March 2004J. Robert Flores, Administrator

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

about youth gang activity in Indian coun-try have been largely absent.

In 2001, NYGC developed and implement-ed the 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs inIndian Country (see “Survey Design andMethod” for a detailed discussion of thesurvey). All federally recognized Indiancommunities were surveyed to measurethe presence, size, and criminal behaviorof youth gangs in Indian country. ThisBulletin presents data regarding the pres-ence and effect of youth gang activity inIndian country and provides an overviewof programmatic responses to the prob-lem. When appropriate, the Bulletin com-pares findings from this survey to thosefrom a national sample and a subset ofjurisdictions that closely resemble Indiancountry communities in size and geo-graphic location. The survey findings arealso compared to relevant contextual datafrom a field study of gangs in the NavajoNation (Armstrong et al., 2002).

Survey Sample andResponseAt the time the survey was developed,there were 577 Indian communities in theUnited States, comprising 561 federallyrecognized tribes (figure 1, page 3). NYGCand the advisory group chose to survey

Recent studies have reported alarminglevels of violence in Indian country.1Researchers have found that AmericanIndians and Alaska Natives experience acrime rate of 656 incidents per 100,000residents, compared with a crime rate of506 incidents per 100,000 residents in thegeneral U.S. population (Hickman, 2003).In addition, Indian country communitiessuffer from a violent crime rate that is twoto three times greater than the nationalaverage (Wakeling et al., 2001). The esca-lation of violence among youth in theseareas is of particular concern to juvenilejustice officials and community members(Greenfeld and Smith, 1999; Wakeling etal., 2001). Anecdotal reports and officialrecords from juvenile justice officials (i.e.,tribal courts and probation and law en-forcement officers) in a number of Indiancountry communities indicate increasedlevels of crime associated with youthgangs. Each year since 1995, the NationalYouth Gang Center (NYGC) has surveyedlaw enforcement agencies throughout thecountry about gang activity. However,tribal police departments are not includedin the survey sample, and detailed data

1 “Indian country” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1151 as in-cluding (1) land within Indian reservations, (2) depend-ent Indian communities, and (3) Indian allotments.

A Message From OJJDPSince 1995, the National Youth GangCenter (NYGC) has surveyed lawenforcement agencies across thenation about youth gang activity.Because tribal police departmentswere not included in earlier surveys,however, youth gang activities in Indi-an country have been largely absentfrom survey findings.

This Bulletin describes the natureand makeup of youth gangs in Indiancountry. The findings presented arethe result of a 2001 NYGC survey—tailored specifically for Indian commu-nities—that asked federally recog-nized Indian communities to describetheir experiences with youth gangactivity. Researchers found that youthgangs in Indian country did not differgreatly from youth gangs in compara-bly sized communities. Indian countryyouth gangs, however, were notice-ably different from youth gangs asdepicted through national statistics.The study also included comparisonswith findings from a previous study ofyouth gang activity in the NavajoNation.

Drawing on these research findings,the Bulletin proposes prevention,intervention, and suppression strate-gies. These proposals are derivedfrom effective programs in non-Indiancountry settings. Although such pro-grams may require modification tobetter serve tribal communities, theyprovide Indian country leaders withproven methods to address emergingyouth gang issues.

Youth Gangs in Indian Country

Aline K. Major, Arlen Egley, Jr., James C. Howell, Barbara Mendenhall, and Troy Armstrong

2

reside within the limits of Indianreservations, pueblos, rancherias,villages, dependent Indian commu-nities, or Indian allotments, andwho together comprise a federallyrecognized tribe or community.Communities also include peoplewho have been recognized by theUnited States government as atribe or tribal community, but whodo not occupy tribal trust, triballyowned, or Indian allotment lands.Communities are the people andland together or tribal communityviewed as a group. Land withoutthe people is not considered acommunity for the purpose of thissurvey.

As used in this Bulletin, the concept ofcommunity in Indian country applies toa broad spectrum of land and people.Tribes and reservations vary greatly bysize, configuration, and the settlementpattern that defines living arrange-ments. Indian communities located ona contiguous single piece of land con-taining just one occupied area or onlya few occupied areas are similar toneighborhoods or small towns wherethe inhabitants and the area of landthey occupy make up the community.This is the most common setting forIndian communities; however, differentcommunity configurations are locatedthroughout Indian country.

Large reservations or more populoustribes located on either a contiguoussingle piece of land or noncontiguouspieces of land may include towns ofvarious sizes and areas of more dis-persed population. Outside of Indiancountry, these towns and rural areasmight be considered separate commu-nities. However, because of the resi-dents’ tribal connection, they are allconsidered members of one communityin this Bulletin. A tribal community(people and land) also may be locatedin the midst of an urban setting. Somereservation trust lands2 are occupiedby more than one tribe. These may

Before designing the 2000 Survey ofYouth Gangs in Indian Country, theNational Youth Gang Center (NYGC)consulted earlier research on gangactivity in Indian country communi-ties. This research was extremely lim-ited and consisted mainly of a smallnumber of descriptive reports thatreference gangs (Nielson, Zion, andHailer, 1998; Coalition for JuvenileJustice, 2000) and regional andnational surveys (Hailer, 1998;Juneau, 1997, 1998).

Findings from two surveys conductedby the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)in 1997 and 1998 included law en-forcement contacts, a brief descrip-tion of the local gang situation, andthe types of criminal activity associat-ed with gang members (Juneau,1997, 1998). The later survey, whichfocused on Indian country communi-ties in the West, Northwest, andDakotas, covered basic definitions,names and locations of specificgangs, gang-related crime, and lawenforcement responses to gang activ-ity (Juneau, 1998).

One of the more comprehensivestudies included findings from datagathered via a survey of tribal andBIA law enforcement agencies serv-ing Indian country communities (Hail-er, 1998). This study provided a base-line assessment of the extent of gangpresence, gang characteristics, andlaw enforcement responses to gangsin Indian country communities. Addi-tionally, a field study of youth gangsin the Navajo Nation provided datafrom interviews with gang membersand agency stakeholders, results ofcommunity focus group meetings, anexamination of relationships and influ-ences from outside the reservation,and an explanation of the relationshipbetween cluster housing and gangformation (Armstrong et al., 2002).

Although previous research helpedshape the survey approach, NYGCdetermined that further consultationwith other knowledgeable sourceswas necessary before the survey’sactual development and implementa-tion. NYGC decided to draw on theknowledge of experts in the field toensure that related social issues werecovered and that the survey language

and data collection effort were sensitiveto cultural differences. NYGC consultedwith advisors from federal agenciesand tribal organizations as it developedthe study methodology and survey in-strument. Advisory group participantsincluded NYGC research staff, re-searchers from the Center for Delin-quency and Crime Policy Studies, repre-sentatives from BIA and the Departmentof Justice, and staff from the Depart-ment of Housing and Urban Develop-ment, the Department of Health andHuman Service’s Indian Health Ser-vices, the National American IndianCourt Judges Association, and theNational Congress of American Indi-ans. The advisory group recommendedthe most appropriate methods for col-lecting data, the unit of measurement,how to construct questions to ensurecultural sensitivity, and whom to targetfor communitywide information.

Data regarding gang activity are fre-quently collected from law enforcementofficials. In this case, because NYGCwanted to ensure that respondents rep-resented the communities surveyed, itdecided a tribal leader would be the ini-tial contact. To increase response rates,NYGC later solicited responses fromlaw enforcement agencies servingthose communities that had notresponded to the initial inquiry.

Survey DefinitionsTo ensure that the survey measuredwhat it was designed to measure,NYGC asked the advisory group todefine critical concepts in the survey.This Bulletin refers to each respondenttribe, reservation, and Alaska Nativevillage as a “community,” whichincludes a wide range of settings—pueblos, rancherias, villages, towns,and rural settlements.1 Specifically, thesurvey defines an Indian “community”as:

Persons of American Indian, Alas-ka Native, or Aleut heritage who

Survey Design and Method

1 In 2001, the Bureau of Indian Affairs providedNYGC with a list of communities then recognized bythe agency. This list represented the 561 recognizedtribes in the form of 577 communities for whichinformation pertaining to tribal enrollment wasindividually maintained. NYGC surveyed thesecommunities.

2 Reservation trust lands refer to areas that havebeen set aside and recognized by the federal gov-ernment as being held in trust for a particularfederally recognized tribe. A variety of federaltreaties, regulations, and acts over the years haveestablished these trust areas and have establishedlaws governing sovereign Indian nations.

3

the entire Indian country population toprovide a broad assessment.

NYGC initially mailed the survey to triballeaders and requested that they completethe survey or forward it to the tribal rep-resentative most capable of completing it.Contacting tribal authorities in some ofthe communities was a difficult task for anumber of reasons. Infrequent or sporadicmail delivery made reaching potentialrespondents in isolated locations difficult.In some areas, tribal authorities wereaway from the community or otherwiseunavailable because the survey was mailedduring the height of the community’s work-ing season. In these cases, subordinateswere often reluctant to speak on behalf ofthe community. These difficulties adverse-ly affected the number of communitiesthat responded to the survey and resultedin a reduced number of responses. NYGCstaff made followup phone calls to triballeaders and appropriate law enforcementofficers in communities that had notresponded.

Overall, 52 percent (n=300) of the commu-nities responded to the survey. In general,communities that responded to the sur-vey represented more populated areas,thus providing data for more of the total

1

2

1

5

7

1

111

2

43

37

4

4

8

5 12

1

1

1112

2220

10524

4 2

25

9

287

225

Figure 1: Number of Federally Recognized Indian Communities in theUnited States, 2000, by State

Source: Tribal enrollment list from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, submitted to NYGC in 2001.

2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian CountryThe final survey instrument wasdeveloped using earlier research andinput from advisory group meetings.The 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs inIndian Country included questionsabout the presence or absence ofgangs and demographic data regard-ing gang members and their involve-ment in criminal activity. Generalquestions about the community,pressing social problems, and lawenforcement services were alsoincluded.

After the survey was finalized, butbefore its dissemination, a letter wassent to several associations andorganizations soliciting support for thesurvey. A letter was also mailed to alltribal leaders explaining the purposeof the survey and requesting a con-tact to whom it could be sent. Theseinitial efforts were beneficial to thesurvey process and helped establishawareness of survey objectives.

have joint or confederated tribaladministrative operations, whereasothers maintain separate administra-tions for the different tribes living onthe same reservation.

Despite commonly identified featuresof a youth gang, codified definitionsvary (Curry and Decker, 2003; Sper-gel and Bobrowski, 1990). Using anapproach similar to the National YouthGang Survey (NYGS), this surveydefines a “youth gang” as “a group ofyouths or young adults in your commu-nity that you or other responsible tribalmembers or service providers are will-ing to identify or classify as a ‘gang.’”Therefore, this survey measures youthgang activity as an identified problemamong interested community agents.To better understand how respon-dents defined youth gangs, a seriesof survey questions asked respon-dents about the characteristics thatguide communities in identifying youthgangs (results are discussed on page

9). As in NYGS, respondents wereasked to exclude motorcycle gangs,hate or ideology groups, prison gangs,or other exclusively adult gangs, whichare beyond the scope of this survey.

United States Census DataNYGC obtained 2000 population figuresfor Indian country communities fromthe United States Census Bureau.3

Population data used for this studyincluded only persons who residedwithin the boundaries of a federallyrecognized Indian community. For com-munities in which this figure could notbe accurately discerned, population fig-ures were not used. Eighty-four percent(n=483) of the total 577 communitieswere matched to the population data.

3 The data sets used were the Census 2000 Redistrict-ing Data Summary File for All American Indian Areasand Alaska Native Areas and the Census 2000 Summa-ry File 1 for American Indian and Alaska NativeAreas.

4

Indian country population than suggestedby the 52-percent response rate. It shouldbe noted that survey findings in this Bul-letin are based on completed surveysonly and cannot necessarily be general-ized to represent Indian communities ona national scale. However, this study pro-vides the most inclusive picture to dateof gangs in Indian country.

To provide a context for understandinggangs in Indian country, two additionalsamples are discussed throughout thisBulletin. First, NYGC’s annual nationalsurvey of law enforcement agenciesmeasures the gang problem throughoutthe United States. This national sampleprovides a means for comparing gangactivity in Indian country and gang activi-ty in the remainder of the nation. Second,to draw a more reasonable comparisonbetween the national sample and theIndian country sample, NYGC selected asubsample of national respondents thatshares a number of characteristics withIndian country communities. Thus, theBulletin includes the following samples:

◆ Indian country sample: The 577 Indiancommunities comprising 561 federallyrecognized tribes.

◆ National sample: More than 3,000 lawenforcement agencies consisting ofpolice departments serving cities withpopulations of 25,000 or more, sub-urban county police and sheriff’s de-partments, randomly selected policedepartments serving cities with popu-lations between 2,500 and 24,999, andrandomly selected rural county policeand sheriff’s departments.

◆ Comparison sample: A subsample ofnational respondents in nonmetropoli-tan areas with populations of less than25,000.

Findings

Law Enforcement ServicesLaw enforcement arrangements in Indiancountry vary from community to commu-nity (Wakeling et al., 2001). To measurethis variation, the survey asked respon-dents (n=300) about the types of lawenforcement services available in theircommunity. Respondents could indicatethe presence of more than one service.Survey responses revealed that tribal lawenforcement services were the most com-mon (43 percent of surveyed communitiesreported having this service), followedby Public Law 280 services2 (35 percent);

“other” services such as city/county lawenforcement, state police, and the Fed-eral Bureau of Investigation (32 percent);Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) law enforce-ment services (26 percent); and contract-ed law enforcement (9 percent).

Law enforcement services in Indian coun-try have been characterized in previousresearch as having limited resources andother problems: for example, officer-to-resident ratios that often do not exceed2 officers per 1,000 residents; complicat-ed jurisdictional policing authority thatdepends on the crime committed, the of-fender, the victim, and the location; andincreasing crime rates without an equiva-lent increase in law enforcement person-nel (Wakeling et al., 2001; Hickman, 2003).Given these difficulties, many depart-ments find combating the social problemsassociated with violence and victimization(including youth gang activity) in theseareas to be an arduous task.

Of special concern is the lack of sufficientcrime data for these communities, whichoften prevents them from addressingcrime problems effectively. Currently,the Tribal Justice Statistics AssistanceCenter, operated by the Justice Researchand Statistics Association and funded bythe Bureau of Justice Statistics, providestraining and technical assistance forIndian country communities that wishto collect and use statistics more produc-tively (Hickman, 2003). However, policingin Indian country remains an area thatrequires attention. A collaborative effortamong tribal communities, researchers,and policymakers is needed to alleviatethe problems faced by tribal communitiesand to provide effective policing in Indiancountry (Wakeling et al., 2001).

Youth Gang ActivityTwenty-three percent (n=69) of Indiancountry respondents3 reported havingactive youth gangs in their communitiesduring 2000. Seventy percent respondedthat there was no gang activity in theircommunities, and 7 percent could notmake a determination.4

NYGC obtained population data for 83 per-cent (n=57) of the communities reportinggang activity. Although only 23 percent ofresponding Indian country communitiesreported active gangs, the residents locat-ed in these communities accounted formore than 60 percent of the total respond-ing population. The average population ofcommunities reporting gang activity wasslightly more than 4,500, compared witha population of slightly fewer than 400among communities reporting no activegangs. This suggests that larger Indiancountry communities are more likely toexperience gang activity than smallercommunities.

By contrast, law enforcement agencies re-sponding to the 2000 NYGC national sur-vey noted a considerably greater degreeof youth gang activity, with 40 percent(n=975) of respondents indicating activeyouth gangs (Egley and Arjunan, 2002).Of the national survey respondents thatwere similar in size to the Indian countryrespondents (i.e., the comparison sam-ple), 20 percent (n=85) reported youthgang activity in their jurisdiction.5 Figure 2compares gang activity across the threesamples.

Gangs and Gang MembersFigures 3 and 4 (pages 5 and 6) showthe number of gangs and gang members,respectively, in Indian country communi-ties. The estimated number of youthgangs per community ranged from 1 to 40,with the majority of respondents (59 per-cent of gang problem areas) identifying 1to 5 gangs. The estimated number of gangmembers per community ranged from 4 to750, with 32 percent of respondents stat-ing there were 25 or fewer gang membersin their community.

To illustrate gang activity among Indiancommunities of different sizes, the follow-ing analyses compared communities witha population of 2,000 or more (referred toas “larger communities”) and communitieswith a population of fewer than 2,000(“smaller communities”).6 Seventeen per-cent of the smaller communities respond-ing to the survey reported experiencing agang problem, compared with 69 percentof larger communities. Figures 5 and 6(pages 6 and 7) show the reported

5 “Jurisdiction” is defined as the service area of theresponding law enforcement agency.

6 The mean population of Indian communities forwhich population data were available was used todetermine the population split for larger and smallercommunities.

2 Public Law 280 is a federal statute that grants a statein which an Indian community is located authorityover criminal and civil matters on that land.

3 For the remainder of this Bulletin, “respondents”refers only to those communities reporting youth gangactivity in 2000.

4 Communities reporting “do not know” are presentedhere because of their appreciable number. Unlessnoted elsewhere in this Bulletin, “do not know”responses are excluded from the analysis.

5

number of gangs and gang members,respectively, by community size. Not onlydid a greater proportion of larger commu-nities report gang activity, these communi-ties were also more likely to report greaternumbers of active gangs and gang mem-bers per community.

Gang Problem OnsetOf the Indian country respondents whoexperienced gang activity in 2000, halfsaid gang problems began after 1994,

suggesting the relatively recent onset ofgang activity. Approximately half of re-spondents from the comparison sampleindicated that the problems began after1994. Figure 7 (page 7) shows the percent-age of respondents from each sample whofirst identified a gang problem in theircommunity during a particular year. Thefigure suggests that gang activity beganlater in the Indian country and compari-son samples than in the national sampleand is not the longstanding problem that

is more frequently reported by nationalsurvey respondents.

The onset of gang activity is associatedwith a variety of factors. Findings from afield study on gangs in the Navajo Nationindicate that the importation and spreadof youth gangs are facilitated by specificstructural factors in the community (Arm-strong et al., 2002). These factors includethe frequency with which families moveoff and onto the reservation; poverty, sub-stance abuse, and family dysfunction; thedevelopment of cluster housing insteadof traditional single-family housing; anda waning connection to Native Americanculture and traditional kinship ties amongcousins. These findings reflect a processof “multiple marginalization,” wherebydepressed “social and economic condi-tions result in powerlessness” amongcommunity members (Vigil, 2002:7). Thesechanges in structural forces weaken fami-lies, schools, and other institutions tradi-tionally associated with social control,thus allowing youth to be socialized onthe street by gangs. For example, respon-dents in the Navajo gang study citedfriendship and the sense of belonging tosomething as significant benefits derivedfrom being in a gang (Armstrong et al.,2002). Related research indicates that gangactivity in Indian country communities is arelatively recent phenomenon and is asso-ciated with the social and structural con-ditions of larger communities (Conway,1998; Hailer, 1998). NYGC survey findingscorroborate many of these findings.

Gang Member DemographicsCommunities that reported gang activityin 2000 were asked to estimate demo-graphic characteristics of gang members,including age, gender, and race or ethnici-ty.7 Respondents said that 80 percent ofgang members in Indian country weremale and 20 percent were female. Not

Figure 2: Percentage of Respondents Reporting Youth Gang Activityin 2000, by Sample

0

10

20

30

40

50

Indian country sample (n=69)

Comparison sample (n=85)

National sample (n=975)

Per

cent

age

of R

espo

nden

ts

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country; 2000 National Youth Gang Survey.

Figure 3: Number of Gangs Reported by Indian CountryCommunities, 2000 (n=69)

Per

cent

age

of R

espo

nden

ts

1–5 6–10 More than 10 Do not know

Number of Gangs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country.

7 Survey questions regarding demographic data aboutgang members required respondents to estimate thepercentage of gang members who met certain criteria.Ideally, the percentages would be weighted by thetotal number of gang members reported in a communi-ty to reflect differences in membership across thereporting communities. Given the available data, theresults in this Bulletin are based on unweighted databecause of the significant reduction in eligible casesfor weighting procedures. Caution must be exercisedwhen interpreting the results, and any comparisonswith studies where results are based on weighted datamust be done with these concerns in mind. However,comparing results derived from unweighted data withthose derived from weighted data in this surveydemonstrates only slight variation, providing con-fidence in the findings reported here.

6

As seen in figures 8 and 9 (page 8), thefindings related to gender and age makeupfor the Indian country sample are consis-tent with those for the comparison sam-ple.8 Twenty percent of the gang membersin the comparison sample were female,compared with 6 percent in the nationalsample (Egley, 2002). Respondents for thecomparison sample reported a greaterpercentage of juvenile gang members(70 percent), compared with 37 percentreported nationally in 2000 (Egley, 2002).

These data suggest that youth gangs inIndian country and the comparison sam-ple are similar in age and gender composi-tion. Additionally, these findings are con-sistent with previous research that hasfound that areas experiencing a recentonset of gang activity frequently havelarger proportions of juvenile and femalegang members than areas with longstand-ing gang problems (Howell, Egley, andGleason, 2002). Respondents also estimat-ed that 82 percent of the identified gangsin Indian country included both male andfemale members, 10 percent were femaledominated (more than 50 percent of thegang’s members were female), and 35percent were racially or ethnically mixed.Gangs with such a demographic mixtureare sometimes referred to as “hybrid”gangs and are increasingly visible acrossthe country (Starbuck, Howell, andLindquist, 2001).

Gangs in SchoolsThe survey asked respondents about gangactivity in community schools. Eighty-sixpercent of the Indian country communi-ties with gang problems indicated gangactivity in one or more community highschools. Additionally, 74 percent saidgangs were active in one or more commu-nity middle schools, and 42 percent indi-cated youth gang activity in one or morecommunity elementary schools. Howelland Lynch (2000) report that youth gangsare linked with serious crime problems inschools across the country. Those schoolsin which gang activity was reported werealso more likely to have higher levels ofviolent victimization, availability of drugs,and students who carry guns than schoolsreported not to have gang activity. Gangmember interviews from the study ofgangs in the Navajo Nation indicated thathalf of gang members were currently

8 To reflect differences in membership across thereporting jurisdictions, data from the national andcomparison samples are weighted by the total numberof gang members reported in a community.

*Smaller communities have a population of less than 2000; larger communities 2000 or more.Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 0

1–5 6–10 More than 10 Do not know

Per

cent

age

of R

espo

nden

ts

Number of Gangs

Smaller communities (n=23) Larger communities (n=34)

Figure 4: Number of Gang Members Reported by Indian CountryCommunities, 2000 (n=69)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Per

cent

age

of R

espo

nden

ts

25 or fewer 26–50 More than 50 Do not know

Number of Gang Members

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country.

Figure 5: Number of Gangs Reported by Indian Country Communities,2000, by Community Size*

surprisingly, survey respondents alsobelieved the majority (78 percent) to beAmerican Indian, Alaska Native, or Aleut.In fact, approximately one-half of respond-ing communities indicated almost all gangmembers (more than 90 percent) wereof this race. Twelve percent of gang mem-bers were reported to be Hispanic/Latino,followed by Caucasian/white (7 percent),

African American/black (2 percent), andAsian (2 percent). Respondents indicatedthat approximately one-quarter of gangmembers in their community were youngerthan 15 years old and that almost half werebetween 15 and 17 years old, suggestingthat nearly 75 percent of all reported gangmembers in Indian country were juveniles(younger than 18 years old).

7

enrolled in school (Armstrong et al.,2002). Given the risk of criminal activityassociated with gangs in schools, thesefindings highlight the importance ofschool-based gang prevention and inter-vention programs.

Gang MigrationThe survey defined “gang migrants” asyouth gang members who “already havejoined gangs in their former jurisdictionprior to their arrival in a new jurisdiction.”Survey respondents were asked to esti-mate the percentage of gang memberswho were migrants. Approximately 17percent of all gang members were identi-fied as such, and the majority of respond-ents (77 percent) perceived migration tobe tied to social circumstances such asgang members moving back into the com-munity with their families. These resultsare consistent with reports by law enforce-ment agencies outside of Indian country(Egley, 2000; Maxson, 1998). Comparative-ly few respondents said gang membersmigrated to their community for criminal-ly motivated reasons such as establishingdrug markets, avoiding law enforcement,or establishing an alliance with NativeAmerican gangs.

Criminal InvolvementSurvey respondents provided informationabout where Indian country gang mem-bers committed their crimes. The majorityof respondents (56 percent) reported thatyouth gangs committed their crimes bothwithin and outside the community, where-as 36 percent reported that crimes werecommitted only inside Indian country.

The survey asked respondents about theproportion of gang members involved ina variety of criminal offenses. Accordingto respondents, gang members were mostfrequently involved in graffiti (47 percentof communities with a gang problemreported a high degree of involvement inthis offense), vandalism (40 percent), drugsales (22 percent), and aggravated assault(15 percent) (figure 10). These findingssupport earlier research that suggeststhat gang involvement in criminal activ-ity in Indian country consists mainly ofproperty crime (Armstrong et al., 2002).

Indian country gang members who com-mit assaults tend not to use firearms inthese crimes. Twice as many communitiesreported that gang members use weaponsother than firearms in conjunction withassault crimes.

Figure 6: Number of Gang Members Reported by Indian CountryCommunities, 2000, by Community Size*

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

25 or fewer 26–50 More than 50 Do not know

Number of Gang Members

Smaller communities (n=23) Larger communities (n=34)

Per

cent

age

of R

espo

nden

ts

Figure 7: Year of Onset of Gang Problems, by Survey Sample

X X X0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cum

ulat

ive

Per

cent

age

of J

uris

dict

ions

1980 and before

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Year of Onset

Comparison sample Indian country sample National sample

X

X

XX

XX

XX

X

*Smaller communities have a population of less than 2000; larger communities 2000 or more.Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country.

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country; 2000 National Survey of Youth Gangs.

8

motivated (Armstrong et al., 2002). Alco-hol use, graffiti, and vandalism were theprimary crimes Navajo gang members en-gaged in as a gang, which is consistentwith the current survey findings. In fact,83 percent of respondents in the Indiancountry survey said that only very littleor some of the youth crime in their com-munities involves gang members.

Influences on CommunityGang ActivityFifty-one percent of Indian country re-spondents reported that gang membersreturning to the community from prison in2000 had a negative impact on local youthgang problems. Thirty-one percent report-ed very little impact, and 18 percent re-ported no impact. These findings are com-parable to those outside Indian country,suggesting that a majority of communities,regardless of size or location, are negative-ly affected by gang members returningfrom prison (Egley and Arjunan, 2002).

To explore other possible sources of ganginfluence, the survey asked respondentshow much their community’s gang prob-lem was affected by gang activity in out-side areas. Fifty-three percent of respond-ing communities said gang activity in largecities influenced the nature of gang activi-ty in their community. Other sources ofinfluence included border towns (24 per-cent), outside schools (22 percent), andprisons and jails (15 percent).

NYGC further explored the associationbetween gang activity in Indian countrycommunities and the proximity of thecommunities to large cities.9 Of respon-dents reporting an urban influence, 70percent were located within 120 miles ofa large city with gang activity, suggestingthat such Indian country communities aremore susceptible to the effects of large-city gang activity. However, as with earlierresearch (Hailer, 1998), these data alsoindicate that distance and isolation from

The majority of respondents from com-munities in all samples reported no gang-related homicides during 2000, and fewIndian country and comparison samplerespondents indicated more than onegang-related homicide (figure 11). Bycontrast, nearly one-quarter of respond-ents from the national sample reportedmore than one gang-related homicide.

It is important to note that although thereported level of violent criminal behaviorby gang members in Indian country is rel-atively low, the level of criminal activityincreases with the size of the community.Figure 12 (page 10) shows that in the larg-er communities, respondents reportedmore gang member involvement in both

9 The survey did not specify the influence of a largenearby city. Therefore, respondents might have inter-preted the question as general influence of large urbanareas, not specifically those located near their commu-nity. For example, one respondent from a communitylocated almost 400 miles from the nearest city report-ed the community’s gang problem was heavily influ-enced by gang activity in large cities. A closer look atIndian country communities that reported little or noinfluence from city gang activity, despite close proxim-ity to cities, might provide useful information aboutthe factors that enable those communities to preventgang activity from influencing local youth and thecommunity.

Figure 8: Gender of Gang Members, 2000, by Sample

0102030405060708090

100

Per

cent

age

of M

embe

rs

Comparison sample (n=65)

Indian country sample (n=59)

National sample (n=798)

Male Female

Figure 9: Age of Gang Members, 2000, by Sample

Comparison sample (n=47)

Indian country sample (n=55)

National sample (n=803)

Juvenile (younger than 18) Adult (18 and older)

Per

cent

age

of M

embe

rs

0102030405060708090

100

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country; 2000 National Youth Gang Survey.

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country; 2000 National Youth Gang Survey.

property and violent crimes. Additionally,26 percent of larger communities reportedone or more gang-related homicides in2000, compared with only 6 percent ofsmaller communities.

Interviews with youth in the Navajo studyshowed that most gang crime incidents inIndian country are nonviolent (Armstronget al., 2002). Navajo youth who identifiedwith gang culture focused primarily onvalues of antioppression, cohesion with-in the gang family, and participation inleisure activities—not criminal enterpris-es. Members of Navajo reservation gangsindicated that most criminal activity,whether drug sales or violence, was indi-vidually motivated rather than gang

9

large cities do not insulate Indian countrycommunities from the influence of largecities’ gang activity.

Factors contributing to the persistenceof gang activity in Indian country commu-nities most often included the spread ofthe gang culture from nearby cities andtowns (37 percent of respondents). Other

contributing factors reported by respond-ents include parental apathy, erosion ofthe family structure, lack of values andlow self-esteem among youth, social prob-lems other than poverty (mainly drug andalcohol abuse but also unemployment,child abuse, and domestic violence), anda lack of positive activities for youth.

Survey respondents also identified factorsthat prevent youth in their communityfrom joining gangs. Respondents citedpositive activities for youth, communityand school programs that address vio-lence and gang activity, and traditionalIndian culture and beliefs. Youth gangactivity in the Navajo Nation was foundto be influenced by similar factors. Re-searchers found that some gang-involvedNavajo youth returned from urban set-tings and influenced peers in the commu-nity. Often these youth resided in subsi-dized public housing communities wherenumerous other youth and their familiesshared the same family and communityfactors of multiple marginality (see dis-cussion of these factors on page 5). In thisway, some youth who have never lived offthe reservation in communities with gangsare exposed indirectly to the gang culture.This pattern of youth becoming involvedin gangs is consistent with research thatsuggests that the diffusion of popularmedia and culture contributes to theproliferation of gang activity (Klein, 1995).The relocation of gang members as theymoved with their families out of the cities(Maxson, 1998), movies glorifying youthgangs (such as Colors), and the popularityof “gangsta” rap music appear to haveworked together to introduce large-citygang culture to youth in the suburbs andareas far away from central cities.

Defining Youth GangsThe characteristics that guide local defini-tions of “youth gang” often vary among lawenforcement agencies (NYGC, 2000). Toexamine this issue in Indian country,respondents were asked to rank six char-acteristics according to their importance indefining a youth gang in their community.As shown in the table (page 10), the aver-age rank for each characteristic is approx-imately 3 to 4, whereas a ranking of 1 or 2would indicate greater importance.

No one characteristic emerges as domi-nant over the others—considerable vari-ation exists among communities as tothe most important criteria for defininga youth gang. However, the average rankof “commits crime together” is significant-ly lower among Indian country respond-ents than among comparison samplerespondents. This suggests that groupcriminal activity is a less defining featureof youth gangs in Indian country. Thisresult may be related to the developingnature of youth gangs and youthful experi-mentation with gang identity in Indiancountry.

Figure 10: Criminal Activities of Gang Members in Indian Country,2000 (n>65)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Per

cent

age

of R

espo

nden

ts*

Aggravatedassault

Burglary Drug sales

Graffiti Larceny/theft

Motor vehicle

theft

Robbery Vandalism

*Data reflect crimes in which respondents said “most/all” gang members were involved.Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country.

Figure 11: Number of Gang-Related Homicides in 2000, by Sample

Zero One More than one

Number of Homicides

Per

cent

age

of R

espo

nden

ts

Comparison sample (n=65)

Indian country sample (n=59)

National sample (n=646)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country; 2000 National Youth Gang Survey.

10

Social Problems in theCommunityMuch of the literature about Indian coun-try communities, along with input fromadvisory group members and practition-ers in the field, suggests that social condi-tions in these areas are often associatedwith violence and victimization (Arm-strong et al., 2002; Conway, 1998; Hailer,1998). Thus, survey respondents wereasked to rate the seriousness of varioussocial problems in the community. Figure

13 reveals that 96 percent of respondentsreported alcohol abuse as a significantproblem, followed by drug abuse (88 per-cent) and domestic violence (80 percent).Of the eight social problems respondentswere asked to rate, youth gangs rankedsecond to last as a serious problem (by52 percent of communities) and violentjuvenile crime ranked last (42 percent).

Although gang activity does not generallyappear to be a serious problem relative toother social conditions in Indian country

communities, 65 percent of larger commu-nities said the gang problem was seriousor very serious, compared with 35 percentof smaller communities. Other problems,including substance abuse and domesticviolence, were recognized as significantproblems across communities, regardlessof size.

Perceptions of the YouthGang ProblemForty-nine percent of responding commu-nities said that the magnitude of theiryouth gang problem was about the samein 2000 as it was in 1999. Thirty-four per-cent said it had worsened and 17 percentsaid it had improved.

Implications forProgram and PolicyResponsesFindings from NYGC’s Survey of YouthGangs in Indian Country add to the cur-rent understanding of gang activity inthese areas and have important implica-tions for policy and practice regardingtribal youth. In general, the intensity ofthe gang problem and the severity ofgang members’ criminal involvement arerelatively low. The majority of the sur-vey respondents appear to experiencegang problems similar to those in lesspopulated communities throughout thenation. Based on this finding, it is possibleto recommend prevention, intervention,and suppression programs for Indian com-munities by considering programs thathave successfully targeted delinquentactivity and gang involvement in thegeneral population.

For example, because the majority of Indi-an country communities say their gangsare in the early stages of development—and because delinquent behavior is astrong predictor of gang membership—programs that prevent delinquency arelikely to reduce gang involvement (Howell,Egley, and Gleason, 2002). Delinquencyprevention programs that help youthdevelop social skills, provide opportuni-ties to use them, and recognize youth forsuccessfully implementing them may helpprevent delinquency involvement (Cata-lano and Hawkins, 1996). However, it isimportant to remember that althoughthese programs have shown promise,most have not been tested with an Indianpopulation. Therefore, these programsmay need to be adapted to better address

Characteristics Used in Defining a Youth Gang

Average Rank (1=Highest, 6=Lowest)Indian Country Sample Comparison Sample

Gang Characteristic (n=56) (n=45)

Claims a turf or territory 3.9 4.3

Commits crime together 3.6 2.4

Has a leader or severalleaders 3.5 3.4

Has a name 3.4 3.5

Displays or wears commoncolors or other insignia 3.3 4.0

Hangs out together 3.2 3.4

Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country; 2000 National Youth Gang Survey.

Figure 12: Criminal Activities of Gang Members in Indian Country,2000, by Community Size*

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0 0

Smaller communities (n>20) Larger communities (n>31)

Per

cent

age

of R

espo

nden

ts**

Aggravatedassault

Burglary Drugsales

Graffiti Larceny/ theft

Motor vehicle

theft

Robbery Vandalism

*Smaller communities have a population of less than 2000; larger communities 2000 or more.**Data reflect crimes in which respondents said “most/all” gang members were involved.Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country.

11

issues faced by Indian populations and toevaluate their effectiveness in this setting.

A ComprehensiveApproachSurvey findings suggest that the mostcritical concerns in Indian country com-munities are the social problems that con-tribute to youth gang involvement, notgangs themselves. Respondents identifieda variety of factors that promote delin-quent behavior and gang activity, includ-ing parental apathy, erosion of familystructure, low self-esteem, social prob-lems in the community, and lack of posi-tive activities for youth. Therefore, pro-grams incorporating a range of strategiesto prevent, control, and reduce youthcrime in Indian country could effectivelycombat gangs. Although the likely focus ofmost Indian country communities will beprevention programs, community mem-bers should consider all three levels (i.e.,prevention, intervention, and suppres-sion), especially in larger communitieswhere gang problems were reported tobe more serious.

Further, community-specific strategiesfor combating youth gangs are most ben-eficial when based on a detailed assess-ment of the local gang problem. NYGC hasdeveloped both an assessment protocoland a comprehensive model for prevent-ing and combating gang membership andactivity that consists of a continuum ofprevention, intervention, and suppression

strategies (NYGC, 2002a, 2002b). It is par-ticularly important that all communityagencies collaborate in combining re-sources to develop the most comprehen-sive and effective approach to combatinglocal gang problems (Howell, Egley, andGleason, 2002; Starbuck, Howell, andLindquist, 2001).

PreventionDescribed below are prevention programsthat target the general population andseek to prevent delinquency and violence,which can be stepping stones to gangmembership. Most of these school-basedprograms include a parental training andinvolvement component and focus onpreventing general violence and buildingprosocial skills. It is important to notethat these programs have not been evalu-ated specifically for their effects on poten-tial gang involvement (Catalano et al.,1998) and, with the exception of two sub-stance abuse programs, none of theseprograms has been evaluated specificallyfor effectiveness with Indian country youth.

General delinquency. A wide variety ofclassroom violence prevention curricu-lums are being implemented in schoolsacross the country, and many of thesehave proven effective (Gottfredson, 2001).Selected programs are briefly describedhere (many others are reviewed in Howell,2003). Programs selected for inclusionhere have reasonable implementationpotential in Indian country, particularlyin the more populated areas.

Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways(RIPPW) is an effective violence preven-tion curriculum for middle school stu-dents (Farrell and Meyer, 1997, 1998). Theprogram builds knowledge, changes atti-tudes, and enhances youth skills for act-ing against violence. It also teaches chil-dren about the nature of violence and itsconsequences. The curriculum, whichconsists of 18 sessions over the course of1 semester, teaches sixth grade studentsstrategies for negotiating interpersonalconflicts nonviolently. Adult role modelstrained in the curriculum administer theweekly sessions. Peer mediation, team-building activities, small group work, androle-playing activities are used regularly.RIPPW appears to affect males andfemales differently, with boys—but notgirls—exhibiting lower levels of violentbehavior (e.g., fighting, threatening to hurtsomeone, or carrying weapons), sup-pressed anger, assault against teachers,and school suspensions. Girls showedimprovements in problem solving.

Law-Related Education (LRE) (www.streetlaw.org) consists of K–12 classroominstruction designed to educate youthabout the origin and role of law in keysocial systems, such as the family, com-munity, school, and juvenile and criminaljustice systems. LRE programs draw prac-tical connections among the everydaylives of young people and the law, humanrights, and democratic values. LRE pro-grams have been effective in improvingacademic performance and preventinggeneral delinquency (Maguin and Loeber,1996). In addition, some evidence showsthat LRE prevents aggressive behavior(Gottfredson, 1990; Johnson and Hunter,1985).

Promoting a safe school environment andmaking all students feel safe may reducethe risk of gang involvement, but tradi-tional school security measures such assecurity guards, metal detectors, and lock-er checks do not appear to be a solution,in and of themselves, to gang problems(Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 2001; Howelland Lynch, 2000). Additional interventionsare needed. The Safe Schools Unit of theSan Diego County (CA) Office of Educa-tion has developed a promising practicalapproach for increasing school safetyand intervening in student conflicts,particularly gang-related situations(Sakamoto, 1996). The Safe Schools Unithas a Violence Prevention/Intervention(VPI) team that helps schools developcomprehensive safety plans. In addition

Figure 13: Perceived Seriousness of Social Problems in IndianCountry Communities in 2000 (n=69)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Per

cent

age

of R

espo

nden

ts*

Alcohol abuse

Drugabuse

Domestic violence

Nonviolentjuvenile

delinquency

Child abuse

Violentadultcrime

Youthgangs

Violentjuvenilecrime

*Data reflect percentage of respondents who rated a social problem “serious” or “very serious.”Source: 2000 Survey of Youth Gangs in Indian Country.

12

to outlining school safety policies, proce-dures, and crisis response protocols, theseplans include training teachers, students,and parents to address gangs and vio-lence. The VPI team also operates a RapidResponse Unit that assists schools duringcrisis situations. This comprehensiveapproach, along with other preventionefforts and a history of multiagency part-nerships, has improved the safety of SanDiego schools.

A national assessment of school-basedgang prevention and intervention pro-grams (Gottfredson and Gottfredson,2001) concluded that many of them ad-dress gang involvement but that most ofthem are not well implemented. Never-theless, consideration should be given toeffective classroom violence preventioncurriculums (Gottfredson, 2001) that caneasily be added to traditional instructionin schools in Indian country.

Gang involvement. Survey respondentssaid community and school programs thataddressed violence and gang activity wereeffective ways to prevent community youthfrom becoming involved in gang activity. Assuch, the Gang Resistance Education andTraining (G.R.E.A.T.) program10 may be anappropriate way to effectively reduce ganginvolvement in Indian country. Uniformedlaw enforcement officers teach the 13-weekcourse mainly to middle school students(Esbensen and Osgood, 1997; Esbensenet al., 2001). In addition to educating stu-dents about the dangers of gang involve-ment, lessons emphasize cognitive-behavioral training, social skills develop-ment, refusal skills training, and conflictresolution. Modified curriculums havebeen developed for fifth and sixth gradersand third and fourth graders. Multisiteevaluations of G.R.E.A.T. show the programhas small but positive effects on studentattitudes and ability to resist peer pres-sure to join gangs (Palumbo and Ferguson,1995; Esbensen et al., 2001). For example,students who received G.R.E.A.T. traininghad less self-reported delinquency, fewergang affiliations, and greater commitmentto school and prosocial peers than stu-dents who did not participate in the pro-gram (Esbensen et al., 2001). To date,G.R.E.A.T. has been implemented in sevenIndian country communities, with theassistance of the National Native AmericanLaw Enforcement Association and the Boys& Girls Clubs of America. Additionally, two

G.R.E.A.T. officer training sessions forBureau of Indian Affairs/Tribal Officershave graduated more than 50 officers, andplans exist for additional sessions inupcoming years.

Substance abuse. Perhaps the most com-pelling Indian country survey finding wasthe magnitude of social problems report-ed, specifically the number of communi-ties citing alcohol abuse and drug abuseas a significant problem (96 percent and88 percent, respectively). Because of thehigh incidence of alcohol and drug abuse,this area of prevention is particularlypertinent to the Indian population. TheNational Institute on Drug Abuse (1997)has identified a number of effective pro-grams for preventing drug use and antiso-cial behavior among children and adoles-cents. Two of these programs have beenimplemented with Indian populations andshow good potential for success in thosecommunities.

The Strengthening Families Program is a 7-week curriculum designed to bring par-ents together with their 10- to 14-year-oldchildren, with the goal of reducing sub-stance abuse and other problem behav-iors in youth. The program began as aneffort to help substance-abusing parentsimprove their parenting skills and thusreduce their children’s risk factors (Kump-fer and Alvarado, 1998). It contains threeelements: a children’s skills program, aparent training program, and a family skillstraining program.

This intervention approach has been eval-uated in a variety of settings and with sev-eral racial and ethnic groups (Molgaard,Spoth, and Redmond, 2000), includingIndian youth and families (Kumpfer, Mol-gaard, and Spoth, 1996; Molgaard andSpoth, 2001). Youth who completed theprogram had significantly lower rates ofalcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use thanyouth in the control group. Other positiveoutcomes included reductions in familyconflict, improvement in family communi-cation and organization, and reductionsin delinquency. The Iowa StrengtheningFamilies Program, a revision of the initialprogram model, has been adapted forIndian populations by the Iowa UniversityExtension to Families (www.extension.iastate.edu/sfp).

Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY)is an effective program that decreasesproblem behaviors among teens by im-proving parenting practices to reduce riskfactors and increase protective factors

(Haggerty et al., 1999). The program’s goalis to empower parents of children ages 8to 14 to reduce the likelihood that theirchildren will abuse drugs and alcohol ordevelop other common adolescent prob-lems. The flexible PDFY curriculum hasbeen used with a broad range of familiesof various socioeconomic and culturalbackgrounds and is designed to reachadult learners regardless of learning styleor level of education. To date, it has beenimplemented in conjunction with the IowaStrengthening Families Program and usedsuccessfully with American Indian families(Harachi, Catalano, and Hawkins, 1997).

The Midwestern Prevention Project isanother successful program for prevent-ing the use of gateway substances (alco-hol, cigarettes, and marijuana) among low-and high-risk seventh and eighth graders(Johnson et al., 1990). The program isunique because it addresses all five ofthe risk factor domains:

◆ All students are offered individual skillstraining.

◆ Parents are provided training andopportunities for direct involvementwith their children and their children’sschools.

◆ Peers are involved in positivemodeling.

◆ The school is the central componentfor drug prevention programming,which includes a variety of sociallearning techniques, and policies aremodified to discourage drug use.

◆ Community policies and social normsabout drug use are modified andclarified to set and reinforce clearbehavioral standards.

InterventionIntervention programs focus on youth iden-tified as being at risk of becoming delin-quent or involved in a gang. These pro-grams also address general delinquency.

General delinquency. The National CourtAppointed Special Advocate Association(CASA) implemented the Tribal CourtCASA project in 1994 to support programsin which volunteers act as advocates forabused or neglected American Indianand Alaska Native children (Frey, 2002).National CASA oversees two grants thatassist tribal court programs: the NationalGrants Program and CASA Program De-velopment for Native American TribalCourts. The National Grants Program, ad-ministered in partnership with the Office

10 For more information about the G.R.E.A.T. program inIndian country, visit www.naclubs.org/main/great.shtml.

13

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-vention, provides funding to help Indiancommunities develop and operate CASAprograms. CASA Program Development forNative American Tribal Courts providesfunds specifically to tribal communitiesthat wish to implement a CASA program.Because problems vary from communityto community, the Tribal Court CASA proj-ect tailors programs to individual commu-nities’ needs. To date, no evaluation of pro-gram effectiveness has been performed.

The Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA)has implemented a number of programsthat address important youth issuesand that have shown particular promisewith at-risk populations (www.bgca.org/programs). The success of its programshas prompted BGCA to open clubs in Indi-an country communities. Since the firstclub opened in Pine Ridge, SD, in 1992, thenumber of Boys & Girls Clubs in Indiancountry has expanded to 123 locationsin 23 states, and the clubs serve nearly80,000 American Indian youth. The Indiancountry Boys & Girls Clubs feature tai-lored programs that improve both theoutcomes for youth participating in BGCAand the individual Indian community cul-tures. BGCA programs in Indian countryinclude SMART Moves (Skills Mastery andResistance Training, including drug andalcohol prevention and sexual abstinence)and Power Hour (afterschool tutoring)(Fogerty, 2002).

Gang involvement. Targeted Outreach,also operated by BGCA in Indian country,is a communitywide gang prevention pro-gram that intervenes with youth at risk forgang involvement, those in the “wannabe”stage, and current gang members. Target-ed Outreach incorporates four objectives:community mobilization, recruitment,mainstreaming and programming, andcase management. Local implementationof this program begins with mobilizingcommunity leaders and club staff, whodiscuss local gang issues, clarify theirroles, and design a strategy for offeringyouth alternatives to the gang lifestyle.Police departments, schools, social servic-es agencies, and community organizationsrecruit at-risk youth into club programs ina nonstigmatizing way through direct out-reach efforts and a referral network thatlinks local clubs with courts. Once inBGCA, youth participate in programsbased on their individual interests andneeds.

The Targeted Outreach initiative has twocomponents: Gang Prevention Through

Targeted Outreach (GPTTO) and GangIntervention Through Targeted Outreach(GITTO). The components are imple-mented separately, depending on theseverity of gang problems near club loca-tions in a particular city. The respectivecomponents try either to prevent high-riskyouth from joining gangs (GPTTO) or toprovide alternatives to the gang lifestyleby mainstreaming youth into club pro-gramming (GITTO).

In the prevention model (GPTTO), youthare recruited to participate in all aspectsof Boys & Girls Club programming. Theprogram has produced generally posi-tive outcomes in behavior related toboth school and delinquency measures,although the differences between thecomparison group and those participatingin the program were stronger for school-related behaviors than for delinquencyand gang-related behaviors. Evaluationsof youth behavior after participating inGPTTO for 1 year suggested that morefrequent attendance was associated witha reduced likelihood of youth wearinggang colors, having contact with the ju-venile justice system, and exhibiting de-linquent behaviors. Frequent attendancewas also associated with improved schooloutcomes and higher levels of positivepeer and family relationships (Arbretonand McClanahan, 2002).

In the intervention model (GITTO), youthare recruited to participate in a projectstaffed by the Boys & Girls Club but runseparately from daily club activities(either after typical club hours or on aone-on-one basis). Programs are offeredin five core areas: character and leader-ship development, education and careerdevelopment, health and life skills, thearts, and sports, fitness, and recreation.Like GPTTO, GITTO has produced modestpositive outcomes for youth participatingin the program. More frequent attendanceat GITTO was associated with less involve-ment in gang-associated behaviors, lesscontact with the juvenile justice system,and more positive school engagement(Arbreton and McClanahan, 2002).

SuppressionSuppression techniques are aimed at indi-viduals who are already gang members orparticipating in criminal activity (Howell,2000) and involve the police, courts, andcorrections. Law enforcement officershave combatted gangs with specializedgang units, prosecution, specialized pro-bation programs, and ordinances such as

curfew laws, antiloitering laws, and civilinjunctions (Curry and Decker, 2003;Esbensen, 2000; Howell, 2000).

Juvenile courts can make a significantcontribution to reducing gang involve-ment. An effective juvenile probation pro-gram in Peoria County, IL, targets juvenileoffenders who have been placed on pro-bation for gang-related behavior or sub-stance abuse (Adams, 2002). The programconsists of several elements essential tointensive supervision probation, includingsmall caseloads, frequent contacts withprobationers, distinct and graduatedphases to structure movement throughthe program, substance abuse assess-ments, rehabilitation programs, and behav-ioral controls. Evaluation of the programhas demonstrated positive effects; nearly60 percent of program participants werenot charged with a new criminal offense,and approximately 65 percent did notreceive any technical violations while inthe program.

Implementing a Continuumof ProgramsA number of grant programs have beenimplemented to help Indian country com-munities develop prevention, intervention,and suppression programs that addressjuvenile delinquency, violence, and victim-ization. OJJDP’s Tribal Youth Program(TYP), dedicated to preventing and con-trolling delinquency and improving thejuvenile justice system in American Indiancommunities (Andrews, 1999), is one suchprogram. Through grant funds, training,and technical assistance, TYP works tomeet the unique needs of individual com-munities by—

◆ Reducing, controlling, and preventingcrime by and against tribal youth.

◆ Providing interventions for court-involved youth.

◆ Improving tribal juvenile justicesystems.

◆ Providing alcohol and drug-useprevention programs.

To date, 161 tribal communities havereceived TYP funding. The Michigan Pub-lic Health Institute, in partnership withthe Native American Institute at MichiganState University, is currently helping fivetribes evaluate programs they developedwith TYP funds (Fung and Wyrick, 2001).Because communities have used theseresources in varying ways, not all pro-grams have been evaluated.

14

The Native American Alliance Foundation(NAAF) was awarded a cooperative agree-ment to provide American Indian andAlaska Native tribes with training andtechnical assistance to develop or en-hance their juvenile justice systems. Aprimary responsibility of this program isto offer effective, culturally appropriatetraining and technical assistance thataddresses the problems faced by Indianyouth and their families. Through suchtraining, NAAF helps communities in Indi-an country develop a more comprehen-sive approach to addressing juveniledelinquency, violence, and victimization.

SummaryIn the past few years, a growing concernabout crime, delinquency, and gang activi-ty in Indian country has emerged. Previ-ous research shows that much of the gangactivity seems to be an expression ofyouthful experimentation with gang identi-ty and that a strained social environment,the appeal of popular culture surroundinggang activity, and a lack of positive activ-ities for youth contribute to the Amer-ican Indian youth gang phenomenon(Armstrong et al., 2002).

Few research studies have focused specif-ically on the level of youth gang activityin these communities. This study hasprovided a detailed national assessmentof gang activity in Indian country commu-nities that can guide effective responseto the problem. Findings in this Bulletinreveal that 23 percent of responding Indi-an country communities experienced ayouth gang problem in 2000. The size ofthe youth gang problem varied consider-ably, with many communities reportingcomparatively few youth gangs and gangmembers. In general, gang members mostoften were said to be juvenile, male, andinvolved in property crimes such as van-dalism and graffiti. Survey findings indicatethat larger communities have a greaternumber of gangs and gang members,experience more violent crime by gangmembers (including homicides), andreport gang activity as a more serioussocial problem.

The data presented here help clarifywhether, and in what ways, gangs in Indi-an country are similar or different fromother youth gangs. Although the findingsfor Indian country communities and na-tional sample respondents differed, it ispossible to compare Indian country datawith data from the comparison sample,

whose respondents more closely resembleIndian country communities in size andgeographic location. These comparisonssuggest similar levels of gang activity andsimilar gender and age composition ofgang members. Additionally, findings froma field study of youth gangs in the NavajoNation substantiate many of the surveyresults presented.

This preliminary assessment of the gangproblem in Indian country can be usedto guide systematic response to gang ac-tivity in these communities. However,community-specific strategies should bebased on detailed assessments of localgang problems and involve communityagencies in a continuum of programs andstrategies that focuses on prevention,intervention, and suppression.

A number of programs have effectivelyreduced delinquency, and some lookpromising for reducing gang involvementin the general population. Many of theseprograms could be culturally tailored foran Indian country population and possiblyprove equally effective for its youth.School- and community-based programs toprevent, control, and reduce youth crimeand violence in general, such as BGCA andG.R.E.A.T., appear promising, as do pro-grams that address substance abuse.Intervention programs, such as the BGCATargeted Outreach program, may effec-tively reduce gang involvement in theseareas. For communities experiencing amore severe gang problem, suppressiontactics that reduce gang-related criminalactivity might be necessary. Additionally,as the gang problem in Indian countryappears to be an extension of more seri-ous problems, including poverty, sub-stance abuse, and unemployment, policiesaimed at improving overall conditions in acommunity will most likely have a concur-rent and positive impact on the communi-ty’s gang problem.

ReferencesAdams, S. 2002. The Impact of Intensive JuvenileProbation Programs. Chicago, IL: Illinois CriminalJustice Information Authority.

Andrews, C. 1999. Tribal Youth Program. FactSheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Arbreton, A.J.A., and McClanahan, W.S. 2002.Targeted Outreach: Boys & Girls Clubs of Ameri-ca’s Approach to Gang Prevention and Interven-tion. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Armstrong, T.L., Bluehouse, P., Dennison, A.,Mason, H., Mendenhall, B., Wall, D., and Zion, J.2002. Finding and knowing the gang nayee—Field initiated gang research project: The judi-cial branch of the Navajo Nation. Unpublishedfinal report. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Catalano, R.F., Arthur, M.W., Hawkins, J.D.,Berglund, L., and Olson, J.J. 1998. Comprehen-sive community- and school-based interven-tions to prevent antisocial behavior. In Seriousand Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors andSuccessful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber andD.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, pp. 248–283.

Catalano, R.F., and Hawkins, J.D. 1996. Thesocial development model: A theory of antiso-cial behavior. In Delinquency and Crime: CurrentTheories, edited by J. David Hawkins. Cam-bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Coalition for Juvenile Justice. 2000. Enlargingthe Healing Circle: Ensuring Justice for AmericanIndian Children. Report on the 5th Annual Eth-nic and Cultural Diversity Training Conference.Washington, DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice.

Conway, M.K. 1998. Gangs on Indian Reserva-tions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Curry, G.D., and Decker, S.H. 2003. ConfrontingGangs: Crime and Community, 2d ed. Los Ange-les, CA: Roxbury Publishing.

Egley, A., Jr. 2000. Highlights of the 1999 NationalYouth Gang Survey. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention.

Egley, A., Jr. 2002. National Youth Gang SurveyTrends From 1996 to 2000. Fact Sheet. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Egley, A., Jr., and Arjunan, M. 2002. Highlights ofthe 2000 National Youth Gang Survey. Fact Sheet.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Esbensen, F.A. 2000. Preventing Adolescent GangInvolvement. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquen-cy Prevention.

Esbensen, F.A., and Osgood, D.W. 1997. NationalEvaluation of G.R.E.A.T. Research in Brief. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Esbensen, F.A., Osgood, D.W., Taylor, T.J.,Peterson, D., and Freng, A. 2001. How great is

15

G.R.E.A.T.? Results from a longitudinal quasi-experimental design. Criminology and PublicPolicy 1(1):87–118.

Farrell, A.D., and Meyer, A.L. 1997. The effective-ness of a school-based curriculum for reducingviolence among urban sixth grade students.American Journal of Public Health 87:979–984.

Farrell, A.D., and Meyer, A.L. 1998. Social skillstraining to promote resilience in urban sixthgrade students: One product of an action strat-egy to prevent youth violence in high-risk envi-ronments. Unpublished manuscript. Richmond,VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.

Fogerty, M. 2002. Bridging the gap: Boys andGirls Clubs tackle Indian country youth drugproblems. American Indian Report, January.

Frey, H.E. 2002. Tribal Court CASA: A Guide toProgram Development. Fact Sheet. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention.

Fung, C., and Wyrick, P.A. 2001. OJJDP’s Programof Research for Tribal Youth. Fact Sheet. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Gottfredson, D.C. 1990. Changing school struc-tures to benefit high-risk youths. In Understand-ing Troubled and Troubling Youth, edited by P.E.Leone. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,pp. 246–271.

Gottfredson, D.C. 2001. Schools and Delinquency.Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Gottfredson, G.D., and Gottfredson, D.C. 2001.Gang Problems and Gang Programs in a NationalSample of Schools. Ellicott City, MD: GottfredsonAssociates, Inc.

Greenfeld, L.A., and Smith, S.K. 1999. AmericanIndians and Crime. Report. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-grams, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Haggerty, K., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R.F., andHawkins, J.D. 1999. Preparing for the Drug FreeYears. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Hailer, J.A. 1998. A loss of traditions: The emer-gence of American Indian youth gangs. Master’sthesis. San Jose, CA: San Jose State University.

Harachi, T.W., Catalano, R.F., and Hawkins, J.D.1997. Effective recruitment for parenting pro-grams within ethnic minority communities.Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal14(1):23–39.

Hickman, M. 2003. Tribal Law Enforcement,2000. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-grams, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Howell, J.C. 2000. Youth Gang Programs andStrategies. Summary. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice and De-linquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C. 2003. Preventing and Reducing Juve-nile Delinquency: A Comprehensive Framework.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Howell, J.C., Egley, A., Jr., and Gleason, D.K.2002. Modern-Day Youth Gangs. Bulletin. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C., and Lynch, J.P. 2000. Youth Gangsin Schools. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention.

Johnson, G., and Hunter, R. 1985. Law-RelatedEducation as a Delinquency Prevention Strategy:A Three-Year Evaluation of the Impact of LRE onStudents. Boulder, CO: Center for ActionResearch.

Johnson, C.A., Penz, M.A., Weber, M.D., Dwyer,J.H., Baer, N., MacKinnon, D.P., Hansen, W.B.,and Flay, B.R. 1990. Relative effectiveness ofcomprehensive community programming fordrug abuse prevention with high-risk and low-risk adolescents. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 58:447–456.

Juneau, S.K. 1997. Indian Country Street GangReference Book 1997. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of the Interior, Bureau of IndianAffairs, U.S. Indian Police Academy.

Juneau, S.K. 1998. Gangs in Indian Country. 1998Annual Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,U.S. Indian Police Academy.

Klein, M.W. 1995. The American Street Gang.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Kumpfer, K.L., and Alvarado, R. 1998. EffectiveFamily Strengthening Interventions. Bulletin.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Kumpfer, K.L., Molgaard, V.K., and Spoth, R.L.1996. The “Strengthening Families Program” forthe prevention of delinquency and drug use. InPreventing Childhood Disorders, Substance Abuseand Delinquency, edited by R. Peters and R.McMahon. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-tions, pp. 241–267.

Maguin, E., and Loeber, R. 1996. Academicperformance and delinquency. Crime andJustice 20:145–264.

Maxson, C.L. 1998. Gang Members on the Move.Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Molgaard, V.K., and Spoth, R.L. 2001. Strength-ening Families Program for young adolescents:Overview and outcomes. In Innovative MentalHealth Programs for Children, edited by S. Pfeifferand L. Reddy. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press,pp. 15–29.

Molgaard, V.K., Spoth, R.L., and Redmond, C.2000. Competency Training. The StrengtheningFamilies Program: For Parents and Youth 10–14.Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. 1997. Prevent-ing Drug Use Among Children and Adolescents—A Research-Based Guide. Rockville, MD: NationalInstitutes of Health, National Institute on DrugAbuse.

National Youth Gang Center (NYGC). 2000. 1998National Youth Gang Survey. Summary. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

National Youth Gang Center (NYGC). 2002a.A guide to assessing your community’s youthgang problem. CD–ROM. Tallahassee, FL:National Youth Gang Center. Copies are avail-able from NYGC (www.iir.com/nygc).

National Youth Gang Center (NYGC). 2002b.Planning for implementation. CD–ROM. Talla-hassee, FL: National Youth Gang Center. Copiesare available from NYGC (www.iir.com/nygc).

Nielson, M.O., Zion, J.W., and Hailer, J.A. 1998.Navajo Nation gang formation and interventioninitiatives. In Gangs and Youth Subcultures:International Explorations, edited by K. Hazle-hurst and C. Hazlehurst. New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Publishers.

Palumbo, D.J., and Ferguson, J.L. 1995. Evaluat-ing Gang Resistance Education and Training(G.R.E.A.T.): Is the impact the same as that ofDrug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)?Evaluation Review 19(6):591–619.

Sakamoto, W. 1996. Gang and Youth ViolenceIntervention: Creating a Safe and Secure SchoolCampus. Unpublished manuscript. San Diego,CA: San Diego County Office of Education.

Spergel, I.A., and Bobrowski, L. 1990. Lawenforcement definitional conference transcript.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARDPOSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDPPERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 202714Bulletin

Acknowledgments Aline K. Major and Arlen Egley, Jr., Ph.D., are Research Associates with the NationalYouth Gang Center (NYGC), which is operated for the Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention (OJJDP) by the Institute for Intergovernmental Research inTallahassee, Florida. James C. Howell, Ph.D., is an Adjunct Researcher with NYGC.Barbara Mendenhall is the Assistant Director and Troy Armstrong, Ph.D., is the Directorof the Center for Delinquency and Crime Policy Studies at California State University,Sacramento.

The authors would like to thank the members of the Indian Country Survey AdvisoryGroup for their invaluable direction and input, including Chief Allan, Legislative Associ-ate, National Congress of American Indians; Laura Ansera, Tribal Youth Program Man-ager, OJJDP; Todd Araujo, Deputy Director, Office of Tribal Justice, U.S. Department ofJustice; Frank Canizales, Indian Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices; Roman Duran, First Vice President, National American Indian Court JudgesAssociation; Norena Henry, Director, American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs, U.S.Department of Justice; Velma Mason, Ph.D., Director, Office for Alcohol and SubstanceAbuse Prevention, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Bureau of IndianAffairs, U.S. Department of the Interior; Peter Maybee, Executive Officer, Office of LawEnforcement Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior; AdaPecos Melton, President, American Indian Development Associates; Dave Nicholas,Office of Law Enforcement Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of theInterior; Arlene Wise, Office for Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention, Office of theAssistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of theInterior; and Emily Wright, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Office of Native Ameri-can Programs, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The authors are grateful to NYGC Director John Moore, other NYGC staff, and NorenaHenry for their valuable review of earlier versions of this Bulletin. The authors alsowould like to thank Phelan Wyrick, Ph.D., Gang Program Coordinator, OJJDP, for mak-ing substantive contributions to this publication, and Jonathan Witte of the JuvenileJustice Clearinghouse for his skillful editing of the manuscript. In addition, the authorsgratefully acknowledge staff from MGT of America for their assistance in data collectionand data entry and Charlene White, Institute for Intergovernmental Research, andRandrick “Kimo” Souza, Mesa Gang Intervention Project (Arizona), for their assistancein contacting survey recipients. Finally, the authors would like to thank the tribal and lawenforcement representatives who responded to the survey.

This Bulletin was prepared under cooperativeagreement number 95–JD–MU–K001 from theOffice of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in thisdocument are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily represent the official position orpolicies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department ofJustice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention is a component of the Office ofJustice Programs, which also includes theBureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau ofJustice Statistics, the National Institute ofJustice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Starbuck, D., Howell, J.C., and Lindquist, D.J.2001. Hybrid and Other Modern Gangs. Bulletin.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Vigil, J.D. 2002. A Rainbow of Gangs: Street Cul-tures in the Mega-City. Austin, TX: University ofTexas Press.

Wakeling, S., Jorgensen, M., Michaelson, S., andBegay, M. 2001. Policing on American IndianReservations. Research Report. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, National Institute of Justice.

*NCJ~202714*