Gang Members on the Move

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

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

Shay Bilchik, Administrator October 1998

Gang Members From the Administrator As an increasing number of small on the Move cities and communities are beset by the emergence and growth of youth gangs—once regarded as the problem of major metropolitan cities—concerns about gang migration and its effects Cheryl L. Maxson on gang proliferation have grown. Evidence of gang migration for pur- The proliferation of youth gangs since critical that they have a clear understand- poses of drug distribution and other 1980 has fueled the public’s fear and mag- ing of patterns of gang migration and an activities has been presented by law nified possible misconceptions about youth accurate assessment of local, or indig- enforcement, the media, and others. gangs. To address the mounting concern enous, gang membership. But what is the true scope of gang about youth gangs, the Office of Juvenile This Bulletin explores how key terms migration and what types of gangs Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s such as “gang,” “gang proliferation,” and migrate? A clear understanding (OJJDP’s) Youth Gang Series delves into “gang migration” are defined; how and of the nature and scope of gang many of the key issues related to youth whether gang migration affects gang pro- migration and its impact on local gangs. The series considers issues such as liferation; and trends reported in research gang activities is critical. Gang gang migration, gang growth, female in- literature. This Bulletin is based in part Members on the Move attempts to volvement with gangs, homicide, drugs and on work supported by the National Insti- clarify the concepts of “gang” and violence, and the needs of communities tute of Justice (NIJ) and an article previ- “gang migration,” and draws on the and youth who live in the presence of ously published in the National Institute of National Survey on Gang Migration youth gangs. Justice Journal (Maxson, Woods, and Klein, and other literature to provide a In recent years, local government offi- 1996).* Findings from a recent University preliminary but enlightening look cials, law enforcement officers, and com- of Southern California (USC) study on at the relationship between gang munity organizations have witnessed the street-gang migration are also discussed migration and proliferation. emergence and growth of gangs in U.S. (Maxson, Woods, and Klein, 1995). Although the author, noted researcher cities once thought to be immune to the Cheryl Maxson, acknowledges the crime and violence associated with street need for additional research on gang gangs in large metropolitan areas. Police Clarifying the Concepts migration and its effects, she concludes chiefs, mayors, school officials, commu- that communities should examine nity activists, and public health officials Defining the Terms “Gang,” their own dynamics before attributing have gone so far as to identify this prolif- “Gang Proliferation,” and their gang problems to migration. eration as an epidemic. Reports of big-city “Gang Migration” Indeed, we need to look at all of the gang members fanning out across the Na- Gang. There has been much debate factors that contribute to gang problems tion seeking new markets for drug distri- over the term “gang,” but little progress locally if we are to design a preven- bution have added fuel to concerns about tion, intervention, and suppression gang proliferation and gang migration. strategy to address them effectively. The increase in gang migration has *This Bulletin expands on and updates previous analyses and published findings. OJJDP believes this Bulletin generated the need for the issue to be Shay Bilchik presents a unique contribution to the field by providing Administrator assessed based on empirical evidence. an analysis of chronic and emergent gang cities with As local communities attempt to address regard to gang migration, a key factor in the discussion gang-related problems in their areas, it is of gang proliferation. and law enforcement accounts at the Federal, State, and local levels (Bonfante, 1995; Hayeslip, 1989; California Council on Criminal Justice, 1989; Genelin and Coplen, 1989; McKinney, 1988; National Drug Intelligence Center, 1994, 1996). For the USC study, migration was broadly defined to include temporary relocations, such as visits to relatives, short trips to sell drugs or develop other criminal en- terprises, and longer stays while escaping crackdowns on gangs or gang activity. More permanent changes, such as residential moves (either individually or with family members) and court placements, were also included. Individuals in the study did not have to participate in gang activity in the destination city to be considered gang migrants. This broad definition of gang migration allowed researchers to investigate the degree of gang-organized and gang-supported ex- has been made toward widespread and young adulthood, individual members pansion of members to other locations, acceptance of a uniform definition. Some move in and out of gangs, continually af- of which little evidence was found. It also researchers prefer a broad definition that fecting the gangs’ structure (Thornberry allowed researchers to examine varia- includes group criminal and noncriminal et al., 1993). The terms “wannabe,” “core,” tions in gang activity in the destination activities, whereas law enforcement agen- “fringe,” “associate,” “hardcore,” and “O.G.” city and the many reasons for relocating. cies tend to use definitions that expedite (original gangster) reflect the changing If the concept of migration was limited to the cataloging of groups for purposes of levels of involvement and the fact that individuals or groups traveling solely for statistical analysis or prosecution. Varia- the boundaries of gang membership are gang-related purposes or at the direction tions in the forms or structure of gangs penetrable. Some researchers argue that of gang leaders, the patterns of migration make it difficult to put forth one standard the term “member” was created and used would change drastically. Further, collec- definition (Klein and Maxson, 1996). For by law enforcement, gang researchers, and tive gang migration is rare, but the migra- example, researchers have attempted to individuals engaged in gang activity with tion of individual gang members is not. draw a distinction between street gangs only a loose consensus of generalized, Another complication in defining gang and drug gangs (Klein, 1995). Drug gangs shared meaning. migration is the distinction between are perceived as smaller, more cohesive, Gang proliferation. The term “gang and more hierarchical than most street proliferation” indicates the increase in gangs and are exclusively focused on con- communities reporting the existence of 1 Few studies attempt to assess the proportion and ducting drug deals and defending drug gangs and gang problems (Knox et al., age of adolescent gang members within a given area. territories. Street gangs, on the other 1996). While gangs have existed in vari- Recent information on self-identified membership from hand, engage in a wide array of criminal ous forms, degrees, and locations in the longitudinal projects for representative samples in activity. Drug gangs may be subgroups of Denver, CO, and Rochester, NY, (Thornberry and United States for many decades, the Burch, 1997) is available from the OJJDP-funded Pro- street gangs or may develop indepen- sheer volume of cities and towns docu- dently of street gangs. For the purposes gram of Research on the Causes and Correlates of menting recent gang activity cannot be Delinquency. Approximately 5 percent of youth living of this Bulletin and the national surveys denied. Some of this increase may be at- in “high-risk” neighborhoods in Denver indicated that on gang migration conducted by USC, tributed to a heightened awareness of they were gang members in any given year (Esbensen, gangs were defined as groups of adoles- gang issues, redirection of law enforce- Huizinga, and Weiher, 1993). In Rochester, 30 percent cents and/or young adults who see them- of the sample reported gang membership at some ment attention, widespread training, and point between the beginning of the seventh grade and selves as a group (as do others) and have national education campaigns. Neverthe- been involved in enough crime to be of the end of high school (Thornberry and Burch, 1997). less, gangs exist in locations previously To address the issue of gang proliferation within Den- considerable concern to law enforcement unaffected and attract a larger proportion ver or Rochester, new samples would need to be exam- and the community (Maxson, Woods, and of adolescents than in the past.1 ined to determine whether the proportion of youth Klein, 1995). In the USC survey, drug gangs joining gangs in these cities has increased since the were included in the overall grouping of Gang migration. The already difficult initial sampling period (nearly 10 years ago). gangs, but members of motorcycle gangs, task of defining gangs is compounded Prevalence estimates derived from law enforcement prison-based gangs, graffiti taggers, and when the relationship between gang identification of gang members have been challenged, racial supremacy groups were excluded migration and proliferation is addressed. as when Reiner (1992) reported that, according to the to narrow the focus to street gangs. Gang migration—the movement of gang gang data base maintained for Los Angeles County, 9.5 members from one city to another—has percent of all men ages 21 to 24 were identified gang Another challenge in defining the term been mentioned with increasing frequency members. However, this proportion increased to 47 percent when the analysis was limited to black males “gang” is the fluctuating structure of these in State legislative task force investiga- groups. Over the course of adolescence ages 21 to 24. This figure has been generally recognized tions, government-sponsored conferences, as a vast overstatement of black gang membership.

2 migrant gang members (migrants) and tinctions from other gangs and cause a What Previous Studies indigenous gang members, which often rivalry with existing gangs, such as the Show fades over time. As migrants settle into rivalry between the Bloods and Crips in The following is a summary of the re- new locations, sometimes joining local southern California and between the search literature on the relationship be- gangs, their identities may evolve to the People and Folks in the Midwest. Most of tween migration and proliferation. Local point to which their prior gang affiliation the respondents in the 1993 USC phone law enforcement agencies have become no longer exists. This process of assimila- survey reported that migrants influence increasingly aware of the usefulness of tion into local gang subcultures has not local gang rivalries, gang dress codes, maintaining systematic information on been addressed in research literature, and recruiting methods (Maxson, Woods, gangs, yet such data bases hardly meet because law enforcement officers and and Klein, 1995). In addition, the solidifi- the scientific standards of reliability and researchers have only recently begun to cation of local gang subcultures may in- validity. Therefore, the results of the stud- discuss gang migration. In future studies, crease the visibility or attractiveness of ies described in this section should be researchers should consider at what gangs to local youth. It may also influence viewed as exploratory. point a migrant gang member is no longer the growth of rival gangs. Although a number of national studies perceived as a migrant but as a local gang Conversely, there are a variety of cir- dating back to the 1970’s have docu- member in the new location. cumstances in which migrant gang mem- mented an increase in the number of cit- bers have little or no impact on gang ies and smaller communities reporting proliferation. If the geographic location The Influence of Gang street gang activity, the numbers re- allows, migrants may retain their affilia- ported by these studies vary (Miller, Migration on Gang tion with their original gangs by commut- 1975, 1982; Needle and Stapleton, 1983; Proliferation ing to old territories or they may simply Spergel and Curry, 1990; Curry, Ball, and discontinue gang activity altogether. In The primary focus of this Bulletin is Fox, 1994; Klein, 1995; Curry, 1996). cities with relatively large and established to assess whether gang migration has Variations in localities reporting gang gangs, it is unlikely that migrant gang played a major role in gang proliferation. activities are attributed to the use of members would have a noticeable effect Migrant gang members may stimulate the different sampling frames in the national on the overall gang environment. growth of gangs and gang membership surveys. While the surveys are not com- through a variety of processes, such as An important related issue is the im- patible, each reports increased gang activ- recruiting locals to establish a branch of pact of migrant gang members on local ity. Miller’s 1996 compilation of data from the gang in previously unaffected areas. crime patterns.2 Migrants are generally several sources documents gang prolifera- This approach, described as the importa- perceived as contributing to both in- tion during the past three decades and tion model, involves efforts by gang mem- creased levels of crime and the serious- shows that in the 1970’s, street gangs ex- bers to infuse their gang into new cities, ness of criminal activity (Maxson, Woods, isted in the United States in 201 cities and primarily to establish new drug markets and Klein, 1995). The 1993 USC survey 70 counties (many with cities included in and other money-making criminal enter- involved telephone interviews with law the former count) (Miller, 1996). These prises (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996). enforcement in 211 cities that experi- figures climbed to 468 and 247, respec- This is also referred to as gang franchising enced gang migration in 1992. Most of the tively, during the 1980’s and to 1,487 and (Knox et al., 1996) and gang colonization cities involved in the survey (86 percent) 706 in the 1990’s. A nationwide survey (Quinn, Tobolowsky, and Downs, 1994). reported that migrant gang members conducted by the National Youth Gang Alternatively, migrants may establish a contributed to an increase in local crime Center (NYGC) reported that in 1995 new gang without structural affiliation to rates or patterns primarily in theft (50- gangs existed in 1,492 cities and 515 coun- an existing gang. Furthermore, if a suffi- percent increase), robbery (35-percent ties (OJJDP, 1997). The figures reported cient number of individuals from a gang increase), other violent crimes (59-percent by Miller and NYGC are considerably move to a new location, they may replicate increase), and, to a lesser extent, drug higher than the estimate of 760 jurisdic- a migrant subset of their former gang. No sales (24-percent increase). The small tions reported by Curry and his associ- matter what process is used, new local increase in drug sale activity can most ates (Curry, Ball, and Decker, 1996) and gangs will most likely emerge in response likely be attributed to competition from the projection of 1,200 gang cities derived to territorial challenges or perceived pro- established local drug markets. The from the 1992 USC national mail survey tection needs. The city with a single gang survey also showed that the type of (reported in Maxson, Woods, and Klein, is a rare phenomenon (Klein, 1995). Regard- criminal gang activity was changing to 1995). Similarly, the National Drug Intelli- less of the pattern of new gang initiation, include increased use of firearms and gence Center (NDIC) reported a much gang member migration would create an more sophisticated weapons (36-percent smaller figure of 265 for cities and coun- increase in both the number of gangs and increase). Carjackings, firebombings, resi- ties reporting gang activity in 1995 (NDIC, gang membership. dential robberies, drive-by shootings, and 1996). Of these 265 cities and counties, Another way migrant gangs may stimu- advanced techniques for vehicle theft 182 jurisdictions reported gang “connec- late gang proliferation is by introducing were also cited on occasion. Changes in tions” to 234 other cities, but the nature new and exciting cultural distinctions the targets of criminal activity and the of these relationships was not elaborated from existing gangs. In a city in which use of other technological advances were on (D. Mehall, NDIC, personal communi- gangs exist but are not firmly established, mentioned less frequently. cation, August 20, 1996). With the excep- migrant gang members may act as cultural tion of the Mehall report and that of Maxson, Woods, and Klein (1995), none carriers of the folkways, mythologies, and 2 Whether or not migrants provide a catalyst to local of the studies addressed the issue other trappings of more sophisticated gang proliferation, their impact on local crime is of urban gangs. They may offer strong dis- considerable concern to law enforcement. of gang migration on a national scale.

3 With few exceptions, findings on gang minimally affected the proliferation of In 1992, researchers examined the role migration reported in research literature gang activities. that Chicago gangs played in the emergence contrast sharply with the perspectives In an extensive study of Milwaukee of youth gangs in Kenosha, WI (Zevitz and presented by the media, government gangs in 1988, 18 groups were found to use Takata, 1992). Based on interviews with agencies, and law enforcement reports. the names and symbols of major Chicago gang members, police analyses, and social Several researchers have studied gangs gangs, including identification with such service and school records, the study con- in various cities throughout the United gang confederations as People versus cluded that “the regional gangs in this States and examined their origin and Folk (Hagedorn, 1988). In questioning study were products of local development relationships to gangs in larger cities (pri- gang founders on the origins of the gangs, even though they had a cultural affinity marily Chicago) to examine correlations it was determined that only 4 of the 18 with their metropolitan counterparts. . . . between gang migration and proliferation were formed directly by gang members We found no convincing evidence that on a more regional scale. who had moved from Chicago to Milwau- metropolitan gangs had branched out to kee. Further, these members maintained the outlying community where our study Gangs in the Midwestern only slight ties to their original Chicago took place” (Zevitz and Takata, 1992:102). United States gangs. Despite law enforcement claims to Regular contact between some Chicago In 1983, Rosenbaum and Grant identi- the contrary, no existence of a super-gang and Kenosha gang members reflected kin- ship or old neighborhood ties rather than fied three Evanston, IL, gangs as “satel- (i.e., Chicago) coalition was found in Mil- lites” of major Chicago gangs, but waukee. Founding gang members strongly the organizational expansion of Chicago gangs. proceeded to emphasize that they “are resented the idea that their gang was in composed largely of Evanston residents, any way tied to the original Chicago gangs These findings are echoed in a 1996 and in a very real sense, are Evanston (Hagedorn, 1988). In this study, Hagedorn study of 99 gang members in St. Louis gangs” (p. 15). They also found that two concludes that gang formation in Milwau- (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996). A minority indigenous gangs, with no outside con- kee was only minimally affected by the mi- (16 percent) of those interviewed sug- nection, contributed disproportionately gration of Chicago gangs. If anything, the gested that gangs reemerged in St. Louis, to levels of violence and were, therefore, influence was more cultural than structural, MO, through the efforts of gang members “almost totally responsible for increasing because gangs in smaller cities tend to from Los Angeles. Several of these mi- fear of crime in the community and forc- follow big-city gang traditions and borrow grants had relocated for social reasons, ing current reactions to the problem” cultural aspects from these gang images. such as visiting relatives. The study also (Rosenbaum and Grant, 1983:21). In con- Further supporting the notion that found that St. Louis gangs were more trast, the Chicago-connected gangs main- gang migration only minimally affects pro- likely to originate as a result of neighbor- tained a lower profile and were more liferation is a 1989 study that determined hood conflicts influenced by popular cul- profit oriented in their illegal activities, that gangs in Columbus and Cleveland, ture rather than from big-city connections. aspiring “to be more like organized OH, originated from streetcorner groups The powerful images of Los Angeles crime” (Rosenbaum and Grant, 1983:21). and breakdancing/rapping groups and gangs, conveyed through movies, In other words, the gangs indigenous to also from migrating street-gang leaders clothes, and music, provided a Evanston seemed to be more of a threat from Chicago or Los Angeles (Huff, 1989). symbolic reference point for these to the community than the Chicago- The study found no evidence that Ohio antagonisms. In this way, popular based gangs. The conclusion can be gangs were directly affiliated with gangs culture provided the symbols and drawn that in this particular study, the from other cities, particularly Chicago, rhetoric of gang affiliation and migration of gangs into Evanston only Detroit, or Los Angeles. activities that galvanized neighborhood rivalries (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996:88). Another study on gang migration in 1996 surveyed 752 jurisdictions in Illinois (Knox et al., 1996). (Because only 38 percent of the law enforcement agencies responded, these findings should be interpreted cautiously.) The majority of respondents (88 percent) reported that gangs from outside their area had established an influence, that one-fifth or more of their local gang population was attrib- utable to recent arrivals (49 percent), that parental relocation of gang members served to transplant the gang problem to the area (65 percent), and that some of their gang problem was due to gang migration (69 percent). The study concluded that, while the impact of migration varies, “it is still of considerable interest to the law enforcement community” (Knox et al., 1996:78).

4 Gangs in the Western tions in 42 States with gangs claiming af- United States filiation with the Bloods and/or Crips. At In a study of drug sales and violence the same time, the NDIC report cautions among San Francisco gangs, 550 gang against assuming organizational links members from 84 different gangs were from gang names. interviewed (Waldorf, 1993). Of these, It is important to note that when only three groups reported relationships a gang has claimed affiliation with with other gangs outside San Francisco. the Bloods or Crips, or a gang has The report concluded that: taken the name of a nationally . . . most gangs do not have the known gang, this does not neces- skills or knowledge to move to sarily indicate that this gang is a other communities and establish part of a group with a national new markets for drug sales. While infrastructure. While some gangs it is true they can and do function have interstate connections and a on their own turf they are often hierarchical structure, the major- like fish out of water when they go ity of gangs do not fit this profile elsewhere. . . . They are not like (NDIC, 1996:v). organized crime figures (Mafia and Colombian cocaine cartels) Gangs in the South-Central who have capital, knowledge and United States power . . . while it might be roman- In a 1994 study of 9 States located tic to think that the L.A. Bloods in the south-central United States, 131 and Crips are exceptional, I will municipal police departments were remain skeptical that they are surveyed; 79 cities completed the mail more competent than other gangs survey (Quinn, Tobolowsky, and Downs, (Waldorf, 1993:8). 1994). Respondents in 44 percent of small sive sample of gang cities—it is neither To the contrary, a 1988 study of inmates cities (populations between 15,000 and representative of all U.S. cities and towns, in California correctional institutions and 50,000) and 41 percent of large cities although all large cities are enumerated law enforcement and correctional officials (populations greater than 50,000) stated fully, or all gang cities.4 This survey cap- suggested high levels of mobility among that their largest gang was affiliated with tured data on the largest number of cities “entrepreneurial” California gang members groups in other cities. It is unknown with gangs identified at the time (and a traveling long distances to establish drug whether the perceived affiliation was majority of the cities identified by the distribution outlets and maintaining close based on structural links or on name as- NYGC survey in 1995) and is the only sys- ties to their gangs of origin (Skolnick et sociation. Nearly three-fourths of the 792 tematic enumeration of U.S. cities experi- al., 1990; Skolnick, 1990). Among all the gang cities that responded to the 1992 encing gang migration to date. Repeated empirical studies conducted in this area, USC mail survey reported that at least mailings and telephone followup resulted Skolnick’s resonates most closely with the some indigenous gangs adopted gang in completion of the survey by more than reports from law enforcement previously names generally associated with Los 90 percent of those polled. Angeles and Chicago (e.g., Bloods, Crips, cited (Bonfante, 1995; Hayeslip, 1989; Cali- To develop descriptions about the na- Vicelords, Gangster Disciples, or Latin fornia Council on Criminal Justice, 1989; ture of gang migration and local responses Kings). Approximately 60 of these cities Genelin and Coplen, 1989; McKinney, 1988; to it, extensive telephone interviews were had no gang migration. National Drug Intelligence Center, 1994, conducted with law enforcement officers 1996). in 211 cities that reported the arrival of at The National Survey on least 10 migrant gang members in 1991. Against a backdrop of escalating Gang Migration violence, declining drug prices, and intensified law enforcement, In 1992, the University of Southern Los Angeles area gang-related drug California conducted a mail survey of law 3 It should be noted that incorporated cities (of all dealers are seeking new venues enforcement personnel in approximately 1,100 U.S. cities. The survey was distrib- population sizes) were the unit of analysis in this to sell the Midas product—crack study; unincorporated areas were not included. cocaine. . . . Respondents claim to uted to all cities with a population of Whenever cities contracted law enforcement responsi- have either participated in or have more than 100,000 and to more than 900 bilities to sheriff’s departments or State police, such knowledge of Blood or Crip crack cities and towns that serve as likely envi- agencies were pursued as respondents. Letters were operations in 22 states and at least ronments for street gangs or gang migra- addressed to the head agency official with a request 3 to pass the survey on to the individual in the depart- 27 cities. In fact, it appears difficult tion. Law enforcement officials suggested municipalities to include in the survey, ment most familiar with the gang situation within the to overstate the penetration of city jurisdiction. and all cities with organizations that Blood and Crip members into other 4 investigate gangs were included. To in- A random sample of 60 cities with a population of states (Skolnick, 1990:8). between 10,000 and 100,000 was surveyed for gang crease the survey pool, the survey asked migration or local street-gang presence. Projections But the sheer presence of Crips and respondents to list cities to which their Bloods in States other than California is from this sample indicate a much larger number of local gang members had moved. This U.S. cities with gang migration than have been identi- a poor indicator of gang migration. The sample is best characterized as a purpo- fied to date. 1996 NDIC survey identified 180 jurisdic-

5 Interview participants were sampled from three States had not experienced gang lems, gang migration could be a catalyst a larger pool of 480 cities that cited at migration by 1992—New Hampshire, for the onset of local gang problems. least moderate levels of gang migration. North Dakota, and Vermont. The concen- The sheer number of cities with mi- Other facets of the study included inter- tration of migration cities in several grant gang members and the widespread views with community informants and regions—most dramatically southern geographic distribution of these cities case studies, including personal inter- California and the Bay area, the area sur- across the country is dramatic, but the 5 views with migrant gang members. rounding Chicago, and southern Florida— volume of gang migration presents a far A primary limitation of this research may obscure the geographic distribution. less alarming picture. Survey respondents design is the necessity to rely on law en- Forty-four percent of migration cities are provided an estimate of the number of forcement for depictions of the scope and located in the western region of the coun- migrants that had arrived in their city the nature of gang migration. Locally based try, with slightly less prominence in the year prior to survey completion.7 Just ethnographic approaches—based on the midwestern (26 percent) and southern under half (47 percent) of the 597 cities systematic recording of particular human (25 percent) portions of the country. providing an estimate reported the arrival cultures—would lend a more comprehen- Only 5 percent of the migration cities are of no more than 10 migrants in the prior sive view of the migration situation in situated in the northeastern region of year. Only 34 cities (6 percent) estimated individual cities. The USC case studies the country. the arrival of more than 100 migrants dur- involved a range of informants whose de- Approximately 80 percent of cities with ing this period. The significance of such pictions sometimes contrasted markedly a population of more than 100,000 have numbers would vary by the size of the city, with law enforcement’s assessment of the migrant gang members. The overall but the large number of cities reporting issue. The attempt to extend beyond law sample cannot address the proportion of insubstantial levels of migration suggests enforcement to community respondents all smaller cities with migration, but the that gang migration may not represent a produced mixed results, because informants distribution of migration cities by popula- serious problem in many cities. were generally less informed about migration, shown in figure 2, suggests that this Survey respondents were asked to tion matters in the city as a whole and is an issue confronting cities of all sizes. provide a demographic profile of migrant tended to focus on particular neighbor- That nearly 100 towns with populations hoods of interest. It would seem that law of 10,000 people or less experienced gang enforcement is the best available source migration is striking. This phenomenon is 7 A separate estimate of the total number of migrants of information on national patterns of a manifestation of the motivations to relo- was discarded as less reliable than the annual esti- gang migration, but the reader should be cate and the potential influences of mi- mate. Even the annual estimate should be considered with caution, as few departments maintained records wary of the limitations on law enforcement grant gang members on small-town life on gang migration. Some officers had difficulty general- as a source of information on migration. and overtaxed law enforcement resources. izing to the city as a whole, based upon their own ex- These limitations include the occupational Moreover, because smaller cities are less perience, and many migrants presumably do not come focus of law enforcement on crime (i.e., if likely to have longstanding gang prob- to the attention of the police. migrants are not engaged in a lot of crime, they are less likely to come to the attention of law enforcement), the lack of local data bases with systematically gathered Figure 1: Cities Experiencing Gang Member Migration Through 1992 information about migration, and the defi- nitional challenges described earlier in Clarifying the Concepts. Given these limitations, the results from this study should be viewed as exploratory until replicated by further research.

Study Findings The national scope of gang migration. Approximately 1,000 cities responded to the 1992 mail survey, revealing 710 cities that had experienced gang migration by 1992. The widespread distribution of these cities is reflected in figure 1.6 Only

5 These data are not presented in this report. Also not included are data from interviews with law enforcement in 15 cities that reported drug-gang migration only. This report refers to street-gang, rather than drug-gang, migration. See earlier discussion under Clarifying the Concepts for the distinction between the two types. 6 A few cities with gang migration were not included in this map because respondents were unable to specify the year of the first arrival of gang members Number of Cities = 694 from other cities.

6 (These data are shown in figure 3 with Figure 2: 710 Gang Migration Cities by Population some loss of cases due to the respondents’ inability to estimate at least one of the Number of Cities dates.) Only 31 of cities with local gangs (5 percent) reported the onset of gang 350 migration at least 1 year prior to the 306 emergence of local gangs. Most cities 300 (54 percent) had local gangs prior to gang migration. Adding these 344 cities (i.e., 250 those with local gangs before migrants) to the prior figure of 172 cities that have just 200 one or the other gang type yields a total of 159 155 516 cities that clearly challenge the notion 150 of migration as the cause of local gang proliferation. While the picture for cities with 100 90 coincidental onset of the two types of gang members is ambiguous, it seems rea- 50 sonable to conclude that cities in which migration provides the catalyst for indig- 0 enous gang formation are the exception 10,000 or Less 10,001Ð50,000 50,001Ð100,000 More Than 100,000 rather than the rule. The telephone inter- City Size views confirm this pattern; the majority of informants (81 percent) disagreed with the statement, “Without migration, this city gang members. The typical age reported that have local gangs also have migrant wouldn’t have a gang problem.” ranged from 13 to 30, and the mean and gang members. Conversely, nearly all It can be argued that the concern over median age was 18. Female migrants were cities with gang migration also have local gang migration is most pertinent to emerg- uncommon; more than 80 percent of the gangs. The 1992 survey identified 792 ing gang cities. The national gang surveys cities noted five or fewer. Compared with cities with local gangs; of these cities, (Miller, 1996) discussed earlier have shown the ethnic distribution of gang members 127 (16 percent) reported no experience that the major proliferation of gang cities nationally, migrant gang members were with gang migration (table 1). Only 45 has occurred since the 1980’s.8 Nearly 70 somewhat more likely to be black. Ap- of the 700 identified migration cities (6 percent of the 781 gang cities that could proximately half of the cities polled in percent) had no indigenous gangs. This provide a date of emergence reported one the survey reported that at least 60 percent simple comparison yields 172 cities (22 after 1985. These cities can be character- of migrant gang members were black; percent) in which migration could not ized as “emergent” rather than “chronic” predominantly Hispanic distributions have caused the emergence of local gang cities (Spergel and Curry, 1990). emerged in 28 percent of the cities. The gangs, at least through 1992. The large Emergent gang cities are equally as likely predominance of Asian (14 cities or 7 proportion of cities with both local and to report gang migration as chronic cities percent) or white (2 cities) migrant gang migrant gang members made it difficult (84 percent of the cities in each group). members was unusual. to detect any differences between local However, cities with gang onset after 1985 Gang migration and local gang gang and migrant gang cities. Distribu- are significantly less likely to report that proliferation. The potential for gang mi- tions across city size categories and geo- local gangs preceded gang migration (40 gration to have a harmful impact on local graphic region are negligible (data not percent versus 88 percent), as might be ex- gang activity and crime rates may increase shown). pected when they are compared with cities substantially if migrant gang members Another pertinent point of compari- with longstanding local gang problems. foster the proliferation of local gang prob- son from the survey is the date of onset lems in their destination cities. This is a of local gangs and the year in which mi- 8 Klein (1995) provides a highly illustrative series of pivotal issue, and data of several types grant gang members first arrived in cities maps displaying dates of onset of local gang problems are available for elaboration. The charac- with local and migrant gang members. using data gathered in the migration study. teristics of cities with local gangs can be compared with those of cities with migrant gangs to establish the parameters of the relationship. Of particular interest are the Table 1: Cities With Local Gangs or Gang Migration dates of local gang formation and migration onset. Law enforcement perceptions No Gang Migration Gang Migration about the causes of local gang problems are also relevant. Lastly, the motivations Cities with no local gangs 182 45 of gang members to migrate and their patterns of gang activity upon arrival must be Cities with local gangs 127 665 considered. Through the survey of 1,100 cities, it Source: Maxson, Woods, and Klein (1995). was found that most, but not all, cities

7 Conclusion Figure 3: Dates of Onset of Local Gangs vs. Migration The interpretation of these results should be tempered by an awareness of the limitations of the USC study method- Year of Onset ology. The surveys used to collect data Same for Local Gangs relied heavily on law enforcement as a and Migration (260 cities) source of information. A logical next 40.9% step would involve using an array of informants, including courts, schools, Migration Precedes and social service providers in addition Local Gangs 4.9% (31 cities) to community residents and gang members. It should also be noted that the USC data are cross-sectional in nature and cannot adequately describe second- or third-order waves of migration, wherein 54.2% some individuals may travel from city to city.9 Another untapped dimension in the USC survey was termed “indirect migration,” in which one gang is influenced by Local Gangs Precede Migration another gang that was influenced by a (344 cities) third gang. For example, Pocatello, ID, gangs were heavily influenced by gangs from Salt Lake City, which were started Emergent cities are more likely to ex- migrant gangs. “Push” motivators that by gang members from Los Angeles perience the onset of local gangs and forced gang members to leave cities, (R. Olsen, Pocatello Police Department, migrants in the same year as opposed such as law enforcement crackdowns personal communication, September 24, to chronic cities (53 percent versus 11 (8 percent), court-ordered relocation, or 1996). Other patterns of sequential mobil- percent). The majority of respondents a desire to escape gangs, were cited in ity were reported on during the USC inter- interviewed from emergent gang cities 11 percent of migrant-recipient cities. views, but did not occur with sufficient frequency to warrant further analysis. believed that migration was not the cause Are these patterns of motivation for of local gang problems. This figure was migrating different in cities with emergent The findings from the 1992 and 1993 significantly lower for emergent gang gangs as compared with those cities with USC surveys provide evidence that gang cities (73 percent) than for chronic gang chronic local gang problems? The data member migration, although widespread, cities (93 percent). This shows that the shown in table 2 provide evidence that should not be viewed as the major culprit conclusion that migration is not generally they clearly are not. Emergent gang cities in the nationwide proliferation of gangs. the catalyst for gang proliferation holds have nearly equal proportions of socially Local, indigenous gangs usually exist up, but the exceptions to this general rule motivated gang migration as chronic gang prior to gang migration, and migrants are can most often be found in emergent gang cities. “Pull” motivators (primarily drug not generally viewed by local law enforce- cities. market expansion) and “push” motivators ment as the cause of gang problems. This Patterns of gang migration. Examina- are less frequent reasons for gang mem- pattern is less evident in cities in which tion of the reasons gang members migrate ber relocation than social motivations in gangs have emerged more recently, but to other cities and their patterns of gang both types of city. these municipalities are no more likely to affiliation in the new city shows that mi- experience gang migration than chronic There are no differences between gang cities. Moreover, the motivations for gration is not a major catalyst of gang the two types of gang cities with regard proliferation. Survey interviewers asked gang member relocation (i.e., more often to patterns of migrant gang activity. Ap- socially motivated than driven by crime participating officers to choose from a list proximately one-third (38 percent) of of reasons why most gang members moved opportunities) and patterns of gang par- survey respondents stated that gang mi- ticipation (equally likely to join existing into their cities. The most frequently cited grants established new gangs or recruited reason was that gang members moved with gangs as to retain original affiliation in for their old gangs; 36 percent reported order to initiate new gangs or branches) their families (39 percent). When this was that gang migrants joined existing local combined with the reason of staying with do not distinguish migrants in the two gangs or exclusively retained affiliation types of cities. Proponents of the “outside relatives and friends, 57 percent of the with their old gangs. The proportions of survey respondents believed that migrants agitator” hypothesis of gang formation as each in chronic and emergent gang cities described by Hagedorn (1988) will find relocated primarily for social reasons. Drug are quite similar (data not shown). Thus, market expansion was the second most little support in the data available from data on motivations for migrating and on the USC national study. frequently cited motivation (20 percent of migrant patterns in joining gangs provide cities) for migrating. When this was com- little support for the view of migrants as bined with other criminal opportunities, primary agents of gang proliferation and 9 The interviews with migrant gang members gathered it created a larger category of illegal no evidence for differential impact on data on multiple moves, but there were too few in- stances from which to generalize. The author acknowl- attractions, or “pull” motivators, in 32 emergent gang cities. percent of cities reporting an influx of edges Scott Decker for his observation of this limitation of the study design.

8 unemployment, residential segregation, Table 2: Most Frequent Reasons for Migration Reported by and the lack of recreational, educational, Chronic and Emergent Gang Cities and vocational services for youth, are more likely sources of gang formation or expansion than is gang migration. Motivation Chronic Gang Cities Emergent Gang Cities n n ( =73) ( =111) References Social 41 (56%) 63 (57%) Bonfante, J. 1995. Entrepreneurs of “Pulls” 22 (30%) 37 (33%) crack. Time, February 27. “Pushes” 10 (14%) 11 (10%) California Council on Criminal Justice. 1989. State Task Force on Gangs and Drugs: Note: “Pull” motivators (e.g., drug markets) are those that attract gang members to relocate Final Report. Sacramento, CA: California in specific locations. “Push” motivators, such as law enforcement crackdowns, are those that Council on Criminal Justice. force gang members to leave cities and relocate elsewhere. Curry, G.D. 1996. National youth gang surveys: A review of methods and findings. Unpublished. Tallahassee, FL: On the whole, the USC findings agree culture in the media plays a key role in National Youth Gang Center, Institute for with the research literature on gangs the proliferation of gang membership. Our Intergovernmental Research. cited earlier. Many of the researchers— Nation’s youth are hardly dependent on Rosenbaum and Grant (1983), Hagedorn direct contact with gang members for Curry, G.D., Ball, R.A., and Decker, S.H. (1988), Huff (1989), Zevitz and Takata exposure to the more dramatic manifes- 1996. Estimating the national scope of (1992), Decker and Van Winkle (1996), tations of gang culture, which is readily gang crime from law enforcement data. In and Waldorf (1993)—found that gang for- accessible in youth-oriented television Gangs in America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. mation was only minimally affected by programming, popular movies, and the Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica- the diffusion of gang members from other recent spate of “tell-all” books from re- tions, Inc. cities. The findings reported by some puted urban gang leaders. The nature Curry, G.D., Ball, R.A., and Fox, R.J. researchers—Skolnick et al. (1990) and of this influence and its impact on gang 1994. Gang Crime and Law Enforcement NDIC (1994, 1996)—are less consistent participation and expansion have not Recordkeeping. Research in Brief. Wash- with those reported in the USC study. The been investigated systematically but are ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Skolnick et al. and NDIC studies focused crucial in understanding fully the dynam- Office of Justice Programs, National Insti- heavily on drug issues and may have dis- ics of gang proliferation. tute of Justice. proportionately represented cities with Cities with emerging gang situations Decker, S., and Van Winkle, B. 1996. Life drug-gang migration or with migrants that should examine the dynamics of their moved for drug expansion purposes.10 in the Gang. New York, NY: Cambridge own communities before attributing their University Press. Such cities reflect a distinct pattern of gang problems to outside influences. So- gang migration—older gang migrants, cioeconomic factors, such as persistent Esbensen, F.A., Huizinga, D., and traveling longer distances, staying for Weiher, A. 1993. Gang and non-gang youth: briefer periods (see Maxson, Woods, and Klein, 1995, for full presentation of these analyses). Research that focuses on drug OJJDP’s National Youth Gang Center matters may fail to capture more preva- lent trends. Although more often the sub- As part of its comprehensive, coordinated response to America’s gang problem, ject of media coverage, migration for drug OJJDP funds the National Youth Gang Center (NYGC). NYGC assists State and distribution purposes is less common local jurisdictions in the collection, analysis, and exchange of information on than other types of migration. The differ- gang-related demographics, legislation, literature, research, and promising ential patterns of gang migration, and program strategies. It also coordinates activities of the OJJDP Gang Consor- their effects on local communities, require tium—a group of Federal agencies, gang program representatives, and service more research. providers that works to coordinate gang information and programs. For more information contact: In addition, the USC findings are difficult to compare with those reported by National Youth Gang Center Knox et al. (1996). Respondents in the P.O. Box 12729 Knox et al. study presented a widespread Tallahassee, FL 32317 perception of outside gang influence. 850–385–0600 This may be the result of exposure to the Fax: 850–385–5356 media and products of the entertainment E-Mail: [email protected] industry. Klein (1995) and others have Internet: www.iir.com/nygc suggested that the diffusion of gang Information newly available on the Web site includes gang-related legislation by subject and by State and the Youth Gang Consortium Survey of Gang Problems. 10 The Skolnick and NDIC studies employed purposive rather than representative sampling techniques.

9 Differences in explanatory factors. Journal Miller, W.B. 1982 (Reissued in 1992). quent Behavior. Bulletin. Washington, of Contemporary Criminal Justice 9:94–116. Crime by Youth Gangs and Groups in the DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Genelin, M., and Coplen, B. 1989. Los United States. Washington, DC: U.S. De- Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Jus- Angeles street gangs: Report and recom- partment of Justice, Office of Justice tice and Delinquency Prevention. mendations of the countywide Criminal Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Thornberry, T.B., Krohn, M.D., Lizotte, Justice Coordination Committee. Unpub- Delinquency Prevention. A.J., and Chard-Wierschem, D. 1993. The lished report of the Interagency Gang Miller, W.B. 1996. The growth of youth role of juvenile gangs in facilitating delin- Task Force. Los Angeles, CA: Interagency gang problems in the United States: 1970– quent behavior. Journal of Research in Gang Task Force. 1995. Unpublished. Tallahassee, FL: Crime and Delinquency 30(1):55–87. Hagedorn, J. 1988. People and Folks: National Youth Gang Center, Institute for Waldorf, D. 1993. When the Crips Gangs, Crime, and the Underclass in a Intergovernmental Research. invaded San Francisco: Gang migration. Rustbelt City. Chicago, IL: Lakeview Press. National Drug Intelligence Center. 1994. The Gang Journal 1(4). Hayeslip, D.W., Jr. 1989 (March/April). Bloods and Crips Gang Survey Report. Zevitz, R.G., and Takata, S.R. 1992. Local-level drug enforcement: New strate- Johnstown, PA: National Drug Intelligence Metropolitan gang influence and the gies. NIJ Reports 213:2–6. Washington, DC: Center. emergence of group delinquency in a U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Jus- National Drug Intelligence Center. 1996. regional community. Journal of Criminal tice Programs, National Institute of Justice. National Street Gang Survey Report. Justice 20(2):93–106. Huff, C.R. 1989. Youth gangs and public Johnstown, PA: National Drug Intelligence Center. policy. Crime & Delinquency 35:524–37. This Bulletin was prepared under grant Klein, M.W. 1995. The American Street Needle, J.A., and Stapleton, W.V. 1983. number 95–JD–MU–K001 from the Office of Gang. New York, NY: Oxford University Police Handling of Youth Gangs. Washing- Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Press. ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office U.S. Department of Justice. of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Points of view or opinions expressed in this Klein, M.W., and Maxson, C.L. 1996. Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Gang structures, crime patterns, and po- document are those of the author and do not lice responses. Unpublished final report. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- necessarily represent the official position or Los Angeles, CA: Social Science Research quency Prevention. 1997. 1995 National policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Institute, University of Southern California. Youth Gang Survey. Summary. Washington, Justice. DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Knox, G.W., Houston, J.G., Tromanhauser, Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- E.D., McCurrie, T.F., and Laskey, J. 1996. Justice and Delinquency Prevention. quency Prevention is a component of the Of- Addressing and testing the gang migration fice of Justice Programs, which also includes Quinn, J.F., Tobolowsky, P.M., and issue. In Gangs: A Criminal Justice Approach, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Downs, W.T. 1994. The gang problem in edited by J.M. Miller and J.P. Rush. Cincin- Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Jus- large and small cities: An analysis of po- nati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company. tice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. lice perceptions in nine states. The Gang Maxson, C.L., Woods, K.J., and Klein, Journal 2(2):13–22. M.W. 1995. Street gang migration in the United States. Unpublished final report. Reiner, I. 1992. Gangs, Crime and Violence Acknowledgments Los Angeles, CA: Social Science Research in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA: Office of Institute, University of Southern California. the District Attorney of Los Angeles County. A full description of the national study Rosenbaum, D.P., and Grant, J.A. 1983. on which this Bulletin is based is Maxson, C.L., Woods, K.J., and Klein, available in Maxson, Woods, and M.W. 1996 (February). Street gang migra- Gangs and Youth Problems in Evanston. Report. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Klein (1995), which contains an tion: How big a threat? National Institute earlier presentation of some portions of Justice Journal 230:26–31. Washington, University, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research. of this report. Support was provided DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of by the National Institute of Justice, Justice Programs, National Institute of Skolnick, J.H. 1990. Gang Organization grant #91–IJ–CX–K004. Malcolm Justice. and Migration. Sacramento, CA: Office of the Klein was co-principal investigator McKinney, K.C. 1988 (September). Attorney General of the State of California. of the study and research assistance Juvenile Gangs: Crime and Drug Trafficking. Skolnick, J.H., Correl, T., Navarro, T., was provided by Kristi Woods, Lea Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department and Rabb, R. 1990. The social structure of Cunningham, and Karen Stern- of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office street drug dealing. American Journal of heimer. The author gratefully ac- of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Police 9(1):1–41. knowledges the participation of personnel in hundreds of police Prevention. Spergel, I.A., and Curry, G.D. 1990. departments and community agen- Miller, W.B. 1975. Violence by youth Strategies and perceived agency effec- cies, along with several dozen gangs and youth groups as a crime prob- tiveness in dealing with the youth gang gang members. Useful comments lem in major American cities. Unpub- problem. In Gangs in America, edited on an earlier draft were provided by lished. Washington, DC: U.S. Department by C.R. Huff. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Malcolm Klein, Walter Miller, James of Justice, National Institute of Juvenile Publications. Howell, and Scott Decker. Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Thornberry, T.B., and Burch, J.H. II. 1997 (June). Gang Members and Delin- All photos © 1997 PhotoDisc, Inc.

10 Related Readings In addition to the Youth Gang Bulletin series, other gang-related publications, sponsored by OJJDP and other Office of Justice Programs agencies, are available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC). These publications include: Youth Gangs: An Overview. 1998. NCJ 167249. A Comprehensive Response to America’s Youth Gang Problem (Fact Sheet). March 1997. FS 009640. 1995 National Youth Gang Survey (Program Summary). August 1997. NCJ 164728. Youth Gangs (Fact Sheet). December 1997. FS 009772. Gang Members and Delinquent Behavior (Bulletin). 1997. NCJ 165154. Addressing Community Gang Problems: A Model for Problem Solving (Monograph). 1997. NCJ 156059. Highlights of the 1995 National Youth Gang Survey (Fact Sheet). 1997. FS 009763. Urban Street Gang Enforcement (Monograph). 1997. NCJ 161845. Prosecuting Gangs: A National Assessment (Research in Brief). 1995. NCJ 151785. Street Gangs and Drug Sales in Two Suburban Cities (Research in Brief). 1995. NCJ 155185. Gang Suppression and Intervention: Community Models (Research Summary). 1994. NCJ 148202. Gang Suppression and Intervention: Problem and Response (Research Summary). 1994. NCJ 149629. Contact JJC at 800–638–8736 or send your request via e-mail to [email protected]. These documents are also available online. Visit the Publications section of OJJDP’s Web site, www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm.

Share With Your Colleagues Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP and the author of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and questions to: Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse Publication Reprint/Feedback P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849–6000 800–638–8736 301–519–5212 (Fax) E-Mail: [email protected]

11 U.S. Department of Justice BULK RATE Office of Justice Programs U.S. POSTAGE 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 171153