Footnotes

  1. See National Youth Gang Center (1999a) for detailed information on sample selection, survey methodology, and results of analyses to date (see also Moore and Terrett, 1998, for a summary of results).

  2. In the remainder of this Bulletin, unless otherwise noted, the term "gang" refers to youth gangs.

  3. Unless response categories are noted, questions that follow were open ended.

  4. Thus, weighted counts could be used in the analyses for this Bulletin pertaining to age, gender, and race/ethnicity. This procedure was not deemed appropriate for this Bulletin because this analysis focuses on significant differences in gang characteristics in different jurisdictions given various levels of involvement in drug activity, rather than on generating prevalence data. Moreover, use of weighted estimates would be misleading for analysis of covariation between variables.

  5. Respondents who said "do not know" or whose estimates totaled more than or less than 100 percent were excluded from all analyses.

  6. In an analysis not included in this Bulletin, the spectrum of responses (0—100 percent) was divided into those that were above and those that were below the midpoint (that is, 50 percent of all drug sales). As a result, 54 percent of all responses fell below the midpoint, 34 percent fell above it, and the remaining 12 percent of responses were exactly 50 percent. An examination of the polar (lowest and highest) quadrants showed that in the lowest quadrant, 40 percent of the respondents estimated that gang members were involved in one-fourth or less of all drug sales. In the highest quadrant, 23 percent of all respondents estimated that gang members were involved in three-fourths or more of all drug sales. Thus, nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all respondents fell into the extreme quadrants.

  7. See page 8 of this Bulletin for characteristics that distinguish bona fide gangs from drug gangs according to Klein (1995, p. 132).

  8. Jurisdictions that included drug gangs in their responses were included in all analyses for this Bulletin.

  9. The authors are grateful to David Curry, University of Missouri-St. Louis, for suggesting this line of analysis.

  10. This estimate might have been lower if respondents had been asked to make a distinction between street-level and organizational control of drug distribution.

  11. Readers are cautioned that this observation involves a small number of respondents.

  12. Readers should recall that the average percentage—not a percentage of the total number of gang members—is used in this analysis. Females represented 10 percent of the total number of gang members reported by all respondents (National Youth Gang Center, 1999a).

  13. The average percentage, rather than a percentage of the total number of gang members, is used in this analysis. Of the total number of gang members reported by all respondents, 16 percent were estimated to be under age 15, 34 percent ages 15 to 17 years old, 37 percent ages 18 to 24, and 13 percent over age 24 (National Youth Gang Center, 1999a).

  14.  Readers are cautioned that this observation involves a small number of respondents.

  15. The average percentage—not a percentage of the total number of gang members–is used in this analysis. Hispanics represented 44 percent of the total number of gang members reported by all respondents; African Americans, 35 percent; Caucasians, 14 percent; Asians, 5 percent; and others, 2 percent (National Youth Gang Center, 1999a).

  16. Readers are cautioned that this observation involves a small number of respondents.

  17.  Nationally, only 2 percent of gang members were identified as belonging to "other" racial/ethnic groups. This category primarily consisted of American Indian (45 percent), Polynesian (27 percent), Middle Eastern (8 percent), and Haitian (5 percent) gang members (National Youth Gang Center, 1999a).

  18. Uniform Crime Reports regions, as defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

  19.  Table 6 was constructed using a formula that converted responses to the drug distribution question into interval responses from 0 to 100 percent (1, all, 100 percent; 2, more than half, 75 percent; 3, less than half, 37.5 percent; 4, less than one-fourth, 12.5 percent; and 5, none, 0).

  20. Analysis of the data using Goodman and Kruskal’s gamma to measure associations between each of the two drug trafficking measures and other crimes (Howell and Gleason, 1998) found that all were statistically significant. The pairs with the strongest association were gang control of drug distribution and robbery, followed by gang member drug sales and robbery. The association between aggravated assault and either drug trafficking measure was next in strength.

  21. See Thornberry (1998) for a summary of four major studies.

  22. Multivariate techniques of analysis examine which variables account for most of the variance when other factors are taken into account.

  23. For an assessment process that can be adapted for any size jurisdiction, see National Youth Gang Center, 1999b.

Line
Youth Gang Drug Trafficking Juvenile Justice Bulletin   ·  December 1999