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.