|
Program Implications Although gang member involvement in drug sales is spread across all population categories, it accounts for a substantial proportion of the drug sales in less than one-fourth of all jurisdictions reporting youth gang problems in the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey. Youth gang control of drug distribution affects about one-third of gang problem jurisdictions. Drug gangs may be more prevalent in these localities, which would increase the proportion of involved gangs. Active control of drug distribution by youth gangs appears to be more prevalent in heavily populated jurisdictions in which young adults (age 18 and older) are more prevalent among youth gang members (see tables 1 and 2). It appears that a relatively small number of jurisdictions have serious youth gang drug trafficking problems. Klein’s (1995) national survey of law enforcement agencies produced a similar finding. In Klein’s interviews with gang experts in police departments in 261 "notable gang cities," only 14 percent reported a major role of youth gangs in drug distribution, and distinct drug gangs were reported in 16 percent of the cities (1995, p. 36). In most of these cities, the drug gangs did not represent the majority of the gangs. Overall, 72 percent of the cities "reported the gang-crack connection to be moderate, weak, or nonexistent." There is some evidence that the most affected jurisdictions are cities in which gang problems first emerged in the early 1980’s. Cities with newer youth gang problems are much less likely to have youth gangs that control drug trafficking enterprises. Each jurisdiction needs to assess the youth gang problem carefully to determine whether or not drug trafficking is a major cause for concern. A thorough assessment should consider at least the specific characteristics of the gangs, the sex and ages of gang members, the crimes gangs commit and the victims of their crimes, and the localities or areas they affect. No assumptions should be made about youth gang problems in a particular community before an assessment is performed. As a first step, jurisdictions experiencing youth gang problems should attempt to distinguish between bona fide youth gangs and drug gangs. In some localities, the latter appear to account for much of the drug trafficking that law enforcement agencies attribute to youth gangs. This distinction has important implications for interventions, particularly law enforcement investigation and interdiction tactics. Drug gangs, also called "crack" gangs, grew out of the narcotics trade—not out of youth gangs (Klein, 1995; Moore, 1990). Klein and Maxson’s (1996) law enforcement survey in 201 cities found that "specialty drug gangs" constituted only 9 percent of all gangs. Nevertheless, these drug gangs may be responsible for a significant proportion of drug sales and violence in some cities. Although the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey did not ask respondents to report the existence or number of drug gangs, their inclusion in gang definitions makes a significant difference in law enforcement estimates of gang involvement in drug trafficking. Unfortunately, researchers "do not know enough . . . to attempt to differentiate between drug gangs and the broad array of groups that comprise street gangs" (Klein, 1995, p. 130). However, Klein (table 7) suggests several common differences between (youth) street gangs and drug gangs that—as a starting point—can help jurisdictions differentiate between the two and develop appropriate responses for both (see Klein, 1995, p. 132). 
Successfully breaking up youth gang drug operations may require different approaches, depending on the type of gang (Howell and Decker, 1999). Because youth gangs generally are involved only in street-level drug distribution, the proceeds of which typically are used for personal consumption, providing legitimate ways of earning money may be an effective intervention strategy. Suppression approaches (formal and informal social control procedures) may be more effective with drug gangs (see the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s 1997 prototype for police suppression of drug gangs). Several youth gang programs hold promise for reducing drug trafficking. OJJDP’s Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program model (also known as the Spergel model), currently being tested in five demonstration sites (Bloomington, IN; Mesa and Tucson, AZ; Riverside, CA; and San Antonio, TX), appears to be a promising broad approach to combating a wide range of gang crimes, including drug trafficking (for descriptions of these programs, see Burch and Kane, 1999). Preliminary data from this initiative suggest a reduction of drug use and selling among targeted gang youth. An early pilot of the comprehensive model, Chicago’s Gang Violence Reduction Program, which targeted two of the city’s most violent gangs, showed overall effectiveness, including reduction of drug selling among program clients when a combination of sanctions and coordinated services were delivered to them (Spergel and Grossman, 1997). The Tri-Agency Resource Gang Enforcement Team (TARGET) integrates and coordinates the work of the Westminster Police Department, the Orange County, CA, District Attorney, and the Orange County Probation Department in removing gang leadership and the most chronic recidivists from the community (Capizzi, Cook, and Schumacher, 1995; Kent et al., in press). The JUDGE (Jurisdictions United for Drug Gang Enforcement) program in San Diego, CA, is an example of multiagency coordination of investigations, prosecutions, and sanctions of violent members of drug-trafficking gangs (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997). Another multiagency strategy, Boston’s enforcement, intervention, and prevention initiative (Kennedy, 1997; Kennedy et al., 1996), targets the city’s most dangerous gang and drug offenders using a variety of enforcement-oriented strategies. Programs that provide alternatives to gang life for active gang members also hold promise for reducing involvement in drug sales. Many gang members would give up drug selling for reasonable wages (Huff, 1998). Two inner-city gang programs that provide such job opportunities for gang members appear particularly promising in this regard: the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprises (1999) Violence-Free Zone initiatives, and the Los Angeles Homeboy Industries and Jobs for a Future (Gaouette, 1997). Many other programs that provide alternatives to gang involvement can also help reduce gang member drug trafficking, such as the Boys and Girls Clubs’ Targeted Outreach program (see Howell, in press, for detailed information on this and other promising approaches). School-based antigang curriculums, such as Gang Resistance Education and Training, (G.R.E.A.T.) appear promising for preventing gang involvement (Esbensen and Osgood, 1999), but other interventions may be needed to prevent adolescent involvement in drug selling. Preventing early initiation into drug use is a promising avenue, because early onset of drug use is a major risk factor for gang membership (Hill et al., 1999), and drug use is a precursor to drug trafficking (Van Kammen, Maguin, and Loeber, 1994). Selected interventions should be community specific and based on thorough assessments of gang crimes. As Block and Block (1993, p. 9) caution, "A program to reduce gang involvement in drugs in a community in which gang members are most concerned with defense of turf has little chance of success." The most promising comprehensive models for dealing with bona fide youth gangs are built on collaboration among all sectors of the community and the juvenile justice system (Burch and Chemers, 1997; Howell, in press). The criminal activities of youth gangs have important program and policy implications. Data from the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey support earlier studies that show the criminal versatility of youth gangs (Klein, 1995, p. 68; Miller, 1992; Thornberry, 1998). Drug trafficking is only one of many types of crimes committed by youth gangs. Thus, it is not surprising that drug crimes are highly correlated with robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Although gang member involvement in drug sales and gang control of drug distribution were strongly correlated with gang member involvement in all of the other five measured criminal offenses, the survey results did not suggest a particular pattern of criminal activity. The data suggest that gang drug trafficking may take place concurrently with other criminal activities, rather than cause other crimes. Further research on this relationship is needed. In their review of the gangs, drugs, and violence connection, Howell and Decker (1999) concluded that most youth gang violence is not related to drug trafficking. Decker and Van Winkle (1994) concluded that most violent crimes committed by youth gangs are related to intergang and interpersonal conflicts. The analyses reported in this Bulletin support Howell and Decker’s conclusion. Youth gang interventions should be designed to prevent and reduce all types of criminality—not just drug crimes.
| ||||
