Title: Comparing the Criminal Behavior of Youth Gangs and At-Risk
Youths.
Series:   Research in Brief
Author: C. Ronald Huff
Published: October 1998
Subject: Gangs, juvenile delinquency prevention, juvenile violence
14 pages
37,000 bytes

-------------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text
file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat
graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS
at 800-851-3420.
 
-------------------------------

Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice
Jeremy Travis, Director

Research in Brief
October 1998

-------------------------------

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: An NIJ-funded comparative study of the criminal
behavior of gang members and nongang at-risk youths in three urban and
suburban communities. Additional data from a fourth site were gathered
with funds provided by the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services
through formula funding from the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.

Key issues: Youth-gang-related crime has been growing for years, but
little data existed about the extent and precise nature of crimes committed
by gang members. This study explored the differences between the
criminal behavior of youth gang members and nongang, but similarly
at-risk, youths. The research suggests important implications for
preventing involvement in and intervening in youth gang activity.


Key findings: The report corroborates other recent longitudinal and cross-
sectional studies that suggest gang membership increases the likelihood
and frequency that members will commit serious and violent crimes.

o The research shows that gang members in each of the survey sites are
much more likely to sell drugs than nongang at-risk youths. Of those
youths who sell drugs, gang members reported doing so more frequently,
having fewer customers, making more money from the sales, and relying
more on out-of-state suppliers than nongang youths who sold drugs. Both
gang members and at-risk youths reported that gangs do not control drug
trafficking in their communities.

o Most significantly, the research found that contrary to popular belief,
youths can resist overtures to join a gang without serious reprisals from
members. The majority of respondents who knew individuals who had
refused to join a gang reported that those individuals suffered no 
consequences for their refusal. Reprisals suffered by those youths who
resisted overtures to join a gang were often milder than the serious assaults
endured by youths during their gang initiation. This finding provides an
important component for gang prevention programs for at-risk youths.

o The study found a clear and consistent pattern regarding initial gang 
involvement and age at first arrest. Across all sites, researchers found that
the median age at which youths began hanging out with gangs was
approximately 13 years old. The median age for joining the gang was
about 14 years old. The age of first arrest mirrored the age at which youths
joined their gangs (14 years old).

o Data from the Ohio study suggest that gang members' criminal careers
begin with property offenses (e.g., auto theft, burglary) and progress
within 1.5 to 2 years to drug-related crimes and violent crime. The data
suggest that an important opportunity exists for aggressive intervention
during the early years of gang involvement.

o While many gang members and nongang, at-risk youths who sell drugs
indicated they would not give up drug selling for less than $15 per hour, a
significant number of them said they would accept far lower wages not
much more than is currently being paid in fast-food restaurants if they
could obtain a sufficient number of work hours per week.

o Gang members are much more likely than nongang members to possess
powerful and highly lethal weapons.

o The criminal behavior committed by gang members is extensive and
significantly exceeds that committed by comparably at-risk but nongang
youths.

Target audience: Criminal and juvenile court officials, probation/parole
officials, education administrators, youth workers, police and drug
enforcement officials, State and local legislators and elected officials, 
researchers, and policymakers.  

-------------------------------

Comparing the Criminal Behavior of Youth Gangs and At-Risk Youths

by C. Ronald Huff

For years, observers have noted that youth-gang-related crime has been
growing, but a picture of the extent and precise nature of crimes
committed by gang members is only now beginning to emerge. Are gangs
really responsible for increases in crime or are youths who grow up in very
difficult circumstances but do not join gangs committing just as many
crimes?

This study explored the differences between the criminal behavior of
youth gang members and nongang, but similarly at-risk, youths. The
research revealed that criminal behavior committed by gang members is
extensive and significantly exceeds that committed by comparably at-risk
but nongang youth.[1] Furthermore, the research suggests important
implications for preventing involvement in and intervening in youth gang
activity.

A gang is described as a well-defined group of youths between 10 and 22
years old. Most research on youth gangs in the United States has
concluded that the most typical age range of gang members has been
approximately 14 24, though researchers are aware of gang members as
young as 10 and that in some areas (e.g., southern California where some
Latino gangs originated more than 100 years ago), one can find several
generations in the same family who are gang members with active gang
members in their 30s. 

By all accounts, the number of youth gangs and their members continues
to grow. For example, one recent nationwide study found 58 percent of the
jurisdictions surveyed reported that they have active youth gangs. 

There are an estimated 23,388 youth gangs with 664,906 members in all
50 States.[2] These numbers are probably conservative estimates[3]
because many jurisdictions deny, often for political and image reasons,
that there is a problem, especially in the early stages of youth gang
development in a community.[4]

Responding to the growing magnitude of the problem, the National
Institute of Justice (NIJ) sponsored a research project that focused on the
nature and extent of youth gang behavior in Denver and Aurora (a large
suburb of Denver), Colorado, and Broward County in south Florida. In
addition, a companion study, underwritten by a research grant from Ohio's
Office of Criminal Justice Services (with funds provided by the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention),[5] explored the criminal 
behavior of gang versus nongang youths in Cleveland, Ohio, and the
nature and extent of criminal behavior committed over time by a sample 
of leaders and hardcore members of youth gangs in Columbus, Ohio,
dating to 1986.

Denver, Aurora, and Broward County were selected for this study because:
(1) they provided emergent, rather than chronic, gang environments and
opportunities to study gang formation at an early stage of development; (2)
they comprised a combination of central cities and suburbs, providing an 
opportunity to assess differences within and across metropolitan areas; and
(3) they are demographically diverse, as are the racial and ethnic
compositions of the youth gangs in these areas.

Youth involvement in crime

Exhibit 1, compiled from interviews with gang members in Denver,
Aurora, Broward County, and Cleveland, shows how deeply they are
involved in specific types of criminal behavior.

While results vary from one region to another, the overall picture that
emerges is that gangs engage in a wide array of criminal behaviors,
including those involving weapons and violence. These data include only
what gang members said about their own criminal behavior. The same
general patterns emerged, but at much higher levels, when gang members
were asked about other members behavior.

Self-reported criminal behavior varies across sites and across regions for
many reasons. With respect to this study, there are some age variations in
the samples across sites and some differences across specific gangs with
respect to the types of crimes they commit. Previous research on gangs has
consistently found that there are topologies of gangs and that the criminal
behaviors committed by the members of different gangs vary. With respect
to such behaviors as drug sales and drug use, the national data produced by
DUF (Drug Use Forecasting) studies reveals significant variation across
sites and regions also. 


Do gang members commit more crimes than their at-risk peers, or are the
various forces that affect youths living in similar circumstances so 
compelling that criminal behavior is unrelated to the existence of gangs in
these areas? Consider the following data from Cleveland, where the gang
and at-risk samples were scientifically comparable by age, gender,
race/ethnicity, education completed, work during the past year, and
whether they grew up in a two-parent family.

As exhibit 2 shows, gang members are far more likely to commit certain
crimes, such as auto theft; theft; assaulting rivals; carrying concealed
weapons in school; using, selling, and stealing drugs; intimidating or
assaulting victims and witnesses; and participating in drive-by shootings
and homicides than nongang youths, even though the latter may have
grown up under similar circumstances.

Drug sales. Gang members in all four sites are extensively involved in
drug sales, especially cocaine and marijuana (see exhibit 3). The types of
drugs sold vary from one region to another. The comparative data from
Cleveland showed gang members sell significantly more cocaine than do
nongang youths. Across the four sites studied, the relationship between
race and whether a gang member sold drugs was statistically
nonsignificant.

Researchers asked both gang and nongang interviewees about the
dynamics of their drug sales, including how frequently they sell drugs,
how much they make each week, how many customers they have each
week, how much of their profits is spent on their own drug use, the
location of their drug source, and (if known) the type of organization that
sells them their drugs. They also asked a tipping point question: How
much would the interviewee need to make in legitimate wages (per hour)
to stop selling drugs? The data from Cleveland in exhibit 4 are comparable
to the findings in the other sites.

Many gang members sell drugs, often daily. The majority of at-risk youths 
reported that they do not sell drugs. Those who sell, however, do so on a
daily basis. Gang members reported earning about $1,000 per week from
only 30 customers, while nongang youths earned about $675 per week,
based on an estimated 80 customers. Gang members sell more expensive
and profitable drugs and are better connected to nonlocal sources than
nongang drug traffickers. Neither gang nor nongang drug sellers reported
using their profits to buy drugs, except in Broward County, where gang
members spent 20 percent of their earnings and nongang interviewees
spent 5 percent of their profits to buy drugs. 

Both gang members and at-risk youths reported that it would require
average wages of $15 to $17 an hour to get them to stop selling drugs.
While this figure reflected the median, it should be noted that about 25
percent of those sampled would accept wages of about $6 to $7 per hour--
not much more than many fast-food restaurants pay today. They are tired
of living with the fear that accompanies drug sales. However, as these
young people often pointed out, it is difficult for them to find full-time
work with one employer. It is also true, of course, that once one has a
criminal record, it is more difficult to obtain regular employment.

Nevertheless, the evidence shows that drug sales are not controlled by
gangs nor do drug sales represent an organized, collective gang activity.
Quite to the contrary, research over the past 12 years suggests that most
drug sales by gang members are individual or small-clique activities,
rather than collective gang efforts.[6] 

Guns. Interviewees were also asked about gun ownership among the
members of their gang or (for nongang youths) their peers. In all four sites,
nearly 75 percent of gang members acknowledged that nearly all of their
fellow gang members own guns. Even more alarming, 90 percent of gang
interviewees reported that gang members favor powerful, lethal weapons
over smaller caliber handguns. Between 25 and 50 percent of nongang
youths said their peers own guns, and about 50 percent stated that their
friends owned powerful, lethal weapons. The gang/nongang differences
were statistically significant across all four sites--that is, gang members
are significantly more likely to own guns and more likely to own
powerful, lethal weapons.

From "wannabe" to first arrest. How long does it take from the initial stage
of "hanging out" with a gang (often called the "gang wannabe" stage)
before a youngster is arrested for the first time? The findings across all
four sites were remarkably consistent, as shown in exhibit 5.

Based on the survey sample taken at the four sites (in three States),
youngsters generally begin hanging out with gangs at 12 or 13 years of
age, join the gang at 13 or 14 (from 6 months to a year after they first hang
out with the gang), and are first arrested at 14. Young adolescents are most
vulnerable to the seduction of gang membership at a time when
physiological, sociological, and psychological factors, including a strong
need for peer acceptance, are acting upon them.

Gang resistance and consequences. Many young people believe they will
be physically punished if they refuse an offer to join a gang. At the same
time, schools and other social organizations across the country have
launched gang resistance education and training programs. Therefore, it
seemed important to ask gang interviewees whether they knew of
individuals who refused to join the gang and, if so, the consequences of
their refusal. 

As exhibit 6 shows, reality differs dramatically from the intuitive beliefs
held by many young people--consistently across all four sites. Clearly, the
cost-benefit ratio favors gang resistance, especially if one resists politely,
without "disrespecting" the gang or its members.[7] In instances in which
youths resisted gang overtures and suffered physical reprisals, their
injuries were seldom serious. Media accounts of gang killings and serious
assaults on youths who refuse to join the gang paint an exaggerated
picture. The reality is quite the opposite.

Another finding tips the scales even further in favor of resisting gang 
membership. The most common initiation ritual reported in all four sites 
involves gang members assaulting ("beating in" or "jumping in") the new
recruit to prove that he is "tough," "can take it," and "has heart." Thus,
youths who respectfully refuse to join a gang face very good odds that
nothing serious will happen to them;[8] on the other hand, those who join
a gang usually suffer serious physical assault as an initiation rite. In
addition, data indicate that gang involvement significantly increases one s
chances of being arrested, incarcerated, seriously injured, or killed. These
factors must be presented to youths who may be attracted by the glamour
and excitement of gang life.

Tracking gang leaders and hardcore members

The final component of this study focused on the nature and magnitude of
the criminal behavior of 83 individuals who in 1986 were key gang leaders
and hardcore gang members in Columbus, Ohio. Researchers examined
their arrest histories (from 1980 to 1993) to see if their gang involvement
triggered their criminal career. Very few arrests occurred prior to the
mid-1980s (when gangs emerged in Columbus), but thereafter the
frequency and seriousness of gang members' criminal behavior accelerated
dramatically, as shown in exhibit 7.

The great majority of these arrests occurred in the 7-year period between
1985 and 1992. An important positive correlation exists between when
these individuals joined gangs and when their arrest histories accelerated.
The correlation coincides with the data presented in exhibit 5. It is
important to note that they were arrested for violent offenses (37 percent),
property offenses (29 percent), drug offenses (18 percent), weapons
offenses (6 percent), and other offenses (10 percent). Arrests began to
decline in 1992, based on the following factors:

o Incarceration. Serving jail time temporarily halts new arrests.

o Death. At least 7 of the 83 gang leaders had already died. Coroner's
records for six of them indicated that all died violent deaths (five by
gunshots, one by strangulation).

o  Law enforcement reorganization. Like many other communities,
Columbus experienced a surge in the crack cocaine market during the
mid-1980s, prompting the police to consolidate the gang enforcement
unit with the narcotics bureau. Police resources were scarce, and it was
perceived that many gang members were selling drugs. As a result, less
attention was paid to newly developing gangs, and more intelligence and
enforcement activity was directed toward narcotics trafficking, most of
which was not gang related.[9]

Finally, the study sought to determine whether these gang leaders
committed more serious offenses over time or whether their first offenses
were serious. This information is important in assessing the developmental
stages of gangs and in developing appropriate prevention, intervention,
and suppression strategies. For all four of Columbus's major gangs,
evidence showed a clear progression in serious offenses, based on a time
series analysis of when each gang's arrests peaked for property crimes,
drug offenses, and violence. Exhibit 8 illustrates this pattern for each of
the four gangs separately and for an aggregate "progression window" for
the four gangs combined.

These data suggest a progression in gang crime from property offenses 
to violent crimes and drug-related crimes. The progression takes about 1.5
to 2 years, depending on the specific gang and first offense. The data also
mirror the close connection between drug trafficking and violence,
especially since the mid-1980s.[10]

Policy implications

Education and prevention. Youths who join gangs tend to begin as
"wannabes" at about age 13, join about 6 months later, and get arrested
within 6 months after joining the gang. By age 14 they already have an
arrest record. This underscores the urgent need for effective
gang-resistance education programs and other primary and secondary
prevention and intervention initiatives directed at preteens, especially
those prone to delinquent and violent behavior.[11]

Resisting overtures. Young people can refuse to join gangs without
substantial risk of physical harm. Moreover, they are far better off to resist
joining gangs than to expose themselves to the beating they are likely to
take upon initiation and the increased chances of arrest, incarceration,
injury, and death associated with gang membership.[12] 

Windows of opportunity for intervening. Because prevention programs
will not deter all youths from joining gangs, it is also important to address
the brief window of opportunity for intervention that occurs in the year
between the "wannabe" stage and the age at first arrest. It is vital that
intervention programs that target gang members and successfully divert
them from the gang are funded, developed, evaluated, improved, and
sustained.[13]

A second opportunity to intervene occurs between the time gang members 
are first arrested for property crimes and their subsequent involvement in
more serious offenses. This period, which lasts about 1.5 to 2 years,
affords a chance to divert young offenders from the gang subculture before
they further endanger their own lives and victimize other citizens. Gang
members are more likely than their nongang peers to sell higher profit
drugs, underscoring the need for prevention and early intervention 
programs designed to divert "wannabes" before they become hooked on
illegal earnings. Successful intervention at this stage (with, for example,
prosecutorial diversion programs targeting first-time, gang-involved
property offenders) can still save lives (of both offenders and victims) and
save society the enormous cost of arresting, convicting, and incarcerating
serious offenders.

While many gang members and nongang, at-risk youths who sell drugs
indicated they would not give up drug selling for less than $15 per hour, a
significant number of them told researchers they would accept far lower
wages--not much more than is currently being paid in fast-food
restaurants--if they could obtain a sufficient number of work hours per
week. Employers often split job slots into part-time jobs that offer few or
no fringe benefits, a widespread practice within the fast-food industry.

Early warning signals. Data suggest that gang members are especially
likely to commit the crimes highlighted in exhibits 1 and 2. A sudden
increase in these crimes may serve as a "distant early warning signal" that
the community needs to consider local gangs in the context of its overall
crime problem. Crimes that are especially worth monitoring closely (and
can realistically be monitored) include auto theft, bringing weapons to
school, and drive-by shootings.[14]

Weapons. Gang members are likely to possess powerful and highly lethal
weapons, although many gang members are not old enough to legally
drive a car. Efforts to reduce the number of illegal weapons possessed by
youths and adults should be emphasized to reduce gun-related crimes.[15]

-------------------------------

Notes

1. Longitudinal cohort studies in Denver; Rochester, New York; and
Seattle have provided extensive data that demonstrate the relationship
between criminal behavior and gang membership. Youths are more
involved in delinquent and criminal behavior while active in gangs than
either before they join or after they leave gangs. See Esbensen, Finn-Aage,
and David Huizinga, "Gangs, Drugs, and Delinquency in a Survey of
Urban Youth," Criminology 31(1993): 565 589; Thornberry, Terence P. et
al., "The Role of Juvenile Gangs in Facilitating Delinquent Behavior,"
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30 (1993): 55 87; and
Battin, Sara R. et al., "The Contribution of Gang Membership to
Delinquency Beyond Delinquent Friends," Criminology 36 (1998): 93
115.

2. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Highlights of
the 1995 National Youth Gang Survey, Fact Sheet #63, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 1997; also see Curry, G. David, Richard A. Ball, and Scott H.
Decker, in "Estimating the National Scope of Gang Crime From Law
Enforcement Data," Gangs in America (2nd edition), Huff, C. Ronald,
editor, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1996: 21 36.

3. Estimates range as high as 1.5 million gang members in the United
States. See Knox, G.W.,  The "1996 National Law Enforcement Gang
Analysis Survey," Journal of Gang Research 3, (1996): 41 55.

4. For a more detailed discussion of the stages that communities often go
through, see Huff, C. Ronald, editor, Gangs in America (1st edition),
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1990.

5. The Ohio sites were originally proposed as part of the NIJ study, but the
willingness of Ohio's Office of Criminal Justice Services to fund the
additional study permitted researchers to include five sites in the overall
research instead of only three. 

6. Klein, Malcolm W., The American Street Gang: Its Nature, Prevalence,
and Control, New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995;
Fagan, J.E., "Gangs, Drugs, and Neighborhood Change," in Huff, C.
Ronald, editor, Gangs in America (2nd edition), Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications, 1996: 39 74; Decker, S.H., and B. Van
Winkle, Life in the Gang: Family, Friends, and Violence, New York, New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

7. Over the past 12 years of interviewing gang members, the author has
developed a gang-resistance strategy anchored in the cognitive dissonance
theory of psychology--which postulates the difficulty of accepting two
competing ideas at the same time. Gang members, who generally state that
they love their mothers dearly, frequently recognize that they have
disappointed them by their criminal behavior. Youths attempting to resist
gang involvement might tell gang members that they respect them and
might like to join the gang, but that their mother disapproves, and they do
not want to show disrespect to her. Gang members in overwhelming
numbers told researchers that they would not join the gang if they could
make that decision again, and they do not want their siblings to join gangs.
They may recognize in retrospect that the youth, in respecting his mother s
wishes, is doing what they themselves wish they had done.

8. Even when gang members reported that the consequences of gang
resistance were physical in nature, they indicated that these nearly 
always resulted in only minor injuries.

9. Although many youth gang members sell drugs, youth gangs do not
control drug markets in the United States and do not account for most drug
sales in major urban areas. For a useful and concise discussion of street
gangs and drugs, see Klein, Malcolm W., The American Street Gang. 

10. For an extensive discussion of related issues, see Zimring, Franklin E.,
et al., "Guns and Violence Symposium," Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 86 (1996):1 256.

11. For an overview and assessment of appropriate intervention and
prevention strategies, see Goldstein, Arnold P., and C. Ronald Huff,
editors, The Gang Intervention Handbook, Champaign, Illinois: Research
Press, 1993; Klein, Malcolm W., The American Street Gang: Its Nature,
Prevalence, and Control; Spergel, Irving A., The Youth Gang Problem: A
Community Approach, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995; Tonry,
Michael, and David Farrington, editors, Building a Safer Society: Strategic
Approaches to Crime, Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press,
1995; and Sherman, Lawrence W. et al., Preventing Crime: What Works,
What Doesn't, What's Promising, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1997.

12. The mortality rate among the study sample of 83 Columbus gang
leaders and hardcore members far exceeds the expected death rate for
adolescent males of comparable ages. 

13. The key to developing successful intervention programs is to conduct
rigorous evaluations that carefully assess what works for whom and under
what circumstances.


14. For additional discussion of crimes that appear to be especially related
to gangs and crimes that the media often mistakenly attribute to gangs, see
Klein, Malcolm W., The American Street Gang.

15. Recent successful projects to reduce gun violence occurred in both
Kansas City and Boston. See Sherman, Lawrence W., James W. Shaw,
and Dennis P. Rogan, The Kansas City Gun Experiment, Research in
Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute
of Justice, 1995 and Kennedy, David M., Anne M. Piehl, and Anthony A.
Braga, "Youth Violence in Boston: Gun Markets, Serious Youth
Offenders, and a Use-Reduction Strategy," Law and Contemporary
Problems 59 (1996): 147 196.

-------------------------------

Study Design and Method

The information presented in this discussion is based on confidential
interviews with youth gang members and nongang, at-risk youths in
Denver and Aurora, Colorado; Broward County, Florida; and Cleveland,
Ohio. The interviews averaged approximately 1.5 hours each and were
conducted in neutral (and safe) locations. Also, a longitudinal tracking
study of 83 key leaders and hardcore members of Columbus, Ohio, youth
gangs was conducted to determine the pattern of their criminal careers
over time.

Selecting the samples. The target samples for each site in Denver, Aurora,
Broward County, and Cleveland included 50 gang members and 50
nongang, at-risk youths. 

No single definition of "gang" enjoys consensus and there is significant
variation across sites and law enforcement jurisdictions regarding their
operational definitions of "gang." For this research, the gang samples were
composed of individuals who passed two screening criteria: (1) the youths
were perceived to be gang members by local law enforcement and social
service agencies, and (2) the youths admitted they were currently active or
previously active in a known youth gang. The samples were drawn from
multiple referral sources, primarily social service outreach organizations
operating community-based programs. This procedure has been used by
many other researchers because no universal definition of "gang" exists
and no single definition is accepted by all law enforcement jurisdictions.

The samples of nongang, at-risk youths--defined as individuals who were
regarded by referral sources as being at risk of joining a gang but not
having done so yet--were also drawn from multiple referral sources,
primarily social service agencies and schools. Individuals were also
asked directly whether they were currently active or formerly active in a
gang. 

Final gang samples included only individuals who personally
acknowledged current or former gang membership and those for whom
researchers had multiple sources corroborating their gang membership.
The final nongang, at-risk samples included individuals who were
regarded by referral sources as being at risk of gang membership and
individuals who were initially referred as gang members but who later
denied gang involvement and for whom no independent corroboration of
gang membership existed. The final samples for the Colorado and Florida
study included 140 completed interviews for the gang sample and 145 for
the nongang, at-risk sample. The Cleveland samples consisted of 47
completed gang interviews and 49 completed nongang, at-risk interviews. 

Although sample attrition was very low (6 to 7 percent for the gang
samples and 2 to 3 percent for the nongang, at-risk samples), there was
one problem with the final samples. The referral agencies--perhaps not
surprisingly--concentrated on working with younger clients and more
female clients than generally found in gang populations. These agencies
and their referral sources may perceive that their chances of successful
prevention/intervention are better with younger clients and females.
Despite the best efforts of the research team, the study's at-risk samples
were younger and more female than the gang samples. Only the Cleveland
data revealed no statistically significant differences between gang
members and nongang members for key attributes and variables, primarily
due to the researchers' greater knowledge of both the gangs and the social
service agencies' policies in that city at the time of this study. Therefore,
only the Cleveland data concerning gang/nongang comparisons are
presented in this discussion. Results from the Cleveland study, it should be
noted, are also reflected in the findings from the other locations, although
the final samples were not sufficiently comparable for scientific purposes. 

Characteristics of the samples. For the Colorado and Florida sites, the
gang members averaged 18 years of age and had completed the 10th grade.
In Cleveland, gang members' average age was 16, and they had completed
the 9th grade. Nearly 9 in 10 were male in all locations. African
Americans comprised 50 percent of the overall gang sample; 25.3 percent
were European-Americans (white); 16.1 percent were
Hispanic-Americans; 1.1 percent were Asian-Americans; and 7.5 percent
were of mixed racial heritage. Only 4 in 10 lived in a 2-parent family, and
most of the others had little or no contact with their missing parent.


By comparison, the nongang, at-risk youths referred to the project
averaged 15 years of age; about 7 in 10 were males; 73.7 percent were
African Americans, 11.3 percent were European-Americans, 9.3 percent
were Hispanic-Americans, 0.5 percent were Asian-Americans, 0.5 percent
were Native Americans, and 4.6 percent were of mixed racial heritage. On
average, they had completed nine grades of education. Slightly less than 4
in 10 had grown up with both parents, and most of the others seldom or
never saw their missing parent.

Finally, for the Columbus tracking study, three former members of the
Columbus Division of Police gang unit in 1986 were asked independently
to list the key leaders and hardcore members of the city's gangs in that
year and assess their involvement in their respective gangs. The three
lists were compared and consolidated by including only names that
appeared on all three lists as either leaders or hardcore members. This
yielded an initial list of 97 names. Subsequently, complete records were
identified for 83 of these individuals and their official criminal histories
were then tracked for this study.

-------------------------------

This research was conducted under NIJ grant #91 IJ CX K013 and by the
Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services/Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention grant #91 JJ C01 0682 by C. Ronald Huff, Ph.D.,
Director and Professor in the School of Public Policy and Management
and Director of the Criminal Justice Research Center at Ohio State
University.

-------------------------------

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the
U.S. Department of Justice. 

-------------------------------

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

NCJ 172852