U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator September 2000

Preventing

Adolescent Gang

Involvement

Finn-Aage Esbensen

The proliferation of youth gangs since 1980

has fueled the public’s fear and magnified

possible misconceptions about youth gangs.

To address the mounting concern about

youth gangs, the Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s)

Youth Gang Series delves into many of the

key issues related to youth gangs. The series considers issues such as gang migration, gang growth, female involvement with

gangs, homicide, drugs and violence, and

the needs of communities and youth who

live in the presence of youth gangs.

The expansion of the American youth

gang problem during the past decade has

been widely documented. National survey

findings that have noted the spread of

gangs throughout the United States indicate that law enforcement agencies across

the country are acknowledging the presence of youth gangs in their communities.1

 In particular, recent survey results

have documented the presence of youth

gangs in rural areas. Most of these rural

gangs appear to be primarily homegrown

problems and not the result of the social

migration of urban gang youth.

The emergence of youth gangs in rural

areas and in cities previously without

gangs coincided with the juvenile violent

crime wave of the 1980’s and early 1990’s.

The issue of whether youth gangs were

responsible for the juvenile violent crime

wave in the United States is beyond the

scope of this Bulletin. However, given the

relationship between gang membership

and violent offending,2

 it makes sense to

examine the youth gang problem within

the larger context of youth violence.

American society demonstrated a heightened concern about juvenile violence during the past 30 years. Demographic consequences of the baby boom were, in large

part, responsible for this concern. During

the 1960’s, the number of individuals ages

13–17 rose to 10 percent of the total population, leading to a corresponding increase in the number of crimes occurring

within this cohort. By the mid-1980’s,

youth in this age range had fallen to 7 percent of the total population. However, the

number of juvenile crimes did not see a

similar decrease, resulting in an increase

in the juvenile crime rate (Zimring, 1998).

Public concern continued to focus on juvenile violence, drug use, and delinquent 1

 These include recent surveys by the National Youth

Gang Center (1997, 1999a, 1999b, and in press; Moore

and Terrett, 1999; Moore and Cook, 1999) and several

earlier surveys (Miller, 1982; Spergel, 1990; Klein, 1995;

Curry, Ball, and Fox, 1994; Curry, Ball, and Decker, 1996).

For a review of these earlier surveys, see Howell, 1995.

2

 Decker and van Winkle, 1996; Esbensen and Huizinga,

1993; Esbensen and Winfree, 1998; Thornberry et al.,

1993.

From the Administrator

The growth of youth gangs over the

past few decades is a major cause

for concern, particularly with the

emergence of youth gangs in rural

areas and cities without previous

gang problems. While there are no

simple solutions to ending the youth

gang problem, this Bulletin provides

the reader with information to better

understand its complexity, while

dispelling common gang stereotypes.

After describing the key characteristics of youth gangs, the Bulletin examines risk factors for gang membership, including individual and family

demographics, personal attributes,

and peer group, school, and community factors.

Gang prevention strategies are presented and illustrated with examples

of primary, secondary, and tertiary

prevention programs. Primary prevention targets the entire at-risk population, while secondary prevention

focuses on those identified as being

at greatest risk for delinquency.

Finally, tertiary prevention efforts

involve juvenile offenders and youth

gang members.

In sum, this Bulletin offers a solid

foundation on which to build a

comprehensive strategy to prevent

youth gang involvement, examining

the youth gang problem within the

larger context of juvenile violence.

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator
2

behavior. Following an apparent hiatus of

youth gangs during the 1970’s (BookinWeiner and Horowitz, 1983), American

society witnessed a reemergence of youth

gang activity and media interest in this

phenomenon in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

“Colors,” “Boyz in the Hood,” other Hollywood productions, and MTV brought Los

Angeles gang life to suburban and rural

America. Recent research also suggests

that youth gangs now exist in Europe and

other foreign localities (Covey, Menard,

and Franzese, 1997; Klein, 1995).

Concurrent with the reemergence of

gangs, the juvenile homicide rate doubled

(Covey, Menard, and Franzese, 1997) and

crack cocaine became an affordable drug

of choice for urban youth. In spite of the

decline in juvenile violence during the

1990’s, concern about this issue continued

as a dominant topic in public discourse.

Fox (1996) and DiIulio (1995) were among

the more widely cited authors who warned

of an impending blood bath as a new cohort of superpredators (young, ruthless,

violent offenders with casual attitudes

about violence) would cause an increase

in homicides in the 21st century. The media quickly spread this gloomy scenario.

Zimring (1998), however, disputed these

doomsday predictions by highlighting the

erroneous assumptions underlying them.

For example, the predictions were based

on the belief that 6 percent of the population would become serious delinquents.

DiIulio (1995) argued that by 2010, the

population of boys under age 18 in the

United States would grow from 32 million

to 36.5 million, and that this increase would

result in an additional 270,000 serious delinquents. However, this estimate suggested

that 1.9 million superpredators already

existed in the United States (6 percent of

32 million). Zimring (1998:62) noted,

“That happens to be more young people

than were accused of any form of delinquency last year in the United States”

(emphasis added).

How is this discussion relevant to a Bulletin on gang prevention programs? Just

as the superpredator notion took on a

life of its own in the media, so too has

the image of the drug-crazed, drug-dealing,

gang-banging gang member. In fact, the

tendency is to consider gang members

and superpredators as one and the same.

This depiction of youth gang members

as marauding, drug-dealing murderers

has underlying errors similar to those

inherent in the superpredator concept.

For the majority of the time, gang youth

engage in the same activities as other

youth—sleeping, attending school,

hanging out, working odd jobs. Only a

fraction of their time is dedicated to

gang activity. Klein (1995:11) summarized gang life as being “a very dull life.

For the most part, gang members do very

little—sleep, get up late, hang around,

brag a lot, eat again, drink, hang around

some more. It’s a boring life.” In his book

about Kansas City, MO, gang members,

Fleisher (1998) provided numerous descriptive accounts of this lifestyle. Although gang life may not be as exciting

or as violent as media portrayals might

suggest, one consistent finding across

all research methodologies is that gang

youth are in fact more criminally involved than other youth. Illegal behavior

attributed to youth gangs is a serious

problem for which hype and sensationalism are neither required nor warranted.

Regardless of study design or research

methodology, considerable consensus

exists regarding the high rate of criminal

offending among gang members. With

the increase in gang membership and in

the violent juvenile crime rate during the

past decade (Cook and Laub, 1998) and

with the availability of increasingly lethal weapons, criminal activity by gang

members has taken on new importance for

law enforcement and prevention efforts.

What Is Known About

American Youth

Gangs?

Although this Bulletin focuses on gang

prevention programs, it is essential to

first review what is known about American youth gangs. Aside from the high rate

of criminal activity among gang members,

what is known about this adolescent phenomenon? What risk factors are associated

with the emergence of gangs, and who joins

these gangs once they have formed? Are

gang members stable or transient? Are

they delinquent prior to their gang associations? Are there identifiably different

social processes (reasons for joining the

gang or expected benefits from gang life)

involved for girls and boys who join

gangs? These are some of the questions

that should help to shape gang prevention efforts.

In spite of years of research and years of

suppression, intervention, and prevention

efforts, considerable disagreement exists

regarding the nature and extent of youth

gangs. Debate still centers on how to define gangs. For instance, how many youth

constitute a gang? Must the gang members commit crimes as a gang to be considered a gang? Must gangs have an organizational structure? Should skinhead

groups, white supremacist groups, and

motorcycle gangs be considered part of

the youth gang problem? These definitional questions reveal both a lack of consensus about the magnitude of the gang

problem and confusion about what policies might best address it (Covey,

Menard, and Franzese, 1997; Klein, 1995;

Spergel, 1995).

Generally, for a group to be classified a

youth gang, the following elements should

exist:

◆ The group must have more than two

members. Given what is known about

youth offending patterns (most offenses are committed in groups of two

or more) and what has been learned
3

from studying gangs, a gang seldom

consists of only two members.

◆ Group members must fall within a limited age range, generally acknowledged

as ages 12 to 24.

◆ Members must share some sense of

identity. This is generally accomplished

by naming the gang (often referring to

a specific geographic location in the

name) and/or using symbols or colors

to claim gang affiliation. Hand signs,

graffiti, specific clothing styles, bandannas, and hats are among the common symbols of gang loyalty.

◆ Youth gangs require some permanence. Gangs are different from transient youth groups in that they show

stability over time, generally lasting a

year or more. Historically, youth gangs

have also been associated with a particular geographical area or turf.

◆ Involvement in criminal activity is a

central element of youth gangs. While

some disagreement surrounds this criterion, it is important to differentiate

gangs from noncriminal youth groups

such as school and church clubs, which

also meet all of the preceding criteria.

For further discussion of the issues associated with defining youth gangs, consult

Covey, Menard, and Franzese (1997);

Curry and Decker (1998); or Klein (1995).

What Are the Risk

Factors?

To prevent gangs from forming and to

keep juveniles from joining existing gangs,

it is necessary to understand the causes

of gang formation and the underlying attraction of gangs. A considerable number

of theoretical statements address these

issues. Hagedorn (1988), Jackson (1991),

and Klein (1995) are among the authors

who argue that gang formation is a product of postindustrial development. Klein

(1995:234) states, “Street gangs are an

amalgam of racism, of urban underclass

poverty, of minority and youth culture,

of fatalism in the face of rampant deprivation, of political insensitivity, and the

gross ignorance of inner-city (and innertown) America on the part of most of us

who don’t have to survive there.” The

early work of Thrasher (1927) and other

Chicago-based gang researchers emphasized the importance of structural and

community factors. They believed that

delinquency in general and youth gangs

in particular were products of the social

environment and that these societal factors may also contribute to juveniles’ joining gangs. However, because most youth

who reside in areas where gangs exist

choose not to join these gangs, additional

factors are required to explain why youth

join gangs. The following sections provide

an overview of the research examining

risk factors associated with gang membership. They focus on the following five domains: individual and family demographics, personal attributes, peer group,

school, and community.

Individual and Family

Demographics

Traditionally, the typical gang member is

male, lives in the inner city, and is a member of a racial or ethnic minority. Although

these characteristics may be prevalent

among gang members, it should not be

assumed that all, or even the overwhelming majority of, gang members share these

demographic qualities. In addition to

changes in the geographical distribution

of gangs (that is, the proliferation into

nonurban areas) documented by Klein

(1995); Curry, Ball, and Fox (1994); Curry,

Ball, and Decker (1996); and the National

Youth Gang Center (NYGC) surveys,

research in the past 20 years has highlighted the presence of girls in gangs

(Bjerregard and Smith, 1993; ChesneyLind, 1997; Curry, 1998; and Esbensen

and Winfree, 1998). Evidence also shows

that gang membership is not restricted to

youth from racial and ethnic minorities.

Gang behavior has been described almost

exclusively as a male phenomenon. Law

enforcement estimates generally indicate

that more than 90 percent of gang members are male (Curry, Ball, and Fox, 1994).

Early references to female gang members

were usually restricted to their involvement in sexual activities or as tomboys;

they were rarely included in any serious

discussions about gangs. The little that

was said about gang girls suggested that

they were socially inept, maladjusted, and

sexually promiscuous and that they suffered from low self-esteem.

Recent survey research, however, suggests that females may account for more

than one-third of youth gang members

(Esbensen and Winfree, 1998). In addition,

a number of contemporary researchers

have moved beyond the stereotypical notion that female gang members are merely

auxiliary members of male gangs and

have proposed gender-specific explanations of gang affiliation (Campbell, 1991;

Chesney-Lind and Shelden, 1992; Fishman,

1995; Miller, 1998). Some researchers have

explored the possibility that girls join

gangs in search of a sense of belonging to

a peer “familial” group (Giordano, 1978;

Harris, 1988; Joe and Chesney-Lind, 1995).

For example, in an ethnographic study of

Latina gang members in male-dominated

Hispanic gangs in the San Fernando Valley

of California, Harris (1988) concluded that

Latina gang members were lost between

two worlds—Anglo and Mexican American society and culture. The complex social and cultural roles of Latinas, according to Harris, are displayed in Latina gang

membership and behavior in which females found peers with whom they could

relate. The females would “fight instead of

flee, assault instead of articulate, and kill

rather than control their aggression”

(Harris, 1988:174).

Another myth about the demographics of

gang youth is that they are almost exclusively members of ethnic or racial minorities. Some law enforcement estimates

and studies based on law enforcement

samples indicate that 85 to 90 percent

of gang members are African American

or Hispanic (Covey, Menard, and Franzese,

1997). However, more recent law enforcement estimates from the 1998 National

Youth Gang Survey (National Youth Gang

Center, in press) indicate that earlier estimates may overstate the minority representation of gang members. The survey

revealed that the race or ethnicity of

gang members is closely tied to the size

of the community. While Caucasians constituted only 11 percent of gang members

in large cities (where most gang research

has taken place), they accounted for approximately 30 percent of gang members

in small cities and rural counties. Lending

credence to law enforcement estimates

are ethnographers’ depictions of gang

youth, usually based on research conducted in socially disorganized communities (that is, characterized by high rates

of poverty, mobility, welfare dependency,

and single-parent households) in Los Angeles, New York, or other urban areas

with high concentrations of minority residents. More general surveys that examine

youth gangs also tend to be restricted to

specific locations that do not include

diverse population samples. For example,

longitudinal studies in Denver and Rochester (Bjerregard and Smith, 1993; Esbensen and Huizinga, 1993; Thornberry et al.,

1993), part of the OJJDP-funded Program

of Research on the Causes and Correlates

of Delinquency, were concentrated in
4

high-risk neighborhoods that (by definition) included disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic minorities.

It is worthwhile to note that the early gang

studies provided a rich source of information about white urban gangs. These early

gangs were usually described according to

nationality and/or ethnicity, not race. Researchers began to identify gang members

by race in the 1950’s (Spergel, 1995). This

change in gang composition is closely tied

to the social disorganization of urban

areas and the research focus on urban

youth. Covey, Menard, and Franzese

(1997:240) suggested that the scarcity of

non-Hispanic, white, ethnic gangs may be

attributable to the smaller proportion of

non-Hispanic European Americans residing

in neighborhoods characterized by social

disorganization.

As research expands to more representative samples of the general population,

a redefinition of the racial and ethnic

composition of gang members is likely.

Esbensen and Lynskey (in press) report

that community-level demographics are

reflected in the composition of youth

gangs; that is, gang members are white

in primarily white communities and are

African American in predominantly African

American communities.

Family characteristics of gang members,

such as family structure and parental

education and income, also have been

revised, because the traditional stereotype of gang members as urban, minority

males from single-parent families is too

restrictive. In fact, gang youth are found

in intact two-parent, single-parent, and

recombined families. In addition, gang

youth are not limited to homes in which

parents have low educational achievement or low incomes. Klein (1995:75–76)

summarizes gang characteristics as follows (emphasis added):

[I]t is not sufficient to say that gang

members come from lower-income

areas, from minority populations, or

from homes more often characterized

by absent parents or reconstituted

families. It is not sufficient because

most youths from such areas, such

groups, and such families do not

join gangs.

Although it would be erroneous to conclude that demographic characteristics

alone can explain gang affiliation, individual factors are nevertheless clearly

associated with gang membership; that

is, minority youth residing in single-parent

households are at greater risk for joining

gangs than are white youth from two-parent

households.

Personal Attributes

Some researchers (for example, Yablonsky,

1962) have found that, compared with

nongang youth, gang members are more

socially inept, have lower self-esteem, and,

in general, have sociopathic characteristics. Moffitt (1993) stated that youth gang

members are likely to be “life-course persistent offenders.” To what extent are such

depictions accurate? Are gang youth substantially different from nongang youth?

Recent surveys in which gang and nongang

youth’s attitudes were compared found

few consistent differences.3

 This lack of

consistent findings, however, may reflect

differences in survey methods and question content. Comparisons between gang

and nongang youth have been reported

from Rochester (Bjerregard and Smith,

1993), Seattle (Hill et al., 1999), and San

Diego (Maxson, Whitlock, and Klein, 1998).

These authors used different questions

and different sampling methods and reported slightly different findings. In the

Seattle study, Hill and colleagues (1999)

found that gang youth held more antisocial

beliefs, while Maxson, Whitlock, and Klein

(1998), among others, found that gang members had more delinquent self-concepts

(based on statements such as the following: “I’m the kind of person who gets into

fights a lot, is a bad kid, gets into trouble,

and does things against the law.”), had

greater tendencies to resolve conflicts by

threats, and had experienced more critical

stressful events. On a more generic level,

both the Seattle and San Diego studies

found significant differences between gang

and nongang youth within multiple contexts; that is, individual, school, peer,

family, and community characteristics.

Extending this comparative approach,

Esbensen, Huizinga, and Weiher (1993) examined gang youth, serious youthful offenders who were not gang members, and nondelinquent youth. Their findings indicated

that the nondelinquent youth were different

from the delinquent and gang youth—

nondelinquent youth reported lower levels

of commitment to delinquent peers, lower

levels of social isolation, lower tolerance for

deviance, and higher levels of commitment

to positive peers. In a partial replication of

the study by Esbensen, Huizinga, and

Weiher (1993), Deschenes and Esbensen

(1997) found a continuum extending from

nondelinquent to minor delinquent to serious delinquent to gang member. Based

on delinquency scores, they categorized

eighth grade students into one of these four

classifications. On every measure tested,

gang members were significantly different

from each of the other groups but were

clearly the most distinct from nondelinquents (generally, at least one standard

deviation above the mean). Gang members

were more impulsive, engaged in more riskseeking behavior, were less committed to

school, and reported less communication

with, and lower levels of attachment to,

their parents. Nongang youth were more

committed to prosocial peers and less committed to delinquent peers.

Using a somewhat different approach,

Esbensen et al. (in press) examined differences among gang members. They classified gang members on a continuum, beginning with a broad definition of gang

members and gradually restricting the

definition to include only those youth who

claimed to be core members of a delinquent gang that had a certain level of organizational structure. They found significant attitudinal and behavioral differences

between core gang members and those

more broadly classified as gang members.

They did not find any differences in regard

to demographic factors.

In another report from the Seattle study,

Battin-Pearson and colleagues (1997)

compared nongang youth, transient gang

youth (members for 1 year or less), and

stable gang youth (members for 2 or more

years). Both the transient and stable gang

members differed significantly from the

nongang youth on a variety of attitudinal

and behavioral measures. However, few

distinctions between the transient and

stable gang members were found. The

measures on which differences occurred

tended to represent individual- and peerlevel measures (for example, personal

attitudes and delinquency of friends).

Research shows that the notion of youth

joining gangs for life is a myth. While some

members make the gang a lifelong endeavor,

findings from three longitudinal studies indicate that one-half to two-thirds are members for 1 year or less (Battin-Pearson et al.,

1997; Esbensen and Huizinga, 1993;

Thornberry, 1998).

3

 Bjerregard and Smith, 1993; Esbensen, Huizinga, and

Weiher, 1993; Esbensen and Deschenes, 1998; Hill et al.,

1999; Maxson, Whitlock, and Klein, 1998.
5

Peer Group, School, and

Community Factors

One consistent finding from research on

gangs, as is the case for research on delinquency in general, is the overarching

influence of peers on adolescent behavior

(Battin-Pearson et al., 1997; Menard and

Elliott, 1994; Warr and Stafford, 1991). In

their comparison of stable and transient

gang youth, Battin-Pearson and colleagues

reported that the strongest predictors of

sustained gang affiliation were a high

level of interaction with antisocial peers

and a low level of interaction with prosocial

peers. Researchers have examined the

influence of peers through a variety of

measures, including exposure to delinquent peers, attachment to delinquent

peers, and commitment to delinquent

peers. Regardless of how this peer affiliation is measured, the results are the same:

Association with delinquent peers is one

of the strongest predictors (that is, risk

factors) of gang membership.

Gang researchers examine school factors

less frequently than other factors. However, they have found that these issues

are consistently associated with the risk

of joining gangs. Research indicates that

gang youth are less committed to school

than nongang youth (Bjerregard and

Smith, 1993; Esbensen and Deschenes,

1998; Hill et al., 1999; Maxson, Whitlock,

and Klein, 1998). Some gender differences

have been reported in regard to this issue. In OJJDP’s Rochester study, expectations for educational attainment were predictive of gang membership for girls but

not for boys. In a similar vein, Esbensen

and Deschenes (1998) found that commitment to school was lower among gang

girls than nongang girls. No such differences were found for boys. Studies that

examine juveniles’ cultures and ethnic

backgrounds also attest to the role of

school factors in explaining gang membership (Campbell, 1991; Fleisher, 1998).

The community is the domain examined

most frequently in regard to both the

emergence of gangs and the factors associated with joining gangs. Numerous studies indicate that poverty, unemployment,

the absence of meaningful jobs, and social disorganization contribute to the

presence of gangs (Curry and Thomas,

1992; Fagan, 1990; Hagedorn, 1988, 1991;

Huff, 1990; Vigil, 1988). There is little debate that gangs are more prominent in

urban areas and that they are more likely

to emerge in economically distressed

neighborhoods. However, as previously

stated, surveys conducted by NYGC during the 1990’s identified the proliferation

of youth gangs in rural and suburban

communities. Except for law enforcement

identification of this phenomenon, few

systematic studies have explored these

rural and suburban youth gangs. Winfree,

Vigil-Backstrom, and Mays (1994) studied

youth gang members in Las Cruces, NM,

and Esbensen and Lynskey (in press)

looked at gang youth in rural areas and

small cities that were included in an 11-site

study. Although neither of these reports

addressed environmental characteristics,

they did indicate a substantial level of

violence by these gang members.

The traditional image of American youth

gangs is characterized by urban social

disorganization and economic marginalization; the housing projects or barrios

of Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York

are viewed as the stereotypical homes

of youth gang members. The publication

of Wilson’s (1987) account of the

underclass—those members of society

who are truly disadvantaged and affected

by changes in social and economic conditions—has renewed interest in the social

disorganization perspective advanced by

Thrasher (1927) and Shaw and McKay

(1942). Los Angeles barrio gangs, according to Vigil (1988) and Moore (1991), are

a product of economic restructuring and

street socialization. Vigil (1988:9) refers

to the multiple marginality (that is, the

combined disadvantages of low socioeconomic status, street socialization, and

segregation) of both male and female

gang members who live in these socially

disorganized areas. In addition to the

pressures of marginal economics, these

gang members experience the added

burden of having marginal ethnic and

personal identities. They look for identity

and stability in the gang and adopt the

cholo subculture—customs that are associated with an attachment to and identification with gangs—that includes alcohol

and drug use, conflict, and violence. According to Moore (1991:137–138):

Gangs as youth groups develop

among the socially marginal adolescents for whom school and family do

not work. Agencies of street socialization take on increased importance

under changing economic circumstances, and have an increased impact on younger kids.

Social structural conditions, which have

resulted in a lack of education and employment and in lives of poverty without opportunities (Short, 1996), are compounded

for females, who experience the additional burden of sexual discrimination

and traditional role expectations (Fishman,

1995; Swart, 1995). Social structural conditions alone, however, cannot account

for the presence of gangs. Fagan (1990:207)

comments that “inner-city youths in this

study live in areas where social controls

have weakened and opportunities for success in legitimate activities are limited.

Nevertheless, participation in gangs is

selective, and most youths avoid gang

life.” Therefore, addressing structural factors is not the only plausible strategy for

gang prevention or intervention.

Prevention Strategies

Given the risk factors associated with

violent offending and gang affiliation, are

specialized prevention and intervention

programs necessary for gang members?

This is a critical question that has been

asked all too infrequently in research on

gang behavior. The trend has been to

study gangs as a phenomenon distinct

from delinquency in general. Despite the

recent emphasis on gangs as a separate

topic in research literature, there is reason to believe that gangs and gang programs should also be studied within the

overall context of juvenile delinquency.

For example, the works of Esbensen and

Huizinga (1993), Thornberry et al. (1993),

and Battin et al. (1998) suggest that,

while the gang environment facilitates

delinquency, gang members are already
6

delinquent prior to joining the gang.

However, rates of delinquent activity increase dramatically during the period of

gang membership. From a prevention

and intervention perspective, three

thoughts emerge. First, the finding that

delinquency generally precedes gang membership suggests that gang programs

should not be limited to gang intervention

or suppression. General prevention efforts

that target the entire adolescent population may also prove beneficial in reducing

youth gang involvement. Second, certain

risk factors associated with gang membership have been identified. As such, prevention and intervention strategies that specifically target at-risk youth are warranted.

Third, given the level of delinquent activity

that occurs within the gang environment,

specific programs that seek to intervene in

the lives of gang-affiliated youth should

also be encouraged.

This section addresses the following

types of prevention efforts (Johnson,

1987):

◆ Primary prevention focuses on the entire population at risk and the identification of those conditions (personal,

social, environmental) that promote

criminal behavior.

◆ Secondary prevention targets those

individuals who have been identified

as being at greater risk of becoming

delinquent.

◆ Tertiary prevention targets those individuals who are already involved in

criminal activity or who are gang

members.

The preceding discussion of risk factors

emphasizes the necessity for all three

strategies. In addition, law enforcement

has tried a variety of suppression strategies designed to disrupt gang activity.

The past 60 years have seen a variety of

gang prevention and intervention strategies. These strategies include efforts that

focus on environmental factors and the

provision of improved opportunities—for

example, the Chicago Area Project developed by Shaw and McKay (1942), the Boston Midcity Project evaluated by Miller

(1962), and the Mobilization for Youth

program in New York (Bibb, 1967); programs with a distinct social work orientation [most notably the detached worker

approach reported by Klein (1971) and

Spergel (1966)]; and the strategy of gang

suppression by law enforcement [for example, Chicago’s Flying Squad (Dart, 1992)].

Most of these programs experienced short

disorganization theories, which suggested that community organization

could be a major tool for reducing

crime and gang problems. CAP was

designed to involve local community

groups, that is, indigenous community

organizations, in improving neighborhood conditions that were believed to

foster the formation of youth groups.

(Howell, 1998:3)

CAP is representative of a community

change approach and is perhaps the most

widely known delinquency prevention

program in American history. CAP was

based on the theoretical perspective of

Shaw and McKay and is summarized in

their 1942 publication. Its intent was to

prevent delinquency, including gang activity, through neighborhood and community

development. CAP organized community

residents through self-help committees

based in preexisting community structures such as church groups and labor

unions. Consistent with the research findings of Shaw and McKay, it was believed

that the cause of maladaptive behavior

was the social environment, not the individual. CAP and other similar programs

are, at least in part, primary prevention

efforts that target all adolescents in the

neighborhood.

During the latter part of the 1940’s, CAP

introduced its detached worker program,

which focused on either at-risk youth

(secondary prevention) or, in some instances, current gang members (tertiary

intervention). It recruited community

members to help develop recreational

activities and community improvement

campaigns (e.g., health care, sanitation,

education). These individuals worked

with specific neighborhood gangs and

served as advocates for gang members.

This included advocating for gang members when they were confronted by the

justice system and helping them find employment, health care, and educational

assistance, among other services. The

intent of the detached worker program

was to transform the gang from an antisocial youth group to a prosocial group.

CAP’s detached worker component was

adopted by numerous other programs, including the Boston Midcity Project (Miller,

1962), Los Angeles’ Group Guidance Program and Ladino Hills Project (Klein, 1968),

and Chicago’s Youth Development Project

(Caplan et al., 1967). Although based on

sound principles, Klein’s Ladino Hills

Project (which was a carefully designed

implementation and evaluation of the

lifespans because changes did not take

place immediately or because of a change

in administrative priorities. For a review

of past programmatic approaches to the

gang problem, consult Howell (1995, 1998,

and 2000), Klein (1995), or Spergel (1995).

It is important to note that, in the overall

history of America’s response to youth

gangs:

Gang prevention programs have

been rare. They require accurate

knowledge of the predictors of gang

membership, that is, identifying likely

gang members, and they require knowledge of the causes of gangs and gang

membership. Finally, they require

knowledge of the likely impact of prevention efforts. (Klein, 1995:137)

As indicated previously, there is a general

lack of consensus about why gangs

emerge and why juveniles join gangs.

Therefore, it is more difficult to develop

gang prevention programs and assess

their impact.

Prevention Programs

Primary, secondary, and tertiary

prevention: The Chicago Area Project.

The history of gang intervention in

the United States shows that early

programs emphasized prevention.

. . . The Chicago Area Project (CAP)

(Sorrentino, 1959; Sorrentino and

Whittaker, 1994), created in 1934,

was designed to implement social
7

detached worker program) led to the conclusion that the detached workers created

an unintended outcome: increased gang

cohesiveness, which resulted in increased

gang crime. According to Klein (1995:143),

“Increased group programming leads to

increased cohesiveness (both gang growth

and gang ‘tightness’), and increased cohesiveness leads to increased gang crime.”

Klein (1995:147) concluded, “We had affected them but not their community. The

lesson is obvious and important. Gangs are

by-products of their communities: They

cannot long be controlled by attacks on

symptoms alone; the community structure

and capacity must also be targeted.”

Klein’s research focused on detached

workers targeting gang members (tertiary

prevention), but the overall effectiveness

of the CAP model remains in question. In

regard to the community change approach

described previously, subjective assessments by individuals involved with the

project proclaimed its success. To date,

however, the evaluations of this strategy

have not reported a reduction in gangs or

in gang activity. One review of delinquency

programs stated that the measures collected by the program staff “have never

been reported in ways that permit outsiders to assess the extent to which the Chicago Area Project accomplished its announced goal of preventing delinquency”

(Lundman, 1993:74). In fact, evaluations

of the Boston Midcity Project and other

projects based on community organization and detached workers have documented that the programs failed to reduce delinquency and gang activity.

OJJDP promotes Spergel’s Comprehensive Gang Model as a comprehensive

communitywide response to gangs. This

model consists of the following five strategies, which are representative of secondary and tertiary prevention:

(1) Mobilizing community leaders and

residents to plan, strengthen, or create

new opportunities or linkages to existing organizations for gang-involved or

at-risk youth; (2) using outreach workers to engage gang-involved youth;

(3) providing or facilitating access to

academic, economic, and social opportunities; (4) conducting gang suppression activities and holding ganginvolved youth accountable; and

(5) facilitating organizational change

and development to help community

agencies better address gang problems

through a team ‘problem-solving’ approach that is consistent with the philosophy of community oriented policing. (Burch and Kane, 1999)

Evaluations of this program have been

initiated, but to date no results have been

published. An evaluation of the Little Village Project, a precursor to the Comprehensive Gang Model, has shown promising preliminary results (Spergel and

Grossman, 1997; Spergel et al., 1999).

Primary prevention: School-based prevention programs. Schools provide one of

the common grounds for American youth.

Although growing numbers of children are

being home schooled, the majority participate in the public education system. In

recent years, schools have become a focal

point for general delinquency prevention

programs. The average middle school provides 14 different violence, drug, and other

social problem prevention programs

(Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1999). One

gang-specific prevention program that has

received considerable attention is the

Gang Resistance Education and Training

(G.R.E.A.T.) program. The Phoenix Police

Department introduced this school-based

program in 1991 to provide “students with

real tools to resist the lure and trap of

gangs” (Humphrey and Baker, 1994:2).

Modeled after the Drug Abuse Resistance

Education (D.A.R.E.) program, the 9-week

G.R.E.A.T. program introduces students to

conflict resolution skills, cultural sensitivity, and the negative aspects of gang life.

G.R.E.A.T. has spread throughout the country; to date, it has been incorporated in

school curriculums in all 50 States and several other countries.

The objectives of the G.R.E.A.T. program

are “to reduce gang activity and to educate a population of young people as to

the consequences of gang involvement”

(Esbensen and Osgood, 1999:198). The

curriculum consists of nine lessons offered once a week to middle school students (primarily seventh graders). Law

enforcement officers (who always teach

the program) are given detailed lesson

plans that clearly state the purposes and

objectives of the curriculum. The program

consists of the following nine lessons:

introduction; crime, victims, and your

rights; cultural sensitivity and prejudice;

conflict resolution (two lessons: discussion and practical exercises); meeting

basic needs; drugs and neighborhoods;

responsibility; and goal setting. The curriculum includes a discussion about

gangs and their effects on the quality of

people’s lives and addresses the topic of

resisting peer pressure.

To date, two evaluations have reported

small but positive effects on students’

attitudes and their ability to resist peer

pressure (Palumbo and Ferguson, 1995;

Esbensen and Osgood, 1999). Using a

multisite, pre- and posttest research design, Palumbo and Ferguson reported that

students in the G.R.E.A.T. program had a

“slightly increased ability” to resist the

pressures to join gangs. The authors acknowledged, however, that “the lack of a

control group prevents assessments of

the internal validity. Therefore, it cannot

be concluded that the results . . . were

due to G.R.E.A.T. as opposed to other

factors” (Palumbo and Ferguson, 1995:600).

A second multisite evaluation of G.R.E.A.T.

examined the program’s effectiveness.

This evaluation compared eighth grade

students who had completed the program

with a comparable group of students who

had not participated in G.R.E.A.T. The

G.R.E.A.T. students self-reported less delinquency and had lower levels of gang

affiliation, higher levels of school commitment, and greater commitment to prosocial peers, among other positive outcomes.

However, the statistically significant effects were modest in terms of effect size,

with an average between-group difference

of about one-tenth of a standard deviation

(Esbensen and Osgood, 1999).

As evidenced by the curriculum, the intent of the G.R.E.A.T. program is to provide life skills that empower adolescents

with the ability to resist peer pressure to

join gangs. The strategy is a cognitive approach that seeks to produce a change in

attitude and behavior through instruction,

discussion, and role-playing. Another notable feature of the program is its target

population. In contrast to suppression

and intervention programs, which are directed at youth who already are gang members, G.R.E.A.T. is intended for all youth.

This is the classic, broad-based primary

prevention strategy found in medical immunization programs: They intervene

broadly, with a simple and relatively

unintrusive program, well before any

problem is detectable and without any

attempt to predict who is most likely to

be affected by the problem.

Secondary prevention: Boys & Girls

Clubs of America program and the

Montreal program. The Boys & Girls

Clubs of America (BGCA) has developed

a program “to aggressively reach youth at

risk of gang involvement and mainstream

them into the quality programs the Club

already offers” (Boys & Girls Clubs of
8

America, 1993). This program, Gang Prevention Through Targeted Outreach, is an

example of secondary prevention and

consists of structured recreational, educational, and life skills programs (in conjunction with training) that are geared to

enhance communication skills, problemsolving techniques, and decisionmaking

abilities. This strategy targets youth who

are at risk of becoming involved in gangs

and seeks to alter their attitudes and perceptions and to improve their conflict

resolution skills.

The BGCA outreach program also involves at-risk youth in conventional activities. Through its case management

system, BGCA maintains detailed records

on each youth, including participation in

program activities, school attendance,

contact with the justice system, and general achievements or problems. This information allows caseworkers to reward

prosocial behavior or to take proactive

measures in the event the youth engages

in behaviors likely to lead to gang involvement (for example, skipping school, breaking curfew, and associating with delinquent friends).

Feyerherm, Pope, and Lovell (1992) conducted a process evaluation of 33 different BGCA gang intervention programs.

Their examination focused on the degree

to which the clubs implemented the gang

intervention model and the extent to which

clients received the various treatment

components. The researchers concluded

that “the youth gang prevention and early

intervention initiative by Boys & Girls

Clubs of America is both sound and viable

in its approach” (Feyerherm, Pope, and

Lovell, 1992:5). The researchers also

collected descriptive information on risk

factors and found that 48 percent of participants showed improvement in school

(more than one-third of the youth improved

their grades, and one-third improved their

school attendance). However, to date, no

evaluation results have been published

that address the effectiveness of this

strategy in reducing gang involvement.

BGCA has also expanded this program in

recent years to reach out to youth who

have become involved with gangs.

The Montreal Preventive Treatment Program (Tremblay et al., 1996) is another

secondary prevention program. It addresses early childhood risk factors for

gang involvement by targeting boys from

low socioeconomic backgrounds who display disruptive behavior while in kindergarten. It offers parents training sessions

on effective discipline techniques, crisis

management, and other parenting skills

while the boys participate in training

sessions that emphasize development of

prosocial skills and self-control. An evaluation of the program showed that, compared with the control group, significantly

fewer boys in the treatment group were

gang members at age 15.

Tertiary prevention. Tertiary prevention

programs target individuals who are already involved with gangs. Although this

approach includes detached worker

programs such as those described above,

a more common strategy implemented

during the past decade has relied on law

enforcement suppression tactics. Two

such programs serve as examples. During

the early 1990’s, the Chicago Police Department experimented with the “Flying

Squad,” a special unit comprising young

officers selected from the department’s

three gang units. According to Dart (1992),

Chicago’s chronic gang problem had left

residents feeling intimidated and harassed.

In response, the Chicago Police Department

decided to give the impression of an omnipresent police force by assigning an additional 100 officers (the Flying Squad) to the

Gang Crime Section and saturating an area

of approximately 5 square blocks every

night. It is interesting that while the intent

of this tactic was to hold gangs accountable

to the fullest measure of the law, the author

acknowledges that “to win the war . . . there

must be a marriage of intervention, prevention, and suppression strategies aimed at

deterring and containing gang activity”

(Dart, 1992:104). As with most gang prevention programs, this program was short lived

and was disbanded by 1998.

The Los Angeles Police Department

(LAPD), with its long history of dealing

with gangs, organized a suppression unit

in 1977. It was known as the Community

Resources Against Street Hoodlums

(CRASH) unit, and its mission was to combat gang crime. This unit was a “high profile gang control operation, carried out by

uniformed patrol officers, stressing high

visibility, street surveillance, proactive

suppression activities, and investigative

follow-through arrests” (Klein, 1995). At

approximately the same time, LAPD began

Operation Hammer, in which hundreds of

officers saturated a predesignated area

and arrested citizens for every possible

legal violation and suspicious activity.

Evaluations of these types of suppression

efforts are lacking, but the consensus is

that they are not likely to be an effective

means of combating gang crime4

 (Klein,

1995; Spergel and Curry, 1995).

Law enforcement also has responded to

juvenile violence and gangs with new

ordinances, including curfew laws, antiloitering laws, and civil injunctions.

These suppression tactics limit the ability of certain groups of people (based on

age or group affiliation) to congregate in

public places based on the belief that

such restrictions will reduce gang activity.

4

 During a weekend of Operation Hammer, for example,

1,453 arrests were made (half of those arrested were

nongang members). Of these, 1,350 were released without charges being filed. Only 60 felony arrests were

made; 32 of them resulted in charges being filed. This

was the end product of 1,000 police officers saturating

a small section of south central Los Angeles. In addition, this suppression and saturation approach assumes that gang members commit crimes based on

a rational decisionmaking process. In reality, these

crimes are more spontaneous and include fights,

random assaults, and driveby shootings.
9

However, constitutional concerns (that

is, violations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and

14th amendments) have been raised, and

a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision declared that a Chicago antiloitering law

was unconstitutional. This law targeted

gang members (that is, persons the police

believed to be gang members) by prohibiting the gathering of two or more people

in any public place. Other jurisdictions

have implemented civil injunctions and

statutes that restrict or prohibit gang

members from gathering in particular

places (for example, parks, specific street

corners, playgrounds) or from engaging in

specific acts or wearing certain paraphernalia (wearing pagers or bandannas, riding

bicycles, flashing gang signs). Evaluations

of these city ordinances are mixed, as is

legal opinion assessing their constitutionality (American Civil Liberties Union, 1997).

Conclusion

In light of the risk factors discussed at the

outset of this Bulletin, what conclusions

can be made about gang prevention strategies? In regard to primary prevention,

three facts are particularly salient. First,

gang formation is not restricted to urban,

underclass areas. Second, gang members

come from a variety of backgrounds; they

are not exclusively male, urban, poor, minority, or from single-parent households.

Third, once juveniles join a gang, they

engage in high levels of criminal activity.

Therefore, it is appropriate to formulate

primary gang prevention efforts that target the entire adolescent population.

In terms of secondary prevention approaches, some youth are at higher risk of

joining gangs. Although social structural

conditions associated with gang formation

and demographic characteristics attributed

to gang members are diverse (and despite the facts stated above), youth gangs

are still more likely to be found in socially

disorganized or marginalized communities.

Secondary prevention strategies should,

therefore, focus on communities and youth

exposed to these greater risk factors.

Community-level gang problem assessments may help guide prevention strategies

by identifying areas and groups of youth

that are most at risk for gang activity.

Tertiary prevention programs, such as

CAP and a variety of gang suppression

techniques, have shown little promise.

Some detached worker programs produced the unintended consequence of

increasing gang cohesion (Klein, 1995).

Operation Hammer, CRASH, and similar

law enforcement crackdowns have proven

to be inefficient suppression approaches

to gang activity and are not cost effective.

In conclusion, there is no clear solution to

preventing or reducing gang activity, although some promising programs have been

identified. As Short (1996:xvii) indicated

(italics in original):

Systematic and sustained research is

necessary if we are to understand gangs

or any aspect of human behavior. A

corollary is equally important. If they

are to be successful, efforts to prevent,

intervene with, or suppress gangs also

must be systematic, sustained, and

based on local knowledge and on research that is systematic and up to date.

Recent findings from the Seattle study

(Battin-Pearson et al., 1997), in which early

predictors of gang affiliation were identified, highlight the importance of early primary prevention strategies. Additionally,

given results from relatively recent studies

of girls in gangs and girls who associate

with gang members but are not part of the

gang (Deschenes and Esbensen, 1999;

Esbensen and Deschenes, 1998; Fleisher,

1998; Miller, 1998), prevention programs

may need to consider gender as part of

their efforts.

Much of this Bulletin has focused on individual factors. However, prevention efforts

that concentrate only on individual characteristics will fail to address the underlying problems. As Short (1997:181–194)

states:

Effective interventions at the individual level that seek to control violence thus require that macro-level

factors . . . be taken into consideration. . . . Absent change in the

macro-level forces associated with

these conditions, vulnerable individuals will continue to be produced. It

follows that . . . to be effective in reducing overall levels of violent crime,

interventions directed primarily at

the individual level must address the

macro-level as well. . . . A substantial

body of research demonstrates . . .

that single approaches, whether

based on prevention, suppression,

coordination of agency programs,

community change, or law enforcement, are unlikely to prevent gang

formation or to be successful in stopping their criminal behavior.

This overview of gang prevention strategies has sought to highlight the complexity

of the youth gang issue, dispel some common stereotypes about youth gangs, and

provide a framework within which to develop prevention programs. Clearly, there

is no one “magic bullet” program or “best

practice” for preventing gang affiliation

and gang-associated violence. The youth

gang problem is one that will be best addressed through a comprehensive strategy

that incorporates primary, secondary, and

tertiary prevention approaches. The Comprehensive Gang Model is one example of

a multifaceted approach that targets individual youth, peer groups, families, and

the community.

References

American Civil Liberties Union. 1997.

False Premises, False Promises: The Blythe

Street Injunction and Its Aftermath. Los Angeles, CA: ACLU Foundation of Southern

California.

Battin, S., Hill, K.G., Abbott, R., Catalano,

R.F., and Hawkins, J.D. 1998. The contribution of gang membership to delinquency

beyond delinquent friends. Criminology

36(1):93–115.

Battin-Pearson, S., Guo, J., Hill, K.G.,

Abbott, R., Catalano, R.F., and Hawkins,

J.D. 1997. Early predictors of sustained

adolescent gang membership. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.

Bibb, M. 1967. Gang related services of

mobilization for youth. In Juvenile Gangs

in Context: Theory, Research, and Action,

edited by M.W. Klein. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bjerregard, B., and Smith, C. 1993. Gender

differences in gang participation, delinquency, and substance use. Journal of

Quantitative Criminology 9(4):329–355.

Bookin-Weiner, H., and Horowitz, R. 1983.

The end of the youth gang: Fad or fact?

Criminology 21(4):585–602.

Boys & Girls Clubs of America. 1993. Youth

Gang Prevention Through Targeted Outreach.

Atlanta, GA: Boys & Girls Clubs of America.

Burch, J., and Kane, C. 1999. Implementing

the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model.

Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Campbell, A. 1991. The Girls in the Gang,

2d ed. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Caplan, N.S., Deshaies, D., Suttles, G.D.,

and Mattick, H. 1967. The nature, variety,
10

and patterning of street club work in an

urban setting. In Youth Gangs in Context,

edited by M.W. Klein. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Chesney-Lind, M. 1997. The Female Offender: Girls, Women, and Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Chesney-Lind, M., and Shelden, R.G. 1992.

Girls: Delinquency and Juvenile Justice.

Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Cook, P.J., and Laub, J.H. 1998. The unprecedented epidemic in youth violence.

In Youth Violence, edited by M. Tonry and

M.H. Moore. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press, pp. 27–64.

Covey, H.C., Menard, S., and Franzese, R.J.

1997. Juvenile Gangs, 2d ed. Springfield,

IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Curry, G.D. 1998. Female gang involvement. Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency 35(1):100–118.

Curry, G.D., Ball, R.A., and Decker, S.H.

1996. Estimating the National Scope of

Gang Crime From Law Enforcement Data.

Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Curry, G.D., Ball, R.A., and Fox, R.J. 1994.

Gang Crime and Law Enforcement

Recordkeeping. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Curry, G.D., and Decker, S.H. 1998. Confronting Gangs: Crime and Community. Los

Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

Curry, G.D., and Thomas, R.W. 1992. Community organization and gang policy response. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 8(4):357–374.

Dart, R.W. 1992. Chicago’s “Flying Squad”

tackles street gangs. Police Chief (October):96–104.

Decker, S.H., and van Winkle, B. 1996. Life in

the Gang: Family, Friends, and Violence.

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Deschenes, E.P., and Esbensen, F. 1997.

Saints, delinquents, and gang members:

Differences in attitudes and behavior. Paper

presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.

Deschenes, E.P., and Esbensen, F. 1999.

Violence and gangs: Gender differences in

perceptions and behavior. Journal of

Quantitative Criminology 15(1):53–96.

DiIulio, J. 1995. The coming of the superpredators. Weekly Standard (November

27):23.

Esbensen, F., and Deschenes, E.P. 1998. A

multisite examination of youth gang membership: Does gender matter? Criminology

36(4):799–828.

Esbensen, F., and Huizinga, D. 1993. Gangs,

drugs, and delinquency in a survey of urban youth. Criminology 31(4):565–589.

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

1993. Gang and non-gang youth: Differences in explanatory factors. Journal of

Contemporary Criminal Justice 9(2):94–116.

Esbensen, F., and Lynskey, D.P. In press.

Youth 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. Weitekamp. Amsterdam:

Kluwer Press.

Esbensen, F., and Osgood, D.W. 1999. Gang

Resistance Education and Training

(G.R.E.A.T.): Results from the national

evaluation. Journal of Research in Crime

and Delinquency 36(2):194–225.

Esbensen, F., and Winfree, L.T., Jr. 1998.

Race and gender differences between

gang and non-gang youth: Results from

a multisite survey. Justice Quarterly

15(3):505–526.

Esbensen, F., Winfree, L.T., Jr., He, N., and

Taylor, T.J. In press. Youth gangs and definitional issues: When is a gang a gang and

why does it matter? Crime and Delinquency.

Fagan, J. 1990. Social processes of delinquency and drug use among urban gangs.

In Gangs in America, edited by C.R. Huff.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp.

183–219.

Feyerherm, W., Pope, C., and Lovell, R.

1992. Youth gang prevention and early

intervention programs. Unpublished final

research report. Portland, OR: Portland

State University.

Fishman, L.T. 1995. The vice queens: An

ethnographic study of black female gang

behavior. In The Modern Gang Reader, edited by M.W. Klein, C.L. Maxson, and J.

Miller. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Fleisher, M. 1998. Dead End Kids. Madison,

WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Fox, J.A. 1996. Trends in Juvenile Violence:

A Report to the United States Attorney General on Current and Future Rates of Juvenile

Offending. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Giordano, P. 1978. Girls, guys, and gangs:

The changing social context of female delinquency. Journal of Criminal Law and

Criminology 69(1):126–132.

Gottfredson, D., and Gottfredson, G. 1999.

What do schools do to prevent problem

behavior and promote school safety and

how well do they do it? Paper presented at

the Annual Conference on Criminal Justice

Research and Evaluation, Washington, DC.

Hagedorn, J.M. 1988. People and Folks:

Gangs, Crime and the Underclass in a

Rustbelt City. Chicago, IL: Lakeview Press.

Hagedorn, J.M. 1991. Gangs, neighborhoods, and public policy. Social Problems

38(4):529–542.

Harris, M.C. 1988. Cholas: Latino Girls and

Gangs. New York, NY: AMS Press.

Hill, K.G., Howell, J.C., Hawkins, J.D., and

Battin-Pearson, 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(3):300–322.

Howell, J.C. 1995. Gangs and youth violence: Recent research. In A Sourcebook:

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, edited by J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg,

J.D. Hawkins, and J.J. Wilson. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

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.

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.

Huff, C.R. 1990. Denial, overreaction, and

misidentification: A postscript on public

policy. In Gangs in America, edited by C.R.

Huff. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Humphrey, K.R., and Baker, P.R. 1994. The

GREAT Program: Gang Resistance Education and Training. FBI Law Enforcement

Bulletin (September):1–4.

Jackson, P.I. 1991. Crime, youth gangs, and

urban transition: The social dislocations

of post-industrial economic development.

Justice Quarterly 8(3):379–397.
11

Joe, K.A., and Chesney-Lind, M. 1995. Just

every mother’s angel: An analysis of gender

and ethnic variations in youth gang membership. Gender and Society 9(4):408–430.

Johnson, E.H. 1987. Handbook on Crime

and Delinquency Prevention. New York,

NY: Greenwood Press.

Klein, M.W. 1968. The Ladino Hills Project:

Final Report. Los Angeles, CA: University

of Southern California.

Klein, M.W. 1971. Street Gangs and Street

Workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

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

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lundman, R. 1993. Prevention and Control

of Juvenile Delinquency. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

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

M.W. 1998. Vulnerability to street gang

membership: Implications for practice.

Social Service Review 72:70–91.

Menard, S., and Elliott, D.S. 1994. Delinquent bonding, moral beliefs, and illegal

behavior: A three-wave panel model. Justice Quarterly 11(2):173–188.

Miller, J. 1998. Gender and victimization

risk among young women in gangs. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

35(4):429–453.

Miller, W.B. 1962. The impact of a ‘total

community’ delinquency control project.

Social Problems 10(Fall):168–191.

Miller, W.B. 1982. Crime by Youth Gangs

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

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Moffitt, T. 1993. Adolescence-limited and

life-course-persistent antisocial behavior:

A developmental taxonomy. Psychological

Review 100(4):674–701.

Moore, J.P., and Cook, I.L. 1999. Highlights

of the 1998 National Youth Gang Survey.

Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Moore, J.P., and Terrett, C.P. 1999. Highlights of the 1997 National Youth Gang Survey. Fact Sheet. 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. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University

Press.

National Youth Gang Center. 1997. 1995

National Youth Gang Survey. Summary.

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

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

National Youth Gang Center. 1999a. 1996

National Youth Gang Survey. Summary.

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

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

National Youth Gang Center. 1999b. 1997

National Youth Gang Survey. Summary.

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

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

National Youth Gang Center. In press. 1998

National Youth Gang Survey. Summary.

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

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

Palumbo, D.J., and Ferguson, J.L. 1995.

Evaluating Gang Resistance Education

and Training (GREAT): Is the impact the

same as that of Drug Abuse Resistance

Education (DARE)? Evaluation Review

19(6):591–619.

Shaw, C.R., and McKay, H.D. 1942. Juvenile

Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Short, J.F., Jr. 1996. Foreword: Diversity

and change in U.S. gangs. In Gangs in

America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Short, J.F., Jr. 1997. Poverty, Ethnicity, and

Violent Crime. Boulder, CO: Westview

Press.

Sorrentino, A. 1959. The Chicago Area

Project after twenty-five years. Federal

Probation 23:40–45.

Sorrentino, A., and Whittaker, D.W. 1994.

The Chicago Area Project: Addressing the

gang problem. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 63(5):8–12.

Spergel, I.A. 1966. Street Gang Work:

Theory and Practice. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Spergel, I.A. 1990. Youth gangs: Continuity

and change. In Crime and Justice: A Review

of Research, edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

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

NY: Oxford University Press.

Spergel, I.A., and Curry, G.D. 1995. The

National Youth Gang Survey: A research

and development process. In The Modern

Gang Reader, edited by M.W. Klein, C.L.

Maxson, and J. Miller. Los Angeles, CA:

Roxbury Publishing Company.

Spergel, I.A., and Grossman, S.F. 1997. The

Little Village Project: A community approach to the gang problem. Social Work

42(5):456–470.

Spergel, I.A., Grossman, S.F., Wa, K.M.,

Choi, S., and Jacob, A. 1999. Evaluation of

the Little Village Gang Violence Reduction

Project: The First Three Years. Executive

Summary. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal

Justice Information Authority.

Swart, W.J. 1995. Female gang delinquency: A search for ‘acceptable deviant

behavior.’ In The Modern Gang Reader,

edited by M.W. Klein, C.L. Maxson, and

J. Miller. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Thornberry, T.P. 1998. Membership in

youth gangs and involvement in serious

violent offending. In Serious and Violent

Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber

and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Thornberry, T.P., Krohn, M.D., Lizotte,

A.J., and Chard-Wierschem, D. 1993. The

role of juvenile gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency 30(1):55–87.

Thrasher, F.M. 1927. The Gang: A Study of

One Thousand Three Hundred Thirteen

Gangs in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University

of Chicago Press.

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.

Vigil, J.D. 1988. Barrio Gangs: Street Life

and Identity in Southern California. Austin,

TX: University of Texas Press.

Warr, M., and Stafford, M. 1991. The influence of delinquent peers: What they think

or what they do? Criminology 29(4):851–865.
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 182210

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

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.

Acknowledgments

Finn-Aage Esbensen, Ph.D., is Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of

Nebraska at Omaha.

The author would like to thank G. David Curry, James C. Howell, Cheryl Maxson,

and Terrance J. Taylor for their comments on earlier drafts of this Bulletin.

Photograph page 2 copyright © 1999 Digital Vision Ltd.; photographs pages 5 and 6

copyright © 2000 Artville Stock Images; photograph page 8 copyright © 2000 John

Greim/West Stock.

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 National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

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 author 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. Please direct your comments and

questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5600 (fax)

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

Wilson, W.J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and

Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Winfree, L.T., Vigil-Backstrom, T., and

Mays, G.L. 1994. Social learning theory,

self-reported delinquency, and youth

gangs: A new twist on a general theory of

crime and delinquency. Youth and Society

26(2):147–177.

Yablonsky, L. 1962. The Violent Gang. New

York, NY: Macmillan.

Zimring, F.E. 1998. American Youth Violence.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.