This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-708 
entitled 'Combating Gangs: Better Coordination and Performance 
Measurement Would Help Clarify Roles of Federal Agencies and Strengthen 
Assessment of Efforts' which was released on July 24, 2009. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

July 2009: 

Better Coordination and Performance Measurement Would Help Clarify 
Roles of Federal Agencies and Strengthen Assessment of Efforts: 

GAO-09-708: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-09-708, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) estimates that the United States has 
about a million gang members. While state and local agencies have 
primary responsibility for combating gang crime, the federal government 
has key roles to enforce laws and help fund programs to provide 
alternatives to gang membership for at-risk youth. GAO was asked to 
examine federal efforts to combat gang crime. This report addresses (1) 
the roles of DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 
combating gang crime and the extent to which DOJ and DHS agencies 
coordinate their efforts with each other and state and local agencies; 
(2) the extent to which DOJ and DHS measure their gang enforcement 
efforts; and (3) how federal grant funding is used to administer or 
support activities to reduce gang-related crime. GAO reviewed federal 
agencies’ plans, resources, and measures and interviewed federal, 
state, and local officials in 15 localities with federally led anti-
gang task forces representing varying population sizes and locations. 

What GAO Found: 

Various DOJ and DHS components have taken distinct roles in combating 
gang crime, and at the headquarters level, DOJ has established several 
entities to share information on gang-related investigations across 
agencies. However, some of these entities have not differentiated roles 
and responsibilities. For example, two entities have overlapping 
responsibilities for coordinating the federal response to the same gang 
threat. Prior GAO work found that overlap among programs can waste 
funds and limit effectiveness, and that agencies should work together 
to define and agree on their respective roles and facilitate 
information sharing. At the field division level, federal agencies have 
established strategies to help coordinate anti-gang efforts including 
federally led task forces. Officials GAO interviewed were generally 
satisfied with the task force structure for leveraging resources and 
taking advantage of contributions from all participating agencies. 

Federal agencies have taken actions to measure the results of their 
gang enforcement efforts, but these efforts have been hindered by three 
factors. Among other measures, one agency tracks the number of 
investigations that disrupted or shut down criminal gangs, while 
another agency tracks its gang-related convictions. However, agencies’ 
efforts to measure results of federal actions to combat gang crime have 
been hampered by lack of a shared definition of “gang” among agencies, 
underreporting of information by United States Attorneys Offices 
(USAOs), and the lack of departmentwide DOJ performance measures for 
anti-gang efforts. Definitions of “gang” vary in terms of number of 
members, time or type of offenses, and other characteristics. According 
to DOJ officials, lack of a shared definition of “gang” complicates 
data collection and evaluation efforts across federal agencies, but 
does not adversely affect law enforcement activity. DOJ officials 
stated that USAOs have underreported gang-related cases and work, in 
part because attorneys historically have not viewed data collection as 
a priority. In the absence of periodic monitoring of USAO’s gang-
related case information, DOJ cannot be certain that USAOs have 
accurately recorded gang-related data. Further, DOJ lacks performance 
measures that would help agencies to assess progress made over time on 
anti-gang efforts and provide decision makers with key data to 
facilitate resource allocation. 

DOJ administers several grant programs to assist communities to address 
gang problems; however, initiatives funded through some of these 
programs have had mixed results. A series of grant programs funded from 
the 1980s to 2009 to test a comprehensive communitywide model are 
nearing completion. Evaluations found little evidence that these 
programs reduced youth gang crime. DOJ does not plan to fund future 
grants testing this model; rather, DOJ plans to provide technical 
assistance to communities implementing anti-gang programs without 
federal funding. DOJ also awarded grants to 12 communities during 
fiscal years 2006 to 2008 under another anti-gang initiative. The first 
evaluations of this initiative are due in late 2009, and no additional 
grants will be funded pending the evaluation results. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that DOJ reexamine roles of headquarters anti-gang 
entities, establish performance measures for anti-gang efforts, review 
USAO gang-related case data, and, along with DHS, develop a common 
definition for “gang.” DHS concurred with the recommendations; DOJ is 
considering whether to establish measures and a common definition and 
concurred with the other recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-708] or key 
components. For more information, contact Eileen Larence at (202) 512-
8777 or larencee@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Lack of Differentiated Roles and Responsibilities among Headquarters 
Anti-Gang Coordinating Groups and Gaps in Participation Could Hinder 
Coordination Efforts: 

Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Have Established Measures for Gang 
Enforcement Efforts, but Common Definitions and a DOJ Departmentwide 
Performance Measure Would Strengthen Performance Measurement: 

DOJ Has Funded Grant Programs to Test Anti-Gang Models, but Evaluations 
Have Reported Mixed Results in the Programs' Sustainability and 
Contributions to Reductions in Crime: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Nature and Scope of Gang and Gang Crime in the United 
States: 

Appendix II: Federal Statutes Used in Gang-Related Prosecutions: 

Appendix III: Important Elements of an Approach to Combating Gangs: 

Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Justice: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Headquarters Level Entities Focused on Coordination of Anti- 
Gang Efforts: 

Table 2: OJJDP Anti-Gang Grant Programs That Were Currently Funded as 
of January 2009: 

Table 3: Federal Criminal Statutes Frequently Used to Prosecute Gang 
Members: 

Table 4: Officials We Interviewed in 15 Selected Localities: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: DOJ and DHS Agencies and Offices with Key Roles in Federal 
Enforcement Efforts to Combat Criminal Gang Activity: 

Figure 2: FBI Agent FTEs on Anti-Gang Efforts and All Investigative 
Activities (Fiscal Years 2003 to 2008): 

Figure 3: DEA Agent FTEs on Anti-Gang Efforts and All Investigative 
Activities (Fiscal Years 2003 to 2008): 

Figure 4: DOJ's Fiscal Year 2007 to 2012 Strategic Plan Includes Anti- 
Gang Strategies but Lacks a Gang-Specific Performance Measure: 

Figure 5: FBI Gang-Related Disruptions (Fiscal Years 2003 to 2008): 

Figure 6: FBI Gang-Related Dismantlements (Fiscal Years 2003 to 2008): 

Figure 7: ATF Gang-Related Convictions (Fiscal Years 2003 to 2008): 

Figure 8: DEA Gang-Related Arrests (Fiscal Years 2003 to 2008): 

Figure 9: ICE Gang-Related Arrests (Fiscal Years 2006 to 2008): 

Figure 10: Services and Programs Funded Under the Richmond, Virginia, 
Gang Reduction and Intervention Program: 

Figure 11: At-Risk Youth Design and Complete an Anti-Gang Mural in 
Tampa, Florida, as Part of the Comprehensive Anti-Gang Initiative: 

Figure 12: National Youth Gang Surveys (2002 to 2006): 

Abbreviations: 

ATF: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives: 

BJA: Bureau of Justice Assistance: 

CBP: Customs and Border Protection: 

DEA: Drug Enforcement Administration: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

EOUSA: Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys: 

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

FTE: Full time equivalents: 

GangTECC: National Gang Targeting, Enforcement, and Coordination 
Center: 

HIDTA: high intensity drug trafficking areas: 

ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

LIONS: National Legal Information Office Network System: 

MS-13: Mara Salvatrucha: 

NGIC: National Gang Intelligence Center: 

ONDCP: Office of National Drug Control Policy (White House): 

OJJDP: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: 

OJP: Office of Justice Programs: 

RICO: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act: 

USA-5: U.S. Attorney-5: 

USAO: U.S. Attorney's Office: 

USMS: U.S. Marshals Service: 

VICAR: Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548: 

July 24, 2009: 

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Issa: 

According to estimates from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the United 
States has about 20,000 gangs and 1 million gang members, and gangs are 
active in every U.S. state and territory and Washington, D.C.[Footnote 
1] Once considered a problem of urban areas of the country, gangs began 
migrating in the 1980s and 1990s into suburban and rural communities, 
as well. Gangs are involved in violent crimes such as armed robbery, 
assault, homicide, and shootings. They dominate retail-level drug 
distribution throughout the country, and they are increasingly becoming 
involved in wholesale-level drug trafficking. 

While most of the responsibility for combating gang crime rests with 
state and local law enforcement and social service agencies as well as 
community and local faith-based organizations, the federal government 
also has important responsibilities. The federal government's role 
includes enforcing laws to combat gang crime and identifying and 
supporting promising programs to help prevent young people from 
becoming gang members or to intervene to provide at-risk youth with 
alternatives to being part of a gang. DOJ and U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (ICE), a component of the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), have key roles in federal law enforcement efforts to 
investigate and prosecute gang-related crimes. DOJ also administers 
programs to assist local communities in efforts designed to prevent the 
spread of gangs and gang crime, and sponsors evaluations of whether the 
strategies it supports are effective in reducing gang-related crime. 

You asked us to review federal programs to combat gang violence and 
coordination mechanisms among federal, state, and local agencies for 
anti-gang efforts. This report addresses the following questions: (1) 
What are the roles of DOJ and DHS related to combating gangs, and to 
what extent do DOJ and DHS agencies collaborate and coordinate their 
efforts in combating gangs with each other and state and local 
partners? (2) To what extent do DOJ and DHS measure the results of 
their gang enforcement efforts? and (3) How does DOJ use grant funding 
to administer and/or support activities to reduce gang-related crime 
and what have been the reported results of grant-funded activities? We 
also provide information on the nature and scope of the gang problem in 
the United States (see appendix I); federal statutes, including federal 
racketeering statutes, used to prosecute gang members (see appendix 
II); and factors to consider in developing and implementing anti-gang 
approaches (see appendix III). 

To examine the roles of DOJ and DHS agencies in gang enforcement 
efforts and the extent to which their efforts are coordinated with 
other federal, state, and local partners, we reviewed federal 
strategies and plans to combat gang crime and interviewed headquarters 
DOJ, DHS, and component agency officials involved in gang crime 
enforcement activities.[Footnote 2] We reviewed DOJ's, DHS's, and 
components' strategic plans including goals and objectives for efforts 
to combat gang crime. We compared DOJ and DHS coordination and 
information sharing efforts to criteria in our prior work on effective 
interagency collaboration and results-oriented government.[Footnote 3] 
We also examined staffing levels and budgets for DOJ agencies and ICE. 
To assess the reliability of statistical information and budget data we 
obtained, we discussed the sources of the data with agency officials 
and reviewed documentation regarding the compilation of data. We 
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 
this report. Using semi-structured interview instruments, we 
interviewed the U.S. Attorney or designated staff of U.S. Attorneys 
Offices (USAO)[Footnote 4] and supervisory agents of DOJ and DHS law 
enforcement agencies involved in investigating and prosecuting gang 
members in 15 localities across the country. We also reviewed anti-gang 
strategies and other documentation of enforcement efforts to reduce 
criminal gang activity in these localities. The localities we visited 
were Atlanta, Ga. Baltimore, Md. Brooklyn, N.Y.; Chicago, Il. 
Cleveland, Ohio; Dallas, Tex.; Durham, N.C.; Los Angeles, Calif.; 
Manhattan, N.Y.; Milwaukee, Wisc.; Newark, N.J.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; 
Raleigh, N.C.; Richmond, Va.; and Tampa, Fla. We selected these 
localities based on a mix of criteria that included population size, 
geographic location, violent crime rates, and receipt of federal grants 
to address gang-related crime problems. Other criteria considered in 
selecting these localities included the location of the USAO and 
federal law enforcement agency field offices, the presence of federally 
led task forces to combat gang crime, and suggestions from DOJ and DHS 
components. In addition, we met with selected state and local 
prosecutors and law enforcement officials in these localities to 
discuss the gang problem in their area and the role of DOJ agencies and 
ICE in helping to address it. The results of our site visits cannot be 
generalized across all DOJ or ICE field offices and states and 
localities in the United States. However, because we selected these 
sites and localities based on a variety of factors, they provided us 
with an overview and examples of the activities and coordination of DOJ 
and DHS efforts to combat gang crime, including law enforcement as well 
as prevention and intervention programs. 

To determine the extent to which federal agencies have measured the 
results of their gang enforcement efforts, we first assessed how DOJ 
and DHS components defined "gang" and gang-related crimes. We reviewed 
data maintained by DOJ and DHS law enforcement agencies and U.S. 
Attorneys on gang-related investigations and prosecutions, and we 
interviewed headquarters officials. To assess the reliability of 
statistical information we obtained, we discussed the sources of the 
data with agency officials and reviewed documentation regarding the 
compilation of data. We determined that the data were sufficiently 
reliable for the purposes of this review. We also reviewed DOJ and DHS 
strategic plans, budgets, and performance reports. We compared DOJ and 
DHS efforts to measure the results of their gang enforcement efforts to 
criteria in our prior work on effective interagency collaboration and 
results oriented government.[Footnote 5] We also asked interviewees in 
the 15 localities we visited how they measured the results of local 
gang enforcement efforts. 

To determine how DOJ administers and/or supports gang prevention, 
intervention, and suppression programs through grant funding and the 
programs' reported results, we examined documentation on DOJ's overall 
approach and objectives for anti-gang grant programs as well as DOJ- 
sponsored evaluations and a guide on best practices to address 
community gang problems. We also reviewed funding levels for fiscal 
years 2007 and 2008 for the four DOJ grant programs that we identified 
as being directly focused on anti-gang efforts.[Footnote 6] We 
interviewed DOJ headquarters officials about the status of funding, 
sustainability of anti-gang programs without federal funding, and 
results of evaluations of the effectiveness of the anti-gang grant 
programs, among other topics. Eight of the 15 localities we visited had 
received federal grants for anti-gang efforts, and we interviewed grant 
recipients to determine activities that they were pursuing with the 
grant funds and how they planned to sustain programs when federal 
funding expired. In addition, we interviewed USAO officials in the 15 
localities we visited to obtain information on their roles in anti-gang 
efforts. We reviewed guidance on developing and implementing 
comprehensive prevention, intervention, and suppression programs and 
key documents related to the four federal grant programs, such as grant 
applications. We also reviewed available nationwide evaluations of 
grant programs sponsored by DOJ. We obtained information and views from 
nine criminal justice researchers on how effective the federal 
government has been in measuring its gang suppression, prevention, and 
intervention activities; and on whether the programs are sustainable 
without federal funding and likely to be implemented by communities 
that did not receive federal grants based on lessons learned from the 
federally funded projects. We identified the researchers through a 
review of literature related to gangs and gang crime issues, 
researchers' participation in gang-related conferences, and by asking 
federal officials for recommendations. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2007 through July 
2009, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Additional 
details on our scope and methodology, including the locations we 
visited, are in appendix IV. 

Background: 

Gangs Operate across the United States and Internationally: 

Gangs, which operate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, 
vary in size, ethnic composition, membership, and organizational 
structure. Gangs range from groups that have regional or national 
status and operate in a number of states throughout the country to 
local groups that are associated with a particular neighborhood or 
street. Most gangs nationwide are local neighborhood or street groups. 
Assessments by DOJ and other organizations have identified gang crime 
problems nationwide from large cities to rural communities. In many 
communities, criminal gangs commit as much as 80 percent of crime, 
according to law enforcement officials. See appendix I for information 
on the extent to which communities of various sizes experience gang 
crime problems, recent gang crime trends observed, descriptions of 
major national-level gang organizations, and impacts of national and 
local street gangs in the localities we visited. 

Gang crime problems are not unique to the United States. In other 
countries, urban youth gangs operate often in association with adult 
organized-crime organizations. For example, gang activity has been 
reported in Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Africa, 
and Asia, as well as in Russia and the countries of eastern and central 
Europe following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Some of these 
international gangs can be linked to gangs in the United States. We 
have ongoing work examining efforts to combat gangs with transnational 
connections and plan to report on this issue later this year. 

Overview of Missions and Responsibilities of Federal Agencies Involved 
in Enforcement Efforts to Combat Gang Crime: 

DOJ and DHS are the departments with key roles in federal enforcement 
efforts to investigate and prosecute gang-related crimes (See figure 
1). DOJ's involvement is primarily through its Criminal Division; the 
93 U.S. Attorneys in 94 judicial districts across the nation that 
operate with administrative and operational support from the Executive 
Office of U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA);[Footnote 7] and three law enforcement 
agencies: the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); and the Drug 
Enforcement Administration (DEA). In addition, the U.S. Marshals 
Service (USMS) fugitive task force program assists law enforcement 
agencies in apprehending dangerous fugitives, including gang members, 
who are not arrested after having been criminally charged. ICE is the 
DHS agency with the largest role in investigating gang-related crimes, 
and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for 
interdicting gang-related illicit activities that cross United States 
borders.[Footnote 8] 

Figure 1: DOJ and DHS Agencies and Offices with Key Roles in Federal 
Enforcement Efforts to Combat Criminal Gang Activity: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

This figure contains organizational charts depicting relationships as 
follows: 

DHS: 

Top level: 
Secretary (Headquarters); 

Second level, reporting to Secretary (Headquarters level): 
ICE; 
CBP; 

Third level (field offices): 
ICE, reporting to ICE Headquarters; 
CBP, reporting to CBP Headquarters. 

DOJ: 

Top level (Headquarters): 
Attorney General; 

Second level, reporting to Attorney General: 
Deputy Attorney General; 

Third level, reporting to Deputy Attorney General: 
FBI; 
EOUSA; 
Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division; 
ATF; 
DEA; 
USMS; 

Fourth level (field offices): 
FBI, reporting to FBI Headquarters; 
USAOs, Reporting to EOUSA Headquarters; 
AFT, reporting to AFT Headquarters; 
DEA, reporting to DEA Headquarters; 
USMS, reporting to USMS Headquarters. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS, and DOJ data. 

[End of figure] 

Within DOJ, the Criminal Division, along with U.S. Attorneys, is 
charged with enforcing most federal criminal laws.[Footnote 9] The 
Criminal Division can prosecute a wide range of criminal matters, 
including many of those involving gangs and gang members. Criminal 
Division attorneys are to prosecute nationally significant cases and 
formulate and implement criminal enforcement policy, among other 
responsibilities. The Criminal Division oversees the investigation and 
prosecution of gang-related crimes under five Deputy Assistant 
Attorneys General. Each one supervises three or four sections dealing 
with specific violations of criminal law. The work of each of the 
sections is driven by the type of criminal matter under investigation 
(i.e., organized crime and racketeering, as well as narcotics and 
dangerous drugs), not whether gangs and/or gang members are involved in 
the crimes. As a result, according to a DOJ Criminal Division official, 
all five Criminal Division deputy assistant attorneys general oversee 
sections that deal with crimes and criminal matters that involve gangs 
and gang members. The Criminal Division has also established the Gang 
Unit to help coordinate multi-jurisdictional gang investigations and 
prosecutions. 

The 93 U.S. Attorneys prosecute the majority of criminal cases as well 
as civil litigation, handled by DOJ. In 2005, as part of a DOJ 
initiative to combat gangs, the Attorney General instructed each U.S. 
Attorney to name an anti-gang coordinator to work in consultation with 
federal, state, and local agencies to develop a comprehensive anti-gang 
strategy focusing on prevention and enforcement. EOUSA provides general 
executive assistance and supervision to USAOs and has a national gang 
coordinator who helps act as a liaison between the USAOs and other DOJ 
components involved in gang prosecution efforts. EOUSA provides 
operational support for information technology, training, and other 
functions, and prepares an annual statistical report of U.S. Attorneys, 
among other functions. 

The FBI has jurisdiction to investigate a broad range of violations of 
federal law including organized crime and violent crime that can 
involve gangs and gang members. ATF, as part of its mission, conducts 
investigations to reduce violent crimes involving firearms and 
explosives, which frequently involve gangs and gang members.[Footnote 
10] DEA is the nation's single-mission drug enforcement agency with 
responsibility for enforcing controlled substance laws and regulations. 
Some DEA priority investigations target gangs involved in narcotics 
trafficking. USMS is the enforcement arm of the federal courts with 
responsibilities including apprehending fugitives from federal justice, 
protecting federal judges, transporting federal prisoners, operating 
the witness security program, and seizing property acquired by 
criminals through illegal activities. The USMS fugitive task force 
program and other initiatives target fugitive gang members who have 
been criminally charged. 

Within DHS, ICE, the largest investigative arm of the department, has 
responsibility for a range of issues that may threaten national 
security, including financial and immigration fraud violations, as well 
as targeting street gangs with connections to international criminal 
activities. Within ICE's Office of Investigation, the National Gang 
Unit manages and coordinates national efforts to combat the growth and 
proliferation of transnational criminal street gangs. Gang members who 
have prior criminal convictions, are involved in crimes with a nexus to 
the border, or are foreign-born and are in the United States illegally 
may be subject to ICE's dual criminal and administrative authorities 
that are used to disrupt and dismantle transnational gang activities 
with criminal prosecutions and deportation. In addition, CBP, the DHS 
component that protects U.S. borders against terrorism, illegal 
immigration, and drug smuggling, among other threats, participates in a 
national gang intelligence group. 

Grant Funding Supports Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Enforcement 
Activities: 

DOJ supports community gang prevention, intervention, and enforcement 
activities through grant funding of demonstration projects[Footnote 11] 
managed by its Office of Justice Programs (OJP). The mission of OJP is 
to increase public safety and improve the fair administration of 
justice across America through innovative leadership and programs that 
include demonstration programs to assist state and local governments to 
reduce crime, as well as crime and criminal justice research and 
evaluation, training, and technical assistance. OJP's Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Programs (OJJDP) and Bureau 
of Justice Assistance (BJA) administer the demonstration programs we 
have identified as being directly focused on anti-gang efforts, while 
its National Institute of Justice is responsible for evaluating some 
program results and generating research-based knowledge to help inform 
policy, develop strategies, and deploy resources. 

Lack of Differentiated Roles and Responsibilities among Headquarters 
Anti-Gang Coordinating Groups and Gaps in Participation Could Hinder 
Coordination Efforts: 

DOJ and DHS component agencies have different roles and 
responsibilities for combating gang crime and focus on different 
aspects of gang enforcement. At the headquarters level, DOJ and FBI 
have established several coordinating entities to share information on 
gang-related investigations and intelligence across agency boundaries. 
Nevertheless, some of these entities have not sufficiently 
differentiated their roles and responsibilities, thus impacting their 
ability to coordinate anti-gang efforts. In addition, ICE has not yet 
fully participated in some coordinating group functions. At the field 
division level, federal law enforcement agencies have established 
entities and strategies to help coordinate anti-gang efforts by, for 
example, establishing anti-gang task forces and case "deconfliction" 
mechanisms,[Footnote 12] and developing district-wide anti-gang 
strategies through the USAOs. In localities we visited officials from 
federal, state, and local law enforcement offices cited benefits to 
coordinating through task forces. 

DOJ and DHS Component Agencies Focus on Different Aspects of Gang 
Enforcement and Have Dedicated More Resources to Gang Enforcement 
Efforts Since Fiscal Year 2003: 

Gang enforcement is primarily the responsibility of state and local law 
enforcement agencies that address community-based violence and crime on 
a daily basis. At the federal level, no one department or agency has 
sole responsibility for gang enforcement. Various DOJ and DHS 
components focus on different aspects of gang enforcement as part of 
their broader missions. Within DOJ, the FBI focuses primarily on 
investigating violent, multi jurisdictional gangs whose activities 
constitute criminal enterprises by identifying, investigating, and 
prosecuting the leadership and key members of violent gangs; disrupting 
or dismantling gangs' criminal enterprise; and recovering illegal 
assets through seizures and forfeitures.[Footnote 13] ATF primarily 
focuses on efforts to reduce the occurrence of firearms, arson, and 
explosives-related violent crime, including such crimes committed by 
gang members.[Footnote 14] The primary focus of DEA's enforcement 
efforts is on the links between gangs and drug trafficking. USMS's role 
is to apprehend gang members who have been criminally charged but not 
arrested. Within DHS, ICE's primary focus for gang enforcement is to 
disrupt and dismantle violent transnational criminal street gangs by 
investigating cross-border smuggling and financial and fraud-related 
crimes. ICE uses its dual criminal and administrative authorities to 
address gang crime with the twofold approach of criminal prosecution 
and deportation. 

For these federal law enforcement agencies, enforcement of gang-related 
crimes competes for resources with agencies' other program areas, such 
as counterterrorism, illegal-drug and firearms trafficking, white 
collar crime, and public corruption. For example, the FBI investigation 
of gang crime is part of two FBI priorities; major thefts and violent 
crime, and combating transnational and criminal organizations and 
enterprises, FBI's tenth and sixth ranked priorities, respectively. 
FBI, ICE, and DEA are the three federal law enforcement agencies that 
specifically track agent time dedicated to gang enforcement 
efforts.[Footnote 15] These federal agencies have dedicated a 
relatively small portion of overall agent resources to anti-gang 
efforts, but these resource levels have increased since fiscal year 
2003. For example, according to FBI data, agent full time equivalents 
(FTEs) spent on anti-gang efforts ranged from a low of 4.1 percent of 
total agent FTEs in fiscal year 2003 to a high of 7.7 percent of total 
agent FTEs in fiscal year 2008. Figure 2 summarizes FBI FTEs on anti- 
gang efforts and all investigative activities from fiscal year 2003 to 
fiscal year 2008. 

Figure 2: FBI Agent FTEs on Anti-Gang Efforts and All Investigative 
Activities (Fiscal Years 2003 to 2008): 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Agent FTEs on Anti-Gang efforts: 409; 
Agent FTEs on all investigative activities: 9,991; 
Total Agent FTEs: 10,400. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Agent FTEs on Anti-Gang efforts: 458; 
Agent FTEs on all investigative activities: 10,073; 
Total Agent FTEs: 10,531. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Agent FTEs on Anti-Gang efforts: 519; 
Agent FTEs on all investigative activities: 10,686; 
Total Agent FTEs: 11,205. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Agent FTEs on Anti-Gang efforts: 678; 
Agent FTEs on all investigative activities: 10,997; 
Total Agent FTEs: 11,675. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Agent FTEs on Anti-Gang efforts: 725; 
Agent FTEs on all investigative activities: 10,530; 
Total Agent FTEs: 11,255. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Agent FTEs on Anti-Gang efforts: 944; 
Agent FTEs on all investigative activities: 12,283; 
Total Agent FTEs: 13,227. 

Source: FBI data. 

[End of figure] 

As shown in figure 3, DEA's agent FTEs on anti-gang efforts are a 
relatively small portion of overall agents FTEs, but have increased 
from 161 in fiscal year 2003 to 225 in fiscal year 2008. 

Figure 3: DEA Agent FTEs on Anti-Gang Efforts and All Investigative 
Activities (Fiscal Years 2003 to 2008): 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Agent FTEs on Anti-Gang efforts: 161; 
Agent FTEs on all investigative activities: 2,777; 
Total Agent FTEs: 2,938. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Agent FTEs on Anti-Gang efforts: 163; 
Agent FTEs on all investigative activities: 2,942; 
Total Agent FTEs: 3,105. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Agent FTEs on Anti-Gang efforts: 211; 
Agent FTEs on all investigative activities: 3,388; 
Total Agent FTEs: 3,599. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Agent FTEs on Anti-Gang efforts: 281; 
Agent FTEs on all investigative activities: 3,561; 
Total Agent FTEs: 3,842. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Agent FTEs on Anti-Gang efforts: 300; 
Agent FTEs on all investigative activities: 3,591; 
Total Agent FTEs: 3,891. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Agent FTEs on Anti-Gang efforts: 225; 
Agent FTEs on all investigative activities: 3,487; 
Total Agent FTEs: 3,712. 

Source: DEA data. 

[End of figure] 

The chief of the Gang Unit for DOJ's Criminal Division said that 
federal law enforcement agencies are spending more time on gang-related 
investigations now than they did several years ago because (1) agencies 
have been able to hire additional agents for counter-terrorism 
investigations, so agents who were diverted from criminal 
investigations to counter-terrorism immediately after the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001, are returning to criminal investigations 
and (2) the prior administration and Congress had an interest in 
expanding the federal role on addressing violent crime and supporting 
anti-gang efforts, so federal law enforcement agencies responded by 
placing an increased emphasis in these areas. At this point, it is too 
early to tell what impact, if any, these additional resources would 
have on gang enforcement efforts. 

DOJ and DHS Have Established Headquarters-Level Entities to Coordinate 
and Share Information on Gang Enforcement Efforts, but Have Not 
Differentiated Entities' Roles and Responsibilities: 

Since 2004, at the headquarters level, DOJ has established several 
entities to coordinate and share information on gangs and gang 
enforcement efforts across department and agency boundaries. As shown 
in table 1, these entities include the Gang Unit; the National Gang 
Targeting, Enforcement, and Coordination Center (GangTECC); the 
National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC); the Anti-Gang Coordination 
Committee; and Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) National Gang Task 
Force.[Footnote 16] These entities have different roles and 
responsibilities, but in general, they serve as mechanisms for 
deconflicting cases, providing law enforcement agencies with 
information on gangs and gang activities, and coordinating 
participating agencies' strategies and task forces. 

Table 1: Headquarters Level Entities Focused on Coordination of Anti- 
Gang Efforts: 

Entity: Gang Unit; 
Year established: 2006; 
Lead agency or office: DOJ Criminal Division; 
Participating agencies and offices: DOJ Criminal Division; 
Staff: 12 prosecutors; 
Coordination/information sharing role: Coordinate with local U.S. 
Attorneys' Offices on legal issues and multi-district gang cases and 
work with law enforcement agencies to achieve coordinated prevention 
and enforcement strategies. 

Entity: GangTECC; 
Year established: 2006; 
Lead agency or office: DOJ Criminal Division; 
Participating agencies and offices: DOJ: FBI, DEA, ATF, Bureau of 
Prisons (BOP), USMS, and Criminal Division; DHS: ICE; 
Staff: About 14, including a director, deputy director, and agents 
detailed from participating agencies; 
Coordination/information sharing role: Coordinate and deconflict 
overlapping gang-related investigations and prosecutions and serve as a 
coordinating center for multi-jurisdictional gang investigations. 

Entity: Anti-Gang Coordination Committee; 
Year established: 2006; 
Lead agency or office: DOJ Office of; Deputy Attorney General; 
Participating agencies and offices: DOJ: FBI, ATF, USMS, DEA, BOP, 
EOUSA, BJA, OJJDP, National Drug Intelligence Center, Civil Rights 
Division, Criminal Division, Office of Legal Policy, Budget Office, 
Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of Public Affairs, Justice 
Management Division, Office of Justice Programs, Attorney General's 
Advisory Committee, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Tax 
Division, GangTECC, NGIC, and NIJ; DHS: ICE, CBP; U.S. Department of 
Treasury: Internal Revenue Service; 
Staff: None; 
Coordination/information sharing role: Organize DOJ's efforts to combat 
gangs, including to provide recommendations to the Deputy Attorney 
General on all matters relating to anti-gang activities, review 
applications for funds for gang-related task forces from U.S. Attorneys 
and approve creation of violent crime task forces around the country. 

Entity: NGIC; 
Year established: 2005; 
Lead agency or office: FBI; 
Participating agencies and offices: DOJ: FBI, DEA, ATF, USMS, BOP, and 
National Drug Intelligence Center; DHS: ICE, CBP; U.S. Department of 
Defense: National Guard; 
Staff: About 22, including a director, two deputy directors, 13 FBI 
intelligence analysts, and at least one analyst detailed from each 
participating agency; 
Coordination/information sharing role: Provide law enforcement agencies 
with information and analysis of federal, state, and local law 
enforcement intelligence focusing on gangs that pose a significant 
threat to U.S. communities. 

Entity: MS-13 National Gang Task Force; 
Year established: 2004; 
Lead agency or office: FBI; 
Participating agencies and offices: DOJ: FBI; DHS: No participating 
agencies; 
Staff: Supervisor, 4 FBI supervisory special agents, and 6 FBI 
analysts; 
Coordination/information sharing role: Coordinate the development of 
local, state, federal, and multi-jurisdictional FBI investigations of 
MS-13 and 18th Street gangs, including transnational investigations, 
into national level investigations and prosecutions. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ and DHS information. 

[End of table] 

These entities provide DOJ and DHS with a means to operate across 
agency boundaries. For example, according to the Office of the Deputy 
Attorney General, GangTECC has provided an avenue through which 
participating agencies share information to help facilitate 
communication among participating agencies at the headquarters level. 
NGIC has worked to provide law enforcement agencies with information 
and analysis of federal, state, and local law enforcement intelligence 
focusing on gangs that pose a significant threat to U.S. communities, 
including information on the growth, migration, criminal activity, and 
structure of gangs. NGIC has helped to facilitate information sharing 
on gang-related issues by, for example, issuing intelligence bulletins 
to law enforcement agencies. 

Our work on effective interagency collaboration has shown that when 
multiple agencies are working to address aspects of the same problem, 
there is a risk that overlap or fragmentation among programs can waste 
scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers or stakeholders, 
and limit overall program effectiveness.[Footnote 17] Collaborating 
agencies should work together to define and agree on their respective 
roles and responsibilities and can use a number of possible mechanisms, 
such as memoranda of understanding, to clarify who will do what, 
organize joint and individual efforts, and facilitate information 
sharing. The headquarters-level anti-gang entities have defined their 
individual roles and responsibilities. Although some overlaps in 
mission may be appropriate to help reduce gaps, these entities have not 
yet clearly identified their differentiated roles and responsibilities, 
resulting in possible gaps or unnecessary overlap in agencies' 
coordination and sharing of information on gang enforcement efforts. 
Examples include: 

* The purpose of GangTECC is to allow participating agencies including 
ICE to access and use each respective agency's gang intelligence, allow 
immediate access to operational information in a collocated environment 
and provide a national deconfliction center for gang operations. 
Although the roles and participation by DOJ and its component agencies 
in GangTECC were specified by the Deputy Attorney General in a July 
2006 memorandum establishing GangTECC, as well as in the GangTECC 
Concept of Operations, GangTECC and ICE have not yet documented ICE's 
participation in the center. ICE's participation has varied since 
GangTECC's inception. According to the head of ICE's National Gang 
Unit, in the past ICE's representative to GangTECC was engaged with 
other responsibilities at ICE headquarters, which periodically impacted 
the amount of time that the representative spent at GangTECC. However, 
the head of the National Gang Unit said that ICE's representative is 
assigned to GangTECC on a full-time basis. ICE officials said that they 
are willing to work with other GangTECC officials to develop a 
memorandum of understanding that documents ICE's role and participation 
in the center but had not yet done so at the conclusion of our audit 
work. 

* Establishment of task forces at the field office level has not always 
been fully coordinated with ICE. Specifically, according to Anti-Gang 
Coordination Committee guidance, concurrence for each new gang or 
violent crime task force at the field office level is to be obtained by 
representatives of FBI, ATF, DEA, USMS, ICE, and the local USAO, as 
well as local or state police departments. The Anti-Gang Coordination 
Committee gives final approval to DOJ law enforcement agencies for 
establishing new anti-gang task forces in field locations.[Footnote 18] 
According to the Chief of the Gang Unit, this process for establishing 
new task forces in field locations helps to reduce task force overlap 
and duplication of effort. However, ICE did not have the opportunity to 
provide its concurrence for the creation of all recently approved task 
forces, making it difficult for the Anti-Gang Coordination Committee to 
ensure that there are no unnecessary overlaps in the creation or 
mission of task forces. Our review of the approval process for eight 
task forces authorized by the Anti-Gang Coordination Committee from 
January 2008 through June 2008 found that ICE's concurrence was not 
obtained in three instances.[Footnote 19] Moreover, ICE is not 
represented on the Task Force Subcommittee of the Anti-Gang 
Coordination Committee, which, on behalf of the committee, reviews and 
provides recommendations concerning new task force 
applications.[Footnote 20] DOJ officials said that no Memorandum of 
Understanding or other document outlines ICE's participation in the 
process for approving task forces. 

* GangTECC and the MS-13 National Gang Task Force have overlapping 
missions and responsibilities for coordination and deconfliction of 
multi-jurisdictional investigations involving the MS-13 and 18th Street 
gangs. The two entities have these overlaps in part because the MS-13 
Task Force already existed when GangTECC was established in 2006 and 
was not dismantled or folded into GangTECC at that time. The two 
entities differ in that GangTECC has participants from ATF, DEA, ICE, 
FBI, USMS, and other DOJ and DHS components and has responsibility for 
coordinating multi-jurisdictional investigations of all gangs except 
FBI-led investigations involving the MS-13 and 18th Street gangs. The 
MS-13 National Gang Task Force, on the other hand, has only FBI 
participants and is responsible for coordinating FBI's multi- 
jurisdictional investigations involving MS-13 and 18th Street gangs. As 
a result, both entities coordinate some multi-jurisdictional MS-13 and 
18th Street gang investigations and risk unnecessary federal resource 
expenditures to fund two entities when a single group could be more 
efficient. The GangTECC and MS-13 Task Force Directors acknowledged 
that there is overlap between the missions and responsibilities of the 
two entities, and the chief of the DOJ Criminal Division's Gang Unit 
also noted that the two entities have overlapping jurisdictions and no 
formal coordination mechanisms. The Directors stated that the two 
entities do share information about the gangs and were co-located to 
encourage that interaction. Moreover, the director of GangTECC said he 
had invited representatives of the MS-13 National Gang Task Force to 
participate in meetings. As the invitation had been extended just prior 
to the conclusion of our audit work, we were not able to assess the 
level of participation. The Directors also said that while there is 
mission overlap, it has not jeopardized investigations or law 
enforcement operations. Nevertheless, the rationale for why two 
separate entities are needed is unclear. For example, the Criminal 
Division chief said that if DOJ were starting from scratch in creating 
a structure for coordinating federal anti-gang investigations, the 
department would not have the structure that currently exists because 
of the potential for this overlap. While the overlap may not have 
interfered with investigations or operations to date, it is not clear 
that this is the most efficient and effective use of federal resources. 

Articulating and differentiating among roles, responsibilities, and 
missions of headquarters-level anti-gang entities and ensuring ICE's 
full participation in authorizing anti-gang task forces would help to 
identify gaps or overlaps among the entities and participating agencies 
and help to increase the understanding of federal, state, and local law 
enforcement agencies of each of the entities' mission and goals. In 
addition, such action would strengthen these headquarters-level 
coordination efforts to help to ensure that they are not unnecessarily 
expending resources on overlapping missions. 

In Localities We Visited Agencies Cited Benefits to Coordinating 
Federal Anti-Gang Efforts Primarily through Taskforces: 

At the field level, federal law enforcement agencies primarily conduct 
and coordinate their gang enforcement efforts through task forces. 
Examples include: 

* The FBI's Violent Gang Safe Street Task Forces were established in 
1992 to serve as long-term and coordinated teams of federal, state, and 
local law enforcement officers and prosecutors. These task forces focus 
on disrupting and dismantling the most violent and criminally active 
gang threats in the United States. According to the FBI, as of April 
2009, 144 Safe Streets Taskforces were operating in locations across 
the country. 

* ATF's Violent Crime Impact Teams were established in 2004 through 
partnerships with other state and local agencies to reduce firearms- 
related violent crime including violent gang crime in small, geographic 
areas experiencing an increase in violent crime. As of April 2009, 31 
Violent Crime Impact Teams were operating in locations across the 
country, according to ATF. 

* DEA's Mobile Enforcement Team (MET) program was established in 1995 
to address the spread of drug trafficking and associated violent crime 
in urban and rural areas. Due to budgetary constraints, the MET program 
was temporarily suspended in June 2007, however, in January 2008, 
Congress directed DEA to use appropriated funds to continue the MET 
program.[Footnote 21] At that time, DEA also made MET investigations 
targeting the drug trafficking activities of criminal street gangs and 
criminal organizations that supply them a priority. Teams of eight 
agents each operate in ten DEA field divisions nationwide, according to 
DEA.[Footnote 22] 

* USMS' fugitive task force program and other initiatives such as 
Operation FALCON (Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally) target 
fugitive gang members. Additionally, USMS coordinates a "Most Wanted 
Gang Members" list through GangTECC. 

* ICE works with state and local law enforcement agencies in conducting 
its gang enforcement activities under its anti-gang initiative called 
Operation Community Shield.[Footnote 23] Under this initiative, 
investigations focus on transnational street gangs, gangs whose members 
are subject to ICE's immigration and customs authorities because the 
members are foreign born and/or in the country illegally or have been 
involved in crimes with a nexus to the U.S. borders (i.e. narcotics 
trafficking and human trafficking). ICE investigations also focus on 
gangs operating in the United States and abroad as complex organized 
criminal organizations. 

At the field division level, many officials from federal, state, and 
local law enforcement offices cited benefits to coordinating federal 
anti-gang efforts primarily through task forces and were generally 
satisfied that the task force approach resulted in collaboration and 
information sharing among the various law enforcement entities. These 
officials provided examples of how these taskforces provide avenues 
through which federal, state, and local agencies can directly share 
resources and partner in conducting gang investigations, as noted 
below: 

* Ten of the twenty local police chiefs or supervisors of gang units 
that we interviewed said that federally-led taskforces have resources 
to pay informants, conduct wiretaps, and purchase vehicles for 
surveillance and undercover operations; among other resources which 
state and local law enforcement agencies often do not have, or the 
officials noted that local law enforcement officers assigned to 
federally-led taskforces have better access to technology and new 
investigative techniques than officers not assigned to task forces. Use 
of these investigative tools and equipment allow state and local 
agencies to work with federal agencies in conducting investigations 
that target gangs as criminal enterprises, types of cases which state 
and local agencies would generally not be able to conduct in the 
absence of federal resources and assistance. 

Officials also provided examples of how task forces provide 
opportunities for direct information and intelligence sharing among 
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, as noted below: 

* Four of the twenty local law enforcement officials said that one of 
the primary benefits to their agencies participating in federally led 
task forces is access to information and intelligence on gangs. State 
and local officers assigned to federally led task forces benefit by 
learning new investigative techniques that they, in turn, can share 
with other local law enforcement officers. 

* In nineteen of the thirty four federal law enforcement field division 
offices we visited, supervisory agents noted that their task forces 
also benefited from state and local police officers' intimate knowledge 
of the gang problems in their local communities. 

In addition to these benefits, several officials identified a challenge 
to the task force structure that they work to overcome. In some cases, 
federal, state, and local agencies that participate in task forces may 
have differing priorities and interests for gang enforcement 
activities. For example, supervisors at two FBI field divisions said 
that the FBI focuses on long-term gang investigations designed to 
eliminate entire gangs. In contrast, they said that state and local law 
enforcement agencies tend to focus on efforts to help reduce gang crime 
and violence in the short-term and look for short-term results for 
their communities. Consequently, the officials said that state and 
local law enforcement agencies are sometimes reluctant to dedicate 
resources to support the long-term investigations, but that these 
issues are worked through jointly by federal and local agencies 
involved in the task force. 

In addition to task forces, interviewees in the localities we visited 
described other mechanisms or tools for deconflicting law enforcement 
actions, sharing information, and coordinating gang enforcement 
activities with one another. In areas of the country identified by the 
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) as high 
intensity drug trafficking areas (HIDTA), including New York City, 
Chicago, and Los Angeles, the HIDTAs monitored law enforcement 
activities including anti-gang operations to deconflict and coordinate 
across law enforcement agencies. In Richmond, Virginia, federal, state, 
and local agencies met regularly to deconflict cases and discuss anti- 
gang initiatives through a Cooperative Violence Reduction Partnership, 
which was created and chaired by the Richmond Chief of Police. 
Similarly, in Tampa, Florida, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's 
Department and the Tampa Police Department co-chair of a Multi-Area 
Gang Task Force composed of representatives of 60 law enforcement 
agencies, including local, state and county police departments, FBI, 
ATF, and ICE. The task force participants share intelligence at monthly 
meetings and support one another in major anti-gang operations. 

The USAOs also have responsibilities for coordinating anti-gang efforts 
in their districts. For example, each of the 15 USAOs we visited had 
complied with DOJ requirements to appoint an Anti-Gang Coordinator for 
the district to help formulate the anti-gang strategies for their 
districts. The Anti-Gang Coordinators implement training opportunities 
for prosecutors and law enforcement agents and officers, act as 
liaisons for the USAO on gang-related cases with prosecutors from other 
offices as well as law enforcement officers and agents, and are 
proactively involved in developing strategies for investigating and 
prosecuting gang members with violent criminal behavior. Each USAO we 
visited had also completed a districtwide anti-gang strategy, as 
required by the Attorney General in 2005. According to guidance from 
the Attorney General, USAOs were to consult with federal, state, and 
local law enforcement; social service organizations; and community and 
faith-based groups in their district to develop the strategies. They 
included a description of the gang problem in each district; a 
description of how agencies within the district were responding or 
planned to respond to the problem; a description of whether the 
district has a specific gang unit or the resources being used to 
investigate and prosecute gangs; a description of the roles played by 
state and local law enforcement agencies in combating gangs; and any 
suggestions on how DOJ could more effectively address the gang problem 
on a local or national level. Anti-Gang Coordinators are required to 
prepare annual reports on the district's anti-gang strategy, which are 
submitted to EOUSA and then provided to the Deputy Attorney General who 
informs the Attorney General of anti-gang activities throughout the 
nation. The reports are used to identify best practices, which are 
discussed at national conferences and informally among prosecutors. 

Federal Agencies Have Measures for Gang Enforcement Efforts, but Lack a 
Common Definition of "Gang" and a DOJ Departmentwide Performance 
Measure: 

Federal agencies have developed and used measures to assess their gang 
enforcement efforts, but they lack a common or shared definition for 
"gang," hindering their efforts to measure and report on gangs, gang 
crime, and enforcement activities. While DOJ has emphasized strategies 
for combating gangs as a part of its strategic objective to reduce 
violent crime, the department lacks a departmentwide performance 
measure for its anti-gang efforts. DOJ and DHS law enforcement agencies 
measure their gang crime enforcement efforts by counting outputs such 
as gang activities disrupted, arrests made, and enforcement activities 
conducted. However, U.S. Attorneys have underreported their efforts in 
prosecuting gang-related cases as well as the amount of time spent 
working on gang-related cases. EOUSA has taken steps to improve 
reporting on gang enforcement efforts. For example, as a result of our 
review and in following up on its 2006 guidance on reporting case and 
time management information on "gang-related" activities, the EOUSA 
Director issued guidance to USAOs in February 2009 noting the 
underreporting of gang cases and gang-related work time, and 
reinforcing the importance of tracking anti-gang activities. 

Lack of a Shared Definition for Gangs Hinders Measurement of Gang Crime 
Enforcement across Federal Departments and Agencies: 

Gangs vary in size, ethnic composition, membership, and organizational 
structure, which makes it challenging to develop a uniform definition 
of "gang." Federal law enforcement agencies have developed and used 
different working definitions of a "gang" and other associated terms, 
such as "gang-related." However, these agencies lack a common or shared 
definition for "gang" and related terms, hindering federal agencies' 
efforts to accurately measure and report on gangs, gang crime, and 
enforcement activities. 

Our prior work on performance management and measurement practices for 
entities involved in implementing crosscutting programs has shown that 
establishing common definitions can help to ensure that data used for 
common purposes or assessing performance is, among other things, 
consistently defined and interpreted.[Footnote 24] For example, we 
noted that a broadly accepted definition of "homeland security" did not 
exist and that some officials believed it was essential that the 
concept and related terms be defined, particularly because homeland 
security initiatives are crosscutting, and a clear definition promotes 
a common understanding of operational plans and requirements, and can 
help avoid duplication of effort and gaps in coverage. Common 
definitions promote more effective agency and intergovernmental 
operations and permit more accurate monitoring of homeland security 
expenditures at all levels of government.[Footnote 25] 

With respect to the definition of "gang," DOJ and its components have 
discussed needs and possibilities for developing a common or shared 
definition for gangs in terms of numbers of members and organizational 
characteristics, but have not yet reached consensus on such a shared 
definition. DOJ developed a working definition of a "gang" as a group 
or association of three or more persons who may have a common 
identifying sign, symbol, or name and who are involved in criminal 
activity which creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. The DOJ 
definition is used by its component agencies such as ATF and FBI. ICE's 
working definition of a gang also specifies that three or more persons 
must be involved in criminal activity; however, ICE's definition 
requires that a gang crime be an ongoing pattern of criminal activity 
committed on two or more separate occasions. These working definitions 
are also distinct from a provision of federal law, which, for specified 
purposes, defines a criminal street gang as "an ongoing group, club, 
organization, or association of five or more persons that has as one of 
its primary purposes the commission of one or more of the described 
criminal offenses; the members of which engage, or have engaged within 
the past 5 years, in a continuing series of described offenses; and the 
activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce.[Footnote 26] 

According to the FBI's National Gang Strategy, a universal definition 
for a "gang" would facilitate intelligence collection and sharing, 
target selection, prosecution, and overall program management. The DOJ 
Criminal Division Gang Unit Chief recognized that having a standard 
definition of "gang" across agencies and departments would result in 
better statistics on how agencies are performing on gang-related 
criminal investigations. Other DOJ components also identified negative 
impacts resulting from the absence of a shared definition. For example, 
in its 2009 National Gang Threat Assessment, DOJ reported that one of 
the greatest impediments to the collection of accurate gang-related 
data was the lack of a national uniform definition of a gang used by 
all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. EOUSA officials 
also said that lack of consistent definitions of "gang member" and 
"gang-related crime" contributed to underreporting of gang-related 
cases by USAOs; therefore, EOUSA may not have complete data on its gang-
related cases. Given the lack of a common definition, federal agencies 
do not have consistent and comprehensive data on the scope of the gang 
problem and the resources allocated to anti-gang efforts. 

According to DOJ and DHS agencies, lack of a shared definition of 
"gang" and related terms stems, in part, from headquarters-level 
coordination entities not attempting to reach consensus on how to use 
the term, and DOJ's desire to provide agencies with flexibility in 
defining gangs. Agency officials said lack of a common definition did 
not adversely affect law enforcement activity. According to the Chief 
of the Gang Unit, agencies have not attempted to reach a consensus on a 
shared definition of "gang" because, while consistent use of the term 
would improve the quality of information available on federal efforts 
to combat gang violence, it would not make a difference in the cases 
investigated and prosecuted by federal agencies. For example, this 
official noted that a consistent definition of "gang" has no impact on 
U.S. Attorneys' decisions to prosecute cases nor on the charges brought 
against gang-related defendants. Although lack of a common definition 
for "gang," may not negatively affect gang investigations and 
prosecutions, the absence of a common or shared definition for "gang" 
and related terms makes it difficult for federal agencies to completely 
and accurately report on gang-related data. 

DOJ Lacks a Departmentwide Performance Measure for Anti-Gang Efforts: 

At the department level, DOJ lacks a performance measure for anti-gang 
efforts.[Footnote 27] Congress enacted the Government Performance and 
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)[Footnote 28] to have agencies focus on the 
performance and results of programs, rather than on program resources 
and activities. The principles of the act include establishing 
measurable goals and related measures, developing strategies for 
achieving results, and identifying the resources that will be required 
to achieve the goals. GPRA requires federal agencies to develop 
strategic plans and performance goals and to identify resources needed 
to achieve them, as well as for agencies to develop performance 
measures to use in assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, and 
outcomes of each program activity. The act does not require agencies to 
use these principles for individual programs, but our related work and 
the experience of leading organizations have shown that the principles 
are the basic underpinning for performance-based management--a means to 
strengthen program performance. Performance measures help federal 
agencies to assess progress made on anti-gang efforts over time and 
provide decision makers with key data to facilitate the resource 
allocation process. 

One of the three strategic goals in DOJ's fiscal year 2007 to 2012 
strategic plan is the goal to "prevent crime, enforce federal laws and 
represent the rights and interests of the American people." A strategic 
objective under this goal is to "reduce the threat, incidence, and 
prevalence of violent crime." As shown in figure 4, associated with 
this strategic objective are various strategies, four of which are 
directly related to anti-gang efforts. 

Figure 4: DOJ's Fiscal Year 2007 to 2012 Strategic Plan Includes Anti- 
Gang Strategies but Lacks a Gang-Specific Performance Measure: 

[Refer to PDF for image: table] 

DOJ Strategic Goals/Prevention Measures: 

I. Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation’s Security. 

II. Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent the Rights and 
Interests of the American People: 

Performance Measures: 
* Number of organized criminal enterprises dismantled; 
* Number of child pornography Web sites or Web hosts shut down; 
* Percentage of firearms investigations resulting in a referral for 
criminal prosecution; 
* DOJ’s reduction in the supply of drugs available for consumption in 
the U.S. 
* Number of disruptions and dismantlements of Consolidated Priority 
Organizations Target-linked drug trafficking organizations; 
* Number of high-impact Internet fraud targets neutralized; 
* Number of criminal enterprises engaging in white collar crime 
dismantled; 
* Percentage of cases favorably resolved; 
* Percentage of Assets/Funds returned to creditors; 
* Homicides per site; 
* Percentage reduction in DNA backlog; 
* Percentage of children recovered within 72 hours of an issuance of an 
AMBER alert. 

Strategic Objective: Reduce the Threat, Incidence, and Prevalence of 
Violent Crime: 

Strategies: 
* Combat gun violence through Project Safe Neighborhoods; 
* Implement a comprehensive anti-gang strategy; 
* Target, investigate, and prosecute the most violent street gangs in 
our cities and communities; 
* Deploy the National Gang Targeting, Enforcement, and Coordination 
Center to disrupt and dismantle violent gangs in the United States that 
threaten national security, border protection, and public safety; 
* Deploy Violent Crime Impact Teams to combat violent crime; 
* Vigorously prosecute organized crime and racketeering; 
* Provide operational enforcement assistance and training to tribal 
governments; 
* Enforce regulatory requirements for firearms and explosives; 
* Provide technical assistance and support to law enforcement partners 
to fight violent crime; 
* Prevent violent crime in the United States by reducing international 
violent crime. 

III. Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ’s fiscal year 2007-2012 strategic plan. 

[End of figure] 

While DOJ has outlined a number of departmentwide performance measures 
under the strategic goal, none relate specifically to gangs. DOJ 
undertook a process to identify long-term, measurable goals (key 
indicators) that would show, at a high level, progress toward meeting 
the department's strategic goals and objectives. Such measures are 
departmentwide in nature as they represent priority areas for DOJ, and 
are reflected in DOJ's strategic plan, as well as other GPRA-related 
documents such as the performance and accountability report. According 
to DOJ, anti-gang efforts are folded into several of the performance 
measures, including disrupting and dismantling drug trafficking 
organizations and reducing the supply of drugs available for 
consumption in the United States. Given that efforts to address gangs 
have been a major part of DOJ's overall approach to combating violent 
crime, the lack of a departmentwide performance measure or measures 
focused specifically on anti-gang efforts makes it difficult for the 
department and Congress to assess the effectiveness of the department's 
overall anti-gang effort. 

DOJ and DHS Law Enforcement Agencies Have Established Measures to 
Assess Their Anti-Gang Efforts, and Outputs Measured Have Generally 
Increased since Fiscal Year 2003: 

It can be difficult for law enforcement agencies to measure outcomes or 
results of their law enforcement efforts, including anti-gang efforts. 
Trying to isolate the effects of federal law enforcement efforts from 
other factors that affect outcomes but over which DOJ has little or no 
control presents a formidable challenge because many factors contribute 
to the rise and fall of crime rates including federal, state, local, 
and tribal law enforcement activities and sociological, economic, and 
other factors. DOJ and DHS law enforcement agencies have established 
output measures, such as numbers of arrests and convictions, for 
assessing their gang crime enforcement efforts. Outputs provide status 
information about an initiative or program in terms of completing an 
action in a specified time frame. For example, the FBI uses disruptions 
and dismantlements as its primary gang enforcement measures[Footnote 
29] and also reports on gang-related convictions. Among other things, 
ATF collects and reports information on gang-related convictions, and 
DEA and ICE collect and report information on gang-related 
arrests.[Footnote 30] USAOs collect information on gang-related cases 
filed and gang-related defendants. 

Since fiscal year 2003, federal law enforcement agencies' gang-related 
measures have generally increased. DOJ and DHS officials attributed 
these increases to the allocation of additional resources for anti-gang 
efforts over the past few years. As shown in figure 5, since fiscal 
year 2003, the number of FBI gang-related disruptions has increased 
from 166 to 716 in fiscal year 2008. 

Figure 5: FBI Gang-Related Disruptions (Fiscal Years 2003 to 2008): 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Disruptions: 166. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Disruptions: 299. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Disruptions: 465. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Disruptions: 509. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Disruptions: 463. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Disruptions: 716. 

Source: FBI data. 

[End of figure] 

As shown in figure 6, the number of FBI gang-related dismantlements has 
remained fairly constant over the 6 years from fiscal year 2003 to 
fiscal year 2008, ranging from a high of 67 dismantlements reported in 
fiscal year 2006 to a low of 40 dismantlements reported in fiscal year 
2004. 

Figure 6: FBI Gang-Related Dismantlements (Fiscal Years 2003 to 2008): 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Gang-Related Dismantlements: 46. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Gang-Related Dismantlements: 40. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Gang-Related Dismantlements: 65. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Gang-Related Dismantlements: 67. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Gang-Related Dismantlements: 66. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Gang-Related Dismantlements: 59. 

Source: FBI data. 

[End of figure] 

In addition, FBI reports on gang-related convictions. From fiscal year 
2003 through 2008, the FBI reported gang-related convictions that 
ranged from a high of 2,762 in fiscal year 2008 to a low of 1,690 in 
fiscal year 2005. 

Among other gang-related measures, ATF also reports the number of gang- 
related convictions by fiscal year. As shown in figure 7, since fiscal 
year 2003, the number of convictions has generally increased each year, 
and the number of gang-related convictions in fiscal year 2008 was 
about 5 times the number of such convictions in fiscal year 2003. 

Figure 7: ATF Gang-Related Convictions (Fiscal Years 2003 to 2008): 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Gang related convictions: 417. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Gang related convictions: 679. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Gang related convictions: 1,199. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Gang related convictions: 1,680. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Gang related convictions: 2,142. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Gang related convictions: 2,130. 

Source: ATF data. 

[End of figure] 

As shown in figure 8, DEA reported number of gang-related arrests have 
also increased slightly from 1,823 in fiscal year 2003 to 2,038 in 
fiscal year 2008, but were at their highest level over the 6-year 
period in fiscal year 2006. 

Figure 8: DEA Gang-Related Arrests (Fiscal Years 2003 to 2008): 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Arrests: 1,823. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Arrests: 1,627. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Arrests: 1,988. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Arrests: 2,783. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Arrests: 2,448. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Arrests: 2,038. 

Source: DEA data. 

[End of figure] 

Among other gang-related measures, ICE reports on the number of gang- 
related criminal and administrative arrests by fiscal year.[Footnote 
31] As shown in figure 9, the number of criminal and administrative 
gang-related arrests made by ICE has increased since fiscal year 2006, 
the first full fiscal year that it compiled this information. 

Figure 9: ICE Gang-Related Arrests (Fiscal Years 2006 to 2008): 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Gang related criminal arrests: 647; 
Gang-related administrative arrests: 1,988. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Gang related criminal arrests: 1,442; 
Gang-related administrative arrests: 1,860. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Gang related criminal arrests: 1,654; 
Gang-related administrative arrests: 2,211. 

Source: ICE data. 

[End of figure] 

Underreporting of U.S. Attorneys' Gang-Related Case and Time Management 
Information Has Resulted in Inaccurate Measurement of Federal Gang 
Enforcement Efforts, but EOUSA Has Taken Action to Improve Reporting: 

According to EOUSA officials, USAOs have underreported the number of 
gang-related cases their offices handle and the amount of time they 
spend working on these gang-related cases. For fiscal year 2008, EOUSA 
data showed 536 cases filed in which a gang member had a participating 
role, a number that officials said they believe underreports the extent 
to which USAOs were prosecuting gang-related crimes. In 2006, EOUSA 
issued guidance to USAO personnel for them to record information in 
National Legal Information Office Network System (LIONS) and U.S. 
Attorney-5 (USA-5) systems on numbers of gang-related cases and matters 
and time spent working on gang-related cases and matters to assist in 
tracking resources and outputs for gang enforcement efforts. LIONS is 
the centralized computer database used by USAOs and managed by EOUSA to 
prepare annual statistical reports on the activities of the U.S. 
Attorneys by types of cases opened, pending, and closed. USAO personnel 
use the USA-5 system for time management, and EOUSA uses the system to 
analyze and help manage assignment of resources to priority crime areas 
such as counter-terrorism, narcotics, and organized crime. 

EOUSA officials said that improvements to the data collection are 
needed. A 2008 DOJ Office of Inspector General report found that 
caseload and time management concerns contributed to reliance by EOUSA 
on incomplete and inaccurate data to determine resource needs, allocate 
positions, and respond to inquiries from Congress and other interested 
parties.[Footnote 32] EOUSA officials identified three key challenges 
that impact the reliability of all case and time management 
information. First, because every attorney and support person in USAOs 
enters data into the information systems, the potential for errors and 
omissions is great. Second, the systems have become more complex to use 
as additional codes are created to record information on cases and time 
spent on various activities to respond to congressional interest, DOJ 
priorities, and audits. Third, attorneys, historically, have not viewed 
data entry as a priority, so they have not always been diligent about 
being sure that it is done correctly. With regard to collecting data 
specifically on gang-related cases, EOUSA officials identified other 
specific challenges. For example, extra data entry steps are required 
to enter information on gangs into LIONS and USA-5 beyond those steps 
required for inputting general case information to the systems. 
[Footnote 33] Moreover, attorneys may not determine until after initial 
information on a case is entered into LIONS that the case is gang-
related and then not go back into LIONS and revise the initial 
information to show that defendants are gang-related. In addition, 
EOUSA officials noted that attorneys do not have a common definition 
for what constitutes a "gang" and "gang-related crime" that would allow 
for consistent reporting. 

EOUSA has taken steps to improve reporting on gang enforcement efforts. 
As a result of our review and in following up on its 2006 guidance on 
reporting case and time management information on "gang-related" 
activities, the EOUSA Director issued guidance to USAOs in February 
2009 noting the underreporting of gang cases and gang-related work time 
in LIONS and USA-5, respectively, and reinforcing the importance of 
providing accurate information on anti-gang activities in these 
systems. In addition, EOUSA officials said that they continue to 
provide training to USAO personnel on use of the information systems 
and the importance of reporting complete and accurate information. Peer 
reviews conducted at USAOs every 3 years also assess, among other 
operations, the systems in place for entering information into LIONS 
and USA-5. This February 2009 guidance and training for USAOs are 
positive steps to help improve USAOs' collection and reporting of data 
on gang-related cases. GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government state that internal controls should generally be 
designed to assure that ongoing monitoring occurs in the course of 
normal operations.[Footnote 34] Given that USAOs have not consistently 
and accurately entered data on gang-related cases into their case and 
time management systems as required by EOUSA's 2006 guidance, in the 
absence of periodic monitoring of USAOs' gang-related data, EOUSA 
cannot be certain that USAOs have followed the guidance and accurately 
recorded gang-related data. 

DOJ Has Funded Grant Programs to Test Anti-Gang Models, but Evaluations 
Have Reported Mixed Results in the Programs' Sustainability and 
Contributions to Reductions in Crime: 

DOJ anti-gang grants involve not only law enforcement efforts, but also 
efforts focused on gang prevention, intervention, and re-entry support 
for former gang members who are released from prison. DOJ, through 
OJJDP, has provided grant funding to localities across the nation under 
the Gang-Free Schools and Communities Program, Gang Reduction Program, 
and the Gang Prevention Coordination Assistance Program primarily to 
test models for communities to follow in implementing approaches for 
addressing gang problems. DOJ, through, BJA, also provides grant 
funding under the Comprehensive Anti-Gang Initiative, which is the 
largest current anti-gang program. Communities that received grants 
from OJJDP and BJA had flexibility in determining how to allocate and 
use grant funding and used the funding in support of different anti- 
gang approaches and programs. Grant programs for which DOJ-sponsored 
evaluations were completed reported mixed results for achieving 
reductions in gang crime with benefits for grant recipients but little 
evidence that the programs effectively reduced youth gang crime. 
Sustainability of grant programs after federal funding ended has also 
been a concern. 

DOJ Has Supported Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Enforcement 
Programs through Grant Programs That Emphasize Coordination and 
Collaboration: 

DOJ, the department with responsibility for administering anti-gang 
grants, has pursued a strategy to assist communities in combating gang 
crime that involves not only law enforcement efforts, but also efforts 
to prevent young people from joining gangs, intervene and provide 
alternatives to gang membership for youth who are gang-affiliated, and 
offer support through re-entry activities for former gang members who 
are released from prison and returning to their communities. In fiscal 
year 2008, DOJ, through OJJDP and BJA, reported providing $14.9 million 
for three grant programs specifically directed to combating gang 
activity, and demonstration projects were still spending OJJDP funds 
for two other anti-gang programs.[Footnote 35] Three of the current 
grant programs--Gang Free Schools and Communities, Gang Reduction, and 
Gang Prevention Coordination Assistance--are administered by OJJDP. The 
other program, the Comprehensive Anti-Gang Initiative, is administered 
by BJA.[Footnote 36] In addition to allocating funding under these 
discretionary grant programs, DOJ reported that it allocated about $8.1 
million in fiscal year 2008 for specific anti-gang programs, as 
directed by Congress. Grantees included cities, counties, law 
enforcement agencies, and private organizations in locations across the 
United States. 

Officials of OJP noted many similarities in the grant initiatives 
funded by OJJDP and BJA. Most importantly, officials said, both models 
emphasize coordination and collaboration among law enforcement and 
social service agencies at the federal, state, and local levels, as 
well as community and faith-based groups that are involved in anti-gang 
efforts. However, the officials also noted differences between the 
OJJDP and BJA grant programs. For example, BJA does not specifically 
direct services to juveniles, and the BJA grant program has a component 
to provide assistance to former gang members released from prison and 
reentering their communities that was not present in the OJJDP grant 
programs. 

OJJDP Grants Tested a Communitywide Gang Program Model: 

DOJ has provided grant funding to localities across the nation under 
the Gang-Free Schools and Communities Program, Gang Reduction Program, 
and the Gang Prevention Coordination Assistance Program primarily to 
test models for communities to follow in implementing approaches for 
addressing gang problems. Since the 1980's, OJJDP's anti-gang programs 
for juveniles were demonstrations or tests of the Comprehensive 
Community-Wide Gang Program Model developed by Irving Spergel, a 
researcher and professor at the University of Chicago. This model was 
based on the results of an assessment directed by Dr. Spergel and 
funded by OJJDP beginning in 1987 and was first implemented in the 
Little Village neighborhood of Chicago in 1993. To develop the model, 
Dr. Spergel and his research team conducted a national survey to 
attempt to identify every promising community gang program in the 
United States and then identify the common elements that were essential 
to each program's successes based on community representatives' 
responses to the survey questions. The research team identified the 
following five elements common to promising community gang programs 
that became the comprehensive model: 

* Community mobilization: Involvement of local citizens, including 
former gang-involved youth; community groups; and agencies, as well as 
coordination of programs and staff functions within and across 
agencies. 

* Opportunities provision: Development of a variety of specific 
education, training, and employment programs targeting gang-involved 
youth. 

* Social intervention: Involvement of youth-serving agencies, schools, 
faith-based organizations, police, and other juvenile and criminal 
justice organizations in reaching out to gang-involved youth and their 
families and linking them to needed services. 

* Suppression: Use of procedures including close supervision and 
monitoring of gang-involved youth by agencies of the juvenile and 
criminal justice systems and also by community-based agencies, schools, 
and other groups. 

* Organizational change and development: Development and implementation 
of policies and procedures that result in the most effective use of 
available and potential resources, within and across agencies, to 
better address the gang problem.[Footnote 37] 

In 1995, OJJDP awarded funds to five competitively-selected sites that 
demonstrated the capacity to implement the model and then, in 1999, 
OJJDP funded a rural gang initiative to test the model in four rural 
communities with growing gang problems.[Footnote 38] Evaluations of the 
first five sites to demonstrate the model determined that, while 
results varied from location to location, when properly implemented, a 
combination of prevention, intervention, and suppression strategies was 
successful in reducing the gang problem. A national evaluation of the 
rural gang initiative was not completed because of staffing issues on 
the evaluation team. 

OJJDP continued to test the model with two of the three programs that 
were funded as of January 2009. The Gang-Free Schools and Communities 
Program began in 2000 and the Gang Reduction Program began in 2003. The 
third program, the Gang Prevention Coordination Assistance Program, is 
not an additional test of Dr. Spergel's Comprehensive Community-Wide 
Gang Program Model. Rather, the program provides funds for 
demonstration locations to hire a coordinator who will enhance the 
coordination of existing community-based gang prevention and 
intervention strategies that are closely aligned with local law 
enforcement efforts. Table 2 provides information on these four anti- 
gang programs that were currently funded as of January 2009.[Footnote 
39] 

Table 2: OJJDP Anti-Gang Grant Programs That Were Currently Funded as 
of January 2009: 

Anti-Gang demonstration grant program: Gang-Free Schools and 
Communities; 
Purpose: To build on accomplishments of anti-gang efforts since 1994, 
increase knowledge about youth gangs, and demonstrate successful gang 
prevention and intervention activities; 
Status: As of March 2009, all grant funds were expended. Some 
communities were continuing some aspects of the program with local 
funding sources; 
Funding: level: $1.05 million awarded to each pilot site in 2001. An 
additional $205,000 for Houston, Tex. and Pittsburgh, Pa. in 2007; 
Communities awarded funding: Gang-Free Communities was funded in six 
communities: Broward County, Fla.; Lakewood, Wash.; East Los Angeles, 
Calif.; Louisville, Ky.; San Francisco, Calif.; and Washington, D.C.; 
Gang-Free Schools was funded in four other communities: East Cleveland, 
Ohio; Houston, Tex., Miami/Dade County, Fla.; and Pittsburgh, Pa. 

Anti-Gang demonstration grant program: Gang Reduction Program; 
Purpose: To reduce gang activity in targeted communities by addressing 
personal, family, and community factors with a relationship to juvenile 
delinquency and gang involvement; 
Status: The anticipated project end date for Richmond, VA; Los Angeles, 
CA; and North Miami Beach, FL is September 30, 2009. Milwaukee, Wisc. 
no longer receives grant funds; 
Funding: level: $2.5 million awarded to each pilot site in 2003. An 
additional $200,000 for Los Angles, Calif. and Richmond Va. in 2006; 
Communities awarded funding: Richmond, Va; Los Angeles, Calif.; 
Milwaukee, Wisc.; and North Miami Beach, Fla. 

Anti-Gang demonstration grant program: Gang Prevention Coordination 
Assistance Program; 
Purpose: To facilitate coordination of community-based gang prevention 
and intervention programs with local law enforcement by funding a 
coordinator position; 
Status: Funded beginning in fiscal year 2007; 
Funding: level: $2.3 million awarded in fiscal year 2008. Grants 
received ranged by community from about $169,000 to $200,000; 
Communities awarded funding: Multiple locations. Twelve grant awards 
made in fiscal years 2007 and 2008. In January 2009, OJJDP announced it 
was seeking applications for fiscal year 2009 and would award 12 grants 
of up to $200,000. 

Source: GAO analysis of OJP data. 

[End of table] 

BJA's Comprehensive Anti-Gang Initiative Is the Largest Current Anti- 
Gang Program: 

The Comprehensive Anti-Gang Initiative administered by BJA is the 
largest currently funded anti-gang program. The initiative was 
announced in 2006 as an extension of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), 
which has the broader goal of reducing violent crime in communities. 
[Footnote 40] The Comprehensive Anti-Gang Initiative was designed to 
build on successes in the Project Safe Neighborhoods program by 
stressing the importance of collaboration among federal, state, and 
local law enforcement and community organizations. The initiative 
provided grant funding to sites in the following three areas: (1) law 
enforcement; (2) programs to prevent youth from joining gangs or 
remaining affiliated with gangs; and (3) services for former gang 
members re-entering the community after prison terms. Specifically, 
each community awarded funds under the initiative received a total 
grant of $2.5 million to be used over 3 years. Of the $2.5 million in 
grant funding, $1 million was to be spent on law enforcement; $1 
million on prevention and intervention activities; and $0.5 million to 
create reentry assistance programs for transitional housing, job 
readiness and placement assistance, and substance abuse and mental 
health treatment to prisoners re-entering society. By incorporating 
these three components into the grant program, DOJ intends to address 
gang membership and gang violence at every stage. The following 12 
locations received grant awards from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal 
year 2008: 

* Fiscal year 2006 grantees: Los Angeles, Calif.; Tampa, Fla.; 
Milwaukee, Wisc.; Cleveland, Ohio; an area of Pennsylvania encompassing 
communities from Easton to Lancaster, Pa.; and Dallas/Fort Worth, Tex. 

* Fiscal year 2007 grantees: Oklahoma City, Okla.; Raleigh/Durham, 
N.C.; Rochester, N.Y.; and Indianapolis, Ind. 

* Fiscal year 2008 grantees: Chicago, Ill., and Detroit, Mich. 

Communities Have Used Federal Anti-Gang Grants for Different Approaches 
and Programs: 

Communities that received grants from OJJDP and BJA had flexibility in 
determining how to allocate and use grant funding and used the funding 
in support of different anti-gang approaches and programs, including 
intervention activities directed specifically to at-risk youth and 
prevention activities designed to benefit a range of residents in the 
targeted communities. Examples of activities initiated by OJJDP-funded 
communities in locations we visited include: 

* A summer program with activities for youth and families at city parks 
that stayed open until midnight--Los Angeles, Calif. 

* A full range of services for gang-affiliated offenders who had been 
incarcerated and were returning to the community. Services available 
included training in adult literacy and anger management, substance 
abuse prevention, housing assistance, and job placement--Dallas, Tex. 

* Parenting classes and prenatal and infant health care services-- 
Richmond, VA: 

* Youth mentoring programs--Durham, N.C. 

The way communities chose to distribute grant funds also differed. Some 
communities chose to distribute a larger amount of funds to a small 
number of subgrantees and participants, whereas other communities chose 
to distribute smaller funding amounts to a larger number of sub- 
grantees and/or serve large numbers of people. Officials in Pittsburgh, 
Pa., and Richmond, Va., who participated in OJJDP's Gang-Free Schools 
and Communities Program and the Gang Reduction Program, respectively, 
provided examples of how funds were allocated in their communities. 

* In Pittsburgh, Pa., the Gang-Free Schools and Communities project 
served about 100 boys in the area where the highest incidents of 
violent gang activity were reported. This target area was also heavily 
affected by poverty, unemployment, and social disorganization. The 
participants were identified by the schools or other community 
organizations as being "gang-involved" and were provided with 
prevention and intervention services. Services include an after-school 
program and a mentoring program, as well as substance abuse treatment 
and employment services. 

* In Richmond, Va., the Gang Reduction and Intervention Program was 
broader in scope, serving youth with a range of services from medical 
care to job training based on their needs. Officials stressed the 
importance of the assessment phase of the program. The officials 
developed a resource inventory tool to assess resource availability and 
gaps that has been shared with other communities nationwide. Richmond 
was using both proven and new programs in two target areas of the city 
to work on gang prevention and intervention issues. For example, the 
officials said that one of their subgrantees, the Boys and Girls Club, 
had a proven track record in successfully implementing gang prevention 
and intervention programs, but that they had also supported more than 
60 other promising programs through the grant, ranging from small faith-
based groups to larger community organizations. The grant had been used 
to provide services to a large number of young people and other 
residents, and it resulted in collaborative partnerships among social 
service agencies and community service providers and, to an extent, 
between law enforcement and social service agencies. Figure 10 shows 
several services and programs that received funding under the grant. 

Figure 10: Services and Programs Funded Under the Richmond, Virginia, 
Gang Reduction and Intervention Program: 

[Refer to PDF for image: four photographs] 

(1) At-risk youth participate in a summer Cal Ripken Baseball Camp; 
(2 and 3) Richmond police and Gang Reduction and Intervention Program 
staff donated 300 gifts to children in targeted neighborhoods for the 
2008 holiday season; 
(4) owners of an apartment complex in the target area donated use of an 
apartment for the Richmond Gang Reduction and Intervention Program to 
offer medical and social services to residents. 

Source: Va. Attorney General’s Office, Richmond, Va. 

[End of figure] 

Communities we visited that received funding under the Comprehensive 
Anti-Gang Initiative also were using, or planned to use, the grants for 
a wide variety of activities.[Footnote 41] For example, in Dallas, 
Tex., program officials said that gang prevention activities would take 
place primarily in schools. The officials planned to use the law 
enforcement component of the initiative for police overtime for 
operations designed to get gang members off of the streets in targeted 
areas. The re-entry component funds were to be used to implement a 
comprehensive strategy to assist offenders to prepare for release while 
still in prison and then offer services on their release from prison. 
In Tampa, Fla., the city's "Gang Out" program provided many prevention 
activities. For example, in June 2008, more than 1,200 at-risk youth 
aged 7 to 14 in nine neighborhoods identified as "hot spots" for gang 
activity were participating in "Gang Out" programs. Children were 
referred to the program by law enforcement, social services, school 
officials, parents, or others, and they were provided access to a 
variety of structured services and activities according to their needs 
(i.e. mental health counseling, tutoring, mentoring, field trips, and 
participation on sports teams). Tampa officials said they were using 
the law enforcement portion of the grant to help pay overtime for law 
enforcement task forces investigating gang crime, and to develop a 
database to facilitate information sharing among federal, state, and 
local law enforcement agencies. Re-entry funding was being used to 
provide counseling, job placement assistance, housing, and other 
services to ex-gang members about to exit prison and return to the 
Tampa area. Figure 11 shows one young Gang-Out participant at work on 
an anti-gang mural and the mural the young people completed. 

Figure 11: At-Risk Youth Design and Complete an Anti-Gang Mural in 
Tampa, Florida, as Part of the Comprehensive Anti-Gang Initiative: 

[Refer to PDF for image: two photographs] 

Source: Hillsborough County, Fla. Gang Out Program. 

[End of figure] 

DOJ Reported Lessons Learned and Grant Recipients Reported Benefits, 
but Projects Had Mixed Results and Were Difficult to Sustain: 

DOJ sponsored evaluations of OJJDP grant programs that reported both 
benefits and challenges faced by communities in implementing 
comprehensive anti-gang models and awarded a contract to Michigan State 
University for a national evaluation of BJA's Comprehensive Anti-Gang 
Initiative. Cosmos Corporation completed an evaluation of the Gang Free 
Schools and Communities program in November 2007.[Footnote 42] The 
Urban Institute completed an interim evaluation of the Gang Reduction 
Program in May 2008.[Footnote 43] The final evaluation of the Gang 
Reduction Program was not completed in April 2009 as scheduled because 
OJJDP officials said that the evaluators were waiting to receive 
additional data from one demonstration site and anticipated that the 
evaluation would be completed in 2009. The officials did not provide a 
revised estimated completion date for the evaluation. Officials said 
that no evaluation component of the Gang Prevention Coordination 
Assistance Program was funded because funding levels awarded to 
communities for gang prevention coordinator positions were relatively 
small amounts of $200,000 or less. With respect to BJA's Comprehensive 
Anti-Gang Initiative, Michigan State University is expected to complete 
an interim report in late 2009 and provide it to NIJ, the OJP component 
handling the evaluation of the program. 

According to DOJ-sponsored evaluations, grant recipients benefited in 
various ways from the grant programs. First, grant recipients received 
federal funds to implement gang enforcement, prevention, intervention, 
and reentry programs that they might otherwise not have been able to 
implement. These programs benefited those individuals who participated 
in them. For example, the evaluation of the Gang-Free Schools and 
Communities Program found that each of the four communities awarded 
grants implemented the programs according to requirements by providing 
outreach and social services to at least 100 youth in targeted 
communities and neighborhoods. The youth served ranged in age from 12 
to 24 years with a median age of 16.2 years, and 75 percent of the 
participating youth were gang members. Second, grant recipients 
received technical assistance and support from OJJDP and BJA to 
implement their approaches to addressing gangs. For example, the 
interim evaluation of the Gang Reduction Program found that significant 
implementation successes were achieved at all four of the sites. Each 
grantee developed strategic plans consistent with target area needs and 
problems and achieved broad participation in planning the program. 
Communication about gang issues within the target area and among 
participating organizations generally improved over the course of the 
program. Third, as a result of having federal funds and participating 
in a grant program, sites obtained needed leverage to bring together a 
wide range of stakeholders, such as law enforcement agencies, social 
service providers, and faith-based and community groups, to address 
communities' gang problems. 

Despite these benefits, the projects reported mixed results in 
achieving reductions in gang crime. For example, evaluations of OJJDP- 
funded programs--the Gang-Free Schools and Communities Program and the 
Gang Reduction Program--showed that, while grantees were successful in 
doing strategic planning, forming community partnerships, and 
implementing programs, and their experiences offered insights on best 
practices, they found little evidence that the programs effectively 
reduced youth gang crime. In particular, the Gang-Free Schools and 
Communities Program evaluation concluded that while some measures of 
gang crime decreased and each location had anecdotal evidence of 
success with some individuals, overall, the program had little positive 
effect on the targeted youth who participated in the programs. 
Similarly, the preliminary evaluation of the Gang Reduction Program 
found that the program had not achieved its goal of reducing gang 
crime. One location, Los Angles, Calif., had a decrease in gang crime 
rates. The other locations had no changes or slight increases in gang 
crime after program implementation. 

In addition, communities that received funding under OJJDP's grants to 
demonstrate the Comprehensive Community-Wide Anti-Gang Model faced 
difficulties in sustaining their programs after federal funding ended. 
No sites that received grant funds under the Rural Gang Initiative 
sustained the project with local funding or new grants after federal 
funding ended. Likewise, by 2004, all of the communities that had 
received funding under the Gang-Free Communities program had used all 
of the federal funding allocated and could not continue the programs 
with other funding sources. Of communities that received funding under 
the Gang-Free Schools program, Cleveland, Ohio did not sustain the 
program, however, as of March 2009, three other communities that 
received grants were sustaining at least some parts of their programs 
with other sources of funding. For example, the Houston, Tex., and 
North Miami Beach, Fla., programs received city funds; and the 
Pittsburgh, Pa., program received funding from the School Board and 
Project Safe Neighborhoods. The project coordinator in Pittsburgh, Pa., 
noted that sustainability is a great challenge. According to the 
coordinator, sustaining a program that targeted and enrolled about 100 
gang-involved youth who lived or attended school in the target area 
once federal funding expires was definitely possible. However, 
expanding the program was a concern. For example, the coordinator 
wanted the project to be able to serve girls in addition to boys and 
increase efforts to provide services to youth reentering the community 
after being detained in juvenile facilities, but she had not identified 
funding sources to do so. Finally, OJJDP reported that very little 
planning for sustainability of projects and services funded by the Gang 
Reduction Program had taken place by 2006; however, in 2007, OJJDP 
reported that three of the four communities that were awarded funding 
under the Gang Reduction Program had taken steps toward sustaining at 
least portions of the initiative beyond the federal funding period. For 
example, in North Miami Beach, Fla., the initiative was incorporated as 
a nonprofit organization in 2007 and in Richmond, Va., partnerships 
with the Office of the Attorney General and Richmond Police Department 
ensured that some efforts would be sustained. 

DOJ has not yet made decisions about whether to expand existing anti- 
gang grant programs or fund new programs in the future. In particular, 
OJJDP and BJA officials told us that the department has not yet made 
decisions about priorities and availability of funding for future anti- 
gang programs. As of March 2009, OJJDP officials said that in the short 
term, no plans are in process for funding future demonstration projects 
of the Comprehensive Community-Wide Gang Program Model because OJJDP 
plans to use the funding it has available to provide information and 
technical assistance to communities nationwide to assist them in 
implementing community-based anti-gang efforts using lessons learned 
from the demonstration projects that have been completed or are 
underway. To this end, in 2008, DOJ published a report on best 
practices to address community gang problems based on OJJDP's 
comprehensive gang model and lessons learned from the demonstration 
projects.[Footnote 44] The report is available to interested 
communities through OJJDP's Web site, and OJJDP officials said that 
they had discussed aspects of the report with officials of communities 
that were interested in implementing the model. According to OJJDP 
officials, communities in Nevada, Oklahoma, Utah, and North Carolina 
are developing anti-gang programs based on OJJDP's recommendations 
without federal funding, and have consulted OJJDP for information on 
best practices and lessons learned. Since these programs are all in the 
planning stages, it is too early to tell whether they will be 
successfully implemented, reduce youth gang crime, and be sustainable 
by the communities without federal funding. With regard to the 
Comprehensive Anti-Gang Initiative, the BJA-sponsored evaluation of 
sites funded under this program has not yet been completed, but the 
evaluation will include assessments of programs' outcomes and 
sustainability, among other things. As of April 2009, BJA officials 
said that the agency does not currently plan to fund additional 
locations under the initiative in the short term and that results 
achieved in the communities currently funded under the program would be 
considered in making any future determination of whether to expand 
federal funding for the initiative to additional communities, and 
whether it is feasible for communities to implement the model without 
federal funding. 

Conclusions: 

Gangs have spread across community, state, and regional boundaries to 
become a national problem, requiring federal agencies to strengthen 
their coordination and collaboration on anti-gang programs and 
initiatives to combat gang crime and violence. Carrying out gang 
enforcement, prevention, and intervention efforts that involve multiple 
agencies with varying jurisdictions and missions is not an easy task, 
especially since agencies have limited resources and, in most cases, 
competing priorities. Federal agencies have taken positive actions to 
coordinate their anti-gang programs and initiatives and share 
information about gang threats and multijurisdictional investigations. 
However, these actions have not addressed all possible gaps or 
unnecessary overlaps in anti-gang programs, nor have they addressed all 
of the challenges identified in this report. Further actions by DOJ and 
DHS would enhance and sustain their collaboration in combating gangs. 
In particular, differentiation of the roles, responsibilities, and 
missions of headquarters-level gang coordination entities--including 
the MS-13 National Gang Task Force, NGIC, and GangTECC--could enhance 
DOJ and DHS's collaboration in combating gang crime and reduce the 
potential for expending resources on overlapping missions. Moreover, 
DOJ and DHS could strengthen their efforts to more fully involve ICE in 
the task force review and approval process. In addition, to assist 
Congress, federal agencies, and other stakeholders in understanding and 
assessing gang enforcement efforts, additional actions are needed on 
the part of DOJ and DHS to improve performance measurement and 
evaluation. More specifically, consensus is needed on a shared 
definition of "gang" and other related terms to help federal law 
enforcement agencies improve their collection, evaluation, and 
reporting on gang enforcement efforts. For DOJ, a departmentwide 
performance measure for gangs is needed to help the department and 
Congress track the progress of the department's overall gang 
enforcement efforts. Additionally, at a component level, additional 
monitoring of the extent to which USAOs track and record gang-related 
case information is needed to ensure accurate reporting of such 
information within DOJ and to external stakeholders, such as Congress. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To strengthen federal agencies' coordination of anti-gang efforts; help 
reduce gaps or unnecessary overlaps in federal entities' roles and 
responsibilities; and assist the department, Congress, and other 
stakeholders in assessing federal gang enforcement efforts, we 
recommend that the Attorney General take the following three actions: 

* direct DOJ law enforcement agencies that lead or participate in the 
headquarters-level anti-gang coordination entities--including GangTECC, 
NGIC, the Anti-Gang Coordination Committee, and the MS-13 National Gang 
Task Force--to, in consultation with DHS, reexamine and reach consensus 
on the entities' roles and responsibilities, including identifying and 
addressing gaps and unnecessary overlaps; 

* develop a departmentwide, strategic-level performance measure for the 
department's anti-gang efforts; and: 

* direct EOUSA to periodically review gang-related case information 
entered by USAOs into the case and time management systems to ensure 
more accurate and complete reporting of USAOs' gang-related cases. 

We also recommend that the Attorney General and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security jointly take the following two actions: 

* ensure that ICE is part of the process for reviewing and approving 
the creation of new anti-gang task forces and: 

* jointly develop a common or shared definition of "gang" for use by 
DOJ, DHS, and component agencies for reporting purposes. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In providing written comments on a draft of this report, DOJ concurred 
with three of our five recommendations and stated that it will consider 
the other two recommendations. DHS concurred with the two 
recommendations directed to DHS. DOJ and DHS provided information on 
steps they were taking or planning to take to address the 
recommendations. 

First, DOJ concurred with our recommendation to, in consultation with 
DHS, reexamine the roles and responsibilities of four DOJ headquarters 
anti-gang coordinating entities, including identifying and addressing 
any potential gaps and unnecessary overlaps. DOJ commented that this 
role is performed by the Anti-Gang Coordination Committee and that the 
department will continue to work with ICE, the headquarters-level anti- 
gang entities, and other DOJ agencies to identify and address gaps and 
unnecessary overlaps. 

Second, DOJ stated that the department will consider the recommendation 
to develop a departmentwide strategic-level performance measure for its 
anti-gang efforts as part of its strategic planning process. DOJ stated 
that it is in the initial stages of developing its next strategic plan 
and that it is too early in the planning process to state for certain 
that such a measure would be included. DOJ commented that senior 
leadership will consider including such a measure and that it 
recognizes that gangs are a major factor in many crimes and that it is 
possible that raising the visibility of DOJ's efforts to combat gangs 
would weigh in favor of including such a measure. Given that efforts to 
address gangs have been a major part of DOJ's overall approach to 
combating violent crime, we continue to believe that a departmentwide 
performance measure for gangs would help DOJ and Congress track the 
progress of the department's overall anti-gang efforts. 

Third, DOJ concurred with our recommendation for EOUSA to review the 
case and time management systems of the USAOs to ensure more accurate 
and complete reporting of their gang-related cases and noted that 
beginning in fiscal year 2010, USAOs will be specifically required to 
enter gang-related information into the data management systems 
accurately and in a timely manner. According to DOJ, compliance with 
this requirement will be measured in performance evaluations of each 
USAO approximately every 3 years by evaluation and review staff. We 
believe this is a positive step that could help DOJ strengthen the 
completeness and accuracy of USAOs' data on gang-related cases. 

Fourth, DOJ and DHS concurred with our recommendation to ensure that 
ICE is part of the process for reviewing the creation of new anti-gang 
task forces. DOJ and DHS said they would work on implementing a 
procedure for reviewing the creation of new anti-gang task forces, and 
DOJ outlined steps it has begun to take to address this recommendation. 
Specifically, in a letter dated July 17, 2009, the Deputy Attorney 
General formally extended an invitation to ICE to be a member of the 
Anti-Gang Coordination Committee and its Taskforce Review Subcommittee 
and to be afforded the same level of review as participating DOJ law 
enforcement agencies. 

Finally, DOJ agreed that a shared definition of "gang" for use by DOJ, 
DHS, and component agencies for reporting purposes would facilitate 
data collection and evaluation efforts and stated that it would broaden 
the discussion on whether to develop such a common definition to 
include DHS, and, specifically, ICE; however DOJ also noted some 
technical and operational challenges to implementing a uniform 
definition, including consideration of possible implementation costs. 
DOJ noted that it will use the Anti-Gang Coordination Committee as a 
forum to jointly consider a common definition or otherwise develop an 
effective performance measurement system for anti-gang activities. DHS 
concurred with the recommendation. We agree that it is important for 
DOJ to consider the costs in implementing a common definition for 
"gang" as it explores this issue with DHS through the Anti-Gang 
Coordination Committee. We continue to believe that a shared definition 
of "gang" would help agencies improve their collection, evaluation, and 
reporting of gang enforcement efforts. 

DOJ's and DHS's written comments are contained in appendices V and VI, 
respectively. We also incorporated technical comments provided by DOJ, 
DHS, and component agencies as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General and the 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, selected 
congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, 
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Please contact Eileen Larence at (202) 
512-8777 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this 
report. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and 
Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key 
contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Eileen R. Larence: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Nature and Scope of Gang and Gang Crime in the United 
States: 

Department of Justice Assessments Identify Gang Crime Problems 
Nationwide from Large Cities to Rural Communities: 

Historically, gang crime has been associated with urban areas of the 
country. However, as shown in figure 12, Department of Justice (DOJ) 
National Youth Gang Surveys from 2002 through 2006 showed that youth 
gangs are a problem not only for inner cities, but for surrounding 
suburbs and rural areas, as well.[Footnote 45] 

Figure 12: National Youth Gang Surveys (2002 to 2006): 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Percentage of Law Enforcement Agencies Reporting Youth Gang Problems 
2002-2006: 

Rural communities: 
2006: 14.9%; 
Ever reported (2002-2006): 27.4%. 

Smaller cities: 
2006: 32.6%; 
Ever reported (2002-2006): 48.3%. 

Suburban counties: 
2006: 51.0%; 
Ever reported (2002-2006): 61.5%. 

Large cities: 
2006: 86.4%; 
Ever reported (2002-2006): 90.5%. 

All respondents: 
2006: 33.3%; 
Ever reported (2002-2006): 47.3%. 

Source: 2006 National Youth Gang Survey. 

[End of figure] 

The surveys found that respondents who reported gang problems in their 
jurisdictions reported increases in various categories of gang-related 
crime, as well. More than half of respondents with gang problems 
reported increases from 2004 to 2006 in gang-related aggravated 
assaults and drug sales. Some respondents also reported increases in 
gang-related robberies, larceny/theft, burglary, and auto theft. In 
2007, jurisdictions reported the highest annual estimate of youth gang 
problems since before 2000, with 86 percent of law enforcement agencies 
serving larger cities, 50 percent of suburban counties, 35 percent of 
smaller cities, and 15 percent of rural counties reporting that they 
experienced problems. 

In 2005 and 2009, DOJ reported on the gang threat nationally and by 
region to assist policymakers and law enforcement agency administrators 
understand the dimensions of the problem and assist them in 
facilitating policy and allocating resources to address it.[Footnote 
46] The following were some trends the reports identified. 

* 58 percent of state and local law enforcement agencies reported 
criminal gangs were active in their jurisdictions in 2008 compared with 
45 percent of state and local agencies in 2004. 

* Local street gangs, or neighborhood-based street gangs, remained a 
significant threat because they continue to account for the largest 
number of gangs nationwide. Most engage in violence in conjunction with 
a variety of crimes, including retail-level drug distribution. 

* Gangs remain the primary retail-level distributors of most illicit 
drugs throughout the United States. They are also increasingly 
distributing wholesale-level quantities of marijuana and cocaine in 
most urban and suburban communities. 

* Criminal gangs commit as much as 80 percent of the crime in many 
communities, according to law enforcement officials throughout the 
nation. 

* Gang members are becoming more sophisticated in their use of 
computers and technology. These new tools are used to communicate, 
facilitate criminal activity, and avoid detection by law enforcement. 
Many gang members use the Internet to recruit new members and to 
communicate with members in other areas of the United States and in 
foreign countries. 

* Forming multi-agency task forces and joint community groups is an 
effective way to combat the problem. However, decreases in funding and 
staffing to many task forces have created new challenges for 
communities. 

Composition, Size and Criminal Activities of Four Major National-Level 
Street Gangs: 

Major national-level street gangs include the Bloods, Crips, and Mara 
Salvatrucha, or MS 13, and 18th Street. Brief descriptions of the 
composition, size, and criminal activities of these four national gangs 
follow. 

Bloods. Bloods members are predominantly African American males. 
Membership estimates range from 5,000 to 20,000 members in 37 states. 
Bloods members are involved in distribution of drugs, including 
cocaine; methamphetamine; heroin; and marijuana, and they are involved 
in many other criminal activities, including assault, auto theft, 
burglary, car jacking, drive-by shooting, extortion, homicide, and 
identification theft. 

Crips. Crips members are also predominantly African American males. 
Membership is estimated to be 30,000 to 35,000 members in 41 states. 
Crips members engage in street-level distribution of powder and crack 
cocaine, marijuana, and PCP and are involved in other criminal activity 
such as assault, auto theft, burglary, and homicide. 

MS-13. MS-13 is an Hispanic street gang estimated to have 8,000 to 
10,000 members in at least 38 states. MS-13 is an international gang 
with an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 members worldwide. Traditionally in 
the United States the gang consisted of loosely affiliated groups; 
however, law enforcement officials have reported the coordination of 
criminal activity among MS-13 members operating in Atlanta, Dallas, Los 
Angeles, New York, and Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas. MS-13 
members smuggle drugs into the United States and transport and 
distribute them throughout the country. Some members are also involved 
in alien smuggling, assault, drive-by shooting, homicide, 
identification theft, prostitution operations, robbery, and weapons 
trafficking. 

18th Street. 18th Street formed in Los Angeles, Calif., but now has an 
estimated membership of 30,000 to 50,000 in 28 states. In California, 
about 80 percent of its members are illegal aliens from Mexico and 
Central America. Gang members are involved in retail-level distribution 
of cocaine and marijuana, and, to a lesser extent, heroin and 
methamphetamine. They also commit assault, auto theft, car jacking, 
robbery, identification fraud, and homicide. 

Impacts of National-Level Street Gangs and Local Neighborhood Gangs in 
Localities Visited: 

Interviewees in 8 of the 15 localities we visited reported the presence 
of organized national-level street gangs in their communities in 
addition to local neighborhood gangs, while officials in 8 localities 
said that local neighborhood gangs were the primary source of gang- 
related crime. In all of the localities, officials attributed a wide 
range of violent crimes and other criminal activities to gangs. 

Interviewees in Baltimore, Md.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Chicago, Ill.; 
Dallas, Tex.; Durham, N.C.; Brooklyn and Manhattan, N.Y.; and Newark, 
N.J., said that organized national-level gangs are active in their 
communities. The level of organization and hierarchy of the national 
gangs varied from location to location. 

The following are three examples of descriptions by interviewees of how 
national gangs impact their communities: 

Los Angeles, California: The city and the eight surrounding counties 
have about 150,000 gang members linked to 1,000 different gangs. The 
gangs are very aggressive and violent. Twenty years ago, the Bloods and 
Crips were the national gangs in control. Now, MS-13 and other Hispanic 
street gangs, as well as Asian and East European gangs are emerging 
with sophisticated structures like organized crime groups. Gangs are 
developing increasingly sophisticated tools to engage in criminal 
enterprise. For example, Eastern European and other ethnic gangs appear 
to be active in white collar crimes such as identify theft and credit 
card and health care fraud. Hispanic gangs have affiliated with 
international drug trafficking organizations, and an African American 
gang is engaged in extortion of money from small business owners. 

Chicago, Illinois: The city has a long history of gang activity that 
spans generations. The police department has identified families in 
which grandparents, parents, and children had all affiliated with 
gangs. The city police estimate 70,000 to 100,000 gang members in the 
area. Some gangs have as many as 10,000 members. Gangs here are large, 
territorial, and highly organized with written rules and a reporting 
structure to national gang leaders. Gangs control the retail drug 
trade. Gangs have corrupted local officials by having members serve as 
election workers at polling places. The city has experienced cases of 
police corruption by gang members and gang members employed by the 
police department and prisons. 

Newark, New Jersey: Ten different sects of Bloods have been identified 
here. They fight each other but occasionally align against the Crips. 
The relationship between drugs and gangs is strengthening. Gang 
membership is rising as various gangs establish territory and 
relationships with narcotics trafficking markets in urban areas and 
more recently establishing transportation routes to suburban and rural 
markets in other states. 

Interviewees in the other 7 of the 15 localities we visited described 
the gangs in their area as primarily neighborhood or street-based. 
Officials in Atlanta, Ga.; Cleveland, Ohio; Milwaukee, Wisc.: 
Pittsburgh, Pa.; Raleigh, N.C.; Richmond, Va.; and Tampa, Fla., said 
that gangs present in their areas were primarily local street gangs. In 
some areas the local gangs loosely identified with national 
organizations by, for example, wearing the colors of the Bloods; 
however officials said that they did not communicate closely with the 
national gang hierarchies. Officials described gang organizations that 
were fluid and rapidly changing. Officials said that local gangs can 
literally take over neighborhoods. They are no less violent than 
national gang members. For example, officials in Newark, N.J., and 
Brooklyn, N.Y., said that in areas where both national and street gangs 
were present, the local gangs were violent and intimidating enough to 
hold their territory against the national gangs. The following are 
three examples from officials we interviewed of the composition, size, 
and criminal activities of the neighborhood gangs in their localities, 
and how they impact their communities. 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: The big problem here is with neighborhood 
street gangs that are involved in drug trafficking and retaliation 
against witnesses and rival gangs. A recently completed survey 
determined that affiliations with national gangs do not exist. Gangs 
are relatively small, usually 10 to 25 members, and are typically 
affiliated by neighborhood or street block. Some gang sets have adopted 
the names of streets where their members live. Gang members are 
predominantly young, with ages from early teens to twenties. 

Richmond, Virginia: Gangs are widespread in the city. The major problem 
is "home-grown" gang members, many of whom have gone to prison and come 
back to the community. Because they see no other options, siblings and 
children of older gang members follow in family footsteps and join 
local gangs. Crimes committed by these groups include vandalism, 
murder, assault, and drive-by-shootings. 

Tampa, Florida: The gang problem is mostly local. Some gangs operate 
within the city limits and some in the outlying county. The entire area 
has about 3,000 gang members. Gang members who live outside of the area 
also come into the beach, so the police and sheriff's departments spend 
time tracking gangs that are not local. Gangs cross geographic, racial, 
and cultural boundaries. They are not closely affiliated with national 
organizations, although national gang groups do come through the area. 
The gangs are extremely violent as they fight for control of turf and 
control of the drug trade. Newly arriving immigrants, who tend to carry 
large amounts of cash and face language barriers, are susceptible to 
being victimized and may turn to Hispanic gangs for protection and 
support. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Federal Statutes Used in Gang-Related Prosecutions: 

Most criminal cases involving gang members are prosecuted by state and 
local prosecutors; however the Department of Justice (DOJ), through its 
Criminal Division and U.S. Attorneys, brings federal charges under a 
number of different federal statutes against gang members. U.S. 
Attorneys prosecute most federal gang-related crimes, and the Criminal 
Division prosecutes or assists U.S. Attorneys in prosecuting gang cases 
of national significance or those that involve national gangs operating 
across United States Attorneys Office (USAO) jurisdictions (e.g. Bloods 
and MS-13). Officials in 15 USAOs we visited said that U.S. Attorneys' 
guidelines on the types of gang cases that warrant federal prosecution 
are generally those involving the most violent and dangerous gang 
members and gangs located in the USAO districts.[Footnote 47] 

Federal statutes under which gangs members are prosecuted fall into 
three categories: 

* criminal drug, firearm, and other violent crime statutes where the 
unlawful acts are not specifically related to membership in a gang; 

* broad statutes under which criminal enterprises--including gangs--may 
be prosecuted; and: 

* enhanced penalties added to the criminal convictions of defendants 
who are gang members. 

Federal Prosecutors Most Frequently Reported Using Criminal Drug, 
Firearm, and Violent Crime Statutes to Prosecute Gang Members: 

Officials in the 15 USAOs we visited most frequently reported 
prosecuting gang members under statutes for offenses involving drugs, 
firearms, and violent crimes. These offenses are related to the 
criminal acts the gang members have committed and not their gang 
membership specifically.[Footnote 48] Officials noted the following 
reasons that they frequently prosecuted gang cases under these criminal 
statutes: 

* evidence to support such charges is relatively easy for juries to 
understand; 

* investigative and prosecutive resources required to build the cases 
are not as great as for organized criminal enterprise prosecutions; 
and: 

* penalties and prison sentences for convictions can be substantial. 

Table 3 lists the offense and code section, the statutory elements of 
the offense, and penalties for conviction for the federal statutes USAO 
officials said they used frequently to prosecute gang members.[Footnote 
49] 

Table 3: Federal Criminal Statutes Frequently Used to Prosecute Gang 
Members: 

Federal criminal statute: Unlawful receipt, transportation or 
possession of firearms or ammunition; Armed career criminal, 18 U.S.C. 
§§ 922(g)(1), (5), 924(e); 
Elements of the offense: Shipping or transporting in interstate or 
foreign commerce, or possessing in or affecting commerce, any firearm 
or ammunition; or receiving any firearm or ammunition which has been 
shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by a person 
who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by 
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year [felony conviction]; or an 
alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or admitted under 
certain nonimmigrant visas, except in certain circumstances; 
Penalties for conviction[Footnote 50]: Up to 10 years imprisonment for 
a knowing violation. In the case of a person who has three previous 
convictions for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, the term of 
imprisonment shall be not less than 15 years. 

Federal criminal statute: Use of a firearm during or in relation to 
certain crimes, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); 
Elements of the offense: During and in relation to any crime of 
violence or drug trafficking crime, using or carrying a firearm, or 
possessing a firearm in furtherance of any such crime; 
Penalties for conviction: In addition to the punishment for the crime 
of violence or drug trafficking crime, a consecutive term of 
imprisonment of not less than 5 years; not less than 7 years if the 
firearm is brandished; and not less than 10 years if the firearm is 
discharged. Additional penalties up to not less than 30 years 
imprisonment are included depending on the type of firearm possessed 
and prior conviction under this subsection. 

Federal criminal statute: Robbery and extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951; 
Elements of the offense: Robbery or extortion or attempting or 
conspiring to do so, or committing or threatening physical violence in 
furtherance of a plan or purpose to do the same, affecting interstate 
commerce; 
Penalties for conviction: Up to 20 years imprisonment. 

Federal criminal statute: Bank robbery and incidental crimes, 18 U.S.C. 
§ 2113(a), (d); 
Elements of the offense: (1) By force and violence, or by intimidation, 
taking, or attempting to take, from the person or presence of another, 
or obtaining or attempting to obtain by extortion any property or money 
or any other thing of value belonging to, or in the care, custody, 
control, management, or possession of, any bank, credit union, or any 
savings and loan association; or (2) Entering or attempting to enter 
any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association, or any 
building used in whole or in part as such, with intent to commit 
therein, any felony affecting such bank or such savings and loan 
association and in violation of any statute of the United States, or 
any larceny; 
Penalties for conviction: Up to 20 years imprisonment. An additional 
maximum penalty of up to 25 years imprisonment is applicable where in 
committing, or in attempting to commit, the offense, the defendant 
assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the 
use of a dangerous weapon or device. 

Federal criminal statute: Carjacking, 18 U.S.C. § 2119; 
Elements of the offense: With the intent to cause death or serious 
bodily harm, taking a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, 
or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person or 
presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation, or 
attempting to do so; 
Penalties for conviction: Up to 15 years imprisonment; up 25 years 
imprisonment if serious bodily injury results. 

Federal criminal statute: Unlawful manufacturing or trafficking 
(including possession with intent to commit these offenses); Attempt or 
conspiracy, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(l), 846; 
Elements of the offense: Knowingly or intentionally manufacturing, 
distributing, or dispensing, or possessing with intent to manufacture, 
distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; attempt or conspiracy 
to do the same; 
Penalties for conviction: Up to life imprisonment depending on the type 
of drug and amount, prior felony drug conviction, and other factors. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from USAOs. 

[End of table] 

Organized Crime Statutes Allow for Focus on the Criminal Activities of 
Entire Gangs, but Prosecutions Can Be Resource Intensive, Time 
Consuming, and Complex: 

In some instances, USAOs use two broad federal statutes--the Racketeer 
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and the Violent Crimes 
in Aid of Racketeering (VICAR) Act--to prosecute criminal enterprise 
organizations. While RICO was originally enacted to dismantle organized 
crime groups such as the Mafia, prosecutors have successfully used it 
to bring cases against members of organized gangs. RICO prohibits the 
commission of a pattern of racketeering activity to invest in, maintain 
an interest in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, an 
enterprise, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign 
commerce; it also prohibits conspiracy to commit any of these 
activities.[Footnote 51] The second statute, VICAR, was intended to 
supplement RICO and makes it unlawful to commit any of a list of 
violent crimes in return for anything of pecuniary value from an 
enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, or for the purpose of 
joining, remaining with, or increasing a position in such an 
enterprise.[Footnote 52] The listed violent crimes are murder, 
kidnapping, maiming, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting 
in serious bodily injury, and threatening to commit a crime of violence 
[Footnote 53] and may be violations of state or federal law.[Footnote 
54] The statute also makes unlawful attempt and conspiracy to commit 
the listed crimes.[Footnote 55] To use these statutes to prosecute 
gangs, prosecutors must prove several elements. In particular, 
prosecutors must prove that the gang functions as an "enterprise" 
[Footnote 56] through evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or 
informal, and by evidence that the various associates function as a 
continuing unit. This may be accomplished by showing that the gang 
holds meetings, has a specific, stated mission, collects dues, and has 
a decision-making structure, among other characteristics. 

DOJ requires that prosecutions under these statutes be coordinated with 
DOJ Criminal Division and approved for prosecution by the Criminal 
Division's Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. In addition, the 
staff of that section has developed extensive manuals on RICO and VICAR 
to assist federal prosecutors in the preparation for and litigation of 
cases involving those statutes. 

According to USAO officials we spoke to, RICO and VICAR are tools for 
prosecution that can disrupt and destroy entire gang structures. One 
USAO official explained that the organized crime statutes allow 
prosecutors to tell the entire story of a gang's existence and criminal 
activity in an indictment and later to a jury. The official noted that 
every aspect of the gang and its history--including how it acquired its 
territory; how it makes and disposes of its money; how it uses coded 
language, hand signals, and graffiti; and what crimes it has committed 
and why--can be offered in one coherent story during the trial. Gang 
cases prosecuted under an organized crime statute generally have more 
co-defendants than cases prosecuted under narcotics trafficking, 
firearms, and other violent crime statutes. The officials explained 
that such cases allow prosecutors to reach deep into the gang hierarchy 
to the top leaders of the gang organizations and are generally well- 
publicized by the news media. 

Violations of the criminal provisions of RICO and VICAR carry 
significant penalties. A gang member convicted under RICO is subject to 
up to 20 years imprisonment, or up to life imprisonment if the 
violation is based on racketeering activity for which the maximum 
penalty includes life imprisonment. Defendants also remain subject to 
conviction and sentencing for the underlying or predicate crimes that 
make up the racketeering activity. Additionally, the statute provides 
for the forfeiture of property maintained or acquired in violation of 
the Act. Under VICAR, conviction may result in up to life imprisonment 
depending on the predicate offense committed; VICAR murder is a death- 
eligible offense. Gang members convicted of crimes under RICO or VICAR 
may be fined up to $250,000. RICO also contains a civil provision that 
allows people who have been injured by a RICO defendant to recover 
damages in federal court. 

USAO interviewees also cited limitations to the use of RICO and VICAR 
statutes. RICO and VICAR cases are resource-intensive, time consuming, 
and complex, according to some interviewees, and only suited to 
prosecutions of highly structured gang organizations; not the local 
street gangs that are the predominant gang crime concern in some 
localities. 

Although U.S. Attorneys do not maintain data on the number of gang- 
related organized crime cases they accept for prosecution, the total 
number of organized crime cases they accept for prosecution is a small 
percentage of the overall caseload. In fiscal year 2007, a total of 217 
organized crime cases of all types, including gangs and traditional 
groups, against 483 defendants were filed in the United States, about 
0.4 percent of the total cases filed--and that figure was an increase 
of 39 percent from the previous year. 

A case charged under organized crime statutes in Los Angeles, Calif., 
provides an example of the large commitment of time and investigative 
and prosecution resources that are required for these complex cases 
that result in indictments of leaders and members of large gang 
operations. 

* A 3-year investigation of the Florencia 13 Gang in Southern Los 
Angeles, Calif., resulted in indictments against 102 defendants on RICO 
and narcotics trafficking charges. As of January 2009, 76 defendants 
had been convicted with other cases pending trial. The defendants were 
alleged to be part of a controlled drug distribution operation. Gang 
leaders were charged with collecting fees and/or rent from gang members 
and others engaged in criminal conduct in areas controlled by the 
Florencia 13 Gang. Numerous federal and local law enforcement agencies 
were involved in the investigation. Federal agencies included FBI, DEA, 
ATF, USMS, ICE, and IRS. Local agencies included Los Angeles City 
Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff's and Probation 
Departments, and local police departments in five other area towns. 

DOJ Officials Said Enhanced Penalties for Gang Membership Are Generally 
Not Used Because the Elements Are Difficult to Prove: 

As part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 
Congress established an enhanced penalty for gang-related crimes by 
authorizing the imposition of an additional term of imprisonment of up 
to 10 years for participation in certain federal felonies involving 
drugs or violence by members of criminal street gangs.[Footnote 57] 
Some USAO officials we visited said that the sentencing enhancement for 
gang members was generally not used because the elements of proof 
required are difficult for prosecutors to establish.[Footnote 58] For 
the defendant to be subject to the enhancement, prosecutors must prove 
several elements. At the outset, there are four components required to 
establish the "criminal street gang" under the statute: (1) an ongoing 
group, club, organization, or association of five or more persons; (2) 
that has as one of its primary purposes the commission of one or more 
specified felonies involving violence or drugs in violation of federal 
law; (3) the members of which engage, or have engaged within the past 5 
years, in a continuing series of the same specified felonies; and (4) 
the activities of the criminal street gang affect interstate or foreign 
commerce.[Footnote 59] In addition, prosecutors must establish that the 
defendant committed the crime for which he was charged to promote the 
felonious activities of the gang or maintain or increase his position 
in the gang; that the defendant had been convicted of another crime of 
violence or drug offense arising to a felony under state or federal law 
within the past 5 years; and that the defendant participates in a 
criminal street gang with knowledge that its members engage or have 
engaged, in a "continuing series" of federal felonies involving 
violence or drugs.[Footnote 60] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Important Elements of an Approach to Combating Gangs: 

Federal and local agencies, research experts, and others we 
interviewed, as well as research we reviewed, identified important 
elements for consideration in developing and implementing an approach 
for combating gangs. Among others, these elements include: 

* thorough assessment and understanding of local gang problem(s); 

* consensus among stakeholders; 

* ongoing communication and coordination among stakeholders; 

* comprehensive and varied efforts (i.e., prevention, intervention, 
suppression, and re-entry); 

* public and community outreach and visibility for programs; 

* plans for sustainability of programs and efforts; and commitment to 
long-term focus; and: 

* performance monitoring, evaluation, and feedback incorporation. 

Presence of these elements does not guarantee that an approach to 
addressing gangs will be successful. These elements are important for 
federal, state, and local agencies and communities to consider in 
developing and implementing anti-gang approaches. In addition, these 
elements should not be considered as an exhaustive list of items for 
agencies and communities to consider in developing their anti-gang 
approaches. Rather, these elements were identified as key 
considerations by the agencies and individuals we interviewed and the 
research we examined. 

* Thorough assessment and understanding of local gang problem(s): 
Agencies and individuals we interviewed and research we examined 
indicated that it is important for agencies and communities to 
thoroughly assess their gang problems in order to gain a complete 
understanding of the nature of the gang threat and the resources needed 
to address that threat. For example, in identifying best practices that 
resulted from its projects testing the Comprehensive Community-Wide 
Anti-Gang Model, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention (OJJDP) reported assessments of gang problems helped 
projects determine types and levels of gang activity, gang crime 
patterns, community perceptions, and gaps in available services 
[Footnote 61]. OJJDP found that assessment also assisted communities in 
identifying target populations to be served, understanding why those 
populations merited attention, and making the best use of available 
resources. Similarly, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) reported 
that a needs assessment is often the first step in planning a 
comprehensive solution to a gang problem, as it can help uncover hidden 
problems, set priorities, and develop a communitywide consensus about 
what to do. 

Similarly, agency officials and research experts we interviewed noted 
the importance of agencies and communities thoroughly assessing gang 
problems and threats. For example, one prosecutor told us that a "one- 
size fits all approach" does not work for addressing gangs. This 
prosecutor stated that each jurisdiction or community is different, and 
a program that works in one community may not work in another. This is 
because of different characteristics and different gang problems in 
each community; a gang problem in one community has different 
characteristics and occurs in a different environment than a gang 
problem in another community. Furthermore, officials from one U.S. 
Attorneys Office (USAO) suggested that communities recognize and admit 
their gang problems, complete an assessment of those problems, and plan 
strategically for how to best address them. Several research experts 
also emphasized that gangs are inherently a local problem best 
addressed through targeted solutions carefully vetted through community 
input. 

* Consensus among key stakeholders: Based on our interviews and 
examination of research, it is important for stakeholders, including 
law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, community-based social service 
agencies, schools, citizens' groups, and other interested community 
residents, to reach consensus on an overall approach and goals for a 
coordinated anti-gang effort. For example, OJJDP reported that partners 
should try to find shared goals for anti-gang efforts. According to 
BJA, planning can help stakeholders to establish a common mission and 
common priorities and minimize parochial perspectives in favor of 
broader goals. 

Agency officials and research experts we interviewed also noted the 
importance of obtaining consensus for anti-gang strategies from all key 
stakeholders. Officials involved in managing one Department of Justice 
(DOJ) funded grant program said that it is important for all 
stakeholders to feel like they have ownership and have bought into the 
program. They said that allowing all stakeholders to take credit for 
program successes and providing them all with an opportunity to discuss 
failures and obstacles helps the program succeed and last over the long 
term. Furthermore, one local prosecutor stated that a comprehensive 
approach requires all stakeholders within a community--police, 
prosecutors, social service providers, and elected officials--to buy 
into a comprehensive approach for addressing gang problems. If just one 
of these groups is not committed to such an approach, the approach 
ultimately may not be successful. Likewise, officials from two USAOs 
stated that organizing the effort to combat gang violence and 
understanding the problem are key to combating gangs. They suggested 
that communities, law enforcement agencies, and researchers agree and 
buy into the assessment of the gang problem and the strategies 
developed to address that problem. 

* Ongoing communication and coordination among stakeholders: After 
consensus is established among stakeholders, agencies we interviewed 
and research we reviewed indicated that it is important that there be 
ongoing communication and coordination among stakeholders involved in 
overall anti-gang efforts. For example, according to BJA, one of the 
most important components of a successful approach to gangs is 
multiagency cooperation.[Footnote 62] BJA reported that communities 
should actively involve all community components that have a potential 
interest in responding to gang problems. 

Federal agencies similarly affirmed the importance of coordination and 
multiagency efforts to address gangs as part of a comprehensive 
approach but also within specific efforts. For example, officials from 
three Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) field offices told us that 
the most critical element to an approach for successfully addressing 
gangs is for federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to work 
together through joint investigations and task forces to leverage 
information, experience, and resources. These agencies also need to 
coordinate with and gain cooperation from the USAO to get USAO support 
for prosecuting cases. Officials from another FBI field office told us 
that a task force or collaborative approach is crucial in successfully 
addressing gangs. Agencies that participate in a task force or 
collaborative approach should clearly define their roles and 
responsibilities and clearly understand other agencies' roles, 
responsibilities, resources, and missions. In addition, Drug 
Enforcement Administration (DEA) officials discussed the task force 
model as being a critical element in any successful effort to combat 
gangs, drugs, and violent crime. They stated that task forces 
facilitate information sharing among participating agencies, nurture 
cooperation, and build trust among participants. 

* Comprehensive and varied efforts (i.e., law enforcement, prevention, 
intervention, and reentry): Agencies and research experts we visited 
and research we reviewed indicated that overall anti-gang approaches 
should include a variety of efforts that address law enforcement, 
prevention, intervention, and reentry. For example, OJJDP reported that 
comprehensive programs that incorporate prevention, intervention, and 
enforcement components are most likely to be effective. Gang research 
experts have argued that enforcement responses are less likely to be 
successful if isolated from other strategies. It is important that 
prevention and intervention activities occur in conjunction with 
suppression, despite challenges in implementing and maintaining such 
efforts.[Footnote 63] Moreover, BJA recommended that communities with 
emerging or existing gang problems plan, develop, and implement 
comprehensive responses that include a broad range of community-based 
components. 

Officials we interviewed similarly commented on the importance of an 
overall anti-gang approach including programs and initiatives that 
address law enforcement, prevention, intervention, and reentry. For 
example, officials managing one DOJ-grant funded program stated that 
strong state laws and gang enforcement efforts are needed to complement 
prevention, intervention, and reentry programs. They said that a 
successful gang approach is one that appropriately includes and 
balances prevention, intervention, enforcement, and reentry. One local 
prosecutor suggested that a community or local government invest in 
prevention and intervention programs as well as law enforcement 
programs, suggesting that communities may be more successful at 
combating gangs and curbing gang violence when they take a 
communitywide approach in addressing the problem. For example, one of 
the research experts we interviewed suggested that pulling together 
strategies "across intervention domains" such as law enforcement, 
social services, and schools is an effective way to sustain anti-gang 
efforts. 

* Public and community outreach and visibility for programs: Our 
interviews indicated that it is important for entities involved in 
implementing anti-gang programs to conduct community outreach and 
provide publicity and visibility for the programs and program 
accomplishments. For example, officials from one DOJ-funded grant 
program told us that one element important to successful program 
implementation is for program officials to be visible to communities. 
When program officials are on the streets in communities, it shows 
communities that the officials care and are invested in the program. 
DEA officials also suggested that community leaders need to be willing 
to speak out against violence. They stated that before prevention and 
intervention efforts can be effective in a specific community, law 
enforcement agencies first have to get violence under control so that 
community members are not afraid to participate in community events or 
report crimes to law enforcement agencies. Moreover, according to one 
USAO, anti-gang programs and services can be unified under a common 
brand and marketed aggressively, so that the public is aware of the 
existence and affiliation of anti-gang efforts. 

* Plans for sustainability of programs and efforts: Entities we 
interviewed and research we reviewed suggested that agencies and 
communities should plan on how to sustain their anti-gang programs and 
initiatives over time, particularly as gang problems and availability 
of resources change. For example, OJJDP recommended that programs begin 
planning for long-term sustainability during the initial stages of 
implementation. 

Agency officials and experts interviewed also noted that resolving gang 
problems can require a long-term commitment. For example, one local 
prosecutor told us it can be challenging to sustain a communitywide 
approach to dealing with gang problems because such an approach 
requires leaders committed to making a long-term investment in the 
approach and resources to sustain the long-term effort. Another local 
prosecutor noted that it is important to sustain gang programs over the 
long term because as soon as a community or region believes it has 
solved its gang problems and scales programs back, gangs reemerge. 
Research experts noted that communities have to be willing to invest 
resources in anti-gang programs, particularly comprehensive programs, 
for a long period of time in order to achieve results and establish 
programs that include adequate study time up-front in order to measure 
results. 

* Performance monitoring, evaluation, and feedback incorporation: A 
final common element identified by individuals we interviewed and 
research we examined was the regular monitoring and evaluation of 
program progress and performance and the incorporation of feedback and 
performance results into programs. For example, OJJDP reported that 
evaluation is a valuable tool that can tell the community whether it 
has accomplished what it set out to do and whether there are ways to do 
it better.[Footnote 64] The key to good evaluation is to build the 
evaluation strategy from the earliest planning stages, throughout 
implementation, and throughout the life of the project. Furthermore, 
BJA reported that evaluation provides useful feedback on how well anti- 
gang programs are working. This information can be used to change the 
response, improve the analysis, or even redefine the nature of the 
problem. According to BJA, information gathered through assessment can 
also be used to plan strategies for types of problems and to revise the 
problem-solving process. 

The importance of program monitoring, evaluation, and feedback 
incorporation was similarly noted by agency officials and experts we 
interviewed. For example, officials from one USAO suggested that there 
be a feedback loop among researchers, law enforcement, and community 
stakeholders to regularly assess the gang problem and solutions being 
implemented to address those problems. The community's strategy may 
need to be revised to address evolving gang problems or to fix or 
replace ineffective programs. Seven research experts suggested that 
additional evidence is needed to prove the viability of community- 
oriented, comprehensive initiatives and that in general the federal 
government has failed to recognize the importance of outcome evaluation 
and ongoing funding being contingent on tangible results, instead 
focusing on activity counting, such as number of arrests made. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology: 

To examine the roles of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS) in gang enforcement efforts and the extent 
to which the efforts are coordinated with each other and state and 
local partners, we reviewed federal agencies' strategies and plans to 
combat gang crime and interviewed headquarters DOJ and DHS officials 
involved in gang crime enforcement activities. We reviewed DOJ's and 
DHS's strategic plans including goals and objectives for efforts to 
combat gang crime and how the departments assessed their performance in 
meeting these goals and objectives. We compared DOJ and DHS 
coordination and information sharing efforts to criteria in our prior 
work on effective interagency collaboration and results-oriented 
government.[Footnote 65] We also examined staffing levels and budgets 
for DOJ and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within DHS. 

To assess the reliability of statistical information and budget data we 
obtained, we discussed the sources of the data with agency officials 
and reviewed documentation regarding the compilation of data. We 
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 
this report. Using semi-structured interview instruments, we 
interviewed the U.S. Attorney or designated staff of U.S. Attorneys 
Offices (USAO) and supervisory agents of DOJ and DHS law enforcement 
agencies involved in investigating and prosecuting gang members in 15 
localities across the country. We also reviewed anti-gang strategies 
and other documentation of enforcement efforts to reduce criminal gang 
activity in these localities. We focused our discussions on particular 
localities within the U.S. Attorneys' districts rather than the 
district as a whole. For example, in the U.S. Attorney District of 
Maryland, we discussed anti-gang efforts in Baltimore. The localities 
we visited were Atlanta, Ga.; Baltimore, Md.; Brooklyn, N.Y.; Chicago, 
Ill.; Cleveland, Ohio; Dallas, Tex.; Durham, N.C.; Los Angeles, Calif.; 
Manhattan, N.Y.; Milwaukee, Wisc.; Newark, N.J.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; 
Raleigh, N.C.; Richmond, Va.; and Tampa, Fla. We selected these 
localities based on a mix of criteria that included a desire to talk 
with officials in communities of varying sizes and geographic locations 
that had received federal grants to address gang-related crime 
problems. Other criteria considered in selecting these localities 
included the location of the USAO and federal law enforcement agency 
field offices, the presence of federally led task forces to combat gang 
crime, and recommendations of officials of DOJ and DHS components 
during our preliminary interviews. 

We also considered the results of our review of data from the 2006 
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Report on 
localities' population and number of violent crimes. We considered this 
data in order to select localities that represent a range of population 
sizes and violent crime concerns. We also considered sites that were 
located in close geographic proximity where possible in order to 
maximize travel resources. At each locality, in addition to meeting 
with federal officials, we met with selected state and local 
prosecutors and law enforcement officials to discuss the gang problem 
in their area and the federal agencies' role in helping to address it. 
The results of our site visits cannot be generalized across all U.S. 
Attorney districts, DOJ or ICE field offices, or states and localities 
in the United States. However, because we selected sites and localities 
based on a variety of factors, they provided us with a broad overview 
of activities of DOJ and ICE related to federal anti-gang activities 
including law enforcement, as well as prevention and intervention 
programs. See table 4 for additional information on the interviews we 
conducted in each locality we visited. 

To determine how DOJ and DHS have measured the results of their gang 
enforcement efforts, we first assessed how DOJ and DHS components 
define "gang" and gang-related crimes. We then reviewed data on gang- 
related investigations and prosecutions maintained by DOJ and DHS law 
enforcement agencies and U.S. Attorneys. To assess the reliability of 
statistical information and budget data we obtained, we discussed the 
sources of the data with agency officials and reviewed documentation 
regarding the compilation of data. We determined that the data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also 
interviewed headquarters officials about performance measurement 
initiatives and reviewed DOJ and DHS strategic plans, budgets, and 
performance reports, and we reviewed a DOJ Office of Inspector General 
report that evaluated the Executive Office of U.S. Attorney's (EOUSA) 
case management system.[Footnote 66] We compared DOJ and DHS efforts to 
measure the results of their gang enforcement efforts to our prior work 
on effective interagency collaboration and results oriented 
government.[Footnote 67] In addition, we asked state and local law 
enforcement officials in nine of the 15 localities we visited how they 
measured the results of local gang enforcement efforts. 

To determine how DOJ administers and/or supports gang prevention, 
intervention and law enforcement programs through grant funding, we 
examined documentation of DOJ's overall approach and objectives for 
anti-gang grant programs, as well as DOJ-sponsored evaluations and a 
guide to best practices to address community gang problems. We 
interviewed Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
(OJJDP) and Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) officials about the 
status of funding, sustainability of anti-gang programs without federal 
funding, and results of evaluations of the effectiveness of the anti- 
gang grant programs, among other topics. We also reviewed funding 
levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 for the four active grant 
programs that we identified as being directly focused on anti-gang 
efforts and included in the scope of our review.[Footnote 68] In eight 
localities we visited that received federal grants for anti-gang 
efforts, we interviewed grant recipients to determine activities that 
they were pursuing with the grant funds and how they planned to sustain 
programs when federal funding expired. In two of these locations, we 
observed youth gang prevention and intervention programs in process and 
spoke with participants and representatives of community-based groups 
implementing them to gain an understanding of the scope of the 
demonstration projects and how they used federal funds for anti-gang 
prevention and intervention activities. In addition, we interviewed 
USAO officials to obtain information on their roles in anti-gang 
programs. We reviewed guidance on developing and implementing 
comprehensive prevention, intervention, and suppression programs and 
key documents related to the four federal grant programs, including 
grant applications, community reports on the use of grant funding and 
performance data. We did not, however, review every program supported 
by federal funding that communities could use for anti-gang efforts or 
for other law enforcement and crime prevention efforts. For example, 
DOJ grant programs including the Community Oriented Policing Services, 
Weed and Seed, Project Safe Neighborhoods, and Edward Byrne Memorial 
Justice Assistance Grant Program were not in the scope of our review 
because they are not specifically designated for anti-gang efforts, 
although communities could choose to use funds from the grants for anti-
gang activities or for other law enforcement and crime prevention 
purposes. We also reviewed available nationwide evaluations of grant 
programs sponsored by DOJ. 

Nine criminal justice researchers with expertise on anti-gang issues 
provided their views on how effective the federal government has been 
in measuring its gang suppression, prevention, and intervention 
activities and whether the programs are sustainable without federal 
funding and likely to be implemented by communities that did not 
receive federal grants based on lessons learned from the federally 
funded projects. 

Semistructured interviews with officials in 15 localities provided 
information to help address each of our three reporting objectives. 
During our visits, we interviewed officials of the following offices: 

* USAOs; 

* FBI; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); Drug 
Enforcement Administration (DEA); and ICE offices when a field division 
or resident office or an FBI, ATF, DEA or ICE-led task force was 
present and found to be engaged in local anti-gang efforts through 
communication with officials of the USAO; 

* local law enforcement agencies when those agencies accepted our 
request for interview; and: 

* state, local, or nongovernmental entities that received or were 
responsible for administering DOJ anti-gang grants. 

Table 4 lists the officials we interviewed at each locality visited. 

Table 4: Officials We Interviewed in 15 Selected Localities: 

Locality: Atlanta, Ga.; 
U.S. Attorney's Office: Georgia, Northern District; 
Federal law enforcement agency: FBI, ATF, ICE; State or local law 
enforcement agency: Gwinnett County, Ga., Police Department; 
State, local or nongovernmental organization involved in anti-gang 
grant administration: [Empty]. 

Locality: Baltimore, Md.; 
U.S. Attorney's Office: District of Maryland; 
Federal law enforcement agency: ATF; 
State or local law enforcement agency: [Empty]; 
State, local or nongovernmental organization involved in anti-gang 
grant administration: [Empty]. 

Locality: Chicago, Ill.; 
U.S. Attorney's Office: Illinois, Northern District; 
Federal law enforcement agency: FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE; 
State or local law enforcement agency: Chicago Police Department; 
State, local or nongovernmental organization involved in anti-gang 
grant administration: [Empty]. 

Locality: Cleveland, Ohio; 
U.S. Attorney's Office: Ohio, Middle District; 
Federal law enforcement agency: FBI, ATF, DEA; 
State or local law enforcement agency: Cleveland Police Department; 
State, local or nongovernmental organization involved in anti-gang 
grant administration: Administrators of the anti-gang initiative 
including coordinators of law enforcement, prevention and reentry. 

Locality: Dallas, Tex.; 
U.S. Attorney's Office: Texas, Northern District; 
Federal law enforcement agency: FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE; 
State or local law enforcement agency: Dallas Police Department and 
North Texas Crime Commission; 
State, local or nongovernmental organization involved in anti-gang 
grant administration: Administrators and partners of the anti-gang 
initiative including the North Texas Crime Commission, Offender Reentry 
Court, and Boys and Girls Clubs. 

Locality: Durham, N.C.; 
U.S. Attorney's Office: North Carolina, Middle District; 
Federal law enforcement agency: FBI; 
State or local law enforcement agency: Durham Police Department; State, 
local or nongovernmental organization involved in anti-gang grant 
administration: Office of the City Manager, Anti-Gang Program 
Administrator. 

Locality: Los Angeles, Calif.; 
U.S. Attorney's Office: California, Central District; 
Federal law enforcement agency: FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE; 
State or local law enforcement agency: Los Angeles Police Department; 
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department; 
State, local or nongovernmental organization involved in anti-gang 
grant administration: Mayor's Office of Gang Reduction and Youth 
Development. 

Locality: New York City, N.Y. (Manhattan); 
U.S. Attorney's Office: New York, Southern District; 
Federal law enforcement agency: FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE; 
State or local law enforcement agency: [Empty]; 
State, local or nongovernmental organization involved in anti-gang 
grant administration: [Empty]. 

Locality: New York City, N.Y. (Brooklyn); 
U.S. Attorney's Office: New York, Eastern District; 
Federal law enforcement agency: FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE; 
State or local law enforcement agency: [Empty]; 
State, local or nongovernmental organization involved in anti-gang 
grant administration: [Empty]. 

Locality: Milwaukee, Wis.; 
U.S. Attorney's Office: Wisconsin, Eastern District; 
Federal law enforcement agency: FBI, ATF; 
State or local law enforcement agency: [Empty]; 
State, local or nongovernmental organization involved in anti-gang 
grant administration: [Empty]. 

Locality: Newark, N.J.; 
U.S. Attorney's Office: District of New Jersey; 
Federal law enforcement agency: FBI, DEA, ICE; 
State or local law enforcement agency: Newark Police Department; 
State, local or nongovernmental organization involved in anti-gang 
grant administration: [Empty]. 

Locality: Pittsburgh, Pa.; 
U.S. Attorney's Office: Pennsylvania, Western District; 
Federal law enforcement agency: FBI, ATF; 
State or local law enforcement agency: Pittsburgh Bureau of Police; 
State, local or nongovernmental organization involved in anti-gang 
grant administration: Youth Intervention Project, Pittsburgh Public 
Schools. 

Locality: Raleigh, N.C.; 
U.S. Attorney's Office: North Carolina, Eastern District; 
Federal law enforcement agency: FBI; 
State or local law enforcement agency: [Empty]; 
State, local or nongovernmental organization involved in anti-gang 
grant administration: Law enforcement coordinator for Anti-Gang 
Initiative. 

Locality: Richmond, Va.; 
U.S. Attorney's Office: Virginia, Eastern District; 
Federal law enforcement agency: FBI, ATF; 
State or local law enforcement agency: [Empty]; 
State, local or nongovernmental organization involved in anti-gang 
grant administration: Virginia Attorney General's Office; Virginia 
Interagency Anti-Gang Workgroup. 

Locality: Tampa, Fla.; 
U.S. Attorney's Office: Florida, Middle District; 
Federal law enforcement agency: FBI, ATF, ICE; 
State or local law enforcement agency: Tampa Police Department; Tampa 
Sheriff's Department; 
State, local or nongovernmental organization involved in anti-gang 
grant administration: Hillsborough County, Fla. Community Service 
Program. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

We also interviewed officials of the Los Angeles County District 
Attorney's Office and the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office who had an 
established history of prosecuting gang-related crime, and we pre- 
tested our structured interview instruments with law enforcement 
officials in Washington, D.C.; Montgomery County, Md.; and Northern 
Virginia. 

Research experts provided input to our reporting objective on how DOJ 
administers and/or supports gang prevention, intervention and law 
enforcement programs through grant funding and to appendix IV, which 
provides perspective on important elements for consideration in 
developing and implementing an approach for combating gangs. We 
identified research experts through a review of literature related to 
gangs and gang crime issues, their participation in gang-related 
conferences, and by asking federal officials for recommendations. We 
contacted these research experts by e-mail with several questions, and 
we either discussed their answers in telephone interviews or received e-
mail responses from them. The following research experts contributed 
their views: 

* G. David Curry, University of Missouri-St. Louis: 

* Scott Decker, Arizona State University: 

* Finn-Aage Esbensen, University of Missouri-St. Louis: 

* Karl Hill, University of Washington: 

* Ronald Huff, University of California-Irvine: 

* Charles Katz, Arizona State University: 

* David M. Kennedy, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City 
University of New York: 

* Malcolm Klein, University of Southern California: 

* Irving Spergel, University of Chicago: 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2007 through July 
2009, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Justice: 

U.S. Department of Justice: 
Office of the Deputy Attorney General: 
Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General: 
Chair of the Attorney General's Anti-Gang Coordination Committee: 
Washington, DC 20530: 

July 17, 2009: 

Eileen R. Larence: 
Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice Team: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Larence: 

Thank you fur the opportunity to review the subject draft report and 
for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Department of Justice 
(DOJ). Each of the five recommendations directed to the Department of 
Justice is addressed in turn, below. 

The first recommendation is for DOJ (in consultation with the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)) to reexamine the roles and 
responsibilities of four DOJ headquarters-level anti-gang coordinating 
entities, including identifying and addressing any potential gaps and 
unnecessary overlaps. DOJ concurs with the recommendation and the 
importance of regularly coordinating crosscutting efforts such as law 
enforcement's anti-gang efforts. This role is performed by the Attorney 
General's Anti-Gang Coordination Committee (AGCC), which meets at least 
quarterly and includes DHS's U S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE) among. its membership. The AGCC will continue to work with ICE. 
DOJ headquarters-level anti-gang entities, and other DOJ components and 
agencies to identify and address gaps and unnecessary overlaps. 

The second recommendation is for DOJ to develop a Departmentwide 
strategic-level performance measure for the Department's anti-gang 
efforts. The Department is in the initial stages of developing the next 
DOJ Strategic Plan, due in June 2010. The recent change in 
Administration will result in adjustments in DOJ's focus and priorities 
which will be reflected in this next version. It is too early in the 
development process to state for certain that the new plan will include 
a Departmentwide, strategic-level performance measure specifically 
aimed at antigang efforts; however, the senior leadership will consider 
including such a measure. DOJ recognizes that gangs are a major factor 
in many crimes, and it is possible that raising the visibility in our 
fight against gangs will weigh in favor of including such a measure. 

The third recommendation is for DOJs Executive Committee for United 
States Attorneys (EOUSA) to review the case and time management systems 
of the 93 United States Attorneys' Offices (USAOs) nationwide to ensure 
more accurate and complete reporting of their gang-related cases. DOJ 
concurs with this recommendation, Since 2006, USAOs have been 
instructed to use appropriate codes to identify gang members and the 
role of gang members in the National Legal Information Office Network 
System (LIONS) and the U.S. Attorney Monthly Resource Summary Reporting 
System (USA-5) systems, which record the numbers of gang-related cases 
and matters and the time dedicated to working on gang-related cases and 
matters. However, in recognition of the fact that USAOs were likely 
under-reporting LIONS and USA-S data on gang prosecutions, gang 
defendants, and hours spent on gang-related prosecutions, EOUSA has 
taken steps to make improvements. On February 15, 2009, EOUSA Director, 
Kenneth E. Melson, issued a memorandum instructing all USAOs to use the 
appropriate LIONS and USA-5, codes for all gang-related defendants and 
cases. More recently, EOUSA also clarified the Evaluation and Review 
Staff (EARS) performance evaluations which are conducted in each USAO 
approximately every three years. The EARS program is the means by which 
EOUSA is able to conduct reviews of internal management controls for 
USAOs. Beginning in Fiscal Year 20110 the revised case management 
systems standards will specifically require a USAO to timely and 
accurately enter gang-related information into the LIONS and USA-5 
systems. 

The fourth recommendation is for DOJ and DHS to jointly ensure that ICE 
participates in the review and approval process for the creation of new 
anti-gang task forces. DOJ concurs with the recommendation and has 
already taken steps to ensure ICE participation. Specifically, we have 
added a line to the DOJ taskforce application requiring district-level 
concurrence by the ICE Special Agent in Charge. Moreover, DOJ has 
invited a representative of the ICE National Gang Unit to participate 
in the headquarters-level Task Force Review Subcommittee (a 
subcommittee of the AGCC). These new measures provide ICE with the same 
level of review as the other participating DOJ law enforcement 
agencies. We are also exploring with ICE whether any of their anti-gang 
activities include task forces that should be included in a similarly 
coordinated review process at DHS. 

The fifth recommendation is for DOJ and DHS to jointly develop a common 
definition of "gang" for use by DOJ, DHS, and component agencies for 
reporting purposes. DOJ agrees that a common definition would 
facilitate data collection and related evaluation efforts. For this 
reason, in Spring 2007, the Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics 
(BJS) was asked to determine how a uniform definition of "gang" could 
be implemented across DO) component agencies. Noting that 
implementation would pose both technical and operational challenges, 
BJS developed a multi-stage project implementation plan for reporting, 
DOJ gang conviction statistics. BJS acknowledged the plan could be 
costly. DOJ has not vet begun implementation as we consider whether 
after enduring significant cost. measuring the number of gang 
convictions will adequately measure our anti-gang performance. DOJ 
concurs that it is appropriate to broaden this discussion to include 
DHS, and most specifically ICE which engages in significant anti-gang 
activities DOJ will seek to use the AGCC us a thrum to jointly consider 
a common definition of "gang" or otherwise develop an effective per 
nuance measurement system for our anti-gang activities. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jennifer Shasky Calvary: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

July 16, 2009: 

Eileen R. Larence: 
Director: 
Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 
U.S. Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Larence: 

ICE Response to GAO Draft Report: "Combating Gangs: Better Coordination 
and Performance Measurement Would Help Clarify Roles of Federal 
Agencies and Strengthen Assessment of Efforts" GAO-09-708 (440651)
Thank you for providing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 
with the opportunity to review and comment on the subject Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report. 

ICE provides the following information in direct response to the 
recommendations directed to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS): 

Recommendation 1: "The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland 
Security jointly take the following action: ensure that ICE reviews and 
approves the creation of new antigang task forces" 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with this recommendation directed to DHS. ICE 
will work with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to become an approving 
official on the creation of new antigang task forces by identifying and 
implementing the procedure for such action. 

Recommendation 2: "The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland 
Security jointly take the following action: jointly develop a common or 
shared definition of "gang" for use by DOJ, DHS, and component agencies 
for reporting purposes." 

ICE Response: ICE concurs with this recommendation directed to DHS and 
will work with DOJ to jointly develop a common or shared definition of 
"gang" for use by DOJ, DHS, and component agencies for reporting 
purposes. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Report and 
we look forward to working with you on future homeland security issues. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jerald E. Levine: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Eileen R. Larence (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Rebecca Gambler, Assistant 
Director; Katherine Davis; Anthony Fernandez; Deborah Knorr; Amanda 
Miller; Jeffrey Niblack; Octavia Parks; Janet Temko; and Jeremy 
Williams made significant contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] See Department of Justice, Attorney General's Report to Congress on 
the Growth of Violent Street Gangs in Suburban Areas (Washington, D.C.: 
April 2008). The Attorney General based his estimates of the number of 
gang members on a nationwide survey of law enforcement officials. 
Definitions of what constitutes a gang or gang member vary from 
location to location. A DOJ official who heads an effort to coordinate 
federal gang crime investigations noted that everything from drug 
trafficking organizations, to domestic terrorist groups, to organized 
crime, to street gangs could fall under the broad definition of 
"gangs." For certain specified purposes, including a federal sentencing 
enhancement that provides for an increased penalty for participation in 
a criminal street gang, federal law defines the term "criminal street 
gang" as an ongoing group, club, organization, or association of five 
or more persons that has as one of its primary purposes the commission 
of one or more specified criminal offenses involving violence or 
controlled substances, the members of the group must engage, or have 
engaged within the past five years, in a continuing series of the same 
specified crimes, and the activities of the group must affect 
interstate or foreign commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 521(a). 

[2] The component agencies we obtained documents and interviewed 
officials from include the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Bureau 
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Drug Enforcement 
Administration; the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys; and the 
Criminal Division within DOJ, and ICE within DHS. We also obtained 
documents and interviewed officials of the U.S. Marshals Service at 
headquarters and in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area during the 
design phase of our work. 

[3] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration Among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005). 

[4] U.S. Attorneys serve as the chief federal law enforcement officers 
in 94 judicial districts across the nation. 

[5] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] and GAO, Agency 
Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That Can Improve Usefulness to 
Decision-makers, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 
26, 1999). 

[6] The four grant programs are the Comprehensive Anti-Gang Initiative, 
Gang Reduction Program, Gang Free Schools and Communities Program, and 
Gang Prevention Coordination Assistance Program. 

[7] The same U.S. Attorney serves the District of Guam and the District 
of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

[8] Officials noted that other federal law enforcement agencies, 
including the Bureau of Prisons, criminal investigative components of 
the Internal Revenue Service; and Department of Housing and Urban 
Development among others, may sometimes be involved in gang-related 
apprehensions and investigations, as well; however we did not include 
these agencies in the scope of our review. We did not conduct detailed 
audit work at CBP for this review, but we will examine CBP's anti-gang 
efforts in greater detail in our report on combating gangs with 
transnational connections, which we plan to issue later this year. 

[9] Only federal laws specifically assigned to other divisions are 
outside of the purview of the Criminal Division. For example, a new 
National Security Division was established in September 2006 with 
specific responsibility for international and domestic terrorism and 
other national security threats. 

[10] U.S. Department of Justice, National Gang Intelligence Center and 
National Drug Intelligence Center, 2009 National Gang Threat Assessment 
(Washington, D.C.: January 2009). The assessment found that gang 
members are increasingly using firearms in conjunction with their 
criminal activities and that during the latest five-year reporting 
period ending in 2007, 94.3 percent of gang related homicides involved 
the use of a firearm. 

[11] Demonstration projects show in practice how a particular problem 
may be addressed in a new or different way using a particular approach. 

[12] "Deconfliction" is the coordination and information sharing among 
law enforcement agencies on multi-jurisdiction investigations to help 
ensure officer safety and the effective use of resources. 

[13] The FBI's National Gang Strategy defines a gang as a criminal 
enterprise having an organizational structure, acting as a continuing 
criminal conspiracy, which employs violence and any other criminal 
activity to sustain the enterprise. According to the strategy, violent 
gangs are street level neighborhood, community, and regionally based 
gangs; groups brought together for specific violent crime activities; 
prison gangs; and outlaw motorcycle gangs. The National Gang Strategy 
defines criminal enterprise as any union or group of individuals 
associated in fact, although not a legal entity, and that these 
individuals are engaged in a pattern of criminal activity together. 

[14] According to ATF, gangs employ firearms as "tools of the trade" 
that make them a threat to public safety, including guns in the hands 
of felons, as well as weapons and explosives used to retaliate against 
rival gangs and witnesses to criminal behavior. ATF seeks to enforce 
firearms laws to remove violent offenders from communities, stop 
illegal firearms trafficking, and prevent prohibited persons from 
possessing firearms. 

[15] ATF does not specifically track time spent on gang enforcement 
efforts because it tracks agent time in relation to its mission of 
violent crime. We did not present data on ICE agent FTEs dedicated to 
gang enforcement efforts in this report because ICE deemed the 
information to be sensitive. 

[16] We did not include entities with missions focused exclusively on 
combating international gangs outside of the United States in the scope 
of our review. MS-13 is a Hispanic street gang estimated to have 8,000 
to 10,000 members in at least 38 states. 

[17] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15], which uses 
the term "collaboration" broadly to include "coordination." We have 
adopted that same use in this report. 

[18] Any DOJ entity seeking to establish a gang task force must submit 
a threat assessment to the relevant USAO and ultimately to the Anti- 
Gang Coordination Committee. The purpose of the threat assessment is to 
outline the scope and magnitude of the gang issue, delineate whether 
there are currently any anti-gang task forces in place, and offer 
strategies for combating the issue. 

[19] All relevant DOJ component agencies provided their concurrence for 
the eight task forces that we reviewed. 

[20] DOJ and ICE officials said that ICE is invited to participate in 
the agenda for the full Anti-Gang Coordination Committee. 

[21] See Explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2008 Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844 (2007). 

[22] The divisions are in Dallas and Houston, Tex.; Detroit, Mich.; Los 
Angeles and San Diego, Calif.; Miami, Fla.; Newark, N.J.; Philadelphia, 
Pa.; St. Louis, Missouri; and Washington, D.C. According to DEA 
officials, four additional teams will begin operating during fiscal 
year 2009 in Chicago, Ill.; Atlanta, Ga.; El Paso, Tex.; and Phoenix, 
Ariz. 

[23] Law enforcement agencies have also conducted gang enforcement 
activities through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force 
(OCDETF). The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, 
disrupt, and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking and money 
laundering organizations and those primarily responsible for the 
nation's drug supply. Federal agencies that participate in OCDETF 
include DEA, FBI, ICE, ATF, USMS, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 
and the U.S. Coast Guard. 

[24] GAO, Managing for Results: Challenges Agencies Face in Producing 
Credible Performance Information, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-52] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 
2000); and GAO, Managing for Results: Strengthening Regulatory 
Agencies' Performance Management Practices, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-10] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28, 
1999). 

[25] GAO, Homeland Security: Progress Made; More Direction and 
Partnership Sought, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-490T] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 
2002). 

[26] 18 U.S.C. § 521(a). 

[27] A performance measure is a particular value or characteristic used 
to measure output or outcome. Because DOJ has broad responsibility for 
anti-gang efforts across multiple component agencies, we reviewed the 
extent to which DOJ has established departmentwide, strategic level 
performance measures. We did not review the extent to which DHS has 
established departmentwide performance measures for anti-gang efforts 
because fewer component agencies at DHS have responsibility for anti- 
gang efforts. 

[28] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285. 

[29] "Disruption" is defined as impeding the normal and effective 
operation of the targeted organization, as indicated by changes in its 
leadership and/or methods of operation. FBI defines "dismantlement" as 
destroying the organization's leadership, financial base, and supply 
network so that it is incapable of operating and reconstituting itself. 

[30] We provided data on federal agencies' gang-related outputs for 
illustrative purposes and did not report data on all outputs for which 
agencies collect and report data. The FBI also collects and reports 
data on number of gang-related complaints, number of gang-related 
indictments, number of gang-related indictments under racketeering and 
organized crime statutes, number of other gang-related racketeering 
statute indictments, and number gang-related arrests. ATF also collects 
and reports data on the number of gang-related defendants referred for 
prosecution, percentage of total gang-related defendants referred for 
prosecution, and percentage of total gang-related defendants convicted. 
DEA and ICE also collect and report data on the number of cases 
initiated and other case management statistics. 

[31] Administrative arrests use ICE's authority to initiate procedures 
for deportation based on a violation of immigration-related statutes, 
regulations, or policy. 

[32] Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Resource 
Management of U.S. Attorneys' Offices (Washington, D.C.: November 
2008). 

[33] According to EOUSA officials, case information in LIONS is entered 
primarily by statute and program category (i.e., counter-terrorism, 
narcotics, and organized crime). The gang code is a secondary data- 
entry point under "defendant status." These officials said that it is 
an unusual way for attorneys and support personnel to enter information 
into the system. Similarly, with respect to reporting time spent in the 
USA-5 system, time spent on gang-related prosecutions is a secondary 
time charge code called a USA-5a. USA-5a breaks out specific codes to 
track priorities and special initiatives such as cases involving gangs 
and Indian tribes, and its use is an extra data entry step for 
attorneys and support staff. 

[34] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C., November 1999). 

[35] In addition to these programs specifically for anti-gang efforts, 
communities may use other DOJ grant programs including Community 
Oriented Policing (COPS), Weed and Seed, Project Safe Neighborhoods, 
and the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program for anti-
gang activities or for other law enforcement and crime prevention 
efforts. Other federal departments may have grant programs that could 
be indirectly related to gangs, but we did not include them in our 
scope. 

[36] Since 2004 when administrative responsibility for the program was 
transferred from ATF, BJA has also administered the Gang Resistance, 
Education and Training (GREAT) Program, which we did not include in the 
scope of our review. GREAT provides funds for a school-based anti-gang 
curriculum taught by law enforcement officers with the goal of 
preventing delinquency, youth violence, and gang membership by offering 
life skills for effective non-violent partnerships. In fiscal year 
2008, a total of $7.6 million in GREAT program funding was provided to 
84 grantees around the country, down from $14.7 million in funding to 
165 grantees in fiscal year 2007. 

[37] Communities that implement the model follow a five-step process to 
identify the gang problem, mobilize resources to address it, and 
evaluate the results: (1) the community acknowledges that it has a gang 
problem; (2) the community assesses the characteristics and scope of 
its gang problem to identify target areas and populations on which to 
focus; (3) using a steering committee, community leaders set goals and 
objectives for reducing gang problems within the target areas and 
populations; (4) the steering committee makes available relevant 
programs, strategies, services, tactics, and procedures consistent with 
the model's five core elements; and (5) the steering committee 
evaluates the effectiveness of its strategies and programs and, if 
necessary, alters the approach. 

[38] The first sites OJJDP selected in 1995 to test the comprehensive 
model were Mesa, Ariz., Riverside, Calif., Bloomington-Normal, Ill., 
San Antonio, Tex., and Tucson, Ariz. The four communities selected in 
1999 to participate in the Rural Gang Initiative to test the 
comprehensive gang model in nonmetropolitan areas were Glenn County, 
Calif, Mt. Vernon, Ill., Elk City, Okla., and Cowlitz County, Wash. 

[39] Results of program evaluations that have been completed on these 
programs are discussed later in the report. 

[40] Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) is a national initiative 
established in 2001 to develop, implement, and evaluate data-driven 
violence reduction strategies in communities and improve the long-term 
prevention of gun violence. Since 2001, about $2 billion in federal 
funds have been allocated. The annual PSN funding level declined from 
about $19 million in fiscal year 2007 to $13.6 million in fiscal year 
2008 awarded to organizations in the United States and its territories. 
Fiscal year 2008 PSN awards ranged from a high of about $583,000 to the 
California Governor's Office of Emergency Services to a low of about 
$52,000 to the St. Thomas-St John, Virgin Islands Chamber of Commerce. 
Funds are used for purposes including hiring additional prosecutors and 
assisting state and local jurisdictions in support of training and 
community outreach efforts. Project Safe Neighborhoods initiatives 
typically involve U.S. Attorneys working with local law enforcement to 
implement programs to increase enforcement of federal firearms laws and 
prosecution of violent organizations. Some Project Safe Neighborhood 
programs address gang crimes. 

[41] Some communities we visited were still in the planning phase of 
their grant and had not yet implemented programs. 

[42] Cosmos Corporation for Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, National Evaluation of the Gang- 
Free Schools Initiative (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2007). 

[43] Urban Institute for Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Community Collaboratives Addressing 
Youth Gang:, Interim Findings from the Gang Reduction Program 
(Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2008). 

[44] Department of Justice, Best Practices to Address Community Gang 
Problems: OJJDP's Comprehensive Gang Model (Washington, D.C., 2008). 

[45] U.S. Department of Justice and National Alliance of Gang 
Investigators Associations, 2005 National Gang Threat Assessment, 
(Washington, D.C.: 2005); and U.S. Department of Justice, National Gang 
Intelligence Center and National Drug Intelligence Center, 2009 
National Gang Threat Assessment (Washington, D.C.: January 2009). The 
2007 National Youth Gang Survey did not report on gang problems ever 
reported in rural communities, but found the 15 percent of agencies 
that serve rural counties reported experiencing youth gang problems in 
2007. 

[46] U.S. Department of Justice and National Alliance of Gang 
Investigators Associations, 2005 National Gang Threat Assessment, 
(Washington, D.C.: 2005); and U.S. Department of Justice, National Gang 
Intelligence Center and National Drug Intelligence Center, 2009 
National Gang Threat Assessment (Washington, D.C.: January 2009). 

[47] For example, in one USAO, a prosecutor explained that the goal for 
his office was to regain stability in neighborhoods where local law 
enforcement had lost control and citizens were threatened by gangs 
engaged in violence and drug trafficking. Once stability was restored, 
state and local prosecutors and police were to resume primary 
responsibility for gang-related prosecutions. 

[48] As discussed in the body of this report, USAOs do not consistently 
maintain data on the number of gang-related cases prosecuted under 
various criminal statutes. 

[49] This list is not exhaustive; other federal criminal statutes are 
also used to prosecute gang-related crimes. 

[50] Penalties listed include terms of imprisonment and do not include 
other penalties, such as fines and terms of supervised release. 

[51] See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68. Under RICO, “racketeering activity” 
includes a broad assortment of state and federal crimes. § 1961(1). 
These include, for example, murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, 
robbery, extortion, mail fraud, wire fraud, obstruction of criminal 
investigations, obstruction of justice, retaliation against a witness, 
forgery or false use of a passport, federal offenses involving 
controlled substances, and alien smuggling crimes. See id. 

[52] 8 U.S.C. § 1959. "Racketeering activity" has the same meaning as 
under RICO. § 1959(b)(1). 

[53] As defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16. 

[54] 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a). 

[55] Id. 

[56] See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(b), 1961(4). 

[57] Pub. L. No. 103-322, § 150001(a), 108 Stat. 1796, 2034 (codified 
at 18 U.S.C. § 521). 

[58] Indeed, there were few reported cases where the enhancement has 
been successfully utilized to increase the defendant's penalty of 
conviction. See e.g., Sepulveda v. United States, 330 F.3d 55, 58-59 
(1st Cir. 2003) (affirming on collateral review defendant's sentence 
enhancement under § 521). 

[59] See 18 U.S.C. § 521(a). 

[60] Id. § 521(d). The Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New 
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) has a bearing on this statutory provision. 
In Apprendi, the Court held, "Other than the fact of a prior 
conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the 
prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved 
beyond a reasonable doubt." 530 U.S. at 490. The Court of Appeals for 
the Fifth Circuit examined the criminal street gang enhancement in 
light of Apprendi and found that Apprendi requires that "the essential 
facts for a § 521 enhancement... must be pleaded in an indictment and 
found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt," rather than found by a 
preponderance of the evidence by the judge. United States v. Matthews, 
312 F.3d 652, 663 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 521(d)). Beyond a reasonable 
doubt is a higher burden to prove than a preponderance of the evidence, 
which only requires the greater weight of the evidence. This means that 
after Apprendi proving the required elements to increase a defendant's 
term of imprisonment under the criminal street gang enhancement would 
be subject to a higher burden, like a separate offense. There are no 
post-Apprendi reported decisions in which the criminal street gang 
enhancement has been successfully used. 

[61] Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of 
Justice Assistance, Addressing Community Gang Problems: A Practical 
Guide (Washington, D.C.: August 1999). 

[62] Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of 
Justice Assistance, Addressing Community Gang Problems: A Model for 
Problem Solving (Washington, D.C.: August 1999). 

[63] Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Gang Programs and 
Strategies (Washington, D.C.: August 2000). 

[64] Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP Comprehensive Gang 
Model: Planning for Implementation (Washington, D.C.: June 2002). 

[65] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[66] DOJ Office of Inspector General, Resource Management of U.S. 
Attorneys Offices (Washington, D.C.: November 2008). 

[67] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[68] The four grant programs are the Comprehensive Anti-Gang 
Initiative, Gang Reduction Program, Gang Free Schools, and Gang 
Prevention Coordination Assistance Program. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: