MENU TITLE: Survey of Youth Gang Programs Series: OJJDP Published: Draft 5/90 219 pages 450,211 bytes ------------------------------ Some figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420. ------------------------------ Survey of Youth Gang Problems and Programs in 45 Cities and 6 Sites Irving Spergel, G. David Curry, Ron Chance, Ruth Ross with Amy Clark, Alba Alexander, Candace Kane, Phillis Garth, Dawn Isis, Michael Hyatt, Roberto Caldero, Paul Hamanda, Pamela Rodriguez, Janet Curry, and Sandra Oh National Youth Gang Suppression and Intervention Program School of Social Service Administration University of Chicago Distributed By: Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20850 1-800-638-8736 ------------------------------ ABSTRACT This draft report presents the results of a national survey of 254 law enforcement, judicial system, education, and social welfare professionals who deal with the youth gang problem in 45 cities and 6 institutional sites (mainly correctional institutions). The cities and sites were located in four regions of the country: Northeast, Midwest, South, and the West. The goal of this survey was to achieve a better understanding of the nature of the organized response to the youth-gang problem by a range of criminal-justice and community-based agencies. The survey included a written questionnaire, telephone survey, and site visits. It was conducted by a team of researchers at the University of Chicago and sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Development, U.S. Department of Justice. The report includes analysis of responses to questions concerning the definition of youth gang and related terms, the nature and causes of the gang phenomenon, trends in gang growth and activity, and the relative effectiveness of various suppression and intervention strategies. The report contains 6 charts and 90 tables of text. Additional analysis, with 10 charts and 52 tables, is provided in two appendixes. ------------------------------ TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION METHOD AND SCOPE SUMMARY CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS OF GANG, GANG MEMBER, AND GANG INCIDENT THE GANG DIFFERENCES IN GANG DEFINITION BY AREA AND RESPONDENT SUMMARY: GANG DEFINITION THE GANG MEMBER DIFFERENCES IN GANG MEMBER IDENTIFICATION SUMMARY: GANG MEMBER DEFINITION GANG-RELATED INCIDENTS DIFFERENCES IN DEFINING GANG INCIDENT BY AREA SUMMARY: GANG INCIDENT DEFINITION SUMMARY CHAPTER 3 GANG-CHARACTERISTICS SIZE OF THE PROBLEM GANG SIZE RACE, ETHNICITY, AND GANGS GANG ORGANIZATIONAL PARAMETERS LEVEL OF GANG CRIMINALITY ADULTS AND GANGS DRUGS AND GANGS GANG PATTERNS: INTERRELATIONSHIP FOR STRUCTURAL AND BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, DRUG TRAFFICKING, AND THE SPREAD OF THE YOUTH GANG PROBLEM SUMMARY CHAPTER 4 RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS SIZE OF AGENCY SPECIFIC POLICIES TRAINING ORGANIZATIONAL SPECIALIZATION ADVISORY AND INTERAGENCY STRUCTURES PATTERNS OF AGENCY RESPONSE SPECIAL POLICIES ORGANIZATION INFLUENCE AND COORDINATION SPECIALIZED TRAINING ORGANIZATIONAL SPECIALIZATION RELATIONSHIPS OF AGENCY RESPONSE TO GANG PROBLEM POLICIES ADVISORY STRUCTURES AND TASK FORCE RESPONSES AVAILABILITY OF TRAINING ORGANIZATIONAL SPECIALIZATION SUMMARY CHAPTER 5 STRATEGIES AND CAUSES COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION SOCIAL INTERVENTION OPPORTUNITIES PROVISION SUPPRESSION ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE MDS STRATEGY DIFFERENCES PERCEIVED CAUSES OF THE GANG PROBLEM MDS CAUSAL PERCEPTIONS RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERCEIVED CAUSE AND STRATEGY NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS OF AREAS AND RESPONDENTS SUMMARY CHAPTER 6 EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTION CHANGES IN THE LEVEL OF THE PROBLEM PERCEIVED IMPROVEMENT AND THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM POLICY AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES UNIT EFFECTIVENESS INTERAGENCY EFFECTIVENESS SELECTING PROMISING APPROACHES DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN CHRONIC AND EMERGING CITIES FINDING EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES BUILDING CAUSAL REGRESSION MODELS SUMMARY REFERENCES APPENDIX A An MDS Approach to Gang Definition by Area An MDS Approach to Gang Definition by Respondent Category An MDS Approach to Membership Identification by Area An MDS Approach to Gang Member Definition by Respondent Category An MDS Approach to Gang Incident by Site An MDS Approach to Gang Incident by Respondent Category MDS Strategy Differences Across Areas and Respondent Categories Differences among Sites in Strategy Differences Among Respondent Categories in Strategy Comparison of Causal Perceptions Across Sites Comparison of Causal Perceptions Across Respondent Categories Network Measures APPENDIX B LIST OF FIGURES Figure 6-1 General Effectiveness Score and Community Organizational Strategy Figure 6-2 General Effectiveness Score and Social Intervention Strategy Figure 6-3 General Effectiveness Score and Opportunities Provision Figure 6-4 General Effectiveness Score and Suppression Strategy Figure 6-5 General Effectiveness Score and Organizational Development Strategy TEXT TABLES Table 1-3. Respondents in Analysis by Geographic Area (n = 45) and Selected Institutions (n = 6) Table 1-4. Respondent Categories Table 1-5. Type of Gang Problem by Area (City, County, Site) Table 2-1. Groupings of Dichotomous Variables Derived from Content Analysis of Definition of a Gang (Item III-1) Table 2-3. Rotated Factor Matrix from GLS Factor Analysis of Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients of Gang Definition Characteristics Table 2-4. Average Degree of Consensus on Gang Definitional Criteria by Area Table 2-5. Average Degree of Consensus on Gang Definitional Criteria by Respondent Category Table 2-6. Average Degree of Consensus for 42 Areas and 13 Respondent Categories by Definitional Criteria Table 2-13. Methods of Identifying Gang Members Table 2-15. Rotated Factor Matrix from GLS Factor Analysis of Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients of Gang Incident Definition Characteristics Table 2-16. Average Degree of Consensus on Membership Criteria by Area Table 2-17. Average Degree of Consensus on Member Identification Methods by Respondent Category Table 2-18. Average Degree of Consensus for 42 Areas and 13 Respondent Categories by Member Identification Criteria Table 2-25. Definitions of a Gang-Related Incident Table 2-27. Rotated Factor Matrix from GLS Factor Analysis of Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients of Gang Incident Definition Characteristics Table 2-28. Average Degree of Consensus on Incident Criteria by Area Table 2-29. Average Degree of Consensus on Incident Identification Methods by Respondent Category Table 2-30. Average Degree of Consensus for 42 Area and 13 Respondent Categories by Definitional Criteria Table 3-1. Number of Gangs and Gang Members in 1987 Table 3-2. City and County Populations (1984) Table 3-3. Correlations: City/County Population Size, Numbers of Gangs, and Numbers of Gang Members Table 3-20. Pearson Correlations for Selected Gang Problem Characteristics Table 3-21. Pearson Correlations for Selected Gang Problem Characteristics Table 3-22. Pearson Correlations for Selected Gang Problem Characteristics Table 3-23. Point Biserial Correlations of Gangs of Same Name in Different Neighborhoods and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Table 3-24. Point Biserial Correlations of Gangs Affiliated with Adult Criminal Organizations and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Table 3-25. Point Biserial Correlations of Drugs a Primary Purpose of the Gang and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Table 3-26. Point Biserial Correlations of Gang Members Involved in the Importation of Drugs and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Table 3-27. Gangs with the Same Name are Found in Different Areas and Respondents Reporting Gang Affiliation with Adult Criminal Organizations Table 3-28. Gangs with the Same Name are Found in Different Areas and Drugs are a Primary Purpose of the Gang Table 3-29. Gangs with the Same Name are Found in Different Areas and Gang Members are Involved in the Importation of Drugs Table 3-30. Respondents Reporting Gang Affiliation with Adult Criminal Organizations and Drugs are a Primary Purpose of the Gang Table 3-31. Respondents Reporting Gang Affiliation with Adult Criminal Organizations and Gang Members are Involved in the Importation of Drugs Table 3-32. Drugs are a Primary Purpose of the Gang and Gang Members are Involved in the Importation of Drugs Table 4-10. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Measures of the Policy Aspects of Gang Program Responses Table 4-11. Organizations Who Have Special Policies and Procedures for Dealing with Gangs and Organizations whose Special Gang Policies and Procedures are in Writing Table 4-12. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Measures of Communication and Coordination Aspects of Gang Program Responses Table 4-13. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Measures of Policy and Measure of Communication and Coordination in Gang Program Responses Table 4-14. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between the Availability of Special Gang Training for Personnel and Other Gang Program Responses Table 4-15. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Organizational Specialization and Other Gang Program Responses Table 4-16. Point Biserial Correlations of Having a Special Gang Policy and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Table 4-17. Point Biserial Correlations of Having a Special Gang Policy in Writing and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Table 4-18. Point Biserial Correlations of Influencing Gang Legislation and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Table 4-19. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Measures of Policy Responses and Selected Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem Table 4-20. Point Biserial Correlations of Having an Internal Advisory Structure and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Table 4-21. Point Biserial Correlations of Having an External Advisory Structure and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Table 4-22. Point Biserial Correlations of an Interagency Task Force and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Table 4-23. Tetrachoric correlation Coefficients Between Measures of Communication and Coordination Responses and Selected Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem Table 4-24. Point Biserial Correlations of Having Special Training for Agency Staff Available and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Table 4-25. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients Between Organizational Specialization and Selected Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem Table 5-1. Distribution of All Strategy Rankings Table 5-2. Primary Strategy by Respondent Type Table 5-3. Number of Responses by Respondent Category Table 5-4. Variety of Strategies Used by Respondents Table 5-10. Perceived Causes of the Gang Problem (Law Enforcement Only) Table 5-11. Perceived Causes of the Gang Problem (Not Including Law Enforcement) Table 5-16. Comparison of Strategy and Cause Responses: Number (%) Table 5-17. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Perceived Primary Cause and Primary Strategy Table 6-1. How Has the Gang Situation Changed Since 1980? Table 6-2. Gang Situation has Improved Since 1980 Table 6-3. Means for Selected Measures of the Gang Problem and Perceived Change in the Problem Since 1980 Table 6-4. Frequencies and Percents for Respondents Reporting Improvement in the Serious Gang Problem Since 1980 and Tetrachoric Correlations for Selected Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem Table 6-5. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Improvement in the Gang Problem Since 1980 and Measures of the Policy Aspects of Gang Program Responses Table 6-6. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Improvement in the Gang Problem Since 1980 and Measures of the Coordination Aspects of Gang Program Responses Table 6-7. Evaluation of Own Agency's Effectiveness (1987) Table 6-8. Point Biserial Correlations of Agency Effectiveness Rating and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Table 6-9. Polychoric Correlation Coefficients between Agency Effectiveness Rating and Selected Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem Table 6-10. Polychoric Correlation Coefficients between Agency Effectiveness Rating and Selected Measures of Response to the Gang Problem Table 6-11. Evaluation of Inter-Agency Task Force or Community-Wide Organizations (1987) Table 6-12. Point Biserial Correlations of Community Level Program Effectiveness Rating and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Table 6-13. Polychoric Correlation Coefficients between Community Level Program Effectiveness Rating and Selected Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem Table 6-14. Polychoric Correlation Coefficients between Interagency Community Level Program Effectiveness Rating and Selected Measures of Agency Response to the Gang Problem Table 6-15. Ratings of Agency Effectiveness in 1987 and Perceived Improvement in the Gang Problem Since 1980 Table 6-16. Ratings of Community Level Program Effectiveness in 1987 and Perceived Improvement in the Gang Problem Since 1980 Table 6-17. Rating of Agency Effectiveness and Rating of Community Level Effectiveness in 1987 Table 6-18. Selected Combinations of Responses on Improvement Since 1980, Rating of Agency Effectiveness in 1987, and Rating of Community Level Program Effectiveness in 1987 Table 6-19. Ranking of Areas by Average General Effectiveness Scores Table 6-20. Ranking of Areas By Improvement in Gang Situation Since 1980 Table 6-21. Differences between Chronic versus Emerging Gang Problem Cities on Selected Variables Table 6-22. Discriminant Analysis Results on Chronic vs. Emerging Cities for Differences in the Ethnicity of Gang Members and 1984 Population Table 6-23. Discriminant Analysis Results on Chronic vs. Emerging Cities for Proportions of Respondents Exhibiting Three Primary Strategies Table 6-24. Analysis of Covariance Results for Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary Strategy Community Organization as a Covariate for Chronic and Emerging Cities Table 6-25. Analysis of Covariance Results for Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary Strategy Social Intervention as a Covariate for Chronic and Emerging Cities Table 6-26. Analysis of Covariance Results for Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary Strategy Opportunities Provision as a Covariate for Chronic and Emerging Cities Table 6-27. Analysis of Covariance Results for Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary Strategy Suppression as a Covariate for Chronic and Emerging Cities Table 6-28. Analysis of Covariance Results for Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary Strategy Organizational Development as a Covariate for Chronic and Emerging Cities Table 6-30. Regression Model for General Effectiveness Measure for Chronic Cities (n=9) Table 6-31. Regression Model for General Effectiveness Measure for Chronic Cities, (n=18), with Addition of External Advisory Group Proportion Table 6-32. Regression Model for General Effectiveness Measure for Emerging Cities (n=9) APPENDIX TABLES AND FIGURES Appendix Table 1-1. Reasons for Non-Inclusion of Cities in this Study (N-55) Appendix Table 1-2. Questionnaire Appendix Table 2-2. Eigenvalues from Generalized Least Squares Factor Analysis of Gang Definition Variables Appendix Table 2-7. Correlations between MDS Dimensions for Site Dissimilarity and Gang Definitional Criteria Appendix Figure 2-1. Multi-dimensional Scaling Results for Differences in the Definition of Gangs by Geographic Site Appendix Table 2-9. Correlations between MDS Dimensions for Respondent Category Dissimilarity and Gang Definitional Criteria Appendix Figure 2-2. Multi-dimensional Scaling Results for Dissimilarity in the Definition of Gangs by Respondent Category Appendix Table 2-10. Eigenvalues from Generalized Least Squares Factor Analysis of Gang Member Definition Variables Appendix Table 2-15 Correlations between MDS Dimensions for Area Dissimilarity and Gang Definitional Criteria Appendix Figure 2-3. Multi-dimensional Scaling Results for Differences in the Identifying Gang Members by Geographic Site Appendix Table 2-16. Correlations between MDS Dimensions for Respondent Category Dissimilarity and Gang Member Identification Criteria Appendix Figure 2-4. Multi-dimensional Scaling Results for Dissimilarity in Gang Member Identification Methods by Respondent Category Appendix Table 2-18. Eigenvalues from Generalized Least Squares Factor Analysis of Gang Incident Definition Variables Appendix Table 2-23. Correlations between MDS Dimensions for Site Dissimilarity and Gang Definitional Criteria Appendix Figure 2-5. Multi-dimensional Scaling Results for Differences in the Identifying Gang Members by Geographic Site Appendix Table 2-24. Correlations between MDS Dimensions for Respondent Category Dissimilarity and Incident Definitional Criteria Appendix Figure 2-6. Multi-dimensional Scaling Results for Dissimilarity in Gang Incident Identification Methods by Respondent Category Appendix Table 3-4. Estimates of the Average Size of the Total Gang Appendix Table 3-5. Estimates of the Percent of Gang Members Who Are Black (1987) Appendix Table 3-6. Estimates of the Percent of Gang Members Who Are Hispanic (1987) Appendix Table 3-7. Estimates of the Percent of Hispanic Gang Members Who Are Mexican (1987) Appendix Table 3-8. Estimates of the Percent of Hispanic Gang Members Who Are Puerto Rican (1987) Appendix Table 3-9. Estimates of the Percent of Hispanic Gang Members Who Are Other Hispanic (1987) Appendix Table 3-10. Estimates of the Percent of Gang Members Who Are White (1987) Appendix Table 3-11. Estimates of the Percent of Gang Members Who Are Asian (1987) Appendix Table 3-12. Gangs with the Same Name are Found in Different Areas Appendix Table 3-13. Estimates of the Percent of Total Part 1 or Index Offenses Attributed to Youth Gangs in 1987 Appendix Table 3-14. Estimates of the Percent of Gang Offenders with Prior Police Records (1987) Appendix Table 3-15. Estimates of the Percent of Gang-Related Incidents or Cases Involving Adults in 1987 Appendix Table 3-16. The More Serious Part of the Gang Problem Appendix Table 3-17. Respondents Reporting Gang Affiliation with Adult Criminal Organizations Appendix Table 3-18. Drugs are a Primary Purpose of the Gang Appendix Table 3-19. Gang Members Involved in the Importation of Drugs Appendix Table 4-1. Total Number of Staff in Respondent's Agency Appendix Table 4-2. Organizations with Special Gang Policies and Procedures Appendix Table 4-3. Organizations whose Special Gang Policies and Procedures are in Writing Appendix Table 4-4. Organization that have Influenced Legislation Related to Gangs Appendix Table 4-5. Organizations that Provide Special Training on Gangs for Personnel Appendix Table 4-6. Agencies with Organizational Specialization to Deal with the Gang Problem Appendix Table 4-7. Organizations that have a Special Internal Advisory Structure Appendix Table 4-8. Organizations that have a Special External Advisory Structure Appendix Table 4-9. Respondents who Report Coordination Efforts by Inter-Agency Task Forces or Community-Wide Organizations in 1987 Appendix Table 5-5. Proportion of Respondents Exhibiting Each Strategy (Regardless of Rank) by Area Appendix Table 5-6. Proportion of Respondents in Each Site Exhibiting Strategy as Primary Strategy Appendix Table 5-7. Pearson Correlations of Proportion of Respondents Exhibiting Primary Strategy and MDS Dimension for 42 Areas Appendix Figure 5-1. MDS Plot of 42 Sites on Dimensions Produced from MDS of Euclidean Distances Generated From Proportion of Respondents Exhibiting Primary Strategy Appendix Table 5-8. Proportion of Respondents for Each Respondent Category Exhibiting Strategy as Primary Strategy Appendix Table 5-9. Pearson Correlations of Average Proportion of Respondents Exhibiting Primary Strategy and MDS Dimension for 13 Respondent Categories Appendix Figure 5-2. MDS Plot of 13 Respondent Categories on Dimensions Produced from MDS of Euclidean Distances Generated From Proportion of Respondents Exhibiting Primary Strategy Appendix Table 5-12. Primary Perceived Cause -- Proportion by Area Appendix Table 5-13. Pearson Correlations of Site Average Proportion of Respondents Ranking Cause Perception First and MDS Dimension for 42 Sites Appendix Figure 5-3. MDS Plot of 42 Sites on Dimensions Produced from MDS of Euclidean Distances Generated From Average Proportion of Respondents Ranking Cause Perception First Appendix Table 5-14. Most Important Cause -- Proportion of Respondents per Category Appendix Table 5-15. Pearson Correlations of Site Average Proportion of Respondents Ranking Cause Perception First and MDS Dimension for 13 Respondent Categories Appendix Table 5-18. Three Example Sociometric Networks (Rows are respondents indicating agencies with whom they are in most contact. Each column represents the corresponding row agency as being indicated as in contact with the row agency. The diagonal is arbitrarily filled with zeroes.) Appendix Table 5-19. Network Density Measures by Site Appendix Table 5-20. Means of Network Analysis Prominence Measures by Site Appendix Table 5-21. Means of Network Analysis Prominence Measures by Respondent Category Table B-1. Normalized (PROBIT) Scores for Three Gang Program Effectiveness Measures Table B-2. Eigenvalues Produced by Principal Components Analysis of Three Normalized Measures of Effectiveness Table B-3. Coefficients for First Principal Component ------------------------------ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction A questionnaire and telephone survey of 254 respondents in 45 cities and 6 institutional sites, mainly correctional schools, was conducted to assess the youth gang problem and especially to discover organized and "promising" programs for dealing with it. The cities and sites were located in four regions of the country: Northeast, Midwest, South, and the West. The largest number of cities from the same state in the study, 15, were from California. The next largest number was from Illinois with five cities. The study was concerned with analysis of the gang problem and the organized response to it in two types of cities: chronic gang problem cities, which often had a long history of gang problems, and emerging gang problem cities, often smaller cities that recognized and began to deal with the gang problem only since 1980. A wide range of respondents with direct operational and some policy experience in dealing with the gang problem was selected to participate in the survey. The 254 respondents were classified into 10 major categories and 6 subcategories of professional or agency representatives. Major categories included law enforcement (52), prosecution (26), judges (14), probation (32), corrections (8), parole (11), and schools (35). Subcategories included academic (26) and security staff (9) for schools; and youth service (46), grassroots (5), youth and family treatment (8), and comprehensive crisis intervention programs (3) for community organizations. The response rate for respondents in the survey was high. Seventy and one half percent (70.5 percent) of all questionnaires sent out were returned. Questionnaires were sent to cities that seemed to meet the selection criteria of the study, based on initial information: the presence and recognition by agencies, especially by the police, of a youth gang problem; the presence of a youth gang program; the existence of a program for at least one year, whether presently functioning or in the recent past; an articulated set of program goals; evidence of more than a simplistic unitary response; and some capacity to describe the impact of the program. ------------------------------ Definitions The importance of a common definition was stressed for understanding the scope and seriousness of the gang problem and for developing effective policies and programs of intervention. The survey respondents were asked to define three key components of the youth gang problem in their jurisdiction: the gang, gang member, and gang incident. A variety of research methods and statistical procedures were used to analyze the data collected, including content analysis, factor analysis, and multi-dimensional scaling. We found a diversity of meanings that serve as a constraint in interpreting the results of the research. The most frequently cited elements of a definition for gang were certain group or organizational characteristics, symbols, and a range of specific and general criminal activities, particularly violence, drug use, and drug sales. The most frequent elements used to define a gang member were symbols or symbolic behavior, self-admission, identification by others, especially the police, and association with gang members. The three most frequently cited ways of identifying a gang incident were the involvement of a gang member in the activity; gang function (i.e., gang-related interest and motivation); and modus operandi (i.e., behavior distinctively associated with gang activity, such as drive-by shootings). In general there was more consensus on definitions based on city or location than by discipline or agency affiliation of the respondent. In other words, the fact that a respondent was located in a particular city was more important than his professional or agency affiliation in determining the way he defined a gang, a gang member, or gang incident. To some extent these differences could be accounted for by whether the city was a chronic or emerging gang problem city. We found, for example, that respondents from chronic gang cities emphasized the general or specific criminal or antisocial nature of the gang, while those in the emerging problem cities focused on symbolic or organizational aspects in their definitions of a gang and gang incident. Respondents from chronic gang cities tended to use multiple factors in identifying gang members or gang incidents; the respondents in emerging cities usually emphasized one factor. Across areas, it was not always clear that criminal justice or non-criminal justice agencies were in greater agreement as to which component of the definition should be emphasized. Criminal justice system respondents generally tended to emphasize specific types of crimes while non- justice system respondents relied more on symbolic behaviors to identify youth as gang members. ------------------------------ Gang Characteristics and Behaviors Despite the existence of a great deal of variability in definition, there were clear patterns in assessment of the scope and severity of the problem. Gang problems and programs seemed to be concentrated in certain states and cities, mainly California and the Los Angeles area and Illinois, including Chicago. There were highly significant correlations between numbers of gangs and numbers of gang members, but not quite as strong with size of city. Some large cities did not report large numbers of gangs and gang members, and relatively smaller cities had disproportionately large and serious gang problems. Blacks (54.6 percent), mainly African-Americans, and Hispanics (32.6 percent), mainly Mexican- Americans, were the major racial/ethnic groups in the gang populations reported by law enforcement. Two-thirds of the respondents perceived gangs as groups affiliated across neighborhoods, cities, or states; they also stated that 75 percent of gang youth had prior police records; and that 22.7 percent of total index crimes in a jurisdiction were committed by gang youth. The gang problem was no longer viewed as only juvenile; adults were involved in 45.6 percent of the youth gang-related incidents. About three-quarters of the respondents stated that youth gangs or their individual members or cliques were involved with adult criminal organizations. A majority of respondents believed that a primary purpose of youth gangs is selling drugs mainly at the street level and that certain youth gang members are involved in transporting drugs across jurisdictions. In regard to more organized forms of gang criminality, there is a negative or inverse relationship between the percentage of Hispanic gang members and involvement with adult criminal organization. The relationship between drug selling as a primary purpose of the gang is characteristic of black but not Hispanic gangs. When drug distribution is a primary purpose of the youth gang, a higher percent of index crime in the community is attributed to gangs. Non-local (that is, gangs with the same name in different parts of one city, State, or county) are much more likely to be affiliated with adult criminal organizations, and such gangs are highly likely to be engaged in both street level and higher level drug trafficking, e.g., transporting drugs from place to place. In general, higher-level drug trafficking is not related to a variety of more general characteristics of gangs and gang behavior. The complexity of the youth gang's relationship to drug distribution, however, belies any easy classification of gangs into distinct categories of traditional and criminally organized youth gangs. It is likely that the availability of significant drug selling or trafficking opportunities has more to do with the development of a serious criminal youth gang problem than that the presence of youth gangs has a significant influence on the general drug problem. Response to the Problem A variety of criminal-justice and community-based organizations currently respond to the gang problem. Nevertheless, the law enforcement response is still the dominant one. It also differs somewhat from the response of other agencies. Police departments tend to be larger organizations. An explicit and formal approach tends to characterize law enforcement programs, including specially organized gang units, written policies, and special training. However, police department are less likely to have interdepartmental or external advisory gang structures, but do participate in community-wide coordinating or task-force efforts. We find among agencies generally that special policies and structures directed to the gang problem are reasonably well interrelated. For example, organizations with special units tend to have special policies and training. There appears to be a negative relationship, however, between the existence of a special gang unit or programs and the presence of external advisory group structures. This might be because an organization that has made a special commitment to dealing with the gang problem may not want some outside group closely examining or advising on what it is doing. In general, there appears to be a greater presence of special program policies, structures, and activities for dealing with the gang problem when the problem worsens. Agencies are especially active or reactive when there is evidence of non- local gangs or a spread of gangs across communities and evidence of affiliation of youth gangs with adult criminal organizations. The response of agencies, particularly through special policies, structures, and activities, appears to be largely reactive. In other words, the response is associated with an increasing problem. There is one noteworthy exception, however: a significant relationship exists between an external advisory structure and a reduction of the gang problem, i.e., lower numbers of gangs, gang members, smaller gang size, lower percent of gang incidents involving adults, and lower percent of gang members in the community with prior police records. This set of relationships indicates that an external advisory agency somehow contributes to a reduction of the gang problem. However, an external advisory structure is not associated with a change in the more serious or criminal aspects of the gang problem. Neither of the other coordinative structures (i.e., internal advisory group or interagency or community-wide task force) has this dramatic effect. ------------------------------ Strategies of Intervention Five strategies of intervention were identified as the basis for agency programs dealing with the gang problem. They included community organization (e.g., community mobilization and networking); social intervention, focusing on individual behavioral and value change; opportunities provision, with special focus on improved basic education, training, and job opportunities for youth; suppression, which emphasizes arrest, incarceration, and close monitoring and supervision of gang members; and organizational development and change or the creation of special organizational units and procedures. These strategies were usually employed in various combinations. However, a classification of primary strategies indicated that suppression (44.0 percent) was most frequently employed, followed by social intervention (31.5 percent), organizational development (10.9 percent), community organization (8.9 percent), and opportunities provision (4.8 percent). Prosecutors and judges were most highly committed to the use of a suppression strategy. Respondents from social agencies and grass-roots organizations were most committed to the use of social intervention strategies. Respondents from chronic gang problem cities emphasized a broad range of approaches, combining community organization and suppression with social intervention strategies. Respondents in emerging gang problem cities were divided in their approaches: some focused primarily on community organization and organizational development, while others focused on suppression. The respondents in the survey were also asked to indicate and rate what they considered to be causes of the gang problem. A content analysis of the many types of responses suggested four major classifications: system/structural, comprising poverty and unemployment, as well as opportunities to sell drugs; institutional, especially failures of basic institutions such as family and schools to do an adequate job with children and youth; individual level, including psychological problems, substance abuse, needs for status and protection by gang youth; and, organization response defects, such as the inability of police, courts, and social agency programs to deal effectively with the problem. Respondents in the various professional or agency categories selected highly similar patterns and rankings of causes. The most frequently selected category of causes was system/structural, with institutional failures second, agency response defects third, and individual youth problems, fourth. Analyses of the relation between strategies of intervention and causes of the youth gang problem suggested a certain degree of mismatch. While there was great emphasis on system/structural level causes, the related strategy of opportunities provision was insufficiently selected. While there was limited emphasis on individual level youth psychological or personal problems as a cause of gang problems, there seemed to be a disproportionately heavy emphasis on social intervention, especially in reference to various levels of counseling or crisis intervention. At the individual level of analysis respondents believed that system level problems of unemployment, poverty, and drug dealing would not be solved through a primary social intervention approach. It was not clear to which set of causes, a strategy of suppression was most closely related, except as a reaction to failures of existing institutions and programs. ------------------------------ Effectiveness of Approaches We attempted, based on cross-sectional survey data, to determine whether different strategies, policies, structures, and procedures lead to a perceived reduction in gang crime. First, we asked respondents whether the gang situation had improved or deteriorated in the past seven or eight years and whether agency and interagency efforts had been effective. A large majority of respondents believed that the gang situation had deteriorated, although law enforcement were less pessimistic than non-law enforcement respondents. Only 23.1 percent of the police and 10.4 percent of non-police respondents believed that there had been an improvement in the gang situation in their communities since 1980. In only 17 of our 45 cities was there evidence of any level of improvement in the gang situation. Those perceptions were associated with estimates of significantly fewer numbers of gangs, gang members, size of gangs, and a decline in the percent of total index crime attributed to youth gangs. Serious gang crime, including drug selling, was also reported as significantly lower. There was no evidence that improvement was more or less likely to occur in large or small, chronic or an emerging gang problem city. Moreover, no special policy, organizational or procedural development was associated with any of the characteristics of improved gang situation, with the exception of the presence of an external advisory group to a program. On the other hand, respondent ratings of how effective their agency or local interagency or task force efforts had been were far higher than ratings of an improved gang situation. More than 40 percent of all respondents saw their agencies as very effective in dealing with youth gangs. While the rating of agency or interagency effectiveness was positively related to a variety of special policies, structures, and procedures, it was generally not related to the various measures of gang or gang behavior, suggesting little direct relationship between special agency efforts and a change or lowering of the gang problem. There was evidence of a somewhat stronger effect by interagency task forces than individual agency efforts towards a reduction of the gang problem in the community, however. Since the three ratings (situation improved, agency effectiveness, and interagency effectiveness) were significantly intercorrelated, a general effectiveness score was constructed and used as a basis for ranking cities on whether the gang problems had been successfully addressed, at least based on respondent perceptions or reports. These rankings became a basis for the selection of cities and institutions for field visits and further inquiry as to which programs might be promising and could serve as models for other cities and institutions. At this point, our study shifted from focus on individual-level respondent data to respondent aggregated or averaged data on a city-wide basis. We were particularly interested in whether approaches to dealing with the problem might be more effective in one type of city than another. First, we had to make sure we had classified our cities reasonably well. Discriminant analysis enabled us to determine systematically how chronic and emerging gang problem cities differed. Chronic problem cities were larger and characterized by greater proportions of Hispanic gang members. Emerging gang problem cities were more likely to be smaller and have higher proportions of black gang members. Respondents in the smaller cities were also more closely interconnected in terms of networks of relationship. This classification pattern was correct for 86.5 percent of the cities. The discriminant analysis procedure also permitted us to classify with considerable accuracy primary strategies across agencies by type of city. Programs in emerging cities were more likely to exhibit community organization as a primary strategy. Programs in chronic problem cities were more likely to be characterized by social intervention and opportunity provision as primary strategies. The discriminant function procedure permitted us to correctly classify cities on the dimension of primary strategies in two thirds of the cases. Analysis of covariance, furthermore, suggested that community organization and opportunities provision were better strategies in achieving higher scores on general effectiveness than suppression, social intervention, or organization development and change. Community organization was a significantly effective strategy in emerging gang problem cities. Opportunities provision was a significantly effective strategy in chronic gang problem cities. Our final step in the search for promising approaches was to construct causal models using multiple regression analyses. First, using the variable of improved gang situation as our dependent or outcome measure (this is probably the most valid of the three component measures), we found in a probit regression analysis that the interaction of strategies of community organization and opportunities provision is the single strongest predictor. It accounts for 40.2 percent of the variation in our dependent variable, perceived improvement in the gang situation. The second significant predictor is the proportion of local respondents involved with each other in a city dealing with the problem. Together, these two predictors or independent variables account for almost 60 percent of the variance. We are unable, however, using this procedure, to find variables or factors that predict success in the emerging gang problem cities. We turned next to use of the general effectiveness score as the dependent variable for measure of success. For the chronic gang problem cities, we achieved an extremely potent set of predictors. The two primary strategies of intervention separately -- community organization and opportunities provision -- and community consensus on definition of gang incident account for 69 percent of the variance. The fourth variable that enters the regression equation is the proportion of agencies with an external advisory group. Together these four variables account for or can predict 82 percent of the variance in the general effectiveness score in chronic gang problem cities. The model for predicting general effectiveness in dealing with the gang problem in emerging gang problem cities is not so elaborate. Only community organization as a primary strategy contributes to an explanation of 31 percent of the variance in the outcome variable. This multiple regression model did not tell us much more than we already knew from our analysis of covariance, but a final set of analyses across all cities indicates that the primary strategies of community organization and opportunities provision along with maximum participation by key community actors is predictive of successful efforts at reducing the gang problem. Because of the very high levels of statistical prediction obtained using "perceived improvement" as a dependent variable or component of a general effectiveness measure, we carried out a special validity check. We obtained information on five empirical indicators of change in the gang problem between 1980 and 1987: numbers of gangs, gang members, gang-related homicides, gang-related assaults, and number of gang-related narcotic incidents. Statistical tests indicated a significant correlation between perceptions and empirical indicators, leading us to conclude that our "perceived improvement" measure was valid. Our report concludes with the recommendation that future policy and research test strategies that emphasize opportunities provision, particularly improved educational, training, and job opportunities for gang members and gang prone youth; and broad community organization or mobilization of key agency efforts, including development of common definitions of the problem and the possible use of external advisory groups to aid with the creation of agency gang programs. We observed that strategies of suppression and social intervention were present in to all of our cities and essential for dealing with the youth gang problem, but that success was more likely when community organization and opportunities provision strategies were also present and emphasized. ------------------------------ CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the survey of 254 respondents in 45 cities and 6 institutional sites, mainly correctional schools, was to discover promising approaches to dealing with the youth gang problem. Our key purpose in this research was to develop ideas for policy and program organization to be further tested and refined later under experimental or quasi-experimental conditions. In order to develop empirically based conceptions of promising programs, we collected data on youth gang activity and especially the response to it from respondents in criminal justice agencies, i.e., police, sheriff, court, probation, state's attorneys, parole, corrections, and other relevant justice units (including research and planning departments), as well as from a variety of community-based public and private agencies, such as schools, youth gang intervention projects, youth service organizations, family treatment agencies, neighborhood groups, churches, and others. We sought information on key aspects relevant to policy and program development: definitions of terms, such as gang, gang member, and gang incident, characteristics of the gang problem, the respondent organization's goals, activities, structures, strategies, as well as perceptions of change in the problem and effectiveness of intervention efforts. Our survey was partially guided by certain ideas about response to the youth gang problem developed in the course of our literature review. Historically, as well as contemporaneously, it seemed to us that the policies and programs of agencies and community groups exemplified various strategies or basic approaches and could be classified into four or five categories or combinations of them: local community mobilization, social intervention, provision of social opportunities, and suppression. A fifth modifying strategy was organizational development and change. Indicators of these strategies evolved and were further classified in the course of our survey. Our report utilizes two units of analysis: professional or agency respondent, with special emphasis on the information and views of law enforcement, and type of area -- chronic gang problem or emerging gang problem area. Our discussion alternates between category of respondent, such as law enforcement or non-law enforcement, or more specifically any of 13 professional orientations (e.g., corrections, school, etc.), and type of area (e.g., by city). In respect to certain problem characteristics such as number of gangs and gang members in a locality, police estimates were usually considered the most reliable, since the police are the primary collectors of this kind of information. Our area classification, in fact, includes not only cities and sites or institutions, but counties and subareas of cities. Often we refer to these subunits collectively as areas or localities. We are concerned with cities mainly, however. For empirical and policy, and also theoretical purposes, we define chronic and emerging gang problem areas as follows. A chronic youth gang problem area is one where the youth gang problem has been recognized as more or less serious for a long period, at least prior to 1980, is still present at the end of 1987, and where there has been an organized response to it, especially by the police or a criminal justice unit. An emerging youth gang problem area is one where the youth gang problem has been recognized as more or less serious since 1980, is present in 1987, and where there has been an organized response to it, especially by the police or criminal justice unit. By youth gang we are referring to a delinquent and/or criminal group containing young people mainly between the ages of 12 and 25 characterized by certain symbolic and/or communal as well as at times organized criminal purposes. We note that in this report we do not deal with certain other ways of framing our analysis, also possibly important for the development of policy, practice, and theoretical considerations. These alternate classifications or frameworks for more detailed analysis include size of cities and certain characteristics of gangs such as age, gender, and race/ethnicity of members; local or non-localized gangs, i.e., affiliated across jurisdictions and criminally organized versus traditional turf and not primarily criminally organized. These comparisons and the issues they pose are considered to some extent, in our present report but are not a primary basis for analyzing data. We have tried to keep technical discussion to a minimum in the body of the report. Supplementary material, often very important tables and figures, as well as procedural details, are provided in the Appendices. Even these are kept to a minimum. Additional explanatory materials are available from the authors. A variety of descriptive and exploratory inferential statistics have been used including percentages, means, medians, tri-means, correlations, tests of means, multivariate discriminant and regression analyses, multi- dimensional scaling and factor analysis. Nevertheless, our analysis must be regarded as essentially exploratory. In the remainder of this introductory chapter, we deal with the method and scope of study. In the second chapter on definitions, we try to discover what our respondents, in their own terms mean by the central terms--gang, gang member, and gang incident. This is an essential backdrop for the third chapter in which we examine the scope and perceived nature of the youth gang problem in the respondents' jurisdictions or service areas. In Chapter Four, we inquire into the extent the respondents have formulated policies and procedures and established structures for dealing with the problem, e.g., whether specialized training and special gang units or advisory groups exist. Chapter Five analyzes the underlying structure of approaches to the problem in terms of strategies of intervention, perceived causes, and, briefly, communication or network structures of the respondents, particularly on a city or site basis. Finally, in Chapter Six, we examine perceptions of a reduction in the gang problem and effectiveness of agency and interagency efforts and their relation to certain characteristics of the problem. We are particularly interested in exploring what works and does not work in chronic and emerging gang problem cities. Again we observe that our data have not been fully analyzed. The variables, classifications, and materials of the various chapters still need to be systematically interrelated. We hope to remedy these shortcomings and others that we become aware of in the near future. The present report, nevertheless, should be viewed as substantive. However, it should not be used as a basis for describing what the current nature and scope of the youth gang problem is nationally, nor what communities are doing generally about the problem. The findings are relevant only to those agencies, cities, and sites investigated which appeared to have reasonably well organized approaches to a significant youth gang problem, presently or in the recent past. ------------------------------ METHOD AND SCOPE Various sources were used to identify initial informants, including knowledgeable individuals, contacts with criminal/juvenile justice planning agencies in all states, representatives of agencies and programs known to be involved in organized programs to deal with gangs. We also advertised for participants in the survey through national agency, professional journal, and media sources. Telephone calls were then made to these identified potential respondents to discover whether gang-related problems existed, however defined, and the presence of an organized response. The aim of the initial screening process was to establish a fairly wide net for the inclusion of cities, agencies, and programs dealing with the problem of youth gangs. In this initial screening phase, hundreds of different agency and community organization representatives were contacted. Approximately 100 cities were screened by the end of 1988, 55 of which were excluded from our study either because they had no recognized gang activity or no response which specifically addressed youth gangs according to our screening criteria (see Appendix Table 1-1). A total of 360 questionnaires were distributed (see Appendix Table 1-2 for copy of the Questionnaire). The selection criteria included: presence and recognition of a youth gang problem, the presence of a youth gang program; the existence of a program for at least a year, whether at present or in the recent past; an articulated set of program goals; evidence of more than a simplistic unitary response to the problem, such as either only police arrests or youth gang recreation programs; and some capacity to describe the impact of the program. A total of 254 questionnaires and follow-up interviews were received and preliminary review suggested that most of these criteria were met. When in doubt we included an area even with a partially sustained program or with only a unitary approach. There were four (4) such cities. Our response rate (minimally) was 70.5 percent. The non-responses, generally speaking, included approximately four (4) agencies that we knew had eligible programs, but who for a variety of idiosyncratic reasons, explicitly refused to participate. Eleven (11) persons did not complete questionnaires because, although well informed generally (e.g., academics), they did not have specific program related information. We believe that the other potential respondents (91) who failed to return questionnaires did not have time to complete them or came from agencies that, in fact, did not meet the criteria of our survey. However, we identified and received questionnaires from representatives of at least one or two agencies in all eligible cities, except Wilmington, Delaware. The non-respondents were mainly in large cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Miami where we already had a sufficient proportion of respondents who could provide us with an adequate perspective on the citywide gang problem and program information relevant to their own agency as well as others. In essence, we have a better sample of cities than of constituent agencies. Nevertheless, we do not clearly have a sample from a known population of eligible cities or agencies. What we have in the study is a fairly large group of cities and agencies generally recognized to have youth gang problems and organized programs to address them. The cities, institutional sites, and the numbers of respondents in the different jurisdictions included in the study are listed in Table 1-3. The regions of the country represented in the survey are the northeast, midwest, south, and especially the west. The state with the largest number of cities (15), sites (3), and respondents (105) is California. The next largest gang program state represented in the study is Illinois with 5 cities and 26 respondents. Cities with the largest numbers of respondents are New York (15), Los Angeles (12), Chicago (9), and Miami (8). Several city/county jurisdictions (4) are listed with only one respondent. Table 1-3. Respondents in Analysis by Geographic Area (n = 45) and Selected Institutions (n = 6) (Number of Respondents Appear in Parentheses) NORTHEAST (21) New York (15) Philadelphia (5) Glen Mills Schools, PA (1)* MIDWEST (75) Benton Harbor (1)/Berrien County (2) Chicago (9)/Cook County (5) Cicero (2) Columbus (6)/Franklin County (4) Detroit (3)/Wayne County (1) Evanston (3) Flint (2)/Genessee County (1) Fort Wayne (3)/Allen County (1) Indianapolis (2)/Marion County (4) Madison (2)/Dane County (1) Milwaukee (7)/Milwaukee County (1) Minneapolis (2)/Hennepin County (5) Rockford (3)/Winnebago County (1) Sterling (3) Ethan Allen School for Boys, WI (1)* SOUTH (32) Atlanta (1) Fort Worth (1) Hialeah (1) Jackson (3) Louisville (2)/Jefferson County (4) Miami (8)/Dade County (7) Shreveport (3) Tallahassee (1)/Leon County (1) CALIFORNIA (105) Chino (2) East L.A. (1)/L.A. County (1)/CYA (2) El Monte (5) Inglewood (4) Long Beach (3)/LA County (1) Los Angeles City (12) Other Los Angeles County (20) Oakland (2)/Alameda County (1) Pomona (4)/LA County (1) Sacramento (3)/Sacramento County (1) San Diego (1)/San Diego County (9) San Francisco (6) San Jose (6)/Santa Clara County (1) Santa Ana (1)/Orange County (7) Stockton (5)/San Joaquin County (1) California Youth Authority [CYA] (3)* Milwaukee Paramount School Program (1)** Sunrise House (1)** OTHER WEST (21) Albuquerque (4)/Bernalillo County (2) Phoenix (2)/Maricopa County (1) Reno (3) Salt Lake City (4) Seattle (1) Tucson (2)/Pima County (1) Maclaren School, OR (1)* * denotes juvenile correctional institution. ** denotes an agency program selected because of its reported success. Table 1-4. Respondent Categories N = Category; n = Subcategories CATEGORY N %N n %n Law Enforcement 52 20.5 Prosecutors 26 10.2 Judges 14 5.5 Probation 32 12.6 Corrections 8 3.1 Parole 11 4.3 School 35 13.3 Academic 26 74.3 Security 9 25.7 Community/Service 62 24.4 Youth Service Agency 46 74.2 Youth & Family Service 8 12.9 Grass Roots 5 8.1 Comprehensive 3 4.8 Community Planning 12 4.7 Other 2 0.8 254 100.0 We classified the 254 respondents in ten major categories and six subcategories (Table 1-4): law enforcement (20.5 percent), including mainly police; prosecutors (10.2 percent); judges (5.5 percent); probation (12.6 percent); corrections (3.1 percent); parole (4.3 percent); schools (13.3 percent) subdivided into security and academic personnel,community service agencies and organizations (24.4 percent). This latter category was subdivided into youth service, youth and family service/treatment, comprehensive crisis intervention, and grass-roots groups. Two other categories were community, county or state planners (4.7 percent) and other (0.8 percent). The two largest categories were community agencies and law enforcement. All criminal justice agency personnel together comprised 56.2 percent of our respondent group. Our intent was to include the opinions and self- described practices of a variety of professionals or organizational representatives who confront the gang problem at the operational level, yet who have some responsibility for departmental or program operations and sometimes policy decisions. In other words, we selected and sent our questionnaires deliberately to the staff person who was most knowledgeable about the youth gang problem and the agency response to it. We believed foremost among the respondents in terms of such knowledge about gangs in the city as a whole, to be the police. They were the persons usually contacted first in the various cities. They were often the base or center point for the development of our set of respondents in each area. In 44 of the 45 specific city locales listed in Table 1-3, at least one police respondent is included. Finally, we observe that 21 of the cities were classified as chronic and 24 as emerging youth gang problem cities. A relatively greater proportion of our chronic gang problem cities have large or very large populations, but there are a sizeable number of small cities as well. Most of the cities classified as emerging youth gang problem cities have populations that are smaller, although some have populations over 500,000 (see Table 3-2 in Chapter 3). We were also able to classify the correctional schools and special agency programs or sites under these two rubrics. Our city or area analysis, however, will include primarily the 45 cities/counties and the California Youth Authority because it comprises a very large entity, relatively more related to a statewide jurisdiction. Schools and probation units tend to be more closely related to city and county jurisdictions. East Los Angeles is part of a county. Our respondent analysis will, of course, include all respondents whether from a city, county, sub-area, or institutional site (Table 1- 5). Table 1-5. Type of Gang Problem by Area (City, County, Site) Chronic Cities Emerging Cities (n=21) (n=24) Albuquerque, NM Atlanta, GA Chicago, IL Benton Harbor, MI Chino, CA Cicero, IL Detroit, MI Columbus, OH East LA, CA Evanston, IL El Monte, CA Flint, MI Inglewood, CA Fort Wayne, IN Long Beach, CA Fort Worth, TX LA City, CA Hialeah, FL LA County, CA Indianapolis, IN New York, NY Jackson, MS Oakland, CA Louisville, KN Pomona, CA Madison, WI Philadelphia, PA Miami, FL Phoenix, AZ Milwaukee, WI San Diego, CA Minneapolis, MN San Francisco, CA Reno, NV San Jose, CA Rockford, IL Santa Ana, CA Sacramento, CA Stockton, CA Salt Lake City, UT Tucson, AZ Seattle, WA Shreveport, LA Sterling, IL Tallahassee, FL Chronic Sites* Emerging Sites* (n=2) (n=4) California Youth Authority Ethan Allen School Sunrise House (CA) (WI) Glen Mills Schools (PA) McClaren Schools (OR) Paramount School (CA) * In much of the analysis, the California Youth Authority is the only chronic site included as an area along with the cities. ------------------------------ SUMMARY The survey of 254 respondents in 45 cities and 6 institutional sites was conducted as part of the assessment stage of a research and development program in cooperation with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. The purpose of the survey was to collect data on youth gang problems and especially the response to them in cities with promising programs. The areas represented in the survey are located in four regions of the country: Northeast, Midwest, South, and especially, the West. The state with the largest number of cities (15) and respondents (105) in our study is California. The next most well represented State is Illinois with 5 cities and 26 respondents. Our cities are classified into chronic (21) and emerging (24) gang areas. Our respondents were classified into 10 major categories and 6 subcategories. The major categories include law enforcement (52), prosecutors (26), judges (14), probation (32), corrections (8), parole (11), schools (35), community service (62), community planning (12), and other (2). We included in our survey professionals, or organizational representatives, who confront the gang problem at the operational level, yet who had some responsibility for departmental or program operations and sometimes policy decisions. The police were probably our most knowledgeable informants. They were the persons usually contacted first to obtain preliminary information about the local gang problem and which agencies had a program response to it. They were often the base or centerpoint for the development of our set of respondents from each area. Our questionnaire return rate was quite high - 70.5 percent. Only one city was not represented that we would have wanted in the survey, based on information available to us at the time. Most of the potential respondents not completing a questionnaire were from agencies in several of the largest cities where we already had adequate representation and a good knowledge of the gang problems and agency responses to it. What we have in the study is a fairly large group of cities and agencies generally recognized to have youth gang problems and organized programs to address them. The criteria for selection of cities and sites for inclusion in the study, liberally interpreted, were the presence and recognition of a youth gang problem; the presence of a youth gang program; the existence of a program for at least one year, whether at present or in the recent past; an articulated set of program goals; evidence of more than a simplistic or unitary response; and, some capacity to describe the impact of the program. A variety of simple and complex exploratory and descriptive statistical analyses are conducted. The basic intent of the study, as indicated in the final chapter, is to develop models of what would comprise successful programs in different types of areas or localities. Discriminant and multiple regression analyses are mainly used for this purpose. The study should be viewed as substantive, although a number of important type of analyses have yet to be carried out. ------------------------------ CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS OF GANG, GANG MEMBER, AND GANG INCIDENT It may be extremely difficult to assess accurately the scope or nature of the youth gang problem or the value of various suppression and intervention programs because a standard or reliable definition of the problem (particularly in its component parts, gang, gang member, and gang incident) does not exist, either across jurisdictions or often within the same jurisdictions over time. Various observers have identified this problem in recent years (Miller 1975, 1982; Moore 1978; Klein and Maxson 1989; Spergel 1989). Furthermore, a variety of definitions have been used over time, sometimes by the same researcher. The problem for theory, research, and policy development is not only that different and changing definitions have existed, but that the gang problem in its structural and dynamic characteristics seems also to be changing. What we have tried to do first in the survey questions asked and in the course of the present analysis is identify how respondents or local agency and community "experts" who deal with the problem on a regular basis perceive and conceptualize its key elements. We asked each respondent to state, however he or she wished, his or her definition of a gang (Item III-1 of the Questionnaire), a gang member (Item III-3), and a gang-related incident (Item III-6; See Appendix Table 1-2). We anticipated that some of the respondents, who would not be able to provide their own definitions, would use those of police agencies. The open-ended responses were then subjected to a content analysis. The following represents an effort to systematically decompose the various definitions of the three concepts, and thereby identify core or most frequently used elements. We believe this to have been an important exercise, but not entirely successful. But it helps set some parameters and indicates that our data interpretations and conclusions have limitations. We found that the respondents in our survey do not define gang problems the same way. Thus, the meaning of the gang problem at the present time must remain imprecise and varied, at least at the definitional level. The current chapter begins to identify systematically what we mean by the key definitional terms of the gang problem. In the long run, we must develop a standard definition of these terms for use in the criminal justice system so that we will be able to (1) understand the nature and scope of the problem across jurisdictions and time; (2) devise strategies of intervention that can be assessed comparably; and (3) test whether consensus on definition is itself an important characteristic of successful intervention within a particular jurisdiction. We attempt the latter in the final chapter of this report. The analysis of the definitions provides a context for understanding the various characteristics of gangs and the gang problem discussed in Chapter 3, the organizational response to the problem in Chapters 4 and 5, and effectiveness measures or program results in Chapter 6. It also provides a basis for selection of those components of the definitions that are consistent with the purposes of criminal and juvenile justice policy. In other words, the analysis may provide greater clarity, specificity, and a basis for understanding the youth gang, youth gang member, and youth gang incident, and thereby a more informed and rational choice of youth gang policy and program. The present chapter has been an extremely complex and time consuming undertaking. We have employed a variety of statistical procedures, including factor analysis and multi-dimensional scaling, to identify the characteristics which go into the definitions of gang, gang member and incident. The discussion that follows is both more detailed and yet less sufficiently developed than we would have desired. The discussion is somewhat technical, although much of it summarizes our more technical discussions in the Appendix. ------------------------------ THE GANG The 236 open-ended responses of definitions of gang [1] were first content-analyzed into 48 empirically anchored items or concepts. These definitions included criminal and non-criminal activities, gang organizational, and symbolic behaviors-- respectively, for example, drug sales, sports activities, affiliation with other gangs, gang name or colors. We were faced with many possible ways of combining these items as dichotomous variables into fewer higher level conceptual categories for analysis. We chose the groupings (Table 2-1) that are consistent with various empirically based definitions, theoretical considerations in the literature, and simply the frequency with which the items were mentioned. The first component of the definition of gangs we created represents (1) general group characteristics. We tried to select a set of structural and behavioral characteristics that might fit the delinquent group as well as the gang (See Klein 1971; Cartwright, Tomson, Schwartz 1975). The next component or subset of structural- behavioral characteristics are those that distinguish (2) the gang from the delinquent group and we label them gang organizational characteristics (Curry and Spergel 1988; Morash 1983). This assumes the gang may have a higher degree of organization than the delinquent group (Jacobs 1977; Miller 1975, 1982; Spergel 1984). The third set of characteristics are (3) non-criminal group activities (Whyte 1943; Suttles 1968). The next set of criminal activities comprise four subcategories of dichotomous variables: (4) drug crimes, (5) violent crimes, (6) property crimes, and a more general, or difficult to classify subset of criminal activity, (7) anti-social behavior. These categories are consistent with official agency and popular classifications. The many references to gang symbols lead us to separate symbols into three subcategories, those that are more (8) uniform across the gang and collectively owned, those that are more (9) personal in nature, and other (10) general or residual references to symbols that include, for example, gang "culture." Finally, two more sets of items are included that we do not combine with other variables: the presence of (11) adult members, which may be useful in describing the integration of adults and youths in youth gangs, and (12) an ecological notion, gang members residing in the same area. Table 2-1. Groupings of Dichotomous Variables Derived from Content Analysis of Definition of a Gang (Item III-1). n = number or percent of respondents referring to the concept 1. General Group Characteristics (n = 186, 73.2 percent) Group Certain Number of Members Leadership Loosely Knit Regular Association Common Behavior 2. Gang Organization Characteristics (n = 120, 47.2 percent) Affiliations with Other Gangs Goals/Purpose Organized Structure Established Identity Maintain Unity Exclusion of Non-Members Recruitment Membership Rules Conflict with Other Gangs 3. Non-Criminal Activities (n = 14, 5.5 percent) Protect Selves/Community Sports Activities Recreation Some Non-violent Activities 4. Drug Crime (n = 38, 15.0 percent) Drug Use Drug Sales 5. Crimes of Violence (n = 52, 23.2 percent) Violence Drive-by Shootings Robbery Rape Shooting Heavily Armed Intimidation 6. Property Crime (n = 21, 8.3 percent) Vandalism Burglary Theft Auto Theft 7. General Criminal Activity (n = 149, 58.7 percent) General Criminal or Anti-social Activity Control Criminal Economic Territory 8. Collective Symbols (n = 173, 68.1 percent) Gang Name Graffiti Control Turf Gang Logo Colors Initiation Rituals 9. Personal Symbols (n = 53, 20.9 percent) Hand Signs Clothing Tattoos Member Nicknames 10. General Reference to Symbols (n = 88, 34.6 percent) 11. Adult Members (n = 11, 4.4 percent) 12. Reside in Same Locale (n = 35, 13.8 percent) In order to make both sense of, and reduce, the diversity that exists among our respondents in defining the term gang, we turn to statistical analysis of covariance structure techniques. Factor analysis can produce a set of linear combinations that are unrelated to each other and which (1) can provide us with a general reduction in the number of concepts with which we have to cope and (2) assist us in interpreting complex perceptions of individual respondents (Johnson and Wichern 1982) [2]. In this case, factor analysis serves, for the most part, as an illustration of just how widely diverse our respondents' definitions of the gang are. Five factors that are relatively significant emerge from the analysis as can be seen in the Eigenvalues listed in Appendix Table 2-2. These five factors account for 41.7 percent of the variation in gang definition across the 236 actors. This is not a very high degree of accountability for the variation. The five factors that emerge from this analysis are potentially interpretable (See Table 2-3). They can be identified in order of strength of meaning. Factor 1 loads heavily on specific types of criminal behavior. This factor pictures the gang as a group highly involved in drugs, violence, and property crime. A residual or general crime category, however, does not load heavily on this factor. In other words, a respondent who has a high score on this factor is concerned about gangs because of the specific, probably serious crimes its members individually or collectively commit. One respondent who scored very high on this factor was the assistant director of a planning agency that funds community service projects. She defined the gang as "a loose knit organization with young adult leadership involved in a variety of crimes including vandalism, rape, robbery, assault, theft, burglary, and drug dealing." Table 2-3. Rotated Factor Matrix from GLS Factor Analysis of Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients of Gang Definition Characteristics Factor 1 2 3 4 5 General Group -.185 -.054 .126 .888 .102 Gang Organization -.088 .088 -.022 .167 .008 Non-Criminal .072 .102 -.153 .100 .341 Drug Crime .571 .034 -.028 -.211 .148 Violence .614 -.043 -.012 .036 -.013 Property Crime .612 .153 -.002 -.046 -.018 General Criminal -.051 -.220 .947 .142 -.176 Collective Symbols .022 .494 .047 -.115 .240 Individual Symbols .011 .384 -.159 .053 -.047 General Symbols .115 .766 -.058 .033 -.081 Adults Involved .042 .033 .014 .048 .286 Reside Same Locale -.028 -.077 -.031 -.046 .75 Factor 2 loads most heavily on all three symbolic components of the definition of gang (group, individual, and general). This factor also shows a moderately negative loading for general or other types of crimes. This factor defines the gang on the basis of its symbolic components. Respondents who score high on this factor view the gang as a highly visible social entity characterized by ritual and tradition. This symbolic, communal, yet "mildly" violent character of the gang is emphasized in the recent works of Moore (1978) and Horowitz (1983). A director of the department of pupil personnel in a public school system scores high on factor 2. His definition of a gang is "a collection of youth with initiation and membership rituals, and identification through caps, bandannas, and jackets. Some have specific turf. Some do not. The snatching of gang jewelry and assaults are common gang incidents in our schools." Factor 3 loads very heavily on general criminal behavior, including efforts to control a situation for criminal purposes, slightly positively on general group characteristics and slightly negatively on non-criminal activities and individual symbols. This factor may be viewed as a definition of a delinquent or criminal group. Respondents that have high scores on this dimension are likely to answer questions about gangs by reference to groups of youth and adults with tendencies toward criminal behavior or actual commitments to criminal careers. A parole agent who scores high on factor 3 defines the gang this way. "The gang involves itself in [a lot of] negative activity [in whatever they do] . . . " Factor 4 loads most heavily on general group characteristics. It has a modest loading on gang organization characteristics. It also has slightly positive loadings on general criminal activity as well as non-criminal activity. It has negative loadings on drug involvement and collective symbols. Individuals who score high on this factor are likely to conceptualize the gang as a collectivity or organization involved in a range of criminal and non-criminal activities, but not engaged in drug crime and collective symbols. It is the group or organizational character of the gang rather than specific behavioral activity which distinguishes this factor. Several respondents from community or youth service agencies favor this definitional emphasis. It may represent a special concern about a set of youth who are identified as running together, who can be destructive and have the potential for criminal organization. The fifth factor loads most heavily on the gang's residence in the same neighborhood or area. It has the highest loadings of the five factors on non- criminal activity and adult involvement, and next to the highest loading on collective symbols. It has a modest positive loading on drug crime. Factor 5 perhaps represents the classic view of the street corner group, not seriously delinquent or criminal. The gang is the group of fellows who grew up together, who like to have a good time partying, who drink and use drugs, and are also positively related to adults in their neighborhood. It may be correct to label this definitional configuration as the classic street corner group anchored in a particular neighborhood. This is the definitional perspective that is perhaps emphasized in the work of Whyte (1943), Suttles (1968), and Short and Strodtbeck (1965). The coordinator of a school youth services program scores high on Factor 5. She defines the gang as "a group joined according to neighborhood for companionship, support, and acceptance. The members hangout together--drinking, committing truancy . . . " The factors as they are defined are abstractions generated from the patterns of covariation among the twelve groups of definitional characteristics conceptualized above. They reflect mainly emphasis in the definition of gang. Just because an individual scores highly on one factor does not mean that he will not score moderately high on another. We also observe that 22 respondents simply referred to a definition supplied by another source or internal agency group. ------------------------------ DIFFERENCES IN GANG DEFINITION BY AREA AND RESPONDENT Since we are not entirely pleased with the strength of our factor analysis, we return to the original twelve dichotomous measures of the definition of gang. It is possible that consensus on components of the definition will give us some idea about key elements and what influences their selection. We are interested in the degree of consensus on the use of these measures first by area and second by respondent category. We are also interested in whether the locality or the respondent category is more important in contributing to consensus on definition. Is it the factor of professional or agency orientation which determines the definition of gang across localities, or does city or locality exercise the predominant influence in the distinctive definitions that result? We devised a measure of consensus such that if all members of a locality or in the respondent category use a particular component of the definition of gang, the value for the particular measure or the average of the 12 measures is 1.0; if all members do not use the component, the value is zero. The value in terms of both equal use and non-use of the measure by the members of the locality or respondent group approaches 0.5. All sites or institutions where only one respondent answered were eliminated from the site or city analysis, but not from the analysis by type of respondent. The results were further transformed and scaled into a continuous interval measure to obtain average scores by city or respondent category. We find that consensus is generally, but not significantly, higher among respondents within emerging cities than within chronic cities (Table 2-4). In part this could be accounted for by the fact that we obtained more respondents in the chronic, usually the larger cities, then from the emerging, usually the smaller cities. We note that consensus is generally higher among criminal justice than among non-criminal justice personnel. It is highest among law enforcement, corrections, and comprehensive crisis intervention agencies. The differences between criminal justice and non- criminal justice personnel is significant at the 0.5 level using a t-test of means (Table 2-5). Table 2-4. Average Degree of Consensus on Gang Definitional Criteria by Area. Average Degree Area of Consensus Albuquerque* .53 Benton Harbor .78 CA-CYA* .83 Chicago* .62 Chino* .67 Cicero .75 Columbus .52 Detroit* .56 East LA* .63 El Monte* .50 Evanston .78 Flint .61 Fort Wayne .71 Indianapolis .69 Inglewood* .56 Jackson .83 LA City* .63 LA County* .54 Long Beach* .70 Louisville .64 Madison .78 Miami .51 Milwaukee .69 Minneapolis .64 New York* .60 Oakland* .83 Philadelphia* .67 Phoenix* .56 Pomona* .50 Reno .67 Rockford .79 Sacramento .67 Salt Lake City .58 San Diego* .67 San Jose* .67 San Francisco* .58 Santa Ana* .64 Shreveport .78 Sterling .50 Stockton* .72 Tallahassee .67 Tucson* .56 * Chronic Areas Table 2-5. Average Degree of Consensus on Gang Definitional Criteria by Respondent Category. Respondent Average Degree Category of Consensus Law Enforcement .69 Prosecution .61 Court .63 Probation .56 Corrections .67 Parole .61 School Security .44 School-Academic .49 Youth Services .51 Comprehensive .67 Family Services .52 Grass Roots .60 Planning .46 The t statistic for the difference in means between criminal justice and non-criminal justice categories is -2.54, significant at 0.05 level. The standard deviation for criminal justice respondents is .248; for non-criminal justice respondents is .260. Table 2-6 indicates that there is most agreement within area and by respondent category on the importance of the following gang definitional components: adults involved, non-criminal behavior, and property crime. There is a moderate amount of agreement on such components as residence in the same locality and participation in drug crimes. There is least agreement on importance of the idea of gang structure. Apparently some respondents believe a gang is an organized structure, others do not. The components of gang violence and use of symbols seem to be of moderate importance. Perhaps of even greater importance for our present discussion is that agreement on these definitional components is systematically higher on a city or site basis than by types of respondent or professional perspectives. The differences are statistically significant at the 0.01 level (See Table 2-6). The t statistic for the difference in means is significant at the 0.01 level. Table 2-6. Average Degree of Consensus for 42 Areas and 13 Respondent Categories by Definitional Criteria. Average Average (42 Areas) (13 Categories) General Group .63 .55 Gang Structure .35 .25 Non-Criminal .91 .89 General Criminal .39 .26 Drug Crime .75 .66 Violence .59 .46 Property Crime .83 .81 Collective Symbols .52 .53 Individual Symbols .62 .54 General Symbols .57 .27 Adults Involved .92 .94 Reside Same Locale .73 .72 Average Degree Standard of Consensus Deviation Over 42 Areas 0.651 .098 Over 13 Respondent 0.574 .083 Categories This pattern suggests that the influence of area is greater than that of the particular discipline in the determination or selection of the components of gang definition. In other words, it is not so much the profession of the person, how he was trained, or his agency affiliation which determines the definition of gang as where he or she is located by city or locality in carrying out his job. There appears to be a stronger geographical or physical proximity than a professional network effect. We will return to the notion of networks later in Chapter 5. Finally, we plotted the relation of the areas, cities, counties, sub-areas, and institutional sites to each other in terms of social distance. The 12 criteria of gang definition were used to compare the "definitional distance between each pair of multi-respondent geographic areas from each other." After applying a set of computational procedures, we were able to assign each site a value on each of two principal dimensions. We found that respondents in our chronic areas seemed to emphasize the general criminal or anti-social nature of the gang. The emerging cities tended to emphasize the symbolic aspects in their description of gangs. The chronic gang problem cities also more often defined their notion of gangs in drug problem terms, while the emerging city respondent defined the idea of gang slightly more often in organizational structure and general gang characteristic terms (See Appendix Table 2-7 and Appendix Figure 2-1). Thus respondents in the cities with long-term youth gang problems appear to emphasize the criminal and drug trafficking character of the problem. The cities with more recent gang problems see the problem in classic symbolic and group terms. This difference may also represent a phase in the development of the youth gang problem from that of a traditional to a more criminalized and sophisticated, although not necessarily more visible, form. The multi-dimensional scaling approach was also used to plot the relation of the different types of justice system, school, and community-based agency respondents to each other in terms of two- dimensional space. We find judges and youth and family service agencies scale low on the definitional components of collective symbolism and involvement in drug crime. The comprehensive crisis intervention service agencies score high on the use of collective symbols in their identification of gangs. Grass-roots and planning agencies score highest of all categories of respondents in the use of violence and property crime in their definitions of the gang. Corrections scores lowest on this dimension. Prosecution, parole, and to some extent law enforcement appear to equally emphasize a variety of components of the definition of gang and are more or less centrally situated along the social distance dimensions, particularly in their use of such components as collective symbols, involvement in drug crime, general group characteristics, gang structure, violence and property crime (See Appendix Tables 2-10, 2-11, and 2-12). ------------------------------ SUMMARY: GANG DEFINITION Our procedures and findings in regard to a definition of the term gang may be summarized as follows. Two hundred thirty-six open-ended responses as to definitions of gang were content analyzed into 48 empirically anchored items or concepts, which were then grouped into twelve categories: 1) general group characteristics; 2) gang organization characteristics; 3) non-criminal group activities; 4) drug crime; 5) violent crime; 6) property crime; 7) general criminal activity; 8) symbols--collectively owned; 9) personal in nature, and still other more 10) general symbolic references; 11) the presence of adult members; and 12) residence in the same area. We then factor analyzed these twelve sets of characteristics to try to obtain fewer and more succinct patterned meanings to the notion of gang. We came out with five factors: a set of specific criminal activities factor, a symbolic factor, a more amorphous general delinquency factor, a group or organizational factor, and a residence or neighborhood factor. We could not account statistically (only 41.4 percent) for as much variance or meaning as we would have liked. Next we returned to use of our original twelve conceptual component grouping of what a gang was based on respondent definitions. We were interested in how much consensus there was on use of these components by respondents on the basis of area and professional affiliation or discipline. We found that consensus on use of gang definitional components tended to be a little higher in emerging than in chronic areas. Consensus was significantly higher among criminal justice than non-criminal justice respondents. In general there was greater agreement on definition of the term gang by area than by respondent categories. The difference was statistically significant at the .01 level. Finally, we used a multi-dimensional scaling procedure to locate area and then respondent categories in social distance space in terms of the component dimensions. We compared the definitional distance of our respondents from each other on an area and professional or disciplinary basis. We found that respondents in the chronic gang problem cities emphasized the general criminal or anti- social nature of the gang. Respondents in the emerging cities emphasized symbolic and organizational aspects in their definitions of gangs. ------------------------------ THE GANG MEMBER We used the same procedures and steps in analyzing the term gang member as we did in examining the definition of the concept gang. The content analysis of open-ended responses revealed nine different subsets or dichotomous variables of ways to identify gang members: symbols/symbolic behavior, self-admission, association with gang members, gang type of criminal behavior (M.O.), location of residence, police identification, informant identification, and other criminal and non-criminal justice identifiers (See Table 2-13). Table 2-13. Methods of Identifying Gang Members Method Respondents Citing % Symbols/Symbolic Behavior 124 51.0 Self Admission 113 46.5 Police Identification 102 42.0 Informant Identification 97 38.9 Association with Gang Members 94 38.7 Type of Criminal Behavior 82 33.7 Other Criminal Justice Identifiers 46 18.9 Other Non-criminal Justice IDers 39 16.0 Location or Residence 34 14.0 For those who make their own identification of gang members, symbolic behavior, patterns of association, types of criminal behavior, and hangouts or residence are important. For those who use someone else's definition of membership, a statement by the gang member about himself is the most commonly cited source, but also important are identification through police, informants, other criminal justice institutions, and other non- criminal justice. We performed a GLS factor analysis on these nine ways of identifying gang members for the 243 respondents who answered this item, using the same method employed in the analysis of gang definition characteristics. Four significant factors resulted that explain 36.4 percent of the covariation among the variables, which again is not a great deal of explanatory power (See Appendix Table 2-14). The first factor is totally dominated by the component of symbolic behavior (See Table 2-15). There is a moderate positive loading on type of crime that a suspect is engaged in and a slightly stronger negative loading on the use of police identification. The definition of a government planner who scores high on this factor mentions "turf and colors." Factor 2 carries the heaviest loading for other non-justice system institutional identification but also has positive loadings on police identification and other legal institutional identification. Criminal behavior loads negatively on Factor 2. A probation officer who scores high on Factor 2 and defers to police agencies, school officials, parents, and probation department investigation. His sources of identification are court officials, police, and other youths in the community. In other words, a youth is considered a gang member mainly because some other organization says he is. Factor 3 loads most strongly on identification by gang member association. Other strong to moderate loadings include informant identification, criminal behavior, and self-identification. A police officer scores highest on Factor 3. His methods of identifying gang members include "association with gang members, information from Boys Clubs, schools and law enforcement agencies, methods of questioning, and checking photos of all gang and delinquent groups on file." Factor 4, accounting for less than 4 percent of the explained variation, loads most heavily on a combination of sources, other criminal justice, police, and self- identification, and location. Table 2-15. Rotated Factor Matrix from GLS Factor Analysis of Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients of Gang Incident Definition Characteristics Factor 1 2 3 4 Association .052 -.104 .742 -.062 Self ID .037 .012 .237 .354 Police ID -.211 .236 .047 .331 Informant ID -.076 .141 .359 .084 Other Crim. Justice ID -.017 .360 .014 .397 Other Institution ID .023 .749 -.012 .106 Location .048 .012 .042 -.365 Symbolic Behavior .984 -.032 .051 -.168 Criminal Behavior (M.O.) .136 -.232 .281 .080 ------------------------------ DIFFERENCES IN GANG MEMBER IDENTIFICATION Once more we explore the issue of consensus, as it may provide greater understanding of how and under what conditions a person is defined as a youth gang member, i.e., on which components there is greatest agreement. We analyze our nine dichotomous criteria of gang membership again first by area and second by respondent category. We determine whether there is greater consensus by locality or respondent category on use of gang member definitions. We use the same procedure and measure of degree of definitional consensus, ranging from 0 for no consensus in definition to 1 for perfect consensus. In an examination of the area-level data, we find once more that consensus is slightly higher within emerging cities than within chronic cities. The differences are not statistically significant (See Table 2-16). However, when we examine the degree to which there is consensus in the respondent categories in use of components of the definition of gang member, we find that unlike the definition of gang, there is more consensus among non-criminal justice agencies than criminal justice agency respondents. Consensus is highest among grass-roots organizations and comprehensive youth service intervention programs and lowest for probation, parole, and law enforcement officers. The differences between criminal justice and non- criminal justice personnel is significant at the 0.05 level, using a t-test of means (See Table 2- 17). Table 2-16. Average Degree of Consensus on Membership Criteria by Area. Average Degree City of Consensus Albuquerque* .48 Benton Harbor .41 CA-CYA* .63 Chicago* .51 Chino* .56 Cicero .56 Columbus .38 Detroit* .56 East LA* .22 El Monte* .47 Evanston .70 Flint .48 Fort Wayne .50 Indianapolis .59 Inglewood* .61 Jackson .70 LA City* .57 LA County* .31 Long Beach* .64 Louisville .56 Madison .85 Miami .39 Milwaukee .33 Minneapolis .56 New York* .67 Oakland* .63 Philadelphia* .51 Phoenix* .56 Pomona* .47 Reno .56 Rockford .39 Sacramento .50 Salt Lake City .44 San Diego* .40 San Jose* .33 San Francisco* .63 Santa Ana* .56 Shreveport .63 Sterling .48 Stockton* .44 Tallahassee .89 Tucson* .63 * Chronic Areas Table 2-17. Average Degree of Consensus on Member Identification Methods by Respondent Category. Respondent Average Degree Category of Consensus Law Enforcement .34 Prosecution .40 Court .49 Probation .30 Corrections .44 Parole .33 School Security .53 School Other .49 Youth Services .49 Comprehensive .70 Family Services .50 Grass Roots .73 Planning .52 The t statistic for difference in means is -2.54, significant at the 0.05 level. The standard deviation for criminal justice respondents is .248 and for non-criminal justice respondents is .260. Table 2-18 indicates that there is most consensus across areas and across the different respondent categories in regard to components of the definition that indicate the individual identified as a gang member lives in a particular neighborhood and when the source of identification is another institution. Apparently there is least consensus on the importance of symbolic behavior as a way of identifying a gang member and most consensus on components that respondents are less likely to use. Again, we find that agreement of the definitional components is generally higher on a city or site basis than by types of respondents or disciplinary perspectives (See Table 2-18). These differences are quite large and statistically significant at the .001 level. As with the definition of gang, we plotted respondent definitions of gang member, particularly the 9 criteria, in social distance terms. We did this for cities or areas as well as for types of respondents. We found that most cities tend to use a variety of criteria in identifying gang members. The respondents in the chronic problem cities rely less on police and other criminal justice institutional identification than in the emerging gang problem cities. Furthermore, the emerging cities tend to be outliers, some relying very heavily, some not at all, on police and other criminal justice agency identifications. The multi- dimensional scaling analysis is somewhat more revealing in reference to respondent categories. It locates criminal justice respondents generally higher on the dimension which emphasizes specific types of crimes gang members commit or by their M.O. Non-justice entities, such as grass-roots, comprehensive intervention service, and family service agencies are generally more likely to rely on symbolic behaviors to identify youth as a gang member (See Appendix Tables 2-19 and 2-20 and Appendix Figures 2-3, 2-4). Table 2-18. Average Degree of Consensus for 42 Areas and 13 Respondent Categories by Member Identification Criteria. Average Average (42 Sites) (13 Categories) Symbolic Behavior .41 .39 Association .48 .51 Criminal Behavior .45 .51 Location/Residence .75 .81 Self-ID .41 .41 Police ID .44 .45 Informant ID .41 .53 Other Legal ID .70 .69 Other Institutional ID .74 .67 Average Degree Standard of Consensus Deviation Over 42 Areas .744 .139 Over 13 Respondent .625 .062 Categories The F statistic for the difference in standard deviations is significant at the 0.01 level. The t statistic for the difference in means is significant at the 0.001 level. ------------------------------ SUMMARY: GANG MEMBER DEFINITION The content analysis revealed the following nine ways to identify gang members: symbols/symbolic behavior, self-admission, association with gang members, gang type of criminal behavior (MO), location of residence, police identification, informant identifications, other criminal justice identifiers, and other non-criminal justice identifiers. A factor analysis was conducted and resulted in four significant factors that explained 36.4 percent of the covariation among the variables, not a great deal of explanatory power: symbolic behavior; other non-justice and to some extent police identification; gang member association; and a combination of sources, including other criminal justice, self- identification, and location. Our inquiry into the degree of consensus by respondents on gang member identification revealed that consensus is slightly higher in emerging than in chronic gang problem cities. There tends to be more consensus among non-criminal than criminal justice agency respondents. Consensus occurs most often in relation to where the individual lives and least often on the importance of symbolic behavior in the determination of who is a gang member. Again we find that agreement on gang member definitional components is significantly higher on an area than on a type or category of respondent basis. It is difficult to find different patterns of identification of gang members comparing emerging and chronic gang problem cities. Some emerging cities tend to be somewhat uni-dimensional, some relying very heavily, some not relying at all on police and criminal justice sources. Ways of identifying gang members are more distinctive among categories of respondents. Criminal justice respondents tend to emphasize specific types of crime or MO's of reported offenders. Non-justice system respondents generally rely more on symbolic behaviors to identify youth as gang members. It is possible that some of these patterns of youth gang member definitions would be clarified, as with the definition of gang, if race/ethnicity as well as age control factors were interrelated. ------------------------------ GANG-RELATED INCIDENTS The gang-related incident is the most important criterion for determination of the scope and severity of the youth gang problem in a particular locality, especially based on police definition. It is the measure most frequently used by the police, media, and researchers, as well as by policy makers, to assess the scope and severity of the youth gang problem. It is also, relatively speaking, the most reliable indicator since it focuses specifically on criminal activity. Nevertheless, the concept of gang-related incident is clearly dependent on the particular definition of gang and gang member in a locality or by type of respondent. Problems of validity and reliability are also expected to be compounded because of political and policy considerations about the impact of the definition of gang incident, especially on a city basis. A content analysis suggested nine definitional components or subsets of characteristics of a gang incident. The presence or involvement of a gang member was the most frequently reported criterion in identifying an event or an incident as gang- related among 61.4 percent respondents. Gang function, i.e., a criminal activity based on gang member motivation or gang interest, was used as a criterion by 39.1 percent of the respondents. Modus operandi (MO) is another criterion used by 37.8 percent of the respondents. Certain crimes such as drive-by shootings were almost universally regarded as gang-related. However, the type of MO used varied considerably in different cities. Some respondents reported treating all auto thefts as gang-related. In one city, a respondent reported that he considers all drug crimes as gang-related. The involvement of multiple offenders per se at an event (15.9 percent) and evidence of the involvement of rival gang youth (15.9 percent) were sufficiently frequent responses for us to establish these as separate categories. Identification of an activity by another institution or group as gang related (11.2 percent) and by where the event occurred (10.7 percent) were criteria reported by some respondents. Least frequently reported as the basis for respondents deciding that an activity was gang related were claims by the gang itself that an incident was gang related (4.7 percent) and simply that several youth were involved in the activity that was not necessarily of a criminal nature (4.3 percent) (See Table 2-25). Thus, at this first level of analysis, the key characteristics of the gang incident definition seemed to be whether a youth gang member was involved (sometimes called gang-related incident); whether the event furthered gang function or development (sometimes termed gang motivated incident); and whether a certain commonly recognized criminal gang act occurred, such as a drive-by shooting, i.e., modus operandi. Table 2-25. Definitions of a Gang-Related Incident Criteria Respondents Citing % Gang Member Involved 150 64.4 Furthers Gang Function 91 39.1 Gang Modus Operandi 88 37.8 Incident Involves Multiple Offenders 37 15.9 Rival Gangs Involved 37 15.9 Other Institution/Group Identifies 26 11.2 Location of Incident 25 10.7 Gang Claims Incident 11 4.7 Youth Involved 10 4.3 A GLS factor analysis of the tetrachoric correlation coefficients of these nine measures of gang incidents produced five factors that combine to explain 43.3 percent of the covariance among the variables (Appendix Table 2-26). The explanatory power of these factors for gang incidents is somewhat more than those of gang and gang member, yet still explains less than 50 percent of what goes into a definition. The first factor loads very heavily on the involvement of a gang member in the incident. It has a fairly strong negative loading on other institutional identification. The second factor loads very heavily on the characteristic of modus operandi or distinctive type of offense by the participants in the incident. There are small negative loadings on institutional identification, gang members involved, and a smaller positive reference to rival gang involvement (See Table 2- 27). The third factor loads heavily on the pair of variables that indicate a number of persons were present and that they were young people. There is a positive loading on rival gangs involved, and moderate negative loadings on institutional identification and that the gang claims the incident. Table 2-27. Rotated Factor Matrix from GLS Factor Analysis of Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients of Gang Incident Definition Characteristics Factor 1 2 3 4 5 Member Involved .986 -.128 -.088 .042 -.011 Modus Operandi -.073 .996 -.025 .011 -.009 Gang Function -.001 -.107 -.028 .676 -.116 Number Involved .069 .046 .708 .066 -.148 Rival Gangs .024 .102 .181 .282 .154 Youth Involved .016 -.064 .467 -.032 .098 Gang Claims Incident .071 -.005 -.142 -.046 -.027 Institutional ID -.329 -.133 -.167 -.337 -.072 Location .005 -.007 .039 .000 .440 Identification by gang function dominates the fourth factor. It also loads negatively on institutional identification and positively on the involvement of rival gangs, probably engaging in gang conflict. The fifth factor explains a relatively small part of total variation and loads most heavily of any of the factors on location. It loads somewhat negatively on number of individuals involved and positively on the involvement of rival gangs (See Table 2-27). Thus the order of importance of these criteria for the definition of gang incident shifts as a result of the factor analysis. The gang member related component remains most important, but the importance of gang function is reduced, and the modus operandi criteria becomes more important. The tendency is thus to an expansive definition of the idea of gang incident. The criterion of gang function tends to be relatively restrictive. The following is illustrative of the variety of gang incident definitions obtained and how they load on the different factors. A police lieutenant who includes in his methods of identifying a gang incident "known gang members involved" scores highest on Factor 1. He also includes in his definition "gang MO" and "multiple youth suspects", and, hence, shows a relatively high score for factors 2 and 3. A public school administrator and a deputy district attorney score highest on Factor 2. The school administrator states in his definition that "two or more identified gang members are involved in an incident that results in a hostile and/or illegal situation. We try to determine if the incident is related to gang function. Most incidents involve gang fighting." This respondent also has relatively high scores on factor 1, as well as Factor 4. The deputy district attorney states that his agency identifies a gang incident as one in which "the suspect and/or victim is a known gang member. The incident is motivated by an exchange of gang challenges. Colors, graffiti, and signing may be involved. This includes classic gang tactics such as drive by shootings and attacks involving multiple assailants." Likewise he also scores high on Factors 1, 3, and 4. An assistant planning director of a local United Way scores highest on Factor 3. She states that her agency identifies a gang incident as one that "involves a significant number of youth." A police sergeant from a southern city and the founder of a grassroots community organization score highest on Factor 4. The police sergeant identifies a gang incident as "violence between two groups that escalates to the killing or assault level. The conflict is due to group identity. Crimes are a primary part of group identification." The grass- roots community organization respondent states that a gang incident is when a "gang fights for turf to sell drugs and over gang recruitment." Both these latter respondents score fairly low on factors 1 and 2 and moderately high on Factor 5. Despite our factor analysis, there still seems to be a good deal of overlap in these components or they tend to be employed jointly in a definition of gang incident. ------------------------------ DIFFERENCES IN DEFINING GANG INCIDENT BY AREA Next we analyze our nine dichotomous criteria for classifying an incident as gang-related first with location as the unit of analysis and second with respondent category as the unit of analysis. As with definitions of gang and gang member, we are interested first in the degree of consensus on these components by respondents within sites and then by category of respondents across sites or areas. We are especially interested in whether the area or the type of respondent category contributes more to consensus on components used in the definition of a gang incident. Again we use our measure of consensus, which ranges from zero (non- consensus) to one (perfect consensus). Contrary to our findings comparing consensus on definitions of gang and gang member, there is at least as great consensus in chronic gang cities as in emerging gang problem cities on what the criteria of a gang incident are. This is so despite the fact it is more difficult to achieve consensus in chronic problem cities, which tend to be larger and from where we had more respondents. In part, this could be because chronic gang problem cities have longer experience in and better information systems for dealing with gangs and gang members. The differences comparing means is not statistically significant between these two kinds of gang problem cities (See Table 2-28). Again, we observe that consensus is slightly higher among criminal justice than among non-criminal justice personnel. It is highest among court and prosecutors, and quite high among law enforcement officers, considering the large number of police personnel in that respondent category with so much greater potential for dissonance. Still there is no statistically significant difference in degree of consensus comparing criminal and non-criminal justice respondent groups (See Table 2-29). Table 2-30 suggests that there is greater agreement on the components of the definition of a gang incident which are least frequently used: when there are youth present, when there is self- admission, and when the incident occurs in certain parts of the city. There appears to be least agreement by area and among the different respondents on the use of gang function, modus operandi, or the involvement of gang members as identifying elements in a definition of a gang incident. Again, we see that influence of the city or area is considerably greater in the development of consensus on gang incident definitional components then respondent categories. Locality is a greater influence on what goes into a definition of the gang problem than the particular agency or respondent's discipline. These differences are statistically significant at the 0.01 level. The influence of the area on a consensual definition of the gang incident is even greater than for the definition of gang or gang member. Table 2-28. Average Degree of Consensus on Incident Criteria by Area. Average Degree Area of Consensus Albuquerque* .74 Benton Harbor .93 CA-CYA* .93 Chicago* .62 Chino* .56 Cicero .78 Columbus .41 Detroit* .78 East LA* .56 El Monte* .56 Evanston .70 Flint .67 Fort Wayne .56 Indianapolis .70 Inglewood* .78 Jackson .63 LA City* .59 LA County* .73 Long Beach* .82 Louisville .63 Madison .70 Miami .72 Milwaukee .67 Minneapolis .78 New York* .71 Oakland* .78 Philadelphia* .69 Phoenix* .78 Pomona* .69 Reno .67 Rockford .83 Sacramento .78 Salt Lake City .56 San Diego* .53 San Jose* .84 San Francisco* .78 Santa Ana* .67 Shreveport .78 Sterling .78 Stockton* .70 Tallahassee .78 Tucson* .78 * Chronic Areas Table 2-29. Average Degree of Consensus on Incident Identification Methods by Respondent Category. Respondent Average Degree Category of Consensus Law Enforcement .66 Prosecution .70 Court .78 Probation .56 Corrections .64 Parole .58 School Security .56 School Other .59 Youth Services .59 Comprehensive .63 Family Services .59 Grass Roots .60 Planning .65 Table 2-30. Average Degree of Consensus for 42 Area and 13 Respondent Categories by Definitional Criteria. Average Average (42 Sites) (13 Categories) Gang Member Involved .56 .26 Furthers Gang Function .46 .27 Gang Modus Operandi .46 .27 Multiple Offenders Involved .72 .63 Rival Gangs Involved .72 .68 Youth Involved .91 .95 Gang Claims Incident .93 .92 Other Institution Identifies .80 .79 Location of Incident .78 .85 Average Degree Standard of Consensus Deviation Over 42 Areas .7067 .108 Over 13 Respondent .6254 .062 Categories * The F statistic for the difference in standard deviations is significant at the 0.05 level. ** The t statistic for the difference in means is significant at the 0.01 level. Again, we plotted the relation of the cities and then the categories of respondent to each other, respectively, on a social distance map. The multiple dimensional scaling procedure first produced a clustering of the chronic gang problem cities and suggested a balance of multiple components by them that enter into a definition of gang incident. Differences in definition among some of the large cities, such as Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, and New York were relatively limited while the gang incident definitions of the emerging cities were more uni-dimensional and tended to be at the extremes on the dimensions established in the analysis, for example, emphasizing gang membership or gang function (See Appendix Tables 2-31, 2-32, 2-34, 2-35 and Appendix Figure 2-5). Views of gang incident by the different types of respondents were also quite distant from each other in social space. There is a tendency, however, for respondents in the different categories to depend somewhat on other agencies probably with the exception of the police on the determination of whether an incident is gang related or not (See Appendix Figure 2-6). Thus, the distinctions that some of the very large and chronic gang problem cities draw as to the definitions of gang incident may be less than commonly regarded, at least compared to the variety of, or more disparate, definitions in the emerging or newer gang cities. ------------------------------ SUMMARY: GANG INCIDENT DEFINITION The gang incident is the most important indicator of the scope and severity of the gang problem. The respondents listed the following criteria for identifying and reporting a gang incident: involvement of a gang member, gang function (based on gang motivation or interest), modus operandi, involvement of multiple offenders, rival gangs involved, youth involved, gang claims the incident, other institutional identification, and the location of the event. A factor analysis further reduced the key component ideas of gang incident to: gang member participation, modus operandi, presence of a group of gang people, gang function, and location. There seemed to be little difference by type of problem city -- chronic or emerging -- on what the criteria of a gang incident were. Consensus was slightly but not significantly higher on the components of the definition among criminal justice respondents, especially judges and prosecutors, than among non-criminal justice personnel. The influence of area was much larger than that of respondent category on the level of consensus on definition of the gang incident. The difference was highly statistically significant. The attempt to distinguish emphases in definition, using multi- dimensional scaling, revealed a few differences by type of area or category of respondent. The definitions of the larger chronic gang problem cities were based on multiple criteria and were reasonably close to each other. Those of the emerging cities were more extreme in their emphasis, for example, either of gang membership or gang function. ------------------------------ SUMMARY This chapter examined the multiple meanings of the gang problem in terms of its key components: gang, gang member, and gang incident. The importance of a common definition was stressed for understanding the scope and seriousness of the problem across different cities and jurisdictions and for developing effective policies and programs of intervention. The variety of definitions used by respondents also suggests caution in the use of assessments of the problem including the findings presented later in this report. In general, there was more consensus on definitions based on area than by discipline or agency of the respondent. In other words, the fact that a respondent was located in a particular locality was more important than what his professional or agency affiliation was in determining the way he defined a gang, a gang member, or gang incident. The most frequently cited elements of a definition of gang were certain group or organizational characteristics, symbols, and criminal activities, especially violence, drug use and sales. The most frequently used elements of a definition of gang member were symbols or symbolic behavior, self- admission, identification by others, especially the police, and association with gang members. The most frequently cited ways of identifying or reporting a gang incident were the involvement of a gang member, gang function, and modus operandi. A variety of statistical procedures were employed, with limited success, to reduce the complexity and obtain understanding of the underlying factors of the definitions. We were able to account for slightly more of the underlying elements in the definition of gang incident than with the definition of gang or gang member. Respondents in the larger, chronic gang problem cities appeared to be in greater accord on what the elements in such a definition were than smaller, emerging gang problem cities. This somewhat painstaking examination of the way respondents define youth gang, youth gang member, gang incident indicates how complex, elusive, and even contradictory elements of the problem are. It serves as a reminder of the need to temper any particular assessment of the scope and seriousness of the gang problem. The youth gang problem at the present time is apparently many types of perceived gang problems. At the same time, there are certain aspects of the gang problem that are clearly identifiable and interpretable. The role of the criminal justice system, especially law enforcement as the lead identifier of gangs and gang problems is to emphasize serious criminal components. Community-based agencies, including schools and youth service agencies, generally identify a wider range and attribute less serious behaviors to gang problem. On the other hand, a labelling or mislabelling process that identifies minor delinquent or disruptive acts, or criminal behavior by gang members in non-gang structure contexts, as gang activity may occur, which then is conducive to a possible widening of the problem as specifically criminally gang induced. On the other hand, a failure to identify a gang problem in its more serious and special meaning, when in fact one exists, constitutes denial and may be conducive to the growth and development of the gang problem, if nothing or little is done about it. Some balanced consensually observed set of criteria of what is a gang, who is a gang member, and when a criminal act is gang related or motivated is obviously required. The various definitions, especially that of gang incident, should neither exaggerate nor minimize the scope and seriousness of the problem. The findings of the survey, reported in later chapters, also suggest that consensus on definition of the gang incident is an important condition for an effective approach in dealing with the gang problem, especially in chronic gang problem cities. ------------------------------ CHAPTER 3 GANG-CHARACTERISTICS In this chapter we describe and present a preliminary analysis of the scope of the problem based on respondent perceptions of selected gang characteristics. We prepare for the analysis of agency response in Chapters 4 and 5 and the analysis of models of effective intervention in Chapter 6. The high degree of statistical correlation among gang characteristics in this chapter, as well as with agency response and ways of effectively dealing with the problem in later chapters, suggests that the gang problem and its underlying structured dynamics may not be as amorphous or complex as the diversity of gang definitions in chapter 2 indicates. We are interested first in whether parameters of the gang problem are related to each other. These parameters include estimates of the number of gangs, gang members, size of gangs, the race/ethnicity of gang members, geographic scope of gang activity, extent of crime -- including index crime -- of gang members, adult-related character of gang activity, presence of local and non-local gangs or gangs with the same names in various communities, gang relationship to adult criminal organization, and the extent to which youth gangs are primarily organized for drug-related purposes. We are dealing mainly with the perceptions of the youth gang problem by respondents who participated in our survey. Validated gang data are extremely difficult to come by. We believe that the perceptions of some of the respondents may be more reliable than those of others. However, all of the perceptions, particularly by type of respondent category or area have their own distinctive reality that frames the problem and provides a basis for dealing with it, whether effectively or not. In order to obtain both an accurate -- or as accurate as possible -- set of gang and gang problem characteristics, but at the same time a range of gang characteristic estimates, we organize our findings by categories of law enforcement and non- law enforcement responses. We believe that police estimates are probably more accurate and conservative than those of other respondents. Law enforcement confronts the problem at the front line and is usually responsible for basic data collection, interpretation, and dissemination. Police estimates have special visibility and perhaps greater credence. This chapter also attempts to interrelate gang problem characteristics using a variety of correlation statistics. Because of resource constraints we were unable to develop other significant units of analysis. We did not analyze our data by certain important dimensions, for example by age, race/ethnicity, chronic or by emerging problem city. Differences associated with these dimensions are observed to some extent in the analysis in later chapters. ------------------------------ SIZE OF THE PROBLEM While a range of estimates of the number of gangs and gang members nationwide is available in a wide variety of cities (Miller 1975, 1982; Dolan and Finney 1984; Spergel 1990), we only provide estimates for 45 cities where both the problem and organized programs to deal with it exist. Our 45 cities may not represent an adequate sample of all gang problems or the full range of responses to it nationally. Based on law enforcement estimates, a total of 1,439 gangs were reported across the 35 (non- overlapping and non-duplicated) localities as of 1987. The preponderance of gangs were reported from three jurisdictions: Los Angeles County, 600 (41.7 percent), including 280 (19.5 percent) in Los Angeles City, and 128 (8.9 percent) in Chicago. A total of 120,636 gang members were reported in 34 of those jurisdictions. (One respondent provided an estimate of gangs, but no estimate of gang members.) Of the total gang members, 70,000 (58.0 percent) were estimated to be in Los Angeles County, including 26,000 (21.6 percent) in Los Angeles City, and 12,000 (10.0 percent) in Chicago. California jurisdictions accounted for a substantial majority, 789 (54.8 percent) of the gangs and 83,339 (69.1 percent) of the members reported by law enforcement respondents in our study (See Table 3-1). Again we remind the reader that the terms, gang and gang member as well as gang incident, are defined differently in different cities. To what extent the counts for these units may be legitimately aggregated is a question we cannot easily answer. We assume there are some underlying commonalities that we may have not yet clearly discovered. A common substrata of the youth gang problem is suggested by the patterns of relationships described in this chapter. The cities represented in our study, range in size from 14,200 (Benton Harbor) to 7,165,00 (New York). Included are five cites with more than a million in population and seven cities below 100,000. Twenty-three (23) of the cities have populations between 100,000 and 500,000. Thus, the gang problem and organized -- even promising -- responses to it may occur in almost any sized city. Overall we find that there are very high correlations between size of city (See Table 3-2), numbers of gangs, and numbers of gang members. However, these correlations are not perfect. Some large cities -- New York, for example (the largest of all cities) -- do not report very large numbers of gangs or gang members as we would expect, and some smaller cities -- Benton Harbor, Michigan, for example -- have disproportionately high numbers of gangs and gang members. Again, differences in definition and in data collection procedures could account for these exceptions. We suspect that there are more youth gangs and youth gang members in Los Angeles City than in Chicago, in part because definitions of the problem are broader or more inclusive in Los Angeles City and more restrictive in Chicago. Furthermore, it is indeed likely that there are fewer youth gangs in New York City, but many of the youth groups classified as organized crime groups in New York City would probably be classified as youth gangs in Los Angeles, and probably also in Chicago. Nevertheless, there are very strong correlations between members of gangs, gang members, and size of city. However, there is a higher correlation between numbers of gangs and gang members with each other than with size of city (Table 3-3). In general, the larger the city in our study, the more gangs and gang members and the larger, more established or chronic the gang problem. The importance of these variables in differentiating chronic and emerging gang problem cities is systematically addressed in Chapter 6. Table 3-1. Number of Gangs and Gang Members in 1987 Number of Number of Gang Gangs Members Mean for Entire Population 39.1 3275.4 Albuquerque (a) 48.0 1575.0 Atlanta 15.0 175.0 Benton Harbor 12.5 350.0 Chicago (a) 125.0 12000.0 Chino 1.0 61.0 Cicero 9.0 400.0 Columbus 18.0 400.0 El Monte 3.5 1800.0 Evanston 3.0 146.0 Fort Wayne 5.0 50.0 Fort Worth 60.0 1700.0 Indianapolis (a) 4.0 400.0 Inglewood 14.0 999.0 Jackson 11.0 1675.0 Long Beach 22.0 5725.0 LA City 280.0 26000.0 LA County 320.0 44000.0 Louisville (a) 20.0 1000.0 Madison 6.0 200.0 Miami (b) 60.0 3500.0 Milwaukee 32.5 4000.0 Minneapolis 26.0 1500.0 New York (a) 66.0 1780.0 Oakland 30.0 NA Philadelphia 11.0 977.0 Phoenix 50.0 4000.0 Pomona 15.0 1157.0 Reno (a) 6.0 51.0 Rockford 10.0 500.0 Sacramento 33.0 1900.0 Salt Lake City 18.0 400.0 San Diego (a) 23.0 3000.0 San Francisco 12.0 2000.0 San Jose 32.5 700.0 Santa Ana 35.0 5000.0 Seattle 13.0 206.0 Shreveport 4.5 55.0 Sterling 2.5 11.0 Stockton 22.5 750.0 Tallahassee 2.5 45.0 Total Cities = 40 (a) = 2 law enforcement respondents (b) = 4 law enforcement respondents (NA)= not available All other cities have one (1) law enforcement respondent Table 3-2. City and County Populations (1984) Populations 1984 City County Albuquerque 351,000 Bernalillo County 474,000 Atlanta 426,090 Benton Harbor 14,200 Berrien County 163,600 Chicago 2,992,000 Cook County 5,297,900 Chino 40,100 Cicero 61,200 Columbus 566,000 Franklin County 907,000 Detroit 1,089,000 Wayne County 2,164,300 East LA 116,300 El Monte 80,000 Evanston 72,000 Flint 149,000 Genesee County 434,900 Fort Wayne 165,000 Allen County 295,300 Fort Worth 414,562 Indianapolis 710,000 Marion County 776,500 Inglewood 94,000 Jackson 209,000 Long Beach 379,000 LA City 3,097,000 LA County 7,477,000 Louisville 290,000 Jefferson County 680,700 Madison 171,000 Dane County 344,900 Miami 373,000 Dade County 1,769,500 Milwaukee 621,000 Milwaukee County 932,400 Minneapolis 358,000 Hennepin County 987,900 New York 7,165,000 Oakland 352,000 Alameda County 1,208,700 Philadelphia 1,647,000 Phoenix 853,000 Maricopa County 1,900,200 Pomona 107,000 Reno 106,000 Rockford 137,000 Winnebago County 250,900 Sacramento 304,000 Sacramento County 914,700 Salt Lake City 165,000 San Diego 960,000 San Diego County 2,201,300 San Francisco 713,000 San Jose 686,000 Santa Clara County 1,401,600 Santa Ana 225,000 Orange County 2,166,800 Seattle 488,474 Shreveport 220,000 Sterling 15,700 Stockton 172,000 San Joaquin County 432,700 Tallahassee 112,000 Leon County 172,800 Tucson 365,000 Pima County 602,400 Table 3-3. Correlations: City/County Population Size, Numbers of Gangs, and Numbers of Gang Members Number of Number of Gangs Gang Members Population Size .750 *** .725 *** Number of Gang Members .964 *** Significance Level * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** =0.001 GANG SIZE We provided respondents an opportunity to estimate the size of the particular gangs in their jurisdiction or service area, including lower and upper size of gangs (Item III-17c of the Questionnaire). Information on this item however, was not obtained from 84 or about a third or our respondents. A wide range of answers was provided by the 170 respondents who ventured an estimate. We computed the average size of gangs from these estimates at the aggregate level. Law enforcement respondents perceived gangs to be generally smaller in size than did non-law enforcement personnel (See Appendix Table 3-4). The median size of gangs for law enforcement officials was 60, but it was 75 for non-law enforcement respondents. Where no law enforcement respondents reported the gang size to be over 1,000, 3 percent of non-law enforcement agency respondents believed gangs to be this large. Also, there is substantially less variation among law enforcement officers than among the other respondents in estimates of the size of gangs. RACE, ETHNICITY, AND GANGS In Questionnaire Item III-12, respondents are asked to estimate the percent of gang members coming to their attention in 1987 who were of specific ethnic or racial backgrounds. Blacks and Hispanics comprised the preponderant ethnic groups cited. African-American Gang Members. Relatively more blacks, mainly African-Americans, and to some extent Asians came to the attention of law enforcement, but relatively more Hispanics and whites came to the attention of non-law enforcement respondents (See Appendix Table 3-5, 3-6, 3-10, and 3-11). Nevertheless, most respondents indicate that the majority of the gang members who came to their attention in 1987 were black. For law enforcement officers, the median percent of gang members contacted was 53 percent. For non-law enforcement respondents, the median percent was 46 percent. At least some black gang members came to the attention of all but 4.3 percent of law enforcement officers and 6 percent of non-law enforcement respondents. Hispanic Gang Members. Hispanic members are the next largest percent of gang members reported by our respondents. The median percent of Hispanic gang members contacted by law enforcement was 28 percent and by non-law enforcement respondents, 30 percent. About 29 percent of all respondents reported that the majority of the gang members they contact were of Hispanic origin. The largest of the Hispanic subgroups dealt with were of Mexican origin. Law enforcement respondents reported dealing with considerably smaller percent of Mexican-American gang members, an average of 16 compared to non-law enforcement estimates of 50 percent. Thus, while law enforcement seemed to be dealing with more black gang members, non-law enforcement seemed to be dealing with relatively more Hispanic gang members. (See Appendix Tables 3- 6, 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9). Finally, we observe that whites and Asians comprise a very small proportion of youth gangs reported by either law enforcement or non-law enforcement respondents. Whites are the majority population in many of the city or county jurisdictions from which our gangs and gang members come. We do not speculate at this time as to why the estimates of numbers of white gang members contacted are so low. Very few law enforcement (2.2 percent) and non-law enforcement (1.6 percent) respondents indicate contact with a majority of white gang members. (See Appendix Table 3-10). Our respondents have least contact with gang members of Asian descent. The majority of respondents have no Asian respondents in their caseload. A small percentage of law enforcement respondents (4.2 percent) state they are in contact with a majority of Asian gang members. The proportion is even smaller for non-law enforcement respondents (2.2 percent) (See Appendix Table 3- 11). GANG ORGANIZATIONAL PARAMETERS One major difference that exists between contemporary and earlier youth gangs is the degree to which gang affiliations, or at least gangs with the same names, extend beyond a particular neighborhood (across cities and states). Seemingly broad alliances of gangs such as the Folks and People emanating out of Chicago and the Crips and Bloods out of the Los Angeles area are the ultimate manifestation of this phenomenon. Sherman in 1970 referred to such alliances in Chicago as "supergangs." Some of these same gangs still around today prefer the designation, "nation." How well organized these supposed "grand alliances" are and whether they represent a nascent "mafia" or series of "junior" crime organizations is in some dispute. Whether the presence of some gangs with the same names in different areas is part of a rational organized, "franchising" effort is not clear. At the same time there is evidence that many gangs with the same name exist in different neighborhoods, cities and states but in fact may have little or no relationship with each other. The explanations for the spread of gangs or gang names include: (1) expansion for purposes of drug trafficking and other criminal enterprises, (2) population movement of minority groups from central cities to suburban areas and smaller cities, (3) immigration of gang members from other countries including the presence of illegals, to inner city and low income areas, (4) school busing, and (5) media coverage that results in glorification and spread of gang culture. Item III-17d of the Questionnaire asks respondents if gangs in their jurisdiction or service area have the same name as those in different neighborhoods or areas. A majority of all respondents report that this is indeed the case (Appendix Table 3-12). However, law enforcement is more conservative in its estimate of the gang spread phenomenon. Less than two thirds (63.5 percent) of law enforcement, but three quarters (75 percent) of non-law enforcement respondents perceive gangs with the same names in different parts of their jurisdiction or service area (Appendix Table 3-12). LEVEL OF GANG CRIMINALITY What part of overall serious crime in an area can be attributed to gang members and what proportion of gang members are involved in crime? These are two different ways of examining the scope and perhaps impact of gang criminality. In Item III-5, we ask respondents to estimate the percent of total Part 1 or index, i.e., the most serious violent and property offenses in their jurisdiction or caseload attributed to youth gangs in 1987. In Item III-16, we ask for the percentage of gang offenders with prior police records who came to the respondent organization's attention during that year. Many of the respondents do not know what proportion of index crime is attributable to gang members. Others feel the question is not applicable to their agency's approach. Only 47.5 percent of the respondents answer this question. Law enforcement estimates are much more conservative than those of non-law enforcement respondents. Law enforcement respondents estimate the mean percent of the total of index crimes in the communities committed by gang youth to be 22.7 percent. For non-law enforcement respondents the figure is 32.7 percent (See Appendix Table 3-13). However, where 28.1 percent of the non-law enforcement respondents state that a majority of the youth gang members who came to their attention are responsible for the majority of index crime within their jurisdictions, 41.2 percent of the law enforcement respondents perceive that gang youth are responsible for a majority of the index crimes. When the question turns to the number of gang members with prior police records (See Appendix Table 3-14), we have considerably fewer missing responses among non-law enforcement respondents (23.3 percent). In this case, law enforcement officers are less conservative and more inclusive in their response. Law enforcement estimates that 75 percent, while non-law enforcement estimates that 70.1 percent, of the gang members who came to their attention in 1987 had prior police records. There is, however, a little more variability in the responses of law enforcement. In other words, law enforcement in comparison to non-law enforcement personnel believe that a slightly higher percent of gang youth have prior records, but that a smaller percent of these youth commit offenses of a very serious nature (See Appendix Table 3-14). ADULTS AND GANGS The gang problem is viewed as no longer only a juvenile or youth phenomenon, but increasingly involves young adults or adults. Some researchers have studied young adult gangs (Horowitz 1983) or closely observed the interconnections of juveniles, youth, and adults in the gang subculture (Moore 1978). A series of questions were devised to obtain information on aspects of this relationship. Item III-8 asks respondents to estimate the percentage of the gang-related incidents that involved adults who came to their agency's attention in 1987. We obtained a significantly different pattern of responses from law enforcement compared to non-law enforcement respondents (Appendix Table 3-15). The police reported that 45.6 percent of the gang- related cases they dealt with involved adults. For non-law enforcement respondents the figure was only 23.7 percent. Almost three times as many law enforcement (46.27 percent) as non-law enforcement personnel (16.2 percent) report dealing with a majority of adult gang-related incidents. Similarly all three measures of central tendency are twice as high for law enforcement respondents. A t-test for the difference between the means for law enforcement (45.6) and non-law enforcement respondents (23.6) equals 4.84, which is statistically significant at the 0.001 level. We believe that much of the difference is due to the fact that the police deal with serious incidents of gang crime and these are more likely to involve adults. Also the police may be better aware of the complex reality of the involvement of both juveniles and adults in gang incidents. This interpretation is somewhat supported by the pattern of answers to Item III-10, which asks the respondent to choose which is the more serious aspect of the problem, adult or juvenile. The majority (54.9 percent) of law enforcement but fewer (47.3 percent) of the non-law enforcement respondents consider both the adult and the juvenile problems as equally severe. Nevertheless, both groups of respondents believe the problem is still largely juvenile (See Appendix Table 3-16). Implicit in the notion of adult involvement in youth gang activity is the idea of criminal organization. Members remaining active in gang life into adulthood may increase their participation in more serious levels of gang criminality. As this occurs, youth gangs may become involved with adult criminal organizations in more systematic illegal ways. The degree to which this is the case is the object of Item III-17e. As can be seen from Appendix Table 3-17, a large majority of all respondents, including law enforcement personnel, indicate that such affiliation exists in their jurisdiction or service area. A cautionary note is useful here. While higher adult involvement in gang activity may be associated with a higher level of criminal activity, it may not necessarily signify increased affiliation with adult criminal organizations, as we shall see below. DRUGS AND GANGS Few elements of gang anti-social activity or crime have received more attention in recent years than the involvement of gangs or their members in the distribution of drugs. Item III-17g asks whether drug distribution is one of the primary purposes of the gang's existence in the respondent's jurisdiction or service area. A majority of non-law enforcement respondents (63.4 percent) answer this question affirmatively but a less strong majority of law enforcement respondents (54.9 percent) do likewise (See Appendix Table 3- 18). Again, we observe more cautious estimates by law enforcement. It is possible that the police more carefully make the distinction between individual gang member and gang structure involvement in drug trafficking. Item III-17j probes for the involvement of gangs in the importation of drugs into the area. Law enforcement respondents seem to be a little more knowledgeable than other respondents, with proportionally half as many missing values (See Appendix Table 3-19). A larger majority (63.8 percent) of law enforcement than non-law enforcement respondents (56.0 percent) believe there is such involvement. GANG PATTERNS: INTERRELATIONSHIP FOR STRUCTURAL AND BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS We now turn to a discussion of the patterns of relationship of youth gang structure and behavioral characteristics to each other. Gang patterns are complex and subject to continuous change. The patterns vary along a number of dimensions which theorists and researchers have not yet been able to adequately identify or explain. To systematically identify how these characteristics are interrelated may be a step toward a more complete understanding of contemporary gang behavior and thereby result in the development of more effective policy. In the following discussion we use estimates of numbers of gangs and gang members provided by the law enforcement respondents instead those of other respondents in a jurisdictional area to maximize accuracy and consistency of definition, at least within given geographical areas. Description of other gang characteristics are those of the particular respondent. Different correlational analyses are conducted, depending on the levels of data used -- categorical and ratio. Table 3-20 shows that number of gangs and number of gang members in an area are strongly related to each other (as we would expect), but not so strongly related to the upper estimate of the size of gangs, which reflects the estimates of all the respondents not simply those of the police. The relationship is positive, though. This may suggest that when there are more gangs and gang members in an area, it does not always mean that gangs are larger in these areas. It leaves open the possibility that sometimes the size of gangs may be quite large in areas where there are fewer gangs and that sometimes the size of some gangs is fairly small even in areas with many gangs and gang members. Another expected finding is the strong negative relationship between the percentage of gang members coming to a respondent's attention who are black and the percentage who are Hispanic. Usually, where we have many black gang members, we have few Hispanic gang members and vice versa. Unexpected, perhaps, is the relationship between number of gangs and number of gang members with ethnicity of gang members. Where fewer gangs are reported, the percentage of blacks of the total gang population is higher. Where more gangs and gang members are reported, the percentage of blacks in the gang population is lower. The opposite relationships hold for Hispanic gang composition. This may be the result of the relative concentration of Hispanic populations in some of the larger metropolitan areas in the study (Table 3-20). Table 3-20. Pearson Correlations for Selected Gang Problem Characteristics Number Number Upper % Black Gangs Gang Size of Members Members Gang Number .963 *** Gang (235) Members Upper .164 * .174 * Size of (163) (160) Gang % Black -.187 ** -.154 * .054 Members (217) (215) (162) % Hispanic .210 ** .202 * -.003 -.800 *** Members (217) (215) (162) (231) Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** =0.001 When we examine the involvement of adults in gangs, we find few significant relationships. The percentage of total gang incidents in 1987 involving adults is not related to number of gangs or gang members. Nor is it significantly related to either the percent of gang members who are black or Hispanic. There is, however, a modest significant and positive relationship between the presence of larger gangs and the increased involvement of adults (Table 3-21). The percentage of total index crimes that is regarded as gang-related is positively related to estimates of the number of gangs and the number of gang members in each respondent's jurisdiction or service area, but again the relationship is quite modest. The percentage of index crime that is attributed to gangs does not seem to vary significantly with the upper size estimate of gang or the ethnic composition of gangs. The percent of gang members with prior police records is also only modestly related to the reported upper size of gangs (Table 3-21). Table 3-21. Pearson Correlations for Selected Gang Problem Characteristics Number Number Upper % Black % Gangs Gang Size of Members Hispanic Members Gang Members % Incidents .028 .054 .150 * -.020 .030 Involving (180) (178) (137) (185) (185) Adults % Index .152 * .174 * .124 -.041 -.001 Crimes (127) (124) (106) (127) (127) Gang-Related % Gang .067 .107 .159 * .095 .009 Memb. (185) (182) (146) (190) (190) with Prior Police Record Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** =0.001 While the percent of gang incidents involving adults is not significantly related to percent of index crimes attributed to gangs (Table 3-22), there is, however, a strong significant positive relationship between the percent of gang incidents involving adults and the percent of gang member with prior police records. We also see, but not as strongly, a positive relationship between the percent of index crime that is gang-related and the percent of gang members with prior police records. Again, because older youth or young adults are now gang-affiliated, it may not necessarily mean they are involved in a higher proportion of serious or index crime in the area. The older members, however, are more likely to have prior police records. Table 3-22. Pearson Correlations for Selected Gang Problem Characteristics % Index Crimes % Gang Members Gang-Related with Prior Police Records % Incidents -.029 .233*** Involving (113) (164) Adults % Index Crimes Gang- - .212 ** Related (121) Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** =0.001 The relationships between the existence of gangs of the same name in different areas to other aspects of the gang problem are shown in Table 3- 23. Gangs of the same name in different areas (i.e., the possible spread of gangs) is significantly related to number of gangs, number of gang members, and size of larger gangs, but it is not related to ethnicity of gang membership, adult involvement in gangs, or our two measures of gang criminality, percent of index crimes, and percent of gang members with prior records. This table tells us essentially that the more gangs, gang members, and the larger the gangs in an area, the more likely the gangs are to be part of larger alliances or pseudo-alliances across neighborhood areas. Gangs and gang members appear to have an epidemiological character. They spread geographically as their membership multiplies and vice versa. Table 3-23. Point Biserial Correlations of Gangs of Same Name in Different Neighborhoods and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Number Number Upper % Black % Gangs Gang Size of Members Hispanic Members Gang Members Non- Local .236*** .243*** .206** .017 -.052 Gangs (221) (224) (167) (208) (172) % Incidents % Index % Gang Involving Crimes Members Adults Gang- with Prior Related Police Record Non-Local .084 .014 -.018 Gangs (144) (120) (187) Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** =0.001 Table 3-24 examines the relationships between affiliation or involvement of gang members with criminal organizations and other variables. Affiliation is perceived where there are more gangs and more gang members reported, but it is not significantly related to gang size. Ethnic composition of gangs may be influencing the affiliation of youth gang to criminal adult organizations, however. Table 3-24. Point Biserial Correlations of Gangs Affiliated with Adult Criminal Organizations and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Number Number Upper % Black % Gangs Gang Average Members Hispanic Members Size of Members Gang Involved .150* .162* .149 .104 -.389*** Criminal (219) (222) (164) (208) (170) Organization % Incidents % Index % Gang Members Involving Crimes with Prior Adults Gang- Police Record Related Involved .061 .278 ** .130 Criminal (143) (118) (187) Organization Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** =0.001 There is a slight positive relationship between a high percentage of black gang members and involvement with an adult criminal organization, but the relationship is not statistically significant. However, the relationship between the percentage of Hispanic gangs involvement with criminal adult organizations is very strong and negative. In other words, where there is a high percentage of Hispanic gang youth, the presence of criminal adult organization is contra-indicated. But, a tendency to a positive relationship exists between the presence of an adult criminal organization and a high percentage of black youth gang members in a locality. There is a positive relationship between involvement with adult criminal organization and a high percentage of index crimes attributable to gang youth. We found, also, as we would expect, that affiliation with adult criminal organizations is significantly and positively related to a more serious level of youth gang, i.e., index crime. Affiliation or involvement with criminal organizations does not necessarily occur in localities with a high percentage of gang members with prior records, nor when there is a good deal of adult participation in gang incidents. Again, we see distinctions between gang members with prior records and a connection with organized crime. The presence of older youth or young adults in gangs may also not necessarily mean close connections with organized crime. Once again, the presence of a youth gang problem does not necessarily equate to organized crime, regardless of the age composition of the youth gang. The relationship between selling drugs as a primary purpose of the gang and other aspects of the gang problem are shown in Table 3-25. We find that there is no significant relationship between gang drug distribution and the number of gangs, the number of gang members, or gang size. Ethnicity is again an important factor. The percent of black gang members in an area is positively, but the percent of Hispanic gang members is negatively, correlated with gang drug distribution. In other words, consistent with the findings in the previous table, the greater the percent of black gang members in an area, the greater the likelihood drugs are being sold by gang members or by gangs, but the greater the percent of Hispanic gang members in an area, the less the likelihood of drug trafficking. This is a remarkable pattern. Table 3-25. Point Biserial Correlations of Drugs a Primary Purpose of the Gang and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Number Number Upper % Black % Gangs Gang Size of Members Hispanic Members Gang Members Gangs -.052 .053 -.115 .165 ** -.199 ** Sell (225) (228) (166) (225) (225) Drugs % % Index Crimes % Gang Incidents Gang-Related Members Involving with Prior Adults Police Record Gangs -.049 -.243 ** -.130 Sell (144) (120) (189) Drugs Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** =0.001 Finally, as expected, when drug distribution is a primary purpose of the gang, there is a significantly higher percent of the total of all index crime in an area attributed to gangs. However, the relationship between the percent of gang incidents involving adults or the percent of gang members with prior police records and gangs selling drugs is not statistically significant. Next we examine the relationship between various gang characteristics and the importation of drugs (Table 3-26). The importation of drugs into the community implies a higher level of involvement in drug trafficking than simply gang members or gangs selling drugs which usually means street level or sometimes minor or limited trafficking in many cities. We find that involvement in the importation of drugs is not significantly related to any of the other general measures of youth gang structure and behavior thus far discussed. Table 3-26. Point Biserial Correlations of Gang Members Involved in the Importation of Drugs and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Number Number Upper % Black % Gangs Gang Size of Members Hispanic Members Gang Members Gang .048 .040 -.141 -.080 -.226 Memb. (1998) (200) (152) (187) (161) Import Drugs % % Index % Gang Incidents Crimes Members Involving Gang- with Prior Adults Related Police Records Gang .010 -.076 -.133 Members (132) (112) (170) Import Drugs Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** =0.001 CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, DRUG TRAFFICKING, AND THE SPREAD OF THE YOUTH GANG PROBLEM We have analyzed mainly the relationship of ratio and categorical variables to each other. We now turn briefly to an analysis of categorical or nominal variables to each other, particularly focused on a further test of the relationship of youth gangs to a serious crime problem, especially drug trafficking. The four dichotomous variables are (1) existence of gangs with the same name in different areas of the city, (2) gang affiliation with adult criminal organizations, (3) drug distribution as a primary reason for the gang's existence, and (4) gangs involved in the importation of drugs. These four variables are significantly related to each other in almost every way possible. When these conditions exist, a community appears to have a very serious crime problem on its hands. Table 3-27 shows that there is a very significant relationship between gangs with the same name in different areas of the city and gang affiliation with adult criminal organizations. Seventy-eight and one tenth percent (78.1 percent) of the respondents who report gangs of the same name in different areas also report gang affiliation with adult criminal organizations. Over eighty-five percent of those reporting the presence of gang affiliations with adult criminal organizations report the existence of gangs of the same name in different areas of their city. Table 3-27. Gangs with the Same Name are Found in Different Areas and Respondents Reporting Gang Affiliation with Adult Criminal Organizations Involved Criminal Organization Yes No Total Yes 146 22 168 (86.9) (13.1) (78.1) (52.4) Non-Local Gangs No 41 20 61 (67.2) (32.8) (21.9) (47.6) Total 187 42 229 Gamma = 0.5280 Tetrachoric Correlation = 0.393 *** (Significant at 0.001) Number of Missing Observations = 25 Table 3-28 shows that there is little distinction between local and so-called non-local gangs in the pattern of drug selling as a primary purpose of the gang. Again, we note the perception of drug selling as a primary purpose of the gang may be confused by many of our respondents since so many gangs now have members who are involved in drug dealing, at least of a minor nature. Table 3-28. Gangs with the Same Name are Found in Different Areas and Drugs are a Primary Purpose of the Gang Gangs Sell Drugs Yes No Total Yes 103 62 165 (62.4) (37.6) (74.1) (68.9) Non-Local Gangs No 36 28 64 (56.3) (43.8) (25.9) (31.1) Total 139 90 229 Gamma = 0.12744 Tetrachoric Correlation = 0.095 Number of Missing Observations = 25 Table 3-29 shows that the measure of gang expansion beyond the neighborhood setting is significantly related to respondent perception that gang members are involved in the importation of drugs. The tetrachoric correlation coefficient is significant at the 0.01 level. A higher level of drug involvement occurs and may require sophisticated networks across neighborhoods or cities. Tables 3-30 and 3-31 tell us, however, that gangs or gang members affiliated with adult criminal organizations are also highly likely to be engaged in drug selling and importation. In other words, when the gang is local, it is probably not necessarily engaged with criminal adult organizations and not engaged in major drug trafficking, although it may be engaged in drug selling at the local level. When the gang is non- local (i.e., with units of the same name, whether related to each other or not, and/or affiliated with a criminal organization), it or individual members are highly likely to be involved in drug trafficking locally, as well as across neighborhoods, cities, and States. Table 3-29. Gangs with the Same Name are Found in Different Areas and Gang Members are Involved in the Importation of Drugs Youth Gangs Import Drugs Yes No Total Yes 91 56 147 (61.9) (38.1) (76.5) (65.9) Non-Local Gangs No 28 29 57 (49.1) (50.9) (23.5) (34.1) Total 119 85 204 Gamma = 0.25458 Tetrachoric Correlation = 0.193 ** (Significant at 0.01) Number of Missing Observations = 50 Table 3-30. Respondents Reporting Gang Affiliation with Adult Criminal Organizations and Drugs are a Primary Purpose of the Gang Gangs Sell Drugs Yes No Total 120 68 188 Yes (63.8) (36.2) (86.3) (76.4) Involved Criminal Organization 19 21 40 No (47.5) (52.5) (13.7) (23.6) Total 139 89 228 Gamma = 0.32214 Tetrachoric Correlation = 0.231 *** (Significant at 0.001) Number of Missing Observations = 26 Table 3-31. Respondents Reporting Gang Affiliation with Adult Criminal Organizations and Gang Members are Involved in the Importation of Drugs Gangs Import Drugs Yes No Total 105 62 167 Yes (62.9) (37.1) (89.7) (71.3) Involved Criminal Organization 12 25 37 No (32.4) (67.6) (10.3) (28.7) Total 117 87 204 Gamma = 0.55833 Tetrachoric Correlation = 0.419 *** (Significant at 0.001) Number of Missing Observations = 50 Table 3-32. Drugs are a Primary Purpose of the Gang and Gang Members are Involved in the Importation of Drugs Gangs Import Drugs Yes No Total 90 40 130 Yes (69.2) (30.8) (74.4) (46.0) Gangs Sell Drugs 31 47 78 No (39.7) (60.3) (25.6) (54.0) Total 121 87 208 Gamma = 0.54662 Tetrachoric Correlation = 0.445 *** (Significant at 0.001) Number of Missing Observations = 46 Finally, we may infer from the results of Table 3-32 that the perceived severity of the gang problem is largely (but not exclusively) manifested in the gang's relationship to drug dealing, whether it is a primary purpose of the gang or not, and whether emphasis is mainly at the level of local street dealing or drug trafficking across neighborhoods or cities. (Our analysis has not dealt with gang homicides, which often may not be drug-related.) The complexity of the youth gang's relationship to drug distribution belies any easy classification of gangs into turf or traditional gangs and instrumental or drug dealing gangs (See Skolnick 1988). The availability of drugs has probably contributed to the development of a serious gang problem, rather than the other way around, i.e., gangs have contributed to the development a serious drug problem. SUMMARY Clearly identifiable patterns exist as to the scope and seriousness of the youth gang problem, despite the diversity of definitions. Based on answers to our Questionnaire survey, there were a total of 1,439 gangs and 120,636 gang members reported across the localities surveyed in 1987. The largest concentration of gangs and gang members was in Los Angeles and the rest of Los Angeles County. California accounted for the majority of gangs and gang members in the cities or jurisdictions surveyed. The second largest concentration was in Illinois and Chicago. Overall, there were correlations between size of city, number of gangs, and number of gang members. But, there were significant exceptions. Some very large cities have relatively few reported gangs and gang problems, and some smaller cities have disproportionately many gangs and large gang problems. African-Americans were the largest racial/ethnic group reported by law enforcement respondents (54.6 percent); Hispanics, mainly Mexican-Americans, were the next largest group (32.6 percent). Whites and Asians comprised a relatively small percentage of the reported gang problem. Almost two-thirds of the police officers perceived gangs as non-local group phenomenon. That is, gangs of the same name existed in different areas of the city, the state, and the country. We were interested in the nature of the gang problem and its severity. Law enforcement respondents estimated that 75 percent of gang youth they contacted had prior police records, and that gang youth accounted for 22.7 percent of index crimes in their cities. The gang problem was no longer viewed as only a juvenile or youth phenomenon: 45.6 percent of the law enforcement respondents saw gang-related incidents as involving adults. Of concern was the fact not only that older youth and adults were involved in gang incidents, but that youth gangs might now be associated with adult criminal organizations and engaged in systematic illegal activity. About three quarters of the respondents believed that youth gang members were now affiliated with adult criminal organizations. To what extent such affiliation represented relationships by individual gang youth or the gang organization itself was not clear. A majority of the respondents believe that a primary purpose of the youth gang is drug selling and that certain gang members are involved in bringing drugs into the area from outside the jurisdiction. Specific variables or characteristics of the gang problem were interrelated and certain patterns emerged. Usually in a city or jurisdiction where there was a higher percent of black gang members, there was a lower percent of Hispanic gang members and vice versa. Each city in our sample did not necessarily have a predominance of black gang members. There is a modest relationship between the presence of larger gangs and the increased involvement of adults. Also, the greater the number of gangs and gang members, the greater the proportion of index crimes attributed to gangs. Further, the greater the number of gangs, gang members, and the larger the gangs, the more likely there has been a spread of gangs or gang members to or from other areas. However, this pattern is not related to race/ethnicity. In regard to more organized forms of gang criminality, we found that there is a negative or inverse relationship between the percentage of Hispanic gang members in a community or jurisdiction and the involvement of gangs with criminal organizations. Affiliation with criminal organization is related to a high level of serious or index crime by gang youth. The relationship between selling drugs as a primary purpose of the gang and ethnicity is characteristic of black gangs, but not of Hispanic gangs. The greater the percent of black gang members in an area, the greater the likelihood that drugs are being sold by gangs. However, the greater the percent of Hispanic gang members in an area, the less the likelihood of drug selling. When drug distribution is a primary purpose of the gang, there is a significantly higher percent of the total of all index crime attributed to gangs. However, higher level drug trafficking, i.e., across jurisdictions, is not related to many of our general structural characteristics of the gang problem. However, there are certain more serious criminal aspects of youth gangs that are related to drug trafficking and other gang characteristics. Drug trafficking across jurisdictions is significantly correlated with gangs of the same name in those areas. Gangs or gang members who have spread across cities and states are much more likely to be affiliated with adult criminal organizations than simply local gangs. The gangs affiliated with criminal organizations are highly likely to be engaged both in street level and higher level drug trafficking. The results of the analysis indicates that the severity of the gang problem is largely associated with drug dealing whether it is a primary purpose of the gang's existence or not, and whether emphasis is mainly at the level of local street dealing or drug trafficking across neighborhoods or cities. The complexities of the youth gang's relationship to drug distribution, however, belies any easy classification of gangs into very distinct categories of traditional and criminal youth gangs. In any case, it is likely that the availability of drug trafficking opportunities has influenced the development of a serious youth gang problem more than the presence of youth gangs has influenced the creation of a general drug problem. ------------------------------ CHAPTER 4 RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM We have less information probably on the nature of the response to the gang problem, and its effectiveness, than we have on gang characteristics or the scope and seriousness of the problem. We appear to be more interested in calling attention to a gang problem than in doing something systematic and well articulated about it. We appear to have less knowledge of program effects and their success currently than we had in the 1950's and 1960's, at which time principal youth gang service, street club, or outreach efforts were evaluated as not successful. Almost no current research exists on social intervention or the effectiveness of suppression strategies. The major purpose of the present survey of 45 cities and 6 special agency sites was to begin systematically to describe and analyze the nature of organizational policies, structures, programs, and strategies currently established to deal with the gang problem. This is a prior step to the design of strategies that may be more successful than those utilized in the past. In this and the remaining chapters we look at these aspects of organizational structure that have been developed to identify and address the gang problem. We not only specify certain aspects but examine examine the relationships of these organizational characteristics to each other. We also analyze the relationships between perceptions of the problem and organizational responses, i.e., policies and structures established to deal with the youth gang problem. First, we describe such characteristics as size of staff, special agency gang policies, special training, specialized units of organization, internal and external agency advisory structures, and task force coordination. Next, we interrelate these organizational characteristics to discover patterns of response. Finally, we begin the process of systematic examination of the relationship of perceptions of the gang problem to organizational response characteristics and patterns. In the next chapter we examine further the response to the problem and focus on perceived strategies and causal factors as possible rationales for these organizational structures and processes. INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS In this first section we compare reports of law enforcement personnel with those of the non-law enforcement personnel. Once more we find systematic differences, however, issues of accuracy and reliability are not as relevant in distinguishing police and non-police agency structures per se. Rather, organizational characteristics, missions, and interests are central in the differences observed. In the next chapter we elaborate the comparison of organizational response, i.e., strategies and perceived causal patterns, by all the specific respondent categories. The analysis in this chapter generally follows the pattern and procedures used in Chapter 3. SIZE OF AGENCY Most of the respondents come from agencies with 200 or fewer employees. However, the law enforcement respondents are more likely (47 percent) to come from the large agencies with over 200 staff than the non-law enforcement respondents (17.8 percent). About a quarter of the law enforcement and non-law enforcement personnel come from rather small agencies of 10 or fewer staff. A large difference exists in the proportion of police officers from very large agencies of over 1,000 personnel (18.4 percent) compared to non-law enforcement respondents (5.67 percent) (See Appendix Table 4- 1). Examples of large staff sizes of agencies in our respondent groups are the police departments of New York City (29,500), Philadelphia (5,124), and Milwaukee (2,050). However, the California Youth Authority has 4,000 staff; the Los Angeles County Probation Department, 3,500; and the Miami-Dade Office of Criminal Justice Assistance reports a staff of 3,000. SPECIFIC POLICIES One major set of responses to the gang problem was the formulation of special policies for dealing with it. We identified three levels of policy response or commitment: simple oral expression of a (special) gang policy, production of written materials to describe and support such a policy, and the development of special legislation to deal with the gang problem. Item IV-9 asks respondents if their agencies have policies and procedures that guide staff in their activities with gangs. Appendix Table 4-2 shows that slightly more than half of the law enforcement (52.0 percent) and non- law enforcement (58.1 percent) respondents had such policies in their agencies, whether written or not. The production of written policies may be viewed as evidence of greater commitment and effort by the agency in dealing with the gang problem than a simple oral expression of such a policy. The analysis shows that slightly less than half of the agencies of the respondents have policies in writing, but law enforcement (48.8 percent) slightly more often than non-law enforcement agencies (43.9 percent) tend to put such policies into writing (See Appendix Table 4-3). Conceivably, the highest level of interest and commitment in dealing with a social problem is evidenced when the agency seeks to affect public policy, i.e., through efforts to influence legislation. Whether legislation related to gangs or the gang problem has been initiated or modified as a result of the efforts of a respondent's agency is the concern of Item VI-5. About one fourth of all respondents, including law enforcement, reported such an effort (See Appendix Table 4-4). TRAINING Another kind of response to the problem is the provision of special training for personnel dealing with gangs. A large majority of non-law enforcement (71.3 percent), but an even larger majority of law enforcement (86.5 percent) respondents report the availability of such training for their agencies' personnel (See Appendix Table 4-5). ORGANIZATIONAL SPECIALIZATION Agencies may deal with new problems in the environment through the creation of different or new organizational forms. Law enforcement agencies, especially, are expected to react rapidly to law and order crises. Appendix Table 4-6 shows that 42.3 percent of our law enforcement agencies had such an organizational specialization. Less than half as many (20.3 percent) of the non-law enforcement agencies had such an organizational specialization. The chi-square test for the difference is significant at the 0.001 level of statistical significance. Furthermore, distinctive organizational structures to deal with the gang problem may have been developed mainly by the police but also non-law enforcement agencies, in the cities of our survey. ADVISORY AND INTERAGENCY STRUCTURES An important aspect of the response to a complex community problem such as gang crime may be special structures or procedures to enhance coordination of internal agency efforts, outside advisory groups for individual agencies or special gang programs, and community-wide coordinating groups such as interagency task forces. These coordination mechanisms may be viewed as indicators of efforts to recognize and deal with problems of agency and organizational fragmentation or disorganization, and even to contribute to community mobilization. Item IV-19 asks if an internal agency advisory structure exists that guides the agency's gang operation. Only a minority of respondents reported the existence of such an internal advisory structure (Appendix table 4-7). The police agencies were apparently somewhat less likely to develop such an internal advisory or coordinative structure than the non-police agencies. While about a third of non-law enforcement respondents (32 percent) indicated such an internal agency arrangement exists, only about a quarter (24.0 percent) of police respondents referred to an internal agency coordinative structure. We note that in our follow- up telephone conversations and field visits, police informants were more likely to complain of lack of coordination in regard to information sharing and operations between units within the department, for example between narcotics and gang crime units, than was the case for non-law enforcement or non- criminal justice informants. This pattern of difference is even more marked but reversed when the relation of respondent agencies to external advisory groups is examined. Law enforcement agencies are significantly less likely to rely on an external agency or a community group that advises or influences their dealing with the gang problem. This is evidenced by their responses to Item V-1 in comparison to those of other respondents (See Appendix Table 4-8). While a minority of law enforcement respondents (33.3 percent) state their departments are influenced by such outside advisory groups, a strong majority of non-law enforcement personnel (58.5 percent) state that this is the case for their gang programs (See Appendix Table 4-8). It is possible to speculate based on these two sets of findings that police gang units or police departments are substantially less well coordinated externally in respect to the gang problem than are non-law enforcement agencies. Police units thereby seem to depend heavily on particular unit perceptions and specific organizational interests in addressing the gang problem. Since the police may be viewed as the lead agency, this quality of relative organizational isolation (and possibly intra-agency unit fragmentation) can impede community-wide efforts in dealing with gang crime. On the other hand, community-wide efforts do exist in many if not most communities confronted with a serious gang problem. The police are usually an integral part of such interagency coordination groups or task forces. Item V-8 asks about the existence of interagency task forces or community- wide organizations that attempted to coordinate efforts to deal with the gang problem in 1987. A majority of non-law enforcement (68.3 percent) and law enforcement (72.0 percent) respondents reported the existence of such efforts at general community coordination. Law enforcement respondents were thus slightly more likely to report the existence of such broad city or county coordinative arrangements (See Appendix Table 4-9). How are we to explain the divergent patterns? The law enforcement agencies seem relatively less interested in internal and external advisory groups, yet apparently participate in community- wide coordination. Part of the answer may lie in the perceptions of a number of police representatives and indeed criminal justice planners that the gang problem is largely a problem for law enforcement and that community groups and other organizations are mainly to accept information and leadership from law enforcement. Other agencies are expected primarily to facilitate or supplement police suppression efforts. To what extent interagency task forces or community-wide coordination groups are more than opportunities for high-level "talk," public relations, and exchange of some information and indeed results in joint or cooperative interagency operations in respect to gangs, is unclear. The variety of interagency task force structures and functions was not explored in the current research. PATTERNS OF AGENCY RESPONSE In this section we emphasize the pattern of agency responses rather than singular organizational policies or organizational forms. We are interested first in whether policies are interrelated and second how these policies are related to actual problem characteristics in the particular communities. In this analysis we do not separate but aggregate the responses of all respondents. SPECIAL POLICIES Table 4.10 listed in this chapter shows that the relationships between our three policy commitment measures-- expressed gang policy, gang policy in writing, and efforts to influence gang-related legislation--are all significant at the 0.001 level. Table 4-11 indicates furthermore that 66.1 percent of those respondents who have a special gang policy have put that policy into writing. Table 4-10. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Measures of the Policy Aspects of Gang Program Responses Special Policies Policies in Writing Influencing 0.461 *** 0.256 *** Legislation (219) (185) Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** =0.001 Table 4-11. Organizations Who Have Special Policies and Procedures for Dealing with Gangs and Organizations whose Special Gang Policies and Procedures are in Writing Policies in Writing Yes No Total 84 43 127 Yes (66.1) (33.9) (98.8) (41.7) Special Policies 1 60 61 No (01.6) (98.4) (01.2) (58.3) Total 85 103 188 Gamma = 0.98308 Tetrachoric Correlation = 0.920 *** (Significant at 0.001) Number of Missing Observations = 66 ORGANIZATION INFLUENCE AND COORDINATION Our three measures of internal and external organizational influence and coordination--the presence of internal and external advisory structures and interagency community-wide task forces -- are also highly significantly interrelated at the 0.001 level (See Table 4-12). Table 4-12. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Measures of Communication and Coordination Aspects of Gang Program Responses Internal External Advisory Advisory Structure Structure External 0.541 *** Advisory (233) Structure Inter-Agency 0.280 *** 0.272 *** Task Force (221) (229) Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 The three policy commitment and the three integrative mechanism or coordination responses, however, are not uniformly related to each other. Table 4-13 shows that special gang policies and influence on gang-related legislation are significantly related to internal advisory structures and interagency task force efforts at the 0.001 level of statistical significance. The variable of gang policies in writing, however, is not related to any of our three measures and coordination mechanisms at the 0.05 level of statistical significance, although it is almost significantly related to external advisory structure. The relationship between the presence of an external advisory structure and influencing legislation is clearly not significant. Agency policies in writing appears not to be a result of internal agency coordination or interagency task force influence efforts, although there may be some influence by external advisory structures on the development of particular agency policy commitment to the gang problem (Table 4-13), or vice versa. In general, agencies appear to have a weak pattern of policy commitment interrelated with an external advisory structure for dealing with the gang problem. Table 4-13. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Measures of Policy and Measure of Communication and Coordination in Gang Program Responses Internal External Inter-Agency Advisory Advisory Task Force Structure Structure Special 0.364 *** 0.144 * 0.339 *** Policies (218) (224) (216) Policies 0.086 0.158 0.098 in (183) (188) (179) Writing Influencing 0.236 *** -0.026 0.239 *** Legislation (224) (234) (225) Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 SPECIALIZED TRAINING Table 4-14 indicates there is a fairly consistent pattern of significant relationships between the availability of special training and other organizational responses to the gang problem. The availability of training is significantly related to the existence of expressed policies and procedures in writing (at the 0.001 level), but it is only moderately related to influencing legislation at the 0.05 level. Training availability is related to internal advisory structure at the 0.01 level and to interagency task forces at the 0.001 level. There is no relationship between training availability and external advisory structures. Table 4-14. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between the Availability of Special Gang Training for Personnel and Other Gang Program Responses Special Policies Influencing Policies in Writing Legislation Training 0.565 *** 0.420 *** 0.166 * Available (216) (186) (216) Internal External Inter-Agency Advisory Advisory Task Force Structure Structure Training 0.216 ** 0.062 0.403 *** Available (217) (220) (212) Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 ORGANIZATIONAL SPECIALIZATION Organizational specialization, i.e., special mechanisms, procedures, and staffing to deal with the gang problem, is consistently and sometimes strongly related to all of the other gang program responses (Table 4-15). It is reasonable to expect that an institutional modification as consequential as the formation of a special unit to deal with the gang problem should be related to the development of special policy and the availability of special training. Concern for legislation and involvement in community-wide efforts also are associated with organizational specialization. Perhaps most interesting are negative correlations between organizational specialization and internal and external advisory structures. It is possible that organizational specialization serves as a substitute for or retards the influence of internal and external advisory structures. However, organizational specialization is strongly and positively related to the presence of a community- wide task force where the specialized organization conceivably may serve primarily to protect organizational interests rather than to modify them. Again, we observe the distinctive, if not opposite, effects of internal and external agency advisory structures and community-wide coordination or task force groups. Table 4-15. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Organizational Specialization and Other Gang Program Responses Special Policies Influencing Training Policies in Writing Legislation Available Org. 0.479 *** 0.545 *** 0.407 *** 0.439 *** Spec. (229) (227) (239) (223) Internal External Inter-Agency Advisory Advisory Task Force Structure Structure Org. -0.146 * -0.238 *** 0.298 *** Spec. (234) (244) (233) Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 RELATIONSHIPS OF AGENCY RESPONSE TO GANG PROBLEM Finally, it is only logical to determine how various aspects of organizational response as described by each respondent are related to perceptions of the nature of the gang problem. We begin to address these relationships which turn out to be quite complex, first in simple correlational terms in this section. In latter chapters we examine these relationships through multivariate analyses. POLICIES The expression of special gang policy in an agency seems not related to any of the several measures of the youth gang nature of the problem (Table 4-16). The existence of such gang policy is not significantly related to number of gangs, number of gang members, size of larger gangs, gang ethnicity, incidents, involvement of adults, or criminality of gang members. Table 4-16. Point Biserial Correlations of Having a Special Gang Policy and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Number Number Upper % Black % Gangs Gang Average Members Hispanic Members Size of Gang Members Special .117 .099 .012 .026 -.019 Policy (213) (216) (159) (197) (165) % Incidents % Index Crimes % Gang Members Involving Gang-Related with Prior Adults Police Record Special -.043 .175 .046 Policy (137) (115) (180) Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 However, Table 4-17 shows that a stronger statement of agency direction or commitment in the form of a written policy is significantly related to measures of, and possible affects, or is affected by, the gang problem. The larger the number of gangs and gang members in the community, the more likely a written gang policy is to exist. This relationship is significant at the 0.01 level. Upper size of gangs is not significantly related to special written gang policies. There is an interesting negative relationship between the presence of a large percent of Hispanic gang members in a community and a written gang policy. This could be a function of the traditional communal character of gang activity and the generally informal response to it in such an area. Furthermore, we observe that the percentage of gang incidents involving adults and the percent of gang members having prior police records are not significantly related to written gang policy. However, there is a strong positive relationship, significant at the 0.01 level, between the percent of index crime that is attributed to gangs and an agency's having a gang policy in writing. In other words, a certain level of severity of the gang problem may call forth a more formal and committed response to it. Table 4-17. Point Biserial Correlations of Having a Special Gang Policy in Writing and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Number Number Upper % Black % Gangs Gang Average Members Hispanic Members Size of Members Gang Written .191** .191** -.100 -.019 -.011 Policy (179) (181) (141) (176) (176) % Incidents % Index Crimes % Gang Involving Gang-Related with Prior Adults Police Record Written .064 .293 ** .010 Policy (154) (107) (165) Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 Table 4-18 shows that agency attempts to influence legislation may be also somewhat related to measures of the nature of the gang problem. Number of gangs, number of gang members, and especially the involvement of adults in gang incidents are significantly related to attempts to influence gang legislation; however, the size, ethnicity, and criminality of gangs are not. The presence of legislative influence efforts does not suggest apparently any greater level of commitment to dealing with the gang problem than does the presence of a formal written policy. Table 4-18. Point Biserial Correlations of Influencing Gang Legislation and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Number Number Upper % Black % Gangs Gang Size Members Hispanic Members of Members Gang In- .144 * .146 * -.057 -.085 .057 fluence Legis- (228) (229) (162) (219) (219) lation % Incidents % Index % Gang Involving Crimes Members Adults Gang- with Prior Related Police Record Influence .256 *** .121 .057 Legislation (185) (122) (189) Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 Table 4-19 shows statistically significant relationships between different levels of policy- related statements dealing with the more serious or criminal aspects of the gang problem. Special (oral) policy is positively but mildly correlated with gangs of the same name in different areas, affiliation with adult criminal organizations, and drug importation. The relationship of gang affiliation with adult criminal organizations and having a special policy is significant at the 0.01 level. However, the relationship of drug distribution as a primary purpose of the gang and a special gang policy is not significant at the 0.05 level. The existence of a serious criminal youth gang problem seems to call forth an even stronger set of organizational response through written or more committed agency policy. The variable of written policy is related to gangs of the same name in different areas and drug distribution as a primary purpose of the gang at the 0.001 level of statistical significance and to gang affiliation with adult criminal organizations at the 0.001 level. Written gang policy, however, is not significantly related to the problems of gang importation of drugs. When we come to the third level of policy related agency effort, influencing legislation, we find that such effort is significantly related to all four problem measures, though the relationships to the two drug involvement measures are only significant at the 0.05 level (See Table 4.19). Table 4-19. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Measures of Policy Responses and Selected Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem Non- Affiliation Drug Gangs Local with Distrib- Import Gang Criminal ution Drugs Organization Gang Purpose Special 0.146 * 0.171 ** 0.072 0.141 * Policies (215) (214) (221) (194) Policies 0.233 *** 0.235 *** 0.259 *** 0.109 in Writing (183) (180) (184) (166) Influ- 0.223 *** 0.382 *** 0.143 * 0.139 * encing Legis- (224) (225) (229) (202) lation Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 ADVISORY STRUCTURES AND TASK FORCE RESPONSES Table 4-20 shows that there are no significant relationships between having an internal advisory structure and our selected measures of the nature of the gang problem, except for the significant negative relationship between having an internal advisory structure and the percent of incidents involving adults. The presence of an internal advisory structure seems to have little effect generally on the nature of the gang problem. Table 4-20. Point Biserial Correlations of Having an Internal Advisory Structure and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Number Number Upper % % Gangs Gang Size Black Hispanic Members of Members Members Gang Internal -.003 -.017 .040 -.076 .062 Advisory (224) (225) (163) (215) (215) Structure % Incidents % Index % Gang Involving Crime Members Adults Gang- with Prior Related Police Record Internal -.221 ** .078 -.101 Advisory (180) (124) (188) Structure Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 Table 4-21 shows the correlation between an external advisory structure and selected measures of the nature of the gang problem. These relationships are remarkable. Not only are they more consistent and stronger than those of internal agency structure on gang problems, but they are in a striking negative direction. The presence of an external advisory structure is significantly negatively related to number of gangs, number of gang members, upper size of gangs, percent of incidents involving adults and highly significantly negatively correlated with percent of gang members with prior police records. These correlations probably mean that a variety of gang problem characteristics are reduced with the presence of an advisory group or that these problems grow with the absence of such a structure. This is the first significant evidence we have that some policy of organizational structure may indeed contribute to a reduction of the gang problem, at least some of its basic structural and behavioral characteristics. Table 4-21. Point Biserial Correlations of Having an External Advisory Structure and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Number Number Upper % Black % Gangs Gang Size Members Hispanic Members of Members Gang External -.134 * -.141 * -.200 ** -.023 .035 Advisory (233) (234) (165) (223) (223) Structure % Incidents % Index % Gang Members Involving Crimes with Prior Adults Gang- Police Record Related External -.176 * -.046 -.242 *** Advisory (188) (128) (192) Structure Significant Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 Table 4-22 shows a pattern quite different and opposite from that indicated in Table 4-21. The presence of an interagency task force appears to be positively related to an increase in the number of gangs, number of gang members, and a rise in the percent of gang members with prior records. This suggests that an interagency task force may be associated with a worsening of the gang problem. As indicated earlier, it is possible that interagency task force or community-wide coordinating groups may be only high-level "talk" groups that do not adequately deal with the gang problem, or that it is a weak forum and merely a device for avoiding a major attack on the gang problem. Table 4-22. Point Biserial Correlations of an Interagency Task Force and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem. Number Number Upper % % Gangs Gang Average Black Hispanic Members Size of Members Members Gang Inter- .182 ** .243 *** -.015 -.032 .033 agency Task (224) (226) (162) (215) (215) Force % Incidents % Index % Gang Involving Crimes Members with Adults Gang- Police Related Records Interagency .139 -.065 .150 * Task Force (179) (124) (186) Significant Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 Table 4-23 contains correlation measures between four selected measures of the more criminal aspects of the gang problem and the two advisory group and the interagency task force response measures. Only the existence of an internal advisory structure shows any relationship to these four measures of the nature of the gang problem. The relationship between internal advisory structure and the presence of gangs of the same name that are found in different neighborhoods is significant at the 0.01 level. Drug distribution as a primary purpose of the gang is mildly related to having an internal advisory structure at the 0.05 level. There is no significant correlation between external advisory structures and task force or community-level groups and either of the four serious criminal problem measures in Table 4-23. This pattern suggests that the existence of an internal agency coordination structure is somewhat associated with an increase in the serious, criminal gang problem. The presence or absence of external agency or interagency task forces is not associated with any increase or decrease of the serious, criminal gang problem. Table 4-23. Tetrachoric correlation Coefficients Between Measures of Communication and Coordination Responses and Selected Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem Non- Affiliation Drug Gangs Local with Distrib- Import Gang Criminal ution Drugs Organ- Gang izations Purpose Internal 0.160 ** -0.068 0.155 * 0.115 Advisory (221) (222) (224) (193) Structure External -0.019 -0.097 0.068 0.077 Advisory (228) (229) (234) (206) Structure Inter- Agency 0.079 0.049 0.054 -0.074 Task Force (222) (221) (225) (200) Significance * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 AVAILABILITY OF TRAINING Table 4-24 indicates that the availability of special training for agency personnel is positively and significantly related to the number of gang members, number of gangs, and the percentage of gang members who have prior police records. There is a mild negative non-significant relationship between the availability of training but a negative significant relationship with the percent of total index crimes attributed to gangs. It is possible that a better trained staff does contribute to a reduction in the percent of index crime that is gang-related. However, all the other significant relationships with special training seem to be associated with an increase in gangs and crime. This is one of the very few sets of correlation analyses where contrary relationships occur. Overall, the possible effect of special training is not in the right direction. We also see a mixed pattern of relationships between special training and the serious gang problem. The presence of gangs affiliated with criminal organizations is negatively and significantly associated with special training but a rise in drug distribution as a primary gang purpose is positively and more strongly associated with special training. We are, again, not sure how to explain these contrary trends. Over all, specialized training per se does not appear to be a substantive contributor to the reduction of the gang problem. It probably develops more reactively to the presence of a growing and more serious gang problem. Table 4-24. Point Biserial Correlations of Having Special Training for Agency Staff Available and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Number Number Upper % % Gangs Gang Average Black Hispanic Members Size of Members Members Gang Special .177 ** .208 ** .132 -.108 .127 Train- ing (214) (216) (158) (205) (205) % Incidents % Index % Gang Involving Crimes Members Adults Gang- with Prior Related Police Record Special -.052 -.186 * .166 ** Training (170) (118) (183) Non- Affiliation Drug Gangs local with Distrib- Import Gangs Criminal ution Drugs Organizations Gang Purpose Special -.006 -.179 * .208 ** .064 Training (214) (131) (215) (190) Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 ORGANIZATIONAL SPECIALIZATION Table 4-25 shows the relationships between organizational specialization (e.g., creation of a police gang unit or a special youth outreach gang intervention program) and selected measures of the nature of the gang problem. Organizational specialization is positively and highly significantly associated with the number of gangs, number of gang members in a jurisdiction, percent of incidents involving adults, and percent of gang members with prior police records. There exists a positive relationship with drug distribution but negative associations with gang involvement in drug importation. Again, we find a mixed pattern of relationships that is not entirely explainable. The general finding is that the formation of a special gang unit per se is not associated with reduction, but rather an increase in the problem. Table 4-25. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients Between Organizational Specialization and Selected Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem Number Number Upper % % Gangs Gang Average Black Hispanic Members Size of Members Members Gang Org. .251 *** .299 *** -.023 -.119 -.117 Spec. (238) (235) (169) (231) (231) % Incidents % Index % Gang Involving Crimes Members Adults Gang- with Prior Related Police Record Org. .448 *** .107 .191** Spec. (193) (130) (196) Non- Affiliation Drug Gangs Local with Distrib- Import Gangs Criminal Gang Drugs Organizations Purpose Org. -0.122 -0.352 0.138 * -0.178 ** Spec. (236) (236) (242) (213) Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 SUMMARY This chapter begins to examine those characteristics of agency policy and structure addressed specifically to the gang problem. We continue to be somewhat more interested in the response of law enforcement agencies to the problem than that of other specific categories of respondents, at least in the first part of the analyses. The police remain the primary reactors and there are systematic differences in the way law enforcement and not-law enforcement agencies are structured and respond to the gang problem. Police departments generally are larger than most other agencies dealing with gang crime, whether in terms of suppression, intervention, or prevention. Policies for dealing with the gang problem, particularly written policies, and specialized training are more likely to be available to police officers. The largest difference between the law enforcement and non-law enforcement agency response is the significantly greater presence of special police gang units or programs for addressing the problem. On the other hand, the police are less likely to favor internal or interdepartmental coordinating mechanisms than are non-law enforcement agencies. This pattern is even more marked in regard to the use of external advisory groups to oversee or advise on special gang programs. Police gang unit or special gang officers may depend more on their own unit perceptions and internal organizational mandates then other types of agency gang program staff. However, they are clearly cooperative in participating in community-wide discussions or information sharing groups. Based on all survey respondent answers, we find a high degree of patterning by agencies in their anti-gang crime efforts. Various policies, agency internal, external agency, and general community task force structures seem to be highly interrelated. The weaker relationships appear to be between policies in writing and internal or external advisory structures and interagency task force. This pattern suggests an as yet very modest policy commitment by agencies related to the development of various structures for dealing with the gang problem. However, special training and special organizational units, when they exist, are part of a patterned approach for dealing with the gang problem. Organizational specialization and training appear to be especially highly interrelated with special policies, whether in writing or not. Interagency task forces and specialized training are also highly correlated. Of interest, however, may be the negative relationships between organizational specialization and external advisory structures. Apparently when an agency has made a major organizational change in dealing with the gang problem, it does not want to have some outside group closely examining or advising on what it is doing. We also attempted to interrelate these various agency policies, structures, and special program responses to the gang problem characteristics. We were interested in whether there was a connection between the agency's response and the level and severity of the gang problem. We wanted also to obtain some early notions -- which we develop in our last chapter -- as to whether agency policy and structure has some effect on reducing aspects of the problem. Our findings show that there is a stronger relation between written policies and influencing legislation and aspects of the gang problem, particularly numbers of gangs and gang members, than is the case where there is only a simple expression of agency concern or oral policy about gangs. However, the presence of these policies does not serve to reduce any of the characteristics of gang problems, including its more serious aspects. Agencies appear to be most reactive when there is evidence of non-local gangs or a spread of gangs across communities or jurisdictions and of affiliation of youth gangs with adult criminal organizations. There is little relationship between internal organizational and general community-wide coordinating mechanisms to aspects of the gang problem. When such relationships exist, it is usually in the wrong direction. This is so especially with the presence of interagency task forces. A rise in the number of gangs and gang members seems to call forth more interagency structures and meetings. On the other hand, the relationship of external advisory group to the gang problem is noteworthy. There is a significant relationship between external advisory structures and lower numbers of gangs, numbers of gang members, decreased size of gangs, lower percent of gang incidents involving adults, and lower percent of gang members in the community with prior records. This set of relationships could be interpreted as indicating that an external advisory group contributes to a reduction of several characteristics of the gang problem. An external advisory structure, however, has no effect on the more serious or criminal aspects of the gang problem. Finally, we observed that special training and the presence of a specialized gang unit or program were generally positively correlated with a variety of aspects of the gang problem, but that this effect was probably more reactive than proactive and did not directly lead to reduction of gang problem characteristics. Special agency responses to the gang problem have developed, but such responses, whether a policy, structural, or training nature are not yet associated with a reduction of various components of the problem. There is a consistent relationship, however, between the presence of an external advisory group and a reduction in several aspects of the gang problem. An external advisory group in some way may be an effective device for addressing gang problems. However, at present we do not know the reasons for this possible promising effect, but it does have policy implications. ----------------------------- CHAPTER 5 STRATEGIES AND CAUSES Agencies and community organizations respond to a problem such as gang crime in terms of statements or restatements of mission, goals, and objectives. Often abstract or highly generalized terms justify and sustain the programs and activities which these agencies -- public, private, non-profit, and sectarian -- carry out. Most respondents in our study represent organizations established to carry out activities broader than confronting gangs and gang crime. We attempted to develop a set of measures of the goals and objectives, key programs, or activities that characterize the organizations efforts to deal specifically with the gang problem. We have termed these measures strategies of intervention. At a conceptual level, they are situated between the idea of broad mission or goal statements and specific or discrete program activities. These strategies often are related to causes of the problem, or rationales for why programs to deal with the gang problem are carried out. Analyses of causes of community problems are difficult and complex on their own terms. Their relevance to strategies of intervention is further complicated in social policy arenas, since most organizations have not been established to deal specifically with gang crime. Social problems wax and wane, but most organizations seek to sustain themselves in relation to a side range of problems. However, a specific relationship between gang problem and strategy of intervention must be established sooner or later, if not for the sake of logic or common sense, then to justify requests for additional funding to deal with the gang problem, and public relations purposes. In order to understand an organization's response to gangs, we need to know something of its motivation. Program motivation and rationales are captured, to some extent in statements of strategy and the interrelationship of strategies within and across agencies: by respondent agency categories and by cities or areas. In this later section of the chapter, we prepare for the analysis in chapter six, which deals with the relationship between agency strategy and perceptions of, or actual, success in reducing the gang problem. Our survey respondents answered five open-ended questionnaire items intended to give us information on program activities, priority of strategies employed, and estimates of effectiveness of agency efforts. These items are: Item IV-1. What is your unit's or organization's goals and objectives in regard to the gang problem? Item VI-2. What has your department (or unit) done that you feel has been particularly successful in dealing with gangs? Please provide statistics, if relevant and available. Item VI-3. What has your department (or unit) done that you feel has been least effective in dealing with gangs? Item VI-6. What do you think are the five best ways employed by your department or organization for dealing with the gang problem? (Rank in order of priority) Item IV-14. What activities do gang or special personnel perform in dealing with the problem? [Probe to determine how these are tied to problem as described and goals/objectives.] We used the answers to these items to construct an empirically based and theoretically sensitive set of five underlying strategies. Our analysis relies most heavily on the responses to item V1-6. The strategies that evolved or were elaborated are community organization, social intervention, opportunities provision, suppression, and organizational development. The strategies are defined and their indicators, i.e., the statements or phrases of the respondents, are classified as follows. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION. Local community organization or neighborhood mobilization. Spergel's literature review (1990) lists community organization as one of four major strategies that have been employed historically in dealing with the gang problem. "Community organization is the term used to describe efforts to bring about adjustment, development, or change among groups and organizations in regard to community problems or social needs." Spergel (1969) uses the term "interorganizing," a key dimension of community organization or community organizing, to refer to "efforts at enhancing, modification, or change in intergroup or interorganizational relationships to cope with a community problem." Key words and phrases were employed by the respondents which at times could be clearly included in this community organization category, and at other times not. Decisions for placement of items in a category had to be made based on some appropriate rationale. For example, the contemporary term "networking," was classified under the strategy of community organization, unless it referred to law enforcement agencies. When networking involves only law enforcement agencies, it was classified under suppression (see below). References to "prevention," when they implied (and they usually did) intervention efforts across agencies, were coded as community organization. Prevention included mainly programming focused on at-risk youths prior to full-fledged gang membership. All references to attendance at meetings of community organizations and meeting with community leaders were regarded as pursuing a community organization strategy. After much consideration, we included advocacy for victims under the general strategy of suppression rather than community organization, since it can be viewed as part of a more basic strategy of crime control and punishment. Additional goals or activities encompassed by the community organization strategy were: cleaning up the community involving the schools mobilizing community building community trust involving parents (family) educating the community changing the community SOCIAL INTERVENTION. Youth outreach and street work counseling. We list youth outreach and streetwork as a second major gang program strategy. According to Spergel (1966), street work is "the practice variously labeled detached work, street club, gang work, area work, extension youth work, corner work, etc. It is the systematic effort of an agency worker, through social work or treatment techniques within the neighborhood context, primarily to help a group of young people who are described as delinquent or partially delinquent to achieve a conventional adaptation. This also requires the agent to work with or manipulate the people or other agency representatives who interact critically with members of the delinquent group." The notion of traditional streetwork may be somewhat outdated and is generally part of a larger strategy of social intervention that focuses on individual behavioral value change or transformation (Klein 1971). Therefore, we place streetwork under the more general category of social intervention. Recreational and sports activities are encompassed by this strategy. Social intervention includes counseling or direct attempts -- informational or guidance -- to change the values of youths in such a way as to make gang involvement less likely. The improvement of general education and the development of remedial educational or basic alternative educational programs are included under opportunities provisions below. Advocacy for individual gang members is classified as a social intervention goal. The following phrases of the respondents serve as indicators and fall in the social intervention category: crisis intervention referrals for services service activities religious conversion diversion counseling of gang outreach members providing model roles drug prevention/treatment youth leadership all psychological development approaches intergang mediation post-sentence group counseling social services temporary shelter working with gang tattoo removal leadership working with gang structure help members leave gang OPPORTUNITIES PROVISION. Jobs, job training, and education. We list opportunities provision as a third major gang strategy. Under this approach, Spergel (1990) includes "large scale resource infusions and efforts to change institutional structures including schools, job opportunities, political participation, and the development of a new relationship between the federal government and local neighborhoods in the solution not only of delinquency but of poverty itself." Here are included efforts to stimulate the development of new and improved school, special training and job programs, and business and industry involvement in the social and economic advancement of people, including youth, in disadvantaged inner-city and rural areas. Also included are efforts to assist individuals with education, training, and jobs. Key words or phrases included under opportunities provision are: job preparation assistance with school job training tutoring job placement education of gang youth job development SUPPRESSION. Arrest, incarceration, and supervision. Spergel lists suppression, i.e., arrest, incarceration, and supervision, as the fourth major gang program strategy. Under this approach gang members are "arrested, prosecuted, and removed for long prison sentences." Tactical patrols by police gang units, vertical prosecution, intensive supervision and vertical case management by probation departments, legislation targeted at gang members and interagency task forces involving criminal justice actors only are placed in this category. Also included are information systems, i.e., gathering, collecting, and maintaining information as well as information sharing or the publishing and distribution of information on gangs, that facilitates law enforcement. Other key words or phrases included are: enforcement monitoring identification neutralization restraint legal consequences investigation arrest removal from adjudication community discipline correctional intelligence placement apprehension law enforcement liaison ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE. New organizational procedures and mechanisms or adaptations. A fifth category that has a modifying or limited developmental quality refers to organizational adaptions and changes that facilitate the achievement of the other strategies. Especially characteristic of this is organizational specialization to deal with the gang problem, e.g., forming a special gang unit in the police department, hard-core prosecution, or vertical case management in probation. It also includes emphasis on such procedures as needs assessment and evaluation. Other indicators under this strategy are: internal agency specialized coordination training improving organizational additional efficiency resources program development use of media Coding Method. Using these written guidelines, the two senior members of the research team separately classified, or interpreted the rankings of, the strategies of each of the 254 respondents. We agreed independently on approximately 70 percent of the classifications of the hundreds of separate items. After hours of case-by-case discussion, agreement was reached on which categories to place all items in and their appropriate orderings. We note that not all respondents provided items for five separate strategies. Some of the items essentially repeated a particular strategy. If an item repeated a strategy already ranked, it was eliminated. Each item was ranked into one strategy only. Distribution of Strategies. Table 5-1 shows the distribution of strategies by rank for all of the respondents. As can be seen, the most common first or primary strategy of agencies in our survey is suppression (44 percent) followed by social intervention (31.5 percent). Organizational change (10.9 percent) and community organization (8.9 percent) are comparably less common as first or primary strategies. Provision of opportunities as a primary strategy is infrequent (4.8 percent). Over the total listing of strategies, suppression was still the most often chosen and opportunities and organizational change or development the least frequently selected (Table 5-1). Since the majority of respondents is from criminal justice agencies, this distribution of strategies is not surprising. Table 5-1. Distribution of All Strategy Rankings Strategy Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Total Community 22 58 35 5 1 121 Organ- (8.9) (23.4) (14.1) (2.0) (0.4) (21.2) ization Social 78 46 19 3 0 146 Inter- (31.5) (18.5) (7.7) (1.2) (25.5) vention Oppor- 12 38 15 4 0 69 tunities (4.8) (15.3) (6.0) (1.6) (121.0) Suppres- 109 35 16 4 1 165 sion (44.0) (14.1) (6.5) (1.6) (0.4) (28.8) Organ- 27 21 18 5 0 71 izational Change (10.9) (8.5) (7.3) (2.0) (12.4) ------ 572 (100.0 percent) Table 5-2. Primary Strategy by Respondent Type Primary Strategy Comm. Soc. Opps. Suppr. Org. Org. Int. Chng. Law 5 3 0 34 10 Enforcement 9.6 5.8 65.4 19.2 Prosecution 2 0 0 22 2 7.7 84.6 7.7 Court 0 0 1 11 1 7.7 84.6 7.7 Probation 3 3 0 22 3 9.7 9.7 71.0 9.7 Corrections 0 3 1 3 1 37.5 12.5 37.5 12.5 Parole 1 2 0 5 2 10.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 Schl. 1 3 0 4 1 Security 11.1 33.3 44.4 11.1 Schl. 3 10 3 7 1 Academic 12.5 41.7 12.5 29.2 4.2 Youth 4 38 4 0 0 Services 8.7 82.6 8.7 Comprehensive 0 2 0 0 1 66.7 33.3 Family Services 0 7 1 0 0 87.5 12.5 Grass Roots 2 3 0 0 0 40.0 60.0 Defense 0 1 0 0 0 Attorneys 100.0 Planning 1 3 1 1 5 9.1 27.3 9.1 9.1 45.5 Other 0 0 1 0 0 Variations in primary strategy by respondent category are almost completely, as to be expected, shown in Table 5-2. Respondents from law enforcement (65.4 percent), prosecution (84.6 percent), the court (84.6 percent), probation (71 percent), and parole (50 percent) indicate that their primary strategy is suppression. School security (44.4 percent) also emphasizes suppression as a primary strategy. For corrections respondents, social intervention (37.5 percent) as well as suppression is regarded as a primary strategy. Social intervention is the dominant primary strategy for youth services (82.6 percent), family services (87.5 percent), comprehensive intervention services (66.7 percent), and grass-roots organization (60 percent) respondents. Social intervention is also the most common primary strategy for non-security school respondents (41.7 percent). Organizational change and development is the most frequently mentioned primary strategy by planning agency respondents (45.5 percent) (See Table 5-2). Table 5-3 indicates that the number of strategy choices varied by respondent category. Forty-nine (49) respondents (19.8 percent) have only one strategy for dealing with the gang problem. Prosecution is the only respondent category that is dominated by a single-strategy approach (65.4 percent): suppression. The most common number of strategies by respondent category is two (37.9 percent) or three (33.5 percent). Probation, corrections, parole, school security, youth services, and planning respondents are most likely to exhibit a two-strategy approach. Law enforcement, the court, academic personnel in school, and grassroots personnel are more likely to produce three-strategy approaches. Table 5-3. Number of Responses by Respondent Category Number and Percent of Responses Category 1 2 3 4 5 Law 5 21 23 3 0 Enforcement 9.6 40.4 44.2 5.8 Prosecution 17 5 3 1 0 65.4 19.2 11.5 3.8 Court 4 3 5 1 0 30.8 23.1 38.5 7.7 Probation 5 14 9 3 0 16.1 45.2 29.0 9.7 Corrections 1 5 2 0 0 12.5 62.5 25.0 Parole 0 6 3 1 0 60.0 30.0 10.0 Schl. 0 5 2 1 1 Security 55.6 22.2 11.1 11.1 Schl. 6 4 10 3 1 Academic 25.0 16.7 41.7 12.5 4.2 Youth 5 21 17 3 0 Services 10.9 45.7 37.0 6.5 Compre- 0 0 1 1 1 hensive 33.3 33.3 33.3 Family 3 1 3 1 0 Services 37.5 12.5 37.5 12.5 Grass Roots 1 1 3 0 0 20.0 20.0 60.0 Defense 0 1 0 0 0 100.0 Planning 2 6 2 1 0 18.2 54.5 18.2 9.1 Other 0 1 0 0 0 100.0 Total 49 94 83 19 3 19.8 37.9 33.5 7.7 1.2 The most common two-strategy combination for law enforcement personnel is suppression as primary strategy and community organization as secondary strategy. This pattern is found for 17 (32.7 percent) of the law enforcement respondents. Among youth service agencies the most common two-strategy combination is (1) social intervention first with opportunity provision second (41.3 percent, n=19) and (2) social intervention first with community organization second (23.9 percent, n=11). Multiple (more than two) strategy approaches are characteristic of the three comprehensive crisis intervention service respondents. It should be emphasized that within any particular agency category a range of strategies can be found. Thus some police employ community organization and/or social intervention strategies. It should be noted that a variety of social service or youth service agencies select suppression strategies. Table 5-4 describes the matrix of strategies selected by the different categories of respondent and further elaborates the analysis of strategy. Here the key question is whether or not a specific strategy is indicated by a respondent regardless of its rank in comparison to other strategies pursued by the same agency. From this table we can see the rather commonsense result that all law enforcement and prosecution respondents have suppression somewhere in their strategy agenda. Only one school security respondent evades this classification. Likewise all four kinds of community-based and service agencies have social intervention in their strategy agenda. All three of the comprehensive service agencies have the provision of opportunities and alternatives among their strategies. Only one of the three comprehensive agencies has suppression as a strategy and we know from the foregoing tables that suppression is the fifth ranked strategy for that agency. Again we note that the entire range of strategies is represented for almost all categories of respondent. MDS STRATEGY DIFFERENCES Multi-dimensional scaling analysis was again used to construct explanatory maps to illustrate the differences with respect to primary strategy first among cities and sites and then among respondent categories. We locate the areas or categories in social distance space along horizontal and vertical dimensions to discover where each of the areas or respondent categories, respectively, lie. (See the discussion accompanying Appendix Tables 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, and Appendix Figure 5-1). The results of our analysis suggest that respondents in some emerging gang problem cities are more likely to emphasize strategies of community organization and organizational development as a response to the gang problem, while respondents in other emerging gang problem cities are almost totally likely to emphasize a suppression approach. It is possible that as a gang problem emerges in cities, the first reactions are to pull the community together, develop special organizational arrangements, or, more often, to go all out with a suppression approach. The chronic gang problem cities, with much exposure to the problem and longer experience in dealing with it, appear to develop more balanced approaches, combining community organization and suppression, but with considerable emphasis on social intervention. Table 5-4. Variety of Strategies Used by Respondents Com. Soc. Opps/ Suppress Org. Org. Int. Alts Chnge. Law 33 21 3 52 20 Enforcement 63.5 40.4 5.8 100.0 38.5 Prosecution 6 1 0 26 7 23.1 3.8 100.0 26.9 Court 3 5 3 13 5 21.4 35.7 21.4 92.9 35.7 Probation 14 14 6 30 8 43.8 43.8 18.8 93.8 25.0 Corrections 2 5 5 4 1 25.0 62.5 62.5 50.0 12.5 Parole 5 7 0 8 5 45.5 63.6 72.7 45.5 Schl. 5 4 3 8 5 Security 55.6 44.4 33.3 88.9 55.6 Schl. Other 12 20 11 12 6 46.2 76.9 42.3 46.2 23.1 Youth Services 21 46 26 8 9 45.7 100.0 56.5 17.4 19.6 Comp. Services 3 3 3 1 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 33.3 66.7 Family Services 4 8 4 1 1 50.0 100.0 50.0 12.5 12.5 Grass Roots 4 5 2 1 0 80.0 100.0 40.0 20.0 Defense 1 1 0 0 0 100.0 100.0 Planning 8 5 2 1 8 66.7 41.7 16.7 8.3 66.7 Other 0 1 1 0 0 100.0 100.0 The results of the multi-dimensional scaling analysis of the strategies of respondents by type of agency or community organization are less revealing. Respondents from criminal justice agencies--especially prosecution, court, probation, and law enforcement--emphasize suppression strategies. Grassroots, social service, and planning agencies tend to emphasize social intervention strategies. School, parole, and corrections respondents are somewhere in the middle. Community organization and organizational development strategies are relatively more emphasized by social service, grass-roots, and planning agencies. The provision of opportunities does not greatly contribute to the location of the different types of respondents in multi-dimensional space (See the discussion accompanying in Appendix Tables 5-8, 5-9, and Appendix Figure 5-2). Thus, in this section, we have demonstrated that it is possible to classify objectives and activities of organizations dealing with community organization, social intervention, opportunities provision, suppression, and, to some extent, organizational development and change. Both cities and categories of respondents appear to emphasize different combinations of strategies. Criminal justice respondents clearly emphasize suppression strategies. Non-criminal justice system respondents emphasize in varying degrees mainly social intervention strategies. A range of strategies, however, are not uncommon among the different categories of respondents. Community organization is an important secondary strategy, but organizational change and especially opportunities provision strategies are hardly emphasized. We find the newer or emerging gang problem cities to be more concerned with community organization and especially suppression strategies and the chronic problem cities emphasize a broader range of strategies, including suppression, social intervention, and community organization, as well as to a limited extent, opportunities provision. To what extent these strategies are related to perceptions of effectiveness or reduction of the youth gang problem, we address in Chapter 6. PERCEIVED CAUSES OF THE GANG PROBLEM Organizations at first respond to social problems, including gang crime, in terms of traditional organizational mission, specific disciplinary approaches, and contemporary fashions. Quick action tends to follow upon a gang crisis or a series of publicized crisis events, whether a police sweep or an expansion of a social intervention program. Ideas of cause or justification for the strategies of action taken usually come as afterthoughts, in part to justify methods of action already selected. A systematic causal analysis does not often precede a course of agency action. From a research and development perspective, we thought it was important, nevertheless, to obtain some expression by the survey respondents of causes of the gang problem, a ranking of such causes, as well as by implication a determination of the degree of possible relationship between cause and strategic response to the gang problem. Thus, we asked the following question (Item VI-4) and requested a rank order, as we did with the strategy question (see above): What do you think are the five most important causes of the gang problem in your city? (Rank in order of priority) From the 245 open-ended responses, we developed a list of 23 categories. As with strategy determinations, the two senior members of the research team first classified all answers separately. The conflicts in classification were minimal and were quickly resolved through case-by- case discussion. We grouped the stated causes into four major categories. The first set of causal perceptions involves broad issues at the level of the social system such as poverty, unemployment, criminal opportunities, drug sales opportunities, patterns of migration and changes in neighborhood population composition, and any other references to major urban changes. The second set of causes refers to failures of basic institutions, in particular, the family and schools, and also the absence of adequate role models in the neighborhood. The third set of causes focuses at the individual level and includes substance abuse, psychological explanations (most frequently lack of self-esteem or the existence of personal pathology), peer pressures, fear of violence or intimidation, and the desire for self-protection through gang affiliation. Finally, many of our respondents recognize that the gang problem now exists within the context of numerous attempts to resolve it. These response effects are placed in a fourth category which include placing the blame on the police, the courts, or other representatives of the legal system, liberalism, lack of "community," the absence of social services and recreation programs for youth, media exploitation, discrimination and race relations, school busing, a punitive labeling process, lack of agency resources committed to dealing with the gang problem, politicians using the gang problem to fulfill personal ambitions, denying that a gang problem exists, and adults exploiting the legal system by using youths to perform criminal acts. Patterns of causal explanation do not seem to vary much across categories of respondents and cities. In order to compress our report and avoid excessive detail, we present the results of our analysis of perceived causes in this section only for the law enforcement and non-law enforcement groups of respondents. We find the patterns to be quite similar. The proportions of answers falling into each category given by law enforcement and other respondents are comparable. Only for causes associated with institutional failure is there a difference greater than ten percentage points (Tables 5-10 and 5-11). Table 5-10. Perceived Causes of the Gang Problem (Law Enforcement Only) N % % System/Structural 45 86.5 90.0 Poverty/Unemployment 30 57.7 60.0 Criminal Opportunity 6 11.5 12.0 Drug Phenomena 23 44.2 46.0 Migration/Demographics 6 11.5 12.0 Urban Ecology 4 7.7 8.0 Institutional Failure 32 61.5 64.0 Family Breakdown/Failure 27 51.9 54.0 School Failure/Dropout 17 32.7 34.0 Lack of Role Models 2 3.8 4.0 Individual Level 26 50.0 52.0 Problems Drug/Alcohol Use 0 0.0 0.0 Psychological 18 34.6 36.0 Explanations Peer/Gang Influence 15 28.8 30.0 Self-Protection/Fear 11 21.2 22.0 Response Effects 30 57.7 60.0 Legal System Failure 8 15.4 16.0 Liberalism 0 0.0 0.0 Community Agency 9 17.3 18.0 Failure Lack of 14 26.9 28.0 Services\Programs Media 4 7.7 8.0 Discrimination/Race 5 9.6 10.0 Relations Labeling 0 0.0 0.0 Lack of Resources 3 5.8 6.0 Committed Politics 1 1.9 2.0 Denial 5 9.6 10.0 Adult Exploitation of 0 0.0 0.0 Juvenile Justice System Missing values -- 2 The ordering of perceived causes of the gang problem by law enforcement and non-law enforcement respondents were also very similar. They fall primarily into the system or structural category. Ninety percent of law enforcement and 91.2 percent of non-law enforcement respondents listed at least one of the system factors as a causal element. Poverty and unemployment were the most often selected particular causes, followed by drug- selling opportunities, within this category. The second most frequent general category of cause of the problem listed was institutional failure, with family breakdown viewed as the most often cited cause, followed by school failure and dropout. Response effects, i.e., defects in policies or programs established to deal with the problem, comprised the third most frequent set of causes selected to explain gang crime. They include mainly lack of services and community agency failures. The law enforcement group also emphasizes legal system failures and the denial by agencies and government officers that a gang problem exists. The fourth most frequently listed general set of causes are at the individual level. Psychological problems and peer/gang group influence are regarded as important factors. Law enforcement respondents more often emphasize the need of gang members to protect themselves from other gang members while non-law enforcement respondents more often emphasize drug and alcohol abuse by gang members or gang-prone youth as a cause of gang crime. Table 5-11. Perceived Causes of the Gang Problem (Not Including Law Enforcement) N % % System/Structural 177 87.6 91.2 Poverty/Unemployment 133 65.8 68.6 Criminal Opportunity 27 13.4 13.9 Drug Phenomena 78 38.6 40.2 Migration/Demographics 14 6.9 7.2 Urban Ecology 8 4.0 4.1 Institutional Failure 151 74.8 77.8 Family Breakdown/Failure 108 53.5 55.7 School Failure/Dropout 97 48.0 50.0 Lack of Role Models 11 5.4 5.7 Individual Level Problems 99 49.0 51.0 Drug/Alcohol Use 17 8.4 8.8 Psychological 66 32.7 34.0 Explanations Peer/Gang Influence 40 19.8 20.6 Self-Protection/Fear 18 8.9 9.3 Response Effects 122 60.4 62.9 Legal System Failure 17 8.4 8.8 Liberalism 3 1.5 1.5 Community Agency Failure 39 19.3 20.1 Lack of Services/Programs 59 29.2 30.4 Media 9 4.5 4.6 Discrimination/Race 22 10.9 11.3 Relations Labeling 1 0.5 0.5 Lack of Resource 9 4.5 4.6 Commitment Politics 3 1.5 1.5 Denial 6 3.0 3.1 Adult Exploitation of 3 1.5 1.5 Juvenile Justice System Missing values -- 8 MDS CAUSAL PERCEPTIONS Again we performed a multi-dimensional scaling analysis comparing first cities or areas and then the categories of respondents in social distance space on certain causal perception dimensions. The primary cause was selected as the basis for the analysis. There was a slight tendency for emerging cities to emphasize institutional failures and response effects, while chronic cities tended to emphasize structural factors. Overall, there seems little to distinguish patterns of perceived primary cause by emerging or chronic gang problem cities (See Appendix Tables 5-12, 5-13, Appendix Figure 5- 3 and accompanying discussion). The social distance map by category of respondents, however, produces interesting variations. Criminal justice respondents, particularly parole and corrections but also grass-roots organization respondents, emphasize structural factors as the cause of the gang problem. Surprisingly, comprehensive service personnel do not regard system factors as a primary cause. Also, parole and grass-roots respondents are located very high on the dimension that emphasizes agency response factors (See Appendix Tables 5-14, 5-15 and Appendix Figure 5-4 and accompanying discussion). RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERCEIVED CAUSE AND STRATEGY We are not clear in this analysis whether and to what extent perceived cause of the gang problem precedes agency strategy or is in part a consequence of it. It is, nevertheless, important to attempt to see if there is some relationship between perceived cause and strategy, i.e., to match on some aggregate basis or to correlate cause and strategy at the individual respondent level. Our analysis is inferential since we did not ask the respondents to provide a basis for their agency's strategies or to match or correlate specific causes and strategies. A comparison at the aggregate level of frequencies of causes and response strategies of intervention indicates the likelihood of a mismatch (Table 5- 16). A total of 572 strategy and 549 cause responses were classified. We make an assumption that certain categories of cause should be related grossly to certain categories of strategy. Community organization strategies should deal mainly with structural level problems. Table 5-16, however, suggests that respondents do not sufficiently use the community organization strategy (21.2 percent) commensurate with the frequency of perceived institutional-level causes (27.5 percent) or system-level causes (32.2 percent). Table 5-16. Comparison of Strategy and Cause Responses: Number (%) Strategy No. (%) Cause No. (%) Community 121 (21.2): Insti- 151 (27.5) Organization tution Social 146 (25.5): Individual 99 (18.0) Intervention Level Opportunities 69 (12.1): System/ 177 (32.2) Provision Structural Suppression 165 (28.2): Response 122 (22.2) Effects Organizational 71 (12.4) Change ----- ------- ----- ------ 572 (100.0) 549 (100.0) Social intervention may be associated most closely with an individual personal or interpersonal causal problem orientation. We find that social intervention is a major response or strategy category (25.5 percent), which outweighs at the aggregate level the frequency of individual causal factors (18.0 percent) identified. A major mismatch appears to be between the number of items classified in the opportunities provision strategy category (12.1 percent) and in the structural causal category, particularly poverty/unemployment (32.2 percent) and the institutional category (27.5 percent), particularly school deficiencies and failures. There would seem to be a significant mismatch, even if we aggregated the causal categories of institutional- and system-level causes on the one hand and the strategy categories of community organization and opportunities provision on the other. The amount of attention directed to opportunities provision seems grossly inadequate in relation to the level of need, particularly at structural and institutional levels. A key limitation or mitigating factor, however, may be that many of the agencies represented in our survey are by mission and tradition not required to provide basic opportunities. We are not as clearly able to assess the degree of match or mismatch between a suppression strategy and related causal factors. To some extent the suppression strategy (28.8 percent) may be most related to the response set of causal factors (22.2 percent) particularly those which refer to a breakdown in social service and criminal justice systems. Nevertheless, there would still seem to be a relative over-emphasis on this strategy for dealing with the gang problem. There is another way to address the degree and direction in which cause and strategy are related. Individual level correlations may help clarify and elaborate this aggregate level comparison. From the outset, we have felt that certain strategies should be rationally associated with specific perceptions of cause by the particular respondents. If the cause of the problem is seen as the lack of legitimate opportunities such as jobs, it would seem logical that the remedy lie in providing additional jobs or legitimate opportunities. Table 5-17 examines these individual respondent-level relationships. Our first expectation is supported by the highly statistically significant and positive association between opportunities and structural system-level explanations of the gang problem. It is similarly reasonable that individualistic solutions associated with social intervention are incompatible with a system-level explanation of the problem. This expectation also is supported by the highly significant negative relationship between system-level cause and social intervention as a primary strategy. Other relationships, that might be expected, however, do not appear to be significant. Institutional-level causes and community organization strategies do not appear to be related to other sets of variables. However, other relationships in Table 5-17 are in possibly explainable directions. The negative relationship between individual-level causes and provision of opportunities is again to be expected. The positive relationship between social intervention and response effect is somewhat understandable. There is a history of experience of social intervention in response to institutional failures (Spergel 1990). A negative association between response- effect causes and suppression and organizational development strategies is also somewhat explainable. Some respondents may believe that police sweeps and specialized agency efforts to deal with the gang problem do not work. We will pursue this discussion further in Chapter 6 when we examine the idea that certain strategies of intervention in fact do reduce the scope and severity of the gang problem. We attempt to discover which strategies are related to various measures of program effectiveness as indicated by our survey respondents. Table 5-17. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Perceived Primary Cause and Primary Strategy Strategy Commnty Soc Opps Supprssn Org Perceived Org Inter Alts Dev/ Cause Change System .027 -.223*** .239*** .072 .122 Structure Insti- -.042 .033 -.036 -.002 -.004 tutional Level Individual .020 .060 -.125 * .031 -.051 Level Response -.001 .270*** -.111 -.159** -.194** Effect n = 241 *** Significant at the 0.001 level. ** Significant at the 0.01 level. * Significant at the 0.05 level. NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS OF AREAS AND RESPONDENTS Both to elaborate our discussion of community organization and especially interagency relationship strategies and to prepare for our analysis of factors which may contribute to a successful reduction of the gang problem, we subject our data again to an exploratory network analysis. The analysis is based on responses to Item V-4. Item V-4. With which other justice or community agencies is your unit in most contact? (Rank order) (List as many as 5). However, the limitation of the number of agencies that may be named by our respondents may weaken the results we report here. It does not allow the possibility that every respondent can be named as a contact in sites where there are more than six respondents, and, therefore, could create a built- in bias against the strengths of larger networks, particularly those in large or chronic problem cities. This does not, however, prove to be the case with at least one of our outcome analysis in chapter 6. We employ a set of sociometric procedures developed by Burt (1982) to determine the level of social cohesiveness or density of respondent interactions in various cities as well as the degree of city or community level prominence by different respondent categories in dealing with the gang problem. Our analysis indicates that emerging gang problem cities have denser networks with more prominent or centrally located actors in network space. This could be based in part on our choice limitations, as they affect somewhat larger cities. The analysis of respondent categories also suggests that certain criminal justice actors (law enforcement, prosecution, and probation) have taken leading roles in dealing with the gang problem. This is not to deny that certain other actors such as school security, comprehensive social intervention services, and grass-roots organizations also may be called in to deal with the gang problem (For details of the method involved in the development of these measures, see Appendix Tables 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, and 5-21 and accompanying discussion). SUMMARY Five strategies were identified as the basis for agency policy and problems: community organization, social intervention, opportunities provision, suppression, and organizational development and change. Community organization refers to efforts to bring about adjustment, development, or change among groups and organizations in regard to community problems or social needs. It includes such notions as networking, mobilizing the community, building community trust, and interagency collaboration in preventive effort. Social intervention focuses on individual value change or behavioral transformation. Detached work, street gang work, and individual, family, and group counseling are key methods of this strategy. Opportunities provision emphasizes the infusion of resources such as basic education, training, and jobs. Specific concern is with the development of specific opportunities targeted at gang youths. Suppression refers to a strategy of arrest, incarceration, and supervision. It includes use of specialized police patrols, vertical prosecution, and special probation management, as well as gang tracking information systems. Finally, organizational development and change indicates efforts to modify or expand agency structures, usually through some innovative or additional procedures or specialized unit to deal with the gang problem. These strategies are often used in various combinations by a particular agency. The primary strategy employed was of special interest in the analysis conducted. Suppression as a primary strategy was most frequently listed (44.0 percent) by respondents, followed by social intervention (31.5 percent). Opportunities was the least frequently employed primary strategy (4.8 percent). It was also the least frequently employed strategy at any level of priority (12.1 percent). Prosecutors and judges were most highly committed to use of a suppression strategy, with probation and police also committed to this strategy. Social agencies and grass-roots organizations were most highly committed to use of social intervention strategies. Across cities, there was evidence, based on a multi-dimensional scaling analysis, that some emerging gang problem cities emphasized strategies of community organization and organizational development while others emphasized almost a total suppression approach as a first set of reactions to the gang problem. Chronic gang cities seemed to develop more balanced approaches, combining community organization and suppression with considerable emphasis on social intervention. The research also examined the nature of causes that respondents attributed to the gang problem. We attempted to relate patterns of cause and strategy to each other. In general, strategies of intervention were only partially related to the nature of the problem and its genesis, but perhaps more often to general agency missions or the disciplinary orientations of the respondents. The causes described by respondents of the gang problem in the particular cities were classified into four major categories. The first cause is system/structural, comprising mainly poverty and unemployment factors. Opportunities to sell drugs were also classified as a system-level cause. The second set of causes referred to the failure of basic institutions, such as family and schools. The third set focused on individual-level causes such as psychological problems and substance abuse. The fourth set indicated response organization effects, such as defects in the way police, court systems, and social services or youth programs addressed the gang problem. In general, respondent categories, particularly law enforcement and non-law enforcement, selected remarkably similar sets of causes for the gang problem. The most frequently selected categories of cause were system/structural, especially poverty and unemployment. Institutional and response-effect causes, respectively, were second and third most frequently used. The least frequently selected causes were at the individual level. Again, we performed a multi-dimensional scaling analysis and found little difference in pattern of causes by city, whether emerging or chronic problem areas. However, we found some differences by categories of respondents. Criminal justice respondents, especially parole and corrections, chose primarily system level causes. Surprisingly, comprehensive crisis intervention service respondents unlike most other respondent categories emphasized a variety of primary causes other than system factors. A gross or adequate level comparison of the relation of frequencies of strategies to causes suggested a mismatch between emphasis on system- or structural-level cause with little strategic attention to opportunities provision. Suppression and social intervention strategies seem to outweigh the frequency of individual-level and response- effect causes reported. It was possible there was not a good fit, because our respondent agencies other than schools were not necessarily mandated primarily to provide certain approaches and programs, e.g., employment, education, and job training. At the individual level of analysis, we did find expected relationships, both positive and negative, between certain categories of perceived primary cause and primary strategy. Systems-level causes are highly significantly and positively related to opportunities provision and highly negatively related to an emphasis on social intervention. Response effect, or failure of institutions in their specific programs to deal with the gang problem, is positively related to social intervention. On the other hand, suppression and organizational change strategies are negatively related to response effects, suggesting that the failures of organizations and institutions result in greater use of suppression strategies and efforts to modify organizational arrangements. In further elaboration of the community organization strategy, and since a number of our earlier findings suggested weakness or fragmentation of community structure, we subjected our data to a limited interagency respondent network analysis. We employed a variety of sociometric analyses to determine the level of social cohesiveness or density of relationships of respondents to each other in various cities, as well as the prominence of certain actors in these community networks. We find, that emerging gang problem cities are somewhat more cohesive or have denser networks, with more prominent, centrally located actors. Certain criminal justice actors (police, prosecutors, and probation) have taken leadership roles in dealing with the gang problem across types of cities. The results of these network analyses become important in later discriminant analyses of chronic and emerging gang problem cities and are of value in constructing models of successful approaches to reduce the problem (see Chapter 6). ------------------------------ CHAPTER 6 EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTION The primary purpose of our survey was to assess the youth gang problem, particularly the response to it. We seek to discover those approaches that promise a reduction of the youth gang problems. Our survey was cross-sectional, not longitudinal. It was not an evaluational study, even on a post-hoc basis. Hard data useful for the determination of whether the youth gang problem had fallen, risen, or remained the same was not available, except in a few large cities, until a later special data- collection process. As our analysis in Chapter 2 suggested, it was difficult, if not impossible, to assess the problem in a reliable, consistent fashion across cities or jurisdictions because so many definitions existed. In order to determine whether the youth gang problem had changed and whether particular approaches, including certain policies, procedures, and strategies had contributed to those changes, we had to rely primarily on the perceptions of our respondents. We asked whether the problem changed and in which direction. We asked for evidence of change when it was available. We asked respondents to rate the effectiveness of agency and interagency or community-wide approaches to the problem. The answers to these questions became our dependent or outcome variables. These were the best indicators we could find of success. Our findings on the nature and scope of the problem and specific organizational responses, especially strategies of intervention, were respectively our conditional and independent variables. We were interested in the views of law enforcement personnel, and later the quantitative data they made available to us to determine that change occurred over an eight-year period in the level of the youth gang problem. We were, of course, interested in whether different types of approaches work better in chronic or emerging gang problem cities. Much of our analysis in this chapter has been foreshadowed earlier. We address the issue of effectiveness, however, more directly. We try to relate our variables or test our ideas more closely, namely through multivariate analyses. Still our findings are tentative and suggestive, rather than definitive. They provide not only a basis for further analysis of the present data, but for the selection and field testing of those approaches, particularly strategies, structures, and procedures that seem promising. They also provide some immediate guidance as to which general policy emphases may prove fruitful. CHANGES IN THE LEVEL OF THE PROBLEM We tried to discover the nature of the gang problem and how it had changed over time, by means of a series of questions throughout the survey, closed and open-ended. Of special interest were answers to the following items: III-18. Has the gang situation changed since 1980? III-19. If yes, how? The content analysis results indicate generally that the gang problem has gotten more serious since 1980. Only 13.5 percent of law enforcement respondents and 7.8 percent of other respondents cite unequivocal improvement since 1980. Both a majority of the police (55.8 percent) and of the non-law enforcement respondents (67.4 percent) state unquestionably that the situation has worsened (Table 6-1). In almost all cases of a classification of a worsened situation, and even where the situation was regarded as improved, drug selling was mentioned as a major or minor problem. Eleven and a half percent (11.5 percent) of law enforcement respondents and 14.5 percent of other respondents emphasize exclusively the increased involvement of gangs in drugs and drug trafficking. A few (9.6 percent of law enforcement respondents and 2.6 percent of other respondents) note a period of problem growth since 1980 followed more recently by a period of improvement. A smaller group has seen improvement followed by more recent worsening of the problem. The ambivalent "some better/some worse" answers (almost 6 percent) include responses such as "there are fewer gang members but they are better armed and more violent." Table 6-1. How Has the Gang Situation Changed Since 1980? (Law Enforcement Only) N % Worsened 29 55.8 Improved 7 13.5 Stayed Same 1 1.9 Drugs Most Important 6 11.5 Worsened/Improved 5 9.6 Improved/Worsened 1 1.9 Some Better/Some Worse 3 5.8 Total 52 100.0 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % Worsened 130 67.4 Improved 15 7.8 Stayed Same 2 1.0 Drugs Most Important 28 14.5 Worsened/Improved 5 2.6 Improved/Worsened 2 1.0 Some Better/Some Worse 11 5.7 Total 202(a) 100.0 (a) Includes nine missing values If we combine the responses of unequivocal improvement with the responses of recent improvement, we produce Table 6-2. In the table, law enforcement responses are considerably less pessimistic than those of the remainder of the respondent group. Table 6-2. Gang Situation has Improved Since 1980 (Law Enforcement Only) N % Yes 12 23.1 No 40 76.9 Total 52 100.0 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % Yes 20 10.4 No 173 89.6 Total 202 (a) 100.0 (a) Includes nine missing responses PERCEIVED IMPROVEMENT AND THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM We related perceptions of improvement in the gang situation with the perceived current general characteristics of the problem as described in Chapter 3. Table 6-3 shows the means of the eight interval level measures of the gang problem for those respondents who report that the gang problem in their community has improved since 1980 and those who do not. Mean estimates of number of gangs, number of gang members, size of gangs, and percent of total index crimes that are attributed to gangs are significantly less for respondents who describe the gang problem as improving since 1980. The size of cities in 1984 (or in 1970) and ethnicity of gang members are not significantly different for those who see improvement and those who have not. Nor are the percent of gang incidents attributed to adults or the percent of gang members with prior police records. Table 6-3. Means for Selected Measures of the Gang Problem and Perceived Change in the Problem Since 1980 Perception of Change Improvement Gotten Worse Size of Cities 1,057,558.1 1,836,065.3 (1984) Number Gangs 30.9 79.0 *** Number Gang Members 2232.9 7665.1 *** Upper Size of Gangs 63.3 361.6 ** % Black Members 54.6 49.0 % Hispanic Members 37.2 34.8 % Incidents Involving 34.3 27.8 Adults % Index Crimes 18.3 31.6 * Gang-Related % Gang Members with 68.3 72.0 Prior Police Record t Test Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 Table 6-4 displays frequencies and percents of respondents reporting improvement since 1980 and one of four conditions that we have selected to define the more serious nature of the gang problem. As can be seen from the tetrachoric correlations in Table 6-4, perception of improvement in the gang situation since 1980 is significantly related to a reduction, or negatively to each of the four measures, of the gang problem: expansion of the gang across multiple neighborhoods, involvement of youth gangs with adult criminal organizations, gang drug distribution, and gangs involved in the importation of drugs. Of respondents reporting the existence of non-local gangs, 7.8 percent feel that problem is present in their jurisdiction or service area since 1980. Of those who find this specific condition absent, 25.8 percent (over three times as many proportionally) report that the gang situation has improved. The proportional ratio of those reporting improvement is even more skewed (over four times as many) for those who report the absence of gang affiliation with adult criminal organizations as compared to those who say it is present. The relationships between reporting improvement and our two measures of drug involvement by gangs are not as strong, but both are significant statistically and in the expected direction. Table 6-4. Frequencies and Percents for Respondents Reporting Improvement in the Serious Gang Problem Since 1980 and Tetrachoric Correlations for Selected Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem Nature of Improvement Correlation Specific Problem Problem Problem Present Absent Non-Local 13 16 -0.446 *** Gangs 7.8 % 25.8 % Affiliation 15 14 -0.551 *** with Criminal 7.9 % 35.0 % Organizations Drug 13 17 -0.270 *** Distribution 9.0 % 18.5 % Gang Purpose Gangs Import 13 15 -0.171 ** Drugs 10.8 % 16.9 % Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 Statements of a reduction in the gang problem generally are clearly supported by evidence of reduction in key aspects of the gang problem such as number of gangs, gang members, the size of gangs, the absence of outside gangs, those affiliated with adult criminal organizations, and those gangs engaged in various levels of drug trafficking. The improvement of the gang situation or a reduction of the problem indicates that a major improvement in the scope and character of the gang problem can occur, if only in a few cities. ------------------------------ POLICY AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES We related perception of improvement in the gang situation to agency response patterns discussed in Chapter 4. Those included such characteristics as special (oral) policies, written policies, influencing legislation, internal and external advisory structures, interagency task forces, special training, and specialized organizational units. The findings indicate that patterns of policy response are not clearly related to perception of changes in the gang problem since 1980 (Table 6-5). There is a significant negative statistical relationship between perceived improvement of the gang problem and putting gang policies in writing. The data suggest that these policy developments have no relationship to an improved gang situation or in one case may indicate that the situation gets worse even with written policies. Table 6-5. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Improvement in the Gang Problem Since 1980 and Measures of the Policy Aspects of Gang Program Responses Special Policies Influencing Policies in Writing Legislation Situation -0.003 -0.335 *** -0.122 Improved (221) (182) (231) Since 1980 Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 Only one of the three coordinating or advisory mechanisms developed in response to the gang problem is significantly related to an improved gang situation. The positive relationship between perceived improvement in the gang problem since 1980 and the existence of external advisory structures (Table 6-6) is worth emphasizing. It continues to suggest, as in our earlier discussions (see chapter 4), that the presence of an external advisory group to an agency's gang program is possibly causally related to perceived improvement and a reduction in the problem. The development of an internal advisory structure and an interagency task force show no such relationship. Table 6-6. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Improvement in the Gang Problem Since 1980 and Measures of the Coordination Aspects of Gang Program Responses Internal External Inter-Agency Advisory Advisory Task Force Structure Structure Situation .065 0.167 ** -.020 Improved (226) (236) (226) Since 1980 Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 Our final measures of agency response to the gang problem are the availability of special gang training for agency personnel and the development of a specialized organizational unit to deal with the gang problem. The tetrachoric correlation between specialized gang training and perceived improvement in the gang situation since 1980 is negative (-0.154) and significant at the 0.05 level. The tetrachoric correlation between organization specialization and perceived improvement in the situation is negative (-.352) and is significant at the 0.001 level. The gang situation seems to deteriorate despite the presence of either or both of those organizational developments specifically addressing the gang problem. In sum, we find that a relatively small percent of respondents indicate there has been a positive change in the gang situation in their community or institutional setting (Since 1980). Specific problem characteristics are cited as reduced, for example, number of gangs and gang members, criminal affiliations, and drug trafficking. However, we find little association between such a decline in the problem and specific agency policy and organizational characteristics. In general, the development of these special agency approaches is associated with a worsening of the gang problem. The one noteworthy exception is the existence of an external agency advisory group, perhaps to oversee, guide, and assist in the development of a particular program. ------------------------------ UNIT EFFECTIVENESS A second set of analyses was based on the respondents' perceptions of the success of his or her particular agency's program, as it might be related to changes in the gang problem and associated with other agency characteristics. Respondents were asked in Item VI-1 to rate their agencies' effectiveness in 1987 in dealing with the gang problem. Table 6-7 shows that more that 40 percent of all respondents, including law enforcement, rate their programs as very effective. Another 40 percent or more of all respondents rate their programs as moderately effective. This is an extraordinarily high proportion of successful programs relative to answers to the questions of whether the gang situations has improved in their community. Table 6-7. Evaluation of Own Agency's Effectiveness (1987) (Law Enforcement Only) N % Very Effective 20 43.5 Moderately Effective 19 41.3 Hardly Effective 5 10.9 Not at all Effective 2 4.3 Total 52 (a) 100.0 (a) Includes 6 missing respondents. (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % Very Effective 67 40.9 Moderately Effective 68 41.5 Hardly Effective 20 12.2 Not at all Effective 9 5.5 Total 202 (b) 100.0 (b) Includes 38 missing respondents. Unlike the variable of perceived improvement in the gang situation since 1980, agency effectiveness is not significantly related to 11 of 12 measures of the gang problem. As can be seen in Tables 6-8 and 6-9, agency effectiveness ratings are not significantly related to most of our measures. Only one significant relationship is found, with percent of black gang members, and it is significant at only the 0.05 level. The relationship suggests that the higher the rating of agency effectiveness, the higher the percent of black gang members in the city or jurisdiction. (The lower the score, the higher the effectiveness rating. Thus a negative relationship indicates an increase in the problem.) Table 6-8. Point Biserial Correlations of Agency Effectiveness Rating and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Number Number Upper % % Gangs Gang Average Black Hispanic Members Size of Members Members Gang Rating -.013 .061 -.136 -.169 * .093 of Agency (197) (200) (147) (184) (152) Effectiveness % Incidents % Index % Gang Involving Crimes Members Adults Gang- with Prior Related Police Record Rating -.060 -.036 .127 of Agency (131) (107) (166) Effectiveness Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 Table 6-9. Polychoric Correlation Coefficients between Agency Effectiveness Rating and Selected Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem Non- Affiliation Drug Gangs Local with Distri- Import Gang Criminal bution Drugs Organizations Gang Rating -.105 -.127 -.088 -.093 of Agency (203) (201) (203) (184) Effectiveness Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 Positive and significant correlations do exist between perceived agency effectiveness and specific agency characteristics (Table 6-10). Only one of our eight organizational measures, a special gang policy in writing, is not related to a positive agency effectiveness rating. All three of the agency structure and coordination responses to the gang problem in Table 6-10 are significantly related to perceived agency effectiveness. The reduced significance of the relationship between external advisory structure and effectiveness rating may simply be a function of the comparative lack of such structures among law enforcement respondents. The existence of community-wide or interagency task forces is the measure most strongly related to agency effectiveness rating. Table 6-10. Polychoric Correlation Coefficients between Agency Effectiveness Rating and Selected Measures of Response to the Gang Problem Special Written Influencing Policies Policies Legislation Rating .193 ** .045 .157 * of Agency (195) (170) (204) Effectiveness Internal External Inter-agency Advisory Advisory Task Force Structure Structure Rating .242 *** .152 * .320 *** of Agency (198) (206) (199) Effectiveness Special Organization Training Specialization Available Rating .191 ** .188 *** of Agency (193) (210) Effectiveness Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 The set of consistent positive correlations between perceptions of agency effectiveness and specific agency policies and organizational developments, however, may have little to do with outcome success. The gang problem has not abated. The agencies may simply be addressing and trying hard to deal with the gang problem. The respondents may be evaluating the amount and quality of the agency's effort, which apparently is not associated with a modification in the gang problem. ------------------------------ INTERAGENCY EFFECTIVENESS Respondents were also asked to assess the effectiveness of interagency or community-wide coordinating responses to the gang problem in 1987 (See Item V-9 of the Questionnaire), but these effectiveness ratings are inappropriate for a sizable minority of total respondents: about 38 percent do not perceive the existence of community- level responses to the gang problem in their community (Table 6-11). Law enforcement respondents tend to be more generous in their evaluations of community-wide and combined efforts than other respondents. Table 6-11. Evaluation of Inter-Agency Task Force or Community-Wide Organizations (1987) (Law Enforcement Only) N percent Very Effective 14 45.4 Somewhat Effective 16 48.5 Hardly Effective 2 6.1 Not at All Effective 0 Total 52 (a) 100.0 (a) Includes 20 missing values. (Excluding Law Enforcement) N percent Very Effective 40 32.3 Somewhat Effective 58 46.8 Hardly Effective 13 10.5 Not at All Effective 13 10.5 Total 202 (b) 100.0 (b) Includes 78 missing values. Task force effectiveness ratings show possibly a slightly stronger pattern of relationships to the variables measuring the characteristics of the gang problem than agency effectiveness ratings (Tables 6-12 and 6-13). The relationships are in the right direction, however. (Again we note that the lower the score, the higher the effectiveness rating. Thus a positive relationship indicates a reduction in the problem.) The one significant relationship in the wrong direction is the existence of gangs of the same name in multiple areas. This suggests that broad community efforts to deal with non-local gangs or gangs that have spread across communities have been ineffective. We conclude that a rating of interagency task force effectiveness is somewhat associated with an improved gang situation. Table 6-12. Point Biserial Correlations of Community Level Program Effectiveness Rating and Selected Measures of the Gang Problem Number Number Upper % % Gangs Gang Average Black Hispanic Members Size of Members Members Gang Rating of .232** .220** .099 -.094 .155 Community (149) (148) (108) (138) (117) Effectiveness % Incidents % Index % Gang Involving Crimes Members Adults Gang- with Prior Related Police Record Rating of -.122 .177 .127 Community (95) (82) (125) Effectiveness Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 Table 6-13. Polychoric Correlation Coefficients between Community Level Program Effectiveness Rating and Selected Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem Non- Affiliation Drug Gangs Local with Distri- Import Gang Criminal bution Drugs Gang Purpose Rating -.238 ** -.029 .067 -.106 Community (148) (148) (151) (137) Effectiveness Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 Finally, we examine the relationship of perceived effectiveness of interagency task forces with particular agency policy and organizational developments. It could be argued that internal agency changes to meet the gang problem are not necessarily related to perceptions of interagency or community-wide relationships in effectiveness in reducing the gang problem. In fact, Table 6-14 indicates that the relationships are generally positive, as we would expect based on earlier analyses of unit effectiveness and agency characteristics. Two of the relationships are especially significant: internal advisory and external advisory structures with perceived interagency program effectiveness. External advisory structure appears to be the agency variable most strongly related to perceptions of interagency task force effectiveness. Table 6-14. Polychoric Correlation Coefficients between Interagency Community Level Program Effectiveness Rating and Selected Measures of Agency Response to the Gang Problem Special Written Influencing Policies Policies Legislation Rating of .134 .141 .134 Community (148) (131) (152) Task Force Effectiveness Internal External Special Advisory Advisory Training Structure Structure Available Rating of .249 ** .471 *** -.066 Community (149) (155) (147) Task Force Effectiveness Organizational Specialization Rating of .117 Community (156) Task Force Effectiveness Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 ------------------------------ SELECTING PROMISING APPROACHES The first stage of our research and development program required not only a review of the literature and a survey of the gang problem, especially the response to it, but follow-up field visits to those cities or institutional sites that had promising approaches. The results of the survey were expected to provide a basis for the selection of promising programs to examine in greater detail. A general effectiveness score for cities and sites was based on three measures: perceived improvement in the gang situation since 1980, perceptions of respondents' agencies effectiveness in 1987, and perceptions of the effectiveness of community level task force groups in 1987. First we determined that the three ratings were interrelated. Perceived improvement in the gang situation and agency self-effectiveness ratings are very significantly and positively related, despite the fact that a considerably smaller percent of respondents score an improved situation in regard to the gang problem than saw their agency as effective (Table 6-15). Positive assessment of task force or community-wide efforts is also significantly -- although less strongly -- correlated with perceived improvement in the gang problem since 1980 (Table 6-16). Table 6-15. Ratings of Agency Effectiveness in 1987 and Perceived Improvement in the Gang Problem Since 1980 Situation Improved Since 1980 Yes No Total Very 16 66 82 (65.3) (37.1) Moderately 8 77 85 (30.8) (43.3) Level of Effectiveness Hardly 1 24 25 (03.8) (13.5) Not at All 0 11 11 (00.0) (06.2) Total 25 178 203 Gamma = 0.54229 Tetrachoric Correlation = 0.330 *** Number of Missing Observations = 51 Table 6-16. Ratings of Community Level Program Effectiveness in 1987 and Perceived Improvement in the Gang Problem Since 1980 Situation Improved Since 1980 Yes No Total Very 10 42 52 (48.8) (32.1) Somewhat 8 65 73 (39.3) (49.6) Level of Effectiveness Hardly 1 12 13 On Community (05.0) (09.2) Level Not at 1 12 13 All (05.0) (09.2) Total 20 131 151 Gamma = 0.37101 Tetrachoric Correlation = 0.239 ** Number of Missing Observations = 102 Furthermore, Table 6-17 shows that respondents who rate interagency or community coordination efforts positively also tend to rate their own agency's efforts more positively. Interestingly, there is a stronger relationship between improved gang situation and the respondent's own agency effectiveness score than with interagency coordination effectiveness score. In any case, all three measures are significantly related to each other and indicate in complex ways conditions perhaps associated with a reduction of the gang problem. Table 6-17. Rating of Agency Effectiveness and Rating of Community Level Effectiveness in 1987 Community Level Rating Of Effectiveness Very Some- Hardly Not at Total what All Very 31 26 5 4 66 (61.0) (38.5) (41.7) (40.0) Moderate 19 31 4 3 57 Agency (37.7) (47.7) (33.3) (30.0) Effectiveness Rating Hardly 0 7 3 2 12 (00.0) (10.8) (25.0) (20.0) Not at 1 1 0 1 3 All (01.3) (01.5) (00.0) (10.0) Total 51 65 12 10 138 Gamma = 0.34626 Tetrachoric Correlation = 0.239 ** (Significant at 0.01) Number of Missing Observations = 116 We developed a general effectiveness score by normalizing scores for perceived improvement in the gang problem since 1980, evaluation of agency effectiveness in 1987, and evaluation of community- level program effectiveness in 1987. Principal components analysis and a simplifying mathematical transformation were then used to develop a score. This procedure is described in detail in the Technical Note provided as Appendix B. A value of 1 is assigned to our seven respondents who report the highest combined conditions: improvement with gang situations since 1980, very effective performance at the agency level in 1987, and very effective performance at the community level in 1987. Table 6-18 shows the general effectiveness scores (rounded to two decimal places) for this and other selected combinations of our three measures of effectiveness in dealing with the gang problem. Table 6-18. Selected Combinations of Responses on Improvement Since 1980, Rating of Agency Effectiveness in 1987, and Rating of Community Level Program Effectiveness in 1987 Gang Agency Community General Situation Effective- Program Effective- Improved ness Effective- ness Since 1987 ness 1987 Score 1980 Yes Very Very 1.00 Effective Effective Yes Very Moderately 1.74 Effective Effective Yes Moderately Very 1.81 Effective Effective No Very Very 2.25 Effective Effective Yes Very Hardly 2.25 Effective Effective Yes Very Not 2.67 Effective Effective Yes Hardly Moderately 3.14 Effective Effective No Moderately Not 4.73 Effective Effective No Hardly Not 5.32 Effective Effective No Not Not 5.84 Effective Effective Table 6-19. Ranking of Areas by Average General Effectiveness Scores Rank City Mean Score 1 Flint 1.00 2 Fort Wayne 1.20 3 El Monte* 1.84 4 Evanston 2.00 5 Sterling 2.01 6 Reno 2.22 7 Inglewood* 2.22 8 Tallahassee 2.22 9 Cicero 2.22 10 Louisville 2.37 11 San Jose* 2.39 12 Columbus 2.60 13 E.LA* 2.61 14 Sacramento 2.63 15 Pomona* 2.79 16 Philadelphia* 3.00 17 Albuquerque* 3.00 18 CA-CYA* 3.02 19 Phoenix* 3.03 20 San Francisco* 3.19 21 Milwaukee 3.28 22 Long Beach* 3.51 23 Chicago* 3.52 24 Rockford 3.54 25 LA County* 3.55 26 Miami 3.57 27 Santa Ana* 3.61 28 LA City* 3.75 29 Oakland* 3.80 30 New York* 3.80 31 Jackson 3.80 32 Indianapolis 3.80 33 San Diego* 3.94 34 Salt Lake City 4.01 35 Stockton* 4.07 36 Benton Harbor 4.12 37 Minneapolis 4.70 Atlanta, Fort Worth, Hialeah, and Seattle are one- respondent cities for which a general effectiveness score cannot be calculated. Respondents in Chino*, Detroit*, Tucson*, Shreveport, and Madison do not report a community-wide task force rating and, therefore, were not included in the development of general effectiveness scores. * Chronic Areas Based on these general effectiveness scores for each group of respondents, we were able to generate mean scores for each of the areas. If we eliminate areas where we have only one respondent, we can construct the ranking of cities that have community-wide programs included in Table 6-19. We selected our cities and programs for further attention on the basis of this scoring system and ranking and of other considerations such as a balance of emerging and chronic gang problem cities, the presence of a broad set of programs or strategies rather than a single program approach and data from additional sources. The cities or areas selected included Fort Wayne, El Monte, Evanston, Columbus and East Los Angeles. Additionally, several unique institutional or agency program sites such as the Paramount (California) school system and Ethan Allen Schools for Boys (Wisconsin) were included in our field visits. We should note that a ranking based on a single best measure --improvement in the gang situation since 1980--produced a set of rankings similar to, but less inclusive, than the one based on the three measures together. The improvement in the gang situation may more directly reflect a actual reduction in gang crime. The rankings in Table 20, provide a further justification for selection of cities and sites we visited. Table 6-20. Ranking of Areas By Improvement in Gang Situation Since 1980 City/Site Percent Claiming (N=Number of Respondents) Improvement Fort Wayne (4) 100.0 El Monte (5) 80.0 Flint (3) 66.7 Chino (2) 50.0 Cicero (2) 50.0 Tallahassee (2) 50.0 Evanston (3) 33.3 Sterling (3) 33.3 San Jose (7) 28.6 East Los Angeles (4) 25.0 Columbus (10) 20.0 New York City (15) 20.0 Philadelphia (5) 20.0 Pomona (5) 20.0 Milwaukee (8) 12.5 Chicago (15) 6.7 Ethan Allen School for Boys 100.0 Paramount School (1) 100.0 ------------------------------ DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN CHRONIC AND EMERGING CITIES In the remainder of the analysis in this chapter, we focus on distinctions between chronic and emerging gang problem cities and the approaches that seem to be most promising in each. First we examine which of our variables distinguishes between the two kinds of cities. Table 6-20 compares the means of a wide range of variables or criteria for the two groupings of cities. There are a limited number of comparisons that show significant differences: size of city population, size of the gang problem, the ethnicity of gang members, differences in primary strategy, and a difference in proportion of respondents involved in network exchanges. The chronic cities have significantly larger populations, more gangs, and more gang members. The percent of the gang population that is black is very much significantly higher in the emerging cities; the Hispanic and Asian gang population proportions are higher in the chronic cities. There is significantly greater use of community organization in the emerging cities, but greater use of social intervention and opportunity provision as primary strategies in the chronic gang problem cities. Finally, the proportion of respondents in the network of communication or interagency relations is greater in the emerging, i.e., the smaller cities. Discriminant analysis allows us to derive the best multivariate function for discriminating between the two types of cities. Table 6-21 displays the discriminant analysis results on the basis of gang problem characteristics. The simplest solution involves population size in 1984, differences in the ethnicity of gang members, and average proportion of network involvement. The multivariate analysis of variance is significant at the 0.001 level of statistical significance. A classification analysis reveals that 86.5 percent of the cities can be correctly classified as chronic or emerging on the basis of the derived discriminant function. From these results and Table 6-20, we can again state that chronic problem cities tend to be larger and characterized by greater numbers of Hispanic gang members. Emerging problem cities tend to be smaller and characterized by greater numbers of black gang members. The emerging cities also have respondents with a greater general involvement in the city's interaction network of agencies concerned with the problem. We may also distinguish between chronic and emerging cities on the basis of strategies of intervention used. Table 6-23 shows discriminant analysis results, comparing the two types of cities on the basis of the proportion of respondents in each who select one of three primary response strategies. The multivariate analysis of variance results for this discriminant solution is significant, however, only at the 0.05 level. Classification analysis reveals that two-thirds of our cities can be classified into the chronic- emerging categories by the discriminant function derived from these three strategy variables. Thus, again, we note from Table 6-23 that programs in emerging cities are more likely to exhibit community organization as a primary strategy while programs in chronic cities are more likely to be characterized by social intervention or opportunity provision as primary strategies. Table 6-21. Differences between Chronic versus Emerging Gang Problem Cities on Selected Variables Chronic Emerging Variable Mean N Mean N Number of Respondents 6.73 22 4.80 20 Population 1970 1348.69 16 295.62 16 * Population 1984 1208.50 18 278.18 17 * Population Change - 26.63 16 -4.62 16 70-84 Number of Gangs 61.75 18 14.92 19 * Number Gang 6560.24 17 872.79 19 * Members % Gang Members 37.44 18 74.55 20 *** Black % Gang Members 46.61 18 16.50 20 ** Hispanic % Gang Members 10.37 18 .95 20 * Asian % Class 1 Offense 25.21 14 3.04 16 Gang-Related % Gang Members 80.04 16 68.86 18 with Priors % Gang Members 54.28 18 37.76 16 Adults Adults Lead Gangs .72 18 .78 19 % Gangs Inv. 54.29 19 41.13 18 in Drug Distrib. Proportion Drug .61 19 .53 20 Gangs Gang Members Importing .68 19 .60 18 Drugs Adult-Youth Drug .22 18 .43 19 Link in Gangs Drugs Link Gangs .89 18 .81 16 & Adlt Cri. Org. Org./Policy Responses 3.61 22 3.20 20 Com. Org. Primary .06 22 .16 20 * Strategy Soc. Int. Primary .28 22 .14 20 * Strategy Opp. Primary Strategy .07 22 .02 20 * Suppression Primary .45 22 .57 20 Strategy Org. Dev. Primary .11 22 .08 20 Strategy Comm. Org. Strategy .47 22 .56 20 Soc. Int. Strategy .52 22 .56 20 Opps. Strategy .30 22 .21 20 Suppression Strategy .65 22 .79 20 Org. Dev. Strategy .31 22 .27 20 System-Level Cause .91 22 .93 20 Institution Cause .70 22 .78 20 Individual Cause .53 22 .47 20 Response Effect Cause .57 22 .62 20 System Primary Cause .50 22 .42 20 Institution Primary .21 22 .33 20 Cause Individual Primary .16 22 .11 20 Cause Response Effect .13 22 .13 20 Primary Cause Drugs Cause .53 18 .45 20 Poverty Cause .53 18 .69 20 Network Density .41 21 .51 20 Reciprocal Density .17 21 .28 20 Proportion of Network .39 19 .55 20 * Aggregate Prominence .55 19 .64 20 Reflected Prominence .03 19 .04 20 Improvement Since 1980 .13 22 .21 20 Agency Effectiveness 1.81 20 1.69 19 in '87 Community Effective- 1.85 20 1.67 19 ness '87 General Effectiveness 3.19 19 2.85 18 Score Table 6-22. Discriminant Analysis Results on Chronic vs. Emerging Cities for Differences in the Ethnicity of Gang Members and 1984 Population Canonical Correlations Primary Coefficients with Discriminant Strategy Function % Gang Members -.364 -.720 Black % Gang Members .512 .631 Hispanic Population 1984 .466 .495 Mean Proportion of -.409 -.452 Network Significance of .001 MANOVA % Correct Classification Chronic 88.2 percent Emerging 85.0 percent Total 86.5 percent Table 6-23. Discriminant Analysis Results on Chronic vs. Emerging Cities for Proportions of Respondents Exhibiting Three Primary Strategies Canonical Correlations Primary Coefficients with Discriminant Strategy Function Social .480 .737 Intervention Opportunities/Alts. .489 .699 Community -.449 -.677 Organization Significance of .051 MANOVA % Correct Classification Chronic 68.2 percent Emerging 65.0 percent Total 66.7 percent ------------------------------ FINDING EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES Next we turn to the question of how does response relate to general effectiveness, but this time our unit of analysis is the city, or type of city, rather than the individual respondent. We should note, however, that we have to some extent biased or constrained the outcome of this kind of analysis. All of our cities are in some degree "promising." We selected cities for inclusion on the basis of certain criteria, such as recognition of a gang problem, organized response approach, and a complex (rather than unidimensional) approach for dealing with it. Hence, we are making our comparisons among programs that have already survived certain processes of elimination. We now differentiate among our cities on the basis of what makes some programs more promising than others. Just because a set of conditions or a strategy looks worse in this context does not necessarily mean that it is a "bad" set of conditions or strategy. It simply means that in the given context of our set of promising programs, one approach may not be as good a predictor of a specific improvement in our general effectiveness index, as another. A major difference that we have already found which distinguishes programs in chronic and emerging cities is in the proportion of agencies exhibiting different primary strategies. Social intervention and opportunities provision are more likely to be found as primary strategies in chronic cities. Community organization is more likely to appear as a primary strategy in emerging cities. Given that we have selected all of the programs in our survey as potentially more promising than those of unselected cities, we should not be surprised if certain primary strategies tend to work well in some of those contexts. Our search for a set of relatively effective strategies by type of city leads us to use analysis of covariance procedures. Analysis of covariance involves the comparison of regression lines for two or more groups (Kerlinger 1986). Table 6-24 shows the mean proportion of respondents exhibiting community organization as their primary strategy in chronic and in emerging cities and the regression coefficients for our general effectiveness score regressed on proportion exhibiting community organization as a primary strategy in each. Table 6-24. Analysis of Covariance Results for Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary Strategy Community Organization as a Covariate for Chronic and Emerging Cities Chronic Emerging (n = 19) (n = 18) Mean General 3.191 2.851 Effectiveness Score Mean Proportion Primary 0.057 0.160 Strategy Community Organization Regression Coefficient -2.141 -3.009 * It is important to remember that our general effectiveness score gets better as it gets smaller with 1 as the best score. Hence, a negative regression coefficient indicates an impact in a favorable direction. While the slope of the regression lines for community organization is in the correct direction in both chronic and emerging problem cities, only the slope in emerging cities is statistically significant. Figure 6-1 illustrates these results. Table 6-25 and Figure 6-2 display the same kind of results for social intervention as a primary strategy. While neither of the regression coefficients is statistically significant at the 0.05 level (The coefficient for emerging cities is significant at the 0.10 level), the slopes for both kinds of cities are in the wrong direction for observing positive impact. Relying on social intervention as a primary strategy in emerging cities does not appear to be a comparably effective strategy. Table 6-25. Analysis of Covariance Results for Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary Strategy Social Intervention as a Covariate for Chronic and Emerging Cities Chronic Emerging (n = 19) (n = 18) Mean General 3.191 2.851 Effectiveness Score Mean Proportion Primary 0.301 0.158 Strategy Social Intervention Regression Coefficient 0.342 2.025 Similar results for opportunities provision as a primary strategy are shown the Table 6-26 and Figure 6-3. This time both slopes are in the direction indicating a positive impact. The slope for chronic cities is significant at the 0.01 level of statistical significance. A closer look at the data reveals that opportunities provision as a primary strategy is practically untried in emerging cities. Only one of our emerging cities for which we have a general effectiveness score (Evanston) shows opportunities provision as a primary strategy. Furthermore, a field visit indicates that the one agency showing opportunities provision as a primary strategy in this emerging city was not a very important actor. Table 6-26. Analysis of Covariance Results for Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary Strategy Opportunities Provision as a Covariate for Chronic and Emerging Cities Chronic Emerging (n = 19) (n = 18) Mean General 3.191 2.851 Effectiveness Score Mean Proportion Primary 0.082 0.019 Strategy Opportunities Provision Regression Coefficient -3.620 ** -2.704 Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 For suppression, neither of the regression coefficients indicate a slope that is compatible with an effective primary strategy. The results in Table 6-27 and Figure 6-4 show the application of suppression as a primary strategy to be not statistically significant. Table 6-28 and Figure 6- 5 display very similar results for organizational development and change. Again, we need to caution the reader that suppression or organizational development and change are not necessarily "bad" primary strategies. They are omni-present and essential strategies in all of our cities. Table 6-27. Analysis of Covariance Results for Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary Strategy Suppression as a Covariate for Chronic and Emerging Cities Chronic Emerging (n = 19) (n = 18) Mean General 3.191 2.851 Effective Score Mean Proportion Primary 0.446 0.581 Strategy Suppression Regression Coefficient 0.480 0.666 Table 6-28. Analysis of Covariance Results for Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary Strategy Organizational Development as a Covariate for Chronic and Emerging Cities Chronic Emerging (n = 19) (n = 18) Mean General 3.191 2.851 Effectiveness Score Mean Proportion Primary 0.106 0.057 Strategy Organizational Development Regression Coefficient 0.889 1.844 Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 ------------------------------ BUILDING CAUSAL REGRESSION MODELS Our next step was to construct models of success using the variables of our study. We search for those factors, particularly those that proved statistically significant, in our earlier, individual-level analysis, which appeared to contribute distinctively to success in dealing with the gang problem. We had developed a general effectiveness index based on improvement in the problem over a seven or eight year period, as well as perceptions of agency effectiveness and interagency or community efforts to deal with the problem. Here we attempt to first build a model based on reports of improvement in the gang situation since 1980. This is probably the most valid of our outcome indicators (although it is based on perceptions), since it directly addresses the condition of problem reduction, and relies less on individual agency-related perception and more on city-related social reality. Improvement in the Gang Problem Since 1980. From the foregoing analyses of covariance, we know that certain strategy commitments are significantly associated with our measure of general effectiveness. It should not be surprising, then if the proportion of respondents from a site choosing specific primary strategies was a component of a model of perceived improvement, at least, for one of our two major types of cities. Our effort to build a model of perceived improvement for emerging cities is not successful, and we have no model of perceived improvement for emerging cities of sufficient statistical strength to offer at the present time. For chronic cities, however, our findings are somewhat stronger. Table 6-29 presents a regression model for the proportion of respondents at the city level perceiving the gang problem as having improved since 1980 for chronic cities. Unlike our treatment of perceived improvement as a contributor to our measure of general effectiveness, our dependent variable extends from a minimum value of zero for no agencies reporting perceived improvement to a maximum of value of 1.0 for all agencies reporting perceived improvement. For this reason, positive signs for partial regression coefficients indicate more widespread perception of improvement in the gang problem. Two variables are significant predictors of perceived improvement in the chronic gang problem cities. The first and strongest is a measure of the interaction between the proportional representation of two primary strategies in a city. These strategies are community organization and opportunities provision. In combination at the city level, these priority strategies by different agencies are associated with an increase in perceived improvement that is statistically significant at the 0.001 level. Also, this interaction term alone accounts for 40.2 percent of the variation in our measure of perceived improvement. A second significant predictor of perceived improvement is the average proportion of involvement in the city-level network by all actors. (This is one of the measures derived from the earlier city-by-city network analysis in chapter 5.) By adding average proportion of network to the regression model, we increase our multiple regression coefficient significantly. The t-statistic for the regression coefficient for average proportion of network involvement is 2.79. It is statistically significant at the 0.01 level. The multiple R-squared statistic for the two variable model is 0.598 indicating that 59.8 percent of the variation in perceived improvement can be attributed to the model. The increase in explained variation over the one-variable model is 19.6 percentiles. Table 6-29. Regression Model for Proportion of City-Level Respondents Reporting Perceived Improvement in the Gang Problem since 1980 for Chronic Cities (n=18) Independent Variable b Beta R-square Interaction of 15.85 *** 0.67 0.402 Proportion Respondents Exhibiting Community Organization as Primary Strategy and Proportion Respondents Exhibiting Opportunities Provision as Primary Strategy Average Proportion 0.42 ** 0.44 0.196 of Network Involvement Total = 0.598 General Effectiveness. We turn our attention to the construction of exploratory causal models of general effectiveness. We present a multiple regression model for general effectiveness score in chronic cities (Table 6-30). General effectiveness score, from above, is a weighted linear combination of normalized transformations of perceived improvement in the gang problem since 1980, self- reported agency effectiveness in 1987, and assessment of community or interagency effectiveness efforts for 1987. We find that this time an interaction term for the primary strategies community organization and opportunities provision is not included in the model. Unlike our earlier model for perceived improvement, such a term is not a significant predictor of general effectiveness for chronic cities. The two primary strategies of community organization and opportunities provision, however, do each contribute directly to the prediction of general effectiveness score in the chronic cities. The third independent variable in the chronic cities model is degree of consensus across community respondents in respect to the definition of what constitutes a gang incident. (This variable is obtained from analysis described in Chapter 2.) Together these variables account for 69 percent of the variation of the general effectiveness measure in chronic cities. Table 6-30. Regression Model for General Effectiveness Measure for Chronic Cities (n=9) Independent Variable b Beta R-square Proportion of -5.69 *** -0.863 0.302 Respondents Exhibiting Opportunities Provision as Primary Strategy Proportion of -3.60 ** -0.556 0.195 Respondents Exhibiting Community Organization as Primary Strategy Consensus on -2.946 ** -0.500 0.195 Method of Identifying Gang Incident Total = 0.692 Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 Table 6-31 presents an elaboration of the previous model. We add the proportion of respondent agencies in a chronic city that have an external advisory group. This is a variable that was consistently associated with a reduction of characteristics of the gang problem in the analyses based on individual-level respondent data in earlier chapters. The strength of our multiple regression improves. Together these four variables now explain about 82 percent of the variation in the general effectiveness score in the chronic cities. This model of success has extraordinarily high predictive power. Table 6-31. Regression Model for General Effectiveness Measure for Chronic Cities, (n=18), with Addition of External Advisory Group Proportion Independent b Beta r-square Variable Proportion of -4.81 -.730 0.302 Respondents Exhibiting Opportunities Provisions Primary Strategy Proportion of -4.17 -.643 0.195 Respondents Exhibiting Community Organization Primary Strategy Consensus on Method -2.92 -.495 0.195 Identifying Gang Incident Proportion of -1.03 -.393 0.125 Respondent Agencies with an External Advisory Group Total = 0.817 Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 The model for our general effectiveness measure in the emerging cities is not so elaborate. Only community organization as a primary strategy contributes to an explanation of the variation in general effectiveness scores. We are left with what we already know from our comparison of strategies in the analysis of covariance of primary strategy effectiveness. The proportion of city respondents exhibiting community organization as a primary strategy explains 31.1 percent of the variation of the general effectiveness measure in emerging cities (Table 6-32). Table 6-32. Regression Model for General Effectiveness Measure for Emerging Cities (n=9) Independent b Beta r-square Variable Proportion of -3.01 * -0.558 0.311 Respondents Exhibiting Community Organization as Primary Strategy Significance Levels * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 Finally, we attempted to discover those factors that might be predictive of a promising approach across all types of cities. Our results were generally similar, but somewhat less potent than when types of cities were separated. In a probit regression analysis for improvement in the gang situation, using all cities (n=35), the independent variables that entered the equation were (1) the interaction of the proportions of respondents exhibiting community organization and the proportions exhibiting opportunities provision as primary strategies and (2) the average proportion of network involvement by respondents. These two variables accounted for 26 percent of the variance. In a regression model for general effectiveness, using all cities (n=39), the independent or predictive variables were (1) the proportion of respondents exhibiting community organization as a primary strategy, (2) the proportion of respondents exhibiting opportunities provision as a primary strategy and (3) the average proportion of network involvement by respondents. Those three variables account for 51 percent of the variance. Validity Check. Because of the unexpectedly high prediction value of the variable in the foregoing analysis, we determined to resolve a potential issue of validity. We conducted an external validity check of the "perceived improvement" component of our measure of general effectiveness by recontacting law enforcement representatives in a sample of 21 cities or counties of our original survey. We randomly selected 11 of the locations from the 15 with the highest general effectiveness scores and 10 of the locations from the 15 with the lowest general effectiveness scores. We obtained information on five empirical indicators: number of gang members, gang-related homicides, gang- related assaults, and number of gang-related narcotic incidents in 1980 and 1987. Most of the law enforcement respondents had access to a data base. Five of the 21 locations reported empirical data only for the later point in time. We find general agreement comparing perceptions of improvement or deterioration and the five empirical indicators per city or county. Problems of full congruence occur for only 3 of the 21 locations. In one case, perception by the police officer and eight other non-police informants in this very large city indicated a worsening of the youth gang situation. However, three other non-police respondents, perceived an improvement. More importantly, the perception of the police officer is not supported by any of the empirical indicators. We observe, nevertheless, that the official police data system in this city is seriously flawed because data collection is based on unclear definition and identifying procedures, and unreliable recording of gang incidents, particularly for youth 16 years and older. In the second case, a county, the perceptions of law enforcement and empirical indicators show an absence or a low point in the youth gang problem 1980, with a peaking of the problem in 1987, but a rapid and sharp decline in 1988, when the law enforcement officer was interviewed. All of the available empirical indicators signify an increase in the problem for 1987, although the law enforcement officer's response probably reflected the improvement in the youth gang situation that occurred only in 1988. In the third case, a county, adequate data was available for only two of the five empirical indicators at the two points in time. Data on the other three indicators, however, was available for the later period. The perception of the law enforcement officer that the youth gang situation had worsened was consistent with all of the available empirical indicators, except one, gang-related homicides, which showed a 23-percent decline between 1980 and 1987. If we use the most rigorous standards for comparing change in the youth gang problem based on the perceptions of improvement and empirical indicators between 1980 and 1987, we find the association is perfect for 18 of 21 randomly selected cities or counties for a general correspondence rate of 85.7 percent. A Fisher's Exact test reveals that the hypothesis of no correspondence between perception and the set of empirical measures can be rejected at the 0.05 level of statistical significance. Therefore, we regard our "perceived improvement" component of our measure of general effectiveness as valid. Conclusion. This chapter and the report conclude therefore on a hopeful note. It may be possible to significantly reduce the gang problem across chronic and emerging problem cities by utilizing two major approaches: Community organization and opportunities provision, as well as consensus on approaches and definitions, especially by key actors. Community organization or community mobilization efforts appear to be a common denominator of effective strategies across communities. In chronic gang problem cities, this strategy may be much more powerful when combined with an opportunities provision approach. Our analysis does not conclude that law enforcement and social agencies are or will be ineffective, only that a community needs especially to emphasize and support community organization and opportunities provision strategies in their policies and programs to confront gang problems. Suppression and social intervention are basic and essential strategies commonly found in all gang problem cities and contexts. But they need to be part of a more inclusive set of strategies, if a reduction of the youth gang problem is to occur. ------------------------------ SUMMARY In this final chapter we determine whether different strategies, policies, and procedures of agencies, separately and interactively in particular types of cities, lead to a perceived reduction in gang crime. First, we examine the perceptions of respondents as to whether the gang situation improved over a seven- or eight-year period -- from 1980 until the time of the administration of the survey in 1987 and 1988 -- and whether agency and interagency or community-wide efforts were also regarded as effective. A large majority of respondents estimate that the gang situation has deteriorated, although law enforcement respondents are less pessimistic than non-law enforcement respondents. We find that only 23.1 percent of the police, but even fewer of the other respondents (10.4 percent), believe there has been an improvement. These perceptions are regarded as consistent since they are associated with mean estimates that the numbers of gangs, gang members, size of gangs, and the percent of total index crimes attributed to gangs were significantly less in the cities where respondents described the gang situation as improved. The pattern of serious gang crime (non-local gangs, affiliation with criminal organizations, and gangs organized for drug distribution purposes and engaged in the importation of drugs) was also perceived as significantly less often present by those respondents perceiving the gang problem as improved. Nevertheless, in these cases there was little evidence that particular policies, agency structures, or training patterns were significantly related to such situational improvement. The one exception was the presence of an external advisory group to the agency which seemed to have some positive impact, or at least a relationship to a perceived gang problem reduction. Respondent ratings of their agency's efforts were more optimistic than their perception of an actual diminished gang situation in the community. More than 40 percent of all respondents saw their agency as very effective in fighting gang crime. However, unlike the variable of perceived improvement in the gang situation, agency effectiveness was not seen as significantly related to 11 of 12 measures of the gang problem, nor was it related to the measures of the more serious nature of the gang problem. At the same time, a variety of agency policies and organizational procedures such as advisory structures, task forces, special training, and organizational specialization are positively related to a rating of agency effectiveness. A general effectiveness score was created based on three variables -- perceived improvement in the gang situation, agency and interagency effectiveness ratings. All three of these ratings were significantly interrelated. A general effectiveness score was then attributed to, and became the basis for ranking of, cities and sites represented in our survey. The specific rank constituted a basis for selection of cities and sites for field visits and further inquiry into the nature of the elements comprising promising programs. Our attempt to determine which approaches to the gang problem might be more successful than others shifted at this point from individual respondent or agency to a city-level analysis. First, we classified and distinguished systematically between chronic and emerging problem cities. Discriminant analysis procedures enabled us to correctly classify 86.5 percent of the cities as chronic or emerging, based on a small number of variables. Chronic problem cities tend to be only slightly but not significantly larger with significantly greater numbers of Hispanic gang members. Emerging problem cities tend to be characterized by a greater number of black gang members. Respondents or key actors are also more involved or closely interconnected in the emerging gang problem cities. The discriminant analysis procedure also permitted us to classify two thirds of our cities correctly in terms of primary strategy of intervention. Programs in emerging cities are more likely to exhibit community organization as a primary strategy while programs in chronic cities are more likely to be characterized by social intervention or opportunity provision as primary strategies. Next we attempt through the use of analysis of covariance to determine which of the primary strategies is most closely related to our general effectiveness score. We begin to assess the value of the different strategies in different types of cities. The slope of the regression lines for community organization is in the direction that indicates a positive general effectiveness score for both chronic and emerging problem cities, although only the slope in the emerging cities is statistically significant. The regression slopes for social intervention in the two types of cities are in the wrong direction, but are not quite significant statistically. In other words, a primary strategy of social intervention tends to be associated with a negative general effectiveness score. Our best results are for the primary strategy of opportunities provision in the chronic problem cities. The regression slope in this case is statistically significant. While the regression slope is in the right direction for a positive outcome in the emerging problem cities, we note that very few emerging problem cities have employed this strategy. For the suppression strategy, the regression coefficients in either type of city suggests that this as a primary strategy is not a relatively effective one. These results are not statistically significant. The pattern is the same for organizational development and change as it is for the suppression strategy. Our next step in the discovery of promising approaches for dealing with the gang problem is to build causal models. First, we use the variable of improved gang situation, since this is relatively the most valid of our component measures of outcome. In a probit regression model, we find that two variables are significant predictors of perceived improvement in the chronic problem cities. The first and strongest is a measure of the interaction at the city level of the strategies of community organization and opportunities. Alone, this interaction term accounts for 40.2 percent of the variation in our measure of perceived improvement. The second significant predictor is the average proportion of involvement by respondents in the city-level network of actors. Together, these two variables account for almost 60 percent of the variation in perceived improvement of the gang situation. This is a highly predictive model. However, we are unable to develop a model predictive of success using the variable of improved gang situation in the emerging problem cities. We then turned to a multiple regression analysis using the general effectiveness score as the dependent variable or the measure of success in the chronic gang problem cities. In this model the two primary strategies of community organization and opportunities provision separately predict a high general effectiveness score. The third independent variable is degree of consensus across community respondents in respect to the definition of what constitutes a gang incident (See Chapter 2). This model was able to account for 69 percent of the variance in chronic problem cities. Finally, we add a fourth variable, the proportion of agencies in the chronic gang cities that have an external advisory group. Together these four variables now account for 82 percent of the variance in the general effectiveness score in chronic problem cities. This model has extraordinarily high predictive power. The model for our general effectiveness measure in the emerging cities is not so elaborate. Only community organization as a primary strategy contributes to an explanation of 31 percent of the variance. This multiple regression model does not add information that we did not have from our analysis of covariance. The final set of analyses across all cities where data are available indicates that primary strategies of community organization and opportunities provision, along with maximum participation by key community actors are predictive of a successful effort at dealing with the gang problem. A validity check was also conducted of the "perceived improvement" component of our measure of general effectiveness. We recontacted law enforcement representatives in a sample of 21 cities or counties of our original survey. We obtained information on five empirical indicators: number of gangs, gang members, gang-related homicides, gang-related assaults, and number of gang-related narcotic incidents in both 1980 and 1987. A Fisher's Exact test reveals that the hypothesis of no correspondence between perception and the set of empirical measures can be rejected at the 0.05 level of statistical significance. Therefore, we regard our "perceived improvement" component of our measure of general effectiveness as valid. Finally we observed that strategies of suppression and social intervention were common to all of our cities and essential for dealing with the youth gang problem, but that success was more likely when community organization and opportunities provision strategies were also present and emphasized. ------------------------------ ENDNOTES 1. 18 respondents did not answer this item. 2. Numerical problems encountered in the factor analysis of dichotomous variables have their own literature (Muthen; Bock, Gibbons, and Muraki 1988) [R. Darrell Bock, Robert Gibbons, Eiji Muraki, "Full Information Factor Analysis," Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 12, No. 3, Sept. 1988, 261-280.] Here we use the PRELIS program of Joreskog and Sorbam to generate tetrachoric correlation coefficients and the matrix of coefficients into SPSS-PC+ ADVANCED using matrix methods of entry. The generalized least squares method of factor extraction is employed. ------------------------------ REFERENCES Burt, Ronald S. 1982. Toward a Structural Theory of Action: Network Models of Social Structure, Perception, and Action. New York: Academic Press. ______. 1987. STRUCTURE. New York: Columbia University Press. Cartwright, Desmond S., Barbara Tomson, and Hershey Schwartz. 1975. Gang Delinquency. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Dolan, Edward F., Jr. and S. Finney. 1984. Youth Gangs. New York: Julian Messner. Hoaglin, David C., Frederick Mosteller, and John W. Tukey, (eds.). 1984. Understanding Robust and Exploratory Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Horowitz, Ruth. 1983. Honor and the American Dream. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Jacobs, James B. 1977. Stateville: The Penitentiary in Mass Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Johnson, Richard A. and Dean W. Wichern, 1982. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Klein, Malcolm W. 1971. Street Gangs and Street Workers. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Klein, Malcolm W. and Cheryl L. Maxson 1989. "Street Gang Violence," Neil A. Wiener and Marvin E. Wolfgang (eds), Violent Crime, Violent Criminals. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, pp 198- 234. Miller, Walter B. 1975. Violence by Youth Gangs and Youth Groups as a Crime Problem in Major American Cities. National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. ______. 1982. Crime by Youth Gangs and Groups in the United States. A Report Prepared for the National Institute of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the U. S. Department of Justice, February (Draft). Moore, Joan W. 1978. Homeboys. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Sherman, Lawrence William. 1970. "Youth Workers, Police and the Gangs: Chicago, 1956-1970. Master's Thesis in the Division of Social Sciences, The University of Chicago. November. Skolnick, Jerome H. with Theodore Correl, Elizabeth Narrio, and Roger Rabb. 1988 "The Social Structure of Street Drug Dealing." Center for the Study of Law and Society. University of California, Berkeley. Spergel, Irving. 1966. Community Problem Solving: the Delinquency Example. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Spergel, Irving A. 1984. "Violent Gangs in Chicago: In Search of Social Policy." Social Service Review 58(June). Spergel, Irving A. with G. David Curry, Ron Chance, Candice Kane, Ruth E. Ross, Alba Alexander, Pamela Rodriguez, Deeda Seed, Edwina Simmons, and Sandra Oh 1990. Youth Gangs: Problem and Response. National Youth Gang Suppression and Intervention Project, University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U. S. Department of Justice. January. Suttles, Gerald D. 1968. The Social Order of the Slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Whyte, William F. 1943. Street Gang Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ------------------------------ APPENDIX A Appendix Table 1-1.Reasons for Non-Inclusion of Cities in this Study (N-55) No Recognized Youth Gangs/ Gang Activity (23)* Albany, NY Baltimore, MD Buffalo, NY Cambridge, MA Charleston, SC Charlotte, NC Decatur, GA Des Moines, IA Fresno, CA Greenville, MS Jersey City, NJ Kansas City, KS Memphis, TN New Orleans, LA Oklahoma City, OK Pasadena, CA Pittsburgh, PA Portsmouth, ME Racine, WI Springfield, MA St. Petersburg, FL Toledo, OH Tulsa, OK No Organized Response Specifically Addressing Youth Gangs (33)** Anaheim, CA Berkeley, CA Boston, MA Chattanooga, TN Cincinnati, OH Cleveland, OH Compton, CA Denver, CO E. St.Louis, IL El Paso, TX Ft. Lauderdale, FL Garden Grove, CA Gary, IN Glendale, CA Hartford, CT Honolulu, HI Houston, TX Huntington Beach, CA Jacksonville, FL Joliet, IL Kansas City, MO Las Vegas, NV Lincoln, NE Omaha, NE Orlando, FL Peoria, IL San Antonio, TX St. Louis. MO St. Paul, MN San Bernardino, CA San Pedro, CA Spartansburg, SC Torrance, CA Excluded Because Outside U.S. Mainland (2) Anchorage, AK San Juan, PR * Representatives from these cities stated that they did not have youth gang activity within their jurisdiction. ** Representatives from these cities in general recognized the presence of youth gangs, but had no "organized approach" in place to address it. Note: Refer to chapter 1 of this report for survey selection criteria. Appendix Table 2-2. Eigenvalues from Generalized Least Squares Factor Analysis of Gang Definition Variables. Factor Eigenvalue Pct of Var Cum Pct 1 1.26 10.5 10.5 2 1.06 8.9 19.4 3 1.03 8.7 28.0 4 .93 7.8 35.8 5 .71 5.9 41.7 ------------------------------ An MDS Approach to Gang Definition by Area Our 12 criteria of gang definition can be used to compute the "definitional" distance between each pair of our 42 multiple-respondent geographic areas. From the proportion of respondents in each area citing each of our 12 definitional criteria, we can calculate the Euclidian dissimilarity distance between each of our sites. (We used the SPSSX procedure PROXIMITIES 41 to generate these measures.) From the 861 dissimilarity distances (Factorial 41) it is possible to generate a multiple dimensional scaling (MDS) solution that assigns each site a value on each of two principal dimensions. The SPSSX procedure ALSCAL generates an R squared for the percentage of the variation in the Euclidean distance among the sites that can be explained by the MDS analysis. In this case, R squared equals 0.812 which is equivalent to 81.2 percent of the variation. Meaning can be attributed to each dimension by examination of the correlation between each dimension and each of our twelve definitional criteria proportions by area. These correlations are shown in Appendix Table 2-8. It should be remembered that these dimensions are generated so as to maximize the explanation of dissimilarity among the sites. The references to "horizontal" and "vertical" refer to the layout of the two dimensions used to construct the mapping of the sites onto the two-dimensional plane in Appendix Figure 2-1. The first dimension (the horizontal in Appendix Figure 2-1) is the stronger of the two dimensions. Areas that appear to the left of Appendix Figure 2- 1 are more likely to consist of respondents who emphasize the general criminal or anti-social nature of the gang. Among the respondents in the sites scoring high values on this dimension or toward the right in Appendix Figure 2-1, there is a tendency to define gangs in terms of their symbolic aspects whether the emphasis is on general, collective, or individual level symbols. This dimension is complicated by the moderate positive correlation of this dimension with defining the gang in terms of its involvement in drug crime. This complication is, however, mediated by the much stronger correlation of definition in terms of drug involvement with the second or vertical dimension in Appendix Figure 2-1. At one extreme on this dimension is Chino (where both respondents use general crime criteria and only one uses one of the three symbolic criteria in defining the gang) and on the other is Shreveport (where one of the three respondents uses a general criminality criteria and all three use collective and general symbolic criteria in defining the gang). The second (vertical in Appendix Figure 2-1) dimension is significantly and more strongly (though negatively) related to respondents from a site defining the gang in terms of involvement in drug crime. This corresponds with being closer to the bottom of the graph in Appendix Figure 2-1. Being closer to the top in Appendix Figure 2-1 indicates the tendency of respondents to define the gang in terms of organizational structure and general group characteristics and in terms of general criminality and anti-social behavior rather than what has been described as the "instrumental" behavior associated with drug trafficking. Again our picture of the vertical dimension is complicated by its moderate positive relationship with emphasis on general symbols and its moderate negative relationship with the common residence of gang respondents. Detroit (where one respondent uses general group and group structure criteria and two use drug crime criteria in defining the gang) is at one extreme on this dimension and Benton Harbor (where all three respondents use general group criteria, two use gang structure criteria, and none use drug crime in defining the gang) at the other. Overall, it can also be said that in terms of distinguishing differences in gang definitions across geographic locales, attribution of non- criminal behaviors to gangs, violence, involvement in property crime, and the involvement of adults are not very important criteria. Appendix Table 2-7. Correlations between MDS Dimensions for Site Dissimilarity and Gang Definitional Criteria. Dimension 1 Dimension 2 (Horizontal) (Vertical) General Group -.2875 .4922 *** Gang Structure .0923 .6248 *** Non-Criminal .0005 -.1601 General Criminal -.5230 *** .3991 ** Drug Crime .3511 * -.6587 *** Violence -.0130 .1078 Property Crime .0759 -.0376 Collective Symbols .6976 *** -.0052 Individual Symbols .4152 ** -.0553 General Symbols .8974 *** .3306 * Adults Involved .0486 -.0426 Reside Same Locale -.0937 -.3520 * ------------------------------ An MDS Approach to Gang Definition by Respondent Category A multi-dimensional scaling analysis is also performed on our gang definition criteria by respondent category. The R squared statistic for the two derived dimensions is 0.903. The correlations between the two resulting dimensions and our twelve definitional criteria are shown in Appendix Table 2-9. The first dimension (shown horizontally in Appendix Figure 2-2) that separates our respondents by respondent category is significantly negatively related to collective symbols and involvement in drug crime and positively related to general group characteristics. The second differentiating dimension (shown vertically in Appendix Figure 2-2) is significantly positively related to violence and property crime and negatively related to organizational structure and individual-level symbols. Appendix Figure 2-2 shows the location of the thirteen multiple-respondent categories mapped onto the two dimensional space derived from our MDS analysis. Respondent categories that are located toward the left are more concerned with collective symbols and involvement in drug crime in their definition of the gang. The judges and family service agencies (89 percent and 88 percent of whom respectively use collective symbols in defining the gang) score low on Dimension 1 and are located toward the left side of the graph. Respondent categories that are located toward the right are more concerned with the general group characteristics of the gang in their definition. The comprehensive service agencies (all three of whom use general group criteria in their gang definitions) score highest on this dimension. The second dimension shown vertically in Appendix Figure 2-2 opposes concern with gang structure and individual level symbols (toward the bottom of the figure) and violence and property crime (toward the top of the figure). Grass roots and planning agencies score highest on this dimension, though they are widely separated by their scores on the first (horizontal dimension). Corrections (86 percent of whom use general group criteria and individual level symbols in their gang definitions) respondents score lowest on this dimension. Definitional criteria that do little to separate organizations on the basis of their definition of the gang are non-criminal gang activities, general criminal activity, general symbols, the involvement of adults, and common residence. Appendix Table 2-9. Correlations between MDS Dimensions for Respondent Category Dissimilarity and Gang Definitional Criteria. Dimension 1 Dimension 2 (Horizontal) (Vertical) General Group .7166** -.3387 Gang Structure .5060 -.7542** Non-Criminal -.3399 .3909 General Criminal .5364 -.3686 Drug Crime -.7103** .0823 Violence .2010 .7516** Property Crime -.3015 .6971** Collective Symbols -.8787*** -.4320 Individual Symbols -.1259 -.6701** General Symbols -.0480 .0629 Adults Involved -.2058 .1578 Reside Same Locale .2500 -.0349 ** Significant at 0.01 level. *** Significant at 0.001 level. ------------------------------ An MDS Approach to Membership Identification by Area Our nine criteria of gang member identification can be used to compute the "definitional" distance between each pair of our 42 multiple-respondent geographic sites. From the proportion of respondents at each site citing each of our nine identification criteria, we can calculate the Euclidian dissimilarity distance between each of our sites just as we did above with our definitional criteria. From the 861 dissimilarity distances, we generate a multiple dimensional scaling (MDS) solution that assigns each site a value on each of two principal dimensions. Our R squared equals 0.786 which is equivalent to explaining 78.6 percent of the variation in Euclidian distance among our sites. The correlations between our two dimensions and each of our member identification criteria are shown in Appendix Table 2-15. As above, the references to "horizontal" and "vertical" refer to the layout of the two dimensions used to construct the mapping of the sites onto the two-dimensional plane in Appendix Figure 2-3 where we use the first or stronger of the two dimensions as the horizontal axis for our graph. The first dimension (horizontal axis) is significantly negatively related to five of our nine criteria--self-identification, association, symbolic behavior, type of criminal behavior, and informant identification. Location or residence is also significantly related to this dimension, but the relationship is positive. This criteria is also significantly related to the second dimension though the direction of the relationship is negative. In addition to location or residence, the second (vertical in Appendix Figure 2-3) dimension is significantly negatively related to police identification and other legal identification. Moderately significant negative relationships also exist between the second dimension and symbolic behavior and other institutional identification. Unlike our results from our earlier MDS analyses, none of our criteria for identifying gang members is completely inconsequential in accounting for the dissimilarity among sites. The contribution of other institutional identification to distinguishing between sites is, however, not very great. Appendix Table 2-10. Eigenvalues from Generalized Least Squares Factor Analysis of Gang Member Definition Variables. Factor Eigenvalue Pct of Var Cum Pct 1 1.13 12.5 12.5 2 .96 10.7 23.2 3 .85 9.5 32.7 4 .34 3.8 36.4 Appendix Table 2-15 Correlations between MDS Dimensions for Area Dissimilarity and Gang Definitional Criteria. Dimension 1 Dimension 2 (Horizontal) (Vertical) Symbolic Behavior -.5368 *** -.3095 * Association -.7691 *** .1547 Criminal Behavior -.3787 ** .1039 Location/Residence .3826 ** -.3958 ** Self-ID -.7706 *** -.1288 Police ID -.0301 -.9053 *** Informant ID -.3889 ** .1799 Other Legal ID -.1978 -.4843 *** Other Institutional ID -.0385 -.3077 * ------------------------------ An MDS Approach to Gang Member Definition by Respondent Category A multi-dimensional scaling analysis is also performed on our methods of identifying gang members by respondent category. The R squared statistic for the two derived dimensions is 0.930. The correlations between the two resulting dimensions and our nine definitional criteria are shown in Appendix Table 2-16. The first dimension (shown horizontally in Appendix Figure 2-4) that separates our respondents by respondent category is significantly and positively related to informant identification, police identification, and association. The second differentiating dimension (shown vertically in Appendix Figure 2-4) is significantly positively related to identifying gang members by type of crimes committed. There are weaker negative relationships between symbolic behavior and other institutional identification and this second dimension. Appendix Figure 2-4 shows the location of the thirteen multiple-respondent categories mapped onto the two dimensional space derived from our MDS analysis. Respondent categories that are located toward the right are more likely to rely on police, informants, and associations in their identification of gang members. The second dimension shown vertically in Appendix Figure 2-4 places respondent categories who are more concerned with type of crime in identifying gang members closer to the top of the graph and those who identify gang membership by symbolic behavior and the perceptions of non-legal institutions closer to the bottom. Note that this dimension is one that clearly separates criminal justice from social service agencies. Definitional criteria that do little to separate respondent categories on the basis of their methods of identifying or defining gang members are location or residence, self-identification, and identification by non-police criminal justice agencies. Appendix Table 2-16. Correlations between MDS Dimensions for Respondent Category Dissimilarity and Gang Member Identification Criteria. Dimension 1 Dimension 2 (Horizontal) (Vertical) Symbolic Behavior .0750 -.5546 * Association .6622 ** .4746 Criminal Behavior .1003 .8647 *** Location/Residence -.3814 -.1474 Self-ID .3594 .4188 Police ID .8164 *** -.1095 Informant ID .8859 *** -.3686 Other Legal ID -.4488 .2522 Other Institutional ID .1097 -.6152 * * Significant at 0.05 level. ** Significant at 0.01 level. *** Significant at 0.001 level. ------------------------------ An MDS Approach to Gang Incident by Site Our nine criteria for identifying gang incidents can be used to compute the "definitional" dissimilarity between each pair of our 42 multiple- respondent geographic sites. From the proportion of respondents at each site citing each of our nine identification criteria, we can calculate the Euclidian dissimilarity distance between each of our sites just as we have done for our definitional criteria for the gang and gang membership. From the 861 dissimilarity distances, we generate a multiple dimensional scaling (MDS) solution that assigns each site a value on each of two principal dimensions. Our R squared equals 0.823 which is equivalent to explaining 82.3 percent of the variation in Euclidian distance among our sites. The correlations between our two dimensions and each of our incident identification criteria are shown in Appendix Table 2-23. As above, the references to "horizontal" and "vertical" refer to the layout of the two dimensions used to construct the mapping of the sites onto the two-dimensional plane in Appendix Figure 2-23 where we use the first or stronger of the two dimensions as the horizontal axis for our graph. The first dimension is positively related to two criteria, most strongly to the involvement of a gang member and more moderately to gang claims. Perhaps of most theoretical interest to us here is the negative relationship between this dimension and an incident's serving gang function. This means that sites that fall toward the upper end (right horizontally) of dimension 1 are those where respondents were more likely to cite membership involvement as opposed to gang function, with the opposite condition holding for those sites that fall more toward the lower end (left) on dimension 1. As Appendix Figure 2-5 shows, when the complete set of agencies from a site are taken into account, LA County and Chicago as sites do not reflect the extreme differences in definition of a gang incident that has been the subject of much recent discussion among practitioners especially law enforcement agencies. The second (vertical in Appendix Figure 2-5) dimension is significantly positively related to the modus operandi of the incident. Also moderately and negatively related to gang member involvement and other institutional identification of the incident as gang-related, dimension 2 is not significantly related to concerns about gang function. Overall, it can also be said that in terms of distinguishing differences in the methods for identifying gang incidents across geographic locales, the involvement of rival gangs and the location of the incident are not very important criteria. Appendix Table 2-18. Eigenvalues from Generalized Least Squares Factor Analysis of Gang Incident Definition Variables. Factor Eigenvalue Pct of Var Cum Pct 1 1.22 13.7 13.7 2 .92 10.3 24.0 3 .89 9.9 33.8 4 .58 6.4 40.2 5 .27 3.0 43.2 Appendix Table 2-23. Correlations between MDS Dimensions for Site Dissimilarity and Gang Definitional Criteria. Dimension 1 Dimension 2 (Horizontal) (Vertical) Gang Member Involved .8504 *** -.3227 * Furthers Gang Function -.4276 ** -.2952 Gang Modus Operandi .1181 .8446 *** Multiple Offenders -.6920 *** -.2584 Involved Rival Gangs Involved .0844 -.0035 Youth Involved -.4867 *** -.0928 Gang Claims Incident .3861 ** .0305 Other Institution -.0016 -.4101 ** Identifies Location of Incident -.0149 .2702 ------------------------------ An MDS Approach to Gang Incident by Respondent Category A multi-dimensional scaling analysis is also performed on our methods of identifying gang incident by respondent category. The R squared statistic for the two derived dimensions is 0.898. The correlations between the two resulting dimensions and our nine definitional criteria for gang-related incidents are shown in Appendix Table 2-24. The first dimension (shown horizontally in Appendix Figure 2-6) that separates our respondents by respondent category is positively related to other institutional identification and negatively related to gang function. Across respondent categories, there is not the polarization by member involvement versus gang function that we see in our MDS analysis of differences in identifying gang incidents by site. The second differentiating dimension (shown vertically in Appendix Figure 2-6) is negatively related to membership involvement and moderately negatively related to the number of offenders involved in the incident. Appendix Figure 2-6 shows the location of the thirteen multiple-respondent categories mapped onto the two dimensional space derived from our MDS analysis. Since respondent categories that are located toward the left are more likely to be concerned with gang function and since respondent categories that are located toward the bottom of the graph are more likely to be concerned with the involvement of gang members in incidents, we can say the comprehensive service agencies that are located in the lower left quadrant express concern with both criteria to the degree that it distinguishes them from other respondent categories. Planning agencies in the upper right corner are very far from the comprehensive service agencies when it comes to defining gang incidents. Of little importance in distinguishing respondent categories when it comes to defining gang incidents are modus operandi, the involvement of rival gangs, the involvement of youth, gang claims about incidents, and incident locations. Appendix Table 2-24. Correlations between MDS Dimensions for Respondent Category Dissimilarity and Incident Definitional Criteria. Dimension 1 Dimension 2 (Horizontal) (Vertical) Gang Member Involved -.0851 -.8525 *** Furthers Gang Function -.9773 *** -.1269 Gang Modus Operandi .1779 -.1465 Multiple Offenders -.3025 -.6554 * Involved Rival Gangs Involved .2219 -.2323 Youth Involved .4326 .2466 Gang Claims Incident .2218 .2239 Other Institution .8125 *** .4475 Identifies Location of Incident .1954 .0372 ** Significant at 0.01 level. *** Significant at 0.001 level. Appendix Table 3-4. Estimates of the Average Size of the Total Gang (Law Enforcement Only) N % % Up to 50 18 34.6 47.4 51 to 100 7 13.5 18.4 100 to 1,000 13 25.0 34.2 Missing 14 26.9 Total 52 100.0 100.0 Mean = 144.4 Median = 60.0 5% Trimean = 123.2 Standard Deviation = 173.6 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % Up to 50 57 28.2 43.2 51 to 100 33 16.3 25.0 100 to 1,000 36 17.8 27.3 Over 1,000 6 3.0 4.5 Missing 70 34.7 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Mean = 371.5 Median = 75.0 5% Trimean = 146.2 Standard Deviation = 1394.8 Appendix Table 3-5. Estimates of the Percent of Gang Members Who Are Black (1987) (Law Enforcement Only) N % % None 2 3.8 4.3 1% to 25% 12 23.1 25.5 25% to 50% 7 13.5 14.9 50% to 100% 22 42.3 46.8 100% 4 7.7 8.5 Missing 5 9.6 Total 52 100.0 100.0 Mean = 54.5 Median = 53.0 5% Trimean = 54.9 Standard Deviation = 36.5 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % None 11 5.4 6.0 Less than 1% 1 .5 .5 1% to 25% 49 24.3 26.6 25% to 50% 32 15.8 17.4 50% to 100% 82 40.6 44.6 100% 9 4.5 4.9 Missing 18 8.9 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Mean = 47.9 Median = 46.0 5% Trimean = 47.8 Standard Deviation = 33.7 Appendix Table 3-6. Estimates of the Percent of Gang Members Who Are Hispanic (1987) (Law Enforcement Only) N % % None 12 23.1 25.5 1% to 25% 10 19.2 21.3 25% to 50% 10 19.2 21.3 50% to 100% 15 28.8 31.9 Missing 5 9.6 Total 52 100.0 100.0 Mean = 32.6 Median = 28.0 5% Trimean = 30.9 Standard Deviation = 32.2 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % None 39 19.3 21.2 Less than 1% 1 .5 .5 1% to 25% 36 17.8 19.6 25% to 50% 47 23.3 25.5 50% to 100% 58 28.7 31.5 100% 3 1.5 1.6 Missing 18 8.9 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Mean = 35.9 Median = 30.0 5% Trimean = 34.6 Standard Deviation = 31.3 Appendix Table 3-7. Estimates of the Percent of Hispanic Gang Members Who Are Mexican (1987) (Law Enforcement Only) N % % None 16 30.8 47.1 0 to less than 1% 0 0.0 0.0 1% to 25% 1 1.9 2.9 25% to 50% 1 1.9 2.9 50% to 100% 3 5.8 8.8 100% 13 25.0 38.2 Missing 18 34.6 Total 52 100.0 100.0 Mean = 46.53 Median = 16.00 5% Trimean = 46.14 Standard Deviation = 48.68 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % None 54 26.7 39.4 0 to less than 1% 0 0.0 0.0 1% to 25% 6 3.0 4.4 25% to 50% 6 3.0 4.4 50% to 100% 37 18.3 27.0 100% 34 16.8 24.8 Missing 65 32.2 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Mean = 48.3 Median = 50 5% Trimean = 48.1 Standard Deviation = 45 Appendix Table 3-8. Estimates of the Percent of Hispanic Gang Members Who Are Puerto Rican (1987) (Law Enforcement Only) N % % None 24 46.2 70.6 0 to less than 1% 0 0.0 0.0 1% to 25% 4 7.7 11.8 25% to 50% 0 0.0 0.0 50% to 100% 3 5.8 8.8 100% 3 5.8 8.8 Missing 18 34.6 Total 52 100.0 100.0 Mean = 15.99 Median = 0.0 5% Trimean = 12.21 Standard Deviation = 32.19 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % None 92 45.5 67.2 0 to Less than 1% 0 0.0 0.0 1% to 25% 17 8.4 12.4 25% to 50% 6 3.0 4.4 50% to 100% 16 7.9 11.7 100% 6 3.0 4.4 Missing 65 32.2 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Mean = 14.58 Median = 0.00 5% Trimean = 10.71 Standard Deviation = 28.90 Appendix Table 3-9. Estimates of the Percent of Hispanic Gang Members Who Are Other Hispanic (1987) (Law Enforcement Only) N % % None 31 59.6 91.2 0 to less than 1% 0 0.0 0.0 1% to 25% 0 0.0 0.0 25% to 50% 1 1.9 2.9 50% to 100% 2 3.8 5.9 100% 0 0.0 0.0 Missing 18 34.6 Total 52 100.0 100.0 Mean = 5.63 Median = 0.00 5% Trimean = 1.59 Standard Deviation = 20.16 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % None 98 48.5 71.5 Over 0, Under 1% 1 .5 .7 1% to 25% 24 11.9 17.5 25% to 50% 6 3.0 4.4 50% to 100% 8 4.0 5.8 100% 0 0.0 0.0 Missing 65 32.2 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Mean = 7.23 Median 0.00 5% Trimean = 3.82 Standard Deviation = 18.4 Appendix Table 3-10. Estimates of the Percent of Gang Members Who Are White (1987) (Law Enforcement Only) N % % None 16 30.8 34.0 1% to 25% 30 57.7 63.8 50% to 100% 1 1.9 2.1 Missing 5 9.6 Total 52 100.0 100.0 Mean = 4.8 Median = 2.0 5% Trimean = 3.6 Standard Deviation = 8.1 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % None 47 23.3 25.5 Less than 1% 2 1.0 1.1 1% to 25% 123 60.9 66.8 25% to 50% 9 4.5 4.9 50% to 100% 3 1.5 1.6 Missing 18 8.9 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Mean = 7.8 Median = 5.0 5% Trimean = 6.2 Standard Deviation = 11.0 Appendix Table 3-11. Estimates of the Percent of Gang Members Who Are Asian (1987) (Law Enforcement Only) N % % None 27 51.9 57.4 Less than 1% 2 3.8 4.3 1% to 25% 14 26.9 29.8 25% to 50% 2 3.8 4.3 50% to 100% 1 1.9 2.1 100% 1 1.9 2.1 Missing 5 9.6 Total 52 100.0 100.0 Mean = 6.1 Median = 0.0 5% Trimean = 2.9 Standard Deviation = 17.1 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % None 108 53.5 58.7 Less than 1% 7 3.5 3.8 1% to 25% 60 29.7 32.6 25% to 50% 5 2.5 2.7 50% to 100% 2 1.0 1.1 100% 2 1.0 1.1 Missing 18 8.9 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Mean = 5.1 Median = 0.0 5% Trimean = 2.4 Standard Deviation = 15.0 Appendix Table 3-12. Gangs with the Same Name are Found in Different Areas (Law Enforcement Only) N % % Yes 33 63.5 63.5 No 19 36.5 36.5 Total 52 100.0 100.0 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % Yes 138 68.3 75.0 No 46 22.8 25.0 Missing 18 8.9 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Appendix Table 3-13. Estimates of the Percent of Total Part 1 or Index Offenses Attributed to Youth Gangs in 1987 (Law Enforcement Only) N % % None 2 3.8 5.9 Over 0, Under 10% 12 23.1 35.3 10% to less than 20% 6 11.5 17.6 20% to less than 50% 9 17.3 26.5 50% to less than 90% 5 9.6 14.7 90% to less than 100% 0 100% 0 Missing 18 34.6 Total 52 100.0 100.0 Mean = 22.74 Median = 11.25 5% Trimean = 20.94 Standard Deviation = 24.26 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % None 7 3.5 7.3 Over 0, Under 10% 15 7.4 15.6 10% to less than 20% 17 8.4 17.7 20% to less than 50% 30 14.9 31.3 50% to less than 90% 22 10.9 22.9 90% to less than 100% 5 2.5 5.2 100% 0 Missing 106 52.5 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Mean = 32.69 Median = 20.05 5% Trimean = 31.32 Standard Deviation = 28.94 Appendix Table 3-14. Estimates of the Percent of Gang Offenders with Prior Police Records (1987) (Law Enforcement Only) N % % Over 0, Under 10% 2 3.8 4.9 20% to less than 50% 1 1.9 2.4 50% to less than 90% 23 44.2 56.1 90% to less than 100% 13 25.0 31.7 100% 2 3.8 4.9 Missing 11 21.2 Total 52 100.0 100.0 Mean = 75.00 Median = 80.00 5% Trimean = 77.47 Standard Deviation = 22.41 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % None 4 2.0 2.6 Over 0, Under 10% 3 1.5 1.9 10% to less than 20% 4 2.0 2.6 20% to less than 50% 14 6.9 9.0 50% to less than 90% 80 39.6 51.6 90% to less than 100% 33 16.3 21.3 100% 17 8.4 11.0 Missing 47 23.3 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Mean = 70.08 Median = 75.00 5% Trimean = 72.20 Standard Deviation = 27.14 Appendix Table 3-15. Estimates of the Percent of Gang-Related Incidents or Cases Involving Adults in 1987 (Law Enforcement Only) N % % None 1 1.9 2.6 0 to 20% 4 7.7 10.3 20% to 50% 16 30.8 41.0 50% to 75% 12 23.1 30.8 75% to 100% 6 11.5 15.4 100% 0 Missing 13 25.0 Total 52 100.0 100.0 Mean = 45.56 Median = 40.00 5% Trimean = 45.35 Standard Deviation = 25.43 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % None 45 22.3 29.2 0 to 20% 30 14.9 19.5 20% to 50% 54 26.7 35.1 50% to 75% 13 6.4 8.4 75% to 100% 8 4.0 5.2 100% 4 2.0 2.6 Missing 48 23.8 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Mean = 23.66 Median = 20.00 5% Trimean = 20.95 Standard Deviation = 26.31 Appendix Table 3-16. The More Serious Part of the Gang Problem (Law Enforcement Only) N % % Juvenile 18 34.6 35.3 Adult 5 9.6 9.8 Both 28 53.8 54.9 Missing 1 1.9 Total 52 100.0 100.0 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % Juvenile 78 38.6 41.5 Adult 21 10.4 11.2 Both 89 44.1 47.3 Missing 14 6.9 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Appendix Table 3-17. Respondents Reporting Gang Affiliation with Adult Criminal Organizations (Law Enforcement Only) N % % Yes 39 75.0 75.0 No 13 25.0 25.0 Total 52 100.0 100.0 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % Yes 154 76.2 83.7 No 30 14.9 16.3 Missing 18 8.9 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Appendix Table 3-18. Drugs are a Primary Purpose of the Gang (Law Enforcement Only) N % % Yes 28 53.8 54.9 No 23 44.2 45.1 Missing 1 1.9 Total 52 100.0 100.0 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % Yes 121 59.9 63.4 No 70 34.7 36.6 Missing 11 5.4 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Appendix Table 3-19. Gang Members Involved in the Importation of Drugs (Law Enforcement Only) N % % Yes 30 57.7 63.8 No 17 32.7 36.2 Missing 5 9.6 Total 52 100.0 100.0 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % Yes 93 46.0 56.0 No 73 36.1 44.0 Missing 36 17.8 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Appendix Table 4-1. Total Number of Staff in Respondent's Agency (Law Enforcement Only) N % % 10 and Under 11 21.2 22.4 11 through 30 9 17.3 18.4 31 through 200 6 11.5 12.2 201 through 1,000 14 26.9 28.6 Over 1,000 9 17.3 18.4 Missing 3 5.8 Total 52 100.0 100.0 Mean = 1050.67 Median = 119.00 5% Trimean = 361.26 Standard Deviation = 4232.29 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % 10 and Under 46 22.8 28.8 11 through 30 41 20.3 25.6 31 through 200 46 22.8 28.8 201 through 1,000 18 8.9 11.3 Over 1,000 9 4.5 5.6 Missing 42 20.8 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Mean = 276.83 Median = 25.00 5% Trimean = 103.67 Standard Deviation = 960.04 Appendix Table 4-2. Organizations with Special Gang Policies and Procedures (Law Enforcement Only) N % % Yes 26 50.0 52.0 No 24 46.2 48.0 Missing 2 3.8 Total 52 100.0 100.0 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % Yes 104 51.5 58.1 No 75 37.1 41.9 Missing 23 11.4 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Appendix Table 4-3. Organizations whose Special Gang Policies and Procedures are in Writing (Law Enforcement Only) N % % Yes 20 38.5 48.8 No 21 40.4 51.2 Missing 11 21.2 Total 52 100.0 100.0 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % Yes 65 32.2 43.9 No 83 41.1 56.1 Missing 54 26.7 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Appendix Table 4-4. Organization that have Influenced Legislation Related to Gangs (Law Enforcement Only) N % % Yes 13 25.0 25.5 No 37 71.2 74.5 Missing 2 3.8 Total 52 100.0 100.0 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % Yes 46 22.8 24.3 No 143 70.8 75.7 Missing 13 6.4 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Appendix Table 4-5. Organizations that Provide Special Training on Gangs for Personnel (Law Enforcement Only) N % % Yes 45 86.5 86.5 No 7 13.5 13.5 Total 52 100.0 100.0 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % Yes 122 60.4 71.3 No 49 24.3 28.7 Missing 31 15.3 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Appendix Table 4-6. Agencies with Organizational Specialization to Deal with the Gang Problem (Law Enforcement Only) N % Yes 22 42.3 No 30 57.7 Total 52 100.0 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % Yes 41 79.7 No 161 20.3 Total 202 100.0 Appendix Table 4-7. Organizations that have a Special Internal Advisory Structure (Law Enforcement Only) N % % Yes 12 23.1 24.0 No 38 73.1 76.0 Missing 2 3.8 Total 52 100.0 100.0 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % Yes 59 29.2 32.1 No 125 61.9 67.9 Missing 18 8.9 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Appendix Table 4-8. Organizations that have a Special External Advisory Structure (Law Enforcement Only) N % % Yes 17 32.7 33.3 No 34 65.4 66.7 Missing 1 1.9 Total 52 100.0 100.0 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % Yes 113 55.9 58.5 No 80 39.6 41.5 Missing 9 4.5 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Appendix Table 4-9. Respondents who Report Coordination Efforts by Inter-Agency Task Forces or Community-Wide Organizations in 1987 (Law Enforcement Only) N % % Yes 36 69.2 72.0 No 14 26.9 28.0 Missing 2 3.8 Total 52 100.0 100.0 (Excluding Law Enforcement) N % % Yes 125 61.9 68.3 No 58 28.7 31.7 Missing 19 9.4 Total 202 100.0 100.0 ------------------------------ MDS Strategy Differences Across Areas and Respondent Categories Differences among Sites in Strategy Multidimensional scaling analysis is again used to provide an exploratory map that illustrates the differences across sites with respect to primary strategy. First we generate euclidean distances between each pair of areas from the proportion of respondents in each site who exhibit each primary strategy. The input for this analysis is the content of Table 5-5. The two dimensions of the "map" are derived in the same manner as the ones we generated for definitions above. Their meanings can be inferred from the correlations between area location on the designated dimension and the proportions of respondents in each area exhibiting a primary strategy. The relative locations of each area on the two dimensions are shown in Appendix Figure 5-1. The R squared statistic for this MDS solution is 0.932 which means that the solution accounts for 93.2% of the variation in Euclidean distances between the sites. The first dimension (horizontal) loads negatively on three strategies, community organization, organizational development, and suppression. The second dimension (vertical) loads positively on social intervention and community organization and negatively on suppression. The presence of opportunities and alternatives strategies do not significantly contribute to the differences between the sites. Appendix Table 5-5. Proportion of Respondents Exhibiting Each Strategy (Regardless of Rank) by Area CITY COMORG SOC- OPPS SUP- ORGDEVCH INTER PRESS Albuquerque* .00 .50 .33 .83 .17 Benton Harbor .33 .67 .33 1.00 .00 Cicero .50 1.00 .00 .50 .00 Chicago* .27 .73 .47 .47 .27 Columbus .70 .80 .50 .70 .30 Detroit* .33 .00 .00 .33 .33 El Monte* .40 .80 .60 .20 .00 Evanston .67 .67 .67 .33 .33 Flint .67 .33 .00 .67 .00 Fort Wayne .75 .75 .25 .50 .50 Indianapolis .33 .33 .00 .83 .17 Jackson .00 .67 .00 1.00 .00 Long Beach* .40 .60 .20 .80 .20 LA City* .67 .71 .43 .52 .24 LA County* .20 .30 .10 .80 .30 Louisville .50 .83 .00 1.00 .33 Madison .67 .33 .00 1.00 .67 Miami .27 .40 .13 .53 .47 Milwaukee .50 .50 .50 .63 .25 Minneapolis .57 .57 .14 .57 .29 New York* .20 .60 .40 .47 .13 Oakland* .67 .00 .33 1.00 .33 Pomona* .20 .60 .20 .60 .20 Philadelphia* 1.00 .60 .40 .60 .40 Phoenix* 1.00 1.00 .00 1.00 .67 Reno 1.00 .67 .00 1.00 .00 Rockford .50 1.00 .00 1.00 .00 Sacramento .75 .25 .25 .75 .75 San Diego* .40 .60 .30 .40 .40 San Francisco* .17 .50 .50 .50 .33 Salt Lake City .50 1.00 .50 .75 .00 Santa Ana* 1.00 .71 .29 .57 .43 Shreveport .33 .00 .00 1.00 .33 Sterling .67 .00 .33 1.00 .00 Stockton* .67 .67 .00 .67 .17 Tallahassee 1.00 .50 .50 1.00 1.00 Tucson* .67 .33 .00 1.00 .33 Inglewood* .75 .50 .25 .50 .25 CA-CYA* .67 .00 .67 1.00 .33 San Jose* .14 .43 .29 .57 .14 Chino* .00 .50 .50 1.00 .50 E.LA* .50 .75 .25 .50 .75 * Chronic Areas Appendix Table 5-6. Proportion of Respondents in Each Site Exhibiting Strategy as Primary Strategy Commnty Soc Opps Org Org Inter Alts Suprsn Dev/Chan Albuquerque* .00 .17 .17 .50 .17 Benton Harbor .00 .00 .00 1.00 .00 Cicero .50 .00 .00 .50 .00 Chicago* .07 .53 .07 .27 .07 Columbus .10 .60 .00 .20 .10 Detroit* .00 .00 .00 .33 .33 El Monte* .20 .40 .20 .20 .00 Evanston .00 .33 .33 .33 .00 Flint .33 .00 .00 .33 .00 Fort Wayne .50 .00 .00 .25 .25 Indianapolis .00 .17 .00 .83 .00 Jackson .00 .00 .00 1.00 .00 Long Beach* .00 .00 .00 .80 .20 LA City* .05 .62 .10 .14 .10 LA County* .00 .20 .00 .60 .20 Louisville .17 .00 .00 .83 .00 Madison .33 .00 .00 .00 .67 Miami .07 .33 .00 .20 .27 Milwaukee .13 .38 .00 .38 .13 Minneapolis .00 .29 .00 .43 .29 New York* .00 .53 .07 .27 .00 Oakland* .00 .00 .00 .67 .33 Pomona* .00 .20 .20 .60 .00 Philadelphia* .20 .40 .00 .40 .00 Phoenix* .33 .00 .00 .67 .00 Reno .33 .00 .00 .67 .00 Rockford .25 .25 .00 .50 .00 Sacramento .50 .00 .00 .50 .00 San Diego* .10 .40 .10 .20 .20 San Francisco* .00 .33 .17 .33 .17 Salt Lake City .00 .50 .00 .50 .00 Santa Ana* .00 .57 .00 .43 .00 Shreveport .00 .00 .00 1.00 .00 Sterling .00 .00 .00 1.00 .00 Stockton* .00 .33 .00 .67 .00 Tallahassee .00 .00 .00 1.00 .00 Tucson* .33 .00 .00 .67 .00 Inglewood* .00 .25 .25 .25 .25 CA-CYA* .00 .00 .00 .67 .33 San Jose* .14 .29 .00 .57 .00 Chino* .00 .50 .00 .50 .00 E.LA* .00 .50 .25 .25 .00 * Chronic Areas Appendix Table 5-7. Pearson Correlations of Proportion of Respondents Exhibiting Primary Strategy and MDS Dimension for 42 Areas Horizontal Vertical Community Organization -.0049 .7462 ** Social Intervention -.7655 ** -.5886 ** Opportunities/Alternatives -.4366 * -.2413 Suppression .9610 ** -.2786 Organization Development -.2914 .5766 ** Appendix Table 5-8. Proportion of Respondents for Each Respondent Category Exhibiting Strategy as Primary Strategy Respondent Comm. Soc.Int. Opp/Alts Supprs Org. Category Org. Dev. Law Enf. .10 .06 .00 .65 .19 Prosecution .08 .00 .00 .85 .08 Court .00 .00 .07 .79 .07 Probation .09 .09 .00 .69 .09 Correctns .00 .38 .13 .38 .13 Parole .09 .18 .00 .46 .18 Schl.Sec. .11 .33 .00 .44 .11 Schl.Oth. .12 .39 .12 .27 .04 Yth. Ser. .09 .83 .09 .00 .00 Comprehensive .00 .67 .00 .00 .33 Fam. Ser. .00 .88 .13 .00 .00 Grass Rts. .40 .60 .00 .00 .00 Planning .08 .25 .08 .08 .42 Appendix Table 5-9. Pearson Correlations of Average Proportion of Respondents Exhibiting Primary Strategy and MDS Dimension for 13 Respondent Categories Horizontal Vertical Community Organization -.1603 .5530 * Social Intervention -.9718 *** .2092 Opportunities/Alternatives -.3836 -.1174 Suppression .9761 *** .0573 Organization Development .0708 -.9104 *** ------------------------------ Discussion of Appendix Figure 5-1 The primary strategy for one of Madison's three respondents is community organization, and for the other two, it is organizational change/development. Since no other site exhibits a comparable combination of these two primary strategies, Madison's isolation near the top of our two dimensional map of our sites is not surprising especially given the significant relationships between the vertical dimension and community organization and organizational development as primary strategies. Fort Wayne with its division of primary strategies between community organization (50%), organizational development (25%), and suppression (25%) is not too far away in terms of these artificial measures of distance derived from primary strategies. At the opposite end (bottom) of the two-dimensional mapping of sites on the basis of primary strategy are Santa Ana with its primary strategy combination of social intervention (57%) and suppression (43%) and Salt Lake City and Chino with their similar breakdown on these tow primary strategies (50% and 50%). Not far away are East LA and Evanston where primary strategies are divided between social intervention, opportunities/alternatives, and suppression. El Monte, Milwaukee, and San Diego with relatively balanced strategies, led in each instance by an emphasis on social intervention, fall to the left end of the first dimension and exactly in the center of the vertical dimension. Louisville and Long Beach approach the same location on the vertical dimension but fall to the right on the horizontal dimension. Both of these sites exhibit two primary strategies each with the clearly predominant one being suppression (83% and 80% respectively). For Louisville, 17% of respondents exhibit community organization as a primary strategy, and, for Long Beach, 20% exhibit organizational development as a primary strategy. Indianapolis with a comparable emphasis on suppression (83%) and a lesser emphasis on social intervention falls further away (downward and to the left). Indianapolis falls fairly close to the tightly grouped set of sites consisting of Sterling, Shreveport, Tallahassee, Benton Harbor, and Jackson all of which show a total commitment to suppression along as a primary strategy. Differences Among Respondent Categories in Strategy In shifting our focus from areas to the respondent categories, the smaller number of categories allows us to more easily observe the differences across categories in Appendix Table 5-8. Multi-dimensional scaling of the Euclidean distances between respondent categories is again used to generate two dimensions. This time the R squared statistic for the MDS solution of 0.995, indicates that the solution accounts for 99.5% of the variation in the Euclidean distance between respondent categories. Appendix Table 5-9 shows the correlations between the proportion of respondents exhibiting each primary strategy and each of the two dimensions. The stronger of the two, the horizontal dimension of the MDS map of the respondent categories, is significantly correlated with social intervention (negatively) and suppression (positively). This correlation pattern makes it possible to say that the major differences among respondent categories with respect to strategy results from differences between having social intervention versus suppression as a primary strategy. From Appendix Table 5-9, we can see that the second (vertical) dimension differentiates on the basis of community organization versus organizational development as primary strategies. The provision of opportunities does not greatly contribute to the differences in strategy among respondent categories. These patterns are very clear in the mapping of respondent categories in Appendix Figure 5-2. Respondent categories to the right of the figure are those more likely to pursue suppression as a primary strategy. Those to the left are more likely to pursue social intervention as a primary strategy. Prosecution is at the extreme right closely clustered with the other suppressive categories, probation, law enforcement, and the court. Family and youth service agencies fall to the left center due to their emphasis on social intervention. With its community organization role in addition to social intervention, grass-roots is in the upper left corner. Comprehensive service agencies with an emphasis on organizational development and change in addition to social intervention fall in the lower left corner of the figure. Planning where organizational development and change are paramount is located in the bottom center of the primary strategy map. Comparison of Causal Perceptions Across Sites. As with other parts of our analysis, we use multidimensional scaling analysis to produce an exploratory comparison of causal perceptions as they differ across sites. We choose to perform our analysis of the proportion of respondents from each site who choose each type of causation as the most important cause of the gang problem. These proportions are listed for the 42 sites with more than one respondent in Appendix Table 5-16. As with definitions and strategies, we use these proportions to derive Euclidean distances between all pairs of sites. From these Euclidean distances, a multi-dimensional scaling solution in two dimensions is derived through an iterative process. The solution that is generated from our measures for these primary causal perceptions produces an R squared value of .903 indicating that the solution accounts for 90.3% of the variation in the Euclidean distances among the 42 sites. Some meaning can be attached to the two generated dimensions by examining the Pearson correlations between the location of each site on each derived dimension and the proportions of the respondents from each site indicating that type of cause as the most important cause of the gang problem at the site (Appendix Table 5-17). The stronger of the two dimensions (the horizontal) is positively related to structural causes at the system level. That same dimension is negatively related to institutional level explanations and somewhat less significantly to individual level explanations. The second (vertical) dimension is significantly related to response effect explanations in a positive direction. Negatively there is a significant relationship with institutional level explanations. Tucson, Oakland, and Detroit show total agreement on system level forces as the primary causes of the gang problem. These three cities cluster closely together at the extreme right side of the horizontal axis. Not far away from them is Minneapolis where 85.7% of the respondents agree on system level primary causes of the gang problem. Sterling, with two of its three respondents emphasizing response effects, and San Jose, with a majority of its respondents choosing response effects as the most important cause, fall near the top of Appendix Figure 5-18. Benton Harbor with its respondents' emphasis on institutional level causes falls in the lower left corner. A group of cities in which response effects receive no attention as primary causes cluster in the bottom center of the two dimensional map. Appendix Table 5-12. Primary Perceived Cause -- Proportion by Area System/ Instit. Indivdl Response Structure Failure Problem Effect N Albuquerque* .500 .000 .333 .167 6 Benton Harbor .333 .667 .000 .000 3 Cicero .000 .500 .500 .000 2 Chicago* .467 .400 .133 .000 15 Columbus .100 .300 .000 .500 10 Detroit* 1.000 .000 .000 .000 3 El Monte* .400 .200 .000 .400 5 Evanston .333 .667 .000 .000 3 Flint .667 .000 .333 .000 3 Fort Wayne .500 .250 .250 .000 4 Indianapolis .333 .500 .167 .000 6 Jackson .667 .333 .000 .000 3 Long Beach* .200 .400 .400 .000 5 LA City* .333 .333 .190 .143 21 LA County* .200 .400 .400 .000 10 Louisville .167 .333 .333 .167 6 Madison .333 .333 .000 .333 3 Miami .267 .467 .200 .067 15 Milwaukee .375 .500 .000 .125 8 Minneapolis .857 .000 .143 .000 7 New York* .333 .200 .333 .133 15 Oakland* 1.000 .000 .000 .000 3 Pomona* .400 .400 .200 .000 5 Philadelphia* .200 .400 .200 .200 5 Phoenix* .667 .000 .000 .333 3 Reno .333 .333 .000 .333 3 Rockford .500 .000 .250 .250 4 Sacramento .750 .250 .000 .000 4 San Diego* .600 .200 .100 .100 10 San Francisco* .667 .167 .000 .167 6 Salt Lake City .750 .000 .000 .250 4 Santa Ana* .143 .571 .286 .000 7 Shreveport .667 .333 .000 .000 3 Sterling .000 .333 .000 .667 3 Stockton* .500 .500 .000 .000 6 Tallahassee .500 .500 .000 .000 2 Tucson* 1.000 .000 .000 .000 3 Inglewood* .500 .250 .250 .000 4 CA-CYA* .667 .000 .000 .333 3 San Jose* .286 .000 .143 .571 7 Chino* .500 .000 .500 .000 2 East LA* .500 .250 .000 .250 4 * Chronic Areas Appendix Table 5-13. Pearson Correlations of Site Average Proportion of Respondents Ranking Cause Perception First and MDS Dimension for 42 Sites Horizontal Vertical System/Structure .9661 *** -.2075 Institution Level -.8020 *** -.3791 ** Individual Level -.3213 * -.2963 Response Effects -.1494 .9729 *** Significance Levels: * = 0.05 ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 ------------------------------ Comparison of Causal Perceptions Across Respondent Categories Appendix Table 5-14 shows the breakdown of the primary important cause categories by respondent category. From these proportions, Euclidean distances are computed between each pair of respondent categories, and from these Euclidean distances, a two dimensional MDS solution is derived after seven iterations. The R squared statistic for the solution is 0.979, indicating that the solution accounts for 97.9% of the variation of Euclidean distance between categories. The stronger of the two dimensions is arbitrarily used as the horizontal dimension in the mapping displayed in Appendix Figure 5-4. From Appendix Table 5-15, it can be seen that this horizontal dimension is positively related to structural explanations at the system level and negatively related to institutional level explanations. The second dimension which arbitrarily assign to the vertical dimension is significantly related to individual level explanations in a positive direction and to response effects in a negative direction. Parole respondents are spread across all four types of primary cause choices. The two leading primary cause categories for parole respondents are respectively structural system level causes and individual level causes. A majority of grass roots respondents choose structural system level causes, while the remainder are equally divided between institutional and individual level explanations. Parole falls in the upper right corner of the mapping derived from causal perception and grass roots falls near by. Corrections, which shows the greatest commitment of any of the respondent categories to response effects as causes of the gang problem and the second to least attachment to individual level explanations, ends up in the lower right corner of the mapping in Appendix Figure 5-4. Comprehensive services with no respondents listing system level causes as primary falls at the extreme left middle of the mapping. Appendix Table 5-14. Most Important Cause -- Proportion of Respondents per Category. System/ Instit. Indivdl Response Structure Failure Problem Effect N Law .423 .269 .173 .135 52 Enforcement Prosecution .462 .346 .154 .038 26 Court .286 .429 .143 .143 14 Probation .438 .313 .094 .156 32 Corrections .500 .125 .000 .375 8 Parole .455 .091 .364 .091 11 School .333 .333 .111 .222 9 Security School Other .500 .269 .115 .077 26 Youth .348 .283 .196 .174 46 Services Compre- .000 .667 .333 .000 3 hensive Family .375 .500 .125 .000 8 Services Grass Roots .600 .200 .200 .000 5 Planning .500 .250 .167 .083 12 Appendix Table 5-15. Pearson Correlations of Site Average Proportion of Respondents Ranking Cause Perception First and MDS Dimension for 13 Respondent Categories Horizontal Vertical System/Structure .9164 *** .2379 Institution Level -.9642 *** -.1431 Individual Level -.3939 .7194 ** Response Effects .4654 -.7801 ** ------------------------------ Network Measures In order to compute our network measures for each site, we had to code answers to Item V-4 in accordance with the respondent categories for each site. The coding results that we use for all network analysis computations is the set of 41 sociometric networks included in the Appendix where ones indicate the reporting of direct contact and zeroes indicate the absence of contact. Zeroes are arbitrarily used for the diagonal to avoid considering how much an agency is in touch with itself. Two of our measures of network strength are simple and straightforward. The first is simply the density of the network. That is what proportion of all possible direct links are present. The second is what proportion of all possible direct links are reciprocated links present in the observed network. Three examples (Appendix Table 5-18), two of them extreme, may be useful in understanding these measures. Each of the three respondents from Detroit do not name any of the other respondents from Detroit as being an agency with whom the respondent is in most contact. The result is the three by three matrix of zeroes shown in Appendix Table 5-18. The density of the network for Detroit is zero. The reciprocal density is also zero. Each of the two respondents from Cicero names the other as an agency with whom they are in most contact. There are two direct links possible. Both are present. Two divided by two is one for the network density. Both of these links are reciprocated links so the reciprocal density of the Cicero network is also 1.0. The Benton Harbor network contains three respondents, the police, the prosecution, and probation. The police indicate contact with the prosecution. The prosecution indicates contact with the police. Probation indicates contact with both the police and the prosecution. There are six possible direct links in this 3-respondent network of which four are indicated to be present. The density of the network is calculated as 4 divided by 6 or 0.667. Two of the existing links, police- prosecution and prosecution-police, are reciprocated. Two, probation-police and probation- prosecution, are not reciprocated. The reciprocal density is therefore two divided by six or 0.333. These two density measures are shown for the forty- one areas with more than one respondent in Appendix Table 5-19. (We did not attempt a network analysis of our California Youth Authority respondents.) More complex and less intuitive measures of actors' roles in network structure can be obtained by subjecting our network data to the network analysis available through the STRUCTURE program (Burt 1987). Two of our networks, the one from Detroit with zero links and the one from Inglewood with limited links, are not suitable for analysis with STRUCTURE. For the respondents in the other 39 networks, we select three measures of prominence from the network analyses results. All three are described in detail by Burt (1982). Unlike our simple network-level measures, these measures take into account indirect as well as direct linkages between respondents. The first is labeled by Burt proportion of network. Proportion of network is the proportion of all observed relations that involve each respondent. The second is aggregate prominence. A respondent's aggregate prominence increases to the degree that the respondent is the object of relations from other prominent respondents in the network. The third measure is reciprocated prominence. Reciprocated prominence is a function of the degree to which a respondent's agency is itself prominent and its reported relationships to other respondents are reciprocated. These three measures are selected because they capture three complementary ways of looking at respondent prominence. Given the limitations of network data, these results are treated with appropriate caution. Means of these three measures are presented by site in Appendix Table 5-20 and by respondent category in Appendix Table 5-21. Appendix Table 5-18. Three Example Sociometric Networks (Rows are respondents indicating agencies with whom they are in most contact. Each column represents the corresponding row agency as being indicated as in contact with the row agency. The diagonal is arbitrarily filled with zeroes.) Detroit 3 Respondents Plannng 0 0 0 Prosecutor 0 0 0 School Oth. 0 0 0 Cicero 2 Respondents CS-Yth.Ser 0 1 Law Enf. 1 0 Benton Harbor 3 Respondents Law Enf. 0 1 0 Prosecutor 1 0 0 Probation 1 1 0 Appendix Table 5-19. Network Density Measures by Site. Total Density Reciprocal Density Albuquerque* .500 .167 Benton Harbor .667 .333 Cicero 1.0 1.000 Chicago* .324 .133 Columbus .357 .161 Detroit* 0.00 0.00 El Monte* .7 .60 Evanston .333 0.00 Flint .333 0.00 Fort Wayne .916 .833 Indianapolis .267 .133 Jackson .667 .667 Long Beach* .416 0.00 LA City* .254 .082 LA County* .292 .133 Louisville .467 .467 Madison .50 .167 Miami .285 .109 Milwaukee .392 .178 Minneapolis .261 .190 New York* .138 .028 Oakland* .50 0.00 Pomona* .60 .40 Philadelphia* .55 .20 Phoenix* .50 0.00 Reno .50 0.00 Rockford .667 .50 Sacramento .667 .58 San Diego* .36 .07 San Francisco* .24 .10 Salt Lake City .67 .33 Santa Ana* .57 .32 Shreveport .33 0.00 Sterling .33 0.00 Stockton* .60 .43 Tallahassee .50 0.00 Tucson* .50 .33 Inglewood* .17 .17 San Jose* .40 .19 Chino* .50 0.00 E.LA* .41 .17 CYA (a) (a) Network not computed because it represents an internal agency, rather than a community or area. * Chronic Areas Appendix Table 5-20. Means of Network Analysis Prominence Measures by Site. Proportion Aggregate Reflected of Network Prominence Prominence Albuquerque .33 .60 .03 Benton Harbor .67 .67 .07 Cicero 1.00 1.00 .11 Chicago* .13 .58 .03 Columbus .25 .38 .03 Detroit* - - - El Monte* .40 .72 .06 Evanston .67 .60 .00 Flint .67 .35 .00 Fort Wayne .50 .91 .07 Indianapolis .33 .66 .06 Jackson .67 .76 .08 Long Beach* .43 .45 .01 LA City* .13 .29 .01 LA County* .11 .69 .05 Louisville .33 .61 .04 Madison .67 .81 .05 Miami .13 .38 .03 Milwaukee .25 .64 .05 Minneapolis .29 .41 .04 New York* .13 .50 .03 Oakland* .67 .47 .00 Pomona* .40 .60 .05 Philadelphia* .40 .63 .04 Phoenix* .67 .47 .00 Reno .67 .47 .00 Rockford .50 .83 .09 Sacramento .50 .74 .06 San Diego* .20 .38 .01 San Francisco* .29 .57 .03 Salt Lake City .50 .88 .09 Santa Ana* .25 .62 .05 Shreveport .67 .60 .00 Sterling .67 .67 .00 Stockton* .33 .57 .05 Tallahassee 1.00 .50 .00 Tucson* .67 .67 .07 Inglewood* - - - CA-CYA* (a) - - - San Jose* .29 .48 .04 Chino* 1.00 .50 .00 E.LA* .50 .68 .02 (a) Network not computed because it represents an internal agency, rather than a community or area system * Chronic Areas Appendix Table 5-21. Means of Network Analysis Prominence Measures by Respondent Category. Proportion Aggregate Reflected of Network Prominence Prominence Law Enforcement .4817 .8584 .0570 Prosecution .3408 .5997 .0356 Court .1966 .4363 .0229 Probation .3225 .6646 .0500 Corrections .2743 .5020 .0330 Parole .3472 .3106 .0084 Schl. Security .3193 .5474 .0321 Schl. Other .4690 .4908 .0305 Youth Services .2330 .3301 .0182 Comp. Services .2713 .8450 .0607 Family Services .2040 .4139 .0279 Grass Roots .2480 .5168 .0186 Defense .2280 .0000 .0000 Planning .1132 .1121 .0053 Other .3820 .5580 .0380 All Respondents .3322 .5472 .0344 ------------------------------ APPENDIX B TECHNICAL NOTE ON GENERATING OUR GENERAL EFFECTIVENESS MEASURE FOR SITES We have chosen to rank our sites for selection on the basis of three measures taken from our questionnaire -- perceived improvement in the gang problem since 1980, evaluation of agency effectiveness in 1987, and evaluation of community level program effectiveness in 1987. We have chosen not to give equal weight to each of these three variables, because we believe that the variables merit separate weights. We feel that these weights should be derived empirically from the structure of their covariation in this particular set of respondents. An initial problem is that one of these variables is dichotomous, improvement in the gang situation since 1980, and the other two are sets of ordered categories. Recent advances in applied statistics and the availability of statistical applications for personal computers provide us with a relatively easy solution to what has previously been a major concern to social researchers. We use PC-PRELIS to generate normalized (PROBIT) scores for each of our categorical variables. The resulting values are shown in Table B-1. If we use SPSS/PC to perform a principal components analysis of the normalized (PROBIT) scores for perceived improvement in the gang problem since 1980, evaluation of agency effectiveness in 1987, and evaluation of community level program effectiveness in 1987, we get the three eigenvalues none of which approach zero shown in Table B-2. Table B-1. Normalized (PROBIT) Scores for Three Gang Program Effectiveness Measures Improvement Since 1980 Yes = -1.63 No = 0.24 Evaluation of Effectiveness in 1987 Agency Community Level Program Very Effective -0.86 -1.02 Moderately Effective 0.48 0.30 Hardly Effective 1.52 1.22 Not at All Effective 2.37 1.88 Table B-2. Eigenvalues Produced by Principal Components Analysis of Three Normalized Measures of Effectiveness Eigenvalue % of Variance 1.36 45.5 .89 29.7 .75 24.8 We use the first and largest of these eigenvalues (accounting for 45.5% of the variance) to generate the set of principal component coefficients to be used as weights for our three normalized measures. Table B-3. Coefficients for First Principal Component Coefficient % Variance Explained Improved Since 1980 .411 31.5 Agency Effectiveness .531 52.5 Community Program .531 52.4 Effectiveness The score that is generated for improvement since 1980, a very effective agency rating, and a very effective community level program rating is - 2.18001. This value can be easily transformed so that it is equal to 1.0 and all subsequent values are positive by adding 3.18001 to each score. The result is a set of general effectiveness scores ranging from 1.0 to 5.87. ------------------------------ NATIONAL YOUTH GANG SUPPRESSION AND INTERVENTION PROJECT TELEPHONE QUESTIONNAIRE FOLLOW-UP SCHEDULE CITY: DEPARTMENT/ORGANIZATION TO BE INTERVIEWED: PERSON TO BE INTERVIEWED: DATE AND TIME OF INTERVIEW: TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PERSON TO BE INTERVIEWED: NAME OF INTERVIEWER: TELEPHONE NUMBER OF INTERVIEWER: 312/702-5879 PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING: FIRST: If for any reason you cannot keep the scheduled time for the interview follow-up, please call the interviewer at the above number so that alternate arrangements can be made. SECOND: The interview follow-up should not take more than 40 minutes, and probably less. The purpose of this telephone follow-up will be to clarify your responses to the questionnaire. THIRD: Please return the completed questionnaire so that we receive it no later than five (5) working days prior to the follow-up interview. FOURTH: If data are either not kept or are unavailable, please estimate a number or percent based on your experience. FIFTH: As the attached cover letter indicates, we are prepared to provide maximum anonymity to you and your department in your responses. If you wish anonymity, please complete the enclosed Certification of Confidentiality and return it to us with your completed questionnaire. SIXTH: Please send us any reports, documents, or materials that describe the gang problem and your program or activity in relation to it. If you have any questions about the above comments or the telephone follow-up itself, please call us at 312/702-5879. THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR INTEREST AND COOPERATION! ------------------------------ NATIONAL YOUTH GANG SUPPRESSION AND INTERVENTION PROJECT TELEPHONE QUESTIONNAIRE I. ANONYMITY AND AGENCY IDENTIFICATION 1. Yes ____ anonymity; No ____ anonymity 2. Name of respondent: 3. Title of respondent: 4. Name of department/organization: 5. Specific unit of department/organization of which respondent is a member: ------------------------------ II. THE GANG PROBLEM: ORGANIZATIONAL/PROGRAM HISTORY 1. Do you presently have gangs in your city/community? Yes, No, or Don't Know 2. If no, was there a gang problem in the past? Yes or No 3.If yes, describe the problem (include time period, characteristics of gang members, size of gang, illegal activities engaged in). [Obtain general information, specifics come later.] 4.If the gang problem was reduced or resolved, what do you believe accounted for the change (what events, programs, or strategies, do you think contributed)? ------------------------------ III. SERVICE POPULATION: DEFINITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. What is your organization's definition of a gang? (Indicate its key characteristics, e.g., turf, colors, logo, graffiti, organization, types of criminal behaviors, which make it of concern or relevance to your work. Please be as specific as possible.) 2. How many gangs did you have in your city in 1987? (Estimate, if necessary) 3. What are your organization's principal ways of identifying a gang member or gang case? 4. How many gang members did you have in your city or jurisdiction in 1987? 5. Please estimate the percent of total Part 1 or index offenses in your jurisdiction, or according to your caseload, that was attributed to youth gangs in 1987? [Part 1 offenses = homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft (except motor vehicle theft), motor vehicle theft, arson] 6. What is your organization's definition of a gang-related incident or case? 7. At what age is a young person considered an adult (i.e., no longer under the jurisdiction of juvenile or family court for criminal acts)? 8. What percentage of gang-related incidents or cases coming to your agency's attention in 1987 involved persons who were ... ? juveniles or adults 9. If relevant, what is the average age range of: a. the juvenile gang offender group? from _____ to _____ b. the adult gang offender group? from _____ to _____ 10. If relevant, which is the more serious problem...? (please check one) juvenile, adult or both 11. If relevant, describe the inter-relations of the juvenile and adult gang problem. 12. What percent of gang members coming to your attention in 1987 were ... ? White _____ Black _____ (Specify, if possible) Percent of Blacks: Afro-American _____ Jamaican _____ Other _____ Hispanic _____ (Specify, if possible) Percent of Hispanics: Mexican-American _____ Puerto Rican _____ Other _____ Asian _____ (Specify group and percent) ( ) _____ ( ) _____ ( ) _____ Other (Specify __________) _____ 13. What percentage of gang offenders who came to your organization's attention in 1987 were female? 14. Were there female gangs unaffiliated with (independent of) male gangs in your jurisdiction? 15. If yes, how many were there? 16. What percentage of gang offenders who came to your organization's attention in 1987 had prior police records? 17. What are the general characteristics of gangs in your city? a. Are there divisions or subgroups by age? b. What is the range of age of members in: the gang's sub-groups? from _____ to _____ the total gangs? from _____ to _____ c. What is the average size of: the gangs' sub-groups? from _____ to _____ the total gangs? from _____ to _____ d. Are there gangs of the same name in different neighborhoods or areas? e. Are there youth gangs present which appear to be affiliated with or used by adult criminal organizations in their efforts to make a profit from illegal activity? f. If there are such close connections with adult criminal organizations, in what specific criminal activities are these youth gangs involved? (List by most prevalent) g. Is drug distribution one of the primary purposes of the gang's existence? h. What percent of gangs are involved in the distribution of drugs? i. If there is such involvement, explain what role the youths play. j. Are youth gang members involved in the importation of drugs from outside your jurisdiction? k. If yes, please describe. 18. Has the gang situation changed since 1980? 19. If yes, how? 20. Please estimate the current drop out rate of youths from school in the area in which you have serious gang problems. ------------------------------ IV. ORGANIZATIONAL/PROGRAM STRUCTURE 1. What is your unit's or organization's goals and objectives in regard to the gang problem? 2. When was your gang program established? 3. If you treat gang and non-gang youths coming to your attention differently, explain procedures. 4. Please describe in some detail how your gang program is organized. 5. How many personnel assigned to this unit or sub-unit deal with gangs? 6. If relevant, how many are ... ? a. sworn personnel: full ____ part ____ time [for police, probation, corrections] b. civilian personnel: full ____ part ____ time 7. What classification of positions does the unit have? And the numbers in each? 8. How many staff in the whole organization? 9. Are there special policies and procedures which guide staff in their activities with gangs? Yes, No, or Don't know 10. Are such policies and procedures written? Yes, No, or Don't know [If yes, can we have a copy?] 11. Is special training available to personnel for dealing with gangs? 12. If yes, please describe. 13. How many staff participated in this training in 1987? 14. What activities do gang or special personnel perform in dealing with the problem? [Probe to determine how these are ties to problem as described and goals/objectives.] 15. Which of these is most important in achieving the agency's goals and objectives? (List three) 16. What was the 1987 year budget for your unit's gang program? [Respondent's fiscal year - may be calendar year or some other 12-month period.] 17. What was the 1987 year budget for your department? 18. What is your agency's source of funding for the gang problem? (List percentages for each group) 19. Is there a special internal agency advisory structure which advises or guides your unit's operation in regard to gangs? (Describe) ------------------------------ V. EXTERNAL AGENCY/COMMUNITY RELATIONS 1. Is there an external agency or community group which advises or influences your unit's operations? (Describe) 2. What other units of your department or agency deal with gangs? 3. Explain the ways you work together. 4. With which other justice or community agencies is your unit in most contact? (Rank order) (List as many as 5) 5. How does your gang unit function with these other organizations most contacted? 6. Which of these other justice or community agencies were most helpful in working towards your agency's objectives in 1987? (Rank order) 7. How were these organizations helpful to you? 8. Are there any interagency task forces or community-wide organizations which attempted to coordinate efforts to deal with the gang problem in 1987? (If yes, please describe) 9. If yes, were these efforts ...? very effective _____ somewhat effective _____ hardly effective _____ not at all effective _____ 10. Please explain your rating. ------------------------------ VI. PROGRAM/POLICY EVALUATION COMMENTS 1. How effective do you think your unit was in 1987 in dealing with the gang problem? very effective _____ moderately effective _____ hardly effective _____ not at all effective _____ not sure _____ 2. What has your department (or unit) done that you feel has been particularly successful in dealing with gangs? Please provide statistics, if relevant and available. 3. What has your department (or unit) done that you feel has been least effective in dealing with gangs? 4. What do you think are the five most important causes of the gang problem in your city? (Rank in order of priority) 5. Has legislation related to gangs or the gang problem been initiated or modified as a result of the efforts of your unit or department? (If yes, please describe) 6. What do you think are the five best ways employed by your department or organization for dealing with the gang problem? (Rank in order of priority) 7. What specifically do you think your gang unit or program should be doing in the future, that they are not doing now? ------------------------------ VII. RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Thank you very much for your time and patience. Before I let you go, please answer a few personal or demographic questions. 1. Male _____ Female _____ 2. Age _____ 3. Race/ethnicity White _____ Black (Afro-American) _____ Black other _____ (Specify) _____________ Hispanic _____ (Specify ethnicity) _____________ Asian _____ (Specify ethnicity) _____________ Other (Specify) _____________ 4. Present position (title) 5. How long in present position? 6. How long in present agency? 7. Highest grade achieved at school ... _____ graduate education _____ bachelor's degree _____ some college _____ high school degree _____ some high school 8. Professional degree(s), if any ... (Identify) 9. Please list the organizations in the city concerned with the gang problem of which you are a member. 10. Who else should I speak with to learn about the gang problem and how it's handled in your jurisdiction? Name, Organization, Phone No. 11. What else should I know about your approaches to youth gangs? Are you interested in receiving the results of this survey and other project reports? [If yes] What is your correct mailing address? Please send any written policies and procedures followed by your department/organization and any program related materials to: Irving Spergel, Principal Investigator National Youth Gang Suppression and Intervention Project School of Social Service Administration University of Chicago 969 East 60th Street Chicago, IL 60637 Again, thanks! Date of interview: Name of interviewer: Comments: