This study was undertaken to enable cross-community analysis of gang trends in all areas of the United States. It was also designed to provide a comparative analysis of social, economic, and demographic differences among non-metropolitan jurisdictions in which gangs were reported to have been persistent problems, those in which gangs had been more transitory, and those that reported no gang problems. Data were collected from four separate sources and then merged into a single dataset using the county Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) code as the attribute of common identification. The data sources included: (1) local police agency responses to three waves (1996, 1997, and 1998) of the National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS), (2) rural-urban classification and county-level measures of primary economic activity from the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States Department of Agriculture, (3) county-level economic and demographic data from the County and City Data Book, 1994, and from USA Counties, 1998, produced by the United States Department of Commerce, and (4) county-level data on access to interstate highways provided by Tom Ricketts and Randy Randolph of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Variables include the FIPS codes for state, county, county subdivision, and sub-county, population in the agency jurisdiction, type of jurisdiction, and whether the county was dependent on farming, mining, manufacturing, or government. Other variables categorizing counties include retirement destination, federal lands, commuting, persistent poverty, and transfer payments. The year gang problems began in that jurisdiction, number of youth groups, number of active gangs, number of active gang members, percent of gang members who migrated, and the number of gangs in 1996, 1997, and 1998 are also available. Rounding out the variables are unemployment rates, median household income, percent of persons in county below poverty level, percent of family households that were one-parent households, percent of housing units in the county that were vacant, had no telephone, or were renter-occupied, resident population of the county in 1990 and 1997, change in unemployment rates, land area of county, percent of persons in the county speaking Spanish at home, and whether an interstate highway intersected the county.

This study was undertaken to enable cross-community analysis of gang trends in all areas of the United States. It was also designed to provide a comparative analysis of social, economic, and demographic differences among non-metropolitan jurisdictions in which gangs were reported to have been persistent problems, those in which gangs had been more transitory, and those that reported no gang problems. Data were collected from four separate sources and then merged into a single dataset using the county Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) code as the attribute of common identification. The data sources included: (1) local police agency responses to three waves (1996, 1997, and 1998) of the National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS), (2) rural-urban classification and county-level measures of primary economic activity from the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States Department of Agriculture, (3) county-level economic and demographic data from the County and City Data Book, 1994, and from USA Counties, 1998, produced by the United States Department of Commerce, and (4) county-level data on access to interstate highways provided by Tom Ricketts and Randy Randolph of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Variables include the FIPS codes for state, county, county subdivision, and sub-county, population in the agency jurisdiction, type of jurisdiction, and whether the county was dependent on farming, mining, manufacturing, or government. Other variables categorizing counties include retirement destination, federal lands, commuting, persistent poverty, and transfer payments. The year gang problems began in that jurisdiction, number of youth groups, number of active gangs, number of active gang members, percent of gang members who migrated, and the number of gangs in 1996, 1997, and 1998 are also available. Rounding out the variables are unemployment rates, median household income, percent of persons in county below poverty level, percent of family households that were one-parent households, percent of housing units in the county that were vacant, had no telephone, or were renter-occupied, resident population of the county in 1990 and 1997, change in unemployment rates, land area of county, percent of persons in the county speaking Spanish at home, and whether an interstate highway intersected the county.