MENU TITLE: Survey of Youth Gang Programs
Series: OJJDP
Published: Draft 5/90
219 pages
450,211 bytes

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

Some figures, charts, forms, and tables are not 
included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view
this document in its entirety, download the Adobe
Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site
or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420.

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

Survey of Youth Gang Problems and Programs in 45
Cities and 6 Sites

Irving Spergel, G. David Curry, Ron Chance, Ruth
Ross

with

Amy Clark, Alba Alexander, Candace Kane, Phillis
Garth, Dawn Isis, Michael Hyatt, Roberto Caldero,
Paul Hamanda, Pamela Rodriguez, Janet Curry, and
Sandra Oh

National Youth Gang Suppression and Intervention  
 Program
School of Social Service Administration
University of Chicago

Distributed By:
Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20850
1-800-638-8736

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

ABSTRACT

This draft report presents the results of a
national survey of 254 law enforcement, judicial
system, education, and social welfare
professionals who deal with the youth gang problem
in 45 cities and 6 institutional sites (mainly
correctional institutions). The cities and sites
were located in four regions of the country:
Northeast, Midwest, South, and the West. The goal
of this survey was to achieve a better
understanding of the nature of the organized
response to the youth-gang problem by a range of
criminal-justice and community-based agencies. The
survey included a written questionnaire, telephone
survey, and site visits. It was conducted by a
team of researchers at the University of Chicago
and sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Development, U.S. Department of
Justice. The report includes analysis of responses
to questions concerning the definition of youth
gang and related terms, the nature and causes of
the gang phenomenon, trends in gang growth and
activity, and the relative effectiveness of
various suppression and intervention strategies.
The report contains 6 charts and 90 tables of
text. Additional analysis, with 10 charts and 52
tables, is provided in two appendixes. 

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
 METHOD AND SCOPE
 SUMMARY

CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS OF GANG, GANG MEMBER, AND
GANG INCIDENT
 THE GANG
 DIFFERENCES IN GANG DEFINITION BY AREA AND    
 RESPONDENT
 SUMMARY: GANG DEFINITION
 THE GANG MEMBER
 DIFFERENCES IN GANG MEMBER IDENTIFICATION
 SUMMARY: GANG MEMBER DEFINITION
 GANG-RELATED INCIDENTS
 DIFFERENCES IN DEFINING GANG INCIDENT BY AREA
 SUMMARY: GANG INCIDENT DEFINITION
 SUMMARY

CHAPTER 3 GANG-CHARACTERISTICS
 SIZE OF THE PROBLEM
 GANG SIZE
 RACE, ETHNICITY, AND GANGS
 GANG ORGANIZATIONAL PARAMETERS
 LEVEL OF GANG CRIMINALITY
 ADULTS AND GANGS
 DRUGS AND GANGS
 GANG PATTERNS: INTERRELATIONSHIP FOR STRUCTURAL  
 AND BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS
 CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, DRUG TRAFFICKING, AND THE 
 SPREAD OF THE YOUTH GANG PROBLEM
 SUMMARY

CHAPTER 4 RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM
 INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
 SIZE OF AGENCY
 SPECIFIC POLICIES
 TRAINING
 ORGANIZATIONAL SPECIALIZATION
 ADVISORY AND INTERAGENCY STRUCTURES
 PATTERNS OF AGENCY RESPONSE
 SPECIAL POLICIES
 ORGANIZATION INFLUENCE AND COORDINATION
 SPECIALIZED TRAINING
 ORGANIZATIONAL SPECIALIZATION
 RELATIONSHIPS OF AGENCY RESPONSE TO GANG PROBLEM 
 POLICIES
 ADVISORY STRUCTURES AND TASK FORCE RESPONSES
 AVAILABILITY OF TRAINING
 ORGANIZATIONAL SPECIALIZATION
 SUMMARY

CHAPTER 5 STRATEGIES AND CAUSES
 COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
 SOCIAL INTERVENTION
 OPPORTUNITIES PROVISION
 SUPPRESSION
 ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE
 MDS STRATEGY DIFFERENCES
 PERCEIVED CAUSES OF THE GANG PROBLEM
 MDS CAUSAL PERCEPTIONS
 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERCEIVED CAUSE AND     
 STRATEGY
 NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS OF AREAS AND RESPONDENTS 
 SUMMARY

CHAPTER 6 EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTION
 CHANGES IN THE LEVEL OF THE PROBLEM
 PERCEIVED IMPROVEMENT AND THE NATURE OF THE    
 PROBLEM
 POLICY AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES
 UNIT EFFECTIVENESS
 INTERAGENCY EFFECTIVENESS
 SELECTING PROMISING APPROACHES
 DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN CHRONIC AND EMERGING    
 CITIES
 FINDING EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES
 BUILDING CAUSAL REGRESSION MODELS
 SUMMARY

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A
 An MDS Approach to Gang Definition by Area
 An MDS Approach to Gang Definition by Respondent 
 Category
 An MDS Approach to Membership Identification by  
 Area
 An MDS Approach to Gang Member Definition by   
 Respondent Category
 An MDS Approach to Gang Incident by Site
 An MDS Approach to Gang Incident by Respondent  
 Category
 MDS Strategy Differences Across Areas and     
 Respondent Categories
 Differences among Sites in Strategy
 Differences Among Respondent Categories in    
 Strategy
 Comparison of Causal Perceptions Across Sites
 Comparison of Causal Perceptions Across      
 Respondent Categories
 Network Measures

APPENDIX B

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 6-1 General Effectiveness Score and
Community Organizational Strategy

Figure 6-2 General Effectiveness Score and Social
Intervention Strategy

Figure 6-3 General Effectiveness Score and
Opportunities Provision

Figure 6-4 General Effectiveness Score and
Suppression Strategy

Figure 6-5 General Effectiveness Score and
Organizational Development Strategy

TEXT TABLES

Table 1-3. Respondents in Analysis by Geographic
Area (n = 45) and Selected Institutions (n = 6)

Table 1-4. Respondent Categories

Table 1-5. Type of Gang Problem by Area (City,
County, Site)

Table 2-1. Groupings of Dichotomous Variables
Derived from Content Analysis of Definition of a
Gang (Item III-1)

Table 2-3. Rotated Factor Matrix from GLS Factor
Analysis of Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
of Gang Definition Characteristics

Table 2-4. Average Degree of Consensus on Gang
Definitional Criteria by Area

Table 2-5. Average Degree of Consensus on Gang
Definitional Criteria by Respondent Category

Table 2-6. Average Degree of Consensus for 42
Areas and 13 Respondent Categories by Definitional
Criteria

Table 2-13. Methods of Identifying Gang Members

Table 2-15. Rotated Factor Matrix from GLS Factor
Analysis of Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
of Gang Incident Definition Characteristics

Table 2-16. Average Degree of Consensus on
Membership Criteria by Area

Table 2-17. Average Degree of Consensus on Member
Identification Methods by Respondent Category

Table 2-18. Average Degree of Consensus for 42
Areas and 13 Respondent Categories by Member
Identification Criteria

Table 2-25. Definitions of a Gang-Related Incident

Table 2-27. Rotated Factor Matrix from GLS Factor
Analysis of Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
of Gang Incident Definition Characteristics

Table 2-28. Average Degree of Consensus on
Incident Criteria by Area

Table 2-29. Average Degree of Consensus on
Incident Identification Methods by Respondent
Category

Table 2-30. Average Degree of Consensus for 42
Area and 13 Respondent Categories by Definitional
Criteria

Table 3-1. Number of Gangs and Gang Members in
1987

Table 3-2. City and County Populations (1984)

Table 3-3. Correlations: City/County Population
Size, Numbers of Gangs, and Numbers of Gang
Members

Table 3-20. Pearson Correlations for Selected Gang
Problem Characteristics

Table 3-21. Pearson Correlations for Selected Gang
Problem Characteristics

Table 3-22. Pearson Correlations for Selected Gang
Problem Characteristics

Table 3-23. Point Biserial Correlations of Gangs
of Same Name in Different Neighborhoods and
Selected Measures of the Gang Problem

Table 3-24. Point Biserial Correlations of Gangs
Affiliated with Adult Criminal Organizations and
Selected Measures of the Gang Problem

Table 3-25. Point Biserial Correlations of Drugs a
Primary Purpose of the Gang and Selected Measures
of the Gang Problem

Table 3-26. Point Biserial Correlations of Gang
Members Involved in the Importation of Drugs and
Selected Measures of the Gang Problem

Table 3-27. Gangs with the Same Name are Found in
Different Areas and Respondents Reporting Gang
Affiliation with Adult Criminal Organizations

Table 3-28. Gangs with the Same Name are Found in
Different Areas and Drugs are a Primary Purpose of
the Gang

Table 3-29. Gangs with the Same Name are Found in
Different Areas and Gang Members are Involved in
the Importation of Drugs

Table 3-30. Respondents Reporting Gang Affiliation
with Adult Criminal Organizations and Drugs are a
Primary Purpose of the Gang

Table 3-31. Respondents Reporting Gang Affiliation
with Adult Criminal Organizations and Gang Members
are Involved in the Importation of Drugs

Table 3-32. Drugs are a Primary Purpose of the
Gang and Gang Members are Involved in the
Importation of Drugs

Table 4-10. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
between Measures of the Policy Aspects of Gang
Program Responses

Table 4-11. Organizations Who Have Special
Policies and Procedures for Dealing with Gangs and
Organizations whose Special Gang Policies and
Procedures are in Writing

Table 4-12. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
between Measures of Communication and Coordination
Aspects of Gang Program Responses

Table 4-13. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
between Measures of Policy and Measure of
Communication and Coordination in Gang Program
Responses

Table 4-14. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
between the Availability of Special Gang Training
for Personnel and Other Gang Program Responses

Table 4-15. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
between Organizational Specialization and Other
Gang Program Responses

Table 4-16. Point Biserial Correlations of Having
a Special Gang Policy and Selected Measures of the
Gang Problem

Table 4-17. Point Biserial Correlations of Having
a Special Gang Policy in Writing and Selected
Measures of the Gang Problem

Table 4-18. Point Biserial Correlations of
Influencing Gang Legislation and Selected Measures
of the Gang Problem

Table 4-19. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
between Measures of Policy Responses and Selected
Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem

Table 4-20. Point Biserial Correlations of Having
an Internal Advisory Structure and Selected
Measures of the Gang Problem

Table 4-21. Point Biserial Correlations of Having
an External Advisory Structure and Selected
Measures of the Gang Problem

Table 4-22. Point Biserial Correlations of an
Interagency Task Force and Selected Measures of
the Gang Problem

Table 4-23. Tetrachoric correlation Coefficients
Between Measures of Communication and Coordination
Responses and Selected Measures of the Nature of
the Gang Problem

Table 4-24. Point Biserial Correlations of Having
Special Training for Agency Staff Available and
Selected Measures of the Gang Problem

Table 4-25. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
Between Organizational Specialization and Selected
Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem

Table 5-1. Distribution of All Strategy Rankings

Table 5-2. Primary Strategy by Respondent Type

Table 5-3. Number of Responses by Respondent
Category

Table 5-4. Variety of Strategies Used by
Respondents

Table 5-10. Perceived Causes of the Gang Problem
(Law Enforcement Only)

Table 5-11. Perceived Causes of the Gang Problem 
(Not Including Law Enforcement)

Table 5-16. Comparison of Strategy and Cause
Responses: Number (%)

Table 5-17. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
between Perceived Primary Cause and Primary
Strategy

Table 6-1. How Has the Gang Situation Changed
Since 1980?

Table 6-2. Gang Situation has Improved Since 1980

Table 6-3. Means for Selected Measures of the Gang
Problem and Perceived Change in the Problem Since
1980

Table 6-4. Frequencies and Percents for
Respondents Reporting Improvement in the Serious
Gang Problem Since 1980 and Tetrachoric
Correlations for Selected Measures of the Nature
of the Gang Problem

Table 6-5. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
between Improvement in the Gang Problem Since 1980
and Measures of the Policy Aspects of Gang Program
Responses

Table 6-6. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
between Improvement in the Gang Problem Since 1980
and Measures of the Coordination Aspects of Gang
Program Responses

Table 6-7. Evaluation of Own Agency's
Effectiveness (1987)

Table 6-8. Point Biserial Correlations of Agency
Effectiveness Rating and Selected Measures of the
Gang Problem

Table 6-9. Polychoric Correlation Coefficients
between Agency Effectiveness Rating and Selected
Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem

Table 6-10. Polychoric Correlation Coefficients
between Agency Effectiveness Rating and Selected
Measures of Response to the Gang Problem

Table 6-11. Evaluation of Inter-Agency Task Force
or Community-Wide Organizations (1987)

Table 6-12. Point Biserial Correlations of
Community Level Program Effectiveness Rating and
Selected Measures of the Gang Problem 

Table 6-13. Polychoric Correlation Coefficients
between Community Level Program Effectiveness
Rating and Selected Measures of the Nature of the
Gang Problem

Table 6-14. Polychoric Correlation Coefficients
between Interagency Community Level Program
Effectiveness Rating and Selected Measures of
Agency Response to the Gang Problem

Table 6-15. Ratings of Agency Effectiveness in
1987 and Perceived Improvement in the Gang Problem
Since 1980

Table 6-16. Ratings of Community Level Program
Effectiveness in 1987 and Perceived Improvement in
the Gang Problem Since 1980

Table 6-17. Rating of Agency Effectiveness and
Rating of Community Level Effectiveness in 1987

Table 6-18. Selected Combinations of Responses on
Improvement Since 1980, Rating of Agency
Effectiveness in 1987, and Rating of Community
Level Program Effectiveness in 1987

Table 6-19. Ranking of Areas by Average General
Effectiveness Scores

Table 6-20. Ranking of Areas By Improvement in
Gang Situation Since 1980

Table 6-21. Differences between Chronic versus
Emerging Gang Problem Cities on Selected Variables

Table 6-22. Discriminant Analysis Results on
Chronic vs. Emerging Cities for Differences in the
Ethnicity of Gang Members and 1984 Population

Table 6-23. Discriminant Analysis Results on
Chronic vs. Emerging Cities for Proportions of
Respondents Exhibiting Three Primary Strategies

Table 6-24. Analysis of Covariance Results for
Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary
Strategy Community Organization as a Covariate for
Chronic and Emerging Cities

Table 6-25. Analysis of Covariance Results for
Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary
Strategy Social Intervention as a Covariate for
Chronic and Emerging Cities

Table 6-26. Analysis of Covariance Results for
Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary
Strategy Opportunities Provision as a Covariate
for Chronic and Emerging Cities

Table 6-27. Analysis of Covariance Results for
Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary
Strategy Suppression as a Covariate for Chronic
and Emerging Cities

Table 6-28. Analysis of Covariance Results for
Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary
Strategy Organizational Development as a Covariate
for Chronic and Emerging Cities

Table 6-30. Regression Model for General
Effectiveness Measure for Chronic Cities (n=9)

Table 6-31. Regression Model for General
Effectiveness Measure for Chronic Cities, (n=18),
with Addition of External Advisory Group
Proportion

Table 6-32. Regression Model for General
Effectiveness Measure for Emerging Cities (n=9)

APPENDIX TABLES AND FIGURES

Appendix Table 1-1. Reasons for Non-Inclusion of
Cities in this Study (N-55)

Appendix Table 1-2. Questionnaire

Appendix Table 2-2. Eigenvalues from Generalized
Least Squares Factor Analysis of Gang Definition
Variables

Appendix Table 2-7. Correlations between MDS
Dimensions for Site Dissimilarity and Gang
Definitional Criteria

Appendix Figure 2-1. Multi-dimensional Scaling
Results for Differences in the Definition of Gangs
by Geographic Site

Appendix Table 2-9. Correlations between MDS
Dimensions for Respondent Category Dissimilarity
and Gang Definitional Criteria

Appendix Figure 2-2. Multi-dimensional Scaling
Results for Dissimilarity in the Definition of
Gangs by Respondent Category

Appendix Table 2-10. Eigenvalues from Generalized
Least Squares Factor Analysis of Gang Member
Definition Variables

Appendix Table 2-15 Correlations between MDS
Dimensions for Area Dissimilarity and Gang
Definitional Criteria

Appendix Figure 2-3. Multi-dimensional Scaling
Results for Differences in the Identifying Gang
Members by Geographic Site

Appendix Table 2-16. Correlations between MDS
Dimensions for Respondent Category Dissimilarity
and Gang Member Identification Criteria

Appendix Figure 2-4. Multi-dimensional Scaling
Results for Dissimilarity in Gang Member
Identification Methods by Respondent Category

Appendix Table 2-18. Eigenvalues from Generalized
Least Squares Factor Analysis of Gang Incident
Definition Variables

Appendix Table 2-23. Correlations between MDS
Dimensions for Site Dissimilarity and Gang
Definitional Criteria

Appendix Figure 2-5. Multi-dimensional Scaling
Results for Differences in the Identifying Gang
Members by Geographic Site

Appendix Table 2-24. Correlations between MDS
Dimensions for Respondent Category Dissimilarity
and Incident Definitional Criteria

Appendix Figure 2-6. Multi-dimensional Scaling
Results for Dissimilarity in Gang Incident
Identification Methods by Respondent Category

Appendix Table 3-4. Estimates of the Average Size
of the Total Gang

Appendix Table 3-5. Estimates of the Percent of
Gang Members Who Are Black (1987)

Appendix Table 3-6. Estimates of the Percent of
Gang Members Who Are Hispanic (1987)

Appendix Table 3-7. Estimates of the Percent of
Hispanic Gang Members Who Are Mexican (1987)

Appendix Table 3-8. Estimates of the Percent of
Hispanic Gang Members Who Are Puerto Rican (1987)

Appendix Table 3-9. Estimates of the Percent of
Hispanic Gang Members Who Are Other Hispanic
(1987)

Appendix Table 3-10. Estimates of the Percent of
Gang Members Who Are White (1987)

Appendix Table 3-11. Estimates of the Percent of
Gang Members Who Are Asian (1987)

Appendix Table 3-12. Gangs with the Same Name are
Found in Different Areas

Appendix Table 3-13. Estimates of the Percent of
Total Part 1 or Index Offenses Attributed to Youth
Gangs in 1987

Appendix Table 3-14. Estimates of the Percent of
Gang Offenders with Prior Police Records (1987)

Appendix Table 3-15. Estimates of the Percent of
Gang-Related Incidents or Cases Involving Adults
in 1987

Appendix Table 3-16. The More Serious Part of the
Gang Problem

Appendix Table 3-17. Respondents Reporting Gang
Affiliation with Adult Criminal Organizations

Appendix Table 3-18. Drugs are a Primary Purpose
of the Gang

Appendix Table 3-19. Gang Members Involved in the
Importation of Drugs

Appendix Table 4-1. Total Number of Staff in
Respondent's Agency

Appendix Table 4-2. Organizations with Special
Gang Policies and Procedures

Appendix Table 4-3. Organizations whose Special
Gang Policies and Procedures are in Writing

Appendix Table 4-4. Organization that have
Influenced Legislation Related to Gangs

Appendix Table 4-5. Organizations that Provide
Special Training on Gangs for Personnel

Appendix Table 4-6. Agencies with Organizational
Specialization to Deal with the Gang Problem

Appendix Table 4-7. Organizations that have a
Special Internal Advisory Structure

Appendix Table 4-8. Organizations that have a
Special External Advisory Structure

Appendix Table 4-9. Respondents who Report
Coordination Efforts by Inter-Agency Task Forces
or Community-Wide Organizations in 1987

Appendix Table 5-5. Proportion of Respondents
Exhibiting Each Strategy (Regardless of Rank) by
Area

Appendix Table 5-6. Proportion of Respondents in
Each Site Exhibiting Strategy as Primary Strategy

Appendix Table 5-7. Pearson Correlations of
Proportion of Respondents Exhibiting Primary
Strategy and MDS Dimension for 42 Areas

Appendix Figure 5-1. MDS Plot of 42 Sites on
Dimensions Produced from MDS of Euclidean
Distances Generated From Proportion of Respondents
Exhibiting Primary Strategy

Appendix Table 5-8. Proportion of Respondents for
Each Respondent Category Exhibiting Strategy as
Primary Strategy

Appendix Table 5-9. Pearson Correlations of
Average Proportion of Respondents Exhibiting
Primary Strategy and MDS Dimension for 13
Respondent Categories

Appendix Figure 5-2. MDS Plot of 13 Respondent
Categories on Dimensions Produced from MDS of
Euclidean Distances Generated From Proportion of
Respondents Exhibiting Primary Strategy

Appendix Table 5-12. Primary Perceived Cause --
Proportion by Area

Appendix Table 5-13. Pearson Correlations of Site
Average Proportion of Respondents Ranking Cause
Perception First and MDS Dimension for 42 Sites

Appendix Figure 5-3. MDS Plot of 42 Sites on
Dimensions Produced from MDS of Euclidean
Distances Generated From Average Proportion of
Respondents Ranking Cause Perception First

Appendix Table 5-14. Most Important Cause --
Proportion of Respondents per Category

Appendix Table 5-15. Pearson Correlations of Site
Average Proportion of Respondents Ranking Cause
Perception First and MDS Dimension for 13
Respondent Categories

Appendix Table 5-18. Three Example Sociometric
Networks (Rows are respondents indicating agencies
with whom they are in most contact. Each column
represents the corresponding row agency as being
indicated as in contact with the row agency. The
diagonal is arbitrarily filled with zeroes.)

Appendix Table 5-19. Network Density Measures by
Site

Appendix Table 5-20. Means of Network Analysis
Prominence Measures by Site

Appendix Table 5-21. Means of Network Analysis
Prominence Measures by Respondent Category

Table B-1. Normalized (PROBIT) Scores for Three
Gang Program Effectiveness Measures

Table B-2. Eigenvalues Produced by Principal
Components Analysis of Three Normalized Measures
of Effectiveness

Table B-3. Coefficients for First Principal
Component

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

A questionnaire and telephone survey of 254
respondents in 45 cities and 6 institutional
sites, mainly correctional schools, was conducted
to assess the youth gang problem and especially to
discover organized and "promising" programs for
dealing with it. The cities and sites were located
in four regions of the country: Northeast,
Midwest, South, and the West. The largest number
of cities from the same state in the study, 15,
were from California. The next largest number was
from Illinois with five cities.

The study was concerned with analysis of the gang
problem and the organized response to it in two
types of cities: chronic gang problem cities,
which often had a long history of gang problems,
and emerging gang problem cities, often smaller
cities that recognized and began to deal with the
gang problem only since 1980. A wide range of
respondents with direct operational and some
policy experience in dealing with the gang problem
was selected to participate in the survey. The 254
respondents were classified into 10 major
categories and 6 subcategories of professional or
agency representatives. Major categories included
law enforcement (52), prosecution (26), judges
(14), probation (32), corrections (8), parole
(11), and schools (35). Subcategories included
academic (26) and security staff (9) for schools;
and youth service (46), grassroots (5), youth and
family treatment (8), and comprehensive crisis
intervention programs (3) for community
organizations.

The response rate for respondents in the survey
was high. Seventy and one half percent (70.5
percent) of all questionnaires sent out were
returned. Questionnaires were sent to cities that
seemed to meet the selection criteria of the
study, based on initial information: the presence
and recognition by agencies, especially by the
police, of a youth gang problem; the presence of a
youth gang program; the existence of a program for
at least one year, whether presently functioning
or in the recent past; an articulated set of
program goals; evidence of more than a simplistic
unitary response; and some capacity to describe
the impact of the program.

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

Definitions

The importance of a common definition was stressed
for understanding the scope and seriousness of the
gang problem and for developing effective policies
and programs of intervention. The survey
respondents were asked to define three key
components of the youth gang problem in their
jurisdiction: the gang, gang member, and gang
incident. A variety of research methods and
statistical procedures were used to analyze the
data collected, including content analysis, factor
analysis, and multi-dimensional scaling. We found
a diversity of meanings that serve as a constraint
in interpreting the results of the research.

The most frequently cited elements of a definition
for gang were certain group or organizational
characteristics, symbols, and a range of specific
and general criminal activities, particularly
violence, drug use, and drug sales. The most
frequent elements used to define a gang member
were symbols or symbolic behavior, self-admission,
identification by others, especially the police,
and association with gang members. The three most
frequently cited ways of identifying a gang
incident were the involvement of a gang member in
the activity; gang function (i.e., gang-related
interest and motivation); and modus operandi
(i.e., behavior distinctively associated with gang
activity, such as drive-by shootings).

In general there was more consensus on definitions
based on city or location than by discipline or
agency affiliation of the respondent. In other
words, the fact that a respondent was located in a
particular city was more important than his
professional or agency affiliation in determining
the way he defined a gang, a gang member, or gang
incident. To some extent these differences could
be accounted for by whether the city was a chronic
or emerging gang problem city. We found, for
example, that respondents from chronic gang cities
emphasized the general or specific criminal or
antisocial nature of the gang, while those in the
emerging problem cities focused on symbolic or
organizational aspects in their definitions of a
gang and gang incident. Respondents from chronic
gang cities tended to use multiple factors in
identifying gang members or gang incidents; the
respondents in emerging cities usually emphasized
one factor.

Across areas, it was not always clear that
criminal justice or non-criminal justice agencies
were in greater agreement as to which component of
the definition should be emphasized. Criminal
justice system respondents generally tended to
emphasize specific types of crimes while non-
justice system respondents relied more on symbolic
behaviors to identify youth as gang members.

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

Gang Characteristics and Behaviors

Despite the existence of a great deal of
variability in definition, there were clear
patterns in assessment of the scope and severity
of the problem. Gang problems and programs seemed
to be concentrated in certain states and cities,
mainly California and the Los Angeles area and
Illinois, including Chicago. There were highly
significant correlations between numbers of gangs
and numbers of gang members, but not quite as
strong with size of city. Some large cities did
not report large numbers of gangs and gang
members, and relatively smaller cities had
disproportionately large and serious gang
problems.

Blacks (54.6 percent), mainly African-Americans,
and Hispanics (32.6 percent), mainly Mexican-
Americans, were the major racial/ethnic groups in
the gang populations reported by law enforcement.
Two-thirds of the respondents perceived gangs as
groups affiliated across neighborhoods, cities, or
states; they also stated that 75 percent of gang
youth had prior police records; and that 22.7
percent of total index crimes in a jurisdiction
were committed by gang youth. The gang problem was
no longer viewed as only juvenile; adults were
involved in 45.6 percent of the youth gang-related
incidents. About three-quarters of the respondents
stated that youth gangs or their individual
members or cliques were involved with adult
criminal organizations. A majority of respondents
believed that a primary purpose of youth gangs is
selling drugs mainly at the street level and that
certain youth gang members are involved in
transporting drugs across jurisdictions.

In regard to more organized forms of gang
criminality, there is a negative or inverse
relationship between the percentage of Hispanic
gang members and involvement with adult criminal
organization. The relationship between drug
selling as a primary purpose of the gang is
characteristic of black but not Hispanic gangs.
When drug distribution is a primary purpose of the
youth gang, a higher percent of index crime in the
community is attributed to gangs. Non-local (that
is, gangs with the same name in different parts of
one city, State, or county) are much more likely
to be affiliated with adult criminal
organizations, and such gangs are highly likely to
be engaged in both street level and higher level
drug trafficking, e.g., transporting drugs from
place to place. 

In general, higher-level drug trafficking is not
related to a variety of more general
characteristics of gangs and gang behavior. The
complexity of the youth gang's relationship to
drug distribution, however, belies any easy
classification of gangs into distinct categories
of traditional and criminally organized youth
gangs. It is likely that the availability of
significant drug selling or trafficking
opportunities has more to do with the development
of a serious criminal youth gang problem than that
the presence of youth gangs has a significant
influence on the general drug problem.

Response to the Problem

A variety of criminal-justice and community-based
organizations currently respond to the gang
problem. Nevertheless, the law enforcement
response is still the dominant one. It also
differs somewhat from the response of other
agencies. Police departments tend to be larger
organizations. An explicit and formal approach
tends to characterize law enforcement programs,
including specially organized gang units, written
policies, and special training. However, police
department are less likely to have
interdepartmental or external advisory gang
structures, but do participate in community-wide
coordinating or task-force efforts.

We find among agencies generally that special
policies and structures directed to the gang
problem are reasonably well interrelated. For
example, organizations with special units tend to
have special policies and training. There appears
to be a negative relationship, however, between
the existence of a special gang unit or programs
and the presence of external advisory group
structures. This might be because an organization
that has made a special commitment to dealing with
the gang problem may not want some outside group
closely examining or advising on what it is doing.

In general, there appears to be a greater presence
of special program policies, structures, and
activities for dealing with the gang problem when
the problem worsens. Agencies are especially
active or reactive when there is evidence of non-
local gangs or a spread of gangs across
communities and evidence of affiliation of youth
gangs with adult criminal organizations.

The response of agencies, particularly through
special policies, structures, and activities,
appears to be largely reactive. In other words,
the response is associated with an increasing
problem. There is one noteworthy exception,
however: a significant relationship exists between
an external advisory structure and a reduction of
the gang problem, i.e., lower numbers of gangs,
gang members, smaller gang size, lower percent of
gang incidents involving adults, and lower percent
of gang members in the community with prior police
records. This set of relationships indicates that
an external advisory agency somehow contributes to
a reduction of the gang problem. However, an
external advisory structure is not associated with
a change in the more serious or criminal aspects
of the gang problem. Neither of the other
coordinative structures (i.e., internal advisory
group or interagency or community-wide task force)
has this dramatic effect.

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

Strategies of Intervention

Five strategies of intervention were identified as
the basis for agency programs dealing with the
gang problem. They included community organization
(e.g., community mobilization and networking);
social intervention, focusing on individual
behavioral and value change; opportunities
provision, with special focus on improved basic
education, training, and job opportunities for
youth; suppression, which emphasizes arrest,
incarceration, and close monitoring and
supervision of gang members; and organizational
development and change or the creation of special
organizational units and procedures.

These strategies were usually employed in various
combinations. However, a classification of primary
strategies indicated that suppression (44.0
percent) was most frequently employed, followed by
social intervention (31.5 percent), organizational
development (10.9 percent), community organization
(8.9 percent), and opportunities provision (4.8
percent). Prosecutors and judges were most highly
committed to the use of a suppression strategy.
Respondents from social agencies and grass-roots
organizations were most committed to the use of
social intervention strategies. Respondents from
chronic gang problem cities emphasized a broad
range of approaches, combining community
organization and suppression with social
intervention strategies. Respondents in emerging
gang problem cities were divided in their
approaches: some focused primarily on community
organization and organizational development, while
others focused on suppression.

The respondents in the survey were also asked to
indicate and rate what they considered to be
causes of the gang problem. A content analysis of
the many types of responses suggested four major
classifications: system/structural, comprising
poverty and unemployment, as well as opportunities
to sell drugs; institutional, especially failures
of basic institutions such as family and schools
to do an adequate job with children and youth;
individual level, including psychological
problems, substance abuse, needs for status and
protection by gang youth; and, organization
response defects, such as the inability of police,
courts, and social agency programs to deal
effectively with the problem. Respondents in the
various professional or agency categories selected
highly similar patterns and rankings of causes.
The most frequently selected category of causes
was system/structural, with institutional failures
second, agency response defects third, and
individual youth problems, fourth.

Analyses of the relation between strategies of
intervention and causes of the youth gang problem
suggested a certain degree of mismatch. While
there was great emphasis on system/structural
level causes, the related strategy of
opportunities provision was insufficiently
selected. While there was limited emphasis on
individual level youth psychological or personal
problems as a cause of gang problems, there seemed
to be a disproportionately heavy emphasis on
social intervention, especially in reference to
various levels of counseling or crisis
intervention. At the individual level of analysis
respondents believed that system level problems of
unemployment, poverty, and drug dealing would not
be solved through a primary social intervention
approach. It was not clear to which set of causes,
a strategy of suppression was most closely
related, except as a reaction to failures of
existing institutions and programs.

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

Effectiveness of Approaches

We attempted, based on cross-sectional survey
data, to determine whether different strategies,
policies, structures, and procedures lead to a
perceived reduction in gang crime. First, we asked
respondents whether the gang situation had
improved or deteriorated in the past seven or
eight years and whether agency and interagency
efforts had been effective. A large majority of
respondents believed that the gang situation had
deteriorated, although law enforcement were less
pessimistic than non-law enforcement respondents. 

Only 23.1 percent of the police and 10.4 percent
of non-police respondents believed that there had
been an improvement in the gang situation in their
communities since 1980. In only 17 of our 45
cities was there evidence of any level of
improvement in the gang situation. Those
perceptions were associated with estimates of
significantly fewer numbers of gangs, gang
members, size of gangs, and a decline in the
percent of total index crime attributed to youth
gangs. Serious gang crime, including drug selling,
was also reported as significantly lower. There
was no evidence that improvement was more or less
likely to occur in large or small, chronic or an
emerging gang problem city. Moreover, no special
policy, organizational or procedural development
was associated with any of the characteristics of
improved gang situation, with the exception of the
presence of an external advisory group to a
program.

On the other hand, respondent ratings of how
effective their agency or local interagency or
task force efforts had been were far higher than
ratings of an improved gang situation. More than
40 percent of all respondents saw their agencies
as very effective in dealing with youth gangs.
While the rating of agency or interagency
effectiveness was positively related to a variety
of special policies, structures, and procedures,
it was generally not related to the various
measures of gang or gang behavior, suggesting
little direct relationship between special agency
efforts and a change or lowering of the gang
problem. There was evidence of a somewhat stronger
effect by interagency task forces than individual
agency efforts towards a reduction of the gang
problem in the community, however.

Since the three ratings (situation improved,
agency effectiveness, and interagency
effectiveness) were significantly intercorrelated,
a general effectiveness score was constructed and
used as a basis for ranking cities on whether the
gang problems had been successfully addressed, at
least based on respondent perceptions or reports.
These rankings became a basis for the selection of
cities and institutions for field visits and
further inquiry as to which programs might be
promising and could serve as models for other
cities and institutions.

At this point, our study shifted from focus on
individual-level respondent data to respondent
aggregated or averaged data on a city-wide basis.
We were particularly interested in whether
approaches to dealing with the problem might be
more effective in one type of city than another.
First, we had to make sure we had classified our
cities reasonably well. Discriminant analysis
enabled us to determine systematically how chronic
and emerging gang problem cities differed. Chronic
problem cities were larger and characterized by
greater proportions of Hispanic gang members.
Emerging gang problem cities were more likely to
be smaller and have higher proportions of black
gang members. Respondents in the smaller cities
were also more closely interconnected in terms of
networks of relationship. This classification
pattern was correct for 86.5 percent of the
cities.

The discriminant analysis procedure also permitted
us to classify with considerable accuracy primary
strategies across agencies by type of city.
Programs in emerging cities were more likely to
exhibit community organization as a primary
strategy. Programs in chronic problem cities were
more likely to be characterized by social
intervention and opportunity provision as primary
strategies. The discriminant function procedure
permitted us to correctly classify cities on the
dimension of primary strategies in two thirds of
the cases.

Analysis of covariance, furthermore, suggested
that community organization and opportunities
provision were better strategies in achieving
higher scores on general effectiveness than
suppression, social intervention, or organization
development and change. Community organization was
a significantly effective strategy in emerging
gang problem cities. Opportunities provision was a
significantly effective strategy in chronic gang
problem cities.

Our final step in the search for promising
approaches was to construct causal models using
multiple regression analyses. First, using the
variable of improved gang situation as our
dependent or outcome measure (this is probably the
most valid of the three component measures), we
found in a probit regression analysis that the
interaction of strategies of community
organization and opportunities provision is the
single strongest predictor. It accounts for 40.2
percent of the variation in our dependent
variable, perceived improvement in the gang
situation. The second significant predictor is the
proportion of local respondents involved with each
other in a city dealing with the problem.
Together, these two predictors or independent
variables account for almost 60 percent of the
variance. We are unable, however, using this
procedure, to find variables or factors that
predict success in the emerging gang problem
cities.

We turned next to use of the general effectiveness
score as the dependent variable for measure of
success. For the chronic gang problem cities, we
achieved an extremely potent set of predictors.
The two primary strategies of intervention
separately -- community organization and
opportunities provision -- and community consensus
on definition of gang incident account for 69
percent of the variance. The fourth variable that
enters the regression equation is the proportion
of agencies with an external advisory group.
Together these four variables account for or can
predict 82 percent of the variance in the general
effectiveness score in chronic gang problem
cities.

The model for predicting general effectiveness in
dealing with the gang problem in emerging gang
problem cities is not so elaborate. Only community
organization as a primary strategy contributes to
an explanation of 31 percent of the variance in
the outcome variable. This multiple regression
model did not tell us much more than we already
knew from our analysis of covariance, but a final
set of analyses across all cities indicates that
the primary strategies of community organization
and opportunities provision along with maximum
participation by key community actors is
predictive of successful efforts at reducing the
gang problem.

Because of the very high levels of statistical
prediction obtained using "perceived improvement"
as a dependent variable or component of a general
effectiveness measure, we carried out a special
validity check. We obtained information on five
empirical indicators of change in the gang problem
between 1980 and 1987: numbers of gangs, gang
members, gang-related homicides, gang-related
assaults, and number of gang-related narcotic
incidents. Statistical tests indicated a
significant correlation between perceptions and
empirical indicators, leading us to conclude that
our "perceived improvement" measure was valid.

Our report concludes with the recommendation that
future policy and research test strategies that
emphasize opportunities provision, particularly
improved educational, training, and job
opportunities for gang members and gang prone
youth; and broad community organization or
mobilization of key agency efforts, including
development of common definitions of the problem
and the possible use of external advisory groups
to aid with the creation of agency gang programs.
We observed that strategies of suppression and
social intervention were present in to all of our
cities and essential for dealing with the youth
gang problem, but that success was more likely
when community organization and opportunities
provision strategies were also present and
emphasized.

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

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the survey of 254 respondents in 45
cities and 6 institutional sites, mainly
correctional schools, was to discover promising
approaches to dealing with the youth gang problem.
Our key purpose in this research was to develop
ideas for policy and program organization to be
further tested and refined later under
experimental or quasi-experimental conditions. In
order to develop empirically based conceptions of
promising programs, we collected data on youth
gang activity and especially the response to it
from respondents in criminal justice agencies,
i.e., police, sheriff, court, probation, state's
attorneys, parole, corrections, and other relevant
justice units (including research and planning
departments), as well as from a variety of
community-based public and private agencies, such
as schools, youth gang intervention projects,
youth service organizations, family treatment
agencies, neighborhood groups, churches, and
others.

We sought information on key aspects relevant to
policy and program development: definitions of
terms, such as gang, gang member, and gang
incident, characteristics of the gang problem, the
respondent organization's goals, activities,
structures, strategies, as well as perceptions of
change in the problem and effectiveness of
intervention efforts. Our survey was partially
guided by certain ideas about response to the
youth gang problem developed in the course of our
literature review. Historically, as well as
contemporaneously, it seemed to us that the
policies and programs of agencies and community
groups exemplified various strategies or basic
approaches and could be classified into four or
five categories or combinations of them: local
community mobilization, social intervention,
provision of social opportunities, and
suppression. A fifth modifying strategy was
organizational development and change. Indicators
of these strategies evolved and were further
classified in the course of our survey.

Our report utilizes two units of analysis:
professional or agency respondent, with special
emphasis on the information and views of law
enforcement, and type of area -- chronic gang
problem or emerging gang problem area. Our
discussion alternates between category of
respondent, such as law enforcement or non-law
enforcement, or more specifically any of 13
professional orientations (e.g., corrections,
school, etc.), and type of area (e.g., by city).
In respect to certain problem characteristics such
as number of gangs and gang members in a locality,
police estimates were usually considered the most
reliable, since the police are the primary
collectors of this kind of information. Our area
classification, in fact, includes not only cities
and sites or institutions, but counties and
subareas of cities. Often we refer to these
subunits collectively as areas or localities. We
are concerned with cities mainly, however. For
empirical and policy, and also theoretical
purposes, we define chronic and emerging gang
problem areas as follows.

A chronic youth gang problem area is one where the
youth gang problem has been recognized as more or
less serious for a long period, at least prior to
1980, is still present at the end of 1987, and
where there has been an organized response to it,
especially by the police or a criminal justice
unit. An emerging youth gang problem area is one
where the youth gang problem has been recognized
as more or less serious since 1980, is present in
1987, and where there has been an organized
response to it, especially by the police or
criminal justice unit. By youth gang we are
referring to a delinquent and/or criminal group
containing young people mainly between the ages of
12 and 25 characterized by certain symbolic and/or
communal as well as at times organized criminal
purposes.

We note that in this report we do not deal with
certain other ways of framing our analysis, also
possibly important for the development of policy,
practice, and theoretical considerations. These
alternate classifications or frameworks for more
detailed analysis include size of cities and
certain characteristics of gangs such as age,
gender, and race/ethnicity of members; local or
non-localized gangs, i.e., affiliated across
jurisdictions and criminally organized versus
traditional turf and not primarily criminally
organized. These comparisons and the issues they
pose are considered to some extent, in our present
report but are not a primary basis for analyzing
data.

We have tried to keep technical discussion to a
minimum in the body of the report. Supplementary
material, often very important tables and figures,
as well as procedural details, are provided in the
Appendices. Even these are kept to a minimum.
Additional explanatory materials are available
from the authors. A variety of descriptive and
exploratory inferential statistics have been used
including percentages, means, medians, tri-means,
correlations, tests of means, multivariate
discriminant and regression analyses, multi-
dimensional scaling and factor analysis.
Nevertheless, our analysis must be regarded as
essentially exploratory.

In the remainder of this introductory chapter, we
deal with the method and scope of study. In the
second chapter on definitions, we try to discover
what our respondents, in their own terms mean by
the central terms--gang, gang member, and gang
incident. This is an essential backdrop for the
third chapter in which we examine the scope and
perceived nature of the youth gang problem in the
respondents' jurisdictions or service areas. In
Chapter Four, we inquire into the extent the
respondents have formulated policies and
procedures and established structures for dealing
with the problem, e.g., whether specialized
training and special gang units or advisory groups
exist. Chapter Five analyzes the underlying 
structure of approaches to the problem in terms of
strategies of intervention, perceived causes, and,
briefly, communication or network structures of
the respondents, particularly on a city or site
basis. Finally, in Chapter Six, we examine
perceptions of a reduction in the gang problem and
effectiveness of agency and interagency efforts
and their relation to certain characteristics of
the problem. We are particularly interested in
exploring what works and does not work in chronic
and emerging gang problem cities.

Again we observe that our data have not been fully
analyzed. The variables, classifications, and
materials of the various chapters still need to be
systematically interrelated. We hope to remedy
these shortcomings and others that we become aware
of in the near future. The present report,
nevertheless, should be viewed as substantive.
However, it should not be used as a basis for
describing what the current nature and scope of
the youth gang problem is nationally, nor what
communities are doing generally about the problem.
The findings are relevant only to those agencies,
cities, and sites investigated which appeared to
have reasonably well organized approaches to a
significant youth gang problem, presently or in
the recent past.

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

METHOD AND SCOPE

Various sources were used to identify initial
informants, including knowledgeable individuals,
contacts with criminal/juvenile justice planning
agencies in all states, representatives of agencies
and programs known to be involved in organized
programs to deal with gangs. We also advertised for
participants in the survey through national agency,
professional journal, and media sources. Telephone
calls were then made to these identified potential
respondents to discover whether gang-related
problems existed, however defined, and the presence
of an organized response. The aim of the initial
screening process was to establish a fairly wide
net for the inclusion of cities, agencies, and
programs dealing with the problem of youth gangs.

In this initial screening phase, hundreds of
different agency and community organization
representatives were contacted. Approximately 100
cities were screened by the end of 1988, 55 of
which were excluded from our study either because
they had no recognized gang activity or no response
which specifically addressed youth gangs according
to our screening criteria (see Appendix Table 1-1).

A total of 360 questionnaires were distributed (see
Appendix Table 1-2 for copy of the Questionnaire).
The selection criteria included: presence and
recognition of a youth gang problem, the presence
of a youth gang program; the existence of a program
for at least a year, whether at present or in the
recent past; an articulated set of program goals;
evidence of more than a simplistic unitary response
to the problem, such as either only police arrests
or youth gang recreation programs; and some
capacity to describe the impact of the program. A
total of 254 questionnaires and follow-up
interviews were received and preliminary review
suggested that most of these criteria were met.
When in doubt we included an area even with a
partially sustained program or with only a unitary
approach. There were four (4) such cities. 

Our response rate (minimally) was 70.5 percent. The
non-responses, generally speaking, included
approximately four (4) agencies that we knew had
eligible programs, but who for a variety of
idiosyncratic reasons, explicitly refused to
participate. Eleven (11) persons did not complete
questionnaires because, although well informed
generally (e.g., academics), they did not have
specific program related information. We believe
that the other potential respondents (91) who
failed to return questionnaires did not have time
to complete them or came from agencies that, in
fact, did not meet the criteria of our survey.
However, we identified and received questionnaires
from representatives of at least one or two
agencies in all eligible cities, except Wilmington,
Delaware. The non-respondents were mainly in large
cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and
Miami where we already had a sufficient proportion
of respondents who could provide us with an
adequate perspective on the citywide gang problem
and program information relevant to their own
agency as well as others.

In essence, we have a better sample of cities than
of constituent agencies. Nevertheless, we do not
clearly have a sample from a known population of
eligible cities or agencies. What we have in the
study is a fairly large group of cities and
agencies generally recognized to have youth gang
problems and organized programs to address them.

The cities, institutional sites, and the numbers of
respondents in the different jurisdictions included
in the study are listed in Table 1-3. The regions
of the country represented in the survey are the
northeast, midwest, south, and especially the west.
The state with the largest number of cities (15),
sites (3), and respondents (105) is California. 
The next largest gang program state represented in
the study is Illinois with 5 cities and 26
respondents. Cities with the largest numbers of
respondents are New York (15), Los Angeles (12),
Chicago (9), and Miami (8). Several city/county
jurisdictions (4) are listed with only one
respondent. 

Table 1-3. Respondents in Analysis by Geographic 
 Area (n = 45) and Selected Institutions (n = 6)
 (Number of Respondents Appear in Parentheses)

NORTHEAST (21)            

New York (15)             
Philadelphia (5)           
Glen Mills Schools, PA (1)*      

MIDWEST (75)             

Benton Harbor (1)/Berrien County (2) 
Chicago (9)/Cook County (5)      
Cicero (2)
Columbus (6)/Franklin County (4)   
Detroit (3)/Wayne County (1)     
Evanston (3)             
Flint (2)/Genessee County (1)     
Fort Wayne (3)/Allen County (1)    
Indianapolis (2)/Marion County (4)  
Madison (2)/Dane County (1)      
Milwaukee (7)/Milwaukee County (1)  
Minneapolis (2)/Hennepin County (5)  
Rockford (3)/Winnebago County (1)   
Sterling (3)             
Ethan Allen School for Boys, WI (1)* 

SOUTH (32)              

Atlanta (1)              
Fort Worth (1)            
Hialeah (1)              
Jackson (3)
Louisville (2)/Jefferson County (4)
Miami (8)/Dade County (7)
Shreveport (3)
Tallahassee (1)/Leon County (1)

CALIFORNIA (105)    

Chino (2)
East L.A. (1)/L.A. County (1)/CYA (2)
El Monte (5)
Inglewood (4)
Long Beach (3)/LA County (1)
Los Angeles City (12)
Other Los Angeles County (20)
Oakland (2)/Alameda County (1)
Pomona (4)/LA County (1) 
Sacramento (3)/Sacramento County (1) 
San Diego (1)/San Diego County (9) 
San Francisco (6)
San Jose (6)/Santa Clara County (1)
Santa Ana (1)/Orange County (7)
Stockton (5)/San Joaquin County (1)
California Youth Authority [CYA] (3)* Milwaukee
Paramount School Program (1)**
Sunrise House (1)** 

OTHER WEST (21)

Albuquerque (4)/Bernalillo County (2)
Phoenix (2)/Maricopa County (1)
Reno (3)
Salt Lake City (4)
Seattle (1)
Tucson (2)/Pima County (1)
Maclaren School, OR (1)*

* denotes juvenile correctional institution.

** denotes an agency program selected because of
its reported success.

Table 1-4. Respondent Categories

N = Category;  n = Subcategories

CATEGORY             N       %N        n       %n

Law Enforcement     52      20.5   
Prosecutors         26      10.2 
Judges              14       5.5
Probation           32      12.6
Corrections          8       3.1
Parole              11       4.3
School              35      13.3
  Academic                            26      74.3
  Security                             9      25.7
Community/Service   62      24.4
  Youth Service Agency                46      74.2
  Youth & Family Service               8      12.9
  Grass Roots                          5       8.1
  Comprehensive                        3       4.8
Community Planning  12       4.7
Other                2       0.8
                   254     100.0

We classified the 254 respondents in ten major
categories and six subcategories (Table 1-4): law
enforcement (20.5 percent), including mainly
police; prosecutors (10.2 percent); judges (5.5
percent); probation (12.6 percent); corrections
(3.1 percent); parole (4.3 percent); schools (13.3
percent) subdivided into security and academic
personnel,community service agencies and
organizations (24.4 percent). This latter category
was subdivided into youth service, youth and family
service/treatment, comprehensive crisis
intervention, and grass-roots groups. Two other
categories were community, county or state planners
(4.7 percent) and other (0.8 percent). The two
largest categories were community agencies and law
enforcement. All criminal justice agency personnel
together comprised 56.2 percent of our respondent
group.

Our intent was to include the opinions and self-
described practices of a variety of professionals
or organizational representatives who confront the
gang problem at the operational level, yet who have
some responsibility for departmental or program
operations and sometimes policy decisions. In other
words, we selected and sent our questionnaires
deliberately to the staff person who was most
knowledgeable about the youth gang problem and the
agency response to it. We believed foremost among
the respondents in terms of such knowledge about
gangs in the city as a whole, to be the police.
They were the persons usually contacted first in
the various cities. They were often the base or
center point for the development of our set of
respondents in each area. In 44 of the 45 specific
city locales listed in Table 1-3, at least one
police respondent is included.

Finally, we observe that 21 of the cities were
classified as chronic and 24 as emerging youth gang
problem cities. A relatively greater proportion of
our chronic gang problem cities have large or very
large populations, but there are a sizeable number
of small cities as well. Most of the cities
classified as emerging youth gang problem cities
have populations that are smaller, although some
have populations over 500,000 (see Table 3-2 in
Chapter 3). We were also able to classify the
correctional schools and special agency programs or
sites under these two rubrics. Our city or area
analysis, however, will include primarily the 45
cities/counties and the California Youth Authority
because it comprises a very large entity,
relatively more related to a statewide
jurisdiction. Schools and probation units tend to
be more closely related to city and county
jurisdictions. East Los Angeles is part of a
county. Our respondent analysis will, of course,
include all respondents whether from a city,
county, sub-area, or institutional site (Table 1-
5).

Table 1-5. Type of Gang Problem by Area (City,
 County, Site)

Chronic Cities        Emerging Cities   
   (n=21)               (n=24)

Albuquerque, NM         Atlanta, GA    
Chicago, IL             Benton Harbor, MI 
Chino, CA               Cicero, IL     
Detroit, MI             Columbus, OH    
East LA, CA             Evanston, IL    
El Monte, CA            Flint, MI     
Inglewood, CA           Fort Wayne, IN   
Long Beach, CA          Fort Worth, TX   
LA City, CA             Hialeah, FL    
LA County, CA           Indianapolis, IN  
New York, NY            Jackson, MS    
Oakland, CA             Louisville, KN  
Pomona, CA              Madison, WI    
Philadelphia, PA        Miami, FL     
Phoenix, AZ             Milwaukee, WI   
San Diego, CA           Minneapolis, MN  
San Francisco, CA       Reno, NV     
San Jose, CA            Rockford, IL    
Santa Ana, CA           Sacramento, CA   
Stockton, CA            Salt Lake City, UT 
Tucson, AZ              Seattle, WA    
                        Shreveport, LA   
                        Sterling, IL    
                        Tallahassee, FL  

Chronic Sites*                Emerging Sites*
  (n=2)                           (n=4)

California Youth Authority     Ethan Allen School
Sunrise House (CA)              (WI)
                               Glen Mills Schools 
                                (PA)
                               McClaren Schools  
                                (OR)
                               Paramount School  
                                (CA)

* In much of the analysis, the California Youth
Authority is the only chronic site included as an
area along with the cities.

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

SUMMARY

The survey of 254 respondents in 45 cities and 6
institutional sites was conducted as part of the
assessment stage of a research and development
program in cooperation with the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department
of Justice. The purpose of the survey was to
collect data on youth gang problems and especially
the response to them in cities with promising
programs.

The areas represented in the survey are located in
four regions of the country: Northeast, Midwest,
South, and especially, the West. The state with the
largest number of cities (15) and respondents (105)
in our study is California. The next most well
represented State is Illinois with 5 cities and 26
respondents. Our cities are classified into chronic
(21) and emerging (24) gang areas. Our respondents
were classified into 10 major categories and 6
subcategories. The major categories include law
enforcement (52), prosecutors (26), judges (14),
probation (32), corrections (8), parole (11),
schools (35), community service (62), community
planning (12), and other (2).

We included in our survey professionals, or
organizational representatives, who confront the
gang problem at the operational level, yet who had
some responsibility for departmental or program
operations and sometimes policy decisions. The
police were probably our most knowledgeable
informants. They were the persons usually contacted
first to obtain preliminary information about the
local gang problem and which agencies had a program
response to it. They were often the base or
centerpoint for the development of our set of
respondents from each area.

Our questionnaire return rate was quite high - 70.5
percent. Only one city was not represented that we
would have wanted in the survey, based on
information available to us at the time. Most of
the potential respondents not completing a
questionnaire were from agencies in several of the
largest cities where we already had adequate
representation and a good knowledge of the gang
problems and agency responses to it.

What we have in the study is a fairly large group
of cities and agencies generally recognized to have
youth gang problems and organized programs to
address them. The criteria for selection of cities
and sites for inclusion in the study, liberally
interpreted, were the presence and recognition of a
youth gang problem; the presence of a youth gang
program; the existence of a program for at least
one year, whether at present or in the recent past;
an articulated set of program goals; evidence of
more than a simplistic or unitary response; and,
some capacity to describe the impact of the
program.

A variety of simple and complex exploratory and
descriptive statistical analyses are conducted. The
basic intent of the study, as indicated in the
final chapter, is to develop models of what would
comprise successful programs in different types of
areas or localities. Discriminant and multiple
regression analyses are mainly used for this
purpose. The study should be viewed as substantive,
although a number of important type of analyses
have yet to be carried out.

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

CHAPTER 2

DEFINITIONS OF GANG, GANG MEMBER, AND GANG INCIDENT

It may be extremely difficult to assess accurately
the scope or nature of the youth gang problem or
the value of various suppression and intervention
programs because a standard or reliable definition
of the problem (particularly in its component
parts, gang, gang member, and gang incident) does
not exist, either across jurisdictions or often
within the same jurisdictions over time.

Various observers have identified this problem in
recent years (Miller 1975, 1982; Moore 1978; Klein
and Maxson 1989; Spergel 1989). Furthermore, a
variety of definitions have been used over time,
sometimes by the same researcher. The problem for
theory, research, and policy development is not
only that different and changing definitions have
existed, but that the gang problem in its
structural and dynamic characteristics seems also
to be changing.

What we have tried to do first in the survey
questions asked and in the course of the present
analysis is identify how respondents or local
agency and community "experts" who deal with the
problem on a regular basis perceive and
conceptualize its key elements. We asked each
respondent to state, however he or she wished, his
or her definition of a gang (Item III-1 of the
Questionnaire), a gang member (Item III-3), and a
gang-related incident (Item III-6; See Appendix
Table 1-2). We anticipated that some of the
respondents, who would not be able to provide their
own definitions, would use those of police
agencies. The open-ended responses were then
subjected to a content analysis. The following
represents an effort to systematically decompose
the various definitions of the three concepts, and
thereby identify core or most frequently used
elements.

We believe this to have been an important exercise,
but not entirely successful. But it helps set some
parameters and indicates that our data
interpretations and conclusions have limitations.
We found that the respondents in our survey do not
define gang problems the same way. Thus, the
meaning of the gang problem at the present time
must remain imprecise and varied, at least at the
definitional level.

The current chapter begins to identify
systematically what we mean by the key definitional
terms of the gang problem. In the long run, we must
develop a standard definition of these terms for
use in the criminal justice system so that we will
be able to (1) understand the nature and scope of
the problem across jurisdictions and time;
(2) devise strategies of intervention that can be
assessed comparably; and (3) test whether consensus
on definition is itself an important characteristic
of successful intervention within a particular
jurisdiction. We attempt the latter in the final
chapter of this report.

The analysis of the definitions provides a context
for understanding the various characteristics of
gangs and the gang problem discussed in Chapter 3,
the organizational response to the problem in
Chapters 4 and 5, and effectiveness measures or
program results in Chapter 6. It also provides a
basis for selection of those components of the
definitions that are consistent with the purposes
of criminal and juvenile justice policy. In other
words, the analysis may provide greater clarity,
specificity, and a basis for understanding the
youth gang, youth gang member, and youth gang
incident, and thereby a more informed and rational
choice of youth gang policy and program.

The present chapter has been an extremely complex
and time consuming undertaking. We have employed a
variety of statistical procedures, including factor
analysis and multi-dimensional scaling, to identify
the characteristics which go into the definitions
of gang, gang member and incident. The discussion
that follows is both more detailed and yet less
sufficiently developed than we would have desired.
The discussion is somewhat technical, although much
of it summarizes our more technical discussions in
the Appendix.

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

THE GANG

The 236 open-ended responses of definitions of gang
[1] were first content-analyzed into 48 empirically
anchored items or concepts. These definitions
included criminal and non-criminal activities, gang
organizational, and symbolic behaviors--
respectively, for example, drug sales, sports
activities, affiliation with other gangs, gang name
or colors. We were faced with many possible ways of
combining these items as dichotomous variables into
fewer higher level conceptual categories for
analysis. We chose the groupings (Table 2-1) that
are consistent with various empirically based
definitions, theoretical considerations in the
literature, and simply the frequency with which the
items were mentioned.

The first component of the definition of gangs we
created represents (1) general group
characteristics. We tried to select a set of
structural and behavioral characteristics that
might fit the delinquent group as well as the gang
(See Klein 1971; Cartwright, Tomson, Schwartz
1975). The next component or subset of structural-
behavioral characteristics are those that
distinguish (2) the gang from the delinquent group
and we label them gang organizational
characteristics (Curry and Spergel 1988; Morash
1983). This assumes the gang may have a higher
degree of organization than the delinquent group
(Jacobs 1977; Miller 1975, 1982; Spergel 1984). The
third set of characteristics are (3) non-criminal
group activities (Whyte 1943; Suttles 1968). 

The next set of criminal activities comprise four
subcategories of dichotomous variables: (4) drug
crimes, (5) violent crimes, (6) property crimes,
and a more general, or difficult to classify subset
of criminal activity, (7) anti-social behavior.
These categories are consistent with official
agency and popular classifications.

The many references to gang symbols lead us to
separate symbols into three subcategories, those
that are more (8) uniform across the gang and
collectively owned, those that are more (9)
personal in nature, and other (10) general or
residual references to symbols that include, for
example, gang "culture." Finally, two more sets of
items are included that we do not combine with
other variables: the presence of (11) adult
members, which may be useful in describing the
integration of adults and youths in youth gangs,
and (12) an ecological notion, gang members
residing in the same area. 

Table 2-1. Groupings of Dichotomous Variables   
 Derived from Content Analysis of Definition of a 
 Gang (Item III-1).

n = number or percent of respondents referring to
the concept

1. General Group Characteristics (n = 186, 73.2
percent)

Group
Certain Number of Members
Leadership
Loosely Knit
Regular Association
Common Behavior

2. Gang Organization Characteristics (n = 120, 47.2
percent)

Affiliations with Other Gangs
Goals/Purpose
Organized Structure
Established Identity
Maintain Unity
Exclusion of Non-Members
Recruitment
Membership Rules
Conflict with Other Gangs

3. Non-Criminal Activities (n = 14, 5.5 percent)

Protect Selves/Community
Sports Activities
Recreation
Some Non-violent Activities

4. Drug Crime (n = 38, 15.0 percent)

Drug Use
Drug Sales

5. Crimes of Violence (n = 52, 23.2 percent)

Violence
Drive-by Shootings
Robbery
Rape
Shooting
Heavily Armed
Intimidation 

6. Property Crime (n = 21, 8.3 percent)
Vandalism
Burglary
Theft
Auto Theft

7. General Criminal Activity (n = 149, 58.7
percent)

General Criminal or Anti-social Activity 
Control Criminal Economic Territory

8. Collective Symbols (n = 173, 68.1 percent)

Gang Name
Graffiti
Control Turf
Gang Logo
Colors
Initiation
Rituals

9. Personal Symbols (n = 53, 20.9 percent)

Hand Signs
Clothing
Tattoos
Member Nicknames

10. General Reference to Symbols (n = 88, 34.6
percent)

11. Adult Members (n = 11, 4.4 percent)

12. Reside in Same Locale (n = 35, 13.8 percent)

In order to make both sense of, and reduce, the
diversity that exists among our respondents in
defining the term gang, we turn to statistical
analysis of covariance structure techniques. Factor
analysis can produce a set of linear combinations
that are unrelated to each other and which (1) can
provide us with a general reduction in the number
of concepts with which we have to cope and (2)
assist us in interpreting complex perceptions of
individual respondents (Johnson and Wichern 1982)
[2]. In this case, factor analysis serves, for the
most part, as an illustration of just how widely
diverse our respondents' definitions of the gang
are.

Five factors that are relatively significant emerge
from the analysis as can be seen in the Eigenvalues
listed in Appendix Table 2-2. These five factors
account for 41.7 percent of the variation in gang
definition across the 236 actors. This is not a
very high degree of accountability for the
variation.

The five factors that emerge from this analysis are
potentially interpretable (See Table 2-3). They can
be identified in order of strength of meaning.
Factor 1 loads heavily on specific types of
criminal behavior. This factor pictures the gang as
a group highly involved in drugs, violence, and
property crime. A residual or general crime
category, however, does not load heavily on this
factor. In other words, a respondent who has a high
score on this factor is concerned about gangs
because of the specific, probably serious crimes
its members individually or collectively commit.
One respondent who scored very high on this factor
was the assistant director of a planning agency
that funds community service projects. She defined
the gang as "a loose knit organization with young
adult leadership involved in a variety of crimes
including vandalism, rape, robbery, assault, theft,
burglary, and drug dealing."

Table 2-3. Rotated Factor Matrix from GLS Factor  
 Analysis of Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients 
 of Gang Definition Characteristics

Factor            1      2      3      4       5

General
 Group        -.185   -.054   .126   .888    .102
Gang
 Organization -.088    .088  -.022   .167    .008 
Non-Criminal   .072    .102  -.153   .100    .341
Drug Crime     .571    .034  -.028  -.211    .148
Violence       .614   -.043  -.012   .036   -.013
Property
 Crime         .612    .153  -.002  -.046   -.018 
General
 Criminal     -.051   -.220   .947   .142   -.176 
Collective
 Symbols       .022    .494   .047  -.115    .240 
Individual
 Symbols       .011    .384  -.159   .053   -.047 
General
 Symbols       .115    .766  -.058   .033   -.081 
Adults
 Involved      .042    .033   .014   .048    .286 
Reside Same
 Locale       -.028   -.077  -.031  -.046    .75 

Factor 2 loads most heavily on all three symbolic
components of the definition of gang (group,
individual, and general). This factor also shows a
moderately negative loading for general or other
types of crimes. This factor defines the gang on
the basis of its symbolic components. Respondents
who score high on this factor view the gang as a
highly visible social entity characterized by
ritual and tradition. This symbolic, communal, yet
"mildly" violent character of the gang is
emphasized in the recent works of Moore (1978) and
Horowitz (1983). A director of the department of
pupil personnel in a public school system scores
high on factor 2. His definition of a gang is "a
collection of youth with initiation and membership
rituals, and identification through caps,
bandannas, and jackets. Some have specific turf.
Some do not. The snatching of gang jewelry and
assaults are common gang incidents in our schools." 

Factor 3 loads very heavily on general criminal
behavior, including efforts to control a situation
for criminal purposes, slightly positively on
general group characteristics and slightly
negatively on non-criminal activities and
individual symbols. This factor may be viewed as a
definition of a delinquent or criminal group.
Respondents that have high scores on this dimension
are likely to answer questions about gangs by
reference to groups of youth and adults with
tendencies toward criminal behavior or actual
commitments to criminal careers. A parole agent who
scores high on factor 3 defines the gang this way.
"The gang involves itself in [a lot of] negative
activity [in whatever they do] . . . "

Factor 4 loads most heavily on general group
characteristics. It has a modest loading on gang
organization characteristics. It also has slightly
positive loadings on general criminal activity as
well as non-criminal activity. It has negative
loadings on drug involvement and collective
symbols. Individuals who score high on this factor
are likely to conceptualize the gang as a
collectivity or organization involved in a range of
criminal and non-criminal activities, but not
engaged in drug crime and collective symbols. It is
the group or organizational character of the gang
rather than specific behavioral activity which
distinguishes this factor. Several respondents from
community or youth service agencies favor this
definitional emphasis. It may represent a special
concern about a set of youth who are identified as
running together, who can be destructive and have
the potential for criminal organization. 

The fifth factor loads most heavily on the gang's
residence in the same neighborhood or area. It has
the highest loadings of the five factors on non-
criminal activity and adult involvement, and next
to the highest loading on collective symbols. It
has a modest positive loading on drug crime. Factor
5 perhaps represents the classic view of the street
corner group, not seriously delinquent or criminal.
The gang is the group of fellows who grew up
together, who like to have a good time partying,
who drink and use drugs, and are also positively
related to adults in their neighborhood. It may be
correct to label this definitional configuration as
the classic street corner group anchored in a
particular neighborhood. This is the definitional
perspective that is perhaps emphasized in the work
of Whyte (1943), Suttles (1968), and Short and
Strodtbeck (1965). The coordinator of a school
youth services program scores high on Factor 5. She
defines the gang as "a group joined according to
neighborhood for companionship, support, and
acceptance. The members hangout together--drinking,
committing truancy . . . " 

The factors as they are defined are abstractions
generated from the patterns of covariation among
the twelve groups of definitional characteristics
conceptualized above. They reflect mainly emphasis
in the definition of gang. Just because an
individual scores highly on one factor does not
mean that he will not score moderately high on
another. We also observe that 22 respondents simply
referred to a definition supplied by another source
or internal agency group.

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

DIFFERENCES IN GANG DEFINITION BY AREA AND
RESPONDENT

Since we are not entirely pleased with the strength
of our factor analysis, we return to the original
twelve dichotomous measures of the definition of
gang. It is possible that consensus on components
of the definition will give us some idea about key
elements and what influences their selection. We
are interested in the degree of consensus on the
use of these measures first by area and second by
respondent category. We are also interested in
whether the locality or the respondent category is
more important in contributing to consensus on
definition. Is it the factor of professional or
agency orientation which determines the definition
of gang across localities, or does city or locality
exercise the predominant influence in the
distinctive definitions that result?

We devised a measure of consensus such that if all
members of a locality or in the respondent category
use a particular component of the definition of
gang, the value for the particular measure or the
average of the 12 measures is 1.0; if all members
do not use the component, the value is zero. The
value in terms of both equal use and non-use of the
measure by the members of the locality or
respondent group approaches 0.5. All sites or
institutions where only one respondent answered
were eliminated from the site or city analysis, but
not from the analysis by type of respondent. The
results were further transformed and scaled into a
continuous interval measure to obtain average
scores by city or respondent category.

We find that consensus is generally, but not
significantly, higher among respondents within
emerging cities than within chronic cities (Table
2-4). In part this could be accounted for by the
fact that we obtained more respondents in the
chronic, usually the larger cities, then from the
emerging, usually the smaller cities. We note that
consensus is generally higher among criminal
justice than among non-criminal justice personnel.
It is highest among law enforcement, corrections,
and comprehensive crisis intervention agencies. The
differences between criminal justice and non-
criminal justice personnel is significant at the
0.5 level using a t-test of means (Table 2-5).
Table 2-4. Average Degree of Consensus on Gang
 Definitional Criteria by Area.

                         Average Degree
Area                      of Consensus

Albuquerque*                  .53
Benton Harbor                 .78
CA-CYA*                       .83
Chicago*                      .62
Chino*                        .67
Cicero                        .75
Columbus                      .52
Detroit*                      .56
East LA*                      .63
El Monte*                     .50
Evanston                      .78
Flint                         .61
Fort Wayne                    .71
Indianapolis                  .69
Inglewood*                    .56
Jackson                       .83
LA City*                      .63
LA County*                    .54
Long Beach*                   .70
Louisville                    .64
Madison                       .78
Miami                         .51
Milwaukee                     .69
Minneapolis                   .64
New York*                     .60
Oakland*                      .83
Philadelphia*                 .67
Phoenix*                      .56
Pomona*                       .50
Reno                          .67
Rockford                      .79
Sacramento                    .67
Salt Lake City                .58
San Diego*                    .67
San Jose*                     .67
San Francisco*                .58
Santa Ana*                    .64
Shreveport                    .78
Sterling                      .50
Stockton*                     .72
Tallahassee                   .67
Tucson*                       .56

* Chronic Areas

Table 2-5. Average Degree of Consensus on Gang
 Definitional Criteria by Respondent Category.

Respondent            Average Degree
Category               of Consensus

Law Enforcement            .69
Prosecution                .61
Court                      .63
Probation                  .56
Corrections                .67
Parole                     .61
School Security            .44
School-Academic            .49
Youth Services             .51
Comprehensive              .67
Family Services            .52
Grass Roots                .60
Planning                   .46

The t statistic for the difference in means between
criminal justice and non-criminal justice
categories is -2.54, significant at 0.05 level. The
standard deviation for criminal justice respondents
is .248; for non-criminal justice respondents is
.260.

Table 2-6 indicates that there is most agreement
within area and by respondent category on the
importance of the following gang definitional
components: adults involved, non-criminal
behavior, and property crime. There is a moderate
amount of agreement on such components as residence
in the same locality and participation in drug
crimes. There is least agreement on importance of
the idea of gang structure. Apparently some
respondents believe a gang is an organized
structure, others do not. The components of gang
violence and use of symbols seem to be of moderate
importance.

Perhaps of even greater importance for our present
discussion is that agreement on these definitional
components is systematically higher on a city or
site basis than by types of respondent or
professional perspectives. The differences are
statistically significant at the 0.01 level (See
Table 2-6). The t statistic for the difference in
means is significant at the 0.01 level.

Table 2-6. Average Degree of Consensus for 42 Areas
 and 13 Respondent Categories by Definitional
 Criteria.

                      Average        Average
                    (42 Areas)   (13 Categories)

General Group          .63            .55
Gang Structure         .35            .25
Non-Criminal           .91            .89
General Criminal       .39            .26
Drug Crime             .75            .66
Violence               .59            .46
Property Crime         .83            .81
Collective Symbols     .52            .53
Individual Symbols     .62            .54
General Symbols        .57            .27
Adults Involved        .92            .94
Reside Same Locale     .73            .72

                   Average Degree   Standard 
                    of Consensus   Deviation

Over 42 Areas            0.651      .098 
Over 13 Respondent       0.574      .083
Categories

This pattern suggests that the influence of area is
greater than that of the particular discipline in
the determination or selection of the components of
gang definition. In other words, it is not so much
the profession of the person, how he was trained,
or his agency affiliation which determines the
definition of gang as where he or she is located by
city or locality in carrying out his job. There
appears to be a stronger geographical or physical
proximity than a professional network effect. We
will return to the notion of networks later in
Chapter 5.

Finally, we plotted the relation of the areas,
cities, counties, sub-areas, and institutional
sites to each other in terms of social distance.
The 12 criteria of gang definition were used to
compare the "definitional distance between each
pair of multi-respondent geographic areas from each
other." After applying a set of computational
procedures, we were able to assign each site a
value on each of two principal dimensions. We found
that respondents in our chronic areas seemed to
emphasize the general criminal or anti-social
nature of the gang. The emerging cities tended to
emphasize the symbolic aspects in their description
of gangs. The chronic gang problem cities also more
often defined their notion of gangs in drug problem
terms, while the emerging city respondent defined
the idea of gang slightly more often in
organizational structure and general gang
characteristic terms (See Appendix Table 2-7 and
Appendix Figure 2-1). Thus respondents in the
cities with long-term youth gang problems appear to
emphasize the criminal and drug trafficking
character of the problem. The cities with more
recent gang problems see the problem in classic
symbolic and group terms. This difference may also
represent a phase in the development of the youth
gang problem from that of a traditional to a more
criminalized and sophisticated, although not
necessarily more visible, form.

The multi-dimensional scaling approach was also
used to plot the relation of the different types of
justice system, school, and community-based agency
respondents to each other in terms of two-
dimensional space. We find judges and youth and
family service agencies scale low on the
definitional components of collective symbolism and
involvement in drug crime. The comprehensive crisis
intervention service agencies score high on the use
of collective symbols in their identification of
gangs. Grass-roots and planning agencies score
highest of all categories of respondents in the use
of violence and property crime in their definitions
of the gang. Corrections scores lowest on this
dimension. Prosecution, parole, and to some extent
law enforcement appear to equally emphasize a
variety of components of the definition of gang and
are more or less centrally situated along the
social distance dimensions, particularly in their
use of such components as collective symbols,
involvement in drug crime, general group
characteristics, gang structure, violence and
property crime (See Appendix Tables 2-10, 2-11, and
2-12).

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

SUMMARY: GANG DEFINITION

Our procedures and findings in regard to a
definition of the term gang may be summarized as
follows. Two hundred thirty-six open-ended
responses as to definitions of gang were content
analyzed into 48 empirically anchored items or
concepts, which were then grouped into twelve
categories: 1) general group characteristics; 2)
gang organization characteristics; 3) non-criminal
group activities; 4) drug crime; 5) violent crime;
6) property crime; 7) general criminal activity; 8)
symbols--collectively owned; 9) personal in nature,
and still other more 10) general symbolic
references; 11) the presence of adult members; and
12) residence in the same area.

We then factor analyzed these twelve sets of
characteristics to try to obtain fewer and more
succinct patterned meanings to the notion of gang.
We came out with five factors: a set of specific
criminal activities factor, a symbolic factor, a
more amorphous general delinquency factor, a group
or organizational factor, and a residence or
neighborhood factor. We could not account
statistically (only 41.4 percent) for as much
variance or meaning as we would have liked.

Next we returned to use of our original twelve
conceptual component grouping of what a gang was
based on respondent definitions. We were interested
in how much consensus there was on use of these
components by respondents on the basis of area and
professional affiliation or discipline. We found
that consensus on use of gang definitional
components tended to be a little higher in emerging
than in chronic areas. Consensus was significantly
higher among criminal justice than non-criminal
justice respondents. In general there was greater
agreement on definition of the term gang by area
than by respondent categories. The difference was
statistically significant at the .01 level.

Finally, we used a multi-dimensional scaling
procedure to locate area and then respondent
categories in social distance space in terms of the
component dimensions. We compared the definitional
distance of our respondents from each other on an
area and professional or disciplinary basis. We
found that respondents in the chronic gang problem
cities emphasized the general criminal or anti-
social nature of the gang. Respondents in the
emerging cities emphasized symbolic and
organizational aspects in their definitions of
gangs.

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

THE GANG MEMBER

We used the same procedures and steps in analyzing
the term gang member as we did in examining the
definition of the concept gang. The content
analysis of open-ended responses revealed nine
different subsets or dichotomous variables of ways
to identify gang members: symbols/symbolic
behavior, self-admission, association with gang
members, gang type of criminal behavior (M.O.),
location of residence, police identification,
informant identification, and other criminal and
non-criminal justice identifiers (See Table 2-13).

Table 2-13. Methods of Identifying Gang Members

Method                        Respondents
                                Citing          %
Symbols/Symbolic Behavior          124        51.0
Self Admission                     113        46.5
Police Identification              102        42.0
Informant Identification            97        38.9
Association with Gang Members       94        38.7
Type of Criminal Behavior           82        33.7
Other Criminal Justice Identifiers  46        18.9
Other Non-criminal Justice IDers    39        16.0
Location or Residence               34        14.0

For those who make their own identification of gang
members, symbolic behavior, patterns of
association, types of criminal behavior, and
hangouts or residence are important. For those who
use someone else's definition of membership, a
statement by the gang member about himself is the
most commonly cited source, but also important are
identification through police, informants, other
criminal justice institutions, and other non-
criminal justice.

We performed a GLS factor analysis on these nine
ways of identifying gang members for the 243
respondents who answered this item, using the same
method employed in the analysis of gang definition
characteristics. Four significant factors resulted
that explain 36.4 percent of the covariation among
the variables, which again is not a great deal of
explanatory power (See Appendix Table 2-14).

The first factor is totally dominated by the
component of symbolic behavior (See Table 2-15).
There is a moderate positive loading on type of
crime that a suspect is engaged in and a slightly
stronger negative loading on the use of police
identification. The definition of a government
planner who scores high on this factor mentions
"turf and colors." Factor 2 carries the heaviest
loading for other non-justice system institutional
identification but also has positive loadings on
police identification and other legal institutional
identification. Criminal behavior loads negatively
on Factor 2. A probation officer who scores high on
Factor 2 and defers to police agencies, school
officials, parents, and probation department
investigation. His sources of identification are
court officials, police, and other youths in the
community. In other words, a youth is considered a
gang member mainly because some other organization
says he is.

Factor 3 loads most strongly on identification by
gang member association. Other strong to moderate
loadings include informant identification, criminal
behavior, and self-identification. A police officer
scores highest on Factor 3. His methods of
identifying gang members include "association with
gang members, information from Boys Clubs, schools
and law enforcement agencies, methods of
questioning, and checking photos of all gang and
delinquent groups on file." Factor 4, accounting
for less than 4 percent of the explained variation,
loads most heavily on a combination of sources,
other criminal justice, police, and self-
identification, and location. 

Table 2-15. Rotated Factor Matrix from GLS Factor
 Analysis of Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients of
 Gang Incident Definition Characteristics

Factor               1        2        3        4

Association        .052    -.104     .742    -.062
Self ID            .037     .012     .237     .354
Police ID         -.211     .236     .047     .331
Informant ID      -.076     .141     .359     .084
Other Crim. 
 Justice ID       -.017     .360     .014     .397
Other 
 Institution ID    .023     .749    -.012     .106
Location           .048     .012     .042    -.365
Symbolic Behavior  .984    -.032     .051    -.168
Criminal Behavior 
 (M.O.)            .136    -.232     .281     .080 

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

DIFFERENCES IN GANG MEMBER IDENTIFICATION

Once more we explore the issue of consensus, as it
may provide greater understanding of how and under
what conditions a person is defined as a youth gang
member, i.e., on which components there is greatest
agreement. We analyze our nine dichotomous criteria
of gang membership again first by area and second
by respondent category. We determine whether there
is greater consensus by locality or respondent
category on use of gang member definitions. We use
the same procedure and measure of degree of
definitional consensus, ranging from 0 for no
consensus in definition to 1 for perfect consensus.

In an examination of the area-level data, we find
once more that consensus is slightly higher within
emerging cities than within chronic cities. The
differences are not statistically significant (See
Table 2-16). However, when we examine the degree to
which there is consensus in the respondent
categories in use of components of the definition
of gang member, we find that unlike the definition
of gang, there is more consensus among non-criminal
justice agencies than criminal justice agency
respondents. Consensus is highest among grass-roots
organizations and comprehensive youth service
intervention programs and lowest for probation,
parole, and law enforcement officers. The
differences between criminal justice and non-
criminal justice personnel is significant at the
0.05 level, using a t-test of means (See Table 2-
17).

Table 2-16. Average Degree of Consensus on
 Membership Criteria by Area.

                       Average Degree
City                    of Consensus

Albuquerque*                 .48  
Benton Harbor                .41  
CA-CYA*                      .63  
Chicago*                     .51  
Chino*                       .56  
Cicero                       .56  
Columbus                     .38  
Detroit*                     .56  
East LA*                     .22  
El Monte*                    .47  
Evanston                     .70  
Flint                        .48  
Fort Wayne                   .50  
Indianapolis                 .59  
Inglewood*                   .61  
Jackson                      .70  
LA City*                     .57  
LA County*                   .31  
Long Beach*                  .64  
Louisville                   .56  
Madison                      .85  
Miami                        .39  
Milwaukee                    .33  
Minneapolis                  .56  
New York*                    .67  
Oakland*                     .63  
Philadelphia*                .51  
Phoenix*                     .56  
Pomona*                      .47  
Reno                         .56  
Rockford                     .39  
Sacramento                   .50  
Salt Lake City               .44  
San Diego*                   .40  
San Jose*                    .33  
San Francisco*               .63  
Santa Ana*                   .56  
Shreveport                   .63  
Sterling                     .48  
Stockton*                    .44  
Tallahassee                  .89  
Tucson*                      .63  

* Chronic Areas

Table 2-17. Average Degree of Consensus on Member
 Identification Methods by Respondent Category.

Respondent             Average Degree
Category                of Consensus

Law Enforcement              .34
Prosecution                  .40
Court                        .49
Probation                    .30
Corrections                  .44
Parole                       .33
School Security              .53
School Other                 .49
Youth Services               .49
Comprehensive                .70
Family Services              .50
Grass Roots                  .73
Planning                     .52

The t statistic for difference in means is -2.54,
significant at the 0.05 level. The standard
deviation for criminal justice respondents is .248
and for non-criminal justice respondents is .260.

Table 2-18 indicates that there is most consensus
across areas and across the different respondent
categories in regard to components of the
definition that indicate the individual identified
as a gang member lives in a particular neighborhood
and when the source of identification is another
institution. Apparently there is least consensus on
the importance of symbolic behavior as a way of
identifying a gang member and most consensus on
components that respondents are less likely to use.
Again, we find that agreement of the definitional
components is generally higher on a city or site
basis than by types of respondents or disciplinary
perspectives (See Table 2-18). These differences
are quite large and statistically significant at
the .001 level.

As with the definition of gang, we plotted
respondent definitions of gang member, particularly
the 9 criteria, in social distance terms. We did
this for cities or areas as well as for types of
respondents. We found that most cities tend to use
a variety of criteria in identifying gang members.
The respondents in the chronic problem cities rely
less on police and other criminal justice
institutional identification than in the emerging
gang problem cities. Furthermore, the emerging
cities tend to be outliers, some relying very
heavily, some not at all, on police and other
criminal justice agency identifications. The multi-
dimensional scaling analysis is somewhat more
revealing in reference to respondent categories. It
locates criminal justice respondents generally
higher on the dimension which emphasizes specific
types of crimes gang members commit or by their
M.O. Non-justice entities, such as grass-roots,
comprehensive intervention service, and family 
service agencies are generally more likely to rely on
symbolic behaviors to identify youth as a gang
member (See Appendix Tables 2-19 and 2-20 and
Appendix Figures 2-3, 2-4).

Table 2-18. Average Degree of Consensus for 42
 Areas and 13 Respondent Categories by Member
 Identification Criteria.

                      Average       Average
                     (42 Sites)  (13 Categories)

Symbolic Behavior        .41       .39
Association              .48       .51
Criminal Behavior        .45       .51
Location/Residence       .75       .81
Self-ID                  .41       .41
Police ID                .44       .45
Informant ID             .41       .53
Other Legal ID           .70       .69
Other Institutional ID   .74       .67

                 Average Degree   Standard 
                  of Consensus   Deviation

Over 42 Areas           .744       .139
Over 13 Respondent      .625       .062
 Categories

The F statistic for the difference in standard
deviations is significant at the 0.01 level.

The t statistic for the difference in means is
significant at the 0.001 level.

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

SUMMARY: GANG MEMBER DEFINITION

The content analysis revealed the following nine
ways to identify gang members: symbols/symbolic
behavior, self-admission, association with gang
members, gang type of criminal behavior (MO),
location of residence, police identification,
informant identifications, other criminal justice
identifiers, and other non-criminal justice
identifiers. A factor analysis was conducted and
resulted in four significant factors that explained
36.4 percent of the covariation among the
variables, not a great deal of explanatory power: 
symbolic behavior; other non-justice and to some
extent police identification; gang member
association; and a combination of sources,
including other criminal justice, self-
identification, and location.

Our inquiry into the degree of consensus by
respondents on gang member identification revealed
that consensus is slightly higher in emerging than
in chronic gang problem cities. There tends to be
more consensus among non-criminal than criminal
justice agency respondents. Consensus occurs most
often in relation to where the individual lives and
least often on the importance of symbolic behavior
in the determination of who is a gang member. Again
we find that agreement on gang member definitional
components is significantly higher on an area than
on a type or category of respondent basis.

It is difficult to find different patterns of
identification of gang members comparing emerging
and chronic gang problem cities. Some emerging
cities tend to be somewhat uni-dimensional, some
relying very heavily, some not relying at all on
police and criminal justice sources. Ways of
identifying gang members are more distinctive among
categories of respondents. Criminal justice
respondents tend to emphasize specific types of
crime or MO's of reported offenders. Non-justice
system respondents generally rely more on symbolic
behaviors to identify youth as gang members. It is
possible that some of these patterns of youth gang
member definitions would be clarified, as with the
definition of gang, if race/ethnicity as well as
age control factors were interrelated.

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

GANG-RELATED INCIDENTS

The gang-related incident is the most important
criterion for determination of the scope and
severity of the youth gang problem in a particular
locality, especially based on police definition. It
is the measure most frequently used by the police,
media, and researchers, as well as by policy
makers, to assess the scope and severity of the
youth gang problem. It is also, relatively
speaking, the most reliable indicator since it
focuses specifically on criminal activity.
Nevertheless, the concept of gang-related incident
is clearly dependent on the particular definition
of gang and gang member in a locality or by type of
respondent. Problems of validity and reliability
are also expected to be compounded because of
political and policy considerations about the
impact of the definition of gang incident,
especially on a city basis. 

A content analysis suggested nine definitional
components or subsets of characteristics of a gang
incident. The presence or involvement of a gang
member was the most frequently reported criterion
in identifying an event or an incident as gang-
related among 61.4 percent respondents. Gang
function, i.e., a criminal activity based on gang
member motivation or gang interest, was used as a
criterion by 39.1 percent of the respondents. Modus
operandi (MO) is another criterion used by 37.8
percent of the respondents. Certain crimes such as
drive-by shootings were almost universally regarded
as gang-related. However, the type of MO used
varied considerably in different cities. Some
respondents reported treating all auto thefts as
gang-related. In one city, a respondent reported
that he considers all drug crimes as gang-related.
The involvement of multiple offenders per se at an
event (15.9 percent) and evidence of the
involvement of rival gang youth (15.9 percent) were
sufficiently frequent responses for us to establish
these as separate categories.

Identification of an activity by another
institution or group as gang related (11.2 percent)
and by where the event occurred (10.7 percent) were
criteria reported by some respondents. Least
frequently reported as the basis for respondents
deciding that an activity was gang related were
claims by the gang itself that an incident was gang
related (4.7 percent) and simply that several youth
were involved in the activity that was not
necessarily of a criminal nature (4.3 percent) (See
Table 2-25). Thus, at this first level of analysis,
the key characteristics of the gang incident
definition seemed to be whether a youth gang member
was involved (sometimes called gang-related
incident); whether the event furthered gang
function or development (sometimes termed gang
motivated incident); and whether a certain commonly
recognized criminal gang act occurred, such as a
drive-by shooting, i.e., modus operandi.

Table 2-25. Definitions of a Gang-Related Incident

Criteria                    Respondents            
                               Citing     %

Gang Member Involved            150     64.4
Furthers Gang Function           91     39.1
Gang Modus Operandi              88     37.8
Incident Involves Multiple 
 Offenders                       37     15.9
Rival Gangs Involved             37     15.9
Other Institution/Group 
 Identifies                      26     11.2
Location of Incident             25     10.7
Gang Claims Incident             11     4.7
Youth Involved                   10     4.3

A GLS factor analysis of the tetrachoric
correlation coefficients of these nine measures of
gang incidents produced five factors that combine
to explain 43.3 percent of the covariance among the
variables (Appendix Table 2-26). The explanatory
power of these factors for gang incidents is
somewhat more than those of gang and gang member,
yet still explains less than 50 percent of what
goes into a definition. The first factor loads very
heavily on the involvement of a gang member in the
incident. It has a fairly strong negative loading
on other institutional identification. The second
factor loads very heavily on the characteristic of
modus operandi or distinctive type of offense by
the participants in the incident. There are small
negative loadings on institutional identification,
gang members involved, and a smaller positive
reference to rival gang involvement (See Table 2-
27). 

The third factor loads heavily on the pair of
variables that indicate a number of persons were
present and that they were young people. There is a
positive loading on rival gangs involved, and
moderate negative loadings on institutional
identification and that the gang claims the
incident.

Table 2-27. Rotated Factor Matrix from GLS Factor
 Analysis of Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients of
 Gang Incident Definition Characteristics

Factor              1      2      3      4      5

Member Involved   .986  -.128  -.088   .042  -.011
Modus Operandi   -.073   .996  -.025   .011  -.009
Gang Function    -.001  -.107  -.028   .676  -.116
Number Involved   .069   .046   .708   .066  -.148
Rival Gangs       .024   .102   .181   .282   .154
Youth Involved    .016  -.064   .467  -.032   .098
Gang Claims 
 Incident         .071  -.005  -.142  -.046  -.027
Institutional ID -.329  -.133  -.167  -.337  -.072
Location          .005  -.007   .039   .000   .440

Identification by gang function dominates the
fourth factor. It also loads negatively on
institutional identification and positively on the
involvement of rival gangs, probably engaging in
gang conflict. The fifth factor explains a
relatively small part of total variation and loads
most heavily of any of the factors on location. It
loads somewhat negatively on number of individuals
involved and positively on the involvement of rival
gangs (See Table 2-27).

Thus the order of importance of these criteria for
the definition of gang incident shifts as a result
of the factor analysis. The gang member related
component remains most important, but the
importance of gang function is reduced, and the
modus operandi criteria becomes more important. The
tendency is thus to an expansive definition of the
idea of gang incident. The criterion of gang
function tends to be relatively restrictive.

The following is illustrative of the variety of
gang incident definitions obtained and how they
load on the different factors. A police lieutenant
who includes in his methods of identifying a gang
incident "known gang members involved" scores
highest on Factor 1. He also includes in his
definition "gang MO" and "multiple youth suspects",
and, hence, shows a relatively high score for
factors 2 and 3. A public school administrator and
a deputy district attorney score highest on Factor
2. The school administrator states in his
definition that "two or more identified gang
members are involved in an incident that results in
a hostile and/or illegal situation. We try to
determine if the incident is related to gang
function. Most incidents involve gang fighting." 
This respondent also has relatively high scores on
factor 1, as well as Factor 4. The deputy district
attorney states that his agency identifies a gang
incident as one in which "the suspect and/or victim
is a known gang member. The incident is motivated
by an exchange of gang challenges. Colors,
graffiti, and signing may be involved. This
includes classic gang tactics such as drive by
shootings and attacks involving multiple
assailants." Likewise he also scores high on
Factors 1, 3, and 4.

An assistant planning director of a local United
Way scores highest on Factor 3. She states that her
agency identifies a gang incident as one that
"involves a significant number of youth." A police
sergeant from a southern city and the founder of a
grassroots community organization score highest on
Factor 4. The police sergeant identifies a gang
incident as "violence between two groups that
escalates to the killing or assault level. The
conflict is due to group identity. Crimes are a
primary part of group identification." The grass-
roots community organization respondent states that
a gang incident is when a "gang fights for turf to
sell drugs and over gang recruitment." Both these
latter respondents score fairly low on factors 1
and 2 and moderately high on Factor 5. Despite our
factor analysis, there still seems to be a good
deal of overlap in these components or they tend to
be employed jointly in a definition of gang
incident.

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

DIFFERENCES IN DEFINING GANG INCIDENT BY AREA

Next we analyze our nine dichotomous criteria for
classifying an incident as gang-related first with
location as the unit of analysis and second with
respondent category as the unit of analysis. As
with definitions of gang and gang member, we are
interested first in the degree of consensus on
these components by respondents within sites and
then by category of respondents across sites or
areas. We are especially interested in whether the
area or the type of respondent category contributes
more to consensus on components used in the
definition of a gang incident. Again we use our
measure of consensus, which ranges from zero (non-
consensus) to one (perfect consensus).

Contrary to our findings comparing consensus on
definitions of gang and gang member, there is at
least as great consensus in chronic gang cities as
in emerging gang problem cities on what the
criteria of a gang incident are.  This is so
despite the fact it is more difficult to achieve
consensus in chronic problem cities, which tend to
be larger and from where we had more respondents.
In part, this could be because chronic gang problem
cities have longer experience in and better
information systems for dealing with gangs and gang
members. The differences comparing means is not
statistically significant between these two kinds
of gang problem cities (See Table 2-28).

Again, we observe that consensus is slightly higher
among criminal justice than among non-criminal
justice personnel. It is highest among court and
prosecutors, and quite high among law enforcement
officers, considering the large number of police
personnel in that respondent category with so much
greater potential for dissonance. Still there is no
statistically significant difference in degree of
consensus comparing criminal and non-criminal
justice respondent groups (See Table 2-29).

Table 2-30 suggests that there is greater agreement
on the components of the definition of a gang
incident which are least frequently used: when
there are youth present, when there is self-
admission, and when the incident occurs in certain
parts of the city. There appears to be least
agreement by area and among the different
respondents on the use of gang function, modus
operandi, or the involvement of gang members as
identifying elements in a definition of a gang
incident. Again, we see that influence of the city
or area is considerably greater in the development
of consensus on gang incident definitional
components then respondent categories. Locality is
a greater influence on what goes into a definition
of the gang problem than the particular agency or
respondent's discipline. These differences are
statistically significant at the 0.01 level. The
influence of the area on a consensual definition of
the gang incident is even greater than for the
definition of gang or gang member.

Table 2-28. Average Degree of Consensus on Incident
 Criteria by Area.

                    Average Degree
Area                 of Consensus

Albuquerque*             .74
Benton Harbor            .93
CA-CYA*                  .93
Chicago*                 .62  
Chino*                   .56  
Cicero                   .78  
Columbus                 .41  
Detroit*                 .78  
East LA*                 .56  
El Monte*                .56  
Evanston                 .70  
Flint                    .67  
Fort Wayne               .56  
Indianapolis             .70  
Inglewood*               .78  
Jackson                  .63  
LA City*                 .59  
LA County*               .73  
Long Beach*              .82  
Louisville               .63  
Madison                  .70  
Miami                    .72  
Milwaukee                .67  
Minneapolis              .78  
New York*                .71  
Oakland*                 .78  
Philadelphia*            .69  
Phoenix*                 .78  
Pomona*                  .69  
Reno                     .67  
Rockford                 .83  
Sacramento               .78  
Salt Lake City           .56  
San Diego*               .53  
San Jose*                .84  
San Francisco*           .78  
Santa Ana*               .67  
Shreveport               .78  
Sterling                 .78  
Stockton*                .70  
Tallahassee              .78  
Tucson*                  .78  

* Chronic Areas

Table 2-29. Average Degree of Consensus on Incident
 Identification Methods by Respondent Category.

Respondent             Average Degree
 Category               of Consensus

Law Enforcement            .66
Prosecution                .70
Court                      .78
Probation                  .56
Corrections                .64
Parole                     .58
School Security            .56
School Other               .59
Youth Services             .59
Comprehensive              .63
Family Services            .59
Grass Roots                .60
Planning                   .65

Table 2-30. Average Degree of Consensus for 42 Area
 and 13 Respondent Categories by Definitional
 Criteria.

                        Average    Average
                      (42 Sites) (13 Categories)
Gang Member Involved       .56      .26 
Furthers Gang Function     .46      .27
Gang Modus Operandi        .46      .27
Multiple Offenders 
 Involved                  .72      .63
Rival Gangs Involved       .72      .68
Youth Involved             .91      .95
Gang Claims Incident       .93      .92
Other Institution 
 Identifies                .80      .79
Location of Incident       .78      .85

                    Average Degree   Standard 
                     of Consensus   Deviation
Over 42 Areas            .7067      .108
Over 13 Respondent       .6254      .062
Categories

* The F statistic for the difference in standard
deviations is significant at the 0.05 level.

** The t statistic for the difference in means is
significant at the 0.01 level.

Again, we plotted the relation of the cities and
then the categories of respondent to each other,
respectively, on a social distance map. The
multiple dimensional scaling procedure first
produced a clustering of the chronic gang problem
cities and suggested a balance of multiple
components by them that enter into a definition of
gang incident. Differences in definition among some
of the large cities, such as Los Angeles City, Los
Angeles County, and New York were relatively
limited while the gang incident definitions of the
emerging cities were more uni-dimensional and
tended to be at the extremes on the dimensions
established in the analysis, for example,
emphasizing gang membership or gang function (See
Appendix Tables 2-31, 2-32, 2-34, 2-35 and Appendix
Figure 2-5). Views of gang incident by the
different types of respondents were also quite
distant from each other in social space. There is a
tendency, however, for respondents in the different
categories to depend somewhat on other agencies
probably with the exception of the police on the
determination of whether an incident is gang
related or not (See Appendix Figure 2-6). Thus, the
distinctions that some of the very large and
chronic gang problem cities draw as to the
definitions of gang incident may be less than
commonly regarded, at least compared to the variety
of, or more disparate, definitions in the emerging
or newer gang cities.

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

SUMMARY: GANG INCIDENT DEFINITION

The gang incident is the most important indicator
of the scope and severity of the gang problem. The
respondents listed the following criteria for
identifying and reporting a gang incident: 
involvement of a gang member, gang function (based
on gang motivation or interest), modus operandi,
involvement of multiple offenders, rival gangs
involved, youth involved, gang claims the incident,
other institutional identification, and the
location of the event. A factor analysis further
reduced the key component ideas of gang incident
to: gang member participation, modus operandi,
presence of a group of gang people, gang function,
and location.

There seemed to be little difference by type of
problem city -- chronic or emerging -- on what the
criteria of a gang incident were. Consensus was
slightly but not significantly higher on the
components of the definition among criminal justice
respondents, especially judges and prosecutors,
than among non-criminal justice personnel. The
influence of area was much larger than that of
respondent category on the level of consensus on
definition of the gang incident. The difference was
highly statistically significant. The attempt to
distinguish emphases in definition, using multi-
dimensional scaling, revealed a few differences by
type of area or category of respondent. The
definitions of the larger chronic gang problem
cities were based on multiple criteria and were
reasonably close to each other. Those of the
emerging cities were more extreme in their
emphasis, for example, either of gang membership or
gang function.

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

SUMMARY

This chapter examined the multiple meanings of the
gang problem in terms of its key components: gang,
gang member, and gang incident. The importance of a
common definition was stressed for understanding
the scope and seriousness of the problem across
different cities and jurisdictions and for
developing effective policies and programs of
intervention. The variety of definitions used by
respondents also suggests caution in the use of
assessments of the problem including the findings
presented later in this report.

In general, there was more consensus on definitions
based on area than by discipline or agency of the
respondent. In other words, the fact that a
respondent was located in a particular locality was
more important than what his professional or agency
affiliation was in determining the way he defined a
gang, a gang member, or gang incident.

The most frequently cited elements of a definition
of gang were certain group or organizational
characteristics, symbols, and criminal activities,
especially violence, drug use and sales. The most
frequently used elements of a definition of gang
member were symbols or symbolic behavior, self-
admission, identification by others, especially the
police, and association with gang members. The most
frequently cited ways of identifying or reporting a
gang incident were the involvement of a gang
member, gang function, and modus operandi.

A variety of statistical procedures were employed,
with limited success, to reduce the complexity and
obtain understanding of the underlying factors of
the definitions. We were able to account for
slightly more of the underlying elements in the
definition of gang incident than with the
definition of gang or gang member. Respondents in
the larger, chronic gang problem cities appeared to
be in greater accord on what the elements in such a
definition were than smaller, emerging gang problem
cities.

This somewhat painstaking examination of the way
respondents define youth gang, youth gang member,
gang incident indicates how complex, elusive, and
even contradictory elements of the problem are. It
serves as a reminder of the need to temper any
particular assessment of the scope and seriousness
of the gang problem. The youth gang problem at the
present time is apparently many types of perceived
gang problems. At the same time, there are certain
aspects of the gang problem that are clearly
identifiable and interpretable. The role of the
criminal justice system, especially law enforcement
as the lead identifier of gangs and gang problems
is to emphasize serious criminal components.
Community-based agencies, including schools and
youth service agencies, generally identify a wider
range and attribute less serious behaviors to gang
problem. On the other hand, a labelling or
mislabelling process that identifies minor
delinquent or disruptive acts, or criminal behavior
by gang members in non-gang structure contexts, as
gang activity may occur, which then is conducive to
a possible widening of the problem as specifically
criminally gang induced. On the other hand, a
failure to identify a gang problem in its more
serious and special meaning, when in fact one
exists, constitutes denial and may be conducive to
the growth and development of the gang problem, if
nothing or little is done about it. Some balanced
consensually observed set of criteria of what is a
gang, who is a gang member, and when a criminal act
is gang related or motivated is obviously required.
The various definitions, especially that of gang
incident, should neither exaggerate nor minimize
the scope and seriousness of the problem. 

The findings of the survey, reported in later
chapters, also suggest that consensus on definition
of the gang incident is an important condition for
an effective approach in dealing with the gang
problem, especially in chronic gang problem cities.

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

CHAPTER 3

GANG-CHARACTERISTICS

In this chapter we describe and present a
preliminary analysis of the scope of the problem
based on respondent perceptions of selected gang
characteristics. We prepare for the analysis of
agency response in Chapters 4 and 5 and the
analysis of models of effective intervention in
Chapter 6. The high degree of statistical
correlation among gang characteristics in this
chapter, as well as with agency response and ways
of effectively dealing with the problem in later
chapters, suggests that the gang problem and its
underlying structured dynamics may not be as
amorphous or complex as the diversity of gang
definitions in chapter 2 indicates. 

We are interested first in whether parameters
of the gang problem are related to each other.
These parameters include estimates of the number of
gangs, gang members, size of gangs, the
race/ethnicity of gang members, geographic scope of
gang activity, extent of crime -- including index
crime -- of gang members, adult-related character of
gang activity, presence of local and non-local
gangs or gangs with the same names in various
communities, gang relationship to adult criminal
organization, and the extent to which youth gangs
are primarily organized for drug-related purposes. 

We are dealing mainly with the perceptions of
the youth gang problem by respondents who
participated in our survey. Validated gang data are
extremely difficult to come by. We believe that the
perceptions of some of the respondents may be more
reliable than those of others. However, all of the
perceptions, particularly by type of respondent
category or area have their own distinctive reality
that frames the problem and provides a basis for
dealing with it, whether effectively or not.

In order to obtain both an accurate -- or as
accurate as possible -- set of gang and gang problem
characteristics, but at the same time a range of
gang characteristic estimates, we organize our
findings by categories of law enforcement and non-
law enforcement responses. We believe that police
estimates are probably more accurate and
conservative than those of other respondents. Law
enforcement confronts the problem at the front line
and is usually responsible for basic data
collection, interpretation, and dissemination.
Police estimates have special visibility and
perhaps greater credence. 

This chapter also attempts to interrelate gang
problem characteristics using a variety of
correlation statistics. Because of resource
constraints we were unable to develop other
significant units of analysis. We did not analyze
our data by certain important dimensions, for
example by age, race/ethnicity, chronic or by
emerging problem city. Differences associated with
these dimensions are observed to some extent in the
analysis in later chapters. 

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

SIZE OF THE PROBLEM 

While a range of estimates of the number of
gangs and gang members nationwide is available in a
wide variety of cities (Miller 1975, 1982; Dolan
and Finney 1984; Spergel 1990), we only provide
estimates for 45 cities where both the problem and
organized programs to deal with it exist. Our 45
cities may not represent an adequate sample of all
gang problems or the full range of responses to it
nationally.

Based on law enforcement estimates, a total of
1,439 gangs were reported across the 35 (non-
overlapping and non-duplicated) localities as of
1987. The preponderance of gangs were reported from
three jurisdictions: Los Angeles County, 600 (41.7
percent), including 280 (19.5 percent) in Los
Angeles City, and 128 (8.9 percent) in Chicago. A
total of 120,636 gang members were reported in 34
of those jurisdictions. (One respondent provided an
estimate of gangs, but no estimate of gang
members.) Of the total gang members, 70,000 (58.0
percent) were estimated to be in Los Angeles
County, including 26,000 (21.6 percent) in Los
Angeles City, and 12,000 (10.0 percent) in Chicago.
California jurisdictions accounted for a
substantial majority, 789 (54.8 percent) of the
gangs and 83,339 (69.1 percent) of the members
reported by law enforcement respondents in our
study (See Table 3-1).

Again we remind the reader that the terms,
gang and gang member as well as gang incident, are
defined differently in different cities. To what
extent the counts for these units may be
legitimately aggregated is a question we cannot
easily answer. We assume there are some underlying
commonalities that we may have not yet clearly
discovered. A common substrata of the youth gang
problem is suggested by the patterns of
relationships described in this chapter.

The cities represented in our study, range in
size from 14,200 (Benton Harbor) to 7,165,00 (New
York). Included are five cites with more than a
million in population and seven cities below
100,000. Twenty-three (23) of the cities have
populations between 100,000 and 500,000. Thus, the
gang problem and organized -- even promising --
responses to it may occur in almost any sized city.

Overall we find that there are very high
correlations between size of city (See Table 3-2),
numbers of gangs, and numbers of gang members.
However, these correlations are not perfect. Some
large cities -- New York, for example (the largest
of all cities) -- do not report very large numbers
of gangs or gang members as we would expect, and
some smaller cities -- Benton Harbor, Michigan, for
example -- have disproportionately high numbers of
gangs and gang members. Again, differences in
definition and in data collection procedures could
account for these exceptions. We suspect that there
are more youth gangs and youth gang members in Los
Angeles City than in Chicago, in part because
definitions of the problem are broader or more
inclusive in Los Angeles City and more restrictive
in Chicago. Furthermore, it is indeed likely that
there are fewer youth gangs in New York City, but
many of the youth groups classified as organized
crime groups in New York City would probably be
classified as youth gangs in Los Angeles, and
probably also in Chicago. Nevertheless, there are
very strong correlations between members of gangs,
gang members, and size of city. However, there is a
higher correlation between numbers of gangs and
gang members with each other than with size of city
(Table 3-3). In general, the larger the city in our
study, the more gangs and gang members and the
larger, more established or chronic the gang
problem. The importance of these variables in
differentiating chronic and emerging gang problem
cities is systematically addressed in Chapter 6.

Table 3-1. Number of Gangs and Gang Members in 1987

                  Number of   Number of Gang 
                    Gangs       Members

Mean for Entire 
 Population          39.1        3275.4
Albuquerque (a)      48.0        1575.0
Atlanta              15.0         175.0
Benton Harbor        12.5         350.0
Chicago (a)         125.0       12000.0
Chino                 1.0          61.0
Cicero                9.0         400.0
Columbus             18.0         400.0
El Monte              3.5        1800.0
Evanston              3.0         146.0
Fort Wayne            5.0          50.0
Fort Worth           60.0        1700.0
Indianapolis (a)      4.0         400.0
Inglewood            14.0         999.0
Jackson              11.0        1675.0
Long Beach           22.0        5725.0
LA City             280.0       26000.0
LA County           320.0       44000.0
Louisville (a)       20.0        1000.0
Madison               6.0         200.0
Miami (b)            60.0        3500.0
Milwaukee            32.5        4000.0
Minneapolis          26.0        1500.0
New York  (a)        66.0        1780.0
Oakland              30.0            NA
Philadelphia         11.0         977.0
Phoenix              50.0        4000.0
Pomona               15.0        1157.0
Reno  (a)             6.0          51.0
Rockford             10.0         500.0
Sacramento           33.0        1900.0
Salt Lake City       18.0         400.0
San Diego  (a)       23.0        3000.0
San Francisco        12.0        2000.0
San Jose             32.5         700.0
Santa Ana            35.0        5000.0
Seattle              13.0         206.0
Shreveport            4.5          55.0
Sterling              2.5          11.0
Stockton             22.5         750.0
Tallahassee           2.5          45.0

Total Cities = 40

(a) = 2 law enforcement respondents 
(b) = 4 law enforcement respondents
(NA)= not available
All other cities have one (1) law enforcement
 respondent

Table 3-2. City and County Populations (1984)

                       Populations 1984
                       City          County

Albuquerque          351,000
 Bernalillo County                   474,000
Atlanta              426,090
Benton Harbor         14,200
 Berrien County                     163,600
Chicago            2,992,000
 Cook County                      5,297,900
Chino                 40,100
Cicero                61,200
Columbus             566,000
 Franklin County                    907,000
Detroit            1,089,000
 Wayne County                     2,164,300
East LA              116,300
El Monte              80,000
Evanston              72,000
Flint                149,000
 Genesee County                     434,900
Fort Wayne           165,000
 Allen County                       295,300
Fort Worth           414,562
Indianapolis         710,000
 Marion County                      776,500
Inglewood             94,000
Jackson              209,000
Long Beach           379,000
LA City            3,097,000
 LA County                        7,477,000
Louisville           290,000
 Jefferson County                   680,700
Madison              171,000
 Dane County                        344,900
Miami                373,000
 Dade County                      1,769,500
Milwaukee            621,000
 Milwaukee County                   932,400
Minneapolis          358,000
 Hennepin County                    987,900
New York           7,165,000
Oakland              352,000
 Alameda County                   1,208,700
Philadelphia       1,647,000
Phoenix              853,000
 Maricopa County                  1,900,200
Pomona               107,000
Reno                 106,000
Rockford             137,000
 Winnebago County                   250,900
Sacramento           304,000
 Sacramento County                  914,700
Salt Lake City       165,000
San Diego            960,000
 San Diego County                 2,201,300
San Francisco        713,000
San Jose             686,000
 Santa Clara County               1,401,600
Santa Ana            225,000
 Orange County                    2,166,800
Seattle              488,474
Shreveport           220,000
Sterling              15,700
Stockton             172,000
 San Joaquin County                 432,700
Tallahassee          112,000
 Leon County                        172,800
Tucson               365,000
 Pima County                        602,400

Table 3-3. Correlations:  City/County Population
 Size, Numbers of Gangs, and Numbers of Gang Members

                    Number of    Number of
                    Gangs        Gang Members

Population Size     .750 ***       .725 ***

Number of Gang
 Members            .964 ***

Significance 
 Level  * = 0.05   ** = 0.01   *** =0.001

GANG SIZE 

We provided respondents an opportunity to
estimate the size of the particular gangs in their
jurisdiction or service area, including lower and
upper size of gangs  (Item III-17c of the
Questionnaire). Information on this item however,
was not obtained from 84 or about a third or our
respondents. A wide range of answers was provided
by the 170 respondents who ventured an estimate. We
computed the average size of gangs from these
estimates at the aggregate level. 

Law enforcement respondents perceived gangs to
be generally smaller in size than did non-law
enforcement personnel (See Appendix Table 3-4). The
median size of gangs for law enforcement officials
was 60, but it was 75 for non-law enforcement
respondents. Where no law enforcement respondents
reported the gang size to be over 1,000, 3 percent
of non-law enforcement agency respondents believed
gangs to be this large. Also, there is
substantially less variation among law enforcement
officers than among the other respondents in
estimates of the size of gangs. 

RACE, ETHNICITY, AND GANGS 

In Questionnaire Item III-12, respondents are
asked to estimate the percent of gang members
coming to their attention in 1987 who were of
specific ethnic or racial backgrounds. Blacks and
Hispanics comprised the preponderant ethnic groups
cited.

African-American Gang Members. Relatively
more blacks, mainly African-Americans, and to some
extent Asians came to the attention of law
enforcement, but relatively more Hispanics and
whites came to the attention of non-law enforcement
respondents (See Appendix Table 3-5, 3-6, 3-10, and
3-11). Nevertheless, most respondents indicate that
the majority of the gang members who came to their
attention in 1987 were black. For law enforcement
officers, the median percent of gang members
contacted was 53 percent. For non-law enforcement
respondents, the median percent was 46 percent. At
least some black gang members came to the attention
of all but 4.3 percent of law enforcement officers
and 6 percent of non-law enforcement respondents. 

Hispanic Gang Members. Hispanic members are
the next largest percent of gang members reported
by our respondents. The median percent of Hispanic
gang members contacted by law enforcement was 28
percent and by non-law enforcement respondents, 30
percent. About 29 percent of all respondents
reported that the majority of the gang members they
contact were of Hispanic origin. The largest of the
Hispanic subgroups dealt with were of Mexican
origin. Law enforcement respondents reported
dealing with considerably smaller percent of
Mexican-American gang members, an average of 16
compared to non-law enforcement estimates of 50
percent. Thus, while law enforcement seemed to be
dealing with more black  gang members, non-law
enforcement seemed to be dealing with relatively
more Hispanic gang members. (See Appendix Tables 3-
6, 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9).   

Finally, we observe that whites and Asians
comprise a very small proportion of youth gangs
reported by either law enforcement or non-law
enforcement respondents. Whites are the majority
population in many of the city or county
jurisdictions from which our gangs and gang members
come. We do not speculate at this time as to why
the estimates of numbers of white gang members
contacted are so low. Very few law enforcement (2.2
percent) and non-law enforcement (1.6 percent)
respondents indicate contact with a majority of
white gang members. (See Appendix Table 3-10).

Our respondents have least contact with gang
members of Asian descent. The majority of
respondents have no Asian respondents in their
caseload. A small percentage of law enforcement
respondents (4.2 percent) state they are in contact
with a majority of Asian gang members. The
proportion is even smaller for non-law enforcement
respondents (2.2 percent) (See Appendix Table 3-
11).

GANG ORGANIZATIONAL PARAMETERS 

One major difference that exists between
contemporary and earlier youth gangs is the degree
to which gang affiliations, or at least gangs with
the same names, extend beyond a particular
neighborhood (across cities and states). Seemingly
broad alliances of gangs such as the Folks and
People emanating out of Chicago and the Crips and
Bloods out of the Los Angeles area are the ultimate
manifestation of this phenomenon. Sherman in 1970
referred to such alliances in Chicago as
"supergangs."  Some of these same gangs still
around today prefer the designation, "nation."

How well organized these supposed "grand
alliances" are and whether they represent a nascent
"mafia" or series of "junior" crime organizations
is in some dispute. Whether the presence of some
gangs with the same names in different areas is
part of a rational organized, "franchising" effort
is not clear. At the same time there is evidence
that many gangs with the same name exist in
different neighborhoods, cities and states but in
fact may have little or no relationship with each
other. The explanations for the spread of gangs or
gang names include:  (1) expansion for purposes of
drug trafficking and other criminal enterprises,
(2) population movement of minority groups from
central cities to suburban areas and smaller
cities, (3) immigration of gang members from other
countries including the presence of illegals, to
inner city and low income areas, (4) school busing,
and (5) media coverage that results in
glorification and spread of gang culture.

Item III-17d of the Questionnaire asks
respondents if gangs in their jurisdiction or
service area have the same name as those in
different neighborhoods or areas. A majority of all
respondents report that this is indeed the case
(Appendix Table 3-12). However, law enforcement is
more conservative in its estimate of the gang
spread phenomenon. Less than two thirds (63.5
percent) of law enforcement, but three quarters (75
percent) of non-law enforcement respondents
perceive gangs with the same names in different
parts of their jurisdiction or service area
(Appendix Table 3-12).

LEVEL OF GANG CRIMINALITY 

What part of overall serious crime in an area
can be attributed to gang members and what
proportion of gang members are involved in crime? 
These are two different ways of examining the scope
and perhaps impact of gang criminality. In Item
III-5, we ask respondents to estimate the percent
of total Part 1 or index, i.e., the most serious
violent and property offenses in their jurisdiction
or caseload attributed to youth gangs in 1987. In
Item III-16, we ask for the percentage of gang
offenders with prior police records who came to the
respondent organization's attention during that
year.

Many of the respondents do not know what
proportion of index crime is attributable to gang
members. Others feel the question is not applicable
to their agency's approach. Only 47.5 percent of
the respondents answer this question. Law
enforcement estimates are much more conservative
than those of non-law enforcement respondents. Law
enforcement respondents estimate the mean percent
of the total of index crimes in the communities
committed by gang youth to be 22.7 percent. For
non-law enforcement respondents the figure is 32.7
percent (See Appendix Table 3-13). However, where
28.1 percent of the non-law enforcement respondents
state that a majority of the youth gang members who
came to their attention are responsible for the
majority of index crime within their jurisdictions,
41.2 percent of the law enforcement respondents
perceive that gang youth are responsible for a
majority of the index crimes.

When the question turns to the number of gang
members with prior police records (See Appendix
Table 3-14), we have considerably fewer missing
responses among non-law enforcement respondents
(23.3 percent). In this case, law enforcement
officers are less conservative and more inclusive
in their response. Law enforcement estimates that
75 percent, while non-law enforcement estimates
that 70.1 percent,  of the gang members who came to
their attention in 1987 had prior police records.
There is, however, a little more variability in the
responses of law enforcement. In other words, law
enforcement in comparison to non-law enforcement
personnel believe that a slightly higher percent of
gang youth have prior records, but that a smaller
percent of these youth commit offenses of a very
serious nature (See Appendix Table 3-14).

ADULTS AND GANGS 

The gang problem is viewed as no longer only a
juvenile or youth phenomenon, but increasingly
involves young adults or adults. Some researchers
have studied young adult gangs (Horowitz 1983) or
closely observed the interconnections of juveniles,
youth, and adults in the gang subculture (Moore
1978). A series of questions were devised to obtain
information on aspects of this relationship. Item
III-8 asks respondents to estimate the percentage
of the gang-related incidents that involved adults
who came to their agency's attention in 1987. We
obtained a significantly different pattern of
responses from law enforcement compared to non-law
enforcement respondents (Appendix Table 3-15). The
police reported that 45.6 percent of the gang-
related cases they dealt with involved adults. For
non-law enforcement respondents the figure was only
23.7 percent. Almost three times as many law
enforcement (46.27 percent) as non-law enforcement
personnel (16.2 percent) report dealing with a
majority of adult gang-related incidents. Similarly
all three measures of central tendency are twice as
high for law enforcement respondents. A t-test for
the difference between the means for law
enforcement (45.6) and non-law enforcement
respondents (23.6) equals 4.84, which is
statistically significant at the 0.001 level. We
believe that much of the difference is due to the
fact that the police deal with serious incidents of
gang crime and these are more likely to involve
adults. Also the police may be better aware of the
complex reality of the involvement of both
juveniles and adults in gang incidents.

This interpretation is somewhat supported by
the pattern of answers to Item III-10, which asks
the respondent to choose which is the more serious
aspect of the problem, adult or juvenile. The
majority (54.9 percent) of law enforcement but
fewer (47.3 percent) of the non-law enforcement
respondents consider both the adult and the
juvenile problems as equally severe. Nevertheless,
both groups of respondents believe the problem is
still largely juvenile (See Appendix Table 3-16).

Implicit in the notion of adult involvement in
youth gang activity is the idea of criminal
organization. Members remaining active in gang life
into adulthood may increase their participation in
more serious levels of gang criminality. As this
occurs, youth gangs may become involved with adult
criminal organizations in more systematic illegal
ways. The degree to which this is the case is the
object of Item III-17e. As can be seen from
Appendix Table 3-17, a large majority of all
respondents, including law enforcement personnel,
indicate that such affiliation exists in their
jurisdiction or service area. A cautionary note is
useful here. While higher adult involvement in gang
activity may be associated with a higher level of
criminal activity, it may not necessarily signify
increased affiliation with adult criminal
organizations, as we shall see below.

DRUGS AND GANGS 

Few elements of gang anti-social activity or
crime have received more attention in recent years
than the involvement of gangs or their members in
the distribution of drugs. Item III-17g asks
whether drug distribution is one of the primary
purposes of the gang's existence in the
respondent's jurisdiction or service area. A
majority of non-law enforcement respondents (63.4
percent) answer this question affirmatively but a
less strong majority of law enforcement respondents
(54.9 percent) do likewise (See Appendix Table 3-
18). Again, we observe more cautious estimates by
law enforcement. It is possible that the police
more carefully make the distinction between
individual gang member and gang structure
involvement in drug trafficking.

Item III-17j probes for the involvement of
gangs in the importation of drugs into the area.
Law enforcement respondents seem to be a little
more knowledgeable than other respondents, with
proportionally half as many missing values (See
Appendix Table 3-19). A larger majority (63.8
percent) of law enforcement than non-law
enforcement respondents (56.0 percent) believe
there is such involvement.

GANG PATTERNS: INTERRELATIONSHIP FOR STRUCTURAL AND
BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS 

We now turn to a discussion of the patterns of
relationship of youth gang structure and behavioral
characteristics to each other. Gang patterns are
complex and subject to continuous change. The
patterns vary along a number of dimensions which
theorists and researchers have not yet been able to
adequately identify or explain. To systematically
identify how these characteristics are interrelated
may be a step toward a more complete understanding
of contemporary gang behavior and thereby result in
the development of more effective policy.

In the following discussion we use estimates
of numbers of gangs and gang members provided by
the law enforcement respondents instead those of
other respondents in a jurisdictional area to
maximize accuracy and consistency of definition, at
least within given geographical areas. Description
of other gang characteristics are those of the
particular respondent. Different correlational
analyses are conducted, depending on the levels of
data used -- categorical and ratio. 

Table 3-20 shows that number of gangs and
number of gang members in an area are strongly
related to each other (as we would expect), but not
so strongly related to the upper estimate of the
size of gangs, which reflects the estimates of all
the respondents not simply those of the police. The
relationship is positive, though. This may suggest
that when there are more gangs and gang members in
an area, it does not always mean that gangs are
larger in these areas. It leaves open the
possibility that sometimes the size of gangs may be
quite large in areas where there are fewer gangs
and that sometimes the size of some gangs is fairly
small even in areas with many gangs and gang
members.

Another expected finding is the strong
negative relationship between the percentage of
gang members coming to a respondent's attention who
are black and the percentage who are Hispanic.
Usually, where we have many black gang members, we
have few Hispanic gang members and vice versa.
Unexpected, perhaps, is the relationship between
number of gangs and number of gang members with
ethnicity of gang members. Where fewer gangs are
reported, the percentage of blacks of the total
gang population is higher. Where more gangs and
gang members are reported, the percentage of blacks
in the gang population is lower. The opposite
relationships hold for Hispanic gang composition.
This may be the result of the relative
concentration of Hispanic populations in some of
the larger metropolitan areas in the study (Table
3-20).

Table 3-20. Pearson Correlations for Selected Gang
 Problem Characteristics

           Number    Number   Upper    % Black
           Gangs     Gang     Size of  Members
                     Members  Gang

Number      .963 ***
Gang        (235) 
Members        

Upper       .164 *   .174 *
Size of     (163)    (160)
Gang          

% Black    -.187 ** -.154 *   .054
Members     (217)    (215)    (162) 

% Hispanic  .210 **  .202 *  -.003    -.800 ***
Members     (217)    (215)    (162)    (231)

Significance 
 Levels  * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** =0.001

When we examine the involvement of adults in
gangs, we find few significant relationships. The
percentage of total gang incidents in 1987
involving adults is not related to number of gangs
or gang members. Nor is it significantly related to
either the percent of gang members who are black or
Hispanic. There is, however, a modest significant
and positive relationship between the presence of
larger gangs and the increased involvement of
adults (Table 3-21).

The percentage of total index crimes that is
regarded as gang-related is positively related to
estimates of the number of gangs and the number of
gang members in each respondent's jurisdiction or
service area, but again the relationship is quite
modest. The percentage of index crime that is
attributed to gangs does not seem to vary
significantly with the upper size estimate of gang
or the ethnic composition of gangs. The percent of
gang members with prior police records is also only
modestly related to the reported upper size of
gangs (Table 3-21).

Table 3-21. Pearson Correlations for Selected Gang
 Problem Characteristics

          Number  Number   Upper    % Black      % 
          Gangs   Gang     Size of  Members   Hispanic
                  Members  Gang               Members

% 
Incidents  .028    .054    .150 *   -.020     .030
Involving  (180)   (178)   (137)     (185)    (185)
Adults        

% Index    .152 *  .174 *  .124     -.041    -.001
Crimes     (127)   (124)   (106)     (127)    (127)
Gang-Related  

% Gang     .067    .107    .159 *    .095     .009
Memb.      (185)   (182)   (146)     (190)    (190)
with Prior
Police Record 

Significance 
 Levels  * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** =0.001

While the percent of gang incidents involving
adults is not significantly related to percent of
index crimes attributed to gangs (Table 3-22),
there is, however, a strong significant positive
relationship between the percent of gang incidents
involving adults and the percent of gang member
with prior police records. We also see, but not as
strongly, a positive relationship between the
percent of index crime that is gang-related and the
percent of gang members with prior police records.
Again, because older youth or young adults are now
gang-affiliated, it may not necessarily mean they
are involved in a higher proportion of serious or
index crime in the area. The older members,
however, are more likely to have prior police
records.

Table 3-22. Pearson Correlations for Selected Gang
 Problem Characteristics

              %  Index Crimes     % Gang Members
                Gang-Related      with Prior
                                  Police Records

% Incidents       -.029             .233***
Involving          (113)            (164)
Adults

% Index 
Crimes Gang-        -               .212 **
Related                             (121)

Significance 
 Levels  * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** =0.001

The relationships between the existence of
gangs of the same name in different areas to other
aspects of the gang problem are shown in Table 3-
23. Gangs of the same name in different areas
(i.e., the possible spread of gangs) is
significantly related to number of gangs, number of
gang members, and size of larger gangs, but it is
not related to ethnicity of gang membership, adult
involvement in gangs, or our two measures of gang
criminality, percent of index crimes, and percent
of gang members with prior records. This table
tells us essentially that the more gangs, gang
members, and the larger the gangs in an area, the
more likely the gangs are to be part of larger
alliances or pseudo-alliances across neighborhood
areas. Gangs and gang members appear to have an
epidemiological character. They spread
geographically as their membership multiplies and
vice versa.

Table 3-23. Point Biserial Correlations of Gangs of
 Same Name in Different Neighborhoods and Selected
 Measures of the Gang Problem

        Number  Number  Upper    % Black  %
        Gangs   Gang    Size of  Members  Hispanic
                Members Gang              Members

Non-
Local .236***  .243***  .206**   .017      -.052
Gangs (221)    (224)    (167)    (208)      (172)

           % Incidents  % Index  % Gang
           Involving    Crimes   Members
           Adults       Gang-    with Prior
                        Related  Police Record

Non-Local  .084         .014     -.018
Gangs      (144)        (120)     (187)

Significance 
 Levels  * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** =0.001

Table 3-24 examines the relationships between
affiliation or involvement of gang members with
criminal organizations and other variables.
Affiliation is perceived where there are more gangs
and more gang members reported, but it is not
significantly related to gang size. Ethnic
composition of gangs may be influencing the
affiliation of youth gang to criminal adult
organizations, however. 

Table 3-24. Point Biserial Correlations of Gangs
 Affiliated with Adult Criminal Organizations and
 Selected Measures of the Gang Problem

          Number  Number   Upper    % Black  %
          Gangs   Gang     Average  Members  Hispanic
                  Members  Size of           Members
                           Gang 

Involved  .150*   .162*   .149      .104    -.389***
Criminal  (219)   (222)   (164)     (208)    (170)
Organization


           % Incidents  % Index  % Gang Members
           Involving    Crimes   with Prior      
           Adults       Gang-    Police Record   
                        Related

Involved    .061         .278 **    .130
Criminal    (143)        (118)      (187)
Organization

Significance 
 Levels  * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** =0.001

There is a slight positive relationship
between a high percentage of black gang members and
involvement with an adult criminal organization,
but the relationship is not statistically
significant.  However, the relationship between the
percentage of Hispanic gangs involvement with
criminal adult organizations is very strong and
negative. In other words, where there is a high
percentage of Hispanic gang youth, the presence of
criminal adult organization is contra-indicated.
But, a tendency to a positive relationship exists
between the presence of an adult criminal
organization and a high percentage of black youth
gang members in a locality. There is a positive
relationship between involvement with adult
criminal organization and a high percentage of
index crimes attributable to gang youth. We
found, also, as we would expect, that affiliation
with adult criminal organizations is significantly
and positively related to a more serious level of
youth gang, i.e., index crime. Affiliation or
involvement with criminal organizations does not
necessarily occur in localities with a high
percentage of gang members with prior records, nor
when there is a good deal of adult participation in
gang incidents. Again, we see distinctions between
gang members with prior records and a connection
with organized crime. The presence of older youth
or young adults in gangs may also not necessarily
mean close connections with organized crime. Once
again, the presence of a youth gang problem does
not necessarily equate to organized crime,
regardless of the age composition of the youth
gang.

The relationship between selling drugs as a
primary purpose of the gang and other aspects of
the gang problem are shown in Table 3-25. We find
that there is no significant relationship between
gang drug distribution and the number of gangs, the
number of gang members, or gang size. Ethnicity is
again an important factor. The percent of black
gang members in an area is positively, but the
percent of Hispanic gang members is negatively,
correlated with gang drug distribution. In other
words, consistent with the findings in the previous
table, the greater the percent of black gang
members in an area, the greater the likelihood
drugs are being sold by gang members or by gangs,
but the greater the percent of Hispanic gang
members in an area, the less the likelihood of drug
trafficking. This is a remarkable pattern.

Table 3-25. Point Biserial Correlations of Drugs a
 Primary Purpose of the Gang and Selected Measures
 of the Gang Problem

        Number  Number   Upper    % Black  % 
        Gangs   Gang     Size of  Members  Hispanic
                Members  Gang              Members
                                     
Gangs  -.052    .053    -.115     .165 **  -.199 **
Sell    (225)   (228)    (166)    (225)     (225)
Drugs            

        %          % Index Crimes  % Gang
        Incidents  Gang-Related    Members
        Involving                  with Prior
        Adults                     Police Record

Gangs   -.049      -.243 **        -.130
Sell     (144)      (120)           (189)
Drugs

Significance 
 Levels  * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** =0.001

Finally, as expected, when drug distribution
is a primary purpose of the gang, there is a
significantly higher percent of the total of all
index crime in an area attributed to gangs.
However, the relationship between the percent of
gang incidents involving adults or the percent of
gang members with prior police records and gangs
selling drugs is not statistically significant.

Next we examine the relationship between
various gang characteristics and the importation of
drugs (Table 3-26). The importation of drugs into
the community implies a higher level of involvement
in drug trafficking than simply gang members or
gangs selling drugs which usually means street
level or sometimes minor or limited trafficking in
many cities. We find that involvement in the
importation of drugs is not significantly related
to any of the other general measures of youth gang
structure and behavior thus far discussed. 

Table 3-26. Point Biserial Correlations of Gang
 Members Involved in the Importation of Drugs and
 Selected Measures of the Gang Problem

        Number  Number   Upper    % Black  % 
        Gangs   Gang     Size of  Members  Hispanic
                Members  Gang              Members

Gang    .048    .040    -.141    -.080     -.226    
Memb.  (1998)   (200)    (152)    (187)     (161)
Import 
Drugs

        %             % Index      % Gang
        Incidents     Crimes       Members
        Involving     Gang-        with Prior
        Adults        Related      Police Records

Gang     .010        -.076         -.133 
Members  (132)        (112)         (170)
Import
Drugs

Significance 
 Levels  * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** =0.001

CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION, DRUG TRAFFICKING, AND THE
SPREAD OF THE YOUTH GANG PROBLEM

We have analyzed mainly the relationship of
ratio and categorical variables to each other. We
now turn briefly to an analysis of categorical or
nominal variables to each other, particularly
focused on a further test of the relationship of
youth gangs to a serious crime problem, especially
drug trafficking. The four dichotomous variables
are (1) existence of gangs with the same name in
different areas of the city, (2) gang affiliation
with adult criminal organizations, (3) drug
distribution as a primary reason for the gang's
existence, and (4) gangs involved in the
importation of drugs. These four variables are
significantly related to each other in almost every
way possible. When these conditions exist, a
community appears to have a very serious crime
problem on its hands.

Table 3-27 shows that there is a very
significant relationship between gangs with the
same name in different areas of the city and gang
affiliation with adult criminal organizations.
Seventy-eight and one tenth percent (78.1 percent)
of the respondents who report gangs of the same
name in different areas also report gang
affiliation with adult criminal organizations. Over
eighty-five percent of those reporting the presence
of gang affiliations with adult criminal
organizations report the existence of gangs of the
same name in different areas of their city.

Table 3-27. Gangs with the Same Name are Found in
 Different Areas and Respondents Reporting Gang
 Affiliation with Adult Criminal Organizations

                         Involved Criminal
                           Organization

                           Yes       No       Total

               Yes         146       22        168
                          (86.9)   (13.1)
                          (78.1)   (52.4)
Non-Local
Gangs

               No           41       20         61
                          (67.2)   (32.8)
                          (21.9)   (47.6)

               Total       187       42        229

Gamma = 0.5280
Tetrachoric 
 Correlation = 0.393 ***  (Significant at 0.001)
Number of Missing Observations = 25

Table 3-28 shows that there is little
distinction between local and so-called non-local
gangs in the pattern of drug selling as a primary
purpose of the gang. Again, we note the perception
of drug selling as a primary purpose of the gang
may be confused by many of our respondents since so
many gangs now have members who are involved in
drug dealing, at least of a minor nature.

Table 3-28. Gangs with the Same Name are Found in
 Different Areas and Drugs are a Primary Purpose of
 the Gang

                         Gangs Sell Drugs          



                           Yes       No       Total

               Yes         103       62        165
                          (62.4)   (37.6)
                          (74.1)   (68.9)
Non-Local
Gangs

               No           36       28         64
                          (56.3)   (43.8)
                          (25.9)   (31.1)

               Total       139       90        229

Gamma = 0.12744
Tetrachoric Correlation = 0.095 
Number of Missing Observations = 25

Table 3-29 shows that the measure of gang
expansion beyond the neighborhood setting is
significantly related to respondent perception that
gang members are involved in the importation of
drugs. The tetrachoric correlation coefficient is
significant at the 0.01 level. A higher level of
drug involvement occurs and may require
sophisticated networks across neighborhoods or
cities.

Tables 3-30 and 3-31 tell us, however, that
gangs or gang members affiliated with adult
criminal organizations are also highly likely to be
engaged in drug selling and importation. In other
words, when the gang is local, it is probably not
necessarily engaged with criminal adult
organizations and not engaged in major drug
trafficking, although it may be engaged in drug
selling at the local level. When the gang is non-
local (i.e., with units of the same name, whether
related to each other or not, and/or affiliated
with a criminal organization), it or individual
members are highly likely to be involved in drug
trafficking locally, as well as across
neighborhoods, cities, and States.

Table 3-29. Gangs with the Same Name are Found in
 Different Areas and Gang Members are Involved in
 the Importation of Drugs

                         Youth Gangs Import Drugs  
                         

                           Yes       No       Total

               Yes          91       56         147
                          (61.9)   (38.1)  
                          (76.5)   (65.9)
Non-Local
Gangs 

               No           28       29          57
                          (49.1)   (50.9)
                          (23.5)   (34.1)

               Total       119       85         204

Gamma = 0.25458
Tetrachoric 
 Correlation = 0.193 **  (Significant at 0.01)
Number of Missing Observations = 50

Table 3-30. Respondents Reporting Gang Affiliation
 with Adult Criminal Organizations and Drugs are a
 Primary Purpose of the Gang
                  
                         Gangs Sell Drugs

                           Yes       No       Total

                           120       68         188
               Yes        (63.8)   (36.2)
                          (86.3)   (76.4)
Involved
Criminal
Organization
                             19       21         40
               No          (47.5)   (52.5) 
                           (13.7)   (23.6)

               Total        139       89        228

Gamma = 0.32214
Tetrachoric 
 Correlation = 0.231 ***  (Significant at 0.001)
Number of Missing Observations = 26

Table 3-31. Respondents Reporting Gang Affiliation
 with Adult Criminal Organizations and Gang Members
 are Involved in the Importation of Drugs

                         Gangs Import Drugs        

                           Yes       No       Total

                           105       62         167
               Yes        (62.9)   (37.1)
                          (89.7)   (71.3)
Involved
Criminal
Organization
                            12       25          37
               No         (32.4)   (67.6)
                          (10.3)   (28.7)

               Total       117       87         204

Gamma = 0.55833
Tetrachoric 
 Correlation = 0.419 ***  (Significant at 0.001)
Number of Missing Observations = 50

Table 3-32. Drugs are a Primary Purpose of the Gang
 and Gang Members are Involved in the Importation of
 Drugs

                         Gangs Import Drugs        

                           Yes       No       Total

                            90       40         130
               Yes        (69.2)   (30.8)
                          (74.4)   (46.0)
Gangs Sell
Drugs

                            31       47          78
               No         (39.7)   (60.3)
                          (25.6)   (54.0)

               Total       121       87         208

Gamma = 0.54662
Tetrachoric 
 Correlation = 0.445 ***  (Significant at 0.001)
Number of Missing Observations = 46

Finally, we may infer from the results of
Table 3-32 that the perceived severity of the gang
problem is largely (but not exclusively) manifested
in the gang's relationship to drug dealing, whether
it is a primary purpose of the gang or not, and
whether emphasis is mainly at the level of local
street dealing or drug trafficking across
neighborhoods or cities. (Our analysis has not
dealt with gang homicides, which often may not be
drug-related.) The complexity of the youth gang's
relationship to drug distribution belies any easy
classification of gangs into turf or traditional
gangs and instrumental or drug dealing gangs (See
Skolnick 1988). The availability of drugs has
probably contributed to the development of a
serious gang problem, rather than the other way
around, i.e., gangs have contributed to the
development a serious drug problem. 

SUMMARY 

Clearly identifiable patterns exist as to the
scope and seriousness of the youth gang problem,
despite the diversity of definitions. Based on
answers to our Questionnaire survey, there were a
total of 1,439 gangs and 120,636 gang members
reported across the localities surveyed in 1987.
The largest concentration of gangs and gang members
was in Los Angeles and the rest of Los Angeles
County. California accounted for the majority of
gangs and gang members in the cities or
jurisdictions surveyed. The second largest
concentration was in Illinois and Chicago. Overall,
there were correlations between size of city,
number of gangs, and number of gang members. But,
there were significant exceptions. Some very large
cities have relatively few reported gangs and gang
problems, and some smaller cities have
disproportionately many gangs and large gang
problems.

African-Americans were the largest
racial/ethnic group reported by law enforcement
respondents (54.6 percent); Hispanics, mainly
Mexican-Americans, were the next largest group
(32.6 percent). Whites and Asians comprised a
relatively small percentage of the reported gang
problem. Almost two-thirds of the police officers
perceived gangs as non-local group phenomenon. That
is, gangs of the same name existed in different
areas of the city, the state, and the country.

We were interested in the nature of the gang
problem and its severity. Law enforcement
respondents estimated that 75 percent of gang youth
they contacted had prior police records, and that
gang youth accounted for 22.7 percent of index
crimes in their cities. The gang problem was no
longer viewed as only a juvenile or youth
phenomenon: 45.6 percent of the law enforcement
respondents saw gang-related incidents as involving
adults. Of concern was the fact not only that older
youth and adults were involved in gang incidents,
but that youth gangs might now be associated with
adult criminal organizations and engaged in
systematic illegal activity. About three quarters
of the respondents believed that youth gang members
were now affiliated with adult criminal
organizations. To what extent such affiliation
represented relationships by individual gang youth
or the gang organization itself was not clear. A
majority of the respondents believe that a primary
purpose of the youth gang is drug selling and that
certain gang members are involved in bringing drugs
into the area from outside the jurisdiction.

Specific variables or characteristics of the
gang problem were interrelated and certain patterns
emerged. Usually in a city or jurisdiction where
there was a higher percent of black gang members,
there was a lower percent of Hispanic gang members
and vice versa. Each city in our sample did not
necessarily have a predominance of black gang
members. There is a modest relationship between the
presence of larger gangs and the increased
involvement of adults. Also, the greater the number
of gangs and gang members, the greater the
proportion of index crimes attributed to gangs.
Further, the greater the number of gangs, gang
members, and the larger the gangs, the more likely
there has been a spread of gangs or gang members to
or from other areas.

However, this pattern is not related to
race/ethnicity. In regard to more organized forms
of gang criminality, we found that there is a
negative or inverse relationship between the
percentage of Hispanic gang members in a community
or jurisdiction and the involvement of gangs with
criminal organizations. Affiliation with criminal
organization is related to a high level of serious
or index crime by gang youth. The relationship
between selling drugs as a primary purpose of the
gang and ethnicity is characteristic of black
gangs, but not of Hispanic gangs. The greater the
percent of black gang members in an area, the
greater the likelihood that drugs are being sold by
gangs. However, the greater the percent of Hispanic
gang members in an area, the less the likelihood of
drug selling. When drug distribution is a primary
purpose of the gang, there is a significantly
higher percent of the total of all index crime
attributed to gangs. However, higher level drug
trafficking, i.e., across jurisdictions, is not
related to many of our  general structural
characteristics of the gang problem.

However, there are certain more serious
criminal aspects of youth gangs that are related to
drug trafficking and other gang characteristics.
Drug trafficking across jurisdictions is
significantly correlated with gangs of the same
name in those areas. Gangs or gang members who have
spread across cities and states are much more
likely to be affiliated with adult criminal
organizations than simply local gangs. The gangs
affiliated with criminal organizations are highly
likely to be engaged both in street level and
higher level drug trafficking.

The results of the analysis indicates that the
severity of the gang problem is largely associated
with drug dealing whether it is a primary purpose
of the gang's existence or not, and whether
emphasis is mainly at the level of local street
dealing or drug trafficking across neighborhoods or
cities. The complexities of the youth gang's
relationship to drug distribution, however, belies
any easy classification of gangs into very distinct
categories of traditional and criminal youth gangs.
In any case, it is likely that the availability of
drug trafficking opportunities has influenced the
development of a serious youth gang problem more
than the presence of youth gangs has influenced the
creation of a general drug problem.

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

CHAPTER 4

RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM

We have less information probably on the nature of
the response to the gang problem, and its
effectiveness, than we have on gang characteristics
or the scope and seriousness of the problem. We
appear to be more interested in calling attention
to a gang problem than in doing something
systematic and well articulated about it. We appear
to have less knowledge of program effects and their
success currently than we had in the 1950's and
1960's, at which time principal youth gang service,
street club, or outreach efforts were evaluated as
not successful. Almost no current research exists
on social intervention or the effectiveness of
suppression strategies. 

The major purpose of the present survey of 45
cities and 6 special agency sites was to begin
systematically to describe and analyze the nature
of organizational policies, structures, programs,
and strategies currently established to deal with
the gang problem. This is a prior step to the
design of strategies that may be more successful
than those utilized in the past.

In this and the remaining chapters we look at these
aspects of organizational structure that have been
developed to identify and address the gang problem.
We not only specify certain aspects but examine
examine the relationships of these organizational
characteristics to each other. We also analyze the
relationships between perceptions of the problem
and organizational responses, i.e., policies and
structures established to deal with the youth gang
problem.

First, we describe such characteristics as size of
staff, special agency gang policies, special
training, specialized units of organization,
internal and external agency advisory structures,
and task force coordination. Next, we interrelate
these organizational characteristics to discover
patterns of response. Finally, we begin the process
of systematic examination of the relationship of
perceptions of the gang problem to organizational
response characteristics and patterns. In the next
chapter we examine further the response to the
problem and focus on perceived strategies and
causal factors as possible rationales for these
organizational structures and processes.

INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

In this first section we compare reports of law
enforcement personnel with those of the non-law
enforcement personnel. Once more we find systematic
differences, however, issues of accuracy and
reliability are not as relevant in distinguishing
police and non-police agency structures per se.
Rather, organizational characteristics, missions,
and interests are central in the differences
observed. In the next chapter we elaborate the
comparison of organizational response, i.e.,
strategies and perceived causal patterns, by all
the specific respondent categories. The analysis in
this chapter generally follows the pattern and
procedures used in Chapter 3.

SIZE OF AGENCY

Most of the respondents come from agencies with 200
or fewer employees. However, the law enforcement
respondents are more likely (47 percent) to come
from the large agencies with over 200 staff than
the non-law enforcement respondents (17.8 percent).
About a quarter of the law enforcement and non-law
enforcement personnel come from rather small
agencies of 10 or fewer staff. A large difference
exists in the proportion of police officers from
very large agencies of over 1,000 personnel (18.4
percent) compared to non-law enforcement
respondents (5.67 percent) (See Appendix Table 4-
1).

Examples of large staff sizes of agencies in our
respondent groups are the police departments of New
York City (29,500), Philadelphia (5,124), and
Milwaukee (2,050). However, the California Youth
Authority has 4,000 staff; the Los Angeles County
Probation Department, 3,500; and the Miami-Dade
Office of Criminal Justice Assistance reports a
staff of 3,000.

SPECIFIC POLICIES

One major set of responses to the gang problem was
the formulation of special policies for dealing
with it. We identified three levels of policy
response or commitment:  simple oral expression of
a (special) gang policy, production of written
materials to describe and support such a policy,
and the development of special legislation to deal
with the gang problem. Item IV-9 asks respondents
if their agencies have policies and procedures that
guide staff in their activities with gangs.
Appendix Table 4-2 shows that slightly more than
half of the law enforcement (52.0 percent) and non-
law enforcement (58.1 percent) respondents had such
policies in their agencies, whether written or not.

The production of written policies may be viewed as
evidence of greater commitment and effort by the
agency in dealing with the gang problem than a
simple oral expression of such a policy. The
analysis shows that slightly less than half of the
agencies of the respondents have policies in
writing, but law enforcement (48.8 percent)
slightly more often than non-law enforcement
agencies (43.9 percent) tend to put such policies
into writing (See Appendix Table 4-3).

Conceivably, the highest level of interest and
commitment in dealing with a social problem is
evidenced when the agency seeks to affect public
policy, i.e., through efforts to influence
legislation. Whether legislation related to gangs
or the gang problem has been initiated or modified
as a result of the efforts of a respondent's agency
is the concern of Item VI-5. About one fourth of
all respondents, including law enforcement,
reported such an effort (See Appendix Table 4-4).

TRAINING

Another kind of response to the problem is the
provision of special training for personnel dealing
with gangs. A large majority of non-law enforcement
(71.3 percent), but an even larger majority of law
enforcement (86.5 percent) respondents report the
availability of such training for their agencies'
personnel (See Appendix Table 4-5).

ORGANIZATIONAL SPECIALIZATION

Agencies may deal with new problems in the
environment through the creation of different or
new organizational forms. Law enforcement agencies,
especially, are expected  to react rapidly to law
and order crises. Appendix Table 4-6 shows that
42.3 percent of our law enforcement agencies had
such an organizational specialization. Less than
half as many (20.3 percent) of the non-law
enforcement agencies had such an organizational
specialization. The chi-square test for the
difference is significant at the 0.001 level of
statistical significance. Furthermore, distinctive
organizational structures to deal with the gang
problem may have been developed mainly by the
police but also non-law enforcement agencies, in
the cities of our survey.

ADVISORY AND INTERAGENCY STRUCTURES

An important aspect of the response to a complex
community problem such as gang crime may be special
structures or procedures to enhance coordination of
internal agency efforts, outside advisory groups
for individual agencies or special gang programs,
and community-wide coordinating groups such as
interagency task forces. These coordination
mechanisms may be viewed as indicators of efforts
to recognize and deal with problems of agency and
organizational fragmentation or disorganization,
and even to contribute to community mobilization.

Item IV-19 asks if an internal agency advisory
structure exists that guides the agency's gang
operation. Only a minority of respondents reported
the existence of such an internal advisory
structure (Appendix table 4-7). The police agencies
were apparently somewhat less likely to develop
such an internal advisory or coordinative structure
than the non-police agencies. While about a third
of non-law enforcement respondents (32 percent)
indicated such an internal agency arrangement
exists, only about a quarter (24.0 percent) of
police respondents referred to an internal agency 
coordinative structure. We note that in our follow-
up telephone conversations and field visits, police
informants were more likely to complain of lack of
coordination in regard to information sharing and
operations between units within the department, for
example between narcotics and gang crime units,
than was the case for non-law enforcement or non-
criminal justice informants.

This pattern of difference is even more marked but
reversed when the relation of respondent agencies
to external advisory groups is examined. Law
enforcement agencies are significantly less likely
to rely on an external agency or a community group
that advises or influences their dealing with the
gang problem. This is evidenced by their responses
to Item V-1 in comparison to those of other
respondents (See Appendix Table 4-8). While a
minority of law enforcement respondents (33.3
percent) state their departments are influenced by
such outside advisory groups, a strong majority of
non-law enforcement personnel (58.5 percent) state
that this is the case for their gang programs (See
Appendix Table 4-8).

It is possible to speculate based on these two sets
of findings that police gang units or police
departments are substantially less well coordinated
externally in respect to the gang problem than are
non-law enforcement agencies. Police units thereby
seem to depend heavily on particular unit
perceptions and specific organizational interests
in addressing the gang problem. Since the police
may be viewed as the lead agency, this quality of
relative organizational isolation (and possibly
intra-agency unit fragmentation) can impede
community-wide efforts in dealing with gang crime.

On the other hand, community-wide efforts do exist
in many if not most communities confronted with a
serious gang problem. The police are usually an
integral part of such interagency coordination
groups or task forces. Item V-8 asks about the
existence of interagency task forces or community-
wide organizations that attempted to coordinate
efforts to deal with the gang problem in 1987. A
majority of non-law enforcement (68.3 percent) and
law enforcement (72.0 percent) respondents reported
the existence of such efforts at general community
coordination. Law enforcement respondents were thus
slightly more likely to report the existence of
such broad city or county coordinative arrangements
(See Appendix Table 4-9).

How are we to explain the divergent patterns?  The
law enforcement agencies seem relatively less
interested in  internal and external advisory
groups, yet apparently participate in community-
wide coordination. Part of the answer may lie in
the perceptions of a number of police
representatives and indeed criminal justice
planners that the gang problem is largely a problem
for law enforcement and that community groups and
other organizations are mainly to accept
information and leadership from law enforcement.
Other agencies are expected primarily to facilitate
or supplement police suppression efforts. To what
extent interagency task forces or community-wide
coordination groups are more than opportunities for
high-level "talk," public relations, and exchange
of some information and indeed results in joint or
cooperative interagency operations in respect to
gangs, is unclear. The variety of interagency task
force structures and functions was not explored in
the current research.

PATTERNS OF AGENCY RESPONSE

In this section we emphasize the pattern of agency
responses rather than singular organizational
policies or organizational forms. We are interested
first in whether policies are interrelated and
second how these policies are related to actual
problem characteristics in the particular
communities. In this analysis we do not separate
but aggregate the responses of all respondents. 

SPECIAL POLICIES

Table 4.10 listed in this chapter shows that the
relationships between our three policy commitment
measures-- expressed gang policy, gang policy in
writing, and efforts to influence  gang-related
legislation--are all significant at the 0.001
level. Table 4-11 indicates furthermore that 66.1
percent of those respondents who have a special
gang policy have put that policy into writing.

Table 4-10. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
 between Measures of the Policy Aspects of Gang
 Program Responses

                  Special             Policies
                  Policies            in Writing

Influencing       0.461 ***           0.256 ***
Legislation       (219)               (185)

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** =0.001 

Table 4-11. Organizations Who Have Special Policies
 and Procedures for Dealing with Gangs and
 Organizations whose Special Gang Policies and
 Procedures are in Writing

                       Policies in Writing         

                           Yes       No       Total

                            84       43         127
               Yes        (66.1)   (33.9)
                          (98.8)   (41.7)

Special
Policies

                             1       60          61
               No         (01.6)   (98.4)
                          (01.2)   (58.3)

               Total        85      103         188

Gamma = 0.98308
Tetrachoric 
 Correlation = 0.920 ***  (Significant at 0.001)
Number of Missing Observations = 66

ORGANIZATION INFLUENCE AND COORDINATION

Our three measures of internal and external
organizational influence and coordination--the
presence of internal and external advisory
structures and interagency community-wide task
forces -- are also highly significantly interrelated
at the 0.001 level (See Table 4-12).

Table 4-12. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients between Measures   of Communication and
Coordination
 Aspects of Gang Program Responses

                  Internal            External
                  Advisory            Advisory
                  Structure           Structure

External          0.541 ***           
Advisory          (233)               
Structure

Inter-Agency      0.280 ***           0.272 ***
Task Force        (221)               (229)

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

The three policy commitment and the three
integrative mechanism or coordination responses,
however, are not uniformly related to each other.
Table 4-13 shows that special gang policies and
influence on gang-related legislation are
significantly related to internal advisory
structures and interagency task force efforts at
the 0.001 level of statistical significance. The
variable of gang policies in writing, however, is
not related to any of our three measures and
coordination mechanisms at the 0.05 level of
statistical significance, although it is almost
significantly related to external advisory
structure. The relationship between the presence of
an external advisory structure and influencing
legislation is clearly not significant. Agency
policies in writing appears not to be a result of
internal agency coordination or interagency task
force influence efforts, although there may be some
influence by external advisory structures on the
development of particular agency policy commitment
to the gang problem (Table 4-13), or vice versa. In
general, agencies appear to have a weak pattern of
policy commitment interrelated with an external
advisory structure for dealing with the gang
problem.

Table 4-13. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
 between Measures of Policy and Measure of
 Communication and Coordination in Gang Program
 Responses

             Internal     External    Inter-Agency
             Advisory     Advisory    Task Force   
             Structure    Structure

Special       0.364 ***    0.144 *      0.339 ***
Policies      (218)        (224)        (216)

Policies      0.086        0.158        0.098
in            (183)        (188)        (179)
Writing

Influencing   0.236 ***   -0.026        0.239 ***
Legislation   (224)        (234)        (225)

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

SPECIALIZED TRAINING

Table 4-14 indicates there is a fairly consistent
pattern of significant relationships between the
availability of special training and other
organizational responses to the gang problem. The
availability of training is significantly related
to the existence of expressed policies and
procedures in writing (at the 0.001 level), but it
is only moderately related to influencing
legislation at the 0.05 level. Training
availability is related to internal advisory
structure at the 0.01 level and to interagency task
forces at the 0.001 level. There is no relationship
between training availability and external advisory
structures.

Table 4-14. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
 between the Availability of Special Gang Training
 for Personnel and Other Gang Program Responses

             Special     Policies    Influencing
             Policies    in Writing  Legislation

Training      0.565 ***   0.420 ***     0.166 *  
Available     (216)       (186)         (216)

             Internal    External    Inter-Agency
             Advisory    Advisory    Task Force
             Structure   Structure

Training     0.216 **     0.062        0.403 ***
Available    (217)        (220)        (212)

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

ORGANIZATIONAL SPECIALIZATION

Organizational specialization, i.e., special
mechanisms, procedures, and staffing to deal with
the gang problem, is consistently and sometimes
strongly related to all of the other gang program
responses (Table 4-15). It is reasonable to expect
that an institutional modification as consequential
as the formation of a special unit to deal with the
gang problem should be related to the development
of special policy and the availability of special
training. Concern for legislation and involvement
in community-wide efforts also are associated with
organizational specialization. Perhaps most
interesting are negative correlations between
organizational specialization and internal and
external advisory structures. It is possible that
organizational specialization serves as a
substitute for or retards the influence of internal
and external advisory structures. However,
organizational specialization is strongly and
positively related to the presence of a community-
wide task force where the specialized organization
conceivably may serve primarily to protect
organizational interests rather than to modify
them. Again, we observe the distinctive, if not
opposite, effects of internal and external agency
advisory structures and community-wide coordination
or task force groups.

Table 4-15. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
 between Organizational Specialization and Other
 Gang Program Responses

       Special   Policies    Influencing  Training
       Policies  in Writing  Legislation  Available

Org.   0.479 ***  0.545 ***   0.407 ***   0.439 ***
Spec.  (229)      (227)       (239)       (223)

       Internal         External      Inter-Agency 
       Advisory         Advisory      Task Force   
       Structure        Structure      

Org.   -0.146 *         -0.238 ***      0.298 ***
Spec.   (234)            (244)          (233)

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

RELATIONSHIPS OF AGENCY RESPONSE TO GANG PROBLEM

Finally, it is only logical to determine how
various aspects of organizational response as
described by each respondent are related to
perceptions of the nature of the gang problem. We
begin to address these relationships which turn out
to be quite complex, first in simple correlational
terms in this section. In latter chapters we
examine these relationships through multivariate
analyses.

POLICIES

The expression of special gang policy in an agency
seems not related to any of the several measures of
the youth gang nature of the problem (Table 4-16).
The existence of such gang policy is not
significantly related to number of gangs, number of
gang members, size of larger gangs, gang ethnicity,
incidents, involvement of adults, or criminality of
gang members.

Table 4-16. Point Biserial Correlations of Having a
 Special Gang Policy and Selected Measures of the
 Gang Problem

         Number  Number  Upper    % Black  % 
         Gangs   Gang    Average  Members  Hispanic
                 Members Size of  Gang     Members

Special  .117    .099    .012     .026     -.019
Policy   (213)   (216)   (159)    (197)     (165)

        % Incidents  % Index Crimes  % Gang Members
        Involving    Gang-Related    with Prior
        Adults                       Police Record   

Special  -.043          .175             .046
Policy    (137)         (115)            (180)

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

However, Table 4-17 shows that a stronger statement
of agency direction or commitment in the form of a
written policy is significantly related to measures
of, and possible affects, or is affected by, the
gang problem. The larger the number of gangs and
gang members in the community, the more likely a
written gang policy is to exist. This relationship
is significant at the 0.01 level. Upper size of
gangs is not significantly related to special
written gang policies. There is an interesting
negative relationship between the presence of a
large percent of Hispanic gang members in a
community and a written gang policy. This could be
a function of the traditional communal character of
gang activity and the generally informal response
to it in such an area. Furthermore, we observe that
the percentage of gang incidents involving adults
and the percent of gang members having prior police
records are not significantly related to written
gang policy. However, there is a strong positive
relationship, significant at the 0.01 level,
between the percent of index crime that is
attributed to gangs and an agency's having a gang
policy in writing. In other words, a certain level
of severity of the gang problem may call forth a
more formal and committed response to it.

Table 4-17. Point Biserial Correlations of Having a
 Special Gang Policy in Writing and Selected
 Measures of the Gang Problem

          Number  Number  Upper   % Black  % 
          Gangs   Gang    Average Members  Hispanic
                  Members Size of          Members
                          Gang

Written   .191** .191**  -.100    -.019   -.011 
Policy    (179)  (181)    (141)    (176)   (176)

           % Incidents   % Index Crimes  % Gang
           Involving     Gang-Related    with Prior
           Adults                        Police 
                                         Record

Written    .064           .293 **        .010
Policy     (154)          (107)          (165)

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

Table 4-18 shows that agency attempts to influence
legislation may be also somewhat related to
measures of the nature of the gang problem. Number
of gangs, number of gang members, and especially
the involvement of adults in gang incidents are
significantly related to attempts to influence gang
legislation; however, the size, ethnicity, and
criminality of gangs are not. The presence of
legislative influence efforts does not suggest
apparently any greater level of commitment to
dealing with the gang problem than does the
presence of a formal written policy. 

Table 4-18. Point Biserial Correlations of
 Influencing Gang Legislation and Selected Measures
 of the Gang Problem

          Number  Number  Upper  % Black  % 
          Gangs   Gang    Size   Members  Hispanic
                  Members of              Members
                          Gang

In-      .144 *  .146 *  -.057   -.085    .057 
 fluence
Legis-   (228)   (229)    (162)   (219)   (219)
 lation

            % Incidents   % Index      % Gang
            Involving     Crimes       Members
            Adults        Gang-        with Prior
                          Related      Police
                                       Record

Influence    .256 ***     .121         .057
Legislation  (185)        (122)        (189)

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

Table 4-19 shows statistically significant
relationships between different levels of policy-
related statements dealing with the more serious or
criminal aspects of the gang problem. Special
(oral) policy is positively but mildly correlated
with gangs of the same name in different areas,
affiliation with adult criminal organizations, and
drug importation. The relationship of gang
affiliation with adult criminal organizations and
having a special policy is significant at the 0.01
level. However, the relationship of drug
distribution as a primary purpose of the gang and a
special gang policy is not significant at the 0.05
level.

The existence of a serious criminal youth gang
problem seems to call forth an even stronger set of
organizational response through written or more
committed agency policy. The variable of written
policy is related to gangs of the same name in
different areas and drug distribution as a primary
purpose of the gang at the 0.001 level of
statistical significance and to gang affiliation
with adult criminal organizations at the 0.001
level. Written gang policy, however, is not
significantly related to the problems of gang
importation of drugs. When we come to the third
level of policy related agency effort, influencing
legislation, we find that such effort is
significantly related to all four problem measures,
though the relationships to the two drug
involvement measures are only significant at the
0.05 level (See Table 4.19).

Table 4-19. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
 between Measures of Policy Responses and Selected
 Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem

             Non-    Affiliation   Drug      Gangs
             Local   with          Distrib-  Import
             Gang    Criminal      ution     Drugs
                     Organization  Gang
                                   Purpose

Special     0.146 *    0.171 **    0.072     0.141 *
Policies     (215)      (214)       (221)     (194)

Policies    0.233 ***  0.235 ***   0.259 *** 0.109
in Writing   (183)      (180)       (184)     (166)

Influ-      0.223 ***  0.382 ***   0.143 *   0.139 *
 encing
Legis-       (224)      (225)       (229)     (202)
 lation

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

ADVISORY STRUCTURES AND TASK FORCE RESPONSES

Table 4-20 shows that there are no significant
relationships between having an internal advisory
structure and our selected measures of the nature
of the gang problem, except for the significant
negative relationship between having an internal
advisory structure and the percent of incidents
involving adults. The presence of an internal
advisory structure seems to have little effect
generally on the nature of the gang problem.

Table 4-20. Point Biserial Correlations of Having
 an Internal Advisory Structure and Selected
 Measures of the Gang Problem

           Number  Number   Upper  %       % 
           Gangs   Gang     Size   Black   Hispanic
                   Members  of     Members Members
                            Gang
Internal  -.003   -.017    .040   -.076    .062
Advisory   (224)   (225)   (163)   (215)   (215)
Structure

           % Incidents   % Index   % Gang 
           Involving     Crime     Members
           Adults        Gang-     with Prior
                         Related   Police Record

Internal   -.221 **      .078         -.101
Advisory    (180)        (124)         (188)
Structure

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

Table 4-21 shows the correlation between an
external advisory structure and selected measures
of the nature of the gang problem. These
relationships are remarkable. Not only are they
more consistent and stronger than those of internal
agency structure on gang problems, but they are in
a striking negative direction. The presence of an
external advisory structure is significantly
negatively related to number of gangs, number of
gang members, upper size of gangs, percent of
incidents involving adults and highly significantly
negatively correlated with percent of gang members
with prior police records. These correlations
probably mean that a variety of gang problem
characteristics are reduced with the presence of an
advisory group or that these problems grow with the
absence of such a structure. This is the first
significant evidence we have that some policy of
organizational structure may indeed contribute to a
reduction of the gang problem, at least some of its
basic structural and behavioral characteristics.

Table 4-21. Point Biserial Correlations of Having
 an External Advisory Structure and Selected
 Measures of the Gang Problem

           Number Number   Upper  % Black  % 
           Gangs  Gang     Size   Members  Hispanic
                  Members  of              Members
                           Gang

External  -.134 * -.141 * -.200 **  -.023     .035
Advisory   (233)   (234)   (165)     (223)    (223)
Structure

          % Incidents   % Index    % Gang Members
          Involving     Crimes     with Prior
          Adults        Gang-      Police Record

                        Related

External    -.176 *     -.046       -.242 ***
Advisory     (188)       (128)       (192)
Structure

Significant 
 Levels  * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001

Table 4-22 shows a pattern quite different and
opposite from that indicated in Table 4-21. The
presence of an interagency task force appears to be
positively related to an increase in the number of
gangs, number of gang members, and a rise in the
percent of gang members with prior records. This
suggests that an interagency task force may be
associated with a worsening of the gang problem. As
indicated earlier, it is possible that interagency
task force or community-wide coordinating groups
may be only high-level "talk" groups that do not
adequately deal with the gang problem, or that it
is a weak forum and merely a device for avoiding a
major attack on the gang problem.

Table 4-22. Point Biserial Correlations of an
 Interagency Task Force and Selected Measures of the
 Gang Problem.

         Number  Number   Upper    %       % 
         Gangs   Gang     Average  Black   Hispanic
                 Members  Size of  Members Members
                          Gang

Inter-  .182 ** .243 ***  -.015    -.032    .033
 agency
Task    (224)   (226)      (162)    (215)   (215)
 Force

            % Incidents   % Index     % Gang 
            Involving     Crimes      Members with
            Adults        Gang-       Police
                          Related     Records

Interagency   .139         -.065       .150 * 
Task Force    (179)         (124)      (186)

Significant 
 Levels  * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001

Table 4-23 contains correlation measures between
four selected measures of the more criminal aspects
of the gang problem and the two advisory group and
the interagency task force response measures. Only
the existence of an internal advisory structure
shows any relationship to these four measures of
the nature of the gang problem. The relationship
between internal advisory structure and the
presence of gangs of the same name that are found
in different neighborhoods is significant at the
0.01 level. Drug distribution as a primary purpose
of the gang is mildly related to having an internal
advisory structure at the 0.05 level. There is no
significant correlation between external advisory
structures and task force or community-level groups
and either of the four serious criminal problem
measures in Table 4-23. This pattern suggests that
the existence of an internal agency coordination
structure is somewhat associated with an increase
in the serious, criminal gang problem. The presence
or absence of external agency or interagency task
forces is not associated with any increase or
decrease of the serious, criminal gang problem.

Table 4-23. Tetrachoric correlation Coefficients
 Between Measures of Communication and Coordination
 Responses and Selected Measures of the Nature of
 the Gang Problem

           Non-    Affiliation  Drug      Gangs
           Local   with         Distrib-  Import
           Gang    Criminal     ution     Drugs
                   Organ-       Gang    
                   izations     Purpose

Internal  0.160 **   -0.068     0.155 *   0.115  
Advisory   (221)       (222)     (224)     (193)
Structure

External  -0.019     -0.097     0.068     0.077
Advisory    (228)      (229)     (234)     (206)
Structure

Inter-
 Agency    0.079      0.049     0.054    -0.074  
Task 
 Force      (222)      (221)     (225)     (200)

Significance   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001

AVAILABILITY OF TRAINING

Table 4-24 indicates that the availability of
special training for agency personnel is positively
and significantly related to the number of gang
members, number of gangs, and the percentage of
gang members who have prior police records. There
is a mild negative non-significant relationship
between the availability of training but a negative
significant relationship with the percent of total
index crimes attributed to gangs. It is possible
that a better trained staff does contribute to a
reduction in the percent of index crime that is
gang-related. However, all the other significant
relationships with special training seem to be
associated with an increase in gangs and crime.
This is one of the very few sets of correlation
analyses where contrary relationships occur.
Overall, the possible effect of special training is
not in the right direction.

We also see a mixed pattern of relationships
between special training and the serious gang
problem. The presence of gangs affiliated with
criminal organizations is negatively and
significantly associated with special training but
a rise in drug distribution as a primary gang
purpose is positively and more strongly associated
with special training. We are, again, not sure how
to explain these contrary trends. Over all,
specialized training per se does not appear to be a
substantive contributor to the reduction of the
gang problem. It probably develops more reactively
to the presence of a growing and more serious gang
problem.

Table 4-24. Point Biserial Correlations of Having
 Special Training for Agency Staff Available and
 Selected Measures of the Gang Problem

         Number  Number   Upper    %       % 
         Gangs   Gang     Average  Black   Hispanic
                 Members  Size of  Members Members
                          Gang

Special .177 **  .208 **  .132     -.108    .127
Train-
 ing    (214)    (216)    (158)     (205)   (205)

         % Incidents     % Index     % Gang 
         Involving       Crimes      Members
         Adults          Gang-       with Prior
                         Related     Police Record

Special   -.052          -.186 *       .166 **
Training   (170)          (118)        (183)

          Non-     Affiliation    Drug       Gangs
          local    with           Distrib-   Import
          Gangs    Criminal       ution      Drugs
                   Organizations  Gang
                                  Purpose

Special  -.006       -.179 *      .208 **    .064
Training  (214)       (131)       (215)      (190)

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001

ORGANIZATIONAL SPECIALIZATION

Table 4-25 shows the relationships between
organizational specialization (e.g., creation of a
police gang unit or a special youth outreach gang
intervention program) and selected measures of the
nature of the gang problem. Organizational
specialization is positively and highly
significantly associated with the number of gangs,
number of gang members in a jurisdiction, percent
of incidents involving adults, and percent of gang
members with prior police records. There exists a
positive relationship with drug distribution but
negative associations with gang involvement in drug
importation. Again, we find a mixed pattern of
relationships that is not entirely explainable. The
general finding is that the formation of a special
gang unit per se is not associated with reduction,
but rather an increase in the problem.

Table 4-25. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
 Between Organizational Specialization and Selected
 Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem

         Number  Number   Upper    %       % 
         Gangs   Gang     Average  Black   Hispanic
                 Members  Size of  Members Members
                          Gang 

Org.  .251 ***  .299 ***  -.023   -.119    -.117
Spec. (238)     (235)      (169)   (231)    (231)

         % Incidents   % Index    % Gang 
         Involving     Crimes     Members
         Adults        Gang-      with Prior
                       Related    Police Record

Org.     .448 ***       .107        .191** 
Spec.    (193)          (130)       (196)

        Non-    Affiliation     Drug      Gangs
        Local   with            Distrib-  Import
        Gangs   Criminal        Gang      Drugs
                Organizations   Purpose

Org.   -0.122    -0.352         0.138 *  -0.178 **
Spec.   (236)     (236)         (242)     (213)

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

SUMMARY

This chapter begins to examine those
characteristics of agency policy and structure
addressed specifically to the gang problem. We
continue to be somewhat more interested in the
response of law enforcement agencies to the problem
than that of other specific categories of
respondents, at least in the first part of the
analyses. The police remain the primary reactors
and there are systematic differences in the way law
enforcement and not-law enforcement agencies are
structured and respond to the gang problem.

Police departments generally are larger than most
other agencies dealing with gang crime, whether in
terms of suppression, intervention, or prevention.
Policies for dealing with the gang problem,
particularly written policies, and specialized
training are more likely to be available to police
officers. The largest difference between the law
enforcement and non-law enforcement agency response
is the significantly greater presence of special
police gang units or programs for addressing the
problem. On the other hand, the police are less
likely to favor internal or interdepartmental
coordinating mechanisms than are non-law
enforcement agencies. This pattern is even more
marked in regard to the use of external advisory
groups to oversee or advise on special gang
programs.  Police gang unit or special gang
officers may depend more on their own unit
perceptions and internal organizational mandates
then other types of agency gang program staff.
However, they are clearly cooperative in
participating in community-wide discussions or
information sharing groups.

Based on all survey respondent answers, we find a
high degree of patterning by agencies in their
anti-gang crime efforts. Various policies, agency
internal, external agency, and general community
task force structures seem to be highly
interrelated. The weaker relationships appear to be
between policies in writing and internal or
external advisory structures and interagency task
force. This pattern suggests an as yet very modest
policy commitment by agencies related to the
development of various structures for dealing with
the gang problem.

However, special training and special
organizational units, when they exist, are part of
a patterned approach for dealing with the gang
problem. Organizational specialization and training
appear to be especially highly interrelated with
special policies, whether in writing or not.
Interagency task forces and specialized training
are also highly correlated. Of interest, however,
may be the negative relationships between
organizational specialization and external advisory
structures. Apparently when an agency has made a
major organizational change in dealing with the
gang problem, it does not want to have some outside
group closely examining or advising on what it is
doing.

We also attempted to interrelate these various
agency policies, structures, and special program
responses to  the gang problem characteristics. We
were interested in whether there was a connection
between the agency's response and the level and
severity of the gang problem. We wanted also to
obtain some early notions -- which we develop in our
last chapter -- as to whether agency policy and
structure has some effect on reducing aspects of
the problem.

Our findings show that there is a stronger relation
between written policies and influencing
legislation and aspects of the gang problem,
particularly numbers of gangs and gang members,
than is the case where there is only a simple
expression of agency concern or oral policy about
gangs. However, the presence of these policies does
not serve to reduce any of the characteristics of
gang problems, including its more serious aspects.
Agencies appear to be most reactive when there is
evidence of non-local gangs or a spread of gangs
across communities or jurisdictions and of
affiliation of youth gangs with adult criminal
organizations.

There is little relationship between internal
organizational and general community-wide
coordinating mechanisms to aspects of the gang
problem. When such relationships exist, it is
usually in the wrong direction. This is so
especially with the presence of interagency task
forces. A rise in the number of gangs and gang
members seems to call forth more interagency
structures and meetings. On the other hand, the
relationship of external advisory group to the gang
problem is noteworthy. There is a significant
relationship between external advisory structures
and lower numbers of gangs, numbers of gang
members, decreased size of gangs, lower percent of
gang incidents involving adults, and lower percent
of gang members in the community with prior
records. This set of relationships could be
interpreted as indicating that an external advisory
group contributes to a reduction of several
characteristics of the gang problem. An external
advisory structure, however, has no effect on the
more serious or criminal aspects of the gang
problem.

Finally, we observed that special training and the
presence of a specialized gang unit or program were
generally positively correlated with a variety of
aspects of the gang problem, but that this effect
was probably more reactive than proactive and did
not directly lead to reduction of gang problem
characteristics.

Special agency responses to the gang problem have
developed, but such responses, whether a policy,
structural, or training nature are not yet
associated with a reduction of various components
of the problem. There is a consistent relationship,
however, between the presence of an external
advisory group and a reduction in several aspects
of the gang problem. An external advisory group in
some way may be an effective device for addressing
gang problems. However, at present we do not know
the reasons for this possible promising effect, but
it does have policy implications.

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

CHAPTER 5

STRATEGIES AND CAUSES

Agencies and community organizations respond to a
problem such as gang crime in terms of statements
or restatements of mission, goals, and objectives.
Often abstract or highly generalized terms justify
and sustain the programs and activities which these
agencies -- public, private, non-profit, and
sectarian -- carry out. Most respondents in our
study represent organizations established to carry
out activities broader than confronting gangs and
gang crime. We attempted to develop a set of
measures of the goals and objectives, key programs,
or activities that characterize the organizations
efforts to deal specifically with the gang problem.
We have termed these measures strategies of
intervention. At a conceptual level, they are
situated between the idea of broad mission or goal
statements and specific or discrete program
activities.

These strategies often are related to causes of the
problem, or rationales for why programs to deal
with the gang problem are carried out. Analyses of
causes of community problems are difficult and
complex on their own terms. Their relevance to
strategies of intervention is further complicated
in social policy arenas, since most organizations
have not been established to deal specifically with
gang crime. Social problems wax and wane, but most
organizations seek to sustain themselves in
relation to a side range of problems. However, a
specific relationship between gang problem and
strategy of intervention must be established sooner
or later, if not for the sake of logic or common
sense, then to justify requests for additional
funding to deal with the gang problem, and public
relations purposes.

In order to understand an organization's response
to gangs, we need to know something of its
motivation. Program motivation and rationales are
captured, to some extent in statements of strategy
and the interrelationship of strategies within and
across agencies:  by respondent agency categories
and by cities or areas. In this later section of
the chapter, we prepare for the analysis in chapter
six, which deals with the relationship between
agency strategy and perceptions of, or actual,
success in reducing the gang problem.

Our survey respondents answered five open-ended
questionnaire items intended to give us information
on program activities, priority of strategies
employed, and estimates of effectiveness of agency
efforts. These items are:

Item IV-1. What is your unit's or
organization's goals and objectives in
regard to the gang problem?

Item VI-2. What has your department (or
unit) done that you feel has been
particularly successful in dealing with
gangs?  Please provide statistics, if
relevant and available. 

Item VI-3. What has your department (or
unit) done that you feel has been least
effective in dealing with gangs? 

Item VI-6. What do you think are the five
best ways employed by your department or
organization for dealing with the gang
problem? (Rank in order of priority)

Item IV-14. What activities do gang or
special personnel perform in dealing with
the problem?  [Probe to determine how
these are tied to problem as described
and goals/objectives.]

We used the answers to these items to construct an
empirically based and theoretically sensitive set
of five underlying strategies. Our analysis relies
most heavily on the responses to item V1-6. The
strategies that evolved or were elaborated are
community organization, social intervention,
opportunities provision, suppression, and
organizational development. The strategies are
defined and their indicators, i.e., the statements
or phrases of the respondents, are classified as
follows.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION. Local community
 organization or neighborhood mobilization.

Spergel's literature review (1990) lists community
organization as one of four major strategies that
have been employed historically in dealing with the
gang problem. "Community organization is the term
used to describe efforts to bring about adjustment,
development, or change among groups and
organizations in regard to community problems or
social needs."  Spergel (1969) uses the term
"interorganizing," a key dimension of community
organization or community organizing, to refer to
"efforts at enhancing, modification, or change in
intergroup or interorganizational relationships to
cope with a community problem."  

Key words and phrases were employed by the
respondents which at times could be clearly
included in this community organization category,
and at other times not. Decisions for placement of
items in a category had to be made based on some
appropriate rationale. For example, the
contemporary term "networking," was classified
under the strategy of community organization,
unless it referred to law enforcement agencies.
When networking involves only law enforcement
agencies, it was classified under suppression (see
below). References to "prevention," when they
implied (and they usually did) intervention efforts
across agencies, were coded as community
organization. Prevention included mainly
programming focused on at-risk youths prior to
full-fledged gang membership. All references to
attendance at meetings of community organizations
and meeting with community leaders were regarded as
pursuing a community organization strategy. After
much consideration, we included advocacy for
victims under the general strategy of suppression
rather than community organization, since it can be
viewed as part of a more basic strategy of crime
control and punishment. Additional goals or
activities encompassed by the community
organization strategy were: 

cleaning up the community
involving the schools
mobilizing community
building community trust
involving parents (family)
educating the community
changing the community

SOCIAL INTERVENTION. Youth outreach and street work
counseling.

We list youth outreach and streetwork as a second
major gang program strategy. According to Spergel
(1966), street work is "the practice variously
labeled detached work, street club, gang work, area
work, extension youth work, corner work, etc. It is
the systematic effort of an agency worker, through
social work or treatment techniques within the
neighborhood context, primarily to help a group of
young people who are described as delinquent or
partially delinquent to achieve a conventional
adaptation. This also requires the agent to work
with or manipulate the people or other agency
representatives who interact critically with
members of the delinquent group."  

The notion of traditional streetwork may be
somewhat outdated and is generally part of a larger
strategy of social intervention that focuses on
individual behavioral value change or
transformation (Klein 1971). Therefore, we place
streetwork under the more general category of
social intervention. Recreational and sports
activities are encompassed by this strategy. Social
intervention includes counseling or direct attempts
-- informational or guidance -- to change the values
of youths in such a way as to make gang involvement
less likely. The improvement of general education
and the development of remedial educational or
basic alternative educational programs are included
under opportunities provisions below. Advocacy for
individual gang members is classified as a social
intervention goal. The following phrases of the
respondents serve as indicators and fall in the
social intervention category:            

crisis intervention       referrals for services
service activities        religious conversion
diversion                 counseling of gang 
outreach                   members
providing model roles     drug prevention/treatment
youth leadership          all psychological 
 development               approaches
intergang mediation       post-sentence 
group counseling          social services
temporary shelter         working with gang
tattoo removal             leadership
                          working with gang
                           structure
                          help members leave
                           gang

OPPORTUNITIES PROVISION. Jobs, job training, and
 education. 

We list opportunities provision as a third major
gang strategy. Under this approach, Spergel (1990)
includes "large scale resource infusions and
efforts to change institutional structures
including schools, job opportunities, political
participation, and the development of a new
relationship between the federal government and
local neighborhoods in the solution not only of
delinquency but of poverty itself."  Here are
included efforts to stimulate the development of
new and improved school, special training and job
programs, and business and industry involvement in
the social and economic advancement of people,
including youth, in disadvantaged inner-city and
rural areas. Also included are efforts to assist
individuals with education, training, and jobs. Key
words or phrases included under opportunities
provision are:

     job preparation     assistance with school
     job training        tutoring              
     job placement       education of gang youth
     job development


SUPPRESSION. Arrest, incarceration, and
 supervision. 

Spergel lists suppression, i.e., arrest,
incarceration, and supervision, as the fourth major
gang program strategy. Under this approach gang
members are "arrested, prosecuted, and removed for
long prison sentences."  Tactical patrols by police
gang units,  vertical prosecution, intensive
supervision and vertical case management by
probation departments, legislation targeted at gang
members and interagency task forces involving
criminal justice actors only are placed in this
category. Also included are information systems,
i.e., gathering, collecting, and maintaining
information as well as information sharing or the
publishing and distribution of information on
gangs, that facilitates law enforcement. Other key
words or phrases included are:

     enforcement          monitoring     
     identification       neutralization  
     restraint            legal consequences
     investigation        arrest 
     removal from         adjudication
      community           discipline
      correctional        intelligence
      placement           apprehension       
     law enforcement
      liaison

ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE. New
 organizational procedures and mechanisms or
 adaptations. 

A fifth category that has a modifying or limited
developmental quality refers to organizational
adaptions and changes that facilitate the
achievement of the other strategies. Especially
characteristic of this is organizational
specialization to deal with the gang problem, e.g.,
forming a special gang unit in the police
department, hard-core prosecution, or vertical case
management in probation. It also includes emphasis
on such procedures as needs assessment and
evaluation. Other indicators under this strategy
are: 

internal agency                specialized
 coordination                   training
improving organizational       additional 
 efficiency                     resources  
program development            use of media

Coding Method. Using these written guidelines, the
two senior members of the research team separately
classified, or interpreted the rankings of, the
strategies of each of the 254 respondents. We
agreed independently on approximately 70 percent of
the classifications of the hundreds of separate
items. After hours of case-by-case discussion,
agreement was reached on which categories to place
all items in and their appropriate orderings. We
note that not all respondents provided items for
five separate strategies. Some of the items
essentially repeated a particular strategy. If an
item repeated a strategy already ranked, it was
eliminated. Each item was ranked into one strategy
only.

Distribution of Strategies. Table 5-1 shows the
distribution of strategies by rank for all of the
respondents. As can be seen, the most common first
or primary strategy of agencies in our survey is
suppression (44 percent) followed by social
intervention (31.5 percent). Organizational change
(10.9 percent) and community organization (8.9
percent) are comparably less common as first or
primary strategies. Provision of opportunities as a
primary strategy is infrequent (4.8 percent). Over
the total listing of strategies, suppression was
still the most often chosen and opportunities and
organizational change or development the least
frequently selected (Table 5-1). Since the majority
of respondents is from criminal justice agencies,
this distribution of strategies is not surprising.

Table 5-1. Distribution of All Strategy Rankings

                        Strategy Rank

              1      2      3     4     5    Total

Community    22     58     35     5     1      121
Organ-     (8.9)  (23.4) (14.1) (2.0) (0.4)  (21.2)
 ization

Social       78     46     19     3     0      146
Inter-    (31.5)  (18.5) (7.7)  (1.2)        (25.5)
 vention

Oppor-      12      38     15     4     0       69
 tunities (4.8)   (15.3) (6.0)  (1.6)       (121.0)

Suppres-   109      35     16     4     1      165
 sion    (44.0)  (14.1)  (6.5)  (1.6) (0.4)  (28.8)

Organ-      27      21     18     5     0       71
 izational
Change   (10.9)   (8.5)  (7.3) (2.0)         (12.4)
                                             ------
                                               572
                                            (100.0 
                                           percent)

Table 5-2. Primary Strategy by Respondent Type

                        Primary Strategy

                Comm.  Soc.   Opps.  Suppr.  Org.
                Org.   Int.                  Chng.

Law               5      3      0      34     10
 Enforcement    9.6    5.8           65.4   19.2

Prosecution       2      0      0      22      2
                7.7                  84.6    7.7

Court             0      0      1      11      1
                              7.7    84.6    7.7

Probation         3      3      0      22      3
                9.7    9.7           71.0    9.7

Corrections       0      3      1       3      1
                      37.5   12.5    37.5   12.5

Parole            1      2      0       5      2
               10.0   20.0           50.0   20.0

Schl.             1      3      0       4      1
 Security      11.1   33.3           44.4   11.1

Schl.             3     10      3       7      1
 Academic      12.5   41.7   12.5    29.2    4.2

Youth             4     38      4       0      0
 Services       8.7   82.6    8.7

Comprehensive     0      2      0       0      1
                      66.7                  33.3

Family Services   0      7      1       0      0
                      87.5   12.5

Grass Roots       2      3      0       0      0
               40.0   60.0

Defense           0      1      0       0      0
 Attorneys           100.0

Planning          1      3      1       1      5
                9.1   27.3    9.1     9.1   45.5

Other             0      0      1       0      0

Variations in primary strategy by respondent
category are almost completely, as to be expected,
shown in Table 5-2. Respondents from law
enforcement (65.4 percent), prosecution (84.6
percent), the court (84.6 percent), probation (71
percent), and parole (50 percent) indicate that
their primary strategy is suppression. School
security (44.4 percent) also emphasizes suppression
as a primary strategy. For corrections respondents,
social intervention (37.5 percent) as well as
suppression is regarded as a primary strategy.
Social intervention is the dominant primary
strategy for youth services (82.6 percent), family
services (87.5 percent), comprehensive intervention
services (66.7 percent), and grass-roots
organization (60 percent) respondents. Social
intervention is also the most common primary
strategy for non-security school respondents (41.7
percent). Organizational change and development is
the most frequently mentioned primary strategy by
planning agency respondents (45.5 percent) (See
Table 5-2).

Table 5-3 indicates that the number of strategy
choices varied by respondent category. Forty-nine
(49) respondents (19.8 percent) have only one
strategy for dealing with the gang problem.
Prosecution is the only respondent category that is
dominated by a single-strategy approach (65.4
percent): suppression. The most common number of
strategies by respondent category is two (37.9
percent) or three (33.5 percent). Probation,
corrections, parole, school security, youth
services, and planning respondents are most likely
to exhibit a two-strategy approach. Law
enforcement, the court, academic personnel in
school, and grassroots personnel are more likely to
produce three-strategy approaches. 

Table 5-3. Number of Responses by Respondent
 Category

             Number and Percent of Responses

Category       1        2        3        4       5

Law            5       21       23        3       0
 Enforcement 9.6     40.4     44.2      5.8

Prosecution   17        5        3        1       0
            65.4     19.2     11.5      3.8

Court          4        3        5        1       0
            30.8     23.1     38.5      7.7

Probation      5       14        9        3       0
            16.1     45.2     29.0      9.7

Corrections    1        5        2        0       0
            12.5     62.5     25.0

Parole         0        6        3        1       0
                     60.0     30.0     10.0

Schl.          0        5        2        1       1
 Security            55.6     22.2     11.1    11.1

Schl.          6        4       10        3       1
 Academic   25.0     16.7     41.7     12.5     4.2

Youth          5       21       17        3       0
 Services   10.9     45.7     37.0      6.5

Compre-        0        0        1        1       1
 hensive                      33.3     33.3    33.3

Family         3        1        3        1       0
 Services   37.5     12.5     37.5     12.5

Grass Roots    1        1        3        0       0
            20.0     20.0     60.0

Defense        0        1        0        0       0
                    100.0

Planning       2        6        2        1       0
            18.2     54.5     18.2      9.1

Other          0        1        0        0       0
                    100.0

Total         49       94       83       19       3
            19.8     37.9     33.5      7.7     1.2

The most common two-strategy combination for law
enforcement personnel is suppression as primary
strategy and community organization as secondary
strategy. This pattern is found for 17 (32.7
percent) of the law enforcement respondents. Among
youth service agencies the most common two-strategy
combination is (1) social intervention first with
opportunity provision second (41.3 percent, n=19)
and (2) social intervention first with community
organization second (23.9 percent, n=11). Multiple
(more than two) strategy approaches are
characteristic of the three comprehensive crisis
intervention service respondents. It should be
emphasized that within any particular agency
category a range of strategies can be found. Thus
some police employ community organization and/or
social intervention strategies. It should be noted
that a variety of social service or youth service
agencies select suppression strategies.

Table 5-4 describes the matrix of strategies
selected by the different categories of respondent
and further elaborates the analysis of strategy.
Here the key question is whether or not a specific
strategy is indicated by a respondent regardless of
its rank in comparison to other strategies pursued
by the same agency. From this table we can see the
rather commonsense result that all law enforcement
and prosecution respondents have suppression
somewhere in their strategy agenda. Only one school
security respondent evades this classification.
Likewise all four kinds of community-based and
service agencies have social intervention in their
strategy agenda. All three of the comprehensive
service agencies have the provision of
opportunities and alternatives among their
strategies. Only one of the three comprehensive
agencies has suppression as a strategy and we know
from the foregoing tables that suppression is the
fifth ranked strategy for that agency. Again we
note that the entire range of strategies is
represented for almost all categories of
respondent.

MDS STRATEGY DIFFERENCES

Multi-dimensional scaling analysis was again used
to construct explanatory maps to illustrate the
differences with respect to primary strategy first
among cities and sites and then among respondent
categories. We locate the areas or categories in
social distance space along horizontal and vertical
dimensions to discover where each of the areas or
respondent categories, respectively, lie. (See the
discussion accompanying Appendix Tables 5-5, 5-6,
5-7, and Appendix Figure 5-1). 

The results of our analysis suggest that
respondents in some emerging gang problem cities
are more likely to emphasize strategies of
community organization and organizational
development as a response to the gang problem,
while respondents in other emerging gang problem
cities are almost totally likely to emphasize a
suppression approach. It is possible that as a gang
problem emerges in cities, the first reactions are
to pull the community together, develop special
organizational arrangements, or, more often, to go
all out with a suppression approach. The chronic
gang problem cities, with much exposure to the
problem and longer experience in dealing with it,
appear to develop more balanced approaches,
combining community organization and suppression,
but with considerable emphasis on social
intervention.

Table 5-4. Variety of Strategies Used by
 Respondents

              Com.   Soc.   Opps/  Suppress  Org.
              Org.   Int.   Alts             Chnge.

Law             33     21      3      52       20 
 Enforcement  63.5   40.4    5.8   100.0     38.5 

Prosecution      6      1      0      26        7 
              23.1    3.8          100.0     26.9 

Court            3      5      3      13        5 
              21.4   35.7   21.4    92.9     35.7 

Probation       14     14      6      30        8 
              43.8   43.8   18.8    93.8     25.0 

Corrections      2      5      5       4        1 
              25.0   62.5   62.5    50.0     12.5 

Parole           5      7      0       8        5 
              45.5   63.6           72.7     45.5 

Schl.            5      4      3       8        5 
 Security     55.6   44.4   33.3    88.9     55.6 

Schl. Other     12     20     11      12        6 
              46.2   76.9   42.3    46.2     23.1 

Youth Services  21     46     26       8        9 
              45.7  100.0   56.5    17.4     19.6 

Comp. Services   3      3      3       1        2 
             100.0  100.0  100.0    33.3     66.7 

Family Services  4      8      4       1        1 
              50.0  100.0   50.0    12.5     12.5 

Grass Roots      4      5      2       1        0 
              80.0  100.0   40.0    20.0 

Defense          1      1      0       0        0  
             100.0  100.0

Planning         8      5      2       1        8 
              66.7   41.7   16.7     8.3     66.7 

Other            0      1      1       0        0  
                    100.0  100.0

     The results of the multi-dimensional scaling
analysis of the strategies of respondents by type
of agency or community organization are less
revealing. Respondents from criminal justice
agencies--especially prosecution, court, probation,
and law enforcement--emphasize suppression
strategies. Grassroots, social service, and
planning agencies tend to emphasize social
intervention strategies. School, parole, and
corrections respondents are somewhere in the
middle. Community organization and organizational
development strategies are relatively more
emphasized by social service, grass-roots, and
planning agencies. The provision of opportunities
does not greatly contribute to the location of the
different types of respondents in multi-dimensional
space  (See the discussion accompanying in Appendix
Tables 5-8, 5-9, and Appendix Figure 5-2).

Thus, in this section, we have demonstrated that it
is possible to classify objectives and activities
of organizations dealing with community
organization, social intervention, opportunities
provision, suppression, and, to some extent,
organizational development and change. Both cities
and categories of respondents appear to emphasize
different combinations of strategies. Criminal
justice respondents clearly emphasize suppression
strategies. Non-criminal justice system respondents
emphasize in varying degrees mainly social
intervention strategies. A range of strategies,
however, are not uncommon among the different
categories of respondents. Community organization
is an important secondary strategy, but
organizational change and especially opportunities
provision strategies are hardly emphasized. We find
the newer or emerging gang problem cities to be
more concerned with community organization and
especially suppression strategies and the chronic
problem cities emphasize a broader range of
strategies, including suppression, social
intervention, and community organization, as well
as to a limited extent, opportunities provision. To
what extent these strategies are related to
perceptions of effectiveness or reduction of the
youth gang problem, we address in Chapter 6.

PERCEIVED CAUSES OF THE GANG PROBLEM

Organizations at first respond to social problems,
including gang crime, in terms of traditional
organizational mission, specific disciplinary
approaches, and contemporary fashions. Quick action
tends to follow upon a gang crisis or a series of
publicized crisis events, whether a police sweep or
an expansion of a social intervention program.
Ideas of cause or justification for the strategies
of action taken usually come as afterthoughts, in
part to justify methods of action already selected.
A systematic causal analysis does not often precede
a course of agency action. 

From a research and development perspective, we
thought it was important, nevertheless, to obtain
some expression by the survey respondents of causes
of the gang problem, a ranking of such causes, as
well as by implication a determination of the
degree of possible relationship between cause and
strategic response to the gang problem. Thus, we
asked the following question (Item VI-4) and
requested a rank order, as we did with the strategy
question (see above):

What do you think are the five most
 important causes of the gang problem in
 your city?  (Rank in order of priority)

From the 245 open-ended responses, we developed a
list of 23 categories. As with strategy
determinations, the two senior members of the
research team first classified all answers
separately. The conflicts in classification were
minimal and were quickly resolved through case-by-
case discussion.

We grouped the stated causes into four major
categories. The first set of causal perceptions
involves broad issues at the level of the social
system such as poverty, unemployment, criminal
opportunities, drug sales opportunities, patterns
of migration and changes in neighborhood population
composition, and any other references to major
urban changes. The second set of causes refers to
failures of basic institutions, in particular, the
family and schools, and also the absence of
adequate role models in the neighborhood. The third
set of causes focuses at the individual level and
includes substance abuse, psychological
explanations (most frequently lack of self-esteem
or the existence of personal pathology), peer
pressures, fear of violence or intimidation, and
the desire for self-protection through gang
affiliation.

Finally, many of our respondents recognize that the
gang problem now exists within the context of
numerous attempts to resolve it. These response
effects are placed in a fourth category which
include placing the blame on the police, the
courts, or other representatives of the legal
system, liberalism, lack of "community," the
absence of social services and recreation programs
for youth, media exploitation, discrimination and
race relations, school busing, a punitive labeling
process, lack of agency resources committed to
dealing with the gang problem, politicians using
the gang problem to fulfill personal ambitions,
denying that a gang problem exists, and adults
exploiting the legal system by using youths to
perform criminal acts.

Patterns of causal explanation do not seem to vary
much across categories of respondents and cities.
In order to compress our report and avoid excessive
detail, we present the results of our analysis of
perceived causes in this section only for the law
enforcement and non-law enforcement groups of
respondents. We find the patterns to be quite
similar. The proportions of answers falling into
each category given by law enforcement and other
respondents are comparable. Only for causes
associated with institutional failure is there a
difference greater than ten percentage points
(Tables 5-10 and 5-11).

Table 5-10. Perceived Causes of the Gang Problem
 (Law Enforcement Only)

                            N        %      %

System/Structural         45       86.5    90.0

Poverty/Unemployment      30       57.7    60.0
Criminal Opportunity       6       11.5    12.0
Drug Phenomena            23       44.2    46.0
Migration/Demographics     6       11.5    12.0
Urban Ecology              4        7.7     8.0

Institutional Failure     32       61.5    64.0

Family Breakdown/Failure  27       51.9    54.0
School Failure/Dropout    17       32.7    34.0
Lack of Role Models        2        3.8     4.0

Individual Level          26       50.0    52.0
 Problems

Drug/Alcohol Use           0        0.0     0.0
Psychological             18       34.6    36.0

 Explanations 
Peer/Gang Influence       15       28.8    30.0
Self-Protection/Fear      11       21.2    22.0

Response Effects          30       57.7    60.0

Legal System Failure       8       15.4    16.0
Liberalism                 0        0.0     0.0
Community Agency           9       17.3    18.0
 Failure
Lack of                   14       26.9    28.0
 Services\Programs
Media                      4        7.7     8.0
Discrimination/Race        5        9.6    10.0
 Relations
Labeling                   0        0.0     0.0
Lack of Resources          3        5.8     6.0
 Committed
Politics                   1        1.9     2.0
Denial                     5        9.6    10.0
Adult Exploitation of      0        0.0     0.0
 Juvenile Justice System

Missing values -- 2

The ordering of perceived causes of the gang
problem by law enforcement and non-law enforcement
respondents were also very similar. They fall
primarily into the system or structural category.
Ninety percent of law enforcement and 91.2 percent
of non-law enforcement respondents listed at least
one of the system factors as a causal element.
Poverty and unemployment were the most often
selected particular causes, followed by drug-
selling opportunities, within this category. The
second most frequent general category of cause of
the problem listed was institutional failure, with
family breakdown viewed as the most often cited
cause, followed by school failure and dropout.
Response effects, i.e., defects in policies or
programs established to deal with the problem,
comprised the third most frequent set of causes
selected to explain gang crime. They include mainly
lack of services and community agency failures. The
law enforcement group also emphasizes legal system
failures and the denial by agencies and government
officers that a gang problem exists. The fourth
most frequently listed general set of causes are at
the individual level. Psychological problems and
peer/gang group influence are regarded as important
factors. Law enforcement respondents more often
emphasize the need of gang members to protect
themselves from other gang members while non-law
enforcement respondents more often emphasize drug
and alcohol abuse by gang members or gang-prone
youth as a cause of gang crime.

Table 5-11. Perceived Causes of the Gang Problem 
 (Not Including Law Enforcement)

                             N        %       %

System/Structural          177       87.6    91.2

Poverty/Unemployment       133       65.8    68.6
Criminal Opportunity        27       13.4    13.9
Drug Phenomena              78       38.6    40.2
Migration/Demographics      14        6.9     7.2
Urban Ecology                8        4.0     4.1

Institutional Failure      151       74.8    77.8

Family Breakdown/Failure   108       53.5    55.7
School Failure/Dropout      97       48.0    50.0
Lack of Role Models         11        5.4     5.7

Individual Level Problems   99       49.0    51.0

Drug/Alcohol Use            17        8.4     8.8
Psychological               66       32.7    34.0
 Explanations
Peer/Gang Influence         40       19.8    20.6
Self-Protection/Fear        18        8.9     9.3

Response Effects           122       60.4    62.9

Legal System Failure        17        8.4     8.8
Liberalism                   3        1.5     1.5
Community Agency Failure    39       19.3    20.1
Lack of Services/Programs   59       29.2    30.4
Media                        9        4.5     4.6
Discrimination/Race         22       10.9    11.3
 Relations
Labeling                     1        0.5     0.5
Lack of Resource             9        4.5     4.6
 Commitment
Politics                     3        1.5     1.5
Denial                       6        3.0     3.1
Adult Exploitation of        3        1.5     1.5
 Juvenile Justice System

Missing values -- 8

MDS CAUSAL PERCEPTIONS

Again we performed a multi-dimensional scaling
analysis comparing first cities or areas and then
the categories of respondents in social distance
space on certain causal perception dimensions. The
primary cause was selected as the basis for the
analysis. There was a slight tendency for emerging
cities to emphasize institutional failures and
response effects, while chronic cities tended to
emphasize structural factors. Overall, there seems
little to distinguish patterns of perceived primary
cause by emerging or chronic gang problem cities
(See Appendix Tables 5-12, 5-13, Appendix Figure 5-
3 and accompanying discussion).

The social distance map by category of respondents,
however, produces interesting variations. Criminal
justice respondents, particularly parole and
corrections but also grass-roots organization
respondents, emphasize structural factors as the
cause of the gang problem. Surprisingly,
comprehensive service personnel do not regard
system factors as a primary cause. Also, parole and
grass-roots respondents are located very high on
the dimension that emphasizes agency response
factors (See Appendix Tables 5-14, 5-15 and
Appendix Figure 5-4 and accompanying discussion).

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERCEIVED CAUSE AND STRATEGY

We are not clear in this analysis whether and to
what extent perceived cause of the gang problem
precedes agency strategy or is in part a
consequence of it. It is, nevertheless, important
to attempt to see if there is some relationship
between perceived cause and strategy, i.e., to
match on some aggregate basis or to correlate cause
and strategy at the individual respondent level.
Our analysis is inferential since we did not ask
the respondents to provide a basis for their
agency's strategies or to match or correlate
specific causes and strategies.

A comparison at the aggregate level of frequencies
of causes and response strategies of intervention
indicates the likelihood of a mismatch (Table 5-
16). A total of 572 strategy and 549 cause
responses were classified. We make an assumption
that certain categories of cause should be related
grossly to certain categories of strategy.
Community organization strategies should deal
mainly with structural level problems. Table 5-16,
however, suggests that respondents do not
sufficiently use the community organization
strategy (21.2 percent) commensurate with the
frequency of perceived institutional-level causes
(27.5 percent) or system-level causes (32.2
percent).

Table 5-16. Comparison of Strategy and Cause
 Responses: Number (%)

   Strategy     No.    (%)    Cause      No.  (%)

Community      121  (21.2):  Insti-     151  (27.5)
 Organization                 tution
Social         146  (25.5):  Individual  99  (18.0)
 Intervention                 Level
Opportunities   69  (12.1):  System/    177  (32.2)
 Provision                    Structural
Suppression    165  (28.2):  Response   122  (22.2)
                              Effects
Organizational  71  (12.4)
 Change
              ----- -------            ----- ------
               572  (100.0)             549 (100.0)

Social intervention may be associated most closely
with an individual personal or interpersonal causal
problem orientation. We find that social
intervention is a major response or strategy
category (25.5 percent), which outweighs at the
aggregate level the frequency of individual causal
factors (18.0 percent) identified. A major mismatch
appears to be between the number of items
classified in the opportunities provision strategy
category (12.1 percent) and in the structural
causal category, particularly poverty/unemployment
(32.2 percent) and the institutional category (27.5
percent), particularly school deficiencies and
failures. There would seem to be a significant
mismatch, even if we aggregated the causal
categories of institutional- and system-level
causes on the one hand and the strategy categories
of community organization and opportunities
provision on the other.

The amount of attention directed to opportunities
provision seems grossly inadequate in relation to
the level of need, particularly at structural and
institutional levels. A key limitation or
mitigating factor, however, may be that many of the
agencies represented in our survey are by mission
and tradition not required to provide basic
opportunities.

We are not as clearly able to assess the degree of
match or mismatch between a suppression strategy
and related causal factors. To some extent the
suppression strategy (28.8 percent) may be most
related to the response set of causal factors (22.2
percent) particularly those which refer to a
breakdown in social service and criminal justice
systems. Nevertheless, there would still seem to be
a relative over-emphasis on this strategy for
dealing with the gang problem.

There is another way to address the degree and
direction in which cause and strategy are related.
Individual level correlations may help clarify and
elaborate this aggregate level comparison. From the
outset, we have felt that certain strategies should
be rationally associated with specific perceptions
of cause by the particular respondents. If the
cause of the problem is seen as the lack of
legitimate opportunities such as jobs, it would
seem logical that the remedy lie in providing
additional jobs or legitimate opportunities. Table
5-17 examines these individual respondent-level
relationships. Our first expectation is supported
by the highly statistically significant and
positive association between opportunities and
structural system-level explanations of the gang
problem. It is similarly reasonable that
individualistic solutions associated with social
intervention are incompatible with a system-level
explanation of the problem. This expectation also
is supported by the highly significant negative
relationship between system-level cause and social
intervention as a primary strategy.

Other relationships, that might be expected,
however, do not appear to be significant.
Institutional-level causes and community
organization strategies do not appear to be related
to other sets of variables. However, other
relationships in Table 5-17 are in possibly
explainable directions. The negative relationship
between individual-level causes and provision of
opportunities is again to be expected. The positive
relationship between social intervention and
response effect is somewhat understandable. There
is a history of experience of social intervention
in response to institutional failures (Spergel
1990). A negative association between response-
effect causes and suppression and organizational
development strategies is also somewhat
explainable. Some respondents may believe that
police sweeps and specialized agency efforts to
deal with the gang problem do not work.

We will pursue this discussion further in Chapter 6
when we examine the idea that certain strategies of
intervention in fact do reduce the scope and
severity of the gang problem. We attempt to
discover which strategies are related to various
measures of program effectiveness as indicated by
our survey respondents.

Table 5-17. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
 between Perceived Primary Cause and Primary
 Strategy

                             Strategy

             Commnty  Soc    Opps  Supprssn  Org
Perceived    Org      Inter  Alts            Dev/
 Cause                                       Change

System      .027   -.223***  .239*** .072    .122 
 Structure
Insti-     -.042    .033    -.036   -.002   -.004
 tutional Level
Individual  .020    .060    -.125 *  .031   -.051 
 Level
Response   -.001    .270*** -.111   -.159** -.194**
 Effect

n = 241

***  Significant at the 0.001 level.
 **  Significant at the 0.01 level.
  *  Significant at the 0.05 level.

NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS OF AREAS AND RESPONDENTS

Both to elaborate our discussion of community
organization and especially interagency
relationship strategies and to prepare for our
analysis of factors which may contribute to a
successful reduction of the gang problem, we
subject our data again to an exploratory network
analysis. The analysis is based on responses to
Item V-4.

Item V-4. With which other justice or
 community agencies is your unit in most
 contact?  (Rank order)  (List as many as 5).

However, the limitation of the number of agencies
that may be named by our respondents may weaken the
results we report here. It does not allow the
possibility that every respondent can be named as a
contact in sites where there are more than six
respondents, and, therefore, could create a built-
in bias against the strengths of larger networks,
particularly those in large or chronic problem
cities. This does not, however, prove to be the
case with at least one of our outcome analysis in
chapter 6.

We employ a set of sociometric procedures developed
by Burt (1982) to determine the level of social
cohesiveness or density of respondent interactions
in various cities as well as the degree of city or
community level prominence by different respondent
categories in dealing with the gang problem. Our
analysis indicates that emerging gang problem
cities have denser networks with more prominent or
centrally located actors in network space. This
could be based in part on our choice limitations,
as they affect somewhat larger cities.

The analysis of respondent categories also suggests
that certain criminal justice actors (law
enforcement, prosecution, and probation) have taken
leading roles in dealing with the gang problem.
This is not to deny that certain other actors such
as school security, comprehensive social
intervention services, and grass-roots
organizations also may be called in to deal with
the gang problem (For details of the method
involved in the development of these measures, see
Appendix Tables 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, and 5-21 and
accompanying discussion).

SUMMARY

Five strategies were identified as the basis for
agency policy and problems: community organization,
social intervention, opportunities provision,
suppression, and organizational development and
change. Community organization refers to efforts to
bring about adjustment, development, or change
among groups and organizations in regard to
community problems or social needs. It includes
such notions as networking, mobilizing the
community, building community trust, and
interagency collaboration in preventive effort.
Social intervention focuses on individual value
change or behavioral transformation. Detached work,
street gang work, and individual, family, and group
counseling are key methods of this strategy.
Opportunities provision emphasizes the infusion of
resources such as basic education, training, and
jobs. Specific concern is with the development of
specific opportunities targeted at gang youths.
Suppression refers to a strategy of arrest,
incarceration, and supervision. It includes use of
specialized police patrols, vertical prosecution,
and special probation management, as well as gang
tracking information systems. Finally,
organizational development and change indicates
efforts to modify or expand agency structures,
usually through some innovative or additional
procedures or specialized unit to deal with the
gang problem.

These strategies are often used in various
combinations by a particular agency. The primary
strategy employed was of special interest in the
analysis conducted. Suppression as a primary
strategy was most frequently listed (44.0 percent)
by respondents, followed by social intervention
(31.5 percent). Opportunities was the least
frequently employed primary strategy (4.8 percent).
It was also the least frequently employed strategy
at any level of priority (12.1 percent).
Prosecutors and judges were most highly committed
to use of a suppression strategy, with probation
and police also committed to this strategy. Social
agencies and grass-roots organizations were most
highly committed to use of social intervention
strategies.

Across cities, there was evidence, based on a
multi-dimensional scaling analysis, that some
emerging gang problem cities emphasized strategies
of community organization and organizational
development while others emphasized almost a total
suppression approach as a first set of reactions to
the gang problem.  Chronic gang cities seemed to
develop more balanced approaches, combining
community organization and suppression with
considerable emphasis on social intervention.

The research also examined the nature of causes
that respondents attributed to the gang problem. We
attempted to relate patterns of cause and strategy
to each other. In general, strategies of
intervention were only partially related to the
nature of the problem and its genesis, but perhaps
more often to general agency missions or the
disciplinary orientations of the respondents. The
causes described by respondents of the gang problem
in the particular cities were classified into four
major categories. The first cause is
system/structural, comprising mainly poverty and
unemployment factors. Opportunities to sell drugs
were also classified as a system-level cause. The
second set of causes referred to the failure of
basic institutions, such as family and schools. The
third set focused on individual-level causes such
as psychological problems and substance abuse. The
fourth set indicated response organization effects,
such as defects in the way police, court systems,
and social services or youth programs addressed the
gang problem.

In general, respondent categories, particularly law
enforcement and non-law enforcement, selected
remarkably similar sets of causes for the gang
problem. The most frequently selected categories of
cause were system/structural, especially poverty
and unemployment. Institutional and response-effect
causes, respectively, were second and third most
frequently used. The least frequently selected
causes were at the individual level.

Again, we performed a multi-dimensional scaling
analysis and found little difference in pattern of
causes by city, whether emerging or chronic problem
areas. However, we found some differences by
categories of respondents. Criminal justice
respondents, especially parole and corrections,
chose primarily system level causes. Surprisingly,
comprehensive crisis intervention service
respondents unlike most other respondent categories
emphasized a variety of primary causes other than
system factors.

A gross or adequate level comparison of the
relation of frequencies of strategies to causes
suggested a mismatch between emphasis on system- or
structural-level cause with little strategic
attention to opportunities provision. Suppression
and social intervention strategies seem to outweigh
the frequency of individual-level and response-
effect causes reported. It was possible there was
not a good fit, because our respondent agencies
other than schools were not necessarily mandated
primarily to provide certain approaches and
programs, e.g., employment, education, and job
training. At the individual level of analysis,
we did find expected relationships, both positive
and negative, between certain categories of
perceived primary cause and primary strategy.
Systems-level causes are highly significantly and
positively related to opportunities provision and
highly negatively related to an emphasis on social
intervention. Response effect, or failure of
institutions in their specific programs to deal
with the gang problem, is positively related to
social intervention. On the other hand, suppression
and organizational change strategies are negatively
related to response effects, suggesting that the
failures of organizations and institutions result
in greater use of suppression strategies and
efforts to modify organizational arrangements. 

In further elaboration of the community
organization strategy, and since a number of our
earlier findings suggested weakness or
fragmentation of community structure, we subjected
our data to a limited interagency respondent
network analysis. We employed a variety of
sociometric analyses to determine the level of
social cohesiveness or density of relationships of
respondents to each other in various cities, as
well as the prominence of certain actors in these
community networks. We find, that emerging gang
problem cities are somewhat more cohesive or have
denser networks, with more prominent, centrally
located actors. Certain criminal justice actors
(police, prosecutors, and probation) have taken
leadership roles in dealing with the gang problem
across types of cities. The results of these
network analyses become important in later
discriminant analyses of chronic and emerging gang
problem cities and are of value in constructing
models of successful approaches to reduce the
problem (see Chapter 6).

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

CHAPTER 6

EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTION

The primary purpose of our survey was to assess the
youth gang problem, particularly the response to
it. We seek to discover those approaches that
promise a reduction of the youth gang problems. Our
survey was cross-sectional, not longitudinal. It
was not an evaluational study, even on a post-hoc
basis. Hard data useful for the determination of
whether the youth gang problem had fallen, risen,
or remained the same was not available, except in a
few large cities, until a later special data-
collection process. As our analysis in Chapter 2
suggested, it was difficult, if not impossible, to
assess the problem in a reliable, consistent
fashion across cities or jurisdictions because so
many definitions existed.

In order to determine whether the youth gang
problem had changed and whether particular
approaches, including certain policies, procedures,
and strategies had contributed to those changes, we
had to rely primarily on the perceptions of our
respondents. We asked whether the problem changed
and in which direction. We asked for evidence of
change when it was available. We asked respondents
to rate the effectiveness of agency and interagency
or community-wide approaches to the problem. The
answers to these questions became our dependent or
outcome variables. These were the best indicators
we could find of success. Our findings on the
nature and scope of the problem and specific
organizational responses, especially strategies of
intervention, were respectively our conditional and
independent variables. We were interested in the
views of law enforcement personnel, and later the
quantitative data they made available to us to
determine that change occurred over an eight-year
period in the level of the youth gang problem. We
were, of course, interested in whether different
types of approaches work better in chronic or
emerging gang problem cities.

Much of our analysis in this chapter has been
foreshadowed earlier. We address the issue of
effectiveness, however, more directly. We try to
relate our variables or test our ideas more
closely, namely through multivariate analyses.
Still our findings are tentative and suggestive,
rather than definitive. They provide not only a
basis for further analysis of the present data, but
for the selection and field testing of those
approaches, particularly strategies, structures,
and procedures that seem promising. They also
provide some immediate guidance as to which general
policy emphases may prove fruitful. 

CHANGES IN THE LEVEL OF THE PROBLEM

We tried to discover the nature of the gang problem
and how it had changed over time, by means of a
series of questions throughout the survey, closed
and open-ended. Of special interest were answers to
the following items:

 III-18. Has the gang situation changed since 1980?

 III-19. If yes, how?

The content analysis results indicate generally
that the gang problem has gotten more serious since
1980. Only 13.5 percent of law enforcement
respondents and 7.8 percent of other respondents
cite unequivocal improvement since 1980. Both a
majority of the police (55.8 percent) and of the
non-law enforcement respondents (67.4 percent)
state unquestionably that the situation has
worsened (Table 6-1). In almost all cases of a
classification of a worsened situation, and even
where the situation was regarded as improved, drug
selling was mentioned as a major or minor problem.
Eleven and a half percent (11.5 percent) of law
enforcement respondents and 14.5 percent of other
respondents emphasize exclusively the increased
involvement of gangs in drugs and drug trafficking.
A few (9.6 percent of law enforcement respondents
and 2.6 percent of other respondents) note a period
of problem growth since 1980 followed more recently
by a period of improvement. A smaller group has
seen improvement followed by more recent worsening
of the problem. The ambivalent "some better/some
worse" answers (almost 6 percent) include responses
such as "there are fewer gang members but they are
better armed and more violent." 

Table 6-1. How Has the Gang Situation Changed Since
 1980? 

(Law Enforcement Only)

                              N          %

Worsened                     29        55.8 
Improved                      7        13.5 
Stayed Same                   1         1.9 
Drugs Most Important          6        11.5 
Worsened/Improved             5         9.6 
Improved/Worsened             1         1.9 
Some Better/Some Worse        3         5.8 
Total                        52       100.0  

(Excluding Law Enforcement)

                              N         %   

Worsened                    130      67.4  
Improved                     15       7.8  
Stayed Same                   2       1.0  
Drugs Most Important         28      14.5  
Worsened/Improved             5       2.6  
Improved/Worsened             2       1.0  
Some Better/Some Worse       11       5.7  
Total                       202(a)  100.0 

(a) Includes nine missing values

If we combine the responses of unequivocal
improvement with the responses of recent
improvement, we produce Table 6-2. In the table,
law enforcement responses are considerably less
pessimistic than those of the remainder of the
respondent group.

Table 6-2. Gang Situation has Improved Since 1980 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                              N         % 
          Yes                12        23.1
          No                 40        76.9
          Total              52       100.0

(Excluding Law Enforcement)

                              N         %         
          Yes                20        10.4     
          No                173        89.6    
          Total             202 (a)   100.0     

(a)  Includes nine missing responses

PERCEIVED IMPROVEMENT AND THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

We related perceptions of improvement in the gang
situation with the perceived current general
characteristics of the problem as described in
Chapter 3. Table 6-3 shows the means of the eight
interval level measures of the gang problem for
those respondents who report that the gang problem
in their community has improved since 1980 and
those who do not. Mean estimates of number of
gangs, number of gang members, size of gangs, and
percent of total index crimes that are attributed
to gangs are significantly less for respondents who
describe the gang problem as improving since 1980.
The size of cities in 1984 (or in 1970) and
ethnicity of gang members are not significantly
different for those who see improvement and those
who have not. Nor are the percent of gang incidents
attributed to adults or the percent of gang members
with prior police records.

Table 6-3. Means for Selected Measures of the Gang
 Problem and Perceived Change in the Problem Since
 1980
                        Perception of Change
                      Improvement     Gotten Worse 

Size of Cities       1,057,558.1     1,836,065.3 
 (1984)
Number Gangs                30.9          79.0 ***
Number Gang Members       2232.9        7665.1 ***
Upper Size of Gangs         63.3         361.6 **
% Black Members             54.6          49.0 
% Hispanic Members          37.2          34.8
% Incidents Involving       34.3          27.8
 Adults
% Index Crimes              18.3          31.6 *
 Gang-Related
% Gang Members with         68.3          72.0 
 Prior Police Record    


t Test Significance 
 Levels * = 0.05  ** = 0.01 *** = 0.001 

Table 6-4 displays frequencies and percents of
respondents reporting improvement since 1980 and
one of four conditions that we have selected to
define the more serious nature of the gang problem.
As can be seen from the tetrachoric correlations in
Table 6-4, perception of improvement in the gang
situation since 1980 is significantly related to a
reduction, or negatively to each of the four
measures, of the gang problem:  expansion of the
gang across multiple neighborhoods, involvement of
youth gangs with adult criminal organizations, gang
drug distribution, and gangs involved in the
importation of drugs. Of respondents reporting the
existence of non-local gangs, 7.8 percent feel that
problem is present in their jurisdiction or service
area since 1980. Of those who find this specific
condition absent, 25.8 percent (over three times as
many proportionally) report that the gang situation
has improved. The proportional ratio of those
reporting improvement is even more skewed (over
four times as many) for those who report the 
absence of gang affiliation with adult criminal 
organizations as compared to those who say it is 
present.

The relationships between reporting improvement and
our two measures of drug involvement by gangs are
not as strong, but both are significant
statistically and in the expected direction.

Table 6-4. Frequencies and Percents for Respondents
 Reporting Improvement in the Serious Gang Problem
 Since 1980 and Tetrachoric Correlations for
 Selected Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem

Nature of            Improvement       Correlation
 Specific       Problem      Problem
 Problem        Present      Absent

Non-Local          13         16       -0.446 ***
Gangs             7.8 %     25.8 %

Affiliation        15         14       -0.551 ***
with Criminal     7.9 %     35.0 %
Organizations

Drug               13         17       -0.270 ***
Distribution      9.0 %     18.5 %
Gang Purpose

Gangs Import       13         15       -0.171 **
Drugs            10.8 %     16.9 %

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

Statements of a reduction in the gang problem
generally are clearly supported by evidence of
reduction in key aspects of the gang problem such
as number of gangs, gang members, the size of
gangs, the absence of outside gangs, those
affiliated with adult criminal organizations, and
those gangs engaged in various levels of drug
trafficking. The improvement of the gang situation
or a reduction of the problem indicates that a
major improvement in the scope and character of the
gang problem can occur, if only in a few cities.

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

POLICY AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES

We related perception of improvement in the gang
situation to agency response patterns discussed in
Chapter 4. Those included such characteristics as
special (oral) policies, written policies,
influencing legislation, internal and external
advisory structures, interagency task forces,
special training, and specialized organizational
units. The findings indicate that patterns of
policy response are not clearly related to
perception of changes in the gang problem since
1980 (Table 6-5). There is a significant negative
statistical relationship between perceived
improvement of the gang problem and putting gang
policies in writing. The data suggest that these
policy developments have no relationship to an
improved gang situation or in one case may indicate
that the situation gets worse even with written
policies.

Table 6-5. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
 between Improvement in the Gang Problem Since 1980
 and Measures of the Policy Aspects of Gang Program
 Responses

                Special    Policies    Influencing
                Policies  in Writing   Legislation

Situation       -0.003    -0.335 ***     -0.122 
Improved         (221)     (182)          (231)
Since 1980

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

Only one of the three coordinating or advisory
mechanisms developed in response to the gang
problem is significantly related to an improved
gang situation. The positive relationship between
perceived improvement in the gang problem since
1980 and the existence of external advisory
structures (Table 6-6) is worth emphasizing. It
continues to suggest, as in our earlier discussions
(see chapter 4), that the presence of an external
advisory group to an agency's gang program is
possibly causally related to perceived improvement
and a reduction in the problem. The development of
an internal advisory structure and an interagency
task force show no such relationship. 

Table 6-6. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients
 between Improvement in the Gang Problem Since 1980
 and Measures of the Coordination Aspects of Gang
 Program Responses

             Internal   External  Inter-Agency
             Advisory   Advisory   Task Force  
             Structure  Structure

Situation      .065      0.167 **    -.020 
Improved       (226)     (236)        (226)
Since 1980

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

Our final measures of agency response to the gang
problem are the availability of special gang
training for agency personnel and the development
of a specialized organizational unit to deal with
the gang problem. The tetrachoric correlation
between specialized gang training and perceived
improvement in the gang situation since 1980 is
negative (-0.154) and significant at the 0.05
level. The tetrachoric correlation between
organization specialization and perceived
improvement in the situation is negative (-.352)
and is significant at the 0.001 level. The gang
situation seems to deteriorate despite the presence
of either or both of those organizational
developments specifically addressing the gang
problem. 

In sum, we find that a relatively small percent of
respondents indicate there has been a positive
change in the gang situation in their community or
institutional setting (Since 1980). Specific
problem characteristics are cited as reduced, for
example, number of gangs and gang members, criminal
affiliations, and drug trafficking. However, we
find little association between such a decline in
the problem and specific agency policy and
organizational characteristics. In general, the
development of these special agency approaches is
associated with a worsening of the gang problem.
The one noteworthy exception is the existence of an
external agency advisory group, perhaps to oversee,
guide, and assist in the development of a
particular program.

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

UNIT EFFECTIVENESS

A second set of analyses was based on the
respondents' perceptions of the success of his or
her particular agency's program, as it might be
related to changes in the gang problem and
associated with other agency characteristics.
Respondents were asked in Item VI-1 to rate their
agencies' effectiveness in 1987 in dealing with the
gang problem. Table 6-7 shows that more that 40
percent of all respondents, including law
enforcement, rate their programs as very effective.
Another 40 percent or more of all respondents rate
their programs as moderately effective. This is an
extraordinarily high proportion of successful
programs relative to answers to the questions of
whether the gang situations has improved in their
community. 

Table 6-7. Evaluation of Own Agency's Effectiveness
 (1987) 

(Law Enforcement Only)

                              N         % 
Very Effective               20        43.5
Moderately Effective         19        41.3
Hardly Effective              5        10.9
Not at all Effective          2         4.3
Total                        52 (a)   100.0

     (a)  Includes 6 missing respondents.

(Excluding Law Enforcement)

                              N         %
Very Effective               67        40.9
Moderately Effective         68        41.5
Hardly Effective             20        12.2
Not at all Effective          9         5.5
Total                       202 (b)   100.0

     (b)  Includes 38 missing respondents.

Unlike the variable of perceived improvement in the
gang situation since 1980, agency effectiveness is
not significantly related to 11 of 12 measures of
the gang problem.

As can be seen in Tables 6-8 and 6-9, agency 
effectiveness ratings are not significantly
related to most of our measures. Only one
significant relationship is found, with percent of
black gang members, and it is significant at only
the 0.05 level. The relationship suggests that the
higher the rating of agency effectiveness, the
higher the percent of black gang members in the
city or jurisdiction. (The lower the score, the
higher the effectiveness rating. Thus a negative
relationship indicates an increase in the problem.)

Table 6-8. Point Biserial Correlations of Agency
 Effectiveness Rating and Selected Measures of the
 Gang Problem

           Number Number  Upper    %       %
           Gangs  Gang    Average  Black   Hispanic
                  Members Size of  Members Members
                          Gang

Rating    -.013   .061    -.136    -.169 *  .093
of Agency  (197)  (200)    (147)    (184)   (152)
Effectiveness

             % Incidents   % Index      % Gang
             Involving     Crimes       Members
             Adults        Gang-        with Prior
                           Related      Police
                                        Record

Rating      -.060          -.036         .127
of Agency    (131)          (107)        (166)
Effectiveness

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

Table 6-9. Polychoric Correlation Coefficients
 between Agency Effectiveness Rating and Selected
 Measures of the Nature of the Gang Problem

             Non-    Affiliation    Drug     Gangs
             Local   with           Distri-  Import
             Gang    Criminal       bution   Drugs
                     Organizations  Gang

Rating      -.105      -.127        -.088   -.093
of Agency    (203)      (201)        (203)   (184)
Effectiveness  

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

Positive and significant correlations do exist
between perceived agency effectiveness and specific
agency characteristics (Table 6-10). Only one of
our eight organizational measures, a special gang
policy in writing, is not related to a positive
agency effectiveness rating. All three of the
agency structure and coordination responses to the
gang problem in Table 6-10 are significantly
related to perceived agency effectiveness. The
reduced significance of the relationship between
external advisory structure and effectiveness
rating may simply be a function of the comparative
lack of such structures among law enforcement
respondents. The existence of community-wide or
interagency task forces is the measure most
strongly related to agency effectiveness rating. 

Table 6-10. Polychoric Correlation Coefficients
 between Agency Effectiveness Rating and Selected
 Measures of Response to the Gang Problem

              Special      Written      Influencing
              Policies     Policies     Legislation

Rating        .193 **       .045            .157 * 
of Agency     (195)         (170)           (204)
Effectiveness

              Internal     External    Inter-agency
              Advisory     Advisory    Task Force
              Structure    Structure

Rating        .242 ***      .152 *       .320 ***
of Agency     (198)         (206)        (199)   
Effectiveness

                  Special        Organization
                  Training       Specialization
                  Available  

Rating             .191 **         .188 ***
of Agency          (193)           (210)  
Effectiveness

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

The set of consistent positive correlations between
perceptions of agency effectiveness and specific
agency policies and organizational developments,
however, may have little to do with outcome
success. The gang problem has not abated. The
agencies may simply be addressing and trying hard
to deal with the gang problem. The respondents may
be evaluating the amount and quality of the
agency's effort,  which apparently is not
associated with a modification in the gang problem.

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

INTERAGENCY EFFECTIVENESS

Respondents were also asked to assess the
effectiveness of interagency or community-wide
coordinating responses to the gang problem in 1987
(See Item V-9 of the Questionnaire), but these
effectiveness ratings are inappropriate for a
sizable minority of total respondents: about 38
percent do not perceive the existence of community-
level responses to the gang problem in their
community (Table 6-11). Law enforcement respondents
tend to be more generous in their evaluations of
community-wide and combined efforts than other
respondents.  

Table 6-11. Evaluation of Inter-Agency Task Force
 or Community-Wide Organizations (1987) 

(Law Enforcement Only)

                        N         percent

Very Effective          14        45.4     
Somewhat Effective      16        48.5     
Hardly Effective         2         6.1    
Not at All Effective     0
Total                   52 (a)   100.0     

     (a)  Includes 20 missing values.

(Excluding Law Enforcement)

                         N         percent    

Very Effective          40        32.3   
Somewhat Effective      58        46.8   
Hardly Effective        13        10.5   
Not at All Effective    13        10.5   
Total                  202 (b)   100.0  

     (b)  Includes 78 missing values.

Task force effectiveness ratings show possibly
a slightly stronger pattern of relationships to the
variables measuring the characteristics of the gang
problem than agency effectiveness ratings (Tables
6-12 and 6-13).  The relationships are in the right
direction, however. (Again we note that the lower
the score, the higher the effectiveness rating.
Thus a positive relationship indicates a reduction
in the problem.)  The one significant relationship
in the wrong direction is the existence of gangs of
the same name in multiple areas. This suggests that
broad community efforts to deal with non-local
gangs or gangs that have spread across communities
have been ineffective. We conclude that a rating of
interagency task force effectiveness is somewhat
associated with an improved gang situation.

Table 6-12. Point Biserial Correlations of
 Community Level Program Effectiveness Rating and
 Selected Measures of the Gang Problem

            Number Number  Upper   %       %
            Gangs  Gang    Average Black   Hispanic
                   Members Size of Members Members
                           Gang 

Rating of   .232** .220**   .099    -.094    .155
Community   (149)  (148)    (108)   (138)    (117)
Effectiveness

              % Incidents    % Index    % Gang
              Involving      Crimes     Members
              Adults         Gang-      with Prior
                             Related    Police
                                        Record

Rating of    -.122          .177        .127
Community      (95)          (82)       (125)
Effectiveness

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

Table 6-13. Polychoric Correlation Coefficients
 between Community Level Program Effectiveness
 Rating and Selected Measures of the Nature of the
 Gang Problem

            Non-   Affiliation   Drug     Gangs
            Local  with          Distri-  Import
            Gang   Criminal      bution   Drugs
                                 Gang
                                 Purpose

Rating    -.238 **  -.029        .067     -.106
Community  (148)     (148)       (151)     (137)
Effectiveness

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

Finally, we examine the relationship of perceived
effectiveness of interagency task forces with
particular agency policy and organizational
developments. It could be argued that internal
agency changes to meet the gang problem are not
necessarily related to perceptions of interagency
or community-wide relationships in effectiveness in
reducing the gang problem. In fact, Table 6-14
indicates that the relationships are generally
positive, as we would expect based on earlier
analyses of unit effectiveness and agency
characteristics. Two of the relationships are
especially significant: internal advisory and
external advisory structures with perceived
interagency program effectiveness. External
advisory structure appears to be the agency
variable most strongly related to perceptions of
interagency task force effectiveness.

Table 6-14. Polychoric Correlation Coefficients
 between Interagency Community Level Program
 Effectiveness Rating and Selected Measures of
 Agency Response to the Gang Problem

              Special     Written      Influencing
              Policies    Policies     Legislation

Rating of       .134       .141             .134
Community       (148)      (131)            (152)
Task Force 
Effectiveness

             Internal     External      Special
             Advisory     Advisory      Training
             Structure    Structure     Available

Rating of    .249 **      .471 ***       -.066
Community    (149)        (155)           (147)
Task Force
Effectiveness

                 Organizational
                 Specialization

Rating of            .117
Community            (156)
Task Force 
Effectiveness

Significance 
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001 

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

SELECTING PROMISING APPROACHES

The first stage of our research and development
program required not only a review of the
literature and a survey of the gang problem,
especially the response to it, but follow-up field
visits to those cities or institutional sites that
had promising approaches. The results of the survey
were expected to provide a basis for the selection
of promising programs to examine in greater detail.
A general effectiveness score for cities and sites
was based on three measures:  perceived improvement
in the gang situation since 1980, perceptions of
respondents' agencies effectiveness in 1987, and
perceptions of the effectiveness of community level
task force groups in 1987.

First we determined that the three ratings were
interrelated. Perceived improvement in the gang
situation and agency self-effectiveness ratings are
very significantly and positively related, despite
the fact that a considerably smaller percent of
respondents score an improved situation in regard
to the gang problem than saw their agency as
effective (Table 6-15). Positive assessment of task
force or community-wide efforts is also
significantly -- although less strongly --
correlated with perceived improvement in the gang
problem since 1980 (Table 6-16).

Table 6-15. Ratings of Agency Effectiveness in 1987
 and Perceived Improvement in the Gang Problem Since
 1980
                      Situation Improved    
                          Since 1980        

                             Yes      No     Total

                Very          16      66        82
                            (65.3)  (37.1)
 
                Moderately     8      77        85
                            (30.8)  (43.3)
Level of
Effectiveness   Hardly         1      24        25
                            (03.8)  (13.5)
 
                Not at All     0       11       11
                            (00.0)   (06.2)
 
                Total         25      178      203

Gamma = 0.54229
Tetrachoric Correlation = 0.330  ***
Number of Missing Observations = 51

Table 6-16. Ratings of Community Level Program
 Effectiveness in 1987 and Perceived Improvement in
 the Gang Problem Since 1980

                         Situation Improved
                             Since 1980

                            Yes      No     Total

                   Very     10       42       52
                          (48.8)   (32.1)

                   Somewhat  8       65       73
                          (39.3)   (49.6)
Level of
Effectiveness      Hardly    1       12       13
On Community              (05.0)   (09.2)
Level
                   Not at    1       12       13
                    All   (05.0)   (09.2)

                   Total    20      131      151

Gamma = 0.37101
Tetrachoric Correlation = 0.239 **
Number of Missing Observations = 102

Furthermore, Table 6-17 shows that respondents who
rate interagency or community coordination efforts
positively also tend to rate their own agency's
efforts more positively. Interestingly, there is a
stronger relationship between improved gang
situation and the respondent's own agency
effectiveness score than with interagency
coordination effectiveness score. In any case, all
three measures are significantly related to each
other and indicate in complex ways conditions
perhaps associated with a reduction of the gang
problem.

Table 6-17. Rating of Agency Effectiveness and
 Rating of Community Level Effectiveness in 1987

               Community Level Rating Of 
                    Effectiveness

                 Very  Some-  Hardly  Not at  Total
                       what            All

        Very      31     26     5       4       66
                (61.0) (38.5) (41.7) (40.0) 

        Moderate  19     31     4       3       57
Agency          (37.7) (47.7) (33.3) (30.0)
Effectiveness
Rating
        Hardly     0      7     3       2       12
                (00.0) (10.8) (25.0) (20.0)

        Not at     1      1     0       1        3
        All     (01.3) (01.5) (00.0)  (10.0)

        Total     51     65    12      10      138

Gamma = 0.34626
Tetrachoric Correlation = 0.239 **  (Significant at
 0.01)
Number of Missing Observations = 116

We developed a general effectiveness score by
normalizing scores for perceived improvement in the
gang problem since 1980, evaluation of agency
effectiveness in 1987, and evaluation of community-
level program effectiveness in 1987. Principal 
components analysis and a simplifying mathematical
transformation were then used to develop a score.
This procedure is described in detail in the
Technical Note provided as Appendix B. A value of 1
is assigned to our seven respondents who report the
highest combined conditions: improvement with gang
situations since 1980, very effective performance
at the agency level in 1987, and very effective
performance at the community level in 1987. Table
6-18 shows the general effectiveness scores
(rounded to two decimal places) for this and other
selected combinations of our three measures of
effectiveness in dealing with the gang problem.

Table 6-18. Selected Combinations of Responses on
 Improvement Since 1980, Rating of Agency
 Effectiveness in 1987, and Rating of Community
 Level Program Effectiveness in 1987

Gang         Agency        Community    General
Situation    Effective-    Program      Effective-
Improved     ness          Effective-   ness
Since        1987          ness 1987    Score
1980

Yes          Very          Very           1.00
              Effective     Effective

Yes          Very          Moderately     1.74   
              Effective     Effective

Yes          Moderately    Very           1.81
              Effective     Effective

No           Very          Very           2.25
              Effective     Effective

Yes          Very          Hardly         2.25
              Effective     Effective

Yes          Very          Not            2.67
              Effective     Effective

Yes          Hardly        Moderately     3.14
              Effective     Effective

No           Moderately    Not            4.73
              Effective     Effective

No           Hardly        Not            5.32
              Effective     Effective

No           Not           Not            5.84
              Effective     Effective

Table 6-19. Ranking of Areas by Average General
 Effectiveness Scores 

Rank City                   Mean Score

 1   Flint                    1.00
 2   Fort Wayne               1.20
 3   El Monte*                1.84
 4   Evanston                 2.00
 5   Sterling                 2.01
 6   Reno                     2.22
 7   Inglewood*               2.22
 8   Tallahassee              2.22
 9   Cicero                   2.22
10   Louisville               2.37
11   San Jose*                2.39
12   Columbus                 2.60
13   E.LA*                    2.61
14   Sacramento               2.63
15   Pomona*                  2.79
16   Philadelphia*            3.00
17   Albuquerque*             3.00
18   CA-CYA*                  3.02
19   Phoenix*                 3.03
20   San Francisco*           3.19
21   Milwaukee                3.28
22   Long Beach*              3.51
23   Chicago*                 3.52
24   Rockford                 3.54
25   LA County*               3.55
26   Miami                    3.57
27   Santa Ana*               3.61
28   LA City*                 3.75
29   Oakland*                 3.80
30   New York*                3.80
31   Jackson                  3.80
32   Indianapolis             3.80
33   San Diego*               3.94
34   Salt Lake City           4.01
35   Stockton*                4.07
36   Benton Harbor            4.12
37   Minneapolis              4.70

Atlanta, Fort Worth, Hialeah, and Seattle are one-
respondent cities for which a general effectiveness
score cannot be calculated. Respondents in Chino*,
Detroit*, Tucson*, Shreveport, and Madison do not
report a community-wide task force rating and,
therefore, were not included in the development of
general effectiveness scores.       

* Chronic Areas

Based on these general effectiveness scores for
each group of respondents, we were able to generate
mean scores for each of the areas. If we eliminate
areas where we have only one respondent, we can
construct the ranking of cities that have
community-wide programs included in Table 6-19. We
selected our cities and programs for further
attention on the basis of this scoring system and
ranking and of other considerations such as a
balance of emerging and chronic gang problem
cities, the presence of a broad set of programs or
strategies rather than a single program approach
and data from additional sources. The cities or
areas selected included Fort Wayne, El Monte,
Evanston, Columbus and East Los Angeles.
Additionally, several unique institutional or
agency program sites such as the Paramount
(California) school system and Ethan Allen Schools
for Boys (Wisconsin) were included in our field
visits. 

We should note that a ranking based on a single
best measure --improvement in the gang situation
since 1980--produced a set of rankings similar to,
but less inclusive, than the one based on the three
measures together. The improvement in the gang
situation may more directly reflect a actual
reduction in gang crime. The rankings in Table 20,
provide a further justification for selection of
cities and sites we visited.

Table 6-20. Ranking of Areas By Improvement in Gang
 Situation Since 1980

City/Site                          Percent Claiming
(N=Number of Respondents)          Improvement

Fort Wayne (4)                     100.0
El Monte (5)                        80.0
Flint (3)                           66.7
Chino (2)                           50.0
Cicero (2)                          50.0
Tallahassee (2)                     50.0
Evanston (3)                        33.3
Sterling (3)                        33.3
San Jose (7)                        28.6
East Los Angeles (4)                25.0
Columbus (10)                       20.0
New York City (15)                  20.0
Philadelphia (5)                    20.0
Pomona (5)                          20.0
Milwaukee (8)                       12.5
Chicago (15)                         6.7
Ethan Allen School for Boys        100.0
Paramount School (1)               100.0

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

DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN CHRONIC AND EMERGING CITIES

In the remainder of the analysis in this chapter,
we focus on distinctions between chronic and
emerging gang problem cities and the approaches
that seem to be most promising in each. First we
examine which of our variables distinguishes
between the two kinds of cities. Table 6-20
compares the means of a wide range of variables or
criteria for the two groupings of cities. There are
a limited number of comparisons that show
significant differences: size of city population,
size of the gang problem, the ethnicity of gang
members, differences in primary strategy, and a
difference in proportion of respondents involved in
network exchanges. The chronic cities have
significantly larger populations, more gangs, and
more gang members. The percent of the gang
population that is black is very much significantly
higher in the emerging cities; the Hispanic and
Asian gang population proportions are higher in the
chronic cities. There is significantly greater use
of community organization in the emerging cities,
but greater use of social intervention and
opportunity provision as primary strategies in the
chronic gang problem cities. Finally, the
proportion of respondents in the network of
communication or interagency relations is greater
in the emerging, i.e., the smaller cities.

Discriminant analysis allows us to derive the best
multivariate function for discriminating between
the two types of cities. Table 6-21 displays the
discriminant analysis results on the basis of gang
problem characteristics. The simplest solution
involves population size in 1984, differences in
the ethnicity of gang members, and average
proportion of network involvement. The multivariate
analysis of variance is significant at the 0.001
level of statistical significance. A classification
analysis reveals that 86.5 percent of the cities
can be correctly classified as chronic or emerging
on the basis of the derived discriminant function.
From these results and Table 6-20, we can again
state that chronic problem cities tend to be larger
and characterized by greater numbers of Hispanic
gang members. Emerging problem cities tend to be
smaller and characterized by greater numbers of
black gang members. The emerging cities also have
respondents with a greater general involvement in
the city's interaction network of agencies
concerned with the problem.

We may also distinguish between chronic and
emerging cities on the basis of strategies of
intervention used. Table 6-23 shows discriminant
analysis results, comparing the two types of cities
on the basis of the proportion of respondents in
each who select one of three primary response
strategies. The multivariate analysis of variance
results for this discriminant solution is
significant, however, only at the 0.05 level.
Classification analysis reveals that two-thirds of
our cities can be classified into the chronic-
emerging categories by the discriminant function
derived from these three strategy variables. Thus,
again, we note from Table 6-23 that programs in
emerging cities are more likely to exhibit
community organization as a primary strategy while
programs in chronic cities are more likely to be
characterized by social intervention or opportunity
provision as primary strategies.

Table 6-21. Differences between Chronic versus
 Emerging Gang Problem Cities on Selected Variables 

                          Chronic      Emerging
Variable                Mean    N     Mean    N
Number of Respondents   6.73   22     4.80   20
Population 1970      1348.69   16   295.62   16 *
Population 1984      1208.50   18   278.18   17 *
Population Change    - 26.63   16    -4.62   16 
 70-84
Number of Gangs        61.75   18    14.92   19 *
Number Gang          6560.24   17   872.79   19 *
 Members
% Gang Members         37.44   18    74.55   20 ***
 Black
% Gang Members         46.61   18    16.50   20 **
 Hispanic
% Gang Members         10.37   18      .95   20 *
 Asian
% Class 1 Offense      25.21   14     3.04   16
 Gang-Related
% Gang Members         80.04   16    68.86   18
 with Priors
% Gang Members         54.28   18    37.76   16
 Adults
Adults Lead Gangs        .72   18      .78   19
% Gangs Inv.           54.29   19    41.13   18
 in Drug Distrib.
Proportion Drug          .61   19      .53   20
 Gangs
Gang Members Importing   .68   19      .60   18
 Drugs
Adult-Youth Drug         .22   18      .43   19
 Link in Gangs
Drugs Link Gangs         .89   18      .81   16
 & Adlt Cri. Org.
Org./Policy Responses   3.61   22     3.20   20
Com. Org. Primary        .06   22      .16   20 *
 Strategy
Soc. Int. Primary        .28   22      .14   20 *
 Strategy
Opp. Primary Strategy    .07   22      .02   20 *
Suppression Primary      .45   22      .57   20
 Strategy
Org. Dev. Primary        .11   22      .08   20
 Strategy
Comm. Org. Strategy      .47   22      .56   20 
Soc. Int. Strategy       .52   22      .56   20
Opps. Strategy           .30   22      .21   20
Suppression Strategy     .65   22      .79   20
Org. Dev. Strategy       .31   22      .27   20
System-Level Cause       .91   22      .93   20
Institution Cause        .70   22      .78   20
Individual Cause         .53   22      .47   20
Response Effect Cause    .57   22      .62   20
System Primary Cause     .50   22      .42   20
Institution Primary      .21   22      .33   20
 Cause
Individual Primary       .16   22      .11   20
 Cause
Response Effect          .13   22      .13   20
 Primary Cause
Drugs Cause              .53   18      .45   20
Poverty Cause            .53   18      .69   20
Network Density          .41   21      .51   20
Reciprocal Density       .17   21      .28   20
Proportion of Network    .39   19      .55   20 *
Aggregate Prominence     .55   19      .64   20
Reflected Prominence     .03   19      .04   20
Improvement Since 1980   .13   22      .21   20
Agency Effectiveness    1.81   20     1.69   19
 in '87
Community Effective-    1.85   20     1.67   19
 ness '87
General Effectiveness   3.19   19     2.85   18
 Score

Table 6-22. Discriminant Analysis Results on
 Chronic vs. Emerging Cities for Differences in the
 Ethnicity of Gang Members and 1984 Population

                    Canonical       Correlations
Primary           Coefficients    with Discriminant
 Strategy                              Function

% Gang Members       -.364            -.720 
 Black
% Gang Members        .512             .631 
 Hispanic
Population 1984       .466             .495 
Mean Proportion of   -.409            -.452 
 Network

Significance of       .001 
 MANOVA

% Correct Classification

Chronic               88.2 percent 
Emerging              85.0 percent
Total                 86.5 percent

Table 6-23. Discriminant Analysis Results on
 Chronic vs. Emerging Cities for Proportions of
 Respondents Exhibiting Three Primary Strategies

                    Canonical       Correlations 
Primary            Coefficients   with Discriminant
Strategy                              Function

Social                .480             .737  
 Intervention
Opportunities/Alts.   .489             .699  
Community            -.449            -.677  
 Organization

Significance of       .051  
 MANOVA

% Correct Classification

Chronic               68.2 percent 
Emerging              65.0 percent
Total                 66.7 percent 

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

FINDING EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES

Next we turn to the question of how does response
relate to general effectiveness, but this time our
unit of analysis is the city, or type of city,
rather than the individual respondent. We should
note, however, that we have to some extent biased
or constrained the outcome of this kind of
analysis. All of our cities are in some degree
"promising."  We selected cities for inclusion on
the basis of certain criteria, such as recognition
of a gang problem, organized response approach, and
a complex (rather than unidimensional) approach for
dealing with it. Hence, we are making our
comparisons among programs that have already
survived certain processes of elimination.  We now
differentiate among our cities on the basis of what
makes some programs more promising than others.
Just because a set of conditions or a strategy
looks worse in this context does not necessarily
mean that it is a "bad" set of conditions or
strategy. It simply means that in the given context
of our set of promising programs, one approach may
not be as good a predictor of a specific
improvement in our general effectiveness index, as
another. 

A major difference that we have already found which
distinguishes programs in chronic and emerging
cities is in the proportion of agencies exhibiting
different primary strategies. Social intervention
and opportunities provision are more likely to be
found as primary strategies in chronic cities.
Community organization is more likely to appear as
a primary strategy in emerging cities. Given that
we have selected all of the programs in our survey
as potentially more promising than those of
unselected cities, we should not be surprised if
certain primary strategies tend to work well in
some of those contexts.

Our search for a set of relatively effective
strategies by type of city leads us to use analysis
of covariance procedures. Analysis of covariance
involves the comparison of regression lines for two
or more groups (Kerlinger 1986). Table 6-24 shows
the mean proportion of respondents exhibiting
community organization as their primary strategy in
chronic and in emerging cities and the regression
coefficients for our general effectiveness score
regressed on proportion exhibiting community
organization as a primary strategy in each.

Table 6-24. Analysis of Covariance Results for
 Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary
 Strategy Community Organization as a Covariate for
 Chronic and Emerging Cities

                              Chronic      Emerging
                              (n = 19)     (n = 18)

Mean General                   3.191        2.851
 Effectiveness Score
Mean Proportion Primary        0.057        0.160
 Strategy Community Organization
Regression Coefficient        -2.141       -3.009 *

It is important to remember that our general
effectiveness score gets better as it gets smaller
with 1 as the best score. Hence, a negative
regression coefficient indicates an impact in a
favorable direction. While the slope of the
regression lines for community organization is in
the correct direction in both chronic and emerging
problem cities, only the slope in emerging cities
is statistically significant. Figure 6-1
illustrates these results.

Table 6-25 and Figure 6-2 display the same kind of
results for social intervention as a primary
strategy. While neither of the regression
coefficients is statistically significant at the
0.05 level (The coefficient for emerging cities is
significant at the 0.10 level), the slopes for both
kinds of cities are in the wrong direction for
observing positive impact. Relying on social
intervention as a primary strategy in emerging
cities does not appear to be a comparably effective
strategy.

Table 6-25. Analysis of Covariance Results for
 Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary
 Strategy Social Intervention as a Covariate for
 Chronic and Emerging Cities

                             Chronic     Emerging
                            (n = 19)     (n = 18)

Mean General                  3.191       2.851
 Effectiveness Score
Mean Proportion Primary       0.301       0.158
 Strategy Social Intervention   
Regression Coefficient        0.342       2.025

Similar results for opportunities provision as a
primary strategy are shown the Table 6-26 and
Figure 6-3. This time both slopes are in the
direction indicating a positive impact. The slope
for chronic cities is significant at the 0.01 level
of statistical significance. A closer look at the
data reveals that opportunities provision as a
primary strategy is practically untried in emerging
cities. Only one of our emerging cities for which
we have a general effectiveness score (Evanston)
shows opportunities provision as a primary
strategy. Furthermore, a field visit indicates that
the one agency showing opportunities provision as a
primary strategy in this emerging city was not a
very important actor. 

Table 6-26. Analysis of Covariance Results for
 Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary
 Strategy Opportunities Provision as a Covariate for
 Chronic and Emerging Cities

                             Chronic     Emerging
                            (n = 19)     (n = 18)

Mean General                  3.191       2.851
 Effectiveness Score
Mean Proportion Primary       0.082       0.019
 Strategy Opportunities
 Provision
Regression Coefficient       -3.620 **   -2.704

Significance 
 Levels  * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001

For suppression, neither of the regression
coefficients indicate a slope that is compatible
with an effective primary strategy. The results in
Table 6-27 and Figure 6-4 show the application of
suppression as a primary strategy to be not
statistically significant. Table 6-28 and Figure 6-
5 display very similar results for organizational
development and change. Again, we need to caution
the reader that suppression or organizational
development and change are not necessarily "bad"
primary strategies. They are omni-present and
essential strategies in all of our cities.

Table 6-27. Analysis of Covariance Results for
 Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary
 Strategy Suppression as a Covariate for Chronic and
 Emerging Cities

                              Chronic     Emerging
                             (n = 19)     (n = 18)

Mean General                  3.191        2.851
 Effective Score
Mean Proportion Primary       0.446        0.581
 Strategy Suppression          
Regression Coefficient        0.480        0.666

Table 6-28. Analysis of Covariance Results for
 Score with Proportion of Respondents with Primary
 Strategy Organizational Development as a Covariate
 for Chronic and Emerging Cities

                             Chronic      Emerging
                            (n = 19)      (n = 18)

Mean General                  3.191        2.851
 Effectiveness Score
Mean Proportion Primary       0.106        0.057
 Strategy Organizational 
 Development
Regression Coefficient        0.889        1.844

Significance
 Levels   * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001

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

BUILDING CAUSAL REGRESSION MODELS

Our next step was to construct models of success
using the variables of our study. We search for
those factors, particularly those that proved
statistically significant, in our earlier,
individual-level analysis, which appeared to
contribute distinctively to success in dealing with
the gang problem. We had developed a general
effectiveness index based on improvement in the
problem over a seven or eight year period, as well
as perceptions of agency effectiveness and
interagency or community efforts to deal with the
problem. Here we attempt to first build a model
based on reports of improvement in the gang
situation since 1980. This is probably the most
valid of our outcome indicators (although it is
based on perceptions), since it directly addresses
the condition of problem reduction, and relies less
on individual agency-related perception and more on
city-related social reality.

Improvement in the Gang Problem Since 1980. From
the foregoing analyses of covariance, we know that
certain strategy commitments are significantly
associated with our measure of general
effectiveness. It should not be surprising, then if
the proportion of respondents from a site choosing
specific primary strategies was a component of a
model of perceived improvement, at least, for one
of our two major types of cities. Our effort to
build a model of perceived improvement for emerging
cities is not successful, and we have no model of
perceived improvement for emerging cities of
sufficient statistical strength to offer at the
present time. For chronic cities, however, our
findings are somewhat stronger.

Table 6-29 presents a regression model for the
proportion of respondents at the city level
perceiving the gang problem as having improved
since 1980 for chronic cities. Unlike our treatment
of perceived improvement as a contributor to our
measure of general effectiveness, our dependent
variable extends from a minimum value of zero for
no agencies reporting perceived improvement to a
maximum of value of 1.0 for all agencies reporting
perceived improvement. For this reason, positive
signs for partial regression coefficients indicate
more widespread perception of improvement in the
gang problem.

Two variables are significant predictors of
perceived improvement in the chronic gang problem
cities. The first and strongest is a measure of the
interaction between the proportional representation
of two primary strategies in a city. These
strategies are community organization and
opportunities provision. In combination at the city
level, these priority strategies by different
agencies are associated with an increase in
perceived improvement that is statistically
significant at the 0.001 level. Also, this
interaction term alone accounts for 40.2 percent of
the variation in our measure of perceived
improvement.

A second significant predictor of perceived
improvement is the average proportion of
involvement in the city-level network by all
actors. (This is one of the measures derived from
the earlier city-by-city network analysis in
chapter 5.)  By adding average proportion of
network to the regression model, we increase our
multiple regression coefficient significantly. The
t-statistic for the regression coefficient for
average proportion of network involvement is 2.79.
It is statistically significant at the 0.01 level.
The multiple R-squared statistic for the two
variable model is 0.598 indicating that 59.8
percent of the variation in perceived improvement
can be attributed to the model. The increase in
explained variation over the one-variable model is
19.6 percentiles.

Table 6-29. Regression Model for Proportion of
 City-Level Respondents Reporting Perceived
 Improvement in the Gang Problem since 1980 for
 Chronic Cities (n=18) 

Independent 
 Variable                 b       Beta     R-square

Interaction of         15.85 ***   0.67     0.402
Proportion Respondents
Exhibiting Community
Organization as Primary
Strategy and Proportion
Respondents Exhibiting
Opportunities Provision
as Primary Strategy

Average Proportion      0.42 **    0.44     0.196
of Network Involvement

                                    Total = 0.598

General Effectiveness. We turn our attention to the
construction of exploratory causal models of
general effectiveness. We present a multiple
regression model for general effectiveness score in
chronic cities (Table 6-30). General effectiveness
score, from above, is a weighted linear combination
of normalized transformations of perceived
improvement in the gang problem since 1980, self-
reported agency effectiveness in 1987, and
assessment of community or interagency
effectiveness efforts for 1987. We find that this
time an interaction term for the primary strategies
community organization and opportunities provision
is not included in the model. Unlike our earlier
model for perceived improvement, such a term is not
a significant predictor of general effectiveness
for chronic cities. The two primary strategies of
community organization and opportunities provision,
however, do each contribute directly to the
prediction of general effectiveness score in the
chronic cities. The third independent variable in
the chronic cities model is degree of consensus
across community respondents in respect to the
definition of what constitutes a gang incident.
(This variable is obtained from analysis described
in Chapter 2.) Together these variables account for
69 percent of the variation of the general
effectiveness measure in chronic cities.

Table 6-30. Regression Model for General
 Effectiveness Measure for Chronic Cities (n=9)

Independent 
 Variable                b        Beta     R-square

Proportion of         -5.69 ***  -0.863     0.302
Respondents Exhibiting 
Opportunities Provision 
as Primary Strategy

Proportion of         -3.60 **   -0.556     0.195
Respondents Exhibiting 
Community Organization 
as Primary Strategy

Consensus on         -2.946 **   -0.500     0.195
Method of Identifying 
Gang Incident
                                    Total = 0.692

Significance
 Levels  * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001

Table 6-31 presents an elaboration of the previous
model. We add the proportion of respondent agencies
in a chronic city that have an external advisory
group. This is a variable that was consistently
associated with a reduction of characteristics of
the gang problem in the analyses based on
individual-level respondent data in earlier
chapters. The strength of our multiple regression
improves. Together these four variables now explain
about 82 percent of the variation in the general
effectiveness score in the chronic cities. This
model of success has extraordinarily high
predictive power. 

Table 6-31. Regression Model for General
 Effectiveness Measure for Chronic Cities, (n=18),
 with Addition of External Advisory Group Proportion

Independent               b        Beta    r-square
 Variable

Proportion of           -4.81     -.730      0.302
 Respondents 
 Exhibiting Opportunities
 Provisions Primary Strategy

Proportion of           -4.17     -.643      0.195
 Respondents
 Exhibiting Community
 Organization Primary
 Strategy

Consensus on Method     -2.92     -.495      0.195
 Identifying Gang Incident

Proportion of           -1.03     -.393      0.125
 Respondent Agencies with
 an External Advisory Group
                                     Total = 0.817

Significance
 Levels  * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001

The model for our general effectiveness measure in
the emerging cities is not so elaborate. Only
community organization as a primary strategy
contributes to an explanation of the variation in
general effectiveness scores. We are left with what
we already know from our comparison of strategies
in the analysis of covariance of primary strategy
effectiveness. The proportion of city respondents
exhibiting community organization as a primary
strategy explains 31.1 percent of the variation of
the general effectiveness measure in emerging
cities (Table 6-32).

Table 6-32. Regression Model for General
 Effectiveness Measure for Emerging Cities (n=9)

Independent                b       Beta    r-square
 Variable

Proportion of           -3.01 *   -0.558    0.311
 Respondents Exhibiting 
 Community Organization as 
 Primary Strategy

Significance
 Levels  * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001


Finally, we attempted to discover those factors
that might be predictive of a promising approach
across all types of cities. Our results were
generally similar, but somewhat less potent than
when types of cities were separated. In a probit
regression analysis for improvement in the gang
situation, using all cities (n=35), the independent
variables that entered the equation were (1) the
interaction of the proportions of respondents
exhibiting community organization and the
proportions exhibiting opportunities provision as
primary strategies and (2) the average proportion
of network involvement by respondents. These two
variables accounted for 26 percent of the variance.

In a regression model for general effectiveness,
using all cities (n=39), the independent or
predictive variables were (1) the proportion of
respondents exhibiting community organization as a
primary strategy, (2) the proportion of respondents
exhibiting opportunities provision as a primary
strategy and (3) the average proportion of network
involvement by respondents. Those three variables
account for 51 percent of the variance.

Validity Check. Because of the unexpectedly high
prediction value of the variable in the foregoing
analysis, we determined to resolve a potential
issue of validity. We conducted an external
validity check of the "perceived improvement"
component of our measure of general effectiveness
by recontacting law enforcement representatives in
a sample of 21 cities or counties of our original
survey. We randomly selected 11 of the locations
from the 15 with the highest general effectiveness
scores and 10 of the locations from the 15 with the
lowest general effectiveness scores. We obtained
information on five empirical indicators:  number
of gang members, gang-related homicides, gang-
related assaults, and number of gang-related
narcotic incidents in 1980 and 1987. Most of the
law enforcement respondents had access to a data
base. Five of the 21 locations reported empirical
data only for the later point in time.

We find general agreement comparing perceptions of
improvement or deterioration and the five empirical
indicators per city or county. Problems of full
congruence occur for only 3 of the 21 locations. In
one case, perception by the police officer and
eight other non-police informants in this very
large city indicated a worsening of the youth gang
situation. However, three other non-police
respondents, perceived an improvement. More
importantly, the perception of the police officer
is not supported by any of the empirical
indicators. We observe, nevertheless, that the
official police data system in this city is
seriously flawed because data collection is based
on unclear definition and identifying procedures,
and unreliable recording of gang incidents,
particularly for youth 16 years and older.

In the second case, a county, the perceptions of
law enforcement and empirical indicators show an
absence or a low point in the youth gang problem
1980, with a peaking of the problem in 1987, but a
rapid and sharp decline in 1988, when the law
enforcement officer was interviewed. All of the
available empirical indicators signify an increase
in the problem for 1987, although the law
enforcement officer's response probably reflected
the improvement in the youth gang situation that
occurred only in 1988. In the third case, a county,
adequate data was available for only two of the
five empirical indicators at the two points in
time. Data on the other three indicators, however,
was available for the later period. The perception
of the law enforcement officer that the youth gang
situation had worsened was consistent with all of
the available empirical indicators, except one,
gang-related homicides, which showed a 23-percent
decline between 1980 and 1987.     

If we use the most rigorous standards for comparing
change in the youth gang problem based on the
perceptions of improvement and empirical indicators
between 1980 and 1987, we find the association is
perfect for 18 of 21 randomly selected cities or
counties for a general correspondence rate of 85.7
percent. A Fisher's Exact test reveals that the
hypothesis of no correspondence between perception
and the set of empirical measures can be rejected
at the 0.05 level of statistical significance.
Therefore, we regard our "perceived improvement"
component of our measure of general effectiveness
as valid.

Conclusion. This chapter and the report conclude
therefore on a hopeful note. It may be possible to
significantly reduce the gang problem across
chronic and emerging problem cities by utilizing
two major approaches:  Community organization and
opportunities provision, as well as consensus on
approaches and definitions, especially by key
actors. Community organization or community
mobilization efforts appear to be a common
denominator of effective strategies across
communities. In chronic gang problem cities, this
strategy may be much more powerful when combined
with an opportunities provision approach.

Our analysis does not conclude that law enforcement
and social agencies are or will be ineffective,
only that a community needs especially to emphasize
and support community organization and
opportunities provision strategies in their
policies and programs to confront gang problems.
Suppression and social intervention are basic and
essential strategies commonly found in all gang
problem cities and contexts. But they need to be
part of a more inclusive set of strategies, if a
reduction of the youth gang problem is to occur.

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

SUMMARY

In this final chapter we determine whether
different strategies, policies, and procedures of
agencies, separately and interactively in
particular types of cities, lead to a perceived
reduction in gang crime. First, we examine the
perceptions of respondents as to whether the gang
situation improved over a seven- or eight-year
period -- from 1980 until the time of the
administration of the survey in 1987 and 1988 -- and
whether agency and interagency or community-wide
efforts were also regarded as effective.

A large majority of respondents estimate that the
gang situation has deteriorated, although law
enforcement respondents are less pessimistic than
non-law enforcement respondents. We find that only
23.1 percent of the police, but even fewer of the
other respondents (10.4 percent), believe there has
been an improvement. These perceptions are regarded
as consistent since they are associated with mean
estimates that the numbers of gangs, gang members,
size of gangs, and the percent of total index
crimes attributed to gangs were significantly less
in the cities where respondents described the gang
situation as improved.

The pattern of serious gang crime (non-local gangs,
affiliation with criminal organizations, and gangs
organized for drug distribution purposes and
engaged in the importation of drugs) was also
perceived as significantly less often present by
those respondents perceiving the gang problem as
improved. Nevertheless, in these cases there was
little evidence that particular policies, agency
structures, or training patterns were significantly
related to such situational improvement. The one
exception was the presence of an external advisory
group to the agency which seemed to have some
positive impact, or at least a relationship to a
perceived gang problem reduction.

Respondent ratings of their agency's efforts were
more optimistic than their perception of an actual
diminished gang situation in the community. More
than 40 percent of all respondents saw their agency
as very effective in fighting gang crime. However,
unlike the variable of perceived improvement in the
gang situation, agency effectiveness was not seen
as significantly related to 11 of 12 measures of
the gang problem, nor was it related to the
measures of the more serious nature of the gang
problem. At the same time, a variety of agency
policies and organizational procedures such as
advisory structures, task forces, special training,
and organizational specialization are positively
related to a rating of agency effectiveness.

A general effectiveness score was created based on
three variables -- perceived improvement in the gang
situation, agency and interagency effectiveness
ratings. All three of these ratings were
significantly interrelated. A general effectiveness
score was then attributed to, and became the basis
for ranking of, cities and sites represented in our
survey. The specific rank constituted a basis for
selection of cities and sites for field visits and
further inquiry into the nature of the elements
comprising promising programs.

Our attempt to determine which approaches to the
gang problem might be more successful than others
shifted at this point from individual respondent or
agency to a city-level analysis. First, we
classified and distinguished systematically between
chronic and emerging problem cities. Discriminant
analysis procedures enabled us to correctly
classify 86.5 percent of the cities as chronic or
emerging, based on a small number of variables.
Chronic problem cities tend to be only slightly but
not significantly larger with significantly greater
numbers of Hispanic gang members. Emerging problem
cities tend to be characterized by a greater number
of black gang members. Respondents or key actors
are also more involved or closely interconnected in
the emerging gang problem cities.

The discriminant analysis procedure also permitted
us to classify two thirds of our cities correctly
in terms of primary strategy of intervention.
Programs in emerging cities are more likely to
exhibit community organization as a primary
strategy while programs in chronic cities are more
likely to be characterized by social intervention
or opportunity provision as primary strategies.

Next we attempt through the use of analysis of
covariance to determine which of the primary
strategies is most closely related to our general
effectiveness score. We begin to assess the value
of the different strategies in different types of
cities. The slope of the regression lines for
community organization is in the direction that
indicates a positive general effectiveness score
for both chronic and emerging problem cities,
although only the slope in the emerging cities is
statistically significant. The regression slopes
for social intervention in the two types of cities
are in the wrong direction, but are not quite
significant statistically. In other words, a
primary strategy of social intervention tends to be
associated with a negative general effectiveness
score.

Our best results are for the primary strategy of
opportunities provision in the chronic problem
cities. The regression slope in this case is
statistically significant. While the regression
slope is in the right direction for a positive
outcome in the emerging problem cities, we note
that very few emerging problem cities have employed
this strategy. For the suppression strategy, the
regression coefficients in either type of city
suggests that this as a primary strategy is not a
relatively effective one. These results are not
statistically significant. The pattern is the same
for organizational development and change as it is
for the suppression strategy.

Our next step in the discovery of promising
approaches for dealing with the gang problem is to
build causal models. First, we use the variable of
improved gang situation, since this is relatively
the most valid of our component measures of
outcome. In a probit regression model, we find that
two variables are significant predictors of
perceived improvement in the chronic problem
cities. The first and strongest is a measure of the
interaction at the city level of the strategies of
community organization and opportunities. Alone,
this interaction term accounts for 40.2 percent of
the variation in our measure of perceived
improvement. The second significant predictor is
the average proportion of involvement by
respondents in the city-level network of actors.
Together, these two variables account for almost 60
percent of the variation in perceived improvement
of the gang situation. This is a highly predictive
model. However, we are unable to develop a model
predictive of success using the variable of
improved gang situation in the emerging problem
cities.

We then turned to a multiple regression analysis
using the general effectiveness score as the
dependent variable or the measure of success in the
chronic gang problem cities. In this model the two
primary strategies of community organization and
opportunities provision separately predict a high
general effectiveness score. The third independent
variable is degree of consensus across community
respondents in respect to the definition of what
constitutes a gang incident (See Chapter 2). This
model was able to account for 69 percent of the
variance in chronic problem cities. Finally, we add
a fourth variable, the proportion of agencies in
the chronic gang cities that have an external
advisory group. Together these four variables now
account for 82 percent of the variance in the
general effectiveness score in chronic problem
cities. This model has extraordinarily high
predictive power.

The model for our general effectiveness measure in
the emerging cities is not so elaborate. Only
community organization as a primary strategy
contributes to an explanation of 31 percent of the
variance. This multiple regression model does not
add information that we did not have from our
analysis of covariance. The final set of analyses
across all cities where data are available
indicates that primary strategies of community
organization and opportunities provision, along
with maximum participation by key community actors
are predictive of a successful effort at dealing
with the gang problem. 

A validity check was also conducted of the
"perceived improvement" component of our measure of
general effectiveness. We recontacted law
enforcement representatives in a sample of 21
cities or counties of our original survey. We
obtained information on five empirical indicators:
number of gangs, gang members, gang-related
homicides, gang-related assaults, and number of
gang-related narcotic incidents in both 1980 and
1987. A Fisher's Exact test reveals that the
hypothesis of no correspondence between perception
and the set of empirical measures can be rejected
at the 0.05 level of statistical significance.
Therefore, we regard our "perceived improvement"
component of our measure of general effectiveness
as valid.

Finally we observed that strategies of suppression
and social intervention were common to all of our
cities and essential for dealing with the youth
gang problem, but that success was more likely when
community organization and opportunities provision
strategies were also present and emphasized.

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

ENDNOTES

1. 18 respondents did not answer this item.

2. Numerical problems encountered in the factor 
analysis of dichotomous variables have their own
literature (Muthen; Bock, Gibbons, and Muraki 
1988) [R. Darrell Bock, Robert Gibbons, Eiji 
Muraki, "Full Information Factor Analysis," 
Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 12, No. 3,
Sept. 1988, 261-280.] Here we use the PRELIS 
program of Joreskog and Sorbam to generate 
tetrachoric correlation coefficients and the 
matrix of coefficients into SPSS-PC+ ADVANCED 
using matrix methods of entry. The generalized 
least squares method of factor extraction is 
employed.

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

REFERENCES

Burt, Ronald S. 1982. Toward a Structural Theory of
Action:  Network Models of Social Structure,
Perception, and Action. New York:  Academic Press.

______. 1987. STRUCTURE. New York:  Columbia
University Press.

Cartwright, Desmond S., Barbara Tomson, and Hershey
Schwartz. 1975. Gang Delinquency. Monterey,
California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Dolan, Edward F., Jr. and S. Finney. 1984. Youth
Gangs. New York: Julian Messner.

Hoaglin, David C., Frederick Mosteller, and John W.
Tukey, (eds.). 1984. Understanding Robust and 
Exploratory Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley & 
Sons, Inc.

Horowitz, Ruth. 1983. Honor and the American Dream.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Jacobs, James B. 1977. Stateville: The Penitentiary
in Mass Society. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Johnson, Richard A. and Dean W. Wichern, 1982.
Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:  Prentice-Hall.

Klein, Malcolm W. 1971. Street Gangs and Street
Workers. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Klein, Malcolm W. and Cheryl L. Maxson 1989.
"Street Gang Violence," Neil A. Wiener and Marvin
E. Wolfgang (eds), Violent Crime, Violent
Criminals. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, pp 198-
234.

Miller, Walter B. 1975. Violence by Youth Gangs and
Youth Groups as a Crime Problem in Major American 
Cities. National Institute for Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of
Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.

______. 1982. Crime by Youth Gangs and Groups in
the United States. A Report Prepared for the
National Institute of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention of the U. S. Department of
Justice, February (Draft).

Moore, Joan W. 1978. Homeboys. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.

Sherman, Lawrence William. 1970. "Youth Workers,
Police and the Gangs: Chicago, 1956-1970. Master's
Thesis in the Division of Social Sciences, The
University of Chicago. November.

Skolnick, Jerome H. with Theodore Correl, Elizabeth
Narrio, and Roger Rabb. 1988 "The Social Structure
of Street Drug Dealing." Center for the Study of
Law and Society. University of California,
Berkeley.

Spergel, Irving. 1966. Community Problem Solving: 
the Delinquency Example. Chicago:  University of
Chicago Press. 

Spergel, Irving A. 1984. "Violent Gangs in Chicago:
In Search of Social Policy." Social Service Review
58(June).

Spergel, Irving A. with G. David Curry, Ron Chance,
Candice Kane, Ruth E. Ross, Alba Alexander, Pamela
Rodriguez, Deeda Seed, Edwina Simmons, and Sandra
Oh 1990. Youth Gangs: Problem and Response.
National Youth Gang Suppression and Intervention
Project, University of Chicago, School of Social
Service Administration and the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U. S.
Department of Justice. January.

Suttles, Gerald D. 1968. The Social Order of the
Slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Whyte, William F. 1943. Street Gang Society.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

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

APPENDIX A

Appendix Table 1-1.Reasons for Non-Inclusion of 
 Cities in this Study (N-55)

No Recognized Youth Gangs/
 Gang Activity (23)*

Albany, NY
Baltimore, MD
Buffalo, NY
Cambridge, MA
Charleston, SC
Charlotte, NC
Decatur, GA
Des Moines, IA
Fresno, CA
Greenville, MS
Jersey City, NJ
Kansas City, KS
Memphis, TN
New Orleans, LA
Oklahoma City, OK
Pasadena, CA
Pittsburgh, PA
Portsmouth, ME
Racine, WI
Springfield, MA
St. Petersburg, FL
Toledo, OH
Tulsa, OK

No Organized Response
 Specifically Addressing
 Youth Gangs (33)**

Anaheim, CA
Berkeley, CA
Boston, MA
Chattanooga, TN
Cincinnati, OH
Cleveland, OH
Compton, CA
Denver, CO
E. St.Louis, IL
El Paso, TX 
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Garden Grove, CA
Gary, IN
Glendale, CA 
Hartford, CT 
Honolulu, HI
Houston, TX
Huntington Beach, CA
Jacksonville, FL
Joliet, IL
Kansas City, MO
Las Vegas, NV
Lincoln, NE
Omaha, NE
Orlando, FL
Peoria, IL
San Antonio, TX
St. Louis. MO 
St. Paul, MN
San Bernardino, CA
San Pedro, CA
Spartansburg, SC
Torrance, CA

Excluded Because Outside U.S. Mainland (2)

Anchorage, AK
San Juan, PR

* Representatives from these cities stated that 
they did not have youth gang activity within their
jurisdiction.

** Representatives from these cities in general
recognized the presence of youth gangs, but had no
"organized approach" in place to address it.

Note: Refer to chapter 1 of this report for survey
selection criteria.

Appendix Table 2-2. Eigenvalues from Generalized
 Least Squares Factor Analysis of Gang Definition
 Variables.

Factor   Eigenvalue   Pct of Var   Cum Pct

  1       1.26          10.5         10.5

  2       1.06           8.9         19.4

  3       1.03           8.7         28.0

  4        .93           7.8         35.8

  5        .71           5.9         41.7

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

An MDS Approach to Gang Definition by Area

Our 12 criteria of gang definition can be used to
compute the "definitional" distance between each
pair of our 42 multiple-respondent geographic
areas. From the proportion of respondents in each
area citing each of our 12 definitional criteria,
we can calculate the Euclidian dissimilarity
distance between each of our sites. (We used the
SPSSX procedure PROXIMITIES 41 to generate these
measures.)  From the 861 dissimilarity distances
(Factorial 41) it is possible to generate a
multiple dimensional scaling (MDS) solution that
assigns each site a value on each of two principal
dimensions. The SPSSX procedure ALSCAL generates an
R squared for the percentage of the variation in
the Euclidean distance among the sites that can be
explained by the MDS analysis. In this case, R
squared equals 0.812 which is equivalent to 81.2
percent of the variation.  

Meaning can be attributed to each dimension by
examination of the correlation between each
dimension and each of our twelve definitional
criteria proportions by area. These correlations
are shown in Appendix Table 2-8. It should be
remembered that these dimensions are generated so
as to maximize the explanation of dissimilarity
among the sites. The references to "horizontal" and
"vertical" refer to the layout of the two
dimensions used to construct the mapping of the
sites onto the two-dimensional plane in Appendix
Figure 2-1. 

The first dimension (the horizontal in Appendix
Figure 2-1) is the stronger of the two dimensions.
Areas that appear to the left of Appendix Figure 2-
1 are more likely to consist of respondents who
emphasize the general criminal or anti-social
nature of the gang. Among the respondents in the
sites scoring high values on this dimension or
toward the right in Appendix Figure 2-1, there is a
tendency to define gangs in terms of their symbolic
aspects whether the emphasis is on general,
collective, or individual level symbols. This
dimension is complicated by the moderate positive
correlation of this dimension with defining the
gang in terms of its involvement in drug crime.
This complication is, however, mediated by the much
stronger correlation of definition in terms of drug
involvement with the second or vertical dimension
in Appendix Figure 2-1. At one extreme on this
dimension is Chino (where both respondents use
general crime criteria and only one uses one of the
three symbolic criteria in defining the gang) and
on the other is Shreveport (where one of the three
respondents uses a general criminality criteria and
all three use collective and general symbolic
criteria in defining the gang).

The second (vertical in Appendix Figure 2-1)
dimension is significantly and more strongly
(though negatively) related to respondents from a
site defining the gang in terms of involvement in
drug crime. This corresponds with being closer to
the bottom of the graph in Appendix Figure 2-1.
Being closer to the top in Appendix Figure 2-1
indicates the tendency of respondents to define the
gang in terms of organizational structure and
general group characteristics and in terms of
general criminality and anti-social behavior rather
than what has been described as the "instrumental"
behavior associated with drug trafficking. Again
our picture of the vertical dimension is
complicated by its moderate positive relationship
with emphasis on general symbols and its moderate
negative relationship with the common residence of
gang respondents. Detroit (where one respondent
uses general group and group structure criteria and
two use drug crime criteria in defining the gang)
is at one extreme on this dimension and Benton
Harbor (where all three respondents use general
group criteria, two use gang structure criteria,
and none use drug crime in defining the gang) at
the other.

Overall, it can also be said that in terms of
distinguishing differences in gang definitions
across geographic locales, attribution of non-
criminal behaviors to gangs, violence, involvement
in property crime, and the involvement of adults
are not very important criteria.

Appendix Table 2-7. Correlations between MDS
 Dimensions for Site Dissimilarity and Gang
 Definitional Criteria.

                       Dimension 1     Dimension 2
                       (Horizontal)    (Vertical)

General Group            -.2875          .4922 ***
Gang Structure            .0923          .6248 ***
Non-Criminal              .0005         -.1601
General Criminal         -.5230 ***      .3991 **
Drug Crime                .3511 *       -.6587 ***
Violence                 -.0130          .1078
Property Crime            .0759         -.0376
Collective Symbols        .6976 ***     -.0052
Individual Symbols        .4152 **      -.0553
General Symbols           .8974 ***      .3306 *
Adults Involved           .0486         -.0426
Reside Same Locale       -.0937         -.3520 *  

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

An MDS Approach to Gang Definition by Respondent
Category

A multi-dimensional scaling analysis is also
performed on our gang definition criteria by
respondent category. The R squared statistic for
the two derived dimensions is 0.903. The
correlations between the two resulting dimensions
and our twelve definitional criteria are shown in
Appendix Table 2-9. The first dimension (shown
horizontally in Appendix Figure 2-2) that separates
our respondents by respondent category is
significantly negatively related to collective
symbols and involvement in drug crime and
positively related to general group
characteristics. The second differentiating
dimension (shown vertically in Appendix Figure 2-2)
is significantly positively related to violence and
property crime and negatively related to
organizational structure and individual-level
symbols.

Appendix Figure 2-2 shows the location of the
thirteen multiple-respondent categories mapped
onto the two dimensional space derived from our MDS
analysis. Respondent categories that are located
toward the left are more concerned with collective
symbols and involvement in drug crime in their
definition of the gang. The judges and family
service agencies (89 percent and 88 percent of whom
respectively use collective symbols in defining the
gang) score low on Dimension 1 and are located
toward the left side of the graph.  Respondent
categories that are located toward the right are
more concerned with the general group
characteristics of the gang in their definition.
The comprehensive service agencies (all three of
whom use general group criteria in their gang
definitions) score highest on this dimension. 

The second dimension shown vertically in Appendix
Figure 2-2 opposes concern with gang structure and
individual level symbols (toward the bottom of the
figure) and violence and property crime (toward the
top of the figure). Grass roots and planning
agencies score highest on this dimension, though
they are widely separated by their scores on the
first (horizontal dimension). Corrections (86
percent of whom use general group criteria and
individual level symbols in their gang definitions)
respondents score lowest on this dimension.

Definitional criteria that do little to separate
organizations on the basis of their definition of
the gang are non-criminal gang activities, general
criminal activity, general symbols, the involvement
of adults, and common residence. 

Appendix Table 2-9. Correlations between MDS
 Dimensions for Respondent Category Dissimilarity
 and Gang Definitional Criteria.

                       Dimension 1     Dimension 2
                       (Horizontal)    (Vertical)

General Group              .7166**       -.3387
Gang Structure             .5060         -.7542**
Non-Criminal              -.3399          .3909
General Criminal           .5364         -.3686
Drug Crime                -.7103**        .0823
Violence                   .2010          .7516**
Property Crime            -.3015          .6971**
Collective Symbols        -.8787***      -.4320
Individual Symbols        -.1259         -.6701**
General Symbols           -.0480          .0629
Adults Involved           -.2058          .1578
Reside Same Locale         .2500         -.0349   

** Significant at 0.01 level.
*** Significant at 0.001 level.   

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

An MDS Approach to Membership Identification by
Area 

Our nine criteria of gang member identification can
be used to compute the "definitional" distance
between each pair of our 42 multiple-respondent
geographic sites. From the proportion of
respondents at each site citing each of our nine
identification criteria, we can calculate the
Euclidian dissimilarity distance between each of
our sites just as we did above with our
definitional criteria.  From the 861 dissimilarity
distances, we generate a multiple dimensional
scaling (MDS) solution that assigns each site a
value on each of two principal dimensions. Our R
squared equals 0.786 which is equivalent to
explaining 78.6 percent of the variation in
Euclidian distance among our sites. 

The correlations between our two dimensions and
each of our member identification criteria are
shown in Appendix Table 2-15. As above, the
references to "horizontal" and "vertical" refer to
the layout of the two dimensions used to construct
the mapping of the sites onto the two-dimensional
plane in Appendix Figure 2-3 where we use the first
or stronger of the two dimensions as the horizontal
axis for our graph. 

The first dimension (horizontal axis) is
significantly negatively related to five of our
nine criteria--self-identification, association,
symbolic behavior, type of criminal behavior, and
informant identification. Location or residence is
also significantly related to this dimension, but
the relationship is positive. This criteria is also
significantly related to the second dimension
though the direction of the relationship is
negative.

In addition to location or residence, the second
(vertical in Appendix Figure 2-3) dimension is
significantly negatively related to police
identification and other legal identification.
Moderately significant negative relationships also
exist between the second dimension and symbolic
behavior and other institutional identification.

Unlike our results from our earlier MDS analyses,
none of our criteria for identifying gang members
is completely inconsequential in accounting for the
dissimilarity among sites. The contribution of
other institutional identification to
distinguishing between sites is, however, not very
great. 

Appendix Table 2-10. Eigenvalues from Generalized
 Least Squares Factor Analysis of Gang Member
 Definition Variables.

Factor     Eigenvalue     Pct of Var     Cum Pct

  1           1.13           12.5          12.5
  2            .96           10.7          23.2
  3            .85            9.5          32.7
  4            .34            3.8          36.4

Appendix Table 2-15  Correlations between MDS
 Dimensions for Area Dissimilarity and Gang
 Definitional Criteria.

                       Dimension 1     Dimension 2
                       (Horizontal)    (Vertical)

Symbolic Behavior       -.5368 ***     -.3095 *
Association             -.7691 ***      .1547
Criminal Behavior       -.3787 **       .1039
Location/Residence       .3826 **      -.3958 **
Self-ID                 -.7706 ***     -.1288
Police ID               -.0301         -.9053 ***
Informant ID            -.3889 **       .1799
Other Legal ID          -.1978         -.4843 ***
Other Institutional ID  -.0385         -.3077 *  

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

An MDS Approach to Gang Member Definition by
Respondent Category

A multi-dimensional scaling analysis is also
performed on our methods of identifying gang
members by respondent category. The R squared
statistic for the two derived dimensions is 0.930.
The correlations between the two resulting
dimensions and our nine definitional criteria are
shown in Appendix Table 2-16. The first dimension
(shown horizontally in Appendix Figure 2-4) that
separates our respondents by respondent category is
significantly and positively related to informant
identification, police identification, and
association. The second differentiating dimension
(shown vertically in Appendix Figure 2-4) is
significantly positively related to identifying
gang members by type of crimes committed. There are
weaker negative relationships between symbolic
behavior and other institutional identification and
this second dimension. 

Appendix Figure 2-4 shows the location of the
thirteen multiple-respondent categories mapped
onto the two dimensional space derived from our MDS
analysis. Respondent categories that are located
toward the right are more likely to rely on police,
informants, and associations in their
identification of gang members. The second
dimension shown vertically in Appendix Figure 2-4
places respondent categories who are more concerned
with type of crime in identifying gang members
closer to the top of the graph and those who
identify gang membership by symbolic behavior and
the perceptions of non-legal institutions closer to
the bottom. Note that this dimension is one that
clearly separates criminal justice from social
service agencies.

Definitional criteria that do little to separate
respondent categories on the basis of their methods
of identifying or defining gang members are
location or residence, self-identification, and
identification by non-police criminal justice
agencies. 

Appendix Table 2-16. Correlations between MDS
 Dimensions for Respondent Category Dissimilarity
 and Gang Member Identification Criteria.

                       Dimension 1     Dimension 2
                       (Horizontal)    (Vertical)

Symbolic Behavior          .0750     -.5546 *     
Association                .6622 **   .4746     
Criminal Behavior          .1003      .8647 ***    
Location/Residence        -.3814     -.1474     
Self-ID                    .3594      .4188     
Police ID                  .8164 *** -.1095     
Informant ID               .8859 *** -.3686     
Other Legal ID            -.4488      .2522     
Other Institutional ID     .1097     -.6152 *      

* Significant at 0.05 level.
** Significant at 0.01 level.
*** Significant at 0.001 level.   

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

An MDS Approach to Gang Incident by Site

Our nine criteria for identifying gang incidents
can be used to compute the "definitional"
dissimilarity between each pair of our 42 multiple-
respondent geographic sites. From the proportion of
respondents at each site citing each of our nine
identification criteria, we can calculate the
Euclidian dissimilarity distance between each of
our sites just as we have done for our definitional
criteria for the gang and gang membership.  From
the 861 dissimilarity distances, we generate a
multiple dimensional scaling (MDS) solution that
assigns each site a value on each of two principal
dimensions. Our R squared equals 0.823 which is
equivalent to explaining 82.3 percent of the
variation in Euclidian distance among our sites.  

The correlations between our two dimensions and
each of our incident identification criteria are
shown in Appendix Table 2-23. As above, the
references to "horizontal" and "vertical" refer to
the layout of the two dimensions used to construct
the mapping of the sites onto the two-dimensional
plane in Appendix Figure 2-23 where we use the
first or stronger of the two dimensions as the
horizontal axis for our graph. 

The first dimension is positively related to two
criteria, most strongly to the involvement of a
gang member and more moderately to gang claims.
Perhaps of most theoretical interest to us here is
the negative relationship between this dimension
and an incident's serving gang function. This means
that sites that fall toward the upper end (right
horizontally) of dimension 1 are those where
respondents were more likely to cite membership
involvement as opposed to gang function, with the
opposite condition holding for those sites that
fall more toward the lower end (left) on dimension
1.  As Appendix Figure 2-5 shows, when the complete
set of agencies from a site are taken into account,
LA County and Chicago as sites do not reflect the
extreme differences in definition of a gang
incident that has been the subject of much recent
discussion among practitioners especially law
enforcement agencies.

The second (vertical in Appendix Figure 2-5)
dimension is significantly positively related to
the modus operandi of the incident. Also moderately
and negatively related to gang member involvement
and other institutional identification of the
incident as gang-related, dimension 2 is not
significantly related to concerns about gang
function. 

Overall, it can also be said that in terms of 
distinguishing differences in the methods
for identifying gang incidents across geographic
locales, the involvement of rival gangs and the
location of the incident are not very important
criteria.

Appendix Table 2-18. Eigenvalues from Generalized
 Least Squares Factor Analysis of Gang Incident
 Definition Variables.

Factor       Eigenvalue     Pct of Var     Cum Pct

  1            1.22            13.7          13.7
  2             .92            10.3          24.0
  3             .89             9.9          33.8
  4             .58             6.4          40.2
  5             .27             3.0          43.2 

Appendix Table 2-23. Correlations between MDS
Dimensions for Site Dissimilarity and Gang
Definitional Criteria.

                        Dimension 1     Dimension 2
                        (Horizontal)     (Vertical)

Gang Member Involved     .8504 ***      -.3227 *
Furthers Gang Function  -.4276 **       -.2952
Gang Modus Operandi      .1181           .8446 ***
Multiple Offenders      -.6920 ***      -.2584
 Involved
Rival Gangs Involved     .0844          -.0035
Youth Involved          -.4867 ***      -.0928
Gang Claims Incident     .3861 **        .0305
Other Institution       -.0016          -.4101 ** 
 Identifies
Location of Incident    -.0149           .2702

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

An MDS Approach to Gang Incident by Respondent
Category

A multi-dimensional scaling analysis is also
performed on our methods of identifying gang
incident by respondent category. The R squared
statistic for the two derived dimensions is 0.898.
The correlations between the two resulting
dimensions and our nine definitional criteria for
gang-related incidents are shown in Appendix Table
2-24.

The first dimension (shown horizontally in Appendix
Figure 2-6) that separates our respondents by
respondent category is positively related to other
institutional identification and negatively related
to gang function. Across respondent categories,
there is not the polarization by member involvement
versus gang function that we see in our MDS
analysis of differences in identifying gang
incidents by site. The second differentiating
dimension (shown vertically in Appendix Figure 2-6)
is negatively related to membership involvement and
moderately negatively related to the number of
offenders involved in the incident.

Appendix Figure 2-6 shows the location of the
thirteen multiple-respondent categories mapped
onto the two dimensional space derived from our MDS
analysis. Since respondent categories that are
located toward the left are more likely to be
concerned with gang function and since respondent
categories that are located toward the bottom of
the graph are more likely to be concerned with the
involvement of gang members in incidents, we can
say the comprehensive service agencies that are
located in the lower left quadrant express concern
with both criteria to the degree that it
distinguishes them from other respondent
categories. Planning agencies in the upper right
corner are very far from the comprehensive service
agencies when it comes to defining gang incidents.

Of little importance in distinguishing respondent
categories when it comes to defining gang incidents
are modus operandi, the involvement of rival gangs,
the involvement of youth, gang claims about
incidents, and incident locations. 

Appendix Table 2-24. Correlations between MDS
 Dimensions for Respondent Category Dissimilarity
 and Incident Definitional Criteria.

                        Dimension 1    Dimension 2
                        (Horizontal)   (Vertical)

Gang Member Involved       -.0851      -.8525 ***
Furthers Gang Function     -.9773 ***  -.1269
Gang Modus Operandi         .1779      -.1465
Multiple Offenders         -.3025      -.6554 *
 Involved
Rival Gangs Involved        .2219      -.2323
Youth Involved              .4326       .2466
Gang Claims Incident        .2218       .2239
Other Institution           .8125 ***   .4475
 Identifies
Location of Incident        .1954       .0372 
 
** Significant at 0.01 level.
*** Significant at 0.001 level.   

Appendix Table 3-4. Estimates of the Average Size
 of the Total Gang

(Law Enforcement Only)
                     N         %             %

Up to 50            18        34.6          47.4
51 to 100            7        13.5          18.4     
100 to 1,000        13        25.0          34.2    
Missing             14        26.9
Total               52       100.0         100.0

Mean = 144.4  Median = 60.0  
5% Trimean = 123.2  Standard Deviation = 173.6  

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                         N         %         %

Up to 50                57       28.2       43.2
51 to 100               33       16.3       25.0     
100 to 1,000            36       17.8       27.3     
Over 1,000               6        3.0        4.5
Missing                 70       34.7   
Total                  202      100.0      100.0

Mean = 371.5  Median = 75.0
5% Trimean = 146.2  Standard Deviation = 1394.8  

Appendix Table 3-5. Estimates of the Percent of
 Gang Members Who Are Black (1987) 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                    N         %         %

None                2         3.8      4.3 
1% to 25%          12        23.1     25.5     
25% to 50%          7        13.5     14.9     
50% to 100%        22        42.3     46.8     
100%                4         7.7      8.5    
Missing             5         9.6
Total              52       100.0    100.0

Mean = 54.5  Median = 53.0  
5% Trimean = 54.9  Standard Deviation = 36.5  

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                         N          %        %

None                    11         5.4      6.0      
Less than 1%             1          .5       .5   
1% to 25%               49        24.3     26.6     
25% to 50%              32        15.8     17.4     
50% to 100%             82        40.6     44.6     
100%                     9         4.5      4.9    
Missing                 18         8.9
Total                  202       100.0    100.0

Mean = 47.9  Median = 46.0
5% Trimean = 47.8  Standard Deviation = 33.7 

Appendix Table 3-6. Estimates of the Percent of
 Gang Members Who Are Hispanic (1987) 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                    N         %         %

None               12        23.1     25.5     
1% to 25%          10        19.2     21.3     
25% to 50%         10        19.2     21.3     
50% to 100%        15        28.8     31.9    
Missing             5         9.6  
Total              52       100.0    100.0

Mean = 32.6  Median = 28.0  
5% Trimean = 30.9  Standard Deviation = 32.2  

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                    N         %         %

None               39        19.3     21.2  
Less than 1%        1          .5       .5  
1% to 25%          36        17.8     19.6  
25% to 50%         47        23.3     25.5  
50% to 100%        58        28.7     31.5  
100%                3         1.5      1.6  
Missing            18         8.9   
Total             202       100.0    100.0

Mean = 35.9  Median = 30.0  
5% Trimean = 34.6  Standard Deviation = 31.3  

Appendix Table 3-7. Estimates of the Percent of
 Hispanic Gang Members Who Are Mexican (1987) 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                         N         %         %

None                    16        30.8     47.1 
0 to less than 1%        0         0.0      0.0
1% to 25%                1         1.9      2.9 
25% to 50%               1         1.9      2.9 
50% to 100%              3         5.8      8.8 
100%                    13        25.0     38.2 
Missing                 18        34.6
Total                   52       100.0    100.0

Mean = 46.53   Median = 16.00
5% Trimean = 46.14  Standard Deviation = 48.68 

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                         N         %         % 

None                    54        26.7     39.4 
0 to less than 1%        0         0.0      0.0
1% to 25%                6         3.0      4.4 
25% to 50%               6         3.0      4.4 
50% to 100%             37        18.3     27.0 
100%                    34        16.8     24.8 
Missing                 65        32.2  
Total                  202       100.0    100.0

Mean = 48.3  Median = 50
5% Trimean = 48.1  Standard Deviation = 45

Appendix Table 3-8. Estimates of the Percent of
 Hispanic Gang Members Who Are Puerto Rican (1987) 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                         N         %         %

None                    24        46.2     70.6 
0 to less than 1%        0         0.0      0.0
1% to 25%                4         7.7     11.8 
25% to 50%               0         0.0      0.0
50% to 100%              3         5.8      8.8 
100%                     3         5.8      8.8 
Missing                 18        34.6   
Total                   52       100.0    100.0

Mean = 15.99   Median = 0.0
5% Trimean = 12.21  Standard Deviation = 32.19

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                         N         %         %

None                    92        45.5     67.2 
0 to Less than 1%        0         0.0      0.0
1% to 25%               17         8.4     12.4 
25% to 50%               6         3.0      4.4 
50% to 100%             16         7.9     11.7 
100%                     6         3.0      4.4 
Missing                 65        32.2 
Total                  202       100.0    100.0

Mean = 14.58   Median = 0.00
5% Trimean = 10.71  Standard Deviation = 28.90

Appendix Table 3-9. Estimates of the Percent of
 Hispanic Gang Members Who Are Other Hispanic (1987)

(Law Enforcement Only)
                         N         %         %

None                    31        59.6     91.2 
0 to less than 1%        0         0.0      0.0
1% to 25%                0         0.0      0.0
25% to 50%               1         1.9      2.9 
50% to 100%              2         3.8      5.9 
100%                     0         0.0      0.0
Missing                 18        34.6   
Total                   52       100.0    100.0

Mean = 5.63   Median = 0.00
5% Trimean = 1.59  Standard Deviation = 20.16

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                         N         %         %

None                    98        48.5     71.5
Over 0, Under 1%         1          .5       .7
1% to 25%               24        11.9     17.5
25% to 50%               6         3.0      4.4
50% to 100%              8         4.0      5.8
100%                     0         0.0      0.0
Missing                 65        32.2   
Total                  202       100.0    100.0

Mean = 7.23   Median 0.00
5% Trimean = 3.82  Standard Deviation = 18.4

Appendix Table 3-10. Estimates of the Percent of
 Gang Members Who Are White (1987) 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                    N         %         %

None               16        30.8      34.0     
1% to 25%          30        57.7      63.8     
50% to 100%         1         1.9       2.1    
Missing             5         9.6   
Total              52       100.0     100.0

Mean = 4.8  Median = 2.0
5% Trimean = 3.6  Standard Deviation = 8.1

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                    N         %         %

None               47        23.3      25.5 
Less than 1%        2         1.0       1.1 
1% to 25%         123        60.9      66.8 
25% to 50%          9         4.5      4.9 
50% to 100%         3         1.5       1.6 
Missing            18         8.9   
Total             202       100.0     100.0

Mean = 7.8  Median = 5.0
5% Trimean = 6.2  Standard Deviation = 11.0

Appendix Table 3-11. Estimates of the Percent of
 Gang Members Who Are Asian (1987) 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                    N         %         %

None               27        51.9      57.4     
Less than 1%        2         3.8       4.3     
1% to 25%          14        26.9      29.8     
25% to 50%          2         3.8       4.3     
50% to 100%         1         1.9       2.1     
100%                1         1.9       2.1    
Missing             5         9.6   
Total              52       100.0     100.0

Mean = 6.1  Median = 0.0
5% Trimean = 2.9  Standard Deviation = 17.1

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                    N         %         %

None              108        53.5      58.7  
Less than 1%        7         3.5       3.8  
1% to 25%          60        29.7      32.6  
25% to 50%          5         2.5       2.7  
50% to 100%         2         1.0       1.1  
100%                2         1.0       1.1  
Missing            18         8.9   
Total             202       100.0     100.0

Mean = 5.1  Median = 0.0
5% Trimean = 2.4  Standard Deviation = 15.0

Appendix Table 3-12. Gangs with the Same Name are
 Found in Different Areas 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                     N         %       %

Yes                 33       63.5    63.5   
No                  19       36.5    36.5   
Total               52      100.0   100.0

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                     N         %      %

Yes                138       68.3    75.0     
No                  46       22.8    25.0  
Missing             18        8.9 
Total              202      100.0   100.0

Appendix Table 3-13. Estimates of the Percent of
 Total Part 1 or Index Offenses Attributed to Youth
 Gangs in 1987

 (Law Enforcement Only)
                             N         %         %

None                         2         3.8      5.9  
Over 0, Under 10%           12        23.1     35.3   
10% to less than 20%         6        11.5     17.6   
20% to less than 50%         9        17.3     26.5   
50% to less than 90%         5         9.6     14.7   
90% to less than 100%        0
100%                         0
Missing                     18        34.6   
Total                       52       100.0    100.0

Mean = 22.74   Median = 11.25
5% Trimean = 20.94  Standard Deviation = 24.26

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                            N         %         %

None                        7         3.5      7.3   
Over 0, Under 10%          15         7.4     15.6   
10% to less than 20%       17         8.4     17.7   
20% to less than 50%       30        14.9     31.3   
50% to less than 90%       22        10.9     22.9   
90% to less than 100%       5         2.5      5.2   
100%                        0
Missing                   106        52.5   
Total                     202       100.0    100.0

Mean = 32.69  Median = 20.05
5% Trimean = 31.32  Standard Deviation = 28.94

Appendix Table 3-14. Estimates of the Percent of
 Gang Offenders with Prior Police Records (1987)

(Law Enforcement Only)
                             N         %         %

Over 0, Under 10%            2         3.8      4.9   
20% to less than 50%         1         1.9      2.4   
50% to less than 90%        23        44.2     56.1   
90% to less than 100%       13        25.0     31.7   
100%                         2         3.8      4.9   
Missing                     11        21.2   
Total                       52       100.0    100.0

Mean = 75.00   Median = 80.00
5% Trimean = 77.47  Standard Deviation = 22.41

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                             N         %         % 

None                         4         2.0      2.6  
Over 0, Under 10%            3         1.5      1.9  
10% to less than 20%         4         2.0      2.6  
20% to less than 50%        14         6.9      9.0  
50% to less than 90%        80        39.6     51.6  
90% to less than 100%       33        16.3     21.3  
100%                        17         8.4     11.0  
Missing                     47        23.3   
Total                      202       100.0    100.0

Mean = 70.08   Median = 75.00
5% Trimean = 72.20  Standard Deviation = 27.14

Appendix Table 3-15. Estimates of the Percent of
 Gang-Related Incidents or Cases Involving Adults in
 1987 

(Law Enforcement Only)

                    N          %         %

None                1         1.9       2.6   
0 to 20%            4         7.7      10.3   
20% to 50%         16        30.8      41.0   
50% to 75%         12        23.1      30.8   
75% to 100%         6        11.5      15.4   
100%                0
Missing            13        25.0        
Total              52       100.0     100.0

Mean = 45.56  Median = 40.00
5% Trimean = 45.35  Standard Deviation = 25.43

(Excluding Law Enforcement)

                    N          %         %

None               45        22.3      29.2  
0 to 20%           30        14.9      19.5  
20% to 50%         54        26.7      35.1    
50% to 75%         13         6.4       8.4    
75% to 100%         8         4.0       5.2    
100%                4         2.0       2.6    
Missing            48        23.8   
Total             202       100.0     100.0

Mean = 23.66   Median = 20.00
5% Trimean = 20.95  Standard Deviation = 26.31

Appendix Table 3-16. The More Serious Part of the
 Gang Problem 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                    N         %         %

Juvenile           18        34.6     35.3 
Adult               5         9.6      9.8     
Both               28        53.8     54.9    
Missing             1         1.9
Total              52       100.0    100.0

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                    N         %         %

Juvenile           78        38.6     41.5     
Adult              21        10.4     11.2     
Both               89        44.1     47.3    
Missing            14         6.9   
Total             202       100.0    100.0

Appendix Table 3-17. Respondents Reporting Gang
 Affiliation with Adult Criminal Organizations 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                    N         %         %

Yes                39        75.0     75.0     
No                 13        25.0     25.0    
Total              52       100.0    100.0

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                    N         %         %

Yes               154        76.2     83.7     
No                 30        14.9     16.3    
Missing            18         8.9   
Total             202       100.0    100.0

Appendix Table 3-18. Drugs are a Primary Purpose of
 the Gang 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                    N         %         %

Yes                28        53.8     54.9
No                 23        44.2     45.1    
Missing             1         1.9   
Total              52       100.0    100.0

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                    N         %         %

Yes               121        59.9     63.4     
No                 70        34.7     36.6    
Missing            11         5.4   
Total             202       100.0    100.0

Appendix Table 3-19. Gang Members Involved in the
 Importation of Drugs 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                    N         %         %

Yes                30        57.7     63.8     
No                 17        32.7     36.2    
Missing             5         9.6
Total              52       100.0    100.0

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                    N         %         %

Yes                93        46.0     56.0     
No                 73        36.1     44.0    
Missing            36        17.8   
Total             202       100.0    100.0

Appendix Table 4-1. Total Number of Staff in
 Respondent's Agency 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                         N         %         %

10 and Under            11        21.2     22.4   
11 through 30            9        17.3     18.4   
31 through 200           6        11.5     12.2  
201 through 1,000       14        26.9     28.6  
Over 1,000               9        17.3     18.4  
Missing                  3         5.8   
Total                   52       100.0    100.0

Mean = 1050.67   Median = 119.00
5% Trimean = 361.26  Standard Deviation = 4232.29

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                         N         %         %

10 and Under            46        22.8     28.8     
11 through 30           41        20.3     25.6     
31 through 200          46        22.8     28.8     
201 through 1,000       18         8.9     11.3     
Over 1,000               9         4.5      5.6    
Missing                 42        20.8   
Total                  202       100.0    100.0

Mean = 276.83   Median = 25.00
5% Trimean = 103.67  Standard Deviation = 960.04

Appendix Table 4-2. Organizations with Special Gang
 Policies and Procedures 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                    N         %         %

Yes                26        50.0     52.0     
No                 24        46.2     48.0    
Missing             2         3.8   
Total              52       100.0    100.0

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                    N         %         %

Yes               104        51.5     58.1     
No                 75        37.1     41.9    
Missing            23        11.4   
Total             202       100.0    100.0

Appendix Table 4-3. Organizations whose Special
 Gang Policies and Procedures are in Writing 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                    N         %         %

Yes                20        38.5     48.8     
No                 21        40.4     51.2    
Missing            11        21.2   
Total              52       100.0    100.0

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                    N         %         %

Yes                65        32.2     43.9     
No                 83        41.1     56.1    
Missing            54        26.7   
Total             202       100.0    100.0

Appendix Table 4-4. Organization that have
 Influenced Legislation Related to Gangs 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                    N         %         %

Yes                13        25.0     25.5     
No                 37        71.2     74.5     
Missing             2         3.8        
Total              52       100.0    100.0

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                    N         %         %

Yes                46        22.8     24.3     
No                143        70.8     75.7    
Missing            13         6.4   
Total             202       100.0    100.0

Appendix Table 4-5. Organizations that Provide
 Special Training on Gangs for Personnel 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                    N         %         %

Yes                45        86.5     86.5     
No                  7        13.5     13.5    
Total              52       100.0    100.0

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                   N         %         %

Yes               122        60.4     71.3     
No                 49        24.3     28.7    
Missing            31        15.3
Total             202       100.0    100.0

Appendix Table 4-6. Agencies with Organizational
 Specialization to Deal with the Gang Problem 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                    N         %  

Yes                22        42.3
No                 30        57.7
Total              52       100.0

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                    N         %  

Yes                41        79.7
No                161        20.3
Total             202       100.0

Appendix Table 4-7. Organizations that have a
 Special Internal Advisory Structure 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                    N         %         %

Yes                12        23.1     24.0     
No                 38        73.1     76.0    
Missing             2         3.8   
Total              52       100.0    100.0

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                    N         %         %

Yes                59        29.2     32.1     
No                125        61.9     67.9    
Missing            18         8.9   
Total             202       100.0    100.0

Appendix Table 4-8. Organizations that have a
 Special External Advisory Structure 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                    N         %         %

Yes                17        32.7     33.3     
No                 34        65.4     66.7    
Missing             1         1.9   
Total              52       100.0    100.0

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                    N         %         %

Yes               113        55.9     58.5     
No                 80        39.6     41.5    
Missing             9         4.5   
Total             202       100.0    100.0

Appendix Table 4-9. Respondents who Report
 Coordination Efforts by Inter-Agency Task Forces or
 Community-Wide Organizations in 1987 

(Law Enforcement Only)
                    N         %         %

Yes                36        69.2     72.0     
No                 14        26.9     28.0    
Missing             2         3.8   
Total              52       100.0    100.0

(Excluding Law Enforcement)
                    N         %         %

Yes               125        61.9     68.3     
No                 58        28.7     31.7    
Missing            19         9.4   
Total             202       100.0    100.0

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

MDS Strategy Differences Across Areas and
Respondent Categories

Differences among Sites in Strategy 

Multidimensional scaling analysis is again used to
provide an exploratory map that illustrates the
differences across sites with respect to primary
strategy. First we generate euclidean distances
between each pair of areas from the proportion of
respondents in each site who exhibit each primary
strategy. The input for this analysis is the
content of Table 5-5. The two dimensions of the
"map" are derived in the same manner as the ones we
generated for definitions above. Their meanings can
be inferred from the correlations between area
location on the designated dimension and the
proportions of respondents in each area exhibiting
a primary strategy. The relative locations of each
area on the two dimensions are shown in Appendix
Figure 5-1. The R squared statistic for this MDS
solution is 0.932 which means that the solution
accounts for 93.2% of the variation in Euclidean
distances between the sites.

The first dimension (horizontal) loads negatively
on three strategies, community organization,
organizational development, and suppression. The
second dimension (vertical) loads positively on
social intervention and community organization and
negatively on suppression. The presence of
opportunities and alternatives strategies do not
significantly contribute to the differences between
the sites.

Appendix Table 5-5. Proportion of Respondents
 Exhibiting Each Strategy (Regardless of Rank) by
 Area

CITY            COMORG  SOC-   OPPS  SUP-  ORGDEVCH
                        INTER        PRESS
Albuquerque*     .00    .50    .33   .83     .17
Benton Harbor    .33    .67    .33  1.00     .00
Cicero           .50   1.00    .00   .50     .00
Chicago*         .27    .73    .47   .47     .27
Columbus         .70    .80    .50   .70     .30
Detroit*         .33    .00    .00   .33     .33
El Monte*        .40    .80    .60   .20     .00
Evanston         .67    .67    .67   .33     .33
Flint            .67    .33    .00   .67     .00
Fort Wayne       .75    .75    .25   .50     .50
Indianapolis     .33    .33    .00   .83     .17
Jackson          .00    .67    .00  1.00     .00
Long Beach*      .40    .60    .20   .80     .20
LA City*         .67    .71    .43   .52     .24
LA County*       .20    .30    .10   .80     .30
Louisville       .50    .83    .00  1.00     .33
Madison          .67    .33    .00  1.00     .67
Miami            .27    .40    .13   .53     .47
Milwaukee        .50    .50    .50   .63     .25
Minneapolis      .57    .57    .14   .57     .29
New York*        .20    .60    .40   .47     .13
Oakland*         .67    .00    .33  1.00     .33
Pomona*          .20    .60    .20   .60     .20
Philadelphia*   1.00    .60    .40   .60     .40
Phoenix*        1.00   1.00    .00  1.00     .67
Reno            1.00    .67    .00  1.00     .00
Rockford         .50   1.00    .00  1.00     .00
Sacramento       .75    .25    .25   .75     .75
San Diego*       .40    .60    .30   .40     .40
San Francisco*   .17    .50    .50   .50     .33
Salt Lake City   .50   1.00    .50   .75     .00
Santa Ana*      1.00    .71    .29   .57     .43
Shreveport       .33    .00    .00  1.00     .33
Sterling         .67    .00    .33  1.00     .00
Stockton*        .67    .67    .00   .67     .17
Tallahassee     1.00    .50    .50  1.00    1.00
Tucson*          .67    .33    .00  1.00     .33
Inglewood*       .75    .50    .25   .50     .25
CA-CYA*          .67    .00    .67  1.00     .33
San Jose*        .14    .43    .29   .57     .14
Chino*           .00    .50    .50  1.00     .50
E.LA*            .50    .75    .25   .50     .75

* Chronic Areas

Appendix Table 5-6. Proportion of Respondents in
 Each Site Exhibiting Strategy as Primary Strategy

             Commnty   Soc    Opps           Org
               Org    Inter   Alts  Suprsn Dev/Chan

Albuquerque*   .00     .17    .17    .50     .17
Benton Harbor  .00     .00    .00   1.00     .00
Cicero         .50     .00    .00    .50     .00
Chicago*       .07     .53    .07    .27     .07
Columbus       .10     .60    .00    .20     .10
Detroit*       .00     .00    .00    .33     .33
El Monte*      .20     .40    .20    .20     .00
Evanston       .00     .33    .33    .33     .00
Flint          .33     .00    .00    .33     .00
Fort Wayne     .50     .00    .00    .25     .25
Indianapolis   .00     .17    .00    .83     .00
Jackson        .00     .00    .00   1.00     .00
Long Beach*    .00     .00    .00    .80     .20
LA City*       .05     .62    .10    .14     .10
LA County*     .00     .20    .00    .60     .20
Louisville     .17     .00    .00    .83     .00
Madison        .33     .00    .00    .00     .67
Miami          .07     .33    .00    .20     .27
Milwaukee      .13     .38    .00    .38     .13
Minneapolis    .00     .29    .00    .43     .29
New York*      .00     .53    .07    .27     .00
Oakland*       .00     .00    .00    .67     .33
Pomona*        .00     .20    .20    .60     .00
Philadelphia*  .20     .40    .00    .40     .00
Phoenix*       .33     .00    .00    .67     .00
Reno           .33     .00    .00    .67     .00
Rockford       .25     .25    .00    .50     .00
Sacramento     .50     .00    .00    .50     .00
San Diego*     .10     .40    .10    .20     .20
San Francisco* .00     .33    .17    .33     .17
Salt Lake City .00     .50    .00    .50     .00
Santa Ana*     .00     .57    .00    .43     .00
Shreveport     .00     .00    .00   1.00     .00
Sterling       .00     .00    .00   1.00     .00
Stockton*      .00     .33    .00    .67     .00
Tallahassee    .00     .00    .00   1.00     .00
Tucson*        .33     .00    .00    .67     .00
Inglewood*     .00     .25    .25    .25     .25
CA-CYA*        .00     .00    .00    .67     .33
San Jose*      .14     .29    .00    .57     .00
Chino*         .00     .50    .00    .50     .00
E.LA*          .00     .50    .25    .25     .00

* Chronic Areas

Appendix Table 5-7. Pearson Correlations of
 Proportion of Respondents Exhibiting Primary
 Strategy and MDS Dimension for 42 Areas

                            Horizontal     Vertical

Community Organization      -.0049        .7462 **
Social Intervention         -.7655 **    -.5886 **
Opportunities/Alternatives  -.4366 *     -.2413 
Suppression                  .9610 **    -.2786
Organization Development    -.2914        .5766 **

Appendix Table 5-8. Proportion of Respondents for
 Each Respondent Category Exhibiting Strategy as
 Primary Strategy

Respondent   Comm.  Soc.Int. Opp/Alts  Supprs Org.
Category     Org.                             Dev.

Law Enf.      .10      .06      .00      .65  .19
Prosecution   .08      .00      .00      .85  .08
Court         .00      .00      .07      .79  .07
Probation     .09      .09      .00      .69  .09
Correctns     .00      .38      .13      .38  .13
Parole        .09      .18      .00      .46  .18
Schl.Sec.     .11      .33      .00      .44  .11
Schl.Oth.     .12      .39      .12      .27  .04
Yth. Ser.     .09      .83      .09      .00  .00
Comprehensive .00      .67      .00      .00  .33
Fam. Ser.     .00      .88      .13      .00  .00
Grass Rts.    .40      .60      .00      .00  .00
Planning      .08      .25      .08      .08  .42

Appendix Table 5-9. Pearson Correlations of Average
 Proportion of Respondents Exhibiting Primary
 Strategy and MDS Dimension for 13 Respondent
 Categories

                              Horizontal  Vertical

Community Organization        -.1603      .5530 *
Social Intervention           -.9718 ***  .2092
Opportunities/Alternatives    -.3836     -.1174
Suppression                    .9761 ***  .0573
Organization Development       .0708     -.9104 ***

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

Discussion of Appendix Figure 5-1

The primary strategy for one of Madison's three
respondents is community organization, and for the
other two, it is organizational change/development.
Since no other site exhibits a comparable
combination of these two primary strategies,
Madison's isolation near the top of our two
dimensional map of our sites is not surprising
especially given the significant relationships
between the vertical dimension and community
organization and organizational development as
primary strategies. Fort Wayne with its division of
primary strategies between community organization
(50%), organizational development (25%), and
suppression (25%) is not too far away in terms of
these artificial measures of distance derived from
primary strategies.

At the opposite end (bottom) of the two-dimensional
mapping of sites on the basis of primary strategy
are Santa Ana with its primary strategy combination
of social intervention (57%) and suppression (43%)
and Salt Lake City and Chino with their similar
breakdown on these tow primary strategies (50% and
50%). Not far away are East LA and Evanston where
primary strategies are divided between social
intervention, opportunities/alternatives, and
suppression.

El Monte, Milwaukee, and San Diego with relatively
balanced strategies, led in each instance by an
emphasis on social intervention, fall to the left
end of the first dimension and exactly in the
center of the vertical dimension. Louisville and
Long Beach approach the same location on the
vertical dimension but fall to the right on the
horizontal dimension. Both of these sites exhibit
two primary strategies each with the clearly
predominant one being suppression (83% and 80%
respectively). For Louisville, 17% of respondents
exhibit community organization as a primary
strategy, and, for Long Beach, 20% exhibit
organizational development as a primary strategy.
Indianapolis with a comparable emphasis on
suppression (83%) and a lesser emphasis on social
intervention falls further away (downward and to
the left). Indianapolis falls fairly  close to the
tightly grouped set of sites consisting of
Sterling, Shreveport, Tallahassee, Benton Harbor,
and Jackson all of which show a total commitment to
suppression along as a primary strategy.

Differences Among Respondent Categories in Strategy

In shifting our focus from areas to the respondent
categories, the smaller number of categories allows
us to more easily observe the differences across
categories in Appendix Table 5-8. Multi-dimensional
scaling of the Euclidean distances between
respondent categories is again used to generate two
dimensions. This time the R squared statistic for
the MDS solution of 0.995, indicates that the
solution accounts for 99.5% of the variation in the
Euclidean distance between respondent categories.

Appendix Table 5-9 shows the correlations between
the proportion of respondents exhibiting each
primary strategy and each of the two dimensions.
The stronger of the two, the horizontal dimension
of the MDS map of the respondent categories, is
significantly correlated with social intervention
(negatively) and suppression (positively). This
correlation pattern makes it possible to say that
the major differences among respondent categories
with respect to strategy results from differences
between having social intervention versus
suppression as a primary strategy. From Appendix
Table 5-9, we can see that the second (vertical)
dimension differentiates on the basis of community
organization versus organizational development as
primary strategies. The provision of opportunities
does not greatly contribute to the differences in
strategy among respondent categories.

These patterns are very clear in the mapping of
respondent categories in Appendix Figure 5-2.
Respondent categories to the right of the figure
are those more likely to pursue suppression as a
primary strategy. Those to the left are more likely
to pursue social intervention as a primary
strategy. Prosecution is at the extreme right
closely clustered with the other suppressive
categories, probation, law enforcement, and the
court. Family and youth service agencies fall to
the left center due to their emphasis on social
intervention. With its community organization role
in addition to social intervention, grass-roots is
in the upper left corner. Comprehensive service
agencies with an emphasis on organizational
development and change in addition to social
intervention fall in the lower left corner of the
figure. Planning where organizational development
and change are paramount is located in the bottom
center of the primary strategy map.

Comparison of Causal Perceptions Across Sites.

As with other parts of our analysis, we use
multidimensional scaling analysis to produce an
exploratory comparison of causal perceptions as
they differ across sites. We choose to perform our
analysis of the proportion of respondents from each
site who choose each type of causation as the most
important cause of the gang problem. These
proportions are listed for the 42 sites with more
than one respondent in Appendix Table 5-16. As with
definitions and strategies, we use these
proportions to derive Euclidean distances between
all pairs of sites. From these Euclidean distances,
a multi-dimensional scaling solution in two
dimensions is derived through an iterative process.
The solution that is generated from our measures
for these primary causal perceptions produces an R
squared value of .903 indicating that the solution
accounts for 90.3% of the variation in the
Euclidean distances among the 42 sites.

Some meaning can be attached to the two generated
dimensions by examining the Pearson correlations
between the location of each site on each derived
dimension and the proportions of the respondents
from each site indicating that type of cause as the
most important cause of the gang problem at the
site (Appendix Table 5-17). The stronger of the two
dimensions (the horizontal) is positively related
to structural causes at the system level. That same
dimension is negatively related to institutional
level explanations and somewhat less significantly
to individual level explanations. The second
(vertical) dimension is significantly related to
response effect explanations in a positive
direction. Negatively there is a significant
relationship with institutional level explanations.

Tucson, Oakland, and Detroit show total agreement
on system level forces as the primary causes of the
gang problem. These three cities cluster closely
together at the extreme right side of the
horizontal axis. Not far away from them is
Minneapolis where 85.7% of the respondents agree on
system level primary causes of the gang problem.
Sterling, with two of its three respondents
emphasizing response effects, and San Jose, with a
majority of its respondents choosing response
effects as the most important cause, fall near the
top of Appendix Figure 5-18. Benton Harbor with its
respondents' emphasis on institutional level causes
falls in the lower left corner. A group of cities
in which response effects receive no attention as
primary causes cluster in the bottom center of the
two dimensional map.

Appendix Table 5-12. Primary Perceived Cause --
 Proportion by Area

                System/ Instit. Indivdl  Response
              Structure Failure Problem  Effect   N

Albuquerque*    .500     .000    .333    .167     6
Benton Harbor   .333     .667    .000    .000     3
Cicero          .000     .500    .500    .000     2
Chicago*        .467     .400    .133    .000    15
Columbus        .100     .300    .000    .500    10
Detroit*       1.000     .000    .000    .000     3
El Monte*       .400     .200    .000    .400     5
Evanston        .333     .667    .000    .000     3
Flint           .667     .000    .333    .000     3
Fort Wayne      .500     .250    .250    .000     4
Indianapolis    .333     .500    .167    .000     6
Jackson         .667     .333    .000    .000     3
Long Beach*     .200     .400    .400    .000     5
LA City*        .333     .333    .190    .143    21
LA County*      .200     .400    .400    .000    10
Louisville      .167     .333    .333    .167     6
Madison         .333     .333    .000    .333     3
Miami           .267     .467    .200    .067    15
Milwaukee       .375     .500    .000    .125     8
Minneapolis     .857     .000    .143    .000     7
New York*       .333     .200    .333    .133    15
Oakland*       1.000     .000    .000    .000     3
Pomona*         .400     .400    .200    .000     5
Philadelphia*   .200     .400    .200    .200     5
Phoenix*        .667     .000    .000    .333     3
Reno            .333     .333    .000    .333     3
Rockford        .500     .000    .250    .250     4
Sacramento      .750     .250    .000    .000     4
San Diego*      .600     .200    .100    .100    10
San Francisco*  .667     .167    .000    .167     6
Salt Lake City  .750     .000    .000    .250     4
Santa Ana*      .143     .571    .286    .000     7
Shreveport      .667     .333    .000    .000     3
Sterling        .000     .333    .000    .667     3
Stockton*       .500     .500    .000    .000     6
Tallahassee     .500     .500    .000    .000     2
Tucson*        1.000     .000    .000    .000     3
Inglewood*      .500     .250    .250    .000     4
CA-CYA*         .667     .000    .000    .333     3
San Jose*       .286     .000    .143    .571     7
Chino*          .500     .000    .500    .000     2
East LA*        .500     .250    .000    .250     4

* Chronic Areas

Appendix Table 5-13. Pearson Correlations of Site
 Average Proportion of Respondents Ranking Cause
 Perception First and MDS Dimension for 42 Sites

                     Horizontal     Vertical

System/Structure       .9661 ***    -.2075
Institution Level     -.8020 ***    -.3791 **
Individual Level      -.3213 *      -.2963
Response Effects      -.1494         .9729 ***
                      

Significance 
 Levels:  * = 0.05  ** = 0.01  *** = 0.001

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


Comparison of Causal Perceptions Across Respondent
Categories

Appendix Table 5-14 shows the breakdown of the
primary important cause categories by respondent
category. From these proportions, Euclidean
distances are computed between each pair of
respondent categories, and from these Euclidean
distances, a two dimensional MDS solution is
derived after seven iterations. The R squared
statistic for the solution is 0.979, indicating
that the solution accounts for 97.9% of the
variation of Euclidean distance between categories.

The stronger of the two dimensions is arbitrarily
used as the horizontal dimension in the mapping
displayed in Appendix Figure 5-4. From Appendix
Table 5-15, it can be seen that this horizontal
dimension is positively related to structural
explanations at the system level and negatively
related to institutional level explanations. The
second dimension which arbitrarily assign to the
vertical dimension is significantly related to
individual level explanations in a positive
direction and to response effects in a negative
direction. Parole respondents are spread across all
four types of primary cause choices. The two
leading primary cause categories for parole
respondents are respectively structural system
level causes and individual level causes. A
majority of grass roots respondents choose
structural system level causes, while the remainder
are equally divided between institutional and
individual level explanations. 

Parole falls in the upper right corner of the
mapping derived from causal perception and grass
roots falls near by. Corrections, which shows the
greatest commitment of any of the respondent
categories to response effects as causes of the
gang problem and the second to least attachment to
individual level explanations, ends up in the lower
right corner of the mapping in Appendix Figure 5-4.
Comprehensive services with no respondents listing
system level causes as primary falls at the extreme
left middle of the mapping.

Appendix Table 5-14. Most Important Cause --
 Proportion of Respondents per Category.

             System/  Instit.  Indivdl  Response
           Structure  Failure  Problem  Effect    N

Law          .423     .269      .173    .135     52   

 Enforcement
Prosecution  .462     .346      .154    .038     26   
Court        .286     .429      .143    .143     14   
Probation    .438     .313      .094    .156     32   
Corrections  .500     .125      .000    .375      8   
Parole       .455     .091      .364    .091     11   
School       .333     .333      .111    .222      9   
 Security
School Other .500     .269      .115    .077     26   
Youth        .348     .283      .196    .174     46   
 Services
Compre-      .000     .667      .333    .000      3   
 hensive
Family       .375     .500      .125    .000      8   
 Services
Grass Roots  .600     .200      .200    .000      5   
Planning     .500     .250      .167    .083     12   

Appendix Table 5-15. Pearson Correlations of Site
 Average Proportion of Respondents Ranking Cause
 Perception First and MDS Dimension for 13
 Respondent Categories

                     Horizontal     Vertical

System/Structure       .9164 ***     .2379     
Institution Level     -.9642 ***    -.1431
Individual Level      -.3939         .7194 **
Response Effects       .4654        -.7801 **

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

Network Measures

In order to compute our network measures for each
site, we had to code answers to Item V-4 in
accordance with the respondent categories for each
site. The coding results that we use for all
network analysis computations is the set of 41
sociometric networks included in the Appendix where
ones indicate the reporting of direct contact and
zeroes indicate the absence of contact. Zeroes are
arbitrarily used for the diagonal to avoid
considering how much an agency is in touch with
itself.

Two of our measures of network strength are simple
and straightforward. The first is simply the
density of the network. That is what proportion of
all possible direct links are present. The second
is what proportion of all possible direct links are
reciprocated links present in the observed network.

Three examples (Appendix Table 5-18), two of them
extreme, may be useful in understanding these
measures. Each of the three respondents from
Detroit do not name any of the other respondents
from Detroit as being an agency with whom the
respondent is in most contact. The result is the
three by three matrix of zeroes shown in Appendix
Table 5-18. The density of the network for Detroit
is zero. The reciprocal density is also zero. 

Each of the two respondents from Cicero names the
other as an agency with whom they are in most
contact. There are two direct links possible. Both
are present. Two divided by two is one for the
network density. Both of these links are
reciprocated links so the reciprocal density of the
Cicero network is also 1.0.

The Benton Harbor network contains three
respondents, the police, the prosecution, and
probation. The police indicate contact with the
prosecution. The prosecution indicates contact with
the police. Probation indicates contact with both
the police and the prosecution. There are six
possible direct links in this 3-respondent network
of which four are indicated to be present. The
density of the network is calculated as 4 divided
by 6 or 0.667. Two of the existing links, police-
prosecution and prosecution-police, are
reciprocated. Two, probation-police and probation-
prosecution, are not reciprocated. The reciprocal
density is therefore two divided by six or 0.333.  

These two density measures are shown for the forty-
one areas with more than one respondent in Appendix
Table 5-19. (We did not attempt a network analysis
of our California Youth Authority respondents.)

More complex and less intuitive measures of actors'
roles in network structure can be obtained by
subjecting our network data to the network analysis
available through the STRUCTURE program (Burt
1987). Two of our networks, the one from Detroit
with zero links and the one from Inglewood with
limited links, are not suitable for analysis with
STRUCTURE. For the respondents in the other 39
networks, we select three measures of prominence
from the network analyses results. All three are
described in detail by Burt (1982). Unlike our
simple network-level measures, these measures take
into account indirect as well as direct linkages
between respondents.

The first is labeled by Burt proportion of network.
Proportion of network is the proportion of all
observed relations that involve each respondent.
The second is aggregate prominence. A respondent's
aggregate prominence increases to the degree that
the respondent is the object of relations from
other prominent respondents in the network. The
third measure is reciprocated prominence.
Reciprocated prominence is a function of the degree
to which a respondent's agency is itself prominent
and its reported relationships to other respondents
are reciprocated. These three measures are selected
because they capture three complementary ways of
looking at respondent prominence. Given the
limitations of network data, these results are
treated with appropriate caution.

Means of these three measures are presented by site
in Appendix Table 5-20 and by respondent category
in Appendix Table 5-21. 

Appendix Table 5-18. Three Example Sociometric
 Networks (Rows are respondents indicating agencies
 with whom they are in most contact. Each column
 represents the corresponding row agency as being
 indicated as in contact with the row agency. The
 diagonal is arbitrarily filled with zeroes.)

Detroit            3 Respondents

Plannng               0 0 0
Prosecutor            0 0 0
School Oth.           0 0 0

Cicero             2 Respondents

CS-Yth.Ser             0 1  
Law Enf.               1 0  

Benton Harbor      3 Respondents

Law Enf.             0 1 0     
Prosecutor           1 0 0     
Probation            1 1 0     

Appendix Table 5-19. Network Density Measures by
 Site.

                        Total Density    Reciprocal
                                           Density

Albuquerque*               .500              .167
Benton Harbor              .667              .333
Cicero                    1.0               1.000
Chicago*                   .324              .133
Columbus                   .357              .161
Detroit*                  0.00               0.00
El Monte*                  .7                 .60
Evanston                   .333              0.00
Flint                      .333              0.00
Fort Wayne                 .916               .833
Indianapolis               .267               .133
Jackson                    .667               .667
Long Beach*                .416              0.00
LA City*                   .254               .082
LA County*                 .292               .133
Louisville                 .467               .467
Madison                    .50                .167
Miami                      .285               .109
Milwaukee                  .392               .178
Minneapolis                .261               .190
New York*                  .138               .028
Oakland*                   .50               0.00
Pomona*                    .60                .40
Philadelphia*              .55                .20
Phoenix*                   .50               0.00
Reno                       .50               0.00
Rockford                   .667               .50
Sacramento                 .667               .58
San Diego*                 .36                .07
San Francisco*             .24                .10
Salt Lake City             .67                .33
Santa Ana*                 .57                .32
Shreveport                 .33               0.00
Sterling                   .33               0.00
Stockton*                  .60                .43
Tallahassee                .50               0.00
Tucson*                    .50                .33
Inglewood*                 .17                .17
San Jose*                  .40                .19
Chino*                     .50               0.00
E.LA*                      .41                .17
CYA (a)

(a) Network not computed because it represents an
internal agency, rather than a community or area.

* Chronic Areas

Appendix Table 5-20. Means of Network Analysis Prominence Measures  by Site.
                 Proportion   Aggregate   Reflected
                 of Network  Prominence  Prominence

Albuquerque         .33         .60          .03
Benton Harbor       .67         .67          .07
Cicero             1.00        1.00          .11
Chicago*            .13         .58          .03
Columbus            .25         .38          .03
Detroit*             -           -            -
El Monte*           .40         .72          .06
Evanston            .67         .60          .00
Flint               .67         .35          .00
Fort Wayne          .50         .91          .07
Indianapolis        .33         .66          .06
Jackson             .67         .76          .08
Long Beach*         .43         .45          .01
LA City*            .13         .29          .01
LA County*          .11         .69          .05
Louisville          .33         .61          .04
Madison             .67         .81          .05
Miami               .13         .38          .03
Milwaukee           .25         .64          .05
Minneapolis         .29         .41          .04
New York*           .13         .50          .03
Oakland*            .67         .47          .00
Pomona*             .40         .60          .05
Philadelphia*       .40         .63          .04
Phoenix*            .67         .47          .00
Reno                .67         .47          .00
Rockford            .50         .83          .09
Sacramento          .50         .74          .06
San Diego*          .20         .38          .01
San Francisco*      .29         .57          .03
Salt Lake City      .50         .88          .09
Santa Ana*          .25         .62          .05
Shreveport          .67         .60          .00
Sterling            .67         .67          .00
Stockton*           .33         .57          .05
Tallahassee        1.00         .50          .00
Tucson*             .67         .67          .07
Inglewood*           -           -            - 
CA-CYA* (a)          -           -            -
San Jose*           .29         .48          .04
Chino*             1.00         .50          .00
E.LA*               .50         .68          .02

(a) Network not computed because it represents an
internal agency, rather than a community or area
system

* Chronic Areas

Appendix Table 5-21. Means of Network Analysis
 Prominence Measures by Respondent Category.

                Proportion    Aggregate   Reflected
                of Network   Prominence  Prominence

Law Enforcement   .4817         .8584       .0570
Prosecution       .3408         .5997       .0356
Court             .1966         .4363       .0229
Probation         .3225         .6646       .0500
Corrections       .2743         .5020       .0330
Parole            .3472         .3106       .0084
Schl. Security    .3193         .5474       .0321
Schl. Other       .4690         .4908       .0305
Youth Services    .2330         .3301       .0182
Comp. Services    .2713         .8450       .0607
Family Services   .2040         .4139       .0279
Grass Roots       .2480         .5168       .0186
Defense           .2280         .0000       .0000
Planning          .1132         .1121       .0053
Other             .3820         .5580       .0380
All Respondents   .3322         .5472       .0344

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

APPENDIX B

TECHNICAL NOTE ON GENERATING OUR GENERAL
EFFECTIVENESS MEASURE FOR SITES

We have chosen to rank our sites for selection on
the basis of three measures taken from our
questionnaire -- perceived improvement in the gang
problem since 1980, evaluation of agency
effectiveness in 1987, and evaluation of community
level program effectiveness in 1987. 

We have chosen not to give equal weight to each of
these three variables, because we believe that the
variables merit separate weights. We feel that
these weights should be derived empirically from
the structure of their covariation in this
particular set of respondents.

An initial problem is that one of these variables
is dichotomous, improvement in the gang situation
since 1980, and the other two are sets of ordered
categories. Recent advances in applied statistics
and the availability of statistical applications
for personal computers provide us with a relatively
easy solution to what has previously been a major
concern to social researchers. We use PC-PRELIS to
generate normalized (PROBIT) scores for each of our
categorical variables. The resulting values are
shown in Table B-1.

If we use SPSS/PC to perform a principal
components analysis of the normalized (PROBIT)
scores for perceived improvement in the gang
problem since 1980, evaluation of agency
effectiveness in 1987, and evaluation of community
level program effectiveness in 1987, we get the
three eigenvalues none of which approach zero shown
in Table B-2. 

Table B-1. Normalized (PROBIT) Scores for Three
 Gang Program Effectiveness Measures

Improvement Since 1980      Yes = -1.63   No = 0.24

Evaluation of Effectiveness in 1987

Agency                 Community Level     Program

Very Effective              -0.86          -1.02
Moderately Effective         0.48           0.30 
Hardly Effective             1.52           1.22 
Not at All Effective         2.37           1.88 

Table B-2. Eigenvalues Produced by Principal
 Components Analysis of Three Normalized Measures of
 Effectiveness

Eigenvalue   % of Variance

  1.36          45.5      
   .89          29.7      
   .75          24.8      

We use the first and largest of these eigenvalues
(accounting for 45.5% of the variance) to generate
the set of principal component coefficients to be
used as weights for our three normalized measures.

Table B-3. Coefficients for First Principal
 Component

                       Coefficient     % Variance
                                        Explained

Improved Since 1980       .411              31.5 
Agency Effectiveness      .531              52.5 
Community Program         .531              52.4 
Effectiveness

The score that is generated for improvement since
1980, a very effective agency rating, and a very
effective community level program rating is -
2.18001. This value can be easily transformed so
that it is equal to 1.0 and all subsequent values
are positive by adding 3.18001 to each score. The
result is a set of general effectiveness scores
ranging from 1.0 to 5.87.

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

NATIONAL YOUTH GANG SUPPRESSION AND INTERVENTION
PROJECT

TELEPHONE QUESTIONNAIRE FOLLOW-UP SCHEDULE

CITY:  

DEPARTMENT/ORGANIZATION TO BE INTERVIEWED: 

PERSON TO BE INTERVIEWED: 

DATE AND TIME OF INTERVIEW: 

TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PERSON TO BE INTERVIEWED:      

NAME OF INTERVIEWER: 

TELEPHONE NUMBER OF INTERVIEWER:   312/702-5879

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING:

FIRST: If for any reason you cannot keep
the scheduled time for the interview follow-up,
please call the interviewer at the above number so
that alternate arrangements can be made.

SECOND: The interview follow-up should not
take more than 40 minutes, and probably less.  The
purpose of this telephone follow-up will be to
clarify your responses to the questionnaire.

THIRD: Please return the completed
questionnaire so that we receive it no later than
five (5) working days prior to the follow-up
interview.

FOURTH: If data are either not kept or are
unavailable, please estimate a number or percent
based on your experience.

FIFTH: As the attached cover letter
indicates, we are prepared to provide maximum
anonymity to you and your department in your
responses.  If you wish anonymity, please complete
the enclosed Certification of Confidentiality and
return it to us with your completed questionnaire.

SIXTH: Please send us any reports,
documents, or materials that describe the gang
problem and your program or activity in relation to
it.

If you have any questions about the above comments
or the telephone follow-up itself, please call us
at 312/702-5879.

THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR INTEREST AND
COOPERATION!

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

NATIONAL YOUTH GANG SUPPRESSION AND INTERVENTION PROJECT
TELEPHONE QUESTIONNAIRE

I. ANONYMITY AND AGENCY IDENTIFICATION

1. Yes ____ anonymity;  No ____ anonymity

2. Name of respondent: 

3. Title of respondent:

4. Name of department/organization:

5. Specific unit of department/organization
of which respondent is a member:

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

II. THE GANG PROBLEM:  ORGANIZATIONAL/PROGRAM
HISTORY

1. Do you presently have gangs in your
city/community?

Yes, No, or Don't Know

2. If no, was there a gang problem in the
past?

Yes or No

3.If yes, describe the problem (include time
period, characteristics of gang members, size of
gang, illegal activities engaged in).  [Obtain
general information, specifics come later.]

4.If the gang problem was reduced or resolved, what do you
believe accounted for the change (what
events, programs, or strategies, do you think
contributed)?

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

III. SERVICE POPULATION: DEFINITIONAL
CHARACTERISTICS

1. What is your organization's definition of a
gang?  (Indicate its key characteristics, e.g.,
turf, colors, logo, graffiti, organization, types
of criminal behaviors, which make it of concern or
relevance to your work.  Please be as specific as
possible.)

2. How many gangs did you have in your city
in 1987?  (Estimate, if necessary)

3. What are your organization's principal ways
of identifying a gang member or gang case?

4. How many gang members did you have in
your city or jurisdiction in 1987?

5. Please estimate the percent of total Part 1 or
index offenses in your jurisdiction, or
according to your caseload, that was attributed to
youth gangs in 1987?  [Part 1 offenses = homicide,
rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary,
larceny-theft (except motor vehicle theft), motor
vehicle theft, arson]

6. What is your organization's definition of
a gang-related incident or case?

7. At what age is a young person considered an
adult (i.e., no longer under the jurisdiction of
juvenile or family court for criminal acts)?

8. What percentage of gang-related incidents or
cases coming to your agency's attention in 1987
involved persons who were ... ?

     juveniles or adults

9. If relevant, what is the average age range of:

a. the juvenile gang offender group?  from _____
to _____

b. the adult gang offender group?  from _____ to
_____

10. If relevant, which is the more serious 
problem...?

(please check one)  juvenile, adult or both 

11. If relevant, describe the inter-relations of 
the juvenile and adult gang problem.

12. What percent of gang members coming to your 
attention in 1987 were ... ?

White _____

Black _____

(Specify, if possible)
     Percent of Blacks:

      Afro-American _____
      Jamaican _____
      Other _____

Hispanic _____

(Specify, if possible)
     Percent of Hispanics:

      Mexican-American _____
      Puerto Rican _____
      Other _____

Asian _____

(Specify group and percent)

 (                  ) _____
 (                  ) _____
 (                  ) _____

Other (Specify __________) _____

13. What percentage of gang offenders who came
to your organization's attention in 1987 were
female?

14. Were there female gangs unaffiliated with (independent of) male gangs in your jurisdiction?

15. If yes, how many were there? 

16. What percentage of gang offenders who came
to your organization's attention in 1987 had prior
police records?

17. What are the general characteristics of gangs 
in your city?

 a. Are there divisions or subgroups by age?  

 b. What is the range of age of members in:

    the gang's sub-groups?  from _____ to _____
    the total gangs?  from _____ to _____

 c. What is the average size of:

    the gangs' sub-groups?  from _____ to _____
    the total gangs?  from _____ to _____

 d. Are there gangs of the same name in different
 neighborhoods or areas?

 e. Are there youth gangs present which appear to be
 affiliated with or used by adult criminal
 organizations in their efforts to make a profit
 from illegal activity?

 f. If there are such close connections with adult
 criminal organizations, in what specific criminal
 activities are these youth gangs involved?  (List
 by most prevalent)

 g. Is drug distribution one of the primary purposes
 of the gang's existence?

 h. What percent of gangs are involved in the
 distribution of drugs?

 i. If there is such involvement, explain what
 role the youths play.

 j. Are youth gang members involved in the
 importation of drugs from outside your  
 jurisdiction?

 k. If yes, please describe.

18. Has the gang situation changed since 1980?

19. If yes, how?

20. Please estimate the current drop out rate
of youths from school in the area in which you have
serious gang problems. 

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

IV. ORGANIZATIONAL/PROGRAM STRUCTURE

1. What is your unit's or organization's goals
and objectives in regard to the gang problem?

2. When was your gang program established?

3. If you treat gang and non-gang youths coming
to your attention differently, explain procedures.

4. Please describe in some detail how your gang 
program is organized.

5. How many personnel assigned to this unit or 
sub-unit deal with gangs?

6. If relevant, how many are ... ?

 a. sworn personnel: full ____  part ____ time
    [for police, probation, corrections]

 b. civilian personnel: full ____ part ____ time

7. What classification of positions does the unit 
have? And the numbers in each?

8. How many staff in the whole organization?

9. Are there special policies and procedures
which guide staff in their activities with gangs?

 Yes, No, or Don't know

10. Are such policies and procedures written?

 Yes, No, or Don't know 

 [If yes, can we have a copy?]

11. Is special training available to personnel for 
dealing with gangs?

12. If yes, please describe.

13. How many staff participated in this training 
in 1987?

14. What activities do gang or special personnel 
perform in dealing with the problem? 
[Probe to determine how these are ties to problem
as described and goals/objectives.]

15. Which of these is most important in achieving 
the agency's goals and objectives?  (List three)

16. What was the 1987 year budget for your unit's 
gang program?
 [Respondent's fiscal year - may be calendar year or
 some other 12-month period.]

17. What was the 1987 year budget for your 
department?

18. What is your agency's source of funding for the
gang problem?

 (List percentages for each group)

19. Is there a special internal agency advisory
structure which advises or guides your unit's
operation in regard to gangs?

(Describe)

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

V. EXTERNAL AGENCY/COMMUNITY RELATIONS

1. Is there an external agency or community
group which advises or influences your unit's
operations?

(Describe)

2. What other units of your department or agency 
deal with gangs?

3. Explain the ways you work together.

4. With which other justice or community agencies 
is your unit in most contact?  (Rank order)  
(List as many as 5)

5. How does your gang unit function with these 
other organizations most contacted?

6. Which of these other justice or community 
agencies were most helpful in working towards your
agency's objectives in 1987?  (Rank order)

7. How were these organizations helpful to you?

8. Are there any interagency task forces or
community-wide organizations which attempted to
coordinate efforts to deal with the gang problem in
1987?

(If yes, please describe)

9. If yes, were these efforts ...?

very effective _____   somewhat effective _____  
hardly effective _____   not at all effective _____

10. Please explain your rating.

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

VI. PROGRAM/POLICY EVALUATION COMMENTS

1. How effective do you think your unit was in 1987 
in dealing with the gang problem?

very effective _____     moderately effective _____
hardly effective _____   not at all effective _____
not sure _____

2. What has your department (or unit) done that
you feel has been particularly successful in
dealing with gangs?  Please provide statistics, if
relevant and available.

3. What has your department (or unit) done that you 
feel has been least effective in dealing with 
gangs?

4. What do you think are the five most important 
causes of the gang problem in your city? 
(Rank in order of priority)

5. Has legislation related to gangs or the gang 
problem been initiated or modified as a result of
the efforts of your unit or department?

(If yes, please describe)

6. What do you think are the five best ways 
employed by your department or organization for
dealing with the gang problem?  (Rank in order of
priority)

7. What specifically do you think your gang unit 
or program should be doing in the future, that
they are not doing now?

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

VII. RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Thank you very much for your time and patience.  
Before I let you go, please answer a few personal 
or demographic questions.

1. Male _____     Female _____

2. Age _____

3. Race/ethnicity

   White _____
   Black (Afro-American) _____
   Black other _____
    (Specify) _____________
   Hispanic _____
    (Specify ethnicity) _____________
   Asian _____
    (Specify ethnicity) _____________
   Other (Specify) _____________

4. Present position (title) 

5. How long in present position?

6. How long in present agency?

7. Highest grade achieved at school ...

_____ graduate education
_____ bachelor's degree
_____ some college
_____ high school degree
_____ some high school

8. Professional degree(s), if any ...

(Identify)

9. Please list the organizations in the city
concerned with the gang problem of which you are a
member.

10. Who else should I speak with to learn about 
the gang problem and how it's handled in your
jurisdiction?

 Name, Organization, Phone No.

11. What else should I know about your approaches 
to youth gangs?

Are you interested in receiving the results of
this survey and other project reports?

[If yes]

What is your correct mailing address?

Please send any written policies and procedures
followed by your department/organization and any
program related materials to:

Irving Spergel, Principal Investigator
National Youth Gang Suppression and
 Intervention Project
School of Social Service Administration
University of Chicago
969 East 60th Street
Chicago, IL  60637

Again, thanks!

Date of interview:

Name of interviewer:

Comments:
