" ); floatwnd.document.close(); floatwnd.focus(); } } function WPHide( WPid ) { if( bInlineFloats ) eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'hidden'" ); }

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS FROM THE

1992 LAW ENFORCEMENT SURVEY

George W. Knox, Ph.D.

NGCRC

INTRODUCTION

Reported here are the prelimimary findings from the 1992 Law Enforcement Survey research project. This project was undertaken by editors of the Journal of Gang Research as a collective endeavor, modestly funded by small faculty research grants or grants-in-kind from the academic institutions of the participants. Without these resources provided by Chicago State University, Rhode Island College, St. Ambrose University, and the University of Illinois at Chicago, this survey could not have been accomplished.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this project was to obtain law enforcement officers' current estimates of the extent and severity of the gang problem in cities and counties of the United States. Urban police chiefs' and county sheriffs' assessments of the magnitude and depth of this problem are of vital importance in shaping both public estimates of its severity and the policy initiatives necessary to ameliorate the problem. Yet efforts to monitor their collective opinion on these matters have been undertaken infrequently. Needle and Stapleton (1983) and Miller (1975) obtained considerable information on the law enforcement perspective in their studies of small samples of cities. (The Needle and Stapleton research is based on data from 60 cities selected randomly as part of a 78 city sample chosen on the basis of population size and geographic region. The 12 cities investigated by Miller were chosen from the 15 largest SMSA's and were known to have a youth gang problem).

In recent years, however, research on gangs has focused on developing estimates unrelated to law enforcement perceptions, and on assessing the effectiveness of alternative policy initiatives to deal with the gang problem. These are significant and fruitful developments. But even while such efforts continue, the perspective of law enforcement officers remains of great consequence in informing scholars and applied professionals of what is happening "on the street" where the crises associated with gang activity occur daily. That perspective is the focus of this survey.

STUDY POPULATION

The universe for this study consisted of cities of 25,000 or more poulation and component counties of metropolitan areas. Ideally, the results could be generalized to these groups. However, as with most mail surveys, the low response rate required a comparison of the characteristics of respondent and non-respondent units to assess possible biases in the results. Questionnaires were mailed (in late October, 1992) to police chiefs in 787 cities, and to sheriffs in 703 counties. (This constituted all cities of 25,000 or more for which other necessary census data were available, and all component counties of metropolitan areas.)

A total of 238 police chiefs responded (for a city response rate of 30%); 133 sheriffs returned their questionnaires (a 19% county response rate). These response rates are low, but not uncommon for mail survey research. The smaller response rate for counties may be the result of the lower salience of the problem from the perspective of the sheriff's office; gang control activities are most often centralized at the city level. (There are some notable exceptions to this pattern, though.) Limitations on resources prevented follow-up inquiries that might have increased the yield for both cities and counties.

A review of the size and regional distribution of cities where police chiefs responded provided no noteworthy difference in comparison to cities from which the police chief did not respond. For counties, the response rate is low enough that some states (including Arkansas, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, for example) are not represented at all; and the largest counties may be under-represented. For both cities and counties, caution is required in interpreting the results of the study. They are best seen as presenting snapshots of some police chiefs' and some sheriffs' views of the 1990s problems associated with gangs in U.S. cities and counties. The results should not be assumed to extend to the wider universe noted above; nor should they be compared to results based on such populations. However, the data do provide an intriguing look at the problems of gangs and gang crime faced by urban law enforcement officers in the United States today.

SAMPLE SIZE:

This is a preliminary report and therefore the sample size used here consists of the N = 371 valid responses as of January 15, 1993. This point for "cut-off" in the sample was arbitrary, but necessitated by the fact that in all mail surveys some data "trickles" in months later. It is unlikely that the sample size will increase significantly from its present size. It is also unlikely that any significant changes in the trends or findings of the data will occur because of this.

THE GROUPS ANALYZED IN THIS REPORT

Two distinct law enforcement groups are analyzed in this report. Within the overall sample size of N = 384 responses to the survey, it is necessary to provide a separate analysis for type of jurisdiction (e.g., city or county). This is particularly true when addressing issues of geographical area, because the data does contain instances where both the sheriff and the police chief responded for the same respective county and city areas.

Much of the "gang problem" analysis is therefore broken down within these two groups of respondents (police chiefs and county sheriffs). However, there are some aspects of the problem where the unit of analysis is not geographical area of crime impact, and where instead the issue pertains to beliefs and values. In the analysis of beliefs and values, the combined sample will also be used where the unit of analysis is the viewpoint of law enforcement administrators. The fact that in some instances they may be responsible for overlapping geographical areas is less consequential for the analysis of such attitudes and beliefs about the gang problem.

THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT:

The questionnaire used for this project is seven pages long and consists primarily of forced-choice items. The open-ended questions and the gang list check-off data are not analyzed in this report. The items were constructed by the authors and law enforcment advisers to this project or were direct replications of previous research (e.g., Needle and Stapleton). This preliminary report therefore describes findings only from the actual survey instrument itself. Future analysis is expected to include other variables where the local data is supplemented with information from secondary sources (e.g., census data, etc).

DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS COMPARING CITY POLICE CHIEF AND

COUNTY SHERIFF RESPONSES TO THE SURVEY.

This section delineates the descriptive findings from this survey in the actual sequence as the items appeared in the survey instrument. The findings in this section therefore describe the characteristics and findings relating to the two sample groups.

Some 89 percent of the police chief respondents reported that youth gangs are a problem in their jurisdiction . This is substantially higher than the problem level previously reported by Needle and Stapleton (1983). Only 45 percent of the 60 cities surveyed by Needle and Stapleton reported youth gang problems. While the Needle and Stapleton study only dealt with city police agencies, some 78.8 percent of the county sheriffs in the present research reported this problem.

Generally, police chiefs are significantly more likely than county sheriffs to report such a gang problem.

(1) ARE YOUTH GANGS A PROBLEM IN YOUR JURISDICTION?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

N % N %

No 26 11.0 28 21.2

Yes 211 89.0 104 78.8

Chi-square = 7.11, p = .008

If the respondent indicated that gangs were a problem in the local jurisdiction, then a rating of the severity of the gang problem was also measured in the survey. It appears that the police chiefs report a more serious problem than do county sheriffs. A significant difference in the distribution exists in comparing police chiefs with county sheriffs as seen below. These ratings as follows:

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

N % N %

Major Problem 39 18.2 13 12.4

Moderate Problem 115 53.7 49 46.7

Minor Problem 60 28.0 43 41.0

Chi-square = 5.79, p = .05

(2) What kinds of problems do youth gangs cause in your jurisdiction:

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Violence 190 79.8 87 65.4

Drug Sales 160 67.2 90 67.7

Graffiti 179 75.2 78 58.6

Burglary 147 61.8 74 55.6

Robbery 110 46.2 46 34.6

Drive-by's 129 54.2 55 41.4

Arson 27 11.3 12 9.0

Prostitution 6 2.5 8 6.0

Car Theft 139 58.4 68 51.1

Other 41 17.2 18 13.5

(3) Can you estimate the percent of total crime in your jurisdiction that is caused by gang activity? ____%

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Minimum Value: 0 percent O percent

Maximum Value: 67 percent 60 percent

Mean Value: 14.4 percent 11.11 percent

(4) Can you estimate the percent of total juvenile crime in your jurisdiction that is caused by gang activity? ____%

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Minimum Value: 0 percent 0 percent

Maximum Value: 90 percent 100 percent

Mean Value: 26.7 percent 19.34 percent

(5) Has gang activity become more violent in recent years?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Less Violent 7 3.1 1 .8

About the Same 38 16.8 41 33.6

More Violent 180 80.1 80 65.6

(6) Not Used Here.

(7) Rate the extent to which social programs are available in your jurisdiction that are designed to reduce/prevent the gang problem.

__0 __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __8 __9 __10

FEW MANY Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Mean value: 3.37 2.69

Range: 0 to 10 0 to 10

(8) Rate the extent to which you believe your jurisdiction is economically declining (e.g., loss of jobs, etc) or improving.

DECLINING IMPROVING

__0 __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __8 __9 __10

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Range of Values: 0 to 10 0 to 10

Mean Value: 4.73 5.01

(9) In what year did gangs first become recognized as a problem in your jurisdiction? 19_____

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Range of Values: 1940 to 1992 1970 to 1991

Mean Value: 1985.28 1987.2

(10) Rate the degree to which sworn officers in your Department are provided with adequate ongoing training to successfully confront the modern gang problem.

POOR __0 __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __8 __9 __10 EXCELLENT

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 0 to 10 0 to 10 Mean Value: 4.28 3.34

(11) Rate the problem of joblessness among minority groups in your jurisdiction.

NOT A __0 __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __8 __9 __10 LARGE

PROBLEM PROBLEM

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 0 thru 10 0 to 10

Mean Value: 5.62 5.10

(12) Rate the extent to which the lack of a coordinated national policy has increased the youth gang problem in American cities.

NO __0 __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __8 __9 __10 LARGE

EFFECT EFFECT

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Range of Values: 0 thru 10 0 thru 10

Mean Value: 5.74 5.47

(13) Rate the extent to which your Department has successfully implemented "community policing".

NOT __0 __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __8 __9 __10 HIGHLY

IMPLEMENTED IMPLEMENTED

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Range of Values: 0 thru 10 0 thru 10

Mean Value: 5.0 3.45

(14) ITEM14 Not used.

(15) Do you feel that tougher juvenile laws would aid law enforcement's response to the youth-oriented gang culture?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 194 82.6 109 82.6

No 41 17.4 23 17.4

Chi-square = 0.0, p =.99 (n.s.)

(16) To what extent do language and cultural barriers affect law enforcement efforts at curbing the increase of Asian gang activity?

NOT A __0 __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __8 __9 __10 LARGE

PROBLEM PROBLEM

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Range of Values: 0 thru 10 0 thru 10

Mean Value: 5.16 5.07

(17) Will the increased use of computer systems which store information on gangs be an effective device in aiding investigative action against gangs?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 232 98.7 127 96.2

No 3 1.3 5 3.8

Chi-square = 2.50, p = .11 (n.s.)

(18) Do you believe the observed expansion of city gangs to suburban areas will continue through the mid-1990s?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 233 99.1 131 99.2

No 2 .9 1 .8

Chi-square = .009, p = .92 (n.s.)

(19) How many sworn police officers are employed by your Department:

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

FULLTIME:

Range of Values: 30 thru 12,500 1 to 2,500

Mean Value: 319.9 243.3

PARTTIME:

Range of Values: 0 thru 874 0 to 250

Mean Value: 14.9 27.2

(20) Can your Department identify the leaders of the gangs within your jurisdiction?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 181 82.3 80 65.0

No 39 17.7 43 35.0

Chi-square = 12.8, p < .001

(21) Do you feel parents are to blame for the gang membership of their children?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 164 78.1 91 74.0

No 46 21.9 32 26.0

Chi-square = .73, p = .39 (n.s.)

(22) Do you think gangs in your area are loose knit groups or highly organized?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Loose Knit Groups 188 88.9 107 91.5

Highly Organized 23 11.1 10 8.5

Chi-square=.51, p = .47 (n.s.)

(23) Not Used.

(24) How long have gangs existed as a law enforcement problem in your jurisdiction?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Under 5 Years 114 50.7 66 54.1

5 to 10 Years 64 28.4 42 34.4

Over 10 Years 47 20.9 14 11.5

Chi-square = 5.09, p = .07 (n.s.)

(25) Do your police officers receive training in "gang awareness" or handling gang problems?

PRE-SERVICE TRAINING:

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 103 47.7 51 43.6

No 113 52.3 66 56.4

Chi-square = .51, p = .47 (n.s.)

IN-SERVICE TRAINING:

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 162 69.8 83 64.3

No 69 30.2 46 35.7

Chi-square = 1.14, p = .28 (n.s.)

(26) What would you estimate the total core and periphery gang membership in your jurisdiction to be:__________ total members

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Range of Values: 0 thru 58,300 0 thru 13,000

Mean Value: 1093.2 761.9

(27) Do you believe federal agencies should play a greater role in the investigation and prosecution of gang crimes?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N % Yes 169 73.8 86 66.2

No 60 26.2 44 33.8

Chi-square = 2.34, p = .12 (n.s.)

(28) How many sworn officers from your department are assigned to work full-time on the gang problem? _______

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Range of Values: 0 thru 465 0 thru 36

Mean Value: 5.32 1.40

(29) NOT USED HERE.

(30) Do you feel that motorcycle gangs are a crime problem in your area?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 54 22.8 44 33.6

No 183 77.2 87 66.4

Chi-square = 5.03, p = .02

(31) Do you feel that "detached workers" (social workers assigned to work with gang members on the streets) represent an effective way to reduce gang violence?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 116 54.7 52 44.8

No 96 45.3 64 55.2

Chi-square = 2.93, p = .08 (n.s.)

(32) Do you believe the gang crime problem is primarily a local problem or a multi-jurisdictional problem?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

A Local Problem 18 7.3 7 5.5

Multi-Juris. Problem 215 92.7 120 94.5

Chi-square = .43, p = .51 (n.s.)

(33) Do you feel that the grand jury should be used more to deal with the gang problem?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 156 70.9 91 72.2

No 64 29.1 35 27.8

Chi-square = .06, p = .79 (n.s.)

(34) How would you rate the level of cooperation with federal law enforcement agencies.

__0 __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __8 __9 __10

Low High

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Range of Values: 0 thru 10 0 thru 10

Mean Value: 5.92 5.47

(35) Do you feel your Department has an effective Affirmative Action program?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 193 83.9 91 71.1

No 37 16.1 37 28.9

Chi-square = 8.24, p = .004

(36) Does your Department have a special unit to handle gang problems?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 111 47.6 34 25.6

No 122 52.4 99 74.4

Chi-square = 17.2, p < .001

(37) Do you believe some gangs can migrate to jurisdictions such as your own?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 234 98.3 131 98.5

No 4 1.7 2 1.5

Chi-square = .01, p = .89 (n.s.)

(38) Do you believe any of the gang problem in your jurisdiction is due to "gang migration"?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 180 79.3 100 78.1

No 47 20.7 28 21.9

Chi-square = .06, p = .79 (n.s.)

(39) Do you feel that the public recognizes that there is a problem with gangs in your area?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 159 69.4 57 44.9

No 70 30.6 70 55.1

Chi-square = 20.6, p < .001

(40) Do you feel that elected officials have worked to sufficiently educate the public about youth gangs?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 61 26.9 31 24.2

No 166 73.1 97 75.8

Chi-square = .30, p = .58 (n.s.)

(41) Has the City Council or County Council allocated sufficient resources to combat gangs in your area?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 56 24.9 17 13.2

No 139 75.1 112 86.8

Chi-square = 6.86, p = .009

(42) Does your department have programs or services specifically aimed at youth gangs or youth gang members?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 97 41.1 28 21.2

No 139 58.9 104 78.8

Chi-square = 14.9, p < .001

(43) Of the funding made available to your department, what percentage of the total department budget is directed toward youth gangs?_____%

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 0 thru 20 percent 0 thru 15 percent

Mean Value: 1.73 percent 0.53 percent

(44) Is the level of funding received by your department proportional to the size of the problem with youth gangs in your area?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 66 31.6 37 31.4

No 143 68.4 81 68.6

Chi-square = .002, p = .96 (n.s.)

(45) Does your department conduct activities with other organizations or agencies that deal with youth gang problems? Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 183 78.9 87 67.4

No 49 21.1 42 32.6

Chi-square = 5.75, p = .01

IF YES, check the types of programs/activities:

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Technical Assistance 115 56

Referral Services 100 36

Service Coordination 118 47

In-House Programs 68 13

(46) Does your Department have a strategic plan for dealing with youth gangs?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 80 34.2 29 22.0

No 154 65.8 103 78.0

Chi-square = 6.02, p = .01

(47) Not Used; requires content analysis.

(48) Please estimate to what extent the gang problem in your area arose because of "gang migration" (i.e., outside gangs coming into your area to develop their own local franchises or local chapters).

NOT A __0 __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __8 __9 __10 MAJOR

FACTOR FACTOR

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 0 thru 10 0 thru 10

Mean Value: 4.94 4.51

(49) Please estimate to what extent the gang problem in your area arose because of the "copy cat" phenomenon (i.e., youths who use names of national groups without really having ties to the same groups in other areas).

NOT A __0 __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __8 __9 __10 MAJOR

FACTOR FACTOR

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 0 thru 10 0 thru 10

Mean Value: 5.42 5.25

(50) Do you feel that "hate groups" (KKK, neo-nazis, skinheads, etc) are a crime problem in your area?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 71 30.1 59 45.0

No 165 69.9 72 55.0

Chi-square = 8.23, p = .004

(51) Are any of your sworn officers assigned full-time to work specifically in public schools in your area?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 186 78.5 84 64.1

No 51 21.5 47 35.9

Chi-square = 8.90, p = .003

(52) How would you rate the level of cooperation with state-level law enforcement agencies in your state?

__0 __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __8 __9 __10

LOW HIGH

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 0 thru 10 0 thru 10

Mean Value: 6.64 6.53

(53) Zip Code: Used Only for Geographical Breakdowns; for complete listing of cities and counties responding to the survey.

(54) Check the level of government which your Department is affiliated with: ___City ___County ___State

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

City 238 100%

County 133 100%

(55) Does your agency have a community-oriented or neighborhood policing strategy in place?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 155 67.4 53 40.8

No 75 32.6 77 59.2

Chi-square = 24.1, p < .001

IF YES, when was it put into practice? 19____

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 1970 thru 1993 1975 thru 1993

Mean Value: 1989.2 1988.5

(56) What impact do you think that community policing has in abating or deterring youths from street gangs? (check one)

NO EFFECT MUCH EFFECT

__0 __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __8 __9 __10

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 0 thru 10 0 thru 10

Mean Value: 5.09 4.78

(57) Generally, which style of police organization do you believe is the most effective response to gang crime (Centralized means city/county wide gang unit; decentralized means each unit commander responsible for a specific community area has his/her own gang crime officers for deploying locally):

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Centralized 146 65.2 89 74.8

Decentralized 78 34.8 30 25.2

Chi-square = 3.32, p = .06 (n.s.)

(58) To what extent do local politicians try to exert influence over the law enforcement function in your area?

NONE __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __8 __9 __10 A LOT

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 1 thru 10 1 thru 10

Mean Value: 5.77 5.05

(59) Are racial conflicts a potential problem in your area?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs N % N %

Yes 174 75.0 96 72.7

No 58 25.0 36 27.3

Chi-square = .22, p = .63 (n.s.)

(60) Has local media (newspapers, radio, TV, etc) carried any stories of excessive force by your personnel in the last year?

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

N % N %

Yes 112 47.5 33 25.0

No 124 52.5 99 75.0

Chi-square = 17.8, p < .001

(61) YOUR VIEWS ON REASONS MOST FREQUENTLY CITED WHY YOUTHS JOIN GANGS.

Below are some of the possible reasons why youths may join gangs. Based on your experiences and/or the experiences of officers that have contact with members of gangs, indicate your ranking of how common or uncommon these reasons are for joining a gang.

(a) A family member belonged

to the gang.

LEAST MOST

COMMON 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 COMMON

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 1 thru 10 1 thru 10

Mean Value: 5.89 5.23

(b) Friends or acquaintances

pressured them to

join the gang.

LEAST MOST

COMMON 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 COMMON

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 1 thru 10 1 thru 10

Mean Value: 7.80 7.61

from the gang if they

did not join.

LEAST MOST

COMMON 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 COMMON

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 1 thru 10 1 thru 10

Mean Value: 5.61 5.36

(d) Needed protection from

another gang, group,

or individual.

LEAST MOST

COMMON 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 COMMON

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 1 thru 10 1 thru 10

Mean Value: 5.92 5.29

(e) Joined the gang to obtain

a sense of belonging.

LEAST MOST

COMMON 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 COMMON

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 1 thru 10 1 thru 10

Mean Value: 8.26 7.96

(f) Joined the gang to obtain some

measure of status and approval

or to raise self-esteem.

LEAST MOST

COMMON 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 COMMON

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 1 thru 10 1 thru 10

Mean Value: 8.22 8.00

(g) Could not obtain meaningful

employment.

LEAST MOST

COMMON 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 COMMON

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 1 thru 10 1 thru 10

Mean Value: 3.92 4.07

(h) Could make more money by

joining the gang even if

they could find a job.

LEAST MOST

COMMON 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 COMMON

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 1 thru 10 1 thru 10

Mean Value: 4.78 5.12

(i) Gang represented a means

of committing illegal

acts for financial gains.

LEAST MOST

COMMON 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 COMMON

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 1 thru 10 1 thru 10

Mean Value: 5.05 5.12

(j) Other

LEAST MOST

COMMON 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 COMMON

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs Range of Values: 1 thru 10 1 thru 10

Mean Value: 8.57 6.84

FINDINGS BY GANG CRIME THREAT LEVEL

Item number two in The 1992 Law Enforcement Survey uses a check-off list to ascertain which types of crime, if any, youth gangs are involved in. Specifically, the question was as follows:

"What kinds of problems do youth gangs cause in your jurisdiction (check all that apply): ___Violence ___Drug Sales ___Graffiti ___Burglary ___Robbery ___Drive-by shootings ___Arson ___Prostitution ___Car Theft ___Other"

These ten separate gang-crime patterns on the survey were used to create a additive scale. This scale ranges in value between a low of zero where none of the ten different crime patterns are reported as being caused by youth gangs; and has a high value of ten where all of the ten crimes are reported as being associated with the local gang problem.

The distribution for this crime-threat scale is shown in Figure 1. This shows that for the entire smaple that nearly half (51%) have a gang crime threat scale score of less than or equal to four. This was used to create the low/high crime threat levels analyzed here. A low threat level therefore reflects a scale score of less than or equal to four. A threat level reflects a scale score of five or higher.

FIGURE 1

DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES FOR THE GANG CRIME THREAT SCALE

Scale Entire Police County

Score Sample Chiefs Sheriffs

Values % % %

0 9.4 5.9 13.5

1 4.9 3.4 7.5

2 8.1 7.6 9.8

3 14.6 13.0 17.3

4 14.1 16.8 9.0

5 12.2 14.3 9.8

6 11.2 13.0 9.0

7 12.2 12.6 12.8

8 8.9 10.5 6.0

9 3.9 2.1 5.3

10 .5 .8 0.0

This scale is used to create a dichotomous measure of low versus high gang crime threat levels measures the diversity of the crime patterns in which gangs are involved. A law enforcement agency reporting four or less of the gang-crime patterns was coded as LOW GANG CRIME THREAT. A law enforcement agency reporting five or more of the ten gang-crime patterns was coded as HIGH GANG CRIME THREAT.

Table 1 shows that the higher the estimate of how much gangs contribute to the overall total crime in any given area, the higher the reported threat level. This relationship holds true for both groups (city police chiefs and county sheriffs).

Table 1

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL AND PERCENT OF TOTAL CRIME CAUSED BY GANGS

AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS

City Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

THREAT LEVELS THREAT LEVELS

Low High Low High

% of total

crime caused

by gang activity <= 5% 45 28 47 17

>= 6% 34 71 16 29

Chi-square = 14.9 Chi-square = 15.5

p < .001 p < .001

Table 2 shows this same trend holds for how much gangs account for the overall juvenile crime impact. Again, both groups of law enforcement administrators show equally strong significant relationships between threat level and the percent of juvenile crime caused by gangs.

Table 2

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

AND PERCENT OF JUVENILE CRIME CAUSED BY GANGS

AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS

City Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

THREAT LEVELS THREAT LEVELS

Low High Low High

% of total

juvenile crime

caused by gangs <= 15% 45 32 47 17

>= 16% 32 65 14 28

Chi-square = 11.2 Chi-square = 16.6

p = .001 p < .001

Table 3 shows that the ratings of program availability vary inversely with gang crime threat level. That is, those with lower program availability conditions are those reporting the lower gang crime threat level. This significant relationship holds true for both groups (police chiefs and county sheriffs).

Table 3

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

THREAT LEVELS THREAT LEVELS

Low High Low High

Rate the extent

programs are available

in your jurisdiction

that are designed to

reduce/prevent the

gang problem.

LOW (<=2 rating) 49 41 48 23

HIGH (>=3 rating) 59 85 26 32

Chi-square = 4.04 Chi-square=6.77

p = .04 p = .009

Table 4 shows that ratings of the local economic condition as either declining or improving is a factor that significantly differentiates gang crime threat levels only among city police chiefs and not among county sheriffs.

Table 4

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Rate the extent to

which you believe

your jurisdiction

is economically

declining (e.g. loss

of jobs, etc)

or improving.

DECLINING (<=4 rating) 38 66 30 18

IMPROVING (>=5 rating) 70 60 45 36

Chi-square = 6.96 Chi-square= .59

p = .008 p = .44 (n.s.)

Table 5 shows that the older and more established gangs would appear to have some impact on gang crime threat levels. Table 5 shows that the gang crime threat level varies inversely with gang tenure, that is, when the gang problem was first recognized. Those gangs that emerged as a problem for these police agencies on or before 1987 have the higher gang crime threat levels. This relationship holds true for both police chiefs and county sheriffs.

Table 5

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

In what year did

gangs first

become recognized

as a problem in

your jurisdiction?

On or before 1987 29 70 9 30

On or after 1988 59 55 45 27

Chi-square = 11.0 Chi-square = 15.7

p = .001 p < .001

Table 6 shows that, generally, the higher the gang threat level the higher the agency reports providing adequate "gang training" to its police officers. However, it must be noted that in neither instance does the rating breakdown for training significantly differentiate gang threat levels.

Table 6

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Rate the degree

to which sworn

officers in your

Department are

provided with adequate

ongoing training to

sucessfully confront

the modern gang problem.

POOR (<=3 rating) 53 48 45 30

EXCELLENT (>=4 rating) 55 78 30 27

Chi-square = 2.85 Chi-square = .71

p = .09 (n.s.) p = .39 (n.s.)

The ratings for the severity of the joblessness problem among minority groups (small problem versus large problem) did not significantly differentiate reported gang crime threat levels as seen in Table 7. This finding holds true for both police chiefs and county sheriffs. It is a finding that runs against the grain of the underclass theory which would have predicted that this factor would be important in differentiating the severity of the gang problem. In the underclass theory of explaining gangs, it is generally assumed that the higher the unemployment the higher the gang problem.

Table 7

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Rate the problem

of joblessness

among minority

groups in your

jurisdiction.

SMALL PROBLEM (<=5 rating) 56 58 44 28

LARGE PROBLEM (>=6 rating) 52 68 30 26

Chi-square = 0.78 Chi-square = .73

p = .37 (n.s.) p = .39 (n.s.)

Table 8 shows that those law enforcement agencies with the higher ratings for the extent to which they have successfully implemented community policing is not a factor that significantly differentiates gang-crime threat levels. This holds true for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs.

Table 8

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Rate the extent

to which your

Department has

successfully

implemented

"community policing".

LOW (<=4 rating) 46 48 46 29

HIGH (>=5 rating) 62 77 28 26

Chi-square = 0.42 Chi-square = 1.15

p = .51 (n.s.) p = .28 (n.s.)

Table 9 shows that there is a direct and significant relationship between the perceived problem of language and cultural barriers for dealing with Asian gang activity and the gang crime threat levels. However, this is true only of city police chiefs. Those police chiefs reporting a larger problem with language and cultural barriers are those also reporting higher gang crime threat levels. It is not a factor that is significant for county sheriffs.

Table 9

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

To what extent to

cultural barriers

affect law

enforcement efforts

at curbing the

increase of Asian

gang activity.

SMALL PROBLEM (<=6 rating) 59 52 46 27

LARGE PROBLEM (>=7 rating) 40 65 28 28

Chi-square = 6.32 Chi-square = 2.19

p = .02 p = .13 (n.s.)

Table 10 shows that the gang force strength estimates are directly related to the gang crime threat levels. The higher the critical mass density of the local estimated gang membership, the higher the gang crime threat level. Knowing whether the total local core and periphery gang membership exceeds 150 members is a factor that signficantly differentiates the gang crime threat levels for these same law enforcement agencies. This gang membership density factor is significant in relationship to gang crime severity threat levels among both police chiefs and county sheriffs.

Table 10

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Gang Force Strength

Estimate: What would

you estimate the total

core and periphery

gang membership

in your jursidiction to be.

<= 150 members 69 34 40 10

>= 151 members 19 84 13 38

Chi-square = 49.5 Chi-square = 30.0

p < .001 p < .001

The rated level of cooperation with federal law enforcement agencies appears to be independent of gang crime threat levels as seen in Table 11. Low or high levels of such cooperation did not significantly differentiate gang crime threat levels among this sample of police chiefs and sheriffs. This relationship holds true for both city police chiefs and county sheriffs.

Table 11

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

How would you rate

your level of

cooperation with

federal law

enforcement agencies.

LOW (<=5 rating) 46 60 39 26

HIGH (>=6 rating) 64 65 36 31

Chi-square = .90 Chi-square = .52

p = .34 (n.s.) p = .46 (n.s.)

The extent to which these law enforcement agencies believe their gang problem is attributed to "gang migration" is a factor that does not significantly differentiate reported gang crime threat levels as seen in Table 12. This holds true for both city police chiefs and county sheriffs. The trend in the data is however consistent: the greater the belief in "gang migration", the higher the gang crime threat levels. Yet this relationship is not strong enough in probability terms to be more than what might be expected by chance alone.

Table 12

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Theat Levels

Low High Low High

Please estimate to

what extent the

gang problem in your

area arose because

of "gang migration"

(i.e., outside gangs

coming into your area

to develop their own

local franchises

or local chapters).

LOW MIGRATION (<=4 rating) 53 52 38 23

HIGH MIGRATION (>=5 rating) 49 75 30 34

Chi-square = 2.76 Chi-square = 2.99

p = .09 (n.s.) p = .08 (n.s.)

Table 13 shows that the higher the extent of political encroachment on law enforcement agencies, the higher their reported gang crime threat levels. This factor of local politicians seeking to exert influence over the law enforcement function signficantly differentiates gang crime threat levels, however, only for city police chiefs. Among county sheriffs, it is not a factor significantly differentiating threat levels.

Table 13

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

To what extent do

local politicians

try to exert influence

over the law

enforcement function

in your area?

LOW ENCROACHMENT (<=5 rating) 65 57 47 29

HIGH ENCROACHMENT (>=6 rating) 44 68 28 23

Chi-square = 4.59 Chi-square = .60

p = .03 p = .43 (n.s.)

The distribution in Table 14 adds additional evidence to the factor of racial conflict being a condition related to the onset and persistence of the gang problem. Those jurisictions reporting the existence of "hate groups" are those who were also more likely to report a higher gang-crime threat level. Consistent with the racial conflict and ethnic antagonism factor in the gang literature, this relationship holds true for both city police chiefs and county sheriffs. The racial/ethnic rivalry hypothesis holds that the greater the conflict or antagonism the greater the gang problem.

Table 14

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Do you feel that

"hate groups"

(KKK, neo-nazis,

skinheads, etc)

are a crime problem

in your area?

NO 87 78 50 22

YES 24 47 25 34

Chi-square = 7.13 Chi-square=9.71

p = .008 p = .002

Table 15 shows that an inverse relationship exists between the how these law enforcement agencies perceive the organizational sophistication of the gangs in their area and report gang-crime threat levels. However, this applies only to police chiefs, and not to county sheriffs. Those city law enforcement agencies perceiving gangs as "highly organized" are those who are more likely to also report a higher gang-crime threat level.

Table 15

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Do you think gangs

in your area

are loose knit

groups or highly

organized groups.

LOOSE KNIT 90 95 63 44

HIGH ORGANIZED 5 18 4 6

Chi-square=5.97 Chi-square=1.33

p = .01 p = .24 (n.s.)

The social policy issue of whether federal agencies should play a greater role in the investigation and prosecution of gang crimes varies inversely with the gang-crime threat level as seen in Table 16. This interesting finding, however, shows that this applies only to police chiefs. It is not significant among county sheriffs. Those police chiefs reporting a higher gang-crime threat level are those more likely to endorse a larger role for the federal government. This relationship does not hold for county sheriffs.

Table 16

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Theat Levels

Low High Low High

Do you believe

federal agencies

should play a

greater role in the

investigation and

prosecution of

gang crimes? NO 37 23 26 18

YES 68 101 47 39

Chi-square=8.19 Chi-square=.23

p = .004 p = .62 (n.s.)

The existence of a motorcycle gang problem is a factor that is shown in Table 17 to signficantly differentiate gang-crime threat levels among county sheriffs, but not among city police chiefs. Why this may be true is partly the nature of gangs themselves. Motorcycle gangs are much more conspicuous in rural areas typically patrolled by county sheriffs. In the urban context, the motorcycle gang member may blend in more inconspicously and may not be regarded as troublesome as the ideal-typical "street gang" member.

Table 17

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Do you feel that

motorcycle gangs

are a crime problem

in your area?

NO 91 92 59 28

YES 19 35 16 28

Chi-square = 3.54 Chi-square=11.8

p = .06 (n.s.) p = .001

Similarly, whether these law enforcement agencies view the gang problem as local or multijuridictional in nature is a factor that significantly differentiates gang-crime threat levels only among city police chiefs as seen in Table 18. Apparently county sheriffs tend to view the gang problem somewhat differently.

Table 18

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs Police Chiefs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Do you feel that

the gang crime

problem is primarily

a local problem or a

multi-jurisdictional

problem?

LOCAL PROBLEM 13 4 6 1

MULTI-JUR.PROBLEM 92 123 66 54

Chi-square = 7.21 Chi-square = 2.54

p = .007 p = .11 (n.s.)

The higher the gang-crime threat level, the more the city police agencies are likely to express the belief that the grand jury should be used as an additional crime fighting tool against gangs as seen in Table 19. However, this significant relationship does not hold true for county sheriffs. Again, suggesting a somewhat different appraisal for the crime-fighting repetroir.

Table 19

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Do you feel that

the grand jury

should be used

more to deal with

the gang problem? NO 38 26 24 11

YES 60 96 50 41

Chi-square = 8.03 Chi-square=1.93

p = .005 p = .16 (n.s.)

A strong inverse relationship exists in law enforcement organizational structure (e.g., whether a special unit exists to deal with gang problems) and gang-crime threat levels. As seen in Table 20, the higher the gang-crime threat level, the more likely the same agency is to report having such a special unit within its organization. This relationship holds true for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs.

Table 20

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs Police Chiefs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Does your Department

have a special

unit to handle

gang problems?

NO 78 44 67 32

YES 30 81 9 25

Chi-square = 31.8 Chi-square=17.5

p < .001 p < .001

Believing that gang migration is part of the problem is a factor that significantly differentites gang-crime threat levels as seen in Table 21. Those with the higher gang-crime threat levels are more likely to believe that part of their gang problem is in fact attributable to such "gang migration". Both city police chiefs and county sheriffs show this tendency to believe their gang problem is to some extent attributable to gang migration.

Table 21

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Do you believe

any of the gang

problem in your

jurisdiction is

due to "gang

migration"? NO 33 14 26 2

YES 68 112 47 53

Chi-square = 15.8 Chi-square = 18.7

p < .001 p < .001

The extent to which the public recognizes that a local gang problem exists is also a factor that significantly differentiates gang-crime threat levels as seen in Table 22. This shows a strong inverse relationship. It is a relationship, further, that holds for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs.

Table 22

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Do you feel the

public recognizes

that there is a

problem with gangs

in your area? NO 39 31 53 17

YES 63 96 19 38

Chi-square = 5.09 Chi-square=22.9

p = .02 p < .001

The higher the gang-crime threat level, the more a law enforcement agency is to report that it has programs or services specifically aimed at youth gangs or youth gang members as seen in Table 23. This holds true for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs.

Table 23

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs Police Chiefs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Does your department

have programs or

services specifically

aimed at youth gangs

or youth gang members?

NO 76 63 68 36

YES 33 64 7 21

Chi-square = 9.80 Chi-square=14.6

p = .002 p < .001

The perceived lag in law enforcement funding is shown in Table 24 to be a factor significantly differentiateing gang-crime threat levels. Those agencies reporting that their funding is not proportional to the size of the gang problem are those more likely to report a higher gang-crime threat level. This relationship holds true for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs.

Table 24

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Is the level of

funding received

by your department

proportional to the

size of the problem

with youth gangs

in your area? NO 53 90 38 43

YES 39 27 26 11

Chi-square = 8.89 Chi-square=5.58

p = .003 p = .01

Whether these law enforcement agencies interface with other organizations or agencies that deal with youth gang problems is a factor that varies significantly by gang-crime threat levels. Those agencies with the higher gang-crime threat levels are those more likely to report whether their department conducts such activities with other organizations as seen in Table 25. This relationship holds true for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs.

Table 25

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Does your department

conduct activities

with other organizations

or agencies that deal

with youth gang problems?

NO 29 20 33 9

YES 76 107 40 47

Chi-square=4.86 Chi-square=12.2

p = .02 p < .001

The higher the gang-crime threat level, the more likely these law enforcement agencies are to report that they have a strategic plan for dealing with youth gangs. This finding is shown in Table 26. This relationship holds true for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs.

Table 26

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Does your department

have a strategic plan

for dealing with

youth gangs? NO 82 72 68 35

YES 28 52 8 21

Chi-square=7.03 Chi-square=13.6

p = .008 p < .001

The potential for racial conflicts is a factor that significantly differentiates gang-crime threat levels as seen in Table 27. Those law enforcement agencies reporting that racial conflicts are a potential problem are those who also report the higher gang-crime threat levels. Again, consistent with the ethnic rivalry hypothesis, this relationship holds true for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs.

Table 27

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Are racial conflicts

a potential problem

in your area? NO 35 23 31 5

YES 73 101 45 51

Chi-square=5.91 Chi-square=16.5

p = .01 p < .001

Mass media coverage of excessive force for a law enforcement agency is a factor that also signficantly differentiates gang-crime threat levels as seen in Table 28. Those agencies that report such negative press coverage are those more likely to report a higher gang-crime threat level as well. This trend among city police chiefs approaches statistical significance.

Table 28

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION BY THREAT LEVEL

Police Chiefs County Sheriffs

Threat Levels Threat Levels

Low High Low High

Has local media

(newspapers, radio,

TV, etc) carried

any stories of

excessive force

by your personnel

in the last year?

NO 65 59 63 36

YES 45 67 13 20

Chi-square = 3.54 Chi-square=5.95

p = .06 (n.s.) p = .01

FINDINGS ON GANG "DRIVE-BY" SHOOTINGS

Just over half of the respondents indicated that youth gangs in their jurisdiction were the cause of drive-by shootings. Here this problem of gang drive-by shooting is examined in greater detail. This section describes the factors found in this research that significantly differentiate between law enforcement agency respondents that do or do not report that gangs are involved in such drive-by shootings.

In undertaking this analysis of gang "drive-by" shootings separate tests were made for police chiefs and county sheriffs.

Table 29 shows that gang drive-by shootings are significantly related to the percentage of all crime in the same jurisdictions that gangs are estimated to account for. Gang drive-by shootings are higher in areas where gangs make up more of the local crime picture. This holds true for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs.

TABLE 29 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Can you estimate the

percent of total crime

in your area that is

caused by gangs?

LOW (<= 5%) 43 30 48 16

HIGH (>=6%) 37 68 16 29

Chi-square=9.74 Chi-square=16.9

p = .002 p < .001

Similarly, Table 30 shows gang drive-by shootings are significant in relationship to the percentage of juvenile crime caused by gangs. The higher the percentage of all juvenile crime caused by gangs, the higher the likelihood of gang drive-by shootings. As with the overall crime picture, this relationship holds true for both city policy chiefs and for county sheriffs.

TABLE 30

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Can you estimate the

percent of juvenile

crime in your area

that is caused by gangs?

LOW (<= 15%) 45 32 47 17

HIGH (>=16%) 33 64 17 25

Chi-square=10.3 Chi-square=11.5

p = .001 p = .001

Table 31 shows that a higher rating for the availability of local programs designed to reduce/prevent the gang problem are significantly higher in areas reporting gang drive-by shootings.

Again, it is worth noting for the record that survey research like that undertaken here cannot speak to the issues of causality or temporal ordering of variables. However, in that this relationship is significant for both city police chiefs and county sheriffs, this is consistent with the possibility that such programs and services are an indicator of the extent to which social policy in these areas is addressing the gang issue.

TABLE 31 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Rate the extent to

which social programs

are available in your

area that are designed

to reduce/prevent

the gang problem.

LOW (<=2 rating) 49 41 49 22

HIGH (>=3 rating) 57 87 26 32

Chi-square=4.93 Chi-square=7.67

p = .02 p = .006

Table 32 shows that the perceived condition of the local economy is significantly related to whether the same jurisdiction reports gangs are involved in drive-by shootings. The more the area is perceived as economically declining, the higher the likelihood of gang drive-by shootings. However, this is significant only for city police chiefs and this relationship is not significant among county sheriffs. Again, the difference here may be that of some urban/rural dimension between the city police chief and county sheriff. And the literature on poverty would tend to suggest that deprivation is more relative in the urban context where great wealth and great poverty can be found in everyday life.

TABLE 32 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes Rate the extent to

which you believe

your jurisdiction is

economically declining

(e.g.,loss of jobs,

etc) or improving.

DECLINING (<=4 rating) 36 68 28 20

IMPROVING (>=5 rating) 71 59 48 33

Chi-square=9.31 Chi-square=.01

p = .002 p=.91 (n.s.)

Table 33 shows that the older and perhaps more persistent gangs are a factor significantly related to gang drive-by shootings. This shows that the time when the gang problem first arose is itself significant in differentiating gang drive-by shootings. Where the gang appeared on or before 1987 a higher likelihood of gang drive-by shootings is indicated. This relationship holds true for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs.

TABLE 33 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

In what year did gangs

first become recognized

as a problem in your

jurisiction?

On or before 1987 29 70 13 26

On or after 1988 57 57 43 29

Chi-square=9.43 Chi-square=7.04

p = .002 p = .008

Table 34 shows that the higher the perceived problem of joblessness among minority groups the higher the report of gang drive-by shootings in the same area. However, this is statistically significant only for the city police chiefs and is not significant for county sheriffs. Again, this may tend to mirror some aspect of the urban/rural context. The argument for this is that county sheriffs tend to deal more directly with the rural scene and outlying areas even in a large metropolitan area. Further, that in such more rural areas there may exist informal social networks of support that minimize the deleterious impact of economic decline.

TABLE 34 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes Rate the problem of

joblessness among

minority groups in

your jurisdiction.

NO PROBLEM (<=5 rating) 65 49 45 27

LARGE PROBLEM (>=6 rating) 43 77 30 26

Chi-square=10.5 Chi-square=1.03

p = .001 p=.30 (n.s.)

Table 35 shows the higher the density of the local gang population, the higher the likelihood of gang drive-by shootings.

This relationship is consistent and holds true for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs. The conditions of "low density" and "high density" used here are arbitrary measures based on the overall statistical distribution of gang force strength. This tends to support the notion of a critical mass concept for gang violence. That is, above a certain density or proportion of the overall population in terms of gang membership the problem of gang crime and violence intensifies.

TABLE 35 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

What would you estimate

the total core and

periphery gang membership

in your jurisdiction to be?

Low Density

(<=150 members) 72 31 39 11

High Density

(>=151 members) 14 89 14 37

Chi-square=67.1 Chi-square=25.8

p < .001 p < .001

Table 36 shows that drive-by shootings are not significantly differentiated among either police chiefs or county sheriffs in terms of the estimated impact of gang migration in their area as measured by low or high levels of such gang migration. The reader is cautioned not to assume that gang migration has no impact on the problem of gang drive-by shootings, because in the present research multiple measures of this issue were used. A somewhat different variable for gang migration will be analyzed shortly.

TABLE 36

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Please estimate to what

extent the gang problem

in your area arose

because of "gang

migration".

LOW MIGRATION

(<=4 rating) 50 55 38 23

HIGH MIGRATION

(>=5 rating) 50 74 32 32

Chi-square=1.23 Chi-square=1.91

p = .26 (n.s.) p = .16 (n.s.)

Table 37 shows that law enforcement capability to identify local gang leaders is not a factor associated with a lower risk of gang drive-by shootings. In fact, the opposite is significantly true. Those agencies indicating they can identify the leaders of the gangs in their area are those that are also significantly more likely to report gangs involved in drive-by shootings. This is true for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs.

TABLE 37

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Can your Department

identify the leaders

of the gangs within

your jurisdiction?

NO 24 15 33 10

YES 71 110 37 43

Chi-square=6.51 Chi-square=10.6

p = .01 p = .001

Table 38 shows that the preference for greater federal involvement increases significantly for those agencies reporting gangs involved in drive-by shootings. Federal investigative agencies may want to take notice of this significant variation. What it shows it that city police chiefs are much more supportive of a stronger federal role than are county sheriffs.

TABLE 38

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Do you believe federal

agencies should play a

greater role in the

investigation and

prosecution of

gang crimes? NO 40 20 25 19

YES 63 106 50 36

Chi-square=15.4 Chi-square=.02

p < .001 p=.88 (n.s.)

Table 39 shows that the agency viewing their local gangs as highly organized has the higher proportion of gang drive-by shootings. This is significant for city police chiefs and approaches significance for county sheriffs.

TABLE 39 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Do you think gangs in

your area are loose

knit groups or

highly organized?

LOOSE KNIT 89 96 64 43

HIGHLY ORGANIZED 3 20 3 7

Chi-square=10.1 Chi-square=3.32

p = .001 p=.06 (n.s.)

Table 40 shows that the existence of motorcycle gangs in the same area is a factor that is associated with a higher likelihood of gang drive-by shootings only among county sheriffs. This factor is not significant among city police chiefs. As discussed earlier in this report, it may be that motorcyle gang members are more conspicuous in a rural area where county sherrifs may have jurisdiction. Alternatively, in an urban context where city police chiefs have jurisdiction, motorcycle gangs may be a less conspicuous problem.

TABLE 40

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Do you feel motorcycle

gangs are a crime

problem in your area?

NO 88 95 61 26

YES 20 34 15 29

Chi-square=2.05 Chi-square=15.5

p = .15 (n.s.) p < .001

Table 41 shows that agency organization response is significantly related to gang drive-by shootings in that those areas reporting such drive-bys are more likely to also report having a special unit to handle gang problems. This is consistent with the earlier findings based on a much smaller sample in the work of Needle and Stapleton (1983). It may simply be what Knox and Tromanhauser (1993) call "the squeaky wheel gets greased" phenomenon. That is, organizational evolution is a function of the type of management problem encountered. Among both city police chiefs and county sheriffs, those agencies having a special unit to handle the gang problem are also those more likely to report gangs involved in drive-by shootings.

TABLE 41 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Does your department

have a special unit

to handle gang problems?

NO 75 47 66 33

YES 30 81 12 22

Chi-square=27.8 Chi-square=10.2

p < .001 p = .001

Table 42 shows another test of the 'gang migration' issue. This shows the higher the attribution of the gang problem to migration the higher the likelihood of gang drive-by shootings. In other words, gang drive-by shootings are significantly higher among agencies that believe any of the gang problem in their area is a function of gang migration. This relationship holds true for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs.

TABLE 42

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Do you believe any of

the gang problem in

your jurisdictionis

due to "gang migration"?

NO 30 17 25 3

YES 68 112 49 51

Chi-square=10.3 Chi-square=14.5

p = .001 p < .001

Table 43 shows that the higher the public recognition of the gang problem the higher the reports of gang drive-by shootings. This is true for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs. This cannot be interpreted as a measure of the social construction of deviance. All this research can conclude is that a significant association exists between public recognition of the problem and reports of gang drive-by shootings. Our cross-sectional data cannot speak to issues of causality.

TABLE 43 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Do you feel the public

recognizes that there

is a problem with

gangs in your area? NO 41 29 52 18

YES 59 100 21 36

Chi-square=9.10 Chi-square=18.02

p = .003 p < .001

Table 44 shows a significant relation exists where those areas reporting gang drive-by shootings are those also more likely to report their agency has programs or services aimed at gangs or gang members. This relationship holds true for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs. What remains unclear from the limits of the present research is what specifically these law enforcement agencies are doing to address the gang problems in their areas. It is beyond the scope of the present analysis to examine the scope and extent of these types of initiatives.

TABLE 44 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Does your department

have programs or

services specifically

aimed at youth gangs

or youth gang members?

NO 76 63 67 37

YES 31 66 10 18

Chi-square=11.8 Chi-square=7.48

p = .001 p = .006

Table 45 shows that perceived underfunding is associated with a higher likelihood of gang drive-by shootings. This significant relationship holds true for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs. The authors would like to interject that the possibility certainly exists that organizational capability can lag behind an exogenous increase in responsibility brought about by social change itself.

TABLE 45

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Is the level of funding

received by your dept.

proportional to the size

of the problem with

youth gangs in your area?

NO 54 89 38 43

YES 39 27 28 9

Chi-square=8.31 Chi-square=8.52

p = .004 p = .004

Table 46 shows that having a strategic plan for dealing with youth gangs is more likely to be found in those same agencies that report gangs involved in gang drive-by shootings. Again, the more sophisticated organizational response is associated with a higher intensity of the local crime problem. This is true for both city police chiefs and for county sheriffs.

TABLE 46

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Does your department

have a strategic plan

for dealing with

youth gangs? NO 83 71 70 33

YES 25 55 8 21

Chi-square=10.8 Chi-square=15.2

p = .001 p < .001

Table 47 shows that the existence of 'hate group's in the same area is associated with a higher likelihood of gang drive-by shootings. It is interesting to note, however, that this is significant only among county sheriffs.

TABLE 47

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Do you feel that "hate

groups" (KKK, neo-nazis,

skinheads, etc) are a

crime problem in your area?

NO 80 85 48 24

YES 28 43 28 31

Chi-square=1.63 Chi-square=4.91

p=.20 (n.s.) p = .02

Whether the law enforcement agency has a community-oriented or neighborhood policing strategy in place is a factor that significantly differentiates the existence of gang drive-by shootings as seen in Table 48. But only among city police chiefs. Further, the direction of the relationship is not consistent with the expectations of community-policing. What Table 48 suggests is that community-policing --- because it has generally been recently implemented --- is a response to high gang problems. Among county sheriffs no significant difference exists in the implementation of community-policing and reports of gangs being involved in drive-by shootings.

Our data environment does include the dates for when gangs were first recognized as a crime problem and when -- if ever -- such community-policing initiatives were put into effect. As previously summarized in the descriptive findings, the data tends to suggest that community-policing appeared after gangs were first recognized as a local crime problem.

Recall from the descriptive findings reported earlier in this report that among city police chiefs that on the average gangs first appeared in 1985 and that community policing was first implemented in 1989. Also, that among sheriffs gangs first arose in 1987 on the average and that community-policing was first implemented in 1988.

TABLE 48

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Does your agency have a

community-oriented or

neighborhood policing

strategy in place? NO 41 34 44 33

YES 62 93 32 21

Chi-square=4.39 Chi-square=.13

p = .03 p=.71 (n.s.)

Table 49 shows that the perceived potential for racial conflicts is a factor significantly related to gang drive-by shootings among county sheriffs. The higher the potential for racial conflict, the higher the likelihood of gang drive-bys.

However, this relationship does not hold for city police chiefs. This variance, while tending to challenge the grounding of the ethnic rivalry hypothesis, would be consistent with the notion not explored in the present research that such gang drive-by shootings are in fact more a function of conflict over drug distribution market areas than they are a function of objective racial conflict measurements. Indeed, much of the literature tends to support this within the urban context to the extent that the perpetrators and victims of such gang drive-by incidents are both themselves disproportionatly of the same minority group.

TABLE 49

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Are racial conflicts a

potential problem in

your area? NO 31 27 31 5

YES 76 98 46 50

Chi-square=1.67 Chi-square=15.7

p=.19 (n.s.) p < .001

Table 50 shows that local media coverage of excessive force is a factor significantly associated with gang drive-by shootings. Reports of gang drive-by shootings are higher among those agencies also reporting such negative press coverage. However, this is significant only for county sheriffs.

TABLE 50

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS AMONG POLICE CHIEFS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS Are Gangs Involved in Drive-by Shootings? POLICE CHIEFS COUNTY SHERIFFS No Yes No Yes

Has local media (newspapers,

radio, TV, etc) carried

any stories of excessive

force by your personnel

in the last year?

NO 64 60 63 36

YES 45 67 14 19

Chi-square=3.09 Chi-square=4.58

p=.07 (n.s.) p = .03

DIFFERENCES BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF THE U.S.A.

A variable not traditionally analyzed but used in the present research because of plans on the part of one or more of the principal co-investigators to supplement the data from this survey with data from secondary sources such as census data is the zip code. The zip code also provides a way in which to create geographical categories for purposes of statistical comparison by area.

In the analysis that follows four geographical areas of the United States were created by the first digit of the zip code. The "Southern" geographical area includes zip codes beginning with digits 2, 3 or 7. The "North East" geographical area includes zip codes beginning with 0, 1, or 4. The "North Central" geographical area includes zip codes beginning with digits 5 or 6. The "Western" geographical area includes zip codes beginning with digits 8 or 9. This appears to directly replicate the previous analysis by Needle and Stapleton (1983). However, our research includes not just cities, but county respondents and attention is given to a great many more quantitative variables that are actually analyzed.

This distribution by geographical area and whether or not the respondent represented a city police chief or a county sheriff is provided in Table 51.

TABLE 51

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR

GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS AMONG THOSE RESPONDING TO THE SURVEY

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code

Southern North East Central Western

Police Chiefs 58 51 61 65

County Sheriffs 51 23 28 30

Chi-square = 7.88, p = .04

Unfortunately, Table 89 shows that there are significant differences from what would be expected in an equal distribution by jurisdiction (city versus county) and geographical areas. The distribution for city police chiefs appears to be somewhat equivalent. However, there is a skewed distribution for the responses from county sheriffs. In the analysis that follows, therefore, an effort will be made to simply refine and extend the limited geographical analysis previously reported by Needle and Stapleton (1983). Their research dealt strictly with cities.

The value of such an indepth look at geographical differences in various aspeacts of the gang problem is that the previous research by Needle and Stapleton dealt with such a small sample that it was not able to report bivariate probability statistics.

Again, however, the analysis that follows is limited to the subset of respondents who represent city police chiefs.

Table 52 shows that southern and northeastern areas are signficantly less likely to report that youth gangs are a problem in their jurisdiction. The law enforcement agency in the western USA that does not report a gang problem is in fact a true rarity (N = 1). The "North East" area measured stands out as signficantly less likely to report that youth gangs are a problem in their jurisdiction.

TABLE 52

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WHETHER OR NOT YOUTH GANGS

ARE REPORTED AS A PROBLEM IN THEIR JURISDICTION

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Are youth gangs a problem

in your jurisdiction?

NO 10 11 6 0

YES 48 40 55 65

Chi-square = 16.4, p = .001

In fact, even among those respondents that did report such a problem with youth gangs existed in their jurisdiction, the severity of the problem itself is signficantly differentiated by geographical areas as shown in Table 53. Table 53 suggests the severity of the gang problem is rated much higher in central and western areas of the United States.

TABLE 53

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF HOW SERIOUS THE GANG PROBLEM IS

AMONG THOSE CITIES REPORTING A PROBLEM WITH YOUTH GANGS

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Severity of the

Gang Problem:

MAJOR PROBLEM 4 5 10 20

MODERATE PROBLEM 32 19 28 35

MINOR PROBLEM 14 15 19 10

Chi-square = 16.2, p = .01

Table 54 shows that the estimation for whether or not gang activity has become more violent in recent years is also a factor that varies somewhat by the four geographical areas of the continental United States. The sparse cell distribution prevents any probability estimation for the differences here, if any. However, as will be seen later in this section, apparently there are differences by gang crime threat level and the gang drive-by phenomenon.

TABLE 54

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR WHETHER GANG ACTIVITY

HAS BECOME MORE VIOLENT IN RECENT YEARS

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA AMONG CITY POLICE CHIEFS

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Has gang activity become

more violent in

recent years?

Less Violent 5 1 1 0

About the Same 15 5 10 7

More Violent 33 39 48 58

Also, it must be noted that apparently there are some regional variations among these city police chiefs in their ratings for whether or not their jurisdiction is economically declining or improving as seen in Table 55 below.

TABLE 55

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR BELIEFS ABOUT WHETHER

THEIR AREA IS ECONOMICALLY DECLINING OR IMPROVING

AMONG RESPONDING CITY POLICE AGENCIES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Rate the extent to which

you believe your jurisdiction

is economically declining

(e.g., loss of jobs, etc)

or improving.

DECLINING 17 31 19 36

IMPROVING 39 18 42 29

Chi-square = 19.03, p < .001

Another related factor is the extent to which these respondents believe the problem of joblessness among minority groups in their area is a small or large problem. As seen in Table 56 below, this factor does apparently vary by geographical area.

TABLE 56

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR RATINGS OF THE

PROBLEM OF JOBLESSNESS AMONG MINORITY GROUPS

IN THEIR JURISDICTION AMONG RESPONDING CITY POLICE AGENCIES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Rate the problem of

joblessness among

minority groups in

your jurisdiction.

SMALL PROBLEM 17 19 35 41

LARGE PROBLEM 39 30 26 24

Chi-square = 16.6, p = .001

Another aspect of minority group relations within law enforcment is shown to vary significantly by geographical area as seen in Table 57. Here the factor of the language barrier for Asians is apparently a factor that varies by geographical area.

TABLE 57

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR RATINGS OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH

LANGUAGE AND CULTURAL BARRIERS AFFECT POLICE

EFFORTS AT CURBING THE INCREASE OF ASIAN GANG ACTIVITY

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA AMONG CITY POLICE AGENCIES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

To what extent do language

and cultural barriers affect

law enforcement efforts at

curbing the increase of

Asian gang activity?

SMALL PROBLEM 25 32 27 24

LARGE PROBLEM 25 14 27 39

Chi-square = 10.5, p = .01

Table 58 seems to suggest that there may be important regional variations as well in the ideology or beliefs about sanctioning gang membership by geographical area. This shows that geographical area is a factor that significantly diffferentiates whether or not parents are to blame for the gang membership of their children. However, this is not consistent with the "North East" area of the USA being the area most apologetic with regard to juvenile deviance.

TABLE 58

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS

FELT PARENTS ARE TO BLAME FOR

THE GANG MEMBERSHIP OF THEIR CHILDREN

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Do you feel that parents

are to blame for the

gang membership of

their children? NO 9 10 18 8

YES 39 35 35 53

Chi-square = 7.57, p = .056

Table 59 shows another important geographical variation with regard to the gang problem in the United States. Again, this is a most basic issue dealing with the persistence of the gang problem over time. It shows that the western area of the USA is dominant in reporting that their gang problem has existed for over a decade.

TABLE 59

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR HOW LONG GANGS HAVE EXISTED

AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM IN THEIR JURISDICTION

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

How long have gangs

existed as a law

enforcement problem

in your jurisdiction?

UNDER 5 YEARS 29 29 32 22

5 to 10 YEARS 19 9 20 16

OVER 10 YEARS 5 7 7 27

Chi-square = 28.3, p < .001

Table 60 shows that geographical area of the responding law enforcement agency is a factor that significantly differentiates whether or not the police officers are provided with pre-service "gang training". Law enforcement agencies in the western region of the USA are those more likely to report providing their officers with such pre-service gang training.

TABLE 60

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR WHETHER CITY POLICE OFFICERS

RECEIVE PRE-SERVICE "GANG TRAINING"

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Do your police officers

receive training in

"gang awareness" or

handling gang problems

during pre-service training?

NO 32 28 30 21

YES 20 18 23 42

Chi-square = 12.5, p = .006

Table 61 shows, similarly, that providing such in-service gang training is more common among law enforcement agencies in the western region of the USA.

TABLE 61

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR WHETHER POLICE OFFICERS

RECEIVE IN-SERVICE "GANG TRAINING"

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Do your police officers

receive training in

"gang awareness" or

handling gang problems

during in-service training?

NO 25 24 13 7

YES 31 25 46 58

Chi-square = 27.2, p < .001

A related law enforcement training factor dealing with gangs is provided in Table 62 below. This shows that there are important and significant geographical differences with respect to the ratings regarding whether the sworn officers in these city police agencies are provided with adequate ongoing training to successfully confront the modern gang problem.

TABLE 62

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR RATINGS ABOUT ADEQUATE

ONGOING TRAINING PROVIDED TO LOCAL POLICE OFFICERS

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS AMONG CITY POLICE AGENCIES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Rate the degree to which

sworn officers in your

Department are provided

with adequate ongoing

training to successfully

confront the modern

gang problem.

LOW 31 23 27 19

HIGH 26 25 34 46

Chi-square = 8.53, p = .03

Table 63 shows there is also a significant difference by geographical areas with regard to the density of gang force strength reported by these city police chiefs. This factor is not equal across geographical jurisdictions.

TABLE 63

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR LOW AND HIGH

DENSITY LEVELS FOR GANG MEMBERSHIP

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Gang Membership:

LOW DENSITY 24 25 31 22

HIGH DENSITY 24 16 20 41

Chi-square = 10.07, p = .01

A truly noteworthy finding on the historical development of special law enforcement units is indicated in Table 103. This shows a very significant difference exists by geographical area in terms of whether these law enforcement agencies have such a special unit dealing with gangs. This regional variation for such an organizational trend in law enforcement has not been previously documented. But what Table 64 shows is that law enforcement agencies having gang units can range from a high of 73.4 percent in the western area to a low of 26 percent in the north east area.

TABLE 64

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF CITIES HAVING A SPECIAL GANG UNIT

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Does your department

have a special unit

to handle gang problems?

NO 32 37 34 17

YES 24 13 27 47

Chi-square = 27.2, p < .001

Table 65 shows that beliefs about "gang migration" also vary by geographical area. This shows that law enforcement agencies in the central states believe the strongest in "gang migration" (90%), compared to a low of 59.5 percent among respondents in the north east.

TABLE 65

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF BELIEFS REGARDING WHETHER

OR NOT ANY OF THE GANG PROBLEM IN THEIR JURISDICTION

IS DUE TO GANG MIGRATION

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Do you believe any of

the gang problem in

your jurisdiction is

due to gang migration?

NO 11 19 6 10

YES 41 28 54 55

Chi-square = 16.5, p = .001

Table 66 shows that important variations exist geographically with regard to whether or not these law enforcement agencies report having programs or services specifically aimed at youth gangs or youth gang members. Some 67.6 percent of the western agencies report such programs or services, compared to only 19.2 percent among agencies in the north east.

TABLE 66

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR WHETHER THE CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT

AGENCY REPORTS HAVING PROGRAMS OR SERVICES SPECIFICALLY

AIMED AT YOUTH GANGS OR YOUTH GANG MEMBERS

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Does your department have

programs or services

specifically aimed at

youth gangs or youth

gang members? NO 32 42 43 21

YES 25 10 18 44

Chi-square = 31.6, p < .001

Table 67 shows that a regional variation also exists regarding whether these law enforcement agencies conduct activities with other organizations or agencies that deal with youth gang problems. This shows that the central states area has the highest rate of such interfacing (90.7%), with the lowest being in the north east area (68.7%).

TABLE 67

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY AGENCY CONDUCTS ACTIVITIES WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS OR AGENCIES

THAT DEAL WITH YOUTH GANG PROBLEMS

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Does your department

conduct activities with

other organizations or

agencies that deal with

youth gang problems?

NO 15 15 11 6

YES 42 33 48 59

Chi-square = 9.76, p = .02

Table 68 shows that geographical area sharply differentiates whether or not these law enforcement agencies report having a strategic plan for dealing with youth gangs. This varies from a low of 26 percent for the north east area, to a high of 53.8 percent for the western area. Outside of the western area, generally just over a fourth of these city police departments reported having such a strategic plan. It is the western area alone that stands out here, with just over half it its police chiefs reporting they have such a strategic plan.

TABLE 68

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HAS A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR DEALING WITH YOUTH GANGS

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Does your department

have a strategic plan

for dealing with

youth gangs? NO 40 37 44 30

YES 16 13 16 35

Chi-square = 14.8, p = .002

Table 69 shows an important variation exists with regard to geographical area also with regard to whether or not "hate groups" are reported as a crime problem. Some 22.8 percent of the southern law enforcement agencies report hate groups tend to represent a crime problem. Some 22.0 percent of the agencies in the north east report this problem. Some 22.9 percent of the agencies in the central states report this problem. The highest is in the western area, with 47.6 percent of the law enforcement agencies reporting that hate groups are a crime problem.

TABLE 69

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR WHETHER OR NOT "HATE GROUPS"

ARE REPORTED AS A CRIME PROBLEM IN THEIR AREA

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Do you feel that

"hate groups" (KKK,

neo-nazis, skinheads,

etc) are a crime

problem in your area? NO 44 39 47 34

YES 13 11 14 31

Chi-square = 14.1, p = .003

Finally, Table 70 shows that a significant geographical variation also exists in terms of whether local media has carried stories of excessive force by their personnel during the last year. The area with the lowest rate for such excessive force media attention is the central states area (37.7%). The area highest in such publicity is the north east area (66%).

TABLE 70

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR WHETHER OR NOT LOCAL MEDIA

HAS CARRIED STORIES OF EXCESSIVE FORCE BY THEIR PERSONNEL

IN THE LAST YEAR

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Has local media

(newspapers, radio, TV,

etc) carried any stories

of excessive force by

your personnel in the

last year? NO 29 17 38 39

YES 29 33 23 25

Chi-square = 11.1, p = .01

Using the gang crime threat severity scale developed and discussed earlier in this report, it appears that signficant geographical variation exists with regard to the comparison between low and high threat levels as seen in Table 71 below.

TABLE 71

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF GANG CRIME THREAT LEVELS

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS AMONG CITY POLICE CHIEFS

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Gang Crime Threat Level:

LOW 28 35 29 18

HIGH 30 16 32 47

Chi-square = 19.3, p < .001

Apparently the extent to which gangs are reported as being involved in the crime patter of "drive-by shootings" is also a factor that varies significantly by geographical area as shown in Table 72 below.

TABLE 72

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF GANG DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS

BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS AMONG CITY POLICE CHIEFS

The Four Geographical Areas By Zip Code Southern North East Central Western

Any Gang Drive-By

Shootings: NO 26 31 35 15

YES 32 20 26 50

Chi-square = 21.9, p < .001

To summarize this analysis by geographical area, not only are there significant differences with regard to the gang problem and the agency response, but there are also important differences in some basic issues as well for law enforcement. American law enforcement is shown here to be far from homogeneous in terms of beliefs, function, organization, and perception. Many important differences emerged here by geographical area of the USA.

The analysis reported here of geographical variations among city police agencies included nearly all variables available. Those comparisons that were significant have been reported here.

What this analysis has demonstrated is that the American gang problem as reported by law enforcement agencies varies considerably in many ways by geographical area of the USA. Generally, those areas reporting a higher gang problem in terms of its duration and intensity are those that also report a greater organizational response (training, programs, strategic planning, etc) to the gang problem.

These findings are of more than some value for social policy with regard to the gang problem. Generally, the findings here suggest that western and central portions of the USA have been hit the hardest by the gang problem. It is beyond the scope of the present report, however, to evaluate the extent to which equity exists in terms of objective needs by geographical areas and the federal funding distribution for gang prevention/intervention.

ANALYZING THE DIFFERENCES IN WHETHER THE PUBLIC RECOGNIZES THERE IS A GANG PROBLEM: A LOOK AT CITY POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES

A major issue in the gang literature is the issue of denial, where a criminal justice agency simply denies that a gang problem exists. A related issue is the matter of panic and over-reaction. At the heart of the social policy issue as to whether the American public will support increased resource allocations for law enforcment to address the gang problem is the matter of whether the public even recognizes that such a gang problem exists. It is, most certainly, an empirical issue that while having been extensively debated previously in the literature has not enjoyed the benefit of a true national assessment.

Provided here is such an analysis of the role that the community plays in addressing the gang problem in America. It is the most elementary of issues: does the public recognize that there is a problem with gangs in their area? Such a measurement was included in the 1992 Law Enforcement Survey. It was a simple dichotomous variable: "Do you feel that the public recognizes that there is a problem with gangs in your area?"

The present analysis is limited to city police agency respondents. County sheriffs were not analyzed because of the skewed distribution reported earlier. Thus, delimiting our analysis to the best data available truly helps to shed light on this area of intense controversy within the gang literature.

In the most equal of statistical worlds there would be no significant relationship between this factor of whether the public recognizes that a gang problem exists and whether the responding city police agency reports the existence of a gang problem if denial were the dominant theme within criminal justice agencies. Timely and affirmative reponse to public outcry would, alternatively, mean that the there would be a significant relationship between these two variables. It is the difference between the denial syndrom and the assumed accountability factor. In the denial syndrome no significant relationship should exist between whether police agencies report a gang problem and whether they sense the public recognizes a gang problem exists. Alternatively in the accountability hypothesis, there should be a significant relationship. The results of this test are provided in Table 73.

TABLE 73

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WHETHER THE PUBLIC RECOGNIZES THAT A GANG PROBLEM EXISTS AMONG CITY POLICE AGENCIES Do You Feel That the Public Recognizes That There Is A Problem With Gangs?

NO YES

Are youth gangs a problem

in your jurisdiction?

NO 13 4

YES 57 154

Chi-square = 18.0, p < .001

TABLE 74

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WHETHER THE PUBLIC RECOGNIZES THAT A GANG PROBLEM EXISTS AMONG CITY POLICE AGENCIES Do You Feel That the Public Recognizes That There Is A Problem With Gangs? NO YES

What percent of the

total crime in your

jurisdiction is

caused by gangs?

LOW 30 39

HIGH 25 80

Chi-square = 7.45, p = .006

TABLE 75 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WHETHER THE PUBLIC RECOGNIZES THAT A GANG PROBLEM EXISTS AMONG CITY POLICE AGENCIES Do You Feel That the Public Recognizes That There Is A Problem With Gangs? NO YES

Rate the extent to which

social programs are

available in your area

that are designed to

reduce/prevent the

gang problem.

LOW 34 52

HIGH 35 106

Chi-square = 5.46, p = .01

TABLE 76 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WHETHER THE PUBLIC RECOGNIZES THAT A GANG PROBLEM EXISTS AMONG CITY POLICE AGENCIES Do You Feel That the Public Recognizes That There Is A Problem With Gangs? NO YES

Rate the degree to which

sworn officers in your

Department are provided

with adequate ongoing

training to successfully

confront the modern

gang problem.

LOW 39 57

HIGH 29 102

Chi-square = 9.02, p = .003

It is a small piece of the riddle of our lack of national empirical knowledge about the gang problem in America, but Table 77 below shows clearly that the longer the gang problem has existed in an area the more likely the public is to be cognizant of this problem. What this demonstrates, clearly, is that whatever the limited role of 'gang denial' attributed in the gang literature to government agencies, eventually the public "catches on".

TABLE 77 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WHETHER THE PUBLIC RECOGNIZES THAT A GANG PROBLEM EXISTS AMONG CITY POLICE AGENCIES Do You Feel That the Public Recognizes That There Is A Problem With Gangs? NO YES

How long have gangs

existed as a law

enforcement problem

in your jurisdiction?

UNDER 5 YEARS 40 73

5 to 10 YEARS 19 45

OVER 10 YEARS 7 40

Chi-square = 6.71, p = .03

Law enforcement training for dealing with gangs appears to be vary in direct proportion to the extent that the public recognizes that a gang problem exists. This is seen in Table 78 where pre-service gang training varies significantly with public recognition of the gang problem, as well as in Table 79 where this factor directly varies also with in-service training on gangs.

TABLE 78 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WHETHER THE PUBLIC RECOGNIZES THAT A GANG PROBLEM EXISTS AMONG CITY POLICE AGENCIES Do You Feel That the Public Recognizes That There Is A Problem With Gangs? NO YES

Do your police officers

receive training in

"gang awareness" or

handling gang problems

during pre-service

training? NO 39 69

YES 22 79

Chi-square = 5.18, p = .02

TABLE 79 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WHETHER THE PUBLIC RECOGNIZES THAT A GANG PROBLEM EXISTS AMONG CITY POLICE AGENCIES Do You Feel That the Public Recognizes That There Is A Problem With Gangs? NO YES

Do your police officers

receive trainilng in

"gang awareness" or

handling gang problems

dulring in-service

training? NO 27 37

YES 39 121

Chi-square = 6.97, p = .008

The higher the gang density in an area the more the public is felt to recognize that a gang problem exists as shown in Table 80.

TABLE 80 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WHETHER THE PUBLIC RECOGNIZES THAT A GANG PROBLEM EXISTS AMONG CITY POLICE AGENCIES Do You Feel That the Public Recognizes That There Is A Problem With Gangs? NO YES

Estimated total core

and periphery gang

membership density.

LOW 37 64

HIGH 23 80

Chi-square = 5.02, p = .02

City police organizational development in terms of having specialized "gang units" appears to be directly proportional to public recognition of such a problem as seen in Table 81.

TABLE 82 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WHETHER THE PUBLIC RECOGNIZES THAT A GANG PROBLEM EXISTS AMONG CITY POLICE AGENCIES Do You Feel That the Public Recognizes That There Is A Problem With Gangs? NO YES

Does your department

have a special unit to

handle gang problems?

NO 49 65

YES 20 91

Chi-square = 16.4, p < .001

Whether it is simply an issue of wanting to have some "outsiders" to blame, or whether gang migration is an objective and material criminological fact in modern America, Table 83 shows that clearly a significant relationship exists between whether city police agencies believe in gang migration and whether the public recognizes the gang problem as existing.

TABLE 83 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WHETHER THE PUBLIC RECOGNIZES THAT A GANG PROBLEM EXISTS AMONG CITY POLICE AGENCIES Do You Feel That the Public Recognizes That There Is A Problem With Gangs? NO YES

Do you believe any of the

gang problem in your

jurisdiction is due to

"gang migration"? NO 21 25

YES 47 132

Chi-square = 6.52, p = .01

Schools Under Siege (Knox, Laske, and Tromanhauser, 1992) calls our attention to the gang problem in the American school system. The authors point out that the problems caused by gangs in our schools pose an issue of blame - everyone blames everyone else. Schools blame the parents, parents blame the school, police blame the community, the community blames the police, the family blames everyone but itself, ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Few critics blame the politicians, but it is not difficult to build a case that holds our elected officials accountable for the gang problem.

The Law Enforcement Survey probes the issue of accountability (see Table 84). In a statistical court of law this would constitute an indictment of elected officials. Clearly the police believe that the public recognizes that a gang problem exists. The table further points out that police believe very few elected officials have done much about the problem. Further, evidence shows that the public has been aware of a gang problem since the beginning of the 1980's. The police agree with the public in recognizing gangs as a problem and they assert that elected officials have not made adequate resources available to effectively combat gangs. The indictment, if one is to be made, must be laid at the feet of officials, from the U.S. Congress to the City Council. Currie (1985) points out that the United States has what he calls a pro-crime policy. He states that we have arranged our social and economic lives in such a way as to tear away the underpinnings of solidarity, cohesiveness, and self-respeact that is conducive to a law abiding society.

The failure to address gangs is directly related to (1) U.S. pro-crime policy, (2) the pro-wealth/business policy of the Reagan/Bush administrations, and (3) jobs. Other problems evolve from these three factors. The present day pro-crime policy of th4 U.S. government is simply a reaffirmation of policies that stretch back to at least the 1890's and the Boss system. Those policies have taken better care of an elite few than the American family. For example, during the 1970's and early 80's economic forces began to buffet the average American family. High inflation began to eat away at the purchasing power of the family, many companies began to downsize or move their manufacturing facilities abroad, and finally the tax structure, coupled with economic conditions, fueled a merger and acquisitions frenzy that resulted in the looting of many companies with the resultant loss of jobs and dislocation of workers. All of this resulted in a substantial transfer of wealth to the already wealthy top one percent of the population (Phillips, 1990).

The transfer of wealth, the lack of clearly defined governmental policy towards business and its social responsibility, and the growth of street gangs are clearly linked. Koeppel (1989), for example, documents the increase in crime and other social problems when a large employer left a small town in Minnesota. Phillips (1991) draws a link between powerlesness, crime and social problems and points out that jobs are fundamental to the health of a community. Jackson (1992) finds that the lack of jobs creates a social need for gangs.

The increase in wealth by the already wealthy was made possible by three initiatives introduced during the Reagan presidency (Phillips, 1990). The first was the alteration of the tax code that changed the top personal tax brack from 70 percent to 28 percent. The second was the efforts of the conservatives to shrink many domestic programs and to alter federal budget policy to redistribute wealth to those families already comfortable. The third policy shift occurred biy way of deregulation: fewer governmental restraints on business activities. Thus, the policies of the Reagan presidency left a wake of unemployment, a dismantled social service apparatus, and increased despair on the part of those who had been left behind. This legacy, coupled with the dislocation and stress of thousands of families joining the new poor, when added to the number of already dysfunctional families that were known to police in the cities of our nation, added fuel to an explosive situation.

The fact that Congress and most Statehouses have failed to act on an important social problem like that represented by gangs is hardly surprising. While Congressmen and U.S. Senators were preoccupied with re-election, P.A.C.'s and special interest groups such as those from the S&L's, American gang problems continued to grow. While State Representatives and State Senators preoccupied themselves with shrinking budgets, partisan politics and economic band-aids, gangs continued to recruit their members from the alienated and those with no place else to turn. Jackson calls our attention to the socially useful purpose of gangs as they moved into the vacuum created by the loss of jobs in an economy under transition. Jackson asserts that belonging to a gang at least provides a sense of belonging and imparts a sense of purpose. Many young people join gangs in order to obtain a sense of belonging and sense of self-worth. Traditionally we gained such things from family, church or synagogue, work, or through membership in a union.

The array of problems brought to government is difficult to comprehend. There have been well meaning attempts to address the issues of employment, housing and the like, but those efforts have often gone awry. Brewer and deLeon (1983) point out that as social systems increase in complexity, more and more externalities arise that may become serious unless addressed by policy makers. If legislators are genuinely concerned about policy outcomes, the unanticipated consequences of policies and programs can be calculated. Certainly many of the problems revealed in this report can be attributed to unanticipated consequences of policy formulation and implementation. Such need not be the case if elected officials recognize that the family does not exist in a vacuum and is impacted, sometimes severely, by events that occur in Washington, D.C. and the State Capitol.

In the instance of street gangs the issue has been further clouded by denial on the part of public officials on the one hand, and the inability of concerned citizes to get the problem recognized by government on the other. Bachrach and Baratz (1970) describe the "two faces of power". One face allows for decisions that favor one group, or set of groups; and the other face allows conditions for excluding certain issues from being considered in government. Thus, during the 1980's, those who might have favored anti-gang and pro-family legislation were unable to get their issues on the agenda because they lacked political power. Those in power were able to block access to government because they viewed such initiatives as detrimental to their interests. They did, however, initiate many "symbolic gestures" that called the voters' attention to their anti-crime views while doing little of a substantive nature. One need only recall the most recent "War on Drugs" or the alteration of the penal codes by the states and the U.S. Congress resulting in stiffer sentences and the abolition of the indeterminate sentence.

Those ignoring anti-gang or pro-family legislation maintained their superior position by a series of "nondecisions", as they are called by Bachrach and Baratz (1970). "A nondecision...is a decision that results in suppression or thwarting of a latent or manifest challenge to the values, or interests of the decision maker" (1970). Put another way, demands for change were suffocated or killed before they reached the decision making arena.

There may be room for hope. Early scholars and commentators found that street gangs were largely the domain of young people. Whyte (1981), for example, found that as members aged up and married, they were given additional space to maintain ties to wife and family. A recent study by Lasley (1992) suggests that street gangs are primarily populated by youthful members. Certainly there are more exceptions to this finding than one cares to think about and certainly more research into this area is necessary, but it may be that there are forces at work that can play into the hands of legislators who are interested in having a significant impact on street gangs.

Table 26, presented earlier in this report, suggested one possible answer to this conundrum. In those jurisdictions reporting a higher gang crime threat, there is a greater probability that they will have a strategic plan to deal with the issue of gangs. Since those police departments already possess a planning capability, one suggestion is for police planners and local and regional economic planners to work together to develop long range plans in regard to regional economic development. The sharing of resources could be an effective tool in the effort to combat gangs.

If progress is to be made, Police Chiefs, local elected officials and other actors in the criminal justice system as well as concerned citizens need to rise up as a special interest group and force the issue of gangs onto the federal and state agenda. Hagedorn (1991), Phillips (1991), Huff (1989), and Jackson (1992) among others, clearly point the way. Criminal justice actors need to figuratively grab their representatives by the throat and let them know that effective legislation is needed that props up the family through employment, incentives to business to invest in the future, proper housing, and education and training for those left out of the employment revolution. This issue also provides an excellent opportunity for local officials to lead the way rather than waiting for a federal or state hand-out. Economic and criminal justice policy makers must realize that families do not exist in an economic vacuum. Long range planning can be initiated that takes into account the availability of manpower (however unskilled), educational resources, and economic incentives to attract and hold employers.

TABLE 84 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WHETHER THE PUBLIC RECOGNIZES THAT A GANG PROBLEM EXISTS AMONG CITY POLICE AGENCIES Do You Feel That the Public Recognizes That There Is A Problem With Gangs? NO YES

Do you feel that elected

officials have worked

to sufficiently educate

the public about

youth gangs? NO 63 101

YES 5 54

Chi-square = 18.3, p < .001

A city police department is significantly more likely to have programs or services specifically aimed at youth gangs or youth gang members when the public recognizes that a gang problem exists as shown in Table 85.

TABLE 85 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WHETHER THE PUBLIC RECOGNIZES THAT A GANG PROBLEM EXISTS AMONG CITY POLICE AGENCIES Do You Feel That the Public Recognizes That There Is A Problem With Gangs? NO YES

Does your departmeent

have programs or services

specifically aimed at

youth gangs or youth

gang members? NO 52 79

YES 17 80

Chi-square = 12.9, p < .001

The law enforcement organizational behavior of interfacing with other organizations is a factor that also varies significantly by whether the public recognizes that a gang problem exists as shown in Table 86.

TABLE 86 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WHETHER THE PUBLIC RECOGNIZES THAT A GANG PROBLEM EXISTS AMONG CITY POLICE AGENCIES Do You Feel That the Public Recognizes That There Is A Problem With Gangs? NO YES

Does your department

conduct activities with

other organizations or

agencies that deal with

youth gangs in your area?

NO 22 21

YES 46 136

Chi-square = 11.05, p = .001

Similarly, the law enforcement organizational development aspect of whether these city police agencies have a strategic plan to deal with gangs is also a factor that varies directly with the extent to which the public recognizes that a gang problem exists. This relationship is shown in Table 87.

TABLE 87 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WHETHER THE PUBLIC RECOGNIZES THAT A GANG PROBLEM EXISTS AMONG CITY POLICE AGENCIES Do You Feel That the Public Recognizes That There Is A Problem With Gangs? NO YES

Does your Department have

a strategic plan for

dealing with youth gangs?

NO 55 92

YES 14 65

Chi-square = 9.39, p = .002

Finally, the gang crime threat severity scale described previously is a factor that also varies with this aspect of public recognition as was demonstrated earlier in this report.

BELIEFS ABOUT GANG JOINING BEHAVIOR

Reported here is a correlation analysis of nine different competing beliefs about why youths join gangs. Because the focus is on the individual belief held by a law enforcement administrator the entire combined sample size was used for this analysis.

Table 88 provides the Pearson correlation matrix for these nine different beliefs about gang joining explanations.

TABLE 88

PEARSON CORRELATION MATRIX FOR REASONS WHY

YOUTHS JOIN GANGS

The Nine Different Reasons Why Youths Join Gangs

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I.

A. *

B. .28 *

C. .28 .40 *

D. .28 .25 .62 *

E. .12 .50 .18 .16 *

F. .10 .47 .16 .15 .78 *

G. .13 .03 .20 .19 .03 .08 *

H. .18 .08 .19 .18 .11 .19 .54 *

I. .16 .11 .18 .19 .08 .15 .45 .66 *

LEGEND: A = A family member belonged to the gang

B = Friends or acquaintances pressured them to join

C = Afraid of personal injury from the gang if they

did not join

D = Needed protection from another gang, group, or

individual

E = Joined the gang to obtain a sense of belonging

F = Joined the gang to obtain some measure of status

and approval or to raise self-esteem

G = Could not obtain meaningful employment

H = Could make more money by joining the gang even if they could find a job

I = Gang represented a means of committing illegal

acts for financial gains

The findings in Table 88 can be graphically illustrated below, in that two different clusters of gang joining variables appear to enjoy show some interrelationship. All three of the economic gang joining explanations (G, H, and I) are shown to correlate with each other highly. A separate cluster of variables are those relating to peer pressure, belonging, and status (B, E, and F). The peer pressure variable (B) does have a moderate correlation with fear of personal injury for not joining a gang (C). The fear of personal injury variable (C) has a high association with need for protection variable (D).

In the gang literature several reasons for joining youth gangs have been identified, including, but not limited to: a fear for personal safety if one is outside of the gang, and obtaining a sense of belonging, status, and approval through gang membership (Carson and Butcher, 1992). Further, Jackson (1991) suggested that an increase in crime and youth gang activity is associated with a decrease in job opportunities in major urban centers.

Variables B, E, and F were found to be the most frequently cited explanations as being "most common" reasons for gang joining behavior from the views of the law enforcement respondents in the present survey. Based on these findings, it seems reasonable to suggest that some efforts be directed at finding alternative "institutions" outside of gangs in which potential youth gang members can obtain a sense of belonging, status, and approval; and in which potential youth gang members can raise self-esteem. It is also critically important to conduct follow-up research with actual youth gang members to ascertain whether the reasons they give for joining gangs fit with the perceptions of those working in and with law enforcement agencies.

.78 .66

(E)-------(F) (H)-------(I)

\ / \ /

.50 \ / .47 .54 \ / .45

(B) (G)

| .40

(C)

| .62

(D)

SUMMARY

This section summarizes the problems of gangs and gang crime reported by police chiefs and sheriffs. Attention is given to the reported nature and severity of the problem, its causes and the reponse to it.

Nature and severity of the gang problem. As the frequency distributions in Appendix A indicate, both police chiefs and county sheriffs overwhelmingly acknowledged the existence of a gang problem in their jurisdiction. Eighty-nine percent of police chiefs reported that youth gangs are a problem in their city; while 79 percent of sheriffs indicated a youth gang problem in their county. Police chiefs were about 6 percent more likely than sheriffs to classify the youth gang problem in their community as major (18% vs. 12% for sheriffs), and were similarly more likely to classify it as moderate (54% vs. 47% for sheriffs). Violence, drug sales, graffiti, burglarly, automobile theft and drive-by shootings were the major problems (from most to least frequently reported) caused by youth gangs as reported by both groups. Overall, police chiefs reported that about 14% of the total crime in their city was caused by gang activity; while county sheriffs estimated the figure at about 11% for their jurisdiction. These estimates were somewhat higher when the same question was asked focusing exclusingly on juvenile crime. Police chiefs reported that about 27% of the total juvenile crime was caused by gang activity; while for sheriffs the reported figure was 19%. Both groups felt that gang activity has become more violent in recent years, though there was greater unanimity on this point among city police chiefs (80%) than among county sheriffs (66%).

Gangs are seen to be loose knit groups, as opposed to highly organized units by police chiefs (89%) and county sheriffs (92%). About 21% of police chiefs and 12% of sheriffs report gangs to have existed as a law enforcement problem in the jurisdiction for over ten years. Total core and periphery gang membership is reported to be somewhat larger by police chiefs (about 1100) for cities, than by sheriffs (762) for counties. The gang problem is almost universally reported (by 93% of chiefs and 95% of sherrifs) to be multijurisdictional, rather than local; and migration of gangs from one jurisdiction to another was accepted as a distinct reality by almost everyone (98% of both groups). In fact, almost 80% of both sets of law enforcement officers felt that gang migration had caused some portion of the gang problem in their jurisdiction. In addition, the "copy cat" phenomenon (youths using the names of national groups without really having ties to the same groups in other areas) was seen to be somewhat of a problem by police chiefs and county sheriffs. Finally, hate groups (e.g, KKK, neo-nazis, skinheads) are seen to be a problem by more county sheriffs (45%) than by urban police chiefs (30%).

Perceived causes of the gang problem. About three fourths of both the police chiefs and county sheriffs felt that parents are to blame for the gang membership of their children; and over eighty percent of each group felt that tougher juvenile laws would aid law enforcement's response to the youth-oriented gang culture. Similarly, respondents of both groups were almost unanimous in agreeing that increase used of computer systems will aid investigative action against gangs. Both groups cited the lack of a coordinated national policy as having had a moderate influence in increasing the youth gang problem in American cities. Police chiefs and sheriffs were in agreement also in citing as most common in their list of reasons why youths join gangs, self-esteem issues, the need for a sense of belonging, and pressure from friends or acquaintances were seen as most important. The need for protection, fear of personal injury, the influence of a family member who belongs to the gang, and gangs' committing illegal acts for financial gain were also cited by both groups as moderately common reasons for youths joining gangs.

Perceived city response to the youth gang problem. Both city police chiefs and county sheriffs reported that better training could be provided for their officers to help them successfully confront the modern gang problem. Similarly, they generally reported that few social programs are available in their jurisdiction to reduce or prevent the gang problem. Just over two thirds of both groups of law enforcement officers indicated that the level of funding received by their department is not proportional to the size of the youth gang problem in their area. Seventy-nine percent of police chiefs and 67 percent of county sheriffs did report that their department conducts activities with other organizations or agencies that deal with youth gang problems. For both groups, these organizations provided technical assistance, service coordination, referral services, and in-house programs, in that order of frequency. However, about two-thirds of police chiefs and 78% of county sheriffs indicated that their department does not have a strategic plan for dealing with youth gangs. In close to the same proportions, these executive officers indicated that their department does not have programs or services specifically aimed at youth gangs or youth gang members. In fact, police chiefs reported that less than two percent of the funding made available to their department is directed toward youth gangs; and county sheriffs reported less than one percent. Police chiefs and county sheriffs both reported some cooperation with federal law enforcement agencies.

Implications of the Findings. This brief review of the responses provided by city and county law enforcement executive officers indicates their identification of serious and extensive gang problems involving a large number of youths in over half of the cities and counties from which they responded. While officers place the blame for a child's gang membership with parents, they also recognized factors such as the need for group membership, peer pressure, protection, fear and financial gain as common motives triggering youths to join gangs. In addition, officers made clear their view that government agencies are not doing as much as they could to combat the problem. Better training to officers could be provided, they reported; as could more social programs to reduce or prevent the gang problem. Funding priorities, respondents indicated, do not reflect the significance of the gang problem; and most departments are without a strategic plan for addressing the youth gang problem. Overall, these professionals make quite clear their view that more thought and resources must be directed to the problem of youth gangs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The preliminary findings from the 1992 Law Enforcement Survey have been reported here. This included a complete descriptive analysis of all quantitative variables in the survey itself. It also included an analysis by gang-crime threat levels as well as a separate analysis of gang drive-by shootings. A comparison of between city and county law enforcement agencies was also made. Outside of the limited sample size previously reported by Needle and Stapleton involving some 60 cities, this preliminary report has also included the first major report of geographical variations in terms of the gang problem within law enforcement agencies.

The reader is cautioned that the kind of data collected by the present research methodology (mail questionnaire) does not qualify for making causal inferences. Thus, even though a relationship between two variables may be significant, this does not mean that one necessarily caused the other. All it shows is a significant association or relationship exists. It is not possible using only the data contained in the survey to be able to address temporal ordering (e.g., what came first?).

Unlike the previous research by Needle and Stapleton, the present findings suggest that the because of the upsurge in gang problems a genuine problem is the base-rate for those law enforcement agencies who do not report a gang problem. Only 15.4 percent of the combined (city and county) law enforcement agencies reported that youth gangs were not a problem in their area. The ever dwindling number of law enforcement agencies who report no such gang problem further complicate any comparison between gang-problem and no-gang-problem jurisdictions.

Therefore it is may be more useful, given the proliferation of the gang problem nationally, to make comparisons by gang-threat level.

This is intended only as a preliminary report. It therefore does not address factors which at least one of the authors intends to add to the analysis: census data, which would allow for comparisons such as the rural-urban difference using such secondary data. The only data analyzed for the present report is that specifically contained in the survey itself. Future analysis can be expected based on such secondary data (e.g., census data) used to supplement the data environment.

While chiefly aimed towards a better understanding of how gangs affect law enforcement, the findings reported here also speak to some of the much larger and most basic issues of law enforcement as well.

The authors express their sincere appreciation for the high level of cooperation from the many city and county law enforcement agencies that are represented in the sample for this research. The authors did promise to provide rapid feedback to these agencies. We hope this preliminary report provides useful information.

REFERENCES

Bachrach, Peter and Morton S. Baratz

1970 Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brewer, Garry D. and Peter deLeon

1983 The Foundations of Policy Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Carson, R.C. and J.N. Butcher

1992 Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life. 9th ed.

New York: Harper Collins Publishers, pp. 545-551.

Currie, Elliott

1985 Confronting Crime: An American Challenge. New York: Pantheon Books.

Hagedorn, John M.

1991 "Gangs, Neighborhoods, and Public Policy", Social Problems (38)(4)(Nov): 529-540.

Huff, C. Ronald

1989 "Youth Gangs and Public Policy", Crime and

Delinquency (35)(4): 523-537.

Jackson, Pamela Irving

1991 "Crime, Youth Gangs, and Urban Transition: The Social Dislocations of Postindustrial Development", Justice Quarterly (8)(3): 379-397.

Knox, George W.

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

Knox, George W.; David Laske; and Edward Tromanhauser

1992 Schools Under Siege. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall-Hunt.

Knox, George W. and Edward D. Tromanhauser

1993 "Gang Training as a Function of Duration and Intensity Within Adult State Correctional Facilities", Journal of Correctional Training (in press).

Koeppel, Barbara

1989 "A Company Town Decays", The Progessive (53): 12- 13.

Lasley, James R.

1992 "Age, Social Context, and Street Gang Membership: Are 'Youth' Gangs Becoming 'Adult' Gangs?", Youth and Society (23)(4): 434-452.

Miller, Walter B.

1975 Violence by Youth Gangs and Youth Groups as a Crime Problem in Major American Cities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Needle, Jerome A. and Wm. Vaughn Stapleton

1983 Police Handling of Youth Gangs. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, September.

Phillips, Margaret B.

1991 "A Hedgehog Proposal", Crime and Delinquency (37)(4)(Oct): 555-574.

Reaves, Brian A.

1992 State and Local Police Departments, 1990. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Washington, D.C. (Feb.)

Whyte, William F.

1981 Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an

Italian Slum. 3rd ed. New York: Knopf.