Hybrid and Other 

Modern Gangs

David Starbuck, James C. Howell, 

and Donna J. Lindquist

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.

“Hybrid” youth gangs1 have existed in the

United States at least since the 1920s

(Thrasher, 1927). Early hybrid gangs were

described mainly as mixed-race or mixedethnicity gangs; modern-day hybrid gangs,

however, have more diverse characteristics. “Hybrid gang culture” is characterized by members of different racial/ethnic

groups participating in a single gang, individuals participating in multiple gangs, unclear rules or codes of conduct, symbolic

associations with more than one wellestablished gang (e.g., use of colors and

graffiti from different gangs), cooperation

of rival gangs in criminal activity, and frequent mergers of small gangs.

As the new millennium begins, hybrid

gangs are flourishing and their changing

nature is making it more difficult to study

and respond to them. Today, many gangs

do not follow the same rules or use the

same methods of operation as traditional

gangs such as the Bloods and Crips (based

in Los Angeles, CA) or the Black Gangster

Disciples and Vice Lords (based in Chicago,

IL). These older gangs tend to have an agegraded structure of subgroups or cliques.

The two Chicago gangs have produced organizational charts and explicit rules of

conduct and regulations, including detailed

punishments for breaking gang rules (Spergel, 1995:81). They have developed coalitions with other gangs, forming what are

called gang “nations,” such as Folks (including the Black Gangster Disciples) and

People (including the Vice Lords).

Although many communities have gangs

that bear the names of earlier gangs that

originated in Los Angeles and Chicago, the

actual membership of these newer gangs

is often locally based and has little or no

real national affiliation. These hybrids—

new gangs that may have the names but

not the other characteristics of older

gangs—are one of the new types of gangs

most frequently found in communities

that had no gang culture prior to the

1980s or 1990s. Because gangs, gang culture, and gang-related activities are dynamic, affected communities need to recognize

the new faces of these groups and avoid

popularly held, media-influenced misconceptions (see Best and Hutchinson, 1996;

Decker, Bynum, and Weisel, 1998; Fernandez, 1998; Fleisher, 1995, 1998; Klein, 1995;

Miethe and McCorkle, 1997; McCorkle and

Miethe, 1998).

A Message From OJJDP

Gangs have changed significantly

from the images portrayed in West

Side Story and similar stereotypical

depictions. Although newly emerging

youth gangs frequently take on the

names of older traditional gangs, the

similarities often end there.

This Bulletin describes the nature of

modern youth gangs, in particular,

hybrid gangs. Hybrid gang culture is

characterized by mixed racial and

ethnic participation within a single

gang, participation in multiple gangs

by a single individual, vague rules and

codes of conduct for gang members,

use of symbols and colors from

multiple—even rival—gangs, collaboration by rival gangs in criminal activities, and the merger of smaller gangs

into larger ones. Thus, hybrid gang

customs are clearly distinguished from

the practices of their predecessors.

The Bulletin draws on survey data,

research findings, and field reports

to detail these critical differences,

reviewing such issues as gang

stereotypes and gang migration in

the process.

If law enforcement agencies are to

effectively address the problems

posed by newly emerging youth

gangs, they must understand the

differences that distinguish them from

the stereotypical concept of traditional

gangs. The information provided in

this Bulletin should contribute to that

awareness.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

December 2001
2

counties (Egley, 2000; Howell, Moore, and

Egley, forthcoming). The average year of

gang problem onset was 1989 for large

cities, 1990 for suburban counties, 1992

for small cities, and 1993 for rural counties (National Youth Gang Center, 1999).

The localities reporting later onset of gang

problems are most likely to be in rural

counties, small cities, and suburban counties with populations of less than 50,000

(Howell, Egley, and Gleason, forthcoming).

Gangs are also becoming commonplace in

institutions, including schools, that had

been considered safe havens. For many

students, school has become a gathering

place for gangs. More than one-third (37

percent) of a nationally representative

sample of students reported gang presence

in their schools in 1995, a 100-percent increase over 1989 (Howell and Lynch, 2000).

Gang presence is being reported even in

the military (Hasenauer, 1996).

Member Diversity

Although many gangs continue to be based

on race or ethnicity, gangs are increasingly

diverse in racial/ethnic composition. Law

enforcement agencies responding to the

1998 National Youth Gang Survey estimated that more than one-third (36 percent)

of youth gangs had a significant mixture of

two or more racial/ethnic groups (National Youth Gang Center, 2000). Small cities

had the largest proportion of gangs with

mixed race/ethnicity. The Midwest had a

larger proportion of mixed gangs than any

other region.

Recent student surveys and field studies

of local gangs also report significant gender mixtures (Esbensen, Deschenes, and

The public continues to perceive youth

gangs and gang members in terms of the

media stereotype of the California Crips

and Bloods rather than in terms of current

scientific data (Klein, 1995:40–43, 112–135).

Some jurisdictions may erroneously adapt

a response that is appropriate for wellpublicized Los Angeles or Chicago gang

problems but not for gang issues in their

own jurisdictions (Miethe and McCorkle,

1997). For example, misreading local gangs

as drug trafficking enterprises rather than

neighborhood conflict groups could render interventions ineffective. Because the

characteristics of local gangs and their

criminal involvement may differ from the

features of gangs in distant cities, different

strategies may be required to address the

local gang problem effectively.

This Bulletin addresses youth gangs in the

21st century by considering what constitutes a hybrid gang, whether gangs and

individual members are migrating across

the country, and how new coalitions such

as hybrid gangs differ from stereotypical

and traditional gangs. The Bulletin brings

together survey data, recent research results, and firsthand reports from the field

to examine today’s gangs and their members. For reports from the field, the Bulletin draws heavily on insights shared by

author David Starbuck, formerly a Sergeant

in the Kansas City Police Department’s

Gang Unit, whose contributions are incorporated throughout the Bulletin, especially

in the sidebars that give the law enforcement practitioner’s point of view.

The broad range of modern or contemporary gangs, as depicted in research studies

and survey data, is discussed in the first

section of this Bulletin. The growth of modern gangs provides a social context for the

emergence of hybrid gangs. Hybrid gangs

are discussed in the second section, and

conclusions and policy implications are

highlighted in the final section.

Characteristics of 

Modern Youth Gangs

Location

Once a problem primarily in large cities,

youth gangs are now present in suburbs,

small towns, and rural areas (Miller, W.B.,

2001). In 1999, law enforcement agencies

reported active youth gangs in 100 percent of the Nation’s largest cities (those

with populations of 250,000 or more), 47

percent of suburban counties, 27 percent

of small cities (those with populations

below 25,000), and 18 percent of rural

Winfree, 1999; Fleisher, 1998; Miller, J.A.,

2001). For example, 92 percent of gang

youth in one student survey (Esbensen,

Deschenes, and Winfree, 1999:42) said

both boys and girls belonged to their gang.

Gangs in suburban areas, small towns, and

rural areas show more membership diversity than gangs in large cities. Gangs in

these areas have more racially/ethnically

mixed membership (National Youth Gang

Center, 2000:22–23) and include more females, Caucasians, and younger members

than gangs in larger cities (Curry, 2000;

Howell, Egley, and Gleason, forthcoming).

Organization

Although a fixed definition has not been

established, youth gangs are often presumed to be highly organized groups that

engage in some level of criminal activity.

Several studies challenge the notion that

youth gangs are highly organized. Decker

and colleagues (1998) compared the two

most highly organized gangs (as reported

by police) in Chicago, IL, and San Diego,

CA. They found that the Chicago gangs

were far more organized than the San

Diego gangs but levels of organization

were not necessarily linked to increased

involvement in crime (Decker, Bynum, and

Weisel, 1998:408). Their observation that

the San Diego gangs were disorganized mirrors Sanders’ (1994) findings. Other studies have questioned the extent of youth

gang organization in emerging gang cities

such as Denver, CO (Esbensen, Huizinga,

and Weiher, 1993); Cleveland and Columbus, OH (Huff, 1996, 1998); Kansas City,

MO (Fleisher, 1998); Milwaukee, WI (Hagedorn, 1988); Pittsburgh, PA (Klein, 1995);

San Francisco, CA (Waldorf, 1993); Seattle,
3

a sense of “legitimacy” to new groups, but

the context of the new localities may produce adaptations that lead to divergence

from the traditional patterns. Data from

the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey show

that nearly 9 in 10 (87 percent) of the localities reporting gang problems said that

onset occurred during the 1986–96 period

(National Youth Gang Center, 1999). An

analysis of National Youth Gang Center

(NYGC) survey data on early onset (before 1990) versus late onset (during the

1990s) localities (Howell, Egley, and Gleason, forthcoming) found that gangs in the

newer gang-problem localities were distinctly different in their demographic

characteristics from traditional gangs in

jurisdictions where gang problems began

much earlier. Gangs in late-onset localities

had younger members, slightly more females, more Caucasians, and more of a

racial/ethnic mixture. Caucasians were the

predominant racial/ethnic group in the

latest onset (1995–96) localities. Gangs in

localities where gang problems began in

the 1990s also tended to have a much larger proportion of middle-class teens.

Gang members in late-onset localities also

were far less likely to be involved in violent crimes (homicide, aggravated assault,

robbery, and use of firearms) and property

crimes than gang members in early-onset

localities. For example, about 8 in 10 gang

members in localities with the earliest onset of gang problems (before 1986) were

said to use firearms in assault crimes

“often” or “sometimes,” compared with

fewer than 3 in 10 gang members in localities with the latest onset (1995–96).

A comparison of drug trafficking patterns

in areas with early and late onset of gang

problems found that both gang member

involvement in drug sales and gang control of drug distribution were much less

likely to be significant problems in jurisdictions where gang problems emerged

in the past decade (Howell and Gleason,

1999). In the newer gang problem localities, gang control of drug distribution was

less likely to be extensive than was gang

member involvement in drug sales.

Gang member involvement in drug sales

was less extensive in the oldest gang jurisdictions (onset of gang problems before

1980) than in jurisdictions where onset

occurred between 1981 and 1990 (Howell

and Gleason, 1999). Gang member involvement in drug sales was most extensive in

jurisdictions with onset between 1981 and

1985 and then decreased consistently in

subsequent onset periods through

WA (Fleisher, 1995); and St. Louis, MO

(Decker and Van Winkle, 1996; Decker and

Curry, 2000).

Modern youth gangs are generally less territory based than gangs of the past (Klein,

1995; Miller, 1992; National Youth Gang

Center, 2000). In the older gang cities and

the Southwest, gangs traditionally were

tied strongly to their neighborhoods or

barrios. The Mexican-American “turf gang”

pattern, transmitted across generations

and ethnicities, has given way to autonomous gangs as the predominant pattern

(Klein, 1995:102). These autonomous gangs

consist of single, named groups occupying

smaller territories and may be based in a

neighborhood, a public housing project,

or another community location (such as 

a schoolyard or shopping mall).

Some gang research in the 1960s suggested that youngsters were pressured to join

gangs by peers who used strong-arm tactics (Yablonsky, 1967). Community (adult)

representatives view peer pressure to join

gangs as irresistible (Decker and KempfLeonard, 1991). However, it is not as difficult for adolescents to resist gang pressures as is commonly believed. In most

instances, adolescents can refuse to join

gangs without reprisal (Decker and KempfLeonard, 1991; Fleisher, 1995; Huff, 1998;

Maxson, Whitlock, and Klein, 1998).

Perpetuating the myth of lifetime membership helps sustain a gang, because the

group’s viability depends on the ability of

active members to maintain the perception that leaving the gang is nearly impossible (Decker and Lauritsen, 1996:114).

The reality is that members (especially

marginal members) typically can leave a

gang without serious consequences (Decker and Lauritsen, 1996; Decker and Van

Winkle, 1996; Fleisher, 1995). In fact, most

adolescents do not remain in gangs for

long periods of time—particularly in areas

with emerging gang problems. Studies in

three cities that developed gang problems

fairly recently—Denver, CO; Rochester, NY;

and Seattle, WA—show that from 54 to 69

percent of adolescents who joined gangs

in the three cities stayed in them for 1

year or less and 9 to 21 percent belonged

for 3 years or more (Thornberry, 1998).

Onset of Local Gang 

Problems

It appears that the emergence of gangs in

new localities2 in the 10-year period 1986–

96 has contributed to the growth of hybrid

gangs. For example, the use of names and

symbols of traditional gangs may provide

Practitioner’s View: The Challenges of Hybrid Gangs

Law enforcement officers from communities unaffected by gangs until the 1980s or

early 1990s often find themselves scrambling to obtain training relevant to hybrid

gangs. When gang-related training first became widely available in the early 1990s,

it often emphasized historical information, such as the formation of the Los Angeles Crips and Bloods in the late 1960s or the legacy of Chicago-based gangs (the

Black Gangster Disciples, Latin Kings, and Vice Lords). As law enforcement officers learned about the origins of these influential gangs, they sometimes attempted to apply this outdated information in their efforts to deal with hybrid gangs in

their jurisdictions. The assumption that new gangs share the characteristics of

older gangs can impede law enforcement’s attempts to identify and effectively

counter local street gangs, and actions based on this assumption often elicit inappropriate responses from the community as a whole. Citizens may react negatively

to law enforcement efforts when they sense that gang suppression actions are

geared to a more serious gang problem than local gangs appear to present.

Because of uncertainty in reporting on problem groups such as “cliques,” “crews,”

“posses,” and other nontraditional collectives that may be hybrid gangs, some police department staff spend an inordinate amount of time trying to precisely categorize local groups according to definitions of traditional gangs. When training law

enforcement groups on investigative issues surrounding drug trafficking or street

gangs, instructors must resist the tendency to connect gangs in different cities just

because the gangs share a common name. If the groups engage in ongoing criminal activity and alarm community members, law enforcement officers should focus

on the criminal activity, regardless of the ideological beliefs or identifiers (i.e., name,

symbols, and group colors) of the suspects. This practical approach would circumvent the frustration that results from trying to pigeonhole hybrid gangs into narrow

categories and would avoid giving undue attention to gangs that want to be recognized as nationwide crime syndicates.
4

1995–96. Thus, gang members in the

newest gang problem jurisdictions were

much less likely to be involved in drug

sales than gang members in jurisdictions

where gang problems began during the

early to mid-1980s.

Gang Stereotypes

The characteristics of modern gangs contrast sharply with the stereotypical image

of gangs that emerged in the 1980s and

continues to predominate. From the 1920s

through the 1970s, gang members were

characterized mainly as young (11–22

years old) Hispanic or African American

males who lived in lower class ghetto or

barrio sections of the inner city (Klein,

1995; Miller, 1992; Spergel, 1995). In that

period, gangs usually were viewed as racially and ethnically homogeneous, spontaneously organized, and authoritatively

controlled fighting groups (Miller, 1992).

Classic “rumbles” historically were the

major form of gang fighting, but they gave

way in the 1970s to forays by small armed

and motorized bands. Most gang violence

was motivated by honor or local turf defense and, to a lesser extent, control over

facilities and areas and economic gain

(Miller, 1992:118). Gang violence was not a

major social concern (Klein, 1969).

In the mid- to late 1980s, this predominant

gang stereotype was modified significantly

by a California study in which researchers

contended that the two major Los Angeles

gangs, the Crips and Bloods, had become

highly organized and entrepreneurial and

were expanding their drug markets to

other cities (Skolnick et al., 1988). Where

these drug operations appeared, presumably, so did violent crime.

Gang Migration

The expanded presence of gangs is often

blamed on the relocation of members from

one city to another, which is called gang

migration. Some gangs are very transient

and conduct their activities on a national

basis. However, the sudden appearance of

Rollin’ 60s Crips graffiti in a public park in

rural Iowa, for example, does not necessarily mean that the Los Angeles gang has

set up a chapter in the community. Gang

names are frequently copied, adopted, or

passed on. In most instances, there is little or no real connection between local

groups with the same name other than

the name itself (Valdez, 2000:344).

Gang migration does occur, however. According to the 1999 National Youth Gang

Survey, 18 percent of all youth gang

members had migrated from another jurisdiction to the one in which they were residing (Egley, 2000). Although gang migration is stereotypically attributed to illegal

activities such as drug franchising, expansion of criminal enterprises is not the principal driving force behind migration (Maxson, 1998). The most common reasons for

migration are social considerations affecting individual gang members, including

family relocation to improve the quality of

life or to be near relatives and friends.

Moreover, in the 1999 National Youth Gang

Survey, the vast majority (83 percent) of

law enforcement respondents agreed that

the appearance of gang members outside

of large cities in the 1990s was caused by

the relocation of young people from 

central cities (Egley, 2000). Thus, the dispersion of the urban population to less

populated areas contributed to the proliferation of gangs in suburban areas, small

towns, and rural areas. 

Law enforcement professionals may not be

able to differentiate among local gangs that

have adopted names of the same wellknown gangs from other locales but have

no real connection with each other until

they begin to interact with gang members

through interviews, debriefings, and other

contacts. “Hybrid” versions will begin to

display variations of the original gang, such

as giving different reasons for opposing

Practitioner’s View: Gang Migration and Hybrid

Gangs in Kansas City

Gangs began moving into the Midwest in the early 1980s, with Kansas City, MO,

emerging as a textbook example of a locality experiencing gang migration. Located in almost the geographical center of the continental United States, Kansas City

has approximately 5,000 documented gang members and affiliates and numerous

Chicago- and California-style gangs in the metropolitan area.1 No single group has

achieved dominance.

The Kansas City Police Department’s Drug Enforcement Unit first encountered

gang migration while investigating a new wave of drug entrepreneurs in the 1980s.

By 1988, these trafficking suspects included confirmed members of the Crips and

Bloods sets (subgroups) from the Los Angeles, CA, area. As the presence of the

Crips and Bloods became increasingly pronounced in Kansas City, other law enforcement agencies in the Midwest began sharing similar gang intelligence information. Suddenly, Los Angeles Crips and Bloods were known to be dealing cocaine

in most major midwestern cities, including Des Moines, IA; Minneapolis, MN;

Oklahoma City, OK; Omaha, NE; and Wichita, KS. By 1990, the arrival of Chicagobased gang members in Kansas City was also confirmed through routine investigations of drug trafficking and homicides.

Although Kansas City has experienced gang migration, the area’s larger gangs

continue to be locally based hybrids that may not have any affiliations with migrant

gang members. These groups exemplify the evolving modern gangs that are now

increasingly common throughout the United States, particularly in suburban areas,

small cities, and rural communities. In the past decade or more, Kansas City’s 

hybrid gang members have adopted traditional gang culture, modified it with personal interpretations and agendas, and become much more of a criminal and societal

problem to the community than any of the groups that have migrated into the area.

For example, in two sections of Kansas City, two different gangs operate as the

Athens Park Boys (APB). These groups share the name with the original Athens

Park Boys, a well-established Bloods set originating in Los Angeles County. Although both of the Kansas City APB gangs engage in criminal activities and antisocial behavior, they have no connection other than the shared name: one set is

composed of African American teens on the east side of the city, and the other

consists of Caucasian teens, primarily from affluent families in the suburbs. Each

group seems to be unaware of its Kansas City counterpart, and neither set is connected to APB in California or any other jurisdiction. Because of their increasing

membership and unique characteristics and culture, hybrid gangs (like Kansas

City’s APBs) warrant further examination.

1 According to 2000 U.S. Census projections, the total population of Kansas City, MO, is 443,277 and the

population of the Kansas City metropolitan area is approximately 1.2 million.
5

rival gangs or displaying certain colors.

Investigators who take the time to crosscheck their local gang intelligence with that

of other agencies concerning gangs with

identical names are likely to find some subtle and some glaring differences.

Emerging Information

on Hybrid Gangs

Hybrid gangs are more frequently encountered in communities in which gang problems emerged during the 1990s than in

localities that reported onset of gang

problems in the 1980s. According to law

enforcement respondents in the 1998 National Youth Gang Survey, gangs with a

significant mixture of two or more racial/

ethnic groups represent a larger proportion of all reported gangs in localities that

said their gang problem began in the 1990s

(Howell, Moore, and Egley, forthcoming). 

A more specific question was asked about

hybrid gangs in the 1999 survey. The survey questionnaire noted: “Some contend

that there are youth gangs ‘that don’t fit

the mold’ of any particular gang category.

These gangs may have several of the following characteristics: a mixture of racial/

ethnic groups, male and female members,

display symbols and graffiti of different

gangs, or have members who sometimes

switch from one gang to another.” Respondents were asked if they had gangs

that fit this description. Six in ten respondents (61 percent) said they had such

gangs. However, the average number of

such gangs in a given locality—four—

is small (Howell, Moore, and Egley,

forthcoming).

Hybrid gangs tend to have the following

nontraditional features:

◆ They may or may not have an allegiance

to a traditional gang color. In fact, much

of the hybrid gang graffiti in the United

States is a composite of multiple gangs

with conflicting symbols. For example,

Crip gang graffiti painted in red (the

color used by the rival Blood gang)

would be unheard of in California but

have occurred elsewhere in the hybrid

gang culture. 

◆ Local gangs may adopt the symbols of

large gangs in more than one city. For

example, a locally based gang named

after the Los Angeles Bloods may also

use symbols from the Chicago People

Nation, such as five-pointed stars and

downward-pointed pitchforks.

◆ Gang members may change their affiliation from one gang to another.

◆ It is not uncommon for a gang member

to claim multiple affiliations, sometimes

involving rival gangs. For example, in

Kansas City, MO, police may encounter

an admitted Blood gang member who

is also known in the St. Louis, MO, area

as a member of the Black Gangster 

Disciples gang.

◆ Existing gangs may change their names

or suddenly merge with other gangs to

form new ones.

◆ Although many gangs continue to be

based on race/ethnicity, many of them

are increasingly diverse in both race/

ethnicity and gender. Seemingly strange

associations may form, such as between

Skinheads, whose members frequently

espouse racist rhetoric, and Crips,

whose members are predominantly

African American.

◆ Gang members who relocate from 

California to the Midwest may align

themselves with a local gang that has

no ties to their original gang.

◆ Members of rival gangs from Chicago

or Los Angeles frequently cooperate in

criminal activity in other parts of the

country.

Youth often “cut and paste” bits of Hollywood’s media images and big-city gang

lore into new local versions of nationally

known gangs with which they may claim

affiliation. Other hybrids are homegrown

and consider themselves to be distinct

entities with no alliance to groups such

as the Bloods/Crips or Folks/People. Because these independent gangs can be

the most difficult to classify, they frequently pose the biggest problems for

local law enforcement.

Migrating gang members appear to have

contributed to the growth of hybrid youth

gangs in newer gang problem localities in

the 1990s. Migrant gang members may act

as cultural carriers of the folkways, mythologies, and other trappings of more sophisticated urban gangs (Maxson, 1998:3).

Practitioner’s View: Gang Trends in the Midwest

Hybrid gangs are particularly prevalent in the Midwest region of the United States.

Three features of the Midwest hybrid gangs are troublesome for law enforcement

officers: new alignments the hybrid gangs may make, Hispanic gang patterns, and

Asian gang criminal activity.

New alignments. Los Angeles gang members relocating to the Midwest may align

themselves with a local gang that has no real ties to the California member’s original gang set. In certain cases, gang members relocating from Chicago or Los Angeles conduct criminal activity in cooperation with their former rivals. For example,

a recent Kansas City investigation identified multiple defendants in a drug trafficking operation. Checking the suspects’ backgrounds through Los Angeles law enforcement files, investigators discovered that some of the defendants were affiliated

with the 135 Compton Pirus Bloods, and others were affiliated with the rival Los

Angeles gang, the 5 Deuce Hoover Crips. This coalition surprised investigators in

Los Angeles, but cooperation often occurs when drug alliances form in “neutral”

parts of the country, such as the Midwest. Frequently, profit potential outweighs

traditional gang loyalties.

Hispanic gang patterns. Factions of Hispanic gangs are becoming increasingly

prominent in much of the United States, including the Midwest. It is crucial for law

enforcement to know the origins and rivalries of Hispanic gangs, including the Surenos, Nortenos, and Sinaloan Cowboys, because officers increasingly encounter

these and other factions. Transient Hispanic gangs may continue their animosity

with rivals in other parts of the country and engage in violent encounters with local

Hispanic gangs. This phenomenon is more common with Hispanic gangs than with

other types of gangs. Hispanic gang members tend to be more loyal and traditional in supporting their gang, even when in transit or when relocating to other parts

of the country.

Asian gang criminal activity. In the Midwest, Asian gang criminal activity, much

of which is perpetrated by transient gangs, continues to have a great impact. Problems for law enforcement include cultural misunderstandings, identification issues,

language barriers, and the transient nature of these gangs (who travel out of

State to commit crimes).
6

Movies and “gangsta” lyrics also have contributed to the proliferation of bits and

pieces of gang culture. Law enforcement

agencies began to notice hybrid gangs

after one such gang was depicted in the

movie Colors (Valdez, 2000:13). Gang migration, movies, and gangsta music work

together to introduce local gangs to largecity gang culture. The lack of an existing

gang culture allows for modification and

adaptation of the culture of urban gangs.

A field study of the Fremont Hustlers in

Kansas City, MO, illustrates a unique form

of hybrid gang (Fleisher, 1998). The gang

had no written set of rules, no membership requirements, and no leader or hierarchy that might pull all 72 members into

a coherent organization. By hanging out

and establishing ties with Fremont Hustlers, an outsider is slowly assimilated

into the gang’s social life (Fleisher, 1998:

39). Fremont gang youth did not use the

term “member”; their closest expression

was “down with Fremont” (Fleisher, 1998:

41). Because the Fremont Hustlers was not

a cohesive organization and youth did not

talk about the group’s structure or operation, the gang structure was difficult to

recognize at first. In the study, Fremont

gang youth said they were Folks, but they

did not know why, except that they liked

to draw the pitchfork symbol used by the

Folks (Fleisher, 1998:26). Fleisher described

this gang as “a haphazardly assembled

social unit composed of deviant adolescents who shared social and economic

needs and the propensity for resolving

those needs in a similar way” (1998:264).

Policy and Program

Implications

To devise an appropriate response to hybrid gangs, law enforcement and other

community agencies must understand

that hybrids do not operate by traditional

rules but they often follow general patterns

that distinguish them as a new type of

gang. That is, they often have members of

different racial/ethnic groups, members

may claim multiple gangs, codes of conduct may be unclear, graffiti may contain a

mixture of symbols, and they may be involved in criminal activity alongside other

gangs. In other instances, exemplified by

the many cities that have factions of Black

Gangster Disciples or Rollin’ 60s Crips,

there may be differing levels of true connection to the original gang, or the tie may

be primarily related to criminal activities

such as drug trafficking. This melting pot

of gangs and gang culture can confuse concerned agencies, including those in the

juvenile and criminal justice systems, as

they struggle to separate gangs into neat

categories that often do not exist. It is vitally important for law enforcement to concentrate on gang-related criminal activity

rather than on more ephemeral aspects of

gang affiliation or demographics.

When addressing local gang problems,

communities need to understand ongoing

changes in the Nation’s gang dynamics,

provide and participate in updated gangrelated training, and monitor the specific

gangs and associated cultures within their

own jurisdictions. Unfortunately, one thing

has not changed with the advent of the

hybrid gang. There is no universal formula

for a patently successful response, and

what works in one city may have little impact in another. An effective strategy must

be based on an accurate assessment of

the local problem, updated information

about local gang activities, an examination

of resources in the community, and a realistic appraisal of how to gauge the impact

of the response. As many agencies as possible, particularly local government and

police administration, must be included

early in the process of developing a strategy for gang prevention and intervention.

The more resources and partners that are

involved, especially those with authority

to respond directly to gangs, the greater

a community’s chances for success.

All jurisdictions experiencing gang problems need to assess their problems carefully in light of the gang characteristics reviewed in this Bulletin. NYGC (2001a) has

developed a protocol that communities

can use to guide the assessment of their

gang problem. This assessment protocol is

applicable in communities of all sizes and

characteristics.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has invested considerable

resources in the development and testing

of a Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention,

and Suppression (Spergel et al., 1994). This

model, based on a national assessment of

youth gang policies and programs (Spergel

and Curry, 1990), is a general framework

that addresses the youth gang problem

through the following five interrelated

strategies:

◆ Community mobilization.

◆ Social intervention, including prevention and street outreach.

◆ Provision of opportunities.

◆ Suppression/social control.

◆ Organizational change and

development.

The model is multifaceted and multilayered, involving the individual youth,

the family, the gang structure, local agencies, and the community. NYGC (2001b)

has prepared a planning guide to assist

communities in developing a plan to implement OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang

Model.

Conclusion

Although hybrid gangs are not new to the

United States, they clearly have flourished

in the past decade. This Bulletin stresses

the “culture” of modern hybrid gangs. This

concept means that they are characterized by more than simply a mixture of age,

gender, and racial/ethnic membership—

although the diverse membership of gangs

in newer gang problem localities certainly

contributes to a wide diversity of gang

forms. The hybrid gang culture sharply

distinguishes modern gangs from traditional gangs. Modern hybrid gangs do not operate by traditional gang rules. Their affiliation with gangs based in Chicago or Los

Angeles is likely to be in name only. They

tend to “cut and paste” gang culture from

traditional gangs, and they may display

symbols traditionally associated with several gangs. They may form alliances with

rival gangs to carry out criminal activity,

but their independent mode of operating

makes them difficult for law enforcement

to classify. Thus, it is very important for

law enforcement agencies to recognize the

diverse gang culture of hybrid gangs, to

approach them without any preconceived

notions, and to concentrate on their gangrelated criminal activity rather than on

their presumed affiliations with traditional

gangs. Every community—regardless of

the presence or absence of hybrid gangs—

should conduct a thorough assessment of

its unique gang problem before devising

strategies for combating it.

Endnotes

1. In the remainder of this Bulletin, unless otherwise noted, the term “gang” refers to youth

gangs.

2. The term “locality” refers to the major types

of named place units found in the United States

(Miller, W.B., 2001:15). It includes cities, suburban areas, and counties in the National Youth

Gang Survey.
7

References

Best, J., and Hutchinson, M.M. 1996. The gang

initiation rite as a motif in contemporary crime

discourse. Justice Quarterly 13:383–404.

Curry, G.D. 2000. Race, ethnicity, and gender

issues in gangs: Reconciling police data. In 

Problem Oriented Policing, vol. 2. Washington,

DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

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

A tale of two cities: Gangs as organized crime

groups. Justice Quarterly 15:395–423.

Decker, S.H., and Curry, G.D. 2000. Addressing

key features of gang membership: Measuring

the involvement of young gang members. Journal of Criminal Justice 28:473–482.

Decker, S.H., and Kempf-Leonard, K. 1991. Constructing gangs: The social definition of youth

activities. Criminal Justice Policy Review

5:271–291.

Decker, S.H., and Lauritsen, J.L. 1996. Breaking

the bonds of membership: Leaving the gang. In

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

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.,

pp. 103–122.

Decker, S.H., and Van Winkle, B. 1996. Life in the

Gang: Family, Friends, and Violence. New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

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

Youth Gang Survey. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC:

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

Esbensen, F., Deschenes, E.P., and Winfree, L.T.

1999. Differences between gang girls and gang

boys: Results from a multi-site survey. Youth

and Society 31(1):27–53.

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

1993. Gang and non-gang youth: Differences in

explanatory variables. Journal of Contemporary

Criminal Justice 9(1):94–116.

Fernandez, M.E. 1998. An urban myth sees the

light again. Washington Post (November 15):B2.

Fleisher, M.S. 1995. Beggars and Thieves: Lives

of Urban Street Criminals. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Fleisher, M.S. 1998. Dead End Kids: Gang Girls

and the Boys They Know. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Hagedorn, J.M. 1988. People and Folks: Gangs,

Crime and the Underclass in a Rustbelt City.

Chicago, IL: Lakeview Press.

Hasenauer, H. 1996 (October). Gang awareness.

Soldiers Online. www.dtic.mil/soldiers.

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

Forthcoming. Modern Day Youth Gangs. Youth

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

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Howell, J.C., and Gleason, D.K. 1999. Youth Gang

Drug Trafficking. Youth Gang Series Bulletin.

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

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

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

in Schools. Youth Gang Series Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C., Moore, J.P., and Egley, A., Jr. Forthcoming. The changing boundaries of youth

gangs. In Gangs in America, 3d ed., edited by

C.R. Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Huff, C.R. 1996. The criminal behavior of gang

members and non-gang at-risk youth. In Gangs

in America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp.

75–102.

Huff, C.R. 1998. Comparing the Criminal Behavior of Youth Gangs and At-Risk Youth. Research

in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National

Institute of Justice.

Klein, M.W. 1969. Violence in American juvenile

gangs. In Crimes of Violence, vol. 13, edited by

D.J. Mulvihill and M.M. Tumin. Washington, DC:

National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, pp. 1427–1460.

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

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

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

Youth Gang Series Bulletin. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

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

1998. Vulnerability to street gang membership:

Implications for practice. Social Service Review

72(1):70–91.

McCorkle, R.C., and Miethe, T.D. 1998. The political and organizational response to gangs: An

examination of “moral panic” in Nevada. Justice

Quarterly 15(1):41–64.

Miethe, T.D., and McCorkle, R.C. 1997. Evaluating Nevada’s anti-gang legislation and gang

prosecution units. Unpublished report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Miller, J.A. 2001. One of the Guys: Girls, Gangs,

and Gender. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Miller, W.B. 1992 (Revised from 1982). 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. 2001. The Growth of Youth Gang Problems in the United States: 1970–98. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

National Youth Gang Center. 1999. 1996 National

Youth Gang Survey. Summary. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

National Youth Gang Center. 2000. 1998 National

Youth Gang Survey. Summary. Washington, DC:

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

National Youth Gang Center. 2001a. Assessing

your community’s youth gang problem. Unpublished report. Tallahassee, FL: National Youth

Gang Center. Copies are available from NYGC.

National Youth Gang Center. 2001b. Planning for

implementation of the OJJDP Comprehensive

Gang Model. Unpublished report. Tallahassee,

FL: National Youth Gang Center. Copies are

available from NYGC.

Sanders, W. 1994. Gangbangs and Drive-Bys:

Grounded Culture and Juvenile Gang Violence.

New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

National Youth Gang

Center

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

problem, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(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. NYGC 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.

NYGC also provides training and

technical assistance for OJJDP’s

Rural Gang, Gang-Free Schools,

and Gang-Free Communities Initiatives. For more information, contact:

National Youth Gang Center

P.O. Box 12729

Tallahassee, FL 32317

850–385–0600

850–386–5356 (fax)

nygc@iir.com

www.iir.com/nygc
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 NCJ 189916

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Acknowledgments

David Starbuck was formerly a Sergeant with the Kansas City Police Department,

where he supervised the Gang Unit. He is vice president of the Missouri Chapter

of the Midwest Gang Investigators Association and an adjunct consultant with

NYGC. Mr. Starbuck provided the photograph on page 2.

James C. Howell, Ph.D., is an adjunct researcher with NYGC.

Donna J. Lindquist is a senior research associate with the Institute for Intergovernmental Research.

The authors are grateful to John Moore, Director of NYGC, and NYGC staff for

valuable reviews and comments on earlier versions of this Bulletin. Phelan Wyrick,

Program Manager at OJJDP, also made important contributions.

This Bulletin was prepared under Cooperative

Agreement 95–JD–MU–K001 with the Institute

for Intergovernmental Research from the Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of 

Justice.

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.

Skolnick, J.H., Correl, T., Navarro, E., and Rabb,

R. 1988. The Social Structure of Street Drug Dealing. Report to the Office of the Attorney General of the State of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.

Spergel, I.A. 1995. The Youth Gang Problem. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Spergel, I.A., Chance, R., Ehrensaft, C., Regulus,

T., Kane, C., Laseter, R., Alexander, A., and Oh,

S. 1994. Gang Suppression and Intervention:

Community Models. Research Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

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, Inc., pp. 288–309.

Thornberry, T.P. 1998. Membership in youth

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, Inc.,

pp. 147–166.

Thrasher, F.M. 1927. The Gang—A Study of 1,313

Gangs in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Valdez, A. 2000. Gangs: A Guide to Understanding

Street Gangs, 3d ed. San Clemente, CA: LawTech

Publishing.

Waldorf, D. 1993. When the Crips invaded San

Francisco: Gang migration. Journal of Gang Research 1:11–16.

Yablonsky, L. 1967. The Violent Gang, revised

ed. New York, NY: Penguin.