U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator

From the Administrator

The incidence of gangs in schools

nearly doubled from 1989 to 1995,

mirroring the growth in youth gangs

seen over the past two decades. With

the strong correlation between the

presence in schools of gangs and

guns—and gangs and drugs—this

increase is particularly disturbing.

Drawing on a report published by the

U.S. Departments of Education and

Justice in 1998 and other literature,

Youth Gangs in Schools analyzes

findings from the School Crime

Supplements (SCS) to the National

Crime Victim Survey, describes

characteristics of gangs in schools,

and discusses contributory factors to

gang prevalence in schools. The

impact of gang presence in schools

on victimization is also reviewed.

One-third of the students surveyed in

the 1995 SCS reported the presence

of gangs in their schools. Most gangs

that students see at school are

actively involved in criminal activity,

with two-thirds involved in one or

more of the following types of

criminal acts: violence, drug sales,

and carrying guns.

As the above data illustrate, the

problem of youth gangs in schools

demands our attention. The information that this Youth Gang Series

Bulletin provides will help us to focus

our efforts in this direction.

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

August 2000

Youth Gangs

in Schools

James C. Howell and James P. Lynch

The proliferation of youth gangs since 1980

has fueled the public’s fear and magnified

possible misconceptions about youth gangs.

To address the mounting concern about

youth gangs, the Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s)

Youth Gang Series delves into many of the

key issues related to youth gangs. The series

considers issues such as gang migration,

gang growth, female involvement with

gangs, homicide, drugs and violence, and

the needs of communities and youth who

live in the presence of youth gangs.

Youth gangs are linked with serious crime

problems in elementary and secondary

schools in the United States. A report issued by the U.S. Departments of Education

and Justice (Chandler et al., 1998) found

that the percentage of students reporting

the presence of gangs at school nearly

doubled between 1989 and 1995. This report also found a strong correlation between the presence of gangs and both guns

and drugs in school. Higher percentages of

students reported knowing a student who

brought a gun to school when gangs were

present at the school (25 percent) than

when gangs were not present (8 percent).

In addition, gang presence increased the

likelihood of seeing a student with a gun

at school: 12 percent of the students surveyed reported having seen a student with

a gun in school when gangs were present,

compared with 3 percent when gangs

were not present. Students who reported

that drugs (marijuana, cocaine, crack, or

uppers/downers) were readily available

at school were much more likely to report

gangs at their school (35 percent) than

those who said that no drugs were available (14 percent). The presence of gangs

more than doubled the likelihood of violent

victimization at school (nearly 8 percent,

compared with 3 percent).

The report by Chandler and colleagues

(1998) analyzed the findings of the 1989

and 1995 School Crime Supplements

(SCS’s) to the National Crime Victim

Survey (NCVS). The supplements were distributed in January through June of their

respective years to nationally representative samples of approximately 10,000 students. These students were in the NCVS

sample; thus, the SCS was an enhancement

to the NCVS. Eligible respondents to the

supplements were between the ages of

12 and 19 and had attended school at

some point during the 6 months preceding

the interview. Respondents were asked

about their victimization experience during the last 6 months and whether the

crime occurred at school during the 6

months prior to the interview. “At school”

was defined as in the school building, on

school grounds, or on a school bus. The

response rate was 78 percent.
2

This Bulletin presents results of additional

analyses of gang-related SCS data. Three

main topics are examined:

◆ Characteristics of gangs in schools.

◆ Reasons for greater gang prevalence

in some schools.

◆ Impact of gangs on victimization at

school.

Characteristics of

Gangs in Schools

Chandler and colleagues (1998) reported

that 28 percent of the surveyed students

reported gangs in schools. However, their

analysis used only one indicator of gang

presence, responses to the question: “Are

there any street gangs at your school?” To

obtain a more complete measure of gang

presence in schools, two additional questions from the 1995 SCS are considered

here: “Do any of the students at your

school belong to a street gang?” and “What

about gangs that don’t have members attending your school . . . have any of those

gangs come around your school in the past

6 months?” When positive responses to

any of these three questions were counted,

gang presence in schools increased from

28 to 37 percent.

To assess the characteristics of these

gangs, the SCS asked students who reported gang presence at school to indicate

how they knew street gangs existed by responding yes or no to questions of

whether gangs:

◆ Had a name.

◆ Had a recognized leader.

◆ Had their own territory or turf.

◆ Tagged or marked turf with graffiti.

◆ Committed violent acts.

◆ Spent time with other members of

the gang.

◆ Wore clothing or other items to identify

their gang membership.

◆ Had tattoos.

Between 33 and 80 percent of students

used one of these criteria to define gangs

(table 1). Students could use more than

one indicator of gang existence. Most students used three of the indicators as evidence of a gang: having a name (80 percent), spending time with other members

of the gang (80 percent), and wearing

clothing or other items to identify their

gang membership (71 percent). The fourth

most frequently used indicator was tagging

or marking turf (56 percent), followed by

violent gang activity (50 percent). Thus,

it appears that students often, but not

always, associate the groups they call

“gangs” with violent acts. The least frequently used indicators, in descending order of importance, were these: territory or

turf (47 percent), tattoos (37 percent), and

recognized leader (33 percent).1

To explore further the issue of student

association of school violence and gangs,

the students’ use of various gang indicators (characteristics) was compared

with their reports of the degree of gang

involvement in criminal activities at

school. To measure gang involvement

in criminal activities, a gang crime scale

was created based on student answers

to the following three questions:

◆ How often have street gangs been involved in fights, attacks, or violence at

your school in the past 6 months?

◆ Have street gangs been involved in the

sale of drugs at your school in the past

6 months?

◆ Have any street gang members brought

guns to your school in the past 6

months?

Table 2 shows the percentage of students

who used the various gang indicators

when they said gangs were involved in

none, one, two, or three criminal activities

at school. For brevity, this Bulletin refers

to these criminal activities as violence,

drug sales, and carrying guns, respectively.

Table 2 shows that students use the gang

indicators most frequently in reference to

gangs that are involved at school in only

one of the three types of criminal activities in the gang crime scale. The extent

of gang involvement in school-related

criminal activities in relation to the three

criteria students most often use to define

gangs (having a name, spending time together, and wearing identifying clothing)

is shown in table 2. It is readily apparent

that students do not use these three criteria to distinguish degrees of gang involvement in criminal activity.

Reasons for Greater

Gang Prevalence in

Some Schools

A number of student and school attributes

that might be related to the presence of

gangs in schools are analyzed here to determine why gangs are more prevalent in

some schools than in others. The study

examined the impact of the following factors and found each one statistically significant with the exception of gender.2

Demographic Characteristics

Significant differences appear in the age

and race/ethnicity of students reporting

gangs in schools. The percentage of students reporting gang presence in their

schools increased considerably with

age (see table 3): 26 and 34 percent of

students ages 12 and 13, respectively,

reported gang presence, compared with

an average of 41 percent for students ages

14–19. More than one-fourth (26 percent)

of 12-year-olds reported gangs in their

schools, and more than one-third of 13-

year-olds and 40 percent of 14-year-olds

reported gangs. Fifteen-year-olds were

most likely to report gangs (43 percent)

(excluding 19-year-olds, for whom the

number of surveyed students was very

small).

Table 1: Criteria Students Recognized as Indicating Gang Presence

at School

Percentage of Student Responses

Indicator of Gang Presence Yes No Don’t Know

Name 80% 9% 11%

Recognized leader 33 40 27

Territory or turf 47 33 20

Tagging or marking turf with graffiti 56 30 14

Violence 50 29 21

Time spent with other gang members 80 8 12

Clothing or other identifying items 71 21 8

Tattoos 37 38 25

Note: Number of respondents (n)=2,604.
3

Table 2: Percentage of Students Reporting Gang Involvement in Criminal

Activities, by Indicators Used To Identify Gang Presence

Number of Types of Criminal Gang

Activities Reported*

Indicator of Gang Presence None One Two Three

Name 29% 41% 21% 9%

Leader 22 39 25 13

Territory or turf 24 40 25 11

Tagging or marking turf 26 40 23 10

Violence 19 38 30 13

Time spent with other

gang members 27 40 23 10

Clothing or other

identifying items 27 40 23 10

Tattoos 21 37 29 13

*As measured by a gang crime scale derived from student responses to the 1989 and 1995 School

Crime Supplements to the National Crime Victim Survey. Types of criminal activities: violence, drug

sales, and carrying guns.

Note: Number of respondents (n)=2,604. The percentages for each indicator of gang presence may

not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

Table 3: Percentage of Students Reporting Gang Presence in School,

by Age

Gang Presence*

Age Yes No

12 (n=1,618) 26% 74%

13 (n=1,655) 34 66

14 (n=1,609) 40 60

15 (n=1,581) 43 57

16 (n=1,463) 40 60

17 (n=1,252) 41 59

18 (n=660) 40 60

19 (n=116) 43 57

Total (n=9,954) 37 63

*Using a composite measure of gang presence derived from student responses to the questions:

(1) Are there any street gangs at your school? (2) Do any of the students at your school belong to

a street gang? and (3) What about gangs that don’t have members attending your school . . . have

any of those gangs come around your school in the past 6 months?

Note: n=number of respondents.

Table 4 shows that consideration of gang

criminal involvement (violence, drug sales,

and carrying guns, as measured by the

gang crime scale) changes how students

of different ages perceive gangs in school.

On average, 31 percent of the students

reported that the gangs in their schools

were not involved in any of the three

specified criminal activities. Of the 12-

year-old students, 43 percent said that the

gangs in their schools were not involved in

any of the three types of criminal activity.

The proportion decreased each year up to

age 16, at which only 26 percent of the students said that the gangs in their schools

were not involved in criminal activities. At

age 17, the proportion rose to 31 percent; at

age 19, it fell to a low of 25 percent.

Table 4 also shows the average percentage of students reporting criminal involvement of gangs at their school.

About two-thirds of the students reported gang involvement in one or more

of the three specified types of criminal

activities. Students ages 15 and 17 reported the highest percentage of gangs involved in all three types of criminal activities (11 and 12 percent, respectively).

However, the largest percentage (40 percent) of the students reported gang involvement in one type of criminal activity; one in five students (21 percent)

reported gang involvement in two types

of criminal activities; and only 8 percent

of the surveyed students reported gang

involvement in all three types of criminal

activities. Thus, only a small fraction of

gangs appears to be highly active in all

three types of crimes.

The percentage of white, black, and Hispanic students who reported gangs in their

schools in 1995 varied significantly. According to the gang presence scale, 61 percent

of Hispanic students reported gangs, compared with 44 percent of black students and

33 percent of white students. There was no

significant difference between the percentages of males (38 percent) and females

(37 percent) reporting gangs in schools.

Population Size

Table 5 shows the percentage of students

who indicated gang presence in school

according to the population size of their

community. As expected, the presence of

gangs in schools increases with the size

of the community, up to 50,000. The response from students living in areas with

populations of 50,000 or larger did not

vary greatly (from 51 percent to 54 percent

of these students reported gangs). The

highest percentages of student reports of

gangs were not in the most populated areas but rather in areas with populations

between 100,000 and 249,999 (54 percent),

followed closely by areas with populations

between 250,000 and 999,999 (53 percent).

Students in areas with populations of 1 million or more were slightly less likely to

report gangs (51 percent). Even in the

smallest jurisdictions (populations

smaller than 1,000), 23 percent of students reported gangs in their schools.

Urban and rural areas were compared using the composite measure of gang presence. One-quarter (25 percent) of students attending schools in rural areas

reported gangs in their schools, compared with 43 percent of students in

all urban areas. In another population

comparison, 51 percent of students in
4

Table 5: Percentage of Students Reporting Gang Presence in School, by

Population Size

Gang Presence*

Population Size Yes (n=3,732) No (n=6,222)

Less than 1,000 23% 77%

1,000–9,999 29 71

10,000–24,999 41 59

25,000–49,999 45 55

50,000–99,999 51 49

100,000–249,999 54 46

250,000–499,999 53 47

500,000–999,999 53 47

1 million or more 51 49

Unincorporated areas 27 73

*Using a composite measure of gang presence derived from student responses to the questions:

(1) Are there any street gangs at your school? (2) Do any of the students at your school belong to

a street gang? and (3) What about gangs that don’t have members attending your school . . . have

any of those gangs come around your school in the past 6 months?

Note: n=number of respondents.

schools within central cities of metropolitan statistical areas (MSA’s) reported

gangs, in contrast with 36 percent of students in suburban areas of MSA’s and 27

percent of students outside MSA’s. These

population patterns are consistent with

the findings of the National Youth Gang

Survey (National Youth Gang Center,

1999a and b).

Household Income

Gang presence varied significantly with

household income. At the lowest income

level (less than $7,500), the largest percentage (47 percent) of students reported gangs

in their schools (see table 6). As expected,

as income level increased, reported gang

presence decreased. However, reports of

gang presence were fairly evenly distributed across households with income levels

of $12,500 to more than $50,000. This finding is not surprising, given the pervasive

presence of gangs in schools.

Drug Availability

Students were asked whether “it is easy,

hard, or impossible to get” drugs (including

alcohol, marijuana, crack, other forms of

cocaine, uppers/downers, LSD, PCP, heroin,

and other illegal drugs) at school.3

 Table 7

shows the percentage of students who reported gangs in relation to the number of

drugs they said were readily available at

school. Where none of the drugs was easy

to get, only 25 percent of surveyed students

said gangs were present. This percentage

increased from 42 percent when only one

drug was readily available to 69 percent

when seven drugs were readily available,

and then dropped slightly when eight or

nine drugs were readily available. Thus,

gangs were significantly more prevalent

when a large number of drugs were easy

to get at school.

Security Steps

This study examined whether gang

presence was related to general school

security measures. Students were

asked whether their school had:

◆ Security guards.

◆ Other school staff supervising the

hallway.

◆ Metal detectors.

◆ Locked doors during the day.

◆ A requirement that visitors sign in.

◆ Locker checks.

Table 8 shows the percentage of students

who indicated gang presence, based on

the composite measure of gang presence,

in relation to the number of security

measures employed by the schools.4

 In

schools reported by students to employ

none of the six security measures, only

13 percent of the students reported gangs.

The presence of gangs increased consistently as the number of security measures

increased, from 22 percent when only one

Table 4: Percentage of Students Reporting Gang Involvement in Criminal

Activities, by Age

Number of Types of Criminal Gang

Activities Reported*

Age None One Two Three

12 (n=289) 43% 41% 11% 5%

13 (n=376) 38 37 20 5

14 (n=455) 30 44 18 7

15 (n=489) 27 41 21 11

16 (n=419) 26 38 27 9

17 (n=354) 31 36 21 12

18 (n=186) 28 39 24 9

19 (n=36) 25 33 33 8

Total (n=2,604) 31 40 21 8

*As measured by a gang crime scale derived from student responses to the 1989 and 1995 School

Crime Supplements to the National Crime Victim Survey. Types of criminal activities: violence, drug

sales, and carrying guns.

Note: n=number of respondents at a particular age. The percentages for each age may not equal

100 percent due to rounding.

security measure was employed to 63 percent when all six security measures were

in place.

Interpretation of these results is difficult.

When more security measures are used

in schools, gangs are significantly more

prevalent. These data may indicate that

more security measures are employed for
5

Table 6: Percentage of Students Reporting Gang Presence in School, by

Household Income

Gang Presence*

Household Income Yes No

Less than $7,500 (n=573) 47% 53%

$7,500 to $12,499 (n=655) 42 58

$12,500 to $49,999 (n=5,912) 37 63

$50,000 or more (n=2,814) 36 64

Total (n=9,954) 37 63

*Using a composite measure of gang presence derived from student responses to the questions:

(1) Are there any street gangs at your school? (2) Do any of the students at your school belong to

a street gang? and (3) What about gangs that don’t have members attending your school . . . have

any of those gangs come around your school in the past 6 months?

Note: n=number of respondents.

protection in response to gang presence

and other security risks. However, many

of the security measures may not be

implemented effectively (see Gottfredson

and Gottfredson, 1999) and thus may not

be particularly effective in curbing gang

activity in schools.

Victimization Prevalence

A victimization prevalence measure was

developed using student responses to the

following three survey questions:

◆ During the past 6 months, did anyone

take money or things directly from you

by force, weapons, or threats at school?

◆ During the last 6 months, did anyone steal something from your

desk, locker, or some other place at

school (other than any incidents

just mentioned)?

◆ Other than the incidents just mentioned, did anyone physically attack

you at school during the last 6 months?

Table 7: Percentage of Students Reporting Gang Presence in School, by

Number of Drugs That Were Readily Available at School

Number of Drugs Gang Presence*

That Were Readily Available Yes No

None (n=5,466) 25% 75%

1 (n=1,342) 42 58

2 (n=1,133) 52 48

3 (n=658) 54 46

4 (n=453) 60 40

5 (n=331) 57 43

6 (n=147) 67 33

7 (n=126) 69 31

8 (n=113) 63 37

9 (n=185) 62 38

Total (n=9,954) 37 63

*Using a composite measure of gang presence derived from student responses to the questions:

(1) Are there any street gangs at your school? (2) Do any of the students at your school belong to

a street gang? and (3) What about gangs that don’t have members attending your school . . . have

any of those gangs come around your school in the past 6 months?

Note: n=number of respondents.

A positive response to any of these three

questions correlated significantly with

gang presence. When students said gangs

were present, 54 percent of them reported

one or more of the three types of victimization, compared with 46 percent when

gangs were not present.

Public or Private School

Using the composite measure of gang presence revealed that the type of school made

a significant difference with respect to gang

presence. Almost 40 percent of students in

public schools reported that gangs were

present, compared with 16 percent in private schools. Students also were asked if

they were “assigned” to the school they

attended or if they “chose” that school. Surprisingly, students who chose the school

they attended reported significantly more

gang presence (47 percent compared with

39 percent).

Summary

These analyses indicate that, when a comprehensive measure of gang presence was

used, all of the attributes of persons (except gender) and schools that were examined predicted gang prevalence in schools.

Hispanic and black 15-year-olds from lowincome households reported the highest

prevalence of gangs in school. These students were most likely to attend public

schools that were located within central

cities of MSA’s with populations between

100,000 and 1 million and characterized

by high levels of student victimization,

numerous security measures, and a large

number of readily available drugs.

Impact of Gangs on

Victimization at School

This study also examined the importance

of gang presence with respect to overall

victimization rates in schools. Although

NCVS victimization data could not be

linked with the SCS data by geographical

area, correlations between respondent reports of victimization at school, at home,

and elsewhere were examined. If the risk

of victimization at school is due to the dangerousness of the areas in which schools

are located, then the risk at home and in

the student’s neighborhood should be

highly correlated with the risk at school.

If risk in these other domains is not highly

correlated with victimization at school,

then the school environment must make

a unique contribution to the risk of victimization. Table 9 shows a significant correlation of violent and property-related
6

Table 8: Percentage of Students Reporting Gang Presence in School, by

Number of School Security Measures

Number of School Gang Presence*

Security Measures Yes No

None (n=377) 13% 87%

1 (n=1,073) 22 78

2 (n=2,396) 31 69

3 (n=3,159) 38 62

4 (n=2,000) 49 51

5 (n=747) 54 46

6 (n=202) 63 37

Total (n=9,954) 37 63

*Using a composite measure of gang presence derived from student responses to the questions:

(1) Are there any street gangs at your school? (2) Do any of the students at your school belong to

a street gang? and (3) What about gangs that don’t have members attending your school . . . have

any of those gangs come around your school in the past 6 months?

Note: n=number of respondents.

victimization at school, at home, and in

other places; however, the correlation

coefficients are not large.5

 Thus, this analysis suggests that the school environment

makes a unique contribution to the criminal victimization of adolescents. This observation, together with other findings

reported in this Bulletin, suggests that

gang presence is an important contributor

to overall levels of student victimization at

school.

Conclusion

Gangs are very prevalent in schools. More

than one-third (37 percent) of the students

surveyed in the 1995 SCS reported gangs

in their schools. This number included

nearly two-thirds of Hispanic students,

almost one-half of black students, and onethird of white students. Students in middle

to late adolescence who lived in households with incomes of less than $7,500 and

who had been victimized personally were

most likely to report gang presence. These

students were most likely to attend public

schools that they (or their parents or

guardians) had chosen in cities with populations between 100,000 and 1 million.

These largely urban schools employed a

large number of security measures, had

high rates of victimization, and were

places where drugs were readily available.

The most criminally active gangs were reported by 15- to 17-year-old students of

either gender.

This analysis shows a fairly high level of

consensus among students with respect

to indicators of youth gangs. Gang indicators used by students should be researched further to develop empirical

indicators of gangs in schools that school

officials and others could use in developing communitywide antigang programs

and strategies.

The students reported that most of the

gangs they see at school are actively involved in criminal activities. About twothirds of the students reported that gangs

are involved in none or only one of three

types of criminal acts: violence, drug sales,

or carrying guns. Nevertheless, students

said that a small proportion of gangs in

schools (8 percent) are involved in all

three types of crimes, and these gangs are

probably responsible for the most disruption and violent victimization in and

around schools.

Readers should note that only three types

of crimes—violence, drug sales, and carrying guns—were included in this study. Data

from the National Youth Gang Surveys

(National Youth Gang Center, 1999a and b)

and studies of representative urban

samples of adolescents (see Thornberry,

1998, for a summary of four major studies)

show that youth gangs are actively involved in a wide variety of offenses not

analyzed in this Bulletin.

Nevertheless, many of the gangs in and

around schools that are not actively involved in the criminal activities discussed

in this Bulletin may not be actively involved in serious crimes. These gangs

may be qualitatively different from typical

youth gangs that have a large proportion

of adult members and are fully committed

to a “criminal orientation” (Klein, 1995,

30; see also, Wiebe, Meeker, and Vila, in

press). Thus, it is very important for school

Table 9: Correlation of Student Victimization at Home, School, and Elsewhere

Correlation Coefficient

Number of Crimes

Number of Number of Neither at Home

Crimes at Home Crimes at School nor at School

Number of crimes at home 1.000

Number of crimes at school 0.045* 1.000

Number of crimes neither

at home nor at school 0.093* 0.078* 1.000

*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (Pearson’s r, two-tailed). Pearson’s r is a statistical significance test of the probability that two variables will

appear to be correlated simply because the estimate is based on a sample rather than the population. A two-tailed significance test takes into account

scores on both ends of the continuum.

Note: Number of respondents (n)=9,954.
7

officials, working in collaboration with

law enforcement and others in the community, to assess the extent of gang involvement in criminal activity so that resources can be directed toward efforts

that address the most criminally active

and disruptive gangs.

The presence of gangs is correlated

with criminal activity and the use of selfprotective measures that indicate an atmosphere of perceived danger in the

school environment. It is not clear, however, that gangs are a direct cause

of criminal victimization at school. Belonging to gangs may be a type of selfprotection employed by students in

response to threatening school and community environments. In the original report on the SCS, the study team noted

that “various types of problems tended to

co-exist. For instance, student reports of

drug availability, gang presence, and gun

presence at school were all related to student reports of having experienced violent victimization at school” (Chandler et

al., 1998, p. 12). The analyses presented in

this Bulletin found a high correlation between student victimization of all types

and gang presence. Both gangs and criminal victimization in schools are products

of disorder in schools (see Gottfredson

and Gottfredson, 1985; Welsh, Green, and

Jenkins, 1999) and a host of other factors

in the school, family, community, peer

group, and individual domains (Hill et al.,

1999; Loeber and Farrington, 1998). This

could account for the positive relationship between gang presence and the use

of self-protective security measures in

schools.

Nevertheless, gangs contribute significantly to school-related victimization.

An analysis of gang arrests reported by

22 law enforcement agencies throughout

Orange County, CA, showed that violent

gang crimes began to escalate early in the

school day and peaked early in the afternoon and again long after the schoolday

ended (Wiebe, Meeker, and Vila, in press).

In contrast, overall juvenile violence has

been found to peak immediately after the

end of the schoolday (Sickmund, Snyder,

and Poe-Yamagata, 1997). The Orange

County data suggest that schools and surrounding communities need to implement

gang intervention measures throughout

the school day to prevent and reduce

gang violence. The school security measures analyzed in this study do not appear to be solutions, in and of themselves, to gang problems. Other

interventions need to be implemented

along with school security measures to

combat gangs in schools (see Howell,

2000; Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1999,

for promising and effective interventions).

Endnotes

1. A large number of respondents (n=882)

who reported gang presence inadvertently

were not asked the followup question regarding how they knew gangs existed. This omission reduced the number of respondents

who should have been asked the followup

question from 3,486 to 2,604; therefore, the

responses to this question are not nationally

representative. The analyses directly affected

by this omission pertain to student indicators of gangs (tables 1, 2, and 4). The skipped

students were significantly (but not greatly)

more likely to be younger, white, from higher

income households, in private schools, in

suburban areas, and in areas where crime

was less prevalent. Thus, the responses of

the students who were asked the followup

question would skew the gang perceptions of

students toward greater seriousness. For this

reason, weighted data were not used for the

analyses.

2. In this study, findings were reported as

significant if the Pearson chi-square had a

probability of less than 0.001 of occurring by

chance or because the estimates were based

on a sample. The probability of this value of

chi-square occurring as a result of sampling

error is less than or equal to 0.001. The chisquare statistic measures the probability

that two variables will appear to be correlated simply because the estimate is based

upon a sample rather than the population.

Usually, researchers are willing to assume

that the observed results are not due to sampling error if the probability that the results

are due to sampling error is 5 percent or less.

The more stringent 0.001 criterion was used

to take account of the fact that the NCVS is

not a simple random sample and that the

standard errors computed in standard statistical packages such as SPSS will be too small

for use with the NCVS. The customary response to this problem is to use complex

standard error estimation routines (e.g.,

WESTVAR), or to double the standard errors

computed by statistical packages to take account of the cluster in the NCVS sample. Using the more stringent significance level

effectively accomplishes the same end.

3. A drug availability index was created for

this analysis. Each of the nine substances that

was reported to be readily available added “1”

to the score on the index.

4. A school security index was created for this

analysis. Each of the six school security measures added “1” to the score on the index.

5. Correlation coefficients indicate the

strength and direction of the relationship between two variables. More specifically, they

indicate the unit change in one variable that

can be expected when the value of the other

variable changes one unit.

References

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, Office

of Educational Research and Improvement,

National Center for Education Statistics,

and U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Gottfredson, G.D., and Gottfredson, D.C.

1985. Victimization in Schools. New York,

NY: Plenum Press.

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

Survey of school-based gang prevention and

intervention programs: Preliminary findings.

Paper presented at the National Youth Gang

Symposium, Las Vegas, NV, July 29.

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

Battin-Pearson, S.R. 1999. Childhood risk factors for adolescent gang membership: Results from the Seattle Social Development

Project. Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency 36(3):300–322.

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

Strategies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

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

Prevention.

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

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

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

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk

Factors and Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

National Youth Gang Center. 1999a. 1996 National Youth Gang Survey. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

National Youth Gang Center. 1999b. 1997 National Youth Gang Survey. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Sickmund, M., Snyder, H.N., and PoeYamagata, E. 1997. Juvenile Offenders and

Victims: 1997 Update on Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 183015

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Acknowledgments

James C. Howell, Ph.D., is an Adjunct Researcher with the National Youth Gang

Center, Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Tallahassee, FL. James P. Lynch,

Ph.D., is a Professor at American University, School of Public Affairs, Washington, DC.

The authors thank the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance,

and the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, for

making the NCVS/SCS database available for this analysis. This study benefited

greatly from reviews and suggestions made by John Moore, National Youth Gang

Center, and Gary Gottfredson, Gottfredson Associates, Inc.

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, U.S. Department of Justice.

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.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Thornberry, T.P. 1998. Membership in gangs

and involvement in serious and violent offending. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,

pp. 147–166.

Welsh, W.N., Green, J.R., and Jenkins, P.H.

1999. School disorder: The influence of individual, institutional, and community factors.

Criminology 37(1):73–116.

Wiebe, D.J., Meeker, J.W., and Vila, B. In

press. Hourly Trends of Gang Crime Incidents, 1995–1998. Fact Sheet. Washington,

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

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention and National

Institute of Justice.