INTRODUCTION

The gang problem has proliferated so much in recent years that almost all American cities, regardless of size, are now reporting some level of a gang presence or involvement in criminal code violation. The penal system is, as everyone knows, a filtering process that generally takes in as its "input" those individuals who have been found to be, after conviction for a felony crime, a genuine threat to public safety. All states report some level of a gang or security threat group (STG) problem in their correctional system today is the current situation the United States faces. It is not a matter of whether there is or is not a gang problem, the issue is just how serious is the gang problem in American corrections today? Answering that question is the substance of this report.

Both a qualitative and quantitative type of social change has taken place in the basic crime pattern of American society as well. This has to do with the extent to which gang members account for an increased amount of all crime in society. Correctional environments are the social contexts having the highest gang density rates today. Researchers from the NGCRC in their regular and ongoing on-site interviews of thousands of individual gang members throughout the United States have yet to find any correctional environment that does not have any gang member incarcerated therein. It is not uncommon to find correctional environments that contain gang members that were not known as gang members to the officials administering these same facilities or even to the gang intelligence officers working in these same facilities.

Knowledge about gangs in corrections is very limited. In fact, the only federally funded research recently conducted on gangs in corrections is itself very suspect, the reasons for which will be made abundantly clear. The most recent federally funded research report on gangs in corrections missed the boat entirely on the single most important issue (i.e., gang density) and was not able to obtain the cooperation of all states in its particular research strategy which used an over-aggregated unit of analysis. That research funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) concluded that only 6 percent of our Nation's adult inmate population were gang members. That study was research carried out by the American Correctional Association and reported in 1993. The same year, the NGCRC 1993 Adult Corrections Survey showed the estimate to actually be twice as high!

The National Gang Crime Research Center (NGCRC) is the only organization in the world today that has researched and analyzed the gang problem in American adult state correctional institutions on a continuing basis since 1991. The annual gang assessments conducted by the NGCRC since 1991 is not only research, because the service component was built in from the very start: educating correctional administrators in a timely fashion about the "state-of-the-art" regarding gangs and corrections. Unlike most federal research projects that often take two years to be able to disseminate findings, at which point their usefulness may have been completely lost in terms of practical application due to an escalation in the nature of the problem being studied itself, the NGCRC has been able over the years to rapidly provide full non-technical feedback to all of its respondents requesting a complete copy of the research results. Thus, the respondents are not sent an executive summary only, they are provided with the full report. This kind of research is not a major analytical effort because it represents a very fixed and easily identified universe.

Previous Adult State Corrections Surveys by the NGCRC tended to show that the way in which researchers have tried to explain and analyze the "gang problem" in American corrections is substantially removed from reality. In otherwords, it is not sufficient to simply ask a summative evaluation question such as "DO YOU HAVE A GANG PROBLEM IN YOUR FACILITY". The reason is that a researcher must be able to measure the definitional components of what makes up a gang problem. As shown in the 1994 adult state corrections survey, if we examine the "components" of what makes up a gang problem in adult corrections, then almost everyone has some aspect of the problem. The only issue is the variation: some clearly have a greater problem than others.

The 1999 report extended our knowledge of the gang problem further and suggested some directions of change for policy makers.

This new 1999 report also builds genuine understanding and consensus about the gang problem in the United States.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research strategy for this study was to mail out questionnaires to every known state adult correctional institution. It is the individual state adult facility that is therefore the unit of analysis in this study. This study therefore does not deal with juvenile correctional institutions or federal correctional institutions.

The sampling strategy yielded the following samples for the various surveys summarized here:

1991: N = 184 (40 states)

1992: N = 316 (50 states)

1993: N = 174 (41 states)

1994: N = 290 (47 states)

1995: N = 323 (50 states)

1999: N = 133 (47 states)

FINDINGS

In presenting the descriptive statistical findings from the latest 1999 survey, the procedure is straight-forward by discussing the results in terms of the same item order as that found in the survey instrument itself. It should be noted that as in all survey research the total number of responses for any given item may in some cases be less than that of the total survey sample (N = 133). Overall, missing data was not a major problem, it is simply common for some respondents to not answer all of the many questions in the questionnaire. This will account for the fact that not all of the variables always have a total of N = 133 respondents which was our sample size.

Where appropriate, comparative results from the same surveys carried out in previous years are also summarized. Not all items were continuously used in all surveys. Sometimes new items were added, to focus on new issues. But by and large the most critical and more important issues do have this longitudinal data to allow comparisons over time.

Today About Two-Thirds of All Adult Correctional Facilities Have Specific Disciplinary Rules That Prohibit Gang Recruitment

The survey asked "does your facility have specific disciplinary rules that prohibit gang recruitment".

In 1995, some 59 percent (N = 187) indicated that their adult correctional facilities do in fact have such disciplinary rules that prohibit gang recruitment. Thus, 41 percent (N = 130) of the institutions responding to the 1995 Adult Corrections Survey reported that their facility did not have specific disciplinary rules that prohibit gang recruitment.

By 1999, this had increased to 66.7%.

Over Three-Fourths Believe the Supreme Court has Gone Too Far on Ruling in Favor of Inmate Rights

The survey asked "do you believe the Supreme Court has gone too far on ruling in favor of inmate rights".

In 1992 77.7 percent of the respondents agreed with the idea that the Supreme Court has been too favorably disposed towards inmate rights issues. By 1993 this increased to 83.5 percent.

In 1995, some 85.1 percent (N = 263) of the respondents did believe that the Supreme Court has gone too far on ruling in favor of inmate rights. Only 14.9 percent (N = 46) of the responding correctional administrators did not believe that the Supreme Court has gone too far on ruling in favor of inmate rights.

By 1999, though, we see that this dips somewhat to 79.1 percent of the respondents feeling that the Supreme Court has gone too far on ruling in favor of inmate rights.

1992 1993 1995 1999

YES 77.7% 83.5% 85.1% 79.1%

NO 22.3% 16.5% 14.9% 20.9%

Only A Fourth of the Responding Correctional Facilities Indicated Their State Agency is Based on Decentralized Management

The survey asked "which best describes your state agency: ___Centralized management ___Decentralized management".

In 1995, some 71.9 percent (N = 215) of the responding agencies indicated that the state agency or parent organization is based on centralized management. About a fourth (28.1%, N = 84) did, however, report that their state agency is oriented towards decentralized management. This is a measure of correctional organizational style. The results suggest most adult state correctional institutions are still based on centralized management systems, as by 1999 72.1 percent were still centralized.

1995 1999

% %

Centralized 71.9% 72.1%

Decentralized 28.1% 27.9%

About Half Believe That "No Human Contact" Status Is Not Effective For the Control of Gang Members

The survey asked "do you believe no human contact status is effective for the control of gang members".

In 1995, some 40.2 percent (N = 125) of the respondents indicated that they do in fact believe no human contact status is effective for the control of gang members. Still, there is not complete consensus, and perhaps this could vary by other factors (i.e., institutional security level, institutional type, gang density, etc). Because over half (59.8%, N = 186) did not believe that no human contact status is effective for the control of gang members. This had not changed significantly by 1999, it rose slightly to 49.2% believing that no human contact status is effective for the control of gang members.

1995 1999

YES 40.2% 49.2%

NO 59.8% 50.8%

Two-Fifths Believe Gangs Could Be More Effectively Controlled if Gang Members Could Be Transferred to a Central-National Federal Unit

The survey asked "do you believe gangs could be more effectively controlled if gang members could be transferred to a central-national federal unit".

In 1993, about a third of the respondents believed in this idea, and it rose slightly, to level off at 41 percent for the 1993, 1995, and 1999 surveys.

In 1995, two-fifths (41.3%, N = 123) of the respondents indicated that they did believe that gang could be more effectively controlled if gang members could be sent to a central-national federal unit of correctional supervision. Some 58.7 percent (N = 175) did not believe that gang members could be more effectively controlled by transferring them to a central national style of correctional control. This rose to only 41.5 percent in the 1999 survey.

1992 1993 1995 1999

YES 33.6% 41.8% 41.3% 41.5%

NO 69.4% 58.2% 58.7% 58.5%

Thus, as of 1999 there had been no change at all in this factor of beliefs about the effectiveness of "no human contact status" for controlling gang members behind bars, since the 1993 survey.

Gang Density: Percentage of Inmates Who Are Gang Members

Gang density refers to the percentage of inmates in any given facility who are gang members. One of the most important findings from the present research is that it is very rare for any of the adult state correctional institutions holding male inmates to report that they have no gang members at all confined in their facility.

In 1995, only 7.4 percent of the male institutions reported a gang density of zero percent. The gang density variable was measured by the question "among staff who know about gang members, what is the current estimate of what percentage gang members are of the total inmate population". Separate estimates were obtained for male and female inmate populations.

In 1995, the gang density for male institutions ranged from a low of zero percent (7.4%, N = 20) to a high of 100 percent. The mean, or average, was 20.5 percent for the male inmates at a national level.

While the gang problem is felt more prominently in male correctional institutions, it is also clear that the gang problem has now converged on female correctional institutions. In 1995, the gang density estimates for female correctional institutions ranged from a low of zero percent to a high of 50 percent. The mean, or arithmetic average, for gang density was 3.1 percent for female inmates at a national level.

In 1995, the survey data reflects about a third of all adult correctional institutions in the United States today from all states. It is useful to look at the estimated gang population computed arithmetically by multiplying gang density by the more exact inmate populations for each responding institution. This analysis showed a total of N = 47,220 male gang members in just a third of the correctional institutions in the United States! We do not need to add the known female gang members to make the point here. The ACA report (1993) based its national estimate of a six percent gang density parameter on the fact that only N = 43,756 gang members were found in the way it conducted its survey.

Recall that the 1995 sample includes a third of the total overall universe of adult state correctional institutions in the United States. Thus, our sample of just a third of the American adult correctional institutions yielded a greater number of estimated gang members than the ACA estimated to exist in the entire adult correctional system!

When we look at gang density over time, we see a steady increase for males from 1991 up through 1999. The best estimate today is that one fourth of all male inmates confined in adult state correctional institutions are gang members.

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1999

Males: 9.4% 10.2% 12.2% 15.6 20.5% 24.7%

Females: 3.5% 2.7% 2.3% 4.7 3.1% 7.5%

The gang density estimates for female inmates in adult state correctional institutions have, admittedly, been low and have fluctuated somewhat comparing results from 1991 to 1999.

There is a reason why it is necessary to measure separate gang density rates for male and female inmates: the males generally constitute the overwhelming vast majority of the inmate population. Since statistical records began to be kept and reported on gender in adult state correctional institutions, generally females have constituted about 5 percent of the overall prison population.

GANG DENSITY BY SECURITY LEVEL

Obviously, it would be expected that gang density levels would vary by the level of security of the institutions reporting this data. Thus, from the 1999 Survey, we find the following results. What this suggests is that overall in American corrections, gang members are in fact dispersed throughout the system regardless of security level of the institutions. But certainly it is true, as well, that the higher the security level of an institution, the higher the gang density it also faces.

Gang Density Means for Male and Female Inmates

by Level of Institutional Security

The Three Levels of Institutional Security

Minimum Medium Maximum

Male 16.1 23.6 32.7

Female 5.6 8.0 8.6

What this means, therefore, is that in a typical maximum security adult state correctional institution, in the year 1999, about 32.7 percent of the inmates could be expected to be gang/STG members. This reduces, by half, when we look at minimum security institutions in the same year. Generally, we would expect gang/STG members to probably be placed in the higher level security facilities.
 
 

Growing Trend: Providing Gang Training to Correctional Staff

The survey asked "do your staff receive formalized training in dealing with the gang problem". This factor has shown a progressively steady increase in the last decade is what the data shows. Gang training is becoming more necessary as the gang problem becomes more of a security threat to the adult correctional system.

In 1995, some 58.0 percent (N = 184) indicated that their correctional staff do in fact now receive such gang training. Still, two-fifths (42.0%, N = 133) of the correctional facilities survey indicated that their staff do not receive gang training. Obviously, there is a lag in staff training here that begs for more correctional resources. In otherwords, more institutions report a gang problem than do those do provide their staff with training in how to deal with gang members behind bars.

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1999

YES 40.8% 45.4% 46.8% 49.5% 58% 67.4%

NO 59.2% 54.6% 53.2% 50.5% 42% 32.6%

What the trend indicates is that in 1991 about two-fifths of American adult correctional institutions provided gang training to their correctional officers. This rose to about half by the year 1994. And by 1999 two-thirds of all adult state correctional institutions are providing gang training to their correctional officers. It is fair to say that this longitudinal data suggests that gang training is now part and parcel of being able to do an effective job as a correctional officer today.

A separate follow-up question measuring the intensity of the gang training available to correctional staff asked "if yes, how many hours is the gang training session". In 1995, the results ranged from a low of 1 hour to a high of (in one instance) 132 hours. We suspect the one case of an institution providing 132 hours of gang training was a true exception to the rule, and may account for one gang coordinator's account of the amount of training he has received. Most of the respondents who provided gang training (88.8%) reported that the gang training amounts to ten hours or less or such training. Some 24.1 percent provided 2 hours of training. Some 22.4 percent provided 4 hours of training. And some 22.9 percent provided 8 hours of training. So viewed in this way, some 87.1 percent of the correctional staff receiving gang training in the United States actually get 8 hours or less of formalized gang training. That is, in most cases, it is one day or less of gang training. The mean amount of gang training nationally was 7.5 hours from the 1995 survey. Seven and one-half hours is enough to give someone training in gang awareness, but it would not make anyone a "gang expert" or "gang specialist".
 
 

A Growing Problem: Gang Members Assaulting Correctional Staff

The survey asked "have gang members been a problem in terms of assaults on your staff". In the 1992 survey only one out of ten institutions reported gang members being a problem in terms of assaults on the staff.

In the 1995 survey, about a sixth of all adult state correctional institutions in this large national sample (18.7%, N = 59) reported that gang members have been a problem in terms of assaults on correctional staff. Still, in 1995, most (81.3%, N = 256) of the respondents indicated that gang members have not been a problem in terms of assaults on their staff.

But by 1999, about one-third of all adult state correctional institutions would report gang members as a problem in terms of assaults on staff. If this data was controlled by type of institution, obviously we would see more dramatic increases perhaps in the maximum security facilities. Recall that the data includes all facilities: minimum, medium, and maximum security facilities.

The trend would suggest that this is a growing problem for corrections: assaults upon staff members from gang members.

1992 1993 1995 1999

YES 10.4% 18% 18.7% 33.6%

NO 89.6% 82% 81.3% 66.4%
 
 

A Growing Problem: Gang Members Threatening Correctional Staff

A follow-up question on gang members assaulting correctional staff asked whether gang members had been a problem in terms of threats on correctional staff.

In the 1992 survey only about a fourth of the institutions reported gang members as a problem in terms of threats against staff members.

In 1995, over a third of all adult state correctional institutions in the sample (37.2%, N = 113) reported that gang members have been a problem in terms of threats against correctional staff. About two-thirds (62.8%, N = 191) indicated that gang members have not been a problem in terms of threats against correctional staff.

By 1999 we see that this problem escalates to about half of all correctional institutions in the United States today reporting that gang members have been a problem in terms of threats against staff members.

1992 1993 1995 1999

YES 24.0% 32.5% 37.2% 53.5%

NO 76.0% 67.5 62.8% 46.5%
 
 

About Half of the Correctional Institutions Report Racial Conflicts Are A Problem Among the Offenders in Their Facilities

This question, like some others, is a replication of the same measure from previous yearly surveys. This problem has existed for quite some time and remains relatively stable. The specific question in the survey asked "are racial conflicts a problem among the offenders in your facility". In 1995, some 55.1 percent (N = 173) of the respondents indicated that racial conflicts are a problem among the inmate population. Similarly, the other half (44.9%, N = 141) indicated that racial conflicts are not a problem among the inmates. This was about the same as was found in the 1993 survey, and increased just slightly in the 1999 survey. It seems relatively stable over time as a very serious problem that is simply not disappearing.

1993 1995 1999

YES 55.9% 55.1% 57%

NO 44.1% 44.9% 43%
 
 
 
 

Growing Trend: Institutions Reporting That White Inmates Have A Separate Gang in Their Facilities

The survey asked "do white inmates have a separate gang". Since 1991 this problem has steadily increased in a significant way. In 1991 about a fourth of the institutions were reporting white gangs.

In 1995, some 57.9 percent (N = 176) of the respondents indicated that the white inmates in their facility do in fact have a separate gang. Still some 42.1 percent (N = 128) did not report that white inmates have a separate gang.

By 1999, over two-thirds of the institutions were reporting the existence of separate white gangs among their inmates. What this is really measuring is the widespread nature of white inmate gangs in adult American correctional institutions today.

1991 1992 1993 1995 1999

YES 27.3% 41.1% 56.7% 57.9% 70.3%

NO 72.7% 59.6% 43.3% 42.1% 29.7%

The White Gangs In American Prisons Today

A follow-up question was designed for those adult state correctional institutions that did report their white inmates to having a separate gang. It simply asked the respondent to write-in the name of the gang in an open-ended format. While a wide assortment of white gangs exist behind bars today, it is clearly the Aryan Brotherhood that is the most frequently cited white gang. Other groups include: Aryan Nation, Aryan Warriors, Aryan Society, White Aryan Resistance, Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, Bikers (several factions: Prison Motorcycle Brotherhood, Outlaws, etc), Peckerwoods, Brothers of the White Struggle (B.O.W.S.), Northsiders (Illinois prison system), Simon City Royals (midwest gang), Texas Mafia, White Gangster Disciples, White Supremacists, Young and Wasted, other local gangs and STGs, as well as various religious-identity extremist groups (Church of Jesus Christ Christian, etc). From other sources (National Gangs Resource Handbook, 1995, Wyndham Hall Press, 52857 County Road 21, Bristol, Indiana 46507) we now know that white gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood are to be found in almost all states today, and they are not a gang that is limited to the adult correctional context.

In 1999, it was also discovered that a group from the 1970's thought to have been totally defunct, the Church of the New Song (CONS) was again up and running in the Iowa state adult corrections system. Today this CONS group is an all-white security threat group.

Inmate Racial Breakdown

The survey asked the respondents to estimate what percentage of the inmates in their facility were white, Black, Hispanic, and Other. For the white inmate population the estimated density ranged from a low of one percent to a high of 98 percent, with a mean or average of 43.5 percent. Black inmates were the single largest racial group represented in the adult state correctional institutions in this sample. The results for all racial groups are provided in Table 1.

Table 1

Inmate Racial Density Estimates in a Large

National Sample of Adult State Correctional Institutions

1995 1999

Mean Mean

White Inmates 43.5 43.0%

Black Inmates 45.3 43.2%

Hispanic Inmates 9.7 12.2%

Other Races 5.0 6.4%

As an external check against the validity of the present findings, in terms of the degree to which this national sample corresponds to existing external population parameters, it is well known that Black or African-American inmates are in fact now highly represented inside the confined population. This is also the matter of DPM, or the concept of disproportionate minority confinement, which means that minorities are represented in the confined population at a higher rate than their overall proportion society-wide.

Today More Than Three-Fourths of Prison Wardens Believe That An Administrator Who Tries To Bargain With An Inmate Gang Leader is Similar To Trying To Negotiate With A Terrorist

We have seen this factor become more salient over the years, because some of the early work about gangs and corrections made the mistake of viewing gang leaders as a potential source of stabilization that could be coopted. A criminal gang cannot be coopted without enormous additional risk, and any benefits are likely to be short term for said administrator, and such a policy is bound to backfire in the long run.

So this is another replication item, a factor we have measured over the years. The survey asked the administrators "in your opinion, would an administrator who tries to bargain with an inmate gang leader be similar to negotiating with terrorists". In 1995, some 75.4 percent (N = 236) of the prison wardens agreed that an administrator who tries to bargain with an inmate gang leader is basically equivalent to trying to negotiate with a terrorist: it is a bad idea. This factor of staff recognition for gangs has varied and is now closing in on a more zero tolerance policy in adult state correctional institutions. In 1994's survey some 72.4 percent felt this analogy was true. In 1993 it was 59.3 percent. In 1992 it was 54 percent. Obviously, there is growing recognition that gangs cannot be easily coopted when a correctional administrator tries to bargain with a gang leader for prison safety.

Below, we can see how this factor has changed over the years in the minds of prison administrators.

1992 1993 1994 1995 1999

YES 54.0% 59.3% 72.4% 75.4% 78.3%

NO 46.0% 40.7% 27.6% 24.6% 21.7%

The Growing Political Influence of Gangs: Nearly A Fourth of Prison Wardens Feel That Gangs or Gang Leaders Are Able to Influence Politicians in Their State

This is really an issue of political corruption or at the least a high level of naivete on the part of some elected officials prone to be gang apologists or easily manipulated by a gang. However, as demonstrated recently in the Journal of Gang Research ("Gang Profile: The Gangster Disciples", 1995, Fall Issue, Volume 3, Number 1, pp. 58-76), some midwest gangs like the Gangster Disciples have not only been able to slate their own candidates for local office, but have been able to have state elected officials try to change legislation for them, and have even shown up at large scale gang picnics. This is not a problem that affects only corrections, obviously. In fact, two recent large scale law enforcement studies, one examining gangs in Georgia (Project GEORGIA95) and one examining gangs in Wisconsin (Project WISCONSIN95), also showed that the problem of political corruption is linked in some municipalities to adverse gang influence, and it appears to be a growing problem.

The survey asked "do you feel that gangs or gang leaders are able to influence politicians in your state".

In 1995, the results showed that 23.6 percent (N = 74) of the respondents felt that gangs or gang leaders are able to influence the politicians in their state. Three-fourths (76.4%, N = 239) did not feel that gangs or gang leaders have political influence in their state.

We examined this variable more closely by selecting the subsample from 1995 who did feel that gangs do exert political influence in their state. Examining the distribution of actual geographical locations showed that 32 of the 50 states have one or more respondents who now report that gangs or gang leaders are able to influence politicians in their state. It is truly a nationwide problem and not a problem limited to areas like Illinois.

1994 1995 1999

YES 20.3% 23.6% 25.4%

NO 79.7% 76.4% 74.6%

Which is More Dangerous: Street Gangs or Prison Gangs?

Most of the more organized gangs that are found behind bars have their equivalent outside of corrections, thus they are simply street gangs behind bars. The term prison gang is sometimes used in the restrictive sense of referring to those gangs that arose in prison and exist for the most part only behind bars. The term prison gang in its more restrictive meaning therefore seems to refer to gangs that has their origin in prison, and which may in fact have their counterparts outside of corrections (i.e., on the streets, in communities in a wide number of geographical areas). One issue that has arisen in discussions about a national assessment of gangs in corrections is the matter of whether prison gangs are therefore more dangerous than street gangs represented as security threat groups among inmates. Any street gang represented among prison inmates is logically going to be considered a security threat group.

The 1994 survey asked "in general, which type of gang group poses more danger to your facility: a street gang (has its origins outside of prison), or a prison gang (has its origins inside of prison)". Over half of the facilities responding to the survey who provided information for this factor (N = 156, 62.2%) felt that street gangs posed greater danger. Still, over a third (N = 95, 37.8%) of the respondents felt that prison gangs were more dangerous.

Among those respondents not represented in the distribution above were "missing data" cases where the response could not be given, such as the situation where the respondent wrote in the margin "they are the same", or that they were "equally dangerous". We would recommend adding the response mode "No difference" to future uses of this item. But this item was not replicated in the 1999 survey.

The Largest Gangs Represented Among Inmates in American Corrections Today

The survey asked "what are the names of the top three largest gangs that are represented among inmates in your facility". Three blank lines were provided for this open-ended question series. By creating a name index file that would include up to three observations for each respondent, the names of the largest gangs were then possible to analyze. The way to interpret these results, therefore, is that any gang that shows up in this list is being cited as among the top three largest gangs in any given adult state correctional institution in the United States.

A very long list of gang names emerged in this manner. We can summarize these by looking at a few of the largest gangs represented among inmates in American corrections today. Table 2 presents these summary results about the largest gangs in adult corrections from the 1995 survey.

TABLE 2

Gangs Most Frequently Cited as Being Among the

Top Three Gangs in American Correctional Institutions

Rank Ordered (Percentage)

Name of the Gang %

Crips (various factions) 15.4

Black Gangster Disciples 13.9

Bloods/Piru factions 1.7

Vice Lord factions 7.1

Aryan Brotherhood 6.8

Latin King factions 4.5

As seen in Table 2, in 1995, Crips appear to have the edge, being cited by 15.4 percent of the adult state correctional institutions in this sample. They are closely followed by Black Gangster Disciples (13.9%), Blood/Piru sets (11.7%), Vice Lords (7.1%), Aryan Brotherhood (6.8%), and the Latin Kings (4.5%). The significance of this finding relates to the scope and extent of the same gang being represented throughout the American correctional system.
 
 

In What Year Gangs Were First Recognized As Being A Problem In American Adult Correctional Institutions

The survey asked "in what year did gangs first become recognized as a problem in your facility? 19____".

In 1995, the results showed a range from as early as 1965 to as recently as this year (e.g., 1995). Overall, the mean or average year for pinpointing the gang problem in this sample was 1988.6, meaning the later half of 1988. It is helpful to examine how this gang problem manifested itself over time by referring to Table 3.

The findings in Table 3 are therefore limited to those institutions that do in fact report a gang problem. There are some facilities that do not report a gang problem as having been "recognized" as such. Thus, the year of the emergence of the gang problem behind bars takes on significance only in reference to those facilities that are reporting a gang problem in the first place.

TABLE 3

The Year Gangs Were First Recognized As a Problem

In a Large National Sample of Adult State

Correctional Institutions (N = 232)

From the 1995 NGCRC Survey

Year Gangs First Recognized

As A Problem: N %

1965 - 1980 26 11.2

1981 4 1.7

1982 1 .4

1983 2 .9

1984 6 2.6

1985 11 4.7

1986 6 2.6

1987 5 2.2

1988 12 5.2

1989 21 9.1

1990 33 14.2

1991 16 6.9

1992 19 8.2

1993 35 15.1

1994 24 10.3

1995 11 4.7

****** ******

TOTALS 232 100.0%
 
 

As seen in Table 3, prior to 1981 the gang problem existed in only 11.2 percent of the correctional institutions. This began picking up in the 1980's, and in 1989-90 a sharp peak occurred. Only 31.5 percent of the facilities indicated their gang problem was first recognized on or before 1988. Nearly a fourth of American correctional institutions (23.3%) reporting a gang problem therefore indicate that they first recognized this gang problem in their facility during the 1989-1990 period. Another fourth (25.4%) first saw their gang problem in the period 1993-1994. The most important finding from Table 3 is that 59.5 percent of all of the American adult correctional institutions with a gang problem first recognized gangs as a problem in their facility on or after the year 1990! Thus, over half of the institutions first saw their gang problem arise in the 1990's.

One of the most important factors affecting the criminal justice system today is simply not monitored by any national group that has legal responsibility for it: the changing (i.e., increasing) gang density in these same institutions. The principal co-investigators for this study are not aware of any state that does not have a problem with gangs or gang members in its correctional system. The only issue is the matter of gang density, and the scope and extent of the problem per se. Research suggests this is a growing problem, not a problem that is decreasing or disappearing nationally.

The 1993 survey showed mean date of 1987.

The 1999 survey showed that the mean date for when gangs were first recognized as a problem in their facility was about the time frame of June, 1990.

Nine Out of Ten Do Not Believe The Government Should Pay The Costs for Adult Inmates Enrolled in College Courses

The survey asked "do you believe that the government should pay the costs for adult inmates enrolled in college courses". In 1995, only 10.6 percent (N = 32) of the respondents indicated that they do in fact believe that public monies should be used to subsidize college courses for adult inmates. The vast majority (89.4%, N = 271) did not believe that the government should pay the costs for adult inmates enrolled in college courses.

1995 1999

YES 10.6% 13.1%

NO 89.4% 86.9%
 
 

Four Out of Five Believe Federal Agencies Should Play A Greater Role in the Investigation and Prosecution of Gang Crimes

The survey asked "do you believe federal agencies should play a greater role in the investigation and prosecution of gang crimes".

In the 1995 survey, some 82.5 percent (N = 249) of the responding correctional administrators expressed the belief that federal agencies should in fact play a greater role in the investigation and prosecution of gang crimes. Just under a fifth (17.5%, N = 53) did not feel that federal agencies needed to play a greater role in the investigation and prosecution of gang crimes.

1993 1994 1995 1999

YES 69.3% 69.6% 82.5% 84.0%

YO 30.7% 30.4% 17.5% 16.0%
 
 

Two-Thirds of the Correctional Institutions Responding to the Survey Thought That Chain Gangs Should Be Reinstated in Their Own State Correctional System

The survey asked "do you think chain gangs (i.e., hard labor crews) should be reinstated in your adult state correctional system". In the 1995 survey, some 64.8 percent (N = 199) of the respondents felt that chain gangs should in fact be reinstated in their own state correctional system. Among those favoring "bringing back chain gangs" were respondents from 43 different states! Only a third of the respondents (35.2%, N = 108) did not like the idea of bringing back chain gangs in their state correctional system.

This item was dropped from the 1999 survey to add a new variable on mentally retarded inmates.

Estimates of the Scope and Extent of Mental Retardation Among American Prison Inmates

The 1999 survey included the new question "please estimate what percentage of your total inmate population are mentally retarded (i.e., have IQ's less than 70)". The results indicated a mean value of 12.8% nationwide from the 1999 survey.

The Types of Economic "Rackets" Gangs Operate or Control in Adult State Correctional Institutions

The survey asked "what kind of economic rackets do gangs try to operate or control in your facility". A further instruction asked the respondent to check-off, among the options listed, those that are examples of economic "rackets" that gangs operate or control in their facility. A total of eight different economic "rackets" were separately listed in this check-off procedure. These rackets included: drugs, sex, food, clothing, loan sharking, gambling, extortion, and protection.

Table 4 presents the results of the descriptive statistical analysis for these eight different inmate rackets from the 1995 survey.
 
 
 
 
 
 

TABLE 4

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Types of

Economic Rackets Reporting As Being Operated or

Controlled By Gangs in a Large National

Sample of Adult Correctional Institutions

(1995 Results Compared to 1999 "Yes" Percentage)

Do Gangs Control/Operate These

Rackets in Your Institution?

NO YES

Type of Racket N % N % 1999%

Drugs 85 27.9 220 72.1 83.2%

Sex 198 66.7 99 33.3 30.5%

Food 171 57.2 128 42.8 46.6%

Clothing 211 71.8 83 28.2 29.0%

Loan Sharking 158 52.7 142 47.3 46.6%

Gambling 125 41.4 177 58.6 64.9%

Extortion 142 47.3 158 52.7 61.1%

Protection 128 42.1 176 57.9 56.5%
 
 

Table 4 shows that drugs, gambling, protection, and extortion are economic rackets that gangs attempt to operate or control in half or more of all of the adult state correctional facilities in this large national sample. The fact that many gangs engage in such behavior outside of the correctional setting simply means that they have been able to continue, to some unknown extent, this activity behind bars. The penal sanction does not mean we can expect a cessation of such criminal behavior that emanates from the gang as a group or organization is another way of interpreting the findings in Table 4. Where the gang was accustomed to victimizing the neighborhood in which it was located, the gang members behind bars appear to simply continue their behavior with new types of drug customers and new types of victims (i.e., other prison inmates).

What Table 4 also shows is the increased tendency for gangs to be involved in these prison rackets when we compare results from the 1995 and 1999 surveys. What is really on the rise: gang involvement in drugs and extortion behind bars would be the answer. The top three rackets for gangs behind bars would be drugs, gambling and extortion; in that order, according to the 1999 survey results.

Table 5

Comparison of Gang Involvement in Various Prison Rackets

Over Time from the NGCRC Prison Warden Surveys

Do Gangs Control/Operate These

Rackets in Your Institution?

% YES

Type of Racket 1994% 1995% 1999%

Drugs 67.8 72.1 83.2%

Sex 33.6 33.3 30.5%

Food 28.7 42.8 46.6%

Clothing 20.1 28.2 29.0%

Loan Sharking 45.5 47.3 46.6%

Gambling 50.9 58.6 64.9%

Extortion 50.5 52.7 61.1%

Protection 52.2 57.9 56.5%

What type of racket has shown a progressive increase in gang involvement behind bars? Table 5 above answers this question. Drugs, food, clothing, gambling, and extortion are inmate rackets that are showing increased gang involvement over time comparing the 1994, 1995 and 1999 survey results.
 
 

INMATE RACKETS: SIGNIFICANTLY MORE GANG INVOLVEMENT THE HIGHER THE SECURITY LEVEL OF THE INSTITUTION

When we examine the relationship between the security level of the institution and whether the same institution reports gang involvement in various inmate rackets, we see a significant and rather consistent trend. The trend is this: the higher the level of security for an institution, the larger the gang involvement in various inmate rackets. These findings are depicted below in Table 6.

Table 6

Percentage Distribution of Institutions Reporting

Gang Involvement in Selected Inmate Rackets

by the Level of Security for the Same Institutions

From the 1999 Adult State Corrections Survey

Security Levels of the Institutions

Minimum Medium Maximum

Drugs 54.8% 89.7% 94.2%

Chi-square = 24.0, p < .001

Food 25.8% 51.0% 55.7%

Chi-square = 7.51, p = .02

Loan Sharking 22.5% 46.9% 61.5%

Chi-square = 11.8, p = .003

Gambling 45.1% 65.3% 76.9%

Chi-square = 8.63, p = .01

Extortion 29.0% 69.3% 73.0%

Chi-square = 18.0, p < .001

Protection 32.2% 57.1% 71.1%

Chi-square = 11.9, p = .003

Clearly, where the gang involvement in the inmate rackets becomes interesting is when we look at the variation within these adult state correctional institutions in terms of the security level of the facility. The minimum security level facilities consistently show the lowest degree of gang involvement in the various inmate rackets. The maximum security facilities consistently show the highest level of gang involvement in the inmate rackets (drugs, extortion, protection, etc).

Gang involvement in drug distribution is reported in only about half (54.8%) of the minimum security facilities; but this rises to 89.7 percent for medium security, and up again to 94.2 percent for maximum security facilities. The "protection" racket is one of the oldest rackets in the world: it means finding a weaker inmate, telling the inmate to 'pay up or face the consequences'. We see that only about a third (32.2%) of the minimum security facilities report gang involvement in this kind of activity, compared to 57.1 percent for medium level facilities, and 71.1 percent for maximum security facilities.

United States Currency Seized From Gang Inmates During the Last One Year Period

The survey asked "what was the largest amount of cash seized from gang member inmates during the last one year period". A blank line ($______dollars) was used for this variable. In 1995, the results showed a range between a low of $5.00 dollars in cash to a high of $9,500.00 in cash being the largest amount of cash seized from gang inmates during the last one year time period. This included cash seizures from 88 different correctional institutions nationwide totalling $40,744 overall. Obviously, much more than this was probably actually seized, as the variable measured not the total amount seized, but rather the single largest amount seized from an inmate gang member during the last one year time period. In the 1995 survey, the mean or average value of the largest amount of cash seized from a gang member in the last one year time period was $463.00 for this sample. We feel that it would be worthwhile to get a better handle on the scope and extent to which gangs dominate the correctional inmate underground economy, at least in terms of the amounts of money involved nationwide. It does suggest this may be a neglected area in terms of gang investigation and prosecution nationally.

In the 1999 survey, a total of $14,373 was seized by N = 45 institutions reporting this phenomenon, with a mean value of $319.40 nationwide.

About Four Fifths Report The Hardening Effect: Penal Sanctions Increasing Gang Ties

The survey asked "do you believe that gang members generally have a stronger affiliation with their gang after serving time". The hypothesis tested here is what we call the "hardening effect". It is similar, but different from, the hypothesized "conversion reaction" or solidifying effect. Nevertheless, it is a hypothesis consistent with that viewpoint which would argue that some suppression efforts can potentially increase gang solidarity, not decrease it. The variable measured here is simply a different and more focused factor about gang members in the correctional environment.

In 1995 the results of the survey showed that 80.5 percent (N = 235) of the responding adult state correctional administrators did feel that gang members generally have a stronger affiliation with their gang after serving time. This is consistent with the previous research (See: George W. Knox, 1994, An Introduction to Gangs, Wyndham Hall Press, 52857 C.R. 21, Bristol, Indiana 46507) in that once a gang member is sent to a correctional institution, like being violated by his/her own gang, it may actually increase commitment to the gang in one sense: a greater opportunity for achieving gang "rank" exists behind bars, and a greater chance to meet up with the gang leaders occurs in that situation as well.

Thus, only a fifth (19.5%, N = 57) of the respondents did not feel that the penal sanction increases gang ties in 1995. This did not change much by 1999.

1995 1999

YES 80.5% 78%

NO 19.5% 22%

Universal Support Among Prison Wardens In America: Public Notice Should Be Given Upon the Release of a Sex Offender

This question produced little variation is what our findings show. The survey asked "do you believe that public notice should be given upon the release of a sex offender". In 1995, the overwhelming majority (93.8%, N = 289) did in fact agree that such public notification should be given upon the release of sex offenders. In fact, only 6.2 percent (N = 19) of the responding correctional administrators did not support this idea.

It could be argued as well that correctional administrators are in a good position to know about the validity of the threat represented by sex offenders. We are aware of a growing trend in terms of victims rights and the prevention of sex crimes generally, where this process of public notification is coming to be adopted with varying degrees of strength in terms of public notice for the release of sex offenders.

1995 1999

YES 93.8% 99.2%

NO 6.2% 0.8%

Less Than A Third Report Their Facilities Have Programs Designed to Improve Race Relations Among Inmates

The survey asked "does your facility have any programs for inmates which seek to improve race relations among inmates". In the 1995 survey, a third of the responding adult state correctional institutions (31.9%, N = 96) did report that their facilities to have programs that seek to improve inmate race relations. Thus, two-thirds (68.1%, N = 205) of the responding correctional institutions did not have such programs designed to improve race relations among the inmates in their facility. It is important to point out that significant differences do exist in regard to facilities that do or do not have such programs designed to improve race relations among inmates. Table 7, for example, shows that a correctional facility that also reports there are racial conflicts among the inmates is almost twice as likely (40%) to also report having such programs designed to improve race relations among inmates, than when compared to correctional institutions that do not report that racial conflicts are a problem among their inmates (21.6%). Thus, Table 7 shows that having racial conflict problems among inmates is a factor that significantly differentiates whether the same facilities do or do not have such programs designed to foster better race relations among the inmates. In other words, institutions experiencing such problems are those more likely to adopt programs that focus on improving race relations among the inmates.

Not much changed in this regard comparing results for 1995 and 1999.

1995 1999

YES 31.9% 29.8%

NO 68.1% 70.2%

What The Chi-Square Significance Test Means

This is an appropriate point to briefly explain to the reader how to interpret the meaning of the Chi-square test statistic used in this report. As seen in Table 7, the probability level for this Chi-square result is p = .001. What that means is that in only one time out of 1,000 could this result have occurred by chance alone, thus it is very significant. "Significant" in social research such as this basically means any probability level of .05 or less. Also, the higher the value of the Chi-square test statistic, the stronger the relationship between the two variables. A significant Chi-square test statistic means the two variables are not independent.

In the Chi-square statistic, the expected frequencies in a table are compared to the observed frequencies. The Chi-square test is therefore a test of independence. When the Chi-square test is not significant, that is the probability level if greater than .05, it is assumed the two variables are independent. When two variables are independent of each other, it basically means one has no major effect on the other. When the Chi-square test is in fact significant, that is the probability level is less than or equal to .05, then one can conclude that one variable does have a significant effect in differentiating the other variable (i.e., a relationship exists between the two variables).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

TABLE 7

THE EFFECTS OF WHETHER RACIAL CONFLICTS ARE A PROBLEM

IN THE INMATE POPULATION BY WHETHER PROGRAMS

EXIST TO IMPROVE RACE RELATIONS AMONG THE INMATES

(RESULTS FROM THE 1995 SURVEY)

Does your facility have any

programs for inmates which

seek to improve race relations

among inmates?

NO (N) YES (N) % Yes

Are racial conflicts a

problem among the offenders

in your facility? NO 105 29 21.6

YES 96 64 40.0

Chi-square = 11.3, p = .001
 
 

Few States Have Separate Facilities For Confidential Informants

Our research reveals that most state adult correctional systems do not have separate physical plants or facilities for confidential informants. Sometimes called "snitch farms", or Security Management Units, states with large gang problems find it inevitable to create these when seeking to prosecute gang members behind bars.

The survey asked "does your state have a separate correctional facility for confidential informants".

In the 1995 survey, only 11.4 percent (N = 35) of the respondents indicated their state has such separate facilities for confidential informants. Most (88.6%, N = 271) of the respondents indicated their state does not have separate facilities for confidential informants who are inmates.

From comparing data on this factor, over time, we do see a slight upward trend from the 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1999 surveys. However, it is a not a very remarkable upward trend.

1993 1994 1995 1999

YES 10.5% 10.9% 11.4% 14.5%

NO 89.5% 89.1% 88.6% 85.5%

Recidivism Rates

Any study of adult corrections would not be complete without some focus on recidivism. There is no national standardized reporting format for recidivism that is lived up to. Although everyone understands its basic meaning. The basic meaning is "does the inmate return into the correctional system". So the survey asked "please estimate what percentage of your inmates have previously served time in your facility".

In the 1995 survey, the results ranged from a low of zero percent to a high of 98 percent. Suffice it to say, that great variation exists in this factor. The mean or national average was 39.1 percent.

1995 1999

Mean 39.1% 42.3%

Vast Majority Support "Truth in Sentencing" Legislation

The 1995 survey asked "do you believe in the idea of truth in sentencing (i.e., a five year sentence really means serving 85 percent or more of that actual sentence)". Some 87.6 percent (N = 268) of the respondents indicated that they do in fact believe in the idea of "truth in sentencing". Only 12.4 percent (N = 38) indicated that they do not believe in the idea of "truth in sentencing". This item was dropped from the 1999 survey to include another factor about mentally retarded inmates.

The 1999 Factor on Mentally Retarded Inmates In Relation to Disciplinary Reports

The 1999 survey included the question "In your opinion, do the mentally retarded inmates (I.Q.'s less than 70) generally have a lower or higher number of disciplinary reports than other inmates?". Some 16.4 percent indicated "lower", some 52.3% indicated "about the same", and 31.3 percent indicated "higher".

Percentage of Inmates Who Are Mentally Ill

The survey asked "please estimate what percentage of the inmates in your facility are mentally ill". The 1995 survey results ranged from a low of zero percent to a high of 100 percent. The mean, or overall average, was that 7.6 percent of the inmates were mentally ill. The vast majority (83.4%) of the N = 283 respondents providing data for this variable gave estimates of ten percent or under.

1995 1999

Mean 7.6% 12.8%

Increased Trend Towards State Political Pressure to "Play Down" Gang Activity

This is variable deals with the denial syndrome often associated with states having large adult correctional systems that also have high gang density rates. The survey therefore asked "do you receive any pressure from state officials to play down gang activity".

Results from the 1995 survey indicated that only 7.8 percent (N = 25) of the responding correctional administrators reported that they do in fact receive such pressure to engage in gang denial. The vast majority (92.2%, N = 294) of the correctional administrators responding to the survey indicated that they do not receive any such pressure to downplay the gang problem. This was certainly up from the 1993 and 1994 surveys, and increased somewhat again in the 1999 survey.

This would suggest an increased trend over time: the pressure to "play down" the gang problem behind bars may perhaps be more politicized today than in preceding years. In one sense, therefore, this aspect of "gang denial" is on the increase.

1993 1994 1995 1999

Yes 2.3% 3.8% 7.8% 10.8%

No 97.7% 96.2% 92.2% 89.2%
 
 

Rising Factor: Correctional Facilities Report Disturbances Related to Gang Members in their Facilities During the Last Year

The survey asked "during the last twelve month period, have there been any disturbances related to gang members in your facility". In the 1995 survey, some 38 percent (N = 120) of the responding facilities did in fact report such gang disturbances during the last one year time period. Thus, about two-thirds (62%, N = 196) of the facilities surveyed reported not having any such gang disturbances during the last one year time period.

The trend indicates a significant rise over time comparing the 1993, 1995 and 1999 surveys for this factor. From the 1999 survey, about one-half of all adult state correctional institutions regardless of security level or where they are located are now reporting disturbances related to gang members in their facilities.

1993 1995 1999

Yes 31.6% 38.0% 50.0%

No 68.4% 62.0% 50.0%
 
 
 
 

GANG DISTURBANCES: SIGNIFICANTLY MORE LIKELY IN HIGHER SECURITY LEVEL INSTITUTIONS

An interesting trend emerges when we look at gang disturbances in relationship to the level of security for the institutions that do or do not report this kind of security problem. Gang disturbances are like "mini-riots"; typically focusing on fights in a large area, a yard, a dining hall, a gym area, etc. The fighting is typically between rival gangs. The gangs carry their gang rivalry from the streets and into the prison with the same level of ferocity and animosity.

On the streets, the gangs may have their own "turf". In prison, they have to improvise. So the larger gangs in prison will take over a "function" in the prison: a weight-lifting area, a basketball court, a handball court, a section of bleachers, a specific area within the dining room, a section of grass or the ground, etc. These will be places they always congregate together. The most serious type of injury from gang disturbances is a knife wound. The knife in prison is known as the "shank" or "shiv", it is typically home-made (i.e., an improvised weapon). The most typical injury is a "beating" of some kind, from the use of a blunt instrument or from kicking and punching of numerous attackers. Homicides that occur in prison are probably, in large part, "gang homicides"; however, these type of statistics are hard to come by.

Table 8 shows the relationship between security level of the facility and whether the facility reported gang disturbances during 1999. As seen here, a consistent and significant trend is evident. About one out of ten minimum security facilities (12.9%) reported such a gang disturbance. This rises quite dramatically to over half (59.1%) of the medium security level facilities. And increases further to 64.7 percent of the maximum security facilities reporting gang disturbances from the 1999 survey.

In minimum security facilities, inmates are often given only a "token" level of security: don't go past point X. Many of the inmates in minimum security may have outside work, education, and training opportunities. In otherwords, the inmates in a minimum facility have much more contact with the outside world. Still, even in these type of facilities, about one out of ten are in fact reporting such gang disturbances. What happens is the "offenders" get shipped back to a higher level of institutional security. Thus, the "hard core" predators are massed in the higher level facilities, where, not surprisingly, we also find the highest level of such gang disturbances as well.

Table 8

Distribution of Institutions Reporting a

Gang Disturbance Among Inmates in the Last Year

By Level of Institutional Security for the

Facilities Represented in the 1999

Adult State Corrections Survey

Levels of Security for the Institutions

Minimum Medium Maximum

Gang Disturbances

During 1999?

NO 27 20 18

YES 4 29 33

% Yes 12.9% 59.1% 64.7%

Chi-square = 23.1, p < .001
 
 

Two-fifths of All Correctional Facilities Report Disturbances Related to Racial Conflict in their Facilities During the Last Year

The survey asked "during the last twelve month period, have there been any disturbances related to racial conflict in your facility". In the 1995 survey, some 40.3 percent (N = 128) of the correctional institutions responding to the survey indicated that they have in fact experienced such racial disturbances during the last one year time period. Thus, 59.7 percent (N = 190) of the respondents reported no such racial disturbances during the last one year.

1993 1995 1999

Yes 35.1% 40.3% 40.3%

No 64.9% 59.7% 59.7%

Comparing the 1995 and 1999 results, shows that there was absolutely no change in this factor during the 1995 to 1999 interval.

The Strong Relationship Between Racial Disturbances and Gang Disturbances in Correctional Institutions

Previous research by the NGCRC has shown that in adult and juvenile correctional contexts that racial disturbances are not independent of gang disturbances. The present research enables another very direct large scale test of this hypothesis. Table 9 provides the results of this test using the 1995 data.

As seen in Table 9 a strong significant relationship emerges here (p < .001) between racial disturbances and gang disturbances in adult state correctional institutions. Among those facilities that had no racial disturbances in the last year, only 13.7 percent also had gang disturbances. However, among those facilities that did in fact have racial disturbances in the last year, some 74.6 percent of these facilities also had gang disturbances in the same last one year time period.

These findings are very consistent with earlier research dating back to 1990 on the relationship between racial conflict and gang conflict (see Knox, 1994). In other words, having one of these problems tends to very substantially increase the likelihood of having the other problem as well. Thus, the problems are both closely related in a significant way.

Table 10 replicates this test using the recent 1999 data. Again, the same effect occurs, and it is again very significant. Any facility with a racial conflict problem stands a far greater probability of also facing a gang disturbance problem is what this data is showing.

TABLE 9

The Effects of Racial Conflicts on Gang Conflicts

in a Large National Sample of

Adult State Correctional Institutions

(Results from the 1995 Survey)

During the last 12 month period,

have there been any disturbances

related to gang members in your

correctional institution?

NO (N) YES (N) % Yes

During the last 12 month

period, have there been any

disturbances related to

racial conflict in

your facility? NO 163 26 13.7%

YES 32 94 74.6%

Chi-square = 118.6, p < .001
 
 

TABLE 10

The Effects of Racial Conflicts on Gang Conflicts

in a Large National Sample of

Adult State Correctional Institutions

(Results from the 1999 Survey)

During the last 12 month period,

have there been any disturbances

related to gang members in your

correctional institution?

NO (N) YES (N) % Yes

During the last 12 month

period, have there been any

disturbances related to

racial conflict in

your facility? NO 57 20 25.9%

YES 8 46 86.7%

Chi-square = 46.4, p < .001
 
 
 
 
 
 

Few Report That Their Staff Sometimes Find it Necessary to Negotiate With Gang Members in Order to Keep the Peace

The survey asked "do staff in your facility sometimes find it necessary to negotiate with gang members in order to keep the peace".

In the 1995 survey, only 12.2 percent (N = 37) reported that staff in their facility do sometimes find it necessary to negotiate with gang members in order to keep the peace. Most of the respondents (87.8%, N = 266) indicated that their staff do not engage in wheeling and dealing with gang members as an order maintenance device.

It is risky indeed to negotiate with any offender in custody, particularly gang members. Thus, not surprisingly, we find only 15.4 percent of the institutions engaging in this practice in the 1999 survey.

1995 1999

Yes 12.2% 15.4%

No 87.8% 84.6%

An Empirical Test: Does Negotiating With Gang Members Lower the Risk of Gang Disturbances?

Can the casual process of negotiating with gang members to keep the peace among prison inmates help to also reduce the probability of gang disturbances? The present research allows us to directly test this hypothesis. We will use two variables already discussed in this report: (1) the issue of negotiating with gang members in order to keep the peace, and (2) whether there have been gang disturbances during the last year. The variable about negotiating with gang members is shown to have a significant effect in terms of differentiating whether institutions do or do not have gang disturbances. The results of this test are provided in Table 11.

TABLE 11

The Relationship Between Prison Staff Sometimes

Negotiating With Gang Members to Keep the Peace

And Whether The Same Facilities Actually

Report A Gang Disturbance in the Last Twelve Months

(Results from the 1995 Survey)

During the last 12 month period,

have there been any disturbances

related to gang members in your

facility?

NO (N) YES (N) % Yes

Do staff in your facility

sometimes find it necessary

to negotiate with gang

members in order to keep

the peace? NO 183 81 30.6

YES 8 28 77.7

Chi-square = 30.3, p < .001

As seen in Table 11, there is a strong relationship between the two variables: one significantly differentiates the other, that is very clear. However, it is not consistent with the expectation that having staff who sometimes negotiate with gang members means having an institution with a reduced likelihood of also having gang disturbances. In fact, the relationship is very strong in the direction of suggesting something else entirely.

Survey research cannot prove causation, because survey research like the present research is cross-sectional in nature. However, one this is very clear: institutions that have staff who sometimes find it necessary to negotiate with gang members in order to keep the peace are also institutions that have a very high rate of gang disturbances in the last one year time period (77.7%). Only 30.6 percent of the facilities that did not have staff who periodically negotiate with gang members to keep the peace reported being institutions that also had gang disturbances in the last year.

While the causal nexus remains uncertain, the findings in Table 11 still bear great attention. For if the condition of having staff who negotiate with gang members is occurring to prevent gang disturbances from occurring in the first place, rather than in dealing with gang disturbances ex post facto in a "cool down" mode, then what Table 11 might be saying is that negotiating with one security threat group or gang is enough to ensure a statistically significant increase, not a decrease, in the probability of an eventual gang disturbance in the same facility. The present researcher would highly recommend that this matter be subjected to further additional research. For the possibility exists that confused policies at an administrative level could adversely impact on the safety of correctional staff and inmates alike.

This research would recommend no negotiation with inmate leaders or members of gangs or STGs for anything other than for gang intelligence purposes. The reason is Table 11 suggests that it may be possible that the following scenario occurs: a pattern of concessions are made to gang leaders or gang members in the goals of conflict management, however the intense competition between rival gangs being as deadly as it is may also generate ongoing enmity by the symbolic consequences of "favoritism" towards one or another of the gangs. No special favors resulting from "negotiation" should therefore accrue to inmates who will interpret this action from legitimate authority to mean a delegation of power or control.

Gangs and STGs will always take the offer that confers upon them any unique power, authority, or control that they can further exploit against the mission statement of the correctional facility. Written policy statements for correctional mid-management and line staff should be prohibit disturbing the equilibrium of gang conflict among inmates in this fashion as independent individual relationships with gang or STG members; the reason is that where it occurs legitimately is in the intelligence area (strategic: for an overall management plan; and tactical: i.e., for purposes of immediate criminal prosecution), and this means the information must be codified, centralized, and analyzed in a feed-back loop to all others in this unique "social system" called the adult state correctional institution.

Hostage Situations Involving Inmates and Staff

The survey asked "when was the last time your facility had a hostage situation involving inmates and staff? 19____ or ____Never". In the 1995 survey, some N = 76 institutions provided dates for the last time their facility had a hostage situation involving inmates and staff. Some N = 240 of the respondents indicated "never". Thus, 24.1 percent of the respondents did report a hostage situation since 1969 with a mean value of 1985.2, meaning the early part of 1985.

The trend is easy to summarize for hostage situations. In the 1995 survey, the dates for the last hostage situation ranged from 1969 to present (1995). A fourth (25%) of those reporting such hostage situations, last had a hostage situation on or before 1980. About half (52.6%) last had a hostage situation on or before 1986. However, some 28.9 percent of those reporting having ever had a hostage situation indicated their last hostage situation as occurring on or after 1992.

Three Fourths of Adult State Correctional Institutions Report That Most of Their Staff and Employees Have Received Training in Cultural Diversity

The survey asked the yes or no question: "have most of your staff and employees received training in cultural diversity". In the 1995 survey, some 74.1 percent (N = 237) indicated "yes", that in fact most of their staff and employees have received training in cultural diversity. Thus, only a fourth (25.9%, N = 83) of the responding adult state correctional institutions indicated that they had not yet met this condition.

From the 1995 data, there was no significant difference regarding gang disturbances or racial disturbances during the last year with respect to this training factor. Nor did this factor significantly differentiate beliefs about whether anything could be done to reduce racial conflicts among inmates.

Comparing the 1995 and 1999 surveys shows little change over time in regard to this factor.

1995 1999

Yes 74.1% 77.3%

No 25.9% 22.7%

Date of Last Major Inmate Riot In Their State System

The survey asked "for your entire state correctional system, when was the last major inmate riot". For the 1995 survey, the results ranged from as long ago as 1954 to as recently as the present year (1995). About a fourth (26.7%, N = 73) reported their last major inmate riot in their state system on or before the year 1983. In fact, half (48.7%, N = 133) reported the last major inmate riot in their state system on or before 1988. Yet some 21.2 percent (N = 58) reported a riot during 1995.

From the 1999 survey the mean date was May, 1991 for the last major inmate riot.
 
 

Two-Fifths Report Staff Members In Their Facility Testing Positive for the PPD (Tuberculosis) Test in the Last Year

The survey asked "have any staff members in your facility tested positive for the PPD (tuberculosis) test in the last twelve months".

For the 1995 survey, data was available on N = 296 institutions. The results showed that 43.2 percent (N = 128) did in fact report staff testing positive for the PPD test during the last year. Some 56.8 percent (N = 168) reported no staff testing positive for the PPD test during the last year.

For the 1995 survey, there was no significant relationship observed between staff testing positive for the PPD test during the last year and the variable for whether the same institutions isolate inmates who also test positive for the PPD test. Where the significance comes in for the variable of staff testing positive for the PPD test is in relationship to inmates who have been diagnosed with TB during the last one year time period. Among institutions reporting that no inmates had been diagnosed with TB during the last year, only 22.5 percent also reported staff who tested positive for the PPD test. Yet among institutions reporting that they have had any inmates who have been diagnosed with TB during the last year, some 63.3 percent of the same institutions report that staff have in fact tested positive for the PPD test during the last year as well (Chi-square = 47.5, p < .001). The link between the two factors is very strong and significant enough to command the attention of policy makers.

In the 1993 survey, the item format was somewhat different, it asked HOW MANY staff members had tested positive for the PPD test in the last year. This yielded a mean of 4.57 staff members testing positive during the last year. Still, 49.6% reported one or more such staff members testing positive for the PPD test.

This is a politically sensitive survey item: some respondents were readily able to talk about gang problems among the inmates, but marked on their surveys "confidential information" when it came to this factor. We would want to assume, therefore, that these figures are very conservative estimates given the possible tendency to under-report on this factor.

Staff Test Positive for PPD

1993 1995 1999

Yes 49.6% 43.2% 43.5%

No 50.4% 56.8% 56.5%

Over Half of the Institutions Isolate Inmates Testing Positive for the PPD Test

The survey asked "are inmates who test positive for the PPD (tuberculosis) test isolated from other inmates".

In the 1995 survey, some 56 percent (N = 172) of the facilities in the sample indicated that inmates testing positive for the PPD test are in fact isolated from other inmates. Still, some 44 percent (N = 135) indicated that inmates testing positive for the PPD test are not isolated from other inmates.

This jumped to 65.6% in the 1999 survey. We might expect it to continue to rise in that a recent Supreme Court ruling rejected an inmate lawsuit challenging a correctional system's right to segregate HIV positive inmates, under the assumption that it was a safety issue that the institution had a right to enforce.

1995 1999

Yes 56.0% 65.6%

No 44.0% 34.4%

Half of Correctional Administrators Would Regard A Gang Density Rate of Six Percent as A Moderate Problem

The most recent federally funded research on gangs in corrections concluded that only six percent of the American prison inmate population are gang members. The earlier Camp and Camp (1985) report had concluded that only three percent of the American prison inmate population were gang members at the time of their study. The survey asked "if you state prison system had six percent of its inmates involved in gangs or security threat groups how would you regard this as a problem for corrections? ___Minor problem ___Moderate problem ___Severe problem". From the 1995 survey, some 19.7 (N = 60) percent regarded it as a minor problem. About half (54.6%, N = 166) regarded a six percent density rate as a moderate problem. And 25.7 percent (N = 78) regarded a six percent density rate as a severe problem.

Not much changed in the 1999 survey: 24.4 percent regarded it as a minor problem, 55.0 percent regarded it as a moderate problem, and 20.6 percent regarded it as a severe problem.

The Gang Density Threshold for Having a Severe Gang Problem

The survey asked "at what percentage of the inmate population (% who are members of gangs or STGs) would you feel that a severe gang problem exists? ____ Percent".

From the 1995 survey, the results ranged from a low of one percent to a high of 90 percent. The mode, or most frequently cited threshold level, was ten percent. The mean, or arithmetic average, threshold level was 16.3 percent. Only a fourth (27.2%) gave ratings of six percent or under. Some 48.4 percent gave thresholds of 11 percent or higher. A third (36.7%) gave thresholds of 20 percent or higher, while two-thirds (63.3%) gave thresholds of 15 percent or lower. In fact, 89 percent gave thresholds of 30 percent or under.

What we need to point out here is how this variable compares with the actual conditions estimated for the same institutions. This national sample indicated its gang threshold would be 16.3 percent, i.e., at the point of having 16.3 percent of the inmate population as gang or STG members a "severe problem" would exist in their evaluation. Recall from the earlier analysis of actual gang density rates that nationally our current estimate is that 20.5 percent of all male inmates are in fact gang or STG members. Thus, the current estimate of gang density exceeds the threshold at which point a "severe problem" exists.

Gang Threshold

1995 1999

Mean 16.3% 18.8%

Most Security Threat Groups or Gangs Behind Bars Also Exist By the Same Name Outside of Prison

The survey asked "do the more dangerous security threat groups that exist in your facility also exist by the same name in communities outside of the correctional environment".

From the 1995 survey, over three-fourths (83.9%, N = 230) of the respondents indicated that the more serious STG's in their facility also exist by the same name in communities outside of the prison environment. Thus, most of the more dangerous STG's in the American prison system are basically what some call street gangs, at least gangs that exist as well outside of confinement. Only 16.1 percent (N = 44) of the respondents answered the question "no".

From the 1999 survey, we are able to say that in about 9 out of ten cases, the gangs behind bars also exist by the same name outside of the prison situation. Thus, according to the 1999 survey, 89.6 percent of the gangs that exist in prison are also gangs that operate by the same name outside of prison.

1995 1999

Yes 83.9% 89.6%

No 16.1% 10.4%

Growing Trend: Prison Gangs Have Tended To Result in More Improvised Weapons Production Among Inmates

The survey asked "in your opinion, have prison gangs tended to result in more improvised weapons production (e.g., shanks, etc) among inmates in your facility".

As early as the 1992 survey, 37.2 percent of adult state correctional institutions were reporting that prison gangs have tended to result in more improvised weapons production in their facilities. This then increased to 40.5 percent in the 1993 survey.

From the 1995 survey, about half of the correctional administrators in the sample (47.6%, N = 141) expressed the opinion that prison gangs have resulted in greater improvised weapons production. Similarly, about half (52.4%, N = 155) did not feel that prison gangs have resulted in greater improvised weapons production in their facility.

The most recent survey in 1999 showed that 55.6 percent of

adult state correctional institutions were reporting that prison gangs have tended to result in more improvised weapons production in their facilities. This aspect of gang life behind bars is, therefore, clearly on the rise.

1992 1993 1995 1999

Yes 37.2% 40.5% 47.6% 55.6%

No 62.8% 59.5% 52.4% 44.4%

Four-Fifths Agree: We Need Tougher Laws to Control the Gang Problem in Prison

The survey asked "do you feel we need tougher laws to control the gang problem in prison".

From the 1995 survey, some 81.2 percent (N = 254) of the correctional administrators responding to the survey expressed the opinion that tougher laws are in fact needed to control the gang problem in American corrections today. Only a fifth (18.8%, N = 59) did not feel that tougher laws are needed to control the gang problem behind bars.

There is no consistent pattern comparing the 1992, 1993, 1995 and 1999 survey results on this factor. There was an increase over time in the 1992, 1993, and 1995 surveys; and then this factor dipped back to 78.6 percent in the 1999 survey.

1992 1993 1995 1999

Yes 73.4% 76.2% 81.2% 78.6%

No 26.6% 23.8% 18.8% 21.4%

Half Believe A Program to Improve Race Relations Could Reduce the Gang Violence or STG Problem as Well

The survey asked "do you believe a program that sought to improve race relations among inmates could reduce the gang violence or Security Threat Group (STG) problem in your facility". The correctional administrators were evenly mixed on this issue.

From the 1995 survey, about half (48.1%, N = 140) did believe that such a program to foster better race relations could reduce the gang or STG problem in their facility. Still, half (51.9%, N = 151) did not believe that such a program could reduce the threat posed by the gang problem in their facility. This extent to which someone might believe in this strategy for handling gang problems in correctional institutions may depend, we hypothesize, on whether or not the same administrators believe that anything at all can or cannot be done about race relations. We will come to this issue shortly in another section of this report.

This believe in reducing gang violence through improved race relations increases only slightly to 52.8 percent in the 1999 survey.

1995 1999

Yes 48.1% 52.8%

No 51.9% 47.2%

Growing Trend: The Percentage of All Institutional Management Problems Caused By Gangs or STGs

The survey asked "in your estimate, what percentage of all institutional management problems in your facility are caused by gangs/STGs or gang/STG members? ____Percent".

From the 1995 survey, the results for this variable ranged from a low of zero percent (23.3% indicated zero percent of their institutional management problems could be traced to gangs or STGs) to a high of 100 percent. The mean, or average, was that 17.2 percent of all institutional management problems in the facilities surveyed here were caused by gangs or STGs or their members.

This was up slightly from the mean of 16.4 percent in the 1993 survey. It jumps up again in the 1999 survey where the best estimate today is that about a fourth (25.7%) of all institutional management problems in adult state correctional institutions are causes by gangs or Security Threat Groups.

1993 1995 1999

Mean 16.4% 17.2% 25.7%

Growing Trend: The Percentage of All Inmate Violence Caused by Gangs or Gang Members

The survey asked "in your estimate, what percentage of all violence among inmates in your facility is caused by gangs or gang members". From the 1995 survey, the results ranged from a low of zero percent (22.8% indicated zero percent) to a high of 100 percent. The mean, or average, was that 22.1 percent of all inmate violence in American adult correctional institutions was caused by gangs or gang members. This was up only slightly from the mean of 20.4 percent in the 1993 survey. Yet by 1999 we see this mean value rise to 29.2 percent.

1993 1995 1999

Mean 20.4% 22.1% 29.2%

The Debate About Weight Lifting For Inmates: Two-fifths Say Eliminate It

The survey asked "do you feel it would be a good policy to eliminate weight lifting for inmates". From the 1995 survey, some 42.6 percent (N = 135) of the correctional administrators responding to the survey agreed that it would be a good policy to eliminate weight lifting for inmates. But 57.4 percent (N = 182) of the respondents did not feel it would be a good policy to eliminate weight lifting for inmates. Obviously, a debate exists about this issue even among corrections professionals.

We did examine this variable in relationship to several other factors. First, it did not vary by objective risk conditions such as whether gang members have been a problem in terms of assaults or threats on staff, nor did it vary significantly by institutional security level of the responding facility. Second, it did vary by what are essentially variables measuring beliefs: those who felt the government should not pay the costs for inmates enrolled in college courses and those who felt stronger laws are needed to control the gang problem were those who were more significantly likely to want to eliminate weight lifting for inmates.

In the 1999 survey, there appears to be even stronger support for the idea of eliminating weight lifting for prison inmates. Some 53.9 percent of the respondents in the 1999 survey were in favor of eliminating weight lifting.

1995 1999

Yes 42.6% 53.9%

No 57.4% 46.1%

Most Now Agree: Telephone Monitoring Is Effective in Disabling Gang Leaders From Maintaining Ties to Outside Gang Members

The survey asked "in your opinion is telephone monitoring an effective technique to prevent gang leaders from maintaining their ties to outside gang members". From the 1995 survey, four-fifths (80.4%, N = 242) of the correctional administrators responding to the survey agreed that telephone monitoring is an effective technique in this regard. Only a fifth (19.6%, N = 59) did not believe telephone monitoring could be effective in this way.

1995 1999

Yes 80.4% 91.4%

No 19.6% 8.6%

Most Also Now Agree: Mail Monitoring Prevents Gang Leaders From Maintaining Ties to Outside Gang Members

The survey asked "in your opinion is mail monitoring an effective technique to prevent gang leaders from maintaining their ties to outside gang members". In the 1995 survey, four-fifths (82.2%, N = 250) of the respondents did in fact feel that mail monitoring is an effective technique to prevent gang leaders from maintaining their ties to outside gang members. Only a fifth (17.8%, N = 54) did not believe in the effectiveness of this technique.

There was an increase in the perceived value of mail monitoring, as the 1999 survey showed that 91.5 percent of the respondents believed mail monitoring was an effective technique to prevent gang leaders from maintaining their ties to outside gang members.

1995 1999

Yes 82.2% 91.5%

No 17.8% 8.5%

A Statistical Rarity: the Prison Warden Who Thinks that Prisons are Feared and a Deterrent to Gang Members

The survey asked "do you think prisons are feared and a deterrent to gang members". In the 1995 survey, some 95.4 percent of the respondents (N = 292) expressed the viewpoint that prisons are not feared by or a deterrent to gang members. Only 4.6 percent (N = 14) felt that prisons are feared and a deterrent to gang members. This is, after all, not very surprising to those in the field of criminal justice as it would be to most civilians unfamiliar with the gang problem.

In fact, by 1999, less than one percent of the respondents believed that prisons are feared and a deterrent to gang members. So it is a statistical rarity to find someone who works in adult corrections to express the belief that prisons are feared and a deterrent to gang members.

1995 1999

Yes 4.6% 0.8%

No 95.4% 99.2%

Two-Thirds Believe It Is Possible to Reduce Racial Conflicts Among Inmates

The survey asked "do you think anything can be done to reduce racial conflicts among inmates". In the 1995 survey, some 69.4 percent (N = 211) did express the viewpoint that something can in fact be done to reduce racial conflicts among inmates. About a third (30.6%, N = 93) of the respondents were more fatalistic in taking the belief that nothing can be done to reduce racial conflicts among inmates.

In the 1999 survey some 71.3 percent of the respondents did feel that something can be done to reduce racial conflicts among inmates.

1995 1999

Yes 69.4% 71.3%

No 30.6% 28.7%

The Greater The Belief That Racial Conflicts Can Be Reduced Among Inmates, The More That Race Relations Improvement Is Believed To Be A Way To Reduce The Gang Problem

This may be an issue of skepticism and disbelief generally, that is one of attitude alone. We had hypothesized, however, that the extent to which correctional administrators thought that a program seeking to improve race relations could have a positive effect on reducing the gang problem is itself a factor that would vary by beliefs about the extent to which race relations among inmates can be experimentally manipulated. It seems clear that to the extent that race relations can be deteriorated by ugly isolated incidents receiving much adverse publicity that one must admit that race relations among virtually all human beings is subject to experimental manipulation. The only question is the direction of the impact.

This is, we feel, still a vital and neglected issue that still remains somewhat of a taboo topic in nearly all correctional publications today. Few correctional textbooks, and fewer still publications targeting a correctional practitioner audience, address the issue of race relations among inmates. We are thankful that the correctional administrators in America continue to provide us with this meaningful information to analyze in light of this need for more useful knowledge on the issue. The NGCRC has, and continues to be, one of the few groups to address this issue directly, systematically, and objectively.

Table 12 shows, then, an important finding in this regard. Using the 1995 survey data, among those who do not believe much can be done about race relations among inmates, only 20.4 percent felt a program designed to improve race relations could possibly reduce the gang problem behind bars. Among those believing race relations can be shaped in a positive direction, the percentage triples to 60.4 percent for those believing that a program designed to improve race relations could also reduce the gang or STG problem as well.
 
 

TABLE 12

The Effects of Believing Whether Anything Can Be

Done To Reduce Racial Conflicts Among Inmates by

Whether the Same Prison Wardens Believe that a Program

Designed to Improve Race Relations Among Inmates Could

Also Reduce the Gang and STG Problem in Their Facility As Well

(Findings from the 1995 Survey Data)

Do you believe a program that sought

to improve race relations among inmates could reduce the gang violence

or Security Threat Group (STG) Problem

in your facility?

NO (N) YES (N) % Yes

Do you think anything can

be done to reduce racial

conflicts among inmates?

NO 70 18 20.4%

YES 78 119 60.4%

Chi-square = 38.8, p < .001
 
 

Half of the Correctional Facilities Report Having Had Inmates Diagnosed With Tuberculosis During The Last Year

The survey asked "during the last year, have any inmates in your facility been diagnosed with tuberculosis". In the 1995 survey, some 53.8 percent (N = 157) of the responding adult state correctional facilities did in fact report such recent cases of TB being diagnosed among their inmates. Similarly, half (46.2%, N = 135) did not report such cases of TB being diagnosed among their inmates during the last one year period.

The 1993 data suggested a higher level of the TB problem, 62.9 percent reporting inmates being diagnosed with TB in the last year. But in 1999, this is still at about the 1995 level (54.1% for 1999, 53.8% for 1995).

1993 1995 1999

Yes 62.9% 53.8% 54.1%

No 37.1% 46.2% 45.9%

Special Programs in Adult Corrections for Mentally Retarded Inmates

The 1999 survey included the question "does your facility have a special program (i.e., habilitation services) for mentally retarded inmates (inmates with I.Q.'s less than 70)?". Some 42.3 percent of the responding facilities indicated "yes", that they did in fact have such programs for the mentally retarded inmates. Still, about half (57.7%) indicated they did not have such programs.

Inmate Population Count

The survey asked "what is the total inmate population (count) for your institution as of today". The count for each respondent was used to generate a larger total sum. Thus, among the institutions in the 1995 sample, there were a total of N = 240,724 inmates incarcerated in their collective facilities. Female inmates made up 4.5 percent of the total sample which is very close to the national average. Historically, in the American adult state correctional inmate population females have constituted about five percent of the overall confined population.

In the 1999 survey a total of N = 155,663 inmates were incarcerated in the institutions surveyed; of which N = 151,840 were males, and N = 3,066 were females.

Security Levels of the Institutions

The survey asked "what level of security is your institution". In the 1993 survey the results were as follows: 23.5% minimum, 42.4% medium, and 34.1% maximum security.

In the 1995 survey, just under half (45.2%, N = 127) were minimum security facilities. About a fourth (28.1%, N = 79) were medium security. And about a fourth (26.7%, N = 75) were maximum security institutions.

In the 1999 survey, 24.2% were minimum security, 37.1% were medium security, and 38.6% were maximum security facilities.
 
 

Nearly Half Believe Providing Tuition Support for Staff Could Help Deal With The Gang Problem

The survey asked "do you believe that providing tuition support for staff could help control the prison gang problem". The issue here is continuing education for correctional officers. Those with greater training, perhaps in social sciences and particularly in criminal justice where today many universities offer courses about the understanding/control/prevention of gang problems, would be better equipped to confront the intense personal dynamics of gang life behind bars.

In the 1995 survey, some 45.1 percent (N = 138) of the respondents did believe that providing tuition support for staff could help control the prison gang problem. Just over half (54.9%, N = 168), however, did not believe this tuition help to staff could help deal with the prison gang problem.

The trend in this data is up somewhat, but is just not consistent as a pattern over time. Both the 1993 and 1995 levels were at about 45 percent, this did jump to 56.9 percent for the 1999 survey.

1993 1995 1999

Yes 45.3% 45.1% 56.9%

No 54.7% 54.9% 43.1%

The Year The Facility's Physical Plant Was Constructed

The survey asked "in what year was your physical plant constructed".

In the 1995 survey, the results for this variable were available on N = 289 institutions. The results showed a range from as old as 1836 to as recently constructed as the current year (1995). Only ten percent were built on or before 1900. Some 35.3 percent were built on or before 1950. Half (50.5%) were built on or before 1969, thus the other half (49.5%) were built on or after 1970. A fourth (26.3%) had been built on or after 1985. The average age of these physical plants was that they were constructed in the year 1957.

A Growing Trend: Having Full-Time Staff Employed as Ombudsmen for Inmates

The survey asked "does your institution have any full-time staff employed as ombudsmen for inmates".

In the 1995 survey, the results showed that only 16.1 percent (N = 48) of the respondents indicated that their facility had any full-time staff employed in the role of being ombudsmen for the inmates. Most of the respondents (83.9%, N = 250) reported having no such full-time staff employed in this capacity.

The use of staff employed as ombudsmen for inmates increased over ten points comparing the 1995 and 1999 surveys. By 1999 some 28.2 percent of the institutions reported using staff employed as ombudsmen for inmates.

1995 1999

Yes 16.1% 28.2%

No 83.9% 71.8%

Most Believe Gang Members Gang Members Have a Higher Recidivism Rate

The survey asked "in your opinion, do gang members tend to have a higher recidivism rate".

In the 1995 survey, some 79.4 percent (N = 227) expressed the opinion that they do believe gang members tend to have a higher recidivism rate. A fifth (20.6%, N = 59) did not believe gang members have a higher recidivism rate.

In the 1999 survey we see this increased, where 87.3 percent of the responding facilities are reporting that gang members tend to have higher recidivism rates.

1995 1999

Yes 79.4% 87.3%

No 20.6% 12.7%

Growing Trend: Institutions Taking Gang Membership Into Account in Their Classification System for Inmates

The survey asked "does your institutional classification system take gang membership into account".

In the 1991 survey, about half (51.9%) of the institutions reported that their classification took gang membership into account. That means that about half used the fact that the inmate was a gang member in the way they classified inmates; for purposes of security ratings, job and housing assignments, etc.

In the 1995 survey, some 60.3 percent (N = 178) of the respondents indicated that their inmate classification system does take gang membership into account. Thus, 39.7 percent (N = 117) indicated that their inmate classification system does not take gang membership into account.

Comparing the 1992, 1995 and 1999 surveys we do see a steady upward progression in the use of gang membership as a factor to be taken into account in the inmate classification systems in adult correctional institutions. By 1999, this had increased to 68.3 percent of the institutions taking gang membership into account in their inmate classification systems.

1992 1995 1999

Yes 51.9% 60.3% 68.3%

No 48.1% 39.7% 31.7%

Strategies Currently Used to Control Gang Members Behind Bars

The survey asked "what strategies does your facility use to control gangs (check all those that apply)". The check off list was used, and included every previous known technique, plus new options known to exist. The results from the 1995 survey are presented in Table 13.

As seen in Table 13 the most frequently used techniques to control the gang problem in adult state correctional institutions today include: transfers (79.7%), case by case dealings (72.3%), monitor and track gang members (64.4%), monitor mail (61.2%), segregation (59.6%), and displacing members to different facilities (59.7%).

As seen in Table 13, few fortunately are using questionable techniques that are controversial in their own right such as: joint meetings between various gang leaders (3.5%), coopting of prisoners to control gangs (3.8%), and ignoring their existence (4.9%).

Sadly, while a great deal of gang research on a variety of topics has been funded by the federal government in recent years, absolutely no gang research has been funded that examines the more practical issue of the effectiveness of any of these gang control techniques listed in Table 13. It simply has been a neglected issue by federal funding sources.

So while we know a lot about the gang problem behind bars in terms of what control strategies are actually being used to deal with the gang problem, we still know very little about the comparative effectiveness of these different approaches, or whether some approaches in combination have the best overall impact on reducing the violence threat represented by gangs and STGs.

One option in the list in Table 13 is very new: involvement in the National Major Gang Task Force established through the American Correctional Association members. This is a relatively new initiative. But Table 13 does show a growing involvement in this effort to collaborate and share information across jurisdictions, as 13.8 percent indicated this was a part of their overall strategy. Still, the vast majority (86.2%) of the responding correctional institutions in this sample indicated that the National Major Gang Task Force is not included in their strategies used to deal with gang problems in corrections today.

Table 14 compares the use of these strategies to control gangs/STGs behind bars over time from the NGCRC surveys.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

TABLE 13

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of

Strategies Used to Control Gangs

in a Large National Sample of Adult State

Correctional Institutions

(Results from the 1995 Survey)

Does Your Facility Use This

Strategy to Control Gangs?

NO YES

Gang Control Strategies Used: N % N %

Transfers 61 20.3 239 79.7

Use of Informers 137 46.3 159 53.7

Segregation 118 40.4 174 59.6

Isolating Leaders 161 54.4 135 45.6

Lockdown 191 65.6 100 34.4

Prosecution 206 71.0 84 29.0

Interrupting communications 187 64.3 104 35.7

Case by case dealings 83 27.7 217 72.3

Ignoring their existence 273 95.1 14 4.9

Infiltration 270 93.8 18 6.3

Displacing members to

different facilities 119 40.3 176 59.7

Coopting of prisoners to

control gangs 278 96.2 11 3.8

Meeting with gang leaders on

an as needed basis 254 88.2 34 11.8

Joint meetings between various

gang leaders 277 96.5 10 3.5

Balance the number of rival

gang members living in

the same unit 210 72.9 78 27.1

National Major Gang Task Force 250 86.2 40 13.8

Monitor and track gang members 106 35.6 192 64.4

Locking up gang leaders in

high security facilities 201 68.4 93 31.6

Monitor mail 116 38.8 183 61.2

Monitor telephone calls 147 49.3 151 50.7

Other 277 96.2 11 3.8
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

TABLE 14

Percentage Distribution of

Strategies Used to Control Gangs

in a Large National Sample of Adult State

Correctional Institutions

(Results Comparing the 1992, 1993, 1995 and 1999 Surveys)

Does Your Facility Use This

Strategy to Control Gangs?

(percent)

Gang Control Strategies Used: 1992 1993 1995 1999

Transfers 65.5 73.0 79.7 80.8

Use of Informers 46.8 53.4 53.7 61.5

Segregation 48.1 57.5 59.6 69.2

Isolating Leaders 42.3 50.0 45.6 48.5

Lockdown 24.5 35.1 34.4 38.5

Prosecution 26.1 29.9 29.0 29.2

Interrupting communications 28.7 39.1 35.7 46.2

Case by case dealings 45.5 50.0 72.3 73.8

Ignoring their existence 5.5 4.6 4.9 4.6

Infiltration 1.6 4.0 6.3 6.2

Displacing members to

different facilities 54.2 52.3 59.7 58.5

Coopting of prisoners to

control gangs 2.6 5.7 3.8 3.8

Meeting with gang leaders on

an as needed basis 5.8 13.2 11.8 10.0

Joint meetings between various

gang leaders 1.3 5.2 3.5 3.1

Balance the number of rival

gang members living in

the same unit 16.5 19.5 27.1 25.4

National Major Gang Task Force n/a n/a 13.8 19.2

Monitor and track gang members n/a n/a 64.4 70.8

Locking up gang leaders in

high security facilities n/a 42.5 31.6 39.2

Monitor mail n/a n/a 61.2 83.1

Monitor telephone calls n/a n/a 50.7 74.6

Other n/a n/a 3.8 13.1

Obviously, some of the interesting findings comparing the 1992, 1993, 1995 and the 1999 survey results have to do with what has not changed. Things that probably would never work continue to show low usage: ignoring their existence, infiltration, coopting inmates, joint meetings with gang leaders.

Comparing the 1992, 1993, 1995, and 1999 surveys is useful to examine those strategies that show a slow, but steady increased usage to control gangs behind bars. These include: (1) transfers, (2) use of informers, (3) segregation, and (4) dealing with gang members on a case by case basis.

Comparing the 1995 and 1999 surveys, dramatic increased usage is shown in monitoring mail and telephone calls.

----

box insert

USING INFORMERS TO DEAL WITH THE PRISON GANG PROBLEM

The use of informers among prison inmates is clearly on the rise as a strategy to deal with the gang problem. However, an important controversy needs to be pointed out in regard to this issue.

Here is the problem: the use of informers, "rats", "stool pigeons", etc, has had its critics in correctional circles. It is the matter of long-term effectiveness, and the potential trade-offs. One of the potential trade-offs is that, in some circumstances, it creates a weakness in the correctional organization itself if a dependency develops from the use of informants. Some have also claimed that excessive use of this technique is conducive to prison rioting among inmates, as happened in the New Mexico Penitentiary case (Gettinger, 1980: p. 19). Certainly, prison officials using informers are inducing some degree of tension and suspicion among inmates. This was argued, for example, in the analysis by Serrill and Katel (1980) who noted that in the New Mexico Penitentiary riot, informers were systematically sought after for torture and execution by the rioting inmates.

-----

Growing Trend: Gangs Significantly Affecting The Correctional Environment

The survey asked "do you believe that gang members have significantly affected your correctional environment".

In the 1992 survey about a fourth (27.7%) of the institutions reported that gang members had significantly affected their correctional environments. This rose to 41.4 percent in the 1993 survey.

In the 1995 survey, some 54.1 percent (N = 170) of the respondents indicated that they did in fact believe that gang members have significantly affected their correctional environment. Similarly, 45.9 percent (N = 144) did not feel that gangs have significantly affected their correctional environment.

In the 1999 survey, this factor of gang members significantly affecting the correctional climate, rose to 63.4 percent. Thus, a consistent steady progression over time suggests gangs may have significantly altered the correctional climates in adult American correctional institutions, and the "inmate cultures" found there.

1992 1993 1995 1999

Yes 27.7% 41.4% 54.1% 63.4%

No 72.3% 58.6% 45.9% 36.6%

Number of Full-Time Personnel Employed By Their Facilities

The survey asked "how many full-time personnel are employed by your facility". In the 1995 survey, a total of N = 71,270 full-time personnel were employed in the sample of institutions surveyed here. A total of N = 45,495 full-time personnel were employed in 1999 survey sample.

Growing Favorable Ratings for The Federal Department of Justice: Providing Effective Leadership in Suppressing the Gang Problem in American Cities

The survey asked "do you feel the federal Department of Justice has provided effective leadership in suppressing the gang problem in American cities".

As early as 1993 only 7.3 percent of the responding correctional institutions expressed the belief that the federal Department of Justice has provided effective leadership in suppressing the gang problem in American cities. This "confidence vote" factor would rise in the subsequent 1995 and 1999 surveys.

In the 1995 survey, some 87.8 percent (N = 258) felt that the federal Department of Justice has not provided effective leadership in suppressing the gang problem in American cities. Only 12.2 percent (N = 36) of the respondents felt that the federal Department of Justice has in fact provided effective leadership in suppressing the gang problem in American cities.

In the 1999 survey this factor of the "confidence vote" for the federal Department of Justice rose to 21.3 percent. One might say that a goodly amount of additional progress is still warranted, given the fact that 78.7 percent of the 1999 respondents did not feel that the federal Department of Justice has provided such effective leadership.

Overall, however, these findings over time would suggest that a growing level of confidence exists, however small it remains.

1993 1995 1999

Yes 7.3 12.2% 21.3%

No 92.7 87.8% 78.7%

Gang Involvement in Smuggling Drugs Into Correctional Facilities

The survey asked "in your opinion, what percent of all illicit drugs are brought into your facility by prison gang members".

In 1993 about a fourth (27.2%) of all drugs smuggled into correctional facilities were believed to be brought in by gang members.

In the 1995 survey, the results ranged from a low of zero percent to a high of 100 percent. The 1995 mean, or average, was that 32.6 percent of the illegal drugs were being smuggled into correctional institutions by gang members.

In the 1999 survey this increased, only slightly, suggesting that again about a third (34.1%) of all drugs are smuggled into prisons by gang members. While the trend is upwards in nature, it is not a very strong trend.

1993 1995 1999

Mean 27.2% 32.6% 34.1%

Gang Involvement in Drug Sales Within The Inmate Underground Economy

The survey asked "in your opinion, what percentage of the illicit drug trade in your facility is dominated by gang/STG members".

In the 1993 survey, it was reported that 31.4 percent of the illegal drug trade behind bars was dominated by gang or STG members.

The 1995 survey results ranged from a low of zero percent to a high of 100 percent. The mean or average was that 35.0 percent of the overall illicit drug trade in these correctional facilities was dominated by gang or STG members.

In the 1999 survey, we see a progressive increase, but not a very substantial increase. In 1999, we find that 37.2 percent of the prison drug trade is controlled by gang members. Obviously, gang members have some work to do to continue to be a dominating force in this type of underground economy. Perhaps the fact that by inference, most of the illegal drug trade is not controlled by gang members will be the basis for conflicts and tension and/or gang violence in the years ahead behind bars. It is the issue of competition for this lucrative business of illegal drugs behind bars.

1993 1995 1999

Mean 31.4% 35.0% 37.2%

Half Report That Overcrowding is a Problem in their Facility

The survey asked the yes/no question "Generally, is overcrowding a problem in your facility".

In the 1995 survey, half (52%, N = 166) of the institutions reported that generally overcrowding is a problem in their facility. Half (48%, N = 153) reported that generally overcrowding is not a problem in their facility.

In the 1995 survey, this factor was significant in relationship to the variable measuring whether any inmates had been diagnosed with TB during the last one year period (Chi-square = 5.95, p = .01). Among those facilities that reported overcrowding was a problem in their facility some 60.4 percent had also reported inmates being diagnosed with TB during the last year, this compares with 46 percent for those institutions that reported overcrowding was not a problem in their facility.

Comparing the 1993, 1995, and 1999 survey results on prison overcrowding, we see that there is a small overall steady increased in reported overcrowding.

1993 1995 1999

Yes 47.7% 52.0% 53.0%

No 52.3% 48.0% 47.0%

Life-Threatening Violence Among Inmates in the Last Year

The survey asked "please estimate how many violent assaults among inmates that resulted in life-threatening injuries during the last twelve month period".

In the 1995 survey, the results ranged from a low of zero to a high of 178. In fact, half (49.1%, N = 139) of the respondents indicated zero such incidents in the last year of life-threatening violence among inmates in their facility. The mean, or average, was 3.8 such life-threatening cases of inmate violence during the last year.

In the 1999 survey the results ranged from a low of zero to a high of 300; for a total of N = 1,036 such assaults in the sample overall.

1995 1999

Mean 3.8 8.5

Most Correctional Administrators Feel A Zero Tolerance Approach to Gangs is Best

The survey asked for a range of responses for their views about the statement "a zero-tolerance policy is the best approach for dealing with gangs and gang members".

In the 1995 survey, some 65.4% (N = 208) strongly agreed. Another 21.7% (N = 69) agreed. Thus, the vast majority (87.1%, N = 277) of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the zero-tolerance policy on gangs and gang members. Only 8.8 percent (N = 28) indicated they neither agree or disagree. Only 3.8 percent indicated they disagreed. And one lone respondent (.3%) indicated "strongly disagree".

Not much had changed as reflected in the 1999 survey, there is an increase in the "strongly agree" category however, in 1999 it shot up to 74.8% in strongly in favor of "zero tolerance".

1995 1999

Strongly Agree 65.4% 74.8%

Agree 21.7% 16.8%

Neither A or D 8.8% 4.6%

Disagree 3.8% 3.8%

Strongly disagree 0.3% 0.0%

Inmate-Against-Inmate Assaults: Degree of Gang Involvement

The survey asked the respondents to estimate the percent of inmate-against-inmate assaults that involved gang members.

In 1995, the results ranged from a low of zero percent to a high of 100 percent. The mean, or average, was that 23.8 percent of all inmate-against-inmate assaults involved gang members.

By 1999 this had risen to 32.7 percent nationwide.

1995 1999

Mean 23.8% 32.7%

Major Change: Having Staff Who Belong to State or Regional Gang Investigator Associations

The survey asked "do any of your staff belong to the state or regional Gang Investigators Association".

In 1993 only about a fifth (19%) of the institutions reported they had staff who belonged to state or regional gang investigator associations. This would rise dramatically over the years.

In 1995, some 28.9 percent (N = 88) indicated that they did have staff who were active in their local gang investigator associations. Most (71.1%, N = 217) of the correctional institutions did not have staff who belonged to these gang investigator associations.

As of 1999, about half (51.1%) of the institutions are reporting that they have staff members who are now involved with state or regional gang investigator associations. This represents a very significant increase over time comparing the 1993, 1995 and 1999 survey results.

1993 1995 1999

Yes 19.0% 28.9% 51.1%

No 81.0% 71.1% 48.9%

No Change: Gang Members Do Not File More Law Suits Than Do Non-Gang Member Inmates

The survey asked "do gang members generally tend to file more law suits against your institution than non-gang member inmates". In the 1995 survey, some 92.7 percent (N = 254) of the responding correctional facilities indicated that gang members generally do not tend to file more law suits against them than non-gang member inmates. Only 7.3 percent (N = 20) indicated that gang members are more prone to this activity than non-gang member inmates.

In the 1999 survey we see that only 5.6 percent of the respondents are reporting that gang members tend to file more law suits. Thus, generally, gang members are not more litigious than other inmates would seem the fair conclusion.

1995 1999

Yes 7.3% 5.6%

No 92.7% 94.4%

The Institutions That are Community-Based

The survey asked "is your facility community-based".

In the 1995 survey, some 45.5 percent (N = 137) indicated that their facility is in fact community-based. Some 54.5 percent (N = 164) indicated that their facility is not community-based.

In the 1999 survey some 39.1 percent of the responding institutions regarded their facility as being community-based.

1995 1999

Yes 45.5% 39.1%

No 54.5% 60.9%

Types of Correctional Institutions Represented in the Study

The survey asked "which category best describes your facility" and the check-off options corresponded to currently used categories of correctional institutions.

In the 1995 survey, some 59.2 percent (N = 173) were adult correctional institutions. Only one (.3%) was a correctional medical facility. Some 9.9 percent (N = 29) indicated their facility was a prison or penitentiary. Some 4.8 percent (N = 14) indicated their facility was a reception and diagnostic institution. Some 8.2 percent (N = 24) indicated their facility was a work camp/farm/forestry/conservation center. Some 17.1 percent (N = 50) indicated their facility was a community correctional center. And one respondent (.3%) indicated the facility was a boot camp/shock incarceration facility.

In the 1999 survey, again 59.1 percent were adult correctional institutions, 23.5 percent were prisons/penitentiaries, 2.3% reception/diagnostic center, 2.3% work camp/farm/forestry/conservation, 10.6% community correctional centers, and 2.3% boot camp/shock incarceration.

Most Institutions Expect The Gang Problem in Corrections to Increase in the Next Few Years

The survey asked "in your opinion, do you expect the gang problem in corrections to increase or decrease in the next few years, or do you think the problem will remain at the same level it is at now".

In the 1995 survey, some 89.1 percent (N = 285) expected the gang problem in corrections to increase in the next few years. Some 2.2 percent (N = 7) actually felt the gang problem would decrease in the next few years, and these optimistic souls are clearly the minority in our sample. Finally, 8.8 percent (N = 28) felt the gang problem in the next few years would remain about the same level it is at now.

In the 1999 survey, we see a small decrease in the percentage who expect the gang problem to increase (80.3% in 1999). Another change comparing the 1995 and 1999 results is increase since 1995 in the percentage who expect this problem to "remain the same".

1995 1999

Increase 89.1% 80.3%

Decrease 2.2% 1.5%

Remain same 8.8% 18.2%

Most Institutions Expect Inmate Gang Violence To Increase in the Next Few Years

The survey asked "in your opinion, do you expect the problem of inmate violence from gang/STG members to increase or decrease in the next few years, or do you think the problem will remain at the same level it is now". The results are very consistent with the previous finding.

In the 1995 survey, some 86.1 percent (N = 273) expect the problem of inmate violence from gang/STG members to increase in the next few years. Some 2.5 percent (N = 8) felt the problem would decrease in the next few years. And 11.4 percent (N = 36) felt the problem would remain at the same level it is at now.

In the 1999 survey a substantial shift was seen: lower expectation of increased gang violence, higher expectation for gang violence to remain at the current level. In 1999, 72.7 percent felt there would be an increase in gang violence among inmates in the next few years. A fourth (25.8%), in 1999, expected the level of gang violence to remain constant.

1995 1999

Increase 86.1% 72.7%

Decrease 2.5% 1.5%

Remain same 11.4% 25.8%

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study has some clear messages for a national correctional policy on gangs. Several things are very clear from this study. Among the major warning signs that emerged from this study is that the vast majority of prison wardens in adult state correctional institutions do in fact believe that in the next few years the gang problem will dramatically increase behind bars. In the mean time, we still have no national knowledge other than that by the NGCRC that systematically tracks this problem. Most importantly, no evaluation research has been undertaken to assess the kinds of gang control strategies that work best.

It would appear that a crisis is facing adult corrections in America today and that the policy response is comparable only to what is called the ostrich phenomenon in law enforcement gang research: sticking one's head in the sand and hoping the problem will just go away. In the mean time as well, staff and correctional officers will continue to face the real and genuine threat of an increasingly dangerous situation from gang members and security threat groups (STGs).

The most recent federally funded research on gangs blamed prison administrators on the east coast for being in a denial mode (American Correctional Association, 1993). That same research was not able to obtain the level of cooperation we obtained here. Our findings suggests it is really a problem of knowing how to do good research. The same administrators said to be in a denial mode somehow cooperated with this survey. Only one state did not "cooperate", but we viewed this not as a reason to stop the research, but an opportunity to get even closer to the real "data". When New York state continued to instruct its wardens not to respond to our questionnaires, we simply contacted line staff in key positions who were obviously closer to the day-to-day problems that gangs and STG's represent behind bars. California, Illinois, and Virginia have historically had high resistance to our annual surveys, but in spite of their bureaucratized central office policies on answering questionnaires, some of the wardens there still complete our surveys.

The ACA study based on half a million dollars in funding by the National Institute of Justice appears to have been a major failure given the extent of misinformation it contains. The ACA report indicated no gangs in the adult state correctional systems of the following states: Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. The problem may have been the way ACA conducted the study, using only one informant for each entire state it is possible that this over-aggregated unit of analysis was not able to reach to the individual institutional level of analysis, and was therefore more prone to basically be in the naive research situation of asking someone something the single respondent in each state did not really know. All we can say is that many of these same states over the years have indicated a gang presence to the NGCRC when we go to the individual correctional institutions and use the superintendent or warden as the unit of analysis.

The ACA report was overly simplistic in its research methodology by assuming a single person statewide would be knowledgeable and up-to-date about all gang or STG activities in all facilities in the same state. It was a "top down" research style, while the annual surveys conducted by the NGCRC are "bottom up". Here is what we do know: all fifty states and the District of Columbia today do in fact have some gangs or STGs in their inmate populations as of 1995. It is further possible that the ACA, being an agency that is also the accreditation body for correctional institutions, was not appropriate ethically as an awardee for the federally funded research on the same institutions; thus, while the ACA report blamed many correctional state systems for being in the "denial mode", what may have actually been occurring is a natural and normal level of cautiousness in responding to gang surveys from the same agency that bestows or removes accreditation. The proof of this is the fact that the yearly adult corrections gang assessment surveys conducted by the NGCRC since 1991 have been able to obtain much more evidence of gang and STG activity than the ACA study. While the ACA report cost over half a million dollars in federal funding, the NGCRC yearly surveys barely cost $1,000 each year because no one was being paid and no profit was sought for this important service. It is an important issue because we are talking not only about the safety of inmates but of correctional staff!

Fortunately, the ACA was not effective at disseminating its research, thereby perhaps minimizing the damage of misinformation. We know, because we researched this too. The 1994 Annual Survey of Adult Correctional Institutions by the NGCRC had survey responses from N = 290 wardens or superintendents and asked them the following question: "Did you read the report entitled Gangs in Correctional Facilities: A National Assessment (ACA, April 12, 1993)". The data was collected in the fall of 1994. The majority (71.8%) of the respondents indicated they had not read the ACA report on gangs.

The NGCRC mission statement is based on the service model of research: provide a useful service while conducting research. Thus, most of our research over the years has been probono research. Good research is not research that generates lots of income to the researchers from federal agencies like OJJDP and NIJ. Unfortunately, many scholars today feel obligated to do research only when they have such funding. Good research is work that has both scholarly and practical applications, extending our knowledge of the problem and helping to clarify the national picture in a way that leads us towards consensus. We know what bad research is: studies that use poor methodologies, with low response rates, and with results that are meaningless. But when we are dealing with the gang problem some moral obligation exists for researchers when dealing with agencies to educate those same agencies. The researchers must be responsible for this because we cannot assume that agencies like NIJ and OJJDP are effective in dissemination based on recent research findings to that effect.

Now we come to the proof of a crisis about gangs in American adult state corrections. One of the questions in this 1995 survey asked the prison administrators what they thought would be the "threshold" for the point at which a severe gang problem would exist. Our research findings in this report showed that at the point where 16.3 percent of the inmate population are gang members, American corrections can at this point in time be said to be at the level of having a severe gang problem. That density rate of 16.3 was the national average for the threshold of determining when a facility would have a severe gang problem. The current national estimated gang density from this research is that at least 20.5 percent of all male adult state correctional inmates are gang members. Thus, we have already surpassed the point of a "severe gang problem" by this reasoning. It is further worthwhile to point out to the reader that our current estimate of 20.5 percent as the national estimate for male inmate gang density is over three times that estimated in the recent federally funded research on gangs in corrections.

This research has helped to answer the larger social policy question of "how serious is the gang problem in American state adult correctional institutions today?". The answer indicated in a state-by-state analysis of all fifty states is this: the gang problem in adult state corrections is very serious and it is expected to get a lot worse in the upcoming years.

* Some 15 states have one or more institutions reporting that they receive pressure from state officials to "play down" gang activity.

* About half the 50 states have one or more institutions reporting that gangs have been a problem in terms of assaults upon staff or correctional officers.

* Some 31 states have one or more institutions reporting that they feel that gangs or gang leaders are able to influence politicians in their state.

* Some 36 states have one or more institutions reporting that gangs have been a problem in terms of threats against staff or correctional officers.

* Some 37 states have one or more institutions reporting that white inmates have a separate gang.

* Some 37 states have one or more institutions reporting that during the last year there have been disturbances related to gang members in their facility.

* Some 40 states have one or more institutions reporting that prison gangs have tended to result in more improvised weapons production (e.g., shanks, etc) among inmates in their facility.

* Some 41 states have one or more institutions reporting that gang members have significantly affected their correctional environment.

* Some 42 states have one or more institutions that have now introduced disciplinary rules to prohibit gang recruitment in their facility.

* Some 49 states have one or more institutions reporting that they expect the problem of inmate violence from gang/STG members to increase in the next few years.

* Some 49 states have one more institutional administrators who believe that tougher laws are needed to control the gang problem in prison.

* All fifty states have one or more institutions reporting that they expect the gang problem in corrections to increase in the next few years.

In seeking to keep this report simple and direct by addressing basically what the survey actually dealt with, and by not generalizing beyond our data, we have kept our promise to the over the respondents who have the primary duty to administer the correctional institutions in fifty states that were studied here. It is our hope that they find this report useful. However, we must also point out that by trying to keep the report simple, we have not been able to use our extensive longitudinal information developed over the years. All we would like to say about that at this time is also simple: the data suggests the gang problem is getting worse.

One disturbing overall finding compels attention from this report: the fact that while our findings from this national assessment of prison gangs and security threat groups (STGs) provide a conservative research estimate of the current national gang density, this rate is three times higher than that of the latest federally funded research! The ACA study estimated 6 percent of the American adult state corrections population were gang/STG members. Our data shows it was at least 20 percent in 1995! National law enforcement estimates of the "at large" gang member population, also Department of Justice funded studies, are also about one third of the size of the problem in research carried out and reported by the NGCRC. Sadly, it seems as if we can take the federally funded gang research estimates and triple them to arrive at what is closer to the truth about the scope and extent of the gang problem in the United States today.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Selected Bibliography

American Correctional Association

1993 Gangs in Correctional Facilities: A National

Assessment. April 12, 1993, American Correctional Association, Laurel, MD.

Baird, L.H.

1986 "Prison Gangs: Texas", Corrections Today (18)(July): 22.

Bobrowski, Lawrence J.

1988 "Collecting, Organizing and Reporting Street Gang Crime", paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of The American Society of Criminology.

Camp, George and Camille Graham Camp

1985 Prison Gangs: Their Extent, Nature and Impact on Prisons. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Conrad, J.P.

1979 "Who's in Charge? The Control of Gang Violence in California Prisons", in Corrections Facility Planning Robert Montilla and Nora Marlow (eds.), pp. 135-147, Lexington, Mass: D.C. Heath.

Cox, V.

1986 "Prison Gangs - Inmates Battle for Control", Corrections Compendium (10)(9)(Apr): 1,6-9.

Daniels, S.

1987 "Prison Gangs: Confronting the Threat", CorrectionsToday. (29)(2)(Apr): 66,126,162.

Davidson, H.S.

1988 "Meaningful Literacy Education in Prison? Problems and Possibilities", Journal of Correctional Education (39)(2)(June): 76-81.

Fong, Robert S.

1987 A Comparative Study of the Organizational Aspects of Two Texas Prison Gangs: Texas Syndicate and Mexican Mafia. Ph.D. dissertation, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas.

1990 "The Organizational Structure of Prison Gangs: A Texas Case Study", Federal Probation (54)(1) (Mar): 36-43.

Fong, Robert S. and Salvador Buentello

1991 "The Management of Prison Gangs: An Empirical Assessment", paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Nashville, Tennessee.

Fong, Robert S.; Ron Vogel; and Robert Little

1991 "Behind Prison Walls: Racially Based Gangs and Their Level of Violence", paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Nashville, Tennessee.

Genders, Elaine

1989 Race Relations in Prisons. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Gettinger, Stephen

1980 "Informer, Rat, Snitch, Spy, Fink, Stool-Pigeon, Squealer", Corrections Today (April): 17-24.

Houston, James G.

1995 Correctional Management: Functions, Systems, and

Skills. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, Inc Publishing Co.

Jacobs, James

1974 "Street Gangs Behind Bars", Social Problems (21)(3): 395-408.

1977 Stateville. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Knox, George W.

1991 An Introduction to Gangs. Berrien Springs, MI: Vande Vere Publishing.

Knox, George W.; Edward O. Tromanhauser; and Thomas Mc Currie 1992 "Comparing Juvenile Correctional Facilities: A Brief Overview", Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, (7)(1)(Spr): 7-13.

Krajick, K.

1990 "The Menace of Supergangs", Corrections Today (June): 11-14.

Lane, Michael

1989 "Inmate Gangs", Corrections Today (51)(4)(July): 98-99, 126-128.

Legger, Robert G.

1988 "Perception of Crowding, Racial Antagonism, and Aggression in a Custodial Prison", Journal of Criminal Justice (16)(3): 167-181.

Lotter, J.M.

1988 "Prison Gangs in South Africa: A Description", TheSouth African Journal of Sociology (19)(2)(May): 67-75.

Miller, William A.

1977 "Crime in Our Prisons", FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, (Oct): 5-9.

Packer, Herbert L.

1968 The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Project GEORGIA95

1995 Preliminary Results of the Gang Assessment Survey of

Law Enforcement Agencies in the State of Georgia.

National Gang Crime Research Center, Chicago.

Project WISCONSIN95

1995 Preliminary Results of the Gang Assessment Survey of

Law Enforcement Agencies in the State of Wisconsin.

National Gang Crime Research Center, Chicago.

Ralph, Paige H.; James W. Marquart; and Ben M. Crouch

1990 "Prisoner Gangs in Texas", paper presented at the 1990 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Baltimore, MD.

Scallan, J.H.

1987 Prison Codes and Communications. Texas Department of Corrections.

Serrill, Michael S. and Peter Katel

1980 "The Facts Behind New Mexico's Bloody Ordeal",
 
 

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE HOMEPAGE OF THE NGCRC: