1. Recommendations for implementing
Los Angeles-style gang suppression in
Wa s h i n g t o n , D C

2. Los Angeles County, 2005 4 California counties, 2011
5% - 10% 12.4%

3. Community residents felt less afraid and intimidated
Less visible gang activity and graffiti
Potential greater sense of neighborhood ownership
Stronger relationships with law enforcement

4. Robbery: $10,400 Assault: $12,200
x 66 x 210
$686,400 + $2,562,000 =
$3.2+ million saved by CGIs

5. People ex rel Gallo v Carlos Acuna, 1997
Chicago v. Morales, 1999
Solution to civil rights concerns: careful wording
Limiting negative impacts on the personal development
of gang-involved youth

6. Given the success rate and cost effectiveness it is
recommended that policymakers in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area consider utilizing this tool for gang
violence suppression.
Precision and collaboration that are necessary to carry
out CGIs effectively
Keep in mind the social wellbeing and development of
gang members who would be served with said injunctions

7. Mark A. Cohen, “Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Crime and Justice,” Criminal
Justice 2000, Vol. 4. National Institute of Justice, NCJ 182411. Available from
http://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_4/04f.pdf
Jeffrey Grogger, “What We Know About Gang Injunctions,” Criminology and Public
Policy, Vol. 4, No. 1 (February 2005), pp. 637-642.
Cheryl L. Maxson, et al., “For the Sake of the Neighborhood? Civil Gang Injunctions as
a Gang Invervention Tool in Southern California,” Ed. Scott H. Decker, Policing Gangs
and Violence, 1st edition, pp. 239-263. Rpt. In The Modern Gang Reader, 3rd edition,
New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 394-406.
Matthew O'Deane, Gang Injunctions and Abatement: Using Civil Remedies to Curb
Gang Related Crimes, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011
Matthew O’Deane & Stephen Morreale, “Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Gang
Injunctions in California,” The Journal of Criminal Justice Research, Vol. 2, No. 1