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.
Bersani, E. (2014). An examination of first and second generation of immigrant offending trajectories.
Justice Quarterly, 31(2), 315–343.
Bhatt, G., & Tweed, R. (2018). University and community acting together to address youth violence and
gang involvement. Canadian Psychology, 59(2), 151-162. doi: 10.1037/cap0000149
Brar, G. (2017). Under the hood: Understanding pathways in and out of gang life from the point of view
of gang members’ experience. Retrieved from https://ufv.arcabc.ca/islandora/object/ufv:5472
Burgess, R. & Akers, R. (1966). A differential association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behaviour.
Social Problems, 14(2), 128. doi:2443/10.2307/798612
Calgary. (2018). Information for parents and families. Retrieved from
http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Pages/Children-and-youth/Youth-justice-services/Parents-andFamilies.aspx
Carson, D., Peterson, D., & Esbensen, F.A. (2013). Youth gang desistance: An examination of the effect
of different operational definitions of desistance on the motivations, methods and consequences
associated with leaving the gang. Criminal Justice Review, 38, 510-534. doi:
10.1177/0734016813511634
Carson, D., & Vecchio, M. (2015). Leaving the gang: A review and thoughts on future research.
Retrieved from
46

https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1023&context=cri
minaljustice_facpubs
Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit of British Columbia. (2018). Understanding youth in gangs.
Retrieved from https://www.cfseu.bc.ca/end-gang-life/end-gang-life-multilingual-booklets/
Department of Justice. (2017). The Youth Criminal Justice Act summary and background. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/yj-jj/tools-outils/back-hist.html
Descormiers, K. (2013). From getting in to getting out: The role of pre-gang context and group processes
in analyzing turning points in gang trajectories. Retrieved from http://summit.sfu.ca/item/13831
Doob, A., & Sprott, J. (2005). The use of custody under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Retrieved from
https://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/yj-jj/pdf/doob-sprott.pdf
Dunbar, L. (2017). Youth gangs in Canada: A review of current topics and issues. Retrieved from
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2017-r001/2017-r001-en.pdf
Farrington, D., Ttofi, M., & Piquero, A. (2016). Risk, promotive, and protective factors in youth
offending: Results from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 45, 63-70. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.02.014 0047-2352
Gahunia, S. (2017) The perceived effectiveness of the Restaurant Watch program in Vancouver, British
Columbia. Retrieved from https://ufv.arcabc.ca/islandora/object/ufv%3A5471
Gilman, A., Hill, K., Hawkins, J., Howell, J., & Kosterman, R. (2014). The developmental dynamics of
joining a gang in adolescence: Patterns and predictors of gang membership. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 24(2), 204–219. doi:2443/10.1111/jora.12121
Gordon, R.M. (2000). Criminal business organizations, street gangs and 'wanna-be' groups: A Vancouver
perspective. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 39-60.
Hill, K., Howell, J., Hawkins, J., & Battin-Pearson, S. (1999). Childhood risk factors for adolescent gang
membership: Results from the Seattle Social Development Project. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 36, 300-322.
47

Howell, J., & Egley Jr., A. (2005). Moving risk factors into developmental theories of gang membership.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3, 334-354. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1541204005278679
Howell, J. (2010). Gang prevention: An overview of research and programs. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.
Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/231116.pdf
Jeffery, C. (1965). Criminal behaviour and learning theory. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology &
Police Science, 56(3), 294–300. doi:2443/10.2307/1141238
Klein, M.W., & Maxson, C.L. (2006). Street gang patterns and policies. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost
com.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat00744a&AN=ufv.1582436&site=eds-live
Lizotte, A., Krohn, M., Howell, J., Tobin, K., & Howard, G. (2000). Factors influencing gun carrying
among young urban males over the adolescent-young adult life course. Criminology, 38(3), 811–
834. doi:2443/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00907.x
Lovegreen, T. (2018, June 28). Fighting gang violence in Surrey: A look at politicians' promises.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britishcolumbia/gang-violence-surrey-promises-1.4726642
Mayor’s Task Force on Gang Violence Prevention. (2018). Findings and action steps. Retrieved from
https://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/DCT_Mayors_Task_Force_Findings_Report.pdf
McCreary Centre Society. (2012). PLEA Evaluation Report. Retrieved from
http://www.mcs.bc.ca/pdf/PLEA_Evaluation_Report.pdf
McConnell, K. (2015). The construction of the gang in British Columbia: Mafioso, gangster, or thug? An
examination of the uniqueness of the BC gangster phenomenon. Retrieved from
http://repository.londonmet.ac.uk/1177/1/McConnellKeiron%20%20DProf%20Full%20Thesis.pdf

48

McCuish, E., Bouchard, M., & Corrado, R. (2015). The search for suitable homicide co-offenders among
gang members. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31(3), 319. Retrieved from
https://journals-sagepub-com.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/doi/pdf/10.1177/1043986214553375
McDaniel, D. (2012). Risk and protective factors associated with gang affiliation among high-risk youth:
A public health approach. Injury Prevention, (4), 253. Retrieved from
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/18/4/253.full.pdf
Merton, R, (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682. Retrieved
from http://www.csun.edu/~snk1966/Robert%20K%20Merton%20%20Social%20Structure%20and%20Anomie%20Original%201938%20Version.pdf
Miller, W. (1975) Violence by youth gangs and youth groups as a crime problem in major American
cities. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/34497NCJRS.pdf
Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. (2011). Preventing youth involvement in gangs.
Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/public-safety-and-emergency-services/crimeprevention/community-crime-prevention/publications/crime-prev-series1-youth-gangs.pdf
Ministry of Justice. (2012). Youth gang prevention. Retrieved from
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/public-safety-and-emergency-services/crimeprevention/community-crime-prevention/publications/youth-gang-prevention.pdf
Mussa, I. (2017, March 7). Spike in gun and gang violence in Canada has experts worried. Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spike-in-gun-andgang-violence-in-canada-has-experts-worried-1.4564643
Ngo, H., Calhoun, A., Worthington, C., Pyrch, T., & Este, D. (2017). The unravelling of identities and
belonging: Criminal gang involvement of youth from immigrant families. Journal of International
Migration and Integration, (1), 63. doi:2443/10.1007/s12134-015-0466-5
Nova Soctia. (2007). Helping kids protecting communities. Retrieved from
https://novascotia.ca/just/nunn_commission/_docs/NunnResponse.pdf
49

Office of Parliamentary Budget Officer. (2018). Update on costs of incarceration. Retrieved from
https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/Update_Incarcertation
Pearce, J. 2009. Gangs in Canada. Calgary, Canada: Quagmire Press.
Peterson, D., & Morgan, K. (2014). Sex differences and the overlap in youths’ risk factors for onset of
violence and gang involvement. Journal of Crime & Justice, 37(1), 129–154. doi:
2443/10.1080/0735648X.2013.830393
PLEA Community Services. (2019). ISSP. Retrieved from https://www.plea.ca/youth-programs/youthjustice/issp/
Plecas, D., Diplock, J. & Garis, L. (2013). Targeting marihuana growing operations in British Columbia.
Abbotsford, Canada: University of the Fraser Valley.
Public Safety Canada. (2007). Addressing youth gang problems: An overview of programs and practices.
Retrieved from https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ddrsng-prblms/ddrsng-prblmseng.pdf
Public Safety Canada. (2007). Youth gangs in Canada: What do we know? Retrieved from
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/gngs-cnd/gngs-cnd-eng.pdf
Public Safety Canada. (2007). Youth gang involvement: What are the risk factors? Retrieved from
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/yth-gng-nvlvmnt/yth-gng-nvlvmnt-eng.pdf
Public Safety Canada. (2011). 2010-2011 Evaluation of the youth gang prevention fund program.
Retrieved from https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/vltn-yth-gng-prvntn-201011/index-en.aspx
Public Safety Canada. (2012). The Surrey Wraparound: A youth driven plan for gang violence prevention.
Retrieved from https://www.lib.sfu.ca/system/files/28281/APA6CitationGuideSFUv3.pdf
Public Safety Canada. (2017). Programme de suivi intensif de Montréal – Gangs de rue [Montreal
Intensive Supervision Program – Street Gangs]. Retrieved from
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2017-s007/2017-s007-en.pdf
50

Pyrooz, D and Decker, S. (2011). Motives and methods for leaving the gang: Understanding the process
of gang desistance. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 417-425. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.07.001
Pyrooz, D. & Sweeten, G. (2015). Gang membership between ages 5 and 17 years in the United States.
Journal of Adolescent Health, (4), 414. doi: 2443/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.11.018
Rossiter, J., & Rossiter, R. (2009). Diamonds in the rough: bridging gaps in supports for at-risk immigrant
and refugee youth. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 10(4), 409–429.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (2014). Youth gangs. Retrieved from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cycpcpcj/violence/gang/index-eng.htm
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (2018). Gangs. Retrieved from http://www.rcmpgrc.gc.ca/en/gazette/gangs
Sharp, C., Aldridge, J., & Medina, J. (2006). Delinquent youth groups and offending behaviour: Findings
from the 2004 Offending, Crime and Justice Survey. Retrieved from
https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/8472/1/rdsolr1406.pdf
Statistics Canada. (2019). Youth courts, guilty cases by type of sentence. Retrieved from
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510004101
Stoddard, S., Whiteside, L., Zimmerman, M., Cunningham, R., Chermack, S., & Walton, M. (2013). The
relationship between cumulative risk and promotive factors and violent behaviour among urban
adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(1/2), 57–65. doi:
2443/10.1007/s10464-012-9541-7
Summit on Gun and Gang Violence. (2018). Summary report. Retrieved from
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2018-smmt-gng-vlnce-smmry/2018-smmt-gngvlnce-smmry-en.pdf
Sutherland, E. (1942). The development of the hypothesis of differential association. The Ohio Valley
Sociologist, 15(1), 3. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohostcom.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.44644977&site=eds-live
51

Thrasher, F. M. 1927. The gang: a study of 1313 gangs in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Thornberry, T., Krohn, M., Lizotte, A., Smith, C., & Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs and delinquency in
developmental perspective. Retrieved from
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/14393/sample/9780521814393ws.pdf
Tremblay, R. (2003). Why socialization fails: The case of chronic physical aggression. Causes of conduct
disorder and juvenile delinquency. 182-224. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/200388137-007
Weinrath, M., Doerksen, M., & Watts, J. (2015). The impact of an Intensive Supervision Program on
high-risk fffenders: Manitoba’s COHROU Program. Canadian Journal of Criminology &
Criminal Justice, 57(2), 253–288. doi:2443/10.3138/cjccj.2014.E01
Weinrath, M., Donatelli, G., & Murchison, M. (2016). Mentorship: A missing piece to manage juvenile
intensive supervision programs and youth gangs? Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal
Justice, 58(3), 291-321. doi:10.3138/cjccj.2015.E19
Wortley, S., & Tanner, J. (2006). Immigration, social disadvantage and urban youth gangs: Results of a
Toronto-area survey. Retrieved from
http://winnspace.uwinnipeg.ca/bitstream/handle/10680/383/bwortley-eng.pdf?sequence=1
Wraparound Milwaukee. (2005). Annual Report. Retrieved from
https://www.city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/User/jmaher/Wraparound_Milw_2005_Annual_Re
port.pdf
Wraparound Milwaukee. (2008). Quality assurance/improvement semi-annual report. Retrieved from
https://www.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cntyHHS/Wraparound/SEMIANNUALQARE
PORT20082ndHALF.pdf
Wraparound Milwaukee (2016). Year end report. Retrieved from http://wraparoundmke.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/2016-Annual-Report.pdf
52

Wu, J., & Pyrooz, D. (2016). Uncovering the pathways between gang membership and violent
victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(4), 531-559. doi:10.1007/s10940-0159266-5
Youth Criminal Justice Act, c.1, Minister of Justice, c.1 Stat. (2002).
Young Offenders Act Act, c.1, Minister of Justice, c.1 Stat. (1984).

53

Appendix B: Letter of Informed Consent

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
University of the Fraser Valley
33844 King Road
Abbotsford, BC V2S 7M8
604-504-7441
January 11, 2019
Youth Gang Prevention Strategies: Analyzing Intensive Support and Supervision Programs and
Wraparound Approaches
Letter of Informed Consent
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. This letter explains the purpose of the research and the
process involved. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask the researcher for
clarification. Again, your contribution to this study is truly appreciated.
Purpose/Objectives of the Study
The principal investigator of this study is Eric Osmond, a Master of Arts (Criminal Justice) student in the
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at UFV. Eric will be responsible for collecting data from
participants, coding the data, analyzing the data, developing a final report using the data collected in this
study, and presenting it to a panel of reviewers. Eric’s work on this project is supervised by Dr. Amanda
McCormick with the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
The main objective of this research project will be to collect feedback from participants working in programs
focused on preventing gang involvement for youth. The goals of the study include developing an
understanding of why some youth in the Lower Mainland become involved in gang activity, the needs of
youth who are at-risk of or involved in gangs, common challenges experienced when exiting a gang, and
types of approaches used to assist youth to leave a gang.
The study goals will be achieved through the use of primary data collection by providing surveys to
participants working with the Surrey Wraparound program, a sample of Intensive Support and Supervision
Program workers, and a sample of youth probation officers, in order to obtain information on common
practices involved in these approaches and their suitability for youth gang prevention and intervention.

55

Dissemination of results
The data will be used to develop a final major paper, which will be presented to a panel of reviewers.
After the major paper is completed, a fact sheet will also be developed and made available to the public.
Procedures involved in the Research
During this study, the researcher will administer surveys to participants, which include several open-ended
and closed-ended questions, which encourage you to share your experiences and opinions related to the
topic. Please answer all of the questions to the best of your ability and know that you have the right to skip
any question you do not want to answer. The surveys will take approximately 30 minutes to complete.
Potential Benefits
Some of the benefits the proposed research may provide is a better understanding of how closely aligned
your program activities are to the needs and risks presented by at-risk or gang involved youth.
Another benefit is being able to review a summary of current approaches to gang prevention and
intervention by reading the completed major paper.
In addition, the proposed research may benefit the community by increasing public safety by preventing
more youth from becoming involved in gang activity.
Potential Harms, Risks or Discomforts to Participants
This study will not pose any major physical, social, or psychological harm towards you. However, you may
potentially feel uncomfortable answering some of the questions related to programs you administer or refer
clients to. Please note, you do not need to answer any questions that may make you feel uncomfortable. You
may also choose to withdraw your participation in the study by March 15, 2019.
Confidentiality
Any information that you provide during this study will remain confidential and will be shared in aggregate
form only.
All of the participants in this study will be given a pseudonym and all identifiable information will be kept
private at all times.

56

Your privacy will be respected throughout this study. Data collected during surveys will be safely stored on a
password protected computer system and an encrypted drive that will be locked away in the principal
investigator’s office when not in use. Your name will not be associated with any of the data collected in this
study. The researchers of this study will be the only individuals to have access to the information collected.
Once the final study has been completed and approved, the answers gathered from personal surveys may be
retained to develop an anonymized aggregated dataset to allow for future publication/presentation.
Participation
Your participation in this study is voluntary.
Please note that you may withdraw from this study without consequences. If you decide to withdraw, please
contact the principal investigator by March 15, 2019 by phone at (604) 356-2043 or by email at
eric.osmond@student.ufv.ca.
In cases of withdrawal, any data you have provided will be deleted from the dataset and confidentially
shredded or deleted.
Study Results
After the study has been completed and approved, you may contact the principal investigator by phone at
(604) 356-2043 or by email at Eric.Osmond@student.ufv.ca or contact the primary supervisor by email at
Amanda.McCormick@ufv.ca for a copy of the final paper.
Questions
CONTACT FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE STUDY
Eric Osmond
Principal Investigator
Phone:
Email:
CONTACT FOR CONCERNS
If you have any concerns regarding your rights or welfare as a participant in this research study, please
contact the Ethics Officer at 604-557-4011 or Research.Ethics@ufv.ca.
The ethics of this research project have been reviewed and approved by the UFV Human Research Ethics
Board [1135C-18 approved from Jan 22, 2019-Jan 22, 2020].” Page 4

57

Consent Form
By signing below, I agree to participate in this study, titled Youth Gang Prevention Strategies: Analyzing
Intensive Support and Supervision Programs and Wraparound Approaches.
I have read the information presented in the letter of informed consent being conducted by Eric Osmond at
the University of the Fraser Valley. I have had the opportunity to ask questions about my involvement in this
study and to receive any additional details.
I understand that I have the right to withdraw from the study by March 15, 2019 and that confidentiality
and/or anonymity of all results will be preserved. If I have any questions about the study, I should contact the
principle investigator, Eric Osmond by phone at
or by email at
or the faculty supervisor, Dr. Amanda McCormick at Amanda.McCormick@ufv.ca.
If I have any concerns regarding my rights or welfare as a participant in this research study, I can contact the
UFV Ethics Officer at 604-557-4011 or Research.Ethics@ufv.ca.
Name (please print) ____________________________________________________________
Signature ____________________________________________________________________
Date ________________________________________________________________________
Phone Number ________________________________________________________________
Email Address _________________________________________________________________

58

Appendix C: ISSP Survey Questions

Thank you for participating in this study!
Please note that you may skip any questions you do not feel comfortable answering.
Please also note that your answers will not be shared with anybody else without your consent. The researcher
will be the only one to have access to survey results.
1. How long have you been an ISSP worker with PLEA?
Less than 1 year
1-3 years
3-5 years
5+ years

2. How many clients do you currently have on your caseload?
1-3

11-15

4-7

16+

7-10

3. On average, how old are clients on your current caseload?
13-15
16-17
18-19

4. Is there a referral process for clients? If yes, please describe the process.

5. What are some reasons that you would not work with a youth (i.e. too dangerous)?

6. What is the main objective of ISSP?

59

7. What screening tools are used for clients and what factors are screened (i.e. mental health, delinquent attitudes,
gang entrenchment)?

8. How is service provided to clients?
1-1
Group setting
Both

9. On average, how often do you meet with a client per month?
Once
Twice
Three Times
More than three times

10. Do you typically include a client’s family members in the ISSP process?
Always

Seldom

Frequently

Never

Occasionally

60

11. What are some of the main challenges your clients experience in life?
(Please select all that apply)
Education
Obtaining Legitimate Employment
Lack of Supervision
Lack of Mentorship
Substance Abuse
Physical/Mental Abuse
Mental Health
Disconnected from Culture
Negative Associations (Friends, Family Members, Classmates, etc.)
Becoming Involved in Recreational Activities
Trauma
Developmental Challenges (Learning Difficulties, Illiteracy, etc.)
Other (please specify)

12. What types of goals do you assist clients with?
(Please select all that apply)
Employment
Education
Recreation
Counselling
Community Involvement
Family Connection
Substance Management
Cultural Connection
Mentorship
Other (please specify)

61

13. On average, how long do you work with a client in total for?
1-3 months

12-18 months

3-6 months

18-24 months

6-12 months

24+ months

14. Do you work in partnership with other agencies in the community? If yes, which ones?

15. Under what circumstances would a client fail to complete an ISSP order?

16. What typically occurs when a client fails to complete an ISSP order?

17. Do clients participate voluntarily in your program or are they court-ordered?
Voluntarily participate
Court-ordered

18. Is there a stated end date to a client’s involvement in your program? If yes, when (i.e. probation order expires)?

General Client Questions Related to Gangs
19. To the best of your knowledge, how many clients on your caseload are currently or have previously been
involved in gang activity or at-risk of being involved?
1-3
4-5
6-9
10+

62

20. In your experience, what are some of the reasons that clients have become involved in gang activity? (Please
select all that apply)
Financial Incentives/Unable to Obtain Legitimate Employment
Status (Respect, Perceived to be "Cool," etc.)
Negative Associations (Friends, Family Members, etc.)
Protection
Fellowship (Brotherhood/Sisterhood)
Low Educational Success
Neglect from Family
Other (please specify)

21. To the best of your knowledge, what are some of the most effective measures you have used to help a client exit a
gang?
(Please select all that apply)
CFSEU Gang Exiting Program Referral
Educational Support
Recreational Support
Employment Support
Substance Abuse Support Referral
Counselling Referral
Connecting to Cultural Services
Family Relationship Strengthening
Other (please specify)

63

22. In your experience, what are some of the reasons that clients have left a gang? (Please
select all that apply)
Found Legitimate Employment
Incarcerated
Somebody they knew in a Gang was killed
Academic Success
Positive Associations (Friends, Family Members, etc.)
Enrolled in Recreational Activities
Support from CFSEU Gang Exiting Program
Other (please specify)

23. What challenges do clients experience when leaving a gang?
(Please select all that apply)
Peer Pressure
Threats from Gang for Attempting to Leave
Obtaining Legitimate Employment
Creating Positive Support Systems
Enrolling in School/Academic Challenges
Other (please specify)

24. What one area of a youth’s life do you believe to be the most important in helping them leave a gang
or preventing them from joining one?
(Please select only 1 answer)
Home Life

Legitimate Employment

Positive Associations

Recreational Activities

Education
Other (please specify)

64

Questions Related to Gang-Entrenched/At-Risk Clients

This section is related to clients who are currently or have previously been involved or at-risk of being of involved in
gang activity.

65

25. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients come from broken homes (i.e.
single-parent households, parents separated, divorced)?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

26. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients have positive relationships with their family
members/guardians?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

27. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients are currently enrolled in school?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

28. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients have legitimate jobs?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

29. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients suffer from substance abuse?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

30. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients experience poverty (insufficient access to food,
clothing, etc.)?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

66

31. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients experience mental health conditions (i.e. antisocial disorder, addictive behaviours, bi-polar, etc.)?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

Questions Related to Non-Gang Entrenched Clients
This section is related to clients who are not currently or have previously been involved or at-risk of being of
involved in gang activity.
32. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients come from broken homes (i.e.
single-parent households, parents separated, divorced)?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

33. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients have positive relationships with their family
members/guardians?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

34. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients are currently enrolled in school?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

35. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients have legitimate jobs?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

67

41. What do you believe are some of the strengths of ISSP services? (Please
select all that apply)
Employment Support

Cultural Support

Educational Support

Family Support

Recreational Support

Family Relationship Strengthening

Mentorship
Other (please specify)

42. What do you believe are some of the limitations of ISSP services?
(Please select all that apply)
Barriers (not all youth are eligible for support)

Mentorship

Employment Support

Cultural Support

Educational Support

Family Relationship Strengthening

Recreational Support
Other (please specify)

Final Thoughts
43. Other than ISSP, what other programs/methods do you believe prevent youth from joining a gang or help them exit
one?
CFSEU

Forensics psychiatric services

Restorative justice

Employment services (i.e. Work BC, Bladerunners, YMCA, etc.)

Services within schools

Recreation centre services

69

Other (please specify)

44. Is there any other information that you would like to add?

70

Appendix D: Youth Probation Officer Survey

Thank you for participating in this study!
Please note that you may skip any questions you do not feel comfortable answering.
Please also note that your answers will not be shared with anybody else without your consent. The researcher
will be the only one to have access to survey results.
1. How long have you worked as a youth probation officer?
Less than 1 year
1-3 years
3-5 years
5+ years

2. On average, how old are clients on your current caseload?
13-15
16-17
18-19

3. Is there a referral process for clients? If yes, please describe the process.

4. What are some reasons that you would not work with a youth (i.e. too dangerous)?

5. What is the main objective of youth probation?

6. What screening tools are used for clients and what factors are screened (i.e. mental health, delinquent attitudes,
gang entrenchment)?

71

7. How is service provided to clients?
1-1
Group setting
Both

8. On average, how often do you meet with a client per month?
Once
Twice
Three Times
More than three times

9. Do you typically include a client’s family members in the probation process?
Always

Seldom

Frequently

Never

Occasionally

10. What are some of the main challenges your clients experience in life (please
select a maximum of 5 choices)
Education
Obtaining Legitimate Employment
Lack of Supervision
Lack of Mentorship
Substance Abuse
Physical/Mental Abuse
Mental Health
Disconnected from Culture
Negative Associations (Friends, Family Members, Classmates, etc)
Becoming Involved in Recreational Activities
Trauma
Developmental Challenges (Learning Difficulties, Illiteracy, etc)
Other (please specify)

72

11. What types of goals do you assist clients with (please select all that apply)
Employment
Education
Recreation
Counselling
Community Involvement
Family Connection
Substance Management
Cultural Connection
Mentorship

12. On average, how long do you work with a client in total for?
1-3 months

12-18 months

3-6 months

18-24 months

6-12 months

24+ months

13. Do you work in partnership with other agencies in the community? If yes, which ones?

14. How many clients do you currently have on your caseload?
1-3

11-15

4-7

16+

7-10

15. Under what circumstance do clients typically fail to complete a probation order?

16. What typically occurs when a client fails to complete a probation order?

73

Questions Related to Gang Involved Clients
This section is related to clients who are currently or have previously been involved or at-risk of being of
involved in gang activity
17. To the best of your knowledge, how many clients on your caseload are currently or have previously been
involved in gang activity or at-risk of being involved?
1-3
4-5
6-9
10+

18. In your experience, what are some of the reasons that clients have become involved in gang activity (please
select top 3 choices)
Unable to Obtain Legitimate Employment
Status (Respect, Perceived to be "Cool," etc.)
Negative Associations (Friends, Family Members, etc.)
Protection
Fellowship (Brotherhood/Sisterhood)
Low Educational Success
Neglect from Family

19. To the best of your knowledge, what are some of the most effective measures you have used to help a client exit a
gang? (Please select all that apply)
CFSEU Gang Exiting Program Referral
Educational Support
Recreational Support
Employment Support
Substance Abuse Support Referral
Counselling Referral
Connecting to Cultural Services

74

20. In your experience, what are some of the reasons that clients have left a gang (please select top 3 choices)
Found Legitimate Employment
Incarcerated
Somebody they knew in a gang was killed
Academic Success
Positive Associations (Friends, Family Members, etc.)
Enrolled in Recreational Activities
Support from CFSEU Gang Exiting Program

21. What challenges do clients experience when leaving a gang (please select top 3 choices)
Peer Pressure
Threats from Gang for Attempting to Leave
Obtaining Legitimate Employment
Creating Positive Support Systems
Enrolling in School/Academic Challenges

22. What one area of a youth’s life do you believe to be the most important in helping them leave a gang
or preventing them from joining one (please select only 1 answer)
Home Life

Legitimate Employment

Positive Associations

Recreational Activities

Education

Questions Related to Gang-Entrenched/At-Risk Clients
This section is related to clients who are currently or have previously been involved or at-risk of being of
involved in gang activity.
23. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients come from broken homes (i.e.
parents separated, divorced)?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

75

24. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients have positive relationships with their family
members/guardians?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

25. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients are currently enrolled in school?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

26. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients have legitimate jobs?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

27. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients suffer from substance abuse?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

28. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients experience poverty (insufficient access to food,
clothing, etc.)
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

29. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients experience mental health conditions (i.e. antisocial disorder, bi-polar, etc.)
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

76

Questions Related to Non-Gang Entrenched Clients
30. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients come from broken homes (i.e. parents
separated, divorced)?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

31. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients have positive relationships with their family
members/guardians?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

32. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients are currently enrolled in school?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

33. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients have legitimate jobs?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

34. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients suffer from substance abuse?
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

35. Based on your current caseload, how many of your clients experience poverty (insufficient access to food,
clothing, etc.)
1-3

11-14

4-6

15+

7-10

77

50. What do you believe are some of the limitations of ISSP?
Funding

Recreational Support

Barriers (not all youth are eligible for support)

Mentorship

Employment Support

Cultural Support

Educational Support
Other (please specify)

Final Thoughts
51. Other than the Wraparound Program and ISSP, what other programs do you believe prevent youth from joining a
gang or help them exit one?
CFSEU

Forensics psychiatric services

Restorative justice

Employment services (i.e. Work BC, Bladerunners, YMCA, etc.)

Services within schools

Recreation centre services

81

Other (please specify)

52. Is there any other information that you would like to add?

1