DEP

ARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OF

FIC

E

OF JUST I CE PRO

GR

AM

S

BJA

N

I JOJJ DP BJS

OV

C

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

From the Administrator

Despite recent declines in juvenilecrime, our Nation continues to facea youth gang problem. As part of ourresponse to public concern about thisproblem, OJJDP has initiated theYouth Gang Series to explore keyissues related to youth gangs. Theseissues include gang migration, femaleinvolvement with gangs, and the growthof gang activity related to homicide,drugs, and overall delinquency.

Youth Gangs: An Overview, the initialBulletin in this series, brings togetheravailable knowledge on youth gangsby reviewing data and research.The author begins with a look atthe history of youth gangs and theirdemographic characteristics. Hethen assesses the scope of theyouth gang problem, including gangproblems in juvenile detention andcorrectional facilities. A review ofgang studies provides a clearerunderstanding of several issues.An extensive list of references isalso included for further review.

The Bulletin makes a clear statementthat a successful gang interventionand suppression strategy must buildon services already in place in ourcommunities to develop a compre-hensive approach that will enhancethe capacity of the juvenile justicesystem. The information providedhere and in subsequent titles of thisseries will serve as a good startingpoint toward that end.

Shay BilchikAdministrator

August 1998

FPO

Youth Gangs:An Overview

James C. Howell

The proliferation of youth gangs since1980 has fueled the public’s fear and mag-nified possible misconceptions about youthgangs. To address the mounting concernabout youth gangs, the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)has initiated the Youth Gang Series to delveinto many of the key issues related to youthgangs. These issues include gang migration,gang growth, female involvement withgangs, homicide, drugs and violence, andthe needs of communities and youth wholive in the presence of youth gangs. ThisBulletin, the first in the series, provides anoverview of the problems that youth gangspose, pinpoints the differences betweenyouth gangs and adult criminal organiza-tions, examines the risk factors that leadto youth gang membership, and presentspromising strategies being used to curbyouth gang involvement.

IntroductionThe United States has seen rapid prolif-

eration of youth gangs1 since 1980. Duringthis period, the number of cities with gangproblems increased from an estimated 286jurisdictions with more than 2,000 gangsand nearly 100,000 gang members in 1980(Miller, 1992) to about 4,800 jurisdictionswith more than 31,000 gangs and approxi-mately 846,000 gang members in 1996(Moore and Terrett, in press).2 An 11-citysurvey of eighth graders found that 9

percent were currently gang members,and 17 percent said they had belongedto a gang at some point in their lives(Esbensen and Osgood, 1997).

Other studies reported comparablepercentages and also showed that gangmembers were responsible for a largeproportion of violent offenses. In the Roch-ester site of the OJJDP-funded Program ofResearch on the Causes and Correlates ofDelinquency, gang members (30 percentof the sample) self-reported committing

1 This overview relies on definitions of the term“youth gang” offered by the leading gang theorists andresearchers. For the purposes of this review, a groupmust be involved in a pattern of criminal acts to be con-sidered a youth gang. These groups are typically com-posed only of juveniles, but may include young adults intheir membership. Prison gangs, ideological gangs, hategroups, and motorcycle gangs are not included. Likewise,gangs whose membership is restricted to adults and thatdo not have the characteristics of youth gangs are ex-cluded (see Curry and Decker, 1998). Unless otherwisenoted, the term “gangs” refers to youth gangs.

2 Sheriff’s departments were asked to report data onlyon unincorporated areas in an effort to reduce redun-dancies. Respondents were allowed to use their owndefinition of a gang, with the guidance that “youth gang”was defined as “a group of youths in the [respondent’s]jurisdiction that the [respondent or other] responsiblepersons in the [respondent’s] agency or community arewilling to identify or classify as a ‘gang’.” Motorcyclegangs, hate or ideology groups, prison gangs, and adultgangs were excluded. See Moore (1997) and NationalYouth Gang Center (1997) for results of the 1995 Na-tional Youth Gang Survey.

2

68 percent of all violent offenses(Thornberry, 1998). In the Denver site,adolescent gang members (14 percent ofthe sample) self-reported committing 89percent of all serious violent offenses(Huizinga, 1997). In another study, sup-ported by OJJDP and several other agen-cies and organizations, adolescent gangmembers in Seattle (15 percent of thesample) self-reported involvement in 85percent of robberies committed by theentire sample (Battin et al., 1998).

This Bulletin reviews data and re-search to consolidate available knowl-edge on youth gangs that are involved incriminal activity. Following a historicalperspective, demographic information ispresented. The scope of the problem isassessed, including gang problems injuvenile detention and correctional facili-ties. Several issues are then addressedby reviewing gang studies to provide aclearer understanding of youth gang prob-lems. An extensive list of references isprovided for further review.

History of Youth GangsYouth gangs may have first appeared in

Europe (Klein, 1996) or Mexico (Redfield,1941; Rubel, 1965). No one is sure whenor why they emerged in the United States.The earliest record of their appearance inthe United States may have been as earlyas 1783, as the American Revolution ended(Sante, 1991; Sheldon, 1898). They mayhave emerged spontaneously fromadolescent play groups or as a collectiveresponse to urban conditions in thiscountry (Thrasher, 1927). Some suggestthey first emerged following the Mexicanmigration to the Southwest after the Mexi-can Revolution in 1813 (Redfield, 1941;Rubel, 1965). They may have grown out ofdifficulties Mexican youth encountered withsocial and cultural adjustment to the Ameri-can way of life under extremely poor condi-tions in the Southwest (Moore, 1978; Vigil,1988). Gangs appear to have spread in NewEngland in the early 1800’s as the IndustrialRevolution gained momentum in the firstlarge cities in the United States: New York,Boston, and Philadelphia (Finestone, 1976;Sante, 1991; Spergel, 1995).

Gangs began to flourish in Chicago andother large cities during the industrial era,when immigration and population shiftsreached peak levels (Finestone, 1976). Earlyin American history, gangs seem to havebeen most visible and most violent duringperiods of rapid population shifts. Theirevolution has been characterized by an

ebb and flow pattern that “at any giventime more closely resembles that of, say,influenza rather than blindness,” as Miller(1992:51) has observed. The United Stateshas seen four distinct periods of ganggrowth and peak activity: the late 1800’s,the 1920’s, the 1960’s, and the 1990’s (Curryand Decker, 1998). Gang proliferation, inother words, is not a constant.

In the modern era, youth gangs havebeen influenced by several trends. In the1970’s and 1980’s, because of increasedmobility and access to more lethal weap-ons, many gangs became more dangerous(Klein, 1995; Klein and Maxson, 1989; Miller,1974, 1992; Spergel, 1995). Gang fightspreviously involving fists or brass knucklesincreasingly involved guns. The growingavailability of automobiles, coupled withthe use of more lethal weapons, fueledthe growth of drive-by shootings, a tacticthat previously took the form of on-foothit-and-run forays (Miller, 1966). Gangs ofthe 1980’s and 1990’s seem to have bothmore younger and more older membersthan before (Miller, 1992; Spergel, 1995),more members with prison records or tiesto prison inmates (Hagedorn, 1988; Miller,1992; Moore, 1990; Vigil, 1988), and moreweapons of greater lethality (Block andBlock, 1993; Miller, 1992; National DrugIntelligence Center, 1995). They are lessconcerned with territorial affiliations(Fagan, 1990; Klein, 1995), use alcohol anddrugs more extensively (Decker and VanWinkle, 1996; Fagan, 1990; Thornberry,1998), and are more involved in drug traf-ficking (Battin et al., 1998; Fagan, 1990;Miller, 1992; Taylor, 1989; Thornberry, 1998).

Some youth gangs appear to have beentransformed into entrepreneurial organiza-tions by the crack cocaine epidemicthat began in the mid-1980’s (Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Skolnick et al., 1988;Taylor, 1989). However, the extent to whichthey have become drug-trafficking organi-zations is unclear (Howell and Decker,in press). Some youth groups, many ofwhich are not considered bona fide gangs,are not seriously involved in illegal activi-ties and provide mainly social opportuni-ties for their membership (Fagan, 1989;Vigil, 1988). Some gangs seldom use drugsand alcohol, and some have close commu-nity ties (Fagan, 1989; Sanchez-Jankowski,1991; Vigil, 1988).

DemographicCharacteristics

The average age of youth gang mem-bers is about 17 to 18 years (Curry and

Decker, 1998), but tends to be older incities in which gangs have been in exist-ence longer, like Chicago and Los Ange-les (Bobrowski, 1988; California AttorneyGeneral’s Gang Unit, 1996; Klein, 1995;Spergel, 1995). The typical age range is12 to 24. Although younger members arebecoming more common, it is the oldermembership that has increased the most(Hagedorn, 1988; Moore, 1990; Spergel,1995). Male gang members outnumberfemales by a wide margin (Miller, 1992;Moore, 1978), and this span is greater inlate adolescence than in early adoles-cence (Bjerregaard and Smith, 1993;Esbensen and Huizinga, 1993; Moore andHagedorn, 1996). Gangs vary in size bytype of gang. Traditional (large, enduring,territorial) gangs average about 180 mem-bers, whereas specialty (e.g., drug traf-ficking) gangs average only about 25members (Klein and Maxson, 1996). Inlarge cities, some gangs number in thethousands and even tens of thousands(Block and Block, 1993; Spergel, 1995).

In the early 19th century, youth gangsin the United States were primarily Irish,Jewish, and Italian (Haskins, 1974; Sante,1991). According to a recent national lawenforcement survey, the ethnicity of gangmembers is 48 percent African-American,43 percent Hispanic,3 5 percent white, and4 percent Asian (Curry, 1996). However,student surveys show a much larger rep-resentation of white adolescents amonggang members. In a survey of nearly 6,000eighth graders in 11 sites (Esbensen andOsgood, 1997), 31 percent of the studentswho said they were gang members wereAfrican-American, 25 percent were His-panic, 25 percent were white, 5 percentwere Asian, and 15 percent were of otherracial and ethnic groups.4 Bursik andGrasmick (1993) point out that, despitethe disproportionate representation ofminority group members in studies ascompared with white youth, “blacks andHispanics have no special predispositionto gang membership. Rather, they simplyare overrepresented in those areas mostlikely to lead to gang activity.”

Miller (1974:220) notes that “observersof any given period tend to relate thecharacteristics of gangs to those of theparticular ethnic groups prominent in theurban lower class during that period . . . ,roughly, the more prevalent the lower-class

3 Hispanic (Spanish-speaking) ethnic groups includeMexicans, Mexican-Americans, Latinos, and PuertoRicans.

4 Percentages total to 101 due to rounding.

3

populations, the more gangs.” Spergel(1995:60) agrees, but with an importantcaveat: “Contemporary youth gangs arelocated primarily in lower-class, slum,ghetto, barrio, or working-class changingcommunities, but it is not clear that eitherclass, poverty, culture, race or ethnicity,or social change per se primarily accounts[sic] for gang problems.” Spergel’s obser-vation appears to be correct, becausegangs have recently become much moreprevalent in rural counties, small cities,and towns (Moore and Terrett, in press),for reasons that are not well understood.

Gang SpecializationCertain offenses are related to different

racial/ethnic youth gangs. African-Americangangs are relatively more involved in drugoffenses; Hispanic gangs, in “turf-related”violence; Asian and white gangs, in prop-erty crimes (Block et al., 1996; Spergel,1990). Numerous ethnographic studieshave provided excellent descriptions ofHispanic gangs in Los Angeles. They tendto be structured around age-based cohorts,based in a specific territory (barrio), andcharacterized by fighting (Moore, Vigil, andGarcia, 1983). The gang provides family-likerelationships for adolescents who feelisolated, drifting between their native andadopted cultures and feeling alienated fromboth (Vigil, 1990a, 1990b; Vigil and Long,1990). Hispanic gangs have strong links tothe neighborhood, or barrio, which tiethem to the larger culture (Moore, 1978);much of their violence is related to defenseof neighborhood turf. In contrast, African-American gangs in large cities tend to re-place traditional social networks thatlinked youth with legitimate work opportu-nities (Anderson, 1990). Thus, these gangstend to be involved in entrepreneurialactivities more than other ethnic/racialgangs and may evolve from “scavenger”groups to turf gangs and drug-traffickinggangs (Taylor, 1989).

Use of violence to protect the neigh-borhood, or gang turf, from rival gangs isalso a predominant goal in Chicago (Blockand Block, 1993), San Diego (Pennell etal., 1994), and St. Louis (Decker and VanWinkle, 1996). Violence is rarely plannedand generally occurs spontaneouslyamong gangs (Decker and Van Winkle,1996; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Pennell etal., 1994) in response to a wide variety ofsituations (Horowitz and Schwartz, 1974;Sanders, 1994).

Numerous ways of classifying gangsother than by ethnicity have been devised(Spergel, 1995), although the gangs’ com-

plexity, variations, and changing structurepractically defy static categories. One wayof viewing gangs is along a continuum ofdegree of organization (Gordon, 1994),from youth groups who hang out togetherin shopping malls and other places; tocriminal groups, small clusters of friendswho band together to commit crimes suchas fencing operations; to street gangscomposed of groups of adolescents andyoung adults who form a semistructuredoperation and engage in delinquent andcriminal behavior; to adult criminal organi-zations that engage in criminal activityprimarily for economic reasons. The latter,also called criminal gangs, are not consid-ered youth gangs. Distinguishing amongthese various forms of gangs is often noteasy; in some areas, groups may evolvefrom less formal to more formal organiza-tions along this continuum.

Female Gang DelinquencyData on the number of female youth

gang members have not yet been gath-ered nationwide; however, several esti-mates are available. Miller (1992)estimated that approximately 10 percentof gang members were females. Amonglaw enforcement agencies that reportedmale and female membership data in a1992 survey, gang membership was esti-mated to be nearly 6 percent female(Curry, 1995b). In their 11-city survey ofeighth graders, Esbensen and Osgood(1997) report that 38 percent of the stu-dents who said they were gang memberswere females. Recent studies of largeadolescent samples in urban areas, fundedthrough OJJDP’s Program of Research onthe Causes and Correlates of Delinquency,report that female membership is higherin early adolescence (Bjerregaard andSmith, 1993; Esbensen and Huizinga, 1993).Among all adolescents, female involve-ment may be increasing proportionallywith male gang involvement (Klein, 1995).Surveys have been incapable of measur-ing these changes nationwide becausedata and information systems at the locallevel are inadequate. Nevertheless, theseand other studies of urban samples(Fagan, 1990; Winfree et al., 1992) suggestgrowing involvement of females in gangsconcomitant with gang proliferation.

Are independent female gangs increas-ing? The initial survey of cities with gangproblems indicates that by far the mostcommon female gangs are auxiliary gangsaffiliated with male gangs (Miller, 1975).Subsequent surveys suggest an increasein independent female gangs (Curry, Ball,

and Decker, 1996; Curry, 1995a, 1995b;National Drug Intelligence Center, 1995).However, Moore (1991:41) suggests that“the general notion that gang girls havemoved away from . . . ‘traditional [auxil-iary] roles’ must be taken with a grainof salt.” Based on her review of gang re-search, Chesney-Lind (1993) contendsthat there is little evidence to support thenotion of a new breed of violent femalegangsters breaking into this historicallymale-dominated phenomenon.

Are female gang members becominginvolved in more serious and violentoffending? This question cannot beanswered definitively because nationaltrend data are not available. Chicagodata on gang-related offenses during the30-year period from 1965 to 1994 showthat females represented only 5 percentof victims and 1 percent of offenders(Block et al., 1996). Female gang violencewas more likely to involve simple batteryor assault rather than homicide, andfemale nonviolent crimes consistedmainly of liquor law violations.

In the OJJDP-funded Causes andCorrelates study site of Denver, Esbensenand Huizinga (1993) found that delinquentbehavior was much more prevalent amongfemale gang members than nongangfemales. However, incidence rates werenot significantly higher. In Rochester,another Causes and Correlates study site,Bjerregaard and Smith (1993) also foundthat female gang members were signifi-cantly more likely to engage in seriousdelinquency than nongang females. How-ever, in contrast to Denver, the incidencerates in Rochester in every offense cat-egory were significantly higher amongfemale gang members than among non-gang females. Fagan (1990) also foundhigh levels of involvement in seriousdelinquency among female gang membersin Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Diego.Prevalence rates in all behavior catego-ries, including violent offenses, werehigher among female gang members thanamong nongang males.

Scope of the ProblemAssessing the scope of the youth gang

problem in the United States is difficult.No consensus exists on what constitutesa youth gang. Many jurisdictions deny theexistence of gangs. Others incorrectly,many experts believe, characterize lessserious forms of adolescent law-violatinggroups as gangs (Miller, 1992). Some callgangs by other names, such as “crews” or

4

“posses,” although some of these are notbona fide gangs; rather, they are special-ized groups engaged in predatory crimesor drug trafficking (Miller, 1992). It ap-pears that communities are likely to labeltroublesome adolescent groups as gangsif the public perceives them to be a prob-lem (Miller, 1992). Although youth gangdefinitions vary, most include the follow-ing elements: a self-formed group, unitedby mutual interests, that controls a par-ticular territory, facility, or enterprise;uses symbols in communications; and iscollectively involved in crime (Curry andDecker, 1998; Miller, 1992).

Youth Gang ProliferationFew systematic data are collected

routinely on youth gangs at the city orcounty level, with the exception of a fewgang information systems. In the past,intermittent surveys were relied on forassessing the national scope of the gangproblem (Curry et al., 1992; Curry, Ball,and Decker, 1996; Klein, 1995; Knox et al.,1996; Miller, 1975, 1992; Needle andStapleton, 1983). In 1996, the NationalYouth Gang Center surveyed more than3,000 law enforcement agencies, 87 per-cent of which responded, to obtain a morecomplete count of jurisdictions with gangproblems (Moore and Terrett, in press).

Almost three-fourths of cities surveyedwith populations of 25,000 or more re-ported youth gangs in 1996 (Moore andTerrett, in press). Respondents in largecities reported the highest level of gangactivity (74 percent), followed by subur-ban counties (57 percent), small cities (34percent), and rural counties (25 percent).Most respondents reported that their gangproblem began quite recently, with 1994the most frequently cited year. The aver-age year of onset varied with the type oflocality: 1989 for large cities, 1990 for sub-urban counties, 1992 for small cities, and1993 for rural counties. Thus, the youthgang problem in this country is substantialand affects communities of all sizes.

Youth gangs are especially widespreadin certain cities with chronic gang prob-lems such as Chicago (Block et al., 1996)and Los Angeles (Klein, 1995). Chicago issaid to have about 132 gangs (Block et al.,1996), with an estimated membership of30,000 to 50,000 hardcore gang members(Chicago Crime Commission, 1995). Mem-bers of Chicago’s four largest and mostcriminally active gangs, the Black Gang-ster Disciples Nation, the Latin Disciples,the Latin Kings, and the Vice Lords, num-ber about 19,000 and account for two-

thirds of all gang-motivated crimes and formore than half of the city’s gang-motivatedhomicides (Block and Block, 1993). Policein Los Angeles estimate that the city hasmore than 58,000 gang members (NationalYouth Gang Center, 1997), making it theU.S. city with the most gang members.

Gang Problems in JuvenileDetention and CorrectionalFacilities

Three surveys have assessed youthgang problems in juvenile detention andcorrectional facilities. The OJJDP-fundedConditions of Confinement: JuvenileDetention and Corrections Facilities study(Parent et al., 1994) included a survey ofall detention and correctional facilityadministrators. Administrators in deten-tion centers and training schools wereasked to estimate the proportion of con-fined juveniles who had problems in par-ticular areas, including gang involvement.In both the detention center and trainingschool populations, facility administratorsestimated that about 40 percent of theconfined youth were involved in gangs(Leiter, 1993, cited in Snyder andSickmund, 1995).

A 1990 Juvenile Correctional Institu-tions Survey (Knox, 1991) found that 160respondents, more than three-fourths(78 percent) of responding institutions,reported a gang problem for some periodof time. Fifty-two percent of the respond-ing institutions reported that more than10 percent of confined youth were involvedin gangs. More than one-third (40 percent)reported gang involvement of femaleinmates. The survey inquired about prob-lems gangs presented in the institutions.Assaults on correctional officers werereported by 14 percent of respondents;among these, 28 percent reported morethan one incident. Of the 150 reportedassaults on correctional officers, 11resulted in hospitalization. Approximatelyone-third of all responding institutionsreported one or more incidents in whichviolence involving gang members resultedin serious injury.

In a sample of inner-city high schoolsand juvenile correctional facilities in 4States, Sheley and Wright (1993, 1995)surveyed more than 800 male seriousoffenders in 6 juvenile correctional facili-ties located near urban areas experienc-ing youth gang problems. Two-thirds(68 percent) of the inmates self-reportedaffiliation with a gang or a “quasi-gang.”Gang members were much more likely

than nongang members to have possessedguns: 81 percent of gang and quasi-gangmembers owned a revolver, and aboutthree-fourths owned an automatic orsemiautomatic handgun. Eighty-fourpercent of the inmates said they carrieda gun at least “now and then” in the yearor two before being incarcerated, and 55percent said “all” or “most of the time.”

Gangs clearly present significant prob-lems in juvenile detention and correc-tional facilities. There is evidence that, inaddition to contributing to institutionalviolence, gangs form in these facilitiesand recruit members there (Moore, Vigil,and Garcia, 1983). The formation of gangsprobably is related to inmates’ need forprotection from other inmates. The Chi-cago Vice Lords originated in the IllinoisState Training School for Boys when sev-eral residents decided to form a new gangby pooling their affiliations with othergangs, hoping to form the toughest gangin Chicago (Dawley, 1992; Keiser, 1969).Confinement in a juvenile correctionalfacility is one of the strongest predictorsof adult prison gang membership (Ralphet al., 1996).

Programs are needed to break thecycle of street-level youth gang involve-ment, further involvement in juveniledetention and correctional facilities andprisons, and continued gang involvementin the communities to which formerinmates return.

5

Community and EconomyA major source of variation in youth

gang violence is found in relationshipsbetween the gang and the community.J.F. Short, Jr., contends that the conceptof gangs used in gang research is toonarrow, in that it does not take into ac-count the relevance of gangs and gangmembership in other social settings (per-sonal communication to the author, April24, 1996). First, the gang’s relevance goesbeyond its relationship to individual gangmembers. For example, gangs serve ascarriers of community traditions andculture (Miller, 1958; Moore, 1978). Sec-ond, a youth’s identification with a gangaffects how others react to him or her. Toillustrate, Esbensen and Huizinga (1993)found that negative labeling of gang mem-bers is linked to elevated offenses.

Much remains to be learned about therelationship between gangs and theirneighborhoods or communities. Sanchez-Jankowski (1991) identified four factorsthat motivate gangs to make concertedefforts to establish ties with the commu-nity. First, the gang needs a “safe haven.”Second, it needs a recruitment pool fromwhich to draw its membership. Third, thecommunity provides the gang with impor-tant information (e.g., on gangs in otherparts of the city). Fourth, the gang needsthe community ties for psychologicalreasons: “A bonding occurs between thegang and the community that builds asocial adhesive that often takes a signifi-cant amount of time to completely dissolve”(Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991:201). Theseare important features of youth gangs.Sanchez-Jankowski (1991) has argued thatcommunity ambivalence toward gangsexists because many of the gang membersare children of residents, the gangs oftenprovide protection for residents, residentsidentify with gangs because of their ownor relatives’ prior involvement, and thegangs in some instances have becomecommunity institutions; personal interests(fear of too much policing, fear of toomuch gang activity) also figure in commu-nity perceptions of gangs.

Another reason for ambivalence toward,or acceptance of, gangs could be thechanging economy. Recent gang theoryhas focused on the effects of the changingurban economy on gang-neighborhooddynamics (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993).The transition during the 1970’s from amanufacturing to a service-based economyin the United States drastically changedeconomic conditions, reducing the demandfor low-skilled workers in an increasingly

service-oriented, high-tech society, re-stricting their access to the labor market,and blocking their upward mobility, creat-ing what Glasgow (1980) first called theunderclass (see also Wilson, 1987, 1996).Fagan (1996) describes the underclass’plight as being permanently excludedfrom participating in mainstream labormarket occupations. As a result, membersof the underclass must rely on other eco-nomic alternatives: low-paying temporaryjobs, part-time jobs in the secondarylabor market, some form of welfare ordependence on friends and relatives, orinvolvement in drug trafficking and otherprofitable street crimes (Moore, 1988).Several gang researchers (Bursik andGrasmick, 1993; Decker, 1996; Hagedorn,1988; Moore, 1978, 1985; Sullivan 1989;Vigil, 1988) have argued that crime, delin-quency, gangs, and youth violence haveincreased in the 1980’s and 1990’s as aresult of these postindustrial societyconditions.

Why Do Youth JoinGangs?

Decker and Van Winkle (1996) view join-ing youth gangs as consisting of both pullsand pushes. Pulls pertain to the attractive-ness of the gang. Gang membership canenhance prestige or status among friends(Baccaglini, 1993), especially girls (for boys)(Decker and Van Winkle, 1996), and provideopportunities to be with them (Slayton,Stephens, and MacKenna, 1993). Gangsprovide other attractive opportunities suchas the chance for excitement (Pennell et al.,1994) by selling drugs and making money(Decker and Van Winkle, 1996). Thus, manyyouth see themselves as making a rational

choice in deciding to join a gang: They seepersonal advantages to gang membership(Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991).

Social, economic, and cultural forcespush many adolescents in the directionof gangs. Protection from other gangs andperceived general well-being are key fac-tors (Baccaglini, 1993; Decker and VanWinkle, 1996). As noted above, someresearchers contend that the “underclass”(Wilson, 1987) status of minority youthserves to push them into gangs (Hagedorn,1988; Moore, 1978; Taylor, 1989; Vigil,1988). Feeling marginal, adolescents joingangs for social relationships that givethem a sense of identity (Vigil and Long,1990). For some youth, gangs provide away of solving social adjustment problems,particularly the trials and tribulations ofadolescence (Short and Strodtbeck, 1965).In some communities, youth are intensivelyrecruited or coerced into gangs (Johnstone,1983). They seemingly have no choice. Afew are virtually born into gangs as aresult of neighborhood traditions andtheir parents’ earlier (and perhaps con-tinuing) gang participation or involve-ment in criminal activity (Moore, 1978).

Risk Factors for GangMembership

Table 1 summarizes risk factors foryouth gang membership that have beenidentified in studies using many typesof research methods, including cross-sectional, longitudinal, and ethnographic(observational) studies. Examination ofthis table suggests that the present stateof knowledge of risk factors for gangmembership is not refined. Because somany risk factors have been identified,

6

Table 1: Risk Factors for Youth Gang Membership

Domain Risk Factors Sources

Community Social disorganization, including poverty Curry and Spergel, 1988and residential mobility

Organized lowerclass communities Miller, 1958; Moore, 1991

Underclass communities Bursik and Grasmick, 1993; Hagedorn, 1988;Moore, 1978, 1985, 1988, 1991; Moore, Vigil,and Garcia, 1983; Sullivan, 1989

Presence of gangs in the neighborhood Curry and Spergel, 1992

Availability of drugs in the neighborhood Curry and Spergel, 1992; Hagedorn, 1988,1994a, 1994b; Hill et al., in press;Kosterman et al., 1996; Moore, 1978, 1991;Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Taylor, 1989

Availability of firearms Lizotte et al., 1994; Miller, 1992; Newton andZimring, 1969

Barriers to and lack of social and Cloward and Ohlin, 1960; Cohen, 1960; Fagan,economic opportunities 1990; Hagedorn, 1988, 1994b; Klein, 1995;

Moore, 1990; Short and Strodtbeck, 1965;Vigil, 1988

Lack of social capital Short, 1996; Sullivan, 1989; Vigil, 1988

Cultural norms supporting gang behavior Miller, 1958; Short and Strodtbeck, 1965

Feeling unsafe in neighborhood; high crime Kosterman et al., 1996; Vigil, 1988

Conflict with social control institutions Vigil, 1988

Family Family disorganization, including broken homes Bjerregaard and Smith, 1993; Esbensen,and parental drug/alcohol abuse Huizinga, and Weiher, 1993; Hill et al., in

press; Vigil, 1988

Troubled families, including incest, family Moore, 1978, 1991; Vigil, 1988violence, and drug addiction

Family members in a gang Curry and Spergel, 1992; Moore, 1991;Moore, Vigil, and Garcia, 1983

Lack of adult male role models Miller, 1958; Vigil, 1988

Lack of parental role models Wang, 1995

Low socioeconomic status Almost all studies

Extreme economic deprivation, family management Hill et al., in press; Kosterman et al.,problems, parents with violent attitudes, sibling 1996antisocial behavior

School Academic failure Bjerregaard and Smith, 1993; Curry andSpergel, 1992; Kosterman et al., 1996

Low educational aspirations, especially among Bjerregaard and Smith, 1993; Hill et al., infemales press; Kosterman et al., 1996

Negative labeling by teachers Esbensen and Huizinga, 1993; Esbensen,Huizinga, and Weiher, 1993

Trouble at school Kosterman et al., 1996

Few teacher role models Wang, 1995

Educational frustration Curry and Spergel, 1992

Low commitment to school, low school attachment, Hill et al., in presshigh levels of antisocial behavior in school, lowachievement test scores, and identification asbeing learning disabled

7

Domain Risk Factors Sources

Peer Group High commitment to delinquent peers Bjerregaard and Smith, 1993; Esbensen andHuizinga, 1993; Vigil and Yun, 1990

Low commitment to positive peers Esbensen, Huizinga, and Weiher, 1993

Street socialization Vigil, 1988

Gang members in class Curry and Spergel, 1992

Friends who use drugs or who are gang members Curry and Spergel, 1992

Friends who are drug distributors Curry and Spergel, 1992

Interaction with delinquent peers Hill et al., in press; Kosterman et al.,1996

Individual Prior delinquency Bjerregaard and Smith, 1993; Curry andSpergel, 1992; Esbensen and Huizinga, 1993;Kosterman et al., 1996

Deviant attitudes Esbensen, Huizinga, and Weiher, 1993;Fagan, 1990; Hill et al., in press;Kosterman et al., 1996

Street smartness; toughness Miller, 1958

Defiant and individualistic character Miller, 1958; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991

Fatalistic view of the world Miller, 1958

Aggression Campbell, 1984a, 1984b; Cohen, 1960;Horowitz, 1983; Miller, Geertz, and Cutter,1962; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991

Proclivity for excitement and trouble Miller, 1958; Pennell et al., 1994

Locura (acting in a daring, courageous, and Moore, 1991; Vigil, 1988especially crazy fashion in the face of adversity)

Higher levels of normlessness in the context of Esbensen, Huizinga, and Weiher, 1993family, peer group, and school

Social disabilities Short and Strodtbeck, 1965; Vigil, 1988

Illegal gun ownership Bjerregaard and Lizotte, 1995; Lizotte et al.,1994; Vigil and Long, 1990

Early or precocious sexual activity, especially Kosterman et al., 1996; Bjerregaard andamong females Smith, 1993

Alcohol and drug use Bjerregaard and Smith, 1993; Curry andSpergel, 1992; Esbensen, Huizinga, andWeiher, 1993; Hill et al., in press;Thornberry et al., 1993; Vigil and Long, 1990

Drug trafficking Fagan, 1990; Thornberry et al., 1993

Desire for group rewards such as status, identity, Curry and Spergel, 1992; Fagan, 1990;self-esteem, companionship, and protection Horowitz, 1983; Horowitz and Schwartz, 1974;

Moore, 1978, 1991; Short and Strodtbeck,1965

Problem behaviors, hyperactivity, externalizing Hill et al., in press; Kosterman et al.,behaviors, drinking, lack of refusal skills, and early 1996sexual activity

Victimization Fagan, 1990

8

it is difficult to determine priorities forgang prevention and intervention pro-grams without an indepth assessment ofthe crime problem that identifies themost prevalent risk factors.

Long-term studies of large samplesof urban adolescents in Rochester, NY(Thornberry, 1998), and Seattle (Hill et al.,in press) have identified causal risk factorsfor gang membership. Both studies, theformer funded by OJJDP and the lattersupported by OJJDP and other agenciesand organizations, measure risk factorsin the community, family, school, peergroup, and individual attribute domains.Because both studies are collecting dataon their respective samples over a longperiod of time, risk factors measured inearly adolescence can be used to predictgang membership at points later in ado-lescence. The identification of early riskfactors indicates priorities for preventionand intervention programs.

In the Rochester study, Thornberry(1998) found predictors of gang member-ship among males in all five of the do-mains listed above. The most importantcommunity risk factor is growing up inneighborhoods in which the level ofsocial integration (attachment) is low.Neither high levels of neighborhood dis-organization nor high levels of violencepredict gang membership. Among familyvariables, poverty, absence of biologicalparents, low parental attachment to thechild, and low parental supervision allincrease the probability of gang member-ship. Three school variables are verysignificant risk factors: low expectationsfor success in school (both by parentsand students), low student commitmentto school, and low attachment to teach-ers. Along with school factors, peers havea very strong impact on gang member-ship. Associating with delinquent friendsand unsupervised “hanging around” withthese delinquent friends are a potentcombination. Important individual riskfactors identified in the Rochester studyare low self-esteem, numerous negativelife events, depressive symptoms, andeasy access to drugs or favorable viewstoward drug use. Finally, youth who usedrugs and are involved in delinquency—particularly violent delinquency—aremore likely to become gang membersthan are youth who are less involved indelinquency and drug use. In sum, “youthwho grow up in more disorganized neigh-borhoods; who come from impoverished,distressed families; who do poorly inschool and have low attachment to school

and teachers; who associate with delin-quent peers; and engage in various formsof problem behaviors are at increasedrisk for becoming gang members”(Thornberry, 1998:157).

Seattle researchers discovered some-what similar risk factors compared withThornberry’s analysis for both male andfemale gang membership (Hill et al., inpress; Kosterman et al., 1996). The mostimportant community factor identifiedin the Seattle study is growing up inneighborhoods where drugs are readilyavailable. Several family variables areimportant: family instability, extreme eco-nomic deprivation, family managementproblems, parents with violent attitudes,and sibling antisocial behavior. Numerousschool factors have been identified, in-cluding low educational aspiration, lowcommitment to school, low school attach-ment, high levels of antisocial behavior inschool, low achievement test scores, theidentity of being learning disabled, and lowgrades. The most important peer groupfactor is associating with law-violatingpeers. Individual risk factors are the earlyuse of alcohol and marijuana, prior delin-quency, hyperactivity, externalizing be-haviors (hostility, aggression, and rulebreaking), poor skills in refusing offers toengage in antisocial behavior, and earlysexual activity. Being a male, feeling unsafein the neighborhood, and residing in apoor family put youth at high risk for ganginvolvement, regardless of other commu-nity, family, school, or peer risk factors(Kosterman et al., 1996). However, thegreater the number of risk factors to whichyouth are exposed, the greater their risk ofjoining a gang in adolescence. Childrenwho experience 7 or more risk factors atages 10 to 12 are 13 times more likely tojoin a gang in adolescence than childrenwho experience only 1 risk factor or noneat those early ages (Hill et al., in press).

Youth Gangs andViolence

Youth gang violence from the 1950’sto the 1980’s has a curious history. Miller(1992:2) contended that the national per-spective of gangs during this period wasdominated by a New York City mediaview: “a flowering in the 1950s, death inthe 1960s, revival in the early 1970s, anddormancy in the later 1970s.” His surveyof gang problems in major American cities(Miller, 1975, 1992) proved the latter partof this media theory to be wrong. Miller’sstudy showed that gang violence was

very prevalent in the 1960’s and 1970’s.He argued that nothing had changed fromthe 1950’s; rather, media and public atten-tion were diverted from gangs to the Viet-nam War, the civil rights movement, andensuing riots.

Miller’s (1992) study indicated thatgangs had become more dangerous thanever in the 1970’s. He attributed this tofour major motives: honor, defense oflocal turf, control [of facilities], and gain[of money and goods]. In the 1970’s,“gang crime was more lethal than anytime in history; more people were shot,stabbed, and beaten to death in gang-related incidents than during any previ-ous decade . . . and the prevalence andsophistication of firearms used was un-precedented” (Miller, 1992:142).

Except for gangs that specialize in vio-lence, such as small Chicago Latino gangs(Block et al., 1996), violence is a rare occur-rence in proportion to all gang activities(Maxson, 1995; Miller, 1966; Strodtbeck andShort, 1964). It should be noted that violentbehavior is not the only behavior in whichgang members partake. For the most part,gang members “hang out” and are involvedin other normal adolescent social activities,but drinking, drug use, and drug traffickingare also common (Battin et al., 1998; Deckerand Van Winkle, 1996; Esbensen, Huizinga,and Weiher, 1993). Although a direct com-parison cannot be made, it is apparent thatthe relative proportion of violence in gangbehaviors has increased since the 1950’s.

The introduction to this Bulletin notesthat youth gang members commit a dis-proportionate share of offenses, includ-ing nonviolent ones. In the Seattle studysupported by OJJDP, gang members(15 percent of the sample) self-reportedcommitting 58 percent of general delin-quent acts in the entire sample, 51 per-cent of minor assaults, 54 percent offelony thefts, 53 percent of minor thefts,62 percent of drug-trafficking offenses,and more than 59 percent of propertyoffenses (Battin et al., 1998). In theOJJDP-funded Causes and Correlatesstudy, Denver gang members (14 percentof the sample) self-reported committing43 percent of drug sales and 55 percentof all street offenses (Esbensen andHuizinga, 1993). In the same study, Roch-ester gang members (30 percent of thesample) self-reported committing 70 per-cent of drug sales, 68 percent of all prop-erty offenses, and 86 percent of all seri-ous delinquencies (Thornberry, 1998).Curry, Ball, and Decker (1996) estimated

9

that gang members accounted for nearly600,000 crimes in 1993.

Gang members also commit seriousand violent offenses at a rate severaltimes higher than nongang adolescents.In Denver, gang members committed ap-proximately three times as many seriousand violent offenses as nongang youth(Esbensen and Huizinga, 1993). Evengreater differences were observed inRochester (Bjerregaard and Smith, 1993),where gang members committed aboutseven times as many serious and violentdelinquent acts as nongang adolescents.Seattle gang youth (ages 12–18) self-reported more than five times as manyviolent offenses (hitting someone, fight-ing, and robbery) as nongang youth(Hill et al., in press). In Rochester, two-thirds of chronic violent offenders weregang members for a time (Thornberry,Huizinga, and Loeber, 1995). As Moore(1991:132) has observed, “gangs are nolonger just at the rowdy end of the con-tinuum of local adolescent groups—theyare now really outside the continuum.”

How strong are the effects of gangmembership on the behavior of indi-vidual members? Studies in the three cit-ies showed that the influence of the gangon levels of youth violence is greaterthan the influence of other highly delin-quent peers (Battin et al., 1998; Huizinga,1997; Thornberry, 1998). Youth commitmany more serious and violent actswhile they are gang members than theydo after they leave the gang (Esbensenand Huizinga, 1993; Hill et al., 1996;Thornberry et al., 1993). However, theinfluence of a gang is long lasting. In allthree sites, although gang members’ of-fense rates dropped after they left thegang, they still remained fairly high(Esbensen and Huizinga, 1993; Hill et al.,1996; Thornberry et al., 1993). Drug useand trafficking rates, the most notableexceptions to offense rate drops, remainednearly as high after members left the gangas when they were active in it (Hill et al.,1996). This study also showed that incomparison with single-year gang mem-bers, multiple-year members had muchhigher robbery and drug-trafficking rateswhile in the gang.

Gangs are highly criminogenic in cer-tain cities and communities. Studies havenot yet determined what accounts for thehigh levels of individual serious and vio-lent offense rates in gangs or the lastingeffects of gang involvement. Are the indi-vidual characteristics of gang members a

key factor? These characteristics couldbe important (Yablonsky, 1962), butEsbensen, Huizinga, and Weiher (1993)found no differences in the extent towhich Denver gang members, nongangstreet offenders, and nonoffenders wereinvolved in eight different conventionalactivities: holding schoolyear jobs, hold-ing summer jobs, attending school, andparticipating in school athletics, otherschool activities, community athletics,community activities, and religious ac-tivities. Nor have long-term studies suc-ceeded in identifying characteristics thatdistinguish gang members from otherserious, violent, and chronic offenders.The main difference between the twogroups is gang members’ higher propen-sity for violence (Esbensen, Huizinga,and Weiher, 1993; Horowitz, 1983;Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Vigil, 1988);however, this could be because moreviolent adolescents may be recruitedinto gangs.

Gang norms also constitute an impor-tant factor in the elevated level of vio-lence in gang peer groups: “Violence thatis internal to the gang, especially duringgroup functions such as an initiation,serves to intensify the bonds amongmembers” (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996:270). Most gangs are governed by normssupporting the expressive use of vio-lence to settle disputes (Short andStrodtbeck, 1965) and to achieve groupgoals associated with member recruit-ment, defense of one’s identity as a gangmember, turf protection and expansion,and defense of the gang’s honor (Blockand Block, 1993). Gang sanctioning ofviolence is also dictated by a code of

honor that stresses the inviolability ofone’s manhood and defines breaches ofetiquette (Horowitz, 1983; Sanchez-Jankowksi, 1991). Violence is also ameans of demonstrating toughness andfighting ability and of establishing statusin the gang (Short and Strodtbeck, 1965).

These norms—coupled with the factthat violence is contagious (Loftin,1986) and clustered in space, escalatesover time (Block and Block, 1991), andlikely spreads more quickly amongyouth who are violence prone—mayexplain why the level of violence ingangs is higher than in other delinquentpeer groups. Willingness to use violenceis a key characteristic distinguishinggangs from other adolescent peergroups (Horowitz, 1983; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Sanders, 1994). Violencealso serves to maintain organizationwithin the gang and to control gang mem-bers (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996;Horowitz, 1983; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991;Yablonsky, 1962).

Levels of gang violence differ from onecity to another (Miller, 1974), from onecommunity to another (Block and Block,1993), from one gang to another (Fagan,1989), and even among cliques within thesame gang (Moore, 1988). Violence in aparticular clique changes as the groupevolves: “Violence is a variable. Violenceis not something inevitable and fixed withgangs” (Moore, 1988:225). Decker (1996)delineates a seven-step process thataccounts for the peaks and valleys inlevels of gang violence. The processbegins with a loosely organized gang:

◆ Gang members feel loose bonds tothe gang.

10

◆ Gang members collectively perceivea threat from a rival gang (whichincreases gang cohesion).

◆ A mobilizing event occurs—possibly,but not necessarily, violent.

◆ There is an escalation of activity.

◆ One of the gangs lashes out inviolence.

◆ Violence and activity rapidlydeescalate.

◆ The other gang retaliates.

Although our society has substantialbasis for fearing the violence of certaingangs, most gang violence is directed atother gangs. Of nearly 1,000 gang-relatedhomicides in Chicago from 1987 to 1994,75 percent were intergang, 11 percentwere intragang, and 14 percent involvednongang victims murdered by gang mem-bers (Block et al., 1996). Most of the inter-gang conflicts are concentrated in specificareas of cities with gang problems. Thesedisputes over turf are generally playedout in fights along the borders of disputedterritory. Also, as Block and colleaguespoint out (1996:11), “Spatial analysis sug-gests a ‘marauder’ pattern, in which mem-bers of rival gangs travel to the hub oftheir enemy’s territory in search of poten-tial victims.” Violent episodes generallyoccur within a mile of the attacker’s resi-dence. Rivalries with other gangs, notvengeance against society, provide themotivation for gang growth and expansion.

GunsAdolescent propensity for violence and

gun ownership and use are closely linked.Juvenile males who own guns for protec-tion rather than for sport are six timesmore likely to carry guns, eight timesmore likely to commit a crime with a gun,four times more likely to sell drugs, almostfive times more likely to be in a gang, andthree times more likely to commit seriousand violent crimes than youth who do notown guns for protection (Lizotte et al.,1994). Gangs are more likely to recruitadolescents who own firearms, and gangmembers are more than twice as likely asnongang members to own a gun for pro-tection, more likely to have peers whoown guns for protection, and more likelyto carry their guns outside the home(Bjerregaard and Lizotte, 1995).

Gangs have always been armed withweapons of some sort (Newton andZimring, 1969; Strodtbeck and Short,1964). Recent studies have found that

most violent gang members illegally ownor possess a firearm (Sheley and Wright,1993, 1995), and the lethality of assaultsappears to have increased steadily (Blockand Block, 1993) because of the availabil-ity and use of deadlier weapons. Gangmembers arm themselves because theybelieve their rivals have guns. Accordingto Decker and Van Winkle (1996:23), “Theproliferation of guns and shootings bygang members escalates violence by cre-ating a demand for armaments amongrival gangs.” They feel they need moreguns, and more sophisticated ones, sothey will not be caught at a disadvantage(Horowitz, 1983).

Homicides. Although current nationaldata on youth gang homicides is sparse,they may be following the national homi-cide pattern, which is in a downturn(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997).The growing use of more lethal weaponsin gang assaults has been driving ganghomicides. For example, from 1987 to1990, virtually all of the increase in Chi-cago gang-motivated homicides appearsto be attributable to an increase in theuse of high-caliber, automatic, or semiau-tomatic weapons (Block and Block, 1993).The Blocks found that during a period inwhich there was no increase in streetgang assaults, gang homicides increased,indicating that the lethality of weapons(deaths per incident) accounted for thegreater number of homicides (see alsoZimring, 1996). In Los Angeles, the pro-portion of gang-related homicides involv-ing firearms increased from 71 percentin 1979 to 95 percent in 1994, mainlybecause of the increased use of handguns,particularly semiautomatics (Hutson etal., 1995). Surprisingly, assault weaponsare rarely used in gang-related drive-byshootings and other homicides (Hutson,Anglin, and Pratts, 1994; Hutson et al., 1995;National Drug Intelligence Center, 1995).

National trend data on gang homicidesare scant. Miller (1982) provided the firstnational tabulation of gang homicides,reporting a total of 633 gang-related kill-ings in major gang cities in 1980. Sincethat time, gang homicides have increaseddramatically, reaching epidemic propor-tions in certain cities like Chicago and LosAngeles.5 The annual number of youthand adult gang-motivated homicides inChicago increased almost fivefold between1987 and 1994, then dropped slightlyin 1995 (Block et al., 1996; Maxson, inpress[a]). Youth and adult gang-relatedhomicides in Los Angeles County morethan doubled from 1987 to 1992, from 387

to 803 (Klein, 1995), dropped slightly in1993, climbed back to the 800 level by1995, then dropped by 20 percent in 1996(Maxson, in press[a]). Los Angeles CountySheriff’s Department data reported by theCalifornia Department of Justice (1998)also indicate this drop in gang-relatedhomicides.

Chicago and Los Angeles alone ac-counted for more than 1,000 youth andadult gang homicides in 1995 (Maxson,in press[a]). Data on youth gangs in par-ticular reveal that a member’s risk ofbeing killed is 60 times greater than thatof the general population (Morales,1992), and even higher in certain cities.For example, Decker and Van Winkle(1996) found that in St. Louis, the gangmember homicide rate is 1,000 timeshigher than the U.S. homicide rate.National data on gang homicides weregathered in the 1995 National YouthGang Survey (National Youth Gang Cen-ter, 1997) and again in 1996.6

Gang homicides have characteristicsthat distinguish them from nongang homi-cides (Maxson, Gordon, and Klein, 1985).Homicides by gang members are morelikely to take place in public settings(particularly on the street), involvestrangers and multiple participants, andinvolve automobiles (drive-by shootings).Gang homicides are three times morelikely than nongang homicides to involvefear of retaliation. Unlike other homicides,gang homicides fluctuate from one racial/ethnic group to another at a given pointin time and in different community areaswithin the same city (Block and Christakos,1995). Gang homicide trends are alsocharacterized by periodic spurts (Block,1993), peaking, retreating to higher pla-teaus than before, then surging upwardagain. Spurts in gang homicides are

5 Law enforcement agencies define gang homicidesdifferently (see Maxson and Klein, 1990). In thebroader definition (used in Los Angeles), “gang-related”homicide, the basic element is evidence of gang mem-bership on the side of either the suspect or the victim.In the narrower definition (used in Chicago), a “gang-motivated” homicide is considered to be a gang crimeonly if the preponderance of evidence indicates thatthe incident grew out of a street gang function. Usingthe latter, more restrictive definition in counting ganghomicides will produce totals about half as large aswhen the former, broader definition is used.

6 OJJDP’s recently published Program Summary 1995National Youth Gang Survey, which was prepared by theNational Youth Gang Center, does not include the datacollected in the survey on homicide. These data arecurrently being analyzed by the National Youth GangCenter, and a report is forthcoming.

11

explained largely by turf disputes betweengangs (Block et al., 1996; Block and Block,1993; Block and Christakos, 1995). Thespurts are not citywide, but occur in spe-cific neighborhoods and involve particu-lar gangs. Each homicide peak tends tocorrespond to a series of escalatingconfrontations, usually over control ofterritory—either traditional street gangturf or an entrepreneurial drug market(Block and Christakos, 1995).7

Drive-by shootings. Gang-related drive-by shootings have increased in certaincities. Interestingly, killing is a secondaryintent; promoting fear and intimidationamong rival gangs is the primary motive(Hutson, Anglin, and Eckstein, 1996).

From 1989 through 1993, 33 percent ofLos Angeles gang-related homicides weredrive-bys (Hutson, Anglin, and Eckstein,1996), resulting in 590 homicides. In Chi-cago, from 1965 through 1994, only 120gang homicides resulted from drive-byshootings (about 6 percent of the total),most of which (59 percent) occurred after1984 (Block et al., 1996).

Drug TraffickingAlthough youth gangs appear to be

increasing their involvement in drugtrafficking, empirical research has notdocumented extensive networks of drugtrafficking as an organized activity man-aged by youth gangs. The consensus amongthe most experienced gang researchers isthat the organizational structure of thetypical gang is not particularly suited tothe drug-trafficking business (Klein, 1995;Moore, 1990; Spergel, 1995; Waldorf, 1993).

Some gang members become involvedin drug trafficking by acting on their own,and some by involvement in gang cliques.Several researchers have identified drug-trafficking gangs and cliques within gangsestablished for drug distribution purposes(Decker and Van Winkle, 1996; Fagan, 1989;Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Skolnick et al.,1988; Taylor, 1989; Waldorf, 1993). In Chi-cago (Block et al., 1996), Detroit (Taylor,1989), Milwaukee (Hagedorn, 1988, 1994a,1994b), and San Francisco (Waldorf, 1993),a few gangs have developed lucrativedrug-trafficking enterprises, and in somecases most of their violence is associatedwith drug trafficking. Chicago’s Vice Lordsand the Black Gangster Disciples arenotable examples (Block and Block, 1993;Block et al., 1996).

Much has been made of the supposedrelation between adolescent drug traffick-ing and violence (Blumstein, 1995a, 1995b;Fox, 1996). However, several gang studieshave found the relation between thesetwo behaviors to be weak or nonexistent.Despite a high prevalence of drug traffick-ing among Seattle gang members, acceler-ated adolescent involvement in drugtrafficking after joining a gang, and astrong correlation between drug traffick-ing in midadolescence and selling drugsin late adolescence, a recent analysisof longitudinal data showed that ganginvolvement in drug trafficking is not astrong predictor of violence (Howell et al.,in press). Several other gang studies haveproduced similar findings (Decker andVan Winkle, 1996; Esbensen and Huizinga;1993; Fagan, 1989; Klein, Maxson, andCunningham, 1991; Maxson, 1995).

Drug use, drug trafficking, and vio-lence overlap considerably in gangs(Howell and Decker, in press). Moreover,gang involvement appears to increaseindividual involvement in drug use, drugtrafficking, gun carrying, and violenceand, perhaps, to prolong involvement indrug sales. Although drug use is stronglyassociated with drug trafficking, which isstrongly associated with gun carryingand other serious and violent crimes,drug trafficking is not necessarily a di-rect cause of more frequent violent of-fending except in established youth andadult drug-trafficking gangs. More re-search is needed to resolve this issue.

Gang migration. There is some dis-crepancy between research results andlaw enforcement investigatory agencyreports on youth and adult gang migra-tion and drug trafficking (see Maxson,

Woods, and Klein, 1996). This discrepancyhas many determinants, including differ-ent research methods used in the variousstudies, different definitions, and differentinformation sources. Most of this gap maybe accounted for by variations in defini-tions of gangs—and also the lack of aclear distinction between youth gangsand adult criminal organizations in reportsof gang migration and drug trafficking.Some of the apparent affiliation of smalllocal youth gangs with large gangs inmajor cities, indicated by similar gangnames, may involve imitation or symbol-ism (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996). Fortu-nately, the gap is being narrowed, as seenthrough recent studies reported below.

Some possible expansion. A Califor-nia study (Skolnick, 1989; Skolnick et al.,1988) suggested that the two major LosAngeles gangs, the Crips and the Bloods,were expanding their drug-trafficking op-erations to other cities. The National DrugIntelligence Center (NDIC) (1994) reported“a noticeable spread of Bloods/Cripsgangs across the United States in the late1980s and early 1990s.” Gangs claimingaffiliation with the Bloods or Crips werereported in 180 jurisdictions in 42 States.In a 1996 survey of 301 local law enforce-ment agencies (National Drug IntelligenceCenter, 1996), Chicago-based gangs werereported in 110 jurisdictions in 35 States.

Common reasons to migrate. A 1992nationwide gang migration study of youthand adult gangs surveying 1,100 U.S. citiesshows that the most common reasons tomigrate (movement of members from onecity to another) are social considerations,including family moves to improve thequality of life and to be near relatives andfriends (Maxson, in press[b]; Maxson,

7 The relation between homicide and drug traffickingwill be discussed later in this Bulletin.

12

Woods, and Klein, 1996). Drug franchisingis not the principal driving force. Migrantsusually arrive individually rather than withgang companions, and existence of localgangs precedes migrating gang membersin almost every instance. Only one-fifth ofcities reporting gang migration attributedtheir gang problem to this factor. However,cities reporting gang migration said localcrime rates or patterns generally wereaffected by migrants, primarily throughincreases in theft, robbery, and other vio-lent crimes: “Gang migrants were generallynot perceived as having a substantial im-pact on the local drug market, probablybecause of their relatively low numbers”(Maxson, Woods, and Klein, 1996:27). Inreference to youth gangs, most gang prob-lems are “homegrown” (Klein, 1995). Sev-eral local studies of drug-trafficking youthgangs also have not found migration to bean important factor (Decker and VanWinkle, 1996; Hagedorn, 1988; Huff, 1989;Rosenbaum and Grant, 1983; Waldorf,1993; Zevitz and Takata, 1992; see alsoMaxson, in press[b]).

Drug trafficking is a small factor.The availability of more intelligence hasenabled investigatory agencies to trackthe movement of youth and adult gangsmore precisely. The NDIC Street GangSymposium (NDIC, 1995) concluded that,as the exception rather than the rule,some well-organized street gangs areengaged in interstate drug trafficking. Asyouth and adult gang members relocatethroughout the country for various rea-sons, the gang’s drug-trafficking connec-tions are indirectly expanded. This newinformation is fairly consistent with thefindings of the Maxson migration study.

It is clear that some youth gangs haveextended their drug-trafficking operationsto other States and cities. Their impact onlocal markets could be significant. Someof the migrant connections may be initi-ated by distant gangs for the purpose ofobtaining drugs or guns (Decker and VanWinkle, 1996). However, gang migrationfor drug-trafficking purposes is mainlylimited to within-the-region movement.Further research is needed on the impactof migrating gangs on local drug trafficking.

Homicide and the drug trade. Becausethe growth in youth gang violence coin-cided with the crack cocaine epidemic(Inciardi, 1986; Inciardi and Pottieger,1991; Klein, 1995), the two developmentsappeared to be interrelated (Klein, Maxson,and Cunningham, 1991; Moore, 1990).Nonempirical assessments conducted bylocal governmental agencies (California

Council on Criminal Justice, 1989; Skolnicket al., 1988), the U.S. Congress (Clark,1991; General Accounting Office, 1989),and by the executive branch of the Fed-eral Government (Bryant, 1989; DrugEnforcement Administration, 1988;Hayeslip, 1989; McKinney, 1988) con-cluded that gangs were instrumental inthe increase in crack cocaine sales andthat their involvement in drug traffickingresulted in a growth in youth violence,including homicide.

The presumed strong correlationbetween youth and adult gang-relatedhomicides and drug trafficking has beenquestioned in several studies. Studies inBoston (Kennedy, Piehl, and Braga, 1996;Miller, 1994), Chicago (Block and Block,1993; Block et al., 1996), Miami (Inciardi,1990; Sampson, 1985, 1988), Los Angeles(Hutson et al., 1995; Klein, Maxson, andCunningham, 1991; Maxson, 1995; Meehanand O’Carroll, 1992), and St. Louis (Deckerand Van Winkle, 1996) consistently showa low correlation between gang-relatedhomicides and drug trafficking (seeHowell, 1997). Two caveats explainimportant exceptions.

First, some youth and adult gang homi-cides are related to the drug business,from a low of 2 percent in Chicago for theperiod from 1965 to 1994 (Block et al.,1996) up to 34 percent in Los Angeles forthe years 1988 and 1989 (Maxson andKlein, 1996). Although most gang drugwars appear to involve adult criminalorganizations, some do involve youthgangs. These can produce a large numberof drug-related homicides, particularly inthe case of prolonged gang wars.

Second, drug trafficking contributesindirectly to youth and adult gang homi-cides. Although studies indicate that drugtrafficking is an infrequent cause of youthand adult gang homicide, the existence ofgang drug markets provides a context inwhich gang homicides are more likely tooccur (Hagedorn, in press). Most youthand adult gang homicides involve inter-gang conflicts and drug markets bringrival gang members into proximity withone another (Block et al., 1996).

There is no question that in particularcommunities in certain cities, youthgangs are very active in drug trafficking.However, the common stereotypes of therelationships between gangs, drug traf-ficking, and violence are sensationalized(Moore, 1990). Where drug-related vio-lence occurs, it mainly stems from druguse and dealing by individual gang mem-bers and from gang member involvement

in adult criminal drug distribution net-works more than from drug-traffickingactivities of the youth gang as an organizedentity (see Howell and Decker, in press).

Youth gang homicides result morefrom intergang conflict than from the drugtrade (Block et al., 1996; Block and Block,1993). Most are due to impulsive andemotional defense of one’s identity as agang member, defense of the gang and gangmembers, defense and glorification of thereputation of the gang, gang member re-cruitment, and territorial disputes. Mostdrug distribution network groups involv-ing youth grew out of criminal organiza-tions formed solely for crack distributionand bear little resemblance to traditionalyouth gangs (Fagan, 1996; Inciardi, 1990;Moore, 1990). These findings suggest thatinterventions should be designed to tar-get youth and adult gang homicides anddrug trafficking as separate phenomena,except in cases in which street gang drugmarkets overlap with violence “hot spots”(areas with high gang crime rates) (Blocket al., 1996).

Changing Compositionof Youth Gangs

The popular image of youth gangs isthat they are becoming more formally or-ganized and more threatening to society,and therefore should be feared. Supergangswith thousands or tens of thousands ofmembers, including adults, have existedat least since the 1960’s (Spergel, 1995).Like other gangs, they grow in times ofconflict or crisis and decrease in size atother times (Spergel, 1990). Some gangswith a high proportion of adult membershave very sophisticated organizationalnetworks, much like large corporations(see McCormick, 1996). The Black Gang-ster Disciples Nation (BGDN) exemplifiessuch an evolution from a relatively disor-ganized criminal street gang to a formalcriminal organization (Spergel, 1995).Its corporate hierarchy (see McCormick,1996) comprises a chairman of the board,two boards of directors (one for prisons,another for the streets), governors (whocontrol drug trafficking within geographi-cal areas), regents (who supply thedrugs and oversee several drug-sellinglocations within the governors’ realms),area coordinators (who collect revenuesfrom drug-selling spots), enforcers (whobeat or kill members who cheat the gangor disobey other rules), and “shorties”(youth who staff drug-selling spots andexecute drug deals). From 1987 to 1994,BGDN was responsible for more than 200

13

homicides (Block et al., 1996). One-half oftheir arrests were for drug offenses andonly one-third were for nonlethal violence.

Klein (1995:36) observed that “the old,traditional gang structure of past decadesseems to be declining.” In an earlier era,youth gangs might have comprised severalhundred members and were generallyage graded, consisting of several discretesubgroups based on age (Klein andCrawford, 1967; Moore, 1991; Miller, 1974).Both youth and adult gangs had thesecharacteristics. Recently, however, age-graded and geographically based youthand adult gangs have become less com-mon (see Klein and Maxson, 1996). Thesehave given way “to relatively autonomous,smaller, independent groups, poorly orga-nized and less territorial than used to bethe case” (Klein, 1995:36). Leadership “iscomplex, fluid and responsive, more dif-fuse than concentrated, and depends inlarge part on the particular activity beingconducted” (Miller, 1974:217). Even largeyouth gangs composed of allied “sets”may not be well organized and may bein a constant state of flux because of thevarious subgroups, changing leadership,and limited number of hardcore members(Sanders, 1994).

Although they are very much in theminority, youth and adult drug gangs aremore predominant now than in the 1970’sand 1980’s. Klein (1995) identifies a num-ber of common differences between youthgangs and drug gangs, recognizing thatthere is some overlap in these dimensions(see table 2).

The racial/ethnic composition of gangsalso appears to be changing. African-American and Hispanic gangs still pre-

dominate, but law enforcement agenciesin a number of cities are now reportingAsian and South Pacific groups, morewhite gangs, and more racial/ethnic mix-ing than in the past (Klein, 1995).

The growth of adult prison gangs isalso a fairly recent development (Ralph etal., 1996). These gangs began to be a sig-nificant factor in State prisons in the late1960’s and early 1970’s, and some Statesare now reporting an increase in gang-related inmate violence. Moreover, thereis evidence that prison gangs in Texas,for example, are exporting their operationsto large urban areas in the State (Ralphet al., 1996). These developments are ofconcern because when adult gang memberinmates return to their home communities,they give vitality to local youth gangs(Moore, 1988).

SolutionsSpace limitations here preclude exten-

sive discussion of program options.8

Although no program has been demon-strated through rigorous evaluation (ofwhich there has been little) to be effectivein preventing or reducing serious andviolent youth gang delinquency, a numberof promising strategies are available.

Preventing children and adolescentsfrom joining gangs appears be the mostcost-effective long-term strategy. TheBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearmshas implemented a school-based gangprevention curriculum, Gang ResistanceEducation and Training (G.R.E.A.T.).Evaluation has shown positive prelimi-nary results (Esbensen and Osgood,1997). Students who completed theG.R.E.A.T. program reported lower levelsof gang affiliation and self-reported delin-quency, including drug use, minor offend-ing, property crimes, and crimes againstpersons. Further evaluation will deter-mine the effectiveness of this program.

The Comprehensive Community-WideApproach to Gang Prevention, Intervention,and Suppression Program, developed bySpergel and his colleagues (Spergel et al.,1994; see also Thornberry and Burch, 1997),contains 12 program components for thedesign and mobilization of communityefforts by police, prosecutors, judges,probation and parole officers, correctionsofficers, school officials, employers,community-based agency staff such as

8 See Howell (1998) for a detailed historical review ofprogram evaluations.

Table 2: Common Differences Between Street Gangs and DrugGangs

Street Gangs Drug Gangs

Versatile (“cafeteria-style”) crime Crime focused on drug businessLarger structures Smaller structuresLess cohesive More cohesiveLooser leadership More centralized leadershipIll-defined roles Market-defined rolesCode of loyalty Requirement of loyaltyResidential territories Sales market territoriesMembers may sell drugs Members do sell drugsIntergang rivalries Competition controlledYounger on average, Older on average,

but wider age range but narrower age range

Source: Klein, 1995:132.

14

street outreach workers, and a range ofgrassroots organization staff. Variationsof this model are currently being imple-mented and tested in five sites underOJJDP support.

An early pilot of this model, the GangViolence Reduction Program, has beenimplemented in Chicago. Preliminaryevaluation results (after 3 years of pro-gram operations) are positive (Spergeland Grossman, 1997; see also Thornberryand Burch, 1997). Positive results includea lower level of serious gang violenceamong the targeted gangs than amongcomparable gangs in the area. There alsois noted improvement in residents’ per-ceptions of gang crime and police effec-tiveness in dealing with that crime. Inaddition, there are fewer arrests for seri-ous gang crimes (especially aggravatedbatteries and aggravated assaults) bymembers of targeted gangs as comparedwith control youth from the same gangsand members of other gangs in Chicago.The project also was able to hasten thedeparture of youth from the gang whilereducing their involvement in violenceand other crimes (Spergel, Grossman, andWa, 1998). These results are attributed tothe project’s coordinated approach com-bining community mobilization, suppres-sion, and social intervention, whichappears to be more effective than thetraditional, mainly suppression-oriented,approach.

Studies reviewed in this Bulletin showthat many serious, violent, and chronicoffenders are gang members, at least atsome point during adolescence. Thus, itis important for the juvenile and criminaljustice systems to target gang offenders.Targeting gang members for graduatedsanctions (including priority arrest, adju-dication, vertical prosecution,9 intensiveprobation supervision, incarceration, andtransfer to the criminal justice system)can also be accomplished by implement-ing OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy forSerious, Violent, and Chronic JuvenileOffenders (Howell, 1995; Wilson andHowell, 1993).

One successful intervention that canbe implemented in such a comprehensivestrategy is the Tri-Agency Resource GangEnforcement Team (TARGET), which sup-ports gang interdiction, apprehension,and prosecution. This California programintegrates and coordinates the work ofthe Westminster Police Department, the

Orange County District Attorney, and theCounty Probation Department (Capizzi,Cook, and Schumacher, 1995). The GangIncident Tracking System (GITS) identifiesand tracks gang members, providing theinformation base for the TARGET pro-gram. TARGET uses intelligence gatheringand information sharing to identify andselect appropriate gang members andgangs for intervention.

Police should not be expected to assumesole responsibility for gang problems, yetgang suppression remains the predominantstrategy that jurisdictions use to deal withgangs. Suppression tactics have recentlybeen expanded in three ways:

◆ State laws increasing criminalsanctions for gang crime and ganginvolvement and local ordinances andenforcement of specific criminal codesthat restrict gang activities.

◆ Multiagency and multijurisdictionalstrategies bringing together severallaw enforcement agencies in a collectiveapproach.

◆ Collaborative approaches tying togetherall sectors of the community.

A gang suppression model, the BostonGun Project (Clark, 1997; Kennedy, Piehl,and Braga, 1996), is employing a coerceduse-reduction strategy targeting gun vio-lence involving gang members. To carryout its deterrence strategy, the BostonPolice Department’s Youth Violence StrikeForce, through Operation Nite Lite, usesprobation and police officers who patrolthe streets in teams to identify gang mem-bers, enforce conditions of probation, andincrease sanctions for probation and pa-role violations. Evaluation results are notyet available, although gun homicide vic-timization among 14- to 24-year-olds inthe city is reported to have fallen by two-thirds after the project began (Kennedy,1997), including a 27-month period inwhich no juvenile homicide occurred(Harden, 1997). Because homicides weredropping nationwide among this age groupwhen the project began, the evaluationwill compare Boston’s homicide trends toa sample of other cities.

Communities should organize a collabo-rative approach to gang problems from theoutset rather than beginning with a pre-dominantly suppression strategy.

The program model that proves to bemost effective is likely to contain multiplecomponents, incorporating prevention,social intervention, rehabilitation, sup-pression, and community mobilization

approaches, supported by a managementinformation system and rigorous programevaluation.

Community responses must begin witha thorough assessment of the specificcharacteristics of the gangs themselves,crimes they commit, other problems theypresent, and the localities they affect.Other Bulletins in this series (Howell, inpress) provide guidance to communitiesin assessing their potential gang problemsand in crafting solutions. Principles foreffective gang strategies are provided,along with promising and effective programmodels.

ConclusionYouth gang problems are proliferating

across the United States, even in smallcities and towns. At the same time, thecomposition of youth gangs is changing.Smaller, less structured gangs are emerg-ing, and although drug trafficking is gen-erally not an organized activity managedby gangs, drug gangs are more predomi-nant now than in previous decades. Theracial/ethnic composition of gangs also ischanging, and gangs are becoming moreorganized.

Gang violence—particularly homicide—has increased, owing mainly to availabil-ity and use of more dangerous weapons,especially automatic and semiautomatichandguns. This violence also has beenlinked to gangs’ proclivity to be associ-ated with drug trafficking. New research,however, questions the extent to whichgang-related drug sales are a major causeof violence. It appears that most gangviolence is related to conflicts with othergangs.

Most gang problems are homegrown.Gang migration appears to contributelittle to local gang problems, includingdrug trafficking, except within geographicregions. There is some discrepancy be-tween research results and investigatoryagency reports on youth and adult gangmigration and drug trafficking; however,much of this can be explained by thestudies’ use of different research meth-ods, definitions, and information sources.

Although significant progress is beingmade in identifying the major risk factorsfor youth gang involvement, much moreinformation is needed to specify the devel-opmental sequence by which these riskfactors operate. This knowledge will be veryuseful in the development of preventionand intervention programs. Progress alsois being made in developing comprehensive

9 The prosecutor who files a case remains responsiblefor it throughout the prosecution process.

15

programs that combine prevention, socialintervention and rehabilitation, and sup-pression of gang violence. Because of adearth of program evaluations, however,little is known about the effectiveness ofthese interventions. The current evalua-tion of OJJDP’s five-site program may shedmore light on the effectiveness of compre-hensive programs.

A key issue in combating youth gangsis providing a uniform definition forthem—distinguishing them from trouble-some youth groups and adult criminalorganizations. Youth gangs and adultcriminal organizations have differentorigins, and they serve unique purposesfor participants. Efforts to develop effec-tive long-term interventions must takethese differences into account.

ReferencesAnderson, E. 1990. Streetwise: Race,

Class, and Change in an Urban Community.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Baccaglini, W.F. 1993. Project YouthGang-Drug Prevention: A Statewide ResearchStudy. Rensselaer, NY: New York StateDivision for Youth.

Battin, S.R., Hill, K.G., Abbott, R.D.,Catalano, R.F., and Hawkins, J.D. 1998.The contribution of gang membership todelinquency beyond delinquent friends.Criminology 36:93–115.

Bjerregaard, B., and Lizotte, A.J. 1995.Gun ownership and gang membership.The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminol-ogy 86:37–58.

Bjerregaard, B., and Smith, C. 1993.Gender differences in gang participation,delinquency, and substance use. Journalof Quantitative Criminology 9:329–355.

Block, C.R. 1993. Lethal violence in theChicago Latino community. In Homicide:The Victim/Offender Connection, editedby A.V. Wilson. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson,pp. 267–342.

Block, C.R., and Block, R. 1991. Begin-ning with Wolfgang: An agenda for homi-cide research. Journal of Crime and Justice14:31–70.

Block, C.R., and Christakos, A. 1995.Major Trends in Chicago Homicide: 1965–1994. Research Bulletin. Chicago, IL:Illinois Criminal Justice InformationAuthority.

Block, C.R., Christakos, A., Jacob, A.,and Przybylski, R. 1996. Street Gangs andCrime: Patterns and Trends in Chicago.

Research Bulletin. Chicago, IL: IllinoisCriminal Justice Information Authority.

Block, R., and Block, C.R. 1993. StreetGang Crime in Chicago. Research in Brief.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus-tice, Office of Justice Programs, NationalInstitute of Justice. NCJ 144782.

Blumstein, A. 1995a. Violence by youngpeople: Why the deadly nexus? NationalInstitute of Justice Journal (August):1–9.

Blumstein, A. 1995b. Youth violence,guns, and the illicit-drug industry. Journalof Criminal Law and Criminology 86:10–36.

Bobrowski, L.J. 1988. Collecting, orga-nizing and reporting street gang crime.Unpublished report. Chicago, IL: ChicagoPolice Department, Special FunctionsGroup.

Bryant, D. 1989 (September).Communitywide Responses Crucial forDealing with Youth Gangs. Program Bulle-tin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Officeof Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-vention. NCJ 119465.

Bursik, R.J., Jr., and Grasmick, H.G.1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The Di-mension of Effective Community Control.New York, NY: Lexington Books.

California Attorney General’s GangUnit. 1996. Number of gang members byage. Unpublished report. Los Angeles, CA:California Department of Justice, Divisionof Law Enforcement.

California Council on Criminal Justice.1989. Task Force Report on Gangs andDrugs. Sacramento, CA: California Councilon Criminal Justice.

California Department of Justice. 1998(February). Gang-related homicides. Intel-ligence Operations Bulletin 119.

Campbell, A. 1984a. Girls’ talk: Thesocial representation of aggression byfemale gang members. Criminal Justiceand Behavior 11:139–156.

Campbell, A. 1984b. Self-definition byrejection: The case of gang girls. SocialProblems 34:451–466.

Capizzi, M., Cook, J.I., and Schumacher,M. 1995. The TARGET model: A new ap-proach to the prosecution of gang cases.The Prosecutor Fall:18–21.

Chesney-Lind, M. 1993. Girls, gangs andviolence: Anatomy of a backlash. Human-ity and Society 17:321–344.

Chicago Crime Commission. 1995.Gangs: Public enemy number one, 75years of fighting crime in Chicagoland.

Unpublished. Chicago, IL: Report of theChicago Crime Commission.

Clark, C.S. 1991. Youth gangs. Congres-sional Quarterly Research 22:755–771.

Clark, J.R. 1997. LEN salutes its 1997People of the Year, the Boston Gun ProjectWorking Group. Law Enforcement News23(1):4–5.

Cloward, R.A., and Ohlin, L.E. 1960.Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory ofDelinquent Gangs. New York, NY: The FreePress.

Cohen, A.K. 1960. Delinquent Boys: TheCulture of the Gang. Glencoe, IL: The FreePress.

Curry, G.D. 1995a. Gang community,gang involvement, gang crime. Paperpresented at the American SociologicalAssociation Annual Meeting, Washington,DC.

Curry, G.D. 1995b (November). Re-sponding to female gang involvement.Paper presented at the annual meetingof the American Society of Criminology,Boston, MA.

Curry, G.D. 1996. National youth gangsurveys: A review of methods and find-ings. Unpublished. Tallahassee, FL:Report prepared for the National YouthGang Center.

Curry, G.D., Ball, R.A., and Decker, S.H.1996. Estimating the National Scope ofGang Crime From Law Enforcement Data.Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, National Institute of Justice.NCJ 161477.

Curry, G.D., Ball, R.A., Fox, R.J., andStone, D. 1992. National Assessment ofLaw Enforcement Anti-Gang InformationResources. Final Report. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, National Institute ofJustice. NCJ 147399.

Curry, G.D., and Decker, S.H. 1998.Confronting Gangs: Crime and Community.Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

Curry, G.D., and Spergel, I.A. 1988. Ganghomicide, delinquency, and community.Criminology 26:381–405.

Curry, G.D., and Spergel, I.A. 1992.Gang involvement and delinquencyamong Hispanic and African-Americanadolescent males. Journal of Research inCrime and Delinquency 29:273–291.

Dawley, D. 1992. A Nation of Lords: TheAutobiography of the Vice Lords, 2d ed.Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

16

Decker, S.H. 1996. Collective and nor-mative features of gang violence. JusticeQuarterly 13:243–264.

Decker, S.H., and Van Winkle, B. 1996.Life in the Gang: Family, Friends, andViolence. New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Drug Enforcement Administration. 1988.Crack cocaine availability and traffickingin the United States. Unpublished report.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus-tice, Drug Enforcement Administration.

Elliott, D.S. 1994. Serious violent of-fenders: Onset, developmental course,and termination. The American Societyof Criminology 1993 Presidential Address.Criminology 32:1–21.

Esbensen, F., and Huizinga, D. 1993.Gangs, drugs, and delinquency in a surveyof urban youth. Criminology 31:565–589.

Esbensen, F., Huizinga, D., and WeiherA.W. 1993. Gang and non-gang youth:Differences in explanatory variables.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice9:94–116.

Esbensen, F., and Osgood, D.W. 1997.National Evaluation of G.R.E.A.T. Re-search in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, National Institute of Justice.NCJ 167264.

Fagan, J.E. 1989. The social organiza-tion of drug use and drug dealing amongurban gangs. Criminology 27:633–669.

Fagan, J.E. 1990. Social process ofdelinquency and drug use among urbangangs. In Gangs in America, edited byC.R. Huff. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publi-cations, pp. 183–219.

Fagan, J.E. 1996. Gangs, drugs, andneighborhood change. In Gangs in America,2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 39–74.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1997.Uniform Crime Reports 1996. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, FederalBureau of Investigation.

Finestone, H. 1976. Victims of Change.Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Fox, J.A. 1996. Trends in Juvenile Vio-lence: A Report to the United States Attor-ney General on Current and Future Ratesof Juvenile Offending. Boston, MA: North-eastern University.

General Accounting Office. 1989. Non-traditional Organized Crime. Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Glasgow, D.G. 1980. The BlackUnderclass: Poverty, Unemployment andEntrapment of Ghetto Youth. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gordon, R.M. 1994. Incarcerating gangmembers in British Columbia: A prelimi-nary study. Unpublished study. Victoria,BC: Ministry of the Attorney General.

Hagedorn, J.M. 1988. People and Folks:Gangs, Crime and the Underclass in aRustbelt City. Chicago, IL: Lakeview Press.

Hagedorn, J.M. 1994a. Homeboys, dopefiends, legits, and new jacks. Criminology32:197–217.

Hagedorn, J.M. 1994b. Neighborhoods,markets, and gang drug organization.Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-quency 31:264–294.

Hagedorn, J.M. In press. Gang violencein the post-industrial era. In JuvenileViolence, Crime and Justice Series, editedby M. Tonry and M. Moore. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago.

Harden, B. 1997. Boston’s approach tojuvenile crime encircles youth, reducesslayings. The Washington Post (October23):A3.

Haskins, J. 1974. Street Gangs: Yesterdayand Today. Wayne, PA: Hastings Books.

Hayeslip, D.W., Jr. 1989. Local-LevelDrug Enforcement: New Strategies. Researchin Action, No. 213. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, National Institute of Justice.NCJ 116751.

Hill, K.G., Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F.,Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., and Edwards, T.1996 (November). The longitudinal dynam-ics of gang membership and problembehavior: A replication and extension ofthe Denver and Rochester gang studiesin Seattle. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Society of Crimi-nology, Chicago, IL.

Hill, K.G., Howell, J.C., Hawkins, J.D.,and Battin, S.R. In press. Childhood riskfactors for adolescent gang membership:Results from the Seattle Social Develop-ment Project. University of Washington.

Horowitz, R. 1983. Honor and theAmerican Dream: Culture and Identity in aChicano Community. New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Press.

Horowitz, R., and Schwartz, G. 1974.Honor, normative ambiguity and gangviolence. American Sociological Review39:238–251.

Howell, J.C., ed. 1995. Guide for Imple-menting the Comprehensive Strategy forSerious, Violent, and Chronic JuvenileOffenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention. NCJ 153571.

Howell, J.C. 1997. Juvenile Justice andYouth Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Howell, J.C. 1998. Promising programsfor youth gang violence prevention andintervention. In Serious and Violent Juve-nile Offenders: Risk Factors and SuccessfulInterventions, edited by R. Loeber andD.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, pp. 284–312.

Howell, J.C. In press. Youth Gang Pro-grams and Strategies. Bulletin. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C., and Decker, S.H. In press.The Gangs, Drugs, and Violence Connection.Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Of-fice of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Howell, J.C., Hill, K.G., Battin, S.R., andHawkins, J.D. In press. Youth Gang Involve-ment in Drug Trafficking and Violent Crimein Seattle. Seattle, WA: University ofWashington.

Huff, C.R. 1989. Youth gangs and publicpolicy. Crime and Delinquency 35:524–537.

Huizinga, D. 1997. The volume of crimeby gang and nongang members. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Society of Criminology, SanDiego, CA.

Hutson, H.R., Anglin, D., and Eckstein,M. 1996. Drive-by shootings by violentstreet gangs in Los Angeles: A five-yearreview from 1989 to 1993. AcademicEmergency Medicine 3:300–303.

Hutson, H.R., Anglin, D., Kyriacou, D.N.,Hart, J., and Spears, K. 1995. The epi-demic of gang-related homicides in LosAngeles County from 1979 through 1994.The Journal of the American Medical Asso-ciation 274:1031–1036.

Hutson, H.R., Anglin D., and Pratts, M.J.1994. Adolescents and children injured orkilled in drive-by shootings in Los Ange-les. New England Journal of Medicine330:324–327.

Inciardi, J.A. 1986. The War on Drugs:Heroin, Cocaine, Crime, and Public Policy.Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.

17

Inciardi, J.A. 1990. The crack-violenceconnection within a population of hardcoreadolescent offenders. In Drugs and Violence:Causes, Correlates, and Consequences,edited by M.E. De La Rosa, Y. Lambert,and B. Gropper. NIDA Research Mono-graph 103. Rockville, MD: U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services, NationalInstitutes of Health, National Institute onDrug Abuse, pp. 92–111.

Inciardi, J.A., and Pottieger, A.E. 1991.Kids, crack, and crime. Journal of DrugIssues 21:257–270.

Johnstone, J.W. 1983. Recruitment to ayouth gang. Youth and Society 14:281–300.

Keiser, R.L. 1969. The Vice Lords:Warriors of the Street. New York, NY: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.

Kennedy, D.M. 1997. Pulling levers:Chronic offenders, high-crime settings,and a theory of prevention. ValparaisoUniversity Law Review 31:449–484.

Kennedy, D.M., Piehl, A.M., and Braga,A.A. 1996. Youth violence in Boston: Gunmarkets, serious youth offenders, and ause-reduction strategy. Law and Contem-porary Problems 59:147–196. Special Issue.

Klein, M.W. 1995. The American StreetGang. New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress.

Klein, M.W. 1996. Gangs in the UnitedStates and Europe. European Journal onCriminal Policy and Research (SpecialIssue):63–80.

Klein, M.W., and Crawford, L.Y. 1967.Groups, gangs and cohesiveness. Journalof Research in Crime and Delinquency4:63-75.

Klein, M.W., and Maxson, C.L. 1989.Street gang violence. In Violent Crime,Violent Criminals, edited by M.E. Wolfgangand N.A. Weiner. Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications, pp. 198–234.

Klein, M.W., and Maxson, C.L. 1996.Gang structures, crime patterns, andpolice responses. Unpublished report.Los Angeles, CA: Social Science ResearchInstitute, University of Southern California.

Klein, M.W., Maxson, C.L., andCunningham, L.C. 1991. Crack, streetgangs, and violence. Criminology29:623–650.

Knox, G.W. 1991. An Introduction toGangs. Barren Springs, MI: Vande VerePublishing.

Knox, G.W., McCurrie, T.F., Laskey, J.A.,and Tromanhauser, E.D. 1996. The 1996National Law Enforcement Gang Analysis

Survey: A research report from the Na-tional Gang Crime Research Center. Jour-nal of Gang Research 3:41–55.

Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J.D., Hill, K.G.,Abbott, R.D., Catalano, R.F., and Guo, J.1996 (November). The developmentaldynamics of gang initiation: When andwhy young people join gangs. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Society of Criminology,Chicago, IL.

Leiter, V. 1993. Special Analysis of Datafrom the OJJDP Conditions of ConfinementStudy. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

Lizotte, A.J., Tesoriero, J.M.,Thornberry, T.P., and Krohn, M.D. 1994.Patterns of adolescent firearms owner-ship and use. Justice Quarterly 11:51–73.

Loftin, C. 1986. Assaultive violence as acontagious social process. Bulletin of theNew York Academy of Medicine 62:550–555.

Maxson, C.L. 1995 (September). StreetGangs and Drug Sales in Two SuburbanCities. Research in Brief. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Jus-tice Programs, National Institute of Jus-tice. NCJ 155185.

Maxson, C.L. In press[a]. Gang homicide.In Homicide Studies: A Sourcebook ofSocial Research, edited by D. Smith andM. Zahn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Maxson, C.L. In press[b]. Gang Mem-bers on the Move. Bulletin. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention.

Maxson, C.L, Gordon, M.A., and Klein,M.W. 1985. Differences between gangand nongang homicides. Criminology23:209–222.

Maxson, C.L., and Klein, M.W. 1990.Street gang violence: Twice as great, orhalf as great? In Gangs in America, editedby C.R. Huff. Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications, pp. 71–100.

Maxson, C.L., and Klein, M.W. 1996.Defining gang homicide: An updated lookat member and motive approaches. InGangs in America, 2d ed., edited byC.R. Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publi-cations, pp. 3–20.

Maxson, C.L., Woods, K., and Klein,M.W. 1996 (February). Street gang migra-tion: How big a threat? National Instituteof Justice Journal 230:26–31.

McCormick, J. 1996. The “Disciples” ofdrugs—and death. Newsweek (February5):56–57.

McKinney, K.C. 1988 (September).Juvenile Gangs: Crime and Drug Traffick-ing. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention. NCJ 113767.

Meehan, P.J., and O’Carroll, P.W. 1992.Gangs, drugs, and homicide in Los Ange-les. American Journal of the Disabled Child146:683–687.

Miller, W.B. 1958. Lower class cultureas a generating milieu of gang delinquency.Journal of Social Issues 14:5–19.

Miller, W.B. 1966. Violent crimes in citygangs. Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science 364:96–112.

Miller, W.B. 1974. American youthgangs: Past and present. In Current Per-spectives on Criminal Behavior, editedby A. Blumberg. New York, NY: Knopf,pp. 410–420.

Miller, W.B. 1975. Violence by YouthGangs and Youth Groups as a Crime Prob-lem in Major American Cities. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.NCJ 137446.

Miller, W.B. 1992. (Revised from 1982.)Crime by Youth Gangs and Groups inthe United States. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention. NCJ 156221.

Miller, W.B. 1994. Boston assaultivecrime. Memorandum sent to J.C. Howell.

Miller, W.B., Geertz, H., and Cutter,H.S.G. 1962. Aggression in a boys’ street-corner group. Psychiatry 24:283–298.

Moore, J.P. 1997. Highlights of the 1995National Youth Gang Survey. Fact Sheet#63. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Officeof Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-vention. FS009763.

Moore, J.P., and Terrett, C.P. In press.Highlights of the 1996 National Youth GangSurvey. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Moore, J.W. 1978. Homeboys: Gangs,Drugs and Prison in the Barrios of LosAngeles. Philadelphia, PA: TempleUniversity Press.

Moore, J.W. 1985. Isolation and stigma-tization in the development of an under-class: The case of Chicano gangs in EastLos Angeles. Social Problems 33:1–13.

18

Moore, J.W. 1988. Introduction: Gangsand the underclass: A comparativeperspective. In People and Folks, byJ. Hagedorn. Chicago, IL: Lake View,pp. 3–17.

Moore, J.W. 1990. Gangs, drugs, andviolence. In Drugs and Violence: Causes,Correlates, and Consequences, editedby M. De La Rosa, E.Y. Lambert, and B.Gropper. Research Monograph No. 103.Rockville, MD: National Institute on DrugAbuse, pp. 160–176.

Moore, J.W. 1991. Going Down to theBarrio: Homeboys and Homegirls inChange. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univer-sity Press.

Moore, J.W., and Hagedorn, J.M. 1996.What happens to girls in the gang? InGangs in America, 2d ed., edited byC.R. Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publi-cations, pp. 205–218.

Moore, J.W., Vigil D., and Garcia, R.1983. Residence and territoriality inChicano gangs. Social Problems 31:182–194.

Morales, A. 1992. A clinical model forthe prevention of gang violence and homi-cide. In Substance Abuse and Gang Violence,edited by R.C. Cervantes. Newbury Park,CA: Sage Publications, pp. 105–118.

National Drug Intelligence Center. 1994.Bloods and Crips Gang Survey Report.Johnstown, PA: U.S. Department of Jus-tice, National Drug Intelligence Center.

National Drug Intelligence Center. 1995.NDIC Street Gang Symposium. No. 94–M0119–002A. Johnstown, PA, November2–3, 1994. Johnstown, PA: U.S. Departmentof Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center.

National Drug Intelligence Center.1996. National Street Gang Survey Report.Johnstown, PA: U.S. Department of Jus-tice, National Drug Intelligence Center.

National Youth Gang Center. 1997.1995 National Youth Gang Survey. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.NCJ 164728.

Needle, J., and Stapleton, W.V. 1983.Police Handling of Youth Gangs. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.NCJ 088927.

Newton, G.D., and Zimring, F.E. 1969.Firearms and Violence in American Life: AStaff Report to the National Commission onthe Causes and Prevention of Violence.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Parent, D., Leiter, V., Livens L.,Wentworth, D., and Stephen, K. 1994.Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Deten-tion and Corrections Facilities. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.NCJ 145793.

Pennell, S., Evans, E., Melton, R., andHinson, S. 1994. Down for the Set: Describ-ing and Defining Gangs in San Diego. SanDiego, CA: Criminal Justice ResearchDivision, Association of Governments.

Ralph, P., Hunter, R.J., Marquart, J.W.,Cuvelier, S.J., and Merianos, D. 1996. Ex-ploring the differences between gang andnon-gang prisoners. In Gangs in America,2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 241–256.

Redfield, R. 1941. Folk Culture ofYucatan. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.

Rosenbaum, D.P., and Grant, J.A. 1983.Gangs and Youth Problems in Evanston:Research Findings and Policy Options.Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs andPolicy Research, Northwestern University.

Rubel, A.J. 1965. The Mexican Ameri-can palomilla. Anthropological Linguistics4:29–97.

Sampson, E.H. 1985 (May 14). Dadeyouth gangs. Final report of the GrandJury, Circuit Court of the Eleventh JudicialCircuit of Florida in and for the County ofDade. Miami, FL: Dade County DistrictAttorney.

Sampson, E.H. 1988 (May 11). DadeCounty gangs—1988. Final report of theGrand Jury, Circuit Court of the EleventhJudicial Circuit of Florida in and for theCounty of Dade. Miami, FL: Dade CountyDistrict Attorney.

Sanchez-Jankowski, M.S. 1991. Islandsin the Street: Gangs and American UrbanSociety. Berkeley, CA: University of Califor-nia Press.

Sanders, W. 1994. Gangbangs and Drive-Bys: Grounded Culture and Juvenile GangViolence. New York, NY: Aldin de Gruyter.

Sante, L. 1991. Low Life: Lures andSnares of Old New York. New York, NY:Vintage Books.

Sheldon, H.D. 1898. The institutionalactivities of American children. TheAmerican Journal of Psychology 9:424–448.

Sheley, J.F., and Wright, J.D. 1993. GunAcquisition and Possession in SelectedJuvenile Samples. Research in Brief.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus-tice, Office of Justice Programs, NationalInstitute of Justice and Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.NCJ 145326.

Sheley, J.F., and Wright, J.D. 1995. In theLine of Fire: Youth, Guns and Violence inUrban America. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine DeGruyter.

Short, J.F., Jr. 1996. Gangs and adoles-cent violence. Boulder, CO: Center for theStudy and Prevention of Violence.

Short, J.F., Jr., and Strodtbeck, F.L.1965. Group Process and Gang Delin-quency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Skolnick, J.H. 1989. Gang organizationand migration—drugs, gangs, and lawenforcement. Unpublished manuscript.Berkeley, CA: University of California,Berkeley.

Skolnick, J.H., Correl, T., Navarro, E.,and Rabb, R. 1988. The social structure ofstreet drug dealing. Unpublished Reportto the Office of the Attorney General ofthe State of California. Berkeley, CA:University of California, Berkeley.

Slayton, C., Stephens, J.W., andMacKenna, D.W. 1993. Kids Speak Out:Opinions, Attitudes, and Characteristics ofFort Worth Gang and Non-Gang Members.Fort Worth, TX: Fort Worth Gang ResearchProject.

Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 1995.Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A NationalReport. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention. NCJ 153569.

Spergel, I.A. 1990. Youth gangs: Conti-nuity and change. In Crime and Justice: AReview of Research, vol. 12, edited byM. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago, pp. 171–275.

Spergel, I.A. 1995. The Youth GangProblem. New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress.

Spergel, I.A., Chance, R., Ehrensaft, K.,Regulus, T., Kane, C., Laseter, R.,Alexander, A., and Oh, S. 1994. GangSuppression and Intervention: CommunityModels. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention. NCJ 148202.

19

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention is a component of the Of-fice of Justice Programs, which also includesthe Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau ofJustice Statistics, the National Institute of Jus-tice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Spergel, I.A., and Grossman, S.F. 1997.The Little Village Project: A communityapproach to the gang problem. SocialWork 42:456–470.

Spergel, I.A., Grossman, S.F., and Wa,K.M. 1998. The Little Village Project: AThree Year Evaluation. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago.

Strodtbeck, F.L., and Short, J.F., Jr.1964. Aleatory risks versus short-runhedonism in explanation of gang action.Social Problems 12:127–140.

Sullivan, M.L. 1989. Getting Paid: YouthCrime and Work in the Inner City. Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press.

Takata, S.R., and Zevitz, R.G. 1990.Divergent perceptions of group delin-quency in a midwestern community:Racine’s gang problem. Youth and Society21:282–305.

Taylor, C.S. 1989. Dangerous Society.East Lansing, MI: Michigan State Univer-sity Press.

Thornberry, T.P. 1998. Membership inyouth gangs and involvement in seriousand violent offending. In Serious and Vio-lent Offenders: Risk Factors and SuccessfulInterventions, edited by R. Loeber andD.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, pp. 147–166.

Thornberry, T.P., and Burch, J.H. 1997.Gang Members and Delinquent Behavior.Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention. NCJ 165154.

Thornberry, T.P., Huizinga, D., andLoeber, R. 1995. The prevention of seriousdelinquency and violence: Implicationsfrom the program of research on thecauses and correlates of delinquency. In ASourcebook: Serious, Violent, and ChronicJuvenile Offenders, edited by J.C. Howell,B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins, and J.J. Wilson.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,pp. 213–237.

Thornberry, T.P., Krohn, M.D., Lizotte,A.J., and Chard-Wierschem, D. 1993. Therole of juvenile gangs in facilitating delin-quent behavior. Journal of Research inCrime and Delinquency 30:55–87.

Thrasher, F.M. 1927. The Gang. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.

Vigil, J.D. 1988. Barrio Gangs: Street Lifeand Identity in Southern California. Austin,TX: University of Texas Press.

Vigil, J.D. 1990a. Cholos and gangs:Culture change and street youth in Los

Angeles. In Gangs in America, edited byC.R. Huff. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publi-cations, pp. 116–28.

Vigil, J.D. 1990b. Street socialization,locura behavior and violence amongChicano gang members. In Research Con-ference on Violence and Homicide in His-panic Communities, edited by J.F. Kraus,S.B. Sorenson, and P.D. Juarez. Los Ange-les, CA: UCLA Publication Series.

Vigil, J.D., and Long, J.M. 1990. Emicand etic perspectives on gang culture.In Gangs in America, edited by C.R. Huff.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,pp. 55–70.

Vigil, J.D., and Yun, S.C. 1990. Vietnam-ese youth gangs in Southern California.In Gangs in America, edited by C.R. Huff.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,pp. 146–162.

Waldorf, D. 1993. Don’t be your ownbest customer—Drug use of San Franciscogang drug sellers. Crime, Law and SocialChange 19:1–15.

Wang, Z. 1995. Gang affiliation amongAsian-American high school students: Apath analysis of a social developmentalmodel. Journal of Gang Research 2:1–13.

Wilson, J.J., and Howell, J.C. 1993. Com-prehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.NCJ 143453.

Wilson, W.J. 1987. The Truly Disadvan-taged: The Inner City, the Underclass, andPublic Policy. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago.

Wilson, W.J. 1996. When Work Disap-pears. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Winfree, T.L., Fuller, K., Vigil, T., andMays, G.L. 1992. The definition and mea-surement of gang status: Policy implica-tions for juvenile justice. Juvenile andFamily Court Journal 43:29–37.

Yablonsky, L. 1962. The Violent Gang.New York, NY: Macmillan.

Zevitz, R.G., and Takata, S.R. 1992.Metropolitan gang influence and theemergence of group delinquency in aregional community. Journal of CriminalJustice 20:93–106.

Zimring, F.E. 1996. Kids, guns, andhomicide: Policy notes on an age-specificepidemic. Law and Contemporary Prob-lems 59:25–38. Special Issue.

James C. Howell is an Adjunct Researcherat the National Youth Gang Center, Institute forIntergovernmental Research.

This Bulletin was prepared under coopera-tive agreement 95–JD–MU–K001 to the Institutefor Intergovernmental Research from the Officeof Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in thisdocument are those of the author and do notnecessarily represent the official position orpolicies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department ofJustice.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. Weencourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, andreprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDPand the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such ashow you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDPmaterials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments andquestions to:

Juvenile Justice ClearinghousePublication Reprint/FeedbackP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20849–6000800–638–8736301–519–5212 (Fax)E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

NCJ 167249

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Bulletin

BULK RATEU.S. POSTAGE PAID

DOJ/OJJDPPermit No. G–91