The Problem of Gangs and Security Threat Groups (STG’s)
in American Prisons Today:
Recent Research Findings
From the 2004 Prison Gang Survey
by
George W. Knox, Ph.D.
Copyright © 2005, National Gang Crime Research Center.
INTRODUCTION
This is a study of gangs and security threat groups (STG’s) in American prisons today. The purpose here is to add to the growing body of literature about gangs behind bars. The National Gang Crime Research Center (NGCRC) has made a number of contributions in this area dating back over a decade. While the last decade has witnessed a steady increase in certain of these problems, the present research reports only modest increases overall in the scope of the gang problem, but that new and potentially more explosive problems are emerging inside this arena. The current findings, representing data collected during the first half of 2004, certainly suggest that the problem has not been abated. Indeed there are some new dangerous trends documented here for the first time.
Although correctional officials feel there are some effective strategies to win this war, these measures are not being widely implemented. Meanwhile, gangs are exploiting weaknesses in the correctional system, including abusing legislative provisions intended to protect religious rights.
Correctional staff polled indicated problems in their awareness of legal developments, and identified education as an ongoing need; and, three years after 911, the recruitment of gang members into terror networks remains a issue.
What can be done? What must be done? This article will present an overview of gang demographics, including gender and religious affiliation - a survey of violence - procedures, programs, etc. Finally, it will conclude with recommendations drawn from the survey data..
WHAT IS IMPORTANT ABOUT GANGS AND STG’s IN AMERICA TODAY
The significance of prison gangs/STG’s is not limited to the effect upon the safety and security of correctional institutions. It will be argued here that the importance of studying prison gangs/STG’s also encompasses some other very important knowledge development needs. Among these other areas of importance are emerging problems related to gangs and how prison gangs/STG’s have tended to abuse religious freedoms behind bars and are also spreading hate in the name of religion.
Among these other justifications for studying prison gangs/STG’s is tackling the related problem of “racial enmity” and “racial extremism”, indeed doing something to address the ongoing problem of racial conflict behind bars. Among the other justifications for a detailed empirical study such as that reported here, is that it helps to clarify the basis for establishing policies and procedures which address the social reality of prison life. And, of course, a study such as that reported here which gives detailed accounts of new and emerging problems related to prison gangs/STG’s may spur policy makers into providing new and sorely needed resources to the field of American corrections.
Previous reports by the NGCRC have tended to emphasize the importance of the findings to correctional staff and officers and those who work in and around the correctional institution, and obviously to the types of risks in terms of violence and victimization inmates and prisoners face today from prison gangs/STG’s. Today, the problem affects all of society. It is not a problem just impacting only upon inmates and correctional officers. It is a problem, rather, that extends far beyond the prison walls and impacts upon larger American society.
Given the persisting and evolving nature of this problem and its strong evidence of escalation, that unless some bold new initiatives are undertaken to reduce or reverse this problem, it could have devastating effects upon our future society. If some naive reader new to the gang literature wants an example of how a problem like prison gangs can get “out of control” and impact on the entire society, then study the “Red Command” in Brazil. In Brazil, prison gangs like the Red Command, can engineer a “parallel government”: they exert power over society just like a government, but by means of the type of terroristic threat provided by an armed violent criminal gang such as the Red Command (basically drug dealers and death merchants). At appropriate points, reference will be made to some prison gang problems in other parts of the world as it may relate by means of comparison to the American experience.
Some academic authors who read and write about prison gangs without doing empirical research on the issue are prone to use the prison gang problem as a platform to criticize the status quo. A common theme in this “gang apologist” approach is to begin with a 1960's concept of prison rehabilitation and how wonderful the world would be if there were more services and a higher quality of life for inmates and better jobs upon release from prison, and then use the prison gang issue as just another topic to criticize the prison system. These are approaches that ignore the fact that correctional staff are good citizens working for a living and often are the ones brutally assaulted by prison gangs or STGs — this kind of information is not on the minds of the academic critic. Another theme in some university textbooks about correctional institutions that are widely in use at colleges and universities is to completely ignore the gang problem entirely, relying on dated sociological imaginations about prison life; these are particularly prone to doing a tremendous disservice to the profession of corrections by being so far removed from the social reality of modern prison life where gangs and STG’s play a dominant role when it comes to issues of violence, rackets, etc.
Some of the best research on prison gangs has been published in the Journal of Gang Research over the last decade. Still other valuable research arises from the prison system itself, particularly the federal Bureau of Prisons. Gaes, et al (2001) reported empirical research based on federal inmates which was able to confirm some of the findings earlier reported by Stone (2000), particularly chapter 9 about a gang classification system in the Stone reader. In the Stone (2000) reader, the authors from the National Gang Crime Research Center had collected data on over 4,000 incarcerated gang members nationwide. Among other things, it demonstrated that gang members were a more significant disciplinary problem and threat generally than non-gang members behind bars. This covered fights, disciplinary reports, etc, at the individual unit of analysis and technically represented probably the single largest sample size of gang members ever developed in the previously reported literature.
Perhaps what is important about gangs and STG’s in America today is nothing more than the promise implied or explicit that our correctional institutions will afford safe environments in which to work for the correctional officers and staff employed there, and the two million plus inmates who reside in these facilities. Few in American society know the true meaning and significance of being a “correctional officer”, indeed most commonly a somewhat derogatory term is used instead to refer to this occupational sector: “prison guards”. But many continue to marginalize these correctional officers by the label of “prison guard”, a term or phrase or identifier that does not reflect the rise of a professionalism within the field of corrections.
DEFINITIONS
A security threat group (STG) is any group of three (3) or more persons with recurring threatening or disruptive behavior (i.e., violations of the disciplinary rules where said violations were openly known or conferred benefit upon the group would suffice for a prison environment), including but not limited to gang crime or gang violence (i.e., crime of any sort would automatically make the group a gang, and as a gang in custody it would logically be an STG). In some jurisdictions the Security Threat Group is also called a “Disruptive Group”. STG’s or disruptive groups would include any group of three or more inmates who were members of the same street gang, or prison gang, or the same extremist political or ideological group where such extremist ideology is potentially a security problem in the correctional setting (i.e., could inflame attitudes, exacerbate racial tensions, spread hatred, etc).
Definitions of STG’s do exist which are more liberal and allow for any group of “two or more persons” to define an STG and this apparently became the ACA (American Correctional Association) definition over a decade ago (“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”, see ACA quote in Allen, Simonsen, Latessa, 2004: p. 196). The problem with two is that this is only a social dyad at best. The social dyad is not capable of the primordial act of any organization: delegation, as can occur in a true social group (which must have 3 or more persons in it). The definition advanced here is more consistent with the larger literature, and American law, on the definition of “gang”.
The definition of an STG in the Arizona Department of Corrections is typical of those definitions which emphasize certain issues and ignore others, let us examine it here:
“What is a Security Threat Group? Any organization, club, association or group of individuals, formal or informal (including traditional prison gangs), that may have a common name, identifying sign or symbol, and whose members engage in activities that would include, but are not limited to planning, organizing, threatening, financing, soliciting, committing, or attempting to commit unlawful acts or an act that would violate the departments written instructions, which would detract from the safe orderly operations of prisons” (Arizona Dept. Of Corrections, 2004).
Note that size of the group is not important, but that the STG “may have” a common name or symbol; the list of “may have’s” could be very extensive. Just as the list of behavior’s could be prohibitively long: it may be sufficient to say “any crime, deviance, or rule breaking”.
A prison gang, correctly defined, is any gang (where a gang is a group of three or more persons who recurrently commit crime, and where the crime is openly known to the group) that operates in prison. However, a tradition has developed “in practice” within the context of applied ideas about prison gangs, where the correctional practitioner defines a prison gang exclusively as “a gang that originated in the prison”. Thus, gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood and the Black Guerilla Family and the Melanics would be “pure prison gangs” in this respect, because these were not street gangs imported into the prison system, these are gangs that originated within the prison system itself. The Lyman (1989) definition of prison gang centers around the commission of crime, without the crime a prison group could violate rules and regulations and still be a security threat group.
Can there be a disruptive group that is not necessarily a gang? Yes, of course, if the collective identity of the group is such that it seeks to challenge the legitimacy of the correctional system itself. In Texas, for example, the pre-service and in-service “gang/STG training” includes information about a group called the “Self Defense Family (SDF)”. The SDF is mostly Black with one white inmate, but objectively it is a group that just likes to file law suits against the prison system, the members of the SDF are “prison lawyers”: not real lawyers, self-taught inmates who have become very adept at frivolous law suits. The SDF may not qualify as a “gang”, because after all what they are doing is “lawful”, but they are a “threat” to the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
“Stigged” to “STG’d” means to the process by which any group of inmates is determined to be and becomes officially labeled as a Security Threat Group. This often goes according to official policy and procedure for declaring an inmate group a STG, there are written guidelines and there usually exists a burden of proof requirement — such a the need to show a pattern of abuses or documenting offenses (disciplinary rules, assaults, violence, etc) over time in a time series approach. Typically this process begins at the institutional level where the group is a problem, and the central administration reviews the recommendation, and then if the evidence is sufficient, the inmate group becomes classified as a Security Threat Group statewide, i.e., throughout the entire prison system.
“Validated” refers to the “validation process”, a process by which an inmate is determined, usually after continuing to be a gang banger in prison, to be a “security threat group member” by the prison officials. In California, most gang members behind bars are not “validated”, the stigma of “validated” means the inmate would have had a continued career of conspicuous gang banging violence behind bars. Thus, officially for decades, California’s prison system has reported to researchers that it has a “low gang density”, because these estimates of gang density (the percentage of inmates who are gang/STG members) are based upon “validated gang/STG members”. So the way “validated” has worked in some jurisdictions like California is that it refers to a process where after posting many warnings and cautioning inmates against engaging in crime or violence on behalf of their gang, after of course being put in prison for the same thing, the inmate continues to be caught for gang violence behind bars, and the correctional system has no other recourse than to say “we’ve had enough, now you are a validated gang member”. Validated gang members can be given special security levels and more restricted housing environments.
Gang denial is a social policy whereby the entity involved — the city, the facility, the company, the school, or the entire state corrections agency — denies there is a gang problem or reports a significantly lower gang problem than actually exists. Sometimes called the “Ostrich phenomenon”, it means ignoring the problem, hoping it will go away on its own. In some jurisdictions, it is politically imposed because awareness could have implications for the local tourism trade. Or more typically, there is an assumption that if the entity reports a gang problem, it attracts further “bad news”. It is hard to attract new employees to low paying high turnover jobs in corrections when the newspapers are reporting gang fights behind bars. It usually takes a serious crisis or a local news media investigation to reverse a “gang denial policy”.
The term “validation process” as used in California was their innovative way of dealing with a high gang density rate: it is reasonable to believe that California’s prison system, as a producer of gangs, that is as a major national epicenter of gangs, is probably comparable to Illinois with regard to gang density. In Illinois, approximately 80 to 90 percent of the inmates coming into the prison system were gang members on the streets. Gang inmates are told to behave, and if they do not, they face the risk of being a “validated gang member”.
Thus, when California reports to a prison researcher that “six percent of our inmates are STG/prison gang members” they are couching this unbelievably low statistic in the magical language of “validated gang members”: those who within the inmate population continued to be gang bangers and we caught them doing it in very serious offenses after being incarcerated. One might ask, of course, is this policy of obscuring the gang problem the way it is reported to the public — a variation on the “gang denial” theme ---a policy that could also encourage a greater personal safety threat to the correctional officers who work there?
Gang density means the percentage of inmates who are now or who have ever been members of a street or prison gang. Gang members rarely give up their gang upon being incarcerated, they continue their gang involvement in most cases. Gangs are the dominant subculture in the entire American correctional system today (jails, juvenile and adult correctional facilities, public and private).
Some practitioners in their writing like to make a distinction between traditional prison gangs and untraditional prison gangs, where what they really mean is that the traditional prison gangs were those first on the scene (Aryan Brotherhood, Black Guerilla Family, etc) and that untraditional or non-traditional would therefore be “anything else”. This is not a particularly useful distinction when it is known that some gangs considered “traditional prison gangs” have long ago made the transition to the street. A better, more analytically sound, distinction would be to classify these prison gangs in terms of the level of their organizational threat: are they in a national gang alliance system, do they have a national impact, and a large number of empirical measurements that can be taken on gang groups and gang organizations in terms of the features of their social organization (Knox, 2000).
THE TIME FRAME FOR DATA COLLECTION
The time frame for data collection represented the first six months of the year 2004. Several questions on the survey refer to a time context and ask the respondent to provide information about their prison during the most recent year. It is necessary to clarify here that when these questions are referring to data from the most recent “one year period”, that the questions are actually referring to the one year time frame of 2003.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The survey research methodology was straight forward, it attempted to saturate each of the 50 states by contacting any and all adult correctional facilities known to exist. The first point of contact would be with the warden or superintendent. If no response came back from the warden or superintendent, then an effort would be made to locate a person such as an STG coordinator or STG investigator perhaps someone previously known to the NGCRC in the same facility. The goal was to get as broad of a national sample as possible. In as much as the sample did finally end up with 49 states represented, it is apparent that the methodology was an effective one. The survey did allow participants to be anonymous respondents. So allowing respondents to be anonymous may have helped overcome some resistance.
It is easy to understand why some states are hostile to surveys such as this one, they do not want their state to be compared unfairly with other states. For example, in a state-by-state comparison of certain issues surrounding the gang problem, it could be very embarrassing for some states to have their actual gang/STG density factors published. The reason for this embarrassment goes back to previous surveys where the same states may have supplied such low estimates of the gang member density statistic that it would look like the state has rapidly deteriorated if the true or current statistic was reported. Knowing this feature of the geo-politics of corrections research, the methodology used in this study gave the respondents another option: the option to not have any of their data analyzed with reference to their zip code (which provides state and jurisdictional location). The NGCRC will respect such preferences, and providing this option did help gain the useful sample size developed from the research.
ITEM CONSTRUCTION
The vast majority of the survey items used in this research are questions previously used in NGCRC correctional surveys of jails, juvenile correctional institutions, and adult correctional institutions. However, this year there are some new survey items that have been added to the item pool. It is important here to gratefully recognize the work and contributions from a number of different researchers who designed or helped design some of the new questions, particularly dealing with white racist extremists and their “religious practices” behind bars.
THE SAMPLE SIZE
A total of N = 193 validated survey respondents are included in the analysis reported here. Several additional survey respondents did participate by sending in their information, but these were not used in the analysis because they were non-responsive in some basic or elementary way to the requirement of completing the survey instrument (excessive missing data, etc). One case was also eliminated because it represented the entire state, when the unit of analysis sought was the institution level unit of analysis.
MOST STATES REPRESENTED: RHODE ISLAND IS THE EXCEPTION
A total of 49 states are represented in the survey data. The only state that did not cooperate with the survey was the State of Rhode Island. This is considered a very effective national sample when 49 out of 50 states are represented in the N = 193 survey respondents.
HOW THIS REPORT IS ORGANIZED: THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS
The order of presentation will be that the basic and descriptive statistical findings from the survey are presented first. This order, in terms of topical areas, will follow the same order as the items had inside the survey instrument itself. This is the fairest method in an order of presentation because it does not assign any special significance to the placement of results within this order. The presentation order basically lets the chips fall where they may in the same order as the question appears in the survey instrument.
After examining the basic and descriptive statistical findings from the research, this report will then present the findings from a content analysis of the open-ended items in the survey. The open-ended items in the survey sought to collect narrative information that could be codified and analyzed in terms of a content analysis and this content analysis provides findings on general trends. After presenting the findings from an analysis of the narrative items in the survey, and again this will follow the same sequence as the items had in the survey instrument, some more detailed analysis will be reported on special problem areas that have emerged in the findings of this research.
WHAT IS RLUIPA?
The survey asked the question “Do you know what R.L.U.I.P.A. is?”, and this of course referred to a federal law impacting on how prison inmates practice their religious beliefs behind bars. The results suggest that about half of the respondents knew what it was. Some 46.8% indicated “Yes” that they knew what this was, while some 53.2% indicated “No” that they did not know what this was.
RLUIPA stands for “Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act”. Persons wanting to know more about how this impacts on corrections can go to the website sponsored by the Becket Fund — www . RLUIPA . Com — and see that many correctional agencies have been sued over this federal law that went into effect in the year 2000. What this new law did was extend certain new statutory rights to prison inmates, said inmates quickly learned they had a new weapon to use against correctional administrators, and a massive onslaught of frivolous lawsuits were soon unleashed against correctional agencies nationwide. Additionally, gangs got into the “prisoner religious rights” business and began to operate as a religious front, using RLUIPA as the basis for holding their meetings.
It is helpful to summarize the recent case from Ohio regarding this statute (Trout, 2004). Basically, what RLUIPA did for adult correctional institutions was to increase the review requirements for placing any restrictions on inmates that might pertain to religion. Prior to the passage of RLUIPA the rational review doctrine applied: this meant that disciplinary measures and restrictions could be placed on inmates regarding religion simply if the prison administration rationally decides it is in the best interests of safety and security to do so. After 2000, though, RLUIPA established the strict scrutiny doctrine under which the burden of proof shifts from the inmate needing to prove his rights were violated to the prison needing to prove it is not violating the rights of inmates. In otherwords, under the strict scrutiny doctrine American prisons are under strict scrutiny and assumed to want to systematically violate the rights of inmates, such that any restriction on an inmate’s religious practices is assumed to required extra special scrutiny.
In establishing the strict scrutiny doctrine, RLUIPA also created two classes of inmates: those whose rights are protected when they operate under the cloak of a religion, and those whose rights are not protected when they do not. Thus, those inmates who might want to advance a hatred of anything but Caucasian people could easily do so by organizing their religious service under a wide variety of banners (Christian Identity, WCOTC, etc), and when they possess inflammatory materials along these lines, they are a religion and the inmates can claim it is constitutionally protected. At the same time, an ordinary neo-nazi who does the same thing, but who does not claim it is a religious practice, will face summary disciplinary procedures under the rational review doctrine. Over the years it appears that inmates have learned that it “pays off” to take on the special status of a religion.
In the last year, though, the Ohio adult prison system won a major victory against RLUIPA: the portion of the law applying to prisoners was found to be unconstitutional in the Sixth Circuit.
ABUSES OF RLUIPA
The survey asked “Has your facility experienced any abuses of religious freedoms as a result of the RLUIPA?”, and only 17.3 percent indicated yes. Thus, overall this basic descriptive finding indicates only a modest level of abuse of the RLUIPA legislation that went into effect in 2000. Recall, however, that only half of the respondents actually knew what this legislative acronym meant. So, it may very well be that a significant percentage of those reporting abuses were also those who knew what it really was. If this is true, then it may be a situation of limited understanding of the overall importance of the legislation, and this would suggest that additional research would be necessary to establish a more realistic estimate of the true level of abuse.
NEARLY THREE-FOURTHS BELIEVE: GROUP WORSHIP IS NOT NECESSARY
When inmates worship, the issue is: should they be allowed to congregate together in a large mass? Or can they achieve the same substantive quality experience by other means such as videotaped transmission or televised services or some other mechanism of the delivery of religious services behind bars?
The survey asked “Do you believe prisoners can meet their religious needs individually without group worship?”, and 72.5 percent indicate “yes”. This may be the issue of the actual size of the group. If they are able to control or take over a prison facility, then obviously it would be a security issue to allow everyone to show up for worship all together all at once in one place: that could not be done in any prison or correctional facility. What happens is some gangs and security threat groups use religious meetings as the basis for their gang meetings. When this happens the inmates abuse the right of religious worship, which does obviously occur in American corrections. Later in this report, an additional follow-up question about group vs. individual worship asks the respondent additional — but different — information along these lines (e.g., could they do this in their cell by means of televised broadcast, etc).
VAST MAJORITY AGREE: TOUGHER LAWS ARE NEEDED
The survey asked “Do you feel we need tougher laws to control the gang problem in prison?”, and the results indicate that 84.9 percent responded “yes” to this question. Thus, a vast majority of those in adult corrections are expressing some level of frustration in dealing with the gang problem behind bars. Another way of looking at this is that perhaps the gang problem inside correctional facilities is escalating at a faster rate than society’s ability to respond to it through effective legislative initiatives.
THE GANG DENSITY AMONG NEW ARRIVING INMATES
The survey asked the respondents “Please estimate what percentage of inmates were gang members before they came to your institution?”, and separate estimates were elicited for both males and females. The results indicate that a mean or arithmetic average of 25.9 percent for males, and 6.28 percent for females, were the respective gang density estimates for newly arriving inmates in American prisons today.
This is the first variable about “gang math” that is presented, and several others will also be used, the issue of larger concern is perhaps how these gang math variable interact with each other. These two variables are the most important parameters for a correctional institution: what percentage of the incoming inmates are gang members, the incoming gang member density rate. Which means, basically, that slightly over a fourth of the males headed into the prison system today are gang members.
LOW TATTOO RATES AMONG INCOMING GANG MEMBERS
The survey asked “Please estimate what percentage of inmates who came into your facility as gang members have permanent “gang tattoos”, and separate estimates were elicited for both the male and female inmates. The results indicated that only 38.2 percent of the males who came in as gang members had permanent gang tattoos, and only 7.4 percent of the females who came in as gang members had permanent gang tattoos. This would seem to signal somewhat low levels of commitment to gang life for persons recently convicted of felonies and headed to long term custody. This is a somewhat curious statistical finding, as it would have been expected to be somewhat higher. Perhaps we are just now discovering that for these gang members they get their biggest and best gang tattoos later while serving the duration of their prison sentences.
THREE-FOURTHS OF AMERICAN PRISONS HAVE RULES PROHIBITING GANG RECRUITMENT AMONG OTHER INMATES
The survey explicitly asked “Does your facility have specific disciplinary rules that prohibit gang recruitment?”. The results indicate that 74.9 percent reported such rules already in place which would prohibit gang recruitment behind bars. Still, about a fourth of the respondents in this survey indicated that no such rules were in place that would prohibit gang recruitment in American prisons — and this is something that needs to change immediately.
ALMOST ALL REPORT: PRISON IS A PLACE WHERE GANGS RECRUIT AND GET NEW MEMBERS
The survey asked “Do you believe that some inmates may have voluntarily joined (sought out) or may have been recruited into a gang while incarcerated?”. The results show that an over-whelming majority (94.2 percent) indicated “yes”, that they are aware of inmates joining or being recruited into a gang while incarcerated. This is a major breakthrough in terms of having full and open disclosure about a major gang problem such as this. If there was previously any doubt about whether the “contamination effect” takes place, then this data should basically set the record straight in that regard. Yes, gang members do contaminate other inmates and thus, sending a gang leader to prison just means the gang leader has a new arena in which to undertake recruiting efforts, and from what nearly 95 percent of the prisons are reporting — it pays off for the gang to be able to recruit or groom new members from inside correctional facilities.
THE FIRST ESTIMATES OF THE SEVERITY OF THE PROBLEM OF INMATES FIRST JOINING A GANG WHILE INCARCERATED
The survey asked “Please estimate what percentage of inmates were not gang members on the streets, but who did in fact join a gang or an STG after entering your institution,” and separate estimates were solicited for males and females. The results indicate that 11.6 percent of the males first joined a gang or STG while incarcerated, compared to 3.7 percent for the female inmates. This is, after all, quite a remarkable finding in one regard: it means one out of ten male prison inmates in America first joined a gang while they were in prison. And, therefore, the rate of new intake into gang life within correctional facilities is a major problem today. This also gives a major new safety goal: to reduce or eliminate such high levels of gang recruitment behind bars might do much if there was ever going to be, for the first time ever, an organized war against criminal gangs in America. It also shows that far from becoming rehabilitated, many inmates become more hardened in the current system.
GANG TATTOO REMOVAL SERVICES DO NOT EXIST BEHIND BARS FOR AMERICAN INMATES
One of the most effective “anti-gang” program services ever conceived of is known as the gang tattoo removal service. When a gang member is disaffected with gang life and wants to leave the gang, perhaps testify against the gang, or just wants to “go straight”, he or she often seeks to remove gang tattoos (see Thompson, 2004b). A large number of communities in America today provide such tattoo removal services. The gang members are screened and an assessment is made as to the sincerity of their claim to want to leave gang life, and upon a determination of their commitment to wanting to leave gang life alone, the program provides free or inexpensive tattoo removal services. Physicians often volunteer for this kind of work, pro bono.
The survey asked “Does your facility have a “gang tattoo removal program” for inmates who want to quit gang life?”. Sadly 99.5 percent indicated “no”, and only one half of one percent indicated “yes”. Therefore, gang tattoo removal services are basically non-existent in American adult corrections today is the finding of this research. And correctional officials are missing an important opportunity to dissuade some inmates from the negative influences of gang life by not seeking to take advantage of basically free services.
A SMALL LEVEL OF ANTI-GANG PROGRAMMING EXISTS IN AMERICAN ADULT CORRECTIONS TODAY
The survey asked “Does your facility have a special program that is able to get gang inmates to quit their gang?”. The results indicated that only 15.7 percent indicated “yes”, thus the vast majority did not have any special program to help their inmates quit gang life. The basic message here is that some of these programs could easily be replicated in other jurisdictions at little or no cost, and it would pay off for American society in a large way would be the prediction here.
One example of a special program that is aimed at encouraging inmates to quit their gang is the GRAD program in the Texas state prison system. GRAD is the acronym for the federally funded “Gang Renouncement and Disassociation Process” (Riggs, 2004). To get into this program gang members in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institution Division must first go into “protective custody” in the Ramsey One prison unit located near Houston, Texas, then in three stages during nine months of program services they are taught “how to start new lives outside the gangs” (Riggs, 2004). Apparently, more than 600 inmates are on the waiting list for the program, which is very consistent with much earlier national research by the NGCRC that many gang members would quit gang life if given the chance.
INMATES DO QUIT GANG LIFE BEHIND BARS: A FIRST ESTIMATE OF THE RATE OF “QUITTING GANG LIFE BEHIND BARS”
As a follow-up on whether any special program existed to help inmates quit gang life, the survey asked “what percentage of the inmates who come in as gang members actually quit their gang?”. The results indicate that a mean of 9.46 percent of the inmates who come in as gang members quit their gang inside correctional institutions. That, too, is quite remarkable when one out of ten gang members coming into the facility quits their gang after they enter the correctional facility. Another way of looking at this might be that they quit one gang to join another, which unfortunately is a likely possibility. It would be useful, in future research along these lines, to investigate the extent to which inmates switch gangs. It is interesting to note that this group of inmates is roughly equal in size to the proportion of inmates who join a gang for the first time during prison. These two factors tend to cancel each other out is what is demonstrated here for the first time.
ADJUSTED GANG DENSITY ESTIMATES
The survey asked “overall, considering the percentage who were gang members before they came to your institution and considering the percentage who joined after they came to your institution, what percentage of the inmates in your facility are gang members?”. Again the survey sought separate estimates for both males and females. The adjusted gang density rate for male inmates was shown to be 24.8 percent, still rather high; and 4.09 percent for female inmates.
IN MOST CASES WHITE INMATES HAVE A SEPARATE GANG
The survey asked “Do white inmates have a separate gang?”. The results showed that 72.3 percent of the facilities responding to the survey reported that white inmates have a separate gang. Actually, as will be further described later in this report, a typical facility may have several white gangs. A follow-up question to this survey item asked for the actual name, as narrative data, of the white gang. This narrative information is subjected to content analysis and the results of the content analyses are reported after the descriptive statistical findings.
Since 1991 this problem has steadily increased in a significant way. In 1991 about a fourth of the institutions were reporting white gangs, as can be seen below, in continuous NGCRC monitoring of this factor over the years, now only about a fourth of the institutions do not have a separate white gang..
1991 1992 1993 1995 1999 2004
YES 27.3% 41.1% 56.7% 57.9% 70.3% 72.3%
NO 72.7% 59.6% 43.3% 42.1% 29.7% 27.7%
POPULAR READING AMONG PRISON INMATES
The survey asked a series of questions about whether any of the inmates in their facility requested or have actually ordered and possessed as their property three different types of books that would give us more than some clue as to the kind of ideological influences available to inmates. Some 31.5 percent of the prisons reported that inmates had the book known as The White Man’s Bible by Ben Klassen. Some 47.3 percent reported that inmates had the book known as The Satanic Bible by Anton Le Vey. And 36 percent reported that inmates had the book entitled Temple of Woton: The Holy Book of the Aryan Tribes by the 14 Word Press.
Unfortunately, this report lacks comparison information for what percentage of inmates generally have possession of these kinds of materials as compared with more mainstream publications such as the Bible or the Koran. It obviously would be a valuable future contribution to our knowledge base to examine this issue.
OVER A THIRD REPORT INMATES HAVING A BOOK OF SHADOWS
The survey asked “Have any of the inmates in your facility, past or present, ever possessed or manufactured a Book of Shadows?”. Some 37.5 percent responded “yes”. Thus, over a third of the responding correctional facilities were familiar with this aspect of occult practices behind bars. The Book of Shadows is an occult practice found in the Wiccan groups. Wiccan witchcraft is considered a legitimate religion in the U.S. Military, and cannot be suppressed or investigated.
INMATES REQUESTING TO CONDUCT THE BLOD RITE
The survey asked “Have any inmates in your facility requested to conduct the Blod Rite in your facility?”, and the results indicated that 12.2 percent of the facilities responding to the survey answered “yes”. The Blod Rite is an Odinist ritual, where the priest and priestess gather others who worship the white god of Valhalla (Odin). Odinism could obviously be a front for white racist extremist gangs behind bars, this would be consistent with the analysis by Blazak (2002).
MEASURES OF WHITE RACIST EXTREMIST MINISTRY OUTREACH TO AMERICAN INMATES
To our knowledge this is the first time any systematic effort has been undertaken to measure the scope and extent of white racist extremist ministry outreach to American inmates. The survey asked “Has your facility received any “prison ministry literature” from any of the following groups” and listed were the top three operating in America.
The results indicated that 29 percent of the prisons report inmate outreach from the Kingdom Identity Ministries (Christian Identity). Further, that 36.6 percent report outreach from the Church of Jesus Christ Christian (Christian Identity). And finally, that 45.9 percent report outreach from the World Church of the Creator or Creativity (WCOTC).
A separate question asked the respondents “What are the top three largest white racist extremist “religious” front groups that are proselytizing to the inmates in your facility?”, but this this narrative is subjected to content analysis and reported later in this report.
MOST AGREE: BARGAINING WITH GANG LEADERS IS LIKE NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS
The survey asked “In your opinion, would an official who tries to bargain with an inmate gang leader be similar to negotiating with terrorists?”. The results indicate that 70.6 percent agree with this assumption, that is, that yes, bargaining with an inmate gang leader is exactly like trying to negotiate with a terrorist: you should not do it. Years ago, it was not uncommon at all, in some correctional agencies to find administrators bargaining with inmate gang leaders.
THE BELIEF EXISTS: THAT GANGS OR GANG LEADERS ARE ABLE TO INFLUENCE POLITICIANS
The survey asked “Do you feel that gangs or gang leaders are able to influence politicians in your state?”, and unusually some 29.3 percent, over a fourth of those responding to the survey, indicated “yes” that they believed this to be true. The idea that gangs or gang leaders are able to influence politicians is an issue of political corruption. Gangs and organized crime flourish where political corruption exists. So, when this many correctional agencies are reporting this kind of problem, a major potential problem exists nationwide. For the record, NGCRC surveys of local law enforcement agencies have in the past reported the very same phenomenon.
In 1994 it was at 20.3 percent, rising in 1995, the results showed that 23.6 percent of the respondents felt that gangs or gang leaders are able to influence the politicians in their state; in 1999, this rose slightly to 25.4 percent.
1994 1995 1999 2004
YES 20.3% 23.6% 25.4% 29.3%
NO 79.7% 76.4% 74.6% 70.7%
The survey also asked the respondents “What are the names of the top three largest gangs that are represented among inmates in your facility?”, but this narrative information is examined by content analysis and is summarized later in this report.
MOST AGREE: FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE NEEDED TO FIGHT GANG CRIME
The survey asked “Do you believe federal agencies should play a greater role in the investigation and prosecution of gang crimes?”. Some 84.8 percent of the respondents indicated “yes”, that they do believe this. Thus, there would appear to be overwhelming (over 4 out of 5) support the idea that federal agencies are needed in the fight against gangs.
GANG DOMINATION OF INMATE ECONOMIC RACKETS
The survey asked “What kind of economic "rackets" do gangs try to operate or control in your facility? (check ALL that apply)” and listed were the options of drugs, sex, food, clothing, loan sharking, gambling, extortion, and protection. All of these are well known income-producing “rackets” or illegal enterprises for prison inmates: they make their money from other inmates. Inmates have invented some remarkably clever ways to “wash” or “launder” the money. Often the money is never actually sent to the prison, the “customer” instructs his family to mail the money to a “third party” who often is related to the incarcerated racket operator.
So among the major types of inmate rackets, our findings indicate that gangs try to dominate most of these rackets. For example, gangs try to dominate the drug rackets in 87.8 percent of the facilities surveyed; drugs are the most lucrative market.
These illegal drugs are also a source of riots and killings behind bars. For example, in March of 2004, a prison riot in Puerto Rico resulted in two inmates killed and five wounded, which was started by gang members fighting over who would control the a shipment of illegal drugs; Neta, Los 25, and Los 27 are the main prison gangs in Puerto Rico (“Pereira Firm on Not Allowing Prison Gangs”, March 17, 2004, San Juan, Associated Press).
Some 45.1 percent of the facilities responding indicated that gangs tried to dominate the illegal sex trade behind bars; while usually involving homosexual inmates working for the gang, it also sometimes involves the special cooperation from correctional staff who may, for a price, be willing to provide sexual favors to inmates or to look the other way; as well as special “arrangements” where a visit or a cultural event becomes the context for being able to offer a prostitute or its equivalent from outside.
Some 56.7 percent indicated that gangs tried to dominate the illicit food business behind bars, this entails specially cooked items or meals specially prepared, special food items, often stolen or smuggled into the facility.
Some 40.2 percent indicated that gangs tried to dominate the clothing business; this often means “special” treatment, pressed pants, perhaps scented or “dry cleaning” as opposed to regular clothes washing.
Some 60.4 percent indicated that gangs tried to dominate the loan sharking scams in their facilities; this is where a gang operates an illegal “store”, and other inmates can make purchases from it at any time day or night, on credit. They pay two for one, and are expected to repay in one week; or the “juice” goes up. It is a very lucrative scam. Or the inmate may want to loan “stamps”, or “cigarettes”, similarly, they pay three digit interest rates.
Some 73.2 percent of the facilities indicated that gangs try to dominate the gambling scams in their prisons; these involve everything from “betting pools”, to dice or craps games, to card games, and a wide variety of “lottery” types of games. All operated by the inmates, of course, and you have to ask yourself: why would they play against other convicted criminals, how can they be trusted to operate an honest betting operation?
Some 70.1 percent of the facilities indicated that gangs tend to dominate the “extortion” rackets; and that gangs dominate in 76.2 percent of the cases in “protection” rackets. These go hand in hand. Basically, weaker inmates become the target of organized gang groups, and the weaker inmates are forced to pay the stronger inmates.
A new type of inmate racket is the “cellular phone call”. In this type of special service, an inmate for a fee is allowed to make a call on a contraband cell phone. By using a cell phone that was illegally smuggled into the correctional facility, it is not monitored, and the inmate using the cell phone can have a “clean call” to conduct business with someone in the outside world, perhaps just call and harass a witness. Smuggling in cell phones is itself a racket. For example one report on the prison system in Puerto Rico indicated that 548 mobile phones or cell phones were seized from inmates. Miguel Pereira — the Secretary of Puerto Rico’s Corrections and Rehabilitation Department — reported those 548 phones were seized just during the first three months of 2004 (Associated Press, “Pereira Firm on Not Allowing Prison Gangs”, San Juan, March 17, 2004). In 2002, 61 cell phones were seized as contraband in 3 Philadelphia jails, and with a new law making it a 10 year prison sentence for an inmate to possess a cell phone or for anyone to give it to an inmate, there are 50 cases being prosecuted now in Texas (Butterfield, 2004).
What is another potential danger of cellular phones smuggled into prison inmates? In February, of 2001, one very powerful prison gang called the First Command of the Capital (PCC), used cell phones to create riots in 29 different prisons throughout Brazil. The prison gang used the cell phones to synchronize the rioting in different jurisdictions of Brazil, resulting in the deaths of 19 inmates. And, obviously, just as easily were able to call off the riot with the same communications system. Inmates with cell phones is bad news anywhere in the world. In the 2001 Brazilian riots, the gang leader met with an important judge and had the audacity to threaten the Brazilian government to the effect “if we get what we want, we will stop rioting for 90 days”. In 2002, 27 inmates were killed in a gang riot at the Urso Branco (White Bear) prison in Brazil. In April of 2004 the same prison would be the scene of another gang riot resulting in 14 inmates killed (tortured or mutilated by the gang, often decapitated). After these riots, many concessions were made to the gang (additional visits, replacing wardens, transfers, more recreation space, better dental program, etc) , so a lot more rioting in Brazil can be expected in the years ahead, when the inmates start working on the potentially endless list of “demands” they are capable of making.
The May 2004 gang riot in the Benfica detention center in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil left 30 inmates dead. But it could have been a lot worse, as a similar riot in 1992 at Sao Paulo’s Carandiru prison resulted in over100 inmates killed. The Benfica riot ended June 1, 2004 when a gangwise negotiator, pastor Marcos Pereira da Silva came to the jail, met with the gang members, prayed with them and accepted their weapons, the inmates sang praise worship songs and then returned to their cells. Pastor Da Silva has a unique type of church: Assembly of God of the Last Days, situated in Sao Joao de Meriti, the women in his church wear and worship separately from the men. He has definitely gained the reputation among Brazilian gangs as a mediator.
Today, Brazil is doing what some American prisons did with prison gang leaders years ago, perhaps two decades or more, circa 1980: negotiating with gang leaders, making concessions to them, trying to “bargain” with the gang leaders. This is a major mistake and is destined to backfire in different ways over time. First, it emboldens the gang in the same way that negotiating with a terrorist group gives it undeserved recognition as an entity that has any legitimate right to demand anything. Secondly, it sets a terrible precedent by giving the inmates an incentive to riot again and again, knowing that they were rewarded for misbehaving in the past they might be rewarded again. And thirdly, it legitimizes the prison gang as the semi-official inmate “union” organization and makes the gang leader the power broker or the “inmate union leader”. It is easy to make the prediction, without use of a crystal ball, that much additional prison gang violence will occur in Brazil. What is being done in Brazil’s prison system is a massive management mistake.
RECENT CASH SEIZED FROM GANG INMATES
The survey asked “What was the largest amount of cash seized from gang member inmates during the last one year period? $__________dollars”. While many reported no such seizures, among the cases where USC was seized, the amounts ranged from a low of $20 to a high of $7,500 in cash or United States Currency. The mean amount seized during the last year was $280.24 in the incidents reported in this survey. So, obviously, money is being found and taken away from gang member inmates. And the only logical explanation is that they got it from one or more of the rackets that gangs operate behind bars.
MOST BELIEVE PRISON INCREASES GANG SOLIDARITY
The survey asked “Do you believe that gang members generally have a stronger affiliation with their gang after serving time?”, Some 73.6 percent responded “yes”, that they believed that the prison experience did in fact increase the strength of the affiliation or tie to the gang. Some have called this the “hardening effect”: where the prison experience increases rather than decreases their commitment to gang life. What is often at work in this “hardening effect” is that inside prison, the gang member may have made some rank. That is, it is often easier for a gang member to achieve a position of leadership or rank while in prison, as they often meet the real gang leaders there as well.
THE BEST ESTIMATES OF RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION AMONG AMERICAN INMATES TODAY
This survey uses the best type of data, because it measures not what someone claims on paper (i.e., an admission form), but rather measures how religion is practiced in prison. The survey asked the respondents to “Estimate the breakdown of percentage of inmates attending religious services in your facility” and separate estimates were obtained for all of the major religious types. Here are the results, rank ordered by their popularity among American inmates: Protestant services was the largest single category of inmates, accounting for 29.1 percent of inmates; Muslim services were next with 10.5 percent of the inmates; followed by Catholic services (9.9) and Judaic services (1.1%); a small number of “other” services are offered nationwide as well accounting for 8.2 percent of inmate attendance.
The survey did ask the names of the three largest “other” services attracting inmates, under the hypothesis that this exploratory research might discover some interesting trends. This narrative information will be detailed later in this report.
A FOURTH HAVE PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE RACE RELATIONS
The survey asked “Does your facility have any programs for inmates which seek to improve race relations among inmates?”. The results indicate that about a fourth of the institutions, nationwide, are reporting that they have such a program. Some 24.2 percent of the respondents indicated that they had some program for inmates which seeks to improve race relations among inmates. In our opinion, the quarter of the respondents who report this type of programming option have an advantage in dealing with gang problems and in preventing disturbances. Anything that can be done to improve race relations takes away a lot of the fuel from the hatemongers and gangs, who are often the cause of such disturbances and riots behind bars.
This report includes additional information, presented later, indicating about half of the correctional respondents believe in the theory that anything done to reduce racial tension might also reduce gang violence.
SEPARATE FACILITIES FOR INFORMANTS STILL A RARITY
A trend in recent years has been to create separate facilities for informants, sometimes called “snitch farms”. A number of states have these, and these are very unique environments, not necessarily any safer, just very unique: in these facilities the social pecking order is upside down. In a regular prison the “snitch” is at the very bottom of the pecking order, but in a snitch farm the bigger the snitch the more “status” they have.
The survey asked “Does your state have a separate correctional facility for confidential informants?”. The survey results indicated that only 14.5 percent of the respondents indicated that their state has this kind of facility.
TWO THIRDS OF THE PRISONS REPORT STG’s/GANGS USE RELIGIOUS SERVICES AS A FRONT FOR THEIR OPERATIONS
The survey asked “Have inmates attempted to use religious services as a front for a Security Threat Group or gang?”. The results indicate that 68.8 percent responded “yes” to this question. With over two-thirds of the prisons reporting that gangs and STG’s attempt to use religious services as a “cover” or “front” for their gang/STG operations, the information on the types of these gangs will be presented later in the report. For example, after finishing the descriptive statistics this report presents findings on white racist extremist gangs, and identifies the top ten white racist “religious” front groups spreading their brand of hate to American inmates today nationwide.
ABOUT HALF OF PRISON RELIGIOUS SERVICES ARE PHYSICALLY MANNED
The survey asked “Do you have a staff person physically in the room during all religious services?”. The results indicated that only 49.7 percent reported that they did in fact have a staff person physically in the room during all religious services in their prison. Which means, of course, that in the other half of the cases that there is in fact no staff person physically present during all religious services. It is likely a staffing problem: too many needs and not enough staff to meet the needs. It would be valuable to follow-up regarding this issue in the future, to evaluate the perceived needs in this area.
JUST OVER HALF USE A/V SUPERVISION OF RELIGIOUS SERVICES
The survey asked “Do you have auditory/visual supervision of all religious services?”, and the results indicated that 55 percent indicated “yes”. Thus, just over half of the correctional facilities participating in the survey indicated that yes they do use audio/visual supervision of all religious services. This is typically accomplished with regular security cameras.
RARE FOR PRISONS TO ALLOW MILITARISTIC BEHAVIOR BY RELIGIOUS GROUPS
The survey asked “is militaristic behavior allowed by “religious groups” in your facility (e.g., saluting, marching, cadence, etc)?”. The results showed that only 4.2 percent indicated “yes”, that this kind of bizarre behavior would be tolerated in their correctional facilities, making it very rare. The overwhelming vast majority (95.8%) indicated this kind of militaristic behavior would not be tolerated.
ABOUT HALF ALLOW INMATES TO BE THE SPIRITUAL LEADER OF OTHER INMATES
The survey asked “Do you allow prisoners to lead services when volunteers/chaplains are not qualified/available for services?”. Surprisingly, some 51.4 percent indicated “yes”, that it would be allowable for inmates to technically be the spiritual leader of other inmates. This is, after all, potentially what could be expected if prisoners are allowed to lead the services for other inmates. If leading the religious service is a position of power, then it runs against most modern ideas in penology to allow any prisoner to have any kind or type of authority over other prisoners. The reason this is true is that there is simply way too much room for the abuse of that power in an environment dominated by deadly criminal gangs.
Still, what this may also measure is a severe lack of religious volunteers from the outside community; thus, there is a need to catalog or inventory the existence of such programs nationwide that might be able to offer aid, assistance or training in this regard.
FOUR-FIFTHS DO NOT ALLOW PRISONERS TO USE RELIGIOUS TITLES OF AUTHORITY
The survey asked “Do you allow prisoners to refer to themselves with religious titles of power or authority (Reverend, Imam, Supreme Pontificate, etc)?”. Here the research found that only 19.7 percent of the correctional facilities actually allow inmates to adopt such religious titles, possibly titles of power and authority. Most prisons do not tolerate this behavior from prisoners. It is rather astonishing that so many facilities do allow this behavior, that is, in light of the potential for abuse that it might represent: particularly if used by a gang leader.
EXTREMELY RARE: TO ALLOW PRISONERS TO EXCHANGE FUNDS WITH EACH OTHER
The survey asked “Do you allow prisoners to exchange funds with each other?”. The results showed that only 2.6 percent of the responding facilities allowed inmates to exchange funds with each other. Thus, it is very rare to allow this kind of economic freedom behind bars.
In most prisons, inmates would never be allowed to exchange money or funds with each other, it would be prohibited and a violation of the rules is the finding here.
THE AVERAGE AMERICAN PRISON PROVIDES TIME AND SPACE TO JUST OVER SIX DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS GROUPS
The survey asked “How many different religious groups are being provided time and space for group worship meetings in your facility?”. The results indicated a mean score of 6.3 such religious groups being provided time and space for group worship meetings nationwide. Obviously, this could go higher or lower, with a high of 22 different religious groups meeting in one facility in the sample. The 6.3 would be the average, nationwide, for this variable.
PRISONER TO PRISONER MAIL IS ALLOWED IN ALMOST HALF OF AMERICAN PRISONS
If you wanted to allow prisoners to write to each other and send the message “everyone riot on January 1st at breakfast, mass escape, mayhem, day of reckoning”, then this would be the way it would happen: you would allow prisoners to write to each other through the United States Postal Service. Wanting to know what, exactly, the national statistical tendency was here, the survey asked the question “Is prisoner to prisoner mail allowed in your facility?”. What the research found was that 47.1 percent of the facilities said “yes”, that it is allowed (i.e., that inmates can write to other inmates).
In Pelican Bay, gang members are not allowed to write to other inmates. In spite of this, gang members developed their own technique for evading this rule or regulation. They used a bounce-back technique: A. They write the letter that is designed to be a message intended for another inmate, B. They mail this letter to a cooperative third party who knows both persons, typically a female friend of the gang who gives the letter the “bounce”, and C. It is then just sent to the inmate it was intended for. This is a technique gang leaders have perfected at Pelican Bay (Geniella, 2001).
Inmates have a lot of time to develop special codes and ciphers to encode important “gang business” messages. Cryptanalysts are able to make a forensic examination of these written communications, and in the gang world often find hidden messages: beneath the overt message of “AHG to Sammy” or “All Honorable Greetings to Sammy”, might contain the alphanumeric childhood code of A = 1, G = 7, H = 8, thus what it really says in California illiterate-level gang cryptology is “187 to Sammy” or “kill Sammy”. Staff who work in the mail room and who monitor phones and visitation rooms need to know a lot more about the hidden codes and many words and phrases that have “double meanings” to most gangs. This includes special words for drugs and money and payment procedures, as well as coded identifiers for the names of important figures in the gang business. It is fair to characterize this area as a “growing field of study” that promises to provide a wealth of useful training material for correctional personnel in the future.
NO SURPRISE HERE: MOST AGREE PRISONER TO PRISONER MAIL IS A SECURITY THREAT
The survey asked “In your opinion is prisoner to prisoner mail a major potential security problem in the field of corrections?”. The results show that 79.4 percent responded “yes”, that prisoner to prisoner mail could be a security problem. It is interesting, though, that one out of five felt otherwise.
There are probably a lot of security threats in the mail system used by American inmates that have yet to be properly addressed. One issue comes to mind in the post-911 environment: should prison inmates be able, for example, to write letters to foreign embassies? It is a well known fact that the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington, among others, routinely sends free copies of the Koran to prisons (Miller, 1999).
AN AVERAGE OF 1.3 RELIGIOUS SERVICES ARE LEAD BY INMATES INSIDE THE TYPICAL AMERICAN PRISON
The survey asked “How many religious services are run by prisoners or inmates at your facility?” The results showed a mean, or arithmetic average, score of 1.3 for this variable. Thus, an aver of 1.3 religious services are run by inmates in the typical state prison in America is what this data suggests.
The survey also asked “What are the names of the top three religious services being run by prisoners?”, but this narrative information is content analyzed and therefore reported later in this document.
MENTAL ILLNESS AMONG INMATES: AN ESTIMATE FROM WITHIN
The survey asked “Please estimate what percentage of the inmates in your facility are mentally ill. ____Percent”. The mean, or arithmetic average, for this variable derived from the data collected for the present research was that 12.2 percent of American adult prison inmates are mentally ill. Now this is the estimate from those who supervise the inmates. It is the estimate from within.
RARE: FOR PRISONS TO RECEIVE ANY PRESSURE TO “PLAY DOWN” GANG ACTIVITY
This is the ultimate measure of gang denial: if you cannot talk about the gang problem openly, then you are probably in gang denial as a matter of state policy if that is where the “pressure” came from. The survey asked “Do you receive any pressure from state officials to "play down" gang activity?”. The results indicated that only 4.3 percent answered “yes”, and that therefore it is very rare for prisons to receive this kind of pressure to deny the gang problem.
THREE TYPES of RIOTS LIKELY TO OCCUR IN AMERICAN PRISONS TODAY
The survey asked “During the last twelve month period, have there been any disturbances related to gang members in your facility?”. The results indicate that 43.9 percent of the facilities included in the sample report having such a disturbance in the last year.
The survey also asked “During the last twelve month period, have there been any disturbances related to racial conflict in your facility?”. Here the statistical analysis revealed that 38.9 percent reported such a racial disturbance among inmates within the last year.
The survey also asked “During the last twelve month period, have there been any disturbances related to religious conflicts in your facility?”. Here it was found that basically about one out of ten facilities in American corrections reported this kind of disturbance in the last year. The research found that 11.6 percent of the correctional facilities reported having a disturbance related to religious conflicts in their institution. This is the new kind of American prison riot: the religious riot. And, more often than not, some type of extremist activity is often associated with the conditions giving rise to this new type of riot. This extremist activity typically means some type of ideological polarization already exists and is represented within the social organization of the inmates (e.g., through their gangs, STG’s, etc).
FEW FACILITIES WILL NEGOTIATE WITH GANG MEMBERS EVEN TO KEEP THE PEACE
The survey asked “Do staff in your facility sometimes find it necessary to negotiate with gang members in order to keep the peace?”. The research results indicated that only 12.7 percent of the respondent report they are willing to negotiate with gang members to keep the peace. Thus, only one in ten such institutions, overall would be expected to do this.
HOSTAGE TAKING INCIDENTS OVER TIME
The survey asked “When was the last time your facility had a hostage situation involving inmates and staff? 19_____ or 200___ Or ____Never”. Basically, only about one in five institutions in America has ever experienced this kind of problem. Some 78.7 percent of the respondents indicated they had never had such a hostage situation involving inmates and staff.
The respondents recalled events dating back to 1973 and as recently as 2004 as seen below:
Year N reporting this as their last date of a Hostage Incident
1973 1
1977 2
1978 1
1979 1
1980 2
1981 1
1984 2
1985 1
1986 1
1987 2
1989 4
1990 2
1991 3
1994 1
1995 2
1996 2
1997 1
1998 1
2002 2
2003 4
Thus, there were four respondents who reported having a hostage incident in the year 2003; none in 1999, or 2000, or 2001, which was apparently a lull period for those in this sample.
FOUR-FIFTHS OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES PROVIDE CULTURAL DIVERSITY TRAINING TO STAFF
The survey asked “Have most of your staff and employees received training in cultural diversity?”. The results showed that 83.3 percent indicated “yes” to this question about whether most of their staff and employees have had diversity training. Still, the types of facilities that have not had this kind of training and who might benefit from it are worthy of additional analysis for future research.
DATE OF LAST MAJOR PRISON RIOT IN THEIR STATE
The survey asked “For your entire state correctional system, when was the last major inmate riot? 19____ or 200___ (Please indicate year) ___Never”. A small number indicated never in this regard because it was a measure of statewide activity and not limited to their particular facility, and may also reflect lack of knowledge itself about this historical issue, but either way some 11 percent indicated never.
The distribution of dates and N of facilities for that year range from 1954 to the current year as seen below:
1954 1
1960 1
1968 2
1970 2
1972 1
1974 2
1975 2
1978 2
1979 2
1980 7
1981 10
1982 3
1983 2
1985 6
1986 1
1988 4
1989 2
1990 1
1991 3
1992 6
1993 11
1994 5
1995 8
1996 4
1997 4
1998 6
1999 4
2000 2
2001 5
2002 5
2003 15
2004 8
It is important to note that “last major inmate riot” could obviously include a “gang riot”. The riot in Folsom Prison in April of 2002 is a good example of what a “gang riot” is. One gang attacks another gang, and you have a gang riot. The gangs are typically mortal enemies, and do not need much provocation.
In the 2002 Folsom prison gang riot, there apparently there was a unique factor. When the Mexican Mafia (Surenos) attacked their rival the Nuestra Familia (Nortenos), a claim that surfaced in the media coverage of the event was that the associate warden, Michael D. Bunnell, who allowed the two gangs together into the prison yard, was himself associated with the Mexican Mafia (Thompson, 2004a). There were over 20 inmates injured in the riot, but most importantly one correctional officer subsequently committed suicide — Capt. D.F. Pieper. He had been demoted after the riot, and his suicide note claimed corruption in corrections, such that his wife believes a criminal coverup continues. However, federal authorities found no abuses in the aftermath of this riot, as many of the gang member inmates had been in lockdown 23 hours a day for 21 months after the riot. The internal investigation by California state officials found no criminal wrongdoing by correctional administrators.
There are a lot of examples of prison gang riots that have also been prevented by a good STG intelligence system, having STG coordinators in every prison. Such was the case when Mickey Cobra gang leader William James, Sr., in the Wisconsin corrections system decided he wanted to start a gang riot. This shows useful factual and historical information from case law decisions, because after having been found guilty of violating severe disciplinary rules such as “do not start a riot”, this gang leader sued his state corrections system and it ended up in court. What James tried to do is work with other gangs to start a riot, the problem was there were two informants who relayed the information on how four different gangs were working together to ignite a riot, and the riot was prevented. In a 2002 decision by the Court of Appeals, the appeal by James to have his disciplinary code conviction overturned was rejected and the prison disciplinary decision was affirmed (James v. McCaughtry, Wisc.).
On April 11, 1993, Easter Sunday, a group of Islamic inmates started Ohio’s deadliest riot ever. As the riot unfolded, two other gangs got involved: the Aryan Brotherhood took charge of an area, and the Gangster Disciples took charge of another area of the same cell block. Eleven days later, nine inmates and one correctional officer were dead, most of the inmates were executed by a roving “death squad” intent on killing snitches (Pfeifer, 2002). The case of State v. LaMar (2002) provides fertile historical and factual information on the nature of this kind of prison riot. The sad message of this riot is why society has prisons in the first place, without legitimate authority around, in the case of this riot, complete mayhem and anarchy was the rule of the day at the prison. Keith LaMar was the inmate in charge of the death squad. LaMar was subsequently convicted and sentenced to the death penalty. LaMar was not even a part of any of the gangs involved in the riot, he was just willing to work for them once the riot was underway.
There are also examples from around the world of the STG problem, thus reviewing a few of these will help place the present findings in a larger international context. In the country of Turkey, a notorious gang from Istanbul known as the Karagumruk gang in November 2000 instigated a massive prison riot, taking 29 staff as hostages (including their equivalent of the warden and his four associate wardens). Two days later five were dead as troops stormed the prison. Gangs are still active in and out of prison in Turkey.
The gang-turf war has long ago spread from the streets to the prison system. Jails routinely experience this kind of gang riot, such as occurred in July 2004 at the Carrizalez-Rucker Detention Center in Cameron County, Texas. In this gang riot a fight occurred between members of the Vallucos and the Texas Syndicate, the latter being a well-known and established gang. Different cell blocks began fighting almost simultaneously. Over 100 inmates took part in the riot, about a dozen of whom were injured.
On August 18, 2004 a gang riot resulted in 31 inmates being killed in a San Salvador jail; typical of overcrowding which also contributes to disorder, this jail held over 3,000 inmates when it was designed to hold 800. The most problematic gang in this riot was the Mara Salvatrucha 18 (Mara 18). Most American gang experts know about MS 13, and some have noticed a MS 18 presence, but the MS 18 is much more well known in their country of origin (El Salvador). The Mara 18 gang was the first wave of immigrant children who turned to street gangs, primarily in the Los Angeles area, where there was a longstanding gang known as “18th Street”. Some of the new kids from El Salvador joined the 18th Street gang and in doing so created an allied but new gang called “Mara 18", and when deported back to their country of origin, the Mara 18 culture came back home as well.
Guatamala’s prison system is similarly overcrowded, there a gang riot occurred because the inmates wanted to kill a gang leader named Cesar Beteta Raymundo, who was among 17 inmates hacked to death with machetes and improvised blade weapons; the victims were often decapitated, or burned. The gang leader’s head was put on a stick and it was paraded around the prison (see “17 Killed in Gory Guatemala Prison Riot”, Daily Times, Dec. 27, 2002).
The gang riot in the prison in El Dorado, Venezuela in August of 1997 where 29 prisoners were killed, set a new standard in brutality. The local gang tricked an STG consisting entirely of Guajiro Indians into dropping their homemade weapons. The local gang gave a standard inmate code alarm that the correctional officers were on the way to shake down the prison. The Guajiro Indians had killed a gang leader a few days earlier. The Guajiro Indians believed the gambit that there really was a massive “shake down” coming, and they dropped or discarded their weapons, at which point they were attacked from all sides. Two of the Guajiro Indians were decapitated, and their heads were used by local gang members to play soccer, who joyfully kicking the heads from one end of the prison cell block to the other end (See “29 Inmates Killed in Venezuela Prison Riot”, August 29, 1997, CNN World News).
Again in November, 2003 seven inmates were killed in a gang riot at the Vista Hermosa prison in Venezuela; the gangs were fighting over control of the rackets inside the prison; this was a troubled prison system, in the time frame of one year 2001-2002 some 240 convicts were killed (Coleman, 2003).
What are some places that are “ripe” or potentially “overdue” for gang riots, places the educated ready would probably not be surprised if gang riots erupt there in the future? Los Angeles County Jail and Cook County Jail in Chicago both have major problems as mega jails. In late 2003 and early 2004, five inmates were killed in Los Angeles County Jail, and these were gang-related for the most part (LeDuff, 2004). In places like Cook County Jail that have tremendous staffing shortages while dealing with overloaded inmate populations, this is a “critical indicator”: a much more serious gang riot could erupt at any time at either of these two county jails.
LESS THAN ONE-FIFTH REPORT USING TELEVISED/TAPED WORSHIP PROGRAMS
The survey asked “Does your facility use video taped/televised services when a chaplain/volunteer is not available for inmate worship services?”. The results indicated that only 18.8 percent reported “yes”, that they make use of this alternative as a means of providing for the worship needs of inmates. It is not known if the low incidence of usage of such taped programming reflects the lack of programming content or choices in this regard.
THREE-FOURTHS AGREE: INMATES COULD PRACTICE BELIEFS WITHOUT THE NEED FOR GROUP WORSHIP
The survey asked “Do you feel that prisoners could practice their religious beliefs in the privacy of their cell/room (or by means of closed-circuit televised broadcast), without the need for group participation?”. The issue, of course, is what is qualitatively different about group versus individual worship experiences. But the fact is that 77.2 percent of the respondents in this study felt that prisoners could satisfy their religious worship needs without the need for group events. Please note that this finding is consistent with the earlier related finding where the survey found that 72.5 percent of the respondents felt prisoners could meet their religious needs individually without group worship. The issue of doing so in their own cell is simply a more specific example of how it could be accomplished without group worship.
ESTIMATING THE GANG DENSITY LEVEL FOR WHEN A SEVERE PROBLEM EXISTS
The survey asked “The "threshold" or density of gang inmates refers to the percentage of the inmate population who are gang members. At what percentage of the inmate population (% who are members of gangs or STGs) would you feel that a severe gang problem exists? _____%”. The mean or average score for this variable was 16.7 percent. Thus, by all measures of the estimated actual density nationwide, the respondents tend to report that their current condition is that a “severe gang problem” exists.
PRISON GANGS ARE USUALLY ALSO STREET GANGS
The survey asked “Do the more dangerous security threat groups that exist in your facility also exist by the same name in communities outside of the correctional environment?”. The results show that 88.4 percent responded “yes”, that is that the more dangerous prison gangs or STG’s also exist by the same name on the streets. So, basically, in almost 9 out of 10 cases the prison gang is also a street gang.
A good example of this would be the Nuestra Familia prison gang which was found to be responsible for a murder spree in the Santa Rosa, California (Geniella, 2001). The Nuestra Familia is a Hispanic gang whose epicenter is northern California and who exist as the primary enemy of the Mexican Mafia from southern California. The Nuestra Familia had for a long time been in the business of ordering “hits” on rival gang members, even their own errant members, and having younger members on the street carry out these contract murders. At one point, with seven dead bodies to their credit, the Nuestra Familia felt so emboldened that it wanted to assassinate an aggressive no-nonsense prosecutor from Sonoma County, California. The killings continued until someone noticed in 1998 that a pattern seemed to account for a lot of homicides and many other crimes. It was only at this point that local officials “discovered” that the Nuestra Familia was not just a prison gang, that it also operated on the streets of California communities.
HALF THE PRISONS REPORT GANGS PRODUCE WEAPONS BEHIND BARS
The survey asked “In your opinion, have gangs/STGs tended to result in more improvised weapons production (e.g., shanks, etc) among inmates in your facility?”. Some 52.5 percent responded “yes” to this item. Thus, just over half of the prisons in America would apparently have this condition where gangs/STG’s bring a related problem of improvised weapons manufacturing.
Generally, the American prison problem in regard to weapons stockpiled by gangs pales by comparison with prisons abroad, say in Venezuela. In one month alone during 1998 in Venezuela “prison searches uncovered 2,258 knives, nine pistols, twelve revolvers, 463 homemade firearms, a rifle, and most alarmingly four grenades” (1998, Human Rights Watch, June 17).
OVER A FOURTH RECEIVE NO FORMALIZED TRAINING ON DEALING WITH GANGS
The survey asked “Do your staff receive formalized training in dealing with the gang problem?”. Some 72.5 percent indicated “yes”, and among this group it was found that the average or mean amount of gang/STG training was about 6.4 hours in duration. But the fact remains, that over a fourth of the facilities in this survey are reporting that their staff receive no such formalized training specifically dealing with gangs/STGs. It is obviously a dangerous situation for correctional staff.
Of related concern, and obviously something far beyond the scope of the present study, is to evaluate the quality of the training that is offered to staff and employees on gang/STG and disruptive group issues. From reviewing some of the “learning objectives” in the Texas adult corrections system it would seem an issue worth examining. Consider this possible error that could confuse Texas corrections staff: “Street gangs are loosely knit as a whole with no written rules or constitution. Prison gangs are highly structured with by-laws and/or a constitution that is strictly enforced” (www.tcleose.state.tx, 2004: p. 2). Actually, almost all of the street gangs from the Chicago gang epicenter have written by-laws and constitutions. Thus, while it is fair to say that in a lot of the cases these street gang constitutions and by-laws were originally written by their imprisoned members, it might be problematic with regard to facts to claim street gangs as a whole have no written rules or constitution.
A lot of correctional officers in America are members of AFSCME which is why over a decade ago, AFSCME passed the “Gangs in Prisons and Jails” resolution calling for specific minimum standards on training for correctional officers:
“It is the policy of this International Union that formal instruction about understanding and evaluating prison gangs should be integrated into the preservice training for all correctional employees and that such instruction be continually updated through the in-service training that correctional employees receive”, and further
“That the training model on the subject of prison gangs include how and why gangs develop; the different types of gangs; including those identified with a particular region or area of the country; gang structures; their body markings and any warning signs indicating their presence; how gangs communicate with each other; and the different strategies for dealing with prison gangs” (Lonzo, 1994).
Still the trend has been towards increases over the years in providing formal training on gangs, as evident in the trend documented by the following NGCRC survey results:
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1999 2004
YES 40.8% 45.4% 46.8% 49.5% 58% 67.4% 72.5%
NO 59.2% 54.6% 53.2%