U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director July 1995

continued . . .

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: The results

of a study to determine the level of

street gang involvement in drug sales

arrests in two Los Angeles suburban

cities from 1989 to 1991. Results are

compared with those from an earlier

study of gang involvement in cocaine

sales based on arrest incidents in

south-central Los Angeles between

1983 and 1985. Police departments

that participated in this study also

provide their views of the findings.

Key issues: The connection between street gangs, drug sales, and

violence has been debated in police

and academic circles as well as the

media. The study assessed the magnitude of gang involvement in cocaine and other drug sales in

Pasadena and Pomona, California;

compared the characteristics of drug

sales incidents involving gangs with

the characteristics of drug sales incidents not involving gangs; assessed

the generalizability of cocaine-related

findings to other drugs, and from urban to more suburban settings; and

identified the implications of the research findings for development of

law enforcement strategies.

Key findings: The statistical connection between street gangs, drug

sales, and violence was smaller than

anticipated. Specific findings include

the following:

• Gang members were arrested in

27 percent of 1,563 cocaine sale arStreet Gangs and Drug Sales

in Two Suburban Cities

by Cheryl L. Maxson

The degree to which street gang involvement in drug distribution presents special and substantial difficulties to law

enforcement is a matter of some debate

in police and academic circles. Most of

the literature emanating from law enforcement sources suggests a strong connection. Gangs are often portrayed as

organized entrepreneurs battling traditional drug distributors for dominance of

a lucrative business, and increased violence is often attributed to gang involvement in the drug trade.

The academic literature reflects more

diversity regarding the scope and nature

of the connection between gangs and

drug sales. Some authors have reported

well-organized drug distribution operations by gangs in California and the

Midwest.1

 Other researchers have disputed this characterization of highly entrepreneurial gangs.2

 A study of gangs in

three U.S. cities suggested the causal independence of gangs, drug sales, and

violence—some gangs were involved in

drug sales while others were not, and

some gangs were violent while others

were not.3 Interviews with gang members

in five recent studies have yielded

widely varying reported rates of drug

sales involvement—the lowest reported

rate was 30 percent, and the highest reported rate was 95 percent.4

 Perceptions of

a close relationship between gangs, drug

sales, and homicides have been challenged

by recent studies in Chicago, Boston, and

Los Angeles.5

The researchers in this study sought to examine this relationship in two suburban

cities near Los Angeles: Pomona and Pasadena.6

 This Research in Brief offers an

overview of the context for this project, explains the study’s methodology, presents

an analysis of the key findings, and concludes with a discussion of policy implications.

The context: Los Angeles street

gangs and drugs

The emergence of “rock” or “crack” cocaine in Los Angeles in the early 1980’s

generated researchers’ interest because,

almost immediately, police and media reports linked gangs to crack distribution.7

In an earlier study, law enforcement arrest,

investigation, and gang records were used

to investigate the magnitude and nature of

gang involvement in cocaine sales arrest

incidents in south-central Los Angeles between 1983 and 1985. Despite a dramatic

increase in gang-involved cocaine sales

(from 9 percent in 1983 to almost 25 per-
2

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Issues and Findings

continued . . .

rest incidents occurring between

1989 and 1991 in two Los Angeles

suburban cities.

• Rock or crack forms of cocaine were

more often present in gang cases, but

most aspects of cocaine sales incidents

(e.g., location, firearm presence, and

amount of cash) did not vary with

gang involvement. Cases with gang

members were more likely to include

males, younger ages (by about 5

years), and blacks.

• Rates of gang involvement and

gang-nongang differences were

very similar to those reported for

Los Angeles in 1985.

• The presence of identified gang

members in arrest incidents for sales

other than cocaine was far lower (less

than 12 percent of 471 cases). No differences were noted in the incident

characteristics of the two types of

cases. Higher rates of Hispanics were

arrested in other drug cases compared

with cocaine sale incidents, but black

suspects and younger people were

more common in gang cases.

• Lower than expected rates of gang

involvement in drug sales coupled

with a lack of evidence of special impacts associated with gang involvement suggest a reconsideration of

gang specialization in narcotics enforcement. The exception may be in

the unusual case of the extremely involved drug-selling street gang. Investigation of homicides and other violent

incidents may benefit more directly

from the expertise of law enforcement

gang specialists.

Target audience: Law enforcement,

prosecution, probation, city government officials, social service agency

practitioners, and researchers.

cent in 1985), the police recorded no

evidence of gang domination of streetlevel or midlevel sales.8

 The connection

between street gangs, drug sales, and

violence appeared to have been overstated by media reports.

The incident and drug features of these

cases were quite similar regardless of gang

member participation. On the other hand,

the participant characteristics displayed

marked contrasts between the two groups

of cases. These differences mirrored those

emerging from prior studies of gang and

nongang violent incidents in Los Angeles

and elsewhere.9

 Drug sales involving gang

members had greater numbers of younger

(by about 5 years), male, and black participants than cases not involving gang members. These data provided no evidence of

organized gang incursions into the drug

market, and predictions of increased violence or firearm presence in gang cases

were not supported.

By the mid- to late-1980’s, crack—often

reported to be tied to gangs—had appeared in most major cities across the Nation. Also during this period and into the

early 1990’s, hundreds of midsized and

smaller cities and towns experienced

gang problems for the first time.10 Law enforcement informants in the majority of

these newer, smaller gang cities reported

moderate to heavy gang involvement in

drug distribution.

The current study was initiated to assess

the generalizability of the Los Angeles

findings to smaller suburban cities and

to investigate whether sales incidents involving drugs other than cocaine might

display different patterns. The research

objectives were as follows:

● Assess the magnitude of gang involvement in cocaine and other drug sales in

two suburban cities.

● Compare the characteristics of drug

sale incidents involving gangs with drug

sale incidents not involving gangs.

● Assess the generalizability of findings

on cocaine to other drugs and from urban

to more suburban settings.

● Translate the implications of the research findings for law enforcement

strategies.

Study methods

Homicide studies, personal interviews,

questionnaires, and/or participant observations of gang members were the primary research methods used in the

studies cited earlier. A distinguishing

feature of the research described here

was the use of law enforcement records

to assess links between gangs, drugs,

and violence in areas characterized by

high incidence of both gang and drug

sales activity.

Site selection. Pasadena and Pomona

were selected as study sites for several

reasons. Both are midsized suburban cities (population about 130,000 each).

Pasadena is immediately adjacent to the

city of Los Angeles; Pomona lies 25

miles to the east but is still well within

the metropolitan area. Both cities have

longstanding gang problems, and enforcement personnel have reported very

active involvement of both black and

Hispanic gang members in the distribution of a variety of drugs. Finally, Pasadena and Pomona have well-developed

gang units and have maintained gang

membership files for several years.

How do Pasadena and Pomona compare

with other U.S. gang cities? As shown in

Exhibit 1,11 Pasadena reported more

gangs than Pomona, and both cities have

more gang members and more gang homicides than other midsized cities.

Spanning all regions of the country, the

comparison group included such cities
3

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

as Hartford, Connecticut; Jersey City,

New Jersey; Flint, Michigan; Kansas

City, Kansas; Lubbock, Texas;

Hayward, California; and Las Vegas,

Nevada. Three-fourths of the comparison cities had at least 40 percent Hispanic gang members, and about

one-third reported a comparable percentage of black gang members. Generally, the Pasadena and Pomona

figures fall into the upper midrange

compared with these other cities but

indicate a greater representation of

black gang members. Despite their

proximity to Los Angeles, the two

study sites are not unique; the research findings are relevant to a number of cities across the country.

Drug sale definitions. Drug sale incidents were defined by the arrest of at

least one suspect for a drug sales offense.12 Computer-generated lists of all

suspects arrested for these offenses

between 1989 and 1991, along with

co-arrestees charged with incident-related offenses, formed the population

of drug sales cases. Generally, a sales

“incident” was defined by the assignment of a departmental identification

number to that case. Incidents were

categorized as cocaine involved or not,

and cases including the sales of other

drugs in addition to cocaine were

placed into the cocaine group.

Gang definitions. Gang cases were defined by the arrest of at least one identified gang member in the drug sale

incident. The gang membership files

maintained by the gang unit in each

department constituted the major

source of gang case identifications.

The gang units in both cities have

maintained their gang files for several

years. The criteria for inclusion in a

gang membership file for Pomona and

Pasadena were approximately the

same as the criteria of the other Southern California cities with which the researchers are familiar. They included

self-acknowledgment; identification by

a known, reliable informant; and corroboration of identification by newer,

less known informants. In both

Pomona and Pasadena, gang member

identifications from patrol or detective

sections were reviewed and verified

by gang unit personnel. Neither unit

had purged its file of inactive gang

members.

Gang member identification. In

Pomona, an alphabetically ordered

printout of about 1,800 entries from

the automated gang file facilitated the

matching process. Full name, birth

date, moniker, and gang name were included. Each name on the arrestee list

was checked against the gang roster.

Alternative spelling variations (e.g.,

common misspellings, nicknames, and

slight phonetic variations), different

name ordering (e.g., a first name that

could plausibly be a last name), and

any aliases provided on the arrest list

were explored. Only minor variations

in names or birth dates were allowed,

except where there was a clear match

on a very unusual name.

The Pasadena gang files were not automated. Membership cards were held in

4 separate boxes or card file drawers:

boxes for the 2 major black gang

groupings in the Los Angeles area—

the Crips and the Bloods—contained

about 300 and 700 cards, respectively;

the Hispanic gang box held about 700

cards separated into 7 major gang sections; and a box marked “miscellaneous” held about 275 cards (mostly

with older dates of entry). Except for

Exhibit 1: Gang Characteristics of Midsized Cities That Reported Onset of Gangs Prior to 1981a

37 Other Midsized

Gang Characteristic Pasadena Pomona Citiesb

Number of gangs 32 14 24

Number of gang members 2,200 2,000 1,243

Percent black gang members 50% 48% 30%

Percent Hispanic gang members 40% 50% 53%

Number of gang homicides in 1991c 13 7 4.5

a Population 100,000 to 300,000. b Group means for each characteristic are reported. An alternative measure is the range represented by the middle 50 percent of cities:

number of gangs, 8–31; gang members, 300–1,100; percent black gang members, 3–48; percent Hispanic gang members, 40–77;

gang homicides, 1–7. c “During 1991, what was the number of homicides in your jurisdiction that involved gang members?”
4

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

the multiple sources investigated, the

matching procedures mirrored those

used in Pomona.13

Selection of samples. This initial

check of drug arrestee names in the

gang files yielded four groups of cases

for sampling: gang and nongang, cocaine and noncocaine. Up to 100 cases

in each group were sampled randomly

from the lists constructed for each city.

Whenever a case was dropped during

collection, it was replaced by random

selection from the appropriate

nonsampled pool. New gang information that surfaced in the drug incident

case file material required transfers

from nongang to gang status. A clear

attribution of gang membership in the

case material was considered valid

even if the suspect did not appear in

the gang files. Also, new arrestees not

on the original arrest list and new

aliases that emerged during the case

review were checked against the gang

rosters. Occasionally, drug information

that surfaced in the case file required

reclassification (e.g., the drug “resembled” cocaine but tested positive

for heroin); these transfers were accommodated until the sample goals of

100 cases per group were fulfilled; 14

eligible cases were dropped because

the accurate gang or drug information

emerged too late to allow inclusion of

the case in the correct sampling pool.

Collection and coding procedures.

Teams of students, trained and supervised by a field coordinator well

versed in the ambiguities of law enforcement case file material, extracted

information relevant to the incident,

police activity, drug sales activity, and

participants. The collection form was

pretested, and the case file content

was reviewed to ensure that the desired information was available in

both departments.

As a reliability check, a random

sample of 10 percent of the collected

cases was drawn for duplicate coding.

The overall discrepancy rate was low

(2 percent for case level variables, 1

percent for participant variables). The

correspondence between the two coding passes was at least 91 percent for

all variables.

Exhibit 2: Drug Sale Incidents in Pasadena and Pomona

Pasadena Pomona

Drug Sale Incidents

0

100

200

300

400

Cocaine Noncocaine Cocaine Noncocaine

1989 1990 1991
5

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

gang and nongang sales activities were

handled. Except for the differences in

the gang file structures reported earlier, no significant variations between

the two departments’ narcotic or gang

enforcement activities were noted. In

both departments, street narcotic enforcement operations involved teams of

gang, narcotic, and patrol officers conducting undercover buys and sweeps

of visible street-level dealers and wellknown sales locations. Gang and

nongang cases from both drug groups

were combined (328 from Pasadena

and 326 from Pomona) to assess the

quantitative differences between the

two departments.

Very few significant differences

(p<0.05) between the two cities

emerged in this analysis. Indications

of gang membership in the case files

and the number of gang members per

case were at similar levels. No location

differences (i.e., dwelling versus openaccess setting) were noted, but the

presence of firearms was slightly

higher in Pomona (14 percent versus 5

percent). Amounts of each type of drug

taken into evidence were similar, but

Pomona incidents were slightly more

likely to involve marijuana sale

charges (36 percent versus 28 percent)

and slightly less likely to involve

heroin (5 percent versus 9 percent).

The total number of suspects per case

and their mean ages did not differ, but

Pomona incidents had proportionally

more Hispanics (41 versus 16 percent)

and fewer blacks (52 versus 78 perDepartmental differences

Any multisite study raises concern regarding interdepartmental differences:

Variations in gang rostering procedures, the arrest logs from which

samples were identified, and the contents of case material could have introduced differences between the two

cities. Differences in officer levels and

deployment, narcotics enforcement

and arrest policies, and recording

practices could have influenced the

degree to which the arrests reflected

the actual level of sales activity in

these two cities. Therefore, interviews

with key informants and observations

in the stations during the data collection period examined quality differences regarding the manner in which

Exhibit 3: Levels of Gang Involvement in Cocaine Sales Arrest Incidents (1989–91)

Pasadena Pomona

279

637

508

139

Cocaine Sales Incidents

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Gang Nongang
6

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

cent). Pomona cases yielded slightly

higher proportions of male suspects

(86 versus 82 percent).

Most of these differences are quite

small, and those reaching statistical

significance are few. The data from the

two cities are combined for all subsequent analyses.

Drug sale incidents

The number of drug sale incidents (see

exhibit 2) reflects substantial drug sale

activity in both cities. However, as

noted earlier, the magnitude of any arrest figures (or in this study, arrest incidents) is always heavily influenced

by police enforcement activity.

Drug sale incidents involving cocaine

were shown to be far more numerous

than those not involving cocaine, particularly in Pasadena. Sales of other

drugs in Pomona outnumbered those

in Pasadena.

Cocaine sales

Recalling the definition of gang cases

as including at least one identified

gang member arrested in a sales incident, exhibit 3 displays the level of

gang involvement in the 1,563 cocaine

sales incidents. The proportion of

cases with gang members in Pasadena

was about 30 percent (279 of 916

cases), and the proportion in Pomona

was slightly higher than 21 percent

(139 of 647 cases). The combined rate,

26.7 percent, indicates substantial

gang involvement, yet cocaine distribution was hardly dominated by gangs

in these two suburban cities. A “oneout-of-four” figure would represent

significant gang presence in drug sales

for many jurisdictions yet was much

lower than estimates offered by the law

enforcement officials involved with

this study prior to data collection. “Almost all” and “upward of 90 percent”

were not uncommon estimates from

both gang and narcotics experts in Los

Angeles. Pasadena and Pomona estimates were more accurate but still

ranged from about 30 to 50 percent. It

should also be noted that these gang

member arrestees might have been individual entrepreneurs. Involvement of

the gang might have been minimal.

Scope of gang involvement. This combined rate is quite close to the figure

of 25 percent reported for Los Angeles

cocaine sales cases in 1985. Thus, the

scope of gang involvement in Pasadena and Pomona did not seem to exceed that reported in south-central Los

Angeles in the mid-1980’s. Yet, these

levels of gang involvement would be

more than sufficient to concern law enforcement if gang presence were associated with special features of drug

sales. For example, multiple drugs

sold in larger amounts or a higher likelihood of firearm presence might suggest increasing law enforcement

resources to target gang cocaine sellers.

The gang-nongang comparative data

permitted the assessment of this issue.

As shown in exhibit 4, the majority of

sales occurred on the street or in open

access settings and rarely involved

violence or even the presence of firearms.14 The rock or crack form was

more prevalent than powdered cocaine. Small amounts were the norm,

and sales of multiple drug types were

uncommon. The majority of the incidents did not involve “multiple handlers” (i.e., multiple participants

engaged in different distribution roles).

Very few of the incident characteristics yielded statistically significant differences. Rock or crack sales surfaced

more often in gang cases, but the drug

amounts retrieved for evidence were

quite similar and just slightly more

than 2 grams. The higher figures for

cocaine amounts in any form were attributable to the inclusion of cocaine

powder; amounts retrieved in nongang

cases were almost double those retrieved in gang incidents.15 More cash

was taken into evidence in nongang

cases, although this difference did not

reach statistical significance. No differences emerged in the nature of the

sales location (including knowledge by

law enforcement of prior sales occurring at that site), violence associated

with the drug transaction or arrest, or

the potential for violence represented

by firearms. There was no evidence

that the cases with gang members were

more serious than other cases.

The pattern of similarity between gang

and nongang incident descriptions

changes dramatically when examining

the participant characteristics (see exhibit 4). Most of the cocaine sale incidents involved male black offenders in

their twenties. Although the total number of offenders per case was the same

in the two groups, all the demographic

descriptors showed marked differences. Cases of gang involvement indicated a greater likelihood of male,

black, and younger suspects than

cases without gang members. In general, females and Hispanics were not

often engaged in cocaine sales in these

two cities, but they were even less

likely to be involved in gang

transactions.

The pattern of participant demographic differences mirrors the pattern

that emerged from other studies of

gang and nongang homicides and other

violent incidents.16 Participants in

gang crimes tend to be younger, male,

and either black or Hispanic. The lack

of differences in the cocaine sales incident descriptors suggests that gang
7

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 4: Characteristics in Gang and Nongang Cocaine Sales Arrest Events

Nongang Gang

Incident Characteristic N = 200 N = 200 pa

Location

 Dwelling 21% (42) 16% (33)

 Vehicle/open access 70% (141) 79% (158) NS

 Other 9% (17) 5% (9)

Violence present 6% (13) 5% (10) NA

Firearms present 10% (21) 10% (19) NS

 Mean number of firearms

 (among cases with firearms) 2.00 1.16 NS

Cash taken into evidence 48% (97) 54% (109) NS

 Mean amount cash

 (among cases with cash) $393 $235 NS

Rock/crack form present 75% (150) 86% (173) p < 0.01

 Amount rock/crack

 (among cases with rock) 2.40 grams 2.26 grams NS

Amount any form cocaine 6.95 grams 3.55 grams p < 0.05

Other (than cocaine) drug

sales charges present 6% (13) 4% (9) NS

Known narcotics sales location 36% (73) 44% (87) NS

Fortifications at location 2% (4) 1% (2) NA

"Multiple handlers"

in sales transaction 21% (42) 24% (48) NS

Participant Characteristicsb

 Mean number of offenders 1.68 1.86 NS

 Proportion male 0.76 0.91 p < 0.001

 Proportion black 0.76 0.92 p < 0.001

 Proportion Hispanic 0.20 0.07 p < 0.001

 Mean age 28.32 22.48 p < 0.001

a Probability based upon chi-square or T-tests comparisons of means. NS = p > 0.05; NA = chi-square test not valid due to low cell counts.

b Participant characteristics were calculated for all suspects charged in case. (Ninety-two percent of all suspects were charged with cocaine sales offenses.)
8

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

involvement had only a negligible impact on the nature of these drug transactions. Gang presence was not

associated with increased seriousness

by any measure.

Examination of the earlier Los Angeles

cocaine sales data yielded similar patterns. A comparison of the outcomes of

the statistical tests for gang and

nongang distinctions on an array of

variables yielded the following results.

Location: no difference, both

studies

Firearms: no difference, both

studies

Cash taken: no difference,

Pomona and Pasadena; higher in

Los Angeles gang cases

Rock present: gang higher, both

studies

Rock amount: no difference, both

studies

Other drugs present: no difference, both studies

Fortifications: no difference, both

studies

Multiple handlers: no difference,

Pomona and Pasadena; higher in

Los Angeles gang cases

Number of suspects: no difference, Pomona and Pasadena;

higher in Los Angeles gang cases

Proportion male: gang higher in

both studies

Proportion black: gang higher in

both studies

Proportion Hispanic: gang lower

in both studies

Age: gang lower in both studies

The differences observed regarding

whether cash was taken into evidence

in the Los Angeles cases did not

emerge in the current study. The

higher number of offenders in gang

cases in the first project, and the associated greater likelihood of multiple

offenders, did not distinguish gang and

nongang incidents in the suburban cities. However, these are rather minor

differences within the overall context

of similarity between the two time periods and locations.

Moreover, the general nature of cocaine sales incidents appears to be remarkably stable across time and city.

Characteristically, these incidents

have involved street sales of relatively

small amounts of the rock or crack

form of cocaine. The majority of these

drug sellers have been male, black,

and in their twenties. Very few incidents of violence were recorded in eiExhibit 5: Levels of Gang Involvement in Noncocaine Sales Arrest Incidents (1989–91)

Pasadena Pomona

28

101

316

26

Noncocaine Sales Incidents

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Gang Nongang
9

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

ther time period, but the more recent

cases were less likely to involve firearms. Firearm presence was recorded

in about one-fourth of the 1984–85 incidents but displayed a decreasing pattern of gun presence over time. A

lower rate of about 1 in 10 incidents

was observed in Pasadena and

Pomona.

Noncocaine drug sales

The design of this study permitted an

examination of the magnitude and

characteristics of gang involvement in

sales of drugs other than cocaine. Law

enforcement informants reported that

gangs were prominent in the distribution of marijuana, heroin, and PCP, although less so than in the distribution

of cocaine. A higher representation of

Hispanic gang members in the sale of

these other drugs was anticipated.

The approach to identifying ganginvolved sales of other drugs and the

procedures for collecting data paralleled those adopted for cocaine cases.

The level of gang involvement in the

471 noncocaine sales incidents was

11.5 percent, much lower than in cocaine cases (see exhibit 5). Notable

differences between the two cities

were observed. The total volume of

other drug sales activity was almost

three times higher in Pomona (342 incidents in Pomona versus 129 incidents in Pasadena), but the number of

cases with gang involvement was

nearly identical (26 in Pomona versus

28 in Pasadena).17 Thus, the percentage of gang involvement was three

times higher in Pasadena (22 percent)

than in Pomona (8 percent). Although

the total of nearly 500 arrest incidents

indicated considerable sales activity

(particularly in Pomona), the rate of

gang involvement does not warrant

particular concern about gang dealers.

The combined total of just more than

50 gang cases provided an upper limit

for the gang noncocaine collection

sample; 200 nongang cases were

sampled for collection of the incident

and participant descriptors from the

case file materials.

Even fewer gang-nongang differences

emerged in the noncocaine sales

cases. No significant differences were

observed in incident characteristics,

and only the proportion of black suspects and mean age distinguished the

participants in gang and nongang

events (data not presented). The proportion of black and Hispanic offenders was more evenly distributed than

in cocaine cases; in other drug sales,

gang involvement was associated with

a slightly higher proportion of blacks

(48 percent) than was nongang involvement (31 percent). Thus, gang

cases were about equally likely to involve blacks and Hispanics; nongang

sales offenders were more often Hispanic. The pattern of offender ages

was similar to that observed in the cocaine incidents.

Drug type comparison. The lack of

distinction between cocaine sales

cases with and without gang involvement was reflected in noncocaine incidents as well. Gang and nongang cases

were combined to test for significant

differences between the two drug

groups, and few distinctions emerged.

Cocaine events were less likely to have

cash taken into evidence (52 percent

of cases versus 62 percent of the

noncocaine incidents), but differences

in cash amounts did not reach statistically significant levels. The average

number of offenders was slightly

higher for cocaine sales (1.77 versus

1.52), and there was increased likelihood of “multiple handlers” (22 percent in cocaine incidents versus 9

percent in other drug cases). The proportion of gang offenders per incident

was also higher (39 versus 17 percent).

Perhaps the most interesting distinction between the two drug groups is

the ethnic pattern noted above; Hispanics were more involved in the sale

of drugs other than cocaine. However,

this difference did not appear to affect

the character of drug sales activity

generally, nor did it seem to introduce

differences dependent on whether the

sales-involved Hispanics were gang

members.

Distribution of drug arrestees within

gangs. The case material was inadequate for empirical analyses of “drug

gangs.” Typical street gang structures

are not supportive of organized drug

distribution,18 but the emergence of

drug-selling cliques within typically offense-diversified street gangs is quite

plausible. Ethnographic methods are

more appropriate to this research question; law enforcement records have limited utility in addressing this issue.

The written narratives in the arrest investigation files did not yield descriptions of recurrent drug-selling groups

within gangs, nor did they address the

organization of drug distribution within

a street gang context. In fact, gang information within the case material was

limited to occasional references to

membership or to the frequent drug

sales activities among certain street

gangs. Although some drug dealers

were arrested for more than one sales

incident over the 3-year time period,

no clear gang pattern among these repeat offenders was discernible.

The gang names of the drug arrestees

were tallied for both cities. In Pomona,

15 separate gang names were noted

among 113 offenders.19 Members in
10

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

The gang members arrested for drug

sales during this period represented a

minority of gang membership, even

among the high-volume gangs. There

was no evidence of widespread involvement by the membership of either

gang and, thus, neither gang can be

characterized as a drug gang. The majority of gangs in both cities yielded

very few arrests for drug sales during

this period. On the other hand, just a

few gangs were responsible for most of

the gang-involved drug sales in these

cities. Although these gangs were logical targets for collaboration between

gang and narcotic units, it should be

noted that the role of the gang per se

in drug sales operations is unclear and

requires more assessment.

Conclusions and policy

implications

Relying on law enforcement arrest

records and gang membership files

placed some limits on this investigation of gang involvement in drug sales.

Few cities would claim that their gang

files accurately represent all gang

members within their cities. Many

gang members fail to come to the attention of police, and some individuals

with only marginal or transitory involvement inevitably escape identification through even the most rigorous

gang designation procedures. Moreover, drug sales arrests reflect drug

enforcement activity (e.g., departmental allocation of resources and officer

discretion) as well as the level and visibility of drug sales activity. Many,

perhaps most, drug transactions are

not detected by police.

The data obtained from law enforcement gang files and arrest records

were used to empirically assess the

views, held by law enforcement and

communicated to the public through

P Pasadena Police: Changing Drug Scene

asadena, not unlike many urban

and suburban communities in the mid1960’s, was confronted with an explosion in

street corner drug trafficking activity. Transactions routinely involved very small

amounts of drugs, generally for the personal use of the buyer. The problem became so chronic that some neighborhoods

were literally overrun by street-level dealers.

Responding to that activity, the Pasadena

Police Department began an aggressive

“street buy” program in 1985, arresting

more than 20 “sellers” per week for sales

to officers.

Quickly, the sellers, many of whom were

gang members/associates, began “hiring”

their drug customers to make the “hand to

hand” transactions rather than risk arrest

themselves. Payment for the service was

frequently a small amount of drugs.

Consequently, officers began to see a

change in the criminal histories of those arrested for sales of drugs. Most now had

backgrounds of robbery, burglary, and

theft along with arrests for drug possession

for personal use. Clearly, they were not

what we would consider to be drug dealers. In postarrest interviews, many confirmed

that they were receiving drugs for their personal use in exchange for serving as a street

corner courier. As an interesting side note,

with many of the department’s former robbery and burglary suspects then serving time

for drug sales, the department’s Part One offenses dropped from 11,430 in 1985 to

8,545 in 1987.

As a result, it becomes extremely difficult to

draw a conclusion as to the amount of gang

influence in drug trafficking cases. In addition, gang structures and their hierarchy are

frequently informal. While many gang members/associates are involved in drug sales, the

proceeds from those sales may solely benefit

the individual seller. . . .Ms. Maxson put it

quite well in the report when she stated,

“. . . it should be noted that the role of the

gang per se in drug sales operations is unclear and requires more assessment.”

Jerry A. Oliver

Police Chief

Wayne D. Hiltz, Lieutenant

Field Services Division

Pasadena, California, Police Department

nine gangs had three or fewer arrests,

suggesting that most Pomona gangs

had very limited involvement in drug

sales. On the other hand, 1 gang generated 45 arrests, and 2 others generated about 15 arrests each. Thus,

about 70 percent of the gang-named

drug offenders were affiliated with just

three gangs. Two gang members from

the most active gang were arrested together in only four incidents. The data

available do not address the role that

the gang played in these drug transactions. It is not clear whether the offenders were individual entrepreneurs

working in several small groups or

were concentrated within one or two

cliques; ethnographic methods would

be required to investigate relationship

patterns among drug sellers within this

high-volume gang.

This pattern of concentration emerged

even more dramatically in Pasadena

where 18 gang names were recorded

for 132 gang suspects. Only 2 gangs

generated more than a handful of arrests, but 1 of these yielded 91 arrests;

only 9 incidents involved the arrests of

2 members of this gang together.
11

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

the media, of the scope and nature of

gang involvement in drug sales. These

data described the proportion of drug

sales resulting in an arrest that involved identified gang members; other

sales transactions, and gang members

unrecognized by police, were not included. Moreover, this study did not

directly address the question of what

proportion of all gang members engaged in drug sales. Nevertheless, several conclusions can be derived from

these data.

Gang member presence in drug distribution in these two smaller cities can

be characterized as substantial but not

overwhelming. Rates of involvement

in cocaine sales were of sufficient

levels to raise some concern for law

enforcement, yet hardly sufficient to

cause alarm. The even lower rate of

gang presence in transactions involving drugs other than cocaine required

little specialized attention by law

enforcement.

The degree to which these levels resemble the relative rates of gang involvement in other types of offenses

might be instructive. For example, in

1994, gang members were suspects or

victims in about 40 percent of all homicides in Los Angeles County.20 Figures for other offenses were not available, but levels of gang involvement in

burglary, vehicle theft, or assault

might well have equaled or exceeded

the rates found in cocaine sales incidents, particularly in areas with high

gang activity.

The data did not support an assessment of whether gang members were

involved in individual entrepreneurial

activities or drug sales directly related

to gang functions. However, the majority of gangs contributed very few arrests; in both cities, significant sales

activity was associated with just one

gang. No evidence of widespread gang

involvement in drug distribution was

noted.

Furthermore, little evidence of special

impacts associated with gang involvement in drug sales of any type was

noted. Gang cases were not more serious. Gang cocaine sales involved more

young, black males in transactions that

more often included crack rather than

the powdered form. These gender differences should allay a growing concern about increased involvement of

female gang members.21 Drug distribution has been overwhelmingly a male

enterprise and particularly so in gang

cases. Increased likelihood of black

and younger offenders has also characterized sales of other drugs by gang

members, and Hispanics have been

more often involved in sales of drugs

other than cocaine. No policy implications based on these differences would

appear to be appropriate because there

is little that is unique in the gang drug

sale settings. The finding that most

gangs have contributed few arrests for

drug sales suggests that police gang

experts should focus their attention on

other forms of illegal activity.

T Pomona Police Chief: Relationships of Gangs to Drugs

he research findings affirmed, in

many areas, the views and observations of

Pomona Police Department gang and narcotic investigators. A survey of these investigators yields the following consensus

profile relative to gang and drug trafficking

activity in the City of Pomona:

• Drug usage, as opposed to drug

sales, is a more dominate aspect of

gang involvement.

• Investigators have reported the overwhelming drug of choice among black

gangs is rock cocaine. Hispanic gang member involvement with drugs has typically

consisted of heroin, PCP, marijuana, and to

a much lesser extent, rock and powdered

cocaine.

• Both black and Hispanic gangs tend to

define themselves and exert their influence

based on a geographic identity. In addition

to “turf” distinctions, black gangs still hold

to either a “Crips” or “Bloods” affiliation

as their primary allegiance.

• Investigators have not established a significant relationship between gang membership and drug trafficking activity in the

city. Gang member involvement in drug

sales is present, but not to the degree that

would suggest that it was an organized

function of any particular gang. Investigators

did report instances where gangs have coerced money from street drug dealers in exchange for permission to sell drugs in a

neighborhood. However, such instances

have been rare and are attributed more to

opportunity than to an organized gang activity. In essence, the consensus view among

investigators was that there may be an increased propensity for drug use and street

level trafficking of drugs among gang members, but that these variables were not primarily dependent upon one another. The

line of reasoning advanced by investigators

was that drug traffickers above the street

level depend on their anonymity to avoid arrest and would be less likely to establish

close ties to individuals or groups such as

gangs that attract high visibility.

Charles M. Heilman

Chief of Police

Pomona Police Department
12

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

4. Esbenson, F.A. and Huizinga, D.

Gangs, drugs, and delinquency in a

survey of urban youth. Criminology,

31(1993):565–586; Pennell, S., Evans,

Elizabeth, Melton, Roni and Hinson,

Samantha, Down for the set: Defining

and describing gangs in San Diego.

Report to the Administration of Children, Youth and Families. San Diego:

San Diego Association of Governments, 1994; Spergel, I.A., personal

communication regarding current

study of gang members in Chicago,

September 1993; Decker, S. and Van

Winkle, B., op. cit., 1994; Hagedorn,

J. Homeboys, Dope Fiends, Legits and

New Jacks. Criminology, 32 (1994):

197–219. Note that with the exception

of the Esbenson and Huizinga work,

all studies employed selective samples

of gang members.

5. Block, C.B., and Block, R. Street

gang crime in Chicago. NIJ Research

in Brief, Washington, D.C.: National

Institute of Justice; Miller, W.B.,

memo to James Howell reporting

analysis of violent crimes involving

youth gangs in Boston, 1984–94, no

date; Maxson, C.L., Klein, M.W., and

Cunningham, L.C., Definitional variations affecting drug and homicide issues. Los Angeles: University of

Southern California, 1992.

6. This research would not have been

possible without the cooperation and

assistance from the personnel of the

Pasadena Police Department and the

Pomona Police Department. Permission was provided by Pomona Police

Chief Lloyd Wood and Pasadena Police Chief Jerry Oliver and facilitated

by numerous people within the command structures. Personnel within the

records and computer divisions provided the required case materials and

work space. The officers in both gang

In fact, the clearest policy implication

emerging from this study is the suggestion for narcotics enforcement to move

away from gang specialization. The exception may lie in the unusual case of

a street gang extremely involved in

drug-selling. Here, intelligence-building and sharing between gang and narcotics units may be beneficial.

Collaboration in street operations and

investigations might also be productive, but caution should be exercised

that targeted activities to suppress

gangs do not inadvertently build gang

cohesion.

Social agency practitioners, particularly

those engaged in gang-targeted programs, should be wary about assuming

strong ties between gang clients and

drug sales. This study indicated that

many gang members did not sell drugs,

and few were engaged in highly lucrative drug distribution networks. By extension, discouraging reports of job

training programs being in competition

with vast amounts of drug money are

probably exaggerations. Well-conceived gang prevention and intervention programs should be supported.22

Finally, the findings from the Los Angeles cocaine sales were substantially

replicated in two smaller suburban cities, Pasadena and Pomona. Earlier,

the resemblance between Pasadena

and Pomona and several dozen

midsized cities with longstanding gang

problems was noted. About 60 percent

of the 37 comparison cities reported

that local black gang members were

heavily involved in drug distribution,

most frequently crack cocaine. The

figures for Hispanic gang members

were somewhat lower yet still substantial. Future research might assess

these estimates with methods similar

to those used in this study, particularly

in cities outside the Los Angeles area.

Law enforcement gang experts in these

cities may be overestimating the scope

of the problem, as did many in the Los

Angeles area. Regardless of the magnitude of gang involvement, this study

showed that the rates of gang involvement in drug cases were lower than

expected, and the impact of this involvement was not significant. Therefore, the study suggests that narcotics

enforcement operations would benefit

little from street gang expertise.

Notes

1. Skolnick, J.H., The social structure

of street drug dealing. American Journal of Police, 9(1990):1–41; Taylor,

C.S., Dangerous Society. East Lansing,

MI: Michigan State University Press,

1989; and Padilla, F., The Gang as an

American Enterprise. New Brunswick,

NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1992.

2. Waldorf, D., and Lauderback, D.,

Gang drug sales in San Francisco: Organized or freelance? Alameda, CA:

Institute for Scientific Analysis, 1993;

Quicker, J.C., Galeai, Y.N., and

Batani-Khalfani, A., Bootstrap or

noose: Drugs in South Central Los Angeles. Draft report to the Social Science Research Council, 1991, cited

with permission of the authors;

Decker, S., and Van Winkle, B.,

“Slingin” dope: The role of gangs and

gang members in drug sales. Justice

Quarterly (1994):583–604; and

Hagedorn, J. Neighborhoods, markets,

and gang drug organization. Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency,

31(1994):264–294.

3. Fagan, J., The social organization of

drug use and drug dealing among urban gangs. Criminology, 27

(1989):633–67.
13

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

units responded to questions and

helped with the gang files. Access to

records was facilitated by a court order

provided by the Honorable Jaime Corral, Presiding Judge, Los Angeles Juvenile Court.

7. See Klein, M.W., & Maxson, C.L.,

Rock sales in south Los Angeles. Sociology and Social Research, 69

(1985):561–65, for our first impressions based largely on these sources.

8. Klein, M.W., Maxson, C.L., and

Cunningham, L.C., Gang involvement

in cocaine “rock” trafficking. Final report to the National Institute of Justice. Los Angeles, CA: University of

Southern California, 1988; and Klein,

M.W., Maxson, C.L., and Cunningham,

L.C., “Crack,” street gangs, and violence, Criminology, 29 (1991):623–50.

9. Maxson, C.L., Gordon, M., and

Klein, M.W., Differences between

gang and nongang homicide. Criminology, 23 (1985):209–222; Klein, M.W.,

Maxson, C.L., and Gordon, M., Police

response to street gang violence: Improving the investigative process. Report to the National Institute of

Justice. Los Angeles: University of

Southern California, 1987; Bailey,

Gary, and Unnithan, Prabha, Gang homicides in California. Paper presented

to the American Society of Criminology, 1993.

10. Maxson, C.L., and Klein, M.W.,

The scope of street gang migration in

the U.S.: An interim report to survey

participants. Los Angeles: University

of Southern California, 1993.

11. These data were gathered in 1992

in an NIJ-funded study on gang migration (#91–IJ–CX–K004). A survey of

law enforcement in over 1,100 U.S.

cities, including all cities with a population of over 100,000, yielded almost

800 with local street gangs. This comparison is limited to cities of comparable size and relatively early onset

dates. The 37 cities constitute about

one-third of the gang cities in this

population range. Only 10 similarsized cities reported no gang problems.

12. Thirteen sections of California

Health and Safety codes pertain to illegal drug sales or possession for sale.

A list of these codes is available from

the author. Arrested individuals were

both minors and adults.

13. It is possible that gang members

from other cities were arrested for drug

sales in Pasadena or Pomona and yet

did not appear in these two cities’ gang

files. A check of a sample of 50

arrestees from each department in the

countywide GREAT system maintained by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s

Department suggested that this was

not a concern. Only two of the 100 arrests were in GREAT but not the station gang files. Our thanks to Sgt.

Wesley McBride, LASD, for facilitating this procedure. A discussion of the

inadequacies and limitations of large

computerized file on gang membership

can be found in the recent GAO report

included in the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Civil and

Constitutional Rights of the Judiciary

Committee hearings on developing a

national gang data base.

14. Group means can be inflated by a

few extreme cases. The frequency distributions for all continuous variables

were reviewed. A small number of

cases were identified, without regard

to gang status, as extremes and omitted from the calculation of group

means. This procedure had no impact

on the outcome of tests for statistical

significance. For example, one

nongang case with 23 firearms, if included, would increase the mean number to three guns. The mean amount of

cash taken in nongang incidents rises

to $1,416 unless one case is dropped

from the analysis. Two cases (one from

each group) were deleted from the calculation of the mean amount of rock,

generating a decrease of about onehalf gram in each group. One incident

involved more than 10 kilograms of

powdered cocaine and four others had

more than 1,000 grams. The deletion

of these five cases, all nongang, dramatically lowered the group mean from

195 grams to 7 grams. The difference

between these two figures serves as a

reminder to be cautious about the

well-publicized, dramatic bust; the

lower figure is a much more accurate

measure of the “average” amount of

cocaine in these cases. All five large

volume cases were the result of long

term investigations by the narcotics

units in each department.

15. The group means for drug amounts

were calculated among cases with cocaine taken into evidence. Thirty-nine

of 400 cases had no cocaine counted,

usually because laboratory analysis of

the retrieved substance tested negative

for cocaine or other illegal drugs.

Common bar soap was often used to

imitate cocaine rocks.

16. Maxson et al., op. cit., 1985; Klein

et al., op. cit., 1991; Maxson, et al., op.

cit., 1992.

17. These figures would increase only

slightly had the cases with multiple

drug types including cocaine been

placed here rather than in the cocaine

group (see exhibit 4).
14

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Cheryl L. Maxson, Ph.D., is a research associate with the Social

Science Research Institute, University of Southern California.

Malcolm Klein, Ph.D., director of

the Social Science Research Institute, University of Southern California contributed significantly to

the research design and implementation. Lea Cunningham, currently survey operations manager,

Center for Survey Research, University of Virginia, served as field

coordinator of the project. The research was supported under award No.

91–IJ–CX–K010 from the National

Institute of Justice Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do

not necessarily express the official

position of the U.S. Department of

Justice.

18. Klein, M.W., The American Street

Gang. New York: Oxford University

Press, forthcoming.

19. Includes drug sales of all types;

multiple arrests of the same offender

inflate this figure somewhat. A specific

gang name was not available for about

10 percent of the gang offenders. Note

that the unit of analysis has shifted

from incident to individuals.

20. Provisional data provided by the

Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department.

21. Taylor, C.S., Girls, Gangs, Women

and Drugs. East Lansing, MI: State

University Press, 1993.

22. An anonymous review suggested

this implication from the study

findings.

The National Institute of Justice is a

component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau

of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for

Victims of Crime.

NCJ 155185

Selected NIJ Publications about Gangs and Drugs

Listed below are some NIJ publications related to the issues of gangs and drugs. These publications can be obtained free,

except where indicated, from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS): telephone 800–851–3420, email askncjrs@ncjrs.aspensys.com, or write to NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000.

Please note that when free publications are out of stock, they are available as photocopies for a minimal fee or through

interlibrary loan. They are also usually available on the NCJRS Bulletin Board System or on the Department of Justice

Internet gopher site for downloading. Call NCJRS for more information.

Ball, R.A. and G.D. Curry, Gang Crime and Law

Enforcement Record Keeping, Research in Brief,

1994, NCJ 148345.

Block, B. and C.R. Block, Street Gang Crime in

Chicago, Research in Brief, 1993, NCJ 144782.

Blumstein, Alfred, Ph.D., Research in Progress

Seminar, VHS Videotape, NCJ 152235, $19.

Chaiken, Marcia R., The Rise of Crack and Ice:

Experiences in Three Locales, Research in Brief,

1993, NCJ 139559.

Coldren, James R., Jr., Drug Control Task Forces:

Creating and Implementing a Multijurisdictional

Unit, Evaluation Bulletin, 1993, NCJ 138332.

Conly, C.H. et al., Street Gangs: Current Knowledge and Strategies, Issues and Practices, 1993,

NCJ 143290.

Controlling Chemicals Used to Make Illegal

Drugs: The Chemical Action Task Force and the

Domestic Chemical Action Group, Research in

Brief, 1993, NCJ 137862.

Drug Education, Crime File Series, VHS Videotape, 1987, NCJ 104207, $17.

Drug Testing, Crime File Series, VHS Videotape,

1987, NCJ 104213, $17.

Drug Testing Resource Package, 1994, NCJ

139307, $32.
15

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Drug Trafficking, Crime File Series, VHS Videotape, 1987, NCJ 104211, $17.

Drugs: Addiction, Crime File Series, VHS Videotape, 1990, NCJ 123669, $17.

Drugs: Asset Seizure, Crime File Series, VHS Videotape, 1990, NCJ 123670, $17.

Drugs: Community Responses, Crime File Series,

VHS Videotape, 1990 NCJ 123671, $17.

Drugs: Legalization, Crime File Series, VHS Videotape, 1990, NCJ 123676, $17.

Drugs: Military Interdiction, Crime File Series,

VHS Videotape, 1990, NCJ 123672, $17.

Drugs: Treating Offenders, Crime File Series,

VHS Videotape, 1990, NCJ 123673, $17.

Drugs: Workplace Testing, Crime File Series, VHS

Videotape, 1990, NCJ 123678, $17.

Drugs: Youth Gangs, Crime File Series, VHS Videotape, 1990, NCJ 123674, $17.

Dunworth, Terence and Aaron Saiger, Drugs and

Crime in Public Housing: A Three-City Analysis,

Research Report, 1994, NCJ 145329.

Finn, Peter, The Manhattan District Attorney’s

Narcotics Eviction Program, Program Focus,

1995, NCJ 153146.

Finn, Peter and Andrea K. Newlyn, Miami’s

“Drug Court,” A Different Approach, Program Focus, 1993, NCJ 142412.

Foti, Charles, C., Jr., The Effect of Drug Testing in

New Orleans, Research in Brief, 1993, NCJ

140090.

Johnson, Claire et al., Prosecuting Gangs: A National Assessment, Research in Brief, 1995, NCJ

151785.

Mieczkowski, Tom et al., Testing Hair for Illicit

Drug Use, Research in Brief, 1993, NCJ 138539.

PAVNET Online User’s Guide, NIJ user’s guide to

anti-violence programs on the Internet, 1994,

NCJ 152057.

PAVNET Resource Guide, Volume 1, Promising

Programs, About 600 promising programs to prevent and control violence, provided by five federal agencies, including ones targeted to

substance abuse issues, 1994, NCJ 150044, U.S.,

$17; Canada, $23, Other countries, $54.

PAVNET Resource Guide, Volume 2, Information

Sources, Funding, and Technical Assistance,

about 400 listings from Federal agencies and private associations for information, funding opportunities, and technical assistance to aid in

violence reduction projects, including those

aimed at substance abuse problems, 1994, NCJ

150045, U.S., $12; Canada, $17; Other countries,

$29.

PAVNET Resource Guides Volumes 1 and 2, NCJ

152422, U.S., $25; Canada, $36; Other countries,

$79.

Reardon, Judy, Ph.D., The Drug Use Forecasting

Program: Measuring Drug Use in a “Hidden”

Population, Issues and Practices, 1993, NCJ

144784.

Searching for Answers: Annual Evaluation Report

on Drugs and Crime, NIJ Report, 1993, NCJ

142975.

Weingart, Saul et al., Case Studies of Community

Anti-Drug Efforts, Research in Brief, 1994, NCJ

149316.
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20531

____________________________

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91