From the Administrator 

For more than half a century, gangs 

have presented a critical challenge to communities across the 

United States. Despite the growth 

in the number of gangs and gang 

members over the past several years, 

little is known about the dynamics 

underlying this increase. We need to 

enhance our understanding of which 

youth join gangs and why. 

This bulletin draws on research 

findings to examine how gangs form 

and how communities may assess 

and respond to their gang problems. 

The author, Dr. James C. Howell, 

a senior research associate with the 

National Gang Center, identifies 

nine programs evidencing effectiveness in combating gangs. 

The content provided in these pages 

has informed the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s FY 2010 Youth Gang Prevention and Intervention Program. 

While additional research needs to 

be done, by adapting the secondary prevention programs described 

herein and similar evidence-based 

approaches to address their local 

gang problems, communities can ensure a better future for their youth.

Jeff Slowikowski 

Acting Administrator

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

December 2010 Jeff Slowikowski, Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ojjdp.gov

Gang Prevention: An Overview of 

Research and Programs 

by James C. Howell

Highlights

This bulletin presents research on why youth join gangs and how a community 

can build gang prevention and intervention services. The author summarizes 

recent literature on gang formation and identifies promising and effective programs for gang prevention. The following are some key findings:

•	 Youth join gangs for protection, enjoyment, respect, money, or 

because a friend is in a gang.

•	 Youth are at higher risk of joining a gang if they engage in delinquent behaviors, are aggressive or violent, experience multiple caretaker transitions, have many problems at school, associate with other 

gang-involved youth, or live in communities where they feel unsafe 

and where many youth are in trouble.

•	 To prevent youth from joining gangs, communities must strengthen 

families and schools, improve community supervision, train teachers 

and parents to manage disruptive youth, and teach students interpersonal skills.

Guides for assessing community gang problems and implementing intervention 

and prevention strategies, part of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Comprehensive Gang Model, are available on the National 

Gang Center Web site (www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Publications). 
2 Juvenile Justice Bulletin

Introduction 

Since the mid-20th century, gang violence in this country 

has become widespread—all 50 states and the District of 

Columbia report gang problems, and reports have increased for 5 of the past 7 years. Despite the steady growth 

in the number and size of gangs across the United States 

and the criminal behavior and violence they spawn, little 

is known about the dynamics that drive gangs and how 

to best combat their growth. For instance, no consensus 

exists on how gangs form, and few gang prevention programs have been rigorously evaluated. This bulletin presents a compilation of current research on gangs, including 

data on the state of gang problems in the United States today, why youth join gangs, the risk factors and attractions 

that increase youth’s propensity to join gangs, and how 

gangs form. The author examines how community members can begin to assess their gang problems and provide 

necessary enhancements to prevention and intervention 

activities. The bulletin also describes a number of effective and promising programs that may help prevent youth 

delinquency and gang violence. 

Background

Trends in Gang Activity

Local youth gang problems in the United States increased 

during the 25-year period leading up to the mid-1990s 

(W.B. Miller, 2001). Whereas in the 1970s, only 19 states 

reported youth gang problems, before the turn of the 21st 

century, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had acknowledged gang activity. Gang problems reported by law 

enforcement in the National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS)1

 

peaked in the mid-1990s, followed by a precipitous decline 

(Egley, Howell, and Major, 2004). An overall 15-percent 

increase in youth gang problems reported in the NYGS 

Gang Prevention: An Overview of Research and Programs 

by James C. Howell

DECEMBER 2010

from 2002 to 2008 followed this decline, and all segments 

of the U.S. population reported increases in gang problems: suburban counties (22 percent), rural counties (16 

percent), smaller cities (15 percent), and larger cities (13 

percent) (Egley, Howell, and Moore, 2010). Only time 

will show whether the recent increase in gang activity is a 

lasting trend. 

Students report a similar trend in gang activity in schools. 

In the mid-1990s, 28 percent of a national sample of 

students reported that gangs were present in their schools 

(Chandler et al., 1998). This statistic dropped to 17 

percent in 1999 and then began to increase to 23 percent 

in 2007, approaching the level reported a decade earlier 

(Dinkes et al., 2009). 

How Many Youth Join Gangs? 

According to the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 

(a nationally representative sample of 9,000 adolescents), 

8 percent of the youth surveyed had belonged to a gang 

at some point between the ages of 12 and 17 (Snyder 

and Sickmund, 2006). A survey of nearly 6,000 eighthgraders conducted in 11 cities with known gang problems 

found that 9 percent were currently gang members and 17 

percent said they had belonged to a gang at some point in 

their lives (Esbensen and Deschenes, 1998; Esbensen et 

al., 2010). However, this percentage varied from 4 to 15 

percent depending on location (see table 1). In a subsequent 15-city sample of adolescents (about 13 years old), 

almost 8 percent were gang members (Esbensen et al., 

2008). Gang membership is even greater among representative samples of youth in high-risk areas of large cities, 

according to studies in Seattle, WA (15 percent); Denver, 

CO (17 percent); Pittsburgh, PA (24 percent); and Rochester, NY (32 percent) (Hill et al., 1999; Huizinga and 

Lovegrove, 2009; Lahey et al., 1999; Thornberry, Krohn, 

et al., 2003). 
Juvenile Justice Bulletin 3 

Table 1. Gang Membership by Study Location

Location Percentage of Youth Who Are 

Gang Members

Kansas City, MO 10.1 

Las Cruces, NM 11.0 

Milwaukee, WI 15.4 

Omaha, NE 11.4 

Orlando, FL 9.6

Philadelphia, PA 7.7 

Phoenix, AZ 12.6 

Pocatello, ID 5.6 

Providence, RI 6.0 

Torrance, CA 6.3 

Will County, IL 3.8 

Overall 9.1 

Source: Esbensen et al., 2010, table 5.1. Used with permission.

Demographic Characteristics of 

Gang Members

The demographic characteristics of gang members vary 

by geographic location—mainly reflecting the demographic makeup of the youth population (Esbensen and 

Lynskey, 2001). 

Race 

According to the 2008 NYGS, half (50 percent) of all 

gang members are Hispanic/Latino, 32 percent are 

African American/black, and 11 percent are Caucasian/

white (National Gang Center, 2010). Studies where youth 

self-report gang membership show more equal proportions of racial/ethnic groups in samples. For example, in 

a 15-city sample, racial and ethnic proportions of youth 

reporting gang membership were quite similar for whites 

(7.3 percent), blacks (8.3 percent), and Hispanics (9.0 

percent), but larger (12.9 percent) for multiracial groups 

(Esbensen et al., 2008).

Gender 

In the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, the 

male-to-female ratio of gang members was approximately 

2 to 1 (11 percent of males versus 6 percent of females) 

(Snyder and Sickmund, 2006). But a more recent 15-city 

sample that used self-reports classified 8.8 percent of boys 

and 7.8 percent of girls as current gang members 

(Esbensen et al., 2008). 

Starter Gangs and Gang 

Formation Theories 

This bulletin examines how youth move from delinquency 

to joining gangs and how gangs form. Youth make a 

conscious choice to join a gang during adolescence, and 

multiple personal and environmental factors influence 

this choice. 

During adolescence, peer groups and social networks 

form, each of which can positively or negatively influence a 

youth’s life. Rather than immediately joining serious, violent gangs, some youth become involved in less delinquent 

groups, called “starter gangs.” 

Children and adolescents form starter gangs to introduce 

themselves to gang culture (i.e., distinctive attitudes, 

jargon, rituals, and symbols). In some areas, established 

gangs sometimes create cliques or sets composed of 

younger youth called “wannabes,” “juniors,” “pee wees,” 

and the like (Vigil, 1993). Where members of starter 

gangs may engage in minor delinquent behaviors, gang 

members may be involved in serious and violent offenses. 

Researchers sometimes find it difficult to distinguish 

“gangs in embryo” from ordinary small groups of delinquents. A complicating factor is that very young gangs 

are extremely unstable. Adolescence is a time of changing peer relations and fleeting allegiances to both friends 

(Warr, 2002) and gangs (Curry, Decker, and Egley, 2002; 

Valdez, 2007). 

Shifting membership and an intermittent existence characterize many gangs, especially those with younger members. 

Because involvement in a variety of peer groups is common during adolescence, in many situations, gangs should 

be viewed as social networks rather than as bounded 

“organizations” (Fleisher, 2006; Papachristos, 2006). 

Youth drift in and out of these groups, and even members 

may be unable to name all current members (Fleisher, 

1998). In a recent survey of middle school students in 

nine cities, 25 percent of all gangs the students identified had been in existence for less than 1 year, and only 

10 percent were said to have existed for 11 years or more 

(Esbensen et al., 2008). 

The dynamics of gang formation are complex, and researchers and practitioners have studied them from 

psychological, sociological, and criminological perspectives 

(Thrasher, 2000; Redl, 1945; Cloward and Ohlin, 1960; 

Davis, 1993; Esbensen, Huizinga, and Weiher, 1993; 

Cureton, 1999; Lahey et al., 1999; Thornberry, Krohn, 

et al., 2003; Tita and Ridgeway, 2007; Wood and Alleyne, 

2010; Vigil, 1993). A very popular assumption is that they 
4 Juvenile Justice Bulletin

grow out of conflicts among groups of young adolescents 

(Cloward and Ohlin, 1960; Cohen and Short, 1958) and 

conflicts with the law-abiding community (Short and 

Strodtbeck, 1974). Where gangs are not established, they 

may form under extreme community conditions—particularly when youth are alienated from key socializing institutions, especially families and schools.

A recent French study (Debarbieux and Baya, 2008) suggests that some gangs emerge from “difficult schools” 

that contain a small group of highly rebellious pupils. This 

group of students (4 to 5 percent of the student population) was responsible for most of the disorder and violence 

in 16 schools that were studied. In the most difficult 

schools, as many as 11 percent of all students were members of these gangs. 

In this theory, adolescents form gangs when they are 

excluded from school for disciplinary reasons because 

school is a place that provides support, education, and 

social networks for youth. This exclusion may help solidify 

the group and lead toward gang formation. To become 

a law-violating gang, adolescents involved must commit 

to a criminal orientation (or willingness to use violence) 

(Decker and Van Winkle, 1996). Secondarily, the group 

must take on a criminal orientation as “a gang” that is set 

apart from other groups in the community (Klein, 1995). 

This group may be further solidified by conflict with 

school authorities and the police.

When gangs are already established, researchers observe 

that the gang-joining process is similar to the manner in 

which most people would go about joining an organization. A youth typically begins hanging out with gang 

members at age 12 or 13 (even younger in some instances) 

and joins the gang between ages 13 and 15. This process 

typically takes 6 months to a year or two from the time 

of initial association (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996; 

Esbensen and Huizinga, 1993; Huff, 1996, 1998). 

In many large cities around the United States, serious 

gangs have been established for years. In these circumstances, one might anticipate and yet find it difficult to 

prevent a youth from joining a gang. For instance, the 

Chicano gangs in the southwestern United States that 

formed in the early 1900s (Vigil, 1993) were populated by 

second-generation, “marginalized” children of extremely 

poor, immigrant Mexican American families who found it 

difficult to adjust socially and culturally to the American 

way of life (Vigil, 2008). Youth naturally joined the gangs 

affiliated with their barrios (i.e., neighborhoods). After 

more than a half-century of continuous presence in some 

barrios, the Chicano gangs of Los Angeles have become 

institutionalized.

Attractions to Gangs

Factors that contribute to a youth’s decision to join a gang 

fall into two categories: attractions and risk factors (Decker 

and Van Winkle, 1996). This section discusses attractions 

to gangs. 

A common public perception is that most youth are 

coerced into joining a gang (Howell, 2007). Quite to the 

contrary, most youth who join want to belong to a gang. 

Gangs are often at the center of appealing social action—

parties, hanging out, music, drugs, and opportunities to 

socialize with members of the opposite sex. The gang may 

be appealing because it meets a youth’s social needs. 

Youth reported the following reasons for joining a gang, 

in the order of descending importance (Esbensen, 

Deschenes, and Winfree, 1999): 

•	 For protection.

•	 For fun.

•	 For respect.

•	 For money.

•	 Because a friend was in the gang. 

These are the typical gang attractions that youth acknowledge. Of these reasons, youth most commonly join gangs 

for the safety they believe the gang provides (Decker and 

Curry, 2000; Decker and Van Winkle, 1996; Peterson, 

Taylor, and Esbensen, 2004; Thornberry, Krohn, et al., 

2003). Another important influence is family members 

(especially siblings or cousins) who already are part of 

the gang (Curry, Decker, and Egley, 2002; Thornberry, 

Krohn, et al., 2003), especially for Mexican American 

youth (Valdez, 2007). Youth also occasionally cite economic reasons, such as selling drugs or making money, 

for joining a gang (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996).
Juvenile Justice Bulletin 5 

Ethnicity

In many large cities, the attraction of gangs is in part a 

byproduct of population migration (Adamson, 2000; 

Howell and Moore, 2010; Vigil, 2002, 2008). Diego 

Vigil suggests that this may be a result of the difficulties 

immigrant youth may experience in dealing with life in 

a new culture, combined with inadequate parenting and 

schooling. The language, cultural, and economic barriers 

they face “[leave] them with few options or resources to 

better their lives. Often, they seek a place where they are 

not marginalized—and find it in the streets” (Vigil, 2002, 

p. 7). Gang life also meets these youth’s need for family and 

community by filling the void that inadequate family care 

and schooling leave. 

Popular Culture 

Apart from personal reasons for joining a gang, media presentations make gangs seem very appealing (Miller, 1992). 

The “hip” lifestyle and sensational portrayals of gangs and 

their members have a significant influence, particularly on 

more susceptible youth, for reasons that Walter B. Miller 

(2001, p. 46) aptly explains:

In the 1950’s, the musical drama West Side Story

portrayed gang life as seen through the eyes of 

adult middle-class writers and presented themes of 

honor, romantic love, and mild rebellion consistent with the values and perspectives of these 

writers. In the 1990’s, the substance of gang life 

was communicated to national audiences through 

a new medium known as gangsta rap. For the first 

time, this lifestyle was portrayed by youthful insiders, not adult outsiders. The character and values 

of gang life described by the rappers differed radically from the images of West Side Story. Language 

was rough and insistently obscene; women were 

prostitutes (“bitches,” “ho’s,” and “sluts”) to 

be used, beaten, and thrown away; and extreme 

violence and cruelty, the gang lifestyle, and craziness or insanity were glorified. Among the rappers’ targets of hatred, scorn, and murder threats 

were police, especially black police (referred to as 

“house slaves” and “field hands”); other races and 

ethnic groups; society as a whole; and members of 

rival gangs . . . Gangsta rap strengthened the desire of youth to become part of a gang subculture 

that was portrayed by the rappers as a glamorous 

and rewarding lifestyle.

Increased media popularization of gang culture has led to 

the point that now, “most young people in America recognize the look, the walk, and the talk of gang members. 

Many mimic it in part or in whole. Many try it out as a 

personal style. Play groups, break-dancing groups, 

taggers (i.e., graffiti artists), and school peer groups 

experiment with gang life” (Klein, 2002, p. 246). The diffusion of street gang culture in modern-day movies, music, 

and clothing merchandizing has served to intertwine gang 

culture with the general youth subculture.

Researchers have shown how youth experiment with gang 

life in several studies. In a St. Louis, MO, study of middle 

school students, more than half of the surveyed youth who 

had never been in a gang said that they had engaged in at 

least one kind of gang involvement (Curry, Decker, and 

Egley, 2002). More than one-third of the youth who had 

not been in gangs had gang members as friends, nearly 

one-third had worn gang colors, nearly one-quarter had 

hung out with gang members, and one-fifth had flashed 

gang signs. In a study of Florida middle school students 

(Eitle, Gunkel, and Gundy, 2004), only 5 percent of the 

sample of nearly 10,000 students reported having joined 

a gang, but half of the youth who had not joined had 

engaged in 1 or more behaviors that suggested “gang 

orientations” (Eitle, Gunkel, and Gundy, 2004, p. 101)—

they had flashed gang signs, worn gang colors on purpose, 

drunk alcohol or gotten high with gang members, or hung 

out with gang members.

Friendships and Romantic Relationships

Many female adolescents are attracted to gangs because 

their friends or boyfriends have joined. One book looked 

at girls in San Antonio, TX, who hung out with male gang 

members (Valdez, 2007). Although they were not recognized as gang members, these girls were “distinctly integrated” into the male gangs (Valdez, 2007, p. 87). They 

began hanging out with the gang in childhood, just before 

age 12, and at the time of the study, 40 percent reported 

having a boyfriend in a gang and 80 percent said they had 

a good friend in a male gang. Gang associations led to 

the girls’ involvement in delinquent and criminal activities, including holding drugs (55 percent), selling drugs 
6 Juvenile Justice Bulletin

(31 percent), and holding weapons (27 percent) (Valdez, 

2007). Hence, program development and service delivery 

should not ignore gang associates. 

Risk Factors for Joining Gangs 

This section examines risk factors—forces that push youth 

toward gangs or increase the likelihood that affected youth 

will join a gang.2 Researchers cannot predict whether a 

particular individual will join a gang. Rather, research 

shows that individuals who possess certain risk factors have 

an elevated chance of joining a gang. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s 

(OJJDP’s) Strategic Planning Tool (www.nationalgangcenter.

gov/SPT) includes a list of risk factors that predict juvenile 

delinquency and gang membership because virtually all 

youth who join a gang previously were involved in delinquent acts (Hill et al., 1999; Esbensen and Huizinga, 

1993; Thornberry, Krohn, et al., 2003). To compile this 

list, the National Gang Center (NGC) analyzed a number 

of studies of children and adolescents who were surveyed 

over several years. The studies examined risk factors for 

serious and violent delinquency or gang involvement 

(Loeber and Farrington, 1998, 2001; Howell and Egley, 

2005). The risk factors discussed in the Strategic Planning 

Tool also draw heavily on the two more comprehensive reviews on this topic (Loeber and Farrington, 1998, 2001).3

The following discussion of risk factors for gang involvement summarizes longitudinal research shown in the 

OJJDP Strategic Planning Tool. Other kinds of studies, 

particularly ethnographic research that provides insights 

into how particular risk factors may operate, supplement 

this discussion. The discussion organizes these risk factors 

into five domains: individual, family, school, peer group, 

and community, based on a systematic literature review 

(Howell and Egley, 2005). 

Individual Risk Factors 

A number of personal risk factors make children more 

likely to join gangs. 

Antisocial behavior. Children whose antisocial behavior 

consistently worsens are most likely to join gangs. These 

behaviors include early involvement in delinquency, aggression, violence (without a weapon), alcohol or drug 

use, early dating, and precocious sexual activity (Craig et 

al., 2002; Lahey et al., 1999; Thornberry, Krohn, et al., 

2003). In adolescence, other forms of violence emerge—

such as attacking someone with a weapon—that may also 

predict joining a gang (Thornberry, Krohn, et al., 2003). 

Alcohol and drug use. Alcohol and drug use also predict 

joining a gang (Huizinga and Lovegrove, 2009). These 

two early problem behaviors increase the likelihood of 

later gang involvement, particularly when alcohol or drug 

use is extensive and involves marijuana (Hill et al., 1999; 

Thornberry, Krohn, et al., 2003). 

Mental health problems. Although little research has 

been done on the subject, evidence suggests that certain 

mental health problems in young people increase their risk 

of joining a gang. These problems include conduct disorders, externalizing behaviors, hyperactivity, and depression 

(Howell and Egley, 2005). Davis and Flannery (2001) 

noted that gang members in juvenile corrections facilities 

“often are admitted with histories of physical and sexual 

abuse, substance abuse, psychiatric disturbances, posttraumatic stress disorder, cognitive deficits, poor self-esteem, 

and other problems” (Davis and Flannery, 2001, p. 37). 

Victimization. Children who are victims of abuse or 

neglect are more likely to join gangs (Fleisher, 1998; J.A. 

Miller, 2001; Thornberry, Krohn, et al., 2003). Forms of 

violent victimization outside the home, such as assaults, 

also increase youth’s risk of joining a gang (Peterson, 

Taylor, and Esbensen, 2004; Taylor, 2008; Taylor et al., 

2007, 2008). 

Negative life events. Youth—particularly boys—who 

experience negative life events also are more likely to join 

gangs (Thornberry, Krohn, et al., 2003). These events 
Juvenile Justice Bulletin 7 

“Students who feel vulnerable at school 

may seek protection in the gang.”

include failing a course at school, being suspended from 

school, breaking up with a boyfriend/girlfriend, having a 

fight or problem with a friend, and the death of someone 

close. 

Family Risk Factors

From birth, parents are critical in promoting child development (Loeber and Farrington, 2001). Early on, weaknesses in family structure (e.g., a single-parent household, 

multiple family transitions, or caretaker changes), poverty, 

and general financial stress are potent risk factors. These 

adversities diminish effective parental supervision and control and disturb the development of strong family bonds 

(Howell and Egley, 2005). Other factors compromise 

parents’ capacities to encourage their children’s growth 

and development, including lack of education, attitudes 

that condone violence inside and outside the home, and 

child abuse or neglect (Howell and Egley, 2005). If family 

members are involved in gangs or criminal behavior, this 

can lead youth to join gangs and alienate them from a 

healthy family life (Moore, 1991; Vigil, 1988). 

School Risk Factors

Most studies that examine school-related risk factors for 

juvenile delinquency and gang membership have only examined a student’s level of academic achievement—which 

is a strong predictor for gang membership. For example, 

poor school performance on math tests predicts male gang 

membership (Thornberry, Krohn, et al., 2003). However, studies of school experiences now include measures 

of “school climate” (Gottfredson et al., 2005) and student “connectedness” to schools (Resnick, Ireland, and 

Borowsky, 2004). Future gang members perform poorly 

in elementary school and generally have a low degree of 

commitment to and involvement in school (Hill et al., 

1999; Le Blanc and Lanctot, 1998) and weak attachment 

to teachers (Thornberry, Krohn, et al., 2003). 

A French study (discussed on p. 4) identified current or 

future gang members among a small subgroup of students 

“who consider that everything is wrong with school and 

that teachers are awful, who commit aggression more 

often than others, who are punished repeatedly and more 

frequently than the others, and who have developed a 

feeling of hatred and rejection of everything that represents order” (Debarbieux and Baya, 2008, p. 214). These 

students most often attended the most difficult schools—

schools characterized by greater levels of student victimization, self-reported violence, poor student-teacher relations, 

and systems of punishment that pupils did not accept well 

(Debarbieux and Baya, 2008, p. 212). Other research 

suggests that poorly functioning schools with high levels 

of student and teacher victimization, large student-teacher 

ratios, poor academic quality, poor school climates, and 

high rates of social sanctions (e.g., suspensions, expulsions, 

and referrals to juvenile court) hold a greater percentage 

of students who form and join gangs (Bernburg, Krohn, 

and Rivera, 2006; Debarbieux and Baya, 2008; Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 2001; Morrison and Skiba, 2001; 

Thornberry, Lizotte, et al., 2003; Weisel and Howell, 

2007). For example, nearly 8 of 10 gang-involved youth 

referred to juvenile court in Durham, NC, had been suspended, truant, expelled, or otherwise disconnected from 

school (Weisel and Howell, 2007). 

In addition, negative conditions in difficult schools can 

increase future delinquency (Hemphill et al., 2006; Huizinga and Henry, 2008; Kaplan and Damphouse, 1997), 

which also increases gang membership (Esbensen and 

Huizinga, 1993; Hill et al., 1999; Thornberry, Lizotte, 

et al., 2003). 

Feeling unsafe at school may also predict gang involvement (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 2001; Vigil, 1993). 

Students who feel vulnerable at school may seek protection in the gang.

Peer Group Risk Factors 

One of the strongest risk factors for gang membership is 

associating with peers who engage in delinquency (Thornberry, Lizotte, et al., 2003). Aggressive and antisocial 

youth begin to affiliate with one another in childhood, and 

this pattern of aggressive friendships continues through 

adolescence (Kupersmidt, Coie, and Howell, 2003; Warr, 
2002). Association with aggressive peers during childhood 

and early adolescence is a strong predictor of joining a gang 

(Craig et al., 2002; Lahey et al., 1999), as is the experience 

of having been rejected by peers (Huizinga and Lovegrove, 

2009).

Community Risk Factors 

As children grow older and venture out from their families, community conditions become a greater influence. 

Gangs tend to cluster in high-crime and economically 

disadvantaged neighborhoods (Pyrooz, Fox, and Decker, 

2010; Thornberry, Krohn, et al., 2003; Valdez, 2007; 

Vigil, 1988). When gangs cluster in these neighborhoods, 

a number of negative conditions may arise, including 

(Howell and Egley, 2005):

•	 A greater level of criminal activity.

•	 A large number of neighborhood youth involved in 

illegal behaviors.

•	 Widespread availability and use of firearms and drugs. 

•	 A small level of neighborhood attachment (i.e., positive 

feelings of belonging and being valued). 

Unfortunately, in most distressed neighborhoods, schools, 

churches, and other community agencies and institutions 

do not provide adequate gang prevention and intervention 

services (Thrasher, 2000). In the worst conditions, “collective efficacy”4

 may be lacking (Morenoff, Sampson, and 

Raudenbush, 2001).

Risk Factors: A Summary 

Children who are on a trajectory of worsening antisocial 

behavior, including child delinquency, are more likely to 

join gangs during adolescence. Gang members tend to 

have more risk factors than other serious and violent 

offenders, and these factors can often be placed in 

multiple developmental domains. In essence, one can 

think of gang entry as the next developmental step in escalating delinquent behavior (Craig et al., 2002; Esbensen 

and Huizinga, 1993). Gang membership is not a product 

of several specific risk factors, but the result of the accumulation of many varied kinds of risk factors (Krohn and 

Thornberry, 2008).

Risk factors in each of the five developmental domains 

operate collectively to increase youth’s propensity to join 

gangs. Youth who initiate delinquent behaviors and exhibit 

aggression or violence at an early age (individual); experience multiple caretaker transitions (family); have numerous school-related problems (school); associate with other 

aggressive, gang-involved delinquents (peers); and live in 

communities where they feel unsafe and where many 

youth are in trouble (community) are at a higher risk of 

joining a gang. 

How Risk Factors Work 

Risk factors predict increased risk for developing a problem 

or disorder. They also help determine the pathways that 

some children and adolescents take when they become 

involved in juvenile delinquency and gangs. However, the 

presence of specific risk factors does not guarantee the 

development of specific problem behaviors. 

Risk factors function in a cumulative fashion—the larger 

the number of risk factors, the greater the likelihood of 

a negative outcome, such as joining a gang. In a Seattle 

study, children younger than age 12 who experienced 7 

of 19 measured risk factors were 13 times more likely to 

join a gang than children with only 1 risk factor or no risk 

factors (Hill et al., 1999; Hill, Lui, and Hawkins, 2001). 

The likelihood of joining a gang is even greater when youth 

experience multiple risk factors in multiple domains. For 

example, Rochester researchers (Thornberry, Krohn, et al., 

2003) measured seven risk-factor domains—neighborhood 

characteristics, family/sociodemographic characteristics, 

parent-child relations, school, peers, individual characteristics, and early delinquency—and found that 61 percent 

of the boys and 40 percent of the girls who had elevated 

scores in all seven domains were gang members. In 

contrast, when youth experienced risk in only four to six 

domains, about one-third of the boys and one-fifth of the 

girls joined a gang. 

Abundant evidence exists to show that common risk factors cause various problem behaviors. Many of the same 

factors that predict delinquency also predict school failure, 

poor physical health, physical abuse, teen pregnancy, and 

drug use (Durlak, 1998). Future gang members share 

several of the same risk factors seen in future serious and 

8 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
violent adolescent offenders, including association with 

delinquent peers, drug and alcohol use, school problems, 

and family problems (Howell and Egley, 2005). As youth 

accumulate more of these risk factors, they are more likely 

to become involved with gangs as opposed to violence 

(52 percent of gang members experienced 11 or more risk 

factors, compared with 36 percent of violent offenders) 

(Esbensen et al., 2009). 

Still, risk factors do not cause youth to join gangs. Rather, 

they increase the probability that youth will join gangs. 

Additionally, the features of the specific gangs in an area 

and the type of activities they engage in, such as violence, 

may influence risk factors for joining a gang. For example, 

a Chicago study found that the neighborhoods with a 

high level of general violence “are not necessarily the same 

neighborhoods that have high levels of gang violence” 

(Papachristos and Kirk, 2006, p. 80). 

Risk factors also interact with protective factors that keep 

youth from becoming delinquent. Youth who experience 

more risk factors than protective factors may be prone to 

serious juvenile delinquency and other problem behaviors. 

Nonetheless, in extremely high-risk conditions, youth 

need more than a simple majority of protective factors to 

overcome multiple risk factors (Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 

2002, 2008). The gang literature has suggested numerous possible protective factors that might discourage 

youth from joining a gang (Bjerregaard and Smith, 1993; 

Esbensen, Huizinga, and Weiher, 1993; Hill et al., 1999; 

Howell, 2004; Klein and Maxson, 2006; Li et al., 2002; 

Maxson, Whitlock, and Klein, 1998; Thornberry, Krohn, 

et al., 2003; Wyrick, 2000). However, the research is far 

too limited to compile a research-supported list of protective factors at this time; hence, potential factors are not 

presented here. 

Gang Intervention: Strategies, 

Services, and Tools 

This section discusses how communities can identify gang 

problems, develop a framework for intervention, and 

implement strategies. 

Community Assessments

When starting a program for delinquency and gang prevention, a community should conduct a gang-problem 

assessment to identify elevated risk factors that lead to 

child delinquency and gang involvement. Communities 

must define youth gangs, locate them, and identify and 

target the youth who are at greatest risk of joining 

(Bjerregaard, 2002; Esbensen, Winfree, et al., 2001; 

Howell, 2009). Because every community has its own 

characteristics, each must agree on a unique definition that 

will guide its data collection and strategic planning. The 

following are widely accepted criteria among researchers 

for classifying groups as youth gangs (Bjerregaard, 2002; 

Curry and Decker, 2003; Esbensen, Winfree, et al., 2001; 

Howell, 2009; Klein, 1995; Oehme, 1997; Miller, 1992; 

Spergel, 1995):

•	 The group has three or more members.

•	 Members share an identity, typically linked to a name 

and, often, other symbols. 

•	 Members view themselves as a gang, and others recognize them as a gang.

•	 The group has some permanence and a degree of 

organization.

•	 The group is involved in an elevated level of criminal 

activity.

As part of its Comprehensive Gang Model, OJJDP has 

published A Guide to Assessing Your Community’s Youth 

Gang Problem (www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Content/

Documents/Assessment-Guide/Assessment-Guide.pdf), 

a user-friendly resource to assist communities that are 

conducting a gang-problem assessment (Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2009a). This guide 

simplifies the data-collection process, helping communities 

determine types and levels of gang activity, gang crime patterns, community perceptions of local gangs and gang activity, and gaps in community services for gang prevention. 

Ideally, the assessment should provide an understanding of 

the “evolution of gangs in time and space” within the city, 

community, or neighborhood (Hughes, 2006). To help 

communities understand their unique gang situation, an 

assessment should answer these questions: 

•	 Who is involved in gang-related activity and what is the 

history of these gangs? 

•	 What crimes are these individuals committing? 

•	 When are these crimes being committed?

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 9 
The next step is to identify program gaps and develop and 

coordinate a continuum of prevention and intervention 

program services and sanctions, in concert with a targeted 

strategy of community and government agency responses 

to serious and violent gang activity. Prevention and intervention services should be directed to the neighborhoods, 

schools, and families from which gangs emanate. 

A Framework for Intervention 

A framework for delinquency prevention and early intervention is shown in figure 1. Because gang membership is 

presented as a pathway to serious and violent delinquency, 

delinquency prevention programs must work to target 

gang involvement. The top section of the figure shows 

the major risk factor domains that influence youth: family, 

school, peer group, individual characteristics, and community. At birth—or beginning in the prenatal period for 

some infants—the biological family is the central influence 

on infants and children. During preschool, and especially 

in elementary school and onward, the array of risk factors 

expands as some children are exposed to negative influences outside the home (particularly school problems and 

delinquent peers). Family, school, and peer influences 

continue from childhood to young adulthood, although 

family influences gradually fade as friends become more 

important. In addition, individual characteristics and 

community factors can come into play at any point during 

childhood and adolescence.

•	 Where is gang-related activity primarily occurring? 

•	 Why is the criminal activity happening (e.g., individual 

conflicts, gang feuds, gang members acting on their 

own)? 

In addition to helping communities answer these questions, OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model promotes a 

problem-solving approach to gang-related crime, asking 

communities to identify:

•	 Neighborhoods with many risk factors for gang 

involvement. 

•	 Schools and other community settings in which gangs 

are active.

•	 Hot spots of gang crime.

•	 High-rate gang offenders.

•	 Violent gangs. 

To assist with these identifications, the OJJDP Strategic 

Planning Tool provides the following:

•	 A list of risk factors for delinquency and gang membership organized by age.

•	 Data indicators (i.e., measures of risk factors).

•	 Data sources (from which relevant data can be 

retrieved). 

•	 A Community Resource Inventory, where community 

planning groups can record information on existing 

programs. This helps planning groups identify program 

gaps.

•	 Information on promising and effective juvenile delinquency and gang programs. 

•	 Hyperlinks connecting risk factors with effective programs that address them.

•	 Strategies that address specific risk factors for various 

age groups. 

Risk and Protective Factors

Age 3 Age 6 Age 9 Age 15 Age 18

Family School Peer 

Group

Individual

Characteristics Community

Conduct

Problems

Elementary School

Failure

Child

Delinquency

Gang

Member

Serious and

Violent

Delinquency

Prevention Intervention Suppression

Figure 1. Framework for Delinquency Prevention and 

Early Intervention

Source: Howell, 2009, p. 151. Copyrighted by Sage Publications, Inc. 

Used with permission.

10 Juvenile Justice Bulletin

“From one-fourth to one-third of disruptive children are at risk of becoming 

child delinquents, and about one-third of all child delinquents later become 

serious, violent, and chronic offenders” (Loeber and Farrington, 2001).
Prevention and intervention efforts are organized around 

age periods, from about age 3 into young adulthood. The 

middle section of figure 1 illustrates the process that leads 

to delinquency and gang involvement if prevention and 

intervention efforts are not successful. The bottom section 

of the figure illustrates which category of intervention is 

most appropriate (prevention, intervention, and suppression measures), given youth’s age and progression toward 

gang involvement and serious delinquency.

Research supports the progression from conduct problems to gang involvement to serious and violent offending 

(Howell, 2003; Howell and Egley, 2005). Concentrated 

disadvantage at the community level, family problems, and 

individual characteristics lead to early childhood problems 

(aggression and disruptive behavior). Each of these events 

increases the likelihood of delinquency in childhood and 

gang membership in adolescence. From one-fourth to 

one-third of disruptive children are at risk of becoming 

child delinquents, and about one-third of all child delinquents later become serious, violent, and chronic offenders 

(Loeber and Farrington, 2001). 

Strategies for Delinquency and Gang 

Intervention and Prevention 

Current research suggests three distinct strategies for 

early intervention with predelinquents and delinquents. 

The first strategy is to intervene at the individual level 

with at-risk children, particularly disruptive children. The 

second strategy is family prevention, and the third strategy 

is school- and community-level prevention (see Farrington 

and Welsh, 2007, and Welsh and Farrington, 2007, for 

illustrations of these strategies with research-based delinquency prevention programs). 

If these intervention strategies address risk and protective 

factors at or slightly before the developmental points at 

which they begin to predict later gang involvement and 

other problem behaviors, they are more likely to be effective (Institute of Medicine, 2008). 

A balance of prevention, intervention, and suppression 

strategies is important for success in any community 

(Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

2008; Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 2006; Wyrick, 2006; Wyrick 

and Howell, 2004). Prevention programs target youth at 

risk of gang involvement and help reduce the number of 

youth who join gangs. Intervention programs and strategies provide sanctions and services for younger youth who 

are actively involved in gangs to push them away from 

gangs. Law enforcement suppression strategies and intensive services target and rehabilitate the most violent gangs 

and older, criminally active gang members.5

 

Figure 2 presents a model that is useful for planning a 

continuum of programs and strategies in a community 

with gang problems. Group 1, at the top of the triangle, 

represents serious, chronic, and violent gang and nongang 

offenders. These offenders make up a relatively small portion of the population, but commit a disproportionately 

large share of illegal activity. Group 2 consists of ganginvolved youth and their associates, who make up a 

relatively larger share of the population. These youth are 

involved in significant levels of illegal activity but are not 

necessarily in the highest offending category. They typically range in age from 12 to 24 years old. Group 3 is made 

up of high-risk youth—7- to 14-year-olds who have already 

1

2

3

4

Serious and

Chronic Oenders

Gang-Involved Youth

High-Risk Youth

All Youth

Targeted Suppression

Gang Intervention

Secondary

Prevention

Primary

Prevention

Figure 2. Gang Prevention and Intervention Strategies

Source: Wyrick, 2006.

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 11 
displayed early signs of delinquency and an elevated risk 

for gang membership but are not yet gang involved. Most 

of these youth will not join gangs, but they represent a 

pool of candidates for future gang membership. Group 4 

represents all youth living in a community where gangs 

are present.

These four groups should be targeted with the four basic 

strategies for combating gangs: 

•	 Members of group 1 are candidates for targeted enforcement and prosecution because of their high level 

of involvement in crime and violent gangs and the small 

probability that other strategies will reduce their criminal behavior. These individuals may represent as few as 

4 to 8 percent of offenders, but they may account for 

the majority of all adolescent crimes in some communities (Loeber and Farrington, 1998). 

•	 Members of group 2 are candidates for intensive treatment services and supervision. Such services should 

include group therapy, family therapy, mentoring, and 

cognitive-behavioral therapy—consisting of as much as 

40 hours of direct contact over a 130-day period (Deas, 

2008).

•	 Members of group 3 are candidates for secondary 

prevention services, which are less intensive than those 

provided to group 2 but more intensive than those 

provided to youth in the community at large. 

•	 Members of group 4 receive primary prevention 

services. 

Primary prevention refers to services and supports that 

reach the entire population in communities with large 

amounts of crime or gang activity (Wyrick, 2006). These 

efforts address needs or risk factors and are available to 

all youth and families in a community. Government, local 

schools, community organizations, or faith-based organizations may deliver these services. Examples of primary 

prevention include public awareness campaigns, one-stop 

centers that improve access to public services, schoolbased life skills programs, community cleanup and lighting 

projects, and community organizing efforts.

Secondary prevention refers to programs and services 

directed toward youth who have already displayed early 

signs of problem behavior and are at high risk for gang 

involvement (Wyrick, 2006). As Wyrick explains, for many 

people, this group is recognized as the top prevention 

priority because youth in this group are most likely to 

confront the decision of whether or not to join a gang in 

the near future. If secondary prevention programs offer 

attractive alternatives, they can provide socially rewarding, 

healthy, and accessible social opportunities that serve to 

divert a youth’s time and attention from the gang lifestyle. 

In addition, “effective support systems are necessary to 

address specific social, emotional, and psychological needs 

and challenges faced by adolescents,” particularly high-risk 

adolescents (Wyrick, 2006, p. 56). Last, Wyrick emphasizes, program staff must hold adolescents accountable 

for their behavior; program staff should demonstrate and 

enforce clear expectations for appropriate behavior. 

Promising and Effective Programs 

for Gang Prevention 

This section discusses promising and effective primary and 

secondary prevention programs, as shown in figure 2 and 

described above. 

A number of federal repositories offer further information 

about current delinquency prevention programs that may 

help with gang prevention. They include: 

•	 The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention’s Youth Gang Strategic Planning Tool:

www.nationalgangcenter.gov/SPT.

•	 The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Model Programs Guide: www2.dsgonline.com/

mpg. 

•	 Blueprints for Violence Prevention: www.colorado.edu/

cspv/index.html. 

•	 The National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs 

and Practices: http://nrepp.samhsa.gov. 

•	 The Exemplary and Promising Safe, Disciplined and 

Drug-Free Schools Programs: www2.ed.gov/admins/

lead/safety/exemplary01/index.html. 

•	 The What Works Clearinghouse (on educational

 interventions, some of which address youth violence 

and substance abuse prevention): http://ies.ed.gov/

ncee/wwc. 

Federa l Repositories of Research -Based Delin quency 

Prevention Programs

12 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
This bulletin provides examples of effective and promising gang-related prevention programs that nine federal 

agencies identified in systematic reviews beginning in 2005 

(Howell, 2009). Programs are scored on the following 

widely accepted scientific standards for judging program 

effectiveness: 

•	 The soundness/clarity of the program’s framework. 

•	 Program fidelity (i.e., adherence to original program 

operation guidelines).

•	 The strength of the evaluation’s design. 

•	 The empirical evidence demonstrating that the program 

prevents or reduces problem behaviors.

Programs in the database fall into one of the following 

classifications:6

•	 Level 1 programs have been scientifically proven to 

prevent delinquency, reduce risk factors, or enhance 

protective factors for delinquency and other juvenile 

problems. These programs employ a high-quality research design (i.e., an experimental design and random 

assignment of subjects). Programs in this category are 

designated “exemplary” or “model” programs and are 

considered very effective.

•	 Level 2 programs have been scientifically proven to 

prevent delinquency, reduce risk factors, or enhance 

protective factors for delinquency and other juvenile 

problems. These programs employ an experimental or 

quasi-experimental research design with a comparison 

group. Evidence from program evaluations suggests 

these programs are effective or potentially effective, 

but this evidence is not as strong as for the level 1 

programs.

•	 Level 3 programs display a strong theoretical base. 

They have been demonstrated to prevent delinquency 

and other juvenile problems or to reduce risk factors 

or enhance protective factors. They employ limited 

research methods and do not require a control group 

in their research design. The programs in this category 

appear promising, but their success must be confirmed 

using more rigorous scientific techniques. 

Few gang-related programs have been rigorously evaluated 

(Howell, 1998, 2000; Klein and Maxson, 2006), which 

means that most of the prevention programs described 

here are rated “promising.” These programs are included 

here because programs do not need to produce dramatic 

results to have practical utility in dealing with gang problems. The effectiveness levels of programs that follow are 

shown in parentheses as L–1, L–2, or L–3.

Because electronic databases contain comprehensive 

information on programs, the programs are not described 

in detail here, and only a few are presented.7 Communities should consider several programs to determine how to 

best meet their needs.

Primary Prevention Program

The Gang Resistance Education And Training 

(G.R.E.A.T.) program (L–2) is a school-based gangprevention curriculum that has demonstrated evidence of 

effectiveness (Esbensen, Osgood, et al., 2001). Law enforcement officers offer middle school students a 13-week 

curriculum that describes the dangers of gang involvement. The lesson content emphasizes cognitive-behavioral 

training, social skills development, refusal skills, and 

conflict resolution. The G.R.E.A.T. program also offers 

an elementary school curriculum, a summer program, and 

training for families (www.great-online.org). 

Secondary Prevention Programs

The Preventive Treatment Program (L–1) in Montreal is 

an excellent example of an early intervention program that 

has reduced gang involvement, even though it was not developed with this purpose in mind. It was designed to prevent antisocial behavior among boys ages 7 to 9 with a low 

socioeconomic status who had previously displayed disruptive behavior in kindergarten. The program improved 

school performance, reduced delinquency and substance 

use, and showed that a combination of parent training and 

childhood skill development can steer some children away 

from gangs before they reach midadolescence (Tremblay 

et al., 1996; Gatti et al., 2005). 

Aggression Replacement Training (ART) (L–2) is a 

secondary prevention program for highly aggressive and 

delinquent youth that has demonstrated evidence of effectiveness. It consists of a 10-week, 30-hour cognitivebehavioral program administered to groups of 8 to 12 

adolescents. During these 10 weeks, youth typically attend 

three 1-hour sessions per week on skill streaming, anger control, and moral reasoning training. ART showed 

positive results when tested with gang-involved youth in 

Brooklyn, NY (Goldstein and Glick, 1994; Goldstein, 

Glick, and Gibbs, 1998). 

CeaseFire–Chicago (L–2) is a community-level, gunrelated violence prevention program that has demonstrated effectiveness in gang crime prevention (Skogan et al., 

2008). The program sponsors a strong public education 

campaign to instill the message that shootings and violence are not acceptable, which works to change community norms regarding violence. It provides alternatives to 

violence when gangs and individuals on the street are 

deciding whether to engage in violent actions. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 13 
Additionally, CeaseFire–Chicago strengthens communities, 

gives them the ability to exercise informal social control, 

and mobilizes them to reverse the epidemic of violence. It 

specifically targets dangerous activities of carefully selected 

members of the community who have a great chance of 

either being shot or being shooters in the immediate 

future. Generally speaking, program outreach workers, 

called “violence interrupters” (most of whom are former 

gang members), work on the street and in hospitals to 

mediate conflicts between gangs and especially individual 

gang members, but they also intervene on behalf of clients 

to stem the cycle of retaliatory violence. Outreach workers 

carry caseloads of 15 clients for whom they broker services, 

assist with employment, and provide direct counseling and 

support services in many ways. 

The OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Model (L–2) (Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2008) is a strategic 

planning process that has demonstrated evidence of effectiveness in reducing gang-related crime (Spergel, 2007; 

Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 2006). The model was initially used 

to reduce the level of gang violence among youth involved 

in violent Chicago gangs. It successfully integrated outreach activities (including mentoring) and a variety of services with surveillance and suppression strategies (Spergel, 

2007; Spergel, Wa, and Sosa, 2006). The next iteration 

of the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model added 

primary and secondary prevention components (Wyrick, 

2006). Early evaluations of this second model have shown 

positive results in the gang reduction programs in Boyle 

Heights in Los Angeles and the Southside community in 

Richmond (Hayeslip and Cahill, 2009), and have shown 

promising outcomes for the North Miami Beach gang reduction program. Although an independent evaluation of 

the Pittsburgh and Houston Gang-Free Schools projects 

was not completed, these appear to be very promising 

school-based programs (see Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, 2008). 

Striving Together to Achieve Rewarding Tomorrows 

(CASASTART) is an effective family- and school-centered 

program (L–2) designed to keep high-risk 8- to 13-yearold youth free of substance abuse, delinquency, and gang 

involvement. CASASTART works through a partnership 

between the lead agency, schools, and the police. Compared with control group youth, CASASTART clients 

were less likely to report at followup the use of any drugs, 

involvement in drug trafficking, and violent acts. 

Boys & Girls Clubs Gang Prevention Through Targeted 

Outreach (L–3) is a promising program that fills at-risk 

youth’s (ages 6 to 18) desire for gang membership (i.e., 

a need for supportive adults, challenging activities, and 

a place to belong) with an alternative social activity that 

reinforces positive behaviors (Arbreton and McClanahan, 

2002). 

Boys & Girls Clubs Gang Intervention Through Targeted 

Outreach (L–3) is a promising program that recruits 

gang-involved youth into club membership to decrease 

gang-related behaviors and contact with the juvenile 

justice system.

The Broader Urban Involvement and Leadership Development Detention Program (L–3) is a promising program 

with four components that work with community youth, 

gang members, adult mentors, and adjudicated youth in 

detention centers. 

Movimiento Ascendencia (Upward Movement) (L–3) is a 

promising program for Mexican American girls to prevent 

them from joining gangs and to reduce the gang involvement of active members. 

Some so-called gang “programs” are more properly classified as “structures” in which beneficial program activities (such as gang awareness) are provided along with 

limited therapeutic program services. Gang Resistance Is 

Paramount (L–3) performs both of these functions (Solis, 

Schwartz, and Hinton, 2003), providing a school-based 

anti-gang curriculum, recreational activities, gang awareness education for parents, and counseling for parents and 

youth. 

The Mountlake Terrace Neutral Zone (L–3) (Thurman 

and Mueller, 2003) primarily provides a promising program structure. The center serves as a safe place where 

at-risk youth can voluntarily congregate, engage in social 

activities, and receive counseling and other problemsolving services. 

14 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
A Model for Prevention 

Before choosing any of the aforementioned programs, 

services, or activities, communities and neighborhoods 

that have gangs should complete a comprehensive assessment that identifies elevated risk factors for gangs and how 

gangs affect the local community. An assessment protocol 

is available to assist communities in conducting such an 

assessment through the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang 

Model. An implementation guide is also available. 

These resource materials can be found online at 

www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Publications (Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2008, 

2009a, 2009b). 

OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model helps communities develop a continuum of gang prevention, intervention, and suppression programs and strategies. Prevention 

programs target youth at risk for gang involvement and 

reduce the number of youth who join gangs. Intervention 

programs and strategies provide sanctions and services for 

younger youth who are actively involved in gangs. Law 

enforcement suppression strategies target the most violent 

gangs and older, criminally active gang members. A balanced and integrated approach is most likely to be effective 

(Hayeslip and Cahill, 2009; Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, 2008; Spergel, 2007; Spergel, 

Wa, and Sosa, 2006). 

Points to Consider 

Preventing youth from joining gangs is challenging, and 

most programs have not shown noteworthy results (Howell, 1998, 2000; Klein and Maxson, 2006). Several factors 

contribute to this challenge. They seek a place where they 

are accepted socially and find it in the streets (Vigil, 2002).

Most youth who join gangs experience many risk factors 

and family, school, and community problems. Joining a 

gang can be a natural process for many youth in socially 

and economically deprived areas of large cities. The gang 

may already be there, in their neighborhood, and their 

friends and relatives often belong to it. The gang’s promises of protection gradually envelop these youth. 

Another major problem is the lack of gang awareness in 

schools, among community leaders, and among parents. 

A national study showed that, in the 10 percent of schools 

with the greatest student gang participation rates, only 18 

percent of principals recognized that gangs were a problem in their schools (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 2001). 

Fortunately, school resource officers and safe and drugfree school coordinators recognize gang activity more 

frequently (North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention and Department of Public 

Instruction, 2008).

Despite obstacles, communities can take steps to prevent 

youth from joining gangs. The first level of prevention 

involves changing the experiences that propel children 

and adolescents into gangs. It involves strengthening the 

core social institutions, such as schools and families, which 

sometimes let youth down in the early years of their lives. 

Moreover, communities must provide interventions for 

youth at high risk for delinquency and gang involvement 

early in life, specifically targeting areas where gang problems are serious and more permanent. Programs should 

target girls and boys and both white and minority youth.

Interventions such as effective school-based gang prevention programs are much in demand, and practical steps in 

integrating them with other measures that increase school 

safety have been identified (Lassiter and Perry, 2009). 

Poor implementation of gang-related programs in schools 

is a significant problem (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 

2001). For effective implementation, delinquency and 

crime reduction programs that target children and adolescents must adhere with high fidelity to the requirements 

of the original model and target high-risk offenders 

(Lipsey, 2009). 

Moreover, no programs have been developed specifically 

to prevent gangs from emerging. In the meantime, to prevent youth from joining gangs, communities must employ 

multiple strategies and services, including:

•	 Addressing elevated risk factors for joining a gang. 

•	 Strengthening families. 

•	 Reducing youth’s conflicts.

•	 Improving community-level supervision of youth. 

•	 Providing training for teachers on how to manage 

disruptive students.

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 15 
•	 Providing training for parents of disruptive and delinquent youth.

•	 Reviewing and softening school “zero tolerance” 

policies to reduce suspensions and expulsions.

•	 Ensuring that punitive sanctions target delinquent gang 

behaviors, not gang apparel, signs, and symbols.

•	 Providing tutoring for students who are performing 

poorly in school.

•	 Increasing adult supervision of students after school.

•	 Providing interpersonal skills training to students to 

help resolve conflicts.

•	 Providing a center for youth recreation and referrals 

for services. 

•	 Providing gang awareness training for school personnel, 

parents, and students.

•	 Teaching students that gangs can be dangerous.

•	 Providing training for school resource officers in 

mediating conflicts.

Conclusion

A community with an emerging youth gang problem is 

not alone. Many small cities, towns, and rural areas are 

experiencing gang problems for the first time. In some 

communities, officials jump to the conclusion that gangs 

are present because local youth display gang symbols (such 

as the colors and hand signs of big-city gangs), but these 

conclusions can be mistaken because these actions alone 

do not necessarily signify a genuine gang problem. Local 

groups of youth often imitate big-city gangs, generally in 

an attempt to enhance their self-image or to seek popularity and acceptance among their peers. Although community officials and residents may encounter episodic or solitary 

signs of gang activity in an area (e.g., graffiti, arrest of 

a nonlocal gang member, and other isolated incidents), 

absent further conclusive and ongoing evidence, this does 

not necessarily indicate an “emerging” gang problem 

that is likely to persist. Communities should undertake a 

systematic assessment of the troubling behavior that local 

youth display before developing a plan of action. This bulletin has provided user-friendly tools to assist in such an 

assessment, on which communities can base a tailored and 

appropriate action plan.

Endnotes

1. The National Youth Gang Survey, started in 1996 

and administered annually, measures the presence, characteristics, and behaviors of local gangs in jurisdictions 

throughout the United States. The National Gang Center 

conducts the survey. Each year, the center surveys a nationally representative sample of law enforcement agencies. 

Standard survey questions examine the presence or 

absence of gang activity, the number of gangs and gang 

members, the number of homicides involving gangs, and 

an assessment of the gang problem from the previous 

year. Survey results are presented online at 

www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis.

2. Researchers do not agree on the most important risk 

factors for gang membership. Three credible lists of such 

risk factors have been generated (Howell and Egley, 

2005; Klein and Maxson, 2006; Huizinga and Lovegrove, 

2009). Howell and Egley’s research is detailed in the discussion in the main text of this bulletin. 

Klein and Maxson’s (2006) compilation was drawn 

predominantly from cross-sectional studies (14 of the 20 

studies they reviewed are in this category). The crosssectional studies measure both risk factors and outcomes 

at the same time, hence the causal ordering cannot be 

determined with certainty; what appears to be a predictor 

could well be an outcome of gang involvement. 

Huizinga and Lovegrove (2009) compiled a short list of 

research-supported risk factors from an analysis of a number of longitudinal studies. This list was limited to factors 

that proved especially strong in at least two study sites. 

This method is sound, but the drawback is that only 11 

of 35 statistically significant risk factors met Huizinga and 

Lovegrove’s stringent criteria. Consequently, this listing 

provides few distinctive risk factors. This is problematic 

because research clearly shows that youth who have 

numerous risk factors in multiple domains are most likely 

to join gangs (Krohn and Thornberry, 2008). Moreover, 

research has established that the prevalence of risk factors varies from one community to another (Loeber and 

Farrington, 1998). Therefore, each community should 

examine a broad array of research-supported risk factors to 

identify those that apply to that community. 

3. For more detailed information regarding this literature 

review, see the “Research Review Criteria” in the “Risk 

Factors” section of the OJJDP Strategic Planning Tool 

(www.nationalgangcenter.gov/SPT).

4. Collective efficacy is the propensity of residents to work 

together for the common good of a neighborhood.

5. These components are also integrated in the OJJDP 

Comprehensive Gang Model (Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention, 2008).

6. The OJJDP Model Programs Guide (www2.dsgonline.

com/mpg), an online tool that offers a database of 

evidence-based, scientifically proven programs that address 

16 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
a range of issues, including substance abuse, mental health, 

and education, uses the same program rating scheme. This 

guide contains more detailed information on the programs 

in OJJDP’s Strategic Planning Tool, including evaluation 

information.

7. The OJJDP Strategic Planning Tool provides additional 

information on the gang prevention programs described 

briefly here and other programs. To learn more, see 

www.nationalgangcenter.gov/SPT.

References

Adamson, C. 2000. Defensive localism in white and black: 

A comparative history of European-American and AfricanAmerican youth gangs. Ethnic and Racial Studies 23: 

272–298.

Arbreton, A.J.A., and McClanahan, W. 2002. Targeted 

Outreach: Boys and Girls Clubs of America’s Approach to 

Gang Prevention and Intervention. Philadelphia, PA: 

Public/Private Ventures.

Bernburg, J.G., Krohn, M.D., and Rivera, C.J. 2006. Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent 

delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43:67–88.

Bjerregaard, B. 2002. Self-definitions of gang membership 

and involvement in delinquent activities. Youth and Society

34:31–54. 

Bjerregaard, B., and Smith, C. 1993. Gender differences 

in gang participation, delinquency, and substance use. 

Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9:329–355.

Chandler, K.A., Chapman, C.D., Rand, M.R., and Taylor, 

B.M. 1998. Students’ Reports of School Crime: 1989 and 

1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics and 

National Center for Education Statistics.

Cloward, R.A., and Ohlin, L.E. 1960. Delinquency and 

Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. New York, NY: 

The Free Press.

Cohen, A.K., and Short, J.F., Jr. 1958. Research in delinquent subcultures. Journal of Social Issues 14:20–37.

Craig, W.M., Vitaro, F., Gagnon, C., and Tremblay, R.E. 

2002. The road to gang membership: Characteristics of 

male gang and non-gang members from ages 10 to 14. 

Social Development 11:53–68.

Cureton, S.R. 1999. Gang membership: Gang formation 

and gang joining. Journal of Gang Research 7:13–21.

Curry, G.D., and Decker, S.H. 2003. Confronting Gangs: 

Crime and Community (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: 

Roxbury.

Curry, G.D., Decker, S.H., and Egley, A., Jr. 2002. Gang 

involvement and delinquency in a middle school population. Justice Quarterly 19:275–292.

Davis, J. 1993. Psychological versus sociological explanations for delinquent conduct and gang formation. Journal 

of Contemporary Criminal Justice 9:81–93.

Davis, M.S., and Flannery, D.J. 2001. The institutional 

treatment of gang members. Corrections Management 

Quarterly 5:38–47.

Deas, D. 2008. Evidence-based treatments for alcohol use 

disorders in adolescents. Pediatrics 121:S348–S354.

Debarbieux, E., and Baya, C. 2008. An interactive construction of gangs and ethnicity: The role of school segregation in France. In Street Gangs, Migration and Ethnicity,

edited by F. Van Gemert, D. Peterson, and I.L. Lien. 

Portland, OR: Willan Publishing, pp. 211–226.

Decker, S.H., and Curry, G.D. 2000. Addressing key features of gang membership: Measuring the involvement of 

young members. Journal of Criminal Justice 28:473–482.

Decker, S.H., and Van Winkle, B. 1996. Life in the Gang: 

Family, Friends, and Violence. New York, NY: Cambridge 

University Press.

Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., Baum, K., and Snyder, T.D. 2009. 

Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2008. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 17 
Durlak, J.A. 1998. Common risk and protective factors 

in successful prevention programs. American Journal of 

Orthopsychiatry 68:512–520.

Egley, A., Jr., Howell, J.C., and Major, A.K. 2004. Recent 

patterns of gang problems in the United States: Results 

from the 1996–2002 National Youth Gang Survey. In 

American Youth Gangs at the Millennium, edited by F.-A. 

Esbensen, S.G. Tibbetts, and L. Gaines. Long Grove, IL: 

Waveland Press, Inc., pp. 90–108.

Egley, A., Jr., Howell, J.C., and Moore, J.P. 2010. Highlights of the 2008 National Youth Gang Survey. Fact Sheet. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Eitle, D., Gunkel, S., and Gundy, K.V. 2004. Cumulative 

exposure to stressful life events and male gang membership. Journal of Criminal Justice 32:95–111.

Esbensen, F.-A., Brick, B.T., Melde, C., Tusinski, K., and 

Taylor, T.J. 2008. The role of race and ethnicity in gang 

membership. In Street Gangs, Migration and Ethnicity,

edited by F. Van Gemert, D. Peterson, and I.L. Lien. 

Portland, OR: Willan Publishing, pp. 117–139.

Esbensen, F.-A., and Deschenes, E.P. 1998. A multi-site 

examination of gang membership: Does gender matter? 

Criminology 36:799–828.

Esbensen, F.-A., Deschenes, E.P., and Winfree, L.T. 1999. 

Differences between gang girls and gang boys: Results 

from a multi-site survey. Youth and Society 31:27–53.

Esbensen, F.-A., and Huizinga, D. 1993. Gangs, drugs, 

and delinquency in a survey of urban youth. Criminology

31:565–589.

Esbensen, F.-A., Huizinga, D., and Weiher, A.W. 1993. 

Gang and non-gang youth: Differences in explanatory 

variables. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

9:94–116.

Esbensen, F.-A., and Lynskey, D.P. 2001. Young gang 

members in a school survey. In The Eurogang Paradox: 

Street Gangs and Youth Groups in the U.S. and Europe,

edited by M.W. Klein, H. Kerner, C.L. Maxson, and E. 

Weitekampf. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 93–113.

Esbensen, F.-A., Osgood, D.W., Taylor, T.J., Peterson, 

D., and Freng, A. 2001. How great is G.R.E.A.T.? Results 

from a longitudinal quasi-experimental design. Criminology and Public Policy 1:87–118.

Esbensen, F.-A., Peterson, D., Taylor, T.J., and Freng, A. 

2009. Similarities and differences in risk factors for violent 

offending and gang membership. The Australian and New 

Zealand Journal of Criminology 42:1–26.

Esbensen, F.-A., Peterson, D., Taylor, T.J., and Freng, A. 

2010. Youth Violence: Sex and Race Differences in Offending, Victimization, and Gang Membership. Philadelphia, 

PA: Temple University Press.

Esbensen, F.-A., Winfree, L.T., He, N., and Taylor, T.J. 

2001. Youth gangs and definitional issues: When is a gang 

a gang, and why does it matter? Crime and Delinquency

47:105–130.

Farrington, D.P., and Welsh, B.C. 2007. Saving Children 

from a Life of Crime: Early Risk Factors and Effective Interventions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Fleisher, M.S. 1998. Dead End Kids: Gang Girls and the 

Boys They Know. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Fleisher, M.S. 2006. Youth gang social dynamics and social network analysis: Applying degree centrality measures 

to assess the nature of gang boundaries. In Studying Youth 

Gangs, edited by J.F. Short and L.A. Hughes. Lanham, 

MD: AltaMira Press, pp. 86–99.

Gatti, U., Tremblay, R.E., Vitaro, F., and McDuff, P. 

2005. Youth gangs, delinquency and drug use: A test of 

selection, facilitation, and enhancement hypotheses. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46:1178–1190.

Goldstein, A.P., and Glick, B. 1994. The Prosocial Gang: 

Implementing Aggression Replacement Training. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Goldstein, A.P., Glick, B., and Gibbs, J.C. 1998. Aggression Replacement Training: A Comprehensive Intervention 

for Aggressive Youth. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Gottfredson, G.D., and Gottfredson, D.C. 2001. Gang 

Problems and Gang Programs in a National Sample of 

Schools. Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates.

18 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
Gottfredson, G.D., Gottfredson, D.C., Payne, A.A., and 

Gottfredson, N.C. 2005. School climate predictors of 

disorder: Results from a national study of delinquency 

prevention in schools. Journal of Research in Crime and 

Delinquency 42:412–444.

Hayeslip, D., and Cahill, M. 2009. Community Collaboratives Addressing Youth Gangs: Final Evaluation Findings 

from the Gang Reduction Program. Washington, DC: 

Urban Institute.

Hemphill, S.A., Toumborou, J.W., Herrenkohl, T.L., 

McMorris, B.J., and Catalano, R.F. 2006. The effect of 

school suspensions and arrests on subsequent adolescent 

behavior in Australia and the United States. Journal of 

Adolescent Health 39:736–744.

Hill, K.G., Howell, J.C., Hawkins, J.D., and BattinPearson, S.R. 1999. Childhood risk factors for adolescent 

gang membership: Results from the Seattle Social Development Project. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36:300–322.

Hill, K.G., Lui, C., and Hawkins, J.D. 2001. Early Precursors of Gang Membership: A Study of Seattle Youth. Bulletin. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C. 1998. Promising programs for youth gang 

violence prevention and intervention. In Serious and 

Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful 

Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 284–312.

Howell, J.C. 2000. Youth Gang Programs and Strategies.

Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C. 2003. Preventing and Reducing Juvenile 

Delinquency: A Comprehensive Framework. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Howell, J.C. 2004. Youth gangs: Prevention and intervention. In Intervention With Children and Adolescents: An 

Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited by P. Allen-Meares and 

M.W. Fraser. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 493–514.

Howell, J.C. 2007. Menacing or mimicking? Realities 

of youth gangs. The Juvenile and Family Court Journal

58:9–20.

Howell, J.C. 2009. Preventing and Reducing Juvenile 

Delinquency: A Comprehensive Framework (2nd ed.). 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Howell, J.C., and Egley, A., Jr. 2005. Moving risk factors 

into developmental theories of gang membership. Youth 

Violence and Juvenile Justice 3:334–354.

Howell, J.C., and Moore, J.P. 2010. History of Street 

Gangs in the United States. Tallahassee, FL: National Gang 

Center.

Huff, C.R. 1996. The criminal behavior of gang members 

and non-gang at-risk youth. In Gangs in America, edited 

by C.R. Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 

75–102.

Huff, C.R. 1998. Comparing the Criminal Behavior of 

Youth Gangs and At-Risk Youth. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Hughes, L.A. 2006. Studying youth gangs: The importance of context. In Studying Youth Gangs, edited by J.F. 

Short and L.A. Hughes. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, pp. 

37–46.

Huizinga, D., and Henry, K.L. 2008. The effect of arrest 

and justice system sanctions on subsequent behavior: Findings from longitudinal and other studies. In The Long View 

of Crime: A Synthesis of Longitudinal Research, edited by 

A. Liberman. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 220–254.

Huizinga, D., and Lovegrove, P. 2009. Summary of Important Risk Factors for Gang Membership. Boulder, CO: 

Institute for Behavioral Research.

Institute of Medicine. 2008. Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Kaplan, H.B., and Damphouse, K.R. 1997. Negative social sanctions, self-derogation, and deviant behavior: Main 

and interactive effects in longitudinal perspective. Deviant 

Behavior 18:1–26.

Klein, M.W. 1995. The American Street Gang. New York, 

NY: Oxford University Press.

Klein, M.W. 2002. Street gangs: A cross-national perspective. In Gangs in America III, edited by C.R. Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 237–254.

Klein, M.W., and Maxson, C.L. 2006. Street Gang Patterns and Policies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Krohn, M.D., and Thornberry, T.P. 2008. Longitudinal 

perspectives on adolescent street gangs. In The Long View 

of Crime: A Synthesis of Longitudinal Research, edited by 

A. Liberman. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 128–160.

Kupersmidt, J.B., Coie, J.D., and Howell, J.C. 2003. 

Building resilience in children exposed to negative peer 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 19 
influences. In Investing in Children, Youth, Families, and 

Communities: Strengths-Based Research and Policy, edited 

by K.I. Maton, C.J. Schellenbach, B.J. Leadbeater, and 

A.L. Solarz. Washington, DC: American Psychological 

Association, pp. 251–268.

Lahey, B.B., Gordon, R.A., Loeber, R., StouthamerLoeber, M., and Farrington, D.P. 1999. Boys who join 

gangs: A prospective study of predictors of first gang entry. 

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 27:261–276.

Lassiter, W.L., and Perry, D.C. 2009. Preventing Violence 

and Crime in America’s Schools: From Put-Downs to LockDowns. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Le Blanc, M., and Lanctot, N. 1998. Social and psychological characteristics of gang members according to the 

gang structure and its subcultural and ethnic makeup. 

Journal of Gang Research 5:15–28.

Li, X., Stanton, B., Pack, R., Harris, C., Cottrell, L., and 

Burns, J. 2002. Risk and protective factors associated with 

gang involvement among urban African American adolescents. Youth and Society 34:172–194.

Lipsey, M.W. 2009. The primary factors that characterize 

effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A metaanalytic overview. Victims and Offenders 4:124–147.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds. 1998. Serious and 

Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Loeber, R., and Farrington D.P., eds. 2001. Child Delinquents: Development, Interventions, and Service Needs.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Maxson, C.L., Whitlock, M., and Klein, M.W. 1998. 

Vulnerability to street gang membership: Implications for 

prevention. Social Service Review 72:70–91.

Miller, J.A. 2001. One of the Guys: Girls, Gangs and Gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Miller, W.B. 1992 (Revised from 1982). Crime by Youth 

Gangs and Groups in the United States. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention.

Miller, W.B. 2001. The Growth of Youth Gang Problems in 

the United States: 1970–1998. Report. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Moore, J.W. 1991. Going Down to the Barrio: Homeboys 

and Homegirls in Change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Morenoff, J.D., Sampson, R.J., and Raudenbush, S.W. 

2001. Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and 

the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology

39:517–559.

Morrison, G.M., and Skiba, R. 2001. Predicting violence 

from school misbehavior: Promises and perils. Psychology in 

Schools 38:173–184.

National Gang Center. 2010. National Youth Gang Survey 

Analysis. Available from: www.nationalgangcenter.gov/

Survey-Analysis.

North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and Department of Public Instruction. 

2008. School Violence/Gang Activity Study (S.L. 2008–56). 

Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Oehme, C.G. 1997. Gangs, Groups and Crime: Perceptions 

and Responses of Community Organizations. Durham, NC: 

Carolina Academic Press.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

2008. Best Practices to Address Community Gang Problems: 

OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

2009a. OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model: A Guide to 

Assessing Your Community’s Youth Gang Problem. Tallahassee, FL: National Youth Gang Center, Institute for 

Intergovernmental Research.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

2009b. OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model: Planning for 

Implementation. Tallahassee, FL: National Youth Gang 

Center, Institute for Intergovernmental Research.

Papachristos, A.V. 2006. Social network analysis and gang 

research: Theory and methods. In Studying Youth Gangs,

edited by J.F. Short and L.A. Hughes. Lanham, MD: 

AltaMira Press, pp. 99–116.

Papachristos, A.V., and Kirk, D.S. 2006. Neighborhood 

effects on street gang behavior. In Studying Youth Gangs,

edited by J.F. Short and L.A. Hughes. Lanham, MD: 

AltaMira Press, pp. 63–84.

Peterson, D., Taylor, T.J., and Esbensen, F.-A. 2004. 

Gang membership and violent victimization. Justice Quarterly 21:793–815.

Pyrooz, D.C., Fox, A.M., and Decker, S.H. 2010. Racial 

and ethnic heterogeneity, economic disadvantage, and 

gangs: A macro-level study of gang membership in urban 

America. Justice Quarterly 27:1–26.

20 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
Redl, F. 1945. The psychology of gang formation and the 

treatment of juvenile delinquents. Psychoanalytic Study of 

the Child 1:367–377.

Resnick, M.D., Ireland, M., and Borowsky, I. 2004. Youth 

violence perpetration: What protects? What predicts? Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent 

Health. Journal of Adolescent Health 35:424.e1–424.e10.

Short, J.F., Jr., and Strodtbeck, F.L. 1974 (Revised from 

1965). Group Process and Gang Delinquency. Chicago, IL: 

University of Chicago Press.

Skogan, W.G., Hartnett, S.M., Bump, N., and Dubois, 

J. 2008. Evaluation of CeaseFire–Chicago. Chicago, IL: 

Northwestern University.

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention.

Solis, A., Schwartz, W., and Hinton, T. 2003. Gang Resistance Is Paramount (GRIP) Program Evaluation: Final 

Report. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, Center for Economic Development.

Spergel, I.A. 1995. The Youth Gang Problem. New York, 

NY: Oxford University Press.

Spergel, I.A. 2007. Reducing Youth Gang Violence: The 

Little Village Gang Project in Chicago. Lanham, MD: 

AltaMira Press.

Spergel, I.A., Wa, K.M., and Sosa, R.V. 2006. The comprehensive, community-wide, gang program model: Success and failure. In Studying Youth Gangs, edited by J.F. 

Short and L.A. Hughes. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 

pp. 203–224.

Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., Stallings, R., and 

Lacourse, E. 2008. Desistance from and persistence in 

offending. In Violence and Serious Theft: Development and 

Prediction from Childhood to Adulthood, edited by R. Loeber, D.P. Farrington, M. Stouthamer-Loeber, and H.R. 

White. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 269–306.

Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., Wei, E., Farrington, 

D.P., and Wikstrom, P.H. 2002. Risk and promotive effects in the explanation of persistent serious delinquency 

in boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 

70:111–123.

Taylor, T.J. 2008. The boulevard ain’t safe for your kids . . . 

Youth gang membership and violent victimization. Journal 

of Contemporary Criminal Justice 24:125–136.

Taylor, T.J., Freng, A., Esbensen, F.-A., and Peterson, D. 

2008. Youth gang membership and serious violent victimization: The importance of lifestyles and routine activities. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 23:1441–1464.

Taylor, T.J., Peterson, D., Esbensen, F.-A., and Freng, 

A. 2007. Gang membership as a risk factor for adolescent 

violent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and 

Delinquency 44:352–380.

Thornberry, T.P., Krohn, M.D., Lizotte, A.J., Smith, C.A., 

and Tobin, K. 2003. Gangs and Delinquency in Developmental Perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University 

Press.

Thornberry, T.P., Lizotte, A.J., Krohn, M.D., Smith, C.A., 

and Porter, P.K. 2003. Causes and consequences of delinquency: Findings from the Rochester Youth Development 

Study. In Taking Stock of Delinquency: An Overview of 

Findings from Contemporary Longitudinal Studies, edited 

by T.P. Thornberry and M.D. Krohn. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 11–46.

Thrasher, F.M. 2000 (Revised from 1927). The Gang: A 

Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University 

of Chicago Press.

Thurman, Q.C., and Mueller, D.G. 2003. Beyond curfews 

and crackdowns: An overview of the Mountlake Terrace 

Neutral Zone-AmeriCorps program. In Policing Gangs 

and Youth Violence, edited by S.H. Decker. Belmont, CA: 

Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, pp. 167–187.

Tita, G., and Ridgeway, G. 2007. The impact of gang 

formation on local patterns of crime. Journal of Research 

in Crime and Delinquency 44:208–237.

Tremblay, R.E., Masse, L., Pagani, L., and Vitaro, F. 

1996. From childhood physical aggression to adolescent 

maladjustment: The Montreal Prevention Experiment. 

In Preventing Childhood Disorders, Substance Abuse, and 

Delinquency, edited by R.D. Peters and R.J. McMahon. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 268–298.

Valdez, A. 2007. Mexican American Girls and Gang Violence: Beyond Risk. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Vigil, J.D. 1988. Barrio Gangs: Street Life and Identity in 

Southern California. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Vigil, J.D. 1993. The established gang. In Gangs: The 

Origins and Impact of Contemporary Youth Gangs in the 

United States, edited by S. Cummings and D.J. Monti. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 95–112.

Vigil, J.D. 2002. A Rainbow of Gangs: Street Cultures in 

the Mega-City. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 21 
Vigil, J.D. 2008. Mexican migrants in gangs: A secondgeneration history. In Street Gangs, Migration, and Ethnicity, edited by F. Van Gemert, D. Peterson, and I.L. Lien. 

Portland, OR: Willan Publishing, p. 62.

Warr, M. 2002. Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of 

Criminal Conduct. New York, NY: Cambridge University 

Press.

Weisel, D.L., and Howell, J.C. 2007. Comprehensive Gang 

Assessment: A Report to the Durham Police Department and 

Durham County Sheriff’s Office. Durham, NC: Durham 

Police Department.

Welsh, B.C., and Farrington, D.P. 2007. Save children 

from a life of crime. Criminology and Public Policy

6:871–879.

Wood, J., and Alleyne, E. 2010. Street gang theory and 

practice: Where are we now and where do we go from 

here? Aggression and Violent Behavior 15:100–111.

Wyrick, P.A. 2000. Vietnamese Youth Gang Involvement.

Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention.

Wyrick, P.A. 2006. Gang prevention: How to make the 

“front end” of your anti-gang effort work. United States 

Attorneys’ Bulletin 54:52–60.

Wyrick, P.A., and Howell, J.C. 2004. Strategic risk-based 

response to youth gangs. Juvenile Justice 10:20–29.

22 Juvenile Justice Bulletin

24 Juvenile Justice Bulletin

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications 

are not copyright protected. We encourage you 

to reproduce this document, share it with your 

colleagues, and reprint it in your newsletter 

or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite 

OJJDP and the authors of this bulletin. We are 

also interested in your feedback, such as how 

you received a copy, how you intend to use the 

information, and how OJJDP materials meet 

your individual or agency needs. 

Acknowledgments

James C. Howell, Ph.D., is a senior research associate with the National Gang 

Center (NGC). The author is grateful to John P. Moore, Director of the NGC, 

and Dr. Finn-Aage Esbensen, University of Missouri–St. Louis, for their careful 

reviews and helpful comments.

This bulletin was prepared under grant number 

2007–JV–FX–0008 from the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 

U.S. Department of Justice.

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.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP *NCJ~231116* Permit No. G–91

Please direct comments 

and/or questions to:

National Criminal Justice 

Reference Service 

P.O. Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849–6000 

800–851–3420 

301–519–5600 (fax) 

Web: tellncjrs.ncjrs.gov

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the 

Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Community 

Capacity Development Office; the National 

Institute of Justice; the Office for Victims 

of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender 

Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 

Registering, and Tracking (SMART).

NCJ 231116