PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE 1992 ADULT CORRECTIONS SURVEY

George W. Knox, Ph.D.

May 11, 1992

ABSTRACT

This mail survey represented a saturation sampling of all state adult correctional facilities in the U.S. Among the N = 316 superintendents/wardens responding to the survey this includes data from all 50 states and Puerto Rico. Undertaken without funding this research has sought to explore a variety of issues now facing adult corrections . This report provides a complete descriptive analysis of all variables measured in the 1992 survey. Additionally, some issues are given more indepth analysis, particularly the gang problem.

- ii -

PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE 1992 ADULT CORRECTIONS SURVEY

INTRODUCTION

This research monograph provides the preliminary results of the 1992 adult corrections survey. A detailed description of the methodology is provided below. The analysis begins with a description of the factors measured in the survey and then examines some of these factors in greater detail. An overall issue examined throughout the report is whether adult correctional administrators are facing new and complex problems and whether they have sufficient resources to address these problems.

HOW THE RESEARCH WAS CONDUCTED

The research methodology for this national survey involved the use of a six-page mail questionnaire. The 1992 ACA Directory was used to identify all adult correctional institutions and facilities in the U.S.A., Puerto Rico, and Canada. All were included in the sample. The survey, a cover letter, and a postage-paid return envelope were addressed to the warden or superintendent of these facilities. In some instances, the surveys were actually completed by an administrator below the rank of Warden.

This national survey was implemented during March of 1992. By late April, the cut-off point for the analysis reported here, a total of N = 316 valid responses had been returned. This constitutes the sample used for the present report.

DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS

The purpose of this section is to provide descriptive statistical findings for all variables in the survey. The format will simply entail sequentially examining each of these variables as they appeared on the questionnaire. However, none of the open-ended items in the survey are analyzed in this report because they require content analysis.

Illiteracy among inmates is rated to be a very large problem among the correctional administrators responding to this survey. On a scale between zero (no problem) and nine (large problem), 68.1 percent rated this problem at a level of six or higher.

Nearly all of the respondents (92.5%) expressed the belief that more systematic interfacing between corrections and law enforcement in terms of information sharing could help in controlling prison gangs.

While the magnitude of problems facing American corrections today has increased exponentially according to the responses of the prison wardens in this survey many still do not have adequate budgetary resources to address these problems. When asked "what percentage increase in your budget would be necessary to assure no overcrowding, adequate staff training, and services", over half of the respondents (53.4%) indicated that they would need their budgets raised thirty percent or higher! In fact, one out of ten (10.6%) of the wardens indicated that to adequately address these problems they would need budget increases of 80 percent or more!

Similarly, when asked "what percent increase in your operating budget would assure a significant decrease in recidivism", half (50%) indicated that they would need budget increases of thirty percent or higher.

About a third of the wardens (33.6%) expressed the belief that prison gangs could be more effectively controlled if gang members could be transferred to a central-national federal unit. The estimates for the percentage of inmates in their facilities who are gang members ranged from zero to a high of 95 percent among males, and between zero to a high of twenty percent for female inmates. One tenth (10.3%) of the respondents estimated that in their facilities 25 percent or more of the male inmates were gang members.

Just under half of the correctional institutions surveyed (45.4%) reported that their staff receive formalized training for dealing with the gang problem. Among those providing gang training to their correctional staff, more than half (58.7%) of the facilities provided only up to four hours of such gang training. In 90 percent of the facilities providing gang training to their staff, this training amounted to ten hours or less.

Most of the respondents (80.9%) agreed that their staff could benefit from professional outside training dealing with gangs. Apparently, due to the magnitude of gang assaults and threats on correctional staff, this training may be long overdue. Nearly one of every ten (9.5%) adult correctional state facilities reported that gang members have been a problem in terms of assaults on their staff. In nearly a fourth of these facilities (24%) gang members have also been a problem in terms of threats on staff.

In over half of these adult state correctional facilities (57.6%) racial conflicts are reported as a problem among the inmates. Some 40.4 percent (N = 116) reported that whites have separate gangs, typically the Aryan Brotherhood, Aryan Nation, or some similar white supremacist group. The racial distribution among inmates is very mixed nationally. For example, in examining the ranges, percentage white ranged from zero to 100 percent, percentage Black ranged from zero to 98 percent, percentage Hispanic ranged from zero to 100 percent, and percent "other" ranged from zero to 95 percent.

Just over half of the respondents (54%) agreed that giving staff recognition to prison gang leaders is similar to negotiating with terrorists. Still, some 46 percent disagreed with this idea.

The problem of community denial previously documented in the literature has its equivalent in terms of denying the gang problem in corrections. Clearly, many indicated "no problem" with gangs; but also reported using methods to control gangs. Thus, when the wardens were asked "how long have gangs existed as a problem in your facility" a number simply did not answer or wrote in "no problem, never was". These none responses were treated as missing data. Which means that a total of N = 196 wardens responded in one of the three response modes: 70.9 percent reported "under five years"; 17.9 percent reported "5 to 10 years"; and 11.2 percent reported "over ten years".

About three-fourths (76.6%) agreed that federal agencies should play a greater role in the investigation and prosecution of gang crimes.

Very few (8.7%) believed that conjugal visiting could be used as a reward to control gang problems in prison.

Just under a half (48.4%) believed that more training programs could be used as a reward to control the gang problems in prison.

Over a third (37.2%) expressed the opinion that prison gangs have tended to result in more improvised weapons production (e.g., shanks, etc) among the inmates in their facilities.

Just under three-fourths (73.4%) expressed the feeling that tougher laws are needed to control the gang problem in prison.

Most (90.8%) felt that their Department has an effective Affirmative Action program. Still, 9.2 percent indicated the belief that their Department does not have an effective Affirmative Action program.

Generally, 58.1 percent of the respondents agreed that their institution has enough resources and programs to control the gang problem. Yet 41.9 percent indicated their institution is ill-equipped with sufficient resources to control the gang problem.

When asked if during the twelve month period any of the inmates in their facility had been diagnosed with tuberculosis, some 40.5 percent indicated yes.

While some 38.4 percent reported that their facility was ACA accredited, most (61.6%) reported that their adult correctional facility was not ACA accredited.

Just over half (52.8%) of the respondents expressed the opinion that ACA should establish Standards for controlling prison gangs. Currently no such standards exist for handling gangs in adult or juvenile correctional facilities. Still, some 47.2 percent felt ACA should not establish such gang control standards. Some correctional facilities are said to seek to control gangs by the "set off" method. It involves "balancing the number of rival gang members" in a living unit/cellhouse/etc. In other words, mixing a prison wing with half Bloods and half Crips (or half People, half Folks; half white gang members, half Black gang members, etc) would seek to set off the possibility of any single gang dominating the entire situation. Among the respondents to this survey, some 41.6 percent felt this was an effective way to control prison gangs.

Transferring gang leaders to other institutions (e.g., "diesel treatment", "bus therapy") was felt to be an effective way to control prison gangs according to 70.9 percent of the respondents.

The respondents were also asked if they believe offenders are more assaultive when there is a full-moon. Some 35.5 percent said no; some 27.7 percent said yes; some 27.7 percent said maybe; and 9.1 percent were not sure.

In terms of the security level of the facilities represented in the sample, 37.5 percent were minimum security; 34.2 percent were medium security; and 28.3 percent were maximum security institutions.

Some 42.7 percent of the respondents reported that their agency provides tuition support for college classes for correctional officers. Still, somewhat over half (57.3%) report providing no tuition support for correctional officers wishing to enroll in college classes. Just over a third (37.3%) expressed the belief that providing tuition support for staff could help control the prison gang problem. Which means nearly two-thirds reject the notion that providing their correctional staff with tuition support could be used to help control the prison gang problem.

In 19.9 percent of the facilities, the respondent indicated that their institution has a full-time staff member employed as an ombudsman for inmates. Which means in four-fifths of the cases no such full-time ombudsman is on staff in these institutions.

Just over three-fourths (77.7%) of the respondents expressed the belief that the Supreme Court has gone too far on ruling in favor of inmate rights.

Nearly a fourth (24.3%) of the respondents expressed the opinion that sex offenders in their institution can be prevented from committing such future sex crimes.

Half of the respondents indicated that 74 percent or more of their inmates need drug addiction counseling services.

When asked, in their opinion, what type of inmate has the highest recidivism rate, some 75.5 percent picked the drug offender; some 4.1 percent the car thief; 18 percent the burglar; and 2.4 percent the armed robber.

Nearly three-fourths (74.8%) expressed the opinion that gang members tend to have higher recidivism rates. About half (51.9%) of the institutions report that their classification system takes gang membership into account.

Using a check-off list the respondents were also asked if their institution uses any of these strategies to control gangs. Here are the results: transfers --- 65.5 percent; use of informers --- 46.8 percent; segregation --- 48.1 percent; isolating leaders --- 42.3 percent; lockdown --- 24.5 percent; prosecution --- 26.1 percent; interrupting communications --- 28.7 percent; case by case dealings --- 45.5 percent; ignoring their existence --- 5.5 percent; infiltration --- 1.6 percent; displacing members to different facilities --- 54.2 percent; coopting of prisoners to control gangs --- 2.6 percent; meeting with gang leaders on "as needed" basis --- 5.8 percent; joint meetings between various gang leaders --- 1.3 percent; balance the number of rival gang members living in the same unit --- 16.5 percent; and "other" (e.g., discipline code, etc) --- 8.1 percent.

Since the early work of Miller (1977), little attention has been given to the crime problem within "behind bars". Prison and jail inmates are not included in the federal crime victim survey research. In states like Illinois there can be a statutory disincentive for prosecuting crimes when the cost of prosecution is specified by law not to be paid by the county in which the prison is located, but must rather be paid for by the Department of Corrections itself. Crimes committed by inmates on other inmates also rarely show up in our Uniform Crime Reports. Therefore two questions in the survey were addressed to this issue.

When asked, how many felony crimes committed by inmates in your facility were court prosecuted during the last year, the responses ranged from a low of zero to a high of 130. Half the institutions (49.1%) reported three or more such felony prosecutions.

When asked to estimate how many felony crimes committed by inmates in their facility could have been legally prosecuted under statute during the last year, the responses ranged from zero to a high of 500.

When asked which correctional goal/philosophy is the most effective in reducing recidivism, most (64.6%) indicated "rehabilitation"; and just over a third (35.4%) indicated "punishment".

When asked to estimate what percentage of the inmates confined in their facility have served time there before, the responses ranged from a low of zero to a high of 95 percent.

Some 27.7 percent expressed the believe that prison gangs have significantly affected their correctional environment.

Most (82.5%) indicated that their facility has a written policy on "lockdown" procedures.

Only 11.5 percent reported that they were familiar with the Camp and Camp (1985) study of prison gangs.

When asked, has your institution been able to make use of any of the research reports available from the National Institute of Justice, some 50.3 percent indicated yes. The other half (49.7%) indicated no.

When asked to estimate what percentage of all illicit drugs are brought into their facility by prison gang members, the responses ranged from a low of zero to a high of 100 percent. The same range applied to the percent of the illicit drug trade inside their facility being dominated by prison gang members.

Some 77 percent of the respondents indicated that they would be in favor of mandatory testing of all inmates for HIV/AIDS.

Some 79 percent, generally, are in favor of the death penalty.

Some 72.1 percent felt that electronic monitoring could be more cost-effective than incarceration. When asked to estimate the percentage of their inmate population that would never be suitable candidates for electronic monitoring, the responses ranged from a low of zero percent to a high of 100 percent.

Over a third (36.2%) expressed the opinion that society wants to help inmates be rehabilitated. When asked to estimate what percentage of the inmates could be rehabilitated given the proper programs, again, the responses ranged from a low of zero percent to a high of 100 percent.

Overcrowding as a problem in their facility was reported by 52 percent of the respondents.

The sum of all inmates confined in the N = 316 facilities on the day of this survey was 216,531; which included 12,681 females.

Finally, when asked to rate what kind of impact have court decisions had on their institution from inmate-related litigation, the following results were given:

0 Bad 2.7%

1 2.7

2 6.9

3 9.3

4 7.9

5 29.9

6 10.0

7 13.4

8 10.0

9 3.1

10 Good 4.1%

BIVARIATE LEVEL ANALYSIS

The remaining analysis discussed in this report is based on bivariate statistical analysis. Sometimes called "crosstabulation" or "contingency table analysis", what it really means is to examine how two variables may be related to each other. How strongly two variables may be related is indicated by the Chi-square statistic. Generally, the larger the Chi-square value, the stronger the relationship.

Most importantly, the Chi-square statistic also has a probability level associated with it. It is in this sense that someone speaks of "statistically significant results". Generally, a probability level greater than .05 is not considered "significant". Conversely, when the probability level associated with the Chi-square test is less than the .05 level of probability it is generally called "significant". When the probability level is "<= .05" (less than or equal to .05) this means that in less than one case out of twenty would the result (the relationship between two variables) have occurred "by chance alone"

One other important briefing on this type of statistic and its interpretation is warranted here. The present research project represents cross-sectional survey research, admittedly very large scale in nature, and exceeded in its sample size apparently only by the U.S. Census Bureau data collected on state prisoners every decade . However, nothing in this data through bivariate statistical analysis can imply anything about causation. Cross-sectional survey research, no matter how many institutions respond, cannot address the matter of causation.

THE REPORTED USE OF GANG CONTROL STRATEGIES IN RELATIONSHIP TO GANG MEMBER THREATS AGAINST PRISON STAFF

Those adult correctional institutions reporting that gang members have been a problem in terms of threats against staff tend to be those who also report using any of a number of gang control strategies with some notable exceptions. This cannot be interpreted analytically as an evaluation of gang control strategies within corrections. The typical adult state prison uses several gang control strategies when it uses any at all.

The historical fact is clear on this issue: adult and juvenile correctional institutions have faced a "hands off" doctrine with regard to gang control strategies up to the present. No national standards have been promulgated on what is or is not effective in controlling gangs behind bars. Absolutely no evaluation research has yet to be published on the effectiveness of any of the gang control strategies currently used within corrections. The truth is, then, that we do not know "what works". The federal government has never initiated such a knowledge development plan to assess the effectiveness of gang control strategies behind bars in spite of the magnitude of what is obviously a national problem.

The Knox (1991) textbook on gangs included two separate chapters regarding correctional institutions and provided the first large scale national survey of adult and juvenile institutions since the earlier work of Camp and Camp (1985). The present 1992 survey continued in this tradition of examining specific types of gang control strategies reported as being used by correctional administrators.

Table 1 provides the results of examining all gang control strategies in relationship to whether the same institutions also report a problem with gang members threatening their correctional staff. As seen in Table 1, only four of these gang control strategies appear to have no significant relationship with whether the same correctional institutions also report a problem of gang threats against staff.

Those four gang control strategies that are not significant in relationship to reports of gang member threats on staff in the same institutions constitute those that are simply rarely used anyway: ignoring their existence, infiltration, coopting of prisoners to control gangs, and joint meetings between various gang leaders.

TABLE 1

THE DISTRIBUTION OF USING GANG CONTROL STRATEGIES

BY REPORTS OF GANG MEMBERS THREATENING STAFF

AMONG ADULT STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Gang Members a Problem

in Terms of Threats on

Correctional Staff?

GANG CONTROL STRATEGIES USED: NO YES

Transfers NO 88 9

YES 127 60

Chi-square = 18.06, p < .001

Use of Informers NO 130 21

YES 85 48

Chi-square = 18.91, p < .001

Segregation NO 123 18

YES 92 51

Chi-square = 20.23, p < .001

Isolating Leaders NO 136 27

YES 79 42

Chi-square = 12.43, p < .001

Lockdown NO 174 38

YES 41 31

Chi-square = 18.45, p < .001

Prosecution NO 167 40

YES 48 29

Chi-square = 10.26, p = .001

Interrupt Communications NO 162 38

YES 53 31

Chi-square = 10.31, p = .001

Case by Case Dealings NO 123 25

YES 92 44

Chi-square = 9.21, p = .002

Ignoring their existence NO 204 63

YES 11 6

Chi-square = 1.18, n.s.

Infiltration NO 211 68

YES 4 1

Chi-square = .05, n.s.

Displacing members to

different facilities NO 111 16

YES 104 53

Chi-square = 17.09, p < .001

Coopting of prisoners

to control gangs NO 210 66

YES 4 3

Chi-square = 1.32, n.s.

Meeting with gang leaders

on "as needed" basis NO 206 58

YES 8 11

Chi-square = 12.40, p < .001

Gang Members a Problem

in Terms of Threats on

Correctional Staff?

GANG CONTROL STRATEGIES USED: NO YES

Joint meetings between

various gang leaders NO 213 68

YES 1 1

Chi-square = .71, n.s.

Balance the number of

rival gang members

living in the same unit NO 187 47

YES 27 22

Chi-square = 13.52, p < .001

On the other hand, as seen in Table 1, virtually every gang control strategy that is commonly used is significantly more likely to be used in those institutions that have also reported problems of gang threats against correctional staff. Such an analysis would not have been possible in the previous Camp and Camp (1985) study, because of the small number of their observations. Nor has it been possible before the present research effort which has generated a sufficient, representative, and national sample size. The finding that is universal here, and which once again from a policy point of view prompts urgent consideration of the need to provide evaluation research on gang control strategies, is that none of these commonly used gang control strategies are associated with any lower levels of threats from gang members in their institutions.

This problem of gang members threatening staff is also shown to be significant in relationship to the extent to which gangs are felt to control the importation of illicit drugs into the correctional facility and to the extent which gangs are felt to dominate the illicit drug trade behind bars. These findings are shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2

DISTRIBUTION OF DRUG IMPORTATION AND DRUG DISTRIBUTION

GANG-CONTROLLED ACTIVITIES INSIDE PRISONS BY

REPORTS OF THREATS BY GANGS ON STAFF

Problem of Gang Threats

Against Prison Staff?

NO YES

GANG CONTROL OF ILLICIT

DRUG IMPORTATION INTO

THE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Low 94 11

High 60 43

Chi-square = 26.45, p < .001

GANG CONTROL OF ILLICIT

DRUG DISTRIBUTION INSIDE

THE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Low 98 10

High 61 48

Chi-square = 33.50, p < .001

As seen in Table 2, where gangs have high control over the importation and distribution of drugs in these adult state correctional institutions there is a statistically higher probability of an associated report of threats by gangs members against correctional staff in the same facilities. This finding regarding gang control over drug importation and distribution and its statistically significant relationship with a factor of violence faced by staff (e.g., threats) is very consistent with the emerging national research literature on gangs showing that the higher the gang-drug problem the higher the individual risk of violence.

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH FACILITIES THAT PROVIDE GANG TRAINING FOR THEIR CORRECTIONAL STAFF

The purpose of this analysis is to explain the difference between those adult state correctional institutions that do or do not provide their staff with formal training in dealing with the gang problem. First, some factors clearly are not significant in differentiating those correctional institutions that provide such training for dealing with the gang problem. These factors which are not significant, meaning that they are not variables that carry with them any statistically significant increased likelihood of such training, include the following: high/low percentage of inmates who are gang members (male and female), high/low percentage of the inmate population that need drug addiction counseling, high/low number of felony crimes that could have been prosecuted behind the bars within the last year, high/low recidivism rates, whether the correctional administrator believes gang members could be more effectively controlled if transferred to a central national unit, whether racial conflicts are reported in the same correctional facilities, whether the administrator believes giving staff recognition to prison gang leaders is similar to negotiating with terrorists, whether the administrator believes we need tougher laws to control the gang problem in prison, and whether the correctional facility is ACA accredited. These factors are not significant in relationship to whether the same correctional facilities currently provide their staff with gang training.

Table 3 provides the crosstabulation results for significant factors in relationship to whether the correctional institutions provide formalized training for dealing with the gang problem. As seen in Table 3, those institutions with the higher rate of felony crimes prosecuted in their facility during the last year are significantly more likely to also report providing formal gang training. Similarly, those facilities where gangs are estimated to control a higher percentage of the illicit drug smuggling into the facility are also significantly more likely to provide formal gang training; as are facilities that have had problems with actual assaults on staff by gang members, or threats against staff. Also, the longer the gang problem has existed at a facility, the more it is likely to also report providing such gang training.

TABLE 3

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF FACTORS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENTIATING

WHETHER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS PROVIDE FORMALIZED

TRAINING TO STAFF REGARDING THE GANG PROBLEM

Provide Gang Training?

NO YES

# of felonies prosecuted

in the last year: <= 2 83 52

>= 3 62 67

Chi-square = 4.79, p = .02

% of illicit drugs

brought in by gangs LOW 67 45

HIGH 50 66

Chi-square = 6.37, p = .01

Gangs a problem in terms

of assaults on staff? NO 159 116

YES 7 24

Chi-square = 13.93, p < .001

Gangs a problem in terms

of threats on staff? NO 129 85

YES 24 45

Chi-square = 13.65, p < .001

How long have gangs

existed as a problem: < 5 years 73 66

5-10 years 11 25

>10 years 7 15

Chi-square = 7.60, p = .02

FACTORS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENTIATING RACIAL CONFLICT

Racial conflict can in some ways be viewed as a surrogate measure of the gang problem inside correctional institutions. This is true, in part, because of the racial/ethnic differentiation which typically occurs between gangs behind bars; and because most types of conflict provide a thriving environment for gangs generally. Summarized here are those factors found in the 1992 warden survey which are significantly associated with this condition of whether the institutions report having a problem of racial conflict among the inmates.

Table 4 shows several factors that significantly differentiate whether or not these adult state correctional facilities report a problem with racial conflict among the inmates. The "critical density" factor of percentage gang members in the inmate population shows that the higher the gang problem, the higher the likelihood of racial conflict. Similarly, where white inmates have a separate gang (Aryan Brotherhood, Aryan Nation, SWP, etc) these same facilities are significantly more likely to report a problem of racial conflict. Those facilities that do not have sufficient resources and programs to control the gang problem are also those who are significantly more likely to report a problem of racial conflict among inmates.

Similarly, as seen in Table 4, those facilities that have reported one or more cases of tuberculosis diagnosed among inmates during the last year are also significantly more likely to report a problem of racial conflict.

TABLE 4

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF

FACTORS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENTIATING RACIAL CONFLICT

AMONG ADULT STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Problem with

Racial Conflicts?

NO YES

% male inmates who are

gang members LOW 69 67

HIGH 34 81

Chi-square = 11.54, p = .001

Do whites have a

separate gang? NO 86 86

YES 31 84

Chi-square = 15.15, p < .001

Does the facility have enough

resources and programs to

control the gang problem? NO 32 90

YES 93 74

Chi-square = 24.92, p < .001

Any inmates diagnosed with

tuberculosis in last year? NO 82 92

YES 40 78

Chi-square = 5.05, p = .02

Use informants to control

the gang problem? NO 80 82

YES 50 95

Chi-square = 6.95, p = .008

Use segregation to control

the gang problem? NO 78 80

YES 52 97

Chi-square = 6.57, p = .01

Racial Conflict?

NO YES

Use Displacing members to other

facilities to control gangs? NO 74 63

YES 56 114

Chi-square = 13.79, p < .001

Felonies by inmates that were

prosecuted last year LOW 67 65

HIGH 46 86

Chi-square = 6.82, p = .009

Felonies by inmates that could

have been prosecuted LOW 65 58

HIGH 35 81

Chi-square = 12.61, p < .001

% of inmates confined in the

facility who have served time LOW 77 83

there before (recidivism)

HIGH 48 88

Chi-square = 4.96, p = .02

Racial Conflict?

NO YES

% of illicit drug importation

into the facility controlled LOW 60 52

by prison gang members

HIGH 37 77

Chi-square = 10.28, p = .001

% of the illicit drug trade in the

facility that is controlled LOW 61 55

by prison gang members

HIGH 35 83

Chi-square = 12.70, p < .001

Those institutions that report that they use informants, segregation, or displacing members to other facilities as strategies to control the gang problem are also significantly more likely to report a problem of racial conflict as seen in Table 4. Those institutions with the higher problems in terms of felony crimes by inmates prosecuted and felony crimes by inmates that could have been prosecuted during the last year are also significantly more likely to report a problem of racial conflict. Those institutions with the higher recidivism rates are also significantly more likely to report a problem of racial conflict. And, finally, those institutions where gangs tend to have a high involvement/control over the importation/smuggling of drugs into the facility and the distribution of the drugs inside the facility are also significantly more likely to report a problem of racial conflict.

Whether the same institutions reported that they did or did not have an effective Affirmative Action program did not have any significant effect in differentiating racial conflict among the inmates. Regarding this factor of Affirmative Action, a large number of tests were made, and only one major finding emerged which is provided in Table 5.

TABLE 5

DISTRIBUTION OF INSTITUTIONAL SECURITY LEVELS BY

WHETHER THE FACILITIES REPORT HAVING AN

EFFECTIVE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM

Does your Department

have an effective

Affirmative Action

Program?

NO YES

SECURITY LEVEL: Minimum 17 96

Medium 3 103

Maximum 7 79

Chi-square = 10.18, p = .006

As seen in Table 5, apparently the problem of not having an effective Affirmative Action program is much more likely among those adult correctional facilities that have a minimum security level.

DIFFERENCES BY INSTITUTIONAL SECURITY LEVEL

In the 1991 survey of prison wardens, several factors varied significantly by the level of institutional security. One of these was the gang-density variable for the inmate population, where five percent or more of the inmates were gang members was shown to be significantly related to the security level: the higher the security level, the more likely the higher density of gang members in the population. This relationship does not hold for the 1992 survey. However, the gang factor does still bear some relationship to the institutional security level from our 1992 survey as shown below.

Table 6 shows that the higher the security level, the higher the probability of the same institutions reporting a problem of gang members assaulting correctional staff.

TABLE 6

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF INSTITUTIONS REPORTING A PROBLEM

OF GANG MEMBERS ASSAULTING STAFF BY

FACILITY SECURITY LEVEL

Institutional Security Levels

Minimum Medium Maximum

Have gang members

been a problem in NO 108 95 70

terms of assaults

on staff? YES 6 9 16

Chi-square = 9.93, p = .007

Similarly, the problem of overcrowding appears have an inverse relationship with this variable for institutional security level as demonstrated in Table 7. Also, the use of full-time staff employed as ombudsmen for inmates is much less common within minimum security institutions.

TABLE 7

DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF OVERCROWDING BY

INSTITUTIONAL SECURITY LEVELS

Institutional Security Levels

Minimum Medium Maximum

Is overcrowding a problem

in your facility? NO 65 41 41

YES 49 65 45

Chi-square = 7.40, p = .02

Does your institution have

any full-time staff employed

as ombudsmen for inmates? NO 104 78 61

YES 10 29 23

Chi-square = 15.01, p = .001

GANG CONTROL TECHNIQUES: AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF HOW LONG GANGS HAVE EXISTED AS A PROBLEM IN THE FACILITY AND WHETHER GANGS HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED THE CORRECTIONAL ENVIRONMENT

As discussed in the recent Correctional Gang Training Video produced by the Gang Crime Research Center at Chicago State University , presently there exists no evaluation research on the effectiveness for various techniques of gang control within the correctional setting. It is therefore valuable to analyze these various gang control techniques in relationship to duration and intensity. That is, for history, how long the gang problem has existed in these correctional institutions. And, for intensity, whether the responding facility reports that gangs have or have not significantly affected their correctional environment.

Table 8 provides the results of the crosstabulations for all gang control techniques by the two variables of intensity and duration. Intensity reflects whether gangs have significantly affected the correctional environment. Duration reflects how long gangs have existed as a problem in these institutions. Many of the gang control techniques are shown to be significantly differentiated by the intensity factor, but only three such gang control techniques are shown to be significant in relationship to the duration of the gang problem behind bars.

The higher the intensity of the gang problem in its impact on the correctional environment, the higher the probability that these same correctional institutions also use the following gang control techniques: transfers, use of informers, segregation, isolating leaders, lockdown, prosecution, interrupting communications, case by case dealings, displacing members to different facilities, meeting with gang leaders on an "as needed" basis, and balancing the number of rival gang members living in the same unit. No significant differences emerged by level of the intensity of the gang problem in terms of whether the same facilities used the following gang control techniques: ignoring their existence, infiltration, coopting of inmates to control gangs, and joint meetings with various gang leaders --- techniques rarely used anyway.

TABLE 8

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF GANG INTENSITY AND DURATION FACTORS

IN RELATIONSHIP TO USE OF GANG CONTROL TECHNIQUES

IN ADULT STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Gang Intensity Duration of the Problem Low High <5 yrs 5-10 yrs >10 yrs

Transfers NO 84 9 34 6 2

YES 132 74 106 30 20

p < .001 n.s.

Use of Informers NO 131 22 55 16 5

YES 85 61 85 20 17

p < .001 n.s.

Segregation NO 125 24 57 11 7

YES 91 59 83 25 15

p < .001 n.s.

Isolating leaders NO 133 35 75 13 8

YES 83 48 65 23 14

p = .002 n.s.

Lockdown NO 172 50 98 24 11

YES 44 33 42 12 11

p = .001 n.s.

Prosecution NO 168 48 100 21 8

YES 48 35 40 15 14

p = .001 p = .004

Interrupting NO 171 39 98 16 6

Communications YES 45 44 42 20 16

p < .001 p < .001

Case by Case NO 122 33 57 17 6

Dealings YES 94 50 83 19 16

p = .01 n.s.

Gang Intensity Duration of the Problem Low High <5 yrs 5-10 yrs >10 yrs

Ignoring their NO 205 77 129 33 22

existence YES 11 6 11 3 0

n.s. n.s.

Infiltration NO 214 80 138 34 21

YES 2 3 2 2 1

n.s. n.s.

Displacing members NO 106 23 50 11 2

to different YES 110 60 90 25 20

facilities p = .001 p = .04

Coopting of inmates NO 208 82 134 36 21

to control gangs YES 7 1 6 0 1

n.s. n.s.

Meeting with gang NO 207 73 126 35 20

leaders on "as YES 8 10 14 1 2

need" basis p = .007 n.s.

Joint meetings NO 212 82 139 35 21

between various YES 3 1 1 1 1

gang leaders n.s. n.s.

Balance number of NO 192 58 106 25 19

rival gang members YES 23 25 34 11 3

in same unit p < .001 n.s.

Only three gang control techniques are shown in Table 8 to be significantly more likely to be used the longer the gang problem has existed in these same correctional facilities: prosecution, interrupting communications, and displacement. Clearly, the intensity of the gang problem rather than its duration seems to account for more differences in the use of various gang control techniques.

Further, a separate analysis was undertaken to examine all such gang control techniques in relationship to whether the same institutions were ACA accredited. No significant difference emerged for any of these comparisons. Thus, the use of such gang control techniques is certainly independent of ACA accreditation and in many cases the duration of gang problem as well.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The findings from this research warrant much attention and further discussion. No prior published research outside of that conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau has had the benefit of the large sample size generated here. It is important to note that this research project was conducted without any government, foundation, or outside funding. The costs were equally shared by the principal investigator and the research associates.

This is, of course, a preliminary report. Hopefully further analysis will be undertaken on this same data . Certainly much analysis is needed on variables such as the prevalence of the diagnosis of TB cases in these facilities and a host of other issues.

We are exceedingly grateful for the high level of cooperation received from American correctional administrators . This is the second national survey of state prison wardens conducted by the Gang Crime Research Center.

Several policy issues that have emerged in this research deserve further discussion. These include (1) the gang issue, (2) the racial conflict issue, and (3) the fiscal crisis issue.

(1) The Gang Issue

Gangs are not new to corrections (see Knox, 1991). In some states like Illinois gangs are estimated to constitute nearly 90 percent of the inmate population (Lane, 1989) . Many of the states reported by Camp and Camp (1985) to not have a gang problem in corrections, now have it in either the adult or juvenile division (Knox, 1991). Some of these prison gangs are highly organized along military lines (Fong, 1990). So in addition to being imported (Jacobs, 1974; Jacobs, 1977) they can be "exported" as well.

In fact, "gang nations" (or supergangs, see Krajick, 1990) like those in the midwest (People versus Folks) may have been produced within the correctional system (Bobrowski, 1988). It is the notion that prisons can be incubators for gang organization (Daniels, 1987: 66). It is not a problem limited to the midwest, California has problems (Conrad, 1979), Texas has problems (Baird, 1986; Fong, 1987; Scallan, 1987; Ralph, Marquart, and Crouch, 1990; Fong and Buentello, 1991; Fong, Vogel and Little, 1991), as do eastern and southeastern states (Knox, 1991). They have even been reported in South Africa (Lotter, 1988). Gangs in correctional settings date back to the 19th century. There are many gangs in prisons but our current knowledge base provides no guaranteed solutions as to which strategies are more effective in managing the gang problem in corrections (Knox, Tromanhauser, and Mc Currie, 1992).

(2) The Racial Conflict Issue

National data on juvenile correctional institutions report nearly equal levels of racial conflict (48.3%) to those in adult prisons (Knox, 1991). Missing is only the lethal nature and intensity of the conflict that is more often found among adult inmates. An emerging gang thesis sees racial enmity as a major factor in the gang problem, both in and outside of the correctional context. Race relations can therefore be a surrogate measure of the gang problem, or its potential. It also correlates with conditions of overcrowding (Leger, 1988; Knox, 1991).

It is an area needing much research and analysis to help guide policy formation and program implementation. As a social problem, it is one about which something can and should be done. What may work in the prison context may also work in other social contexts. It is truly a problem that should be addressed more systematically.

(3) The Fiscal Crisis Issue

There are ideological if not objective material limits to the use of the penal sanction (Packer, 1968). Society wants to have its cake and eat it too, without paying the baker. States like Illinois are currently committed by criminal statute to "mandatory sentencing guidelines" (e.g., Class X legislation) where little discretion exists for judges. Some offenders must be sent to prison under current state sentencing guidelines regardless of their objective risk to the public.

Unfortunately some of the problems facing corrections today (racial conflict, gangs, etc) while historically recurring are not addressed in recommended standards by national groups. It is time to get them on the agenda. It is also time for policy makers and legislators to recognize that cuts to correctional budgets will ultimately translate as cuts in social defense and as reductions in the quality of life. But for this more interaction between corrections and the general public will be required.

While much of American public (parents, students, teachers, and police) clearly want gang members in their community prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and "put behind bars", the dumping of this problem into the correctional arena has not been accompanied with the additional resources to handle this additional problem. Our research findings suggest that a great need currently exists for such professional gang training and additional programs and resources to address the threat represented by gangs behind bars.

Indeed, the success of local law enforcement in prosecuting gang members now means that this problem must be managed by correctional officials. Unfortunately, while large problems in terms of actual assaults and threats upon correctional staff are evident in relationship to the presence of gangs behind bars, our state legislators appear to have created additional problems for those who work in the corrections field by not providing the additional resources necessary to address this increased security burden.

REFERENCES

Baird, L.H.

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

Bobrowski, Lawrence J.

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

Camp, George and Camille Graham Camp

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

Conrad, J.P.

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

Cox, V.

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

Daniels, S.

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

Davidson, H.S.

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

Fong, Robert S.

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

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

Fong, Robert S. and Salvador Buentello

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

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

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

Genders, Elaine

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

Gettinger, Stephen

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

Jacobs, James

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

1977 Stateville. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Knox, George W.

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

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

Krajick, K.

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

Lane, Michael

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

Legger, Robert G.

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

Lotter, J.M.

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

Miller, William A.

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

Packer, Herbert L.

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

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

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

Scallan, J.H.

1987 Prison Codes and Communications. Texas Department of Corrections.

Serrill, Michael S. and Peter Katel

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