Last updated: April 2014 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1

Gang Prevention 

According to the National Gang Center, the number of gangs in the United States has grown from a 

low in 2003 of around 20,000 to an estimated 30,000 in 2011. This represents a 12 percent increase from 

2006 and (as of 2011) stood as the highest annual estimate since 1997. As of 2011, there were 

approximately 782,500 gang members. These gangs and their activities constitute a pervasive problem 

across the country, as demonstrated by a recent trend analysis of U.S. gang problems from 2002 to 2009 

(Howell et al. 2011). Although the nation has experienced an overall decline in the rates of violent crime, 

this trend has not affected gang violence. Rather, rates of gang violence have continued relatively 

unchanged during this period for most of the cities with populations of 50,000 or more. In some of the 

largest cities, the percentage of homicides that are gang related is very high—in 2009, one third of the 

homicides in Chicago, Ill., and half of the homicides in Los Angeles, Calif., were gang related. 

Target Population 

The peak age range for gang membership is roughly 14 to 15 (Huff 1998). This finding is remarkably 

consistent across self-report studies, regardless of the risk level of the sample, the restrictiveness of the 

gang definition, and the study location (Klein and Maxson 2006). However, the peak age range may be 

older in cities where gangs have existed longer (Curry and Decker 1998). For instance, in 2011, law 

enforcement reported that more than three out of every five gang members are adults (National Gang 

Center N.d.). The proportion of adult member to juveniles was larger for larger cities and suburban 

counties, compared with smaller cities and rural counties. The typical range for gang members is ages 

12 to 24. 

The gender and racial/ethnic composition of gangs has remained relatively stable over the past 

decade. Although female gang membership may be increasing (Klein 1995), virtually all studies agree 

that males join gangs at higher rates. In fact, the prevalence rates for males are 11⁄2 to 2 times as high as 

those for females in most studies, a pattern that transcends different study approaches (Klein and 

Maxson 2006). Data from the National Youth Gang Survey indicate that females make up fewer than 

10 percent of gang membership. However, data from self-report surveys suggest that the proportion 

of female gang membership is higher, with estimates ranging from 8 percent to 50 percent in various 

locations (Howell 2007; Moore and Hagedorn 2001).

Data also indicate that the ethnic composition of gang members has remained relatively stable during 

the 1996–2011 survey period, although there is also a wide race/ethnic differential in gang 

membership. According to the National Youth Gang Survey, in 2011 the ethnicity of gang members 

was roughly 46 percent Hispanic, 35 percent African American, 11 percent white, and 7 percent other 

races/ethnicities. This pattern is consistent regardless of the definition of gang and the nature of the 

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2014. “Gang Prevention.” Literature review. Washington, D.C.: Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Gang_Prevention.pdf

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. Points of view or 

opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2

sample approaches (Klein and Maxson 2006). Certain offenses are related to different racial/ethnic 

gangs. For instance, African American gangs are relatively more involved in drug offenses, Hispanic 

gangs engage in turf-related violence, and Asian and white gangs display a tendency toward property 

crimes (Spergel and Curry 1990). The disproportionate representation of minority groups in gangs is 

not a result of a predisposition toward gang membership; rather, minorities tend to be overrepresented 

in areas overwhelmed with gang activity (Bursick and Grasmick 1993).

There are ways to classify gangs other than by ethnicity. One is to view gangs along a continuum by 

degree of organization, “from youth groups who hang out together in shopping malls and other places; 

to criminal groups, small clusters of friends who band together to commit crimes such as fencing 

operations; to street gangs composed of groups of adolescents and young adults who form a 

semistructured operation and engage in delinquent and criminal behavior; to adult criminal 

organizations that engage in criminal activity primarily for economic reasons” (Howell 1998).

Lack of a Standard Definition

While the research literature on gangs has grown substantially over the past decades, there is still no 

standard definition of the term “gang.” The range of what constitutes a gang can be quite broad: for 

instance, some jurisdictions deny the existence of gangs while others characterize less-serious forms of 

adolescent law-violating groups as gangs (Miller 1992). Naber and colleagues (2006) note that the type 

of definition used can affect estimates of gang prevalence in schools.

The following characterizations illustrate the variety of components that can be incorporated in 

defining gangs, including age, gender, organizational structure, criminal activity, symbolic labeling, 

and community response: 

 A gang is an organized social system that is both quasiprivate and quasisecretive and whose 

size and goals have necessitated that social interaction be governed by a leadership structure 

that has defined roles; where the authority associated with these roles has been legitimized to 

the extent that social codes are operational to regulate the behavior of both leadership and rank 

and file; that plans and provides not only for the social and economic services of its members 

but also for its own maintenance as an organization; that pursues such goals irrespective of 

whether the action is legal; and lacks a bureaucracy (Jankowski 1991).

 A gang has the following characteristics: a denotable group consisting primarily of males who 

are committed to delinquent (including criminal) behavior or values and call forth a consistent 

negative response from the community such that the community comes to see them as 

qualitatively different from other groups (Klein 1995).

 A gang is a group of individuals who have symbols of membership, permanence, and criminal 

involvement. A gang member is a person who acknowledges membership in the gang and is 

regarded as a gang member by other members (Decker and Curry 1999).

 A gang is a well-defined group of youths between 10 and 22 years old (Huff 1998).

Despite the lack of consensus, certain characteristics often appear in definitions: 1) formal 

organizational structure (not a syndicate); 2) identifiable leadership; 3) identified territory; 4) recurrent 

interaction; and 5) engaging in serious or violent behavior (Howell 1994). A review of federal and state 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3

definitions of the terms “gang,” “gang crime,” and “gang member” is available through the National 

Gang Center (http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Content/Documents/Definitions.pdf). 

Gang Activity

While most cities and jurisdictions generally do not record criminal offenses other than homicides and 

graffiti as gang related, research has provided insights into the nature of gangs’ criminal activity. The 

research demonstrates that, while gang members commit a fair share of violent crime, gang members 

do not necessarily specialize in violence. Instead, gang members tend to be “generalist in nature, 

spanning the range of the cafeteria of delinquency choices” (Klein and Maxson 2006; Thornberry et al. 

2003). Gang members do, however, commit a disproportionate number of offenses compared with 

nongang members (Klein and Maxson 2006; Thornberry et al. 2003; Miller 2001). For instance, in a recent 

comparison of patterns of offending among gang and nongang youths in Dutch and U.S. youth 

samples, Esbensen and Weerman (2005) found that gang members are four to six times as likely as 

nongang youths to engage in minor and serious delinquency. Data from the Rochester Youth 

Development Study indicate that gang members are seven times as likely as nongang youths to commit 

delinquent offenses (Bjerregaard and Smith 1993). A recent study of British high school students found 

that, compared with nongang youths, gang members and peripheral youths committed more overall 

crime, and that gang membership facilitated violent but not property crime (Alleyne and Wood 2010). 

This relationship is robust across a wide variety of definitions of gang and across different 

measurements of offending (Klein and Maxson 2006); it also holds up when gang members are 

compared with other highly delinquent nongang youths (Thornberry 1998).

Theoretical Foundation 

The high costs of gang activities to individual, neighborhoods, and cities (see Howell 2006) has 

stimulated interest in determining why individuals join gangs or desist from gang activities.

One of the most important questions with regard to gang prevention programs is why youths choose 

to join gangs. Decker and Van Winkle (1996) argue that the act of choosing to join a gang can be 

described as numerous “pulls and pushes” on an individual. The “pull” refers to the attraction of gang 

membership to certain youths. On the one hand, gang membership can enhance prestige or status 

among friends and members of the opposite sex (Baccaglini 1993), provide excitement (Pennell et al. 

1994), and give the illusion of being lucrative through the selling of drugs (Decker and Van Winkle 

1996). On the other hand, social, economic, and cultural forces push many young people into gangs. 

For example, Decker and Van Winkle (1996) argue that protection from other gangs and general wellbeing are key factors in the decision to join or not join a gang. Wilson (1987) further argues that the 

underclass status of many minority youths can also “push” them into gang membership. Finally, gangs 

can provide a solution for social adjustment problems such as a need for “belonging.”

The literature on desistance has grown increasingly rich over the past several decades, as theorists and 

researchers have proposed various frameworks to explain the mechanisms of desistance from crime. In 

general, the spectrum of frameworks spans from structuralist explanations of desistance, where the 

concentration is on social structures and processes that shape individuals, to explanatory schema 

grounded in theories of human development, which emphasize the individual, the role of agency, and 

the importance of dynamic factors (Kurlychek, Bushway, and Brame 2012).

Prevention and Intervention Programs

Gang programs can be grouped broadly into three categories: prevention, intervention, and 

suppression. In general, prevention strategies keep youths from joining gangs, while intervention 

strategies seek to reduce the criminal activities of gangs by pulling youths away from gangs. These 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 4

strategies typically include community organization, early childhood programs, school-based 

interventions, and afterschool programs. 

Many of these programs are designed to address the risk factors for gang membership by providing 

protective factors to strengthen a youth’s resilience toward gang involvement. The greater the number 

of risk factors to which youths are exposed, the greater their risk of joining a gang. Once a youth enters 

a gang, the nature of gangs and their involvement in serious crime and violence produces many 

additional risk factors for that individual. Longitudinal studies of adolescents in multiple sites (Seattle, 

Wash., and Rochester, N.Y.) have identified the causal risk factors for gang membership within each 

domain. The Rochester site found that “youth[s] who grow up in more disorganized neighborhoods; 

who come from impoverished, distressed families; who do poorly in school and have low attachment 

to school and teachers; who associate with delinquent peers; and engage in various forms of problem 

behaviors are at increased risk for becoming gang members” (Thornberry 1998, 157). The researchers 

in Seattle found similar risk factors for gang involvement (Hill et al. 1996).

In addition to identifying risk factors to address through prevention and intervention programs, 

developers need to consider the timing of the programming. Because youths who join gangs tend to 

possess a great need for belonging at about age 13, join 6 months after this great need sets in, and have 

criminal records by the time they turn 14, research indicates that programs have a window of 

opportunity for when effective prevention is best used. This “underscores the need for effective gangresistance education programs and other primary and secondary prevention and intervention 

initiatives directed at preteens, especially those prone to delinquent and violent behavior” (Huff 1998). 

The findings also indicate that effective intervention should address the brief window between the early 

belonging stage and the age of first arrest. A second window of opportunity exists between the time 

gang members are arrested for their first property crime and when they might graduate to more serious 

violent offenses. This period lasts about 11⁄2 to 2 years and “affords a chance to divert young offenders 

from the gang subculture before they further endanger their own lives and victimize other citizens” 

(Huff 1998).

Suppression programs use the full force of the law—generally through a combination of policing, 

prosecution, and incarceration—to deter the criminal activities of entire gangs, dissolve gangs, and 

remove individual gang members from gangs (Howell 2000). Typical suppression programs include 

street sweeps, school-based law enforcement programs that use surveillance and buy–bust operations, 

civil procedures that use gang membership to define arrest for conspiracy, prosecution programs, and 

special gang probation and parole caseloads with high levels of surveillance and more stringent 

revocation rules for gang members (Klein 2004).

Unfortunately the research also suggests that most government and private programs for gang 

prevention have been left unevaluated and the few evaluated programs have either failed to decrease 

gang violence or have actually increased it (Sherman et al. 1997). Moreover, gang prevention programs 

have ignored the most likely causes of the recent growth of gangs (e.g., the community structure of 

urban neighbors). Nonetheless, successful methods for preventing gang violence are available. The next 

section reviews some available community-based programs for preventing gang violence.

Outcome Evidence

Spergel and Curry (1990) documented that, although suppression was the dominant response to gangs, 

it was the least effective (Decker 2002). Howell’s (1998) review of the literature reveals that “nothing 

has been demonstrated through rigorous evaluation to be effective in preventing or reducing serious 

and violent gang delinquency, [although] a number of promising strategies are available” (Howell 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 5

1998). Moreover, Spergel’s (1995) independent review of the literature reaches the same conclusion: 

“[T]raditional social intervention programs, whether agency based, outreach or street work, or crisis 

intervention, have shown little effect or may even have worsened the youth gang problem.” There is 

still a need for “high-quality evaluation research” on gang programs, both comprehensive broad-based 

interventions and single-agency interventions (Decker 2002).

Operation Ceasefire (Boston, Mass.) [Braga et al. 2001; Braga and Pierce 2005] is a problem-solving 

police strategy that seeks to reduce gang violence, illegal gun possession, and gun violence in 

communities. The program carries out a comprehensive strategy to apprehend and prosecute offenders 

who carry firearms, to put others on notice that offenders face certain and serious punishment for 

carrying illegal firearms, and to prevent youths from following the same criminal path. Operation 

Ceasefire targets high-risk youths as well as serious and violent juvenile offenders using a focused 

deterrence strategy. 

An evaluation study by Braga and colleagues (2001) found that Operation Ceasefire was effective in 

reducing the average monthly number of youth homicide victims by 63 percent, the number of monthly 

citywide gun assaults by 25 percent, and the monthly number of youth gun assaults in Boston’s District 

D–2 by 44 percent. Further, the Ceasefire intervention was associated with a 32 percent reduction in the 

monthly number of citywide shots-fired calls for service. Another study by Braga and Pierce (2005) 

found that Operation Ceasefire was also effective in recovering new handguns citywide. Those authors 

found that Ceasefire was responsible for a 47 percent reduction in the percentage of newly traced 

handguns in Boston. Additionally, Operation Ceasefire was associated with a significant reduction in 

the percentage of recovered handguns that had a fast time-to-crime. 

The Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program is a school-based gang and 

violence-prevention program with three primary goals: 1) teach youths to avoid gang membership, 2) 

prevent violence and criminal activity, and 3) assist youths in developing positive relationships with 

law enforcement. The program is a cognitive-based curriculum that teaches students life skills such as 

conflict resolution, responsibility, appreciating cultural diversity, and goal setting. G.R.E.A.T. targets 

youths as they begin middle school. The G.R.E.A.T. program primarily uses uniformed law 

enforcement personnel to teach students the 13 cumulative lessons found in the curriculum. 

Evaluations of G.R.E.A.T. have indicated promising results, although it should be noted that the effects 

documented through evaluation are not wholly consistent with the stated goals of the program. A study 

by Esbensen and colleagues (2012) found the program had a moderate positive effect on gang 

membership. The odds of joining a gang were 39 percent lower for students completing the G.R.E.A.T. 

program than for students in the control group. Treatment group students receiving the G.R.E.A.T. 

program in the sixth grade were 39 percent less likely than control group students to have joined a gang 

by the eighth grade. However, there were no significant differences between treatment group students 

and control group students on any of the general delinquency or violent offending outcomes. The 

program had a small positive effect on prosocial attitudes toward the police, with intervention students 

reporting a statistically significant and more positive opinion of police officers than students in the 

control group. Lastly, G.R.E.A.T. students demonstrated a significant improvement in refusal skills, 

were better able to resist peer pressure, were less self-centered, and expressed less positive attitudes 

toward gangs than students in the control group. However, there were no statistically significant 

differences between the treatment group and the control group students on any of the 15 attitudinal 

measures (empathy, impulsivity, guilt, etc.). 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 6

The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project (GVRP) was a comprehensive, community-wide 

program designed to reduce serious violence in Chicago’s gang-ridden Little Village neighborhood. 

The main goal of the GVRP was to reduce the extremely high level of serious gang violence, first at the 

individual youth gang member level, and then at the aggregate level. The program targeted two of the 

most violent gangs in Chicago. Gang youths, ages 17 to 24, were selected for services because they 

accounted for 70 percent of serious gang violence. The program later began to target youths ages 12 to 

27. Targeted youths were provided with economic and social opportunities for employment and 

referrals to social interventions. The evaluation by Spergel and colleagues (2003) found mixed results. 

The GVRP appeared to reduce arrests for violent crimes, serious violent crimes, and drug crimes but 

did not have an effect on arrests for property crimes or total arrests. 

For more information on the programs, please click the links below. 

Cure Violence (Chicago, Ill.)

Dallas (Texas) Anti-Gang Initiative

Gang Reduction Program (Los Angeles, Calif.)

Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project (Comprehensive Gang Model)

Operation Ceasefire: Hollenbeck Initiative

Operation Hardcore (Los Angeles, Calif.)

Operation Ceasefire (Boston, Mass.)

Operation Peacekeeper

References

Alleyne, Emma, and Jane L. Wood. 2010. “Gang Involvement: Psychological and Behavioral 

Characteristics of Gang Member, Peripheral Youth, and Nongang Youth.” Aggressive Behavior

36:423–36.

Baccaglini, William F. 1993. Project Youth Gang–Drug Prevention: A Statewide Research Study. Rensselaer, 

N.Y.: New York State Division of Youth.

Bjerregaard, Beth, and Carolyn Smith. 1993. “Gender Differences in Gang Participation, Delinquency, 

and Substance Use.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9:329–55.

Braga, Anthony A., David M. Kennedy, Elin J. Waring, and Anne Morrison Piehl. 2001. “ProblemOriented Policing, Deterrence, and Youth Violence: An Evaluation of Boston’s Operation 

Ceasefire.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38(3):195–225.

Braga, Anthony A., and Glenn L. Pierce. 2005. “Disrupting Illegal Firearms Markets in Boston: The 

Effects of Operation Ceasefire on the Supply of New Handguns to Criminals.” Criminology & Public 

Policy 4(4):717–48.

Bursick, Robert J., and Harold G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimension of Effective 

Community Control. New York, N.Y.: Lexington Books.

Curry, Glen David, and Scott H. Decker. 1998. Confronting Gangs: Crime and the Community. Los Angeles, 

Calif.: Roxbury.

Decker, Scott H. 2002. “A Decade of Gang Research: Findings of the National Institute of Justice Gang 

Portfolio.” In Winifred L. Reed and Scott H. Decker (eds.). Responding to Gangs: Evaluation and 

Research. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Decker, Scott H., and G. David Curry. 1999. “Responding to Gangs: Does the Dose Match the Problem?” 

In Joseph Sheley (ed.). Criminology: A Contemporary Handbook. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.

Decker, Scott H., and Barrik Van Winkle. 1996. Life in the Gang: Family, Friends, and Violence. New York, 

N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. 

Esbensen, Finn–Aage, Dana Peterson, Terrance J. Taylor, and D. Wayne Osgood. 2012. “Results From a 

Multisite Evaluation of the G.R.E.A.T. Program.” Justice Quarterly 29(1):125–51.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 7

Esbensen, Finn–Aage, and Frank M. Weerman. 2005. “Youth Gangs and Troublesome Youth Groups in 

the United States and the Netherlands: A Cross-National Comparison.” European Journal of 

Criminology 2(1):5–37.

Hill, Karl G., J. David Hawkins, Richard F. Catalano, Rick Kosterman, R. Abbott, and T. Edwards. 1996. 

“The Longitudinal Dynamics of Gang Membership and Problem Behavior: A Replication and 

Extension of the Denver and Rochester Gang Studies in Seattle.” Unpublished paper presented at 

the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, Ill.

Howell, James C. 1994. “Gangs.” Fact Sheet #12. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Howell, James C. 1998. “Abolish the Juvenile Court? Nonsense!” Juvenile Justice Update 4(1):1–2, 10–13.

Howell, James C. 2000. Youth Gang Programs and Strategies. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, James C. 2006. “The Impact of Gangs on Communities.” NYGC Bulletin 2 

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Content/Documents/Impact-of-Gangs-on-Communities.pdf.

Howell, James C. 2007. “Menacing or Mimicking? Realities of Youth Gangs.” Juvenile and Family Court 

Journal 58(2): 39–50.

Howell, James C., Arlen Egley Jr., George E. Tita, and Elizabeth Griffiths. 2011. “U.S. Gang Problem 

Trends and Seriousness, 1996–2009. National Gang Center Bulletin. No. 6.” 

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Content/Documents/Bulletin-6.pdf.

Huff, C. Ronald. 1998. “Comparing the Criminal Behavior of Youth Gangs and At-Risk Youths.” 

Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention.

Jankowski, Martin Sanchez. 1991. Islands in the Street: Gangs and American Urban Society. Berkeley, Calif.: 

University Press.

Klein, Malcolm W. 1995. The American Street Gang: Its Nature, Prevalence, and Control. New York, N.Y.: 

Oxford University Press.

Klein, Malcolm W. 2004. Gang Cop. Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press.

Klein, Malcolm W., and Cheryl L. Maxson. 2006. Street Gang Patterns and Policy. New York, N.Y.: Oxford 

University Press.

Kurlychek, Megan C., Shawn D. Bushway, and Robert Brame. 2012. “Long-Term Crime Desistance and 

Recidivism Patterns—Evidence From the Essex County Convicted Felon Study.” Criminology

50(1):71–103.

Miller, Jody. 2001. One of the Guys: Girls, Gangs, and Gender. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

Miller, Walter B. 1992. Crime by Youth Gangs and Groups in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Moore, Joan, and John Hagedorn. 2001. Female Gangs: A Focus on Research. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Naber, Patricia A., David C. May, Scott H. Decker, Kevin I. Minor, and James B. Wells. 2006. “Are There 

Gangs in Schools? It Depends Upon Whom You Ask.” Journal of School Violence 5(2):53–72.

National Gang Center. N.d. National Youth Gang Survey Analysis. Retrieved Aug. 7, 2013, from 

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis.

Pennell, Susan, Elizabeth Evans, Roni Melton, and Samantha Hinson. 1994. Down for the Set: Describing 

and Defining Gangs in San Diego. San Diego, Calif.: Criminal Justice Research Division, Association 

of Governments.

Sherman, Lawrence W., Denise C. Gottfredson, Doris Layton MacKenzie, John E. Eck, Peter Reuter, and 

Shawn D. Bushway. 1997. Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Spergel, Irving A. 1995. The Youth Gang Problem. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 8

Spergel, Irving A., and Glen David Curry. 1990. “Strategies and Perceived Agency Effectiveness in 

Dealing With the Youth Gang Problem.” In C. Ronald Huff (ed.). Gangs in America. Newbury Park, 

Calif.: Sage.

Spergel, Irving A., Kwai Wing Wa, Susan F. Grossman, Ayad Jacob, Sungeun Ellie Choi, Rolando V. 

Sosa, Elisa M. Barrios, Annot Spergel, Laura Anderson, Louis Arata, Lisa DeVivo, Joshua Levy, and 

Kathryn Lyndes. 2003. Evaluation of the Gang Violence Reduction Project in Little Village: Final Report 

Summary. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration.

Thornberry, Terence P. 1998. “Membership in Youth Gangs and Involvement in Serious and Violent 

Offending.” In Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington (eds.). Serious and Violent Offenders: Risk Factors 

and Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Thornberry, Terence P., Marvin D. Krohn, Alan J. Lizotte, Carolyn A. Smith, and Kimberly Tobin. 2003.

Gangs and Delinquency in Developmental Perspective. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University 

Press.

Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. 

Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.