U.S.

Department of Justice RT
ME
NT OF J
US

PA

TI
CE
DE
Office of Justice Programs

BJ A C E

G OVC
MS
OF F

RA
IJ

N
I

S
J
O F OJJ D P B RO
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention J US T I C E P

Shay Bilchik, Administrator December 1999

Youth Gang From the Administrator

Drug Trafficking The combination of gangs and drugs
has loomed for years as a particu-
larly threatening aspect of the gang
problem. Until quite recently, how-
ever, we lacked the data necessary
for a clear understanding of the nature
and complexity of youth gangs and
James C. Howell and Debra K. Gleason their involvement with drug trafficking.
The proliferation of youth gangs since transformed into drug trafficking opera- Using the results of the 1996 National
1980 has fueled the public’s fear and mag- tions during the crack cocaine epidemic Youth Gang Survey of law enforce-
nified possible misconceptions about youth in the latter part of the 1980’s. Others ment agencies, this Bulletin analyzes
gangs. To address the mounting concern contend that the extent of youth gang the participation of youth gang mem-
about youth gangs, the Office of Juvenile involvement in drug trafficking is unclear bers in drug sales and the role of
Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (for a review of this literature, see Howell gangs in drug distribution. Although
(OJJDP’s) Youth Gang Series delves into and Decker, 1999). The present analysis the authors found widespread drug
many of the key issues related to youth will address the involvement of youth trafficking among youth gangs, they
gangs. The series considers issues such gangs and gang members in drug traffick- report that serious involvement seems
as gang migration, gang growth, female ing. However, the connection between concentrated in a small number of
involvement with gangs, homicide, drugs youth gang drug trafficking and other areas and is overwhelmingly con-
and violence, and the needs of communi- crimes remains unclear. According to popu- nected to young adult, rather than
ties and youth who live in the presence of lar perception, youth gangs are directly juvenile, gang members. Thus,
youth gangs. involved with drug sales, and drug sales jurisdictions should first assess the
Nationally representative data on the inevitably lead to other crimes. While particular problem they confront in
extent and nature of youth gang involve- several gang studies have found a weak order to target their efforts to combat
ment in drug trafficking, as perceived by causal relationship between youth gang both gang and drug violence more
law enforcement agencies, are available involvement in drug sales and violent effectively.
for the first time. Based on results from crime, other studies have shown the
Youth Gang Drug Trafficking provides
the 1996 Youth Gang Survey, this Bulletin transformation of youth gang wars into
a thoughtful analysis of extensive
provides baseline data and analysis on drug wars. From existing studies, it has
youth drug trafficking data and identi-
the epidemiology of youth gang drug been difficult to distinguish traditional
fies areas for further research. The
trafficking, including age, sex, and race/ youth gangs from drug gangs. National
Bulletin also discusses the policy
ethnicity of involved gang members; the data relevant to these and other issues
implications of these findings for
relative extent of the problem in urban, are now available for the first time.
communities struggling to curb the
suburban, and rural areas; and the in- Responses to the 1996 National Youth negative impact of youth gangs in
volvement of youth gangs in other crimes. Gang Survey (Moore and Terrett, 1998; their midst.
This Bulletin specifically examines sev-
eral issues related to youth gang drug traf-
ficking (see Howell and Decker, 1999; Klein,
1995; Klein, Maxson, and Cunningham,
FPO
National Youth Gang Center, 1999a), con-
ducted by the National Youth Gang Center
(NYGC), were analyzed for this Bulletin.
The survey gathered data from law en-
Shay Bilchik
Administrator

1991; Moore, 1990). Some researchers forcement agencies on two measures of

contend that many youth gangs were youth gang drug trafficking: gang member
involvement in drug sales and gang control Survey Methods were asked to exclude motorcycle gangs,
of drug distribution. “Distribution” implies hate or ideology groups, prison gangs,
organizational management and control, The Sample and other exclusively adult gangs.
as opposed to individual involvement in Respondents were asked two questions
selling drugs directly to individual buyers. The 1996 National Youth Gang Survey
was sent to a sample of 3,024 police and regarding gang involvement with drugs.
Unfortunately, the wording of the survey The first open-ended question3 asked, “In
question on gang control of drug distribu- sheriff’s departments in October 1997.
It consisted of a 14-item questionnaire that your jurisdiction, what percent of drug
tion may not have elicited responses sales do you estimate involve gang mem-
that distinguished between street-level elicited information on gang-related drug
activity and other aspects of youth gangs bers?” The second question was “What
control of drug sales to individual buyers proportion of drug distribution do you
and organizational control of drug distri- (National Youth Gang Center, 1999a). This
sample included four subsamples: estimate gangs control or manage in your
bution by gangs. The 1997 National Youth jurisdiction?” Respondents were asked to
Gang Survey asked respondents to report ◆ All police departments serving cities
choose the answer “that fits best” among
on the distribution of drugs for the pur- with populations greater than 25,000. the following options: “all of it,” “more
pose of generating profits for the gang. ◆ A randomly selected sample of police than half,” “less than half,” “less than one-
Analysis of these data is under way. Nev- departments serving cities with popu- fourth,” “none,” or “do not know.”
ertheless, the 1996 survey provides infor- lations between 2,500 and 25,000.
mation on the age, gender, and race/ Information on the age of gang members
ethnicity of youth gang members and on ◆ All “suburban county” police and was obtained by a single question: “Con-
the demographic characteristics of re- sheriff’s departments. sidering all the members of the gangs you
sponding jurisdictions. The survey data ◆ A randomly selected sample of “rural are reporting on, what is your estimate
also permit an examination of the interre- county” police and sheriff’s departments.1 of the percentage who are: under age 15,
lationship of youth gangs, drug traffick- 15–17, 18–24, over 24, do not know?” Only
Nonrespondents (n=1,512) received responses that totaled 100 percent were
ing, and other crime involvement.
followup calls beginning 2 months after the used in this and the gender and race/
Law enforcement agencies continue to survey was mailed. After the followup calls, ethnicity questions described below.
be the best and most widely used source the response rate increased from 50 percent
of national information available on gangs. to 87 percent of the 3,024 jurisdictions that Information on the sex of gang mem-
However, this source has some important received the survey. Response rates for the bers was obtained by a single question:
limitations (Curry, Ball, and Decker, 1996; above subsamples varied, but not signifi- “What is the percentage of all of the mem-
Maxson, 1992; Maxson, 1998). First, many cantly. Large cities and suburban counties bers of the gangs you are reporting on
agencies do not collect gang data in a had the highest response rate (88 percent), who are: male, female, do not know?”
standardized manner. Automated gang followed by small cities and rural counties Information on the racial/ethnic iden-
databases are becoming more common, (86 percent). In a few cases, respondents tity of gang members was obtained by a
but they are typically used for gathering elected not to respond to one or more sur- single question: “For your jurisdiction,
criminal intelligence rather than record- vey questions. In such cases, the agency what percentage of all gang members do
ing gang crime. Local law enforcement was excluded from the analysis for the af- you estimate are: African American/black,
databases are designed to track and sup- fected question(s). A total of 1,385 respon- Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Caucasian/white,
port apprehension of individual gang dents (53 percent of the respondents who or other (please identify)?”
members—not to compile gang crime returned survey forms) reported gang prob- Responses to these questions regarding
statistics. Second, law enforcement lems. Among these, 1,005 agencies re-
age, sex, and race/ethnicity of gang mem-
agencies are sometimes affected and sponded to the question regarding gang bers were used in the analyses for this
constrained by political considerations member involvement in drug sales, and
Bulletin. Moore and Terrett (1998) and the
(e.g., when they are pressured politically 1,139 responded to the question regarding National Youth Gang Center (1999a) have
to pursue certain types of crimes), and gang control of drug distribution. These
used responses to one question in the sur-
a gang problem may tend to be either de- responses were analyzed for this Bulletin. vey (asking for the number of gang members
nied or exaggerated (Huff, 1989). Third,
in respondents’ respective jurisdictions) as
agencies and individuals within agencies Measures a base for calculating the absolute percent-
often have different definitions of what
The 1996 National Youth Gang Survey age of gang members falling into age, gender,
constitutes a gang or a gang incident, placed limited restrictions on local juris- and race/ethnicity categories.4
and perceptions of the problem vary
dictions’ definitions of a “youth gang.”
with the expertise and experience of the Information on gang member involve-
For the purposes of the survey, a “youth
observer. Varying definitions of youth ment in criminal activity (other than
gang” was defined as “a group of youths
gangs continue to complicate analysis or young adults in your jurisdiction that
of comparative gang data. Fourth, police 3
Unless response categories are noted, questions
you or other responsible persons in your that follow were open ended.
normally investigate crimes, not gangs. agency or community are willing to identify
Compiling national gang data through 4
Thus, weighted counts could be used in the analyses
or classify as a ‘gang.’”2 Respondents
surveys of law enforcement agencies for this Bulletin pertaining to age, gender, and race/
involves asking the agencies “to provide ethnicity. This procedure was not deemed appropriate
1
See National Youth Gang Center (1999a) for detailed for this Bulletin because this analysis focuses on signifi-
. . . a service they may not routinely information on sample selection, survey methodology, cant differences in gang characteristics in different juris-
provide for local assessment and policy and results of analyses to date (see also Moore and dictions given various levels of involvement in drug
making” (Curry, Ball, and Decker, 1996, Terrett, 1998, for a summary of results). activity, rather than on generating prevalence data.
p. 33). 2
In the remainder of this Bulletin, unless otherwise Moreover, use of weighted estimates would be mislead-
noted, the term “gang” refers to youth gangs. ing for analysis of covariation between variables.

2
drug sales and control of drug distribu- in drug sales was divided into three contrast, in jurisdictions that included drug
tion) was obtained using the following response ranges: low (0–33 percent), gangs, two-thirds of the respondents said
question: “Please indicate the degree to medium (34–66 percent), and high that as much as 70 percent of their drug
which gang members are estimated to (67–100 percent). 5 This classification of sales involved gang members.
have engaged in the following offenses responses revealed that 47 percent of all
in your jurisdiction in 1996.” The listed drug sales involved gang members at a Drug Distribution
offenses were aggravated assault, rob- low level, 26 percent at a medium level, Respondents indicated that gangs did
bery, larceny/theft, burglary/breaking and 27 percent at a high level. While not control or manage most of the drug
and entering, and motor vehicle theft. the average for the entire response range distribution in their jurisdictions. More
Survey recipients were provided four (0–100 percent) was 43 percent, this than two-thirds of the respondents re-
response categories: high, medium, low, division shows that the preponderance ported gang control of drug distribution
and not involved. No attempt was made of responses fell into the low range (33 at none to less than half; nearly half (47
to elicit the number of offenses for which percent or less).6 percent) of the respondents said that
gang members were arrested in 1996 be- In another part of the survey, respon- gangs “control or manage” less than
cause such data generally are not avail- dents were asked if they included “drug one-fourth of all drug distribution in
able (see Curry, 1996). gangs” in their responses to a question re- their localities.10 In contrast, less than
Two questions were used to determine garding whether they had active gangs (Na- one-third of respondents said gangs
the year of onset of gang problems in par- tional Youth Gang Center, 1999a).7 More controlled more than half of the drug
ticular jurisdictions. First, respondents than half (57 percent) of the respondents distribution in their jurisdictions.
were asked, “Have you had gang problems who said they had active gangs included Again, the inclusion of drug gangs in
in your jurisdiction prior to 1996?” Those drug gangs in the scope of their youth gang respondents’ definitions of youth gangs
respondents who answered “yes” to this definition.8 Because youth gangs are diffi- greatly affected the distribution of re-
question were asked, “In approximately cult to define, consensus is difficult to sponses on gang control of drug distribu-
what year did gangs begin to pose a reach. Whether or not respondents in- tion. Only 12 percent of the respondents
problem in your jurisdiction?” cluded drug gangs in their youth gang defi- in jurisdictions that did not include drug
nition greatly affected the distribution of gangs said gangs controlled or managed
Findings responses on gang member involvement in more than half of the drug distribution.
This section summarizes analyses that drug sales.9 Respondents who included In contrast, in jurisdictions that included
were conducted for this Bulletin. Readers drug gangs in their youth gang definition drug gangs, 41 percent of the respondents
are reminded that “drug trafficking” refers reported a much larger proportion of drug said gangs controlled or managed more
to gang member involvement in drug sales sales involving gang members than did than half (or all) of the drug distribution.
and gang control of drug distribution. A respondents who did not include drug Thus, the effect of including drug gangs
report, Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Crime: Re- gangs in their definition. In jurisdictions in respondents’ youth gang definition
sults From the 1996 National Youth Gang that did not include drug gangs in their skewed responses toward a higher level
Survey, which includes all tables and statis- definition, two-thirds of the respondents of gang control of drug distribution.
tical tests (Howell and Gleason, 1998), is said that as much as 33 percent of their
drug sales involved gang members. In
available from the National Youth Gang Demographic Factors
Center (for contact information, see “For Gender. Females represented a
Further Information” on page 10). Readers 5 smaller proportion of gang members in
Respondents who said “do not know” or whose esti-
are referred to the full report for statistical jurisdictions that reported gang member
mates totaled more than or less than 100 percent were
significance tests. In this Bulletin, the term excluded from all analyses. involvement in drug sales and gang con-
“significant” is used to describe relation- 6 trol of drug distribution. Although they
In an analysis not included in this Bulletin, the spec-
ships between variables at or above the trum of responses (0–100 percent) was divided into were only slightly less prevalent in juris-
0.05 level of statistical significance. Virtu- those that were above and those that were below the dictions that reported high levels of gang
ally every correlation and proportional midpoint (that is, 50 percent of all drug sales). As a member involvement in drug sales, they
difference examined in the reported analy- result, 54 percent of all responses fell below the mid-
were significantly less likely to be mem-
ses is statistically significant at or above point, 34 percent fell above it, and the remaining 12
percent of responses were exactly 50 percent. An ex- bers of gangs that controlled drug distri-
the 0.001 level. Observations involving bution. In the 12 jurisdictions11 that re-
amination of the polar (lowest and highest) quadrants
small numbers of respondents are so showed that in the lowest quadrant, 40 percent of the ported gang control of all of the drug
noted by footnotes. respondents estimated that gang members were in- distribution and also reported the gen-
volved in one-fourth or less of all drug sales. In the der of gang members, females represen-
Drug Sales highest quadrant, 23 percent of all respondents esti-
ted only 6 percent of gang members,
mated that gang members were involved in three-
On average, respondents estimated fourths or more of all drug sales. Thus, nearly
that 43 percent of the drug sales in their two-thirds (63 percent) of all respondents fell into
jurisdiction involved gang members. the extreme quadrants.
Rather than using the average response, 7
See page 8 of this Bulletin for characteristics that 10
it was determined that more meaningful distinguish bona fide gangs from drug gangs according This estimate might have been lower if respondents
observations could be made by aggre- to Klein (1995, p. 132). had been asked to make a distinction between street-
level and organizational control of drug distribution.
gating responses into groups and refer- 8
Jurisdictions that included drug gangs in their re- 11
ring to the percentage of all responses sponses were included in all analyses for this Bulletin. Readers are cautioned that this observation involves
a small number of respondents.
within each group for analyses in this 9
The authors are grateful to David Curry, University of
Bulletin. Gang member involvement Missouri-St. Louis, for suggesting this line of analysis.

3
compared with a national average of proportion of their gang members were A more distinct age-related pattern
11 percent (National Youth Gang Center, juveniles (ages 15 to 17) (see table 1).13 was observed with respect to gang-
1999a).12 Conversely, in jurisdictions that However, the prevalence of gang mem- controlled drug distribution (see table 2).
reported no gang control of drug distri- bers age 18 and older increased in juris- Respondents who said gangs controlled
bution, females represented almost 15 dictions in which the level of gang mem- none of the drug distribution estimated
percent of gang members. ber involvement in drug sales was that 79 percent of their gang members
“moderate” or “high.” There tended to were juveniles (age 17 or younger). In
Age. Regardless of the extent of gang
member involvement in drug sales, re- be fewer gang members ages 15 to 17 in contrast, in the 12 jurisdictions that re-
these jurisdictions. ported gang control of all drug distribu-
spondents estimated that the largest
tion and also reported the age of gang
members,14 respondents estimated that
13
42 percent of their gang members were
The average percentage, rather than a percentage
of the total number of gang members, is used in this
juveniles and that 58 percent were young
12
Readers should recall that the average adults (age 18 and older). Thus, on aver-
analysis. Of the total number of gang members re-
percentage—not a percentage of the total number
ported by all respondents, 16 percent were estimated age, the prevalence of young adult gang
of gang members—is used in this analysis. Females
represented 10 percent of the total number of gang
to be under age 15, 34 percent ages 15 to 17 years old, members increased significantly as gang
37 percent ages 18 to 24, and 13 percent over age 24 control of drug distribution increased.
members reported by all respondents (National Youth
(National Youth Gang Center, 1999a).
Gang Center, 1999a). The average age of gang members also
was affected by population characteristics
in jurisdictions that responded to the two
questions about drug trafficking. In the larg-
Table 1: Level of Gang Member Involvement in Drug Sales, by Age of Gang est jurisdictions (those with populations of
Members (Unweighted*) 250,000 or more), gangs consisted of ap-
proximately equal proportions of juveniles
Age and young adults. Two age-related trends
Level of Involvement Under 15 15–17 18–24 Over 24 were observed in smaller jurisdictions. The
percentage of juvenile gang members in-
67–100% (n=232) 20% 43% 30% 7% creased significantly, while the percentage
34–66% (n=217) 20 44 30 6 of young adult gang members decreased
significantly as population size decreased.
0–33% (n=407) 23 47 26 4
0–100% (n=856) 21 45 28 5 In sum, age varied more significantly
with gang control of drug distribution
Notes: The percentages within each level of involvement may not equal 100 percent due to
than with gang member involvement in
rounding; n=the number of observations. drug sales. Older gang members appear
* The averages reported in this table do not account for the number of gang members reported in to be much more involved in drug distri-
each jurisdiction. bution than with drug sales. A significant
age shift was also observed with respect
to population size. Gang members age
18 and older were significantly more in-
Table 2: Level of Gang Control of Drug Distribution, by Age of Gang volved in both the sale and distribution
Members (Unweighted*) of drugs in larger jurisdictions.
Race/Ethnicity. Table 3 shows that Cau-
Age
casian and Hispanic gang members were
Level of Control Under 15 15–17 18–24 Over 24 significantly more prevalent in jurisdic-
tions with low levels of gang member in-
All (n=12†) 10% 32% 47% 11% volvement in drug sales (0–33 percent)
More than half (n=279) 19 42 31 8 and that African American gang members
Less than half (n=220) 23 43 29 5 were significantly more prevalent in juris-
Less than one-fourth dictions with high levels of gang member
(n=401) 21 49 26 4 involvement in drug sales (67–100 per-
cent).15 At the low level of drug sales, 23
None (n=58) 31 48 19 1
percent of gang members were African
Overall average‡ (n=970) 21 46 28 5

Notes: The percentages within each level of involvement may not equal 100 percent due to 14
Readers are cautioned that this observation involves
rounding; n=the number of observations. a small number of respondents.
* The averages reported in this table do not account for the number of gang members reported in 15
each jurisdiction. The average percentage—not a percentage of the
† Caution should be exercised in interpreting these data because fewer than 20 observations were total number of gang members—is used in this analy-
available for estimation. Twelve jurisdictions that said gangs control all of the drug distribution also sis. Hispanics represented 44 percent of the total num-
provided information on the age of gang members. ber of gang members reported by all respondents;
‡ These averages were derived from the estimates of respondents who responded to the questions African Americans, 35 percent; Caucasians, 14 percent;
regarding drug distribution. Asians, 5 percent; and others, 2 percent (National
Youth Gang Center, 1999a).

4
American, 34 percent were Hispanic, and
34 percent were Caucasian. In contrast, at Table 3: Level of Gang Member Involvement in Drug Sales,
the high level of drug sales, 50 percent of by Race/Ethnicity of Gang Members (Unweighted*)
gang members were African American, 24
percent were Hispanic, and 22 percent Race/Ethnicity
were Caucasian. Level of African
African American gang members were Involvement American Hispanic Caucasian Asian Other
most prevalent in jurisdictions reporting
high levels of gang control of drug distri- 67–100% (n=250) 50% 24% 22% 3% 1%
bution (see table 4). Their proportion 34–66% (n=235) 38 26 28 6 2
increased from 18 percent in jurisdic- 0–33% (n=427) 23 34 34 7 2
tions reporting no gang control of drug 0–100% (n=912) 34 29 29 6 2
distribution to 59 percent in the 14 juris-
dictions reporting gang control of all
Notes: The percentages within each level of involvement may not equal 100 percent due to
drug distribution and also reporting the rounding; n=the number of observations.
race/ethnicity of gang members.16 Other * The averages reported in this table do not account for the number of gang members reported
racial/ethnic groups were significantly in each jurisdiction.
more prevalent in jurisdictions reporting
a low degree of gang control of drug dis-
tribution. For example, in jurisdictions
Table 4: Level of Gang Control of Drug Distribution, by Race/Ethnicity of
reporting gang control of less than one-
fourth of drug distribution, 36 percent of Gang Members (Unweighted*)
gang members were Caucasian, and in Race/Ethnicity
jurisdictions reporting gang control of all
drug distribution, only 18 percent were Level of African
Caucasian. The same pattern was evi- Control American Hispanic Caucasian Asian Other
dent for Hispanics and Asians.
All (n=14†) 59% 19% 18% 4% 1%
In sum, the greater the prevalence of
African American gang members in the More than half
jurisdiction, the larger the proportion of (n=287) 50 24 21 4 1
drug sales accounted for by gang mem- Less than half
bers and the greater the extent of gang (n=235) 35 29 28 5 3
control of drug distribution. The opposite Less than one-fourth
pattern was observed for all other racial/ (n=423) 22 32 36 7 2
ethnic groups, except for “others,”17 whose None (n=61) 18 30 43 8 0
prevalence did not change significantly.
Total/Average‡
The Drug Trafficking (n=1,020) 33 29 30 6 2
Context
Population Size. Gang involvement in Notes: The percentages within each level of involvement may not equal 100 percent due to
rounding; n=the number of observations.
drug trafficking (member sales and gang * The averages reported in this table do not account for the number of gang members reported in
control of drug distribution) was spread each jurisdiction.
throughout various population categories, † Caution should be exercised in interpreting these data because fewer than 20 observations were
but gangs were estimated to control slightly available for estimation. Fourteen jurisdictions that said gangs control all of the drug distribution also
more of the drug distribution in large cities provided information on the race/ethnicity of gang members.
than in suburban areas, small cities, towns, ‡ These averages were derived from the estimates of respondents who responded to the question
and rural counties. The prevalence of gang regarding drug distribution.
member involvement in drug sales was ap-
proximately equal in suburban areas, small
cities, towns, rural counties, and the largest Gang member involvement in drug gang drug trafficking occurs in popula-
cities, and none of the differences among sales and gang control of drug distribution tions of all sizes.
population categories were statistically sig- were substantial in small cities, towns, and Geographical Region. Both gang mem-
nificant for either type of drug trafficking. rural counties with populations under ber involvement in drug sales and gang
25,000. Nearly one-third of respondents in control of drug distribution varied signifi-
these jurisdictions said gang members ac- cantly across the four major geographic
16
Readers are cautioned that this observation involves counted for two-thirds or more of all drug
a small number of respondents. regions.18 The average proportions of
sales. Nearly one-fourth of respondents drug sales estimated to involve gang
17
Nationally, only 2 percent of gang members were in these areas said gangs controlled more
identified as belonging to “other” racial/ethnic groups. members were as follows: Northeast,
than one-half of the drug distribution.
This category primarily consisted of American Indian
(45 percent), Polynesian (27 percent), Middle Eastern
Overall, population is not a factor in the
(8 percent), and Haitian (5 percent) gang members presence or absence of drug trafficking; 18
Uniform Crime Reports regions, as defined by the
(National Youth Gang Center, 1999a). Federal Bureau of Investigation.

5
41 percent; Midwest, 47 percent; South, tions of drug sales were attributed to
45 percent; and West, 38 percent. Gang gang members in “older” gang localities Table 6: Period of Gang Problem
control of drug distribution was signifi- than in “newer” ones. However, gang Onset, by Average Percent-
cantly lower in the Northeast (10 percent) members were not as extensively in-
age of Drug Distribution
than in the other three regions: Mid- volved in drug sales in the oldest gang
west, 29 percent; South, 35 percent; jurisdictions (in which gang problems Controlled/Managed by
and West, 25 percent. began before 1980) as in jurisdictions in Gangs (Unweighted*)
The prevalence of particular racial/ which onset occurred between 1981 and
Degree of Drug
1990. Jurisdictions reporting onset be-
ethnic groups also varied significantly Period of Onset Distribution
among the four geographic regions on both tween 1981 and 1985 show the highest
level of gang member involvement in
drug trafficking measures. With respect to Before 1980 (n=76) 44%
drug sales, the greatest magnitude of varia- drug sales. Jurisdictions in which gang
1981–85 (n=63) 47
problems emerged after 1985 show lower
tion was reported for Hispanics. While 1986–90 (n=314) 42
they represented 58 percent of the gang levels of gang member involvement in
1991–92 (n=185) 34
drug sales, and these levels decrease in
members in the West, they represented 1993–94 (n=235) 32
only 17 percent of gang members in the each subsequent time period of onset
through 1995–96. Thus, gang members in 1995–96 (n=73) 24
Midwest. Thus, Hispanics were greatly
overrepresented in the West. In contrast “newer” gang problem jurisdictions were
much less likely than those in “older” Average Percentage
with their national average within gangs (n=946) 37
(34 percent), African Americans were gang problem jurisdictions to be in-
volved in drug sales.
overrepresented in the Midwest (36 per- Note: n=the number of observations.
cent) and South (49 percent) regions Onset year had an even stronger effect * The averages reported in this table do not
and greatly underrepresented in the West on gang control of drug distribution (see account for the number of gang members
(12 percent). Compared with their na- table 6).19 The peak gang problem onset reported in each jurisdiction.
tional average (29 percent), Caucasians period for gang control of drug distribu-
were somewhat overrepresented in the tion was 1981 to 1985, after which gang
Northeast (31 percent) and Midwest control of distribution declined in each are not actively involved in drug sales,
(38 percent) and underrepresented in subsequent time period for gang problem gangs tend not to be actively involved
the West (19 percent). Almost identical onset through 1995–96. The average per- in control of drug distribution.
patterns were observed for gang control centages shown in table 6 indicate that
of drug distribution. gangs control significantly less of the The Gang, Drugs, and
drug distribution in “newer” gang prob- Crime Connection
Year of gang problem onset. The on-
set year of gang problems in jurisdictions lem jurisdictions than in “older” ones.
Drug trafficking and criminal in-
significantly affected both drug sales and volvement. In another analysis (National
control of drug distribution by gangs The Drug Sales-Distribution Youth Gang Center, 1999a, pp. 34–35),
(see table 5). In general, larger propor- Connection gang members tended to be involved in
The overlap between gang member larceny/theft, followed by aggravated as-
involvement in drug sales and gang con- sault, motor vehicle theft, and burglary,
trol of drug distribution was significant, in that order. Gang members were not
Table 5: Period of Gang Problem as expected. In the 15 jurisdictions that reported to be extensively involved in
Onset, by Average reported gang control of all drug distri- robbery; almost half of the respondents
Percentage of Drug Sales bution, every respondent reported that reported “low” degrees of gang member
Involving Gang Members gang members were responsible for involvement in this offense.
(Unweighted*) two-thirds or more of all drug sales. Figure 1 shows the degree to which
Conversely, when the reported percent-
gang members were reported to be in-
Average Percentage age of drug sales involving gang mem- volved in specific criminal offenses given
Period of Onset of Drug Sales bers dropped to one-third or less,
their level of involvement in drug sales.
80 percent of respondents said gangs The five measured offenses were aggra-
Before 1980 (n=69) 45% controlled less than one-fourth of the
vated assault, robbery, larceny/theft, bur-
1981–85 (n=60) 48 drug distribution. In other words, if gang glary/breaking and entering, and motor
1986–90 (n=278) 47 members are involved in either drug
vehicle theft. The bar graphs show the
1991–92 (n=162) 43 sales or drug distribution, then they (or degree to which gang members were re-
1993–94 (n=220) 41 gangs in their jurisdiction) are likely to
ported to be involved in the five offenses
1995–96 (n=52) 35 be involved in both activities. Similarly, at four levels (high, medium, low, and not
in jurisdictions in which gang members
involved) for each of three categories rep-
Average Percentage resenting the proportion of drug sales
(n=841) 44 19
Table 6 was constructed using a formula that con- involving gang members (high, medium,
verted responses to the drug distribution question into and low). For example, figure 1 shows
Note: n=the number of observations. interval responses from 0 to 100 percent (1, all, 100 that in jurisdictions in which gang mem-
* The averages reported in this table do not percent; 2, more than half, 75 percent; 3, less than half, ber involvement in drug sales was esti-
account for the number of gang members 37.5 percent; 4, less than one-fourth, 12.5 percent; and
reported in each jurisdiction. 5, none, 0).
mated to be “high,” 49 percent of gang

6
Figure 1: Level of Gang Member Involvement in Drug Sales, by Level of Gang Member Involvement in Related
Offenses (Unweighted*)

Aggravated Assault Robbery 50%

49%
41% 41%
42%
37%
39% 38% 37% 38% 35%
35% 32%
31%
31% 30%
28%
25%
24%

18% 17% 17%

16% 15%

10% 9%
7%
3% 2% 2%
0% 1%

High (n=264) Medium (n=255) Low (n=466) Total/Percentage High (n=262) Medium (n=253) Low (n=463) Total/Percentage
(n=985) (n=978)
Drug Sales Drug Sales

Larceny/Theft Burglary/Breaking and Entering

51%
49%
47%
44% 44%
42% 42%
39% 40% 39% 39%
38%
35%
31% 32%
29%
27%
24%
19% 21%
19%
15%
11% 10%

5%
2% 2% 2% 3%
1% 1% 1%

High (n=265) Medium (n=257) Low (n=464) Total/Percentage High (n=265) Medium (n=255) Low (n=462) Total/Percentage
(n=986) (n=982)
Drug Sales Drug Sales

Motor Vehicle Theft

40%
35% 35%
33% 33% 34% 33% 33%
30%
27% 28%
26%

6%
4%
2% 2%

High (n=263) Medium (n=257) Low (n=462) Total/Percentage

(n=982)
Drug Sales

Notes: These bar graphs show the percentages of gang members involved in criminal offenses at high, medium, and low levels when involve-
ment in drug sales is at high, medium, and low levels. n=the number of observations. “High”=67–100 percent; “Medium”=34–66 percent;
“Low”=0–33 percent.
* The averages reported in this table do not account for the number of gang members reported in each jurisdiction.
Legend: High Medium Low Not Involved

7
members were involved in aggravated crime is typical in youth gangs. Studies of crack connection to be moderate, weak, or
assault to a “high” degree, 35 percent to gang members within large adolescent nonexistent.”
a “medium” degree, and 16 percent to a samples show that gang members engage There is some evidence that the most
“low” degree. in a wide variety of offenses besides drug affected jurisdictions are cities in which
A similar pattern was evident for the trafficking,21 including drug and alcohol gang problems first emerged in the early
remaining four offenses. As gang member use, public disorder, property damage, 1980’s. Cities with newer youth gang prob-
involvement in drug sales increased, the theft, extortion, robbery, carrying illegal lems are much less likely to have youth
degree of gang member involvement in guns, and many other general acts of de- gangs that control drug trafficking enter-
robbery, larceny/theft, burglary/breaking linquency. Fighting with other gangs is prises. Each jurisdiction needs to assess
and entering, and motor vehicle theft also common. Gang members in an 11-city the youth gang problem carefully to deter-
increased significantly at the high level survey of middle school students said mine whether or not drug trafficking is a
of criminal involvement. In jurisdictions that the most characteristic feature of major cause for concern. A thorough as-
reporting a high level of gang member their gang was fighting with other gangs sessment should consider at least the spe-
involvement in drug sales, an average of (Esbensen, Deschenes, and Winfree, in cific characteristics of the gangs, the sex
49 percent of all gang members were esti- press). Multivariate analyses22 of the rela- and ages of gang members, the crimes
mated to be involved to a high degree in tionships between gang member involve- gangs commit and the victims of their
aggravated assault and larceny/theft. In ment in drug trafficking and criminal of- crimes, and the localities or areas they af-
the same jurisdictions, 40 percent of fenses will be required, because other fect. No assumptions should be made about
gang members were estimated to be in- variables, such as intergang conflicts, youth gang problems in a particular com-
volved to a high degree in motor vehicle may be influencing gang involvement in munity before an assessment is performed.
theft, 39 percent in burglary/breaking criminal offenses.
As a first step, jurisdictions experienc-
and entering, and 30 percent in robbery. ing youth gang problems should attempt
Similar crime patterns were observed for Program Implications to distinguish between bona fide youth
jurisdictions reporting a high degree of gangs and drug gangs. In some localities,
Although gang member involvement in
gang control of drug distribution. the latter appear to account for much of
drug sales is spread across all population
The overlapping percentages in figure 1 categories, it accounts for a substantial the drug trafficking that law enforcement
do not clearly reveal how changes in each proportion of the drug sales in less than agencies attribute to youth gangs. This
measure—drug trafficking and involve- one-fourth of all jurisdictions reporting distinction has important implications
ment in other crimes—are affected by youth gang problems in the 1996 National for interventions, particularly law en-
changes in the other. Separate analyses Youth Gang Survey. Youth gang control of forcement investigation and interdiction
for gang member drug sales and gang drug distribution affects about one-third tactics. Drug gangs, also called “crack”
control of drug distribution (reported in of gang problem jurisdictions. Drug gangs gangs, grew out of the narcotics trade—
Howell and Gleason, 1998) showed signifi- may be more prevalent in these localities, not out of youth gangs (Klein, 1995;
cant correlations between the two mea- which would increase the proportion of Moore, 1990). Klein and Maxson’s (1996)
sures of drug trafficking and other crimes. involved gangs. Active control of drug law enforcement survey in 201 cities
The correlation was strongest for robbery, distribution by youth gangs appears to be found that “specialty drug gangs” consti-
followed by aggravated assault, then other more prevalent in heavily populated juris- tuted only 9 percent of all gangs. Never-
offenses. Howell and Gleason’s analysis dictions in which young adults (age 18 theless, these drug gangs may be respon-
also showed very high correlations be- and older) are more prevalent among sible for a significant proportion of drug
tween various crimes other than drug youth gang members (see tables 1 and 2). sales and violence in some cities. Al-
trafficking. In fact, the strongest correla- though the 1996 National Youth Gang
It appears that a relatively small num-
tions were between robbery and aggra- Survey did not ask respondents to report
ber of jurisdictions have serious youth
vated assault, followed by robbery and the existence or number of drug gangs,
gang drug trafficking problems. Klein’s
motor vehicle theft, then robbery and their inclusion in gang definitions makes
(1995) national survey of law enforcement
either drug sales or drug distribution a significant difference in law enforce-
agencies produced a similar finding. In
(in all jurisdictions that responded to ment estimates of gang involvement in
Klein’s interviews with gang experts in po-
the drug trafficking questions).20 drug trafficking. Unfortunately, research-
lice departments in 261 “notable gang cit-
When gang members are involved in ers “do not know enough . . . to attempt
ies,” only 14 percent reported a major role
one form of criminal activity, they are to differentiate between drug gangs and
of youth gangs in drug distribution, and
likely to be involved in other types of the broad array of groups that comprise
distinct drug gangs were reported in 16
crimes. As Klein (1995) observed, involve- street gangs” (Klein, 1995, p. 130). How-
percent of the cities (1995, p. 36). In most
ment in “cafeteria-style” (widely varied) ever, Klein (table 7) suggests several
of these cities, the drug gangs did not rep-
common differences between (youth)
resent the majority of the gangs. Overall,
street gangs and drug gangs that—as a
72 percent of the cities “reported the gang-
20
Analysis of the data using Goodman and Kruskal’s starting point—can help jurisdictions
gamma to measure associations between each of the differentiate between the two and de-
two drug trafficking measures and other crimes (Howell 21
See Thornberry (1998) for a summary of four major velop appropriate responses for both
and Gleason, 1998) found that all were statistically sig- (see Klein, 1995, p. 132).
studies.
nificant. The pairs with the strongest association were
gang control of drug distribution and robbery, followed 22
Multivariate techniques of analysis examine which Successfully breaking up youth gang
by gang member drug sales and robbery. The associa- variables account for most of the variance when other drug operations may require different ap-
tion between aggravated assault and either drug traffick- factors are taken into account. proaches, depending on the type of gang
ing measure was next in strength.

8
 promising approaches). School-based
Table 7: Common Differences Between Street Gangs and Drug Gangs antigang curriculums, such as Gang Resis-
tance Education and Training, (G.R.E.A.T.)
Street Gangs Drug Gangs appear promising for preventing gang in-
volvement (Esbensen and Osgood, 1999),
Various (“cafeteria-style”) crimes. Crime focused on drug business.
but other interventions may be needed to
Larger groups. Smaller groups. prevent adolescent involvement in drug
selling. Preventing early initiation into drug
Less cohesive organization. More cohesive organization. use is a promising avenue, because early
onset of drug use is a major risk factor for
Ill-defined roles for members. Market-defined roles for members.
gang membership (Hill et al., 1999), and
Code of loyalty. Requirement of loyalty. drug use is a precursor to drug trafficking
(Van Kammen, Maguin, and Loeber, 1994).
Residential territories. Sales market territories.
Selected interventions should be com-
Members may sell drugs. Members do sell drugs. munity specific and based on thorough as-
sessments of gang crimes. As Block and
Controlled by intergang rivalries. Controlled by competition. Block (1993, p. 9) caution, “A program to
reduce gang involvement in drugs in a com-
Younger, on average, but wider age range. Older, on average, but narrower
munity in which gang members are most
age range.
concerned with defense of turf has little
chance of success.” The most promising
Source: Adapted from Klein (1995), p. 132. comprehensive models for dealing with
bona fide youth gangs are built on collabo-
(Howell and Decker, 1999). Because youth the work of the Westminster Police De- ration among all sectors of the community
gangs generally are involved only in partment, the Orange County, CA, District and the juvenile justice system (Burch and
street-level drug distribution, the pro- Attorney, and the Orange County Proba- Chemers, 1997; Howell, in press).
ceeds of which typically are used for per- tion Department in removing gang leader- The criminal activities of youth gangs
sonal consumption, providing legitimate ship and the most chronic recidivists
have important program and policy impli-
ways of earning money may be an effec- from the community (Capizzi, Cook, and cations. Data from the 1996 National Youth
tive intervention strategy. Suppression Schumacher, 1995; Kent et al., in press).
Gang Survey support earlier studies that
approaches (formal and informal social The JUDGE (Jurisdictions United for Drug
show the criminal versatility of youth
control procedures) may be more effec- Gang Enforcement) program in San Diego, gangs (Klein, 1995, p. 68; Miller, 1992;
tive with drug gangs (see the Bureau of CA, is an example of multiagency coordi-
Thornberry, 1998). Drug trafficking is only
Justice Assistance’s 1997 prototype for nation of investigations, prosecutions, one of many types of crimes committed by
police suppression of drug gangs). and sanctions of violent members of drug-
youth gangs. Thus, it is not surprising that
Several youth gang programs hold trafficking gangs (Bureau of Justice Assis- drug crimes are highly correlated with
promise for reducing drug trafficking. tance, 1997). Another multiagency strat-
robbery, aggravated assault, burglary,
OJJDP’s Comprehensive Community-Wide egy, Boston’s enforcement, intervention, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Al-
Approach to Gang Prevention, Interven- and prevention initiative (Kennedy, 1997;
though gang member involvement in drug
tion, and Suppression Program model Kennedy et al., 1996), targets the city’s sales and gang control of drug distribution
(also known as the Spergel model), cur- most dangerous gang and drug offenders
were strongly correlated with gang mem-
rently being tested in five demonstration using a variety of enforcement-oriented ber involvement in all of the other five
sites (Bloomington, IN; Mesa and Tucson, strategies.
measured criminal offenses, the survey
AZ; Riverside, CA; and San Antonio, Programs that provide alternatives results did not suggest a particular pattern
TX), appears to be a promising broad to gang life for active gang members also of criminal activity. The data suggest that
approach to combating a wide range of hold promise for reducing involvement in gang drug trafficking may take place con-
gang crimes, including drug trafficking drug sales. Many gang members would currently with other criminal activities,
(for descriptions of these programs, see give up drug selling for reasonable wages rather than cause other crimes. Further
Burch and Kane, 1999). Preliminary data (Huff, 1998). Two inner-city gang programs research on this relationship is needed.
from this initiative suggest a reduction of that provide such job opportunities for
In their review of the gangs, drugs, and
drug use and selling among targeted gang gang members appear particularly prom- violence connection, Howell and Decker
youth. An early pilot of the comprehen- ising in this regard: the National Center
(1999) concluded that most youth gang
sive model, Chicago’s Gang Violence for Neighborhood Enterprises (1999) violence is not related to drug trafficking.
Reduction Program, which targeted two Violence-Free Zone initiatives, and the
Decker and Van Winkle (1994) concluded
of the city’s most violent gangs, showed Los Angeles Homeboy Industries and that most violent crimes committed by
overall effectiveness, including reduction Jobs for a Future (Gaouette, 1997). Many
youth gangs are related to intergang and
of drug selling among program clients other programs that provide alternatives interpersonal conflicts. The analyses re-
when a combination of sanctions and to gang involvement can also help reduce
ported in this Bulletin support Howell and
coordinated services were delivered to gang member drug trafficking, such as Decker’s conclusion. Youth gang interven-
them (Spergel and Grossman, 1997). The the Boys and Girls Clubs’ Targeted Out-
tions should be designed to prevent and
Tri-Agency Resource Gang Enforcement reach program (see Howell, in press, for reduce all types of criminality—not just
Team (TARGET) integrates and coordinates detailed information on this and other
drug crimes.

9
Conclusion ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office partment of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and De-
Youth gang involvement in drug sales Justice and Delinquency Prevention. linquency Prevention.
and distribution is widespread, cutting
across all demographic sectors, particu- Burch, J., and Kane, C. 1999. Implement- Howell, J.C., and Gleason, D.K. 1998.
larly age, race/ethnicity, geographic re- ing the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model. Youth gangs, drugs, and crime: Results
gion, and population categories. How- Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- from the 1996 National Youth Gang Sur-
ever, according to law enforcement ment of Justice, Office of Justice Pro- vey. Unpublished report. Tallahassee, FL:
agency responses to the 1998 National grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and De- National Youth Gang Center.
Youth Gang Survey, extensive gang in- linquency Prevention. Huff, C.R. 1989. Gangs and public policy.
volvement in drug trafficking appears Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1997. Crime and Delinquency 35(4):524–537.
to be concentrated in a relatively small Urban Street Gang Enforcement. Washing- Huff, C.R. 1998. Comparing the Criminal
number of jurisdictions. ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office Behavior of Youth Gangs and At-Risk Youth.
Every jurisdiction experiencing a gang of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S.
problem needs to assess its specific prob- Assistance. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
lem before deciding on a response.23 A Capizzi, M., Cook, J.I., and Schumacher, Programs, National Institute of Justice.
different community response likely will M. 1995. The TARGET model: A new ap- Kennedy, D.M. 1997. Pulling levers:
be needed for different types of gangs in- proach to the prosecution of gang cases. Chronic offenders, high-crime settings,
volved in drug trafficking. Adult criminal The Prosecutor March/April:18–21. and a theory of prevention. Valparaiso
organizations that control drug distribu-
Curry, G.D. 1996. National youth gang University Law Review 3(2):449–484.
tion systems and drug gangs are suscep-
surveys: A review of methods and findings. Kennedy, D.M., Piehl, A.M. and Braga,
tible to suppression strategies (Bureau
Unpublished report prepared for the Na- A.A. 1996. Youth violence in Boston: Gun
of Justice Assistance, 1997). Youth gangs
tional Youth Gang Center, Tallahassee, FL. markets, serious youth offenders, and a
may be less tractable because they are
embedded in the social and cultural fab- Curry, G.D., Ball, R.A., and Decker, S.H. use-reduction strategy. Law and Contem-
ric of communities and integrally related 1996. Estimating the national scope of porary Problems 59(1):147–196.
to the adolescent developmental period. gang crime from law enforcement data. In Kent, D.R., Donaldson, S.I., Wyrick, P.A.,
They require a more comprehensive re- Gangs in America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. and Smith, P.J. In press. Evaluating crimi-
sponse that combines prevention, inter- Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 21–36. nal justice programs designed to reduce
vention, and suppression strategies Decker, S.H., and Van Winkle, B. 1994. crime by targeting repeat gang offenders.
(Burch and Chemers, 1997). Slinging dope: The role of gangs and gang Evaluation and Program Planning 24.
members in drug sales. Justice Quarterly Klein, M.W. 1995. The American Street
For Further Information 11(4):583–604. Gang. New York, NY: Oxford University
For further information, contact: Esbensen, F., Deschenes, E.P., and Press.
Winfree, L.T. 1999. Differences between Klein, M.W., and Maxson, C.L. 1996.
National Youth Gang Center: Institute gang girls and gang boys: Results from a
for Intergovernmental Research Gang structures, crime patterns and police
multi-site survey. Youth and Society 31(1): responses. Unpublished report. Los Ange-
P.O. Box 12729 27–53.
Tallahassee, FL 32317 les, CA: University of Southern California,
800–446–0912 Esbensen, F., and Osgood, D.W. 1999. Social Science Research Institute.
850–386–5356 (fax) Gang Resistance Education and Training Klein, M.W., Maxson, C.L., and Cunn-
(GREAT): Results from the National Evalu- ingham, L.C. 1991. Crack, street gangs,
Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse ation. Journal of Research in Crime and
P.O. Box 6000 and violence. Criminology 29(4):623–650.
Delinquency 36(2):194–225.
Rockville, MD 20849–6000 Maxson, C.L. 1992. Collecting data from
800–638–8736 Gaouette, N. 1997. Hope rises at investigation files: Descriptions of three
301–519–5212 (fax) Homeboy Bakeries in L.A. Christian Sci- Los Angeles gang homicide projects. In
E-Mail: [email protected] ence Monitor (Sept. 15):1. Questions and Answers About Lethal and
Hill, K.G., Howell, J.C., Hawkins, J.D., Non-Lethal Violence, edited by C.R. Block
and Battin, S.R. 1999. Childhood risk fac- and R. Block. Washington, DC: U.S. De-
References tors for adolescent gang membership: Re- partment of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-
Block, R., and Block, C.R. 1993. Street sults from the Seattle Social Development grams, National Institute of Justice.
Gang Crime in Chicago. Research in Brief. Project. Journal of Research in Crime and
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus- Maxson, C.L. 1998. Gang homicide. In
Delinquency 36(3):300–322. Studying and Preventing Homicide, edited
tice, Office of Justice Programs, National
Institute of Justice. Howell, J.C. In press. Youth Gang Pro- by D. Smith and M. Zahn. Thousand Oaks,
grams and Strategies. Bulletin. Washing- CA: Sage, pp. 197–219.
Burch, J.H., and Chemers, B.M. 1997. ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
A Comprehensive Response to America’s Miller, W.B. 1992. (Revised from 1982).
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Crime by Youth Gangs and Groups in the
Youth Gang Problem. Fact Sheet. Washing- Justice and Delinquency Prevention. United States. Washington, DC: U.S. De-
Howell, J.C., and Decker, S.H. 1999. The partment of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-
23
For an assessment process that can be adapted for Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Violence Connec- grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and De-
any size jurisdiction, see National Youth Gang Center, tion. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. De- linquency Prevention.
1999b.

10
 Moore, J.W. 1990. Gangs, drugs, and lent offending. In Serious and Violent Juve-
violence. In Drugs and Violence: Causes, nile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Related Reading
Correlates, and Consequences, edited by Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and
In addition to this Bulletin, the fol-
M. De La Rosa, E.Y. Lambert, and B. D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
lowing OJJDP publications related to
Gropper. NIDA Research Monograph 103. pp. 147–166.
youth gangs are available from the
Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health Van Kammen, W., Maguin, E., and Loeber, Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC):
and Human Services, National Institutes R. 1994. Initiation of drug selling and its re-
of Health, National Institute on Drug A Comprehensive Response to
lationship with illicit drug use and serious
Abuse, pp. 160–176. America’s Youth Gang Problem (March
delinquency in adolescent boys. In Cross-
1997) FS 9640
Moore, J.P., and Terrett, C. 1998. High- National Longitudinal Research on Human
lights of the 1996 National Youth Gang Sur- Development and Criminal Behavior, edited Gang Members and Delinquent Behav-
vey. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. De- by E.G.M. Weitekamp and H.J. Kerner. Neth- ior (June 1997) NCJ 165154
partment of Justice, Office of Justice erlands: Kluwer, pp. 229–241. Youth Gangs (December 1997)
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and FS 9772
Delinquency Prevention.
This Bulletin was prepared under Coopera- Youth Gangs: An Overview (August
National Center for Neighborhood En- tive Agreement 95–JD–MU–K001 to the Institute 1998) NCJ 167249
terprise. 1999. Violence-Free Zone Initia- for Intergovernmental Research from the Office
tives. Washington, DC: National Center for of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-
Gang Membership, Delinquent Peers,
Neighborhood Enterprise. tion, U.S. Department of Justice.
and Delinquent Behavior (October 1998)
NCJ 171119
National Youth Gang Center. 1999a. Points of view or opinions expressed in this
1996 National Youth Gang Survey. Washing- document are those of the authors and do not
Gang Members on the Move (October
ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office necessarily represent the official position or
1998) NCJ 171153
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of The Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Violence
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Justice. Connection (January 1999) NCJ 174288
National Youth Gang Center. 1999b. Highlights of the 1997 National Youth
Rural gang initiative: A guide to assessing The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- Gang Survey (March 1999) FS 9997
a community’s youth gang problem. quency Prevention is a component of the Of-
1996 National Youth Gang Survey
Unpublished report. Tallahassee, FL: fice of Justice Programs, which also includes
(July 1999) NCJ 173964
National Youth Gang Center. the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau
of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Implementing the OJJDP Comprehen-
Thornberry, T.P. 1998. Membership in
Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. sive Gang Model (July 1999) FS 99112
gangs and involvement in serious and vio-
1997 National Youth Gang Survey
(in press)
Acknowledgments Highlights of the 1998 National Youth
James C. Howell, Ph.D., is an Adjunct Researcher at the National Youth Gang Gang Survey (in press)
Center (NYGC), Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Tallahassee, FL. Debra To order the publications listed
K. Gleason is a Microsystems Analyst at NYGC. above, contact JJC and request the
appropriate NCJ or FS numbers.
The authors are grateful to John Moore at NYGC and David Curry at the
University of Missouri-St. Louis, who reviewed earlier drafts and made very Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse
helpful suggestions for improvements to this Bulletin. P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849–6000
800–638–8736
301–519–5212 (fax)
Share With Your Colleagues E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: www.ncjrs.org
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 authors 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 PRESORTED STANDARD
Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/OJJDP
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention PERMIT NO. G–91

Washington, DC 20531
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Bulletin NCJ 178282