J. Robert Flores, Administrator March 2004

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

about youth gang activity in Indian country have been largely absent.

In 2001, NYGC developed and implemented the 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in

Indian Country (see “Survey Design and

Method” for a detailed discussion of the

survey). All federally recognized Indian

communities were surveyed to measure

the presence, size, and criminal behavior

of youth gangs in Indian country. This

Bulletin presents data regarding the presence and effect of youth gang activity in

Indian country and provides an overview

of programmatic responses to the problem. When appropriate, the Bulletin compares findings from this survey to those

from a national sample and a subset of

jurisdictions that closely resemble Indian

country communities in size and geographic location. The survey findings are

also compared to relevant contextual data

from a field study of gangs in the Navajo

Nation (Armstrong et al., 2002).

Survey Sample and

Response

At the time the survey was developed,

there were 577 Indian communities in the

United States, comprising 561 federally

recognized tribes (figure 1, page 3). NYGC

and the advisory group chose to survey

Recent studies have reported alarming

levels of violence in Indian country.1

Researchers have found that American

Indians and Alaska Natives experience a

crime rate of 656 incidents per 100,000

residents, compared with a crime rate of

506 incidents per 100,000 residents in the

general U.S. population (Hickman, 2003).

In addition, Indian country communities

suffer from a violent crime rate that is two

to three times greater than the national

average (Wakeling et al., 2001). The escalation of violence among youth in these

areas is of particular concern to juvenile

justice officials and community members

(Greenfeld and Smith, 1999; Wakeling et

al., 2001). Anecdotal reports and official

records from juvenile justice officials (i.e.,

tribal courts and probation and law enforcement officers) in a number of Indian

country communities indicate increased

levels of crime associated with youth

gangs. Each year since 1995, the National

Youth Gang Center (NYGC) has surveyed

law enforcement agencies throughout the

country about gang activity. However,

tribal police departments are not included

in the survey sample, and detailed data

1 “Indian country” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1151 as including (1) land within Indian reservations, (2) dependent Indian communities, and (3) Indian allotments.

A Message From OJJDP

Since 1995, the National Youth Gang

Center (NYGC) has surveyed law

enforcement agencies across the

nation about youth gang activity.

Because tribal police departments

were not included in earlier surveys,

however, youth gang activities in Indian country have been largely absent

from survey findings.

This Bulletin describes the nature

and makeup of youth gangs in Indian

country. The findings presented are

the result of a 2001 NYGC survey—

tailored specifically for Indian communities—that asked federally recognized Indian communities to describe

their experiences with youth gang

activity. Researchers found that youth

gangs in Indian country did not differ

greatly from youth gangs in comparably sized communities. Indian country

youth gangs, however, were noticeably different from youth gangs as

depicted through national statistics.

The study also included comparisons

with findings from a previous study of

youth gang activity in the Navajo

Nation.

Drawing on these research findings,

the Bulletin proposes prevention,

intervention, and suppression strategies. These proposals are derived

from effective programs in non-Indian

country settings. Although such programs may require modification to

better serve tribal communities, they

provide Indian country leaders with

proven methods to address emerging

youth gang issues.

Youth Gangs in 

Indian Country

Aline K. Major, Arlen Egley, Jr., James C. Howell, 

Barbara Mendenhall, and Troy Armstrong
2

reside within the limits of Indian

reservations, pueblos, rancherias,

villages, dependent Indian communities, or Indian allotments, and

who together comprise a federally

recognized tribe or community.

Communities also include people

who have been recognized by the

United States government as a

tribe or tribal community, but who

do not occupy tribal trust, tribally

owned, or Indian allotment lands.

Communities are the people and

land together or tribal community

viewed as a group. Land without

the people is not considered a

community for the purpose of this

survey.

As used in this Bulletin, the concept of

community in Indian country applies to

a broad spectrum of land and people.

Tribes and reservations vary greatly by

size, configuration, and the settlement

pattern that defines living arrangements. Indian communities located on

a contiguous single piece of land containing just one occupied area or only

a few occupied areas are similar to

neighborhoods or small towns where

the inhabitants and the area of land

they occupy make up the community.

This is the most common setting for

Indian communities; however, different

community configurations are located

throughout Indian country.

Large reservations or more populous

tribes located on either a contiguous

single piece of land or noncontiguous

pieces of land may include towns of

various sizes and areas of more dispersed population. Outside of Indian

country, these towns and rural areas

might be considered separate communities. However, because of the residents’ tribal connection, they are all

considered members of one community

in this Bulletin. A tribal community

(people and land) also may be located

in the midst of an urban setting. Some

reservation trust lands2 are occupied

by more than one tribe. These may

Before designing the 2000 Survey of

Youth Gangs in Indian Country, the

National Youth Gang Center (NYGC)

consulted earlier research on gang

activity in Indian country communities. This research was extremely limited and consisted mainly of a small

number of descriptive reports that

reference gangs (Nielson, Zion, and

Hailer, 1998; Coalition for Juvenile

Justice, 2000) and regional and

national surveys (Hailer, 1998;

Juneau, 1997, 1998).

Findings from two surveys conducted

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

in 1997 and 1998 included law enforcement contacts, a brief description of the local gang situation, and

the types of criminal activity associated with gang members (Juneau,

1997, 1998). The later survey, which

focused on Indian country communities in the West, Northwest, and

Dakotas, covered basic definitions,

names and locations of specific

gangs, gang-related crime, and law

enforcement responses to gang activity (Juneau, 1998).

One of the more comprehensive

studies included findings from data

gathered via a survey of tribal and

BIA law enforcement agencies serving Indian country communities (Hailer, 1998). This study provided a baseline assessment of the extent of gang

presence, gang characteristics, and

law enforcement responses to gangs

in Indian country communities. Additionally, a field study of youth gangs

in the Navajo Nation provided data

from interviews with gang members

and agency stakeholders, results of

community focus group meetings, an

examination of relationships and influences from outside the reservation,

and an explanation of the relationship

between cluster housing and gang

formation (Armstrong et al., 2002).

Although previous research helped

shape the survey approach, NYGC

determined that further consultation

with other knowledgeable sources

was necessary before the survey’s

actual development and implementation. NYGC decided to draw on the

knowledge of experts in the field to

ensure that related social issues were

covered and that the survey language

and data collection effort were sensitive

to cultural differences. NYGC consulted

with advisors from federal agencies

and tribal organizations as it developed

the study methodology and survey instrument. Advisory group participants

included NYGC research staff, researchers from the Center for Delinquency and Crime Policy Studies, representatives from BIA and the Department

of Justice, and staff from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Health and

Human Service’s Indian Health Services, the National American Indian

Court Judges Association, and the

National Congress of American Indians. The advisory group recommended

the most appropriate methods for collecting data, the unit of measurement,

how to construct questions to ensure

cultural sensitivity, and whom to target

for communitywide information.

Data regarding gang activity are frequently collected from law enforcement

officials. In this case, because NYGC

wanted to ensure that respondents represented the communities surveyed, it

decided a tribal leader would be the initial contact. To increase response rates,

NYGC later solicited responses from

law enforcement agencies serving

those communities that had not

responded to the initial inquiry.

Survey Definitions

To ensure that the survey measured

what it was designed to measure,

NYGC asked the advisory group to

define critical concepts in the survey.

This Bulletin refers to each respondent

tribe, reservation, and Alaska Native

village as a “community,” which

includes a wide range of settings—

pueblos, rancherias, villages, towns,

and rural settlements.1 Specifically, the

survey defines an Indian “community”

as:

Persons of American Indian, Alaska Native, or Aleut heritage who

Survey Design and Method

1 In 2001, the Bureau of Indian Affairs provided

NYGC with a list of communities then recognized by

the agency. This list represented the 561 recognized

tribes in the form of 577 communities for which

information pertaining to tribal enrollment was

individually maintained. NYGC surveyed these

communities. 

2 Reservation trust lands refer to areas that have

been set aside and recognized by the federal government as being held in trust for a particular

federally recognized tribe. A variety of federal

treaties, regulations, and acts over the years have

established these trust areas and have established

laws governing sovereign Indian nations.
3

the entire Indian country population to

provide a broad assessment.

NYGC initially mailed the survey to tribal

leaders and requested that they complete

the survey or forward it to the tribal representative most capable of completing it.

Contacting tribal authorities in some of

the communities was a difficult task for a

number of reasons. Infrequent or sporadic

mail delivery made reaching potential

respondents in isolated locations difficult.

In some areas, tribal authorities were

away from the community or otherwise

unavailable because the survey was mailed

during the height of the community’s working season. In these cases, subordinates

were often reluctant to speak on behalf of

the community. These difficulties adversely affected the number of communities

that responded to the survey and resulted

in a reduced number of responses. NYGC

staff made followup phone calls to tribal

leaders and appropriate law enforcement

officers in communities that had not

responded.

Overall, 52 percent (n=300) of the communities responded to the survey. In general,

communities that responded to the survey represented more populated areas,

thus providing data for more of the total

1

2

1

5

7

1

1

1 1

2

3 4

37

4

4

8

5 12

1

1

11

12

20 22

105

24 4 2

2

5 9

28

7

225

Figure 1: Number of Federally Recognized Indian Communities in the

United States, 2000, by State

Source: Tribal enrollment list from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, submitted to NYGC in 2001.

2000 Survey of Youth 

Gangs in Indian Country

The final survey instrument was

developed using earlier research and

input from advisory group meetings.

The 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in

Indian Country included questions

about the presence or absence of

gangs and demographic data regarding gang members and their involvement in criminal activity. General

questions about the community,

pressing social problems, and law

enforcement services were also

included.

After the survey was finalized, but

before its dissemination, a letter was

sent to several associations and

organizations soliciting support for the

survey. A letter was also mailed to all

tribal leaders explaining the purpose

of the survey and requesting a contact to whom it could be sent. These

initial efforts were beneficial to the

survey process and helped establish

awareness of survey objectives.

have joint or confederated tribal

administrative operations, whereas

others maintain separate administrations for the different tribes living on

the same reservation.

Despite commonly identified features

of a youth gang, codified definitions

vary (Curry and Decker, 2003; Spergel and Bobrowski, 1990). Using an

approach similar to the National Youth

Gang Survey (NYGS), this survey

defines a “youth gang” as “a group of

youths or young adults in your community that you or other responsible tribal

members or service providers are willing to identify or classify as a ‘gang.’”

Therefore, this survey measures youth

gang activity as an identified problem

among interested community agents.

To better understand how respondents defined youth gangs, a series

of survey questions asked respondents about the characteristics that

guide communities in identifying youth

gangs (results are discussed on page

9). As in NYGS, respondents were

asked to exclude motorcycle gangs,

hate or ideology groups, prison gangs,

or other exclusively adult gangs, which

are beyond the scope of this survey.

United States Census Data

NYGC obtained 2000 population figures

for Indian country communities from

the United States Census Bureau.3

Population data used for this study

included only persons who resided

within the boundaries of a federally

recognized Indian community. For communities in which this figure could not

be accurately discerned, population figures were not used. Eighty-four percent

(n=483) of the total 577 communities

were matched to the population data.

3 The data sets used were the Census 2000 Redistricting Data Summary File for All American Indian Areas

and Alaska Native Areas and the Census 2000 Summary File 1 for American Indian and Alaska Native

Areas.
4

Indian country population than suggested

by the 52-percent response rate. It should

be noted that survey findings in this Bulletin are based on completed surveys

only and cannot necessarily be generalized to represent Indian communities on

a national scale. However, this study provides the most inclusive picture to date

of gangs in Indian country.

To provide a context for understanding

gangs in Indian country, two additional

samples are discussed throughout this

Bulletin. First, NYGC’s annual national

survey of law enforcement agencies

measures the gang problem throughout

the United States. This national sample

provides a means for comparing gang

activity in Indian country and gang activity in the remainder of the nation. Second,

to draw a more reasonable comparison

between the national sample and the

Indian country sample, NYGC selected a

subsample of national respondents that

shares a number of characteristics with

Indian country communities. Thus, the

Bulletin includes the following samples:

◆ Indian country sample: The 577 Indian

communities comprising 561 federally

recognized tribes.

◆ National sample: More than 3,000 law

enforcement agencies consisting of

police departments serving cities with

populations of 25,000 or more, suburban county police and sheriff’s departments, randomly selected police

departments serving cities with populations between 2,500 and 24,999, and

randomly selected rural county police

and sheriff’s departments.

◆ Comparison sample: A subsample of

national respondents in nonmetropolitan areas with populations of less than

25,000.

Findings

Law Enforcement Services

Law enforcement arrangements in Indian

country vary from community to community (Wakeling et al., 2001). To measure

this variation, the survey asked respondents (n=300) about the types of law

enforcement services available in their

community. Respondents could indicate

the presence of more than one service.

Survey responses revealed that tribal law

enforcement services were the most common (43 percent of surveyed communities

reported having this service), followed

by Public Law 280 services2 (35 percent);

“other” services such as city/county law

enforcement, state police, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (32 percent);

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) law enforcement services (26 percent); and contracted law enforcement (9 percent).

Law enforcement services in Indian country have been characterized in previous

research as having limited resources and

other problems: for example, officer-toresident ratios that often do not exceed

2 officers per 1,000 residents; complicated jurisdictional policing authority that

depends on the crime committed, the offender, the victim, and the location; and

increasing crime rates without an equivalent increase in law enforcement personnel (Wakeling et al., 2001; Hickman, 2003).

Given these difficulties, many departments find combating the social problems

associated with violence and victimization

(including youth gang activity) in these

areas to be an arduous task.

Of special concern is the lack of sufficient

crime data for these communities, which

often prevents them from addressing

crime problems effectively. Currently,

the Tribal Justice Statistics Assistance

Center, operated by the Justice Research

and Statistics Association and funded by

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, provides

training and technical assistance for

Indian country communities that wish

to collect and use statistics more productively (Hickman, 2003). However, policing

in Indian country remains an area that

requires attention. A collaborative effort

among tribal communities, researchers,

and policymakers is needed to alleviate

the problems faced by tribal communities

and to provide effective policing in Indian

country (Wakeling et al., 2001).

Youth Gang Activity

Twenty-three percent (n=69) of Indian

country respondents3 reported having

active youth gangs in their communities

during 2000. Seventy percent responded

that there was no gang activity in their

communities, and 7 percent could not

make a determination.4

NYGC obtained population data for 83 percent (n=57) of the communities reporting

gang activity. Although only 23 percent of

responding Indian country communities

reported active gangs, the residents located in these communities accounted for

more than 60 percent of the total responding population. The average population of

communities reporting gang activity was

slightly more than 4,500, compared with

a population of slightly fewer than 400

among communities reporting no active

gangs. This suggests that larger Indian

country communities are more likely to

experience gang activity than smaller

communities.

By contrast, law enforcement agencies responding to the 2000 NYGC national survey noted a considerably greater degree

of youth gang activity, with 40 percent

(n=975) of respondents indicating active

youth gangs (Egley and Arjunan, 2002).

Of the national survey respondents that

were similar in size to the Indian country

respondents (i.e., the comparison sample), 20 percent (n=85) reported youth

gang activity in their jurisdiction.5 Figure 2

compares gang activity across the three

samples.

Gangs and Gang Members

Figures 3 and 4 (pages 5 and 6) show

the number of gangs and gang members,

respectively, in Indian country communities. The estimated number of youth

gangs per community ranged from 1 to 40,

with the majority of respondents (59 percent of gang problem areas) identifying 1

to 5 gangs. The estimated number of gang

members per community ranged from 4 to

750, with 32 percent of respondents stating there were 25 or fewer gang members

in their community.

To illustrate gang activity among Indian

communities of different sizes, the following analyses compared communities with

a population of 2,000 or more (referred to

as “larger communities”) and communities

with a population of fewer than 2,000

(“smaller communities”).6 Seventeen percent of the smaller communities responding to the survey reported experiencing a

gang problem, compared with 69 percent

of larger communities. Figures 5 and 6

(pages 6 and 7) show the reported

5 “Jurisdiction” is defined as the service area of the

responding law enforcement agency.

6 The mean population of Indian communities for

which population data were available was used to

determine the population split for larger and smaller

communities.

2 Public Law 280 is a federal statute that grants a state

in which an Indian community is located authority

over criminal and civil matters on that land.

3 For the remainder of this Bulletin, “respondents”

refers only to those communities reporting youth gang

activity in 2000.

4 Communities reporting “do not know” are presented

here because of their appreciable number. Unless

noted elsewhere in this Bulletin, “do not know”

responses are excluded from the analysis.
5

number of gangs and gang members,

respectively, by community size. Not only

did a greater proportion of larger communities report gang activity, these communities were also more likely to report greater

numbers of active gangs and gang members per community.

Gang Problem Onset

Of the Indian country respondents who

experienced gang activity in 2000, half

said gang problems began after 1994, 

suggesting the relatively recent onset of

gang activity. Approximately half of respondents from the comparison sample

indicated that the problems began after

1994. Figure 7 (page 7) shows the percentage of respondents from each sample who

first identified a gang problem in their

community during a particular year. The

figure suggests that gang activity began

later in the Indian country and comparison samples than in the national sample

and is not the longstanding problem that

is more frequently reported by national

survey respondents.

The onset of gang activity is associated

with a variety of factors. Findings from a

field study on gangs in the Navajo Nation

indicate that the importation and spread

of youth gangs are facilitated by specific

structural factors in the community (Armstrong et al., 2002). These factors include

the frequency with which families move

off and onto the reservation; poverty, substance abuse, and family dysfunction; the

development of cluster housing instead

of traditional single-family housing; and

a waning connection to Native American

culture and traditional kinship ties among

cousins. These findings reflect a process

of “multiple marginalization,” whereby

depressed “social and economic conditions result in powerlessness” among

community members (Vigil, 2002:7). These

changes in structural forces weaken families, schools, and other institutions traditionally associated with social control,

thus allowing youth to be socialized on

the street by gangs. For example, respondents in the Navajo gang study cited

friendship and the sense of belonging to

something as significant benefits derived

from being in a gang (Armstrong et al.,

2002). Related research indicates that gang

activity in Indian country communities is a

relatively recent phenomenon and is associated with the social and structural conditions of larger communities (Conway,

1998; Hailer, 1998). NYGC survey findings

corroborate many of these findings.

Gang Member Demographics

Communities that reported gang activity

in 2000 were asked to estimate demographic characteristics of gang members,

including age, gender, and race or ethnicity.7 Respondents said that 80 percent of

gang members in Indian country were

male and 20 percent were female. Not

Figure 2: Percentage of Respondents Reporting Youth Gang Activity

in 2000, by Sample

0

10

20

30

40

50

Indian country sample 

(n=69)

Comparison sample 

(n=85)

National sample 

(n=975)

Percentage of Respondents

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country; 2000 National Youth Gang Survey.

Figure 3: Number of Gangs Reported by Indian Country

Communities, 2000 (n=69)

Percentage of Respondents

1–5 6–10 More than 10 Do not know

Number of Gangs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country.

7 Survey questions regarding demographic data about

gang members required respondents to estimate the

percentage of gang members who met certain criteria.

Ideally, the percentages would be weighted by the

total number of gang members reported in a community to reflect differences in membership across the

reporting communities. Given the available data, the

results in this Bulletin are based on unweighted data

because of the significant reduction in eligible cases

for weighting procedures. Caution must be exercised

when interpreting the results, and any comparisons

with studies where results are based on weighted data

must be done with these concerns in mind. However,

comparing results derived from unweighted data with

those derived from weighted data in this survey

demonstrates only slight variation, providing confidence in the findings reported here. 
6

As seen in figures 8 and 9 (page 8), the

findings related to gender and age makeup

for the Indian country sample are consistent with those for the comparison sample.8 Twenty percent of the gang members

in the comparison sample were female,

compared with 6 percent in the national

sample (Egley, 2002). Respondents for the

comparison sample reported a greater

percentage of juvenile gang members

(70 percent), compared with 37 percent

reported nationally in 2000 (Egley, 2002).

These data suggest that youth gangs in

Indian country and the comparison sample are similar in age and gender composition. Additionally, these findings are consistent with previous research that has

found that areas experiencing a recent

onset of gang activity frequently have

larger proportions of juvenile and female

gang members than areas with longstanding gang problems (Howell, Egley, and

Gleason, 2002). Respondents also estimated that 82 percent of the identified gangs

in Indian country included both male and

female members, 10 percent were female

dominated (more than 50 percent of the

gang’s members were female), and 35

percent were racially or ethnically mixed.

Gangs with such a demographic mixture

are sometimes referred to as “hybrid”

gangs and are increasingly visible across

the country (Starbuck, Howell, and

Lindquist, 2001).

Gangs in Schools

The survey asked respondents about gang

activity in community schools. Eighty-six

percent of the Indian country communities with gang problems indicated gang

activity in one or more community high

schools. Additionally, 74 percent said

gangs were active in one or more community middle schools, and 42 percent indicated youth gang activity in one or more

community elementary schools. Howell

and Lynch (2000) report that youth gangs

are linked with serious crime problems in

schools across the country. Those schools

in which gang activity was reported were

also more likely to have higher levels of

violent victimization, availability of drugs,

and students who carry guns than schools

reported not to have gang activity. Gang

member interviews from the study of

gangs in the Navajo Nation indicated that

half of gang members were currently

8 To reflect differences in membership across the

reporting jurisdictions, data from the national and

comparison samples are weighted by the total number

of gang members reported in a community.

*Smaller communities have a population of less than 2000; larger communities 2000 or more.

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 0

1–5 6–10 More than 10 Do not know

Percentage of Respondents

Number of Gangs

Smaller communities (n=23) Larger communities (n=34)

Figure 4: Number of Gang Members Reported by Indian Country

Communities, 2000 (n=69)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percentage of Respondents

25 or fewer 26–50 More than 50 Do not know

Number of Gang Members

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country.

Figure 5: Number of Gangs Reported by Indian Country Communities,

2000, by Community Size*

surprisingly, survey respondents also

believed the majority (78 percent) to be

American Indian, Alaska Native, or Aleut.

In fact, approximately one-half of responding communities indicated almost all gang

members (more than 90 percent) were

of this race. Twelve percent of gang members were reported to be Hispanic/Latino,

followed by Caucasian/white (7 percent),

African American/black (2 percent), and

Asian (2 percent). Respondents indicated

that approximately one-quarter of gang

members in their community were younger

than 15 years old and that almost half were

between 15 and 17 years old, suggesting

that nearly 75 percent of all reported gang

members in Indian country were juveniles

(younger than 18 years old).
7

enrolled in school (Armstrong et al.,

2002). Given the risk of criminal activity

associated with gangs in schools, these

findings highlight the importance of

school-based gang prevention and intervention programs.

Gang Migration

The survey defined “gang migrants” as

youth gang members who “already have

joined gangs in their former jurisdiction

prior to their arrival in a new jurisdiction.”

Survey respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of gang members

who were migrants. Approximately 17

percent of all gang members were identified as such, and the majority of respondents (77 percent) perceived migration to

be tied to social circumstances such as

gang members moving back into the community with their families. These results

are consistent with reports by law enforcement agencies outside of Indian country

(Egley, 2000; Maxson, 1998). Comparatively few respondents said gang members

migrated to their community for criminally motivated reasons such as establishing

drug markets, avoiding law enforcement,

or establishing an alliance with Native

American gangs.

Criminal Involvement

Survey respondents provided information

about where Indian country gang members committed their crimes. The majority

of respondents (56 percent) reported that

youth gangs committed their crimes both

within and outside the community, whereas 36 percent reported that crimes were

committed only inside Indian country.

The survey asked respondents about the

proportion of gang members involved in

a variety of criminal offenses. According

to respondents, gang members were most

frequently involved in graffiti (47 percent

of communities with a gang problem

reported a high degree of involvement in

this offense), vandalism (40 percent), drug

sales (22 percent), and aggravated assault

(15 percent) (figure 10). These findings

support earlier research that suggests

that gang involvement in criminal activity in Indian country consists mainly of

property crime (Armstrong et al., 2002). 

Indian country gang members who commit assaults tend not to use firearms in

these crimes. Twice as many communities

reported that gang members use weapons

other than firearms in conjunction with

assault crimes.

Figure 6: Number of Gang Members Reported by Indian Country

Communities, 2000, by Community Size*

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

25 or fewer 26–50 More than 50 Do not know

Number of Gang Members

Smaller communities (n=23) Larger communities (n=34)

Percentage of Respondents

Figure 7: Year of Onset of Gang Problems, by Survey Sample

X X X 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cumulative Percentage of Jurisdictions

1980 and 

before

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Year of Onset

Comparison sample Indian country sample National sample

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

*Smaller communities have a population of less than 2000; larger communities 2000 or more.

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country.

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country; 2000 National Survey of Youth Gangs.
8

motivated (Armstrong et al., 2002). Alcohol use, graffiti, and vandalism were the

primary crimes Navajo gang members engaged in as a gang, which is consistent

with the current survey findings. In fact,

83 percent of respondents in the Indian

country survey said that only very little

or some of the youth crime in their communities involves gang members.

Influences on Community

Gang Activity

Fifty-one percent of Indian country respondents reported that gang members

returning to the community from prison in

2000 had a negative impact on local youth

gang problems. Thirty-one percent reported very little impact, and 18 percent reported no impact. These findings are comparable to those outside Indian country,

suggesting that a majority of communities,

regardless of size or location, are negatively affected by gang members returning

from prison (Egley and Arjunan, 2002).

To explore other possible sources of gang

influence, the survey asked respondents

how much their community’s gang problem was affected by gang activity in outside areas. Fifty-three percent of responding communities said gang activity in large

cities influenced the nature of gang activity in their community. Other sources of

influence included border towns (24 percent), outside schools (22 percent), and

prisons and jails (15 percent).

NYGC further explored the association

between gang activity in Indian country

communities and the proximity of the

communities to large cities.9 Of respondents reporting an urban influence, 70

percent were located within 120 miles of

a large city with gang activity, suggesting

that such Indian country communities are

more susceptible to the effects of largecity gang activity. However, as with earlier

research (Hailer, 1998), these data also

indicate that distance and isolation from

The majority of respondents from communities in all samples reported no gangrelated homicides during 2000, and few

Indian country and comparison sample

respondents indicated more than one

gang-related homicide (figure 11). By

contrast, nearly one-quarter of respondents from the national sample reported

more than one gang-related homicide.

It is important to note that although the

reported level of violent criminal behavior

by gang members in Indian country is relatively low, the level of criminal activity

increases with the size of the community.

Figure 12 (page 10) shows that in the larger communities, respondents reported

more gang member involvement in both

9 The survey did not specify the influence of a large

nearby city. Therefore, respondents might have interpreted the question as general influence of large urban

areas, not specifically those located near their community. For example, one respondent from a community

located almost 400 miles from the nearest city reported the community’s gang problem was heavily influenced by gang activity in large cities. A closer look at

Indian country communities that reported little or no

influence from city gang activity, despite close proximity to cities, might provide useful information about

the factors that enable those communities to prevent

gang activity from influencing local youth and the

community.

Figure 8: Gender of Gang Members, 2000, by Sample

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percentage of Members

Comparison sample 

(n=65)

Indian country 

sample (n=59)

National sample 

(n=798)

Male Female

Figure 9: Age of Gang Members, 2000, by Sample

Comparison sample 

(n=47)

Indian country 

sample (n=55)

National sample 

(n=803)

Juvenile (younger than 18) Adult (18 and older)

Percentage of Members

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country; 2000 National Youth Gang Survey.

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country; 2000 National Youth Gang Survey.

property and violent crimes. Additionally,

26 percent of larger communities reported

one or more gang-related homicides in

2000, compared with only 6 percent of

smaller communities.

Interviews with youth in the Navajo study

showed that most gang crime incidents in

Indian country are nonviolent (Armstrong

et al., 2002). Navajo youth who identified

with gang culture focused primarily on

values of antioppression, cohesion within the gang family, and participation in

leisure activities—not criminal enterprises. Members of Navajo reservation gangs

indicated that most criminal activity,

whether drug sales or violence, was individually motivated rather than gang
9

large cities do not insulate Indian country

communities from the influence of large

cities’ gang activity.

Factors contributing to the persistence

of gang activity in Indian country communities most often included the spread of

the gang culture from nearby cities and

towns (37 percent of respondents). Other

contributing factors reported by respondents include parental apathy, erosion of

the family structure, lack of values and

low self-esteem among youth, social problems other than poverty (mainly drug and

alcohol abuse but also unemployment,

child abuse, and domestic violence), and

a lack of positive activities for youth.

Survey respondents also identified factors

that prevent youth in their community

from joining gangs. Respondents cited

positive activities for youth, community

and school programs that address violence and gang activity, and traditional

Indian culture and beliefs. Youth gang

activity in the Navajo Nation was found

to be influenced by similar factors. Researchers found that some gang-involved

Navajo youth returned from urban settings and influenced peers in the community. Often these youth resided in subsidized public housing communities where

numerous other youth and their families

shared the same family and community

factors of multiple marginality (see discussion of these factors on page 5). In this

way, some youth who have never lived off

the reservation in communities with gangs

are exposed indirectly to the gang culture.

This pattern of youth becoming involved

in gangs is consistent with research that

suggests that the diffusion of popular

media and culture contributes to the

proliferation of gang activity (Klein, 1995).

The relocation of gang members as they

moved with their families out of the cities

(Maxson, 1998), movies glorifying youth

gangs (such as Colors), and the popularity

of “gangsta” rap music appear to have

worked together to introduce large-city

gang culture to youth in the suburbs and

areas far away from central cities.

Defining Youth Gangs

The characteristics that guide local definitions of “youth gang” often vary among law

enforcement agencies (NYGC, 2000). To

examine this issue in Indian country,

respondents were asked to rank six characteristics according to their importance in

defining a youth gang in their community.

As shown in the table (page 10), the average rank for each characteristic is approximately 3 to 4, whereas a ranking of 1 or 2

would indicate greater importance.

No one characteristic emerges as dominant over the others—considerable variation exists among communities as to

the most important criteria for defining

a youth gang. However, the average rank

of “commits crime together” is significantly lower among Indian country respondents than among comparison sample

respondents. This suggests that group

criminal activity is a less defining feature

of youth gangs in Indian country. This

result may be related to the developing

nature of youth gangs and youthful experimentation with gang identity in Indian

country.

Figure 10: Criminal Activities of Gang Members in Indian Country,

2000 (n>65)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percentage of Respondents*

Aggravated

assault

Burglary Drug 

sales

Graffiti Larceny/

theft

Motor 

vehicle

theft

Robbery Vandalism

*Data reflect crimes in which respondents said “most/all” gang members were involved.

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country.

Figure 11: Number of Gang-Related Homicides in 2000, by Sample

Zero One More than one

Number of Homicides

Percentage of Respondents

Comparison sample 

(n=65)

Indian country sample 

(n=59)

National sample 

(n=646)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country; 2000 National Youth Gang Survey.
10

Social Problems in the

Community

Much of the literature about Indian country communities, along with input from

advisory group members and practitioners in the field, suggests that social conditions in these areas are often associated

with violence and victimization (Armstrong et al., 2002; Conway, 1998; Hailer,

1998). Thus, survey respondents were

asked to rate the seriousness of various

social problems in the community. Figure

13 reveals that 96 percent of respondents

reported alcohol abuse as a significant

problem, followed by drug abuse (88 percent) and domestic violence (80 percent).

Of the eight social problems respondents

were asked to rate, youth gangs ranked

second to last as a serious problem (by

52 percent of communities) and violent

juvenile crime ranked last (42 percent).

Although gang activity does not generally

appear to be a serious problem relative to

other social conditions in Indian country

communities, 65 percent of larger communities said the gang problem was serious

or very serious, compared with 35 percent

of smaller communities. Other problems,

including substance abuse and domestic

violence, were recognized as significant

problems across communities, regardless

of size.

Perceptions of the Youth

Gang Problem

Forty-nine percent of responding communities said that the magnitude of their

youth gang problem was about the same

in 2000 as it was in 1999. Thirty-four percent said it had worsened and 17 percent

said it had improved.

Implications for

Program and Policy

Responses

Findings from NYGC’s Survey of Youth

Gangs in Indian Country add to the current understanding of gang activity in

these areas and have important implications for policy and practice regarding

tribal youth. In general, the intensity of

the gang problem and the severity of

gang members’ criminal involvement are

relatively low. The majority of the survey respondents appear to experience

gang problems similar to those in less

populated communities throughout the

nation. Based on this finding, it is possible

to recommend prevention, intervention,

and suppression programs for Indian communities by considering programs that

have successfully targeted delinquent

activity and gang involvement in the

general population.

For example, because the majority of Indian country communities say their gangs

are in the early stages of development—

and because delinquent behavior is a

strong predictor of gang membership—

programs that prevent delinquency are

likely to reduce gang involvement (Howell,

Egley, and Gleason, 2002). Delinquency

prevention programs that help youth

develop social skills, provide opportunities to use them, and recognize youth for

successfully implementing them may help

prevent delinquency involvement (Catalano and Hawkins, 1996). However, it is

important to remember that although

these programs have shown promise,

most have not been tested with an Indian

population. Therefore, these programs

may need to be adapted to better address

Characteristics Used in Defining a Youth Gang

Average Rank (1=Highest, 6=Lowest)

Indian Country Sample Comparison Sample

Gang Characteristic (n=56) (n=45)

Claims a turf or territory 3.9 4.3

Commits crime together 3.6 2.4

Has a leader or several

leaders 3.5 3.4

Has a name 3.4 3.5

Displays or wears common

colors or other insignia 3.3 4.0

Hangs out together 3.2 3.4

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country; 2000 National Youth Gang Survey.

Figure 12: Criminal Activities of Gang Members in Indian Country,

2000, by Community Size*

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0 0

Smaller communities (n>20) Larger communities (n>31)

Percentage of Respondents**

Aggravated

assault

Burglary Drug

sales

Graffiti Larceny/ 

theft

Motor 

vehicle

theft

Robbery Vandalism

*Smaller communities have a population of less than 2000; larger communities 2000 or more.

**Data reflect crimes in which respondents said “most/all” gang members were involved.

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country.
11

issues faced by Indian populations and to

evaluate their effectiveness in this setting.

A Comprehensive

Approach

Survey findings suggest that the most

critical concerns in Indian country communities are the social problems that contribute to youth gang involvement, not

gangs themselves. Respondents identified

a variety of factors that promote delinquent behavior and gang activity, including parental apathy, erosion of family

structure, low self-esteem, social problems in the community, and lack of positive activities for youth. Therefore, programs incorporating a range of strategies

to prevent, control, and reduce youth

crime in Indian country could effectively

combat gangs. Although the likely focus of

most Indian country communities will be

prevention programs, community members should consider all three levels (i.e.,

prevention, intervention, and suppression), especially in larger communities

where gang problems were reported to

be more serious.

Further, community-specific strategies

for combating youth gangs are most beneficial when based on a detailed assessment of the local gang problem. NYGC has

developed both an assessment protocol

and a comprehensive model for preventing and combating gang membership and

activity that consists of a continuum of

prevention, intervention, and suppression

strategies (NYGC, 2002a, 2002b). It is particularly important that all community

agencies collaborate in combining resources to develop the most comprehensive and effective approach to combating

local gang problems (Howell, Egley, and

Gleason, 2002; Starbuck, Howell, and

Lindquist, 2001).

Prevention

Described below are prevention programs

that target the general population and

seek to prevent delinquency and violence,

which can be stepping stones to gang

membership. Most of these school-based

programs include a parental training and

involvement component and focus on

preventing general violence and building

prosocial skills. It is important to note

that these programs have not been evaluated specifically for their effects on potential gang involvement (Catalano et al.,

1998) and, with the exception of two substance abuse programs, none of these

programs has been evaluated specifically

for effectiveness with Indian country youth.

General delinquency. A wide variety of

classroom violence prevention curriculums are being implemented in schools

across the country, and many of these

have proven effective (Gottfredson, 2001).

Selected programs are briefly described

here (many others are reviewed in Howell,

2003). Programs selected for inclusion

here have reasonable implementation

potential in Indian country, particularly

in the more populated areas.

Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways

(RIPPW) is an effective violence prevention curriculum for middle school students (Farrell and Meyer, 1997, 1998). The

program builds knowledge, changes attitudes, and enhances youth skills for acting against violence. It also teaches children about the nature of violence and its

consequences. The curriculum, which

consists of 18 sessions over the course of

1 semester, teaches sixth grade students

strategies for negotiating interpersonal

conflicts nonviolently. Adult role models

trained in the curriculum administer the

weekly sessions. Peer mediation, teambuilding activities, small group work, and

role-playing activities are used regularly.

RIPPW appears to affect males and

females differently, with boys—but not

girls—exhibiting lower levels of violent

behavior (e.g., fighting, threatening to hurt

someone, or carrying weapons), suppressed anger, assault against teachers,

and school suspensions. Girls showed

improvements in problem solving.

Law-Related Education (LRE) (www.

streetlaw.org) consists of K–12 classroom

instruction designed to educate youth

about the origin and role of law in key

social systems, such as the family, community, school, and juvenile and criminal

justice systems. LRE programs draw practical connections among the everyday

lives of young people and the law, human

rights, and democratic values. LRE programs have been effective in improving

academic performance and preventing

general delinquency (Maguin and Loeber,

1996). In addition, some evidence shows

that LRE prevents aggressive behavior

(Gottfredson, 1990; Johnson and Hunter,

1985).

Promoting a safe school environment and

making all students feel safe may reduce

the risk of gang involvement, but traditional school security measures such as

security guards, metal detectors, and locker checks do not appear to be a solution,

in and of themselves, to gang problems

(Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 2001; Howell

and Lynch, 2000). Additional interventions

are needed. The Safe Schools Unit of the

San Diego County (CA) Office of Education has developed a promising practical

approach for increasing school safety

and intervening in student conflicts,

particularly gang-related situations

(Sakamoto, 1996). The Safe Schools Unit

has a Violence Prevention/Intervention

(VPI) team that helps schools develop

comprehensive safety plans. In addition

Figure 13: Perceived Seriousness of Social Problems in Indian

Country Communities in 2000 (n=69)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of Respondents*

Alcohol 

abuse

Drug

abuse

Domestic 

violence

Nonviolent

juvenile

delinquency

Child 

abuse

Violent

adult

crime

Youth

gangs

Violent

juvenile

crime

*Data reflect percentage of respondents who rated a social problem “serious” or “very serious.”

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country.
12

to outlining school safety policies, procedures, and crisis response protocols, these

plans include training teachers, students,

and parents to address gangs and violence. The VPI team also operates a Rapid

Response Unit that assists schools during

crisis situations. This comprehensive

approach, along with other prevention

efforts and a history of multiagency partnerships, has improved the safety of San

Diego schools.

A national assessment of school-based

gang prevention and intervention programs (Gottfredson and Gottfredson,

2001) concluded that many of them address gang involvement but that most of

them are not well implemented. Nevertheless, consideration should be given to

effective classroom violence prevention

curriculums (Gottfredson, 2001) that can

easily be added to traditional instruction

in schools in Indian country.

Gang involvement. Survey respondents

said community and school programs that

addressed violence and gang activity were

effective ways to prevent community youth

from becoming involved in gang activity. As

such, the Gang Resistance Education and

Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program10 may be an

appropriate way to effectively reduce gang

involvement in Indian country. Uniformed

law enforcement officers teach the 13-week

course mainly to middle school students

(Esbensen and Osgood, 1997; Esbensen

et al., 2001). In addition to educating students about the dangers of gang involvement, lessons emphasize cognitivebehavioral training, social skills development, refusal skills training, and conflict

resolution. Modified curriculums have

been developed for fifth and sixth graders

and third and fourth graders. Multisite

evaluations of G.R.E.A.T. show the program

has small but positive effects on student

attitudes and ability to resist peer pressure to join gangs (Palumbo and Ferguson,

1995; Esbensen et al., 2001). For example,

students who received G.R.E.A.T. training

had less self-reported delinquency, fewer

gang affiliations, and greater commitment

to school and prosocial peers than students who did not participate in the program (Esbensen et al., 2001). To date,

G.R.E.A.T. has been implemented in seven

Indian country communities, with the

assistance of the National Native American

Law Enforcement Association and the Boys

& Girls Clubs of America. Additionally, two

G.R.E.A.T. officer training sessions for

Bureau of Indian Affairs/Tribal Officers

have graduated more than 50 officers, and

plans exist for additional sessions in

upcoming years.

Substance abuse. Perhaps the most compelling Indian country survey finding was

the magnitude of social problems reported, specifically the number of communities citing alcohol abuse and drug abuse

as a significant problem (96 percent and

88 percent, respectively). Because of the

high incidence of alcohol and drug abuse,

this area of prevention is particularly

pertinent to the Indian population. The

National Institute on Drug Abuse (1997)

has identified a number of effective programs for preventing drug use and antisocial behavior among children and adolescents. Two of these programs have been

implemented with Indian populations and

show good potential for success in those

communities.

The Strengthening Families Program is a 

7-week curriculum designed to bring parents together with their 10- to 14-year-old

children, with the goal of reducing substance abuse and other problem behaviors in youth. The program began as an

effort to help substance-abusing parents

improve their parenting skills and thus

reduce their children’s risk factors (Kumpfer and Alvarado, 1998). It contains three

elements: a children’s skills program, a

parent training program, and a family skills

training program.

This intervention approach has been evaluated in a variety of settings and with several racial and ethnic groups (Molgaard,

Spoth, and Redmond, 2000), including

Indian youth and families (Kumpfer, Molgaard, and Spoth, 1996; Molgaard and

Spoth, 2001). Youth who completed the

program had significantly lower rates of

alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use than

youth in the control group. Other positive

outcomes included reductions in family

conflict, improvement in family communication and organization, and reductions

in delinquency. The Iowa Strengthening

Families Program, a revision of the initial

program model, has been adapted for

Indian populations by the Iowa University

Extension to Families (www.extension.

iastate.edu/sfp).

Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY)

is an effective program that decreases

problem behaviors among teens by improving parenting practices to reduce risk

factors and increase protective factors

(Haggerty et al., 1999). The program’s goal

is to empower parents of children ages 8

to 14 to reduce the likelihood that their

children will abuse drugs and alcohol or

develop other common adolescent problems. The flexible PDFY curriculum has

been used with a broad range of families

of various socioeconomic and cultural

backgrounds and is designed to reach

adult learners regardless of learning style

or level of education. To date, it has been

implemented in conjunction with the Iowa

Strengthening Families Program and used

successfully with American Indian families

(Harachi, Catalano, and Hawkins, 1997).

The Midwestern Prevention Project is

another successful program for preventing the use of gateway substances (alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana) among lowand high-risk seventh and eighth graders

(Johnson et al., 1990). The program is

unique because it addresses all five of

the risk factor domains:

◆ All students are offered individual skills

training.

◆ Parents are provided training and

opportunities for direct involvement

with their children and their children’s

schools.

◆ Peers are involved in positive

modeling.

◆ The school is the central component

for drug prevention programming,

which includes a variety of social

learning techniques, and policies are

modified to discourage drug use.

◆ Community policies and social norms

about drug use are modified and

clarified to set and reinforce clear

behavioral standards.

Intervention

Intervention programs focus on youth identified as being at risk of becoming delinquent or involved in a gang. These programs also address general delinquency.

General delinquency. The National Court

Appointed Special Advocate Association

(CASA) implemented the Tribal Court

CASA project in 1994 to support programs

in which volunteers act as advocates for

abused or neglected American Indian

and Alaska Native children (Frey, 2002).

National CASA oversees two grants that

assist tribal court programs: the National

Grants Program and CASA Program Development for Native American Tribal

Courts. The National Grants Program, administered in partnership with the Office

10 For more information about the G.R.E.A.T. program in

Indian country, visit www.naclubs.org/main/great.shtml.
13

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, provides funding to help Indian

communities develop and operate CASA

programs. CASA Program Development for

Native American Tribal Courts provides

funds specifically to tribal communities

that wish to implement a CASA program.

Because problems vary from community

to community, the Tribal Court CASA project tailors programs to individual communities’ needs. To date, no evaluation of program effectiveness has been performed.

The Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA)

has implemented a number of programs

that address important youth issues

and that have shown particular promise

with at-risk populations (www.bgca.org/

programs). The success of its programs

has prompted BGCA to open clubs in Indian country communities. Since the first

club opened in Pine Ridge, SD, in 1992, the

number of Boys & Girls Clubs in Indian

country has expanded to 123 locations

in 23 states, and the clubs serve nearly

80,000 American Indian youth. The Indian

country Boys & Girls Clubs feature tailored programs that improve both the

outcomes for youth participating in BGCA

and the individual Indian community cultures. BGCA programs in Indian country

include SMART Moves (Skills Mastery and

Resistance Training, including drug and

alcohol prevention and sexual abstinence)

and Power Hour (afterschool tutoring)

(Fogerty, 2002).

Gang involvement. Targeted Outreach,

also operated by BGCA in Indian country,

is a communitywide gang prevention program that intervenes with youth at risk for

gang involvement, those in the “wannabe”

stage, and current gang members. Targeted Outreach incorporates four objectives:

community mobilization, recruitment,

mainstreaming and programming, and

case management. Local implementation

of this program begins with mobilizing

community leaders and club staff, who

discuss local gang issues, clarify their

roles, and design a strategy for offering

youth alternatives to the gang lifestyle.

Police departments, schools, social services agencies, and community organizations

recruit at-risk youth into club programs in

a nonstigmatizing way through direct outreach efforts and a referral network that

links local clubs with courts. Once in

BGCA, youth participate in programs

based on their individual interests and

needs.

The Targeted Outreach initiative has two

components: Gang Prevention Through

Targeted Outreach (GPTTO) and Gang

Intervention Through Targeted Outreach

(GITTO). The components are implemented separately, depending on the

severity of gang problems near club locations in a particular city. The respective

components try either to prevent high-risk

youth from joining gangs (GPTTO) or to

provide alternatives to the gang lifestyle

by mainstreaming youth into club programming (GITTO).

In the prevention model (GPTTO), youth

are recruited to participate in all aspects

of Boys & Girls Club programming. The

program has produced generally positive outcomes in behavior related to

both school and delinquency measures,

although the differences between the

comparison group and those participating

in the program were stronger for schoolrelated behaviors than for delinquency

and gang-related behaviors. Evaluations

of youth behavior after participating in

GPTTO for 1 year suggested that more

frequent attendance was associated with

a reduced likelihood of youth wearing

gang colors, having contact with the juvenile justice system, and exhibiting delinquent behaviors. Frequent attendance

was also associated with improved school

outcomes and higher levels of positive

peer and family relationships (Arbreton

and McClanahan, 2002).

In the intervention model (GITTO), youth

are recruited to participate in a project

staffed by the Boys & Girls Club but run

separately from daily club activities

(either after typical club hours or on a

one-on-one basis). Programs are offered

in five core areas: character and leadership development, education and career

development, health and life skills, the

arts, and sports, fitness, and recreation.

Like GPTTO, GITTO has produced modest

positive outcomes for youth participating

in the program. More frequent attendance

at GITTO was associated with less involvement in gang-associated behaviors, less

contact with the juvenile justice system,

and more positive school engagement

(Arbreton and McClanahan, 2002).

Suppression

Suppression techniques are aimed at individuals who are already gang members or

participating in criminal activity (Howell,

2000) and involve the police, courts, and

corrections. Law enforcement officers

have combatted gangs with specialized

gang units, prosecution, specialized probation programs, and ordinances such as

curfew laws, antiloitering laws, and civil

injunctions (Curry and Decker, 2003;

Esbensen, 2000; Howell, 2000).

Juvenile courts can make a significant

contribution to reducing gang involvement. An effective juvenile probation program in Peoria County, IL, targets juvenile

offenders who have been placed on probation for gang-related behavior or substance abuse (Adams, 2002). The program

consists of several elements essential to

intensive supervision probation, including

small caseloads, frequent contacts with

probationers, distinct and graduated

phases to structure movement through

the program, substance abuse assessments, rehabilitation programs, and behavioral controls. Evaluation of the program

has demonstrated positive effects; nearly

60 percent of program participants were

not charged with a new criminal offense,

and approximately 65 percent did not

receive any technical violations while in

the program.

Implementing a Continuum

of Programs

A number of grant programs have been

implemented to help Indian country communities develop prevention, intervention,

and suppression programs that address

juvenile delinquency, violence, and victimization. OJJDP’s Tribal Youth Program

(TYP), dedicated to preventing and controlling delinquency and improving the

juvenile justice system in American Indian

communities (Andrews, 1999), is one such

program. Through grant funds, training,

and technical assistance, TYP works to

meet the unique needs of individual communities by—

◆ Reducing, controlling, and preventing

crime by and against tribal youth.

◆ Providing interventions for courtinvolved youth.

◆ Improving tribal juvenile justice

systems.

◆ Providing alcohol and drug-use

prevention programs.

To date, 161 tribal communities have

received TYP funding. The Michigan Public Health Institute, in partnership with

the Native American Institute at Michigan

State University, is currently helping five

tribes evaluate programs they developed

with TYP funds (Fung and Wyrick, 2001).

Because communities have used these

resources in varying ways, not all programs have been evaluated.
14

The Native American Alliance Foundation

(NAAF) was awarded a cooperative agreement to provide American Indian and

Alaska Native tribes with training and

technical assistance to develop or enhance their juvenile justice systems. A

primary responsibility of this program is

to offer effective, culturally appropriate

training and technical assistance that

addresses the problems faced by Indian

youth and their families. Through such

training, NAAF helps communities in Indian country develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing juvenile

delinquency, violence, and victimization.

Summary

In the past few years, a growing concern

about crime, delinquency, and gang activity in Indian country has emerged. Previous research shows that much of the gang

activity seems to be an expression of

youthful experimentation with gang identity and that a strained social environment,

the appeal of popular culture surrounding

gang activity, and a lack of positive activities for youth contribute to the American Indian youth gang phenomenon

(Armstrong et al., 2002).

Few research studies have focused specifically on the level of youth gang activity

in these communities. This study has

provided a detailed national assessment

of gang activity in Indian country communities that can guide effective response

to the problem. Findings in this Bulletin

reveal that 23 percent of responding Indian country communities experienced a

youth gang problem in 2000. The size of

the youth gang problem varied considerably, with many communities reporting

comparatively few youth gangs and gang

members. In general, gang members most

often were said to be juvenile, male, and

involved in property crimes such as vandalism and graffiti. Survey findings indicate

that larger communities have a greater

number of gangs and gang members,

experience more violent crime by gang

members (including homicides), and

report gang activity as a more serious

social problem.

The data presented here help clarify

whether, and in what ways, gangs in Indian country are similar or different from

other youth gangs. Although the findings

for Indian country communities and national sample respondents differed, it is

possible to compare Indian country data

with data from the comparison sample,

whose respondents more closely resemble

Indian country communities in size and

geographic location. These comparisons

suggest similar levels of gang activity and

similar gender and age composition of

gang members. Additionally, findings from

a field study of youth gangs in the Navajo

Nation substantiate many of the survey

results presented.

This preliminary assessment of the gang

problem in Indian country can be used

to guide systematic response to gang activity in these communities. However,

community-specific strategies should be

based on detailed assessments of local

gang problems and involve community

agencies in a continuum of programs and

strategies that focuses on prevention,

intervention, and suppression.

A number of programs have effectively

reduced delinquency, and some look

promising for reducing gang involvement

in the general population. Many of these

programs could be culturally tailored for

an Indian country population and possibly

prove equally effective for its youth.

School- and community-based programs to

prevent, control, and reduce youth crime

and violence in general, such as BGCA and

G.R.E.A.T., appear promising, as do programs that address substance abuse.

Intervention programs, such as the BGCA

Targeted Outreach program, may effectively reduce gang involvement in these

areas. For communities experiencing a

more severe gang problem, suppression

tactics that reduce gang-related criminal

activity might be necessary. Additionally,

as the gang problem in Indian country

appears to be an extension of more serious problems, including poverty, substance abuse, and unemployment, policies

aimed at improving overall conditions in a

community will most likely have a concurrent and positive impact on the community’s gang problem.

References

Adams, S. 2002. The Impact of Intensive Juvenile

Probation Programs. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal

Justice Information Authority.

Andrews, C. 1999. Tribal Youth Program. Fact

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

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

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

Targeted Outreach: Boys & Girls Clubs of America’s Approach to Gang Prevention and Intervention. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Armstrong, T.L., Bluehouse, P., Dennison, A.,

Mason, H., Mendenhall, B., Wall, D., and Zion, J.

2002. Finding and knowing the gang nayee—

Field initiated gang research project: The judicial branch of the Navajo Nation. Unpublished

final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Catalano, R.F., Arthur, M.W., Hawkins, J.D.,

Berglund, L., and Olson, J.J. 1998. Comprehensive community- and school-based interventions to prevent antisocial behavior. 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. 248–283.

Catalano, R.F., and Hawkins, J.D. 1996. The

social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In Delinquency and Crime: Current

Theories, edited by J. David Hawkins. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Coalition for Juvenile Justice. 2000. Enlarging

the Healing Circle: Ensuring Justice for American

Indian Children. Report on the 5th Annual Ethnic and Cultural Diversity Training Conference.

Washington, DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice.

Conway, M.K. 1998. Gangs on Indian Reservations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

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

Gangs: Crime and Community, 2d ed. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing.

Egley, A., Jr. 2000. Highlights of the 1999 National

Youth Gang Survey. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Egley, A., Jr. 2002. National Youth Gang Survey

Trends From 1996 to 2000. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Egley, A., Jr., and Arjunan, M. 2002. Highlights of

the 2000 National Youth Gang Survey. Fact Sheet.

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

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Esbensen, F.A. 2000. Preventing Adolescent Gang

Involvement. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.

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

Esbensen, F.A., and Osgood, D.W. 1997. National

Evaluation of G.R.E.A.T. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

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

Peterson, D., and Freng, A. 2001. How great is
15

G.R.E.A.T.? Results from a longitudinal quasiexperimental design. Criminology and Public

Policy 1(1):87–118.

Farrell, A.D., and Meyer, A.L. 1997. The effectiveness of a school-based curriculum for reducing

violence among urban sixth grade students.

American Journal of Public Health 87:979–984.

Farrell, A.D., and Meyer, A.L. 1998. Social skills

training to promote resilience in urban sixth

grade students: One product of an action strategy to prevent youth violence in high-risk environments. Unpublished manuscript. Richmond,

VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.

Fogerty, M. 2002. Bridging the gap: Boys and

Girls Clubs tackle Indian country youth drug

problems. American Indian Report, January.

Frey, H.E. 2002. Tribal Court CASA: A Guide to

Program Development. Fact Sheet. Washington,

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

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Fung, C., and Wyrick, P.A. 2001. OJJDP’s Program

of Research for Tribal Youth. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Gottfredson, D.C. 1990. Changing school structures to benefit high-risk youths. In Understanding Troubled and Troubling Youth, edited by P.E.

Leone. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,

pp. 246–271.

Gottfredson, D.C. 2001. Schools and Delinquency.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

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, Inc.

Greenfeld, L.A., and Smith, S.K. 1999. American

Indians and Crime. Report. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Haggerty, K., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R.F., and

Hawkins, J.D. 1999. Preparing for the Drug Free

Years. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Hailer, J.A. 1998. A loss of traditions: The emergence of American Indian youth gangs. Master’s

thesis. San Jose, CA: San Jose State University.

Harachi, T.W., Catalano, R.F., and Hawkins, J.D.

1997. Effective recruitment for parenting programs within ethnic minority communities.

Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal

14(1):23–39.

Hickman, M. 2003. Tribal Law Enforcement,

2000. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

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., Egley, A., Jr., and Gleason, D.K.

2002. Modern-Day Youth Gangs. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C., and Lynch, J.P. 2000. Youth Gangs

in Schools. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.

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

Johnson, G., and Hunter, R. 1985. Law-Related

Education as a Delinquency Prevention Strategy:

A Three-Year Evaluation of the Impact of LRE on

Students. Boulder, CO: Center for Action

Research.

Johnson, C.A., Penz, M.A., Weber, M.D., Dwyer,

J.H., Baer, N., MacKinnon, D.P., Hansen, W.B.,

and Flay, B.R. 1990. Relative effectiveness of

comprehensive community programming for

drug abuse prevention with high-risk and lowrisk adolescents. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology 58:447–456.

Juneau, S.K. 1997. Indian Country Street Gang

Reference Book 1997. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian

Affairs, U.S. Indian Police Academy.

Juneau, S.K. 1998. Gangs in Indian Country. 1998

Annual Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,

U.S. Indian Police Academy.

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

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Kumpfer, K.L., and Alvarado, R. 1998. Effective

Family Strengthening Interventions. Bulletin.

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

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Kumpfer, K.L., Molgaard, V.K., and Spoth, R.L.

1996. The “Strengthening Families Program” for

the prevention of delinquency and drug use. In

Preventing Childhood Disorders, Substance Abuse

and Delinquency, edited by R. Peters and R.

McMahon. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 241–267.

Maguin, E., and Loeber, R. 1996. Academic

performance and delinquency. Crime and

Justice 20:145–264.

Maxson, C.L. 1998. Gang Members on the Move.

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

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Molgaard, V.K., and Spoth, R.L. 2001. Strengthening Families Program for young adolescents:

Overview and outcomes. In Innovative Mental

Health Programs for Children, edited by S. Pfeiffer

and L. Reddy. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press,

pp. 15–29.

Molgaard, V.K., Spoth, R.L., and Redmond, C.

2000. Competency Training. The Strengthening

Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10–14.

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

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. 1997. Preventing Drug Use Among Children and Adolescents—

A Research-Based Guide. Rockville, MD: National

Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug

Abuse.

National Youth Gang Center (NYGC). 2000. 1998

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 (NYGC). 2002a.

A guide to assessing your community’s youth

gang problem. CD–ROM. Tallahassee, FL:

National Youth Gang Center. Copies are available from NYGC (www.iir.com/nygc).

National Youth Gang Center (NYGC). 2002b.

Planning for implementation. CD–ROM. Tallahassee, FL: National Youth Gang Center. Copies

are available from NYGC (www.iir.com/nygc).

Nielson, M.O., Zion, J.W., and Hailer, J.A. 1998.

Navajo Nation gang formation and intervention

initiatives. In Gangs and Youth Subcultures:

International Explorations, edited by K. Hazlehurst and C. Hazlehurst. New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction Publishers.

Palumbo, D.J., and Ferguson, J.L. 1995. Evaluating Gang Resistance Education and Training

(G.R.E.A.T.): Is the impact the same as that of

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)?

Evaluation Review 19(6):591–619.

Sakamoto, W. 1996. Gang and Youth Violence

Intervention: Creating a Safe and Secure School

Campus. Unpublished manuscript. San Diego,

CA: San Diego County Office of Education.

Spergel, I.A., and Bobrowski, L. 1990. Law

enforcement definitional conference transcript.

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

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
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

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 202714

Acknowledgments 

Aline K. Major and Arlen Egley, Jr., Ph.D., are Research Associates with the National

Youth Gang Center (NYGC), which is operated for the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) by the Institute for Intergovernmental Research in

Tallahassee, Florida. James C. Howell, Ph.D., is an Adjunct Researcher with NYGC.

Barbara Mendenhall is the Assistant Director and Troy Armstrong, Ph.D., is the Director

of the Center for Delinquency and Crime Policy Studies at California State University,

Sacramento.

The authors would like to thank the members of the Indian Country Survey Advisory

Group for their invaluable direction and input, including Chief Allan, Legislative Associate, National Congress of American Indians; Laura Ansera, Tribal Youth Program Manager, OJJDP; Todd Araujo, Deputy Director, Office of Tribal Justice, U.S. Department of

Justice; Frank Canizales, Indian Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services; Roman Duran, First Vice President, National American Indian Court Judges

Association; Norena Henry, Director, American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs, U.S.

Department of Justice; Velma Mason, Ph.D., Director, Office for Alcohol and Substance

Abuse Prevention, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian

Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior; Peter Maybee, Executive Officer, Office of Law

Enforcement Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior; Ada

Pecos Melton, President, American Indian Development Associates; Dave Nicholas,

Office of Law Enforcement Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the

Interior; Arlene Wise, Office for Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention, Office of the

Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the

Interior; and Emily Wright, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Office of Native American Programs, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The authors are grateful to NYGC Director John Moore, other NYGC staff, and Norena

Henry for their valuable review of earlier versions of this Bulletin. The authors also

would like to thank Phelan Wyrick, Ph.D., Gang Program Coordinator, OJJDP, for making substantive contributions to this publication, and Jonathan Witte of the Juvenile

Justice Clearinghouse for his skillful editing of the manuscript. In addition, the authors

gratefully acknowledge staff from MGT of America for their assistance in data collection

and data entry and Charlene White, Institute for Intergovernmental Research, and

Randrick “Kimo” Souza, Mesa Gang Intervention Project (Arizona), for their assistance

in contacting survey recipients. Finally, the authors would like to thank the tribal and law

enforcement representatives who responded to the survey.

This Bulletin was prepared under cooperative

agreement number 95–JD–MU–K001 from the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the author(s) and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

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.

Starbuck, D., Howell, J.C., and Lindquist, D.J.

2001. Hybrid and Other Modern Gangs. Bulletin.

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

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Vigil, J.D. 2002. A Rainbow of Gangs: Street Cultures in the Mega-City. Austin, TX: University of

Texas Press.

Wakeling, S., Jorgensen, M., Michaelson, S., and

Begay, M. 2001. Policing on American Indian

Reservations. Research Report. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, National Institute of Justice.

*NCJ~202714*