Special Report of the NGCRC:
Preliminary Results of Project GANGMILL
Copyright 2001, National Gang Crime Research Center.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This was an unfunded probono voluntary Task Force and included data collection contributions or assistance from the following persons:
Kathy Aquino
George Corbiscello
Alice P. Franklin Elder, Ph.D.
Gregg Etter, Ed.D.
Shirley R. Holmes, Ph.D.
James G. Houston, Ph.D.
Janice Jackson, Ph.D.
George W. Knox, Ph.D.
Curtis Robinson, M.A.
Sandra Stone, Ph.D.
A larger number of persons were involved at earlier phases of the research such as in item construction.
INTRODUCTION
This report provides information from Project GANGMILL, a research project by the National Gang Crime Research Center, that involved collecting data on N = 3,489 juvenile and adult offenders in seven states from 22 different correctional facilities. The report will describe how the larger national sample of N = 3,489 is pared down to N = 2,865 by means of intentional efforts to "validate" the data: that is, intentionally eliminating cases from the sample where deception or inconsistency was detected.
While a number of the items in this survey involved replicating previous findings, there are a number of new and innovative measurements as well which promise to provide new answers to ongoing questions about gang issues today. This is the first in what could be a series of analyses from this research initiative.
OFFERING THE RESPONDENTS COMPLETE ANONYMITY
The research design used here offered the respondents complete anonymity. Instructions during the collection of the data included the routine statement: "please do not put your name on this survey" to enhance the role of anonymity in the data collection procedure. This, combined with the fact that the respondents simply put their completed survey in a stack or collection box in a group context, allowed them a concrete assurance that their survey would not be "singled out" and linked to them in anyway.
DATA COLLECTION
The data for Project GANGMILL was collected during the time frame of 1998-1999. The data was collected at N = 22 different correctional institutions in N = 7 states. The distribution by site is described in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Distribution of Cases From the N = 22 Sites
N = in
(1) Wisconsin: State Juvenile Sample
Correctional Institution 230
(2) Sedgwick County Jail
Wichita, Kansas 486
(3) Juvenile Detention Center
Wichita, Kansas 18
(4) Juvenile Detention Center
Downey, California 234
(5) Ireland Youth Dev. Center
Milledgeville, Georgia 166
(6) Atlanta Youth Dev. Center
Atlanta, Georgia 97
(7) Monmouth Co. Jail
New Jersey 37
(8) Lorenzo Benn Youth Dev. Ctr.
Atlanta, Georgia 92
(9) Female Youth Dev. Ctr.
Macon, Georgia 72
(10) Indian River Youth Corr. Inst.
Ohio 243
(11) Maumee Youth Center
Ohio 95
(12) Youth Opportunity Center
Ohio 25
(13) Juvenile Corr. Inst.
Riverview, Ohio 164
(14) Sciotto Juv. Corr. Center
Ohio 120
(15) Mohican Youth Center
Ohio 118
(16) TICO Youth Facility, Ohio 112
(17) Ohio River Valley Youth Facility 128
(18) Youth Facility, Highland Hills
Ohio 235
(19) Ottawa Co. Juv. Det. Center,
Michigan 48
(20) Juvenile Det. Center
Kalamazoo, Michigan 6
(21) Ottawa Co. Jail, Michigan 77
(22) Kent Co. Juv. Det. Center
Michigan 59
VALIDITY ANALYSIS
This project was designed to be able to detect inconsistent and deceptive response patterns from offenders completing the survey. The purpose of this validity control was to be able to purge the overall sample of those cases in the sample where the offenders exhibit a deception pattern.
Two phases of validity analysis were undertaken for the research reported here. Starting with a sample size of N = 3,489 phase one will purge N = 173 of the cases due to deception among the respondents, and phase two of the analysis will purge another N = 451 due to inconsistent response patterns. Thus, a total of N = 624 cases are purged statistically in this two stage process, leaving a total of N = 2,865 cases that pass scrutiny for purposes of validity.
Phase One. Phase one involved simply eliminating from the sample any respondent who admitted to engaging in a kind of deviant behavior that did not exist. In short, Project GANGMILL had a series of questions dealing with the occult/satanic worship, and one of these was designed simply to capture the "false confessor". The "false confessor" is someone who in survey research on offenders has a tendency to want to falsely represent their level of dangerousness; this kind of person over-reports their deviance as a kind of statement about "self".
In phase one, there was a question on the survey (ITEM28) which read as follows: "Have you ever participated in a red snapperSatanic ceremony? ___Yes ___No ___Don't know what it is". There is no such thing as a "red snapper Satanic ceremony". It was an item placed after the other three occult/satanic items to be able to simply capture the kind of offender who has the tendency of the "false confessor".
There were N = 173 respondents in phase one, who claimed they had participated in a "red snapper Satanic ceremony". These cases in the national sample were purged during phase one of validity analysis.
Phase Two. Phase two of the validity analysis involved comparing the responses of two identical items. One of the items was placed in the very beginning (ITEM6) of the survey and the other item was placed at the very end (ITEM92) of the survey.
Table 1 presents the results of this cross-tabulation of responses to the phase two validity check.
Table 1
Phase Two Validity Analysis:
Crosstabulation of Responses to Two Identical Variables
Designed to Capture Inconsistency Among Offender Respondents
My parents do not
Do your parents regularly attend church.
regularly attend False True
church? NO 336 1329
YES 1111 115
As seen in Table 1, there are two "inconsistency patterns": (1) the N = 336 who on the one hand indicated early in the survey that "no" to the question do their parents regularly attend church and then towards the end of the survey indicated "false" to the statement "my parents do not regularly attend church", and (2) the N = 115 respondents who early in the survey responded "yes" that they parents do regularly attend church, but then later in the survey declared as "true" the statement that their parents do not regularly attend church.
This procedure from phase two therefore detected a total of N = 451 additional respondents who manifested inconsistency.
Thus, overall, from both phases of validity analysis a total of N = 624 respondents in the offender sample indicated direct deception or inconsistency in their responses and were therefore statistically purged from the sample.
DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS
Below we summarize the basic descriptive statistical findings from Project GANGMILL. The order of presentation will follow the exact same item order in the survey instrument itself. Where appropriate, significant differences that exist for some of these factors in relationship to gang membership are also reported.
AGE
The age of the offenders ranged from a low of eleven (11) years of age to a high of 85. It is important to note the distinction with respect to current age of the respondents in terms of what is legally, in most states, considered "juvenile" versus "adult". In most cases "juvenile" means, legally, someone 16 years of age or under. In places like Illinois, someone 17 years of age or older is basically charged as an adult if they are arrested.
Thus, in the present sample some 45.5 percent would be considered juveniles (16 years of age or under). And 54.5 percent would be considered adults (17 years of age or older).
SEX
Some 88.1 percent (N = 2494) of the sample were male; and 11.9 percent (N = 37) were female.
HALF WERE BULLIES
The survey asked "did you ever bully someone in school", and 51.6 percent (N = 1464) of the respondents indicated "yes".
This factor did vary significantly by gang membership: while 42.8 percent of the non-gang members were bullies, nearly two-thirds (67.4%) of the gang members reported being bullies.
ABOUT TWO-FIFTHS HAD BEEN BULLY VICTIMS
The survey also asked "were you ever bullied by someone in school", and here some 39.1 percent (N = 1109) indicated that they had in fact been bully victims.
Being a bully victim also varied by gang membership in the predictable direction: non-gang members were more likely to be bully victims (41.4%) than gang members (36.3%).
MANY BELIEVE BULLYING LEADS TO GANGBANGING
The survey asked "do you think bullying in school can lead to gangbanging", and some 60.9 percent (N = 1725) indicated "yes".
The tendency here was for gang members to indicate a higher percentage for "yes, bullying in school can lead to gangbanging" (65.8%) than for those who were not gang members (58.3%).
UNDER HALF REPORT THEIR PARENTS REGULARLY ATTEND CHURCH
One of the validity or consistency items, the survey asked "Do your parents regularly attend church", and here some 45.8 percent (N = 1290) indicated "yes". Thus, just over half (54.2%, N = 1526) indicated "no".
This factor did vary by gang membership: non-gang members appeared to have more church-attending parents. Some 48.7 percent of the non-gang members indicated their parents regularly attend church compared to 40.4 percent among gang members.
ABOUT A THIRD HAVE STOLEN FROM AN EMPLOYER
The survey asked "have you ever stolen anything from an employer that you ever worked for", and some 31.9 percent (N = 903) indicated "yes". Obviously, the majority (68.1%, N = 1932) indicated "no". It is important to note that this tendency has not been adjusted to first examine job history: whether the person has ever even had a job of any kind. This may, in fact, best be examined statistically by controlling for age (i.e., in terms of those of working age). It is also hypothesized that it may vary significantly by whether the offender is a gang member or not, which is one of the tests that will in fact be covered in this report.
TWO-THIRDS BELIEVE STRONG FAMILIES STOP GANG INVOLVEMENT
The survey asked "do you feel strong family support and involvement would prevent people from joining a gang", and some 67.2 percent (N = 1861) answered "yes". Thus, about a third (32.8%, N = 909) answered "no". This factor may gain greater importance once it is tested in relationship to actual gang membership within the sample.
This factor did vary by gang membership. Among the non-gang members, some 71.6 percent felt strong family involvement would prevent people from joining a gang; compared to only 60.4 percent among gang members.
A THIRD REPORT LOW LEVELS OF PARENTAL SUPERVISION AS YOUTHS
The survey included the true/false question "When I was growing up I really did not have much adult supervision from my parent(s) or guardian". Some 34.8 percent (N = 972) indicated "true".
This factor did vary significantly by gang membership. Among the non-gang members some 30.4 percent reported low levels of parental supervision as youths, but this rises to 42.1 percent among gang members.
ABOUT ONE OUT OF TEN HAVE FORCED SOMEONE TO HAVE SEX
The survey asked "have you ever forced someone to have sex with you" and some 9.6 percent (N = 273) answered "yes". Obviously, this factor will take on greater significance when it is examined in relationship to the gender of the respondents.
ABOUT ONE OUT OF FIVE HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF FORCIBLE SEX
There are more victims of forcible sex than there are victimizers, it would appear in the offender population based on this tendency; previously confirmed in a number of previous studies along these lines. It will, obviously, take on greater importance when it is examined in relationship to gender as well.
The survey asked "have you ever been forced by someone else to have sex with them", and some 19.2 percent (N = 544) answered "yes".
A HIGH RATE OF INCEST AMONG THE OFFENDER POPULATION
The survey asked "have you ever had sex with someone in your immediate family", and some 8.5 percent (N = 239) answered "yes". This factor is expected to vary to the gender of the respondent.
MOST FEEL IT IS NOT FAIR TO FORCE YOUTHS UNDER 13 TO JOIN GANGS
The survey asked "do you think it is fair to force kids younger than 13 years old to join gangs". Some 81.7 percent (N = 2294) indicated "no". Some 10.3 percent (N = 289) gave the response of "sometimes". And some 8.0 percent (N = 224) answered "yes".
This did vary by gang membership. While 87.8 percent of the non-gang members indicated a "no" response, this reduced to 72.7 percent among gang members.
SOME THIRTY PERCENT HAVE BEEN REFERRED FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
The survey asked "have you ever been referred for Special Education Services", and some 30.2 percent (N = 851) indicated "yes". Obviously, the larger share of the sample (69.8%, N = 1963) were not referred for Special Education Services.
There was a slight tendency for gang members to have a higher rate of referrals for special education (34.1%) than when compared to non-gang members (27.6%).
VAST MAJORITY CONSIDER THEMSELVES AS "GOOD READERS"
The survey asked "do you consider yourself to be a good reader", and some 84 percent (N = 2377) answered "yes". Thus, only 16 percent (N = 452) answered "no" in this regard. This factor may take on greater import in relationship to the age of the respondents.
There was no difference in comparing this factor by gang membership.
TYPE OF PROGRAMMING RECEIVED IN SCHOOL
The survey asked "where were you being taught when you were in school" and gave the respondent five response modes: regular classes, Resource Room, Special Education Classes, Alternative Program, and Home. The results show that most were in regular classes (73.9%, N = 2036). Only 1.5 percent indicated "resource room". Some 13.4 percent (N = 370) indicated "Special Education Class". Some 8.7 percent indicated "Alternative Program". And only 2.5 percent (N = 69) indicated "Home".
ABOUT ONE OUT OF TEN HAVE ROBBED OR BURGLARIZED A COMPANY THEY HAVE WORKED FOR
The survey asked "have you ever robbed or burglarized a company that you ever worked for", and some 11.3 percent (N = 318) reported "yes". Thus, some 88.7 percent (N = 2484) reported they had not ever robbed or burglarized a company that they had worked for.
NINE OUT OF TEN BELIEVE IN GOD
The survey asked "do you believe that God created the Universe and that you are accountable to Him for what you do in life". Here, consistent with previous findings of this nature among the American confined offender population, some 90 percent (N = 2498) indicated "yes". Thus, only 10 percent (N = 277) indicated "no" for this item.
There was no difference on this factor in relationship to gang membership.
WHAT ARE THE BEST PROGRAMS FOR PREVENTING GANG ACTIVITY?
The survey asked "which of the following types of programs do you think is the one single best way of preventing gang activity". Five specific options and one "other" category were provided as response modes. Some 14.7 percent (N = 387) indicated "after-school social clubs". Some 3.1 percent (N = 81) indicated "tutoring programs". The single largest tendency, constituting half of the sample, some 49.2 percent (N = 1299) indicated "sports programs". Only 1.4 percent (N = 37) indicated "school newspaper/yearbook". And some 16.9 percent indicated "other".
THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT: AN EMPIRICAL TEST
The survey included the question "do you believe the Devil has ever had an influence on your behavior". Some 58.9 percent (N = 1644) answered "yes". Some 22.2 percent (N = 621) answered "no". And some 18.9 percent (N = 528) answered "not sure".
A THIRD OF THE OFFENDERS IN THE SAMPLE EXPECT TO GO TO HELL
The survey included a short vignette style of an item that went like this: "if you died five minutes from now, and for the sake of argument I want you to assume that God is real, and God was looking at the "BIG BOOK" that recorded all of your good deeds as well as all of your bad deeds (crimes, violence, etc), where do you think you would really go, to heaven or to hell?"
Some 66.8 percent (N = 1783) indicated they expected to go to heaven. And a third (33.2%, N = 886) expected to go to hell.
There was a difference on this factor in relationship to gang membership. Among non-gang members some 28 percent expected to go to "hell", compared with 42.9 percent among gang members.
INVOLVEMENT IN WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
The survey included the question "have you ever threatened or assaulted someone while working on a legitimate job". Some 13.9 percent (N = 391) answered "yes".
A FOURTH HAVE SOLD DRUGS AT THEIR WORKPLACE
The survey asked "have you ever sold drugs while working on a legitimate job". Here some 26.1 percent (N = 736) answered "yes".
AGE FIRST ARRESTED FOR ANY CRIME
The survey asked the respondents to indicate the age at which they were first arrested for any crime. The data ranged from a low of six years of age to a high of 60. Some important tendencies, however, are evident: over half (58%) reported first being arrested at 13 years of age or younger.
LOW LEVEL INVOLVEMENT IN SATANIC WORSHIP CEREMONIES
The survey asked "have you ever participated in any Satanic worship ceremonies". Some 6.9 percent (N = 192) indicated "yes". Some 14.5 percent (N = 402) indicated "don't know what it is". And the single largest portion of the sample (78.5%, N = 2174) indicated "no".
SOMEWHAT HIGHER LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT IN BLACK MAGIC AND THE OCCULT
The survey asked "have you ever dabbled in black magic or the occult". Here some 10.8 percent (N = 298) indicated "yes". Some 15.7 percent (N = 432) answered "don't know what it is". And some 73.5 percent (N = 2024) answered "no".
VERY LOW LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT IN "CONE OF POWER" SATANIC CEREMONIES
The survey asked "have you ever participated in a cone of power Satanic ceremony". A "cone of power" ceremony is a real and genuine type of Satanic ceremony. Only 2.6 percent (N = 72) of the sample indicated "yes", that they had participated in such a ceremony. Some 20.7 percent (N = 566) indicated "don't know what it is". And 76.6 percent (N = 2090) answered "no".
Immediately following this item was the deception detection item that asked "have you ever participated in a red snapper Satanic ceremony". That item was used during validity analysis to eliminate cases from the national sample.
ETHNICITY IN THE SAMPLE
The ethnic or racial distribution of the sample is indicated in Table 2.
Table 2
Frequency and Percentage Distribution
For Race/Ethnicity in the Sample
Race/Ethnicity Number Percentage
African-American 1102 41.3%
Hispanic/Latino/Mexican/Puerto Rican 253 9.5%
White/Caucasian 987 37.0%
Asian/Chinese 37 1.4%
Native American Indian 83 3.1%
Bi-racial 204 7.7%
As seen in Table 2, the two largest groups are African-Americans and caucasians; representing 41.3% and 37% of the sample respectively.
VICTIMIZING A PREVIOUS EMPLOYER: ONE OUT OF TEN REPORT THIS
The survey asked "have you ever returned to the place of business of a former employer to commit a crime". Some 11.6 percent (N = 319) indicated "yes". The largest share of the sample, however, 88.4 percent (N = 2430) answered "no".
RELIGIOUS SOCIALIZATION IN THE OFFENDER SAMPLE
The survey asked "what religion were in RAISED in by your parents". Some 23.7 percent indicated "Catholic". Some 16 percent indicated "Protestant". Some 3.7 percent indicated "Muslim/Islam". And the single largest proportion of the sample answered "other" (56.6%). We have some insight into this for purposes of interpretation: it appears that many of those indicating "other" would assume that their denomination (Baptist, Lutheran, etc) were simply something other than "Protestant". That is, the offenders seem to lack religious cognition with regard to this issue of classification.
RELIGIOUS IDENTITY IN THE OFFENDER SAMPLE
The survey asked "what religion do you claim as your own today". Here we see 21.1 percent identifying themselves as "Catholics". Some 14.7 percent as "Protestants". Some 5.2 percent as "Muslims or followers of Islam". Some 41.9 percent again indicated "other". And 17.1 percent indicated "none". It was within the "other" category that the survey included a blank line for the respondents to "write in" the religion they identified with today. Here we found that the typical entry was "Baptist" or some other Christian denomination: the respondents apparently did not know these were classified as "protestant" religions. Thus, it is recommended that future research on the religious socialization and preferences of offenders steer clear of this quagmire of classification and approach the issue more analytically in terms of a wide range of "specific identity options".
Thus, researchers are urged to avoid trying to simply responses from offenders where we may be looking at a more complex issue of cognition: use a long list of possible religious denominations to "choose from". Because only in this way would it be possible to derive a more accurate estimate about religious classification in the offender population.
HAVING CLOSE FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES WHO ARE GANG MEMBERS
This is considered to be one of the most "tell tale" questions in gang research today, because an answer to it often betrays gang affiliation. It does not ask "are you a gang member", which would be a self-report on the deviance of the respondent. Most normal respondents underreport their levels of deviance to researchers. Thus, by asking about the deviance of peers and friends, it is possible to more accurately measure the actual deviance of the respondent.
The survey asked "how many of your close friends and associates are gang members" where the response mode options included: zero, one, two, three, four, five or more.
The results for this item are provided in Table 3.
Table 3
Frequency and Percentage Distribution
For Number of Close Friends and Associates
Who are Gang Members in the Offender Sample
How many of your close
friends and associates
are gang members? Number Percentage
0 1153 42.5%
1 92 3.4%
2 122 4.5%
3 133 4.9%
4 55 2.0%
5 or more 2711 42.6%
As seen in Table 3, our sample is almost evenly divided in terms of those at the far extreme regarding this measurement of integration into gang life. Some 42.5 percent report having no gang friends; while 42.6 percent report having five or more such gang friends.
This factor of association with gang members is the single best known surrogate measure of actual gang membership.
A FIFTH CLAIM THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE IN A PROGRAM THAT WOULD HELP THEM TO GET OUT OF THE GANG
The survey included the yes/no item: "I would like to be in a program that helped me get out of my gang". Some 77.8 percent (N = 1682) answered no; many presumably because they were not in a gang. But some 22.2 percent (N = 480) answered "yes". It will be interesting to revisit this factor in actual gang analysis within the sample.
FIGHTING BEHAVIOR: HIGH GENERALLY IN THE OFFENDER SAMPLE
The survey included a question known to be a predictor of gang membership. It read "How many physical fights have you been in during the last twelve (12) months". The response mode choices were: zero, one, two, three, four, and five or more.
Table 4 provides the results for this item.
Table 4
Frequency and Percentage Distribution
For Number of Physical Fights
The Respondents Were Involved in During the Last Year
How many physical fights
have you been in during the
last twelve (12) months? Number Percentage
0 770 28.4%
1 366 13.5%
2 367 13.6%
3 284 10.5%
4 177 6.5%
5 or more 744 27.5%
As seen in Table 4, again we find the sample divided almost evenly at the polar extremes of this measure of involvement in violence. Some 28.4 percent of the sample had been involved in no such physical fights; while 27.5 percent had been involved in five or more physical fights. It is almost as if a corrections classification system could evenly divide the sample into three nearly equal groups in terms of this aspect of "violence potential": (1) those with low to no level of fighting behavior (28.4% of the population), (2) those with some (1 to 3 fights) violence (37.6%), and (3) those with high levels (4 or more) of this violence potential (34%). This variable is also a known predictor of gang membership according to previous research.
NUMBER OF TIMES SUSPENDED OR EXPELLED FROM SCHOOL
The survey asked "how many times have you been suspended or expelled from school". The response mode choices were: zero, one, two, three, four, and five or more.
Table 5 provides the results for this item.
Table 5
Frequency and Percentage Distribution
For Number of Times Suspended or Expelled
From School in the Offender Sample
How times have you been
suspended or expelled
from school? Number Percentage
0 413 15.1%
1 258 9.5%
2 257 9.4%
3 247 9.1%
4 133 4.9%
5 or more 1420 52.1%
As seen in Table 5, here we get a different kind of distribution entirely, where the sample becomes evenly divided in terms of the high end of this kind of predictor of gang involvement. Half of this offender population (52.1%) report having been suspended or expelled five or more times in the past.
AS EXPECTED: HIGH LEVEL OF INTEGRATION INTO THE DRUG SUBCULTURE IN THIS OFFENDER SAMPLE
The survey included the question "how many of your close friends and associates use illegal drugs" and the response mode choices were: zero, one, two, three, four, and five or more. Again, drug use is a measure of deviance, and normal people have the tendency to underreport their deviance. However, within the offender population generally it is well known that the best measure of actual deviance is not self-report, but rather what "friends and associates" do: reporting on the deviance of one's friends and associates therefore may give a better indication of true levels of involvement in the drug subculture. Basically, what the question measures is level of integration into the drug subculture by having "drug using friends".
Table 6 provides the results for this item.
Table 6
Frequency and Percentage Distribution
For Number of Close Friends and Associates
Who Use Illegal Drugs in the Offender Sample
How many of your close
friends and associates
use illegal drugs? Number Percentage
0 420 15.6%
1 108 4.0%
2 120 4.5%
3 120 4.5%
4 57 2.1%
5 or more 2685 69.3%
As seen in Table 6, again the distribution is skewed towards the high end of this aspect of deviance: over two-thirds of the offender sample are reporting five or more such "drug using friends".
TWO-FIFTHS HAVE SOLD CRACK COCAINE
The survey asked "have you ever sold crack cocaine"? Some 57.2 percent (N = 1592) responded "no". While some 42.8 percent (N = 1193) indicated "yes".
ONE-FIFTH HAVE USED CRACK COCAINE
The survey asked "have you ever used crack cocaine"? Some 80.1 percent (N = 2237) indicated "no". Some 19.9 percent (N = 555) indicated "yes".
CRACK USE NOT MUCH HIGHER THAN METHAMPHETAMINE USE
The survey asked "have you ever used crank (methamphetamine)", and some 81.8 percent answered "no". Some 18.2 percent (N = 507) reported "yes". Thus, it is a kind of drug abuse just slightly below the level reported for using crack cocaine.
LOW PERCENTAGE SELLING CRANK OR METHAMPHETAMINE
The survey asked "have you ever sold crank (methamphetamine)" and here some 17.4 percent (N = 483) answered "yes". Thus, there would appear to be a significant difference in comparing offenders in custody who have sold crack cocaine versus "crank" (meth), and it may be useful to undertake racial comparisons alone these lines as well.
A MEASURE OF EXTREME VIOLENCE: FIRING A GUN AT A POLICE OFFICER
The survey included the question "have you ever fired a gun at a police officer". Some 84.5 percent (N = 2340) indicated "no". But some 15.5 percent (N = 429) indicated "yes", that they had previously fired a gun at a police officer. This is believable, as there are numerous situations in larger cities where gun fire is reported by police officers (i.e., shots fired) and fortunately the bullets never hit the intended victim (i.e., stray shots). Still, it is perhaps the highest level of deviance or criminal violence a person can engage in, and is unquestionably a measure of extreme violence potential.
SOME 37.8 PERCENT REPORT HAVING JOINED A GANG
The survey asked "have you ever joined a gang" with yes/no response modes. Some 62.2 percent of the offenders indicated "no", that they had never joined a gang. Some 37.8 percent (N = 1042) reported "yes", that they had previously joined a gang.
At this point in the survey instrument, most of the subsequent questions relate specifically to "gang life" and "gang behavior", or aspects about their gang organization. It is not until the very last page of the survey that questions about "correctional life" appear. Thus, in questions hereinafter about "gang life", we have selected for analysis only that subgroup (N = 1042) who are self-reported gang members.
THE AGE AT WHICH THEY JOINED THE GANG
The survey asked at what age they joined the gang, and the data showed a range from age 1 to 26 years of age. The tendencies were very pronounced for this variable: half (48.5%) had joined on or before the age of 12; some 69.2 percent had joined on or before the age of 13; some 83.2 percent had joined on or before the age of 14; some 92.4 percent had joined on or before the age of 15. Only 7.6 percent joined after the age of 16.
TYPE OF GANG JOINED
The survey asked the respondents to write in the name of the gang they joined: some N = 987 gang names showed up, some were obviously the same, just spelled differently ("Gangster Disciples", "Gangsta Disciples", "GDs", "GDN", etc). There is no particularly value in presenting this long list of well known gangs including the gamut of gangs in America today.
Suffice it to say that this list included well known Crip and Blood sets; various "People" and "Folk" gangs; motorcycle gangs; and white racist extremist gangs (Aryan Brotherhood, KKK, etc).
GANG CLASSIFICATION BY TYPE OF GANG ALLIANCE
The survey did ask the respondents what type of gang they joined where the response mode options were: Crips, Bloods, People/Brothers, Folks, Surenos, Nortenos, and Other. Table 7 provides the distribution for this variable.
Table 7
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Type of Gang Alliance
Among the Subsample of Gang Members in the Offender Sample
Type of Gang Number Percentage
Crips 229 24.4%
Bloods 104 11.1%
People/Brothers 47 5.0%
Folks 312 33.2%
Surenos 77 8.2%
Nortenos 15 1.6%
Other 155 16.5%
As seen in Table 7, Crips/Bloods are nearly proportional (35.5%) to the representation of People/Folks (38.2%) in this sample of gang members.
TWO-THIRDS ARE STILL ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THEIR GANGS
The survey asked the follow-up question "are you currently a member of any gang". The results indicated that two-thirds (66.8%, N = 669) are in fact still active gang members. A third (N = 333, 33.2%) indicated they are not currently members of the gang (i.e., inactive or former gang members).
The names of the specific types of gangs that they currently belonged to basically paralleled the same gangs they originally joined.
RECURRENT TREND: HALF HAVE TRIED TO QUIT THE GANG
A tendency that has shown itself to be identical in nature to previous gang research is the trend in the current data where about half of the gang members have actually tried to quit gang life. The survey asked "have you ever attempted to quit the gang", and some 45.1 percent (N = 460) indicated "yes". Similarly, the other half (54.9%, N = 559) indicated "no", that they had not tried to quit the gang.
TWO-THIRDS HAVE HELD SOME TYPE OF LEADERSHIP POSITION IN THE GANG
The survey asked "have you ever held rank or any leadership position in your gang". Some 66.9 percent (N = 685) indicated "yes". A third (N = 339, 33.1%) indicated that they had never held any rank or leadership position in their gang.
FOR MOST GANG MEMBERS: VIOLENCE WAS INVOLVED IN THEIR INITIATION INTO THE GANG
The survey asked "was any violence involved in your initiation into your gang". Some N = 286 (27.9%) indicated "no", thus indicating that they did not have to commit violence or receive some type of ritualistic violence (e.g., beating-in) to join their gang. However, over two-thirds of the gang members (N = 738, 72.1%) reported that violence was in fact involved in their initiation into the gang.
ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THE GANG MEMBERS REPORT THEIR GANG HAS A SPECIAL LANGUAGE CODE
Comparable to previous research of this nature, most gangs today appear to have their own specialized linguistic code. These are phrases and coded words that have special meaning only to the members of the gang. Some use encryption methods as well; it is even more common to have words or slogans that have "double meanings" so that gang members can communicate to each other in the presence of others and still conceal the meaning of their communication to each other.
The survey asked "does your gang have a special language code". Some 35.9 percent (N = 363) indicated "no". Yet 64.1 percent (N = 648) indicated "yes", that their gang did in fact have such a special language code.
TWO-THIRDS REPORT THAT THEIR GANG HAS WRITTEN RULES ITS MEMBERS
The survey asked "does your gang have written rules for its members". Some 30.1 percent (N = 301) indicated "no". Yet some 69.9 percent (N = 699) indicated "yes", that their gang does in fact have written rules for its members.
ABOUT HALF REPORT THEIR GANG HOLDS REGULAR WEEKLY MEETINGS
The survey asked "does your gang hold regular weekly meetings". Some 42.9 percent (N = 424) indicated "no". Some 57.1 percent (N = 565) indicated "yes", that their gang does in fact hold regular weekly meetings.
ABOUT A FOURTH REPORT THEIR GANG REQUIRES REGULARLY WEEKLY DUES
The survey asked "does your gang require its members to pay regular weekly dues". This was a more restrictive question from previous research that inquired into whether a gang required just "regular dues" or something equivalent to "monthly dues". "Weekly dues" was intentional to be able to identify the kind of gang that both meets on a weekly basis and expects "dues paid" on a weekly basis.
The results show that 23.2 percent (N = 229) of the gang members in the sample indicate that their gang requires its members to pay regularly weekly dues. Most (N = 759, 76.8%) responded "no" that their gang does not require regular weekly dues (this leaves open the possibility for monthly or other equivalent types of support to the gang but on a less frequent basis than weekly).
MOST VOLUNTARILY JOINED THE GANG, THEY WERE NOT "RECRUITED"
Those who volunteer for a gang are generally more "hard core" or more highly committed to gang life, and as a profile are less likely to try and quit the gang: that is the message from previous research.
The survey achieved remarkable internal consistency with regard to this type of variable because two different versions of the same question were included in Project GANGMILL. The first version of this "volunteering vs. being recruited" survey question will be addressed here. A second question is addressed later in the item order, towards the end of the survey and basically generates the same kind of trend (i.e., most volunteered to get into the gang, they were not "recruited").
This first item on entry to the gang was a true/false statement: "I volunteered to join my gang, I was not recruited to join". Some 72.9 percent (N = 730) indicated "true": that they volunteered to get admittance to their gang. Some 27.1 percent (N = 272) responded "false": signifying that they may have been recruited into to the gang (but it also leaves open the possibility of being "born into the gang", or "being raised into the gang" through gang-corrupted family structures, etc).
MOST REPORT THEIR GANG HAS ADULT LEADERS WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE GANG FOR MANY YEARS
There are many juveniles and youths involved in gangs today, but a fundamental fact of "gang life" in America today seems to be that most of the gang leaders are older adult hardened criminals. The survey sought to test this directly.
The survey asked "does your gang have adult leaders who have been in the gang for many years". Only 12.8 percent (N = 127) indicated "no". Most of the gang members in this study (N = 868, 87.2%) indicated "yes": that their gang has adult leaders who have been in the gang for many years.
CULTS VS. GANGS: ARE THE GANG MEMBERS FREE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO, OR DO THEY DO WHAT THE GANG EXPECTS OF THEM?
The survey was designed to test a growing concern about American gangs today: the issue of whether members are so tightly controlled that they basically do what the cult leader orders them to, or whether they are free to engage in any activity they so desire (i.e., a non-cult environment).
The survey included the question: "which best describes you: ___Whatever the gang expects of me, I do ___I do whatever I want regardless of what the gang expects me to do". The data suggest about a fourth of the gang members in America today describe their gang more like a cult: where they lack the freedom to do what they want to do, and are tightly restricted by the requirements of their gang organization.
The results showed that 23.6 percent (N = 222) responded "whatever the gang expects of me, I do". While in three-fourths of the cases (N = 718, 76.4%) the gang member indicated "I do whatever I want regardless of what the gang expects me to do".
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF GANG MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POLICE RECORD
A problem for gang research has always been the issue of gang members who lack any criminal record: i.e., they have never been arrested for any offense. It is easy to comb through corrections and law enforcement arrest files to get a rough approximation of how many gang members may exist in a particular jurisdiction, but this does not give an accurate estimate of the actual gang population in America because not all gang members get arrested.
The present study was designed to give an estimate regarding this issue of gang members with "clean records". This kind of research question is of critical importance for a number of reasons. So the survey asked "estimate what percentage of all of the members of your gang really have a clean police record (i.e., they have never been arrested for anything in their entire life)". The results showed great variability, ranging literally from a low of zero percent to a high of 100 percent. As for our best estimate regarding this factor, the mean or statistical average for this factor was that 19.5 percent of gang members in America fit this profile: and, in theory, could pass screening processes for sensitive jobs such as working in law enforcement.
A THIRD OF GANG MEMBERS REPORT THEIR PARENTS ARE UNAWARE OF THEIR GANG MEMBERSHIP
Concealing gang membership from parents is a routine necessity for some gang members; for others, perhaps from more dysfunctional families, gang membership is less of a concern. The survey asked "do your parents know that you are a member of a gang". The results showed that a third of the gang members (N = 334, 33.9%) responded "no": that they had effectively concealed their gang membership from their parents. Thus, their parents in these cases of gang membership concealment could be expected to show up at court or a police station vigorously protesting any claim from the criminal justice system that their child was responsible for a "gang crime".
However, the data also show that in two-thirds of the cases (N = 651, 66.1%) the parents were in fact aware of the gang membership of their children: according to these gang members anyhow.
It will be seen, shortly, that a separate item measuring almost the same variable in the survey resulted in almost identical response patterns from the sample under analysis here. This was another type of internal validity precaution taken in the survey instrument, and the results for the present sample indicate high validity.
DO GANGS SELL CRACK COCAINE? WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Some time ago the professional criminological gang research literature included a piece of federally funded gang research from a very prominent and well-known gang researcher which basically claimed --- although limited to the Los Angeles scene --- that gangs not involved in crack sales. Obviously, while that particular piece of research has never enjoyed critical commentary, ongoing research by the NGCRC has tended to show quite the obverse: that gangs are routinely involved in the sale of crack cocaine, including in Los Angeles.
The survey asked "has your gang ever sold crack cocaine". The results showed that 82.2 percent (N = 825) of the respondents responded "yes": that their gang has sold crack cocaine. Only 17.8 percent (N = 179) indicated "no": that they gang had never sold crack cocaine.
ABOUT HALF OF THE GANG MEMBERS HAVE A PERMANENT GANG TATTOO
If you expect to be able to identify gang members by inspecting them for permanent tattoos that are clearly "gang signs" or "gang symbols", what the present research indicates is that you will be able to identify only about half of the gang members in your jurisdiction that way.
The survey asked "do you have a permanent gang tattoo". The results showed that 54.9 percent (N = 559) had no gang tattoo. Some 45.1 percent (N = 460) did in fact have a permanent gang tattoo.
THE VALIDITY QUESTION: SECOND MEASUREMENT OF PARENTAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THEIR GANG MEMBERSHIP
The second question about whether their parents knew they were gang members was included at this point in the item order of the survey instrument. The question asked "do your parents know that you are a member of a gang", and it was therefore identical to a the item located three questions before in the same instrument.
The results are highly consistent with the previous item: two thirds of the respondents (65.8%, N = 650) indicated "yes" that their parents were aware of their gang members; while a third (34.2%, N = 338) indicated "no" (i.e., that they have been able to conceal their gang membership from their parents.
AN INTERESTING FINDING: TWO-THIRDS WOULD GIVE UP GANG LIFE FOR A STEADY SECURE JOB OPPORTUNITY
The survey asked "would you consider leaving the gang for a steady, secure job opportunity". Some 68.9 percent (N = 670) answered "yes": they would consider leaving the gang for such an employment opportunity. Still, 31.1 percent (N = 302) would not give up gang life even if they were offered a steady, secure job opportunity.
A THIRD REPORT VIOLENCE IS USED AGAINST MEMBERS OF THEIR OWN GANG
The survey asked "do you use violence against members of your own gang". The results showed that 65.8 percent (N = 644) responded "no". Yet a third of the respondents (N = 335, 34.2%) indicated "yes".
OVER A THIRD HAVE BEEN "VIOLATED" BY THEIR OWN GANG
Most of the time, a "violation" means a physical beating or some other type of ritualized violence against members of the same gang; typically, because the member violated a "rule" of the gang. But there are cases where the violation also encompasses "fines" and sanctions other than violence.
The survey asked "have you ever been violated (i.e., physically punished with violence) by members of your own gang". Here some 36 percent (N = 356) reported "yes": that they had been previously violated.
THE ULTIMATE INTERNAL SANCTION AGAINST MEMBERS OF A GANG: KILLING ONE OF THEIR OWN MEMBERS
The survey asked "has your gang ever killed one of its own members". Most of the respondents (71%, N = 687) said "no". But 29 percent (N = 281) indicated "yes": that their gang had in fact killed one of its own members.
THE UNEXPLOITED METHOD OF GETTING GANG MEMBERS TO QUIT THEIR GANG: THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY
It is often said that the power of informal social control exceeds that of formal options, at least in terms of impact on offenders. The survey therefore included the item: "the only person who could convince me to leave a gang is (check ONE only) ___My family ___My crew ___My teacher ___My minister ___My girlfriend/boyfriend ___Other".
The option for "my family" revealed the greatest potential likelihood for convincing a gang member to leave the gang: 43.5 percent (N = 357). Only 5.5 percent indicated "my crew"; less than one percent (0.9%) indicated "my teacher"; and only 3 percent indicated "my minister". Thus, ministers and teachers combined would have only a negligible role to play in convincing gang members to leave their gang in comparison with the role of their own families. Some 21 percent indicated "my girlfriend/boyfriend"; and 26.1 percent indicated "other".
HALF OF GANG MEMBERS THINK A "GANG ANONYMOUS" PROGRAM COULD WORK
The survey include the true/false statement "a gang anonymous group could be influential in helping gang members become ex-gang members". Some 45.8 percent responded "false". Yet 54.2 percent (N = 518) responded "true": indicating their belief that perhaps something like GANGANON could work in helping gang members sever their ties to gang life.
HALF REPORT THEIR GANG ONLY SPEAKS IN ENGLISH
The survey included the true/false statement "my gang speaks only in English". Some 48.7 percent (N = 484) responded "false". The other half (51.3%, N = 509) responded "true".
THE FAMILY AS AN ACCOMPLICE TO THE GANG PROBLEM
Not atypically gang members have a sibling or close family member in the same gang; or even in rival gangs. Thus, the potential previously discussed about using the family to encourage gang members to quit the gang must be viewed in light of the extent to which the actual families of gang members have such a potential for "good" as opposed to being an accomplice to the gang problem itself.
The survey included the true/false statement: "some of my family are also in my gang". The results suggest gang life really is a "family affair": some 61 percent (N = 610) responded "true", that they have family in their gang. Some 39 percent (N = 390) responded "false": that they do not have family in their gang.
MOST WILL FIGHT ANOTHER GANG OF THE SAME RACE
The survey included the true/false statement: "my gang will fight another gang of the same race". Only 11.1 percent (N = 109) responded "false". The vast majority of respondents (88.9%, N = 875) indicated "true": that their gang would in fact fight another gang of the same race.
HALF REPORT THEIR GANGS HAVE USED INCENDIARY OR EXPLOSIVE DEVICES
The survey included the question "Involving gang activities, has your gang ever used Molotov cocktails or explosives". A half of the respondents (51.4%, N = 497) answered "yes". The other half (48.6%, N = 470) indicated "no".
GANG IS EASIER TO LEAVE BEHIND THAN THE FAMILY OF THE GANG MEMBER
Over the years any gang expert is going to be approached by a worried parent who just discovered their child was in a gang and asks the expert "what should I do?" Those gang experts who operate under a "zero tolerance approach" tend to counsel the parent to the following effect: tell the gang member he/she must decide immediately (1) the family, or (2) the gang; and if they pick the gang, then go live with the gang: they would be forbidden from coming back to the family residence until they give up gang life. The present research would suggest that was indeed very good advice.
The survey included the question "which do you think would be easier to leave behind forever (CHECK ONE ONLY): ___Your gang ___Your family ___Both equally easy to leave behind forever".
What the results show is that 78.4 percent (N = 746) indicated "the gang" would be easier to leave behind forever. Only 9.5 percent indicated their "family" would be easier to leave behind forever, and clearly there are such gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood where the only way to leave the gang is through death. And finally, some 12.2 percent felt both their family and their gang would be equally difficult to leave behind forever.
JUST OVER HALF HAVE HELD A LEGITIMATE JOB BEFORE
The survey asked "have you ever held a legitimate job working for an employer that was not connected to any gang". Some 59.3 percent (N = 582) indicated "yes", that they had previously held such a legitimate job. Still, some 40.7 percent indicated they had never held a legitimate job before.
It will be useful to use this variable as a baseline for examining gang member activity in the workplace as represented by other employment-related variables in the present study.
ALIENATION IN THE GANG: BROKEN PROMISES
It seems theoretically sound to assume that gangs, like other groups and organizations that people affiliate with, are capable of generating alienation: bad feelings among its members. Several questions addressed this issue of alienation inside the gang.
The survey included the true/false statement: "when I first joined my gang it promised to help meet my financial needs and to watch my back, but once I became a gang member it didn't seem to care what happened to me".
Some 70.4 percent (N = 694) responded false: thereby indicating they were not alienated by false promises made at the time of initially entering the gang.
Yet some 29.6 percent (N = 292) answered "true": indicating that they had in fact experienced such "false promises", and in this fashion also indicated some extent of alienation in their gang life.
ALIENATION IN THE GANG: DISTRUST OF GANG LEADERS
Another related question about alienation inside the gang was the true/false statement: "gang leaders are real slick, they use you to get all they can out of you, so really, they're just like all the other rip-off organizations in society". Three-fourths (74.5%, N = 733) felt this was false. But a fourth of the respondents (25.5%, N = 251) indicated "true" to this question about alienation from gang leadership.
THE SECOND QUESTION ON JOINING VERSUS BEING RECRUITED
At this stage in the item order of the survey instrument we find the second question about joining versus being recruited. The survey included the true/false statement: "I was recruited to join my gang. I didn't ask to join". Some 71.6 percent (N = 706) indicated "false". Thus, about a fourth (28.4%, N = 280) said that this was true.
THE THIRD QUESTION ON GANG ALIENATION
The survey included the true/false statement: "Gang leaders don't always do what they say they will do, I have lost respect for my gang leaders". Some 72.5 percent (N = 696) responded "false", indicating that there were not alienated in this respect from their gang. Yet 27.5 percent (N = 264) answered "true", indicating some degree of alienation from their gang leaders in this respect.
HALF REPORT THEIR GANG HAS SOLD METHAMPHETAMINE
The survey asked "has your gang ever sold crank(methamphetamine)". Some 46.5 percent (N = 449) said "no". But 53.5% (N = 517) answered "yes". It would seem that this establishes the sales of illegal meth drugs well within the realm of contemporary gang activity in the USA today.
SHOULD THE SECRET SERVICE BE CONCERNED ABOUT GANGS?
The survey included the true/false statement "my gang has members who produce quality counterfeit United States Currency". Three-fourths (74.8%, N = 693) indicated this statement was false. Yet a fourth (25.2%, N = 233) gave a "true" response to this item.
ABOUT A FOURTH REPORT VIDEO PIRACY IN THEIR GANG
The survey included the true/false statement "my gang has members who produce and sell illegal copies of the latest movies made in Hollywood". Three-fourths (76.2%, N = 725) answered "false". But about a fourth (23.8%, N = 227) gave answered "true" to this statement.
THE INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION AND AMERICAN GANGS
The survey included the true/false statement "my gang has members who have connections with crime figures in foreign countries". Half (50.4%, N = 471) indicated this statement was false. But the other half (49.6%, N = 463) indicated that this was true.
THE SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT CORRECTIONAL LIFE
At this point the respondent is on the very last page of the survey instrument, and there are a series of questions here about their adjustment to the correctional institution; or their behavior inside the correctional institution. These "correctional environment" factors will be briefly presented: and in this case represents the larger sample, not just gang members.
NUMBER OF DISCIPLINARY REPORTS RECEIVED IN THEIR CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
The survey asked "how many disciplinary reports have you had while in this facility? (CHECK ONE CHOICE ONLY) ___0 ___1 ___2 ___3 ___4 ___5 or more". About two-fifths (41.2%, N = 1036) reported having no such disciplinary reports while in custody. Some 11.1 percent reported having one; 9.1 percent had two; 6.3 percent had three; 4.9 percent had four; and 27.4 percent had five or more. It is hypothesized that this behavior of correctional adjustment will vary significantly by gang membership.
OVER A THIRD HAVE BEEN IN A PHYSICAL FIGHT WHILE INCARCERATED
The survey included the question "have you been in a physical fight with anyone while in this facility". Most (63.1%, N = 1651) indicated "no" that they had not been in such a physical fight. Yet 36.9 percent (N = 964) indicated "yes", that they had in fact been involved in a physical fight in their correctional facility.
ABOUT A FIFTH REPORT HAVING STARTED A FIGHT WHILE INCARCERATED
This higher level of aggressiveness, starting a physical fight with someone while incarcerated, like all measures of violence or disruptiveness inside a correctional facility, is expected to vary significantly with gang membership based on previous research along these lines. The survey included the question "did you start a fight or attack someone while in this facility". Some 80.6 percent of the inmates answered "no". But 19.4 percent (N = 506) answered "yes": that they had in fact started a fight or attacked someone while incarcerated.
INMATES CARRYING HOMEMADE KNIVES AND IMPROVISED WEAPONS BEHIND BARS
The survey asked "have you carried a homemade weapon (knife, etc) while in this facility". The majority of the inmates (90.5%, N = 2362) answered "no". But 9.5 percent (N = 247) answered "yes". This behavior is also expected, obviously, to be significantly related to gang membership within the same inmate population.
INMATES WHO HAVE THREATENED STAFF IN THE FACILITY
The survey asked "have you threatened any facility staff member or officer while in this facility". Most (83.3%, N = 2170) answered "no". But 16.7 percent (N = 434) answered "yes", and obviously this level of aggressive inmate behavior is expected to vary significantly when we compare gang members and non-gang members in this inmate population.
LOW LEVEL OF ATTEMPTED DRUG SMUGGLING BEHIND BARS
The survey asked "have you tried to smuggle in any illegal drugs while in this facility". Only 8.9 percent (N = 226) responded "yes" to this question. But it is expected to vary by gang membership given the fact that gangs tend to dominate the drug rackets behind bars today in American correctional institutions.
GANG-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT CORRECTIONAL ADJUSTMENT
At this point in the item order of the survey instrument a series of questions were included that sought to measure specific aspects of gang life. These factors are addressed now.
FIGHTING WITH RIVAL GANG MEMBERS BEHIND BARS
The survey asked the question "have you fought with any rival gang members while in this facility". Some 27.6 percent of the gang members indicated "yes".
HALF OF THE GANG MEMBERS STILL COMMUNICATE WITH THEIR OUTSIDE GANG FRIENDS
The survey asked "have you communicated by telephone or letter with your gang friends on the street while in this facility". Some 49.4 percent answered "no". But 50.6 percent answered "yes".
ABOUT HALF REPORT GETTING AIDE FROM THEIR GANG WHILE INCARCERATED
The survey asked "has your gang sent you any money or helped you in any way since you have been in this facility". Some 53.5 percent answered "no". But 46.5 percent indicated "yes".
ONE OUT OF FIVE GANG MEMBERS BEHIND BARS TEND TO PROSELYTIZE
The survey asked "have you helped to recruit anyone into your gang while in this facility". Most (79.2%, N = 774) answered "no". But a fifth of the gang sample (20.8%, N = 203) answered "yes".
NEARLY HALF OF THE GANG MEMBERS BELIEVE THEY MAY HAVE KILLED SOMEONE INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY
Gang members commonly shoot at rivals and others, often never knowing if they "hit" anything, because they flee the scene. So the survey included the question "do you think you may have ever killed someone intentionally or unintentionally when you got mixed up in gang violence". Some 54.7 percent answered "no". But 45.3 percent (N = 424) answered "yes", indicating they believed that they may in fact have intentionally or unintentionally killed someone while involved in gang violence.
THE SECOND VALIDITY ITEM ON PARENTAL CHURCH ATTENDANCE
The second question on parental church attendance appeared at this point towards the very end of the survey, it was a true/false statement: "my parents do not regularly attend church". Some 45.7 percent answered "false"; and some 54.3 percent answered "true".
RACIAL VARIATIONS IN DRUG USE AND DRUG SALES: CRACK VS. CRANK
Very significant differences (p < .001) emerged in comparing sales and usage patterns for the two drugs crack and crank along racial lines. Table 8 summarizes this significant variation.
Table 8
Significant Differences by Race in the Use and Sales
of Two Illegal Drugs: Crack and Crank
(Percentage Distribution by Race)
Crack Crack Crank Crank
Race: Sold Used Used Sold
Black 62.6% 11.2% 4.8% 10.8%
Hispanic 39.6% 29.2% 29.7% 27.4%
White 21.8% 25.9% 27.6% 19.6%
Asian/Chinese 37.8% 24.3% 24.3% 29.7%
American Indian 62.1% 25.6% 24.3% 17.0%
Bi-racial 48.7% 16.2% 21.7% 24.7%
The percentage of offenders in the sample having sold crack varies is highest for Blacks and American Indians, both groups at about 62 percent. Usage of crack, however, is lowest for Blacks (11.2%) and highest actually in the Hispanic/Latino group.
Crank or methamphetamine shows a different pattern. The significant difference in sales and use is that Blacks are far less likely to sell it (only 4.8% report selling meth) and use it (10.8% among Black offenders in the sample).
When we examine the pattern of sales by the gang, using only the subsample of gang members in the study, we see somewhat higher trends in regard to the sales of both crack and crank.
Table 9 therefore examines the gang member sample using two special questions directed at gang members: does their gang sell either crack or crank?
Table 9
Significant Differences by Race in Whether Their Gang Sells
Crack and Crank Among Gang Members in the Sample
(Percentage Distribution by Race)
Does Your Gang Does Your Gang
Sell Crack Cocaine? Sell Crank (meth)?
Percentage Yes Percentage Yes
Race:
Black 87.9% 41.7%
Hispanic 81.6% 64.4%
White 72.3% 56.4%
Asian/Chinese 73.6% 42.1%
American Indian 70.3% 62.9%
Bi-racial 87.2% 66.3%
The differences by race in Table 9 are quite revealing: while sharp differences do exist, it would not be accurate to say that any particular racial category in this instance of gang sales of the two drugs completely dominates or has achieved hegemony or a monopoly on either of these two illegal drugs. As an income-producing crime, sales of the two drugs by their gangs is clearly an activity that cuts across racial boundaries. One of the most interesting trends is in the Bi-racial category: in this instance both drug markets are highly penetrated. Similarly, the Hispanic/Latino group also shows high sales patterns in both drug markets.
GANG MEMBERS ARE MORE PROBLEMATIC IN THE WORKPLACE
While employers routinely hire offenders, some recent research by Wang (2000) suggests there may be concern however about gang members in the workplace. From the analysis undertaken here, that concern may be well founded. Table 10 presents the results of this analysis comparing gang members and non-gang members in the offender population.
Table 10
A Comparison of Gang Members and Non-Gang Members
In the Offender Population Regarding Workplace Crime and Violence
Ever Joined a Gang?
No Yes
Have you ever stolen
anything from an employer
that you ever worked for?
NO 1186 681
YES 516 361
% Yes 30.3% 34.9%
Chi-square = 6.41, p = .01
Have you ever robbed or
burglarized a company
that you ever worked for?
NO 1554 855
YES 137 171
% Yes 8.1% 16.6%
Chi-square = 46.6, p < .001
Have you ever threatened
or assaulted someone
while working on a
legitimate job? NO 1530 813
YES 156 216
% Yes 9.2% 20.9%
Chi-square = 74.4, p < .001
Have you ever sold drugs
while working on a
legitimate job? NO 1363 649
YES 330 384
% Yes 19.4% 37.1%
Chi-square = 103.7, p < .001
Have you ever returned
to the place of business
of a former employer
to commit a crime? NO 1533 849
YES 145 166
% Yes 8.6% 16.3%
Chi-square = 36.8, p < .001
Table 10 reveals that gang members are much more likely to be a problem in the workplace than their non-gang member counterparts in the offender population. Gang members are twice as likely to rob or burglarize the establishment, as well as twice as likely to pose a problem with regard to violence in the workplace (e.g., threatening or assaulting someone).
FEMALE GANG MEMBERS VASTLY OUTNUMBERED BY THEIR MALE COUNTERPARTS
Females constituted 11.9 percent of the national sample and in this regard they tend to mirror their same proportion in the type of correctional institutions used for data collection in the present study. At the juvenile and jail level females are generally found in greater proportion than their representation in the ranks of the adult prison population. In the adult prison inmate population, females generally constitute only 5 to 6 percent of the population, a tendency that has held up in the USA at least since statistics were first compiled.
Still, it is necessary to report on gang density among the female inmate population, and therefore the results of the test of gender by gang membership is reported in Table 11.
Table 11
Distribution of Gender by Gang Membership
Ever Joined a Gang?
No Yes % Yes
Gender: Male 1464 936 39.0%
Female 230 100 30.3%
Chi-square = 9.31, p = .002
Table 11 shows that the gang density levels for females are certainly much higher than found in the open population (high schools, community surveys, etc), that both the percentage and actual numbers of gang members are for the most part male in composition. Still, inside correctional institutions, what the gang problem for females may signal is a change in the prison inmate culture that has traditionally been attributed to female inmates in America. With the gang problem, prison culture changes dramatically.
So while Table 11 confirms what most gang experts have known for some time (e.g., gangbanging is primarily a male enterprise), females do continue to play an active role in gangs today.
FORCIBLE SEX AND INCEST
It was reasonable from previous research to hypothesize that forcible sex patterns and incest would vary significantly by gender. The analysis reported here looked first at gender and then at the effects of gang membership as well. Table 12 presents the findings for ever forcing someone to have sex by gender.
Table 12
The Distribution of Forcing Someone to Have Sex
by Gender of Respondent
Among a Large Sample of Confined Offenders
Gender of Respondent
Male Female
Have you ever forced
someone to have sex
with you? NO 2230 317
YES 251 17
% Yes 10.1% 5.0%
Chi-square = 8.63, p = .003
As seen in Table 12, about one out of ten of the male inmates have forced someone to have sex with them, compared to only one out of twenty of the female inmates. It is in Table 13 that we see the pattern of over half of the female inmates reporting they have been victims of forcible sex.
Table 13
The Distribution of Having Been Forced by Someone Else
To Have Sex With Them in Relationship to Gender
Among a Large Sample of Confined Offenders
Gender of Respondent
Male Female
Have you ever been
forced by someone
else to have sex
with them? NO 2116 151
YES 356 185
% Yes 14.4% 55.0%
Chi-square = 314, p < .001
As seen in Table 13, while 14.4 percent of the male inmates have experienced forcible sex on the "victim" side of the relationship, this rises to 55 percent for the female inmates. This is a very remarkable and significant difference by gender.
Incest experiences are also shown to be higher among female inmates. These results are provided in Table 14. As seen in Table 14, some 7.8 percent of the male inmates report such incestuous relationships, compared to 12.2 percent among the female inmates.
Table 14
The Distribution for Incest by Gender
Among a Large Sample of Confined Offenders
Gender of Respondent
Male Female
Have you ever had
sex with someone in
your immediate
family? NO 2273 295
YES 193 41
% Yes 7.8% 12.2%
Chi-square = 7.39, p = .007
These same factors were examined in relationship to having ever joined a gang. Having been forced to have sex with someone, and the incest measure, were both not significant in relationship to gang membership. But the forcible sex measure was significant and is reported in Table 15. Table 15 shows that forcing someone to have sex is in fact higher among gang members (12.4%) than among non-gang members (7.8%).
Table 15
Distribution of Forcing Someone to Have Sex
by Gang Membership in a Large Sample of Confined Offenders
Ever Join a Gang?
No Yes
Have you ever forced
someone to have sex
with you? NO 1575 904
YES 135 129
%Yes 7.8% 12.4%
Chi-square = 15.6, p < .001
THE OCCULT/SATANIC DABBLER IN RELATIONSHIP TO GANG MEMBERSHIP
These have often been conceived of as being two separate types of "threats" inside correctional institutions and in the public as well. Actually, the research reported here shows there is substantial overlap. Further, it will be shown that gang members are actually more likely to report such involvement than non-gang members. Early analysis on this issue was reported elsewhere (American Jails Magazine, Feb., 2000).
Table 16 shows the distribution of having ever participated in a Satanic worship ceremony in relationship to gang membership. This shows that while among non-gang members some 5.4 percent report having "dabbled" in Satanic practices, this rises to 9.1 percent among gang members. The response mode of "Don't know what it is" is appropriate in this kind of survey item, because Satanic worship ceremonies are a kind of advanced and specialized deviance, which even among confined criminal offenders may be something that many are simply no even remotely familiar with.
Table 16
Distribution of Involvement in Satanic Practices
By Having Ever Joined a Gang
In a Large Sample of Confined Offenders
Ever Join a Gang?
No Yes
Have you ever participated
in any Satanic worship
ceremony? NO 1346 789
YES 91 94
% Yes 5.4% 9.1%
DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS 245 141
Chi-square = 14.2, p = .001
Related to the deviant subculture of Satanism is the dabbling in "black magic" and the occult. Here again, the wealth of the prevailing literature on this issue, while admittedly not research based as in the present investigation, has tended to suggest that this, like devil-worship, etc, has nothing to do with and no relationship whatsoever to gang membership. Our research challenges such previous theoretically-based proclamations about this issue and provides strong evidence of how this kind of "hard core deviance" is in fact related to gang membership.
Table 17 provides the results of the test examining the variable "have you ever dabbled in black magic or the occult" in relationship to having ever joined a gang. As seen in Table 17, while some 8.9 percent of the inmates who have never joined a gang report this kind of previous involvement in "black magic" or the occult, this kind of deviant activity actually rises to 13.8% in the gang member population. So anyone who suggests that these types of deviance (occult vs. gang involvement) are unrelated needs to reconsider their myopic analysis, or begin to look at the kind of investigation strategy reported here.
Table 17
Distribution for Involvement in Black Magic and the Occult
in Relationship to Having Ever Joined a Gang
In a Large Sample of Confined Offenders
Ever Join a Gang?
No Yes
Have you ever dabbled
in "black magic" or
the occult? NO 1247 739
YES 150 141
%Yes 8.9% 13.8%
DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS 278 141
Chi-square = 17.3, p < .001
Those who investigate deviance and crime know that language betrays the value system and shows exposure to the type of socialization a person has had. In otherwords, knowledge of "gang language" itself is often an indicator of exposure to the risk of gang involvement, simply because there are some key words and phrases that the meaning of which tend to be known only to those inside these types of deviant or criminal organizations. For example, "Crippin ain't easy but it sure is fun" is a phrase Crip gang members often use, and it is not an elaborately encoded message. But the cognitive knowledge of what the significance of the intentional spelling error of "glocc" means when they really mean "glock" would show a subtle encoding cognition of how Crip gang members have a bizarre superstitious behavior in avoiding the spelling of any word where a "c" is followed by a "k": because it would signify, in their minds, "crip killer".
For the symbolism and encoded messages found in "slogans" of gangs, or those involved in the occult, and even those involved in political extremism/terrorism, it is possible to field test this matter. One could go anywhere in the general population and perform this kind of field experiment described here. For example, on a military base, on a Post Board in a highly travelled area for foot traffic, one could put up the symbols: "7 4 Run It, B.O.S., with a little Star of David", which translated means "Gangster Disciples run it, the Brothers of the Struggle, folks gang". There are three kinds of persons who will walk past this visual indicator of a gang message: (1) the person who walks by and sees it and keeps going without any indication of understanding what it means is someone who has probably never been exposed to gangs and the meaning of their symbols, (2) the person who walks by and kind of does a "double-take", looks at it again, is someone who might be knowledgeable about gang-life, it could be someone who works in law enforcement and has a legitimate knowledge of these symbols, it could be someone who understands the symbols from growing up in a neighborhood where the symbols were used, it clearly would indicate the symbols "have meaning" for such a person who looks again at the message, and finally (3) there is the person who walks by and not only does a "double take", by looking again at the message, but looks around and makes sure no one is in imminent distance to observe them, and they write over the Gangster Disciple message with their own gang symbols.
Let us examine this issue now in relationship to a real example of hard-core deviance: knowledge about what a "cone of power ceremony" is. The astute reader will recall that this variable about "have you participated in a cone of power Satanic ceremony" was followed up with a question that measured a non-existent such ceremony which was used to eliminate cases felt to be deceptive in the present research. In the deviant subculture of satanism, there really is a "cone of power" ceremony, and that is what it is called. The basic thrust of such a "cone of power" satanic ceremony, is that those involved meet in a group, in a circle, with special colored candles, etc, and they try to invoke the Devil (i.e., Satan) to punish their enemies, etc.
Table 18 presents the results for having ever participated in a "cone of power" satanic ceremony in relationship to having ever joined a gang.
Table 18
Distribution for Involvement in Cone of Power Satanic Ceremonies
in Relationship to Having Ever Joined a Gang
in a Large Confined Offender Sample
Ever Joined a Gang?
No Yes
Have you ever participated
in a "cone of power"
Satanic ceremony? NO 1267 783
YES 27 39
% Yes 1.6% 3.8%
DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS 359 195
Chi-square = 14.3, p = .001
As seen in Table 18, there is in fact a low level of this extreme aspect of deviance even inside the confined offender population in the United States. However, what is most interesting about the results presented in Table 18 is that this type of person who has had a genuine exposure to this kind of deviant activity, is actually more likely to be a gang member as well. There are not many in the offender population who fit this profile of having participated in a "cone of power" Satanic ceremony, but among those who have been involved in this extreme form of deviance, they are actually more likely to have been in a gang as well. As seen in Table 18, among those who had never joined a gang, only 1.6 percent report having participated in a "cone of power" ceremony; but this rises to 3.8 percent among those who are gang members.
As a postscript to this issue, we can report that we had more than a small problem with getting approval to use the survey instrument because of the fact that it included such questions about Satanism. For years we had been asking questions about sex, incest, violence, killing, and various forms of deviance (drug abuse, etc) and crime, but some of the facilities we had traditionally been able to use for data collection purposes objected to the inclusion of such questions about Satanism. For example, the second largest juvenile detention center in the United States had always participated in our surveys because we provide valuable "free service" to these same facilities in the form of useful research reports custom-tailored to their use, that they can use. But at this particular temporary juvenile detention facility the chief psychologist who reviews research access in this case, after years of previous access, denied our access because we would not remove the questions about Satanism. Before accepting the fact that we would not have access to that facility because of the devil worship questions, we posed the question to the psychologist "would it be okay to substitute questions about torturing animals for the devil worship questions" and the psychologist replied "that would be fine". Obviously, we did not actually agree to the substitution of items. So our advice to other researchers is that if you are going to use such questions about satanism or the occult, expect to experience obstructions and closed doors where you previously found easy access for purposes of data collection. You may end up concluding it is not worth dealing with this kind of research taboo if it limits your access to the larger gang population.
GANGBANGING INSIDE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Gang members are able to continue to gangbang inside correctional institutions is what the literature tends to show. Thus, the present study examined the extent to which security problems inside correctional institutions can accounted for by the confined gang members in these same facilities. Much of what we report here is very consistent with previous findings along these lines: gang members inside the correctional population pose risks and threats far above those represented by inmates who are not gang members.
Table 19 examines disciplinary reports in relationship to gang membership. Disciplinary reports are a useful measure of the extent to which inmates pose problems of security, but there are actually better measures that we will also be examining here as well.
Table 19
Distribution of the Number of Disciplinary Reports
by Gang Membership Among a Large Sample of Confined Offenders
Ever Joined a Gang?
No Yes
How many disciplinary reports
have you had while in
this facility? 0 739 278
1 165 112
2 137 86
3 68 84
4 68 52
5 or more 323 357
Chi-square = 128, p < .001
Basically, what Table 19 shows is that while half of the non-gang member inmates (50.8%) have had one or more disciplinary reports during their stay, that among gang members in the same facility some 71.4 percent have had one or more disciplinary reports. Now admittedly, all of the disciplinary problems in correctional institutions cannot be explained by gang membership, but the tendency is for gang membership to significantly differentiate this aspect of adjustment to the correctional institution.
Fighting behavior among inmates inside a correctional institution is widespread due to the nature of such environments. But our research shows that this is a behavior that is in fact significantly differentiated by gang membership among the same inmates. Table 20 shows the results of this test.
Table 20
Distribution of Being in a Physical Fight With Anyone
While Confined in a Correctional Institution
by Ever Being a Gang Member
in a Large Sample of Confined Offenders
Ever Join a Gang?
No Yes
Have you been in a
physical fight with
anyone while in this
facility? NO 1133 480
YES 431 517
%Yes 27.5% 51.8%
Chi-square = 154.1, p < .001
As seen in Table 20, gang members are nearly twice as likely to report having been in a physical fight while in confinement when compared to their non-gang member counterparts in the inmate population. This is a very significant difference between these two groups of confined offenders. In otherwords, gang members are much more likely to be involved in fighting behavior than inmates who are not gang members.
Somewhat more serious than simply being involved in a fight is the issue of actually starting a fight or intentionally initiating a violent attack against another person while in custody. This analysis in terms of comparing gang members and non-gang members in the inmate population is provided in Table 21. Again, the results are quite dramatic and statistically very significant.
Table 21
Distribution of Starting a Fight or Attacking Someone
By Having Ever Joined a Gang
in a Large Sample of Confined Offenders
Ever Join a Gang?
No Yes
Did you start a fight
or attack someone while
in this facility? NO 1370 691
YES 191 304
%Yes 12.2% 30.5%
Chi-square = 130.5, p < .001
As seen in Table 21, gang members are more than twice as likely to initiate violence within the correctional population when compared to inmates who have never joined a gang. Those who have never joined a gang are showing a rate of 12.2 percent for starting a fight or attacking someone while in the correctional facility. This rises to 30.5 percent for inmates who have ever joined a gang. The difference is very significant (p < .001).
There are an incredible number of felony and misdemeanor crimes that occur inside American correctional institutions that are simply never registered, nor reported, nor ever show up in the FBI's Uniform Crime Report. One reason, at least at the state level, is that often state laws require the prison system to pay for the prosecution: i.e., reimburse the county in which the correctional institution is located if a prosecution is initiated. This provides a financial disincentive for the prosecution of many crimes behind bars. Inmates receive, therefore, administrative sanctions: time in segregation, loss of privileges, loss of good time, etc. No one really knows how much "crime" goes on among inmates behind bars.
An inmate who carries a concealed weapon such as a "shiv" or a "shank" is an example of a crime that occurs in a correctional institution. Table 22 tests whether this kind of self-reported crime is related to gang membership. As seen in Table 22, this relationship is very significant (p < .001), suggesting gang members are much more likely to engage in this kind of offense pattern behind bars than non-gang members. These results show that among inmates who have never joined a gang, only 4.5 percent report having carried such an improvised weapon, compared to 16.9 percent for gang members.
Table 22
Distribution of Carrying a Homemade Weapon
By Having Ever Joined a Gang
in a Large Sample of Confined Offenders
Ever Join a Gang?
No Yes
Have you carried a
homemade weapon
(knife, etc) while
in this facility? NO 1490 826
YES 71 168
%Yes 4.5% 16.9%
Chi-square = 109.2, p < .001
More common, apparently, than carrying illegal weapons behind bars is the offense pattern of threatening correctional officers or other staff inside correctional facilities. Table 23 examines this factor of "threatening staff members" in relationship to gang membership. Again, as seen in Table 23, gang members are more than twice as likely to engage in this type of disruptive behavior behind bars than are non-gang members. While some 10.3 percent of those who had never joined a gang reported threatening staff, this rises to 26 percent among gang members.
Table 23
Distribution of Threatening Facility Staff
By Having Ever Joined a Gang
in a Large Sample of Confined Offenders
Ever Join a Gang?
No Yes
Have you threatened
any facility staff
member or officer while
in this facility? NO 1396 734
YES 162 259
%Yes 10.3% 26.0%
Chi-square = 108.2, p < .001
Finally, the crime of attempting to smuggle illegal drugs into the correctional facility is examined in Table 24 in relationship to gang membership. This one act would actually constitute two separate felony crimes: drug possession and the introduction of contraband to a correctional facility. Table 24 shows that among inmates who had never joined a gang, that 4.7 percent report trying to smuggle in illegal drugs. But this rises to 14.9 percent among gang members.
Table 24
Distribution of Attempting to Smuggle Drugs Into the Facility
By Having Ever Joined a Gang
in a Large Sample of Confined Offenders
Ever Join a Gang?
No Yes
Have you tried to
smuggle in any illegal
drugs while
in this facility? NO 1437 844
YES 71 148
%Yes 4.7% 14.9%
Chi-square = 78.0, p < .001
ALIENATION INSIDE THE GANG: ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL TO DIVERT MEMBERS FROM THE GANG
Gang life is organizational life, and there is no organization that does not have "problems", including the problem of alienation. The purpose of this section is to provide an analysis of whether aspects of this alienation inside the gang, or alienation from the gang, is a variable that might be exploited by larger society in terms of tertiary prevention/intervention: getting them to "drop their flag", getting them to quit the gang. Here, obviously, we are focusing on the subsample of gang members only.
The "broken promises" aspect of gang alienation was measure in the survey by the true/false survey item: "When I first joined my gang it promised to help me meet my financial needs and to watch my back, but once I became a gang member it didn't seem to care what happened to me". Table 25 examines whether this "broken promises" variable could account for differences in whether the same gang members would like to be in a program that would help them get out of the gang.
Table 25
Distribution of Experiencing the "Broken Promises" Alienation
by Whether The Same Gang Members Would Like to Be
in a Program That Helped Them Get Out of the Gang
in a Large Sample of Confined Gang Members
When I first joined my
gang it promised to help
meet my financial needs
and to watch my back, but I would like to be in a program
once I became a gang member that helped me get out
it didn't seem to care of my gang.
what happened to me. No Yes %Yes
FALSE 459 188 29.0%
TRUE 150 117 43.8%
Chi-square = 18.5, p < .001
Table 25 shows that this aspect of alienation from the gang might be exploited for purposes of a tertiary level of gang intervention (i.e., getting members to quit their gang). There are few known methods to achieve gang dismemberment. There are programs in operation that can assist AFTER someone actually quits the gang (e.g., gang tattoo removal programs, etc), but there are few known that are reporting any success in getting members to quit the gang. Such persons involved in working with gangs can take encouragement from the findings reported here: it would appear that it is feasible to achieve some remarkable results where the program goal is to get members to defect from their gang. What Table 25 shows is that among those gang members who have not reported this aspect of "gang alienation", some 29 percent would still like to be in a program that helped them get out of the gang. But this rises to 43.8% for those gang members who report this "broken promises" aspect of gang alienation.
It is simply interesting that about a third of those who have joined a gang would be interested in a program that helped them get out of the gang. Some time ago the Illinois Department of Corrections, in a new strategy to deal with the gang problem behind bars, created a "gang free correctional institution". What it might allow for is for gang members to deactivate or to become inactive, but there has been no evaluation of this kind of initiative.
Table 26 shows another kind of "gang alienation" in relationship to whether the gang members would like to be in a program that helped them to get out of the gang. This is the "exploiting leader" aspect of gang alienation, kind of like having a "bad boss". The way this was measured in the present research is through the true/false survey item as follows: "gang leaders are real slick, they use you to get all they can out of you, so really, they're just like all the other rip-off organizations in society". If you read a book that portrays the social-reality of gang life today, such as Felix Padilla's The Gang as an American Enterprise, a study of Chicago's Latin Kings, you find many examples of this kind of alienation: the tendency for gang members to feel that they are just being exploited, that is that the gang is just another "competitive sector employer" offering low wages and few benefits.
Table 26
Distribution of The Exploitive Leader Aspect of Alienation
in Relationship to Interest in Getting Out of the Gang
in a Large Sample of Confined Gang Members
Gang leaders are real slick,
they use you to get all they can I would like to be in a program
out of you, so really they're that helped me get out
just like all the other rip-off of my gang.
organizations in society. No Yes %Yes
FALSE 480 202 29.6%
TRUE 126 103 44.9%
Chi-square = 18.1, p < .001
What Table 26 shows is that among gang members who do not feel their leaders exploit them, some 29.6 percent would still like to be in a program that helped them get out of their gang. However, this rises to 44.9 percent among those gang members who express this "exploitive leader" aspect of gang alienation.
A related type of "gang alienation" is where the gang member loses respect for the leaders of his/her gang. This is the situation where someone lives under an incompetent leader: the leader says he will do something, but then does not do it. Gang members expect their leaders to manifest the slogan "my word is my bond". The survey instrument included the true/false item: "gang leaders don't always do what they say they will do, I have lost respect for my gang leaders". This aspect of "gang alienation" is examined in Table 27.
Thus, Table 27 reveals that among those gang members who have experienced this "incompetent leader" aspect of gang alienation, some 45 percent would like to get into a program that helped them to get out of the gang.
Table 27
Distribution of the "Incompetent Leader" Aspect of Gang Alienation
in Relationship to Interest in Getting Out of the Gang
in a Large Sample of Confined Gang Members
Gang leaders don't always do I would like to be in a program
what they say they will do, that helped me get out
I have lost respect for my of my gang.
gang leaders. No Yes %Yes
FALSE 458 192 29.5%
TRUE 134 110 45.0%
Chi-square = 19.1, p < .001
Where these aspects of "gang alienation" take on additional significance is when we simulate inducing defection from the gang under the scenario where society could offer them a "legitimate alternative" (i.e., steady, secure job opportunity). Now obviously it may be a difficult task indeed to both prepare gang members to enter the world of work and actually secure job placements for them. But what is also plainly evident is that they have an enormous level of interest in this "alternative to gang life". And, further, it would seem that level of interest in giving up gang life in favor of legitimate employment exists far in excess of our society's ability to actually intervene in this regard. Still, there are a number of programs in America today that are based on offering some type of employment services to gang members. It is not clear that these programs use "contract programming" or some type of commitment from the gang member to actually "give up" gang life. It may be more reasonable to assume that counseling in such programs could achieve the same net result however.
Table 28 examines the "broken promises" aspect of gang alienation in relationship to whether the gang member would leave the gang for a steady, secure job opportunity.
Table 28
Distribution of the "Broken Promises" Aspect of Gang Alienation
by Whether Gang Members Would Quit the Gang for a Job Opportunity
in a Large Sample of Confined Gang Members
When I first joined my gang
it promised to help meet my
financial needs and to watch
my back, but once I became a Would you consider leaving the
gang member it didn't seem gang for a steady, secure job?
to care what happened to me. NO YES %Yes
FALSE 229 431 65.3%
TRUE 66 216 76.5%
Chi-square = 11.7, p = .001
What is absolutely remarkable about the findings in Table 28 is that somewhere between two-thirds to three-fourths of all gang members in America today might be tempted to give up gang life if some kind of unique social engineering scheme could be put in place to lure them away under the hope of getting them a steady, secure job opportunity. Of course, this potential to systematically dismantle American gangs must be balanced against the earlier findings about how gang members are actually a greater threat to the work place itself. It is therefore an amazing paradox: the one thing that would seemingly on the surface at least eliminate the lion's share of the gang problem in America today is the same thing that gang members have a history of abusing.
The exploitive leader aspect of gang alienation also has a remarkable effect on whether they would consider leaving the gang for a steady, secure job opportunity. These results are shown in Table 29, where there is a twenty percentage point spread. Some 63.2 percent of those who do not feel alienated from "exploitive leaders" in their gang would still defect from the gang if provided a steady, secure job. But this rises to 84.3 percent for those gang members who express alienation from exploitive leaders.
Table 29
Distribution of the "Exploitive Leader" Aspect of Gang Alienation
by Whether Gang Members Would Quit the Gang for a Job Opportunity
in a Large Sample of Confined Gang Members
Gang leaders are real slick,
they use you to get all they
can out of you, so really, Would you consider leaving the
they're just like all the gang for a steady, secure job?
other rip-off organizations NO YES %Yes
in society.
FALSE 259 445 63.2%
TRUE 37 199 84.3
Chi-square = 36.5, p < .001
Table 30 provides the last test along these lines, by examining the effect of the "incompetent leader" aspect of gang alienation on whether the gang members would defect if given a job opportunity. Again, a very significant difference emerges in comparing gang members who do experience this kind of "gang alienation" in terms of whether they would consider leaving the gang for a real job. Some 86 percent of the gang members expressing this kind of gang alienation would consider leaving their gang is what we find in Table 30.
Table 30
Distribution of the "Incompetent Leader" Aspect of Gang Alienation
by Whether Gang Members Would Quit the Gang for a Job Opportunity
in a Large Sample of Confined Gang Members
Gang leaders don't always Would you consider leaving the
do what they say they will gang for a steady, secure job?
do, I have lost respect for NO YES %Yes
my gang leaders.
FALSE 251 418 62.4
TRUE 35 216 86.0
Chi-square = 47.3, p < .001
The effects of race and gender might be considered as factors limiting the extent to which gang members would either ever attempt to quit gang life or consider leaving the gang for a steady, secure job opportunity. However, we undertook a race by gender analysis on the very items and we can in fact report that there is no significance that could be found in this regard. In otherwords, race and gender do not significantly differentiate either actual attempts to leave the gang or whether they would consider leaving the gang for a steady, secure job. In fact, we further tested race and gender in terms of whether the same gang members "would like to be in a program that helped them get out of the gang", and again, no differences emerged.
PROPOSING A GANG DISATTACHMENT PROGRAM
What all of this tends to suggest is the merits of an initiative that could be implemented in a correctional setting on an experimental basis. The primary goal of the program would be to erode existing bonds and ties to their gang. The method of accomplishing this goal would be to first have a type of modern training program that provided portable skills in an area of the economy where ex-inmates might "fit in", so as to make it a realistic endeavor. Most importantly, the program would emphasize larger societal fears and concerns about "gangs" and "gang members" and how gang membership is something that mitigates against occupational success in American society. Thus, in theory at the same time offenders would be learning skills and developing "hope" for their future, they would be confronted with the hard reality that they should rethink their commitment to gang life.
To evaluate such an initiative, the program would have to be offered to all inmates: then simply identify those that were gang members, and within this gang member sample carry out random assignment to achieve a treatment and control group. Two phases of follow-up would be required: (1) institutional life adjustment, and (2) post-release adjustment.
While millions have been spent in vocational training for inmates over the last four decades, much of that initiative was designed with the assumption that training alone would be an effective solution to the ongoing problem of inmate recidivism. While there have been both mixed and promising results on such initiatives, the present proposal is not properly classified as a purely vocational training initiative. Rather, it would simply use vocational training as a springboard or organizational platform for gang disattachment. It is readily possible to conceive of both expensive and inexpensive variations on this kind of proposal. A low, or no cost, model would involve the use of a Task Force of volunteers where at least a minimum intensity level of the proposal could be achieved.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This study began by surveying N = 3,489 offenders from 22 different correctional institutions in 7 states. By dropping cases that were suspected of inconsistency or deception through validity analysis that was built into the survey design, the usable sample was reduced to N = 2,865 respondents. About a thousand of these were gang members (N = 1,042). This large size of gang member and non-gang member subsamples allowed for making comparisons along the lines of various issues addressed in this report.
This has been a preliminary report and much further analysis is already underway by individual researchers involved in the study. Thus, further reports can be expected from this research in the future.