DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

From the Administrator

As an increasing number of small

cities and communities are beset by

the emergence and growth of youth

gangs—once regarded as the problem

of major metropolitan cities—concerns

about gang migration and its effects

on gang proliferation have grown.

Evidence of gang migration for purposes of drug distribution and other

activities has been presented by law

enforcement, the media, and others.

But what is the true scope of gang

migration and what types of gangs

migrate? A clear understanding

of the nature and scope of gang

migration and its impact on local

gang activities is critical. Gang

Members on the Move attempts to

clarify the concepts of “gang” and

“gang migration,” and draws on the

National Survey on Gang Migration

and other literature to provide a

preliminary but enlightening look

at the relationship between gang

migration and proliferation.

Although the author, noted researcher

Cheryl Maxson, acknowledges the

need for additional research on gang

migration and its effects, she concludes

that communities should examine

their own dynamics before attributing

their gang problems to migration.

Indeed, we need to look at all of the

factors that contribute to gang problems

locally if we are to design a prevention, intervention, and suppression

strategy to address them effectively.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

October 1998

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.

In recent years, local government officials, law enforcement officers, and community organizations have witnessed the

emergence and growth of gangs in U.S.

cities once thought to be immune to the

crime and violence associated with street

gangs in large metropolitan areas. Police

chiefs, mayors, school officials, community activists, and public health officials

have gone so far as to identify this proliferation as an epidemic. Reports of big-city

gang members fanning out across the Nation seeking new markets for drug distribution have added fuel to concerns about

gang proliferation and gang migration.

The increase in gang migration has

generated the need for the issue to be

assessed based on empirical evidence.

As local communities attempt to address

gang-related problems in their areas, it is

Gang Members

on the Move

critical that they have a clear understanding of patterns of gang migration and an

accurate assessment of local, or indigenous, gang membership.

This Bulletin explores how key terms

such as “gang,” “gang proliferation,” and

“gang migration” are defined; how and

whether gang migration affects gang proliferation; and trends reported in research

literature. This Bulletin is based in part

on work supported by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and an article previously published in the National Institute of

Justice Journal (Maxson, Woods, and Klein,

1996).* Findings from a recent University

of Southern California (USC) study on

street-gang migration are also discussed

(Maxson, Woods, and Klein, 1995).

Clarifying the Concepts

Defining the Terms “Gang,”

“Gang Proliferation,” and

“Gang Migration”

Gang. There has been much debate

over the term “gang,” but little progress

Cheryl L. Maxson

*This Bulletin expands on and updates previous analyses and published findings. OJJDP believes this Bulletin

presents a unique contribution to the field by providing

an analysis of chronic and emergent gang cities with

regard to gang migration, a key factor in the discussion

of gang proliferation.
2

and young adulthood, individual members

move in and out of gangs, continually affecting the gangs’ structure (Thornberry

et al., 1993). The terms “wannabe,” “core,”

“fringe,” “associate,” “hardcore,” and “O.G.”

(original gangster) reflect the changing

levels of involvement and the fact that

the boundaries of gang membership are

penetrable. Some researchers argue that

the term “member” was created and used

by law enforcement, gang researchers, and

individuals engaged in gang activity with

only a loose consensus of generalized,

shared meaning.

Gang proliferation. The term “gang

proliferation” indicates the increase in

communities reporting the existence of

gangs and gang problems (Knox et al.,

1996). While gangs have existed in various forms, degrees, and locations in the

United States for many decades, the

sheer volume of cities and towns documenting recent gang activity cannot be

denied. Some of this increase may be attributed to a heightened awareness of

gang issues, redirection of law enforcement attention, widespread training, and

national education campaigns. Nevertheless, gangs exist in locations previously

unaffected and attract a larger proportion

of adolescents than in the past.1

Gang migration. The already difficult

task of defining gangs is compounded

when the relationship between gang

migration and proliferation is addressed.

Gang migration—the movement of gang

members from one city to another—has

been mentioned with increasing frequency

in State legislative task force investigations, government-sponsored conferences,

has been made toward widespread

acceptance of a uniform definition. Some

researchers prefer a broad definition that

includes group criminal and noncriminal

activities, whereas law enforcement agencies tend to use definitions that expedite

the cataloging of groups for purposes of

statistical analysis or prosecution. Variations in the forms or structure of gangs

make it difficult to put forth one standard

definition (Klein and Maxson, 1996). For

example, researchers have attempted to

draw a distinction between street gangs

and drug gangs (Klein, 1995). Drug gangs

are perceived as smaller, more cohesive,

and more hierarchical than most street

gangs and are exclusively focused on conducting drug deals and defending drug

territories. Street gangs, on the other

hand, engage in a wide array of criminal

activity. Drug gangs may be subgroups of

street gangs or may develop independently of street gangs. For the purposes

of this Bulletin and the national surveys

on gang migration conducted by USC,

gangs were defined as groups of adolescents and/or young adults who see themselves as a group (as do others) and have

been involved in enough crime to be of

considerable concern to law enforcement

and the community (Maxson, Woods, and

Klein, 1995). In the USC survey, drug gangs

were included in the overall grouping of

gangs, but members of motorcycle gangs,

prison-based gangs, graffiti taggers, and

racial supremacy groups were excluded

to narrow the focus to street gangs.

Another challenge in defining the term

“gang” is the fluctuating structure of these

groups. Over the course of adolescence

and law enforcement accounts at the

Federal, State, and local levels (Bonfante,

1995; Hayeslip, 1989; California Council

on Criminal Justice, 1989; Genelin and

Coplen, 1989; McKinney, 1988; National

Drug Intelligence Center, 1994, 1996). For

the USC study, migration was broadly

defined to include temporary relocations,

such as visits to relatives, short trips to

sell drugs or develop other criminal enterprises, and longer stays while escaping

crackdowns on gangs or gang activity.

More permanent changes, such as residential moves (either individually or with

family members) and court placements,

were also included. Individuals in the

study did not have to participate in gang

activity in the destination city to be

considered gang migrants. This broad

definition of gang migration allowed researchers to investigate the degree of

gang-organized and gang-supported expansion of members to other locations,

of which little evidence was found. It also

allowed researchers to examine variations in gang activity in the destination

city and the many reasons for relocating.

If the concept of migration was limited to

individuals or groups traveling solely for

gang-related purposes or at the direction

of gang leaders, the patterns of migration

would change drastically. Further, collective gang migration is rare, but the migration of individual gang members is not.

Another complication in defining gang

migration is the distinction between

1

 Few studies attempt to assess the proportion and

age of adolescent gang members within a given area.

Recent information on self-identified membership from

longitudinal projects for representative samples in

Denver, CO, and Rochester, NY, (Thornberry and

Burch, 1997) is available from the OJJDP-funded Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of

Delinquency. Approximately 5 percent of youth living

in “high-risk” neighborhoods in Denver indicated that

they were gang members in any given year (Esbensen,

Huizinga, and Weiher, 1993). In Rochester, 30 percent

of the sample reported gang membership at some

point between the beginning of the seventh grade and

the end of high school (Thornberry and Burch, 1997).

To address the issue of gang proliferation within Denver or Rochester, new samples would need to be examined to determine whether the proportion of youth

joining gangs in these cities has increased since the

initial sampling period (nearly 10 years ago).

Prevalence estimates derived from law enforcement

identification of gang members have been challenged,

as when Reiner (1992) reported that, according to the

gang data base maintained for Los Angeles County, 9.5

percent of all men ages 21 to 24 were identified gang

members. However, this proportion increased to 47

percent when the analysis was limited to black males

ages 21 to 24. This figure has been generally recognized

as a vast overstatement of black gang membership.
3

tinctions from other gangs and cause a

rivalry with existing gangs, such as the

rivalry between the Bloods and Crips in

southern California and between the

People and Folks in the Midwest. Most of

the respondents in the 1993 USC phone

survey reported that migrants influence

local gang rivalries, gang dress codes,

and recruiting methods (Maxson, Woods,

and Klein, 1995). In addition, the solidification of local gang subcultures may increase the visibility or attractiveness of

gangs to local youth. It may also influence

the growth of rival gangs.

Conversely, there are a variety of circumstances in which migrant gang members have little or no impact on gang

proliferation. If the geographic location

allows, migrants may retain their affiliation with their original gangs by commuting to old territories or they may simply

discontinue gang activity altogether. In

cities with relatively large and established

gangs, it is unlikely that migrant gang

members would have a noticeable effect

on the overall gang environment.

An important related issue is the impact of migrant gang members on local

crime patterns.2 Migrants are generally

perceived as contributing to both increased levels of crime and the seriousness of criminal activity (Maxson, Woods,

and Klein, 1995). The 1993 USC survey

involved telephone interviews with law

enforcement in 211 cities that experienced gang migration in 1992. Most of the

cities involved in the survey (86 percent)

reported that migrant gang members

contributed to an increase in local crime

rates or patterns primarily in theft (50-

percent increase), robbery (35-percent

increase), other violent crimes (59-percent

increase), and, to a lesser extent, drug

sales (24-percent increase). The small

increase in drug sale activity can most

likely be attributed to competition from

established local drug markets. The

survey also showed that the type of

criminal gang activity was changing to

include increased use of firearms and

more sophisticated weapons (36-percent

increase). Carjackings, firebombings, residential robberies, drive-by shootings, and

advanced techniques for vehicle theft

were also cited on occasion. Changes in

the targets of criminal activity and the

use of other technological advances were

mentioned less frequently.

What Previous Studies

Show

The following is a summary of the research literature on the relationship between migration and proliferation. Local

law enforcement agencies have become

increasingly aware of the usefulness of

maintaining systematic information on

gangs, yet such data bases hardly meet

the scientific standards of reliability and

validity. Therefore, the results of the studies described in this section should be

viewed as exploratory.

Although a number of national studies

dating back to the 1970’s have documented an increase in the number of cities and smaller communities reporting

street gang activity, the numbers reported by these studies vary (Miller,

1975, 1982; Needle and Stapleton, 1983;

Spergel and Curry, 1990; Curry, Ball, and

Fox, 1994; Klein, 1995; Curry, 1996).

Variations in localities reporting gang

activities are attributed to the use of

different sampling frames in the national

surveys. While the surveys are not compatible, each reports increased gang activity. Miller’s 1996 compilation of data from

several sources documents gang proliferation during the past three decades and

shows that in the 1970’s, street gangs existed in the United States in 201 cities and

70 counties (many with cities included in

the former count) (Miller, 1996). These

figures climbed to 468 and 247, respectively, during the 1980’s and to 1,487 and

706 in the 1990’s. A nationwide survey

conducted by the National Youth Gang

Center (NYGC) reported that in 1995

gangs existed in 1,492 cities and 515 counties (OJJDP, 1997). The figures reported

by Miller and NYGC are considerably

higher than the estimate of 760 jurisdictions reported by Curry and his associates (Curry, Ball, and Decker, 1996) and

the projection of 1,200 gang cities derived

from the 1992 USC national mail survey

(reported in Maxson, Woods, and Klein,

1995). Similarly, the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) reported a much

smaller figure of 265 for cities and counties reporting gang activity in 1995 (NDIC,

1996). Of these 265 cities and counties,

182 jurisdictions reported gang “connections” to 234 other cities, but the nature

of these relationships was not elaborated

on (D. Mehall, NDIC, personal communication, August 20, 1996). With the exception of the Mehall report and that of

Maxson, Woods, and Klein (1995), none

of the studies addressed the issue

of gang migration on a national scale.

migrant gang members (migrants) and

indigenous gang members, which often

fades over time. As migrants settle into

new locations, sometimes joining local

gangs, their identities may evolve to the

point to which their prior gang affiliation

no longer exists. This process of assimilation into local gang subcultures has not

been addressed in research literature,

because law enforcement officers and

researchers have only recently begun to

discuss gang migration. In future studies,

researchers should consider at what

point a migrant gang member is no longer

perceived as a migrant but as a local gang

member in the new location.

The Influence of Gang

Migration on Gang

Proliferation

The primary focus of this Bulletin is

to assess whether gang migration has

played a major role in gang proliferation.

Migrant gang members may stimulate the

growth of gangs and gang membership

through a variety of processes, such as

recruiting locals to establish a branch of

the gang in previously unaffected areas.

This approach, described as the importation model, involves efforts by gang members to infuse their gang into new cities,

primarily to establish new drug markets

and other money-making criminal enterprises (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996).

This is also referred to as gang franchising

(Knox et al., 1996) and gang colonization

(Quinn, Tobolowsky, and Downs, 1994).

Alternatively, migrants may establish a

new gang without structural affiliation to

an existing gang. Furthermore, if a sufficient number of individuals from a gang

move to a new location, they may replicate

a migrant subset of their former gang. No

matter what process is used, new local

gangs will most likely emerge in response

to territorial challenges or perceived protection needs. The city with a single gang

is a rare phenomenon (Klein, 1995). Regardless of the pattern of new gang initiation,

gang member migration would create an

increase in both the number of gangs and

gang membership.

Another way migrant gangs may stimulate gang proliferation is by introducing

new and exciting cultural distinctions

from existing gangs. In a city in which

gangs exist but are not firmly established,

migrant gang members may act as cultural

carriers of the folkways, mythologies, and

other trappings of more sophisticated

urban gangs. They may offer strong dis2 Whether or not migrants provide a catalyst to local

gang proliferation, their impact on local crime is of

considerable concern to law enforcement.
4

With few exceptions, findings on gang

migration reported in research literature

contrast sharply with the perspectives

presented by the media, government

agencies, and law enforcement reports.

Several researchers have studied gangs

in various cities throughout the United

States and examined their origin and

relationships to gangs in larger cities (primarily Chicago) to examine correlations

between gang migration and proliferation

on a more regional scale.

Gangs in the Midwestern

United States

In 1983, Rosenbaum and Grant identified three Evanston, IL, gangs as “satellites” of major Chicago gangs, but

proceeded to emphasize that they “are

composed largely of Evanston residents,

and in a very real sense, are Evanston

gangs” (p. 15). They also found that two

indigenous gangs, with no outside connection, contributed disproportionately

to levels of violence and were, therefore,

“almost totally responsible for increasing

fear of crime in the community and forcing current reactions to the problem”

(Rosenbaum and Grant, 1983:21). In contrast, the Chicago-connected gangs maintained a lower profile and were more

profit oriented in their illegal activities,

aspiring “to be more like organized

crime” (Rosenbaum and Grant, 1983:21).

In other words, the gangs indigenous to

Evanston seemed to be more of a threat

to the community than the Chicagobased gangs. The conclusion can be

drawn that in this particular study, the

migration of gangs into Evanston only

In 1992, researchers examined the role

that Chicago gangs played in the emergence

of youth gangs in Kenosha, WI (Zevitz and

Takata, 1992). Based on interviews with

gang members, police analyses, and social

service and school records, the study concluded that “the regional gangs in this

study were products of local development

even though they had a cultural affinity

with their metropolitan counterparts. . . .

We found no convincing evidence that

metropolitan gangs had branched out to

the outlying community where our study

took place” (Zevitz and Takata, 1992:102).

Regular contact between some Chicago

and Kenosha gang members reflected kinship or old neighborhood ties rather than

the organizational expansion of Chicago

gangs.

These findings are echoed in a 1996

study of 99 gang members in St. Louis

(Decker and Van Winkle, 1996). A minority

(16 percent) of those interviewed suggested that gangs reemerged in St. Louis,

MO, through the efforts of gang members

from Los Angeles. Several of these migrants had relocated for social reasons,

such as visiting relatives. The study also

found that St. Louis gangs were more

likely to originate as a result of neighborhood conflicts influenced by popular culture rather than from big-city connections.

The powerful images of Los Angeles

gangs, conveyed through movies,

clothes, and music, provided a

symbolic reference point for these

antagonisms. In this way, popular

culture provided the symbols and

rhetoric of gang affiliation and

activities that galvanized neighborhood rivalries (Decker and

Van Winkle, 1996:88).

Another study on gang migration in

1996 surveyed 752 jurisdictions in Illinois

(Knox et al., 1996). (Because only 38

percent of the law enforcement agencies

responded, these findings should be

interpreted cautiously.) The majority of

respondents (88 percent) reported that

gangs from outside their area had established an influence, that one-fifth or more

of their local gang population was attributable to recent arrivals (49 percent),

that parental relocation of gang members

served to transplant the gang problem

to the area (65 percent), and that some

of their gang problem was due to gang

migration (69 percent). The study concluded that, while the impact of migration

varies, “it is still of considerable interest

to the law enforcement community”

(Knox et al., 1996:78).

minimally affected the proliferation of

gang activities.

In an extensive study of Milwaukee

gangs in 1988, 18 groups were found to use

the names and symbols of major Chicago

gangs, including identification with such

gang confederations as People versus

Folk (Hagedorn, 1988). In questioning

gang founders on the origins of the gangs,

it was determined that only 4 of the 18

were formed directly by gang members

who had moved from Chicago to Milwaukee. Further, these members maintained

only slight ties to their original Chicago

gangs. Despite law enforcement claims to

the contrary, no existence of a super-gang

(i.e., Chicago) coalition was found in Milwaukee. Founding gang members strongly

resented the idea that their gang was in

any way tied to the original Chicago gangs

(Hagedorn, 1988). In this study, Hagedorn

concludes that gang formation in Milwaukee was only minimally affected by the migration of Chicago gangs. If anything, the

influence was more cultural than structural,

because gangs in smaller cities tend to

follow big-city gang traditions and borrow

cultural aspects from these gang images.

Further supporting the notion that

gang migration only minimally affects proliferation is a 1989 study that determined

that gangs in Columbus and Cleveland,

OH, originated from streetcorner groups

and breakdancing/rapping groups and

also from migrating street-gang leaders

from Chicago or Los Angeles (Huff, 1989).

The study found no evidence that Ohio

gangs were directly affiliated with gangs

from other cities, particularly Chicago,

Detroit, or Los Angeles.
5

Gangs in the Western

United States

In a study of drug sales and violence

among San Francisco gangs, 550 gang

members from 84 different gangs were

interviewed (Waldorf, 1993). Of these,

only three groups reported relationships

with other gangs outside San Francisco.

The report concluded that:

. . . most gangs do not have the

skills or knowledge to move to

other communities and establish

new markets for drug sales. While

it is true they can and do function

on their own turf they are often

like fish out of water when they go

elsewhere. . . . They are not like

organized crime figures (Mafia

and Colombian cocaine cartels)

who have capital, knowledge and

power . . . while it might be romantic to think that the L.A. Bloods

and Crips are exceptional, I will

remain skeptical that they are

more competent than other gangs

(Waldorf, 1993:8).

To the contrary, a 1988 study of inmates

in California correctional institutions and

law enforcement and correctional officials

suggested high levels of mobility among

“entrepreneurial” California gang members

traveling long distances to establish drug

distribution outlets and maintaining close

ties to their gangs of origin (Skolnick et

al., 1990; Skolnick, 1990). Among all the

empirical studies conducted in this area,

Skolnick’s resonates most closely with the

reports from law enforcement previously

cited (Bonfante, 1995; Hayeslip, 1989; California Council on Criminal Justice, 1989;

Genelin and Coplen, 1989; McKinney, 1988;

National Drug Intelligence Center, 1994,

1996).

Against a backdrop of escalating

violence, declining drug prices,

and intensified law enforcement,

Los Angeles area gang-related drug

dealers are seeking new venues

to sell the Midas product—crack

cocaine. . . . Respondents claim to

have either participated in or have

knowledge of Blood or Crip crack

operations in 22 states and at least

27 cities. In fact, it appears difficult

to overstate the penetration of

Blood and Crip members into other

states (Skolnick, 1990:8).

But the sheer presence of Crips and

Bloods in States other than California is

a poor indicator of gang migration. The

1996 NDIC survey identified 180 jurisdictions in 42 States with gangs claiming affiliation with the Bloods and/or Crips. At

the same time, the NDIC report cautions

against assuming organizational links

from gang names.

It is important to note that when

a gang has claimed affiliation with

the Bloods or Crips, or a gang has

taken the name of a nationally

known gang, this does not necessarily indicate that this gang is a

part of a group with a national

infrastructure. While some gangs

have interstate connections and a

hierarchical structure, the majority of gangs do not fit this profile

(NDIC, 1996:v).

Gangs in the South-Central

United States

In a 1994 study of 9 States located

in the south-central United States, 131

municipal police departments were

surveyed; 79 cities completed the mail

survey (Quinn, Tobolowsky, and Downs,

1994). Respondents in 44 percent of small

cities (populations between 15,000 and

50,000) and 41 percent of large cities

(populations greater than 50,000) stated

that their largest gang was affiliated with

groups in other cities. It is unknown

whether the perceived affiliation was

based on structural links or on name association. Nearly three-fourths of the 792

gang cities that responded to the 1992

USC mail survey reported that at least

some indigenous gangs adopted gang

names generally associated with Los

Angeles and Chicago (e.g., Bloods, Crips,

Vicelords, Gangster Disciples, or Latin

Kings). Approximately 60 of these cities

had no gang migration.

The National Survey on

Gang Migration

In 1992, the University of Southern

California conducted a mail survey of law

enforcement personnel in approximately

1,100 U.S. cities. The survey was distributed to all cities with a population of

more than 100,000 and to more than 900

cities and towns that serve as likely environments for street gangs or gang migration.3 Law enforcement officials suggested

municipalities to include in the survey,

and all cities with organizations that

investigate gangs were included. To increase the survey pool, the survey asked

respondents to list cities to which their

local gang members had moved. This

sample is best characterized as a purposive sample of gang cities—it is neither

representative of all U.S. cities and towns,

although all large cities are enumerated

fully, or all gang cities.4 This survey captured data on the largest number of cities

with gangs identified at the time (and a

majority of the cities identified by the

NYGC survey in 1995) and is the only systematic enumeration of U.S. cities experiencing gang migration to date. Repeated

mailings and telephone followup resulted

in completion of the survey by more than

90 percent of those polled.

To develop descriptions about the nature of gang migration and local responses

to it, extensive telephone interviews were

conducted with law enforcement officers

in 211 cities that reported the arrival of at

least 10 migrant gang members in 1991.

3

 It should be noted that incorporated cities (of all

population sizes) were the unit of analysis in this

study; unincorporated areas were not included.

Whenever cities contracted law enforcement responsibilities to sheriff’s departments or State police, such

agencies were pursued as respondents. Letters were

addressed to the head agency official with a request

to pass the survey on to the individual in the department most familiar with the gang situation within the

city jurisdiction.

4

 A random sample of 60 cities with a population of

between 10,000 and 100,000 was surveyed for gang

migration or local street-gang presence. Projections

from this sample indicate a much larger number of

U.S. cities with gang migration than have been identified to date.
6

Interview participants were sampled from

a larger pool of 480 cities that cited at

least moderate levels of gang migration.

Other facets of the study included interviews with community informants and

case studies, including personal interviews with migrant gang members.5

A primary limitation of this research

design is the necessity to rely on law enforcement for depictions of the scope and

nature of gang migration. Locally based

ethnographic approaches—based on the

systematic recording of particular human

cultures—would lend a more comprehensive view of the migration situation in

individual cities. The USC case studies

involved a range of informants whose depictions sometimes contrasted markedly

with law enforcement’s assessment of the

issue. The attempt to extend beyond law

enforcement to community respondents

produced mixed results, because informants

were generally less informed about migration matters in the city as a whole and

tended to focus on particular neighborhoods of interest. It would seem that law

enforcement is the best available source

of information on national patterns of

gang migration, but the reader should be

wary of the limitations on law enforcement

as a source of information on migration.

These limitations include the occupational

focus of law enforcement on crime (i.e., if

migrants are not engaged in a lot of crime,

they are less likely to come to the attention of law enforcement), the lack of local

data bases with systematically gathered

information about migration, and the definitional challenges described earlier in

Clarifying the Concepts. Given these limitations, the results from this study should

be viewed as exploratory until replicated

by further research.

Study Findings

The national scope of gang migration.

Approximately 1,000 cities responded to

the 1992 mail survey, revealing 710 cities

that had experienced gang migration by

1992. The widespread distribution of

these cities is reflected in figure 1.6 Only

three States had not experienced gang

migration by 1992—New Hampshire,

North Dakota, and Vermont. The concentration of migration cities in several

regions—most dramatically southern

California and the Bay area, the area surrounding Chicago, and southern Florida—

may obscure the geographic distribution.

Forty-four percent of migration cities are

located in the western region of the country, with slightly less prominence in the

midwestern (26 percent) and southern

(25 percent) portions of the country.

Only 5 percent of the migration cities are

situated in the northeastern region of

the country.

Approximately 80 percent of cities with

a population of more than 100,000 have

migrant gang members. The overall

sample cannot address the proportion of

all smaller cities with migration, but the

distribution of migration cities by population, shown in figure 2, suggests that this

is an issue confronting cities of all sizes.

That nearly 100 towns with populations

of 10,000 people or less experienced gang

migration is striking. This phenomenon is

a manifestation of the motivations to relocate and the potential influences of migrant gang members on small-town life

and overtaxed law enforcement resources.

Moreover, because smaller cities are less

likely to have longstanding gang problems, gang migration could be a catalyst

for the onset of local gang problems.

The sheer number of cities with migrant gang members and the widespread

geographic distribution of these cities

across the country is dramatic, but the

volume of gang migration presents a far

less alarming picture. Survey respondents

provided an estimate of the number of

migrants that had arrived in their city the

year prior to survey completion.7 Just

under half (47 percent) of the 597 cities

providing an estimate reported the arrival

of no more than 10 migrants in the prior

year. Only 34 cities (6 percent) estimated

the arrival of more than 100 migrants during this period. The significance of such

numbers would vary by the size of the city,

but the large number of cities reporting

insubstantial levels of migration suggests

that gang migration may not represent a

serious problem in many cities.

Survey respondents were asked to

provide a demographic profile of migrant

7

 A separate estimate of the total number of migrants

was discarded as less reliable than the annual estimate. Even the annual estimate should be considered

with caution, as few departments maintained records

on gang migration. Some officers had difficulty generalizing to the city as a whole, based upon their own experience, and many migrants presumably do not come

to the attention of the police.

5

 These data are not presented in this report. Also not

included are data from interviews with law enforcement

in 15 cities that reported drug-gang migration only.

This report refers to street-gang, rather than drug-gang,

migration. See earlier discussion under Clarifying the

Concepts for the distinction between the two types.

6

 A few cities with gang migration were not included

in this map because respondents were unable to

specify the year of the first arrival of gang members

from other cities.

Figure 1: Cities Experiencing Gang Member Migration Through 1992

Number of Cities = 694
7

gang members. The typical age reported

ranged from 13 to 30, and the mean and

median age was 18. Female migrants were

uncommon; more than 80 percent of the

cities noted five or fewer. Compared with

the ethnic distribution of gang members

nationally, migrant gang members were

somewhat more likely to be black. Approximately half of the cities polled in

the survey reported that at least 60 percent

of migrant gang members were black;

predominantly Hispanic distributions

emerged in 28 percent of the cities. The

predominance of Asian (14 cities or 7

percent) or white (2 cities) migrant gang

members was unusual.

Gang migration and local gang

proliferation. The potential for gang migration to have a harmful impact on local

gang activity and crime rates may increase

substantially if migrant gang members

foster the proliferation of local gang problems in their destination cities. This is a

pivotal issue, and data of several types

are available for elaboration. The characteristics of cities with local gangs can be

compared with those of cities with migrant

gangs to establish the parameters of the

relationship. Of particular interest are the

dates of local gang formation and migration onset. Law enforcement perceptions

about the causes of local gang problems

are also relevant. Lastly, the motivations

of gang members to migrate and their patterns of gang activity upon arrival must be

considered.

Through the survey of 1,100 cities, it

was found that most, but not all, cities

that have local gangs also have migrant

gang members. Conversely, nearly all

cities with gang migration also have local

gangs. The 1992 survey identified 792

cities with local gangs; of these cities,

127 (16 percent) reported no experience

with gang migration (table 1). Only 45

of the 700 identified migration cities (6

percent) had no indigenous gangs. This

simple comparison yields 172 cities (22

percent) in which migration could not

have caused the emergence of local

gangs, at least through 1992. The large

proportion of cities with both local and

migrant gang members made it difficult

to detect any differences between local

gang and migrant gang cities. Distributions across city size categories and geographic region are negligible (data not

shown).

Another pertinent point of comparison from the survey is the date of onset

of local gangs and the year in which migrant gang members first arrived in cities

with local and migrant gang members.

(These data are shown in figure 3 with

some loss of cases due to the respondents’

inability to estimate at least one of the

dates.) Only 31 of cities with local gangs

(5 percent) reported the onset of gang

migration at least 1 year prior to the

emergence of local gangs. Most cities

(54 percent) had local gangs prior to gang

migration. Adding these 344 cities (i.e.,

those with local gangs before migrants) to

the prior figure of 172 cities that have just

one or the other gang type yields a total of

516 cities that clearly challenge the notion

of migration as the cause of local gang proliferation. While the picture for cities with

coincidental onset of the two types of

gang members is ambiguous, it seems reasonable to conclude that cities in which

migration provides the catalyst for indigenous gang formation are the exception

rather than the rule. The telephone interviews confirm this pattern; the majority of

informants (81 percent) disagreed with the

statement, “Without migration, this city

wouldn’t have a gang problem.”

It can be argued that the concern over

gang migration is most pertinent to emerging gang cities. The national gang surveys

(Miller, 1996) discussed earlier have shown

that the major proliferation of gang cities

has occurred since the 1980’s.8 Nearly 70

percent of the 781 gang cities that could

provide a date of emergence reported one

after 1985. These cities can be characterized as “emergent” rather than “chronic”

gang cities (Spergel and Curry, 1990).

Emergent gang cities are equally as likely

to report gang migration as chronic cities

(84 percent of the cities in each group).

However, cities with gang onset after 1985

are significantly less likely to report that

local gangs preceded gang migration (40

percent versus 88 percent), as might be expected when they are compared with cities

with longstanding local gang problems.

Figure 2: 710 Gang Migration Cities by Population

Number of Cities

City Size

Table 1: Cities With Local Gangs or Gang Migration

No Gang Migration Gang Migration

Cities with no local gangs 182 45

Cities with local gangs 127 665

Source: Maxson, Woods, and Klein (1995).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

10,000 or Less 10,001–50,000 50,001–100,000 More Than 100,000

90

306

159 155

8 Klein (1995) provides a highly illustrative series of

maps displaying dates of onset of local gang problems

using data gathered in the migration study.
8

Emergent cities are more likely to experience the onset of local gangs and

migrants in the same year as opposed

to chronic cities (53 percent versus 11

percent). The majority of respondents

interviewed from emergent gang cities

believed that migration was not the cause

of local gang problems. This figure was

significantly lower for emergent gang

cities (73 percent) than for chronic gang

cities (93 percent). This shows that the

conclusion that migration is not generally

the catalyst for gang proliferation holds

up, but the exceptions to this general rule

can most often be found in emergent gang

cities.

Patterns of gang migration. Examination of the reasons gang members migrate

to other cities and their patterns of gang

affiliation in the new city shows that migration is not a major catalyst of gang

proliferation. Survey interviewers asked

participating officers to choose from a list

of reasons why most gang members moved

into their cities. The most frequently cited

reason was that gang members moved with

their families (39 percent). When this was

combined with the reason of staying with

relatives and friends, 57 percent of the

survey respondents believed that migrants

relocated primarily for social reasons. Drug

market expansion was the second most

frequently cited motivation (20 percent of

cities) for migrating. When this was combined with other criminal opportunities,

it created a larger category of illegal

attractions, or “pull” motivators, in 32

percent of cities reporting an influx of

migrant gangs. “Push” motivators that

forced gang members to leave cities,

such as law enforcement crackdowns

(8 percent), court-ordered relocation, or

a desire to escape gangs, were cited in

11 percent of migrant-recipient cities.

Are these patterns of motivation for

migrating different in cities with emergent

gangs as compared with those cities with

chronic local gang problems? The data

shown in table 2 provide evidence that

they clearly are not. Emergent gang cities

have nearly equal proportions of socially

motivated gang migration as chronic gang

cities. “Pull” motivators (primarily drug

market expansion) and “push” motivators

are less frequent reasons for gang member relocation than social motivations in

both types of city.

There are no differences between

the two types of gang cities with regard

to patterns of migrant gang activity. Approximately one-third (38 percent) of

survey respondents stated that gang migrants established new gangs or recruited

for their old gangs; 36 percent reported

that gang migrants joined existing local

gangs or exclusively retained affiliation

with their old gangs. The proportions of

each in chronic and emergent gang cities

are quite similar (data not shown). Thus,

data on motivations for migrating and on

migrant patterns in joining gangs provide

little support for the view of migrants as

primary agents of gang proliferation and

no evidence for differential impact on

emergent gang cities.

Conclusion

The interpretation of these results

should be tempered by an awareness of

the limitations of the USC study methodology. The surveys used to collect data

relied heavily on law enforcement as a

source of information. A logical next

step would involve using an array of

informants, including courts, schools,

and social service providers in addition

to community residents and gang members. It should also be noted that the USC

data are cross-sectional in nature and

cannot adequately describe second- or

third-order waves of migration, wherein

some individuals may travel from city to

city.9 Another untapped dimension in the

USC survey was termed “indirect migration,” in which one gang is influenced by

another gang that was influenced by a

third gang. For example, Pocatello, ID,

gangs were heavily influenced by gangs

from Salt Lake City, which were started

by gang members from Los Angeles

(R. Olsen, Pocatello Police Department,

personal communication, September 24,

1996). Other patterns of sequential mobility were reported on during the USC interviews, but did not occur with sufficient

frequency to warrant further analysis.

The findings from the 1992 and 1993

USC surveys provide evidence that gang

member migration, although widespread,

should not be viewed as the major culprit

in the nationwide proliferation of gangs.

Local, indigenous gangs usually exist

prior to gang migration, and migrants are

not generally viewed by local law enforcement as the cause of gang problems. This

pattern is less evident in cities in which

gangs have emerged more recently, but

these municipalities are no more likely to

experience gang migration than chronic

gang cities. Moreover, the motivations for

gang member relocation (i.e., more often

socially motivated than driven by crime

opportunities) and patterns of gang participation (equally likely to join existing

gangs as to retain original affiliation in

order to initiate new gangs or branches)

do not distinguish migrants in the two

types of cities. Proponents of the “outside

agitator” hypothesis of gang formation as

described by Hagedorn (1988) will find

little support in the data available from

the USC national study.

9 The interviews with migrant gang members gathered

data on multiple moves, but there were too few instances from which to generalize. The author acknowledges Scott Decker for his observation of this

limitation of the study design.

Year of Onset 

Same for Local Gangs 

and Migration 

(260 cities)

Migration Precedes 

Local Gangs 

(31 cities)

Local Gangs 

Precede Migration 

(344 cities)

4.9%

40.9%

54.2%

Figure 3: Dates of Onset of Local Gangs vs. Migration
9

On the whole, the USC findings agree

with the research literature on gangs

cited earlier. Many of the researchers—

Rosenbaum and Grant (1983), Hagedorn

(1988), Huff (1989), Zevitz and Takata

(1992), Decker and Van Winkle (1996),

and Waldorf (1993)—found that gang formation was only minimally affected by

the diffusion of gang members from other

cities. The findings reported by some

researchers—Skolnick et al. (1990) and

NDIC (1994, 1996)—are less consistent

with those reported in the USC study. The

Skolnick et al. and NDIC studies focused

heavily on drug issues and may have disproportionately represented cities with

drug-gang migration or with migrants that

moved for drug expansion purposes.10

Such cities reflect a distinct pattern of

gang migration—older gang migrants,

traveling longer distances, staying for

briefer periods (see Maxson, Woods, and

Klein, 1995, for full presentation of these

analyses). Research that focuses on drug

matters may fail to capture more prevalent trends. Although more often the subject of media coverage, migration for drug

distribution purposes is less common

than other types of migration. The differential patterns of gang migration, and

their effects on local communities, require

more research.

In addition, the USC findings are difficult to compare with those reported by

Knox et al. (1996). Respondents in the

Knox et al. study presented a widespread

perception of outside gang influence.

This may be the result of exposure to the

media and products of the entertainment

industry. Klein (1995) and others have

suggested that the diffusion of gang

culture in the media plays a key role in

the proliferation of gang membership. Our

Nation’s youth are hardly dependent on

direct contact with gang members for

exposure to the more dramatic manifestations of gang culture, which is readily

accessible in youth-oriented television

programming, popular movies, and the

recent spate of “tell-all” books from reputed urban gang leaders. The nature

of this influence and its impact on gang

participation and expansion have not

been investigated systematically but are

crucial in understanding fully the dynamics of gang proliferation.

Cities with emerging gang situations

should examine the dynamics of their

own communities before attributing their

gang problems to outside influences. Socioeconomic factors, such as persistent

10 The Skolnick and NDIC studies employed purposive

rather than representative sampling techniques.

Table 2: Most Frequent Reasons for Migration Reported by

Chronic and Emergent Gang Cities

Motivation Chronic Gang Cities Emergent Gang Cities

(n=73) (n=111)

Social 41 (56%) 63 (57%)

“Pulls” 22 (30%) 37 (33%)

“Pushes” 10 (14%) 11 (10%)

Note: “Pull” motivators (e.g., drug markets) are those that attract gang members to relocate

in specific locations. “Push” motivators, such as law enforcement crackdowns, are those that

force gang members to leave cities and relocate elsewhere.

OJJDP’s National Youth Gang Center

As part of its comprehensive, coordinated response to America’s gang problem,

OJJDP funds the National Youth Gang Center (NYGC). NYGC assists State and

local jurisdictions in the collection, analysis, and exchange of information on

gang-related demographics, legislation, literature, research, and promising

program strategies. It also coordinates activities of the OJJDP Gang Consortium—a group of Federal agencies, gang program representatives, and service

providers that works to coordinate gang information and programs. For more

information contact:

National Youth Gang Center

P.O. Box 12729

Tallahassee, FL 32317

850–385–0600

Fax: 850–385–5356

E-Mail: nygc@iir.com

Internet: www.iir.com/nygc

Information newly available on the Web site includes gang-related legislation by

subject and by State and the Youth Gang Consortium Survey of Gang Problems.

unemployment, residential segregation,

and the lack of recreational, educational,

and vocational services for youth, are

more likely sources of gang formation or

expansion than is gang migration.

References

Bonfante, J. 1995. Entrepreneurs of

crack. Time, February 27.

California Council on Criminal Justice.

1989. State Task Force on Gangs and Drugs:

Final Report. Sacramento, CA: California

Council on Criminal Justice.

Curry, G.D. 1996. National youth gang

surveys: A review of methods and findings. Unpublished. Tallahassee, FL:

National Youth Gang Center, Institute for

Intergovernmental Research.

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

1996. Estimating the national scope of

gang crime from law enforcement data. In

Gangs in America, 2d ed., edited by C.R.

Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

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

1994. Gang Crime and Law Enforcement

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

Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Decker, S., and Van Winkle, B. 1996. Life

in the Gang. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

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

Weiher, A. 1993. Gang and non-gang youth:
10

Acknowledgments

A full description of the national study

on which this Bulletin is based is

available in Maxson, Woods, and

Klein (1995), which contains an

earlier presentation of some portions

of this report. Support was provided

by the National Institute of Justice,

grant #91–IJ–CX–K004. Malcolm

Klein was co-principal investigator

of the study and research assistance

was provided by Kristi Woods, Lea

Cunningham, and Karen Sternheimer. The author gratefully acknowledges the participation of

personnel in hundreds of police

departments and community agencies, along with several dozen

gang members. Useful comments

on an earlier draft were provided by

Malcolm Klein, Walter Miller, James

Howell, and Scott Decker.

All photos © 1997 PhotoDisc, Inc.

Differences in explanatory factors. Journal

of Contemporary Criminal Justice 9:94–116.

Genelin, M., and Coplen, B. 1989. Los

Angeles street gangs: Report and recommendations of the countywide Criminal

Justice Coordination Committee. Unpublished report of the Interagency Gang

Task Force. Los Angeles, CA: Interagency

Gang Task Force.

Hagedorn, J. 1988. People and Folks:

Gangs, Crime, and the Underclass in a

Rustbelt City. Chicago, IL: Lakeview Press.

Hayeslip, D.W., Jr. 1989 (March/April).

Local-level drug enforcement: New strategies. NIJ Reports 213:2–6. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Huff, C.R. 1989. Youth gangs and public

policy. Crime & Delinquency 35:524–37.

Klein, M.W. 1995. The American Street

Gang. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Klein, M.W., and Maxson, C.L. 1996.

Gang structures, crime patterns, and police responses. Unpublished final report.

Los Angeles, CA: Social Science Research

Institute, University of Southern California.

Knox, G.W., Houston, J.G., Tromanhauser,

E.D., McCurrie, T.F., and Laskey, J. 1996.

Addressing and testing the gang migration

issue. In Gangs: A Criminal Justice Approach,

edited by J.M. Miller and J.P. Rush. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.

Maxson, C.L., Woods, K.J., and Klein,

M.W. 1995. Street gang migration in the

United States. Unpublished final report.

Los Angeles, CA: Social Science Research

Institute, University of Southern California.

Maxson, C.L., Woods, K.J., and Klein,

M.W. 1996 (February). Street gang migration: How big a threat? National Institute

of Justice Journal 230:26–31. Washington,

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

Justice Programs, National Institute of

Justice.

McKinney, K.C. 1988 (September).

Juvenile Gangs: Crime and Drug Trafficking.

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Miller, W.B. 1975. Violence by youth

gangs and youth groups as a crime problem in major American cities. Unpublished. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, National Institute of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Miller, W.B. 1982 (Reissued in 1992).

Crime by Youth Gangs and Groups in the

United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Miller, W.B. 1996. The growth of youth

gang problems in the United States: 1970–

1995. Unpublished. Tallahassee, FL:

National Youth Gang Center, Institute for

Intergovernmental Research.

National Drug Intelligence Center. 1994.

Bloods and Crips Gang Survey Report.

Johnstown, PA: National Drug Intelligence

Center.

National Drug Intelligence Center. 1996.

National Street Gang Survey Report.

Johnstown, PA: National Drug Intelligence

Center.

Needle, J.A., and Stapleton, W.V. 1983.

Police Handling of Youth Gangs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1997. 1995 National

Youth Gang Survey. Summary. Washington,

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

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Quinn, J.F., Tobolowsky, P.M., and

Downs, W.T. 1994. The gang problem in

large and small cities: An analysis of police perceptions in nine states. The Gang

Journal 2(2):13–22.

Reiner, I. 1992. Gangs, Crime and Violence

in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA: Office of

the District Attorney of Los Angeles County.

Rosenbaum, D.P., and Grant, J.A. 1983.

Gangs and Youth Problems in Evanston.

Report. Evanston, IL: Northwestern

University, Center for Urban Affairs and

Policy Research.

Skolnick, J.H. 1990. Gang Organization

and Migration. Sacramento, CA: Office of the

Attorney General of the State of California.

Skolnick, J.H., Correl, T., Navarro, T.,

and Rabb, R. 1990. The social structure of

street drug dealing. American Journal of

Police 9(1):1–41.

Spergel, I.A., and Curry, G.D. 1990.

Strategies and perceived agency effectiveness in dealing with the youth gang

problem. In Gangs in America, edited

by C.R. Huff. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.

Thornberry, T.B., and Burch, J.H. II.

1997 (June). Gang Members and DelinThe 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.

quent Behavior. Bulletin. Washington,

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

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

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

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

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

Crime and Delinquency 30(1):55–87.

Waldorf, D. 1993. When the Crips

invaded San Francisco: Gang migration.

The Gang Journal 1(4).

Zevitz, R.G., and Takata, S.R. 1992.

Metropolitan gang influence and the

emergence of group delinquency in a

regional community. Journal of Criminal

Justice 20(2):93–106.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant

number 95–JD–MU–K001 from the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the author and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.
11

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We

encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and

reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP

and the author of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as

how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and

questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5212 (Fax)

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

Related Readings

In addition to the Youth Gang Bulletin series, other gang-related publications, sponsored by OJJDP and other Office of Justice

Programs agencies, are available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC). These publications include:

Youth Gangs: An Overview. 1998. NCJ 167249.

A Comprehensive Response to America’s Youth Gang Problem (Fact Sheet). March 1997. FS 009640.

1995 National Youth Gang Survey (Program Summary). August 1997. NCJ 164728.

Youth Gangs (Fact Sheet). December 1997. FS 009772.

Gang Members and Delinquent Behavior (Bulletin). 1997. NCJ 165154.

Addressing Community Gang Problems: A Model for Problem Solving (Monograph). 1997. NCJ 156059.

Highlights of the 1995 National Youth Gang Survey (Fact Sheet). 1997. FS 009763.

Urban Street Gang Enforcement (Monograph). 1997. NCJ 161845.

Prosecuting Gangs: A National Assessment (Research in Brief). 1995. NCJ 151785.

Street Gangs and Drug Sales in Two Suburban Cities (Research in Brief). 1995. NCJ 155185.

Gang Suppression and Intervention: Community Models (Research Summary). 1994. NCJ 148202.

Gang Suppression and Intervention: Problem and Response (Research Summary). 1994. NCJ 149629.

Contact JJC at 800–638–8736 or send your request via e-mail to askncjrs@ncjrs.org. These documents are also available

online. Visit the Publications section of OJJDP’s Web site, www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm.
NCJ 171153

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

Bulletin

BULK RATE

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

Permit No. G–91