Youth Gang Involvement in Low-Income Urban Areas: Policy Analysis

Introduction and Theoretical Framework

This policy analysis is grounded in Burgess' concentric zone model, which divides urban centers into five zones that differ by income levels and distance from the central business district (Allen et al., 2005). Gang activity is most prominent in the "loop" (the central business district), the transition zone — characterized by low incomes and slum conditions — and the factory zone, which is dominated by industrial facilities and few residential units, creating a conducive environment for gang operations.

The Problem, Its Importance, and Causes

Data from the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) points to a sharp rise in gang violence in the United States over the last decade (Department of Justice, 2020). Gang activity is mostly concentrated in the country's largest cities (Department of Justice, 2020). In its most recent Youth Gang Survey, the National Gang Center (NGC) identified approximately 30,000 gangs with a membership of 850,000 operating in the U.S. (National Gang Center, 2019). Over 80 percent of gang activity is concentrated in suburban counties and larger cities, while rural counties account for less than 5 percent (National Gang Center, 2019). The estimate of 30,000 gangs is the highest since 1998 and represents an increase of 15 percent from 2005 (National Gang Center, 2019).

Gang activity significantly increases the risk of crime. The National Gang Center (2019) estimates that 13 percent of homicides in the U.S. annually are committed by gang members. In Los Angeles and Chicago — the cities with the largest numbers of gangs in the country — gangs account for approximately 50 percent of homicides (National Gang Center, 2019). These two cities account for close to 30 percent of all gang-related homicides nationwide, while rural counties with fewer or no reported gangs account for less than 5 percent of gang-related homicides (National Gang Center, 2019). Gangs are also heavily involved in the sale and illegal distribution of drugs and other controlled substances, further elevating the risk of drug-related crime. The National Gang Center (as cited in Barnes et al., 2010) estimates that gang members account for approximately 43 percent of illegal drug sales in the U.S. These figures demonstrate a clear positive association between gang activity and overall crime levels.

At the individual level, gang involvement negatively affects the development and behavior of adolescents and youth. Gangs provide a platform for young people to learn violent and antisocial behavior, which increases the risk of delinquency (Augustyn et al., 2014). Studies have also shown that youth involved in gangs are less likely than non-members to complete high school and are more vulnerable to teenage pregnancy (Augustyn et al., 2014). Other research has examined long-term outcomes and found that gang involvement increases the risk of criminal activity and maladaptive parenting behavior in adulthood (Leeb et al., 2008; Augustyn et al., 2014).

Given the negative impact of gangs on social cohesion and public safety, it is important to develop programs and interventions that reduce the risk of gang affiliation among youth. The first step is to identify the causes and risk factors that lead to gang involvement. Few interventions have been implemented to address the problem, and these are rarely subjected to rigorous policy evaluation, which undermines their effectiveness.

A substantial body of literature exists on the risk factors for youth involvement in gangs. A review of available research was conducted to identify the most common causes of gang membership among young people. The studies used were based in the U.S. and published in credible peer-reviewed journals. The literature review and consultations with subject matter experts classified the causes of youth involvement in gangs into five categories: individual factors, family factors, school-related factors, peer-related factors, and community factors.

Higginson et al. (2018) found a positive correlation between gang involvement and prior delinquency, alcohol and substance use, and victimization during childhood and adolescence. Prior delinquency and substance use were found to erode an individual's belief in moral order, making it easier for them to develop gang affiliations. Victimization, meanwhile, affects how individuals perceive themselves and others, diminishing empathy and increasing susceptibility to gang recruitment. Lenzi et al. (2014) found that victimization positively correlated with gang affiliation across the lifespan. Adolescents who have experienced victimization may also join gangs as a means to gain peer respect through intimidation and to fulfill their need for acceptance and belonging (Taylor, 2013).

Lenzi et al. (2014) also found that negative family environments contribute to gang affiliation among youth and adolescents. Such environments are characterized by poor supervision, inadequate parental management, lack of parental support, gang affiliation among parents, and family dysfunction stemming from divorce or separation resulting in single-parent households. Weak parent-child bonds increase the risk of persistent indiscipline, particularly when adolescents have no one to confide in or face no consequences because parents are absent or overburdened. In these circumstances, adolescents may join gangs as a way to release frustrations or temporarily escape difficulties at home (Taylor, 2013). In women-led single-parent households, boys may join gangs as a way to defy maternal authority and assert their masculinity (Taylor, 2013). In low-income settings, financial hardship can push adolescents toward gangs as a means of earning quick money and gaining peer status (Taylor, 2013).

Research has also identified a strong relationship between gang affiliation and school-related factors such as academic failure, limited prosocial involvement opportunities, low school attachment, and negative labeling by teachers and classmates (James, 1998; Lenzi et al., 2014). According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, poor relationships with peers and teachers at school may push adolescents toward gangs in pursuit of love and belonging (Lenzi et al., 2004). Persistent academic underperformance can also lead to frustration, prompting some adolescents to seek status and toughness through non-conventional means (Taylor, 2013). In low-income areas, schools often lack funding for adequate after-school programs (Gottfredson et al., 2004). As a result, youth are left unsupervised while awaiting parents who work late or cannot afford childcare, increasing exposure to delinquent peers and gang recruitment (Gottfredson et al., 2004).

Finally, community-level factors contributing to gang membership include high rates of crime and violence, easy access to drugs and illicit substances, the presence of existing gangs, ease of obtaining firearms, and social norms that tolerate or support gang activity (Lenzi et al., 2004). Youth living in socially disorganized communities may feel unsafe and join gangs for protection from rival groups or as a form of resistance to structural violence in their environment (Lenzi et al., 2004).

Community and institutional school-related factors may require comprehensive policies that fall beyond the scope of this analysis. The policy options proposed in the subsequent sections focus primarily on addressing peer-related and individual causes of gang affiliation among youth.

Constraints on Policy

One of the primary constraints is budgetary limitations, which may shape policy design and long-term sustainability — particularly for options that depend heavily on federal and state funding. Any proposed programs must operate within defined budgetary allocations. This concern is especially relevant because parents in low-income areas are typically unable to make meaningful financial contributions toward program sustainability.

A second fundamental constraint is legislation. Any program seeking to reduce gang affiliation among youth in low-income areas must operate within the bounds of applicable state and federal law. A third constraint involves resource limitations that may restrict program developers to hiring fewer personnel or investing in technologies below the level required for effective implementation. For instance, due to resource constraints, a program may have insufficient staff to adequately serve all youth in a given area. These constraints directly inform the policy options proposed below.