Effect of Gang Injunctions on Crime: A Study of Los Angeles from 1988–2014

  • Greg RidgewayEmail author
  • Jeffrey Grogger
  • Ruth A. Moyer
  • John M. MacDonald
Original Paper



To assess the effect of civil gang injunctions on crime.


We use data on the location and date of 46 gang injunctions between 1993 and 2013 and quarterly crimes reported to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) from 1988 to 2014. We estimate the effect of gang injunctions on crime over the short-term (20 quarters) and long-term (108 quarters) using difference-in-differences designs that take into account spatial and temporal correlation. Three gang injunctions were paused during the study period and provide a natural experiment from which we estimate the short-term effect of these injunctions on crime.


Gang injunctions are estimated to reduce total crime 5% in the short-term and 18% in the long-term, most of the effect coming from reductions in assaults. Analyses of the three interrupted injunctions yielded estimates of similar magnitude, providing further support of a crime reduction effect of gang injunctions. We found no evidence that gang injunctions are associated with displacing crime to nearby areas.


Injunctions represent a powerful place-based intervention strategy for police and prosecutors. Courts have recently subjected gang injunctions to closer scrutiny. This study indicates that gang injunctions contributed to a meaningful amount of the crime reductions in Los Angeles. Future research should examine whether gang injunctions reduce crime by specific deterrent effects on individual gang members or by the general deterrent effect of placing an area under greater police surveillance and restricting public gatherings and other actions deemed to be indicators of gang activity.


Gangs Gang injunctions Difference-in-difference Spatial–temporal model 


  1. 2003–2004 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (2004) Final report. Los Angeles County, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Q J Econ 119(1):249–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bester CA, Conley TG, Hansen CB (2011) Inference with dependent data using cluster covariance estimators. J Econ 165(2):137–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braga A, Weisburd D (2010) Policing problem places: crime hot spots and effective prevention. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook PJ, MacDonald JM (2011) The role of private action in controlling crime. In: Cook PJ, Ludwig J, McCrary J (eds) Controlling crime: strategies and tradeoffs. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deane G, Messner SF, Stucky TD, McGeever K, Kubrin CE (2008) Not ‘islands, entire of themselves’: exploring the spatial context of city-level robbery rates. J Quant Criminol 24(4):363–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eicker F (1967) Limit theorems for regression with unequal and dependent errors. In: Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 59–82Google Scholar
  8. Esbensen F-A (2013) Civil gang injunctions. Criminol Public Policy 12(1):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fagan J, MacDonald JM (2012) Policing, crime and legitimacy in New York and Los Angeles: the social and political contexts of two historic crime declines. In: Halle D, Beveridge AA (eds) New York and Los Angeles: the uncertain future. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 219–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibbs J (1975) Crime, punishment, and deterrence. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Goff K (2013, September 14) Sylmar, Pacoima helped by injunction, authorities say. Los Angeles Daily NewsGoogle Scholar
  12. Grogger J (2002) The effects of civil gang injunctions on reported violent crime. J Law Econ 45(1):69–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hennigan KM, Sloane D (2013) Improving civil gang injunctions: how implementation can affect gang dynamics, crime, and violence. Criminol Public Policy 12(1):7–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huber PJ (1967) The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. In: Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 221–233Google Scholar
  15. Kennedy D (2009) Deterrence and crime prevention: reconsidering the prospect of sanction. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein MW (1995) The American street gang. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Leovy J (2015) Ghettoside: a true story of murder in America. Spiegel & Grau, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Lopez RJ, Connell R (1999, September 21) Police probe forces suspension of rampart anti-gang injunctions. Los Angeles TimesGoogle Scholar
  19. Los Angeles City Attorney (2016, March 9) List of gang injunctions. Accessed 9 Mar 2016
  20. Los Angeles Times Editorial Board (2013, November 7) Be wary of gang injunctions. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 28 Feb 2017
  21. MacDonald JM, Hipp JR, Gill C (2013) The effects of immigrant concentration on changes in neighborhood crime rates. J Quant Criminol 29(2):191–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maxson C, Hennigan K, Sloane D (2005) “It’s getting crazy out there”: can a civil gang injunction change a community? Criminol Public Policy 4(3):577–606. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maxson CL, Matsuda KN, Hennigan K (2011) “Deterrability” among gang and nongang juvenile offenders: are gang members more (or less) deterrable than other juvenile offenders? Crime Delinq 57(4):516–543. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Melde C (2013) The practicalities of targeted gang interventions. Criminol Public Policy 12(1):43–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nagin D (2013) Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime Justice 42(1):199–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Deane MD (2012) Gang injunctions and abatement: using civil remedies to curb gang-related crimes. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  27. Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Expand Preliminary Injunction in Youth Justice Coalition, et al vs. City of Los Angeles, CV 16-07932 VAP (RAOx) (United States District Court, Central District of California March 15, 2018).
  28. Papachristos AV (2013) The importance of cohesion for gang research, policy, and practice. Criminol Public Policy 12(1):49–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ridgeway G, MacDonald JM (2016) Effect of rail transit on crime: a study of Los Angeles from 1988–2014. J Quant Criminol. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rubin J, Reyes E (2016, March 16) L.A. to pay up to $30 million in curfew lawsuit settlement to provide job training for gang members. Los Angeles TimesGoogle Scholar
  31. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (2016, March 9).
  32. Tita GE, Radil SM (2010) Spatial regression models in criminology: modeling social processes in the spatial weights matrix. In: Piquero A, Weisburd D (eds) Handbook of quantitative criminology. Springer, New York, pp 101–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tita G, Ridgeway G (2007) The impact of gang formation on local patterns of crime. J Res Crime Delinq 44(2):208–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang C (2008) Gang injunctions under heat from equal protection: selective enforcement as a way to defeat discrimination. Hastings Const Law Q 35:287–308Google Scholar
  35. White H (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48:817–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CriminologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Harris School of Public PolicyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Department of SociologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations