Title: Addressing Community Gang Problems: A Practical Guide.
Series: Monograph
Author: Bureau of Justice Assistance
Published: August 1999
Subject: Gangs, Crime Prevention 
241 pages
537,000 bytes

----------------------------

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 BJA at 800-688-4252.

----------------------------

May 1998

Reprinted August 1999

NCJ 164273

----------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno
Attorney General

Raymond C. Fisher
Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson
Assistant Attorney General

Noel Brennan
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Nancy E. Gist
Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance


Office of Justice Programs
World Wide Web Home Page
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice Assistance
World Wide Web Home Page
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

For grant and funding information contact
U.S. Department of Justice Response Center
1-800-421-6770

This document was prepared by the Police Executive Research Forum,
supported by cooperative agreement number 91-DD-CX-K058, awarded
by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.

----------------------------

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National
Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
and the Office for Victims of Crime.

----------------------------

Foreword

Urban street-gang involvement in drug trafficking and violent crime is becoming
increasingly widespread--not just in large cities, but in suburban areas and small
towns as well.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) recognizes that programs aimed at
combating gang-related activity must incorporate both crime prevention and
crime control initiatives to be effective over long periods of time. Accordingly,
in October 1991, BJA initiated the development of a prototype model of the
Comprehensive Gang Initiative.

BJA is pleased to present this monograph, Addressing Community Gang
Problems: A Practical Guide, as a product of that initiative. It is a useful
tool that provides guidelines for agencies and community groups to develop
individualized responses to local gang problems. This practical manual provides
a foundation for understanding the diverse nature of gangs, the problems they
pose and the harm they cause, and the two analytical models for addressing
gang-related problems. 

Two companion monographs complement this one. Addressing Community
Gang Problems: A Model for Problem Solving provides a prototype to assist
communities in identifying, analyzing, and responding to gang-related problems
as well as assessing the effectiveness of their responses. Urban Street Gang
Enforcement focuses exclusively on enforcement and prosecution strategies to
protect against urban street gangs and presents strategies to enhance the
prosecution of gang-related crimes.

Nancy E. Gist
Director

----------------------------

Acknowledgments

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) wishes to thank the Police Executive
Research Forum (PERF) and, in particular, John Stedman and Deborah Lamm
Weisel, for their help and guidance in compiling this document. BJA also thanks
the following individuals for their contributions:

Deborah Lamm Weisel, Chapter 1. 

Robert P. McNamara, Chapters 2 and 3.

Hugh Nugent, Chapters 4 and 7.

William Spelman, Chapter 5.

Marilyn B. Ayres, Chapter 6.

George E. Capowich, Chapter 8.

----------------------------

Contents

Executive Summary 

I. Understanding Gangs and Gang Problems 

Chapter 1: Introduction

o Analytical Models 

o Organization of the Monograph

Chapter 2: Defining the Community's Gang(s)

o Which Definition To Use?

o Gang Diversity 

o Community Concerns: What To Do? 

Chapter 3: Gang Involvement in Drugs and Violence

o The Media's Social Distortion of Gangs

o Historical Overview of Gangs

o Types of Gangs

o Gangs and Drugs

-- Drug Use

-- Drug Selling

-- Drugs and Violence

o Gangs and Violence

o The Relationships Among Gangs, Drugs, and Violence

o Community Responses to the Problem

Chapter 4: Gang Graffiti

o What Are Graffiti?


o Are Graffiti a Problem?

-- Graffiti as Street Art

-- Gang Graffiti

o Reading Graffiti

-- Alphabets

-- Signs and Symbols

-- Ethnic Graffiti

o Attacking a Graffiti Problem

-- Controllers

-- Guardians

-- Manager

-- Offenders

-- Tools

-- Problem Places

o Responses

-- Establishing a Graffiti Policy

-- Reducing Availability of Graffiti Tools

-- Graffiti Removal Campaigns

-- Target Hardening

-- Discouraging Graffiti

-- Providing Alternatives to Taggers 

-- Encouraging Public Responsibility

o Assessment

II. Learning About Local Gangs

Chapter 5: Needs Assessments for Gang Problems

o What Is a Needs Assessment?

-- Aren't Communities Already Doing This?

-- What Is the Needs Assessment Looking For?

o Step 1: Laying the Groundwork

-- First Steps

-- Scope and Focus

-- Getting the Advisory Board To Buy In 

-- Dealing With Conflict

o Step 2: Identifying Current Activities

-- Defining What Information To Collect

-- Identifying Service Providers

-- Collecting Information

-- Displaying Results

-- Reaping the Benefits of Surveying

o Step 3: Identifying and Setting Priorities Among Needs

-- Surveying Clients and Their Advocates

-- Tracking and Comparing Social Indicators

o Step 4: Developing a Consensus 


-- Presenting Results to the Advisory Board

-- Going Public

-- Developing Solutions

o Conclusion

Chapter 6: Addressing Gang Problems Through Strategic Planning

o Using the Definition of Gang To Frame Community Responses

o Factors in Gang Formation and Membership

o Centrality of a Comprehensive Problem-Solving Approach

o Building and Sustaining Coalitions

-- Functions of Coalitions

-- Initiating the Coalition-Building Process

-- Making Coalitions Work

-- Avoiding Pitfalls

o Strategic Planning

-- Element 1: Mission Formulation

-- Element 2: Organizational Assessment

-- Element 3: Strategic Objectives Development

-- Element 4: Action Plan Development

-- Element 5: Implementation

o Strategic Plan Evaluation 

o Internal and External Communication Strategies

o Importance of Diverse Strategies for Community Identity

o Team Building

-- Assistance From an Outside Facilitator

-- Taking Time To Build the Team

-- Initial Team-Building Goals

-- Stages of Team Growth

-- Generating Ideas and Selecting Options

o Conclusion

III. Responding to Local Gang Problems

Chapter 7: Civil Remedies for Gang-Related Harm

o Analytical Models

-- Gang-Problem Triangle

-- Problem-Solving Model

o Problem Places

-- Residential Sites

-- Commercial Sites

--Recreational Areas

-- Public Places

-- Transitional Places

o Responsible People

o Civil Remedies

-- Civil or Criminal or Both?


-- Injunction or Damages

-- Nuisance Abatement and Zoning Laws

-- Trespass

-- Waste

-- Civil Code Enforcement and Business Licensing

-- Residential Rental Properties

-- Vacant Buildings and Vacant Lots 

o Overcoming Barriers to Civil Remedies

-- Retaliation Against Individuals

-- Getting Public Officials To Cooperate

-- Delay on Civil Dockets

o Case Examples of Civil Remedies

-- 5081 La Paz Drive, San Diego, California

-- 609 East Benton, Joliet, Illinois

-- 1615-1617 Russell Street, Berkeley, California

o Gang-Problem Triangle Applied

o Conclusion

Chapter 8: Evaluating Anti-Gang Efforts

o Process Evaluations

-- Specifying the Program Elements

-- The Purposes of the Evaluation

-- Focusing the Evaluation

-- Collecting Data

o Impact Evaluations

-- Causal Conclusions

-- Unit of Analysis

-- Levels and Types of Effects

-- Appropriate Measures and Data

-- Data Collection

o Design and Analysis

o Overview of Process and Impact Evaluations

Appendix A: References

Appendix B: Sources for Further Information

----------------------------

Exhibits

1. Narrowing the Gap Between Taggers and Gangs, Lakewood, Colorado

2. How Taggers Dress, Lakewood, Colorado 

3. Differences Between Tagger and Gang Graffiti

4. Hispanic Gang Lettering Styles

5. Barrio Lettering in Old English

6. "Corona" in Old English

7. "SSG" in Sharp-Point Letters

8. "Peace" and "Cats" in Bubble Letters


9. "El Blackbird P 12 St" in Loop Letters

10. Swastika in Oriental/American Indian Style Letters

11. Nazi Swastika

12. Six-Pointed Star

13. Five-Pointed Star

14. Hexagram, Pentagram, and Upside-Down Pentagram

15. Celtic Cross

16. Formee Cross

17. Ankh Cross

18. Guides to Hispanic Gang Graffiti

19. Black Gang Graffiti

20. White-Power Graffiti

21. Removing Graffiti: Markers and Surfaces

22. Wheel of Misfortune

23. Austin Project Board of Directors

24. What a Current Activities Survey Can Reveal

25. Matrix Showing Survey Results: Funding Sources for Substance
Abuse/Addiction Service Providers

26. Social Indicators Available in Austin, Travis County, and State of Texas

27. Breakdown of Key Social Indicators Available in Austin and Travis
County, Texas

28. Map Showing Geographical Breakdown: Births to Teen Mothers in Travis
County, Texas, 1989 and 1990


29. Pareto Chart Showing Geographical Data: Neighborhoods at Highest
Risk, Child Abuse and Neglect Cases by ZIP Code in Austin, Texas, 1991

30. Time-Series Graph Showing Stability Over Time: Births to Teen Mothers in
Travis County, Texas, 1980-1990

31. Time Chart: Teen Births Among Two Age Groups in Travis County, Texas,
1980-1990

32. Environmental Analysis Worksheet

33. Mission Statement Worksheet

34. Organizational Assessment--Critical Issues Worksheet

35. Organizational Assessment--Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Threats Worksheet

36. Strategic Objectives Issues Worksheet

37. Strategic Objectives Successes Worksheet

38. Strategic Objectives Failures Worksheet

39. Action Plan Worksheet

40. Communication Strategy Worksheet

41. Training Plan Worksheet

42. Team-Building Worksheet

43. Gang-Problem Triangle

44. SARA Model

45. Types of Harm Caused by Gangs

46. Gang-Related Problem Places Checklist

47. Persons Responsible for Problem Places

48. Sample Logic Diagram

49. Types of Relationships

50. Levels and Types of Effects

51. Relationship Between Process and Impact Evaluation

----------------------------

Executive Summary

Chapter 1: Introduction

Contemporary gangs--variously known as youth or delinquent gangs and
street or criminal gangs--have become a widespread threat to communities
throughout the Nation. Once considered largely an urban phenomenon, gangs
have increasingly emerged in smaller communities, presenting a challenge that
severely strains local resources. 

All gang problems are local in nature. Whether rooted in neighborhoods,
representing a rite of passage, or providing surrogate families or access to
economic opportunity, most gangs are inherently local. Even large-scale gangs
with reputed nationwide networks attract local youth and take advantage of
local opportunities to carry out gang activities.

This monograph presents a problem-solving model that is applied to gang
problems. This model is often referred to as SARA, an acronym for the
four steps involved in the process--scanning, analysis, response, and
assessment. Communities first initiate the problem-solving process by searching
for and identifying gang problems--scanning. The second step of the
problem-solving process--analysis--involves investigating the specific gang
problem in greater detail. In general, analysis helps a community understand the
nature of its gang problem--how it is manifested, who is harmed and how, and
when the problems occur. Having identified their gang problems and thoroughly
analyzed them, communities can proceed to the third step and develop their
local response. The final step of the problem-solving process is an assessment
of the effectiveness of the response. It can also be used to change the response,
improve the analysis, or even redefine the problem.

The gang-problem triangle is a method of analyzing or developing a deeper
understanding of local gang problems and pointing to fruitful avenues of
response. Three elements must be present before a gang-related harm can
occur: an offender, a victim, and a place. If a person thinks about each element
as representing a side of a triangle, he or she can easily visualize that removing a
side of the triangle will cause the triangle to collapse.

An important part of the gang-problem triangle is recognizing that there are third
parties with responsibilities for each side of the triangle. Controllers are people
who, acting in the best interest of potential offenders, try to prevent them from
committing offenses. Guardians are people who try to prevent harm from
coming to potential victims. Managers are people who oversee places where
harm occurs. Identifying the people responsible for victims, offenders, and
places and involving them in the development of plans and programs is
necessary if communities are to reduce and prevent future gang problems.

Chapter 2: Defining the Community Youth Gang

The term "gang" carries with it many meanings and evokes a number of images
for people. Discussing some of their different characteristics as well as different
perceptions about them may contribute to a working definition of gangs. The
success or failure of communitywide attempts to address gang problems is
likely to rest, in part, on how the problems are understood and diagnosed.

The media, the public, and community agencies use the term "gang" more
loosely than the law enforcement community. Politicians and law enforcement
officials tend to rely on legal parameters such as criminal behavior to define
what constitutes a gang. Unfortunately, this perception fails to recognize that
many gangs do not engage solely in criminal acts, or even highly visible ones.
Compounding the definition problem is the inconsistent use of the term "gang
related." Police may classify an incident as gang related simply because the
individual involved is a gang member.

There is no consensus on a standardized definition of a gang, but there is some
agreement on the basic elements. Maxson and Klein developed three criteria
for defining a street gang:  

o Community recognition of the group.

o The group's recognition of itself as a distinct group of adolescents or young
adults.

o The group's involvement in enough illegal activities to get a consistent negative
response from law enforcement and neighborhood residents.

The centerpiece of Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin's typology of gangs is the
concept of differential opportunity. According to this concept, individuals may
become involved in gang life and crime simply because legitimate means of
success are unavailable to them. Cloward and Ohlin also see a differential
opportunity structure for illegitimate means of achieving success. The
significance of this finding is that all opportunities--legal and illegal--are often
unavailable to most inner-city youth. 

Cloward and Ohlin conclude that young people are likely to join one of three
types of gangs--criminal, conflict, or retreatist--because of differential
opportunity. Criminal gangs are likely to exist in stable low-income areas where
there are close relationships between adolescents and adult criminals. Conflict
gangs develop in communities with dilapidated conditions and transient
populations. When criminal opportunities do not exist, conflict gangs fight to
gain social status and protect their integrity and honor. Retreatist gangs do not
possess the skills to be considered criminal gangs. They retreat into a role on
the fringe of society that usually involves heavy drug use and withdrawal from
social interaction.

A number of other gangs do not fit neatly into Cloward and Ohlin's typology.
Tagger crews consist of youth banded together to create graffiti. The main
reason for tagging, which is a form of vandalism, is to gain respect from fellow
artists and, more important, from members of other tagger crews. 

Communities can begin to develop strategies and programs to address their
specific gang problems by analyzing the types of gangs affecting their
neighborhoods. Communities must recognize that the ways in which gangs are
defined will, to a large degree, determine the extent of the gang problem in a
neighborhood. Moreover, even when one definition is used, such as the law
enforcement definition, this too varies from one jurisdiction to another. 

Chapter 3: Gang Involvement in Drugs and Violence

America has become a society almost preoccupied with gangs--especially
their relationship to drugs and violence. While it is true that violence among
gang members has escalated and involvement in drugs has been a feature of
gang life for many years, gangs are now increasingly and almost exclusively
blamed for the drug and violence problems of the last decade. This is partly
because gangs have grown in number and diversity across the Nation, affecting
both large cities and smaller communities. 

During various times in American history, particularly the 1970s and 1980s,
gangs have received considerable media attention. Moreover, in movies,
television, radio, newspapers, and even documentaries, the image created
about gangs was consistent--they were heavily involved in the drug trade and
exceptionally prone to violence. Based on media accounts, the public believes
gangs are extremely violent, are involved in drug trafficking, are highly
organized, and are a pervasive part of the social landscape. 

Gangs and the media both benefit from exaggerated portrayals of gangs and
gang life. The media attempt to increase their profits by providing the public
with sensationalized stories that relate to crime and violence. Increasingly, the
media achieve this goal by attributing these events to gangs. As the media
continue to portray gangs in this negative light, gang members gain a reputation
of being tough and savvy, enhancing their standing in their communities. 

Another media distortion about gangs relates to their ethnic and racial
composition. Gangs are not exclusively a minority phenomenon. Most research
has attributed gangs and their associated problems to elements in the social
structure--either the social environment or the opportunities associated with
being a member of a particular social class. Gangs and violence are associated
with urban poverty, and gang life is seen as a source of social identity in the face
of impoverished living conditions. Moreover, the social and economic
opportunities and living conditions of some groups have not improved--or have
become worse. Gang members now may be more likely to be motivated by the
pursuit of profit than by the cultural or territorial reasons used in earlier
decades.

One researcher groups gang characteristics into three categories--corporate,
territorial, and scavenger. Corporate gangs focus their attention on making
money. Territorial gangs focus on possession of turf, and gang members are
quick to use violence to secure or protect what belongs to the gang. Scavenger
gangs have very little organizational structure, and gang members are motivated
by a need to belong to a group.

A number of gangs are involved in using and selling drugs, while others are
involved in selling but prohibit use by gang members. Some gangs are highly
organized, while others are fragmented, with individual members involved in
drug dealing but acting independently of the gang. And still other gangs and
gang members are heavily involved in using drugs but do not sell them.

The research community has found little evidence of a relationship between
drug use in general and violent behavior. However, drug users do commit
crimes to support their habits, which can lead to violent crime such as street
robberies. Systemic violence, the type of violence most commonly associated
with gangs, is a function of the illegal sale and distribution of drugs. This type of
gang violence invades a neighborhood's sense of community and poses a risk to
innocent bystanders. 

The best possible explanation of the relationship between gangs and violence is
that it depends primarily on the gang's organization. Some gangs are organized
to fight, while others are organized to make money, and the level of violence
associated with each gang depends on its type. In an expressive violent
confrontation, the primary goal of violence is injury. The primary purpose of
instrumental violence is to acquire money or property. Gangs specializing in
instrumental violence are strongest in disrupted and declining neighborhoods.
Gangs involved in expressive violence are strongest in relatively prosperous
neighborhoods.

Although gang-related violence appears to be increasing, there is little evidence
to support the theory that gang involvement in the drug trade is responsible for a
substantial proportion of homicides. Moreover, some scholars contend that the
connections among street gangs, drug sales, and violence have been overstated
by media reports, especially during the mid-1980s when gangs became
involved in the crack cocaine trade. Gang involvement in violence and homicide
is more often turf related than drug related. In one study of 288 gang-motivated
homicides, only 8 were drug related. A 1992 study assessing the relationship
among gangs, drug sales, and violence concluded that gang-motivated
homicides were less likely than other homicides to involve drugs, and
drug-motivated homicides were less likely to involve a gang member. Also,
victims of gang-motivated homicides were no more likely to have a history of
drug arrests than other victims.

Despite recent increases in the use of violence by gang members, especially if
their organizational viability or their competitive edge in the drug market is
challenged, much gang activity is fairly mundane. A study in Ohio found that
gang members spent most of their time acting like typical adolescents--
disobeying parents and skipping school.

Chapter 4: Gang Graffiti

Graffiti can be petty annoyances by juvenile vandals, attempts at artistic
expression, or signs that street gangs have moved into the neighborhood.
The public has become concerned about graffiti in the last 10 to 15 years
for three reasons: the invention of the spray-paint can, enabling taggers to
quickly make big, colorful graffiti that are hard to remove; graffiti on
buses and subway cars, which move all over a city; and the association of
graffiti in citizens' minds with gangs.

There is an important distinction between two major categories of
contemporary graffiti. Tagger graffiti, or what some people call street art, are
personal expressions of the taggers, and they are an end in themselves, not a
threat of something else. Gang graffiti, on the other hand, are intended to
represent the presence of a gang. They convey a threat of gang violence in the
neighborhood.

In New York City, subway graffitists came to be known as "taggers" because
they signed their work with their chosen nicknames or tags. To the tagger, the
important thing was "getting up," that is, putting his or her tag on as many
surfaces as possible. While artistic quality and uniqueness were also important,
a tagger's reputation rested on sheer volume. 

Tagging is now occurring all over the United States, and the gap between
taggers and gangs is being closed. Taggers often form into groups called
"crews" and adopt crew tags. The larger a tagger crew, the more it begins to
look and act like a street gang. While street gangs look down on individual
taggers with disdain, they are more likely to regard large crews as a threat that
must be dealt with. Then the two begin to act like rival street gangs, even
though the crew may have started out with less dangerous purposes. 

When graffiti are thought to be gang graffiti, they create the impression that the
unknown graffitists are gang members, suggesting menace and violence. Gang
graffiti tell police officers who is in what gang, what gangs are claiming what
territories, who is challenging whom, and who is trying to move or expand.
Gang graffiti can become dialogue between gangs and eventually a record of
gang wars--from initial territorial claims, to challenges to individuals and gangs,
to records of individual deaths. Graffiti are the gangs' daily newspaper, printed
for all to see. 

Graffiti are easy and cheap to put up and entail relatively low risk for the gang
graffitist, particularly when compared to other forms of gang activity. Even the
risk of getting caught is not terribly threatening to the gang graffitist because
legal sanctions, if they are imposed at all, are not heavy.

All three sides of the gang-problem triangle--offender, victim, and place--are
involved in graffiti. Both taggers and gang graffitists are offenders in the
gang-problem triangle. Taggers often target particular victims, such as a public
transit system. And gang graffitists often target other gangs in their graffiti.
Everyone involved relies on "tools"--the instruments offenders use to commit
their offenses and the instruments and devices that guardians and managers use
to defend themselves and their property. Spray-paint cans on which different
cap sizes can be interchanged are the favorite tools of graffiti writers. 

The broad categories of graffiti sites are fairly obvious: residential, commercial,
industrial, recreational, public, and transitional spaces. Residential properties
are at greatest risk of becoming targets of graffiti when the residents and
surrounding neighborhood have little stake in the property. Commercial and
industrial sites most at risk are those that have broad surfaces on which
graffitists can write and those distant from other buildings with exterior surfaces
visible to passers-by. 

Public recreational areas have been particularly tempting targets for both
taggers and gang graffitists. Problems get very serious when gangs take over
public places as their own domain, intimidating and endangering ordinary
citizens. Of public spaces, schools are the most likely to have trouble with gang
graffiti simply because gang members, like other youth, have a right to be in
school as students.

Matching problem properties with responsible people is most difficult with open
public and transitional spaces--parks, streets, and street corners. Graffiti are
often seen on bridges, street and traffic signs, and billboards. The managers of
these spaces, employees of the government agencies responsible for maintaining
them, are seldom present because maintenance does not require daily attention.

It is important for a community to have an anti-graffiti policy, which may fall to
the local government, businesses, community residents, or a combination of
these stakeholders. A combination approach is most likely to succeed. 

Graffitists do not invest heavily in their art, preferring to shoplift rather than buy
their spray-paint cans. So an effective first step is to encourage stores that sell
spray paints to make them difficult to shoplift. 

Quick removal of graffiti is a standard anti-graffiti recommendation, the
underlying idea being that graffitists soon tire of having their work obliterated
and give up. Also, removing graffiti shows that the community will not tolerate
them. Taggers may regard removal campaigns as a challenge--a game between
them and the community--but even taggers ultimately tire of the game.

When property owners are cleaning or repairing surfaces that have been hit,
they should consider taking steps to make them less vulnerable. Designers of
new structures should take their vulnerability to graffiti into account. If they
cannot change the surface, perhaps they can alter access to the surface.

The essential problem with both criminal and civil approaches is that graffitists
are hard to catch. One alternative to sanctioning offenders is sanctioning
victims. Some ordinances require graffiti removal within a relatively short period
of time, perhaps a few days. Fines are imposed on property owners who fail to
clean up their property promptly. 

The final step of a graffiti policy is assessing the results of the community's
responses. The assessment should determine whether graffiti has completely
disappeared from the community or at least been so reduced in quantity and
offensiveness that the community no longer regards them as a serious problem. 

Chapter 5: Needs Assessments for Gang Problems

A needs assessment is often the first step in planning a comprehensive solution
to the "gang problem." It can help uncover hidden problems, set priorities, and
(perhaps most important) help develop a communitywide consensus about what
to do. Needs assessments provide local policymakers with an alternative,
unbiased source of information. This information is vital if policymakers and
service providers are to spend their time and money where it will do the most
good.  

The consensus-building role of the needs assessment has proved especially
useful in many places. As long as funding for social programs remains scarce,
communication, coordination, and cooperation among service providers is
necessary to eliminate duplication and to ensure that the people with the
greatest needs are served.

There are four steps to conducting a needs assessment: laying the groundwork,
identifying current activities, identifying and setting priorities, and developing a
consensus. 

In assembling the team to conduct the assessment, responsibility for big
decisions must rest with a large, comprehensive group of "movers and shakers"
(the advisory board), while responsibility for implementing the assessment stays
with a small team (the assessment team).  

With few exceptions, the assessment team's first step should be to find out
whether anyone has ever conducted a youth needs assessment before. Then
three questions need to be answered. First, should the assessment focus on
primary or secondary prevention? Second, should the assessment focus on
all youth problems or only those very closely related to gangs? Finally, should
the assessment team consider all neighborhoods in the city or only those in
greatest need?

It may help to conduct the assessment in stages. For example, a city with
limited knowledge and resources but a serious gang violence problem may
start by assessing the potential for gang violence in each neighborhood, with the
goal of increasing direct law enforcement efforts. Once the police, prosecutor,
and probation agencies know where to focus their immediate efforts, the
assessment team can turn its attention to primary prevention opportunities. 

The board should be kept apprised of where the assessment team is at all
stages of the process. Letting the advisory board members in on the nuts and
bolts will give them ownership of the project and improve the chances that they
will accept the results. 

The next step in conducting a needs assessment is to identify what services are
actually being delivered, where, when, to whom, and if possible, with what
effect. Assessors also need to know what services cost and who pays for them.

It is usually enough to implement what is sometimes called a "snowball sample."
That is, the assessors interview knowledgeable members of the advisory board
and review readily available documents to get a first-cut list of service
providers. Then they interview the directors of these agencies, collecting
necessary information and also asking them to name other agencies that provide
similar services. Thus the sample increases in size, like a snowball rolling down
a hill. 

In most cases, a survey of youth, parents, service providers, and others is
the centerpiece of the needs assessment--and the most important and
difficult part. A series of steps is required to complete a needs survey: 

o Decide what to ask.

o Decide whom to survey and how.

o Frame the questions.

o Pretest the survey draft.

o Conduct the survey.

o Analyze and report the results.

The survey will ask about the social service needs of gang-involved and at-risk
youth. Useful results can be obtained from at least four separate groups: at-risk
and/or gang-involved youth themselves; their parents; service providers,
including guidance counselors, employment trainers, public health nurses, and
others; and community leaders, including presidents of neighborhood
associations, elected officials, and business leaders.

In conducting a survey, the key is getting a representative sample, not merely a
large one. The easiest way to ensure a representative sample is to draw a
sample at random from throughout the population and to get a high response
rate.

People rarely turn down interviewers who come to their door--response rates
of 80 percent are fairly common. Telephone interviewers typically get lower
response rates--60 to 80 percent. Mail surveys usually get the worst response
rates, varying from 10 to 70 percent. Unfortunately, mail surveys are much
cheaper than telephone surveys, which are much cheaper than personal
interviews.

Interviewing is almost certainly the best method to use in surveys of community
leaders and service providers. For surveys of youth and parents, the safest
course of action is to contract with a local university or market research firm to
conduct in-person or telephone interviews.  

If mail surveys are used, rank ordering is usually simple for both assessors and
respondents, so it is probably the best method to use. Questions about the
importance of various needs should form the bulk of the survey, but other
questions may be needed as well. For example, if the team suspects that current
gang prevention programs may be ineffective, it may ask service providers and
community leaders for their opinions on those programs.

Maintaining a high response rate requires watching return rates carefully and
issuing follow-up letters or phone calls when needed. The principal results of a
needs assessment survey can usually be presented in a few pages of text
(perhaps six or eight) that summarizes the most important results and
relationships and backs them up with a few simple tables.

A second approach to identifying the highest priorities requires collection of
social indicators--basic statistics that show the extent of bad outcomes. For
example, the police department can supply the number of aggravated assaults in
which the victim was under 20 years of age, which in many places is a good
measure of gang violence. The school district can measure the number of fights
in schools and the dropout rate for each school and grade. The State
employment office can supply the youth unemployment rate. These statistics can
then be used to track the size of the problem over  time and to compare the size
of one city's or neighborhood's problem to those in other cities and
neighborhoods.

Developing a consensus around a set of priorities is vital to the long-term
success of gang prevention and reduction efforts. The solution will probably
take continuous and concentrated effort over a long period, and a stable vision
backed by widespread agreement is critical to success. 

----------------------------

Chapter 6: Addressing Gang Problems Through Strategic Planning

Communities with emerging or existing gang problems must plan, develop, and
implement comprehensive, harm-specific responses that include a broad range
of community-based components. 

No universal strategy works to address all gang problems. The complexity
of today's gangs suggests the need for a comprehensive, multifaceted
effort that targets the reasons youth join gangs. Such an effort may involve
three programmatic approaches:

o Develop strategies to discourage gang membership.

o Provide avenues for youth to drop out of gangs.

o Empower communities to solve problems associated with gangs through
collaboration with law enforcement, parents, schools, youth, businesses,
religious and social service organizations, local government officials, and other
community groups in a comprehensive, systematic approach.  

Coalitions are dynamic, single-focused learning and task groups that evolve
from the common purposes and needs of diverse organizations and individuals.
Through commitment, compromise, and careful planning, they may often be
capable of effecting great change in their member organizations and in the
communities they serve.

It is essential to involve the formal leaders--elected officials, appointed leaders,
agency heads, and ministers--as well as the informal leaders--people who
influence others by their words and actions. Communities should actively
involve all community components that have a potential interest in responding to
gang problems.

When it is effective, strategic planning promotes team building, a sense of
ownership, enthusiasm, and an environment that maximizes a coalition's chances
for success. It is the process by which an organization's guiding members
envision the organization's future and develop the procedures and operations
necessary to achieve that future.

Strategic planning can help law enforcement, community-based social services
agencies, schools, citizens' groups, and other interested community components
establish a common mission and common priorities and minimize parochial
perspectives in favor of broader goals. The most effective community efforts
use successive levels of networking--cooperation, coordination, and
collaboration--to achieve the desired goals and objectives.

With commitment from all participating organization heads, a strategic planning
team should be created that includes representatives of all participating
organizations, such as law enforcement, schools, parks and recreation
departments, religious organizations, elected officials, and citizens' groups.
Additional members of the strategic planning team may include key interested
individuals, such as youth who may have valuable information about potential
obstacles and ways to overcome them.

The coalition's mission statement is the starting point for the strategic plan,
from which all other strategic elements flow. The mission statement should
include a statement of philosophy (values and beliefs) as well as a purpose on
which all members agree.

An important question facing the strategic planning team is whether the
coalition has the ability to accomplish its mission--to intervene effectively
in the community's gang-related problems by developing and implementing a
comprehensive, harm-specific response. The organizational assessment should
involve obtaining information on critical issues and ranking the coalition's
strengths, weaknesses, future opportunities, and threats. After the strategic
objectives have been established (with defined target dates) and tested against
the critical issues and the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, the
planning team should identify ways in which the coalition might achieve these
objectives. 

Action plans for a harm-specific response to local gangs will vary according to
the nature of a community's problems, needs, targeted audiences, and finally,
the identified strategic objectives. A coalition may select action plans that
include particular methods for identifying current and potential gang members,
facilitating conflict resolution among gangs, or working toward graffiti
abatement.

At its implementation phase, the strategic plan is delivered to participating
organization heads. It then becomes important for the organization heads to
become visibly involved in the plan's implementation, publicly committing to it
and demonstrating this commitment by dedicating the necessary resources and
designating the appropriate personnel to ensure its success. A well-designed
and well-executed communication strategy, targeting both participating
organizations and the community at large, can help ensure successful strategic
plan implementation.

The evaluation step in program development and implementation should not be
overlooked. Program planners need to know how well the overall plan is
working and how to improve it. The strategic planning team should conduct
evaluations of the strategic plan during implementation and make any necessary
changes to ensure the objectives are being met and the coalition's mission is
being accomplished.

Chapter 7: Civil Remedies for Gang-Related Harm

Virtually every crime is also a tort--that is, a civil wrong against people,
businesses, or the community for which the perpetrator is civilly liable in
damages, subject to court injunction, or both. Gang activity is also likely to
violate several civil ordinances, and gang members can be held responsible for
the harm they create by these violations. Furthermore, civil remedies can reach
other people who make it easier for gangs to operate by their failure to comply
with local ordinances or commercial regulations.

Someone is responsible for every site where gangs inflict harm, because he or
she owns it, manages it, lives there, or works there. The keys to clearing up the
harm that a problem place presents are to identify (1) the people responsible
for the problem, (2) the people responsible for the place, and (3) the pressures
that can be brought to bear on those responsible to remedy the problem. The
pressures that can be brought to bear (other than criminal prosecution) fall into
two general categories: civil suits for nuisance or trespass and civil code
enforcement. 

Civil lawsuits ordinarily seek to collect damages for injuries to the plaintiff or the
plaintiff's property, or to prohibit the defendants from engaging in some kind of
conduct. Private citizens, including private organizations, and public officials can
both file civil lawsuits.

An injunctive suit seeks a court order to stop a present harm or prevent future
harm. A damage suit seeks money for injuries that have already been inflicted.
An injunction is the most powerful of the equity decrees. Violation of an
injunction is contempt of court and can be punished by fine or jail or both. 

If trespassing gang members cause serious damage to property, they are civilly
liable. For example, if gang members set fire to a house, they can be sued for
damages as well as prosecuted for arson. Gang members may have no assets at
the time of their offense, but civil judgments against them can be renewed for
long periods of time, as much as 40 years in many States. Whatever they
acquire in the future is subject to attachment to pay the judgment.

Nuisance is a legal concept that applies to physically damaging neighboring
property, reducing its value, or reducing its enjoyment. Nuisance also takes into
account the neighborhood's general nature and refers to continuing abuses
rather than isolated incidents.

Even if an owner and tenants have not themselves committed any specific
crimes or offenses, they remain responsible for how their property is used and
what happens there. Therefore, legal action can be directed at owners, tenants,
or both to compel lawful use of the property, even though they have done
nothing illegal. 

There are both private nuisances and public nuisances. The difference is that the
harm that a public nuisance creates does not affect just one or two neighbors;
rather, it affects the general public. For example, public nuisances such as
prostitution or crack houses have a negative impact on every property in the
vicinity. 

Nuisance statutes, ordinances, and cases usually refer to "nuisance abatement."
Abatement essentially means getting rid of the nuisance--doing whatever is
required to bring the problem to an end. Abatement orders can impose specific
conditions for continuing to operate a property, including establishing a system
for screening tenants and installing security systems to keep gang members off a
property. Abatement can be an invaluable remedy to gang-related harms.
Examples of nuisances subject to abatement include drug trafficking,
prostitution, gambling, trafficking in stolen goods, illegal liquor sales, public
drunkenness, harassment of passers-by, loud noise, and excessive littering. 

It is common in residential zones to regulate how many people can live in a
residence, at least in terms of a family. When gangs take over a house, they
often violate these occupancy limits. 

Trespass refers to an owner's right to exclusive possession of his or her
property and involves coming onto another's property. Ordinarily, trespass
must be an intentional rather than a negligent or inadvertent invasion of someone
else's property. But there are important exceptions involving street gangs.
Conduct that is reckless or extremely dangerous can be a trespass even though
the perpetrator did not specifically intend to invade the victim's property.
Driveby shootings certainly fall into the category of reckless conduct. 

There are several civil remedies for trespass: a suit for damages and an
injunction or a suit to oust the trespasser. A trespass is not a criminal trespass
unless it is a breach of the peace. The trespasser must intend to violate the
rights of the landowner, and the trespass must carry with it at least some implicit
intimidation or threat of a breach of the peace.

While precise wording may vary, criminal trespass statutes usually forbid going
on, attempting to go on, or remaining on the property of another without
authority or after being forbidden to do so. Notice against trespass can be
either written or oral and can be given in several ways, including personal
communication, posting signs on the property, or fencing the property. 

The owner can designate agents, including police officers, to warn trespassers
that they are trespassing and ask them to leave. Refusal to leave the premises
after notice is a criminal trespass, meaning officers can make an immediate
arrest or seek an arrest warrant allowing them to make an arrest later.

Scarcely any aspect of living in a modern American city is untouched by the
city's regulatory power. This power to regulate business stems from the city's
responsibility to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.

Businesses cannot operate in zones where they are not permitted. Beyond
the zoning code, there are building, fire, health and sanitation, and
business-licensing codes. When gangs occupy or dominate buildings, they often
damage them in ways that violate building codes. They may block exits,
overload electrical circuits, clog plumbing, or destroy security devices. A fire
escape that is down rather than in its retracted position may show that gang
members are using it to get in and out of a building. Open windows and smoke
coming from a building may show that people are cooking with open fires
because there is no gas or electric service in the building. Such activity clearly
violates fire codes.

Many places of amusement can also become centers of gang activity. In
addition to complying with their basic business licenses, sites such as arcades,
poolrooms, and dance halls must comply with fire, health and sanitation, and
food service codes. Those that serve alcohol must also have liquor or wine and
beer licenses and must comply, for example, with minimum drinking-age
statutes.

Many gang-related problems arise on rental properties, which are usually
subject to intensive local regulation. Rental properties that have fallen under the
control of gangs are frequently in violation of several code provisions. City
authorities can take action against both tenants and owners to remedy the
problems.

Not even vacant buildings and lots escape regulation. Weeds on lots must
be kept trimmed. Lots themselves must be free of litter. City codes also require
that unoccupied buildings be secured against unauthorized users and vandals.
Neighbors can call on code enforcement to make sure that owners meet these
obligations.

Why have civil remedies not been put to better use? There are at least three
major reasons for this failure: fear of retaliation, difficulty of getting public
officials to cooperate, and congestion in the courts. The fear of retaliation in
gang-dominated neighborhoods is the greatest obstacle to getting neighborhood
cooperation in confronting problems.

The first step may be to get the neighbors to unite--to seek safety in numbers. If
citizens are afraid to come forth, then public officials should provide means for
them to communicate their concerns without exposing themselves to gang
retaliation.

The best chance of getting swift legal action is to bring matters into the courts of
limited jurisdiction (also called small claims courts). Involved parties should
look for ways to keep within the jurisdiction of these faster moving courts,
which allow the disputing parties to try their cases without lawyers and have
simplified procedures and relaxed rules of evidence. Most code violations and
less serious criminal offenses come before courts of limited jurisdiction and can
be disposed of promptly. Landlord-tenant courts are often special divisions that
can also handle cases promptly. Many gang-related problems are essentially
landlord-tenant problems that can be taken to those special divisions.

Complicated nuisance suits may end up in courts of general jurisdiction, where
it may take a long time for them to be resolved. But if plaintiffs are seeking
injunctions rather than damages, they can often get their cases expedited
because of the irreparable injuries they suffer by delay.

Chapter 8: Evaluating Anti-Gang Efforts

Evaluations provide invaluable information for decisionmakers, document the
program so it may be replicated elsewhere, and enable public agencies to justify
program costs.

Evaluation steps include:


o Specifying goals and objectives related to the reduction of harm associated
with gang problems.

o Specifying the target population and time during which the program will
operate.

o Describing the program's activities in detail, directly linking activities with
program objectives.

o Constructing a logic diagram of the program that represents the cause-and-
effect relationships between activities and accomplishments. 

o Developing comparisons that show whether the program had the intended
effects on the target population.

o Specifying other factors that might account for changes in the target
population.

o Designing data collection instruments.

o Developing and analyzing comparisons, which is the data analysis portion of
the evaluation.

o Drawing conclusions.

A process evaluation addresses the elements that characterize the operations
and functions of a program, such as organizational structure, policies and
procedures, human and technical resources, goals and objectives, and activities.

Process evaluations enable managers to shape the program and make
midcourse corrections if necessary. Process evaluations also link objectives and
strategies. A third use is providing helpful information to other communities
interested in building on a particular gang initiative in the future. Finally, process
evaluations garner support for the program from participants and others in the
community.

A logic diagram is a valuable tool that traces a program's elements from the
goals to the specific activities. By presenting a graphic illustration of a program's
logical structure, this diagram aids the evaluation process, helps managers
implement and operate the program, and spells out activities. In addition, this
exercise points toward potential measures of effectiveness.

Data needs will vary with each program's focus, activities, and specific
strategies. Process evaluations use both quantitative and qualitative data, with
emphasis usually on the latter. Questions that focus on characteristics such as
program emphasis and possible barriers to implementation often require a
detailed knowledge of the program and its target. This is best accomplished
with qualitative data that allow the evaluator to glean program insights.
Open-ended interviews are useful tools because they provide flexibility for the
respondent to elaborate and for the interviewer to explore.

Some types of quantitative data are appropriate for assessing program growth
and development. Interim process measures, such as the number of youth
reached in programs and the number and type of arrests, tell the evaluator and
program staff whether the project's process objectives are being met and
whether the program is moving in the intended direction.

Evaluation of the effects of a program involves several design issues that decide
the scope and focus of the impact evaluation. These issues include causality, the
proper unit of analysis, the various levels of effects expected, the selection of
appropriate data, the basics of data collection, and quasi-experimental designs.

The unit of analysis for an impact evaluation corresponds to the focus of
program activities. If the action being taken aims at individual-level change (for
example, improving parenting skills of teenage mothers), an impact assessment
must focus on the individual level of their parenting behaviors. On the other
hand, if the focus of project activity is to reduce fear of gangs among residents
in an area, the neighborhood is the proper unit of analysis.

As with other aspects of evaluation, decisions about appropriate measures
depend on project objectives and activities. One of the most basic issues about
any measure is its validity. Data needs depend on the type of change sought by
the intervention. Appropriate use of data depends on the nature of the program
and interventions.

Whatever kind or combination of data is appropriate, it must be collected
systematically and uniformly throughout the evaluation. The instruments or
protocols needed will vary depending on the design and the kind of data
sought. 

Obviously, the ideal is a well-implemented program with a high level of success.
Whatever the outcome, however, a well-conceived evaluation in which the
process and impact portions are linked enables evaluators to make an informed
assessment.

----------------------------

1. Understanding Gangs and Gang Problems

Chapter 1: Introduction

Contemporary gangs--variously known as youth, delinquent, street, or
criminal gangs--have become a widespread threat to communities throughout
the Nation. Once considered largely an urban phenomenon, gangs have
increasingly emerged in smaller communities, presenting a challenge that
severely strains local resources. 

There is a growing wealth of academic literature about the nature of gangs, the
scope and type of their activities, their organizational structure, and their
leadership (see bibliography in Appendix A). These books and articles provide
a valuable starting point for those interested in expanding their understanding of
contemporary gangs. A close reading of the literature points to the inevitable
conclusion that all gang problems are local in nature. Whether rooted in
neighborhoods, representing a rite of passage, providing surrogate families, or
providing access to economic opportunity, most gangs are inherently local.
Even large-scale gangs with reputed nationwide networks attract local youths
and take advantage of local opportunities to carry out gang activities.

----------------------------

All gang problems are local in nature. Local problems require local solutions.

----------------------------

Local problems require local solutions. That is the focus of this monograph. To
address the growing concern about gangs, the Police Executive Research
Forum (PERF) has developed this monograph, Addressing Community Gang
Problems: A Practical Guide. It is a useful tool providing guidance for agencies
in developing individualized responses to local gang problems.

This monograph evolved from a PERF project funded by the U.S. Department
of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in 1994 involving communities
in four cities. Although serious concerns about gang problems permeated each
community, PERF found a dearth of programmatic materials designed to offer
meaningful guidance to community groups, which often included residents,
business owners, municipal government employees, schools, criminal justice
personnel, and others. As part of its work with BJA, PERF developed a
manual that offers a process to solve gang problems. That manual, entitled
Addressing Community Gang Problems: A Model for Problem Solving, a
companion to this monograph, has been published by BJA.

Community-based organizations, however, often need more indepth guidance
on specific issues related to gangs. This monograph provides the reader with a
practical foundation for understanding the diverse nature of gangs, the problems
they pose and the harms they cause, and the two analytical models for
addressing gang-related problems.

This monograph includes a brief theoretical overview of key gang issues
relevant to community groups and discusses some specific approaches to
analyzing and responding to gang problems. It by no means sets forth all the
possible responses to gang problems, but it does provide practical
guidance--including worksheets and planning documents--to assist community
groups. Each chapter can be used separately to address specific community
needs.

This monograph and the manual, Addressing Community Gang Problems:
A Model for Problem Solving, complement a companion document published
by BJA entitled Urban Street Gang Enforcement. The Urban Street Gang
Enforcement monograph focuses exclusively on enforcement and prosecution
strategies to protect against urban street gangs and presents strategies to
enhance the prosecution of gang-related crimes.

Analytical Models

Two analytical models--a problem-solving model and a gang-problem triangle
model--are suggested throughout this monograph to help communities
understand and develop effective solutions to local gang problems. The two
models are briefly discussed here to familiarize the reader with them.

----------------------------

The problem-solving model SARA includes four steps: scanning, analysis,
response, and assessment.

----------------------------

The problem-solving model that is applied to gang problems in this monograph
is often referred to as SARA, an acronym for the four steps involved in the
process--scanning, analysis, response, and assessment. Communities first
initiate the problem-solving process by searching for and identifying gang
problems--scanning. This involves narrowing the community's view of a general
gang problem to a more specific problem, such as gang graffiti, drug sales, or
driveby shootings. Each problem necessitates a different response. 

The second stage of the problem-solving process--analysis--involves
investigating the specific gang problem in greater detail. The gang-problem
triangle model, described in the next section of this chapter, is useful for
analysis. This gang-problem triangle model can help break gang problems into
parts to be analyzed more easily. In general, analysis helps a community
understand the nature of its gang problem--what form it takes, who is harmed
and how, and when the problems occur. Even a common gang problem such as
graffiti can be analyzed: When do the graffiti incidents occur? Where do they
usually happen? What type of tool is used to apply the graffiti? Only when a
community can answer basic questions about the who, how, when, and where
of a gang problem is it time to develop a response to the problem. 

Having identified their gang problems and thoroughly analyzed them,
communities can develop specific responses directed to these harms. Typically,
community groups hear about an innovative program for addressing
gang-related problems and try to implement that program without regard to the
unique characteristics of their local gang. This is a natural response although
usually not effective. Implementing afterschool activities for 7th through 10th
graders, for example, is likely to have little impact on a gang problem in which
12th graders are causing the harm. Communities following the SARA model,
however, can conceptually link specific problems with specific local responses.

The final stage of the problem-solving process assesses the effectiveness of the
response. Assessment can determine whether the problem was eliminated or
reduced. Assessment also can be used to change the response, improve the
analysis, or even redefine the problem. Assessment means more than deciding
that the gang went away. A well-planned assessment may indicate that
neighbors are less fearful, the incidence of graffiti is reduced, or driveby
shootings have diminished. These reductions of harm are important outcomes
that should be thoroughly documented.

As referred to previously, the gang-problem triangle model is a method of
analyzing or developing a deeper understanding of local gang problems and
pointing to fruitful avenues of response. This analytical model stems from the
concept of a fire. Three elements are needed for a fire: Fuel (something that will
burn), heat (to set the fuel on fire), and oxygen (without which the fuel will not
burn). If one of these three elements is missing, the fire will never start. If one
element is removed, a burning fire will go out. Part of a firefighter's job is to
determine which of the three elements will be easiest to remove. If one thinks
about each element as representing a side of a triangle, one can easily visualize
that removing a side of the triangle will cause it to collapse. 

----------------------------

The gang-problem triangle includes three elements: an offender, a victim, and a
place.

----------------------------

Similarly, three elements must be present before gang-related harm can occur:
An offender, a victim, and a place. An offender is someone who is motivated to
commit an offense, such as painting graffiti or committing a robbery. A victim is
a desirable and vulnerable target who must be present for the harm to occur.
And, of course, there must be a physical place in which the victim and the
offender converge, usually at the same time.

If these three elements show up over and over again, removing one of the three
elements can break the pattern of offending and prevent future harm. By
identifying the elements that are easiest to remove and working to remove them,
communities can significantly reduce their gang problems. 

An important part of the gang-problem triangle is a recognition that there are
third parties with responsibilities for each side of the triangle. Controllers are
people who try to prevent potential offenders from committing crimes.
Guardians are people who try to prevent harm from coming to potential victims.
Managers are people who oversee places where harm occurs. Thus, in an
incidence of gang graffiti, one could consider parents or teachers as controllers,
police as guardians of the victims in areas where graffiti occurs, and building
owners as managers of the places where graffiti occurs. Identifying the people
responsible for victims, offenders, and places where crime occurs and involving
them in the development of crime prevention programs is necessary if
communities are to reduce or prevent future gang problems.

----------------------------

Considering the many different types and characteristics of gangs, crafting a
universal definition of a gang is both impossible and impractical.

----------------------------

Organization of the Monograph

This monograph is organized into three major sections: Understanding Gangs
and Gang Problems, Learning About Local Gangs, and Responding to Local
Gang Problems. Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 make up Section I, Understanding
Gangs and Gang Problems, which provides a basic description of gangs,
including their variations, and an omnipresent gang problem, graffiti.

Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the monograph, describing its
development, the two analytical models presented in it, and the organization of
the material. Chapter 2 outlines the continuing debate over what defines a gang
and how to classify gang-related crimes. Both subjects are integral to
determining the scope of gang-related problems and the solutions that are likely
to be effective.

What exactly is a gang? Are all gangs involved in criminal activity? What is the
extent of drug use and sales among gangs? Why do people join gangs? Chapter
2 explores these questions in detail and describes the difficulties in defining the
term "gang." Considering the many different types and characteristics of gangs,
crafting a universal definition of a gang is both impossible and impractical. This
chapter suggests that communities develop a local understanding of their own
gangs and develop local strategies and programs to address the problems
posed by the particular gangs threatening their neighborhoods.

The mass media's sensationalized accounts of driveby shootings and drug-
related crime have popularized the notion that gangs are highly organized,
involved in sophisticated drug-trafficking networks, and consist only of poor
males of color, among other characteristics. Chapter 3 exposes common myths,
discussing the relationship among gangs, drugs, and violence. It also describes
the range or types of gangs that exist, the varying activities of gangs, their
diverse organizational structures and leadership, and their differing involvement
in criminal activities, including drug use and sales.

Chapter 4 distinguishes between tagger graffiti which are designed as art or
self-promotion, and more traditional gang graffiti, which are meant to mark
territorial claims and convey violent, threatening messages to rival gang
members. Important for understanding and solving the graffiti problem at the
community level is identifying the people creating the graffiti, the tools they use,
the places where graffiti appears, and the people responsible for these places.
This chapter suggests that once these elements are identified, the community--
local government officials, law enforcement officials, business owners, and
residents--may take action, such as implementing an antigraffiti policy, reducing
the availability of graffiti tools, and developing graffiti-removal campaigns to
prevent or reduce the impact of graffiti.

Chapters 5 and 6 make up Section II, Learning About Local Gangs, which
involves documenting and analyzing local gang activity through comprehensive
needs assessments and developing local strategies to address gang problems.
How do communities begin to address their gang problems? Who should be
involved in the problem-solving process? What problems should be tackled
first? Chapter 5 provides a framework for conducting a needs assessment--the
first step in planning a comprehensive solution to gang problems. In general,
needs assessments provide a complete picture of all community needs and
show which needs are being met, which are not, and which are most pressing.
In addressing gang problems, needs assessments allow community
stakeholders--social service providers, school administrators and teachers,
parents, law enforcement officials, neighborhood organizations, and local
government officials--to identify problems, set priorities in addressing those
problems, and build a communitywide consensus on the appropriate response.
As planning instruments in the problem-solving process, needs assessments
help communities identify problems and point toward possible solutions.

----------------------------

Parents, youth, church leaders, social service providers, law enforcement
officials, teachers, and public officials . . . can be instrumental in addressing
local gang problems.

----------------------------

Chapter 6 describes how to develop an effective community coalition, as well
as design and implement a strategic plan with specific long-term objectives and
clearly defined strategies to solve or prevent gang problems. This chapter
illustrates the need for cooperation, coordination, and collaboration among
coalition members to overcome potential obstacles, such as resource sharing
and turf issues, that may threaten the success of their efforts.

Chapters 7 and 8 make up Section III, Responding to Local Gang Problems,
which describes some effective responses to gang problems that may have
widespread value for antigang efforts, in addition to the process of evaluating
local gang programs. 

Parents, youth, church leaders, social service providers, law enforcement
officials, teachers, and public officials are among the many community
stakeholders who, together, can be instrumental in addressing local gang
problems. Each person or group has a different and valuable perspective on the
problems that gangs pose. Traditionally, communities have looked to the law
enforcement community to address gang problems. This limited view overlooks
other useful tools such as civil suits and civil code enforcement. Chapter 7
focuses on the places where gang problems occur and suggests several civil
actions that individual residents and local government agencies may take to
address gang problems.

Evaluating antigang programs is difficult but necessary to ensure the success of
these efforts. Chapter 8 provides tools for local government agencies,
community-based organizations, and others to assess their gang prevention and
intervention programs. Although seldom used, program evaluation is a useful
management tool. It provides information on how effectively resources are
used; documents a program's specific objectives, strategies, and outcomes so
that the program may be replicated; provides feedback on a program's
strengths and weaknesses so that it can be adjusted; and helps to justify the use
of scarce resources. This chapter stresses the importance of linking program
policies, strategies, and resources (processes) to desired outcomes or effects
(impacts). Thus, evaluating program processes by directly relating them to their
intended impacts is an effective way to assess program successes.

----------------------------

Chapter 2: Defining the Community's Gang(s)

The term "gang" carries with it many meanings and evokes a number of images
for people. For some, a gang is a small group of four or five adolescents who
loiter on a street corner. For others, the term may identify graffiti artists, drug
users, Nazi skinheads, or a group of highly organized youth whose purpose is
to make money from drug dealing. A discussion of some of the different
characteristics of gangs may contribute to a working definition of gangs. As this
paper discusses, diverse perceptions and definitions of gangs present particular
challenges to communities as they attempt to deal with gang problems in their
neighborhoods. Many experts correctly believe that the success or failure of
communitywide attempts to address gang problems is likely to rest, in part, on
how the problems are understood and diagnosed. There is also the difficulty of
people attributing criminal behavior to gangs instead of the responsible
individuals. "Gang related" has become a favored term to describe much of the
crime that exists in many neighborhoods. This, like much of the popular
understanding of gangs, is a distortion of fact. So how does one define a gang?

----------------------------

Many experts correctly believe that the success or failure of communitywide
attempts to address gang problems is likely to rest, in part, on how the
problems are understood and diagnosed.

----------------------------

Which Definition To Use?

The media, the public, and community agencies use the term "gang" more
loosely than the law enforcement community. Through sensationalized media
accounts, people have come to equate gangs with highly organized drug
distribution networks (Fagan, 1993). While drug use and selling have been a
feature of gang life for many years--some gangs are indeed involved in drug
trafficking--the perception has arisen that all gangs are highly organized and
heavily involved in the drug trade. Gangs indeed are more visible than in the
past and gang violence has increased--due, in part, to their involvement in drug
trafficking (Huff, 1990b). The image of the driveby shooting has also become a
common perception of gang life for many citizens (see, for instance, Sanders,
1994). In sum, the public's definition of a gang describes a group of
individuals--mostly inner-city youth--who are highly organized, heavily involved
in the drug trade, and very dangerous.

Politicians and law enforcement officials tend to rely on legal parameters to
define what constitutes a gang. In fact, most of the definitions of youth gangs
come from various law enforcement agencies. However, these formal
definitions often reflect only high-profile gangs or the ones that present the most
pressing problems for police. Thus, from the law enforcement point of view,
criminal behavior appears to be a key component of the definition. For
example, the Miami Police Department defines a gang as "a group of persons
joined together to commit acts of violence or any other anti-social behavior."
The Los Angeles Police Department defines a gang as "a group of juveniles
and/or adults in a geographic area whose activities include the unlawful use of
force, violence, or threats of force and violence to further the group's purpose"
(Citizens Crime Commission of Tarrant County, 1991). This is the most
common definition used, but it fails to recognize that many gangs do not engage
solely in criminal acts, or even highly visible ones.

Compounding the definition problem is the inconsistent use of the term "gang
related," which is often used to describe the criminal activities of an individual
gang member rather than the coordinated activities of the gang itself (Horowitz,
1983). While some definitions of gang-related behavior do, in fact, properly use
the term, much of what is labeled as gang-related behavior is really not gang
related at all (Maxson and Klein, 1990). Police may classify an incident as gang
related simply because the individual involved is a gang member. Maxson and
Klein (1990) refer to this as a member-based definition. Other departments
may use a motive-based definition, whereby an incident is gang related because
the individual gang member acts on the gang's behalf. 


Experts on gangs also have great difficulty in reaching consensus on what
constitutes a gang, partly because youth gangs and delinquent groups have
characteristic differences. In the 1950s and 1960s, researchers viewed the
delinquent gang and the delinquent group as identical (Spergel, 1990). The
tendency to consider youth gangs and delinquent groups as the same continues
today, especially when juveniles are studied. However, when older adolescents
and young adults are considered, researchers are quick to point out that
distinctions need to be made (Spergel, 1990). 

----------------------------

[M]uch of what is labeled as gang-related behavior is really not gang related at
all.

----------------------------

One way to distinguish between the two is to compare gang behavior with
delinquent-group behavior. Research has shown that gang members engage in
significantly more criminal behavior than members of delinquent groups; they
have higher rates of police contact, more arrests, and more drug-related
offenses. Moreover, gang membership tends to inhibit what is known as the
"maturational effect." Most youth become less likely to engage in further
criminal behavior as they grow older; this is not the case with gang members.
According to one estimate (Tracy, 1987), gang membership increases the
probability of criminal activity.  

There is no consensus on a standardized definition of a gang, but there is some
agreement on the basic elements. According to Maxson and Klein (1989),
there are three criteria for defining a street gang: community recognition of the
group, the group's recognition of itself as a distinct group of adolescents or
young adults, and the group's involvement in enough illegal activities to get a
consistent negative response from law enforcement and neighborhood
residents. Even this definition presents problems because it implies a negative
relationship between the community and the gang and ignores the possibility that
gangs may have a positive relationship with the residents. In fact,
Sanchez-Jankowski (1991) found that gangs often have a positive relationship
with their local communities and may serve as a local police force.

The debate continues and it will not be resolved here. Even the experts on the
study of gangs have not arrived at a common definition of gangs in this country.
However, a certain level of knowledge about the different types and
characteristics of local gangs is necessary before communities can begin to
address their gang problems.

Gang Diversity

To understand the issue of gang diversity, which, in turn, affects how a gang is
defined, it is helpful to describe some of the different types of gangs. As
mentioned previously, the public's understanding of gangs in the United States
has been colored by media accounts of gang activities and gang life. These
sensationalized events have led many people to believe that gang membership
always involves violence and participation in the drug trade. This is not
necessarily the case. There are indeed a number of gangs involved in drug
trafficking, which presents a host of problems for some communities. However,
there are other types of gangs that may not seriously threaten a community but
still may raise issues of public concern. Descriptive categories called typologies
help classify and distinguish among the types of gangs. While there are several
different typologies of gangs, Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960) provide
one of the easiest to understand.

----------------------------

People who see themselves as failures within conventional society . . . may
become involved in gang life and crime simply because legitimate means of
success are unavailable to them.

----------------------------

The centerpiece of Cloward and Ohlin's theory is the concept of differential
opportunity. According to this concept, people in all levels of society share the
same success goals; however, those in the lower class have limited means by
which to achieve their goals. People who see themselves as failures within
conventional society will seek alternative or innovative ways to achieve success.
Thus, individuals may become involved in gang life and crime simply because
legitimate means of success are unavailable to them.

Cloward and Ohlin also see a differential opportunity structure for illegitimate
means of achieving success. The significance of this finding is that all
opportunities--legal and illegal--are often unavailable to most inner-city youth.
Cloward and Ohlin conclude that young people are likely to join one of three
types of gangs--criminal, conflict, or retreatist--because of differential
opportunity. 

Criminal gangs are likely to exist in stable low-income areas where there are
close relationships between adolescents and adult criminals. In such
environments, adolescents are recruited into organizations that serve as training
grounds for successful criminal careers. During this apprenticeship, more
experienced members of the gang supervise the new members and limit any
activities that might jeopardize the gang's profits. Over time, the new members
learn the techniques and attitudes of the criminal world and are introduced to
the middlemen of the crime business--fences, pawn shop operators, and drug
suppliers, for example.

----------------------------

Where criminal opportunities do not exist, many gangs have used violence as a
means of gaining social status.

----------------------------

In perhaps one of the most thorough examinations of criminal gangs, Chin
(1990) describes the characteristics of Chinese gangs. Chin argues that Chinese
gangs are closely associated with and controlled by powerful community
organizations and are intertwined with the economic and social structures of
their communities. Thus, they are an integral part of community life. Chinese
gangs are also influenced to a great extent by Chinese secret societies known as
Triads and the norms and values of the Triad subculture. Often, adult criminals
in the community serve as role models and mentors for these gang members. 

The primary activity of Chinese gangs is making money. Members invest a
considerable amount of money in legitimate businesses and spend a lot of time
negotiating business deals. Thus, these gangs do not experience the
deterioration and poverty that other types of gangs experience. Rather, Chinese
gangs grow and become economically prosperous by maintaining ties with the
economic and political structures of their communities. In other words, there is
a cultural component to the success of Chinese gangs--they have a certain
legitimacy within the community based on the historical experience of the Triad
societies (Chin, 1990).

Conflict gangs tend to develop in communities with dilapidated conditions and
transient populations. There are no successful adult criminal role models from
whom youth can learn criminal skills. Violence is thus used as a means of
gaining status. Conflict gangs fight to protect their integrity and honor. By doing
so, they gain admiration from their peers, which helps them to develop a
positive self-image (Klein, Maxson, and Miller, 1995).

Over the years, many conflict gangs have adopted colors to signify
membership. The Bloods and the Crips use red and blue, respectively. These
gangs, composed primarily of African Americans, tend to be very territorial.
Members write their gang name, monikers, names of dead members, or gang
slogans on walls, sidewalks, trees or any object in public view. The Bloods and
the Crips have recently focused on the drug trade as a means of gaining
financial success, although like many African -American and Hispanic gangs,
they derive their status primarily from the use of violence (Klein, Maxson, and
Miller, 1995; Vigil, 1988). In cases where criminal opportunities do not exist,
many gangs have used violence as a means of gaining social status. 

Retreatist gangs seek success through both legitimate and illegitimate means.
Some may have been involved in criminal activities or used violence but have
not been accepted as conflict gangs. In addition, these gangs do not possess the
skills to be considered criminal gangs. Cloward and Ohlin (1960) refer to this
group as double failures. They retreat into a role on the fringe of society that
usually involves heavy drug use and withdrawal from social interaction. 

Vietnamese youth gangs, especially in Southern California, are good examples
of retreatist gangs. In reaction to the significant problems they have encountered
in becoming assimilated into mainstream American culture, Vietnamese youth
have developed a retreatist attitude toward gang life. For example, drug dealing
in Vietnamese gangs is perceived as too risky and to be avoided; however,
drug use--especially cocaine--is heavy. Vietnamese gang members have
adopted a low-profile approach by avoiding conspicuous gang symbols such as
tattoos or hand signs. The few symbols and signs used as indicators of gang
affiliation are easily concealed. In manner of dress, these gangs attempt to blend
into the social landscape to avoid the attention of police. Finally, the structure of
Vietnamese gangs tends to be unorganized and fluid. Membership changes
constantly, and the rituals and practices of traditional gangs are noticeably
absent (Vigil and Yun, 1990). 

A number of other gangs do not fit neatly into Cloward and Ohlin's typology.
For example, some gangs engage in serious criminal activity, but many if not
most gangs have few organizational or economic goals. Although these gangs
may not pose a serious threat to a community, lesser threats remain. For
example, while not engaged in serious delinquency, tagger crews are one of the
latest groups to receive classification under the gang label. Tagger crews consist
of youth banded together to create graffiti. Crews compete with each other to
see who can put up the most graffiti in a given time period or area. In his book
Renegade Kids, Suburban Outlaws, Wayne Wooden (1995) describes the
dynamics of tagging as well as the motivations behind it. The main reason for
tagging, which is a form of vandalism, is to gain respect from fellow artists and,
more important, from members of other tagger crews.

----------------------------

The main reason for tagging . . . is to gain respect from fellow artists and, more
important, from members of other tagger crews.

----------------------------

Developed as part of the emerging hip-hop culture, tagging has taken on a life
of its own. What was once a tool for street gangs to stake out their turf is now
considered sport by a growing number of youth. According to police officials,
in 1993 there were 422 active crews in the city of Los Angeles and
approximately 30,000 taggers in more than 600 crews countywide (Wooden,
1995). 

To many experts, the popularity of tagging is associated with "gangsta" rap
music as well as the emergence of traditional gangs in suburban America.
Rather than merely mimicking the vandalism and criminal behavior of urban
gang members and taggers, suburban tagger crews are forming to compete with
or oppose them. These taggers travel from suburban areas to the inner city,
leaving their marks (called pieces) along highways to indicate their presence. As
Wooden states, tagging has both passive and aggressive aspects. Tagger crew
members are not striking out against a particular person or group, but rather are
reacting to the lack of attention from society. Thus, society becomes the object
of their frustration.

In the early literature on female gangs, female gang members were defined
solely in terms of their relations to male gang members. Female gang members
were classified as either tomboys or sex objects; the latter seems to have been
more popular. In the 1950s, according to one account in New York City,
virtually all the female gangs were affiliated with male gangs (Campbell, 1990).
Their functions included carrying weapons, acting as spies, and providing sex
for male gang members. Twenty years later, Miller (1975) identified three
possible roles for female gang members--as independent units, as regular
members in what he calls coed gangs, and as female auxiliaries of male gangs.

In the past, the identity and social survival of female gangs depended on their
affiliation with male gangs. However, current research on female gangs,
principally among Hispanic girls, has taken a different turn. Recently, Anne
Campbell (1990) has found that many female groups are no longer simply
extensions of male gangs. Female gang members manage their own affairs,
make their own decisions, and often engage in a system of norms that is similar
to that of male gangs, such as sanctioning a member for failing to support
another "homegirl" in a fight or failing to identify herself as a gang member.
Thus, while some research continues to identify female gangs as extensions of
their male counterparts, the evidence is far from conclusive.

----------------------------

Many female groups are no longer simply extensions of male gangs. Female
gang members manage their own affairs, make their own decisions, and often
engage in a system of norms that is similar to that of male gangs.

----------------------------

Community Concerns: What To Do?

The problems of diversity and the changing definitions of gangs present a host
of difficulties for community leaders. Communities can begin to develop
strategies and programs to address their specific gang problems by analyzing
how local law enforcement officials define a gang and by analyzing the types of
gangs affecting their neighborhoods. There are a number of things to look for.

First, communities must recognize that the ways in which gangs are defined will,
to a large degree, determine the extent of the gang problem in  a neighborhood.
Moreover, even when one definition is used, such as the law enforcement
definition, this too varies from one jurisdiction to another. It is thus important for
community leaders to determine how their law enforcement community defines
a gang.

Another problem that communities should consider is the tendency to assign
responsibility to an entire gang for the activities of one gang member. As
mentioned previously, individual gang members often engage in activities that
are not connected to the gang as a whole. Thus, many activities labeled "gang
related" may not, in fact, be gang related at all. 

As community leaders struggle to understand these definitional problems, they
must also recognize the wide diversity that exists among gangs. It is important to
understand the age and ethnic distribution of the community's population, as
well as its social and economic structures. These community characteristics may
help to assess the likelihood of gang activity and to identify the types of gangs
that may emerge in the community. Once a gang has been identified, it is
important to characterize it accurately. As was mentioned, not all gangs are the
same and not all gangs are involved in the same types of activities. Communities
must clearly understand the nature of their gangs and the problems associated
with them before undertaking any strategies or programs.

It is also important that communities determine if economic and recreational
opportunities are already available to their youth. In addition, communities
should determine whether they have numerous gangs nearby, for competition
between gangs could easily escalate into a gang war. Finally, being able to
identify and recognize gang graffiti and symbols may help provide insight about
future gang activity. This is especially true if a gang identifies a particular area as
its turf.

The task of defining and identifying a gang is not easy. As the following chapters
indicate, the problems posed by gangs will not be solved quickly or easily. The
lack of a clear understanding of gangs is likely to continue to frustrate
communities as they attempt to find solutions to their gang problems.

----------------------------

Chapter 3: Gang Involvement in Drugs and Violence

Urban gangs are one of the most pervasive problems confronting society.
America has become a society almost preoccupied with gangs--especially their
relationship to drugs and violence. While it is true that violence among gang
members has escalated and involvement in drugs has been a feature of gang life
for many years, gangs are now increasingly and almost exclusively blamed for
the drug and violence problems of the last decade (Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, 1989). This is partly because gangs have grown in
number and diversity across the Nation, affecting both large cities and smaller
communities. The problem has gone beyond the inner cities to small-town
America.

----------------------------

Gangs are now increasingly and almost exclusively blamed for the drug and
violence problems of the last decade.

----------------------------

As with many social problems, Americans have increasingly looked to the legal
system for solutions (McNamara, 1995). In the absence of effective informal
means of controlling behavior such as family or community rules of behavior,
society has become dependent on the use of formal social control--the criminal
justice system (Spergel and Curry, 1990). This has been the primary approach
to the emergence of gangs. However, while legal remedies may help to ease
fears about gang violence and drug-related crime, one social institution cannot
be exclusively relied on to perform the work of many. 


The criminal justice system struggles to fulfill its responsibilities. As a result, the
problems caused by gangs require not only a better understanding of the
problem--a goal researchers have been hard pressed to achieve--but also
reestablishment of informal social controls at the community level. Many
sociologists suggest that the only way to solve social problems is by enhancing
the sense of community shared by its members. As the number of people who
feel they have a responsibility to other community members increases,
individuals are more likely to put the community's needs ahead of their own. 

Through community involvement, effective solutions to shared problems are
likely to emerge. This is clearly the case with gangs--the most effective solutions
must come from within the community itself. These solutions can only come,
however, after a clear understanding of the nature of the gang problem. This
chapter explores the relationship among gangs, drugs, and violence and
attempts to show that this interplay of factors is anything but clear. An
understanding of the gang problem is clouded not only by the variations in gang
characteristics but also by the quality of information communities receive about
gangs. 

The Media's Social Distortion of Gangs

Are there links among gangs, drugs, and violence? On the surface, this may
seem to be a simple question with an easily attainable answer. However, an
understanding of the nature of the problem as well as its possible solutions may
be distorted by the type of information available on these subjects. While some
misinformation may stem from a community's denial of a gang problem--a
situation found in many police departments (Huff, 1988a, 1988b, 1989;
Hagedorn and Macon, 1988)--the media's distortion of gang-related
information also plays a role. 

During various times in American history, particularly the 1970s and 1980s,
gangs received considerable media attention. The media became the public's
primary source of information about gangs. Moreover, in movies, television,
radio, newspapers, and even documentaries, the image created about gangs
was consistent--they were heavily involved in the drug trade and exceptionally
prone to violence. 

----------------------------

Society has a paradoxical relationship with crime: Americans are terrified of
being victimized by crime but at the same time fascinated with crime stories.

----------------------------

There are two primary reasons for this characterization. First, gangs and the
media both benefit from exaggerated portrayals of gangs and gang life. The
news media, in all forms, are in business to make a profit. As such, the more
exciting or dramatic the story, the more likely it is to capture the public's
interest. Society has a paradoxical relationship with crime: Americans are
terrified of being victimized by crime but at the same time fascinated with crime
stories. The media attempt to increase their profits by providing the public with
sensationalized stories that relate to crime and violence. Increasingly, the media
achieve this goal by attributing these events to gangs.

Gangs also benefit from this situation. For many gang members, gaining a
reputation of being tough and savvy allows them to move up their social
hierarchy. As the media continue to portray gangs in this negative light, they
actually enhance gang members' standing in their own communities. The more a
media story focuses on gang violence, the more it serves the gang's interest.

The second problem is one of access. The media have a limited amount of
time and space in which to "tell the tale" (Van Maneen, 1988), and very often
the information they receive is either limited or reinterpreted by the reporter to
fit the story's framework. Thus, in those cases where the details of a particular
crime are unknown, it is common for reporters to recast the description and
broadly categorize the crime as gang-related (Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991;
Conklin, 1992; Spergel and Curry, 1990). In addition, reporters, especially
those wishing to spend an extended amount of time with gang members (for
example, for documentaries), often have difficulty gaining access to gangs. The
most common methods reporters use to learn about gangs are reading other
media accounts and interviewing gang members. However, these methods
suffer from several limitations, including the truth and accuracy of gang
members' responses. These problems also plague social science researchers.
The difference, however, is that reporters usually interview gang members only
once, while researchers often spend months--sometimes years--learning about
the lives of gang members. 

Thus, for a number of reasons, the information obtained from the media on
gangs is distorted to the point that the public believes gangs are extremely
violent, are involved in drug trafficking, are highly organized, and are a
pervasive part of the social landscape. This distorted view of gangs influences
not only an understanding of the problem, but also has an impact on social
policy.

----------------------------


It is not necessarily race that explains gang life, for gang members usually come
from socially and economically disadvantaged communities.

----------------------------

Another distortion the media portray about gangs relates to their ethnic and
racial composition. Gangs are not exclusively a minority phenomenon. Although
poor nonwhite communities have produced the largest number of gangs, lower
class white communities have had gangs in the past and continue to produce
them. It is not necessarily race that explains gang life, for gang members usually
come from socially and economically disadvantaged communities. 

Thus, many of the media's portrayals of gangs do little more than perpetuate
existing myths that contribute to the gang problem in this country. Historical
examination of gangs shows that no exclusive pattern characterizes gangs or
gang life.

Historical Overview of Gangs

Concentrations of gang research have occurred at three fairly distinct times
in this century. The earliest studies were part of an effort by University of
Chicago researchers to study the effects of social disorganization in rapidly
growing urban areas (Thrasher, 1927; Shaw, 1930; Shaw and McKay, 1942).
The most influential study of gangs in the early part of this century was
Thrasher's The Gang, published in 1927. Thrasher identified 1,313 different
gangs in Chicago and provided the foundation for generations of researchers
concerned with the gang phenomenon. Thrasher's study was the first truly
sociological analysis that did more than simply describe the gang problem. He
addressed some of the social-psychological issues that prompt individuals to
join gangs, such as the quest for adventure.

Thrasher also looked at how gangs are organized, how leaders emerge, and
how authorities respond to gangs. Similarly, Shaw and McKay (1942) argued
that the homes of the poorest and most recent immigrants often had high rates
of street crime and delinquency due to the breakdown of their capacity for
social control. Social disorganization theorists argued that the concentration of
crime and disorder in certain areas of the city was due to the breakdown of
social relationships to the point where a community's coordination, teamwork,
morale, and social control were impaired. Thus, for this first wave of studies,
the explanation of gangs focused on the lack of stable social structures in certain
parts of the city. 

The second wave of studies began in the mid-1950s and lasted for
approximately 10 years. This group of studies focused on community
subcultures. Albert Cohen (1955) argued that delinquent gangs are primarily a
lower class, male phenomenon. Lower class boys have the same aspirations as
middle-class ones; the problem is that their legitimate opportunities to succeed
are often severely restricted. Cohen argued that lower class boys create a
subculture--a gang--in reaction to their environment. In contrast, Walter Miller
(1958) held that there is no need to create a delinquent subculture because
lower class culture itself includes a set of characteristics, such as toughness,
smartness, trouble, and excitement, that accounts for higher rates of
delinquency and gang life. Thus, delinquency was explained as a natural
reaction to living up to the expectations found in a distinct lower class culture.

---------------------------- 

Gangs serve as substitute families and provide a sense of belonging in addition
to offering a ladder of social mobility for some gang members.

----------------------------

Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960) contended that not only are
legitimate avenues for success blocked for some individuals, but illegitimate
ones are as well. Their typology of subcultures--criminal, conflict, and
retreatist--has been an important tool for identifying the types of activities in
which an individual may engage. Recent research on gangs also identifies three
types--hedonistic, drug-oriented gangs; instrumental, theft-oriented gangs; and
predatory, violent gangs--that correspond remarkably well to Cloward and
Ohlin's typology (see for instance, Huff, 1989). Both the early and
mid-20th-century studies, in one way or another, attributed gangs and their
associated problems to elements in the social structure--either the social
environment of the city or the opportunities associated with being a member of
a particular social class. 

In many ways, the research on gangs from the 1980s to the present--the third
wave--resembles the gang research of the 1920s. As in previous eras, there is a
tendency to associate gangs and violence with urban poverty and to
characterize gang life as a source of social identity in the face of impoverished
living conditions. What has occurred, however, is that the social and economic
opportunities and living conditions of some groups have not improved or have
become worse. As a result, in many cases, gang life appears to have taken on
much more severe or dramatic consequences. Short (1990a), for example, has
argued that members are involved in gangs for longer periods of time and are
beginning their affiliation with gangs at a younger age and extending it into early
adulthood. He also believes that gangs have become increasingly entrenched in
economically depressed communities. Hagedorn and Macon (1988) found
similar patterns in Milwaukee, and Fagan (1990) argues that gang membership
may now be motivated more by the pursuit of profit than by the cultural or
territorial reasons used in earlier decades. Fagan also notes that gang members
tend to be more violent than in previous decades. In the absence of stable
family and community structures, gangs still serve as substitute families and
provide a sense of belonging in addition to offering a ladder of social mobility
(Bell, 1953) for some gang members.

In sum, the study of gangs in this country reveals a wide variety of reasons why
members become involved in gangs, as well as the benefits of gang
membership. If policymakers, community leaders, and police officials are to
design and implement effective strategies to control gang activity, they must
understand the diversity of gangs in terms of their characteristics as well as the
numerous functions they serve for members. This recognition of diversity also
helps to organize the links among gangs, drugs, and violence.

Types of Gangs

Building on Cloward and Ohlin's (1960) typology discussed in the previous
chapter, Taylor (1990) groups gang characteristics into three categories--
corporate, territorial, and scavenger. Corporate gangs focus their attention on
making money. There is a clearly defined division of labor, and the criminal
activities gang members engage in are committed almost exclusively for profit.
Territorial gangs focus on possession of turf, and gang members are quick to
use violence to secure or protect what belongs to the gang. While there is some
level of organization in these gangs--clearly defined leaders and particular
objectives and goals of the gang--it is less refined than in corporate gangs.
Finally, scavenger gangs have very little organizational structure, and gang
members are motivated by a need to belong to a group. The crimes that gang
members of this category perform are usually impulsive and often senseless.
There are no objectives or goals for the gang, and the gang members tend to be
low achievers who are prone to violent and erratic behavior.

----------------------------

In some gangs, using drugs is an important means of gaining social status. In
others, drug use is forbidden, especially if the gang is involved in selling them.

----------------------------

It is impossible to describe every characteristic of every gang. Thus, making
general statements about the violent nature of gangs and their involvement in
drug trafficking is difficult. The remainder of this chapter investigates the
complex relationships among gangs, drugs, and violence as they relate to a
variety of gang characteristics. 

Gangs and Drugs

Drug Use

Most researchers agree that drug use, drug selling, and crime, especially by
youth, are strongly related. However, it is difficult to automatically associate
these activities with gangs because gangs have diverse characteristics and
behaviors (Fagan, 1989). Although gang members are more involved in drug
use, drug dealing, and criminal activity than other youth (Fagan, 1989), gang
membership does not necessarily lead to involvement in any of those activities. 

In some gangs, using drugs is an important means of gaining social status. In
others, drug use is forbidden, especially if the gang is involved in selling them.
Chinese gangs, for example, have strict rules regarding drug use (Chin, 1990).
In other gangs, members are discouraged, but not prohibited, from using drugs
(Cooper, 1987). In still other cases, gangs forbid the use of the drug they sell
but tolerate the use of other drugs (Mieczkowski, 1986). Finally, some gangs
use drugs but do not deal in them at all. For example, Vietnamese gangs use
drugs but avoid dealing since it is considered too risky and will attract attention
(Vigil and Yun, 1990).

Drug Selling

Considering the recent economic decline occurring in many cities, the
underground economy has begun to play an even more important role in
low-income communities. It seems likely that youth in these neighborhoods
have become involved in drug dealing (Skogan, 1990). It also seems likely that
gangs, which in many cases have formed in response to these conditions, have
organized themselves around money-making opportunities. However, the
research is mixed. In some cases, gangs have become highly organized around
drug selling. For example, Skolnick (1990) makes a distinction among
instrumental, entrepreneurial, and cultural gangs. This distinction is based on the
degree to which gangs are organized around the drug business. Based on
interviews with 100 young drug dealers and 100 law enforcement officers in
California, Skolnick concludes that gangs, especially entrepreneurial gangs,
dominate the drug trade in Northern California. Other research suggests that
while individual gang members may sell drugs, it is not necessarily a function of
the gang as a whole (Waldorf and Lauderback, 1993; Quicker, Galeai, and
Batani-Khalfani, 1991; Decker and Van Winkle, 1994; Hagedorn, 1994;
Fagan, 1989). 

In sum, whether one is examining drug use or drug selling, the relationship
between gangs and drugs has not been clearly defined or understood. A
number of gangs are involved in using and selling drugs, while others are
involved in selling but prohibit use by gang members. Other gangs are highly
organized--almost corporate--in their organizational characteristics, while
others are fragmented, with individual members involved in drug dealing, but
acting independently of the gang. And still other gangs and gang members are
heavily involved in using drugs, but do not sell them.

----------------------------

The research community has found little evidence of a relationship between
drug use in general and violent behavior.

----------------------------

Drugs and Violence

There are essentially three ways to describe the relationship between drugs
and violence (Collins, 1990). First, the physical and psychological effects of use
of certain drugs can result in violent responses. This is especially true of crack
cocaine, where the user often experiences a sense of paranoia that leads to
violent outbursts (Goode, 1989; Lee, 1981). PCP is also known to cause
extremely violent behavior. However, the research community has found little
evidence of a relationship between drug use in general and violent behavior.
Recent research indicates that drug users typically report that their drug use has
no relation to violence (Collins, Powers, and Craddock, 1989).

Second, the most common association between drug use and violence involves
users committing crimes to support their habits. This can lead to instances of
violent crime, such as street robberies. Available research supports this
explanation (see for instance, Johnson et al., 1985; Chaiken and Chaiken,
1982; Inciardi, 1981). 

Finally, systemic violence, the type of violence most commonly associated with
gangs, is a function of the illegal sale and distribution of drugs. Examples include
territorial issues relating to a gang's share of the illegal drug market or, more
simply, a transaction between seller and buyer in which a dispute occurs
(Skogan, 1989; Little, 1995). This is the type of gang violence on which the
media focus their attention, perhaps because it extends beyond the participants
in the drug trade, invades a neighborhood's sense of community, and poses a
risk to innocent bystanders. However, systemic violence has a number of
protective advantages for individual gang members. Through violence, a gang
can control competitors and expand markets (see for instance, Moore, 1990;
Fagan, 1993; Goldstein, 1985).

----------------------------

The type of violence most commonly associated with gangs is a function of the
illegal sale and distribution of drugs.

----------------------------

Gangs and Violence

Of all the characteristics associated with gangs, perhaps none is more important
to the general public than violence. As was mentioned, gang-related violence
evokes great fear in the public; however, it is not well understood. As with the
relationship between drugs and gangs, a clear understanding has not yet
emerged concerning the relationship between violence and gangs.

Perhaps the best symbol of the growing problem of gang-related violence is the
driveby shooting. In fact, given their notoriety in the media, driveby shootings
have become synonymous with gang violence. In his book, Gangbangs and
Drivebys, William Sanders (1994) describes the essential features of driveby
shootings. He contends that drivebys are basically retaliatory measures against
an offending gang and that the value of participating in drivebys is grounded in
the need for gang members to maintain and enhance their reputations. There is
also an economic side to Sanders' explanation. He contends that as the
involvement in the drug trade expanded for a number of gangs, turf wars
escalated. While the battle for turf has always been a common feature of
intergang behavior, drug markets have exacerbated the problem.

In general, research on the causes of gang violence has focused on two
factors--the influence of gang leaders on members and gang members' lack of
social status.

One body of research argues that gangs become involved in violence as a result
of gang leaders who are psychologically impaired. Their need for violence
translates into group violence by virtue of their leadership position. Many
observers who subscribe to this theory attribute the problem to the pathology of
drugs, especially drugs that induce violent and psychotic behavior. 

A second body of research most often cites a lack of social status as the
primary cause of gang member violence. This research concludes that most
gang members feel they have been deprived by society or their own community
of the status they are due. The use of violence by gang members reintroduces
or enhances their status. This school of thought is based on the idea that
violence emerges in low-income communities where it is a natural byproduct of
social life. Violence becomes the means by which physical and social goals are
achieved. As Sanchez-Jankowski (1991) argues, "violence is the currency of
life and becomes the currency of the economy of the gang." 

----------------------------

Some researchers conclude that most gang members feel they have been
deprived by society or their own community of the status they are due. The use
of violence by gang members reintroduces or enhances their status.

----------------------------

There is also a tendency to view gang-related violence as intertwined with
a gang's efforts to achieve its goals, such as when an organized gang involved in
drug dealing punishes a noncompliant customer. However, evidence supports
the idea that much of what we refer to as gang violence is actually committed by
individual gang members who do not undertake this activity to further the gang's
objectives (Kornhauser, 1978; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991).

The best possible explanation of the relationship between gangs and violence is
that it depends primarily on how the gang is organized. Many studies of gangs
have found that there are different types of gangs--some are organized to fight
while others are organized to make money--and that the level of violence
associated with each gang is dependent on its type. For example, using a
variety of data collection techniques, Block and Block (1993) collected
information from police records of lethal and nonlethal street-gang-motivated
crimes, examined temporal and spatial patterns of those crimes, and described
the criminal activities of Chicago's four largest street gangs over a 3-year
period. In this study, Block and Block make a distinction between instrumental
and expressive violence. They argue that the dynamics of violence depend on
the degree and type of the offender's motivation. In an expressive violent
confrontation, the primary goal of violence is injury, while other motives are
secondary. The primary purpose of instrumental violence is not to hurt, injure,
or kill but to acquire money or property. According to the Blocks,
gang-motivated violence often contains many expressive aspects, such as
defense of one's street reputation, membership in a particular gang, and defense
of gang territory. However, some gangs engage in instrumental violence
involving possession or sale of drugs.

One of the most important findings from the Blocks' study is that gang
involvement in violence and homicide is more often turf related than drug
related. Only 8 of 288 gang-motivated homicides analyzed in this study were
drug related. Moreover, certain types of crimes were clustered in  specific
neighborhoods. Gangs specializing in instrumental violence were strongest in
disrupted and declining neighborhoods. Gangs involved in expressive violence
were strongest in relatively prosperous neighborhoods. The value of this study
is to show that gang-motivated crime is not random. It occurs in specific
neighborhoods and during particular time periods. Some gangs spend a great
deal of their time expanding and defending their turf, while others are actively
involved in the drug trade. The authors point out that to understand and solve
gang-related violence, one must understand the problem in light of the chronic
conditions that exist in neighborhoods where gang violence occurs.

Another important variable in understanding the extent of gang violence is the
direction of gangs' organizational structures--vertical/hierarchical or horizontal.
Gangs with a vertical/hierarchical organizational structure are likely to indulge in
group rather than individual violence; however, these gangs generally avoid
using violence at all. This type of gang tends to focus on making money, which
typically overrides individualistic acts of violence. In addition, these gangs are
able to exert greater control over their members. For example, Chinese gangs
are likely to use violence, but only in carefully prescribed instances. Chinese
gangs are also able to exert control over individual gang members, which
reduces the probability of attracting the attention of law enforcement (Chin,
1990). 

----------------------------

Gangs with a vertical/hierarchical organizational structure . . . tend to focus on
making money, which typically overrides individualistic acts of violence.

----------------------------

In contrast, gangs that have a horizontal structure tend to have less control
over their members. While some of these gangs may include cliques or
subgroups that can be very organized and able to control their members, the
gang as a whole is a loose collection of factions with limited organizational
coordination. 

While the organizational characteristics of gangs help to explain the incidence
and prevalence of gang violence--with money-making opportunities acting as an
intervening variable--there are some exceptions. For instance, Jamaican Posses
are highly organized in their drug-trafficking operations, but their use of violence
is partly due to cultural factors. While the evidence on this inverse effect is
scant, it is something to consider when discussing the explanations of gang
violence. Although it seems that gangs are less likely to engage in widespread
violence as their level of organization increases, this conclusion should be used
with caution.

This is not to suggest that some gang members shun violence. Violence is
common and frequently lethal in gang life. Conflicts can arise from intragang
authority struggles, intergang quarrels over turf (sometimes related to drug
markets), and perceived threats to a gang's reputation and honor. What is
especially disturbing in this regard is the increased firepower of heavy automatic
weapons, which makes outbursts of violence more deadly. 

The Relationships Among Gangs, Drugs, and Violence

Research on the relationships among gangs, drug trafficking, and violence is
inconclusive. On one hand, it appears that gang-related violence is increasing.
For instance, in 1993 gang members were involved--as suspects or victims--in
about one-third of all homicides in Los Angeles County (Maxson, 1995).
Moreover, between 1980 and 1989 the homicide rate in Los Angeles was
more than double the rate for the State of California (Meehan and O'Carroll,
1992). A prevalent theme in this city during the late 1980s was that a
substantial proportion of the growing number of homicides was attributable to
increasing gang involvement in both drug dealing and drug use. For example,
Skolnick et al. (1989) found that street drug dealing in California was
dominated by African-American gangs organized specifically for the purpose of
distributing cocaine. This theory about the relationship between violence and
drugs had broad appeal and was accepted in the media as well as in official
reports (California Council on Criminal Justice, 1989).

In contrast, Meehan and O'Carroll (1992) suggested that it is possible that
violence relating to territory or turf is of a different type than violence associated
with drug dealing. Despite its popularity, there is little evidence to support the
theory that gang involvement in the drug trade is responsible for a substantial
proportion of homicides (Klein and Maxson, 1989; Meehan and O'Carroll,
1992). 

Moreover, some scholars contend that the connections among street gangs,
drug sales, and violence have been overstated by media reports, especially
during the mid-1980s when gangs became involved in the crack cocaine trade
(Maxson, 1995). This perception of a close relationship among gangs, drug
sales, and homicides has been challenged by a number of recent studies. For
instance, in an elaborate study that drew from several different databases,
Meehan and O'Carroll (1992) assessed the relationship among gangs, drug
sales, and violence. They concluded that gang-motivated homicides were less
likely than other homicides to involve drugs and drug-motivated homicides were
less likely to involve a gang member. Finally, victims of gang-motivated
homicides were no more likely to have a history of drug arrests than other
victims. In sum, they conclude that gang conflicts that result in homicides are
often independent of either involvement in the drug trade or the use of drugs.

----------------------------

Gang-motivated homicides were less likely than other homicides to involve
drugs and drug-motivated homicides were less likely to involve a gang-member.

----------------------------

Despite recent increases in the use of violence by gang members, especially if
their organizational viability or their competitive edge in the drug market is
challenged (Fagan and Chin, 1990), gang life may not be as dangerous as it
appears to be. In fact, many researchers have found that much gang activity is
fairly mundane. In Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio, Huff (1989) found that gang
members spent most of their time acting like typical adolescents (for example,
disobeying parents and skipping school). Similarly, Sullivan's (1989) study of
Brooklyn gangs revealed that gang members derived a sense of satisfaction by
engaging in relatively minor acts that were perceived as taking advantage of a
system that they felt was stacked against them. 

Consequently, despite the fact that there is a greater prevalence of individual
gang violence, especially in gangs that have a horizontal organization, much of
what passes for gang-related violence is not gang related at all. This does not
suggest that gang violence is random, unrestrained, or even confined to certain
groups. What it does suggest, however, is that the relationship between gangs
and violence is complex and has yet to be completely understood.

In summary, what most gang members find attractive about violence is the
things it sometimes can secure for them. Violence is the vehicle by which
objectives can be achieved when other alternatives are unavailable. Gang
violence, like drug use, varies considerably among gangs.

----------------------------

Gangs that are able to secure lucrative illegal ventures seem to be less likely to
engage in violence.

----------------------------

One characteristic that helps to explain gang violence is the level of organization
a particular gang possesses. This, in turn, is based on the money-making
ventures in which the gang is involved. Gangs that are able to secure lucrative
illegal ventures seem to be less likely to engage in violence. Thus, the type of
gang that emerges or moves into a community depends, in large part, on the
availability of legal and illegal economic opportunities within it. 

The availability of illegal opportunities is an important factor. As Cloward
and Ohlin (1960) pointed out several decades ago--a conclusion still relevant
today--in highly organized communities with many illegal opportunities,
entrepreneurial gangs may emerge (Taylor, 1990). In disorganized communities
where there are few illegal opportunities and criminal role models to regulate
illegal behavior, "fighting" gangs--highly competitive and violent drug-selling
organizations--may emerge. Finally, in areas where gang members have failed
to succeed in the legitimate market as well as the illegitimate one, retreatist
gangs may emerge (Cloward and Ohlin, 1960). These gangs rarely engage in
violence and are perhaps the least harmful to a community since their activities
pose little threat to the social order of a neighborhood.

Community Responses to the Problem

Review of the literature on gangs essentially leads to two important
conclusions--gang activities vary widely and are tied to the characteristics of the
particular gang's community, and the catalysts for dangerous and illegal gang
activities are found in the deteriorating economic conditions of our inner cities.
With respect to the first point, it seems clear that traditional interdiction efforts
have had only limited effects on the problem. As such, communities must
actively develop less coercive intervention techniques that will complement
more traditional law enforcement approaches. It is also important to distinguish
between hardcore gang leaders who are involved in the most serious forms of
criminal behavior and peripheral gang members. Hardcore leaders should be
the focus of the criminal justice system, while peripheral members may benefit
from community or diversion efforts.

As the research clearly indicates, the solutions to gang-related problems are
inextricably woven into recent changes in the economic structure of American
society. Deindustrialization (due largely to technological advances), competition
in the global economy, and the relocation of industry have led to the decline of
numerous jobs for many unskilled or semiskilled workers. This is especially true
for teenagers in inner cities, whose unemployment rates are much higher than
the national average. Thus, our early understanding of gangs as caused by social
and economic constraints continues to provide a compelling explanation. As
Huff (1989) has argued:

Youth gangs are symptomatic of many of the same social and economic
problems as adult crime, mental illness, drug abuse, alcoholism, the surge in
homelessness, and multi-generation "welfare families" living in hopelessness and
despair. While we are justly concerned with replacement of our physical
infrastructure (roads, bridges, sewers) our human infrastructure may be
crumbling as well. Our social, educational, and economic infrastructures are not
meeting the needs of many children and adults. Increases in the numbers of
women and children living in poverty (the "feminization" and "juvenilization" of
poverty) are dramatic examples of this recent transformation. To compete with
the seductive lure of drug profits and the grinding despair of poverty, we must
reassess our priorities and reaffirm the importance of our neighborhoods by
putting in place a number of programs that offer hope, education, job skills, and
meaningful lives. It is worth the cost of rebuilding our human infrastructures
since it is, after all, our children whose lives are being wasted and our cities in
which the quality of life is being threatened.

----------------------------

To compete with the seductive lure of drug profits and the grinding despair of
poverty, we must . . . reaffirm the importance of our neighborhoods by putting
in place programs that offer hope, education, job skills, and meaningful lives.

----------------------------

Researchers have examined the effectiveness of intervention programs and have
pinpointed four common strategies. The first intervention involves organizing
neighborhoods in a way that leads to the reduction in the number of gangs in a
particular community. The second targets the problems identified by Huff
(1989, 1990a) by creating jobs, training, and other opportunities to lure people
away from gang life. The third strategy--arresting and incarcerating gang
members--is the most common response to gangs. The fourth strategy is a
comprehensive approach that involves various local agencies in the
development of community-based approaches to solving the gang problem.
This approach also includes media campaigns targeted to potential gang
members (Spergel and Curry, 1990; Spergel et al., 1994).

----------------------------

Chapter 4: Gang Graffiti

In the Book of Daniel, King Belshazzar was terrified when fingers of a hand
mysteriously appeared and wrote four strange words on his palace wall. He
became even more frightened when his seers could not tell him what the words
meant. Then Daniel told him what they meant--that the message was from God,
that Belshazzar's days were numbered, that he had been weighed on the scales
and found wanting, and that his kingdom would be divided among his enemies.
That night, Darius the Mede invaded the kingdom and killed Belshazzar. His
worst fears were realized.

When words or symbols suddenly appear on a wall in an American city, can
nearby residents figure out who wrote them? Can they decipher what they
mean? Should they be frightened? 

This chapter provides some answers to these questions. Graffiti can be petty
annoyances by juvenile vandals, attempts at artistic expression, or signs that
street gangs have moved into the neighborhood. It is important to decide
whether graffiti are a minor nuisance or signs of a major problem and then to
take action appropriate to the seriousness of the local problem. 

What Are Graffiti?

What are graffiti? Graffiti are writings or drawings on public surfaces. "Graffiti"
is the plural of the Italian word "graffito," which is derived from "graffiare," to
scratch. The dictionary calls the person who makes graffiti a graffitist, but many
people dealing with graffiti today call that person a "tagger." Tagger also has a
more specialized meaning that will be addressed later.

To say that the surface on which graffiti are placed is public does not mean
that the surface is in public ownership and belongs to a government. It means
that the surface is visible to the public and does not belong to the tagger.
Murals, signs, and designs that people place on their own buildings for
decorative or commercial purposes are not graffiti. 

----------------------------

To say that the surface on which graffiti are placed is public means that the
surface is visible to the public and does not belong to the tagger.

----------------------------

These public surfaces are any surfaces on which graffiti can be placed--walls,
fences, rocks, billboards, street and traffic signs, bridge stanchions, utility
boxes, telephone booths, or park benches. They can be indoor or outdoor.
They can be the outside or inside of buses, subway cars, or railway cars or in
publicly accessible spaces inside buildings. 

Graffiti predate the recorded history of mankind. The drawings in the Lascaux
caves in France are thought to date from 18,000 B.C. Similar images have
been found in Africa, Asia, and Australia. 

Over 1,000 inscriptions are on the walls at Delphi in Greece, where for
centuries the devotees of Apollo came to consult his oracle. Many of these
graffiti are official--decrees, deeds liberating slaves, or hymns. But many are
personal, identifying the graffitist as a poet, grammarian, orator, or astronomer. 

Early Christians used drawings of a fish as a sign of their presence. The Greek
word for fish, "ichthys," is an acronym for Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior. 

In North America, the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona contains
thousands of petroglyphs, or rock drawings. Their age is impossible to
determine, but the area was occupied intermittently from about A.D. 500 to
A.D. 1400. The petroglyphs depict humans and animals, and they contain
geometrical designs of unknown significance. Some seem to be solar calendars.
One of the park's most popular tourist attractions is Newspaper Rock, which
contains several of these petroglyphs.

Lavatory walls have long been favored surfaces for obscene and vulgar wit
rendered in verse, epigram, dialogues between anonymous writers, or crude
drawings. There are several collections of these graffiti, some reaching back
several hundred years. 

The practice of writing on walls has continued into modern times. Kilroy
was everywhere in World War II; wherever American soldiers went, they
would see "KILROY WAS HERE." The Kilroy graffiti were a kind of comfort,
a reassurance that some American had already been there. One enterprising
team has published several books on the graffiti of various athletic conferences
including Graffiti in the PAC 10 and Graffiti in the Southwest Conference. 

Political graffiti--straightforward sloganeering or subversive satire--are
universal. In repressive societies, political graffiti can be an important form of
political expression.

Are Graffiti a Problem?

If graffiti date back for centuries and are found in all parts of the world, why has
the public become so concerned about graffiti in the last 10 to 15 years? There
are reasons for this newfound concern. The first is technological. Invention of
the spray-paint can has enabled taggers to quickly make big, colorful graffiti
that are hard to remove. Second, graffiti on buses and subway cars move all
over a city. Therefore, graffiti are not confined to the taggers' home
neighborhoods. Third, in many places, graffiti have become associated in
citizens' minds with gangs. They are taken as evidence of the presence of gangs.
All of these reasons, separately or in combination, give rise to a feeling that
things are out of control, that public authorities cannot control graffiti artists. But
should graffiti be a cause for concern?

There is an important distinction between two major categories of
contemporary graffiti. Tagger graffiti, or what some people call street art, are
personal expressions of the taggers, and they are an end in themselves, not a
threat of something else. Gang graffiti, on the other hand, are intended to
represent the presence of a gang. They convey a threat of gang violence in the
neighborhood.

Graffiti as Street Art

In 1976, Dawson's Book Shop in Los Angeles published the small book Los
Angeles Barrio Calligraphy, written by Jerry and Sally Romotsky. The title of
the book tells the authors' point of view--that barrio graffiti can be seen as
calligraphy. Having found no published analysis of wall writing, the Romotskys
set out to photograph and analyze it. The authors' presence in a neighborhood
usually attracted local observers who wanted to know what they were doing
and why. In the process, they learned some of the lore of barrio calligraphy,
which they believe dates back several decades. They found some wall writing
from the 1940s, but they believe the practice goes back to the early part of this
century.

----------------------------

Tagger graffiti, or what some people call street art, are personal expressions of
the taggers, and they are an end in themselves, not a threat of something else.
Gang graffiti, on the other hand, are intended to represent the presence of a
gang. They do convey a threat of gang violence in the neighborhood.

----------------------------

Barrio artists call their graffiti "plaqueasos" or "placas," words derived from the
Spanish word "placa," which means sign. According to the Romotskys, Los
Angeles barrio artists worked within the framework of a long-established
street-writing tradition. Communication of a specific message was not
important, if any message was intended at all. Artistic expression within a
recognized tradition was important. Choice of letters, geometrical figures,
symbols, and representations of birds, animals, or  humans were all in keeping
with an overall design concept, which in turn was derived from the basic barrio
graffiti tradition.

At the time of the Romotskys' book, wall artists in the Los Angeles barrios
were not necessarily gang members, although gang members did imitate the
earlier styles. In recent years, gang graffiti have appeared in all parts of
Southern California; while they are not as well done as what the Romotskys
had observed, they follow some of the earlier tradition. 

As noted earlier, the term "tagger" has a special meaning. In New York City,
subway graffitists came to be known as taggers because they signed their work
with their chosen nicknames or tags. In 1971, the New York Times ran an
article on a graffitist who signed himself "Taki 183." Taki  183 explained that
"Taki" is the traditional nickname for the Greek name Demetrius, the graffitist's
real first name. He lived on 183rd Street. 

Taki 183 started his career as graffitist by writing his tag on ice cream trucks in
his neighborhood, then on mail boxes, walls, and subway trains. Because he
worked as a messenger and traveled through all of New York's boroughs, he
was able to spread his name everywhere.

The New York Times article may have given Taki 183 a specific human identity
in the mind of the average subway rider, but he was already a celebrity among
taggers. The article said that Taki 183 had spawned hundreds of imitators,
including Joe 136, Barbara 62, Eel 158, Yank 135, and Leo 136. 

----------------------------

While many tags included neighborhood indicators of some kind, the tagger's
goal was not to mark or claim territory.

----------------------------

To the tagger, the important thing was "getting up," that is, putting his or her tag
on as many surfaces as possible. While artistic quality and uniqueness were also
important, a tagger's reputation rested on sheer volume. Some graffitists thought
a tagger had to get up at least 1,000 times before anyone would notice. Taki
183 is thought to have gotten up over 10,000 times--a factor in his legend.


While many tags included neighborhood indicators of some kind, like Taki
183's reference to his street, the tagger's goal was not to mark or claim
territory. On the contrary, the tagger's ambition was to be seen everywhere.
That is why subway trains became favorite targets. They went everywhere in
New York, even if the tagger did not. Taggers' names could be seen in places
they had never been or even heard of. Taki 183 had a natural advantage over
other taggers. His job did take him all over New York, and he could mark
subway stations as well as subway trains.

Beyond "getting up" anywhere and everywhere, tagging moved into bigger
and better artistic effects. It became important for a tag to have some artistic
merit. Tags evolved into personal logos. 

While still secondary to sheer volume, style became increasingly important in
subway graffiti. A new vocabulary developed. Taggers became "writers" who
studied and practiced style. They planned their work in sketch pads. They sat in
subway stations, critiquing the graffiti on passing trains. Graffiti that showed little
effort or style were referred to as "throw-ups." More sophisticated graffiti were
called "pieces," short for masterpieces. "Top-to-bottoms" ran from the top to
the bottom of a car, but not its length. "End-to-ends" ran the length of a car.
"Whole cars" covered an entire car from top to bottom, end to end, including
even the windows. Finally, a few writers managed to do whole trains,
sometimes referred to as "worms."

To cover a whole car with an integrated painting, the graffiti artist had to have a
substantial length of time and relative privacy. Both could be found in the car
storage yards, where cars were kept overnight under lax security. 

The goals of taggers were quite different from those of gang graffitists.
Self-publicity and artistic expression, not territorial claims or intimidation, were
taggers' goals. Their reaction to law enforcement was therefore quite different
from that of gang members. They regarded law enforcement responses that
increased technical difficulties in producing their pieces as challenges. Such
responses would incite rather than deter further tagging. 

Many New York and London subway taggers were extraordinary risk-takers.
Being caught and arrested by transit police was a relatively minor risk.
Flattening themselves against tunnel walls, working in layovers (sidetracks in
tunnels where out-of-service cars are stored) when other trains were hurtling
by, jumping live third rails and dodging moving trains in storage yards--these
activities were risky, and some taggers were killed pursuing their art. Getting up
in obviously difficult or dangerous places was part of the glory of being a
tagger. Everyone would be impressed--other taggers most of all. 

Tagger graffiti overwhelmed the New York subway system. Tagger graffiti
covered subway cars, inside and out, so that hardly any of the transit system's
original paint was visible. Graffiti appeared in all the stations, and even on the
walls of tunnels, where they could be seen only as flashes as trains sped from
station to station. 

Most members of the transit-riding public found the graffiti disturbing. Graffiti
here and there, in remote places seen by a few people, may simply annoy
people. The effect of the subway graffiti was quite different. Thousands of
graffiti, covering every surface a subway rider could see, gave rise to pervasive
uneasiness and fear that the city was out of control, that no one was completely
safe. Virtually impossible to understand, the graffiti were menacing, showing
that the transit authority was unable to maintain the security of its cars and
stations. However, some people thought many graffiti showed substantial
artistic talent. Pictures were taken and displayed. Art books of subway graffiti
were compiled. 

As a form of street art, spray-can graffiti spread to large cities in Europe,
including London, Amsterdam, Paris, and West Berlin. Some public officials
and well-known citizens conferred a degree of respectability on graffiti by
commissioning murals. New York graffitist Jean-Paul Basquiet teamed with
Andy Warhol to produce joint paintings. An exhibition of their undertaking filled
three London galleries in late 1988.

In 1992, after years of combating graffiti, the London Underground, Ltd.,
London's mass transit system, published Getting Rid of Graffiti: A Practical
Guide to Graffiti Removal and Anti-Graffiti Protection (Whitford, 1992). In the
introductory chapter, this manual criticized actions that encouraged graffitists by
appearing to condone their activities. The manual specifically mentioned youth
club classes in graffiti technique, use of graffiti styles in advertising, media
coverage of street art, and invitations to join the art establishment. The manual
also mentioned lenient magistrates who refused to regard graffiti as vandalism.

----------------------------

Virtually impossible to understand, the graffiti were menacing, showing that the
transit authority was unable to maintain the security of its cars and stations.

----------------------------

The New York subway graffiti problem subsided, but tagging has subsequently
appeared all over the United States. Taggers are "getting up" everywhere. In
the early 1990s, two art students in Boston were caught painting murals for
which they had laid out detailed plans, including sketches and photographs of
their works in progress. Some Boston graffiti artists were known to maintain
portfolios of their work and show pictures at graffiti parties. Tag lines of two
Boston groups identified them as FAV (Five Angry Vandals) and NBC (Never
Been Caught). They represented a reappearance of traditional graffiti, and they
required a different approach than gang-related graffiti. 

However, the gap between taggers and gangs is being closed--a development
that must be watched carefully. Taggers often form into groups, sometimes
called "crews," and adopt crew tags.  

----------------------------

The gap between taggers and gangs is being closed . . . . The larger a tagger
crew, the more it begins to look and act like a street gang.

----------------------------

Taggers who move in tag crews can achieve more daring feats. They can help
each other get to difficult places, like overhead signs, which are referred to as
"heavens." They have been known to help fellow crew members rappel down
blank walls to put tags in apparently unreachable places. 

The larger a tagger crew, the more it begins to look and act like a street gang.
While street gangs look down on individual taggers with disdain, they are more
likely to regard large crews as a threat that must be dealt with. Then the two
begin to act like rival street gangs, even though the crew may have started out
with less dangerous purposes. 

Exhibit 1, from Lakewood, Colorado, illustrates the narrowing of the gap
between taggers and gangs. The boy pictured in the middle is holding a can with
SCC on it, which stands for Subliminal Criminal Crew. The boy on the right is
holding a gun, not a paint can. "Dremz" is the artist's tag. 

Exhibit 2, also from Lakewood, shows another tagger development. Taggers
paint pictures showing how they dress: baggy pants, hats, and bandannas. 

Gang Graffiti

What do graffiti mean to a neighborhood? If they are tagger graffiti, they are a
nuisance, but they do not communicate a threat in and of themselves. They may
communicate that taggers feel free to operate, but it should be remembered that
the challenge of "getting up" is important to taggers. They are willing to take
risks simply to become known.

Gang graffiti are different. A neighborhood would be correct in perceiving gang
graffiti as a threat to peace. Even if gang graffiti are "thrown up" by
neighborhood youth, they are a territorial claim, a communication, and even a
challenge to other gangs. Outside gangs may read them as an invitation to
attack. 

Gang graffiti differ from tagger graffiti in several respects, as described in
Exhibit 3 (on page 37). 

When graffiti are thought to be gang graffiti, they create the impression  that the
unknown graffitists are gang members, bringing a menacing and violent lifestyle
to the community. For that reason alone, it is important that knowledgeable
people determine whether or not the graffiti are gang graffiti.

Gang graffiti are a form of communication reasonably easy to understand with a
little effort. Gang graffiti artists do not try very hard to code or disguise their
messages. There is no point in threatening a rival gang if the rival gang cannot
understand the threat. To those who know how to read the graffiti, the
messages are usually fairly clear. In some respects, deciphering gang graffiti is
no more difficult than reading bad handwriting. 

Gang graffiti have several values to law enforcement. They tell police officers
who is in what gang, what gangs are claiming what territories, who is
challenging whom, and who is trying to move or expand.  

Gangs often list their street-name rosters in their graffiti. The street names of
gang members are often known to many people in a neighborhood. Learning
street names is a common police intelligence function. Changes in roster order
tell gang officers who is up and who is down in the gang. "RIP" next to a name
shows that a gang member has been killed. 

Many street gangs give themselves names that tell what their home territory is,
using a street name or number, a neighborhood name, or a town name, in
combination with some other identifier, such as the name of a larger gang group
(for example, the Crips or Bloods). 

Territorial claims are but one means used by gangs to make threats. Crossing
out or "dogging" another gang's graffiti shows disrespect or "disses" that gang.
Threats are also made against individual gang members. Their names may be
crossed out, or "187" or a skull and crossbones may be marked next to a rival
gang member's street name. Both are threats to murder the rival, with "187"
referring to the California penal code section defining homicide. 

Gang graffiti can become dialogue between gangs and eventually a record of
gang wars--from initial territorial claims, to challenges to individuals and gangs,
to records of individual deaths. With all the threats, boasts, and claims gang
graffitists throw up, they provide a invaluable source of police intelligence. 

Reading Graffiti

Alphabets

We can think of graffiti alphabets in two ways. First, alphabets can comprise
different types of letters, such as Roman, Greek, Cyrillic, Hebrew, or Arabic.
For the most part, American graffitists confine themselves to the Roman
alphabet--the alphabet used for Western European languages, including English
and Spanish. Occult groups, which often use various ancient alphabets, are a
major exception to this general statement.

Second, alphabets can comprise different typefaces, stretching the term
"typeface" slightly. American graffitists use a wide variety of typefaces,  with
variations based on their own stylistic backgrounds and artistic judgments.
Exhibit 4, developed by California gang intelligence officers, shows several
lettering styles in Hispanic gang writing. An alphabet in a particular style has
internal consistency from letter to letter, as in the examples shown in Exhibit 4,
but actual throw-ups often fall short, because of the graffitists' lack of time,
talent, or know-how.

The Romotskys found three basic alphabet styles in the Los Angeles barrios, to
which they added a catchall fourth: point lettering, block lettering, loop lettering,
and eccentric. 

However, the most admired alphabet style is one that barrio graffitists did not
invent, Old English, which would be referred to as Gothic by printers and
calligraphers. Felt-tip pens are very good for producing these letters, but they
do not work well for large undertakings. The Romotskys used the "L" in Exhibit
5 as an example of barrio lettering in Old English. This "L" would certainly seem
in place on an English pub sign, but the Romotskys found it representing a
Lomas group. The "Corona" in Exhibit 6, similar in style but not quite as
complex, is from a police graffiti manual published in Southern California 15
years after the Romotsky book.

The Romotskys believed that Old English, difficult to produce, is the prototype
for barrio point lettering. Point letters, as the name suggests, come to points.
They are drawn with single lines of uniform width, in contrast to Old English, in
which the thickness of a single line varies. Thin-line point letters are easier to
draw. Letter angularity is a marked characteristic of point lettering. There are
three major subdivisions of point lettering: sharp point, square point, and round
point.

The Romotskys provided Exhibit 7 as an example of sharp-point letters. The
letters are SSG, standing for South San Gabrielle. The stars or asterisks
between the letters are simply dividers. Stars or slashes are frequently used to
separate letters or words. The sharp-point style shown by the Romotskys
resembles the half-diamond and diamond styles shown in Exhibit 4. 

The Romotskys found block lettering to be the most popular barrio lettering
style. It often outlines letter shapes, which may or may not be filled in. Simpler
to do than point lettering, block lettering can still incorporate some striking
decorative effects. The most frequent is a three-dimensional effect. Flat-block
lettering is two dimensional, achieving its effect more by mass than by
perspective.

Block lettering is frequently used in ordinary commercial printing and
signmaking. New York taggers were proud of bubble letters--block letters
rounded to look as if they had been blown up like bubbles. Exhibit 8, not from
New York but from Lakewood, Colorado, is an example. 

Loop lettering comes in two major types: square loop and point loop. Exhibit 9
is a striking example of loop lettering found by the Romotskys. It says El
Blackbird P 12 st, referring to 12th Street in Pomona. The loop alphabet in
Exhibit 4 is a later example of square loop lettering. 

Exhibit 4 includes a backwards alphabet. Writing letters backwards is a regular
feature of graffiti, as are several other peculiarities. Crip graffitists cross out "b"
wherever it appears in a word because it stands for Bloods. Blood graffitists
cross out "c" because it stands for Crips. 

Signs and Symbols

Several signs and symbols known for centuries in other contexts have
reappeared in gang graffiti. Not surprisingly, the swastika appears in the graffiti
of hate gangs, which are often strongly antisemitic. The swastika has been a
symbol or ornament since prehistoric times, found in Europe, Asia, and the
Americas. The word comes from Sanskrit, where it refers to a good luck sign.
Exhibit 10 shows the swastika as it appears in Oriental and American Indian
culture. Exhibit 11 is the Nazi symbol.

The Star of David or Shield of David (Mogen David) is a symbol used by Jews
since the late Middle Ages. It consists of two overlaid equilateral triangles
forming a six-pointed star. The symbol originated in the ancient world and,
along with a five-pointed star, was used as a magical symbol. In a 19th century
interpretation of the Star of David, the two triangles stand for (1) God, world,
and man and (2) creation, revelation, and redemption. The Black Gangster
Disciples have adopted the six-pointed star to stand for certain virtues, as
shown in Exhibit 12. They have also used the five-pointed star (Exhibit 13) for
similar purposes.

Put a circle around the Star of David, and it becomes a hexagram, or
Solomon's seal, a medieval amulet against fever (see Exhibit 14, item A). Put a
circle around the five-pointed star, and it becomes a pentagram (see Exhibit 14,
item B). The pentagram was also a medieval amulet, with the points marked
LSROT, standing for a Latin prayer: "Let the boundary of the star hold back
the circles of darkness." Turn the pentagram upside down, and it becomes the
goat's horns, a satanic symbol (see Exhibit 14, item C). All these symbols
supposedly have magical powers and are used by occult groups. But they can
also be found, with elaborate colors and variations, in the Pennsylvania Dutch
hex signs. 

Crosses of various kinds are also used in graffiti. Skinheads sometimes use
the Celtic cross (Exhibit 15), usually with the base cut off. The formee cross, a
15th-century heraldic cross similar to the Maltese cross and the Nazi iron
cross, also appears (see Exhibit 16). The ankh is a cross with an open loop for
the upper vertical arm (see Exhibit 17). An ancient Egyptian symbol for life in
which the upper loop was probably a bow, the ankh survived in Coptic
Christianity as the handled or "eyed" cross. It now appears in occult graffiti, and
it is sometimes thought to combine the male and female symbols. 

Occult groups and sometimes white supremacist gangs put up "666," the
number or sign of the beast in the Book of Revelation. Occult groups use
numbers from numerological systems; letters or words from ancient alphabets
and languages; and signs and symbols from magic, religion, chemistry, and
pagan cultures. An occult favorite, "NATAS EVIL," is simply "Satan Live"
spelled backwards. 

Graffitists often replace letters with numbers, or vice versa, in a simple
alphabetic code. "M" is the 13th letter of the alphabet, so "13" is used for the
Mexican Mafia. The 14th letter is "n," so "14" stands for Nuestra Familia, a
Latino prison gang. In a reversal, "FFF" stands for 666, the Sign of the Beast.

White supremacists use "88" for "Heil Hitler," "h" being the eighth letter of the
alphabet. They may also use twin lightning streaks, which are a slightly modified
"SS," to stand for Hitler's SS.

Other symbols that appear are birds and animals of various kinds, dragons,
horns, pitchforks, canes, top hats, and whatever else strikes the graffitist's
imagination. Nuestra Familia has used a sombrero pierced by a dagger.
Geometric figures--for example, circles, triangles, and squares--represent
whatever meaning the graffitists choose to give them. The El Rukns used a
pyramid as one of their symbols.

Ethnic Graffiti

Graffiti usually take on marked ethnic characteristics, including different
languages, local slang, gang names, insults, and signs and symbols. 

In Southern California, Hispanic graffiti have a long history, as mentioned
earlier. Hispanic gang graffiti are now far more common than the "plaqueasos"
the Romotskys found in their study 20 years ago. Note the types of Hispanic
gang lettering in Exhibit 4. Southern California gang officers have developed
guides for reading Hispanic gang graffiti; Exhibit 18 shows two examples, items
A and B. 

Most black youth gangs in Southern California fall into one of two major
groups--Crips and Bloods. They regard each other as enemies, although not all
Crip sets get along with each other. The names used by Los Angeles Crips and
Bloods have spread across the country, although many gangs using these names
have no particular connection with the Los Angeles originals. In the Midwest,
the Black Gangster Disciples are a significant black gang, as are the Vicelords. 

Black gang graffiti have their own characteristics. They often use the slant (/) as
a spacer and replace the numbers 1, 2, and 3 with the terms ace, duce [sic],
and trey (often spelled "tray"). For example, 52nd Street becomes Five Duce
and 83rd becomes Eight Trey. 

Black gang members refer to themselves as pimps, players, dogs, homeboys,
and hustlers. Some of these terms are used in gang names. Crip gang members
refer to themselves as "cuz," "cuzz," and "cuzzin." Bloods were once called
Pirus; the name continues but is not as prominent as it once was. 

Other symbols and slang frequently used include:


Bo--Marijuana

Crab--Crip

Cuz--Crip

Hood--Neighborhood

N-H--Neighborhood

Rag--Gang handkerchief

Rooster--Piru, Blood

Ru--Piru, Blood

Set--Neighborhood or gang

Sway-Boy--Blood or Anti-Crip

Ups--Bloods

187--Murder

Black gang members use colorful monikers such as "Mad Bear," "Super Fly,"
and "Killer." Graffiti may show the name of a rival gang along with the slant sign
and "K," representing killers.

Crip gang graffiti often include "B/K" which means Blood Killer. The "B" may
have a slash through it. Often any "B" or "P," standing for Piru, appearing in any
name or word has a slash through it or is written backwards--all to "diss" the
Bloods. Crip graffiti also refer to the Bloods as "Slobs." Blood graffiti, on the
other hand, contain "C/K" for Crip Killers.

In Exhibit 19, item A, Slob Killers means Blood Killers. The diamond around
"BK" is another way of saying Blood Killer. The "B" is crossed out and the "R"
reversed because they stand for Bloods and Rus, short for Pirus. The "S" has
been turned into a dollar sign, indicating that there are drugs for sale in the area.
The "24/7" in item B means they are Blood Killers 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week. The "187 Slob" in item C is still another way of saying Blood Killer, 187
being the California penal code section for homicide. The two Blood graffiti in
items D and E are "Crip Killer," with the "C" reversed and crossed out, and
"Blood Down 4 Life." Exhibit 19 gives three additional examples of black youth
gang graffiti, items F, G, and H. 

----------------------------

White supremacist gang names are often blatantly racist and homophobic.

----------------------------

White supremacist gang names are often blatantly racist and homophobic. For
example:

ANP--American Nazi Party

WAY--White American Youth or White Aryan Youth

SWP--Super White Power

WAR--White Aryan Resistance

NSWPP--National Socialist White Peoples Party

NSWWP--National Socialist White Workers Party

AYM--Aryan Youth Movement

SRIW--Super Race Is White

Exhibit 20 shows several variations of white-power graffiti, including use of a
Celtic cross as a white-power symbol in item A. "WAY" stands for either
White American Youth or White Aryan Youth in items A, B, and C. 

Occult groups use alphabets, signs, and symbols whose meanings are not
usually clear to the passer-by. Access to hidden knowledge unknown to the
common person is the essence of an occult group. 

It is difficult to be very precise or exacting in describing tagger and gang graffiti.
The alphabets and languages used do not meet scholarly standards. Close study
of graffiti will not lead to greater understanding of the human condition because
of the graffitist's unique artistic vision. There are no artistic or linguistic
standards. Graffitists do not always know what they are doing. Many a graffitist
will write "187" knowing that it somehow means "murder," but not knowing that
it refers to the section of the California penal code that defines homicide.


It is also easy to exaggerate the sophistication of gangs. Gangs do not copyright
their wallwritings. They do not register their logos as trademarks. Gangs do not
apply for corporate charters, and the Secretary of State does not preserve a
gang's claim to a unique name. The same names crop up in many parts of the
country, with the names of Los Angeles streets, neighborhoods, and suburbs
appearing as far away as Oklahoma City. 

Taggers and gang graffitists are copycats. A tagger may, however, try to add
distinctive touches, sometimes achieving true originality. 

Finally, graffiti are most intelligible to local people who see them frequently and
have an interest in understanding them. Because there is a large element of
boasting in all graffiti, whether tagger or gang graffiti, graffitists and their friends
are usually willing to tell someone what graffiti mean, if their meaning is not
obvious. As already noted, it is a police function to read and keep track of local
graffiti; graffiti are the gangs' daily newspaper, printed for all to see.

Attacking a Graffiti Problem

Graffiti present a difficult problem to communities. They are easy and cheap to
throw up and entail relatively low risk for the gang graffitist, particularly when
compared to other forms of gang activity. Even the risk of getting caught is not
terribly threatening to the gang graffitist because legal sanctions, if they are
imposed at all, are not heavy. Taggers, for their own reasons, may risk physical
danger as part of establishing their reputation, but they impose these dangers
only on themselves, not on community residents. In addressing the problem of
gang graffiti, the gang-problem triangle and a problem-solving model (discussed
in the Introduction of this monograph) can and should be used together. 

----------------------------

The risk of getting caught is not terribly threatening to the gang graffitist because
legal sanctions, if they are imposed at all, are not heavy.

----------------------------

All three sides of the gang-problem triangle are involved in graffiti. Both taggers
and gang graffitists are offenders in the gang-problem triangle. The victim side
of the triangle also comes into play. Taggers often target particular victims, such
as a public transit system. And gang graffitists often target other gangs in their
graffiti. This chapter concentrates on the place side of the triangle, that is, the
places where gangs put up graffiti. Some places can be changed so that they
are no longer seen as good graffiti targets.

There are also third parties--controllers, guardians, and managers--with
responsibilities for each side of the triangle. 

Controllers 

The first level of controllers who are failing to control taggers or gang graffitists
are their families. There are many reasons for this failure. One or both parents
may be absent, incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, or abusive, or may have
poor parenting skills. Some controllers may not regard graffiti as a serious
problem.

In socially cohesive neighborhoods, people who know all their neighbors often
exert positive controls, setting standards for behavior, giving good advice, and
providing positive role models. In transient or disorganized neighborhoods,
these positive influences are absent or ineffective. 

Social cohesion or a strong sense of community may be the most important
factor in dealing with graffiti. Neighborhood residents who feel strongly that an
attack on any part of the neighborhood is an attack on the whole neighborhood
are likely to react quickly and decisively to the appearance of graffiti. All
community members assume some responsibility for control of the community's
environment.

Guardians

In analyzing most crime problems, the difference between victims and guardians
is very useful for problem solving. For example, if there is a rash of robberies of
taxicab drivers or convenience store clerks, it is important to see whether these
victims have any effective guardians. If they work alone, they are vulnerable
because there is no one to act as their guardian.

But the victim-guardian distinction is not as useful in combating graffiti. For one
thing, the victim may be not a person but a place. Second, if the victim is an
individual (a store owner) or a corporation (the transit system), the analysis
almost immediately shifts to how they manage their property, a concern of the
place side of the gang-problem triangle. 

Managers

People responsible for managing places have great influence over whether
these places will be targets for graffiti. For example, managers of apartment
buildings or shopping malls function best in preventing attacks on their property
when they are most visible. But some property managers perform their roles
badly, making their places easy targets. Apartment buildings with dark hallways
and broken locks and malls with large groups of unsupervised youth during
school hours are examples. 

There are also people who are not present all the time but who nevertheless
have some managerial responsibility. Individuals and corporations who own and
rent buildings are examples. Some choose their tenants very carefully, working
to protect their investment. Others worry only about rent collection, caring little
about the quality of tenants or their impact on the neighborhood.

----------------------------

Managers of apartment buildings or shopping malls function best in preventing
attacks on their property when they are most visible.

----------------------------

Least obvious are the managers of public spaces, such as street corners and
parks. These spaces are everyone's responsibility, which may mean in effect
that they are no one's responsibility. The willingness of the general public to
assume responsibility for these public places usually depends on the
neighborhood's cohesiveness. 

All the actors in the gang-problem triangle must think about "tools," the
instruments offenders use to commit their offenses, and the instruments and
devices that guardians and managers use to defend themselves and their
property. In coping with graffiti, the first concern is the tools graffitists use to
make their marks, especially the spray-paint can. But there are also the tools
property managers can use to protect their vulnerable surfaces. The graffitists'
tools will be dealt with in detail in the discussion of how to apply the
gang-problem triangle to the graffiti problem. 

Moving to the problem-solving model, scanning for graffiti is easy. If they
can be seen, they are a problem. If they cannot be seen, they are not a
problem.

Perhaps these generalizations need some qualification. Some graffiti can be seen
by relatively few people, but they are extremely offensive and therefore a
problem to those people. For example, graffiti in an apartment building's
laundry room will be seen only by the residents who do their laundry there, but
they can significantly undermine the residents' feelings of security in that laundry
room. In contrast, the undersides of bridges and the walls of culverts have long
been favorite graffiti sites. Few people, if any, pass these places in the ordinary
course of daily life, so few take offense. These places do not represent a
serious problem, and they may still serve as a source of police intelligence.

In analyzing a specific graffiti problem, the gang-problem triangle can be used,
and the following questions can be asked:  

o What kind of offenders are involved? What do the graffiti reveal about the
offenders? Are they taggers? Are they gang members? Are they "wannabes"?
Are they simply vandals, with no particular connection either to tagger crews or
gangs?

o Who are the victims? Is there any identifiable pattern to individual or
corporate victims?

o Where are graffiti appearing?

Moving to the triangle's second level of analysis, these questions can be asked:

o Who are the offenders' controllers, or do they have effective controllers?

o Who are the victims' guardians, or do they have effective guardians?

o Who are the managers of the places where graffiti are appearing?

Finally, it is very important to consider the tools involved. What do graffitists
use to do their graffiti, and what can managers use to defend the places for
which they are responsible?

In applying the gang-problem triangle to graffiti, it soon becomes apparent
that three elements are the most important: the offenders, the tools involved,
and the places attacked.

----------------------------

Graffiti in an apartment building's laundry room will be seen only by the
residents who do their laundry there, but they can significantly undermine the
residents' feelings of security in that laundry room.

----------------------------

Offenders 


The two primary classes of graffiti offenders are taggers and gang graffitists.
Two other less important classes--the wannabes and vandals--can be added. 

As noted, taggers have a different attitude from that of gang graffitists. Taggers
want to get their names and their pieces up, and they view attempts to stop
them as challenges to be met. Creating graffiti is their main interest. And their
graffiti are the main reason they are of concern to a community. Unless they are
drifting toward gang activity, taggers represent little threat to the community. 

To the extent that taggers are loners, they are harder to identify and apprehend.
But the more they get up, and the more distinctive their tags, the more they
expose themselves to apprehension. When they are apprehended, it is
important to subject them to sanctions strong enough to deter further tagging.
Substantial fines may be effective. Community service in the form of cleaning up
graffiti is a punishment that fits the crime. Graffiti are much harder to remove
than to put up. However, a countervailing consideration is whether cleaning
graffiti teaches the tagger more effective ways of doing future tagging.
Alternative methods of tagging may be more difficult to eradicate. 

Once a tagger has been identified, it is important to involve his or her
controllers--family, teachers, or employer--in discouraging future offenses. 

----------------------------

When taggers are apprehended, it is important to subject them to sanctions
strong enough to deter further tagging, such as substantial fines or community
service.

----------------------------

Gang graffitists are more interested in marking their territory, boasting of their
achievements, or threatening their rivals. Their gang activity is more important to
them than their graffiti. And their gang activity is the main reason they are of
concern to the community. Their graffiti are the symptom rather than the illness.
But both the symptom and the illness are serious matters to the community. 

Because gang graffiti are secondary to gang activity, when gang graffitists are
apprehended, it is more important to deal with their gang activity. If public
authorities and community residents are successful in dealing with gang
problems, gang graffiti will diminish. 

Wannabes have not yet made the grade, either as taggers or gang members. It
is important to discourage them before they reach that next level. Strong
sanctions, in the form of stiff fines, or difficult community service, again in the
form of removing graffiti, can discourage them. Once again, it is important to
involve their natural controllers, if that is possible.  

Vandals may be the most difficult to identify, but they are the easiest to deter by
quick and effective intervention when they are identified. The approaches used
for wannabes should also be used for vandals. 

Of the four types of offenders--taggers, gang graffitists, wannabes, and
vandals--only taggers are likely to be challenged to commit further offenses by
graffiti removal campaigns. Getting up is their main interest. But even in the
New York subways, where tagging became a plague, a policy of quick removal
of graffiti finally won out. For gang graffitists, wannabes, and vandals, quick
removal of graffiti and restoration of clean surfaces are far more likely to be
effective deterrents.

Tools

In the gang-problem triangle, the people on each side of the triangle may have
tools that enable them to commit or resist offenses. There are several tools that
graffitists can use to make their mark. There are fewer tools with which
managers of problem places can defend their properties.

A manual published by the London Underground, Ltd., titled Getting Rid of
Graffiti: A Practical Guide to Graffiti Removal and Anti-Graffiti Protection
(Whitford, 1992) was referred to earlier. In this manual, a table shows the
principal markers used by graffitists, the target surfaces best suited for each
kind of marker, and the degree of difficulty of removing graffiti (see Exhibit 21).
It provides valuable information on the relationships between markers and
vulnerable surfaces. Other parts of that manual discuss in technical detail the
chemicals that can be used in removal processes.

The range of materials and tools useful to graffiti artists is far more limited
than those useful to legitimate artists. Four questions illustrate the limitations:

o Will the tool make a mark?

o Is it easily obtainable?

o Is it easily concealable?

o Can it be used quickly?


The substance used to make the mark is usually carried in the tool used to
make the mark. An exception would be paint applied with a brush, but paint
and brushes are not favored by graffitists. They are not easy to conceal, carry,
or use. 

----------------------------

Even in the New York subways, where tagging became a plague, a policy of
quick removal of graffiti finally won out.

----------------------------

The aerosol-paint can, on the other hand, meets the criteria of usability,
availability, concealability, and ease of use. Moreover, it is adaptable; several
colors can be used, and different nozzles change the line widths. The
aerosol-paint can is the technological change that drastically altered the graffiti
problem in the last two decades. Without it, the New York subway graffitists
would never have moved beyond obscene words and pictures scratched in
paint or written with a ballpoint pen. No one would ever have compiled art
books of subway graffiti. 

Spray-paint cans on which different cap sizes can be interchanged are the
favorite tools of graffiti writers. Tips with either fine or broad sprays can be
taken off oven-cleaner cans, hair sprays, deodorant cans, or window cleaners.
The interchangeableness of tips makes it easy for taggers to achieve variety in
their pieces. 

Knives, pointed rocks, nails, and other hard instruments were the tools used by
ancient graffitists. They can still be used to scratch and deface surfaces, even
glass, to the annoyance and cost of property owners. But they are hardly suited
to the flamboyant and artistic communication styles of contemporary taggers.
Furthermore, nobody can see, let alone read, scratches on a bridge stanchion
from a speeding automobile.

Pens and pencils have always been the favored instruments of lavatory poets
and comedians. Traditional ink pens were never very effective for writing on
hard surfaces. Ballpoint pens will mark on some hard surfaces, but sometimes
by scratching rather than applying ink. Felt-tip pens may make a mark on many
hard surfaces, but only small marks. Pencils will write on many surfaces, but not
very visibly. As annoying as pen and pencil graffiti may be, they are not
perceived as a threat to public safety.

Lipstick and wax crayons will mark on smooth surfaces, but they are hard
to use for anything beyond a few words or a small drawing. Chalk is easy to
use on many surfaces, even semirough surfaces. But it is not well suited to large
pictures and graffitists do not use it much.

The London Transit System lists posters of various kinds as forms of graffiti,
with considerable justification. Printed posters have been a form of political and
commercial communication since the invention of the printing press. "Post No
Bills" signs are directed at such posters. While printed posters have not
appeared as a form of gang graffiti, they were widespread during the antiwar
movement during the 1960s and 1970s--a movement that spawned a variety of
political graffiti. 

Exhibit 21 relates marker types to typical target surfaces. One of the problems
with spray paints is that they can be used on almost any kind of surface, even
rough surfaces. Rough surfaces with many concavities or indentations make it
hard for a tagger to get up a coherent picture so, in that respect, they are less
vulnerable than smooth surfaces. But that advantage is offset by the fact that
rough surfaces are much more difficult to clean. As Exhibit 21 shows, the marks
made by most other tools--knives and scratching instruments--are much easier
to remove.

Property owners are not likely to modify external walls that have not yet been
hit by graffitists; but when they are cleaning or repairing surfaces that have been
hit, they should consider taking steps to make them less vulnerable. Obviously,
in building new structures, designers should take their vulnerability to graffiti into
account. If the surface cannot be changed, perhaps access to the surface can
be altered. 

----------------------------

Rough surfaces . . . make it hard for a tagger to get up a coherent picture, 
but . . . rough surfaces are also much more difficult to clean.

----------------------------

Problem Places

Where do graffiti appear? These are the problem places with which residents
are concerned. They can separate the places within their communities into
broad categories, using the groupings to help identify, analyze, and respond to
problems. 

For every kind of place, residents want to be able to identify the responsible
managers. The broad categories of sites are fairly obvious: residential,
commercial, industrial, recreational, public, and transitional spaces.

There is some overlap among these broad categories, but the distinctions
among categories help identify who might be responsible for particular places. 

Residential properties are at greatest risk of becoming targets of graffiti when
the residents have little stake in the property. They become problem properties
under one or several of the following circumstances: 

o Gang members live there. The presence of gang members can make a
property a graffiti target no matter what its condition may be. Gang members
may mark their own property, or rival gangs may mark it to show their
contempt for the residents. 

o The property has deteriorated to the point that restoring it and maintaining it in
good condition are beyond the owner's financial means. A poor owner will find
it difficult to pay for graffiti removal. 

o Residents have little stake or interest in maintaining the property because:

--They do not own it.

--They are transients and will not stay long.

--They can afford to live on the property only because of its bad condition.

o Neighborhood conditions are such that: 

--Deterioration of any given property is not seen as a problem.

--Rehabilitation of a property will not attract better clientele.

o Vacant or abandoned properties are especially vulnerable to graffiti because:

--No one is present to interfere with graffitists, who can pursue their art at a
leisurely pace.

--An obvious lack of maintenance or security tells the graffitists that no one will
try to deal with graffiti after the fact.

--Previous graffiti are an open invitation to add graffiti.


----------------------------

Residents have little stake or interest in maintaining the property and preventing
graffiti because they do not own it, they are transients and will not stay long,
and they can afford to live on the property only because of its bad condition.

----------------------------

Commercial sites most at risk are those that have broad surfaces on which
graffitists can write. Small business establishments that are distant from other
buildings present tempting graffiti targets if their exterior surfaces are visible to
passers-by and suitable for graffiti. Most proprietors want to keep their exterior
walls clean and free of graffiti. Allowing graffiti, especially gang graffiti, to stay
up for any length of time tells the public that the business owner is giving up to
gang presence. That, in turn, undermines the feeling of safety or security that
customers have when patronizing the business. 

The same principles apply to shopping centers. When all the stores are doing
well and there is frequent pedestrian and automobile traffic, shopping center
proprietors should be able to keep their properties free of graffiti. But in areas
where many stores are closed and overall patronage is down, graffiti can add to
a shopping center's decline.

There are other factors that make places vulnerable to graffiti. Are particular
places attractive to gang members for any reason? Are they convenient places
for gang members to congregate for substantial periods of time? Taverns and
restaurants are obvious examples of such places, as are bowling alleys, pool
halls, amusement arcades, and parks. But many kinds of commercial
enterprises can become gang hangouts if the managers allow it. Parking lots of
all kinds of establishments can become gang gathering places. 

----------------------------

Problems get very serious when gangs take over public places as their own
domain, intimidating and endangering other users of the public space. Graffiti
are part of the intimidation.

----------------------------

Any of these factors can make a property vulnerable to graffiti because they are
part of gang presence. A manager who encourages or tolerates gang presence
can expect his or her property to be hit.


Industrial areas often have the kind of broad, uninterrupted surfaces attractive
to graffitists. Fences may stretch for a block or more with only one or two
gates. Warehouses may have no windows breaking otherwise uniform, flat
surfaces. Some industrial sites have a rough and ready look that makes
cleanliness and other aesthetic qualities secondary. Seemingly impenetrable
fences and walls may be the main form of off-hours security, meaning that
human surveillance is deemed unnecessary. These factors combine to give
graffitists the surfaces and time they need to practice their art. Industrial areas,
however, are often places in which graffitists have no interest. 

Public recreational areas have been particularly tempting targets for both
taggers and gang graffitists. Like everyone else, gang members have a right to
picnic in public parks, play on public ball fields and courts, and use other public
recreational facilities. Problems get very serious when gangs take over public
places as their own domain, intimidating and endangering other users of the
public space. Graffiti are part of the intimidation of ordinary citizens. Guardians
and managers of public recreational space are often not visible and therefore
offer no deterrent to graffitists. 

Private recreational spaces may be open to the public, including gang members,
for a price. Their managers are usually visible and deter graffiti because
tolerating graffiti could drive away paying customers by indicating that managers
have lost control of their space. 

Public spaces, other than recreational spaces, usually have visible guardians and
managers. Schools are the most likely to have trouble with gang graffiti simply
because gang members, like other youth, have a right to be in school as
students. In other public spaces, such as courthouses and police stations,
security is so obvious that gang members rarely have an opportunity to inflict
harm. 

Transitional spaces are spaces through which people and vehicles move on their
way to someplace else. These spaces present a special problem for several
reasons. They are open to everyone for lawful movement from one place to
another. Vehicular traffic is regulated by State laws, city ordinances, traffic
lights, street signs, and markings on the pavement. But pedestrian traffic is
hardly regulated at all. People can and do gather on sidewalks and street
corners. 

Matching problem properties with responsible people is most difficult with open
public and transitional spaces--parks, streets, and street corners. An open park
without a program (recreational, cultural, or the like) does not require the
continuous or even frequent presence of public employees. 

Control of graffiti in transitional spaces is particularly difficult. Graffiti are
often seen on bridges, street and traffic signs, and billboards. Ordinary citizens
who pass through these transitional spaces are not responsible for policing
them. The managers of these spaces, employees of the government agencies
responsible for maintaining them, are seldom present because maintenance does
not require daily attention.

----------------------------

Traditional nuisance principles and contemporary zoning principles govern the
impact a property has on its neighborhood, including the way it looks.

----------------------------

Under ordinary property concepts, owners are responsible for the condition of
their property and what happens on it. Traditional nuisance principles and
contemporary zoning principles govern the impact a property has on its
neighborhood, including the way it looks. Thus, there are legal pressures that
can be brought to bear on property owners who fail to keep their property free
of graffiti.

A community group trying to cope with graffiti must ask why an owner tolerates
graffiti on his or her property. If the owner lives on the property, is he or she
intimidated by gang activity? Is there something a community task force can do
to address that intimidation? Is the owner physically or financially capable of
removing the graffiti? Can the community help, perhaps by volunteering
assistance? Are there preventive steps the community can recommend to the
owner?

As for absentee owners, community residents must find out who they are
and tell them of the problem their property presents to the community. Again,
the community must ask why the owner tolerates graffiti and how the absentee
owner has chosen to manage his or her property. Is there someone close by to
whom the community or public officials can turn for action? If owners do not
live on or manage their own property, who is responsible for overseeing the
property? That person is the manager in the gang-problem triangle. 

What are the managers' powers over the property? How do they see their
responsibilities to the owners and the community? Why do they tolerate graffiti?
The managers in the gang-problem triangle are those with whom neighborhood
task forces should be dealing to clean up property. They and the owners are
the people against whom public officials can take action for maintaining a
nuisance, violating zoning codes, or violating local graffiti ordinances. 

Responses

The gang-problem triangle is useful in the analysis phase of problem solving.
Once the problem solvers have performed that analysis, they can formulate
responses. What responses can be effective in dealing with tagger and gang
graffiti? Many responses are possible, including some discussed here.

Establishing a Graffiti Policy

It is important for a community to have an anti-graffiti policy. Establishment of
such a policy may fall to the local government, businesses, community residents,
or a combination of these stakeholders. A combination approach is most likely
to succeed. 

Will the community adopt a quick removal program? If so, who will carry out
this program--city personnel, contract personnel, or volunteers? What
approach will be used--removal or covering over graffiti? 

Is a new local ordinance necessary? If so, at whom should it be directed--
graffitists, property owners, or both? Can the local government provide more
or better enforcement of existing laws?  

It is equally important for a chronic corporate victim to have a graffiti policy. If
corporate facilities--fences, buildings, and vehicles--are targets, can the
corporation develop countermeasures that will decrease their vulnerability? Can
security be increased at remote places to protect both structures and vehicles?
Should surface textures be modified to make them easier to clean or harder to
mark? Can different paints be used? Will the corporation try to remove or
cover up graffiti? How quickly can the corporation respond? Will the
corporation take legal action against graffiti writers, supporting their prosecution
or bringing civil suits? Can the corporation participate in community anti-graffiti
programs? 

Reducing Availability of Graffiti Tools

The spray-paint can is the favored tool of both taggers and gang graffitists.
Keeping this tool out of their hands is a highly effective countermeasure to
graffiti. What can be done?

----------------------------


Will the community adopt a quick removal program? Will city personnel,
contract personnel, or volunteers carry it out?

----------------------------

Graffitists do not invest heavily in their art. They prefer to shoplift rather than
buy their spray-paint cans. So an effective first step is to encourage stores that
sell spray paints to make them difficult to shoplift. Store managers should not
put spray cans on open displays close to exits. Instead, they should store them
behind counters or in storerooms closed to the public and have customers ask
for them. 

A Dutch importer has designed a modified spray valve system that can be
used with only one kind of nozzle. When the nozzle is put in place, internal
locking ridges make it impossible to remove without destroying the stem and
spray head. The separation of the spray nozzle from the paint can means that
the cans can be stocked on open store shelves, with the nozzles stored securely
under the control of the store manager. Shoplifting the spray can without the
spray nozzle is pointless. Legitimate buyers can buy the nozzle and put it on just
one can. As noted above, taggers often are not sufficiently dedicated to their art
to invest money in it.

Painting contractors must be encouraged to control disposition of partially
used painting materials. In addition to complying with environmental safety
regulations, they should consciously make it difficult for paints to be found and
used by graffitists.

Graffiti Removal Campaigns

Quick removal of graffiti is a standard anti-graffiti recommendation. The
underlying idea is that graffitists soon tire of having their work obliterated and
give up. Taggers do not necessarily share that psychology. They regard graffiti
removal, changing the texture of a surface, or erection of barriers as challenges
to be met. Gang graffitists throw up their graffiti to say something about
themselves or their gangs. Taggers do their pieces for their own gratification and
as part of an ongoing game they play with public officials. Increasing the degree
of difficulty makes the game more fun.

Nevertheless, promptly removing graffiti has been successful in many
communities. Disappearance of graffiti shortly after they appear discourages
gang graffitists, wannabes, and vandals. Removing them shows that the
community will not tolerate them. Taggers may regard removal campaigns as a
challenge--a game between them and the community--but even taggers
ultimately tire of the game. The New York Transit System eventually won out,
but at great expense, by developing techniques and chemicals for cleaning cars
immediately after they had been tagged. 

----------------------------

Taggers may regard removal campaigns as a challenge--a game between them
and the community--but even taggers ultimately tire of the game.

----------------------------

Target Hardening

The New York Transit System also took significant target-hardening steps.
Taggers at one time roamed transit storage yards almost at will. Security at
those yards was greatly increased, once again, at great expense. New York
also studied the kinds of surfaces and fabrics that would best combine
resistance to graffiti and ease of cleaning. As can be seen from Exhibit 21, that
is not always an easy combination to find. 

Dark surfaces can discourage graffiti. They simply are not as attractive to paint
on as lighter surfaces. Rough surfaces make it more difficult for taggers to make
good pictures, but they are also harder to clean. 

All managers of places vulnerable to graffiti should study how to harden the
target. Increased security, or increased visibility of security, may be the answer
in some places. 

Security can include making the tempting surface hard to reach. In the design of
the Washington, D.C., Metro subway system, the architects took a number of
steps to separate people from the walls of the stations. In many stations, the
passenger platform is in the middle, between the tracks carrying trains in
opposite directions, with the tracks then lying between passengers and the
walls. In other stations, passengers are kept a substantial distance from the main
walls by short (4-foot) concrete walls. Anyone trying to reach the main wall has
to lean or jump over the short wall, separating himself from and making himself
highly visible to everyone else in the station. The main walls also consist of
large, concave, rough concrete rectangles. They do not offer long stretches of
flat, smooth surfaces favored by graffitists. Washington Metro consciously
planned its facilities and equipment to minimize the risk of graffiti and has had
strong community support in that effort. Graffiti have never been a problem in
the Washington Metro system in the 20 years of its operation.


----------------------------

A clear polyester film has been developed that protects glass and absorbs
etchings.

----------------------------

The glass industry is working on materials that will reduce the damage done by
graffiti etched in glass. A clear polyester film has been developed that protects
the glass itself and absorbs the etching. Three or more layers reduce the
likelihood of penetration to the glass. Film that has been damaged can be
peeled and removed and then replaced in strips or patches. It is much cheaper
to replace than glass. The film also makes the glass harder to break and less
likely to shatter.

Discouraging Graffiti

It is possible to foresee and forestall offensive graffiti by covering a potential
target surface with something else. Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C., is one
of the Nation's best known public parks. Across from the White House, it has
been the scene of many demonstrations through the years. In 1969, Lafayette
Park was closed for extensive renovations. All sidewalks were torn up and
replaced, and the landscaping was redone. The park, which was completely
closed for several months, was surrounded by a solid wooden fence several
feet high. Anticipating that an unadorned fence 4 blocks long would be a great
temptation for freelance taggers, the National Park Service arranged with
District of Columbia public schools to paint murals on the fence. School
children designed, painted, and signed murals on segments of the fence assigned
to their schools. Their colorful work remained up until the park renovation was
finished.

A quarter of a century has passed since that successful effort to protect such a
tempting surface. Taggers and gang graffitists have become bolder about their
own work and more contemptuous of other people's work. The ploy that
worked then for Lafayette Park may not work today in other places.

Providing Alternatives to Taggers

One concept being tried in several communities is providing taggers alternative
locations to do their graffiti. Either they are given walls on which to practice
their art, or they are invited into classes where they can receive instruction and
opportunity in art. It was such classes that drew the scorn of the London
Transit Authority, as discussed earlier. 

Such approaches may work for some youthful wannabes, but they probably
misinterpret the psychology of the true tagger. Gaining notoriety and defying
authority are both important to the true tagger, neither of which can be achieved
by joining a community program.

In Redmond, Washington, a law enforcement officer determined that taggers
rather than gangs were responsible for a proliferation of graffiti. Analyzing the
graffiti, he found that they primarily took the forms of initials, name writing, and
murals and that they appeared mostly on public property, such as street signs
and utility boxes. Few graffiti were found on privately owned fences, garages,
cars, or other common graffiti targets. 

Talking with teenage taggers, the officer identified a network of taggers. In a
meeting with these groups, he laid out two options: either the taggers could
work with the community to arrive at an acceptable solution, or the police could
mount an all-out enforcement campaign against them. The teenagers suggested
establishing an alternative place to paint in return for a tagging cease-fire. 

Formulating a specific plan, the officer and the taggers persuaded the city
council to authorize construction of a Hip-Hop Art Wall. They persuaded local
businesses to donate materials for the wall, which was erected in May 1994.
The taggers worked out a permit system for painting on the wall. During the
yearlong effort to get the local government's approval of the wall, graffiti
complaints in Redmond dropped from an average of 60 a month to 4 a month.
It is important to recognize that this drop took place before the wall was built.
The negotiations themselves had a very positive effect.

----------------------------

During the yearlong effort to get the local government's approval of a Hip-Hop
Art Wall, graffiti complaints in Redmond dropped from an average of 60 a
month to 4 a month.

----------------------------

Encouraging Public Responsibility

Community groups planning anti-graffiti campaigns should understand that
throwing up graffiti on other people's property is already illegal. State statutes
or local ordinances, or both, usually include defacing other people's property
under trespassing or malicious mischief concepts. Property owners also have
the right to bring civil actions against graffitists for trespass. The essential
problem with both criminal and civil approaches is that graffitists are hard to
catch. 

Sanctions for ordinance violations and misdemeanors are usually not severe,
and the overcrowding of the criminal justice system with very serious offenders
leads both prosecutors and courts to treat graffiti as a minor matter. Fines or
community service may be imposed, but incarceration is unlikely. Light
sanctions, coupled with little likelihood of being apprehended, have no deterrent
effect. 

One alternative to the sanctioning of offenders is the sanctioning of victims of
graffiti offenses. Some ordinances require graffiti removal within a relatively
short period of time, perhaps a few days. Fines are imposed on property
owners who fail to clean up their property promptly. Unlike the graffitists, the
property owners are easy to find. 

While this approach may seem to impose the penalties on the wrong party,
the effect is intended to be twofold. First, the property owner, facing the
prospect of being hit again, will be more likely to consider security measures to
reduce his or her vulnerability. Second, prompt removal of graffiti is consistent
with the policy of making the neighborhood appear graffiti free. 

Lakewood, Colorado, set up a comprehensive anti-graffiti program. In a
brochure distributed to its citizens, Lakewood states that the unsightly
appearance of graffiti demands cooperative efforts between city agencies and
citizens to document and remove graffiti. 

----------------------------

Graduates of the Lakewood Citizens Academy, which is operated by the police
department, take graffiti reports, photograph graffiti, and conduct low-level
surveillance of sites vandalized by graffiti.

----------------------------

Explaining the difference between gang and tagger graffiti, Lakewood asks
citizens to report graffiti to the police before removing them so that the police
can photograph them and write a report. This allows the police to develop
patterns, gain intelligence, and build cases against offenders for prior acts.
Apart from this reporting request, Lakewood stresses the importance of
removing graffiti as quickly as possible. Left in place, graffiti add to the
deterioration of a neighborhood and invite responses from rival gangs or
taggers, all of which may lead to further criminal activity. When individuals or
neighborhoods become involved in active, frequent graffiti removal, they make
a clear statement that graffiti and other destructive activities will not be
tolerated.

Lakewood's graffiti removal program is a coordinated effort between the city
and citizens. Graduates of the Lakewood Citizens Academy, which is operated
by the police department, take graffiti reports, photograph graffiti, and conduct
low-level surveillance of sites vandalized by graffiti. 

There are five steps in the Lakewood program:

o The police are notified of the graffiti. 

o The police take a report and photograph the graffiti. They also notify the
owner and deliver a graffiti-removal brochure. 

o The property owner removes the graffiti. The owner may request that
volunteers remove the graffiti by calling the Graffiti Hotline and filling out a
consent/release form. 

o If the graffiti have not been removed in 10 days after notification, community
code enforcement officials again contact the property owner and try to remove
the graffiti, using Graffiti Hotline volunteers. 

o If the graffiti are still not removed in another 10 days, code enforcement
staff may ask the Graffiti Hotline coordinator to contact the property owner and
offer assistance in removing the graffiti. If the police determine the graffiti were
put up by gang members, they may also enforce the gang graffiti ordinance,
which requires removal of gang graffiti within 5 days. 

In the consent/release form, the owner grants permission for organized
volunteers to enter the property and paint over the graffiti. The owner may
provide paint for the volunteers, accepting responsibility for matching paint
colors. If the owner does not provide paint, the volunteers will try to match
colors as closely as possible, but they will not be responsible for repainting if
the matches are not exact. The volunteers provide all labor, materials, and
equipment at no cost to the owner. They perform the work in a clean and
orderly fashion and do the final cleanup. The City of Lakewood does not
indemnify the volunteers, and all risks are incurred by the property owner. 

Assessment

The final step of the problem-solving process is assessing the results of the
responses that have been made. Have the responses been effective? In the
case of graffiti, that can mean one of two things. Have graffiti completely
disappeared from the community? Or have graffiti been so reduced in quantity
and offensiveness that the community no longer regards them as a serious
problem? 

The assessment should also guide the community in deciding whether further
responses are necessary. If so, what kind of change in response should be
tried? To answer these questions, it will be important to make the distinctions
that have been made throughout this chapter. What kind of graffiti still appear?
Are they primarily tagger graffiti? In that case, it will be necessary to intensify
programs and sanctions targeted to individual taggers. Or are they primarily
gang graffiti? In that case, intensifying anti-gang programs would be the
appropriate approach.

----------------------------

II. Learning About Local Gangs

Chapter 5: Needs Assessments for Gang Problems

Melanie Thompson was bewildered. As a lifelong resident of Austin, Texas, a
manager with the local newspaper, and a longtime community services
volunteer, Thompson had earned her appointment to the Mayor's Task Force
on Gangs, Crime, and Drugs. But the task force had already heard nearly two
dozen witnesses that day--police officers, school principals, park directors, and
former gang members--and the problem was becoming more and more
confusing. Some saw gangs as a crime problem, others argued that gang
members were mostly abused and neglected members of dysfunctional families,
and still others stressed the poverty and chronic unemployment of gang-ridden
neighborhoods. But with Austin just coming out of a long recession, resources
were limited. The city could not possibly solve all of these problems. Where on
earth should it start?

----------------------------

A needs assessment can help uncover hidden problems, set priorities, and
(perhaps most important) help develop a communitywide consensus about what
to do.

----------------------------

Citizens such as Ms. Thompson, police officers, teachers, and parks and
recreation leaders all have a right to be bewildered. In many communities, gang
crimes are only the tip of an iceberg that includes a dizzying array of symptoms,
risk factors, and bad outcomes. What makes the problem worse is its diversity;
white, black, Hispanic, and Pacific Asian gangs differ, even in the same city.
Gangs are different in Los Angeles, Denver, and Philadelphia, even when they
have the same names. The right approach to the problem in one city might bear
no relationship whatsoever to the best approach somewhere else. Each
community must make its own decisions as to what can be done with the
resources available.

Needs assessments can help. Often the first step in planning a comprehensive
solution to the "gang problem," a needs assessment can help uncover hidden
problems, set priorities, and (perhaps most important) help develop a
communitywide consensus about what to do. This chapter discusses how to
prepare for and conduct a needs assessment and how to use the results to
develop a plan. First to be considered, however, is a needs assessment and
how it can help a community begin dealing with its gang problem.

What Is a Needs Assessment?

Although there are many definitions of needs assessments, the following is
simple and comprehensive. A needs assessment is a "systematic appraisal of
type, depth, and scope of problems as perceived by study targets or their
advocates" (Rossi and Friedman, 1993).

A breakdown of this definition reveals the most important characteristics of
needs assessments:

o Systematic. A needs assessment is not conducted on a haphazard or
convenience basis. Instead, it is guided by a set of procedures that can be
specified in detail. A good needs assessment is reproducible: If others follow
the same procedures, they will come to equally useful conclusions. If the
procedures are sound, the results will be comprehensive and will not be biased
by the pet concerns or interests of the people using the procedures. The more
complex the problem and the more heated the political environment, the more
important systematic procedures are in gaining and maintaining support for the
assessment and its findings.

o Type of Problems. A community may start a needs assessment to examine a
gang problem, focusing on crimes of theft and violence among gangs. But while
talking with gang-involved youth, their parents and teachers, and others with a
stake in the problem, people are likely to find that other problems related to
gang activity will also be important. Many gang members use alcohol, tobacco,
and illegal drugs, so these drug problems may need to be investigated. Many
gang members are not doing well in school, putting them at high risk of
dropping out and eventually reducing their chances of getting a good job. Even
if a youth can be persuaded to leave the gang, the community may just be
trading in one problem (petty theft and an occasional driveby shooting) for
another (drug addiction, chronic unemployment, and more frequent and serious
criminal activity). By focusing all the attention on gang activity, the community
may miss opportunities to solve problems downstream. It could even make
matters worse. When people start looking at any social problem, they often
examine just one thread in a complicated social fabric. If the needs assessment
is to do justice to the real problem, people must be willing to follow the thread
wherever it goes.

----------------------------

The more complex the problem and the more heated the political environment,
the more important systematic procedures are in gaining and maintaining
support for the assessment and its findings.

----------------------------

o Depth and Scope of Problems. Some problems affect everyone. For
example, virtually all adolescents in American society are anxious about their
self-worth and about being "good enough." Such problems have enormous
scope. Other problems affect only a few people but affect them very deeply.
For example, relatively few youth are so anxious about their self-worth that they
consider suicide. For such youth, the problem of anxiety is obviously very deep.
Whether a community group focuses on the anxiety problem of broad scope or
the suicide problem of great depth depends on many factors, including value
judgments that are beyond the limits of the needs assessment itself. But by
reliably measuring the scope and depth of each problem, a needs assessment
can provide the basic data needed to make these judgments wisely.

o Study Targets or Advocates. Most needs assessments focus on potential
clients--in this case, gang-involved youth. Community members can get a
different and often broader perspective if they talk with parents, teachers, social
service providers, and youth who are not involved with a gang. It is also a good
idea to talk to advocates and others with an interest in helping kids.

Aren't Communities Already Doing This?

In one sense, every community that provides social services has already done a
needs assessment. Decisions are made about funding, program development,
and service delivery every day on the basis of what decisionmakers perceive to
be the community's biggest needs. However, in most places these decisions are
not based on comprehensive information, for these reasons:

o Policymakers get most of their information about needs from interest groups.
Well-funded nonprofit corporations and well-organized neighborhood
associations are adequately represented, but others are probably not. In many
communities, the people with the smallest voice in policymaking have the
greatest need.

o A lack of comprehensive data means that priorities are set on the basis of
seat-of-the-pants judgments at best and politics at worst. 

o There is often no consensus among policymakers and service providers about
what must be done. There may be a consensus within some fields; for example,
law enforcement or teen pregnancy prevention groups may have organized to
identify their highest priorities. But there is probably little consensus about the
relative importance of each field.

Needs assessments provide local policymakers with an alternative, unbiased
source of information. This information is vital if policymakers and service
providers are to spend their time and money where it will do the most good.

There are many kinds and methods of needs assessments, but all accomplish
four objectives:

o They represent a complete picture of all needs, rather than a puzzle with
missing pieces.

o They identify needs that policymakers do not already know about (or else
verify that policymakers do know about all the relevant needs).

o They show which needs are being met and which are not, and which needs
are most pressing. This allows decisionmakers to set priorities.

o They help to develop a consensus among stakeholders--people or groups
who have some interest in the problem--about what must be done.

The consensus-building role of the needs assessment has proved especially
useful in many places. All stakeholders are involved in deciding how the
needs assessment will be conducted, conducting it, and analyzing the results.
Although no needs assessment eliminates all conflict among stakeholders, this
often reduces conflict dramatically. This, in turn, improves the potential for
long-term strategic planning and for further coordination and consensus building
in service delivery. Consensus building is especially important in a large city,
where providers of different services (or providers in different neighborhoods)
are unlikely to know one another. As long as funding for social programs
remains scarce, communication, coordination, and cooperation among service
providers is necessary to eliminate duplication and to ensure that the people
with the greatest needs do not fall through the cracks.

----------------------------

The consensus-building role of the needs assessment has proved especially
useful. All stakeholders are involved in deciding how the needs assessment will
be conducted, conducting it, and analyzing the results.

----------------------------

Although needs assessments are useful, there are some things they cannot
do. They cannot by themselves tell policymakers and service providers how to
spend their time and money. Consider the anxiety and suicide problem
described above. Which is better: to help a lot of youth a little bit, perhaps
through recreation programs that build self-esteem, or to help fewer, more
troubled youth a lot, perhaps through a crisis intervention program? The answer
probably depends on the details, including the extent to which low self-esteem
leads to gang involvement, the current suicide rate among youth, and the
effectiveness of recreation and crisis intervention programs. Sorting out all these
details requires professional judgment, not just raw data.

Another limitation is that needs assessments only identify problems, not
solutions. For example, a needs assessment may find that youth in the midteens
need job training. Who should do the training? What should the youth be
trained to do? How should they be trained? Such questions can be answered
only by creative and understanding service providers working closely with
thoughtful clients. The clients alone simply don't have the information needed to
make such judgments.

----------------------------

As long as funding for social programs remains scarce, communication,
coordination, and cooperation among service providers is necessary to
eliminate duplication and to ensure that the people with the greatest needs do
not fall through the cracks.

----------------------------

What Is the Needs Assessment Looking For?

As every junior high school counselor knows, youth join gangs for many
reasons. Some are lured by the potential to make money in the drug trade.
Others were abused or neglected as children and join gangs as a substitute
family. Some just want an opportunity to succeed that is denied them elsewhere
because they are slow in school or not good at sports. If communities are to
prevent youth from joining gangs, they need to deal with all these problems.

As every police officer knows, gangs cause a variety of problems. Many
deal drugs. Most fight with rival gangs for turf or drug clientele, sometimes
killing innocent bystanders. Some gang members gain status by getting their
girlfriends pregnant. "Wannabes" too young to join the gang hope to impress
gang members by spray-painting their "tags" throughout the neighborhood.
Merchants or residents see a public gathering of gang members as menacing,
even if the youth are not breaking any laws. If communities are to reduce the
immediate costs of gang activity, they need to deal with all these problems.

As every social worker knows, gang members face problems beyond those
posed by the gang itself. Most lack job skills and many cannot read and write
very well. Few have the self-control needed to hold down a steady job, even if
they qualify for one. With little prospect of a legitimate job and with a clear
career track in crime, their criminal activity is likely to escalate. If communities
are to reduce the long-run costs of gang activity, they need to deal with these
problems, too.

"Gangs are a community health problem," says Billy Wilkening, former
executive director of Tying Neighborhoods Together (TNT), a gang initiative in
suburban Denver. "It's like any other health problem. If you want to deal with
heart disease, you need to think about surgery and intensive care. But you also
need to eliminate, reduce, or buffer the risk factors that create heart disease in
the first place."

----------------------------

"Gangs are a catalyst, not a focus of our program. Most of what we're trying to
do is get families to address their problems earlier."

----------------------------

Marlene Fish, who took over for Wilkening in mid-1993, agrees that a
broad-based approach is needed. As Fish puts it, "Gangs are a catalyst, not a
focus of our program. They can get people started, but if we stop there it won't
work. Most of what we're trying to do is get families to address their problems
earlier."

The variety of gang-related problems is captured by the "Wheel of Misfortune"
shown in Exhibit 22, a cycle of misfortunes that may typify the lives of troubled
youth. All gang members suffer from or create some of these problems, and a
comprehensive attack on the gang problem requires that all be addressed to
some extent. Thus, even a needs assessment narrowly focused on gangs must
measure the scope and depth of all these bad outcomes. Because good needs
assessments are broad based, time consuming, and expensive, most are
conducted on a citywide or even regional basis. This is both good and bad.
Such assessments are comprehensive enough, but they may fail to consider
important differences among communities. For example, youth who were recent
immigrants may join gangs for different reasons than those who were born in
America; they may be involved in different activities while in the gang and face
different problems when they leave the gang. If the needs assessment does
not distinguish between first-generation and native-born youth, or youth of
different races and ethnic groups, or those who live in different neighborhoods,
all youth are assumed to have identical needs. Because this is rarely true,
opportunities to tailor an approach to specific problems are missed, and
relatively ineffective solutions are created. In general, then, communities must
also look for differences in needs among youth of different ages, social classes,
ethnic groups, and the like.

There are four steps to conducting a needs assessment. It is probably best if
they are carried out in order.

o Laying the Groundwork. Assemble the team that will conduct the assessment
and a planning group that will monitor the team's work and make suggestions
along the way. Make the major decisions about the scope of the effort and the
methods to be used.

o Identifying Current Activities. Survey community service providers to identify
all current programs and populations served and classify them on the basis of
the primary needs they are attempting to fill. If possible, document the
effectiveness of these programs.

o Identifying and Setting Priorities Among Needs. Survey the population
affected and its advocates to measure the scale, scope, and type of unmet
needs.

o Developing a Consensus. Present the findings to community service providers
and appropriate policymakers. Work with them to develop a consensus about
the priorities for program development and funding.

The next section considers the first step in conducting a needs assessment--
laying the groundwork and making the major decisions about the scope and
nature of the assessment itself.

----------------------------

It is vital to get "buy in" from service providers and funding agencies at every
major step.

----------------------------

Step 1: Laying the Groundwork

In all but the biggest cities, needs assessments can be conducted by a few
hard-working individuals. In fact, it is preferable to assign responsibility for the
serious work to a small group. This usually improves communication among the
team members, improves the quality of the work they do, and shortens the time
needed to conduct the assessment by reducing the need for meetings, memos,
and progress reports.

On the other hand, needs assessments are of little use if the results are not
accepted by service providers and funding agencies. Because providers and
funders must ultimately agree to a plan for addressing and solving gang
problems, it is vital that they be involved in the assessment from the beginning.
In practice, this means that responsibility for big decisions must rest with a
large, comprehensive group of "movers and shakers," while responsibility for
implementing the assessment stays with a small team. Although the assessment
team must make many small decisions along the way, it is vital to get "buy in"
from service providers and funding agencies at every major step. For simplicity,
the large group is called the advisory board, and the small group is called the
assessment team.

An advisory board need not be comprehensive to be successful. (In many
cities, this would require literally hundreds of members.) Instead, it should
include the most important service providers and funding agencies and be
broadly representative of the rest. At a minimum, the board should include
politicians or high-level administrators from the county, school district, and
major area cities; any major community foundations and the United Way; and
service providers, both large and small, with experience in dealing with a variety
of youth problems. Whether the group should be formal or informal depends on
factors beyond the needs assessment itself. For example, if the needs
assessment is the first step toward a comprehensive gang strategy, it may be
necessary to create a formal board with bylaws and regular meetings. For
purposes of the needs assessment alone, however, it is best if the group is
informal and open. If it develops that major actors with different viewpoints
have been inadvertently left out, it is easy to bring them in later.

Exhibit 23 shows the membership of a board established to oversee the Austin
Project, which developed a youth needs assessment for Austin, Texas, in 1992.
The board's job was to oversee the entire effort, develop a consensus on the
basic methods to be used, and provide some of the personnel and data needed
to complete the technical work. In addition, the prestige and political power of
board members gave the entire effort legitimacy. This guaranteed access and
assistance from service providers who were not directly represented.

----------------------------

The assessment team's first step should be to find out whether anyone has ever
conducted a youth needs assessment before.

----------------------------

The advisory board's most important role in this early stage of the program is to
reinforce the importance of the problem, create the assessment team, and
publicize the impending assessment effort among the service provider
community. If the board is highly political, there will no doubt be some pressure
to issue press releases and hold press conferences. Such mass media publicity
can help keep the attention of political leaders and the public on the gang
problem. The danger is that some advisory board members may use the
publicity as an opportunity to argue for pet policies or programs in anticipation
of the needs identified by the assessment. Such "jumping the gun" gives the
wrong impression to the public and service providers and may make the needs
assessment look like a whitewash. Thus, it is best to meet the press with caution
at this stage. 

Once the advisory board has been constituted and perhaps presented to the
community, the focus shifts to the assessment team. Many small decisions need
to be made at the first stages of the assessment process, and these decisions
are best considered by a small group.

First Steps

With few exceptions, the assessment team's first step should be to find out
whether anyone has ever conducted a youth needs assessment before.
Gang-related needs assessments are rare, but assessments of other, related
needs may be more common. When the Austin Project began, for example,
the assessment team found that needs assessments had been conducted
recently by the United Way (all social service needs focusing on children, youth,
and the elderly); the Austin Police Department (youth service needs in one
gang-ridden neighborhood); Planned Parenthood (needs for teenage pregnancy
prevention services); and the Office of the City Auditor (needs regarding youth
employment and child abuse prevention). Although none of these assessments
were comprehensive, all helped guide the assessment team toward the most
important sources of information.

This exercise also helped the assessment team identify people who knew
something about youth needs and how to assess them. For example, the United
Way had developed standard procedures for conducting assessments that
could be applied directly to the gang-related assessment. Austin police
personnel knew where to get and analyze background data on neighborhoods.
The city auditors knew how to analyze budgets and evaluate program
effectiveness. By adding some people to the assessment team and "picking the
brains" of others, the team significantly improved its assessment.

Scope and Focus

The next step is to make major decisions about the scope and focus of the
assessment effort. Three questions, in particular, need to be answered at this
stage. First, should the assessment focus on primary or secondary prevention?
That is, what age groups should it consider: current gang members (in most
places, 14- to 20-year-olds), wannabes (10- to 13-year-olds), or "could bes"
(younger children at risk of joining gangs when they get older)? Focusing on
younger children and their needs may be the most cost-effective approach in
the long run, but it does little to solve the community's immediate gang problem.
On the other hand, focusing on current gang members may provide immediate
but limited results. The Austin Project began by focusing on the youngest
children (birth to 8 years) but shifted the focus to older youth when it became
clear that the public could not wait 10 years for the program to take effect.

Second, should the assessment focus on all youth problems or only those
very closely related to gangs? As TNT's Fish suggests, for many jurisdictions
gang problems are only the best-publicized and scariest side of a bigger
problem--such as school dropouts or teen unemployment. In these
communities, it makes sense to use the gang problem to maintain interest but to
broaden the scope of the assessment to other problems that may affect more
youth. In some communities, however, gangs are so widespread and virulent
that other problems pale in comparison. Here, a narrow focus on gang
prevention and amelioration is called for. In Austin, a wide range of service
providers, including most law enforcement officials, argued for a broad-based
approach. Accordingly, the assessment team considered a range of needs in its
assessment.

Finally, should the assessment team consider all neighborhoods in the city
or only those in greatest need? Many gang problems differ from one
neighborhood to the next, and even from one block to the next. Thus, focusing
on a limited number of gang-ridden neighborhoods may allow for a more
careful assessment that contributes to better decisionmaking downstream. Such
an approach may also be more realistic if resources are very limited. In some
cities, however, gangs are geographically widespread, even when they are not
obvious in particular areas. By concentrating on areas with obvious problems,
the assessment team may be sending a message that other areas' problems are
less important. This can be particularly troublesome when well-publicized gang
activities take place in black and Hispanic neighborhoods, while
well-established skinhead and Nazi gangs in white neighborhoods do not
receive the same amount of attention. A focus on gang problems in minority
neighborhoods, in effect, denies the existence of a white gang problem.

The best answer to these questions about scope and focus depends on
several factors, including the following:

o How Much Do You Know About the Problem? If you know a lot (for
example, if many needs assessments have been conducted before), a narrow
assessment that refines previous knowledge is called for. When less is known,
the needs assessment must be broader to put gang-related needs in context. In
Austin, much was known about the breadth of youth needs, but little was
known about the relative importance of each. Thus a broad assessment was
called for to help develop a consensus around a set of priorities.

o What Resources Are Available? Broad studies require lots of people,
expertise, and time; narrow studies do not. An inexperienced assessment team
will need more time than an experienced one.

o What Is the Political Climate? In some cities, the severity of the gang problem
makes it easy to focus on gang problems; in others, a lack of consensus will
require a broader focus. In Austin, for example, influential interest groups
demanded a focus on primary prevention of all youth problems in all
neighborhoods of the city.

Only rarely will these factors all point in the same direction. For example, there
may be a political consensus that the gang problem is severe in a few
neighborhoods, but because little is known about other youth problems in these
neighborhoods, a narrowly focused study may miss opportunities for effective
prevention. Or even though the politics may be right for a broad study of youth
problems, the resources may not be available. Thus, getting the right focus
requires considerable judgment on the part of the advisory board and
assessment team.

----------------------------

By setting forth a long-range assessment agenda, the advisory board and
assessment team can do much to defuse concerns that important pieces of the
puzzle will not be considered.

----------------------------

It may help to conduct the assessment in stages. For example, a city with
limited knowledge and resources but a serious gang violence problem may
start by assessing the potential for gang violence in each neighborhood, with the
goal of increasing direct law enforcement efforts. Once the police, prosecutor,
and probation agencies have a handle on where to focus their immediate efforts,
the assessment team can turn its attention to primary prevention opportunities.
Alternatively, a city with many neighborhood-based community associations
and service providers may choose to examine youth problems in depth, one or
two neighborhoods at a time. By setting forth a long-range assessment agenda,
the advisory board and assessment team can do much to defuse concerns that
important pieces of the puzzle will not be considered.

Getting the Advisory Board To Buy In

If an advisory board is to do any good, it must give advice. Rarely will it do so
unless asked, however. The assessment team must seek the board's advice
early and often. In particular, the board should be kept apprised of where the
assessment team is at all stages of the process, when the principal milestones
will be reached, and when the final product will be ready for distribution to the
public.

The board should be asked to review all major decisions about the methods to
be used. It is the assessment team's job to work out the details, but the
advisory board should know about and have an opportunity to comment on the
populations to be surveyed, the form of the survey itself, and the types of social
indicators to be collected and analyzed. It is probably a good idea to hold a
meeting at an early stage of the assessment to discuss data collection plans.
Many board members may have been involved in such efforts before. If so,
their expertise can be useful.

----------------------------

Although the assessment team can and should offer a clear summary of the
facts, the board must recognize that final recommendations are its job and not
that of the assessment team.

----------------------------

The advisory board will rarely need a full-blown report on the major findings of
each stage of data collection. This would waste a lot of the assessment team's
time and might prompt board members to jump to conclusions before all the
facts are in. Still, it is probably a good idea to let them know the rough outlines
as the study progresses. Periodic memos are probably sufficient. This has the
added benefit of keeping board members engaged in the project, even though
they do not have a direct role at this stage.

The board returns to the center stage when it is time to develop the final
product of the assessment--priorities for program development and funding.
Because this is a highly political task, it is best done in open discussion with the
entire advisory board. Although the assessment team can and should offer a
clear summary of the facts, the board must recognize that final
recommendations are its job and not that of the assessment team.

Continually seeking the advisory board's advice may at first appear to be a
waste of time. Decisions about methods and management are usually made
more efficiently by the assessment team leader or the team itself, not by a
large group. Nevertheless, letting the advisory board members in on the nuts
and bolts will give them ownership of the project and improve the chances that
they will accept the results. This will save time in the long run.

Dealing With Conflict

Many problems can be avoided if the assessment team works closely with
the advisory board, seeking assistance and support at each step. Nevertheless,
any task that sets priorities and recommends reallocation of resources is bound
to create conflict among participants with differing interests. Identifying these
conflicts and managing them well are vital to the assessment's success.

One common problem is differing goals. Organizations and their representatives
have different goals and objectives and have developed different sets of
expectations among their clients and constituents. For example, juvenile
probation departments attempt to control crime by rehabilitating probationers,
and police agencies focus on deterrence and incapacitation. These differences
go beyond the agencies' functions: Many probation officers believe that juvenile
gang members can be rehabilitated but not deterred, while many police officers
believe just the opposite. These philosophical differences may make it difficult
for the two to agree on priorities.

----------------------------

One key to managing conflict is to recognize that needs assessments are a way
to identify problems, not solutions.

----------------------------

Another common problem is competition for finite resources. In part, the
needs assessment is being conducted to help local governments set funding
priorities. To some extent, every dollar that goes to juvenile probation is a
dollar that cannot go to the police department. The feuding may be even worse
when it involves comparable agencies that deliver similar services--two
nonprofit corporations that provide youth counseling and leadership training, for
example. Even when funding is not a "zero-sum game," each member of the
assessment team or advisory board is likely to feel a need to protect his or her
organization's interests.

Although conflict among stakeholders may be uncomfortable, it can be useful.
Well-managed discussion about the effectiveness and limits of youth recreation
programs, for example, can contribute to the understanding of advisory board
and assessment team members--many of whom have probably given the matter
little thought. Good leaders will confine discussions to ideas and not
personalities and prevent them from dragging on past the point of being useful.

One key to managing conflict is to recognize that needs assessments are a
way to identify problems, not solutions. Suppose the assessment reveals that
cocaine use is a serious problem. Police, drug treatment centers, and others will
have an obvious role to play in solving the problem. But a variety of other
approaches may be just as effective, including early childhood intervention, drug
treatment for parents, and school-based programs. A variety of philosophical
approaches may make sense; a variety of agencies can and should be involved.
Although conflicts over solutions are inevitable, they are premature at this stage.
By emphasizing problem identification rather than problem solving throughout
the process, leaders of the advisory board and assessment team can avoid
much needless conflict.

Another key is to separate facts from values and data from interpretation. Some
of the results of a needs assessment are simply factual: For example, suppose
31 percent of youth surveyed chose "lack of jobs and job training" as their most
pressing problem, a larger percentage than chose any other problem. This is a
fact. The assessment team and its advisory board may interpret this fact to
mean that job provision and training should be the highest priorities for program
development and funding in the coming year. This is an interpretation, requiring
the application of values. In practice, conflict is both more likely and more
helpful if it is focused on values, interpretation, and policy implications. Things
will move more quickly and smoothly if these conflicts are left for the final stage
of the assessment.

The assessment team and advisory board will always have their own ideas
about what the primary problems are. The biggest reason for conducting a
full-scale needs assessment is to give all involved a chance to be proved wrong.
That is why it is so important to consult everyone with a stake in the issue, not
just the people who are already known. In fact, it is most important to listen to
the people who have not been in the decisionmaking loop.

Step 2: Identifying Current Activities

After laying the groundwork, the next step in conducting a needs assessment is
to identify current services--the supply side of the unmet-needs equation. The
survey has two immediate objectives. First, the assessment team needs to know
what services are actually being delivered, where, to whom, and if possible with
what effect. Sometimes this is enough to identify clear gaps in coverage. For
example, a flourishing midnight basketball program for youth age 14 and older
may suggest that police should develop early evening programs for younger
kids. In tougher cases, of course, supply information must be combined with
demand information to tell whether new programs are needed or whether more
money should be spent on existing programs. Second, assessors need to know
which agencies have a capacity to deliver certain kinds of services. For
example, some agencies may have demonstrated the ability to provide
recreational opportunities to preteens. Others may be delivering drug abuse
counseling and could be persuaded to broaden their services to include alcohol
abuse counseling. This kind of information can be invaluable when new services
and changes in current services are planned.

----------------------------
 
The assessment team needs to know what services are actually being delivered,
where, to whom, and if possible with what effect.

----------------------------

The existing services survey can also achieve a variety of secondary objectives.
Gathering information on existing services requires the needs assessors to
contact, at a minimum, the principal social service providers in the community.
These contacts are themselves important sources of information for the next
step (identifying unmet needs). Because they typically have easy access to
youth, service providers can be instrumental in setting up youth surveys.
Contacting service providers also serves a public relations function; by
informing them that a needs assessment is in progress and asking for their
assistance, the assessors help to get service providers to buy in (and perhaps to
give the assessors good advice) early in the process. Finally, the information
gleaned from the survey of existing services can provide vital clues to what the
community thinks are the most important needs and problems, helping the
needs assessors to focus their efforts in the most pressing areas.

Defining What Information To Collect

Especially in large jurisdictions, a survey of existing services can be extensive
and time consuming. There are many service providers, each of which may
provide a variety of services. The biggest service providers are easily identified,
but others may be known to only a few because they provide unique services to
small populations in unfamiliar neighborhoods. As a result, planning is essential if
the survey is to be conducted efficiently. In particular, it is important to define
early on exactly what data need to be collected. Exhibit 24 shows the most
important questions. They are considered in more detail in the following section.

----------------------------

It is probably wise to exclude self-paid or insured services, focusing instead on
services provided free or with a subsidy.

----------------------------

What Services Are Provided? As described above, it is best to look at a wide
variety of services. To make the survey manageable, however, it may be
practical to put some restrictions on what services are included. For example, it
is probably wise to exclude self-paid or insured services, focusing instead on
services provided free or with a subsidy. Although this eliminates some
important services, such as privately funded medical care and private schools,
these services are rarely available to youth at risk of gang involvement.

Similarly, it is reasonable to exclude universal and safety net services. There is
no sense in including the entire budget for public schools in the needs
assessment, for example. It would, however, be appropriate to include special
educational services for adjudicated delinquents, teen mothers, and others at
risk.

Although the time required to collect good data can be a problem, communities
need to consider the benefits of getting thorough information. Knowing that a
nonprofit corporation provides drug abuse treatment services is only a starting
point; it is better to know that it focuses on uppers and crack cocaine; it is even
better to know that it uses a combination of behavior modification and group
therapy and is in contact with its clients for an average of 2 hours a day, 2 days
a week. The more details are available, the better judgments can be made later
about what works and what is missing.

Where Are Services Located? A more precise way to ask the same question
is, "What geographic areas are served by available services?" We need to ask
this question for two reasons. First, many services are provided on a citywide,
countywide, or even regional basis, not on a neighborhood basis. Thus, unless
the net is cast widely--unless the assessors look at agencies with offices outside
the neighborhood or city of interest--they might miss important services
delivered in the area by agencies based outside it. This is especially true for
health, mental health, and nutrition services, which are largely federally funded
and State administered.

The second reason is that services are rarely available to all the people who
need them and knowing the geographic allocation of services can help to
identify people who have been overlooked. For example, the middle-class
Austin neighborhood of Dove Springs began slipping into poverty in the early
1980s. By 1992, it was one of the poorer sections of the city, with especially
high rates of gang activity, burglary, and auto theft. But because few social
service providers knew the neighborhood very well, Dove Springs residents
had little help in solving their problems. Only after neighborhood residents
spoke up and a needs assessment verified that residents had little access to
services easily available elsewhere were services made available.

To Whom Are Services Provided? Geography is one part of this question, but
there are others. Some agencies prefer to deal with preteens; others prefer
older youth. Some provide services only to girls or to boys, not to mixed
groups. Agencies with a religious affiliation may restrict services to members of
their church. The importance of this information is obvious. For example, it is
easy to imagine a wealth of recreational services in a neighborhood--all
available only to boys aged 10 to 14.


Some agencies only deliver services to families and youth that meet special
qualifications. For example, the housing authority may provide afterschool
education programs for youth who live in housing developments. A nonprofit
corporation may provide drug treatment, but due to long waiting lists only
juvenile offenders on probation receive treatment.

When Are Services Provided? Time of day and day of the week are important
considerations. Assessors should not overlook seasonal services, such as
summer youth employment programs, summer recreation programs, or Drug
Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) (available only during the school year).

What Does It Cost and Who Pays for It? Some services are more expensive
than others, but funding levels still provide a rough estimate of the depth of the
community's commitment to solving a problem. For example, Austin's survey of
youth services revealed that local, State,  Federal, and private sources spent
$1.9 million on prenatal care, infant health, and family education in 1992; the
same sources spent $15.6 million on responding to child abuse and neglect. If
nothing else, this finding suggests a communitywide emphasis on reactive rather
than proactive programs.

----------------------------

Agencies that commit a lot of resources to solving a problem probably have a
bigger stake than others in solving it.

----------------------------

In addition, agencies that commit a lot of resources to solving a problem
probably have a bigger stake than others in solving it. Thus, they are probably
the most important agencies to involve in decisions about what to do next. For
example, in 1992, the City of Austin contributed nearly half the money spent on
prenatal care and family education in the city, and the Federal Government
contributed almost all of the rest. But spending on teenage pregnancy
prevention was split almost evenly among city, county, school district, State,
Federal, and private sources. Clearly, the city is in the best position to develop
further prenatal care and family education programs, but a broad-based
coalition will be needed to develop further pregnancy prevention programs.

In addition to funding levels, it is helpful to know how many employees are
involved in providing a service. For some agencies, this is the key to funding
issues. A school district may spend $1 billion on its services, but only a fraction
of this is earmarked for at-risk youth. By counting the number of teachers,
counselors, and others involved in the at-risk programs and dividing by the total
number of people employed by the district, one can estimate the proportion of
that $1 billion that can be reasonably attributed to at-risk programs. The
number of employees involved can also be useful background for a survey of
service providers (described later).

It is tempting to ask each service provider for an annual budget, including
details on both income received and expenditures made. For many service
providers, this will be the best single source of information about what the
provider is really doing. Budgeting protocols vary from one agency to the next,
however, and for very large agencies (for example, the school district), the
budget's size may make it indecipherable. Unless the assessment team has a lot
of time or special expertise in financial management or auditing, it is probably
best to save budget analysis for later.

Identifying Service Providers

Once it is clear what information on services must be collected, the next step is
to develop a list of agencies providing these services. It is best to realize from
the beginning that the task can never be completed. Funding levels, eligibility
requirements, and program methods change. It is almost inevitable that 3
months into the assessment process some foundation director or grant monitor
will look at the final draft of the survey findings and think of yet another
nonprofit corporation or county program that must be added. Although
frustrating, small changes probably don't matter much. Most youth service
programs are small, but most of the services are provided by a few large
programs. In Austin, for example, 10 percent of the major youth programs
account for 81 percent of all youth spending. Thus, the value of the survey lies
in getting a complete list of major programs, not in the details.

----------------------------

Mail surveys are fast, cheap, and easy. Unfortunately, they also have
notoriously low response rates.

----------------------------

In practice, it is usually enough to implement what is sometimes called a
"snowball sample." That is, the assessors interview knowledgeable members of
the advisory board and review readily available documents to get a first-cut list
of service providers. Then they interview the directors of these agencies to
collect the necessary information and at the same time ask what other agencies
that provide similar services should be added to the list. Thus the sample
increases in size, like a snowball rolling down a hill. As long as the initial list is
not severely limited, this assures the assessors of including at least the most
important programs.

Once data have been collected for the final, presumably comprehensive list of
programs, the assessors can be doubly sure of including all the major programs
by sending out a summary of their findings (described later). Changes in old
programs and a few new programs are sure to turn up during this final review. If
data can be collected from the most important of these late additions, this will
probably be sufficient.

Note that the snowball sampling method does not assume that all the service
providers are aware of one another. In all but the smallest cities, they are not,
and in fact many will find the final (or at least the most recent) list of service
providers to be an important contribution in itself. This method does safely
assume that all the major providers are known to at least a few of the other
major providers and funding sources.

Collecting Information

Particularly in big cities with many social programs, it is tempting to collect
service information through a mail survey. Mail surveys are fast, cheap, and
easy. Unfortunately, they also have notoriously low response rates. Many busy
service providers understandably put surveys at the bottom of their in boxes
and leave them there, making a response rate of 50 percent hard to achieve. If
even a few of the nonrespondents are major providers, this will seriously
compromise the survey findings. In addition, consigning data collection to the
mail prevents the assessors from asking questions about the information they
collect and getting "reality checks" that help ensure reliable data. Time
consuming though it may be, there is no substitute for the individual interview,
either by phone or in person. Phone interviews are probably sufficient for most
relatively small service providers; directors of large programs need to be
interviewed in person.

To make sure they remember to ask the right questions, assessors should make
up a simple interview protocol. For example, the questions shown  in Exhibit 24
or similar questions can be easily formatted in the form of a questionnaire. At a
minimum, the assessors need to know what, where, and to whom services are
provided, how much services cost, and who pays. If time permits, they should
be prepared to turn the interview into a conversation, getting a feel for how the
agency makes its decisions and why it provides the services it does. An
interview schedule is particularly helpful for larger agencies with specialized
staff. Often an accountant or controller will be the only source of budget data,
program directors will understand their individual programs but not others, and
only the executive director will have the big picture. Assessors must be
prepared to shuttle back and forth from one office to the next, making several
calls back to various people before they get a complete picture of the agency's
activities. As a result, in addition to collecting program data, it is vital that
assessors get the names and telephone numbers of all the people providing
information. This helps them to check conflicts and fill in the inevitable blanks. It
also provides the basis for a network of service providers on which the
assessors can rely later to analyze and solve the problems identified through the
assessment.

----------------------------

If time permits, they should be prepared to turn the interview into a
conversation, getting a feel for how the agency makes its decisions and why it
provides the services it does.

----------------------------

Displaying Results

Another reason for using a protocol like that shown in Exhibit 24 is that it helps
the assessors to keep track of the data they have collected. Because papers get
lost and programs change, the assessment team should plan early on to convert
the paper forms to a computerized filing system. A wide variety of filing
programs, sometimes called database management systems, is available. A
comprehensive review of these programs is beyond the scope of this chapter,
but almost all of them will perform the basic functions needed: storing data,
searching and sorting program records, and producing reports in various
formats.

A database management system may be a good way to keep track of the
data for internal purposes, but it is even more critical to display the results in a
form that others can understand. One good way to display survey results is a
matrix, such as that shown in Exhibit 25. This matrix groups together all
programs aimed at solving an individual problem, such as child abuse or youth
unemployment. Each program is then shown on a separate row. Basic data
about each program are shown in a separate column. (Although this matrix
focuses on funding information, the columns could just as easily refer to types of
services delivered, geographic areas and ages of youth served, sources of client
referrals, or other factors.) The matrix format allows the reader to scan across
the rows (to find out about each program) or down the columns (to find which
programs and problems funding sources are involved in). The flexibility of the
matrix is another argument for keeping records in a computerized file; a
database management program can produce matrices like this one faster and
more accurately than a person can.

The matrix display can lead to a useful first-cut analysis. In Austin, a matrix of
child abuse programs by types of services delivered and sources of clients
showed that virtually all programs provided a direct response to reported
incidents of child abuse and ended with the conviction of the child abuser.
However, important information was missing: Abused children who were not
reported to the authorities received little attention, and little money was spent on
prevention and helping abused children deal with the effects of their abuse.
After a more complete analysis confirmed that these were important unmet
needs, this finding led to a change in funding priorities and creation of several
prevention and aftercare programs.

Reaping the Benefits of Surveying 

Experienced problem solvers know that it is much easier to get the big picture
on a problem than on the solution. When developing an appropriate response, it
is vital to know what is currently being tried, where it is being tried, and with
whom; it is just as important to know what is not being tried. Except in the
smallest of cities, no one knows about all the services available. Thus,
describing the existing service network is an invaluable part of solving the
problem.

The existing services survey is valuable for another reason. Because it allows
the assessment team to meet with all the service providers, the survey is often
the first step in identifying who needs to be involved in analyzing specific
problems and developing solutions. In big cities with big problems, little of value
is likely to be accomplished until this network is in place.

----------------------------

Because it allows the assessment team to meet with all the service providers,
the survey is often the first step in identifying who needs to be involved in
analyzing specific problems and developing solutions.

----------------------------

Step 3: Identifying and Setting Priorities Among Needs

Once current services have been documented (or, perhaps, while the services
survey is under way), it makes sense to consider the demand side of the
unmet-needs equation. Although there are many ways to assess the demand for
services, two methods are especially valuable: (1) surveys of people who need
services and their advocates and (2) examination of social indicators.

Surveying Clients and Their Advocates

In most cases, a survey of youth, parents, service providers, and others is
the centerpiece of the needs assessment--and the most important and difficult
part. As with any public opinion poll, a series of steps is required to complete a
needs survey (Babbie, 1992; Eck and La Vigne, 1993):

o Decide what to ask.

o Decide whom to survey and how.

o Frame the questions.

o Pretest the survey draft.

o Conduct the survey.

o Analyze and report the results.

Assessors can consider how these general methods apply to needs assessment
surveys in particular.

Decide What To Ask. The survey will ask about the social service needs of
gang-involved and at-risk youth. As described earlier, however, youth needs
can be construed broadly or narrowly, including child abuse and hunger as well
as drug abuse and crime. Decisions about what areas to address can be made
by the advisory committee only after consulting with service providers and local
decisionmakers. One effective method is to interview a wide variety of
providers and decisionmakers outside the immediate planning committee,
asking them what problems they see as most important. Once a long list has
been gathered, it can be culled to keep the most important items.

Decide Whom To Survey. Useful results can be obtained from at least four
separate groups:

o The at-risk and/or gang-involved youth themselves.

o Their parents.

o Service providers, including guidance counselors, employment trainers, public
health nurses, and others.

o Community leaders, including presidents of neighborhood associations, 
elected officials, and business leaders.

Although all of these populations can be important, some are harder to survey
than others. In addition, the best way to administer the survey differs from one
population to the next.

Youth are especially hard to survey because some of them are hard to find.
Youth under 16 are easiest to survey in public and private schools.
Unfortunately, in most places the youth who cut classes often are most likely to
become involved in gangs, so it may be necessary to follow up with mail
surveys to their homes. With youth 16 and older, school dropouts become a
major problem. Although the assessment team can find some dropouts in
alternatives to public school (for example, GED programs and job training
programs), most are working or unemployed. Many are no longer living at
home, making mail surveys a problem.

----------------------------

As long as older youth are not the focus of the assessment, a representative
sample can probably be obtained by surveying youth in school alternatives or
by mail.

----------------------------

Overall, the best solution is probably to focus on school-age youth through
an in-school sample. As long as older youth are not the focus of the
assessment, a representative sample can probably be obtained by also
surveying youth in school alternatives or by mail. If older youth are the focus of
the assessment, however, there may be no alternative to conducting a random
sample of all households. Most households do not include young adults, so this
is an expensive approach.

Parents are easier to identify. Parents' addresses can usually be identified
through their children's schools; alternatively, surveys can be sent home with
students. Because parents of older youth who are out of school are generally
less important to the assessment, they can be eliminated from the sample
entirely. If the advisory board and assessment team conclude that they should
be included, it may be possible to obtain their addresses from old school
records. In neighborhoods with transient populations, however, many will have
moved since their children were last in school.

It is much easier to draw a sample of service providers. The assessment team
will have made contact with service-providing organizations as part of the
current activities survey; it is relatively simple to go back and talk to their
employees. It is usually important to get a mix of line employees and
administrators. Because the administrators are often responsible for planning
new services, working with other agencies, and writing funding proposals, they
may have a broader view of youth problems. Line employees, however, usually
deal more closely with the youth themselves and so may have a deeper
knowledge.

If the figures are available, it makes most sense to collect a sample
proportionate to the number of employees in the organization. (This is one
reason for collecting employment information in the current activities survey.)
For example, if the assessment team concluded that 1 in every 10 service
providers should be included in the survey, it would send surveys to:

o Three employees from a large organization with 30 employees.

o One employee from a smaller organization with 10 employees.

o No employee from a very small organization with 3 employees.

If employment information is not available but good budget figures are, it is
usually safe to set the sample proportionate to the size of the budget. Note that
this will not apply to government agencies that hire few social workers but give
away large amounts of food, housing, and other goods.

----------------------------

To ensure that all viewpoints are represented, conduct a snowball sample.

----------------------------

Although it is easy to survey community leaders once they are identified, it is
often hard to identify them in advance. The problem is that "community leader"
is a political term; the same person may be considered a selfless and
responsible leader by some and a shameless rabble-rouser by others and
remain completely unknown to still others. Fortunately, it is less important to
use a scientific definition of a leader than it is to get a representative
cross-section of viewpoints. One simple way to ensure that all viewpoints are
represented is to conduct a snowball sample such as that described earlier. In
this case, a few obvious leaders are identified and surveyed first. At the
conclusion of the survey, each of them is asked to identify two other people:

o A community leader who can tell the assessment team more about conditions
in his or her community.

o A second community leader with a different point of view from the first.


When the assessment team talks to the two newly identified leaders, it puts the
same questions to them, and the process continues. Most people understand
the need to include a variety of viewpoints and are willing to supply names of
people who disagree with them. Unless the sample is very small, this ensures
that all major viewpoints are taken into account.

Decide How To Survey. Most people think that the key to a useful survey is a
large sample size. As with most truisms, this is not completely wrong. A sample
of 20, 30, or even 100 youth is unlikely to be large enough to distinguish among
the most important needs, especially when there are big differences among age
groups, ethnic groups, and neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the obvious way to
obtain a large sample--blanket the city with surveys and hope a lot of people fill
them out--is likely to do more harm than good.

The reason is response bias. Some people like to fill out surveys. They have the
time to fill them out, the background to understand them, and the thoughtfulness
to consider them important. Others do not. If the people who respond to a
survey are consistently different from those who do not, the results will be
different than they would be if everyone could be made to respond. Often, the
youth and parents least likely to respond to surveys are the poorest and
neediest--those at greatest risk of gang involvement.

----------------------------

It is much better to get an 80 percent response rate from a randomly selected
population of 200 . . . than to get a 16 percent response rate from a population
of 1,000.

----------------------------

The real key to a good survey is getting a representative sample, not merely a
large one. In practice, the easiest way to ensure a representative sample is to
draw a sample at random from throughout the population and get a high
response rate. That is, of the people asked to complete a survey, the
percentage who actually complete it should be as high as possible. Thus, it is
much better to get an 80 percent response rate from a randomly selected
population of 200 (yielding a fairly representative sample of 160) than to get a
16 percent response rate from a population of 1,000 (yielding an
unrepresentative sample of the same size).

Sample size has implications for the best way to administer the survey. People
rarely turn down interviewers who come to their door--response rates of 80
percent are fairly common, as long as the interviewers are moderately well
trained. Telephone interviewers typically get lower response rates--60 to 80
percent, depending on the nature of the survey and how the sample is drawn.
Mail surveys usually get the worst response rates, varying from 10 to 70
percent, depending on the survey and the sample. Unfortunately, mail surveys
are much cheaper than telephone surveys, which are much cheaper than
personal interviews. In survey research, you get what you pay for.

There are other advantages to in-person and telephone interviews. Because
they are personal, they build more interest among respondents in the
assessment and its results. As a result, interviewing is almost certainly the best
method to use in surveys of community leaders and service providers who must
accept and support the survey results when they are completed. In addition,
interviews give respondents a chance to clarify the surveyors' questions and
provide more complex answers, thus providing better data. This is especially
helpful when respondents must assess the relative importance of various needs.
As described below, this can be a tricky business.

For surveys of youth and parents, the safest course of action is to contract
with a local university or market research firm to conduct in-person or
telephone interviews. The assessment team should work with the advisory
board to get a general idea of the questions that need to be answered and then
work with the contractor on the specific format and wording of the survey.
Because universities and market researchers have experience in survey
research and access to trained interviewers, they can often complete an
effective survey within a month or two. If a college professor or market
specialist can be persuaded to join the assessment team as a volunteer, it may
be possible to get equally effective results nearly as quickly at less cost.

If the money and expertise are not readily available for personal or phone
interviews, good results can still be obtained from mail surveys if they are very
carefully constructed and administered. The assessment team should pay
particular attention to the following considerations when designing and
conducting a survey by mail (Babbie, 1990; Dillman, 1978): 

o Length and Complexity of the Questionnaire. The shorter and simpler the
survey questionnaire, the more likely people are to fill it out and fill it out
correctly.

o Initial Approach to Respondents. The more personal the initial contact, the
more likely it is that people will complete the survey. Writing a personal letter to
each respondent, including a self-addressed stamped envelope, and giving the
name and phone number of an assessment team member they can contact if
they have questions will all improve response rates considerably. So will
rewards for participation--even trinkets like pencils.

o Careful Monitoring and Followup. Many people fail to respond to a
questionnaire when they first receive it but will respond if they receive a
followup letter and perhaps another questionnaire. Careful timing of followup
mailings may double response rates.

Anything that can be done to make the survey easy to understand, easy to
complete, and easy to return will improve response rates and the validity of the
study.

----------------------------

The shorter and simpler the survey questionnaire, the more likely people are to
fill it out and fill it out correctly.

----------------------------

Frame the Questions. Before considering how to frame the questions, the
assessment team should first consider how not to frame them. Many needs
assessments rely on Likert scaling to estimate the extent of needs. Likert-scale
questions look like this:

For each health and human service listed below, please check the appropriate
box to indicate how serious you think the need is at present: 

Employment services (such as counseling, placement, training, rehabilitation,
and GED).

o Not so serious

o Somewhat serious

o Serious


o Very serious

o Extremely serious

Respondents show how strongly they feel about the question by selecting the
adjective or phrase that most closely resembles their opinion. When analyzing
Likert-scale responses, researchers typically code each one with a number (not
so serious = 1, somewhat serious = 2, and so on). Then the average response
or the percentage of people who chose the highest response is reported as an
overall estimate of the importance of the problem or need. Another familiar way
to ask similar questions uses a thermometer-like scale: "On a scale of 1 to 10,
how serious is the demand for employment services?"

Although they are useful in many areas of opinion research, Likert scales are
nearly useless for needs assessments because many problems are extremely
serious (or at least will be regarded as such by the at-risk youth, parents,
service providers, and community leaders surveyed). The Likert scale does not
require respondents to choose among these needs, and so the assessor is
typically left with a dozen or so "extremely serious" needs and no logical way to
choose among them. Although Likert scales are conceivably useful in identifying
which problems are relatively unimportant, needs assessors rarely need help
with such a distinction.

----------------------------

Since the basic problem is that decisionmakers must choose among competing
needs, it is only fair to ask respondents to do the same.

----------------------------

Since the basic problem is that decisionmakers must choose among competing
needs, it is only fair to ask respondents to do the same. There are several ways
to do this.

The simplest way is to ask respondents to rank order a list of problems or
needs from highest priority to lowest. The average ranking given a problem or
need is an estimate of its overall importance. Ranking forces respondents to
make a choice among competing needs. Ranking is easy in principle, but may
be difficult in practice. Some respondents have difficulty judging among
competing problems or needs. They may fail to answer the questions or may
give all problems a rank of 1. Especially if the list of problems is long, some
respondents get confused. Even when respondents are willing and able to make
judgments, however, ranking may be inefficient because it does not measure an
individual's strength of belief. For example, one respondent may believe that
lack of jobs is the biggest problem by far, dwarfing all others in significance.
Another respondent may agree that lack of jobs is important but also believe
that drug abuse, child abuse and neglect, and inadequate parenting skills are
nearly as problematic. Nevertheless, the two respondents may rank problems in
exactly the same order.

Because rank ordering is usually simple for both assessors and respondents, it
is probably the best method to use. Nevertheless, if a pretest (described on
page 94) shows that rank ordering will pose any of problems described above,
the assessment team should consider one of several alternatives.

The first and most promising alternative, magnitude estimation, solves the
problem of inefficiency. One of the needs, preferably one the assessment team
thinks is of moderate importance, is given a value of 100. Then respondents
rate each of the other needs in comparison to the standard. For example, the
question might look something like this:

We want your help in identifying which health and human service problems
affecting youth are most important in our community. Here are some problems
that some people consider to be important. [Provide list here.]

Assume the problem of inadequate parenting is worth 100 "importance points."
Compare the other problems on this list to inadequate parenting and give it the
number of importance points you think it deserves. For example, if you think
that a problem is only half as important as inadequate parenting, give it 50
points. If you think a problem is twice as important as inadequate parenting,
give it 200 points. If you don't think one of the items on this list is a problem at
all, give it zero points. There are no right and wrong answers; your opinion is
what counts.

----------------------------

Comparing survey respondents to the entire population helps to ensure that
they survey is in fact representative.

----------------------------

Thus if the average respondent rates employment training at 500, we know not
only that it is more important than inadequate parenting but also that it is about
5 times as important. If employment training is rated at 120, it is only slightly
more important. Results like these are obviously helpful in setting priorities.

There are other ways to examine the relative importance of needs. Instead
of asking people to make mathematical calculations in their heads, all the needs
can be written down on small, laminated cards. Then the citizens surveyed are
asked to rank order the cards and place them on a scale that runs from 0 to
100. Although this only works for personal interviews, it probably produces
more accurate results. Another alternative is to give people a series of choices
about needs, two at a time, and ask them which of the two is more important.
This method, called "comparative judgments," is easy to use in a mail or
telephone survey but difficult to set up and interpret. As a result, its use is
probably best left to an expert.

Questions about the importance of various needs should form the bulk of the
survey, but other questions may be needed as well. For example, the
assessment team may suspect that sufficient drug treatment services are already
available, but many people who need them do not know about them. In this
case, it makes sense to ask youth and their parents whether they believe these
services are available to them. If the team suspects that current gang prevention
programs may be ineffective, it may ask service providers and community
leaders for their opinions on those programs.

The assessment team should ask all respondents a few questions about their
background. Comparing survey respondents to the entire population helps to
ensure that the survey is in fact representative. In addition, the team can
compare the needs of young men and women, different racial and ethnic
groups, youth of different ages, and youth with different levels of involvement in
gangs, drugs, and crime. The neighborhood in which the respondent lives is of
particular interest; in all but the smallest cities, respondents' ZIP codes will
provide this information.

Regardless of how the assessment team structures the questionnaire, a few
basic principles apply. The questionnaire must be short and to the point. It
should take no more than 10 minutes for the average respondent to complete.
Respondents must be told why they are being asked to complete the
questionnaire and what the questions are for. The questions must be short,
simple, and free of biases. In practice, the best way to ensure that the
questionnaire is effective is to test it on a small sample--the next step in
conducting the survey.

----------------------------

The best way to ensure that the questionnaire is effective is to test it on a small
sample.

----------------------------

Pretest the Survey Draft. A pretest is simply a dress rehearsal. The sample
has been drawn, the questionnaire constructed, and administration methods
worked out. Now the assessment team should try the survey out on perhaps 25
respondents to be sure everything works as expected. If response rates are
high and the pretest respondents appear to understand the questions, the
assessment team can administer the questionnaire to the rest of the sample and
simply add the pretest results to the rest. However, something will probably go
wrong: Several pretest respondents will fail to answer one or two questions
because they are confusing, biased questions will produce inconsistent results,
or the questionnaires won't fit into the envelopes provided or require more
postage than expected. A pretest allows the assessment team to solve these
problems before sending the survey to the whole sample.

Conduct the Survey. Once the population has been identified, the sample
drawn, and the questionnaire created and revised, it is time to conduct the
survey. This is usually a straightforward administrative task and requires little
consideration here. Nevertheless, the assessment team should recognize that
while it is easy to administer a bad survey, good surveys require constant
attention to detail. In particular, maintaining a high response rate requires
watching return rates carefully and issuing followup letters or phone calls when
needed. It is easy to be lulled into inactivity because nothing is going obviously
wrong; by the time a low response rate becomes noticeable, it may be too late
to do anything about it.

Responses should be coded and keyed into a computer as they are received. In
addition to preventing a dull task from piling up, this allows the assessment team
to identify and fix any problems that may crop up in the wording of questions or
administration of the survey. Again, a local university can help by lending a copy
of a suitable database management program or spreadsheet or by entering and
analyzing the data.

At some point, it will be necessary to call a halt to the survey and begin
analyzing the results. If the assessment team chooses to do three mailings (the
initial survey and two followups), they will receive virtually all the surveys within
6 weeks of the initial mailing. A few will doubtless trickle in over the next month
or two, but it is rare that there are enough of these late respondents to make a
difference. Either throw the late questionnaires away or include them in the
analysis at the very end so that you can present the most complete figures.

Analyze and Report the Results. Sociologists, political scientists, and other
academicians have done the survey research field a disservice by writing up
their results in long, scientific-sounding articles. The principal results of a needs
assessment survey can usually be presented in a few pages of text (perhaps six
or eight) that summarizes the most important results and relationships and backs
them up with a few simple tables. The assessment team should take its cue for
report presentation from public opinion articles in the local newspaper or
perhaps from those published in The Gallup Report (a monthly magazine
available in college libraries and many public libraries).


----------------------------

The principal results of a needs assessment survey can usually be presented in a
few pages of text (perhaps six or eight) that summarizes the most important
results and relationships and backs them up with a few simple tables.

----------------------------

The most important results are the simplest. As described above, there are
two separate but related questions. One is the scope of a problem: How many
people believe the problem is important enough to merit some attention? This
involves counting the number of people who believe that a given need is "very
important," or (better) the number who gave it a high ranking (for example, in
the top third of all problems). The second question is to measure the depth of a
problem: How many people believe the problem is extremely important? This
involves counting the number of people who give the problem the highest rank.

Note that neither of these two questions require information on average
rankings or ratings. This is because averages are often misleading. A problem
such as suicide may get a low average score for either of two reasons. First, it
may be that everyone rates it as a minor problem, suggesting that it should be a
low priority for further analysis and funding. Alternatively, a few may rate it as a
very serious problem while most rate it as no problem at all. In this case, the
proper response is probably to examine suicide rates and patterns carefully to
determine the people for whom (and the places where) the limited funding will
do the most good.

After these basic results have been obtained, they should be broken down
by population group. If surveys have been received from youth, parents, service
providers, and community leaders, it is important to know whether these groups
differ in their assessments of youth needs. Subgroups may also be important.
Among youth, for example, there may be differences among African
Americans, Hispanics, Pacific Asians, and whites; those who are now gang
members and those who are not; and those who are in school and those who
have dropped out. If the sample is large enough, geographic comparisons may
help identify where new programs are needed or existing programs should be
expanded.

When different groups are being compared, it is especially important to
recognize the effects of random chance on survey results. Simply put, unless
surveyors talk to everyone in the population, there will be some inaccuracies in
their estimates. For example, if 100 of 200 randomly selected youth surveyed
say that jobs and job training programs are their most important needs, it can
be assumed that about 50 percent of the entire population feels the same way.
But the true figure may be slightly above or below 50 percent--48 percent, or
even 55 percent. A range called a "confidence interval" can be put around all of
the results; this means there is confidence that the population's figures lie
somewhere within that range. Confidence intervals are generated by
mathematical formulas and depend on the sample size and the level of
confidence desired. In the above example, the formulas indicate that a person
can be 90 percent confident that the percentage of all youth who believe jobs
and training are their greatest needs is between 45 and 55 percent, 95 percent
confident that the true percentage is between 43 and 57, and 99 percent
confident that the true percentage is between 41 and 59.

----------------------------

Some apparent differences among groups may not be real--that is, they may be
caused only by sampling inaccuracy.

----------------------------

The practical implication of this is that some apparent differences among groups
may not be real--that is, they may be caused only by sampling inaccuracy.
Similarly, groups that appear the same may in fact be different. This is the
meaning of the phrase "statistical significance," which shows how likely it is that
an apparent difference is due to sampling error. If it could easily be due to
sampling error (for example, 48 percent of Hispanic youth and 51 percent of
African-American youth cite jobs and training as their greatest needs), this
"statistically insignificant" difference is typically ignored and the groups are
considered to be about the same.

Testing for statistical significance is tricky. Fortunately, there is no shortage of
experts. A market researcher, college teacher, or advanced graduate student
should be able to run and interpret the proper tests. The Eck and La Vigne
(1993) monograph referred to previously covers much of this material in an
understandable way. The important thing is to recognize that survey
research--unless the sample size is simply enormous--is a blunt instrument that
usually cannot identify small differences. If small differences are important
enough to affect policy, a finer instrument may be needed. In some cities,
"social indicators" have proved to be exactly that.

Tracking and Comparing Social Indicators

A second approach to identifying the highest priorities requires collection
of social indicators--basic statistics that show the extent of the bad outcomes
described earlier. For example, the police department can supply the number of
aggravated assaults in which the victim was under 20 years of age, which in
many places is a good measure of gang violence. The school district can
measure the number of fights in schools and the dropout rate for each school
and grade. The State employment office can supply the youth unemployment
rate. These statistics can then be used to track the size of the problem over time
and to compare the size of one city's or neighborhood's problem to those in
other cities and neighborhoods. These comparisons can help to identify serious
or emerging problems.

Collecting Social Indicators. Most social indicators are produced by
government agencies. Because responsibility for youth problems is usually
spread across many agencies, social indicators must be gleaned from a wide
variety of sources. Exhibit 26 shows the social indicators used by the Austin
Project, with the sources for each.

As emphasized previously, it is important to know how the size of a problem
differs among neighborhoods and, for some problems, among different groups
of people. The process used to determine this is called "cross-sectional
analysis." It is also important to know whether each problem is getting worse,
better, or staying about the same--a process called "time-series analysis." Thus
social indicators need to be broken down both cross-sectionally and over time.
Consistent collection and tracking of breakdowns is probably the hardest part
of this approach.

----------------------------

It is important to know whether each problem is getting worse, better, or
staying about the same a process called "time-series analysis."

----------------------------

The simplest cross-sectional analysis is geographic. Most government agencies
collect indicators for areas smaller than a city, but different agencies use
different methods to define neighborhoods. For example, in Austin, the basic
geographic unit used to report crime data is the reporting area, which is
typically 3 to 4 blocks square. But nationally, crime data are regularly reported
for census tracts, which are larger units defined by the U.S. Bureau of the
Census. In most cities, census tracts contain between 5,000 and 8,000 people
and are drawn with rough neighborhood boundaries in mind. Like many police
departments, the Austin Police Department can also produce crime statistics for
much smaller geographic areas, including individual blocks, blockfaces, and
even individual addresses. So a wide variety of geographic units are available
for use in needs assessments.

In practice, the size of the unit considered depends on the nature of the
assessment. For a citywide assessment, a relatively broad brush is needed.
Data reported at the census-tract level (usually 5,000 to 10,000 residents) are
probably sufficient. For assessments of individual neighborhoods, census tracts
are too large; smaller units such as reporting areas are probably better. It is only
rarely necessary to break social indicators down into smaller units than this,
however. Smaller units may compromise the privacy of the people who live in
those units and certainly increase the complexity of data collection.

Census tracts are standard units for collecting and reporting social indicators,
but not all government agencies use them. Some rely instead on ZIP codes,
which may contain as many as a dozen census tracts; others (police
departments, in particular) rely on geographic areas they have constructed
themselves. For these agencies, data can usually be broken down by census
tract as well, but at considerable expense. A map of the city or neighborhood
to be assessed, showing the boundaries used by each agency in reporting its
social indicators, is indispensable for keeping track of these myriad boundaries.

Other cross-sections can be useful for pinpointing groups of youth who are
most affected by problems. Many agencies collect problem data by the age
or race of the people affected. Examples of data include school dropout (often
available by race and grade level), poverty (available by race and broad age
categories), and infant mortality (available by race and age of the mother). For
some problems, other cross-sections may be available, including education
level, employment status and occupation, and income. Unfortunately, many
agencies use different definitions or categories. Thus, it is imperative to get the
exact definition of each category before drawing conclusions or making
comparisons.

Some agencies report statistics each month; others report each quarter or
year. A few use their own units of time; for example, some emergency service
agencies break each year down into 13 periods of 4 weeks each to ensure that
each period includes the same number of weekends. Unlike with geographic
units, however, it rarely matters much whether different agencies use different
time periods. The main concern is identifying which problems are increasing in
scope and intensity, and any breakdown of 1 year or less is usually sufficient to
check this. It is best to collect monthly data for the previous 5 years. This yields
60 data points (5 x 12 = 60), more than enough to separate long-run trends
from random and seasonal fluctuations.

When data are available only on an annual basis, it is even more critical that
several years be available. If only 2 years are available, for example, it is
virtually impossible to tell whether the differences are due to a long-range trend,
an individual fluctuation, or a change in reporting procedures. 

One important set of indicators--that collected by the U.S. Bureau of the
Census--is not available on a useful time-series basis. Although it is only
collected every 10 years, the census includes a wide variety of social indicators
for every block in the city. In addition to the number of people, the census
provides breakdowns by age, race, and sex, as well as information on the
number, type, value, and condition of all housing units. A much wider variety of
indicators is available at the census-tract level, including data on education,
income, employment, and occupation of residents. Census data are not
generally useful for showing trends over time; too much can happen over a
10-year period. But they do provide a quick and effective way of identifying
neighborhoods with many at-risk youth, and of "scoping out" neighborhoods
that appear vulnerable on the basis of other indicators.

Exhibit 27 shows how some key social indicators are broken down in Austin
and Travis County, Texas; different breakdowns may be readily available in
other areas.

Analyzing Social Indicators. Just as social indicators are broken down by
geographic area and by time, they should be analyzed by both area and time.
Full details of statistical analysis are beyond the scope of this chapter; a few
basic ideas will suffice.

The most direct way to analyze geographical breakdowns is by using maps.
Exhibit 28 demonstrates that even a simple map can be useful in program
planning decisions. Each square represents one birth to a mother aged 13 to 17
during 1989 and 1990. Note that births appear to be concentrated in three
areas: a dense concentration east of Interstate Highway 35 and two somewhat
looser concentrations west of I 35 to the north and the south of the dense
concentration. The east side concentration came as no surprise to the
assessment team, but many were surprised by the size of the problem in North
and South Austin. Teenage pregnancy was clearly more widespread than
expected, suggesting that--for this problem, at least--a broad-based approach
might be more effective than one focused on a few neighborhoods. 

Pareto charts are another useful way to look at geographic data. A Pareto
chart starts with a bar chart, or histogram, where each bar represents a different
area. The bars are then arrayed from highest to lowest, as shown in Exhibit 29.
The line (indexed on the right-hand vertical axis) shows the percentage of all
incidents (here, confirmed cases of child abuse and neglect) accounted for by
that area or areas with more incidents. As shown, of Austin's 59 ZIP codes, the
6 with the most abuse and neglect cases (10 percent of all ZIP codes)
accounted for 634 cases (54 percent of all cases). This shows that child abuse
and neglect, unlike teen pregnancy, is concentrated in a few neighborhoods.
(This concentration is true for most other crimes, including robbery, rape, and
homicide.) A neighborhood-based strategy might be more appropriate for
dealing with problems like these.

These methods of analysis compare neighborhoods or other cross-sectional
units with one another. Another useful analytical approach is to compare the
city (or areas within the city) to other cities or to the State and Nation as a
whole. If one finds, as Austin did, that the violent crime rate is considerably
lower than that of comparable cities and the statewide average, perhaps violent
crime should be a relatively low priority because it may be very difficult to drive
a low-level problem down even further. On the other hand, just because a
problem is worse elsewhere doesn't mean it isn't worthy of attention.

Time-series graphs tell us whether a problem is emerging, diminishing, or
stable over time. As with geographical analysis, the results are often surprising.
For example, when the Austin needs assessment began in 1991, many believed
that teenage pregnancy had became an out-of-control epidemic. Statistics
verified that the birth rate among Travis County teens was higher than in the
State as a whole. But when these statistics were examined over time, a
somewhat different story emerged. Exhibit 30 shows the number of live births
per 1,000 women aged 13 to 17 for each year between 1980 and 1990.
Although the size of the problem increased slowly over the decade, the problem
does not appear to be out of control. If it is an emergency now, it was an
emergency that simply was not recognized earlier in the decade.

Exhibit 30 suggests another reason for looking at trends over time. If a problem
is stable over time--even if it is stable at too high a rate for comfort--the
conditions that create the problem are probably not changing. Whatever
conditions caused Travis County 16-year-olds to become pregnant were
probably about the same in 1990 as they were in 1980. Rather than look for
the cause of the increase in some recent change, the program development
team should focus attention on conditions that, like the problem, have slowly
grown worse over time.

Exhibit 31 breaks down live birth rates over time into two age groups--13-
to 15-year-olds and 16- to 17-year-olds. Note that pregnancy among Travis
County 13- to 15-year-olds peaked in 1988. But it has continued to increase
among 16- and 17-year-olds, especially in the last 2 years. Of course, it may
be that the best way to prevent pregnancy among 16- and 17-year-olds is to
work with 13- to 15-year-olds or even younger children. But the emerging
problem appears to be among youth in their middle teens, and this should affect
the focus of whatever solution is implemented.

Most of the indicators described here can be thought of as measurements
of the quality of life. As it happens, many of the most effective methods for
analyzing the quality of life are already used extensively to measure the quality
of manufactured goods. These methods are the focus of the science of statistical
quality control and the business practice of total quality management.

Step 4: Developing a Consensus

Developing a consensus around a set of priorities can be a slow process.
Especially in large cities with many funding agencies, service providers,
neighborhoods, and political constituencies, it may take years before the major
actors agree on even the major points. Nevertheless, this process is vital to the
long-term success of gang prevention and reduction efforts. In most places, it
takes years for gang-related youth problems to develop; there is no reason to
expect spectacular results from a quick fix. The solution will probably take
continuous and concentrated effort over a long period, and a stable vision
backed by widespread agreement is critical to success.

To develop a consensus among community stakeholders, it is first necessary to
develop a consensus among assessment team and advisory board members.
Only then does it make sense to take the issues to the public at large.

----------------------------

An all-day meeting or weekend retreat is the best setting for the task of
developing priorities.

----------------------------

Presenting Results to the Advisory Board


The advisory board is the key player in getting the public to buy in. Its members
are (or at least represent) the key players in funding and service provision
agencies. They have participated throughout the process. They understand why
an assessment is needed and more or less how it was conducted. If its
members can agree on priorities for program development and funding, the
advisory board can contribute much to broaden consensus throughout the
community.


It is neither necessary nor especially helpful that the assessment team achieve a
consensus of its own at this stage. The team must agree on the facts and on
their limitations and the conflicts among them. Priority development, however,
requires application of values to these facts. The assessment team can help, but
this is primarily the advisory board's job. To avoid curtailing the discussion, an
all-day meeting or weekend retreat is the best setting for the task of developing
priorities.

Before the meeting, the advisory board needs a written report that describes
the results of the assessment. Although the assessment team should open the
meeting with a presentation of its report, a comprehensive oral report would
take up the whole meeting. A written report is less ambiguous, more efficient,
and lets the board focus its attention on the task at hand.

The executive summary is the most important part of the report. If the board
has the right people in it, some of them simply will not have time to read the
entire document. A well-written summary gives everyone a chance to
participate in the discussion. As a rule, the executive summary should be short
enough to be read carefully in 15 to 20 minutes. Even if the members of the
assessment team feel they do not have the time to edit and produce a polished
report, they should spend the time needed to produce a clear, error-free
summary. This allows board members to focus on ideas and findings rather than
language and typography.

The structure of the report itself depends in part on the assessment team's
methods and findings, but a few guidelines apply.

o The purpose of the report is to help the board develop priorities. Thus, it
makes sense to organize the report around the things to be prioritized--
problems. Separate sections on violence, drug dealing and abuse,
unemployment, and other problems will help focus the board's attention.

o Few board members will care about methodological details. The report
should describe the basic methods used, but the details should be relegated to
an appendix. Few will even glance at it.

o By the same token, it is rarely helpful to organize the results by the method
used (for example, a section on youth surveys, another on statistical indicators,
and so on). This focuses attention on what the assessment team did, not on
what it found. Findings, of course, are what the report is all about.

The best organization meets the advisory board's needs. For example, the
Austin Project's needs assessment report was organized by children's ages.
Separate chapters were written on the problems of young children (birth to 8
years), adolescents (9 through 16 years), and young adults (17 years and
older). This was done in response to the advisory board's agreement,
expressed at an earlier meeting, that young children and their problems
deserved the highest priority. Thus, an age breakdown was the best way to
facilitate discussion.

----------------------------

The willingness of the assessment team to satisfy the board's concerns and
curiosity can be an important factor in developing a consensus around the
findings, though doing so can be frustrating.

----------------------------

Even the most thorough and comprehensive needs assessment will remain
incomplete. There will always be conflicts in the data. For example, youth may
say that jobs are the biggest problem while their parents and teachers are more
worried about gang membership and violence. Other vital data may be simply
unavailable. For example, the police department may not be able to estimate
the number of gang-related assaults because the victims are unwilling to discuss
their gang activities. Although the opinions and observations of service
providers are not as accurate a basis for decisionmaking as hard facts and may
even be self-serving, they may be the best data available. The assessment team
should be upfront in describing the assessment's flaws.

How the meeting should be run is well beyond the scope of this chapter and
probably differs greatly from one board to the next. Some groups will need
clear, directive leadership; others will be most effective if given a longer leash.
The important thing is that discussion does not wander but is focused to
produce a priority scheme that everyone can live with.

The assessment team should not think that its work is over when the report
is written. It is important to satisfy the board that all the important bases have
been covered, and this may mean that parts of the assessment must be rewritten
or even that further data must be collected. The willingness of the assessment
team to satisfy the board's concerns and curiosity can be an important factor in
developing a consensus around the findings, though doing so can be frustrating.
It is better to hold several meetings to satisfy the board completely than to
launch a major effort with stiff opposition. 

Going Public

The final steps in getting agreement are likely to be different in every
community. Advisory board members, particularly those with political
connections and ties to the news media, may have their own ideas about how to
take their case to the public. When developing a plan for disseminating the
results of the needs assessment, however, it may be helpful to consider the
following possibilities.

Meet the Press. If the advisory board includes members of the press, consult
them about the best way to package and release the results. Press conferences,
presentations to city councils and school boards, or community hearings can all
be good ways to make a needs assessment news. Phone-in radio shows may
give the public an opportunity to respond to the findings and make suggestions.
In Austin, the advisory board persuaded the local PBS television station to hold
a series of town meetings to publicize the results and get the public's reaction.

----------------------------

In Austin, the advisory board persuaded the local PBS television station to hold
a series of town meetings to publicize the results and get the public's reaction.

----------------------------

Make Presentations to Political Leaders. Even if the advisory board includes
prominent politicians, it is important to publicize and discuss the results with all
appropriate political bodies. Formal presentations to area city and county
councils and school boards give political figures a chance to make suggestions
and show their support. Discussions with political leaders may also alert the
advisory board and assessment team to any political problems that the priority
scheme may encounter. If possible, try to persuade local legislatures to adopt
the findings and priorities as a matter of policy. Although this rarely locks the
local government into following the priorities in funding decisions, it may send a
persuasive message to city officials.

Hold Community Forums. In many cities, grassroots organizations such as
neighborhood associations, political clubs, service organizations, and churches
wield substantial political power. They can be of obvious assistance in
persuading political figures to use assessment results in social service
decisionmaking. They can also be invaluable in opening up discussion about
how these problems can be solved.

Developing Solutions

The solution development process will undoubtedly begin even before the
needs assessment process is complete. The problem-solving phase may require
substantial personnel changes in the advisory board and the assessment team,
or an entirely new group. Even if the same people are involved, however, it is
important to separate the two processes. Most jurisdictions have found that it is
easier to get agreement on the problems than the solutions. Without a
consensus about what problems need solving, it is virtually impossible to
develop and gain consensus on a plan for solving them. Fortunately, many
communities have developed and implemented successful solutions to the gang-
and youth-related problems they face. 

Conclusion

"We're starting to get consensus now," claimed Anita Benavides, associate
director of the Austin Project. "We've just completed our third community
meeting, and a lot of the same ideas strike a chord, even in different sections of
the city." After laying the groundwork--setting up the advisory board and
assessment team--the Austin Project identified current activities, tracked social
indicators, and surveyed service providers from throughout the city. A mass
survey of youth and families had just begun, but the outlines of a consensus
were already coming into focus.

----------------------------

"Gangs are a result and a side effect, not a cause of our problems."

----------------------------

The current activities survey showed that a wide variety of services and
programs were available, but it also showed that neither clients nor service
providers were aware of most of them. Social indicators confirmed chronic
unemployment on Austin's East Side but also provided good news: Most job
growth was coming from small, home-grown businesses that were prepared to
hire local youth. Service providers emphasized that youthful offenders had
trouble finding jobs when they returned to the community after incarceration.
Many offenders who were willing to work but unable to find a job returned to
old habits out of desperation.

In response, the city, county, and school district began to develop new
programs and retool old ones. The county probation agency planned to
improve and broaden its transition program for youth offenders. The city
planned to launch a community development bank to offer startup assistance
and capital for small businesses willing to hire local youth. Both governments
were working with the State to develop a multiservice center, offering one-stop
shopping for clients of all health and human services agencies.

This may be far afield from traditional gang prevention, but Benavides thinks it
is the right way to solve the problem. "Gangs are a result and a side effect, not a
cause of our problems," she says. "In Austin, at least, most people are starting
to agree that we need to stop concentrating on the results and start dealing with
the causes."

Chapter 6: Addressing Gang Problems Through Strategic Planning

In urban, suburban, and rural areas nationwide, youth gangs are being
associated with increasingly violent, often random crimes, including homicides
and assaults, as well as drug trafficking and other harmful activities. Although
the presence of gangs has been reported in cities from coast to coast
throughout the Nation's history, current accounts by practitioners, the media,
and some researchers suggest that gangs are now posing more serious crime
problems for communities than ever before (Spergel, 1990; Taylor, 1990;
Conly, 1993).

This chapter is designed to assist communities with emerging or existing gang
problems to plan, develop, and implement comprehensive, harm-specific
responses that include a broad range of community-based components. Much
has already been written about specific gang-prevention and intervention
approaches. This chapter complements existing training and operations manuals
by addressing the strategic planning process that allows these operational tasks
to take place. The process is a problem-solving approach that includes
establishing community coalitions based on common interests and goals and
developing and implementing a step-by-step strategic plan that builds effective
teamwork through cooperation, coordination, and, finally, collaboration. 

This chapter provides a conceptual linkage among variations in gang formation
and membership and outlines steps to building, implementing, and sustaining
practical, productive coalitions for gang prevention and control. Described in
detail is the strategic planning process that facilitates a coalition's setting clear,
realistic goals and objectives and its reaching those goals and objectives within
a specific timeframe. The final section of this chapter discusses specific
strategies and processes that facilitate implementation of the strategic plan,
including selecting appropriate implementation personnel, communication
between the planning team and participating organizations, evaluation of the
strategic plan, developing internal and external communication strategies, team
building, generating ideas, and selecting options. Worksheets included in this
chapter can assist in developing and implementing the strategic plan. 

Using the Definition of Gang To Frame Community Responses 

The diversity in perceptions and definitions of contemporary gang problems
(discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of this monograph), coupled with the widely
varying characteristics of gangs, presents a significant challenge to communities
that are preparing to confront their gang-related problems. How each
community defines gangs is a critical component to its overall response,
influencing the types and extent of resources applied. The success or failure of
communitywide attempts to address gangs is likely to rest in part on the
consensus reached by the community about its specific gang situation and the
best way to address it (Conly, 1993). The definition of the term "community"
must also be considered. Community may be defined geographically, as in a
bounded physical space, or nonspatially, as a collection of social institutions and
sectors that function within a locality, such as an ethnic community (The Circle,
Inc., 1991a). In the context of this discussion on strategic planning for local
gang intervention, "community" is defined as geographic area. 

----------------------------

Only after the coalition reached consensus on the definition of gang did it
develop a plan to include various interest groups, each with a mission and a set
of objectives.

----------------------------

For example, when the Fort Worth, Texas, City Council asked the Citizens
Crime Commission of Tarrant County to develop a plan to address the
increasing youth gang problems, a coalition was formed representing law
enforcement, the judicial system, educators, and service providers to strategize
the plan and to develop consensus on the definition of a gang (upon which the
work of the Commission's Gang Task Force is based). Only after the coalition
reached consensus on the following definition did it develop a plan to include
various interest groups, each with a mission and a set of objectives: "A gang is a
number of individuals banded together as an independent entity who are
recognized by the community as such, and as a result of said affiliation,
participate in illegal activity collectively or individually" (Citizens Crime
Commission of Tarrant County, 1991).

As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of this volume, gangs differ in their
membership, activities, relationships to their communities, social contexts, and
members' reasons for joining. This highly varied, complex nature of gangs,
which ranges from primarily social groups to those heavily involved in criminal
activity, complicates the process of finding effective solutions to harmful gang
activities. Understanding the processes and primary factors in gang formation
and membership, both in general and specific to the targeted community, is a
critical first step to local prevention and intervention efforts. 

Factors in Gang Formation and Membership

In general, young people appear to join gangs for many reasons, such as
the need for positive reinforcement lacking in the home or school, protection, or
prestige. A youth who joins a gang may be motivated by the desire for a
substitute family, a yearning for identity or recognition, a family history of gang
membership, peer pressure, a lack of alternatives, or the desire/need for
money, such as shared profits from drug trafficking and other activities. 

Through interviews with local gang members and youth services providers, the
Citizens Crime Commission of Tarrant County (1991) found that reasons for
gang membership also often included too much unstructured, unsupervised time;
lack of religion, values, or ethics--including work ethics--within the home; lack
of education or lack of success in school; and strength in numbers while
perpetrating a crime. 

Although there are still many unanswered questions about community factors in
gang formation, research suggests that gangs emerge in communities that are
struggling with problems of poverty, racism, and demographic changes; where
residents are excluded from traditional institutions of social support; and where
youth have few prospects for successful participation in conventional
educational and economic activities (Conly, 1993). 

An assessment of the gang problem in 45 cities by the National Youth Gang
Suppression and Intervention Program for the U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) (Spergel,
Chance, and Curry, 1990) found that factors intrinsic to gang membership
included social disorganization or failures of basic local institutions such as
family, schools, and employment; poverty or lack of social opportunities;
racism; particular cultural traditions; opportunities to commit crime; fragmented
policy and programmatic approaches by criminal justice and social services
agencies; and the existence of gangs in the community.

----------------------------

Racism and poverty appear to be particularly potent factors in the development
of drug-involved gang problems in certain African-America communities, while
population movements and cultural traditions may be relatively more important
to the growth of gangs in Hispanic communities.

----------------------------

This study also found that influences contributing to gang membership seem to
differ among specific ethnic and racial groups. For example, racism and poverty
appear to be particularly potent factors in the development of drug-involved
gang problems in certain African-American communities, while population
movements and cultural traditions may be relatively more important to the
growth of gangs in Hispanic communities. Among Chinese and other Asian
communities, certain criminal traditions and social isolation may be significant
factors, and in white communities, personal and family disorganization as well as
the declining strength of local institutions may contribute to the development of
cult and racially oriented gang patterns (Spergel, Chance, and Curry, 1990). 

Centrality of a Comprehensive Problem-Solving Approach

The diversity in gang types and in causes of gang formation and membership
involves a broad range of social, political, family, educational, health, and other
community factors. Such diversity suggests that prevention, intervention, and
suppression activities should be designed to accommodate individual
communities' unique characteristics, needs, gang populations, and specific
gang-related harm. No universal strategy works to address all gang problems. 

This diversity among gangs suggests that gang problems are not the sole
province of the police; no one agency working alone can address the gang
problem effectively. Stopping the cycle of gang involvement and reducing
harmful gang activities requires not only enforcement but also prevention at an
early age and greater community participation (Spergel, Chance, and Curry,
1990; Conly, 1993; California Department of Justice, 1993; National Institute
of Justice, 1993a, 1993b). Suggestions that community groups should
communicate with one another, cooperate in planning and implementing
activities, and coordinate service provisions are being heard with increasing
frequency at local, State, and Federal levels (The Circle, Inc., 1991a). 


The California Department of Justice (1993) reported that, while their police
agencies are reacting to growing gang violence with increased enforcement
tactics, they recognize that this strategy alone will not end the gang problem.
The complexity of today's gangs suggests the need for a comprehensive,
multifaceted effort that targets the reasons youth join gangs. Such an effort may
involve three programmatic approaches:

o Develop strategies to discourage gang membership.

o Provide avenues for youth to drop out of gangs.

o Empower communities to solve problems associated with gangs through
collaboration with law enforcement, parents, schools, youth, businesses,
religious and social service organizations, local government officials, and other
community groups in a comprehensive, systematic approach. 

Nationwide, increasing numbers of communities are involved in coordinated,
systematic approaches to gang problems as they create, implement, and sustain
coalitions of individuals and organizations with common interests and shared
visions that focus on discouraging gang membership and reducing harmful gang
activities. However, community coalitions are often composed of individuals
and organizations representing widely diverse interests, expertise, and racial,
ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, building and implementing an
effective, efficient coalition around gang prevention and control requires detailed
planning and organization. 

----------------------------

Effective coalitions can accomplish through collaboration what single individuals
or organizations cannot.

----------------------------

Building and Sustaining Coalitions

Coalitions are dynamic, single-focused learning and task groups that evolve
from the common purposes and needs of diverse organizations and individuals.
Coalition members recognize that organizations and individuals can be more
productive working together than separately. Coalitions are time limited, task
oriented, and issue focused. Through commitment, compromise, and careful
planning, they may often be capable of effecting great change in their member
organizations and in the communities they serve. Each member's power and
capacity to innovate are enhanced by cooperative effort and the pooling of
resources (The Circle, Inc., 1991b). 

Effective coalitions can:

o Accomplish through collaboration what single individuals or organizations
cannot.

o Prevent duplication of individual or organizational intervention efforts, filling
gaps in such efforts.

o Enhance the power of advocacy and resource development.

o Create more public recognition and visibility for efforts.

o Provide a more systematic, comprehensive approach to the problems.

o Provide more opportunities for new pilot projects (The Circle, Inc., 1991b).

----------------------------

A coalition can prevent duplication of individual or organizational intervention
efforts, filling gaps in such efforts.

----------------------------

Functions of Coalitions

Coalitions on gang prevention and control may focus on one or more of the
following activities and services: 

o Information and Resource Sharing. This type of coalition serves as an
information clearinghouse, gathering and disseminating pertinent information to
its members--thus creating a forum for discussion; developing a base for
planning, education, and advocacy; recognizing group and individual work; and
maximizing use of facilities, staff, and financial resources. Typical activities might
include establishing a resource center, sponsoring conferences or seminars, and
publishing a newsletter.

o Training and Technical Assistance. This type of coalition attempts to effect
positive change among its members by encouraging the sharing of expertise or
bringing in outside experts for training or technical assistance. Such a coalition
may build grantsmanship; provide sensitivity training for its members to
encourage respect for racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity; or provide training in
leadership skills to increase member participation in community gang-prevention
activities. 

o Resource Planning and Coordination. This type of coalition, which is
outwardly rather than inwardly focused, may assess needs for or inadequacies
in services, plan future funding, or enlist more community participation. This
coalition may experience more challenges in organization than other types; thus,
mutually agreed-upon guidelines should be established early regarding issues of
authority and use of funds. 

o Advocacy. This type of coalition provides a unified voice in response to
a specific situation or a general issue. This coalition, which requires a good
communication system and strong leadership, may advocate more resources or
more political clout, lobby on key funding sources, or launch a community
awareness campaign.

o Problem Solving. A problem-solving coalition is involved in effective planning
through identification and delineation of problems to be addressed, desired
outcomes, methods to be used, activities and tasks required, the implementation
timeline, assessment procedures, available resources, and the evaluation design
(The Circle, Inc., 1991b; Join Together, 1993).

Initiating the Coalition-Building Process

Coalitions may be established formally or informally. They generally begin
through meetings and other forms of communication on common problems--or
with one person or group contacting other members of a formal or informal
network to discuss common needs and brainstorm for ideas to address those
needs. For example, in Escondido, California, a broad coalition of parents,
youth, schools, law enforcement officials, former gang members, social
workers, church leaders, city officials, community groups, and professional
agencies launched the Escondido Gang Project to devise and implement a
strategic action plan to address the community's escalating gang problems. This
process began with a series of six town meetings, in English and Spanish, during
which people were asked, What can we do to create a unified and safe
community? (Medrano, 1993). 

----------------------------

The Escondido Gang Project . . . began with a series of six town meetings, in
English and Spanish, during which people were asked, What can we do to
create a unified and safe community?


----------------------------

Tarrant County began its coalition-building process after the police chief
expressed concern to the city council about increasing gang-related problems.
The city council, in turn, approached the Citizens Crime Commission, which
convened the meeting of community organizers (discussed above) who
developed a strategic plan to address the activity and violence associated with
youth gangs (Citizens Crime Commission of Tarrant County, 1991).

A successful coalition to implement a problem-solving, harm-specific approach
to local gang prevention and control requires collaboration by a broad range of
interested community organizations, agencies, and ethnic groups. It is essential
to involve the formal leaders--elected officials, appointed leaders, agency
heads, and ministers--as well as the informal leaders--people who influence
others by their words and actions. Communities should actively involve all
community components that have a potential interest in responding to gang
problems, such as the following:  

o Law enforcement.

o Prosecutors.

o Schools.

o Religious organizations.

o Courts.

o Youth service agencies.

o Youth peer groups.

o Former gang members.

o Elected officials.

o Ethnic and racial organizations.

o Parents.

o Business executives.

o Media.

o Senior citizen and other citizen groups.

o Civic groups.

o Parks and recreation departments.

o Merchants' associations.

Making Coalitions Work

Starting the working relationships that are inherent in a coalition means dealing
with practical realities, defining group roles and individual relationships, and
compromising--yet maintaining each member organization's integrity. Effective
coalitions require a variety of structures and processes that allow for open
communication and discussion of vested interests--the smaller and less formal
the group, the less structure needed. Coalitions also need a decisionmaking
procedure that is conducive to meeting goals--how decisions are made is often
a major cause of members' confusion, frustration, and desire to leave the
coalition (The Circle, Inc., 1991b). 

----------------------------

Any decisions made on . . . important issues should involve representatives
from all participating organizations.

----------------------------

The following have been identified as essential principles of successful
coalitions:

o A Common Sense of Purpose and Common Goals. Two questions should be
asked and answered each time the coalition meets: Who are we? and What do
we want to do? When additional members join, the purpose may need to be
redefined. 

o Joint Decisionmaking. Coalition members may disagree on issues such as
those involving power, turf, consensus, programs, funding/resources, and
structure. Any decisions made on these and other important issues should
involve representatives from all participating organizations. 

o Shared Power and Responsibility. A coalition is the opposite of bureaucracy;
persons who are normally very powerful (for example, the police chief) cannot
maintain their normal level of power as members of the coalition. 

o Trust. Trust, along with vision, keeps the group together to get the job done. 

o Personal Integrity and Flexibility. Members should stick to their principles but
avoid getting locked into their own personal interests.

o Sticking to Goals. If the coalition's goal is to raise $250,000 for a community
center, and the coalition reaches that goal, it is time to move on to other goals
or to dissolve the coalition. 

o Open Communication. Open communication that addresses problems and
conflicts also builds trust and minimizes barriers and factionalism. Participants
should plan to meet regularly and spend sufficient time to develop trust and
open communication. 

o Teamwork. Responsibilities should be shared among members to build
commitment and a sense of accomplishment. Regular, specific, and valuable
responsibilities should be designated on an equal basis. One of the most
positive aspects of a community coalition is that each person or group brings
different skills, interests, and perspectives to the shared vision. While it is not
necessary for each person to work on each project, each person or group
should be informed, feel included, and have a sense of ownership of all
projects. 

o Sound Administration. Administrative and financial arrangements should be
handled during the formation period. A sound recordkeeping system should be
developed that can survive staff and leadership changes and a timeline should
be developed for the coalition so that members will know the time commitments
they are making. 

o Recruitment. New members should be recruited based on commonality of
goals and needs. 

o Orientation. New members should be oriented to the coalition's purposes,
goals, and procedures and be reminded of these parameters frequently. 
 
o Leadership. Coalitions should be structured to allow power to remain with
the members while operational authority is given to a strong leader who is loyal
to the coalition (Gerharz, 1993; The Circle, Inc., 1991a, 1991b; Join Together,
1993).

----------------------------

While it is not necessary for each person to work on each project, each person
or group should be informed, feel included, and have a sense of ownership of
all projects.

----------------------------

Avoiding Pitfalls

Coalitions can be effective brainstorming centers and avenues for tapping
diverse skills for innovative problem solving. However, as with other
organizations, coalitions may have problems that can lead to lack of cohesion,
ineffective actions, or collapse. These potential pitfalls include the following:

o Inadequately defined mission or purpose.

o Lack of leadership and organization.

o Failure to acknowledge individual member needs.

o Conflicting loyalties, vested interests, and fear of domination by one
organization or individual.

o Inadequate funds for implementing goals.

o Unclear or unrealistic expectations about the coalition's roles and
responsibilities or time required to establish and maintain them. 

o Disparity among members' goals, values, histories, and missions. 

o Failure to produce results equal to the time and effort expended.

o A focus on obstacles and current realities rather than on future possibilities.

o Lack of sensitivity to ethnic, racial, or cultural diversity among members,
resulting in barriers to communication.

o Being seen as an outside threat to the community instead of working with the
community.

o Unrealistic goals (taking on too large a project).

o Failure to focus on pragmatic issues and divide the workload into manageable
portions so that short-term as well as long-term goals can be met.

o Insufficient numbers of persons/organizations involved in tasks, resulting in
burnout of workers with no replacements readily available (The Circle, Inc.,
1991b; Join Together, 1993).

The large number of these potential problems demonstrates that building  a
successful coalition requires much more than merely a decision to work
together. At the first stage in the coalition-building process (during the
communication of mutual concerns, goals, and objectives), involved
organizations and individuals must recognize the need for a mechanism to help
clarify their goals and to delineate the steps to achieve them. An effective
strategic plan is such a mechanism. A comprehensive strategic plan can (1)
ensure effective leadership and administration, (2) ensure clarity of purpose, (3)
delineate proposed actions for implementation (steps for reaching the coalition's
goals and objectives), and (4) facilitate compromise while maintaining each
member's integrity, thus ensuring cooperation, coordination, and collaboration
for a comprehensive, problem-solving approach to local gang-related harm.

---------------------------- 

Strategic planning is the process by which an organization's guiding members
envision the organization's future and develop the procedures and operations
necessary to achieve that future.

----------------------------

Strategic Planning

Planning is an art that requires thought, research, organization, patience, and
vision. Effective planning can promote team building, a sense of ownership,
enthusiasm, and an environment that maximizes a coalition's chances for success
(The Circle, Inc., 1991b). 

Strategic planning is a problem-solving process that deals with the future in
terms of strategies, long-term objectives, and integrated programs for
accomplishing these objectives (Below, Morrissey, and Acomb, 1987).
Specifically, strategic planning is the process by which an organization's guiding
members envision the organization's future and develop the procedures and
operations necessary to achieve that future. Strategic planning requires setting
clear goals and objectives and reaching them within a specified timeframe
(Goodstein, Nolan, and Pfeiffer, 1992). The strategic plan addresses critical
issues facing the coalition in the future and is often viewed as planning in the
face of obstacles or competition (Kaufman, 1992). Critical issues are defined
as conditions or difficulties for which there are no agreed-upon responses and
that have significant influence on an organization's functions or ability to achieve
a desired future (Nutt and Backoff, 1992). 

The strategic planning process for developing a comprehensive,
community-based response to local gangs should enhance a coalition's ability to
identify and achieve specific results by integrating information about its external
environment, its internal capabilities, and its overall purpose and direction. The
emphasis of this strategic planning approach is on the process itself, which is
characterized by self-examination, setting direction and priorities, making
difficult choices, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation (Ayres, 1993).

Strategic planning is critical to the coalition's success primarily because it
provides all participants with a framework for action. Strategic planning sets the
coalition's direction by clarifying its purpose and explaining how to assess
strategic situations. It also helps in explaining how to identify and select options,
decide on actions, and motivate participants. Thus, strategic planning can help
law enforcement, community-based social services agencies, schools, citizens'
groups, and other interested community components establish a common
mission and common priorities and minimize parochial perspectives in favor of
broader goals (Ayres, 1993). Strategic planning also helps the coalition
develop, organize, and utilize a better understanding of both the environment in
which it operates and its own capabilities and limitations (Goodstein, Nolan,
and Pfeiffer, 1992). 

----------------------------

Approaches to local gang problems that emphasize sharing resources and
forming community coalitions are based on the premise that no single
organization or individual can prevent the development of gangs or their harmful
activities.

----------------------------

Approaches to local gang problems that emphasize sharing resources and
forming community coalitions are based on the premise that no single
organization or individual can prevent the development of gangs or their harmful
activities. The most effective community efforts use successive levels of
networking--cooperation, coordination, and collaboration--to achieve the
desired goals and objectives. Working toward collaboration requires that all
participants be vested in the project's goals and work continually to create
further opportunities for cooperation, coordination, and finally,
collaboration--all of which begin with clear, open communication.
Collaboration, in turn, can result in enhanced power that is a legitimate tool for
social change (The Circle, Inc., 1991a). 

The words cooperation, coordination, and collaboration are often used
synonymously. However, in the context of forming a community coalition
for local gang intervention, the terms should be distinguished. 

Cooperation refers to the stage at which diverse organizations and individuals
have opened the lines of communication and expressed willingness to work
together, finding and cultivating a common ground and a common mission in
planning their services and identifying or developing appropriate skills to
implement these services. The next step, coordination, entails putting structure
and organization to these cooperative efforts--organizing the coalition's
resources and skills as well as strategies to avoid overlapping efforts and gaps
in services. Collaboration, which may be reached only after the planning and
groundwork phases are completed, is an ongoing process during which the
coalition members work together to provide a comprehensive, systemic
approach to the community's gang problems. Inherent difficulties in reaching
collaboration include issues of turf, competition, and philosophical differences.
A coalition's progress from one level of networking to the next requires
increasing degrees of time, trust, and commitment to the greater community
vision. Strategic planning enables coalition members to develop the procedures
necessary to achieve a shared vision through cooperation, coordination, and
collaboration. These procedures include but are not limited to:

o Developing mechanisms for maintaining positive working relationships and
fostering trust through regular communication, networking, and team building.
This may require technical assistance or training from outside resources because
community coalitions are frequently composed of people of diverse cultures and
ethnicities. Team building as well as training in cultural and ethnic diversity and
conflict resolution may be necessary to facilitate progress toward collaboration.

o Planning for barriers, such as turf issues and denial.

o Developing a means to identify roles and responsibilities formally and clearly.

o Encouraging the consolidation of shared resources to maximize them and
decrease duplication of effort.

o Encouraging the communicating of a shared vision (The Circle, Inc., 1991a).

----------------------------

Team building as well as training in cultural and ethnic diversity and conflict
resolution may be necessary to facilitate progress toward collaboration.

----------------------------

Creating a shared vision and a common framework for action that can harness
all energies and focus them toward common goals is a critical step in moving a
community beyond fragmentation toward an effective, comprehensive approach
to its gang-related problems. 

The primary responsibility for the strategic plan's development and
implementation--deciding the coalition's purpose and future course--rests with
the leaders of the agencies involved and should not be delegated. These leaders
should view the planning process as important and be willing to invest their time
and effort in a way that is visible to all coalition participants (Goodstein, Nolan,
and Pfeiffer, 1992).

Therefore, the first and most critical aspect in formulating a strategic plan for a
problem-solving approach to local gang prevention and control is a commitment
from the leaders of all involved organizations. This commitment must be clearly
communicated to all coalition members early in the process. It is vital to the
coalition's success that all principal participating organizations be identified and
committed to the coalition and the strategic planning process (Ayres, 1993).

With commitment from all participating organization heads, a strategic planning
team should be created. Each participating organization head should identify
and appoint an individual to the strategic planning team who can best represent
the organization's various functions and interests. Thus, the planning team should
include representatives of all participating organizations, such as law
enforcement, schools, parks and recreation departments, religious
organizations, elected officials, and citizens' groups. Additional members of the
strategic planning team may include key interested individuals, such as youth
who may have valuable information about potential obstacles and ways to
overcome them. To produce a viable, comprehensive plan, the planning team's
activities should include developing a mission statement that includes the
coalition's values and purpose; delineating and coordinating the participating
organizations' roles and responsibilities; assigning priority to needs; developing
the strategic plan, including an action plan with timelines; instituting the plan's
implementation; monitoring and assessing progress; and evaluating outcomes
(Ayres, 1993; The Circle, Inc., 1991b). Developing a comprehensive mission
statement to which all coalition members agree can serve as a team-building
process, which establishes a group planning approach that will minimize power
struggles and feelings of disenfranchisement. 

----------------------------

Additional members of the strategic planning team may include key interested
individuals, such as youth who may have valuable information about potential
obstacles and ways to overcome them.

----------------------------

The strategic planning team can also identify sources of funding and resources
to be provided by each participating agency, designate a media relations liaison,
plan internal and external communication strategies, identify community
concerns about the coalition's operations, and garner support and facilitate
open dialogue among all principal participants. These tasks will engender
program "ownership" by all. The planning team should view its role as
empowering and facilitating rather than controlling or directing (The Circle, Inc.,
1991a).

The planning team should be directly accountable to the participating
organizations' leaders and should submit periodic progress reports to them
throughout the planning process, keeping them involved on a continual basis to
assist them in providing direction and making key decisions. Only in this way
can organization heads guide the planning process to ensure the creation of a
coalition and a future course that meets their collective needs. All participants in
the planning process should be reminded that the strategic plan's real purpose is
to serve as a framework for future action by the coalition (Ayres, 1993). 

Before and during the planning process, the strategic planning team should
be vigilant to any changes or developments that may affect the plan. Often
called an "environmental analysis," this effort involves data gathering and
examination of a broad range of issues, including but not limited to relevant
economic trends; social, technological, political, or demographic factors; State
and local statutes and regulations; local school regulations; regulations at
shopping malls or other locations where gang members tend to congregate;
citizens' and merchants' complaints; and participating organizations' individual
and collective strengths and weaknesses.

The environmental analysis identifies trends that are most significant for the
coalition and assesses their likely implications but is not itself a phase of the
strategic planning process. Rather, it is a continual function of the strategic
planning team that provides critical information during all strategic planning
phases (Pfeiffer, Goodstein, and Nolan, 1985; Witham, 1990; Ayres, 1993).
Exhibit 32 is a worksheet that provides a sample format for conducting an
environmental analysis.

Strategic planning consists of five elements:

1. Mission Formulation.

2. Organizational Assessment.

3. Strategic Objectives Development.

4. Action Plan Development.

5. Implementation.

Each element is essential to the plan's successful development and
implementation.

----------------------------

Before defining and articulating the coalition's values, the strategic planning team
members should examine their own values.

----------------------------

Element 1: Mission Formulation

The coalition's mission statement is the starting point for the strategic plan,
from which all other strategic elements flow (Below, Morrissey, and Acomb,
1987). The mission statement should include a statement of philosophy (values
and beliefs) as well as purpose to which all members should agree. Developing
a mission statement that defines the coalition's values and purpose can be a
difficult, time-consuming task. However, it is a critical component of the
strategic planning process, clarifying and charting the coalition's future direction
and facilitating efficient, productive decisionmaking during the strategic plan
implementation (Goodstein, Nolan, and Pfeiffer, 1992).

Clarifying Values. Values are the beliefs that guide the coalition and the
behavior of each individual involved. Typically, an organization's values re
organized and codified into a philosophy of operations, which explains how the
organization approaches its work, how it is managed internally, and how it
relates to its external environment. Organizational values determine what both
individuals and organizations consider to be appropriate and inappropriate
behavior; thus, values influence administrative decisions as well as individual
actions (Ayres, 1993).

The varying interests represented in the coalition necessitate clarification
of the coalition's values--what is appropriate behavior in how members
approach their work and relate to the community. Before defining and
articulating the coalition's values, the strategic planning team members should
examine their own values as well as those of the involved organizations and
individuals, because they will often influence what the team identifies as the
coalition's values. Once the individual values have been worked through, the
values of the coalition and of the program as a whole should be delineated
(Ayres, 1993).

Defining the Coalition's Purpose. In addition to clarifying the coalition's values, a
clear mission statement:

o Defines the coalition's purpose and intent.

o Allows all participating agencies to view themselves as part of a worthwhile
enterprise.

o Enables participants to see how they can improve the community through
their participation in the coalition.

The coalition's success depends to a great extent on the clarity of the program's
purpose and whether it has incorporated all the reasons for its existence,
including the reduction or elimination of harmful gang activities. The worksheet
in Exhibit 33 provides a sample format for developing the coalition's values and
mission statement.

----------------------------

Obtain information on critical issues inside and outside the coalition that might
affect the strategic plan . . . such as funding, government statutes and
regulations, participating agencies' policies and procedures, the economy,
politics, or community acceptance.

----------------------------

Element 2: Organizational Assessment 

An important question facing the strategic planning team is whether the coalition
has the ability to accomplish its mission--to intervene effectively in the
community's gang-related problems by developing and implementing a
comprehensive, harm-specific response. The organizational assessment phase
of the strategic planning approach involves collecting those data that will
indicate the coalition's capabilities. Failure to conduct an accurate, thorough
organizational assessment could result in a false sense of security--a belief that
the coalition is already capable of reaching its goals, when actually it may not
be.

The organizational assessment should involve obtaining information on critical
issues and ranking the coalition's strengths, weaknesses, future opportunities,
and threats. 

Obtaining Information on Critical Issues. The planning team should obtain
information on critical issues inside and outside the coalition that might affect the
strategic plan. A critical issue can be almost any factor, such as funding,
government statutes and regulations, participating agencies' policies and
procedures, the economy, politics, or community acceptance. The planning
team should develop a critical issues agenda and prioritize issues they believe
will have the most impact on the coalition's goals and objectives in the next 3 to
5 years.

Obtaining information on critical issues may include, for example, analyzing the
following types of issues:

o Community interest and support: Is the project recognized as a high priority in
the community, or does it lack public and political support?

o Results of any previous gang intervention attempts: What efforts have already
been made to suppress harmful gang activity, and what were the results? Is the
number of local youth who are joining gangs increasing or decreasing?

Ranking the Organization's Strengths, Weaknesses, Future Opportunities, and
Threats. The planning team should identify and rank the coalition's strengths
(skills, talents, advantages, and resources) that can be utilized in accomplishing
the coalition's mission, and the weaknesses (lack of one or more skills, talents,
advantages, or resources) that the coalition needs to manage or avoid as the
strategic plan is formulated.

Identifying and ranking a coalition's strengths and weaknesses may include, for
example, assessing the following types of internal elements:  

o Resources: Does the coalition have adequate funding, facilities, equipment,
and other resources to be effective in its mission?

o Participant competency/training: What are the participants' competence
levels? Have participants already been trained, or do they need additional
training?

o Cooperation level: Are participants committed to cooperating and spending
the time necessary to build an effective coalition?


o Information level: Does the coalition have an adequate intelligence database,
and can it update the database regularly?

The team should also examine the coalition's future opportunities (situations in
which benefits are fairly clear and likely to be realized if certain actions are
taken) and threats (potentially harmful events and outcomes if action is not
taken in the immediate future), because much of its future may be dictated by
external forces.

----------------------------

Are local schools interested in participating in gang intervention activities
through education and outreach?

----------------------------

The following issues can be examined to identify the coalition's future
opportunities and threats:

o School cooperation and interest: Are local schools interested in participating
in gang intervention activities through education and outreach?

o Gang members' interest: Have local gang members expressed interest in
alternatives to gang membership? 

o Criminal activities: Are citizens being murdered or harmed with increasing
frequency by gang activities such as driveby shootings or assaults?

o Degree of community fear: Are residents taking refuge in their homes, fearful
of walking in their neighborhoods?

The worksheets in Exhibits 34 (Critical Issues Worksheet) and 35 (Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats Worksheet) may assist planners in
conducting an organizational assessment. 

Element 3: Strategic Objectives Development

At this phase in the strategic planning process, the planning team should assess
participants' expectations from the coalition by asking: What do you want the
coalition to accomplish?

How do you measure success or failure? The coalition's diverse interest groups
may have varying expectations; however, it is essential that all participants share
a common vision. All coalition members should be invited to participate in the
development of objectives by exchanging ideas and setting priorities. 

As the strategic planning team conceptualizes the coalition's future with input
from all participants, it should identify specific means of measuring both success
and failure in reaching that future. These measures, referred to as strategic
objectives, are specific areas in which the coalition must be successful in order
to accomplish its vision (Hines, 1991). These measures will also help guide the
program's evaluation. Examples of strategic objectives may be the reduction or
elimination of specific gang-related harm in the community, or decreased levels
of fear among neighborhood residents, merchants, or senior citizens. 

----------------------------

Examples of strategic objectives may be the reduction or elimination of specific
gang-related harm in the community, or decreased levels of fear among
neighborhood residents, merchants, or senior citizens.

----------------------------

As in the mission formulation phase, the development of objectives can serve an
important team-building function by ensuring that everyone contributes ideas
and assists in prioritizing needs, defining goals, and deciding on methods. To
assist in formulating strategic objectives, a community needs assessment should
be conducted to determine citizens' understanding of issues; to identify and
prioritize precise gang-related harm, current activities, and resources (as well as
gaps in these resources); and to gather data necessary for future development
and planning (The Circle, Inc., 1991a) (Also, see Chapter 5 for a full discussion
of needs assessments for gang problems). The more details that are obtained
about the community's gang-related problems, the more specific the strategic
objectives and overall response can be. The types of questions in the
community needs assessment may include the following:

o Do gangs exist in our community? 

o How do we know they exist?

o How long have these gangs been in operation?

o Approximately how many youth are involved in these gangs?

o How are youth recruited into these gangs?

o What behaviors do these gangs engage in?

o What specific harm do these behaviors cause?

--Is someone being injured?

--Is something being stolen? If so, what?

--Is property being damaged?

o Could serious social or economic costs result from these behaviors?

o Who carries out these behaviors?

o What efforts, if any, have already been made to control gang membership or
harmful activities?

o Are specific individuals, businesses, or community groups complaining about
gang activities? If so, what specific behaviors or activities are they reporting?

o Are these behaviors being carried out at certain times and places? (Stedman,
1993)

The details obtained through the needs assessment can provide valuable
baseline data and should also serve as the initial phase of an ongoing evaluation.

After identifying strategic objectives, the planning team should compare the
objectives with information gathered about the critical issues as well as the
coalition's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. If substantial
discrepancies exist between the coalition's strategic objectives and the potential
to achieve them, the planning team should reevaluate the objectives and rework
the plan until the gap is minimized. For example, an objective to eliminate all
gang-related activity within a certain geographic area over a 3-month period
may be unreasonable and impossible to achieve. Assessing the critical issues
and the coalition's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats will enable
the planning team to set a more realistic objective, such as reducing the number
of specific gang-related activities or incidents in that area by a certain
percentage over a given timeframe. 

The team should also attempt to develop concrete actions to manage the
critical issues by building on strengths, overcoming weaknesses, exploiting
opportunities and blocking threats (Nutt and Backoff, 1992). The worksheets
in Exhibits 36 (Strategic Objectives Issues Worksheet), 37 (Strategic
Objectives Successes Worksheet), and 38 (Strategic Objectives Failures
Worksheet) provide sample formats for developing strategic objectives.

Element 4: Action Plan Development

After the strategic objectives have been established (with defined target dates)
and tested against the critical issues and the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats defined, the planning team should identify ways in
which the coalition might achieve these objectives. This procedure should
include identifying the various routes by which each objective may be met,
analyzing the costs and benefits of each, and selecting the different strategies
that are most likely to achieve the objectives.

Each of the coalition's participating organizations should participate in the action
planning phase by submitting to the planning team its ideas or plans for
achieving the strategic objectives, along with a timetable for execution. The
strategic planning team should check these various plans against the coalition's
mission statement to determine whether the proposed actions and directions are
consistent with the stated values and mission. Through  each organization's
representative on the strategic planning team, each plan should also be
understood and agreed to by each of the participant organizations before it is
incorporated into the overall plan (Ayres, 1993). 

The planning team should next identify any gaps among the combined plans,
determine how they can be minimized, and forecast what impact, if any, the
gaps might have on the strategic plan's successful execution.

Action plans for a harm-specific response to local gangs will vary according to
the nature of a community's problems, needs, targeted audiences, and finally,
the identified strategic objectives. For example, the Community Reclamation
Project, which targeted the Harbor area of Los Angeles County, had as a goal
the development of a continuing, culturally specific program integrating child,
parent, and teacher training to prevent youth involvement in drug abuse and
gang activity. The objectives for this goal were met by planning and
implementing a number of activities, including a school program that brought
teachers and pupils together in a violence prevention curriculum, a second
school program that helped at-risk youth acquire adult life skills, and a culturally
specific parental competence and personal growth program. The Community
Reclamation Project was originally funded by the U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services Office for Substance Abuse
Prevention. The project was later funded with a grant from Los Angeles
County's Fourth Supervisory District (Community Reclamation Project, 1990).

----------------------------

The Escondido Gang Project . . . had as its goal not preventing or eliminating
gangs, but rather, making gang members feel more a part of the community to
diminish the need for violence and drug-related activity.

----------------------------

The Escondido Gang Project demonstrates how community responses or
action plans are tailored to identified strategic objectives. This project had as its
goal not preventing or eliminating gangs, but rather, making gang members feel
more a part of the community to diminish the need for violence and drug-related
activity. During an all-day, communitywide meeting to create a strategic plan of
action, a vision for the future of Escondido youth was spelled out and three
objectives were identified: (1) building awareness through communication and
action, (2) breaking through the barriers, and (3) activating the community. 

Specific actions were planned for each of these objectives, with three task
forces designated to assume responsibility for implementing each area of
activity. Among the activities planned and implemented were city council
meetings at neighborhood levels; meetings among gang members' parents;
meetings among parents of Hispanic school dropouts to collaborate on helping
their children; formation of a "culture club," with youth members addressing
cultural diversity problems and volunteering their time in community service;
development of a boxing club that also helped youth to read and write;
formation of a property owner/manager/renter association; and development of
a video by community residents, targeting children and youth 10 to 19 years
old, to encourage self-esteem and social responsibility through one's own
accomplishments (Burbidge, 1993).

A coalition may select action plans that include particular methods for
identifying current and potential gang members, facilitating conflict resolution
among gangs or working toward graffiti abatement. Action plans for
encouraging collaboration as well as for identifying gaps in services might
include conducting a community resources assessment and publishing a manual
that describes all organizations and contact people who may participate in or
facilitate an effective approach to local gang-related harm. The worksheet in
Exhibit 39 may be used to assist in developing action plans. 

----------------------------

It is now important for the organization heads to become visibly involved in the
plan's implementation, publicly committing to it and demonstrating this
commitment by dedicating the necessary resources and designating the
appropriate personnel to ensure its success.

----------------------------

Element 5: Implementation

At its implementation phase, the strategic plan is delivered to participating
organization heads for implementation. The true test of the plan's efficacy is
whether these participants apply it to their decisionmaking. 

At this point in the strategic planning process, the planning team has worked
closely with the various participating organization heads and obtained their input
and direction in formulating the coalition's mission. It is now important for the
organization heads to become visibly involved in the plan's implementation,
publicly committing to it and demonstrating this commitment by dedicating the
necessary resources and designating the appropriate personnel to ensure its
success (Ayres, 1993).

In addition to the participating agency heads' commitment, successful
implementation of the strategic plan requires the collaborative efforts of a broad
range of agencies, organizations, and individuals to ensure: 

o Selection of appropriate implementation personnel.

o Communication between the planning team and the participating organization
heads.

o Continuing strategic plan evaluation by the planning team.

o Development and implementation of comprehensive internal and external
communication strategies.


o Team building. 

o Generation of ideas and selection of options.

Each participating organization head should designate a person to carry out the
organization's roles and responsibilities in implementing the identified action
plans. The person selected to implement the plans should be:

o An action-oriented decisionmaker who has leadership and networking skills
and the ability to gain the local support needed to launch and sustain the
planned activities. 

o A person who commands the respect of staff and managers and is
knowledgeable about the local gang issues and the community's resources.

o A strong communicator who can articulate the program's incentives, goals,
objectives, and mission; communicate the necessary operational changes to
ensure the program's success; and deliver briefings to the organization's
managers and staff as well as to all principal program participants and other
community components. 

o A person who can identify and evaluate existing and emerging resources that
may be of value to the program.

o A risk taker who is willing to assume a leadership role in addressing
controversial issues.

o A problem solver who can identify barriers to program implementation and
the means to overcome them.

o A coalition builder who can work and negotiate effectively among
participating agencies' conflicting interests, bringing them together toward a
common goal.

It is likely that the most appropriate person to implement each organization's
action plan is the organization's representative on the strategic planning team,
who has already demonstrated commitment to the plan and the relevant
strengths. 

During the strategic plan's implementation phase, communication is needed
between the planning team and the participating organization heads. The
planning team should make periodic reports to these managers about the
coalition's overall progress as well as any developments affecting the group's
ability to achieve the desired goals. 

----------------------------

It is likely that the most appropriate person to implement each organization's
action plan is the organization's representative on the strategic planning team.

----------------------------

Strategic Plan Evaluation

The evaluation step in program development and implementation should not be
overlooked. Program planners need to know how well the overall plan is
working and how to improve it. The strategic planning team should conduct
evaluations of the strategic plan during implementation and make any necessary
changes to ensure the objectives are being met and the coalition's mission is
being accomplished (Ayres, 1993). The team should also document the
program's impact and identify barriers to its overall functioning, as well as
methods to overcome those barriers. The following questions may be
appropriate for a strategic plan and programmatic evaluation:

o What is being accomplished by each strategic action?

o What is success? Specifically, what will the community be like when the
strategic plan is implemented effectively?

o What are the indicators that the strategic plan is moving in the desired
direction?

o What specific attitudes and behaviors will change, and how, as a result of the
strategic plan? (The Circle, Inc., 1991a).

(See Chapter 8 for a full discussion of evaluating anti-gang efforts.)

Internal and External Communication Strategies

A well-designed and well-executed communication strategy, targeting both the
participating organizations and the community at large, can help ensure
successful strategic plan implementation. As with any new program or effort, a
community coalition on gang prevention and control needs to make the
residents it serves aware of its existence. Therefore, communication should be
viewed as a proactive part of the program, rather than as a series of reactive
responses. 

----------------------------

Communication should be viewed as a proactive part of the program, rather
than as a series of reactive responses.

----------------------------


The communication strategy should address the development and delivery of
messages concerning the coalition's goals, objectives, and activities, and it
should delineate the content and timing of these messages, the appropriate
people to implement them, and the target audiences.

The coalition's name, goals, and objectives should be publicized as quickly
as possible to help the group establish and sustain a positive reputation in the
community. These efforts may require skill building in public and media relations
and in the development and dissemination of such tools as newsletters, press
releases, and public service announcements. It is also important that all
participants be well versed on the coalition's goals and activities to ensure
accurate representation at public functions as well as with individual community
members.

The internal communication strategy should include developing a series of
training sessions for personnel involved in implementing the action plans. The
external communication strategy should help to ensure community education
and awareness of both the coalition's activities and the gang-related harm being
targeted. Programs should be designed to acquaint the general public with
warning signs of gang activity and steps that citizens should take if they observe
such activity.

A media liaison should be selected who will clarify program goals and activities
and ensure that the local press receives up-to-date, accurate information.
Strong, positive relationships with the local media can substantially improve a
local coalition's probability of success.

Importance of Diverse Strategies for Community Identity

The communication strategies used by the Community Reclamation Project in
Los Angeles County exemplify the range of activities that may be implemented
to create a "community identity"--to make the community aware of a program's
existence and its specific goals and objectives.


These activities included a reception, where the project was introduced to
community and regional leaders; a community newsletter, which presented
information on project strategies and served as a useful tool at community
forums; meetings with directors of community-based organizations and religious
leaders; staff presentations at service club and other organizational meetings
(e.g., Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions Club, the Chamber of Commerce, and
neighborhood/homeowner associations); dissemination of press releases and
other fact sheets to newspaper editors and reporters who cover community
events; public service announcements for radio and television; and a video,
"Gangs--A Matter of Choice" (Community Reclamation Project, 1990). The
worksheet in Exhibit 40 may be used to assist in determining the nature of the
communication, the messages to be disseminated, the intended audiences, and
the methods of communication. The worksheet in Exhibit 41 provides a
suggested format for developing a training plan.

----------------------------

An experienced outside facilitator may need to help coalition members examine
their own attitudes and personal philosophies and look for commonalities that
can serve as a basis for collaboration.

----------------------------

Team Building

Team building, which should begin with the creation of the strategic planning
team and continue throughout the implementation phase, involves the "deliberate
working through of all barriers to progress until a working group becomes an
effective team" (Francis and Young, 1979). Team building serves as a catalyst
for the participating organizations' effective interaction and interdependence that
is critical to the coalition's success. Thus, for members of a diverse group to
work well together, time devoted to team building is crucial. The result of
productive team building is effective teamwork, with responsibilities distributed
among members to build commitment and a sense of accomplishment during the
strategic plan's implementation. 

Effective team building requires that all groups participate in developing the
mission statement; that all participants be given specified, meaningful, and
fulfilling roles and responsibilities; that the potential mutual rewards of their
efforts be delineated; that there be sensitivity to intragroup differences; and that
open communication be maintained. 

Team building promises much, but it also makes demands on each participant.
Team building (often coupled with training in cultural and ethnic diversity and
conflict resolution) takes on increasing importance for community coalitions
comprising various cultural and ethnic groups. 

Assistance From an Outside Facilitator 

An experienced outside facilitator may need to help coalition members examine
their own attitudes and personal philosophies and look for commonalities that
can serve as a basis for collaboration. Experienced facilitators may be available
through local colleges and universities as well as through professional
management consulting firms that specialize in organizational training--in
particular, training in team building that incorporates sensitivity and cultural
diversity awareness. The local chamber of commerce may also be able to
provide names of experienced facilitators. 

In addition to working out any personal differences, coalition members
must find strengths on which to build, and they must balance commitments to
the coalition against the demands of their everyday jobs. Dealing with internal
group needs that arise from these pressures is as important as the group's
external task of developing a comprehensive, viable strategic plan. Even teams
that grasp the importance of their planning task often underestimate the need for
developing themselves as teams. When a team runs smoothly, members can
concentrate on the primary goal. In contrast, a team that fails to build
relationships among its members will waste time on struggles for control and
endless discussions that lead nowhere (Scholtes, 1988). 

----------------------------

All who participate in team building must be prepared to open their minds to
new ideas and experiences.

----------------------------

Taking Time To Build the Team

All who participate in team building must be prepared to open their minds
to new ideas and experiences. Only through each team member's willingness to
work through old issues and build new relationships will the team approach
work effectively. Team building requires working through several stages and
allowing adequate time for completion of each and finding answers to questions
that arise. Relevant questions include but are not limited to the following
identified by Francis and Young (1979):


o What are we here to do?

o How shall we organize ourselves?

o Who is in charge?

o Who cares about our success?

o How do we work through problems?

o How do we fit in with other groups?

o What benefits do team members need from the team?

To build the group skills needed to achieve its goals, the team must start
by understanding what lies behind most troubles--namely, the hidden concerns
that, like undercurrents, pull team members away from their stated task. Such
concerns include anxiety about being on the team, loyalty to their own
organizations, and nervous anticipation about the team's success. If left
unattended, these undercurrents can inhibit a group's chances of becoming an
effective team. Scholtes (1988) contended that members of each group must
therefore spend time on activities not directly related to the task at
hand--activities that build understanding and support in the group and help to
resolve issues related to the following:

o Personal Identity in the Team. The most common worries are those
associated with membership and inclusion (Do I feel like an insider or outsider?
Do I belong? Do I want to belong? What can I do to fit in?); influence, control,
and mutual trust (Who's calling the shots here? Who will have the most
influence? Will I have influence? Will I be listened to? Will I be able or allowed
to contribute?); and getting along and mutual loyalty (How will I get along with
other team members? Will we be able to develop any cooperative spirit?).

o Relationships Among Team Members. How will members of different
ranks interact? Will we be friendly and informal or will it be strictly business?
Will we be guarded in what we say? Will we argue and disagree all the time, or
will we be able to work together? Will people like or dislike me?

o Identity With the Organization. Team members usually identify strongly
with their own organizations, and they will need to know how membership
in the team will affect their normal organizational roles and responsibilities. Will
my loyalty to the team conflict with my loyalty to my own job and coworkers?
Will my responsibilities as a team member conflict with my everyday duties? 

----------------------------

The team should look for ways to use each member's strengths.

----------------------------

Just as the team members must maintain ties with their own organizations, the
team as a whole must build relationships with all participating organizations.
Finding influential people to champion the team and its goals can make a big
difference in the support the team receives from participating organizations.

Initial Team-Building Goals

Scholtes (1988) suggested that teams work toward the following goals during
their first few meetings:

o Getting To Know Each Other. Team members should take time to learn
each other's backgrounds and skills, discover each other's preferences, and
find out how each learns and works best. The team will be most effective when
members can compliment each other without embarrassment and disagree
without fear; however, this may not be accomplished in the first few meetings. 

o Learning To Work as a Team. The team should look for ways to use each
member's strengths. 

o Working Out Decisionmaking Issues. Too often, decisions just "happen"
in a team; members go along with what they think the group wants. Teams
should discuss how they will make decisions, particularly when diversity of
expertise and responsibility are represented. Major decisions belong to the
entire team, and all members should approve decisions that affect the team's
direction.

o Determining Support Services. Access to typing and copying services and
meeting supplies should be determined.

o Setting Meeting Ground Rules. These rules, which usually prevent
misunderstandings and disagreements, should apply to how meetings will be
run, how team members will interact, and what kind of behavior is accepted.

----------------------------

The normal stages of team growth . . . include forming, storming, norming, and
performing.

----------------------------

Stages of Team Growth

As a team matures, members gradually learn to cope with the emotional and
group pressures they face. Scholtes (1988) describes the normal stages of team
growth as follows:

o Stage 1: Forming. At this stage of transition from individual to member status,
members attempt to define the team's task and decide how it will be
accomplished, attempt to determine acceptable group behavior and how to
deal with group problems, discuss symptoms or problems not relevant to the
task, have difficulty in identifying relevant problems, and complain about the
coalition and barriers to the task.

o Stage 2: Storming. This is the most difficult stage for team members as
they begin to realize the task is more difficult than they had imagined. They may
become testy or overzealous, blaming others. Impatient about the lack of
progress, but still too inexperienced to know much about decisionmaking,
members argue about the actions the team should take. They feel resistance to
the task; argue even when they agree on the real issue; establish unrealistic
goals; develop a perceived "pecking order," disunity, increased tension, and
jealousy; and try to rely solely on their personal and professional experience,
resisting any collaboration with other team members.

o Stage 3: Norming. Members reconcile competing loyalties and
responsibilities. They accept the team ground rules or norms, their roles on the
team, and the individuality of fellow members. Emotional conflict is reduced as
previously competitive relationships become more cooperative. Members
develop a new ability to express criticism constructively; attempt to achieve
harmony by avoiding conflict; become friendlier, confiding in each other and
sharing personal problems; and develop a sense of team cohesion. As they
begin to work out their differences, they have more time and energy to spend
on team goals.

o Stage 4: Performing. The team members have settled their relationships
and expectations; they have discovered and accepted each other's strengths
and weaknesses, and learned their own roles. They can now begin
performing--diagnosing and solving problems. The team is now an effective,
cohesive unit. It is apparent when a team has reached this stage because it
starts getting a lot of work done. 

The duration and intensity of these stages vary from team to team.
Occasionally, Stage 4 is achieved in a meeting or two; in other cases it may
take months. Understanding these stages of growth will keep the strategic
planning team members from overreacting to normal problems and setting
unrealistic expectations that only add to frustration. Exhibit 42 provides a
worksheet for planning a team-building strategy.

Generating Ideas and Selecting Options

Formal and informal tools exist to help teams generate and explore ideas
and options and make decisions--that is, to reach consensus. Among the
more structured tools are brainstorming, multivoting, and nominal group
technique, which are discussed in the following paragraphs. Scholtes (1988)
describes these tools as among the most helpful methods of exploring ideas and
making decisions from among all the possibilities generated. Other, less formal
methods also exist; a team may explore them as members become more
relaxed with each other.

----------------------------

A successful brainstorm lets people be as creative as possible, does not restrict
their ideas in any way, equalizes involvement, and can generate excitement in
the group.

----------------------------

Brainstorming. Before team members can make decisions, they need to
examine as broad a range of options as possible. One of the easiest ways to
generate a list of ideas is to brainstorm. The objective of brainstorming
sessions is to collect ideas from all participants without criticism or judgment. A
successful brainstorm lets people be as creative as possible, does not restrict
their ideas in any way, equalizes involvement, and can generate excitement in
the group.

During a brainstorming session, everyone should be encouraged to offer all
ideas, even if they seem silly at the time. There should be no discussion (that will
come later); no judgment (no one is allowed to criticize another's ideas); people
should be allowed to "hitchhike"--build on other ideas generated; and all ideas
should be written on a flip chart so the whole group can easily study them
(Scholtes, 1988).

Multivoting. Multivoting, which often follows a brainstorming session, is a way
to conduct a straw poll or vote to select the most important or popular items
from a list, usually the one created during the brainstorming. This is
accomplished through a series of votes, each cutting the list in half, so that even
a list of 30 to 50 items can be reduced to a workable number in 4 or 5 votes. A
multivote is conducted in the following manner: A list of numbered items is
generated. Similar items are combined, if the group agrees that they are the
same, and all items are renumbered, if necessary. All members select and
silently write down the numbers of the items they want to discuss, with each
person allowed to choose at least one-third of the total number of items. Votes
are tallied, and items with the fewest votes are eliminated (Scholtes, 1988).

Nominal Group Technique. The nominal group technique (NGT) is a more
structured approach than either brainstorming or multivoting for generating a list
of options and then narrowing down these options. This technique is called
nominal because during the session the group does not engage in the usual
amount of interaction typical of a real team. NGT is an effective tool when all or
some group members are new to each other. NGT is also effective for highly
controversial issues or when a team is in disagreement. NGT is summarized as
follows:

o Generating Ideas

--The task is defined in the form of a question (often before the team meeting),
as would be done for brainstorming.

--At the meeting, the question is read aloud and written on a chalkboard or
flip chart or on handouts for participants.

--Team members generate ideas (this is the most important step), writing down
their answers in silence with no distractions.

--Moving round-robin, each person reads one idea on his or her list. All are
written on a flip chart and this process is continued until all ideas are presented
or until time runs out (30 minutes is suggested). No discussion is allowed.

--The team clarifies and discusses the ideas, condensing the list as much as
possible.

----------------------------

The list of options can be reduced to 50 or fewer items by using one or two
rounds of multivoting or encouraging members to withdraw the items about
which they feel the least serious.

----------------------------

o Making the Selection. This part of NGT is much like multivoting, but more
formal. This is useful for narrowing the list of options and selecting the team's
preferred choice or choices.


--The list should be reduced to 50 or fewer items. This can be accomplished by
using one or two rounds of multivoting or encouraging members to withdraw
the items about which they feel the least serious. No member is allowed to
remove an item that originated with another member, unless the originator
agrees.

--Each participant receives 4 to 8 cards, depending on the number of items
still on the list (4 cards apiece for up to 20 items, 6 cards for 20 to 35 items, 8
cards for 35 to 50 items).

--Members individually make their selections from the list, writing down one
item per card.

--Members assign a point value to each item based on their preferences. The
value depends on the number of items selected (four, six, or eight).

--Cards are collected and the votes tallied. It is easiest to mark the flip chart
page with the original list, noting the value of each vote an item has received,
then adding up these values. The item that receives the highest point total is the
group's selection.

--The group reviews the results and discusses the reaction. If there are
surprises or objections, team members may wish to lobby for or against certain
items and ask for another vote. If members agree on the importance of the
highest scoring item, the NGT can end the discussion, and the team decides the
next step. If members do not agree, the team can focus its efforts on
investigating two or three other items that have received high scores (Scholtes,
1988).

Conclusion

As growing numbers of urban, suburban, and rural communities nationwide
experience emerging or accelerating gang problems, they are placing increasing
emphasis on the formation of broad-based, local coalitions to address the
complex issues presented by these problems. These coalitions are composed of
individuals and organizations with common interests and shared visions that
focus on discouraging gang membership and reducing harmful gang activities.

Often involving law enforcement, parents, schools, youth, businesses, religious
and social service organizations, local government officials, and other interested
groups, coalitions represent widely diverse experiences, expertise, and ethnic
and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, building and implementing an effective,
efficient coalition around gang prevention and control involve more than merely
a decision to work together. Such efforts require detailed planning and
organization to facilitate successive levels of networking--cooperation,
coordination and, finally, collaboration. 

To ensure productive planning and organization and thus increase its chances
for success in initiating and moving through these levels of networking, a
coalition should be guided by a comprehensive strategic plan. A strategic plan
provides a framework and a catalyst for action for all participants and sets the
coalition's direction by clarifying its purpose and identifying specific actions to
achieve this purpose. Through the process of strategic planning, the coalition's
members envision the future and develop the procedures necessary to achieve
the vision through cooperation, coordination, and collaboration.

----------------------------

III. Responding to Local Gang Problems

Chapter 7: Civil Remedies for Gang-Related Harm

What worries neighborhoods most about street gangs? Driveby shootings,
robberies, and drug dealing probably top the list. These crimes endanger
everybody. Even children at play or babies in cribs can be killed by bullets
sprayed from a passing car. People with little money can be robbed and
beaten, sometimes beaten worse because they have too little money. Open
drug markets can bring crime and violence into a neighborhood. 

Because driveby shootings, robberies, and drug dealing are crimes, it is natural
to think first of criminal law enforcement solutions to the problems that street
gangs present. But there are several other legal actions that communities can
take against street gangs--either through their local governments or as private
citizens, groups, or individuals.  

For good reasons, especially to maintain civil order, the State has monopolized
enforcement of criminal law. That monopoly has caused people to forget that
virtually every crime is also a tort--that is, a civil wrong against people,
businesses, or the community for which the perpetrator is civilly liable in
damages, subject to court injunction, or both. 

Gang activity in a community is also likely to violate several civil ordinances,
and gang members can be held responsible for the harm they create by these
violations. Furthermore, civil remedies can reach other people who make it
easier for gangs to operate by their failure to comply with local ordinances or
commercial regulations. 

This chapter describes several alternatives to criminal law enforcement and
makes suggestions about private actions that individuals or groups can take.

----------------------------

Gang activity in a community is likely to violate several civil ordinances, and
gang members can be held responsible for the harm they create by these
violations.

----------------------------

Analytical Models

This monograph strongly advocates concentration on gang-related harm and
small wins. Arguments may rage over why street gangs exist and how to
eliminate them in the long run. But in the short run, there are many ways to
reduce specific problems caused by street gangs if communities are willing to
work for and accept small wins rather than seek a silver-bullet, 
once-and-for-all solution to street-gang problems. 

This chapter uses two analytical models--the gang-problem triangle and a
problem-solving model (discussed in the Introduction of this monograph)--to
address street-gang problems. Analysis is simply breaking a problem down into
its parts. An analytical model works by making relationships among parts of the
real world easier to see and understand. 

A model is a simplified representation of reality, not reality itself. People look at
a map to see where they are going, but they cannot walk or drive on the map;
they must use the ground or the street. Furthermore, they cannot reshape the
world to fit these models. In short, models can be useful in understanding
problems but should not be used beyond their limits.

Gang-Problem Triangle


The gang-problem triangle is an analytical model used to understand the nature
of gang-related problems. The triangle separates any gang problem into three
components (see Exhibit 43): (1) the offender who causes the harm, (2) the
victim who is harmed, and (3) the place where the harm occurs. The model
proposes that removing one of the elements of the triangle--the offender, victim,
or place--can disrupt the cycle and prevent future harm. Reducing gang-related
harm involves identifying the elements that are easiest to remove and taking
action to remove them.

Law enforcement usually concentrates on gang members--the "offender" side of
the gang-problem triangle. This chapter concentrates on the places where gangs
inflict harm on the community and on third parties--controllers, guardians, and
managers--who are responsible for managing and maintaining these places.
Two things can be achieved by concentrating on problem places. Particular
places can be changed so that gang members no longer see them as good
places for gang activities. And actions can be taken to keep gang members and
potential victims from being together at particular places at times when the
victims are especially vulnerable.

While there is no focus on the "victim" side of the triangle as such, victims can
use the civil remedies discussed here to reduce their chances of being victimized
by changing the characteristics of the places where they come into contact with
gang members.

Problem-Solving Model

The second analytical model, shown in Exhibit 44, is a problem-solving model
called SARA, an acronym for the four steps involved in the process--scanning,
analysis, response, and assessment.

Scanning asks what gang activities are repeatedly causing harm in the
community. Some, but not all, harm inflicted by gangs is criminal. Some other
kinds of harm violate local ordinances. Still other kinds violate the personal and
property rights of neighborhood residents. Finally, some types of harm, while
not illegal, diminish the quality of life in the neighborhood. For the most part, this
chapter bypasses serious criminal offenses--felonies such as murder, rape, and
burglary and misdemeanors such as simple assault, criminal mischief, and
harassment. Instead, the chapter focuses on code and ordinance violations and
civil torts, which are not discussed as frequently. Exhibit 45 illustrates types of
harm that gangs can cause.

The second step of the problem-solving model is analysis, breaking the problem
into parts. The gang-problem triangle is a useful analytical tool in identifying the
elements--the offenders, victims, and places--that are present when
gang-related harm occurs. The problem-solving model also requires that
responsible third parties--controllers, guardians, and managers--be identified
and their roles analyzed. 

Having identified and analyzed the types of harm, the community must then
formulate a response to them. This chapter presents several responses outside
direct criminal prosecution of gang members. It proposes nuisance abatement,
code enforcement, and license revocations to protect public and private rights.

The final stage of the problem-solving process assesses the effectiveness
of the response. The assessment can be used to change the response, improve
the analysis, or even redefine the problem. 

Problem Places

Where do gangs inflict their harm on the community? The places in a community
can be separated into broad categories, which are then subdivided into more
narrowly defined categories, according to the groupings that will improve the
identification of, analysis of, and response to problems. Exhibit 46 is a
comprehensive list of places by type. Local communities can use it as a
checklist to identify (1) what kind of problem places they have and (2) what
people and agencies are most likely to be involved in solving gang-related
problems. 

Exhibit 46 is set up according to the gang-problem triangle. For every place,
boxes are provided to identify the offenders and controllers, the victims and
their guardians, the managers responsible for the site, and the regulatory agency
responsible for law or code enforcement at the site. A regulatory agency may
be the local police department, the liquor control board, the health department,
or the parks and recreation department--any local or State agency with
regulatory power over something that is done at the site. The broad categories
of sites in Exhibit 46 are fairly obvious:

o Residential.

o Commercial.

o Recreational.

o Public.

o Transitional.

There is some overlap among these broad categories, but the distinctions
among categories help to identify people who may be responsible for places
particularly vulnerable to gang-inflicted harm.

Residential Sites

Residences are at greatest risk of becoming problem properties under the
following circumstances:

o Gang members live there. The presence of gang members creates problems
no matter what the condition of the property is.

o The property has deteriorated to the point where restoring it and maintaining
it are beyond the owner's financial means.

o Residents have little stake or interest in maintaining the property because:

--They do not own it.

--They are transients and will not stay long.

--They can afford to live on the property only because of its bad condition.

o The cost of restoring the property exceeds the economic benefit of restoring
it.

o Neighborhood conditions are such that:

--Deterioration of any given property is not seen as a problem.

--Rehabilitation of a property will not attract better clientele.

Commercial Sites

Commercial sites most at risk are those where people congregate for
substantial periods of time--taverns, restaurants, bowling alleys, pool halls,
amusement arcades, and parks. Some service facilities such as laundromats,
barber shops, and garages require that people wait around for service to be
finished. Other commercial sites can become gang hangouts if the managers
allow it. Gangs may find parking lots to be suitable gathering places, regardless
of the type of establishment. 


----------------------------

Guardians and managers of public recreational areas often are not visible or
may not have adequate tools to deal with gang problems.

----------------------------

Recreational Areas

Public recreational areas such as baseball fields, tennis and basketball courts,
and parks are prime hangouts for street gangs. As others do, gang members
have a right to enjoy these areas. Problems begin when gang members do harm
in public areas, particularly when they claim public areas as their turf. Other
users of these public places may feel intimidated or threatened by the presence
and activities of gang members. Guardians and managers of public recreational
areas often are not visible or may not have adequate tools to deal with gang
problems. 

Private recreational areas can also provide gathering places for gang members,
if they are willing to pay for membership. Managers of these private areas,
although interested in attracting paying customers, may risk losing control of
their areas if they allow gang members to join.

Public Places

Public facilities usually have visible controllers, guardians, and managers and are
thus less likely to be the site of gang problems. For example, tight security in
public places such as courthouses and police stations make them less inviting to
gang members. However, schools tend to be vulnerable to gangs since gang
members have the right to be in school as students. As public schools relate to
the gang-problem triangle, school administrators and teachers are responsible
as controllers and guardians of student offenders and as managers of the
school.

Transitional Places

Transitional places are places through which people and vehicles move on
their way to somewhere else. Streets and sidewalks that ease vehicular and
pedestrian traffic are also sites of harmful gang activities such as driveby
shootings and open-air drug dealing. The type and layout of streets may also
help gang members evade police.  

Transitional places are difficult to control and maintain because they are open to
everyone for lawful movement from one place to another and are protected by
few controllers, guardians, or managers. Although vehicular traffic is regulated
by State law and city ordinances, traffic lights, street signs, and pavement
markings, pedestrian traffic is hardly regulated. 

Responsible People

When a problem place is identified, the person or people responsible for the
place can also be identified. When these people are identified, the tactics most
likely to make them act to reduce or eliminate the gang-related harm can be
decided.

----------------------------

The most difficult problems arise when the offending gang members are the
owners' relatives and can either cajole or intimidate the owners to keep them
from taking effective action.

----------------------------

Someone is responsible for every site, because he or she owns it, manages it,
lives there, or works there. Even vacant land has an owner somewhere. The
keys to clearing up the harm that a problem place presents are to identify (1)
the people responsible for the problem, (2) the people responsible for the
place, and (3) the pressures that can be brought to bear on those responsible to
remedy the problem and remove the harm. 

Exhibit 47 is a tool for identifying the kinds of people who may be related to a
problem place. Like Exhibit 46, it is set up according to the gang-problem
triangle.

The relationship between a person and a place can take many forms. The
person may live or work at the place, may have an economic interest in it, or
may visit it. In the scanning phase of the problem-solving model, the offenders
are almost always identified by type, if not by name. Exhibit 47 helps to
establish the relationship between offenders and a problem place. Are the
offenders residents, owners, or managers of the problem place? Are they
visitors or trespassers? Street-gang members are frequently residents of
problem places but rarely owners or managers of them. If the offenders are
only residents, then persuading the owners and managers to ask the offenders
to leave may solve the problem.

Residents can be offenders, controllers, victims, guardians, or managers. When
offenders reside at a particular place, responses must be designed to make
them either stop their harmful behavior or leave. Or, their controllers must be
persuaded, empowered, or enabled to control their harmful behavior. 

The most difficult problems arise when the offending gang members are the
owners' relatives and can either cajole or intimidate the owners to keep them
from taking effective action. The worst-case scenarios involve younger gang
members who intimidate their elders. For example, gang members in their teens
and early twenties may use the houses of their grandparents or
great-grandparents for gang activity, ignoring their relatives' wishes and rights. It
is difficult to frame a solution to such a problem that does not injure the innocent
elders more than the gang members who have created the problem. 

Offenders who reside where they are creating problems have something to
lose--their home. If gang members are property owners, they also have
economic interests on which pressures can be brought to bear. If they are
property managers, the owners can fire them. However, gang members do not
usually own or manage property. 

Resident owners of problem places have two important interests to protect.
The first is their home, the place they live. The second is a major economic
concern for most people--their property's value. Even if the property is not
highly valuable, it is theirs, and ordinarily they are willing to take whatever steps
are necessary to protect it. Some value is better than none. More difficult are
absentee owners, whose interests are primarily, if not exclusively, economic.
While loss of property value may not cost them their homes, it will cost them
their investment. 

Why is an absentee owner absent? Does he or she live too far away to visit
the property? How did the owner get title to the property? By purchase, in
which case he or she would regard it as an investment to be protected? By
inheritance, but without the money necessary to maintain it in good condition? Is
the owner an investor, an individual, a partnership, or a corporation? Is the
gang-related harm threatening the investment, and if so, does the owner know?
Has the absentee owner taken steps to manage the property?

Can the property manager be identified (using "manager" in its gang-problem
triangle sense)? The manager is the person responsible for keeping the site safe
from offenders, such as a security guard or a receptionist who screens all
visitors to a building.

Identifying the guardians and managers of transitional places is not particularly
difficult, but bringing pressure to bear on them is. The local police department is
usually responsible for public safety on streets and highways and in public
parks. But police resources are often spread thin, so the question is how to
increase their effectiveness in particularly dangerous places. Sometimes this can
be done by changing the nature of the transitional places, for example, by
severely restricting parking, limiting a thoroughfare to one-way traffic, or turning
a thoroughfare into a cul-de-sac.

----------------------------

Change the nature of the transitional places, for example, by severely restricting
parking, limiting a thoroughfare to one-way traffic, or turning a thoroughfare into
a cul-de-sac.

----------------------------

Civil Remedies

Once the people responsible for particular places are identified, what can be
done about them? How can they be influenced to deal with gang-related harm?
Methods other than criminal law enforcement can be used to address
gang-related harm; they fall into two general categories: civil suits for nuisance
or trespass and civil code enforcement. 

Filing lawsuits is neither easy nor inexpensive. But often the threat of a lawsuit is
enough to motivate a person or corporation to solve the problem rather than go
to court. Civil code enforcement includes strict enforcement of all State and
local code requirements, including licensing provisions, applicable to a problem
place.

Civil or Criminal or Both?

Civil lawsuits ordinarily seek to collect damages for injuries to the plaintiff or the
plaintiff's property, or to prohibit the defendants from engaging in some kind of
conduct. Private citizens, including private organizations, and public officials can
both file civil lawsuits. On the other hand, only public officials can bring criminal
prosecutions. Typically, State prosecutors (district attorneys or States'
attorneys) handle felonies and serious misdemeanors. County or city attorneys
handle less serious misdemeanors and local ordinance violations. They also
usually handle local code violations. 

----------------------------

Gang activity can be both a private and public nuisance, or both a civil and
criminal trespass.

----------------------------

On the "place" side of the gang-problem triangle, the usually sharp distinction
between civil and criminal proceedings gets somewhat blurred. Private citizens
and public officials can unite to deal with harm caused by street gangs. For
example, gang activity can be both a private and public nuisance, or both a civil
and criminal trespass. The best way to proceed depends on the circumstances
of each case, but collaboration between private citizens and public law
enforcement personnel often is the best way to go. In other words, using both
civil and criminal processes often proves successful.

Injunction or Damages

An injunctive suit seeks a court order to stop a present harm or prevent future
harm. A damage suit seeks money for injuries that have already been inflicted. 

Injunctions originated in the English court of equity or chancery, the "court of
the King's conscience," to give relief when none was available from the King's
common-law courts, which awarded money damages. A court of equity issues
decrees or orders, but unlike a court of law, an equity court has no jury trials
and does not award money damages. Equity courts have historically had broad
power to shape remedies to solve particular problems. 

In the United States, the powers exercised in separate English courts have been
merged in unified court systems. The typical American court of general
jurisdiction has the powers of both English court systems--law and equity--and
can therefore entertain suits both for money damages and for injunctions. But
American courts still follow the general principles of the original English courts,
such as using juries to determine money damages but not to determine whether
injunctions should be issued. 

An injunction is the most powerful of the equity decrees. Violation of an
injunction is contempt of court and can be punished by fine or jail or both. 

Although injunctions can be very useful against gang-inflicted harm, are damage
suits of much value, particularly when most gangs and gang members have few
assets? Damages may not be worth pursuing in simple cases, but damage suits
should not be immediately dismissed. If trespassing gang members cause
serious damage to property, they are civilly liable. For example, if gang
members set fire to a house, they can be sued for damages as well as
prosecuted for arson. Gang members may have no assets at the time of their
offense, but civil judgments against them can be renewed for long periods of
time, as much as 40 years in many States. Whatever they acquire in the future is
subject to attachment to pay the judgment.

----------------------------

Even if an owner and tenants have not themselves committed any specific
crimes or offenses, they remain responsible for how their property is used and
what happens there.

----------------------------

Nuisance Abatement and Zoning Laws

Nuisance is a legal concept that goes back to the Middle Ages. Briefly defined,
it requires landowners to use their property so as not to injure their neighbors'
use of their properties. The concept applies to physically damaging neighboring
property, reducing its value, or reducing its enjoyment. Nuisance also takes into
account the neighborhood's general nature. What is inappropriate in one place
may be quite acceptable in another. Raising pigs in the city is certain to rile the
neighbors; raising pigs on a farm is expected.

It is noted that nuisance pertains to the use of property, not to personal
conduct. Every person has the right to reasonable use of his or her own
property, but no right to interfere with others' reasonable use of their properties.
The maxim "use your own so that you do no harm to another" is frequently
quoted in private nuisance cases. This focus on the use of property has several
implications relevant to solving gang-related problems. 

Even if an owner and tenants have not themselves committed any specific
crimes or offenses, they remain responsible for how their property is used and
what happens there. Therefore, legal action can be directed at owners, tenants,
or both to compel lawful use of the property, even though they have done
nothing illegal. 

Nuisance refers to continuing abuses rather than isolated incidents, which is
important for three reasons. Problem-solving techniques are useful for solving
chronic problems, but individual crimes are best solved by ordinary investigative
techniques. Second, proof of nuisance differs from proof of crimes, in which
specific criminal acts rather than an ongoing condition must ordinarily be
proved. Third, evidence of reputation, which inevitably contains a large measure
of hearsay, is admissible under many nuisance statutes. Older nuisance statutes
use terms like common fame and ill fame. Such evidence is not admissible to
prove ordinary crimes.

There are both private nuisances and public nuisances. The difference is that the
harm that a public nuisance creates does not affect just one or two neighbors;
rather, it affects the general public. For example, odors emanating from a
slaughterhouse affect everyone in the neighborhood. Public nuisances such as
prostitution or crack houses are more relevant to this discussion because they
have a negative impact on every property in the vicinity. 

Public nuisances, usually defined by statute or local ordinance, offend public
order or decency or encroach on public rights. Houses of prostitution offend
public order. An illegal wharf infringes on the public's right to use a navigable
stream. The differences between a prostitution house and a wharf suggest the
range of problems that nuisance law can address. As nuisance law has
developed through the centuries, private nuisance has remained an interference
with land, but public nuisance has become a much broader group of wrongs--a
catchall of criminal and civil offenses. 

In effect, the breadth of public nuisance means that problems can be attacked in
different ways by different people. Both public officials and private citizens can
bring legal proceedings against nuisances. State nuisance statutes and municipal
ordinances usually contain provisions for suits by private citizens. Ordinarily,
private citizens have to demonstrate some harm to themselves or their own
property, as distinguished from the public interest, to succeed in private
nuisance suits. A private nuisance is a use of property that annoys immediate
neighbors. Such a use does not have to be illegal, but only inappropriate to the
surroundings.

----------------------------

Abatement orders have imposed specific conditions for continuing to operate a
property, including establishing a system for screening tenants and installing
security systems to keep gang members off a property.

----------------------------

A nuisance suit is a civil, not a criminal, proceeding. For that reason, public
nuisance suits are usually filed by the local official responsible for civil litigation,
such as the city or county attorney, rather than by the State prosecutor. A local
gang task force should not be surprised if a prosecutor sends them off to
another local official to file a nuisance suit. 

Nuisance statutes, ordinances, and cases usually refer to "nuisance abatement."
Abatement is a flexible legal term. Essentially, it means getting rid of the
nuisance, doing whatever is required to bring the problem to an end. Sometimes
abatement can be achieved by the property owner's simply stopping whatever
constitutes the nuisance--for example, removing abandoned cars from a vacant
lot. More often, abatement will also include cleaning up a site, such as removing
abandoned cars and mowing grass on an overgrown lot. 

Abatement has included razing the buildings on a site, boarding up houses,
closing hotels and restaurants, seizing and selling personal property, and barring
named individuals from a property. Abatement orders have imposed specific
conditions for continuing to operate a property, including establishing a system
for screening tenants and installing security systems to keep gang members off a
property. Abatement can be an invaluable remedy to gang-related harms. 

Examples of nuisances subject to abatement include drug trafficking,
prostitution, gambling, trafficking in stolen goods, illegal liquor sales, public
drunkenness, harassment of passers-by, loud noise, and excessive littering. 
In the United States, nuisance law was the forerunner of zoning law. In the
first half of the 20th century, American cities began to regulate land use through
zoning, and by the second half of the century, comprehensive zoning was almost
universal in American cities. Today, Houston is the only major American city
without it. 

When early zoning ordinances were challenged as depriving landowners of
their property without due process of law or as taking property without just
compensation, the U.S. Supreme Court turned to nuisance principles and cases
as precedents for upholding zoning ordinances. The connection between public
nuisance law and zoning is that both rest on the police power of the State--that
is, the State's basic power to regulate property and commerce for the general
health, safety, and welfare.

----------------------------

Examples of nuisances subject to abatement include drug trafficking,
prostitution, gambling, trafficking in stolen goods, illegal liquor sales, public
drunkenness, harassment of passers-by, loud noise, and excessive littering.

----------------------------

Nuisance suits target problems as they arise at particular places. They do not
anticipate problems. Nor do they have a general effect beyond a problem site
and its immediate vicinity. Zoning codes, on the other hand, try to keep
problems from arising by stating what will and will not be permitted not only at
particular places, but also throughout general areas or zones. Because they
provide a clear and direct means of stating what can and cannot be done
throughout a zone and because the local government directly enforces them,
zoning codes have reduced the need for nuisance suits. But nuisance law has
not changed, and it is still available as a valuable legal tool for both public and
private use.

A zone is usually described by what uses are permitted within it. All other uses
are prohibited. For example, a basic residential zone may allow only
single-family dwellings on lots no smaller than a designated size, for example,
20,000 square feet. Other uses allowed include churches, schools, parks, and
public utility easements. Zones also regulate minimum frontage on the street,
minimum setback of structures from a street, minimum size of side yards, and
building height. 

It is common in residential zones to regulate how many people can live in a
residence, at least in terms of a family. A family may be defined as any number
of people related by blood or marriage, or not more than four unrelated people.
Questions about the number of unrelated people who can live in a residence
have commonly arisen in neighborhoods where a large number of people
temporarily live in rented quarters, such as students near a college. When gangs
take over a house, they often violate these occupancy limits.

Trespass

Historically, trespass is a broad legal concept that refers to any offense that
injures someone's person, health, reputation, or property. In this chapter,
trespass is used in its more familiar and more limited meaning of an invasion of
someone's property, either by entering onto it without the owner's permission or
by staying on it after being asked to leave.

Trespass is different from nuisance in at least two ways. First, trespass refers to
an owner's right to exclusive possession of his or her property. Nuisance refers
to a person's right to use and enjoyment of his or her property; it does not
require interference with possession. Second, trespass involves coming onto
another's property. Nuisance does not require a direct invasion of another's
property. The person who creates the nuisance does so on his or her own
property, but the nuisance has an impact on nearby landowners. Of course,
there are many circumstances in which conduct can be both a trespass and a
nuisance.

Ordinarily, trespass must be an intentional rather than a negligent or inadvertent
invasion of someone else's property. But there are important exceptions
involving street gangs. Conduct that is reckless or extremely dangerous can be
a trespass even though the perpetrator did not specifically intend to invade the
victim's property. Driveby shootings certainly fall into the category of reckless
conduct. 

What can a property owner do about trespass? There are several civil
remedies: a suit for damages and an injunction or a suit to oust the trespasser.
The property owner can also ask local authorities for criminal enforcement,
which will be discussed shortly. Damages can take at least two different forms:
the cost of the physical damage or the fair rental value of the property for the
length of time it is in the trespasser's possession. 

----------------------------

Abandoning a car, dumping trash, or going into a building without permission is
a tresspass.

----------------------------

Historically, common law treated every person's land as enclosed, whether or
not it actually was. Unauthorized entry onto the land "broke the closure" and
was a trespass. Unauthorized entry is still the essence of modern trespass, but it
includes injury to, use of, or entry onto real estate without the owner's
permission. A continuing trespass consists of staying on land or leaving
something on land without permission. Abandoning a car or dumping trash is a
continuing trespass.

Going into a building without permission is a trespass. This is true whether the
building is a residence, business, or factory. However, there is a major
exception to this general rule. A business that is open to the public, such as a
retail store or a mall, has in effect invited people to come into its public or
common space; they are not trespassers. A business can withdraw its invitation
to specific individuals on the basis of their conduct but not on the basis of
personal characteristics protected by civil rights laws, such as race, gender,
religion, or national origin.

A request for injunction for a continuing trespass must state why damages are
not sufficient to cure the wrongs done the landowner. Good reasons include the
following:

o The defendant continues, or threatens to continue, the trespass.

o The injury to the landowner is irreparable.

o The defendant's destruction of or injury to the land amounts to virtual
dispossession.

o The defendant is not financially solvent or responsible, a condition that applies
to most gang members.

o Damages are impossible or difficult to determine.

Criminal trespass puts the law enforcement authority of the State or local
government behind the private right to exclude people from one's premises.
Criminal trespass is an offense created by State statute or local ordinance or
both. The legislative purpose behind criminal trespass laws is to prevent
violence and threats of violence by either a landowner or a trespasser. A
trespass is not a criminal trespass unless it is a breach of the peace. The
trespasser must intend to violate the rights of the landowner, and the trespass
must carry with it at least some implicit intimidation or threat of a breach of the
peace. The kinds of gang harm discussed in this chapter certainly meet these
requirements. 

----------------------------

Refusal to leave the premises after notice is a criminal trespass . . . police
officers can make an immediate arrest or seek an arrest warrant allowing them
to make an arrest later.

----------------------------

While precise wording may vary, criminal trespass statutes usually forbid going
on, attempting to go on, or remaining on the property of another without
authority or after being forbidden to do so. Notice against trespass can be
either written or oral and can be given in several ways, including personal
communication, posting the property, or fencing the property. 

Prohibiting trespass by specific people becomes more complicated when a
place is open to the general public. Parts of public places can be cut off from
the general public area by signs prohibiting unauthorized people, but special
notice must be provided to individuals who are being barred from the public
areas. 

Who can give the required notice to a trespasser? Obviously, the property
owner can. Tenants can also give notice or warning regarding those parts of the
property they are leasing or renting. Someone renting a house has a right to
exclusive possession of the house and surrounding land. A tenant in an
apartment building has an exclusive right only to the apartment, not to common
areas such as hallways or the lobby.

The owner can designate agents to give notice to trespassers. Most important
here, owners can select police officers as their agents to warn trespassers that
they are trespassing and ask them to leave. Refusal to leave the premises after
notice is a criminal trespass. Because it is a criminal offense, officers can make
an immediate arrest or seek an arrest warrant allowing them to make an arrest
later.

The right to designate police officers as agents has been of great value when the
owner is not likely to be on the premises most of the time or when action must
be taken. For example, a public agency such as a public housing authority may
not have an employee on site at all times. But if the local police department has
been authorized to act for the agency in issuing trespass warnings, then action
can be taken when it will be most effective.

Waste

The right to live or work in a place is not the right to destroy it. Obviously, a
renter cannot destroy a house, an apartment, or a business that belongs to
someone else. But even someone who owns a house or a business cannot
destroy it if someone else has a security interest in it. A mortgage company that
has made a loan secured by real estate, including improvements, can protect its
interest by seeking an injunction against a careless or destructive landowner. If
the right to protect the property is not spelled out in the contract, the mortgage
holder can sue under the common-law doctrine known as "waste." Waste is the
destruction, misuse, alteration, or neglect of property by someone lawfully in
possession to the detriment of another party who holds an interest in the
property. 

The issue of waste arises when gang members are rightfully in possession of
property but put the property at risk by their conduct. A house rendered
uninhabitable by its residents no longer serves as security to the mortgage
holder. 

The problem can become particularly acute when a person holds a secondary
interest and the primary interest holder takes no action. For example, if a seller
takes back a second mortgage to assist a buyer in making a purchase, then the
seller may be second in line behind a mortgage company that is paying no
attention to what is happening on the property. A suit to prevent waste can
protect the secondary interest.

----------------------------

"Waste" is the destruction, misuse, alteration, or neglect of property by
someone lawfully in possession to the detriment of another party who holds an
interest in the property.


----------------------------

Civil Code Enforcement and Business Licensing

Scarcely any aspect of living in a modern American city is untouched by the
city's regulatory power. Virtually all commercial enterprises providing goods
and services to the general public, or even to small specialized markets, must be
licensed by the city, the State, or both. But even noncommercial aspects of our
lives, such as the places we live, are regulated to some degree.

This power to regulate business stems from the city's responsibility to protect
the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. To be sure, many licensing
requirements are primarily designed to raise revenue. But that does not mean
that the city is not also exercising its regulatory powers at the same time.

It is important to understand how many ways our cities can and do regulate the
places in which people live, work, visit, shop, or travel. When street gangs
affect those places, it is helpful to know what powers the city can apply to
remedy and remove the gang-related problems. When a particular place in the
community becomes a problem because of gangs, the community wants to
know two things:

o Who is responsible for the place; who is its manager? That person may be the
owner, a tenant, a business manager, or a lender.

o What local regulatory agency can make that manager deal with the gang-
related problem? 

Exhibits 46 and 47 include a column titled "Regulatory Agency" for identifying
the government agency most likely to have enforcement responsibility for a
particular place.

How can people find out what is regulated or what licenses are required? They
can look in the telephone book under city government and see what is listed.
They can go to city hall and look at the directory of offices. They can ask at the
information booth. They can ask for a guide to city government. They can read
the city code.

City regulations appear in the city code, which is enforced through a system of
permits and licenses. It is illegal to begin many projects, such as building or
rehabilitating a building, without the required city permits. It is illegal to start
most businesses without the required city license. Once people obtain permits
and licenses, they must comply with their terms. City regulation is a continuing,
not a one-time, activity. The city can suspend or revoke permits and licenses of
people who fail to comply with their conditions. For more serious violations, the
city can impose fines, initiate prosecutions, seek injunctions, or seek to have
certain activities or conditions declared public nuisances.

----------------------------

The city can suspend or revoke permits and licenses . . . impose fines, initiate
prosecutions, seek injunctions, or seek to have certain activities or conditions
declared public nuisances.

----------------------------

As already discussed, zoning codes regulate how property can be used and
the way it looks. The first question to ask about any use of land is whether it
complies with the zone. Businesses cannot operate in zones where they are not
permitted.

Beyond the zoning code, what other codes apply to land, buildings, and
businesses? Different cities organize their regulatory codes in slightly different
ways, but in any city there are building, fire, health and sanitation, and
business-licensing codes. In practice, these codes frequently overlap. A
restaurant, for example, must comply with all the above codes.

Building Codes. Building codes govern how a structure is built and what
standards of construction must be met and maintained. They also require
building permits for substantial renovations or repairs. Building codes govern
plumbing and mechanical and electrical equipment in a building. Even the
simplest of structures in which humans work or live must meet minimum
standards. The greater the number of people who use a building and the more
complex the structure and uses, the more standards apply to it. 

For residences, a building code prescribes the number of square feet per
resident; the number of outside windows; the number of exits; the quality of
flooring, walls, and roofing; and other conditions. For multifamily buildings, the
requirements get more elaborate, prescribing hand railings for stairs, the number
of exits, exit lights, security provisions, and other items.

Street gangs do not usually construct or rehabilitate buildings, so they do not
violate building codes in the construction process. But when gangs occupy or
dominate buildings, they often damage them in ways that violate building codes.
They may block exits, overload electrical circuits, clog plumbing, or destroy
security devices.

----------------------------

A fire escape that is down rather than in its retracted position may show that
gang members are using it to get in and out of a building.

----------------------------

Fire Codes. All structures must meet minimum standards of fire resistance.
Requirements for fire prevention and alarm systems become more elaborate as
the number of uses and occupants of a structure increases. For example, smoke
detectors may be required in all rental properties, but fire suppression systems
may be required in buildings above a certain height. Fire doors must be
provided, as well as fire escape or fire stair systems. 

What should someone look for in neighborhoods with gang problems? A fire
escape that is down rather than in its retracted position may show that gang
members are using it to get in and out of a building. Open windows and smoke
coming from a building may show that people are cooking with open fires
because there is no gas or electric service in the building. Such activity clearly
violates fire codes. Smoke may also violate air pollution standards.

Health and Sanitation Codes. Storm and sanitation sewers must be separate
and working. Standing water outside a building indicates lack of proper
drainage, which can be both a private and public nuisance. Standing water
inside a building indicates the sewage systems are not working--also a nuisance.

The presence of human waste, whether indoors or outdoors, indicates that
the sanitary sewage system is not working--a code violation and a nuisance. It
may also show that people are living in an apparently unoccupied or abandoned
building. Rats and other vermin, inside or outside a building, are code violations
and a nuisance.

Business Licenses. Localities may require business licenses of professionals
such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, and architects. These licenses are primarily
to raise revenue, with the regulation of the professions left to the State and
State-recognized professional organizations. 

Cities require licenses of other businesses for more clearly regulatory purposes.
This is particularly true of businesses offering personal services, such as barber
shops, beauty shops, Turkish baths, and massage parlors. 

If cities allow pawnbrokers, they usually subject them to heavy regulation. For
example, pawnbrokers may be required to obtain two forms of identification
from every customer from whom they purchase goods, record the identification
information, and daily submit a list of purchases to the police department. The
purpose is to discourage pawnbrokers from receiving stolen goods. 

Food and food-handling establishments are subject to a comprehensive set
of regulations. City health departments enforce these regulations when a
business is established and, by frequent inspection, throughout the life of  the
business. Violations can subject a business to suspension until the violations are
corrected.

All States regulate the sale of liquor at wholesale, retail, and consumption levels.
Violating State liquor laws is a criminal act, but jeopardy to the liquor license is
a far more serious threat to its owner than criminal prosecution for single illegal
acts. 

In addition to State regulation, most cities have their own regulations on the sale
of alcoholic beverages. Localities may be particularly concerned with sales to
underage individuals and people who are drunk. Another problem is the sale of
single cans of beer at convenience stores, which sometimes leads to gang
members congregating in the parking lots.

Many places of amusement can also become centers of gang activity, such as:

o Arcades.

o Poolrooms.

o Bowling alleys.

o Movie theaters.

o Dance halls.

o Carnivals, festivals.

In addition to complying with their basic business licenses, all these sites must
comply with fire, health and sanitation, and food service codes. Those that
serve alcohol must also have liquor or wine and beer licenses and must comply,
for example, with minimum drinking-age statutes.

----------------------------

Localities may be particularly concerned with sales to underage individuals and
people who are drunk and . . . the sale of single cans of beer at convenience
stores.

----------------------------

Residential Rental Properties

Many gang-related problems arise on rental properties, which are usually
subject to intensive local regulation. Rental properties include houses, multiunit
dwellings, rooming and boarding establishments, campsites, trailer parks, tourist
homes, and hotels and motels. 

Rental property must meet minimum standards. For example, rental houses or
apartments may be required to have a kitchen sink, bathroom with toilet and
sink, shower or tub, stove, refrigerator, hot and cold running water, windows in
outside rooms, heat, and adequate ventilation. The code usually requires a
minimum space per occupant. The foundation, floors, walls, ceiling, and roof
must be watertight, weathertight, and rodentproof. A multiunit building must
have exit lights, burglary-prevention devices, and fire escapes. Fire exits must
not be blocked, and stairs must have handrails. 

Rental properties that have fallen under the control of gangs are frequently in
violation of several code provisions. City authorities can take action against
both tenants and owners to remedy the problems. 

Vacant Buildings and Vacant Lots

Not even vacant buildings and lots escape regulation. Weeds on lots must be
kept trimmed. Lots themselves must be free of litter. City codes also require
that unoccupied buildings be secured against unauthorized users and vandals.
Neighbors can call on code enforcement to make sure that owners meet these
obligations.

Overcoming Barriers to Civil Remedies

None of the proposals discussed so far is a new idea. Nuisance and trespass
principles have long been established in English and American law. Every city
code has included enforcement provisions. Why, then, have these alternative
methods not been put to better use? There are at least three major reasons for
this failure: fear of retaliation, difficulty of getting public officials to cooperate,
and congestion in the courts.

----------------------------

City codes require that unoccupied buildings be secured against unauthorized
users and vandals.

----------------------------

Retaliation Against Individuals

The fear of retaliation in gang-dominated neighborhoods is the greatest obstacle
to getting neighborhood cooperation in confronting problems created by
gang-related harm. Whether this fear is justified by experience is a question best
answered in particular localities. Street gangs certainly are an intimidating
presence, but whether they actually retaliate against people outside gangs is
another question. 

Assuming that retaliation is a real possibility, does coping with gangs require
great personal courage on the part of a few individuals? That may be the case,
if neighbors refuse to join together to act on their own behalf. Lack of
neighborhood cohesion may be one of the reasons gangs can operate in the first
place. 

The first step may be to get the neighbors to unite--to seek safety in numbers.
Community leaders must foster unity in resisting gangs. Who are the leaders in
the community? Political figures, merchants, church leaders, school principals,
and teachers may all play leadership roles and should step forward.
 
City officials should act whenever citizens bring problems to their attention.
Public officials should not leave risky confrontations to private individuals or
groups. They should use public powers and resources to assist citizens with
their problems. If citizens are afraid to come forth, then public officials should
provide means for them to communicate their concerns without exposing
themselves to gang retaliation.

Getting Public Officials To Cooperate

There are several obstacles to getting public officials to cooperate with
individual citizens or citizen groups. Government agencies are set up to enforce
particular laws, provide particular kinds of service, or serve a particular
clientele. Each agency focuses on its own mission and pursues its own goals.
Some agencies may regard other agencies with related missions as competitors
for scarce city resources, not as collaborators in achieving a common goal. 

What is often missing is a structure for interagency cooperation. Interagency
task forces, rather than permanent institutions for continuing collaboration, may
be created to accomplish some short-term mission. Someone with a broader
view of all the city's problems and responsibilities--someone above the agencies
such as the mayor, the city manager, or the city council--has to take the lead in
designing systems for interagency cooperation and making sure that they work. 

A second obstacle to getting cooperation from city officials is getting them to
shift their focus from traditional approaches to approaches more likely to work
with contemporary problems.
 
A third obstacle is the reluctance of public officials to get involved in potentially
dangerous enforcement. It is one thing to enforce building or health codes at a
retirement home but quite another to enforce these codes where the property's
occupants are armed gang members. 

Still another obstacle is the lack of political influence in neighborhoods plagued
by street gangs. The people most in need of law enforcement and other city
services often lack the political power to compel public officials to respond to
their needs. All of these are political problems with political solutions. Political
leaders must respond to the needs of their communities' recurring problems. 

----------------------------

The mayor, the city manager, or the city council has to take the lead in
designing systems for interagency cooperation and making sure that they work.

----------------------------

Delay on Civil Dockets

Many of the remedies proposed in this chapter are legal remedies to be sought
through the courts. But the courts in most big cities are burdened with heavy
caseloads, and it is important that citizens wanting to use the courts for legal
redress be aware of the problems they are likely to encounter.

Most of the remedies discussed in this chapter are civil remedies. As a general
rule, courts give their criminal dockets priority over civil dockets. This is
appropriate for two reasons. First, it is in the public interest to remove criminals
from the street as quickly as possible. In addition, criminal defendants have a
constitutional right to a speedy trial.

But the congestion problem is likely to be quite different in different kinds of
courts. State court systems distinguish among three kinds of courts:

o Courts of Limited Jurisdiction handle less serious civil and criminal matters.
They generally proceed without elaborate formality, without written briefs or
typed manuscripts, and without jury trials. They are designed to move swiftly.
Many have a specialized jurisdiction, such as traffic or juvenile cases.

o Courts of General Jurisdiction handle serious civil and criminal cases in
full-blown, formal fashion. They use written briefs and transcribed records and
have jury trials.

o Appellate Courts hear appeals from courts of general jurisdiction on the
records made in the lower courts and on the briefs and arguments presented by
the lawyers.

The best chance of getting swift action is to bring matters into the courts of
limited jurisdiction. These courts are accustomed to moving large numbers of
cases and deciding them quickly, often at the end of the hearing while the
parties are still in the courtroom. In deciding how to proceed, parties should
look for ways to keep within the jurisdiction of these faster moving courts.

----------------------------

Courts of limited jurisdiction . . . are accustomed to moving large numbers of
cases and deciding them quickly, often at the end of the hearing while the
parties are still in the courtroom.

----------------------------

Most of these courts have a monetary ceiling on their civil jurisdiction, perhaps
$2,000 or $5,000. For this reason, they are often referred to as "small claims"
courts. These courts allow the disputing parties to try their cases without
lawyers and have simplified procedures and relaxed rules of evidence. The
point is to encourage and allow people to reach quick and inexpensive
resolution to their disputes. 

Most code violations and less serious criminal offenses come before courts of
limited jurisdiction--the faster courts--and can be disposed of promptly.
Landlord-tenant courts are often special divisions that can also handle cases
promptly. Many of the gang-related problems discussed in this chapter are
essentially landlord-tenant problems that can be taken to those special divisions.

Complicated nuisance suits may end up in courts of general jurisdiction, where
it may take a long time for them to be resolved. But if plaintiffs are seeking
injunctions rather than damages, they can often get their cases expedited
because of the irreparable injuries they suffer by delay.

Florida has authorized its cities and counties to establish nuisance abatement
boards, which in effect are specialized courts dealing only with nuisances. These
boards give localities a way to attack nuisances without going through the more
elaborate procedures of the courts of general jurisdiction and without waiting
for openings on those courts' congested calendars.

Case Examples of Civil Remedies

To conclude this chapter, examples are offered of how civil remedies have been
used to deal with gang and drug situations in three different places: San Diego,
California; Joliet, Illinois; and Berkeley, California.

5081 La Paz Drive, San Diego, California

In 1988 and 1989, the Syndo Pirus, a subset of the Crips, used a house at
5081 La Paz Drive in San Diego as its headquarters. The house was owned by
a widow whose children and grandchildren used it as a crack house and a
crack distribution center. Unable to control their activities, the woman spent her
nights locked in her bedroom in terror. Strangers would come and go as they
pleased, often staying in the house to smoke crack. The house was in
deplorable physical condition, but it was the widow's only worldly asset.

Neighbors frequently complained to the police about activities at the house. The
San Diego Police Department executed three search warrants based on
controlled buys at the site. Police department records show that between
January 1, 1988, and August 31, 1989, the house was the site of 70 arrests
and 106 calls for police service. Sixty of those arrests were for narcotics
offenses, including 46 for being under the influence of a controlled substance
and 14 more for possession of a controlled substance or counterfeit narcotics.
The other 10 arrests were for a variety of offenses, including murder, burglary,
assault with a deadly weapon, and escape. Of the calls for police service, 57
were citizen calls, 33 of them related to narcotics. Other citizen calls included
eight for disturbances and two for gunshots. The police themselves initiated 49
calls at the address--20 for citizen contacts or field interviews, 18 requesting a
cover unit or meeting another police officer, 4 for stolen vehicle recoveries, and
7 for miscellaneous reasons.

----------------------------

In 1972, the California Drug Abatement Law (based on the Red Light
Abatement Law of 1913, which had declared gambling and prostitution houses
both public and private nuisances) declared drug houses to be public and
private nuisances as well.

----------------------------

In 1972, California had enacted the Drug Abatement Law, which was based on
the Red Light Abatement Law of 1913. The earlier law had declared gambling
and prostitution houses both public and private nuisances. The later law
declared drug houses to be public and private nuisances as well. Following the
language of the Drug Abatement Law, the San Diego city attorney filed legal
action against the owner of 5081 La Paz Drive and obtained an injunction
against using the premises for "unlawfully selling, serving, storing, keeping, or
giving away controlled substances or their precursors." The injunction also
specifically named several individuals and barred them from going on the
property. Despite this provision, some of these people returned to the property,
subjecting themselves to arrest for contempt of court.

The city attorney's office sought the support of the municipal court to ensure
that people violating the drug abatement order would receive appropriate
attention, and if found guilty, appropriate sentences. The city criminally
prosecuted several people who violated the court order, obtaining jail sentences
for some of them. A permanent injunction was filed in February 1991 that
prohibited all narcotic activity. A temporary restraining order, lasting for 1 year
and subject to modification, was also obtained.

The drug abatement order did not solve the problems of the property owner,
who was left with a barely habitable house. In 1991, she applied for a
rehabilitation loan for the property. A granddaughter who had not participated
in the problems at the house planned to move in with her and work to change
the environment. The city attorney's office and the local housing commission
both supported her plan in community meetings, as did many members of the
community. The police department opposed her application, preferring to have
the house demolished.

With her granddaughter as a cosigner, the property owner received the loan
and rehabilitated the house. As of early 1994, the injunctions against problem
members of the family were still in force. There have been no further incidents
at the house. The San Diego city attorney's office regards the case as one of its
success stories.

609 East Benton, Joliet, Illinois

In 1991, the 600 block of East Benton in Joliet, Illinois, was characterized by a
high volume of calls for police service. Citizens complained about drug dealing,
loud music, street robberies, criminal damage to property, and  intimidation.
The block is in a 10-block neighborhood in which the Joliet Neighborhood-
Oriented Policing Team (NOPT) has concentrated its effort.

----------------------------

In January 1993, [the Joliet, Illinois, police] met with the city manager to
discuss difficulties they had encountered in getting cooperation and support
from other city agencies . . . an interagency committee composed of
representatives from all city departments, was set up.

----------------------------

Approximately 40 Vice Lords, 6 Black Peace Stone Rangers, and 30 Latin
Kings controlled the area. Every day, 10 to 30 gang members congregated
at 609 East Benton, a 4-unit apartment building used for drug sales and other
criminal activity. The gang members intimidated community residents by both
their presence and their open threats. Neighbors were virtually prisoners in their
homes, afraid to let children outside because of driveby shootings and random
gunfire.

When police responded to calls, they often could not act because gang
members were on private property and no one was willing to sign a complaint--
or gang members were on public property doing nothing. When officers
responded to criminal complaints, the people they sought easily found refuge in
one of the apartments at 609 East Benton.

NOPT decided to attack both the gangs and the environment supporting them.
Bad street lighting was one problem. NOPT approached the electric utility with
a proposal to improve street lighting, but nothing was done until the deputy city
manager got involved 7 months later. The proposal then was approved, but 15
months later it still had not been implemented.

In December 1992, police officers began recording license numbers of vehicles
coming to 609 East Benton. As a car pulled up in front where gang members
were standing, a gang member would approach the car, and then the car would
leave. If police were present, gang members would direct the car to the rear,
where the driver would leave the car, go inside for a few minutes, then come
out and drive away. In 1 month, police recorded 102 different vehicles at 609
East Benton, with an average stay of no more than 2 minutes.

In January 1993, NOPT met with the city manager to discuss difficulties they
had encountered in getting cooperation and support from other city agencies.
For example, requests for assistance or no-parking-stopping-standing signs
were either disapproved or given low priority. The Cooperative Team, an
interagency committee composed of representatives from all city departments,
was set up. All agencies were to give NOPT requests top priority.

On January 15, 1993, the Joliet Police Department and the owner of 609 East
Benton signed a trespass agreement granting the city the power to keep
nonresidents from entering and remaining on the property. The agreement also
granted the city the power to sign complaints against nonresidents.

In February 1993, NOPT sent the property owner a letter detailing incidents at
609 East Benton and proposing possible solutions to recurring problems. The
list of problems included:

o Nonresidents living with residents (subleasing).

o Drug-related offenses.

o Weapons offenses.

o Garbage (for example, bottles strewn around the property).

o Other criminal activity.

o Tenants failing to report criminal activity.

o Tenants leaving doors unsecured.

o No use of current lighting and the need for additional lighting.

----------------------------


The police department proposed contracts between the owner and the tenants
providing strict guidelines on guests, cleanliness, and so forth, with violations
resulting in eviction.

----------------------------

NOPT informed the owner that 609 East Benton had the highest number of
reported incidents of all Section 8 housing in Joliet. NOPT proposed the
following:

o Regular inspection to ensure that units were in decent, safe and sanitary
condition and that the owner was providing services, maintenance, and utilities.

o Termination of housing assistance.

o Contracts between the owner and the tenants providing strict guidelines on
guests, cleanliness, and so forth, with violations resulting in eviction.

o A contract between the owner and the local towing company allowing any
unauthorized vehicles to be towed.

o Action by community groups to bring civil suits against property owners and
tenants.

NOPT personnel believed that evicting and replacing all the tenants would
alleviate the problems, but they did not think they could achieve that at that
time. Instead, NOPT drew up a draft owner-tenant contract including the
following provisions:

o The tenant will not allow any nonresident, other than authorized family
members listed below, on the premises.

o All adult nonresident family members visiting must have a picture ID on their
person.

o All visitors must be in the company of the resident.

o The tenant will be responsible for the conduct of his or her visitors while on
the premises.

The contract also required tenants to maintain the property in a clean and
sanitary condition and to report all damages and criminal activity. In addition,
the contract stated that the leases of tenants participating in (or allowing) any
criminal activity on the property would be immediately terminated. 

NOPT officers then met with the four tenants at 609 East Benton, explaining
their concerns and the steps that would have to be taken to resolve the
problems. NOPT also met with the Section 8 coordinator of the Joliet housing
authority, who agreed to meet with the landlord and tenants to ensure their
commitment to resolving the problems. On March 9, 1993, all four tenants
signed the owner-tenant agreement.

----------------------------

The contract also . . . stated that the leases of tenants participating in (or
allowing) any criminal activity on the property would be immediately
terminated.

----------------------------

The owner remained ambivalent about dealing with the problems at 609 East
Benton. He pledged cooperation with the police department, but at the same
time he told the tenants that they need not worry. Part of his ambivalence
stemmed from his feeling that the tenants and their relatives and friends had
grown up in deprived circumstances and perhaps needed some help. He also
received $2,400 a month in income from the building.  

On March 16, 1993, the police department made a controlled buy and
executed a search warrant on an apartment in the building rented by a woman.
The police found no drugs but did find several handguns and arrested her. She
claimed that nearly everyone at 609 East Benton was either selling or using
drugs.

NOPT informed the owner about the search warrant. The property owner
decided to evict this tenant and to send the other three letters asking them to
vacate. However, a week later, he still had not acted to have the tenants
evicted or disqualified for Section 8. He had given them verbal warnings. In
addition, the owner had placed a sign at the rear of the property stating that all
unauthorized vehicles would be towed at the expense of the vehicle owners.
This finalized the agreement with the towing company, requested well over a
month earlier.

On April 25, at the request of NOPT, the city put up no-parking-stopping-
standing signs in the 600 block of East Benton. Activity dropped dramatically
after the signs were posted. Gang members tried to tear the signs down several
times and at one point threw them all into a nearby creek. However, the signs
were replaced and secured to existing poles and trees, higher off the ground. 

About a week later, NOPT observed two known gang members on the
property. Upon seeing the officers, the two fled into the apartment that had
been searched in March. The officers wrote an incident report for criminal
trespass, signed complaints, and requested issuance of warrants. NOPT
preferred using warrants for several reasons. Warrants enable officers to pick
up gang members when it is convenient for the officers, rather than when the
gang members appear on the property; the use of a warrant eliminates any
question about the validity of a search incident to arrest; and a person arrested
on a warrant is more likely to be required to make bond than to be released on
recognizance. The next day, police arrested both subjects and took them to the
county jail, where they remained because of their inability to post a $100 cash
bond.

Police officers observed another man with a vehicle behind the apartment
building the day after the arrests. They gave him a verbal warning to remove his
car and stay off the property. When the officers returned 5 minutes later and
found the man still on the property, they had the car towed.

----------------------------

The property inspection revealed numerous minor violations of the building
code, allowing officials to shut the building down and revoke the occupational
permit.

----------------------------

NOPT asked the city manager to revoke the certificate of inspection for 609
East Benton on May 15. Police efforts to deal with problems outside the
building were being defeated by tenants inside the building. Tenants had
removed the no-trespassing signs, and activity was once again on the rise.
Furthermore, the owner still had not evicted anyone. 

On June 6, NOPT spoke with city inspectors to expedite revocation of the
certificate of inspection. At a meeting on the following day, the Cooperative
Team decided to conduct a comprehensive inspection of the property, based
on a complaint about standing water (possibly sewage) in the basement. All
inspectors and police were to meet at the same time at 609 East Benton. The
police chief's office also sent a warning letter to the owner, citing the drug
activity occurring on his property. The letter warned that his property was
subject to seizure if he was aware of drug activity on the property and took no
action to stop it.

The property inspection revealed numerous minor violations of the building
code, allowing officials to shut the building down and revoke the occupational
permit. All tenants were directed to vacate the property that afternoon. A .380
semiautomatic handgun was found in the oven during the inspection of one
apartment, and police later arrested the tenant. Because of her drug and
weapons violations, the tenant was evicted and lost her right to Section 8
housing assistance. The other three tenants decided to move elsewhere.


Aware that gang members had threatened to burn the building down, NOPT
officers believed that no attempt would be made until after another tenant,
whose boyfriend was a high-ranking Southend Vice Lord gang member, had
removed her things from her apartment. On June 8, NOPT officers signed a
criminal trespass complaint against an Eastside Vice Lord seen on the property
during a surveillance to prevent arson.

The last of the tenants' belongings were removed the next day; that evening, a
fire was reported at the property. The fire's origin was believed to be electrical,
and smoke and water caused most of the damage.

The police department contacted the owner on June 13 to tell him that all the
previously boarded-up windows and doors were open. The owner said that it
would have to wait until the next day. At 3:42 a.m., fire engulfed the building
and totally destroyed the second floor. The fire was ruled an arson, with the
origin being an incendiary device. On June 14, the residence was still not
boarded up as of 11 p.m. At 11:40 p.m., another fire completely gutted the
structure. 

On June 18, a city contractor demolished the burnt-out structure. The site is
now a vacant lot, with no activity since the demolition. Against the
recommendations of the Joliet Police Department arson squad, the insurance
company that carried the policy on 609 East Benton paid the owner $130,000
for his loss. 

The destruction of the apartment building did not end NOPT's interest in the
600 block of East Benton. NOPT advocated and obtained a city agreement to
have the block turned into a cul-de-sac, which was accomplished by erecting
parking blocks and traffic direction signs across an intersection. The
no-parking-stopping-standing signs in the 600 block have been maintained.
Despite promises, the utility company has improved only one street light in the
block, replacing a broken one. NOPT is waiting until spring to see if anyone
reappears to establish a drug market.

----------------------------

The local police advocated and obtained a city agreement to have the block
turned into a cul-de-sac, which was accomplished by erecting parking blocks
and traffic direction signs across an intersection.

----------------------------

1615-1617 Russell Street, Berkeley, California

In August 1991, neighbors of the Melrose Apartments, a 36-unit complex
at 1615-1617 Russell Street in Berkeley, California, filed suit against its owners
in small claims court. The neighbors of Melrose Apartments alleged that the
owners allowed illegal drug activities to take place on their property, causing
the neighbors great emotional and physical distress. Alleging that the owners
were maintaining a nuisance, the neighbors sought money damages in small
claims court and won.

The owners appealed to the superior court, where they received a new trial
but lost again. Then they asked a California court of appeals to order the
superior court to set aside its order (Lew v. Superior Court, 1993). They lost
again. The court of appeals upheld judgments against the owners totaling
$218,325.

In this trial, which consolidated the complaints of 75 neighbors, a police
sergeant testified that he had worked in the area for 4 years, first as a narcotics
undercover officer and later as a patrol sergeant. In that time, he estimated that
he had been to the Melrose Apartments more than 250 times on crime-related
matters. He testified that the property was a center of drug activity in the
neighborhood and a place of "shelter and safety from the police." He had made
two dozen arrests at the building, and he testified that, despite the fact that none
of the dealers lived there, they had easy access to the building and used that
access to thwart police efforts to apprehend them. 

An assistant city manager testified that he had known about the drug problem at
the location for several years. He described the drug operation as sophisticated
and the building "like a fortress" for drug sales. The property was so well
known for drug activity that people from other areas would take cabs to
Melrose Apartments to buy drugs. He also testified that it was possible to clean
up drug centers through aggressive management. 

The superior court found that the owners could have taken several steps--none
of them extraordinary--to deal with drug problems at the apartment complex.
These steps included employing a live-in manager and installing more secure
fencing and a keycard gate. The owners had taken none of these measures.

----------------------------

The superior court found that the owners could have taken several steps--
employing a live-in manager and installing more secure fencing and a keycard
gate--to deal with drug problems at the apartment complex.

----------------------------

Several of the neighbors testified and others submitted affidavits. Many of them
submitted a signed statement making the following allegations:

I have been confronted by the drug dealers, drug customers and/or prostitutes
that frequent and work around 1615-1617 Russell Street. On numerous
occasions, I have reported to the police the drug activity and other illegal
activity coming from this property.

Weekly, I have lost many hours of sleep from the cars that burn rubber after
each drug buy in the middle of the night, people fighting and yelling, sounds of
gun shots, and the fear that grips me night and day for myself and my family's
safety.

Numerous times I have been confronted by dealers or buyers, and I am now
afraid to walk near this property and down my street. In fact, I often fear for
my life day and night. This fear had permeated my home, my life and my soul.

I request your Honor award me $5,000 plus court costs for the suffering this
property has caused me.

Some plaintiffs added personal accounts. For example, one added the following
to the form:

Because of this illegal activity, my child is unable to use our front yard, and I
even have to check the backyard, since it has been intruded upon from time to
time by people running from the police. He is learning to count by how many
gunshots he hears and can't understand why he can't even enjoy our rose
garden . . . .

The basic theory of the lawsuits was that the apartment owners were
maintaining a nuisance, to the detriment of the individual neighbors. In their
defense, the owners claimed that the drug dealers, customers, and
objectionable third parties were not their tenants. They argued that they could
not be held responsible for crimes committed by nonresidents.

The superior court found from the evidence that the building was being used as
a center for drug sales and distribution. Under California's drug house law, the
Drug Abatement Law, a property used for these purposes is a public nuisance.
The statute does not require that the unlawful activity that makes the building a
nuisance be conducted by the owner, a tenant, or someone lawfully entering it. 

The owners argued that their only responsibility to the neighbors was to clean
up the property, not to monetarily compensate them. The court of appeals
disagreed, saying that there was nothing in the nuisance statute precluding
private lawsuits for damages. Although a judgment on the neighbors'
consolidated claims would be beyond the individual limits of a small claims
judgment, tenants seeking damages could use small claims court. 

While the statute made the use of the property a public nuisance, it also made
the use of the property a private nuisance in its effect on individual neighbors.
They could recover damages for the adverse effect of the drug-related activities
on the use and enjoyment of their own properties. They could also be
compensated under the nuisance theory for mental suffering, including fear for
themselves and their families.

----------------------------

Individual neighbors could recover damages for the adverse effect of the drug-
related activities on the use and employment of their own properties. They
could also be compensated under the nuisance theory for mental suffering.

----------------------------

Gang-Problem Triangle Applied

The preceding three cases can be viewed through the perspective of the
gang-problem triangle. In the San Diego case, the owner of the house was a
victim with no effective guardian. Her ownership of the house did not make her
its manager because her grandchildren took it away from her. The city attacked
the problem in several ways. First, as is evident from the arrests and calls for
police service, it used criminal law enforcement. Second, it proceeded against
the house as a public nuisance. Third, it proceeded against several gang
members for violation of court orders in the nuisance case. Fourth, the city
attorney worked with other city agencies to solve the property owner's
problem, assisting her in getting a rehabilitation loan. Finally, the city supported
the efforts of a guardian (in gang-problem triangle terms)--the owner's
granddaughter. 

In Joliet, gang members presented the immediate problem, and the police
department attacked them by traditional law enforcement means. It also took
several steps to deal with 609 East Benton as a problem place. These included
obtaining the power to treat all nonresidents as trespassers and getting towaway
rights for vehicles parked behind the building. 

The apartment owner, failing to fulfill his responsibilities as an owner and
manager, was a significant part of the problem. While he cooperated with the
police by delegating to them the right to remove trespassers and tow away
visiting cars, he never evicted the problem tenants. Instead, police turned to
code enforcement to deal with the building and its problems. City inspectors
found several code violations, and the city revoked the certificate of inspection.
All tenants were forced to leave the building. 

Police also obtained the cooperation of another person responsible for the
property, the public housing authority's Section 8 coordinator. In the gang-
problem triangle model, the coordinator is a controller of problem tenants, a
guardian of victim tenants, and a manager of the problem place. 

NOPT officers also addressed the transitional place--the street. Their
department had responsibility as a manager of this transitional place. Although
NOPT officers failed to have the street lighting improved, they succeeded in
banning parking or standing along the street. They also persuaded the city to
turn the street into a cul-de-sac. 

The owner may have won with one last dereliction of duty. He failed to board
up the building to protect it from arson, and it was burned. Despite police
department protests, he collected insurance on the building. 

The police department did succeed in cleaning up the site, which is now a
vacant lot with no activity. The neighborhood is safer, at least for a time. 

The Melrose Apartment case in Berkeley is another example of the failure of
owners to meet their obligations as managers of a problem site. Although the
police department and the city attempted to get the owners to control the
problems on their property, the neighbors of the apartment complex took the
most effective action. They filed nuisance suits in small claims court to assert
their rights. They were vindicated by judgments totaling over $200,000.


Conclusion

This chapter presents two models--the gang-problem triangle and a
problem-solving model--as ways of thinking about street-gang problems. It also
encourages concentration on the specific harm that gangs cause rather than
pursuit of a silver-bullet solution to street gang problems. Small wins are much
more valuable than large failures.

The gang-problem triangle enables community leaders to break complex 
problems into smaller parts, making it easier to identify the people responsible
for specific problems and the people who can correct them. The
problem-solving model also starts with the problem rather than the solution.
What is the problem people are trying to solve? What are its components?
What response is most likely to be effective? Does the response work?

This chapter concentrates on problem places--places where gang activity is
causing specific, identifiable harm. Exhibit 46 provides a convenient  means for
identifying problem places by general and specific type and for identifying the
people who have specific relationships to those places. Exhibit 47 more
specifically addresses the question of who the responsible people are. Who are
the offenders and victims at problem places? Who are the controllers,
guardians, and managers of those places?

Criminal law enforcement must be employed against the most serious gang
harm--felonies committed by gang members. Community citizens also have
several civil remedies they can use to protect their personal safety, their
property, and their quality of life. Legal tools such as nuisance abatement are
available to both local governments and private citizens. Strict code
enforcement can alleviate much gang-related harm. 

To be sure, there are obstacles to overcome--the risk of retaliation, the lack
of official cooperation, and the congestion of the courts. By working together
and starting with the problem rather than the solution, community leaders and
ordinary citizens have a variety of civil and minor criminal remedies that they
can use to address gang-related harm.

----------------------------

Chapter 8: Evaluating Anti-Gang Efforts

As the story in Genesis goes, on the seventh day God rested and assessed
the universe he had created. He called for his angels to join him and as they all
gazed upon this wondrous creation God declared, "I have created the universe
and all that is in it; it is good."

Just as God was making this statement, Lucifer, an angel who was habitually
late for meetings, joined the group. Upon hearing God's statement, Lucifer
asked, "God, how do you know it is good? What criteria are you using? What
measures did you use and how did you collect your data?"

No one in the group stirred and, after a thoughtful silence, God stated, "Lucifer,
go to hell." (Patton, 1981) 

----------------------------

Even if an agency hires an external evaluator . . . good evaluations are
cooperative and collaborative, so evaluation-related tasks will inevitably fall to
program staff and supervisors.

----------------------------

Program evaluation is a process many policymakers talk about but often avoid
because they are unfamiliar with evaluation methods, don't know what to
evaluate, have no guidance, or believe that an evaluation will miss the core of a
program and fail to capture its positive aspects. Nevertheless, evaluations are
necessary for many reasons: they provide information for decisionmakers who
must decide how to use resources, document the program so it may be
replicated elsewhere, and enable public agencies who are accountable to
political officials and the public to justify the expenditure of resources.
Moreover, part of operating a program is to monitor operations to measure
effectiveness. If the goal of a gang intervention project is to reduce harm
associated with gang activity, the only way to know whether it is reaching that
goal is through program evaluation.

The decision whether to use agency staff or hire external personnel to conduct
evaluations depends on many considerations, including budget, time frame,
independence, and expertise. Even if an agency hires an external evaluator,
program staff are not relieved of evaluation responsibilities. Good evaluations
are cooperative and collaborative, so evaluation-related tasks will inevitably fall
to program staff and supervisors.

An evaluation can be done for two primary reasons. The first is to specify,
document, and analyze a program's processes. This is a "process evaluation,"
which focuses on the internal characteristics of a program. Those characteristics
include the structure (for example, policies and procedures) that guides the
program's operation, the resources necessary to support the program, the
program's goals and objectives, the target group or area, and the approaches
and strategies that represent the program's core elements. The second reason is
to identify the effects of the program. That is achieved through an "impact
evaluation," which examines the program's target to detect whether the
program's desired effects are evident in the targeted population or geographic
area.

It is never too early in the life of a project to begin thinking about how to carry
out the evaluation. Confronting evaluation questions early on helps an evaluation
and improves the likelihood that useful results will emerge. Starting an
evaluation simultaneously with the program means that those designing and
operating the program must specify strategies and activities associated with the
program and then monitor the application of those program elements. In turn,
this means that useful information is generated for those overseeing and
executing the program. An evaluation closely related to the program in this way
links the program's processes with outcomes, improving the ability of evaluators
to link observed results to specific strategies.

----------------------------

Confronting evaluation questions early on helps an evaluation and improves the
likelihood that useful results will emerge.

----------------------------

This chapter builds on basic evaluation steps for determining the effectiveness of
anti-gang efforts that focus on the harm created by gangs. In brief, evaluation
steps include:

o Specifying goals and objectives related to the reduction of harm associated
with gang problems.

o Specifying the target population and time during which the program will
operate.

o Describing the program's activities in detail and directly linking activities with
program objectives, since the objectives represent the reasons for doing the
activities.

o Constructing a logic diagram of the program that represents the cause-and-
effect relationships between activities and accomplishments. 

o Examining success by developing comparisons that will show whether the
program had the intended effects on the target population.

o Specifying other factors that might account for changes in the target
population. For example, other programs, such as a new jobs program, might
account for changes in the target population.

o Designing data collection instruments.

o Developing and analyzing comparisons, which is the data analysis portion of
the evaluation.

o Drawing conclusions.

This chapter is divided into two major sections. The first focuses on process
evaluations. Discussion centers on the formative and managerial functions of a
process evaluation, the need to specify program elements, how to identify the
evaluation's emphases and fine-tune the evaluation, and how to identify
appropriate data. The second section concentrates on impact evaluations and
describes how to use questions as guides for the impact evaluation. It also
reviews several evaluation design issues such as the unit of analysis, levels and
types of effects, determination of appropriate measures, sources and
procedures for obtaining data, and quasi-experimental analyses. The chapter
concludes with a summary of key elements in an evaluation and a list of
suggested references.

----------------------------

A logic diagram of the program . . . focuses on the conceptual and operational
links between a program's activities and its objectives.

----------------------------

Process Evaluations

A process evaluation is concerned with the elements that characterize the
operations and functions of a program, such as organizational structure, policies
and procedures, human and technical resources, goals and objectives, and
activities. The process evaluation disassembles an entire program into its
constituent parts as much as possible so that the details of the program's
operation are readily apparent. This is a valuable exercise even for people who
are well acquainted with a program. Most programs are complex, containing
many pieces that interact continually. Staff members often do not focus on the
various parts of a program because of the demands associated with their
particular responsibilities. Program managers are often unable to concentrate on
the entire picture since modern management is often characterized as "putting
out a series of fires." An evaluation is a good tool for taking stock of a program
in its entirety.

Evaluation, like other research efforts, involves a series of questions that need
answers. Listed below are several general questions that serve as a guide for
conducting a process evaluation (Herman, Morris, and Fitz-Gibbon, 1987):

o What are the program's goals and objectives? Are the goals and objectives
linked?

o What are the program's major characteristics (for example, resources,
activities, participants, and administrative structure)?

o How do program activities contribute to attaining the objectives? (This is one
area where a logic diagram of the program can be helpful. This question focuses
on the conceptual and operational links between a program's activities and its
objectives.)

o How are program activities carried out? (The operation of program activities
often departs from original plans. Be sure to focus on how tasks are actually
performed as well as how they were intended to be done. The issue has two
sides. One is that the actual activities can be compared with intended activities.
That enables those in the program to assess whether plans are being
implemented properly. On the other hand, there may be good reasons why the
plan cannot be carried out as originally envisioned. This is important for an
evaluation. Effects must be attributed to activities, not plans.)

o Are program activities moving toward the objectives? (This refers to the need
for interim measures or milestones that track the project's development.)

o What adjustments in the program might lead to a better attainment of
objectives? (Adjustments include such items as staffing levels, types of staff best
suited for the program, training, additional participants, fewer participants,
incentives, and management and support.)

o What measures could be appropriate for evaluating impact? (Even at this
early stage, evaluators are concerned about appropriate measures of success.
This illustrates the close link between the process and impact evaluations.)

Process evaluations have many uses, including helping to shape the program.
From the earliest stages of program design, decisions are made about how best
to construct the program so that it is efficient, effective, and appropriate for its
context. As any good manager knows, those are not static concerns to be
forgotten once a program is set up. By requiring program staff and managers to
make adjustments in design and operation, the program evolves in both
predictable and unpredictable ways. Asking the questions listed above during
program design closely links the evaluation to the programs structure, and an
ongoing process evaluation enables program managers to make midcourse
corrections if necessary. A program is a dynamic enterprise that must be
managed and evaluated accordingly. 

----------------------------

A gang project would not target an educational campaign to prevent gang
recruitment to young adults because most recruits are youth.

----------------------------

Process evaluations also establish links between objectives and strategies. As
mentioned earlier, a clear connection is needed between the program's
objectives, its strategies, and its activities. If no link exists between objectives
and strategies, positive effects cannot be expected. For example, a gang
project would not target an educational campaign to prevent gang recruitment
to young adults because most recruits are youth. Evaluators and program
administrators must ask whether the program activities are sensible given the
nature of the problem being addressed. A logical relationship must exist among
the strategies, the objectives they intend to address, and appropriate measures
of success. That relationship is important because it is the first step in linking
activities to outcomes. 

A third use of process evaluations concerns replication. If a gang initiative
begins as a pilot project, the intent may be to expand the program if evidence
suggests that it is effective. A process evaluation will aid this expansion by
documenting the structures and main activities that constitute the program. The
written evaluation is part of the institutional memory that spreads knowledge
within the organization. That information also is helpful to other communities
interested in building on a particular gang initiative in the future.

A fourth use of process evaluations is to garner support for the program from
participants and others in the community. Receiving accurate information about
the results of their efforts is important to staff members so that they know the
effects of their actions. In addition, some residents and community leaders will
look for evidence of success before fully committing to a new project.


The issues discussed and questions raised thus far provide general guidance for
a process evaluation. The remainder of this section presents a series of steps
that are essential to that evaluation.

Specifying the Program Elements

Begin by articulating the goals and objectives that represent the general
direction of an anti-gang program. For example, a program's goal might be to
eliminate gang-related driveby shootings in a neighborhood or prevent graffiti
from appearing on the walls of city schools.

Objectives are more specific than goals and show what will be done to attain
the stated goal. For example, objectives associated with the first goal statement
could be the initiation of public education activities in gang neighborhoods, the
implementation of selective crackdowns, and the sponsorship of negotiations
and conflict resolution between rival gangs. Objectives related to the goal of
keeping graffiti off school walls may include establishing a liaison officer in
schools, raising awareness of parents and guardians, organizing afterschool
programs for otherwise unsupervised youth, and restricting the availability of
spray paint. In both examples, objectives are consistent with the program's goal
statement, and because they are more specific than the goals, they say
something about how the goals will be reached.

----------------------------

Objectives related to the goal of keeping graffiti off school walls may include
establishing a liaison officer in schools, raising awareness of parents and
guardians, organizing afterschool programs for otherwise unsupervised youth,
and restricting the availability of spray paint.

----------------------------

Another dimension of specifying the program's elements is to describe the
major features that define the project--that is, the programmatic details that
flow from the established objectives. For example, if an objective is to establish
a liaison officer in elementary schools, the specifics of how to accomplish it
define the program. The major features of such a program would include the
number of officers, the number and locations of the schools, descriptions of the
target area and population, officers' activities and responsibilities, and policies
that guide the program. While the goals establish program direction and the
objectives map out a route toward those goals, the program activities describe
the vehicles the program will use to meet goals and objectives.


A logic diagram can be a valuable tool. As mentioned before, a logic diagram
traces a program's elements from the goals to the specific activities. By
presenting a graphic illustration of a program's logical structure, this diagram
aids the evaluation process, helps managers implement and operate the
program, and spells out activities. In addition, this exercise points toward
potential measures of effectiveness, as indicated by the accompanying logic
diagram in Exhibit 48.

The Purposes of the Evaluation

As mentioned earlier, part of the rationale for conducting an ongoing process
evaluation is to improve the program as it evolves and to prepare for an impact
evaluation, making the program more responsive to changes and strengthening
it. 

Four common purposes for this portion of the evaluation are listed on the next
page with a brief description. Keep in mind that multiple purposes can be
served simultaneously.

o Identify Strengths and Weaknesses of the Program. This refers to the
operation of the overall program and each component. Common questions to
address here include: What is known about the problem to be addressed?
Which parts of the program are in operation? Are resource available? Are
objectives associated with each goal? Does each objective have corresponding
activities? What are key activities of the program? Are adjustments in
management or operation needed?

o Identify Barriers to Implementation. Those barriers can be internal or external
to the program or agency. Common questions include: Are all needed
personnel and agencies involved? Do delays or problems confront program
staff? What causes them? What are possible solutions or responses to
problems?

o Identify Obstacles to Program Effectiveness. As in the item above, impeding
factors can be internal or external to the program. Some typical questions are:
Do we know enough about the problem to craft a response? Do activities
reflect what is known about the problem? Have resources been committed to
the program? Are other ongoing programs addressing the same issue in a
different way? What developments within gangs affect the program? 

o Identify Potential Effects. This includes both positive and negative effects. The
observed links between objectives and activities suggest areas that the program
is striving to affect. Sample questions are: Who is the target population? What is
the target area? What about the target is the program intending to change?

Focusing the Evaluation

The focus for an evaluation is based on earlier work that described the program
fully, including its key activities, targets, and emphases. As in the last section,
focusing an evaluation can be envisioned or planned by presenting a series of
key questions including the following:

o Are Certain Program Components Key to Program Success? For example, a
key element for an in-school primary prevention effort would likely be the
characteristics of educational materials and presentations.

o What Program Elements Are Likely To Be Ineffective? Why? Considering
this question is not casting doubt upon the program. Rather, it is directing
attention toward weaknesses or problems. Possible sources of failure include
weaknesses in the program design (for example, the strategy is inappropriate
for the stated objective), incomplete knowledge of the problem, or the
intractable nature of the problem.

o Are Pieces Missing From the Program as Planned That Might Be Important
for Success? For example, if the anti-gang initiative plans to deliver coordinated
human services to the target population, then cooperative arrangements with
other agencies and community groups are necessary.

o Which Expected Outcomes Will Be the Easiest To Accomplish? This could
relate to the nature of the problem being addressed or the characteristics of the
program.

o What Might Be the Program's Unintended Effects? These can be negative or
positive. For example, afterschool activities might expose children to increased
risk because of the scheduling and location of the activities. Alternatively, such
activities intended to prevent gang membership may, if effective, reduce truancy
because they provide an incentive for attending school.

Seeking answers to these questions is a valuable procedure because it can aid
program development and focus evaluation by uncovering correctable program
weaknesses, anticipating problems, and identifying areas affected by the
program.

----------------------------

Open-ended interviews are useful tools because they provide flexibility for the
respondent to elaborate and for the interviewer to explore.

----------------------------

Collecting Data

Data needs will vary with each program's focus, activities, and specific
strategies. Process evaluations use both quantitative and qualitative data, with
emphasis usually on the latter. Questions that focus on characteristics such as
program emphasis and possible barriers to implementation often require a
detailed knowledge of the program and its target. This is best accomplished
with qualitative data that allow the evaluator to glean program insights.
Open-ended interviews are useful tools because they provide flexibility for the
respondent to elaborate and for the interviewer to explore.

Some types of quantitative data are appropriate for assessing program growth
and development. Interim process measures, such as the number of youth
reached in programs and the number and type of arrests, tell the evaluator and
program staff whether the project's process objectives are being met and
whether the program is moving in the intended direction. It is important to
emphasize that this type of information is not a direct measure of impact. The
program's impact relates to goals and objectives (the program's intended
accomplishments), not the steps taken to achieve those accomplishments.

For example, a gang project includes mediation training to reduce violence
among teenagers, and documents the number of young people who complete
training. Although this information is useful, it says nothing about the training's
effectiveness, even if the numbers were unusually high. A tool to measure gang
violence after mediation training is needed to answer that question. Questions
about effects relate to fulfilling objectives, not applying program activities.
Knowing the number of in-school presentations or the number of arrests for
gang-related offenses does not tell how effective those tactics are at keeping
youth from joining gangs or reducing gang-related violence. However, the
numbers do indicate whether the program is operating as intended and moving
toward the stated objectives.

----------------------------

Knowing the number of in-school presentations or the number of arrests for
gang-related offenses does not tell how effective those tactics are at keeping
youth from joining gangs or reducing gang-related violence.

----------------------------

Primary sources for appropriate process data include program documents,
program staff and supervisors, and program participants. Participants include
program staff, other agency personnel who are involved, personnel from other
organizations, residents and business people in the target area, and the intended
beneficiaries of the program.

Several methods are available for gathering process data. The choice of
methods depends on the information sought. Quantitative process information
might be collected with a data collection sheet that is part of the program's
regular reporting procedures. In this way, generation of evaluation data is part
of the program's routine operation. Other information will require using an
open-ended interview guide during personal interviews with key people.
Observation is another potential method, depending on the information sought.
For example, direct observation will provide data about interactions between
program staff and those targeted by the program.

Taken as a whole, a process evaluation conducted as described here serves
two purposes: to guide program development and to help it remain on track.

Impact Evaluations

All research is guided by questions, and program evaluation is no different. Just
as process evaluations need a focus, so do impact evaluations. Questions that
need answers provide direction. For program evaluation, the questions come
from knowledge of the program being evaluated. This is the link between
process and impact evaluation. The first general question in the mind of an
evaluator is: What is this program trying to accomplish, change, or improve?
Without knowing that, even considering an evaluation is impossible since no one
knows what kind of effects to expect or where to find them. To answer that
question, evaluators can draw on their familiarity with the program's structure,
strategies, and operation. The determination of impact is the last step in the
logical chain that begins with specifying goals and objectives. The objectives
guide the selection of strategies and activities, and the target of strategies is
where effects will be found. The substance of the strategies explains what the
program is trying to change.

Evaluation of the effects of a program involves several design issues that decide
the scope and focus of the impact evaluation. These issues include causality, the
proper unit of analysis, the various levels of effects expected, the selection of
appropriate data, the basics of data collection, and quasi-experimental designs.

Causal Conclusions

Program officials, researchers, political leaders, and funding agencies are
all interested in learning whether the project under study caused the observed
effects. Attributing cause may be considered the ideal, but it is a difficult issue
philosophically and methodologically, with many disagreements over the
concept's meaning and applicability. Despite this difficult issue, considering
questions of causality in program evaluation is helpful. To make the inference
that activity X caused effect Y, three basic conditions must be met. Each is
listed below with a brief explanation:

o X Must Precede Y in Time. That is obvious unless we do not rule out the
possibility of reverse causation. In program evaluation, the program's strategies
must be operating before effects take place if we are to attribute cause to the
program.

o X and Y Must Be Related. Correlation between the two variables must exist.
That is, they must co-vary in some way showing they are connected. If the two
variables act independently (that is, have no relationship), they vary in ways
unconnected to each other.

o Nonspuriousness. Assuming a relationship between two variables (X and
Y), we must learn whether a third variable (Z) causes the changes in them. We
can detect spuriousness statistically by controlling for Z. If the relationship
between X and Y disappears when controlling for Z, the relationship is said to
be spurious. That is, our original observation that X and Y are related is
mistaken. They seemed related because of their mutual relationship to Z. (See
Exhibit 49 for an illustration of spurious and nonspurious relationships.)

Unit of Analysis

The overall evaluation design, including the appropriate unit for analysis, is
guided by the nature and focus of the gang initiative. The two models discussed
in the introduction of this monograph and in Chapter 7--the gang-problem
triangle and the problem-solving model--are important tools for understanding
the nature of gang problems. The first is the gang triangle (see Exhibit 43) that
separates any gang problem into three components: (1) a place where the
problem is concentrated, (2) the victim who is affected by the problem, and (3)
the motivated offender who is responsible for criminal activity. The second tool
is the problem-solving model SARA (scanning, analysis, response, assessment)
as shown in Exhibit 44. These two parts of the gang initiative work together in
this way: The problem-solving activity is directed at one or more of the three
elements that make up the gang triangle. A specific problem-solving activity (for
example, painting over gang-related graffiti) suggests the method to accomplish
something and focuses on the place of the activity. The implementation manual
states clearly that the thrust of gang initiatives is to concentrate on specific
behaviors and harm associated with gang activity.

----------------------------

To find neighborhood-level change attributable to a program that sought to
improve the parenting skills of young mothers would be unlikely.

----------------------------

Evaluating the effectiveness of a paintout means that the assessment must first
look for changes in the target area's physical surroundings and know which
objective the paintout is trying to meet. If the objective of the paintout is to
disrupt gang communications and activity in the area, an appropriate place to
look for effects is in changes in the nature of gang activity (for example, its
frequency and intensity) at the target location. In contrast, if the objective of the
paintout is to reduce fear among residents, residents' attitudes and beliefs can
be examined to measure effects. 

The unit of analysis for an impact evaluation corresponds to the focus of
program activities. If the action being taken aims at individual-level change (for
example, improving parenting skills of teenage mothers), an impact assessment
must focus on the individual level of their parenting behaviors. On the other
hand, if the focus of project activity is to reduce fear of gangs among residents
in an area, the neighborhood is the proper unit of analysis. In both examples,
the unit of analysis represents where evidence of program impact might be
found. This is significant because the analysis could mistakenly be focused at a
level higher than the activity being assessed. For example, to find
neighborhood-level change attributable to a program that sought to improve the
parenting skills of young mothers would be unlikely.

Levels and Types of Effects

Levels of effects are determined by the boundaries of the problem and the
specific actions taken to improve the situation. Of course, this does not mean
that there cannot be multiple levels of effects. The following discussion reviews
the major levels and types of effects that may be the subject of an impact
evaluation.

Place. This refers to the immediate location of a certain problem. For example,
gang members often congregate in locations where they disturb the peace and
perhaps commit serious crimes. The most immediate effect that can be
expected from a problem-solving response is whether the group changes in
some way: leaves the area, reduces in size, gathers less frequently, or becomes
less disruptive. If a change occurs, the first level of effect would be on the
immediate surroundings. If, for example, the police began issuing loitering
citations to those who were gathering, asking whether such actions dispersed
the crowd would be appropriate.

Area Effects. The next level of effects is on the surrounding area. The area's
size will vary according to the program, strategies, and desires of those carrying
out the project. The area can be defined to include the block or street in front
of the place or immediate location of the problem (see Exhibit 50). Natural
boundaries, such as rivers, can also help define an effective operating area for
the program, as can manufactured landmarks such as shopping centers and
apartment complexes. From that point, an area's boundaries could logically be
extended outward to encompass the neighborhood, beat, patrol division, or
entire community. Key ingredients in deciding the appropriate geographic area
for detecting effects are the problem's definition, the objectives sought by
carrying out an intervention, and the strategy's characteristics. Expectations of
success are tied to the substance of the project.

Time Period. An initial question is whether the strategy was effective in the short
term. In the example above concerning loiterers, positive effects would be
expected to appear shortly after the intervention if it were effective. If
short-term effects are evident, the next question is whether the improvement
lasts for some specified time. That varies according to the program and the
intentions of those carrying out the response. A reasonable time period also
depends on the nature of the problem and the strategies used. If the desired
change is to reduce fear of crime in a neighborhood, immediate effects would
not be expected. After obtaining a baseline measure of fear, evaluators must
wait for a relatively lengthy period before expecting to observe change. One
must, however, take practical considerations into account. Often, programs
have deadlines for reporting results, especially when they are funded by outside
entities, such as the Federal or a State government or a foundation. Obviously,
that must be considered when determining how much time to allow for
emergence of results. 

Interim Outcomes. Besides examining the impact of the project's activities on
the target population, evaluators should consider assessing interim
accomplishments connected to the project. The Comprehensive Gang Initiative
notes many tasks that require implementation before interventions can begin.
For example, the initiative specifically calls for police and other human service
organizations in the jurisdiction to form partnerships to deliver a coordinated
program aimed at reducing harm associated with gangs. Before carrying out an
intervention, representatives from the various agencies must form a team to
design and carry out a comprehensive set of services and activities--or perhaps
develop a plan. The formation of an effective group may be seen as an interim
outcome. Such a group is necessary for the program to operate and represents
a qualitative change in the way public service agencies typically function. The
formation of an interagency task force may be viewed as a positive
accomplishment emanating from the program. However, an important caution is
not to construe the formation of this kind of group as evidence of the strategy's
effectiveness. The group may be quite effective in marshaling resources from
their respective agencies for the planned intervention, only to learn later that the
intervention they carried out was not effective in reaching the program goal. The
benefits of cooperation may go beyond the specific project and extend to future
efforts. One could also consider the development of new working relationships
among city agencies is also good for its own sake; benefits flow from doing
things better.

----------------------------

Impact evaluations often stress quantitative data. For example, do fewer youths
hold favorable attitudes toward joining gangs now than before the project or
have gang-related shootings declined during the past year?

----------------------------

Appropriate Measures and Data

As with other aspects of evaluation, decisions about appropriate measures
depend on project objectives and activities. One of the most basic issues about
any measure is its validity: Does it measure what we need measured? Data
needs depend on the type of change sought by the intervention. If the project
seeks to alter gang members' behavior (for example, stop loitering), an
appropriate measure would be one that reflects behavioral changes. On the
other hand, if the project's objective is to change attitudes among youth about
gang membership, an appropriate measure would be one that gauges shifts in
attitudes. Clearly, a measure not linked conceptually with the substantive nature
of the intervention cannot be a valid measure of that intervention's effectiveness.
If, for example, the gang initiative includes steps to eliminate the gathering of
gang members in certain areas through enforcement and the provision of
alternative activities, the effectiveness of those program activities would not be
assessed with a survey that measured young people's attitudes toward gangs in
the neighborhood. 

While qualitative data are emphasized in process evaluations, impact
evaluations often stress quantitative data. This is largely a function of the way
programs are defined and activities designed. Efforts to change attitudes among
groups or reduce the frequency of violent confrontations among gangs invite
numerical comparisons. For example, do fewer youths hold favorable attitudes
toward joining gangs now than before the project or have gang-related
shootings declined during the past year?

That does not mean, however, that qualitative measures are inappropriate for
evaluating effects. As with quantitative measures, appropriate use of qualitative
data depends on the nature of the program and interventions. Some programs
could conceivably aim toward effects that are best measured qualitatively, such
as using conflict resolution training in inner-city schools as a way of introducing
students to less violent ways to settle disagreements. Field observations that
focus on student interactions might be one way of determining the training's
effectiveness. In the earlier example of eliminating graffiti at schools, a valuable
way of documenting effects is through photographs. They are direct evidence
that is clear to the observer no matter what the outcome. 

----------------------------

In the example of eliminating graffiti at schools, a valuable way of documenting
effects is through photographs.

----------------------------

Combining quantitative and qualitative data as a way of enriching understanding
of program effects is also valuable. Although these two kinds of data differ
considerably, they are complementary in some ways. Quantitative data allow
the researcher to obtain information across a broad spectrum. For example, the
results of a properly conducted citizen survey can provide information
representative of many people. This breadth of information contrasts with a
greater depth of information from qualitative methods. 

Consider a brief evaluation example that illustrates how these two types of
data can illuminate different aspects of program effects. If the objective of
an anti-gang intervention is to reduce calls for service to police from a specific
location, an obviously appropriate procedure is to track calls for service. If
fewer calls result, that will not necessarily suggest why the effects took place.
One way to get this type of information is through structured focus groups of
key people in the community. Their knowledge of the community could easily
shed light on community reactions and perceptions that underlie a reduction in
calls for service. Qualitative information can add texture to the broad picture
provided by quantitative measures.

Data Collection

Whatever kind or combination of data is appropriate, it must be collected
systematically and uniformly throughout the evaluation. The instruments or
protocols needed will vary depending on the design and the kind of data
sought. Most people are familiar with questionnaires that have a series of
close-ended questions administered to a sample of the target population.
Another kind of instrument is an interview protocol that is a guide for a personal
interview. A third kind of instrument is a form designed to direct data collection
from past files (for example, files of all gang-related homicides). A fourth
example is a check sheet for use by someone making observations of certain
kinds of behavior. The type of instrument depends on the kind of data being
collected and the form in which it is available.

Many potential sources exist for needed evaluation data. The appropriate
source depends on the kind of data being sought. Listed below are several
common sources of data that can be useful for evaluating a gang initiative
project:

o Official Records. They include criminal incident reports, call-for-service logs,
arrest reports, census records, school disciplinary records, hospital records,
and tax records. 

o Surveys. They can take many forms--mail, phone, and face-to-face.

o Program Files. Records and descriptions of program activities usually contain
not only process information but also information related to effects.

o Crime Analysis. This can be a valuable source of information depending on
the degree of flexibility and extent of automated information.

o Communications. Computer-aided dispatching systems are potential sources
of information on calls for service or response times.

o Key Informants. They should include a wide spectrum of people, including
staff from all levels of the project, representatives from outside agencies,
volunteers, and members of the target population.

o Focus Groups. Group discussions led by a facilitator probe the group's
knowledge of the program. The facilitator guides the discussion through
questions or statements that elicit the group's views. Focus group discussions
can concentrate on single issues or cover a range of program-related issues.

o Focused Interviews. These are conducted with key people inside and
outside the program.

o Observations. They include direct observations by evaluators of the target
area and project activities. In addition, photographs may be appropriate.

Design and Analysis

This section presents basic information on quasi-experimental approaches that
detect whether observed effects are attributable to the program.

The most powerful design for determining cause and effect is the true
control-group approach. Using random assignment, this design analyzes
post-intervention differences between the target population and a control group
not exposed to the intervention. Random assignment means that people
exposed to a program are selected randomly, as are control-group members
who do not receive the intervention. This permits direct causal inferences about
the effects of the program. 

This design is widely used in other fields but notoriously difficult to implement in
applied research settings such as gang intervention projects. People's daily lives
are not subject to laboratory manipulation. However, alternative designs are
available and enable evaluators to detect effects.

Time-series analysis is a common approach used by researchers when using a
control group is not possible. Time series is a statistical modeling approach that
can distinguish program effects from other sources of variation in longitudinal
data. A time-series design can focus on only one study group (the target group)
or be used in conjunction with a comparison group. In the single-group design,
a series of multiple measurements is made before, during, and after the
intervention to assess the program's impact. Furthermore, the measurements
must be made with the same instrument.

----------------------------

Decreases in calls for service or reported crime in the target area can be
compared to what occurred in the surrounding area. In addition, the target
area's trends can be compared to citywide trends.

----------------------------

This type of analysis works well when appropriate data for finding effects are
collected routinely over a long period. Calls for service and hospital admission
records are good examples. They are collected as part of the agencies' normal
organizational routines and can be arranged into time intervals (for example,
daily, weekly, or monthly) most applicable to the research. 

Time-series analysis also can be used with a nonequivalent control group--a
group that is similar to (but not the same as) the target group and that is not
selected through random assignment. One example is a situation in which the
gang initiative targets one part of a city but not another area where gangs also
are active. After researchers take into account the differences between the two
sections of the community, this design can reveal the nature of program effects.

With certain kinds of data, the results observed for the program's target 
area can be compared with those for other sections of the same city. For
example, decreases in calls for service or reported crime in the target area can
be compared to what occurred in the surrounding area to determine if the
activity has been displaced from the target area. In addition, the target area's
trends can be compared to citywide trends. This type of comparison is an
improvement over pretest and posttest analyses solely of program results. A
pre-post analysis with no comparison focuses on documenting changes that
occur only within the target area and does not provide persuasive evidence of
program effects. Making comparisons with other sections of the same
jurisdiction can suggest whether the changes observed in the target area are
typical or atypical for the community. In this example, a reduction in calls for
service from the target area while calls are increasing elsewhere suggests that
the project is having an effect.

Overview of Process and Impact Evaluations

As discussed throughout this chapter, the process and impact portions of an
evaluation are linked and work together. The evaluation elements that have
been outlined guide the management of a program and the assessment of its
results. Exhibit 51 shows the relationship between the two segments of an
evaluation. The upper left cell indicates that the process evaluation determined
that the program was implemented well and that the impact assessment
documented that the program had the desired effects. Here, the program is
judged to be a success. The lower left cell suggests a situation where no or
limited effects resulted, even though the program was implemented properly.
Here, the program is judged to be ineffective with respect to the impact
measures. The upper right cell indicates the program was not implemented well,
but positive effects were measured nevertheless. Here, the positive effects
cannot be attributed to the program. The last cell suggests an implementation
failure, and no judgment can be made regarding the program's effectiveness.

Obviously, the ideal is a well-implemented program that has a high level of
success, but that is not always possible. Whatever the outcome, a
well-conceived evaluation in which the process and impact portions are linked
enables evaluators to make an informed assessment.

----------------------------

Appendix A: References

Ayres, Richard M. 1993. "The Clandestine Laboratory Enforcement Program:
Planning a Strategy." In Developing a Strategy for a Multiagency Response to
Clandestine Drug Laboratories, eds. Anna T. Laszlo and Michael S.
McCampbell. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Assistance. 

Babbie, Earl. 1992. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.

Babbie, Earl. 1990. Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bell, D. 1953. "Crime as an American Way of Life." In The Sociology of
Crime and Delinquency, eds. Marvin E. Wolfgang, Leonard Savitz, and
Norman Johnson. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Below, Patrick J., George L. Morrissey, and Betty L. Acomb. 1987. The
Executive Guide to Strategic Planning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Block, C.R., and R. Block. 1993. "Street Gang Crime in Chicago." In The
Modern Gang Reader, eds. Malcolm Klein, Cheryl L. Maxson, and Jody
Miller. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Blumstein, A., J. Cohen, J.A. Roth, and C.A. Visher. 1986. Criminal Careers
and "Career Criminals." Vol. 1. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Burbidge, John. 1993. "A Model of Community Empowerment." In "Building
Community Strategies." Handout at Third National Conference of the Youth
Gang Drug Prevention Program, Arlington, VA, October 20, 1993, sponsored
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Family and Youth
Services Bureau. 

Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1997. Addressing Community Gang Problems: A
Model for Problem Solving. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Office of Justice Programs. 

California Council on Criminal Justice. 1989. Task Force Report on Gangs and
Drugs. Sacramento, CA: Council on Criminal Justice.

California Department of Justice. Division of Law Enforcement. Bureau of
Investigation. 1993. Gangs 2000: A Call to Action. Sacramento, CA: California
Department of Justice. 

Campbell, Anne. 1990. "Female Gangs." In Gangs in America, ed. C. Ronald
Huff. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Castleman, Craig. 1982. Getting Up: Subway Graffiti in New York.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chaiken, J., and M. Chaiken. 1982. Varieties of Criminal Behavior. Santa
Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

Chavis, D.M., and P. Florin. 1990. "Community Participation and Substance
Abuse Prevention: Rationale, Concepts and Mechanisms." Santa Clara County
(CA) Health Department. Bureau of Drug Abuse Services.

Chin, K. 1990. "Chinese Gangs and Extortion." In Gangs in America, ed. C.
Ronald Huff. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Churchman, C.W. 1968. The Systems Approach. New York: Dell. 

The Circle, Inc. 1991a. The Future by Design: A Community Framework for
Preventing Alcohol and Other Drug Problems Through a Systems Approach.
Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office for
Substance Abuse Prevention. Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health
Administration.

The Circle, Inc. 1991b. Getting It Together: Promoting Drug-Free
Communities--A Resource Guide for Developing Youth Coalitions. Rockville,
MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office for Substance
Abuse Prevention. Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration.

Citizens Crime Commission of Tarrant County. 1991. Gangs in Tarrant
County--Strategies for a Grass-Roots, Holistic Approach to Gang-Related
Crime. Fort Worth, TX: Citizens Crime Commission of Tarrant County.

Cloward, R., and L. Ohlin. 1960. Delinquency and Opportunity. Glencoe, IL:
The Free Press.

Cohen, A.K. 1955. Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New York:
The Free Press.

Cohen, L., and M. Felson. 1979. "Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A
Routine Activity Approach." American Sociological Review 44 (August), pp.
588-607.

Collins, J. 1990. "Summary Thoughts About Drugs and Violence." In Drugs
and Violence, ed. M. de la Rosa, E. Lambert, and B. Groper. Rockville, MD:
National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Collins, J., L.L. Powers, and A. Craddock. 1989. Recent Drug Use and
Violent Arrest Charges in Three Cities. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research
Triangle Institute.

Community Reclamation Project. 1990. Rising Above Gangs and Drugs--How
to Start a Community Reclamation Project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Conklin, J. 1992. Criminology. New York: Macmillan.

Conly, Catherine H. 1993. Street Gangs: Current Knowledge and Strategies.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice.

Cooper, B.M. 1987. "Motor City Breakdown." In Village Voice, pp. 23-25.

Decker, S., and B. Van Winkle. 1994. Slinging Dope: The Role of Gangs and
Gang Members in Drug Sales. St. Louis, MO: University of Missouri Press.

Dillman, Don A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design
Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dunston, Mark S. 1992. Street Signs: An Identification Guide of Symbols of
Crime and Violence. Powers Lake, WI: Performance Dimensions Publishing.

Eck, John E. 1994. Drug Markets and Drug Places: A Case-Control Study of
the Spatial Structure of Illicit Drug Dealing. College Park, MD: University of
Maryland.

Eck, John E., and Nancy G. La Vigne. 1993. A Police Guide to Supplying
Citizens and Their Environment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Eck, John E., and W. Spelman. 1987. Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented
Policing in Newport News. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research
Forum.

Fagan, J. 1993. "The Political Economy of Drug Dealing Among Urban
Gangs." In Drugs and Community, ed. R.C. Davis, A. Lurigio, and D.
Rosenbaum.

Fagan, J. 1990. "Social Processes of Delinquency and Drug Use Among Urban
Gangs." In Gangs in America, ed. C. Ronald Huff. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Fagan, J. 1989. "The Social Organization of Drug Use and Drug Dealing
Among Urban Gangs." Criminology 27, pp. 633-669.

Fagan, J., and K. Chin. 1991. "Social Processes of Initiation Into Crack Use
and Dealing." Journal of Drug Issues 21, pp. 313-343.

Fagan, J., and K. Chin. 1990. "Violence as Regulation and Social Control in
the Distribution of Crack." In Drugs and Violence, ed. M. de la Rosa, E.
Lambert, and B. Gropper. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Felson, M. 1986. "Linking Criminal Career Choices, Routine Activities,
Informal Control and Criminal Outcomes." In The Reasoning Criminal: Rational
Choice Perspectives on Offending, ed. Derek Cornish and Ronald V. Clarke.
New York: Springer-Verlag.

Francis, David, and Don Young. 1979. Improving Work Groups: A Practical
Manual for Team Building. San Diego, CA: University Associates, Inc.

Gerharz, George. 1993. "Community Organization." Social Development
Commission, Milwaukee, WI. Presentation at Third National Conference of the
Youth Gang Drug Prevention Program, Arlington, VA, October 20, 1993,
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Family and
Youth Services Bureau.

Goldstein, A.P., and C. Ronald Huff. 1993. The Gang Intervention Handbook.
Champaign, IL: Research Press. 

Goldstein, H. 1990. Problem-Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.


Goldstein, P.J. 1985. "The Drugs/Violence Nexus: A Tripartite Conceptual
Framework." Journal of Drug Issues 14.

Goode, E. 1989. Drugs in American Society (3d ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill. 

Goodstein, Leonard D., Timothy M. Nolan, and J. William Pfeiffer. 1992.
Applied Strategic Planning--A Comprehensive Guide. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer
and Co.

Hagedorn, J. 1994. "Neighborhoods, Markets and Gang Drug Organization."
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 31 (August), pp. 264-294.

Hagedorn, J., and P. Macon. 1988. People and Folks: Gangs Crime and the
Underclass in a Rustbelt City. Chicago: Lakeview Press.

Herman, J.L., Lynx L. Morris, and Carol T. Fitz-Gibbon. 1987. Evaluator's
Handbook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hines, Gary. 1991. "Strategic Planning Made Easy." Training and
Development. (April).

Hirschi, T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA:
University of California Press.

Horowitz, R. 1983. Honor and the American Dream: Culture and Identity in a
Chicano Community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 

Huff, C. Ronald. 1990a. "Denial, Overreaction and Misidentification: A
Postscript on Public Policy." In Gangs in America, ed. C. Ronald Huff.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Huff, C. Ronald, ed. 1990b. Gangs in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Huff, C. Ronald. 1989. "Gangs, Organized Crime, and Drug-Related Violence
in Ohio." In Understanding the Enemy: An Informational Overview of
Substance Abuse in Ohio. Columbus, OH: Governor's Office of Criminal
Justice Services.

Huff, C. Ronald. 1988a. "Youth Gangs and Public Policy in Ohio: Findings and
Recommendations." Paper presented at the Ohio Conference on Youth Gangs
and the Urban Underclass, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Huff, C. Ronald. 1988b. "Youth Gangs and Police Organizations: Rethinking
Structure and Functions." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, San Francisco.

Inciardi, J., ed. 1981. The Drugs-Crime Connection. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.

Johnson, B.D., P.J. Goldstein, E. Preble, J. Schmeidler, D. Lipton, B. Spunt,
and T. Miller. 1985. Taking Care of Business: The Economics of Crime by
Heroin Abusers. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Join Together. 1993. Strategies 2 (3) (entire issue) (Fall). 

Kaufman, Roger. 1992. Strategic Planning Plus: An Organizational Guide.
Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Kenney, D.J., and J.O. Finckenauer. 1995. Organized Crime in America.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Klein, Malcolm, and Cheryl L. Maxson. 1989. "Street Gang Violence." In
Violent Crime, Violent Criminals, ed. Alan Weiner and Marvin E. Wolfgang.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Klein, Malcolm, Cheryl L. Maxson, and Jody Miller. 1995. The Modern
Gang Reader. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Kornhauser, R. 1978. Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal of
Analytic Models. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Larson, R.C., and A.R. Odoni. 1981. Urban Operations Research. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lee, D. 1981. The Cocaine Handbook: An Essential Reference. San Rafael,
CA: What If? Publishing.

Lew v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. App. 4th 866 (1993).

Lincoln, Y.S., and E.G. Guba. 1982. Effective Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.

Little, C. 1995. Deviance and Control: Theory, Research and Social Policy.
Istaca, IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers.

Maxson, Cheryl. 1995. "Research in Brief: Street Gangs and Drug Sales in
Two Suburban Cities." In The Modern Gang Reader, ed. Malcolm Klein,
Cheryl L. Maxson, and Jody Miller. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Maxson, Cheryl L., and Malcolm Klein. 1990. "Street Gang Violence: Twice
as Great or Half as Great." In Gangs in America, ed. C. Ronald Huff. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Maxson, Cheryl L., and Malcolm Klein. 1989. "Street Gang Violence." In
Violent Crime, Violent Criminals, ed. N.A. Warner and Marvin E. Wolfgang.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

McNamara, R. 1995. "The Emphasis of the Legal Norm in Solving Social
Problems." Unpublished manuscript. Furman University, Greenville, SC.

Medrano, Manny. 1993. "Building Community Strategies." Presentation at
Third National Conference of the Youth Gang Drug Prevention Program,
Arlington, VA, October 20, 1993, sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Family and Youth Services Bureau.

Meehan, P.J., and P.W. O'Carroll. 1992. "Gangs, Drugs, and Homicide in
Los Angeles." American Journal of Diseases of Children 146, pp. 683-687.

Mieczkowski, T. 1986. "Geeking Up and Throwing Down: Heroin Street
Life in Detroit. "Criminology 24, pp. 645-666.

Miller, W. 1990. "Why the United States Has Failed To Solve Its Youth Gang
Problem." In Gangs in America, ed. C. Ronald Huff. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Miller, W. 1975. Violence by Youth Gangs and Youth Groups as a Crime
Problem in Major American Cities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. National
Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Miller, W. 1958. "Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang
Delinquency." Journal of Social Issues 14, pp. 5-19.

Montgomery, Douglas C. 1996. Introduction to Statistical Quality Control
(3d ed.). New York: John Wiley. 

Moore, J.W. 1990. Gangs, Drugs, and Violence. Rockville, MD: National
Institute on Drug Abuse.

National Institute of Justice. 1993a. NIJ Program Plan 1993. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice.

National Institute of Justice. 1993b. Searching for Answers--Annual Evaluation
Report on Drugs and Crime: 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice. National Institute of Justice.

Nutt, Paul C., and Robert W. Backoff. 1992. Strategic Management of Public
and Third Sector Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1989. Communitywide
Responses Crucial for Dealing With Youth Gangs. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.

Patton, Michael Q. 1981. Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications. 

Pfeiffer, J. William, Leonard D. Goodstein, and Timothy M. Nolan. 1985.
Understanding Applied Strategic Planning: A Manager's Guide. San Diego,
CA: University Associates, Inc.

Pierce, G.L., S. Spaar, and L.R. Briggs. 1986. The Character of Police Work
Strategic and Tactical Limitations. Boston: Center for Applied Research,
Northeastern University.

Program Evaluation Kit (2d ed.). 1987. Includes nine volumes: Evaluator's
Handbook, How to Focus an Evaluation, How to Design a Program
Evaluation, How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation, How to Assess
Program Implementation, How to Measure Attitudes, How to Measure
Performance and Use Tests, How to Analyze Data, and How to Communicate
Evaluation Findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Quicker, J.C., Y.N. Galeai, and A. Batani-Khalfani. 1991. Bootstrap or
Noose: Drugs in South Central Los Angeles. New York: Social Science
Research Council.

Romotsky, Jerry A., and Sally R. Romotsky. 1976. Los Angeles Barrio
Calligraphy. Los Angeles: Dawson's Book Shop.

Rossi, P.H., and H.E. Freeman. 1993. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach
(3d ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Rutman, L.J., ed. 1979. Evaluation Research Methods: A Basic Guide.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Sanchez-Jankowski, M. 1991. Islands in the Street: Gangs and American
Urban Society. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Sanders, W. 1994. Gangbangs and Drive-bys: Grounded Culture and Juvenile
Gang Violence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 

Scherkenbach, William W. The Deming Route to Quality and Productivity
Management. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

Scholtes, Peter R. 1988. The Team Handbook--How to Use Teams to
Improve Quality. Madison, WI: Joiner Associates, Inc.

Shaw, C.R. 1930. The Jack-Roller: A Delinquent Boy's Own Story. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Shaw, C.R., and H.D. McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sherman, L.W. 1987. "Repeat Calls to Police in Minneapolis." In Crime
Control Reports, Number 4. Washington, DC: Crime Control Institute.

Short, J.F., Jr. 1990a. "Cities, Gangs, and Delinquency." Sociological Forum 5,
pp. 657-668.

Short, J.F., Jr. 1990b. "New Wine in Old Bottles? Change and Continuity in
American Gangs." In Gangs in America, ed. C. Ronald Huff. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.

Skogan, W.G. 1990. Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in
American Neighborhoods. New York: The Free Press.

Skogan, W.G. 1989. "Social Change and the Future of Violent Crime." In
Violence in America, vol. 1, ed. T.R. Gurr. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Skolnick, J.H. 1992. "Gangs in the Post-Industrial Ghetto." American Prospect
8, pp. 109-120.

Skolnick, J.H. 1990. "Gangs and Crime Old as Time: But Drugs Change
Gangs." In Crime and Delinquency in California 1980-1989. Sacramento, CA:
State of California Department of Justice. Office of the Attorney General.
Bureau of Criminal Justice Statistics and Special Services. 

Skolnick, J.H., T. Correl, E. Navarro, and R. Rabb. 1989. "The Social
Structure of Street Drug Dealing." In BCS Forum: The Social Structure of
Street Drug Dealing. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. 

Spelman, W., and John E. Eck. 1989. "Sitting Ducks, Ravenous Wolves, and
Helping Hands: New Approaches to Urban Policing." Comment 35 (2)
(Winter), pp. 1-9.

Spergel, Irving A. 1992. "Youth Gangs: An Essay Review." Social Service
Review 66, pp. 121-140.

Spergel, Irving A. 1991. Youth Gangs: Problems and Responses. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.

Spergel, Irving A. 1990. "Youth Gangs: Continuity and Change." In Crime
and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 12, ed. Norval Morris and Michael
Tonry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Spergel, Irving A., and G. David Curry. 1990. "Strategies and Perceived
Agency Effectiveness in Dealing with the Youth Gang Problem." In Gangs
in America, ed. C. Ronald Huff. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications

Spergel, Irving A., Ronald L. Chance, and G. David Curry. 1990. "National
Youth Gang Suppression and Intervention Program." OJJDP Juvenile Justice
Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.

Spergel, Irving A., Ronald L. Chance, K. Ehrensaft, T. Regulus, C. Kane,
R. Laseter, A. Alexander, and S. Oh. 1994. Gang Suppression and
Intervention: Community Models. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Spergel, Irving A., G. David Curry, Ronald L. Chance, Candice Kare, Ruth E.
Moss, Alba Alexander, Pamela Rodriguez, Deeda Sied, Edwina Simmons, and
Sandra Oh. 1989. Youth Gangs: Problems and Responses. Report to the U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Stedman, John. 1993. "Overview of the Comprehensive Gang Initiative."
Presentation at Comprehensive Gang Initiative Cluster Conference 1,
sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Police Executive
Research Forum, Washington, DC, November 17, 1993. 

Sullivan, M. 1989. Getting Paid: Youth Crime and Work in the Inner City.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Taylor, Carl S. 1990. "Gang Imperialism." In Gangs in America, ed. C. Ronald
Huff. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Thrasher, F.M. 1927. The Gang: A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tracy, P. 1987. Subcultural Delinquency: A Comparison of the Incidence and
Severity of Gang and Nongang Member Offenses. Boston: College of Criminal
Justice, Northeastern University. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1991. Getting It Together:
Promoting Drug-Free Communities. Washington, DC. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1989. Nontraditional Organized Crime: Law
Enforcement Officials' Perspectives on Five Criminal Groups. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.

Van Maneen, J. 1988. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vigil, J.D. 1988. Barrio Gangs: Street Life and Identity in Southern
California. Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press. 

Vigil, J.D., and Steve Chong Yun. 1990. "Vietnamese Youth Gangs in
Southern California." In Gangs in America, ed. C. Ronald Huff. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Von Bertalanaffy, L. 1969. General Systems Theory: Foundation,
Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller.

Waldorf, D., and D. Lauderback. 1993. Gang Drug Sales in San Francisco:
Organized or Freelance? Alameda, CA: Institute for Scientific Analysis.

Weick, K.E. 1984. "Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social Problems."
American Psychologist 39(1), pp. 40-49.


Whitford, M.J. 1992. Getting Rid of Graffiti: A Practical Guide to Graffiti
Removal and Anti-Graffiti Protection. London: E & FN Spon.

Witham, Donald C. 1990. "Strategic Planning for Law Enforcement." The
Police Chief 57 (January), pp. 24-25, 27-29.

Wooden, Wayne S. 1995. Renegade Kids, Suburban Outlaws. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.

----------------------------

Appendix B: Sources for Further Information

For more information on the Comprehensive Gang Initiative, contact:

Police Executive Research Forum
1120 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 910
Washington, DC 20036
202-466-7820
Contact: John Stedman

For more information on community efforts to combat gang activity, contact:

Department of Justice Response Center
1-800-421-6770

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
1-800-688-4252
Fax: 301-519-5212

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
1-800-638-8736
Fax: 301-519-5212

National Youth Gang Center
P.O. Box 12729
Tallahassee, FL 32317
850-385-0600
Fax: 850-385-5356

----------------------------

Bureau of Justice Assistance Information

General Information

Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for
general information or specific needs, such as assistance in submitting grants
applications and information on training. To contact the Response Center, call
1-800-421-6770 or write to 1100 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20005.

Indepth Information

For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding
opportunities, requesters can call the BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA
Clearinghouse, a component of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS), shares BJA program information with State and local agencies and
community groups across the country. Information specialists are available to
provide reference and referral services, publication distribution, participation
and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities. The
Clearinghouse can be reached by:

o Mail
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000

o Visit
2277 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850

o Telephone
1-800-688-4252
Monday through Friday
8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. eastern time

o Fax
301-519-5212

o Fax on Demand
1-800-688-4252


o BJA Home Page
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

o NCJRS World Wide Web
http://www.ncjrs.org

o E-mail
askncjrs@ncjrs.org

o JUSTINFO Newsletter
E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org
Leave the subject line blank
In the body of the message, type: 
subscribe justinfo 
[your name]