Gangs in America III

C. Ronald Huff

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 2001
• Print ISBN:
  9780761924241
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9781506319971
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

The Third Edition of this popular anthology examines contemporary gangs, gang life, and law enforcement efforts to study and coordinate the community?s response to them. The book contains original essays from a broad array of renowned researchers and experienced practitioners who work with gangs. A wide variety of current topics and issues are covered, including: female gangs and ganging; ethnic diversity; economic, neighborhood and school contexts of gang behavior; gun and drug relationships, and research methods used in the study of gangs.

As communities face ever-growing gang-related problems, Gangs in America III provides the most up-to-date information on the diverse perspectives and complex issues that arise in our efforts to understand, prevent, and control gang violence and crime.

For Your Courses in:

• Criminology
• Criminal Justice
• Sociology
• Victimization

Text Recommended for:

• Upper Division Undergraduate Level

• Graduate Level 

 

PART

The Gang: Changing Boundaries, Joining, “Banging,” and Getting Out

The Changing Boundaries of Youth Gangs

JAMES C. HOWELL
JOHN P. MOORE
ARLEN EGLEY, JR.

After studying more than 1,000 Chicago gangs, Thrasher (1963) observed that “no two gangs are just alike; [there is] an endless variety of forms” (p. 5). “[The gang] may vary as to membership, type of leaders, mode of organization, interests and activities, and finally as to its status in the community” (p. 36). Thrasher’s “endless variety of forms” has been characteristic of youth gangs in the United States for more than a century (see Sante, 1991).

From the 1950s through the 1970s, researchers described many kinds of gang organizational forms. Spergel (1995, p. 79) documented 16 sets of dimensions developed by numerous researchers to classify gangs. Miller (1992) subsumed gangs of the late 1970s under a broad typology of 20 “law-violating youth groups” (p. 20). Some researchers described black and Hispanic gangs that began to predominate in the 1950s and 1960s as having a “vertical” or age-graded structure consisting of numerous cliques (Moore, 1978). Klein (1971, p. 66) favored a turnip-shaped structure, with fewer young gang members at the bottom and fewer older gang members at the top than in the middle.

In the 1980s and 1990s, some youth gangs were described as violent drug trafficking operations resembling adult criminal organizations. The most common stereotype of youth gangs conveyed by the print and broadcast media closely resembles an image portrayed more than a decade ago in a California study (Skolnick, Correl, Navarro, & Rabb, 1988). Entrepreneurial youth gangs were said to be the product of the crack cocaine epidemic (Skolnick, 1989) and economic restructuring that resulted from the deindustrialization of major cities (Fagan, 1996; Hagedorn, 1988; Skolnick, 1990; Taylor, 1990). Some of these gangs were said to be highly structured, much like military organizations, and to be operating criminal enterprises (see Klein, 1995, pp. 40-43,112-135, for the history of this image, promulgated primarily by broadcast media). Empirical support for the popular image of youth gangs as instigated by Skolnick and his colleagues in the California studies is limited (Howell & Decker, 1999; Klein, 1995; Moore, 1993).

Nevertheless, different varieties of youth gangs continue to exist and evolve. The central theme of this chapter is that youth gang characteristics and operations have changed considerably during the past decade or so. These changes can be viewed from two contrasting perspectives—that of the empirical gang studies conducted earlier, and that of the stereotypes promulgated by the mass media and other sources. We use the term youth gang boundaries to refer to demographic characteristics of gang members, the level of gang organization, and selected forms of gang activity, such as drug trafficking. It appears that changing gang boundaries are most evident in newer gang problem localities, those in which gang problems have developed over the past 10 to 15 years.¹ A “hybrid gang culture” that characterizes some newer gangs represents a relatively new development. The role of school-linked gangs, gang member migration, and prison gangs in bringing about the expansion of youth gang boundaries is also discussed.

Our review begins with selected findings from the National Youth Gang Survey. We summarize some of the trend data reported in the survey, then follow with a presentation of evidence of recent gang boundary changes. We conclude with a brief discussion of policy and program issues suggested by these changing boundaries.

National Youth Gang Survey Trends

---

Since 1996, the National Youth Gang Center (NYGC) has conducted annual surveys of a nationally representative sample of more than 3,000 law enforcement agencies.² Forty-four percent of respondents reported active youth gangs in their jurisdiction in 1999, down 4% from the previous year and down 9% from 1996. The NYGC estimates that more than 26,000 gangs and 840,500 gang members were active in the United States in 1999 (Egley, 2000). This latter number represents an 8% increase since 1998 and approaches an estimated high of nearly 846,500 gang members in 1996.

The presence of gang activity varies markedly by the size of the jurisdiction served by law enforcement agencies. In 1999, gang activity was reported by 16% of those agencies serving a population of 9,999 and below and by 28% of the agencies serving populations of 10,000 to 24,999. Although this represents a decline of 8% and 12%, respectively, from 1996, it is apparent that even the smallest jurisdictions are not immune to gang activity. In addition, 50% of the agencies serving a population between 25,000 and 49,999 and nearly two thirds (65%) of those serving a population between 50,000 and 99,999 reported gang activity in 1999. This represents a 12% and 11% drop, respectively, from 1996, but shows that one half or more of our nation’s medium-sized jurisdictions still experience gang activity.

At the other end of the spectrum are the largest jurisdictions. In 1999, 92% of agencies serving the largest populated areas (i.e., 250,000 and above) and 84% of those serving a population between 100,000 and 249,999 reported gang problems. Three important observations can be made here. First, almost all jurisdictions with large population bases report gang activity. Second, unlike the modest decline in the presence of gang activity in other areas (as reported above), the proportion of agencies with populations of 100,000 and above that reported gang activity remained virtually unchanged from 1996 through 1999. Third, agencies serving these areas consistently report substantially higher averages of both active gangs and gang members than do their counterparts (NYGC, 2000a). Taken together, these findings suggest that current gang problem localities are both concentrated, in that the largest populated jurisdictions retain a disproportionate share of gang activity, and widespread, in that gang activity continues to appear and remain in jurisdictions of differing population sizes (see also W. Miller, 2001).

Characteristics of Youth Gangs and Gang Members

---

Because researchers, practitioners, and law enforcement agencies cannot agree on a common definition of a “youth gang” (Horowitz, 1990; Miller, 1992; Needle & Stapleton, 1983; Spergel & Bobrowski, 1989), the NYGC surveys allow respondents to use their own definitions.³ Each NYGC survey asks questions aimed at improving our understanding of the characteristics of contemporary youth gangs.

The 1998 NYGC survey asked respondents who reported gang problems to rank order six youth gang characteristics. These were definitional elements that law enforcement respondents (and other agency representatives) in previous gang surveys said are important gang characteristics (Miller, 1992; Needle & Stapleton, 1983): (a) “has a name”; (b) “commits crimes together”; (c) “has a leader or several leaders”; (d) “hangs out together”; (e) “displays or wears common colors or other insignia”; and (f) “claims a turf or territory.” None of these criteria received an overwhelming majority of votes as most important (Howell, Egley, & Gleason, 2000). However, “commits crimes together” clearly was the most important criterion, receiving a first-place selection by 50% of the respondents. The next most popular characteristic, “has a name,” was ranked most important by only 19% of the respondents. The remaining criteria received a smaller fraction of top selections as most important criterion. Thus, a common set of gang characteristics is not apparent in this analysis. Further analysis of the frequency and sequencing with which law enforcement agencies use the six criteria revealed that they use them in a variety of combinations (Howell et al., 2000).

Age

Contemporary youth gang members appear, on average, to be older than in the past. In 1996, law enforcement agencies estimated that approximately half of their gang members were juveniles (under age 18) and that half were young adults (18 and older; NYGC, 1999a). In 1999, 63% of the gang members were estimated to be young adults and only 37% juveniles (Egley, 2000). Between 1996 and 1999, the proportion of young adult gang members (ages 18-24) increased sharply, from 37% to 50% of all gang members (Egley, 2000).

What accounts for the increased prevalence of older gang members in the NYGC survey data? It’s possible that law enforcement agencies tend to undercount younger gang members, a possibility discussed later in this chapter. Another possibility is that the evidence supporting the finding that there are more older gang members may be a product, at least in part, of improvements in records systems and the use of standardized gang indexing criteria. This seemingly oxymoronic hypothesis arises from two law enforcement trends that have accompanied growth in gangs over the past 20 years: (a) widespread adoption of criteria to be applied to subjects; and (b) rapid development of automated databases for criminal intelligence.

In the past 10 years, at least 20 states have passed laws defining gang and gang member,⁴ chiefly to “enhance” or increase the severity of penalties for criminal offenses if committed by a gang member. Criteria for indexing individuals in gang intelligence databases are also set forth in a few states’ laws. Whether established for penalty enhancement or police intelligence purposes, such criteria have been standardized in a number of states and are accepted by law enforcement personnel in those states. In other states, where uniform codification is lacking, many local police agencies have developed their own criteria for indexing gang members. Further, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC, 1995), and the National Alliance of Gang Investigators Associations (NAGIA) all have developed gang and gang member definitions. Almost universally, such definitions include illegal or criminal activity by the gang and several tests for membership.

With the advent of law enforcement database automation, agencies have developed stand-alone and shared gang intelligence systems. The extent and sophistication of these systems cannot be adequately described here because of space limitations. Some are pointer systems, containing only identifying data on suspected gang members, including photos, and “pointing” the inquiring agency to additional information. Others give direct access to extensive intelligence. It is increasingly common for officers to access central gang databases and intelligence-sharing networks with laptops while in the field. Having agreed upon indexing criteria, law enforcement personnel have steadily accumulated information on gangs and gang members. Therein lies the problem. Absent purging criteria, a youth meeting all of an agency’s requirements at the time of indexing could fail to come to police attention again and remain a gang member forever, “aging” through the passage of time. The Code of Federal Regulations (28CFR Part 43) establishes, inter alia, that a subject can remain in an intelligence database for only 5 years without additional activity or other validation. This purge requirement applies, however, only to state and local law enforcement agency intelligence databases established with federal funds. Many local gang databases are not required to comply with 28CFR and may not otherwise have established retention periods. An informal query directed to NAGIA officers affirmed that such “aging in the system” is possible. In any event, according to NYGC survey data, the average youth gang member is now a young adult, between ages 18 and 24.

Gender

Gender is another youth gang characteristic that has changed. Youth gang membership among girls is much more common than in the past (see Curry, 1998; Moore & Hagedorn, 2001). Nationally, among 10- to 16-year-olds, the male to female ratio among youths who had ever belonged to a gang was 2:1 in 1997 (see Snyder & Sickmund, 1999, pp. 58-59). This proportion was exceeded slightly in an 11-site survey of eighth graders in known gang problem localities (Esbensen & Deschenes, 1998). About 14% of the boys and 8% of the g...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Foreword: What Is Past Is Prelude: Gangs in America and Elsewhere
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part 1: The Gang: Changing Boundaries, Joining, “Banging,” and Getting Out
• Part 2: The Arenas: Neighborhoods, Communities, and Schools
• Part 3: The Increasing Diversity of Gangs
• Part 4: Gang Research and Public Policy
• References
• Index
• About the Editor
• About the Contributors