Gang Articles
Youth
Gang Drug Trafficking
By James C. Howell and Debra K. Gleason
Introduction:
Reprinted from the Juvenile Justice Bulletin Board (Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention)
The proliferation of youth gangs since 1980 has fueled the public's
fear and magnified possible misconceptions about youth gangs. To address
the mounting concern about youth gangs, the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP's) Youth Gang Series delves into many
of the key issues related to youth gangs. The series considers issues
such as gang migration, gang growth, female involvement with gangs, homicide,
drugs and violence, and the needs of communities and youth who live in
the presence of youth gangs.
Nationally representative data on the extent and nature of youth gang
involvement in drug trafficking, as perceived by law enforcement agencies,
are available for the first time. Based on results from the 1996 Youth
Gang Survey, this Bulletin provides baseline data and analysis on the
epidemiology of youth gang drug trafficking, including age, sex, and race/ethnicity
of involved gang members; the relative extent of the problem in urban,
suburban, and rural areas; and the involvement of youth gangs in other
crimes.
This Bulletin specifically examines several issues related to youth gang
drug trafficking (see Howell and Decker, 1999; Klein, 1995; Klein, Maxson,
and Cunningham, 1991; Moore, 1990). Some researchers contend that many
youth gangs were transformed into drug trafficking operations during the
crack cocaine epidemic in the latter part of the 1980's. Others contend
that the extent of youth gang involvement in drug trafficking is unclear
(for a review of this literature, see Howell and Decker, 1999). The present
analysis will address the involvement of youth gangs and gang members
in drug trafficking. However, the connection between youth gang drug trafficking
and other crimes remains unclear. According to popular perception, youth
gangs are directly involved with drug sales, and drug sales inevitably
lead to other crimes. While several gang studies have found a weak causal
relationship between youth gang involvement in drug sales and violent
crime, other studies have shown the transformation of youth gang wars
into drug wars. From existing studies, it has been difficult to distinguish
traditional youth gangs from drug gangs. National data relevant to these
and other issues are now available for the first time.
Responses to the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey (Moore and Terrett, 1998;
National Youth Gang Center, 1999a), conducted by the National Youth Gang
Center (NYGC), were analyzed for this Bulletin. The survey gathered data
from law enforcement agencies on two measures of youth gang drug trafficking:
gang member involvement in drug sales and gang control of drug distribution.
"Distribution" implies organizational management and control, as opposed
to individual involvement in selling drugs directly to individual buyers.
Unfortunately, the wording of the survey question on gang control of drug
distribution may not have elicited responses that distinguished between
street-level control of drug sales to individual buyers and organizational
control of drug distribution by gangs. The 1997 National Youth Gang Survey
asked respondents to report on the distribution of drugs for the purpose
of generating profits for the gang. Analysis of these data is under way.
Nevertheless, the 1996 survey provides information on the age, gender,
and race/ethnicity of youth gang members and on the demographic characteristics
of responding jurisdictions. The survey data also permit an examination
of the interrelationship of youth gangs, drug trafficking, and other crime
involvement.
Law enforcement agencies continue to be the best and most widely used
source of national information available on gangs. However, this source
has some important limitations (Curry, Ball, and Decker, 1996; Maxson,
1992; Maxson, 1998). First, many agencies do not collect gang data in
a standardized manner. Automated gang databases are becoming more common,
but they are typically used for gathering criminal intelligence rather
than recording gang crime. Local law enforcement databases are designed
to track and support apprehension of individual gang members-not to compile
gang crime statistics. Second, law enforcement agencies are sometimes
affected and constrained by political considerations (e.g., when they
are pressured politically to pursue certain types of crimes), and a gang
problem may tend to be either denied or exaggerated (Huff, 1989). Third,
agencies and individuals within agencies often have different definitions
of what constitutes a gang or a gang incident, and perceptions of the
problem vary with the expertise and experience of the observer. Varying
definitions of youth gangs continue to complicate analysis of comparative
gang data. Fourth, police normally investigate crimes, not gangs. Compiling
national gang data through surveys of law enforcement agencies involves
asking the agencies "to provide . . . a service they may not routinely
provide for local assessment and policy making" (Curry, Ball, and Decker,
1996, p. 33)
Survey Methods
The Sample
The 1996 National Youth Gang Survey was sent to a sample of 3,024 police
and sheriff's departments in October 1997. It consisted of a 14-item questionnaire
that elicited information on gang-related drug activity and other aspects
of youth gangs (National Youth Gang Center, 1999a). This sample included
four subsamples:
All police departments serving cities with populations greater than 25,000
A randomly selected sample of police departments serving cities with populations
between 2,500 and 25,000.
All "suburban county" police and sheriff's departments.
A randomly selected sample of "rural county" police and sheriff's departments.1
Nonrespondents (n=1,512) received followup calls beginning 2 months after
the survey was mailed. After the followup calls, the response rate increased
from 50 percent to 87 percent of the 3,024 jurisdictions that received
the survey. Response rates for the above subsamples varied, but not significantly.
Large cities and suburban counties had the highest response rate (88 percent),
followed by small cities and rural counties (86 percent). In a few cases,
respondents elected not to respond to one or more survey questions. In
such cases, the agency was excluded from the analysis for the affected
question(s). A total of 1,385 respondents (53 percent of the respondents
who returned survey forms) reported gang problems. Among these, 1,005
agencies responded to the question regarding gang member involvement in
drug sales, and 1,139 responded to the question regarding gang control
of drug distribution. These responses were analyzed for this Bulletin.
Measures
The 1996 National Youth Gang Survey placed limited restrictions on local
jurisdictions' definitions of a "youth gang." For the purposes of the
survey, a "youth gang" was defined as "a group of youths or young adults
in your jurisdiction that you or other responsible persons in your agency
or community are willing to identify or classify as a gang." 2
Respondents were asked to exclude motorcycle gangs, hate or ideology groups,
prison gangs, and other exclusively adult gangs.
Respondents were asked two questions regarding gang involvement with drugs.
The first open-ended question 3 asked, "In your
jurisdiction, what percent of drug sales do you estimate involve gang
members?" The second question was "What proportion of drug distribution
do you estimate gangs control or manage in your jurisdiction?" Respondents
were asked to choose the answer "that fits best" among the following options:
"all of it," "more than half," "less than half," "less than one-fourth,"
"none," or "do not know."
Information on the age of gang members was obtained by a single question:
"Considering all the members of the gangs you are reporting on, what is
your estimate of the percentage who are: under age 15, 15-17, 18-24, over
24, do not know?" Only responses that totaled 100 percent were used in
this and the gender and race/ethnicity questions described below.
Information on the sex of gang members was obtained by a single question:
"What is the percentage of all of the members of the gangs you are reporting
on who are: male, female, do not know?"
Information on the racial/ethnic identity of gang members was obtained
by a single question: "For your jurisdiction, what percentage of all gang
members do you estimate are: African American/black, Hispanic/Latino,
Asian, Caucasian/white, or other (please identify)?"
Responses to these questions regarding age, sex, and race/ethnicity of
gang members were used in the analyses for this Bulletin. Moore and Terrett
(1998) and the National Youth Gang Center (1999a) have used responses
to one question in the survey (asking for the number of gang members in
respondents' respective jurisdictions) as a base for calculating the absolute
percentage of gang members falling into age, gender, and race/ethnicity
categories. 4
Information on gang member involvement in criminal activity (other than
drug sales and control of drug distribution) was obtained using the following
question: "Please indicate the degree to which gang members are estimated
to have engaged in the following offenses in your jurisdiction in 1996."
The listed offenses were aggravated assault, robbery, larceny/theft, burglary/breaking
and entering, and motor vehicle theft. Survey recipients were provided
four response categories: high, medium, low, and not involved. No attempt
was made to elicit the number of offenses for which gang members were
arrested in 1996 because such data generally are not available (see Curry,
1996).
Two questions were used to determine the year of onset of gang problems
in particular jurisdictions. First, respondents were asked, "Have you
had gang problems in your jurisdiction prior to 1996?" Those respondents
who answered "yes" to this question were asked, "In approximately what
year did gangs begin to pose a problem in your jurisdiction?"
Findings
This section summarizes analyses that were conducted for this Bulletin.
Readers are reminded that "drug trafficking" refers to gang member involvement
in drug sales and gang control of drug distribution. A report, Youth
Gangs, Drugs, and Crime: Results From the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey,
which includes all tables and statistical tests (Howell and Gleason, 1998),
is available from the National Youth Gang Center (for contact information,
see "For Further Information"). Readers are referred to the full report
for statistical significance tests. In this Bulletin, the term "significant"
is used to describe relationships between variables at or above the 0.05
level of statistical significance. Virtually every correlation and proportional
difference examined in the reported analyses is statistically significant
at or above the 0.001 level.
Observations involving small numbers of respondents are so noted by footnotes.
Drug Sales
On average, respondents estimated that 43 percent of the drug sales in
their jurisdiction involved gang members. Rather than using the average
response, it was determined that more meaningful observations could be
made by aggregating responses into groups and referring to the percentage
of all responses within each group for analyses in this Bulletin. Gang
member involvement in drug sales was divided into three response ranges:
low (0-33 percent), medium (34-66 percent), and high (67-100 percent).
5 This classification of responses revealed that
47 percent of all drug sales involved gang members at a low level, 26
percent at a medium level, and 27 percent at a high level. While the average
for the entire response range (0-100 percent) was 43 percent, this division
shows that the preponderance of responses fell into the low range (33
percent or less). 6
In another part of the survey, respondents were asked if they included
"drug gangs" in their responses to a question regarding whether they had
active gangs (National Youth Gang Center, 1999a). 7
More than half (57 percent) of the respondents who said they had active
gangs included drug gangs in the scope of their youth gang definition.
8 Because youth gangs are difficult to define, consensus is difficult
to reach. Whether or not respondents included drug gangs in their youth
gang definition greatly affected the distribution of responses on gang
member involvement in drug sales. 9 Respondents
who included drug gangs in their youth gang definition reported a much
larger proportion of drug sales involving gang members than did respondents
who did not include drug gangs in their definition. In jurisdictions that
did not include drug gangs in their definition, two-thirds of the respondents
said that as much as 33 percent of their drug sales involved gang members.
In contrast, in jurisdictions that included drug gangs, two-thirds of
the respondents said that as much as 70 percent of their drug sales involved
gang members.
Drug Distribution
Nonrespondents (n=1,512) received followup calls beginning 2 months after
the survey was mailed. After the followup calls, the response rate increased
from 50 percent to 87 percent of the 3,024 jurisdictions that received
the survey. Response rates for the above subsamples varied, but not significantly.
Large cities and suburban counties had the highest response rate (88 percent),
followed by small cities and rural counties (86 percent). In a few cases,
respondents elected not to respond to one or more survey questions. In
such cases, the agency was excluded from the analysis for the affected
question(s). A total of 1,385 respondents (53 percent of the respondents
who returned survey forms) reported gang problems. Among these, 1,005
agencies responded to the question regarding gang member involvement in
drug sales, and 1,139 responded to the question regarding gang control
of drug distribution. These responses were analyzed for this Bulletin.
Measures
The 1996 National Youth Gang Survey placed limited restrictions on local
jurisdictions' definitions of a "youth gang." For the purposes of the
survey, a "youth gang" was defined as "a group of youths or young adults
in your jurisdiction that you or other responsible persons in your agency
or community are willing to identify or classify as a 'gang.' 2
Respondents were asked to exclude motorcycle gangs, hate or ideology groups,
prison gangs, and other exclusively adult gangs.
Respondents were asked two questions regarding gang involvement with drugs.
The first open-ended question 3 asked, "In your
jurisdiction, what percent of drug sales do you estimate involve gang
members?" The second question was "What proportion of drug distribution
do you estimate gangs control or manage in your jurisdiction?" Respondents
were asked to choose the answer "that fits best" among the following options:
"all of it," "more than half," "less than half," "less than one-fourth,"
"none," or "do not know."
Information on the age of gang members was obtained by a single question:
"Considering all the members of the gangs you are reporting on, what is
your estimate of the percentage who are: under age 15, 15-17, 18-24, over
24, do not know?" Only responses that totaled 100 percent were used in
this and the gender and race/ethnicity questions described below.
Information on the sex of gang members was obtained by a single question:
"What is the percentage of all of the members of the gangs you are reporting
on who are: male, female, do not know?"
Information on the racial/ethnic identity of gang members was obtained
by a single question: "For your jurisdiction, what percentage of all gang
members do you estimate are: African American/black, Hispanic/Latino,
Asian, Caucasian/white, or other (please identify)?"
Responses to these questions regarding age, sex, and race/ethnicity of
gang members were used in the analyses for this Bulletin. Moore and Terrett
(1998) and the National Youth Gang Center (1999a) have used responses
to one question in the survey (asking for the number of gang members in
respondents' respective jurisdictions) as a base for calculating the absolute
percentage of gang members falling into age, gender, and race/ethnicity
categories. 4
Information on gang member involvement in criminal activity (other than
drug sales and control of drug distribution) was obtained using the following
question: "Please indicate the degree to which gang members are estimated
to have engaged in the following offenses in your jurisdiction in 1996."
The listed offenses were aggravated assault, robbery, larceny/theft, burglary/breaking
and entering, and motor vehicle theft. Survey recipients were provided
four response categories: high, medium, low, and not involved. No attempt
was made to elicit the number of offenses for which gang members were
arrested in 1996 because such data generally are not available (see Curry,
1996).
Two questions were used to determine the year of onset of gang problems
in particular jurisdictions. First, respondents were asked, "Have you
had gang problems in your jurisdiction prior to 1996?" Those respondents
who answered "yes" to this question were asked, "In approximately what
year did gangs begin to pose a problem in your jurisdiction?"
Findings
This section summarizes analyses that were conducted for this Bulletin.
Readers are reminded that "drug trafficking" refers to gang member involvement
in drug sales and gang control of drug distribution. A report, Youth
Gangs, Drugs, and Crime: Results From the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey,
which includes all tables and statistical tests (Howell and Gleason, 1998),
is available from the National Youth Gang Center (for contact information,
see "For Further Information"). Readers are referred to the full report
for statistical significance tests. In this Bulletin, the term "significant"
is used to describe relationships between variables at or above the 0.05
level of statistical significance. Virtually every correlation and proportional
difference examined in the reported analyses is statistically significant
at or above the 0.001 level. Observations involving small numbers of respondents
are so noted by footnotes.
Drug Sales
On average, respondents estimated that 43 percent of the drug sales in
their jurisdiction involved gang members. Rather than using the average
response, it was determined that more meaningful observations could be
made by aggregating responses into groups and referring to the percentage
of all responses within each group for analyses in this Bulletin. Gang
member involvement in drug sales was divided into three response ranges:
low (0-33 percent), medium (34-66 percent), and high (67-100 percent).
5 This classification of responses revealed that
47 percent of all drug sales involved gang members at a low level, 26
percent at a medium level, and 27 percent at a high level. While the average
for the entire response range (0-100 percent) was 43 percent, this division
shows that the preponderance of responses fell into the low range (33
percent or less). 6
In another part of the survey, respondents were asked if they included
"drug gangs" in their responses to a question regarding whether they had
active gangs (National Youth Gang Center, 1999a). 7
More than half (57 percent) of the respondents who said they had active
gangs included drug gangs in the scope of their youth gang definition.
8 Because youth gangs are difficult to define, consensus
is difficult to reach. Whether or not respondents included drug gangs
in their youth gang definition greatly affected the distribution of responses
on gang member involvement in drug sales. 9 Respondents
who included drug gangs in their youth gang definition reported a much
larger proportion of drug sales involving gang members than did respondents
who did not include drug gangs in their definition. In jurisdictions that
did not include drug gangs in their definition, two-thirds of the respondents
said that as much as 33 percent of their drug sales involved gang members.
In contrast, in jurisdictions that included drug gangs, two-thirds of
the respondents said that as much as 70 percent of their drug sales involved
gang members.
Drug Distribution
Respondents indicated that gangs did not control or manage most of the
drug distribution in their jurisdictions. More than two-thirds of the
respondents reported gang control of drug distribution at none to less
than half; nearly half (47 percent) of the respondents said that gangs
"control or manage" less than one-fourth of all drug distribution in their
localities.10 In contrast, less than one-third of
respondents said gangs controlled more than half of the drug distribution
in their jurisdictions.
Again, the inclusion of drug gangs in respondents' definitions of youth
gangs greatly affected the distribution of responses on gang control of
drug distribution. Only 12 percent of the respondents in jurisdictions
that did not include drug gangs said gangs controlled or managed more
than half of the drug distribution. In contrast, in jurisdictions that
included drug gangs, 41 percent of the respondents said gangs controlled
or managed more than half (or all) of the drug distribution. Thus, the
effect of including drug gangs in respondents' youth gang definition skewed
responses toward a higher level of gang control of drug distribution.
Demographic Factors
Gender. Females represented a smaller proportion of gang members
in jurisdictions that reported gang member involvement in drug sales and
gang control of drug distribution. Although they were only slightly less
prevalent in jurisdictions that reported high levels of gang member involvement
in drug sales, they were significantly less likely to be members of gangs
that controlled drug distribution. In the 12 jurisdictions 11
that reported gang control of all of the drug distribution and also reported
the gender of gang members, females represented only 6 percent of gang
members, compared with a national average of 11 percent (National Youth
Gang Center, 1999a).12 Conversely, in jurisdictions
that reported no gang control of drug distribution, females represented
almost 15 percent of gang members.
Age. Regardless of the extent of gang member involvement in drug
sales, respondents estimated that the largest proportion of their gang
members were juveniles (ages 15 to 17) (see table 1).13
However, the prevalence of gang members age 18 and older increased in
jurisdictions in which the level of gang member involvement in drug sales
was "moderate" or "high." There tended to be fewer gang members ages 15
to 17 in these jurisdictions.
A more distinct age-related pattern was observed with respect to gang-controlled
drug distribution (see table 2). Respondents who said gangs controlled
none of the drug distribution estimated that 79 percent of their gang
members were juveniles (age 17 or younger). In contrast, in the 12 jurisdictions
that reported gang control of all drug distribution and also reported
the age of gang members, 14 respondents estimated
that 42 percent of their gang members were juveniles and that 58 percent
were young adults (age 18 and older). Thus, on average, the prevalence
of young adult gang members increased significantly as gang control of
drug distribution increased.
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 largest jurisdictions (those with populations of 250,000 or more),
gangs consisted of approximately equal proportions of juveniles and young
adults. Two age-related trends were observed in smaller jurisdictions.
The percentage of juvenile gang members increased significantly, while
the percentage of young adult gang members decreased significantly as
population size decreased.
In sum, age varied more significantly with gang control of drug distribution
than with gang member involvement in drug sales. Older gang members appear
to be much more involved in drug distribution 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 involved in both
the sale and distribution of drugs in larger jurisdictions.
Race/Ethnicity. Table 3 shows that Caucasian and Hispanic gang
members were significantly more prevalent in jurisdictions with low levels
of gang member involvement in drug sales (0-33 percent) and that African
American gang members were significantly more prevalent in jurisdictions
with high levels of gang member involvement in drug sales (67-100 percent).15
At the low level of drug sales, 23 percent of gang members were African
American, 34 percent were Hispanic, and 34 percent were Caucasian. In
contrast, at the high level of drug sales, 50 percent of gang members
were African American, 24 percent were Hispanic, and 22 percent were Caucasian.
African American gang members were most prevalent in jurisdictions reporting
high levels of gang control of drug distribution (see table 4). Their
proportion increased from 18 percent in jurisdictions reporting no gang
control of drug distribution to 59 percent in the 14 jurisdictions reporting
gang control of all drug distribution and also reporting the race/ethnicity
of gang members.16 Other racial/ethnic groups were
significantly more prevalent in jurisdictions reporting a low degree of
gang control of drug distribution. For example, in jurisdictions reporting
gang control of less than one-fourth of drug distribution, 36 percent
of gang members were Caucasian, and in jurisdictions reporting gang control
of all drug distribution, only 18 percent were Caucasian. The same pattern
was evident for Hispanics and Asians.
In sum, the greater the prevalence of African American gang members in
the jurisdiction, the larger the proportion of drug sales accounted for
by gang members and the greater the extent of gang control of drug distribution.
The opposite pattern was observed for all other racial/ethnic groups,
except for "others,"17 whose prevalence did not
change significantly.
The Drug Trafficking Context
Population Size. Gang involvement in drug trafficking (member sales
and gang control of drug distribution) was spread throughout various population
categories, but gangs were estimated to control slightly more of the drug
distribution in large cities than in suburban areas, small cities, towns,
and rural counties. The prevalence of gang member involvement in drug
sales was approximately equal in suburban areas, small cities, towns,
rural counties, and the largest cities, and none of the differences among
population categories were statistically significant for either type of
drug trafficking.
Gang member involvement in drug sales and gang control of drug distribution
were substantial in small cities, towns, and rural counties with populations
under 25,000. Nearly one-third of respondents in these jurisdictions said
gang members accounted for two-thirds or more of all drug sales. Nearly
one-fourth of respondents in these areas said gangs controlled more than
one-half of the drug distribution. Overall, population is not a factor
in the presence or absence of drug trafficking; gang drug trafficking
occurs in populations of all sizes.
Geographical Region. Both gang member involvement in drug sales
and gang control of drug distribution varied significantly across the
four major geographic regions.18 The average proportions
of drug sales estimated to involve gang members were as follows: Northeast,
41 percent; Midwest, 47 percent; South, 45 percent; and West, 38 percent.
Gang control of drug distribution was significantly lower in the Northeast
(10 percent) than in the other three regions: Midwest, 29 percent; South,
35 percent; and West, 25 percent.
The prevalence of particular racial/ethnic groups also varied significantly
among the four geographic regions on both drug trafficking measures. With
respect to drug sales, the greatest magnitude of variation was reported
for Hispanics. While they represented 58 percent of the gang members in
the West, they represented only 17 percent of gang members in the Midwest.
Thus, Hispanics were greatly overrepresented in the West. In contrast
with their national average within gangs (34 percent), African Americans
were overrepresented in the Midwest (36 percent) and South (49 percent)
regions and greatly underrepresented in the West (12 percent). Compared
with their national average (29 percent), Caucasians were somewhat overrepresented
in the Northeast (31 percent) and Midwest (38 percent) and underrepresented
in the West (19 percent). Almost identical patterns were observed for
gang control of drug distribution.
Year of gang problem onset. The onset year of gang problems in
jurisdictions significantly affected both drug sales and control of drug
distribution by gangs (see table 5). In general, larger proportions of
drug sales were attributed to gang members in "older" gang localities
than in "newer" ones. However, gang members were not as extensively involved
in drug sales in the oldest gang jurisdictions (in which gang problems
began before 1980) as in jurisdictions in which onset occurred between
1981 and 1990. Jurisdictions reporting onset between 1981 and 1985 show
the highest level of gang member involvement in drug sales. Jurisdictions
in which gang problems emerged after 1985 show lower levels of gang member
involvement in drug sales, and these levels decrease in each subsequent
time period of onset through 1995-96. Thus, gang members in "newer" gang
problem jurisdictions were much less likely than those in "older" gang
problem jurisdictions to be involved in drug sales.
Onset year had an even stronger effect on gang control of drug distribution
(see table 6). 19 The peak gang problem onset period
for gang control of drug distribution was 1981 to 1985, after which gang
control of distribution declined in each subsequent time period for gang
problem onset through 1995-96. The average percentages shown in table
6 indicate that gangs control significantly less of the drug distribution
in "newer" gang problem jurisdictions than in "older" ones.
The Drug Sales-Distribution Connection
The overlap between gang member involvement in drug sales and gang control
of drug distribution was significant, as expected. In the 15 jurisdictions
that reported gang control of all drug distribution, every respondent
reported that gang members were responsible for two-thirds or more of
all drug sales. Conversely, when the reported percentage of drug sales
involving gang members dropped to one-third or less, 80 percent of respondents
said gangs controlled less than one-fourth of the drug distribution. In
other words, if gang members are involved in either drug sales or drug
distribution, then they (or gangs in their jurisdiction) are likely to
be involved in both activities. Similarly, in jurisdictions in which gang
members are not actively involved in drug sales, gangs tend not to be
actively involved in control of drug distribution.
The Gang, Drugs, and Crime Connection
Drug trafficking and criminal involvement. In another analysis
(National Youth Gang Center, 1999a, pp. 34-35), gang members tended to
be involved in larceny/theft, followed by aggravated assault, motor vehicle
theft, and burglary, in that order. Gang members were not reported to
be extensively involved in robbery; almost half of the respondents reported
"low" degrees of gang member involvement in this offense.
Figure 1 shows the degree to which gang members were reported to be involved
in specific criminal offenses given their level of involvement in drug
sales. The five measured offenses were aggravated assault, robbery, larceny/theft,
burglary/breaking and entering, and motor vehicle theft. The bar graphs
show the degree to which gang members were reported to be involved in
the five offenses at four levels (high, medium, low, and not involved)
for each of three categories representing the proportion of drug sales
involving gang members (high, medium, and low). For example, figure 1
shows that in jurisdictions in which gang member involvement in drug sales
was estimated to be "high," 49 percent of gang members were involved in
aggravated assault to a "high" degree, 35 percent to a "medium" degree,
and 16 percent to a "low" degree.
A similar pattern was evident for the remaining four offenses. As gang
member involvement in drug sales increased, the degree of gang member
involvement in robbery, larceny/theft, burglary/breaking and entering,
and motor vehicle theft increased significantly at the high level of criminal
involvement. In jurisdictions reporting a high level of gang member involvement
in drug sales, an average of 49 percent of all gang members were estimated
to be involved to a high degree in aggravated assault and larceny/theft.
In the same jurisdictions, 40 percent of gang members were estimated to
be involved to a high degree in motor vehicle theft, 39 percent in burglary/breaking
and entering, and 30 percent in robbery. Similar crime patterns were observed
for jurisdictions reporting a high degree of gang control of drug distribution.
The overlapping percentages in figure 1 do not clearly reveal how changes
in each measure-drug trafficking and involvement in other crimes-are affected
by changes in the other. Separate analyses for gang member drug sales
and gang control of drug distribution (reported in Howell and Gleason,
1998) showed significant correlations between the two measures of drug
trafficking and other crimes. The correlation was strongest for robbery,
followed by aggravated assault, then other offenses. Howell and Gleason's
analysis also showed very high correlations between various crimes other
than drug trafficking. In fact, the strongest correlations were between
robbery and aggravated assault, followed by robbery and motor vehicle
theft, then robbery and either drug sales or drug distribution (in all
jurisdictions that responded to the drug trafficking questions).20
When gang members are involved in one form of criminal activity, they
are likely to be involved in other types of crimes. As Klein (1995) observed,
involvement in "cafeteria-style" (widely varied) crime is typical in youth
gangs. Studies of gang members within large adolescent samples show that
gang members engage in a wide variety of offenses besides drug trafficking,
21 including drug and alcohol use, public disorder,
property damage, theft, extortion, robbery, carrying illegal guns, and
many other general acts of delinquency. Fighting with other gangs is also
common. Gang members in an 11-city survey of middle school students said
that the most characteristic feature of their gang was fighting with other
gangs (Esbensen, Deschenes, and Winfree, in press). Multivariate analyses
22 of the relationships between gang member involvement
in drug trafficking and criminal offenses will be required, because other
variables, such as intergang conflicts, may be influencing gang involvement
in criminal offenses.
Program Implications
Although gang member involvement in drug sales is spread across all population
categories, it accounts for a substantial proportion of the drug sales
in less than one-fourth of all jurisdictions reporting youth gang problems
in the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey. Youth gang control of drug distribution
affects about one-third of gang problem jurisdictions. Drug gangs may
be more prevalent in these localities, which would increase the proportion
of involved gangs. Active control of drug distribution by youth gangs
appears to be more prevalent in heavily populated jurisdictions in which
young adults (age 18 and older) are more prevalent among youth gang members
(see tables 1 and 2).
It appears that a relatively small number of jurisdictions have serious
youth gang drug trafficking problems. Klein's (1995) national survey of
law enforcement agencies produced a similar finding. In Klein's interviews
with gang experts in police departments in 261 "notable gang cities,"
only 14 percent reported a major role of youth gangs in drug distribution,
and distinct drug gangs were reported in 16 percent of the cities (1995,
p. 36). In most of these cities, the drug gangs did not represent the
majority of the gangs. Overall, 72 percent of the cities "reported the
gang-crack connection to be moderate, weak, or nonexistent."
There is some evidence that the most affected jurisdictions are cities
in which gang problems first emerged in the early 1980's. Cities with
newer youth gang problems are much less likely to have youth gangs that
control drug trafficking enterprises. Each jurisdiction needs to assess
the youth gang problem carefully to determine whether or not drug trafficking
is a major cause for concern. A thorough assessment should consider at
least the specific characteristics of the gangs, the sex and ages of gang
members, the crimes gangs commit and the victims of their crimes, and
the localities or areas they affect. No assumptions should be made about
youth gang problems in a particular community before an assessment is
performed.
As a first step, jurisdictions experiencing youth gang problems should
attempt to distinguish between bona fide youth gangs and drug gangs. In
some localities, the latter appear to account for much of the drug trafficking
that law enforcement agencies attribute to youth gangs. This distinction
has important implications for interventions, particularly law enforcement
investigation and interdiction tactics. Drug gangs, also called "crack"
gangs, grew out of the narcotics trade-not out of youth gangs (Klein,
1995; Moore, 1990). Klein and Maxson's (1996) law enforcement survey in
201 cities found that "specialty drug gangs" constituted only 9 percent
of all gangs. Nevertheless, these drug gangs may be responsible for a
significant proportion of drug sales and violence in some cities. Although
the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey did not ask respondents to report
the existence or number of drug gangs, their inclusion in gang definitions
makes a significant difference in law enforcement estimates of gang involvement
in drug trafficking. Unfortunately, researchers "do not know enough .
. . to attempt to differentiate between drug gangs and the broad array
of groups that comprise street gangs" (Klein, 1995, p. 130). However,
Klein (table 7) suggests several common differences between (youth) street
gangs and drug gangs that-as a starting point-can help jurisdictions differentiate
between the two and develop appropriate responses for both (see Klein,
1995, p. 132).
Successfully breaking up youth gang drug operations may require different
approaches, depending on the type of gang (Howell and Decker, 1999). Because
youth gangs generally are involved only in street-level drug distribution,
the proceeds of which typically are used for personal consumption, providing
legitimate ways of earning money may be an effective intervention strategy.
Suppression approaches (formal and informal social control procedures)
may be more effective with drug gangs (see the Bureau of Justice Assistance's
1997 prototype for police suppression of drug gangs).
Several youth gang programs hold promise for reducing drug trafficking.
OJJDP's Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention,
and Suppression Program model (also known as the Spergel model), currently
being tested in five demonstration sites (Bloomington, IN; Mesa and Tucson,
AZ; Riverside, CA; and San Antonio, TX), appears to be a promising broad
approach to combating a wide range of gang crimes, including drug trafficking
(for descriptions of these programs, see Burch and Kane, 1999). Preliminary
data from this initiative suggest a reduction of drug use and selling
among targeted gang youth. An early pilot of the comprehensive model,
Chicago's Gang Violence Reduction Program, which targeted two of the city's
most violent gangs, showed overall effectiveness, including reduction
of drug selling among program clients when a combination of sanctions
and coordinated services were delivered to them (Spergel and Grossman,
1997). The Tri-Agency Resource Gang Enforcement Team (TARGET) integrates
and coordinates the work of the Westminster Police Department, the Orange
County, CA, District Attorney, and the Orange County Probation Department
in removing gang leadership and the most chronic recidivists from the
community (Capizzi, Cook, and Schumacher, 1995; Kent et al., in press).
The JUDGE (Jurisdictions United for Drug Gang Enforcement) program in
San Diego, CA, is an example of multiagency coordination of investigations,
prosecutions, and sanctions of violent members of drug-trafficking gangs
(Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997). Another multiagency strategy, Boston's
enforcement, intervention, and prevention initiative (Kennedy, 1997; Kennedy
et al., 1996), targets the city's most dangerous gang and drug offenders
using a variety of enforcement-oriented strategies.
Programs that provide alternatives to gang life for active gang members
also hold promise for reducing involvement in drug sales. Many gang members
would give up drug selling for reasonable wages (Huff, 1998). Two inner-city
gang programs that provide such job opportunities for gang members appear
particularly promising in this regard: the National Center for Neighborhood
Enterprises (1999) Violence-Free Zone initiatives, and the Los Angeles
Homeboy Industries and Jobs for a Future (Gaouette, 1997). Many other
programs that provide alternatives to gang involvement can also help reduce
gang member drug trafficking, such as the Boys and Girls Clubs' Targeted
Outreach program (see Howell, in press, for detailed information on this
and other promising approaches). School-based antigang curriculums, such
as Gang Resistance Education and Training, (G.R.E.A.T.) appear promising
for preventing gang involvement (Esbensen and Osgood, 1999), but other
interventions may be needed to prevent adolescent involvement in drug
selling. Preventing early initiation into drug use is a promising avenue,
because early onset of drug use is a major risk factor for gang membership
(Hill et al., 1999), and drug use is a precursor to drug trafficking (Van
Kammen, Maguin, and Loeber, 1994).
Selected interventions should be community specific and based on thorough
assessments of gang crimes. As Block and Block (1993, p. 9) caution, "A
program to reduce gang involvement in drugs in a community in which gang
members are most concerned with defense of turf has little chance of success."
The most promising comprehensive models for dealing with bona fide youth
gangs are built on collaboration among all sectors of the community and
the juvenile justice system (Burch and Chemers, 1997; Howell, in press).
The criminal activities of youth gangs have important program and policy
implications. Data from the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey support earlier
studies that show the criminal versatility of youth gangs (Klein, 1995,
p. 68; Miller, 1992; Thornberry, 1998). Drug trafficking is only one of
many types of crimes committed by youth gangs. Thus, it is not surprising
that drug crimes are highly correlated with robbery, aggravated assault,
burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Although gang member
involvement in drug sales and gang control of drug distribution were strongly
correlated with gang member involvement in all of the other five measured
criminal offenses, the survey results did not suggest a particular pattern
of criminal activity. The data suggest that gang drug trafficking may
take place concurrently with other criminal activities, rather than cause
other crimes. Further research on this relationship is needed.
In their review of the gangs, drugs, and violence connection, Howell and
Decker (1999) concluded that most youth gang violence is not related to
drug trafficking. Decker and Van Winkle (1994) concluded that most violent
crimes committed by youth gangs are related to intergang and interpersonal
conflicts. The analyses reported in this Bulletin support Howell and Decker's
conclusion. Youth gang interventions should be designed to prevent and
reduce all types of criminality-not just drug crimes.
Conclusion
Youth gang involvement in drug sales and distribution is widespread, cutting
across all demographic sectors, particularly age, race/ethnicity, geographic
region, and population categories. However, according to law enforcement
agency responses to the 1998 National Youth Gang Survey, extensive gang
involvement in drug trafficking appears to be concentrated in a relatively
small number of jurisdictions.
Every jurisdiction experiencing a gang problem needs to assess its specific
problem before deciding on a response. 23 A different
community response likely will be needed for different types of gangs
involved in drug trafficking. Adult criminal organizations that control
drug distribution systems and drug gangs are susceptible to suppression
strategies (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997). Youth gangs may be less
tractable because they are embedded in the social and cultural fabric
of communities and integrally related to the adolescent developmental
period. They require a more comprehensive response that combines prevention,
intervention, and suppression strategies (Burch and Chemers, 1997).
For Further Information
For further information, contact:
National Youth Gang Center
Suite 200
2050 Centre Pointe Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32308
800-446-0912
850-386-5356 (fax)
Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
800-638-8736
301-519-5212 (fax)
E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org
References
Block, R., and Block, C.R. 1993. Street Gang Crime in Chicago.
Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
Burch, J.H., and Chemers, B.M. 1997. A Comprehensive Response to America's
Youth Gang Problem. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Burch, J., and Kane, C. 1999. Implementing the OJJDP Comprehensive
Gang Model. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1997. Urban Street Gang Enforcement.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Capizzi, M., Cook, J.I., and Schumacher, M. 1995. The TARGET model: A
new approach to the prosecution of gang cases. The Prosecutor March/April:18-21.
Curry, G.D. 1996. National youth gang surveys: A review of methods and
findings. Unpublished report prepared for the National Youth Gang Center,
Tallahassee, FL.
Curry, G.D., Ball, R.A., and Decker, S.H. 1996. Estimating the national
scope of gang crime from law enforcement data. In Gangs in America,
2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 21-36.
Decker, S.H., and Van Winkle, B. 1994. Slinging dope: The role of gangs
and gang members in drug sales. Justice Quarterly 11(4):583-604.
Esbensen, F., Deschenes, E.P., and Winfree, L.T. 1999. Differences between
gang girls and gang boys: Results from a multi-site survey. Youth and
Society 31(1): 27-53.
Esbensen, F., and Osgood, D.W. 1999. Gang Resistance Education and Training
(GREAT): Results from the National Evaluation. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency 36(2):194-225.
Gaouette, N. 1997. Hope rises at Homeboy Bakeries in L.A. Christian
Science Monitor (Sept. 15):1.
Hill, K.G., Howell, J.C., Hawkins, J.D., and Battin, S.R. 1999. Childhood
risk factors for adolescent gang membership: Results from the Seattle
Social Development Project. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
36(3):300-322.
Howell, J.C. In press. Youth Gang Programs and Strategies. Bulletin.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Howell, J.C., and Decker, S.H. 1999. The Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Violence
Connection. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Howell, J.C., and Gleason, D.K. 1998. Youth gangs, drugs, and crime: Results
from the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey. Unpublished report. Tallahassee,
FL: National Youth Gang Center.
Huff, C.R. 1989. Gangs and public policy. Crime and Delinquency
35(4):524-537.
Huff, C.R. 1998. Comparing the Criminal Behavior of Youth Gangs and
At-Risk Youth. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
Kennedy, D.M. 1997. Pulling levers: Chronic offenders, high-crime settings,
and a theory of prevention. Valparaiso University Law Review 3(2):449-484.
Kennedy, D.M., Piehl, A.M. and Braga, A.A. 1996. Youth violence in Boston:
Gun markets, serious youth offenders, and a use-reduction strategy. Law
and Contemporary Problems 59(1):147-196.
Kent, D.R., Donaldson, S.I., Wyrick, P.A., and Smith, P.J. In press. Evaluating
criminal justice programs designed to reduce crime by targeting repeat
gang offenders. Evaluation and Program Planning 24.
Klein, M.W. 1995. The American Street Gang. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Klein, M.W., and Maxson, C.L. 1996. Gang structures, crime patterns and
police responses. Unpublished report. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern
California, Social Science Research Institute.
Klein, M.W., Maxson, C.L., and Cunningham, L.C. 1991. Crack, street gangs,
and violence. Criminology 29(4):623-650.
Maxson, C.L. 1992. Collecting data from investigation files: Descriptions
of three Los Angeles gang homicide projects. In Questions and Answers
About Lethal and Non-Lethal Violence, edited by C.R. Block and R.
Block. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
National Institute of Justice.
Maxson, C.L. 1998. Gang homicide. In Studying and Preventing Homicide,
edited by D. Smith and M. Zahn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 197-219.
Miller, W.B. 1992. (Revised from 1982). Crime by Youth Gangs and Groups
in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Moore, J.W. 1990. Gangs, drugs, and violence. In Drugs and Violence:
Causes, Correlates, and Consequences, edited by M. De La Rosa, E.Y.
Lambert, and B. Gropper. NIDA Research Monograph 103. Rockville, MD: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health,
National Institute on Drug Abuse, pp. 160-176.
Moore, J.P., and Terrett, C. 1998. Highlights of the 1996 National
Youth Gang Survey. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. 1999. Violence-Free Zone
Initiatives Washington, DC: National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise.
National Youth Gang Center. 1999a. 1996 National Youth Gang Survey.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
National Youth Gang Center. 1999b. Rural gang initiative: A guide to assessing
a community's youth gang problem. Unpublished report. Tallahassee, FL:
National Youth Gang Center.
Thornberry, T.P. 1998. Membership in gangs and involvement in serious
and violent offending. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk
Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P.
Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 147-166.
Van Kammen, W., Maguin, E., and Loeber, R. 1994. Initiation of drug selling
and its relationship with illicit drug use and serious delinquency in
adolescent boys. In Cross-National Longitudinal Research on Human Development
and Criminal Behavior, edited by E.G.M. Weitekamp and H.J. Kerner.
Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 229-241.
Acknowledgments
James C. Howell, Ph.D., is an Adjunct Researcher at the National Youth
Gang Center (NYGC), Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Tallahassee,
FL. Debra K. Gleason is a Microsystems Analyst at NYGC.
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 helpful suggestions for improvements to this Bulletin.
Source: http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/9912_4/contents.html
