Hybrid and Other Modern Gangs

Home , Gangs in Chicago, Nortenos, Pirus

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

December 2001

Hybrid and Other A Message From OJJDP Modern Gangs Gangs have changed significantly from the images portrayed in West Side Story and similar stereotypical David Starbuck, James C. Howell, depictions. Although newly emerging and Donna J. Lindquist youth gangs frequently take on the names of older traditional gangs, the The proliferation of youth gangs since 1980 same methods of operation as traditional similarities often end there. has fueled the public’s fear and magnified gangs such as the Bloods and Crips (based This Bulletin describes the nature of possible misconceptions about youth gangs. in Los Angeles, CA) or the Black Gangster modern youth gangs, in particular, To address the mounting concern about Disciples and Vice Lords (based in Chicago, hybrid gangs. Hybrid gang culture is youth gangs, the Office of Juvenile Justice IL). These older gangs tend to have an age- characterized by mixed racial and and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s) graded structure of subgroups or cliques. ethnic participation within a single Youth Gang Series delves into many of the The two Chicago gangs have produced or- gang, participation in multiple gangs key issues related to youth gangs. The ganizational charts and explicit rules of by a single individual, vague rules and series considers issues such as gang migra- conduct and regulations, including detailed codes of conduct for gang members, tion, gang growth, female involvement with punishments for breaking gang rules (Sper- use of symbols and colors from gangs, homicide, drugs and violence, and gel, 1995:81). They have developed coali- multiple—even rival—gangs, collabo- the needs of communities and youth who tions with other gangs, forming what are ration by rival gangs in criminal activi- live in the presence of youth gangs. called gang “nations,” such as Folks (in- ties, and the merger of smaller gangs cluding the Black Gangster Disciples) and into larger ones. Thus, hybrid gang 1 “Hybrid” youth gangs have existed in the People (including the Vice Lords). customs are clearly distinguished from United States at least since the 1920s the practices of their predecessors. (Thrasher, 1927). Early hybrid gangs were Although many communities have gangs described mainly as mixed-race or mixed- that bear the names of earlier gangs that The Bulletin draws on survey data, research findings, and field reports ethnicity gangs; modern-day hybrid gangs, originated in Los Angeles and Chicago, the to detail these critical differences, however, have more diverse characteris- actual membership of these newer gangs reviewing such issues as gang is often locally based and has little or no tics. “Hybrid gang culture” is character- stereotypes and gang migration in real national affiliation. These hybrids— ized by members of different racial/ethnic the process. groups participating in a single gang, indi- new gangs that may have the names but viduals participating in multiple gangs, un- not the other characteristics of older If law enforcement agencies are to clear rules or codes of conduct, symbolic gangs—are one of the new types of gangs effectively address the problems associations with more than one well- most frequently found in communities posed by newly emerging youth established gang (e.g., use of colors and that had no gang culture prior to the gangs, they must understand the graffiti from different gangs), cooperation 1980s or 1990s. Because gangs, gang cul- differences that distinguish them from of rival gangs in criminal activity, and fre- ture, and gang-related activities are dynam- the stereotypical concept of traditional quent mergers of small gangs. ic, affected communities need to recognize gangs. The information provided in the new faces of these groups and avoid this Bulletin should contribute to that As the new millennium begins, hybrid popularly held, media-influenced miscon- awareness. gangs are flourishing and their changing ceptions (see Best and Hutchinson, 1996; nature is making it more difficult to study Decker, Bynum, and Weisel, 1998; Fernan- and respond to them. Today, many gangs dez, 1998; Fleisher, 1995, 1998; Klein, 1995; do not follow the same rules or use the Miethe and McCorkle, 1997; McCorkle and Miethe, 1998). The public continues to perceive youth gangs and gang members in terms of the media stereotype of the California Crips and Bloods rather than in terms of current scientific data (Klein, 1995:40–43, 112–135). Some jurisdictions may erroneously adapt a response that is appropriate for well- publicized Los Angeles or Chicago gang problems but not for gang issues in their own jurisdictions (Miethe and McCorkle, 1997). For example, misreading local gangs as drug trafficking enterprises rather than neighborhood conflict groups could ren- der interventions ineffective. Because the characteristics of local gangs and their criminal involvement may differ from the features of gangs in distant cities, different strategies may be required to address the local gang problem effectively. This Bulletin addresses youth gangs in the 21st century by considering what consti- counties (Egley, 2000; Howell, Moore, and Winfree, 1999; Fleisher, 1998; Miller, J.A., tutes a hybrid gang, whether gangs and Egley, forthcoming). The average year of 2001). For example, 92 percent of gang individual members are migrating across gang problem onset was 1989 for large youth in one student survey (Esbensen, the country, and how new coalitions such cities, 1990 for suburban counties, 1992 Deschenes, and Winfree, 1999:42) said as hybrid gangs differ from stereotypical for small cities, and 1993 for rural coun- both boys and girls belonged to their gang. and traditional gangs. The Bulletin brings ties (National Youth Gang Center, 1999). together survey data, recent research re- The localities reporting later onset of gang Gangs in suburban areas, small towns, and sults, and firsthand reports from the field problems are most likely to be in rural rural areas show more membership diver- to examine today’s gangs and their mem- counties, small cities, and suburban coun- sity than gangs in large cities. Gangs in bers. For reports from the field, the Bul- ties with populations of less than 50,000 these areas have more racially/ethnically letin draws heavily on insights shared by (Howell, Egley, and Gleason, forthcoming). mixed membership (National Youth Gang author David Starbuck, formerly a Sergeant Center, 2000:22–23) and include more fe- in the Kansas City Police Department’s Gangs are also becoming commonplace in males, Caucasians, and younger members Gang Unit, whose contributions are incor- institutions, including schools, that had than gangs in larger cities (Curry, 2000; porated throughout the Bulletin, especially been considered safe havens. For many Howell, Egley, and Gleason, forthcoming). in the sidebars that give the law enforce- students, school has become a gathering ment practitioner’s point of view. place for gangs. More than one-third (37 Organization percent) of a nationally representative The broad range of modern or contempo- Although a fixed definition has not been sample of students reported gang presence rary gangs, as depicted in research studies established, youth gangs are often pre- in their schools in 1995, a 100-percent in- and survey data, is discussed in the first sumed to be highly organized groups that crease over 1989 (Howell and Lynch, 2000). section of this Bulletin. The growth of mod- engage in some level of criminal activity. Gang presence is being reported even in ern gangs provides a social context for the Several studies challenge the notion that the military (Hasenauer, 1996). emergence of hybrid gangs. Hybrid gangs youth gangs are highly organized. Decker are discussed in the second section, and and colleagues (1998) compared the two conclusions and policy implications are Member Diversity most highly organized gangs (as reported highlighted in the final section. Although many gangs continue to be based by police) in Chicago, IL, and San Diego, on race or ethnicity, gangs are increasingly CA. They found that the Chicago gangs diverse in racial/ethnic composition. Law were far more organized than the San Characteristics of enforcement agencies responding to the Diego gangs but levels of organization Modern Youth Gangs 1998 National Youth Gang Survey estimat- were not necessarily linked to increased ed that more than one-third (36 percent) involvement in crime (Decker, Bynum, and Location of youth gangs had a significant mixture of Weisel, 1998:408). Their observation that Once a problem primarily in large cities, two or more racial/ethnic groups (Nation- the San Diego gangs were disorganized mir- youth gangs are now present in suburbs, al Youth Gang Center, 2000). Small cities rors Sanders’ (1994) findings. Other stud- small towns, and rural areas (Miller, W.B., had the largest proportion of gangs with ies have questioned the extent of youth 2001). In 1999, law enforcement agencies mixed race/ethnicity. The Midwest had a gang organization in emerging gang cities reported active youth gangs in 100 per- larger proportion of mixed gangs than any such as Denver, CO (Esbensen, Huizinga, cent of the Nation’s largest cities (those other region. and Weiher, 1993); Cleveland and Colum- bus, OH (Huff, 1996, 1998); Kansas City, with populations of 250,000 or more), 47 Recent student surveys and field studies MO (Fleisher, 1998); Milwaukee, WI (Hage- percent of suburban counties, 27 percent of local gangs also report significant gen- dorn, 1988); Pittsburgh, PA (Klein, 1995); of small cities (those with populations der mixtures (Esbensen, Deschenes, and below 25,000), and 18 percent of rural San Francisco, CA (Waldorf, 1993); Seattle,

2 WA (Fleisher, 1995); and St. Louis, MO a sense of “legitimacy” to new groups, but crimes than gang members in early-onset (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996; Decker and the context of the new localities may pro- localities. For example, about 8 in 10 gang Curry, 2000). duce adaptations that lead to divergence members in localities with the earliest on- from the traditional patterns. Data from set of gang problems (before 1986) were Modern youth gangs are generally less ter- the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey show said to use firearms in assault crimes ritory based than gangs of the past (Klein, that nearly 9 in 10 (87 percent) of the lo- “often” or “sometimes,” compared with 1995; Miller, 1992; National Youth Gang calities reporting gang problems said that fewer than 3 in 10 gang members in locali- Center, 2000). In the older gang cities and onset occurred during the 1986–96 period ties with the latest onset (1995–96). the Southwest, gangs traditionally were (National Youth Gang Center, 1999). An tied strongly to their neighborhoods or analysis of National Youth Gang Center A comparison of drug trafficking patterns barrios. The Mexican-American “turf gang” (NYGC) survey data on early onset (be- in areas with early and late onset of gang pattern, transmitted across generations fore 1990) versus late onset (during the problems found that both gang member and ethnicities, has given way to autono- 1990s) localities (Howell, Egley, and Glea- involvement in drug sales and gang con- mous gangs as the predominant pattern son, forthcoming) found that gangs in the trol of drug distribution were much less (Klein, 1995:102). These autonomous gangs newer gang-problem localities were dis- likely to be significant problems in juris- consist of single, named groups occupying tinctly different in their demographic dictions where gang problems emerged smaller territories and may be based in a characteristics from traditional gangs in in the past decade (Howell and Gleason, neighborhood, a public housing project, jurisdictions where gang problems began 1999). In the newer gang problem locali- or another community location (such as much earlier. Gangs in late-onset localities ties, gang control of drug distribution was a schoolyard or shopping mall). had younger members, slightly more fe- less likely to be extensive than was gang member involvement in drug sales. Some gang research in the 1960s suggest- males, more Caucasians, and more of a ed that youngsters were pressured to join racial/ethnic mixture. Caucasians were the Gang member involvement in drug sales gangs by peers who used strong-arm tac- predominant racial/ethnic group in the was less extensive in the oldest gang juris- tics (Yablonsky, 1967). Community (adult) latest onset (1995–96) localities. Gangs in dictions (onset of gang problems before representatives view peer pressure to join localities where gang problems began in 1980) than in jurisdictions where onset gangs as irresistible (Decker and Kempf- the 1990s also tended to have a much larg- occurred between 1981 and 1990 (Howell Leonard, 1991). However, it is not as diffi- er proportion of middle-class teens. and Gleason, 1999). Gang member involve- cult for adolescents to resist gang pres- Gang members in late-onset localities also ment in drug sales was most extensive in sures as is commonly believed. In most were far less likely to be involved in vio- jurisdictions with onset between 1981 and instances, adolescents can refuse to join lent crimes (homicide, aggravated assault, 1985 and then decreased consistently in gangs without reprisal (Decker and Kempf- robbery, and use of firearms) and property subsequent onset periods through Leonard, 1991; Fleisher, 1995; Huff, 1998; Maxson, Whitlock, and Klein, 1998).

Perpetuating the myth of lifetime member- Practitioner’s View: The Challenges of Hybrid Gangs ship helps sustain a gang, because the group’s viability depends on the ability of Law enforcement officers from communities unaffected by gangs until the 1980s or active members to maintain the percep- early 1990s often find themselves scrambling to obtain training relevant to hybrid tion that leaving the gang is nearly impos- gangs. When gang-related training first became widely available in the early 1990s, sible (Decker and Lauritsen, 1996:114). it often emphasized historical information, such as the formation of the Los Ange- The reality is that members (especially les Crips and Bloods in the late 1960s or the legacy of Chicago-based gangs (the marginal members) typically can leave a Black Gangster Disciples, Latin Kings, and Vice Lords). As law enforcement offi- gang without serious consequences (Deck- cers learned about the origins of these influential gangs, they sometimes attempt- er and Lauritsen, 1996; Decker and Van ed to apply this outdated information in their efforts to deal with hybrid gangs in Winkle, 1996; Fleisher, 1995). In fact, most their jurisdictions. The assumption that new gangs share the characteristics of adolescents do not remain in gangs for older gangs can impede law enforcement’s attempts to identify and effectively counter local street gangs, and actions based on this assumption often elicit inap- long periods of time—particularly in areas propriate responses from the community as a whole. Citizens may react negatively with emerging gang problems. Studies in to law enforcement efforts when they sense that gang suppression actions are three cities that developed gang problems geared to a more serious gang problem than local gangs appear to present. fairly recently—Denver, CO; Rochester, NY; and Seattle, WA—show that from 54 to 69 Because of uncertainty in reporting on problem groups such as “cliques,” “crews,” percent of adolescents who joined gangs “posses,” and other nontraditional collectives that may be hybrid gangs, some po- in the three cities stayed in them for 1 lice department staff spend an inordinate amount of time trying to precisely cate- year or less and 9 to 21 percent belonged gorize local groups according to definitions of traditional gangs. When training law for 3 years or more (Thornberry, 1998). enforcement groups on investigative issues surrounding drug trafficking or street gangs, instructors must resist the tendency to connect gangs in different cities just because the gangs share a common name. If the groups engage in ongoing crimi- Onset of Local Gang nal activity and alarm community members, law enforcement officers should focus Problems on the criminal activity, regardless of the ideological beliefs or identifiers (i.e., name, It appears that the emergence of gangs in symbols, and group colors) of the suspects. This practical approach would circum- new localities2 in the 10-year period 1986– vent the frustration that results from trying to pigeonhole hybrid gangs into narrow 96 has contributed to the growth of hybrid categories and would avoid giving undue attention to gangs that want to be recog- gangs. For example, the use of names and nized as nationwide crime syndicates. symbols of traditional gangs may provide

3 1995–96. Thus, gang members in the newest gang problem jurisdictions were Practitioner’s View: Gang Migration and Hybrid much less likely to be involved in drug Gangs in Kansas City sales than gang members in jurisdictions where gang problems began during the Gangs began moving into the Midwest in the early 1980s, with Kansas City, MO, early to mid-1980s. emerging as a textbook example of a locality experiencing gang migration. Locat- ed in almost the geographical center of the continental United States, Kansas City has approximately 5,000 documented gang members and affiliates and numerous Gang Stereotypes Chicago- and California-style gangs in the metropolitan area.1 No single group has The characteristics of modern gangs con- achieved dominance. trast sharply with the stereotypical image The Kansas City Police Department’s Drug Enforcement Unit first encountered of gangs that emerged in the 1980s and gang migration while investigating a new wave of drug entrepreneurs in the 1980s. continues to predominate. From the 1920s By 1988, these trafficking suspects included confirmed members of the Crips and through the 1970s, gang members were Bloods sets (subgroups) from the Los Angeles, CA, area. As the presence of the characterized mainly as young (11–22 Crips and Bloods became increasingly pronounced in Kansas City, other law en- years old) Hispanic or African American forcement agencies in the Midwest began sharing similar gang intelligence infor- males who lived in lower class ghetto or mation. Suddenly, Los Angeles Crips and Bloods were known to be dealing cocaine barrio sections of the inner city (Klein, in most major midwestern cities, including Des Moines, IA; Minneapolis, MN; 1995; Miller, 1992; Spergel, 1995). In that Oklahoma City, OK; Omaha, NE; and Wichita, KS. By 1990, the arrival of Chicago- period, gangs usually were viewed as ra- based gang members in Kansas City was also confirmed through routine investi- cially and ethnically homogeneous, spon- gations of drug trafficking and homicides. taneously organized, and authoritatively controlled fighting groups (Miller, 1992). Although Kansas City has experienced gang migration, the area’s larger gangs continue to be locally based hybrids that may not have any affiliations with migrant Classic “rumbles” historically were the gang members. These groups exemplify the evolving modern gangs that are now major form of gang fighting, but they gave increasingly common throughout the United States, particularly in suburban areas, way in the 1970s to forays by small armed small cities, and rural communities. In the past decade or more, Kansas City’s and motorized bands. Most gang violence hybrid gang members have adopted traditional gang culture, modified it with person- was motivated by honor or local turf deal interpretations and agendas, and become much more of a criminal and societal fense and, to a lesser extent, control over problem to the community than any of the groups that have migrated into the area. facilities and areas and economic gain (Miller, 1992:118). Gang violence was not a For example, in two sections of Kansas City, two different gangs operate as the major social concern (Klein, 1969). Athens Park Boys (APB). These groups share the name with the original Athens Park Boys, a well-established Bloods set originating in Los Angeles County. Al- In the mid- to late 1980s, this predominant though both of the Kansas City APB gangs engage in criminal activities and anti- gang stereotype was modified significantly social behavior, they have no connection other than the shared name: one set is by a California study in which researchers composed of African American teens on the east side of the city, and the other contended that the two major Los Angeles consists of Caucasian teens, primarily from affluent families in the suburbs. Each gangs, the Crips and Bloods, had become group seems to be unaware of its Kansas City counterpart, and neither set is con- highly organized and entrepreneurial and nected to APB in California or any other jurisdiction. Because of their increasing were expanding their drug markets to membership and unique characteristics and culture, hybrid gangs (like Kansas other cities (Skolnick et al., 1988). Where City’s APBs) warrant further examination. these drug operations appeared, presum- ably, so did violent crime. 1 According to 2000 U.S. Census projections, the total population of Kansas City, MO, is 443,277 and the population of the Kansas City metropolitan area is approximately 1.2 million. Gang Migration The expanded presence of gangs is often blamed on the relocation of members from members had migrated from another juris- the relocation of young people from one city to another, which is called gang diction to the one in which they were re- central cities (Egley, 2000). Thus, the dis- migration. Some gangs are very transient siding (Egley, 2000). Although gang migra- persion of the urban population to less and conduct their activities on a national tion is stereotypically attributed to illegal populated areas contributed to the prolif- basis. However, the sudden appearance of activities such as drug franchising, expan- eration of gangs in suburban areas, small Rollin’ 60s Crips graffiti in a public park in sion of criminal enterprises is not the prin- towns, and rural areas. rural Iowa, for example, does not neces- cipal driving force behind migration (Max- sarily mean that the Los Angeles gang has son, 1998). The most common reasons for Law enforcement professionals may not be set up a chapter in the community. Gang migration are social considerations affect- able to differentiate among local gangs that names are frequently copied, adopted, or ing individual gang members, including have adopted names of the same well- passed on. In most instances, there is lit- family relocation to improve the quality of known gangs from other locales but have tle or no real connection between local life or to be near relatives and friends. no real connection with each other until groups with the same name other than Moreover, in the 1999 National Youth Gang they begin to interact with gang members the name itself (Valdez, 2000:344). Survey, the vast majority (83 percent) of through interviews, debriefings, and other contacts. “Hybrid” versions will begin to Gang migration does occur, however. Ac- law enforcement respondents agreed that the appearance of gang members outside display variations of the original gang, such cording to the 1999 National Youth Gang as giving different reasons for opposing Survey, 18 percent of all youth gang of large cities in the 1990s was caused by

4 rival gangs or displaying certain colors. ◆ Gang members may change their affil- themselves with a local gang that has Investigators who take the time to cross- iation from one gang to another. no ties to their original gang. check their local gang intelligence with that ◆ It is not uncommon for a gang member ◆ Members of rival gangs from Chicago of other agencies concerning gangs with to claim multiple affiliations, sometimes or Los Angeles frequently cooperate in identical names are likely to find some sub- involving rival gangs. For example, in criminal activity in other parts of the tle and some glaring differences. Kansas City, MO, police may encounter country. an admitted Blood gang member who Youth often “cut and paste” bits of Holly- Emerging Information is also known in the St. Louis, MO, area wood’s media images and big-city gang on Hybrid Gangs as a member of the Black Gangster lore into new local versions of nationally Disciples gang. known gangs with which they may claim Hybrid gangs are more frequently encoun- ◆ Existing gangs may change their names affiliation. Other hybrids are homegrown tered in communities in which gang prob- or suddenly merge with other gangs to and consider themselves to be distinct lems emerged during the 1990s than in form new ones. entities with no alliance to groups such localities that reported onset of gang as the Bloods/Crips or Folks/People. Be- problems in the 1980s. According to law ◆ Although many gangs continue to be based on race/ethnicity, many of them cause these independent gangs can be enforcement respondents in the 1998 Na- the most difficult to classify, they fre- tional Youth Gang Survey, gangs with a are increasingly diverse in both race/ ethnicity and gender. Seemingly strange quently pose the biggest problems for significant mixture of two or more racial/ local law enforcement. ethnic groups represent a larger propor- associations may form, such as between tion of all reported gangs in localities that Skinheads, whose members frequently Migrating gang members appear to have said their gang problem began in the 1990s espouse racist rhetoric, and Crips, contributed to the growth of hybrid youth (Howell, Moore, and Egley, forthcoming). whose members are predominantly gangs in newer gang problem localities in A more specific question was asked about African American. the 1990s. Migrant gang members may act hybrid gangs in the 1999 survey. The sur- ◆ Gang members who relocate from as cultural carriers of the folkways, myth- vey questionnaire noted: “Some contend California to the Midwest may align ologies, and other trappings of more so- that there are youth gangs ‘that don’t fit phisticated urban gangs (Maxson, 1998:3). the mold’ of any particular gang category. These gangs may have several of the following characteristics: a mixture of racial/ ethnic groups, male and female members, Practitioner’s View: Gang Trends in the Midwest display symbols and graffiti of different Hybrid gangs are particularly prevalent in the Midwest region of the United States. gangs, or have members who sometimes Three features of the Midwest hybrid gangs are troublesome for law enforcement switch from one gang to another.” Re- officers: new alignments the hybrid gangs may make, Hispanic gang patterns, and spondents were asked if they had gangs Asian gang criminal activity. that fit this description. Six in ten respondents (61 percent) said they had such New alignments. Los Angeles gang members relocating to the Midwest may align themselves with a local gang that has no real ties to the California member’s origi- gangs. However, the average number of nal gang set. In certain cases, gang members relocating from Chicago or Los An- such gangs in a given locality—four— geles conduct criminal activity in cooperation with their former rivals. For example, is small (Howell, Moore, and Egley, a recent Kansas City investigation identified multiple defendants in a drug traffick- forthcoming). ing operation. Checking the suspects’ backgrounds through Los Angeles law en- Hybrid gangs tend to have the following forcement files, investigators discovered that some of the defendants were affiliated nontraditional features: with the 135 Compton Pirus Bloods, and others were affiliated with the rival Los Angeles gang, the 5 Deuce Hoover Crips. This coalition surprised investigators in ◆ They may or may not have an allegiance Los Angeles, but cooperation often occurs when drug alliances form in “neutral” to a traditional gang color. In fact, much parts of the country, such as the Midwest. Frequently, profit potential outweighs of the hybrid gang graffiti in the United traditional gang loyalties. States is a composite of multiple gangs Hispanic gang patterns. Factions of Hispanic gangs are becoming increasingly with conflicting symbols. For example, prominent in much of the United States, including the Midwest. It is crucial for law Crip gang graffiti painted in red (the enforcement to know the origins and rivalries of Hispanic gangs, including the Sur- color used by the rival Blood gang) enos, Nortenos, and Sinaloan Cowboys, because officers increasingly encounter would be unheard of in California but these and other factions. Transient Hispanic gangs may continue their animosity have occurred elsewhere in the hybrid with rivals in other parts of the country and engage in violent encounters with local gang culture. Hispanic gangs. This phenomenon is more common with Hispanic gangs than with ◆ Local gangs may adopt the symbols of other types of gangs. Hispanic gang members tend to be more loyal and tradition- large gangs in more than one city. For al in supporting their gang, even when in transit or when relocating to other parts example, a locally based gang named of the country. after the Los Angeles Bloods may also Asian gang criminal activity. In the Midwest, Asian gang criminal activity, much use symbols from the Chicago People of which is perpetrated by transient gangs, continues to have a great impact. Prob- Nation, such as five-pointed stars and lems for law enforcement include cultural misunderstandings, identification issues, downward-pointed pitchforks. language barriers, and the transient nature of these gangs (who travel out of State to commit crimes).

5 Movies and “gangsta” lyrics also have con- of gangs and gang culture can confuse con- ◆ Provision of opportunities. tributed to the proliferation of bits and cerned agencies, including those in the ◆ Suppression/social control. pieces of gang culture. Law enforcement juvenile and criminal justice systems, as agencies began to notice hybrid gangs they struggle to separate gangs into neat ◆ Organizational change and after one such gang was depicted in the categories that often do not exist. It is vi- development. movie Colors (Valdez, 2000:13). Gang mi- tally important for law enforcement to con- The model is multifaceted and multi- gration, movies, and gangsta music work centrate on gang-related criminal activity layered, involving the individual youth, together to introduce local gangs to large- rather than on more ephemeral aspects of the family, the gang structure, local agen- city gang culture. The lack of an existing gang affiliation or demographics. cies, and the community. NYGC (2001b) gang culture allows for modification and has prepared a planning guide to assist adaptation of the culture of urban gangs. When addressing local gang problems, communities need to understand ongoing communities in developing a plan to im- A field study of the Fremont Hustlers in changes in the Nation’s gang dynamics, plement OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Kansas City, MO, illustrates a unique form provide and participate in updated gang- Model. of hybrid gang (Fleisher, 1998). The gang related training, and monitor the specific had no written set of rules, no member- gangs and associated cultures within their Conclusion ship requirements, and no leader or hier- own jurisdictions. Unfortunately, one thing archy that might pull all 72 members into has not changed with the advent of the Although hybrid gangs are not new to the a coherent organization. By hanging out hybrid gang. There is no universal formula United States, they clearly have flourished and establishing ties with Fremont Hus- for a patently successful response, and in the past decade. This Bulletin stresses tlers, an outsider is slowly assimilated what works in one city may have little im- the “culture” of modern hybrid gangs. This into the gang’s social life (Fleisher, 1998: pact in another. An effective strategy must concept means that they are character- 39). Fremont gang youth did not use the be based on an accurate assessment of ized by more than simply a mixture of age, term “member”; their closest expression the local problem, updated information gender, and racial/ethnic membership— was “down with Fremont” (Fleisher, 1998: about local gang activities, an examination although the diverse membership of gangs 41). Because the Fremont Hustlers was not of resources in the community, and a real- in newer gang problem localities certainly a cohesive organization and youth did not istic appraisal of how to gauge the impact contributes to a wide diversity of gang talk about the group’s structure or opera- of the response. As many agencies as pos- forms. The hybrid gang culture sharply tion, the gang structure was difficult to sible, particularly local government and distinguishes modern gangs from tradition- recognize at first. In the study, Fremont police administration, must be included al gangs. Modern hybrid gangs do not op- gang youth said they were Folks, but they early in the process of developing a strat- erate by traditional gang rules. Their affili- did not know why, except that they liked egy for gang prevention and intervention. ation with gangs based in Chicago or Los to draw the pitchfork symbol used by the The more resources and partners that are Angeles is likely to be in name only. They Folks (Fleisher, 1998:26). Fleisher described involved, especially those with authority tend to “cut and paste” gang culture from this gang as “a haphazardly assembled to respond directly to gangs, the greater traditional gangs, and they may display social unit composed of deviant adoles- a community’s chances for success. symbols traditionally associated with sev- cents who shared social and economic eral gangs. They may form alliances with needs and the propensity for resolving All jurisdictions experiencing gang prob- rival gangs to carry out criminal activity, those needs in a similar way” (1998:264). lems need to assess their problems care- but their independent mode of operating fully in light of the gang characteristics re- makes them difficult for law enforcement viewed in this Bulletin. NYGC (2001a) has to classify. Thus, it is very important for Policy and Program developed a protocol that communities law enforcement agencies to recognize the Implications can use to guide the assessment of their diverse gang culture of hybrid gangs, to gang problem. This assessment protocol is approach them without any preconceived To devise an appropriate response to hy- applicable in communities of all sizes and notions, and to concentrate on their gang- brid gangs, law enforcement and other characteristics. related criminal activity rather than on community agencies must understand their presumed affiliations with traditional The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of that hybrids do not operate by traditional gangs. Every community—regardless of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven- rules but they often follow general patterns the presence or absence of hybrid gangs— tion (OJJDP) has invested considerable that distinguish them as a new type of should conduct a thorough assessment of resources in the development and testing gang. That is, they often have members of its unique gang problem before devising of a Comprehensive Community-Wide Ap- different racial/ethnic groups, members strategies for combating it. may claim multiple gangs, codes of con- proach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, duct may be unclear, graffiti may contain a and Suppression (Spergel et al., 1994). This mixture of symbols, and they may be in- model, based on a national assessment of Endnotes youth gang policies and programs (Spergel volved in criminal activity alongside other 1. In the remainder of this Bulletin, unless other- gangs. In other instances, exemplified by and Curry, 1990), is a general framework wise noted, the term “gang” refers to youth the many cities that have factions of Black that addresses the youth gang problem gangs. through the following five interrelated Gangster Disciples or Rollin’ 60s Crips, 2. The term “locality” refers to the major types strategies: there may be differing levels of true con- of named place units found in the United States nection to the original gang, or the tie may ◆ Community mobilization. (Miller, W.B., 2001:15). It includes cities, subur- be primarily related to criminal activities ban areas, and counties in the National Youth ◆ such as drug trafficking. This melting pot Social intervention, including preven- Gang Survey. tion and street outreach.

6 References Howell, J.C., and Gleason, D.K. 1999. Youth Gang Miller, W.B. 2001. The Growth of Youth Gang Prob- Drug Trafficking. Youth Gang Series Bulletin. lems in the United States: 1970–98. Report. Wash- Best, J., and Hutchinson, M.M. 1996. The gang Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of initiation rite as a motif in contemporary crime Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and discourse. Justice Quarterly 13:383–404. Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Delinquency Prevention. Curry, G.D. 2000. Race, ethnicity, and gender Howell, J.C., and Lynch, J.P. 2000. Youth Gangs National Youth Gang Center. 1999. 1996 National issues in gangs: Reconciling police data. In in Schools. Youth Gang Series Bulletin. Washing- Youth Gang Survey. Summary. Washington, DC: Problem Oriented Policing, vol. 2. Washington, ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice DC: Police Executive Research Forum. Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- Decker, S.H., Bynum, T.S., and Weisel, D.L. 1998. and Delinquency Prevention. quency Prevention. A tale of two cities: Gangs as organized crime Howell, J.C., Moore, J.P., and Egley, A., Jr. Forth- National Youth Gang Center. 2000. 1998 National groups. Justice Quarterly 15:395–423. coming. The changing boundaries of youth Youth Gang Survey. Summary. Washington, DC: Decker, S.H., and Curry, G.D. 2000. Addressing gangs. In Gangs in America, 3d ed., edited by U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro- key features of gang membership: Measuring C.R. Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquen- the involvement of young gang members. Jour- Publications, Inc. cy Prevention. nal of Criminal Justice 28:473–482. Huff, C.R. 1996. The criminal behavior of gang National Youth Gang Center. 2001a. Assessing Decker, S.H., and Kempf-Leonard, K. 1991. Con- members and non-gang at-risk youth. In Gangs your community’s youth gang problem. Unpub- structing gangs: The social definition of youth in America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff. Thou- lished report. Tallahassee, FL: National Youth activities. Criminal Justice Policy Review sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. Gang Center. Copies are available from NYGC. 75–102. 5:271–291. National Youth Gang Center. 2001b. Planning for Decker, S.H., and Lauritsen, J.L. 1996. Breaking Huff, C.R. 1998. Comparing the Criminal Behav- implementation of the OJJDP Comprehensive the bonds of membership: Leaving the gang. In ior of Youth Gangs and At-Risk Youth. Research Gang Model. Unpublished report. Tallahassee, Gangs in America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff. in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of FL: National Youth Gang Center. Copies are Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National available from NYGC. Institute of Justice. pp. 103–122. Sanders, W. 1994. Gangbangs and Drive-Bys: Decker, S.H., and Van Winkle, B. 1996. Life in the Klein, M.W. 1969. Violence in American juvenile Grounded Culture and Juvenile Gang Violence. Gang: Family, Friends, and Violence. New York, gangs. In Crimes of Violence, vol. 13, edited by New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. NY: Cambridge University Press. D.J. Mulvihill and M.M. Tumin. Washington, DC: National Commission on the Causes and Pre- Egley, A., Jr. 2000. Highlights of the 1999 National vention of Violence, pp. 1427–1460. National Youth Gang Youth Gang Survey. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro- Klein, M.W. 1995. The American Street Gang. New Center York, NY: Oxford University Press. grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquen- As part of its comprehensive, coordi- cy Prevention. Maxson, C.L. 1998. Gang Members on the Move. nated response to America’s gang Esbensen, F., Deschenes, E.P., and Winfree, L.T. Youth Gang Series Bulletin. Washington, DC: problem, the Office of Juvenile Jus- 1999. Differences between gang girls and gang U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice tice and Delinquency Prevention boys: Results from a multi-site survey. Youth Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- (OJJDP) funds the National Youth and Society 31(1):27–53. quency Prevention. Gang Center (NYGC). NYGC assists Maxson, C.L., Whitlock, M.L., and Klein, M.W. State and local jurisdictions in the Esbensen, F., Huizinga, D., and Weiher, A.W. collection, analysis, and exchange 1993. Gang and non-gang youth: Differences in 1998. Vulnerability to street gang membership: Implications for practice. Social Service Review of information on gang-related demo- explanatory variables. Journal of Contemporary graphics, legislation, literature, Criminal Justice 72(1):70–91. 9(1):94–116. research, and promising program Fernandez, M.E. 1998. An urban myth sees the McCorkle, R.C., and Miethe, T.D. 1998. The polit- strategies. NYGC coordinates activi- light again. Washington Post (November 15):B2. ical and organizational response to gangs: An ties of the OJJDP Gang Consortium, examination of “moral panic” in Nevada. Justice a group of Federal agencies, gang Fleisher, M.S. 1995. Beggars and Thieves: Lives Quarterly 15(1):41–64. program representatives, and serv- of Urban Street Criminals. Madison, WI: Univer- ice providers that works to coordi- sity of Wisconsin Press. Miethe, T.D., and McCorkle, R.C. 1997. Evaluat- ing Nevada’s anti-gang legislation and gang nate gang information and programs. Fleisher, M.S. 1998. Dead End Kids: Gang Girls prosecution units. Unpublished report. Wash- NYGC also provides training and and the Boys They Know. Madison, WI: Univer- ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of technical assistance for OJJDP’s sity of Wisconsin Press. Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Rural Gang, Gang-Free Schools, and Gang-Free Communities Initia- Hagedorn, J.M. 1988. People and Folks: Gangs, Miller, J.A. 2001. One of the Guys: Girls, Gangs, tives. For more information, contact: Crime and the Underclass in a Rustbelt City. and Gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Chicago, IL: Lakeview Press. Press. National Youth Gang Center Hasenauer, H. 1996 (October). Gang awareness. Miller, W.B. 1992 (Revised from 1982). Crime P.O. Box 12729 Soldiers Online. www.dtic.mil/soldiers. by Youth Gangs and Groups in the United States. Tallahassee, FL 32317 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 850–385–0600 Howell, J.C., Egley, A., Jr., and Gleason, D.K. Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 850–386–5356 (fax) Forthcoming. Modern Day Youth Gangs. Youth Justice and Delinquency Prevention. [email protected] Gang Series Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. De- www.iir.com/nygc partment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

7 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 189916

Skolnick, J.H., Correl, T., Navarro, E., and Rabb, Spergel, I.A., and Curry, G.D. 1990. Strategies Thrasher, F.M. 1927. The Gang—A Study of 1,313 R. 1988. The Social Structure of Street Drug Deal- and perceived agency effectiveness in dealing Gangs in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of ing. Report to the Office of the Attorney Gener- with the youth gang problem. In Gangs in Amer- Chicago Press. al of the State of California. Berkeley, CA: Uni- ica, edited by C.R. Huff. Newbury Park, CA: Sage versity of California, Berkeley. Publications, Inc., pp. 288–309. Valdez, A. 2000. Gangs: A Guide to Understanding Street Gangs, 3d ed. San Clemente, CA: LawTech Spergel, I.A. 1995. The Youth Gang Problem. New Thornberry, T.P. 1998. Membership in youth Publishing. York, NY: Oxford University Press. gangs and involvement in serious and violent offending. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Of- Waldorf, D. 1993. When the Crips invaded San Spergel, I.A., Chance, R., Ehrensaft, C., Regulus, fenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interven- Francisco: Gang migration. Journal of Gang Re- T., Kane, C., Laseter, R., Alexander, A., and Oh, tions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. search 1:11–16. S. 1994. Gang Suppression and Intervention: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., Yablonsky, L. 1967. The Violent Gang, revised Community Models. Research Summary. Wash- pp. 147–166. ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of ed. New York, NY: Penguin. Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This Bulletin was prepared under Cooperative Agreement 95–JD–MU–K001 with the Institute for Intergovernmental Research from the Office Acknowledgments of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. David Starbuck was formerly a Sergeant with the Kansas City Police Department, Points of view or opinions expressed in this where he supervised the Gang Unit. He is vice president of the Missouri Chapter document are those of the authors and do not of the Midwest Gang Investigators Association and an adjunct consultant with necessarily represent the official position or NYGC. Mr. Starbuck provided the photograph on page 2. policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice. James C. Howell, Ph.D., is an adjunct researcher with NYGC.

Donna J. Lindquist is a senior research associate with the Institute for Intergovern- The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- mental Research. quency Prevention is a component of the Of- The authors are grateful to John Moore, Director of NYGC, and NYGC staff for fice of Justice Programs, which also includes valuable reviews and comments on earlier versions of this Bulletin. Phelan Wyrick, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau Program Manager at OJJDP, also made important contributions. of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.