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 January 1999

From the Administrator

The 1980’s saw an increase in youth

gang violence and the rise of the

crack cocaine epidemic. The public

linked these two developments, often

with implications of cause and effect.

Conventional wisdom, however, is

not always reliable. Viewed through

the lens of public perception rather

than that of scientific knowledge, the

relationships among youth gangs,

drugs, and violence are more often

talked about than understood. In The

Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Violence

Connection, James Howell and Scott

Decker add to our understanding of

the interrelationships of these factors

and address relevant questions such

as the following:

“Is drug trafficking a main activity of

youth gangs?”

“Is drug trafficking a major cause of

violence in youth gangs?”

 “Are there other important sources

of youth gang violence?”

The authors make critical distinctions

between drug gangs and street gangs

that further enhance our understanding of the gang phenomenon, as does

their exploration of the connections

between youth gangs and adult

criminal organizations and the role

of firearms in gang violence.

It is my hope that in describing the

relationships among youth gangs,

drugs, and violence, this Bulletin will

help communities begin to address

these problems more effectively.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

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.

The popular image of youth gangs

ties them directly to drugs and violent

crime (Klein, 1995).1

 How interrelated

are youth gangs, drugs, and violent

crime? Is drug trafficking a main activity

of youth gangs? Is drug trafficking a

main cause of violence in youth gangs

or only a correlate? Are there other important sources of gang violence? Before this OJJDP Bulletin addresses these

questions, a brief historical overview of

gang drug use, trafficking, and violent

crime is provided. Studies of drug-trafficking operations are then reviewed to

provide a better understanding of how

illegal drug sales typically are controlled and managed. The Bulletin concludes with a detailed review of studies

of the gangs, drugs, and violence connection and an examination of other

sources of gang violence.

Historical Overview of

Gang Drug Use and

Trafficking

The predominant image of youth gangs

is consistent with a California study of

adult (also referred to as criminal) gang

members conducted by Skolnick and

colleagues (1988) a decade ago. These researchers contended that the two major

1 Youth gangs are considered to consist of adolescents and young adults from the ages of 12 to 24.

Unfortunately, there is no commonly accepted parameter of either the age range or proportion of individuals below a certain age (i.e., a youth) that can be used

to differentiate youth gangs from adult gangs. This

makes definitive conclusions from the research difficult and exacerbates the difference between research

findings and real world experiences of practitioners

concerned with the prevention of gang involvement

and the suppression of gang activity. The term “youth

gang” is commonly used interchangeably with “street

gang,” referring to neighborhood or street-based

youth groups that are substantially made up of individuals under the age of 24. "Street gangs" may include both youth gangs and adult criminal

organizations. Motorcycle gangs, prison gangs, racial

supremacists, and other hate groups are excluded.

Miller’s definition of a youth gang is applicable to this

review: “A youth gang is a self-formed association of

peers, united by mutual interests, with identifiable

leadership and internal organization, who act collectively or as individuals to achieve specific purposes,

including the conduct of illegal activity and control of

a particular territory, facility, or enterprise” (Miller,

1992:21). Unless otherwise noted, the term "gangs"

refers to youth gangs.

The Youth Gangs,

Drugs, and Violence

Connection

James C. Howell and Scott H. Decker
2

Los Angeles gangs, the Crips and Bloods,

had become entrepreneurial and were

expanding their drug-trafficking operations to markets in other cities; where

drug markets appeared, so did violent

crime. Although this research did not

address the order of occurrences and the

overlap of adult gang violence and street

drug sales, youth gangs are still characterized mainly by public perceptions

conveyed in the California studies and

by popular media images rather than by

scientific knowledge (Decker and Kempf,

1991; Hunzeker, 1993; Jackson, 1997;

Johnson, 1989; Miller, 1990).

Little mention is made of gang drug use

and trafficking in gang studies published

before the 1960’s and 1970’s (Klein, 1971;

Short and Strodtbeck, 1965; Spergel, 1964).

By all accounts, gang involvement in drug

use and trafficking was either very limited

or unnoticed before the 1960’s (Wilkinson

and Fagan, 1996). Moore (1991) described

heroin and some barbiturate use among

Los Angeles gang members in the 1940’s,

mostly after they left gangs. In the 1950’s

and into the 1960’s, youth gang members

displayed ambivalence about gang member drug use and trafficking (Spergel,

1995). Some gangs of that era used—or

at least tolerated—marijuana. Heroinusing cliques were common in East Los

Angeles gangs by the middle of the 1950’s

(Bullington, 1977). Other gang cliques, the

partying members of gangs, began to use

barbiturates (Moore, 1978). Cloward and

Ohlin’s (1960) typology of youth gangs put

drug users in a “retreatist” subculture of

addicts (withdrawing from active involvement in the gang). Even in the 1970’s, drug

use did not appear to be a dominant form

of illegal activity among gang members,

either as a proportion of their own arrests

or in comparison with arrested nongang

youth (Miller, 1992).

In his historical account of gangs,

Spergel (1995) noted that in some instances drug-abusing members, particularly those who used heroin, were forced

out of gangs in the 1950’s and 1960’s (and

also in the 1990’s) because they could not

be relied on in fights with other gangs.

Gangs have also been reported to drive

drug traffickers out of the neighborhood

(Short and Strodtbeck, 1965, Spergel,

1964). A few studies point to marijuana

use in the 1960’s and 1970’s (Klein, 1971;

Short and Strodtbeck, 1965) and to the

fact that the drug market had “increasingly drawn in gang members as participants in drug distribution networks”

(Miller, 1992:144). By the late 1970’s,

older African-American adult gang members in Chicago were reported to be significantly involved in drug dealing

(Spergel, 1995).

Early gang studies do not tie violence to

drug trafficking because gangs evidenced

little involvement in drug sales. The first

major gang study (Thrasher, 1927) described the drug dealing of Chicago’s Chinese tongs, but gang violence mainly consisted of fighting. An account of early 20th

century east coast adult gangs linked gang

violence to territorial fights among organized crime groups that used teenagers in

“numbers running” and as lookouts in

gambling and bootlegging operations

(Sante, 1991). Except for occasional fighting, violent crime by youth gangs was relatively rare until the latter part of this century (Miller, Geertz, and Cutter, 1962).

Growing Involvement in

Drugs and Violent Crime

The early to mid-1980’s saw rapid

growth in the use of cocaine as crack became the drug of choice in the inner cities (Fagan, 1996; Fagan and Chin, 1990;

Klein and Maxson, 1994). Trend data that

would indicate whether gang members

were responsible for the increased

prevalence of cocaine use during this

period are not available. However, several studies document considerable

youth and adult gang involvement in the

drug trade after the cocaine epidemic

began around 1985.2

 The Chicago Vice

Lords, a large and violent criminal street

gang (Dawley, 1992; Keiser, 1969; Spergel,

1995), grew during this era, providing

one example that suggests gangs and

crack sales emerged concurrently.

Research conducted in the 1980’s and

1990’s has documented extensive youth

and adult gang member involvement in

drug use and generally higher levels of

use compared with nongang members.3

However, gang members do not all use

drugs or do not use them extensively

(Chin, 1990; Chin and Fagan, 1990; Fagan,

1989). Studies also show differences in the

extent of drug use. For example, Hill,

Howell, and Hawkins (1996) found that

gang membership was related to increased

marijuana use but not crack cocaine use

(except among youth who were in the gang

for only 1 year). Huff (1996) reported

gangs that used large amounts of all kinds

of drugs. Fagan (1989) found variations in

drug use among different gangs and several other studies found predominantly

drug-trafficking youth gangs.4

For the most part, the findings of the

studies outlined in the previous paragraph apply only to males. Some cities,

such as Detroit (Taylor, 1993) and San

Francisco (Lauderback, Hansen, and

Waldorf, 1992), found an increasing number of females involved in gang drug trafficking and violent crime, but the consensus is that female involvement in these

behaviors has not increased commensurately with the increase among males

(Chesney-Lind, 1993; Maxson, 1995;

Moore and Hagedorn, 1996).

Why has youth gang involvement in

drug trafficking increased in the past decade? Fagan (1993) suggested two reasons:

(1) the dramatic expansion of cocaine markets in the 1980’s, accompanied by sharp

price reductions, and (2) socioeconomic

2 See Anderson, 1990; Block and Block, 1993; Decker

and Van Winkle, 1994, 1996; Hagedorn, 1991, 1994a,

1994b; Maxson, Gordon, and Klein, 1985; Padilla, 1992;

Perkins, 1987; Reiner, 1992; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991;

Sanders, 1994; Skolnick, 1989; Taylor, 1989, 1990;

Venkatesh, 1996; Waldorf, 1993.

3 These studies include Battin and colleagues (in press),

Bjerregaard and Smith (1993), Curry and Spergel (1992),

Esbensen and Huizinga (1993), Esbensen and colleagues

(1993), Fagan (1989), Hagedorn (1988, 1994a, 1994b),

Hill, Howell, and Hawkins (1996), Long (1990),

Thornberry and colleagues (1993), Vigil (1988), and

Waldorf (1993).

4 See also Decker and Van Winkle, 1994; Hagedorn,

1994a, 1994b; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Sanders, 1994;

Taylor, 1989; Venkatesh, 1996; Waldorf, 1993.
3

changes in American society that disrupted traditional social controls (Curry

and Spergel, 1988).5

Fagan (1996; see also Hagedorn, 1988;

Wilson, 1996) identified the process by

which this disruption of social controls

occurred in the employment arena. The

decline in manufacturing jobs in the 1970’s

and the development of technological and

service industries led to economic restructuring in many cities. New jobs were created, but they were in the suburbs, leaving

unqualified minorities in the inner cities.

Dramatic increases in unemployment

resulted, especially among minority males,

and high unemployment rates were mainly

concentrated in specific geographic

areas. Drug markets provided “work” for

displaced workers, and the growing popularity of crack cocaine opened new opportunities for youth to make money. Traditional pathways from gang life (jobs,

marriage, starting a family) were constricted by the changed economy, prolonging gang involvement and making

drug trafficking more attractive. The decline of meaningful lifetime employment

prospects weakened the stabilizing influences and traditional forms of informal

social controls and strengthened gang

influence as a dominant informal control

and socialization force. Fagan reasoned

that these conditions facilitated the transformation of youth groups into loosely

structured gangs. As the size and stakes

of the cocaine economy grew, violence increasingly came to be used in the regulatory process. “Work and social interactions were now organized around these

criminal activities, enforced and regulated

increasingly by violence” (Fagan, 1996:64).

The Current Image of

Youth Gangs

Because the growth in youth gang violence coincided with the crack cocaine

epidemic, the two developments were

generally perceived to be interrelated.6

This same conclusion was reached in assessments conducted at all governmental

levels, suggesting that youth gangs were

instrumental in the increase in crack cocaine sales and that their involvement in

drug trafficking resulted in a growth in

youth violence.7

Skolnick and his colleagues provided an

image of drug trafficking that the media

magnified and stereotyped (Klein, 1995).

Based on interviews with prison inmates,

police, and correctional officials, they described entrepreneurial criminal gangs

(Bloods and Crips) that emerged out of

African-American “cultural” (neighborhood) youth gangs in Los Angeles and

Northern California (Skolnick, 1989, 1990,

1991; Skolnick et al., 1988). Skolnick and

his colleagues contended that these new

criminal gangs were organized for and actively involved in street drug sales. The

Bloods and Crips increasingly looked like

criminal gangs designed for the sale of

drugs. They enjoyed the benefits of being

able to deal cocaine in the neighborhoods

they controlled, without intrusion by competitors. They had a territorial monopoly,

backed by force. Driven by escalating violence in Los Angeles, declining drug prices,

and intensified law enforcement, the California gangs sought out new markets for

crack cocaine in other cities.

It was not until the early 1990’s that a

national study of street gang migration

was conducted (Maxson, Woods, and

Klein, 1996). In Gang Members on the

Move, gang migration is defined as the

movement of gang members from one city

to another, which could include temporary

relocation (e.g., visits to relatives, short

trips to sell drugs) and longer stays

(Maxson, 1998b). The study found street

gang migration to be very limited. Nevertheless, in about one-third of the cities that

did experience substantial gang migration,

drug market expansion and pursuit of

other criminal activities were the primary

motivations, suggesting that drug gangs

may be more involved in migration. Most

of the gang migration, however, was regional, within about 100 miles of the city of

origin. A number of local studies of individual gangs questioned their ties to larger

gangs such as the Crips and Bloods in distant cities (Decker and Van Winkle, 1994).8

In the meantime, police and investigatory agencies reported criminal gang

drug-trafficking links across the country.

A U.S. Congress study (General Accounting Office, 1989) concluded that during

the latter part of the 1980’s, the Crips

and Bloods gained control of 30 percent

of the crack cocaine market in the United

States. Another Federal agency, the Drug

Enforcement Administration (1988), reported links between these Los Angeles

street gangs and drug sales in 46 States.

Police and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials reported that by the

late 1980’s, the Los Angeles Bloods and

Crips had migrated to 45 other cities

and set up crack cocaine trafficking

operations (Skolnick, 1989).

Shortly after Skolnick’s studies were

released, the Los Angeles County District

Attorney made a comprehensive assessment of Los Angeles youth gangs (Reiner,

1992). His office concluded that “gang

members are heavy drug users and even

heavier drug sellers [than nongang

youth], yet drugs and gangs are not two

halves of the same phenomenon. Though

they threaten many of the same neighborhoods, and involve some of the same

people, gangs and drugs must be treated

as separate evils” [emphasis added]

(Reiner, 1992:5). District Attorney

Reiner’s office estimated that more than

70 percent of gang members in Los Angeles used drugs and that the incidence of

drug sales among gang members was

seven times higher than among nongang

youth. The study concluded, however,

that most gang members were not drug

dealers, in any meaningful sense of the

word; only 1 in 7 gang members was estimated to sell drugs as often as 12 times a

year. Reiner’s office also concluded that

“most L.A. gangs are not being transformed into organized drug distribution

rings. Many individual gang members

(and former members) are involved with

drugs, but drugs remain peripheral to

the purposes and activities of the gang”

(Reiner, 1992:5).

As more information on youth gang

activities has become available, investigatory agencies have made more precise

assessments of gang drug trafficking.

The National Drug Intelligence Center’s

(NDIC’s) Street Gang Symposium, held

in Johnstown, PA, November 2–3, 1994,

focused on the Bloods and Crips. Symposium participants concluded that some

well-organized street gangs are engaged

in interstate drug trafficking, but for the

most part, a gang’s drug-trafficking connections are indirectly expanded when

members relocate to different areas.

NDIC concluded that most street gangs

are involved in drug trafficking to some

extent, generally in a street-level distribution network, both individually and in

small groups.

5

 Others agree (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996; Fagan,

1996; Hagedorn, 1988; Klein, 1995; Moore, 1985, 1988;

Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Spergel, 1995; Vigil, 1988).

6 See Inciardi, 1986; Inciardi and Pottieger, 1991; Klein,

1995; Decker and Van Winkle, 1996; Klein, Maxson, and

Cunningham, 1991; Moore, 1990.

7 See California Council on Criminal Justice, 1989;

Clark, 1991; Drug Enforcement Administration, 1988;

General Accounting Office, 1989; Hayeslip, 1989;

McKinney, 1988.

8 See also Hagedorn, 1988; Huff, 1989; Rosenbaum and

Grant, 1983; Zevitz and Takata, 1992.
4

Reports of youth gang involvement in

drug trafficking stimulated a major debate

about the capacity of such gangs to manage

drug sales operations. The two main camps

in this debate are best represented by

Skolnick and his colleagues and SanchezJankowski on the one hand and Klein and his

colleagues and Decker and Van Winkle on

the other.9

 The former described gangs as

formal-rational organizations with an established leadership structure, roles, rules, and

control over members, such that gangs are

quite capable of organizing and managing

top-level drug-trafficking operations. The

latter described gangs as loosely confederated groups that generally lack cohesion and

would be incapable of organizing and

managing drug-trafficking operations.

The California-based image of a close

connection among gangs, drugs, and violent

crime has been buttressed by a number of

studies. Although neither of them appears

to be a bona fide youth gang, Williams’

(1989) “cocaine kids” and Padilla’s (1992)

drug-dealing Puerto Rican gang in Chicago

(Klein, 1995) epitomize the economic opportunities the new drug markets provided—and the surrounding violence.

Venkatesh (1996) reported that the illicit

drug economy transformed gang violence

in Chicago’s Robert Taylor Homes from

gang wars to drug wars. Taylor (1990) described how the Detroit economy and the

drug market turned “scavenger” gangs of

the 1950’s to 1970’s into “corporate” gangs

involved in illegal money-making ventures

in an interstate network. He interviewed a

retired Detroit police official who described

the city’s gang drug problem this way:

It’s like feudal China, there are

pockets of entrenched drug operations all over the city. . . . You have

warlords over little areas that control

their little fiefdoms. There are young

people acting as contractors for the

warlords. . . . Kids and adults see the

warlords spreading money and fame.

They want some of that money. Soon

as we put away one bunch, another

one takes its place. Then you got professional people, like lawyers, giving

these punks their service. Dope has

made these characters think they’re

rich and powerful (Taylor, 1990:114).

Thus, studies have produced conflicting images of youth gang involvement in

drug trafficking. In part, these different

images stem from the lack of a clear distinction between youth gangs and adult

criminal drug-trafficking organizations.

Street Gangs Versus

Drug Gangs

Klein (1995) suggested that to provide

a better understanding of violence related

to drug marketing, a distinction needs to

be made between street-level drug distribution and high-level control of drug distribution networks. He distinguished drug

gangs from street gangs, which he contended are not the same.

Unfortunately, youth gang studies have

not revealed much about management and

control of drug-trafficking operations versus street-level distribution systems. Most

studies of youth gangs that are involved in

drug trafficking describe their involvement

in street-level distribution only. A notable

exception is Moore’s (1978) description

of the Happy Valley gang in Los Angeles,

which maintained strong connections with

Mexican barbiturate manufacturers who

created “designer” barbiturates to their

order, which the gang sold. The entire

Happy Valley gang was involved, not just

individual members.10

Information on the prevalence of youth

drug gangs has only recently become

available. In Klein’s (1995) interviews with

261 police officers (mostly gang specialists) in U.S. cities (with a population of

more than 100,000) in which law enforcement agencies said they had a gang problem, 16 percent reported drug gangs. In

another law enforcement survey in 201

cities, Klein and Maxson (1996) found that

“specialty drug gangs” comprised only

9 percent of all gangs. Nevertheless, the

membership of such gangs may be very

large, and thus they may be responsible

for a significant proportion of drug sales

and violence in some cities.

Huff (1996) assessed the extent to

which Cleveland gang members believed

that gangs controlled drug-trafficking operations. Only 10 percent believed such

control to be the case. About 10 to 14 percent believed gangs had some control

over the organization and management of

drug sales along with other organizations,

such as foreign groups and organized

crime. More than two-thirds of the gang

members believed other organizations

controlled drug trafficking.

What happens to the profits of drug

sales is another key indicator of the extent

to which gang drug distribution is directly

connected to high-level drug organizations. In the gangs Decker and Van Winkle

(1996) studied, the profits from drug sales

were retained by the gang members and

usually were spent on typical teenage purchases. Most studies show that profits

are either kept by the individual or accumulated by the gang for parties and other

social events (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996;

Hagedorn, 1994a; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991).

To what extent are adult criminal organizations involved in the drug market

and violent crime? A few studies and investigative reports of crack cocaine and

heroin trafficking provide a thumbnail

sketch of the high-level organization of

the drug trade. The relationship between

drugs and violence is widely accepted in

adult criminal organizations such as drug

cartels and prison gangs; in some instances, however, it is difficult to distinguish these adult criminal organizations

from youth gangs.11

The Office of National Drug Control

Policy’s (ONDCP’s) Pulse Check Reports

(ONDCP, 1995a, 1995b, 1996) describe

high-level drug distribution organizations

that are not youth gangs. The typical organizational structure uses franchise operators to control an area and delegates

street-level sales to others. Only a few of

ONDCP’s ethnographers report that cocaine sellers are organized in youth gangs.

Moore (1990) contends that many

of the adult criminal organizations that

control drug trafficking existed before

the crack cocaine epidemic. Others were

formed in the 1980’s to service the growing crack cocaine market (Curtis, 1992;

Fagan, 1996; Johnson, Hamid, and

Sanabria, 1990; Taylor, 1989, 1990).

There is evidence that when crack cocaine was first introduced, a great deal

of violence ensued (Taylor, 1989).

Violence associated with crack cocaine

was linked to organizational competition

for market share and profits; protection

of drug-trafficking territory; regulation of

employees in the new selling organizations; the urge among habitual users for

money to buy crack; its liquid value

among the poor; and, for a small group,

its psychoactive effects (Fagan, 1996).

10 Other examples of drug-trafficking youth gangs are

described by Fagan (1989), Hagedorn (1994a, 1994b, in

press), Sanchez-Jankowski (1991), and Sanders (1994).

11 See Fagan and Chin, 1990; General Accounting Office,

1989, 1996; Jackson and McBride, 1985; Moore, 1990;

Reiner, 1992; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Taylor, 1989.

Klein (1995) and Spergel (1995) provide excellent discussions of this issue.

9 See Skolnick, 1989, 1990; Skolnick et al., 1988;

Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Klein and Maxson, 1994;

Klein, Maxson, and Cunningham, 1991; and Decker and

Van Winkle, 1996.
5

The Connection Between

Youth Gangs and Adult

Criminal Organizations

A classic issue in gang research concerns a possible connection between

youth gangs and adult criminal organizations (Thrasher, 1927). Taylor (1990)

illustrated the transformation of a scavenger gang to a territorial gang, then to

a corporate criminal gang with the case

of the “42 Gang” in Chicago. It was considered the best “farm team” Chicago’s

Capone mob ever had. Some of the youth

in it graduated into the lower ranks of

the Capone mob. Spergel (1995) suggested that there is some indication that

particular street-gang cliques have been

integrated into some criminal organizations, but Fagan (1996) contended that

this does not appear to be a predominant pattern. Fagan argued that available

evidence suggests that this transition

involves individual, talented young gang

members, not groups.12

The connection between youth gangs

and adult criminal organizations appears

far more important in the case of adult

prison gangs. Prison gang members are

more violent than nongang inmates; they

account for a disproportionate amount

of prison violence and they often control

drug trafficking and other criminal enterprises in prisons (Jackson and McBride,

1985; Ralph et al., 1996). Having been

confined in a juvenile correctional facility

is a strong predictor of adult prison gang

membership (Ralph et al., 1996). Prison

criminal gang members, in turn, contribute

to the growth of youth gangs. Involvement

of ex-convicts in youth gangs extends the

life of the gangs and increases their level of

violent crime, in part because of the exconvicts’ increased proclivity to violence

following imprisonment and the visibility

and history they contribute to youth gangs

(Moore, 1978; Vigil and Long, 1990). In some

cities, prison gangs rather than youth gangs

dominate local drug markets (Hagedorn, in

press; Moore, 1996; Valdez, 1997).

Studies of the Youth

Gangs, Drugs, and

Violence Connection

The relationship between drugs, drug

trafficking, and violent crime is the subject of much debate and research (see De

La Rosa, Lambert, and Gropper, 1990, for

an exhaustive review). Goldstein (1985)

suggested three possible relationships:

(1) the “pharmacological” effects of

the drug on the user can induce violent

behavior; (2) the high cost of drug use

often impels users to commit “economic

compulsive” violent crime to support

continued drug use (e.g., robbery for the

purpose of securing money to buy drugs);

and (3) “systemic” violence is a common

feature of the drug-distribution system,

including protection or expansion of the

drug distribution market share, retaliation against market participants who

violate the rules that govern transactions, or maintenance of the drugtrafficking organization.

Collins (1990) summarized the research

evidence supporting each of the three

types of drug violence Goldstein suggested.

First, there is virtually no evidence of the

pharmacological effects of drugs (excluding, perhaps, alcohol) on violence. Second,

there is considerable evidence of a relationship between drug use and economic compulsive violence. Third, although research

is scarce on “systemic” (drug distribution)

violence, this form appears to be the most

predominant. “Drug distribution system

violence tends to occur (at least most visibly) in areas that: are socially disorganized,

that is, in which formal and informal social

control is absent or ineffective; have traditionally high rates of interpersonal violence; and are economically disadvantaged”

(Collins, 1990:266). Collins noted that the

Goldstein typology has its limitations,

mainly because there are other important

sources of violence. This is an especially

important point with respect to the gang

context. A review of these other sources is

divided into two parts: gang homicide and

the causes and correlates of youth gang

violence.

Youth Gang Homicide and

Drug Trafficking

Although youth gang homicides are

characterized by periodic spurts and declines, they have been increasing nationwide and evidence an overall growth

trend in certain cities (Maxson, 1998a).

These spurts are explained largely by

“turf” disputes between warring gangs

(Block and Block, 1993; Block and

Christakos, 1995; Block et al., 1996). The

spurts are not citywide—they occur in

specific neighborhoods and involve particular youth gangs in escalating incidents of provocation, retaliation, and

revenge. The annual number of homicides involving Chicago street gangs increased almost fivefold between 1987

and 1994 (Block et al., 1996). Youth and

adult gang-related homicides in Los

Angeles County more than doubled from

1987 to 1992, then dropped in 1993 and

1994 (Maxson, 1998a).

To what extent is the large volume of

and increase in gang homicides caused by

drug trafficking? This popular assumption

is tied to the image of youth gangs as entrepreneurial drug-trafficking operations

that began to spread across the country

during the crack cocaine epidemic.

Klein and his colleagues were the first

researchers to test the popular assumption

of a strong relationship between youth and

adult gang drug trafficking and homicide. In

a series of Los Angeles studies, they found

that the connection between gang-related

homicides and drug trafficking is not

strong.13 This relationship has also been

found to be weak in several other studies in

Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, and

St. Louis (see Howell, in press[a] for a review of this research).

There are exceptions to this general conclusion. Some ongoing drug market wars

account for a significant number of homicides (Block et al., 1996). Block and her colleagues also noted an indirect relationship

among homicides, drug trafficking, and

street gang activity. Many of the street

gang-related homicides might not occur

without the existence of drug markets,

which routinely bring members of opposing

gangs into contact with one another. How

can the increase in gang-related homicides

over the past decade be explained?

The role of firearms in gang violence.

The presence of firearms significantly increases the likelihood of murder. The routine use of guns in gang conflict is a fairly

recent development, having occurred in the

past decade (Miller, 1992). Recent studies

show that firearms are now prevalent in

youth gangs (Bjerregard and Lizotte, 1995;

12 Fagan’s argument is similar to Hagedorn (1991,

1994a, 1994b), Klein (1995), and Moore (1990, 1992).

13 See Klein and Maxson, 1985; Klein, Maxson, and

Cunningham, 1988, 1991; Maxson, 1995, 1998a.
6

Howell, 1998; Lizotte et al., 1994). There

also is evidence that the impact of drug selling on illegal gun carrying is greater than

the impact of gang membership and that

drug selling increases with age. Thus, “unlike the diminished role of gangs, drug selling grows as the subjects get older and this

enhances hidden gun carrying” (Lizotte et

al., 1997:388). A strong association is found

between illegal gun use and gang membership and between illicit drug sales and illegal gun use (Decker, 1996; Decker, Pennell,

and Caldwell, 1997; Sanders, 1994; Sheley

and Wright, 1993, 1995).

Using data gathered from interviews in

1995 with arrested juveniles in the Drug

Use Forecasting (DUF) study, Decker and

colleagues (1997) found that gang members are much more likely than other

juveniles to carry guns most or all of the

time (31 percent versus 20 percent).

Percentages of arrestees who reported

using a gun to commit a crime, were

higher among adolescents who sold drugs

(42 percent) or belonged to a gang

(50 percent) than among other juveniles

(33 percent). One-third of gang members

said it was okay to shoot someone who

disrespected them. These findings confirm the importance of gun ownership

and use among gang members.

In a 3-year field study of active youth

gang members in St. Louis, Decker and Van

Winkle (1996) reported that 81 percent

owned guns. The mean number of guns

owned was more than four. Two-thirds of

gang members had used their guns at least

once. The most common use was in gang

fights; infrequent use was reported in drivebys, defense against attacks by strangers,

and other incidents. Only four members

mentioned a drug-related motive. In each of

these incidents, the gang members used

their guns to prevent a drug customer from

robbing them.

Decker (1996) contended that gang interactions, mainly the threat a rival gang

presents, help to explain the increasing

sophistication of weapons used by gang

members. The Blocks showed that most

of the increase in Chicago street gang homicides is attributable to an increase in

more lethal weapons, not an increase in

assaults (Block and Block, 1993; Howell,

in press [a]; Hutson et al., 1995; Zimring,

1996). Rosenfeld and Decker (1996:200)

found that the St. Louis youth (under age

24) homicide problem “is largely a gun

homicide problem.”

Causes and Correlates

of Youth Gang Violence

Some studies support the notion that

youth and adult gang involvement in drug

trafficking has led to more violent crime.14

Other studies suggest that the connection

between youth and adult gang drug sales

and violence is indirect or weak.15 Some of

these studies that shed light on the gangs,

drugs, and violence connection are reviewed below.

Huff (1996) studied two samples of

Cleveland adolescents: currently or formerly active youth gang members and a

second group of youth who had not

joined gangs but were deemed similarly

at risk of delinquency. Major Cleveland

gangs were well represented in the

sample. Gang youth were significantly

more involved in marijuana and cocaine

drug sales and in more serious and violent crimes than nongang adolescents.

Gang members were far more likely to sell

high-profit drugs and to sell drugs more

frequently than nongang adolescents. Huff

asked both groups about the source of

the drugs they sold. Gangs were not the

primary source for either group. A majority of both gang and nongang youth said

“others” controlled drug supplies. Gang

sellers were far more likely than nongang

sellers to go out of State for their supply.

In a unique aspect of this study, police

gang experts identified 83 gang members

who were leaders in 1986. Huff (1996) compiled their arrest histories from 1980 to

1994. The overwhelming majority of arrests

(which averaged 10 per leader) began at or

near the time of their initial gang involvement. Most of the arrests (37 percent) were

for violent crimes, 29 percent for property

crimes, 18 percent for drug offenses, and 6

percent for weapons offenses.

In his investigation of possible crime

progression, Huff (1996) determined the

year in which gang leaders’ arrests for

property, drug, and violent offenses

peaked. Peaks for all three offenses clustered within less than 2 years. His discovery that violent crime arrests peaked

about 3 months before drug offenses led

Huff (1996:99) to suggest that this might

be evidence of “a close connection

between drug trafficking and violence

that is often associated with conflict

over ‘turf.’”

Venkatesh’s (1996) ethnography of

gangs in Chicago’s Robert Taylor Homes

described one of the worst cases of gang

drug trafficking and violence. His study

documented the transformation of gangs

in this low-income public housing development from turf gangs to drug gangs and

the escalation of gang violence with the

advent of crack cocaine. In the 1960’s and

1970’s, these gangs fought over pride or

turf in hand-to-hand conflicts, sometimes

using zip guns (homemade, single-shot

pistols). Their violence was controlled

largely by tenant networks. When crack

cocaine was introduced in the 1980’s, a

notable escalation in gang violence occurred. Several gangs controlled drugtrafficking turfs in one or more buildings

in the housing development. Previously

contained fights then burst into the open,

endangering residents in gang-related

crossfire. In 1992, several children, all innocent bystanders, were shot and killed. Neither police nor tenant organizations were

able to contain the gang violence. Rival

gangs continued fighting. Eventually,

community leaders, youth workers, and

tenants were able to effect a truce that

Venkatesh predicted would not last.

Hagedorn (1991, in press) found that

few (mostly adult) Milwaukee gang members were involved in cocaine sales in

1987. But by 1991, 75 percent of them were

reported as having been involved in cocaine trafficking. Adult gang members said

that one-half or more of the dope houses

in gang neighborhoods were run by gangs

(Hagedorn, 1994b). He estimated that

about one-quarter of all homicides and

from one-third to one-half of all adult gang

violence in which gang members were involved or which they witnessed were drug

related (Hagedorn, 1996).

In one of the most detailed studies

of the gangs, drugs, and violence

14 See Hagedorn, 1996; Padilla, 1992; SanchezJankowski, 1991; Sanders, 1994; Short, 1996; Skolnick

1989, 1990, 1991; Skolnick et al., 1988; Taylor, 1989,

1990; Venkatesh, 1996.

15 See Block and Block, 1993; Chin, 1990, 1995, 1996;

Decker, Pennell, and Caldwell, 1997; Decker and Van

Winkle, 1996; Esbensen and Huizinga, 1993; Fagan, 1989;

Huff, 1989, 1996; Klein, Maxson, and Cunningham, 1991;

MacLeod, 1987; Maxson, 1995; Maxson and Klein, 1996;

Moore, 1990, 1991; Waldorf and Lauderback, 1993.
7

connections, Decker and Van Winkle (1994,

1996) found that the St. Louis gangs to

which youth belonged, mostly local Crips

and Bloods, were extensively involved in

drug trafficking, especially cocaine. Members of these gangs fought often, generally

using guns. Ammunition, drugs, and guns

were sometimes obtained from gangs in

Los Angeles and Detroit. Rival gangs often

fought over drug customer turf. Decker

and Van Winkle found, however, that gang

violence has many other sources related

to everyday gang social processes.16 They

saw three main sources of violence among

St. Louis gang members (Decker and Van

Winkle, 1996). First, violence is a part of

everyday life in their neighborhoods and

families. Second, conflict differentiates

gangs from other delinquent groups. Third,

violence is an endemic part of their status

as individuals and as gang members. In St.

Louis gangs, “members are expected to

always be ready to commit violence, to

participate in violent acts, and to have engaged in some sort of violence in their initiation” into the gang (Decker and Van

Winkle, 1996:173).

Decker (1996) offered a more detailed

explanation of the origin and spurt pattern

of gang violence that Block (1993) discovered. He used Loftin’s (1984) “contagion”

concept and the notion that gang cohesion

grows in proportion to the perceived threat

represented by rival gangs (Klein, 1971).

Loftin argued that three conditions must be

present if contagion is to occur: a spatial

concentration of assaultive violence, a reciprocal nature to assaultive violence (see

Miller, 1958), and escalations in assaultive

violence. Decker (1996) explained how the

threat of attack by another group ignites

the gang, increases cohesion, and produces

deadly consequences. Most gang violence,

he argued, is retaliatory, a response to violence—real or perceived—against the gang.

Spurts of gang violence appear to follow

predictable patterns, in a sequence that is

initially motivated by the perceived threat

that another gang poses, then instigated by

a precipitating event, followed by escalation

of activity, a violent event, rapid deescalation, and finally, retaliation.

Long-Term Studies of

Adolescent Samples

Most of the studies reviewed thus far

focus on specific gangs or individual gang

members, capturing the significance of

their experiences. A different view of the

connection between gang drug trafficking

and violence is obtained by studying large

representative samples of adolescents

over a long period of time. OJJDP’s Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency, which studied large

adolescent samples in the emerging gang

cities of Denver, CO, and Rochester, NY,

has produced a number of important findings on the gangs, drugs, and violence

connection. Although these studies were

not designed specifically to examine youth

gangs, they permit comparisons between

gang and nongang members in larger

samples.

Each of these studies addresses the extent to which gang membership facilitates

drug trafficking. Similar patterns were

observed in both cities. In Rochester,

Thornberry and his colleagues (1993)

found that gang members were involved

in three to five times as many drug sales

as nongang youth in sequential time periods. In Denver, gang members reported

nearly seven times as many drug sales as

nongang youth (Huizinga, 1997). In another

study, supported by OJJDP and several

other agencies and organizations, Seattle

gang members reported involvement in

10 times as many drug sales as nongang

youth (Hill, Howell, and Hawkins, 1996). In

Seattle (Hill et al., 1996) and in Rochester

(Bjerregaard and Lizotte, 1995), drug use

and trafficking rates still remained high

after individuals left the gang, indicating

that gang influence on drug trafficking

extends beyond the period of gang membership. Gang members in all three study

sites reported from three to seven times

as many serious and violent delinquent

acts as nongang youth (Howell, 1998).

A key question is, Does gang involvement in drug trafficking cause subsequent

violent crime? The Seattle gang studies

have examined this issue. Despite a high

prevalence of Seattle gang member involvement in drug trafficking, accelerated

adolescent involvement in drug trafficking

after joining a gang, and strong evidence

that gang involvement prolongs drug trafficking (Hill, Howell, and Hawkins, 1996;

Hill et al., 1996), an analysis shows that

gang member involvement in drug trafficking at age 16 does not predict assaultive

violence at age 18 but does predict drug

trafficking at age 18 (Howell et al., 1996).

Surprisingly (given this finding), the study

also showed that drug trafficking at age 16

predicts significantly more assaultive violence and handgun possession at age 18

among nongang youth.17

In Denver, Esbensen and Huizinga

(1993:571) reported that drug sales “were

not driving” street offending. Both violent

(gang fighting, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and nonviolent offenses

(burglary, theft, fencing stolen goods)

composed the “street offending” measure.

Although Rochester analyses showed an

association between gang drug trafficking

and violent offenses (Thornberry et al.,

1993), neither the strength of the relationship nor the temporal order of the two

behaviors has yet been examined. Several

other studies of either gang or nongang

samples have shown an association between adolescent drug trafficking and

violence.18

These findings make a persuasive case

that drug trafficking is strongly associated with other serious and violent

crimes but not necessarily that drug trafficking by gang members causes more

frequent violent offending. In Pittsburgh—

the third site in OJJDP’s Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of

Delinquency—a study of nongang youth

suggested that drug use, serious theft,

and violence precede drug selling (Van

Kammen, Maguin, and Loeber, 1994). Van

Kammen and her colleagues also found

that sales of illicit drugs started significantly later in adolescence than the other

three behaviors. Initiation of drug selling

was strongly related to previous involvement in multiple types of delinquency.

The authors concluded that “the present

study indicated a temporal sequence between the delinquent behaviors and the

onset of drug dealing. This does not mean

that the relationship is causal. Instead,

it is likely that drug dealing and serious

forms of delinquency are expressions of

similar antisocial tendencies. Whether

the same etiological factors apply to each

still remains to be demonstrated” (Van

Kammen, Maguin, and Loeber, 1994:240).

Although a causal relationship between

gang drug trafficking and violence has not

yet been demonstrated in the above studies, it is important to remember that, in

the main, the findings this Bulletin reviews

16 See also Anderson, 1994; Block and Block, 1993; Chin,

1996; Decker and Van Winkle, 1996; Horowitz, 1983;

Kennedy, Piehl, and Braga, 1996; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991.

17 The researchers selected drug selling at age 16 and

violence and other outcomes at age 18 in part because

the average ages for joining a gang are 14 to 15 in Seattle. Thus, it was anticipated that gang membership

and involvement in gang-related drug trafficking would

be very prevalent by age 16. Measuring violence at age

18 would allow time for gang drug trafficking to cause

violence—if that were the case.

18 See Altschuler and Brounstein, 1991; Dembo et al.,

1993; Padilla, 1992; Van Kammen and Loeber, 1994;

Williams, 1989.
8

come from two sources: gang studies

in emerging gang cities and nongang

samples. A key question is the extent to

which gang membership facilitates gun use

in drug trafficking—possibly resulting in

higher levels of violence—in the same way

that the gang facilitates overall violent offending. This may hold true in two cases;

gang member drug trafficking may indirectly contribute to more violent encounters with other gangs involving guns when

(1) drug trafficking exacerbates the need

for guns and (2) the perceived threat of

violence from rival groups increases. Resolution of this connection requires further

examination.

Summary

Empirical support for the popular image of youth gangs as promulgated by

Skolnick and his colleagues in the California studies is limited. There is little evidence of gang migration for the explicit

purpose of setting up drug-trafficking operations in distant locations. Youth gangs

sometimes obtain guns, drugs, and ammunition from gangs in other cities. Some

gangs expand their operations to other

markets. These fit the stereotype conveyed by the media and investigatory

agencies. Yet there does not appear to be

a large number of youth gangs that fit the

stereotype. Moreover, interstate drug trafficking appears to be mainly the province

of adult criminal organizations.

Youth gang members actively engage in

drug use, drug trafficking, and violent

crime. In other words, these problems

overlap considerably. Gang members

are more likely than nongang youth to

be involved in drug trafficking and violence. Gang involvement appears to promote individual participation in violence,

drug use, and drug trafficking and perhaps

prolong gang member involvement in drug

sales. Although drug trafficking is strongly

associated with other serious and violent

crimes, gang member involvement in drug

sales does not necessarily result in more

frequent violent offenses.

Most gang members have engaged in

illegal activities, generally including violence, before they join gangs. Many have

guns. Thus, gangs recruit or attract potentially or already violent individuals, and

involvement in violent activities increases

during periods of gang membership, even

among those who enter the gang with a

history of violent crime. The evidence to

date suggests that gang participation, drug

trafficking, and violence occur together.

Some youth gangs are actively involved

in street-level drug trafficking. With some

notable exceptions, they do not appear to

control drug-trafficking operations. Large,

adult criminal gangs that traffic in drugs

and drug-selling cliques within gangs do

exist, and they are responsible for a great

deal of violence. Most of their violence

may be directly or indirectly related to

drug trafficking.

A distinction should be made between

youth gangs and adult criminal organizations that existed before the crack cocaine

epidemic or were created to profit from

crack. Overall, adult criminal organizations

appear to be responsible for a large percentage of the violence related to drug

trafficking, particularly the most violent

crimes such as homicide, assault, and

robbery. However, some younger youth

gangs may evolve into drug-trafficking

operations as they grow older or take

on older members. This appears to be

more common in cities with a longer

tradition of gang activities than in emerging gang problem cities, and this trend

may be fueled by deteriorating economic

conditions in inner-city areas.

Although common sense suggests a

link between gangs, drugs, and violence

(Hagedorn, in press), which is strongly

promoted in media representations of

youth gangs (Klein, 1995), such a link is

questioned in longitudinal data on adolescents that examine the causal connections among these variables. However,

these connections may be stronger in

adult gangs (see Hagedorn, in press) and

adult criminal organizations, including in

a few areas experiencing a chronic youth

gang problem.

Most gang violence is endemic to gang

life, separate from drug trafficking because of several reasons. Violence is a

part of the everyday life of gang members, even when they are apart from the

gang; it is in their neighborhoods and

within families. Second, conflict differentiates gangs from other law-violating youth

groups. Third, violence is an expected

part of their individual status and roles

as gang members.

For the most part, the growth in youth

gang homicides appears to be independent

of the increase in gang drug trafficking.

Youth gang drug wars represent a notable

exception. The absence of a strong causal

connection between gang drug trafficking

and homicide suggests that gang involvement and drug trafficking are separate risk

factors for homicide rather than interrelated factors (Meehan and O’Carroll, 1992).

Maxson (1998a) calls for careful analysis of

the specific characteristics of gang homicides in different cities and communities so

that solutions can be crafted that are appropriate for the local gang homicide problem.

Once communities gain insight into the

sources of gang violence, they will see

opportunities for intervening in the patterns, or spurts, of gang violence that

occur (Decker, 1996). Communities that

engage in this process can learn about

interventions other communities are

using, such as Chicago’s "Little Village"

Gang Violence Reduction Project and

OJJDP’s Comprehensive Community-Wide

Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression demonstration

model, which is being implemented in five

sites: Mesa, AZ; Tucson, AZ; Riverside,

CA; Bloomington, IL; and San Antonio, TX

(Thornberry and Burch, 1997).

Gang violence has been exacerbated by

the ready availability and use of firearms,

especially more lethal guns, coupled with

frequent use of automobiles in attacks on

other gangs. However, the role of firearms in

gang-related violence is not well understood.

The extent to which gang firearm possession

and use is causally related to gang functions

versus drug trafficking is unclear.

Policy and Program

Implications

As a matter of policy, youth gang drug

trafficking needs to be addressed separately from adult criminal drug-trafficking

organizations. These distinctly different

problems require unique solutions. Youth

gang drug trafficking coexists with other

gang crimes, mainly intergang turf conflicts and interpersonal violence, that are

unrelated or only tangential to drug trafficking. Violence in adult criminal drugtrafficking organizations, cartels, and syndicates appears to be connected much

more directly to the drug-trafficking

enterprise. Reducing drug trafficking in

youth gangs is not likely to have a significant impact on violent youth gang crime

(except in the case of particular drug

gangs), whereas successful reduction of

drug trafficking in adult criminal organizations is likely to produce a significant

reduction in violent crime.

Breaking the Cycle

Before communities can begin to craft

a response, an assessment of the local

gang problem needs to take place. It is

important that communities have an
9

accurate understanding of and agree on

which types of gang problems they are experiencing. In order to conduct a thorough

assessment, communities should look at

community perceptions and available

data. Data from law enforcement sources

such as local gang and general crime data

are critical to the assessment. Other data

should be collected from probation officers, schools, community-based youth

agencies, prosecutors, community residents, and gang and nongang youth. In

essence, the nature of the drug and violence problem and its relationship to the

gang problem should be determined and

special attention should be placed on

where—and on whom—prevention, intervention, and suppression efforts should be

focused. Although not primarily designed

to be an assessment but rather a broad

training approach, OJJDP’s Gang and Drug

POLICY training program brings together

community leaders to systematically assess the nature and extent of the community gang and drug problem.

Successfully breaking up youth gang

drug operations may require different

approaches depending on the type of gang.

Because youth gangs generally are involved only in street-level distribution, the

proceeds of which typically are used for

personal consumption, providing

legitimate ways of earning money may

prove effective with their members. Suppression approaches may be more effective with drug gangs.

Programs are needed to break the cycle

of gang members moving from detention

and corrections to prisons to communities. Research and program development

are needed in several areas. Better screening and risk classification of gang members

in juvenile and adult correctional facilities

are imperative. This would help protect

the public by giving correctional staff reliable information to classify gang offenders

at the appropriate level of risk and to

match juvenile offenders with gang treatment programs available in correctional

facilities. Effective programs are needed in

these facilities to prevent gang formation,

membership, and victimization and also to

break up drug operations inside prisons.

There also needs to be an end to the recycling of adult gang members into ganginfested communities once they leave

prison. Ex-convicts need marketable job

skills and gainful employment opportunities to avoid the lucrative drug market.

Breaking this cycle becomes all the more

important as States are imprisoning

younger and younger offenders, who will

be returning to the streets at a younger age

than is the case today. Making effective

drug treatment programs available, along

with legitimate job opportunities, would

also help break the cycle.

Preventing adolescents from joining

gangs should be a top priority. One place to

begin is preventing youth from dropping out

of school. Discouraging children and young

adolescents from joining gangs is particularly important because of the lure of the

illicit economy and the drug kingpin lifestyle,

which the media sensationalizes. Opportunities for success and access to them must be

provided. At the same time, a community’s

social control of pregang and gang groups

needs to be increased. Communities’ comprehensive, coordinated approaches should

include measures to increase social control

of youth by strengthening social institutions

and emphasizing the roles that residents,

parents, youth workers, and community

leaders play in supervising adolescents.

Community businesses can play a key role

by providing legitimate work opportunities.

Focused prevention is the best way to ensure adequate resource allocation and to

have the greatest impact.

Existing gun interdiction efforts can

be enhanced and new ones implemented

as part of a coordinated effort to reduce

gang violence. A user-reduction strategy

buttressed by collaboration between police and probation officers, as in Boston’s

Youth Violence Strike Force (Kennedy,

Piehl, and Braga, 1996), is one way of removing guns from the streets and the

possession of gang members.19 The case

for removing illegal firearms from the

possession of gang members is unequivocal. Guns are vital tools for resolving gang conflicts. A reduction in gangrelated homicides will follow, even

without a reduction in drug trafficking.

References

Altschuler, D., and Brounstein, P.J. 1991. Patterns of drug use, drug trafficking and other delinquency among inner city adolescent males in

Washington, D.C. Criminology 29:589–622.

Anderson, E. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class, and

Change in an Urban Community. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Anderson, E. 1994. The code of the streets.

The Atlantic Monthly (May):81–94.

Battin, S.R., Hill, K.G., Abbott, R.D., Catalano,

R.F., and Hawkins, J.D. 1998. The contribution of

gang membership to delinquency above and beyond delinquent friends. Criminology 36:93–115.

Bjerregaard, B., and Lizotte, A.J. 1995. Gun

ownership and gang membership. The Journal of

Criminal Law and Criminology 86:37–58.

Bjerregaard, B., and Smith, C. 1993. Gender

differences in gang participation, delinquency,

and substance use. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9:329–355.

Block, C.R. 1993. Lethal violence in the Chicago Latino community. In Homicide: The Victim/Offender Connection, edited by A.V. Wilson.

Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, pp. 267–342.

Block, C.R., and Christakos, A. 1995. Major

Trends in Chicago Homicide: 1965–1994. Research

Bulletin. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice

Information Authority.

Block, C.R., Christakos, A., Jacob, A., and

Przybylski, R. 1996. Street Gangs and Crime: Patterns

and Trends in Chicago. Research Bulletin. Chicago,

IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

Block, R., and Block, C.R. 1993. Street Gang

Crime in Chicago. Research in Brief. Washington,

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

Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Bullington, B. 1977. Heroin Use in the Barrio.

Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

California Council on Criminal Justice. 1989.

Task Force Report on Gangs and Drugs. Sacramento,

CA: California Council on Criminal Justice.

Chesney-Lind, M. 1993. Girls, gangs and violence: Anatomy of a backlash. Humanity and

Society 17:321–344.

Chin, K. 1990. Chinese Subculture and Criminality: Non-Traditional Crime Groups in America.

Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Chin, K. 1995. Chinatown Gangs. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Chin, K. 1996. Gang violence in Chinatown. In

Gangs in America, edited by C.R. Huff. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 157–184.

Chin, K., and Fagan, J.A. 1990 (November).

The impact of crack on drug and crime involvement. Unpublished paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Society of Criminology,

New Orleans, LA.

Clark, C.S. 1991. Youth gangs. Congressional

Quarterly Research 22:755–771.

Cloward, R.A., and Ohlin, L.E. 1960. Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent

Gangs. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Collins, J.A. 1990. Summary thoughts about

drugs and violence. In Drugs and Violence: Causes,

Correlates, and Consequences, edited by M. De La

Rosa, E.Y. Lambert, and B. Gropper. NIDA Research

Monograph 103. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, National Institutes of

Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Curry, G.D., and Spergel, I.A. 1988. Gang homicide, delinquency, and community. Criminology

26:381–405.

Curry, G.D., and Spergel, I.A. 1992. Gang involvement and delinquency among Hispanic and

African-American adolescent males. Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency 29:273–291.

Curtis, R.A. 1992. Highly structured crack markets in the southside of Williamsburg, Brooklyn. In

The Ecology of Crime and Drug Use in Inner Cities,

19 For more information on this and other gang prevention and control approaches, see Howell (in press [b]).
10

edited by J. Fagan. New York, NY: Social Science

Research Council.

Dawley, D. 1992. A Nation of Lords: The Autobiography of the Vice Lords. 2d ed. Prospect

Heights, IL: Waveland.

Decker, S.H. 1996. Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Quarterly 13:243–264.

Decker, S.H., and Kempf, K. 1991. Constructing

gangs: The social construction of youth activities.

Criminal Justice Policy Review 5:271–291.

Decker, S.H., Pennell, S., and Caldwell, A. 1997

(January). Illegal Firearms; Access and Use by

Arrestees. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

National Institute of Justice.

Decker, S.H., and Van Winkle, B. 1994. Slinging

dope: The role of gangs and gang members in drug

sales. Justice Quarterly 11:583–604.

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

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

NY: Cambridge University Press.

De La Rosa, M., Lambert, E.Y., and Gropper, B.,

eds. 1990. Drugs and Violence: Causes, Correlates,

and Consequences. NIDA Research Monograph

103. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, National Institutes of Health,

National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dembo, R., Hughes, P., Jackson, L., and

Mieczkowski, T. 1993. Crack cocaine dealing by

adolescents in two public housing projects: A pilot

study. Human Organization 52:89–96.

Drug Enforcement Administration. 1988. Crack

Cocaine Availability and Trafficking in the United

States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration.

Esbensen, F., and Huizinga, D. 1993. Gangs,

drugs, and delinquency in a survey of urban

youth. Criminology 31:565–589.

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

1993. Gang and non-gang youth: Differences in

explanatory variables. Journal of Contemporary

Criminal Justice 9:94–116.

Fagan, J.E. 1989. The social organization

of drug use and drug dealing among urban gangs.

Criminology 27:633–669.

Fagan, J.E. 1993. The political economy

of drug dealing among urban gangs. In Drugs and

Community, edited by R. Davis, A. Lurgicio, and

D.P. Rosenbaum. Springfield, IL: Charles C.

Thomas, pp. 19–54.

Fagan, J.E. 1996. Gangs, drugs, and neighborhood change. In Gangs in America, 2d ed., edited

by C.R. Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 39–74.

Fagan, J.E., and Chin, K. 1990. Violence as

regulation and social control in the distribution

of crack. In Drugs and Violence: Causes, Correlates, and Consequences, edited by M. De La

Rosa, E.Y. Lambert, and B. Gropper. NIDA Research Monograph 103. Rockville, MD: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services,

National Institutes of Health, National Institute

on Drug Abuse, pp. 8–43.

General Accounting Office. 1989. Nontraditional Organized Crime. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

General Accounting Office. 1996. Violent Crime:

Federal Law Enforcement Assistance in Fighting Los

Angeles Gang Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Goldstein, P.J. 1985. The drugs/violence nexus:

A tripartite conceptual framework. Journal of Drug

Issues 15:493–506.

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

Crime and the Underclass in a Rustbelt City. Chicago, IL: Lakeview Press.

Hagedorn, J.M. 1991. Gangs, neighborhoods and

public policy. Social Problems 38:529–542.

Hagedorn, J.M. 1994a. Homeboys, dope fiends,

legits, and new jacks. Criminology 32:197–217.

Hagedorn, J.M. 1994b. Neighborhoods, markets,

and gang drug organization. Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency 31:264–294.

Hagedorn, J.M. 1996. Gang violence in Milwaukee.

Unpublished paper presented at the conference on

Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Youth Radicalism

and Violence, Milwaukee, WI.

Hagedorn, J.M. In press. Gang violence in the

post-industrial era. In Youth Violence, Crime and

Justice Series, Vol. 24, edited by M. Tonry and M.

Moore. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Hayeslip, D.W., Jr. 1989. Local-Level Drug Enforcement: New Strategies. Research in Action No. 213.

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

of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Hill, K.G., Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F.,

Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., and Edwards, T. 1996

(November). The longitudinal dynamics of gang

membership and problem behavior: A replication

and extension of the Denver and Rochester gang

studies in Seattle. Unpublished paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Society of

Criminology, Chicago, IL.

Hill, K.G., Howell, J.C., and Hawkins, J.D. 1996

(June). Risk factors in childhood for adolescent

gang membership. Unpublished paper presented

at the 1996 National Youth Gang Symposium, Dallas, TX.

Horowitz, R. 1983. Honor and the American

Dream: Culture and Identity in a Chicano Community.

New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

Howell, J.C. 1997. Youth gang homicides, drug

trafficking and program interventions. In Juvenile

Justice and Youth Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, pp. 115–132.

Howell, J.C. 1998. Youth Gangs: An Overview.

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

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C. In press [a]. Youth gangs homicides: A literature review. Crime and Delinquency.

Howell, J.C. In press [b]. Youth Gang Programs

and Strategies. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C., Hill, K.G., Battin, S.R., and

Hawkins, J.D. 1996 (November). Youth gang involvement in drug trafficking and violent crime in

Seattle. Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL.

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

Crime and Delinquency 35:524–537.

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

members and nongang at-risk youth. In Gangs in

America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 75–102.

Huizinga, D. 1997 (November). The volume of

crime by gang and nongang members. Unpublished

paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Society of Criminology, San Diego, CA.

Hunzeker, D. 1993. Ganging up against violence. State Legislatures. Denver, CO: National

Conference of State Legislatures.

Hutson, H.R., Anglin, D., Kyriacou, D.N., Hart,

J., and Spears, K. 1995. The epidemic of gangrelated homicides in Los Angeles County from

1979 through 1994. The Journal of the American

Medical Association 274:1031–1036.

Inciardi, J.A. 1986. The War on Drugs: Heroin,

Cocaine, Crime, and Public Policy. Palo Alto, CA:

Mayfield.

Inciardi, J.A., and Pottieger, A.E. 1991. Kids,

crack, and crime. Journal of Drug Issues

21:257–270.

Jackson, R.L. 1997. Nationwide spread of L.A.

gangs is alarming, FBI says. Los Angeles Times

(May 24):A11.

Jackson, R.K., and McBride, W. 1985. Understanding Street Gangs. Plackerville, CA: Custom

Publishing.

Johnson, J. 1989. Drug gangs are now operating in rural states, Justice Department says. New

York Times (August 4):A1.

Johnson, B.D., Hamid, A., and Sanabria, H.

1990. Emerging models of crack distribution.

In Drugs and Crime: A Reader, edited by

T. Mieczkowski. Boston, MA: Allyn-Bacon.

Keiser, R.L. 1969. The Vice Lords: Warriors of the

Street. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kennedy, D.M., Piehl, A.M., and Braga, A.A.

1996. Youth violence in Boston: Gun markets,

serious youth offenders, and a use-reduction

strategy. Law and Contemporary Problems 59:147–

196. Special Issue.

Klein, M.W. 1971. Street Gangs and Street Workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

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

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Klein, M.W., and Maxson, C.L. 1985. Rock sales

in South L.A. Social Science Research 69:561–565.

Klein, M.W., and Maxson, C.L. 1994. Gangs and

cocaine trafficking. In Drugs and Crime: Evaluating

Public Policy Initiatives, edited by D. MacKenzie

and C. Uchida. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, pp. 42–58.

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

structures, crime patterns, and police responses. Unpublished report. Los Angeles, CA:

Social Science Research Institute, University of

Southern California.

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

L.C. 1988. Gang involvement in cocaine rock trafficking. Unpublished report. Los Angeles, CA:

Social Science Research Institute, University of

Southern California.
11

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

L.C. 1991. Crack, street gangs, and violence.

Criminology 29:623–650.

Lauderback, D., Hansen, J., and Waldorf, D. 1992.

Sisters are doin’ it for themselves: A black female

gang in San Francisco. Gang Journal 1:57–72.

Lizotte, A.J., Howard, G.J., Krohn, M.D.,

and Thornberry, T.P. 1997. Patterns of illegal gun

carrying among young urban males. Valparaiso

University Law Review 31:375–393.

Lizotte, A.J., Tesoriero, J.M., Thornberry, T.P.,

and Krohn, M.D. 1994. Patterns of adolescent firearms ownership and use. Justice Quarterly 11:51–73.

Loftin, C. 1984. Assaultive violence as

a contagious social process. Bulletin of the New

York Academy of Medicine 62:550–555.

Long, J. 1990. Drug use patterns in two Los

Angeles barrio gangs. In Drugs and Hispanic

Communities, edited by R. Glick and J. Moore.

New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press,

pp. 155–165.

MacLeod, J. 1987. Ain’t No Makin’ It: Leveled

Aspirations in a Low-Income Neighborhood. Boulder,

CO: Westview.

Maxson, C.L. 1995 (September). Street Gangs

and Drug Sales in Two Suburban Cities. Research

in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute

of Justice.

Maxson, C.L. 1998a. Gang homicide: A review

and extension of the literature. In Homicide: A

Sourcebook of Social Research, edited by

D. Smith and M. Zahn. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

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

Move. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Maxson, C.L., Gordon, M.A., and Klein, M.W.

1985. Differences between gang and nongang

homicides. Criminology 23:209–222.

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

Gang Homicide: An Updated Look at Member and

Motive Approaches, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 3–20.

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

(February). Street gang migration: How big a threat?

National Institute of Justice Journal 230:26–31.

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.

Meehan, P.J., and O’Carroll, P.W. 1992. Gangs,

drugs, and homicide in Los Angeles. American

Journal of the Disabled Child 146:683–687.

Miller, W.B. 1958. Lower class culture as a

generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of

Social Issues 14:5–19.

Miller, W.B. 1990. Why the United States has

failed to solve its youth gang problem. In Gangs in

America, edited by C.R. Huff. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage Publications, pp. 263–87.

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., Geertz, H., and Cutter, H.S.G.

1962. Aggression in a boys’ street-corner group.

Psychiatry 24:283–298.

Moore, J.W. 1978. Homeboys: Gangs, Drugs and

Prison in the Barrios of Los Angeles. Philadelphia,

PA: Temple University Press.

Moore, J.W. 1985. Isolation and stigmatization

in the development of an underclass: The case

of Chicano gangs in East Los Angeles. Social

Problems 33:1–13.

Moore, J.W. 1988. Introduction: Gangs and the

underclass: A comparative perspective. In People

and Folks, by J. Hagedorn. Chicago, IL: Lake View,

pp. 3–17.

Moore, J.W. 1990. Gangs, drugs, and violence.

In Drugs and Violence: Causes, Correlates, and

Consequences, edited by M. De La Rosa, E.Y.

Lambert, and B. Gropper. Research Monograph

No. 103. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, National Institutes of Health,

National Institute on Drug Abuse, pp. 160–176.

Moore, J.W. 1991. Going Down to the Barrio:

Homeboys and Homegirls in Change. Philadelphia,

PA: Temple University Press.

Moore, J.W. 1992. Institutionalized youth

gangs: Why White Fence and El Hoyo Maravilla

change so slowly. In The Ecology of Crime and

Drug Use in Inner Cities, edited by J.E. Fagan. New

York, NY: Social Science Research Council.

Moore, J.W. 1996. Bearing the burden: How

incarceration policies weaken inner-city communities. In The Unintended Consequences of Incarceration, edited by K. Fulbright. New York, NY:

Vera Institute of Justice.

Moore, J.W., and Hagedorn, J.M. 1996. What

happens to girls in the gang? In Gangs in

America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 205–218.

Office of National Drug Control Policy. 1995a

(Summer). Pulse Check: National Trends in Drug

Abuse. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the

President.

Office of National Drug Control Policy. 1995b

(Fall). Pulse Check: National Trends in Drug Abuse.

Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

Office of National Drug Control Policy. 1996.

Pulse Check: National Trends in Drug Abuse. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

Padilla, F.M. 1992. The Gang as an American

Enterprise: Puerto Rican Youth and the American

Dream. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

Perkins, U.E. 1987. Explosion of Chicago’s

Black Street Gangs: 1900 to the Present. Chicago,

IL: Third World Press.

Ralph, P., Hunter, R.J., Marquart, J.W., Cuvelier,

S.J., and Merianos, D. 1996. Exploring the differences between gang and non-gang prisoners. In

Gangs in America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 241–256.

Reiner, I. 1992. Gangs, crime and violence in Los

Angeles. Unpublished manuscript. Office of the District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles.

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

and Youth Problems in Evanston: Research Findings and Policy Options. Evanston, IL: Center for

Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern

University.

Rosenfeld, R., and Decker, H. 1996 (Winter).

Consent to search and seize: Evaluating an innovative youth firearm suppression program. Law and

Contemporary Problems 59:197–220. Special Issue.

Sanchez-Jankowski, M.S. 1991. Islands in the

Street: Gangs and American Urban Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

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

Grounded Culture and Juvenile Gang Violence.

New York, NY: Aldin de Gruyter.

Sante, L. 1991. Low Life: Lures and Snares of Old

New York. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Sheley, J.F., and Wright, J.D. 1993. Gun Acquisition and Possession in Selected Juvenile Samples.

Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice and Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Sheley, J.F., and Wright, J.D. 1995. In the Line of

Fire: Youth, Guns and Violence in Urban America.

Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

Short, J.F., Jr., 1996. Foreword: Diversity and

change in U.S. gangs. In Gangs in America, 2d ed.,

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

Publications, pp. vii–xviii.

Short, J.F., Jr., and Strodtbeck, F.L. 1965. Group

Process and Gang Delinquency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Skolnick, J.H. 1989. Gang organization and migration—drugs, gangs, and law enforcement. Unpublished manuscript. Berkeley, CA: University of

California, Berkeley.

Skolnick, J.H. 1990. The social structure of street

drug dealing. American Journal of Police 9:1–41.

Skolnick, J.H. 1991. Gang organization and

migration. Unpublished report. Sacramento, CA:

California Department of Justice.

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

R. 1988. The social structure of street drug dealing.

Unpublished report to the Office of the Attorney

General of the State of California. Berkeley, CA:

University of California, Berkeley.

Spergel, I.A. 1964. Racketville, Slumtown and

Haulberg: An Exploratory Study of Delinquent Subcultures. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

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

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, C.S. 1989. Dangerous Society. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Taylor, C.S. 1990. Gang imperialism. In Gangs in

America, edited by C.R. Huff. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage Publications, pp. 103–115.

Taylor, C.S. 1993. Girls, Gangs, Women, and

Drugs. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University

Press.

Thornberry, T.P., and Burch, J.H. 1997. Gang

Members and Delinquent Behavior. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

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

Chard-Wierschem, D. 1993. The role of juvenile
12

Acknowledgments

James C. Howell is an Adjunct Researcher at the National Youth Gang Center,

Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Tallahassee, FL. Scott H. Decker is a

Professor and Chair of the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice,

University of Missouri, St. Louis, MO. The authors are grateful to several persons

who reviewed earlier drafts and made very helpful suggestions for improvements

to this Bulletin: Bruce Buckley, Jim Burch, Cheryl Maxson, Walter Miller, Joan

Moore, John Moore, and Jim Short, Jr.

All photographs © 1998 PhotoDisc, Inc.

gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior. Journal

of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30:55–87.

Thrasher, F.M. 1927. The Gang. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Valdez, A. 1997 (November). A contemporary

assessment of Mexican American youth gangs in

South Texas. Unpublished paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Diego, CA.

Van Kammen, W.B., and Loeber, R. 1994. Are

fluctuations in delinquent activities related to

the onset and offset in juvenile illegal drug use

and drug dealing? Journal of Drug Issues 24:9–24.

Van Kammen, W.B., Maguin, E., and Loeber, R.

1994. Initiation of drug selling and its relationship with illicit drug use and serious delinquency in adolescent boys. In Cross-National

Longitudinal Research on Human Development

and Criminal Behavior, edited by E.G.M.

Weitekamp and H. Kerner. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 229–241.

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.

This Bulletin was prepared under

cooperative agreement 95–JD–MU–K001 to the

Institute for Intergovernmental Research from

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

Venkatesh, S.A. 1996. The gang and the community. In Gangs in America, 2d ed., edited by C.R.

Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Vigil, J.D. 1988. Barrio Gangs: Street Life and

Identity in Southern California. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Vigil, J.D., and Long, J.M. 1990. Emic and etic

perspectives on gang culture. In Gangs in America,

edited by C.R. Huff. Newbury Park CA: Sage Publications, pp. 55–70.

Waldorf, D. 1993. Don’t be your own best

customer—Drug use of San Francisco gang drug

sellers. Crime, Law and Social Change 19:1–15.

Waldorf, D., and Lauderback, D. 1993. Gang

drug sales in San Francisco: Organized or

freelance? Unpublished report. Alameda, CA: Institute for Scientific Analysis.

Wilkinson, D.L., and Fagan, J. 1996. The role of

firearms and violence “scripts”: The dynamics of

gun events among adolescent males. Law and

Contemporary Problems 59:55–89. Special Issue.

Williams, T. 1989. The Cocaine Kids: The Inside

Story of a Teenage Drug Ring. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Wilson, W.J. 1996. When Work Disappears. New

York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

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 20:93–106.

Zimring, F.E. 1996. Kids, guns, and homicide:

Policy notes on an age-specific epidemic. Law

and Contemporary Problems 59:25–38. Special

Issue.

Bulletin NCJ 171152

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

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91