OJJDP Summary, August 2000 - Youth Gang Programs and Strategies

Legislation

Arrest for the commission of substantive criminal offenses, defined by Federal or State statute, is the main mechanism used by law enforcement to prosecute youth and adult gangs (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997b). Innovative penalty enhancement provisions that complement substantive criminal code provisions have been developed for use against gang members. They provide enhanced punishment for crimes that are often gang related, although they are not limited in application to gang members. These laws not only enhance penalties against principals charged with offenses such as drug trafficking, homicide, assault with a weapon, robbery, home invasion, arson, extortion, and auto theft, but also against accomplices charged with such offenses as conspiracy to commit a crime and aiding and abetting overt criminal acts (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997b).

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act (18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.) "has emerged as one of law enforcement's most effective tools for combating organized criminal activity" (Johnson, Webster, and Connors, 1995:7). Used most often as a Federal prosecutorial weapon against high-ranking criminal group members, RICO has been used against youth and adult gang members by 17 percent of local prosecutors in large counties and less than 10 percent of prosecutors in small counties. The Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ) survey of local prosecutors' approaches to youth and adult gang prosecution revealed that "traditional criminal law can reach most gang crime. Existing laws in most jurisdictions also may allow more options for prosecution than statutes specifically aimed at gang members and crimes" (Johnson, Webster, and Connors, 1995:7). In 14 States, prosecutors reported charging street gangs with violations of new, specialized gang offenses. Prosecutors in the other 36 States indicated that they had filed charges against street gangs under existing substantive provisions of their criminal codes. However, some common gang offenses, such as defacing property with graffiti, are often not addressed by State criminal codes, but rather by municipal ordinances.

Some jurisdictions charge youth and adult gang leaders involved in criminal enterprises (e.g., crack cocaine networks) with aiding and abetting (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997b). Thus, a gang leader convicted of aiding and abetting may be punished as a principal in the criminal enterprise. Similarly, when gang members participate in the preliminary stages of a crime (e.g., riding in a car to the crime scene), but do not actually participate in the crime itself, they increase the likelihood of being convicted of aiding and abetting.

The ILJ survey (Johnson, Webster, and Connors, 1995), as discussed earlier, found that 14 States have recently enacted new code provisions addressing youth and adult gangs. California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, and Nevada have enhanced penalties for crimes carried out in participation with or at the direction of gangs. The California Street Terrorism, Enforcement, and Prevention (STEP) Act of 1988 (California Penal Code § 186.22) has served as a model emulated by Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, and other jurisdictions. A unique notification process is used to inform persons that they can be prosecuted under STEP (Klein, 1995a). Police and/ or prosecutors gather evidence that a targeted gang fits the STEP Act's definition. This information is presented to the court, resulting in a judicial order. Gang members are then notified in writing that they are known members of such a group. Following such notice, the Act can then be applied to these members, enhancing penalties for subsequent offenses because of the commission of crimes while involved in a gang. Some law enforcement sources indicate that these provisions may be partly responsible for the recent trend of gang members concealing their membership status, thus making it more difficult to identify or "certify" their status for purposes of these provisions.

Although suppression has been a predominant theme in new gang legislation over the past few years, a number of States have enacted new youth gang prevention measures (Hunzeker, 1993; see also Johnson, Webster, and Connors, 1995). For example, the State of Washington enacted a Youth Gang Reduction Act in 1991 that seeks to prevent elementary and secondary students from joining gangs.

Hawaii has created a new program that combines suppression and prevention strategies. Hardcore gang criminals are prosecuted, whereas the growth of gangs is addressed through prevention and education efforts focused on younger juveniles. The results of a process evaluation of Hawaii's Youth Gang Response System have been consistently positive (Chesney-Lind et al., 1992, 1995a, 1995b, 1999).

City Ordinances and Court Injunctions

Cities have enacted a number of measures that restrict or prohibit youth and adult gang activities, such as banning gang member use of public parks that have been gang confrontation sites and prohibiting cruising and numerous forms of belligerent public behavior (National Crime Prevention Council, 1996; Pyle, 1995). Other cities have attempted to discourage gang membership by prohibiting behavior that manifests gang membership, including wearing gang colors, flashing gang signs, and communicating gang membership or insults to other gangs. Housing authorities are authorized by HUD to evict gang members caught possessing or using guns (National Crime Prevention Council, 1996). In one case, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA), in conjunction with the Chicago Police Department, implemented a program called Operation Clean Sweep (OCS) that gained temporary control of numerous buildings (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997b). The facilities were then secured by CHA. In the next phase, property management was improved and, following an assessment, social services were provided to residents who needed them. HUD is studying the benefits of the OCS approach.

Unlike nuisance abatement laws under which local jurisdictions seek court injunctions against continuing nuisances on behalf of the public, private nuisance actions are initiated by the aggrieved party to obtain specific individual relief from gang activities (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1998). Some cities have expanded their use of nuisance abatement laws to restrict youth and adult gang member activities (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997b; Los Angeles City Attorney Gang Prosecution Section, 1995). If property is involved, nuisance abatement relief ranges from stopping gangs from using particular properties in criminal activity to providing for forfeiture of property used in criminal activity. For example, a Colorado law permits forfeiture of cars used in drive-by shootings (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997b). Civil remedies also have been used to deal with gang and drug situations.²¹

In 1992, Chicago, IL, officials adopted the Gang Congregation Ordinance, an antiloitering law targeted at street gangs. It reads in part: "Whenever a police officer observes a person whom he reasonably believes to be a criminal street gang member loitering in any public place with one or more other persons, he shall order all such persons to disperse and remove themselves from the area. Any person who does not promptly obey such an order is in violation of this order."²²

In 1993, Jesus Morales and other individuals were charged with violating the Chicago ordinance. They petitioned Cook County Circuit Court to dismiss the charges, arguing that the Gang Congregation Ordinance is unconstitutional and violates their rights under the 1st, 4th, and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The circuit court granted their motion and dismissed the charges. The city appealed. An Illinois appellate court upheld the circuit court ruling and the State Supreme Court affirmed, saying that the Gang Congregation Ordinance was vague, discriminatory, and a violation of the right to free assembly. In 1998, the City of Chicago appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed the original ruling²³ that found the ordinance to be unconstitutional. This decision has caused other jurisdictions with similar laws to reconsider. In one Chicago suburb, the city has instead adopted an ordinance that allows police to confiscate the vehicles of persons in violation of a city-imposed curfew. This ordinance may also face judicial scrutiny.

Also in 1993, the Los Angeles County District Attorney sought (and was granted) an injunction to ban the Blythe Street Gang from congregating in public areas (American Civil Liberties Union, 1997; Hoffman and Silverstein, 1995). The district attorney asserted that this Hispanic gang, some 500 strong, had virtually transformed a quiet San Fernando Valley neighborhood into an occupied zone. Innocent residents were said to be held captive in their own apartments. Since 1993, about a dozen California cities have requested or received similar court injunctions. In 1997, the California Supreme Court upheld this gang suppression tactic. However, an evaluation by the American Civil Liberties Union of the impact of the Blythe Street Gang injunction questioned its effectiveness, finding that violent crime and drug trafficking actually increased following the injunction (American Civil Liberties Union, 1997).

Juvenile curfew. Curfew ordinances also are being used to thwart gang activity. Long Beach, CA, officials established a 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew ordinance directed at gang members. Although city officials acknowledge the possible displacement of offenses outside the curfew period, a significant reduction in gang-related crimes during the curfew period has been observed (Pratcher, 1994).

Even though curfew laws are not new, they have come to be seen as an ideal means of dealing with youth gangs and violent juvenile crime (Hemmens and Bennett, 1999). One review found that 59 out of 77 cities with populations in excess of 200,000 had juvenile curfew ordinances by 1994 (Ruefle and Reynolds, 1995), and approximately 1,000 local curfew ordinances have been adopted since 1990 (Shepherd, 1996). Curfew ordinances have been challenged on constitutional grounds, including the rights to free assembly; equal protection against unreasonable stopping and detainment; due process; privacy, including the right to family autonomy; and to not be deprived of liberty without due process (LeBoeuf, 1996). The main objections, however, are on the grounds that curfews violate the equal protection clause of the fourth amendment "by setting up a suspect classification based on age, and that they result in selective enforcement to the detriment of minority youth" (Ruefle and Reynolds, 1995:349).

To pass constitutional muster, laws that impinge on fundamental constitutional rights undergo strict scrutiny. Jurisdictions must (1) demonstrate that there is a compelling State interest and (2) narrowly tailor the means to achieve the law's objective (LeBoeuf, 1996). The Dallas, TX, curfew ordinance has been held by the Federal court to satisfy these requirements (see LeBoeuf, 1996:4–5, for further information). However, this ruling neither guarantees protection from future constitutional legal challenges to the ordinance as violating provisions of the U.S. Constitution or State constitutions nor forecloses challenges based on nonconstitutional grounds (LeBoeuf, 1996; see also Hemmens and Bennett, 1999, for a review of State and Federal cases challenging juvenile curfews).

Hemmens and Bennett (1999) observe that "there is remarkably little empirical research on the impact of curfews on either juvenile crime or the overall crime rate; thus, it is unclear how effective they are at reducing crime." In the single study that has examined the effectiveness of curfews on gang crime, an evaluation of the Dallas curfew law found that police use of aggressive curfew and truancy enforcement in concert appeared to reduce violent gang crimes (Fritsch, Caeti, and Taylor, 1999). Some displacement of gang crime into areas of the city with a smaller law enforcement presence was observed. Researchers concluded, however, that this displacement appeared to be minimal.

A Detroit curfew study (Hunt and Weiner, 1977) showed more significant displacement, finding that in the afternoon, juvenile crime increased by 13 percent during the study period while dropping by 6 percent during curfew hours. Nevertheless, curfew enforcement may be an effective police suppression strategy, particularly if combined with truancy enforcement and targeting of specific gangs in small geographic areas.

Further evaluation of curfew enforcement is needed, especially taking into account possible displacement effects. Additional research is also needed on police targeting of particular gangs in specific localities. This may well have been a key element in the success of the Dallas antigang initiative given that seven of the city's most violent gangs operated in the target area. Another issue that must be examined is whether adults or juveniles are responsible for most violent gang-related crime. The Dallas study did not examine the extent of the overall drop in reported violent gang-related crime among juveniles versus young adults. The 1996 National Youth Gang Survey revealed that young adult gang members (age 18 and older) are relatively more prevalent in jurisdictions that report higher degrees of gang member involvement in violent crimes (aggravated assault and robbery) (National Youth Gang Center, 1999; see also Wiebe, Meeker, and Vila, in press).

²¹ See Bureau of Justice Assistance (1998), pp. 174–182, for examples in Berkeley, CA; Joliet, IL; and San Diego, CA.

²² Chicago Municipal Code § 8–4–05 (June 17, 1992).

²³ City of Chicago v. Morales, 119 S. Ct. 1849 (1999). The U.S. Supreme Court said such restrictive laws should spell out what illegal activity would trigger an arrest.

Contents

Youth Gang Programs and Strategies
OJJDP Summary August 2000