Articles on Gangs for “Outsiders” Layer C Activities SOURCE: Charlotte News-Record Newspaper Why do kids join gangs? SUNDAY, AUGUST 26, 2007

Staff writer Joe Killian interviewed more than 40 Greensboro residents who identified themselves as gang members and about a dozen people in their neighborhoods. None would give their real names. The News & Record is making an exception to its policy of not using unnamed sources to tell this story.

GREENSBORO -- You see Al Pacino's face a lot in the hood.

Like a patron saint, he appears nearly everywhere in gang territory — on posters, car hoods and even tattoos.

"Scarface," a 16-year-old gang member says, eyes lighting up. "That's the flick. Because that's how you do it. You ain't given nothing in this life. You got to get yours."

For many viewers, the 1983 film — about a drug dealer who rises from poverty only to be gunned down in his mansion — is a morality tale and a warning to those who aspire to the gangster life.

But to kids in Greensboro's poorest neighborhoods, it's a Cinderella story. They imitate Pacino, quote lines from the film and play the "Scarface" video game, which rewards players for taunting the people they shoot.

Increasingly, the line between fantasy and reality seems to be disappearing.

Greensboro ranked third in the state for gang activity, behind Durham and Fayetteville, according to a National Youth Gang Center survey released in 2005. The rankings are based on the number of gangs, gang membership and gang homicides.

Greensboro police say the city had at least 10 gang-related homicides last year. Four homicides and several shootings have been tied to gang activity this summer alone. The City Council and police department are struggling with how to handle the problem.

At the heart of the debate: What attracts kids to gangs in the first place?

Bloods, Crips and MS13 members all say they can identify with "Scarface." The feeling of being an outsider, dismissed and looked down on, is what gang members say drew them to their crews. And the dream of attaining wealth and respect — even by violence and drug dealing — drives them. Family and respect

"Don't nobody care about us," says an 18-year-old Blood from the Ray Warren Homes neighborhood who calls himself TT. "Ain't nobody looking out for us. When was the last time you saw the mayor down here?"

Although he's a high school dropout, TT's not stupid. He can see that black kids in poor neighborhoods are treated differently.

He points to National Night Out earlier this month, when police and city officials went to cookouts in Greensboro.

In some neighborhoods, kids got tours of firetrucks and emergency vehicles, TT says. At Ray Warren, they got the same two cops who always patrol the housing project.

"It's up to the police to organize Night Out, but we have limited resources," police Chief Tim Bellamy says. "We use our on-duty personnel, and anyone else we have to pay them time-and-a-half. That goes for the fire department, too. They use their on-duty personnel."

Whatever the reason, TT says, kids in his neighborhood have come to feel ignored — never as important as white kids or rich kids. As part of a gang, they feel they matter.

TT rolls up his sleeve to show a homemade tattoo: three black dots that make a Dawg Paw, a sign of his gang allegiance.

"This is what we grow up with," he says. "It's natural. You look and you see a gang, but we take care of our boys. We take care of our set. We take care of our neighborhood."

Some neighbors in gang-heavy areas say they feel anything but taken care of. They're afraid to let their children play outside. Many avoid even saying the word "gang" out loud, and none would give their names for fear of reprisal.

"It's not good for the neighborhood or the children who grow up in the neighborhood who get mixed up in it," says a 23-year-old mother of two from the Smith Homes neighborhood. "But that's just the way it's always been. Everybody does it. It's like you just have to get used to it as part of living here."

A 42-year-old woman in the same neighborhood says: "It's better if you don't even talk about it." She says she tries to keep her grandson away from gangs but worries he'll get mixed up in it.

"You look around the neighborhood,'' she says, "and this is not what you want for the children, to be doing these things, to be selling drugs and violent." Drugs and violence are part of gang life, TT says, but it's about more than that. "You got to be part of a crew that has respect. That's like family, boy."

James Howell, a senior research associate with the National Youth Gang Center, says gangs can feel like a family — but that's largely an illusion.

"Gangs give these kids status, a self-identity, and they call that their family," says Howell, who has a doctorate in criminology. "More than anything, that shows they come from poorly structured, fractured families. That leads them to have a skewed perspective."

Howell says kids replicate a sense of belonging through gangs and, just as important, get a feeling of protection.

"Yeah, they see those colors, they know it's you and your boys," says a 16-year-old Crip from the Groometown Road area. "It ain't you alone. You ain't never alone. That's the truth."

Police officer J.L. Jackson-Stroud is assigned to Ray Warren Homes, where he says gang affiliation is open. Members proudly display their colors even in front of police.

With broken families common, Jackson-Stroud says, young kids look for mentors and role models — and too often find them in gangs.

"I would say the average age of gang members in this area is 14," Jackson-Stroud says. "They definitely start young."

Detective Ernest Cuthbertson, the only Greensboro police officer assigned to gangs full time, says he has seen kids as young as 8 get involved.

"And there's no cap on how old they can be either,'' says Cuthbertson, who has dealt with gangs in Greensboro for 15 years. "It can get to be that the whole family is involved, so it becomes a rite of passage — like when your father and grandfather went to Duke or UNC."

Many gang members, or gangbangers, say gangs have been part of their neighborhoods for so long that it has become normal.

"Everybody you know is in a crew,'' says the 16-year-old Crip who loves "Scarface." "Your brother, your best friend, your father was in a crew, too. That's just what's happening."

He says people on the outside think gangs pressure kids to join or tell members they can't leave. That's not how he sees it.

"It ain't like nobody makes you be in a crew," he says. "You can't make somebody have nothing in their heart. You can't make nobody have loyalty. But it ain't like you see it — it ain't like it's scary s---.''

Outsiders in America

For Latino gangs, there is an extra element: the shared experience of living in a different culture. Many members are immigrants or first- and second-generation Americans.

"It's different for us," says a member of MS13 whose back, arm and wrist tattoos advertise his crew. "It's like this is a new country. Because that's how they look at you. They look at you like this isn't your country."

Another 24-year-old in MS13 says: "I been here 12 years, but I can (expletive) speak English. I can (expletive) speak English better than some white people."

MS13 also appeals to young men proud of their culture but without an outlet for that pride in a city dominated by black and white. "So you got your set. You got your signs. You got your colors," one member says. "You belong. That's like saying, 'This is where I belong.' "

Cuthbertson says many gangs exist solely for criminal activity, but some are created by prejudice.

"There is a serious issue of racial discrimination when it comes to Latino kids," he says.

Although many MS13 members come from Latin and Central American countries, the gang was founded in America by immigrants who faced racism and violence.

One MS13 member says being Latino means you don't belong anywhere.

"White people look down on black people, but even black people are, like, looking down on us, calling us names,'' the 34-year-old says. "They think we're the new niggers."

Get rich or die trying

After working in public housing for 22 years, Tina Akers-Brown says she has seen the gang problem get worse.

Akers-Brown, the executive director of Greensboro Public Housing, blames drug dealing, the get-rich-quick mentality it inspires, and gangs from larger cities moving in to recruit.

"These kids are just like any other kids," she says. "They just have fewer opportunities. When you have fewer opportunities, these are the kinds of decisions you make." Drug dealing isn't a secret. Gangbangers brag about it. By hustling, they're just latching on to the hood's only growth industry, they say.

"Ain't no business down here. Ain't nobody coming out here to help us out, give us opportunity," TT says. "We do it ourselves."

A 19-year-old Crip from the Rosewood neighborhood agrees.

"Nobody's out here offering nobody a job," he says. "Hustling is where the money is, and that's what anybody would be doing if they lived here, too."

Former drug dealers turned millionaires are the idols of young gangbangers. When the wisdom of hustling is questioned, kids quote the successes.

Rapper Jay-Z, who grew up in Brooklyn's Marcy Projects, went from low-level drug dealing to running Def Jam records. Rapper 50 Cent was a crack dealer before he had multiplatinum hits. The title of his first album, "Get Rich or Die Trying," has become a motto for kids in poor neighborhoods.

But the reality is that gang kids don't get rich selling drugs, Howell says.

"Street gangs hardly ever actually control drug trafficking," he says. "That's done by the big boys, drug cartels. They don't wear colors. They don't want you to know who they are. Street-gang drug dealing is very low level."

Musicians who brag about gangbanging and drug dealing are selling kids a dangerous fantasy, Cuthbertson says.

"The kids look up to 50 Cent, Jay-Z and The Game,'' he says. "They think these guys are real hard-core gangsters, but they're not. They're studio-made gangsters being used by corporate industry to make money."

What future?

Beyond fantasies of diamond-encrusted goblets, gangbangers can't tell you much about their futures.

"I think I could make it in the rap game," says one 15-year-old Crip from an East Greensboro neighborhood. "You can make that happen."

He points to the success of rapper and movie star Snoop Dogg, who claims allegiance to the Rollin' 20 set of Crips.

Asked if he can rap or craft beats, the 15-year-old says: "I'm working on that part." For now, he's hustling.

Eventually, some gang members see where that lifestyle can lead.

"I got out of it because I knew too many people got shot, too many people went to jail," a 17-year-old former Blood says. "It's like, I'm not going to wait my turn. It happens to everybody."

He says no one tried to keep him from leaving, but he lost a lot of friends. Nearly everyone he knows is in a gang. "You feel like an outcast,'' he says. "You feel like a punk."

Most gang members say they have no plans to get out.

"This is it," says a 19-year-old Crip from East Greensboro.

He smiles and opens his arms, gesturing to the empty streets of the housing project his crew calls home.

"This is what's happening," he says. "This is for life."

SOURCE: LAPD – SCHOOL DIVISION

LOS ANGELES SCHOOL POLICE DEPARTMENT

"Protecting our future, the children of Los Angeles"

Youth Gangs: An Awareness of a Critical Issue Impacting School Environments

Introduction:

Every large urban school district is affected by street gang activity; however, youth gangs are not simply a large city or inner city problem. Nor are they a problem of particular race or culture. Gang membership crosses all ethnic, racial and geographic boundaries.

An overall effort is continuously being made in Los Angeles City Schools by all employees of the Los Angeles Unified School District, specifically the Los Angeles School Police, to respond to the warning signs of possible involvement of students with youth gangs.

The following is provided to assist members of our community to understand and appropriately respond to this problem.

Identification: No single warning sign indicates that a child is behaving in a manner that potentially places the youth at risk of gang involvement.

What is a gang?

A youth/street gang should be defined as a closely (or loosely) structured group of individuals who may express their identification by adopting certain dress attire, adoption of symbolic behavior to include nicknames of individuals, tattoos, hand signs, and the claiming of territory in a neighborhood. The activities of this group include criminal acts of violence, threats, and anti-social behavior.

A youth/street gang may be small or large in membership, with subdivisions determined many times by location of the gang or ages of the members. (Sometimes smaller gangs will be called "sets", "cliques", "posse", or "crews".)

Gang recruitment of youth (students):

Recent research data has identified that the primary age for recruitment into street gangs is 11-15 years. It is in this age group that many gangs actively recruit new members at schools.

Youth gang involvement may begin as early as elementary school. Children as young as 7-8 years are extremely vulnerable and may start acting out, adopting the style and language of a gang, acquiring the status of a "wannabee". If there is no collaborative prevention and intervention effort by the school and parents, most likely the "wannabee" is certainly a "gonnabee".

Early involvement signs:

There are indicators of a child/student possible early involvement with youth gangs. Changes in behavior or activities are early warning signs and may include the following:

 Dropping, or poor, grades  Being truant from school  Affiliating more closely with peers than with family  Changing friends (associating with gang members)  Changing clothes, hair styles  Using alcohol and/or drugs  Developing attitude and behavior problems  Glamorizing youth gang lifestyle

The following physical indicators may include:

 Graffiti – Youth gang members will advertise their gang affiliations by writing gang graffiti on their school books, school bathrooms, school desks, and other school property. They will also write gang graffiti on walls of neighborhood properties adjacent to schools. Additionally, gang members will write gang graffiti at their personal residences. Gang graffiti will most certainly be found in the bedroom area of a youth gang member.  Youth gang clothing attire - Clothing continues to be a gang membership indicator; however, variations of gang clothing are in vogue and currently in style with many school age youth who are not involved in gang activities. Gang members associate extremely baggy clothing, clothes of particular colors, styles, and certain athletic teams (specifically baseball caps) as being affiliated, and important to gang membership. Clothing preferences change over time.  Hand signs/signals – Many gang members communicate their affiliation through hand signs. Youth practicing hand signals is an early warning sign of gang affiliation.  Gang style language – Most street gangs adopt the use of a form of gang slang and many forms of gang slang exist. Although students who are not gang members may use some gang forms, and excessive amount of gang slang is an indicator of possible gang involvement.

Signs of actual gang membership:

Once involved directly with a street gang, a youth/student’s behavior may change gradually, or suddenly. Most likely, it will follow a pattern or process. At school the youth will promote his affiliation and new status with the gang. The student will most likely become more disrespectful towards teachers and behavior problems involving defiant issues may increase.

Indicators of actual gang membership are:

 Monikers – Gang members pride themselves in being given nicknames, or monikers, by the gang. The moniker may highlight a physical characteristic, or some personal trait.  Attitude – One of the main activities of gang members is the intimidation of other youth and/ or adults. By promoting a defiant and arrogant attitude, gang members obtain a reputation for being tough and aggressive.  Tattoos – The majority of youth gang members after initiation, or acceptance into the gang, are tattooed, indicating their allegiance and affiliation. These tattoos could be crude or elaborate. Most likely, the gang members’ monikers and/or the gang’s name will be involved in the tattoo.

Prevention:

Students who are at high risk and vulnerable to join a youth gang exist in many school environments. They will continue to be attracted to possible gang involvement if educators, parents, public safety officials, and other community members are not aware of causation factors leading to youth gang membership.

Some of the factors include:

 The need for belonging to something special: Gang membership will provide the recognition, the identity, the attention, the support, the acceptance, of their peers. Many gang youth will join the gang to satisfy the need of belonging.  Family tradition: A youth may join a gang because a brother, sister, parent, or relative, has or had a gang affiliation.  Excitement: Many youth find the gang lifestyle daring and dangerous. The potential for violence has a certain level of attraction for many young people.  Protection: A youth may join a gang for physical protection from rival gang members. Some youth will feel they are targets for violence if they don’t join a gang.

Many of today’s gang youth do not believe in themselves outside of their gang structure. They do not see themselves being successful in school, or having employment opportunities in their communities.

A collaborative response:

Youth gang awareness is essential to all members of a community, but specifically important to those responsible with providing for safe schools. A safe school environment requires that teachers, students, administrators, parents, and all those charged with keeping children safe continue to be vigilant of all the complex issues involving youth gangs and youth gang recruitment efforts.

Youth gang problems are not uniquely a school problem. Youth gangs are a community problem, and will continue to be a national challenge.

Authored by: Det. G. "Sandy" Sandoval (Retired)

Source: Ventura County Star Newspaper

Juveniles tried as adults up 170% DA cites gang prosecution  By Raul Hernandez Posted February 17, 2008 at midnight

The district attorney's decision to try 14-year-old Brandon McInerney as an adult in the killing of another boy is part of a soaring trend in Ventura County.

In the past two years, the number of juvenile offenders tried as adults has nearly tripled from 10 in 2006 to 27 in 2007, officials say a nearly 170 percent increase. Also, in the four previous years from 2002 to 2005 the total number of such cases was just five, according to figures from the Ventura County District Attorney's Office.

“It's a big jump,” said Senior Deputy District Attorney Brian Rafelson. “Eighty-five percent are gang cases,”

The increase is attributed to several factors, including more resources earmarked for gang prosecution, Rafelson said. He said prosecutors have better ways to identify and prosecute gang members.

“It allows us to pursue those cases more vigorously,” he said.

McInerney is accused of the alleged hate-crime killing of a classmate, 15-year-old Larry King, on Tuesday at E.O. Green School in Oxnard. McInerney has not yet entered a plea.

The first-degree murder charge carries a prison sentence of 25 years to life, as does the felony charge of using a firearm in a crime.

The hate-crime allegation could add up to three years to the sentence.

A juvenile convicted of murder in the juvenile justice system can be incarcerated only until he or she is 25 years old.

Prosecutors' sole discretion The decision to prosecute McInerney as an adult has renewed the arguments over Proposition 21, the state ballot measure that California voters passed in 2000. It gives prosecutors sole discretion on whether juveniles 14 and older who commit serious crimes will be tried in adult courts.

Before Proposition 21, a fitness hearing was held, and a judge would determine whether a juvenile could be charged as an adult.

State voters overwhelmingly approved the ballot measure. Supporters of Proposition 21 say prosecutors must have more power in dealing with gang members. Supporters also say they are tired of “slap on the wrist” justice meted out by judges, which, they say, has made a mockery of the juvenile justice system.

Two of the staunchest supporters of Proposition 21 were the California District Attorneys Association and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association.

Lance Corcoran, spokesman for the Peace Officers Association #8212 whose 34,000 members work in state prisons, said the organization supports the law because it allows juveniles involved in serious, vicious or premeditated crimes to be transferred to adult courts.

Meanwhile, opponents of Proposition 21 have argued that youngsters lack the mental development and maturity to understand the crimes they commit.

Ventura County Senior Deputy Public Defender William Markov said politics is a big factor in determining whether prosecutors file a juvenile case in adult court.

He said prosecutors in general like to be perceived as tough on crime. He also said prosecutors get public pressure, and vocal special-interest groups weigh in on cases, especially in high-profile cases like McInerney's.

Markov questions whether prosecutors should have “unbridled discretion,” to send youngsters to the adult criminal justice system.

'Increase is alarming' Ventura County isn't alone in getting tough with juvenile offenders.

There is a growing trend throughout the country toward locking up juveniles, said Eric Solomon, spokesman for the Campaign for Youth Justice.

Data gathered by the Justice Policy Institute, a think tank based in Washington, D.C., show tens of thousands of young people end up in the adult system for nonviolent offenses, according to a study released last year by the institute. The Justice Policy Institute advocates ending what it describes as the nation's reliance on jails and prisons to fight crime.

In 2003, more than half the youths in California's adult system were prosecuted for misdemeanors, and fewer than 30 percent received prison sentences, suggesting that the majority of the youths could be handled in the juvenile justice system, the study says.

“One in five of incarcerated youth in adult and juvenile jails in the nation are from California,” said Solomon. “It's real easy to get incarcerated in California. It's just the way it is.”

Defense attorney Jay Leiderman said he was surprised by the rise in the number of juveniles whose cases are being sent to adult courts in Ventura County.

“The increase is alarming,” said Leiderman, who is the president of the Ventura County Criminal Defense Bar Association. “Human behavior hasn't changed that much from 2006 to 2007 to justify that increase.”

Leiderman said it doesn't bode well when society's solution to juvenile crime is to lock up young offenders with adults.

“It's a terrible failure on us,” he said.

One of 30 felony offenses The district attorney prosecutes juveniles in adult courts if the juveniles are accused of committing serious felonies and generally have significant records in the juvenile justice system, said Michael K. Frawley, chief deputy district attorney.

If a juvenile commits one of 30 felony offenses spelled out in the law, ranging from murder to witness intimidation, the law allows prosecutors to send the case to adult court, according to Rafelson.

However, he said, the district attorney takes into consideration prior criminal history and whether the crime was gang-related. Last year, there were 2,602 misdemeanor and felony criminal charges filed against youthful offenders in juvenile court in Ventura County, said Rafelson, noting that some juveniles had one or more charges against them.

Of the juveniles whose cases were prosecuted as adults in 2007, all but one were male, and the average age was 16 years, Rafelson said.

In 2007, robbery, assault with a deadly weapon including a firearm, witness intimidation, attempted murder and carjacking were the top crimes committed by juveniles that put them in the adult criminal system.

That number includes a 14-year-old boy who was arrested Dec. 13 for a gang-related assault with a deadly weapon, a knife, Rafelson said.

Last year, the lone female offender whose juvenile case was transferred to adult court was charged with carjacking. The case is still pending.

In 2006, robberies, attempted murders, assaults with deadly weapons and carjacking, sent 10 juveniles into the adult courts.

'I think it's a mistake' Rafelson said most of the juvenile offenders who are tried in adult courts live in Oxnard because there are more gangs there. He said they don't keep records of their ethnicity.

McInerney isn't the only 14-year-old boy charged as an adult in a homicide.

In 2001, Rocky Mattley was 14 when he was arrested on suspicion of helping to kill a homeless man. Mattley was convicted the following year in adult court and sentenced to seven years in the California Youth Authority.

Corcoran said 14-year-old murder suspects should be tried in adult court only after considering all the circumstances and facts surrounding the crimes. “Do I think it should be the rule?”

McInerney's lawyer, Brian Vogel, said Friday that he's doing legal research to prepare a strong defense, including challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 21. He said it was a mistake to remove from a judge's discretion the decision of whether a child is fit to be tried as an adult.

“I think it's a mistake in a constitutional magnitude,” Vogel said, adding that he is aware that he has an uphill legal battle.

Although the state Supreme Court has rejected constitutional challenges to Proposition 21, Vogel said, he can still take his case to the federal courts.

"We are hopeful that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn it," he said.

Markov said he launched the first constitutional challenge to Proposition 21 in the county nine months after the bill was passed by voters. The case involved 17-year-old Isaac Lara, who was charged with shooting a Santa Paula woman. Markov argued that the initiative violates the separation of powers, giving prosecutors too much discretion.

Prosecutors successfully argued in that case that they already hold broad powers and make decisions such as which charges are filed against a defendant, including whether the death penalty will be sought. Proposition 21 is simply an extension of that power, they maintained.

Ultimately, Lara was convicted in adult court of the first-degree murder of Joanna Orozco in 2002.

Have no respect for life Supporters of trying juveniles who commit serious crimes in adult courts often point to convicted teen killers like Rodolfo "Rudy" Sandoval and Nathan Sessing, who, they say, have no respect for life, to bolster their arguments.

Sandoval fired two shotgun blasts in the middle of a Ventura street, killing Ryan Briner two years ago. The victim's mother, Linda Briner, recently testified that when she found her dying son near her home, Sandoval and co-defendant and fellow gang member, Javier "Listo" Acevedo, were laughing as they drove away. The music inside Acevedo's car was cranked up, she testified. In an unrelated case, Sessing stabbed Larry Phifer, 61, in the neck six times, beat him with a baseball bat and stole a DVD player from his home on Dec. 2, 2004. Sessing stabbed Brett Cook two days before Phifer was killed. Sessing tried to burglarize Cook's girlfriend's car and was confronted by Cook.

Both Sessing and Sandoval, who were 17 when they committed the murders, were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Acevedo was an adult defendant and received a similar sentence.

Proponents argue that juveniles should be punished for their crimes, but the law must take into consideration that a youngster's brain isn't fully developed.

State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, said that a teenager's brain isn't completely developed, and a teen's impulse control, planning and critical thinking are still not yet fully matured.

Yee's spokesman, Adam Keigman, said Yee has introduced a bill to do away with sentencing juveniles to life without the possibility of parole. The bill was supposed to go to the Senate for a vote in January, but Yee postponed that action in hopes of getting the necessary two-thirds support later this year.

Yee believes that a sentence of 25 years to life is fair, and it gives some hope to youngsters that, if they behave in prison, they will be eligible for parole after serving 25 years, said Keigman.

On the decline There are 232 inmates in the state prison system who committed crimes as juveniles, were prosecuted as adults and sentenced to life in prison without parole, said Seth Unger, spokesman for the California Department of Corrections. Unger said he didn't have the breakdown on how many of those inmates were convicted in Ventura County.

Although juvenile crime is on the decline, persuading the public to soften its stance on youthful offenders like McInerney is a hard sell, Solomon said. In Ventura County, the rate of juvenile felony arrests dropped 44 percent since the peak year of 1995, down 928 per 100,000 teens from 1,650, according to a Department of Justice report in 2006.

In the county, in California, and across the nation, the incidence of violent juvenile crime, which peaked in the mid-1990s, was as low as it's been since the early 1970s.

Still, there is opposition to Yee's bill, including the Peace Officers Association.

Corcoran, who has interviewed killers including one as young as 14, said 232 inmates isn't that many when you consider the population of the state.

“What they are not going to have is the opportunity to kill another person” he said.

SOURCE: United States Department of Justice, Juvenile Crime Division “The Growth of Youth Gang Problems in the United States, 1970-1998”

Summary of Report For many decades, communities in the United States have been troubled by criminal activities, including serious violent crimes, committed by youth gangs. The prevalence and seriousness of gang problems have fluctuated over time, with gang activity escalating during some periods and diminishing during others. The last three decades of the 20th century were characterized by a major escalation of youth gang problems throughout the Nation, accompanied by a substantial increase in gang studies, surveys, and reports. These reports conveyed a general impression that the number of localities experiencing gang problems had increased but failed to provide concrete, national-level information on the size of the increase, the localities involved, and their location.

This information gap is filled by the present Report, which presents detailed information on the numbers and specific identities of gang problem localities, the size of these localities, rates of growth, and location by State and region of the cities, towns, villages, and counties that reported gang problems between the 1970’s and late 1990’s. Trend and rate analyses over a three-decade period were made possible by the availability of baseline data collected by the first national youth gang survey, conducted during the 1970’s. Major findings of the Report are summarized below.

The number of localities reporting gang problems increased dramatically between the 1970’s and 1990’s. By the late 1990’s, 3,700 identified localities in the United States—about 2,550 cities, towns, and villages and 1,150 counties, totaling the highest number ever reported—had reported the presence of gang problems. These figures represent a nearly tenfold increase in the number of cities and an elevenfold increase in the number of counties reporting gang problems during the study period.

In the 1970’s, 19 States reported gang problems; by the late 1990’s, all 50 States and the District of Columbia had reported gang problems. In the 1970’s, the combined population of all cities reporting gang problems was about 25 percent of the population of all cities, and the population of all counties reporting gang problems was about 40 percent of the all-county population. By the late 1990’s, the population of gang cities had risen to about 60 percent of all cities, and the gang- county population had risen to about 90 percent of the all-county population.

The States with the largest number of gang-problem cities in 1998 were California (363), Illinois (261), Texas (156), Florida (125), and Ohio (86). Of these, only two, California and Illinois, reported large numbers of cities with gang problems in the 1970’s. The States with the largest number of gang counties in 1998 were Texas (82), Georgia (61), California (50), Illinois (42), and Florida (40), in that order; the South replaced the Northeast as the region with the most top-ranking States. Nationwide, there was a substantial decrease in the concentration of gang cities in the higher ranking States as gang problems continued to spread to new States. In the 1970’s, the top four States contained about three quarters of all gang cities; in the 1990’s, the percentage had fallen to about one-third. In the 1970’s, only 8 States reported 5 or more gang cities; in the 1990’s, all 50 States reported 5 or more. In the 1970’s, gang counties were concentrated in a relatively small number of States, principally California and Texas. By the 1990’s, gang counties were spread widely throughout the Nation. In the 1970’s, only 6 States reported more than 5 gang counties; in 1998, 47 States reported more than 5. In 1998, gang-problem cities were concentrated in a relatively small group of counties, with the top-ranking, high-concentration counties containing more than 40 percent of all gang cities. Cook County, IL, reported the largest number of gang cities, followed by Los Angeles County, CA. Riverside and Orange Counties in California also reported high concentrations of gang cities.

The regional location of gang cities changed radically during the three-decade period. In the 1970’s, the West ranked highest in the reported number of gang cities, and the South ranked lowest. By 1998, the South ranked second, with a 33- fold increase in gang cities since the 1970’s. Traditionally, gang problems have been a big city phenomenon, and this situation continued during the three decades prior to 2000. In the late 1990’s, there were approximately 200 cities with populations of 100,000 or more, and every one of these large cities reported youth gang problems. Comparison of the numbers and percentages of gang cities in designated population categories in 1998 with the numbers and percentages of all U.S. cities shows that gang cities with more than 25,000 inhabitants (larger gang cities) made up 43 percent of all gang cities but contained 88 percent of their population. These larger gang cities made up 77 percent of the number of all larger cities, but 86 percent of their population, and 3 percent of the number of all U.S. cities, but 52 percent of their population.

Gang problems, however, were by no means confined to large cities. One of the best documented developments of this period was a striking increase in the growth of gang problems in the Nation’s smaller cities, towns, and villages. The size of the average gang city population fell from 182,000 to 34,000, an 81-percent decline. The number of gang cities with populations less than 25,000 rose from 35 percent of all gang cities to 57 percent, and the population of gang cities smaller than 25,000 rose from less than 1 percent of the total U.S. city population to about 7 percent. The number of gang cities with 1,000 to 5,000 inhabitants increased more than 27 times, and the number of gang cities with 5,000 to 10,000 inhabitants increased more than 32 times.

Reasons for the striking increase in the number of gang-problem localities are discussed in this Report under seven headings: drugs, immigration, gang names and alliances, migration, government policies, female-headed households, and gang subculture and the media. An analysis of projected growth rates of gang- problem cities provides a basis for predicting future trends in the number of gang cities. The data provide considerable support for a prediction that the rate of growth that prevailed during the later 1990’s will decrease in the early 2000’s and some support for a prediction that the actual number of gang locations will decrease.

Summary and Explanations of Report The primary objective of this Report is to provide statistical information on the growth of youth gang problems in the United States during the quarter century preceding December 1995 by examining changes in the numbers, types, and locations of localities reporting the presence of gang problems. The findings, based on 1995 data, can be summarized as follows:

Major Findings -As of 1995, gang problems had been reported for all 50 States and the District of Columbia, for about 700 counties, and for about 1,500 cities and towns.

-States accounting for 100 percent of the population of the United States, cities and towns accounting for 50 percent of the total municipal population, and counties accounting for almost 80 percent of the all-county population reported the existence of youth gang problems.

-The number of cities reporting gang problems rose from 201 in the 1970’s to 1,487 in 1995, an increase of 640 percent.

-The population of gang-problem cities rose from 36.5 million in the 1970’s to 131.5 million in 1995— an increase of 95 million, or approximately 260 percent.

- In the 1970’s, the population of gang-problem cities equaled about one-fifth of the population of all U.S. cities; by 1995, the population of gang cities had risen to more than half of the all-city population.

-The number of counties reporting gang problems rose from 73 in the 1970’s to 706 in 1995, an increase of almost 870 percent. - In 1995, the State of California ranked first in the Nation in the number of gang cities, with about 300. The top five States—California, Illinois, Texas, Florida, and New Jersey—contained approximately half of the Nation’s gang cities.

-Youth gang problems in the United States grew dramatically between the 1970’s and the 1990’s, with the prevalence of gangs reaching unprecedented levels. This growth was manifested by steep increases in the number of cities, counties, and States reporting gang problems. Increases in the number of gang localities were paralleled by increases in the proportions and populations of localities reporting gang problems.

There was a shift in regions containing larger numbers of gang cities, with the Old South showing the most dramatic increase. The size of gang-problem localities also changed, with gang problems spreading to cities, towns, villages, and counties smaller in size than at any time in the past.

These conclusions provide a basis for posing two important questions: “How does one explain these remarkable rates of growth?” and “What are the implications of these findings for current methods of reducing gang problems and for evaluating the effectiveness of current programs?” The same chapter considers both the risks and benefits of discussing reasons for the dramatic growth in the number of gang-problem localities and concludes that, despite the risks, the presentation of a set of explanations is of sufficient value to merit its inclusion in this Report.

Explanations There is little consensus as to what has caused the striking growth in reported youth gang problems during the past 25 years. It is unlikely that a single cause played a dominant role; it is more likely that the growth was the product of a number of interacting influences. The following sections briefly discuss the possible role of seven factors that have been analyzed: drugs, immigration, gang names and alliances, migration, government policies, female-headed households, and gang subculture and the media.

Drugs The most common explanation for the increase in youth gang problems, and one particularly favored by law enforcement personnel, centers on the growth of the drug trade. Historically, youth gangs have engaged in a variety of illegal income-producing activities, including extortion, robbery, and larceny. In the 1980’s, according to this argument, the increasing availability and widening market for illegal drugs, particularly crack cocaine, provided new sources of income.The relative ease with which large sums of money could be obtained by drug trafficking provided a solid financial underpinning for gangs, increased the solidarity of existing gangs, and offered strong incentives for the development of new ones.

As gangs fought one another over control of the drug trade in local areas, the level of intergang violence rose and, in the process, increased gang cohesion and incentives to form alliances with other gangs. These developments, along with market requirements, resulted in widespread networks of drug-dealing gangs. The clear model here is that of organized crime during Prohibition, with rival mobs fighting over markets and forming alliances and rivalries with other mobs. This argument appears to have considerable power in accounting for the growth of gangs, and there is little doubt that the drug trade was one important factor in that growth. However, research studies on gangs and drugs have produced considerable evidence that the number of gangs directly involved in the drug trade is much smaller than claimed by the proponents of this position, that many gangs are involved only minimally with drugs, and that the development of cross-locality alliances and centralized control is much less in evidence than has been claimed.

Immigration Most people who study gangs agree that immigration has played a major role in the formation and spread of gangs for more than a century. Gangs in the 1800’s were composed largely of recently immigrated Irish, Jewish, Slavic, and other ethnic populations. Major waves of immigration during the past 25 years have brought in a many groups of Asians (Cambodians, Filipinos, Koreans, Samoans, Thais, Vietnamese, and others) and Latin Americans (Colombians, Cubans, Dominicans, Ecuadorians, Mexicans, Panamanians, Puerto Ricans, and others) whose offspring have formed gangs in the classic immigrant gang tradition. Asian gangs, in particular, have engaged in characteristic gang crimes, often victimizing members of their own ethnic groups and have come to pose a major problem for law enforcement throughout the Nation. There can be little doubt that the new immigrants have contributed to the growth of gangs. However, equal or greater growth has occurred in gangs of American-born Asians, African Americans, and Hispanics—increases that cannot be attributed to immigration. Migration Explanations based on drugs, immigration, gang names, and alliances are all related to another popular explanation for the increase in youth gang localities— the migration of local gangs to other areas. Attributing the spread of gangs to migration is particularly favored by those who also support the drug-trade explanation. According to this interpretation, gangs that exhausted the drug market or faced increasing and often violent competition from other local drugdealing gangs in a particular area simply left that area and transferred their operations to new markets not yet exploited by drug gangs or to areas where competition by local gangs was less intense. This reasoning was also popular because it was consonant with one of the classic explanations for local troubles—that newly arrived outsiders are responsible for crime and other local problems. As in the case of the drug trade explanation, much of the support for this position was based on anecdotal and impressionistic evidence. The first comprehensive empirical study of migration was conducted by Cheryl Maxson and her colleagues (1996). Maxson’s study concludes that while intercity migration is quite common, “cities where migration provides the catalyst for indigenous gang formation are the exception rather than the rule.”

Migration was not the original cause of gang problems in about two-thirds of the 800 cities surveyed by Maxson. Like the drug trade explanation, evidence for the existence of the phenomenon is clear, but the weight of its influence, especially when viewed in the context of the other explanations discussed here, has been substantially exaggerated.

Government Policies Events accompanying the civil rights movement and the urban riots of the 1960’s had a profound impact on government policymakers and the residents of the slums, ghettos, and barrios of the United States. Many officials, in part through a conscientious effort to improve the living conditions of low-income populations and in part because of a fear of continued violence, adopted a more permissive stance and, in some cases, a supportive stance toward many of the customary practices of inner-city communities. As a result, customs including language patterns, family arrangements, child-rearing practices, and housing patterns that had been stigmatized by the larger society gained increased legitimacy. Among these customs was the prevalent practice by youth of forming street gangs and engaging in a variety of gang activities. Urban youth gangs were seen by some policymakers as a major vehicle for bettering the life of ghetto and barrio residents; they were indigenous, rooted in the community, and represented an untapped reservoir of potential leadership that could enhance the dignity of low-income youth and play a leading role in the general improvement of low-income communities. These officials advocated recognizing gangs as legitimate community groups that could serve as the cutting edge of social reform if granted adequate support and financing. A secondary and less explicit motive for supporting the gangs was the hope that grants of Federal funds would reduce gang participation in burning and looting during riots.

In fact, well over a million dollars in Federal funds was allocated to gangs in New York City and Chicago by the Office of Economic Opportunity (O.E.O.), the central agency established by the U.S. Congress to conduct a Federal War on Poverty. O.E.O. officials hoped that the gang members would abandon illegal practices, “go legit,” and serve the purposes of community betterment. These efforts were largely unsuccessful, but many residents of low-income communities took the government support as a signal of increased acceptability of gangs and their lifestyle. Many of the youth who participated in the massive expansion of gangs in the 1980’s were the children of those who had experienced the dramatic events of the 1960’s and had received the message that gangs and the gang lifestyle were regarded with tolerance, if not approval, by powerful politicians. When the youth of the 1960’s became parents, many opposed gang membership for their children, but the message of an increased acceptability of gang life had already become part of the community subculture and provided an incentive to form and join gangs. Another consequence of the 1960’s riots was a major exodus of better educated and more prosperous residents from many ghetto communities. This resulted in higher concentrations of less educated and less prosperous residents and a reduction in the antigang influences the previous residents had provided.

Female-Headed Households “The gang is a product of the broken home” was a popular saying among those who worked with gangs in the 1950’s. Research during and after this period appeared to grant considerable support to this belief, although the language was altered somewhat to fit the terminology of the times. The research suggested a causal link between youth gangs and males reared in fatherless households. The argument, in brief, was that the absence of a stable male role model in many low-income households created identity problems for males and that the gangs, with their emphasis on tough masculinity, male bonding, and macho values, in essence took the place of fathers in providing a model of male identity for boys raised primarily by women. Gang membership played a vital role in learning and practicing the characteristics and attitudes of male adulthood. Insofar as the proposed link between gangs and fatherless families is valid, one would expect that communities with gangs would have more femaleheaded households than other communities and that an increase in the number of female- headed households would lead to an increase in the number of gangs. Available data support both assumptions.

A substantial majority of the African American households were located in the inner-city areas where gangs traditionally have been found. While the increase in the number of children raised in female-headed households is smaller than the increase in gang-city populations, both the direction and general magnitude of the changes are similar. The increase in female-headed households would thus appear to be related to the increase in gangs.

Gang Subculture and the Media Has the media contributed to the growth of gang problems? The influence of the media on the behavior of youth has long been a contentious issue. In recent years, increasing consensus has developed in support of the position that media images do have a significant influence, particularly on more susceptible youth. In the case of youth gangs, this contention would not be difficult to sustain. The lifestyle and subculture of gangs are sufficiently colorful and dramatic to provide a basis for well-developed media images. For example, the Bloods/Crips feud, noted earlier, caught the attention of media reporters in the early 1990’s and was widely publicized. Gang images have served for many decades as a marketable media product—in movies, novels, news features, and television drama —but the 1980’s saw a significant change in how they were presented.

In the 1950’s, the musical drama West Side Story portrayed gang life as seen through the eyes of adult middle-class writers and presented themes of honor, romantic love, and mild rebellion consistent with the values and perspectives of these writers. In the 1990’s, the substance of gang life was communicated to national audiences through a new medium known as gangsta rap. For the first time, this lifestyle was portrayed by youthful insiders, not adult outsiders. The character and values of gang life described by the rappers differed radically from the images of West Side Story. Language was rough and insistently obscene; women were prostitutes to be used, beaten, and thrown away; and extreme violence and cruelty, the gang lifestyle, and craziness or insanity were glorified. Among the rappers’ targets of hatred, scorn, and murder threats were police, especially black police (referred to as “house slaves” and “field hands”); other races and ethnic groups; society as a whole; and members of rival gangs.

The target audience for gangsta rap was adolescents at all social levels, with middle-class suburban youth constituting a substantial proportion of the market for rap recordings. The medium had its most direct appeal, however, for children and youth in ghetto and barrio communities, for whom it identified and clarified a set of values, sentiments, and attitudes about life conditions that were familiar to them. The obscene and bitterly iconoclastic gangsta rappers assumed heroic stature for thousands of potential gang members, replacing the drug dealer as a role model for many. Gangsta rap strengthened the desire of these youth to become part of a gang subculture that was portrayed by the rappers as a glamorous and rewarding lifestyle.

Research on Explanations and Causes Another possible approach to explaining the growth of youth gang problems is suggested by the findings on the presence or absence of gang problems in the various localities. As noted earlier, the process of identifying localities with gang problems at the same time identifies those that do not report such problems. Tables 2 and 3 show that, as of 1995, more than 34,000 cities, towns, and villages and over 2,300 counties did not report gang problems. This finding provides the basis for research designed to identify those factors or circumstances associated with the presence or absence of gang problems. The research would select a sample of gang localities and a sample of nongang localities matched as closely as possible by size, population characteristics, regional location, and other variables. The two samples would be compared with respect to standard demographic measures such as income levels, population density, employment rates, educational levels, number of police per capita, and ethnic, racial, and religious composition— variables potentially associated with the presence or absence of youth gangs. Another approach to identifying correlates of gang presence or absence would use the data on cities reporting gang problems in the 1970’s but not in the 1990’s (see table 7). Since their number is fairly small, it would be feasible to conduct an indepth study of each of these cities or a subset, if preferred, to identify the developments, experiences, policies, programs, and other factors that contributed to the termination of gang problems. Such factors, if detected, could be the basis for devising prevention and control programs for other localities. In addition, the size of this relatively small group of cities could be augmented by additional localities shown by future research to have reported that earlier gang problems were no longer present.

Source: Time Magazine Which Kids Join Gangs? A Genetic Explanation By KATHLEEN KINGSBURY Wednesday, June 10, 2009

How much power do genes hold over behavior? Can they predict, for example, whether a child will grow up to join a gang? Those are among the questions raised by a new Florida State University (FSU) study released June 5.

Since the early 1990s, science has suggested a link between antisocial behavior and a defect in the gene that codes for an enzyme called monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A). A low level of activity on the MAO-A gene results in an excessive breakdown of neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, which helps keep humans calm and happy. The defect thereby increases the urge to react aggressively to threats or fears, leading MAO-A to be referred to as the "warrior" gene.

The latest research, however, takes the association one step further. It is the first to link low activity on the MAO-A allele in young men both to an increased likelihood of joining a gang and to a greater tendency to use weapons and violence. "For the first time, we were able to establish a direct connection between the MAO-A gene and the choosing of a violent lifestyle," says Kevin Beaver, a biosocial criminologist at FSU and lead author of the study published in Comprehensive Psychiatry.

Researchers used DNA data and self-reported lifestyle surveys from nearly 2,500 participants in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the largest and most comprehensive survey of health-related behavior among adolescents between 7th and 12th grade, which started in 1994. Slightly more than half of the study's male participants had low-level activity on the MAO-A gene, and about 3% of the total pool reported having joined a named gang in the past year.

Beaver and his colleagues found that those males carrying the low-active MAO-A gene were nearly twice as likely to join an organized gang than males with the high-active gene, and when in a fight, they were nearly twice as likely to brandish a weapon. Of the gang members studied, those who had a low-activity MAO-A allele were more than four times more likely to use a weapon when compared with male gang members who carried a high-activity version of the allele. "At the very least this suggests a genetic risk factor that can help us identify those youth most at risk," Beaver says. "We can then intervene earlier to prevent it."

Indeed there's little doubt that violence is the result of an uneasy mix between bad genes and a bad environment. How much control nature has over nurture, however, is the question. Previous studies of the MAO-A gene suggest that interplay may begin in early childhood. A British study of 442 New Zealand men, published in 2003, was among the first to find that those with a low-active MAO-A gene, who had been abused as children, were four times more likely to have committed rapes, robberies and assaults than the general population. Those with high-active MAO-A genes, moreover, appeared to be immune to childhood mistreatment, turning out to be no more or less violent than average. Men with low-active genes who were not the victims of child abuse were slightly less antisocial than average.

"What all these risk gene studies show us is that genes do an important job in loading the gun," says Joshua Buckholtz, a neuroscience Ph.D. candidate at Vanderbilt University's Brain Institute and Department of Psychology, who has written extensively about MAO-A gene. "But it's the environment that pulls the trigger."