Assignment: Scope and Activities of Criminal Organizations

D E

PA

RT M E

NT OF JUSTIC E

O F

F IC

E

OF J UST I C E PR

O

G R

A M

S

B J A

N

I J OJJ DP

BJ

S O

V C

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 understand- ing 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 mag- nified 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 in- volvement 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 im- portant sources of gang violence? Be- fore this OJJDP Bulletin addresses these questions, a brief historical overview of gang drug use, trafficking, and violent crime is provided. Studies of drug-traf- ficking operations are then reviewed to provide a better understanding of how illegal drug sales typically are con- trolled and managed. The Bulletin con- cludes with a detailed review of studies of the gangs, drugs, and violence con- nection 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 re- searchers contended that the two major

1 Youth gangs are considered to consist of adoles- cents and young adults from the ages of 12 to 24. Unfortunately, there is no commonly accepted param- eter of either the age range or proportion of individu- als 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 diffi- cult 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 indi- viduals under the age of 24. "Street gangs" may in- clude 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 collec- tively 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 opera- tions 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 charac- terized 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 mem- ber drug use and trafficking (Spergel, 1995). Some gangs of that era used—or at least tolerated—marijuana. Heroin- using 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 involve- ment 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 in- stances drug-abusing members, particu- larly 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 “increas- ingly drawn in gang members as partici- pants in drug distribution networks” (Miller, 1992:144). By the late 1970’s,

older African-American adult gang mem- bers in Chicago were reported to be sig- nificantly 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) de- scribed the drug dealing of Chicago’s Chi- nese tongs, but gang violence mainly con- sisted of fighting. An account of early 20th century east coast adult gangs linked gang violence to territorial fights among orga- nized crime groups that used teenagers in “numbers running” and as lookouts in gambling and bootlegging operations (Sante, 1991). Except for occasional fight- ing, violent crime by youth gangs was rela- tively rare until the latter part of this cen- tury (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 be- came the drug of choice in the inner cit- ies (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, sev- eral 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 sev- eral other studies found predominantly drug-trafficking youth gangs.4

For the most part, the findings of the studies outlined in the previous para- graph apply only to males. Some cities, such as Detroit (Taylor, 1993) and San Francisco (Lauderback, Hansen, and Waldorf, 1992), found an increasing num- ber of females involved in gang drug traf- ficking and violent crime, but the consen- sus is that female involvement in these behaviors has not increased commensu- rately 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 de- cade? Fagan (1993) suggested two reasons: (1) the dramatic expansion of cocaine mar- kets 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 dis- rupted 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 restruc- turing in many cities. New jobs were cre- ated, 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 popu- larity of crack cocaine opened new oppor- tunities for youth to make money. Tradi- tional pathways from gang life (jobs, marriage, starting a family) were con- stricted by the changed economy, pro- longing gang involvement and making drug trafficking more attractive. The de- cline of meaningful lifetime employment prospects weakened the stabilizing influ- ences 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 trans- formation of youth groups into loosely structured gangs. As the size and stakes of the cocaine economy grew, violence in- creasingly came to be used in the regula- tory process. “Work and social interac- tions 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 vio- lence coincided with the crack cocaine epidemic, the two developments were generally perceived to be interrelated.6

This same conclusion was reached in as- sessments conducted at all governmental levels, suggesting that youth gangs were instrumental in the increase in crack co- caine 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 de- scribed entrepreneurial criminal gangs (Bloods and Crips) that emerged out of African-American “cultural” (neighbor- hood) 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 ac- tively 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 com- petitors. They had a territorial monopoly, backed by force. Driven by escalating vio- lence in Los Angeles, declining drug prices, and intensified law enforcement, the Cali- fornia 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. Never- theless, 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 re- gional, within about 100 miles of the city of origin. A number of local studies of indi- vidual gangs questioned their ties to larger gangs such as the Crips and Bloods in dis- tant cities (Decker and Van Winkle, 1994).8

In the meantime, police and investi- gatory agencies reported criminal gang drug-trafficking links across the country. A U.S. Congress study (General Account- ing 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), re- ported links between these Los Angeles street gangs and drug sales in 46 States. Police and Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion (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 assess- ment 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 neigh- borhoods, 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 Ange- les 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 esti- mated to sell drugs as often as 12 times a year. Reiner’s office also concluded that “most L.A. gangs are not being trans- formed 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, investi- gatory 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. Sympo- sium participants concluded that some well-organized street gangs are engaged in interstate drug trafficking, but for the most part, a gang’s drug-trafficking con- nections 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 distri- bution 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 Sanchez- Jankowski 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 estab- lished 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 confeder- ated 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 op- portunities the new drug markets pro- vided—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) de- scribed 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 opera- tions 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 pro- fessional 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 conflict- ing images of youth gang involvement in drug trafficking. In part, these different

images stem from the lack of a clear dis- tinction 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 distri- bution and high-level control of drug dis- tribution networks. He distinguished drug gangs from street gangs, which he con- tended are not the same.

Unfortunately, youth gang studies have not revealed much about management and control of drug-trafficking operations ver- sus 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 special- ists) in U.S. cities (with a population of more than 100,000) in which law enforce- ment agencies said they had a gang prob- lem, 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 op- erations. Only 10 percent believed such control to be the case. About 10 to 14 per- cent 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 organiza- tions. 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 pur- chases. Most studies show that profits are either kept by the individual or accu- mulated 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 or- ganizations involved in the drug market and violent crime? A few studies and in- vestigative 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 in- stances, however, it is difficult to distin- guish 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 orga- nizational structure uses franchise opera- tors to control an area and delegates street-level sales to others. Only a few of ONDCP’s ethnographers report that co- caine 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 grow- ing crack cocaine market (Curtis, 1992; Fagan, 1996; Johnson, Hamid, and Sanabria, 1990; Taylor, 1989, 1990). There is evidence that when crack co- caine 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 organiza- tions; 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 dis- cussions 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 con- cerns a possible connection between youth gangs and adult criminal organiza- tions (Thrasher, 1927). Taylor (1990) illustrated the transformation of a scav- enger gang to a territorial gang, then to a corporate criminal gang with the case of the “42 Gang” in Chicago. It was con- sidered 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) sug- gested that there is some indication that particular street-gang cliques have been integrated into some criminal organiza- tions, but Fagan (1996) contended that this does not appear to be a predomi- nant 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 enter- prises 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 ex- convicts’ 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 sub- ject 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, retalia- tion against market participants who violate the rules that govern transac- tions, or maintenance of the drug- trafficking 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 (exclud- ing, perhaps, alcohol) on violence. Second, there is considerable evidence of a relation- ship between drug use and economic com- pulsive 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 vis- ibly) in areas that: are socially disorganized, that is, in which formal and informal social control is absent or ineffective; have tradi- tionally high rates of interpersonal vio- lence; 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 de- clines, they have been increasing nation-

wide 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 par- ticular youth gangs in escalating inci- dents of provocation, retaliation, and revenge. The annual number of homi- cides involving Chicago street gangs in- creased 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 en- trepreneurial 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 re- view of this research).

There are exceptions to this general con- clusion. Some ongoing drug market wars account for a significant number of homi- cides (Block et al., 1996). Block and her col- leagues 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 in- creases the likelihood of murder. The rou- tine 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 sell- ing on illegal gun carrying is greater than the impact of gang membership and that drug selling increases with age. Thus, “un- like the diminished role of gangs, drug sell- ing 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 member- ship and between illicit drug sales and ille- gal 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 mem- bers 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 con- firm 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 drive- bys, 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 in- teractions, 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 ho- micides 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 re- viewed below.

Huff (1996) studied two samples of Cleveland adolescents: currently or for- merly 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 vio- lent 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 major- ity 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) com- piled 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 involve- ment. 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 clus- tered within less than 2 years. His dis- covery 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 develop- ment 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 oc- curred. Several gangs controlled drug- trafficking 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 inno- cent bystanders, were shot and killed. Nei- ther 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 mem- bers were involved in cocaine sales in 1987. But by 1991, 75 percent of them were reported as having been involved in co- caine 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 in- volved 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; Sanchez- Jankowski, 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. Mem- bers 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 en- gaged in some sort of violence in their ini- tiation” 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) discov- ered. 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 re- ciprocal 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 vio- lence—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 deescala- tion, 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 Pro- gram of Research on the Causes and Corre- lates of Delinquency, which studied large adolescent samples in the emerging gang cities of Denver, CO, and Rochester, NY, has produced a number of important find- ings 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 ex- tent 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 peri- ods. 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 mem- bership. 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 involve- ment in drug trafficking cause subsequent violent crime? The Seattle gang studies have examined this issue. Despite a high prevalence of Seattle gang member in- volvement in drug trafficking, accelerated adolescent involvement in drug trafficking after joining a gang, and strong evidence that gang involvement prolongs drug traf- ficking (Hill, Howell, and Hawkins, 1996; Hill et al., 1996), an analysis shows that gang member involvement in drug traffick- ing 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 vio- lence 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 aggra- vated 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 relation- ship 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 be- tween adolescent drug trafficking and violence.18

These findings make a persuasive case that drug trafficking is strongly associ- ated with other serious and violent crimes but not necessarily that drug traf- ficking by gang members causes more frequent violent offending. In Pittsburgh— the third site in OJJDP’s Program of Re- search 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 signifi- cantly later in adolescence than the other three behaviors. Initiation of drug selling was strongly related to previous involve- ment in multiple types of delinquency. The authors concluded that “the present study indicated a temporal sequence be- tween 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 stud- ies, 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 Se- attle. 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 of- fending. This may hold true in two cases; gang member drug trafficking may indi- rectly contribute to more violent encoun- ters 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. Reso- lution of this connection requires further examination.

Summary Empirical support for the popular im-

age of youth gangs as promulgated by Skolnick and his colleagues in the Califor- nia studies is limited. There is little evi- dence of gang migration for the explicit purpose of setting up drug-trafficking op- erations in distant locations. Youth gangs sometimes obtain guns, drugs, and ammu- nition from gangs in other cities. Some gangs expand their operations to other markets. These fit the stereotype con- veyed 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 traf- ficking 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 vio- lence. Gang involvement appears to pro- mote 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 vio- lence, before they join gangs. Many have guns. Thus, gangs recruit or attract poten- tially 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 organiza- tions 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 per- centage 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 emerg- ing 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 ado- lescents that examine the causal connec- tions 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 be- cause of several reasons. Violence is a part of the everyday life of gang mem- bers, even when they are apart from the gang; it is in their neighborhoods and within families. Second, conflict differenti- ates 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 involve- ment and drug trafficking are separate risk factors for homicide rather than interre-

lated factors (Meehan and O’Carroll, 1992). Maxson (1998a) calls for careful analysis of the specific characteristics of gang homi- cides in different cities and communities so that solutions can be crafted that are appro- priate for the local gang homicide problem.

Once communities gain insight into the sources of gang violence, they will see opportunities for intervening in the pat- terns, 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, Interven- tion, 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 sepa- rately 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 con- flicts and interpersonal violence, that are unrelated or only tangential to drug traf- ficking. Violence in adult criminal drug- trafficking organizations, cartels, and syn- dicates appears to be connected much more directly to the drug-trafficking enterprise. Reducing drug trafficking in youth gangs is not likely to have a signifi- cant impact on violent youth gang crime (except in the case of particular drug gangs), whereas successful reduction of drug trafficking in adult criminal organiza- tions 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 ex- periencing. 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 offic- ers, schools, community-based youth agencies, prosecutors, community resi- dents, and gang and nongang youth. In essence, the nature of the drug and vio- lence problem and its relationship to the gang problem should be determined and special attention should be placed on where—and on whom—prevention, inter- vention, 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 as- sess the nature and extent of the commu- nity 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 in- volved 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. Sup- pression approaches may be more effec- tive with drug gangs.

Programs are needed to break the cycle of gang members moving from detention and corrections to prisons to communi- ties. Research and program development are needed in several areas. Better screen- ing and risk classification of gang members in juvenile and adult correctional facilities are imperative. This would help protect the public by giving correctional staff reli- able information to classify gang offenders at the appropriate level of risk and to match juvenile offenders with gang treat- ment 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 recy- cling of adult gang members into gang- infested communities once they leave prison. Ex-convicts need marketable job skills and gainful employment opportuni- ties 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 particu- larly important because of the lure of the illicit economy and the drug kingpin lifestyle, which the media sensationalizes. Opportuni- ties 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’ com- prehensive, 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 en- sure 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 po- lice and probation officers, as in Boston’s Youth Violence Strike Force (Kennedy, Piehl, and Braga, 1996), is one way of re- moving guns from the streets and the possession of gang members.19 The case for removing illegal firearms from the possession of gang members is un- equivocal. Guns are vital tools for resolv- ing gang conflicts. A reduction in gang- related homicides will follow, even without a reduction in drug trafficking.

References Altschuler, D., and Brounstein, P.J. 1991. Pat-

terns of drug use, drug trafficking and other de- linquency 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: Uni- versity 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 be- yond 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 Crimi- nology 9:329–355.

Block, C.R. 1993. Lethal violence in the Chi- cago Latino community. In Homicide: The Vic- tim/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 vio- lence: Anatomy of a backlash. Humanity and Society 17:321–344.

Chin, K. 1990. Chinese Subculture and Criminal- ity: 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 involve- ment. 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. Delin- quency 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 homi- cide, delinquency, and community. Criminology 26:381–405.

Curry, G.D., and Spergel, I.A. 1992. Gang in- volvement 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 mar- kets 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 preven- tion 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 Autobi- ography of the Vice Lords. 2d ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Decker, S.H. 1996. Collective and normative fea- tures 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 Jus- tice, 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 neighbor- hood change. In Gangs in America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica- tions, 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, Corre- lates, and Consequences, edited by M. De La Rosa, E.Y. Lambert, and B. Gropper. NIDA Re- search 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. Nontradi- tional 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. Gov- ernment 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. Chi- cago, 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 Enforce- ment: 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, Dal- las, 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 Jus- tice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C. In press [a]. Youth gangs homi- cides: 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 Preven- tion.

Howell, J.C., Hill, K.G., Battin, S.R., and Hawkins, J.D. 1996 (November). Youth gang in- volvement in drug trafficking and violent crime in Seattle. Unpublished paper presented at the an- nual meeting of the American Society of Criminol- ogy, 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 vio- lence. 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 gang- related 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. Under- standing Street Gangs. Plackerville, CA: Custom Publishing.

Johnson, J. 1989. Drug gangs are now operat- ing 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 Work- ers. 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 re- sponses. 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 traf- ficking. 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 fire- arms 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 Jus- tice, 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. Wash- ington, 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 commu- nities. In The Unintended Consequences of Incar- ceration, 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. Wash- ington, 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 differ- ences between gang and non-gang prisoners. In Gangs in America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff. Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 241–256.

Reiner, I. 1992. Gangs, crime and violence in Los Angeles. Unpublished manuscript. Office of the Dis- trict Attorney of the County of Los Angeles.

Rosenbaum, D.P., and Grant, J.A. 1983. Gangs and Youth Problems in Evanston: Research Find-

ings 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 innova- tive 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. Berke- ley, 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 Acquisi- tion and Possession in Selected Juvenile Samples. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- ment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Na- tional 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: Uni- versity of Chicago.

Skolnick, J.H. 1989. Gang organization and mi- gration—drugs, gangs, and law enforcement. Un- published 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 Sub- cultures. 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 Lan- sing, 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. Wash- ington, 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 Crimi- nology, 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 relation- ship with illicit drug use and serious delin- quency in adolescent boys. In Cross-National Longitudinal Research on Human Development and Criminal Behavior, edited by E.G.M. Weitekamp and H. Kerner. Dordrecht, Nether- lands: Kluwer, pp. 229–241.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- quency Prevention is a component of the Of- fice of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Jus- tice, 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 commu- nity. 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: Univer- sity 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 Publi- cations, 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: Insti- tute 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. Metropoli- tan 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.

NCJ 171152Bulletin

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