THE ECONOMICS OF GANG LIFE:
A Task Force Report
of the National Gang Crime Research Center
Co-Principal Investigators:
George W. Knox, Ph.D., Executive Director, National Gang Crime Research Center (NGCRC).
Edward D. Tromanhauser, Ph.D., Chair, Department of Criminal Justice, Chicago State University.
James G. Houston, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Polictical Science and Criminal Justice, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina.
Brad Martin, M.P.A., J.D., professor, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Findlay, Findlay, Ohio.
Robert E. Morris, MD, UCLA Medical School, Los Angeles, CA.
Thomas F. McCurrie, M.S., Managing Editor, Journal of Gang Research, NGCRC, Chicago, IL.
John L. Laskey, professor, Department of Criminal Justice, Morton College, Cicero, Illinois.
Dorothy Papachristos, president, Communities Dare To Care, Chicago, Illinois.
Judith Feinberg, M.A., therapist, Communities Dare To Care, Chicago, Illinois.
Charla Waxman, M.B.A., Director of Program Services, Linden Oaks Hospital, Naperville, IL.
COPYRIGHT 1995: National Gang Crime Research Center.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Abstract)
This research gathered information directly from over 1,000 gang members in order to understand the costs and benefits associated with gang life in America today.
The research involved collecting the same data in different types of social contexts where we might expect to find gang members: adult and juvenile correctional facilities, and community programs (alternative high school, gang prevention program, private day jail program, etc). The data was collected in five states including: California, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio.
The results are based on an extensive analysis of over one thousand gang members.
The gang appears to function not unlike a union guild for the underground economy: members pay dues, they attend meetings, they have rules to live by, treasuries are maintained by the gang, the gang may make collective expenditures from its treasury to provide small welfare support payments to such members in jail, to retain private attorneys, etc.
Gangs do operate a wide variety of cash business enterprises across the United States.
Gangs do appear to have a variety of legal and illegal income sources, thus they do maintain "treasuries". How gang income is spent is the focus of much additional analysis in this report (i.e., on attorneys, guns, funerals, etc).
There are, obviously, differences between gangs on their level of organizational sophistication; but the higher level gangs which are more organizationally sophisticated do appear to have a number of formalized economic functions and capabilities as well. Most of the gangs analyzed here are of the more sophisticated type: they have formalized rules, often their own argot or gang language, and exist in different areas. These gangs have gang members who are youths and adults, but the top leaders are for the most part adults with long tenure in the gang.
The research also focused on a variety of issues about the underground economy, including street prices for various illegal items. Some of the mean or average values included the following: $268.90 for a new 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol; $42.25 for a new box of 9mm gun cartridges; $882.06 for one ounce of pure cocaine; $155.53 for one stolen 12 gauge shotgun; $111.33 for one stolen 38 cal. revolver; and $191.78 for one ounce of top grade marijuana.
Gang members are analyzed in detail, as well as gang alliance systems (People/Folks, Crips/Bloods), and some specific gang identities are also used as the unit of analysis given the large sample size for this research.
About a third of all gang members would "snitch" on other gang members given the right incentives by police or prosecutors.
- ii -
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This was a large scale study involving multiple social contexts and multiple sites in five states (California, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio). Obviously, we owe a lot of appreciation to a lot of people who assisted in one way or another at various stages of this research.
We want to thank the following staff and research assistants of the National Gang Crime Research Center: Gary Murphy, Mary Chambers, Zahara Jody, Roberto Nieves, and David Snow.
We express our appreciation to the Los Angeles County Office of Education and its Division of Juvenile Court and Community Schools its director Mr. Larry Springer and Dr. Arthur L. McCoy, principal Central Juvenile Hall School, for assistance and cooperation in collecting data for this study. We are also grateful to Billy Burkert, Superintendent of the Central Juvenile Hall in Los Angeles, and the many staff members there who also assisted in our work.
We are grateful for the assistance from the TASC Research Department; Treatment Alternatives for Special Clients (TASC), Chicago, IL.
We are especially grateful to Alice Pickett Franklin, Ph.D., a Research Administrator with the Ohio Department of Youth Services for vital assistance in data collection in Ohio sites.
We obliged as well to extend our positive regards to a large number of others we met during this research and who helped out in various ways, the detail of which of beyond our ability to summarize here. In a nutshell, this work could not have been done without a lot of help from a lot of people, and so many names are worthy of listing here that make it an endless task. Most of the agencies and sites used for data collection in this research prefer to be not acknowledged. We owe these site agencies a great deal for their assistance in this and in other research projects.
Finally, we are grateful for the help and cooperation from N = 1,015 gang members who completed our survey and who provided the basis for the analysis reported here.
- iii -
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
George W. Knox, Ph.D., is the executive director of the National Gang Crime Research Center, author of An Introduction to Gangs now in its 3rd edition (1995), and has conducted research on gangs for over twenty years.
James. G. Houston, Ph.D. is the author of the recent textbook Correctional Management (Nelson-Hall, 1994) and has extensive prior experience in gang research. Dr. Houston will be assuming a criminal justice position at Appalachian State University in August, 1995.
Edward D. Tromanhauser, Ph.D., is the author (along with George Knox) of Schools Under Siege (Kendall-Hunt Publishing Company, 1992), an extensive study of gang problems in the school environment. He has a number of other publications that are also based on gang research. He is the chairperson of the Department of Criminal Justice at Chicago State University.
Brad Martin, M.P.A., J.D., is a faculty member of the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Findlay, Findlay, Ohio.
Robert E. Morris, MD teaches in the School of Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and practices as a pediatric specialist.
Thomas F. McCurrie, M.S., is the managing editor of the Journal of Gang Research published by the National Gang Crime Research Center; he teaches in the Department of Criminal Justice and the CSU-CHA Armed Security Training Academy at Chicago State University.
John L. Laskey, M.A., teaches criminal justice at Morton College, Cicero, IL as well as at Chicago State University.
Judith Feinberg, M.A., teaches a gang course at Calumet College and works as a clinical psychotherapist with a specialization in working with gang members during their incarceration as well as after their release from custody.
Dorothy Papachristos is a community activist who co-founded along with Judith Feinberg the direct action program for at-risk and troubled youths in Chicago known as Communities Dare to Care. She has much experience in dealing with gangs, gang members, and working with other crime prevention groups.
Charla Waxman, M.B.A., is a gang intervention consultant and currently works at the Linden Oaks Hospital (Naperville, IL) in developing community education programs.
- iv -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction.............................................. 1
A Look at the Books: Financial Ledgers of the Gang....... 7
A Look Inside the Financial Records of a Major Chicago Gang 13
II. Methodology.............................................. 20
Formation of the Project GANGECON Task Force............. 20
Sampling Gang Members in Multiple Social Contexts........ 22
Item Development and Pretesting the Survey Instrument.... 23
Sampling Over 1,000 Gang Members in Five States.......... 24
Internal Controls on Data Validity....................... 25
1. Covert Observation................................ 25
2. Overt Observation................................. 26
3. Zero Tolerance for Data Entry or Transcription Errors............................................ 27
4. Few Unusable Survey Instruments Detected.......... 27
5. An Acceptable Level of Trust Was Established...... 28
6. High Cognition on the Meaning of the Survey
Items Implies Clearly We are Measuring what we
Purport to Measure................................ 30
7. Built-in "Lie Tests".............................. 31
Other Issues of Validity................................. 34
Reliability.............................................. 44
Other Issues of Validity and Reliability: For Improving
Future Research....................................... 49
Types of Gangs Represented in the Sample of Over 1,000
Gang Members.......................................... 50
III. Descriptive Findings For All Variables in the Gang
Member Sample........................................ 51
Introduction and Overview............................... 51
Gang Members Believe in Normal Things................... 51
Belief in "Eye for an Eye" Justice...................... 51
Beliefs About the Legal System and Justice.............. 51
Anger Control Problems Among Gang Members............... 52
Having Ever Paid Protection Money to a Gang............. 52
Having Ever Collected Protection Money on Behalf
of a Gang............................................ 52
Having Ever Paid a Fine to a Gang....................... 53
Employment Status of Parents............................ 54
Feeling Shut Out of an Education or Trade Training...... 54
Number of Prior Arrests Among Gang Members.............. 54
Age at time of First Arrest............................. 55
Juvenile Correctional Experiences....................... 55
Tattoos................................................. 55
School Behavior Problems................................ 55
A Third Have Assaulted School Teachers.................. 56
Number of Physical Fights During the Last Year.......... 56
Number of Close Friends and Associates Who are Gang Members............................................. 56
Number of Close Friends and Associates Who Use Illegal
Drugs............................................... 57
All Report Having Ever Joined a Gang.................... 57
Types of Gangs Represented in the National Sample....... 57
Length of Tenure in the Gang............................ 58
Over Two-Thirds Are Still Active in the Gang............ 58
Reasons for Joining the Gang............................ 58
Having Ever Attempted to Quit the Gang.................. 59
Gangs Operating Legitimate Businesses................... 59
Over a Third Report they Pay Dues Regularly to Their Gang 59
Half Report Their Gang Has a Special Language Code...... 60
Two-Thirds Report Their Gang Has Written Rules.......... 60
Older Adult Leaders With High Tenure in the Gang........ 61
The Issue of Gang Operations in Different Geographical Areas............................................... 61
The Issue of Gangster or "Gangsta" Rap Music............ 62
Gang Members Working for Politicians.................... 62
Incarceration Experiences in the Last Five Years........ 63
Working as a "Runner" In a Retail Drug Sales Operation.. 63
The Modern American Gang Operates Much Like a Benevolent Trade Union Group in the Underground Economy........ 64
About Half Have Held Leadership Rank in Their Gang...... 64
Street Prices for Six Different Items in the Underground Economy............................................. 65
Market Research on the Gang Members as Clothing Consumers 65
Committing Crimes for Financial Gain With the Gang...... 65
Type of Family They Come From........................... 66
Gang Members Views on "Work"............................ 66
Most Gang Members Do Know Working People As Significant Others.............................................. 67
Racial Oppression and Poverty: A Fourth Accept This Belief.............................................. 67
Family Economic Backgrounds of Gang Members............. 68
Reciprocity Expectations for Individual Illegal Income: Sharing Loot With the Gang.......................... 68
Prior Employment Experiences of the Gang Member......... 69
Economic Accumulation Among Gang Members................ 69
Three-Fourths Say Their Gang Provides Money to its Needy Members............................................. 70
Pimping and Prostitution Among Gang Members............. 70
Do Gangs Financially Exploit their Members?............. 70
The Flow of Gang Income to the Top Gang Leaders......... 71
Gang Members as a Source of Civil Suits................. 71
Gangs Retaining Private Attorneys for Criminal Matters.. 71
Use of Court Appointed Attorneys by Gang Members........ 71
A Third of the Gang Members Indicate their Gang Keeps
An Account Set Aside for Legal Defense.............. 72
Gang Ratings for the Effectiveness of Private Versus
Court Appointed Attorneys........................... 72
Most Say Their Gang Holds Regular Meetings.............. 72
Gender and Fertility in the Gang Member Sample.......... 72
Age Distribution in the Gang Member Sample.............. 73
Almost a Fourth Expect to be a Future Prison Inmate..... 73
Arrests Among Other Family Members: High in the Gang Family.............................................. 73
Other Reasons for Joining a Gang........................ 74
Three-Fourths Have Family Members Who are Gang Members.. 74
Nearly Half are Willing to Die for their Gang Friends... 74
Nearly Half Believe their Gang Friends would Die for Them 74
Spending Patterns Among Gang Members.................... 75
Half of the Gang Members Report that their Gang Has a Treasury............................................. 75
A Third Have Lived in Public Housing.................... 75
Two-Fifths Have Committed a Crime on Public Housing Property............................................. 75
Half Say the Gangs in Prison Run the Gangs on the Streets 76
A Third Have Been Beaten Up By Their Own Gang........... 76
A Half Have Been Beaten Up By a Rival Gang.............. 76
Limited Loyalty: How 1/4 to 1/3 of All Gang Members Would Rat on Their Own Gang Members For the Right Price............................................... 77
Two-Thirds Have Shot at Someone Because of Gang Activity 77
Nearly Half Have Used Police Radio Scanners To Do a Crime 77
Over a Third Have Used Public Telephones to Conduct Criminal Activity................................... 78
Does Removing Graffiti Discourage Gang Activity in the Area?............................................... 78
A Fourth Have Extorted Protection Money From Small Businesses.......................................... 78
How Gang Members React to Concepts of Community Policing 79
Two-Fifths Have Used Motels/Hotels for Drug Sales Operations.......................................... 80
Impounding Cars: A Deterrent to Gang Members Transporting Guns................................................ 80
About a Fourth are Expected to Share Illegal Income With Their Gang.......................................... 80
Half Are Not Deterred by the Threat of the Penal Sanction 80
Half Report Their Gang Engages in Legal Business Activities........................................... 81
How Gangs Spend Their Treasury Money.................... 81
Displacement: Two Types of Communities Many Gang Members
Would Not Want to Live In............................ 81
The Fagin Phenomenon: Adults Using Kids for Gang Work... 82
Assaults in the Family of the Gang Member: What Comes Around, Goes Around.................................. 82
Siblings in the Same or Rival Gangs..................... 82
Ethnicity Distribution for this Sample of Gang Members.. 83
Additional Questions for Some Sites Included Sexual Abuse Data................................................ 83
Distribution by Type of Social Context.................. 84
Summary................................................. 85
IV. Do National Differences Exist Comparing People, Folks, Crips, and Bloods Gang Members?......................... 86
The Variation in Gang Structure and Economic Functional
Capabilities by Type of Gang: A Comparison of People,
Folks, Crips, Bloods, and Others..................... 86
Introduction............................................ 86
Factors in Common Between The Gang Nations.............. 99
Significant Differences by Gang Nation Types: Comparing
The People, Folks, Crips, Bloods, and Other.......... 109
Gang Members Paying Fines to Their Gang: Highest for
People/Folks, Lowest for Crips/Bloods................ 109
Assaulting School Teachers: Crips Lead the Way......... 110
Ability to Keep Members in the Gang or Whether the Gang Members Has Ever Tried to Quit the Gang: Crips Least Likely to try to Quit the Gang...................... 111
Economic Compliance/Support Structures Are Different
Comparing Gang Systems: People/Folks Gangs Much More
Likely to Benefit From Members Paying Regular Dues.. 111
Gang Argot Language Systems............................. 111
Written Rules for Gang Members: People/Folks More Sophisticated....................................... 112
Non-Contiguous Geographical Turf Control: Folks Hold Down
More Lateral Area................................... 113
Gang Members Working for Politicians: Everyone Does it, But Folks Do it More!............................... 114
Committing Income Producing Crimes With the Gang: Crips
Gang Members Are Doing More "Nation Business"....... 115
Family Members Who Are Also Gang Members................ 116
What "Hard Core" Really Means in Gang Life Today: Being
Willing to Die for Your Gang Friends and Vice Versa. 116
Having a Gang Treasury: More Common to the Midwest Gang
System (People/Folks) Than in Westcoast Gang System. 117
Do The Gangs in Prison Really "Run" The Gangs on the Streets?............................................ 118
Coercive Compliance Inside the Gang Organization........ 119
Gang Gun Violence: Having Fired a Gun at Someone Because
of Gang Activity.................................... 121
Summary of Findings: Comparing People, Folks, Crips, and Bloods.............................................. 121
Gang Owned Business Enterprises......................... 123
V. A Security Threat Group Analysis........................ 128
Introduction............................................ 128
The Value of A Classification System for Managing Gang Problems............................................ 129
The Simulation Scenario................................. 131
The Simple Procedure: An Additive Scale................. 132
Validating the Gang Risk/Threat Classification System
Results............................................. 135
Summary of Threat Analysis Results...................... 142
Discussion of Findings.................................. 147
VI. The Gang Organization as the Unit of Analysis: The First
Real Comparison of the Gangster Disciples and the Vice Lords................................................ 149
Introduction............................................. 149
Gangster Disciples and Vice Lords........................ 150
Differences Between Gangster Disciples and Vice Lords.... 152
1. Slightly Higher Anger Control Problem Among GDs... 153
2. Differences in Terms of Being A Currently Active Member............................................ 154
3. GD's operate more businesses...................... 154
4. GD's pay more dues................................ 157
5. Who they worked for in voter registration......... 157
6. GD's Have a Better "Benefits" Program............. 157
7. GD's Have More Computers.......................... 158
8. Vice Lord Males Have Higher Fertility............. 158
9. Vice Lords More Likely to believe their gang friends will die for them................................. 158
10. Vice Lords also get more "violations"............. 158
Summary and Conclusion................................... 158
VII. Predicting Defection Among Gang Members:
Who Would Snitch?................................... 162
Introduction............................................ 162
What Snitching Means.................................... 162
How Tough Is It to Suppress A Gang Where One-Third
to One-Fourth of the Members Would Snitch Under
the Right Conditions?............................... 164
Factors Significantly Differentiating Gang Snitches..... 169
Summary of the Factors Significantly Differentiating
Snitches Among Gang Members......................... 176
Can Snitches Be Identified in the Gang Population?...... 177
Predicting Defection Among Gang Members................. 178
Conclusion.............................................. 180
VIII. Factors of Employment - Jobs and Gang Problems......... 182
Introduction........................................... 182
The Measures of Employment and Legitimate Opportunity.. 182
Findings on Employment and Opportunity in Relationship
to other Gang Problems............................. 185
Understanding the Significant Differences Among Gang
Members in Terms of the Employment and Opportunity
Closure Variables.................................. 192
Summary and Conclusion................................. 193
IX. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations............... 195
References and Bibliography................................... 206
Appendix A: Copy of the Survey Instrument................... 207
Appendix B: Listing of Gang Names in the Sample............. 216
Appendix C: Internal Records of Major Chicago Gang.......... 222
Appendix D: Our Advice to American Teens About Gangs:
Truth in Gang Economics Disclosure Form......... 232
End Notes..................................................... 234
- v -
SECTION I:
INTRODUCTION
Imagine reading a law enforcement intelligence report based on a close surveillance of the daily activities of a gang member in Chicago or Los Angeles or anywhere in the United States. In summarizing the daily activities of the gang member, imagine the following report summary:
"Subject during the time frame of 0900 to 1500 visited or shopped at the following local business establishments:
0901 Entered a candy store,
0910 Browsed in a video arcade or game room,
0915 Visited a cultural book and artifact store
1000 Visited some rental units in an apartment building
1015 Entered a recording studio
1030 Brought car into tire repair shop
1100 Went to a paint and body shop
1130 Went to a car wash.
Then in the afternoon from 1200 to 1500 the busy subject visited, in subsequent order, the following business establishments: billiards room, dance club, stereo shop, shoe store, low rider shop, liquor store, fashion/clothing store, jewelry store, grocery store, beeper/cellular phone shop, and then a day care center. Subject returned to his dwelling at 1500 hours and ordered some food delivered from a nearby rib joint."
What is wrong with this picture? The answer is: they are all cash business enterprises, and these are all types of businesses reported by gang members in our Project GANGECON study to exist as types of enterprises run by gangs. The Project GANGECON study was undertaken to add to our knowledge about the economic aspects of gang life today. Some gangs do operate or control or own legitimate businesses is one of the major findings of the present study. This has not been previously reported nor systematically examined in the literature.
What are the implications of such findings? The first and most obvious is that such behavior is at first appearance a "prosocial" and normal behavior. The second and rival hypothesis is that less than honorable intentions exist among those running such business enterprises. The third final hypothesis is that some gangs have or are about to make a transition to organized crime in the United States because they have met all the definitive requirements of an organized crime group once they have penetrated or controlled legitimate business activity. A fourth, and worthy admonition to the public, is caveat emptor: buyer or customer beware --- the business you may have just walked into is actually controlled by a criminal gang.
Imagine the following situation, a real incident from Chicago's gang scene in 1994. A gang member is arrested in a routine traffic stop, a gun is found in the vehicle and the vehicle is confiscated. The vehicle is an older Honda Accord. Out on bail, attorneys for the arrested gang members make aggressive moves (filing court petitions, etc) to get the car released from the police impound. Curious about what is so valuable about an older non-luxury vehicle, the officers give the vehicle a full inventory search. They discover it is a trap car: a concealed electronically controlled "stash" area is built into the rear seat to store kilos of cocaine. Such electronically and mechanically controlled concealment devices can easily cost $2,000, which is a small price to pay when a kilo of cocaine goes for $20,000 and in previous years --- well before the proliferation of gangs in American cities moved into this profitable arena --- went as high as $50,000 dollars: which is to suggest that the proliferation of gang involvement with illegal drug sales could have increased the economic competition and thereby lowered the price of certain illegal drugs over time in recent years. In the Chicago incident, the police officers discovered several kilos of cocaine still concealed in the car, inside a hidden electronically controlled concealment or "stash" area. The car is what is known as a "trap car", it has a hidden trap for concealing illegal goods (drugs, guns, etc).
One member of the Gangster Disciples interviewed over time in a case study format during the Project GANGECON task force research helped us understand how vital the economic side of gang life really is to an understanding of the growth and persistence of gangs in America. He was reading the book Winning Through Intimidation and explained how a good reputation or even the best educational credentials may not always guarantee getting results in life, and rather that what really worked for anyone in America was one factor: intimidation. He explained how a drug pusher would come to their gang in any neighborhood throughout the United States and be authorized "to serve all day for $200 dollars", meaning to sell drugs in a street or spot (house, car, business, etc) location in turf controlled by the gang. It is just like selling an economic franchise, or a distribution right in an area. Thus, the gang benefits and the pusher makes $2,000 dollars a day and can afford to pay the gang for protection. In a gang like the Gangster Disciples, they pay not only regular dues of at least $20.00, but also political dues as much as $25.00 a month. Nobody sees the political dues, "that goes to the Chairman", and while the regular membership or chapter dues are often collected under the justification they are to be used to purchase guns, this money too "often goes into the leaders pockets". In other words, a lot of money flows upward in this type of gang organization. This source of information also confirmed what we had been finding in our survey research: that his gang and other gangs like his do in fact own legitimate business enterprises as well. The vast illegal income from the drug money coming into the hands of gang members, including the New Jacks or newer members out hustling, gave some a lot of accumulated capital. This source described a friend his age (early 20's) in the gang who was now a millionaire and operated a real estate company and had two accounts he was bringing in so much money. This source described another friend similarly where the gang illegal income opportunities had afforded a chance to use an excess of disposable income to now operate a car dealership. An accountant who would know was also interviewed along the same lines, and confirmed that these type of situations are rather common; it is, after all little more than a traditional way to launder drug money as well.
We can use the Gangster Disciples as an example to give the reader another glimpse into what has until now been a completely hidden side of gang life. In the City of Chicago alone there are an estimated 35,000 members of the Gangster Disciples. The survey data as well as case study interviews, and debriefings of individuals having completed our surveys who wanted to be more helpful, confirmed that an average gang member may pay at least $20.00 a month in regular membership dues (sometimes much more if they have the "props"). This would mean $8.4 million dollars per year going up the ladder in regular membership dues alone for only one gang in one city! This is a very conservative estimate we feel, for another reason that also is part and parcel of the economic functions of some gangs: their ability to use force. Not paying dues is a sanctionable "violation" of internal rules and regulations of this and a large number of other more organized gangs in America today. Further, a gang member can be "fined" by the gang itself for a violation of expected conduct.
Some gangs that have written constitutions (a factor examined as an element of gang sophistication in the present research project) also address the financial obligations of their members in writing.
Consider this case from the Mickey Cobra gang in Chicago:
"Financial Obligations
The generating of Funds is needed to uplift us from our present economic situation and all members are expected to assist in this portion of our Organization's Structure.
As an Organization, we must have Finance to grow and to do this every member must contribute what he can to the Financial funds...If we begin here to generate funds and re-invest those funds we will have a Business to compete with any which exists at this time. Full cooperation is needed here. Whatever resources you have are needed at this time. These do not include what is already expected of you each month."
This passage quoted as it exists in the typed written constitution of the Mickey Cobra gang suggests clearly: gang members pay dues, and these dues are expected on a regular basis. But also the passage suggests the gang has an interest in expanding its holdings along the lines of a business enterprise. The Almighty Mickey Cobras Nation is a "Peoples" set allied with the Black P. Stone Nation and Vice Lords. The gang name "Mickey Cobra" is derived from their founder Chief Mickey (Henry "Mickey" Cogwell, killed on 2-25-77).
So much hinges on an understanding of the economic structure, function, and process of gang life today. A popular myth about gangs, is that joining a gang and "slanging rocks" (i.e., selling rock or crack cocaine) is a quick "rags to riches" transition for young gang members today. This Horatio Alger myth has been twisted to the effect that it adds a lure and attraction to gang life today: so many youths at risk of gang membership may therefore be joining a gang to "get juice", to get "power and authority", along with the very real economic rewards that may come out of participating in income-producing crimes for and with other gang members. Every time this image of the gang as an alternative or underground economy source of rapid career growth is repeated informally and in the mass media it adds to the benefit equation that helps gangs to lure and attract new "young blood" or "New Jacks" into their membership. But what are the facts? No one really knows much about the economic aspects of gang life today. This is why the Project GANGECON Research Task Force was formed to study this most neglected issue. It is clear, as well, that the results of this study have clear implications for gang prevention.
A LOOK AT THE BOOKS: FINANCIAL LEDGERS OF THE GANG
In the early stages, and in an ongoing way, several of the researchers had access to a real gang asset: a high ranking gang informant used by a variety of federal and other law enforcement agencies. As described in An Introduction to Gangs this particular source of information lives what is called a "snitch farm". A "snitch farm" is a facility concealed from general public view and where the employees cannot know the real name of the "guests": they can only refer to someone by a two letter combination of designated alphabetical initials for what might be names, such as "D.C." for David Conners. In other words, elaborate internal security precautions are taken to protect the identity of these informants. Indeed, prior to the last minute security precautions taken before one can gain entrance to such a facility, polaroid photographs are taken of the visitors one by one and shown to the informant: in order to verify that these are not disguised "hit men" coming in to collect the reward on their heads. Our particular source did rat, snitch, inform, tattletale, and turncoat on his gang --- the Latin Kings. Not surprisingly there is a one hundred thousand dollar "money bag" on this now "ex" member of the Latin Kings. He became such a valuable criminal intelligence asset because he was also a high ranking member of the Latin Kings. He had held the rank of "prince" before his forced retirement. We would like to share what the Prince as we will call him told us about the economic aspects of gang life. It was this and other stories that convinced us as researchers that it was finally time to conduct a study of this phenomenon.
The Prince has all his gang tattoos including the one designated for his rank inside the gang organization he was a part of, the Latin Kings. His hands, arms, and body are covered with gang tattoos. For much of his life, the gang was his only life. Then at one point he became in charge of the books for the gang: and, as sometimes happens to paraprofessional accounts, "a problem with the money" arose. Indeed, a discrepancy of much concern to higher gang leaders, suggestive of some degree of what might be regarded as "white collar crime inside the gang". What are we saying? This loyal gang member could not resist the temptation: he stole some of his gang's own treasury money. And when the gang found out, he knew he was a dead man. Preferring to not take the "punishment" from his own gang which could very likely be similar to that scene where the gang leader is executed as in the movie character did in American Me, this particular gang member did not want to "walk the plank" and accept death as his honorable fate, but rather he "flipped" rather fast.
Federal and various state intelligence investigators found this person to be a sudden new immense source of valuable information. We cannot cite, for security reasons, some of the confidential internal publications of such law enforcement agencies but those who know about this case also know the gang reports we are referring to. We can say only this: we have more than substantially verified the credibility of this genuine informant. We would normally not refer to data sources as "informants", because in the social-linguistics of gang life and any criminal offender population subject to criminological research, this is normally referred to as a term of much derision. But this particular data source really is big snitch, and he has adapted very well to being a "snitch". So we have no problem calling him an informant in this instance. He is such a good snitch, he even snitched on us when one of the researchers gave him what we found out later was an un-authorized item in a kind of hotel room service type of situation where we were buying food and ordering other "goodies" or amenities to soften up the interview process. Security personnel at this special management unit let us know the next time we visited that he had told them and in this unusual social context that no other researcher to our knowledge has ever had access other than ourselves, this incident was never repeated once we knew all the rules and regulations. These personnel are like cottage parents in their relationship to the nearly 30 informants in the facility, and the staff themselves have ambivalent feelings about their assignment and in a comical way refer to their job as working in the "SMURF" unit: where they have to treat known criminals not only with kid gloves, but white gloves to serve the individuals pretty much whatever they want. The snitches have a lot of privileges is another way of explaining this. Perhaps it is the fact that persons like the Prince who are trying to get off murder cases are also getting some benefits that most such offenders should not be getting that creates this type of environment where the personnel sometimes react in this way of joking about the nature of their work, that they are in this way able to resolve what might to the larger public seem like a real contradiction as an official government assignment in the field of criminal justice. Still, impact of snitching for the Prince is comparable only to the famous Valacchi Papers, where a high ranking gangster suddenly converts from an active criminal to an active federal informant against the mob.
We want to repeat here, again, that in our customary forms of scholarship where we conduct research we do not regard sources of information as "informants" and certainly not as "snitches": because our goal is not prosecution, our goal is simply knowledge development in an area of criminology that deals with gang members. We also recognize that there are ways to systematically develop sources of information, but our information is never used for such official investigatory or prosecution purposes. We do recognize, obviously, that in the case of Prince we are dealing with such a person. The politically correct reference would be to call Prince an intelligence asset, but most would use the more informal term of "snitch" or "informant". What we discovered in trying to use the "snowball technique" and transition from the Prince to other sources of gang information in same "snitch farm", was that a culture existed within this group where the highest value was placed on who got the most visits from the more powerful agencies (DEA, FBI, intelligence units, etc,). That is, the pecking order in this facility placed the highest status on the person who had the most valuable information. Our source Prince was independently verified as clearly being at the top of this unique type of social pyramid. There is no doubt that Prince was given extra and special rewards and benefits.
The Prince has been, and continues to be, a source of information for the National Gang Crime Research Center for several years now. Our journal did in fact publish a "Shout Out" from him, regarding his views on gangs. His current most important project is to get his own book published to add a non-apologetic dimension to the new genre of books by gang members themselves.
One reason, Prince informed us, why little may be known about the financial aspects of gang life is that this is a sub rosa and secret activity. Many gangs, do however, have "dues" requirements:
"Every member has to pay a certain amount,say $5.00, and in the Latin Kings a treasurer will go around to the chapters to collect the dues. It is always kept balanced, so if somebody goes out and takes care of business, he is supposed to be provided with bond money and a lawyer (they keep lawyers on retainer),the guys at the top have certain crews in each chapter that sell drugs directly for them...the sellers they get a percentage of everything they sell...and then of course they are allowed to make their own money also...but whatever they sell for the organization the profits end up in the hands of the guys at the top...the council I sat on...a lot of this structure still remains the same....except we branched out to some new cities...and the money is coming in everyday seven days a week. It is always wise to....a lot of it is spent, it is a risky business, you might as well enjoy what you can make while you've got it. Its a big thing to have a nice ride. They spend $19 thousand dollars on the car and spend another $10 thousand dollars on toys: stereos, car phone, etc. We had a couple of those, with door panels secretly fitted, if the car was going to hold 5 keys of cocaine, if they got pulled over , five oh (the police) would not have a clue as to where to look. When we would go do drops or pickups we always had a chase car, 4 guys armed to the teeth just in case something happened they would be right there, a security measure so to speak."
"The only way a lot of these guys can hide their finances you can never put anything under your name, it has to be a third party....i had a relative who heavily involved in real estate....we let him handle a lot of our finances....we always kept bank accounts under fictitious and false names...I don't know how they are doing it...but the bankers we dealt with, they never question it..."
" The people they are dealing with, they have their own way of getting around modern banking regulations..."
"The first very large sum of cash I saw at one time while in the Latin Kings was one I saw for about two bills....that's two million dollars...later I learned that was small. it was split up 8 different ways...the ones that had their investments in it...it was counted out...and split up...no big thing..." "Trying to pass laws against gangs that exist because there is money in it is like trying to outlaw ice cream....what people want they are going to get...whether its bud (reefer, marijuana, etc)...or harder drugs....Al Capone taught us that. There is always going to be somebody else to step in...you can't put the gang out of a business that has faces no regulations....the boys might be arrested....but the business will go on. Gang business is pure business...no regulations other than what it agrees to, just the opposition or competition to worry about."
Regarding drug sellers for the Latin Kings: "a lot of em were exploited...we treated a lot of ours good though...they made 20 cents on the dollar...the other 80 percent was split upstairs...we made sure they had the props...we set them up in apartments so they did not have to work on the streets...I was given the responsibility to oversee our operations in 5 states...all some of the outlying groups were lacking was product which we quickly provided them with....the territories in question were virgin territories, and were considered neutral turf, but other organizations did exist there and when they learned what we were doing...they wanted a piece of the action and they wanted a war if they did not get a piece....I went out there to start a business, I had a sit down with the heads of these other organizations, let them know the product being sold is being sold to you guys and not their customers, we are doing this on neutral ground, we starting selling them products at lower prices and a higher quality than they could not get elsewhere...they eventually ended up becoming our allies...which had the effect of strengthening our own network..."
About gang economics behind bars: "When I flipped.... a guy in (the prison) was holding some of my money and would not give it to me because I was in seg (i.e., segregation) waiting for transfer...it was $3800 bucks...he had it hid in his tv....I asked the warden if they could collect it for me...and they sort of agreed if I would tell them where the money was hidden...I told them, but they burned me....they gave me a bogus move...they gave me a hundred bucks as like a little reward for the tip....the warden said it was all dirty money....we can't prove it was yours...we'll give you a hundred bucks...we'll put the rest in the inmate fund...."
A LOOK INSIDE THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF A MAJOR CHICAGO GANG
The present researchers had access to what must be regarded as very sensitive documents already in the hands of law enforcement agencies, because we obtained this information again from the gang member involved who had "flipped" and turned this same information over to law enforcement agencies investigating and prosecuting members of the same gang. Appendix C contains the exact transcripts of this information that were as accurate as we could transcribe them. These are hand-written documents, not typed original source documents that are laboriously transcribed in Appendix C. We have intentionally omitted certain specific information about addresses and full names and telephone or other numbers relating to the same internal record information.
The information being referred to in Appendix C is therefore very genuine and reflects the detailed membership, dues, internal structural change, and expenses associated with one Chicago chapter of a major gang we call the Ethnic Rulers, a pseudonym for a gang name that begins with an ethnic identifier and where the second word is an expression of power. There are many such chapters or sets, which exist non-contiguously not only within the City of Chicago, but the entire Chicago metropolitan area extending deep into the midwestern United States. This group, for reasons called here the Ethnic Rulers, are represented in many states today.
The "data" here therefore consists of actual genuine documents maintained by the gang as its official records. We have included only a transcription of a six month period of activity during 1990 for the purposes of illustrating some issues about the economic functions of gangs. We feel that a short analysis of these documents in Appendix C provide the basis for discussing the legitimacy of some hitherto unexplored aspects about gang economics.
About this "data", it was in handwritten form, transcribed literally in Appendix C for purposes of cross-reference here. Here are some of the trends in this data:
*** Associates of the gang, whose names appear in records, do later become full gang members.
*** A very democratic process operates in voting for sanctions and for promotions in rank.
*** A frequent activity of the gang is order maintenance: sanctioning its own members for infractions and not meeting financial obligations.
*** Such sanctions typically are "violations" or monetary fines. The violations are beatings from up to four members of the gang lasting specific time limits: 30 seconds, 60 seconds, etc. The fines sometimes involve situations where the individual gang member may lose a gun owned by the gang, that is a gun purchased from its treasury money (i.e., paying a $50.00 fine for losing a $150.00 pistol).
*** The gang does seem to benefit from the underground economy in having opportunities over time to purchase firearms at reasonable prices. This type of gang is a rational, calculating, and self-supporting enterprise is the image that emerges from the data in Appendix C. It has costs for maintaining its operations, it collects dues, and keeps accurate account of its gang treasury money, its income sources over time and its expenditures over time.
*** The gang does spend its treasury money on guns, gang clothing, spray paint to "fix the hood", and in what appears to be a structured general welfare benefit program to its needy or incarcerated members.
*** The gang has this general welfare benefit character by being able to provide money to its needy members in or outside of jail/prison. The gang does in this sense function as an economic benevolent society for its members in a small but very symbolic way.
*** The gang becomes politically correct in voting to have "non-smoking" meetings, and then sanctions several members for subsequently smoking behavior. Violations are also given for being late to, or missing, required meetings. The required weekly meetings are held promptly and neatly organized as any formal or voluntary organization might behave. The notes and ledgers are also meticulously maintained by the gang secretary. Where this type of organizational meeting differs from others that might be held in the same neighborhood (religious or political meetings, community groups, advisory groups, etc), is that internal control can be achieved by the use of violence against detractors to organizational effectiveness.
*** The gang spends money on parties, and does maintain a relationship to the larger Nation (other chapters or sets, i.e., attending the yearly gang picnic, having other chapter gang members visit their own meetings, etc).
*** All of the gang income to the treasury is dues money. The gang is steadfast about requirements for paying regular dues. It even passes new laws to punish deadbeats.
*** The amount of cash in the treasury varies over this six month period from a low of $1.00 to a high of $437.00 at any one particular time during this period. And averaged about $200 during the six month period.
*** Typical expenses included in this gang's ledgers included: (1) the purchase of guns ($75.00/357 revolver; $70.00/22 revolver; $150.00/32 pistol; $250.00/9mm pistol), (2) payments to incarcerated members as direct payments of cash ($192.00) in small increments to several different members, and (3) miscellaneous operating expenses (spray paint, gang t-shirts, etc $277.00).
*** The gang spends an inordinate amount of time with internal conflicts and with disciplining its members. Cohesion, compliance, and conformity are maintained through the use of violence by the gang against its own members.
*** These findings are based on the written minutes of weekly punctual gang meetings over a six month period, and suggest clearly the importance of understanding the gang in terms of its internal friction in relationship to its own fiscal solvency. This type of level three formal organization gang does have regular meetings, and does require dues to be paid regularly from its members. Apparently, there is another side about gang life in America that has not emerged in anthropological studies of younger gang members who may not be at all knowledgeable of this larger picture. "Shorties" or "Peewees" as associates of a real gang might be easily approached by such anthropological techniques, but these type of data sources are the least likely to actually be knowledgeable about the larger financial and economic issues of gang life today. Someone who pays dues, is someone who might be privy to the kind of economic functions that gangs may have today. A peewee or very young wannabe or associate may not be required to pay dues because they are not considered genuine or official members of the gang, and therefore will never be attending regular gang meetings to discuss "Nation business".
We realized that because economic side of gang life is a secret activity and one least likely to be revealed by younger gang members who may not know about it, or by older members who might prefer to keep this a secret, that the only way it would be possible to get an accurate assessment of the economic life in modern American gangs is to carry out a very large scale multi-site, multi-state survey of gang members. It was for this reason, a common interest among a group of researchers in beginning to unravel this criminological mystery, that the Project GANGECON Task Force was formed.
We also realized we needed to think out and plan out well in advance the structure of our analytical inquiry so as to be able to have controls and precautions in place to truly be able to penetrate the truth in the context where little is known because of the secrecy of this aspect of gang life today. Thus, we took advantage of what we know about gang members and their personalities. We did not approach them with the attitude "here is a chance for you to do right and snitch", we approached them with a generalized intellectual focus where we were in the situation of not knowing anything about gang economics, and simply afforded them the opportunity to describe the non-stigmatizable and sometimes prosocial aspects about their gang rather than snitch about its inside secrets.
In other words, we asked them to describe any legitimate business enterprises their gang might control or own or engage in. In this fashion, it was not surprising to find members of the Gangster Disciples in response to the question "Does the gang you belong to have any legitimate businesses it operates? If yes, what kind of business establishments are these (Describe):" answer as follows in our survey: "21st Century V.O.T.E." --- the new political arm of the Gangster Disciples which is sponsoring a candidate for the Alderman in one ward election in Chicago in the 1995 city council elections.
SECTION II: METHODOLOGY
This section of the report describes how the research was conducted, the pretesting of the instrument, validity, and reliability issues.
FORMATION OF THE PROJECT GANGECON TASK FORCE
The Project GANGECON research task force was formed in 1994 and involved invitations to a number of gang researchers and experts to pledge their support and labor in a unique knowledge development project. It was agreed in advance that this would have to be an unfunded type of research, because in the current overall state-of-the-art gang research the economic side of gang life was not a focus of any government agency or foundation funding source that we could identify. This aspect of gang life has not, in other words, been a research priority area for funding source. It was agreed that to really understand the multifaceted nature of gang life itself, that multiple social contexts would have to be studied (i.e., schools, jails, juvenile facilities, programs, etc). It was agreed that in addition to being a research project, that this would also be a probono service project as well: specifically, that we would provide a detailed "site report" reflecting a complete analysis of all data to each and every site that cooperates with our research efforts. The objective of these "site reports" was to provide useful rapid feedback describing trends and important findings about the site population. The site populations included schools, jails, juvenile correctional facilities, etc.
It was also agreed that to be able to speak effectively to the economic issues of gang life today that a very large national sample would be needed. It was agreed by the Project GANGECON research task force members that this study would have as its goal the inclusion of at least one thousand (N = 1,000) self-reported gang members in various parts of the United States.
In this type of large scale research there would be hard costs that could not be avoided: travel, lodging, photoduplication, honorariums to the respondents, etc. It was agreed by Task Force researchers that any individual expenses in travel and per diem and time would be donated to this project, that is the researcher would basically pay his or her own way to the extent they were able to do so. No one was to be paid any salary for work. Thus, all time devoted to this project was not reimbursed in any sense. Further, only hard expenses spent on the respondents, involving honorariums (cookies, potatoe chips, etc) would be expenses that the Task Force would collectively agree to share in a equal fashion.
It is difficult to estimate the amount of labor and effort that went into this project, but is was obviously extensive. We benefited from some financial assistance in only one of the data collection sites during the course of this research, that is Chicago State University in its support of the National Gang Crime Research Center funded the travel and expenses to collect data in California. Of course, the researchers in their capacities as educators were able to use some small resources involving photoduplication from their respective universities. Outside of this limited assistance, no federal, state, or other government or private foundation support existed for this project. It was, in short, a research team designed to accomplish a goal as an end in itself: not for compensation, but because it needed to be done.
SAMPLING GANG MEMBERS IN MULTIPLE SOCIAL CONTEXTS
One of the goals of the Project GANGECON research task force was to ensure that gang members were studied in a variety of social contexts. The universe became easy to define when we asked the general question: where could we most likely find some gang members today? The first answer was: custody, those in jail, etc. The second answer was schools and the community. Thus, at an early stage in the research process various social contexts were identified, contacted, and persuaded to cooperate with our research mission.
The types of social contexts used in the Project GANGECON task force research therefore consists of the following:
(1) An alternative high school in the midwest,
(2) Juvenile correctional facilities in the midwest and west (California, Michigan, and Ohio),
(3) Jails in Illinois and Iowa,
(4) Community-based programs serving youths in Illinois,
and (5) and a private day jail program as well as a courtroom lockup setting.
ITEM DEVELOPMENT AND PRETESTING THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT
All members of the Project GANGECON research task force at an early stage in the research process developed specific hypotheses they would explore and test. This mean that every researcher developed and submitted specific questions or items to be included in the survey instrument. These questions were distributed for review, critiqued, revised and then finally tested in a pretest of the finalized survey instrument.
The pretesting of the instrument was conducted on an education-development challenged group of special education students. Sometimes called "reluctant readers" or "slower learners" and similar names, it basically means young teenagers who are performing well below their age-grade norm, enough so to attract specialized services in the realm of public education. A member of the research task force was present for this pretesting, made observations, and had a debriefing of the respondents (i.e., asking them to report questions they did not understand, words they did not understand, phrases they did not understand, etc). Through this process the survey instrument was further modified to make necessary changes identified from the pretesting. Actually very few changes had to be made. The pretest sample was known in advance to contain gang members. We expected that there would be some respondents who would not know about some of the detailed issues of gang life: any non-gang member would not be privy to the socialization and training afforded by a gang (i.e., learning its language or subcultural argot, its rules, its code, etc).
After the survey instrument was field tested, we felt comfortable as described in the section on validity below that the instrument was capable of measuring what it sought to measure.
SAMPLING OVER 1,000 GANG MEMBERS
The type of research that samples only from schools, or only from official sources (i.e., correctional facilities), is limited in its ability to capture gang members where they can really be found: on the street, not just in custody. Our research strategy was one that therefore focused on a variety of social contexts in order to obtain a sample of over 1,000 gang members. Figure 1 below shows the type of social context by the sample size of gang members from these sites in five states.
FIGURE 1
TYPE OF SOCIAL CONTEXT BY SIZE OF GANG SAMPLE
State and Social Context Gang Sample Size
OHIO
Juvenile Correctional Facility 82
Juvenile Correctional Facility 50
CALIFORNIA
Juvenile Correctional Facility 268
ILLINOIS
Alternative Public High School 118
Day Jail Program 84
Smaller County Jail 23
Probation Caseload 28
Larger County Jail 178
Community Gang Intervention Program 50
Court Lock-up 19
MICHIGAN
Juvenile Correctional Facility 61
IOWA
County Jail 34
County Jail 20
TOTAL 1,015 gang members
In all contexts other than the one megajail or large county jail in Illinois, a saturation sampling technique was sought. This meant everyone in the social context was asked to participate in the research. Sometimes incentives were used, and this meant upwards of 90 percent of the populations in these contexts cooperating. Our sample of over 1,000 gang members therefore includes youths and adults, those in custody, and those not in custody.
INTERNAL CONTROLS ON DATA QUALITY
A number of precautions and safeguards were undertaken during the survey process to ensure the highest possible quality
in the data collected.
1. Covert Observation. During the actual collection of data at some sites there was the opportunity for cover observation. This involved several of the jail sites where it was possible to watch the inmates completing the questionnaires on closed circuit television or through observation areas. Thus,in some jail sites it was possible for the researchers to hand out pencils and surveys and then in a control room watch the inmate behavior in their cell areas on the security video monitors. In no case did we see collaboration or any systematic tampering (i.e., one inmate filling out more than one questionnaire). There was no evidence of any collective fraud on the part of inmates in completing the questionnaires. As in other settings, this was presented as a "very personal" survey. Almost all inmates and others surveyed in other sites were remarkably cooperative. In school sites, for example, there was always at least one research assistant present at all times inside each classroom while the questionnaires were being filled out.
2. Overt Observation. Overt observation was the rule of thumb in all sites, as one or more of the principal researchers were on hand at all sites to watch and observe the process of data collection. This also afforded the opportunity of introducing another methodological safeguard to evaluate the quality of our data collection. Gender is a specific forced-choice item on the questionnaire, but it was also a variable coded during overt observation immediately after collecting the questionnaires. In all the jails, in the west coast site, and in Chicago sites, we took an additional overt observation precaution during the data collection process. This entailed physically marking all of the physical source documents with a code for gender. Thus, all male and female respondents could then be assessed in terms of attempts at deception with regard to gender. This code assigned by the researchers as an observation taken during a close social contact (i.e., collecting the survey instruments one at a time) was then able to be compared with the respondents forced-choice response. A random response pattern or a fraudulent response pattern could possible be evident in a case where the overt observation of gender did not match with the self-reported gender in the response to the question inside the survey about gender. Our analysis revealed that in no instance, in any of these sites, did any respondent lie about gender.
3. Zero Tolerance for Data Entry or Transcription Errors. All survey data stored electronically for purposes of computerized statistical analysis were cross-checked against source documents (i.e., the survey instruments). The data was checked and re-checked and contains no validity threat from transcription errors in the data reduction process. No students were used for data entry. All data entry was performed by a statistical typist with a post-graduate degree.
4. Few Unusable Survey Instruments Detected. In most of the sites and social contexts used for data collection, a saturation sampling method was used: everyone in the site was asked to complete the questionnaire. Small honorariums were used in some of the sites, and in these sites we would could casually check the surveys to ensure they were fully completed before giving out the honorariums. In very few instances were unusable questionnaires returned. This is far less than one percent and typically involved someone who would check every response to every question, or some similar non-sensical way of showing non-cooperation. This was a voluntary action to participate in the research, and for the most part a very large majority of the persons at all sites participated and provided high cooperation. There was somewhat, but not overwhelming, more hostile non-cooperation among jail inmates. However, we got the distinct impression that most inmates were highly motivated to complete the questionnaires, in one sense because this provided an interesting distraction from the boredom of routine jail activity. In only rare instances, then, did we obtain "tainted" survey instruments: those what were obviously fraudulently completed, or not capable of being interpreted, that is for the most part non-cooperative. Thus, no tainted data is included in our analysis because these very few cases where the respondent was less than cooperative their survey instruments were discarded.
5. An Acceptable Level of Trust Was Established.
While our approach was essentially the same with everyone regardless of the social context, in the jail and secure contexts extra efforts were made to provide an adequate introduction and explanation to the respondents. Four of the researchers were typically on hand in most jails surveyed, where they approached each cell-house area and explained in detail the purpose of the survey research. Outside of Chicago, much small chit chat and friendly discussion often ensued when we introduced ourselves as professors, several of whom were from Chicago.
In the correctional settings, it was not uncommon for joking comments to be heard from the respondents about criminal justice officials, or critical comments towards the criminal justice system generally. Friendly dialogue was common in all social contexts, because the researchers often took time after the survey to answer verbal inquiries, and listen to concerns and issues of the respondents. While the survey asks for no name, and its printed title is ANONYMOUS NATIONAL STUDENT SURVEY, and while we explained verbally that we did not want their names because this was a very personal type of questionnaire; it was not uncommon in some instances for respondents to still write-in their names and provide other unsolicited information. Several offered to become paid informants, or desired personal interviews such as this respondent (#932): "I can be more helpful, ask for Pac-Maniac on 2N3. For a small fee I can tell you anything plus more you need to know! The message above is only valid til this Tuesday at 5 PM!".
In the school settings and non-correctional settings, research assistants were always on hand in each room or area, and to ensure the privacy of the responses the respondents were told that their teacher or program supervisor would never actually see or touch the surveys. Thus, we collected all surveys directly from the respondents in and out of the correctional settings.
We feel on the basis of the above procedures respectful of the respondents in their social settings regarding the privacy of their responses, and based on our observations of the process of data collection, that a sufficient level of trust was established with respondents to get relatively honest answers.
We have only one caveat that all criminological researchers should be recognizing themselves: offenders have the tendency to over-report their positive attributes and under-report their stigmatizable attributes. Regardless of social context this tendency operates in all areas of research on real offenders, and gang offenders are no different. We also recognize, and this tendency works to our methodological advantage, that offenders are more likely to honestly report the deviance of their friends and associates than their own deviance. Thus, many of the questions or focal areas of our research ask them about "others", i.e., their gang.
6. High Cognition on the Meaning of the Survey Items Implies Clearly We Are Measuring What We Purport To Measure. A large number of respondents, across social contexts but particularly those in custody, had the tendency to write notes and memoranda style comments in the margins of the survey instrument on a variety of issues. These are highly emotive comments implying clear cognition of the true meaning of the survey items or questions. Several examples of this kind of "running" commentary and shared written communication from respondents is helpful to review here to illustrate our assumption regarding this aspect of the strength of our methodology.
One respondent (Case # 923) explained in response to the question what gang organization did you join: "old school GD then at 16 flip floped to Vice Lord". The respondent went on to correctly note his current gang affiliation as "People", but was energized to cross out the names of "Folks", "Crips", and "Bloods" and to add in his own writing their respective names of derision "Donuts", "Crabs", and "Slobs". Some would draw their gang symbols inside the survey instrument.
Not one survey respondent returned the survey instrument and claimed not to understand the questions. Not one written comment indicated a lack of understanding of the meaning of the question. These were, after all, very concrete questions.
7. Built-in "Lie Tests". In the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) full form of 566 true or false questions, a "lie scale" exists by being able to compare responses to a question early in the form with a similar question latter in the form. When someone intentionally engages in deceit, they often forget what they lied about before. Thus, it is possible to identify clear inconsistencies in this way.
Similar provisions were adopted for the present research methodology by building in such "lie tests" or tests of inconsistency into the survey instrument questions. Thus, like the MMPI once scored, our present survey instrument once analyzed provides the basis for identifying deceptive response patterns --- those that are clearly inconsistent or suggestive of deceptive responses.
The first test is one where we could capture any respondent who was paranoid enough to lie about present age and age at time of first arrest. Item 12 on page 1 of the survey instrument asks "At what age were you FIRST arrested for any crime? When I was______years old". Item 66 on page 6 of the survey instrument asks "How old are you today? I am _____ years old." A respondent who would engage in early intentional deceit in a response pattern to the survey instrument could therefore be detected by comparing these two items. Deceitful responses would be evident whenever the value of item 12 exceeded the value of item 66. A simple computer check allowed for directly testing for this type of systematic deception. In other words, a deceptive respondent might give the age of 20 for age at time of first arrest and give the age of 17 for current age later in the item order of the survey instrument. The results of this test were no detected deception of this blatant nature.
In the second test, a series of three separate questions are used. Question # 70 on page 6 is used as the control item ("Do you have family members who are gang members? __Yes __No") for examining two additional and more specific questions on page 8 of the survey: #106 "Do you have brothers or sisters from your family that belong to your same gang? __Yes __No", and # 107 "Do you have brothers or sisters from your family that belong to rival gangs? __Yes __No". Obviously, the test here is for someone who in quetion 70 claims they do or do not have family members who are also gang members in relationship to subsequent questions about family members who may belong to the same gang or to a rival gang. Similarly, as we planned in advance in this research project to sample youths inside juvenile correctional institutions we afforded the respondents another opportunity to lie by including a specific question to this effect: "Have you ever served time in a juvenile correctional institution". Thus, we can detect deception here by examining responses to this specific question inside a social context where obviously, we know in advance the answer to this question. We can also examine age-graded crime patterns as another validity test: some crime patterns, such as using a motel or hotel room out of which to sell drugs, are expected to vary by age simply because adults are better able than underage juveniles to be able to get access to this opportunity. In regard to this factor, then we would hypothesize a lower rate of using hotel rooms for drug sales among the juvenile contexts (i.e., respondents from juvenile correctional centers, etc) for this research.
Let us examine these other two built-in lie tests now.
TABLE 1
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF GANG MEMBERS
HAVING FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ARE GANG MEMBERS
BY SIBLINGS IN SAME OR RIVAL GANGS
Do you have brothers or sisters
from your family that belong to
Do you have family your same gang?
members who are NO YES
gang members? NO 164 22
YES 319 293
Chi-square = 77.5, p < .001
Do you have brothers or sisters
from your family that belong to
Do you have family rival gangs?
members who are NO YES
gang members? NO 167 17
YES 399 208
Chi-square = 43.4, p < .001
In Table 1, we see that there are 22 gang members who reported that they do not have family members who are gang members, but that they did have brothers or sisters from their family that belonged to the same gang. We did see narrative remarks on the surveys about how "Pops" or dad was a gang member, thus family members other than brothers or sisters is probably what this small deviation refers to. Generally, however, there is remarkable and significant logical fit in this data. Thus, very few cases (N=22, or .027%) here fit the deception pattern where the respondent gang member reports no family members in the gang but who in another question reports siblings as gang members.
The second test in Table 1 looks at those gang members who claim no family members are in a gang, but who also report having siblings in a rival gang. Here we find only 17 cases out of the 791 for which data are available for these two variables. Thus only .02 percent of the gang members in the sample appear to show the deception pattern. Thus, in both tests, deceptive or inconsistent answers are very rare indeed.
In short, much attention in this research during the instrumentation phase was paid to the matter of structuring a variety of opportunities for the respondent to be deceptive or deceitful in a way that could be easily detected by data analysis. We know it is not customary for researchers when investigating such offender populations as included in the present research to do this, but we did feel that it was necessary to speak to this issue in as much as this was a large scale investigation involving an assortment of known offender groups.
OTHER ISSUES OF VALIDITY
As previously alluded to much attention to detail and many precautions were undertaken during the research process that were designed to enhance validity by protecting against threats to validity. These protective measures used will be described here. We conclude that the validity of the research reported here is higher than average for social research of the type conducted here.
We begin by recognizing that generally in social research, and all criminal justice or criminological research, that the term validity is defined as the extent to which the researchers have measured what they purport to measure. Therefore, the ultimate assessment of validity goes directly to the issue of whether or not the survey instrument captures and effectively differentiates the population at-risk to gangs, whether it can effectively identify subgroupings within the gang population (i.,e., specific gangs), and whether the questions about gang life, economic issues, and other related factors or variables really measure what they say they measure. We further note that the ambiguity in language in the survey instrument was reduced during a field or pretest of the survey instrument. We further note that there were few who did not understand the questions in the survey that they were predicted to understand.
Obviously, we did not assume that non-gang members would understand much about the detailed dynamics of the economic infrastructure and financial aspects of gang life. We did, however, predict that gang members would both understand the meaning of such questions and be able to report their experience and beliefs about these specific aspects of gang life. We therefore report that in terms of the construct validity of the survey instrument itself, a copy of which is provided in Appendix A, that gang members clearly did understand and had little difficulty in providing responses to the nearly 200 variables in the survey instrument.
The validity issue of the length of the survey is a moot issue we feel. Our survey instrument is long, but generally can be completed in about 30 minutes by most respondents. The structure of the social settings in which the data was collected were such that no "pressure" existed to rapidly complete the questionnaires. The respondents in all social contexts had more time available to them than was needed for the actual completing of the anonymous questionnaire. In school rooms, a entire hour was set aside, and few needed this much time. In other settings, such as a community program, the respondent could take as much time as needed. Thus, by the nature of the precautions taken during the implementation of the research, we rule out any fatigue or "length of survey deterioration" factor as a threat to the validity of this research.
Concurrent of criterion validity means examining a measurement in relationship to some other variable it should be highly predictive of. The most important aspect of the current research was defining who was or who was not a gang member. The way in which validity controls were implemented in the present research design therefore asked different versions of the same question for several variables. This also meant being able to induce much quality control: for example, making sure that someone who in one question reports they have ever joined a gang, and who in another variable indicates the exact name of the gang in an open-ended "fill in the blank" type of question (i.e., "What gang did or do you belong to?_______________), and who then indicates the type of alliance or nation status. Thus, any "Gangster Disciple" would in our sample have to also indicate a membership in the "Folks" nation. We found very little discrepancy between such variables, and therefore believe that our basic measures that differentiate gang members and non-gang members are very accurate. These are also, for the most part, "brand name" gangs: gangs common to the social contexts from which they were sampled (Crips, Bloods, and Sureno sets on the west coast, etc). One of the ways in which we were able to use a "criterion" validity approach was our access to probably the best and most current national directory of gangs in America today --- the National Geographic Guide to Gangs in the United States. This is a large computer file maintained by the National Gang Crime Research Center, it is updated from numerous sources (law enforcement, corrections, etc) every year and has monitored the gang proliferation problem for five years in a row. For a sample listing of this information useful in validating gang names for gang members, see the companion volume to An Introduction to Gangs (3rd and expanded edition, 1995): National Gang Resource Handbook: An Encyclopedic Reference (1995, Bristol, Indiana: Wyndham Hall Press). Thus, official sources providing names of numerous gangs in America were used to cross-check the self-disclosed data from respondents in the present research. As the analysis will reveal, the gang members in the present study are for the most part very well known gangs. Thus, for our most important variable of focus (gang membership), we were able to ascertain the validity of the self-reported gang membership by examining it in relationship to another of other validity control items (name of gang, gang nation alliance, type of rank held in the gang, etc). We did not encounter any cases that were impostors: only a gang member in such a gang would know the type of leadership positions in its unique hierarchy.
The present research can rule out a threat to the internal validity of the design based on history. The reason this is true is that all the data was collected in a short period of time during 1994 (November, 1994 to January, 1995) covering a three month period. The hidden benefit of not being a federally funded type of research project is that also there were few if any obstructions to the research process, and that the results could be reported in a relatively short time frame as well. Thus, the findings are very much reflective of the current social reality (i.e., we did not have to wait a couple years to report our findings). For the same reasons, maturation was not a threat to the validity of our research design, because as stated all data collected occurred in a short period of time nationally (a three month period) in all sites, sometimes simultaneously.
The issue of testing as a threat to validity is common to all surveys on known offenders and all self-report surveys. Completing surveys in some of the contexts was a common expectation, particularly among students and youths in juvenile correctional settings. Even the jail inmates had much experience in completing such questionnaires and "surveys". A number of precautions were taken to ensure the validity of the research design by always having researchers on-site during all data collection, typically several members of the larger team were present to assist with data collection. Mostly this involved explaining to the potential respondents that this was a completely anonymous survey, it did ask very personal questions, and that was the reason we did not want anyone's name, and that the "we" consisted of: university professors.
Wherever possible we tried to off-set the disruptiveness of having unknown persons intruding on their social contexts distributing surveys and pencils by offering some type of consumable amenity as a small reward or honorarium for completing the questionnaire. Thus, in most contexts this was viewed as a pleasant distraction. For these and other reasons discussed in the report we do not feel that testing was a major threat to the validity of the present research.
As discussed above as well, the pretesting or field testing of the survey instrument was designed to eliminate any ambiguity in words, phraseology, expressions, and writing. These are forced-choice questions that are not double-barrelled questions, they are pinpointed to specific issues or measurements of background and behavioral experience, beliefs, and attitudes. We posit that the validity of the present study is therefore acceptable for studies of its kind regarding any threat to validity from instrumentation. Another reason that we can rule out instrumentation as a major threat to the validity of our research is that a number of our variables are direct replications of previous research found to be acceptable and reported in the literature --- as is discussed at appropriate points in this report, where such literature is specifically cited.
One of the strengths of the present research regarding validity is how we overcame the potential threat to validity from differential selection of subjects. In gang research, as is common in criminal justice and criminological research on offenders generally, the common situation is to have only one social context to study the human aspect of interest. In the present research, as explained earlier, the plan in advance was to develop and use multiple social contexts for purpose of data collection. Thus, gang members were not just studied in the school context, they were studied in all social contexts where we could reasonably assume we could find them: in adult correctional settings, in juvenile correctional settings, in community programs, in probation caseloads, and of course in the school context. Further, the geographic representation of the sample was intended to be able to examine variations across a large span of the United States: including data collection sites in California, Iowa, Illinois, and Ohio. Therefore in a comparative assessment our present research is stronger than most in this regard to taking precautionary measures to ensure that the threat to validity in terms of differential selection of subjects included a broad cross-section (i.e., across different social contexts) and geographical spectrum. Our analysis can therefore speak to issues of comparison not capable in much previous gang research (i.e., comparing west coast Crips/Bloods with midwest People/Folks, etc).
The issue of mortality for validity is of minimal concern to the present study and is therefore not a major threat. This was, after all, a "snapshot" survey design: we only sought out a cross-section of data; this was a multi-state multi-context cross-sectional survey research design. It was not intended to be a longitudinal design, with follow-up measurements. The only way in which mortality might therefore negatively impair on the research design would be if our sampling was limited to only one type of social context, or if we only used one site for each type of social context. The fact is we used multiple social contexts and for some of these (i.e., jails, juvenile correctional facilities) we used multiple sites within these social contexts as well. Thus, if someone "missed out" from such a site, chances are this is minimal in terms of not being able to capture the social reality of these social contexts. After all, within the specific social context sites, the research plan called for a "saturation" sampling method: everyone in the jail, the school, the program, etc, was asked to complete the questionnaire. Very few persons refused to complete the questionnaire. We tried to structure our data collection in correctional settings where we did not interfere with court calls or visiting, thus we often had to be at the jail late at night on some occasions, and almost always on the weekends, requiring travel and overnight stays in various cities for some of the researchers. Through previous research experience the researchers knew how to structure the data collection process to be as minimally disruptive to the security and other concerns of correctional facilities. We do know that with a long survey instrument such as that used in the present research project that there may be "item mortality", this is not a matter of "attention deficit disorders", it is a matter of simply losing the respondent at some later point in the survey instrument, thus resulting in some cases missing data for those items towards the end of the survey instrument. The present research is, therefore, not unlike other similar survey research designs in having the common problem of some missing data on the many variables measured.
Finally, the issue of regression as a threat to validity is viewed as minimal in the present research and not a major threat. Measurement error was not a major problem, given the fact that among gang members our variables designed to elicit the nature of their economic experiences in and associated with gang life were questions or items or variables that are both replicable and having little if any ambiguity. No cognitive bias exists in this regard to the variables used in the research. We did not simply include extreme cases: such as those highly cooperative youths on a street corner who might suddenly become very interested in a research project when a person of higher social class and social power arrives on the scene to offer aid and assistance --- material and psychic benefits in nature. The fact is our gang analysis covers the complete gang risk continuum as the analysis will reveal.
The gang member respondent was particularly prone to write lengthy and unsolicited comments in the margins of the surveys. This highly affective arousal signaled clearly that the respondents understood all too well the meaning of the questions. Sometimes this running commentary of unsolicited remarks directed feedback to the researchers in various ways, explaining subtle nuances, some of which will be discussed in this report at appropriate points in the presentation of results. At other times some fun was poked at the researchers, as where a self-reported gang member in response to question # 80 ("Would you be willing to testify in a secret Grand Jury against a gang leader for $1,000 cash?") remarked "you done lost your mind", and then in response to the next question (#81, "Would you be willing to testify in open court against a gang leader for $5,000 and witness protection services?") remarked in the same vein "you still ain't found your mind yet", obviously where the respondent answered "no" to both questions, but wanted to interject some emotive commentary as well. These were questions that gang members clearly understood, enough so that often such members would strike up conversations and seek out attention from the researchers at almost all the sites. The typical gang member respondent was very curious that anyone would ask such specific questions about gang life today. Thus, it was not uncommon for the researchers to stay around the site for additional time spent answering direct questions from the youths, this was particularly true in the juvenile correctional setting.
To recap, in many of the common threats to the internal validity of research such as that reported here (history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, differential selection of subjects, experimental mortality, statistical regression), the precautions taken in the research design, the scope and extent of the research effort (i.e., covering several states, different social contexts, and a large sample), render these threats to be viewed as minimal.
RELIABILITY
The issue of reliability is the matter of the "quality" of the data. The informed reader will recognize that the term reliability in research means basically "do we get the same results with repeated measures". Over time it is possible, indeed probable, that "gang life" and the gang problem itself can, could and might change. For example, the gang problem has expanded and proliferated in recent years in the United States. In another sense, the meaning of reliability in the type of social research conducted here often means "would different researchers going to the same places using the same questions get the same results". We argue, by the nature of the methodological rigor and level of effort in the present research design, that this would in fact be the case to a high degree. In other words, when we issue what are called "site reports" or rapid information summaries back to the host sites that provided access for data collection, that our data truly does reflect the social reality of their environment. Most who have received these site reports agree with us in regard to the critical issues: specifically, gang density, and the scope and extent of the gang member problem in their populations.
This is not to say that the problem may not escalate or deteriorate in the years ahead. That is not the nature of our research purpose to predict the future. Rather our intent is limited to the nature of our research methodology --- a cross-sectional survey design using large samples --- of simply describing the current situation in these various social contexts. Given the rapid feedback, that is little time delay arose between time of data collection and the reporting of findings, we also argue that our research has high reliability in terms of the volatility of such data: ours was recently collected, and quickly reported. Our generalizations are to the present, not the future --- as we recognize the gang problem is a dynamic and not a static problem.
But the trained researcher will also recognize that the methodological matter of reliability is really the simple and testable issue of whether the same measurement techniques used in different research settings or at different points in time produce the same results. We can give and test an example of this aspect of reliability. Consider the question in our survey about whether the gang member would have to share loot from an independent crime. The question is a vignette or scenario question and reads as follows: "If you were alone and while burglarizing a house you were able to steal $10,000 dollars, would you be expected to give some of this money to your gang if they found out you had that much money?".
Our case study notes on this question revealed a more common reaction was the individual gang member was considered an independent contractor and operator in his personal pursuits. Or alternatively, as long as it was an offense that happened outside of the turf area controlled by the gang, it was not an a custom to have to pay any portion of the crime scene proceeds to the gang. "You do what you have to do", seemed to be a common explanation.
However, if this measurement is lacking in the area of reliability this would come out if multiple sites were chosen to assess this aspect of sharing illicit economic gains with the gang. That is, the hypothesis of logical inference is that in the same city, among the same gangs, there should be no difference in this factor if we asked the same question in different social settings. Indeed, social settings that are indeed mutually exclusive: that is, one could not exist or be found in both simultaneously. For example, one could not exist in a regular public high school population and also exist in a day jail pretrial program.
It is important to note the subtle social nuances of the these two types of social settings. We chose these settings very carefully for purposes of being able to ultimately have some representativeness of the universe to which we sought to generalize. Thus, the alternative high school site is kind of like a school of last resort for some students, and it is a day program during the week. One cannot exist in two places at the same time, as the day jail program operates also during the ordinary work day (9/5) and also during the weekdays. However, if one were a gang member and had come to the attention of social control agencies, one could end up in either of these two different levels of sanctions against deviance. To be in the alternative school setting one had to be at least 16 years of age; to be in the adult jail general population (and qualify for the day jail program) one would have to be 17 years of age. Students travel to the alternative high school site from all over the City of Chicago. Participants in the day jail program travel to the day jail site also from all over the City of Chicago. Obviously, one is in more trouble with the law in the day jail program than in the alternative high school setting, but the measurements on an aspect of the economic function or expectations in the same gangs in the same area should not be different just because we use different sampling frames for the same gangs. That is, just because we have different social context sites for data collection, the measurement should not be substantially different. If it is substantially different results and/or much variation does exist in the same concept measured on the same gangs among relatively equal age groups in different catchment areas of the same city, then a clear problem of reliability exists.
Our research was structured in a way to enhance both validity and reliability. Thus, in Chicago we had two such mutually exclusive sites that were identical in several important methodological respects: a public high school, and a day jail program. The same gangs existed in both sites, as detailed elsewhere in this report. Both settings contained about an equal gang density (percentage of the persons surveyed there who were self-reported gang members). Both settings also had catchment areas that were citywide: persons in these contexts could come from anywhere in the wider Chicago geographical area. Now the test: but did we get the same results in different settings, the equivalent of one research project compared with another research project? Yes, is the answer.
In the Chicago alternative high school sample with a gang density comparable to that of the day jail program we obtained almost identical results comparing expectations of giving a kickback from the $10,000 to the gang. In addition to these two sites having comparable gang density rates, they also attracted persons from all over the city. Our findings on this measure provides a test of this issue of reliability. In the alternative high school program, some 15.5 percent indicated they would be expected to give some of the $10,000 back to the gang. In the Chicago day jail program, similarly some 15.0 percent would be expected to pay some of the $10,000 back to the gang. It is premature at this point in the report to discuss the explanations for why and how this aspect of gang life occurs, as this is an aspect of much more detailed and in-depth analysis later in this report.
OTHER ISSUES OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY: FOR IMPROVING FUTURE RESEARCH
No replication problems materialized in the present research, as these were variables or items (i.e., survey questions) used in the prior literature. However, in some small selected instances of paving new grounds in the area of the economic life of gangs, and other factors included in some of the sites (i.e., sexual abuse, family life, etc) in