The Impact of Gangs on Communities

 by James C. Howell

This bulletin considers the impact of gang-related criminal activity on communities. To assess this, 

however, it is important to take into account the scope 

and nature of gang activity in different size communities, 

because gang impact on communities varies in 

accordance with their differing characteristics. This is 

the point of departure in this bulletin. Next, the impact 

of youth gangs on communities in several contexts 

is examined: the impact of gang members’ criminal 

activity, general community impact, violent gang 

criminal activity, gang members returning from prison, 

gang migration and immigration, gangs in schools, and 

the economic impact of gangs. 

Common Gang Patterns

National Youth Gang Surveys show distinguishing 

features of the least and most problematic areas in which 

gangs are active. In the first category of communities, 

the least populous areas—cities, towns, and rural 

counties with populations of less than 50,000—youth 

gangs tend to be much smaller, with very few members, 

and the youth gang problem may dissipate as quickly 

as it develops. This observation applies especially to 

small cities or towns with less than 25,000 population 

and to rural counties (Howell and Egley, 2005). A 

variable gang problem is observed much more often 

in less-populated areas (under 50,000 population) 

than in larger, more populous areas. Nearly half of the 

communities in these areas experienced a variable 

gang problem over the six-year period from 1996 to 

2001 (Egley, Howell, and Major, 2004), and only 4% of 

the rural counties and 10% of the small cities and towns 

(under 25,000 population) reported a gang problem in 

six consecutive years (Howell and Egley, 2005). This 

figure increases to 32% for cities in the 25,000−49,999 

population range (Egley et al., 2004).

The small towns and rural areas (under 25,000 

population) that inconsistently report gang problems 

typically have only 3 gangs with approximately 50 

members (versus 6 gangs and 100 members when 

consistently reporting gang problems) (Howell and 

Egley, 2005). Gangs that first emerged in these areas 

in the 1990s—or later—had several distinguishing 

features. They tend to have a much larger proportion 

of middle-class teens, mixed-gender gangs, more 

females, and more white youths. The members of these 

recently emerging gangs are far less likely than gang 

members in the early onset jurisdictions (prior to the 

1990s) to be involved in violent crimes (i.e., homicide, 

aggravated assault, robbery, and use of firearms) as 

well as property crimes and drug trafficking (Howell, 

Egley, and Gleason, 2002).

In summary, most of the less-populated areas, including 

rural counties, that first experienced gang problems in 

the 1990s tend to evidence unstable and intermittent 

gang problems that are relatively nonserious in terms 

of their impact on the community (Howell et al., 2002). 

This observation also applies, generally, to cities and 

towns under 50,000 population. Few small cities, towns, 

and rural areas have the necessary population base 

and extremely disadvantaged community conditions 

to sustain gangs. Moreover, any disruption that the 

gang experiences—including arrests of its members, 

diminished conflict with other groups, or members 

dropping out—is likely to weaken or destabilize it.

In the second category of communities, generally, cities 

and suburban areas with populations of approximately 

50,000 and greater, gang problems are somewhat 

more formidable. As the size of the population group 

increases, so does the percentage of city agencies 

that report a persistent gang problem (Egley et al., 

2004). Egley, Howell, and Major (2006, p. 11) show 

this relationship. In the smallest areas (under 25,000 

population), only 10% of the localities report persistent 

gang problems. In contrast, 58% of the cities and 

suburban areas with populations between 50,000 and 

99,999 report persistent gang problems, 85% of the next 

larger population group, and 100% of the largest cities 

(with populations of 250,000 and above). Cities with 

populations between 50,000 and 100,000 typically report 

between 4–15 gangs and about 50–200 members. In 

contrast, the next population group (between 100,000 

and 250,000) estimates about 7–30 gangs and 200 or 

more members (Egley, 2005).

But cities that report a persistent gang problem do not 

necessarily have a huge problem in terms of numbers 

of gangs and gang members; gangs are more prevalent 

and considerably larger in the more heavily populated 

areas. In cities with populations between 50,000 

and 99,999, only 3% reported more than 30 gangs in 

2002−2003 (Egley, Howell, and Ritz, 2005). In contrast, 

15% of the cities with populations between 100,000 and 

No. 2 August 2006

NYGC Bulletin

®


249,999 reported more than 30 gangs in this period, 

and the situation was noticeably different in the very 

largest cities (with populations of 250,000 and above). 

In the latter group, more than 60% reported more than 

30 gangs. The proportion that reported more than 1,000 

gang members in these three population groups was 

4%, 17%, and 61%, respectively. Another distinguishing 

feature of the gangs in the larger cities is their longevity. 

The more persistent gang problem areas tend to have 

first experienced gang activity before the 1990s (Egley 

et al., 2004).

Many of the youth gangs in these latter areas are 

extremely dangerous, as evidenced by reported gangrelated homicides in National Youth Gang Surveys for 

1999−2001 (Egley et al., 2006). Cities that reported 

one or more gang-related homicides had more than 

100,000 population (78%), experienced the onset of gang 

problems before 1985 (71%), consistently reported a 

gang problem during 1996−2001 (54%), averaged 50 or 

more gang members in each gang, and had a greater 

number of adult gang members (57%). Nearly 4 in 10 

of the very largest cities experienced 10 or more gangrelated homicides in 2002−2003, in contrast with 8% 

of the cities in the 100,000 to 249,999 population range 

and less than 1% of the cities with populations between 

50,000 and 99,999 (Egley et al., 2005).

In summary, the impact of gangs is notably worse in the 

more densely populated areas—those with populations 

of 50,000 or more. Although this is not a new discovery, 

the National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS) data reported 

here begins to paint a picture of the relative seriousness 

of gang problems in areas with greater populations. 

On each of the criteria examined, gang problems are 

far greater in cities with over 50,000 in population than 

in less-populated areas. More specifically, cities with 

populations greater than 100,000 report noticeably more 

gangs and gang members. But the very largest cities 

(with populations of 250,000 and above) typically report 

more than 30 gangs, more than 1,000 members, and 

far more gang-related homicides than less-populated 

cities.

In the remainder of this bulletin, the impact of gangs 

is considered but only in the second category of 

communities (those with populations of 50,000 or 

more) in which gang problems are somewhat more 

formidable.

The Impact of Youth Gang 

Members’ Criminal Activity

The following findings come mainly from studies of 

gang member subsamples that have been embedded 

in several longitudinal studies of large, representative 

samples of children and adolescents in three large 

U.S. cities (Rochester, New York; Denver, Colorado; 

and Seattle, Washington) and in Montreal, Canada. 

Comparative studies of these urban samples in which 

the criminal activity of gang members in the samples 

is compared with the criminal involvement of nongang 

youth are very revealing.

A comparison of the criminal acts among these two 

groups of youngsters clearly shows that gang members 

living in high-crime areas are responsible for far more 

than their share of all self-reported violent offenses 

committed by the entire sample during the adolescent 

years. Rochester gang members (30% of the sample) 

self-reported committing 68% of all adolescent violent 

offenses; in Seattle, gang members (15% of the sample) 

self-reported committing 85% of adolescent robberies; 

and in Denver, gang members (14% of the sample) 

self-reported committing 79% of all serious violent 

adolescent offenses (Thornberry, 1998; Thornberry, 

Krohn, Lizotte et al., 2003). In the Montreal study, gang 

members had four times more court appearances at 

age 15 and 7 times more at age 17 (Gatti, Tremblay, 

and Vitaro, 2005).

Second, survey research has consistently demonstrated 

that youth are significantly more criminally active 

during periods of active gang membership, particularly 

in serious and violent offenses. This finding has 

been noted as “one of the most robust and consistent 

observations in criminological research” (Thornberry, 

1998, p. 147). During periods of active gang membership, 

the Rochester gang members were responsible for, on 

average, four times as many offenses as their share of 

the total study population would suggest (Thornberry 

et al., 2003).

Third, gang members in the adolescent samples 

committed more serious crimes. In general, gang 

members’ violent offense rates are up to seven times 

higher than the violent crime rates of adolescents who 

are not in gangs (Howell, 2003, pp. 83−84), or stated 

otherwise, there is a high degree of overlap between 

gang membership and serious violent and chronic 

juvenile offending. In the Rochester adolescent sample, 

two-thirds (66%) of the chronic violent offenders were 

gang members. In comparison with single-year gang 

members, multiple-year members have much higher 

serious and violent offense rates (Thornberry et al., 

2003).

Fourth, the influence of gang membership on delinquency 

and violence is long-lasting. Analyses in the Seattle, 

Rochester, and Denver studies show that youths commit 

many more serious and violent acts while they are 

gang members than they do after they leave the gang 

(Thornberry, 1998). Although gang members’ offense 

rates dropped after they left the gang in all three sites, 

their crime rates remained fairly high. Rates of drug 

use and drug trafficking, the most notable exceptions 

to offense rate drops, remained nearly as high after 

individuals left gangs as when they were active gang 

members (Thornberry et al., 2003).


General Community Impacts of 

Youth Gangs

Although a major concern of residents is the more 

organized and violent gangs, the start-up gangs also 

instill fear in residents when troublesome behaviors 

involve intimidation, vandalism, graffiti, and occasional 

drug sales (Weisel, 2002, 2004). Nevertheless, community 

residents’ fear of gangs and of becoming victims of 

gang crime is very great in the most gang-infested 

communities. A study in Orange County, California, in 

which a random sample of residents were interviewed, 

illustrates this case (Lane and Meeker, 2000). Fear of 

crime and gangs was an “immediate,” daily experience 

for people who lived in lower-income neighborhoods 

where gangs were more prevalent and dangerous. But 

for people in other areas, fear was generally an abstract 

concern about the future that became immediate only 

when they entered certain pockets of the county. In 

the most gang-ridden areas, many residents reported 

having avoided gang areas because they were afraid 

of gangs and criminal victimization. Others talked 

about avoiding certain streets and taking a circuitous 

route to shopping areas at night to avoid gangs that 

operate in certain neighborhoods. Intimidation of other 

youths, adults, and business owners is not uncommon, 

and intimidation of witnesses or potential witnesses is 

particularly serious because it undermines the justice 

process (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997).

In a few large cities, youth gangs and drug gangs have 

virtually taken over some public-housing developments 

(Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997). Venkatesh (1996) 

described one of the worst cases of gang dominance in 

Chicago’s Robert Taylor Homes, a low-income publichousing development. In the early 1990s, gangs in 

the housing development were transformed from turf 

gangs to drug gangs, and an escalation of gang violence 

resulted. Use of zip guns and hand-to-hand fighting 

of the past had given way to powerful handguns, 

drive-by shootings, and some use of assault weapons. 

The personal safety of the residents themselves was 

jeopardized to the extent that the risk of being caught 

in gang cross fire was imminent. Other drug gangs 

operating as organized criminal groups have had 

devastating community impacts. New York City’s 

Puerto Rican Black Park Gang, so named because it shot 

out lights surrounding its base of operations in a park 

to avoid police detection (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 

1997), is a classic example. It was a very violent drug 

gang—believed to be responsible for 15 murders—that 

trafficked in drugs and used the proceeds to buy 

legitimate businesses through which it laundered 

drug profits. In addition to drug trafficking and violent 

crimes, the gang was involved in trafficking or using 

illegally obtained firearms and using force to intimidate 

witnesses and victims. 

Violent Gang Criminal Activity

Of course, homicide is the crime of greatest concern 

to everyone. Reports of gang-related homicides 

are concentrated mostly in the largest cities in the 

United States, where there are long-standing and 

persistent gang problems and a greater number of 

documented gang members—most of whom are 

identified by law enforcement as young adults. In the 

2002 and 2003 National Youth Gang Surveys, nearly 4 

out of 10 very large cities reported 10 or more gang 

homicides (Egley, 2005). However, the majority reported 

none or not more than one homicide.

Youth gangs are responsible for a disproportionate 

number of homicides. In two cities, Los Angeles and 

Chicago—arguably the most gang-populated cities in 

the United States—over half of the combined nearly 

1,000 homicides reported in 2004 were attributed to 

gangs (Egley and Major, 2003; Egley and Ritz, 2006). 

Of the remaining 171 cities, approximately one-fourth of 

all the homicides were considered gang-related. More 

than 80% of gang-problem agencies, in both smaller 

cities and rural counties, recorded zero gang homicides. 

Across the United States, the number of gang homicides 

reported by cities with populations of 100,000 or more 

increased 34% from 1999 to 2003 (Curry, 2004).

Jurisdictions experiencing higher levels of gang 

violence—evidenced by reports of multiple gang-related 

homicides over survey years—were significantly more 

likely than those experiencing no gang homicides 

to report that firearms were “used often” by gang 

members in assault crimes (47% versus 4% of the 

jurisdictions, respectively) (Egley et al., 2004). Areas 

with longer-standing gang problems and a larger 

number of identified gang members—most often those 

with more adult-aged gang members—were also more 

likely to report greater firearm use by gang members 

in assault crimes.

Although the question of the extent to which street 

gangs shifted toward entrepreneurial activity in the 

1980s and 1990s and the consequences of this shift are 

constantly debated by researchers (see Coughlin and 

Venkatesh, 2003), the reality is that gangs are often 

extensively involved in criminal activity. Although the 

proportion of all crimes committed by gang members 

is unknown, analyses of reported violent crimes in 

several cities reveal that their members often represent 

a large proportion of the high-rate violent offenders 

(Braga, Kennedy, and Tita, 2002). Lethal violence 

related to gangs tends to be concentrated in the largest 

cities, which are mired with larger and ongoing gang 

problems. Frequent firearm use in assault crimes is 

typically reported in these larger cities.

Gang crime, however, resembles far more of a 

criminal smorgasbord than a main course of violence. 

National Youth Gang Survey respondents estimated 

the proportion of gang members who engaged in the 


following six serious and/or violent offenses in 2001: 

aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, motor vehicle 

theft, larceny/theft, and drug sales. Two clear patterns 

were seen (Egley et al., 2006). First, a large majority 

of agencies noted some gang member involvement 

in all six of the measured crimes. Second, the most 

frequent response was that none of these crimes 

were committed by a large proportion (“Most/All”) 

of gang members within the jurisdiction, indicating 

considerable variability among gang members in terms 

of offending. Agencies that said a large proportion of 

gang members were involved in one or more of these 

offenses most often reported drug sales. A clear 

majority of law enforcement agencies in the NYGS 

report that while gang and drug problems overlap, 

it is typically only a subset of gang members in their 

jurisdiction who are actively involved in drug sales. 

These findings correspond with other research which 

finds an extensive amount of variation in the types of 

crimes in which gangs are involved. One noted gang 

researcher refers to this consistently uncovered pattern 

as “cafeteria-style” offending (Klein, 1995).

Gang Members Returning From Prison

Although no reliable national data are available on the 

prevalence and membership of prison gangs, the first 

collection of articles published on them indicates that 

experts agree that prison gangs got bigger and became 

more entrenched in the 1980s and 1990s (Fleisher, 

Decker, and Curry, 2001). The life cycle of many arrested 

gang members involves moving from communities to 

detention, to juvenile corrections, to adult prisons, and 

back into communities. The correctional system stage 

is but one segment of many gang members’ “street life 

cycle” (Fleisher, 1995, p. 242).

It is widely recognized that national prison data seriously 

underestimates the proportion of all inmates that are 

gang-involved. However, in recent years, the issue of 

gang members returning from a secure confinement 

has received greater attention, in part, because of the 

growing numbers of inmates that are now released 

annually. A recent estimate is that nearly 600,000 

adult inmates arrive on the doorsteps of communities 

throughout the country each year (Petersilia, 2003, 

p. 3). More people are leaving prison today than at 

any time in history, and many lack preparation for life 

on the outside, according to Petersilia’s study.

Recent NYGS findings reveal that returning members 

are a noticeable problem for approximately two-thirds 

of the gang-problem jurisdictions (Egley et al., 2006). 

Of the agencies reporting the return of gang members 

from confinement in 2001, nearly two-thirds (63%) 

reported returning members “somewhat” or “very 

much” contributed to an increase in violent crime 

among local gangs; 69% reported the same for drug 

trafficking. Respondents said returning members 

had less of an impact on local gang activities, such as 

property crimes and weapons procurement; 10% or less 

reported returning members influenced each of these 

areas “very much.” According to these respondents, 

the effect of returning members was typically observed 

in increases in violent crime and drug trafficking among 

local gangs.

An Illinois study supports these perceptions of law 

enforcement professionals. In this study of more than 

2,500 adult inmates released from prison across the 

state during 2000, nearly one-quarter of them were 

identified as gang members (Olson, Dooley, and Kane, 

2004). More than half (55%) of the gang members were 

readmitted to Illinois prisons within the two-year followup period, compared to 46% of the non-gang members. 

Gang members were more likely than nonmembers to 

be arrested, were rearrested more quickly following 

release from prison, were rearrested more frequently, 

and were more likely to be arrested for violent and drug 

offenses than were nongang members.

Gang Migration and Immigration

The impact of gang migration on local gang problems 

is not as large as commonly perceived. First, there is 

very little evidence supporting the notion that youth 

gangs have the capacity to set up satellite operations in 

distant cities (Decker, Bynum, and Weisel, 1998; Howell 

and Decker, 1999). Second, “gang migration” almost 

exclusively involves relocation of gang members with 

their families (Maxson, 1999). The 2004 NYGS asked law 

enforcement respondents about gang member migration 

or the movement of actively involved gang youth from 

other jurisdictions. An analysis of survey results (Egley 

and Ritz, 2006) showed that a small number of agencies 

(10%) reported that more than half of the documented 

gang members in their jurisdiction had migrated from 

other areas, while a majority (60%) of respondents 

reported none or few (less than 25%) gang-member 

migrants. Among agencies experiencing a higher 

percentage of gang-member migration, 45% reported 

that social reasons (e.g., members moving with families 

or in pursuit of legitimate employment opportunities) 

affected local migration patterns “very much.” Also 

reported, but to a lesser degree, were drug market 

opportunities (23%), avoidance of law enforcement 

crackdowns (21%), and participation in other illegal 

ventures (18%). Social reasons were significantly more 

likely to be reported among agencies experiencing 

higher levels of gang-member migration.

As a contributing factor to local gang problems, 

immigration may well be a more important factor than 

migration of gang members across our country. Heavy 

immigration, particularly from Latin America and 

Asia, has introduced extremely violent gangs, such 

as Mara Salvatrucha, to the United States (Johnson, 

2005; Triplett, 2004). Johnson (2005) suggests that 

two California-based groups have drawn on the ebb 

and flow of migrants to become substantial threats to 

public safety: the 18th Street and Mara Salvatrucha 13 

(MS-13) gangs. The MS-13 identify themselves with 


tattoos, such as the number 13, meaning “trece” in 

Spanish, shown as MS-13. The MS-13 gang is said to 

be involved in a variety of criminal enterprises, and they 

show no fear of law enforcement (Valdez, 2000b). They 

seem willing to commit almost any crime, and MS-13 

gang members tend to have a higher level of criminal 

involvement than other gang members. Valdez reports 

that MS-13 members have been involved in burglaries, 

auto thefts, narcotic sales, home invasion robberies, 

weapons smuggling, carjacking, extortion, murder, 

rape, witness intimidation, illegal firearm sales, car 

theft, aggravated assaults, and drug trafficking. They 

also have been known to place a “tax” on prostitutes 

and non-gang member drug dealers who are working 

in MS-13 “turf.” Failure to pay up will most likely 

result in violence. Valdez also reports that MS-13 gang 

members are involved in exporting stolen U.S. cars to 

South America. The cars are often traded for contraband 

when dealing with drug cartels. He estimated that 

80% of the cars on El Salvador streets were stolen in 

the United States. Car theft is a lucrative business for 

the MS-13.

Economic Impact of Gangs

An informed estimate of the economic cost of gang 

crimes cannot be made because gang crimes are not 

routinely and systematically recorded in most law 

enforcement agencies. Hence, the proportion of all 

crimes attributable to gangs is unknown. In addition, 

the medical and financial consequences of gang 

violence, per se, are often overlooked. The total volume 

of crime is estimated to cost Americans $655 billion 

each year (Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, 2004), and gangs 

are responsible for a substantial proportion of this. 

Gangs in the United States have long had a significant 

economic crime impact (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 

1997; Valdez, 2000a). A study of admissions to a 

Los Angeles hospital trauma center found that the 

costs of 272 gang-related gunshot victims totaled nearly 

$5 million (emergency room, surgical procedures, 

intensive care, and surgical ward stay), which equated 

to $5,550 per patient per day (Song, Naude, Gilmore et 

al., 1996). More than a decade ago, the total medical 

cost of gang violence in Los Angeles County alone 

was estimated to exceed $1 billion annually (Hutson, 

Anglin, and Mallon, 1992). Nationwide, the complete 

costs of gun violence indicate a value of approximately 

$1 million per assault-related gunshot injury (Cook and 

Ludwig, 2006). A single adolescent criminal career of 

about ten years can cost taxpayers between $1.7 and 

$2.3 million (Cohen, 1998).

Some gangs have become entrepreneurial organizations. 

Although it is rare, some gangs, such as the Black 

Gangster Disciples Nation, have evolved into formal 

adult criminal organizations (McCormick, 1996; Spergel, 

1995). This gang is reputed to manage an extensive 

drug operation, perhaps involving tens of thousands of 

members in a number of states (McCormick, 1996). Its 

corporate hierarchy (see McCormick, 1996, p. 57) consists 

of a chairman of the board, two boards of directors (one for 

prisons, another for the streets), governors (who control 

drug trafficking within geographical areas), regents 

(who supply the drugs and oversee several drug-selling 

locations within the governors’ realm), area coordinators 

(who collect revenues from drug-selling spots), enforcers 

(who beat or kill members who cheat the gang or disobey 

other rules), and shorties (youngsters who staff drugselling spots and execute drug deals).

Impact of Gangs in Schools

Where they have a substantial presence, youth gangs are 

linked with serious delinquency problems in elementary 

and secondary schools in the United States (Chandler, 

Chapman, Rand, and Taylor, 1998). This study of data 

gathered in the School Crime Supplement to the 1995 

National Crime Victim Survey documented several 

examples. First, there is a strong correlation between 

gang presence in schools and both guns in schools 

and availability of drugs in school. Second, higher 

percentages of students report knowing a student who 

brought a gun to school when students report gang 

presence (25%) than when gangs were not present 

(8%). In addition, gang presence at a student’s school 

is related to seeing a student with a gun at school: 

12% report having seen a student with a gun in school 

when gangs are present versus 3% when gangs are not 

present. Third, students who report that any drugs 

(marijuana, cocaine, crack, or uppers/downers) are 

readily available at school are much more likely to report 

gangs at their school (35%) than those who say that no 

drugs are available (14%). Fourth, the presence of gangs 

more than doubles the likelihood of violent victimization 

at school (nearly 8% vs. 3%). The presence of street 

gangs at school also can be very disruptive to the school 

environment because they may not only create fear 

among students but also increase the level of violence 

in schools (Laub and Lauritsen, 1998). Gang presence is 

also an important contributor to overall levels of student 

victimization at school (Howell and Lynch, 2000). 

In the School Crime Supplement to the 2003 National 

Crime Victimization Survey, students, ages 12−18, 

were asked if street gangs were present at their 

schools during the previous six months. In 2003, 21% 

of students reported that there were gangs at their 

schools (National Center for Education Statistics and 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005, p. 46). However, 

no difference was detected between 2001 and 2003 in 

percentages of students who reported the presence of 

street gangs, regardless of school location. Of all the 

students surveyed, students in urban schools were the 

most likely to report the presence of street gangs at 

their school (31%), followed by suburban students and 

rural students, who were the least likely to do so (18% 

and 12%, respectively). 

Greater security measures have been taken by school 

administrations in response to the gang problem, but 


the effectiveness of them is subject to debate (Howell 

and Lynch, 2000). “The presence of security officers, 

metal detectors, and security cameras may deter some 

students from committing acts of violence, but this 

presence also serves to heighten fear among students 

and teachers, while increasing the power of some gangs 

and the perceived need some students have for joining 

gangs” (Thompkins, 2000, p. 54). It is also important 

to be aware that school-related gang crime extends 

beyond the boundaries of school buildings to contexts 

in which youths congregate before and after school 

hours; in fact, gang crime begins to escalate very early 

on school days (Wiebe, Meeker, and Vila, 1999).

Impact of Gangs on Participants

Most youths who join gangs have already been involved 

in delinquency and drug use. Once in the gang, they 

are quite likely to become more actively involved in 

delinquency, drug use, and violence—and they are more 

likely to be victimized themselves (Peterson, Taylor, 

and Esbensen, 2004). Their problems do not end here. 

They are at greater risk of arrest, juvenile court referral, 

detention, confinement in a juvenile correctional facility, 

and, later, imprisonment.

Gang involvement dramatically alters youngsters’ life 

chances—particularly if they remain active in the gang 

for several years (Thornberry et al., 2003). Over and 

above embedding its members in criminal activity, the 

gang acts as “a powerful social network” in constraining 

the behavior of members, limiting access to prosocial 

networks, and cutting individuals off from conventional 

pursuits (Thornberry et al., 2003). These effects of the gang 

tend to produce precocious, off-time, and unsuccessful 

transitions that bring disorder to the life course in a 

cascading series of difficulties, including school dropout, 

early pregnancy or early impregnation, teen motherhood, 

and unstable employment (pp. 179−180).

Conclusion

This bulletin has examined the impact of youth gangs 

on communities in more populous cities—those with 

populations greater than 50,000. Some youth gangs 

are not actively involved in criminal acts—particularly 

not violent crimes. However, as one moves from small 

towns and rural areas to large cities, and particularly 

to our nation’s largest cities, far more gang crime is 

seen. The economic impact of gangs is also far greater 

in these areas, with a far greater deleterious impact on 

communities in cities of 100,000 or more population. 

The very largest cities—with populations of 250,000 

and above—report on average more than 30 gangs, 

more gang members, and far more gang-related 

homicides than less-populated cities.

The disproportionate impact of gang members’ 

criminal activity on our communities is evident in 

several ways. First, gang members account for more 

than their share of crimes. Second, youths commit 

more crimes during the period of active involvement 

in a gang than during periods before joining and after 

leaving a gang. Third, gang members commit more 

serious crimes than other groups. Fourth, the criminal 

involvement of youths who remain in a gang for more 

than a year is long-lasting.

Overall, the impact of youth gangs on communities is 

felt in many ways. Intimidation of other youths, adults, 

witnesses, and business owners is not uncommon. 

Once the enormous numbers of homicides in Chicago 

and Los Angeles are factored in, more than one-fourth 

of all the homicides across the country are considered 

gang-related. Gang immigration may be a factor of 

greater importance than gang migration, in terms of 

the impact of outsiders on local gangs. The MS-13 gang 

may be an example of this, although its numbers are 

likely exaggerated in the broadcast media. On the other 

hand, gangs in schools are likely underestimated. In 

general, law enforcement agencies tend to underreport 

gang incidents (Meeker, Parsons, and Vila, 2002), and 

their estimates of the number of gangs and gang 

members are likely to overlook substantial numbers of 

students. Last, gangs tend to propel youths into a life of 

crime, punctuated by arrests, convictions, and periods 

of incarceration. The costs to society are enormous. 

Each assault-related gunshot injury costs the public 

approximately $1 million. A single adolescent criminal 

career of about ten years can cost taxpayers between 

$1.7 and $2.3 million. 

Regardless of population size, any community that 

senses that it is experiencing a youth gang problem 

needs to undertake a thorough, objective, and 

comprehensive assessment. This is the important 

first step before considering a response. The National 

Youth Gang Center has developed an assessment 

protocol that any community can use to assess its gang 

problem. This assessment guides the development 

of a comprehensive, communitywide plan of gang 

prevention, intervention, and suppression (National 

Youth Gang Center, 2002a).

The Comprehensive Gang Prevention, Intervention, and 

Suppression Model (Spergel, 1995) is a flexible framework 

that guides communities in developing and organizing 

such a continuum of programs and strategies. Resource 

materials that assist communities in developing an 

action plan to implement the Comprehensive Gang 

Model are also available (National Youth Gang Center, 

2002b). Information on promising and effective gang 

programs and strategies that address specific risk 

factors among various age groups is also available at 

the NYGC Web site in the Gang Strategic Planning Tool 

(http://www.iir.com/nygc/tool/). n

James C. Howell is a Senior Research Associate with the 

National Youth Gang CenterTM, which is operated for the 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention by 

the Institute for Intergovernmental Research®.


Braga, A. A., Kennedy, D. M., and Tita, G. E. (2002). 

“New approaches to the Strategic Prevention of 

Gang and Group-Involved Violence.” 

In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America III

(pp. 271−285). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage Publications, Inc.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1997). Urban 

Street Gang Enforcement. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance.

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

Taylor, B. M. (1998). Students Reports of School 

Crime: 1989 and 1995. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Education and 

U.S. Department of Justice.

Chin, K. (1990). “Chinese Gangs and Extortion.” In 

C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America (pp. 129−145). 

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cohen, M. (1998). “The Monetary Value of Saving 

a High-Risk Youth.” Journal of Quantitative 

Criminology, 14, 5−33.

Cook, P. J., and Ludwig, J. (2006). “The Social Costs 

of Gun Ownership.” Journal of Public Economics, 

90, 379−391.

Coughlin, B. C., and Venkatesh, S. A. (2003). “The 

Urban Street Gang After 1970.” Annual Review 

of Sociology, 29, 41−64. 

Curry, G. D. (2004). “Youth Gang Homicide Trends in 

the National Youth Gang Survey.” Report to the 

National Youth Gang Center, Tallahassee, FL.

Decker, S. H., Bynum, T. S., and Weisel, D. L. (1998). 

“Gangs as Organized Crime Groups: A Tale of 

Two Cities.” Justice Quarterly, 15, 395−423.

Egley, A., Jr. (2005). “Highlights of the 2002–2003 

National Youth Gang Surveys.” OJJDP Fact 

Sheet (June 2005−01). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

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

“Recent Patterns of Gang Problems in the 

United States: Results From the 1996−2002 

National Youth Gang Survey.” In F. A. Esbensen, 

S. G. Tibbetts, and L. Gaines (Eds.), American 

Youth Gangs at the Millennium (pp. 90−108). 

Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Egley, A., Jr., Howell, J. C., and Major, A. K. (2006). 

National Youth Gang Survey: 1999–2001. 

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

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention.

Egley, A., Jr., Howell, J. C., and Ritz, C. E. (2005). 

“Exploring Gang Migration and Proliferation 

Patterns in the National Youth Gang Survey.” 

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the 

American Society of Criminology.

Egley, A., Jr., and Major, A. K. (2003). “Highlights 

of the 2001 National Youth Gang Survey.” 

Fact Sheet (2003–01). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Egley, A., Jr., and Ritz, C. E. (2006). “Highlights of 

the 2004 National Youth Gang Survey.” OJJDP 

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

of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention.

Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. (2004). Caught in the 

Crossfire: Arresting Gang Violence by Investing 

in Kids. Washington, DC: Fight Crime: Invest in 

Kids.

Fleisher, M. S. (1995). Beggars and Thieves: Lives of 

Urban Street Criminals. Madison, WI: University 

of Wisconsin Press.

Fleisher, M. S., Decker, S., and Curry, G. D. (2001). 

“Going Home, Staying Home: Integrating 

Prison Gang Members Into the Community.” 

Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(1), 66−78.

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

(2005). “Youth Gangs, Delinquency and Drug 

Use: A Test of Selection, Facilitation, and 

Enhancement Hypotheses.” Journal of Child 

Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(11), 1178−1190.

Howell, J. C. (2003). Preventing and Reducing 

Juvenile Delinquency: A Comprehensive 

Framework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications.

Howell, J. C., and Decker, S. H. (1999). “The Youth 

Gangs, Drugs, and Violence Connection.” 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Youth Gang Series. 

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

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention.

Howell, J. C., and Egley, A., Jr. (2005). “Gangs 

in Small Towns and Rural Counties.” NYGC 

Bulletin. National Youth Gang Center.

Howell, J. C., Egley, A., Jr., and Gleason, D. K. (2002). 

“Modern-Day Youth Gangs.” Juvenile Justice 

Bulletin. Youth Gang Series. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

References


Howell, J. C., and Lynch, J. (2000). “Youth Gangs 

in Schools.” Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Youth 

Gang Series. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Hutson, H. R., Anglin, D., and Mallon, W. (1992). 

“Injuries and Deaths From Gang Violence: 

They Are Preventable.” Annals of Emergency 

Medicine, 21, 1234−1236.

Johnson, S. C. (2005). “North American Youth 

Gangs: Patterns and Remedies.” Testimony 

before the U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere 

(April 20). Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.

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

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lane, J., and Meeker, J. W. (2000). “Subcultural 

Diversity and the Fear of Crime and Gangs.” 

Crime and Delinquency, 46(4), 497−521.

Laub, J. H., and Lauritsen, J. L. (1998). “The 

Interdependence of School Violence With 

Neighborhood and Family Conditions.” In 

D. S. Elliott, B. A. Hamburg, and K. R. Williams 

(Eds.), Violence in American Schools: A New 

Perspective (pp. 127–155). Cambridge, U.K.: 

Cambridge University Press.

Maxson, C. L. (1999). “Street Gang Members on the 

Move: The Role of Migration in the Proliferation 

of Street Gangs in the U.S.” Juvenile Justice 

Bulletin. Youth Gang Series. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

McCormick, J. (1996). “The ‘Disciples’ of Drugs and 

Death.” Newsweek, (February 5), 56−57.

Meeker, J. W., Parsons, K. J. B., and Vila, B. J. 

(2002). “Developing a GIS-Based Regional Gang 

Incident Tracking System.” In W. Reed and 

S. Decker (Eds.), Responding to Gangs: 

Evaluation and Research (pp. 289−329). 

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

National Institute of Justice.

National Center for Education Statistics and the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Indicators of 

School Crime and Safety: 2004. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Statistics and the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

National Youth Gang Center. (2002a). A Guide 

to Assessing Your Community’s Youth Gang 

Problem, Tallahassee, FL: National Youth 

Gang Center. http://www.iir.com/nygc/acgp/

assessment.htm

National Youth Gang Center. (2002b). Planning for 

Implementation, Tallahassee, FL: National Youth 

Gang Center. http://www.iir.com/nygc/acgp/

implementation.htm

Olson, D. E., Dooley, B., and Kane, C. M. (2004). “The 

Relationship Between Gang Membership and 

Inmate Recidivism.” Research Bulletin, 2(12). 

Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Research 

Authority.

Petersilia, J. (2003). When Prisoners Come Home: 

Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York, NY: 

Oxford University Press.

Peterson, D., Taylor, T. J., and Esbensen, F. (2004). 

“Gang Membership and Violent Victimization.” 

Justice Quarterly, 21(4), 794−815.

Song, D. H., Naude, G. P., Gilmore, D. A., and 

Mongard, F. (1996). “Gang Warfare: The Medical 

Repercussions.” Journal of Trauma, 40(5), 

810−815.

Spergel, I. A. (1995). The Youth Gang Problem.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Thompkins, D. E. (2000). “School Violence: Gangs 

and a Culture of Fear.” ANNALS of the American 

Academy of Political and Social Science, 567, 

54−71.

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

C. A., and Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs and 

Delinquency in Developmental Perspective.

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Triplett, W. (2004). “Gang Crisis.” The 

Congressional Quarterly Researcher, 14(18), 

421−444.

Valdez, A. (2000a). Gangs: A Guide to 

Understanding Street Gangs (3d ed.).

San Clemente, CA: LawTech Publishing 

Company.

Valdez, A. (2000b). Mara Salvatrucha: A South 

American Import. Yaphank, NY: National 

Alliance of Gang Investigators Associations. 

http://www.nagia.org/Gang%20Articles/

Mara%20Salvatrucha.htm

Venkatesh, S. A. (1996). “The Gang and the 

Community.” In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in 

America (2d ed., pp. 241−256). Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Weisel, D. L. (2002). “The Evolution of Street Gangs: 

An Examination of Form and Variation.” In 

W. Reed and S. Decker (Eds.), Responding to 

Gangs: Evaluation and Research (pp. 25−65). 

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

National Institute of Justice.


Weisel, D. L. (2004). “Graffiti.” Problem-Oriented 

Guides for Police. Problem-Specific Guides 

Series. Guide No. 9. Washington, DC: Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services.

Wiebe, D. J., Meeker, J. W., and Vila, B. (1999). 

“Hourly Trends of Gang Crime Incidents, 

1995−1998.” University of California, Irvine, CA: 

Focused Research Group on Gangs.

This bulletin was prepared under Cooperative Agreement 95-JD-MU-K001 with the Institute for 

Intergovernmental Research from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not 

necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

i

 The National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS) is conducted annually by the National Youth Gang Center. A nationally 

representative sample of more than 2,563 law enforcement agencies has been surveyed each year since 1996. For details 

of the survey and annual statistical reports, go to the NYGS page at the National Youth Gang Center Web site: www.iir.

com/nygc/.

ii As indicated by reported gang problems in at least one survey year and no gang problems in any other year.

iii The evidence is stronger in analyses conducted to date on National Youth Gang Survey data for areas with populations 

under 25,000; however, there is substantial evidence that the gang problems in cities with populations between 25,000 

and 50,000 resemble those areas with populations smaller than 25,000 more closely than they resemble cities with 

populations greater than 50,000 (Egley et al., 2005; Howell et al., 2002). 

iv Cities with a population of 250,000 or more.