U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics

October 2010, NCJ 230071

Highlights

Special Report

Year of gang unit creation

Number of currently active gang units

Note: Data on the year of gang unit creation available for 92.3% of gang units.

Census of Law Enforcement Gang Units, 2007

Gang Units in Large Local Law Enforcement 

Agencies, 2007

Lynn Langton

BJS Statistician

n 2007, 365 of the nation’s large police

departments and sheriffs’ offices had

specialized gang units, employing more than

4,300 sworn officers dedicated to addressing gangrelated activities. Thirty-five percent (35%) of these

units were established between 2004 and 2007,

suggesting a recent heightened interest in using

specialized units to address gang issues (figure 1). 

Gangs and gang-related activities are pervasive,

nationwide problems. Gangs can contribute to

higher violent crime rates, induce community

deterioration through behaviors such as vandalism,

graffiti, and drug dealing, and increase public fear

of victimization. One way for law enforcement

agencies to address gang-related problems is to

form specialized gang units. The consolidation of

• In 2007, 365 of the nation’s large (100 or more sworn officers) 

police departments and sheriffs’ offices had specialized gang 

units, employing a median of 5 officers per unit and more 

than 4,300 full-time equivalent sworn officers nationwide.

• About 15% of local law enforcement gang units regularly dealt 

with organized crime families (15%) and terrorist organizations (14%). 

• Of the 337 gang units that reported their year of establishment, 35% were formed between 2004 and 2007. The year 

2006 marked the peak of gang unit formation with 43 new 

units created. 

• About 2 in 3 gang units spent the greatest percentage of time 

on either intelligence gathering (33%) or investigative functions (32%). 

• About 9 in 10 gang units monitored gang graffiti (94%), 

tracked individual gang members (93%), monitored internet 

sites for communication among gang members (93%), 

engaged in directed patrols (91%), and performed undercover 

surveillance operations (87%).

• About 30% of specialized gang units examined a prospective 

officer’s financial and credit history before allowing the officer 

to serve in the unit. 

• Fewer than half (45%) of gang units collaborated with the state 

or local prosecutor’s office to the extent that the office 

assigned personnel to regularly work with the unit.

• Nearly all (98%) specialized gang units shared criminal intelligence information with neighboring law enforcement agencies.

• Fewer than 20% of gang units submitted records to the FBI’s 

Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File (VGTOF) in 

2007.

Figure 1. 

Number of specialized gang units established per year in large law enforcement 

agencies that had 100 or more sworn officers, 1975-2007 I
2 Gang Units in Large Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007

Census of Law Enforcement Gang Units (CLEGU) and 

the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative 

Statistics (LEMAS) survey 

The Census of Law Enforcement Gang Units (CLEGU) was designed to

gather information on the practices and procedures of gang units. To

identify law enforcement agencies with a gang unit or at least one officer

dedicated solely to addressing gang activity, researchers conducted a

phone survey of the 1,084 local police departments and sheriff’s agencies

in the United States with 100 or more sworn officers. Agencies that fit the

criterion of having at least one officer whose sole responsibility was to

deal with gang issues received the survey questionnaire. The majority of

this report is based on the data collected from the 365 agencies that

completed the CLEGU questionnaire. 

To avoid duplication with other BJS survey efforts, the CLEGU did not

collect data on the characteristics of law enforcement agencies with

specialized gang units. The BJS 2007 LEMAS survey, which was distributed

to all local law enforcement agencies with 100 or more sworn officers, was

used to supplement information on the size and operating budgets of the

agencies with gang units. The LEMAS survey also included one question

pertaining to the presence of a gang unit.

The LEMAS survey produced a higher prevalence rate of gang units

among large local law enforcement agencies than was obtained by the

CLEGU. Information on the differences between the two data collections,

as well as a comparison of the characteristics of agencies with gang units

reported in each survey, is detailed in the Methodology.

Table 1. 

Number and type of groups routinely addressed by 

gang units, 2007

Gang units

Type of group Number Percent

Total gang units 365 100 %

Street ganga 357 98 %

Tagger or party crewb 290 80

Motorcycle gang 207 57

Prison gang 158 43

Extremist group 155 43

Organized crime family 53 15

Terrorist organization 51 14

Otherc 14 4

Note: Includes gang units located within local police departments and sheriffs’ offices with 100 or more sworn officers. The 

CLEGU did not provide respondents with definitions of the 

types of groups. Each gang unit identified the types of groups 

routinely addressed based on internal classification of area 

gangs.

a

Data on street gangs available for 363 (99.5%) gang units.

bGroups that emulate the gang lifestyle, but commit few actual 

crimes. 

c

Other responses included drug trafficking groups, hybrid 

gangs (4 responses each), school groups, juvenile gangs, and 

county jail groups.

an agency’s gang enforcement activities and

resources into a single unit can allow gang unit

officers to develop specific expertise and technical

skills related to local gang characteristics, behaviors,

and gang prevention and suppression. 

The 2007 Census of Law Enforcement Gang Units

(CLEGU) collected data on 365 local police

departments and sheriffs’ offices that had 100 or

more sworn officers with at least one officer

dedicated solely to addressing gang activity. Based

primarily on findings from the CLEGU, this report

details the types of problems handled by specialized

gang units, followed by findings about unit

operations, gang officers, and the attributes of the

agencies and jurisdictions that contain these

specialized units.

Majority of gang units routinely dealt with 

street gangs, tagger groups, and motorcycle 

gangs 

Specialized gang units most commonly dealt with

street gangs (98%), tagger groups (80%), and

motorcycle gangs (57%) in 2007 (table 1). Over 40%

of these units routinely responded to the activities

of prison gangs (43%) and extremist groups (43%),

such as white supremacy organizations and other

hate groups. It was less common for gang units to

regularly deal with the activities of organized crime

families (15%) and terrorist organizations (14%).

Gang units located in large local law enforcement

agencies reported routinely addressing the gangrelated activities of four different types of gangs, on

average (not shown in table). 

With the exception of street gangs and tagger

groups that emulate the gang lifestyle but commit

few actual crimes, the percentage of units that

addressed various gang types was slightly higher

among units serving a population of 500,000

residents or more than among units serving fewer

than 50,000 residents. By region, units in the West

were more likely to encounter motorcycle gangs,

prison gangs, and extremist groups than units in

other regions. Units in the Northeast were more

likely to encounter organized crime families and

terrorist organizations. Single-officer gang units

were slightly more likely to report dealing with

extremist groups and motorcycle gangs, compared

to larger units.
October 2010 3

Over 90% of gang units dealt with gangs that 

were financed though street-level drug sales 

Specialized gang units respond to the particular

types of gangs and gang activities within their

jurisdiction. One way gangs can be distinguished is

by the methods through which they bring in money.

Gangs financed through drug trafficking or

weapons trafficking, for example, are certainly

engaged in serious criminal activity (trafficking at a

minimum), while gangs composed of members who

maintain legitimate employment may not engage in

the same level or frequency of criminal activity. In

other words, the financing methods used by gangs

within a jurisdiction are a proxy for the range and

seriousness of gang crimes addressed by specialized

gang units.

The 2007 CLEGU asked gang units to report the

financing methods used by gangs in their

jurisdictions. Overall, the greatest percentage of

units dealt with gangs financed through three

methods: street-level drug sales (93%), drug

trafficking (88%), and weapons trafficking (71%)

(table 2). About half of the gang units encountered

gangs financed by dues from paying members who

maintained legitimate employment (48%) and

gangs that profited from economic crimes (47%),

such as credit card theft, money laundering, and

embezzlement. About 4 in 10 units addressed area

gangs financed through prostitution (41%) and the

sale of forged identity documents (39%). 

Gang units in different sized jurisdictions reported

variations in the financing methods used by area

gangs. With a few exceptions, as population size

increased, the percentage of units that encountered

each of the different gang financing methods also

increased. For example, a quarter (25%) of gang

units serving a resident population of under 50,000

dealt with area gangs financed through economic

crimes, while 64% of units serving 500,000 residents

or more addressed gangs financed through

economic crimes. 

Because most gang financing methods reported by

gang units involved illegal activities, the greater the

number of financing methods used by area gangs,

the greater the range of gang crimes addressed by

specialized gang units. Gang units, on average,

encountered 5 different methods of gang financing

in 2007. The average number of gang financing

methods within a jurisdiction increased based on

the population served, from 3 methods among gang

units serving fewer than 50,000 residents to 6

among units serving 500,000 residents or more (not

shown in table).

Table 2. 

Gang financing methods reported by specialized gang units, by method of financing and population served, 2007

Total gang units Percent of gang units by population served

Method of financing Number Percent Under 50,000 50,000-99,999 100,000-249,999 250,000-499,999 500,000 or more

Number of gang units 365 100 % 16 96 119 56 78

Street-level drug salesa 340 93 % 81 % 94 % 95 % 89 % 95 %

Drug traffickinga 320 88 69 89 86 89 92

Weapons trafficking 258 71 50 64 70 73 85

Dues paid by members with legitimate employment 177 48 31 38 53 52 56

Economic crimesb 173 47 25 38 45 54 64

Prostitution 150 41 25 32 33 45 65

Sales of forged identity documents 142 39 13 29 34 50 56

Gambling 114 31 38 30 21 32 45

Human trafficking 57 16 6 15 7 13 35

Otherc 47 13 0 9 18 13 13

Pornography 32 9 0 5 5 7 22

a

Street-level drug sales typically involve individual sellers who deal in small amounts for personal use rather than for resale. Street-level drug sales are distinguished from 

drug-trafficking, which involves the production and distribution of large amounts of controlled substances for the purpose of buyer resale.

bIncludes such offenses as credit card theft, forged checks, money laundering, embezzlement, and mortgage fraud.

c

Includes such offenses as burglary, robbery, auto theft, theft of auto parts, and extortion.
4 Gang Units in Large Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007

Law enforcement agencies in the Northeast 

formed about 75% of area gang units between 

2000 and 2007

Nearly half (48%) of the 337 gang units that

reported the year they were established were

formed between 2000 and 2007 (table 3).

Approximately 13% of the units were created prior

to 1990, with the oldest active unit formed in 1975.

About 60% of gang units in the South and 75% of

those in the Northeast were established between

2000 and 2007. About a third of the specialized

gang units located in the Midwest (31%) and West

(30%) were also formed during that time. In

contrast, about half of the gang units in the West

(46%) and Midwest (52%) reported in the CLEGU

were created during the 1990s. 

Approximately half (52%) of the 163 gang units

formed between 2000 and 2007 were established by

law enforcement agencies in the South. Five of the 7

units formed in the 1970s were in law enforcement

agencies in the West (not shown in table).

About 4 in 10 gang units followed a statutorily 

determined definition of a gang and gang 

member 

About 90% of gang units had at least one formal

definition that either a group or an individual had

to meet before being classified as a gang or a gang

member (table 4). Seventy-seven percent of units

utilized formal definitions to classify both gangs

and individual gang members. Ten percent of gang

units had no formal definition of a gang or gang

member. 

Specialized gang units with formal classifications of

a gang, gang member, or both used definitions that

had been set by a state or municipal statute or

created by the unit. About 4 in 10 (44%) gang units

used statutorily determined definitions of both a

gang and a gang member. Of the units using a

statutory definition of either a gang or gang

member, a greater percentage used a statute

defining a gang (12%) than a gang member (3%).

Regardless of the source of the gang or gang

member definition, the defining language varied

substantially. Local law enforcement agencies in

2007 did not use a uniform definition of a gang or a

gang member.

About a third of gang units reported spending 

the greatest percentage of time gathering 

intelligence in 2007

The CLEGU asked gang units to rank five law

enforcement functions—intelligence, investigation,

support, suppression, and prevention—in terms of

how the unit dedicated its time (table 5). Over 60%

of gang units spent the greatest percentage of time

either gathering intelligence or investigating gang

activity in 2007. About a third (33%) of gang units

spent the largest percentage of time gathering

intelligence; 32% dedicated the most time to

investigating gang activities. A quarter (25%) of

Table 3. 

Number of gang units established by decade, and percent of units formed by region, 1970-2007

Percent of gang units by region*

Decade established Number of units Northeast Midwest South West

Total 337 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

1970 - 1979 7 0 % 4 % 0 % 5 %

1980 - 1989 36 2 14 7 20

1990 - 1999 131 23 52 35 46

2000 - 2007 163 75 31 58 29

Number of gang units 337 47 52 146 92

Note: Data available for 337 (92%) gang units.

*Based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s division of states into four regions <http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf>. See 

Methodology for a listing of states in each region.

Table 4. 

Origins of formal definitions used by gang units to classify gangs and gang members, 2007

Origin of definition used to classify a “gang member”

Origin of definition used to classify a “gang” Total row percent Statutory definition Gang unit’s definition No definition

Total column percent 100 % 51 36 14

Statutory definition 60 % 44 12 3

Gang unit’s definition 21 % 3 18 1

No definition 20 % 4 610

Note: Data are based on 363 (99.5%) total gang units that provided data.
October 2010 5

gang units reported spending the most time

providing support to other components in the

agency; 13% reported spending the largest

percentage of time on gang suppression activities,

such as patrolling gang neighborhoods, initiating

field and traffic stops, and making arrests. These

findings suggest that most gang units focused more

on developing specialized knowledge about area

gangs, gang members, and gang activities than on

developing specialized tactics for neutralizing gang

activities. 

Fourteen specialized gang units (4%) reported

dedicating the greatest percentage of time to

prevention programs, such as providing counseling

geared towards at-risk youth or community

education about gangs. Of these 14 units, 5 reported

that at least one other function simultaneously

occupied the top ranking category (not shown in

table).

More than 9 in 10 gang units monitored gang 

graffiti and tracked individual gang members

Regardless of how gang units spent the greatest

percentage of time, over 90% gathered intelligence

about gangs by monitoring gang graffiti (94%) and

tracking individual gang members (93%) (table 6).

The percentage of gang units monitoring gangrelated graffiti decreased among larger gang units,

while the percentage of units tracking gang

members increased with the size of the unit. Among

the 337 units that tracked individual gang members,

91% used a computerized tracking system, such as

GangNET®, CalGang®,1

 or a gang-tracking system

created within the department. Less than half (46%)

of the units also used a paper system to track gang

members. 

About 9 in 10 gang units engaged in undercover

surveillance operations (87%) and monitored

internet sites for communication among or about

gang members and gang activities (93%). Fewer

than half of the gang units used technologies, such

1

GangNET® <http://www.sra.com/gangnet/> and the CalGang® 

system are registered trademarks of SRA International <http://

ag.ca.gov/calgang/>.

Table 6. 

Percent of gang units performing operational anti-gang activities, by number of full-time equivalent (FTE) sworn officers per unit, 2007

Percent of gang units by number of FTE officersa

Gang unit operations Total gang units 1 2 to 5 6 to 10 11 or more 

Number of gang units 365 44 142 93 82

Intelligence operations

Monitor gang graffiti 94 % 95 % 96 % 95 % 89 %

Track individual gang members— 93 % 86 % 92 % 97 % 96 %

Through a computerized systemb 91 90 89 93 94

Through a paper systemb 46 45 48 46 44

Investigative operations

Undercover activities

Surveillance operations 87 % 61 % 87 % 91 % 96 %

Gang infiltration 23 5 18 29 35

Investigative technologies used—

Monitor internet sites 93 % 86 % 94 % 96 % 93 %

Crime analysis software 54 43 49 56 68

GPS tracking devices 36 14 29 46 49

Closed circuit cameras in gang areas 35 23 27 39 55

Electronic listening devices 30 16 20 38 48

Suppression operations

Patrols

Directed at high crime areas 91 % 77 % 87 % 98 % 98 %

Routine 76 59 77 83 74

Foot 48 39 47 51 51

Bicycle 17 11 16 24 13

Support operations

Respond to general calls for service 41 % 45 % 42 % 42 % 33 %

a

Data on gang unit size available for 361 (99%) gang units. FTE is a computed statistic calculated by adding the number full-time officers to the number of part-time 

officers divided by two, under the assumption that each part-time officer works half the number of hours as a full-time officer.

b

Percentages based on gang units that tracked individual gang members.

Table 5. 

Law enforcement functions performed by gang units, 

by percent of time spent and average ranking, 2007

Function

Percent of gang units dedicating 

the largest share of time

Average 

ranking

Intelligence 33 % 2.2

Investigation 32 2.4

Support 25 2.7

Suppression 13 3.2

Prevention programs 4 4.3

Note: Data available for 363 (99%) gang units. The CPDO asked 

gang units to rank five functions in terms of how the unit spent 

the largest (1=greatest) to least (5=smallest) amount of time. 

Percents do not sum to 100% due to some gang units assigning a 

“1” to multiple functions.
6 Gang Units in Large Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007

as GPS tracking devices (36%), closed circuit

cameras in gang areas (35%), and electronic

listening devices (30%), to assist in the investigation

of suspected gang crimes. Less than a quarter (23%)

of gang units sent undercover officers to infiltrate

area gangs. The likelihood of a gang unit

performing undercover operations or utilizing

various investigative technologies increased as the

number of sworn officers in the unit increased. 

Most (93%) gang units engaged in some form of

patrol to carry out anti-gang suppression operations

(not shown in table). The majority of gang units

performed directed patrols targeted to high crime

areas (91%) and routine patrols (76%). A smaller

percentage of gang units conducted foot (48%) and

bicycle (17%) patrols.

About 40% of gang units responded to general calls

for service in 2007. About half of gang units with

one officer responded to calls for service (46%),

compared to a third of units with 11 or more fulltime equivalent (FTE) sworn officers (33%). 

Gang units spent the largest share of 

investigative time on serious violent felony 

(44%) and narcotics investigations (29%) 

In 2007, gang units spent the largest share of

investigative time on incidents involving serious

violent felonies (44%) (table 7). Narcotics offenses

took up 29% of gang units’ investigative time,

followed by investigations into graffiti (16%), and

other offenses. Other offenses included economic

offenses, such as mortgage fraud and credit card

fraud (5%), immigration offenses (3%), and

prostitution (2%) (not shown in table). Time spent

investigating one type of offense over another

reflects the types of offenses attributed to area gangs

and to the complexity of the investigation by offense

category. 

The time spent investigating specific offenses varied

by the type of law enforcement agency (local police

department or sheriff ’s office) and the size of the

gang unit. Among gang units located in police

departments, the time spent investigating serious

violent felonies increased as the size of the unit

increased. In contrast, the percentage of time these

gang units spent investigating graffiti offenses

decreased as the size of the unit increased. Time

spent investigating narcotics and other offenses did

not change consistently based on the size of a local

police department’s gang unit. 

Among units located in sheriffs’ offices, the

percentage of time spent investigating graffiti

offenses ranged from 33% among single-officer

units to 5% for units with more than 10 FTE sworn

officers. The percentage of time spent on narcotics

investigations more than doubled from 15% to 32%

as the size of the unit increased from 1 to 2 or more

sworn officers. 

Nearly half of gang units took part in 

prevention programs with youth gang 

members

Distributing gang prevention literature to schools,

parents, and other community groups and members

was the most common gang prevention activity

(74% of gang units) in 2007 (table 8). About 6 in 10

(56%) gang units participated in activities geared

toward keeping area youth from joining gangs, such

as mentoring programs, social skills and leadership

training, drug prevention groups, and self-esteem

building programs. Nearly half of all units took part

in gang prevention activities with gang-involved

youth (48%) or joined with faith-based

organizations in gang prevention programs (49%).

Table 7. 

Time spent by gang units on crime investigations, by type of offense, type of unit, and number of full-time equivalent (FTE) 

sworn officers, 2007

Average percentage of time gang units spent investigating—

Number of officers Number of units Serious violent felonies Narcotics Graffiti Other offensesa

Total gang units 365 44 % 29 % 16 % 11 %

Local police unitsb 268 45 % 29 % 16 % 10 %

1 officer 32 35 27 26 12

2-5 96 42 30 16 12

6-10 73 47 30 15 8

11 officers or more 71 53 27 12 8

Sheriff’s office unitsb 97 41 % 30 % 16 % 13 %

1 officer 12 45 15 33 8

2-5 46 40 32 17 12

6-10 20 37 33 15 16

11 officers or more 17 48 33 5 13

a

Includes economic offenses, such as credit card fraud, forged checks, and mortgage fraud, prostitution, and immigration offenses. 

b

Data on gang unit size available for 361 (99%) gang units. FTE is a computed statistic calculated by adding the number full-time officers to the 

number of part-time officers divided by two, under the assumption that each part-time officer works half the number of hours as a full-time officer. 
October 2010 7

A third of units (33%) had officers who taught

prevention programs, such as the Gang Resistance

Education And Training Program (G.R.E.A.T.).

Overall, a greater percentage of larger gang units

participated in prevention activities, compared to

smaller gang units. 

About 6 in 10 gang units participated in a 

local or regional gang task force in 2007

The majority of gang units engaged in some form of

collaboration with federal law enforcement, other

neighboring law enforcement, or other criminal

justice agencies in 2007. Collaborating with federal,

local, or regional law enforcement or other criminal

justice agencies was more common among large

gang units (11 sworn officers or more) than among

small units (1 sworn officer) (table 9). 

Over half of all gang units worked with federal law

enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) or Drug Enforcement Agency

(DEA), through participation in a federal gang task

force (52%), for operational planning purposes

(58%), or in the investigation of crimes (77%).

About 6 in 10 (63%) gang units were part of a gang

task force in which the unit combined its resources

with other regional law enforcement agencies to

address area gang activity.

Table 9. 

Gang unit collaboration with other law enforcement or criminal justice agencies, by type of collaboration and number of 

full-time equivalent (FTE) gang unit officers, 2007

Percent of gang units by number of FTE officers*

Type of collaboration Total gang units 1 2 to 5 6 to 10 11 or more 

Number of gang units 365 44 142 93 82

Federal law enforcement 

Investigation of crimes 77 % 55 % 69 % 88 % 90 %

Enforcement and operational planning 58 39 48 68 77

Federal task force participation 52 36 43 59 67

Screening of cases 46 32 33 59 63

Local or regional law enforcement agencies 

Sharing of criminal intelligence 98 % 95 % 97 % 100 % 98 %

Sharing of non-criminal intelligence 89 89 84 94 94

Gang task force participation 63 50 61 65 70

Criminal justice agencies

Probation 48 % 39 % 42 % 57 % 57 %

State or local prosecutor 45 30 39 53 56

Parole 43 39 37 45 55

Detention facilities 36 39 31 35 46

Housing authority 9 7 7 9 15

*Data on gang unit size available for 361 (99%) gang units. FTE is a computed statistic calculated by adding the number full-time officers to 

the number of part-time officers divided by two, under the assumption that each part-time officer works half the number of hours as a fulltime officer.

Table 8. 

Percent of gang units engaging in prevention activities, by type of activity and number of full-time equivalent (FTE) gang 

unit officers, 2007

Percent of gang units by number of FTE officersa

Prevention activitiesb Total gang units 1 2 to 5 6 to 10 11 or more 

Number of gang units 351 42 135 90 81

Distribution of gang prevention literature 74 % 62 % 73 % 78 % 80 %

Activities with youth—

Not involved in gangs 56 48 56 59 59

Gang involved 48 45 42 52 57

Activities with faith-based organizations 49 33 49 47 62

Instruction of prevention programsc 33 24 24 38 47

Otherd 19 10 19 21 23

a

Data on gang unit size available for 361 (99%) of gang units. FTE is a computed statistic calculated by adding the number full-time officers 

to the number of part-time officers divided by two, under the assumption that each part-time officer works half the number of hours as a 

full-time officer.

bData on prevention activities available for 351 (96%) of gang units.

c

Includes instruction of the Gang Resistance Education And Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program.

dIncludes community meetings and outreach programs, gang awareness seminars and presentations, participation in neighborhood watch 

programs, partnering with community-based organizations, participating in police activity leagues, and working with schools and school 

administrators.
8 Gang Units in Large Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007

Approximately 3 in 4 (72%) gang units regularly

worked with personnel in at least one non-law

enforcement criminal justice agency (not shown in

table). The largest percentage of gang units

collaborated with probation agencies (48%),

followed by state or local prosecutor offices (45%),

parole agencies (43%), and detention facilities

(36%). Fewer than 10% of gang units regularly

worked with a housing authority.

Nearly all gang units (98%) shared criminal 

intelligence information with neighboring 

law enforcement agencies

Criminal intelligence information refers to data

used by law enforcement to identify an individual

or specific group suspected of being involved in a

particular criminal activity. All but two gang units

shared criminal intelligence information with other

units in their department in 2007 (table 10). Nearly

all units (98%) also shared intelligence information

with department command staff and neighboring

law enforcement agencies. The majority of units

(70%) provided intelligence information to other

criminal justice agencies, such as prisons, jails, and

probation departments. 

A smaller percentage of gang units shared nonintelligence information with other units (93%), the

command staff within the department (93%), and

neighboring law enforcement agencies (89%) than

the percentage of units that shared criminal

intelligence information. This suggests that it was

more common for a gang unit to communicate

information that could assist in making arrests than

to share general knowledge about gangs and gang

activities. About half of gang units shared nonintelligence information with the public (54%),

non-criminal justice agencies (52%), and media

outlets (46%).

Fewer than 20% of gang units submitted 

records to the FBI’s Violent Gang and 

Terrorist Organization File in 2007

The FBI’s National Crime Information Center

houses the Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization

File (VGTOF), which provides law enforcement

with a secure way to exchange identifying

information about specific criminal gangs and gang

members. In 2007, 17% of gang units (61 units)

submitted records to the VGTOF (table 11). A

submission refers to any entry into the file, such as

establishing a new record for a group not previously

included in the file, updating descriptive

information about a particular gang member,

noting the association between two known gang

members, or adding cautionary notes regarding any

threats made or the types of weapons carried by a

gang or gang member. The percent of gang units

that submitted VGTOF records was lower among

units with more than 10 sworn officers (10%)

compared to units with fewer than 10 sworn officers

(about 19%) (not shown in table). The CLEGU

asked gang units participating in the VGTOF to

provide the number of submission to the VGTOF

for the previous month. Over half of the gang units

(57%) did not have any submissions during the

previous month (not shown in table). The 26 gang

units that reported at least one submission during

the previous month submitted a total of 736 records

to the VGTOF.

Table 10. 

Percent of gang units sharing criminal intelligence and non-intelligence information, 

by type of group receiving the shared information, 2007

Percent of gang units sharing—

Types of groups 

Criminal intelligence 

information 

Non-intelligence 

information 

Other units within the department 100 %* 93 %

Department command staff 98 93

Neighboring law enforcement agencies 98 89

Other criminal justice agencies 70 84

General public ~ 54

Non-criminal justice agencies ~ 52

Media outlets ~ 46

Note: Based on 365 gang units.

~Not applicable. Criminal intelligence information would not be shared with these types of groups.

*Two units (0.5%) did not share criminal intelligence information with other units within the 

department.

Table 11. 

Gang unit submissions to the National Crime 

Information Center’s Violent Gang and Terrorist 

Organization File (VGTOF), 2007

Number

Gang units that submitted VGTOF records* 61

VGTOF submissions in past month

Median 0

Mean 12

Maximum 300

Total submissions 736

Note: Data available for 363 (99.5%) gang units.

*A submission refers to any entry into the file, such as establishing a new record for a group not previously included, noting 

the association between two known gang members, or adding 

cautionary notes regarding threats made or weapons carried by 

known gang members.
October 2010 9

In 2007, over 90% of full-time equivalent 

(FTE) sworn gang unit officers were male

In 2007, 4,312 FTE sworn officers were assigned to

gang units located in 365 large local law

enforcement agencies (table 12). Nearly all sworn

gang unit officers (91%) were employed full-time.

The size of gang units ranged from 1 officer to the

nearly 350 officers across all divisions of the Los

Angeles Police Department. Gang units had a

median of 5 officers per unit (not shown in table). 

White, non-Hispanic (61%) and male (94%)

officers made up the majority of gang unit officers

in 2007. Nationwide, fewer than 300 female officers

were assigned to gang units. Gang units also

reported employing a total of 256 non-sworn FTE

personnel in 2007 (not shown in table). Twenty-six

percent of reporting gang units retained 1 or more

non-sworn employee. 

The majority of agencies (53%) used a 

competitive selection process to select officers 

for the gang unit

In 2007, 53% of large local law enforcement

agencies used a competitive selection process to

bring officers into the gang unit (table 13). For 34%

of the gang units, agency command staff selected

officers for and assigned officers to the unit. 

About 3 in 4 agencies with gang units considered an

officer’s discipline history (78%), complaint history

(76%), and use-of-force record (73%) before

selecting the officer for the unit. Of the agencies

that considered each of these three selection

criteria, approximately 35% held gang unit officers

to a higher selection standard than other officers

(not shown in table). About 1 in 4 (29%) agencies

looked at an officer’s financial and credit history to

determine whether the officer was eligible to serve

in the unit. 

Approximately 1 in 10 (13%) agencies with gang

units set a limit on the amount of time an officer

could serve in the unit. Of the 48 agencies that had a

maximum service allowance for gang unit officers,

39 agencies (80%) allowed officers to serve no more

than 5 years in the unit.

Table 12. 

Sworn personnel assigned to gang unit, by sex, race, ethnicity, and employment 

status of officers, 2007

FTE sworn personnela Employment status

Officer characteristics Number Percent Full-time Part-time 

Total sworn officers 4,312 100 % 4,106 411

Sex

Male 4,051 94 % 3,873 356

Female 267 6 241 51

Race/Hispanic origin

Whiteb 2,629 61 % 2,472 314

Hispanic 835 19 815 48

Black b 490 11 470 40

Asianb 85 2 84 2

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific 

Islanderb 43 1 41 3

American Indian or Alaskan nativeb 27 1 26 2

Two or more races 22 1 20 3

Unknown 171 4 169 3

Note: Total number of sworn officers by sex and by race/ethnicity do not sum to the same total due 

to missing data. Total sworn officers is the average of total officers by race/ethnicity and total officers by sex. Data available for 99% of gang units.

a

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a computed statistic calculated by adding the number full-time 

officers to the number of part-time officers divided by two, under the assumption that each parttime officer works half the number of hours as a full-time officer.

bExcludes persons of Hispanic/Latino origin.

Table 13. 

Standards for selecting and retaining gang unit officers, 2007

Total gang units

Standard Number Percent

Total gang units 365 100 %

Selection process 

Competitive selection as positions become available 191 53 %

Command staff selects line officers for the unit 123 34

Current gang unit officers select line officers for the unit 11 3

Other* 37 10

Selection criteria

Discipline history 286 78 %

Complaint history 276 76

Use-of-force record 268 73

Financial/credit history 105 29

All four criteria considered 103 28

Maximum service limit

 No 315 87 %

Yes 48 13

1-3 years 15 31 %

4 -5 24 50

More than 5 years 9 19

Note: Data on gang unit selection available for 362 (99%) gang units, and data on gang unit maximum service allowance available for 363 (99%) of gang units.

*Includes selection based on seniority, transfer from other specialized units, voluntary assignment, 

and a combination of competitive bidding and command staff selection.
10 Gang Units in Large Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007

More than a third of gang units experienced 

difficulties recruiting officers with certain 

characteristics

Thirty-six percent of gang units reported

difficulties in recruiting officers with specifically

desired or unique characteristics (table 14). Of the

133 units that had difficulty recruiting officers with

specific characteristics, 92 units (70%) had trouble

enlisting bilingual or multilingual officers (not

shown in table). 

Nearly all new gang unit members received 

special training related to gangs

Nearly all gang units in 2007 provided new gang

officers with formal on-the-job training related to

gangs (96%) and sent new unit members to

conferences and seminars on gang issues (95%)

(table 15). Eighty-five percent of gang units

provided new members with specialized gang

training at a law enforcement academy. 

Jurisdictions with older gang units were more 

likely to make use of civil gang injunctions

A civil gang injunction is a court-issued order

prohibiting specific gangs or gang members from

congregating in particular public areas and

engaging in nuisance behaviors, such as loitering,

cursing, making certain hand gestures, and

listening to loud music. Police officers can arrest

gang members for engaging in activities that violate

the terms of the injunction, even if the activity is not

criminal. 

Eleven percent of the 163 jurisdictions with gang

units formed between 2000 and 2007 made use of

civil gang injunctions (figure 2). Among the 131

jurisdictions with gang units formed between 1990

and 1999, the percentage using injunctions was

nearly double (21%). This finding may suggest that

jurisdictions with older gang units had longerstanding gang-related problems, and over time had

implemented tools, such as injunctions, to reduce

gang visibility, graffiti, and fear of gang

victimization. In the late 1990s, civil gang

injunctions also faced legal challenges that may

have deterred some jurisdictions from

implementing injunctions in recent years. 

Table 14. 

Difficulties in recruiting gang unit officers with specific 

characteristics, 2007

Characteristic Percent of gang units 

No recruiting difficulties 64 %

Difficulty recruiting officers who are—a 36 %

Bilingual or multilingual 25

Female 18

Raised in typical gang neighborhoods 17

Members of a racial or ethnic minority 12

Otherb 4

Note: Based on 365 gang units.

a

Percentages do not sum to 36% because some units had more 

than one recruiting difficulty.

bIncludes officers with more than 5 years of experience in the 

department and general difficulties recruiting any officers.

Table 15. 

Gang-related training received by new members of the 

gang unit, 2007

Gang units that provided training

Type of formal training Number Percent

On-the-job 351 96 %

Conference 346 95

Academy 307 85

Note: Data available for 363 (99.5%) gang units. 













1FSDFOUVTJOHDJWJMJOKVODUJPOT

/VNCFSPGHBOHVOJUTFTUBCMJTIFECZEFDBEF









   

Figure 2. 

Jurisdictions that made use of civil gang participation 

injunctions, by the decade of gang unit formation, 

1970-2007
October 2010 11















1FSDFOU

(BOHSFMBUFEUSBJOJOHUPQJDT

-BXTBOE

PSEJOBODFT

SFMBUFEUP

HBOHT

$PNNVOJUZPS

JOEJWJEVBMSJTL

GBDUPSTPGHBOH

BDUJWJUZ

3PMFPGDPNNVOJUZ

QPMJDJOHJO

SFTQPOTFUPHBOHT

"TTFTTNFOUPG

MPDBMHBOH

QSPCMFNT

3FMFWBOUBHFODJFT

UIBUBEESFTTHBOH

QSPCMFNT

3PMFPGQPMJDF

HBOHVOJUT

$PMMFDUJPOPG

HBOH

JOUFMMJHFODF

%PDVNFOUBUJPOPG

HBOHSFMBUFE

DSJNFT

4IBSJOHPGHBOH

JOUFMMJHFODFXJUI

PUIFSKVTUJDF

BHFODJFT

3PMFPG

BOUJHBOHUBTL

GPSDFT

#BTJDUSBJOJOH *OTFSWJDFUSBJOJOH



















)JTUPSZPGHBOHT

1FSDFOU

/BUVSFBOETDPQF

PGHBOHT

0QFSBUJPOTPGOBUJPOBM

PSIPNFHSPXOHBOHT

(BOHJOJUJBUJPO

NFUIPET

3FDPHOJUJPOPGUBUUPPT


IBOETJHOTPSPUIFS

HBOHHFTUVSFT

(SBîUJ

SFDPHOJUJPO

5SBJOJOHUPQJDTSFMBUFEUPMBXFOGPSDFNFOUTSFTQPOTFUPHBOHT

#BTJDUSBJOJOH *OTFSWJDFUSBJOJOH

Figure 4. 

Percent of law enforcement training academies offering basic or in-service training on topics related to law enforcement’s response 

to gangs, 2006

Training on gangs-related topics in law enforcement training academies, 2006

The BJS 2006 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement

Training Academies (CSLLETA) collected data on academies

that provided basic and in-service training related to gangs

and law enforcement’s response to gangs. While the

CSLLETA data does not link to the CLEGU, it provides general

information about the types of gang training at law

enforcement academies.

Of the 648 training academies, 560 (86%) covered at least

one topic pertaining to gangs or the response to gangs

during the course of either basic training or in-service

training. Approximately 7 in 10 training academies provided

basic training on the history of gangs (69%), the nature and

scope of gangs (70%), and the operations of national or local

gangs (71%) (figure 3). Between 35% and 40% of training

academies provided in-service training on gang topics. 

In 2006, the most common basic training classes on law

enforcement’s response to gangs covered the laws and

ordinances related to gangs (57%), community or individual

risk factors of gang activity (53%), and the role of community

policing in response to gangs (51%) (figure 4). Thirty percent

(30%) of training academies provided in-service training on

laws and ordinances related to gangs and documenting

gang-related crimes. 

Among the 500 academies that provided basic training on

gang topics, an average of 8 hours, out of the average 760

required training hours, were dedicated to gang-related

topics. In-service training related to gangs averaged about

13 hours (not shown in table). 

Figure 3. 

Percent of law enforcement training academies offering basic or in-service training on topics related to gangs, 2006 
12 Gang Units in Large Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007

Nearly 70% of agencies with an operating 

budget of $100 million or more operated a 

gang unit in 2007

The BJS 2007 Law Enforcement Management and

Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey collected

data on the characteristics of local law enforcement

agencies with 100 or more sworn officers, allowing

agencies with a gang unit to be compared to the full

universe of corresponding agencies. In 2007, an

estimated 62% of agencies with 500 or more sworn

officers operated a gang unit compared to 21% of

agencies with 100 to 124 officers (table 16). A

majority (57%) of large local law enforcement

agencies serving a population of 500,000 or more

had a gang unit compared to less than a fifth (18%)

of agencies serving a population of 50,000 or under.

Also, a larger percentage of agencies with an

operating budget of $100 million or more (67%)

operated a gang unit than agencies with a budget of

less than $20 million (21%). 

A larger percentage of gang units were found in law

enforcement agencies in the West (41%) than in the

South (34%), Midwest (32%), or Northeast (33%).

Large local police departments were also more

likely to operate a gang unit (40%) than sheriffs'

offices (25%) in 2007.

Table 16. 

Characteristics of law enforcement agencies operating and jurisdictions served by large law enforcement 

agencies with gang units, 2007

Characteristic Number of law enforcement agencies Percent of agencies with a gang unit

Type of agency

Local police department 629 40%

Sheriff's office 339 25

Number of full time sworn officers

100-124 254 21%

125-149 148 20

150-249 242 34

250-499 188 48

500 or more 135 62

Operating budget*

Less than $20 million 413 21%

$20 million - $49,999,999 317 39

$50 million - $99,999,999 124 41

$100 million or more 104 67

Region

Northeast 147 33%

Midwest 167 32

South 436 34

West 218 41

Population 

Under 50,000 85 18%

50,000-99,999 313 27

100,000-249,999 313 35

250,000-499,999 126 43

500,000 or more 130 57

Note: Data on the number of local law enforcement agencies with 100 or more sworn officers from the 2007 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. Twenty-six (7%) of the 365 gang units included in the 

CLEGU data did not provide LEMAS data and are excluded from the percentages. 

*2007 operating budget data available for 332 (98%) of the 339 agencies with a gang unit.
October 2010 13

Methodology

Development of the CLEGU respondent list 

The data collection agent for the 2007 Census of

Law Enforcement Gang Units (CLEGU) was the

Institute for the Study and Prevention of Violence

(ISPV) at Kent State University. To establish the

universe of gang units to be included in the CLEGU,

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) provided

researchers from the ISPV with a list of all agencies

that had 100 or more sworn officers according to

the 2003 Law Enforcement Management and

Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. The BJS

list was then merged with a list of all law

enforcement agencies with 100 or more sworn

officers purchased from the National Public Safety

Information Bureau. After duplicates were

removed, the agency list included 1,084 local police

departments and sheriffs’ offices nationwide with

100 or more sworn officers. From September

through November 2006, the ISPV researchers then

called each of the agencies. Researchers spoke with

a representative from the office of the head of the

agency and asked whether the agency had a

dedicated street gang unit or at least one officer

whose sole responsibility was to coordinate the

agency’s response to gangs. 

Following these calls, 562 agencies did not appear to

either have a specialized gang unit or gang officer

and were considered out of scope for the study (See

appendix table 1 for description of the

characteristics of the agencies not included in the

CLEGU.) A universe of 522 agencies was initially

determined eligible to receive the CLEGU survey

form. Eligible agencies received the data collection

instrument based on the following stated

preferences for delivery: link to an online data

collection tool (313 agencies), facsimile of the

questionnaire (195 agencies), and instrument sent

via the U.S. Postal Service (14 agencies). 

The 522 local police departments or sheriffs’ offices

with 100 or more sworn officers and at least one

officer dedicated solely to addressing gang

problems received the CLEGU data collection

instrument in March 2008. Ninety-one percent of

these agencies (476) responded to the survey. Of

these 476 agencies, 89 agencies reported not having

a gang unit, 5 additional agencies were determined

to be duplicates, 6 agencies had fewer than 100

sworn officers, and 11 agencies had gang units

established in 2008. A total of 365 large local law

enforcement agencies provided adequate responses

for inclusion in the analysis. Data collection efforts

and follow-up continued through March 2009.

Development of the survey form

Prior to developing the CLEGU questionnaire,

project managers from the ISPV and BJS worked

with specialized gang units and gang experts across

the country to gain an understanding of the

operations and responsibilities of gang unit officers.

The ISPV organized a two-day, national meeting of

gang officers and experts in November 2007 to

discuss the topics and questions for inclusion in the

data collection instrument. Attendees included top

gang researchers; gang unit officers from the

Virginia State Police, New Jersey State Police,

Chicago Police Department, and the Worcester,

Massachusetts Police Department; and

representatives from the Federal Bureau of

Investigation and the California Gang Investigators

Association. The National Major Gang Task Force

and the National Alliance of Gang Investigators also

reviewed the survey instrument and provided

comments and endorsement.

Collecting data on gang-related or -motivated arrests

In addition to the data reported in Gang Units in

Large Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007, the

CLEGU attempted to collect information on the

total number of arrests made by gang unit officers

for gang-related or gang-motivated homicides,

other violent offenses, property offenses, narcotics,

economic offenses, and other misdemeanors in

2007. Seventy percent of gang units (256) were able

to provide the number of gang-related or gangmotivated homicides, and of those that provided

data, 41% (105 units) reported zero homicides in

2007. Forty-four percent of all gang units responded

that they did not know the number of arrests for

other violent offenses. Over half of gang units

responded “Don’t Know” to the number of arrests

for property offenses (54%), narcotics (51%),

economic offenses (67%), and other misdemeanors

(57%).
14 Gang Units in Large Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007

Sources of data for Gang Units in Large Local Law 

Enforcement Agencies, 2007

The CLEGU provided the data on the

characteristics and operations of gang units. The

2007 Law Enforcement Management and

Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) Survey provided

data on the characteristics of agencies with

specialized gang units. 

Measuring the prevalence of gang units

While the main intent of the CLEGU was to collect

data on the characteristics and operations of gang

units, the data could be used to compute a rate of

gang units among large local law enforcement

agencies. In 2007, 365 agencies reported having a

gang unit out of the 1,084 agencies contacted during

the development of the respondent list.

Approximately 34% of large local agencies had a

gang unit according to CLEGU findings. 

At about the same period that the CLEGU was

fielded, the 2007 Law Enforcement Management

and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) Survey was

distributed to all law enforcement agencies with 100

or more sworn officers. The BJS LEMAS survey has

collected data on the operations, management,

resources, policies, and officer characteristics of

state, municipal, and county law enforcement

agencies since 1987. The LEMAS Survey included

the following question in 2007:

How does your agency address the following

problems/tasks-gangs? 

1. Agency has specialized unit with personnel 

assigned full-time to address gangs.

2. Agency does not have a specialized unit, but 

has dedicated personnel to address gangs.

3. Agency addresses gangs, but does not have 

dedicated personnel.

4. Agency does not formally address gangs. 

Agencies that selected the first response option to

this question could also be used to compute a rate of

gang units or dedicated gang officers among large

local law enforcement agencies. According to the

LEMAS data from this question, 464 agencies

(48%), out of the 968 included in LEMAS, reported

having a specialized gang unit (appendix table 1).

Appendix Table 1. 

General characteristics of large local law enforcement agencies with a gang unit or designated 

gang personnel in the CLEGU and LEMAS, 2007

Agencies with a gang unit or designated gang personnel

In the CLEGU In LEMASa

Characteristic Number Percent Number Percent

Number of agencies 365 100 % 464 100 %

Type of agency

Local police 268 73 % 336 73 %

Sheriff 97 27 127 27

Region

Northeast 53 15 % 57 12 %

Midwest 56 15 72 16

South 156 43 191 41

West 100 27 144 31

Population servedb

Under 50,000 residents 16 4 % 22 5 %

50,000-99,999 96 26 110 24

100,000-249,999 119 33 164 35

250,000-499,999 56 15 76 16

500,000 residents or more 78 21 91 20

Full-time sworn officers 

100-124 64 18 % 62 14 %

125-149 30 8 47 10

150-249 87 24 117 25

250-499 97 27 130 28

500 or more 87 24 108 23

Operating budget (in millions)b

Less than $20 million 92 28 % 114 25 %

$20 - $49 124 37 177 38

$50 - $99 50 15 82 18

$100 million or more 67 20 89 19

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. 

a

Based on data from the 2007 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) Survey. Agencies 

were asked to report whether they had ‘a specialized unit with personnel assigned full-time to address gangs. Gang unit 

data available for 91% of the 968 local police departments and sheriffs’ offices with 100 or more sworn officers. Details 

may not sum to total due to LEMAS weights.

b

Data available for 99% of LEMAS agencies with a gang unit and available for 91% of CLEGU agencies.
October 2010 15

Because there was a 14% difference between the

rates of gang units according to CLEGU (34%)

versus LEMAS (48%), a rate was not reported in

this report.

Of the 365 agencies that completed the CLEGU

survey instrument, 269 (74%) reported having a

gang unit in LEMAS, 49 (13%) reporting having

dedicated personnel to address gangs, 21 (6%)

reported no gang unit or dedicated personnel, and

26 (7%) did not respond to LEMAS. Of the 662

agencies that did not have a gang unit according to

the CLEGU screener call or the survey instrument,

39% (261) also reported not having a gang unit in

LEMAS. Another 213 (32%) agencies were either

not included in or could not be matched to LEMAS.

A total of 146 agencies (22%) that did not have a

gang unit according to the CLEGU collection,

however, did report having a gang unit in LEMAS. 

There are many more instances where LEMAS

identifies a gang unit when CLEGU (146) does not

than the reverse (21). Given that CLEGU employed

a more intensive, two stage screening process it is

not surprising that fewer gang units were identified

in this data collection relative to LEMAS. There are

a number of other design differences between the

two data collections that can contribute to

differences in the rate of gang units, including

different respondents for the same organization.

Nonetheless, as the data in Appendix Table 1

indicate, the characteristics of the population of

large agencies with gang units are very similar

across the two data collections.

Gang unit region of location

In the report, gang units were grouped by the four

regions of the country: Northeast, Midwest, South,

and West. The classification of gang units follows

the United States Census Bureau classification of

states into one of these four regions2 (appendix

table 2).

2

Region classification based on United States Census Bureau, 

Census Regions and Divisions of the United States <http://

www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf>.

Appendix Table 2. 

Census regions of the United States, by states in each region, 2007

Census regions of the United States

Northeast Midwest South West

Connecticut Illinois Alabama Alaska

Maine Indiana Arkansas Arizona

Massachusetts Iowa Delaware California

New Hampshire Kansas District of Columbia Colorado

New Jersey Michigan Florida Hawaii

New York Minnesota Georgia Idaho

Pennsylvania Missouri Kentucky Montana

Rhode Island Nebraska Louisiana Nevada

Vermont North Dakota Maryland New Mexico

Ohio Mississippi Oregon

South Dakota North Carolina Utah

Wisconsin Oklahoma Washington

South Carolina Wyoming

Tennessee

Texas

Virginia

West Virginia

Note: Region classification based on United States Census Bureau, Census Regions and 

Divisions of the United States <http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf>.
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJS

Permit No. G-91

*NCJ~230071*

16 Gang Units in Large Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of

the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is director.

This Special Report was written by Lynn Langton. 

Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D., verified the report.

Georgette Walsh and Jill Duncan edited the report,

Barbara Quinn and Tina Dorsey produced the report, and

Jayne E. Robinson prepared the report for final printing

under the supervision of Doris J. James.

October 2010, NCJ 230071

This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its 

related statistical data and tables are available at the BJS 

World Wide Web Internet site: <http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/

index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2210>.

Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov