Characteristics of Modern Youth Gangs

• Location
• Member Diversity
• Organization
• Onset of Local Gang Problems
• Gang Stereotypes
• Gang Migration

Once a problem primarily in large cities, youth gangs are now present in suburbs, small towns, and rural areas (Miller, W.B., 2001). In 1999, law enforcement agencies reported active youth gangs in 100 percent of the Nation’s largest cities (those with populations of 250,000 or more), 47 percent of suburban counties, 27 percent of small cities (those with populations below 25,000), and 18 percent of rural counties (Egley, 2000; Howell, Moore, and Egley, forthcoming). The average year of gang problem onset was 1989 for large cities, 1990 for suburban counties, 1992 for small cities, and 1993 for rural counties (National Youth Gang Center, 1999). The localities reporting later onset of gang problems are most likely to be in rural counties, small cities, and suburban counties with populations of less than 50,000 (Howell, Egley, and Gleason, forthcoming).

Gangs are also becoming commonplace in institutions, including schools, that had been considered safe havens. For many students, school has become a gathering place for gangs. More than one-third (37 percent) of a nationally representative sample of students reported gang presence in their schools in 1995, a 100-percent increase over 1989 (Howell and Lynch, 2000). Gang presence is being reported even in the military (Hasenauer, 1996).

Although many gangs continue to be based on race or ethnicity, gangs are increasingly diverse in racial/ethnic composition. Law enforcement agencies responding to the 1998 National Youth Gang Survey estimated that more than one-third (36 percent) of youth gangs had a significant mixture of two or more racial/ethnic groups (National Youth Gang Center, 2000). Small cities had the largest proportion of gangs with mixed race/ethnicity. The Midwest had a larger proportion of mixed gangs than any other region.

Recent student surveys and field studies of local gangs also report significant gender mixtures (Esbensen, Deschenes, and Winfree, 1999; Fleisher, 1998; Miller, J.A., 2001). For example, 92 percent of gang youth in one student survey (Esbensen, Deschenes, and Winfree, 1999:42) said both boys and girls belonged to their gang.

Gangs in suburban areas, small towns, and rural areas show more membership diversity than gangs in large cities. Gangs in these areas have more racially/ethnically mixed membership (National Youth Gang Center, 2000:22–23) and include more females, Caucasians, and younger members than gangs in larger cities (Curry, 2000; Howell, Egley, and Gleason, forthcoming).

Although a fixed definition has not been established, youth gangs are often presumed to be highly organized groups that engage in some level of criminal activity. Several studies challenge the notion that youth gangs are highly organized. Decker and colleagues (1998) compared the two most highly organized gangs (as reported by police) in Chicago, IL, and San Diego, CA. They found that the Chicago gangs were far more organized than the San Diego gangs but levels of organization were not necessarily linked to increased involvement in crime (Decker, Bynum, and Weisel, 1998:408). Their observation that the San Diego gangs were disorganized mirrors Sanders’ (1994) findings. Other studies have questioned the extent of youth gang organization in emerging gang cities such as Denver, CO (Esbensen, Huizinga, and Weiher, 1993); Cleveland and Columbus, OH (Huff, 1996, 1998); Kansas City, MO (Fleisher, 1998); Milwaukee, WI (Hagedorn, 1988); Pittsburgh, PA (Klein, 1995); San Francisco, CA (Waldorf, 1993); Seattle, WA (Fleisher, 1995); and St. Louis, MO (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996; Decker and Curry, 2000).

Modern youth gangs are generally less territory based than gangs of the past (Klein, 1995; Miller, 1992; National Youth Gang Center, 2000). In the older gang cities and the Southwest, gangs traditionally were tied strongly to their neighborhoods or barrios. The Mexican-American “turf gang” pattern, transmitted across generations and ethnicities, has given way to autonomous gangs as the predominant pattern (Klein, 1995:102). These autonomous gangs consist of single, named groups occupying smaller territories and may be based in a neighborhood, a public housing project, or another community location (such as a schoolyard or shopping mall).

Some gang research in the 1960s suggested that youngsters were pressured to join gangs by peers who used strong-arm tactics (Yablonsky, 1967). Community (adult) representatives view peer pressure to join gangs as irresistible (Decker and Kempf-Leonard, 1991). However, it is not as difficult for adolescents to resist gang pressures as is commonly believed. In most instances, adolescents can refuse to join gangs without reprisal (Decker and Kempf-Leonard, 1991; Fleisher, 1995; Huff, 1998; Maxson, Whitlock, and Klein, 1998).

Perpetuating the myth of lifetime membership helps sustain a gang, because the group’s viability depends on the ability of active members to maintain the perception that leaving the gang is nearly impossible (Decker and Lauritsen, 1996:114). The reality is that members (especially marginal members) typically can leave a gang without serious consequences (Decker and Lauritsen, 1996; Decker and Van Winkle, 1996; Fleisher, 1995). In fact, most adolescents do not remain in gangs for long periods of time—particularly in areas with emerging gang problems. Studies in three cities that developed gang problems fairly recently—Denver, CO; Rochester, NY; and Seattle, WA—show that from 54 to 69 percent of adolescents who joined gangs in the three cities stayed in them for 1 year or less and 9 to 21 percent belonged for 3 years or more (Thornberry, 1998).

It appears that the emergence of gangs in new localities² in the 10-year period 1986–96 has contributed to the growth of hybrid gangs. For example, the use of names and symbols of traditional gangs may provide a sense of "legitimacy" to new groups, but the context of the new localities may produce adaptations that lead to divergence from the traditional patterns. Data from the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey show that nearly 9 in 10 (87 percent) of the localities reporting gang problems said that onset occurred during the 1986–96 period (National Youth Gang Center, 1999). An analysis of National Youth Gang Center (NYGC) survey data on early onset (before 1990) versus late onset (during the 1990s) localities (Howell, Egley, and Gleason, forthcoming) found that gangs in the newer gang-problem localities were distinctly different in their demographic characteristics from traditional gangs in jurisdictions where gang problems began much earlier. Gangs in late-onset localities had younger members, slightly more females, more Caucasians, and more of a racial/ethnic mixture. Caucasians were the predominant racial/ethnic group in the latest onset (1995–96) localities. Gangs in localities where gang problems began in the 1990s also tended to have a much larger proportion of middle-class teens.

Gang members in late-onset localities also were far less likely to be involved in violent crimes (homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, and use of firearms) and property crimes than gang members in early-onset localities. For example, about 8 in 10 gang members in localities with the earliest onset of gang problems (before 1986) were said to use firearms in assault crimes "often" or "sometimes," compared with fewer than 3 in 10 gang members in localities with the latest onset (1995–96).

A comparison of drug trafficking patterns in areas with early and late onset of gang problems found that both gang member involvement in drug sales and gang control of drug distribution were much less likely to be significant problems in jurisdictions where gang problems emerged in the past decade (Howell and Gleason, 1999). In the newer gang problem localities, gang control of drug distribution was less likely to be extensive than was gang member involvement in drug sales.

Gang member involvement in drug sales was less extensive in the oldest gang jurisdictions (onset of gang problems before 1980) than in jurisdictions where onset occurred between 1981 and 1990 (Howell and Gleason, 1999). Gang member involvement in drug sales was most extensive in jurisdictions with onset between 1981 and 1985 and then decreased consistently in subsequent onset periods through 1995–96. Thus, gang members in the newest gang problem jurisdictions were much less likely to be involved in drug sales than gang members in jurisdictions where gang problems began during the early to mid-1980s.

The characteristics of modern gangs contrast sharply with the stereotypical image of gangs that emerged in the 1980s and continues to predominate. From the 1920s through the 1970s, gang members were characterized mainly as young (11–22 years old) Hispanic or African American males who lived in lower class ghetto or barrio sections of the inner city (Klein, 1995; Miller, 1992; Spergel, 1995). In that period, gangs usually were viewed as racially and ethnically homogeneous, spontaneously organized, and authoritatively controlled fighting groups (Miller, 1992). Classic "rumbles" historically were the major form of gang fighting, but they gave way in the 1970s to forays by small armed and motorized bands. Most gang violence was motivated by honor or local turf defense and, to a lesser extent, control over facilities and areas and economic gain (Miller, 1992:118). Gang violence was not a major social concern (Klein, 1969).

In the mid- to late 1980s, this predominant gang stereotype was modified significantly by a California study in which researchers contended that the two major Los Angeles gangs, the Crips and Bloods, had become highly organized and entrepreneurial and were expanding their drug markets to other cities (Skolnick et al., 1988). Where these drug operations appeared, presumably, so did violent crime.

The expanded presence of gangs is often blamed on the relocation of members from one city to another, which is called gang migration. Some gangs are very transient and conduct their activities on a national basis. However, the sudden appearance of Rollin’ 60s Crips graffiti in a public park in rural Iowa, for example, does not necessarily mean that the Los Angeles gang has set up a chapter in the community. Gang names are frequently copied, adopted, or passed on. In most instances, there is little or no real connection between local groups with the same name other than the name itself (Valdez, 2000:344).

Gang migration does occur, however. According to the 1999 National Youth Gang Survey, 18 percent of all youth gang members had migrated from another jurisdiction to the one in which they were residing (Egley, 2000). Although gang migration is stereotypically attributed to illegal activities such as drug franchising, expansion of criminal enterprises is not the principal driving force behind migration (Maxson, 1998). The most common reasons for migration are social considerations affecting individual gang members, including family relocation to improve the quality of life or to be near relatives and friends. Moreover, in the 1999 National Youth Gang Survey, the vast majority (83 percent) of law enforcement respondents agreed that the appearance of gang members outside of large cities in the 1990s was caused by the relocation of young people from central cities (Egley, 2000). Thus, the dispersion of the urban population to less populated areas contributed to the proliferation of gangs in suburban areas, small towns, and rural areas.

Law enforcement professionals may not be able to differentiate among local gangs that have adopted names of the same well-known gangs from other locales but have no real connection with each other until they begin to interact with gang members through interviews, debriefings, and other contacts. "Hybrid" versions will begin to display variations of the original gang, such as giving different reasons for opposing rival gangs or displaying certain colors. Investigators who take the time to cross-check their local gang intelligence with that of other agencies concerning gangs with identical names are likely to find some subtle and some glaring differences.

Hybrid and Other Modern Gangs	Juvenile Justice Bulletin • December 2001