DOI: 10.3886/icpsr06147
title: National Assessment of Gangs in Correctional Facilities, 1992
title: Archival Version

description: This study sought to identify and examine current policies
 and strategies for controlling prison gangs and to determine the ways
 in which correctional facilities were dealing with gangs in their
 institutions. Respondents to the mail survey included 55 local jail
 systems and 52 state prison systems (the 50 state Departments of
 Corrections, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of
 Prisons). The survey question text used the term
 "security threat group" (STG), which was defined as "two or more
 inmates, acting together, who pose a threat to the security or safety
 of staff/inmates and/or are disruptive to programs and/or to the orderly
 management of the facility/system," rather than the generic term "gang."
 Data contain information on total
 inmate population, number of STGs, number of inmates identified as
 confirmed, suspected, associate, and drop-out members of STGs, total
 incidents of violence, number of violent incidents by STG members,
 management strategies to deal with gangs, and names of STGs known to be
present within the system.
description: This study sought to identify and examine current
 policies and strategies for controlling prison gangs and to determine the
 ways in which correctional facilities were dealing with gangs in their
 institutions. Specifically, the project was designed to
 (1) examine how correctional facilities manage gang activities
 and the effect this has on prison environments, (2) assess innovative
 strategies for controlling prison activities, and (3) identify research
 needs of the future. The survey question text used the term
 "security threat group" (STG), which was defined as "two or
 more inmates, acting together, who pose a threat to the security or
 safety of staff/inmates and/or are disruptive to programs and/or to the
 orderly management of the facility/system," rather than
 the generic term "gang." To ensure that the survey
 group would be representative of the nation's correctional systems, the
 study population was divided into local jail systems and state prison
 systems. A focal point of the study was to investigate how local jail
 systems (designed for short-term inmates) handle gang problems, as
compared with state prison systems (designed for long-term inmates).
description: The jail portion of the study focused on the jail
 system, a local jurisdiction with two or more detention facilities for
 housing offenders, rather than concentrating on a jail facility, which
 was defined as one building. The local jail system was further
 subdivided into four classifications: (1) mega-jail systems, which had
 bed capacity ratings that exceed 1,000 beds, (2) large systems, which
 had ratings between 500 and 1,000 beds, (3) medium systems, which had
 ratings between 250 and 499 beds, and (4) small systems, which had
 ratings between 0 and 249 beds. For the 73 selected jail systems,
 letters were mailed to sheriffs or correctional administrators
 informing the participants of the scope of the project and bearing
 the signature of the American Correctional Association's (ACA's) executive
 director. An additional letter
 encouraging participation was sent with the survey. For the 52
 prison systems, initial contacts to individuals at the correctional
 system were made by telephone. During the telephone conversation,
 project staff verified that the contact person was the appropriate
 person to receive the survey, and also explained to the individual
 the scope of the project. In states where a contact person had
 not been specified, project staff called the agency directly to
 identify one. Letters bearing the ACA executive director's
 signature were also sent to each agency head to introduce that
 individual to the project's intent. The letter identified the contact
 person at that correctional system who would be receiving the
 survey. The agency head was given the option of designating that the survey
 be sent to someone other than the selected contact person. Respondents
 to the mail survey included 55 local jail systems and 52 state prison
 systems (the 50 state Departments of Corrections, the District of
Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons).
description: The survey instrument was divided to collect data
 from four sections. The statistical information section provided data
 on total inmate population, number of STGs, number of inmates
 identified as members of STGs, and number of inmates in STGs who had
 been identified as confirmed, suspected, associate, or drop-out
 members. The second section contained two survey items dealing with
 violence: total number of violent incidents during the past
 year directed at staff and directed at inmates, and the number of
 violent incidents perpetrated by STG members. The third section sought
 to identify management tools or strategies to deal with
 STGs. Respondents were asked if their system had a centralized unit
 responsible for monitoring STGs, or if the system had established
 policies and procedures or rules and regulations concerning STG
 activity. Respondents were also asked about methods used to control
 members of STGs. The last section sought to identify names of STGs
 operating in correctional systems. Respondents could choose from a list
 of 39 known STGs and could also name other STGs known within their
 system. Information was also collected on whether the correctional
 system had either formal and informal means of communicating with other
agencies about STGs.
description: Response Rates: Prison systems: 100 percent, Jail systems: 75.34 percent
description: Presence of Common Scales: None.
description: Prison and local jail systems were identified through the
 American Jail Association's (AJA) 1991 directory, WHO'S WHO IN JAIL
 MANAGEMENT. All 50 state prison systems, the District of Columbia,
 the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and all 43 mega-jail systems identified
 through the AJA directory were included in the survey. For each of the
 small, medium, and large systems, 10 jail systems were randomly
selected from each group.
description: Datasets: 
DS1: National Assessment of Gangs in Correctional Facilities, 1992
description: Federal, state, and local correctional facilities in the United 
States.
description: Seven on-site visits were also conducted as part of this
 study. Information collected from these on-site visits is provided in
 textual format in the study's Final Report to the National Institute of
Justice.