What to Do?James C. Howell and Megan Qually Howell
The history of street gangs in the United States begins with their emergence on the East Coast, in New York City in the 1820s (Haskins, 1974). Gang forma-
tion in the Northeast was fueled by immigration and poverty, first by two waves of largely White and poor families from Europe. City social services were over-whelmed, and large groups of immigrants were isolated in slums (Riis, 1902/1969). Conflict was therefore imminent, and gangs grew in these environments as groups of adolescents and young adults fought one another over scarce resources, while striving to create a wedge of safety among social disorder, squalor, and chaos. Sub-sequent migrations of Europeans to the U.S. led to even greater social disorganiza-tion and subsequent gang formation, first in the Northeast cities (New York, in 1825, followed by Boston and Philadelphia), then in the Midwest, led by Chi-cago, in the 1860s (Howell, 2015a). In many respects, gang emergence in Chicago replicated the Eastern region process, following immigrant invasion and conflict; though one-half century later because of the delayed influx of large migrant groups into the U.S. heartland. Gangs next formed in the west region (Los Angeles) in the 1930s and were not reported in the Southern region (San Antonio and Miami) until the 1970s and continuously emerged in that region (notably in Atlanta and New Orleans) up to the mid-1990s (Howell, 2015a).
The Great Migration of Blacks from the rural South northward between 1910 and 1930 was a major contributing factor to White-on-Black conflict and gang
Chapter 10 ■ Serious Gang Problems in the United States 157
formation and expansion among Black youth in Chicago (Haskins, 1974). In con-trast, gangs grew out of the preexisting Mexican culture in the Western region (first in Los Angeles, in the 1930s), and their growth was fueled by subsequent Mexican American migrations (McWilliams, 1948/1990)—and the later arrival of a large population of Blacks (Howell, 2015a). The Mexican Revolution that began in 1910 sent large numbers of Mexican peoples northward toward both Los Angeles and Chicago, populating those areas with Mexican Americans and fueling gang growth following conflicts with local youths. Gangs emerged in the Southern states a generation later following steady Mexican American immigration and large-scale return migration of Blacks from Northern cities after decades of disappointment from presumed opportunities to better their lives in those urban areas (Spergel, 2007).
In the 1950s and 1960s, two social policies boosted gang growth and expan-sion. First, the establishment of high-rise public housing complexes in many large cities isolated poor Black and Mexican American families. This policy pro-vided gangs an operational base, a virtual kingdom, as these buildings became gang strongholds in Chicago (Venkatesh, 2002). One enormous public housing project built there (Robert Taylor Homes), consisting of 28 16-floor buildings, was home to several gangs and soon deemed too dangerous for police to enter. Hence, gangs themselves informally policed several of these buildings on an everyday basis.
Next, “wars on gangs,” led by federal law enforcement and local police in many cities, put many gang leaders and members in prisons, which led to the further development of prison gangs, and these later expanded into formidable crimi-nal operations with enormous growth in prison populations that commenced in the 1960s (Schlosser, 1998). In the mid-1970s, Latino gangs, Black gangs, and Caucasian gangs in Illinois prisons formed loose alliances, the largest of which were the People and the Folk. As prison gang members began returning to neigh-borhoods from whence they came, this inadvertently strengthened local gangs and led to multiple gang alliances, creating what some called “supergangs” (Chicago Crime Commission, 1995). This continuing massive flow of returning gang inmates remains a major contributor to local gang violence and this factor soon became more prominent (Egley & Howell, 2013).
The 1970s and 1980s brought another large wave of migrants to the United States, around 7 million people (Pincus & Ehrlich, 1999). Before the end of the 20th century, Miller’s (1982/1992) research shows that the South region matched the other major regions in the prevalence of gang activity. Youth gang problems in the United States grew dramatically between the 1970s and the 1990s, with the prevalence of gangs reaching unprecedented levels in the mid-1990s (W. Miller, 2001). New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles served as gang epicenters, spawn-ing gang culture outward via youth subcultures. The growing availability of auto-mobiles, coupled with the use of more lethal weapons, fueled the growth of drive-by shootings, a tactic that previously took the form of on-foot, hit-and-run forays.
Gangs of the late-20th century seemed to have both younger and older members than before and more members with prison records or ties to prison inmates, and there clearly was a substantial increase in the availability, sophistication, and use of firearms in ongoing gang violence (Miller, 1982/1992). By the mid-1990s, 40% of local law enforcement agencies nationwide reported youth gang problems in the National Youth Gang Survey (Figure 10.1).
This chapter draws attention to the most serious gang activity in the United States because of its contributions to criminal justice system caseloads. First, we examine the key gang magnitude indicators of serious gang violence: the number of gangs, gang members, and homicides. Second, we discuss the distinguishing features of the most violent gangs. Third, these discussions provide a backdrop for consideration of solutions to serious gang activity. Before proceeding, gang defini-tions are presented next that guide our focus in this chapter.
GANG DEFINITIONSThere is no single, universally accepted definition of a gang. Federal, state, and local jurisdictions in the United States tend to develop their own definitions. By the end of 2016, all 50 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.) had enacted some form of legislation relating to gangs or gang-related activity. A total of 44 states and Washington, D.C., had legislation that defines gang, 15 states had leg-islation that defines gang member, 31 states defined gang crime/activity, 29 states had passed gang prevention laws, 34 states had laws that provide for enhanced penalties for gang-related criminal acts, 32 states had laws against graffiti, 28 states and D.C. had legislation on gangs and schools, and 12 states had enacted laws that deal with gang-related databases (National Gang Center, 2018). The term street gang is often used to reference gangs composed of older members to underscore their active involvement in murder, robbery, aggravated assault, and firearm offenses in street settings, where most such offenses occur. In cities with populations of 50,000 or more, two thirds of the gang members are over age 18 (Howell & Griffiths, 2018).
Law enforcement respondents to the National Youth Gang Survey define gangs as groups of youths who (1) commit crimes together, (2) hang out together, (3) have a name, (4) have a leader, (5) display common colors or symbols, and (6) claim turf. Each of these criteria is judged “moderately important” or “very important” in defining gangs among respondents in larger cities, suburban coun-ties, smaller cities, and rural areas (Howell & Griffiths, 2018). National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS)1 results (Figure 10.1) show that in 2012 (the final year of the survey), gangs were active in more than one fourth (28%) of cities, towns, and counties across the U.S. (Howell & Griffiths, 2018). This national estimate has remained fairly stable since 2005, fluctuating by only 9 percentage points through 2012.
Chapter 10 ■ Serious Gang Problems in the United States 159
KEY INDICATORS OF SERIOUS GANG ACTIVITYThe number of gang members, number of gangs, and occurrence of gang-related homicides are key indicators of the magnitude of serious gang activity in large cities. NYGS data for 2011 indicate that more than half (56%) of all gangs and three-fourths (75%) of all gang members are located in metropolitan areas,2 and almost 9 out of 10 (87%) gang-related homicides occur in these areas (Egley & Howell, 2013).
Number of gang members. It goes without saying that gang members are far more numerous in more densely populated cities that report a persistent gang problem. The number of gang members reported in the NYGS is a strong cor-relate of nationwide gang homicides (Decker & Pyrooz, 2010). To illustrate the importance of the number of gang members, in the early 1990s, the Chicago Police Department estimated that membership in four very large gangs numbered about 19,000 (the Black Gangster Disciples Nation, the Latin Disciples, the Latin Kings, and the Vice Lords), and from 1987 to 1990, they accounted for 69% of all street gang–motivated crimes and for 56% of all street gang–motivated homicides, although they represented just 10% of the “major” Chicago gangs and 51% of the city’s gang members (Block & Block, 1993).
Number of gangs. The number of gangs present in an area is significantly related to the area’s overall level of violence and, particularly, nationwide gang homicides (Howell, 2015a). A case in point, Block’s (2000) citywide Chicago research on the spatial distribution of gang violence found that “the relationship between the
FIGURE 10.1 ■ Prevalence of Gang Problems, 1996 to 2012 (N = 1,517)
38.2
40.838.0
26.0
28.0
19.3
29.224.0
26.2
31.0
31.4
32.6
29.6
35.6
37.8 31.4
28.4
05
1015202530354045505560
Per
cent
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: Howell & Griffiths, 2018, p. 2. Copyrighted by Sage Publications.
number of gangs that are active in an area and the levels of assaults and drug-related incidents is remarkably high” (p. 379). To be sure, numerous other gang studies support this pattern (Howell & Griffiths, 2018).
Number of homicides. Of course, gang homicides characterize serious gang problem cities, along with the number of gangs and gang members. Overall, approximately one quarter of all homicides in cities with populations greater than 100,000 are gang related each year (Howell, Egley, Tita, & Griffiths, 2011). More than two thirds (70%) of these large cities consistently report that between 20% and 40% of their homicides are gang related. By the 1980s, gangs had consider-ably more firearms, including semiautomatic weapons, of greater lethality than ever before (Howell, 1999). Therefore, it is important to consider the history and dangerousness of gangs in large cities (of 100,000 population or more) in crafting strategies for reducing their violence.
CONTEXTS OF SERIOUS GANG VIOLENCEIntergroup rivalries produce what Block and Block (1993) identify as “peaks and valleys” in homicides and other violence. Escalating and de-escalating stages cre-ate a feedback loop where each killing requires a new killing. Nearly 2 decades later, Papachristos and colleagues identified co-offending networks citywide in Chicago, beginning with the cataloguing of arrest events that involved more than one person among the nearly 1 million arrests that occurred during a 6-year period (Papachristos, Wildeman, & Roberto, 2015). In total, more than 400,000 unique individuals were identified in the arrest records, of which 41% had been arrested in an incident involving two or more individuals. About 70% of all nonfatal gunshot victims during the observation period were positioned in co-offending networks composing less than 6% of the city’s population—one third of whom were gang members.
Owing to the geographic orientation of these well-established networks, Tita, Cohen, and Endberg (2005) mapped places where gangs came together as a socio-logical group—that is, their set space. The gang set space is usually a very small geographic area, much smaller than neighborhoods or even census tracts, perhaps one block or only one side of a block.
The nexus between gangs and the geography of violent crime is explained by two defining features of gangs (Tita & Radil, 2011). First, gangs are geo-graphically oriented in that they have a strong attachment to the territory, or turf, under their direct control. Second, behaviors associated with the control of that territory, including communicating turf boundaries, regulating activities within turf, and defending turf against rivals, are important contributors to the emergence and diffusion of violence. In Figure 10.2, which depicts relationships
Chapter 10 ■ Serious Gang Problems in the United States 161
between members of two Chicago gangs (Papachristos, 2013), each node (dot) represents a unique individual in the gang, with Gang B having slightly more members (N = 58) than Gang A (N = 51). Each line represents a social connec-tion (friendship or association link) between the individuals as determined from existing police data that reveals co-offenders in recorded crimes. The difference in density (and possibly cohesion) of the two gangs in this figure is apparent: There are more connections among members in Gang B, creating a network that looks more cohesive (i.e., more people regularly interact with one another). In contrast, Gang A is sparser than Gang B; that is, fewer people regularly interact with one another in Gang A. Of course, Gang B is expected to be more heavily involved in local gang violence, owing in large part to greater cohesion among its member network.
The claiming and defense of turf or territory is a key characteristic of street gangs in serious gang problem cities. From the point of their origin in the United States, control over turf has been the basis of street gangs’ social honor (Adamson, 1998). In these areas, the gang’s very existence sometimes depended on its capac-ity to stand its ground and ward off incursions from hostile groups. An East Los Angeles study found that violence strongly clusters along the boundaries between 13 criminal street gangs, accounting for 75% of all lethal violence in this area—in 563 between-gang shootings involving during a 3-year period (Brantingham, Tita, Short, et al., 2012).
FIGURE 10.2 ■ The Network Structure of Two Chicago Street Gangs
Gang A
N = 51Density = 0.067Avg. Degree = 3.35
Gang B
N = 58Density = 0.096Avg. Degree = 5.51
Source: Papachristos, A. V. (2013). The importance of cohesion for gang research, policy, and practice. Criminology and Public Policy, 12, 49–58. Reprinted with permission from the American Society of Criminology.
OTHER FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH GANG VIOLENCEEight out of ten law enforcement agencies nationwide contend that drug traffick-ing is the most predominant influence on local gang violence (Egley & Howell, 2013). The dynamics of this relationship are not straightforward, however. The so-called “crack cocaine epidemic” said to have occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s was overstated and was most prevalent in only a few cities (Howell, 2015a; Reeves & Campbell, 1994). Most street gangs—largely made up of adolescents—lack the necessary organizational characteristics to effectively man-age drug distribution operations (Howell & Decker, 1999). Still, violence is most likely to occur where gang activity, drug trafficking, and firearm ownership or use intersects (Howell & Griffiths, 2018). Lizotte and colleagues (2000) explain, “If one travels in a dangerous world of youth armed illegally and defensively with firearms, it only makes sense to carry a gun. Therefore, peer gun ownership for protection increases the probability of gun violence” (p. 830). In turn, dur-ing late adolescence, “involvement in serious drug trafficking, independent of gang involvement, is a much stronger factor explaining hidden gun carrying—typically after gang involvement has ended” (p. 829). In other words, many gang members who do not desist from gang involvement continue to carry guns, and many of them advance into street-level drug trafficking (Gordon, Rowe, Pardini, et al., 2014).
JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM INVOLVEMENT OF GANG MEMBERSBecause of their elevated offending rates, gang members are very prevalent in both juvenile and adult criminal justice systems. Youth gang involvement at least dou-bles the odds of being arrested (Curry, 2000), thus probation and correctional caseloads is another context in which criminal involvement of gang members is quite evident. For example, statewide North Carolina data showed that youth gang members represent the following:
� 7% of all juveniles on whom delinquent complaints are filed,
� 13% of juveniles adjudicated,
� 21% of juveniles admitted to short-term detention, and
� 38% of juveniles committed to secure residential facilities (M. Q. Howell & Lassiter, 2011).
Chapter 10 ■ Serious Gang Problems in the United States 163
Gang membership is a strong predictor of entry into the correctional system for juveniles and adults. In two large statewide multiyear samples of adjudicated serious and violent juvenile offenders in North Carolina and Florida, gang mem-bers were about 3 times more likely than other offenders to be chronic serious property and violent juvenile delinquents (Baglivio, Jackowski, Greenwald, & Howell, 2014; M. Howell & Lassiter, 2011). Moreover, there are more than 7 times as many high-risk offenders among gang members than among nongang youth (M. Howell & Lassiter, 2011). Gang membership is one of the strongest predic-tors of homicide (Decker & Pyrooz, 2010). Continuous offending often leads to imprisonment, especially given gang backgrounds. A 2009 survey of federal and state prison systems estimated that 19% of all inmates were gang members (Winterdyk & Ruddell, 2010). Without any doubt, the proportion is higher in states with multiple very large gang-ridden cities, such as California and Illinois (Howell et al., 2011). Unfortunately, the number of prison gangs cannot be estab-lished at this time because these are included in the broader category of “Security Threat Groups” (American Correctional Association, 2009). In the early 1980s, a national survey of prison systems identified 112 individual prison gangs with a total membership of 12,634 (Camp & Camp, 1985). Research has established that prison gangs are responsible for a disproportionate amount of prison violence (Griffin & Hepburn, 2006).
WHAT WORKS IN COMBATING GANG VIOLENCEThis chapter concludes with consideration of program implications of the forego-ing research and data on gang crime. The leading program for addressing youth gang problems community-wide or encompassing cities or counties is the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Comprehensive Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program Model (commonly known as the Comprehensive Gang Program Model). This three-pronged model guides jurisdictions of any size in forming a continuum of gang prevention, intervention, and suppression programs and strategies. Prevention programs target children and adolescent youth at risk for gang involvement and reduce the number of youth who join gangs. Intervention programs and strategies provide sanctions and services for adolescents and young adults who are actively involved in gangs. Law enforcement suppression strategies target the most violent gangs and older, criminally active gang members.
When implemented with high program fidelity, this program reduced gang vio-lence and also gang affiliations (i.e., hastened gang disengagement) in multiple cit-ies, including both Chicago and Los Angeles (Cahill & Hayeslip, 2010; Hayeslip & Cahill, 2009; Hodgkinson, Marshall, Berry, et al., 2009; National Gang Center,
2010; Spergel, Wa, & Sosa, 2006). “Some youth changed from leaders to core mem-bers or regular members, peripherals, or nonmembers” (Spergel et al., 2006, p. 214). In addition, “effective [police] suppression contacts, as perceived by police (and indi-cated in outreach worker’s activity reports) were related to a reduction in a program youth’s degree of affiliation with his gang” (p. 214). In a similar fashion, “the greater the dosage [frequency] of worker contacts and services, the greater the reduction in the number of gang friends among [program] youth” (p. 214). Most noteworthy, however, is that Spergel’s program proved effective in the Little Village community of Chicago, a city that Spergel did not select (Howell, 2015b) because at that time it was a “Wounded City,” dubbed as such by Vargas (2016) because city agencies and police often worked at cross-purposes. Remarkably, gang violence was allowed to thrive as a result of their pursuit of organizational self-interest above public safety concerns.
Cure Violence (CV) works to identify, engage, and promote change among those gang members most likely to be involved in shootings or killings; detect and interrupt events that could lead to violence or retaliation; and change norms about the acceptance and use of violence. Cure Violence outreach workers concentrate on changing the behavior and risky activities of a small number of selected members of the community who have a high chance of either “being shot” or “being a shooter” in the immediate future. Violence interrupters (mostly former gang members) work alone or in pairs mediating conflicts between gangs and high-risk individuals on the streets and in hospital emergency rooms. With reality therapy, they interject themselves into on-the-spot decision making by individuals at risk of shooting oth-ers, helping potential shooters weigh the likely disastrous, life-changing outcomes against perceived short-term gains. Long-term change agents (outreach workers) address key immediate causes of violence, including norms regarding violence, and serve as positive role models for young people, steering them to resources such as jobs or educational training and needed services. An independent study found significantly reduced homicides and shootings in six of the seven CV sites in some of the most violent, gang-ridden communities in Chicago. A later research update found that the program worked to decrease violence with 40 of the most violent gangs in Chicago (Ransford, Kane, Metzger, Quintana, & Slutkin, 2010). An evaluation of a sister program in Baltimore drew similar conclusions (Webster, Whitehill, Vernick, & Curriero, 2013).
The Group Violence Intervention (GVI) program concentrates on enhanced and aggressive investigation and prosecution of gun offenders and gun traffick-ers. Chronic gang members or violent offenders are notified at call-in meetings by high-level local, state, and federal policy makers, influential community mem-bers, and social service providers that gun violence will no longer be tolerated. Long sentences are given to repeat offenders and are well publicized. The primary purpose of a call-in is to deliver the strategy’s key messages clearly to the group/gang members and, through them, back to the entire group/gang with which they are associated. During the call-in, a moral message from the community is communicated to the group of offenders from the same gang/group that the
Chapter 10 ■ Serious Gang Problems in the United States 165
violence must stop, that these individuals are valued, and that the community wants them to succeed. During the call-in, help is offered to those who want to change their violent lifestyles. The Operation Ceasefire component of the Boston Gun Project was responsible for a 63% reduction in youth homicide victimization (Wellford, Pepper, & Petrie, 2005) and has since been effectively implemented as the Group Violence Intervention. The typical impact is a 35% to 60% reduction in community-wide levels of homicides and a significant but sometimes lesser reduction in nonfatal shootings citywide (National Network for Safe Communities at John Jay College, n.d.). The Boston Ceasefire working group designed an intervention that created spillover effects on other gangs and neighborhoods via its communication strategy (Braga, Apell, & Welsh, 2013). Replications of the Boston strategy demonstrated evidence of effectiveness in reducing serious violence generated by street gangs or criminally active street groups in Cincinnati, Ohio; Indianapolis, Indiana; Los Angeles, California; Lowell, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; and Stockton, California (Braga & Weisburd, 2012).
Network analysis powers the Group Violence Intervention model. As Papachristos (2013) explains, “In the social network literature, cohesion often is measured as the density of a network—the extent to which individuals in a group are more or less connected to each other” (p. 52). Utilizing Chicago police arrest data, co-offending networks were created citywide, beginning with the catalogu-ing of arrest events that involved more than one person among the nearly one million arrests that occurred during a 6-year period (Papachristos, Wildeman, & Roberto, 2015). In total, more than 400,000 unique individuals were identified in the arrest records, of which 41% had been arrested in an incident involving two or more individuals. As expected, the greater the extent to which one’s social net-work is saturated with gunshot victims, the higher one’s probability of also being a victim. For individuals with two or fewer immediate associates, their likelihood of victimization is 2–3 times greater if one of their associates is a victim than if they have no exposure to victims.
In an evaluation of a similar strategy, the Group Violence Reduction initia-tive in Chicago that targeted small gang factions, consisting of active offenders and victims, Papachristos and Kirk (2015) found that the Chicago VRS produced significant reductions in both shooting behavior and gunshot victimization in Chicago—despite the challenge in intervening with co-offending networks, which is a first in gang programming (see also Howell, 2015c). The reported success is also attributable to emphasis on service access and matching these to offenders’ needs on a case-by-case basis. These services included health, mental health, housing, drug treatment, education, and employment services, all of which are made avail-able to those in attendance free of charge.
It may come as a surprise to many readers that there is much resistance to addressing gang activity with a community-wide long-term strategy (Gebo & Bond, 2012; Huff, 1990; Vargas, 2016). Short-term suppression strategies are more appeal-ing for their directness and toughness—and the supporting media attention these
may draw (Hagedorn, 2008). In addition, many mayors, school administrators, and other public officials sometimes deny the obvious existence of gang problems because doing so may not be deemed in their best interest in the near term. As an example of a collaborative approach that engages partners county-wide, utilizing the Comprehensive Gang Program Model, the Multnomah County Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC) is a county-wide, long-term model that blends pre-vention, intervention, and suppression strategies. Following a well-executed county-wide gang assessment that most other jurisdictions in the United States can emulate, the LPSCC Youth and Gang Violence Steering Committee developed an implemen-tation plan (a living document that is open to ongoing revision of goals and objec-tives) that facilitates the development of primary prevention, secondary prevention, intervention, suppression, and reentry activities while using effective services.3
An intervention team is an essential component of the CGPM (National Gang Center, 2010). The following key agencies are crucial to an effective intervention team’s success: law enforcement representatives involved in gang investigation and enforcement; juvenile and adult probation or parole officers who will have frequent contact with program clients; school officials who can access student educational data for program clients and leverage educational services; appropriate social ser-vice or mental health providers who can leverage services and provide outcome information to the team; a representative who can assist in preparing program clients for employment and find jobs for them; and outreach workers who can directly connect to program clients on the street, in their homes, or at school. The intervention team should engage both JJSs and CJSs in systematically identifying active gang members who require intensive supervision coupled with equally inten-sive services, especially cognitive-behavior therapy; the most potent evidence-based model is Aggression Replacement Training (Goldstein, Glick, & Gibbs, 1998; for implementation guidance, see Goldstein & Glick, 1994).
In sum, several potentially effective programs and strategies are now available for responding to gang violence on a city, county, or statewide basis. The choice of particular options must be based on a thorough assessment of the key features of gang violence in those contexts. Recent research suggests that long-term trajecto-ries of gangs and city gang problem histories can be modified, thereby producing potentially important public safety benefits. We should not expect large benefits, however. Reducing violence among institutionalized gangs with long histories in major cities is a daunting enterprise. The modest success of Spergel’s program—against all odds in Chicago (Vargas, 2016) and the Los Angeles area—gives basis for optimism that well-designed interventions can be effective, even in such a chal-lenging setting, when implemented with fidelity (Spergel et al., 2006, pp. 216–217).
There is no quick fix, no magic bullet that can produce measurable and sustainable reductions in institutionalized gang violence. Each of these three leading programs has favorable features. A key feature of Cure Violence is the presence of “violence interrupters” who seek to truncate the transmission of violence between individuals and groups and change community norms that
Chapter 10 ■ Serious Gang Problems in the United States 167
encourage retaliation. This is a fundamental public health model with potential long-term cost-benefits. The Group Violence Reduction program strategically breaks up networks of chronic violent offenders who often are united in gangs by virtue of the experience they share in common: violent victimization. The particularly unique feature of the CGPM is that it promotes a continuum of pro-gram options along the life course of gang involvement, including desistance.
Primary prevention (also called universal prevention) targets the entire population (all youths and families and other members) in communities.
Secondary prevention identifies young children (ages 7 to 14) at high-risk, and—drawing on the resources of schools, community-based organizations, and faith-based groups—intervenes with appropriate services before early problem behaviors turn into serious delinquency and gang involvement.
Intervention targets active gang members and close associates and involves active outreach coupled with services, as well as support for gang disengagement.
Suppression focuses on identifying the most dangerous gangs and reduces their threat by removing the most criminally active and influential gang members from the community.
Discussion Questions
1. What are some examples of conditions associated with the formation of violent gangs across the country, and are there any similarities?
2. What are the key structural features of violent gangs found nationwide?
3. What is the connection between gangs and the geography of violent crime?
4. Describe the concept of “cohesion.” How does it apply to gangs and their members and influence their levels of violence?
5. How can social networks aid our understanding of the observed uneven risk of homicide in high-risk communities?
6. How are network analyses typically used to study gang-related homicides?
7. Compare and contrast the three leading programs for combatting gang violence.
Notes
1. For a description of the NYGS study popu-lation and sample methodology, see www .nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Methodology. Independent evaluations have confirmed and demonstrated the validity and reliability of the NYGS data.
2. Cities with populations greater than 100,000 and suburban county sheriffs’ and police departments.
3. Program implementation details can be accessed at www.multco.us/lpscc/multnomah- county-comprehensive-gang-assessment-and-implementation-plan
Adamson, C. (1998). Tribute, turf, honor and the American street gang: Patterns of continuity and change since 1820. Theoretical Criminology, 2, 57–84.
American Correctional Association. (2009, Spring). Gangs/security threat groups in the U.S.A. and Canada. Corrections Compendium, 22–37.
Baglivio, M. T., Jackowski, K., Greenwald, M. A., & Howell, J. C. (2014). Serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders: A statewide analysis of preva-lence and prediction of subsequent recidivism using risk and protective factors. Criminology and Public Policy, 13, 83–116.
Block, C. R., & Block, R. (1993). Street gang crime in Chicago. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Block, R. (2000). Gang activity and overall levels of crime: A new mapping tool for defining areas of gang activity using police records. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 369–383.
Braga, A. A., Apell, R., & Welsh, B. (2013). The spillover effects of focused deterrence on gang violence. Evaluation Review, 37, 314–342.
Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2012). The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: A sys-tematic review and meta-analysis of the empiri-cal evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49, 323–358.
Brantingham, P. J., Tita, G. E., Short, M. B., & Reid, S. (2012). The ecology of gang territorial boundaries. Criminology, 50, 851–885.
Cahill, M., & Hayeslip, D. (2010). Findings from the evaluation of OJJDP’s Gang Reduction Program (Juvenile Justice Bulletin). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Camp, G. M., & Camp, C. G. (Eds.). (1985). Prison gangs: Their extent, nature and impact on prisons. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Curry, G. D. (2000). Self-reported gang involvement and officially recorded delinquency. Criminology, 38, 1253–1274.
Decker, S. H., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2010). On the validity and reliability of gang homicide: A comparison of disparate sources. Homicide Studies, 14, 359–376.
Egley, A. E., & Howell, J. C. (2013, September). Highlights of the 2011 National Youth Gang Survey. OJJDP Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Gebo, E., & Bond, B. J. E. (2012). Beyond suppres-sion: Community strategies to reduce gang violence. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Goldstein, A. P., & Glick, B. (1994). The proso-cial gang: Implementing Aggression Replacement Training. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Goldstein, A. P., Glick, B., & Gibbs, J. C. (1998). Aggression Replacement Training: A comprehen-sive intervention for aggressive youth (Rev. ed.). Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Gordon, R. A., Rowe, H. L., Pardini, D., Loeber, R., White, H. R., & Farrington, D. (2014). Serious delinquency and gang participation: Combining and specializing in drug selling, theft and vio-lence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24, 235–251.
Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R. (2006). The effect of gang affiliation on violent misconduct among inmates during the early years of confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 419–448.
Hagedorn, J. M. (2008). A world of gangs: Armed young men and gangsta culture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Haskins, J. (1974). Street gangs: Yesterday and today. Wayne, PA: Hastings Books.
Hayeslip, D., & Cahill, M. (2009). Community col-laboratives addressing youth gangs: Final evalu-ation findings from the Gang Reduction Program. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Hodgkinson, J., Marshall, S., Berry, G., Reynolds, P., Newman, M., Burton, E., Dickson, K., & Anderson, J. (2009). Reducing gang related crime: A systematic review of ‘comprehensive’ interventions. Summary report. London, UK: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Chapter 10 ■ Serious Gang Problems in the United States 169
Howell, J. C. (1999). Youth gang homicides: A liter-ature review. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 208–241.
Howell, J. C. (2015a). The history of street gangs in the United States: Their origins and transformations. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Howell, J. C. (2015b). The legacy of Irving A. Spergel. In S. Decker & D. C. Pyrooz (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of gangs (pp. 424–439). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Howell, J. C., & Decker, S. H. (1999). The youth gangs, drugs, and violence connection (Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Youth Gang Series). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Howell, J. C., Egley, A., Jr., Tita, G., & Griffiths, E. (2011). U.S. gang problem trends and seriousness. Tallahassee, FL: Institute for Intergovernmental Research, National Gang Center.
Howell, J. C., & Griffiths, E. (2019). Gangs in America’s Communities (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Howell, M. Q., & Lassiter, W. (2011). Prevalence of gang-involved youth in NC. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Huff, C. R. (1990). Denial, overreaction, and mis-identification: A postscript on public policy. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America (pp. 310–317). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D., Howell, J. C., Tobin, K., & Howard, G. J. (2000). Factors influencing gun carrying among young urban males over the adolescent-young adult life course. Criminology, 38, 811–834.
Lore Joplin Consulting. (2014). Multnomah County Comprehensive Gang Assessment: A collabora-tive project sponsored by the Multnomah County Local Public Safety Coordinating Council. Portland, OR. Retrieved from https://multco.us/file/34749/download
McWilliams, C. (1990). North from Mexico: The Spanish-speaking people of the United States (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Greenwood. (Original work published 1948)
Miller, W. B. (1992). Crime by youth gangs and groups in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (Original work pub-lished 1982)
Miller, W. B. (2001). The growth of youth gang prob-lems in the United States: 1970–1998. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
National Gang Center. (2010). Best practices to address community gang problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model. Washington, DC: Author.
National Gang Center. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Legislation/Highlights
National Network for Safe Communities at John Jay College. (n.d.). FAQs. Retrieved from http://nnscommunities.org/our-work/faqs#7
Papachristos, A. V. (2006). Social network analysis and gang research: Theory and methods. In J. F. Short & L. A. Hughes (Eds.), Studying youth gangs (pp. 99–116). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Papachristos, A. V. (2009). Murder by structure: Dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 74–128.
Papachristos, A. V. (2013). The importance of cohesion for gang research, policy, and practice. Criminology and Public Policy, 12, 49–58.
Papachristos, A. V., & Kirk, D. S. (2015). Changing the street dynamic: Evaluating Chicago’s group violence reduction strategy. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 525–558.
Papachristos, A. V., Wildeman, C., & Roberto, E. (2015). Tragic, but not random: The social conta-gion of nonfatal gunshot injuries. Social Science & Medicine, 125, 139–150.
Pincus, F. L., & Ehrlich, H. J. (1999). Immigration. In F. L. Pincus & H. J. Ehrlich (Eds.), Race and eth-nic conflict (pp. 223–228). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ransford, C., Kane, C., Metzger, T., Quintana, E., & Slutkin, G. (2010). An examination of the role
of CeaseFire, the Chicago police, Project Safe Neighborhoods, and displacement in the reduction in homicide in Chicago in 2004. In R. J. Chaskin (Ed.), Youth gangs and community intervention: Research, practice, and evidence (pp. 76–108). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Reeves, J. L. & Campbell, R. (1994). Cracked cover-age: Television news, the anti-cocaine crusade, and the Reagan legacy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Riis, J. A. (1969). The battle with the slum. Montclair, NJ: Paterson Smith. (Original work published 1902)
Schlosser, E. (1998, December 6). The prison–industrial complex. Atlantic Monthly, 282, 51–77.
Spergel, I. A. (2007). Reducing youth gang violence: The Little Village Gang Project in Chicago. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Spergel, I. A., Wa, K. M., & Sosa, R. V. (2006). The comprehensive, community-wide, gang program model: Success and failure. In J. F. Short & L. A. Hughes (Eds.), Studying youth gangs (pp. 203–224). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Tita, G., Cohen, J., & Endberg, J. (2005). An ecolog-ical study of the location of gang set space. Social Problems, 52, 272–299.
Tita, G. E., & Radil, S. M. (2011). Spatializing the social networks of gangs to explore patterns of violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27, 521–545.
Vargas, R. (2016). Wounded city: Violent turf wars in a Chicago barrio. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Venkatesh, S. A, (2002). American project: The rise and fall of a modern ghetto (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vigil, J. D. (1998). From Indians to Chicanos: The dynamics of Mexican-American culture (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Webster, D. W., Whitehill, J. M., Vernick, J. S., & Curriero, F. C. (2013). Effects of Baltimore’s Safe Streets program on gun violence: A replication of Chicago’s CeaseFire Program. Journal of Urban Health, 90, 27–40.
Winterdyk, J., & Ruddell, R. (2010). Managing prison gangs: Results from a survey of U.S. prison systems. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 730–736.
