ENT OF M JU U.S. Department of Justice T S R T A I P C E E D

B

O J Office of Justice Programs C S F A V M F O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention JUSTICE

Shay Bilchik, Administrator January 1999

The Youth Gangs, From the Administrator The 1980’s saw an increase in youth Drugs, and Violence gang violence and the rise of the crack cocaine epidemic. The public linked these two developments, often Connection with implications of cause and effect. Conventional wisdom, however, is not always reliable. Viewed through James C. Howell and Scott H. Decker the lens of public perception rather than that of scientific knowledge, the The proliferation of youth gangs since Historical Overview of relationships among youth gangs, 1980 has fueled the public’s fear and mag- Gang Drug Use and drugs, and violence are more often nified possible misconceptions about youth talked about than understood. In The gangs. To address the mounting concern Trafficking Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Violence about youth gangs, the Office of Juvenile The predominant image of youth gangs Connection, James Howell and Scott Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s is consistent with a California study of Decker add to our understanding of (OJJDP’s) Youth Gang Series delves into adult (also referred to as criminal) gang the interrelationships of these factors many of the key issues related to youth members conducted by Skolnick and and address relevant questions such gangs. The series considers issues such as colleagues (1988) a decade ago. These re- as the following: gang migration, gang growth, female in- searchers contended that the two major “Is drug trafficking a main activity of volvement with gangs, homicide, drugs and youth gangs?” violence, and the needs of communities and youth who live in the presence of 1 Youth gangs are considered to consist of adoles- “Is drug trafficking a major cause of youth gangs. cents and young adults from the ages of 12 to 24. violence in youth gangs?” Unfortunately, there is no commonly accepted param- The popular image of youth gangs eter of either the age range or proportion of individu- “Are there other important sources ties them directly to drugs and violent als below a certain age (i.e., a youth) that can be used of youth gang violence?” crime (Klein, 1995).1 How interrelated to differentiate youth gangs from adult gangs. This are youth gangs, drugs, and violent makes definitive conclusions from the research diffi- The authors make critical distinctions crime? Is drug trafficking a main activity cult and exacerbates the difference between research between drug gangs and street gangs findings and real world experiences of practitioners of youth gangs? Is drug trafficking a that further enhance our understand- concerned with the prevention of gang involvement ing of the gang phenomenon, as does main cause of violence in youth gangs and the suppression of gang activity. The term “youth or only a correlate? Are there other im- gang” is commonly used interchangeably with “street their exploration of the connections portant sources of gang violence? Be- gang,” referring to neighborhood or street-based between youth gangs and adult fore this OJJDP Bulletin addresses these youth groups that are substantially made up of indi- criminal organizations and the role questions, a brief historical overview of viduals under the age of 24. "Street gangs" may in- of firearms in gang violence. clude both youth gangs and adult criminal gang drug use, trafficking, and violent organizations. Motorcycle gangs, prison gangs, racial It is my hope that in describing the crime is provided. Studies of drug-traf- supremacists, and other hate groups are excluded. relationships among youth gangs, ficking operations are then reviewed to Miller’s definition of a youth gang is applicable to this drugs, and violence, this Bulletin will provide a better understanding of how review: “A youth gang is a self-formed association of help communities begin to address illegal drug sales typically are con- peers, united by mutual interests, with identifiable these problems more effectively. trolled and managed. The Bulletin con- leadership and internal organization, who act collec- tively or as individuals to achieve specific purposes, cludes with a detailed review of studies Shay Bilchik including the conduct of illegal activity and control of Administrator of the gangs, drugs, and violence con- a particular territory, facility, or enterprise” (Miller, nection and an examination of other 1992:21). Unless otherwise noted, the term "gangs" sources of gang violence. refers to youth gangs. Los Angeles gangs, the Crips and Bloods, older African-American adult gang mem- had become entrepreneurial and were bers in Chicago were reported to be sig- expanding their drug-trafficking opera- nificantly involved in drug dealing tions to markets in other cities; where (Spergel, 1995). drug markets appeared, so did violent Early gang studies do not tie violence to crime. Although this research did not drug trafficking because gangs evidenced address the order of occurrences and the little involvement in drug sales. The first overlap of adult gang violence and street major gang study (Thrasher, 1927) de- drug sales, youth gangs are still charac- scribed the drug dealing of Chicago’s Chi- terized mainly by public perceptions nese tongs, but gang violence mainly con- conveyed in the California studies and sisted of fighting. An account of early 20th by popular media images rather than by century east coast adult gangs linked gang scientific knowledge (Decker and Kempf, violence to territorial fights among orga- 1991; Hunzeker, 1993; Jackson, 1997; nized crime groups that used teenagers in Johnson, 1989; Miller, 1990). “numbers running” and as lookouts in Little mention is made of gang drug use gambling and bootlegging operations and trafficking in gang studies published (Sante, 1991). Except for occasional fight- before the 1960’s and 1970’s (Klein, 1971; ing, violent crime by youth gangs was rela- Short and Strodtbeck, 1965; Spergel, 1964). tively rare until the latter part of this cen- By all accounts, gang involvement in drug tury (Miller, Geertz, and Cutter, 1962). use and trafficking was either very limited or unnoticed before the 1960’s (Wilkinson Growing Involvement in and Fagan, 1996). Moore (1991) described Drugs and Violent Crime heroin and some barbiturate use among The early to mid-1980’s saw rapid Los Angeles gang members in the 1940’s, growth in the use of cocaine as crack be- mostly after they left gangs. In the 1950’s came the drug of choice in the inner cit- and into the 1960’s, youth gang members ies (Fagan, 1996; Fagan and Chin, 1990; (Chin, 1990; Chin and Fagan, 1990; Fagan, displayed ambivalence about gang mem- Klein and Maxson, 1994). Trend data that 1989). Studies also show differences in the ber drug use and trafficking (Spergel, would indicate whether gang members extent of drug use. For example, Hill, 1995). Some gangs of that era used—or were responsible for the increased Howell, and Hawkins (1996) found that at least tolerated—marijuana. Heroin- prevalence of cocaine use during this gang membership was related to increased using cliques were common in East Los period are not available. However, sev- marijuana use but not crack cocaine use Angeles gangs by the middle of the 1950’s eral studies document considerable (except among youth who were in the gang (Bullington, 1977). Other gang cliques, the youth and adult gang involvement in the for only 1 year). Huff (1996) reported partying members of gangs, began to use drug trade after the cocaine epidemic gangs that used large amounts of all kinds barbiturates (Moore, 1978). Cloward and began around 1985.2 The Chicago Vice of drugs. Fagan (1989) found variations in Ohlin’s (1960) typology of youth gangs put Lords, a large and violent criminal street drug use among different gangs and sev- drug users in a “retreatist” subculture of eral other studies found predominantly gang (Dawley, 1992; Keiser, 1969; Spergel, 4 addicts (withdrawing from active involve- 1995), grew during this era, providing drug-trafficking youth gangs. ment in the gang). Even in the 1970’s, drug one example that suggests gangs and For the most part, the findings of the use did not appear to be a dominant form crack sales emerged concurrently. studies outlined in the previous para- of illegal activity among gang members, Research conducted in the 1980’s and graph apply only to males. Some cities, either as a proportion of their own arrests such as Detroit (Taylor, 1993) and San or in comparison with arrested nongang 1990’s has documented extensive youth Francisco (Lauderback, Hansen, and youth (Miller, 1992). and adult gang member involvement in drug use and generally higher levels of Waldorf, 1992), found an increasing num- In his historical account of gangs, use compared with nongang members.3 ber of females involved in gang drug traf- Spergel (1995) noted that in some in- ficking and violent crime, but the consen- stances drug-abusing members, particu- However, gang members do not all use sus is that female involvement in these larly those who used heroin, were forced drugs or do not use them extensively behaviors has not increased commensu- out of gangs in the 1950’s and 1960’s (and rately with the increase among males also in the 1990’s) because they could not (Chesney-Lind, 1993; Maxson, 1995; 2 be relied on in fights with other gangs. See Anderson, 1990; Block and Block, 1993; Decker Moore and Hagedorn, 1996). Gangs have also been reported to drive and Van Winkle, 1994, 1996; Hagedorn, 1991, 1994a, 1994b; Maxson, Gordon, and Klein, 1985; Padilla, 1992; Why has youth gang involvement in drug traffickers out of the neighborhood Perkins, 1987; Reiner, 1992; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; drug trafficking increased in the past de- (Short and Strodtbeck, 1965, Spergel, Sanders, 1994; Skolnick, 1989; Taylor, 1989, 1990; cade? Fagan (1993) suggested two reasons: 1964). A few studies point to marijuana Venkatesh, 1996; Waldorf, 1993. (1) the dramatic expansion of cocaine mar- use in the 1960’s and 1970’s (Klein, 1971; 3 These studies include Battin and colleagues (in press), kets in the 1980’s, accompanied by sharp Short and Strodtbeck, 1965) and to the Bjerregaard and Smith (1993), Curry and Spergel (1992), price reductions, and (2) socioeconomic fact that the drug market had “increas- Esbensen and Huizinga (1993), Esbensen and colleagues ingly drawn in gang members as partici- (1993), Fagan (1989), Hagedorn (1988, 1994a, 1994b), pants in drug distribution networks” Hill, Howell, and Hawkins (1996), Long (1990), 4 See also Decker and Van Winkle, 1994; Hagedorn, (Miller, 1992:144). By the late 1970’s, Thornberry and colleagues (1993), Vigil (1988), and 1994a, 1994b; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Sanders, 1994; Waldorf (1993). Taylor, 1989; Venkatesh, 1996; Waldorf, 1993.

2 changes in American society that dis- Skolnick and his colleagues provided an of the crack cocaine market in the United rupted traditional social controls (Curry image of drug trafficking that the media States. Another Federal agency, the Drug and Spergel, 1988).5 magnified and stereotyped (Klein, 1995). Enforcement Administration (1988), re- Fagan (1996; see also Hagedorn, 1988; Based on interviews with prison inmates, ported links between these Los Angeles Wilson, 1996) identified the process by police, and correctional officials, they de- street gangs and drug sales in 46 States. which this disruption of social controls scribed entrepreneurial criminal gangs Police and Federal Bureau of Investiga- occurred in the employment arena. The (Bloods and Crips) that emerged out of tion (FBI) officials reported that by the decline in manufacturing jobs in the 1970’s African-American “cultural” (neighbor- late 1980’s, the Los Angeles Bloods and and the development of technological and hood) youth gangs in Los Angeles and Crips had migrated to 45 other cities service industries led to economic restruc- Northern California (Skolnick, 1989, 1990, and set up crack cocaine trafficking turing in many cities. New jobs were cre- 1991; Skolnick et al., 1988). Skolnick and operations (Skolnick, 1989). ated, but they were in the suburbs, leaving his colleagues contended that these new Shortly after Skolnick’s studies were unqualified minorities in the inner cities. criminal gangs were organized for and ac- released, the Los Angeles County District Dramatic increases in unemployment tively involved in street drug sales. The Attorney made a comprehensive assess- resulted, especially among minority males, Bloods and Crips increasingly looked like ment of Los Angeles youth gangs (Reiner, and high unemployment rates were mainly criminal gangs designed for the sale of 1992). His office concluded that “gang concentrated in specific geographic drugs. They enjoyed the benefits of being members are heavy drug users and even areas. Drug markets provided “work” for able to deal cocaine in the neighborhoods heavier drug sellers [than nongang displaced workers, and the growing popu- they controlled, without intrusion by com- youth], yet drugs and gangs are not two larity of crack cocaine opened new oppor- petitors. They had a territorial monopoly, halves of the same phenomenon. Though tunities for youth to make money. Tradi- backed by force. Driven by escalating vio- they threaten many of the same neigh- tional pathways from gang life (jobs, lence in Los Angeles, declining drug prices, borhoods, and involve some of the same marriage, starting a family) were con- and intensified law enforcement, the Cali- people, gangs and drugs must be treated stricted by the changed economy, pro- fornia gangs sought out new markets for as separate evils” [emphasis added] longing gang involvement and making crack cocaine in other cities. (Reiner, 1992:5). District Attorney drug trafficking more attractive. The de- It was not until the early 1990’s that a Reiner’s office estimated that more than cline of meaningful lifetime employment national study of street gang migration 70 percent of gang members in Los Ange- prospects weakened the stabilizing influ- was conducted (Maxson, Woods, and les used drugs and that the incidence of ences and traditional forms of informal Klein, 1996). In Gang Members on the drug sales among gang members was social controls and strengthened gang Move, gang migration is defined as the seven times higher than among nongang influence as a dominant informal control movement of gang members from one city youth. The study concluded, however, and socialization force. Fagan reasoned to another, which could include temporary that most gang members were not drug that these conditions facilitated the trans- relocation (e.g., visits to relatives, short dealers, in any meaningful sense of the formation of youth groups into loosely trips to sell drugs) and longer stays word; only 1 in 7 gang members was esti- structured gangs. As the size and stakes (Maxson, 1998b). The study found street mated to sell drugs as often as 12 times a of the cocaine economy grew, violence in- gang migration to be very limited. Never- year. Reiner’s office also concluded that creasingly came to be used in the regula- theless, in about one-third of the cities that “most L.A. gangs are not being trans- tory process. “Work and social interac- did experience substantial gang migration, formed into organized drug distribution tions were now organized around these drug market expansion and pursuit of rings. Many individual gang members criminal activities, enforced and regulated other criminal activities were the primary (and former members) are involved with increasingly by violence” (Fagan, 1996:64). motivations, suggesting that drug gangs drugs, but drugs remain peripheral to may be more involved in migration. Most the purposes and activities of the gang” The Current Image of of the gang migration, however, was re- (Reiner, 1992:5). gional, within about 100 miles of the city of Youth Gangs As more information on youth gang origin. A number of local studies of indi- activities has become available, investi- Because the growth in youth gang vio- vidual gangs questioned their ties to larger gatory agencies have made more precise lence coincided with the crack cocaine gangs such as the Crips and Bloods in dis- assessments of gang drug trafficking. 8 epidemic, the two developments were tant cities (Decker and Van Winkle, 1994). The National Drug Intelligence Center’s generally perceived to be interrelated.6 In the meantime, police and investi- (NDIC’s) Street Gang Symposium, held This same conclusion was reached in as- gatory agencies reported criminal gang in Johnstown, PA, November 2–3, 1994, sessments conducted at all governmental drug-trafficking links across the country. focused on the Bloods and Crips. Sympo- levels, suggesting that youth gangs were A U.S. Congress study (General Account- sium participants concluded that some instrumental in the increase in crack co- ing Office, 1989) concluded that during well-organized street gangs are engaged caine sales and that their involvement in the latter part of the 1980’s, the Crips in interstate drug trafficking, but for the drug trafficking resulted in a growth in and Bloods gained control of 30 percent most part, a gang’s drug-trafficking con- youth violence.7 nections are indirectly expanded when 7 See California Council on Criminal Justice, 1989; members relocate to different areas. 5 Others agree (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996; Fagan, Clark, 1991; Drug Enforcement Administration, 1988; NDIC concluded that most street gangs 1996; Hagedorn, 1988; Klein, 1995; Moore, 1985, 1988; General Accounting Office, 1989; Hayeslip, 1989; are involved in drug trafficking to some Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Spergel, 1995; Vigil, 1988). McKinney, 1988. extent, generally in a street-level distri- 6 See Inciardi, 1986; Inciardi and Pottieger, 1991; Klein, 8 See also Hagedorn, 1988; Huff, 1989; Rosenbaum and bution network, both individually and in 1995; Decker and Van Winkle, 1996; Klein, Maxson, and Grant, 1983; Zevitz and Takata, 1992. small groups. Cunningham, 1991; Moore, 1990.

3 Reports of youth gang involvement in images stem from the lack of a clear dis- What happens to the profits of drug drug trafficking stimulated a major debate tinction between youth gangs and adult sales is another key indicator of the extent about the capacity of such gangs to manage criminal drug-trafficking organizations. to which gang drug distribution is directly drug sales operations. The two main camps connected to high-level drug organiza- in this debate are best represented by Street Gangs Versus tions. In the gangs Decker and Van Winkle Skolnick and his colleagues and Sanchez- Drug Gangs (1996) studied, the profits from drug sales Jankowski on the one hand and Klein and his were retained by the gang members and Klein (1995) suggested that to provide colleagues and Decker and Van Winkle on a better understanding of violence related usually were spent on typical teenage pur- the other.9 The former described gangs as chases. Most studies show that profits to drug marketing, a distinction needs to formal-rational organizations with an estab- be made between street-level drug distri- are either kept by the individual or accu- lished leadership structure, roles, rules, and mulated by the gang for parties and other bution and high-level control of drug dis- control over members, such that gangs are tribution networks. He distinguished drug social events (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996; quite capable of organizing and managing Hagedorn, 1994a; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991). gangs from street gangs, which he con- top-level drug-trafficking operations. The tended are not the same. To what extent are adult criminal or- latter described gangs as loosely confeder- Unfortunately, youth gang studies have ganizations involved in the drug market ated groups that generally lack cohesion and and violent crime? A few studies and in- would be incapable of organizing and not revealed much about management and control of drug-trafficking operations ver- vestigative reports of crack cocaine and managing drug-trafficking operations. heroin trafficking provide a thumbnail sus street-level distribution systems. Most The California-based image of a close studies of youth gangs that are involved in sketch of the high-level organization of connection among gangs, drugs, and violent the drug trade. The relationship between drug trafficking describe their involvement crime has been buttressed by a number of in street-level distribution only. A notable drugs and violence is widely accepted in studies. Although neither of them appears adult criminal organizations such as drug exception is Moore’s (1978) description to be a bona fide youth gang, Williams’ of the Happy Valley gang in Los Angeles, cartels and prison gangs; in some in- (1989) “cocaine kids” and Padilla’s (1992) stances, however, it is difficult to distin- which maintained strong connections with drug-dealing Puerto Rican gang in Chicago Mexican barbiturate manufacturers who guish these adult criminal organizations (Klein, 1995) epitomize the economic op- from youth gangs.11 created “designer” barbiturates to their portunities the new drug markets pro- order, which the gang sold. The entire The Office of National Drug Control vided—and the surrounding violence. Happy Valley gang was involved, not just Policy’s (ONDCP’s) Pulse Check Reports Venkatesh (1996) reported that the illicit individual members.10 (ONDCP, 1995a, 1995b, 1996) describe drug economy transformed gang violence high-level drug distribution organizations in Chicago’s Robert Taylor Homes from Information on the prevalence of youth drug gangs has only recently become that are not youth gangs. The typical orga- gang wars to drug wars. Taylor (1990) de- nizational structure uses franchise opera- scribed how the Detroit economy and the available. In Klein’s (1995) interviews with 261 police officers (mostly gang special- tors to control an area and delegates drug market turned “scavenger” gangs of street-level sales to others. Only a few of the 1950’s to 1970’s into “corporate” gangs ists) in U.S. cities (with a population of more than 100,000) in which law enforce- ONDCP’s ethnographers report that co- involved in illegal money-making ventures caine sellers are organized in youth gangs. in an interstate network. He interviewed a ment agencies said they had a gang prob- retired Detroit police official who described lem, 16 percent reported drug gangs. In Moore (1990) contends that many the city’s gang drug problem this way: another law enforcement survey in 201 of the adult criminal organizations that cities, Klein and Maxson (1996) found that control drug trafficking existed before It’s like feudal China, there are “specialty drug gangs” comprised only the crack cocaine epidemic. Others were pockets of entrenched drug opera- 9 percent of all gangs. Nevertheless, the formed in the 1980’s to service the grow- tions all over the city. . . . You have membership of such gangs may be very ing crack cocaine market (Curtis, 1992; warlords over little areas that control large, and thus they may be responsible Fagan, 1996; Johnson, Hamid, and their little fiefdoms. There are young for a significant proportion of drug sales Sanabria, 1990; Taylor, 1989, 1990). people acting as contractors for the and violence in some cities. There is evidence that when crack co- warlords. . . . Kids and adults see the Huff (1996) assessed the extent to caine was first introduced, a great deal warlords spreading money and fame. of violence ensued (Taylor, 1989). They want some of that money. Soon which Cleveland gang members believed that gangs controlled drug-trafficking op- Violence associated with crack cocaine as we put away one bunch, another was linked to organizational competition one takes its place. Then you got pro- erations. Only 10 percent believed such control to be the case. About 10 to 14 per- for market share and profits; protection fessional people, like lawyers, giving of drug-trafficking territory; regulation of these punks their service. Dope has cent believed gangs had some control over the organization and management of employees in the new selling organiza- made these characters think they’re tions; the urge among habitual users for rich and powerful (Taylor, 1990:114). drug sales along with other organizations, such as foreign groups and organized money to buy crack; its liquid value Thus, studies have produced conflict- among the poor; and, for a small group, crime. More than two-thirds of the gang ing images of youth gang involvement in members believed other organizations its psychoactive effects (Fagan, 1996). drug trafficking. In part, these different controlled drug trafficking. 11 See Fagan and Chin, 1990; General Accounting Office, 9 See Skolnick, 1989, 1990; Skolnick et al., 1988; 1989, 1996; Jackson and McBride, 1985; Moore, 1990; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Klein and Maxson, 1994; 10 Other examples of drug-trafficking youth gangs are Reiner, 1992; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Taylor, 1989. Klein, Maxson, and Cunningham, 1991; and Decker and described by Fagan (1989), Hagedorn (1994a, 1994b, in Klein (1995) and Spergel (1995) provide excellent dis- Van Winkle, 1996. press), Sanchez-Jankowski (1991), and Sanders (1994). cussions of this issue.

4 The Connection Between wide and evidence an overall growth Youth Gangs and Adult trend in certain cities (Maxson, 1998a). Criminal Organizations These spurts are explained largely by “turf” disputes between warring gangs A classic issue in gang research con- (Block and Block, 1993; Block and cerns a possible connection between Christakos, 1995; Block et al., 1996). The youth gangs and adult criminal organiza- spurts are not citywide—they occur in tions (Thrasher, 1927). Taylor (1990) specific neighborhoods and involve par- illustrated the transformation of a scav- ticular youth gangs in escalating inci- enger gang to a territorial gang, then to dents of provocation, retaliation, and a corporate criminal gang with the case revenge. The annual number of homi- of the “42 Gang” in Chicago. It was con- cides involving Chicago street gangs in- sidered the best “farm team” Chicago’s creased almost fivefold between 1987 Capone mob ever had. Some of the youth an exhaustive review). Goldstein (1985) and 1994 (Block et al., 1996). Youth and suggested three possible relationships: in it graduated into the lower ranks of adult gang-related homicides in Los the Capone mob. Spergel (1995) sug- (1) the “pharmacological” effects of Angeles County more than doubled from the drug on the user can induce violent gested that there is some indication that 1987 to 1992, then dropped in 1993 and particular street-gang cliques have been behavior; (2) the high cost of drug use 1994 (Maxson, 1998a). integrated into some criminal organiza- often impels users to commit “economic tions, but Fagan (1996) contended that compulsive” violent crime to support To what extent is the large volume of this does not appear to be a predomi- continued drug use (e.g., robbery for the and increase in gang homicides caused by nant pattern. Fagan argued that available purpose of securing money to buy drugs); drug trafficking? This popular assumption evidence suggests that this transition and (3) “systemic” violence is a common is tied to the image of youth gangs as en- involves individual, talented young gang feature of the drug-distribution system, trepreneurial drug-trafficking operations members, not groups.12 including protection or expansion of the that began to spread across the country drug distribution market share, retalia- during the crack cocaine epidemic. The connection between youth gangs tion against market participants who and adult criminal organizations appears Klein and his colleagues were the first violate the rules that govern transac- far more important in the case of adult researchers to test the popular assumption tions, or maintenance of the drug- prison gangs. Prison gang members are of a strong relationship between youth and trafficking organization. more violent than nongang inmates; they adult gang drug trafficking and homicide. In account for a disproportionate amount Collins (1990) summarized the research a series of Los Angeles studies, they found of prison violence and they often control evidence supporting each of the three that the connection between gang-related drug trafficking and other criminal enter- types of drug violence Goldstein suggested. homicides and drug trafficking is not prises in prisons (Jackson and McBride, First, there is virtually no evidence of the strong.13 This relationship has also been 1985; Ralph et al., 1996). Having been pharmacological effects of drugs (exclud- found to be weak in several other studies in confined in a juvenile correctional facility ing, perhaps, alcohol) on violence. Second, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, and is a strong predictor of adult prison gang there is considerable evidence of a relation- St. Louis (see Howell, in press[a] for a re- membership (Ralph et al., 1996). Prison ship between drug use and economic com- view of this research). criminal gang members, in turn, contribute pulsive violence. Third, although research There are exceptions to this general con- to the growth of youth gangs. Involvement is scarce on “systemic” (drug distribution) clusion. Some ongoing drug market wars of ex-convicts in youth gangs extends the violence, this form appears to be the most account for a significant number of homi- life of the gangs and increases their level of predominant. “Drug distribution system cides (Block et al., 1996). Block and her col- violent crime, in part because of the ex- violence tends to occur (at least most vis- leagues also noted an indirect relationship convicts’ increased proclivity to violence ibly) in areas that: are socially disorganized, among homicides, drug trafficking, and following imprisonment and the visibility that is, in which formal and informal social street gang activity. Many of the street and history they contribute to youth gangs control is absent or ineffective; have tradi- gang-related homicides might not occur (Moore, 1978; Vigil and Long, 1990). In some tionally high rates of interpersonal vio- without the existence of drug markets, cities, prison gangs rather than youth gangs lence; and are economically disadvantaged” which routinely bring members of opposing dominate local drug markets (Hagedorn, in (Collins, 1990:266). Collins noted that the gangs into contact with one another. How press; Moore, 1996; Valdez, 1997). Goldstein typology has its limitations, can the increase in gang-related homicides mainly because there are other important over the past decade be explained? sources of violence. This is an especially Studies of the Youth important point with respect to the gang The role of firearms in gang violence. Gangs, Drugs, and context. A review of these other sources is The presence of firearms significantly in- Violence Connection divided into two parts: gang homicide and creases the likelihood of murder. The rou- the causes and correlates of youth gang tine use of guns in gang conflict is a fairly The relationship between drugs, drug violence. recent development, having occurred in the trafficking, and violent crime is the sub- past decade (Miller, 1992). Recent studies ject of much debate and research (see De Youth Gang Homicide and show that firearms are now prevalent in La Rosa, Lambert, and Gropper, 1990, for Drug Trafficking youth gangs (Bjerregard and Lizotte, 1995; Although youth gang homicides are 12 Fagan’s argument is similar to Hagedorn (1991, characterized by periodic spurts and de- 13 See Klein and Maxson, 1985; Klein, Maxson, and 1994a, 1994b), Klein (1995), and Moore (1990, 1992). clines, they have been increasing nation- Cunningham, 1988, 1991; Maxson, 1995, 1998a.

5 members. The Blocks showed that most for violent crimes, 29 percent for property of the increase in Chicago street gang ho- crimes, 18 percent for drug offenses, and 6 micides is attributable to an increase in percent for weapons offenses. more lethal weapons, not an increase in In his investigation of possible crime assaults (Block and Block, 1993; Howell, progression, Huff (1996) determined the in press [a]; Hutson et al., 1995; Zimring, year in which gang leaders’ arrests for 1996). Rosenfeld and Decker (1996:200) property, drug, and violent offenses found that the St. Louis youth (under age peaked. Peaks for all three offenses clus- 24) homicide problem “is largely a gun tered within less than 2 years. His dis- homicide problem.” covery that violent crime arrests peaked about 3 months before drug offenses led Causes and Correlates Huff (1996:99) to suggest that this might Howell, 1998; Lizotte et al., 1994). There of Youth Gang Violence be evidence of “a close connection also is evidence that the impact of drug sell- Some studies support the notion that between drug trafficking and violence ing on illegal gun carrying is greater than youth and adult gang involvement in drug that is often associated with conflict the impact of gang membership and that trafficking has led to more violent crime.14 over ‘turf.’” drug selling increases with age. Thus, “un- Other studies suggest that the connection Venkatesh’s (1996) ethnography of like the diminished role of gangs, drug sell- between youth and adult gang drug sales gangs in Chicago’s Robert Taylor Homes ing grows as the subjects get older and this 15 and violence is indirect or weak. Some of described one of the worst cases of gang enhances hidden gun carrying” (Lizotte et these studies that shed light on the gangs, drug trafficking and violence. His study al., 1997:388). A strong association is found drugs, and violence connection are re- documented the transformation of gangs between illegal gun use and gang member- viewed below. in this low-income public housing develop- ship and between illicit drug sales and ille- Huff (1996) studied two samples of ment from turf gangs to drug gangs and gal gun use (Decker, 1996; Decker, Pennell, the escalation of gang violence with the and Caldwell, 1997; Sanders, 1994; Sheley Cleveland adolescents: currently or for- merly active youth gang members and a advent of crack cocaine. In the 1960’s and and Wright, 1993, 1995). second group of youth who had not 1970’s, these gangs fought over pride or Using data gathered from interviews in joined gangs but were deemed similarly turf in hand-to-hand conflicts, sometimes 1995 with arrested juveniles in the Drug at risk of delinquency. Major Cleveland using zip guns (homemade, single-shot Use Forecasting (DUF) study, Decker and gangs were well represented in the pistols). Their violence was controlled colleagues (1997) found that gang mem- sample. Gang youth were significantly largely by tenant networks. When crack bers are much more likely than other more involved in marijuana and cocaine cocaine was introduced in the 1980’s, a juveniles to carry guns most or all of the drug sales and in more serious and vio- notable escalation in gang violence oc- time (31 percent versus 20 percent). lent crimes than nongang adolescents. curred. Several gangs controlled drug- Percentages of arrestees who reported Gang members were far more likely to sell trafficking turfs in one or more buildings using a gun to commit a crime, were high-profit drugs and to sell drugs more in the housing development. Previously higher among adolescents who sold drugs frequently than nongang adolescents. Huff contained fights then burst into the open, (42 percent) or belonged to a gang asked both groups about the source of endangering residents in gang-related (50 percent) than among other juveniles the drugs they sold. Gangs were not the crossfire. In 1992, several children, all inno- (33 percent). One-third of gang members primary source for either group. A major- cent bystanders, were shot and killed. Nei- said it was okay to shoot someone who ity of both gang and nongang youth said ther police nor tenant organizations were disrespected them. These findings con- “others” controlled drug supplies. Gang able to contain the gang violence. Rival firm the importance of gun ownership sellers were far more likely than nongang gangs continued fighting. Eventually, and use among gang members. sellers to go out of State for their supply. community leaders, youth workers, and tenants were able to effect a truce that In a 3-year field study of active youth In a unique aspect of this study, police gang members in St. Louis, Decker and Van gang experts identified 83 gang members Venkatesh predicted would not last. Winkle (1996) reported that 81 percent who were leaders in 1986. Huff (1996) com- Hagedorn (1991, in press) found that owned guns. The mean number of guns piled their arrest histories from 1980 to few (mostly adult) Milwaukee gang mem- owned was more than four. Two-thirds of 1994. The overwhelming majority of arrests bers were involved in cocaine sales in gang members had used their guns at least (which averaged 10 per leader) began at or 1987. But by 1991, 75 percent of them were once. The most common use was in gang near the time of their initial gang involve- reported as having been involved in co- fights; infrequent use was reported in drive- ment. Most of the arrests (37 percent) were caine trafficking. Adult gang members said bys, defense against attacks by strangers, that one-half or more of the dope houses and other incidents. Only four members 14 See Hagedorn, 1996; Padilla, 1992; Sanchez- in gang neighborhoods were run by gangs mentioned a drug-related motive. In each of Jankowski, 1991; Sanders, 1994; Short, 1996; Skolnick (Hagedorn, 1994b). He estimated that these incidents, the gang members used 1989, 1990, 1991; Skolnick et al., 1988; Taylor, 1989, about one-quarter of all homicides and their guns to prevent a drug customer from 1990; Venkatesh, 1996. from one-third to one-half of all adult gang robbing them. 15 See Block and Block, 1993; Chin, 1990, 1995, 1996; violence in which gang members were in- Decker (1996) contended that gang in- Decker, Pennell, and Caldwell, 1997; Decker and Van volved or which they witnessed were drug teractions, mainly the threat a rival gang Winkle, 1996; Esbensen and Huizinga, 1993; Fagan, 1989; related (Hagedorn, 1996). Huff, 1989, 1996; Klein, Maxson, and Cunningham, 1991; presents, help to explain the increasing MacLeod, 1987; Maxson, 1995; Maxson and Klein, 1996; In one of the most detailed studies sophistication of weapons used by gang Moore, 1990, 1991; Waldorf and Lauderback, 1993. of the gangs, drugs, and violence

6 connections, Decker and Van Winkle (1994, their experiences. A different view of the In Denver, Esbensen and Huizinga 1996) found that the St. Louis gangs to connection between gang drug trafficking (1993:571) reported that drug sales “were which youth belonged, mostly local Crips and violence is obtained by studying large not driving” street offending. Both violent and Bloods, were extensively involved in representative samples of adolescents (gang fighting, rape, robbery, and aggra- drug trafficking, especially cocaine. Mem- over a long period of time. OJJDP’s Pro- vated assault) and nonviolent offenses bers of these gangs fought often, generally gram of Research on the Causes and Corre- (burglary, theft, fencing stolen goods) using guns. Ammunition, drugs, and guns lates of Delinquency, which studied large composed the “street offending” measure. were sometimes obtained from gangs in adolescent samples in the emerging gang Although Rochester analyses showed an Los Angeles and Detroit. Rival gangs often cities of Denver, CO, and Rochester, NY, association between gang drug trafficking fought over drug customer turf. Decker has produced a number of important find- and violent offenses (Thornberry et al., and Van Winkle found, however, that gang ings on the gangs, drugs, and violence 1993), neither the strength of the relation- violence has many other sources related connection. Although these studies were ship nor the temporal order of the two to everyday gang social processes.16 They not designed specifically to examine youth behaviors has yet been examined. Several saw three main sources of violence among gangs, they permit comparisons between other studies of either gang or nongang St. Louis gang members (Decker and Van gang and nongang members in larger samples have shown an association be- Winkle, 1996). First, violence is a part of samples. tween adolescent drug trafficking and 18 everyday life in their neighborhoods and Each of these studies addresses the ex- violence. families. Second, conflict differentiates tent to which gang membership facilitates These findings make a persuasive case gangs from other delinquent groups. Third, drug trafficking. Similar patterns were that drug trafficking is strongly associ- violence is an endemic part of their status observed in both cities. In Rochester, ated with other serious and violent as individuals and as gang members. In St. Thornberry and his colleagues (1993) crimes but not necessarily that drug traf- Louis gangs, “members are expected to found that gang members were involved ficking by gang members causes more always be ready to commit violence, to in three to five times as many drug sales frequent violent offending. In Pittsburgh— participate in violent acts, and to have en- as nongang youth in sequential time peri- the third site in OJJDP’s Program of Re- gaged in some sort of violence in their ini- ods. In Denver, gang members reported search on the Causes and Correlates of tiation” into the gang (Decker and Van nearly seven times as many drug sales as Delinquency—a study of nongang youth Winkle, 1996:173). nongang youth (Huizinga, 1997). In another suggested that drug use, serious theft, Decker (1996) offered a more detailed study, supported by OJJDP and several and violence precede drug selling (Van explanation of the origin and spurt pattern other agencies and organizations, Seattle Kammen, Maguin, and Loeber, 1994). Van of gang violence that Block (1993) discov- gang members reported involvement in Kammen and her colleagues also found ered. He used Loftin’s (1984) “contagion” 10 times as many drug sales as nongang that sales of illicit drugs started signifi- concept and the notion that gang cohesion youth (Hill, Howell, and Hawkins, 1996). In cantly later in adolescence than the other grows in proportion to the perceived threat Seattle (Hill et al., 1996) and in Rochester three behaviors. Initiation of drug selling represented by rival gangs (Klein, 1971). (Bjerregaard and Lizotte, 1995), drug use was strongly related to previous involve- Loftin argued that three conditions must be and trafficking rates still remained high ment in multiple types of delinquency. present if contagion is to occur: a spatial after individuals left the gang, indicating The authors concluded that “the present concentration of assaultive violence, a re- that gang influence on drug trafficking study indicated a temporal sequence be- ciprocal nature to assaultive violence (see extends beyond the period of gang mem- tween the delinquent behaviors and the Miller, 1958), and escalations in assaultive bership. Gang members in all three study onset of drug dealing. This does not mean violence. Decker (1996) explained how the sites reported from three to seven times that the relationship is causal. Instead, threat of attack by another group ignites as many serious and violent delinquent it is likely that drug dealing and serious the gang, increases cohesion, and produces acts as nongang youth (Howell, 1998). forms of delinquency are expressions of deadly consequences. Most gang violence, A key question is, Does gang involve- similar antisocial tendencies. Whether he argued, is retaliatory, a response to vio- ment in drug trafficking cause subsequent the same etiological factors apply to each lence—real or perceived—against the gang. violent crime? The Seattle gang studies still remains to be demonstrated” (Van Spurts of gang violence appear to follow have examined this issue. Despite a high Kammen, Maguin, and Loeber, 1994:240). predictable patterns, in a sequence that is prevalence of Seattle gang member in- Although a causal relationship between initially motivated by the perceived threat volvement in drug trafficking, accelerated gang drug trafficking and violence has not that another gang poses, then instigated by adolescent involvement in drug trafficking yet been demonstrated in the above stud- a precipitating event, followed by escalation after joining a gang, and strong evidence ies, it is important to remember that, in of activity, a violent event, rapid deescala- that gang involvement prolongs drug traf- the main, the findings this Bulletin reviews tion, and finally, retaliation. ficking (Hill, Howell, and Hawkins, 1996; Hill et al., 1996), an analysis shows that 17 The researchers selected drug selling at age 16 and Long-Term Studies of gang member involvement in drug traffick- violence and other outcomes at age 18 in part because Adolescent Samples ing at age 16 does not predict assaultive the average ages for joining a gang are 14 to 15 in Se- Most of the studies reviewed thus far violence at age 18 but does predict drug attle. Thus, it was anticipated that gang membership trafficking at age 18 (Howell et al., 1996). and involvement in gang-related drug trafficking would focus on specific gangs or individual gang be very prevalent by age 16. Measuring violence at age members, capturing the significance of Surprisingly (given this finding), the study 18 would allow time for gang drug trafficking to cause also showed that drug trafficking at age 16 violence—if that were the case. 16 See also Anderson, 1994; Block and Block, 1993; Chin, predicts significantly more assaultive vio- 18 See Altschuler and Brounstein, 1991; Dembo et al., 1996; Decker and Van Winkle, 1996; Horowitz, 1983; lence and handgun possession at age 18 1993; Padilla, 1992; Van Kammen and Loeber, 1994; Kennedy, Piehl, and Braga, 1996; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991. among nongang youth.17 Williams, 1989.

7 come from two sources: gang studies Some youth gangs are actively involved lated factors (Meehan and O’Carroll, 1992). in emerging gang cities and nongang in street-level drug trafficking. With some Maxson (1998a) calls for careful analysis of samples. A key question is the extent to notable exceptions, they do not appear to the specific characteristics of gang homi- which gang membership facilitates gun use control drug-trafficking operations. Large, cides in different cities and communities so in drug trafficking—possibly resulting in adult criminal gangs that traffic in drugs that solutions can be crafted that are appro- higher levels of violence—in the same way and drug-selling cliques within gangs do priate for the local gang homicide problem. that the gang facilitates overall violent of- exist, and they are responsible for a great Once communities gain insight into the fending. This may hold true in two cases; deal of violence. Most of their violence sources of gang violence, they will see gang member drug trafficking may indi- may be directly or indirectly related to opportunities for intervening in the pat- rectly contribute to more violent encoun- drug trafficking. terns, or spurts, of gang violence that ters with other gangs involving guns when A distinction should be made between occur (Decker, 1996). Communities that (1) drug trafficking exacerbates the need youth gangs and adult criminal organiza- engage in this process can learn about for guns and (2) the perceived threat of tions that existed before the crack cocaine interventions other communities are violence from rival groups increases. Reso- epidemic or were created to profit from using, such as Chicago’s "Little Village" lution of this connection requires further crack. Overall, adult criminal organizations Gang Violence Reduction Project and examination. appear to be responsible for a large per- OJJDP’s Comprehensive Community-Wide centage of the violence related to drug Approach to Gang Prevention, Interven- Summary trafficking, particularly the most violent tion, and Suppression demonstration model, which is being implemented in five Empirical support for the popular im- crimes such as homicide, assault, and sites: Mesa, AZ; Tucson, AZ; Riverside, age of youth gangs as promulgated by robbery. However, some younger youth CA; Bloomington, IL; and San Antonio, TX Skolnick and his colleagues in the Califor- gangs may evolve into drug-trafficking (Thornberry and Burch, 1997). nia studies is limited. There is little evi- operations as they grow older or take dence of gang migration for the explicit on older members. This appears to be Gang violence has been exacerbated by purpose of setting up drug-trafficking op- more common in cities with a longer the ready availability and use of firearms, erations in distant locations. Youth gangs tradition of gang activities than in emerg- especially more lethal guns, coupled with sometimes obtain guns, drugs, and ammu- ing gang problem cities, and this trend frequent use of automobiles in attacks on nition from gangs in other cities. Some may be fueled by deteriorating economic other gangs. However, the role of firearms in gangs expand their operations to other conditions in inner-city areas. gang-related violence is not well understood. markets. These fit the stereotype con- Although common sense suggests a The extent to which gang firearm possession veyed by the media and investigatory link between gangs, drugs, and violence and use is causally related to gang functions agencies. Yet there does not appear to be (Hagedorn, in press), which is strongly versus drug trafficking is unclear. a large number of youth gangs that fit the promoted in media representations of stereotype. Moreover, interstate drug traf- youth gangs (Klein, 1995), such a link is Policy and Program ficking appears to be mainly the province questioned in longitudinal data on ado- Implications of adult criminal organizations. lescents that examine the causal connec- As a matter of policy, youth gang drug Youth gang members actively engage in tions among these variables. However, trafficking needs to be addressed sepa- drug use, drug trafficking, and violent these connections may be stronger in rately from adult criminal drug-trafficking crime. In other words, these problems adult gangs (see Hagedorn, in press) and organizations. These distinctly different overlap considerably. Gang members adult criminal organizations, including in problems require unique solutions. Youth are more likely than nongang youth to a few areas experiencing a chronic youth gang drug trafficking coexists with other be involved in drug trafficking and vio- gang problem. gang crimes, mainly intergang turf con- lence. Gang involvement appears to pro- Most gang violence is endemic to gang flicts and interpersonal violence, that are mote individual participation in violence, life, separate from drug trafficking be- unrelated or only tangential to drug traf- drug use, and drug trafficking and perhaps cause of several reasons. Violence is a ficking. Violence in adult criminal drug- prolong gang member involvement in drug part of the everyday life of gang mem- trafficking organizations, cartels, and syn- sales. Although drug trafficking is strongly bers, even when they are apart from the dicates appears to be connected much associated with other serious and violent gang; it is in their neighborhoods and more directly to the drug-trafficking crimes, gang member involvement in drug within families. Second, conflict differenti- enterprise. Reducing drug trafficking in sales does not necessarily result in more ates gangs from other law-violating youth youth gangs is not likely to have a signifi- frequent violent offenses. groups. Third, violence is an expected cant impact on violent youth gang crime Most gang members have engaged in part of their individual status and roles (except in the case of particular drug illegal activities, generally including vio- as gang members. gangs), whereas successful reduction of lence, before they join gangs. Many have For the most part, the growth in youth drug trafficking in adult criminal organiza- guns. Thus, gangs recruit or attract poten- gang homicides appears to be independent tions is likely to produce a significant tially or already violent individuals, and of the increase in gang drug trafficking. reduction in violent crime. involvement in violent activities increases Youth gang drug wars represent a notable during periods of gang membership, even exception. The absence of a strong causal Breaking the Cycle among those who enter the gang with a connection between gang drug trafficking Before communities can begin to craft history of violent crime. The evidence to and homicide suggests that gang involve- a response, an assessment of the local date suggests that gang participation, drug ment and drug trafficking are separate risk gang problem needs to take place. It is trafficking, and violence occur together. factors for homicide rather than interre- important that communities have an

8 accurate understanding of and agree on be returning to the streets at a younger age Bjerregaard, B., and Lizotte, A.J. 1995. Gun which types of gang problems they are ex- than is the case today. Making effective ownership and gang membership. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology periencing. In order to conduct a thorough drug treatment programs available, along 86:37–58. assessment, communities should look at with legitimate job opportunities, would Bjerregaard, B., and Smith, C. 1993. Gender community perceptions and available also help break the cycle. differences in gang participation, delinquency, and substance use. Journal of Quantitative Crimi- data. Data from law enforcement sources Preventing adolescents from joining nology 9:329–355. such as local gang and general crime data gangs should be a top priority. One place to Block, C.R. 1993. Lethal violence in the Chi- are critical to the assessment. Other data begin is preventing youth from dropping out cago Latino community. In Homicide: The Vic- should be collected from probation offic- of school. Discouraging children and young tim/Offender Connection, edited by A.V. Wilson. ers, schools, community-based youth adolescents from joining gangs is particu- Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, pp. 267–342. agencies, prosecutors, community resi- larly important because of the lure of the Block, C.R., and Christakos, A. 1995. Major dents, and gang and nongang youth. In illicit economy and the drug kingpin lifestyle, Trends in Chicago Homicide: 1965–1994. Research essence, the nature of the drug and vio- which the media sensationalizes. Opportuni- Bulletin. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. lence problem and its relationship to the ties for success and access to them must be gang problem should be determined and provided. At the same time, a community’s Block, C.R., Christakos, A., Jacob, A., and special attention should be placed on social control of pregang and gang groups Przybylski, R. 1996. Street Gangs and Crime: Patterns where—and on whom—prevention, inter- and Trends in Chicago. Research Bulletin. Chicago, needs to be increased. Communities’ com- IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. vention, and suppression efforts should be prehensive, coordinated approaches should Street Gang focused. Although not primarily designed include measures to increase social control Block, R., and Block, C.R. 1993. Crime in Chicago. Research in Brief. Washington, to be an assessment but rather a broad of youth by strengthening social institutions training approach, OJJDP’s Gang and Drug DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice and emphasizing the roles that residents, Programs, National Institute of Justice. POLICY training program brings together parents, youth workers, and community community leaders to systematically as- Bullington, B. 1977. Heroin Use in the Barrio. leaders play in supervising adolescents. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. sess the nature and extent of the commu- Community businesses can play a key role nity gang and drug problem. California Council on Criminal Justice. 1989. by providing legitimate work opportunities. Task Force Report on Gangs and Drugs. Sacramento, Successfully breaking up youth gang Focused prevention is the best way to en- CA: California Council on Criminal Justice. drug operations may require different sure adequate resource allocation and to Chesney-Lind, M. 1993. Girls, gangs and vio- approaches depending on the type of gang. have the greatest impact. lence: Anatomy of a backlash. Humanity and Because youth gangs generally are in- Existing gun interdiction efforts can Society 17:321–344. volved only in street-level distribution, the be enhanced and new ones implemented Chin, K. 1990. Chinese Subculture and Criminal- proceeds of which typically are used for as part of a coordinated effort to reduce ity: Non-Traditional Crime Groups in America. personal consumption, providing gang violence. A user-reduction strategy Westport, CT: Greenwood. legitimate ways of earning money may buttressed by collaboration between po- Chin, K. 1995. Chinatown Gangs. New York, NY: prove effective with their members. Sup- lice and probation officers, as in Boston’s Oxford University Press. pression approaches may be more effec- Youth Violence Strike Force (Kennedy, Chin, K. 1996. Gang violence in Chinatown. In tive with drug gangs. Piehl, and Braga, 1996), is one way of re- Gangs in America, edited by C.R. Huff. Newbury Programs are needed to break the cycle moving guns from the streets and the Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 157–184. of gang members moving from detention possession of gang members.19 The case Chin, K., and Fagan, J.A. 1990 (November). and corrections to prisons to communi- for removing illegal firearms from the The impact of crack on drug and crime involve- ties. Research and program development possession of gang members is un- ment. Unpublished paper presented at the annual are needed in several areas. Better screen- equivocal. Guns are vital tools for resolv- meeting of the American Society of Criminology, New Orleans, LA. ing and risk classification of gang members ing gang conflicts. A reduction in gang- in juvenile and adult correctional facilities related homicides will follow, even Clark, C.S. 1991. Youth gangs. Congressional Quarterly Research 22:755–771. are imperative. This would help protect without a reduction in drug trafficking. the public by giving correctional staff reli- Cloward, R.A., and Ohlin, L.E. 1960. Delin- able information to classify gang offenders quency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent References Gangs. New York, NY: The Free Press. at the appropriate level of risk and to match juvenile offenders with gang treat- Altschuler, D., and Brounstein, P.J. 1991. Pat- Collins, J.A. 1990. Summary thoughts about Drugs and Violence: Causes, ment programs available in correctional terns of drug use, drug trafficking and other de- drugs and violence. In linquency among inner city adolescent males in Correlates, and Consequences, edited by M. De La facilities. Effective programs are needed in Washington, D.C. Criminology 29:589–622. Rosa, E.Y. Lambert, and B. Gropper. NIDA Research these facilities to prevent gang formation, Monograph 103. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Anderson, E. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class, and Health and Human Services, National Institutes of membership, and victimization and also to Change in an Urban Community. Chicago, IL: Uni- Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse. break up drug operations inside prisons. versity of Chicago Press. There also needs to be an end to the recy- Anderson, E. 1994. The code of the streets. Curry, G.D., and Spergel, I.A. 1988. Gang homi- cling of adult gang members into gang- The Atlantic Monthly (May):81–94. cide, delinquency, and community. Criminology infested communities once they leave 26:381–405. Battin, S.R., Hill, K.G., Abbott, R.D., Catalano, prison. Ex-convicts need marketable job R.F., and Hawkins, J.D. 1998. The contribution of Curry, G.D., and Spergel, I.A. 1992. Gang in- skills and gainful employment opportuni- gang membership to delinquency above and be- volvement and delinquency among Hispanic and ties to avoid the lucrative drug market. yond delinquent friends. Criminology 36:93–115. African-American adolescent males. Journal of Breaking this cycle becomes all the more Research in Crime and Delinquency 29:273–291. important as States are imprisoning Curtis, R.A. 1992. Highly structured crack mar- 19 younger and younger offenders, who will For more information on this and other gang preven- kets in the southside of Williamsburg, Brooklyn. In tion and control approaches, see Howell (in press [b]). The Ecology of Crime and Drug Use in Inner Cities,

9 edited by J. Fagan. New York, NY: Social Science General Accounting Office. 1996. Violent Crime: Huff, C.R. 1989. Youth gangs and public policy. Research Council. Federal Law Enforcement Assistance in Fighting Los Crime and Delinquency 35:524–537. Angeles Gang Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov- Dawley, D. 1992. A Nation of Lords: The Autobi- Huff, C.R. 1996. The criminal behavior of gang ernment Printing Office. ography of the Vice Lords. 2d ed. Prospect members and nongang at-risk youth. In Gangs in Heights, IL: Waveland. Goldstein, P.J. 1985. The drugs/violence nexus: America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff. Thousand A tripartite conceptual framework. Journal of Drug Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 75–102. Decker, S.H. 1996. Collective and normative fea- Issues 15:493–506. tures of gang violence. Justice Quarterly 13:243–264. Huizinga, D. 1997 (November). The volume of Hagedorn, J.M. 1988. People and Folks: Gangs, crime by gang and nongang members. Unpublished Decker, S.H., and Kempf, K. 1991. Constructing Crime and the Underclass in a Rustbelt City. Chi- paper presented at the annual meeting of the gangs: The social construction of youth activities. cago, IL: Lakeview Press. American Society of Criminology, San Diego, CA. Criminal Justice Policy Review 5:271–291. Hagedorn, J.M. 1991. Gangs, neighborhoods and Hunzeker, D. 1993. Ganging up against vio- Decker, S.H., Pennell, S., and Caldwell, A. 1997 public policy. Social Problems 38:529–542. lence. State Legislatures. Denver, CO: National (January). Illegal Firearms; Access and Use by Conference of State Legislatures. Arrestees. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Hagedorn, J.M. 1994a. Homeboys, dope fiends, Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, legits, and new jacks. Criminology 32:197–217. Hutson, H.R., Anglin, D., Kyriacou, D.N., Hart, National Institute of Justice. J., and Spears, K. 1995. The epidemic of gang- Hagedorn, J.M. 1994b. Neighborhoods, markets, related homicides in Los Angeles County from Decker, S.H., and Van Winkle, B. 1994. Slinging and gang drug organization. Journal of Research in 1979 through 1994. The Journal of the American dope: The role of gangs and gang members in drug Crime and Delinquency 31:264–294. Medical Association 274:1031–1036. sales. Justice Quarterly 11:583–604. Hagedorn, J.M. 1996. Gang violence in Milwaukee. Inciardi, J.A. 1986. The War on Drugs: Heroin, Decker, S.H., and Van Winkle, B. 1996. Life in Unpublished paper presented at the conference on Cocaine, Crime, and Public Policy. Palo Alto, CA: the Gang: Family, Friends, and Violence. New York, Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Youth Radicalism Mayfield. NY: Cambridge University Press. and Violence, Milwaukee, WI. Inciardi, J.A., and Pottieger, A.E. 1991. Kids, De La Rosa, M., Lambert, E.Y., and Gropper, B., Hagedorn, J.M. In press. Gang violence in the crack, and crime. Journal of Drug Issues eds. 1990. Drugs and Violence: Causes, Correlates, post-industrial era. In Youth Violence, Crime and 21:257–270. and Consequences. NIDA Research Monograph Justice Series, Vol. 24, edited by M. Tonry and M. 103. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Moore. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Jackson, R.L. 1997. Nationwide spread of L.A. Human Services, National Institutes of Health, gangs is alarming, FBI says. Los Angeles Times Hayeslip, D.W., Jr. 1989. Local-Level Drug Enforce- National Institute on Drug Abuse. (May 24):A11. ment: New Strategies. Research in Action No. 213. Dembo, R., Hughes, P., Jackson, L., and Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office Jackson, R.K., and McBride, W. 1985. Under- Mieczkowski, T. 1993. Crack cocaine dealing by of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. standing Street Gangs. Plackerville, CA: Custom adolescents in two public housing projects: A pilot Publishing. Hill, K.G., Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., study. Human Organization 52:89–96. Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., and Edwards, T. 1996 Johnson, J. 1989. Drug gangs are now operat- Drug Enforcement Administration. 1988. Crack (November). The longitudinal dynamics of gang ing in rural states, Justice Department says. New Cocaine Availability and Trafficking in the United membership and problem behavior: A replication York Times (August 4):A1. States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus- and extension of the Denver and Rochester gang Johnson, B.D., Hamid, A., and Sanabria, H. tice, Drug Enforcement Administration. studies in Seattle. Unpublished paper presented at 1990. Emerging models of crack distribution. the annual meeting of the American Society of Esbensen, F., and Huizinga, D. 1993. Gangs, In Drugs and Crime: A Reader, edited by Criminology, Chicago, IL. drugs, and delinquency in a survey of urban T. Mieczkowski. Boston, MA: Allyn-Bacon. youth. Criminology 31:565–589. Hill, K.G., Howell, J.C., and Hawkins, J.D. 1996 Keiser, R.L. 1969. The Vice Lords: Warriors of the (June). Risk factors in childhood for adolescent Esbensen, F., Huizinga, D., and Weiher, A.W. Street. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. gang membership. Unpublished paper presented 1993. Gang and non-gang youth: Differences in at the 1996 National Youth Gang Symposium, Dal- Kennedy, D.M., Piehl, A.M., and Braga, A.A. explanatory variables. Journal of Contemporary las, TX. 1996. Youth violence in Boston: Gun markets, Criminal Justice 9:94–116. serious youth offenders, and a use-reduction Horowitz, R. 1983. Honor and the American Fagan, J.E. 1989. The social organization strategy. Law and Contemporary Problems 59:147– Dream: Culture and Identity in a Chicano Community. of drug use and drug dealing among urban gangs. 196. Special Issue. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Criminology 27:633–669. Klein, M.W. 1971. Street Gangs and Street Work- Howell, J.C. 1997. Youth gang homicides, drug Fagan, J.E. 1993. The political economy ers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. trafficking and program interventions. In Juvenile of drug dealing among urban gangs. In Drugs and Justice and Youth Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Klein, M.W. 1995. The American Street Gang. Community, edited by R. Davis, A. Lurgicio, and Publications, pp. 115–132. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. D.P. Rosenbaum. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, pp. 19–54. Howell, J.C. 1998. Youth Gangs: An Overview. Klein, M.W., and Maxson, C.L. 1985. Rock sales Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus- in South L.A. Social Science Research 69:561–565. Fagan, J.E. 1996. Gangs, drugs, and neighbor- tice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile hood change. In Gangs in America, 2d ed., edited Klein, M.W., and Maxson, C.L. 1994. Gangs and Justice and Delinquency Prevention. by C.R. Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica- cocaine trafficking. In Drugs and Crime: Evaluating tions, pp. 39–74. Howell, J.C. In press [a]. Youth gangs homi- Public Policy Initiatives, edited by D. MacKenzie cides: A literature review. Crime and Delinquency. and C. Uchida. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Fagan, J.E., and Chin, K. 1990. Violence as Publications, pp. 42–58. regulation and social control in the distribution Howell, J.C. In press [b]. Youth Gang Programs of crack. In Drugs and Violence: Causes, Corre- and Strategies. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Klein, M.W., and Maxson, C.L. 1996. Gang lates, and Consequences, edited by M. De La Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, structures, crime patterns, and police re- Rosa, E.Y. Lambert, and B. Gropper. NIDA Re- Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven- sponses. Unpublished report. Los Angeles, CA: search Monograph 103. Rockville, MD: U.S. tion. Social Science Research Institute, University of Department of Health and Human Services, Southern California. Howell, J.C., Hill, K.G., Battin, S.R., and National Institutes of Health, National Institute Hawkins, J.D. 1996 (November). Youth gang in- Klein, M.W., Maxson, C.L., and Cunningham, on Drug Abuse, pp. 8–43. volvement in drug trafficking and violent crime in L.C. 1988. Gang involvement in cocaine rock traf- General Accounting Office. 1989. Nontradi- Seattle. Unpublished paper presented at the an- ficking. Unpublished report. Los Angeles, CA: tional Organized Crime. Washington, DC: U.S. nual meeting of the American Society of Criminol- Social Science Research Institute, University of Government Printing Office. ogy, Chicago, IL. Southern California.

10 Klein, M.W., Maxson, C.L., and Cunningham, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile ings and Policy Options. Evanston, IL: Center for L.C. 1991. Crack, street gangs, and violence. Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern Criminology 29:623–650. University. Miller, W.B., Geertz, H., and Cutter, H.S.G. Lauderback, D., Hansen, J., and Waldorf, D. 1992. 1962. Aggression in a boys’ street-corner group. Rosenfeld, R., and Decker, H. 1996 (Winter). Sisters are doin’ it for themselves: A black female Psychiatry 24:283–298. Consent to search and seize: Evaluating an innova- gang in San Francisco. Gang Journal 1:57–72. tive youth firearm suppression program. Law and Moore, J.W. 1978. Homeboys: Gangs, Drugs and Contemporary Problems 59:197–220. Special Issue. Lizotte, A.J., Howard, G.J., Krohn, M.D., Prison in the Barrios of Los Angeles. Philadelphia, and Thornberry, T.P. 1997. Patterns of illegal gun PA: Temple University Press. Sanchez-Jankowski, M.S. 1991. Islands in the carrying among young urban males. Valparaiso Street: Gangs and American Urban Society. Berke- Moore, J.W. 1985. Isolation and stigmatization University Law Review 31:375–393. ley, CA: University of California Press. in the development of an underclass: The case Lizotte, A.J., Tesoriero, J.M., Thornberry, T.P., of Chicano gangs in East Los Angeles. Social Sanders, W. 1994. Gangbangs and Drive-bys: and Krohn, M.D. 1994. Patterns of adolescent fire- Problems 33:1–13. Grounded Culture and Juvenile Gang Violence. arms ownership and use. Justice Quarterly 11:51–73. New York, NY: Aldin de Gruyter. Moore, J.W. 1988. Introduction: Gangs and the Loftin, C. 1984. Assaultive violence as underclass: A comparative perspective. In People Sante, L. 1991. Low Life: Lures and Snares of Old a contagious social process. Bulletin of the New and Folks, by J. Hagedorn. Chicago, IL: Lake View, New York. New York, NY: Vintage Books. York Academy of Medicine 62:550–555. pp. 3–17. Sheley, J.F., and Wright, J.D. 1993. Gun Acquisi- Long, J. 1990. Drug use patterns in two Los Moore, J.W. 1990. Gangs, drugs, and violence. tion and Possession in Selected Juvenile Samples. Angeles barrio gangs. In Drugs and Hispanic In Drugs and Violence: Causes, Correlates, and Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- Communities, edited by R. Glick and J. Moore. Consequences, edited by M. De La Rosa, E.Y. ment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Na- New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, Lambert, and B. Gropper. Research Monograph tional Institute of Justice and Office of Juvenile pp. 155–165. No. 103. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health Justice and Delinquency Prevention. and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, MacLeod, J. 1987. Ain’t No Makin’ It: Leveled Sheley, J.F., and Wright, J.D. 1995. In the Line of National Institute on Drug Abuse, pp. 160–176. Aspirations in a Low-Income Neighborhood. Boulder, Fire: Youth, Guns and Violence in Urban America. CO: Westview. Moore, J.W. 1991. Going Down to the Barrio: Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter. Homeboys and Homegirls in Change. Philadelphia, Maxson, C.L. 1995 (September). Street Gangs Short, J.F., Jr., 1996. Foreword: Diversity and PA: Temple University Press. and Drug Sales in Two Suburban Cities. Research change in U.S. gangs. In Gangs in America, 2d ed., in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus- Moore, J.W. 1992. Institutionalized youth edited by C.R. Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage tice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute gangs: Why White Fence and El Hoyo Maravilla Publications, pp. vii–xviii. of Justice. change so slowly. In The Ecology of Crime and Short, J.F., Jr., and Strodtbeck, F.L. 1965. Group Drug Use in Inner Cities, edited by J.E. Fagan. New Maxson, C.L. 1998a. Gang homicide: A review Process and Gang Delinquency. Chicago, IL: Uni- York, NY: Social Science Research Council. and extension of the literature. In Homicide: A versity of Chicago. Sourcebook of Social Research, edited by Moore, J.W. 1996. Bearing the burden: How Skolnick, J.H. 1989. Gang organization and mi- D. Smith and M. Zahn. Thousand Oaks, CA: incarceration policies weaken inner-city commu- gration—drugs, gangs, and law enforcement. Un- Sage Publications. nities. In The Unintended Consequences of Incar- published manuscript. Berkeley, CA: University of ceration, edited by K. Fulbright. New York, NY: Maxson, C.L. 1998b. Gang Members on the California, Berkeley. Vera Institute of Justice. Move. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department Skolnick, J.H. 1990. The social structure of street of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Moore, J.W., and Hagedorn, J.M. 1996. What drug dealing. American Journal of Police 9:1–41. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. happens to girls in the gang? In Gangs in America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff. Thousand Skolnick, J.H. 1991. Gang organization and Maxson, C.L., Gordon, M.A., and Klein, M.W. Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 205–218. migration. Unpublished report. Sacramento, CA: 1985. Differences between gang and nongang California Department of Justice. homicides. Criminology 23:209–222. Office of National Drug Control Policy. 1995a (Summer). Pulse Check: National Trends in Drug Skolnick, J.H., Correl, T., Navarro, E., and Rabb, Maxson, C.L., and Klein, M.W. 1996. Defining Abuse. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the R. 1988. The social structure of street drug dealing. Gang Homicide: An Updated Look at Member and President. Unpublished report to the Office of the Attorney Motive Approaches, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff. General of the State of California. Berkeley, CA: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 3–20. Office of National Drug Control Policy. 1995b University of California, Berkeley. (Fall). Pulse Check: National Trends in Drug Abuse. Maxson, C.L., Woods, K., and Klein, M.W. 1996 Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. Spergel, I.A. 1964. Racketville, Slumtown and (February). Street gang migration: How big a threat? Haulberg: An Exploratory Study of Delinquent Sub- National Institute of Justice Journal 230:26–31. Office of National Drug Control Policy. 1996. cultures. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Pulse Check: National Trends in Drug Abuse. Wash- McKinney, K.C. 1988 (September). Juvenile ington, DC: Executive Office of the President. Spergel, I.A. 1995. The Youth Gang Problem. Gangs: Crime and Drug Trafficking. Bulletin. Wash- New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Padilla, F.M. 1992. The Gang as an American Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Enterprise: Puerto Rican Youth and the American Taylor, C.S. 1989. Dangerous Society. East Lan- Delinquency Prevention. Dream. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. sing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Meehan, P.J., and O’Carroll, P.W. 1992. Gangs, Perkins, U.E. 1987. Explosion of Chicago’s Taylor, C.S. 1990. Gang imperialism. In Gangs in drugs, and homicide in Los Angeles. American Black Street Gangs: 1900 to the Present. Chicago, America, edited by C.R. Huff. Newbury Park, CA: Journal of the Disabled Child 146:683–687. IL: Third World Press. Sage Publications, pp. 103–115. Miller, W.B. 1958. Lower class culture as a Ralph, P., Hunter, R.J., Marquart, J.W., Cuvelier, Taylor, C.S. 1993. Girls, Gangs, Women, and generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of S.J., and Merianos, D. 1996. Exploring the differ- Drugs. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Social Issues 14:5–19. ences between gang and non-gang prisoners. In Press. Gangs in America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff. Thou- Miller, W.B. 1990. Why the United States has Thornberry, T.P., and Burch, J.H. 1997. Gang sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 241–256. failed to solve its youth gang problem. In Gangs in Members and Delinquent Behavior. Bulletin. Wash- America, edited by C.R. Huff. Newbury Park, CA: Reiner, I. 1992. Gangs, crime and violence in Los ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Sage Publications, pp. 263–87. Angeles. Unpublished manuscript. Office of the Dis- Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and trict Attorney of the County of Los Angeles. Delinquency Prevention. Miller, W.B. 1992 (Revised from 1982). Crime by Youth Gangs and Groups in the United States. Rosenbaum, D.P., and Grant, J.A. 1983. Gangs Thornberry, T.P., Krohn, M.D., Lizotte, A.J., and Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, and Youth Problems in Evanston: Research Find- Chard-Wierschem, D. 1993. The role of juvenile

11 U.S. Department of Justice PRESORTED STANDARD Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention DOJ/OJJDP PERMIT NO. G–91 Washington, DC 20531

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Bulletin NCJ 171152

gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior. Journal Venkatesh, S.A. 1996. The gang and the commu- Williams, T. 1989. The Cocaine Kids: The Inside of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30:55–87. nity. In Gangs in America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Story of a Teenage Drug Ring. Reading, MA: Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Addison-Wesley. Thrasher, F.M. 1927. The Gang. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Vigil, J.D. 1988. Barrio Gangs: Street Life and Wilson, W.J. 1996. When Work Disappears. New Identity in Southern California. Austin, TX: Univer- York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Valdez, A. 1997 (November). A contemporary sity of Texas Press. assessment of Mexican American youth gangs in Zevitz, R.G., and Takata, S.R. 1992. Metropoli- South Texas. Unpublished paper presented at the Vigil, J.D., and Long, J.M. 1990. Emic and etic tan gang influence and the emergence of group Annual Meeting of the American Society of Crimi- perspectives on gang culture. In Gangs in America, delinquency in a regional community. Journal of nology, San Diego, CA. edited by C.R. Huff. Newbury Park CA: Sage Publi- Criminal Justice 20:93–106. cations, pp. 55–70. Van Kammen, W.B., and Loeber, R. 1994. Are Zimring, F.E. 1996. Kids, guns, and homicide: fluctuations in delinquent activities related to Waldorf, D. 1993. Don’t be your own best Policy notes on an age-specific epidemic. Law the onset and offset in juvenile illegal drug use customer—Drug use of San Francisco gang drug and Contemporary Problems 59:25–38. Special and drug dealing? Journal of Drug Issues 24:9–24. sellers. Crime, Law and Social Change 19:1–15. Issue. Van Kammen, W.B., Maguin, E., and Loeber, R. Waldorf, D., and Lauderback, D. 1993. Gang 1994. Initiation of drug selling and its relation- drug sales in San Francisco: Organized or ship with illicit drug use and serious delin- freelance? Unpublished report. Alameda, CA: Insti- This Bulletin was prepared under quency in adolescent boys. In Cross-National tute for Scientific Analysis. cooperative agreement 95–JD–MU–K001 to the Longitudinal Research on Human Development Institute for Intergovernmental Research from Wilkinson, D.L., and Fagan, J. 1996. The role of and Criminal Behavior, edited by E.G.M. firearms and violence “scripts”: The dynamics of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Weitekamp and H. Kerner. Dordrecht, Nether- gun events among adolescent males. Law and Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. lands: Kluwer, pp. 229–241. Contemporary Problems 59:55–89. Special Issue. Points of view or opinions expressed in this Acknowledgments document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or James C. Howell is an Adjunct Researcher at the National Youth Gang Center, policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Tallahassee, FL. Scott H. Decker is a Justice. Professor and Chair of the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri, St. Louis, MO. The authors are grateful to several persons The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- who reviewed earlier drafts and made very helpful suggestions for improvements quency Prevention is a component of the Of- to this Bulletin: Bruce Buckley, Jim Burch, Cheryl Maxson, Walter Miller, Joan fice of Justice Programs, which also includes Moore, John Moore, and Jim Short, Jr. the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Jus- All photographs © 1998 PhotoDisc, Inc. tice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

12