Findings of the NGCRC's 2006 study of over 200 American public schools about gang problems.

FINDINGS FROM THE K-12 SURVEY PROJECT

A Special Report of the NGCRC

George W. Knox, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to provide findings from a preliminary analysis of the data from an NGCRC research project called “The 2006 School Survey of Gang-Related Issues”. This survey was a rigorous examination of gang-related problems in American public schools today. It must be emphasized that this particular report is preliminary in nature. Additional analysis is currently underway at the NGCRC. An expanded document can be expected in the near future.

TAKE OUR TEST: HOW “UP TO DATE” ARE YOU?

Before delving into the body of this report, it may entertain and enlighten the reader to take a quiz on some of the issues that are addressed in our research findings. We would like you to take a short test, a simple true or false test, just so you can test your own level of being “up to date” on certain types of problems related to gangs in American public schools.

1. Gang riots are more common in American public high schools than they are in American prisons. ___True ___False

2. Only one-fourth of American public schools have a drug prevention program. ___True ___False

3. Only one in 10 of American public schools have a gang prevention program. ___True ___False

4. Only 2 percent of American public schools regularly screen for whether or not a visitor is a sex offender. ___True ___False

5. Roughly half of all school officials are unable to identify the symbols for the nation’s four largest street gangs. ___True ___False

The Scoring Key

If you answered “true” to all of the above, then congratulations: you just earned a 100% score on our test. Surprised by these answers? You will gain immense insights from reading the research report that follows. Not surprised? Find out additional details as to why the current situation is so dire.

THE TASK FORCE APPROACH

The task force approach was used for this research project. Sponsored by the NGCRC, the task force included volunteers who offered ideas for item development, suggestions, and other types of useful feedback. There were a number of people who contributed in this fashion who were particularly helpful during the early and formative stages of the research process. These talented experts are individually named at the end of this report.

A REVIEW OF SOME OF THE ISSUES IN SOCIAL POLICY REGARDING GANGS, AND VIOLENCE IN RELATIONSHIP TO AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

There is a need to provide the reader with a brief review of a host of social policy issues that have surfaced in recent years regarding gangs, violence, and hate groups in relationship to American public schools. Below we will examine some of these issues, in particular some of the cases that have come to the attention of policy makers. Some of these issues present new challenges and new dimensions of the problem. While these issues cannot be resolved in this report, it is still important to acknowledge these issues in the context that gave rise to the research being reported here.

THE CLASS OF 2006: GRADUATING IN FEAR FROM GANG VIOLENCE

The case of Tyrone Lewis tells us a lot about where we stand today in some American schools about the gang problem. The President of the U.S. can visit Iraq, but a high school student in Pennsylvania cannot attend his own graduation due to “security problems”.

How can it be that a student cannot attend his own high school graduation ceremony because the local police cannot protect him against threats from an out of state gang?

Do good students forfeit the right to participate in high school graduation ceremonies when criminal gangs are seeking revenge? Apparently, yes, in Levittown, Pennsylvania.

It was probably not the first time it happened in America, but it certainly grabbed a lot of media attention, when in June, 2006, a student named Tyrone Lewis could not take part in his own graduation ceremony at the Harry S. Truman High School. The reason he could not attend was that there were death threats against him from a New Jersey “Bloods” gang.

Tyrone Lewis was the elected president of his graduating class and would normally have to be present to give a short speech to his fellow graduating seniors. But he was instead forced to make a speech by an audio-video link-up instead, because of the death threats from the Blood gang. The motive for the death threats against him? His sister had provided courtroom testimony against members of the Blood gang.

When gangs get upset over routine criminal courtroom testimony against their members and leaders, do they target family members of the witnesses who testify? Yes, of course, and this was a factor in the Levittown, Pennsylvania case: it obviously speaks to the issue of a serious failure to protect witnesses for the prosecution. In this case the gangs “won” in the equation of psychological terror.

THE FEAR SURFACES THAT GANGS LIKE THE MS-13 MIGHT THREATEN CHILDREN IN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS

Some military bases often have their own schools for children of active U.S. military personnel, these are called Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS). In October of 2006, a special report in the military publication Stars and Stripes addressed the fear that gangs like Mara Salvatrucha 13 (MS-13), the notorious gang whose members often trace their national origin to the country of El Salvador, might try to establish local cliques. The report accurately described the known history and violent potential of the MS-13 gang. What was new was the fear that through transfers from civilian schools, the gang might now spread to students among military dependents.

While a clear gang problem exists in most branches of the U.S. Military, it is often not widely known because gang members operate as a subculture within the structure of a large legitimate organization, but some of this information is just now coming to the attention of the American media. One thing is clear: gangs and gang members do operate in the military branches, although it seems the Army has had most of the exposure to date.

GUARDS WITH GUNS CAN HELP TO PREVENT THREATS FROM ARMED OFFENDERS

It is generally recognized in the business world that armed security forces are required to prevent threats from armed robbers. Banks and establishments dealing with precious jewels, gold, art, etc — they already know the real world we live in requires armed guards. But public and private schools are some of the last organizations to come to grips with this issue. Visible armed guards act as a genuine deterrent and objectively target harden a business or facility against the threat of outside threats from armed intruders/offenders. The fact remains that guards with guns prevent threats from people with guns.

Yet many schools still do not have and may not want armed patrol or armed security, thinking it “overkill” in a world already preoccupied with guns and violence. The idea is that the school campus is somehow a refuge, a sacred location, one that should not have to face the issue of guns.

The mass murder on October 2, 2006 at an Amish school in Pennsylvania highlights the grim reality that there is n o school in America exempt from the threat of violence.

The use of metal detectors and armed guards becomes particularly important when schools are facing a potential problem from the contagion effect or what is called the “Copy Cat” phenomenon. We predict a show of force will be necessary to ward off copycat offenders. The time to use hand held metal detectors, or selective screening, is going to be when such incidents hit the news and create a kind of national climate of fear in our schools. Fear begets more violence is the pattern that seems to emerge for school violence.

In the aftermath of the mass murder of Amish school children in a small one room school house in Pennsylvania, one official definitely “got it right” when he was contacted by his local newspapers. It was a report published in the Detroit, Michigan area. It came from Alan Broughton, the superintendent of the Deckerville Community School District, which as a small system had only 700 students. According to the newspaper report, here is the statement from Alan Droughton:

“Be it Royal Oak or Trenton or Deckerville - if someone comes in armed, the only way you’re going to stop that person is with an armed guard”.

GUARDS ALONE ARE NO GUARANTEE THE SCHOOL WILL NOT BE ATTACKED

Armed guards alone do not provide a total guarantee against the threat of a violent outside attack. So hiring the best and brightest with the biggest guns gives no assurance you will prevent brutal attacks. Consider the case of the violent incident at the John McDonogh High School in New Orleans.

On April 14, 2003, some 200 students watched as a teen with several other juvenile accomplices attacked the John McDonogh High School in New Orleans firing an AK-47 assault rifle, killing one male student, wounding three other female students. This school had both security guards and a police officer. But it was not enough to deter what was believed to be a gang-related retaliation. Gang members are not afraid of police, not afraid of going to jail.

The attack was attributed to “neighborhood feuds” spilling over into the school system. But New Orleans has a terrible history of denying its entrenched social problems, particularly its gang problems. One of the truths about the existence of gangs in any community: students learn first about the presence of the gangs, the police second, the family third, the school may learn about it, but more often than not will ignore or deny it. We should probably believe the students when they tell us there is a local gang problem.

To stop the kind of John McDonogh High School attack the armed guards need to be provided with more than a standard “side arm”. They would need a shoulder weapon, a shotgun or assault rifle. And they would have to be posted in a context where there was only one entrance to the campus building. It might very well be that architects for American public school buildings in the future may have to configure a space for an “armory”, or a secure detention room. Most schools do have such private set aside areas already for School Resource Officers, and police officers, and security staff. Our present research explores, quantitatively, the actual scope and extent to which such protection is afforded in contemporary public schools.

KIDS CARRYING GUNS TO SCHOOLS: OFTEN SUGGESTS A VARIETY OF MOTIVATIONS

It is not always an intent to engage in a crime or commit a crime, the element of “mens rea” or the guilty mind. Sometimes it is just the fact that some students feel that is the only way to protect themselves. Sometimes their larger society looks like it has totally failed to protect the young from danger, threat, and harm. In such situations, the young arm themselves.

The fear of being a victim of violence from gangs is often a factor that compels a student to carry a weapon. Drugs, gangs, and violence are a triad of factors that feed upon each other among school age children. The intimidation, the threats, the fear of violence — these are routine, and pervasive in a school that has drugs and gangs. Victims of crime often respond with the need to over-compensate in regard to self-protection, this is also part and parcel of American culture. Kids learn this from their television, their movies, videos and music.

The fact is there are a number of reasons for carrying guns to school. The reason most likely to come to the attention of the public is when the person carries the weapon with the intent to harm or kill, with an imminent plan for such a violent scenario. But there are many cases where a child gains access to a weapon, carries it concealed or hidden in or near the school for long periods of time, never discovered and never detected: they do so because they are fearful for their own private safety — they are bully victims, they have been threatened by gangs, they may be former victims of violence associated with the school environment.

The other fact is also clear: many weapons are carried to school by gang members on behalf of the gang, or in pursuit of gang activities, or in furtherance of the goals and objectives or the gang. That might also mean gang rivalry at the same school: one gang fighting another is a constant source of enmity and violence. There is an endless cycle of assault, retaliation, assault: the tit for tat of gang violence. This is a never ending cycle of hostility and conflict that gives the signature of gang culture in America today.

Schools with problems need to have in place a routinize of checking for weapons, and not just a casual approach that involves periodic checks on certain individuals. Gangs routinely assign females and gang associates, or drug customers to carry their weapons into a facility. It may not always been the known active gang member who is “packing”. So the way to find guns is to make sure everyone faces the same security procedures.

Finding guns and edged weapons is itself a barometer of the scope of the problem. It tells a school policy maker the extent to which a local threat exists. It indicates the “risk level” of any school. So it is vital that policies and procedures are in place that do not allow schools to “deny the problem” exists. Downplaying this kind of problem will assure a drastic escalation of the threat of local school violence. Still, some schools routinely seize such weapons at school, and no reports are ever made. The weapons just get added to some local officials trophy collection.

It is indeed possible that hundreds, perhaps thousands of firearms and weapons “disappear” into the private property of school personnel.

In a really “tough school”, like Gage Park High School in Chicago, during the time frame of 2002 and 2003, it was common for at least one gun to be seized every month at the school. About 13 guns a year were being seized at Gage Park High School in 2002-2003.

THE FEDERALLY FUNDED PITTSBURGH PROGRAM

The “Pittsburgh Youth Intervention Project” received a $1 million grant to use the federal OJJDP gang prevention model in a public school context. The project therefore uses what OJJDP calls community mobilization (getting various organizations to work together), opportunities provisions (getting new opportunities for learning and jobs for youths), social intervention (the host of standard social services available that might help youths, housing, health, etc), suppression and organizational change. While based presumably in a school context, the clients served range from the age of 15 to 24 years of age. A kind of red flag goes up when we see adults (18 - 24) being brought into contact with juveniles (15 - 17), the issue is the matter of contamination: you can actually spread the gang problem inadvertently by “mixing” hard core gang members with younger “wannabe’s”.

The school system clearly benefits from having a new program with massive outside federal funding. The school system was clearly able through a needs assessment to show the need for this kind of program. Results of an evaluation of the effectiveness of the program are presumably forthcoming. Typically, such federally funded programs take years before they can report results to the public. And when it comes to gang issues, sometimes the reports may not be reported at all if the funding source holds editorial control.

BOMBS AND BOMB THREATS IN SCHOOLS: NOT REALLY NEW

Bomb incidents and bomb threats related to American public schools are just not new. There has always been a certain level of this kind of problem. This may trace to the school’s status as an official social institution. Thus, as an agency of social control it may become the target of teenage anger. It is really not anymore complicated than that: kids get kicked out of school, kids get angry with schools, kids violently respond to the frustration that schools seem to cause. To the extent that schools symbolize “authority”, schools are logically going to be a target of bomb incidents.

According to the “Bomb Threats in Schools” training manual prepared by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, there are several important statistics to consider about bombing incidents in the United States:

“The FBI reports that close to 5 percent of bombing incidents in the United States in 1999 were targeted at schools....For the period January 1990 to February 28, 2002, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recorded 1,055 incidents of bombs being placed in school premises. (Newman, 2005: p. 3)”.

Thus, the American public school has always faced some level of the problem. Just below the threshold of a bomb threat is the prank of “pulling fire alarms”. These issues deserve much closer statistical scrutiny and monitoring at a national level.

Students who ignite incendiary devices, like homemade “Molotov Cocktails”, have been known to do so simply because they want to get caught and they want to get “kicked out of school” due to problems with the grade point average. Such was the case in a February, 2005 incident at Lake Park high school in Roselle, Illinois, when the student set fire to a bottle of gas and placed it in his own locker, all the while being filmed on the hallway video camera. He was quickly caught and because he was 18 years old, charged in federal adult court as well.

HIGH INTENSITY SCHOOL FIGHTS

The age old fist fight as a method of settling differences often gives way to newer forms of fights between students that represent a higher intensity level of violence. It is useful to examine some of the forms of these high intensity school fights. More often than not, the one definitive characteristic of these new forms of high intensity school fights is that they are “brawls” or mini-riots. They are not dyads (two fighters squaring off), they are groups (often mobs) of fighters. Sometimes small groups, sometimes large groups.

The gang riot is one form of this new kind of high intensity school fight. The gang riot always involves one or more street gangs, and the fight always has three or more people fighting. It is not uncommon to see twenty or more involved in the fight. There are many variations on the specific motivations or causes, but invariably it involves a “status threat” to the gang or the collective gang identity. Someone may “put down” the gang, fail to recognize the dominant role it plays, or not show sufficient deference to the gang or its members. In which case, the gang becomes indignant and seeks to punish those who would challenge its authority or status. In the social context of a high school, for example, a gang might conceivably have sufficient coercive power to be a kind of parallel government. This occurs when a gang easily intimidates those in charge at the school, and gains concessions from those in authority, thus the gang is able to modify policy basically through terrorism (e.g., the threat of or actual use of violence).

An example of a school where the gang had a kind of “parallel government” impact, due to excessive influence from the gang would be Englewood High School in the early 1990's in Chicago. Particularly during the time frame when the Gangster Disciples gang operated its own program at the school, in the disguise of a “gang intervention” program. The gang was able to thoroughly corrupt the school from top to bottom. The corruption process is enhanced when one or more individuals or groups functioning as “gang apologists” are able to work in the school or impact upon it through a governing or advisory body.

The race riot is often just a surrogate version of the gang riot. Race is sometimes a factor associated with membership in certain types of gangs (e.g., gangs that might be 99% of one ethnic or racial group), and thus when the gang interacts with the rest of the social world it encounters in a school facility, there are sometimes racial or ethnic tensions. When these ethnic or racial tensions erupt into violence, it is often a “race riot”. A primary trend in this type of high intensity fight is where a national mood of political intolerance might be directed towards certain types of ethnic groups (e.g., Middle Eastern, Mexican, Jewish, etc), and children simply mimic the bigotry of the adults in their society, giving the ethnic children a hard time (bullying, etc). Finally, when the ethnic minority children band together as a group, the tension has then escalated to the point where it can become a race riot. Another variation here is where the children of the victimized racial or ethnic minority band together sufficiently to be able to form their own new gang identity that persists over time.

An example of a gang that becomes formed under conditions of racial or ethnic persecution, would be the TAP Boys on Chicago’s southwest side and southwest suburbs. The TAP Boys are “The Arabian Posse”, and consisted primarily at first of children of Palestinian descent, but today include almost anyone from the Middle Eastern countries (Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, etc). During the Gulf War, children of Middle Eastern background were bullied and beaten on the way to and from school. Eventually they banded together. They found that by acting in a group, they too had power. They adopted a name, and they were soon up and running as their own gang, competing (and fighting) with other gangs in the area. Over a decade later, the gang is still operating in several different geographical areas of Chicagoland.

A new form of riot now emerging across the U.S. inside American prisons is called the “religious riot”, where one religious group fights against another. We have not yet seen this variation in American public schools, but because it simply reflects again the ongoing tensions inside larger society, it is not unreasonable to expect it could also happen in a school context.

School rivalry fights today often become deadly. There are many examples here across the USA. But the one that occurred in February, 2005 in Elgin, Illinois is very typical. It involved a mob of more than 50 people, mostly from two rival high schools: St. Charles North High School and Burlington Central High School. Not atypical is for people to bring weapons to these fights. Such was the case in the Elgin fight, and one person was killed as a result.

When the rivalry is between two different schools in the same geographical area, all imaginable forms of conflict are possible. Gangs can play a large part in the start and persistence of the feuds, as territorial boundaries of the rival schools may sometimes also reflect ongoing and longstanding gang turf battles as well. Typical of these school rivalry fights was a fight between the Songhai Learning Institute and Curtis Elementary, both are Chicago public schools, in April, 2002. What began as an egg throwing incident at halloween in 2001 festered into a full scale attack, when five months later, 23 students get charged in the riot that sent18 Songhai students for hospital treatment of their injuries. A high intensity school fight in Garland, Texas arose when gang shoutouts were exchanged on the Internet, and the fight was arranged via an online chatroom used by gang members — the result a massive fight, nearly 30 high school students arrested.

THE SCHOOL AS A SITE FOR MASS MURDER: WHY DO THEY DO IT?

Why do some offenders pick a school as the site for their mass murder and their own suicide? A number of theoretical explanations are possible. Some of the possible explanations include: (1) the soft target theory, (2) the cognitive map theory, (3) the accentuation effect theory, (4) the stress-articulation theory, and (5) the differential grievances theory.

The theory of the soft target is that the softer the target the more likely it is to be selected as a target of crime. In the case of schools like the 2006 Amish school house attack, what we see is a physical environment that was intentionally not designed to address issues of crime prevention. While schools today do take some precautions and have “lock down” drills, many schools are still soft targets, they are not very defensible once an armed intruder is inside. So offenders like soft or easy targets. They are not attacking police stations which are hard targets, they are attacking soft targets — our schools. The idea of “target hardening” is that we need to make schools less appealing as targets, make them harder targets. The Amish are a soft target because their religion and culture promotes non-violence and they shy away from things like crime prevention technology.

The cognitive map theory is based on the notion that all people have some type of values and associations when they think of “school”. It is a place, a geographical place for those who have attended such public schools, associated with certain specific emotions. For some people, the emotions are unfavorable ones: anger, resentment, hostility, humiliation, etc. When the school becomes associated with personal and life adjustment problems, a person may want to pick the school as a site location for crime. Kids that burglarize schools to do damage inside, sometimes cause thousands of dollars in criminal damage to property, and often the picture that emerges from these offense patterns is that they were unadjusted at their school — they were marginal, they were not top athletes or top scholars, they were struggling students. They vandalize the school to attack the symbols of their own failure, in this case intellectual and scholarly failure: school failure.

The accentuation effect theory explains mass murders and attacks at school sites in terms of the potential impact of the attack. The impact of the attack is greater when the victims are protected persons — persons like children or the elderly who are less able to defend themselves. The attack itself is intended to bring about shock and horror, and when the attack is upon young children, the attack is accentuated by the special status of the victims. The lower the ability of the victim to defend against an attack, the higher the horror. This would seem to have figured prominently in the 1996 school mass murder in Dunblane, Scottland where 18 died including the gunman. From the offender’s point of view, then, by picking a target that includes young children will generate more “attention” and a bigger splash in the mass media coverage of the crime. This assumes the offenders do rationally calculate to maximize their desires and to satisfy their perverted “wish lists”. On their wish list might be a need to go out with a lot of newspaper and television coverage.

The stress articulation theory is basically a situation of massive individual panic where the person cannot see any way out of the psychological condition. In the context of a sudden onset of stress or the gradual build up of stress, and in the situation where the individual cannot articulate a way to resolve the stress, this is the context where someone goes “postal”. They have a break down, they do things that are very irrational, they explode in violent rage. They cannot see a “light at the end of the tunnel”, or they take the view of the damned that there is a light at the end of the tunnel and it is a train headed to run them over. They feel threatened and thus move from threat to acting out forms of violence and their way of articulating a solution is “suicide by school shooting”. The movement from being a victim of a bully to becoming a bully also figures in this scenario. Force the cops to shoot them, or eat the barrel of their gun. It is similar to the “suicide by cop” phenomenon, where someone too fearful of doing the act of suicide, forces a police officer to do it for them: the suicide prone individual draws a “look a like” gun or points it towards an officer, forcing the cop to shoot them. Killing parents or parental figures as the catalytic event preceding the school mass murder has been noted in several of the past school-based mass murders. This includes the March, 2005 mass murder in Red Lake, Minnesota; here the offender first killed his grandparents, and then headed to the high school to kill seven students. A similar trend was noted in the May, 1998 event (two killed and 20 injured) in Springfield, Oregon: the offender first killed his parents, then headed to the high school to do some more shooting.

The differential grievances theory goes to the issue of conflict between the offender and the school, usually the offender has had some conflict (e.g., fighting, etc) with the school, receives what is felt to be an unfair disposition (expelled, suspended, held back a grade, etc), and seeks an extralegal solution to the crisis. Normally, people would follow the bureaucratic solutions, filing appeals, etc, and seek an procedural remedy. But for some people, there is an apparent need for “revenge” as the answer to a perceived “wrong”, slight, or injustice. So, the school becomes the target of the pent up rage when the offender feels he has a grievance with the school. The mental health factor plays a big role here, so school disciplinary codes, policies, and especially the procedures — they need to be effective in communicating to those coming under their sanction that “fairness” is the only doctrine they follow. Having multiple levels of appeals and review is also a good thing. One of the big motivational factors in the 2002 mass murder incident at the school in Erfurt, Germany, a school shooting where 17 were killed, was the fact that the shooter in that instance had been expelled from the school ---- and while others might have had a plan to deal with it, he did not seem to have access to an effective remedy to resolve his grievance with the school. Perhaps having an “ombudsman” volunteer or paid would be a good idea in such cases where it might appear there are special needs.

METHODOLOGY

The survey methodology sought to study public K-12 schools, with a special emphasis on high schools where most problems are found. The characteristics of the final sample therefore reflect that goal: the sample for this research includes 83.7 percent high schools, 10.7 percent middle schools, and 5.6 percent elementary/other schools. High school staff tend to know more about the problems associated with gangs, violence, drugs, hate groups, etc.

At the same time, we did not want to completely exclude other types of schools because it was also important to have geographical representation. We wanted a very representative and geographically diverse sample. Our final sample therefore reflects data from N = 46 different states. We did not get respondents from four states: Alaska, Iowa, Kentucky or Oklahoma. Still, 46 out of 50 states gives a very broad cross-section of American schools. The type of city represented is generally very random. The zip code distribution as well is very clearly dispersed throughout the USA.

Our sample size for this research includes N = 212 respondents from cities large and small. Each respondent therefore represents a different school, thus over 200 schools are represented in the sample used for the findings that follow.

THE QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH FINDINGS

We shall now present the quantitative research findings. These will be loosely organized into related topical areas. Thus, the order of presentation does not necessarily follow the exact item order as found in the survey instrument itself. After the presentation of quantitative findings, we will briefly review some qualitative research findings as well.

ESTIMATED ADA NATIONWIDE IS 90.7 PERCENT

The survey included the question “please estimate the average daily attendance (ADA) for students attending your school during the most recent year”. The mean was a value of 90.7 percent overall. Which means, basically, at any given time during the school day: an average of one out of every ten public school students is not in school throughout America.

SRO STAFFING PATTERNS REMAINED FAIRLY CONSTANT

Staffing patterns in K-12 schools for security staff such as School Resource Officers (SRO’s) has remained fairly constant during the last year. Most of the respondents (82.9%) indicated that there was no increase and there was no decrease, but rather that the number of security staff such as SRO’s remained about the same during the last one year time period. Some 8.8 percent indicated that they had added new security staff such as SRO’s, and some 8.3 percent indicated that they had lost security staff such as SRO’s.

SRO COVERAGE IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS

The survey asked “does your school have a part-time or full-time School Resource Officer (SRO)” where the response modes included “no SRO” as well. Some 13.1 percent of the responding schools indicated that they had a part-time SRO, this would typically be the situation where one SRO is shared with several schools. About two-thirds of the schools in America have a full-time SRO, as some 67.1 percent of the respondents indicated that they had a full time SRO at their school. Still, about a fifth of American public schools have no SRO at all, as some 19.8 percent indicated they had no SRO.

INCREASED ENROLLMENT IS THE NORM

The survey asked “during the last year, has your school experienced and increase or decrease in student enrollment”. Some 50.9 percent indicated an increase in student enrollment during the last year. Only 13.1 percent indicated a decrease in student enrollment. And36 percent indicated that student enrollment had remained about the same as in the previous year.

ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF AMERICAN SCHOOLS HAVE WRITTEN POLICIES AGAINST GANG ACTIVITY

The survey asked “does your school have a written policy that prohibits gang activity on campus”. Some 67.9 percent of the respondents indicated “yes”, that their school does in fact have a written policy against gang activity. Thus, about a third (32.1%) of the schools in America are reporting that they do not actually have a written policy that prohibits gang activity on their campus.

Gang activity might normally include a long list of activities that young gang members engage in, not necessarily limited to, but probably including some of these behaviors and offenses: bullying, gang recruiting, gang intimidation, gang extortion, gang threats against students, gang threats against teachers, gang graffiti/tagging, gang shoutouts in the hallways and open areas around the school, gang sales of drugs, gang involvement in “protection”, etc.

MOST SCHOOLS PROHIBIT GANG SYMBOLS IN CLOTHING

The overall vast majority of American public K-12 schools have policies in place that prohibit the wearing of clothing with gang symbols. The survey asked “does your school prohibit the wearing of gang symbols on the clothing that students wear to school”. Some 92.3 percent of the schools responding indicated “yes”, that these schools do in fact prohibit such gang related clothing. Only 7.2 percent of the schools indicated that they did not prohibit this behavior.

SOME SCHOOL COLORS/SYMBOLS GET MISTAKEN FOR GANG COLORS/SYMBOLS

The survey included the question “are there any colors or symbols that are commonly represented at your school that probably have a secondary meaning with regard specifically to the gang that uses such colors and symbols”. Some 56.9 percent said “yes”. Some 43.1 percent said “no”.

OVER A THIRD OF AMERICAN SCHOOLS ENFORCE A GROOMING CODE

The survey included the question “does your school enforce specific types of grooming codes for hair, make-up, etc”. Some 36.9 percent of the responding school indicated that “yes”, they did in fact have and enforce such grooming codes. Some 63.1 percent of the respondents indicated “no” they did not enforce such codes.

ALMOST ALL SCHOOL PROHIBIT GANG/HATE GROUP SLOGANS ON CLOTHING APPAREL

The survey included the question “does your school prohibit gang and hate group slogans on clothing and apparel (shirts, belts, shoes, socks, etc)”. Some 96.4 percent indicated “yes”, that they do prohibit gang/hate group slogans on clothing. Only 3.6 percent indicated “no”.

HIGHER PERCEPTION OF SAFETY IN WEARING SCHOOL UNIFORMS

The survey asked the respondents to express their perception of school safety as it related to the policy of mandatory school uniforms. The survey asked “in your opinion, are students safer with a policy that requires them to wear a uniform mode of dress to school”. Some 76 percent of the respondents indicated “yes”, that indeed they believed students are safer with a uniform mode of dress. Only about a fourth (24%) did not believe school uniforms would result in higher student safety.

SCHOOL UNIFORMS COULD REDUCE GANG ACTIVITIES

The survey also asked “in your opinion, do you believe that a policy requiring students to wear uniforms can reduce gang activities in the school setting”. Here the support for uniforms increases in intensity, as there is an even greater level of support for school safety when it is linked to the issue of reducing gang activity. Some 78.6 percent of the respondents felt “yes”, that school uniforms can reduce gang activities in the school setting. Only about a fifth of the respondents (21.4%) did not believe in the notion that wearing school uniforms would reduce gang activities. The idea behind the link between school uniforms and reducing gang activity is to not allow a gang to exploit color patterns (black and blue, black and red, etc), sports team logos, or specialty brandname clothing as ways of “representing” their gang identity. Gang members commonly find such ways to “fly their colors”, “represent their nation”, “fly their flag”, in ways that while on the surface they appear harmless, might in reality have considerable local subcultural meaning.

For example, a college sports team might use a large “D” alphabet symbol to signify its team name; any gang in the “Disciple” family of gangs (Gangster Disciple, Black Disciple, Satan’s Disciple, etc) will then use the shirt, hat, or article of clothing to covertly “represent” to others at school, or in the community, even in a court room to intimidate witnesses, that they are a “Disciple” gang member. There is a long list of such ordinary sports team names and logos that gangs have “latched” on to.

FOUR-FIFTHS BELIEVE SCHOOL UNIFORMS ELIMINATE CERTAIN GANG PROBLEMS

The survey asked “in your opinion, do school uniforms eliminate a lot of the problems associated with gang colors and gang symbols”. The results showed that 80.5 percent of the responding schools said “yes”. Some 19.5 percent indicated “no”.

TWO FIFTHS OF AMERICAN SCHOOLS REPORTED GANG FIGHTS NEAR THEIR SCHOOL IN THE LAST YEAR

The survey asked “were there any gang fights between rival gang members in and around your school during the last one year period”. Some 42.2 percent indicated “yes”. Some 57.8 percent indicated “no”.

OVER A THIRD OF AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS REPORT COMPLAINTS OF GANG RECRUITING NEAR THEIR SCHOOL IN THE LAST YEAR

The survey asked “were there any complaints of gang recruiting going on in and around your school during the last one year period”. Some 35 percent indicated “yes”. Some 65 percent indicated “no”.

FEW SCHOOLS PROVIDE MANDATORY GANG TRAINING TO TEACHERS AND STAFF

The survey asked “do the teachers or staff members in your school receive any mandatory training on or about gang issues”. Only 16.4 percent of the schools responding indicated “yes”, that their teachers or staff receive such mandatory gang training. That gang training provides basic “gang identification” information and “do’s and don’ts” in responding to gang problems, and is valuable particularly to prevent or de-escalate gang problems. But 83.6 percent of American schools are not ensuring that their teachers or staff receive such mandatory training.

TEACHERS AND THE TRAINING THEY RECEIVE

The survey included the baseline question “how many teachers are employed in your school”. The mean or average was 109. The range was from a low of 15 to a high of 350.

The survey included the question “estimate how many of the teachers employed in your school have been trained in gang awareness”. The result indicated a mean of 31.6.

The survey included the question “estimate how many teachers employed in your school have been trained in gang identification”. The result indicated a mean of 27.4.

The survey included the question “estimate how many teachers employed in your school have been trained in dealing with hate group issues”. The result indicated a mean of 23.8.

MASSIVE LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR THE IDEA OF REQUIRING SCHOOL TEACHERS TO HAVE SOME KIND OF GANG AWARENESS TRAINING

The survey included the question “do you feel some level of gang awareness training should be required for K-12 public school teachers”. Some 94.6 percent said “yes”. Only 5.4 percent indicated “no”. Thus, there is massive support for the idea of requiring some level of gang awareness training for the teachers in America’s public schools.

MASSIVE SUPPORT FOR THE IDEA THAT SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS NEED GANG TRAINING

The survey asked “do you feel gang training should be required for certain types of school administrators”. Some 93.1 percent said yes. Only 6.9 percent said no.

A FOURTH OF AMERICAN SCHOOLS REPORT A GANG SHOOTING NEAR THEIR SCHOOL IN THE LAST YEAR

“It’s starting to look a lot like Iraq”, said a mother of an elementary school student in Chicago who shared her views about gang violence, particularly gun violence, near and around school buildings in recent years, “we shouldn’t have to worry about that kind of thing, it seems like something more common to a third world country in the throes of civil war”. The fact is gunfire in and around school property is a major issue in larger cities such as Chicago.

The survey asked “during the last year, have there been any gang shootings nearby the geographical location of your school”. Some 26.1 percent of the respondents indicated “yes”, that there had in fact been gang shooting near their school in the last year.

PERCENT OF SECURITY PROBLEMS THAT ARE GANG-RELATED

By “gang related” here we are saying that the security problem was caused by or involved gang members or gang associates. The survey, therefore, included the question “please estimate what percentage of the security problems in your school last year were caused by or involved gang members or gang associates”. They either caused the problem or were involved in the problem in some way is what this means in terms of “gang related”. The mean was that 11.3 percent of the security problems in the last year were caused by gang members or gang associates.

PERCENT OF THREATS OF VIOLENCE IN SCHOOL THAT ARE GANG-RELATED

The survey asked “please estimate what percentage of the threats of violence in your school last year were caused by or involved gang members or gang associates”. Here the mean was that 12.4 percent of the threats of violence were gang-related (caused by or involved gang members/associates).

OVER THREE-FOURTHS WANT A GANG PREVENTION PROGRAM

There is a high demand for gang prevention programs according to this survey. The survey asked the question “in your opinion, would it be good public policy to implement a gang prevention program in your jurisdiction”. Some 77.2 percent said “yes”, that they do support the idea of having a gang prevention program in their jurisdiction. Some 22.8 percent did not feel they needed a gang prevention program in their jurisdiction.

EVENLY DIVIDED FOR AND AGAINST FAITH-BASED GANG PREVENTION SERVICES

There appears to be a fairly high level of support, on the surface at least, for what are called faith-based gang prevention services in terms of their potential utilization in the K-12 curriculum. The survey asked “if they could be offered at your school, would you like to see faith-based gang prevention services integrated into the K-12 curriculum”. Some 46 percent of the respondents indicated “yes”, that they would in fact like to see such faith-based gang prevention services integrated into their publicly funded school curriculum. About half of the respondents (54%) did not want this option.

STUDENTS WHO ARE GANG MEMBERS

The survey included the question “if you had to estimate, how many of the students at your school do you feel are active gang members”. The mean was 37.6 students per school were gang members. So the typical or average public school would be expected to have about 37 gang members, on average; with a range from zero to 500 overall.

STUDENTS WHO ARE ASSOCIATING WITH A GANG

The survey included the question “if you had to estimate, how many of the students at your school do you feel are associating with gang members”. The mean or arithmetic average for this variable was 125.6 per school. The range though was from a low of zero to a high of 2000.

MORE THAN A THIRD OF AMERICAN SCHOOLS REPORT GANG CONFLICTS

The survey included the question “are there periodically any gang conflicts between students in your school”. Some 37.7 percent answered “yes”. Some 62.3 percent indicated “no”.

PERCENTAGE OF DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY STUDENTS IN GANGS

The survey included the question “please estimate the percentage of disciplinary problems at your school during 2005 that were caused by gang members or gang associates”. The result showed a mean or arithmetic average score of 12 percent for this factor. Thus, the best estimate is that about 12 percent of all school disciplinary problems are caused by students involved with gangs.

GANG DISTURBANCES MORE COMMON IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS THAN IN STATE PRISONS

The survey included the question “were there any gang disturbances or fights involving gang members inside your school during the last year”. Here we found that 38.4 percent of the respondents indicated “yes”. That is actually higher than the rate of “gang riots” or “gang disturbances” in American state prisons (see: www.ngcrc.com: prison gang research studies). If there was any one “social indicator” that was important for trying to estimate how serious the gang problem is in a local school, this one particular variable would probably figure prominently in such an equation explaining the variance in the severity of the local problem. By which we mean to say: we are predicting more problems in American public schools in the near future with regard to gang violence.

FEW SCHOOLS HAVE A GANG PREVENTION PROGRAM

The survey included the question “does your school currently have any type of gang prevention program”. The results indicated that 13.7 percent reported “yes”, that they do have a gang prevention program up and running. Most, some 86.3 percent, indicated “no” that their school lacks any kind of currently operating gang prevention program.

GANG GRAFFITI IS NOT DISAPPEARING

The survey asked “have you noticed an increase or decrease in gang graffiti during the last year”. Some 32.1 percent felt it increased in 2005. Some 12.1 percent felt it actually decreased in 2005. Some 35.3 percent felt there was no change in 2005. And some 20.5 percent reported no gang graffiti. The trend seems to be that gang graffiti is not going away. It is five times more likely to increase or remain at the same level than decrease is what the data suggests.

MORE THAN A HALF OF AMERICAN SCHOOLS REPORT GANG GRAFFITI IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AREA

The survey included the question “in the area surrounding your school location, is it possible to find examples of gang graffiti in the neighborhood (e.g., where a gang marks its turf or puts down another gang)”. Some 62.8 percent of the responding schools said “yes”. Some 37.2 percent indicated “no”.

FEMALE GANGS ARE FOUND NEAR A FIFTH OF ALL AMERICAN SCHOOLS

The survey included the question “are there any all female gangs that operate in and around the location of your school address”. The results showed that 22.5 percent indicated “yes”. Some 77.5 percent indicated “no”.

OVER HALF REPORT FEMALES INVOLVED IN LOCAL GANGS

The survey asked the question “are females also involved in the gangs that operate in or around your school jurisdiction”. Some 59.8 percent indicated “yes”. Some 40.2 percent said “no”.

FEMALES AS AN ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LOCAL GANG POPULATION

The survey included a follow-up question for those jurisdictions reporting that females are involved in the local gang problem. This follow-up question asked the respondent to “please estimate what percentage of the total gang member population in your area are females”. The results ranged from zero to 60 percent. The mean or arithmetic average was that about 9.7 percent of the local gang members were females. That figure parallels many other similar parameters for the estimate adding concurrent validity to the overall research methodology.

FOUR-FIFTHS OF AMERICAN SCHOOLS HAVE WRITTEN POLICIES PROHIBITING BULLYING

The survey asked “does your school have a written policy that prohibits bullying behavior”. Some 80.3 percent of the schools reported that “yes” they do have written policies that prohibit bullying behavior. Thus, about a fifth of American schools (19.7%) do not have their student behavior policies sufficiently articulated in written form to be able to specifically prohibit bullying behavior. The school that does not have such written policies prohibiting bullying behavior might be a school deserving of closer scrutiny as a school facing higher risks in terms of school safety issues.

BULLYING BEHAVIOR IS NOT LIMITED TO CLASSROOM

If we just put video cameras in all classrooms, would that eliminate bullying behavior in American public schools? “No” according to the results of our survey, because it is a matter of where exactly the bullying behavior occurs. Some of it does occur in the classroom, but it is not limited to the classroom, it can be anywhere else the students are located. The survey asked “from your experience, where does most of the bullying behavior actually occur”. Only 1.4 percent indicated the classroom. Some 61.5 percent indicated “outside of the classroom”, and some 37.2 percent indicated both the classroom and outside of the classroom. So, clearly, bully prevention initiatives need to be implemented outside of the classroom as well.

HALF THINK THEIR SCHOOLS NEED BULLY PREVENTION SERVICES

The survey asked “in your opinion, do you think your school needs more bully prevention program services”. Some 61.8 percent indicated “yes”, that they felt their school did need such bully prevention services. And 38.2 percent indicated “no”.

TWO-FIFTHS OF SCHOOLS REPORT BULLYING AGAINST GAY/LESBIAN STUDENTS

The survey asked the question “has your school seen the pattern where a bully picks on a victim because the intended victim is gay or lesbian”. Here some 44.3 percent indicated “yes”. Some 55.7 percent responded “no”.

THREE-FOURTHS BELIEVE SOME BULLYING IS RELATED TO RACIAL CONFLICT

The survey asked the question “in your opinion, do you think that some bullying behavior is related to racial or ethnic conflicts”. Here we find that 74.8 percent of the schools responding indicated “yes”, that indeed they believe some bullying is related to racial conflict. Some 25.2 percent indicated “no”.

BULLYING BEHAVIOR THAT IS ALSO A “HATE CRIME”

If some bullying behavior occurs because of the motivation of hatred towards the race of the victim, then it might be more than bullying, it might also be a hate crime or bias crime. The survey asked “has your school seen the pattern where a bully picks on a victim because of his/her race”. Here we find that 31.5 percent of the responding schools indicated “yes”, that they have seen this scenario. Thus, about two-thirds of the respondents (68.5%) indicated they had not seen this pattern in their school.

TWO-THIRDS OF AMERICAN SCHOOLS HAVE WRITTEN POLICIES PROHIBITING HATE GROUP ACTIVITY

The survey asked “does your school have a written policy that prohibits race/ethnic/religious “hate group” activity”. Here we find that some 64.2 percent of American public schools do in fact have a written policy that prohibits such hate group activity. Still, that means about a third (35.8%) of American schools do not have such written policies in place to expressly prohibit hate group or extremist group activity in school. This is, obviously, a growing area of concern for the public and school administrators alike.

PERCENTAGE OF DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS CAUSE BY RACIAL EXTREMISTS

The survey included the question “please estimate the percentage of disciplinary problems at your school during 2005 that were caused by persons with racist extremist group affiliations (neo-nazi, skinheads, etc)”. The arithmetic average or mean value for this was that 3.2 percent of the American public school disciplinary problems could be explained by students from such extremist groups.

Sometimes local or regional or national extremist groups will intentionally recruit from the ranks of K-12 public school students, by handing out literature and “hate group” propaganda to children near the schools.

A FOURTH OF AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS REPORT WHITE RACIST GROUPS OPERATING IN AND AROUND THE LOCATION OF THEIR SCHOOL ADDRESS

The survey included the question “are there any groups of skinheads or others who espouse a white racist philosophy that operate in and around the location of your school address”. The results indicated that 25.9 percent reported “yes”, that they do face this kind of problem of local skinhead or white racist groups.

ABOUT HALF OF SCHOOLS CONDUCT LOCKER SEARCHES

The survey asked “does your school conduct locker searches at some point during the school year”. There is no requirement that American public schools search student lockers. It is rather something that is at the discretion of the school principal, usually in consultation with higher authorities in the local board of education. The results of our survey show that 50.2 percent of the school reported “yes” that their school does conduct locker searches at some point during the year; and that 49.8 percent indicated “no”.

DRUG SNIFFING DOGS APPEAR TO BE EASIER TO USE THAN LOCKER SEARCHES

Drug sniffing dogs can be used to “walk by” lockers and then zero in on any locations that come up hot, reducing the number of lockers that might have to be searched. So the survey asked “does your school make use of drug sniffing dogs to conduct drug searches”. Here some 60.5 percent indicated “yes”, and 39.5 percent indicated “no”.

METAL DETECTORS RARELY USED IN AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

It appears that it is a rarity for an American public school to regularly use working metal detectors. The survey asked “does your school require all students to pass through a metal detector when they seek to enter the school building”. Only 2.7 percent indicated “yes”. The overwhelming vast majority (97.3%) indicated “no”.

SCREENING FOR SEX OFFENDERS A RARITY IN AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

It appears that it is also a rarity for an American public school to regularly screen for whether or not a visitor to the building is or is not a sex offender. The survey asked “does your school scan the Drivers License of visitors to your school building to see if they are sex offenders”. Only 2.3 percent indicated “yes”. Thus, the overwhelming vast majority (97.7%) did not check to see if visitors were sex offenders.

TEACHER AND STAFF MEMBER ASSAULTS

The survey included the question “how many teachers or staff members or your school were assaulted during the last one year (12 month) period”. The results for this survey question ranged from a low of zero to a high of 30. The mean was a value of 1.2 per school.

THE RISK OF ABANDONED BUILDINGS NEAR AMERICAN SCHOOLS

Abandoned buildings are a risk for any community, and particularly school students, if the abandoned building is located or situated near a school property. The survey asked “are there any abandoned buildings located nearby the location of your school’s campus”. Most respondents stated “no”, that is some 84.9 percent indicated that there were not any abandoned buildings located near their school. Still, some 15.1 percent of the respondents indicated “yes”, that in fact there were such abandoned buildings located near the school campus. So it would appear to be a problem worthy of further analysis and social policy development.

A FOURTH OF AMERICAN SCHOOLS REPORT A DRUG SHOOTING NEAR THEIR SCHOOL IN THE LAST YEAR

The survey asked “during he last year, have there been any drug shootings nearby the geographical location of your school”. This parallels the gang shooting data, because more often than not it is in fact the gang selling the drugs. The gang problem and the drug problem are one in the same. What the survey reveals is that 26.4 percent of the respondents indicated “yes” that indeed there had been a drug shooting nearby their school in the last one year time period.

STUDENTS WHO ARE ASSOCIATING WITH DRUG ABUSERS

The survey included the question “what percentage of the students at your school do you feel are in a social network consisting of one ora more persons who regularly use illegal drugs”. The mean or average for this variable was 34.5 percent.

ABOUT HALF FEEL D.A.R.E. IS AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAM

The survey included the question “in your opinion, is the DARE program an effective program for preventing drug abuse among students”. Some 46.8 percent responded “yes”. And 53.2 percent responded “no”.

MOST SCHOOLS REPORT STUDENT DRUG ARRESTS IN THE LAST YEAR

The survey asked “were there any students arrested for drug sales or drug use at your school during the last one year period”. Some 84.7 percent responded “yes”. Some 15.3 percent indicated “no”. Thus, over four-fifths of American public schools report that in the last year there have been students arrested for drugs at the school.

ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS USING DRUGS

The survey included the question “what percentage of the students at your school do you feel are regularly using illegal drugs”. The mean, or arithmetic average, score was 24.5 percent.

ONLY HALF OF THE SCHOOLS HAVE A DRUG PREVENTION PROGRAM

The survey included the question “does your school currently have any type of drug prevention program”. Some 48.8 percent indicated “yes”, and the other half (51.2%) indicated “no”.

A THIRD OF AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS REPORT STUDENTS ARRESTED FOR METHAMPHETAMINE DRUG OFFENSES IN THE LAST YEAR

The survey included the question “have there been any arrests for possession, distribution or sales of methamphetamines among the students in your school during the last year”. Here we find that 34.9 percent of the respondents reported “yes”, that they have had students arrested for this type of “meth” drug offense during the last year.

MOST PREDICT THE METH DRUG PROBLEM TO ESCALATE IN THE FUTURE

The survey included the question “do you predict the methamphetamine problem for your students will grow, decrease, or remain the same in 2006". The results showed that 57.4 percent felt the meth problem would grow or increase. Only 2.4 percent felt the meth drug problem would decrease. And 40.2 percent felt the meth problem would remain about the same.

ABILITY TO IDENTIFY GANG/HATE SYMBOLS WHEN THEY SEE THEM

Would school officials be able to correctly identify gang/hate symbols if they saw them? We tested this in the survey, we included a series of questions asking the respondent to identify which – if any -- of some symbols would be allowed or disallowed at their schools. Therefore the survey was more than a survey, it was an actual cognitive test of school officials. Further we did this with multiple questions or items, and by use of both symbols and verbal expressions as will be explained.

Low Ability to Identify Which of the Five Signs Are Gang/Hate Group Signs:

Question number 50 in the survey gave five different symbols, four of which were clearly hate group or gang symbols. How did the respondents do at correctly identifying them?

Question number 50 asked “which of the following types of symbols would not be allowed at your school if a student had these symbols on an item of clothing (shirt, hat, etc). Please put a large “X” through any and all of the symbols that wound NOT be allowed at your school”. Then the pictures of the five symbols followed: (1) Aryan Nations standard symbol, (2) Aryan Nations symbol for security/racial purity, (3) twisted cross or the swastika, (4) an obscure version of the Aryan Nations symbol, and (5) the standard “King” symbol for the Latin Kings street gang.

The standard symbol known as the Aryan Nations symbol was identified by only 42.1 percent of the respondents. Therefore in most schools (57.9 percent) the symbol would be allowed. (Allowed, of course, only until the issue blew up in the local media.)

A second variation of the Aryan Nations symbol, the hate group symbol for Aryan security and racial purity (also used by the KKK) was identified by only 34.4 percent of the schools; thus in 65.6 percent of the schools it would be allowed.

The third symbol was the twisted cross or a swastika, the fifth SS division, a “hate group” symbol frequently used by Skinheads, and it appeared as symbol #3 in item50, and was identified by 59.7 percent of the schools. But again, 40.3 percent did not identify the symbol.

The fourth symbol is used by the Aryan Nations, one of the most well known hate groups in the world, and about a fourth (24.5%) said it would be banned from their school.

The fifth symbol was the Latin Kings, and was identified by 42.3 percent of the schools. Thus, in over half of the schools (57.7%) they would allow the gang symbol for one of America’s most vicious gangs.

Low Ability to Identify the Four Major Chicago Gang Signs

Question number 51 in the survey gave four different gang symbols, all of which were the actual symbols used by four of the largest and most violent gangs in Chicago. Could the respondents identify these gang signs if they saw them. Again, the survey was more than a survey: it was in many respects a field experiment — could school personnel actually identify these common street gang symbols if they saw them.

Thus, question number 51 asked “which of the following types of symbols would not be allowed at your school if a student had these symbols on an item of clothing (shirt, hat, etc). Please place a large “X” through any and all of the symbols that would NOT be allowed at your school”. Then, four symbols were printed which were: (1) the pyramid and five pointed star symbol with the initial BPSN commonly known as the standard symbol of the “Black P. Stone Nation”, aka “El Rukns”, (2) the King’s crown symbol with five points, and the expression “Amor De Rey” commonly known as the symbol of the Latin Kings, (3) the top hat, and cane, and the initials “C.V.L.” commonly known as the symbols and expression for the Conservative Vice Lords, and (4) the initials “G.D.”, the number “74", the expression “B.O.S.” under the six pointed Star of David symbol, commonly known as the full set of symbols for what is probably America’s largest gang, the Gangster Disciples.

So, how well did the school respondents do in identifying these actual gang symbols?

Not very good, overall is the answer. About “half and half” is another way of looking at it. Half of the time they would get it right.

The first sign in item number 51 was an actual real gang sign: the sign for the Black P. Stone Nation (BPSN). For the Black P. Stone Nation, only 45 percent got it right: some 45 percent of the respondents indicated this symbol would not be allowed at their school. Which means, 55 percent of the time, the symbols would be allowed; until parents or the mass media discovered this symbol was associated with one of the first middle eastern foreign terrorism attempts on U.S. soil (their leader Jeff Fort had agreed to blow up some U.S. planes for Libya’s dictator).

For the second sign in item number 51, the standard Latin King street gang sign, unmistakable to anyone who knows about this gang, some 50 percent of the respondents indicated the symbol would not be allowed at their school. Which means, of course, that half of the schools in America would in fact allow the symbol: because they would not know it was the symbol of a very large American street gang.

The third symbol, that for the Conservative Vice Lords, one of the oldest gangs in America, which has existed since 1959 ---- only 46.4 percent of the respondents indicated the symbols and the expression would not be allowed at their school. Thus, in most cases (53.6%) the schools would overlook the violent symbolism. Until, of course, someone outside of the local school authority structure discovered this trend.

The fourth symbol, was the standard set of symbols for the Gangster Disciples, said to be the single largest gang in the United States. Here some 57.2 percent of the respondents said by crossing it out, that the symbol would not be allowed at their school. Still, though, some 42.8 percent did not reject this as a blatant gang symbol.

Low Overall Ability to Identify Verbal Taunts/Verbal Phrases/Standard Shout Outs of Gangs/Hate Groups

How would the school officials perform in correctly identifying which if any of a set of verbal phrases were actually the standard phrases or shout outs of gangs and hate groups or which unrelated to gangs/hate groups? Again, we tested this in the research. Item number 52 provided five subtests, five different phrases or alphanumeric expressions, four of which were obviously gang/hate group related.

The first of these was the expression “14 words - 88", and this is patently racist in its nature as a phrase. It refers to the infamous “14 words” that racist extremist groups use as their mantra, and “88" refers everywhere in that subculture to “Heil Hitler”. Only 23.4 percent of the respondents indicated that this expression would not be allowed at their school. Thus, in over three-fourths of American schools, the phrase would in fact be allowed because the people in charge lacked the ability to identify it as a patently racist/hate group expression.

The second of these was the expression “1-3-22-12", a series of numbers, again, though, a standard gang code. The numeric code is the traditional prison gang alphabet code (A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, etc) of the Almighty Conservative Vice Lords gang, which originated in Chicago, and now exists throughout the USA — thanks in part to federal aid and foundation grants to spread the gang back in the 1960's. Some 21.6 percent of the school officials indicated they would not allow this expression of the Vice Lords at their school, which means that most other schools would allow it.

The third symbol was the expression “Free Larry Hoover” and is a kind of t-shirt commonly sold in shopping malls throughout the USA, and refers to specifically the gang leader “Larry Hoover”, who is portrayed as a political prisoner, a ghetto prisoner. Larry Hoover is the leader of the Gangster Disciples, said to be the single largest gang in the world. Only about a fourth of the school officials responding to the survey (24.8%) indicated they would ban this phrase at their school, which means at three-fourths of American schools they would not recognize the significance of the symbols until it was perhaps too late.

The fourth expression was the phrase “Level 74 Clothing” which is in fact the commercial name for a fashion clothing line having nothing to do with gangs or hate groups. It is widely marketed to American youths But, here, strangely, we get a “false positive” situation: because 21.2 percent of the school officials indicated they would ban it, when in fact it meant nothing in the context of gangs or hate groups. They would get sued in court, and they would lose. They would have a lot of egg on their face in the mass media as well if they banned such a symbol.

The fifth expression was “Boulders for your Shoulders”. This is a drug phrase. It means “rock cocaine for sale”. It is a standard expression in that particular drug subculture, which overlaps obviously with the gang subculture, because the gangs run the crack houses and have a lot of control over crack distribution. So, how did the school officials in this survey do? Not very good. Only 20.7 percent indicated they would not allow the phrase at their school. So, about four fifths of American public schools would not recognize the significance of the phrase and clearly allow the use of the phrase on clothing until perhaps it was way too late.

ALMOST A THIRD OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS REPORT OCCULT-TYPE STUDENT ACTIVITIES IN THE LAST YEAR

The survey included the question “have there been any reports of occult-type activities among students in your school during the last year (e.g., dabbling in satanism, witchcraft, odinism, etc)”. Almost a third of all American public schools responding to the survey (32.6%) indicated that “yes”, such occult-type activities had been reported among their students in the last year. About two-thirds of the respondents (67.4%) reported no such occult related activities.

VAST MAJORITY WANT TO HOLD PARENTS FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR JUVENILE CRIMES

The survey included the question “do you believe parents should be held financially responsible for the crimes committed by their children who are juveniles”. Some 87.7 percent said “yes”, that parents should be held financially responsible for the offenses committed by juvenile children. Only 12.3 percent did not believe this should be done.

LOCAL CITY GOVERNMENTS NOT EARNING AN “A” FOR ADDRESSING GANG PROBLEMS DURING THE LAST YEAR

The survey included the question “what kind of Report Card grade would you give your city government officials for addressing the gang problem during 2005". Some 8.9 percent gave an “A”, some 30.7 percent gave a “B”, some 30.7 percent gave a “C”, some 22.3 percent gave a “D”, and 7.4 percent gave out an “F”. This translates, by means of a grade point average into a low be (B minus).

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GETS A LOWER GRADE FOR ADDRESSING GANG PROBLEMS DURING THE LAST YEAR

The survey included a separate question that asked “what kind of Report Card grade would you give elected federal government officials for addressing the gang problem during 2005". Here some 3.0% gave “A”, 15 percent “B”, 38 percent “C”, 29.5 percent “D”, and some 14.5 percent “F”. This is a “C” grade. Somewhat lower than the grade given to local government officials.

ALMOST ALL BELIEVE IN ZERO-TOLERANCE AS A POLICY

The survey included the question “A zero-tolerance policy is the best approach for controlling the outbreak or spread of the gang problem”. Just over half (54.8%) responded that they “strongly agree” with that policy, and another 30.3 percent indicated that they “agree” with that policy. So a total of 85.1 percent either strongly agree or agree with the zero-tolerance policy toward the gang problem. Only 7.2 percent indicated they were uncertain. Some 5.8 percent indicated that they “disagree”, and another 1.9 percent indicated that they strongly disagree with that policy.

MOST REJECT THE OSTRICH APPROACH TO DEALING WITH GANG PROBLEMS

The survey included the question “If gang wannabes start in a school, the best thing to do is to ignore them (don’t do anything about it), as the problem might go away on its own”, where the respondents had an opportunity to strongly agree, agree, etc. This is also known as the “Ostrich approach” to dealing with local gang problems. Only 1.9 percent indicated a response of strongly agree or agree. Some 4.8 percent were uncertain. Most disagreed or strongly disagreed. Some 24.9 percent indicated that they “disagree”. Some 68.4 percent indicated that they “strongly disagree”.

GANG DENIAL IS SOMEWHAT HIGH FOR AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

The survey asked the question “do you believe that some politicians or officials in your jurisdiction want public school personnel to downplay or even deny the gang problem”. The results showed that 40.2 percent felt this was true. Three fifths (59.8%) did not feel the pressure of gang denial from local political forces.

GANG DENIAL BY ELECTED OFFICIALS

The survey included the question “to what extent do elected officials in your school district deny the gang problem? (Check one rating, the higher the number, higher the denial; lower the number, the lower the level of denial)” and the values were from zero (no denial) to 10 (high denial). The results showed a mean score of 4.47, which is a moderate level of gang denial. Thus, on the average it is not a low level of gang denial, and not a high level of gang denial, it is a moderate level of gang denial: perhaps school districts engage in gang denial on an “as needed basis”.

NEARLY A FOURTH OF THE SCHOOLS RECEIVED OJJDP REPORTS

The survey asked the question “during 2005, did you receive any reports or periodicals from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) about such topics as gangs, gang prevention, etc”. Some 24.1 percent indicated “yes” that they had in fact received such reports in the last year. Three-fourths reported they had not seen such reports.

A follow-up question, for those who had received the OJJDP free reports about gangs, asked them to rate their level of satisfaction with the free materials. The response mode allowed for an answer between zero for “not satisfied” to a high of 10 for “very satisfied”. Thus, it is similar to the 100 point scale used for a grade at many schools. The mean score was 5.6 for the level of satisfaction with OJJDP materials. Which is a moderate or mid-point score. It is not a terribly low score, it is not a high score.

OVER HALF BELIEVE THE MASS MEDIA CONTRIBUTES TO THE GANG PROBLEM

The survey included the question “do you feel that if less attention was given to gangs on television, in newspapers, and in movies, video games, etc, that fewer people would join a gang”. Some 61.6 percent of the respondents said “yes” that they felt this was true: less attention in the mass media would lead to fewer people joining gangs. Some 38.4 percent did not accept this premise about the role of the mass media.

TWO-THIRDS OF AMERICAN SCHOOLS PROHIBIT OR BAN SOME TYPES OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA

The survey included the question “are there any movies, videos, or types of music that are prohibited or banned at your school”. Some 67.2 percent said “yes”, and 32.8 percent “no”.

IN MOST CASES BAD BEHAVIOR AT A LOCAL MALL IS NOT GOING TO BE MADE KNOWN TO LOCAL SCHOOL OFFICIALS

The survey included the question “hypothetically, if one of your students is expelled and banned from a local area mall (assume for disruptive conduct, etc), does this information get formally transmitted to your school guidance counselor or other school official in a routine fashion and on a timely basis”. Only 18.1 percent said “yes”. Most (81.9%) said “no”.

TWO-THIRDS OF AMERICAN SCHOOLS HAVE NO FORMAL LIAISON TO LOCAL MALL SECURITY STAFF

The survey included the question “our school has no formalized liaison policies and procedures for receiving information on student conduct at malls in the area from security staff who may work there”. Some 65.8 percent answered “yes”, and 34.2 percent “no”.

SECURITY PROBLEMS TENDED TO INCREASE MORE THAN DECREASE IN THE LAST YEAR

One step forward, two steps backward describes the finding here. The survey asked “during the last year did your school experience an increase or decrease in security related problems (gangs, drugs, fights, etc)”. Some 27.4 percent indicated their security problems increased in the last year. Some 11.8 percent indicated their security problems decreased in the last year. Most (60.8%) indicated their security problems remained at the same level.

SCHOOL SAFETY IMPROVING SLIGHTLY

The survey included the question “during the last year, do you think your school became safer, less safer, or remained about the same”. Some 28.4 percent of the respondents indicated that during the last year their school became safer. Still 14.9 percent indicated their school became less safe and more dangerous. And the single largest group (56.7%) felt that there was no change in the level of safety/danger in their school during the last year.

TWO-FIFTHS EXPECT AN INCREASE IN GANG PROBLEMS

The survey included the question “do you expect an increase or decrease in gang-related problems in the next year”. Some 41.2 percent indicated they expect an increase in gang-related problems. Only 8.3 percent expected a decrease in gang problems. And about half (50.5%) felt there would be no change or the gang problem would remain at the same level as in the past.

SECURITY PROBLEMS EXPECTED TO INCREASE NEXT YEAR

The survey included the question “based on current trends, what is your expectation for next year, in the school year 2006-2007, will your school experience an increase or decrease in security-related problems (gangs, drugs, fights, etc)”. Some 39.1 percent expected an increase. Only 9.4 percent expected a decrease. About half (51.5%) expected the problem will remain about the same.

ANALYSIS OF QUALITATIVE DATA

The analysis of qualitative data was done for this research report as well, and the basic procedure was that of content analysis. The type of qualitative data analyzed consisted of a number of “open-ended” survey items. This begins by transcribing the responses, and collapsing them into similar categories. The results are reported below.

Topics That Need to Be Emphasized in Gang Training: A Needs Assessment for K-12 Schools

One of the open-ended survey items asked an important follow-up question in response to the yes/no question “do you think more staff training is needed on gang issues for your school”. The follow-up question was “if yes, what topics do you think need to be emphasized”. The resulting narrative information provides a kind of needs assessment. These results are summarized here. We have taken the liberty of collapsing similar concepts into analytically distinct categories in the type of content analysis undertaken.

The areas that are in the highest demand by K-12 schools in terms of what they want to get in terms of gang training are as follows: Awareness of gang symbols, activities, codes, handshakes, and identifiers; Gang dress & language; Graffiti: how to understand it; How to spot gangs and recognize their activities, gang behavior; How to prevent gang activities on campus

Identification: gang symbols, signs, hidden messages; Information about local gangs and recent trends; Intervention and prevention techniques; Recognition of gang signs, hand gestures, dress modes; Responsibilities of school staff in dealing with the gang problem; Understanding the special language of gang members; What to look for, listen for: the signs of gang activity/involvement; and Why kids join gangs. These areas cover almost the entire spectrum of issues that K-12 school personnel are concerned about according to the data from our survey.

Major Gangs Represented Among the Students in K-12 Schools

The survey asked the question “what are the names of the largest three (3) gangs that are represented among the students in your school”. This basic narrative information was transcribed, and then subjected to content analysis. The purpose of the content analysis was to be able to identify the most prolific gangs threatening public schools in America today.

Table 1 provides the top ten list of gangs impacting on school safety today. Table 1 therefore provides a rank ordering of those criminal street gangs most likely to be a source of school violence. Some commentary on these top ten (10) gang names is warranted here.

First, it is important to point out that the top two gangs, the Bloods and the Crips, are actually not a single solidified gang organization. Rather the term “Blood” means a type of gang, and “Crips” means another type of gang. Bloods and Crips are two competing types of gangs. There are actually thousands of different Blood gangs and Crip gangs. All the “Blood” gangs do not necessarily know each other. Blood and Crip gang identities are the easiest to take on, sometimes all one needs is a certain color of clothing: red for Bloods, blue for Crips, and the bad attitude to go with it. A casual search of the internet for “gang shout outs” and chat rooms, gives even the novice wannabe an introduction to the language and symbols of the Bloods and Crips. Thus, the ease of emulating the Crip or Blood identity is one of the primary explanations for the proliferation of these gangs throughout the USA.

The fact that the Latin Kings and the Gangster Disciples are in the top four gangs in America impacting on public schools is a different matter: they both represent solidified, specific national gangs, and they operate pretty much the same — often by the same written constitution and bylaws. These are formal gang organizations. The Vice Lords are also a formal organization, and there are several factions of the gang.

Table 2 provides the complete transcription of gang names impacting on public schools from this survey. It should not be considered the full directory of gangs. It is, after all, a sample of American public schools. There are many, many local gangs in America. Few cities are able to report that they do not have such local gangs.

Table 1

Top Ten (10) Gangs In American Public Schools Today

Name of Gang Number of Schools

Bloods 34

Crips 30

Latin Kings 22

Gangster Disciples 19

Surenos/SUR 13 18

Mara Salvatrucha 13 9

Nortenos/14's 6

Folks 6

Vice Lords 5

18^th Street 3

Table 2

Alphabetical Listing of the Top Gangs Represented

Among Students in K-12 Schools Today

Note: if the gang appeared two or more times in the sample, the number of citations is indicated at the right of the gang’s name inside parentheses.

Armenian Kings

ARTA

Asian Boyz

Asian Pride

Bishops

Blood Brothers

Bloods (34)

Broadway 24^th Street

Brown Brotherhood

Brown Pride (2)

BSK

Bulldogs

Centro Most Wanted (CMW)

Chi-town

City Squad

Counts

Crips (30)

Cross Tracks

DAC

Diamond

Dominicans Don’t Play (DDP) (2)

DSM

East Side

East Side Bloods

East Side Lobos

East Side 13

F-Troop

Florencia 13 (aka “F 13") (3)

Folks (aka Folk Nation) (6)

Gangster Disciples (19)

Green Clover Leaf

HBA (Hmong)

Insane Gangster Disciples (IGD’s not counted as GD’s)

Kin Folks

KKK

KMD

K.P.

K-town

Latin Counts

LCS

Latin Kings (22)

Lawndale 13

Little Latins

Los Locos (2)

Low Riders

Mean Green

Mexican Mafia (20

MPS

MS-13 (9)

Native Pride

Nortenos/14's (6)

Northside Redondo

Oaklawn Folks (a Crips gang)

Orange County Criminals (OCC)

Orange Varrio Cypress

Outkast Boys

Parkside

People Nation

Playboys (2)

Portland Town Soldiers (PTS)

PSSL

Redondo 13

Rolling 20's Crips xx

Rolling 60's Crips

Simon City Royals

SKO Squad

Squad Killas

South Side Locos

South Side Mesa (SSM) (2)

South Side Players (SSP)

SSWL 40^th Street

Straights Against Gays (SAG’s)

Surenos/SUR 13/Sur Trece (18)

The Chilly Boys

Tiny Rascal Gang (TRG)

Tru Ditch

Varrio Central

Varrios Locos (Whittier)

Vice Lords (5)

Vick Street Troopers

West End Locos

West Side Crip

West Side Mesa (WSM)

WBP

WMK

32 Crew

4 - 10

5/9's

18^th Street xxx

589's (Hmong)

Types of Gang Preventions Programs in Use Today

The survey also included an item to the effect “Does your school currently have any type of gang prevention program”. We found that just over one out of ten in the forced choice yes/no response mode indicated “yes” (13.7%). But there was also a follow-up question, an open-ended item, soliciting narrative information from the respondent. It asked “If yes, what is the program called”. This follow-up item sought to determine the name of the gang prevention program in use.

Table 3 provides the names of the gang programs. This is very meager information at best, as it shows the single largest gang prevention program in use today is the GREAT program, there were N = 9 of the respondents who reported having this kind of gang prevention program currently operating at their school. DARE was the next most popular. Every other program name had only one citation. It would truly appear that there is enormous room, incredible opportunity, to start new and locally adapted gang prevention programs in American public schools. This is an unmistakable conclusion from the quantitative and qualitative findings of this research on American public schools.

Table 3

Alphabetical listing of Names of Gang Prevention Programs

in Use Today in American Public Schools

(Note: Number following listing in parentheses indicates number of multiple citations)

DARE (N = 2)

GAIN

GREAT (N = 9)

Heart & Blue Ribbon

MAC Scholars

Students Against Violence

Too Good For Violence

United Colors

Types of Movie, Video, and Music Prohibited or Banned Today in American Public Schools

The survey asked the question “are there any movies, videos, or types of music that are prohibited or banned at your school”. As we found in the quantitative forced-choice survey item, about two-thirds of American public schools (67.2%) report banning some types of movies, videos, or music. Additionally, there was a follow-up question that asked the respondent “If yes, describe briefly”, where information was solicited on exactly what was being banned.

Table 4

Alphabetical Listing of Types of Movies, Videos and Music

Being Banned in American Public Schools Today

(Note: Number following listing in parentheses indicates number of multiple citations)

Anything above PG 13

Content such that students would need parental permission

Certain rap songs

Demeaning

Disruptive (anything) to the educational process xx

Drug related (3)

Extreme or excessive violence (9)

Gang related (10)

Heavy metal

Inappropriate language, lyrics (5)

Language/violence/church related

Movie “Dirty Deeds” was banned from Middle school for inappropriate content

No music on campus during school hours

No radios or headsets of any kind are allowed for students

No rap language, gang, alcohol related music

No “R-rated” movies, PG-13 with permission only

Nudity (2)

Obscene or vulgar language (profanity, cursing) (12)

Racial hate, or racist (3)

R-rated (22)

Religious issues (3)

Sex or sexually explicit (5)

Sexist

The district maintains a list of acceptable media

Videos shown in class must be approved

Videos/movies have to be approved through the districts curriculum advisory committee, school administration, school board approved, before being shown, must pertain to classroom instruction (6)

X-rated porn (2)

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The research reported here has helped to clarify how the gang problem overlaps with a variety of other problems: drugs, violence, bullying, hate/extremist groups, etc. The validity and reliability levels for the research reported here are considered acceptable for the fields of social science. Below we summarize our major findings and conclusions from this study.

The Average American School

Most schools state that they prohibit the wearing of gang symbols on clothing the students wear to school. Most schools prohibit gang and hate group slogans on clothing and apparel as well. The issue to be resolved, though, is can school officials correctly identify such gang symbols or hate group slogans if they saw them. Four-fifths of the schools have written policies prohibiting bullying. Most schools reported drug arrests for students during the last year, even though only half of the schools had a drug prevention program.

Recent Trends and Prognosis for Future

Based on a number of different questions we can summarize some recent trends as well as expectations for the future based on information analyzed in the research reported here.

During the last year security staff such as SRO’s remained at about the same force level overall, with increases offsetting decreases equally, and most staffing patterns remaining about the same. Even though security problems increased last year for a fourth of the schools. But this is occurring in many cases when there is an increase in student enrollment. We also know that in the last year: one out of four schools reported gang or drug shootings near their building. A third reported arrests for meth drug crimes in the last year among their students. Nearly a third also reported occult-type activities in the last year. About a third saw an increase in gang graffiti. Two-fifths expect an increase in gang-related or security-related problems next year.

Where There Exists Massive Consensus

There was strong agreement that gang training should be required for certain types of school administrators and basically all teachers. There seems massive agreement that gang and hate symbols need to be kept out of the school environment. There was also some strong support for the idea of holding parents financially responsible for the crimes committed by their underage children. Most are in favor of a zero-tolerance policy towards gangs. Most do not believe it is a good idea to ignore the gang problem even if the gang problem consists of “gang wannabe’s”. Another area of strong consensus was the issue of school uniforms: over three-fourths felt students were safer in school uniforms and that school uniforms reduce gang activities. Over three fourths also felt it would be good public policy to implement a gang prevention program, as currently only about one in ten schools report having a gang prevention program.

The Issues of Gang Identification Skills Among School Personnel

We were able to field test over 200 public school personnel in 46 states using 14 different symbols or expressions. This was really the first research of its kind in this area, so there is absolutely nothing to compare our findings to. The present research has paved a pioneering path into new problem areas. A fourth to half of the time, hate group symbols would be correctly identified. About half of the time major gang symbols would be correctly identified. About a fourth of the time gang verbal expressions or codes would be correctly identified. Is that an acceptable level of gang identification skill for public school officials? Such an issue is beyond the scope of the present report, but it is certainly suggestive that American public schools need a huge infusion of new funding and resources to address basic needs and basic issues.

This has been a preliminary report on the research project reflecting only descriptive statistical findings. Further analysis is currently underway and it is reasonable to expect additional findings, insight, and discussion of the various issues in a future report from the NGCRC.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The task force included the following persons whom the NGCRC would like to take this opportunity to express special gratitude (listed in alphabetical order): Jennifer Adams, Ph.D. (West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV); Benjamin Anthony (Dept. Of Juvenile Justice, Richmond, VA); Lamont Applegate (Gang Specialist, Hudson, Michigan); Lianne Archer (CSD of New Rochelle, New Rochelle, NY); Ron “Cook” Barrett (Gang Prevention Specialist, Albany, NY);John Beasley (Security Police Specialist, Plano ISD, Plano, TX); Lebbeus Brown (Gang Specialist, Gays Mills, WI); Marcel W. DuBois (Youth Gang/Graffiti, Calgary Police, Calgary, Alberta, Canada); Andrew Grascia (Gang Specialist, White Plains, NY); Aida Hernandez (Rippon Middle School, Woodbridge, VA); Shirley R. Holmes, Ph.D. (North Georgia College & State University, Dahlonega, GA); Janice Joseph, Ph.D. (Richard Stockton College, Pomona, NJ);George Knox, Ph.D. (Director, NGCRC, Chicago, IL); Sonja E. Manning (Dept. Of Juvenile Justice, Bon Air, VA); Dr. William Marginson (Gang Specialist, New Bedford, MA); Fred Moreno (Gang Specialist, Chicago, IL); Robert Mulvaney (Gang Specialist, Lansing, MI); Sgt. Jerome Rudie (Gang Specialist, Viroqua, WI); Jeffrey P. Rush, DPA (University of LA at Monroe, Monroe, LA); Sgt. Correa Sergio (USMC, Alameda, CA); Chriscelyn Tussey (Gang Specialist, Indiana, PA); Charla Waxman, Ph.D. (Gang Specialist, Grayslake, IL); Anton Welsh (Dept. Of Juvenile Justice, Mitchells, VA); Doris D. Yates, Ph.D. (Gang Specialist, Hayward, CA).

There were of course others who helped in a variety of ways throughout the duration of the research project. We are grateful in particular to NGCRC volunteers who provided editing assistance, typing, and data base management help.

COPY OF THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT USED:

End Notes: