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

PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE 1994 ADULT CORRECTIONS SURVEY

Principal Investigator: George W. Knox, Ph.D.

Director

National Gang Crime Research Center

December 13th, 1994

ABSTRACT

Described here are the results from the 1994 Adult Corrections Survey research project. All state adult correctional institutions were included the sample frame. The usable sample consisted of N = 290 respondents. This represents over a third of all such institutions in the sample universe. The sample includes responses from 47 states.

The research methodology is described, and basically involved a short time frame from data collection to providing this preliminary report.

The descriptive statistical findings are reported for all quantitative variables in the survey. While the primary concern of this project focused on gangs, a number of other issues are discussed and examined here as they affect adult state correctional institutions in the United States.

A more detailed discussion and analysis was also undertaken and reported on addressing the issue of estimating the scope of the "gang problem" in American adult state correctional institutions. However, analysis attention is also given to other contemporary issues of concern to the corrections profession today. Thus, the contributions in terms of knowledge development by this research are not simply limited to the gang problem, but to other problems as well.

Recommendations for future research and improving the focus of gang analysis are also included in this report.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE 1994 ADULT CORRECTIONS SURVEY

INTRODUCTION

The preliminary results from the 1994 Adult Corrections Survey are reported here. Descriptive statistical findings are provided for all quantitative variables from this survey. More detailed analysis is also provided for some of the gang or security threat group (STG) issues.

THE SURVEY

The 1994 Adult Corrections Survey is a nine-page questionnaire. Nearly two-hundred quantitative variables are taken from this survey and the results are presented in this report. However, there are other "open-ended" questions in the survey which are not analyzed nor reported here. The reason is that these questions elicit narrative information --- words essentially ---and a content analysis is required to meaningfully interpret this kind of variable. No content analysis is included in this preliminary report. Rather, this report focuses exclusively on the forced-choice questions in the survey and on those questions that elicit numbers only.

The reason for this delimitation of the focus of the report is a very practical one: basic results of the survey were promised to the respondents in a very short period of time. That promise has been made and honored by this report .

METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLING

The methodology used here is that of survey research, more specifically the use of a mail questionnaire. As a probono research project, not specifically funded, the costs of the project (mailing, photoduplication, etc) were borne by the research team itself. Every research associate was able to include several questions on the survey instrument. The research associates listed for this project were at the time either graduate students or other researchers associated with the National Gang Crime Research Center.

The sampling technique used for this survey research was that of a saturation sample method. Every adult state correctional institution listed in the Directory of the American Correctional Association was included in the sample. This included all institutions, facilities and boot camps for adults. Approximately N = 800 such survey instruments, with cover letters, and return envelopes were mailed out in early October, 1994. By the time frame of 11-23-94 some N = 290 institutions had completed the questionnaires and returned them in the return envelope provided. This is the sample used for the present analysis.

While other surveys may be expected to continue to "arrive", most of the data in survey research projects such as this come in right away or it does not come in at all. Thus, it is unlikely that a few additional surveys that may arrive after the arbitrary "cut-off" date of 11-23-94 would substantially change the nature of the findings reported here.

One methodological problem that this kind of project faces by seeking a rapid turnaround in terms of data collection and reporting of results, is that some states have bureaucratized the ability of wardens or superintendents in terms of being able to respond to such surveys. California, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Virginia have policies in place that require even the warden to be subject to strict "research review and prior approval" policies. The idea behind this type of policy is simply to centralize release of information, thus any "research" is considered research on inmates. Research on inmates as the unit of analysis does, in most states, require completing a formal application for such research approval; with the emphasis being on the protection of the rights of human research subjects and confidentiality issues. While it is our position that a warden or superintendent is a public official, and that this kind of research is therefore exempt from such "human subject review" processes that were designed to protect the rights of inmates (e.g., from medical and psychological experimentation), there is no doubt that this kind of policy inhibited to some extent the response rate to the present survey in at least one state.

The questions and issues addressed in this survey are those that have appeared in the recent criminological and correctional literature. None of the questions in the survey address the religious beliefs, the sexual preferences, or very private aspects of the respondents. The questions address issues about problems such as gangs. The questions measure beliefs about the problems, and estimates of the scope and extent of the problems. Other questions simply elicit what is basically public information: population size, facility type, date the physical plant was constructed, etc. It appears that some correctional systems, unfortunately, have erected not only walls and fences to contain convicted persons but have also recently built up barriers to the free flow of voluntary information about basic issues of public interest.

The typical respondent to this survey is in ascending order: a warden or superintendent, an associate warden in charge of custody or the chief of security for the facility, a gang or Security Threat Group coordinator or investigator for the institution. We know this because as we promised a free copy of the report, most took us up on this offer. The typical respondent is therefore in the command level of the organization surveyed.

VALIDITY ISSUES

High attention to detail is evident in the survey data received from the N = 290 facilities. Many respondents neatly typed their responses on the survey instrument, obviously taking care and deliberation. Our sample also includes privately operated correctional institutions such as those in Kentucky, in addition to traditional government operated facilities, and in this sense is more representative of the actual correctional industry today. It was not uncommon for the returned survey instrument to be accompanied with a cover letter from the warden expressing appreciation for the effort and undertaking of this 1994 Adult Corrections Survey Project.

We believe we got better data than the American Correctional Association (ACA) got in its limited survey attempt to generate a national assessment of gangs in corrections today. The reason is that unlike ACA, we are a totally independent research oriented group specializing in gang issues. We are not the same national organization that grants or retracts "certification". We feel the respondents could be more open with us as a result.

RELIABILITY ISSUES

This is not the first survey of gangs in corrections undertaken by the National Gang Crime Research Center, it is the fourth annual survey reported promptly to those who wanted the information. We have, out of national interest, somewhat expanded the content and material provided this year. But the results of this years survey are to a very large degree consistent with previous efforts we have undertaken, particularly in regard to the key research issues (i.e., gang density rates, etc). This is not to deny that the gang problem is a volatile issue, as it is; but rather we can document the levels and nature of such changes over time in recent years because of our previous research experience in this area.

Almost all of the respondents asked for a copy of the report and thus had to provide their name. By identifying themselves the data provided is assumed to have a greater reliability, because we know the respondent as someone who is also a consumer of the immediate plan for the dissemination of the research knowledge produced. The shere numbers of different respondents from each state tend to ensure that a true "overall picture" emerges. These are respondents facing the real gang problem inside real correctional institutions, these are not high ranking bureaucrats in comfortable offices in the state government's county seat who are far removed from the day to day operations of prison life. Part of the high rate of response we experience in our surveys is the body of goodwill we have developed over the years in providing such rapid turnaround research projects and quickly disseminating results to those who were data sources. Unlike traditional Ivory Tower research groups which have a kind of exploitive mode "give me your information and I will sell you the results", we promised and have delivered over the years on making dissemination a part of the social contract we have with respondents. This goodwill accounts for the high response rate and also reflects on the level of cooperation received. And as such improves upon the reliability and validity of the data involved.

DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEY

The procedure here will be to present the descriptive statistical findings from the survey in the same order in which the questions appeared on the survey instrument. An important analytical factor is that in the findings described in this section, the results reflect the entire sample size. That is, in this section no effort is made to partial out certain factors or to control for other variables in the presentation of results. This section, then, describes the results for the entire sample. In this section, therefore, no comparisons are made and no control variables are used.

Do Correctional Officers Face Greater Physical Danger Than Police?

The survey asked "do you believe that correctional officers may face a greater actual day-to-day danger of physical confrontation than do police officers on the street". Two thirds (N = 192, 66.7%) of the respondents agreed that correctional officers do in fact face an actual greater day-to-day danger than do police officers on the street. One third (N=96, 33.3%) of the respondents did not feel that correctional officers faced a greater danger than police officers.

Has the Supreme Court Gone Too Far Regarding Inmate Rights?

The survey asked "in general, do you believe the Supreme Court has gone too far on ruling in favor of inmate rights". About nine out of ten respondents felt this was true. The overwhelming majority of the respondents (N = 258, 89.9%), thus, felt that the Supreme Court has gone too far on ruling in favor of inmate rights. Only a tenth of the sample (N = 29, 10.1%) disagreed with the idea that the Supreme Court has gone too far on ruling in favor of inmate rights.

The Perceived Impact of the Recent Federal Crime Bill

The survey asked "do you think the recently passed Federal Crime Bill will have a positive effect on your state correctional system". Only about a third of the respondents (N = 97, 34.8%) felt that the recently passed federal crime bill would have a positive effect on state corrections. Most of the respondents (N = 182, 65.2%) did not agree with the idea that the recently passed federal crime bill would have a positive effect on state corrections. Perhaps it is as one respondent marked on the survey, in the margin, "more overcrowding what we can expect".

Federal Prosecution for Gang Crimes Behind Bars

The survey asked "in your opinion, should crimes committed by gang members while in prison be subject to federal prosecution". The respondents were nearly equally divided on this issue. Slightly over half of the respondents (N = 155, 54.2%) agreed with the idea of federal prosecution for gang crimes that occur behind bars. Slightly under half of the respondents (N = 131, 45.8%) disagreed with the value of federal involvement in suppressing gang crime that occurs inside correctional institutions and facilities.

Transferring Gang Members To A Central National Federal Unit

The survey asked "do you believe gangs could be more effectively controlled if gang members could be transferred to a central-national federal unit". Just over a half of the respondents (N = 160, 56.1%) disagreed with this idea. Under a half of the respondents (N = 125, 43.9%) agreed with the idea of shipping incarcerated gang members to a central-national-federal type of facility. We would recommend, for next years survey, that this item focus specifically on gang leaders or "disruptive gang member or STG inmates" rather than simply gang members, because there are simply too many gang members behind bars for such a policy to be implemented.

Gang Density Among Male Inmates

Gang density means the percentage of the inmate population who are gang members. It is possible some state systems do not know with much accuracy what that density level consists of. It is equally possible that some correctional administrators do not know what their level of gang density is. This helps to explain why we are missing data on this variable for 37 respondents. Thus, the results below are derived from the estimates of N = 253 state adult correctional facilities.

The survey asked "among staff who know about gang members, what is the current estimate of what percentage gang members are of the total inmate population". The results show that for over half of the respondents that a gang density rate of ten percent or higher was reported. Only 23.3 percent of the respondents indicated a gang density rate of three percent or lower. Only 37.9 percent of the respondents indicated a gang density rate of six percent or lower. And only 7.1 percent indicated their gang density rate was "zero percent". In fact, some 6.3 percent of the respondents indicated their gang density rate was fifty percent or higher.

The mean value, or arithmetic average, for all N = 253 facilities providing gang density estimates for male inmates was ???? percent.

Gang Density Among Female Inmates

There is no mistaking the trend in our data and it is consistent with all of our previous research on this issue: correctional respondents tend to estimate a much lower gang density rate for female inmates than they do for male inmates. It should be noted that N = 96 respondents were able to actually provide estimates of female gang density. Some 60.4 percent of the respondents provided a gang density estimate of three percent or less. Over a fourth (28.1%) indicated a gang density rate of zero for female inmates. However, it is very clear to us that female inmates also have some gang problems, and this will be addressed as a separate issue later.

The mean value, or arithmetic average, for all N = 253 facilities providing gang density estimates for female inmates was ???? percent.

Staff Training About Gangs

The survey asked "do your staff receive formalized training in dealing with the gang problem". Clearly, half do, and half do not is what the data shows. About half (N = 140, 49.5%) indicated their staff do receive such formal training to deal with the gang problem. And half (N = 143, 50.5%) indicated their staff do not receive such training.

The survey also provided a follow-up question about how many hours this gang training consisted of. Generally, it is our impression that this training is not very intensive for the most part. The length of such training ranged from a low of one hour to a high of 105 hours. However, over half of the cases (58.6%) consisted of gang training lasting four hours or less.

An additional follow-up question about gang training sought to address how many of the staff have actually been provided with such training. We found this particular survey item problematic, because while it elicited a number (i.e., number of staff trained), often the respondent would simply mark "all" as a response. We would highly recommend more precision on this factor for next years gang survey: it is of more than some national interest to ascertain the extent to which correctional officers responsible for the care and custody of gang members have actually been given any training on how to effectively deal with such gang members. This variable was the only item we felt generated responses that could not be translated into a valid national assessment about the role of gangs in corrections today.

Gang Members Assaulting and Threatening Correctional Staff

The survey asked "have gang members been a problem in terms of assaults on your staff". Most of the respondents (N = 225, 78.7%) indicated that gang members had not been a problem in terms of assaulting correctional staff. However, about a fifth of the correctional facilities survey (N = 61, 21.3%) did in fact indicate that gang members had been a problem in terms of assaulting correctional staff.

A follow-up question asked whether gang members had been a problem in terms of threats on staff. Just over half (N = 151, 58.1%) indicated that gang members had not been a problem in terms of threats on staff. However, about twice as many facilities indicated a problem in terms of threats than did those that reported assaults (N = 109, 41.9%), suggesting that gang members pose a greater problem in terms of threats on staff than actual assaults.

Racial Conflicts Among Inmates

The survey asked "are racial conflicts a problem among the offenders in your facility". Over half of the respondents (N = 162, 56.6%) indicated that racial conflict was a problem among the inmates in their facilities. Under half of the respondents (N = 124, 43.4%) reported that there was no problem regarding racial conflicts among inmates in their facilities. It may be of some value to analyze this variable with regard to geographical variation as well as the structure of racial distribution among inmates nationally.

White Gangs Behind Bars

The survey asked "do white inmates have a separate gang". Slightly over half of the facilities survey (N = 151, 54.7%) indicated that white inmates did in fact have a separate gang in their facilities. Slightly under half of the facilities (N = 125, 45.3%) reported that white inmates did not have a separate gang. It may be worthwhile to analyze this variable in relationship to other factors (racial conflict, racial distribution among inmates, geographic region, etc). A follow-up question asked the respondent to indicate the name of the white gangs. Most reporting this information indicated the Aryan Brotherhood (64.2%). However, other groups included: Aryan Circle, Aryan Nation, BOWS (Brothers of the White Struggle), Bible Arm & The Sword, Bikers, the Insane Gangster Disciples, Northsiders, Organized Crime, Prison Motorcycle Brotherhood, Pagans, Rock Hill, Simon City Royals, Shoshone Outlaws, Skinheads, and White Pride groups among others.

The Structure of Racial Distributions Among Inmates

The survey asked the responding facilities to estimate what percentage of the inmates in their facility are white, Black, Hispanic, and Other; thus eliciting four separate variables for the structure of racial distribution among inmates. The distribution for white inmates showed a range between a low of one percent to a high of 100 percent; with a mean of ??? percent. The distribution for Black inmates showed a range between a low of one half of one percent to a high of 96 percent; with a mean of ??? percent. The distribution for Hispanic inmates showed a range between a low of zero percent to a high of 70 percent; with a mean of ??? percent. The distribution for "Other" showed a range between a low of zero to a high of 93 percent, which would cover the situation in a Hawaii facility for example; with a mean of ??? percent.

Bargaining With Inmate Gang Leaders

Most of the respondents do not like the idea of bargaining with inmate gang leaders is what this data shows. The survey asked "in your opinion, would an administrator who tries to bargain with an inmate gang leader be similar to negotiating with terrorists". Most of the facilities responding to this survey (N = 205, 72.4%) agreed that bargaining with inmate gang leaders is similar to negotiating with terrorists. Still, about a fourth of the respondents ((N = 78, 27.6%) did not share this perspective, and did not agree that negotiating with inmate gang leaders is similar to negotiating with terrorists. It may be worthwhile to see if the variation in this item is explained by actual experience with gang members, that is the scope and extent of the gang problem in the same correctional facilities, and gang training as well.

Gang Leaders With Political Influence

The role of politics as it overlaps with the gang problem is such a part of American history that an entire chapter is devoted to this issue in the textbook An Introduction to Gangs. Gang involvement in politics in some cities like Chicago is well known and makes much continual national news. A new and additional survey question in this years survey of adult correctional facilities therefore focused on this issue of whether gang leaders have political influence.

The survey asked "do you feel that gangs or gang leaders are able to influence politicians in your state". Most of the responding adult state correctional facilities (N = 228, 79.7%) felt that gangs currently lack this political influence. Still, about a fifth of the respondents nationally (N = 58, 20.3%) did feel that gangs or gang leaders are able to influence the politicians in their particular states. We look forward to a more specific geographical analysis of this issue. We would further recommend, given the apparent scope of this problem is large enough to warrant further study, that subsequent surveys by the Center consider including related questions about the nature of this political influence by gangs or gang leaders.

Names of Major Gangs Represented Among Inmates

The survey asked the respondent to write in the names of the top three major gangs that are represented among inmates in their respective adult state correctional facilities. Three "text-information" variables thus existed, which were included in the computer file for analysis. In each of the survey responses, a respondent could indicate up to only three such names, and in no case would a single gang be listed twice; thus, each of these three variables are totally independent. The three variables were combined into one larger file containing the list of the top three gangs. Appendix A provides the responses, giving an alphabetical listing of the names of the top three gangs represented among inmates among the 290 facilities responding to the 1994 survey.

As seen in Appendix A, some trends emerge here, and among the gangs most often cited include the following:

Name of Gang Number of Facilities Reporting It

ABs Aryan Brotherhood 52

BGDs Bl. Gangster Disciples 52

Bloods 70

Crips 80

Latin Kings 34

Vice Lords 38

Thus, some gangs like these are very wide spread in terms of their representation among adult state correctional inmates. A number of the gangs in Appendix A are LARGs (Local Area of Residence Gangs), which form inside prisons in the "homey phenomenon", someone from the hometown or neighborhood they can identify and run with while in custody). Some who follow these developments closely will see some proliferation and expansion in this data environment. There was a time several years ago when the only prison system reporting the PMB's (Prison Motorcycle Brotherhood) was Minnesota. The PMBs are now to be found in a number of states, and appear to have rapidly proliferated outside of the Minnesota system in recent years.

Which is More Dangerous: Street Gangs or Prison Gangs?

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

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

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

The Year Gangs First Became Recognized as a Problem

The survey asked "in what year did gangs first become recognized as a problem in your facility". Obviously, some respondents who may have a number of gangs and gang members within their facility would leave this question blank if their state has a policy to "down play" the gang problem, or a host of other competing explanations. It is not simply a matter of "denial", it is a matter of when is anything considered a "problem" that must be "recognized".

The fact is, however, a sample of N = 197 responding facilities did provide this information and the results are as follows:

1979 and before: 6.6%

1980-1989: 32.5%

1990 19.8%

1991 9.1%

1992 17.3%

1993 10.7%

1994 4.1%

These findings are largely consistent with other gang research, particularly that surveying law enforcement agencies, suggesting that for a great many agencies throughout the United States the gang problem is a relatively recent phenomenon. Obviously, some facilities and some jurisdictions have dealt with the gang problem for some time. But it is obvious as well that some major national proliferation of the gang problem has occurred in recent years.

Do Well-Disciplined Gangs Contribute to Prison Tranquility?

Some may have been skeptical when first hearing this claim that some well disciplined gangs could have a "calming effect" on other inmates, but it is an issue that has emerged as being of some interest to a national assessment of gangs in corrections today. Our survey specifically asked "do you believe it is possible that some well-disciplined gangs can contribute to a prison's tranquility". Correctional facilities responding to the survey were about equally mixed in their responses to this question. About half of the adult state correctional facilities (N = 149, 53.2%) did not feel that it was possible for well-disciplined gangs to contribute to a prison's tranquilty. Still, others disagreed (N = 131, 46.8%), believing that this potential prosocial aspect of gang function existed.

Further analysis is needed on this issue and what it is really measuring and whether it is related to other aspects of the gang problem behind bars.

The Federal Role About Gangs

The survey asked "do you believe federal agencies should play a greater role in the investigation and prosecution of gang crimes". Most of the adult state correctional facilities responding to the survey agreed (N = 195, 69.6%) that a greater federal role was needed for the gang problem. Still, some of the respondents (N = 85, 30.4%) did not feel that a greater federal role was needed to address the gang problem.

Income Activity Sources for Gangs Behind Bars

The survey asked "what kind of economic rackets do gangs try to operate or control in your facility (check ALL that apply)". Drugs were cited by two-thirds (N = 196, 67.8%) of the facilities responding to the survey as an income activity source for gangs behind bars. Sex was cited by a third (N = 97, 33.6%) of the facilities responding to the survey as an income source for gangs behind bars. Other rackets included "food" (N = 83, 28.7%), "clothing" (N = 58, 20.1%), "loan sharking" (N = 131, 45.5%), "gambling" (N = 147, 50.9%), "extortion" (N = 146, 50.5%), selling "protection" (N = 151, 52.2%), and "other" (N = 28, 9.8%). Other included a number of widely differing situations subject to exploitation by inmates: control of job assignments, rooms, etc, typically "key functions" in the prison that might be subject to some influence by well placed inmates who may be able to exert their own individual control over these functions.

Cash Seized Gang Members Behind Bars

The validity of the role of gangs being involved in illicit income activities behind bars is reinforced by the fact that a separate question on the survey sought to ascertain whether any hard currency "cash" had been recently seized from gang members in these various facilities. The survey asked "what is the largest amount of cash seized from gang member inmates during the last one year period". Some 72 facilities indicating seizing some amount of cash money from gang member inmates during the last year. Thus, in a full one fourth of all adult correctional facilities surveyed (24.8%), the respondents indicated seizing some cash from gang inmates during the last year.

The amount of cash seized varied from a low of $20.00 (United States Currency) to a high of $4,000. One respondent also indicated that in the context of one such cash seizure, that financial records from the gang were found indicating a cash balance of $30,000 in one facility. The mean value of cash seized was $???? for the facilities reporting this factor, totalling $?????? nationwide in the last year.

Separate Facilities for Confidential Informants

Sometimes called the "snitch farm", a recent trend has been necessary for some states to create separate facilities for confidential informers. This is necessary, for example, in dealing with highly organized gangs; where one inmate gang member is willing to testify against members of the same gang. The survey asked "does your state have a separate correctional facility for confidential informants". Most (N = 253, 89.1%) did not have this capability. Only a few of the respondents (N = 31, 10.9%) reported that their states had a separate correctional facility for confidential informants.

Pressure to "Play Down" Gang Activity: A Rare Phenomenon

Our data includes 47 states and includes those with low and high gang density rates --- a diverse representation of those correctional facilities facing the gang problem nationally. Some discussion in the prior literature, particularly surfacing as an issue relevant to a national assessment of gangs in corrections today, has focused on the problem of the denial syndrome. In the way in which the denial syndrome has been previously discussed, it might be possible to infer that political pressures existed to make this an intentional act of "denying the gang problem". The present survey asked the question "do you as an administrator receive any pressure to 'play down' gang activity". The overwhelming majority of the facilities responding to our survey (N = 275, 96.2%) indicated they have no such pressures from anyone to play down gang activity. It is, in fact, a rarity (N = 11, 3.8%) for the respondent to indicate such pressures exist to play down gang activity. Of course, among those who did not respond to the survey it remains a possibility that such pressures do in fact exist. Unless such pressures existed in some large inmate-population states like California, Illinois, Texas and Florida (who collectively represent a large portion of the overall inmate population in the USA) it would be hard to imagine a significant impact on artificially deflating gang density estimates for a national assessment.

Gang Disturbances and Racial Disturbances

These are two separate types of disturbances that in some contexts become the same. Two separate questions were included in the survey to ascertain the scope and extent of recent inmate disturbances related to racial conflicts and related to gangs.

One question in the survey asked "During the last twelve month period, have there been any disturbances related to gang members in your facility". Some 39.2 percent (N = 113) of the facilities surveyed did in fact report such gang disturbances as occuring in the last one year period.

Another question in the survye asked "During the last twelve month period, have there been any disturbances related to racial conflict in your facility". Some 34.9 percent (N = 99) of the facilities surveyed did in fact report such racial conflict disturbances in the last one year period.

Still, the interesting question exists as to whether or not these two types of conflict are independent of each other in some instances, or whether having one type of disturbance is likely to lead to having the other. Table 1 shows the results of this test.

TABLE 1

Frequency Distribution of Gang Disturbances

by Racial Disturbances

Racial Disturbance

During Last Year?

NO YES

Gang Disturbance During

the Last Year? NO 143 31

YES 42 68

Chi-square = 57.4, p < .001

As seen in Table 1, a total of 143 state adult correctional facilities surveyed here reported having neither a racial disturbance nor a gang disturbance in the last one year period. Still, some 31 who did not have a gang disturbance did report having a racial disturbance; and similarly, 42 facilities who reported a gang disturbance did not have a racial disturbance during the same time frame. But 68 of the facilities reported having both types of inmate disturbances. This frequency distribution generates a very large Chi-square statistical value (Chi-square = 57.4) suggesting a strong association exists between these two variables. Further it is a statistically significant effect (p < .001) that would occur in less than one out of one thousand cases by chance distribution alone. Thus, as expected, these two factors are not independent; and rather some significant association exists between them: having one type of inmate disturbance (gangs) is associated with a higher likelihood of having another type of inmate disturbance (racial).

Sexual Assaults Among Inmates

Everyone talks about this issue, but few actually investigate it, so little has been known about this factor from an empirical point of view. Because it affects correctional life, and because it is an enduring issue of some interest, two questions were included in the survey about sexual assaults among inmates. The first focuses on "complaint oriented cases", that is where a complaint or actual report exists from an inmate that the inmate was a victim of a sexual assault behind bars. The second question focuses on estimating all cases of such sexual assaults whether they were or were not reported.

The survey asked "how many sexual assaults were actually reported by inmates during the last twelve month period", and the respondent was asked to simply fill in the number. Some 269 adult state correctional institutions provided data in response to this question. Just over half (58.7%) indicated zero such sexual assaults had been reported by inmates. Still, 41.3 percent therefore indicated one or more such cases of reported sexual assault among inmates. The data ranged from a low of zero to a high of 50 such assaults reported for each facility.

Another question on the survey asked: "Estimate the total number of sexual assaults that occurred in your facility during the last twelve month period whether or not they were actually reported". Some 241 adult state correctional facilities provided information on this variable. Some 38.2 percent reported zero such cases, thus 61.8 percent reported one or more such sexual assaults in the last year. Further, a fourth (24.4%) of all facilities responding to this question indicated that ten or more such sexual assaults in the last year. The data showed a range between a low of zero such suspected sexual assault incidents among inmates to a high of 150 in one facility.

Stress Levels in Corrections Work

The survey asked "To what degree does stress relate to your work environment". The respondents were given the stress scale choices between a low of zero (no stress) and a high of ten (a lot of stress).

Data was provided by 286 responding adult state correctional institutions and these results are provided below.

Level of # of Responses

Stress From Facilities Percent

LOWEST stress 0 1 .3

1 3 1.0

2 1 .3

3 9 3.1

4 10 3.5

5 32 11.2

6 25 8.7

7 39 13.6

8 78 27.3

9 31 10.8

HIGHEST stress 10 57 19.9

As seen above, most responses of these correctional administrators cluster near the higher end of the stress scale. Those who rate corrections work a low stress environment are truly the exception to the rule is what this data indicates. While as seen in some previous variables, such as gang density where the respondent did not know about this factor and had to be treated as missing data, nearly everyone in the present analysis provided data for this variable (N = 286) As seen here, 58 percent of the respondents gave a stress rating of 8 or higher on a ten point scale!

The Availability of Means to Reduce Stress

The survey asked "are there any means available to you in your work place for you to reduce stress". Almost all of the correctional facilities provided data for this question (N = 284). About half (53.5%) of the facilities report that such means are available to them. Still, about half (46.5%) also report that no such means are available to them at their work place to reduce stress.

We examined this factor of the availability of means to reduce stress in terms of actual incidents (racial disturbances, gang disturbances) and events occuring in the facilities (staff testing positive for the PPD test). None of these listed variables were significant in relationship to the availability of means to reduce stress in the work place. However, we are convinced it is an important variable and this quickly emerged when we examined it in relationship to an important attitudinal factor.

The attitudinal factor examined here has not yet been described ("do you think anything can be done to reduce racial conflicts among inmates"), but basically measures whether the respondent is cynical about the prospects of controlling the work environment in terms of being able to do anything humanly possible to reduce or prevent racial conflicts.

Table 2 shows an important effect of this variable of the availability of means to reduce stress in relationship to whether the same correctional administrators feel anything can be done to reduce racial conflict.

TABLE 2

Frequency Distribution of Responses from 281 Adult

State Correctional Institutions: Having Means

Available to Reduce Stress by

Beliefs About Reducing Racial Conflict Among Inmates

Do you think anything can

be done to reduce racial

conflicts among inmates?

NO YES

Are there any means

available to you in your

work place for you to

reduce stress? NO 54 77

YES 35 115

Chi-square = 10.3, p = .001

As seen in Table 2, the available of means to reduce stress has an important and statistically significant effect on differentiating attitudes about whether anything can be done to reduce racial conflicts among prison inmates. To actually seek to reduce these problems one must be willing to accept the positive attitude that "something can be done" about it. Apparently, those with means available to reduce their stress at work are more prone to believe that something can be done about reducing racial conflict among inmates.

Stress does impact on the attitudes of correctional administrators in an important and statistically significant way is what this data shows. Correctional staff need to be second to none when it comes to being mentally prepared for dealing with problems such as racial conflict, disturbances, riots, and aspects of the downside of human life --- ugly violence at its worst --- that most human beings never see.

Types of Rehabilitation Services Available to Inmates

The survey asked "what types of rehabilitation programs are available in your facility (check all that apply)". Some 93.7 percent (N = 269) of the facilities reported having education services that provide for a high school diploma or the G.E.D. for inmates. Some 58.2 percent (N = 167) of the facilities reported having college courses available for prison inmates. Some 67.6 percent (N = 194) reporting having vocational training services or programs available for inmates. Some 86.1 percent (N = 247) reported having group counseling services or programs available for inmates. And some 72.5 percent (N = 208) reported having a psychologist on staff for inmates. Apparently, if we are to believe Table 2 above as well, a psychologist specializing in stress reduction and stress management should also be available for correctional employees --- that is, if it is the environment of correctional life that generates the need for psychological services, then inmates are not alone in deserving if not objectively needing such help.

Negotiating With Gangs To Keep The Peace

We know it happens, and we know historically it is bad policy that backfires in the long run, but it does happen; both formally and informally at all levels and in many different contexts. Sometimes it seems to the decision-maker in corrections to be a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils as a moral dilemma in correctional management. It means "throwing the gang a bone", trying to coopt the gang into better cooperation, often by a quid pro quo type of arrangement: the gang promises X, and the correctional administrator promises Y. Unfortunately, the "X" for the gang is often a promise of not to cause trouble, and it is basically an extortion attempt to get "Y" --- some priviledge or concession.

The survey asked "do staff in your facility sometimes find it necessary to negotiate with gang members in order to keep the peace". Responses by 280 of the 290 institutions were provided for this question. Among those not responding were comments to the effect "they had better not negotiate with inmates in my institution", implying the preferred zero tolerance policy for gang problems.

Some 15 percent (N = 42) of the respondents to this survey indicated that their staff do sometimes find it necessary to negotiate with gang members in order to keep the peace. Therefore, most (85%) of the institutions report that their staff do not have to negotiate with gang members to keep the peace. Still, the 15 percent who do deserve a closer examination in terms of how this type of informal social organization in corrections today may vary by other factors such as gang density, hostage taking situations, and the presence or absence of gang violence behind bars.

Hostage Situations Involving Inmates and Staff

If anyone was skeptical about the whether stress relates to the correctional environment, this variable says something that is unique among all types of careers and occupations in the world: the probability of being taken hostage by known killers. About a fourth of all correctional institutions in our sample reported that their facility has had a hostage situation involving inmates and staff (24.6%) since 1970. It is true that three-fourths of the correctional facilities in our sample (75.4%) report never in their history experiencing such a situation of having a hostage taking situation involving inmates and staff. Obviously, we would expect this probability of facing a hostage situation to increase with the security level of the respective correctional facilities.

The hypothesis that the higher the security level of the correctional facility the higher the likelihood of facing hostage situations is supported by the results in Table 3.

TABLE 3

Frequency Distribution of the Security Levels

of Correctional Institutions By Whether They

Have Had a Hostage Situation Since 1970

Involving Inmates and Staff

Has Your Facility Had A Hostage

Situation Since 1970 Involving

Inmates and Staff?

NO YES

What is the highest

level of security in

your correctional

institution?

MINIMUM SECURITY 71 4

MEDIUM SECURITY 88 26

MAXIMUM OR CLOSE SECURITY 50 35

Chi-square = 28.3, p <.001

As seen in Table 3, only 5.3 percent of the minimum security correctional institutions reported having a hostage taking situation involving inmates and staff since 1970. For facilities with a medium security level this rises to 22.8 percent. Finally, among facilities with a maximum or close security level for inmates, this rises to 41.1 percent. This means exactly what it says: the higher the security level, the higher the risk of facing hostage-taking situations involving inmates and staff. The explanation is easy enough: those inmates needing the higher security level are probably those more likely to pose such a threat.

We do see a need to analyze this factor in relationship to the gang problem and other variables.

Date of Last Major Prison Riot in Their State Correctional System

The survey asked "for your entire state correctional system, when was the last major inmate riot". Respondents were asked to insert the year in which the riot last occurred in their state system. The range of values showed the longest stretch between last having a major riot as being 1954 and as most recently as this year. The responses of 237 facilities providing the year for the last major inmate riot is provided below.

Year of Last Major

Inmate Riot In Their

State System Percent

1979 and Before: 13.9%

1980-1989 44.3%

1990 .4%

1991 2.1%

1992 4.6%

1993 14.3%

1994 20.3%

Making Inmates Reimburse the State For Their Expenses

Some states are employing a new weapon against gangs and organized crime groups: sending them a bill, or in the case of juveniles, sending the parents a bill. A bill for the expenses of their care and custody. These actions are well known in California among juveniles, and states like Illinois also have such provisions to make adults financially responsible for the costs of their incarceration. The survey therefore asked "is it legally possible in your state to make inmates reimburse the state for the expenses of their incarceration". Some 41.9 percent of the adult state correctional facilities indicated "yes", that it was possible to send the offender a bill. Still, in the majority of cases (58.1%) it was not possible to make the offender pay the costs of incarceration.

Correctional Staff Testing Positive for the PPD (Tuberculosis) Test

The survey asked "have any staff members in your facility tested positive for the PPD (tuberculosis) test in the last twelve months". Some 41.5 percent of the facilities reported affirmatively, that yes they have had staff members in their facility test positive for the PPD test in the last year. Some 58.1 percent of the institutions in our survey reported that none of their staff had tested positive for the PPD test during the last year.

We have not yet discussed it, but we have the results for whether inmates in the same facility have also been diagnosed with tuberculosis within the same time frame (i.e., last 12 month period). Table 4 below provides the results of examining diagnosed cases of inmate TB in relationship to whether correctional staff have tested positive for the PPD test during the same last twelve month period within each of the 263 institutions providing responses to both of these two questions.

TABLE 4

Frequency Distribution of Institutions Reporting

Inmates Have Been Diagnosed With Tuberculosis

During the Last Year By Whether

Any Staff in the Same Institutions Have Tested

Positive for the PPD (Tuberculosis) Test During the

Same Last One Year Period

Any Staff Test Positive

For the PPD Test During

The Last Twelve Months?

NO YES

Any inmates diagnosed

with tuberculosis during

the last twelve months? NO 95 35

YES 55 78

Chi-square = 26.9, p < .001

As seen in Table 4, staff who test positive for the PPD test are certainly not exclusively limited to those types of correctional environments where inmates have been diagnosed with tuberculosis during the last year. However, a statistically significant effect occurs here as well. A much higher likelihood of correctional staff testing positive for the PPD test is seen where inmates in the same institution have been diagnosed with tuberculosis during the same recent one year period. Among those correctional institutions where no inmate has been reported to have been diagnosed with tuberculosis during the last year, Table 4 shows that 26.9 percent of these institutions still had staff who tested positive for the PPD test. However, among institutions where inmates have been diagnosed with TB, some 58.6 percent of these institutions also report that staff have tested positive for the PPD test during the same period. This is a significant difference that is not occuring by chance alone.

Policies Regarding Inmates Who Test Positive For the PPD Test

The survey asked "are inmates who test positive for the PPD (tuberculosis) test isolated from other inmates". Some 57.2 percent of the institutions responding to the survey indicated that inmates who test positive for the PPD test are isolated from other inmates. Thus, 42.8 percent of the adult state correctional institutions surveyed here indicated that inmates who test positive for the PPD test are not isolated from other inmates.

Table 5 shows no significant effect regarding this policy on isolating inmates who test positive for the PPD test and whether staff have also tested positive for the PPD test in the same facilities during the last one year period.

TABLE 5

Frequency Distribution of Whether Inmates Who Test Positive

For the PPD (Tuberculosis) Test Are Isolated From

Other Inmates by Whether Any of the Staff

in the Same Facilities Have Also Tested Positive

For the PPD Test During the Same One Year Period

Any Staff Test Positive

For the PPD Test During

The Last One Year Period?

NO YES

Are inmates who test

positive for the PPD

(tuberculosis) test

isolated from other

inmates? NO 61 53

YES 93 60

Chi-square = 1.4, p = .23

Clearly, the distribution in Table 5 could have occurred by chance alone (p = .23). There is no strong nor significant relationship between these two factors.

The ACA National Assessment on Gangs in Corrections

As a recent major federally funded research initiative, we wondered how effective the same agencies (ACA and NIJ) were at disseminating and raising the understanding of correctional staff on the gang problem in corrections in America today. The survey therefore asked "Did you read the report entitled Gangs in Correctional Facilities: A National Assessment (ACA, April 12, 1993)". Just over a fourth of the respondents (28.2%) indicated they had in fact read this recent report. Most of the facilities adult state correctional facilities responding to this survey (71.8%) reported that they had not read the ACA report on gangs.

A follow-up question asked the same respondents who had read the report to indicate their evaluation of how accurate the report was. It asked "please rate the extent to which it accurately assessed the national gang problem in corrections", using a simple scale of zero (inaccurate) through ten (very accurate).

The results of those who reported having reading the ACA report were as follows:

Rating of Number of

Accuracy Institutions Percentage

INACCURATE 0 0 0.0

1 0 0.0

2 1 1.3

3 2 2.5

4 5 6.3

5 12 15.0

6 14 17.5

7 24 30.0

8 16 20.0

9 4 5.0

VERY 10 2 2.5

ACCURATE

The mean score for this rating was ???, suggesting an overall evaluation of it being of slightly better than average accuracy. A recent Task Force report from the National Gang Crime Research Center critically examined the gang density implications of the same ACA report. Using the preferred unit of analysis, inmates themselves, a much higher gang density rate was found than that which was predicted by the ACA report. In fact, gang density rates in eight adult local detention facilities were found to be two to ten times higher than that estimated by the ACA report. The ACA report had estimated that nationally, only six percent of the adult correctional inmate population are gang members. With one million inmates that would translate into a gang member inmate population segment of only 60,000. The report from the National Gang Crime Research Center suggested that one state may have that many gang member inmates itself. The ACA report on gang density issued estimates much lower than previous adult prison warden estimates from research like the present report.

We did in the present survey, therefore, develop two scenario questions about gang density as well.

The first question asked "if your state prison system has six (6) percent of its inmates involved in gangs or security threat groups how would you regard this as a problem for corrections". The results were: 18.6 percent viewed it as a minor problem, 56.8 percent viewed it as a moderate problem, and 24.6 percent viewed it as a severe problem.

The second question asked "As a correctional administrator assume for the sake of argument that about six percent of the inmate population was involved with gangs or security threat groups. If this were true for the entire United States, how would you rate that level of a gang problem for corrections". The results were: 10.7 percent viewed it as a minor problem, 47.6 percent viewed it as a moderate problem, and 41.7 percent viewed it as a severe problem.

Perhaps it is as several correctional administrators noted in the margins of their surveys: any number of gang members in the system is going to be a problem. One thing we can demonstrate, however, is that experiences with the gang problem tend to effect the evaluation of how severe the "six percent" density rate would be. This is illustrated in Table 6 which examines the effects of the institutions reporting gang disturbances in the last year in relationship to their evaluation of the 6 percent national gang density estimate and how serious of a problem it would imply.

TABLE 6

Frequency Distribution of Adult State Correctional Institutions

Reporting A Gang Disturbance In the Last Year by

Their Evaluation of the How Serious a Problem

the National Estimate of Six Percent Gang Density Is

How Serious A Problem Would It Be

For American Corrections To Have

Six Percent of All Inmates in

The U.S.A. As Gang Members?

Minor Moderate Severe

Problem Problem Problem

During the last twelve

month period, have there

been any disturbances

related to gang members

in your facility? NO 14 79 82

YES 17 58 38

Chi-square = 6.60, p = .03

As seen in Table 6, previous experience in an institution with gang disturbances (as one measure of exposure to the problem) significantly differentiates evaluations of the severity of the problem faced with a six percent national gang density rate. Clearly, those with experiences in gang disturbances are much less likely to rate a national six percent gang density estimate as a "severe problem".

It would be very worthwhile to provide much further analysis of this particular issue, particularly in relationship to actual self-reported gang density rates and "gang density thresholds" which are measures existing in the present research data environment. It may very well be that we still do not know, with any level of confidence or certainty, what the national gang density rate is. Some would suggest it is certainly higher than the ACA report estimated. But it is a social scientific, criminological, research issue: one least able to be addressed by the recent ACA report. The ACA report was funded at a level of $1/2 million by the National Institute of Justice, but simply replicated the study by Camp and Camp (1985), which means a substantial validity and reliability problem was repeated along with an error of over-aggregation as well. The same ACA report could have been accomplished with 50 postage stamps and a survey sent to the Director of Adult Corrections in each of the fifty states, and little analytical effort. It was not exactly a Herculean effort as research goes, but it may have been satisfactory for such standards in our Nation's capitol.

Thresholds of Gang and Security Threat Group Density Rates

The ACA report condemned an entire region of the United States as representing correctional administrators who "denied" the gang problem. It said the easterners were more prone to the denial syndrome. The ACA research was simply inadequate in not tapping into the many and varied dimensions of the gang problem. It takes a criminological point of view to understand this problem in the first place. Recall the ACA report relied on one person for each state to report all the gang problems that existed in that single state adult correctional system. It might be more reasonable to conclude that no local state level correctional gang czars exist yet to be able to accurately report on the problem at the statewide level than simply concluding intentional concealment of information of great public interest. The ACA report assumed the higher one is in the correctional organization, the more one knows about the day to day problems faced inside adult correctional institutions. This is not necessarily a reasonable assumption when it comes to the gang problem. Ignored in the ACA report was whether the state correctional system, in its organizational structure, had a person designated as a statewide gang intelligence/assessment coordinator. If such a person does not exist, then the ACA report basically asked the Director of state correctional systems to do the research for them. In a survey form, what it means is the ACA-style survey questions may have elicited data for which no reliable state system wide information existed. Thus, the ACA methodology asked for data that did not exist and when it got low-ball estimates it concluded this was a denial syndrome, particularly in the eastern region of the United States. The problem was not estimates from bad administrators, it was a bad research methodology, one designed for problems of controversy because it involved comparatively little effort to ascertain the truth. Compared with the cost of $800.00 for the present probono study, some might say that we did not get $1/2 million dollars worth of knowledge in the ACA report .

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This preliminary report described the basic raw data and provided a glimpse into some other detailed issues from the 1994 Adult State Corrections Survey. This mail questionnaire project was undertaken and reported in a very short period of time, but still had use of a response rate of slightly over a fourth of the sample universe. Which is not uncommon for mail questionnaire projects of this type. Obviously, the response rate could have been increased with sufficient resources, but this was an unfunded project which along with the time constraints did not permit "follow-up" reminders.

This was the fourth national survey of the wardens and superintendents of state adult correctional institutions carried out and reported by the National Gang Crime Research Center. This survey included several new questions, reflecting the input of the research associates of this project. Some such questions like the one dealing with correctional officers who have recently tested positive for the PPD (tuberculosis) test proved to be valuable contributions and improvements to our knowledge of the problems faced by modern adult state correctional institutions. Obviously, the gang problem is not the only problem facing correctional administrators today. It is, however, from the present analysis; a major problem that would appear to be affecting more facilities than its administrators claim.

This research also uncovered the need for improvements in future research efforts in assessing the scope and extent of the gang problem in corrections. An urgent need exists for providing correctional institutions with research assistance to profiles of gang members and provide threat analyses of prison gangs.

APPENDIX A:

List of Gang Names Sorted Alphabetically:

Combines All The Three Major Gangs Represented Among Inmates

In A Survey of 290 Facilities

CUM CUM

COUNT COUNT PCT PCT NAME$

1 1 .2 .2 18St.Gang

3 4 .5 .7 18thStreet

7 11 1.2 1.9 20 Love

1 12 .2 2.1 415s

10 22 1.7 3.8 5%ers

1 23 .2 4.0 608 Crips

2 25 .3 4.3 A.N.Ujama

52 76 9.0 13.1 ABs

1 77 .2 13.3 ABsTexas

1 79 .2 13.6 AcademyHomes

1 80 .2 13.8 Af.Am.Counci

1 81 .2 14.0 AlbanyBoys

1 82 .2 14.2 Ar.Circle

1 83 .2 14.3 Aryan

3 86 .5 14.9 AryanNat.

1 87 .2 15.0 AryanNation

1 88 .2 15.2 Aryans

1 89 .2 15.4 Assassins

1 90 .2 15.5 Avengers

1 91 .2 15.7 B.G.F.

3 94 .5 16.2 B.O.S.

3 97 .5 16.8 BDs

52 149 9.0 25.7 BGDs

1 150 .2 25.9 BGs

1 151 .2 26.1 BSAL

1 152 .2 26.3 BadSamoanBlo

1 153 .2 26.4 BarrioAzteca

2 155 .3 26.8 Bikers

1 156 .2 26.9 Bl.Family

1 157 .2 27.1 Bl.Muslims

1 158 .2 27.3 Bl.Panthers

1 159 .2 27.5 Bla.Mafia

1 160 .2 27.6 Blood

70 230 12.1 39.7 Bloods

1 231 .2 39.9 Bloods/Crips

2 233 .3 40.2 BlueRags

1 234 .2 40.4 BorderBros

1 235 .2 40.6 Boyz

2 237 .3 40.9 Brotherhood

1 238 .2 41.1 Browns

1 239 .2 41.3 CIA

2 241 .3 41.6 Charleston

1 242 .2 41.8 Charlotte

2 244 .3 42.1 Cobras

1 245 .2 42.3 Columbus

1 246 .2 42.5 CorbetSt

1 247 .2 42.7 Creensboro

1 248 .2 42.8 Crip

80 328 13.8 56.6 Crips

3 331 .5 57.2 Crips/Bloods

3 334 .5 57.7 Disciples

1 335 .2 57.9 DurhamPosse

1 336 .2 58.0 EME

1 337 .2 58.2 ElRukns

1 338 .2 58.4 ElmCityBoys

1 339 .2 58.5 ElmCityBros

1 340 .2 58.7 Eme

3 343 .5 59.2 F.O.I.

1 344 .2 59.4 Fayet.Posse

1 345 .2 59.6 Fayetville

1 346 .2 59.8 FirstFamily

9 355 1.6 61.3 Folks

7 362 1.2 62.5 GDs

2 364 .3 62.9 GKI

1 365 .2 63.0 Greeville

1 366 .2 63.2 H.Bl.Hawks

1 367 .2 63.4 Hawi.Brother

1 368 .2 63.6 HawianBrothe

1 369 .2 63.7 HeathSt.

1 370 .2 63.9 HellsAngels

2 372 .3 64.2 Hobz

1 373 .2 64.4 HoovaCrips

1 374 .2 64.6 HooverCrips

2 376 .3 64.9 Humbolt

1 377 .2 65.1 IGDs

1 378 .2 65.3 IRA

1 379 .2 65.5 Intervale

1 380 .2 65.6 Jr.Bl.Mafia

1 381 .2 65.8 KKK

1 382 .2 66.0 L.A.W.

1 383 .2 66.1 LARs

2 385 .3 66.5 LaFamilia

1 386 .2 66.7 Lafamilia

1 387 .2 66.8 Lat.Counts

34 421 5.9 72.7 Lat.Kings

2 423 .3 73.1 LosCarnales

11 434 1.9 75.0 LosSolidos

5 439 .9 75.8 MSTA

1 440 .2 76.0 MadDogs

1 441 .2 76.2 MauMau

3 444 .5 76.7 Melanics

1 445 .2 76.9 MenofDestru

1 446 .2 77.0 Metro

8 454 1.4 78.4 Mex.Mafia

3 457 .5 78.9 MiamiBoys

1 458 .2 79.1 Moors

5 463 .9 80.0 N.O.I.

3 466 .5 80.5 Nation

1 467 .2 80.7 NativeAmers

6 473 1.0 81.7 Neta

1 474 .2 81.9 Nues.Familia

2 476 .3 82.2 NuestraFamil

1 477 .2 82.4 Organ.Crime

1 478 .2 82.6 P.HallCrips

4 482 .7 83.2 PMB

3 485 .5 83.8 Pagans

1 486 .2 83.9 People

1 487 .2 84.1 Pinoys

1 488 .2 84.3 PiruCrips

4 492 .7 85.0 Posse

1 493 .2 85.1 PumpNation

1 494 .2 85.3 RaleighPosse

1 495 .2 85.5 RedBrotherh

1 496 .2 85.7 RedRags

1 497 .2 85.8 S+M

1 498 .2 86.0 S.SidePosse

1 499 .2 86.2 Savannah

1 500 .2 86.4 ShoshoneOutl

1 501 .2 86.5 Skinheads

1 502 .2 86.7 So.SideBoys

3 505 .5 87.2 Solidos

1 506 .2 87.4 SonsofSamo

2 508 .3 87.7 SonsofSamoa

1 509 .2 87.9 Span.Cobras

1 510 .2 88.1 Sur 13

1 511 .2 88.3 Surenos

1 512 .2 88.4 Synd.ofN.M.

1 513 .2 88.6 TCG

1 514 .2 88.8 TRG

1 515 .2 88.9 TX Synd/EPT

1 516 .2 89.1 TX Syndic.

3 519 .5 89.6 TXSyndicate

1 520 .2 89.8 TheOutlaws

1 521 .2 90.0 TheRaiders

1 522 .2 90.2 UpState

38 560 6.6 96.7 ViceLords

2 562 .3 97.1 Warlords

1 563 .2 97.2 WarriorSocie

1 564 .2 97.4 Wh.Pride

10 574 1.7 99.1 Wh.Suprems

2 576 .3 99.5 WhitePride

1 577 .2 99.7 YBI

1 578 .2 99.8 Young&Wasted

1 579 .2 100.0 YoungGuns

13 December 1994

Dear Respondent to the 1994 Adult Corrections Survey:

As promised, here is a free copy of the "Preliminary Report". Nearly 275 correctional facilities throughout the USA are receiving this report today. We want to thank you for your help in making this research possible. If we had the time and money, then I am sure the report would have been much longer: because there are a lot of issues that need more analysis. This data is very current and reflects a strong national representation. We will try at the National Gang Crime Research Center to provide further analysis in the near future.

Enclosed, please find also a subscription form to our journal, in which we hope to release some further analysis in the near future given that some of the questions on this 1994 survey overlapped with a current task force research project by the Center.

One of our current priorities is to provide more localized in-depth analysis. We are looking for host sites that are willing to collaborate for such projects. From our research in other contexts, we can now put together "gang member profiles", and actually predict gang membership with a high level of accuracy on simple screening questions. There is a need to be able to apply this locally, using measures that may be more suitable to the correctional environment. There is also a need to use the same type of data for threat analysis purposes using the gang organization itself as the unit of analysis. Both can be accomplished through anonymous surveys administered to inmates. The idea is to survey an entire facility all at once. The idea is to have your input as well, collecting and analyzing factors that you think are important on your own population.

If you think you would be interested in having such local knowledge developed for your own use in planning, management, and operations, please let us know. Or if there is any other way in which we may be of assistance, then please contact us.

Once again, thank you for your vital assistance in making this research report possible.

Cordially,

George W. Knox, Ph.D.

Director, National Gang Crime Research Center

GWK/yc

ENC: